History Channel to film "Texas Rising"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shafter
I agree. In kinda the opposite way I think thats why the The Alamo 2003 was not as well received as it should have been. It was over the top accurate from the set, the weapons, the costumes, uniforms, and the fact that advanced elements of Santa Ana's army surprised the Texians while they were still in the town of Bexar preparing to move onto the mission grounds with their supplies, and of course the attack on the Texians in the predawn hours that caught the Alamo garrison asleep and completely by surprise. While completely accurate it was actually rather boring, as opposed to the thrilling but inaccurate Alamo movies that came before it when I was 6 and 11 years old.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of accuracy. What happened to all of the horses that the Alamo garrison had? Travis was a cavalry commander. All the troops he brought had horses as did Kimballs Ranger Co. from Gonzales. Were the horses all killed in the bombardments. Makes you think...I didn't have to think that much watching the Vikings last night....great show....but wait wasnt that an anachronistic broadsword in that one fighting scene? :) Sorry mods for talking about horses, Vikings, and broadswords instead of bp arms. It won't happen again.
 
Oh well we can at least hope they get the weapons correct.

You can hope, but you have to understand that such reconstructions are usually limited by budget concerns and the idea of authenticity comes from getting the gist or spirit of the circumstances right rather than getting every nitty gritty detail absolutely correct.

I had a buddy who was a tire specialist. It made him mad (and probably still does) every time he sees WWII movies and the wrong tires are on the JEEPs.

It is tough to get absolutely everything right to everyone's satisfaction.
 
That's one reason why "Heavens Gate" was such a financial disaster. Michael Cimino demanded historical accuracy from the sets and weapons to the steam train used in the movie.

LOL, historical accuracy for the period, yet cherry-picked from several regions to create a fictionalized story loosely based on a true story. The irony is immense.

It was a financial disaster not just because of the cost, but because the movie flopped in general at the theaters. The NY opening was a disaster...which had nothing to do with the cost.
 
I think a lot of this is the director. He can put a movie together, make it exciting and still retain SOME historical accuracy. But, directors like that ain’t cheap and with a television network they are always looking at budget costs. I’m not expecting much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top