2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You can see everything
Posted on 10/28/26 at 7:36 am to crazyLSUstudent
Posted on 10/28/26 at 7:36 am to crazyLSUstudent
Saw it last night and what a ride that was.
Theater experience with an audience definitely adds to it.
Loved the recreated sets true to Nathan's work.
Spoilers
Why do you think he showed them swimming together at the end? I'm not sure what to make of it.
I went back and forth on Liz being truthful or not.
I loved the addition of Amanda. Was she playing a role the whole time? Parallel to Liz playing a role. Nathan plays his role and we are never quite sure how much of him is acted and I think that's the case for everyone involved in this.
I'll be thinking about this one for a while.
Theater experience with an audience definitely adds to it.
Loved the recreated sets true to Nathan's work.
Spoilers
Why do you think he showed them swimming together at the end? I'm not sure what to make of it.
I went back and forth on Liz being truthful or not.
I loved the addition of Amanda. Was she playing a role the whole time? Parallel to Liz playing a role. Nathan plays his role and we are never quite sure how much of him is acted and I think that's the case for everyone involved in this.
I'll be thinking about this one for a while.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 7:51 am to WITNESS23
quote:
Why do you think he showed them swimming together at the end? I'm not sure what to make of it.
Not much
quote:
I went back and forth on Liz being truthful or not.
I think shes nuts, i think her opinion of her contraption is misleading and it got them into this mess. I think she thinks she's being truthful. I didnt really see her as a con artist too much. More of a cult follower i guess.
quote:
Was she playing a role the whole time?
The whole time no, only when Nathan couldnt video the scene. I thought that was pretty obvious.
quote:
I'll be thinking about this one for a while.
Had the same feeling after i left the theater.
This post was edited on 10/28/26 at 7:52 am
Posted on 10/28/26 at 8:08 am to thermal9221
So I just saw this last night and being a Nathan fielder fan, I could have sat through another 3 hours of this. I do want to play devils advocate for some things I've read in this thread about her being deceitful.
She is seems to be a high IQ, slightly autistic person and if you've ever been around people like that you know they don't see things like normal people. I used to work with a guy like that and he only lived in the black or white. He didn't understand if you said something jokingly or sarcastic. He took every word said as literal. He would be so frustrating to talk to because if you said something that was technically incorrect but in the context it was correct, he would literally argue with you saying what you said is incorrect.
After watching and having experience with a person like that, I'm in the camp that she honestly didn't try to mislead people. I also think that she found Billy that thinks like her and treats her great. she probably never got that sort of attention being how she is and is madly in love with him and doesn't want anything to get between that
She is seems to be a high IQ, slightly autistic person and if you've ever been around people like that you know they don't see things like normal people. I used to work with a guy like that and he only lived in the black or white. He didn't understand if you said something jokingly or sarcastic. He took every word said as literal. He would be so frustrating to talk to because if you said something that was technically incorrect but in the context it was correct, he would literally argue with you saying what you said is incorrect.
After watching and having experience with a person like that, I'm in the camp that she honestly didn't try to mislead people. I also think that she found Billy that thinks like her and treats her great. she probably never got that sort of attention being how she is and is madly in love with him and doesn't want anything to get between that
Posted on 10/28/26 at 8:36 am to thermal9221
quote:
The whole time no, only when Nathan couldnt video the scene. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Right, but I'm wondering if everyone is playing a role to a degree.
For instance I don't think Nathan is the Nathan he portrays in his work and he plays a part. I wonder if Amanda was as well.
Maybe not, just a thought I had because I was questioning everything by the end of it lol
Posted on 10/28/26 at 8:48 am to molsusports
quote:
The fact that he has power of attorney while she is in prison is the part that leaves some doubt.
doesnt leave any doubt for me. he holds all the financial leverage, she holds all the fame-seeking leverage. her signing over power of attorney was the cost of doing business, if you will. she will do whatever it takes to maintain access to his wealth, and he will do whatever it takes to maintain access to fame.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 8:51 am to thermal9221
quote:
The whole time no, only when Nathan couldnt video the scene. I thought that was pretty obvious.
i dont think he meant it as literally as you are taking it. obviously she was playing Elizabeth at times and she was Amanda the rest of the time. he is asking if that was the REAL Amanda, or a meta Amanda playing Amanda thing
Posted on 10/28/26 at 9:17 am to Civildawg
quote:
She is seems to be a high IQ, slightly autistic person and if you've ever been around people like that you know they don't see things like normal people. I used to work with a guy like that and he only lived in the black or white. He didn't understand if you said something jokingly or sarcastic. He took every word said as literal.
This could be the case for sure. But to devils advocate your devil's advocate, the machine literally didn't do what she said it did. It could in theory, not literally.
But I could see the argument that says she is saying it can, not it does.
Who's on first
Posted on 10/28/26 at 9:56 am to Civildawg
quote:
After watching and having experience with a person like that, I'm in the camp that she honestly didn't try to mislead people
That's what I would have come away with if it weren't for knowing things about the Theranos scandal that weren't in the movie.
An autistic defense with literal word choices being the problem doesn't cause the person to do things like directly lie about machine capabilities.
They had exceptionally aggressive nondisclosure legal paperwork that they used punitively to prevent their employees from going rogue and disclosing the fraud.
Tyler Shultz has a number of extended interviews from his position as an insider who became a whistle blower. Even coming from a famous, wealthy, and powerful family did not save him from exceptional pressure. There were many other people who were crushed by Elizabeth and Sunni.
If people have not watched the earlier interviews with Tyler or read Bad Blood I totally get why her implausible explanations seem plausible. Tyler described many a time when she could take you g scientists who understood the technology better than she did and turn them into advocates for months at a time. Until the technology failed over and over.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 10:08 am to WITNESS23
quote:
But I could see the argument that says she is saying it can, not it does.
yes, there is a certain logic behind saying it could theoretically do the things they claimed, just couldnt actually in practice. i can see that.
BUT
she also entered into hundred+ million dollar deals with Walgreens and Safeway under the pretext that the technology was ready for roll-out in stores time-now. that is evidence that she indeed was misrepresenting the capability intentionally. you dont make hundred million dollar deals with vendors on a product that theoretically works but doesnt ACTUALLY work.
she was misleading vendors and investors in order to get money in the hopes that they could use that exact money to get the technology working correctly in time. it was almost like a ponzi scheme in that regard.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 10:44 am to molsusports
quote:
They had exceptionally aggressive nondisclosure legal paperwork that they used punitively to prevent their employees from going rogue and disclosing the fraud.
Tyler Shultz has a number of extended interviews from his position as an insider who became a whistle blower. Even coming from a famous, wealthy, and powerful family did not save him from exceptional pressure. There were many other people who were crushed by Elizabeth and Sunni.
Exactly. He had the data, but instead of refuting the data, all they did was threaten him. Sadly, his own grandfather wouldn't back him. But the good part of the story is that his parents backed him up the whole way. But yeah, she is not innocent in any way. For me, the odd choices for the board of directors showed her lack of pure intent regarding the technology. It was all about getting past the regulators and making money.
quote:
If people have not watched the earlier interviews with Tyler or read Bad Blood I totally get why her implausible explanations seem plausible. Tyler described many a time when she could take you g scientists who understood the technology better than she did and turn them into advocates for months at a time. Until the technology failed over and over.
Yeah I just don't get this. I knew a guy who was a VP-of-engineering level guy who interviewed with Theranos and Elizabeth before the controversy started. He said that she immediately creeped him out (not an exact quote), and that he didn't believe what she was saying about the technology. This is a very straightforward, no-nonsense kind of guy and he saw right through her. I guess there are a lot of people who just "want to believe," especially if they think it will lead to immense wealth for all involved.
I also found out that someone I knew had been a lawyer at Theranos. His specialty was IP, so I know what part of the business he was involved in. Another friend had lunch with the lawyer and said that he didn't want to talk much about Theranos, and was extremely careful about anything he said. Now that Theranos is long gone, I think we all need to get together for lunch...
Posted on 10/28/26 at 11:55 am to thermal9221
quote:
I think shes nuts, i think her opinion of her contraption is misleading and it got them into this mess. I think she thinks she's being truthful. I didnt really see her as a con artist too much. More of a cult follower i guess.
If you look at any info beyond this movie you would realize that she is in fact a master con artist. So masterful that the audience (you) has a hard time realizing they are being conned.
quote:
The whole time no, only when Nathan couldnt video the scene. I thought that was pretty obvious.
I think every second AS was on the screen was somewhat scripted. Maybe not word for word but they knew what questions she was supposed to ask in each scene. The only scenes that may have been legit unscripted were when they visited Billy and the kids. Everything else was planned. Keep in mind that Nathan does the real but not real thing for a living.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 11:58 am to WITNESS23
quote:
This could be the case for sure. But to devils advocate your devil's advocate, the machine literally didn't do what she said it did. It could in theory, not literally.
But I could see the argument that says she is saying it can, not it does.
Who's on first
That may be true in the realm of that scene in the movie but she definitely said it DOES so many times and to very important people and to large audiences before being caught.
I don't think Walgreens would parter with her and let her actual test blood from their stores if she didn't exclaim that her invention works as intended.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:01 pm to Sam Quint
quote:
doesnt leave any doubt for me. he holds all the financial leverage, she holds all the fame-seeking leverage. her signing over power of attorney was the cost of doing business, if you will. she will do whatever it takes to maintain access to his wealth, and he will do whatever it takes to maintain access to fame.
While that may be the deal I do actually believe they love each other. They are both autistic narcissists and are super co-dependent on one another. One can't exist in the light they view themselves in without the other.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:06 pm to TouchedTheAxeIn82
quote:
eah I just don't get this. I knew a guy who was a VP-of-engineering level guy who interviewed with Theranos and Elizabeth before the controversy started. He said that she immediately creeped him out (not an exact quote), and that he didn't believe what she was saying about the technology. This is a very straightforward, no-nonsense kind of guy and he saw right through her. I guess there are a lot of people who just "want to believe," especially if they think it will lead to immense wealth for all involved.
I hate to be political because I think both sides have their faults but I think she preyed on the woke mind hive. They WANTED/NEEDED a woman to be the next Steve Jobs so they believed her BS because it affirmed their righteous beliefs.
This post was edited on 10/28/26 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:21 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I think every second AS was on the screen was somewhat scripted. Maybe not word for word but they knew what questions she was supposed to ask in each scene. The only scenes that may have been legit unscripted were when they visited Billy and the kids. Everything else was planned. Keep in mind that Nathan does the real but not real thing for a living.
That's what I'm thinking as well
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:31 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I hate to be political because I think both sides have their faults but I think she preyed on the woke mind hive. They WANTED/NEEDED a woman to be the next Steve Jobs
There was some of that. And at the early stages of the scandal the Holmes team did lean hard into the defense that she was only being attacked because she was a successful female billionaire.
But mostly this was a fraud story propelled by media hype and Elizabeth's combination of drive and ruthlessness.
During the trial the Elizabeth team attempted to shift all responsibility for the fraud onto Sunny. It would have been interesting if Nathan had asked what Sunny was guilty of and how he deceived her. My guess is we would have seen tears rather than real answers.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:36 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I hate to be political because I think both sides have their faults but I think she preyed on the woke mind hive. They WANTED/NEEDED a woman to be the next Steve Jobs so they believed her BS because it affirmed their righteous beliefs.
agree completely. also, plenty old conservative white men jumping at the chance to prove how open minded and progressive they were
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:54 pm to WITNESS23
quote:
Why do you think he showed them swimming together at the end? I'm not sure what to make of it.
I think the purpose of that scene was to show that Elizabeth "had" Nathan from the beginning.
Now, I don't think she really did. Nathan Fielder was the smarter person in that dynamic. He allowed himself to be conned to show the audience how the con works. I think his character throughout the movie was just that- a character. The movie wasn't about whether or not she intentionally deceived investors.
(She absolutely did. The machine she shows off in the movie is not the same machine she showed investors. She put drug company logos on letterhead to investors without permission to give the appearance of approval and could not explain why she did. She claimed to not care about money like some autistic savant but flew in private jets, had $100,000 purses, hung out with VIPs. It was all a con.)
I think the point of the movie was that the con never stops. That's who she really is. And she's really good at it. And even if you know she's a con artist in advance, you can still fall for it because she's so committed. (Nathan's character)
Posted on 10/28/26 at 12:59 pm to thenza
quote:
It was all a con.)
I think the point of the movie was that the con never stops. That's who she really is. And she's really good at it. And even if you know she's a con artist in advance, you can still fall for it because she's so committed. (Nathan's character)
i MOSTLY agree with you, except that I do think she really believed that they would get the technology working (even if believing so was delusional).
put another way, i dont think she deliberately set out from the beginning with a device that didnt work, she knew didnt work, she knew it would never work, and she didnt care if it never worked with the sole purpose of scamming people out of money.
Posted on 10/28/26 at 1:09 pm to thenza
I appreciate that take on it. Good points.
The thing I can't get past, though, is the egg scrambling scene. It's such a small thing, but it's a look into the way she defers to Billy. If the two of them manufactured that to make her appear deferential to men, then, WOW.
The thing I can't get past, though, is the egg scrambling scene. It's such a small thing, but it's a look into the way she defers to Billy. If the two of them manufactured that to make her appear deferential to men, then, WOW.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News