Appaloosa
iām a huge fan of Clint Eastwood westerns but Tombstone is a very fine movie!
I really like TOMBSTONE, too. Believe Iād give WYATT EARP the edge, though (and Iām not even a Kevin Costner fan!).
Ooh no; Tombstone over Wyatt Earp all day long, for me. Not that I dislike Wyatt Earp mind you, itās a bloody good film. My favourite Costner picture in the genre (that Iāve seen), and I havenāt seen a Costner western that I didnāt like.
Favourite Costner westerns:
- Wyatt Earp
- Hatfields & McCoys (TV)
- Silverado
- Dances With Wolves
- Open Range
Dennis Quaid was just so brilliant as Doc Holliday, though. He owns Val Kilmer in that role (though Kilmer was decent, too).
Marv, Iām with you in that old debate, but I think weāre in big minority. Everybody seems to overestimate Tombstone, while Earp gets a āitās OKā shrug at best. Kilmer (show-stealer in Tombstone) and Quaid were both great, but Earp is much better, sadly underestimated, movie. Tombstone is just campy b-movie fun, which becomes kitsch at times when it tries to be serious. I like good campy fun, donāt get me wrong, but saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp is like saying that Sartana movie is better than Once Upon a Time in the West. I guess reputations of this movies had to something with their origins and that feud over script, casting and distribution, so I guess critics (aka opinion makers) were spiteful towards Earp. No other explanation for 42% at Rotten Tomatoes for me. Most often complaint about the movie is that it is too long - an argument that I always consider childish and that speaks more of someoneās short attention span than about the movie itself.
But weāve been down this road beforeā¦
I liked both movies, but the approach was clearly different. Tombstone has good action scenes and good performances too, but it tries to be hip, to re-invent the genre for new audiences, and yes, it gets a little kitschy at times but overall it does a decent job. Wyatt Earp is clearly made in the tradition of the classic western, aspires to be both epic and dramatic. I guess Costner has something to do with the mixed reactions to it, some never forgave him the success of Dances with Wolves and he seems to be one of those guys who pisses off many people for one reason or another.
Yes, I liked both movies too, but itās seems that I liked Tombstone more on first viewing than on subsequent ones, while Earp was enjoyable to me every time, epic thing worked for me. I like it way better than Dances with Wolves.
I prefer Tombstone over Walter Earp.
[quote=ātitoli, post:11186, topic:141ā]Marv, Iām with you in that old debate, but I think weāre in big minority. [size=18pt]Everybody seems to overestimate Tombstone[/size], while Earp gets a āitās OKā shrug at best. Kilmer (show-stealer in Tombstone) and Quaid were both great, but [size=18pt]Earp is much better, sadly underestimated, movie[/size]. [size=18pt]Tombstone is just campy b-movie fun[/size], which becomes kitsch at times when it tries to be serious. I like good campy fun, donāt get me wrong, but [size=18pt]saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp is like saying that Sartana movie is better than Once Upon a Time in the West[/size]. I guess [size=18pt]reputations of this movies had to something with their origins and that feud over script, casting and distribution[/size], so I guess [size=18pt]critics (aka opinion makers) were spiteful towards Earp[/size]. No other explanation for 42% at Rotten Tomatoes for me. [size=18pt]Most often complaint about the movie is that it is too long - an argument that I always consider childish[/size] and that speaks more of someoneās short attention span than about the movie itself.
But weāve been down this road beforeā¦[/quote]
Dreadfully unfair, all of that, Titoli. āBad dartsā, as we say over here in the UK. Your theory is astonishingly dismissive of othersā perfectly valid opinions. You like Wyatt Earp better than Tombstone. Thatās fine, thatās entirely your right. I am not for one second going to seek to dismiss your opinion or cheapen it, and neither you nor anybody else should be doing likewise. I like both movies very much, but I definitively prefer Tombstone. And that has nothing to do with critics being spiteful towards Costner, or any public perception of the man, or any backlash. Tombstone IS more campy than Wyatt Earpās more serious tone, but thatās just apples and oranges, not that one style is superior to the other. I happen to prefer that manner of filmmaking, that tone, for a movie centered around an incident such as the Gunfight at the OK Corral. And someone preferring Sartana to OUaTitW is nothing like someone preferring Tombstone to Wyatt Earp, the insulting implication from you there being that the preference for the one over the other is ridiculous (and if someone DID prefer Sartana to OUaTitW, that would be their right too, btw). And the criticism of any movie as overlong isnāt āchildishā, itās an observation like any other. I like Wyatt Earp as I said, and it IS a little overlong imo, as are many of Costnerās movies from around that period. Doesnāt say a Goddamn thing about me or my attention span; Dekalog runs close to ten hours and itās EXACTLY as long as it needs to be and Iāve happily enjoyed it from start to finish more than once, as well as watching it by episode many times. I donāt think Iāve ever watched less than three or four episodes of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones in one sitting before. My attention span is just fine. And Wyatt Earp is STILL a little overlong. IMHO, that is.
All of our opinions may differ, wildly; thatās great, thatās the lifeblood of any forum. But donāt be dismissing or belittling my opinion.
Wov, those are some BIG letters there my friend 
Didnāt mean to offend anyone, itās just my opinion and I like both movies too like stated above, but I feel that Wyatt Earp deserve little bit more recognition than it has. Remark about āshort attention spanā came because I tried to figure out 42% score of the movie on RT, and was annoyed that in 90 percent of the critics summary there was only ātoo longā argument. I still consider it a bad argument if it doesnāt specify what was the trouble with the length except the length itself. Maybe I should rework that red sentence like this to make it less offensive (but I think that I shouldnāt state that it is my opinion when giving my opinion 
):
āIn my opinion, saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp is like saying that Sartana movie (which I consider good campy fun) is better than Once Upon a Time in the West (which I consider to be movie masterpiece on completely different level)ā
Well thatās certainly a better - and fairer - criticism.
Neither do I. Iām not taking exception to you stating opinion as fact, as happens on internet forums from time to time. I donāt think youāve done that. Iāve taken exception to you dismissing the opinions of others.
No, youāve done it again. Your implication - which is a false comparison, btw - is that that preference (Tombstone over Wyatt Earp) is as ridiculous as preferring a Sartana movie over OUaTitW. You didnāt say, āitās like preferring TG,tB&tU over OUaTitWā because those two movies are too close, quality wise. You have picked a film (OUaTitW) that most would agree is of far greater quality than the other film you picked (a Sartana movie), to reinforce the gulf (in your head) in quality between Wyatt Earp and Tombstone. Itās insulting because not only is it a false comparison, as I said (ie Sartana, OUaTitW and any perceived gap in quality between the two has nothing to do with Tombstone, Wyatt Earp or any perceived gap in quality between those two), but the statement still suggests that anyone saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp is making the same distorted, qualitative mistake as someone suggesting that Sartana is better than OUaTitW. Youāre still dismissing othersā opinions. Theyāre not making any qualitative mistake at all, theyāre offering their own, perfectly valid opinion on two movies. Just as you are.
I think the comparison is indeed wrong, false, or at least unfair; Sartana and Once upon a Time in the West play in diffferent divisions (budgets, players, ambitions etc.) it would be like comparing Philās Leyton Orient to Manchester United; Tomstone and Wyatt Earp are clearly rivals, both playing in the premier division.
That said, I think titoli is entitled to his own opinion, unfair or not. If he thinks what he thinks, and still thinks what he thinks after anybody brought up the above-mentioned arguments, itās his good right to do so.
Heh,
I think that Iāve made perfectly clear that I consider Tombstone to be
"good campy fun", just like Sartana, while I think that WE tries to be
serious and great movie (and succeeds in may book). Again, this is just
my opinion, itās not dismissive of other opinions.
@ titolo | The problem obviously is this āis like sayingā:
In my opinion, saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp is like saying that Sartana movie (which I consider good campy fun) is better than Once Upon a Time in the West (which I consider to be movie masterpiece on completely different level)
-
The point last caress made (and I tried to clarify) is that comparing Sartana with Once upon a Time in the West (they play in different leagues) is not the same as comparing Tombstone and Wyattt Earp (they play in the same league). I agree with last caress on this (you also talk about different levels), but if someone insists on making these comparisons, I donāt have too much trouble with it.
-
Another point is that this āis like sayingā seems to imply that your opinion somehow represents an absolute truth; I read it a little like this:
Nobody could ever say that a Sartana is better than Once Upon a Time in the West (unless heās a fool), saying that Tombstone is better than Wyatt Earp āis like sayingā that Sartana is better than Once Upon ā¦ ergo :anybody who says this, must be a fool.
Maybe that wasnāt what you meant to say, but it can be interpreted this way.
Have to admit I much prefer SARTANA to ONCE UPON A TIMEā¦
Donāt get me wrong, itās a good film. But I just prefer the character of Sartana when comparing the two.
I know others who do (Iām not one of them, btw)
āit would be like comparing Philās Leyton Orient to Manchester Unitedā
Now hold on just a god darned minuteā¦ :o >:( :o
Iām not suggesting for one second that he isnāt. He is 100% entitled to his opinion. Definitely. Iād defend his opinion - or more specifically, his right to an opinion - to the death.
He is entitled to say, āI like Wyatt Earp.ā Entitled to say āI prefer Wyatt Earp to Tombstone,ā or āI prefer Coke to Pepsi,ā āDreamworks over Pixarā or āDonkey-Punching over Monkey-Facingā.
You, scherpschutter, might say, āI think X.ā Thatās fine. Thatās your perfectly valid opinion on the subject.
I might say to you, āI think X too!ā Thatās fine too. Thatās MY opinion. As valid as yours.
Now Stanton might come along and say, āWell, I disagree. I think Y, not X at all.ā And THATāS fine. HIS opinion, as valid as mine or yours.
Then, Mickey might come along and say, āI agree, Stanton. Definitely Y over X. In fact, anyone who thinks X over Y is talking as much rubbish as someone suggesting that Sartana > OUaTitW.ā Now, thatās NOT fine; specifically, the section in bold. Weāve now moved from opining on the subject matter to disrespecting the opinions of others, which is exactly what has happened here.
Absolutely Marvin, and good for you mate. Itās a point I addressed earlier when I said:
[quote=ātitoli, post:11194, topic:141ā]Heh,
I think that Iāve made perfectly clear that I consider Tombstone to be
āgood campy funā, just like Sartana, while I think that WE tries to be
serious and great movie (and succeeds in may book). Again, this is just
my opinion, itās not dismissive of other opinions.[/quote]
You HAVE made that clear, but I guess I havenāt made it clear that thatās NOT the portion of your text that I am challenging. That there is indeed your opinion to which you are perfectly entitled, and itās not dismissive at all. What Iām challenging is the point Iāve made above.
EXACTLY my point. Exactly what has āgot my goatā, as they say.
The above in bold is also well worth considering too though, in fairness to titoli.
Okay: Iāve no interest in fighting all night and FWIW Iām happy to accept that titoliās intention has not been to insult, so in the spirit of harmony Iām happy to kiss and make up. IF we can agree to limit our subjective opinions to the subject matter at hand and respect what each other think? Cool? Kissy-kissy? xxx
Scherp, if someone (or Sartana68) thinks that every Sartana film is a better film than OUTW than it is an opinion which is as valid and true and not foolish as if I say that OUTW is the much better film. For me every film plays in the same league, the film league that is.
But Leyton Orient does (probably) not play in the same league as Man U. In football everything is easier ā¦