Talk:The Shootist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dollor?[edit]

Wayne's horse was called Dollor? That's an unusual way to spell it, is it correct? Pufnstuf 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. New here, and know this is an old question, but yep that's spelled right. User:Ched Davis 17:26, 24 December 2008

Wayne & Stewart[edit]

My question is, I thought that Stewart and Wayne had played together in one other movie, I can't remember the name, but I remember the last scene being a shot of Stewart riding on the back of a train. Saw it when I was a little kid. Ched (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only other movie they starred together in was: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The film starts and ends with a Senator Ransom "Rance" Stoddard (James Stewart) taking a train to and from Shinbone. There is a note about it in the article in the "Background" section. Good film, you should watch it again. - 4.240.165.207 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. They also starred in the same movie in "How the West was Won". Although they never were in the same scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.226.191 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD[edit]

Should the article contain information about the extras on the DVD? Meaning the Interviews, and such? Ched (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"outstanding score" with Jack Pulford or Jay Cobb?[edit]

What "outstanding score" did Books have with Jack Pulford or Jay Cobb? Mike Sweeney was the only one who wanted to avenge his brother, Albert. - 4.240.165.207 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the Cobb thing goes back to the beginning of the movie, the whole "Move it" / "Try it" confrontation. You have a point on Pulford. Please, if you can think of a better way of putting it, feel free to edit the article. The more editors the better (not counting vandals and such). If I think of something, I'll stop back and change, but I encourage you to go ahead and change it too. Ched (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About midway in the movie, Jack Pulford hears that J.B. Books is dying. He remarks, "That's one man I could have taken." This remark provokes a dispute and a shootout with a customer. Later, Marshal Thibido tells Books about the shooting and suggests that he might send him over to face Books. That being said, you do raise a valid point: the movie doesn't really do a good job of explaining why Books had grievances against the three men. It's one of the few things I dislike about this movie.97.73.64.173 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Books had no beef with Jack Pulford; Pulford represented a challenge. Once Books heard from Gillom about Pulford's proficiency with a gun, he was intrigued by the idea of facing down Pulford. Another consideration is that Books did not want to die a horrible death from cancer. His preference was to die in a shootout. In fact, if you watch closely, he seems disappointed that none of his three adversaries was able to kill him. (The back-shooting bartender did it.)

The Shootist is a great movie and John Wayne plays the part of Books magnificently, but the foregoing contributions have hit on a big weakness: why has Books called these three men together for this operatic ending? OK, Sweeney we know: there was a grudge, but the other two have feeble reasons for being drawn into this. If Books really saw Pulford as merely a challenge and wanted to get back at Cobb for crossing him in the street, that hugely weakens his character ... in fact undermines all the nobility Books displays throughout the picture. Does the novel on which the film is based offer any more guidance on this? It would have been easy to build a reason for all four of them being in the saloon for this final shootout – the reason why Books had come to Carson City in the first place. It would have been a great last-reel puzzle solver. But maybe the point is there is no logic – that the shootist's life ultimately is one of random violence, which is why the Ron Howard character has to throw the gun away. In the book, as I understand it, it is the Howard character who kills Books, ensuring that the cycle of violence continues. Since the film changes that part of the ending, it could usefully have smoothed out the reasons for these three disparate wannabe killers being in the bar. A great film that could have been a masterpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.14.255 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point (about the movie not really adequately explaining why all these men were called together other than that Doc Hostetler had told Books that, if he had the latter's courage, he would not die the hard and painful death that the former had explained would be the case if nature took its course).
In the book though, the reasons are easy to discern, as the novel has the scene where -- in the movie version -- Thibido is talking to Books in Mrs. Rogers kitchen (after the shooting of Shoup and Norton), taking it a step further and telling the gun man that his whole life has never amounted to a "tinkers damn" and why didn't he do something good for once in his life. After facing down the marshal once again, Books considers this privately and, along with the doctor had told him earlier about how his death would be (which was quite a bit harsher put than in the movie), decides does lots of contemplation and decides to combine the two. That is, avoiding a painful, slow, death, and at the same time do something good (as in ridding the town of all the "hard-cases"). As an additional note, in the novel, Books had never had a previous confrontation with Cobb, and there was no Sweeney who bore him an earlier grudge for killing his brother (this character was replaced by a cattle rustler called "Cross-Eye"). Pulford was the only one who had been previously introduced in an earlier chapter, when there was the description of his having put a bullet in the heart of a man he had earlier ejected at a remarkable distance.
Interestingly though, whereas the movie has a somewhat lengthy scene of Pulford and Books trying to kill each other? In the novel Books, after Pulford fires, Books kills him instantly with one shot thru the heart at a long distance. It is hard to think otherwise that this written version was not intentionally written with irony given the earlier description of Pulford's instantly killing the disgruntled customer... TexasReb (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the points raised here. Why did Books want to have a showdown with the three men? The movie doesn't really make that clear, except in the case of Richard Boone's character. It's one of the few weak points of an otherwise great movie.67.45.107.78 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart told Wayne after the diagnosis that he would not want to die that way (lingering painful death by cancer). Wayne chose to die in a shoot-out with multiple men. — Ched :  ?  01:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the scene about 25:30 into the movie - right after he kicks Dobkins out. — Ched :  ?  01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The film makes it clear that all four facing Books at the end were bad men whom he elected to face rather than dying of "cancer...advanced." I have no problems with this aspect of film. What did annoy me (and, I think, the majority of audiences at the time) was the gun-throwing scene at the end. It feels forced, and there's no rationale reason for Gillom to chuck it.. To start with, he doesn't know anything about Books' cancer and attempted suicide-by-shootout to avoid a painful, lingering, bedridden death. --He just saved the man's life (albeit temporarily) by gunning down a back-shooter. The throwing scene is illogical and forced, and many viewers rankled at the intrusive anti-gun sentiment.
It is my conclusion that the scene was added after the primary filming had already been completed, as a virtue-signal to leftwing critics (who responded by applauding the film). In fact, if you remove the scene in a video-editing tool, the squealing ceiling fan's cadence lines up perfectly. In other words, the gun-throwing scene wasn't originally in the cut. Do so drastically alters the final tone of film: No one outside on the street has witnessed the shootings, and no one knows that Gillom shot anybody. He walks out "tall" after. But in the released cut, he comes across as a vacillating wimp who immediately regrets his heroism -- the perfect embodiment of 1970s malaise that nobody in the audience wanted in a John Wayne picture.--Froglich (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the film[edit]

Since the article is mainly about the film, the first sentence is misleading. I would suggest something along these lines:
"The Shootist is a 1976 Western film directed by Don Siegel and is noted as being the final film role of actor John Wayne. The film is based on the novel written by Glendon Swarthout and published in 1975.[1]".
Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major differences between the book and the film is that in the book version Gillom is a bad kid and in trouble a lot. In the movie, with Ron Howard in the role, he is a basically good kid that could turn out either good or bad. At the end of the film when he tosses away Books's gun, he signals which way his life is headed and Books smiles in approval just before dying.

Since 99.9% of the article is about the film, I've rephrased the intro and gotten rid of the sole novel category. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

final gunfight[edit]

I think that the article gets this wrong. Books asks Gillom Rogers to inform the three men that he will be at the saloon. The saloon owner was not one of the three, as it says in the article. The saloon owner comes out after Books kills the three men. The other, I believe, was a gunfighter, although he's not mentioned here.Mk5384 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you consider to be inaccurate. Sweeney, Pulford, and Cobb are all mentioned. The bartender who ultimately kills Books was played by an uncredited Charles G. Martin, according to IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I said, "I think". There's every possibility that I could be wrong.Mk5384 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now. I misread the article. Thanks for your help!Mk5384 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American bald eagle[edit]

From User:Hawkswill:

New Major Addition by Keith Payne

After probably over 100 viewings of The Shootist, while getting ready to do some sketches I noticed something that I had never seen or read anything about in all these years. Made me think twice again about the way Duke felt about whether or not this would be his last movie. Not only was he very ill and the finishing of the film was in question, but, he named the landlady his best friend, Bond, but there was one thing that has been overlooked all these years. And NOW, it stands out like a huge nugget of gold in a stream. In the final scene for Duke, he lies covered by Gillom's coat. Directly behind him in the middle of his body in the background is one of the symbols of Duke's entire life.....his extreme patriotism. What is it, why the American Bald Eagle, the symbol of our country, Duke's country. It took us 36 years to find this. Wonder if there are anymore nuggets like this out there. Remember, Duke learned from the best....Pappy Ford. When asked about symbolism which we know he used in all of his really good movies, he always said, "Just a job of 'werk'". Look again, do YOU honestly believe that eagle in that position at THAT time was an accident? Duke, you have once more remindedus of the true patriot you were. May you never stop doing so.

Hawkswill states it "... had never been reported or spoken of since the making of the movie 36 years ago". Until it has by WP:reliable sources, it's WP:original research. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited Actors?[edit]

Did Pat Buttram play one of the guys delivering Books's headstone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect....[edit]

The article states, "She [Lauren Bacall] is concerned about Gillom, who has grown up without a father's influence...." In the movie, she stated that she had only been a widow for a year.67.45.102.251 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Shootist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flop[edit]

The film was actually regarded as a flop when it was released. (Derscht (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Shootist&oldid=1203837342"