Anyone else pissed at the new movie "The Alamo"? - Page 2

TCO · October 13, 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Who cares about accuracy, we greased all your gringo Tejas asses anyway.

The Alamo was really about having more balls than brains and waiting 24 hours too long.

Who you calling "we", paleface?

GePap · October 13, 2003, 00:10

I think Santa Ana might be a reason Mexican versions of the Alamo aren't common..how to portray him? He is not a hero in Mexico in any meaning of the word, so who is the big Hero on the Mexican version of the Alamo? There are plenty of famous Whites, but besides Sant Ana..what famous Mexicans participated?

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 00:11

How does one "shut off the spigot" precisely? Build a massive chain of forts along the Red and Sabine rivers?

Imran Siddiqui · October 13, 2003, 00:12

Well that's true, Santa Anna messes the whole Mexican side up. I don't think many Mexicans would be too offended if Santa Anna was portrayed as a bad guy, because he is one to them as well. He overthrew democratic governments and wanted to rule as dictator... and got his ass handed to him.

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO

Who you calling "we", paleface?

Got a lot of sun today, gringo.

Besides, I'm home, 300 meters south of the border.

Imran Siddiqui · October 13, 2003, 00:14

Quote:

How does one "shut off the spigot" precisely? Build a massive chain of forts along the Red and Sabine rivers?

That's one way

.

They could have cracked down on settlers entering, but it just wasn't that important to them at the time. What did they care? Until the Texans started getting uppity, of course.

GePap · October 13, 2003, 00:18

While this may not sound pretty, the Mexicans (at leats those in power) were not doing much to develop their vast northern provinces, whcih is why they were so eager to let whites in..let them do it for the central gov. That is probably why the whole nothern part of mexico was easy pickings, a few missionaries, very small Mexican pops and a bunch of Injuns. Though the exicans weren;t doing much to attract many cahtolic immigrants either. Imagine if all those irishmen had moved to mexico instead....

Major O'Hannigan of Mexico City....

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I think Santa Ana might be a reason Mexican versions of the Alamo aren't common..how to portray him? He is not a hero in Mexico in any meaning of the word, so who is the big Hero on the Mexican version of the Alamo? There are plenty of famous Whites, but besides Sant Ana..what famous Mexicans participated?

It depends on your definition of famous.

I would suspect the real reason is the utter lack of drama. Small delaying force of green stuff between their teeth rednecks holed up in a run down ex-Spanish mission sticks around a day too long and gets greased by the main force of Santa Anna's army when it arrived on the field.

What's the excitement? Next on ESPN, world champion fish-in-barrel shooting,

It's about the same.

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

How does one "shut off the spigot" precisely? Build a massive chain of forts along the Red and Sabine rivers?

That's one way

.

They could have cracked down on settlers entering, but it just wasn't that important to them at the time. What did they care? Until the Texans started getting uppity, of course.

They also didn't have the population base up there to maintain a large force on indefinite garrison duty.

Ted Striker · October 13, 2003, 00:24

true

that's why they originally encouraged americans to settle there to make the land into something productive

yavoon · October 13, 2003, 00:27

no not really

TCO · October 13, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Got a lot of sun today, gringo.

Besides, I'm home, 300 meters south of the border.

Yeah, yeah Lone Ranger...

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 00:51

Put a hat on to cover the brown hair, and I can blend, man. You're SOL though.

DinoDoc · October 13, 2003, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Put a hat on to cover the brown hair, and I can blend, man.

I call BS on that. We've seen your pic.

MichaeltheGreat · October 13, 2003, 01:19

You haven't seen me when I'm brown. Besides, there's lots of honkier than me looking Mexicans.

Lefty Scaevola · November 2, 2003, 13:08

What is the term for Mexican of purely European (Spanish or otherwise) extraction? The ones that say 'thervasa' (instead of cervasa) with a Castilian accent?

Lefty Scaevola · November 2, 2003, 13:13

Anyway the reality of the Texas revolution was that it was the tale end of a civil war fought all over Mexico between the centrists and federalists, and when all other federalist states and forces had been put down, Texas had the choice of either rolling over or going with the hertofore dismisssed radical minority (Travis was one of their leaders) that wanted independence. Sata Anna Army was comming off having done for a half a doxen other Mexican states that were opposing him, with ggreat slaughter is some of them, like Zacetecas.

axi · November 2, 2003, 17:15

I don't know about you, but mexicans are considered white in my book.

SlowwHand · November 2, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
It is portraying the Americans as the "brave innocent victims fighting against the evil mexicans!".

Which as anyone with a historical backround knows is utter bs....

Texans were illegally crossing the border in large numbers and breaking Mexican law(i.e. slave laws amoung others).

When these aggresive settlers who are telling Mexico to F off are slaughtered wholesale, how are they brave, innocent victims :?

You obviously don't have a clue WTF you're talking about.

GhengisFarb™ · November 2, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Alamo was really about having more balls than brains and waiting 24 hours too long.

I think both sides can agree with this statement.

St Leo · November 2, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What is the term for Mexican of purely European (Spanish or otherwise) extraction? The ones that say 'thervasa' (instead of cervasa) with a Castilian accent?

Goth.

Ned · November 2, 2003, 19:47

Why of course! Santa Ana was Mexico's Abraham Lincoln - seeking to end slavery and suppress rebellion in the State of Texas.

It is hard to understand how we can praise the rebellion of Texas from Mexico while condemning the rebellion of the Confederacy from the United States.

Ned · November 2, 2003, 19:49

While could also be true that Santa Ana was a dictator and was taking away Texas's sovereign rights thus justifying their rebellion.

Depends on you views of whether States have any rights at all.

St Leo · November 2, 2003, 20:03

States have privileges. When they violate human rights, they lose those privileges.

The slavery in Texas and the rest of the Confederacy was n times worse than the cruellest Ba'athist torture.

Sikander · November 2, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I wonder how many versions of "The Alamo" have been made since the dawn of cinema? Is it possibly the most re-made picture in motion picture history?

IIRC versions of "The Three Musketeers" easily outshine any competition, with over 300 different productions over the years.

Sikander · November 2, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
And they're all Anglophilic in nature . . .

surprises, surprises.

I've never seen a version of the Alamo that had any opinion of the English one way or the other.

Sikander · November 2, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Whom would they cast as a bunch of gringos in the Alamo? It probably is more expensive for them to get enough whites than it is for an American unit to get enough Chicanos. Plus American crews get to examine the actual Aamo withou that whole immigration problem.

Yea, god knows how impossible it is for a Mexican to find his way into the U.S.

Sikander · November 2, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
While this may not sound pretty, the Mexicans (at leats those in power) were not doing much to develop their vast northern provinces, whcih is why they were so eager to let whites in..let them do it for the central gov. That is probably why the whole nothern part of mexico was easy pickings, a few missionaries, very small Mexican pops and a bunch of Injuns. Though the exicans weren;t doing much to attract many cahtolic immigrants either. Imagine if all those irishmen had moved to mexico instead....

Major O'Hannigan of Mexico City....

Great, corrupt and drunk.

Ned · November 2, 2003, 22:52

IIRC, Slavery was not the issue that caused Texans to revolt. It was States Rights. Did you know that the proximate cause was a change from a State form of government to a centrally adminstrated form. At least one other State revolted besides Texas.

Lefty Scaevola · November 3, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
IIRC, Slavery was not the issue that caused Texans to revolt. It was States Rights. Did you know that the proximate cause was a change from a State form of government to a centrally adminstrated form. At least one other State revolted besides Texas.

Around half a dpzen did, to one extent or another, And the civil war was somewhat more complicated than just that. My memory is a bit old on the subject, but it went sothing like this. Santa Anna was origianaly elected sideing with the federalists against the cetralists. During some sort of disturbance he resigned and left his VP as the fall guy. He then led a coup against him and traahed the federalist constituion and arrogated direct control over the states to himself. Several states and groups resisted this coup and 'rebeled', Zacetecas, and Cohuila-Texas among them. After about a years civil war, all oganized resistance but Texas was put down. A federalist Mexico no longer being possible, the Texas resistance switched over to a independence war.