Clint Eastwood or John Wayne

[bbgun]

Clint Eastwood and it's not even close.

Plus he is a better man, he isn't a racist like Wayne was.

How so? And don't tell me it's because he starred in Cowboys vs Indians movies.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

they are 2 of my favorites and I could not choose.

Outlaw of Josie Wales for me is the best of the movies that both have done

 

[Mash]

Love Clint Eastwood ...my fav

I dont think its even close imho

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

How so? And don't tell me it's because he starred in Cowboys vs Indians movies.

From a 1971 Playboy interview:

“I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

and referring to Native Americans:

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

 

[jnday]

You make a good point about the acting.

Yeah, I could see where someone would pick Clint as the better actor... Certainly a better range of acting skills. Many of his movies moved him from good guy to bad to good again.

Again John Wayne pretty much played the same type of character movie after movie.

I don't think high-end acting was the even on the list of priorities when it came to Wayne's movies– I think it was all about entertainment. And John Wayne's movies hit that mark many times over. The plots were simple, the actions of Wayne predicatable and the film going public loved it.

The guy was leading man in what 142 films? An amazing total.

When it comes t the acting ability , I think you have to look no further than The Bridges of Madison County . I will admit that it is not my kind of movie , but Eastwood done a great job with his acting skills . I can not see John Wayne having the depth to pull this type of movie off .

 

[iceberg]

not to go off the rant, but to miss harrison ford who played two iconic characters and non of his characters blend back into another one, is just not right.

And JW was not 1 dimensional watch the barbarian and the giesha. You ll see another JW you havent seen before.

hey - my list is a living breathing one and i'd put harrison ford up with the best also.

everything i've seen from john wayne is very much the same and so for now yes, i do consider him more 1 dimensional than the other actors i've mentioned so far.

 

[DA FAN]

Clint Eastwood and it's not even close.

Plus he is a better man, he isn't a racist like Wayne was.

Interesting that you say that about JW, what makes you say it? just curious

 

[casmith07]

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of my all time favorites.

 

[Staggerlee]

Interesting that you say that about JW, what makes you say it? just curious

Read his post on the previous page that was a JW interview.

 

[burmafrd]

Interesting that you say that about JW, what makes you say it? just curious

JW was a product of his time.

Some numbies try and take 2012 view on people born 100 years earlier. Lots of moronic revisionist so called historians do that as well

 

[The30YardSlant]

John Wayne was more iconic, Eastwood is the more gifted actor. He has a wider range of roles he is capable of fulfilling plus he has had a great deal of success as a director. I enjoy both however.

 

[Staggerlee]

JW was a product of his time.

Some numbies try and take 2012 view on people born 100 years earlier. Lots of moronic revisionist so called historians do that as well

Not to turn this into an argument but do you have any idea what "revisionist historian" actually means? Being an undergrad in/lover of history I take offense to the pejorative connotation you connect to that. Sure there are a select few historians who are extreme in their unorthodox views of history (like holocaust deniers) but history is constantly in revision. That is why it is still a field of study. Without revisionist history we would still have incredibly ignorant and naive views about our past. If it wasn't for revisionist history we would still be talking about how the Native Americans were merely passive, submissive obstacles that stood no chance in repelling the Europeans both physically and culturally during the colonial era.

 

[arglebargle]

'Revisionist Historians' are guys Burm disagrees with.

History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte (1768-1821)


As for the original question, I would have to go with Eastwood, because as a director he kicks *** and takes names. This despite having met John Wayne, and him being really, really nice to me.

 

[Kevinicus]

Not a fan of either, or westerns.

 

[Joe Realist]

Clint, hands down. It's his real name too!

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I don't think anyone can criticize either choice as far as the characters they played in movies. I suppose I would have to lean towards Clint due to his being more versatile. Honestly, I think some of his better acting came later in his career (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torrino).

I'm looking forward to "Trouble With The Curve". Who knows how many more movies the guy has in him.

 

[burmafrd]

Not to turn this into an argument but do you have any idea what "revisionist historian" actually means? Being an undergrad in/lover of history I take offense to the pejorative connotation you connect to that. Sure there are a select few historians who are extreme in their unorthodox views of history (like holocaust deniers) but history is constantly in revision. That is why it is still a field of study. Without revisionist history we would still have incredibly ignorant and naive views about our past. If it wasn't for revisionist history we would still be talking about how the Native Americans were merely passive, submissive obstacles that stood no chance in repelling the Europeans both physically and culturally during the colonial era.

Well they did have no chance of repelling them.

And the revisionist BS I have seen in some school textbooks over the last few years are more than sufficient.

There was one for jr high American History. It spent 1 page on the revolution and 4 pages on Civil Rights movement of the 60's.

And then there is the BS from some that have tried to claim that the Atomic Bombs were unnecessary to force Japan to surrender.

That is what I am talking about

 

[burmafrd]

'Revisionist Historians' are guys Burm disagrees with.

History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte (1768-1821)


As for the original question, I would have to go with Eastwood, because as a director he kicks *** and takes names. This despite having met John Wayne, and him being really, really nice to me.

Napoleon was right about that; which refutes your opinion.

 

[burmafrd]

Not to turn this into an argument but do you have any idea what "revisionist historian" actually means? Being an undergrad in/lover of history I take offense to the pejorative connotation you connect to that. Sure there are a select few historians who are extreme in their unorthodox views of history (like holocaust deniers) but history is constantly in revision. That is why it is still a field of study. Without revisionist history we would still have incredibly ignorant and naive views about our past. If it wasn't for revisionist history we would still be talking about how the Native Americans were merely passive, submissive obstacles that stood no chance in repelling the Europeans both physically and culturally during the colonial era.

And I have been studying History since the 70's; that is how I know about revisionists who change history to suit their sensibilities rather then what actually happened.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Duke. I really like Clint Eastwood but for me there is no question at all. John Wayne is The Man.