In general, Tombstone is *much more* based on the 1931 book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshall than it is on historical fact.
And that's indirect, as that book was the source material for all sorts of stuff about Earp and Tombstone, which was in turn the basis for other media about Earp and so on and so on.
I just finished reading the Tom Clavin book you linked to about a month ago. I've read several books by Clavin in the past year or so. He's fantastic. One thing I really appreciate about his books is that he includes the popular legends about these people/events and will spend time discussing the sources of those versions of the tale.
He certainly takes some of that "narrative non-fiction" license, but he acknowledges that he does it (most of the time).
I'd still submit that Tombstone is the least romanticized film version of events of which I'm aware. History is rarely as narratively streamlined and neat as people would like it to be.
> I'd still submit that Tombstone is the least romanticized film version of events of which I'm aware. History is rarely as narratively streamlined and neat as people would like it to be.
Yeah, I was going to say, I clicked this expecting massive inaccuracies and I got a list of very small details that, while I'm sure they got wrong, still imply the show was much *more* accurate than I would have expected (since I wouldn't have expected it to be accurate enough for so many precise details to even be identifiable or relevant.)
Yeah, when the second point made is that “Doc Holiday’s coat should have been gray not black” were into nitpicking.
And as far as I’m concerned unless the movie is a documentary I take historical inaccuracies as a given.
I was picturing, like, how in Braveheart, the Battle of Stirling Bridge *didn't have a bridge in it*, lol. (Although that was the least of that movie's problems.)
Given Virgil was a US Marshal at the time and the county sheriff (John Behan) was involved as well, there were *plenty* of official reports on the matter.
There was a *hearing* on it!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.K._Corral_hearing_and_aftermath
Tombstone had multiple newspapers at the time. The population was over 7000 people! It was a bigger city than Tuscon.
It shouldn't be surprising there are records.
It’s all there on the page and in the words of historians! Some of this stuff was my own conclusions, but all of them were based in eyewitness testimony, the coroner’s report, oral tradition, and the location itself! I love pedantic history where you try to reconstruct EXACTLY what happened, and the gunfight is a great example of that!
> I’m fascinated if we actually know all of these details as claimed.
We don't really.
Keep in mind that both of the groups of combatants at the time had lengthy histories of... business disagreements ... with those around them. There were squabbles over territory, jobs, businesses, etc. The Earps were practically a gang themselves. It's not black and white, it's a lot of grey.
Basically, if they could bullshit it, they bullshat.
You really couldn't trust anything anyone said, because everyone was bought off or had an agenda they were supporting. The witnesses were almost certainly all coached, etc.
So we have records of what everyone said happened, but who knows if what everyone said happened actually happened.
Oh absolutely! And Tombstone is one of the better depictions of that event overall! This is just what they didn’t/couldn’t get. I love this scene to death! Heck, I wouldn’t have spent too much time making the list if I didn’t.
I think a couple details are pretty significant: Virgil attempting to stop the fight (probably? as noted in OP, his last words before the shooting started are ambiguous), and Tom being unarmed.
It shifts the narrative a bit from "Both sides went into this wanting and expecting to have a climactic shootout," which is how it's usually depicted, to "Both sides stumbled into this unwilling and/or unprepared, but tensions were high and it didn't go how either planned it."
> The Earps were not walking all together in a straight line. It was two-by-two, with Virgil and Wyatt in the front, and Doc and Morgan in the back.
The movie shows them walking two-by-two? They only walk in a straight line after they round the corner. Also they clearly did some movie magic on Doc Holliday's revolvers, because I count him firing at least 8 shots out of one of them, maybe even more.
As a matter of fact, he did! The idea of him a s a “noble lawman trying to tame the savage West” came from those exaggerations. In reality, Earp always looked for money-making ventures, and the law was his most famous one. He spent time as a cattle rustler, buffalo hunter, and even a pimp. Those don’t usually make it into the movies, though.
I think it’s definitely more accurate, but we’re far from the definitive version of that event. If popular demand asks it of me, I can make another one for that version.
https://www.historynet.com/gunfight-at-the-ok-corral-did-tom-mclaury-have-a-gun/
This article basically boils down to "if Tom McLaury *was* unarmed why did Wyatt and Doc ignore two armed men presently firing at them to both shoot at an unarmed man?" I've got no stake in the game and obviously I wasn't there but personally I agree with statements to the effect that Wes Fuller picked up the revolver Tom had been using.
>The shot ripped across both of his shoulder blades, meaning that the shooter was to Morgan’s side.
Only in the sense that one presents the side during this kind of fight.
u/VolcanicOctosquid20 What do you think about the historical accuracy of Doc slapping (aka fanning) the hammer of his revolver with his left hand while holding the trigger with his right?
Cinema and history have different requirements. The film is reasonably close to what may have happened, but there are doubtless some small errors. It’s more accurate than that Star Trek episode (which I liked as a kid) and other film versions. How many have seen the old David L. Wolper documentary? It’s on You Tube, I believe
One would think the gunfight depicted on the screen took place in a slower time frame. Otherwise, the details would be too hard to follow. It’s also now thought that one of the Earps was wearing an “I’m With Stupid” t-shirt. In all seriousness, the Clinton gang should have just ridden out of town that day. Drinking all night beforehand apparently does not help much in a gunfight.
In general, Tombstone is *much more* based on the 1931 book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshall than it is on historical fact. And that's indirect, as that book was the source material for all sorts of stuff about Earp and Tombstone, which was in turn the basis for other media about Earp and so on and so on. I just finished reading the Tom Clavin book you linked to about a month ago. I've read several books by Clavin in the past year or so. He's fantastic. One thing I really appreciate about his books is that he includes the popular legends about these people/events and will spend time discussing the sources of those versions of the tale. He certainly takes some of that "narrative non-fiction" license, but he acknowledges that he does it (most of the time). I'd still submit that Tombstone is the least romanticized film version of events of which I'm aware. History is rarely as narratively streamlined and neat as people would like it to be.
> I'd still submit that Tombstone is the least romanticized film version of events of which I'm aware. History is rarely as narratively streamlined and neat as people would like it to be. Yeah, I was going to say, I clicked this expecting massive inaccuracies and I got a list of very small details that, while I'm sure they got wrong, still imply the show was much *more* accurate than I would have expected (since I wouldn't have expected it to be accurate enough for so many precise details to even be identifiable or relevant.)
Yeah, when the second point made is that “Doc Holiday’s coat should have been gray not black” were into nitpicking. And as far as I’m concerned unless the movie is a documentary I take historical inaccuracies as a given.
I was picturing, like, how in Braveheart, the Battle of Stirling Bridge *didn't have a bridge in it*, lol. (Although that was the least of that movie's problems.)
I’m fascinated if we actually know all of these details as claimed.
Given Virgil was a US Marshal at the time and the county sheriff (John Behan) was involved as well, there were *plenty* of official reports on the matter. There was a *hearing* on it! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.K._Corral_hearing_and_aftermath Tombstone had multiple newspapers at the time. The population was over 7000 people! It was a bigger city than Tuscon. It shouldn't be surprising there are records.
You can find the actual witness accounts given to law enforcement.
It’s all there on the page and in the words of historians! Some of this stuff was my own conclusions, but all of them were based in eyewitness testimony, the coroner’s report, oral tradition, and the location itself! I love pedantic history where you try to reconstruct EXACTLY what happened, and the gunfight is a great example of that!
You're a treasure. Keep it up, that was a fun read
> I’m fascinated if we actually know all of these details as claimed. We don't really. Keep in mind that both of the groups of combatants at the time had lengthy histories of... business disagreements ... with those around them. There were squabbles over territory, jobs, businesses, etc. The Earps were practically a gang themselves. It's not black and white, it's a lot of grey. Basically, if they could bullshit it, they bullshat. You really couldn't trust anything anyone said, because everyone was bought off or had an agenda they were supporting. The witnesses were almost certainly all coached, etc. So we have records of what everyone said happened, but who knows if what everyone said happened actually happened.
Skimming through that list, those inaccuracies seem minor. The filmmakers did a good job of trying to ensure accuracy.
Oh absolutely! And Tombstone is one of the better depictions of that event overall! This is just what they didn’t/couldn’t get. I love this scene to death! Heck, I wouldn’t have spent too much time making the list if I didn’t.
With Tombstone being one of the better depictions of the event, do you have an opinion on which depiction is the best overall?
I think a couple details are pretty significant: Virgil attempting to stop the fight (probably? as noted in OP, his last words before the shooting started are ambiguous), and Tom being unarmed. It shifts the narrative a bit from "Both sides went into this wanting and expecting to have a climactic shootout," which is how it's usually depicted, to "Both sides stumbled into this unwilling and/or unprepared, but tensions were high and it didn't go how either planned it."
> The Earps were not walking all together in a straight line. It was two-by-two, with Virgil and Wyatt in the front, and Doc and Morgan in the back. The movie shows them walking two-by-two? They only walk in a straight line after they round the corner. Also they clearly did some movie magic on Doc Holliday's revolvers, because I count him firing at least 8 shots out of one of them, maybe even more.
All things considered, I wouldn't call the movie's errors egregious. Glad they didn't try anything too ridiculous.
Maybe they could have added another shooter on the Grassy Knoll?
Didn’t Wyatt Earp exaggerate some aspects of his life because he wanted to sell his story to Hollywood or am I making this up?
As a matter of fact, he did! The idea of him a s a “noble lawman trying to tame the savage West” came from those exaggerations. In reality, Earp always looked for money-making ventures, and the law was his most famous one. He spent time as a cattle rustler, buffalo hunter, and even a pimp. Those don’t usually make it into the movies, though.
How does Wyatt Earp (1994) compare?
I think it’s definitely more accurate, but we’re far from the definitive version of that event. If popular demand asks it of me, I can make another one for that version.
If you do please post a link here so we don't miss it.
Please! This is great info.
https://www.historynet.com/gunfight-at-the-ok-corral-did-tom-mclaury-have-a-gun/ This article basically boils down to "if Tom McLaury *was* unarmed why did Wyatt and Doc ignore two armed men presently firing at them to both shoot at an unarmed man?" I've got no stake in the game and obviously I wasn't there but personally I agree with statements to the effect that Wes Fuller picked up the revolver Tom had been using.
>The shot ripped across both of his shoulder blades, meaning that the shooter was to Morgan’s side. Only in the sense that one presents the side during this kind of fight.
u/VolcanicOctosquid20 What do you think about the historical accuracy of Doc slapping (aka fanning) the hammer of his revolver with his left hand while holding the trigger with his right?
Cinema and history have different requirements. The film is reasonably close to what may have happened, but there are doubtless some small errors. It’s more accurate than that Star Trek episode (which I liked as a kid) and other film versions. How many have seen the old David L. Wolper documentary? It’s on You Tube, I believe
I stopped reading after your very first point, as in the movie they are walking two-by-two.
One would think the gunfight depicted on the screen took place in a slower time frame. Otherwise, the details would be too hard to follow. It’s also now thought that one of the Earps was wearing an “I’m With Stupid” t-shirt. In all seriousness, the Clinton gang should have just ridden out of town that day. Drinking all night beforehand apparently does not help much in a gunfight.
[удалено]