There’s a historical inaccuracy in Kurt Russell’s Tombstone that actually helped it win the battle against Kevin Costner’s more faithful Wyatt Earp. Released just a year apart from one another, in 1993 and 1994, Tombstone and Wyatt Earp have had a rivalry for years. Since they both deal with the same true story of Wyatt Earp’s time in the Arizona Territory in the 1880s, they’re often compared. While each film has its own merits and drawbacks, there’s one area that Wyatt Earp defeated Tombstone in, yet it didn’t make it a better film: historical accuracy.
Much of Wyatt Earp’s advantage over Tombstone in terms of historical accuracy comes from how much it depicts. Wyatt Earp follows Wyatt’s life from the time he was a teenager until he was nearly at death’s door, while Tombstone only shows about two years in the famous lawman’s life. The key historical inaccuracy that gave Tombstone the advantage, however, is from a scene both films included: the legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The detail that Tombstone largely ignored made it a much more interesting scene, and proved that sometimes creative liberties do result in a more engaging story.
Tombstone’s Gunfight At The O.K. Corral Wasn’t As Accurate As Wyatt Earp’s In One Big Way
Though Tombstone is based on a true story, and it largely stays faithful to the history of the Earp brothers’ fight against the Cowboys, it had one major inconsistency that Wyatt Earp didn’t. During the historic gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Tombstone depicted the corral as a very large lot, while Wyatt Earp had a more realistic representation of a very small and cramped area. A historian explained that Wyatt Earp’s gunfight at the O.K. Corral was more accurate, as the real area was only about 15 feet across. Though it was more accurate, Wyatt Earp’s shootout wasn’t nearly as good.
Tombstone’s Gunfight Scene Is Much Better Than Wyatt Earp’s
The gunfight at the O.K. Corral may have been more accurate in Wyatt Earp, but it was much more entertaining in Tombstone, and the historical inaccuracy was a big reason why. The larger scale of Tombstone’s shootout makes it feel more exciting and grand, like a set piece in a classic Western movie. Wyatt Earp’s shootout, on the other hand, was claustrophobic and somewhat anti-climactic. The effects of each movie’s scale can best be seen in the duration of the fights: the actual shooting in Tombstone lasted over 90 seconds, while Wyatt Earp was less than a minute from the first draw to the last shot.
There are other reasons why Tombstone’s shootout is better than Wyatt Earp’s in addition to the size of the Corral itself. For example, the buildup and suspense in Tombstone was much more exciting. From the shots of everyone looking each other over to Wyatt’s realization that Doc Holliday had started the fight with a wink, Tombstone perfectly set up the bloodshed that was to come. Tombstone also had more memorable dialogue than Wyatt Earp, such as Doc Holliday saying “You’re a daisy if you do,” which is actually a historical fact that Wyatt Earp didn’t include.
Wyatt Earp definitely has its virtues, but Tombstone still cemented itself as the more iconic Western, historical inaccuracies and all.
While Tombstone’s gunfight at the O.K. Corral was a more entertaining scene, Wyatt Earp’s also accomplished some things that its predecessor didn’t. Wyatt Earp is a more grounded and realistic portrayal of the same events that Tombstone focuses on, including the gunfight. It also delves deeper into the context of both the Earps and the aftermath of the O.K. Corral than Tombstone had time for. In short, Wyatt Earp definitely has its virtues, but Tombstone still cemented itself as the more iconic Western, historical inaccuracies and all.