MovieChat Forums > Toy Soldiers (1991) Discussion > "F*ck my father. And f*ck you. I'm not g...

"Fck my father. And fck you. I'm not going anywhere without my friends."

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (13016)
13 replies | jump to latest

Hi, granted, I understand that the student who said it valued his friends greatly and their lives so much, that even after he was told he can go by the terrorists who also claimed they "respect" his father (maybe they meant it as a complement), the guy went mad and shouted "F*ck my father. And f*ck you. I'm not going anywhere without my friends."

And later, he even struggles and taken a gun from one of the terrorists and attempts to take them down himself only to SPOILERS ALERT - be killed afterwards.

Now, I wonder the following.

Did he really dislike his father that much? Also, even if he valued the lives of his friends, instead of bursting into anger, saying a disrespectable thing about his father himself (f*ck my father!) and the lead terrorist, couldn't he have accepted being let go or just politely tried to ask "But what about my friends?" or even "I'm glad you and my father have some sort of understanding, but is there anything more he and maybe I can do so that my friends may be released at some point as well?", sort of like how that "Ellis" guy in "Die Hard" tried to negotiate politely with the terrorists to let him and the hostages go?

Maybe he could have also said to his friends as he was being released - "Don't worry, my father will think of something, soon we'll meet again and you will all be let go, don't worry, we won't forget you" and to the terrorists - "We'll do anything you ask, however, if you hurt any of my friends, remember my father is a powerful figure, he can make you or break you. Make the right choice please Mr, thank you. Its first and foremost in your best interests." and in any case, what do you think, thanks.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

He was a hot-headed teen with daddy issues in a high stress situation. He’s not going to have your calm rational approach because he isn’t you. He handled things terribly because… kids are dumb.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 years ago

In Die Hard (1988) albeit perhaps also somewhat unprofessionally, Ellis tried to handle the situation rationally and he STILL got killed. So maybe that teen also even by as early as 1991 (long before say 2001's 9/11) learned the ever popular rule about "not negotiating with terrorists".

But then thinking he could take them down by himself with that weapon, that was like a cherry on top.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Well the Ellis situation was different because Hans just used the idiot as a bargaining chip to get his detonators back from McClane. This kid tried to ‘fight back’, had never fired a gun before, and got himself shot.

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

It holds up to me. His father was the head of the mafia, it makes sense that having somewhat of a moral compass he could strongly disavow being his son.

He also clearly has a lot of loyalty to his friends, they were probably the only people in his life that he actually cared for.

Of course, the smart play would be to take the deal and walk. But I can see where that would make him feel selfish. And also keep in mind he is a child in a traumatic situation...He's not going think in the most rational of ways.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 years ago

"Of course, the smart play would be to take the deal and walk. But I can see where that would make him feel selfish."

But then asking perhaps a little kinder of someone who has his and other lives in their hand isn't exactly a selfish act, he could've maybe simply tried to find out in a less aggressive way what he can do to get his friends released as for one demanding it angrily may by default not allow it.

He could've maybe accepted his release AND THEN with the help of his father hatch some kind of rescue plan. Maybe even ask if those terrorists want money or something and maybe the father is rich and he could help, maybe for at least a few friends of his he can offer ransom or something?

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

I am skeptical of that line of thinking. I think he understands that these terrorists are not looking to be bought off or bargained with, especially his specific friends are the very people that the terrorists have for leverage.

And I have to reiterate that we have to consider this is a teenage boy, not a military or crisis strategist. We're talking about the decision making skills of a teenager. Impulsiveness without rationality is very much synonymous with his demographic.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 years ago

Also, what if that kid and his father actually gotten on well with each other or the son at least may not have been aware of his father's criminal dark side? Would he and the terrorist speak along those lines then?

And yeah I understand he was also distraught, inexperienced and whatnot and possibly even by 1991 have learned the ever popular American mantra about "not negotiating with terrorists" but still...

And maybe the terrorist could've also said something to him like - "As soon as my demands are met, everyone will be let go" or even "If at this point I hear my father is on the way etc, I can release one or two, but before, sorry, need to take care of business first" - or something along them lines. :)

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 years ago

He could've also maybe asked - "My father? What has he got to do with any of this?" as well...

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

He's a smart enough kid to realize how powerful or well-connected his father is. He doesn't need to ask that because he most certainly already assumes his father had previous dealings with somebody connected to this cause.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

Basically, what I wondered overall is if that released kid could ask them to now, soon or sometime later RELEASE some or all of his friends and ask them NICELY and POLITELY or even act diplomatically, not selfishly and all that, but in a reassuring etc matter.

And certainly NOT ASSUME that he could after being released take one of the terrorist's guns and then decide he can take on some or all of the terrorists with a weapon HIMSELF and then both have his friends released, defeat the hostage takers AND bring the situation himself to an end whilst possibly becoming and being seen as some kind of hero in the process?

Why did he also assume he can take down the whole platoon of terrorists by himself? And was he THAT angry and mad at them for releasing him but not at the "same time" ALL his friends and having a "respect" for his father that even he himself does not like much if at all?

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) a year ago

He didn't assume anything. He panicked pure and simple.

I bet every Wesley Crusher hater that exists loved this scene.

[–] Moonglum9 (11275) a year ago

Lol of course they do. They got to see The Boy finally get killed.

[–] blindfolded (1618) a year ago

Again, I repeat, we're not talking about a military general here. We're talking about a teenage boy with an implied history of trouble. A literal child.