When did the wild west stop being cool?

[Ranger REG]

I think a big problem with Westerns in general, though, is the focus on the individual, not the group. Most westerns have a hero, not a group...Silverado is somewhat unusual in that regard, and Young Guns, though I've never seen more than brief pieces of those. Tombstone is one of the best westerns evar, to me, and Val Kilmer's performance is nothing short of riveting.

You must be thinking of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood western films. Granted, they're the most notable because they're the single hero (with or without a sidekick), not part of a group.

It is emulated in the comic book market, where the hero group titles are outnumbered by single hero titles.

Aside from The Magnificen Seven film series, you got American Outlaws, Texas Rangers (the straight-to-vid film starring Dawson's Creek James Van Der Beek), Alamo, Bad Girls, etc. Then you got the Young Riders TV series.

You can have hero group just as much as single hero.

 

[snarfoogle]

However I always got Nicholas G. Wolfwood or Legato Bluesummers on personality tests. I never particularly liked those two. They had.. issues.. :\

You monster! I can't imagine what Trigun would be like without Wolfwood.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't want to be that guy, but I'm not much of a Western fan, and I can immediately rattle off a few group-based westerns (in addition to the ones you mentioned):

The Magnificent Seven
The Return of the Magnificent Seven
The Wild Bunch.

I think most movies of any genre focus on a single protagonist rather than a group; that's the nature of the medium.

But I think the focus of westerns on the rugged individualist is more pronounced than elsewhere. One thinks of Shane or Rooster Cogburn, or the character from Three Mules for Sister Sarah (or was it two, can't remember).

And in those films you mention, most of the characters don't get out alive. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has multiple characters, but they're not exactly...friends.

I don't think you can't do a group western, just that it isn't as prevalent in the genre. It wasn't 'The Party that shot Liberty Valance', after all.

 

[Sigdel]

I'm sorry to say this but the wild west was big and cool in a age when things were simple. As taste evolves so must the entertainment. People these days want gritty anti-heroes who are boarderline badguys themselves. Thats why wild-west movies like Young Guns (the first one not the second) are cool. People want to cheer for the badguy. I know, I am one of them . not to mention the wild west movies of old are REALLY cheesy (not the good cheesy either). And thats incluing the Eastwood ones too.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The Wild West, both in its mythic form and its gritty 'realistic' form (which, like gritty 'realistic' medieval fiction is, as a rule, just as unrealistic) remains cool in my book.

I reckon it's liable to keep on doin' like as that.

With that said, I've been enjoying a mix of Wild West and fantasy elements (alternately/additionally, Wild West and steampunk) of late, and not in a way that any on-the-market paper RPG really captures. My homebrew mix of d20 Modern, Privateer's Iron Kingdoms (especially with the campaign guide *finally* out) and Sidewinder: Recoiled gets the job done, though.