Talk:The Alamo (1960 film)

More Movie Errors

• In One TV syndicated version of the Movie, Bowie and Crockett discovered a storeroom of rifles and gunpowder; part of this scene which also has Bowie and Crockett having to kill a double dealing swindler who tries to kill them is edited out.
• In the movie Crockett nearly romances a Spanish Woman who was saved by Crockett from the swindler; in fact Crockett was still married!
• LAstly the evening before the Alamo falls, Santa Anna orders an attack on the Alamo which results in 50 Alamo casualites; in fact prior to the Alamo's fall there was only one Texas casualty-one man wounded in the foot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.84 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.96 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With all these errors (including the errors I helped list in the article), it's no wonder the film was largely ignored by the Academy! --- JS, 70.129.41.10 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the Academy much cared about the real and imagined historical inaccuracies of the movie. Many a historical travesty has won awards from the Academy. The "Historical Inaccuracies" section seems to have become a "Let's Dump of This Movie" section; so much so that the article is endanger of losing a neutral point of view. Is it really an 'inaccuracy' that a 3 hour movie doesn't devote half its running time to the final battle? Is this movie really the worst offender in this regard of the five other Alamo movies that have Wiki articles? (Note that NONE of these articles have an 'Inaccuracies' section.) Perhaps someone should start a section of "Historical Accuracies" for balance? Cdixon 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I pretty much started the Inaccuracies section any number of months back. I was just trying to point out a few things. Oh, well... at least it's been given better balance. — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Alamo film poster.jpg

Image:The Alamo film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

over emphasis on accuracy

Since this is a film that is not meant to be a documentary, there seems to be way to much focus on it historical accuracy. Also, some of the statements about history go against other wikipedia articles on the subject. Rds865 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the film claims to be based on history. Most movies contain a few inaccuracies, but "The Alamo" is loaded with them.97.73.64.146 (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More goofs

• The Battle scene in the movie lasts about 9 minuites; the actual battle was at least 60 to 90 minuites long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.86 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wayne's Original Role Was Not Davy, But Sam

I added the following bit of info: "Originally, John Wayne was to have portrayed Sam Houston in his 1960 film The Alamo, a bit part that would have allowed the Duke to focus on his (first major) directing effort, but the money-lenders insisted that the movie star play a leading character, and so he took on the role of Davy Crockett while handing the part of Houston to Richard Boone." Asteriks (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that information? The information that was in the paragraph was sourced to a book, and while I think the addition is fine, it can't be sourced to that book. I'm going to add a citation needed tag for now. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

May, 2009 edits

I've reverted what may be good faith edits on May 26, 2009, because they do not conform to known (and cited respectively) facts about the film's critical and popular reception and boxoffice, and because the changes I have reverted seem clearly to be based in a POV agenda, that of making the film and John Wayne's participation in it be seen in a better light than the facts justify. (Perhaps it is no coincidence that today is Wayne's birthday!) To call the film an unqualified boxoffice success when Wayne damn near lost his house because of it, and to inflate b.o. numbers by a power of ten, may make the film seem more honorable, but in fact does an injustice to truth. Even Wayne, who had something to gain, did not lie about his film's reception or boxoffice. Deleting the negative report about Chill Wills's unfortunate Oscar campaign is just as serious a breach of WP guidelines and truthful behavior. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any documentation for this business about John Wayne nearly losing his house over the movie? From what I've read, the movie actually ended up showing a small profit, though it was certainly a box-office disappointment.97.73.64.171 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good movie; bad history.

A lot of critics disagree, but I think "The Alamo" is a rather entertaining movie. Alas, it is a terrible distortion of the actual battle. Most historical movies distort the truth, but "The Alamo" contained some distortions that added absolutely nothing to the overall tone of the movie. My biggest criticism is its depiction of Jim Bowie, who constantly complains that defending the Alamo is an exercise in futility. It's true that Bowie and Travis detested each other, but they tolerated each other because they both believed the Alamo should be held.97.73.64.171 (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article quotes a historian who says not a single scene in the movie is based on historical fact. That's a bit of an overstatement. For instance, when the Mexicans demanded the surrender of the Alamo, Travis did indeed respond by firing a cannon. However, there's very little accuracy in the movie beyond that.97.73.64.146 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We keep hearing claims that John Wayne's movie is inaccurate, although no one bothers to explain how allegedly atrocious the alleged inaccuracies are supposed to be. (If the list in More Movie Errors it the best you can manage, then I don't think we should be too impressed.) Moreover, the first sentence of the historic section links to Wikipedia's Texas Revolution page albeit with the words the "American invasion of Mexico" ("The film does little to explain the causes of the American invasion of Mexico"). This sounds like nothing except leftist rewriting of history of a type which cannot be defended in any form (there was no military incursion into Mexico from the USA government, justifiable or otherwise, until 10 years later, and the Anglo-American settlers who lived in Texas had not only immigrated there legally, but had done so at the behest of the Mexican government). I have changed the link to the Texas Revolution, which is presumably how the original text read in the first place. Asteriks (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)