MovieChat Forums > Radio Flyer (1992) Discussion > Straight from David Evans

Straight from David Evans


I read alot of interpretations on this board, and then decided that I want to find out definatively, what the truth to the story was. Was Bobby supposed to be real? If so, did he die at the end? etc.

I decided to go to the source of the story, David Evans, who had recently done an interview with a screenplay yahoo user group that I belong to. I got his E-mail through them, although you can get it on his website.

Anyway, according to him, the movie was never supposed to be so ambiguous. Mr. Evans had some abuse in his childhood, and this movie was created out of that experience. It is meant to be taken literally, as it is essentially supposed to be a story about an extrodinaty event fueled by brotherly love and hope.

It was probably Richard Donner who decided to make the story more ambiguous, so that each person would digest the events differently. Once a film goes into producting, the screenplay writer has little, if any, say to what happens.

But, if you want to know the truth from the man behind the story, what he meant for the characters, and ultimately - what the truth of the characters were. Read on.

Was Bobby real? - yes he was.
Did Bobby Survive? - yes he did.
Did he really fly away? - yes, and that was the remarkable part of the story.
Does Shane (the doy) really die? - in the original screenplay, yes, the King was supposed to have killed Shane when he shot him.
What happened to Bobby? - He grew up and flew planes for a living.

The last scene of the screenplay that was not included in the production of the movie, was the grown up Michael (Tom Hanks) taking his kids into the airplane hanger (if you remember, he was at some kind of air show when he tells his kids the story) and the radio flyer is on display. Here, grown up Bobby shows up to meet with his older brother.

reply

i heard about thta before i pesonally like the move better the way its is the orignal ending souds to weird.

reply

Hmmm....I think I like thinking of it as having an ambiguous ending.

"I want porn and chocolate!" ~Elijah Wood

reply

though i haven't seen this movie in quite a while, i considered all the interpretations i have seen on this site. many are interesting and viable; however, the more literal version of the film seems the most consistent and meaningful. i watched this movie a lot when i was younger and while the idea of bobby actually flying way may seem too cotton-candy sweet and fanciful, it makes the most sense in the context of the movie. otherwise, intepreters are just patching together arbitrary parts of the film and making of it what they want or need to. also, moojieba's mention of the writer's intended screenplay certainly helps. why trust his opinion less than that of the dude who directed, of all things, lethal weapon?

reply

Was the original intent that Bobby grew up and gave Samson the turtle to his nephews? Because I found it so interesting that those kids wound up with the turtle.

reply

I assume that the original intention that David Evans had was Samson was given to Michael's kids by Uncle Bobby. Although, it can be explained another way that Michael just told his kids that was where Samson came from.

It all depends on what you want to believe.

reply

this is what happens in my opinion, tom hanks is bobby and he was not killed he was sent to an orphanage type deal and he took his turtle, he sent the postcards from places he went with his adopted family. end of story

reply

I agree with Sherry that Tom Hanks is Bobby. I think he pretended it happened to someone else to cope with it. He physically looks a lot more like Bobby than Mikey. That also explains where he got Sampson from. It also makes more sense of why they are at an air show, it was Bobby that was obsessed with planes, not Mikey. Just an idea...

reply