***OFFICIAL*** Brewster's Millions Plot Holes Thread (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

 

[bigbottom]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

So you're good with my gold envelope idea. We can also encrust the seal with diamonds.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

So you're good with my gold envelope idea. We can also encrust the seal with diamonds.

No, I'm not good with it. In the envelope example he's simply giving his money away. That's not true with the stamp example. Using your logic why not just stuff thousand dollar bills into burritos and have an eating contest on cinco de mayo.I'm not sure why people are going out of their way to tear Monty down here. In fact, he should be applauded for his creativity. Bravo, Monty, bravo.

 

[bigbottom]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

So you're good with my gold envelope idea. We can also encrust the seal with diamonds.

No, I'm not good with it. In the envelope example he's simply giving his money away. That's not true with the stamp example.

He's just using a really expensive envelope, just like he used a really expensive stamp.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

So you're good with my gold envelope idea. We can also encrust the seal with diamonds.

No, I'm not good with it. In the envelope example he's simply giving his money away. That's not true with the stamp example.

He's just using a really expensive envelope, just like he used a really expensive stamp.

Envelopes don't get cancelled.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

Wouldn't the envelopes still retain their value if they were mailed? If so, it seems like he would be breaking the rule about giving stuff away.

That's my point. The rare stamp still retained significant value, even though it was mailed. A $900,000 stamp doesn't suddenly become worthless because it has a postmark on it. Maybe now it's only worth $750,000. But it's still a valuable asset.

I was under the impression that it loses virtually all its value if cancelled. Do we have any philatelists in the house?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

 

[bigbottom]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?

Thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.

Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?

Those old dudes have nothing on the FFA. We would have found all sorts of violations to keep Brewster from getting the cash. At worst, we would have kept him tied up in litigation for decades.

Nothing was given away.

So you're good with my gold envelope idea. We can also encrust the seal with diamonds.

No, I'm not good with it. In the envelope example he's simply giving his money away. That's not true with the stamp example.

He's just using a really expensive envelope, just like he used a really expensive stamp.

Envelopes don't get cancelled.

You're changing your argument now. Regardless of whether the rare stamp is cancelled or not, it still retains value as an asset. You argued that the stamp wasn't given, it was merely used. So too the golden envelope.

 

[bigbottom]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

Wouldn't the envelopes still retain their value if they were mailed? If so, it seems like he would be breaking the rule about giving stuff away.

That's my point. The rare stamp still retained significant value, even though it was mailed. A $900,000 stamp doesn't suddenly become worthless because it has a postmark on it. Maybe now it's only worth $750,000. But it's still a valuable asset.

I was under the impression that it loses virtually all its value if cancelled. Do we have any philatelists in the house?

Absurd.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

I was under the impression that it loses virtually all its value if cancelled. Do we have any philatelists in the house?

Absurd.

I agree with you that if the stamp retains some significant value after use, Brewster violated the "giving something of value away" rule.

 

[Otis]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

What about drinking an expensive bottle of wine? That's destroying it in your view too, right?

 

[flufhed]

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled.

A stamp to mail a letter is worth like 42 cents on the open market.

Not that stamp. Just like a rare penny isn't worth just 1 cent on the open market.

Do you think this would have been acceptable?:
Store sells rare penny for $100,000.01 to Monty Brewster
Brewster then buys a second penny by paying with $100,000 plus the rare penny he just bought.
Repeat process until he only has one rare penny left.
Use rare penny to buy a piece of gum.
The end.

Perfectly acceptable. I'm not saying there aren't plot holes that could have ended the movie in 5 minutes. But using the stamp the way he did was within the rules. Plus, he was sporting enough to only use it once. Brewster = class act.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

What about drinking an expensive bottle of wine? That's destroying it in your view too, right?

No. That's using it for its intended purpose.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

What about drinking an expensive bottle of wine? That's destroying it in your view too, right?

No. That's using it for its intended purpose.

Stamps are made to be one-time postage for mailed items. He mailed it.

 

[Otis]

On right now