So they were actually magical right?
-
Splarne — 11 years ago(December 15, 2014 05:33 AM)
all of the people in the audience were customers of tressler insurance. if they'd made claims in the past (and they had), and made payments to/from their accounts, it is very likely that tressler insurance would have the bank account info necessary to make this happen. making a deposit into someone's account is fairly easy as you really only need the account number. if the company you were already doing business with (and already linked via bank account) were to transfer funds to you that hurdle would be non-exisitent.
the shows that the four horsemen were doing were like "robin hood", under some belief that they were doing good. any entity trying to prosecute them would have to prove the trick and follow that up with where the money went.
Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
-
ljam — 11 years ago(December 15, 2014 09:42 PM)
There was no real magic in the movie, but there was as typical with many movies, technology used that beyond current tech, such as the 3D holograms.
The Tressler Insurance victims are going to be disappointed, as in real life Tressler would get his lawyers to have the courts seize the money put into the victims accounts and it would end up being returned to the company. So the 'magic' would end up going away in the end.
What Dylan should have done was transfer the stolen money to a Cayman account, and then have it secretly transferred into the victims accounts, so leaving no traceable, provable connection to the stolen money. But the way they did the trick they upfront showed they were taking the money from Tressler and making it appear in the peoples' accounts. But, of course, they had to have the big magic show, to demonstrate how clever they were (as that forms the basis of the movie).
Dylan has been planning this for years, so he would have obtained the account numbers. He probably hacked into Tressler years before to obtain all the data about their business dealings, payouts, etc. -
haze58 — 11 years ago(December 18, 2014 08:20 PM)
in real life Tressler would get his lawyers to have the courts seize the money put into the victims accounts and it would end up being returned to thecompany.
That was Tressler's personal bank account, not the company's. -
Alondro — 9 years ago(April 22, 2016 07:25 AM)
Doesn't matter.
Fact is, the money was stolen from his account by hackers.
Legally, he'd get every penny of it back.
All the heist proved is that these hackers are miraculously better than Anonymous and the Chinese combined. -
tugg-mcgroin — 11 years ago(January 04, 2015 01:35 AM)
What Dylan should have done was transfer the stolen money to a Cayman account, and then have it secretly transferred into the victims accounts, so leaving no traceable, provable connection to the stolen money.
What makes you think they didn't do this?
But the way they did the trick they upfront showed they were taking the money from Tressler and making it appear in the peoples' accounts.
I didn't see them transferring money directly from Tressler's account into the audience members' accounts. Did I miss that scene?
I saw the numbers changing on the stage prop, and people were noticing transfers into their accounts. It's pretty obvious that someone was behind the scenes (presumably Rhodes) effecting the transfers.
Rhodes obviously devoted a significant fraction of his life to setting up these illusions (unless his being an FBI agent was an illusion, too). All that time and effort spent prepping (years, most likely) - is it that unreasonable to assume that he took the time to it properly? -
!!!deleted!!! (19664510) — 11 years ago(April 19, 2014 11:41 AM)
How about the giant bubble that engulfed Henley and started to carry her away? Or how the three holograms jumped off the roof and transformed into money? Or how four people, presumably unassisted, were able to simultaneously transfer money to the entire audience's bank accounts without their account numbers? I enjoyed the movie, BTW, but doing so certainly required a lot of suspension of disbelief.
All of this is feasible with special effects. And Browdway has been suspending people from strings for decades. Your point is moot.
Only stupid people believe in supernatural beings.
-
enantiodromia — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 12:49 PM)
No, they aren't.
And no, "Broadway" has not been doing that for decades. I should know, I have worked as the rigger on many stage productions. You don't just "cut the string" then have the actress fall from the air hoping a scrawny magician catches her in just the right way to prevent both of them from breaking their backs.
You don't know about holograms or theatre. Leave the basement sometime, dude. -
Prismark10 — 9 years ago(May 16, 2016 06:10 AM)
'You don't just "cut the string" then have the actress fall from the air hoping a scrawny magician catches her in just the right way to prevent both of them from breaking their backs.'
The way gravity works with mass multiplied by speed, the scrawny magician would had broken his arms and back.
It's that man again!! -
eschelar — 11 years ago(July 09, 2014 08:33 AM)
I agree with your sentiment, but my biggest annoyance was the Bad CGI on the self-aware twirly handkerchief thing in their first trick. Too many of their tricks relied on bad CGI IMHO.
The bubble didn't bother my quite as much since I know that it is possible to pass objects like strings into bubbles - less believable with such a large bubble and with such violent movements as she was making, but at least it was based on sound ideas a breakaway connector could be used for the wirework to drop her. Making her weightless to drop into the guy's arms, a bit ridiculous.
You could imagine that the people for the bank trick were pre-selected since they were shown as being pre-selected for the trick - although I have a very hard time believing that these people would have been able to do that much homework that they could get bank account information and knowledge of the value of what they lost.
The mentalist stuff was a bit annoying too. I've done a bit of that stuff myself and while there were some scenes where it was shown adequately, a lot of it just got sloppy.
Actually, I found the whole thing felt to me like nobody really cared about the movie and they were all just phoning it in. Even Morgan Freeman and Caine seemed awkward and uncomfortable with their roles. I normally really enjoy watching Ruffalo, but I just didn't get him.
One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Painful at times. -
-
goodbyeenemyairship — 12 years ago(April 02, 2014 04:50 AM)
Movies & a magic show actually share the same dilemma in terms of the audiences' suspension of disbelief. A magic trick can't be presented in such a way that the audeince feels like the illusion is not actually being performed in front of their very eyes.
-
Smart_Monkey — 11 years ago(April 08, 2014 10:32 AM)
I completely agree with everything you said including your rating. Plus that twist at the end was forced, ridiculous, and dumb. They tried to make the movie complex when they failed miserably. Maybe I just have to watch it again. I don't know.
"Most Trees Are Blue" - Jaden Smith -
Moesislak — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 01:00 PM)
Nope, this is how dumb the movie is. Everything they did was practical so that allegedly is how they earned to join a society that apparently may actually be magic.
WTF is the point then? If you can do all this stuff that appears to be magic without actually being magical, why then create a secret society that uses magic?
Oh and the guy who got all his revenge is magical(maybe? really vague) but instead uses non-magical people to do his bidding for him.stupid. -
vque — 11 years ago(December 10, 2014 05:57 AM)
Good job not understanding that if a magic trick is not ridiculous than it is not going to be very entertaining.
When Houdini made an elephant disappear was that too ridiculous to be entertaining? Would you have asked for your money back if you were at that show?