I stopped watching the movie after the scene... - Flash of Genius (2008) Discussion

[–] Zylfeg 16 years ago

He was a man, who I really admire. He stood up to his principals like every man should do. I think that he did something amazing and left a "footprint" to the world, he stood up against capitalism, which we see every day in out lives and won the fight. He really showed that it is possible to win a fight with anyone, when you are honest man all your life. If I were him I'd do exactly like he did, I never wouldn't have taken the money, it would only show that people always care only about the money and do everything to get it, even sell your "soul" (what is good in you and what you're good at).

Beatiful movie...

reply

[–] ndatmo-1 16 years ago

Dear blammy - I could hardly 'bare'(sic) to think of how impatient you must be and how you probably would have missed the point even if you had applied yourself to the story. Fortunately Kearns was much tougher and more resilient. There are plenty of great films about sellouts and cutthroats...this just isn't one of them.

...........Hate is the essence of weakness in the human mind...........

reply

[–] blam_web 16 years ago

oh my god. take it easy guys. a lot of you had to point out that i spelled "bear" wrong. Im polish! Its not even my language. And to answer or is it anwser? lol the question couple of posts above I couldnt BEAR it because i know how much one can buy for that amount of money spacially in the 60s. Its easy for all of you to say you support him on that and say that was his idea bla bla bla but really you would do the opposite in his situation.

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

I'll leave the Polish jokes to someone else because I have too much polish to resort to that. ;-)

As has been pointed out, Bob Kearns' main motivation in suing Ford was to get the carmaker to admit it stole his idea. If he had no problem passing up the money in real life, why should the depiction of this true event on film bother you? I'm more concerned with a film that feels authentic than with the characters' actions, particularly when they're based on a true story.

Would you rather the filmmakers had rewrote history and made Dr. Kearns grab the easy money, with Ford still taking credit for the intermittent windshield wiper?

reply

[–] soupisgoodfood 16 years ago

The problem I have is that we're supposed to assume that nobody else did invent the same invention -- that the big companies did steal the idea. People coming up with same ideas at the same time, independently, actually happens more often than I think many people realise (or perhaps they just prefer a more romantic version of history). Since the movie doesn't take this into consideration, it makes the guy look a bit ego-crazy for not considering that perhaps someone else did come up with the same idea by coincidence. At least that's my perspective.

reply

[–] thirdofsix 16 years ago

That is what the movie was about, the big company did steal the invention. If someone else invented it, the trial would have ended differently and the movie would not have been made.

reply

[–] inhock-1 15 years ago

The story is true - Ford stole the intermittent wiper. My dad kept up with stuff like this, he restored Fords. He told me the story when I was a kid back in the 70s. When I saw the advertisement for the movie my jaw dropped - I already knew the story (up to that point) thanks to him.

My first car was a 73 Mach I with intermittent wipers. Every so often when I used them I wondered about the engineer my dad told me about. Now I know.

reply

[–] jmb1557 15 years ago

You'd have to not be paying attention to the movie to be thinking that someone else could come up with the same idea. The premise is that Ford stole an idea and didn't want to give credit to the rightful inventor. Ford wanted to see how the unit was engineered before signing up to pay for it. The guy isn't ego crazy... just wanted credit for something he owned, which was the idea of intermittent wipers. Your perspective is skewed because you didn't pay attention...

reply

[–] cokoholicar 15 years ago

hahahha, but he was a greedy son of a bit*ch

reply

[–] perhaps1234 15 years ago

He made the case his first priority instead of his family. To me, that isn't a slightest bit of noble.

reply

[–] anikor 15 years ago

So how much do we sell our principles for? $10, $30.000.000?
If I needed the money for an operation for my child I’d sell my soul. Otherwise no way.

reply

[–] Tjcat 15 years ago

I had hoped this movie would be an inspiration to those who try and be "David" fighting "Goliath."
Unfortunately, this movie depressed the hell out of me.

If Bob Kearns' family was truly as cohesive as depicted at the start, it is distressing that principles
were held in more esteem than the preservation of his marriage and welfare of the children.
I cannot begin to imagine what those children suffered when their father essentially abandoned them.

Conversely, an out of court settlement for $300,000 is a paltry sum considering the amount of money
the Ford Motor Corporation had at it's fingertips.
However,money was not at the core of his rage/obsession with the suit against Ford.
Bob refused to accept the out of court consession because Ford would not acknowledge they "stole" his invention.

A metaphor I have used when engaging in a lengthly argument, making a point or engaging in
a disagreement is, "Is this the hill I want to die on?"
Sometimes we have to know when to quit.
Ultimately, he did win almost 30 million: 10 from Ford and 18.7 from Chrysler.

The final insult was the jury did NOT agree that Ford Motor Company "stole" the invention from Bob Kearns.
Was giving up twelve years of his life including his wife, childre, home, job not to mention his sanity really worth it?
Only Bob Kearns and his family can truly answer this question.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Traianus 13 years ago

...when he declined 250 000$ because I just couldn't bare it somehow. And now when I came here I found out that he declined 30 millions later in the movie.

Funny. For me, that was the scene when it started to get really good.

I do appreciate the points you and others bring up, though. The film raises more morally complex questions than what might appear on the surface. It's not just a story of another little guy going up against the big guy out of principle. It's a question of: at what point does the drive for principle conflict with the principle of upholding other responsibilities in one's life, such as family, friendship, etc.

In the end, though, I still felt Mr. Kearns was right all along. Good for him.

I enjoyed it.

reply

[–] dlbach1 13 years ago

You are apparently American and can only see $$$$. The issue for Mr. Kearn was getting credit for what he did. I remember the first time I saw another person's name on my work that I had not authorized. I saw red and demanded retribution.

reply