'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? 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?...