|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 15, 2015 10:43:20 GMT -5
I don't have time right now to go through the threads, but here is a link to this topic on our FAQ. I think we have addressed all these issues somewhere. As I recall, Jim is right about the first news stories being conflated, which was partly affected by how news stories were passed from paper to paper all over the country at that time. The idea of Crockett dying early in the fight and at the north wall is more convincing the more Ii think about it. The main contradiction to it is Susannah Dickinson's claim to have seen his body between the church and long barrack. But I've come to think that a lot of her accounts were heavily influenced by her interviewers prompting her with information from other accounts they had seen or heard. For example, the only person (as far as I know) who identified a location for Crockett was Sutherland, who said he was at the palisade at the time that Sutherland left the fort, which was on the first day of the siege. Crockett could have been moved to any number of stations after that as the siege evolved. If he was quartered along the west wall, particularly if it was toward the north end of it, where the Alsbury women were, it makes perfect sense for him to have rushed to the north wall, where the bulk of the threat was and the major assault was taking place. The fact that Ruiz located his body in a small enclosure or position ("fortin') to the west of where Travis' body was found, suggests that he was at the cannon emplacement at the northwest corner. alamostudies.proboards.com/thread/995/david-crockett-dieHere is the thread regarding the location of Crockett's death: alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=41
|
|
|
Post by pff on Jun 16, 2015 6:30:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 16, 2015 9:08:24 GMT -5
Great contributions in relation to our favorite, new, updated, for-the-youth-of-America Alamo movie: Texas Whitening.
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Jun 16, 2015 21:37:34 GMT -5
Great contributions in relation to our favorite, new, updated, for-the-youth-of-America Alamo movie: Texas Whitening. I just can't get past the feeling that there was a good relatively true story to be had in there, that could be shaped to satisfy some Hollywood story arcs, and yet be very faithful in details. John Keegan, Bernard Cornwell, Stephen Hardin, Larry McMurtry and others writing in English have shown how focusing on the practical realities of how people fought back then has inherent dramatic potential, that it was the stuff of daily life for those folks whether they fought on a given day or not; they thought it through and expressed their personality, character, cultural heritage and philosophy of life that way, and that's frontier life until things settle down, which I guess turned out to be not until the 1870s for much of Texas. The adaptation of Lonesome Dove sure made the audience care whether Gus made it out of a fix, and showed what he had to do in practical terms pretty well. Why throw real dramatic tension away in favor of faux conflict? Really, if I want history as bad as this, I'll watch Cadillac Records again--at least the soundtrack, design and acting are great there. Another case where I think there was a good & faithful story lurking in there, and now the well is probably poisoned for a long while for anyone intent on doing it right.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 17, 2015 7:32:41 GMT -5
Anyone know how this thing did in the ratings? There was also a sort-of "part 2", consisting of 4 episodes that followed some of the characters for a while; didn't see those.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 17, 2015 9:45:10 GMT -5
The whole thing lacked focus. Cornwall in his Sharpe's Waterloo did justice to a gigantic canvas by limiting focus on a few, using them to tell the story of many.
Half or more of the characters in the story were totally unnecessary, and by having them inserted to story became confused and disjointed.
The editing was miserable.
The story line contrived.
My verdict is that the entire presentation was without useful purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 18, 2015 9:00:09 GMT -5
The whole thing lacked focus. Cornwall in his Sharpe's Waterloo did justice to a gigantic canvas by limiting focus on a few, using them to tell the story of many. Half or more of the characters in the story were totally unnecessary, and by having them inserted to story became confused and disjointed. The editing was miserable. The story line contrived. My verdict is that the entire presentation was without useful purpose. In short, it was modern TV.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 19, 2015 11:54:45 GMT -5
The part I found sad Rich is that it could have been made into a decent series, as opposed to a mini-series, focusing on one or two characters, and taken the story from the Alamo through the Republic days. It could have been done at a lot less expense, and possibly used a fictional character as a guide through "good" history in much the same manner as Cornwell does with the Sharpe series, and Terry C. Johnston did with his series, sadly left incomplete by his death, on the post ACW Indian conflicts on the Plains. Characters such as Houston, and Emily Morgan could have made episodic appearances, perhaps multiple times.
Making real life drama better with interwoven fictional drama makes good TV I think. I know I sure learned a lot from watching and reading Cornwell, which inspired me to delve deeper into the real history, and the same can be said of reading Johnston. Bad presentation like we all endured since Memorial Day only serves one purpose - turning people off to what in reality is a great story.
PS: I remember a TV show far back in the Wayback Machine, probably from the late 50's. It may have been Hallmark Hall of Fame, if not something like it. The story had the Alamo as a backdrop, but focused completely on the gathering together of the Gonzalez Mounted Ranger Company, and the drama associated with men leaving homes and families to go where their sense of duty directed them. Not a shot fired, no walls assaulted, no glorious death scenes, just the drama associated with the gathering together, personal decisions made, and the impact those decisions had on all concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 19, 2015 12:52:01 GMT -5
Wow! I never knew of that '50's show. Sounds interesting.
Unfortunately, projects for TV (and the motion picture business) begin as a script or concept that appeals to the executives who see nothing but the words on the paper and possibly a ten-minute pitch from the creators/writers. That's all they know. Unless they are exceptional and imaginative individuals -- and particularly into history (i.e. Ted Turner), they are just green-lighting something because it will sell (according to their advisors who give them the nod). With the "History" channel being as agenda-driven as I have come to believe they are, I actually worry more about why (perhaps) all this high inaccuracy might have been deliberate. But that's just me worrying about "Big Brother" again. How silly of me.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jun 26, 2015 22:28:24 GMT -5
[/quote]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.
[/quote]
I'd love to read the abovementioned thread if anyone can point me to it.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Aug 5, 2015 19:16:37 GMT -5
I got through one and a half episodes with the help of Dos Equis. That was it. No more. It sucked.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Aug 10, 2015 17:06:37 GMT -5
You're right Wade, Texas Rising was kind of disappointing. Yet, I tried to be as charitable as I could while watching all 8 hours. It could have been worse as are many other attempts to tell the Texas sStory. You have every reason to be critical based on the magnificent artistic work you've done over the years. It's good to hear from you again in the Forum. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 11, 2015 16:51:46 GMT -5
I got through one and a half episodes with the help of Dos Equis. That was it. No more. It sucked. Budweiser works a lot better, Wade. I made it through the whole series -- and I don't REMEMBER how bad it was!
|
|
|
Post by rayjr on Aug 21, 2015 22:22:54 GMT -5
Rich & Wade,
I had to resort to Jack Daniels. Most unfortunate as I typically have other uses for fine Tennessee whiskey.
I really just do not get it - the real history is so rich - that a thousand exciting stories could be told (with great actors and all) - it was like a somersault to make sh... up! And really it was so poorly contrived one could write a dissertation on the errors - it is a shame one must bother? A train wreck in slow motion...
Can we not figure out a vehicle to get this straight - or is this our world?
Anyway, on another topic - I noticed Allen's mention of the Emily account, and Wade has provided such a fantastic illustration with a quote of this account...
But - certainly (if Wade's reference is correct) Emily's language clearly incorporates romanticism that certainly looks like hindsight embellishment. Surely, her account of the location of Crockett is suspect...I go with Allen's conclusion - Northwest Wall.
Emily: "...the freshness of hue..."; "...that lifelike countenance almost smiled..."; etc. Really? If you read Stephen Hardin (and trust me I know you have), his is such a realistic portrayal and a useful lens of the potential actuality of the circumstance - one cannot help but suspect Emily is writing after the fact with an audience in mind. I mean really - "...a vista of blood...". So we find - it is not just the history channel - but gosh - what were they thinking?
Best, Ray
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 22, 2015 0:40:54 GMT -5
As a film person myself, I clearly understand the necessity to abridge, truncate, condense, depopulate, and otherwise abstract historical fact in order to create a story and characters that fit dramatic structure, story arc and character arc. But this condensation can indeed be done with historical integrity. The problem with "Texas Rising" is that there was none, neither with producers, writer nor director. Ned Huthmacher just posted a 1960's comic book about the Alamo on our Alamo movie forum, and all I could think of was, hokey and terrible as the comic book was, it had more integrity than the script and production of "Texas Rising."
|
|