madcratebuilder
Member
Amazon just started taking pre-orders for the blu-ray set. Can't wait.
True Grit problem
- Thread starter AbitNutz
- Start date
- Status
dwave
Member
It has been a while since I have watched the movie, I only remembered the quote not the gun, which is why I said they might have used a walker but called it a Dragoon. Thanks for the screen shots showing it.
I thought the girl, Hailee Steinfeld, was amazing. She really was only about 14 when they filmed the movie. Now there is nothing you can do about this but that girl, while fantastic, was way too tall for a girl in the latter half of the 19th century. It sounds nuts but the average height of people has gone up something like 7 inches since the depression.
Also another high budget blooper. One of my all time favorite movie's is Master & Commander. I have been sailing my whole life and been involved in its history. In the first 5 minutes of the movie they show the date as April 1805. A few minutes later Russell Crowe yells "Sharpshooters Aloft!". Uhm...didn't the term sharpshooter come from the use of the Sharps rifle??? About 40 years later?
Also another high budget blooper. One of my all time favorite movie's is Master & Commander. I have been sailing my whole life and been involved in its history. In the first 5 minutes of the movie they show the date as April 1805. A few minutes later Russell Crowe yells "Sharpshooters Aloft!". Uhm...didn't the term sharpshooter come from the use of the Sharps rifle??? About 40 years later?
junkman_01
member
Question
It has been suggested that the word sharpshooter is derived from the Sharps rifle (buffalo gun). Any chance of that being true, or does the word predate the rifle?
Answer
The word sharpshooter stems from the Old English (before 830) word 'scharp' appearing in the book 'Ancrene Riwle.' It meant pretty much what it means today; cutting, keen, or sharp. It's a relative of the Old Frisian 'skerp' also meaning sharp. The modern Dutch word is 'scherp' the Old High German 'scarf'...modern German 'scharf'.
Our word 'sharp' was first attached to the word 'shooter' (sharpshooter) in 1802. It's meaning, of course, one who is keenly accurate with a gun.
It has been suggested that the word sharpshooter is derived from the Sharps rifle (buffalo gun). Any chance of that being true, or does the word predate the rifle?
Answer
The word sharpshooter stems from the Old English (before 830) word 'scharp' appearing in the book 'Ancrene Riwle.' It meant pretty much what it means today; cutting, keen, or sharp. It's a relative of the Old Frisian 'skerp' also meaning sharp. The modern Dutch word is 'scherp' the Old High German 'scarf'...modern German 'scharf'.
Our word 'sharp' was first attached to the word 'shooter' (sharpshooter) in 1802. It's meaning, of course, one who is keenly accurate with a gun.
jtscuba02
Member
I think both movies are great, but I like the darkness and cold of the Cohen brothers. All the political crap aside, it was good. Now, as for that @ss hat Matt Damon, they should have asked me to play that part. Heck, I would supply my own weapons and horse. Hahahaha!!
junkman_01
member
You probably would have played it better too!
TheBigAR2003
Member
It is just like in Lonesome Dove where they used a walker for gus mccrae when in the book he had a dragoon.
The walker is bigger than the dragoon and i guess in hollywood they thought bigger was better than accuracy to the book.
Ive always loved john wayne movies but also hate that in every movie he always had the model 92 rifle no matter what the time period was.
I havent seen the new true grit but its definitely on my list of things to do
The walker is bigger than the dragoon and i guess in hollywood they thought bigger was better than accuracy to the book.
Ive always loved john wayne movies but also hate that in every movie he always had the model 92 rifle no matter what the time period was.
I havent seen the new true grit but its definitely on my list of things to do
TheBigAR2003
Member
Also i just looked at imfdb.org and saw some pictures of the dragoon.
Its supposed to be set in the 1870s i think i could be wrong but either way that gun looks brand spanking new! why would a pistol used in the civil war and then carried for many years by her father not have any wear on it?
also someone posted about him having the eyepatch on his right eye and firing his rifle right handed. theres a pic that shows him using his left eye to fire his rifle
Its supposed to be set in the 1870s i think i could be wrong but either way that gun looks brand spanking new! why would a pistol used in the civil war and then carried for many years by her father not have any wear on it?
also someone posted about him having the eyepatch on his right eye and firing his rifle right handed. theres a pic that shows him using his left eye to fire his rifle
black_powder_Rob
Member
referring to the picture above, you would have to see the movie to understand that picture. I would explain butt I don't want to give any thing away, just know that I was laughing my but off. Plus to op think of this scene in the movie why did he do this?
Last edited:
SleazyRider
Member
Good one!
junkman_01
member
The True Grit saga is set in 1880.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I don't know about that full 7 inches since the Great Depression*, but in a tour of the local Netherland Inn, a display of vintage clothing from 1830-1860 showed folks were considerably shorter back then.
---------
*My parents and grandparents did not call the Depression "great" but that's what I read it called in history class.
RoosterCogburn
Member
This
Tomcat47
Member
The Duke rules! I also did hear that Jeff Bridges wore patch on opposite eye from John Wayne as to NOT replace the original.
And why is it all the hollywood liberals play gun toting characters?? Clint Eastwood was no advocate for the RTKBA....and obviously played the role as a gun lover....shoot em all bad cop!
I Dont Get It!
And why is it all the hollywood liberals play gun toting characters?? Clint Eastwood was no advocate for the RTKBA....and obviously played the role as a gun lover....shoot em all bad cop!
I Dont Get It!
arcticap
Member
How tall was the 14 year old girl?
Abe Lincoln was 6'4" and George Washington was 6' 2".
To see the height of all of our ex-Presidents:
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/olio/personal.html
Abe Lincoln was 6'4" and George Washington was 6' 2".
To see the height of all of our ex-Presidents:
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/olio/personal.html
Last edited:
I just hate to see the entire conservative platform boiled down to gun rights. I'm not a one issue voter. You can't pickup the mantle of "gunrights" and then lump in a litany of things I don't agree with and get my vote.
I have no idea what Matt Damon's political views are, just like I have no idea what the guy who treats my lawn are.
I have no idea what Matt Damon's political views are, just like I have no idea what the guy who treats my lawn are.
rellascout
member
rellascout
member
+1000000
junkman_01
member
Politics has no place on this forum. 
Harley Quinn
Member
I have seen both movies...Read the book...Original is better in someways, the Jeff Bridges one really made a mess of the dugout/cabin routine...Texas Ranger being humiliated (all Cohen BS)...
I liked them both, for different reasons, but I give the original higher marks
The idea of academy awards is laughable imho, for the last one
Regards
I liked them both, for different reasons, but I give the original higher marks
The idea of academy awards is laughable imho, for the last one
Regards
black_powder_Rob
Member
Junkman is correct, that is a sure fire way to get this thread locked. please try to stay on topic. Discuss politics in a political forum. Thank you.
Why would a Texas Ranger being humiliated be BS, He is just one man that was in a sense bush-waked in the night. Besides he does save the day in the end for Rooster.
Why would a Texas Ranger being humiliated be BS, He is just one man that was in a sense bush-waked in the night. Besides he does save the day in the end for Rooster.
jtscuba02
Member
Something else that I thought was better with the newer movie was the dialect between the characters seemed to flow better. I have watched this new one almost 10 times, and I think it keeps getting better.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
I think people get an inaccurate impression from clothes in museums. Think what it is; clothing that survived. Why did it survive? Because it wasn't worn out. Why wasn't it worn out? Because it was outgrown. Right here where I live, you can get the same impression about the Civil War era from the Casemate Museum at Fort Monroe. The uniforms on display are tiny. Look at them, and you'll think people back then were smaller. And indeed they may have been slightly smaller, on average, since they came from a less well-nourished era. But the difference isn't as great as people think. Most of those uniforms on display in that museum are cadet uniforms. They were worn by people who weren't fully grown.
As others here have remarked, Washington was 6'2" Lincoln was 6'4". England's Henry VIII was 6'3". Viking Age Norway's Harald Hardrada was over 7'. From the 9th to the 13th centuries, the average height of men in Europe was about the same as it is today. It declined slightly from the 14th on, reaching a low in the 17th and 18th, but even then , was only two and a half inches shorter than today. Today's average male height is 5'9," so the average around the Revolutionary War period would have been 5'6 1/2", which isn't tiny, and that's just an average, of course, so there were plenty of people who ere much taller. Consequently, it's not like an average, or even somewhat tall person from today would tower over everyone from that era. There wasn't that much difference.
- Status
