Modern decline of westerns.

[Kevin]

The movie business became too full of big blockbuster Westerns. Silverado (good), Dances with Wolves (good), Tombstone (good), Quigley Down Under (decent), Unforgiven (great), Wyatt Earp (though a failure), Legends of the Fall (decent), etc. I think that's why we don't see Westerns as much anymore, because when they are made, it's like an all at once sort of thing.

It's kind of parallel to the decline of Star Trek. Star Trek was always on TV in one form or another in the mid 90s. Re-runs of TOS, TNG, with the new DS9, Voyager series, and 3 new TNG movies in the 90s with re-runs of the original 6 films.

[J.M. Vargas]

I'll get back to you tomorrow after I catch an afternoon showing of Ed Harris' "Apaloosa." Yes, because of a million and one variables (cost, falling out of favor, lack of new ideas, etc.) the western is now relegated to ocassional appearances a few times per year. But remember that from the golden age of radio (1930's) until the early 1970's (when "Gunsmoke" went off the air) there were westerns on radio, TV and the movies non-stop. Every conceivable metaphor about man's struggles to tame the Wild West were explored, then re-explored and then redone a dozen times over on movies and TV for decades. Even when westerns fell out of flavor their replacements (like Vic Morrow's "Combat!" TV series) still retained the archetype structures and just switched the locales/characters. The "Star Trek" shows you mentioned (and outer space or post-apocalyptic sci-fi settings in general) is the closest we have left to westerns since they deal with men exploring/conquering unknown and dangeroes territory, which on planet Earth means going underwater or into a deep dark cave. Be glad we have old western movies and TV shows to look back at for our western fix when new western material is scarce because a lot of people back in the 50's and 60's were pretty poe'd they couldn't turn on the radio/TV or go to the movies without a western getting in their way of other types/genres of pop culture entertainment.

[mavrach]

I think the problem with westerns is that anybody who hasn't known them (i.e. just about anybody under 40), thinks of them by the stereotypes of the genre: cowboys with funny hats and stirrups, sayings like "yeehaw" and "giddy-up," obligatory archetypes like the school marm and the sherrif.

Talk to any kid today. They'll tell you they don't like westerns, regardless of whether or not they've actually ever seen one.

I have this problem whenever I try to recommend something like The Good the Bad and the Ugly to somebody. They avoid this absolutely stunning movie because they think Eastwood is going to say "howdy partner!" The few who get through and see one of these are usually shocked to find that they like the movie. The problem is that these kids make up the backbone of film revenue, hence the lack of good westerns.

[Kevin]

I think the problem with westerns is that anybody who hasn't known them (i.e. just about anybody under 40), thinks of them by the stereotypes of the genre: cowboys with funny hats and stirrups, sayings like "yeehaw" and "giddy-up," obligatory archetypes like the school marm and the sherrif.

Talk to any kid today. They'll tell you they don't like westerns, regardless of whether or not they've actually ever seen one.

I have this problem whenever I try to recommend something like The Good the Bad and the Ugly to somebody. They avoid this absolutely stunning movie because they think Eastwood is going to say "howdy partner!" The few who get through and see one of these are usually shocked to find that they like the movie. The problem is that these kids make up the backbone of film revenue, hence the lack of good westerns.

So because of these kids, instead of getting films like Silverado and Unforgiven, we're getting Disaster Movie and Epic Movie?

[J.M. Vargas]

^^^ Pretty much. Look at recent westerns like "Apaloosa" (on limited release), "The Assassination of Jessee James..." and the remake of "3:10 To Yuma." They're clearly aimed at an older audience even with youth-appealing stars like Christian Bale (I have no doubt a few youngsters went to see "3:10" just because Bruce Wayne was in it! ) or Academy voters, which is why a western only debuts theatrically in slow months of Spring (dumping) or Fall (awards season). You'll only see a western in summer when it's a star vehicle, ala 1999's "Wild Wild West," that is guaranteed to bring in the kids (to see Will Smith).

[Dimwitted]

It's cyclical. If someone like Eastwood has a story to tell, makes a movie and it does well, suddenly Westerns will be hot and we'll get a couple of dozen more that try to "cash in". Right now Sci-fi has been burnt out but the new Trek film might jump start that in 2009 and Westerns are clearly on the back burner.
Looking into my crystal ball I see a remake of Gunsmoke by 2011 just because there's such a paucity of new ideas coming out of H'wood.

[Dan Mancini]

All of the examples you listed above are actually exceptions to the rule. As a widely successful genre, the Western has been dead in Hollywood since the 1960s.

[Steve T Power]

All of the examples you listed above are actually exceptions to the rule. As a widely successful genre, the Western has been dead in Hollywood since the 1960s.

Dan beat me to it. The Western hasn't really been prime since the 50's. Since the 60's we've gotten a few STELLAR westerns throughout each decade, and those are what is fondly remembered now. The more self-aware "post modern" westerns.

As for what's been out there in the last little while, i tend to think Silverado and Tombstone (while enjoyable romps in their own right) are a touch overrated as westerns (almost TOO self aware, they play more like anachronistic action flicks), while i personally find Wyatt Earp to be a modern classic of the genre. This coming from the guy who's favorite film of last year was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford... So i guess you can tell which side of the western coin my tastes lie.

Appaloosa looks fantastic, and i'll be checking it out when the opportunity presents itself.

And why no mention of The Proposition? Amazing, brutal, ugly film, but a western through and through.

[Dan Mancini]

...while i personally find Wyatt Earp to be a modern classic of the genre.

I need to see that flick again. It's been years. Quaid is frighteningly awesome in it. He should've won an Oscar.

Tombstone is more light entertainment -- hardly a classic of the genre. But it's damn difficult not to be entertained when you have Kurt Russell kicking ass, Val Kilmer punking everyone in sight, and Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Stephen Lang acting like total douche bags.

[Neal Masri]

...while i personally find Wyatt Earp to be a modern classic of the genre.

I need to see that flick again. It's been years. Quaid is frighteningly awesome in it. He should've won an Oscar.

Tombstone is more light entertainment -- hardly a classic of the genre. But it's damn difficult not to be entertained when you have Kurt Russell kicking ass, Val Kilmer punking everyone in sight, and Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Stephen Lang acting like total douche bags.

It's so nice to hear I'm not the only one who thought Wyatt Earp was awesome. The director's cut is highly recommended. I wouldn't call the westenr dead, it just seems to be defined by the exceptions to the rule that come along every few years. I personally loved Open Range. Also, I'm a huge booster of Deadwood. I still stand behind my review of season 2 where I said something like almost any given episode is as good as or better than 90% of big budget feature films out there now.

[Steve T Power]

...while i personally find Wyatt Earp to be a modern classic of the genre.

I need to see that flick again. It's been years. Quaid is frighteningly awesome in it. He should've won an Oscar.

Tombstone is more light entertainment -- hardly a classic of the genre. But it's damn difficult not to be entertained when you have Kurt Russell kicking ass, Val Kilmer punking everyone in sight, and Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Stephen Lang acting like total douche bags.

It's so nice to hear I'm not the only one who thought Wyatt Earp was awesome. The director's cut is highly recommended. I wouldn't call the westenr dead, it just seems to be defined by the exceptions to the rule that come along every few years. I personally loved Open Range. Also, I'm a huge booster of Deadwood. I still stand behind my review of season 2 where I said something like almost any given episode is as good as or better than 90% of big budget feature films out there now.

Agreed all around - i personally consider Deadwood to be the best thing i've seen come out of television in the last 10 years or so, and I too am a huge fan of Open Range, When Costner does western i usually pay attention.

[tucco]

I think Road House was a good example an archetypal western-theme (drifter vs. town bully)
in a modern setting if you wanna go that way...

"Guys like Brad Wesley keep taking and taking until someone takes HEE-IM"

I gotta say as far as DANCES WITH WOLVES, I think it's a poor man's A MAN CALLED HORSE

But I think at the risk of sounding cynical that everything's been done in the western format as far as what we're used to/what we expect.

[J.M. Vargas]

Went to see "Appaloosa" at a local NYC theater yesterday. Read my thoughts on what I thougt of the movie in the 'Watching' thread. What caught my eye in the mostly-empty theater (on a Monday afternoon) was the demographics of the 25+ people in attendance. Everybody but a couple in their mid-30's and myself (35) were older folks in their late 50's or older. I'm sure when the movie is in wide release and on a weekend a lot of young folks will show up, but to see the movie with a mostly older crowd was a reminder of just how low in most young moviegoer's radar the western has fallen.

[Dan Mancini]

I too am a huge fan of Open Range

It's Costner's best western. Easily.

[HGervais]

I too am a huge fan of Open Range

It's Costner's best western. Easily.

Easily and far away his best western.

[Dunnyman]

All of the examples you listed above are actually exceptions to the rule. As a widely successful genre, the Western has been dead in Hollywood since Blazing Saddles.

Fixed!

[tucco]

The Apple Dumpling Gang just couldn't be matched, so they stopped trying.....

[sneakers]

I guess you haven't seen Six Reasons Why

[hoytereden]

Went to see "Appaloosa" at a local NYC theater yesterday. Read my thoughts on what I thougt of the movie in the 'Watching' thread. What caught my eye in the mostly-empty theater (on a Monday afternoon) was the demographics of the 25+ people in attendance. Everybody but a couple in their mid-30's and myself (35) were older folks in their late 50's or older. I'm sure when the movie is in wide release and on a weekend a lot of young folks will show up, but to see the movie with a mostly older crowd was a reminder of just how low in most young moviegoer's radar the western has fallen.

I would fall into that late 50's category. Watching Leave it to Beaver (part of my generation's tv viewing when it originally ran) today had a telling reference about tv programming back then-June and Ward are talking and one asks the other-"What movie did the boys see?"-How the West was Won. Ward replies-"Well, you'd think after years of watching tv they'd know how it was won!" Very true! I grew up a lot of westerns on tv. The mid-to-late 50's had a decline in the number of westerns playing in the theaters but they just moved over to the small screen and flourished. During those years I went to the movies to see the great, and not so great, Sci-Fi and Horror films and then, a little later, the Sandal & Spear epics. I guesss my long winded point is-Yea, I dislike the frequency that they're doing westerns these days but, by the same token, usually the ones that are made are pretty good and, if not, there's always DVDs of the old ones.

[Dan Mancini]

All of the examples you listed above are actually exceptions to the rule. As a widely successful genre, the Western has been dead in Hollywood since Blazing Saddles.

Fixed!

Somebody's gonna have to go back and get a sh*tload of dimes!

[Jon Mercer]

Aw sh*t!! Quicksand!

[ramkumar]

I hope they will stage a come back some day, you may never know.

[the5thghostbuster]

I hope they will stage a come back some day, you may never know.

Welcome to the Jury Room!

[mkiker2089]

The problem with Westerns is that the genre has too many rules. To be a "western" it has to be set in the wild west of the USA, perhaps Mexico but usually USA. It has to involve gunfights, lawlessness, loose women who usually have one outspoken one to act as all women during the movie with the others being filler etc..

Sci-Fi has less rules. You can have Mark Twain in sci-fi, but you can't have him in a western. Horror is the same, well a horror with Mark Twain would be odd but it can happen.

Thus "westerns" are indeed dead never to return. Some good movies that happened to be set in the west have followed.

[Dan Mancini]

The problem with Westerns is that the genre has too many rules. To be a "western" it has to be set in the wild west of the USA, perhaps Mexico but usually USA. It has to involve gunfights, lawlessness, loose women who usually have one outspoken one to act as all women during the movie with the others being filler etc..

Sci-Fi has less rules. You can have Mark Twain in sci-fi, but you can't have him in a western. Horror is the same, well a horror with Mark Twain would be odd but it can happen.

Thus "westerns" are indeed dead never to return. Some good movies that happened to be set in the west have followed.

Um, no.

[mkiker2089]

No to what. You don't think Mark Twain could be cast as a homicidal maniac in a horror movie? I could write up a decent script. I have one where he fights an evil cyborg Winston Churchill in my laptop somewhere.

As for the western rules, those are pretty much set in stone. Otherwise it's just a period piece movie. A western set in New York wouldn't work. A western set in Transylvania also would not work. The genre is limited. Just thank god they got rid of the yodeling requirement. Singing cowboys wouldn't work at all.

Westerns have specific rules. What other genres have as many? Sci-fi is just something with science as a background regardless of setting. Horror is just something meant to be spooky. Actually thinking on it westerns are less of a full genre and more of a sub-genre.

[Dan Mancini]

No to what. You don't think Mark Twain could be cast as a homicidal maniac in a horror movie? I could write up a decent script. I have one where he fights an evil cyborg Winston Churchill in my laptop somewhere.

As for the western rules, those are pretty much set in stone. Otherwise it's just a period piece movie. A western set in New York wouldn't work. A western set in Transylvania also would not work. The genre is limited. Just thank god they got rid of the yodeling requirement. Singing cowboys wouldn't work at all.

Westerns have specific rules. What other genres have as many? Sci-fi is just something with science as a background regardless of setting. Horror is just something meant to be spooky. Actually thinking on it westerns are less of a full genre and more of a sub-genre.

Comparing scifi and westerns is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the western must be set...wait for it...in the west. And? The rest of the examples you cite are nonsense (in the sense that many of those archetypes bubble around through tons of westerns, but none are requirements).

Westerns can always comment on modern American culture and society (of whatever era) better than any other genre. Because it is a fundamentally American genre. Westerns will be around as long as the United States is around. Will they ever be as big as they were in the '50s? Who knows? Who cares?

What other subgenre has specific rules? Uh, samurai films, which, lo and behold, are the Japanese analog to the western. Like westerns, some samurai flicks are pulpy, some are high art, some are in between. Regardless, the genre persists because it is always possible to make a samurai movie that says something about life in Japan today (regardless of when today is).

The western's been "dead" for 50 years now, yet filmmakers keep making them and they keep succeeding commercially and artistically to one degree or another across every single decade since their supposed demise.

[Andrew Forbes]

Moreover, why can't a Western be a sci-fi film? Or a horror film? In fact, I'd argue that it doesn't even have to be set in the American west anymore. The western can be defined by its setting, by its conventions, or both. Red Hill, Sukiyaki Western Django, The Good, The Bad, The Weird and The Proposition are all westerns, despite being set on different continents. I can think of few film groupings with titles as disparate in tone or theme as The Quick and the Dead, The Misfits, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, yet they are all westerns of one form or another.

[mkiker2089]

I see, we disagree on what westerns are. If you ask people in general, not movie fans who come here but the common person on the street, what would they see as a western? That's where my set of "rules" came from. However in a wider sense I can see other movies as having a similar feel. People have compared Firefly to westerns for example. Which to me just proves more that sci-fi is versatile than saying anything about westerns. That's just my perspective though as someone who likes sci-fi and movies that happen to be set in the west but not most "westerns". Perhaps I've seen the bad ones and don't equate the good ones with the genre.

For what it's worth I never cared for Samurai films either.

[Bryan Pope]

Horror is the same, well a horror with Mark Twain would be odd but it can happen.

Or horror with Wilkie Collins plotting the death of Charles Dickens. (Dammit, Guillermo Del Toro, would you hurry up and direct Drood already?!)

But I respectfully disagree with your thesis. Show me a writer constrained by the "rules" of the Western and I'll show you a writer who lacks imagination and vision. Larry McMurtry has taken the western interesting and unexpected places, borrowing the conventions of the western only to break them (for example, Lonesome Dove and The Berrybender Narratives). Ditto McCabe & Mrs. Miller. I would even hold up Richard Donner's Maverick as an example. It has many of the same conventions, but it's a lighthearted romp.

[Attrage]

...while i personally find Wyatt Earp to be a modern classic of the genre.

I need to see that flick again. It's been years. Quaid is frighteningly awesome in it. He should've won an Oscar.

Tombstone is more light entertainment -- hardly a classic of the genre. But it's damn difficult not to be entertained when you have Kurt Russell kicking ass, Val Kilmer punking everyone in sight, and Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, and Stephen Lang acting like total douche bags.

Tombstone is home to one of cinema's greatest lines, let's not forget..."I want your blood. And I want your soul. And I want 'em both, right now."

[Jim_Thomas]

Here's a thought: a Supreme Court review analyzing the two films.