Takes place in the early 80s, rough neighborhood, on the subway...and he's attacked by 3 white businessman. I'm not sure if I think that's the most likey group of thugs that would be harassing a crazy white dude, just saying.
sharespoiler, it's not a true story
shareSpoiler, you're shitty at trolling.
sharesadly the director did not have the balls to show Latinos or blacks as the thugs....... would be helluva more realistic than 3 white guys riding the subway at night, and then assaulting people... SMH
It easily could be a true story. The joke here is that some dipshit thinks three guys being assholes to a lone woman and a lone clown is too far out to be reality... because they're white.
shareWell it was white people on the subway in the Warriors movie that was looking down on the gang couple in the movie,
shareWalter Hill didn't make any efforts at realisms in this or most of his other movies, but particularly this film. There were also no gangs that dressed as baseball players, mimes or any of the other ridiculous outfits these gangs choice to wear, so I'm not sure your comparison is very strong in this instance. It's also known that Hill purposely cast against type in this film, because he wanted everyone to be beautiful in contrast to the gritty environments.
shareThose were not thugs, but just normal or wealthy people living regular lives staring at the gang because they are so different from them.
shareAgree, it is ridiculous ........ def. should have been blacks or Latinos.
but of course, that would have been racist.... then to hell with realism, right?
SMH
I'm not even saying it should have been 3 minorities, but its very unlikely that 3 seemingly successful young men, who ALL happen to be white, would decide to suddenly become subway thugs.
sharefor sure.......
besides, in Gotham City/New York.. whites are the minority.
Way more realistic with blacks-latinos-middle eastern violent scumbags.
chicken move by the movie makers here
[deleted]
Yes, and the incident had to spark more class animosity with Arthur.
shareThese are three young white men, out on the town, probably using the subway to save money.
They still represent white upperclass given their jobs and elitist attitudes.
I don’t think if they were Latino or black that their death would have provoked the same antiestablishment sentiments.
They represent privilege.
Yes, but I think it would have been more impactful if the harassers were minorities (blacks/Latinos) but the people he ended up shooting were the upper class yuppies.
It's a pretty easy setup: The three yuppies are actually being harassed by three black thugs; the thugs make off with some cash after holding them at knife point. Angered and in shame, the three yuppies begin harassing Arthur for not helping them.
Cue the shooting that takes place where Arthur kills the victims of a violent mugging.
It would have spoke even more to his character, the class warfare taking place, and the cycle of violence unfolding throughout the city.
I took it as they represented the Yuppie stereotype in the 80s and they were usually white males.
shareSure, but 80s yuppies were pretty unlikely to assault someone on the subway. That was my point.
shareBut to do the set up of the Joker as an anti-establishment figure, to inspire a movement, the attackers had to be representative of the elite...
The complaint is valid...but what could have been done to fix it?
I think it would have been better to have the Joker misinterpret them, due to his mental illness. Have them be drunk assholes that were making fun of him, but nothing more. He could have still killed them, but it should have only been justified in his eyes. As the viewers we could have seen those characters much more as his victims, rather than his assailant.
shareA very different film if they did that.
share[deleted]
What a bunch of black assholes. Why isn't shit like this ever on CNN?
share3 POC gangbangers getting shot on the subway likely wouldn't have made the news in 1980s NYC. Also they were Wayne Enterprises employees which is part of the plot - the Joker's movement is against the rich & powerful and 3 yuppie businessmen getting shot fits right in.
shareYou missed my point. Yes, they were 3 yuppie businessmen. When has that ever been a demographic known for randomly attacking strangers on public transport?
shareSo are you saying it's impossible? This is a film, not a documentary.
MY whole point is that this DOES NOT happen regularly. That's why it's newsworthy.
In a sense I'm agreeing with you.
when people say shit like "it's a film,not a documentary", you might as well say "I'm trying to defend bad writing, but I can't". Movies are meant to mirror reality as much as possible so that we will be engrossed with it. That's why even good supernatural movies still establish rules that fit within our world, so it's relatable. And no, never in history have a group of businessman just decided to assault a man in full view for no reason on public transportation.
shareMovies are meant to mirror reality as much as possible