Talk:Margin Call

Plot holes
As far as I read the hole digging scene, it was his ex-wife's front yard. That's why she locked the door after leaving him to finish burying the dog. Changing it until someone else has a better suggestion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Robertson, Cohen, and Tuld were aware of the risks". I don't get it, why did they decide to take action now? Because of the USB ? Preroll (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Because enough people now know about it that rumours are bound to leak out, and they can no longer risk saying "hmm" and enjoy the illusory profits rolling in on their worthless holdings.Paulturtle (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Loosely based on what?
Goldman Sachs or Lehman Brothers? It seemed to me that this was based on the issue of packaging mortgage based securities, something most of the big investment firms were doing and that it was based around an early mover who got out without losing too big. Of course that's just conjecture but has anyone who worked on the film given us a source to say it was Lehman Brothers?--Senor Freebie (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point it is all conjecture. The CEO "John Tuld" is a reference to Lehman CEO Dick Fuld, while Sarah Robertson probably is based on Erin Callan, Lehman's CFO who was forced out as a sacrificial lamb. But at the end the firm looks like it will survive and even prosper after the crisis hits, so in that sense it looks more like Goldman or one of the other survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.213.160 (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article as currently written makes it seem as though it's fact that the firm is based on Goldman. Seems more like conjecture, in which case the article should reflect uncertainty about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.johndrow (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In a former version of the script dated 13 July 2009 (found here) the fictious bank is called "GOLDSTONE STERNS INVESTMENT BANK" (first time on page 2) which seems to allude to Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns. In a later version of the script from July 2010 (available on IMSDB) and in the film itself the bank does not have a name, probably to avoid legal issues. In his comment on the DVD JC Chandor mentions how careful they had to be with the logo of the fictious bank that was used in the film. JoMark (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Budget figure
User  keeps deleting the budget from the The Hollywood Reporter ($3.5 million) because it's an "approximation" but instead adds budget figures from IMDb, Click Online, Variagate.com, ($3,395,000) which of course not not reliable sources. They also added The Numbers budget figure ($3.4 million), but I believe the THR figure trumps all the above sites. They disagree and will not allow a reliable source to be added for the budget. — Mike  Allen   20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User said, that More than 90 % of sites on the Internet give figure $ 3,395,000, and only 1 site - The Hollywood Reporter gives  $3.5 million. Following the sensible logic it is necessary to trust in 90 percent, than a site which gives only approximation !!


 * If there is no other reliable source saying $3,395,000, then go with the Hollywood Reporter. That includes making sure sites are not quoting IMDB, which is user submitted information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)

I think it will be better to white consensus figure $3,4- $3,5 million Segodno


 * We don't create a consensus to use an unreliable figure simply because you want to use it. If there is no reliable source citing it, then we're not going to use it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I;ve never heard of most of those sites so I can't judge them but IMDb is less reliable than a school newspaper and should not be cited at all for anything meaningful Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't refer to IMDB.com   Segodno


 * Further Box Office Mojo just updated their site to match the $3.5 million budget. I think we can now agree to leave it as $3.5 million. — Mike  Allen   02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all the Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source. Secondly, since producers don't release budget accounts to the general public, then we have to accept that they are only reporting estimates, so naturally there can be discrepencies between reliable sources.  The NY Times] also reports a $3.5 million figure too, so the 3.5 figure should definitely be included.  There is evidence for the 3.4 figure though: the Wall Street Journal (a highly reputable source) puts the budget at $3.4 million; the LA Times on the otherhand quotes both figures in different stories, both in the last month: $3.4 million and $3.5 million.  In view of that, and since there isn't strong reason to view one as correct and the other as wrong, I recommend a $3.4–3.5 million budget range. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks Betty. — Mike  Allen   07:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * that is what I was Talking about !!! what was the purpose to argue ?? Segodno
 * Because you were not talking about including reliable sources. — Mike  Allen   18:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Film's timespan
In the revision as of 21:37, 26 November 2011 someone changed the film's timespan from 24 to 36 hours citing this source. In the script (a version from 2009 and a version from July 2010) the story obviously starts around 4 p.m. and ends 24 hours later. Only the very last scene is set at 11 p.m. In the film it is the same. Assuming that the last scene in the film is at 11. p.m. 36 hours would imply a beginning at 11 a.m. and there is absolutely nothing in the beginning of the film to suggest that the film is deviating from the script and beginning before lunch.

I suggest going back to 24 hours in the text because that's when the real story unfolds, from first job cut to the next.

My guess is that the 36 hours cited are a typo in the source. In the interview on the DVD JC Chandor speaks of 25 to 26 hours, so the last number could have turned to 36 in the article. JoMark (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the DVD interview, J. C. Chandor says: "Over a twenty-seven or 28 hour period, we watch [one piece of information from an individual very low down on a power structure] travel through eight or nine people up the chain of command and ... what that one piece of information does to each of their lives." It's not clear at what time the final scene—involving Sam and his ex-wife—takes place other than that it's at night. (The more recent of the two scripts referred to does state "11:00 PM", but it's the film's final cut that matters.) The source cited to support the 36-hours time span in fact states that the action takes place "within a 36-hour period of [Chandor's] characters' lives." It doesn't say that the time span is 36 hours.


 * By contrast, it's clear from the film itself that the principal action takes place over a period of not much over 24 hours. It's worth noting also that the final scene is, according to Chandor's DVD commentary, "clearly an epilogue". Moreover, the whole point of mentioning the story's time span in the article is presumably to reflect the film's tracking of the rapidity of the financial crisis-related events.


 * Presently, the article states: "The story takes place over a 36-hour period". I'll therefore amend it according to what's known and what's important; that is, that the principal story takes place over 24 hours. Pololei (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Employer vs. Employee
The article references 2 conversations that Eric Dale has when he is fired from the firm. The first is in his exit interview with representatives from human resources. They represent Dale's former employer. The second is with Peter when Dale is being escorted out. Peter used to work for Dale in risk management and would be Dale's former employee. The article currently incorrectly states that Dale's first conversation is with a former employee.CFredkin (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my recollection... Although, if you've just watched it, you're probably right. Been a while since I've seen it. Tiller54 (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Significance
Could someone explain why the CEO (played by Irons) gave a check to Roger (Spacey) who refused to accept. What the latter should have done and didn't? 79.3.15.227 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Presumably to get him to shut up, stay on board and co-operate wholeheartedly with the plan to dump the bank's holdings of toxic credit derivatives. Hence, straight afterwards, the little scene in the car park when Simon Baker asks Bettany if he will "step up to the plate" if Spacey doesn't - had he said yes, Spacey's "resignation" would presumably have been announced straightaway. But Bettany sees straight through his game, so that's that, presumably because he and Spacey go back a long way together and in corporate politics, as in other kinds, you have to know who to trust.Paulturtle (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Margin Call (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100223071756/http://detroitfilmcritics.com:80/Home_Page.html to http://detroitfilmcritics.com/Home_Page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margin Call (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406211928/http://www.vindianz.com/entertainment/spacey-moore-and-3d-in-focus-at-berlin-film-fest-afp-203000.html to http://www.vindianz.com/entertainment/spacey-moore-and-3d-in-focus-at-berlin-film-fest-afp-203000.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160123084200/http://aacta.org/media/174991/all%20inaugural%20samsung%20aacta%20awards%20winners%20and%20nominees.pdf to http://aacta.org/media/174991/all%20inaugural%20samsung%20aacta%20awards%20winners%20and%20nominees.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Spacey Role
The exact job description of Kevin Spacey's character is, I think, never specified.

The article said he was "Head of Sales", which I think is nonsense - and why would the head of a trading desk (Bettaney/Emerson) report to him if that is his role? At one point Jeremy Irons says to him that they both come from a sales background, which is a slightly different thing. We know that he is in his fifties (has been at the bank for thirty-odd years) and that he and Irons/Tuld "go back a long way".

I rather get the impression he might be head of the trading floor (maybe covering FX, rates, commodities and credit) - at some point in the film we are told that there is another trading floor in New York besides "his" (the other would presumably be for cash equities, which are kept segregated because of the dangers of insider dealing) as well as other floors around the globe. Or he might be Global Head of Credit Trading (or Structured Products Trading, or whatever), with other credit trading units around the globe reporting to him.

But I don't think we are told.Paulturtle (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Eric Dale's numerosity
The movie is currently free with ads on Youtube, by the way.

I dunno if Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci's character)'s way with numbers could be mentioned; it's a funny thing. In one scene he muses out a number of calculations of the cumulative hours of travel time, then years, then human lifetime equivalents saved by the construction of a Ohio River bridge that he designed as an engineer in 1976, "22 years ago". In another, when sitting down with Demi Moore's character, for them both to be isolated from outside contact for the trading day, he wryly mentions he would either be hassled over his separation terms for years, or he could sit there and earn $176,471 per hour that day.

But I have a question about what he calculates there. If they were sitting down at 6:30 am, the time that he was to be brought back to the offices and also the regular time of the sales meeting to be led by Sam (which is the next scene), and if the trading day was until 4:00pm as it is today for the New York Stock Exchange, that would be 9.5 hours x 176,471/hr = $1,676,474.50. But 8.5 hours would make more sense, as 8.5 x $176,471 is a round $1,500,000. His being paid from 7:30 to 4:00 doesn't make sense. Was it not the New York Stock exchange, open 930-4pm nowadays, or were the NYSE hours different? The New York Mercantile Exchange hours nowadays are 8:20 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Is/was there a mortgage-backed securities trading exchange that closed at 3:00?

Anyhow his numerosity(?) is a funny schtick. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)