Surely a bunch of pampered rich kids would struggle to stand up to terrorists and expect to be saved by the authorities, whereas kids from an inner city public school would be more inclined to fight back because life had taught them to be resilient?
shareI think the school in this movie was supposed to be a special one created for kids with real discipline problems hence it wasn't your regular preparatory chock full of snobby lacrosse playing douchebags complete with shirt and tie ensembles. These guys were all rebels who had mostly been kicked out of other prep schools (probably for pissing off the type of people you're thinking of) thus were probably just like regular people. Plus I think it's a stereotype that all rich kids are pampered wussies who can't fight for $hit.
Also, a big part of this movie is that the kids had to be intelligent first (gather intel, do recons, set up elaborate plans and schemes) in order to dupe the terrorists. It wasn't all about fighting physically back, the gang were kind of street smart, displayed leadership and took risks and had nerves of steel to actually go up against the bad guys (hence the 'soldiers' in the title). The rich angle was just played up for dramatic purposes, to prove these guys had character, toughness etc (and gave a reason for the terrorists targeting their school in particular).
Water, my ass! Bring this guy some pepto bismol!
Good answer Lonestarr.
I think you're right about these particular kids being so-called 'problem kids' who were the type who rebelled against authority (in a good and bad way) and thus had a bit of gumption about them. It would have been interesting to have them within a prep school setting, maybe as labelled 'problem kids' in danger of expulsion, and turn out to be the only ones able to stand up to the terrorists whilst their conventional lacrosse-playing stuffed-shirt classmates cowered in the corner.
It's probably a stereotype to say that all rich kids are wussies, granted, but as with a lot of stereotypes there is still probably an element of truth, so whilst not all rich kids are helpless I imagine that a lot of them are, certainly in comparison to public school kids.
Good answer Lonestarr.
and turn out to be the only ones able to stand up to the terrorists whilst their conventional lacrosse-playing stuffed-shirt classmates cowered in the corner.
so whilst not all rich kids are helpless I imagine that a lot of them are, certainly in comparison to public school kids.
It depends. If you're talking about a public school in Compton then yeah. But this movie the students needed to use their wits more than their strength and if an inner city school just had them being tough and standing up to terrorists by force and attitude only, they would've all got shot (unless there were a few token nerds among them pulling all the necessary strings).But I wasn't just referring to brute strength and attitude. Poorer kids would have to have their wits about them to get ahead in the world, whereas the rich princes and princesses could call upon daddy and mommy to be there and use their gold cards to buy them out of trouble. Thus, rich kids never have to develop the mental or physical skills to survive, these 'problem kids' excepted.
Poorer kids would have to have their wits about them to get ahead in the world, whereas the rich princes and princesses could call upon daddy and mommy to be there and use their gold cards to buy them out of trouble
That's true and I do agree with what you're generally saying but the guys in this movie tended to have some real intelligence mixed with a street wise attitude. My point was rather what kind of gang you'd have coming from an inner city school if the movie was indeed set there. The academic standards there are universally lower than elite schools like the one in this film (and that goes for worldwide) and includes superior athletes on scholarships as well (which covers the physical angle). Would you find the same calibre of students in the schools you're thinking of?I've just always had a big problem with the idea that rich kids are smarter than plebs, like myself.
I wouldn't take it to heart like that. Of course there are smart poor people and dumb rich ones. But for the sake of this movie it just worked better using an elite school. I wasn't saying (and didn't mean) you wouldn't find smart people in a rougher school, it's just in Hollywood exaggerations or stereotypes of reality are always made and in this case it suited the film to have the kids be in a hard edged prep school because it fit the context and story that much better than using an inner city one.
Also, you question inner city kids not all being academic underachievers (which is obviously true) yet started this topic basically calling rich people spoilt and defenceless. It doesn't really make sense to criticize one stereotype while using an other.
Water, my ass! Bring this guy some pepto bismol!
Also, you question inner city kids not all being academic underachievers (which is obviously true) yet started this topic basically calling rich people spoilt and defenceless. It doesn't really make sense to criticize one stereotype while using an other.Yeah, but I'm okay with that stereotype.
I went to several public schools (I moved around a lot growing up) and knew a few people who came from very wealthy families. You'd never know it because they were as normal and down to earth as you could find. They were like that because having lots of money doesn't always equal being owed something in life. I think you'll find a lot of examples of people like that, it's not unique. I find that it is still a stereotype to say things like that, even if I agree that it is less offensive than attacking the less privileged. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Water, my ass! Bring this guy some pepto bismol!
This conversation, just LOL ...
Most studies have shown that the more brash, aggressive people often die first as they take the most risks and often without thought. Inner-City kids are no more likely to survive than those with a wealthy upbringing. To be honest, a lot of this sounds like nothing more than mere jealously.
Regardless of being rich or poor, it comes down to individual will and common sense. The ability to think on your feet. No child from the Inner City is going to automatically just do better in a combat/life-or-death situation than someone from the Middle-Class or Upper-Class.
Life experiences per individual will play a factor, not generalities or stereo-types. IE: Not all poor white boys can hunt/track and make a weapon from a beer can and bubble gum and not every black kid from Compton can fight like Mike Tyson and run like Jessie Owens.
Exactly, I agree.
They just set this in a rich school because they needed an excuse for the terrorists to hold them for ransom (their parents were not only rich but they had connections to the mob, president etc).
The kids, however, all just acted like regular ones and that's what made the film great. Their class background was immaterial, it was just a plot device. By focusing on them just being rich you're missing the forest for the trees. It was about their attitude, their humor and their kick ass-ness etc. They were cool kids. Who wouldn't want to hang out with Billy Tepper and co from this movie?
when will then be now?
Yeah, like no private kid ever joined the military and became officers and such. Only street kids get to do that.
shareBy design the rich kids had to be SMART kids too.. As the whole film is predicated or was on the notion that the terrorist is going to hold the son of the Judge presiding over his father's case hostage. Now this is proven moot as he is taken out before the take over. But a federal judge's kid would be unlikely to be in school with "poor kids" and be more likely to be in an elite prep school. Although you can say the characters shown (Astin, Wheaton, Coogan) were not just the typical rich vacuous kids but had more of a stubborn rebellious streak to them. Obviously Joey (Wheaton) didn't want to be associated with his father the Mafia Don.
so you do have to have it in that elite school, although I would say some of the characters do represent the more spineless type of rich kids you are talking about. It's just not representative of our lead characters, and if it were.. well there wouldn't be much of a movie.
although I would say some of the characters do represent the more spineless type of rich kids you are talking about.Cool. Were some of the supporting characters of this type? share
Is Harvey a homosexual?
http://i.imgur.com/dd5OpCC.gifv
He's also a pussy.
The real 🍎🍏🍊HarveyManfredSinJohn.🍊🍏🍎
http://m.imgur.com/U2gEiwZ
The Ice Princess takes it in the pooper. Then she likes to taste it. #PuddinggPops 💩
Yeah, I agree with Lonestarr_Winnebago that the kids are portrayed in this film as regular people who just happen to come from wealthy backgrounds, so it isn't like they wear it on their sleeve like some types do (as less wealthy people can also wear their backgrounds on their sleeve). I thought it was a nice touch, and made me like that core group.
share