F&F is a kind of weird franchise, because it started out as a story about a cop infilitrating an illegal street racing circuit, and somehow morphed into basically a superhero franchise where everyone’s super power is “fancy driving.” But the first movie was definitely about people who were working class or lower.
Well, both are crazy-rich, and both are heroes, though they’re definitely flawed ones, with those flaws being portrayed often (and usually not in a positive light). Stark is egotistical, narcissistic, impulsive, a womanizer, and, at least in the books, an alcoholic (though, as the movies have gone on, he’s grown out of the worst of those traits). Wayne is obsessive, and prone to depression and extreme violence.
Hey, write a happy, even tempered, clean living rich-from-the-start (important condition, it doesn’t count if he is a millionaire at the END of the story but is a working stiff through most of it) character, and see if his story will sell tickets. People may have noticed and I think I commented it in some other post on such media matters, the modern audience has grown not just to accept but to expect, that a well written hero(ine) must have some character flaw or defect that “makes them more human”.
That said, yeah, I too need clarification on what’s the deal with “working class” protagonists and when were they abundant vs. recent times. Unless we are getting into the oft-raised issue that a lot of protagonists in film/TV could not possibly be living their portrayed lifestyles on the income from their portrayed employment, so you can’t suspend disbelief. Is it a matter that the author is thinking that he “can’t buy” the current acting crop as common-man leading characters? What IS that makes the hero “working class” and why should it matter?
I disagree with the posters who have been counting police officers as working class. 45% of them (in the U.S.) have college degrees, and a college degree is generally necessary for the best jobs. They average more than $60,000 per year.
That’s is hardly a modern innovation. Aristotle was writing about the importance of flawed protagonists in drama over two thousand years ago.
Perception is more important than actual income or education. Police officers are generally perceived as being blue collar, rather than being the equivalent of office workers. How do you expect a cop (in a movie) to talk, like a regular joe or like an accountant?
A seedy dive for “the usual suspects” in Hollywood’s idea of a romantically exotic location (you haven’t been to Highbury, have you?) was never going to make billions off the TV and image marketing rights.
Accountants are about the same in income as police officers in the U.S., somewhere between $60,000 to $70,000 a year. Most but not all accountants have college degrees.
Both jobs are on the low side of white-collar jobs. Police officers and accountants are both not working-class jobs in my opinion. The problem in the OP is the definition of working class. Jobs where the people seldom have college degrees (and the degrees would be irrelevant anyway) are just rarer now than they were during classic movie times (say, 1965 and before). Jobs where people work entirely outside of an office are rarer now. You can call jobs where people often need college degrees but don’t make more than $75,000 a year on average blue-collar jobs if you like. In that case there are just as many blue-collar jobs now in movies as during classic-movie times. Or you can call such jobs white-collar jobs. In that case there are less blue-collar jobs now in movies as in classic-movie times, but that’s because there are less blue-collar jobs now.