Do you guy's think that Tom was right for making Roarke give wade back the money or do you think Tom was being a jerk?
I think Tom was just jealous that wade's present was better than his.
"The world will look up and shout save us and i'll whisper no"--Watchmen
[deleted]
[deleted]
I can't believe some of the responses on this thread. You must not know that many manipulative people. Of course it was inappropriate for Wade to give the boy $200. And like melody mentioned, it was an intentional move on his part to create a rift between Roarke and the dad, because he KNEW the dad wouldn't accept it. Plus he was trying to buddy up to the kid to make it more difficult for the family to call him out on what he was doing, or ask him to leave. As long as he was the kid's bff, less likely chance of the parents ditching him since parents want their kids happy.
Tom already had a bad feeling about them, that perhaps they had sinister motives. So seeing him offer such a ridiculous amount to a child...he was right to be worried. I would be highly suspcious too...accepting such a large sum would also make it like they'd 'owe' Wade something. Pure manipulation. Notice that Meryl Streep doesn't get mad at Tom for doing it, because she was in agreement. Even though those two had earlier been disagreeing about Wade, she DID agree with that.
The only slightly genuine thing I felt from Wade was that he did have some admiration for Meryl Streep's character. Of course he was flirting and charming her near the start out of manipulation, but I think a part of him did respect her strength.
Back to the original point -- I'm not saying it's a flat out rule to never give a kid $200. But in the context of what was happening in the movie, the dad was absolutely right to turn it down.
I agree with the majority of you. Tom was right not to let him accept it. Two hundred dollars is way too much, and inappropriate as a gift to somebody you barely know, and Wade knew it. He did this deliberately to drive a wedge between Tom and his son, (knowing Tom has been busy with work, too little time for his family), so the little boy would wrap around his finger. If it was from the little boy's grandmother or something, that would be one thing. But these two, the family had known for barely a day. A much simpler gift would have been more appropriate. Tom was simply being a wise, responsible parent, and he already had a suspicious feeling about Wade and Terry.
shareI'm watching it right now and I agree that it's inappropriate to give a child you've just met $200 (which as others have pointed out, would be considerably more today). And, in the film, it's clearly motivated by something other than generosity.
shareA lot of people do understand the manipulation, but some of you must have been paying no attention.
For B-Days, Xmas, etc. parents in America (especially wealthy ones)typically give high-priced items to their kids. In this case it was a swiss army knife that cost $79.95.
Wade waits to find out how much the knife is worth before disappearing and coming back with the $200.
He's doing a few things here...
1) He's giving the kid a gift that he knows will be seen as extravagant and excessive by the parents. How does he know this? Well, their price point for an expensive bday gift was $80, and he delibrately gives the kid a gift worth 2.5 times that much. Which leads me to 2...
2)He's winning the kids favor, swaying him from the dad. Not only has Wade given him the hat and been a positive male role model for him, now he is spoiling the kid. He is showing him (in terms of a child's comprehension) that he loves the kid more than the dad because he's willing to give him a "better" gift.
3)He put himself in a win-win situation. Whether the kid keeps the money or not, he's going to appreciate the gift and like Wade even more. If the parents do make the kid return the money, it's a win because Wade knows the kid will resent the dad for making him return it (and he keeps his $200).
It was very clever, quick-thinking. During a moment where Roarke has an opportunity to appreciate his dad more, Wade flips it on his head and instead creates animosity within the family. If the kid is on Wade's side, it's going to make it a lot harder for the family to escape, right?
And the movie shows us this the very next day, when Roarke jumps on Wade's boat, eliminating their escape window.
It has nothing to do with pedophilia or generosity.
[deleted]
I thought Tom was being jerk. And I thought he was a jerk and a moron for most of the film.
I do like the film despite the fact that I'm rooting for Gail and Wade to hook up and wind up being kind of a Bonnie and Clyde couple for the whole film.
He was right because they don't know this man. No one ever gives you anything for nothing. He didn't want Roark taking stuff from strangers. And he might have been a bit jealous too because it was clear that Wade had his son's and wife's attention that he didn't have.
shareI don't think that jealousy had anything to do with Tom's insisting that the kid not accept the $200.00 from Wade. Tom knew exactly what Wade and Terry were up to from the get-go, and he didn't want to take any chances with the family getting into a really horrific situation, and possibly injured or killed by Terry and Wade. Gail, on the other hand, was rather naive, until near the end, when she was bathing in the nude and Wade and Terry were watching her from behind some trees. It was then that she realized how creepy that Wade and Terry were, and that they really were up to no good.
shareDon't know if this has been mentioned, but $200 in 1995 is worth about $316 in today's dollars (2016). $316 is a hell of a lot of money for any kid that age to get.
shareBut then, this whole creepy adventure, and the episode with Wade and Terry, brought Gail, Tom and Roarke closer together, after.
share