MovieChat Forums > The Founder (2017) Discussion > Was Kroc really that bad??

Was Kroc really that bad??

posted 8 years ago by Geek_XX
20 replies | jump to latest

I remember reading and watching docs on the birth of McDonalds, and to be honest, I was so sure that it was Ray Kroc that started it all, and not the brothers in California that originated it.

Watching this film, and I'm sure some of it is fabricated, but this film makes Kroc look like somebody most people would never respect or like. It's very similar to how Zuckerberg was portrayed for stealing Facebook from the twins.

What does everyone think of this?

I felt bad for the brothers and honestly wished that if the royalty deal was true, they should have gotten it in writing. Even shaking hands in front of witnesses would never hold up in court.

I haven't had Mickey D's in a while, but if I did, I probably would think twice about walking into the golden arches after watching a film that depicts a man who would stoop that low to rob 2 honest workers of their rights.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

To be honest I saw a different perspective. Coming into the film I'd heard that Keaton portrayed Ray as some "monster" capitalist. But the movie does offer explanations for Ray's changes/adoptions of various behaviour types. Yes, you can't help feeling bad for the brothers, but Ray (according to the movie (and generally history) did all the heavy lifting in regards to the franchise expansion. If the brothers had consented to a renegotiated contract earlier (as seen in the movie), corporate blood may not have been shed and both Ray and the brothers may well have walked away happier and wealthier. One more point. Ray is certainly portrayed as a flawed, somewhat devious, uncontrollably ambitious character. Amazing in real life to find out that he and his wife ended up giving a way a great deal of their fortune. Like he admits in the movie, he wants to be a big time winning player in the business wars and was not afraid to use underhand , unethical tactics where he saw fit. But was he actually a BAD character? I'm not so sure . 🐭

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

If the brothers had consented to a renegotiated contract earlier (as seen in the movie), corporate blood may not have been shed and both Ray and the brothers may well have walked away happier and wealthier.

... yes. Their stinginess (especially on Dick's part) does not excuse Ray's ruthlessness later on, but greater generosity and fairness on the brothers' part much earlier might have changed the outcome dramatically.

I will raise this point in a thread that I will start ...

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

What I found interesting also in the film was that whilst the brothers were outwardly so big on QA, (in the movie) they were happy to leave all that (and far more) to Ray as he increasingly opened up new franchises and who religiously stuck to the brothers' QA ideals himself. They were happy just to sit back and reap the rewards their contract was providing, even though, as they admit, their earlier franchising agent was a total flop, whilst Ray was bringing them money. If it was you or I, we'd have probably caught up with Ray (like he did with them), showered him with compliments, given him and Ethel a good time, a bonus and a re-negotiated contract ... and all would have been right with the world. Instead they were prepared to use him up, get paid, play very stingy, lord it up and not expect to get burnt at some stage in the future. IMO, the movie suggests they would have been neighbours to die for, but in some serious ways karma caught up with them. 🐭

[–] gcarras 8 years ago

I saw the film mon YouTUbe in previews and such.... What's QA...?

PROFILE PIC:Courtney Thorne-Smith.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

Quality Assurance. It was the hallmark of the McDonald brothers brand and Ray very much took it on board. In the movie they say they did QA checks with the first franchise agent and found the new franchisees paid no respect to its tenements, leading to the first failure of the expansion plan. Ray however, really understood the importance of the QA, very much pushing it himself, whilst the brothers this time are seemingly disinterested, even though the product and processes associated with their name are expanding nation-wide. You're kind of left thinking if they had got a little more involved there, took a bit of the weight off Ray's shoulders, renegotiated his contract as he requested, things may not have ended up so (relatively) poorly for them.🐭

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

We are thinking along the same lines. Indeed, I was going to check back and write that part of the irony regarding Ray is that early on, he is thoroughly devoted to the McDonald brothers' standards and protocols regarding the food and so forth, really looking to enforce the nature of the brand and prevent the individual restaurant deviation that had derailed the brothers' first attempt at a franchise.

Ray was always probably amoral, but the film seems to suggest that he becomes more egotistical and maniacal as the narrative proceeds and he accrues more and more clout. I suppose that the central question (or a central question) is whether his amorality eventually turns into immorality. I am not sure, but the way that he set up his McDonald's right across the street from the McDonalds' original McDonald's in San Bernardino could scarcely be seen as anything except gratuitously cutthroat and even cruel.

By the way, I did feel, while viewing the contractual scene for the first time, that the 1.9 percent of the cut seemed ridiculously low. Ray accepted it then, probably just in his haste to receive the brothers' consent for the franchise expansion, but I was not at all surprised that it came back to become an issue. And, certainly, they should have agreed to renegotiate to the modest five percent or four percent or 3.5 percent figure that Ray was later looking for in order to remain above water in his personal finances.

Again, I will post some more thoughts on this matter within the next couple of days.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

Ray was always probably amoral, but the film seems to suggest that he becomes more egotistical and maniacal as the narrative proceeds and he accrues more and more clout.

Yes, I think the film suggests power begets a greater thirst for power and whether deliberately, or otherwise, the whole episode ends up playing out as a sort of Shakespearean tragedy., with the brothers "cut off at the knees" and with Ray in 1970 hobnobbing with the Reagans.

I'm no expert on these matters, but I suspect as we have discussed earlier, if the film is anything to go by, the brothers were never destined, nor hungry enough (pun intended) to carry out their expansion ideas. (They had no plan.) The film suggests they needed someone like Ray, but one, whose ambitions needed to be well managed and satisfied for him to be a positive asset for them. This of course didn't eventuate and ... voila! We see the brutal nature of corporate warfare laid out in unforgiving detail. 🐭

[–] spacefink (92) 7 years ago

I disagree completely that they had no plan. They did but they decided that the quality couldn't be enforced and that many of the restaurants that would open would not incorporate the menu they had at their original location. As you saw in the movie, they were right. When they opened in Illinois, they were selling Fried Chicken.

It's pretty funny because I wonder what Ray Kroc would think of McDonald's today. In many ways, it's totally transformed into the very thing he would hate. But then again, he was talking about selling powdered milkshake so maybe he wouldn't care...

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 8 years ago

It says at the end that the brothers aimed to walk away with a million dollars.. they would never have made this money without Rays changes so I think although he did take advantage, they benefited from the partnership. What I did find despicable though is the fact that he opened a McDonalds just over the road from their business and forced them to close down.. there is no justifying that!

[–] Mint Berry Crunch (345) 8 years ago

According to the movie, the brothers want to give that location to their long time employees, so if that were true, opening a McDonalds across the street was nothing against the brothers personally.

[–] spacefink (92) 7 years ago

I can lament that they inflicted too much red tape and should have given him 3% early on, BUT I also think that him going around the contract they had was messed up, and that Ray gave them good reason for them to also not trust him. If he was really interested in maintaining their brand, including powdered milkshake on the menu would have been disgusting and flew against everything they were doing. I found this scene exceptionally ironic considering everything McDonalds stands for today in comparison to back then, when it was just getting started. They created a unique idea and even Kroc knew it, but they basically wanted to be like In -N- Out, fast food but still high quality. I think this movie was more about those who have great ambition to create an empire but no talent, and how they leech off of those who have talent and are very earnest in their pursuit of sharing their idea with the world without trying to buy the whole country, or rather, the world. They didn't need to be imperialistic in their pursuit of business, they had a unique vision and that was it. Why do they have to take over the world with 1 idea? Not everyone is interested in that. And fact is, it was way more than a burger stand, it was a vision.

The only thing I would have done differently was be WAY more involved in the expansion and it seemed like the brothers weren't, from the way the movie shows it. I would have wanted to fly to Illinois and see what the hell Kroc was up to and done my own investigation. At that point, you hire a lawyer and get cut throat back.

No one is 100% good or bad. We're all capable of evil, and flatly, what he did to them was pure evil, even if they were stingy. The fact is, he should have paid them the royalties because it was never his idea. They were right to be nervous when he started acting very dodgy about his true intentions. He wasn't going to be transparent, which proved his intentions were to steal their business from the moment he showed up. He only reinforced their beliefs that he was a sketchy dude.

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

I haven't had Mickey D's in a while, but if I did, I probably would think twice about walking into the golden arches after watching a film that depicts a man who would stoop that low to rob 2 honest workers of their rights.

I had not eaten at McDonald's in years (mainly because I do not usually eat fast food or red meat), but for this film, I was going to make it an "experience" and eat at McDonald's afterwards. I was especially going to do so because I had noticed a classic-style McDonald's (as portrayed in the movie) downtown in the city where I live, and it fascinated me, as growing up in the eighties and nineties, I had never seen a McDonald's like that before. It suggested a classic sense of Americana and the types of McDonald's that one would have experienced in the fifties and sixties, and maybe the seventies.

But as matters turned out, I had to eat before the movie, and I did so at this McDonald's (with the golden arches shining in the night), eating a Big Mac with small fries. (It made for a good meal, going down well and proving satisfying.)

After viewing The Founder, I was glad that I had gone to eat at McDonald's before the film rather than afterwards, as the movie may well have killed my appetite and enjoyment.

[–] gcarras (2770) 7 years ago

Very interesting story, joe..thanks a lot!

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

Why is that? Ray Kroc made people rich. The Mcdonalds brothers got $2.7M and his secretary became a millionaire when the company went public.

He stole nothing!

[–] Faridah (1363) 7 years ago

I'd say his character and morals sucked. But, he was a shark as they show on Shark Tank and a what he did was business. Would I trust the guy or want to work with him? No. I'd rather work with someone who had a good character and morals.

[–] gcarras (2770) 7 years ago

Like the two brothers themselves? They didn't even care to franchise their place (much)....though your comments proves a good comment. If someone who did the franchising, or if Kroc himself had done the following, offered the franchising but let the KROCS HAVE part of the deal (something that existed for the first several years until the first, Illinois based, Kroc McD's..)
with Ray franchising but NOT STEALING IT ENTIRELY, then that would be very good character. (Then there's the case of McDonald clown Ronald's rival on TV shows, Bozo, and his "creator" Larry Harmon who was in every way problay worse than Bozo's own true creators..)

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

Ray Kroc did not steal a damn thing.

I also do not believe in the 1% deal. How does that make sense? Their cut when they owned the business was only .5% so sell all your interest and responsibility and get double? After getting $2.7M?

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

If these saintly brothers did not care to franchise why did they have 4 franchised stores before they met Ray Kroc? Why did they hire Kroc at a $20,000 salary to develop new stores?

There is nothing holy about not growing a business and there is nothing unholy about growing a business.

[–] DarTobor (4881) 4 years ago

When I was very, very young, I had a McDonald's poster hanging on my bedroom wall. At the bottom was a little drawing of Ronald McDonald's hand clutching the hand of a small child. The drawing was accompanied by the words:

'Ronald McDonald's Children's Charities

Established in memory of Ray A. Kroc'.

It made me assume that Kroc was a kid who died of cancer and had a charity made in his honor. For some reason, this filled me with a feeling of absolute dread and dysphoria.

[–] Kowalski (75523) 3 years ago

HE WAS PROBABLY A BIT OF A GRUFF ASSHOLE..I DOUBT HE WAS UNLIKABLE THOUGH.