|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 29, 2015 13:12:29 GMT -5
As goofy, silly, and inaccurate as this thing is, I'll probably tough it out and watch the whole thing. As far as I know, it's the first film that attempts to show the Fannin/Goliad/Caleto Creek thing in any sort of detail. Characters are a bit one-dimensional and that Emily West/Morgan subplot is both painful and laughable. So, she was at the Alamo, saw her brother executed with a few other captives, and was never asked if Crockett was among them! How frustrating for the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 30, 2015 9:42:02 GMT -5
Ha! Amazing what a little television will do.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 6, 2015 16:00:31 GMT -5
I'm glad I waited to see a few episodes of "Texas Rising" before reading the comments of fellow Forum members. I must say I agree with all of you. It's pretty bad history. But, I don't think it's so bad as an action movie. Yet some of the historical lapses are exasperating and I found myself frequently gnashing my teeth. My wife has shared the episodes with me and often questions, "is that the way it really happened?" Most of the time I said no, or not exactly. Yet, I don't think it did such a bad job on the Fannin/Goliad massacre. But when it comes to locale, I've only been to the Alamo once, but I recollect the land between San Antonio and San Jacinto is a flat plain marred by rivers, streams and marshes. Where did the producers of Texas Rising get the jagged mountains and burnt-out desert that dominate so many scenes? But as Allen said, goofy, silly and inaccurate, I'll watch it all and move on to the next iteration. As far as Emily West, we New Yorkers generally welcome some licentious behavior in movies. So I overlook it and just revel in battles fought with flintlocks, Bowie Knives and bayonets. It kind of reminds me of the AMC Series "Hell On Wheels" that gets away with all kinds of phony history and anachronisms while conquering the West via the Trans Continental Rail Road. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 7, 2015 12:53:50 GMT -5
The only way I can vaguely enjoy it is if I accept it as the first Western done in a long time -- and not connected to the events of 1836. Even there, it fails to achieve a level equal to 1970's and 1980's miniseries like LONESOME DOVE (the best), James Michener's CENTENIAL (a bit boring to watch now) and Michener's TEXAS (the least of the three). And, for the next decade, more learned folks will be dealing with TV viewers who now think the Battle of the Alamo happened on March 7 in the middle of the desert at an isolated fortress and that General Urrea left Fannin's executed men (all fifty of them) dead and bleeding in the middle of a vast canyon far from civilization -- and that they were still there (and still bleeding) a week later when Sam Houston got there with twenty men to tell Fannin to head to Victoria!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, and that Gonzales, Texas, is on the top of a high cliff! "Come and Climb it!"
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 7, 2015 19:56:20 GMT -5
I don't mind Hollywood taking some license with historical fact in order to dramatize events, but most people who watch this will not have much background on those events and probably think this is the way it was. This series has gone so far in the fictional direction that it may give many (if not most) viewers a really distorted idea of what happened in 1836. I don't see why it could not have been more accurate and still added the required drama. No Alamo/Texas Revolution film or TV show or series has ever been particularly strong on history, and many have still managed to stir new interest in the subject among a new audience. Disney's original "Davy Crockett" series is a major example of that. Many of us would not have cultivated our life-long interest in the subject except for Disney and Fess Parker. Despite its many historical flaws and dramatic shortcomings, John Wayne's film did much the same thing. The many errors we have found in Wayne's film only became known to many of us because his film, like the Disney TV series, ignited our interest in the subject and got us reading about it. That's not really a bad thing. But this is the 21st century, and there have been many films and TV shows about this subject, as well as countless books, so Hollywood is in a stronger position to produce films that stick more closely to the facts while still holding the interest of viewers who may not know much about these events or have much interest going in.
We'll see how they do on San Jacinto, but so far I'd give it a bit of credit for at least acknowledging that there were many events and personalities involved in the Texas War besides the Alamo and that they are worth learning about too. After all, the Alamo was a disaster, as was Goliad, but San Jacinto was a victory that really shaped the history that came afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 8, 2015 21:04:43 GMT -5
San Jacinto was the most decisive land battle fought on the North American continent Allen. The only other thing that historically rivals it that shaped the nation was the Louisiana Purchase.
Now that I have my San Jacinto promo off my chest, I agree with probably every word said here about Texas Rising including the one hour promo. I particularly loved the Alamo and Goliad looking more like King Arthur's castle than what they were meant to portray.
Historically this was a stinker. Being filmed in Durango, Mexico, did not even give the illusion of the eastern part of Texas.
Now I want to ask all of you this, to either verify my theory, or throw it in the waste can. If this series had retained the characters under other names, had it been set in the country of nameless, had no historical locations been wedged into the story, would the story itself have been entertaining? I think it would, and in two hours I will be watching General Sam Brown, beat the snot out of the Klingons at that field the fronts Madonna's Lake. That is the only way, this attitude of mine, that I can retain tonight's dinner
|
|
|
Post by pff on Jun 9, 2015 8:23:48 GMT -5
I seen Texas Rising--and it makes John Wayne version of the Alamo look like historical fact! Mistakes galore--Big Foot Wallace and John Coffe Hays did become Texas Ranagers-although not quite the Way they are shown in the series {hays in fact was appointed by Sam Houston to the Texas rangers-HOuston known the Hays family in Tenn}; there was no half crazy avenger from the ALamo conducting a one man army against Mexican soldiers and Civilains {Although there were cases of Lone Indian Haters such as Lewis Wetzel of West Virginia and Thomes Quick of Pa who did live for Indian Killing}; There were other well known members of the Rangers: Rip Ford; McCulloh Brothers; Sam Walker; Creed Taylor and Likewise well known Vols of the Texas Revolution as well; mcCulloh Brothers; Tom Green, Richard Waterhouse-to name a few who became CS Generals. In regard to the Commanches-why isnt the story of Cynthia Ann Parker included? No 1836 Commanche raid on Victoria Texas is listed at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_County,_Texas although it was attacked --in 1840! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Raid_of_1840By the way in regard to the Surivors of the Alamo-if the Arkansas newspaper report of two survivros is true-who could they have been? The Wounded one was possibly Henry Warnell-who is reported to have surivived the massacre but died of wounds months later; the other man who could that have been? not Lewis "Moses" Rose - was recupperating from exposure and cactus needles in his legs at the Reuben Potter home; nor does it quite sound like either Mrs Dickerson, her daugther or of Travis slave who also survived. There is the possiblty that the other unnamed surviver was in fact one of the couiers that Travis sent out for help...but couldnot get back to the garrison in time. Lastly The nearest series I ever saw that is near truthful to what happaned at The alamo and San Jacinto is the 2004 Move "The Alamo". the only beef I have aginst the 2004 movie is the manner of Crocket execution: 1) Crocket and his tennesseans were at the Barraicde between the Chruch and the short Barracks 2) Crocket's body was seen near where he was stationed only between the Long Barracks and the Church {Mrs Dickerson and Almonte servant Ben Testimony} 3) There were a few prisoners executed at the end of the Alamno battle-althugh Mexican accounts vary in number anywhere from two to seven/nine? Only one account comes near to claiming that it was Crocket among those killed-ceratain inferences lead me to beleive that this account is a mixture of both contempory and post facts mixed together in my opinon. 4) If one of those so killed was Crocket in front of Santa ANna-whey was it neceassary to point out the remains of Crocket to Santa Anna afterward?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 9, 2015 10:06:20 GMT -5
I disagree somewhat, but not by much.
I think there is a distinct possibility that there were Alamo survivors, it most probably being a few of those who participated in the breakout, and made their way away in the confusion, and were subsequently lost to history, more because of the tenor of the times, and what else was going on. In any event they would have had a long way to travel to reach safety , and if they reached that place, they may just well have said, I have had enough, I am going home or somewhere else.
What did Ruiz say where he found the body of Crockett? It should also be noted that they were not Crockett's Tennesseans, but rather he was but one of someone else's Tennesseans.
We tend to think of prisoners being rounded up and stood against a wall to be executed. Maybe so. Maybe not. Wounded but alive would be summarily dispatched where found I'd wager. There may have been a few caught trying to hide, and I would think there would be no thought of a formal execution, more probably a quick shot to the head, or a bayonet in the gut. But the possibility is still there for something more formal I suppose, maybe one or two.
Good point about Crockett though regardless of where he was. Why did he have to be identified to Santa Anna, if it was known to already be Crockett the noted naturalist?
|
|
|
Post by ronald on Jun 9, 2015 10:13:46 GMT -5
I only hope that since Texas Rising is some what doing well, maybe another Alamo series could be made. Gates of The Alamo would make a great series,It has romance & action and a series would give it time to tell the whole story, They could make it on the cheap either in Mexico or Alamo Village if the would give them a deal. Texas Rising at least is about Our favorite topic and if they make money maybe more will come? ?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 9, 2015 10:38:43 GMT -5
I am wondering why Texas Rising was on so late here in the Mountain Time Zone. Maybe it was relatively late across the nation but it does not seem to be in line with the normal parameters of prime time, for us here anyway.
Normally when Allen get a show at 9:00 PM in the DC suburbs, we here can expect it at 7:00 PM. The series advert blurbs received here said a 9:00 PM start time, which is normally based on EDT, yet ours did not start until 10:00 o'clock. Missed a lot of audience I'd wager.
I enjoyed reading "Gates". You very well may be right, and I also agree it could be made on the cheap, having no need I see for a full sized Alamo set.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jun 9, 2015 23:01:38 GMT -5
4) If one of those so killed was Crocket in front of Santa ANna-whey was it neceassary to point out the remains of Crocket to Santa Anna afterward?
Almonte reportedly (the Dolson letter) recognized Crockett, but was not the sort of man to interrupt Santa Anna when he was in a rage so mentioned it only to another officer. Santa Anna was not aware Crockett had been among the survivors who were executed.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 10, 2015 3:19:22 GMT -5
Lastly The nearest series I ever saw that is near truthful to what happaned at The alamo and San Jacinto is the 2004 Move "The Alamo". the only beef I have aginst the 2004 movie is the manner of Crocket execution: 1) Crocket and his tennesseans were at the Barraicde between the Chruch and the short Barracks 2) Crocket's body was seen near where he was stationed only between the Long Barracks and the Church {Mrs Dickerson and Almonte servant Ben Testimony} 3) There were a few prisoners executed at the end of the Alamno battle-althugh Mexican accounts vary in number anywhere from two to seven/nine? Only one account comes near to claiming that it was Crocket among those killed-ceratain inferences lead me to beleive that this account is a mixture of both contempory and post facts mixed together in my opinon. 4) If one of those so killed was Crocket in front of Santa ANna-whey was it neceassary to point out the remains of Crocket to Santa Anna afterward? I think there's a thread on here somewhere that explains how a couple of contemporary newspaper accounts were conflated, which goes a long way toward explaining why Crockett was listed among the executed. Even the DLP account most likely relied on these sources and included Crockett after the fact. When one reads these newspaper articles in chronological order it's very clear (at least it's clear to me) how the story developed. I'm out of the country currently, but if no one else posts the info I'll dig it out and post when I return. I'm convinced that Crockett's body was initially identified at an artillery position toward the north end of the west wall.
|
|
|
Post by ronald on Jun 10, 2015 8:20:11 GMT -5
I have always thought that making Crockett one of the executed was to get more support from the states. What would piss them off more? His body at the west wall makes more sense Travis said he was at all points. The South wall didnt have a lot going on.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 10, 2015 10:44:18 GMT -5
I completely agree with Jim on the location of Crockett's body, and by extension conclude that he was most probably killed early on during the Mexican assault.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 10, 2015 23:20:03 GMT -5
I completely agree with Jim on the location of Crockett's body, and by extension conclude that he was most probably killed early on during the Mexican assault. I also suspect that Crockett was killed early on. If he was quartered somewhere along the west wall (charged with looking out for the Alsbury women) it seems reasonable that he would have been drawn to the assault at the north wall and, by virtue of his proximity, he would have been a first responder and, therefore, one of the first to fall.
|
|