Did anyone think…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Seconds
cadeaux — 15 years ago(November 22, 2010 03:47 AM)
that the sum of $30,000 (I tuned into the movie about 20 minutes into it so I'm not completely sure on this fact) was pretty reasonable to do all they did? Think about it - house in Malibu, total set-up, face re-do, unlimited money flowing in to throw wild parties, manservant for however long he needed him before he adjusted, etc.
What I thought was that no one ever was happy with their second chance and they were only making money recycling identies and bodies. Perhaps they banked on every single person not being satisfied and ending up going off the deep end and wanting a third chance and becoming yet another corpse they could use?
That would make more sense to me - and would also explain the cheapness of the whole deal. If they never had to foot the bill for expenses for more than a couple monthsthen perhaps they'd be able to keep the company going.
As for all those people who said they were reborns when he was drunk at the partythey are all just company employeesand are instrumental in hauling the person in once they go off the deep end. And yes, they have various ways for people to go off the deep end - drugs and alcohol would probably work each time, tho. If that doesn't work - others probably confess to their love interest. Once the cat is out of the bagthey haul you off to the "waiting room".
I knowI knowthere's a book which also probably doesn't have this alternate plot line - but I like this alternate plot line.
C'monread my blog already:
http://www.mariannsimms.blogspot.com -
EllisFowler — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 08:51 AM)
Your error is not taking into account the value of pre-Nixon $30,000 and how much cheaper almost everything was in 1966. At that time, a $25,000 annual income was princely; a $200 weekly starting salary was considered a coup. Only rich men were targeted because only rich men had disposable income that could cover a flat $30,000 (CASH, mind you - this isn't the kind of purchase you could charge to Diners Club or put on an installment plan) outlay.
I read the book (which ended differently) but even if I hadn't, I doubt The Company was conceived as being as prescient as you seem to think. Don't forget that they had to feed and house the malcontents - a not inconsiderable expense. What I found interesting was that these were guys housed in excellent bodies who surely outnumbered their keepers and who could have collectively overpowered them. I guess the thought of revolt and escape was inconceivable to a herd comprised of individuals who'd never had a strong sense of identity. -
puirt-a-beul — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 08:09 AM)
A couple of thoughts occurred to me along these lines when I watched the movie for the first time this evening.
I don't think it's explicitly stated, but I imagine Wilson would have had to pay a second fee in order to get a second go at it, so that would have helped with the costs.
And they seemed to have people pegged pretty accurately on a psychological basis, so I wondered if not everyone to be recycled ended up in the Day Room. The guys at the party all seemed to be pretty grim and hostile, so I wondered if they were also failures of the program who were working off their waiting period as stooges for the company?
Haven't read the book, but I think it's fair enough to interpret the film on its own basis and independently of the book in any case.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. -
ae36 — 9 years ago(June 17, 2016 07:06 PM)
I always thought the $30,000 was for the new identity, the surgery, and the cadaver.
Each re-born would also have to have other assets stocks, bonds, property, and of course insurance. You have to figure there was insurance fraud to fund a good portion of the $30,000. The rest of the assets were carved up to provide allowances and make the company a profit.
These assets were all signed over to the company, with an allowance for the family and of course the allowance for the re-born.
If the re-born failed and wanted to try again with another identity, he had to recruit another client to make it worthwhile to the company.
That's why you see the Murray Hamilton character trying to recruit his friend Rock Hudson.
After the Rock Hudson character returns to the company, you see them trying to get a name from him trying to get another new client that will bring money in to the company.
When he refuses, the company then releases him for cadaver use to help another re born get a new identity.
If he had provided a name and recruited another client, the Rock Hudson character would have received another new identity.
You see this with the Murray Hamilton character he failed as a re-born and then had to recruit his friend. At the end, you see him being called to surgery for his new identity the price was his life long friend. That's why he's crying as he says goodbye.
My take anyway.
AE36 -
Bob_Brooker — 12 years ago(February 27, 2014 12:26 PM)
You need to take inflation into account. This is taken from
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
"What cost $30,000 in 1966 would cost $209,401.55 in 2012."
Last movie watched:
Seconds
(8/10) -
audiopinions — 11 years ago(April 13, 2014 03:58 PM)
The company made themselves a trustee in his will, allowing them access to his life insurance money, a portion of which was then re-distributed to him to finance his new life. So, I would guess that his cut of that plus the $30,000 was ample enough to cover his expenses.
-
GunHillTrain — 11 years ago(May 15, 2014 08:05 PM)
You would think Hamilton's wife and daughter would be surprised to find the company listed on his will. It goes against the idea that the company is trying to operate without any outside notice or scrutiny.
I haven't read the novel; perhaps these details are resolved there. -
brendanchenowith — 11 years ago(May 16, 2014 03:24 AM)
"I haven't read the novel; perhaps these details are resolved there."
They weren't. What we saw was what was written. About the visit to his daughter, that was in the novel and it was a hell of a scene, too - much more stirring than the visit to his "widow". Frankenheimer regretted cutting the scene from the film, primarily because the negative is now lost and there's no way to reinsert it. He only cut it because the studio leaned on him to do so - saying it was too long. Studios only cut movies because it limits the amount of showings in a day, therefore it limits the amount of ticket sales.
As a side note, I don't buy into that rationale - Gone With the Wind was over 3.5 hours in length, and it made a very tidy sum at the box office. I went to a limited-release theater showing and the place was packed. GWTW couldn't really be shown very many times a day, and in 1939, audiences were allowed to hang on and stay for another showing, anyway, so
Sometimes I feel like a Monuments Man when it comes to excised footage. Recording and film studios would regrettably practically dispose of what was on the cutting room floor, instead of carefully storing the excess footage as they would the finished product. It's galling to think that footage on which a lot of time and money were spent would just be tossed in an old warehouse, or some other remote location, and just left to decompose.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked. -
GunHillTrain — 11 years ago(May 16, 2014 11:31 AM)
Yes, I've heard about the lost footage (I think Leonard Nimoy played the son-in-law).
Through much of the history of the movie business, films were considered a "one-shot" deal. With a few exceptions, there was no concept that they would ever be seen or released again after they gone from the theaters. Storing the deleted film segments (which cost money) was not a priority.
Even when television started showing movies (the 1950s?) the films were often cut even further from the original release version.
With DVDs now, the excess footage cut from the theatrical release is often kept around for a "director's cut" or "bonus materials." Whether most movies now are worth this effort is another question. At least the material is usually there to be reused. -
-
oldgoldtop — 11 years ago(January 01, 2015 11:31 AM)
My recollection was the $30K was simply the fee for staging the death and perhaps surgery. Ruby then explains that the lifestyle was funded separately via a trust to be managed by the Company set up from Arthur's revised will and life insurance, annuities, property etc. which was contained within the documents Arthur signed. The agreement also contained provisions for his wife and daughter.
-
hammer4 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 07:59 PM)
Precisely. Even in 1965 dollars 30K wouldnt be nearly enough to support Wilson//Hamilton''s lavish lifestyle which might have lasted for decades had the rebirth been successful. Not to mention the substantial expense of the surgery itself, which went well beyond conventional facial plastic surgery. They were also transforming his body, virtually into another being. In addition there was the career counseling, the obtaining of documents to support a new identity, the expense of spies like Nora, etc.
As you point out, Hamilton was required to hand over ALL of his not inconsiderable assets to the company. In order to accomplish this he had to be wealthy, as presumably most of the "clients" were. -
SamoanJoes — 10 years ago(April 02, 2016 12:04 AM)
I'd have to do the inflation and change it to the American dollar to get a more reasonable understanding for me but that amount seemingly seems sufficient considering the procedure. Let's not forget paying everyone to "spy" on him, paying the man to help him adjust to his new life, etc.