Tombstone (1993) VS Wyatt Earp (1994) Which is Better / More Historically Accurate?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2021
- Tombstone is a 1993 American Western film directed by George P. Cosmatos, written by Kevin Jarre (who was also the original director, but was replaced early in production), and starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, with Sam Elliott, Bill Paxton, Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Dana Delany in supporting roles, as well as narration by Robert Mitchum.
The film is loosely based on events in Tombstone, Arizona, including the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and the Earp Vendetta Ride, during the 1880s. It depicts a number of Western outlaws and lawmen, such as Wyatt Earp, William Brocius, Johnny Ringo, and Doc Holliday.
Tombstone was released by Hollywood Pictures in theatrical wide release in the United States on December 25, 1993, grossing $56.5 million in domestic ticket sales. The film was a financial success, and for the Western genre, it ranks number 16 in the list of highest-grossing films since 1979. Six months later, the similarly themed film Wyatt Earp was released with far less commercial success. Critical reception was generally positive, with Kilmer's performance receiving critical acclaim. The film has become a cult classic since its release. The Making of Tombstone, a book about the film, was published in 2018.
Wyatt Earp is a 1994 American biographical Western film directed, produced, and co-written by Lawrence Kasdan, with Dan Gordon. The film covers the lawman of the same name's life, from an Iowa farmboy, to a feared marshal, to the feud in Tombstone, Arizona that lead to the O.K. Corral gunfight. It stars Kevin Costner in the title role, and features an ensemble cast that includes Gene Hackman, Mark Harmon, Michael Madsen, Bill Pullman, Dennis Quaid, Isabella Rossellini, Tom Sizemore, JoBeth Williams, Mare Winningham and Jim Caviezel in one of his earliest roles.
The film received mixed reviews, critical of the film's length and plot but praising its production values. The film was released a mere six months after the much more successful film Tombstone and, in comparison, was a box office bomb.
Ironically the film Wyatt Earp has a line of dialogue that I think sums up the comparison perfectly. "The stories are always better."
Tombstone is not historically accurate, but it is historically adjacent. What Tombstone does is capture the FEELING of the town and players in 1880-81. It takes 29 months and condenses it in to a watchable 2 hour movie with a discernible arc.
Yeah, i would say that is an accurate way of describing the movie.
Actually I just watched the historian talking about how Tombstone was very accurate.
If you want to watch a good kevin costner western, watch open range. He and robert duvall make a very entertaining team in that one.
Open Range is in my top five favorite westerns post 90s.
Silverado is great too
I actually don't enjoy Open Range. It was way too slow for me. Appaloosa was also.
I loved Open Range
Although trying to get into Yellowstone and just not feeling it. Binged 1883 and loved it though.
Tombstone is an ensemble action movie. Wyatt Earp is...well as you said, at worst an ego piece for Costner, but more of an epic about Wyatt. I feel Tombstone is the much better watch. Kevin Costner had a western pedigree then but Kurt Russell has proven lately he is the far better western actor imo.
Val as Doc Holiday is truly the difference maker. What a role, what an actor.
BraveHeart even failed in the true legend of William tho but it is a great movie and that's what the goal was.
I'd say Billy the kid gives wyatt a run for his money on most popular but that's simply my opinion.
One of the main features of accuracy for me in Wyatt Earp was the more correct location of the fight. The alley was only 15 feet wide and there were a lot of people packed close together in that 15 feet. Tombstone widened it considerably to like 40 feet but, that aside, I liked Tombstone better.
Ironically, I just watched Tombstone tonight, it’s just so awesome. Wyatt Earp is pretty good.
I happened to love Wyatt Earp and didn't mind it's length whatsoever. But I also happen to be an avid History Buff and Seeker of Truth.
I loved both movies; but I have a greater appreciation for Wyatt Earp. This is because I come from a greater generation than does the narrator of this video.
But I do agree with the narrator that Val's role as Doc Holiday was Epic.
I loved the extended edition vhs version of Wyatt Earp. I wish there was an extended edition on blueray.
Hey, this was a very good video. I couldnt help agreeing with just about everything you said.
Glad you enjoyed!
You forgot the best 80s Western, Clint Eastwood's _Pale Rider_ (1985).
Nice video!
Thanks!
Well damn, Wyatt Earp has 6.7 IMDB score and 31% Rotten Tomatoes score. But Tombstone has 7.8 IMDB and 72% Rotten Tomatoes.
There will always be outliers but Tombstone seems to have come out on top.
I enjoy Wyatt Earp because it gives you a good look at what the man’s life might have been like.
Tombstone on the other hand had a narrower focus on the time period of the OK corral and what happened shortly thereafter. Tombstone. Both movies had great performances Val Kilmer, and Dennis Quaid both played excellent versions of Doc Holliday. Tombstone I would qualify as more of an action Western. Wyatt Earp on the other hand is more of a dramatic western. Personally, I think both films are great.
I always preferred documentary's so that may explain why I muuuuch prefer Wyatt Earp to tombstone. I even like Quaid better than Kilmer but you made valid points about it being to long and ponderous.
Yeah, a lot of it is going to come down to personal taste.
@@ParryThis I've got to admit before seeing the comments on this video I've never met a single person that prefers Wyatt Earp to tombstone LOL. There's just something iconic about tombstone.
Ty new sub
Retired law enforcement and
History buff and Researcher
Great job
I liked Wyatt Earp because it looks more at his personality and faults… also, Costner was great in The Untouchables.
You are not wrong about the Untouchables. Thats a fantastic movie that i watch at least once a year.
I love Kevin Costner, I think he’s just a terrific actor all the way around but I will always think Tombstone is a better movie myself. I think both movies show that why it wasn’t there to be the hero and that he isn’t perfect and that he does make mistakes but I think you just see more of that in Wyatt Earp the movie Okazu first two hours focuses on every part of his life before he got to Arizona. So we just see more of his flaws, I don’t think tombstone tries to hide it I just think tombstone picks up where Wyatt is in life at that time because he’s made less mistakes after he got to tombstone. Not that he was perfect I think both movies showed that he did cheat on his wife and things like that but it’s just that as we grow up we make more mistakes growing up and tombstone and just didn’t focus that part of his life.
Thank you for the great review !!!!!!!!
Tombstone was just a better movie, actors looked their part! Also, the Hats and Dusters did it for me, lol!
Tombstone does have excellent costume design.
If you were the leader of a western gang in the 1870s what would you name it?
My gang would be called *"The Good People"*
(The quotation marks are part of the name)
The Upstanding citizens.
@@stargatefan10 Nice
The good Guys.
The Objectively Good Group
I'm gonna have to go with, The Law. That way, anyone who opposes you, is going against the law.
The fight in the lot close to the OK Corral has accuracies and fiction in both films. For instance, in the Wyatt Earp film Costner is portrayed having his revolver in a 20th century Hollywood holster rig, whereas in the Tombstone version, Russell correctly portrays Earp as having the revolver in his coat pocket (which Earp had greased inside). In the film Wyatt Earp, they correctly have Doc Holliday being hit in the hip, whereas in the Tombstone version, he isn't harmed at all. In the Wyatt Earp version, they had one of the Clanton/McLaury faction, I don't remember which, stagger out into the street (they neglected to add that, that individual actually said before dying, "more bullets, I need more bullets." The bit with Clanton getting into a gunfight from the photograph studio was fiction.
The final conflict near the end of the Wyatt Earp movie was pure fiction. The fight at the creek/river in Tombstone was more accurate, although not entirely.
Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday was the best part of Tombstone. ⚰
It is one of the most iconic performances of the 90's in my opinion.
What wins in Tombstone is ALL the actors were great! Curly Bill stole scenes, Johnny Ringo stole scenes, Doc obviously, Ike Clanton, Billy Bob and Wyatt. Tombstone as an entertaining, great action movie, is almost perfect.
You really cannot compare these 2 movies ... they were made for watching in 2 completely different moods, just like I don't watch "Airplane!" when I'm in the mood for "The Terminator". Tombstone is the version you get when u hand a western script to the action director of Rambo 2 and Cobra .... and Wyatt Earp is the epic western version of quieter contemplation similar to Dances with Wolves when u get Costner involved .... both great movies (but depends on the mood you're in at the moment)
Another thing that drives me crazy is Tombstone makes Morgan look like a person that was weak and that followed his brothers… in reality Morgan was a little crazy and a bit of a hothead.. he wanted to fight at the ok corral (actually Fly’s)
Precisely. I like Paxton as an actor but he fits more to comedy relief. During the shootout he looked really strange, squeezing his lips with his teeth like he was a pussy. I know he was younger and less experienced than his brothers but still it looked like a comedy and he did everything what his brothers told him to, as if he could not make his own decision. That is why Linden Ashby was great as Morgan in Wyatt Earp. He was eager to fight the cowboys and didn't afraid. After all, he's Johnny Cage and that's something. :)
One is more historically accurate, the other has sexy mustaches.
I like both movies. I like documentaries so fact based wise I like Earp. The problem with most all Costner movies is length. I do like the characters more in Tombstone and I agree it is easier to watch Tombstone
I also like documentaries. With Wyatt Earp, i heard it was originally intended to be a miniseries, and i think it would have been better if it was.
You pretty much have to be a history-geek of the 19th century American West to enjoy Wyatt Earp. Also, it helps if you've read the biography "Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshall" by Stuart N. Lake--which I did. I do prefer Wyatt Earp over Tombstone in my imaginings of the reality of the western frontier. Much like I prefer (in fictional Westerns) "The Unforgiven" over "Silverado." However, I enjoy all these movies! But if I want a "good-time" romanticized Western, it's definitely "Tombstone." McClintock, Bend in the River, Fist Full of Dollars, Free Range, The Sons of Katie Elder, and, dare I say(?) Blazing Saddles?! ... Westerns just kick ass!!!
Haha. That's exactly why I like Wyatt Earp more than Tombstone. I love reading about the real west and had just finished reading Wyatt's biography before the 2 movies came out. I thought Tombstone was too "Hollywood". It’s a good movie but i preferred Kevin Costner's and Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Wyatt and Doc. I thought they were more accurate. I also thought Wyatt Earp had a more epic feel to it. Also loved John Barry's score.
This video being two years old, there's little point in countering you, but I can't help myself: You mentioned Braveheart. I love that movie it's massively entertaining, and for many years it was in my personal top ten - but if it wanted to invent its own history (which it did in pretty much EVERY scene because except for a couple of names they got right it's fantasy through and through), it shouldn't have portrayed itself as a historical movie. In my opinion it doesn't get to go scot-free just because there's the word "legend" somehwere in there, because from the get-go the narrator, the Bruce, tells you this is the REAL story, and Randall Wallace actually defended his film's "realism" after release. That was actually quite hilarious back then.
Historical movies need to dramatize and condense, but they aren't free to make up whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they feel the need to because they're too lazy or too unimaginative to make the facts work with as little artistic licence and contradiction as possible. James Cameron's Titanic would be a great example of how you stay historically accurate (based on the then current knowledge) and still deliver a movie that works.
Take 300 which makes abundantly clear that you're watching an overblown legend, not something even remotely related to actual history. A "We're gonna tell a fantasy story, and we're gonna do it as historically inaccurate as humanly possible" disclaimer would have been nice in Braveheart's case is all I'm saying.
Someone needs to do a Western on John Wesley Hardin. There was one done in the 50s, but Hardin was not the central character. It was more entertainment but less, way less historically accurate.
Nice job on that.
You know shit about Westerns, UNFORGIVEN(1992) one of the greatest HOSS!
"...But if you kill a lot of killers, that number steadily decreases." 😄
I would argue that Wyatt Earp did a better job of showing the killing of Curly Bill. That part of Arizona is pretty dry and many creeks run dry. Curly Bill was killed in March months before the rainy season. Also I don’t think he would get a bullet in the heel is his boot knee deep in water. Iron springs would be fairly dry that time of year. Water sure but not lush green like they showed in Tombstone. JMHO
That is a great point. I agree with what you've said, and also, i think that the scene where Wyatt kills Curly Bill is better in nearly every way in Wyatt Earp. I never liked how Kurt Russell yells "Nooooo!" During that scene. I think the cool calm way Costner shoots him in Wyatt Earp is much better.
If I may make a suggestion for you how would a battle analysis video on the First and Second battle of Beruna from the Chronicles of Narnia films or books sound like to you?
Does it hold your interest?
That has potential. I just recently re read the entire series again, so it is pretty fresh in my mind, ill have to look into it, and see if a good analysis is to be made.
@@ParryThis
The battles in the films seem pretty good alot better then say the battle of the Five Armies or Winterfell because those were a mess of cinematic stupidity.
I'm sure there are some tactical and pjysics based mistakes done in them such as the second battle of Beruna but in the first battle it seemed Peter did all that he could have done in that battle while the White Witch was mainly focusing on overwhelming force as her tactic and sending waves of her army.
A major disadvantage I noticed when it comes to Narnians is that they seem very unorganized when compared to humans. This can be seen much in the battles they are in very loose or lack there of formations for battles.
Westerns and Baseball movies are where Kevin Costner shines!
Tombstone is epic! Wyatt Earp is just good…..long, but good
I feel like Wyatt Earp would be better if it was re edited by someone who knew exactly which extraneous details to take out. Make it tighter, and fix the pacing problems.
I’m personally prefer Tombstone. It’s a really fun film and I love watching Doc Holiday.
On an unrelated note, may you cover Brunor le Noir and Sir Balin le Savage in your Arthurian videos?
Probably. Once i start getting back into the colder months, i am likely to start making content more frequently for this channel again.
I'd give'em 50-50 tombstone has parts in it that are better in their own way, but wyatt earp has an edge in areas that tombstone is too quick to dismiss that can be uncovered in tombstones deleted scene pack.
Wyatt Was the less Hollywood. Better acting with a more accurate story. Val Kilmer was the best Doc Holiday. That lunger really made that part. The split is because Kurt Russel is an action hero. Good actor. Where as Kevin Costner is a great actor! He lives the role. I'm a fan. Never a bad movie. I was convinced he was who he portrayed as much as any Daniel Day Lewis event.
I do appreciate the nuance in Costner's performance. I think he did a fine job portraying Wyatt Earp. I think the movie itself just has horrible pacing.
I absolutely loved both films... wyatt for the historic accuracy... and tombstone as the legend... which truthfully is why tombstone is my favorite of the two.
I really really love westerns. John Wayne ones are my favorite, like true grit. I like the more modern ones too, but not as much.
I agree 100%. no matter how much i like some modern westerns, or even 70s spagetti westerns, nothing beats John Wayne. Basically everything from the Searchers, all the way up through the Shootist are all excellent.
For good, old-fashioned Western movie entertainment, Tombstone wins hands-down. You go to Tombstone today, all the touristy shops up and down Allen Street, if they have pictures or posters up, they are from Tombstone.
Wyatt Earp was more of a bio-pic. It had it's good points.
Dennis Quaid's Doc was probably closer to the real man.
Barbarossa (1982) is a great western that holds up on re-watch.
I think Wyatt Earp is a more accurate movie, and Tombstone is a more fun movie. I like them both almost equally, they are both awesome movies, just different ones.
Tombstone with Val Kilmer---I loved his " I 'm your Huckleberry."
He delivers a lot of outstanding lines throughout the film.
There is no such thing as too long, love 'Wyatt', made me want to go and read up on the actual events.
There doesn’t need to be a winner. I enjoyed both of them.
I love both films as a fan of westerns. That said, for me tombstone is the most perfect western
Young Guns I & II was more than just good. It was awesome.
Tombstone blows the other away
Great video!
As one person posted, Wyatt Earp is going more for the epic feel and Tombstone is not.
For me both movies had their redeeming qualities but I liked Tombstone more. I seemed to connect more to the characters than I did Wyatt Earp, but that is likely preference.
While Wyatt Earp may have the nod on the historic aspect but it too has flaws, that were not covered in this video. (This video felt more like a critical look at Tombstone and less critical on Wyatt Earp)
One scene would be the death of Wyatt’s first wife.
Wyatt (Costner) walks off in the middle of his wife’s funeral (not sure that is known, I could be wrong) but it sets up a more significant scene, when he than torches the house, that is not historical he simply sold his house and moved.
Costner uses this to establish the dark side of Wyatt. Which is played throughout the movie. The house fire is quit a deviation from history but makes makes for a powerful Hollywood scene.
I believe someone here noted that Tombstone is more the legend and Wyatt Earp is more the flawed human side of Wyatt. I would agree, and add the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The filming of the OK Corral scene which, depending on what historians account you use, is more accurate in Wyatt Earp in its setting, but Tombstone does a better job with the intensity of the scene something that does not come across in Wyatt Earp.
Wyatt Earp has a wounded Doc Holliday hit the deck after being shot where actually there is no evidence he did this. (Sadly, Tombstone leaves out the fact Holliday was wounded)
With Doc hitting the ground it seems this is more about Wyatt (Costner) last man standing theme.
(One thing on Doc and both movies, I think a hybrid of Kilmer and Quaid would be pretty close to correct, that said historically I appreciated both Kilmer’s and Quaid’s performances, though Kilmer’s coolness under fire and his “your a Daisy if you do” line seems closer to correct during the OK scene.
To be fair, the multiple hits Kilmer makes on Billy Clanton is pure fiction.
In summary I like Wyatt for the full bioptic approach detailing how all the characters meet (Masterson, Holliday, etc.) but it tried to do too much and it feels more like binge-watching a miniseries than it does an epic film.
Tombstone may fall shorter on the historic, but I felt a connection to the characters that I did not get from Wyatt Earp. Some of this may be Costner’s ego?
Wyatt may be more historical than Tombstone (which I think it is), but if you are watching anything made by Hollywood for a historical version you are, in most cases making a mistake, read two or three - well researched books instead.
Why two or three? Because history can be victimized by a historians interpretation. It is often a combination of views where the closest to the truth can be found.
Maybe the exercise here would be, what are the more historical accurate scenes for both films, combine them and that may be the closest you would get.
After all two newspapers in Tombstone would present two diametrically differing views of events that day. Why? Politics and presuppositions the same enemy we fight 140 years latter.
These are all good points. Thanks for the excellent comment.
I actually liked Wyatt Earp a lot and to me it wasn't chore to watch.
Oh I dunno, Pale Rider is an interesting movie, I like it better than Eastwood's earlier High Plains Drifter.
As for Wyatt Earp vs Tombstone...yes like everyone else I gotta go with Tombstone, but that's not to say Wyatt Earp doesn't have good stuff in it, the problem is this should have been a 3 part miniseries on like TNT in the 90s with 3 1 hour episodes to cover the Earp story without forcing people to sit through a 3 hour slog. It's the same problem I got with The Irishman, there's a lot of effort, good performances, and great cinematography, but by the time you're hitting that three hour mark you'd swear you have been watching this movie for days on end and did it really need to be 3 hours long?
But if you want the superior Costner western with him as a lawman, The Highwaymen on Netflix is a fantastic movie about the Texas Ranger who takes town Bonnie and Clyde
Pale Rider is a good movie. My favorite Clint Eastwood movie is The Outlaw Josie Wales.
Tad, pail rider IS a remake of the 1953 classic Shane. I like it but , it is no match for the original.
I'm gonna stop you right there about "Braveheart". The opening narration by Robert the Bruce (Angus MacFadyen) begins, "I shall tell you of William Wallace... Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who've hanged heroes." The script literally presents itself as being the "real" story; it's script writer Randall Wallace who freely disavows any attempt to write a historically accurate film but rather an entertaining drama inspired by history. Within the fictionalized world of the film, it purports itself not to be a legend but the true story.
Well, its "based on a true story" in that, William Wallace was a real man who most historians agree existed and fought at the battle of Stirling Bridge, but the very nature of the film is legendary. They hang a lantern on it in the number of times people in the film highlight the supposed larger than life aspects of William Wallace. I can't speak directly for the director, but i remember watching an interview with Mel Gibson, I believe it was after We Were Soldiers, where he broke down the difference in the films, was that in We Were Soldiers, they were going for total historical authenticity, so much so, that they had actual veterans of the conflict acting as consultants, whereas in Braveheart, historians were consulted, but they intended the film to feel larger than life, to match the legends of William Wallace.
There are days when I prefer Wyatt Earp over Tombstone.
That's fair. There are quite a few people who much prefer the approach as it is done in Wyatt Earp.
Excellent review, spot on. I just watched Wyatt Earp about 2 weeks ago, as I've always been a huge Kevin Costner fan. But with filmmaking and storytelling, you need to have ebbs and flows in the pacing and action. Wyatt Earp was very monotone and emotionless most of the time , while Tombstone lays it out and hits the ground running, adding emotion and humor.
Its basically like comparing Godfather with Goodfellas. One is more gritty and accurate while Goodfellas is more entertaining and paced better.
Not that Wyatt Earp should be mentioned in the same breath as The Godfather 😅
As a fun note there, when i was in college, in one of my classes, while studying organized crime, we dove into the Godfather and Goodfellas, and most of the evidence showed that the Godfather was a propaganda piece organized and overseen by members of the mafia designed to make the various mafia families appear far more "honorable" structured, and serious than they ever really were. Whereas Goodfellas, was actually fairly accurate in regards to the major events it covers, as well as common interactions within the mafia.
I agree with you I like Tombstone the best!!! But I also like Wyatt Earp the movie too! I can say Wyatt Earp is my friend and we did shoot out here in Arizona back in the 1990s!!! He did play a part in the movie Tombstone he is a real relative of Wyatt Earp and it is his name too!!!
US History probably should remember Virgil as one of our top lawmen
AND
US History should remember Frank James as the romantic outlaw.
History remembers the little brothers too much
From what I recall, I thought Wyatt Earp was actually pretty good in its own right, but after seeing Tombstone first, it is a bit of a letdown. Had the movies been reversed, with WE released before TS, I wonder if we would have perceived them differently.
WE was somewhat of a "Dances With Wolves" version, which coming on the heels of DWW, may have done well-enough on its own, with moviegoers having yet to see Tombstone.
In the end, Tombstone stands out on its own because it is a double-whiskey, whereas Wyatt Earp was more of a tea-totaler
I liked tombstone much more than Wyatt Earp.
Yeah, i think most people do. I just don't think Wyatt Earp works as entertainment.
Tombstone all day . Every day .
I remember feeling at the time that Wyatt Earp felt more historically accurate - ergo, longer and slower paced. Tombstone was a lot more fun.
Good call. I had the same problem with Young Guns, couldn't wait for it to be over.
I love both movies
I agree, Kilmer’s Holiday was perfect
The way I understand it Wyatt Earp was originally planned as a tv miniseries, which when trying to be historically accurate is a better way to go. I actually don’t mind Wyatt Earp as a film, my immediate complaint was that Costner’s acting initially seems unusually flat, but i warmed to his performance as the movie went on. Tombstone on the other hand is an out and out classic. Maybe the best movie of the 90’s. Yeah I said it.
I think Wyatt Earp would have been much better as a miniseries. Like Hatfields and McCoys.
@Parry This I wonder how far production got on the miniseries? In other words, it wouldn’t surprise me if they just tried to condense the tv script into a really long movie? If the script existed/ still exists they should utilize it. Westerns need to to make a comeback.
Please do Sir Percival for your Arthurian Legend video I really want to see him
I totally thought i already did one for Percival. It will likely be the next one i make.
I can appreciate that the Wyatt Earp movie wanted to focus on the entire life of Wyatt because it is a nice historical reference but that doesn’t necessarily mean that makes it a better movie. I think tombstone is a much better movie even though it really only focuses on a 10 year period of his life. I don’t think a lot of people realize how much time really passes in the tombstone movie. I mean if you just watch the movie and don’t do any research I could see why someone would think that whole movie took place in a matter of months. From the time that they got to tombstone to the time of the Wyatt Watp vendetta ride years had passed. Even more years pass by the time Doc Holliday died. As far as how Both movies presented the man Wyatt Earp I think both movies did a good job of showing us that the man wasn’t perfect and that he did have his flaws. Neither movie makes Wyatt out to be the good guy in the white hat. He’s just a guy living life that made mistakes but tried to learn from those mistakes and become a better person.
As far as what is a better movie all the way around I will always pick Tombstone. I like that the first two hours of Wyatt Earp covers everything that happened before he got Tombstone, It’s cool information to have but it’s not more entertaining. And if you’re trying to get someone that has never watched a western in to that time period , I don’t think the Wyatt Earp movie is a good movie to do that because it’s an hour and a half and they are going to be looking at their phones and watches to see what time it is and it’s just really really long. Tombstone on the other hand is a movie that you wish would go another hour long like I could keep watching that movie forever it seems it’s just such a good movie and a grabs you and you never want to take your eyes off it.
I agree. i think there are certainly things to like about Wyatt Earp, but Tombstone is a superior film. I think its much easier for most people to get into Tombstone.
As a lifelong Tombstone fan (my fav western and in top 5 movies period). I watched Wyatt Earp for first time yesterday. Tombstone is by far superior but Wyatt Earp is a great film too
My dream scenario thoughts:
1. Put Costner in Tombstone as Earp (playing the legend with the script Kurt had)
2. Swap Quaid in as ‘Johnny Ringo’ in Tombstone. Dennis quad is great but Kilmer wins doc easy, nothing against Michael Biehn I just bet Quaid would be fantastic facing off against Kilmer.
3. Sam Elliot STAYS as Virgil
4. Bill pullman (‘Ed Masterson’ in Wyatt Earp) as MORGAN in Tombstone
🤷♂️
Tombstone
Yeah, easy win.
Tombstone wasn’t just a good Western, it was a great movie regardless of genre. Great cast, great writing, tons of action, and excellent use of scenery/imagery/props. I think I watched 5 minutes of Wyatt Earp.
I wonder if there’s a better edited version out there for Wyatt Earp..??
It would probably be much better if it was carefully edited to cut it into a more concise movie.
@@ParryThis
Then I may actually be able to watch the whole thing instead of falling asleep 30 min in
I could watch Wyatt Earp every week and love it
3 hours is a big ask. Wyatt Earp contains lots of drama and drama is slow, but, that's the larger part of life. Tombstone is more of an action film. Stunts, chases, gun play (over the top), bar fighting. Drama is "real life" and that's boring to some people, like the narrator of this video. If you like action movies Tombstone is for you. I avoid using the word boring in discussions about movies though because it often speaks to the immaturity of the
critic.
Tombstone!
Tombstone; not historically accurate. But one hell of a great movie!
Its also not terribly innaccurate. It doesn't get everything wrong, it just changes some small details and condenses everything to make the movie feel more coherent.
@@ParryThis I absolutely love the movie. But I was so disappointed in big scene; the gunfight at the OK corral. Of all the scenes in the movie to get right, this was the one. And they didn't do it. Did you count how many shots Doc fired into Fly's studio? He must have been really fast at reloading. Oh well...it's still the best movie I've seen about Wyatt Earp.
I don't agree with your conclusion as I enjoyed Wyatt Earp too but I would say tombstone and their cast were much better. Kirt Russell and Val Kilmer and the guy who played Ringo (Reece from T1) was sublime
Okay.There were two great westerns in the 80 's.
Clint Eastwood's "Pale Ridef"and the mini series "Lonesome Dove".
Both are equally good in their own right. Each one ground a different axe so it's erroneous to compare them.
I enjoy watching both films very much. Tombstone however tries to be "cute" once in a while, something that makes audiences laugh and giggle on a few scenes, which takes away from anything being historical, so it loses out on many scenes. But it must be mentioned first and foremost - if you can't get the "hat" right, then it's already game over. Historical photos of the proper hat makes it essential that Earp is identified this way, and the silly thing that Russell wears in Tombstone makes everything else less serious to take. Costner makes a lot a good, if not great, historical and epic length movies, and he knocks it out of the park with Wyatt Earp. He physically seems to look more like Earp from the photos than Russell does - by a lot. Fact checking on Wikipedia and other sources also shows that his movie veers away less from the facts available than Tombstone does. But for me, it starts and ends - with the hat.
I hate hats in Tombstone, and many roles are played as it was a comedy relief. It's good action western with great cast and more memorable cowboys than in Wyatt Earp, but I still like WE much more, and the score to WE is better than in Tombstone, although both of them are fantastic.
Both movies are great....but Kevin C plays a great Wyatt.." Kill them all "
He does make a pretty convincing Cowboy. I also love him in Open Range.
Watching Wyatt Earp now lol. I love both.
I love both of them, but Wyatt Earp with Kevin Costner is closer to being accurate
Kevin Costner is a horrible actor
@@garbanzo_bean not at all, but he turned liberal so not liking him
@@kevinsalyers690 turned liberal? You mean he’s not stupid? He joined the progressive side and rejected the regressive…what’s it mean to be conservative anyway? What are you guys conserving? Not the earth…pollution management is for tree huggers. Is it racism then? 😏
I think it’s all about what you want to get out of the story. For me, Wyatt Earp was soooooooooo much better because I appreciate realism rather than Hollywood glamour.
Very true.
It does ultimately come down to personal taste.
I like kevin costner better than kurt russell, but I like tombstone better than wyatt earp.
Yeah, on the whole i would agree. not that i don't also like Kurt Russel, he' shad some really great roles, i just really like Kevin Costner.
It's still amazing how many people don't understand the difference between drama and history. You want historical accuracy? Read books. Watch movies for entertainment.
I was more intrigued by Wyatt Earp than Tombstone. Simply put, substance over spectacle.
First, you want historical accuracy, don't watch any Hollywood movie. Unfiltered historical facts can be really boring. Not good for a medium made for entertainment. Secondly, Kevin Costner insists on punishes us by making three hour movies. Do really need to know all about Wyatt Earp's childhood? He wasn't interesting until he became a lawman. So, Tombstone was totally entertaining and as close to accurate as Hollywood allows. Hands down, Tombstone.
I agree. I think Tombstone is the superior movie in nearly every way.
I loved em both.
Silverado was a great movie
Yeah, a solid movie all around. Very enjoyable.
Tombstone! It capture’s more accurate of character personalities. More authentic.
I guess I stand alone liked Wyatt Earp better then Tombstone by a wide margin.
Trunking, no ,you do not stand alone, many movie fans think earp is the better film , it is storytelling and action and more accurately then tombstone which is Hollywood accurately.
You need to watch a similar video on a channel called little Wars TV Wyatt Earp vs. Tombstone which one is more accurate. There are also some really good comments over there one of them stuck out to me and the guy said tombstone is the MTV Western Well Wyatt Earp is the more accurate depiction. I think that was correct and I thoroughly enjoyed them both!!
While Tombstone does take more liberties with the source material, it is certainly not as inaccurate as some people seem to think. There are very few major anachronisms in Tombstone, as pretty much all of the major players and events are correct, its just that some of the framing and characterization is "hollywoodized".
I love every minute of Wyatt Earp and have watched it dozens of times. Tombstone is just alright. I understand I'm in the minority. I don't really get why that is.
The algorithm for Tombstone brought me here. Do you criticize Open Range too? Tombstone may not fit your highly idealized western. If you were a human, Tombstone is a top 10 western period. Kilmer's best performance. Historical accuracy be dammed
I do love Tombestone, and i actually really like Open Range. They are two of my absolute favorite Modern Westerns.
Oh yeah, tombeatone is about a million times better. I could honestly watch tombestone once or twice a month, ive seen Wyatt Earp twice, and I really never have the desire to watch it again.
Yeah, thats exactly how i feel. I will likely never watch Wyatt Earp again, but it probably wont be more than a month or two before i watch tombstone again.
@@ParryThis - I’m the opposite, I’ll watch Wyatt Earp over and over again, but do like Tombstone.
Watched Wyatt Earp again today to give it another chance. I was right, i did not need to watch it again, pacing is atrocious, and a lot of the acting is just plain bad.
Which was better as Doc Holiday? Both Val Kilmer and Dennis Quaid. They both lost alot of weight to get that sickly look.
I like Wyatt Earp better, it's more epic and emotional, we go through Wyatt's life from his youth to his last days, the other one is more focused on action, more commercial if you can say so.
I've seen 2x4s that can out act Costner. His Midwestern accent in Robin Hood was a complete joke.
I liked this it is best comparison
Thanks. I am glad you liked it. I had a lot of fun making it.
Tombstone absolutely
Agreed.