Question: Why did Brooks want to make his players hate him?
Question: Why didn't Finland's hockey team medal in the 1980 games if they played the U.S. for the gold?
Chosen answer: It appears that the medal round was just a continuation of the round robin tournament. When the US deafeated Finland, it cliched the best record in the tournament. The Soviet Union had the second best record, and Sweden the third best.
Question: I'm curious to know how people in Russia, the Ukraine, and other parts of the former Soviet Union feel about this movie. Do they detest it, love it, like it... do they think any part of it is an exaggeration? Where could I go to see their opinions on Miracle?
Chosen answer: My name is Anastasiya and I am from Moscow, Russia. I am married to an American and we visited his family in New York, America and saw the movie Miracle in the theatre. My opinion on the movie was very good. I thought it was a good movie and although their views on the Soviets weren't very good at parts, I think that was how it really went and I think it was true to the real story. Overall, I liked the movie, and it was not hurtful in any way to me at all, as a Russian. Sincerely, Anastasiya Yakovlev-Burke.
Question: Wouldn't Kharlamov have been penalized for knocking the USA goalie Jim Craig down?
Answer: Not necessarily. Hockey was a much more physically bruising game in 1980, and this kind of aggression (intentional or not) was rarely cause for a penalty. And, since he wasn't penalized in real life, he is not penalized in the film, either.
That doesn't mean knocking goalies was legal. Players can only knock players besides the goalie down. Knocking a goalie down is a goaltender interference penalty. This kind of aggression was rarely a cause for a penalty because it rarely happened.
Question: Did Herb Brooks really push the team as hard as depicted in the film?
Chosen answer: Oh definitely. His strategy was to make the team hate him....together. They united under that, and it clicked at the right time.
Question: What exactly is the difference between the former US hockey style and the 'hybrid Soviet/Canadian' style that Brooks implements? What is different about how they actually play the game. All Brooks ever says in the film itself is some vague stuff about flow, creativity, and keeping options open. The special features expand on this a bit: circling within positions and being ready to come out of your position if an opportunity presents itself. Is this it, or was there more to it?
Answer: You've pretty much got it. The big difference is that with the traditional North American style of play (at that time), everyone had stayed in the section of the ice indicated by their position. For example, if you were a left winger, you stayed on the left side and moved straight up and down the length of the ice as play progressed, staying in your own little zone. The Soviets, however, were given the freedom to move around the whole playing area, constantly weaving, circling in and out of their positions, and anticipating where their teammates were going to be as they made their passes (as Kurt Russell explains during the film footage he was playing for the team). This freedom of movement meant that each player would have more passing options when in possession of the puck. This system therefore also required that the members of the team become very cohesive and know each other on a deep personal level on and off the ice so that each player, knowing the styles, habits and strengths of each teammate, could anticipate where each teammate would be and make the pass accordingly. At the meeting at the beginning of the movie, Russel explains that "team chemistry" is the most important prerequisite for learing this new "hybrid" style of play. And we see examples of it later in the movie when players are calling out their teammates' nicknames before passing the puck (e.g., "I'm with ya Buzzy!" or "Rizzo! Rizzo!").
Question: Why is this film going straight to video and DVD in Australia?. If it got poor reviews I would understand. But it got good reviews as did Kurt Russell for his performance. I just don't understand.
Chosen answer: The film's international appeal would be very limited to those who knew the story or knew of the event, and this story is really only known well in the US and not in countries like Australia. On the review section, it's not the distributors main priority. Unless they see potential overseas it's costly to try and promote it in Australian cinemas and is likely to see a better audience in video and DVD than theatres.
Question: Does anyone else's DVD freeze for a second, right after Brooks says, "I wanna see that kid in the net who wouldn't take the test"?
Chosen answer: I don't recall any intentional "freezes" when I saw this in theaters. I don't have the DVD but I'm assuming your talking about a layer change, if this scene is about halfway through the movie. It's a common thing on many DVDs when, on a dual-layered disc, the laser begins to read the other layer.
Question: What would have been the tiebreaker in the medal round, if two teams ended up with the same amount of points?
Chosen answer: Sudden-death overtime, in which the game ends when the first team scores.
Question: Where could one obtain recordings of USA's 1980 Olympic hockey games in their entirety?
Chosen answer: You probably wont ever be able to get all the games in their entirety. The biggest obstacle with recorded events and games from the Olympics is the high price of licensing them so its near impossible to obtain entire matches on DVD or VHS and in many cases catching replays of the full game in the future. Many sports channels on cable tv will be your best bet including the US channel ESPN Classic. If you were looking for something to buy the closest you will probably get is a DVD or VHS called "Do You Believe in Miracles? The Story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey Team (2001)".
Question: Three guys made up the offensive line that was affectionately nicknamed the "Coneheads" after the classic Saturday Night Live skits from the late 70s. What specifically caused them to earn this nickname? What's the connection between those three guys and the Coneheads from Saturday Night Live? The assistant coach starts to give an explanation, but doesn't elaborate enough to offer a clear answer.
Chosen answer: The "Coneheads" (John Harrington, Mark Pavelich and Buzz Schneider) all were from the same area in Minnesota. Naturally, they gravitated together and would often be found working on plays around orange pylon cones at the end of the rink - hence the "Coneheads" nickname.
Question: Was the Soviet Union hockey team as good as the movie makes it out to be?
Answer: Yes. Prior to the 1980 Olympics, the Soviet Union's men's hockey team had won 5 out of the last 6 Olympics (taking 3rd in 1960). They also won the next 2 Olympics (plus the 1992 Olympics as part of the Unified Team). The 1980 team also consisted of at least 6 returning gold medalists and several world champions and future gold medalists.
Question: Why did Herb bring on a new player?
Answer: He did it to motivate his players and to bring them together. He was hoping that they would tell him they didn't need him, which is why he agrees to send him home when Mark Johnson says that they're a family.
Question: What is the outcome of the game in Oslo, Norway?
Answer: The Americans beat the Soviets. Two days later, the team defeated Finland 4-2 to win the gold medal.
3-3.
Question: Did the scene where Herb Brooks has his players do sprints after a 3-3 tie against Norway really happen?
Answer: Yes it did. They did the "Herbies" for over an hour according to player Ken Morrow. The lights being shut off was also true.
Why did Herb have his players do the sprints?
Because they were paying attention to the pretty girls in the stands and not to the game and their opponents.
Because all of the team was not focused on the game they were focused on the girls in the stands.
Because they didn't do a good game, the were all out of their heads.
He was trying to bring them together. He felt he still had 26 individuals, rather than one team. By making them suffer together, he gave them a common purpose - hating him.
Something tells me that wasn't the only time a hockey coach had his players stay after a game to do sprints.
Question: Did Brooks really have McClanahan play in the third period of the game against Sweden even though he was injured?
Answer: Yes, he did. Seeing McClanahan play through his pain inspired the rest of the team and helped them come from behind to a 2-2 tie with Sweden, which turned out to be vital.
Answer: Since they all came from different, sometimes rival, universities, and thus had no commonality, he wanted to give them someone to dislike together, instead of fighting with one another. If they could all bond over what a bastard Brooks was, they'd come together faster as a team and have a chance of winning.