# Why Have Westerns In Cinema and TV Fallen out of Favor With Movie Audiences ?



## BAYLOR (Jun 27, 2015)

For along a very long time, they were popular staple  in Cinema  from the silent era till about the the mid 70's and then with (some exceptions) audiences stopped seeing them.  On television Western tv shows  dominated the airwaves from the 50's to about the late 60's and  similarly faded in popularity. Why do think that this happened ? And will Westerns ever be popular again?


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 27, 2015)

Not just on the screen, try finding a western in a book shop these days.


----------



## Vince W (Jun 27, 2015)

I think they've fallen out of favour because people aren't seeing the old west as an interesting theme any more. I love a good western, but modern ones tend focus on extreme violence and depravity rather than building a story and creating characters. There has always been violence in westerns, but the violence was used to frame the story not the other way around.


----------



## Tulius Hostilius (Jun 27, 2015)

In the cinema the Western Spaghetti made some revival but the Westerns were going down by that time (1970’s)

I think that the audiences always liked Frontier themes. Themes that mark the end of the Civilization (or one) and the beginning of the unknown (or other). I only thing that today other frontier themes seem to be in fashion, like the War on Terrorism, that is a classic Western/Eastern frontier.

Besides the world begun to see the American Indians as human beings and not has marks to shoot and, other reason could be the generic tendency to forget historical themes and concentrate in today’s themes or alt-history.


----------



## JG Martin (Jun 30, 2015)

The 2007 version The 3:10 to Yuma was fantastic and while it was violent it had a great story. True Grit (2010) was amazing and should have won Oscars. I think therein lies the answer to your question. Critics don't like Westerns and they aren't popular enough in the mainstream, so the studios don't make them. The Lone Ranger and Cowboys and Aliens didn't help.

If you want a good "western" watch Hell on Wheels on AMC. Good action, but a good story too.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jun 30, 2015)

My initial thought is that the stereotypes of the genre hurt it quite a bit. People assume it will be about bank robberies, killing Native Americans, or stand offs. It's all been done before -- the setting doesn't seem to provide much. If you want frontiers you go to space, near futures, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, I just don't think the mythological Old West holds much weight or fascination anymore. Even when I lived in rural Texas, people walking down the street in a cowboy hat were snickered at unless it was an elderly gentleman. I think it largely comes down to the myth being dead. Nobody wants to be John Wayne any longer, the idea of a lone cowboy sitting at a campfire simply isn't that appealing.

Perhaps I could be wrong, but that is the general feel I get when I hear people react to someone else suggest watching a Western.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 5, 2015)

The last Western film that I liked in the theater was Clint Eastwood's film *The Unforgiven *.   It' portrayal of the the wld was down  and dirty and probable very close to the reality of that era.  The hero of the film Eddie Money , really not a nice man.


----------



## soulsinging (Jul 14, 2015)

JG Martin said:


> The 2007 version The 3:10 to Yuma was fantastic and while it was violent it had a great story. True Grit (2010) was amazing and should have won Oscars. I think therein lies the answer to your question. Critics don't like Westerns and they aren't popular enough in the mainstream, so the studios don't make them.



I actually think the opposite. True Grit did very well with critics and got a lot of Oscar nominations. Same for Unforgiven. 3:10 to Yuma was well received, though I don't think it made much money. The last really successful western I can think of is Tombstone. There's also Deadwood, a series that got strong reviews but never really found an audience. So I really think it's more about audiences not caring for westerns anymore than it is critics being hard on them. I think it's just the cliche'd perception of the genre, something SFF compensates for with big CGI effects. Can't really do that in a western. But I think in the end, people hear western and think of horribly racist treatment of Native Americans, hyper-macho violence that's lost favor to our stylized violence, period costumes scarcely different from boring Victorian dramas, and few women that tend to be cardboard cut outs existing only to justify the violence of the lead.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2016)

They're coming out with a Reboot of the Magnificent Seven . If this one does well , it might revive the genre. 


Though not strictly a western  Also HBO is doing a Westworld tv series .


----------



## Vince W (Sep 13, 2016)

I don't think Mangificent Seven will good enough so we'll see westerns revived in any significant way. We'll get film here or there, but nothing running close to the popularity they used to have.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 13, 2016)

Westworld looks very good. I'm quite excited about that one.


----------



## Frost Giant (Sep 14, 2016)

JG Martin said:


> The 2007 version The 3:10 to Yuma was fantastic and while it was violent it had a great story.


Agreed, 3:10 was a great adaptation, very well made. The fact that it expanded beyond the original 1957 film was a plus in my opinion.


----------



## JoanDrake (Sep 26, 2016)

I'm told that the Western always was a Fantasy, that the "Old West" was really a far more humdrum and very much less well-armed and lawless place than we are led to believe. Bandits were about as common then as now and Native Americans were an underclass about as prone to wars as modern blacks are actually "prone" to rioting, (which is to say it was a slander against them).


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 3, 2016)

I thought *Open Range* (2003) was good without falling victim to many of cliches you would expect.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 10, 2016)

It's too bad *Cowboys and Aliens*  flopped at the box office .


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2016)

I think that westerns are rather like WWII films or musicals. Things come and go as themes; consider now how few musicals there are in the market. Then consider how few WWII films there are compared to in the past. 

Of course some themes last longer, WWII is a prime example, not as strong as it once was but still present as a good general background (and in the PC game world its actually still in its peek period). 

Currently we are in a big comic-book film era with a lot of comics going to film and considering that market its likely to last a long while; but given time it will go the way of the Westerns and then who knows. Film is very young so it could come around to something else.

Many felt that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter could spark a big start to a film fantasy era but that never really came around. Sometimes a BIG film or name can result in a spark or it can rise so much that it dominates and thus swamps everything else out. 


I do miss the good old westerns; heck I think that the Spaghetti westerns are required watching in the art of film. They are films that you must WATCH not films that can be a background noise and still be entertaining.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 10, 2016)

Yes, I had hopes for Jonah Hex, but they turned it into superhero mush, like all the comix stuff...


----------



## Overread (Dec 10, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It's too bad *Cowboys and Aliens*  flopped at the box office .



Yeah its  shame as to my eye its a very solid film - heck even Harrison Ford does really well in it (he fits in this film as opposed to his attempts to rebook Han and Indy where he's just too old to really give those roles justice in the same way he once did). Sadly I think the film was just a touch too niche to work - it would have worked stronger with the same cast done as a long running TV series. Sadly I doubt it would have gotten the budget to survive that long.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 10, 2016)

How can anything called Cowboys n Aliens be anything other than a sendup? You need titles like Bad Day at Black Rock, or Lanigan Rides Alone to be taken seriously.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 11, 2016)

J Riff said:


> How can anything called Cowboys n Aliens be anything other than a sendup? You need titles like Bad Day at Black Rock, or Lanigan Rides Alone to be taken seriously.



*Bad Day at Black Rock* wasn't exactly a western. Great movie, though. Some good titles might be *Destry Rides Again* or *The Big Trail*. But they would have to be remakes.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 11, 2016)

Yeah, but I remember thousands of paperbacks with titles like that, and Louis Lamour and Zane Gray and pulps and just more westerns'n you could point a sixgun at. We start with a lone rider, near dead, then he gets to th' waterhole, and it's been pizzened! ... Clint Eastwood seems to be the last good 'un.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 11, 2016)

I liked the *Magnificent Seven *.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 11, 2016)

J Riff said:


> Yeah, but I remember thousands of paperbacks with titles like that, and Louis Lamour and Zane Gray and pulps and just more westerns'n you could point a sixgun at. We start with a lone rider, near dead, then he gets to th' waterhole, and it's been pizzened! ... Clint Eastwood seems to be the last good 'un.



Some early ones were more than just oaters. *The Big Trail*, for instance was filmed in a widescreen format and then shown on the few screens in the U.S. that could accommodate it. One of John Wayne's earliest roles. With Tyrone Power, senior as the arch villain. Lots of bucks spent in something of a cutting edge project for the year (1930). Ultimately, it didn't get any steam until the Cinemascope movies of the 1950s. Certainly worth a watch if you can manage it.


----------



## Frost Giant (Dec 12, 2016)

With Westworld doing well and the theoretical Dark Tower flick supposedly on the way, the flavor of the Western might still be preserved. I know neither of these are strictly westerns, but they're close enough for me.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 12, 2016)

clovis-man said:


> I thought *Open Range* (2003) was good without falling victim to many of cliches you would expect.



A fantastic movie. It is a genre that Kevin Costner is perfect in.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 14, 2017)

Hell on Wheels , an excellent tv series.


----------



## Frost Giant (Mar 15, 2017)

It seemed like there was a good amount of Western influence in Logan.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 15, 2017)

It all depends on the creators doing it today and who are they today?

Also Hollywood is money chasing place, they see some genres lose in popularity, in pop culture because others like Science fiction blockbusters are more popular than ever,some other old popular film genres has to lose for another to gain.   Superhero,SF movies dominate Hollywood.


*Magnificent 7 *was a strong movie,  *Hell on Wheels* was excellent recent series.  It depends on the creators involved because so good, hailed like Clint Eastwood that almost on his own made the genre survive in Hollywood 1970-1992.   Where is the Eastwood actor, director quality today?   Most westerns i see today are easy Hallmark tv quality types or rare decent mini series that are from cable channels.  

Old Keven Costner types in leading roles today are far from _*Cary Cooper, Henry Ford, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, William Holden, Leo Van Cleef, Yul Brenner, Clint Eastwood, Franco Nero *_etc

Western vein,feel is all over new SF shows,films like the mentioned Westworld, Dark Tower of course.  Its a rich tradition to use.


----------



## Parson (Mar 17, 2017)

Is it possible that what we are seeing is a sea change in the public attitude about what makes a hero? The Western go to, was one ordinary dedicated man against the forces of evil who was able to prevail. Now I don't believe the mass psyche believes that is possible. If you are going to be a "one against the world" you have to have Super Powers! ---- Added to that, perhaps even more important ---- We've come to the very unenviable conclusion that people who are trying to do right just aren't that interesting. We want to see how evil works itself out in a life.


----------



## Lucien21 (Mar 17, 2017)

Logan is pretty much a western.


----------



## Danny McG (Mar 17, 2017)

Going back to the start of this thread, I personally feel it was when people started getting pc in late sixties / early seventies.
There seemed to be a lot of popular psychology of the time advocating that giving kids toy guns promoted gun violence in later life. Youngsters then found themselves sitting with motivational shows instead of growing up to Wagon Train, Bonanza and Rawhide.
By the time they got to adulthood a Western was deemed 'old school and boring', they wanted lots of colour and movement.
Isn't that what a lot of CGI films now provide?
As I said this is just my opinion


----------



## Parson (Mar 18, 2017)

Although I'm the right age I did not grow up watching Westerns. My mom being a good Christian outlawed them in our house until I was about 12. And perhaps disproving your point, I do like a good Western. I could go for "A Fist Full of Dollars" or "High Plains Drifter" right now.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 18, 2017)

*Gunsmoke    *Mat Dillion and the Gang , I love this show. Great writing and top notch acting. 

*The Wild Wild West*    I own the whole series on dvd .  Scfi steam Western .  This show never gets old.


----------



## Parson (Mar 18, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> *Gunsmoke    *Mat Dillion and the Gang , I love this show. Great writing and top notch acting.
> 
> *The Wild Wild West*    I own the whole series on dvd .  Scfi steam Western .  This show never gets old.



Gunsmoke was great. I think I probably saw 2 dozen episodes. But *The Wild, Wild West *was another matter all together. I was old enough by then and I loved the spy aspect. I never thought of it as a S.F. steam Western, but that's an inspired call.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

Overread said:


> Yeah its  shame as to my eye its a very solid film - heck even Harrison Ford does really well in it (he fits in this film as opposed to his attempts to rebook Han and Indy where he's just too old to really give those roles justice in the same way he once did). Sadly I think the film was just a touch too niche to work - it would have worked stronger with the same cast done as a long running TV series. Sadly I doubt it would have gotten the budget to survive that long.


Now I think about it, I believe I'd say that this film might well have done much better had it been given a less garish title... "Cowboys and Aliens" has to have rubbed many people the wrong way -- that title would have driven many away. So much more could have been done...


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

Frost Giant said:


> With Westworld doing well and the theoretical Dark Tower flick supposedly on the way, the flavor of the Western might still be preserved. I know neither of these are strictly westerns, but they're close enough for me.


They're not close enough for me. I just cannot think of either *Westworld* or *Dark Tower* as Westerns; they're simply SF/F placed in a Western or Western-parody setting.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

dannymcg said:


> Going back to the start of this thread, I personally feel it was when people started getting pc in late sixties / early seventies.
> There seemed to be a lot of popular psychology of the time advocating that giving kids toy guns promoted gun violence in later life. Youngsters then found themselves sitting with motivational shows instead of growing up to Wagon Train, Bonanza and Rawhide.
> By the time they got to adulthood a Western was deemed 'old school and boring', they wanted lots of colour and movement.
> Isn't that what a lot of CGI films now provide?
> As I said this is just my opinion



As an opinion that is either contrary, or at least sideways, to yours, how about this?
I have always believed (well, "always" since I started having a liking for contemplation...) that a large part of the popularity of the Western genre came out of the fact that many, very many -- if not most -- Americans were once closer to the land than are we today... There was a time when most Americans lived close to the soil, were involved in raising animals, maybe even had horses -- or, if they lived in a city, had memories of living on farms and ranches in their younger days. So much of the Western scenery used to be more familiar to people than it is today.
Add to that the fact that in those same days, there was no TV and -- for much of the relevant time period -- either little or no movies, radio, etc. Yet people who lived too far from towns to easily go there for entertainment, often resorted to books and magazines to put something interesting into their lives. And those sources of entertainment did things that made the country dweller see excitement going on in a world much like his own...

The Western faded out, yes. In part, imho, that was because everyone had seen it...over and over again. People are always looking for something new.
But it's also somewhat true that the Western is still there, metamorphosed. It underwent a...well, forgive me, but I'd call it a "sea change." It shed many of its trappings, but the things that made it exciting still shows up now and again...but it's in modern garb.

Think about many of the exciting movies you've watched in the last couple of decades. Some of them, I suggest, would have been Westerns, sixty years ago... *The Avengers?* Think Magnificent Seven... *Captain America: Civil War?* Think of any Western you remember with a lone hero who, in standing up for his principles, ran afoul of the powerful...

(You may by now suspect that for me, the Western is as much about a certain kind of character, as about horses, gun, cow-punching...


----------



## Vladd67 (Mar 18, 2017)

Of the more blatant rip off of westerns has to be Outland with Sean Connery. What is this film if not High Noon in space?


----------



## mosaix (Mar 18, 2017)

I think the reason the audiences started to turn away was because the themes got stale. They stopped saying anything new.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 18, 2017)

My impression is that it's cyclical. I never thought we'd see a big Holyywood musical again, but La La Land was enormously succesful, and I'll bet we see other muscials in the next few years. 

We've had Deadwood and Hell on Wheels in the last ten or so years. And Tarantino has made a few westerns that were fairly successful. I think the public loses interest when saturated by a genre, but then through nostalgia, becomes curious again a generation or so on. I think the struggle might be to bring new generations into an old, seemingly-stale type of film. So new vision/voices might also be required to rejuvenate a genre.


----------



## Vladd67 (Mar 18, 2017)

Or maybe, sadly, they have to be remade with a modern audience's level of sex and violence.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 18, 2017)

Geesh, I hadn't thought of that, but that's a good point, Vladd67. Revisionism can sometimes be expressed by more explicit violence, gore, and sex. We'll have to hope it goes the other way (if westerns do in fact make a return).


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 18, 2017)

I was brought up on Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone and the era of the "The Spaghetti Western".

For me it was a golden age for the western (60s-70s), good stories, the cool hero, the nasty bad guy, plenty of gunfights and a good level of violence! And I think all of those factors were beautifully realised in what I would consider the finest western of all - "Once Upon A Time in the West" (1968), with screen legend, Henry Fonda, going against type and playing the cold-blooded, calculating bad guy!

Eastwood's "The Unforgiven" (1992, was perhaps the last decent western I have enjoyed. More contemporary efforts - "True Grit", "Django Unchained", "Hateful Eight", "Magnificent Seven" have all been "just okay!" in my book, but nothing more than that. Instead they come across as being too stylised, impeccably polished and a little soulless! The characterisations are not nearly deep enough or realistic enough: instead I keep thinking it's the actor's persona dominating the role rather than the character he is supposed to be playing.

Perhaps I am just older and  a lot more cynical.


----------



## Overread (Mar 18, 2017)

Hollywood follows big sellers. So things tend to come in huge waves. WII films did well everyone did them; Westerns did well, so everyone did westerns; Spyfilms did well, everyone did them. Right now its Comicbook films that are doing well and - surprise surprise - everyone is doing them. 

In general if someone makes a film that sells like crazy, everyone else tries to copycat it. Starwars is a fantastic example of one film that spawned a wave of films copycatting it. Of course you get some studios that do their own thing, although one could argue that even with the diversity of settings and characters studios like Pixar are still producing films of a similar nature.

So we likely will see westerns return when someone makes a massive block-buster of a film. 
Of course it doesn't always work like that. Lord of the Rings opened fantasy up, but we've not really seen it take off. Most fantasy films are still coming out of the smaller end with things like 7th Son etc.. which are not bad films, but are not blockbusters.


----------



## Parson (Mar 18, 2017)

Cat's Cradle said:


> We've had Deadwood and Hell on Wheels in the last ten or so years. And Tarantino has made a few westerns that were fairly successful. I think the public loses interest when saturated by a genre, but then through nostalgia, becomes curious again a generation or so on. I think the struggle might be to bring new generations into an old, seemingly-stale type of film. So new vision/voices might also be required to rejuvenate a genre.



Any comeback of the Western must have been set back a decade by the remake of _The Lone Ranger.  _It's a flat out terrible Western --- IMO.


----------



## Overread (Mar 18, 2017)

The Lone Ranger is just the kind of films that fantasy keeps getting - slightly comic, but with a serious undertone that is somewhat lost with actors who are either not "top" in leading roles (although often you get a top supporting actor); or in this case a key actor who generally likes acting the fool (I have to admit I am getting to a point where I don't want JD in the next Pirates of the Caribbean because he just keeps fooling around too much).


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 18, 2017)

As a side note - all this talk of westerns has pushed me favour of watching Sergio Leone's three "_Fistful_" films this evening, including the incredibly underrated "Fistful of Dynamite" (AKA - "Duck, You Sucker!") starring James Coburn and Rod Steiger.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

Parson said:


> Any comeback of the Western must have been set back a decade by the remake of _The Lone Ranger.  _It's a flat out terrible Western --- IMO.


Yes. I was hoping for much better from that film. But to my eye, it appeared to be intended to be satire that was meant to express a strong message, and from that point of view I thought it merely rehashed the old bad-white-man-capitalists-oppressing-if-not-killing-the-Indians message.
But it did it so badly!
(*Sorry -- sounded like a certain politician there, for a moment...*)

So imagine my disappointment when the new *Magnificent Seven* came along...same message except for the Indians part.

Key to both films, I think -- along with many in other genres -- is the apparent need to kill as many people as possible in as many novel ways as possible... (You ain't seen nothing until you've seen that *John Wick 2* spectacle!)

I seem to recall, from the dim past, that when the Spaghetti Westerns came along, there was reaction to the level of violence... Are we seeing stages of a continuing escalation of such? It's a forbidding prospect.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

HanaBi said:


> As a side note - all this talk of westerns has pushed me favour of watching Sergio Leone's three "_Fistful_" films this evening, including the incredibly underrated "Fistful of Dynamite" (AKA - "Duck, You Sucker!") starring James Coburn and Rod Steiger.


I'm confused by your use of the word "including," here: I don't think *Fistful of Dynamite* was in the Leone trilogy (which consisted, I think, of *A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More,* and *The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly*).

Nonetheless, *Fistful of Dynamite* was -- forgive me! -- a dynamite film! Sarcastic, sardonic, and carrying a powerful message of revolution.


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 18, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> I'm confused by your use of the word "including," here: I don't think *Fistful of Dynamite* was in the Leone trilogy (which consisted, I think, of *A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More,* and *The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly*).
> 
> Nonetheless, *Fistful of Dynamite* was -- forgive me! -- a dynamite film! Sarcastic, sardonic, and carrying a powerful message of revolution.



Tbh, I think the "Dynamite" film sits somewhere between the genuine Dollar films, and Leone's "Once Upon A Time....." trilogy.

I really enjoyed "Dynamite" because if its heavy political influence, and because of Rod Steiger's eclectic performance!


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 18, 2017)

HanaBi said:


> Tbh, I think the "Dynamite" film sits somewhere between the genuine Dollar films, and Leone's "Once Upon A Time....." trilogy.
> 
> I really enjoyed "Dynamite" because if its heavy political influence, and because of Rod Steiger's eclectic performance!


I find myself wondering if your use of "eclectic" was a typo for "electric" -- both work for me!


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 18, 2017)

mosaix said:


> I think the reason the audiences started to turn away was because the themes got stale. They stopped saying anything new.



The 1950's and 60's were the heyday of tv westerns. They started to fade in the late 1960's and by the mid 1970s they were pretty much gone. 1975 was the last season of Gunsmoke which ended a 20 year run as the most successful tv western in history and the longest running in that genre.

Westerns in the Cinema which had been popular since the beginning of Cinema also faded in the 1970's


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Mar 19, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> The 1950's and 60's were the heyday of tv westerns. They started to fade in the late 1960's and by the mid 1970s they were pretty much gone. 1975 was the last season of Gunsmoke which ended a 20 year run as the most successful tv western in history and the longest running in that genre.
> 
> Westerns in the Cinema which had been popular since the beginning of Cinema also faded in the 1970's


You could also say that Westerns in books and magazines followed that same time frame (except that they started earlier, back in the 19th c.). Westerns boomed early and lasted a long time.
(No pun intended...)


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 19, 2017)

Personally, I think the number of westerns (and western-type serials) was always artificially high and what we are seeing is not so much a decline but a natural rebalancing. 

When D.W. Griffiths decided to move west to Hollywood, he not only set up the location for the future of the American film industry but opened up cinema to a number of locations that would cost little or nothing to use - locations most suited to the Western genre. You only have to watch a few of the old westerns and serials to see the same locations used over and over. Then you had people like John Ford who began using Monument Valley. Just look at the number of movies that were filmed there and the proprtion of westerns amongst them.   List of appearances of Monument Valley in the media - Wikipedia

Then you had the rise of the Spaghetti Western, which mostly used locations in Spain that were cheap and easily available. Over six hundred of these were made between 1960 and 1978...a large number for any genre.

Just my opinion but I think economics played a large part.


----------



## KGeo777 (Apr 24, 2017)

Westerns were cheap to make, but they also appealed to some segment of rural America so they were profitable.

But when the movie studios were absorbed into bigger entities that no longer needed to care about profits from audiences, they phased them out. They are thinking globally too, and a superhero movie sells better than a western.

It is a problematic genre because the current studio owners on Wall Street do not want to portray European heritage in a positive light and such a genre usually requires some alpha male behavior which that absolutely detest.


I was watching For a Few Dollars More the other day and it struck me Hollywood of the 60s onward era would never make such a film because the male leads were devoid of neurosis or guilt. Lee Van Cleef is seeking to avenge his sister (raped by a Mexican--no way Hollywood would make such a story-not even in the 60s).


You got two alpha white males as the lead characters. And you also have a hunchback who is not portrayed even remotely sympathetic--in a Hollywood movie there would be violin music and a barmaid feeling sorry for him. Different sensibility in Hollywood vs Italy (and Japan, if you look at the Seven Samurai and compare it to the Magnificent Seven).



One time years ago I was talking to a university student from Wisconsin and she said matter of factly that Hollywood did not represent US culture, true then, but especially these days where the studios are completely detached from audiences and making films based on their corporate/ideological agenda alone.

A superhero film has some relation to a Hollywood western, i.e. with the noble hero as opposed to one motivated by self-interest as you usually get in a spaghetti western, but there is too much that is antagonistic to the globalist studio belief system.


----------



## J Riff (Apr 25, 2017)

All true, but _Revenge of the Virgins_ has all the required rubbish elements of today - and it shares cheap scary music with the_ Beast of Yucca Flats._


----------

