"The Alamo" looks like it's going to be fun, especially for those of us who actually wore "Davy Crockett" hats to grade-school. The "Crockett" in the previews was very authentic to period representations. He didn't look like Fess Parker or John Wayne at all.
I have a feeling that this movie is going to be horribly innacurate historically. The previews show these guys as being ordinary Americans "defending their homes" or some other nonsense, when they actually were immigrants to Mexico that refused to give up their slaves (slavery was abolished in the U.S. and in Mexico by that time), so they rebelled against the Mexican government and tried to seceed. I have a feeling this movie is just going to be a "poor us for not being allowed to screw over brown people" movie.
quote:Originally posted by Steve Lortz:
Well, apparently, "The Last Samurai" is a story about a similar situation in Japan. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, but I think it should be a decent movie as well. I hope he's the "Mission Impossible" Tom Cruise rather than the "Eyes Wide Shut" Tom Cruise.
quote:Originally posted by Steve Lortz:
There was also a preview for "Master and Commander", where Russell Crowe has charge of a Napoleonic era man-of-war. It comes from a book by O'Brien, and has some of the same flavor as the Hornblower stories.
It should be interesting. I have a feeling that this movie will be great in the theatres, but not so good when it comes out on rental. For some reason these types of films get boring when they're not on a large screen.
quote:Originally posted by Steve Lortz:
And then... of course... "The Return of the King"!
This is the one movie I'm looking forward to seeing, the others I will just go to see if I am dragged there by my wife.
Chinson and I visited the Alamo last February, and found out that Davy Crockett was a physically small man, probably stood about 5'4" or so.
I went there a few months ago myself. I don't know if you found it, but I accidentally stumbled upon a church that has the remains of Davie Crocket, Jim Bowie, and that other guy I never remember the name of. I didn't find it in any of the tourist stuff, but it was really near the old spanish governor's palace.
If there's some way to upload an image here rather than simply linking back to it on my site, I'll show you what it looked like.
The Alamo is an interesting place, but I find it amusing that very few realize that it was an unnecessary battle.
I'm not what many people would call an Alamo buff, but I have been interested in it since my grade-school-age exposure to Walt Disney's "Davy Crockett". I always wanted one of the Marx Alamo playsets back then, but that was a little beyond our means. I have a reproduction playset now that I've augmented with bits and pieces I've picked up at toy soldier shows.
I've done some casual reading on the battle of the Alamo and the Texan war of independence. I liked the movie "Gone To Texas". It doesn't go into a lot of detail about the Alamo itself, but it sure shows the context.
Maybe someday I'll go visit the Alamo. Until then... I'll just have to keep watching "Peewee's Big Adventure" :-)
So P-M, splain what you mean, if you wouldn't mind, about it being an unnecessary battle.
It was unnecessary in that the Mexican military was not wanting to kill the people there. The history as I understand it is this:
In the 1820's, Mexico was offering some of it's land (in Texas) for settlers, and allowed Americans to move in as well as long as they obeyed the laws and such. A large portion of these Americans that moved there didn't want to obey the Mexican laws, particularly that of slavery. Mexico had freed their slaves (which were primarily native american) and many of the Americans that moved from the U.S. to Mexico refused to do so because they wanted to grow cotton while using the slaves. They also refused to put the Mexicans on the same level as them, since the majority of them were dark skinned people. In the 1830's, there were quite a few American expatriots, and Stephen Austin went to the Mexican president to ask Texas to seperate from Mexico. Mexico had shrugged off previous attempts by the U.S. to purchase Texas, and this was just another in a long line of such things. This angered Santa Anna, and he jailed Stephen Austin, then announced a unified constitution for Mexico (including Texas.)
After this, some of the American Texans seceeded and Santa Anna took his troops up to San Antonio and fought the Texans. Of course, those at the Alamo were not a large force, and Santa Anna was going to go past them and take on Sam Houston. However, the people in the Alamo felt it necessary to fight and took on Santa Anna's army.
I'm sure you know what happened after that, with the burning of the bodies, as well as the battle of San Jacinto, the refusal of the U.S. to add Texas as a state because it could cause further tensions with Mexico (plus the slavery issue) and other stuff.
The thing is, if the Americans that moved to Texas had simply freed their slaves and respected the people of the nation they immigrated to, none of that would have happened. From what I have read, Santa Anna was a bastard, but he's not the one that started the fight either.
I could compare the Alamo to a bunch of communists from the U.S.S.R. being invited to live in Alaska, and then eventually they take over and try to force the state of Alaska into an independent communist state (as well as trying to become a part of the U.S.S.R.) The U.S. military would be sent up there if the police were unsuccessful or turned, and there would be a lot of fighting to keep Alaska as an American state that follows American laws. The war was an escalation of problems that had been going on for years before it happened.
The men who fought at the Alamo were brave, but they were also wrong because they were fighting against human rights, and they were fighting to steal land from another nation.
And now "Timeline" is coming out. I read the book and enjoyed it. The movie probably won't be the most profound blockbuster to ever hit the screen, but it ought to be fun. Sort of like "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court".
I'm sorta looking forward to THE LAST SAMURAI, but I do have some apprehensions.
Being somewhat aquainted with Japanese history, I hope they pull off something better than that old TV miniseries "Shogun", which was positively dreadful...
Can't wait to see The Return of the King but I am somewhat surprised to hear that they have cut out Chrisopher Lee (Saruman) from the movie. That kind of indicates they have messed up the end.
That's not what I've heard about ROTK. I heard they filmed several nasty death scenes for Saruman, and the rumor is that he gets impaled.
Oh well. If they did cut it out, you can be sure it will be on the Extended Edition DVD next November.
Is anyone going to the 3-film marathon on the 15th? They've made 35mm prints of the Extended DVD versions of the first 2 and showing all three back-to-back-to-back, with ROTK starting at 12:01am.
well Zix that is what was reported in the media here, quoting Lee himself who was supposed to have 7 minutes of scenes but as you say no doubt the extended DVD will put that right.
But how could they invent a different end for Saruman? He was impaled in a way but it was at the end of Wormtongue's knife in the JRRT original
This is a somewhat different genre than the movies you all are watching, but did any of you see Shattered Glass? What did you think?
Even though I enjoyed it, I thought the story would have made a better documentary than a movie. On the one hand, it tried to be important, especially during the classroom analogy, but it also stuck so closely to the facts that simply by reading the reviews, I knew how it was all going to play out. Even so, the movie was absorbing.
Trefor: Turns out you were correct, Saruman's death did not make the final cut, although it will be on the DVD.
I also heard today that Andy Serkis actually appears non-digitally in ROTK as Smeagol in Gollum's flashback-origin story. I wonder if that wasn't added as an afterthought so he would finally be eligible for an Oscar nomination for his work...? Andy was cheated last year--he OWNED the Supporting Actor category.
Oh well.
Secret Signature of the Day==v
Rocky's just mad because Boris Badunov thinks Bullwinkle's the brains of the outfit.
I totally agree with you, Zix, about Andy Serkis getting robbed. Wasn't even nominated!
But the Smeagol flashback was actually filmed for The Two Towers. In the extended dvd, Peter Jackson says he was going to insert the flashback in the scene where Frodo first calls him Smeagol. But he didn't want to slow the movie down.
Saruman's death, according to Jackson, does indeed come at Wormtongue's hands. It's filmed and will be in the extended DVD of Return of the King. (This was a last minute decision: in the Two Towers, Jackson promises Saruman's death will open the third movie. He has obviously since changed his mind).
An advanced preview of the movie was in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The reviewer loved the film and said that Gollum has another good schizoid conversation with his reflection. Maybe that will remind the voters of his performance in Two Towers.
Secret Signature of the Day==v
Rocky's just mad because Boris Badunov thinks Bullwinkle's the brains of the outfit.
I read it, Rafe - and was disappointed that Jackson chose to leave out Tolkien's ending chapters including "The Scouring of the Shire". I think the comment he made was he never liked the way the book ended anyway, so he didn't want to put it in the movie either. Therefore, Saurman's death at the hand of Wormtongue had to be omitted or re-written.
Recommended Posts
Mister P-Mosh
I have a feeling that this movie is going to be horribly innacurate historically. The previews show these guys as being ordinary Americans "defending their homes" or some other nonsense, when they actually were immigrants to Mexico that refused to give up their slaves (slavery was abolished in the U.S. and in Mexico by that time), so they rebelled against the Mexican government and tried to seceed. I have a feeling this movie is just going to be a "poor us for not being allowed to screw over brown people" movie.
I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, but I think it should be a decent movie as well. I hope he's the "Mission Impossible" Tom Cruise rather than the "Eyes Wide Shut" Tom Cruise.
It should be interesting. I have a feeling that this movie will be great in the theatres, but not so good when it comes out on rental. For some reason these types of films get boring when they're not on a large screen.
This is the one movie I'm looking forward to seeing, the others I will just go to see if I am dragged there by my wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Chinson and I visited the Alamo last February, and found out that Davy Crockett was a physically small man, probably stood about 5'4" or so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett.
Interesting choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
They probably picked him cuz he fits the jacket . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I went there a few months ago myself. I don't know if you found it, but I accidentally stumbled upon a church that has the remains of Davie Crocket, Jim Bowie, and that other guy I never remember the name of. I didn't find it in any of the tourist stuff, but it was really near the old spanish governor's palace.
If there's some way to upload an image here rather than simply linking back to it on my site, I'll show you what it looked like.
The Alamo is an interesting place, but I find it amusing that very few realize that it was an unnecessary battle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm not what many people would call an Alamo buff, but I have been interested in it since my grade-school-age exposure to Walt Disney's "Davy Crockett". I always wanted one of the Marx Alamo playsets back then, but that was a little beyond our means. I have a reproduction playset now that I've augmented with bits and pieces I've picked up at toy soldier shows.
I've done some casual reading on the battle of the Alamo and the Texan war of independence. I liked the movie "Gone To Texas". It doesn't go into a lot of detail about the Alamo itself, but it sure shows the context.
Maybe someday I'll go visit the Alamo. Until then... I'll just have to keep watching "Peewee's Big Adventure" :-)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
So P-M, splain what you mean, if you wouldn't mind, about it being an unnecessary battle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It was unnecessary in that the Mexican military was not wanting to kill the people there. The history as I understand it is this:
In the 1820's, Mexico was offering some of it's land (in Texas) for settlers, and allowed Americans to move in as well as long as they obeyed the laws and such. A large portion of these Americans that moved there didn't want to obey the Mexican laws, particularly that of slavery. Mexico had freed their slaves (which were primarily native american) and many of the Americans that moved from the U.S. to Mexico refused to do so because they wanted to grow cotton while using the slaves. They also refused to put the Mexicans on the same level as them, since the majority of them were dark skinned people. In the 1830's, there were quite a few American expatriots, and Stephen Austin went to the Mexican president to ask Texas to seperate from Mexico. Mexico had shrugged off previous attempts by the U.S. to purchase Texas, and this was just another in a long line of such things. This angered Santa Anna, and he jailed Stephen Austin, then announced a unified constitution for Mexico (including Texas.)
After this, some of the American Texans seceeded and Santa Anna took his troops up to San Antonio and fought the Texans. Of course, those at the Alamo were not a large force, and Santa Anna was going to go past them and take on Sam Houston. However, the people in the Alamo felt it necessary to fight and took on Santa Anna's army.
I'm sure you know what happened after that, with the burning of the bodies, as well as the battle of San Jacinto, the refusal of the U.S. to add Texas as a state because it could cause further tensions with Mexico (plus the slavery issue) and other stuff.
The thing is, if the Americans that moved to Texas had simply freed their slaves and respected the people of the nation they immigrated to, none of that would have happened. From what I have read, Santa Anna was a bastard, but he's not the one that started the fight either.
I could compare the Alamo to a bunch of communists from the U.S.S.R. being invited to live in Alaska, and then eventually they take over and try to force the state of Alaska into an independent communist state (as well as trying to become a part of the U.S.S.R.) The U.S. military would be sent up there if the police were unsuccessful or turned, and there would be a lot of fighting to keep Alaska as an American state that follows American laws. The war was an escalation of problems that had been going on for years before it happened.
The men who fought at the Alamo were brave, but they were also wrong because they were fighting against human rights, and they were fighting to steal land from another nation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And now "Timeline" is coming out. I read the book and enjoyed it. The movie probably won't be the most profound blockbuster to ever hit the screen, but it ought to be fun. Sort of like "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm sorta looking forward to THE LAST SAMURAI, but I do have some apprehensions.
Being somewhat aquainted with Japanese history, I hope they pull off something better than that old TV miniseries "Shogun", which was positively dreadful...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Can't wait to see The Return of the King but I am somewhat surprised to hear that they have cut out Chrisopher Lee (Saruman) from the movie. That kind of indicates they have messed up the end.
What can Peter Jackson have been thinking of?
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
From what I've read, the movie doesn't end on the somber note that the book does, which is a huge shame because that sort of defeats the point.
It's Hollywood though, and they have to give the moron majority at the theatres a happy ending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
That's not what I've heard about ROTK. I heard they filmed several nasty death scenes for Saruman, and the rumor is that he gets impaled.
Oh well. If they did cut it out, you can be sure it will be on the Extended Edition DVD next November.
Is anyone going to the 3-film marathon on the 15th? They've made 35mm prints of the Extended DVD versions of the first 2 and showing all three back-to-back-to-back, with ROTK starting at 12:01am.
Secret Signature of the Day==v
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
well Zix that is what was reported in the media here, quoting Lee himself who was supposed to have 7 minutes of scenes but as you say no doubt the extended DVD will put that right.
But how could they invent a different end for Saruman? He was impaled in a way but it was at the end of Wormtongue's knife in the JRRT original
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
This is a somewhat different genre than the movies you all are watching, but did any of you see Shattered Glass? What did you think?
Even though I enjoyed it, I thought the story would have made a better documentary than a movie. On the one hand, it tried to be important, especially during the classroom analogy, but it also stuck so closely to the facts that simply by reading the reviews, I knew how it was all going to play out. Even so, the movie was absorbing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Turns out you were correct, Saruman's death did not make the final cut, although it will be on the DVD.
I also heard today that Andy Serkis actually appears non-digitally in ROTK as Smeagol in Gollum's flashback-origin story. I wonder if that wasn't added as an afterthought so he would finally be eligible for an Oscar nomination for his work...? Andy was cheated last year--he OWNED the Supporting Actor category.
Oh well.
Secret Signature of the Day==v
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I totally agree with you, Zix, about Andy Serkis getting robbed. Wasn't even nominated!
But the Smeagol flashback was actually filmed for The Two Towers. In the extended dvd, Peter Jackson says he was going to insert the flashback in the scene where Frodo first calls him Smeagol. But he didn't want to slow the movie down.
Saruman's death, according to Jackson, does indeed come at Wormtongue's hands. It's filmed and will be in the extended DVD of Return of the King. (This was a last minute decision: in the Two Towers, Jackson promises Saruman's death will open the third movie. He has obviously since changed his mind).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
An advanced preview of the movie was in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The reviewer loved the film and said that Gollum has another good schizoid conversation with his reflection. Maybe that will remind the voters of his performance in Two Towers.
Secret Signature of the Day==v
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Anyone read the Newsweek story on this a couple of weeks ago? Amazing story, pictures, etc.
The film apparently opens with the Smeagol flashback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I read it, Rafe - and was disappointed that Jackson chose to leave out Tolkien's ending chapters including "The Scouring of the Shire". I think the comment he made was he never liked the way the book ended anyway, so he didn't want to put it in the movie either. Therefore, Saurman's death at the hand of Wormtongue had to be omitted or re-written.
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.