Playing with FIRE documentary

[DadJokes]

It's not that simple.  To get streaming rights to Netflix or Amazon you first have to prove that your film has legs, that is that people want to watch it.  You realize how many film makers are trying to get distribution rights on the big streaming services?  If Netflix or Amazon flooded their distribution with a bunch of low quality films their entire reputation would suffer.  It's the same type of scenario as people trying to find a publisher for their crappy book and then have to resort to self publishing.

This statement confuses me. Not only because they have tons of terrible content, but it seems like there isn't a documentary they're afraid to stream. Seriously, go look at how many asinine documentaries they currently have.

I don't buy this idea that they'll only air something that's proven it has legs by doing a certain amount of revenue already. I have a feeling the Playing With Fire people just don't have the connections or know-how to get theirs picked up.

I love the documentaries they air. Watching a documentary about space is a great way to go to sleep. I could definitely use more space & nature documentaries.

However, I did just watch one about gene editing, and it was pretty bad.

[HPstache]

Playing with FIRE is now available on a number of streaming services (Amazon, Google, Vimeo, etc.)

Finally got a chance to watch it last night, I paid $4.99 on Amazon.  I must admit, I was really impressed.  Extremely well produced documentary!  I watched it with my wife who has always been a little confused as to what exactly the FIRE "movement" is and now she pretty well understands.  When the movie ended, she said, "so what's our savings rate?". That made me beam.  Check it out if you haven't already!!

[solon]

Playing with FIRE is now available on a number of streaming services (Amazon, Google, Vimeo, etc.)

Finally got a chance to watch it last night, I paid $4.99 on Amazon.  I must admit, I was really impressed.  Extremely well produced documentary!  I watched it with my wife who has always been a little confused as to what exactly the FIRE "movement" is and now she pretty well understands.  When the movie ended, she said, "so what's our savings rate?". That made me beam.  Check it out if you haven't already!!

+1

We watched it last night, too. Sparked a good conversation.

[Zikoris]

We're going to see it this weekend with some friends of ours. Last time we hung out we were making fun of people who buy $20 bottles of coconut water, so for lulz we decided to go halfsies on one to drink while we watch the movie.

[solon]

Does anyone know why Ryan Holiday is in the movie? Does he have a connection to FIRE?  I only know him as the book guy.

[grantmeaname]

Because he was at fincon, and stoicism is FI-adjacent.

[RWTL]

PTF

[HBFIRE]

Funny, the amazon listing has "Starring: Peter Adeney". 

He's the first person listed and barely in the film.  Seriously he's basically an extra in this film.  That's some pretty deceptive marketing, though I'm not shocked at all.  Cheese.

[DadJokes]

Funny, the amazon listing has "Starring: Peter Adeney". 

He's the first person listed and barely in the film.  Seriously he's basically an extra in this film.  That's some pretty deceptive marketing, though I'm not shocked at all.  Cheese.

It's listing everyone in alphabetical order by last name.

[HBFIRE]

It's listing everyone in alphabetical order by last name.

Got it, but it's still very misleading putting him as a star of the film.  He's a supporting person at most.  I think madfientist got more coverage.  The actual stars of the film are listed as "supporting actors", while the extras are listed as stars.  That's some interesting marketing finagling!

[DadJokes]

It's listing everyone in alphabetical order by last name.

Got it, but it's still very misleading putting him as a star of the film.  He's a supporting person at most.  I think madfientist got more coverage.  Hilarious the wife isn't mentioned as a "star" of the film but Adeney is.

I suspect that has nothing to do with the creators of the film trying to be sneaky. Literally everyone who appears in the film is listed in alphabetical order on imdb, with no special preference given to anyone, including Scott & Taylor Rieckens. I would venture a guess that Amazon is doing the same thing.

I'm sure that people who are familiar with the name "Pete Adeney" are already aware of the film, and that his inclusion isn't going to impact whether or not they watch it. For the audience they are trying to reach, I doubt very many have any idea who Pete is.

[HBFIRE]

Literally everyone who appears in the film is listed in alphabetical order

My point is the three people mentioned as the "stars "of the film aren't the stars but rather have very minor roles in the film, but they ARE recognizable names.  The actual stars are put in the supporting section.  That's deceptive.  Let's face it, they want brand name recognition.  That's why the stoned minimalist dudes were in there though they had nothing constructive to offer.  MMM barely makes an appearance and is the first person listed under the "stars" of the film.  The real stars of the film are buried in the supporting cast section as their names aren't recognizable.

Seeing Pete Adeney as the star of something would absolutely be more persuasive that the film would be worth watching compared to some unrecognizable no-name.  From a marketing standpoint, it's huge.  Those in the FI community (the main audience) recognize the name, and thats not a small number.

[freya]

I got the film on Amazon and enjoyed it last night.

I thought the interviews with FIRE notables were delightful, and the message was well articulated.  It was exciting when numbers in the millions were quoted for people visiting FIRE websites - rock on!

Unfortunately the film writers could not have picked a worse couple to illustrate the FIRE concept.   Living with parents for a year?  That would make me depressed too.  Meanwhile, the good for nothing husband was putzing around agonizing over their decision and not earning a dime while his wife was busy working to support him and griping about how much she missed her BMW.

It would have been so much better to make the husband a journalist who decided to write an article about FIRE, then have him travel the country to interview Vicki Robin, Pete Adeney and many others as part of his job, then make the decision with his wife to move to Oregon straightaway (without the ridiculous year of homelessness thing).  They could then rent a small apartment, have him get a job and bike to work every day, and then show him and his wife reveling in their new simpler life, finding lots of inventive ways to save money, while exploring the outdoors around Bend - instead of that insane trip to Hawaii which was most definitely not FIRE-worthy.

So a bit disappointing that the movie ended up as unlikely to convince anyone not already on the bandwagon, but nice to see nonetheless.

[RWTL]

I got the film on Amazon and enjoyed it last night.

I thought the interviews with FIRE notables were delightful, and the message was well articulated.  It was exciting when numbers in the millions were quoted for people visiting FIRE websites - rock on!

Unfortunately the film writers could not have picked a worse couple to illustrate the FIRE concept.   Living with parents for a year?  That would make me depressed too.  Meanwhile, the good for nothing husband was putzing around agonizing over their decision and not earning a dime while his wife was busy working to support him and griping about how much she missed her BMW.

It would have been so much better to make the husband a journalist who decided to write an article about FIRE, then have him travel the country to interview Vicki Robin, Pete Adeney and many others as part of his job, then make the decision with his wife to move to Oregon straightaway (without the ridiculous year of homelessness thing).  They could then rent a small apartment, have him get a job and bike to work every day, and then show him and his wife reveling in their new simpler life, finding lots of inventive ways to save money, while exploring the outdoors around Bend - instead of that insane trip to Hawaii which was most definitely not FIRE-worthy.

So a bit disappointing that the movie ended up as unlikely to convince anyone not already on the bandwagon, but nice to see nonetheless.

The guy (Scott) in the couple was the filmmaker and producer.  I liked the movie.  Was it perfect - No, but I think it did a good job of explaining the basics of the FIRE movement in a way that many people could identify with.   

My wife, who doesn't geek out on FI like I do, watched intently and talked about it for days after.

I agree with many previous posts that a better movie for me would have featured MMM and others with the couple as a minor segment.

[lostformars]

I got the film on Amazon and enjoyed it last night.

I thought the interviews with FIRE notables were delightful, and the message was well articulated.  It was exciting when numbers in the millions were quoted for people visiting FIRE websites - rock on!

Unfortunately the film writers could not have picked a worse couple to illustrate the FIRE concept.   Living with parents for a year?  That would make me depressed too.  Meanwhile, the good for nothing husband was putzing around agonizing over their decision and not earning a dime while his wife was busy working to support him and griping about how much she missed her BMW.

It would have been so much better to make the husband a journalist who decided to write an article about FIRE, then have him travel the country to interview Vicki Robin, Pete Adeney and many others as part of his job, then make the decision with his wife to move to Oregon straightaway (without the ridiculous year of homelessness thing).  They could then rent a small apartment, have him get a job and bike to work every day, and then show him and his wife reveling in their new simpler life, finding lots of inventive ways to save money, while exploring the outdoors around Bend - instead of that insane trip to Hawaii which was most definitely not FIRE-worthy.

So a bit disappointing that the movie ended up as unlikely to convince anyone not already on the bandwagon, but nice to see nonetheless.

I was also a little disappointed. More importantly, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending this documentary to someone not already familiar with FIRE. I knew going in that the main story was about the the guy making the documentary. I didn't have a problem with their story. I just wish they explained why they were making their decisions. The way their story is told I could see someone coming away with the impression that in order to do this FIRE thing you have to strip your expenses to zero and then build back up to your acceptable level. Or, that you have to make extreme sacrifices that you are not comfortable with and learn to live with it.

I wish they would have explained that when they discovered FIRE they (he) wanted to dive in the deep end, up root and take a year to travel around and interview the leaders of the movement(s) and figure out what works for them. 

[MoneyTree]

I also felt that the main "storyline" did not accurately depict what pursuing FIRE is like for someone who might be interested in pursuing it. The primary struggles depicted for the Rieckens seem more to do with uprooting from their home and not having a place of their own.

When people pursue FIRE, they don't generally quit their job at the beginning of the journey. Nor would they uproot and move without a solid plan for where they would end up.

But then again, how many people would watch a film that depicted the life of a more typical mustachian? i.e. diligently saving, not making purchases, and waiting for compounding to work, all while living a relatively normal, less excessive life?

[RWTL]

But then again, how many people would watch a film that depicted the life of a more typical mustachian? i.e. diligently saving, not making purchases, and waiting for compounding to work, all while living a relatively normal, less excessive life?

Very true.

[Travis]

I saw the film twice before I learned that Scott was the one producing the movie.  I agree with those concerned about he and his family's characterization.  The way the interviews and editing go it gives no indication it's his movie, and it comes across like he's forcing Taylor into something she's not comfortable with while he's voluntarily unemployed.  Having looked into it further I understand how this all went down, but that's not how it comes across on screen.  The way their story is portrayed is just so much fuel for the naysayers. Taylor has a highly mobile and well-paying job, both sets of parents are in a position to host them for months each at minimal cost, and after I learned he produced the movie I wonder how much of their transition can be written off as business expenses. 

I want to like this film and recommend it to others because it's pretty much the only one of its kind, but if I could take all the interviews with the bloggers and writers like Vicki, Jim, Pete, Kristy, Brad, and Brandon and splice them with Pete's on-stage discussion at the end (I've seen the full clip and it's awesome) I'd show that to someone instead.

[freya]

But then again, how many people would watch a film that depicted the life of a more typical mustachian? i.e. diligently saving, not making purchases, and waiting for compounding to work, all while living a relatively normal, less excessive life?

I think they could have pulled that off if they wanted to.  The message should have been that reducing expenses, building a cash cushion, and living within your means is actually a more pleasant and less stressful way to go about life than living paycheck to paycheck.   It was fine to hear a bit about Taylor's ambivalent feelings about trading in the BMW for financial security, but not to the extent that it was portrayed.  It could instead have been (for example) a discussion about, hey I have two possible jobs, one of them pays a little less but I can bike to work and we could only have one car, which will save us the $400 car payment, insurance and gas.  Then show him biking to work and learning to enjoy it and figure out how to deal with weather etc.

Instead, the impression you get is that in order to achieve FI you have to suffer pain, social isolation, and deprivation for a good 10 years before you get the reward at the end of the rainbow.  Not exactly an inducement for someone new to the concept.

[Zikoris]

But then again, how many people would watch a film that depicted the life of a more typical mustachian? i.e. diligently saving, not making purchases, and waiting for compounding to work, all while living a relatively normal, less excessive life?

Very true.

I think a lot of it would depend on how interesting the people were. We do videos or other pieces sometimes that are quite popular, likely because we're quite... colourful? Literally colourful - we cart sacks of flour and rice around in a neon pink cat stroller. I think a person could certainly make an interesting film out of following people like us, or MMM, or the millennial revolution couple, or other people who live pretty interesting, unique lives. But it would be a stretch to make it engaging if the people were more "normal".

[EndlessJourney]

Seeing Pete Adeney as the star of something would absolutely be more persuasive that the film would be worth watching compared to some unrecognizable no-name.  From a marketing standpoint, it's huge.  Those in the FI community (the main audience) recognize the name, and thats not a small number.

"So Mr. Adeny, what did you do before you FIREd?"

"My wife and I were both software engineers, with a household salary of $140,000 a ye..."

*click* (non-FI viewer changes channel)

People who watch TV and movies like to root for underdogs. Not those who prevail because of very good odds.

[Bateaux]

They spent how much on this flick?   Holy shit! 

[HBFIRE]

People who watch TV and movies like to root for underdogs. Not those who prevail because of very good odds.

By this logic the couple chosen for this flick was a terrible choice, about as bad as you can get.

[dmmms]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard. Perhaps too many people here on MMM have forgotten their transition to FIRE?

[RWD]

Perhaps too many people here on MMM have forgotten their transition to FIRE?

My transition to FIRE was becoming more comfortable with investing in the stock market. We're spending just as much now as we were before finding the FIRE movement because we were already reasonably frugal.

[freya]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard.

Why is it all about sacrificing and hard choices?  One of the axioms of FIRE is that your choices need to be smart, and that you spend money on the things that make you happy and not on the things that don't - and that people really don't need all that much to be happy.  This is stated several times onscreen.  It is also stated that living in Coronado made Taylor very happy, but while she liked drinking wine she didn't care about the price on the bottle.  So why not have their very next step be their figuring out that they spent $2000 on groceries and then cutting it down to under $500?  You can be frugal in San Diego - the message to the contrary being another thing I disliked about the film.

But no, instead they lose ~half their total income in order to save housing costs which were (per the movie) 32% of their income.  For those viewers who can do math, that is basically zero benefit for a major (unnecessary) sacrifice.  It was maddening how it made absolutely no sense.   And by the way, the ability to understand simple math is also an essential requirement for FIRE.   In this regard, the movie was pretty schizophrenic.

 

[Bateaux]

I finally found the trailer on Youtube.  It wasn't easy because there is a comedy movie with the same title.  Adding MMM to the end of the title brought it up.

[dmmms]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard.

Why is it all about sacrificing and hard choices?  One of the axioms of FIRE is that your choices need to be smart, and that you spend money on the things that make you happy and not on the things that don't - and that people really don't need all that much to be happy.  This is stated several times onscreen.  It is also stated that living in Coronado made Taylor very happy, but while she liked drinking wine she didn't care about the price on the bottle.  So why not have their very next step be their figuring out that they spent $2000 on groceries and then cutting it down to under $500?  You can be frugal in San Diego - the message to the contrary being another thing I disliked about the film.

But no, instead they lose ~half their total income in order to save housing costs which were (per the movie) 32% of their income.  For those viewers who can do math, that is basically zero benefit for a major (unnecessary) sacrifice.  It was maddening how it made absolutely no sense.   And by the way, the ability to understand simple math is also an essential requirement for FIRE.   In this regard, the movie was pretty schizophrenic.

 

it can feel hard and a sacrifice until it clicks in that what you think is worth it isn't actually. Not everyone gets there right away. This is a very very small group in a big world. Not a perfect movie but it's a start! Bravo for trying.

[Travis]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard. Perhaps too many people here on MMM have forgotten their transition to FIRE?

With regards to their HCOL quality of life, I think the movie made a good point of framing the problem as "we have two high incomes, the big beach house, all the toys and vacations - but no endgame."  Starting a family also brought that particular problem to the forefront.  If the sequence of events in the film are to be believed (and I think some of them were staged or reenacted for effect), they were doing almost nothing towards retirement.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard. Perhaps too many people here on MMM have forgotten their transition to FIRE?

With regards to their HCOL quality of life, I think the movie made a good point of framing the problem as "we have two high incomes, the big beach house, all the toys and vacations - but no endgame."  Starting a family also brought that particular problem to the forefront.  If the sequence of events in the film are to be believed (and I think some of them were staged or reenacted for effect), they were doing almost nothing towards retirement.

I haven't seen it yet, am marginally interested, but this comment makes me worry that this was a 'cash in' on the popularity of the FIRE movement.  I had planned to watch it with my children since this format would help spur conversation without talking about our own personal situation or force any ideas on them.  But I'm getting less enthusiastic about it hearing that the premise is two high incomes that manage to reduce a luxurious & spendy life to pave a path to ER.  My children are already pretty level-headed around living within their means and appreciating the value of a dollar, so this all sound like watching the movie might be a step in the wrong direction.  I am also not convinced that ER is a goal that should be held up as the ultimate goal / achievement to strive for, I prefer the idea of striving for FI.

[Bateaux]

EV2020 you're promoting boring FIRE.  These bloggers are more exciting and energized FIRE.  I'd never fit in at Fincon.   My face is too ugly and my story too blah.  Your young adults could be better served with exposure to the Fincon crowd.  I doubt there can be much harm.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

EV2020 you're promoting boring FIRE.  These bloggers are more exciting and energized FIRE.  I'd never fit in at Fincon.   My face is too ugly and my story too blah.  Your young adults could be better served with exposure to the Fincon crowd.  I doubt there can be much harm.

I did go to a FinCon with my son, so it's kinda funny that you mentioned that!  It's not easy to connect with kids, even my own kids, but I don't think it's boring FIRE to focus on the possibilities of FI.  There was a whole lotta' hustle and entrepreneurship at FinCon - but also a lot of scammy stuff.  For instance, a YouTuber was giving a primer on how to run his ads for a paid course in front of trending FIRE videos.  For like $5 per impression, he could steal the eyeballs and convert enough to his $100 course to make it worthwhile.

Also Bateaux, from your posts on the 'and beyond' thread, your life does not sound blah at all!

[Bateaux]

EV2020 you're promoting boring FIRE.  These bloggers are more exciting and energized FIRE.  I'd never fit in at Fincon.   My face is too ugly and my story too blah.  Your young adults could be better served with exposure to the Fincon crowd.  I doubt there can be much harm.

I did go to a FinCon with my son, so it's kinda funny that you mentioned that!  It's not easy to connect with kids, even my own kids, but I don't think it's boring FIRE to focus on the possibilities of FI.  There was a whole lotta' hustle and entrepreneurship at FinCon - but also a lot of scammy stuff.  For instance, a YouTuber was giving a primer on how to run his ads for a paid course in front of trending FIRE videos.  For like $5 per impression, he could steal the eyeballs and convert enough to his $100 course to make it worthwhile.

Also Bateaux, from your posts on the 'and beyond' thread, your life does not sound blah at all!

In the age of Amazon Prime, Amway must be taking a huge hit.  There must be a new space for pyramid schemes and sales gimmicks.  I really like a lot of the YouTube and podcasters.  I don't give them money, but if they profit from my views/downloads more power to them.

[Travis]

I thought it was pretty good, a solid B+. I think there are WAY more people like Taylor and Scott than many of you realize, especially in HCOL areas like CA and the NY tri-state area. I don't agree with all of their choices, but the difficulties were well documented. Change is hard, sacrifice is hard, thinking you "made it" and to find out making it actually costs you the things that make you happiest is especially hard. Perhaps too many people here on MMM have forgotten their transition to FIRE?

With regards to their HCOL quality of life, I think the movie made a good point of framing the problem as "we have two high incomes, the big beach house, all the toys and vacations - but no endgame."  Starting a family also brought that particular problem to the forefront.  If the sequence of events in the film are to be believed (and I think some of them were staged or reenacted for effect), they were doing almost nothing towards retirement.

I haven't seen it yet, am marginally interested, but this comment makes me worry that this was a 'cash in' on the popularity of the FIRE movement.  I had planned to watch it with my children since this format would help spur conversation without talking about our own personal situation or force any ideas on them.  But I'm getting less enthusiastic about it hearing that the premise is two high incomes that manage to reduce a luxurious & spendy life to pave a path to ER.  My children are already pretty level-headed around living within their means and appreciating the value of a dollar, so this all sound like watching the movie might be a step in the wrong direction.  I am also not convinced that ER is a goal that should be held up as the ultimate goal / achievement to strive for, I prefer the idea of striving for FI.

Please give it a fair shake and form your own opinion.  Don't interpret my remark as "they faked it," but rather "we had this conversation last year, now let's do it again in front of the camera."  I don't doubt they had real conversations about their life wishes or created brokerage accounts with Vanguard, I just don't think they had them live for the first time with the camera rolling.

[fattest_foot]

My transition to FIRE was becoming more comfortable with investing in the stock market. We're spending just as much now as we were before finding the FIRE movement because we were already reasonably frugal.

Same here. Our transition wasn't really a "transition" as much as realizing that as we started making more money, where to save it. We've kept essentially the same standard of living from before we discovered FIRE, but the difference is that we've had several raises since and that money has accelerated our journey.

[reeshau]

For anyone who is an Ally customer:  before you throw away the "Welcome to the December My Ally update" email, know that it includes a link for a free viewing of Playing With Fire, good until Dec. 11.  From the Ally website:

We’re always on the lookout for innovators who can provide new ideas, tips, and strategies to help you make sense of the today’s digital world and achieve your best financial future. To that end, we are excited to support Playing with FIRE — the first documentary about the financial independence movement. This documentary captures the truths and dispels the myths of what it feels like to embrace FIRE and follows one family’s journey to acquire the one thing that money can’t buy: a simpler — and happier — life.

[kpd905]

I just watched through that Ally link (found the link and password on r/financialindependence, looks like mods may have deleted it now).  I didn't see any hard numbers (maybe those are in the book), but I wonder how much they could have increased their savings rate just by dropping their food budget from $2,000!/month down to maybe $500-600, and cutting the car budget from two luxury cars down to non-luxury vehicles that they keep for 8-10 years.  I'm sure there are many other changes they could make, but this is at least $2,000 per month that doesn't even require changing housing.

It seems like that could have maybe let them stay where their family and friends were in Coronado, instead of uprooting their lives.  Not knowing the numbers though, maybe this wouldn't have gotten them quite to their 50% savings rate.

Also interesting that @arebelspy was in the movie, he is a celebrity now.

[Bloop Bloop]

Seeing Pete Adeney as the star of something would absolutely be more persuasive that the film would be worth watching compared to some unrecognizable no-name.  From a marketing standpoint, it's huge.  Those in the FI community (the main audience) recognize the name, and thats not a small number.

"So Mr. Adeny, what did you do before you FIREd?"

"My wife and I were both software engineers, with a household salary of $140,000 a ye..."

*click* (non-FI viewer changes channel)

People who watch TV and movies like to root for underdogs. Not those who prevail because of very good odds.

I think you're right - FIRE media has to make it look like FIRE is for underdogs in order to get traction. The truth of it (that FIRE relies mostly on discipline, the ability to delay gratification, and the ability to sort out what you want (and therefore are happy to spend on) and what you don't really want) would suggest that FIRE is not for average people at all - it's for intelligent and/or motivated and/or very diligent people. In 21st century terms, FIRE is a movement for the "privileged", though that doesn't necessarily include financial privilege. This is why so much popular FIRE media has to make up some sort of fake sacrifice, like extreme lifestyle change or deprivation, to try to beat down the fire movement. In reality how many of us feel like we are sacrificing anything, other than the undisciplined life?

[Travis]

Also interesting that @arebelspy was in the movie, he is a celebrity now.

I watched the movie months ago with my local Choose FI group at the time, one of whom was in that scene with him.  I immediately saw ARS in the circle and pointed him out. Nobody else in the room knew what/who I was talking about.  I couldn't believe that nobody else in my ChooseFI group had been on these forums.

[C-man23]

Just saw that the documentary is free at until 12/11.
Password is "FIRE"

If the link didn't work.  It is https: //vimeo.com/374814086 with the space between the ":" and "/" removed

Was able to watch it this morning...thought it was very cringey.  I felt like it was difficult to even get through it. 
Like several others have already said, I didn't understand a lot of the decisions they made and felt they were haphazard.
I was tempted to rent it to watch, but glad it was free.  Would have been bummed to pay for it.
Happy that I was able to see it to join in the discussion, but would not recommend it to my friends.

[jim555]

Really hated the video.  They seem like spoiled people who came up with a hair brained scheme that isn't working for them, but they won't admit it to themselves.  Mooching on parents to save money is disgraceful.  Putting a child through this is BS.  The wife is not on board and will probably take off once she seems some cash she can take in divorce.

[mathlete]

lol I literally JUST rented the movie this morning. If only I had logged in and seen this post about it being free first!! Oh well.

The film's biggest problem was that Scott and Taylor weren't relatable or sympathetic. The movie relies heavily on their narrative so they needed that to work, and it didn't. I'm sure they're smart and lovely people, but the documentary didn't portray them as super compelling. Taylor was portrayed as being very uncomfortable with having left her life behind for almost the whole movie, so I don't buy that she was just all on board and 100% happy in the last ten minutes. Of course I only saw what the documentary showed me, but that's not my fault.

The whole time, I was internally screaming, "Go back to San Diego and just ditch the luxury cars and the boat club membership ya crazies!!"

I have the sneaking suspicion that the mysterious work-from-home business that Scott was setting up was the business of selling this documentary to suckers like me. xD

My usual gripes about FIRE being oversold to a wide audience;

If you've got so much money that you can't help but live in Coronado with two luxury cars and a $2,000/month food budget, have rich friends who need you to house sit for them in Hawaii, and still save nearly 3X the national average, then FIRE is the movement for you! - I'm actually pretty pleased with this. Scott and Taylor are a great example of who FIRE is good for. But them being so high income flies in the face of the "rah rah, FIRE for everyone" FINCON section of the film. Lastly, I cringed that they repeated the "MMM lives on $30K" trope. Technically true, but it only works if you've prepaid your living expenses by buying a house in cash. I'm sure I could find an arrangement to pre-pay my food expenses in perpetuity too, but it would't make much sense for me to mark my food budget as zero if I did that though.

Misc commentary;

-Showing footage of millennials that filmed maybe in 2015 with old-timey vignetting was overly saccharine.
-At one point, Scott is walking in the woods talking to what looks like an iPhone camera. Digital image stabilization and color correction was going nuts in this scene. I can't believe they left it in the movie!
-The Mad Fientist is a very handsome man.

[mathlete]

Really hated the video.  They seem like spoiled people who came up with a hair brained scheme that isn't working for them, but they won't admit it to themselves.  Mooching on parents to save money is disgraceful.  Putting a child through this is BS.

I don't care that they mooched off their parents. And I'm sure the child is happy and well cared for.

But the "isn't working for them, but they won't admit it" rings true. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that these people don't have the purest of intentions. Maybe they really did hear about FIRE on Tim Ferris. Maybe they did think that the FIRE community and lifestyle could benefit them. But I believe the choices they make in the movie are largely a performance for the camera.

If you have a $2K food budget and two luxury cars and a boat slip, the obvious place to start cutting is there. But performatively moving in with your parents allows for you to have a "dark night of the soul" which is good from a film-making perspective.

[EndlessJourney]

Subject matter aside, as far as documentaries go, this was not a very good one.

The best documentaries are honest, or at least successfully convey a truth that is evident to the viewer without having to spell it out. And the truth that is missing from this documentary is that FIRE is not for everyone.

The best documentaries are not afraid to change their thesis midway through filming.

Documentaries like Seeking Asian Female started out as an expose about male order brides from China. It pivoted midway when

Spoiler: show

the filmaker saw that there was actually a real relationship between two real people. One that she felt compelled to mediate and influence the outcome - which is taboo for a documentary maker.

But it made for a fascinating watch.

Another good documentary is Mistaken for Strangers, which started out as a biography of a music band, while following them on tour. It was filmed by the lead singer's brother, and it also pivoted

Spoiler: show

 upon the realization that their sibling relationship was more compelling than the actual band's concert footage.

In Playing With Fire, the wife is the most compelling character. She's 3-dimensional and has very real doubts and valid concerns about the FIRE movement. Honest feelings. Misgivings that are painfully and obviously papered over in the last 10 minutes ("One Year Later") when the hurried final interview rushes to unconvincingly confirm the original thesis: "Yes, I love FIRE. It is so great. It has changed my life. I love my new life so very, very much." Closing shot of happy couple walking off hand-in-hand into the distance, credits rolling.

I don't know this couple personally. All my opinions are formed from what is shown on the screen. To me, there doesn't seem to be one honest moment in that final interview. Mainly because of the lack of any footage of the final 12 months, showing that painful growth from doubt to acceptance.

There were so many moments in the documentary that they could have chosen to pivot, to reveal a perhaps unpopular truth (at least within the FIRE community) that sometimes, for some people, the path most taken is also the one that sparks the most joy.

There are so many people that love their career and their present life's trajectory. The big house, the fancy car, the status of a well-paying job that are rewards on that fulfilling road that they also enjoy traveling with good company. Nowhere is this more evident than on Mr Money Mustache forums, where there are so many accounts of those who have trouble staying on that path of delayed gratification, of grim and bitter austerity, mortgaging their present opportunity for contentedness on the off-chance that maybe a future without mandatory work will bring even greater joy.

Maybe, it might.

But maybe, perhaps staying in The Matrix, that swallowing the Blue Pill Transactional Immediacy of "enjoying the fruits of your hard work now", is actually the correct choice for a lot of people.

The husband could have turned the movie completely around in the forest when he revealed his concerns about wanting to make his wife happy. That could have been the pivoting moment. It could have elevated a very hollow and unconvincing documentary about the FI movement into a riveting and heartwarming story about thoughtfulness and self-sacrifice, of love and dedication within a marriage. When a man places his wife's wants and needs above making a narrative fit the thesis of his documentary so they can capitalize on a fad.

Because FIRE is fad. Just like the Atkins Diet, or Cabbage Patch Dolls. There are some people that capture this movement perfectly, like the teacher couple at the MMM camp that talked about side-hustles, making FIRE on $30K incomes, etc. They seemed like the kind of people that a $50K BMW would never be a temptation, even if they made $300K a year.

But the film maker and his wife do not fit that mold. They're two people in a boat rowing in two different directions (to use a metaphor of one the FIRE gurus).

So make a documentary about that.

Because *THAT'S* more interesting and honest than a capture-the-zeitgeist, I-want-to-fit-in-too, of-the-moment throwaway program that tries too hard to force a narrative from footage that begs a completely different thesis.

Because the hype around FIRE will fade, and so too will this forgettable documentary, because it chose not to pivot, to lean into its few honest moments and transform itself into a much more interesting *and timeless* story.

Just my not-so-humble opinion. Also not a popular MMM viewpoint, I know.

*shrug*

[terran]

There are some people that capture this movement perfectly, like the teacher couple at the MMM camp that talked about side-hustles, making FIRE on $30K incomes, etc. They seemed like the kind of people that a $50K BMW would never be a temptation, even if they made $300K a year.

Interesting and well said critique. I largely agree (now that you've said it).

Just FYI, if I'm thinking of the right scene "the teacher couple" is our very own @arebelspy and his wife.

[arebelspy]

There are some people that capture this movement perfectly, like the teacher couple at the MMM camp that talked about side-hustles, making FIRE on $30K incomes, etc. They seemed like the kind of people that a $50K BMW would never be a temptation, even if they made $300K a year.

[slappy]

Also interesting that @arebelspy was in the movie, he is a celebrity now.

I watched the movie months ago with my local Choose FI group at the time, one of whom was in that scene with him.  I immediately saw ARS in the circle and pointed him out. Nobody else in the room knew what/who I was talking about.  I couldn't believe that nobody else in my ChooseFI group had been on these forums.

I'm always suprised at the people in the ChooseFI groups haven't even heard of or listened to the ChooseFI podcast, never mind know anything about MMM.

[arebelspy]

I agree with the last half-dozen posts or so.

There were a number of not believable things, issues with the narrative, and glossed over (Scott's money making plan being this documentary was a big one that bothered me--Taylor supporting him for a year as he moved her around, etc.). Her sudden switch at the end was not well developed.

Having briefly met them at Camp Mustache two years ago, I think they're perfectly nice people.

But I don't think that documentary tells the best story of FIRE.

I also don't believe it was meant to.

Answer this: if your target audience doesn't spend a lot of money, how do you sell to them?

Their answer was pack with fire "celebrities". MMM. MadFIentist. Kristy millennial Revo. Paula Pant. Jim Collins.

People love their celebrities. In this crowd though it isn't the Kardashians, it's the bloggers they've been reading a lot years. So pack with them, get them to endorse and recommend it, and see sales.

The premise is flawed from the beginning. If, of course, your goal is to introduce people to FIRE.  I don't know that that was the goal though.

I'm skeptical Scott and Taylor will last a decade on the FIRE path. But I do wish the best to them.

And I'm glad they (and Travis, the director) did it. The more the FIRE word is spread, the better.

And I think this will do more to get the word out than it will turn people off, so I still view it as a net positive, even if I personally wasn't a fan and agree with the above criticisms.

[HBFIRE]

Answer this: if your target audience doesn't spend a lot of money, how do you sell to them?

Their answer was pack with fire "celebrities". MMM. MadFIentist. Kristy millennial Revo. Paula Pant. Jim Collins.

People love their celebrities. In this crowd though it isn't the Kardashians, it's the bloggers they've been reading a lot years. So pack with them, get them to endorse and recommend it, and see sales.

Well said, this was very obvious to me as well.

[ixtap]

Really hated the video.  They seem like spoiled people who came up with a hair brained scheme that isn't working for them, but they won't admit it to themselves.  Mooching on parents to save money is disgraceful.  Putting a child through this is BS.  The wife is not on board and will probably take off once she seems some cash she can take in divorce.

This was my impression from their original calls for funding. Well, not about the wife, but the general impression.