Some werr definitely real, e.g., Wild Bill, Clammy Jane. And there is a Gem Steakhouse and Saloon in Deadwood on Google Maps, dose that mean Al Swearingen was a real person too? Werr they all real people, or are some fictonial.
shareMost all of the significant characters in the show were real people, though most are poorly done. For example, Colorado Charley was in his upper 30's at the time & very ambitious with his own activities, as well as being meticulous about his cleanliness. Likewise, Swearingen was not nearly as slick, nor as influential. Also, his Gem Saloon was a real establishment since the beginning of the town & it was known for its unparalleled levels of debauchery. Swerengen and/or his wife would go make tours to eastern towns & recruit girls to work as actresses in his Gem, then when they got there force them into prostitution. He was literally a sex-slave owner, much like the predators at malls who try to recruit young girls.
Bullock only arrived one day before Hickok was killed, so their whole storyline is contrived, as well as any relationship between Wild Bill & Jane. Bill was in love with his new wife & was trying to strike a gold claim that could support her coming out to live with him there.
Essentially they used the town & character names to craft a story. For entertainment its pretty good, for accuracy it misses the mark. But, as we all know, thats how movies & shows usually are.
I don't get where you're coming from. This is historical FICTION.
The way I've always looked at Deadwood (and some other shows) is that they are under no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever, but when they do it's a neat plus.
Well, where I'm coming from is the Op's question. He asked about the characters based on reality. I gave an answer with an explanation.
shareWell, where I'm coming from is the Op's question. He asked about the characters based on reality. I gave an answer with an explanation.
I dont disagree with what you said. But I dont understand why you asked if it deserved a reply from me. How do you determine if it "deserves" a reply. What exactly is done ro earn that?
Im also not sure what your guys point is, but yet you seem bothered that I replied. Did i attack someone? I sure dont think so? Did I say something untrue? Not as far as Im aware of? Did I adress the question with a bit of background? Sure did.
So whats with these responses? You guys are kind of acting like I just picked a fight with a small kid or something.
Also, I find it funny that the OP hasnt responded in an aghast way. Since it's his question, shouldn't he be the one who is so incredulous at my reply?
I don't get where you're coming from AGAIN: who's acting like you "picked a fight with a small kid" or incredulous? I didn't react poorly nor did bdd.
My comment was about how you were talking about the portrayal of the real-life characters in a negative way. I don't agree that it's a bad thing that the show differs from actual history. I know the actual history too, and find it fascinating, but see zero problem with deviations. As bdd said, it's not a documentary.
When you asked the question of whether it needed my reply, thats a rhetorical device to imply something.
Beyond that is why I said the thing about acting like Im pickkng on a small kid or something. You just said that you disagree with me saying thats its a bad thing, and that I said the difference was a negative, and added that its a documentary. Why is all this being said when I stated in my first reply that it makes for good entertainment, but not for good education (to summarise). I said it makes good entertainment. Where am I attacking anything or advocating for a documentary appraoch?
It seems like you've read into something and tried to fit my statement into something you could argue against when it really didnt reflect what I was saying at all.
Let me be clear: characters are not super-accurately portrayed; makes for a good show; does not make for a good history lesson. If this still gets under your skin at this point, tough.
It shouldn't be discouraged for people to contrast the realities with the portrayals.
I haven't responded because you answered my question concisely and with the information I was interested in. I don't understand the contention that has developed in this thread either. I also didn't respond because I am unwilling to 'fan the flames'.
shareLOL at your reply OTP. Were you drinking when you sent your thread? Contrast this-
Some werr definitely real, e.g., Wild Bill, Clammy Jane. And there is a Gem Steakhouse and Saloon in Deadwood on Google Maps, dose that mean Al Swearingen was a real person too? Werr they all real people, or are some fictonial.
I haven't responded because you answered my question concisely and with the information I was interested in. I don't understand the contention that has developed in this thread either. I also didn't respond because I am unwilling to 'fan the flames'.
Severe reprimand!
shareAt first you sounded like a barely literate 75 I.Q. poster. Or a little kid. In the second your reply is grammatical and well-written. Worthy of a Literature Professor.
dot
dot
dot
I was just having some fun here. Don't take it too seriously.
dot
dot
dot
Have you ever seen The Wrestler? Here is a song you might like-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OSvJvSwmd4
No problem, I understand. I hadn't checked back, myself, in several days for the same reason. And for what its worth, there are also some cool things they do well, too. Jack McCall is escpecially well done based on what is known about him, even though there are no known photos of him. Also, the setting of main street Deadwood looks uncanny.
The mexican who rode in with the severed indian head was a real event that took place right after Wild Bills assassination, and it took everyone's attention away.
Hopefully these sorts of fun facts just help to make the show more enjoyable. I love reading history, but sometimes to the point that it gets in the way of the "movie-escape".
In the episode "Leviathan Smiles"
there is a scene in which Wyatt Earp is playing craps/dice with Leon as the dealer. He signals Con Stapleton at the cashier station and suggests to Earp that he would walk out with a rosier outlook still holding some of our money, speaking against the Establishments interests.
Wyatt Smiles in agreement and goes to cash out his chips at the cage where Con Stapleton is stationed and says, about the chips "Well those seem to have propagated!"
What scam was pulled on Earp? Did they just skim the money Earp supposedly won?
Here's a good summary
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-deadwoodhbo.html
Yeah, Legends of America is a very informative site. I recommend anyone interested in history should check it out.
"The heat has a taste. It tastes like a flame. You drink up the flame as it burns your flesh away."
I find fictional books, movies and TV are best when they are great "lies." That is, they contain contain as much truth as possible and "corroborative detail, intended to give artistic as possible to offer verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
The main characters are based on real historical figures and events but modified to serve the story. Even some of the minor characters are composites of several that lived in the Town. Some of the buildings in the series are still standing, or their "descendants are as one building was burned down twice and rebuilt twice.