I'll break the ice: This movie is an amazing writing feat. It takes a subject which is profoundly complex to the point of inanity, and manages not only to make it understandable, it's also a damned entertaining story. When I watched the movie, my interest and involvement in it never flagged, not for one scene. How crazy is it that not one person involved with the scandalous and immoral behavior of financial entities related to the 2008 economic crisis has ever seen one day of jail time. In part, that's because of changes in regulations and laws made by Congress, stupidly in my opinion. Moreover how crazy is it that of anything written about the financial crisis of 2008 and beyond, the person who has created the most salient and insightful take on it is Adam McKay, someone known for movies like Step Brothers? Trivia: Did you know co-writer Charles Randolph is a fellow Yale Divinity School graduate? Maybe they need to start a film division there! Perhaps the most interesting thing the script does is put us into the POV of people whose lives are about screwing innocent victims. Apart from Mark Baum's character, who does go through a transformation of sorts, albeit while still profiting from the economic collapse, all of the other characters are severely lacking in empathy toward people who are about to be crushed by economic distress. And yet, we go along for the ride. I found it fascinating to peer inside the minds and feelings of these greed-heads. Their sense of entitlement and utter lack of awareness making any sort of connection between Numbers and Humans... astonishing. Where do these 'people' come from? How do individuals go through life with such a blind ignorance of the impact of economic policy and the lives of millions of their fellow citizens? Do you remember this photograph? During the Occupy Wall Street movement, people who work in the financial industry, stepping outside their offices onto balconies, peering down at the protesters, drinking champagne and literally LOOKING DOWN ON THEM. The degree of hubris and pure selfishness astonished me. Watching The Big Short helped me to understand HOW individuals could and would act like this: To them, money is a game, a contest. They are gamblers, addicted to money and profits are their high. People are nothing more than marks waiting to get made. What The Big Short did was humanize these type of people which made the experience of reading the script and watching the movie all the more engrossing: As disgusted as I was by their behavior and the putrid state of largely unregulated Wall Street today, I could not help but be compelled to watch the story unfold. Like watching a massive train wreck, knowing it's coming, but the audience takes it all in from a safe distance away. Until when you walk out of the theater and realize... their actions over there have impacted each of us over here. The Big Short is an amazing movie on so many levels. How about you? What are your reactions to the movie?

I only read the script so far...I am not sure if I can rightfully give an opinion without watching the movie, so I have a few craft questions: They did an amazing job working out the technical details, but I noticed that it wasn't before page 45 till the narrative started moving on to another dimension of the "doom coming ahead"...my bet is that the director cut stuff from the script in order to adjust the pace... My question is: is it advisable to over-write when it comes to a technically heavy subject matter in order to drive the point home, assuming that the director will sculpt it according to his vision? Another thing I've noticed is that the narrative is not dramatized in the typical way...like the characters are distinct but the narrative has an in-built conflict and engine to it that sort of creates a momentum...would it have done a disservice to the narrative if more technical stuff was cut out in order to give a chance for the characters to have their stories? Or is the movie basically about an invisible character that we could call "the world citizens" to whom this movie is made to express a cry of injustice?

Interesting, Angie, in that our situations are reversed: I read the script AFTER seeing the movie, so the knowledge of what I saw and heard on screen bled through my read. My guess is that likely helped smooth over some issues you reference. You raise a good question and there's no good answer re 'over-writing'. It varies from script to script, subject to subject. Bottom line, when we write a selling script - as opposed to a production draft or shooting script - at all times, we have to be cognizant of entertaining the reader. Exposition can be a major drag on that front and that's one reason why The Big Short is such a remarkable script. They had gobs and gobs of exposition, much of it about complex financial wheelings and dealings. Somehow they made it entertaining. Of course, having a movie starlet in a hot tub drinking champagne to explain some complicated financial scheme certainly helps! But the larger lesson is notice how often exposition gets conveyed in the midst of heated situations: Arguments, Tension, Conflict. Often one of the easiest and best ways to 'shroud' exposition. Circling back to your question, you want to try to hit that delicate balance between writing enough to be clear, yet not so much to veer into boredom, while be entertaining at the same time. Not easy. Which is one reason why I think The Big Short is such a terrific script and movie.

There is an insane amount of education that the script has to bring with it. I've seen the movie and read the script now and I'm not sure I still know what the hell a CDO is, even though Selena Gomez and Anthony Bourdain have both explained it to me. That said, I love those moments of breaking the 4th wall, because I understand it JUST enough to know what's happening in the movie. And I love Baum's character - and Carrell played it so well. The guy who's going to take advantage of everyone, make millions, and hate himself every minute that he's doing it.