At least, for people like me who don't know a damn about the subject. That's the only reason why I really couldn't enjoy
-
Bree_33 — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 03:05 PM)
The HBO film
Too Big To Fail
was also a great showing of the facts behind Wall Street.
__@
-_\<,_ ___(*)/ (*)____ nec spe, nec metu
Michael
Biehn
smoking
hot:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com:443/data.filmboards/images/upload/S4cVxN6.gif -
Ithilfaen — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 10:33 PM)
The problem is not that it's too technical, it's that they think their viewers are morons and they never even try to detail or explain anything. They keep talking fast and using a lot of acronyms, they're wearing suits, it's about money, that's all you need to know, right?
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco -
JurijFedorov — 10 years ago(October 30, 2015 10:41 AM)
Exactly, this is the problem. They didn't even explain anything. Interstellar has time travel and black holes but all viewers understood it because they explained a lot of things that are basic (but didn't explain the hard to get things). In Matrix not one thing goes unexplained, Fight Club the same. These movies are simple, but more complicated than Margin Call. They could have used 2 minutes to explain the things they were doing but didn't for some reason. Possible because the producers thought it was too complicated. This is why Matrix had to use heat as energy and not brain power from the humans. The producers wanted to simplify the movie at any cost.
Seriously, watch some of these much more complicated documentaries. You will understand everything in them, because it is explained:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/ -
sbowesuk — 11 years ago(April 02, 2015 09:22 AM)
Personally I didn't find the movie hard to follow. It actually simplified things greatly, precisely so regular viewers wouldn't be left too confused. With a movie like this, you don't have to understand every technical term, as long as you understand what the movie is driving at.
-
cobes11 — 10 years ago(April 10, 2015 10:37 AM)
As a trader in the industry with good understanding of capital markets, institutional trading, mortgage-backed securities, I agree. While watching this movie I thought that things were so technical that most people would not understand a thing that was going on. Most people in the industry probably would not understand what was happening. The plot could be very easily summarized, but to truly appreciate what was happening the viewer needs knowledge of the industry. It was a fantastic movie, but I expected it to bomb because it did cater only to people with a very select knowledge base.
-
Scarlett_Butler — 10 years ago(January 16, 2016 10:34 AM)
After finishing it, I still didn't understand anything. I really think this kind of movies are meant for a specific kind of audience, not for anybody. Or else, we should talk directly about a mistake in the writing, for not making the story a bit more clear for those who don't know about investments, finances and all. This was literally impossible to follow for me.
Are you actually suggesting that movies be dumbed down so not-so-bright audiences can understand them?
I know absolutely nothing about finance at this level, and the movie was not at all difficult to follow along. They have entire scenes where characters explain the problems the firm is facing (e.g. the scene where Jeremy Irons's character tells Zachary Quinto to explain it to him as if he were talking to a small child or a Golden Retriever).
It's not a mistake on the film's part if you're not smart enough to follow a basic Hollywood movie. -
NewtonFigg — 10 years ago(January 30, 2016 05:36 PM)
Hitchcock defined a MacGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, but as to what that object specifically is, he declared, "the audience don't care".
You don't need to understand how a flux capacitor works to enjoy Back to the Future.
