Talk:The Shootist

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Dollor?

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

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

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?

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]

Focus on the film

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

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]