OT - I just tuned into Comanche Moon

[Charles]

I missed the first episode, so I thought I would watch the second. I am not twenty minutes into it and will turn and watch Law and Order. It is the most historicaly inaccurate, over acted, cartoonish piece of nonsense I have ever watched.

My GGGGrandfather was Adjudent General of Texas in 1858 and living in Austin and the notion of Comance riding into Austin is laughable. My GGrandfather was ranging with Rip Ford in 58 and 59 and all of the action was up on the Llano Estacado and on up into the Pease River county of what is now Oklahoma.

This foolish piece of slock of an insult to the Rangers and the people of Texas. Other than that I don't have much on an opinion on the matter.

[C. Cash]

So, I'm getting the feeling that you don't like it? Tell us how you really feel Charles!

[Chuck 100 yd]

Lots better than Rin Tin Tin!!

[Blaine]

Lots better than Rin Tin Tin!!

Sic 'em, Rinny

[El Mac]

What did you expect from TV/Hollywood Charles? A documentary??

[Rebel1972]

They Didn't have mutch to work with as far as a book goes .They left out the part where Innish Scull has his eyelids flayed off.But the actors are doing pretty good as far as imitating speech patterns and head and hand gestures.Think about it this way ,every horse opera Robert Duvall plays in ,he plays the "Gus" character.Thats why we like him. He has had his whole life to develop that.Steve Zahn is doing a pretty good job of capturing that essence of Gus with what little practice he's had ./But mostly I needed a new western to watch and this'un will do

[Mike-in-WV]

I missed the first episode, so I thought I would watch the second. I am not twenty minutes into it and will turn and watch Law and Order. It is the most historicaly inaccurate, over acted, cartoonish piece of nonsense I have ever watched.

My GGGGrandfather was Adjudent General of Texas in 1858 and living in Austin and the notion of Comance riding into Austin is laughable. My GGrandfather was ranging with Rip Ford in 58 and 59 and all of the action was up on the Llano Estacado and on up into the Pease River county of what is now Oklahoma.

This foolish piece of slock of an insult to the Rangers and the people of Texas. Other than that I don't have much on an opinion on the matter.

No where did I see anything saying this movie was fact. It's a story that someone wrote, not a history story that someone claims to be fact. If you want to watch that sort of thing then watch the history channel.
None of the other Lonesome Dove shows were true either but it sure didn't stop me from enjoying them as some of the best westerns ever.Not a thing wrong with the acting either!
I don't believe that any of the Clint Eastwood's westerns or cop shows were true story's but I really enjoyed them along with millions of other people around the world Loved John Wayne movies and many others too. Lighten up and enjoy life a little.
If real police officers conducted themselves the way they do on law and order the city would be broke from all the lawsuits,Lol. Mike

[kimwcook]

If real LEO's acted half the way the actor's portray us on TV we'd be in jail. Remember Cypowitz (sp)?

[RIHMFIRE]

I MISSED IT! SOUNDS LIKE I DID NOT MISS MUCH...
I WATCH DEATH WISH 2 ....
AND EPISODES OF TRICK MY TRUCK
LOVE THAT SHOW!

[Charles]

Good question lads..What did I expect? Well I expected believable characters, a story line that is plausable and an attempt to set the characters and story line in a historical setting that bear some resemblance to fact.

I am OK with fiction. I am OK with fictionalization of history. I am not OK with comic books and cartoons passed off a "Western".

The original Lonesome Dove was very well done and met the above standards in spite of the fact it came from a book my McMurtry. I attibute that to quality actors (Duval and Jones) who turned in plausable performances.

This new crop would have done better if they had tried to turn in a genuine performance based on there own craft, rather than mimic their betters.

I had tried to read several of McMurtry's books and they are all just as bad as this thing TV movie.

As I can say is Val Kilmer must have needed a pay check very bad to associate his name with junk. He is a quality actor.

There real history of early Texas and the conflict between the Comanche and the Texans has plenty of real drama and interest to make a host of great movies.

Part of the problem is "Holllywood" won't make movie from stories and scripts submited by folks who are not members of the Screen Writers Guild and who are not represented by a Literary Agent who only represents members of the Guild.

Now then, find out what you have to do to become a member of the Guild and you will find it takes a multi-year apprenticship under the direction of one of their members and many hoops to jump through.

The unions have a strangle hold on the entertainment industry.

Oh well.. there is always a Law and Order show, somewhere on TV.

[Cast Bullet Hunter]

Have to agree and disagree with Charles. The very first error made was in the intro where they placed the time as 1858. The Great Comanche Raid occurred in 1840 as retribution for the so-called Council House Fight in which the Comanche chiefs were lured to a council and then murdered. You don't have to believe me, just Google The Great Comanche Raid or Great Raid of 1840 and you will see it is true.

Wanting to know what to expect after the original hype about his movie I read the book, just completing it a few days ago. There is much activity which is developed in the book that is sort of glossed over in the film. Many of the scenes do not make any sense unless you have read it and know what they are trying to portray. The scenes last night with Inish Scull in the cages and pit just leave a "what is going on" feeling. Another error in continuity involves Gus and Clara Forsythe. In the book she has already married Bob Allen and left town when the Great raid occurs. In the movie she is still in town, unmarried and there is no explanation why she was not in the store and killed with her parents in the raid.

Honestly, there is more that goes on in the book than the movie "The Ten Commandments". There is no way it can be handled in just 4 1/2 hours of air time. It would have been better to make a much longer series than just three episodes. It's kind of like trying to sum up anyones life in 15 minutes and include everything that ever happened to them in that time! They have tried to include everything in the book, rather than emphasizing the highlights in a summaryas most screenplays do.

Over all the movie is quite disappointing, but makes no sense at all if you haven't read the book.

[BruceB]

McMurtry won an Oscar for "Brokeback Mountain", so it sholdn't be a surprise what he did to Texas history.

[FWiedner]

If I wanted history I'd read a book.

When I watch a movie or made for TV western, I put them in the same category as "The Lone Ranger" or "Bonanza".

Fantasy, created for pure entertainment.

I've watched and enjoyed both installments of "Comanche Moon", and found them quite entertaining.

[Modoc ED]

Charles -

That's a lotta words to say "Comanche Moon" sucked. It was terrible plain and simple.

[BruceB]

Charles -

That's a lotta words to say "Comanche Moon" sucked.

You forgot, Charles used to be a lawyer!

[Rebel1972]

Even in the book, the author was going at a good pace ,and then in the last few chapters it's like he wanted to be through so he skipped 10 years or so.In Lonesome Dove you get the feeling that they have been out of the rangerin' business for a while .They have covered about a year in the first two nights,now they have to cover about 15 years from when Newt was born until the beginning of L/D.

[Leverluver]

I can handle and even enjoy fiction but I do get annoyed with name dropping for the pure sake of name dropping. Now I didn't read the book as I find McMurtry harder to choke down than a Mitchner book, so this may not even be in the book but WTF was Ben Lilly doing in this thing. If this is supposed to take place in 1858, Ben Lilly was two years old and still crapping his britches. If 1840, it is 16 years before he was born. Evidently that writers guild apprenticeship doesn't do much good

[Rebel1972]

It seems to me that all western books are this way.They take artistic license with history.Come to think of it the people that write my kids' history book do the same thing

[Idahoser]

[Old Savage]

Well Idahoser, that is how life goes but

How did Val Kilmer get out of that pit???

[Idahoser]

[Charles]

Well the Comanche under Buffalo Hump did raid in 1840 as far as Linville on the coast with a stop in Victoria. This is still well to the south of Austin. On the way back the Texan caught them on Plumb Creek, near present day Lockhart and fought a running battle for several miles. Cut the Comanch up pretty good they did.

They didn't pull that stunt any more, but stuck ot raiding homesteads on the fringes of Texan society. Even so punative expeditions by the Rangers, followed them to their camps deep into "Comancheria" and extracted a bitter price from them.

Never confuse the Comanche with the more refined civilization of the Lakota and other plains indians. The Comanche were a pure warrior culture. If you got too old or stove up to make war, they had no use for you in their society.

The other plains indians gave their elders a place of honor. They were the wise men, the teachers of children and the keepers of tradition. Not the Comanche.. They were a brutal savage bunch of ****. They were pure hell on horseback.

T he Rangers proved more than their equal. They fought fire with fire and were as brutal as the Comanche. The Rangers didn't fight in the right season, but would follow the Comanche any time of year and strike them when and where they were most vulnarable. Ripped them a new one!

I am proud to say my Great Grandfather (William Drayton Mathews) ranged from 1856 to 1861 to protect the good folks of Texas. BTW.. The word Ranger comes from "ranging companies" , who ranged accross the Cross plains ,Stakeded Plains and the Colorado and Brazos rivers. looking for indian sign and them following the and doing battle if they could be caught. They had to provide their own horse and weapons. Most carried a pair of Colts revolvers and the best rifle they could afford.

The Rangers were not a standing force. When the need arose and funds were avaliable, a Captain was appointed and he raised a company to serve for 60, 90 or 120 days. Often times when a Rangers enlistment was over and another Comany was being raised he would re-enlist. Texas went as long as two years without a Ranging Company.

The old Rangers did not "Ranger", but they "ranged". Another McMurtry screw up.

[RSY]

The word Ranger comes from "ranging companies" , who ranged across the Cross plains ,Staked Plains and the Colorado and Brazos rivers.

The original American Rangers pre-dated our Texas version by a good bit:

http://www.rogersrangers.org/

[Charles]

Yankee Rangers? Lordy say it ain't so!!!

[SmokeEater2]

Charles said-"Well the Comanche under Buffalo Hump did raid in 1940 as far as Linville on the coast with a stop in Victoria. This is still well to the south of Austin. On the way back the Texan caught them on Plumb Creek, near present day Lockhart and fought a running battle for several miles. Cut the Comanch up pretty good they did."



The Comanche were still raiding in 1940!?


(long as we're worrying about historical correctness and all. )

[Charles]

Correction made... There IS a difference between historical correctness and a fumble fingered typo.

[SmokeEater2]

Correction made... There IS a difference between historical correctness and a fumble fingered typo.

I know it was a typo Charles That was the reason for the Razz smilie. Just funnin'.

[El Mac]

Good question lads..What did I expect? Well I expected believable characters, a story line that is plausable and an attempt to set the characters and story line in a historical setting that bear some resemblance to fact.

And thus, your mistake.