5 ms·
My takeaway from this is that the movie made reasonable changes to provide a compelling narrative while retaining the fact and spirit of the most important bits
by wrsh07 9y ago
My takeaway from this is that the movie made reasonable changes to provide a compelling narrative while retaining the fact and spirit of the most important bits:
* Ray did marry Joan
* Harry did make McDonald's viable
* The brothers were bought out with a couple million
* Ray explains why he liked their name
Honestly, the movie feels worth watching just to hear Harry explain how to make McDonald's work. (Also, you'll see some pretty good acting and nice cinematography)
- larrydag 9y agoThe movie is quite good. One of my favorites in the last couple of years. I'm sure it's embellished but makes for a good story.
- tptacek 9y agoThe movie is organized around the narrative of Ray Kroc taking advantage of the McDonald brothers, and ends with Franchise Corporation screwing them out of royalties that would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars by reneging on a handshake deal. But that deal apparently never happened! Not only that, but the McDonald brothers demanded a lump sum payment and rejected an installment, the closest thing in the real story to royalties.
- wrsh07 9y agoI can't confirm that? Can you provide another source? Because I agree - that would dramatically change the narrative of the movie. (Even still, I'm not convinced that it would make Ray a particularly empathetic character) Searching, the first three links I get are this (the op), a quora answer that references this, and the below link: http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/founder/ http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/founder/ > Did Ray Kroc renege on his handshake deal to pay the McDonald brothers a percentage of the revenue from the franchises? Yes. After the brothers refused to give Kroc the original restaurant, he supposedly cheated the brothers out of the 0.5 percent royalty agreement they had been getting, which would have been valued at $15 million a year by 1977 and as high as $305 million a year by 2012 (according to one estimate). In his book, Kroc wrote, "If they [the brothers] had played their cards right, that 0.5 percent would have made them unbelievably wealthy." Relatives of Richard and Maurice McDonald say that Maurice (Mac) was so distraught that it attributed to his eventual death from heart failure a decade later. -Daily Mail Online
- tptacek 9y agoThat's the essential narrative Napoli is challenging, and in addition to the fact that she's a reputable journalist reporting the story, there's the fact that the counternarrative doesn't make sense, since 0.5% was what the McDonald brothers were getting prior to the buyout; if they were expected to continue getting that money after the buyout, what, exactly, would Ray Kroc have been buying?
- adventured 9y agoIn that fictional premise, Kroc was buying the legally clean & clear right to do with the brand and inside of the restaurants as he saw fit, without having to fight with the brothers over every detail. The movie portrayed that as a key sticking point to Kroc being able to push his vision for McDonald's forward. For example, the powder milkshake battle, or the ability to pursue raising the fees on the franchisees at his own determining.
- wrsh07 9y agoAha, good point. I wasn't convinced of her reputation from either this or quora, but, yes. I accept this as fact then.