MovieChat Forums > The Hateful Eight (2015) Discussion > Warm black dingus story was BS

Warm black dingus story was BS

posted 8 years ago by Magnum2895-3
8 replies | jump to latest

Ok first of all we know that major warren has no credability. His Lincoln letter was a forgery and he lied about that sign that prohibited Mexicans. I think that warren just made up that story to anger the general into pulling his gun on him. That way killing the general would be self defense and not murder. I know the scenario warren described was plausible but what were the chances of Chester Smithers and warren actually coming across each other and why would Chester be stupid enough to tell warren that he was the son of the infamous confederate general? And the flashbacks were probably general Smithers just "seeing pictures" of what warren was describing.
If this had really happened it would not be funny because this was rape which is no laughing matter. But what better way to piss off a racist former confederate general than saying his son was killed by a black man after performing oral sex on him? Like in Pulp Fiction with the glowing brief case Tarantino leaves it up to the imagination to determine if this really happened or if it was just a cooked up story as part of a plan to kill a racist confederate general. The odds of warren and Smithers actually meeting in Wyoming were slim to none and it might have been that right when warren saw he was there he was thinking of a good excuse to kill him.

[–] thektroll 8 years ago

Of course it was fake, Tarantino just showed it to try and be edgy like in the past. This part was just dumb imo. Almost seemed like a parody the way Jackson was making those faces

[–] OptimumTaurus 8 years ago

General Smithers did say his son disappeared after he'd gone into the mountains. He could have been trying to collect the bounty on Major Warren's head. Warren may have killed Chester Charles in self-defense like he'd done others who'd come after him.

One point a lot of people don't seem clear on is the fact that when General Smithers talked about his son earlier and mentioned his name, Major Warren was in the barn with Señor Bob. The most reasonable explanation I could come up with is Major Warren could only know the man's name if he'd encountered him.

My interpretation was that he did kill Chester Charles, but the torture and humiliation were inventions to rile up the General. He knew Chester's name because, as a bounty hunter, Chester would have carried some kind of documentation, which Warren would have taken a look at after getting the drop on him. Once he'd killed Chester, he'd look at the man's stuff and be like "I'll be goddamned, he's General Sanford Smithers' son."

Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment. -Michael Corleone

[–] mutationjason 8 years ago

That's what I figured. He's just trying to get him to draw his gun.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Ok first of all we know that major warren has no credability. His Lincoln letter was a forgery and he lied about that sign that prohibited Mexicans.

How do we know that they were false? When challenged about the letter, he relented and let them believe it was fake. But, remember how he reacted when Daisy spit on it. He treasured that letter, which he would not have if he could just make up a new forgery.

And, he didn't need to make up a story about the sign. What did it accomplish? He already knew that the Mexican was a fake.

> I know the scenario warren described was plausible but what were the chances of Chester Smithers and warren actually coming across each other

Very likely, since, apparently, Chester was hunting Warren, like so many before him.

I believe everything Warren said. There was never a shred of evidence that opposed anything in any of his stories.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] Mindeye 8 years ago

How do we know that they were false? When challenged about the letter, he relented and let them believe it was fake. But, remember how he reacted when Daisy spit on it. He treasured that letter, which he would not have if he could just make up a new forgery.

Towards the end Mannix reads the letter loud, then repeats something (can't remember what it was) and says 'nice touch'. To which Warren replies 'thanks', thus confirming he wrote that thing himself. Everything else was for show.

[–] user-169-360487 8 years ago

He most likely killed his son, but I seriously doubt that he made him walk through the snow for 2 hours and then raped him...It's impossible for any normal human to work in the snow for two hours, butt naked without being frozen to death, just IMPOSSIBLE..And also, if Charles Smithers realized that Warren was gonna kill him anyway, why still give him the satisfaction of sucking on his d**k, why not just bite it off as a retaliation if he knows he's gonna die anyway..Remember in the Shawshank Redemption when Bogs was about to rape Andy, Andy threatened to bite his pecker off and even if Bogs stab his head it would cause Andy to bite down even harder so bogs didn't rape him..I just find it really implausible a man facing his death would give Warren the sadistic satisfaction..

[–] sascha-17 8 years ago

His Lincoln letter was a forgery and he lied about that sign that prohibited Mexicans.

Not to be nitpicking and/or distracting from the original topic, buuuut: Both of these points were pretty much BS in the movie anyway.

1. The Lincoln-letter seems to have worked out pretty well for the guy in previous years. And all it takes for him to admit that it's a forgery is a guy he never met before claiming that it's a fake? Why would he admit to that, especially in front of a ton of witnesses *and* in front of Kurt Russel's character who is the only person in the cabin that he can half-way trust at this point? Why ruin your own story *and* potentially piss off the one guy you're (sort of) allied with?

2. I get what the "no Mexicans"-story is supposed to be - it's a variation of the "does Mimi still smoke that pipe?"-trap Warren tried on Bob earlier in the barn. However: In the flashback we see that Mimi doesn't react negatively to Bob at all when they first meet, so why would Bob believe that the story about the sign and about her alleged hatred of Mexicans would be true? Why not simply call BS on the sign-story and claim that Mimi wasn't racist towards Mexicans? Chances of success would be 50:50 and based on Bob's knowledge of Mimi, it should seem much more likely to him that the sign-story is just another trap Warren tries to lure him into. Especially since Warren tried this sort of thing on him before *and* since Bob seems to be rather perceptive when it comes to details. He did remember the fact that Mimi rolled her own and what brand of tobacco she smoked, even though it wasn't him who asked her for a cigarette.

But what better way to piss off a racist former confederate general than saying his son was killed by a black man after performing oral sex on him? Like in Pulp Fiction with the glowing brief case Tarantino leaves it up to the imagination to determine if this really happened or if it was just a cooked up story as part of a plan to kill a racist confederate general. The odds of warren and Smithers actually meeting in Wyoming were slim to none and it might have been that right when warren saw he was there he was thinking of a good excuse to kill him.

Even though this is a Tarantino-movie (where all sorts of outrageous/violent/sadistic things can happen), I thought his "dingus-story" was an embellishment to make the General reach for the gun. And killing him wasn't something he planned or why he came to the cabin. The meeting was by chance, but since he knew about the General's war-crimes, he decided to kill the guy once he knew who he was. Did he kill the guy's son? Possibly. Did he make him suck his junk before he killed him? Probably not.

S.

[–] sillyspaghetti 8 years ago

I agree that it's an untruth to get the general to pull his gun. Warren seems to be a very talented, clever and manipulative liar.