Great Westerns

[Sephiroth]

It's a fair point, I think, but the movie was well made and well performed. As someone who normally rails against historical inaccuracy, I still enjoyed it a great deal. Sometimes you just have to shrug and say that's Hollywood...

[Culhwch]

If I wanted facts I'd rent a doco. When I want entertainment, I turn to Hollywood. I've never seen the point behind the 'it's not historically accurate' argument, myself...

[j. d. worthington]

I think the main problem for me is when it is touted as historically accurate, or somesuch. Otherwise, I simply take it as taking the same license as a historical novel or drama; but when it's given that sort of puff... then it does tend to make me want to slap some people around a bit with a 2x4.....

[unclejack]

The point is that when you make a movie about someone if you have any respect for the memory of that person at all you won't go to great lengths to distort their image into something they weren't and make them out to be something more entertaining for you but ultimately unloyal to the memory of the real life person.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by unclejack

The point is that when you make a movie about someone if you have any respect for the memory of that person at all you won't go to great lengths to distort their image into something they weren't and make them out to be something more entertaining for you but ultimately unloyal to the memory of the real life person.

On that one, though... that's something that has been the case with not only drama but fiction since the earliest examples of tales (other than biographies) about any famous figure. They do take on a mythic stature in the mind, and so the truth gets increasingly distorted. Which, as I said, I don't mind if it's presented as a piece of fiction using these historical personages... that's fine. But it does irk me when they make claims to being faithful to the facts and then completely ignore them in favor of something more visually or dramatically suitable to the format....

[tangaloomababe]

I am not and have never been a huge fan of western's but the few that I do like have already been mentioned. Tombstone and Pale Rider. Pale Rider being one of the very few Clint Eastwood movies I actually enjoyed.

Also a special mention to True Grit with the big man of Western's John Wayne, a fine Western.

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

On that one, though... that's something that has been the case with not only drama but fiction since the earliest examples of tales (other than biographies) about any famous figure. They do take on a mythic stature in the mind, and so the truth gets increasingly distorted. Which, as I said, I don't mind if it's presented as a piece of fiction using these historical personages... that's fine. But it does irk me when they make claims to being faithful to the facts and then completely ignore them in favor of something more visually or dramatically suitable to the format....

I don't totally dissagree. I mean, I don't mind minor alterations to the story for dramatic purposes, I do understand that and alot of times it makes the story more entertaining. A perfect example is the move Apollo 13.....the scene where Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton all butt heads and accuse one another of being responsible the malfunction...in reality that never happened. it was just added to make the story more dramatic, and I'm ok with that. I just have a problem when they change so much that the story doesn't even resemble the true story.
When it comes to Tombstone there are several flaws...first of all, one of the first things Wyatt Earp did when he came to Tombstone was to secure a job as the town marshall. So the first 45 minutes or so of the movie where he resists the idea is a total fabrication. Also, both of his brothers were shot several months apart...not on the same night like it is shown in the movie. There is also no record that Doc Holliday ever killed Johnny Ringo. He was found dead leaning up against a tree just like shown in the movie, but his killer is still a mystery to this day. The one thing that is accurate in the movie is the gunshot at the ok corral. It's hard to mess that one up because it's very well documented...the sherrif in the movie who jumped into the building right next to where the shooting began witnessed the whole thing and wrote about it in detail so they pretty much knew what had happened. Why they changed everything else, I don't know.

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

On that one, though... that's something that has been the case with not only drama but fiction since the earliest examples of tales (other than biographies) about any famous figure. They do take on a mythic stature in the mind, and so the truth gets increasingly distorted. Which, as I said, I don't mind if it's presented as a piece of fiction using these historical personages... that's fine. But it does irk me when they make claims to being faithful to the facts and then completely ignore them in favor of something more visually or dramatically suitable to the format....

I really don't have a problem with minor alterations to the story for dramatic purposes, I'm totally ok with that. A perfect example of that is in the movie Apollo 13. The scene in the movie where Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon all butt heads and blame each other for the malfunction in reality never happened. That scene was added for dramatic purposes and I'm ok with that. When it comes to Tombstone the changes are very numerous. First of all, the first thing Wyatt Earp did when he came to Tombstone was to secure a job as the town marshall. So the first forty five minutes or so of the movie are a total fabrication. Also, Wyatt Earps brothers were shot months apart, not on the same night like it is portrayed in the movie. Another thing that they added is showing Doc Holliday killing Johnny Ringo. There's no evidence to support that. Johnny Ringo was found dead lying up against a tree just like in the movie but there's no evidence that Doc Holliday ever killed him. The one thing in the movie that is accurate is the gunfight at the ok corrall. It's hard to mess that one up. The sheriff in the movie who ducked into the building right next to where the shooting took place actually witnessed the whole thing and wrote about it in detail so it's actually very well documented. As for all the other changes...well, as much as I agree that it is an exciting movie, there's just too many innacuracies for me. And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head, I'm sure there's many more.

[gully_foyle]

Have we looked at any SFF/Western crossovers? Not exactly great westerns, but, for your entertainment....
Battle Beyond the Stars - The magnificent seven in space, with Robert Vaughn as a space faring gun slinger.
The Valley of the Gwangi - I haven't seen this, but there were some recent posts about it. James Franciscus as a cowboy trying to capture a T Rex ala The Lost World.
Back to the Future 3. Doc Emmett as Doc Holliday.

[Kostmayer]

Firefly was kind of a western in Space.
There was Outland with Sean Connery.
And lets not forget the classic BSG episode where Apollo has a duel with a Cylon.

[unclejack]

sorry about the repost yall, I didn't think the first one went through.

[murphy]

Originally Posted by unclejack

sorry about the repost yall, I didn't think the first one went through.

It's happened to me. Oh, for a delete button.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by unclejack

Wyatt Earp was no myth, he was a real person and he really did the things they say he did. His life is very well documented and I don't see the point in Hollywood choppin his life's story up and servin us an entirely different version of what happened. If you're gonna have a movie based on a historical character the least you can ask is that it be accurate.

Of course he is real person. I said in my last post word for word this :

He is a myth like many other real life people blown into a hero/icon.


Many people in history have been made bigger than they were in real life.

Plus its a western no one cares about historical accuracy. Also its a Historical Fiction. Havent you ever read Historical Fiction stories about real life person?

[unclejack]

Historical ficton...uh...no. If it's historical how can it be fiction. And obviously SOMEONE cares about historical accuracy or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by gully_foyle

The Valley of the Gwangi - I haven't seen this, but there were some recent posts about it. James Franciscus as a cowboy trying to capture a T Rex ala The Lost World.

Saw that once, a long time ago...just stumbled upon it one Saturday while channel surfing. Strange little movie.

I'm not really sure what makes a "great" western. A few I've really liked are:

Will Penny (1968)
Ride the High Country (1962)

And, for my obligatory John Wayne western...The Undefeated (1969).