No, he didn't.

Blues_X: No, he didn't.

Complicit: Blues_X: No, he didn't.

This Fark Headline brought to you by Fox News.

Costner, who appeared as the lead in the acclaimed 1994 western 'Wyatt Earp',

Acclaimed?

I worked on that movie, and it is the only premiere I've been to that people walked out of and heckled the screen.

That movie sucked.

Costner is a master of telling an hour-and-a-half story in three hours. Wyatt Earp is a perfect example of this.

Not only did Costner not mention the Coen Bros, he wasn't even talking about westerns made TODAY.

FTFA: "When they were enjoying their largest acceptance back in the '50s and '60s, filmmakers just got lazier and lazier"

C'mon, subby. At least try to comprehend what you're reading.

Yup, he made that mega-hit critically acclaimed swept the Oscars Wyatt Earp, and a little known, lesser western called Dances with Wolves. It didn't do quite as well as Wyatt, but I thought it was worth a mention.

The shootout at the end of Open Range made-up for Wyatt Earp.

dletter: This Fark Headline brought to you by Fox News.

+1 for you.

Eapoe6: There was no mention of the Coen Bros in that article.

Don't be dissin' Kevin wit yer logic fallacies.

It will be interesting to watch folks come into the thread and argue the headline without reading the article, though, which appears to be the whole point of greenlighting that trolltastic post.

stewbert: Cap'n Crunch Harkness: Everyone knows "Tombstone" is the better Wyatt Earp movie, if only for Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday. Dana Delaney looking hot
/why yes, I'd love for you to be my huckleberry

farkMcFark: Sergio Leone > Coen Brothers + Kevin Costner

yeah, was waiting for someone to mention Sergio Leone. Funny how the best westerns don't come from America.

I was also thinking of the Proposal.

American filmmaking in general is lazy. It requires so much money to make a film... such a requirement means you need financing, which means you need people with money. People with money are usually sophisticated enough to know that giving some punk kid a million dollars to make a movie is going to be a poor investment. Being interested on a return on your investment means you want stuff that will sell, and with the least amount of risk as possible. The business mind usually looks to stuff that will sell by looking at stuff that has sold. So, there you have the industry's self-fulfilling desire to regurgitate crap and promote laziness.

Many other nations provide a lot of incentives and programs for filmmaking. I know it's socialist, but in art (and not business) a little patronage and benefaction can go a long way. The competition of aesthetics is different from the competition of commerce.

However, sometimes we make good movies anyway

filmmakers tend to simplify them with the black hat, white hat

He was in Silverado, which was pretty simplistic in that regard but damned entertaining. And Tombstone > Wyatt Earp. Didn't see Open range.

Unforgiven was the best deconstruction of the white hat/black hat western that I've seen. There were no clear good guys or bad guys, except the guys who cut up the prostitute.

Val Kilmer should have gotten the Oscar for his Doc Holiday in Tombstone.

"He's so drunk he's seeing two of me."
"I've got two guns. One for each of you."

/has Michael Bein ever survived in a movie?
//Aliens doesn't count because he was already doomed at the end
///Alien³ sucked
////digress

ps subby
Costner has been in
Silverado
Dances With Wolves
Open Range

all of which I consider excellent westerns.

/false dichotomy is false
//in other words EABOD