I understand the "need" for film-makers to sometimes cut corners and combine events for the sake of time-constraints. But what I don't understand is how some movies are considered (often, by many on this forum - which is very surprising to me, given the penchant for OAR; if one were OAR, I would suspect one would also advocate "TTL" - "true to life" as much as possible) "good" or "excellent", despite the horrible retelling of history. I will use one event to illustrate my point: the gunfight at the OK Corral. First, I have never seen a movie that accurately depicts the interaction between the Earps, Doc Holliday, and the Clanton gang. Yet, at least four movies were made regarding this part of history (My Darling Clementine, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Wyatt Earp, and Tombstone), and NONE of them completely accurately portrayed what is KNOWN to have occurred (although Wyatt Earp comes close). Based on my review of the threads on this forum that have discussed the two most recent movies based on the Earps and the Clanton gang (Wyatt Earp and Tombstone), the overwhelming favorite is Tombstone. Yet, consider how this movie "portrayed" actual history: 1. Virgil and Morgan Earp were NOT shot on the same night. In fact, they were shot almost 3 months apart. Yet, the movie (for reasons unexplained) shows them being shot the same night (the movie Wyatt Earp even does this). Why is this? I see no need to have done this. One could have shown Virgil being shot, and then a cutaway with a small "explanation" or "header" on the top or bottom of the screen along the lines of "3 months later", or something of that nature, and then Morgan being shot. 2. In the movie, Morgan storms out of the room in which Virgil is being attended by a physician after being shot. He distinctly gives you the impression that he is going to investigate who shot his brother. Next scene? HE IS SHOOTING POOL!!!! What kind of person sees his brother almost killed, and then goes shoot pool a few minutes later at a bar? This made absolutely no sense. Given the fact that Morgan was killed three months AFTER Virgil was shot, the placement of Morgan shooting pool just moments after Virgil was shot is even more ridiculous. 3. Doc Holliday is not shot during the shootout in the movie. Yet, in real life (and in Wyatt Earp), he is shot in the hip (or buttocks - I cannot find any source that states definitively which one). Now why would Tombstone allow Doc Holliday to walk away from the shootout without being shot? Again, I cannot think of ONE reason from a movie perspective to have done this. 4. Wyatt meets up with Virgil and Morgan in some unnamed town and they all travel (for what seems like days) in a covered wagon to Tombstone. In real life, Virgil and Wyatt were in Tombstone for several months, along with their brother James, and THEN Morgan arrived. Again, why the need to change this? 5. Ike Clanton is shown shooting from Fly's at the Earps and Holliday after breaking a window. Yet, all historical accounts document Ike as surrendering (or not even having) his weapons, and then running away. He did NOT participate in the shootout. Why show Ike shooting in the movie when clearly he did not do so in real life? 6. Wyatt is shown in the movie as being adamantly against becoming a lawman again after his move to Tombstone. I could not find one piece of evidence to support this portrayal. On the contrary, Wyatt Earp always used the law (by being a lawman) to his advantage, and, in fact, ran for sheriff and lost the election. This does not sound like "retirement" to me . . . 7. Johnny Ringo committed suicide in real life. Yet, in the movie, Ringo is killed by Doc Holliday. Good scene? Yes. Accurate? Obviously not.