re: You can see everything

quote:

---

100% agree. She had a device that she truly believed in but she needed more funding to make it work. So she faked a test here and there to get to the next stage fully believing that eventually the device would work as intended and all would be well. The issue is that she kept growing and it kept failing. At some point she had to realize the device was FAR from being the working product she promised and that she would have to fake it for the long haul. Thats the fraud. Her choices were to admit it didn't work and funding slows and progress slows OR lie and try to chase her tail. She chose to lie.

I think a lot of tech start ups use this same plan to continue to get funding. the issue is that when Uber isn't working like they claim it should someone is just late to their function. When her product didn't work, people were put in danger

---

It would have been interesting if Nathan had used the term vaporware as part of the questioning of development and motives.

Vaporware refers to software that never materialized after heavy hype and investment.

Some of the apologists for Holmes would blame Sunny claiming he came from the Silicon Valley mindset where exceptional claims and hype were part of the business strategy to get rich quick.

I think Nathan was focused less on the nuts and bolts of proving fraud than diving into the mentality of Elizabeth and her husband. I think it does work out to be a fascinating study of deception. They are still playing the game as if no fraud existed and undoubtedly they hoped the documentary would convince people in the public that they were innocent of wrongdoing.

Should he have cut more in the first half and included a 5-10 minute rebuttal by Tyler Shultz? Yes. There will be people who don't know how viscous Elizabeth and Sunny were to the honest employees who tried to blow the whistle on their wrongdoing. There will be people who think Elizabeth is the victim rather than the villain.

quote:

---

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.

---

But, that's exactly what happened.

Furthermore, I don't think all these white, conservative men wanted to show how progressive and woke they were by supporting a woman. They just wanted to get in her pants. Alas, it is still undefeated.

quote:

---

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.

---

While I think she’s guilty of fraud, I have no sympathy for Walgreens. The fact that they obviously did little, if any, due diligence should have resulted in the immediate dismissal of their business development team.

I think you should watch the Dropout first. You can at least get a full idea of what they are arguing against and the existence of that show is a central part of the movie.

quote:

---

So masterful that the audience (you) has a hard time realizing they are being conned.

---

Lol I think i was conned.

What I learned about Elizabeth Holmes and her husband from watching this movie is that they’re both complete lunatics.

Just got back from the theater, a lot to process. I incidentally grabbed "Bad Blood" years back at the airport and read the book in a day, well worth the read. The HBO documentary is also excellent.

The documentary is unbelievable and turned out to have a lot more layers than I anticipated. While she's clearly intelligent, I find her manipulative act and "brand" she's worn since Theranos to be far, far more transparent than she believes.

I thought the most interesting take on the documentary was the dynamics of her relationship with Billy. The parallels between Billy and Batwani's abuse and manipulation always felt like a conduit for her to maintain her innocence, even though she always knew the inner workings of their schemes.

I found myself sad during the reanactment of her meeting at the prison discussing love and "how could anyone truly in love treat some like that?" remark felt like a part of her soul deep down knew her love for Billy really doesn't transcend past vanity. He's handsome and wealthy. After that he has just about zero attributes of a human being, and a part of her understands that. What she was alluding to whether she actually knew it or not was disclosing her own personal relationship with Billy and mirroring herself.

If there was any true positive light shined on Holmes. it's that she sincerely seems to love her children and truly cares about them.

Oppenheim's filming is unbelievable, and Fielder is on point as usual.

I disagree with some of the comments being critical of the guest star's thoughts on Billy. though it isn't her job to truly interject and break them up, I find it genuine to want anyone in an abusive and controlling relationship to experience true love-especially someone who has been in abusive relationships since she was 19.


It is a must see.

quote:

---

I disagree with some of the comments being critical of the guest star's thoughts on Billy. though it isn't her job to truly interject and break them up, I find it genuine to want anyone in an abusive and controlling relationship to experience true love-especially someone who has been in abusive relationships since she was 19.

---

People also have to keep in mind that its her gut reaction after watching the first half of the film. Its not like it was a well thought out opinion. She had the same gut reaction we all did. "This guy sucks."

I didn't care for AS's opinion that her show was make believe so Holmes shouldn't be mad at her about her portrayal. Her show was meant to tell the story of what happened and she studied Holmes to make the portrayal as accurate as she could.