MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > you must get value for your money

you must get value for your money

posted 7 months ago by moviechatterer (13382)
8 replies | jump to latest

" you must get value for your money"

This pretty much makes it impossible doesent it?

buying a $10,000 rare stamp to send a postcard isnt value for money
Staying in the most expensive hotel room in the world isnt "value for money" its priced for specifically for rich people with too much money.
a 50,000 per night room is not 1000x better than a 50 room

a £5000 designer handbag is ... well you can see where im going with it.

A rolls royce IS better than a ford escort , but the prices at the top of the range for outstrip that "betterness"

[–] hurricane (1910) a month ago

Yeah, they sort of ignored that bit.

Probably makes the film clunky if with every purchase, they evaluate whether it is value for money.

That rule was only really put in, so he won't go out and offer somebody the entire amount for one hour's work.

[–] aavfreak (2873) a month ago

I think you're on the right track with this. While the "value" of paying $50,000 per night for a hotel room is subjective, if it is consistent with the going rate or "market value," then it should qualify.

Paying a single staff member $30M for an hour's work is not within the acceptable norm, which in your example should be disqualifying.

If a designer handbag has a retail price of $5k, then that is the value in terms of retail pricing. A subjective opinion may be that it's not worth it and therefore not value for the money is not at issue. If others are paying the same price, then that's the value.

It makes for an interesting discussion.

[–] strntz (10854) a month ago

If a designer handbag has a retail price of $5k, then that is the value in terms of retail pricing. A subjective opinion may be that it's not worth it and therefore not value for the money is not at issue. If others are paying the same price, then that's the value.

Nice observation - a lot of things to me are not worth the money yet people pay for goods and services all the time that I would never.

The main point was that at the end of 30 days, he must have no assets for having spent the money.

Maybe he could have hired Sinatra to play a concert at his suite every day for a million bucks a pop?

[–] hurricane (1910) 24 days ago

On the grounds of value for money, the stamp should've disqualified him. As he could've posted a letter for a lot less money.

It's just a movie. Got to go with it.

[–] strntz (10854) 24 days ago

Actually, the stamp was brilliant. He paid going rate for the stamp and used it as a stamp.

If he paid a million for a stamp that was worth nothing, that would have disqualified him.

[–] hurricane (1910) 24 days ago

Depends how you define "value for money". Spending $10k to post a letter isn't technically.

But, as you say, he pais the going rate.

[–] strntz (10854) 24 days ago

Depends how you define "value for money".

Me? I'm a cheap bastard and proud of it. To me, buying a brand new car is getting terrible value for my money, so I absolutely understand the difficulty in assigning "value for money" when it came to the difficulty of writing this script. Overall, I think they did a great job. Spending $30 million and having zero assets to show for it is very difficult!

[–] UncleRuckis (2552) 24 days ago

He also could have eaten steaks at applebees instead of the stupidly fancy and expensive restaurants he was at, but that wouldn't disqualify him either.
he paid what the stamp was worth, then used it for it's intended purpose. had he destroyed the thing, he'd have been in violation. That was indeed clever as hell!
If I'm him, I'm buying every rare bottle of alcohol I can find and then drinking with the friends like there's no tomorrow.