is this true?

If you want to see what could have been, the original screenplay was based on a novel, "A Glimpse of Tiger," by Herman Raucher (fresh of his success with 1971's "Summer of '42"). He also wrote the aborted screenplay, and the first draft of "What's Up Doc," though Buck Henry's alterations were such that Raucher never received credit and was essentially screwed out of getting any money; they changed everything "just a little bit," time and time again, to the point that they ended up completely changing everything save for the most basic of premises.

The original movie would have told the story of Luther (to be played by Gould), a 30 year old New York con-artist who takes in a runaway 19 year old girl from Kentucky, whom he nicknames Tiger. Together, the two survive in the city by living off of stipends from Luther's wealthy, careless parents, and by pulling cons such as convincing subway passengers that Luther's a blind folk musician who needs their patronage to survive, and eating their meals by invading the free sample booths at department stores. Luther lives life through games, though; he never acts serious, is always childish, and when pressed to express true emotion, assumes the identities of made up characters and acts screwy until the situation has blown over. When he impulsively takes in a pair of drifters, one of whom ODs on LSD, Tiger moves out and sets about trying to make her own way in life. Wacky hijinks ensue as Luther tries to win her back through a variety of hairbraned schemes.

SPOILERS---





In the final chapter, Luther finally acknowledges that Tiger no longer has any need for him and that he isn't a part of her life anymore. They part as friends, and she goes to work the next day looking ahead to the great things that await her. Luther--whom we now see is not some crazy, loveable screwball, but an obsessed loon-- then calls in to the building to inform them that he's planted a bomb there, and summarily blows the office up, killing Tiger.