MovieChat Forums > Hell or High Water (2016) Discussion > Why does NO ONE remember the lawyer sayi...

Why does NO ONE remember the lawyer saying this!?

posted 7 years ago by tripper511
27 replies | jump to latest

So many people here keep asking why they didn't just get a loan from someone else to pay off the debt to the bank. The reason why that wasn't an option is because midway through the movie their lawyer clearly says that Chevron WILL NOT drill for oil unless the land is DEBT FREE!

Otherwise they could of started drilling weeks ago and used that money to pay the bank. They had no choice but to buy back the land in way that left no debts to any other parties.

Also people keep asking why the Feds weren't involved and the reason is (which is stated in the beginning) that the banks they robbed were ONLY LOCATED in Texas. There were no branches outside of state line. Also the amount stolen from each bank was only a small sum of several thousand at a time.

I have to say for the most part I couldn't find any real plot holes with the story which is why I enjoyed it so much. They really did get fcked by the bank and had no way out.

[–] benjaunceY1 7 years ago

Smart !!!! I didn't realise this until you just said.

[–] tallard 7 years ago

Right!
Bumping this so it stays on top.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] mooncalled2 7 years ago

Agreed. I'm bumping this as well for all of the 'Plot Hole' people on this tread.

[–] jbit 7 years ago

"Chevron will not drill for oil unless the land is debt free". Why? Is this the usual practice?

[–] jquick99 7 years ago

No. Made up for the movie. And from building a location, to drilling to production, takes a good 9 months, at a minimum.

[–] vienna_76 7 years ago

And from building a location, to drilling to production, takes a good 9 months, at a minimum.

That could work though. The investigation has been closed and it's mentioned that Marcus has been retired for months when he goes to look up the file. We also don't know how much time passes between him talking to his former co-worker and actually seeking Toby out.

You can tell a man by what he has to say - Neil & Tim Finn

[–] jquick99 7 years ago

I didn't realize (until reading below) that they were paying off a lien, as compared to the mortgage/fees. YES, it is standard practice for no liens on a property.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 2 years ago

They had a tax lien and a reverse mortgage due.

[–] balducci2 7 years ago

"So many people here keep asking why they didn't just get a loan from someone else to pay off the debt to the bank. The reason why that wasn't an option is because midway through the movie their lawyer clearly says that Chevron WILL NOT drill for oil unless the land is DEBT FREE!"

That simply did not occur in the version of the movie I saw. I also checked the associated script / subtitle file, and no such exchange occurred between the brothers and their lawyer.

I grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe you when you said you heard what you described, but that means there are at least two versions of this movie that were released. Did you see a preview screening, perhaps? Maybe the scene you saw was cut from the theatrical version?

Anyway, what you describe still doesn't really explain why he could not get a loan from a third party. As long as the loan was not secured with the land, there would be no problem.

[–] bottleshock34 7 years ago

Who would he get a loan from most of the people that leave there couldn’t even possibly give him a loan even if they promised more money.

A loan shark would require collateral so that's a no go because the land didn’t belong to Toby it belonged to the bank.

It's not as simple as people are saying to obtain a loan and they had less than a week to pay it back not enough time.

There is a possibility he had already tried to obtain another loan and failed to do so leaving him with the choice give up the land or rob the bank who set this loan up. We just didn't get that story in the film

"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"

[–] SGarrick 7 years ago

The Chevron line is in the first scene with their attorney.

[–] daddie0 7 years ago

Just to add to the conversation a bit, I went back and rewatched the scene. Here is the transcript after he added up what they owed the bank (and this is the first mention of Chevron):

"$43,000 and you are free and clear

Just have the loan officer fax me over a release of lien, and I'll get that over to the lease manager at Chevron."

So while it does not seem he says it directly, it is implied that they need the release of lien to move forward with drilling. [edit] FYI, quote is from 47:30.

[–] philserve 7 years ago

If you know of anyone needing 43K to clear a lien on their house, which will result in 50K per month of oil being pumped for X number of years, have them give me a call. I'll give them a loan, with, say, 10% of the income coming back to me. I'll assume the risk.

[–] tripper-09331 7 years ago

If you know of anyone needing 43K to clear a lien on their house, which will result in 50K per month of oil being pumped for X number of years, have them give me a call. I'll give them a loan, with, say, 10% of the income coming back to me. I'll assume the risk.

That type of thinking is EXACTLY why the brothers didn't get a loan from someone under the table. They wanted 100% of that money to stay in the family (technically for the kids). There was no other way for them to do it, especially considering the short amount of time they had.

Additionally it would have ruined the plan with the trust fund if there was now a third party involved who was receiving 10% of the income (if we use this example).

"Common sense is not so common"

[–] fipper_1 7 years ago

Bumping this to the top

[–] ATG6 (3000) 2 years ago

The Bradys would just win a band contest.

[–] modianos 7 years ago

could HAVE, not could of

************************************
call me snake...

[–] tripper-09331 7 years ago

Where does it say "could of"?

[–] BrainGremlin 7 years ago

"Otherwise they could of started drilling weeks ago"

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

[–] lordjames-1 7 years ago

But, the question is if everyone knows this oil is there, why didn't Chevron just pony up a short term loan to get things moving quickly?

[–] bottleshock34 7 years ago

The property belonged to the mother who probably wasn't in her right frame of mind. Maybe Toby didn't discover the oil until it was too late. Maybe the land next to toby has oil on it and the bank got the land checked out finding out that the oil run into Toby's land too.

We're never fully explained it in the film.
Maybe the mother knew and thinking that the land would be collateral worth more with oil on it. Maybe she didn't understand the terms of the loan and it was too late for toby to do anything. It looks like he had tried too with the lawyer but failed and was left with let the bank take the land his home or do something about it.

"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"

[–] robertsjason55 7 years ago

"I have to say for the most part I couldn't find any real plot holes with the story which is why I enjoyed it so much."

Big plot hole: Jeff Bridges character realized they were only robbing the Texas Midlands Bank, which had a limited number of branches (6? 7?). He and his partner staked out one he figured they would hit next. But he never told any other law enforcement to watch the other branches. It would have been easy enough for the Rangers to notify the local police to keep an eye on the local branch. So despite being right about the bank they were targeting, the fact that he did not tell anyone allowed them to rob another branch.

[–] bottleshock34 7 years ago

Good point there

"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"

[–] Mistah-J 7 years ago

It was a major mistake by Marcus, but it's still not a plot hole.

When characters make dumb decisions in movies, that's not necessarily a plot hole.

[–] tripper-09331 7 years ago

Big plot hole: Jeff Bridges character realized they were only robbing the Texas Midlands Bank, which had a limited number of branches (6? 7?). He and his partner staked out one he figured they would hit next. But he never told any other law enforcement to watch the other branches. It would have been easy enough for the Rangers to notify the local police to keep an eye on the local branch. So despite being right about the bank they were targeting, the fact that he did not tell anyone allowed them to rob another branch.

I contributed his lack of foresight to pride and wanting to take credit for making one last big bust before he retired. Also they had already hit other branches which he knew they would go to again which slimmed it down. He ended up being right in waiting at the correct bank (IIRC) but missed them.

Additionally no one really took them (the robbers) seriously in the beginning, especially since no one was getting hurt and small sums of untraceable money were being stolen. I doubt the Rangers would even be willing to put aside the men and time to pursue (what seemed like at the time) small time crooks. Jeff Bridges didn't want to take (so close to retirement) of putting his reputation on the line, especially if he ended up being wrong.

"Common sense is not so common"

[–] LTUM (975) 5 years ago

[deleted]