MovieChat Forums > Quigley Down Under (1990) Discussion > One BIG flaw in the plot, though a neces...

One BIG flaw in the plot, though a necessary one....

posted 17 years ago by blove-1
60 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie and rank it among my all-time favorite 'westerns', but I'm hung on one plot absurdity: Why did Marston ever allow his henchman to take Quigley's rifle along when they left in the wagon to dump him and the girl in the desert? That rifle would obviously have been a trophy to Marston; he'd have never let it go walkabout with his flunkies. The rifle had to end up back in Quigley's hands, granted. I just can't think of a clever reason to have let that happen, and neither did the film makers, it seems. Did I miss something in the way of an explanation? Or can anyone even offer a viable reason that they might have injected to avoid that apparent goof?

[–] richardpaperboy 15 years ago

Marston was mad and embarrassed about being knocked out of his house, he told them to take Quigley 2 days out and let the desert kill him, he then stalked off, he never thought about the rifle or the gold he had given Quigley. He also didnt even think about Crazy Cora, it was the guy who had fought with Quigley at the dock and whose face was scratched by Cora that told them to put her in the wagon to. He took Quigleys rifle as a way of getting revenge on Quigley for kicking his butt at the dock. Quigley was injured and could not move but Cora was only knocked out so she was tied up because they knew she would be a handful when she came around. When they left Quigley and Cora in the desert, the henchman was carryng Quigleys rifle and wearing his bullet holster, when Quigley mentioned the gold the henchman thought that Quigley still could not move so he went up to him without being careful. Quigley offered him the gold for water but the henchman said he could take the gold without making a deal.

[–] james1844 15 years ago

Well now....I do believe you missed the most important key as to why Marston did not take the Sharps Rifle. He was so envious of the gun fights, gun slingers, and quick draw stories of the Old West, he had no use for the rifle. So, you see, Marston saw only the gun slinger glory he read so eagerly in his want to emulate the OLD WEST.

[–] indy_go_blue44 14 years ago

James' theory draws water. At the end, Marston is playing with his toy and says something like, "I was born not just at the wrong time, but on the wrong continent." He probably didn't even give more than a passing thought to the rifle and didn't care what happened to it as long as it wasn't around to remind him of the humiliation Quigley imposed on him.

[–] Tsavo 14 years ago

I hate to say it, but Richards post is the only one that answers the question perfectly without leaving any loose ends.

[–] richardpaperboy 13 years ago

Why do you hate it? LOL

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

To dump the evidence that links them with Quigley?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eqgmrdbz 12 years ago

OLD POST: Having recently watched the movie again, I think the OP was looking for plot holes, which is a big pet pieve of mine, if the Plot hole is not obvious, why look for any, anyways....if you look at that scene simply, after they beat up Quigly, Marston..tells his men to take him for a 2 days ride and dump him, the men who always follow his orders, did it right away, and like someone said, the guy who had the gun, prolly grabbed it first and claimed it. He had the gun as his prize and was flaunting it. Never since i first saw that movie did i think that was a plot hole. If Quigly never got his gun, they would still have gotten saved by the Aboriginee, and maybe Quigly would of had to use a diffrent gun for a while, but i think the outcome would of been the same, as shown by the last scene, where we see that Quigly doesnt need his rifle.

[–] f-ascaso 12 years ago

This one resussitated again? If you look at the previous responses, what makes the most sense is that the rifle had to be found with Quigly if it was to be believed that he died of "natural" causes in the outback. No suspicion or pesky questions for Marston. Just another victim of the Outback, end of story.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

[–] MaximRecoil 10 years ago

This one resussitated again? If you look at the previous responses, what makes the most sense is that the rifle had to be found with Quigly if it was to be believed that he died of "natural" causes in the outback. No suspicion or pesky questions for Marston. Just another victim of the Outback, end of story.

No, that actually doesn't make any sense whatsoever, given that the events in the movie don't support that theory in any way, shape, or form. No one intended to leave the rifle with Quigley. You didn't happen to notice that they were riding off with the rifle after dumping Quigley and Cora in the desert? That's because one of them had obviously claimed it for himself, which is why he was carrying it and wearing the cartridge belt like a bandolier. When Quigley reminded them of the gold, he went back to get it, armed with what he considered to be his own rifle, which he'd stolen from Quigley. The only reason Quigley got it back is because he killed the guy who had stolen it.

I have to wonder if all of you guys patting yourself on the back over this absurd "theory" have even watched the movie. This theory of yours which you think "makes the most sense" demands that they intended to leave the rifle with Quigley in the desert, which is asinine. How exactly did they plan to ride away unharmed after doing something so blatantly idiotic?

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] f-ascaso 10 years ago

Simple, they were going to dump it a distance away from where the bodies would be to make it look like Quigley dropped it with some of his other gear to lighten the load as their situation got worse.

if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now - Hank Hill

[–] MaximRecoil (4743) 6 years ago

"Simple, they were going to dump it a distance away from where the bodies would be to make it look like Quigley dropped it with some of his other gear to lighten the load as their situation got worse."

Bullshit. He was carrying the rifle as though it belonged to him, and wearing the cartridge belt with cartridges in it as well. If you're planning to just dump something in the desert, you don't carry and wear it; you just set it down somewhere in the wagon. And if he was planning to leave it in the desert, what was he planning to use for a gun on the way back home, such as if they encountered aborigines?

[–] JReb865 11 years ago

Two possible logical conclusions I have yet to see posted (forgive me if I'm repeating someone else):

1. Marston was rattled from the fight and just told them to take him to the desert and leave him. He wasn't concerned with the rifle, only revenge, so he didn't notice when one of the henchman took the rifle for his own trophy.

2. They had not intended to leave the rifle with him as identification. They were riding off with it when Quigley baited them in by mentioning the gold they had forgotten. The henchman was walking back to Quigley with the rifle when he was stabbed. This makes the first point seem more plausible than that they had intended to keep the man and the rifle together.

Watching the movie now, I find a much more implausible scenario: that the first time Marston's men attack the aborigonees, Quigley happens to shoot the henchman who has stolen his saddle AND is able to catch the horse and get it back. Out of 5 or so henchman, the one who dies and whose horse does not run off happens to be the one toting Quigley's saddle.

[–] noobzilla 11 years ago

I agree.. but still love this movie..

He tells his henchmen to ride 2 days and let australia kill him..

but the gun goes with them.. kinda foolish.. but hey it made for a good scene..

one of my fav westerns though.. Selleck is a great actor.

-- 'I dont mind a reasonable amount of trouble.' Humphrey Bogart, The Maltese Falcon

[–] ledge12-1 11 years ago

Easy the gun and hat were prizes for that henchman, another took the saddle and rig (gets that back in a later scene)

the biggest plot hole is the guy getting hit by a round before the report, IIRC that is a sub sonic round you would hear it before the guy got shot

[–] USS_Ranger_Vet 11 years ago

Marston makes a big point of how his weapon is his Colt. So, maybe he wasn't interested in have the rifle. Allowing that, maybe the hands drew lots, played poker, whatever, to see who'd get the rifle.

Now, just as big of a question, "Why was Cora all tied up and Quigley wasn't?"

[–] Dorkinbrooke 10 years ago

Cora was awake when they tied her up, but Quigley was unconscious, after the old man hit him. If I'm off base here, let me know - I missed a few scenes when my phone rang.
As for leaving the rifle with Quigley, if I were Marston, I'd want to get rid of all evidence in my house.
I'm watching old movies on network antenna free broadcasting, here in Denver, CO.
Love it that KWGN is doing this! I missed a lot of movies over the years, and do not subscribe to cable TV now.

[–] alarchdu 10 years ago

When Marston killed the deserter early in the story, he made some attempt to stay within the law. By leaving the rifle with Quigley he could say that Quigley disappeared with the woman and was somehow killed. It would be an acceptable explanation, even though it would have been an obvious rationalisation for leaving the rifle.

[–] eddysl12 10 years ago

Marston was a very wealthy man, he could have ordered another one just like it having seen it's great capabilities firsthand, so the loss of the rifle was no great loss to himself, and a big help to back up his story.

[–] residentevil6901 10 years ago

Because it was written that way in the script so he could get his rifle back lol