This is the problem with people's fantasy of being rich. Instead of wanting to build something people tend to want to retire at 30 to some tropical paradise and do nothing. The ending of the movie should've been Louis and Billy Ray creating their own firm and creating wealth not just for themselves but their community.
sharePETA doesn't think King Kong should not have been killed in the end of that movie. The con men win in The Sting. In A Fish Called Wanda they all should have donated their money to charity. Thelma and Louise should have realized they won't go to heaven now that they committed suicide, the church won't like that. Don't even get me started onThe Godfather. Oh RIGHT, these AREN'T DOCUMENTARIES, they are MOVIES! DUH!
share"PETA doesn't think King Kong should not have been killed in the end of that movie. "
Why not? King Kong was fictional though, so NOTHING was killed.
They were there on a boat! Clearly not a permanent living situation. With the money they had,it wasn't even that great of a boat. It is pretty clear they were just island hopping.
shareWhat they did was kept a nice, attractive female from having to prostitute herself out for another three years so she could retire. In the age of AIDS, they probably saved thousands of lives including Ophelia's. They also got Billy Ray off his con games and into a life of legitimacy.
They also sent a corrupt wall street inside trader to be ape-raped on his way to Africa.
I think they did more than most people do in a lifetime.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Good insight.
I don't know why I raised my hand.
buying oj @ 29 cents a pound and agreeing to sell it for $1.42 made them lots of loot.
today's special: shrimp ceviche!
I think this is why Trading Places doesn't work as a criticism of capitalism - the heroes use the same system to get rich quick that the bad guys did, and with the same dishonest insider info. So it's not the cutting satire it thinks itis. Still a top film though.
shareI never saw it as a criticism of capitalism. I always saw it as a 'sticking it to the man" kind of movie- and that they used the same tools and tricks as the antagonists used makes for just desserts.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Yes I am sure they came back, as the Japanese industrialist said in taking care of business You need a vacation,
sharei never thought it was meant to be a cutting satire. Not sure where you got that impression.
sharewhat's so wrong about creating wealth for yourself and then retiring early? at least they're not a burden to society and leeching off of mr & mrs john q. taxpayer, addicted to government entitlements. if more people actually tried creating wealth for themselves, the world would be a much better place.
and why is there a need to criticize capitalism? C has done more good for more people than any other economic policy that has ever existed. it raises the standard of living and ends poverty. gee, who would want that?
i think everyone's reading too much into this movie, which is just as funny today as it was when it first came out. loaded with great scenes and classic lines! (and JLC's smokin' hot body to boot!)
My only problems with modern-day capitalism is:
that the market is too saturated with unskilled workers that it devalues them (a natural result, of course).
That we bent over backwards and stuck it to ourselves to create this mythological "trickle-down economics" which really didn't trickle down the way it was 'supposed' to.
And that the stock market used to be a venue for investing in companies and investing in America. Now Wall St. is the biggest gambling casino in the world with day-traders who don't invest in companies but simply shuffle and shift stock around in order to manipulate a profit.
I'm not sure what can be done to address these particular issues, but the system is faulty and needs some repairs. i have no problem with a person making a $45 million dollars a year. That's not any concern of mine. My concern rests solely on the problem that there just aren't enough jobs for the people that exist and more people are doing things themselves than before so that even the service industries are suffering.
No one's building better mousetraps. No one wants to pay a guy to pick up his dog's crap. At what point do we see that it is a depression out there and the only thing holding the fabric of this nation together ARE the entitlements?
I'll say one thing- that if it weren't for food stamps we would be seeing a much steeper decline in this country. With 46 million people using food stamps @ $133 per person, that's a lot of food that would not be bought. A lot of food that wouldn't be planted, milked or butchered. A lot of food that would not be processed/manufactured. Etc.
Soup kitchens won't keep people employed at your local grocer's or on fishing boats in Alaska. And though it kills me to see this, it's not your average worker who's buying the expensive steaks, the Oreo cookies or the Cap'n Crunch cereals. They can't afford it. It's people on food stamps who are keeping the food industries alive and keeping people working who would otherwise have been laid off a long time ago.
But, like I said, we've got to effect some repairs soon- before the taxes outweigh the buying power of the dollar.
"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3
che? is that you?
shareactually it may have been a necessity for Windthorpe at least to live down there, since he was technically at the time of the stock market exchange sequence, out on bail for drug dealing, and the only people who could clear his name were either just bankrupted or sent to africa in a gorilla's cage
sharePhenomenal observation, mrannah. Although Coleman could likely shed a lot of light on Winthorpe's "crime", I'm not sure it would amount to much more than being a character witness.
Still, I think that possession of PCP might be construed as particularly radical for a guy in Winthorpe's position.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3
very true. in the end, i think at the court hearing, they could have at least put reasonable doubt on it. but they also did, themselves, push some legalities in their 'vengeance', and may well may not have wanted their own complicity in their actions against the Dukes and Beeks to be uncovered. it may not have been worth the trouble
Of course, there is always the 'it's just a movie' argument to *g*
It was the early 1980s. GREED was the word, and it was good. 'Nuff said.
When there's no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.
They also ripped off all the legitimate traders that did not have insider information about the Orange harvest. Not just the Dukes.
shareIt was the early 1980s. GREED was the word, and it was good. 'Nuff said