MovieChat Forums > The Fastest Gun Alive (1956) Discussion > one thing wrong

one thing wrong

posted 15 years ago by jamesroo
8 replies | jump to latest

in final showdown obvious ford draws first and
shoots crawford yet both men get off several shots.
one good shot by ford should of done the job.

[–] notmtwain 15 years ago

You know that from all your gunfights?

[–] dirkfallows 15 years ago

Obviously a Hollywood trick to make it more dramatic. Since Glenn Ford's character could shoot holes in silver dollars flying through the air, then obviously it wouldn't have been a problem in one shot. Especially since the scene depicted both characters as being pretty close. I guess you could argue that Ford's character was nervous since this was his first actual gunfight, and he missed with the first shot. I would have preferred a single-shot ending, but I'm content with the way it ended. I think this is one of the best westerns ever made. A good story. All the actors did a great job, but Glenn Ford stole the show as he always did.

[–] richardpaperboy 13 years ago

When George was telling the townfolk in the bar that they didn't know anything about being a gunfighter, he stated that you aim for the biggest mass of the person, George did this in the fight with Vinnie but it took 3 or more shots to get through all of the belly fat.

[–] pt100 11 years ago

If you watch the scene either in slow motion or frame by frame, it is clear that Crawford moved his hand toward his holster first, but didn't get off the first shot. Earlier, Ford had said one should aim for the biggest mass (chest or stomach); and Crawford had killed his opponent in the earlier gunfight w/a shot to the throat, which was probably a lucky shot fired way too high.

In the final gunfight, if you watch carefully, you'll see that each man fired three shots, but Crawford was fanning his gun, which is not a very accurate way to shoot. In reality, most gunfights probably took several shots to get the job done, because pistols are not very accurate, especially when being drawn and fired quickly under stress. So the multiple shots are more realistic than most westerns' gunfights where each shooter fires one round, or maybe two at the most.

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

It's also possible that Crawford's character could continue to shoot even after being fatally shot. Unless the shot is to the head or spine, death is not instantaneous. At best, being shot spoiled his aim a bit, giving Ford's character time to put another bullet in him.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] Ironman54 10 years ago

because pistols are not very accurate, especially when being drawn and fired quickly under stress.

So, was Fords supposed ability to nail those coins mid air an exaggeration ? Just wonderin' ...

[–] pt100 10 years ago

There have been marksmen (including Annie Oakley) who could do trick shots effectively such as shooting thrown coins. But there's a lot more stress when one is drawing against a live opponent and one's life is at stake, and this will tend to reduce accuracy. That's why professional gunfighters who knew what they were doing would aim for the stomach/chest and not fan the gun. If you've ever seen footage of the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, who received one shot to the stomach, he collapsed instantly and never regained consciousness. Hitting someone in the stomach/chest is probably going to cause massive bleeding and quick unconsciousness, so they probably won't be returning fire after being hit, allowing the shooter to follow up with multiple shots.

[–] johnmarti59 (2356) 5 years ago

When I was a gunfighter I liked getting off a lot of shots just to make more fun. But the men I killed didn't have much fun.