'Wyatt Earp' or 'Tombstone'

[Neil]

Which film is more your thing? Which floats your boat more?

For me 'Wyatt Earp' seems a far more interesting and epic story. And also the acting generally seemed better to me too. I enjoyed the fact we got to spend so much time with Wyatt learning about his history etc. With 'Tombstone' we never really seemed to get under the character's skin.

From a factual point of view, it was interesting 'Wyatt Earp' didn't mention the 'Cowboys' at all? Anyone know which is the more factual account?


Can't understand why 'Tombstone' is consider the better film?

[MinionZombie]

I voted Tombstone - however, I've not seen Wyatt Earp - but Tombstone is a flick that I got on video quite a long time ago, and it was one of the first westerns I watched, plus Russell, Kilmer and Biehn rock.

I'm purely going on what I like, and Wyatt Earp never interested me enough to bother seeing it thus far...maybe one day, then I'll get back to you again.

[EvilNed]

i've seen Tombstone and thought it was Ok. Val Kilmer was ace. But I have a feeling I'd enjoy Wyatt Earp immensly, actually. Yes, I do like Kevin Costner... Sue me!

[Neil]

I voted Tombstone - however, I've not seen Wyatt Earp - but Tombstone is a flick that I got on video quite a long time ago, and it was one of the first westerns I watched, plus Russell, Kilmer and Biehn rock.

I'm purely going on what I like, and Wyatt Earp never interested me enough to bother seeing it thus far...maybe one day, then I'll get back to you again.

*smack*
*smack*
*smack*
*smack*

OMG! How on earth can you vote then? :rolleyes:

Wyatt Earp (imho) is far more of a 'personal' story. There a number of characters in there you truly enjoy watching. And to be honest (imho), Dennis Quaid's Doc Holiday is far better (& less hollywood) than Val Kilmer's. Likewise, I didn't really care much for Kurt Russell's character (mainly the stories fault). But there was plenty to care about with Kevin Costner's.


i've seen Tombstone and thought it was Ok. Val Kilmer was ace. But I have a feeling I'd enjoy Wyatt Earp immensly, actually. Yes, I do like Kevin Costner... Sue me!

Yes, 'Wyatt Earp' had a big epic feeling - You feel you've been on a big journey. 'Tombstone' feels smaller and less interesting in comparison (imho).

[MoonSylver]

Wyatt Earp is (slightly) a better history lesson. And it really is more of a character study of the man, his life, & the forces that shaped him.

Tombstone focuses more on that most famous period of Wyatt & companies lives: the arrival in Tombstone & the events leading up to the Gunfight at the OK Corral & Wyatt's subsequent "Vendetta Ride"

Wyatt Earp is darker, gritter & probably more realistic.Tombstone is more action, whereas Wyatt Earp is more drama.

HOWEVER, Tombstone is an excellent movie, a lot of fun. Kilmer's portrayal of Doc, while a bit flashier, is top notch. He spent some time w/a descendant of southern aristocracy(which Doc was) to get the accent, phrases, & mannerisms right. ("I'll be your huckleberry" and "You ain't no daisy" both were authentic slang of the era) Dig Kurt Russell as Wyatt as well, & love Sam Elliot, Bill Paxton, Powers Boothe, & Michael Biehn, although Wyatt Earp does have an excellent cast as well.

Overall, I give the slight edge to Tombstone. It's just a more enjoyable movie for me. It's leaner & meaner more of a rip snortin' ride. Wyatt Earp is a bit more sedate in its pacing & more somber & brooding in its approach.

BTW - the Cowboys WERE are real gang in Az. at the time. (The local papers used the capital "C" to indicate the use of local slang for a rustler). Tombstone did a pretty good job of conveying the maneuvering for power in Tombstone & the tensions that led up to that most famous of gunfights. They may have exaggerated their prominence & organization a tad for cinematic purposes, but yep, that was the real deal.

Wyatt Earp did feature Curly Bill, Johnny Ringo & a few other notables from the gang, but more in passing. The focus was FIRMLY on Wyatt & those around him more so that on outside characters ( not that that's a bad thing, just focuses the storytelling in a different way)

Great article here for those who want to know more about the man himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp

[AcesandEights]

Most of Tombstone was excellent and Kilmer was incredible in it. I think it's one negative is that there are a few portions of it that feel rushed near the end, but it was a great Western film filled with some not-so-true, but pretty cool grit.

By comparison, Wyatt Earp was a fairly well done biopic. It rambles on a bit too much at times, but a nice story about a great icon of the Old West.

Two totally different films, forced into a comparative relationship.

[Neil]

Most of Tombstone was excellent and Kilmer was incredible in it. I think it's one negative is that there are a few portions of it that feel rushed near the end, but it was a great Western film filled with some not-so-true, but pretty cool grit.

By comparison, Wyatt Earp was a fairly well done biopic. It rambles on a bit too much at times, but a nice story about a great icon of the Old West.

Two totally different films, forced into a comparative relationship.

Strange, Val Kilmer's performance, felt just like that to me.. Felt too contrived/busy... Dennis Quaid's performance came across more genuine to me?

Yes, they're different films, but I wouldn't say 'totally different'.

[MoonSylver]

Strange, Val Kilmer's performance, felt just like that to me.. Felt too contrived/busy... Dennis Quaid's performance came across more genuine to me?

Yes, they're different films, but I wouldn't say 'totally different'.

Quaid's performance is more low key PERHAPS a bit more realistic (MAYBE?), & more fitting of the type of film it's in. IS it the "real" Doc? Hard to say. Doc was a gambler & a flashy character. I prefer to think of them as two different views on the same character, both with merits.

I don't think it's unfair to say that they're both totally different films, especially in terms of style, pacing, & execution. They just happen to share the same subject matter.

I like both film & am glad both were made. They show two different facets of them same story. There's certainly room for both. So much myth has grown up around the men & events of that time that it becomes hard to separate fact from fiction (a situation which Wyatt greatly & willingly contributed to himself!). So, varying interpretations are natural, to be expected, & welcome in my book.

[Neil]

So much myth has grown up around the men & events of that time that it becomes hard to separate fact from fiction.

The end of 'Wyatt Earp' covers that quite well... With the young man approaching the aged Wyatt about how his uncle (?) had told him how Wyatt had saved him? He let the boy tell the story, and only after he'd left (not wishing to dispell the youngsters story) did he say, 'but, that's not how it happened'...

[MoonSylver]

The end of 'Wyatt Earp' covers that quite well... With the young man approaching the aged Wyatt about how his uncle (?) had told him how Wyatt had saved him? He let the boy tell the story, and only after he'd left (not wishing to dispell the youngsters story) did he say, 'but, that's not how it happened'...


Exactly. That's why I think it's cool that there are different versions & different interpretations of the characters in the performances. Both are equally valid, to a certain extent, depending on who you ask. A lot of who these men were, what they did, why they did it, has been viewed through many lenses over the years. Public opinion & perception on them varied greatly even in their own time, depending on who you asked. It becomes problematic trying to figure it out after a while.

Same with Jesse James, Billy the Kid, etc. Makes for a lot of fun though.

[DjfunkmasterG]

While Wyatt Earp is a far more personal story, the overall production value is just above a made for TV movie. Even Kevin Costner could not save that film. I own it, I watched it, and I like it, but Tombstone has more rewatch ability than Wyatt Earp. At least for me, I cannot speak for anyone else.

[Safari Mike]

Have any of you ever been to Tombstone?

Neil... not sure how to do this but I have extensive photos of the gunfight site at Flys studio, the OK Corral, the Birdcage Theater, Boot hill including all the graves of the cowboys. I'd be happy to supply photos of the real sites.

If any of you want it, you can get copies of the actual newspaper reprints of the gunfight and subsequent courtrials. When traveling to Tombstone, its free if you stop in at the newspaper office.

On the tour, be sure and check out the whores cottage between the OK corral and Flys studio.

When I spent time in Tombstone, nobody showed the vid of Costners Wyatt Earp because it wasnt filmed there; everyone showed Tombstone and praised them.

Spangenbergs gunshop is still in bidness today justlike Wyatts day. They do sell Glocks as well as S &W Schofields.

Oh....by the way....open carry is still legal in Arizona so you can carry a pistol on your hip legally.

Yalll wanna know anything else?

Crappingbear

[MoonSylver]

When I spent time in Tombstone, nobody showed the vid of Costners Wyatt Earp because it wasnt filmed there; everyone showed Tombstone and praised them.

I did not know that. That's pretty cool. One more reason to favor Tombstone over Wyatt Earp.;)

[Safari Mike]

Its sad actually how things have gone. I was up in the
Chiracaha mountain basins wanting to go to
choises hideout (rough terrain) and was told the mexican drug runners ruled the area and were too dangerous. that really pissd me off.

[Neil]

While Wyatt Earp is a far more personal story, the overall production value is just above a made for TV movie. Even Kevin Costner could not save that film. I own it, I watched it, and I like it, but Tombstone has more rewatch ability than Wyatt Earp. At least for me, I cannot speak for anyone else.

Odd... For me 'Tombstone' felt the lesser production wise, almost felt a little like a TV movie. 'Wyatt Earp' felt far better filmed and far bigger in scale. The characters felt far more interesting in 'Wyatt Earp'. Not only did Wyatt seem more interesting in it, but also his comrades did too. I mean even Bill Pulman and Tom Sizeman as the Masterson's seemed 'filled out', and they were only side characters. Likewise the relationship of Wyatt with Josephone Marcus & Mattie Blaylock seemed far better handled in 'Wyatt Earp'. And likewise with Big Nose Kate and Holiday too. In 'Tombstone' I really didn't get under the skin of anyone in particular?...

[MoonSylver]

I mean even Bill Pulman and Tom Sizeman as the Masterson's seemed 'filled out', and they were only side characters. Likewise the relationship of Wyatt with Josephone Marcus & Mattie Blaylock seemed far better handled in 'Wyatt Earp'. And likewise with Big Nose Kate and Holiday too. In 'Tombstone' I really didn't get under the skin of anyone in particular?...

That is one of the things I liked about Wyatt Earp, the inclusion of the Mastersons. But since they were outside the scope of the events in Tombstone, that's par for the course. As for the rest...your assessment is pretty fair. However, I chalk it up to a difference in style. Wyatt Earp is more focused not just on the man or the events, but the people in his life as well that shaped him & his legend. Tombstone is more narrowly focused on the actions and events of that one period of his life. It really isn't MEANT to be a character study the way Wyatt Earp is.

Plus with its shorter run time & focus on action it has to move things along at a brisk pace. That's why I don't fault it for that.

One thing this thread has done though Neil, is remind me of the many things I like about Wyatt Earp (not that I ever DISliked it, but I'd never spent this much time actually critiquing it before).

[Neil]

That is one of the things I liked about Wyatt Earp, the inclusion of the Mastersons.

Yeh, even the buffalo hunting section was quite interesting/entertaining :)

I wonder if there's any link betweem which of the two films you see first, and which you prefer?

I sawy 'Wyatt Earp' first, so I wonder if that's why I find 'Tombstone' feeling 'small'?

[MoonSylver]

I wonder if there's any link betweem which of the two films you see first, and which you prefer?

I sawy 'Wyatt Earp' first, so I wonder if that's why I find 'Tombstone' feeling 'small'?

I dunno....maaayyyybe....I saw Tombstone first. I heard a lot of bad things about Wyatt Earp "It's too long, it's too slow, Costner, blah, blah, blah". I just got it last year & went into it with an open mind & found all the bad things I'd heard to be untrue IMO. I liked it very much, but I think I like Tombstone more as just pure entertainment. If I was more in the mood though for serious drama, then Wyatt Earp would be the way to go.

BTW Neil, if you like westerns & Costner (& if you haven't already seen it...) I have 2 words for you "Open Range". One of my favorite movies, period. Costner is great in it, as is Robert Duvall. Beautiful locations, rest of the cast is great, simple, solid, traditional western story, & one of the greatest shoot outs I've ever seen in a western.

[Neil]

BTW Neil, if you like westerns & Costner (& if you haven't already seen it...) I have 2 words for you "Open Range". One of my favorite movies, period. Costner is great in it, as is Robert Duvall. Beautiful locations, rest of the cast is great, simple, solid, traditional western story, & one of the greatest shoot outs I've ever seen in a western.

Yup... Seen it :)

Costner seems to get a bad rap for some reason, but he's some damn good films!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Costners bad rap came mostly from 2 films.

Waterworld, and The Postman, more probably being The Postman because of having himself put into a bronze statue for the end of the movie. I remember the critics pretty much tore The Postman apart, and singled that moment out the most.

I kind of dug The Postman for what it was/could have been, but alas that was 10 years ago.


I dunno....maaayyyybe....I saw Tombstone first. I heard a lot of bad things about Wyatt Earp "It's too long, it's too slow, Costner, blah, blah, blah". I just got it last year & went into it with an open mind & found all the bad things I'd heard to be untrue IMO. I liked it very much, but I think I like Tombstone more as just pure entertainment. If I was more in the mood though for serious drama, then Wyatt Earp would be the way to go.

BTW Neil, if you like westerns & Costner (& if you haven't already seen it...) I have 2 words for you "Open Range". One of my favorite movies, period. Costner is great in it, as is Robert Duvall. Beautiful locations, rest of the cast is great, simple, solid, traditional western story, & one of the greatest shoot outs I've ever seen in a western.

Open Range is a very cool movie. However, one of my favorite Robert Duvall movies is without a doubt The Apostle. Man what a powerful picture that was, just completely outstanding.

[Neil]

Costners bad rap came mostly from 2 films.

Waterworld, and The Postman, more probably being The Postman because of having himself put into a bronze statue for the end of the movie. I remember the critics pretty much tore The Postman apart, and singled that moment out the most.

I kind of dug The Postman for what it was/could have been, but alas that was 10 years ago.

I can happily watch both of those films :)

[bassman]

I'm your Huckleberry....

Tombstone. As stated before, Earp may be a more personal story but Tombstone is more fun and re-watchable film, imo.

[Neil]

Tombstone. As stated before, Earp may be a more personal story but Tombstone is more fun and re-watchable film, imo.

Out of interest, which did you see first?

[bassman]

Out of interest, which did you see first?

I've no idea. Probably Tombstone but I don't really remember.

[Kaos]

Have any of you ever been to Tombstone?


Yeah, I went out to Tucson in 2003 to visit a friend. We went to Tombstone for a day of sightseeing. I thought it was a great place to visit. I even picked up a signed photograph of the main players from the movie.

[AcesandEights]

I kind of dug The Postman for what it was/could have been, but alas that was 10 years ago.



I actually kind of liked the Postman, myself as well as a number of Costner films, primarily from his early mid-career, but he has some shallow frikkin' acting skills in my opinion.

[clanglee]

Tombstone. . without a doubt. I liked Wyatt. . but is was a bit slow and plodding in places. I've seen them both a few times. Matter of fact, they were both at my theater way back when I was a projectionist. So I probably saw them both too many times. Think I saw Tombstone first. Tombstone is just a slice of life, a short period in these people's lives. It has far less to deal with than Wyatt did, so we have ( I think) greater focus on the events at hand. Tombstone just came off as much cooler and kick ass. Which is my favorite type of Western. The more kick ass. . the better. :D

[Safari Mike]

Not to derail the thread but if you want a pretty good little western thats very realistic in all aspects, check out Barbarosa starring Willie Nelson and Gary Busey. Nelson plays the outlaw Barbarosa and Busey a farmboy who becomes his freind and protege. Filmed in the real locations with non star supporting actors with realistic action. The gun play is real with fairly slow careful aim and no sphagetti western goofiness. Gritty feel with great dialogue and a storyline. One of my favorite westerns.

Others worth checking out are Peckinpah's Ballad of Cable Hogue, Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (modern western ala the Coens recent flick), and the classic death of the western epic The Wild Bunch. Jeremiah Johnson is one of Robert Redfords best movies and a damned good western about the mountain man era. Little Big Man is an old favorite of mine that in one story tells a huge story of the west from both white and Indian views starring Dustin Hoffman as Jack Crabb, the only "survivor" of Little Big Horn. I wasn't so hot on Open Range mainly because it was Robert Duvall playing the same old crusty fart performance but Costner was pretty good in it.

As for Neils question, I think I saw Tombstone first but the big difference in the two movies is that Tombstone is focused on a particular period of Wyatts life while Wyatt Earp is pretty much a life history. If Tombstone is an action movie, then Wyatt Earp is a bit bloated in my op. I don't dislike Wyatt Earp, I just like Tombstone better.

[MoonSylver]

The Wild Bunch.

http://www.ugo.com/filmtv/top11-gunfights/images/Wild-Bunch.jpg
:D



mainly because it was Robert Duvall playing the same old crusty fart performance

Yeah, but he does it so WELL.;)

[MaximusIncredulous]

I always found Tombstone the more "cartoonish" version of the Wyatt Earp story. With Comatose directing, what more could you expect?

[RustyHicks]

I voted Young Guns...:D
Wait that wasn't on the list

Tombstone was more of a fun ride,
Wyatt was (and I do like it) more like
a history lesson, a well done and entertaining one
at that but I watched Tombstone more often then Wyatt
and enjoyed it more

[darth los]

TOMBSTONE. NUFF' SAID.




:cool:

[Mike70]

tombstone easily. come on, kurt russell, bill paxton, val kilmer, and sam elliott. that cast owns the fucking universe