History Literature / BrewstersMillions

19th May '17 2:25:57 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


''Brewster's Millions'' is a novel written by George Barr [=McCutcheon=] in 1902, although it's arguably more well known for various adaptations that have been made since. The basic story revolves around Monty Brewster, an impoverished young man who inherits a substantial amount of money from a long-lost relative and also stands to further inherit a huge additional amount. (The total sum varies by time period; to fit the title, it's always in the millions. In the 1985 film, the original inheritance is $30 million and the full inheritance is $300 million.) But the inheritance [[OnOneCondition has a catch]]: Monty must ''waste'' the entire first amount in a limited period of time. He must end the challenge with no tangible assets whatsoever--and keep the arrangement a secret from everyone else. Monty wins the full inheritance if he pulls it off, but if he breaks any of the rules or fails to spend the first amount in full, he gets nothing.

to:

''Brewster's Millions'' is a novel written by George Barr [=McCutcheon=] in 1902, although it's arguably more well known for various adaptations that have been made since. The basic story revolves around Monty Brewster, an impoverished young man who inherits a substantial amount of money from a long-lost relative and also stands to further inherit a huge additional amount. (The total sum varies by time period; to fit the title, it's always in the millions.millions or more. In the 1985 film, the original inheritance is $30 million and the full inheritance is $300 million.) But the inheritance [[OnOneCondition has a catch]]: Monty must ''waste'' the entire first amount in a limited period of time. He must end the challenge with no tangible assets whatsoever--and keep the arrangement a secret from everyone else. Monty wins the full inheritance if he pulls it off, but if he breaks any of the rules or fails to spend the first amount in full, he gets nothing.
3rd Apr '17 6:21:08 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The novel has been adapted for the screen nine times: the most famous film version remains the 1985 film starring Creator/RichardPryor and Creator/JohnCandy; the story had been adapted before in 1921, 1926 (with the protagonist changed to a woman), 1935, 1945, and 1961; a Hindi version produced in 1988 is a shot-by-shot remake of the 1985 film; a Tamil version was produced in 1997; a play based on the story was created in 1906; and the novel's plot also formed the basis of an episode of ''[[PunkyBrewster It's Punky Brewster]]''.

to:

The novel has been adapted for the screen nine times: the most famous film version remains the 1985 film starring Creator/RichardPryor and Creator/JohnCandy; the story had been adapted before in 1921, 1926 (with the protagonist changed to a woman), 1935, 1945, and 1961; a Hindi version produced in 1988 is a shot-by-shot remake of the 1985 film; a Tamil version was produced in 1997; a play based on the story was created in 1906; and the novel's plot also formed the basis of an episode of ''[[PunkyBrewster ''[[Series/PunkyBrewster It's Punky Brewster]]''.



* AnimatedAdaptation: Although no direct adaptations of the story itself have been made, the ''[[PunkyBrewster It's Punky Brewster]]'' episode "Punky's Millions" essentially takes the basic plot of this story and runs with it (with a few alterations, such as the cash amount becoming a game-show prize rather than an inheritance).

to:

* AnimatedAdaptation: Although no direct adaptations of the story itself have been made, the ''[[PunkyBrewster ''[[Series/PunkyBrewster It's Punky Brewster]]'' episode "Punky's Millions" essentially takes the basic plot of this story and runs with it (with a few alterations, such as the cash amount becoming a game-show prize rather than an inheritance).
27th Jan '17 2:35:02 PM Taskmaster123
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** One of the things that would have really screwed him over had he not caught on to it right away was revealed when he went to the bank to deposit the thirty million. The bank manager cheerfully tells him that the amount of the deposit means that Brewster qualifies for a "special interest rate" on his account. In other words, he would have been ''earning'' money just by depositing it in the bank. Brewster quickly turns down the interest and insists that ''he'' should be paying the bank for the privilege of depositing his money with them.
1st Oct '16 6:08:19 AM luiz4200
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ThirteenIsUnlucky: In the 2016 film "[=Tô Ryca!=]", Brewster's counterpart tries to lose $ 100,000 on the roulette by placing that money on 13. [[GenderFlip She]] wins.
24th Sep '16 2:47:44 PM luiz4200
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is one of the aspects where the 2016 film [="Tô Ryca!=] is similar to the Pryor version.

to:

** This is one of the aspects where the 2016 film [="Tô Ryca!=] Ryca!"=] is similar to the Pryor version.
24th Sep '16 2:36:42 PM luiz4200
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AdaptationalVillainy: In the original book, nobody tries to cheat Brewster out of the titular millions. In the 1985 film, the lawyers in charge of executing the will try to make Brewster lose the challenge so they can collect a fee for distributing the full inheritance to the charities chosen by Brewster's benefactor as alternative beneficiaries.

to:

** In the 2016 film, Montgomery Brewster is a woman named Selminha Oleria Silva.
* AdaptationalVillainy: In the original book, nobody tries to cheat Brewster out of the titular millions. In the 1985 film, the lawyers in charge of executing the will try to make Brewster lose the challenge so they can collect a fee for distributing the full inheritance to the charities chosen by Brewster's benefactor as alternative beneficiaries. In the 2016 film, they do worse by [[spoiler:embezzling part of the money that's supposed to be donated to charity and holding Brewster's counterpart accountable for the missing money. Fortunately, the accomplices in the latter film have a change of heart and donate it on time]].


Added DiffLines:

* FunWithAcronyms: Montgomery Brewster becomes a woman named '''S'''elminha '''O'''leria '''S'''ilva in the 2016 film.


Added DiffLines:

** This is one of the aspects where the 2016 film [="Tô Ryca!=] is similar to the Pryor version.
13th Sep '16 11:36:29 AM DustSnitch
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* CasualSportsJersey: [[ExaggeratedTrope Exaggerated]]. When Monty is due to meet with the lawyers that control his deceased relative's inheritance in their boardroom, he wears his jersey and his cap.
22nd Aug '16 6:08:16 AM falcon2484
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* TheCameo: In the 1985 film, Creator/RickMoranis puts in a brief appearance as "Morty King, King of the Mimics."
12th Aug '16 1:00:49 PM Taskmaster123
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ArtisticLicenseLaw: This is particularly evident in the Richard Pryor film adaptation. When the time is just about up, and Brewster is about to lose all the money because the lawyers of the firm conspired to manipulate events just so that would happen, there's a tense scene where a paralegal has to write him a receipt for all the money he has left as services rendered. There's only seconds left, and she completes the receipt a split-second before the clock runs out, handing it to the executor of the will, who says all the conditions have been satisfied and the money is now Brewster's. ''Then'' he tells the crooked lawyers that he feels that there has been a crime committed by them (Conspiracy to Defraud) and he will have to order a full investigation. The crooked lawyers have collective OhCrap expressions on their faces. The problem is, considering the circumstances there was absolutely no need for the receipt to be written and handed to the executor before time ran out. A crime ''has'' been committed, and as soon as the executor realized that he would have been perfectly within his rights to declare Brewster the victor regardless of whether time ran out or not, ''or'' he could have suspended the entire process until such time as the investigation was complete. As executor, it's his responsibility to make certain all the conditions of the will are met fairly, and if he feels that anything suspicious is happening he can call time out on the entire process.

to:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: This is particularly evident in the Richard Pryor film adaptation. When the time is just about up, and Brewster is about to lose all the money because the lawyers of the firm conspired to manipulate events just so that would happen, there's a tense scene where a paralegal has to write him a receipt for all the money he has left as services rendered. There's only seconds left, and she completes the receipt a split-second before the clock runs out, handing it to the executor of attorney (Pat Hingle) who's been brought in to oversee the will, who process and make certain everything goes according to the will. This attorney says all the conditions have been satisfied and the money is now Brewster's. ''Then'' he tells the crooked lawyers that he feels that there has been a crime committed by them (Conspiracy to Defraud) and he will have to order a full investigation. The crooked lawyers have collective OhCrap expressions on their faces. The problem is, considering the circumstances there was absolutely no need for the receipt to be written and handed to the executor him before time ran out. A crime ''has'' been committed, and as soon as the executor attorney (who was clearly sympathetic to Brewster throughout the film) realized that he would have been perfectly within his rights to declare Brewster the victor regardless of whether time ran out or not, ''or'' he could have suspended the entire process everything until such time as the investigation was complete. As executor, He was brought in to oversee the entire process, it's his responsibility to make certain all the conditions of the will are met fairly, and if he feels that anything suspicious is happening he can call time out on the entire process.anytime he likes.
12th Aug '16 12:53:01 PM Taskmaster123
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: This is particularly evident in the Richard Pryor film adaptation. When the time is just about up, and Brewster is about to lose all the money because the lawyers of the firm conspired to manipulate events just so that would happen, there's a tense scene where a paralegal has to write him a receipt for all the money he has left as services rendered. There's only seconds left, and she completes the receipt a split-second before the clock runs out, handing it to the executor of the will, who says all the conditions have been satisfied and the money is now Brewster's. ''Then'' he tells the crooked lawyers that he feels that there has been a crime committed by them (Conspiracy to Defraud) and he will have to order a full investigation. The crooked lawyers have collective OhCrap expressions on their faces. The problem is, considering the circumstances there was absolutely no need for the receipt to be written and handed to the executor before time ran out. A crime ''has'' been committed, and as soon as the executor realized that he would have been perfectly within his rights to declare Brewster the victor regardless of whether time ran out or not, ''or'' he could have suspended the entire process until such time as the investigation was complete. As executor, it's his responsibility to make certain all the conditions of the will are met fairly, and if he feels that anything suspicious is happening he can call time out on the entire process.
This list shows the last 10 events of 64. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Literature.BrewstersMillions