Texas rising

[RBH]

This looks good. Tonight, May 25th at 9e/8c on HISTORY

http://www.history.com/shows/texas-rising/videos/texas-rising-sneak-peek


[video=youtube;lhNMwO8XQUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNMwO8XQUw[/video]

 

[jlw]

Every so often the History Channel takes a break from Pawn Stars and actually does a show about history.

 

[Babydoll]

Hubby is very excited to see this show. His great-great-great-great grandpa Meredith fought at the battle of San Jacinto (after the Alamo fell), and guarded Santa Anna. He (Hubby) is a huge Texas history buff. I hope this show does not disappoint.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I thought it was poorly done with gawd awful acting. I tried to like it.
HD

 

[Babydoll]

Hubby's recording it to watch tomorrow as it is on too late here. I won't tell him.

 

[Touchofevil]

I thought it was poorly done with gawd awful acting. I tried to like it.
HD

Which is why I did not watch it. The previews sold it as poorly done. Too bad.

 

[Babydoll]

Reruns on Tuesday (tomorrow).

 

[emigran]

I thought it was poorly done with gawd awful acting. I tried to like it.
HD

Turned it off half-way... great outfits and hats... too noisy for me...

 

[HudsonHawk]

I recorded it and tried to watch the first episode last night. Man was it awful. On many levels. Living in Texas, near where all of this took place, likely contributes to my perspective of the show's silliness.

 

[Babydoll]

That was what Hubby said. The locations looked like West Texas, when it was central Texas, and supposed to be flat, not rocky. Also, they were pretty creative with the storyline. But he wants to watch the rest.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That was what Hubby said. The locations looked like West Texas, when it was central Texas, and supposed to be flat, not rocky. Also, they were pretty creative with the storyline. But he wants to watch the rest.

Yeah, the scenery was glaringly bad. The Alamo is right on the San Antonio River. There are no mountains or dried up lakebeds around there. It is not a desert. Likewise for Gonzalez. It's on the Guadalupe river, and it's grasslands along the riverbank, not giant rock mountains. Same with Goliad. The Battle of San Jacinto was fought in a coastal marsh, and lasted about 15 minutes. The show looked like it was filmed in southern Arizona and California.

I think it was the liberties with the storyline that I found most annoying. I suppose I should get over that, as it's a "fictional history", and perhaps the real history is not a great human interest story. But I couldn't. At any rate, hopefully your hubby finds things he likes about it.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I recorded it and tried to watch the first episode last night. Man was it awful. On many levels. Living in Texas, near where all of this took place, likely contributes to my perspective of the show's silliness.

There was more than one episode..?? The only one I watched seemed to drag on for hours..then I noticed it was repeated again that night. The most impressive part was the costuming. I wasn't so much concerned about accurate scenery as I was about the terrible acting and over acting. At first I thought...jeeze, they sure picked the wrong actors to fill those rolls but then it seemed like everything fed off it's self as an exaggerated script seemed to infect almost every actor's performance. All I came away with was: What a waste...

 

[Babydoll]

Your observations echo his, almost to a T. He had hopes of it shining a light on what Texians went through to gain their independence. At this point, he'll stick it out if only to "educate" me as to what the true history was, not what is portrayed in the mini-series.

(On our last visit to my father-in-law, who is a bigger Texas history buff than hubby, we drove out to Gonzales and saw the area where that part of history took place. We visited the Sam Houston oak tree. Lily (at age 3) was not as thrilled as Paw-Paw was to see a tree. Our next trip - in July - we're planning to visit another historic site. I suggested the Alamo, because she'd remember that building, and there is family history tied to S.A., but hubby's voting for Washington on the Brazos for the historic value. I think Paw-Paw might be the deciding vote.)

Oh, and I've shared this before, but I'll share it again here. This is a portrait of some of the veterans from 1836 at a reunion in the 1880s. We know that Meredith is the gentleman 10th from the left on the front row, next to the gent tipping his hat. There is an uncanny resemblance to Hubby's great uncles (the ears).

 

[Babydoll]

There was more than one episode..?? The only one I watched seemed to drag on for hours..then I noticed it was repeated again that night. The most impressive part was the costuming. I wasn't so much concerned about accurate scenery as I was about the terrible acting and over acting. At first I thought...jeeze, they sure picked the wrong actors to fill those rolls but then it seemed like everything fed off it's self as an exaggerated script seemed to infect almost every actor's performance. All I came away with was: What a waste...

There are supposed to be 8 parts to it. I think I might have to start a new crocheting project to keep me from falling asleep during it! Shhh. Don't tell Hubby.

 

[HudsonHawk]

There was more than one episode..?? The only one I watched seemed to drag on for hours..then I noticed it was repeated again that night. The most impressive part was the costuming. I wasn't so much concerned about accurate scenery as I was about the terrible acting and over acting. At first I thought...jeeze, they sure picked the wrong actors to fill those rolls but then it seemed like everything fed off it's self as an exaggerated script seemed to infect almost every actor's performance. All I came away with was: What a waste...

It's a miniseries, with more to come, if you can believe that. And I agree that the costumes and cinematography are great, but the script and acting are terrible. And I actually like Bill Paxton, and would have thought he'd been a good choice for Sam Houston, despite him being 20 years too old. But he's awful in the role, for whatever reasons.

 

[HudsonHawk]

(On our last visit to my father-in-law, who is a bigger Texas history buff than hubby, we drove out to Gonzales and saw the area where that part of history took place. We visited the Sam Houston oak tree. Lily (at age 3) was not as thrilled as Paw-Paw was to see a tree. Our next trip - in July - we're planning to visit another historic site. I suggested the Alamo, because she'd remember that building, and there is family history tied to S.A., but hubby's voting for Washington on the Brazos for the historic value. I think Paw-Paw might be the deciding vote.)

Washington-on-the-Brazos is pretty cool, and you're not too far from Huntsville, where there is both Gen. Sam's home and museum as well as the giant statue of him on the side of the interstate! That'd be a long day though.

 

[Babydoll]

Yeah, we'd be driving from Georgetown. Have to consider having a 5 year old in the car with us. That's why I suggested S.A. It's not that far.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yeah, we'd be driving from Georgetown. Have to consider having a 5 year old in the car with us. That's why I suggested S.A. It's not that far.

But that drive from Georgetown to San Antonio is the worst drive imaginable. Last time I drove it, it was about 5 hours, with 3 hours from San Marcos into San Antonio...and that's about 50 miles, all Interstate. Just brutal.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It's a miniseries, with more to come, if you can believe that. And I agree that the costumes and cinematography are great, but the script and acting are terrible. And I actually like Bill Paxton, and would have thought he'd been a good choice for Sam Houston, despite him being 20 years too old. But he's awful in the role, for whatever reasons.

I always liked Paxton, too..but he just doesn't come across as believable in this part to me. At first I thought it was his voice that seemed weak but then I noticed that his acting was strained like most everyone else. Just didn't seem that some were too into it..while other's were overenthusiastic like it was only party time on the trail...no seriousness or worry. Just too cool for school. [huh]

 

[MikeKardec]

I haven't seen it but many of the cast members are pretty talented and have a fine track record when it comes to good performances. My guess from what you're all are saying is that you are right: Bad Script. It's pretty rare that an actor can produce a decent performance from a bad script and generally, the harder they try the worse their work becomes. Certain actors have a capacity to "charm" bad writing, but that usually means knowing not to try too hard. I've always thought that Tom Selleck had quite an ability to charm crumby writing and there used to be an Aussie soap when I lived there (I can't remember it's name) that was outstanding ... REALLY, REALLY loathsome writing but absolutely fantastic performances. The damn thing mesmerized me for that reason ... it was like watching an entire cast run one of those military obstacle courses. They had a lot of practice, however, not like a TV movie moving through material at high speed and out of order.

For what it's worth, it is extremely rare to see a director in TV attempt to do much work on the performances. They don't have the time, at 4 to 10 script pages a day they just need to get coherent coverage of the scenes. It's also common that the star actors won't put up with it, their clout vastly outweighs the director and they usually like to be left alone with their performances, allowed to feel good about what they are doing for as long as possible. No one fights that because a confident actor is nearly always better than a genius who has no faith in what he's doing.