MovieChat Forums > Last Man Standing (1996) Discussion > why did they have to place this in the O...

why did they have to place this in the Old West?

posted 9 years ago by josephturner1975
11 replies | jump to latest

I liked this movie. Walter Hill, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walker all being themselves (which is a good thing).

I'm cool with it being a remake of Fistful of Dollars (which was based on something else, which was based on something else before that, blah, blah).

My only criticism is the location. I just don't get why they needed to place the movie in the Old West instead of Chicago or New York. It just seemed a little forced and contrived to see them on "set" of FOD wearing suits. It was almost like a parody skit.

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

It was prohibition era Texas... not the old west.

[–] josephturner1975 8 years ago

same thing

[–] Sidewindr 8 years ago

Not the same thing ...

Prohibition Era was 1920-1933 ..

The Old West is classified as prior to 1912 ..

[–] josephturner1975 8 years ago

You ever been to Texas? it's still the old west...

[–] Burning_Sosobra 8 years ago

No, the previous poster is correct. It is not the same at all. You're talking gangster era with men in suits and Tommy Guns vs. the Old West with Cowboys and six shooters. You see the difference.

"The heat has a taste. It tastes like a flame. You drink up the flame as it burns your flesh away."

[–] Chucktesta2574 8 years ago

*Walken

[–] clark2005 8 years ago

That was the whole set up for the movie. Bruce Willis roles into this dusty, back water of a town and runs into two want to be gangsters, both fighting to be king of this *beep* hole of a town. He couldn't have played them off of each other in a city like NY or Chicago.

[–] kenpowolf 7 years ago

I thought the setting gave the movie more character rather than the typical mobsters in a big city type of thing.

Bad grammar makes you look very stupid

[–] Kingswood (1228) a year ago

I know this thread is old, but gotta agree with the OP.

Should've set it in K.C. ...used to be a battleground over turf for Chicago/NY gangs.

At the very least put it in Dallas or another major city in Texas ...no way they would fight over a backwater town with a pop of ~10k.

Walken was his awesome self in this one. The movie overall wasn't that great though: 5/10

[–] legnadibrom (5702) 9 months ago

someone else pointed out on this board that the rival gangs were fighting over the territory because it was an easy means of getting in and out of Mexico

[–] mobocracy (845) 9 months ago

I wonder if it was partly meant as an homage to Sam Peckinpaugh and "The Wild Bunch". It's a classic Western but set in the early 1900s (not long before Last Man Standing, either) and one of its themes is the "end of the old west".

But also because its more of a remake of Fistful of Dollars and setting it in a major city makes it more of a "gangster picture" than a "western" at least thematically.