I was supporting McCoys all the way until the end of the show so i was really disappointed with the way that Randall McCoy died on fire as a drunk person.
I know it was about true story but I was really hoping that Randall kill Devil Anse for killing almost everybody in his family.
What you guys think about the ending?
It was based on a true story, but the show took a lot of liberties. One of the liberties was with Randall's death. He died from injuries sustained during a cooking fire, but he had lived a quiet but relatively productive life between the end of the feud and his death. He doesn't seem to have been a total lush, as evidenced by the fact that he held down jobs (like operating a ferry).
Anse did die peacefully. But Randall's death wasn't nearly so dramatic and seedy.
One of the dangers with something like this is that because it's based on a true story, people accept everything at face value.
I didn't like the tone of the whole movie, the way it was skewed towards the Hatfields. In real life, the Hatfields were a lot nastier than the McCoys and they did a lot more damage. I wonder why Kevin Costner chose to glorify one side at the expense of the other instead of a more honest portrayal. But yeah, I get what the OP is saying-it would have been nice to see Anse Hatfield get some comeuppance.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I was left with the impression that the McCoys started the whole thing because of a drunk's grudge against a deserting soldier, when in reality, The Hatfields mostly fought for the South and the McCoys mostly fought for the North. How could Ran & Anse have served together?
"You're the one who pizza-rolled Tinkerbell." - Sam Winchester
You can't just change history because you didn't like it...that would be like the Titanic not sinking afterall. Truth is, Anse Hatfield WAS baptized and Randall MCCoy died as he did. I liked the ending and the whole series (except for the bad language).
sharePart of the history of the feud is that the Hatfields attacked McCoy women and children and McCoys did not attack Hatfield women and children. Right there that seems to make the Hatfields worse. Also, the Hatfields were prosecuted in court and some of them went to prison and one was hanged. The only McCoys who might have been proscuted in court were murdered by the Hatfields. I'm not interested in picking sides. I just find it puzzling that Costner glorified the Hatfields instead of a more balanced and historically accurate approach.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I just find it puzzling that Costner glorified the Hatfields instead of a more balanced and historically accurate approach.
I didn't feel as though the Hatfields came off well at all. It was clear they were the "bad guys", for many incidents. I thought the McCoys came off as the lesser of the two evils.
shareI'm suprised he wasn't shown walking on that water he was baptized in.
shareThe real Hatfield WAS a born again Christian and was baptized. Make fun of it but he at least saw the error of his ways and made an attempt to right the wrongs. Did McCoy? I don't know.
shareMy response had more to do with Costner than either of these families. He does tend to do this in his movies. That being said, this show was pretty fantastic.
share...The real Hatfield WAS a born again Christian and was baptized...Tell me more...throughout, or only at the end??? Why was the first part of his name "Devil"? Why during the initial battle when Randall suggests he pray, Devil Anse answers something about not having been on good terms with God in the past? Why was seeing Devil Anse in church so unusual that Randall remarked on it, to which the answer was basically "my wife made me do it"? share
That's where the born again comes into play. It means he wasn't always that way, which is why all of the things you asked about occurred in the first place. Judging by the series, it was after the feud or at least around the time he sent the letter because he did seem to have a genuine change of heart.
shareRandall didn't die as he did. He died as a result of a cooking fire. But I believe the incident was highly dramatized to make him look worse. I don't think there's any indication he was hammered and shooting at imaginary things at the time. I believe he was cooking.
If it had been balanced it would have shown both men moving on after the feud, because accounts suggest they both did. Instead, the show made it seem like Anse changed his life and Randall became a raving lunatic.
If it had been balanced it would have shown both men moving on after the feud, because accounts suggest they both did.
That's what I read. In fact, what information I've been able to find online sugggests that the two patriarchs were not all that involved with the feud and it was the younger generation that started the trouble and kept it going, although Jim Vance does seem to have played a part.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Costner did not write nor direct this show. He simply was one of the producers. If you are gonna troll at least get the facts right.
shareNo one here is trolling. This thread has been a very civilized discussion. You're the only one who has been rude. And his role in the project has no bearing on the fact the show wasn't entirely accurate historically.
There is no question that they weren't historically accurate. There is also no question that a lot of the changes to history made the Hatfields look better and the McCoys look worse.
1. Johnse was portrayed as a good guy, a romantic figure who pined for the woman he loved and would have been with if not for the feud. In reality, Johnse left Roseanna while she was pregnant and it wasn't because of the feud.
2. Nancy McCoy was portrayed as a vindictive woman who used Johnse and left him. In reality, they were married for quite a long time and had two kids together. And Johnse left her before she took up with Bad Frank.
3. The entire Hatfield family is portrayed as being totally supportive of the special needs kid. This just doesn't fit with the time. That whole portrayal of the family dynamic was very modern.
4. The fight with Ellison has been described differently.
5. It is believed that Cap, not Cotton Top shot and killed the McCoy girl during the raid. But they had Cotton Top shoot her essentially by accident, which made him appear less culpable.
6. Randall dies a drunk. In reality he died in a cooking fire. But he had lived a quiet and relatively productive life until that point, which suggests he wasn't a raging alcoholic like he was portrayed in the show.
Nancy McCoy was portrayed as a vindictive woman who used Johnse and left him. In reality, they were married for quite a long time and had two kids together.
I read somewhere (can't vouch for it-maybe somebody here has more information?) that Nancy's descendants were pretty upset about the way she was portrayed.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
Couldn't agree with you more
share"The entire Hatfield family is portrayed as being totally supportive of the special needs kid. This just doesn't fit with the time. That whole portrayal of the family dynamic was very modern."
Yes so supportive that they let him hang...
I also think Costner and Paxton could have played either role. They each have enough acting chops to pull off the two different characters. Anse Hatfield did have more screen time, and that may be how Costner chose to play that role.
shareSo you were all fine and dandy with the murders and the blood but a few so called "curse" words made you flinch?
You people are like baby town frolics to me.
The Hatfields mostly fought for the South and the McCoys mostly fought for the North.
I don't think they glorified anything, the Hatfields were clearly portrayed as vengeful and murderous. You expect Costner to ALWAYS play the hero, but he was quite the anti-hero in the movies. there was no skewery; you need to re-watch it.
shareHow do you get that he glorified him or even the Hatfield family? It's just an interpretation and portrayal. Someone could play Hitler but it doesn't mean they are glorifying them. Where does it say that only people who agree with everything an evil character does and says should play them?
shareSince Randall began the feud, he had to take responsibility for every death. He was a stupid, vindictive fool from beginning to end.
And those 3 stupid sons of his. They stab and shoot a man for nothing and then whinge, whine, and blubber tears when they get executed for it.
_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"
Maximus Decimus Meridius
I also felt that the ending felt a bit slapped together. But I think what people forget is Perry Cline. It was mostly Perry who started and fed the trouble to Randall which then led to the disputes.
But I will agree with some here saying that I also got the feeling that we were meant to almost side with the Hatfields rather than the McCoys. Did any McCoys and Hatfields vocalize how they felt about this miniseries?
Well said! I cheered when I read the ending comment that Cline had died a year after the trials. He was a bad 'un.
I am watching H&M now and I agree with you about Perry Cline. He's the one that drives everything that the McCoy's did and he had a lot of influence over Randall. He was a sneaky SOB.
And I'll be honest here, while watching the mini-series, I couldn't help but side with the Hatfields - after what Randall's three sons did to Ellison, I just lost all sympathy for the McCoys. Both sides of the families had a lot of idiots. It's just too bad that Anse and Randall couldn't reconcile or call a truce before things really got out of hand.
To quote one of the characters in a Shakespeare play:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
No Randall did not start the feud in the mini-series. Hatfield started it by leaving Randall in the lurch during the civil war. That's called desertion.
At the end of the war when Randall and Anse are home, one of the Mccoys was killed by the Hatfields because he was wearing a union coat.
That's how the feud started I think. If I'm wrong,I'm wrong.
They tried to kill the "lawyers" , but they always sneak back into the shadows.
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
I agree that the movie was skewed to the side of the Hatfields, except for the fact that they showed Jim Vance as the one who ultimately started the feud. He was not played as a good guy at all.
If the fight was close to the way it was depicted between the McCoy sons and the Hatfield brother, they definitely deserved to be killed. There were a lot of witnesses, it seemed appropriate to make sure that they were punished. Why would they ever agree to turn the criminals over to another State which would be more sympathetic?
Even without knowing any details of the history, I did not believe the romanticized version of the Johnse character for a minute.
But I enjoyed the movie. Very entertaining.
Wouldn't have been historically accurate if he had killed devil Anse
shareI liked the ending. These people were all self-destructive and the end result of their hate created petty conclusions to their personal lives.
shareIn the end, everyone created bad Karma. True to life for the ending of this story. This is what hate and killing does to people.
shareI thought it was terrible. It's like they ran out of time so just BAM, jumped almost 20 years forward and wrapped it up in two scenes that ridiculously skew the feud in one direction.
They've got cars big as bars, they've got rivers of gold
Never mind the plot who decided to have the follow up text done in small white font on a pale background. What a mess.
share