Why didn't he just take out all thirty million in cash and dump it onto a poor neighborhood?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why didn't he just take out all thirty million in cash and dump it onto a poor neighborhood?
You can't give it away. Or only like 5% or something. We've actually kinda already been through this. Apparently what you're supposed to do is spend it on insurance. Most likely set up a gallery show of priceless works of art.
I didn't say give it away, I said dump it. "Whoops, I stupidly walked outside with 30 million dollars and lost it." Just literally throw it away. If you absolutely must, put it all in a car and blow up the car. Why not?
Or did I miss something and he needed record of every single transaction?
He had to have receipts for it all or the bad guys would get it all. They had the woman accountant there for a reason.
The conditions of the will stipulated that he couldn't donate all the money.
The real issue is him not doing the stamp scheme another dozen times.
>you have to spend 30 million in 3 days to get 300 million
>with the stipulation that you can't spend the money
this movie is pure blue balls
the point is he couldn't acquire assets of value. the reason that's difficult is if you, say bid against yourself at auction for a literal piece of shit, even though it is objectively a piece of shit, its still a piece of shit now worth 30 million dollars.
>buy painting for 30 million at auction
>light painting on fire
>let it burn
>call it performance art
its funny how this movie really only exists to imply moving that much money around, or "losing" it, is difficult.
please restate the rules Brewster has to follow because I literally can't understand why this is even slightly difficult
1.) With the exception of those who witnessed the will reading, whom are the firm's two senior partners George Granville (David White) and Norris Baxter (Jerome Dempsey) and Rupert's lawyer and executor of the estate Edward Roundfield (Pat Hingle), Brewster cannot reveal to anyone the will's terms. He may only tell everyone else he inherited $30 million. Rupert doesn't want anyone directly helping Monty in his quest.
2.) Brewster must spend the money on tangible items. If anything he buys accrues value, such as an investment or property that earns money, that is considered part of the money he inherited and he must spend that as well.
3.) Directly giving away money is capped at 10%; split between 5% ($1.5 million) in gambling losses and another 5% ($1.5 million) maximum to be donated to charity.
4.) Brewster may not willfully damage or destroy anything he buys with the money.
5.) After 30 days, he must be penniless and may not own any assets that are not already his (in other words, nothing but "the clothes on his back").
If any one of these five rules are violated, the challenge is forfeited. Also, if Brewster fails to meet the 30 day challenge to spend the $30 million, any remaining money that he has after the 30 day deadline (regardless if it's a few dollars or a few million dollars) will go to the law firm and Brewster will inherit nothing.
>Brewster must spend the money on tangible items.
In the movie he rents his clothing.
Is a rental/service a tangible good?
>After 30 days, he must be penniless and may not own any assets that are not already his
well if a rental is a tangible good you just rent 30 million worth of private air travel
if not this movie has some serious issues.
you would need to go into debt so that the debts would cancel out any assets you had.
Keep in mind, previously he only made 11k per year (this was in 1985). And pre-internet. So to him, he had no idea what to waste his money on. It was an overwhelming challenge for someone used to scrimping and saving every penny. But the 'moral' of the movie was to make sure he didn't squander the rest of it on useless stuff. And if you've ever seen the stats on how people do after they've won the lottery (i.e. flat broke with in a year or two), you'd understand why.
>Brewster must spend the money on tangible items.
I dont remember that at least from the Richard Pryor version.
Yeah I don't know where he got that, maybe an older version. The Pryor movie is like the 8th movie of the novel
In the Pryor movie the wording is he has to receive value for his money or something. So like he hired that woman to redecorate his place for him, hired personal security, blah blah
it really is "spend the money but you can't spend it"
His grandpa specifically said in the video will he wanted him to be "sick of money" by the end of it, the whole premise was to make him suffer
>Spend all the money on cocaine and hookers
>Win contest in one day
needs receipts
OnlyFans invoices and Costco vodka then
At the end she just scribbles on some paper. So I dont think it has to be legal.
>hookers
He has to get reasonable value for his money. And as I recall it was implied he did get hookers. The most expensive reasonably valued hooker I've ever heard of Was the porn star Sunny Lane was doing an hour for $30,000. Reasonable meaning she was doing it legally and consequently subject to the market place. Every single day only comes out to a million.
Offer Taylor Swift the money in exchange for sex. Who’s to say how much money sex with Taylor Swift would be worth. Her superstar status would make 30 million seem pretty reasonable.
What a boring film. Surprised that it has the same writers from Trading Places. Not even an R rated film like that one.
>put money into shell company
>shell puts money into shell
>shell puts all money into numbered swiss bank account that shell cannot access
I win.
One in the hand, I would gladly take the 30. Why risk it when that's more than I'll ever need? Get an econobox, solid crib on a manageable plot, the interest annihilates the monthly bills, never marry, don't expose yourself to liability, people will probably pay you for being the most sensible man on earth. You could even vlog about it.
Trading Places was a fluke. None of the following films with that writing duo credited as screenwriters are on par. Space Jam is a guilty pleasure tho.
They wrote only 1 film before Trading Places. It's very obscure and apparently it sucks.