MovieChat Forums > The Shootist (1976) Discussion > What If ... (Spoiler)

What If ... (Spoiler)

posted 20 years ago by A_Roode
10 replies | jump to latest

In the film, Ron Howard stands over the mortally wounded John Wayne and throws the gun away in disgust. Wayne smiles because he knows that Howard isn't going to follow him in the same career path and then dies. In the original screenplay Howard shoots Wayne. I wonder if anyone would like to discuss what that would have done to the movie on a whole? Would the film be stronger or weaker? The producers felt that it weakened the film but were bullied into changing the ending by Wayne. I agree with the Duke on this one. It seems to me that Howard shooting the Duke would have been inconsistent with previous motivation and action throughout the film. Just wondered if anyone else felt the same or if the other ending would have been better (and why)?

[–] Crimpo2 20 years ago

I agree with you - I hope for the same reason!

To have the Howard character shoot the Wayne character would have been typical of the cynical (or even doom-laden) 70s movie. It was quite natural for that to be in the writers' script. However, depite its date of production, this is not a seventies film. It is a John Wayne film - in a real sense a tribute to his Western personna. Wayne usually played a gunslinger - but his gun is always a tool not a driving obsession.

I'm glad Wayne won the re-write.

[–] A_Roode 20 years ago

I think you're bang on with the 70's cynicism. While it works in a film like Chinatown (brilliant masterpiece!) it would have been so out of place in The Shootist. I try to imagine what would have been going through the mind of Ron Howard's character. Books has given Howard and his mother all of his money. He has given Howard a prize horse. Howard warns him (albeit too late) about the bartender and then avenges him by killing the bartender before Books dies. How cynical and inconsistent to then shoot Books because he thinks suddenly that he'll have all kinds of infamy from being able to say he was the man who killed JB Books!

The look on his face when he throws away the gun in disgust is still stuck in my mind. Books wasn't well-liked (Harry Morgan and multiple assassins confirm that) but he was respected. Howard respected Books and I can't imagine how it was ever a good idea to have it end any other way.

[–] neil_mc 20 years ago

Well forgetting that Gillom wanted to kill Books for the infamy, maybe it was in the screenplay originally for Howard's character to be the one that Books wanted to kill him. Because we all know, and Gillom knew, that Books wanted to die in that gunfight - yet Books had killed all 3 gunfighters in the bar and would have walked out alive - not what he'd wanted surely.

So for Gillom to walk in and finish off Books, both men had a respect for each other, may have been a better ending than having Books shot in the back by some nobody.

I say "may have been", because I prefer the actual ending aswell. But I suppose they had it in the screenplay originally for a reason. And I can't believe it was for the purpose of Gillom becoming famous from his death - that wouldn't have fit in with the rest of the film at all.

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

[–] ragreen259 20 years ago

True... and although the movie, as it stands, would've shot itself in the ass by having Gillom kill him, fact is, personally, I don't know what kind of character the Gillom in that movie truly would've been--with a different character development, it would be plausible, however... These two liked each other in the movie that was made, it would've been entirely inconsistant with the character.. and I can't imagine Gillom killing him for notoriety <or> "out of respect." Kill him out of respect? What the hell? This is a guy he's known for like six days, what would give him the right to kill him "out of respect?" I mean, other than the fact that perhaps Gillom is some kind of sociopathic lunatic. Talk about a <really> piss-poor concept... Gillom showed no empathy for a man dying of cancer, quite the contrary, he acted like nothing was really wrong here, more or less in denial of what was about to happen.

Then in the sequel, titled "The Hanging of Gillom" where he's put to death for shooting someone in cold blood--remember, this isn't Roy Bean's justice west of the Pecos, this is the civilized 20th century west... What J.B. got was the good old self-fullfilling prophecy, some yahoo gunned him down, for no apparent reason other than to be the one that killed him. The chain of progression stopped there, with Gillom, however.

And... in the end, imagine, a movie that actually shows a lesson learned and drives in a powerful message, instead of going for some brainless cheap shot. What the hell were the producers thinking... this would <weaken> the film? Hello? First time out of the box, boys?

[–] Mickey77 20 years ago

My understanding is that Wayne made the script changes before shooting began - so Ron Howards performance is entirely different than it would have been had the original ending stood.

It might have made a more powerful statement is they have been antagonistic for the entire story - only in the end for Howards character to realise that nothing could be gained from a violent lifestyle.

But I think the relationship worked as is.

"I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

[–] garp15-1 20 years ago

In "The Cowboys", Bruce Dern shoots Wayne mutiple times, from behind. To this day, Dern has said he is still known as the guy who killed John Wayne. I seem to recall that Duke had a similar feeling about Ron Howard. He didn't want him saddled with that image. "Opie kills John Wayne!" What a headline. I saw an interview w/ Ron Howard years ago and he said Duke was talking about making another movie with him. Apparently they got along well. Might have been interesting to have Howard directing him.

I don't think it would have been consistent with the rest of the movie anyway; Duke tries to make him understand what it's like to shoot someone, that it isn't like shooting a target. Howard realizes this when he kills the bartender. He looks at the gun, realizes what he has done, looks at Wayne, tosses the gun. Great symbolism.

I always thought Duke should have been nominated for another Oscar, as well as the movie. One of his best.

[–] Borred101 19 years ago

That's the way it happened in the book. The Gillom of the book is much darker and more troubled that the Gillom of the movie.

[–] mandljunk 17 years ago

I never read the book, so I don't know how dark Gillom's character was there. However, I suppose the movie version of the character could have done it "out of respect". It makes me think of the end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. When the Chief kills McMurphy b/c he couldn't bear to see him that way b/c he knew Murphy would never have wanted to live like that, and then he runs to freedom. Gillom realized what Books was doing and why he was doing it and knew he was the only one who could now help him avoid a horrible death and then he "ran" from that violent lifestyle. But that being said, I really like the way it ended, whether it was "convenient" or not.

Great movie.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] powersroc 12 years ago

What if Books killed all of his adversaries,including the back shooting bartender,without so much as getting nicked! I could just see him standing there & saying something like "Damn,thought for sure one of 'em would take me out. Now what do I do?"