1883 ending disappointing

[Trigger Mike]

we waited until 1883 was free to watch it and it finished last night.  Overall an interesting show.  the narrator was awful loose for the time period but the show was interesting.  then she died at the end and then she began to narrate the show after her death and was portrayed as still on earth having a good time with her Indian husband.  weird.  id didn't seem thought out.  seems like the mom closing out the show might have been better or somebody.

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

Tried watching it and gave up. It never grabbed me.

[Blackwater 53393]

I was disappointed as well!

 

Altogether, a rather dismal story shot with some great scenery!  I wonder if they knew the plot and the ending when they chose to have it narrated the way it was.

[Irish Pat]

i think it is coming back with 6 more episodes 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

20 minutes ago, Irish-Pat said:

i think it is coming back with 6 more episodes 

1883, or the the present day series with Costner? I think that was the plan for Costner, but last I saw he and management are far apart. I thought the series had become stale so I’ve already lost interest. 
 

Never made it past the first episode of 1883. Too much effort for too little payoff. 
 

 

[Bailey Creek,5759]

I was disappointed. In it as well.

Do like 1923 thou.

[Anvil Al #59168]

They give a good clue.

 

He tells him. You will have it for 7 generations. They we will take it back. 

[Trigger Mike]

I did hear recently that because Harrison ford agreed to another season of 1923 they opted to not do 1883.  

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

Would have been better as a two hour movie.  Too drawn out.

[Dutch Nichols, SASS #6461]

Absolutely hated it.

Southern white girl screwing an Indian, becomes his bride and rides around half naked.'

 And her father an ex confederate office is OK with it.

 VERY believable!!!

Taylor screwed the pooch on this one as it really had potential.

 

Edited in:   the show is 1883 NOT 2023 I was going by the sentiments of society in 1883 !!

[Tyrel Cody]

I hated every second of 1883. I only watched past the 1st episode because Missus Tyrel liked. Tim and Faith are not actors and they should stop trying(don't care for their "music" either). Terrible storyline, terrible acting, just awful. I normally shows with Sam Elliott, but I think it's past time for him to hang up the spurs.

 

I very much like 1923 and hope there actually is another season of it.

 

I'm done with Yellowstone too. Whoever decided to delay the start of Season 4 and then only do a half of Season 5 is an idiot; I've completely lost interest.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

I do not think the writer(s) knew much about the frontier/trail life. The first river crossing was a disaster, that with some common sense, and some forethought, should have been done without loss of life. 

Besides...in 1883, a lot of the families could have taken the railroad west, and been there waiting on their husbands/fathers to catch up with them in their wagons, at some point. 

I did like it that most of the saddles were the old time A-fork saddles, and not the more modern saddles we so often see. 

I did see one of the main characters using a model 1885 high-wall, and yet this is supposed to be 1883. At least I did not notice any model 1892's.

I have never seen any women, in all the old historical photographs I have seen, wearing sleeveless blouses, either. In those days, it would have been way too bold. 

I did think I heard someone say "okay", which was a word that became common much later, than in 1883. "All right" would have been more authentic to the year 1883. 

Also, in the series, the women rode astride the horse, and none on a side-saddle. Later, they did ride astride, with a skirt/split riding breeches, but like as not it was not a common sight in 1883. I will say it could have happened, as was necessary to fit the situation, but it was not a common occurrence. 

It was strange to hear some of the Indians speak such perfect English, as well, with no accent. 

Overall, I was disappointed in 1883, especially the finale.

Where is Louis L'Amour, or Elmer Kelton, or J. Frank Dobie, when you really need them???

For me, it was poorly written, and seemed to show a lack of research. 

 

My Two Bits.

W.K. 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

I watched the first two episodes and I can’t stand Antigunners Tim McGraw and his wife. I’m also done with Sam Elliot ever since he did a commercial for BIDEN! 

[Henry T Harrison]

9 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

I do not think the writer(s) knew much about the frontier/trail life. The first river crossing was a disaster, that with some common sense, and some forethought, should have been done without loss of life. 

Besides...in 1883, a lot of the families could have taken the railroad west, and been there waiting on their husbands/fathers to catch up with them in their wagons, at some point. 

I did like it that most of the saddles were the old time A-fork saddles, and not the more modern saddles we so often see. 

I did see one of the main characters using a model 1885 high-wall, and yet this is supposed to be 1883. At least I did not notice any model 1892's.

I have never seen any women, in all the old historical photographs I have seen, wearing sleeveless blouses, either. In those days, it would have been way too bold. 

I did think I heard someone say "okay", which was a word that became common much later, than in 1883. "All right" would have been more authentic to the year 1883. 

Also, in the series, the women rode astride the horse, and none on a side-saddle. Later, they did ride astride, with a skirt/split riding breeches, but like as not it was not a common sight in 1883. I will say it could have happened, as was necessary to fit the situation, but it was not a common occurrence. 

It was strange to hear some of the Indians speak such perfect English, as well, with no accent. 

Overall, I was disappointed in 1883, especially the finale.

Where is Louis L'Amour, or Elmer Kelton, or J. Frank Dobie, when you really need them???

For me, it was poorly written, and seemed to show a lack of research. 

 

My Two Bits.

W.K. 

 

Not one in 10,000 viewers knew or cared about those details 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:58 AM, Henry T Harrison said:

Not one in 10,000 viewers knew or cared about those details 

Well, I for one, care! 

I notice the inaccuracies, when it comes to westerns. I could not care less if anyone else knows, or cares...that is their problem/ignorance. 

They can just as easily make a movie that is accurate, as they can inaccurate, if they wanted to. 

As they say: "the devil is in the details".

I must again say that most of the saddles were accurate...the old time A-fork, high cantle, and not the flat, swelled fork saddles of the 20th century. That was refreshing to see.  

Plus, as I said, the writers did not seem to have a lot of background on travel, in the old west. If the main characters were so experienced, they sure made some rookie mistakes. The goal of an experienced guide is to get the majority of the folks to their destination, and that entails a lot of river crossings, and bad weather. Most of these folks did not survive the trip. As I said, this is 1883, so many of them could have perhaps taken the railroad pretty far west as they could afford to. This time period should, perhaps, been better set in 1868, and not 1883. 

Overall, not very well written, or thought out.

Plus, the ending was a disappointment...really weird/lame...something I pretty much expect from today's writers, who watch too much "The View".  

My Two Bits.

W.K.