The Alamo (1960) vs. The Alamo (2004)

I would say Fess Parker at first, John Wayne at second, and Billy Bob Thornton third. Fess Parker put enough life into the Davy Crockett I read about whereas John Wayne showed the same impression only he looked a little older. Billy Bob's character seemed as more in the excitement and unworriedness. But to choose which Alamo version, I would have to say the 1960 version. There was more detail in the characters and the 13 days. So The Alamo (1960) is my favorite choice version and Fess Parker as my favorite kind of Crockett.

I didn't see the 2004 version but being a huge John Wayne fan it pains me to say that the ending wasn't accurate. I don't know if the 2004 version showed it but after the battle there were 6 survivors (Crockett included).

The survivors were tortured and eventually executed. Wayne knew the true story but decided to show them going down in glory instead. He was afraid that the public wouldn't accept anything else. What is also neglected by the movies and history books was the fact that half of the defenders were Mexicans landowners themselves, who were later push out by settlers and forgotten.

Patrick of Seattle

I watched both versions, 2004 version is more accurate about the historical details (final assault during night/Bowie´s illness, Crockett´s death, etc), but we must remember this is not a documentary but an entertainment, and so, I prefer John Wayne´s version.

The 1960 version and the 2004 version are as different as night and day with respect to historical accuracy. John Wayne's version is accurate only to the extent that there were at 180 volunteers who died at the Alamo. Never-the-less, it's still a great movie. While the events leading up to the climatic battles tended to drag a bit in Wayne's movie, Dmitri Tiomkin's stirring music more than made up for any lag time. I think it was a great action movie. The Billy Bob version was also very good in it's own way. He probably portrayed Crockett better than Wayne or Parker, but for sheer entertainment all three versions were very good.

To compare the two is like comparing Apples to Oranges. They were made for entirely different reasons. The Duke made his because the story of the Alamo had been a life long ambition of his and he felt it his patriotice duty to make it.

Alamo 2004 was made by the beancounters@disnoid to <hopefully> make money. In this they failed. This movie was the most researched of all the Alamo film versions made and even so, it fell short on reality. The BIGGEST and most rediculous aspect of the movie was the fort itself. It was too small and even worse, Michael Corinbluth <sp> had the gall to move the chapel up 80 feet to put it even with the long barracks. His reason was for "filming purposes" and that when people "think" of the Alamo, what they think of is the chapel. Thus he HAD to make sure it was in every shot. Even in that it failed miserably. Had the REAL Alamo mission been this small, then it WAS defensable. It was it HUGE SIZE that made it impossible to defend with the number of men on hand. I have several friends who were re-enactors and worked on A4 in different capacities. All mentioned how small and claustrophobic being there gave them.

As to the film itself. I did not care for the musical score. The use of Mocking bird in it is hilarious as the song was not written until the 1850's. I DID like the Crockett vs Mexican band duet. That was the only inspiring music in the film. The rest of the score was somber, morose and dull. Dmitri Tiompkin's score to THE WAYNAMO on the other hand grabbed you from the opening notes of the Overture to the final notes of the Exit Music. You can listen to the final assault music and close your eyes and still see the main characters as they are killed off. The new score leaves you flat and does nothing to inspire the listener.

Yes there are "controversies" as to the making the "Big 3" of the Alamo more human and "flawed". Everything about Travis, Bowie and Crockett <as far as my thinking> is correct. I had no problems with the showing of Crockett's execution as compared to John Wayne, Arthur Hunnycutt <note that his was similar to the Dukes>, Brian Keith, Fess Parker or Merril Connelly's Crockett death scenes. What I DID have a problem with was HOW they got from being overwhelmed in the chapel to his being on his knees the next morning. In MY opinion, there is no way the "battle crazed" Mexicans would have NOT hacked them to pieces with their bayonets. That was a bad bit on the director.

Ultimately, I fault the beancounters@disnoid for the failure of this movie. Had they been more concerned with the outcome of the film as opposed to the bottom line <the allmighty dollar>, this film would have been a much better one. There was so much left on the cutting room floor that this movie screams for a Directors Cut. Sadly, that will not come to pass as these same beancounters@disnoid will not justify the expense to do this. It is a pity as a better dvd release will make more money than the original theatrical release.

This is going to be rather long, so bear with me.

There are basically four ways in which the films differ: historical accuracy, music, acting, and direction.

1. Historical accuracy.

When it comes to historical accuracy, the 2004 version was about as close as any Hollywood movie gets. It isn't exact, but it's darn close. Not only are the events portrayed acurrately, but the characters are mostly accurate. The only character who isn't the same as the real one is Santa Anna, who is portrayed one-dimensionally and without the extraordinary charm the man must have had. (of course, there is a lot of argument over Crockett's death, and this film choses the surrender version. Personally, I think he went down fighting, but it was a wonderfully done dramatic scene --- one of the film's best)

John Wayne's version, on the other hand, basically just throws history out the window. The list of historical accuracies in the film has three items: 1, there were real people named Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Dickenson, and Santa Anna. 2, there were a bunch of Texans in the Alamo. 3, all of them died. Otherwise, it gets all the facts wrong.

On the other hand, Wayne's gets the legend of the Alamo absolutely perfect. This is the legend of the Alamo --- the characters (except maybe Crockett) are the way we think of them, not the way they really were. There are big historical speeches, big battle scenes, and big sets, all of which look the way we imagine them but aren't really the way they actually were. The power of the story comes through completely. The 2004 version gets across some of this power, but not nearly as much.

2. Music.

Simple: Dimitri Tiomkin's score for Wayne's version is a tragic, powerful, and often very thrilling score that really captures the battle. The score for the newer one is an endlessly mediocre one that is occassionally just barely adequate, and is more or less listenable, but is not the sweeping, passionate score the film requires.

3. Acting.

Crockett: I agree. John Wayne just played John Wayne. He was fun to watch and did a good job for what is was, but it wasn't Crockett. Billy Bob Thornton, on the other hand, absolutely and utterly captured Davy Crockett. It was such a compelling and touching performance that it made up for a lot of the movie's flaws. He deserved an Oscar nomination.

Bowie: Both performances were very strong but very different performances. Neither Richard Widmark nor Jason Patric seemed like the real Bowie, but that was the fault of the script. Patric at times seemed more like the real man, but Widmark had the better performance (but not by much).

Travis: Laurence Harvey's performance is a superb Shakepearean version that shows a man filled with passion, but also with quite an ego and an offbeat moral conscience. Patric Wilson is... adequate. Once again, he's probably more accurate, but he's overshadowed in every other way by Harvey.

4. Direction.

In terms of filmaking, this is the most important aspect in which the films differ. It's what seperates the films in terms of quality. Both have scripts which have strong character development and moments of power and beauty, but also ramble and bog down in unnecessary subplots (which are much different in both of them --- ie, stupid, poorly written romance (1960) vs. San Jacinto (2004)). The 2004 version has the better script, but it's not substantially so.

The difference lies between John Lee Hancock and John Wayne.

As a director, Hancock does a decent job, with good battle scenes, adequate pacing, and some very good scenes. It's solid but unspectacular.

John Wayne, however, made one of the greatest directorial debuts in history. Because of the only okay script, the movie isn't great, but as a director, Wayne makes the same kind of spectacular debut that Orson Welles (Citizen Kane), George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead), and Kevin Costner (Dances With Wolves), among a few others, managed to do. The film is a sweeping, powerful, and absolutely exhilerated experience where every angle and every scene is superbly crafted and filmed. The final battle scene ranks among the great movie battle scenes. Many scenes are truly stirring. Even the really poorly written scenes come across as well as they can. Wayne had learned from the best, and did an extraordinary job. The fact that he managed to make a film this well from that script shows that he had what it took behind the camera.

And that's where the films differ. One is a brilliantly made film with a weak script; the other is a fairly well made film with a decent script. The former is as thrilling and compelling as they get, but also overlong (like this post I'm writing) and a bit corny. The latter is somewhat exciting, intelligent, and thoughtful. Personally, I prefer the former more for one thing, however: the amount of passion that shines through. (both show it, but the former simply flows with it, the latter just hints at it)

Theres no comparing the two, the 60's Alamo rips the *beep* outta the other one. I was so let down by the 04 version. It was written off of the account of a mexican soldier, and is not at all true (yes it has been proved.

I do however agree that John Wayne as Crockett is just regular old bas ass John Wayne

I think John Wayne's version is a much better film.
The main difference is the actors and how the characters were portrayed.
I don't like how the "2004" version portrayed Travis as being a wimpy type guy. Sam Houston would have never put a wimpy guy in charge of a job like that!
I love Travis's character in Wayne's film as he is disliked for his snobby attitude, but he is a very disciplined soldier and a total bad-ass with a sword as he proved in the fighting scene.

There was some great humor in Wayne's film as well like in the "Bee keeper" character that really made the film enjoyable. Plus Wayne's film had some great words of wisdom in it that the "2004" version lacked.

I was pretty disappointed with the "2004" version all in all, except that it had some great filming in it. Most of the film I found boring until the fighting started. The fighting scenes were very good!




http://www.tvfansonline.com