Tombstone (1993) vs Wyatt Earp (1994)

[Jack Reacheround]

Tombstone/ thread

Without a doubt. Even if you used CGI to make all the guns in Tombstone into dicks, it would still be better than Wyatt Earp by the same magnitude that the sun is more massive than a tick's ballsack.

 

[Guestx]

Without a doubt. Even if you used CGI to make all the guns in Tombstone into dicks, it would still be better than Wyatt Earp by the same magnitude that the sun is more massive than a tick's ballsack.

Damn, it's like all that? Why do you dislike Wyatt Earp so much?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

this isn't even close for me. Tombstone is epic for Kilmer's Doc alone while I never made it all the way through Wyatt Earp. What a shit movie with a shit actor. Never understand why he's able to do what he does for a living.

I hate Costner. But he is awesome in 'Open Range'

And I also consider that to be one of the best westerns ever made. If you haven't seen it, look into it. Very authentic.

 

[scorpipede]

I hate Costner. But he is awesome in 'Open Range'

And I also consider that to be one of the best westerns ever made. If you haven't seen it, look into it. Very authentic.

I'll give it a shot. I just set an alert for it on my Roku. When it's free it's for me. Thanks.

 

[scorpipede]

Without a doubt. Even if you used CGI to make all the guns in Tombstone into dicks, it would still be better than Wyatt Earp by the same magnitude that the sun is more massive than a tick's ballsack.

 

[Billy Blanks]

I've watched Wyatt Earp a few times and it's not bad.
Tombstone is the better movie, imo. After watching Tombstone, i wanted to know more about Wyatt and Doc.
That's why i dont mind Wyatt Earp, because it filled in most of the other stuff.

One of the other reasons I enjoyed Tombstone over W. Earp when I was younger was because the female cast was a lot better looking than the one in Wyatt Earp. I mean, Big Nose Kate was mug fugly and she was my favorite one in Tombstone.

 

[SSOTO]

Gotta admit I'm not up to date on my Costner bro

I love the dude though. I think my favourite Costner film is A Perfect World. Holy shit I cried my eyes out at the end of that

very underrated movie. really hit me in the feels cause i have a nephew who reminds me of "Casper"...

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

i remember when these were coming out and there was a huge debate over them. they also were racing to get to the screen because of the similarity of them. obviously tombstone won. then i remember costner and that side all talking about how they had a much more epic and overall awesome movie. tombstone was just really about one event and not to be taken seriously.

obviously they were wrong. tombstone is a classic and not many people remember earp.

oh, and poor quaid having to follow kilmer's performance.

 

[Pliny Pete]

Hell yeah! The Untouchables, Field of Dreams, JFK, Robin Hood, Dances with Wolves. . . That's good shit!

You seen any of his recent stuff? I thought Black or White, 3 Days to Kill and Criminal were all worth a watch.

You left out Tin Cup which is not only a great Costner film its the second best golf movie of all time behind Caddy Shack

And The Postman and Waterworld are both good movies

 

[CutStryker]

Tombstone

The actors, director, cinematography for me is what makes it superior

 

[Sir Galahad]

But dat elbow

His elbow gets more publicity than his recent movies. @soggyfist

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Haven't seen either movie since like the 5th grade when they first came out and my parents rented them a few months apart. All I remember is my folks liked Wyatt Earp more. But they're boring nerds.

 

[scorpipede]

You left out Tin Cup which is not only a great Costner film its the second best golf movie of all time behind Caddy Shack

And The Postman and Waterworld are both good movies

Tin Cup is another movie that I love but not because of Costner. It would have been even better with Liam Neeson in that role.

 

[Guestx]

I hate Costner. But he is awesome in 'Open Range'

And I also consider that to be one of the best westerns ever made. If you haven't seen it, look into it. Very authentic.

I still need to see that one. . .

 

[Guestx]

i remember when these were coming out and there was a huge debate over them. they also were racing to get to the screen because of the similarity of them. obviously tombstone won. then i remember costner and that side all talking about how they had a much more epic and overall awesome movie. tombstone was just really about one event and not to be taken seriously.

obviously they were wrong. tombstone is a classic and not many people remember earp.

oh, and poor quaid having to follow kilmer's performance.

The thing about Earp is that it IS bigger in scope, but it's a lesser movie in every other way. Every actor in Tombstone really made their role their own, whereas the performances in Earp are largely forgettable for the most part. And Tombstone was designed and shot in a way which gave the film a lot of energy.

I did like Quaid as doc though. He couldn't fuck with Kilmer, but then again, Kilmer's performance is literally one of the very best performances in film history.

 

[Guestx]

You left out Tin Cup which is not only a great Costner film its the second best golf movie of all time behind Caddy Shack

And The Postman and Waterworld are both good movies

I did like Tin Cup. It was a fun little romp with Costner and Don Johnson of all people.

I wouldn't quite put it up there with his very best work, though.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

The thing about Earp is that it IS bigger in scope, but it's a lesser movie in every other way. Every actor in Tombstone really made their role their own, whereas the performances in Earp are largely forgettable for the most part. And Tombstone was designed and shot in a way which gave the film a lot of energy.

I did like Quaid as doc though. He couldn't fuck with Kilmer, but then again, Kilmer's performance is literally one of the very best performances in film history.

it definitely was more grand in scope. but that changes nothing since it wasnt as good, as you said. the only negative for me in tombstone was bill paxton who annoys me in all his movies. but everyone else was great. i usually nitpick movies like this to death on historical inaccuracies, but it was so good i gave it a pass.

and quaid was fine, but you just cant follow kilmer. i still cant believe he wasnt even nominated for an academy award

 

[BisexualMMA]

Since you've actually seen Wyatt Earp, why don't you offer some thoughts on it?

I probably should've just made this a Wyatt Earp thread.

I think it would have been remembered more fondly if Tombstone hadn't existed.

It was a long movie, with long periods where not a whole lot happened, plot-wise. It felt like it was stuck in the doldrums for 15 or 20 minutes at a time.

Costner was good enough, Quaid was pretty good. But while this may have been a more accurate and honest portrayal of Earp the human being...it just didn't make for a terribly interesting man for that length of time. I wasn't cheering for him like I cheered for Kurt Russell...

I think what set Tombstone apart the most was its supporting characters. Each and every one of Biehn, Boothe, Elliott, Paxton, Stephen Lang were memorable, unique and colorful. Then there were memorable minor characters like Priestley, Zane...shit, even Frank Stallone and pre-fame Billy Bob Thornton in his fat hick dummy stage.

Wyatt Earp also had a pretty stellar supporting cast in the same or similar roles - Jeff Fahey, Mark Harmon, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore... Yet they all made no impression. If you ask me to recommend a performance from any of those actors, I won't name Wyatt Earp, and that's if I even remember they were in it.

In Tombstone, the difference between Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp is clear and striking. Morgan is innocent and admires his brothers, Virgil is battle-worn, weary and pragmatic. Wyatt is the guy who will only be pushed so far. In Wyatt Earp, I can't really tell you what one brother is all about, compared to the others.

Tombstone also had the much better score.

Wyatt Earp mostly felt like one of those epic biographies that gets bogged down in sections of the life that aren't particularly interesting or dramatic. Alexander is one that seemed to have similar length and pacing.

 

[Guestx]

I think it would have been remembered more fondly if Tombstone hadn't existed.

It was a long movie, with long periods where not a whole lot happened, plot-wise. It felt like it was stuck in the doldrums for 15 or 20 minutes at a time.

Costner was good enough, Quaid was pretty good. But while this may have been a more accurate and honest portrayal of Earp the human being...it just didn't make for a terribly interesting man for that length of time. I wasn't cheering for him like I cheered for Kurt Russell...

I think what set Tombstone apart the most was its supporting characters. Each and every one of Biehn, Boothe, Elliott, Paxton, Stephen Lang were memorable, unique and colorful. Then there were memorable minor characters like Priestley, Zane...shit, even Frank Stallone and pre-fame Billy Bob Thornton in his fat hick dummy stage.

Wyatt Earp also had a pretty stellar supporting cast in the same or similar roles - Jeff Fahey, Mark Harmon, Bill Pullman, Michael Madsen, Tom Sizemore... Yet they all made no impression. If you ask me to recommend a performance from any of those actors, I won't name Wyatt Earp, and that's if I even remember they were in it.

Tombstone also had the much better score.

Wyatt Earp mostly felt like one of those epic biographies that gets bogged down in sections of the life that aren't particularly interesting or dramatic. Alexander is one that seemed to have similar length and pacing.

Indeed. Good thoughts, and I pretty much agree with everything.

Your comments in the supporting performances/characters is especially on point. It's so easy to remember Biehn as Johnny Ringo, Boothe as Curly Bill, Sam Elliott as Virgil, Val as Doc Holliday etc. But when I think about Wyatt Earp, the ONLY performance that stands out, beyond Costner's, is Quaid's.

It's actually very strange--I'd almost call it eerie--how very forgettable everyone is in that film.

I still like it, though.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Indeed. Good thoughts, and I pretty much agree with everything.

Your comments in the supporting performances/characters is especially on point. It's so easy to remember Biehn as Johnny Ringo, Boothe as Curly Bill, Sam Elliott as Virgil, Val as Doc Holliday etc. But when I think about Wyatt Earp, the ONLY performance that stands out, beyond Costner's, is Quaid's.

It's actually very strange--I'd almost call it eerie--how very forgettable everyone is in that film.

Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove as the asshole in the pool hall actually comes to mind before I think of Gene Hackman, Michael Madsen, etc. He was one of the relatively few characters where you knew what he was all about during his time on screen.