New Alamo Movie

[atr]

I saw the movie and was disappointed . Possibly Davey was a fumbling bum from Kentucky , but i don't remember him that way . In one scene he's startled to hear that there was going to be a fight as he was there for land and not fightin'. I doubt that he actually played his fiddle on the wall accompanying the Mexican band , but i liked that part . Throughout the movie Jim Bowie was portrayed as a drunk with a knife . He died drunk with two pistols and a knife . There had to be a good side to Jim but it wasn't shown . Travis was portrayed as weak and indecisive and had to strike a deal with Bowie as to who was in charge . When i , 'remember the Alamo' i think of gallant , heroic men who stated with thier own lives that we shall be pushed no farther . This movie portrays a bunch of losers who by fate are trapped in the same place at the same time . It was boosted before the premier as being historically correct but the jury is still out as to whether or not Davey was taken prisoner and later executed . He was taken prisoner and later executed in the movie . Maybe it was historically correct and maybe it wasn't but i wouldn't pay a nickle to see it again . It was a poor movie . On the other hand I've watched John Waynes , Alamo , at least a dozen times and more than likely will watch it again .

 

I generally agree with you, but (apparently) according to eyewitnesses (there were survivors), Davy did play the fiddle. Davy was from Tennessee, not Kentucky. He did go to Texas to start a new life, not end it. But I believe he died bravely. An American eyewitness (the wife of one of the officers) who survived is quoted as saying she saw his body laying near the Armory, probably the source for the John Wayne version. Bowie was very sick at the Alamo--this has been portrayed in several ways in various movies. Bowie was a brave man, famous in his day, but was in bed during much of the siege. Travis was a young hotblood--it got him killed early in the battle. They were all heros and I have long found it hard to believe the de la Pena version.....

 

For what it's worth, "The Alamo" was released today on DVD. For techies it has a Dolby Digital EX soundtrack which adds the extra surround sound of a center rear channel. Not many movies feature this and it sounds great. I hope the movie is factual because they sure shattered conceptions in it. Good flick! :m2c:

 

[Old Charlie]

The new Alamo movie is the same old left wing propaganda to destroy anything American. To them we are the bad guys and they will do and and say anything to try and tear down this country!
Old Charlie

 

The new Alamo movie is the same old left wing propaganda to destroy anything American.

I believe the propaganda has always been that the defenders of the Alamo were fighting for their freedom as "Americans".

At the time of this battle, it had nothing to do with "America", except that the rebel leaders had come predominatly from America. They weren't Americans fighting for their freedom. They were already free "Americans".

They were fighting to take land from Mexico. They tried to secede from Mexico and they failed. Were they heros? Not to the country who's land was being stolen.

Obviously, America ultimately succeeded in taking the land from Mexico, so that makes the defenders of the Alamo "American heros". If Texas still belonged to Mexico, they'd just be a bunch of dead rebels who's land grab didn't work.

 

[Claude Mathis]

If Texas still belonged to Mexico, they'd just be a bunch of dead rebels who's land grab didn't work.

Well, don't beat around the bush. Tell us how you really feel. :winking:

I just rented the film and will watch it in the next couple of days.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Don't tell Claude all the defenders die. He hasn't seen it yet and doesn't know how it ends. :haha:

There was just a documentary on the History Channel regarding the volitilities of the time. "Fillibuster" originally referred to a private war waged against a "foreign" country by citizens not backed by their own government. Santa Anna had squashed a couple such incursions prior to The Alamo and killed all involved as traitors and guerrillas. One feller tried unsuccessfully to set up a country named "Freedonia". (Being a Marx Brothers fan, that name struck me).

 

You are right Stumpkiller, Freenonia was also the name of the "State/Country" they tried to put together near Susanville Calif.(Freedonia Pass is STILL there) back in the 1850's or 60's, it Culminated in the "Battle of Roop's Fort" a fortified BAR, several shots fired, no-one killed, both sides gave up n got drunk TOGETHER... ONLY in CALIF... :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

 

[madstone]

I thought Santa Anna was beginning to violate some of the provisions of the written terms of settlement. Much like King George did when he showed such poor judgement in violating "old English law".
The newly liberated texans thought they would be welcomed into the US. They failed to calculate the selfishness of the NE states who refused to let another southern state in?
The struggle between N and S was beginning to shape up.
States began to be added in pairs, didn't they? N & S?
That's the "pat" view, though I'm sure it is more complicated than that!
Of course southerners were taught that northern states weren't content to manage their own affairs, but insisted on meddling in others' business. ( the tariff was first, slavery later?) We still have this schism today. Some folks don't concern themselves with other's behavior. Other think because they don't like something they don't want others to do it either?
THIS IS NOT ltd. to the North! Look at the dry options and "blue laws" of the south.
One said " I don't drink likker, but don't figger I got the right to keep you from drinkin it" others said "I don't smoke and don't want you to either" Why? Because I dont want you to...
Same with guns, tobacco, gambling, prostitutes, etc. Some, because they don't agree with something, don't want others to do it either. Not content to manage their own affairs they want to manage mine and yours! The constitution is the only thing that protects us from a "hateful democracy" when the majority is a bunch of boobs... (Are we there yet?) :m2c:

 

Madstone,

I don't have answers to your questions and with all due respect, I have no idea what the American Civil War, liquer, tobacco, gambling, prostitutes, etc. have to do with the battle at the Alamo.

Are you addressing some broader, non-related political issues? ::

 

Can ya believe it??? WE won the war and mexico STILL made us KEEP Texas, That ain't FAIR....I wanna re-match!!! :blah:

 

[Ohio Joe]

I had watched the new movie on the big screen, and I also purchased the DVD. I like the movie. It opens up some new speculation such as, did ol' Sam Houston figure out a way to get both Bowie and Crockett in the Alamo so that the Mexican Army might (and did) take care of two future political threats? Possibly three if we add in Travis?

At the begining of the movie, Houston is trying to recruit Crockett to go to Texas with the lure of land in exchange for service in the milita. Well,,, you know Crockett was well known. People, fighting men in particular might just
follow him, and some did.

Bowie was already established in Texas and Houston sent him off to the Alamo to fetch back the cannons. Now, did Houston know somewhere along the line that Crockett was headed to San Antonio???

Houston also makes the statement that he, "will relieve the Alamo"... What a political liar he was. He could have easily order those defenders out of the area before the Mexican Army arrived, and at the very least he could have ordered a retreat as soon as the Mexican Army had been spotted so those defenders of the Alamo could have joined his forces. The Goliad defenders could also have been ordered out to join with Houston.

Houston could have still feel back to the east causing the splintering of the Mexican Army as they pursued his Army.
This is one "General" that has never impressed me in history even before I ever saw this movie.

As I said, it opens up a lot of speculation??? :hmm:

 

:m2c:
Getting into this late and I want to be careful regards your history .
I too ,grew up with 'Davy and the boys'.
I also saw the latest Alamo movie .
My comments: As was already put ..'remember Hollywood is there to entertain ', certainly within the respectful bounds of historical accuracy .
I liked the movie , not only because I enjoy Billy Bob but for what I took away from the scene. To me the Alamo will always be part of that life experience , in which we see the best and worst of people in a desparate situation ,trying to make it out alive.
I'm sure those on both sides were caughtup in the excitement and hype of the times.

I think of the Alamo as a place where fathers , sons , brothers , scoundrels and saints..on both sides of the wall.. wrote a chapter of what we all know is a pretty violent era.
Call it what we may , to me it will always be sacred..and the movie although it had some corney spots was worth the ten bucks .
Thanks for listening..don't make much sense ..

:imo:

 

Well I went and got the DVD and watched it. I didn

 

Awe, common guys. We grew up with Dan'l Boone and Davey Crockett. And it was all FAIRY TAILS.
The new 'Alamo' most likely portrayed things as closely to the facts as possible.
Yes indeed most of them WERE misfits and opportunists. They were real people, not saints.
Bowie was a gambler, drunk and brawler.
I suppose some people think that the old gun fighters and lawmen really faced each other in the street and tried to outdraw each other?
Truth is they shot each other in the back, while the 'other' guy was sleeping and so forth.
The movie was the best 'real' account I have seen to date.
Do ya really think they weren't afraid?
The last time someone was trying to shoot you I'll bet YOU were afraid too.
I WAS! The trick is to overcome the fear and not run.
Cowards run.
There is no shame in being afraid.

 

Hey Dale. Let's ask the Native Americans about the "freedom fighting" American hero's of the Old West.
Native American history is vastly different from the way the white man wrote it.

 

[shmrck1]

atr,
thanks for your opinion. i think that is what this whole forum is all about. the fact everyone does'nt agree with you is what this forum is all about. :imo:
snake-eyes eace: :thumbsup: :RO:

 

Awe, common guys. We grew up with Dan'l Boone and Davey Crockett. And it was all FAIRY TAILS.
============================================================
And hence why I didn

 

Hey Dale. Let's ask the Native Americans about the "freedom fighting" American hero's of the Old West.
Native American history is vastly different from the way the white man wrote it.

So, you agree with me?

 

[madstone]

Dale,
You caught me! I find it hard to stay on subject as I age and take more of the dreadful medicines necessary to sustain my existence!
Heck, I'm not sure what this list has to do w Alamo, either!
One of my favourite "peeves", of last decade or 3, has been the mistakes we make in viewing history through the rose colored glasses of post-modernism.
Sorry about the rambling.
:sorry: