Question: What does the term "grey dawn" mean?
Question: At the end of the film Blondie, sitting on the horse, turns around, aims his rifle, fires, and severs the rope with a single shot. Lets face it, that rope would be a very small target, and difficult to hit with precision, even from ten or twenty feet, and Blondie is now so far from Tuco that he would no longer even be able to see the rope. Could anyone hit such a small target from such a distance with such incredible accuracy?
Answer: There's a show called "Hollywood Weapons: Fact or Fiction" which dealt with this exact question (s01e03). Blondie is roughly 200 yds away. In the show the host didn't hit the rope, but only missed by an inch on his first attempt. I definitely think an expert Sharps Rifle shooter could make the shot. The issue however, is the bullet would most likely not actually slice the rope apart as seen in the film (they fired the Sharps at point blank and the rope remained partially intact still). They also tested shooting a hat off someone and (as expected) the bullet just goes right through the hat without lifting the hat at all.
That was another thing that puzzled me. On several occasions in this film, Tuco is suspended from a rope, and Blondie cuts the rope by firing a bullet at it, (I think Clint Eastwood repeated the trick in "The Outlaw Josey Wales"). But if you fired a bullet at a rope holding a (rather large) person like Tuco (or a similarly heavy weight), even at close range, would it really sever the rope? I will have to look out for "Hollywood Weapons Fact Or Fiction." I hope they only used a dummy or a model to re-create the shooting feats. I don't think I would have liked to have been hanging on a rope while somebody fired bullets at me to see if this would sever the rope, or to stand there while they fired bullets into my hat to see if they could lift it off my head.
Answer: Probably not, but remember...this is a movie, a western at that and they typically have over the top action to excite audiences. Kinda like how it's impossible to shoot someone's hat off without harming them. It's all for show.
Question: At the end of season six, Grace told Robert E she was pregnant. Throughout this series finale, which is fast-forwarded three years, there is no such child. Do we assume she miscarried?
Question: At the beginning of the move it is established that Big Jake has not seen his sons for 10 years, but it appears he is close enough geographically to be found, summoned and arrive before the bad guys can get more than a days' ride away from the ranch. Was he really that bad of a dad or is his arrival at the ranch a bit too magical?
Answer: He has been gone for 10 years but knows "Juan and the little boy", not 10 years old I assume.
Answer: It doesn't help explain locating Big Jake or time involved, but as to helping some with the quickness of him coming to help, remember he came in on a train, he didn't ride back home.
Question: I am sure that when I watched Silverado many years ago that Cobb's men, after capturing Emmett, used a rock or stone to break the bones in his gun hand to render him harmless. The DVD I have does not have this scene - if it ever existed.
Answer: You may be thinking of The Quick and The Dead. That happens to Russell Crowe before the final gunfight.
Question: After they pull Mitch from the river they say something that sounds like "Mick werts", what did they actually say, and what does it mean?
Answer: Mitch says "nice catch, it was like Mays in the ‘54 World Series." To which they reply "Vic Wertz." Wertz was the Cleveland Indians player that hit the ball into the outfield that New York Giants player Willie Mays spectacularly caught.
Question: Why did Fletcher stop up the water pump at Faraway Downs?
Answer: So they'd be unable to water their cattle. Which has two benefits for Fletcher. The first being that they'd have to take their cattle to the watering hole on the border of their property, making it easier for Fletcher to steal the cows. Second, and more long term, their cattle would be of poorer quality due to lack of proper care. The ranch would lose money as a result, and they'd be more amenable to selling the ranch to their competition, whom Fletcher works for.
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: 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: What happened to Doc's girlfriend from the first film? She risked her life to be with him at the end of Young Guns, so its a little odd that there's no mention of her in this film.
Answer: Doc says in the movie he is married with kids. So you have to assume he married her.
Question: At the end, who was part of the travelling circus that Mattie didn't like?
Answer: It was Frank James, brother of Jesse. He didn't stand up as she approached. She was offended by his lack of manners.
Answer: Rooster Cogburn. She considered him a legendary lawman, like Wyatt Earp. She felt bad that he was reduced to being a sideshow attraction in a circus.
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.
Question: The Missouri Breaks starred Jack Nicholson (as Tom Logan, a rustler) and Marlon Brando (as Robert E Lee Clayton, a "regulator" tasked with eliminating him). Yet they never appear together. Brando is absent from over half the scenes featuring Nicholson, and vice-versa. When they do meet, there is a close up of Nicholson speaking to Brando, followed by a close up of Brando replying to Nicholson, and so on. Why do Nicholson and Brando never appear on screen together?
Answer: At this point, Brando used cue cards for his dialogue and liked to improvise lines. Nicholson found this difficult and distracting because Brando continually shifted his gaze to the cue card behind the cameraman and went off script. Although Nicholson said Brando was exceedingly cooperative and "gentle as a lamb" on the set, the two actors took an instant dislike to one another. Each actor was filmed separately while reciting their lines.
Question: When the jug was hit, how did the bullet not hit the horse behind it?
Answer: In reality, the bullet probably would have hit the horse, injuring it. Movies tend to gloss over details like that to serve and simplify the plot. Older movies particularly fudged reality, assuming audiences would not notice or care. It is also possible that the bullet was somehow deflected or broke up upon impact.
Question: At the end, after the Indians leave and Harlow says "Wagons ho", when the wagons are moving, there's a stool thrown into the field from the left of the screen (in my viewing thrown from off-camera). Was there a joke I missed or does someone know who threw it and why?
Answer: It appears to be a woman standing up and reaching for something in her wagon. As the camera pans away, this stool can be seen thrown and landing - breaking apart.
Question: When Avram is departing on his horse after meeting Tommy, Tommy asks him if he speaks any Mexican. Abram, who doesn't, is puzzled by the question and asks why...to which Tommy responds "Just curious." I've always assumed that Tommy was mocking him cause he was unknowingly riding south and headed for Mexico instead of West towards San Francisco. Am I right?
Answer: Right on the nose.
Answer: There's no specific meaning. Metaphorically, it would mean that it is the beginning of something that is dismal, is going to be long and difficult to achieve, or may not end well. Basically, it's a "bad omen."
raywest ★