Tombstone.

Tombstone

Tombstone, no questions asked.

And I dont mean to criticize any individual for expressing the thought, its really more the conventional view that Quaid was an amazing Doc Holliday, in spite of him missing the mark due to the errors you guys pointed out so well.
Hey, if everyone had the same opinion, we wouldn't have need for any message boards!
I'm of the opinion that some people think Quaid was better maybe because he was well, I don't want to say "hammy", but maybe it was, compared to Val Kilmer's subtleties and understated wit. More is not always better. No reflection on Dennis Quaid's talent. I've always liked him.
From what I've read, during Doc's time in Tombstone, he was as healthy as he'd been in 10 years. The climate had really done him well. He still coughed, but he wasn't showing the debilitating effects of the tuberculosis.
That's my understanding as well. He was slender, but not near-cadaverous as Quaid was.

All good points. I thought Quaid better personified the Leadville time. If not prefectly, then atleast more aptly than he portayed his Dodge and Tombstone time.
And I dont mean to criticize any individual for expressing the thought, its really more the conventional view that Quaid was an amazing Doc Holliday, in spite of him missing the mark due to the errors you guys pointed out so well.
"I am on intimate terms with the desert"

From what I've read, during Doc's time in Tombstone, he was as healthy as he'd been in 10 years. The climate had really done him well. He still coughed, but he wasn't showing the debilitating effects of the tuberculosis.
Quaid's raspy voice didn't sound right, and he certainly didn't match the genteel, gentlemanly behavior that I attribute to the good dentist.
And lines like "Do you believe in friendship, Wyatt Earp?" were really pretty bad.
I intend to live forever.
So far, so good.

(Quaid) gave a great performance, it just wasn't a great performance of Doc Holliday.
Yeah, I meant to say exactly that. It wasn't his fault they made him say things like, "Do you believe in friendship, Wyatt Earp?"

Yes, I get a little tired of the praise for Quaid as Holliday when he was clearly not doing him justice in his representation. He gave a great performance, it just wasn't a great performance of Doc Holliday.
"I am on intimate terms with the desert"

This is just plain fact: WE is a boring film. It has no real dramatic tension in it. And quite honestly the biggest death knell on that film is its horrible, forgettable villains. I mean does anyone even remember anything about The Cowboys in that film? I can't recall anything Curly Bill even did in it, whereas Powers Boothe was awesome in Tombstone. Michael Biehn was awesome as Ringo, whereas I can't recall the character at all in WE.
Yes to all of the above!
Quaid's performance is to be admired I guess, since he went to great pains to look and act as much like the real Doc as possible.
From what I've read and heard I can't agree. Doc was more refined than Quaid portrayed him and also was not that skeletal in Tombstone. He also never hit Kate, which Quaid's Doc does.

I think Wyatt Earp (the film) just tried to take in too much ground. Most people going in don't care THAT much about Earp's life story, his dad, first wife, whatever. I might be interested in his time in Dodge City but that could be its own film rather than the few minutes spent here.
This is just plain fact: WE is a boring film. It has no real dramatic tension in it. And quite honestly the biggest death knell on that film is its horrible, forgettable villains. I mean does anyone even remember anything about The Cowboys in that film? I can't recall anything Curly Bill even did in it, whereas Powers Boothe was awesome in Tombstone. Michael Biehn was awesome as Ringo, whereas I can't recall the character at all in WE.
Tombstone as film entertainment jumps out and grabs the viewer. I will say I found it odd when I first saw it since I expected it to end with the OK Corral, but that happens kinda midway through. In reality there was far more to the story, which I later understood.
As far as Quaid vs. Kilmer, I think most people probably prefer Kilmer. I know I do. Quaid's performance is to be admired I guess, since he went to great pains to look and act as much like the real Doc as possible. But Kilmer was infinitely more quotable and entertaining.
In the end I don't think there is much debate about these two films. Tombstone was always better and in 1993/94 the public certainly responded to it more than Wyatt Earp. Tombstone embellished that era onscreen.Wyatt Earp embalmed it.

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.

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.

Agreed!

Val Kilmer blew away Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday.

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!

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.

KR Wyatt Earp was alot more nicer to people than KC Wyatt Earp.

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

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

This message has been deleted.

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.

This message has been deleted.

"I think that all the performances in Tombstone by the major characters is better then it's counterparts in WE"
——————————-
Agreed!

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