MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > Wimp Clause

Wimp Clause

posted 15 years ago by crunchman74
43 replies | jump to latest

I got to ask so how many people would be tempted or take the wimp clause of the million dollars instead of the 30 million to spend in 30 days then the 300 million ??

I myself I say give me the million and I would be happy because all that stress then if you fail you end up with nothing. I would rather take the million put it in a high intrest account, which I have heard can be 12% which of course that is $120,000.00 and even if they took half or taxes that still leaves me with $60,000.00 give it to me that is $5000.00 a month I am use to living off of $1000.00. I would either buy some cd's or invest some, might be just me though.

Signature:

I Will Take A Chocolate Coke Please!

[–] willydoe71 15 years ago

I don't know, I think I'd be tempted to go ahead and try to spend it all.

[–] TrevorClutch 15 years ago

Brewster's task isn't that difficult. Especially in today's world where things are geared servicing toward rich people even more. You rent a villa in Europe for the month, Rent some food services where you fly in sushi from Japan on the same day, rent a motorcade of vehicles to get around and you're done. I'm not saying it is a piece of cake, but if you think a bit, it wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.

[–] willydoe71 15 years ago

Well in todays world, that $30 million would be much more. There is another thread about the inflation of that and in 2007, $30 million would be $56,132,262.04. So it would be slightly higher today.

[–] geezer_ward 15 years ago

Yeah, 30 million would be a cinch. Rent some super high dollar hotel anywhere in the world, hire the best bands, caterers, entertainers, girls, etc. Fly in your friends and hired help from all over the world and throw a 30 million dollar bash in one or two weekends. It can be done. With receipts to show where all of the money went.

[–] Tunaman09 15 years ago

The wimp clause sounds good but I would always regret it if I did not take the challenge wondering 'what if?'.

[–] flashpenguin86 15 years ago

On one hand, the downfall would be that if I failed, I lose everything and walk away with nothing. But if I win, I get 300 million dollars. I like a challenge and would go for the big bucks.

House: Hey I can be a jerk to people I haven't slept with. I am that good.

[–] hifijohn 9 years ago

actually he wouldnt fail too badly after the 30 days he can always sell his idea to hollywood.

[–] tiptonr 15 years ago

Today it would be easier to blow through the $30 Mill then people think. (Ok, double it to $60 Mill for inflation since the movie was released.)

1. Give away the 5/10% that he was allowed to by the rules.
2. Gamble away the 5/10% that he was allowed to by the rules.
3. Get married to a gold digger & have her file for divorce after a week, with no pre-nupt. There goes half your fortune right there!
4. Rent up scale private jet with full staff for all trips you take in the month, then transfer to a fleet of expensive limos for the ground transport.
5. Stay at the most expensive hotel penthouses.
6. Order the most expensive food & beverages.
7. Visit upscale strip clubs. (Heck, you could easily drop $250k at Scores in NY - other guys have!)
8. Enroll at the most expensive university you can find. That's another $40-50k gone.
9. Buy a Cray supercomputer, turn off the virus protection, and visit tons of porn websites. Before long you'll have so many infections that the thing will be worthless.

This is all in addition to the other things he did in the movie.

[–] mikex5 15 years ago

I think #3 might pose a problem. Getting married is easy. Getting divorced in 30 days is hard. Since you have to have a receit for everything, greasing the palm of a judge would violate a part of the conditions.
Then there's #7. After slipping a few Benjamins in a few g-strings, would they write you a receipt? Where would they keep the pen and paper?

"I hear this place is restricted, Wang, so don't tell 'em you're Jewish, okay?"

[–] Lunchbox-3 10 years ago

#9 won't work. One of the rules is you can't buy something of value and then destroy it.

[–] Trevor-5 10 years ago

That would be up to the referees interpretation because he wouldn't be destroying himself, just allowing others to do so. The referee may or may not allow that.

[–] MaximRecoil (4760) 6 years ago

"9. Buy a Cray supercomputer, turn off the virus protection, and visit tons of porn websites. Before long you'll have so many infections that the thing will be worthless."

That wouldn't even put a dent in its value. All that potentially does is harm the software, which can easily be reinstalled. It does nothing to the hardware, which is by far the most expensive part (especially since all of the top supercomputers run Linux, which is free). By that line of reasoning you could just buy a 30 million dollars worth of computer hardware (e.g., motherboards, CPUs, RAM, HDDs/SSDs, etc.) and call it good, because it's allegedly worthless without software.

[–] stevenackerman69 15 years ago

True, why not just take the million and build it up over time? Even with the taxes, it could still build up. Guess the point is if Brewster didn't go for the whole thing, no film. Also, maybe Brewster felt that it would take too long to do that, so he wanted the whole thing.

[–] devinci35 15 years ago

Oh please, the wimp clause is for wimps. His uncle thought he was a loser. He had to prove him wrong, otherwise he couldn't look himself in mirror. If I didn't think there was a chance in H E double toothpicks of getting the 300 million, I'd take the million. Otherwise, I'd go for 300 million.

[–] AnotherSchmoe 14 years ago

I would have taken the Wimp Clause. I could live very comfortably for the rest of my life, never having to work, on the interest that can be made from a sudden $1,000,000 inheritance.

http://www.youtube.com/anotherschmoe

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zmystico 14 years ago

Of course blowing $30 Million in todays world would be easier...$30 Million isn't the same as it was when the movie was filmed...you have to account for inflation, which I would say would move the amount up to close to $60 Million. Also, a lot of suggestions would be in violation of him getting value for his money. Like with the stamp...he used it for its original purpose, as with the old champagne he bought at the auction and opened...he used it for its original purpose. Also, there was some lee-way as far as receipts, the executor pointed out that there was a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money unaccounted for...so he had a grace area.

Personally, I'm renting a jet/yacht/and top 2 floors of the most expensive hotel I can find. I'm giving away the 5% to charity off the top, and betting on the single biggest longshot I can find. Getting himself sued was an awesome idea.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries

[–] GreyHunter 14 years ago

You don't want to bet on the single biggest longshot you can find. $1.5 million at even, say, 10,000 to 1 odds and you win? You'll never be able to spend that money before the month is up. Or collect, for that matter, but technically, as a creditor, you'd have to count the winnings as an asset. You'd be much better off dropping it on roulette or keno or some other standard game with low odds but low pay-offs as well.

Of course, finding someone willing to take a $1.5 million bet at 10,000 to 1 odds will be difficult because they'd have to cover the line.

[–] Samba-boy 12 years ago

Late reply (First reply I'm even making on IMDb), but it has to be asked... I just thought of something. ...So what if after 30 days, Brewster had gotten some cash left? If he díd gamble and won that 10.000 to 1 odds-bet, they just couldn't take thát amount of money away from him, now can they?

...Maybe it's just bull I'm thinking, but honestly; What if Brewster gambled that 1.5 million on a longshot and won? He would've won a lot. After 30 days, the people keeping up with the bet would take away that what was left of the 30 million dollars, but Brewster would keep his fair share of the longshot-bet. ^_^

[–] Trevor-5 10 years ago

"betting on the single biggest longshot I can find"

You'd have to be more careful about that. Say you bet the 1.5 million (5% of 30 million) on a 30 to 1 longshot and it WON! Now you have 44.85 million MORE than you had before and the referee may not allow that winning to gambled away. You could still lose the 1.5 million since it wasn't lost earlier but now you're left with 74.7 million (74.55 after the charity donations).

A much safer way to gamble would be to go to a casino (for receipts) and join a high stakes poker game (which should be no problem even for an unknown person with 1.5 million in cash - you wouldn't want blackjack because you could win) and just fold every hand until the money is gone. Since you are allowed to lose that mush I don't think the referee would require you to play your best, just not cheat.