I know it's a movie.
But there are so many movies where the rich person decides that their family sucks so they will leave them nothing in the will.
And I'm not talking about a long lost cousin you've met once.
I mean like in this movie.
I have to teach my grandson a lesson so I am cutting him off.
Why? He's always been an ass.
Funny. I think this is the first movie I've seen where that's a premise. I don't even have that much money but I also don't even have kids of my own. I have 6 nieces and 2 nephews so I can't even leave it to them without one of the others getting all angry about it. I'm not even dying or anything but I have no idea who I would leave my money to when I die. Perhaps, if I do grow old to the age of 80 or above, I can just leave it to some neighbor kid I know providing I don't ever get married and have kids of my own.
shareYou can leave it to me if you want.
share[deleted]
But all of them, aside from Ransom, are all super rich. They don't need his money.
shareYou're wrong. Toni Collette's character and her daughter, played by Katherine Langford, were definitely NOT rich. He seemed to like Katherine's character, so to basically punish her for her mother's greed, was just wrong, IMO. The other 2 siblings did have money, but he called his daughter "My heart" for goodness sakes, how could he not leave her ANYTHING?!
shareYeah but if you remember right, Toni Collette was stealing the money Harlan gave her that was supposed to go to her daughter's schooling and using it for other things that weren't important which is why he didn't want to leave her anything.
shareIf you mean Jamie Lee Curtis, she didn't need money. She already had a successful real estate business she started from a $1M loan from her father. If she was poor and hadn't done anything wrong then you'd be right. Basically the only deserving one he left out was the grand daughter but he did cut the mother a check for the remainder of her tuition. Given he was only paying her tuition before, this seems consistent with the level of care he was willing to provide.
share
It's the parent's responsibility to provide for her child. What the granddad gave was free money.
The Toni Colette character, she was claimed to be successful. Plus he gave her an allowance. An allowance so big, it took the money managers four years to find out she was stealing $100,000 a year.
If she was broke she was wasting her money. She had a $400,000 nest egg. Give me a free $400,000 over four years and I can turn it into $600,000 over that time period and keep it growing.
Besides it was his money, he could burn it if he wanted to do so.
Both of my grandmothers did this to my parents. My dad I can understand but his mother had clear favourites and tbh there was nothing left by the time she died as the favourites had already gotten it all prior to that. My mother was a great daughter to my gran though. She went back to her country to see her on her deathbed. She didn't attend the funeral as my mum was ill herself. My gran had a clause that her already tiny share would be voided if she didn't attend her funeral. I thought that was rather mean given all that my mum had done for her. Meanwhile 2 of her crappy siblings got decent shares. At the end of the day it was her money though so she can do whatever she wants with it.
I didn't think any of them were so bad they deserved to be cut off, except for the younger guy who actually masterminded the murder then tried to stab the Paraguayan (or Uruguayan, or Brazilian, or whatever) chick. They were weak and petty, perhaps, but not evil. The old man was too harsh on them, and had a crush on his hot young nurse.
shareGuess what? He can do what he wants with his money.
shareIt's his money and he can leave it however he wants. His children, their spouses, and his grandchildren had been living off of him for years (whole lives?). Only Jamie Lee Curtis' character had made anything of the money he gave them and he didn't approve of her husband or the way they raised their son. The truth is that they all considered his money to be "their" money and his house to be "their" house (despite the fact that it was purchased after his children were already old enough to have been well out of the house). They were all entitled mooches and should have been cut off years sooner.
While some people try to keep their money in the family (and often leave the bulk of their estate to only one heir; usually through Primogeniture.), some exceptionally wealthy people have made it very public that they intend to leave their children/family very little and leave the vast bulk of their estates to charity. The basic idea is that their children have been raised in privilege and should be able to build their own lives without an inheritance.
You know were talking about a fictional character right.
shareI guess it's more of an ego issue. You think your parents love you but when they don't leave you anything, there is a feeling of hurt...like you are a nobody. But I understand if you are an asshole and don't really contribute or be there for your parents. But I do know a lot of people who suck up to their parents with the hope they are left with their wealth....not real love!
share