• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

El Alamo


Just watched it. Man, what is the problem with people and "sad" endings? They always find time for 20 or 30 more minutes so they can insert another battle and the good guys can score one. The movie reminded me of Pearl Harbor. Damn, the ending was good as it was. They died protecting the fort, bravely defending the cause, doing their duty. It was perfect, theres nothing bad about dying when theres endless waves of soldiers and you just have no chance. Besides, whats the point of another battle? To show the bad general is a coward after all? What a surprise. He was a cool bad guy and they spoiled it with the crap about he surrended Texas to save his own ass. NEVER make a general a loser onscreen. It sucks. Bastards. At least neither side got what they wanted in the end :D .
Well, I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds to me like they made the movie historically accurate. There was another battle after the Alamo was taken, at a place called San Jacinto, and the Mexican general was a total coward in it, and that battle, far more than the Alamo, was the decisive stroke in securing Texan "freedom." (I believe one of the sticking points that led the American-born settlers to revolt was that Mexico wouldn't allow slavery, so the whites revolted so they could have the freedom to enslave people....)

So yeah, maybe it sucked as a movie, but sounds like they played it straight historically, and I give them props for that.
Never make a General the loser on screen? So, is your father a General? What's up with that?

Dude, don't give me that, its bordering the personal attack. I think i made it clear what I meant. I just think he was a cool bad guy, and it was clear that he was a loser from SOB-like things he did (such as calling the life of his soldiers as valuable as "lifes of chickens"), finding time for another battle to show he would let Texas go to save his own ass is just so cliche- historically accurate or not.

I just think ending the movie with the sacrifice and bravery of those at the mission would have been perfect. Moving on just destroyed the mood. Just an opinion.
Well, it wasn't a personal attack, just an attempt to understand what didn't make sense to me, namely what seemed like an all inclusive pronouncement that no General should ever be made out to be a bad guy.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have some familiarity with the history of Texas independence. I'm afraid you expect too much, if you expect Santa Ana not to be portrayed as a bad guy. I also don't see anything wrong with showing a short clip of the Battle of San Jacinto, since most US citizens probably don't know that much Texas history, and it shows that the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders was not in vain, and they were the battle cry that lead to victory.
I don't see why. As your links amply demonstrate, there was much that went on between the Alamo, and the Battle of San Jacinto, but the Battle of San Jacinto was the culmination of the fight for Texas' independence.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.