Thank you, staff. Much appreciated.
*** YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING *** (Nathan Fielder's next feat. Elizabeth Holmes)
24,625 Views |
297 Replies |
Last: 9 hrs ago by Saxsoon
I think the biggest question I walked away from was:
That scene after the meeting in the kitchen with the A24 execs, negotiating profit participation, then they leave and Elizabeth comes down and they celebrate and she's like "yeah baby go get that money!". Was that real or a reenactment? The lines were kinda blurry at times between the 2, and while these people were pretty stupid for ever allowing this to be filmed and put plenty on camera I never would have, Billy was conscious about "cut the cameras on this subject." That one was shot from a distance per my recollection, so thinking back, that's the one that tugged at my mind as "how real was that? Which, at that point in the film, I wasn't thinking about as much.
That scene after the meeting in the kitchen with the A24 execs, negotiating profit participation, then they leave and Elizabeth comes down and they celebrate and she's like "yeah baby go get that money!". Was that real or a reenactment? The lines were kinda blurry at times between the 2, and while these people were pretty stupid for ever allowing this to be filmed and put plenty on camera I never would have, Billy was conscious about "cut the cameras on this subject." That one was shot from a distance per my recollection, so thinking back, that's the one that tugged at my mind as "how real was that? Which, at that point in the film, I wasn't thinking about as much.
Rigs said:
I think the biggest question I walked away from was:
That scene after the meeting in the kitchen with the A24 execs, negotiating profit participation, then they leave and Elizabeth comes down and they celebrate and she's like "yeah baby go get that money!". Was that real or a reenactment? The lines were kinda blurry at times between the 2, and while these people were pretty stupid for ever allowing this to be filmed and put plenty on camera I never would have, Billy was conscious about "cut the cameras on this subject." That one was shot from a distance per my recollection, so thinking back, that's the one that tugged at my mind as "how real was that? Which, at that point in the film, I wasn't thinking about as much.
It was a theoretical scene, not even a true re-enactment.
If the movie's entire point is too stir things so much you really have no idea what is true, looks like it accomplished that.
The entire movie is a creation by the filmmakers, it is not a documentary (imo, others may disagree). In my opinion, we can see nothing. Can we be entertained? Apparently. But it's more Blair Witch Project then documentary.
Rigs said:
I think the biggest question I walked away from was:
That scene after the meeting in the kitchen with the A24 execs, negotiating profit participation, then they leave and Elizabeth comes down and they celebrate and she's like "yeah baby go get that money!". Was that real or a reenactment? The lines were kinda blurry at times between the 2, and while these people were pretty stupid for ever allowing this to be filmed and put plenty on camera I never would have, Billy was conscious about "cut the cameras on this subject." That one was shot from a distance per my recollection, so thinking back, that's the one that tugged at my mind as "how real was that? Which, at that point in the film, I wasn't thinking about as much.
That was them imagining they celebrated. It was intentionally a little vague
That goodbye scene between Mathan and her before going to jail I swear they were about to kiss
It was an interesting thing at the end at being questioned if he was trying to protect her. I think Nathan probably was compromised (not romantically) but I think he did care for her. But he also knows she is a cold blooded liar. I think it was a comment on documentaries in general that the directors can get to close to the material and not being objective
I assumed as much, which is why I have actually don't fully consider this a "documentary", which A24 clearly labels such in its trailer. These type of things happen all the time, but are generally labeled as such with a subtitle or something. When you blur that line, it becomes not such. As I previously, I don't actually give a fk, but it becomes not a true documentary at that point, even though *most* of it is.Quote:
It was a theoretical scene, not even a true re-enactment.
I'm sure there is some calculus A24 did, where they could wrack up 1K awards in the documentary category. And studios are obsessed with award, and secondarily, getting those might make a little more money.
A24 are generally geniuses, btw.
https://deadline.com/2026/10/you-can-see-everything-box-office-elizabeth-holmes-1237167129/Quote:
Less than two months ago, the public didn't even know that a Nathan Fielder co-directed and starring documentary following controversial Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes even existed.
And here we are, with A24 having cracked the code on Gen Z again with an awesome $15 million opening this weekend, with 2,000-plus sellouts and lines around the block for the three-hour You Can See Everything….
Yes, theatrical is becoming the alpha, and streaming is the basic cable in today's world. But still, the needle to thread for theatrical success remains nuanced. There's plenty of sophisticated adult fare at the fall box office that is struggling. How to trap lasers in a bottle and make originality king? A documentary that follows a deadpan wisenheimer who eloquently and hysterically grills an arguably vain tech baron, who swindled hundreds of millions of dollars before her federal prison stint, is the way to go. But more so, the documentary is dressed up as a noir with a thrilling score, grey overcast tones and a third act that's bananas fun, (Spoiler excluded)
And that runtime of three hours proved no deterrent. The documentary has plenty of twists and turns in The Odyssey and Spider-Man: Brand New Day sense of the phrase….
A24 has long been hailed for its guerrilla marketing and ability to speak to the Gen Z crowd. That wasn't lost this weekend with 70% under 35 showing up. The pic at 56% guys to 44% women was a date film, with 44% watching You Can See Everything with a partner, spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend.
How do you do it, A24? Keep it cool, keep it simple, and never act like you're overselling the demo audiences can smell if they're being pressured. Then pray, pray, pray they take ownership of it after the pure placement of materials on social. And that's what we saw going on here, with the You Can See Everything fans posting a plethora of memes reminiscent of Barbie's run-up, when moviegoers spurred the Barbenheimer online fandom.
Secrecy was the special sauce with You Can See Everything, directed by Lance Oppenheim and Fielder sub rosa over the past four years. They had the freedom to pursue the project without a deadline or obligation to deliver a finished film. A24 even made clear that if nothing came of it, the project could simply be scrapped. In the end, what Fielder and Oppenheim delivered was an Empire Strikes Back-like sequel to Alex Gibney's 2019 HBO doc The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. Critical reviews are at 99% on Rotten Tomatoes with audiences at 98%. Screen Engine/Rentrak Postmark exits are an awesome 91% definite recommend, which are scores that massive Marvel movies like Black Panther and Star Wars: The Force Awakens land. At 4.8, it's the biggest Letterboxed score ever.
Who the hell drops a movie at Telluride in secrecy? A24, that's who. The small-town awards-season kickoff fest typically has secret screenings that are playing at other festivals (i.e., last year's Frankenstein, which bowed at Venice and went on to play TIFF). However, dropping a world premiere sans intel turned out to be a gong that rang around the world.
A24 dropped the teaser just as the movie was hitting the screen in Colorado on September 6. A trailer followed on September 23, with Fielder opening it up by asking Holmes, "You really feel you did nothing wrong?" to which she responds earnestly, "I did not." A24 says it is its second most viewed trailer ever dropped after Backrooms.…
And then came the memes, so myriad we can't run them all. But Kermit and Miss Piggy as Fielder and Holmes steals the show….
Even more jaw-dropping: A24 didn't do any sports buys on You Can See Everything. That maneuver, no matter the movie, is the power pill for many major studio tentpole campaigns. ….
A24 was keen to keep this release tight and limited this weekend, to get in the cultural ether and make tickets a prized fetch. For when You Can See Everything goes wider next weekend, DC's Clayface better look out, because Holmes is coming for blood.….
Nathan Fielder reveals that Elizabeth Holmes called him from prison last week.
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) October 19, 2026
“She had not called me in over six months. I had not heard from her in any way…she asked how I was doing. I asked her if she had seen any stuff about the film coming out and how she felt about it.… pic.twitter.com/UxbKwuBD5o
Quote:
Nathan Fielder reveals that Elizabeth Holmes called him from prison last week.
"She had not called me in over six months. I had not heard from her in any way…she asked how I was doing. I asked her if she had seen any stuff about the film coming out and how she felt about it.
She told me she had seen some stuff, but most things she just isn't seeing, so she's heard things, but she hasn't really read anything. And then, at the end, she said to me - 'I trust you.' I said, 'OK, thanks.'"
When Billy starts beating the eggs https://t.co/5nF5yPpqw1
— pj (@pjayevans) October 19, 2026
You can't believe anything anything this woman says.
However, assuming there are enough restrictions where she couldn't have seen a cut, it might be the most true thing she's ever said.
It has to be WILD for a documentary starring you at this level, to hit the zeitgeist and you not being able to see it.
I mean, she agreed to all of this. But generally, a doc subject is either deceased or quite a few years removed from it.
However, assuming there are enough restrictions where she couldn't have seen a cut, it might be the most true thing she's ever said.
It has to be WILD for a documentary starring you at this level, to hit the zeitgeist and you not being able to see it.
I mean, she agreed to all of this. But generally, a doc subject is either deceased or quite a few years removed from it.
I hear you, but she's not saying she saw a cut. Nathan asked her if she had seen any stuff *about* the movie. Like, coverage or a trailer or whatever, to which she says she's seen "some" stuff. Maybe she has limited internet access (and can't email or post) or a guard showed her the trailer or whatever, but who knows.
Either way, I definitely agree that it would be weird as hell to not be able to see something about yourself that's becoming a phenomenon like this is, outside the prison walls.
Either way, I definitely agree that it would be weird as hell to not be able to see something about yourself that's becoming a phenomenon like this is, outside the prison walls.
You'd be a million times more apt than me to know this- have you ever seen a "documentary" where the subject was covered in this much detail in free life, then while the subject is then in jail and can't see it?
Almost all of the time, any footage at this level would be covered after the subject is out of jail, or through others around them while they are in jail (while maybe being able to get some limited footage of interviews in jail), or after the subject is deceased. I can't think of anything that's come close to even touching this.
Almost all of the time, any footage at this level would be covered after the subject is out of jail, or through others around them while they are in jail (while maybe being able to get some limited footage of interviews in jail), or after the subject is deceased. I can't think of anything that's come close to even touching this.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me worries that somehow the filmmakers played right into EH's and BE's master plans and this outcome is exactly what they wanted. Like it's some sort of crazy game of 4D chess and they've won.
I don't really believe it, but even the thought of it is kind of terrifying.
Thankfully, I don't think either of these delusional sociopaths is smart enough to pull that off.
I think it's more likely he will be picked up for a DWI and/or go off the rails and skip town with the kids. And the next interview we see with her she'll be in tears over how she's been manipulated and then advantage of by another man.
I don't really believe it, but even the thought of it is kind of terrifying.
Thankfully, I don't think either of these delusional sociopaths is smart enough to pull that off.
I think it's more likely he will be picked up for a DWI and/or go off the rails and skip town with the kids. And the next interview we see with her she'll be in tears over how she's been manipulated and then advantage of by another man.
You Can Eat Anything
— Thorne 🌸 (@ExistentialEnso) October 19, 2026
(by tommcgovern27 on IG) pic.twitter.com/JJxFyae2z0
I think it stands to reason that Billy/Liz wanted backend profit participation. Which would have ended up being large. Correct deal to try to strike, honestly.
While the epilogue says they gave up that, it does not say they didn't trade what seem to have been struck for a set up-front payment of some sort.
Now, are these people such narcissists they imagined that outside the money, this would have gotten them in the zeitgeist in a way to rehabilitate anyone's image, or ever make them want to work with them again? Possibly, if they had never viewed Fielder's stuff. And it's entirely conceivable to me that they are such delusional narcissists they entered into this without ever watching any of Fielder's stuff.
But uh, if that was the goal, that was (yet another) failure of theirs from the outset.
While the epilogue says they gave up that, it does not say they didn't trade what seem to have been struck for a set up-front payment of some sort.
Now, are these people such narcissists they imagined that outside the money, this would have gotten them in the zeitgeist in a way to rehabilitate anyone's image, or ever make them want to work with them again? Possibly, if they had never viewed Fielder's stuff. And it's entirely conceivable to me that they are such delusional narcissists they entered into this without ever watching any of Fielder's stuff.
But uh, if that was the goal, that was (yet another) failure of theirs from the outset.
They really should just lean into the villain aspect of it all and make money by going the "it's all a conspiracy" route. There are plenty of people who would fall for that on social media and/or pay for an Only Fans, and they'd at least get "influencer rich".
I could see BE finally giving up and going that route. EH might be a harder sell, only because she's basically been told her whole life that she is some sort of wunderkind genius who is destined to save the world. I really do think she actually believes that, but when living in social media infamy becomes her only means to support herself, she will give in, too. Or BE may just use AI and do it for her.
I could see BE finally giving up and going that route. EH might be a harder sell, only because she's basically been told her whole life that she is some sort of wunderkind genius who is destined to save the world. I really do think she actually believes that, but when living in social media infamy becomes her only means to support herself, she will give in, too. Or BE may just use AI and do it for her.
Rigs said:
You'd be a million times more apt than me to know this- have you ever seen a "documentary" where the subject was covered in this much detail in free life, then while the subject is then in jail and can't see it?
Almost all of the time, any footage at this level would be covered after the subject is out of jail, or through others around them while they are in jail (while maybe being able to get some limited footage of interviews in jail), or after the subject is deceased. I can't think of anything that's come close to even touching this.
I'm not a big documentary guy, so I can't really speak to that. Certain crime figures - like mob bosses, corrupt record label producers, etc - have obviously been in jail when docs about them have released, but never on this level, and probably never in a scenario similar to this. This does feel incredibly unique in that regard.
‘You Can See Everything’: Nathan Fielder Was So Skeptical He Could Break New Ground in Elizabeth Holmes Story, He Negotiated a Kill Switch with A24 https://t.co/GbZW0eNDEb
— IndieWire (@IndieWire) October 19, 2026
TCTTS said:‘You Can See Everything’: Nathan Fielder Was So Skeptical He Could Break New Ground in Elizabeth Holmes Story, He Negotiated a Kill Switch with A24 https://t.co/GbZW0eNDEb
— IndieWire (@IndieWire) October 19, 2026
That is maybe discussed here, watching this has me questioning my own takeaways from the movies. I have a gut feeling about how what I saw was created, but I can't be 100% sure - which seems to be the entire intent, what CAN you be sure about
Just came home from watching the movie.
Not sure what I want to believe. Seems like you can have five different people with five different opinions and they can all be right.
Not sure what I want to believe. Seems like you can have five different people with five different opinions and they can all be right.
Sea Speed said:ATM9000 said:Sea Speed said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
For someone who's not a fan of Fielder, has no interest in seeing this, but is mildly curious about this supposed twist y'all are taking about, what's the tldw? (In spoiler tags.)
Amanda Seyfried comes in and the whole second half of the movie has her in it. She is shown Holmes reaction to her playing Holmes. She reenacts a bunch of scenes that weren't caught on camera and it culminates with her meeting Holmes husband and talking to Holmes on the phone. She gets in an argument with Holmes husband as well. She comes out looking bad in the film imo.
Curious why she comes off looking bad iyo.
Her covering for the portrayal of holmes in that show and how they made stuff up, and saying essentially she wasn't actually playing Holmes, or something to that effect, culminating with "it's tv!". It wasn't a good look imo but I think a lot of that was also defense mechanism against Billy after being called out about Charlie Kirk.
She also seemed very wishy washy in her thoughts about Holmes as the film unfolded.
I was curious. I initially had the same reaction… but I also think they had to humanize her a bit or her presence would have ruined the whole thing rather than take it up a notch. So in that vein, I've kinda flipped to kudos to her for letting them show that side of her.
The movie is a 1 of 1 and masterpiece. Though I left the theatre and continue thinking now that it had a lot more in common with reality TV than a documentary… and the things people seem to discuss about it are more reality TV sort of things than documentary things.
Please DO NOT discuss the specifics of this without using spoiler tags, but it seems you-know-who IS, indeed, eligible (seeing as it was being debated/discussed earlier in the thread)...
[SPOILER] will officially be campaigned for Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars as "You Can See Everything" gears up to rewrite the rules of awards season in the following categories:
— Variety (@Variety) October 19, 2026
• Best Picture
• Director
• Production Design
• Cinematography
• Costume Design
•… pic.twitter.com/7EurCGfMuZ
Would both fielder and oppenwhatever be eligible for best directors or just Lance?
Article says both of them apparently.
Ugh, that's the worst. Splitting votes is the worst thing that could happen in this scenario
Rigs said:
Ugh, that's the worst. Splitting votes is the worst thing that could happen in this scenario
I take it to mean it would be like a coen brothers situation, not a vote splitting situation.
Same. I read that as them being counted as a team. I don't even think it's possible to be nominated separately like that for that category.
I will laugh so hard if this blows Odyssey out in everything lmao.
man, we need Nathan Fielder back to posting https://t.co/d75QAO0l4O pic.twitter.com/56p1lHwraK
— Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) October 19, 2026
Yo, how am I just finding out about this guy 😭😂 https://t.co/schZVuaE2D
— Sean Cranston (@themoviedadsc) October 20, 2026
genuinely one of my favorite tv clips ever. https://t.co/HLWbNR88mj
— hilal (@monomodal) October 19, 2026
You Can See Everything Everywhere All At Once pic.twitter.com/G4Vvo6MdoT
— Erik Anderson (@AwardsWatchErik) October 19, 2026
Featured Stories
See All
9:45
12h ago
4.7k
SEC Round-Up: Applying pressure correlates directly to the standings
by Olin Buchanan
3:38
17h ago
1.6k
Nuño's Notes: All about the Tide with Alabama associates
by David Nuño
Seven trustworthy things in the chaotic SEC
by Connor O'Gara
Players to Watch: Texas A&M at No. 13 Alabama
by Olin Buchanan