# Hatfields & McCoys on The History Channel



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Anyone planning on watching this? It starts on May 28th (Memorial Day) and is a 3 part, 6 hour mini series.

I saw the trailer at the movie theater when I went to see The Avengers - the series looks really good. It stars Kevin Costner and Bill Paxton in some post Civil War drama. When I saw the trailer, I was first impressed, then immediately surprised that it was not a movie, but a TV series.

I am looking forward to this one!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"Some post Civil War drama"?

This is the Hatfields & McCoys! THE post-Civil War drama!

And yes, it looks great. I'd be watching it even if it weren't the only thing on next week.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Yup, thought this thread was a bump from this thread 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=487045&highlight=Hatfield


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I am so in.
"Bad" Frank Phillips was my great-great uncle and my pedigree is peppered with McCoys.
Frank Phillips BIL was my great grandfather Bud Sanders who was sheriff of Pike County during a portion of this mess but resigned so as not to be involved with hangings.

Tis a tangled web but yes, I am so there!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I saw the preview at the movies, and thought it was a movie (which I would not have watched). But as a mini-series, it has more potential. I'll record it and wait for the reviews.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I will be watching it. Looks interesting enough.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> Yup, thought this thread was a bump from this thread
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=487045&highlight=Hatfield


I thought the same thing. Nice reminder for me to set the DVR though.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Stupid, horrible TCF search function 

Sorry if this is a repeat thread...I DID look!!!!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

You can request a thread merge from the mods. If anyone cares. I don't.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

nyny523 said:


> Stupid, horrible TCF search function
> 
> Sorry if this is a repeat thread...I DID look!!!!


The other thread was Hatfield (NO S) so that's probably why it didn't show up


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I'm going to Tivo it and watch it later.  I go to sleep too early to actually watch it when it's on.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Which thread is Hatfield and which is McCoy?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Thanks for the reminder. SP set!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

nyny523 said:


> Stupid, horrible TCF search function
> 
> Sorry if this is a repeat thread...I DID look!!!!


No apologies needed. SP set.:up:



Steveknj said:


> Which thread is Hatfield and which is McCoy?


Them be fighting words boy.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Say what you will about Costner, he knows how to make a western... I'm in.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Definitely in on this one! :up:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm in


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Looks epic. Every once in a while a really good miniseries comes along. It looks like this could be one of those.

Entertainment Weekly has already reviewed it positively.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

caslu said:


> Say what you will about Costner, he knows how to make a western... I'm in.


Western? As in West Virginia and Kentucky?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> Stupid, horrible TCF search function
> 
> Sorry if this is a repeat thread...I DID look!!!!


You stole my thunder!!! 

Still looking forward to this glad I can use the web to schedule recordings.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

setup


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Western? As in West Virginia and Kentucky?


That's west to me


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

What annoyed me is how they seem to be plugging the mini-series into some of their reality shows. American Pickers was talking about the Hatfield-McCoy feud on Monday's show and the previews for next week's Pawn Stars looks like it will be mentioned there too. I understand it but it makes it look like the shows are even more staged than usual.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Azlen said:


> What annoyed me is how they seem to be plugging the mini-series into some of their reality shows. American Pickers was talking about the Hatfield-McCoy feud on Monday's show and the previews for next week's Pawn Stars looks like it will be mentioned there too. I understand it but it makes it look like the shows are even more staged than usual.


You mean they don't eat breakfast and lunch at Subway? /shocker 

LOL


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Looks good to me. This is definately not a Western, said the Californian.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I've got it set to record. previews make it look pretty sweet.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Western? As in West Virginia and Kentucky?


They're wearing hats, riding horses and carrying six shooters... it's a western


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

My mom used to refer to the Hatfields and the McCoys all the time. I've got the recording scheduled!

They also have a documentary about it. I know nothing about the story, wondering if I should skip the documentary until after the mini-series so the story isn't spoiled for me!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

caslu said:


> They're wearing hats, riding horses and carrying six shooters... it's a western


So did Paul Revere.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

pmyers said:


> You mean they don't eat breakfast and lunch at Subway? /shocker
> 
> LOL


Or just happen to run into Bob Dylan when they had an album of his to sign, or the NASCAR driver when going to race go karts. I still like to pretend that the stuff people bring in is really theirs, even though it's probably just as staged as the little skits they do.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> So did Paul Revere.


He was a Westerner to the Brits.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I doubt if Paul Revere had six shooters. Looks like 1818 for the first six shooter.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Is it one episode per week or 3 nights in a row?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I doubt if Paul Revere had six shooters. Looks like 1818 for the first six shooter.


Never underestimate American ingenuity!


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

tiams said:


> Is it one episode per week or 3 nights in a row?


3 nights in a row. 2 hours each night.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

You might want to manually set the recordings -- I set up an SP (first run) and, initially, all three were scheduled. Then I checked today, and the the second was missing. Only reason given was that it was within the 28 day period....which is nuts because each ep is singularly named with a 1, 2 or 3.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

When I first set it up, it was six one-hour episodes. Now, it's three two-hour episodes. So you might want to be sure that it's not just two ones being replaced by a two...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I doubt if Paul Revere had six shooters. Looks like 1818 for the first six shooter.


Hatfields and McCoys mostly used rifles but did have handguns. Six shooters? Maybe. Not sure.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> You might want to manually set the recordings -- I set up an SP (first run) and, initially, all three were scheduled. Then I checked today, and the the second was missing. Only reason given was that it was within the 28 day period....which is nuts because each ep is singularly named with a 1, 2 or 3.


I'll be watching it at history.com


----------



## DanB (Aug 14, 2001)

well, since its on History Channel I guess it will be entertaining but not historically correct


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

This is gonna be awesome.

Not knowing many details, I'm starting out as a McCoy fan. Huge on the McCoy's. Those Hatfields are a bunch of yellow-bellied, good fur nuthin', lyin' and stealin'...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But the McCoys are Communists!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> This is gonna be awesome.
> 
> Not knowing many details, I'm starting out as a McCoy fan. Huge on the McCoy's. Those Hatfields are a bunch of yellow-bellied, good fur nuthin', lyin' and stealin'...


:up:

The Hatfields were pure trash.
And MEAN.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

It looks a little cruel for my normal tastes, but this one looks particularly good, and I like the cast, so I'm in. SP set. Thanks for the reminder, I've been meaning to do it.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But the McCoys are Communists!


Given that one of their descendants, Jack McCoy, became the most liberal activist district attorney in New York City history, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were Marxists!


----------



## tiellv (Nov 11, 2002)

Thanks for the heads-up!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Tavis Smiley on PBS had Kevin Costner on last night and tonight.
Last night focused mainly on Costner, tonight is supposed to be about the movie.
I have recorded it. Will watch later.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

When I first saw this thread, I figured it was something that already aired and I had missed it. Just so happened to see a commercial for it today. I'm in.


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

I saw the preview for this in front of Avengers. I immediately set myself a reminder on my phone and then set the SP when I got home.

I think this will be a good mini series.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DanB said:


> well, since its on History Channel I guess it will be entertaining but not historically correct


As long as they don't have the guy with the goofy, poofy hair telling me aliens had something to do with this feud, I'm ok with it.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

On first glance at the TV magazine in sundays paper, I thought Walton's west.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Well, I enjoyed night #1! Looking forward to the rest.



TonyD79 said:


> Hatfields and McCoys mostly used rifles but did have handguns. Six shooters? Maybe. Not sure.


Yes, they had 6 shooters. They even referred to a Navy revolver at one point.



DanB said:


> well, since its on History Channel I guess it will be entertaining but not historically correct


It followed along with the entry on Wikipedia pretty closely so far. Of course either one could have gotten the story from the other.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

The very first thing I noticed was that the topography was ALL wrong- the hills were wrong and the trees were wrong.

I don't know where this was filmed but it is not representative of those hills at all. We have TREES, tons of 'em, everywhere. Enormous oaks, ancient hickories, and understory trees enough that you can't walk two feet.
That clearing where the McCoy's house sat? 
No flat space that big even exists in the hills of that region. And those wide cart paths? No. I have trudged up and down the hills in Pike Co. KY and Mingo Co. WV and every inch is thick with undergrowth.
Not right!

*I know this is irrelevant to the story being told* and I know it's not discussion worthy but I could not get past it. I understand production costs and the need to go where ever to film. It's just me and my extreme love of the area plus a bit of a tree obsession.
The harder I tried to let it go the more I became fixated on it to the point I kept having to rewind to follow the story.

I'll watch it again tonight with hub and try my best to overcome my ridiculousness, but it took me too far out of the story. The topography of the region contributed greatly to the nature of the people living within it, especially during Civil War times when fear and distrust and clannishness was at its height. 
Damn me and my southeastern Kentucky childhood!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I believe it was filmed in Eastern Europe, which is where a lot of period stuff is filmed (in part because it's a place where you can do long shots without having to CG out evidence of modern life).

Hardly anything is filmed where it's set, unless it's set in New York, LA, or Vancouver. I don't cringe, I just laugh at stuff that is set in Minnesota, for many of the same reasons you have...clearly, these people have never been here, and photographs can be so deceiving!


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

According to its IMDB entry, _Hatfields & McCoys_ was filmed in Romania.

So if not a spaghetti western, what should it be called? I'm not familiar with any Romanian dishes


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> The very first thing I noticed was that the topography was ALL wrong- the hills were wrong and the trees were wrong.
> 
> I don't know where this was filmed but it is not representative of those hills at all. We have TREES, tons of 'em, everywhere. Enormous oaks, ancient hickories, and understory trees enough that you can't walk two feet.
> That clearing where the McCoy's house sat?
> ...


And people reading the _Southland_ threads thought *I* was weird for nit-picking the technical details


----------



## sicnarf (Apr 12, 2005)

Watched part 1 last night. Very entertaining and well done.


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

RonDawg said:


> So if not a spaghetti western, what should it be called? I'm not familiar with any Romanian dishes


Challenge accepted, but I can't find anything like romanian spaghetti. Ostropel is at least meat in a tomato sauce. Hoever the best name I found is: 
_urs de mămăligă western_​


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Not a western!

Hatfield and McCoy feud gave us the Hillbilly stereotype. That is not western.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The ratings were huge. The first airing is the most watched non-sports telecast in ad supported cable history.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...elecast-in-ad-supported-cable-history/136055/


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> The very first thing I noticed was that the topography was ALL wrong- the hills were wrong and the trees were wrong.
> 
> I don't know where this was filmed but it is not representative of those hills at all. We have TREES, tons of 'em, everywhere. Enormous oaks, ancient hickories, and understory trees enough that you can't walk two feet.
> That clearing where the McCoy's house sat?
> ...


There are tress now, but were there that many trees 150 years ago? A lot of trees can grow in 150 years.

I remember looking at old photos of my grandfather etc, and their were not many trees around their property at that time.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

I was a little disappointed to see it turn into Romeo and Juliet, is the relationship shown based in any fact or is this just a retread of the Montagues and Capulets?

EDIT: Wikipedia says that there was a relationship between those depicted on the show.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

vertigo235 said:


> There are tress now, but were there that many trees 150 years ago? A lot of trees can grow in 150 years.
> 
> I remember looking at old photos of my grandfather etc, and their were not many trees around their property at that time.


Same thing with a lot of old civil war battlefields. Many battles were fought on clear land that is now covered by trees.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> Not a western!
> 
> Hatfield and McCoy feud gave us the Hillbilly stereotype. That is not western.


It's not a western in the strictest sense (in particular location) but it shares quite a few elements of one. From Wikipedia:



> The Western genre sometimes portrays the conquest of the wilderness and the subordination of nature in the name of civilization or the confiscation of the territorial rights of the original inhabitants of the frontier. *The Western depicts a society organized around codes of honor and personal, direct or private justice (such as the feud]), rather than one organized around rationalistic, abstract law, in which social order is maintained predominately through relatively impersonal institutions.* The popular perception of the Western is a story that centers on the life of a semi-nomadic wanderer, usually a cowboy or a gunfighter.[1]


The bolded part definitely is where _Hatfields & McCoys_ shares a commonality with the typical western. Change the names to say, "Smiths and Joneses" and change the setting to the California Gold Country and story would still make sense.

You also have to remember at that time, the overwhelming majority of the population still lived along the eastern coast of the US. The area between the Mississippi River and the west coast of the US was one big no-mans-land (at least from the white man's perspective). "Western United States" at that time probably meant anything west of the Appalachians.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

RonDawg said:


> You also have to remember at that time, the overwhelming majority of the population still lived along the eastern coast of the US. The area between the Mississippi River and the west coast of the US was one big no-mans-land (at least from the white man's perspective).* "Western United States" at that time probably meant anything west of the Appalachians.*


This.
The Cumberland Gap was only a footpath until Daniel Boone and his merry men used it in their explorations- I don't even think it was wide enough to accommodate a wagon until years later. 
When Kentucky was granted statehood in 1792 it was considered the first state in the "western frontier."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That's why "Mid-West" traditionally refers to Eastern states, and the geographical mid-west of the US is often called "Upper Mid-West" to distinguish it from the Mid-West in the East.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

I wanted tp watch but knew too late to Tivo.

Actually, I was hoping it was a documentary. Btut I might enjoy this too.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

Check your guide they are repeating the heck out it.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

vertigo235 said:


> There are tress now, but were there that many trees 150 years ago? A lot of trees can grow in 150 years.
> 
> I remember looking at old photos of my grandfather etc, and their were not many trees around their property at that time.





Flop said:


> Same thing with a lot of old civil war battlefields. Many battles were fought on clear land that is now covered by trees.


Many people forget (or are not aware of) exactly how many trees were felled in these areas during the Civil War in support of the war effort (or were simply torched). It would make sense that there were more trees 120-150 years after the Civil War than there were in the couple of decades immediately following.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> So did Paul Revere.


Paul Revere had a six shooter? Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_shooter


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

nyny523 said:


> 3 nights in a row. 2 hours each night.


actually, at least on the first two nights, the first airing or two has a slightly odd amount -- a few over 2 hours.. and at least one of the reruns of episode 1 is like 1:50..

Even though it's very very likely that there's simply EXTRA commercials in these longer airings, I didn't take my chances, and recorded the second airing of part 1.. Whew, most of the late night shows are reruns this week.

It wasn't the most entertaining thing in the world, but it was good. If I had upgraded my Tivo drive over the weekend, I probably would record it all for later.. As it is, I'm probably going to watch them each night.. (don't have the room to offload them either.)


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

YCantAngieRead said:


> I wanted tp watch but knew too late to Tivo.


History is repeating Part 1 and Part 2 before they air Part 3 on Wednesday night. All this Costner-esque magnificence starts at 5 PM, but check your local listings.



> Actually, I was hoping it was a documentary.


The channel best known for _Pawn Stars_, _Top Shot_, lumberjacks, and ******** in swamps I think long abandoned the documentary format to its H2 (formerly known as History International) subchannel, save for the occasional Nazi piece.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

After watching episode one, I couldn't help but thinking that Johnse Hatfield beat out Game Of Throne's Jon Snow for the Dumbest Young Man On TV award.

This was good. Looking forward to parts 2 and 3.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Flop said:


> Same thing with a lot of old civil war battlefields. Many battles were fought on clear land that is now covered by trees.


You're thinking about the big battlefields in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Southeastern Kentucky and adjacent West Virginia is not like that _at all_. 


Boston Fan said:


> Many people forget (or are not aware of) exactly how many trees were felled in these areas during the Civil War in support of the war effort (or were simply torched). It would make sense that there were more trees 120-150 years after the Civil War than there were in the couple of decades immediately following.


I can tell the difference between cleared forest land and plains.
And clearing trees doesn't change the topography- hills, man. 
_Hills._ Valleys. You're either walking uphill or downhill.
It doesn't change the species growing.
And cleared areas don't just magically stay cleared- undergrowth comes right back at you the next day- I battle it in my own woods. It would take a chain gang on constant duty to keep the verges of those roads as clear as the road near Hatfield's timber operation appeared to be. It is _very_ difficult to keep up with.
And _real_ logging roads were even worse- they were hardly more than trails.

The long shots are clearly not KY and WV- that's all I'm saying.
I can tell the difference.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> The long shots are clearly not KY and WV- that's all I'm saying.
> I can tell the difference.


I guess KY and WY should take pride in the fact that they're too modern to shoot Civil War-era movies in...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cearbhaill said:


> You're thinking about the big battlefields in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Southeastern Kentucky and adjacent West Virginia is not like that _at all_.
> 
> I can tell the difference between cleared forest land and plains.
> And clearing trees doesn't change the topography- hills, man.
> ...


I think yours is a typical problem a lot of us have when a show takes place in an area you're familiar with but is filmed elsewhere. As someone who's familiar with NYC and the surrounding areas, I find the same issues when they film a scene that's suppose to be NY in Vancouver or Toronto. While, yeah, there's BIG BUILDINGS, I can look at the street scape and know it's all wrong. And similarly, a show like The Good Wife which takes place in Chicago but is filmed in NY is laughable to me, as I notice things that are to me obviously NY but is supposed to be Chicago. I remember one scene where they showed a wide shot of them talking on the street and in the background were the subway yards with an obviously NYC subway train coming down the tracks. Must have looked even stranger to someone from Chi-Town.

Anyway, since I'm not effected by this for H&M, I really enjoyed it. I did have to put on the subtitles to understand some of the lingo. I think it's also a big drawn out. Don't know why, but I find myself rooting for the Hatfields. One, because I think Devil Anse (Costner's character) seems more level headed than Randall McCoy (Bill Paxton's character). Second, I like that the Hatfield Judge seems like a fair sort.

(Are we allowing spoilers in this thread or should we start another?)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

William Anderson "Devil Anse" Hatfield. Anybody have any idea what "Devil Anse" means? I looked him up on wikipedia but the article said nothing about his name.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anse is short for Anderson (like "Ran'l" is short for Randolph). I think "Devil Anse" was to distinguish him from a relative; Wikipedia talks about "Preacher Anse" who was the judge in the pig case.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> William Anderson "Devil Anse" Hatfield. Anybody have any idea what "Devil Anse" means? I looked him up on wikipedia but the article said nothing about his name.


I don't know the devil part, but "Anse" seems to be an abbreviation of Anderson. There is a "Deacon Anse" or "Preacher Anse" in the family tree too and his name is Anderson.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I fully realize that this is of no importance to anyone other than me, but this footage is FAR more representative of the topography of that area. Helen Keller could see the difference.

I think that I feel as if Kentucky has been misrepresented- it is far more beautiful than where ever this show was filmed.
FAR.
Clearings are tiny, trees are huge.

140-150 years ago is nothing- it can't have been all that different.






I know it is irrelevant.
If y'all would ignore me I'd stop


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

If the show has only half it's facts straight, I'm really feeling sympathetic towards the McCoys. I wonder whether the show's written by a McCoy descendant or sympathizer or was it really pretty much that the Hatfields were just that evil.


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

cheesesteak said:


> After watching episode one, I couldn't help but thinking that Johnse Hatfield beat out Game Of Throne's Jon Snow for the Dumbest Young Man On TV award.
> 
> This was good. Looking forward to parts 2 and 3.


I never thought of Jon Snow as dumb, but haven't read the books in ages and don't get HBO, so I won't argue  And Johnse gets ever DUMBER in the second part. I'm not sure how he can top Part 2's dumbness in part three!

BTW, has anyone looked at pics of the real players? The image I found for Jonse was dang creepy, and Roseanna was anything but a raving beauty!


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Linnemir said:


> I never thought of Jon Snow as dumb, but haven't read the books in ages and don't get HBO, so I won't argue  And Johnse gets ever DUMBER in the second part. I'm not sure how he can top Part 2's dumbness in part three!
> 
> BTW, has anyone looked at pics of the real players? The image I found for Jonse was dang creepy, and Roseanna was anything but a raving beauty!


so they don't really look like this?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Linnemir said:


> BTW, has anyone looked at pics of the real players? The image I found for Jonse was dang creepy, and Roseanna was anything but a raving beauty!


Roseanna's not too shabby looking on this web page:
http://blueridgecountry.com/archive/hatfields-and-mccoys.html


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The terrain is important. We don't get the feeling of the total hard scrabble existance until we would see the almost unihabitable terrain.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Setting a record for a basic cable non-sports event...


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

I've only watched Part One so far but I think its quite good! I have a question though and I don't know if spoilers are OK in this thread so just in case I put it under spoiler tags:



Spoiler



In one of the early scenes there's a guy at the bar in a Union jacket. At a table are a bunch of guys we find out later are Hatfields. Words are traded back and forth and the guy with the Union jacket leaves, barely missing being shot. Later on one of the guys from the table goes to the other guys home and kills him. We later find out the guy killed is the brother of Randall McCoy. Do I have my facts right? If so, I'm confused as to why Randall's brother had a Union jacket on when Randall and Anse Hatfield were definitely fighting together with the Confederacy. Did Randall actually fight with the Union?



Anyway, great show!

Gerry


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

There was mention after his death that it could be difficult to prove who killed him since even some of his "kin" could have wanted him dead. He did fight for the Union even though his brother was a Confederate. It wasn't unheard of during the Civil War for families to be divided and brother fighting brother.

To your post: Randle Mc Coy didn't fight for the Union, but his brother Asa Harmon McCoy did.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They were in a pretty divided area...in fact, the reason West Virginia exists is because most people there didn't want to succeed with the rest of Virgina. But the Hatfields lived on the West Virginia side of the river and mostly fought for the Confederacy, and the McCoys in Kentucky where the state was so divided it never really took a side.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

nirisahn said:


> If the show has only half it's facts straight, I'm really feeling sympathetic towards the McCoys. I wonder whether the show's written by a McCoy descendant or sympathizer or was it really pretty much that the Hatfields were just that evil.


I'm still holding these in their folder. How are you guys liking it so far? I'm kind of sensitive to extreme cruelty (like killing people's kids in front of them, stuff like that). Is this a "family friendly" type show or it "pretty bad" with all the blood, cruelty and killing? In other words, is this thing going haunt me?


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

There is blood, but I don't remember it being more than what I see on normal crime shows.
The only scene that really sticks in my head as being graphic is an execution of 3 of the boys. The way the bodies fell around the tree seemed very, very realistic. There was no blood there, but the ragdoll effect was very intense, to me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RonDawg said:


> It's not a western in the strictest sense (in particular location) but it shares quite a few elements of one. From Wikipedia:
> 
> The bolded part definitely is where Hatfields & McCoys shares a commonality with the typical western. Change the names to say, "Smiths and Joneses" and change the setting to the California Gold Country and story would still make sense.
> 
> You also have to remember at that time, the overwhelming majority of the population still lived along the eastern coast of the US. The area between the Mississippi River and the west coast of the US was one big no-mans-land (at least from the white man's perspective). "Western United States" at that time probably meant anything west of the Appalachians.


Sorry. That definition would mean that a story set in midevil Europe would be a western.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They were in a pretty divided area...in fact, the reason West Virginia exists is because most people there didn't want to *succeed* with the rest of Virgina. But the Hatfields lived on the West Virginia side of the river and mostly fought for the Confederacy, and the McCoys in Kentucky where the state was so divided it never really took a side.


Fun with typos!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> I fully realize that this is of no importance to anyone other than me, but this footage is FAR more representative of the topography of that area. Helen Keller could see the difference.
> 
> I think that I feel as if Kentucky has been misrepresented- it is far more beautiful than where ever this show was filmed.
> FAR.
> ...


Not sure it is irrelevant. Part of why the area was so focused on those two families and why it is so frontier like post Civil War even though the US was a sea to sea country was the terrain. Made the area insular.

That and the harshness of farming and working that land. The land itself is a huge part of the story. But maybe one that would not convey well, anyway.

If this were the real terrain, we would never have the term hillbilly.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Donbadabon said:


> There is blood, but I don't remember it being more than what I see on normal crime shows.
> The only scene that really sticks in my head as being graphic is an execution of 3 of the boys. The way the bodies fell around the tree seemed very, very realistic. There was no blood there, but the ragdoll effect was very intense, to me.


I can handle blood and shooting. I just can't handle extreme (messed up in the head type) cruelty... Kind of a Wuss in that regard. I had to stop watching "The Shield" for instance and some of the scenes from "Oz" still haunt me to this day. 

It sounds like this one is probably okay but I wanted to make sure before I dive in. Some of the previews (where that lady tells that guy he killed her entire family) gave me pause, but I'll give it a go. It sounds pretty good... Not _Lonesome Dove_ good, but pretty good.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> Sorry. That definition would mean that a story set in midevil Europe would be a western.


You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine, thanks.

Personally, I don't think anybody else besides you really cares what it's called.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

bareyb said:


> I'm still holding these in their folder. How are you guys liking it so far? I'm kind of sensitive to extreme cruelty (like killing people's kids in front of them, stuff like that). Is this a "family friendly" type show or it "pretty bad" with all the blood, cruelty and killing? In other words, is this thing going haunt me?


Definitely not family-friendly, but not overly gory. Some of the violence is mostly suggested but not shown. I don't remember much blood splattering.

Anyone else?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Donbadabon said:


> There is blood, but I don't remember it being more than what I see on normal crime shows.
> The only scene that really sticks in my head as being graphic is an execution of 3 of the boys. The way the bodies fell around the tree seemed very, very realistic. There was no blood there, but the ragdoll effect was very intense, to me.


The scene was filmed from behind and a short distance away, so you didn't see the gun shot wounds.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Sorry. That definition would mean that a story set in *midevil* Europe would be a western.





TonyD79 said:


> Fun with typos!


Hmmmmm ... I think you meant "medieval" in that earlier post, before you corrected someone else's spelling of "succeed" vs "secede".

BUSTED!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> Hmmmmm ... I think you meant "medieval" in that earlier post, before you corrected someone else's spelling of "succeed" vs "secede".
> 
> BUSTED!


And not only that, but correcting a midevil historian! 

(It's gotten to the point where I barely even notice "midevil" any more...)


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

I wonder if they're cow-orkers?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Jayjoans said:


> There was mention after his death that it could be difficult to prove who killed him since even some of his "kin" could have wanted him dead. He did fight for the Union even though his brother was a Confederate. It wasn't unheard of during the Civil War for families to be divided and brother fighting brother.
> 
> To your post: Randle Mc Coy didn't fight for the Union, but his brother Asa Harmon McCoy did.





TonyD79 said:


> Not sure it is irrelevant. Part of why the area was so focused on those two families and why it is so frontier like post Civil War even though the US was a sea to sea country was the terrain. Made the area insular.
> 
> That and the harshness of farming and working that land. The land itself is a huge part of the story. But maybe one that would not convey well, anyway.
> 
> If this were the real terrain, we would never have the term hillbilly.


These two issues combine to illustrate why people in this region are so clannish and have an extreme distrust of strangers.

Say you're sitting in your house and you hear horses, or a kid runs in and says "someone's coming!"
You can't see them- the trees and terrain block all sightlines.
By the time they get close enough to be glimpsed between trees you might see a blue jacket or you might see a gray. 
You have sons in both armies.
You know that there are bushwhackers from both sides in the area looking for others of your boys that are home.
Do you go out to see who it is or stay inside until you know absolutely for certain?

One of my g-g-grandfathers was shot to death in Pike Co. KY in 1867 by his own cousin for showing up to beg for/steal some corn to feed his children. He fought for the Confederacy and the murderin' cousin was a Union man. After all they had been through in the war they could not let it go.
They were just horrific times.

And I have to say- although I was raised near there by a mother with a pronounced accent, I moved away for 30 years and to a great degree lost mine. Just two nights of watching these guys and I have caught myself THINKING in hick.
It just "warshes" back over me like I never left.

By and large I think the accents in the show are ok. Not great.
But my NYC born and raised husband has to have subtitles on as it is to understand them so I guess more accent was best ruled out. 
The Appalachian English entry in wiki is pretty good and illustrates the accent well. 
I love it. 
I just love the whole area and the people within.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> Hmmmmm ... I think you meant "medieval" in that earlier post, before you corrected someone else's spelling of "succeed" vs "secede".
> 
> BUSTED!


I don't mind getting pointed out when my typing on my iPad or I myself mess up.

I wasn't correcting the other post. I thought it was a fun typo that completely changed the meaning in a humorous way.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> 140-150 years ago is nothing- it can't have been all that different.


I'm not an arborist, but for a lot of trees, 140-150 years is A LOT. It's really only things like redwoods where you need many hundreds of years to get huge.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RonDawg said:


> You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine, thanks.
> 
> Personally, I don't think anybody else besides you really cares what it's called.


Facts are not opinions. This is not a western. The Hatfields and McCoys were not in the west. Period.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> And I have to say- although I was raised near there by a mother with a pronounced accent, I moved away for 30 years and to a great degree lost mine. Just two nights of watching these guys and I have caught myself THINKING in hick.
> It just "warshes" back over me like I never left.


OK, it's not really hick at all, but your post reminded me of it..

There's lots of words I'm curious about whether they were used back then.

The 'b' word.
I think they said "humping" and a few other I-thought-were-more-modern euphemisms for sex.

I'm actually somewhat glad they had more mature language here.. Or rather, it's better than bleeping it out or using RIDICULOUSLY silly euphemisms.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> Facts are not opinions. This is not a western. The Hatfields and McCoys were not in the west. Period.


Whatever


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

mattack said:


> I'm not an arborist, but for a lot of trees, 140-150 years is A LOT. It's really only things like redwoods where you need many hundreds of years to get huge.


Not to mention one of the main plots in the first episode was an argument over timber.

Obviously it's not unusual for the timber to be scarce if they are cutting it all down to sell it.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

mattack said:


> I'm not an arborist, but for a lot of trees, 140-150 years is A LOT. It's really only things like redwoods where you need many hundreds of years to get huge.


You've missed the forest for the trees.
My point was 140-150 years is NOT enough time for topography to morph and the entire spectrum of indigenous plants disappear and be replaced by European species. 
I did not see the first hickory or poplar or white oak or in the six hours I watched and I was looking.
*That* was my point.

They took some liberties with Randolph's death.
He did die of injuries related to a fire but I don't believe he was engulfed- just an arm or something. He was in his late 80's by that time and I think infection got him.

By and large the abiding impression I came away with is that the children and relatives of these two men made one dumbass move after another. If someone had just picked off Jim Vance early on the whole thing could have been avoided.
All the moonshine didn't help.

Good miniseries!


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> By and large the abiding impression I came away with is that the children and relatives of these two men made one dumbass move after another. If someone had just picked off Jim Vance early on the whole thing could have been avoided!


Assuming the historical accuracy of the miniseries is correct, it seems like the biggest instigators were not the family patriarchs, but trusted members within their families.

For the Hatfields, it was most definitely Jim Vance, with Cap being his faithful soldier. For the McCoys, I would say it's equally shared between lawyer Perry Cline and Pinkerton man turned bounty hunter "Bad" Frank Phillips.

I also agree that if Jim Vance had been taken out much earlier, this struggle wouldn't have nearly been as bloody. Even Devil Anse wondered aloud to his wife that he would eventually had to have killed Vance himself.

I was sad to see "Cotton Top" being executed. While he deserved to go to jail for killing one of the young McCoy girls, I truly believe it was an accident, and his mental state simply shows he doesn't have the malice aforethought for murder, much less a capital offense. If anybody should have been hanged for that crime, it should have been Cap (who was mentioned at the end becoming a deputy sheriff), since he was the #2 guy in that raid on the McCoy homestead. Jim Vance of course was the leader, but then he got what was coming to him at the hands of "Bad" Frank.



> Good miniseries!


Issues with the set aside, I'm sure Costner would be happy to hear that a bona-fide hillbilly thinks it was a good portrayal of America's most famous feud. Or should the term be "Appalachian-American?"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> My point was 140-150 years is NOT enough time for topography to morph and the entire spectrum of indigenous plants disappear and be replaced by European species.
> I did not see the first hickory or poplar or white oak or in the six hours I watched and I was looking.
> *That* was my point.


I'm pretty sure you realize that you are effectively arguing they shouldn't have made the show because they couldn't afford to shoot in WV and KY, and that you know how silly that is.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

mattack said:


> There's lots of words I'm curious about whether they were used back then.
> 
> The 'b' word.
> I think they said "humping" and a few other I-thought-were-more-modern euphemisms for sex.


If the "b" word you are talking about ends in "-tard" that I am sure was in use back then, and I believe the definition at that time was someone born out of wedlock.

I don't recall them using "humping" but when Randall McCoy walked into the bedroom for the first time since his return from the war, and his wife expecting (but not being particularly looking forward) to have sex with him, she asks him not to "spill his seed" inside of her. That seemed a little too modern.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RonDawg said:


> If the "b" word you are talking about ends in "-tard" that I am sure was in use back then, and I believe the definition at that time was someone born out of wedlock.


The one ending in "-itch" was used to describe a female a man didn't approve of (in the fight scene where Nancy McCoy gets beaten up).


RonDawg said:


> I don't recall them using "humping" but when Randall McCoy walked into the bedroom for the first time since his return from the war, and his wife expecting (but not being particularly looking forward) to have sex with him, she asks him not to "spill his seed" inside of her. That seemed a little too modern.


Modern? That's from the Bible!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

RonDawg said:


> I was sad to see "Cotton Top" being executed. While he deserved to go to jail for killing one of the young McCoy girls, I truly believe it was an accident, and his mental state simply shows he doesn't have the malice aforethought for murder, much less a capital offense.
> Issues with the set aside, I'm sure Costner would be happy to hear that a bona-fide hillbilly thinks it was a good portrayal of America's most famous feud. Or should the term be "Appalachian-American?"


We're mountain people 

I haven't looked, but wondered why Cottontop received a hanging sentence while all the others got life.
That didn't seem right.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm pretty sure you realize that you are effectively arguing they shouldn't have made the show because they couldn't afford to shoot in WV and KY, and that you know how silly that is.


Yup.
And I said way back that if people would stop responding to me I'd quit talking about it.
I only want folks to realize the natural beauty of the area. We have an incredibly diverse and truly unique ecosystem and it pained me to see it misrepresented.
That's all.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I agree with Toni that terrain is an important part of the story. Families would live somewhat in isolation. It was not an easy "Lets get the buckboard and take the family to town." type of society. 

I saw an article on the Hatfields vs the McCoys on ABC Word news and it looks like the families have reunions and other events together.


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

bareyb said:


> I'm still holding these in their folder. How are you guys liking it so far? I'm kind of sensitive to extreme cruelty (like killing people's kids in front of them, stuff like that). Is this a "family friendly" type show or it "pretty bad" with all the blood, cruelty and killing? In other words, is this thing going haunt me?


I found it haunting. I won't say I had nightmares about it, but kind of images flickering thru my dreams. Lots of killing, many shots of the deceased and their wounds.

Even so, I truly enjoyed watching it - kind of the sick fascination of watching the slow-motion replays of a train wreck.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> I haven't looked, but wondered why Cottontop received a hanging sentence while all the others got life.


I believe it was due to attorney incompetence, if not outright malfeasance, at the hands of Perry Cline. Remember during the trial phase when Cotton Top kept saying "But you told me to say that I had shot her"?

That's why I found it odd that despite him working primarily for the McCoys (and being one himself) he was representing the Hatfields as well.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

bareyb said:


> I can handle blood and shooting. I just can't handle extreme (messed up in the head type) cruelty... Kind of a Wuss in that regard. I had to stop watching "The Shield" for instance and some of the scenes from "Oz" still haunt me to this day.


There are some scenes which depict in an incredible amount of depravity.



Spoiler



For example, when the one McCoy (?) was shot dead in the road after making a loud and drunken boast about cutting the nuts off of members of the other family? It wasn't enough that he had been shot multiple times, but then one of the opposite family had to go up to him and repeatedly stab him in the groin too.

Or, when the 3 young McCoys were executed in the forest for their role in the killing of Anse's younger brother at the carnival, after they were shot and clearly dead, Jim Vance had to go up to each one personally and put another round into them.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

BTW while Toni will take issue with its claims of "landscape accuracy" this video describes filming in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania:

http://www.history.com/shows/hatfie...becomes-appalachia#romania-becomes-appalachia


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Is there a real picture of this scene? It seemed like they were setting it up to match something that was really taken:


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

RonDawg said:


> BTW while Toni will take issue with its claims of "landscape accuracy" this video describes filming in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania:
> 
> http://www.history.com/shows/hatfie...becomes-appalachia#romania-becomes-appalachia


Interesting.. thanks!


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

I read that Anse was a shortened version of the German name Anselm. Devil was a nickname he picked up somewhere along the way.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why the Hatfields brought Cotton Top with them on the raids.

Thank goodness Bad Frank met a violent end. Jim Vance, too.

I liked this miniseries a lot. I hope the History Channel does as good a job on whatever the next project is.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> Setting a record for a basic cable non-sports event...


NBC Nightly News said it was #2, after "High School Musical 2".

I have no idea if this is a distinction between quick overnights vs the more in depth ratings, or big cities vs. whole country (or even if the "separate" groups I mention are really two ways to describe the same division).


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

mattack said:


> NBC Nightly News said it was #2, after "High School Musical 2".
> 
> I have no idea if this is a distinction between quick overnights vs the more in depth ratings, or big cities vs. whole country (or even if the "separate" groups I mention are really two ways to describe the same division).


I have seen H&M's listed as the #1 not-sports ad supported cable show. I wonder if HS Musical ran without ads making H&M's #2 over-all but #1 with ads.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Potato....po-tah-toe....it's doing well. We're through the first two hours and they were spectacular....


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

markz said:


> I have seen H&M's listed as the #1 not-sports ad supported cable show. I wonder if HS Musical ran without ads making H&M's #2 over-all but #1 with ads.


It has to do with Disney only running commercials for Disney, so it's not really ad supported.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cherry ghost -- LOVE your avatar  ...lifelong, diehard Blackhawks fan here...


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

So how many facts in this were correct? How much was supposition or changed to be more dramatic?

I thought this was very good but I couldn't find information if Hatfield really deserted the Civil War. 

And how did Nancy marry Frank Phillips, I thought she was already married to Johnse?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Queue said:


> So how many facts in this were correct? How much was supposition or changed to be more dramatic?
> 
> I thought this was very good but I couldn't find information if Hatfield really deserted the Civil War.
> 
> And how did Nancy marry Frank Phillips, I thought she was already married to Johnse?


A lot was changed but IMO not to the point where it affected the story. For example the Wall Hatfield (Powers Boothe) character was a compilation of two Hatfield judges/magistrates- "Preacher Anse" Hatfield and Walls "Deacon" Hatfield.

"Desertion" is hard to figure- from my own family letters I know that my ancestors from this area regularly stopped fighting in the war to go back home for a spell. When the crop was in or the baby born they went back to fighting. They literally took vacations from the war.
If you browse through the muster rolls you see them present, not present, and back and forth.

The real reason I popped back in here is to tell y'all that The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys. 
Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> ...The real reason I popped back in here is to tell y'all that The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys.
> Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


Thanks! Recording set...


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> The real reason I popped back in here is to tell y'all that The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys.
> Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


Already setup! Thanks!


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> ...
> 
> The real reason I popped back in here is to tell y'all that The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys.
> Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


Thanks! Will record.


----------



## jdfs (Oct 21, 2002)

Is this being reshown or available by any electronic / ondemand means (other than torrents)?


----------



## Byteofram (Oct 29, 2004)

Yes...History channel is reshowing all the parts multiple times. Sat they are showing them starting at 5pm I believe in a row.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Considering the debate on whether or not it should be considered a Western, I found this article slightly relevant.

Will The Success Of 'Hatfields & McCoys' Spur A Wave Of Western-Themed Series?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/wil...-mccoys-spur-a-wave-of-western-themed-series/

Just two weeks ago, TV networks' infatuation with period Westerns seemed to have waned. Of the slew of such projects put in development by the broadcast networks last season, only one, NBC's The Frontier, had been picked up to pilot, and it didn't make the cut to series. At the same time, TNT passed on its own period Western pilot, Tin Star. Two weeks later, History's Hatfields & McCoys burst into the scene, drawing huge crowds. Yes, its viewership skewed older, which is understandable given the historic subject matter, but there were plenty of 18-49-year-olds among the 13-14 million who tuned in for each episode to get the broadcast networks' attention. And the timing is perfect as pitch season is just around the corner.....


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Also, this article from ew.com is tagged with the keyword "Westerns" and says:

'Hatfields & McCoys': 5 things to expect from History's miniseries



> 3. Delight at seeing Costner doing another Western. It's more than just how comfortable he looks in costume, on horseback, and carrying a pistol. It's that you believe he understands backcountry justice, which makes a scene like the one in part 3, when Devil Anse takes his loose-lipped son Johnse fishing - and sits behind him - all the more suspenseful.


It's also tagged with the keywords "Middle-Aged Butt-Kicking". That made me laugh!

So, in my opinion, no it is not a Western in the strictest sense of the word, but it is definitely very similar to the Western genre. If you were to remove the names of the families and locations, people would assume it's a Western. Only by using historical names would people know it was Kentucky & W Virginia.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Stumbled on this blog of a Hatfield descendant sharing some oral family history as compared to the mini-series.

Some good details, including Johnse was not in love, he was a player! She's answering questions in the comment sections as well.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> The real reason I popped back in here is to tell y'all that The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys.
> Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


Interesting, searching netflix (to rate the miniseries), I found a 1974 documentary (with a Biography icon.. guess they bought the rights to air the show), called "Hatfields & McCoys: An American Feud". It's 50 minutes (so presumably aired in an hour long timeslot back then.. fewer commercials, ya know).

There's also ANOTHER 2012 Hatfields movie
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Hatfie...&strackid=4b7a36476b6ffab7_2_srl&trkid=222336
but it's only 90 minutes long.. Christian Slater is the big name.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

jdfs said:


> Is this being reshown or available by any electronic / ondemand means (other than torrents)?


You can also watch it directly off the History Channel site:

http://www.history.com/shows/hatfie...sts/full-episodes#hatfields-and-mccoys-part-1

The History Channel Store is selling both DVDs and Blu-rays of it for those who have to have physical media. I could swear I saw History Channel mentioning its availability on iTunes and Amazon on Demand but for some reason neither have it.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

tlc said:


> Stumbled on this blog of a Hatfield descendant sharing some oral family history as compared to the mini-series.
> 
> Some good details, including Johnse was not in love, he was a player! She's answering questions in the comment sections as well.


That is a great blog, thanks for sharing!


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

Amazon has the dvd and blu-ray. I didn't see a digital version of any kind, not even to buy or rent via download let alone streaming.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I quite enjoyed this miniseries.

The amount of family members each side was able to bring to the feud is totally foreign to me.

Before watching I did not know the two families were based in different states.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Good stuff. I ended up siding with the Hatfields in a large way. 

So where did Randall get the money to fund his side of the feud?


----------



## purwater (Aug 25, 2005)

I found myself thinking the whole time that the Hatfields didn't want a feud (other than Jim) and the McCoys always seemed to be trying to start something. Perry Cline seemed to be stirring the pot most of the time. Not sure how accurate the history was for the miniseries.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Just finished it tonight. Pretty good. The closer to the end it got the more I wanted it to last longer.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

Watching part 1. I just can't figure out why Costner thinks that he can play the part of a 25 year old.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

purwater said:


> I found myself thinking the whole time that the Hatfields didn't want a feud (other than Jim) and the McCoys always seemed to be trying to start something. Perry Cline seemed to be stirring the pot most of the time. Not sure how accurate the history was for the miniseries.


I agree. I definitely came down on the side of the Hatfields. It was telling to see McCoy run out the back door and allow the possibility of his entire family being burned out while he ran away. Religion was his crutch. I loved that Devil wasn't having any of it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stujac said:


> I agree. I definitely came down on the side of the Hatfields. It was telling to see McCoy run out the back door and allow the possibility of his entire family being burned out while he ran away. Religion was his crutch. I loved that Devil wasn't having any of it.


It is a bit ironic that you use the Hatfields burning and shooting women and children to death as an example of why you prefer them to the McCoys... 

I think the McCoys were monsters to begin with, and the Hatfields turned into even bigger monsters.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

*I* think there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides.
I don't see anyone being right anywhere, just buttloads of unnecessary tragedy and suffering.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree with Toni and Rob...both sides are equally guilty, though the Hatfields had meaner people. Jim Vance was by far the worst, but even Devll Anse himself ended up being someone worthy of going to hell when he denied any mercy to the 3 McCoy boys despite the pleas of both their father and mother. Plus, remember the scene near the beginning (and was used in the trailers) when Devil Anse killed the second boy in the Union uniform, simply because he didn't want any witnesses? Randall McCoy had a relative who fought for the Union and did nothing to him, unlike Jim Vance. Devil Anse also threw Cotton Top "under the bus" (yes I know there were no buses back then) rather than try to plea for his release.

As far as Randall McCoy running out the back door, he originally did not want to do that. His wife and the one son who was eventually killed in front convinced him to do that. The reasoning behind it was that it was hoped if Randall was not there, the Hatfield posse would go away and leave the rest of the family alone. However when the Hatfields set fire to the house, everything changed, and even Jim Vance admitted to Devil Anse that things turned out badly.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

It seemed the McCoys were painted as mostly idiots or mentally ill. Those three boys locked up calling for Pa appeared to be a bunch of fools. And the senior McCoys were dillusional.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

The only McCoy that I thought would have any sort of mental illness was Randall himself, and it was clearly PTSD from the war and being a POW. That could explain why he had that "They're out to get me" mentality and definitely a factor in how he became an alcoholic.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The documentary that was cited earlier is interesting (so far...I'm only a half-hour into it) in its discussion of the feud's origins. Basically, everybody agrees that nobody has a clue what started it, but it must have had something to do with the Civil War because before that the families coexisted in peace for a half century, and then all hell breaks loose.

They also played a little game with the infuriating tendency of shows like this to present an expert giving a controversial theory as if it's established fact, and then not giving any kind of context for the theory. On the question of the McCoys' allegiances during the Civil War, they had one expert categorically state that while a few were Union soldiers, most were Confederate sympathizers, followed immediately by another expert who categorically stated that they were all Union men.

But then they lost points by suggesting that Devil Anse took part in the first murder (of the Union McCoy), when everything I've seen (not much, granted) says that it was conclusively proven that he was home sick when the murder took place.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> The History Channel is airing a documentary tomorrow June 2 at 4pm est- America's Greatest Feud: The History of the Hatfields and McCoys.
> Two hours, made in 2012 so seems to be new.


forgot about this. Anyone know if it will re-air? I can't find it on there site.


----------



## kilcher (Mar 6, 2002)

I've only skimmed a few pages of this thread because we're only half way through the first part but...

Does anyone know why the language was edited? Seems kind of silly since I believe this is the first time it's aired anywhere.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

kilcher said:


> I've only skimmed a few pages of this thread because we're only half way through the first part but...
> 
> Does anyone know why the language was edited? Seems kind of silly since I believe this is the first time it's aired anywhere.


I haven't noticed language being edited - which words?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RonDawg said:


> As far as Randall McCoy running out the back door, he originally did not want to do that. His wife and the one son who was eventually killed in front convinced him to do that. The reasoning behind it was that it was hoped if Randall was not there, the Hatfield posse would go away and leave the rest of the family alone. However when the Hatfields set fire to the house, everything changed, and even Jim Vance admitted to Devil Anse that things turned out badly.


According to the documentary, Randolph didn't leave until the house was on fire, the girl and boy were dead, and his wife was beaten nearly to death and left for dead. Then and only then did he run away.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

kilcher said:


> I've only skimmed a few pages of this thread because we're only half way through the first part but...
> 
> Does anyone know why the language was edited? Seems kind of silly since I believe this is the first time it's aired anywhere.


We recorded a 4pm re-airing of the first part and the words were bleeped. But the other two were recorded during prime time and nothing was bleeped. I thought it was because of the time slot of the re-airing.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I read on another forum that the first airings had a longer scene or two as well as being the only ones not bleeped.
I haven't compared two recordings to see but they had examples.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> I read on another forum that the first airings had a longer scene or two as well as being the only ones not bleeped.
> I haven't compared two recordings to see but they had examples.


The first airings ran a few minutes over, so if subsequent airings were exactly two hours I doubt they made up the difference by cutting commercials...


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

zordude said:


> Before watching I did not know the two families were based in different states.


I want to know how the families kept meeting up at voting sites when they were in different states.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

netringer said:


> I want to know how the families kept meeting up at voting sites when they were in different states.


The little bit of the documentary I saw said that it was common for people from out of state to come to the election meetings even if they couldn't vote. It was a social time and they often had family in the other state.

Remember, this was on the border of the states, so it was just across the river.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

netringer said:


> I want to know how the families kept meeting up at voting sites when they were in different states.


I am pretty sure that from what I read and saw on a documentary, that even though each family was largely from different states, there were some of each family on either side of the state line.

The families lived in relative harmony before the civil war and for the 13 years between Asa Hatfiled's murder and the pig incident.

There was also more inter-marrying between the two families than what was shown on the miniseries.

Some of the McCoys even worked for the Hatfield lumber business at one time.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I just watched the re-airs, very fascinating and sad. Did the real Randall McCoy die in that fashion or was that creative license?


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> I just watched the re-airs, very fascinating and sad. Did the real Randall McCoy die in that fashion or was that creative license?


I believe it was discussed earlier in this thread but he did die as a result of the fire but he was not engulfed as shown in the show. He was in his 80's.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> I just watched the re-airs, very fascinating and sad. Did the real Randall McCoy die in that fashion or was that creative license?


He died when he fell in a cooking fire - can't find any evidence that he was burning papers related to the feud.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The first airings ran a few minutes over, so if subsequent airings were exactly two hours I doubt they made up the difference by cutting commercials...


I already said that earlier in the thread! The first 2 airings of the first episode, and I THINK the second episode, were a bit over 2 hours.. (I think 2:06 for the first ep, 2:10ish for the 2nd).

The documentary was somewhat interesting.. When I heard Costner, I thought immediately it was JUST going to be an ad for the miniseries, using clips from the miniseries.. But it didn't. It had more detail in some areas (family tree, exact years) than the miniseries.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

dthmj said:


> The little bit of the documentary I saw said that it was common for people from out of state to come to the election meetings even if they couldn't vote. It was a social time and they often had family in the other state.
> 
> Remember, this was on the border of the states, so it was just across the river.


In addition, the Hatfields and the McCoys (and others) sold merchandise (moonshine in particular) at these events. I called them "carnivals" earlier but they were closer to that than elections.

If Amway and Tupperware were around back then, I'm sure the families would be selling these too.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Oh dear- someone is doing a "Hatfield vs. McCoy" reality show...

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Auditions_Set_for_Hatfield_and_McCoy_TV_Show_157793725.html

_"A new unscripted TV show is looking for descendants of the Hatfield and McCoy clans.
The show will put members of the two families against one another in a competition."_


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> Oh dear- someone is doing a "Hatfield vs. McCoy" reality show...
> 
> http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Auditions_Set_for_Hatfield_and_McCoy_TV_Show_157793725.html
> 
> ...


Sounds like a great idea... what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## kilcher (Mar 6, 2002)

mike_k said:


> I haven't noticed language being edited - which words?


Might have been the timeslot as others have mentioned. We recorded all 3 in one night - the first had some things edited out but the second didn't and it would have aired later in the evening. Just bits of curse words muted out here and there.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Just watched the whole thing and the documentary today for the second time so my wife could watch it. She really enjoyed it too.

We are thinking about doing the driving tour of the area later this summer or fall. Anyone else do that yet? It's about 3.5 hour from us.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Oh dear- someone is doing a "Hatfield vs. McCoy" reality show...
> 
> http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/Auditions_Set_for_Hatfield_and_McCoy_TV_Show_157793725.html
> 
> ...


Didn't Family Feud already do this?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I think what amazes me is the amount of lawlessness. Not only did they decide to take matters into their own hands but they had total disregard for the law afterward. "Well they killed my brother so I am going to kill them". I sure am glad I did not live back then.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mwhip said:


> I think what amazes me is the amount of lawlessness. Not only did they decide to take matters into their own hands but they had total disregard for the law afterward. "Well they killed my brother so I am going to kill them". I sure am glad I did not live back then.


Or at least that you didn't kill their brother...


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

There were not many police forces so people took matters into their own hands. I suspect this feud came from their culture.


----------



## Wilbrad (Nov 22, 2012)

Cearbhaill said:


> A lot was changed but IMO not to the point where it affected the story. For example the Wall Hatfield (Powers Boothe) character was a compilation of two Hatfield judges/magistrates- "Preacher Anse" Hatfield and Walls "Deacon" Hatfield.
> 
> "Desertion" is hard to figure- from my own family letters I know that my ancestors from this area regularly stopped fighting in the war to go back home for a spell. When the crop was in or the baby born they went back to fighting. They literally took vacations from the war.
> If you browse through the muster rolls you see them present, not present, and back and forth.
> ...


I wouldn't put much faith in the History Channel when it comes to accuracy. They've just run a series called "The Men Who Built America," and it was apparently almost all fiction. I googled the name of the series plus "accurate," and there are several blogs that point out all the inaccuracies.


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

Really liked the mini-series. I knew Kevin Costner and Bill Paxton were in it and recognized them of course as well as many others, but I had no idea Tom Berenger was in it doing a great job playing the despicable Jim Vance until well after the mini-series was over. What a great acting job, reminds me of him in Platoon.


----------

