Which had the better performances - Tombstone or Wyatt Earp ?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Tombstone
MyDarkStar — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 07:14 PM)
This has nothing to do with the other elements of the two movies such as story or direction. It's strictly about the performances of the main actors.
Wyatt Earp (Costner vs Russell) - I'm going with Russell on this. I just thought he was more interesting. Costner spoke in monotone the entire movie.
Doc Holliday (Quaid vs Kilmer) - I think each one of them delivered the best performances of their respected movies. I think you could even possibly make an argument that each one gave the best performance of their career. I don't think I can say either one was a "better" performance since they also played the character so differently. So with that said I think I'll give the nod to Kilmer just because he made me crack up more.
Virgil Earp (Madsen vs Elliot) - one of the things that I can't separate from the individual performances is the fact that Elliot simply fits the part better. He looks the role, and is just a perfect choice in my opinion. To add to that Madsen very much did NOT look the role.
So what are your choices ? -
Samoan Bob — 12 years ago(July 13, 2013 06:40 PM)
Sam Elliott looks nothing like Virgil Earp:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/VirgilEarp.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/scarletworm
http://facebook.com/davidlambertart -
dwashbur — 12 years ago(July 15, 2013 11:17 AM)
One of the more fascinating curiosities for me was that, in WE, the brothers looked more like their real-life counterparts. Bill Paxton looked nothing like Morgan, and Sam Elliott was too old to really look like Virgil. On the other hand, the guys playing Virgil and Morgan in WE looked a lot more like the real people. We won't talk about Costner's pathetic attempt to look like Wyatt.
Now, contrariwise, the Clantons and McLaurys in WE looked nothing like the real people. In fact, they all looked pretty much alike. In TS, both McLaury brothers looked amazingly like the real guys, and Thomas Hayden Church WAS Billy Clanton. Stephen Lang was too old to be Ike, but his performance is so perfect it's easy to overlook the age thing.
So WE had more authentic-looking Earps while Tombstone had more authentic-looking cowboys. Tombstone still wins, because in Tombstone both sets of characters actually do stuff. Unlike Wyatt Earp.
Dave
Check out my show:
http://www.irvingszoo.com -
Captain_Wesker — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 12:20 PM)
Elliot's age could be considered a plus if you want a shorthand visual representation of the fact that he's a veteran of the American Civil War.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
. -
Samoan Bob — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 12:15 AM)
Really? In what way? Elliot has a long, thin face, Virgil has a fat, round face. Not to pretend I'm an expert, but I do forensic sketches for the county coroner and deal with facial features and structure all day, and I don't see a resemblance. He played the part well, though.
http://www.facebook.com/scarletworm
http://facebook.com/davidlambertart -
eddiewinehosen — 11 years ago(May 02, 2014 04:56 AM)
I think that all the performances in Tombstone by the major characters is better then it's counterparts in WE with one exception, Joanna Going outshines Dana Delany as Josephine Marcus. Not only do I think she does a much better acting job but she is also by far more attractive and yes that's not always important but a little eyecandy never hurts
-
MyDarkStar — 11 years ago(May 02, 2014 02:04 PM)
You have very good points.
and this being the main theme of your points :
Wyatt Earp was trying to go for the "realism" of the story, while Tombstone was going for the "Tall Tale" lore version.
I totally agree ; but the problem I have with "realism" when it comes to Wyatt Earp is that I will never FULLY believe so much of the story. So much of it really comes from stories which individuals give - and those stories of course become better and better every time they're told. I think the ultimate truth to Wyatt Earp is that, yes, he was a much more boring person than we have been told over all these years - and therefore Costner's portrayal is much more accurate.
But personally, I didn't watch Tombstone in order to learn anything. I went into it with the assumption that a good deal of it was simply thrown in for the sake of making it entertaining, and it managed to entertain me more than WE. -
dwashbur — 11 years ago(May 03, 2014 08:08 AM)
WE has a reputation for being more "accurate," but that reputation is bogus. It has more errors in it than Tombstone every could. My favorite is having Virgil shot in the wrong arm. That's followed closely by MORGAN firing both opening shots in the Gunfight with his ridiculous two-gun setup, something that pretty much never existed in that time period. The list goes on and on. As far as I'm concerned, We has exactly one good line, delivered by Quaid's excellent portrayal of Doc:
"Tombstone? Well, it does sound quiet, I'll give you that."
Dave
Check out my show:
http://www.irvingszoo.com -
dwashbur — 11 years ago(May 06, 2014 09:11 AM)
One other curious thing I noticed between the two. In WE, Costner looks like Wyatt Earp as Joanna Going did, but the guys playing his brothers really looked the parts. Both Virgil's and Morgan's characters really resembled pictures of the actual guys. The cowboys are a different story. They're so badly portrayed that it's hard to tell one from another, and none of them looks even remotely like the actual people.
In Tombstone it's just the opposite. Stephen Lang IS Ike Clanton. Thomas Hayden Church is fantastic in anything he plays, and here he is practically a reincarnation of Billy Clanton. The McLaurys don't have very big parts, but they look just like the historical figures. On the other hand, while I love Sam Eliot, he was just too old to be Virgil, and Bill Paxton was both too short and too timid to be Morgan. So in WE the Earps (most of them) looked authentic while the Clantons and McLaurys didn't, while in TS the Clantons and McLaurys looked authentic while the two Earp brothers didn't.
I have no idea what the significance of that is, I just find it fascinating. Too bad there isn't some way to do a mash-up to get all the correct-looking actors in one movie, but there it is.
Dave
Check out my show:
http://www.irvingszoo.com -
JacksWarning — 11 years ago(November 08, 2014 05:11 PM)
I think for me personally, to compare the two is hard.
Wyatt Earp was trying to go for the "realism" of the story, while Tombstone was going for the "Tall Tale" lore version.
I guess it depends on your taste in films.
You would be wrong in that regard unless you think flat out making stuff up is "realism"
Both films are far more accurate than any previous film and both have flaws. Tombtone gets the edge on most points though.
For me, Val Kilmer as Doc was brilliant. I laughed, he entertained me. I would watch it over and over. He had very quotable lines "You're a daisy if ya do!" and the rivalry they set up with him and Ringo was fun. The big pay off at the end.
However, Quaid's performance was award worthy. I felt like he played the character dead on. If you asked me which one was more like the real Doc, I'd say Quaid.
Both actors did very well and the lines you quote are actual quotes attributed to Doc in documents from the time or stories inspired by such.
Russell as Wyatt Earp was again, more fun and entertaining. He is the BIGGER THAN LIFE version of the character we know from tall tales. He was unbeatable and a total bad a**.
Costner was more realistic and wooden. I would say his Earp was probably more like the true person in real life. I think his big payoff was the final scene when the boy tells him about the day he saved his uncle's life. When Costner says "Alright, you will get by me and you'll get him too." Then he whips out a second pistol and says "but I'm going to take ten or twelve with me. Who wants to die?" There needed to be more scenes like this in WE IMO.
Kurt Russell was a thousand times better as Wyatt. Looks, attitude, all around persona. Costner was wooden, bored, pissed off or half asleep. I have read nothing to make me think Wyatt Earp was anything like that.
All of this being said, I think Tombstone was the better entertaining film, while WE was more interesting from a learning experience. Though, I think if Costner had a few more tall tale elements (such as the final flashback scene) sprinkled throughout the film, it would have been the best overall.
Common mistake. Wyatt Earp is not more historically accurate. It just covers a broader story and lies about quite a bit of it. -
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 12:09 PM)
Wyatt Earp-Didn't like either performance
Doc Holliday-Agreed. Best performances in their respective movies
Virgil-I actually liked both of these performances. Probably my 2nd favorite performance in both films.
Josie (Delany vs Going)-By TEN THOUSAND COUNTRY MILES, Going from
Wyatt Earp
! Going was smoking hot, sexy, and alluring. Delany was NOT! -
newfrontier45 — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 07:05 PM)
While I think Tombstone is an infinitely better movie overall, I actually liked Costner's darker portrayal of Earp a little more than Russell.
I also thought Dennis Quaid did a fantastic job as Holliday but is overshadowed by Kilmer's version.
I despise Michael Madsen. He has no talent, always plays a version of the same, fake, wannabe badass. To me, he cheapens anything he's cast in. Sam Elliot, on the other hand, is a real actor who was born for westerns and is a huge boon to any he stars in.
Morgan's character in Wyatt Earp was campy and stupid. Paxton's was much better.
Further, Dana Delaney nailed her role but her Wyatt Earp counterpart was completely forgettable.
Tombstone also had A LOT more effort put into guns, leather and costumes. Wyatt Earp used the same ole Hollywood buscadero crap that would be right at home on the set of any campy B western.
