MovieChat Forums > The Warriors (1979) Discussion > Old Questions Asked And Likely Already ...

Old Questions Asked And Likely Already Answered

posted 9 years ago by fictionalman
12 replies | jump to latest

I rented this recently after watching the Robot Chicken spoof of one of it's iconic scenes,"Warriors...come out to play." I know this movie is some kind of cult favorite.My questions are probably old ones but they are new to me since I've only just seen the movie for the first time. Why couldn't the Warriors steal their own ride home? If their lives are in jeopardy, why rely on the subway? Are they supposed to be environmentally friendly gangs? This was years before Al Gore.How realistic is it supposed to be when not every gang uses fire arms? It was nice to see the actress who played ,"The Chief,play the D.J. in this film.I'm pleased they played a Joe Walsh song at the end.

That's just my two cents.

[–] jtrip-45023 9 years ago

The train would take them directly back and would be the fastest way to go. They are way out of their territory. Swan mentions that they've never been there before. Even if they stole a car they wouldn't know the directions to drive back. No GPS back then. There was supposed to be a truce just for that one night. No gangs were supposed to attack another and nobody was supposed to bring guns to the meeting.

[–] fictionalman 9 years ago

You are telling me that the Warriors were lost outside of Coney Island? For a street gang that is supposed to be super tough, I find that hard to believe.

My other question was referring to guns after the truce meeting.You are telling me that in NYC during the late 1970's criminals could not get access to illegal firearms?In fact some of the gangs had select non guns as weapons for each of their brands; baseball bats,chains,etc. Yes the female gang had guns but I'm asking about all of the others after the truce?

IMO I find the film's premise dated ,jaded and unrealistic.I read that the movie was based on a book. It appears that the book's author was unfamiliar with actual urban living and was exploiting urban stereotypes.I presume the target audience were sheltered naive teenagers. That's just my two cents.

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

You are telling me that the Warriors were lost outside of Coney Island? For a street gang that is supposed to be super tough, I find that hard to believe.

They weren't totally lost, as they were able to navigate on foot and knew the train system. But that wouldn't mean they would know every side street or every neighborhood. Fox might have known; it seemed to be his job to know the territories and gangs, but once he was out of the picture, they may have been hampered. Cleon might have also had more knowledge of the area, but he was lost early too.

Another possible reason is that a car might be too conspicuous, and it's easier to hide on foot. From the Bronx to Coney Island, they'd have to cross two boroughs and one or more bridges, and the cops were on full alert and likely watching all the major thoroughfares.

My other question was referring to guns after the truce meeting.You are telling me that in NYC during the late 1970's criminals could not get access to illegal firearms?In fact some of the gangs had select non guns as weapons for each of their brands; baseball bats,chains,etc. Yes the female gang had guns but I'm asking about all of the others after the truce?

They probably could get access to firearms in their own territory, but if they have them hidden away somewhere, it might take time to get to them. It seemed that guns were a rarity overall. Other than the Rogues and the Lizzies, none of them seemed to have any guns - or at least none they had available on short notice. With the Lizzies, they were in the own hideout or "headquarters," so they must have had a gun hidden away there.

The Furies, Orphans, or Punks didn't have guns, and it didn't appear that the Turnbull AC's or even the Riffs had any firearms with them either. Not sure why. Maybe with the police on alert, no one wanted to risk getting caught out on the streets with a gun.

[–] fictionalman 9 years ago

Thank you for your explanation of the movie.It doesn't change my opinion of it.That's just my two cents.

[–] boudicea1967 9 years ago

Actually, on YouTube there is a documentary in several parts with the some of the actors and it explains your viewpoint of it being unrealistic. Did you see the Director's cut by chance? It does not have too much extra in it, but it is in comic book "form" for lack of a better word and you do see it in the normal film of using a technique where they you see one scene and it goes to another to say "meanwhile, back here...." and the producers talk about it and how they made the movie and the two things that the movie was based on: The book by Sol Yurick and a story about how a company of Spartans were stranded in some part of Persia and how they made it out of there. No, that is no reference to the 300 movies, but it is pretty interesting. The book was very different than the movie regarding the characters.

The producers and directors and the people involved say in the documentary that it is not reality as you mentioned and using the comic book format, they hoped that they would be able to convey that to the audience. I will leave a link to the first part of it below for you to look at. It really was interesting.

Yea, it is dated as well. I grew up in the late 70s and 80s and it makes more sense to those of us who grew up and by grew up I am talking about those of us who remember that time clearly. Back then it was not very common for street gangs to carry guns, maybe a switchblade but not like they had in the 90s on. They did have "guns" if you want to call them that, but they were like the "pop guns" that were handmade and if you got shot by one, it would not kill you so much as just hurt. This was an interesting thing when I was doing coursework for my bachelors and Masters and one of the points was that we do not know if gangs became more violent so much as he weapons were more accessible.

I am sorry you did not like the movie. It was a "time piece" that has not been so long ago that it is portraying a distant time where you would understand that the customs were different, say like if someone did a movie about Salem and the Puritans. Maybe that is not a good example.

However, one thing that I think the movie portrayed was that as young as these "kids" were or were suppose to be, they were loyal to each other even if they argued. It is like studying a different culture and in this particular culture there are things such as honor, trust, being true to friends. Not everyone picks that up. I do hope you check out the link I posted maybe then you will have a better understanding of it. Some like it and some don't and if you don't that is fine, it is not for everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIG9zpyob0s

[–] fictionalman 9 years ago

Thanks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIG9zpyob0s

That's just my two cents.

[–] boudicea1967 9 years ago

You're welcome. I hope you find it interesting and that it sheds some light on the motivations and the times in which we lived at one point. There is a weird sort of honor and a lot of people miss that.

Spoilers beware:

What I thought was really interesting has to do with one of the most creepy, taunting and brilliant scenes in the film. Even the Warrior actors said it was very eerie and to find out that it was just a last minute idea by David Patrick Kelly and how he came up with that scene. I was surprised to find out that he stayed away from the Warrior actors until the very last scene, which I think one or more of the actors saw it as an old western movie at the highlight of when the good guy and bad guy meet and he wanted it to be as authentic as possible. I have heard of a couple of actors doing that too when they had an important scene they had to do with another actor.

Still to this day, there are a couple of things that I will hear on the radio that play a couple of parts of that movie, the part with Ajax and the Baseball Furies and the end with the taunting.

I hope you liked watching it.

[–] LeonardPine 9 years ago

It's not supposed to be a realistic portrayal of gang warfare. The film is a comic strip. A stylized fantasy.

Yeah they could steal a car or steal some clothes and go incognito but then we wouldn't have a film would we?!!

Was it a millionaire who said "Imagine no possessions"?

[–] adresher-1 9 years ago

Your questions are fair and have been address in previous threads.

What people need to realize is the film takes place in the late 70s in NYC. NYC was a much different place back then. A vast majority of NYC consisted of neighborhood you NEVER stepped foot into, especially at night. Take Williamsburg, in the 70s, 80s and even most of the 90s you went there to have a steak at Peter Lugers, you parked your car in a parking lock with armed guards or took a limo and left. Many of today's most trendy neighborhoods were bleak back then. Take the Meat Packing District which is now all trendy boutiques and restaurants. In the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s it were desolate and if you drove through the area you would see lots of hookers.

In the 70s car were not as available as you would expect. People never drove in the bad neighborhoods and most people in those neighborhoods did not have cars. They either culd not afford one, had no need and feared them being stolen since there were no garages. If you look at old pictures of Harlem you will see few cars on the streets. I doubt they knew how to hot wire a car, since cars were not a part of their life and doubtful their parent or guardian had one. Also there really were no cars driving around they could try to jack.

As for guns, in the 70s guns were not readily available to gangs. Most NYC gangs fought with their fists, used a knife or baseball bat. It was not until the 80s that gangs gained much more access to firearms. This had a lot to do with the surge of cocaine and capital.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] valis1984 9 years ago

It's a fantasy not a documentary.

"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects". Will Rogers (1879-1935)

[–] jmcrighton-892-694446 8 years ago

fictionalman stop saying "that's just my two cents" we get that it's your opinion, you don't have to keep saying the same annoying line over and over