I can see why TEXASVILLE flopped. I don't know if I've ever seen a film adaptation that was too faithful to the source material until this. I think unless someone was very familiar with the book [which I am] they would have a hard time following the movie. McMurtry did not adapt it; Bogdonovich wrote the screenplay and it looks like he just tried to cram as much of the book as possible into a 126 minute running time.
It's not all bad, some of the performances are pretty good, and all of the principal cast members from PICTURE SHOW [or at least the ones who made it to the end of that movie] reprise their roles, right down to Eileen Brennan. Annie Potts is very good as Duane's wife Karla [who is one of the major characters in the book.]
But both movie and book kind of exist in a weird world where nothing really has any consequence, be it bankruptcy or adultery, and that can make it a little tough to be invested in the story--I saw one review on Netflix refer to it as "like a really slow episode of DALLAS."
What would Snake Plissken do?