I know they’ve recently announced it, but is it known if Howard will have Crockett surrendering?
This is the first I’ve heard of it, but hopefully it will be better than that trainwreck of a film John Wayne did. Just as long as he doesn’t let his brother Clint play Jim Bowie.
That’s a leading question. Though I’m not sure what you mean by it. Ron Howard is a respectable director. If he tinkered with A Perfect Mind a bit that would not be considered re-writing history?
He was right-on with Apollo 13 – but don’t get me started on historical innacuracies in How the Grinch Stole Christmas
If your OP (ooh a pun!) were in GD, I’d state that Bowie and Crockett were minor characters in the overall drama. Sure they were already legendary characters. Crockett saying, “You can all go to hell, I’m going to Texas” is grand.
The real players are Colonel William Travis and Santa Anna. And Sam Houston who was conveniently a no-show till after the ordeal, where he decimated Santa Anna’s army at San Jacinto.
**
In Apollo 13 the movie the astronaughts had a mini-bitch fest about checking the pressure before stirring the oxygen. That never happened in real life. Maybe I’m being to nitpicky though.
Marc
Jim Lovell’s biggest complaints about the movie: They didn’t cuss that much, and his Corvette was the wrong color. From one of the many interviews he gave when the movie was released.
I only mentioned it because it is a rather sensitive subject</understatement> among Alamo fans, especially among Texans and the boomers who grew up with Fess Parker and John Wayne.
While Crockett giving up may be historically accurate (at least to researchers outside Texas), would it be wise for Howard to include this in his movie?
I think a first positive step would be not to cast Ben Affleck in it.
The movie “Apollo 13” NEVER showed a serious fight breaking out among the astronauts. If it had, THAT would constitute re-writing history. But at most, the film showed some frayed tempers and some occasional surliness, with Haise and Swigert snapping at each other.
And while Jim Lovell may insist, quite sincerely, that such things never happened during the mission, I’m inclined to disbelieve him. The astronauts were good, brave, and capable men, but it’s straining credibility to say they never so much as raised their voices to each other.
The one real, serious quibble I’ve heard about the film’s accuracy came from Astronaut Mattingly (Gary Sinise, on screen), whose main point was that there were dozens, HUNDREDS of technicians who were constantly working, constantly coming up with suggestions, with ideas for him to try. Mattingly felt that the movie made it appear HE was the technical genius who came up with the key lifesaving ideas, when “all” he really did was try out ideas that NASA techies were bringing to him. So… Mattingly’s real beef was that the movie made it appear only a few people were working on the problem, when there were LOADS of people working around the clock.
As for the Alamo… well, good luck to Ron Howard. There are all kinds of difficulties implicit in making the film, not least of which is how little we can really be sure of. After all, none of the Texans defending the Alamo survived.
The OP has a valid point- will/should Howard take the now famous de la Pena diary as gospel, and show Davy Crockett being captured and tortured to death by Santa Ana’s men? Will it show the Texans as resolute heroes, or as fools who held on to an ultimately undefendable position (Sam Houston’s version)? As good guys fighting a dictator, or as greedy cretins who just wanted more land and more slaves (the modern, PC version)?
It’s going to be mighty hard to come up with a definitive version of the Alamo story, one that satisfies the many people with a stake in one of the many, competing myths.
There are so many different versions of Crockett’s death that Ron Howard will surely piss off somebody no matter which one is included. Here’s some versions I’ve heard:
[list=1]
[li]He died while protecting bedridden Col. Travis[/li][li]He was one of the first to die.[/li][li]He was captured[/list=1][/li]Problems:[list=1]
[li]Col. Travis wasn’t the one that was ill, Jim Bowie was.[/li][li]Might be the most accurate because[/li]a recent History Channel/Genealogy.com documentary presented him as being hacked to death on Santa Ana’s orders. This is supported by a survivor of the seige, the wife of one of the defenders passed by his body afterwards. She was only able to identify the mess by the coonskin cap nearby.[/list=1]
I find this project promising for one reason: John Sayles is rumored to be the screenwriter, and with a strong enough script, hopefully even a hack like Howard can’t ruin it.
Why do I continually mix up Ron Howard and Ron Jeremy?
Ron Jeremy’s Alamo, now that would be… something.
We know the real story about what happened at the Alamo because some people hid in the basement until Santa Ana and his men left.
-fh
News Flash! Variety and Ain’t It Cool News is reporting that Ron Howard is no longer directing and the whole project is now in limbo. Howard may stay on as a producer, however. More details as they become available…