DID ANYONE NOTICE THE STOLEN SCENES FROM DANCES FROM WOLVES??

I've watched DWW at least thirty times so it's imbedded in my memory. That is why I recognized the DWW scenes when I saw them. There were three. The first was a one second shot, from a distance, was John Dunbar's first vision of the Indian's village next to the river with all TP's spread out. The second was a meeting of the Indian's men inside a TP with DWW's Indian Chief Ten Bears holding court and they were passing around a pipe. The third was a scenary shot on the river where Indian women were gathering water in animal bladders and were preparing indian skins.

There were a couple of other scenes that I think they borrowed from DWW that had were edited out. I've seen every version of DWW so I've seen the longest version. But there are always scenes that aren't used. I thought I saw a couple of these in SOTMS, too. You could tell because the film quality was different.

The Son of the Morning Star movie was filmed in many of the same locations, too. I could tell the difference because DWW was shot on a higher grade film type then SOTMS so it looked different. SOTMS was filmed for TV and DWW was filmed for the theatre. And, I recognized the actors, the clothing and what they were doing.

When you have watched a film as many times as I have you recognize it as soon as you see it.

It's kind of like when you are young and you see Rockey Horror Picture Show fifty times and you can recite every line in the movie and you do with the rest of the viewers at the same time while you throw toast!

The village scene didn't look the same to me as shown in DWW, because they appear to be filmed at two different camera angles, and the colors of the lodges appear to be different (Cheyenne lodges versus Sioux lodges)...

As everyone else has already said, both films were done within a year or so of each other, so the Native American actors of course would look essentially the same as in DWW (I don't believe there were any White actors that appeared in both films, though I might be wrong)...

I've seen "Son of the Morning Star" several times, and while it's very engrossing it is not and should not be considered a "popcorn" film, since it is a true story, and that's my problem with films like "Titanic" - most consider Titanic a good popcorn film, but of course these were films based closely on actual suffering...

If we were a part of a similar situation, I'm sure that 100 years later we wouldn't want crowds of people munching on snacks and having a good time over a film that is about our suffering - and death, so as one person on this site said, the film should be viewed as more of a historical lesson, since it is...

Glades2