posted
There were so many things wrong with this movie, I'll try to list most of them later for now what I can't forgive was the way they portrayed Crockett as dying: COMPLETE FICTION serving only to spark one emotion: hatred over percieved cowardice. He was not executed right in front of Santa Anna with soldiers stabbing at him, he died in the general fighting.
I also had a huge problem with the portrayal of Santa Anna, he was no nice guy but the "chickens" comment was over the top.
Overall, this movie was completely BS, the timing of events at the Alamo itself and Houston's little attack afterward were all wrong, and this movie seems purposefully ethnically insensitive and caustic. I wouldn't be surprised if it's banned in Mexico City.
posted
Ethnically insensitive? How? Because that's what happened...Santa Anna's army massacred 200 soldiers? I thought most war movies stirred emotions against the enemy. Do you feel the same way about the Germans from Saving Private Ryan?
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, dude. I went to see this with my father, actually, who was born in Mexico. I was kinda stunned by the stupidity of it, but my dad was falling all over himself to explain how evil and bad a dictator Santa Ana really was.
This calls for an emoticon.
But hey, glad to see I'm not the only one kinda pissed at Disney's idiocy.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were so many things wrong with this movie, I'll try to list most of them later for now what I can't forgive was the way they portrayed Crockett as dying: COMPLETE FICTION serving only to spark one emotion: hatred over percieved cowardice. He was not executed right in front of Santa Anna with soldiers stabbing at him, he died in the general fighting.
Actually, I saw a "History Versus Hollywood" special on the History channel where this was actually one of the things they said the movie got right. It wasn't proven, but something like 75% of the historians believed this was the case. There were letters from several different mexican soldiers telling of the execution.
Actually the historians said the movie was almost COMPLETELY accurate. The reviews I have been reading say that the reason it sucks is because it debunks the myths surrounding the heroes in the story using stuff from actual history.
So while it may have been a terrible movie, perhaps your facts are wrong on how inaccurate it is.
posted
What didn't happen was the drawn out torture scene of Crockett and the officers, more than just the aid, were not as willing to massacre the women and children as Santa Ana had ordered. The film did not do enough to show the hesitation and unwillingness on the part of the mexican officers and even the ordinary soldiers to committ the massacre: it turned the Mexicans into mindless evil drones. Completely unbalanced story, and it didn't even add anything but feelings of hatred by doing this.
[edit for Xavier's post] I saw a review that claimed it was very historically accurate, but from the history I know of Texas and most of the real academic work that's been done on it (ie: Crockett's body found with only bullet holes and no stab wounds) shows that this movie is not as historically accurate as gleeful supporters moved by its screaming pathos would have it to be. Perhaps my facts are not wrong, indeed I have never heard a version of the Alamo ANYTHING like what I saw at the theater before today.
posted
I don't specifically recall feeling hatred while watching the glorious end of the Alamo. I did, however, relish the feelings of, "Oh yeah? Well Sam Houston's gonna get you...hehe." For me, the inevitability of Santa Anna's defeat (ultimately his cowardly capture), dispelled any feelings of anger toward anything.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You are both wrong. The only real question is whether you believe in the legend of Davy Crockett or not. If you do, there should be no doubt in your mind that he died a hero's death. If you do not believe in the legend, then he was just a man, and it does not matter how he died"
posted
What annoyed me was the bullshit God-bless-America sentiment that ran through the entire movie. The Mexicans nodding in approval at Crockett's fiddle-playing in tune with the Mexican band. Santa Anna's constant attempts to appear as evil as possible, his smirks, his idiotic comments about the value of human life, his kinglike tent -- the man was a bad person, but we don't need to turn him into evil personified in order to show that he was, in fact, a bad leader for Mexico.
That's what annoys me most, I guess. The mindless patriotism -- which, in this and many, most cases, is not a virtue -- that shows the brave Americans defending their fort to the end, making flippant comments and brave charges against impossible odds. People in this country love to believe they're victims and underdogs, but that doesn't mean Disney shouldn't be damned for turning out such an obvious pander to the downtrodden American's -- and most obviously in this case, the downtrodden white man's -- sense of victimhood.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I purposely am avoiding this movie because it was pretty clear it was going to glorious a key event in one of the less upright ventures in American history. But...
quote:The mindless patriotism -- which, in this and many, most cases, is not a virtue -- that shows the brave Americans defending their fort to the end, making flippant comments and brave charges against impossible odds. People in this country love to believe they're victims and underdogs, but that doesn't mean Disney shouldn't be damned for turning out such an obvious pander to the downtrodden American's -- and most obviously in this case, the downtrodden white man's -- sense of victimhood.
That's pretty much what the story of the Alamo is about - a last stand against impossible odds. The people who defended the fort were generally white men. What did you want them to show? And what's this BS about "the downtrodden white man's -- sense of victimhood?" Believe it or not, sometimes white people are the victims of not white people. In this country that's not the norm, but it doesn't mean a movie can't be made about it.
quote:What annoyed me was the bullshit God-bless-America sentiment that ran through the entire movie.
I haven't seen this movie (and I don't plant to), but what you mentioned has bugged me in almost every Disney movie I've seen that featured people from another country. It was like:
Foreigners: "So these are our traditions and beliefs." Americans: "Well, as you can plainly see by the amount of fun we're having, your beliefs and traditions are completely wrong. Here, let us show you how it's done."
It's as if they think that the fact that they have a variety of races acting (as the Americans, most likely) relinquishes them from the responsibility to portray each race as sane or logical.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mindless patriotism -- which, in this and many, most cases, is not a virtue -- that shows the brave Americans defending their fort to the end, making flippant comments and brave charges against impossible odds. People in this country love to believe they're victims and underdogs, but that doesn't mean Disney shouldn't be damned for turning out such an obvious pander to the downtrodden American's -- and most obviously in this case, the downtrodden white man's -- sense of victimhood. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty much what the story of the Alamo is about - a last stand against impossible odds. The people who defended the fort were generally white men. What did you want them to show? And what's this BS about "the downtrodden white man's -- sense of victimhood?" Believe it or not, sometimes white people are the victims of not white people. In this country that's not the norm, but it doesn't mean a movie can't be made about it.
I don't doubt the bravery of the men in the Alamo. But do we really need to make them flippant, courageous defenders of the American way against the evil Mexican horde led by the Santa Ana demon in order to portray them as heroes?
My problem lies not so much that they're making a masturbatory movie with white people in it, but more with the fact that they're making a masturbatory movie about American history -- a movie which, with its predominantly white cast (though I'm sure black people everywhere appreciated the obligatory [and otherwise nonsensical and out-of-place] role of the slave explaining that Bowie was a hero but he did own slaves) is sure to appeal to the less educated white man who's convinced his country's being undercut by the single black mother on welfare and stolen from him by the Mexican immigrant. That particular species of white man is far too common in this country, and what with the ridiculously anti-Mexican overtones of this movie, I can't see how that particular anti-Mexican-pro-American attitude won't be fostered and encouraged by a viewing.
I'm sure those were brave men that died in the Alamo. Is it so impossible to acknowledge their bravery without inventing bullshit stories about their flippant and determined heroism in the face of the brown-skinned horde?
I've noticed a particularly good way to tell the bias of a movie is to count the dead on each side. Take, for example, Lord of the Rings -- how many orcs died before Boromir was finally brought down? How did tens of thousands of orcs die against a human force of 300 at Helm's Deep? Watch The Alamo and count the number of dead Mexicans the sharp-shooting Americans brought down. It's depressing how ridiculously biased the movie is. Unless we Mexicans have a genetic weakness for survival in Texas.
God, this would be a good place to put in a joke about Texas police.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way the Battle of Helm's Deep was depicted with 300 men made it really ludicrous in my mind. Like they still wouldn't have been grateful for the elves if they only had 1/5 of the Orc Force? I don't know how problematic including the elves was in the overall story, but cutting back the Rohirrim to 300 was just dumb. It was a couple thousand in the book, I believe, and no women and children.
P.S. This is really bad timing with Cinqo de Mayo (sp?) coming up. My understanding is that it is a celebration of a time that 5,000 Mexicans routed like 40,000 French. Anyone know what really happened there?
posted
I could stomach the elves at Helm's Deep better than some other changes in the movies, if only because Haldir died and I hated his movie character and never really cared for him in the books either.
[/tangent]
Oh, haven't seen the Alamo and don't plan to.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sure those were brave men that died in the Alamo. Is it so impossible to acknowledge their bravery without inventing bullshit stories about their flippant and determined heroism in the face of the brown-skinned horde?
See, I think their decision to fight at the Alamo was heroic. However, I'm not particularly drawn to their individual character as drinkers and womanizers. The John Wayne version left out these true character details. Just out of curiosity, how would you compare the original John Wayne version and the new Disney version?
quote: I've noticed a particularly good way to tell the bias of a movie is to count the dead on each side.
Wow, if the bias of a movie is measured by the dead on each side, then lots of battles are completely and utterly biased loads of crap, historically speaking. </sarcasm> I think it's realistic to say that you're going to lose a few soldiers when you attack a fortified post. Santa Anna didn't mind wasting a few troops, either. Here, I think, gives you an idea of how many Texan and Mexican casualties there were: The Alamo.org
quote: How Many Mexican Soldiers Died At The Alamo? Early accounts place the number of government troops killed in the assault high. For example, Henderson Yoakum's History of Texas claims 521 were killed outright and a "like number" wounded. Reuben M. Potter, in his brief study of the battle entitled The Fall of the Alamo, identified Yoakum's source as Anselmo Borgara, a Tejano who carried the news of the Alamo's fate to Sam Houston at Gonzales. Potter surmised that the figure 521 actually included all Mexican casualties, killed and wounded. This would bring the estimate in line with most Mexican accounts which place the number of dead at around 70 with several hundred wounded. Modern Alamo historians, as represented by Dr. Stephen L. Hardin in Texian Iliad, set the Mexican casualties at 600 killed and wounded. [20]
Because of the poor state of the Mexican Army's Medical Department, many of the wounded appeared to have died of wounds received during the March 6 assault. In fact, the wounded were in such need of medical attendants following the battle at least two doctors captured with Fannin's command at Goliad were spared execution and sent to San Antonio in order to staff makeshift hospitals. [21]
posted
I have no intention of seeing this movie. To me it is another Titanic. You know the end before you go so what is the point? Since we just canned our HBO if it ever comes out on one of the general movie channels I'll probably watch it about halfway through and then be bored with it.
Santa Ana also doesn't have 2 N's in the Ana part of his name either. They are also the name particularly vicious hot wind that comes out off the desert to the coast a couple of times every fall and winter in CA. I remember when we had one on Christmas Day and it was 85 outside.
quote:There were so many things wrong with this movie, I'll try to list most of them later for now what I can't forgive was the way they portrayed Crockett as dying: COMPLETE FICTION serving only to spark one emotion: hatred over percieved cowardice. He was not executed right in front of Santa Anna with soldiers stabbing at him, he died in the general fighting.
No, sorry. Crockett really was captured. If you believe anything else, you're reading too many popular histories.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose next you're going to tell us that he didn't kill him a "bar" when he was only three?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Born on a mountan top in Tennessee Greenest state in the land of the free Raised in the woods so's he knew every tree Kilt him a ba'r when he was only three.
Davy Daaavy Crocket, King of the wild frontier.
In 1813 the Creeks up-rose Addin' redskin arrows to the country's woes Now Injun fightin' is a sumthin he knows So he shoulders his rifle and off he goes
Davy Daaavy Crocket, King of the wild frontier.
Ack there's a verse on him going to washington, I used to have the whole thing memorized (Don't Ask)
posted
I guess I don't understand the emotional outpouring about this movie. It's not a historical documentary. It's a Disney movie for heaven's sake. What's wrong with creative license? Card uses it quite freely himself. I rather enjoyed the movie and Billy Bob and I could care less if it is historically accurate. Hey, but that's just me.
Oops! I don't know Billy Bob. So insert a comma after his name.
posted
I thought this post was really interesting because I really liked the movie. While I wouldn't normally have gone to see it, one of government professors offered extra credit to see it and write a paper on it.
I live in Texas and have all of my life. I was always taught about the great Texas war for independence in a way that likened it to the American war. Then I got to high school and in our Texas History class I actually started learning some things that people didn't like to talk about. Like Texas was full of the greedy, the criminal, the debtors, and others with less than wonderful ideals. In fact, a majority of the more powerful men had full intentions of stealing Texas from Mexico as soon as they got an excuse. Many completely ignored the Constitution of 1824 (including the part that outlawed slavery) becasue they had full intentions of either making it its own state or making another slave State in the US. Yet, people don't like to talk about these details that portray Texan heroes as less than heroes.
That's why I liked this movie. I didn't think it was obnoxiously patriotic at all. I thought it was showing both perspectives rather fairly. Santa Ana's speech about how the Texans were pirates come to steal his land really hit the mark. I really didn't think the movie villified Mexicans. Contrarily, it seemed to show that they had true justification in this war. I also liked the way the inhabitants of San Antonio welcomed the Mexican army as liberators. Instead or wronged citizens, the movie showed the Texans as largely being very greedy for land.
As for Santa Ana's comment about his men being chickens, he actually did say that. I don't know about the exact timing but I do remember reading the quote. He had very little value for human life and was a little on the crazy side.
While I'm not an expert on Texas history, this movie just rang true for me. In addition to its view of history, I think the movie had very strong characters that seemed very human- flawed but lovable. I recommend this movie to any who are interested.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pointed this out on ornery, too, but crockett, at the very least, didn't die fighting in the alamo. Thats all we really know about his death.
His body was not found with the rest of the men who died fighting in the alamo. Yes, rest.
Now, that doesn't make it conclusive that he didn't die in the fighting to take the alamo, but its pretty damning evidence against the idea he died bravely defending the alamo.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am looking for a link right now but Paul is dead wrong, in fact, there is an official US federal coroner's report on Crockett's body.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
sorry, I just keep thinking of the guy who ruled the Grammy's briefly.
