MovieChat Forums > Class of 1984 (1982) Discussion > Does the final voice make any sense? (sp...

Does the final voice make any sense? (spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by gwydno
20 replies | jump to latest

There is a final voice after Stegman dies who says that Norris was not sued because there was no witness who saw what happened. I found this absolutely stupid. Witnesses are by no means essential to uncover the truth of a crime. Norris and his gang "friends" left fingerprints, sweat, signs of battle in countless places.
So, how are we expected to believe that the police simply let it go? And, since this movie is said to be based on real events, is it possible that this incredible outcome happened in reality?

[–] sexytony_1 17 years ago

It's not stupid what so ever. If you remember in the movie stegamn and his gang did a lot of sh!t to mr norris but they got away with it because there was no witnesses even the cop said at one point "you have to be holding the kids hand in the act or els you got nothing". So the ending made total sense because no one see mr norris actually do case closed . kinda funny when you think about it actually .

[–] gwydno 17 years ago

Most crimes happen with no witness at all. The police have to guess all what happened with all type of clues, from fingerprints to further contradictions of the suspects.
With all the fight and rage unleashed, Norris would have left hair, skin, sweat... all around the school.
If things were just the way you explain them, there would not be CSI on TV!! ;-)

[–] sexytony_1 17 years ago

It was the early 80s when this movie came out maybe the laws were alittle different back then .

[–] danixdefcon5 17 years ago

Actually, if you check the entire movie, there is lot of stuff that would easily sack the punks long before the final confrontation:

- The bag would definitely have Stegman's fingerprints in there,
- The Molotov cocktail might've had them too
- The lab would definitely have some of them,
- If they had locked down the school after the stabbing, they would've got the offending weapon AND the owner's fingerprints.

If that isn't enough, the gangrape photo was sufficiently incriminating to land them in jail. Basically they didn't go down because of inaction of the authorities and the principal; so eventually Norris' actions went unpunished by the same inaction.

Remember, the cops didn't prove Norris crashed Stegman's car either...

[–] kurt-178 16 years ago

Exactly!

And because they (the authorities) knew everything, but couldn't do squat, they presumably didn't even bother to try to get Norris into jail:
they must have been kinda happy, that those little devils were gone!

Nobody lives forever - but we all shine on!
(Stephen King's "Riding The Bullet")

[–] bing-57 15 years ago

> they must have been kinda happy, that those little devils were gone!

Correct. We very clearly saw that the cops were lazy and afraid to do anything. When Mr. Norris did all the dirty work for them they were more than happy to turn a blind eye to it all.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] jc2scoops 16 years ago

genetic profiling using dna wasn't even discovered until 1984

dna evidence wasn't used to convict anyone in the us until around 1987.

Since this was filmed in 1982,only conventional methods of policing would've been used

[–] palmercin 16 years ago

Films like this. Revenge films go on the premise that the courts are to left wing and lenient. Just letting people go no jail time. Or thinking everyone can be saved/changed no matter how off the rocker. Using social programs in lieu of jail.

with the powers of justice impotent the protagonist must take matters into his/her own hands.

Check out my blog. Crappy Film Reviews.

http://lscottpalmer.blogspot.com/

[–] puckruss 16 years ago

I my opinion.. key word my.. I think people must have assumed that Stegman killed all his friends, and then committed suicide.. which it looks like he did from how the noose got wrapped around his neck.

just I thought..
to add more sense to this retarded movie,
which I only watched for Michael J. Fox.

[–] andymac67 16 years ago

Maybe because it was filmed in Toronto....Canadian laws are so weak. How often do you hear of someone who was sent to jail for murder only to get out about 5 years later for good behavior..then often these people who are released early from a sentence end up killing someone else. :)

[–] Beau_Buffet (327) 5 months ago

Yep. The characters in a movie are always under the law of the country where the shooting took place.

Great analysis.

[–] kingpin666-1 16 years ago

I think that the word 'Irony' comes to mind. Just watch the film.

[–] Adec 15 years ago

Exactly. The final statement was basically satirising the lax law enforcement attitude of "if no one saw anything there's nothing we can do" that had been such a strong theme of frustration for Norris whenever he tried to get help throughout the film.

[–] jesudomine 15 years ago

It wasn't the laws that were the main problem. The problem throughout the whole movie was that nobody would testify against Stegman's gang since "nobody saw anything".

The last text was a nod to that. Probably everybody (except Stegman's mother I guess) thought getting rid of the gang was a good thing, and therefore covering for Norris.

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

The endnote was pointless, an attempt to tack on a "happy" ending to a bleak film. Besides, the teacher's wife was a witness, so it's also inaccurate.

[–] legal_eazin 14 years ago

Call this a cop-out response (no pun intended), but I think the poor explanation voiceover just ups its cult/b-movie charm. Like many posters pointed out, this film has issues all over the place and the gang could have been arrested a long time ago.

But what fun would that be?

[–] lartrak 14 years ago

Films like this are a sort of hyper-reality, exaggerating the problems of the day to make a point. This includes the difficulty of getting convictions on juveniles, requiring eye witnesses, etc.

The ending was perfectly in tone with other obvious exaggerations of police work and evidence standards from the police.

[–] jt1999 14 years ago

It was a title in the version I saw -- similar to the titles used at the beginning of the film. No one's voice was heard.