|
Post by Blacksmith John on Jul 13, 2011 12:36:20 GMT -5
...as opposed to Wayne's Alamo set, which, despite its inaccuracies, had a presence and weight to it... much like the real place in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 13, 2011 20:50:25 GMT -5
...take the Wayne Alamo (with some changes) combine it with the 2004 San Antonio de Bexar set and relocate both somewhere around Castroville...
|
|
|
Post by Blacksmith John on Jul 13, 2011 20:52:29 GMT -5
Exactly
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 17, 2011 12:37:39 GMT -5
There was so much potential in Alamo 2004, I couldn't wait to see it and own a copy. Were any of you as aggravated about the location of the church, for whatever dumb reason the producers gave, or am I the only one. It distracted me throughout, what should have been an Alamo Classic. Whatever the next iteration for future Alamo pictures, please get the dimensions at least close to the well researched and generally accepted size and shape of 1836 fort. We would be ever so grateful!
|
|
|
Post by Blacksmith John on Jul 18, 2011 19:27:07 GMT -5
Rich Curilla can explain well Michael Corenblith's reasons for doing what he did--he has already on some topic or the other. I think the gist of it was they were going for an 'artistic interpretation' of the fort rather than a straight up replica, which they couldn't have done anyway without a zillion dollar budget. But yeah, the position of the Church pulls me out of the film every single time (along with Dennis Quiad's hammy growling)--I try and ignore it, but heaven knows it's hard. Not only that, and maybe it's just me, but I think the finish on the Church is poor--not near enough weeds and crap growing out of it--while the detailing on the facade is superb, the whole thing just screams one word: styrofoam.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Riordan on Jul 21, 2011 9:48:06 GMT -5
There are many things we still don't know about the Alamo. We do, however, know the location of the church in relation to its immediate surroundings, because it's still there. The Alamo church, and it's adjacent wall, are among the most recognizable historical places in North America. So why in the world would Michael Corenblith move it? "Artistic interpretation" works fine when you're filling the gaps of documented history. Rearranging a compound whose general layout has not only been researched but, in this case, is generally known is not artistic. It's arrogant. Did Corenblith think no one would notice? If a film company is going to the expense of recreating a historic setting, why not do it right? "Alamo 2004" was a missed opportunity on many levels.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 21, 2011 13:32:41 GMT -5
Without a doubt, The Alamo (2004), was a missed opportunity. As for placing the church parallel to the Long Barrack, I spoke during pre-production to some of the set design folks who were in San Antonio, and their explanation was not that of artistic license, but of "practicality," meaning that test shots revealed that the facade of the church was not visible enough for the battle sequence. As a result, the decision was made to move the church forward. Proper light design would seem to have been a better choice than changing the layout of a well-known historic site. Having spent some time in "the industry" there is without a doubt, a certain level of arrogance that is pervasive especially in terms of who's "in charge" of presenting the story.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 24, 2011 12:21:25 GMT -5
Hiram, I agree there had to be a better way to show the church facade in 2004. John Wayne seemed to have no problem. One of the most dramatic effects throughout his picture was to have the haunting visage of the church in more than half the scenes. (Not to mention the Alamo artwork in the Main Title.) One of the valid critiques of "The Last Command" is not building and therefore not showing the church facade except for that brief "matt shot." I know Republic had a low budget, but if Disney could do it...
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 24, 2011 21:39:01 GMT -5
With everything that goes into making a movie, I don't think any historical movie is going to be 100% accurate and usually not even 50% correct. When these period pieces occasionally get above that elusive halfway mark they can be entertaining and very informative, then incite folks to read about the event. I liked the 04 Alamo film warts and all. I would pick it over the Wayne and Davey movie in a blind taste test. Of course Houston seemed too short, Crockett too tall and Bowie too pretty, but that's typical casting. I think they did a good job considering the various constraints on the production.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 26, 2011 16:12:24 GMT -5
One thing that was stupid in the recent film was the last scene where Juan Seguin returns to the Alamo to keep his promise and bury his comrades. The dead soldiers sure kept their composure in the face of decomposure.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 26, 2011 17:39:02 GMT -5
You're right off course. We shouldn't be too hard on Hollywood and learn to accept 50% as better than nothing. But it's not just History that Hollywood mangles, they're pretty good at screwing up fiction too. But there are examples of near perfect retelling a novel on the screen. The Godfather (1 and 2) comes to mind. Also, year earlier, I think the Sparticus screenplay by Dalton Trumbo actually improved on the Howard Fast novel and actually told a better story. I know this is off the track, but us movie buffs can't help it.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 26, 2011 20:27:20 GMT -5
Wasn't it in Spartacus, Gladiator or another chariot movie where a motor can be seen on the back of the vehicle? Movies are obviously designed to entertain, not educate people on history, but on rare occasions they do both. Besides, I enjoy picking out mistakes in films and being surprised when a big production actually gets history or the period technology correct.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jul 26, 2011 21:49:58 GMT -5
As a film historian, I'm well aware of Hollywood's inability to portray anything accurately. That's why they've had so much trouble with the American Indians: things may have changed since I wrote my MA thesis on the subject, but prior to at least the mid 1970s, whenever Indians complained about Hollywood's inaccuracies, film-makers responded with sympathetic, but still inaccurate, depictions. When "A Man Called Horse" was in pre-productions, Indians on a reservation were asked to lend artifacts for use in the film, but the only thing they got was a poster for a Johnny Mack Brown Western! I thought the 2004 film about the Alamo showed an effort to portray some of the details accurately, such as Crockett's hair style and fiddle playing, and the use of the real De Guello, which I'd never heard before as far as I'm aware, and certainly not in the John Wayne film or the Fess Parker one. (I know there's a debate over whether the De Guello was actually played at the before the battle, but that's another issue.)
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 27, 2011 18:15:13 GMT -5
I don't know if Hollywood will ever do justice to the American Indian. Even when portrayed heroically like "Little Big Man" or "Last of the Mohicans" they still become just vehicles to provide dramatic antagonist/protagonist conflict. I've watched the slow changeover Hollywood has undergone over it's treatment of aboriginal people all over the world. Sometimes it works and educates and other times it settles for the commonly accepted stereotypes. I think there's something in the human culture that prefers the safety of the stereotypes rather than empiracle reality.(sorry for using an SAT word) One of the Indian stereotypes I've always marvelled at was the insistance that they attack by circling around their intended victims while being shot off their horses by the dozen. UGH! Yet I get so used to it, I'm rarely bothered and have learned to accept it (to my deep regret) What I'm saying is "When Legend becomes fact, print the legend" (thanks Hiram). PS: Just saw the Captain America movie with my grandsons. It was wonderful!
|
|