HF Westerns

Historical-Fiction
There are several things about Westerns that bug me. One being how the stars of the shows were so good with a gun. To be that good would require lots and lots of practice.There weren't that many people in the Old West who had the time nor money to put in "lots of practice". Not only would practice have terribly expensive and time consuming but by the time you were "good" ,you'd be deaf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sbc
There are several things about Westerns that bug me. One being how the stars of the shows were so good with a gun. To be that good would require lots and lots of practice.There weren't that many people in the Old West who had the time nor money to put in "lots of practice". Not only would practice have terribly expensive and time consuming but by the time you were "good" ,you'd be deaf.
It's editing, the sound affects are added after the action shots are taken, blanks are used while filming. Some of the western movie actors were actually cowboys, Slim Pickens was a rodeo clown and remained active even after getting big parts. Ben Johnson was the real deal. While working as an extra and a horse handler on the set of Stagecoach a horse team pulling the stage spooked and took off with some of the cast in it, Ben jumped on a horse and rode the team down, John Ford was so impressed he signed him to a movie deal, he worked for Ford for years but he detested swearing, years later when Ford offered him a part that required him to swear in front of a female cast member Ben refused and Ford fired him, Ben went back to rodeoing and won Cowboy of the Year!
One of the funniest bits of trivia concerns Jack Palance's appearance in Shane;
Check it out; Jack had never ridden a horse and it shows,

 
Didn't they just run the film backwards of Jack Palance mounting and dismounting in Shane? For those who like the pre-westerns Clark Gable's "Across the Wide Missouri" and Charleton Heston's "Mountain Men" should fill the bill. Heston also made another very good movie called "Will Penny". All the movies listed above should make anyone's top 20 list, they did mine.
 
There are several things about Westerns that bug me. One being how the stars of the shows were so good with a gun. To be that good would require lots and lots of practice.There weren't that many people in the Old West who had the time nor money to put in "lots of practice". Not only would practice have terribly expensive and time consuming but by the time you were "good" ,you'd be deaf.
Sorry I meant characters in the movies, not the actual stars. I should have been more specific. There really were some exceptionally fast stars. I read that Glenn Ford actually had to slow down his fast draw so the camera could catch it.
 
Last edited:
I have read True Grit a couple of times (first as a teenager, after seeing the original film; second time a year or two ago after seeing the [excellent] remake; I think I might be the only person in the world who liked Matt Damon's performance, and Hailee Steinfeld was just outstanding). I'm going to have to get The Shootist (book) now that I've read your post. I like the movie a lot, but despite seeing it many times I never really "get" the ending. Maybe reading the book will help.
The two men sitting on the stools at the Wild West Show were Frank James (Jesse's brother) and Cole Younger. Both were on the 1876 Northfield, Minnesota bank raid in which bank clerk Tom Heywood was killed. Younger was convicted for it but Mattie, and others, believed that Frank James did it.

Mattie arrived at the Wild West Show because Rooster had sent her an invitation. He knew he was dying. When she approached the two old men, Cole Younger stood up, took his hat off, and explained that Rooster had died three days earlier when the show was at another town. He finished by saying, "We had some lively times," thereby implying that Rooster had some history as an outlaw. Frank James remained seated with his hat on and said nothing.

When she departed she thanked Cole for sharing the information and remarked to Frank, "Keep your seat, trash."

 
The novel is very good and pretty well parallel to the story you get in the movie. I believe that the final shootout turns out differently.
ARB
The novel ending is only deceptively different. If you watch carefully you can see they are the same.

Before he shoots, he has dialog with Riker who tell's him "My argument is not wit you, Shane." Shane tells him that it is. He tells him "our time is over. The difference is I know it and you don't."

Thus, Shane's wound is fatal. He rides into the mountains to die, symbolizing the end of the gunfighter era. He can only temporarily conceal the wound from Joey. . . He might already be dead when Joey is calling him to come back.
 
The two men sitting on the stools at the Wild West Show were Frank James (Jesse's brother) and Cole Younger. Both were on the 1876 Northfield, Minnesota bank raid in which bank clerk Tom Heywood was killed. Younger was convicted for it but Mattie, and others, believed that Frank James did it.

Mattie arrived at the Wild West Show because Rooster had sent her an invitation. He knew he was dying. When she approached the two old men, Cole Younger stood up, took his hat off, and explained that Rooster had died three days earlier when the show was at another town. He finished by saying, "We had some lively times," thereby implying that Rooster had some history as an outlaw. Frank James remained seated with his hat on and said nothing.

When she departed she thanked Cole for sharing the information and remarked to Frank, "Keep your seat, trash."

Great ending with Mattie staying in character.
 
@Rusk County Avengers - my apologies; tried to put a positive comment on what you wrote as I appreciate what you posted. I should have just liked the post. Sorry to hear all these negative things happened to you During this time.
It don't bug me now that it's over. Life's an up and down business, you take the downs with the ups, otherwise life gets you down.
 
Just for a little input I asked my wife what her favorite western is. She replied "The Shootist". I am not the John Wayne fan that I used to be, but he's okay. I just wish he'd have listened to some of the movies technical advisors.Some of his movies are terrible about using the wrong equipment. "The Commancheros" is a perfect example.But for what they paid him he would probably have used a Tommy gun or Uzi in his westerns if the script called for it.
YES!!!!!!!!!!

I love John Wayne, but he like John Ford was a nitwit on the technical details of everything.

My folks were religious about him, but some movies like The Comancheros are a headache to watch! His worst offense was probably The Alamo.

He was trying to make a Cold War propaganda film, and went out of his way to demolish history for a message to audiences. Just like his mentor John Ford. That movie can be downright insulting. He only even filmed it in Texas because the State made it clear if he filmed it in Mexico as he wished, he better not expect it to screen here. According to some sources. Supposedly he had some political ambitions if it was a big enough hit, and he wanted it to be a campaign movie to show his positions. But at least the set was a great rendition.

But my folks took everything from him and such as true western history and anything else is a sad insult. My mother to this day refuses to watch the 2004 Alamo movie because as she's said, "It's just a remake of John Wayne's movies and they insult John Wayne and Texas!" Never mind John Wayne's work WAS the insult and the Alamo was a real event, not just a movie script.

Taking that nutcase mother of mine to see the real remake of a John Wayne movie, True Grit, was a headache.
 
While not a "shoot um up, Cowboy and Indian" western. "Stars in My Crown" with Joel Mcrea is a most excellent movie. A little slow to some folks liking and not a whole lot of action but still an very okay film in my books. It has been discussed on this forum several years ago. Especially the scene where the old negro is "rescued" by the preacher by his bluffing of the lynch mob ( KKK).
 
Last edited:
Some of John Wayne's earlier stuff where he didn't just play himself were pretty good. He teamed up with John Ford to make some pretty fair westerns. "Three Godfathers" is a good example. Wayne played an outlaw named Robert Hightower in this movie, not John Wayne with just a differant name like he did in his later films.
 
The novel ending is only deceptively different. If you watch carefully you can see they are the same.

Before he shoots, he has dialog with Riker who tell's him "My argument is not wit you, Shane." Shane tells him that it is. He tells him "our time is over. The difference is I know it and you don't."

Thus, Shane's wound is fatal. He rides into the mountains to die, symbolizing the end of the gunfighter era. He can only temporarily conceal the wound from Joey. . . He might already be dead when Joey is calling him to come back.
I was referring to the final shootout in The Shootist, which I remember as turning out differently in the book versus the movie. I could be wrong...
ARB
 
My mother to this day refuses to watch the 2004 Alamo movie because as she's said, "It's just a remake of John Wayne's movies and they insult John Wayne and Texas!" Never mind John Wayne's work WAS the insult and the Alamo was a real event, not just a movie script.
Haha, we put up with a lot from our parents -- but they have had to put up with a lot from us also!

I never realized the 2004 Alamo movie was supposed to be a remake, as it seems a lot different to me...

ARB
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top