Looking through IMDB at other "Brewsters" movies, it's amazing how the value of money has changed over the years.
1914 - $82,000 in 30 days ($1M in 1 year)
1921 - $165,000 in 30 days ($2M in 1 year)
1926 - $1M in 30 days
1935 - $1.25M in 30 days (£500,000 in 60 days - £1=$5 1935 exchange rate)
1945 - $0.5M in 30 days ($1M in 2 months - Bit of an abnormality this one)
1985 - 30M in 30 days
I reckon a 2005 version would have to be around $100M now.
[deleted]
But even then, he still wouldn't be as rich as Bill Gates >_>
share1985 - 30M in 30 days
I reckon a 2005 version would have to be around $100M now
That number sounds a little high. That would have to mean that the yearly inflation rate over the last twenty years has been around 7%. For some reason that sounds a little high to me. I thought it was more like 4% a year or less. Correct me if im wrong.
Folks sure are taking this movie seriously! :)
From http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
What cost $30,000,000 in 1985 would cost $53,239,840.55 in 2005.
But that's a lot harder to say in a commercial than $100 million.
They'd just say '50m'. It's a rounder number than $30m anyway!
shareI re-ran it for 2006 and it said:
What cost $30,000,000 in 1985 would cost $56,132,262.04 in 2006.
This should definitely be re-made. How much money should he have to spend today?
mikeoverall.blogspot.com
I don't care what anybody says.
It's still hard to spend $30 MIL in today's money if you had to follow the rules in the movie.
Just make a movie with the millions.
shareNo it's not. Just go rent a couple of stadiums for the 30 days. That'd rip right through it.
shareYou certainly could rent a stadium. But remember you have to get value for your services. And you can't donate the money away (past a certain %). Seems kind of hard to me to not accumulate assets. I wonder if the exhibition game was free or did he donate the $$$ to charity?
You also could not just make a movie either (as a previous poster said) because the movie itself would become an asset.
It would be obscenely easy to spend 30 million or even 100 million dollars, especially if it happened around the superbowl lol.
The EASIEST way to spend as much money as you wanted would be to advertise something, anything.
Throw a huge party for like 20,000 people(which you could EASILY spend several million on) Hire a bunch of famous people to come to your party. Hire famous bands. Fill it up with the most expensive food and booze you can find. Then put up billboards all around the country. Take full page ads out in every major newspaper and magazine for the month. Put national commercials on tv.
Set up a call center or website. First 5,000 people who sign up each get a round trip chartered jet for them and their 3 best friends to fly out to your party. Put them up in penthouses like Brewster did. Rent them each exotic cars.
What makes it so easy is that you can spend the money on expenses for other people, sure you can't buy them STUFF, but you can pay for their food, or transportation, or rent.
Now if there was a clause you couldn't spend the money on anyone but yourself (you could still hire people and pay them, but like he couldn't buy everyone food, or throw parties, etc etc etc. Everything he spent money on had to be directly for him. Then it would be hard.)
There was a clause that he could not spent more than 10% or something like this on salaries.
Of course he could still burn all the money easily. You mentioned renting stadiums. Now, what if he instead bought every single ticket of all concerts and sports events around? They are worthless after they expired. Heck, he could buy 1 million one-day-tickets for the metro and just let them exspire (use your 10% allotment for salary on hiring people that feed the ticket machines).
BUT we are all forgetting the "Brewster factor". He had (bad) luck. If we were in his position, we probably would have as well. Let's take my idea with the tickets. Let's say I bought all tickets for all of Madonna's concerts but of course I won't get them all, someone will be faster than me. So, the concert begins but it has, like, 20 visitors. Madonna cancels the gig out of frustration. But these 20 visitors sue Madonna and she is forced to refund ALL tickets - bang, I have my money back. Something like this would happen to every idea we can come up with because it's a movie and because it would be a boring movie if it didn't.