Question: Who dragged Richard Boone into the cabin after Paul Newman shot him? Mrs. Favor? Was she in on it?
Question: Am I the only one that has seen an alternate ending to Shane? I saw it once where he comes riding back from over the hill.
Answer: During the 1960's, there was a TV Series, "Shane," which ran for one season on ABC. The premise was Shane returned to the ranch to help the now widowed Starrett and her son.
Thanks for the reply, but my daughter already suggested that one. That definitely wasn't it though. I've never even seen that TV show. The one I saw first was Allan Ladd and no other. All the other actors the same as well. There is no other movie that I have ever thought this about.
Answer: As far as I know there is no alternate ending. I've watched it for over forty years.
Yeah, that's what everyone says. So far no-one has seen what I saw. My best guess is that I saw an alternate version of the movie that they accidentally released briefly to my local Dayton Ohio TV station in 1970. Then again maybe I was briefly transported to an alternate universe where that is their version? Just kidding... I think?
Mandela effect.
I saw Shane for the first time in 1970. I do remember it well. It was a slightly different version. I've seen it several times since and it is a different version. The first one I saw was like this... The father was not as good of a husband and father. Shane and the woman had a bit more than just an attraction. The farmer knocked Shane out and the farmer went to town and got himself killed. After leaving, Shane came back over the hill. The boy, with tears in his eyes, yelled "Shane you came back".
This is a perfect example of the Mandela Effect. No alternate version of the film exists where Shane comes back over the hill. There would be no reason for the studio to spend the money to script, shoot, edit, and distribute two versions of a film that vary so wildly. That there is no evidence of this alternate version other than "memories" should indicate that it doesn't actually exist. It is possible you are conflating elements of the film and the 1966 television series.
Question: In all honesty I have little (if any) anthropological knowledge of what life was like for Native Americans in the USA in the nineteenth century. But it seemed to me that, for much of the time, the Native Americans in the movie did not resemble the members of a 'hunter gatherer' society whose way of life was under threat from the onset of the modern industrial world. Instead the Native Americans seemed to live, act and behave much more like the members of a 1960's hippie commune. How accurate is that?
Answer: Some members of tribes like the Cheyenne joined in the 'modern' world to some extent, using guns and even putting on Western clothes and eating Western food. While nowhere near the technological nous of the white settlers, the natives were far from being hunter gatherers at this point.
Answer: Well observed sir! What you say is correct. I admit I probably was wrong in calling Native North Americans 'hunter gatherers' as I think some tribes had agriculture and permanent settlements well before Columbus ever reached the American Continent. I also think that the Cherokee consciously tried to adapt to modern life by building houses and becoming farmers. My point was more that it seemed to me that the portrayal of many Native Americans in Little Big Man did not seem historically accurate, but showed them as being more like 1960's hippies. But I am fully aware that this may have been intentional, since the film was giving a 1960's 'spin' on the legends of the 'Wild West'. But please, do not take my posts on this website too seriously. I am fully aware that this was a film made to entertain people, it was not meant to be a historical documentary. And it was the fictional recollections of a 121 year old man. And the film poster said 'Little Big Man was either the most neglected hero in history OR A liar of insane proportion', so you are invited to have your doubts about anything that happens in the film.
Rob, you may want to look into reading the novel the film was based on written by Thomas Berger. He wrote some pretty twisted stuff.
Question: In the scene where they cross the bridge with the train, and Allison French is being held by those two guys with a rope around her neck, so that if they would shoot the guys, the horse would run off and break her neck, suffocate her or whatever... They were with 4 against 2, so why didn't one of 'em just shoot that horse?
Answer: There's no explanation. It could be that no one thought of this. Also, even if they shot the horse, the girl could still be injured or killed. If the horse was only wounded, it could have bolted, reared up, or fallen and then rolled on top of the girl. There's many different scenarios that could have played out.
Question: Does anyone know if there is a soundtrack (CD) for this movie available anywhere?
Answer: I doubt it as, the film was made during Parker's college years, but every song asis available as an mp3 at www.cannibalthemusical.net.
Question: Something I've always wondered about trains in the old west on these unfinished railroads, and this movie brought it to my attention again. It shows the track still being built, and it's a single track for one train, no second track along side it. That being said, before the track was finished there is a train going down it one way at the beginning of the movie with passengers. When the train is taken over and forced to steam ahead out of control, it goes off the end of the track and crashes. Well if this hadn't happened, how would the train have gotten back? It is a one way train, on an incomplete track and stopping at a station to drop of passengers and supplies. How would the train have turned around to go the other way again?
Answer: There are stations in between the ends of the line that allow the train to unload passengers, unload cargo, hitch new cars, and turn to go in the opposite direction.
Question: What does "Spider" pull out of the stream bed? I really don't think it's gold. Gold isn't porous, and I don't think he'd be able to hold it with one hand.
Question: When Ranse confronts Liberty and reaches for the dropped gun, there appears to be something written at Ranse's feet in the dirt. What is it?
Answer: At first glance, it looks like the word "LEFT" in large, widely-spaced lettering. It's very unlikely that this would be a blocking cue, telling Jimmy Stewart to move left (which he does from that point). That's not the way blocking cues are done, for one thing, and a seasoned actor such as Jimmy Stewart wouldn't need such a cue. It's also very unlikely that it's a warning message from John Wayne who is hiding in an alley across the street, on Stewart's right. John Wayne didn't want anyone to know that he actually killed Valance, so he wouldn't alert Jimmy Stewart with any messages scrawled in the street. All hypothesis aside, it's probably just footprints in the dirt, an illusion of light and shadow.
Question: Francisco 'Pancho' Villa was photographed on many occasions, and always had a full head of hair (as well as a moustache). Yet the film cast Telly Savalas as Pancho Villa, who shaved his head, and was always very proud of and conscious of being a Greek-American. The year after Pancho Villa was released Telly Savalas began to play the titular character of the police drama series, 'Kojak', which transformed him into the world's most recognisable Greek. So, my question is, given a film about Pancho Villa was made in Spain, where the producer and director had an unlimited number of actors of Hispanic ancestry to call on, why cast one of the world's most famous bald, Greek actors (sporting an unconvincing moustache) to play the hirsute Mexican Pancho Villa?
Answer: Hollywood, especially in that era, frequently would cast white actors to play people of color The studio knew Savalas would bring in a lot of viewers, while an unknown from Spain might not.
Question: When the train is put into reverse, Bronson and the major jump off. The Indians get into the box car then the train stops. Who stopped it?
Answer: Ben Johnson and Charles During. Their characters had guns pointed at them, they stopped the train suddenly to knock them off balance. As soon as Bronson and the Major jumped off the train, Johnson and During took control of the engine.
Question: When the train on fire reverses back into town, the fire bell is rung. A couple of blokes running out of the saloon are yelling out that the train's on fire. How did they know what was on fire?
Answer: Because it was the train station fire alarm.
Question: This movie takes place around 10 years after the show and was filmed around 12 years after the show ended. Why then do so many of the characters look like they have aged 20 years in that time? I understand a hard lifestyle can age a person, but could it be that drastic?
Answer: The actors are over a decade older, and older people age at an increasingly faster rate than when they were young. The film may also have been been filmed differently opposed to how the TV series was made. Different technology and types of film produce variations in color, shadowing, sharpness of detail, etc. that may show the actors' physical features in higher definition. Different make-up and lighting can also change the actors' appearances. This may or may not have been a deliberate choice, but it's the result. If the movie was intended for theatrical release (possibly for overseas markets) and not only to be aired on TV, it would have higher-quality production.
Answer: Mrs Favor.