MovieChat Forums > Wall Street (1987) Discussion > Do you have to be in finance to get this...

Do you have to be in finance to get this film?

posted 9 years ago by smacktalker62
11 replies | jump to latest

Up until this point there hasn't been an Oliver Stone film that I didn't like. But I'm watching this for the first time, and I really WANT to like it, but my mind keeps slipping away, and for all my trying I can't take all the talking and chest beating seriously. They may as well be toddlers fighting in a sand pit, for all I could care.

Does anyone else get this reaction? Are you all CFO's and investment bankers? Gah, I feel like something is wrong with me.

https://vcrious.wordpress.com/

[–] charli3 9 years ago

I guess so. Put credit, call credit spreads, naked shorting, protective/covered call, diagonal calenders, iron condors, put fly, call fly, back ratio, itm, otm, short gut, long gut etc. Do you know what any of these mean?

[–] smacktalker62 9 years ago

Nope. Maybe something to do with bananas? I've got nothing.

[–] smacktalker62 9 years ago

But I'm not sure if it's even that. I think I have a fundamental disconnect with the whole concept of such large quantities of value being traded, it just doesn't inspire the urgent reaction in me that was clearly Mr. Stone's imperative. That said, I'm pretty sure I followed what was going on in other finance films like Rogue Trader and Boiler Room, but not Margin Call which I guess is probably the closest to WS in terms of literally all the drama focusing on business.

[–] charli3 9 years ago

Ah Rogue Trader. I still haven't made it all the way through that one. It's good you know about the Margin Calls, Boiler Rooms. Vin Diesel selling penny stocks to a doctor over the phone and quoting Gordon Gekko in front of the TV you have to see to believe..

[–] smacktalker62 9 years ago

Yep, Boiler Room's a great film. Anyway, I may have just been sleep deprived because I'm trying to watch Wall Street again now, and grasping it a lot better, although there are definitely moments where an understanding of the sector would come in handy.

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 9 years ago

I couldn't get all the financial stuff to save my life. But it boils down to this: Gekko was a sociopathic a'hole that cares only about himself, Bud Fox young and impressionable, and his father, a good guy: honest, hardworking, and union steward of his job.

[–] eddysl12 9 years ago

You sound like a young guy, it helps a lot if a person was in their twenties when this movie came out.

The 80's were shocking because in the 60's and 70's rich people did not show off, that was considered to be uncouth and unpopular. The hippies hated rich people and fashion and anyone who came across as a square.

The 80's were a complete about-face when it came to wealth. U.S. society went from basically hating rich people to practically worshiping them. I think it was because the boomers were in their 30's and they were determined not to miss the gravy train of wealth.

There was a song made about this by Huey Newton and the News called, " It's hip to be square ".

To be honest the financial world has become so complex that even people in the field with PH D's don't fully understand all of it either.

[–] charli3 9 years ago

There was a song made about this by Huey Newton and the News called, " It's hip to be square ".


Lewis.

To be honest the financial world has become so complex that even people in the field with PH D's don't fully understand all of it either.

Most Harvard MBAs don't add up to dogsh!t!

[–] eddysl12 9 years ago

Yea, it was late at night when I typed that and it's been quite a while since I have listened to that group.

Another factor involving the switch was that when guys get into their 30's, all that long hair doesn't look so good anymore.

It's also quite hard to keep playing the role of the adolescent social rebel after you have turned 30.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

I know the meaning of enough of the terms to not get completely flummoxed by the film, but I don't understand them deeply enough to really follow the implications of most of the key conversations.

To be honest, there were too many other aspects of the film that left me floundering far more. For instance, I found both Bud and Darien horrible, horrible people, though maybe they were easier to see as cautionary figures back in the 80s mindset. So I tend to struggle with story and character concerns, and the financial issues generally rush past me.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.