The new Alamo picture is coming right at us, and here's the upcoming DVD-cover already:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JM...01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JM96.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Alamo historians will point out how they recreated the famous chapel, Wayne's Alamo built by Al Ybarra had a broken down roof - this one seems closer to the modern version standing in San Antonio today.

That is really a good shot of the cover. I have been to the one at both San Antinio, and Brackettville. They are very simular except for the interior.

Cheers, Hondo B)

The thing historians always fight about (and that's the choice Wayne's art director had do make, as well as the one for the new picture) is: How did the chapel really look. The way it looks today in San Antonio isn't the way it looked in 1836. Some portion on top was added. Wayne's Alamo has a broken down top (note the windows of Wayne's Alamo, they are cut in half) whereas this picture of the new one shows the chapel fassade intact, the way it is today (of course, that's only a promotion, I have no idea how the new chapel actually will look in the film).

Walt Disney made an interesting choice for the chapel when he did his version: he built his Alamo (or rather: his matte painter painted it for they never had a complete set) the way it is today - moving the Crockett barricade back! So the chapel would actually not be a very safe place for the wounded - that way it is exposed to the enemy, haha! I guess Uncle Walt wanted to have it that way so the kids who would visit San Antonio weren't dissappointed.

Watch the Teaser:

http://alamo.movies.go.com/main.html


Boy-o-boy, would I like to be in the US at Christmas to go see it and not having to wait another couple month till it hits Europe!

Why do I get the feeling that this movie is going to be a big deal in Texas? ;-)

Looks like it should be a good one - thanks for the link, Roland.

I haven't seen Wayne's Alamo picture yet. Do you recommend I see that one first?

jen,

to watch or not to watch that is the question, well if you want to go in to watch this movie without and preconseption of what to expect then i would advise that you don't watch dukes alamo but if you want to see how they have changed it or to see how they are able to pull it off after the dukes version then watch dukes alamo. this can be only your choice but as i have dukes alamo i will be going to see it with as open a mind as i can, this being that movie making has come forward in leaps and bounds since duke made his alamo. if you can get yourself a copy of dukes alamo on dvd i would advise that you do as it has a behind the scenes look at the making of this movie with interviews with mick wayne and some of the cameramen and such.
all i can say is have a good time making up your mind and i hope you enjoy the new movie when you see it

cheers smokey

Thanks, Smokey, for the thoughtful reply. Either way I'm going to be losing the benefit of having no preconceived notions of what I think it should be about. I have a feeling Duke's flick is more idealistic and romanticized, so I think I'm going to see that one first.

:)

Make sure you see the UNCUT version first (yeah, here I go again), the way JW intended it to be seen, and to my knowledge you'll get this 191 min version only on VHS or on Laserdisc (the DVD has the old gutted version - look out!).

AFTER you saw JW's original dream, you can go ahead and watch the cut version and cry.

And THEN you can see the new flic.

If they even come close to the JW-version (which they won't, they can't) I'll switch boards and can be found at Billy Bob Thornton's messageboard from then on.

From arthur arnell
Hi all
This is what one English newspaper has to say about the new Alamo:

[quote] THE PLOT
In 1836, 189 Texans withstood siege from a Mexican dictator at a place that became known as The Alamo. They held out for 13 days before losing their lives in the attempt.

THE HYPE. Remember the Alamo? The Yanks love patriotic film, so expect plenty of support stateside.

THE EYE CANDY?
Wins points for Jason Patric. Loses them for Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett.

MOST DRAMATIC MOMENT
The gory bloody battle of San Jacinto.

WHAT'S THE DAMAGE?
A relative bargain. Filmakers grew 21 varieties of crops specific to Mexico on a special 51 acre site and built 70 buildings at a cost of$95 million (£57 million)

HIT OR TURKEY
Depends - if they resist the temptation to rewrite history. The tale doesn't end well for the Americans, which never goes down well across the pond.

OSCAR POTENTIAL?
Oscar winning producer Ron howard has a magic touch - remember 'A Beautiful Mind'

Personally having seen the original uncut version and being aware of James Edward Grant's love of elequence I found parts especially when Travis was explaining his strategy to Ken Curtis slightly tedious.
As a film the Alamo stands out in the Duke's repotoire as one of his best and it seems criminal that a personnal dream cost him so much to fulfill with virtually no monetary reward.

hi all,
I thought that Russel Crowe was going to play Davy Crockett, but I can be wrong.

I'm looking forward to see the movie, and I hope that in Holland Wayne comes in the news again.

cya,

JWfan

Nope, maybe Crowe was "considered" at one time (or maybe they just spread the word to make use of his star-name to drum up some publicity) but now it's definitely Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett. I expect a lot of him. Haven't seen a bad performance by this man yet. He's in theaters over here right now, with a very very funny cameo in "Love Actually", that british film. Do you get that over in the US? Hope so! I had an interview with director Richard Curtis (he wrote "Four Weddings", "Notting Hill" and "Bridget Jones" and the "Mr.Bean" sketches) and actress Laura Linney as well as Ricardo Santoro (of Charlie's Angels fame), and it was quite funny to do it, too. Asked Curtis what he hated about Americans (which caused quite a reaction from Linney) because it seems he likes to see Americans in his films as the kind of stupid tourist. Note the line "torturing Americans" in "Four Weddings", the stupid US General (Burt Reynolds) in "Mr. Bean - the Movie", and even the way Julia Roberts behaves in Notting Hill. Now its Billy Bob doing the US cliches (playing a horny president). Curtis answer? There is a percentage of stupid people in my movies, and therefore they have to be the Americans! :lol:
The man made a very funny and romantic movie. Go see it! It'll be some time before we can see Billy Bob defending the Alamo.

I finally got the chance to see the new Alamo version - had to get the DVD, even had to get it from overseas, since the film never made it to our cinemas. I guess the distributors feared the theme would be to alien for Europeans, and of course, it's not an upbeat ending.

Anyway, what I was really waiting for is the scene which caused so much discussion between the "Crockett surrendered" and the "Crockett fought to the death" people. I think the film quite cleverly choose the middle road: Crockett didn't die fighting, but he didn't beg for his life neither, going down with a smart line offending Santa Anna. In all the Alamo movies I have seen, this is the one most accurate to history, as far as it's known, I'd even include the IMAX presentation which is only shown in San Antonio, unfortunately. But then again, the Alamo is about myth, and I much prefer it that way on the screen. Of course, with every new Alamo movie they make, one has to fear: Are they going to be better than the beloved Wayne movie (not that there's much chance though, but anyway, that's what you think). And time and time again, they don't even come close. Ha!

Hi Roland

The latest Alamo hit our cinema in late September and laster a week, by the time I decided to go to see it it had gone.

You saying that you saw the DVD, especially this quickly, is interesting is it European or American? Eventually I want to get to see it in order to make my own mind up.


Regards

Arthur

:cowboy: The latest attempt at an Alamo movie was a definate bust. Remember when Ron Howard decided not to be the director of this movie? It was because he did not want to have his good name associated with a project that he knew would be a stinker.

Do you guys know why this movie bombed? It was because hollywood tried to rewrite history again. They based this entire film off of the now proven faked De La Pena documents. If you do not know who he was then please continue reading.

De La Pena was a Colonel in Santa Annas Army. He was supposed to have written a multi page document on what he witnessed at the Alamo. His version says that Davy Crockett surrendered and was executed. His documents were also not written by De La Pena himself. They were written by at least four people who were gathering notes when sitting with him when he was sick with Malaria. When one has a bout with Malaria, one is also not fully in one own mind either.

These documents were written by the four ++ people mentioned above. Well, im not sure what year they were supposedly "found" by a well known and VERY fradulent Mexican Antiquities dealer. These documents can be compared to The Hitler Diaries; which too were fakes.

Anyway, Captain Dickensons wife and a Mexican Army Sergeant both wrote books saying they saw Crocketts body surrounded by at least 15 dead Mexican soldiers. The Mexican Sergeant also had stated that he saw Crockett die in combat. Crockett was not executed.

If you ask my opinion on the latest version of The Alamo, I would skip watching it (as I did) and just enjoy watching the older versions instead--even if they are not totally accurate and even if hollywood then took some things out of context.

One of the prettiest songs I ever heard was "The Green Leaves Of Summer" which was the one used in John Wayne's The Alamo.

Just my two cents worth TRK.

PS, I am a Texan and live about 2 1/2 hrs drive from The Alamo. I also had a relative who fought and died there which was Robert Evans.

Ringo; It does look like every few years they try to Re-write the story of the Alamo. In the late 1950s I helped do a few Short-Stories for the Phoenix News Paper, and one of the stories was about what my Grandmother told me about what her Grandfather had told her about the "Alamo". I was born in Arizona but all the rest of the family were from Texas. If you want to take a look at the stories you can go to STORIES OF THE OLD SOUTHWEST (http://www.wyntoontrip.com/SHARPS1.html) Chilibill :cowboy:

:cowboy: Hello Sir, I fully agree with you. Hollywood is destroying fact and trying to pass it off as fiction. I am wondering why they are trying to destroy our national heroes such as Davy Crockett, Georgs S. Patton Jr etc? I am perplexed.....

I did take a look at the story you provided and found it was a very interesting one to read and was very enjoyable. I think our families have some close similiarities. The people who took in my Father and Uncle into their house in the early 1930's (not relatives by blood bur we definately did call them family)

Well, my "Grandfather" Harry A. Folts, was one who also fought against Pancho Villa before ww1. My Grandfather recaptured a Winchester 1894 that had once been the property to someone who had lived and was killed by Villas outlaws at Columbus, New Mexico. Well he also "liberated" a rare type pistol as well. He got these weapons from the bandits he killed.

I do not know much about his involvement in fighting Villa but I do know that he was with an outfit that was from South Texas. I do not know how many fights he was in with the exception of the one where he acquired the Winchester and the pistol.

I wish I had photos and more facts for you. Your presantation was very well done. I wish I had more to go on about a relative of mine who was at The Alamo too. The only other thing I know for fact on that was that a Cousin of mine shares his name.

I think it's fascinating that you have relatives going all the way back to the Alamo.
I hope you don't mind my talking about the subject, being a foreigner in terms of Texas history, but the theme is definitely intriguing. I think you should watch the new version, just for the sake of having seen it. Because I think they didn't set out to destroy the myth, just to make a new version with aspects we haven't seen so far. As production values goes, it certainly is the most handsomely mounted production since Wayne's version, certainly there was more money spent than on the other films, including the IMAX film and the Burt Kennedy version. The Alamo and the town they built look really great and ring true to historical paintings. They are true to little details, even re-creating Crockett's west, the one shown in The Alamo today. With the exception of the Crockett execution, the battle seems to be all the way true to the facts (they don't show someone trying to blow up the pulvera).

But then of course they want to give the audience what one expects - just with little differences. The death of Bowie, for instance, is directed like all his movie deaths before, shooting two pistols from his stretcher - yet this time he just has time to reach out for his knife before they cut him to ribbons. Being true to history and yet trying to be entertaining was a difficult task I imagine. Like in the scene of Crockett arriving in Bexar, someone greets him: Hey, Davy! And one of his men instantly clears this one up: "He prefers DAVID." Which is true to the records, of course, yet as an avid Alamo fan, wouldn't you just want to hear them call him DAVY?

:cowboy: Hello Itdo.

I too also think its fascinating that we had at least one relative at The Alamo. Years and years ago I remember when my Mother was doing all the Geneology and research on our family tree. I remember the many trips we made to San Antonio and to Austin where she would be doing hours and hours of research.

I also found it amazing at some of the historical figures that we are related to. Figures like: U.S.Grant, Cordell Hull, King Haakon the VII of Norway, Bonnie Prince Charlie, and Barbara Eden. ((I'm sure there are others but, I just cannot recall names at this time)))

I don't mind you talking about the subject ;-) that's how we learn.

On seeing the movie, I just don't know if I could ever break down and do it. For me it is because they changed some very important parts of the proven history ((such as Crocketts death))) that I do not think I can bear to spend any money on this film.

As for how the buildings looking more historically accurate in the movie, that is good and I applaud them for that. However, in all my years of reading books on Davy Crockett, I have never seen it mentioned that he preferred to be called David--except when he was at a formal gathering when he was a Congressman.

I know John Waynes version of The Alamo took many liberties. I never liked the Crockett death scene in his version. I do like the movie very much overall as something enjoyable to watch and for as many times as I have seen it, I never tire of the movie.

When I was about 5 yrs old, I did get a chance to visit John Waynes "Alamo" which is in Bracketville, Texas. However, I do not remember anything of that visit except that I ran up a ramp I think where in the movie, they had placed a Cannon on. Other than that, I remember nothing of the visit except that was where we bought a John Wayne bumper siticker that I still have. It reads: GOD BLESS John Wayne.

I do not know what facts are changed in this new movie but, from the scenes played in ads and on Entertainment shows, I just do not think I would enjoy watching this movie.

Take care and Cheers, TRK.

By the way, the guy who said "it do" in the movie, I think was a local person living in or near Bracketville that they hired for the movie. Anyway, from what I understand, he still lives in or near there.

"It do" Rudy Robbins went to Hollywood after The Alamo and also played a part in Wayne's Green Berets. I met him in Brackettville a few years back, and he told me that he came back to the area when his movie career didn't take off. He's playing in a country band.

Of all the Alamo movies, which one would you consider the most accurate?
I'd have to say, despite the execution scene, it would have to be the new one (we're only looking at historical accuracy now, of course).

Hi Roland and Ringo

I haven't seen the new Alamo yet and having only read downbeat reviews I won't say anything until I have, and by the time the DVD comes out here everyone would probably have forgotten about it anyway, but apart from THE Alamo (the Duke's version). I liked The Last Command but as you say probably not very accurate.

How would you rate the 1939 Man of Conquest starring Richard Dix? The film is quoted as being one of the best to come out of Republic and was nominated for three Academy Awards. The blurb represents it as being a true record of Sam Houston's life and in the picture he tells Travis that the Alamo is not only not worth defending both from a strategic or military point of view, but orders him not to attempt to defend it. I believe that this was in fact the case.

It throws an interesting point on the whole question of accuracy, and I suppose the only way it could ever be proved is by looking at Houston's dispatches, if they ever existed or what happened if the subject was discussed in a private conversation between the two men.

I suppose that is what makes history such a fascinating subject.


Regards

Arthur

:cowboy: Greeting Itdo and Arthurarnell,

Itdo: Thanks for that info on him. Its a shame his H-wood career did not work out, I did like him in The Alamo. I had not known he was in The Green Berets? nor in a band either. Do you know what part he played in The Green Berets? Also speaking of knowing people in that movie, I have a friend whos uncle was in the part of one of the men being trained and you can see them jogging by The Duke and the other fellow he was shooting Skeet with. Unfortunately that person was killed in combat in Vietnam about a year or so later.

Arthur: I am a fan of other Alamo movies like: Last Man From The Alamo with Glen Ford, The Last Command and of course Man Of Conquest. I thought all were good versions though each seemed to focus on things differently. Last Man From The Alamo really had little to do with the battle but was still enjoyable to watch.

Its been many years since I last saw Man of Conquest but I do remember liking it. I last saw it played on WTBS about 20 years ago so I remember little about it other than it held my interest. Also, there was James Michners (SP?) Texas. It was based on the times slightly before and during and slightly after the fall of The Alamo. I found that very few things in it were really accurate but, I did find that watching it as a work of fiction that it was relatively enjoyable to watch. Still, my favorite versions of The Alamo were of course The Dukes version as well as Disneys version with Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen.

As far as any of these films really being historically accurate, well they all had some accurate and not so accurate things in them all. Apart from what reviews I have seen on TV movie critic and entertainment shows, I just can't bring myself to watch someones views that were based on a false testament (de la Penas) and I heard that there was not much focus on Crockett, Bowie and Travis.

Im not afraid to watch it if I do so as a work of fiction but I can't take the new movie seriously because of the false documents the movie was based on. Now as for the historical accuracy of The Alamos buildings etc, that I can appreciate in the movie.

Also the workings of the canons (the balls actually exploding AFTER they hit their target) and the long rifles should fascinate you.
As for Itdo Rudy Robbins: he's a bit hard to identify in Green Berets cause he's clean shaven for once! Look for him in the scene where Kirby first gets to Dodge City with his men.

I've seen Disney's version just recently (got in the mood to see Alamo pictures after I saw the new one), and the Alamo part is really the one the didn't spend too much money on. The only times you see the chapel is a matte painting, they actually had just one wall built and only a dozen or so extras! (and they borrowed battle footage from Budd Boetticher's Man from the Alamo!) So, 50 years later, it's hard to imagine how this could have started the Crockett Craze. While I enjoy it immensly to watch (I'm glad to have the 35mm version) it sure looks like the TV production it was.

Hi Roland and Ringo

I watched the Disney 'Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier' and 'Davy Crockett and the River Pirates' when I was about eleven. Of course as a Flagship picture bringing forth a television series. Disney swung his full force behind it. We had the colouring books the comics, we never bought the coonskin cap because that looked naff. But everyone else in our street had one. My mum had a fox fur stoll and she adapted that to make a cap for my younger brother, and after she finished it looked better than Fess Parkers.

Of course Disney's version tended as you say to concentrate on the Indian Wars because Crockett won that one, his spell in Washington could be classed as a score draw but he came out of that with credit, and the Alamo sequence glossed over because the hero gets to end up dead, and even Disney couldn't alter that.

But in England at that time any type of adventure film that came out of Hollywood was leaped on, and kids and coonskin caps were easy pickings for the advertiers.


Regards


Arthur

the interesting thing about the Disney film is that they put the cinema version together from the three 1-hour-TV episodes - therefore cutting a lot. They were just cashing in on the success they didn't even expect. They cropped the original frame to make it look like some widescreen. And for the theatrical release, they somehow made it more like a kiddie version, cutting a lot of swearing and shooting, and lots of the gory Alamo scenes from the TV version aren't seen in the theatrical version.

Oh yes, I never did like Fess Parker's coonskin cap, too! In terms of "dead beaver hats" the best would be Wayne's! (they still have it on display in San Antonio)

That's another thing on historical accuracy: I read that Crockett never wore it once he was inside the Alamo. That's what the new film picks up as well.

:cowboy: Hi Itdo, Arthur,

Itdo, well, at least their special effects sound good. I will do just that and look at the Dodge City scene. I was planning on watching The Green berets again soon but not until I finish watching Season 1 Campaign 1 of the TV series: COMBAT. I am about 75% through wiht that series having only one more disk to watch with four episodes.

Arthur, I agree with you. Disney was a bit cheesy on set designes for their Alamo sequence but all is forgiven because I love the Davy Crockett theme song.

^_^ Well, I just saw this Disney Alamo movie 3 weeks ago, and I was wondering why they executed Davy crockett, that was not the way he died in Dukes Alamo, so for historical facts I got confused.
I understand by some of you that they found him surrounded by dead mexican soldiers, now I do not believe Hollywood :headbonk: very much when it comes to historical facts. In one of my historical books, the text goes like this:
The body of the legendary frontiersman, Colonel Davy Crockett, who had arrived in Texas only a couple of weeks earlier, was found mutilated, surrounded by his companions from Tennessee.

:D Santa Ana was seized on april 21, and sigened documents that acknowledged the independence of Texas. :cowboy:
Do any of you know if these documents can be seen today, and if, where.
You guys and girls from Texas should know.
Have visited Texas ones and plans to visit again.
By the way, my over all view of this Disney Alamo was, that the special effects were good, Jason Patric as Jim Bowie was not the best choice, I would have liked Dennis Quaid instead. A little disappointing, but watchable.
Larry

:cowboy: Hi Larry, you cannot believe hollywood for really any historical accuracies except that the Japanese bombed Pearle Harbor early Sunday morning December 7th 1941. Other than that, unless it is a true to life Biography (Like Patton) and (We Were Soldiers) do not, I repeat, DO NOT trust hollywood to give you much in the way of accurate historical facts.

It makes me want to "go around the bend" on how history is taught these days and what passes for history these days. A good friend of mine who is a High School teacher in the state of Michegan, is always at odds with the other history teachers because their version of teaching history is to simply put in a dvd or tape of some war movie, and play it for the kids. Luckily my friend has computers in his class and he MAKES his kids look up for more info, what he teaches. The only time he will play a movie or video in his class, is just for their enjoyment.

It really amazes me. Not too long ago, I asked this high school student where was Pearl Harbor? and her reply was: "I did not know Pearl Harbor was a place? I thought it was a rock n roll group."

Originally posted by The Ringo Kid@Nov 7 2004, 03:28 PM
:cowboy: Hi Larry, you cannot believe hollywood for really any historical accuracies except that the Japanese bombed Pearle Harbor early Sunday morning December 7th 1941. Other than that, unless it is a true to life Biography (Like Patton) and (We Were Soldiers) do not, I repeat, DO NOT trust hollywood to give you much in the way of accurate historical facts.

It makes me want to "go around the bend" on how history is taught these days and what passes for history these days. A good friend of mine who is a High School teacher in the state of Michegan, is always at odds with the other history teachers because their version of teaching history is to simply put in a dvd or tape of some war movie, and play it for the kids. Luckily my friend has computers in his class and he MAKES his kids look up for more info, what he teaches. The only time he will play a movie or video in his class, is just for their enjoyment.

It really amazes me. Not too long ago, I asked this high school student where was Pearl Harbor? and her reply was: "I did not know Pearl Harbor was a place? I thought it was a rock n roll group."
12282


You've hit on one of the main reasons home schooling has become so popular. Because the public schools have become a disaster.

Wow . . . so many things to which to respond!

First, I agree with you, Ringo and Stumpy, regarding not trusting Hollywood or our school systems for telling the truth. Recently, I picked up a history book at a local school and was browsing through it. Imagine my surprise when it was discussing how the ships of the United Nations were streaming across the Pacific to defeat the Japanese. Now I know we had help from the Brits and Aussies, but the United Nations wasn't even in existence until after WWII (BTW, we have been homeschooling since 1986, all six kids :fear2: (that's the Mrs. after a busy day)!).

Second, we've got a whole pile of coonskin caps around here, as well as a couple of skunk skin caps! I loved Davy Crockett when I was a kid, and naturally bought two VHS tapes years ago of Davy Crockett. Having nearly worn them to a frazzle, I recently bought a two-DVD set at Costco, of Davy Crockett and the River Pirates and Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier ($12.99 for the set :D ).

And last, but not least, yesterday at the Dean Smith Celebrity Rodeo, I met Rudy Robbins and was able to get him to autograph two photos of him and the Duke from The Alamo movie. I hope to scan them eventually and get them up so you can see them. I also bought a book he co-authored, How to Yodel "The Cowboy Way" with DVD instructions (you interested, Roland? I hear they do some fancy yodeling up in those Swiss Alps :D ). I'm thinking of becoming a singing cowboy myself :headbonk: .

Seriously, he lives in Bandera, Texas, and seems to be enjoying life. I told him the story of our itdo (Roland) joining the message board, and how my wife and I thought were wondering if he was Rudy Robbins. He got a good laugh out of that.

Chester :newyear:

Hi Chester Larry and Ringo,

Next year marks the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. Just for fun they carried out a census recently about what people knew about the Battle, some thought that Nelson and thwe Duke of Wellington were the same man, others thought that Trafalgar was in the North Sea. Some thought that the Battle was fought as part of the Norman Invasion of 1066, while other thought that the sigt of |Nelson column in Londons Trafalgar Square marke the site where the actual battle took place, (although how you got sixteen British and twenty odd French and Spanish battleships through the London Streets is mindboggling.

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

I was thinking up a scenario for a remake of Scott of the Antarctic made by an American Film Company.

Its 1912, a raging blizzard and as Captain Scott and his companions are lying on their death beds in a fragile tent, Sylvester Stallone flies in in an atomic helicopter and to the tune of Eye of a Tiger flies them and the tent, to safety.

Who knows it might be a smash hit in the States.




Regards

Arthur

Hi Arthurarnell, Ringo, Chester.
History teachers got a job to do, pearl harbor rock band and trafalgar battle in London, to my knowledge WW2 is not that long ago, here in France they just celebrated D-day, students in several countries in Europe were asked about WW2 and the outcome was horrific, many didn't know what the D-day was.

:mellow: In a way I guess that kids are just not interested.

We Danes came to know Lord Nelson from the other side, in 1801 the British fleet under comand of Admiral Sir Hyde parker with Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson sailed for Copenhagen to seize the Danish fleet, since the British were afraid that the neutral Denmark would leave the fleet to France, this led to a large battle that lasted for hours, many dead, the battle ended in a cease-fire, due to Lord Nelson.
In 1805 battle of Trafalgar, and in 1807 British fleet bombardment :headbonk: of Copenhagen.

I say History is great reading. :jump:
Larry

Originally posted by larrybusch@Nov 8 2004, 05:12 AM
In a way I guess that kids are just not interested.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfil [repeat] it."

George Santayana, Life of Reason (1905-06)

And let's face it, there's a lot of the past we don't want to repeat.

:cowboy: Greetings Chester/Larry/Arthur/Stumpy:

Chester/Larry, I fully agree with you both. If I ever have any children, they will be home schooled. I bet that pretty soon the Americans would have won the Battle of Britain and the British would have defeated the Japanese on Guadalcanal.

Chester, definaterly lookinig forward to seeing your signed photos. I find that some interesting info that Mr Robbins lives in Bandera. My family used to vacation there every summer at the Bandera River Ranch. I sure miss eating at: The Old Spanish Trail (home of the worlds longest continuous oak bar) and eating at The Purple Cow. This place is also great to go cycling.

Arthur, I definately hear ya on what you said. The same thing goes on over here on Pearl Harbor or ww2 in general. :wacko:

Stumpy, you hit the nail on the head with your post too. TRK.

OK - I finally watched the latest version of "The Alamo" the other evening. I would have to say that if I was not familiar with the story, especially as presented by Duke's version, I would have to say that the story line was very murky indeed. I've heard said that this new version was short on characterization and I would agree. Many of the characters were glossed over and, in some cases, I wasn't even sure which person was which. Most of the actors were unknowns to me, so it was hard to focus on the characterizations. With so many participants in the story, Duke was wise to pick recognizable character actors for most of the speaking parts so the audience could readily identify with what was going on (when one could make out what was going on - if someone with no knowledge of the story of the Alamo watched this, they would be lost. I have a feeling that overseas audiences quicky passed out word that this wasn't a good movie simply because they were muddled about the story.) About the only positive element that I found in the movie was the characterization of General Santa Anna. And though the movie was called "The Alamo," the most cohesive part of Disney's version was the Battle of San Jacinto.
Duke's version wins HANDS DOWN - no contest at all.
Cheers - Jay <_< :blink: :wacko:

Hi Jay, thanks for the review. My mind is made up and I aint going to watch thie version. IMO and sight unseen, this movie ist veri schlecht. :(

Hi,
Really been interested in your debate about the real Alamo, and the local issues, surrounding it!
The "Other" Alamo film, THE LAST COMMAND,
remember that one, Republic made as a get back at Duke film.
After watching THE ALAMO, this one almost seemed like a comedy, especially, when you compared the two Davy Crocketts.
That story line, to me, also seemed muddled!
I know Dukes Alamo, came in for some stick historically, but I know, who's version I beleive!,but then I would, wouldn't I!!!

Hi

Having seen all three of the Alamo pictures I have to say that despite all of the hype I quite enjoyed the new Alamo, I believe that if it had been made to stand on its own it would have gone down as a reasonable film not fantastically memorable but reasonable. I admit it can't stand comparison with John Wayne's Alamo, perhaps if Ron howard had stayed at the helm, things might have been different.

With regard to Tha Last Command again it is a picture I enjoyed and don't forget it could be said that this was John Wayne's first stab at making his Alamo dream, if things had turned out better with Yates and Republic he and not Sterling Hayden would have played Jim Bowie, the dream would have been realised earlier and saved John Wayne a considerable amount of money.



Regards

Arthur

Hi -
Disney's "The Alamo" is an ok film taken on its own terms. But in its attempt to be politically correct, it loses the sweep and grandeur of the myth and legend of the events (and the story of the Alamo siege and battle has taken on legendary status). Duke's version captured the happenings magnificently (even though facts were stretched or overlooked for entertainment's sake - but what movie doesn't do that), especially in the glorious filming by director of photography William H. Clothier. Duke was making a movie of entertainment focusing on broad vistas emblazoned with bold strokes. Duke's "The Alamo" makes a lasting impression!
Cheers - Jay ;)

Regarding THE LAST COMMAND, I agree with Arthur.
Although I enjoyed the film, I fould I couldnt take it too seriously
Duke would have made THE ALAMO, with Republic,and saved all his money and stress!!
Republic of course, used lots of Duke's visions, for that film.