Seabiscuit confusion about the timeline...

Can someone please explain to me why an Oscar-nominated movie like “Seabiscuit” has such poor continuity? The hero gets sent away after the fall of the Stock Market in 1929, and the fact that his family can no longer support him. This scene would have happened in 1930 at the earliest, and when we next see Tobey’s character, the screen tells us it is “6 years later”, which places the action in 1936 or thereabouts.

However, we then flashback to 1933 in Mexico. It took me quite a while to figure out how this convoluted timeline works out, until I finally marked it down to extremely poor continuity.

Is it really their error, or am i just missing something…

According to the book, Red Pollard was sent away in 1925 (not because of the Depression, which obviously hadn’t happened yet, but rather because his father had gone bankrupt.) Pollard met up with Seabiscuit in 1936.

Lord knows how to square that with the movie–that whole first hour is a mess.

I noticed the same thing, Alzarian, and it bugged me too.

That, and the choppy, quick-cut editing.

And the fact that in the close-ups, McGuire is obviously pumping a stuffed horse’s head up and down.

I can’t belive this train wreck got nominated for Best Picture.

I took my mother to see this movie when it came out. She was a child during the depression, and grew up near a racetrack and both had a profound impact on her throughout her life. All movies take a few liberties with the facts to make the stories fit in a 120 minute timeline and hold to the part of the story they want to get across. My mother was impressed with how they caught the “feel” of the times. I love the movie and I don’t care that it could not be classed as a documentary. I read the book, too. I hope movies continue to inpire people to READ.