Jump to content

How is Tombstone Better?

Rabidhorn

By Rabidhorn
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rabidhorn

Rabidhorn 121

Posted
Posted

So I watched both Tombstone and Wyatt Earp last night and ask myself after why is Tombstone that much better a movie? Wyatt Earp was directed, produced, and co-written by Lawrence Kasdan who is fantastic while Tombstone had director problems. Tombstone was a tight 139 minutes and sailed by while Earp dragged like most Costner movies of that time for over 3 hours. Whoever picked the cast for Earp should have been flogged, they miscast almost everyone in the movie except for Michael Madsen as Virgil and Tom Sizemore as Bat, on the other hand almost everyone in Tombstone was perfectly cast with of course Val Kilmer being the best. The only thing better about Wyatt was the music by James Newton Howard, his music was grand and bold. There were a few scenes in Earp I love, Wyatt and Josie were sleeping in bed, there is a slow move by her to him leading to sex, it is a great thoughtful scene. The other I like is Wyatt goes into the dark saloon, gets coffee and a cigar and sits down, a very quiet scene where you can see he is worried, the smoke of the cigar and the steam of the coffee make the scene.

So my question to you is, why in your opinion is Tombstone a better movie and how did Costner and crew fuck theirs up.

   
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6263

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rabidhorn said:

So I watched both Tombstone and Wyatt Earp last night and ask myself after why is Tombstone that much better a movie? Wyatt Earp was directed, produced, and co-written by Lawrence Kasdan who is fantastic while Tombstone had director problems. Tombstone was a tight 139 minutes and sailed by while Earp dragged like most Costner movies of that time for over 3 hours. Whoever picked the cast for Earp should have been flogged, they miscast almost everyone in the movie except for Michael Madsen as Virgil and Tom Sizemore as Bat, on the other hand almost everyone in Tombstone was perfectly cast with of course Val Kilmer being the best. The only thing better about Wyatt was the music by James Newton Howard, his music was grand and bold. There were a few scenes in Earp I love, Wyatt and Josie were sleeping in bed, there is a slow move by her to him leading to sex, it is a great thoughtful scene. The other I like is Wyatt goes into the dark saloon, gets coffee and a cigar and sits down, a very quiet scene where you can see he is worried, the smoke of the cigar and the steam of the coffee make the scene.

So my question to you is, why in your opinion is Tombstone a better movie and how did Costner and crew fuck theirs up.

   

Mainly 1) casting and 2) story.  Tombstone focuses only on the Tombstone/OK corral element of Earp's life and starting in medias res with him already a legend is a much better narrative device for a two hour movie than a sweeping Costnerey biopic.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rabidhorn

Rabidhorn 121

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Mainly 1) casting and 2) story.  Tombstone focuses only on the Tombstone/OK corral element of Earp's life and starting in medias res with him already a legend is a much better narrative device for a two hour movie than a sweeping Costnerey biopic.  

Funny thing is even if Kasdan had cut Earp down to 2 hours it still would not have been as good a movie because of what your said, casting and story.

Edited by Rabidhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11515

Posted
Posted

Let me begin by saying that I hate when Hollywood releases movies in close succession on the same subject. We don't need or want two Truman Capote movies in the same year. There are many other examples. 

Tombstone is the better film because Val Kilmer. Also because of the cast and the direction. The director sat back and let Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott, Powers Boothe, and Michael Biehn cook. 

I like Dances with Wolves, but it wasn't a good idea to let Costner make another 3+ hour Western. Tin Cup is peak Costner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89727

Posted
Posted

Putting aside casting and writing, Tombstone has better pacing.  That's not necessarily a length-related thing, it's an editing issue.  Saving Private Ryan is almost 3 hours long, has some incredibly slow parts where everything breathes, but I've never known anybody who thought it dragged on, but Wyatt Earp does drag on at times.

I think Wyatt Earp would have been seen in a better light had it come out a few years before or after Tombstone.  Instead, it came out too close, and so it was compared to it.  

As far as casting...if there had not been a Tombstone movies, we might see WE's casting as pretty decent.  But Tombstone, for better or for worse, defined those characters in the minds of many folks.

Say "Wyatt Earp" or "Doc Holliday" and people's minds automatically go to Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rabidhorn

Rabidhorn 121

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Let me begin by saying that I hate when Hollywood releases movies in close succession on the same subject. We don't need or want two Truman Capote movies in the same year. There are many other examples. 

Tombstone is the better film because Val Kilmer. Also because of the cast and the direction. The director sat back and let Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott, Powers Boothe, and Michael Biehn cook. 

I like Dances with Wolves, but it wasn't a good idea to let Costner make another 3+ hour Western. Tin Cup is peak Costner. 

Waterworld was 3 hours as was The Postman. Tin Cup and Untouchables I thought were his best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11515

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I was gonna neg you for dissing Open Range, but I see it's < 3 hours. NVM

Open Range is about 30 minutes too long. The film should have ended during the rain storm. I also didn't like Costner's character. You need a likeable straight man to play off Duval, but Costner does this weird, dark past, quiet man act. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11675

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Let me begin by saying that I hate when Hollywood releases movies in close succession on the same subject. We don't need or want two Truman Capote movies in the same year. There are many other examples. 

Tombstone is the better film because Val Kilmer. Also because of the cast and the direction. The director sat back and let Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott, Powers Boothe, and Michael Biehn cook. 

I like Dances with Wolves, but it wasn't a good idea to let Costner make another 3+ hour Western. Tin Cup is peak Costner. 

This phenomenon has always intrigued me.  Obviously, it is based on studios trying to outdo/spy/compete with each other but,  I have never encountered any insider type articles/discussion  on the dynamics that create it. Which you would think would make fascinating stories.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11515

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

This phenomenon has always intrigued me.  Obviously, it is based on studios trying to outdo/spy/compete with each other but,  I have never encountered any insider type articles/discussion  on the dynamics that create it. Which you would think would make fascinating stories.

There was a great Planet Money episode on how screenplays get made. Hollywood’s Black List, July 10, 2020. As you would imagine there’s a great deal of secrecy involved. Competing studio don’t want other studios knowing what they have in production. So if it’s a subject in the zeitgeist, there’s a good chance a couple movies are going to get made. 
 

Tombstone is unique because I believe Costner walked away over creative differences and made Wyatt Earp. Tombstone is a hit at the end of 1993, and Wyatt Earp flopped in the summer of 1994. Tombstone shouldn’t have worked. There were a lot of script and production problems. It probably looked like a train wreck while filming, so Costner bailed. Kind of a bad beat for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted

Wyatt Earp managed to make a bunch of otherwise good actors seem terrible.  Dennis Quaid is a great actor, but I can't imagine how he must have felt after seeing Tombstone knowing people would be comparing him to Kilmer months later.  The story was also too broad covering everything from his childhood to old age whereas Tombstone focused only on the most interesting chapter of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pops

pops 7003

Posted
Posted

Tombstone was first and as said above,  director problems aside,  the actors were allowed to act. It was a huge movie. Great scenes,  great score.

And even if there were dumb scenes (wyatt walking on water)  Kilmer did such an unreal job that nothing else had a chance. Especially not 6 months later. 

I think the wyatt earp movie was just too high strung. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MagicSoccerSpray

MagicSoccerSpray 1732

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The director sat back and let Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott, Powers Boothe, and Michael Biehn cook.

 

5 hours ago, pops said:

Tombstone was first and as said above,  director problems aside,  the actors were allowed to act. It was a huge movie. Great scenes,  great score.

And even if there were dumb scenes (wyatt walking on water)

 

Kurt Russell shadow directed Tombstone and the Wyatt Earp creek shootout was historically correct.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tombstone-val-kilmer-says-kurt-russell-essentially-directed-western-1028891

https://truewestmagazine.com/the-western-godfather/

http://www.settinghistorystraight.com/proj2.html

https://ew.com/article/1993/12/24/shoot-first-ask-questions-later/

 

 

 

Edited by MagicSoccerSpray
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3486

Posted
Posted

I always thought Dennis Quaid never got enough credit for the way he played Doc Holliday because he was overshadowed by Kilmer, who was absolutely great in his role.  But I always thought Quad did a damn fine job as well.  He lost 40 pounds to play Holliday, who was a whisp of a man with tuberculosis.  He also played him as more of a grouchy SOB, which is closer to the truth than Kilmer's more jocular portrayal.  Both Kilmer and Quad were given really juicy roles, and I thought they both played them well.  But Kilmer dominated the screen in the scenes he was in. 

  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...