MovieChat Forums > Spencer's Mountain (1963) Discussion > Pales in Comparison with 'The Waltons'

Pales in Comparison with 'The Waltons'

posted 20 years ago by JGH-BR
23 replies | jump to latest

If I had never seen "The Waltons", then, who knows, I might be able to tolerate this movie. But I have seen "The Waltons." I've seen every episode many times over. I don't just like it, I'm in love with it. And this movie cannot hold a candle to it. In every area important -- acting, character development, story development, overall writing -- "The Waltons" is vastly superior. While "The Waltons" is both interesting and heartwarming, "Spencer's Mountain" is dull and creepy. When I'm not yawning out of boredom, I'm cringing -- usually during the "love" scenes between Clayboy and his Amazon girlfriend. If you're a "Waltons" lover, don't bother with this dreck.

[–] yeti_chic 19 years ago

I can't really compare them. The settings are different, the cast is different & yes, the affectionate displays between Clayboy & Claris are a bit corny, I can still relate to being a teen wanting so much to be w/ someone and doing silly things such as get off on saying, "Friction friction friction..." I happen to love both the Waltons series as well as "Spencer's Mountain".

[–] jdeeq 19 years ago

I'm the same, I can't really compare them. Though I too have seen just about every Walton show and so many at least 2, 3, 4 times...I think the movie and the series are too different enough that you can't compare them. I "Love" the movie

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] g_dekok 19 years ago

um, just to let you know, the walton's was based on this movie. I always found that the walton kids were a little too well-dressed, and just too lovey-dovey-everything'll-work-out-and-daddy-will-find-a-new-job-today Depression-era family in the Appalachians.

[–] Soujurn 19 years ago

Actually no, The Waltons was based on the TV movie The Homecoming which was based on his novella of the same name.
Warner Bros bought the rights to his best selling novel Spencers Mt, which was loosely based on Hamners life and family.
The Waltons, set in Virginia, was much closer to his real life.

I feel the early seasons of The Waltons were the best. The series went down hill fast with the passing of Will Geer, and Ellen Corby's stroke.
The war years never managed to create the direct day to day struggles, the wolf is at the door type of scenario, the way the Depression era did in the early seasons.

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."
-Dennis

[–] videonly 19 years ago

I've been a fan of The Waltons for years - up until John Boy leaves, after which the show jumps the shark terribly - and I saw Spencers Mountain for the first time subsequent to seeing The Waltons. Comparing the acting isn't really fair, since the TV actors had many more opportunities to develop their characters, especially the kids. Maureen O'Hara and Henry Fonda give big screen, broad stroke performances, while Michael Learned and Ralph Waiteseem to be much more nuanced, but again, that is probably because its TV. Plus the TV show had Will Geer and (especially) Ellen Corby, the latter of whom simply inhabits her role - in a very long career, I think this is her finest work, and one of the most clearly drawn supporting characters on TV. And forget the superficial differences such as Virginia vs. Wymoing: The movie has a begining, middle and ending which the TV series takes 5 years to accomplish.

Earl Hamner wrote a novel called Fifty Roads to Towm, which, I belive was the real genesis of The Waltons, at least as far as story placement is concerned.

[–] shandy8 16 years ago

Huzzah! ...for your comment on Ellen Corby. How wonderful that this wonderfully sturdy supporting character actress was finally given a role that fit her like a glove. I adore her.

"I love corn!"

[–] Tony_J61 18 years ago

Comparing this movie to The Waltons, rather than the other way around, is a bit out of whack.

For starters, The Waltons was made in 1972 onwards, whereas Spencers' Mountain was made 9 years previously, in 1963.

Secondly, the book, Spencers' Mountain, was written by none other than Earl Hammer Jnr, writer and voice-over for ... The Waltons.

Sure, Spencers' Mountain is so coated with sugar that it's at times sickly, but what's wrong with a feel good movie, especially one that was made during the times of family and neighbourly values?

Henry Fonda positively gushed fatherhood, with his constant references to 'my babies', but overall, it was made in (IMHO) the last decade of decent value films.

Bring back the 50's. I missed them by 2 years. :-)

[–] JGH-BR 18 years ago

I was comparing Spencer's Mountain and The Waltons WITH each other, not implying that The Waltons came first. Excuse me for not being more clear. I had watched Waltons episodes many times over before I ever saw Spencer's Mountain. I wrote my post assuming that other people, as well, are more likely to have seen at least some episodes of the nine-season-long TV series than the movie. Also, I was comparing the series and the movie precisely BECAUSE they are both creations of Earl Hamner and loosely based on his life.

The point of my post was this: If you're a big fan of The Waltons, don't automatically think you'll like this movie simply because it's a semi-autobiographical look at the same person's life. I think The Waltons is a better-written, better-acted, and more entertaining piece of work than Spencer's Mountain, and that fans of the series would probably be disappointed by the movie. This is simply my opinion. Differing opinions are as valid as mine.

To answer your question, Brisbane, there's nothing wrong with a feel-good movie (or TV show, for that matter). In fact, that feel-good quality is a big reason why I love The Waltons so much. Again, just my opinion, but I actually think the TV show has more of that quality than the movie.

[–] Tony_J61 18 years ago

Thanks for your reply. Good to see some people still keep their email addresses current, 2 years after their original post. :-)

Yes, they are very different cattle, the movie and the show that we fell in love with so long ago. The Waltons, of course, would become a polished pro, compared with the earlier movie, as actors performed to a very different audience in the 70's.

Early 60's audiences would have accepted Spencer's Mountain as it was presented. We were unlucky enough to see a better storyline and better actors at work on The Walton a decade later. :-)

Cheers from Sunny Queensland.

[–] lancy-2 17 years ago

In the movie "Spencer's Mountain" it is very '60's. Haitr and clothes and makeup. I don't get that. Earl Hammer's originial family was supposed to be a lot earlier than that. Depression?

[–] amethystlady2000 17 years ago

i don't think the movie and the tv show can be compared. i watched the walton's religiously and loved it but i also love spencer's mountain. i know both are based by the work of earl hammer and you can see the similarities, but nothing can beat henry fonda and maureen o'hara. WOW!!! this movie was a movie of LOVE. love between a husband and his wife, love between parents and their children, love between brother and sister, i can go on. i first saw spencer's mountain....i would say over 25 years ago and maybe once after that and each time it warmed my heart and made sheded a tear or two.

[–] dcspen 17 years ago

I haven't seen "Spencer's Mountain" in years, though I do remember the Waltons. In fact, I remember when it first came on television, and a few weeks before that, I believe either CBS or my local affiliate played "Spencer's Mountain". These are the reminiscences of Earl Hamner, the writer of both the movie, "Spencer's Mountain" and much of the series, "The Waltons" They are both essentially the same story: a Depression era family eking out a living in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. The series is able to go into more detail and deepen the characters especially due to the fact that it was aired, I think, for about 10 years. But I think it is unfair to say that the Waltons is "better" than Spencer's Mountain. It is different. It is a different retelling of the same story, with different names and a writer who had matured in his vision and had an opportunity to tell more with the series than he could with the movie. I think you could almost consider the movie a pilot for the tv show, even though that is not what it was intended to be (especially not with Fonda as the star).

[–] TomBRIDE2 16 years ago

I would have to agree that THE WALTONS was really much better than this movie. I thought the TV show was pretty good as a kid, even if I might find it a bit icky now. In any event, it is better than this movie, which frankly is really pretty terrible. It is a clumsy pastiche of Hollywood stock characters and seems trite and strained. Clumsy symbolism and clunky stabs at All-Americanism make it a wincing occasion to watch. Pretty scenery and big names in the cast cannot hide the fact this is a fairly ridiculous movie.

[–] tambourine_man36 16 years ago

Hmmm... what exactly do you find ridiculous? You throw in a bunch of adjectives without really explaining anything. And what symbolism is there in Spencer's Mountain? There is suggestion, but I've never noticed any symbolism. There is sacrifice, but that's presented pretty literally.

Spencer's Mountain is a well-crafted film because it's pacing takes time to tell the viewers about its characters and goals--not to mention some pretty good backstory of the Spencer family and the entire setting. It's character-driven and in no way terrible. Aside from the tear-jerking and relatable story, it's also one of the most aesthetically pleasing movie experiences from the old days of technicolor, featuring a more unique and striking setting than the TV show. Combined with Steiner's elaborate score... wow, you people really must be picky.

I never thought the Walton main actors or characters could match charisma any of the ones in the film had (I guess that's why they were big movie stars and the others only on the small screen), and Spencer's Mountain had more adult themes, which I think made it more complex. Only an idiot would think that because you like one, you'd automatically like the other. And I can't even fathom how the word 'creepy' fits anything about this movie, even for those who don't like it.

In absolutely no way pales in comparison or is terrible. They're just different and great in their own ways. Not everything is a competition.

[–] tommyuk 16 years ago

The Waltons was a Lorimar Television series Spencer's Mountain was a feature film.So from that viewpoint I don't see how you can compare them.

[–] MaraudersFan 15 years ago

I just watched Spencers Mountain for the first time. I've seen the Walton's numerous times, have several of the season dvds. The movie was good I enjoyed it different from the Walton's in some ways. Can never imagine John Walton hitting Olivia on the rear end in front of the children. All in all I thought it was a pretty good movie.

[–] jaystarstar 15 years ago

I look at "Spencer's Mountain" as being a "rough draft" for "The Waltons," with some super-syrupy melodrama thrown in to have the story begin and end within two hours.

When they made "The Waltons" nine years later, they knew they didn't have to kill off Grandpa in the first episode, saddle John-Boy (or Clayboy) with the Nympho Princess of the Blue Ridge Mountains, or pack him off to college all in two hours.

All that stuff was thrown in to turn "Spencer's Mountain" into a two-hour epic. Eventually almost all of it happened on "The Waltons" -- Grandpa died, John-Boy eventually had girlfriends, went off to college and got married, etc etc., but it took several (or many) years for all that to happen instead of 110 minutes of screen time.

So I look at "Spencer's Mountain" as an "alternate universe" version of "The Waltons," which also applies to "The Homecoming," too.

For that matter, I consider "classic-period Waltons" as being from a different universe than the late-season episodes or the TV movies, many of which have absolutely impossible timeline problems.