"Texas Rising"

[Nathanb1]

I didn't watch, but about 50 Facebook friends, many of them reenactors and/or historians, have declared it garbage in every way.

Is it true that one scene had Santa Anna feeding his own blood to chickens?

Well, it was blood. And he killed the chicken who wouldn't drink it. And threw it at one of his subordinates. (I'd have plucked it and fried it. One thing Nutrisystem doesn't have is fried chicken!)

See comments above for further opinions. I'd rather watch chickens poop. It isn't even entertaining garbage, either.

 

[Nathanb1]

Gee. Should I erase it without watching it?

I don't know. If you like B Westerns and don't know any Texas history, it might be something to pass the time. I'd frankly rather have sinus surgery without drugs, myself.

 

[Nathanb1]

Bill Paxton just gave an interview on Entertainment Tonight...........

 

[Nathanb1]

Take a close look at the firing squad scene about 27-28 seconds into the preview. A Mexican soldier brings his musket up to his shoulder and prepares to fire--except the frizzen on his flintlock is open.

That was the least of its problems. Those Karankawas should have stayed on South Padre. Wait. Karankawas riding horses? (sort of, but we'll skip the horsemanship for now).

 

[Delhi Rangers]

I watched the opening episode and I was very disappointed. I thought that it fell way short of the History Channel's production of the Hatfields and McCoys. Maybe it will get better tonight.

 

[O. A. Williams]

It really isn't good. I wanted it to be because I don't think there's enough actual history shows or movies that try to re-create important moments in history. With tv there will always be at least a little inaccuracy but this one really seems to be another type that doesn't really have anything the same except some names.
I'll watch again because the wife wants to and maybe it will get good. It's not as bad as Hell on Wheels, at least. Yuck.

 

[hrobalabama]

Strange isn't it that the real story is more entertaining than some "made-up" movie rendition.

 

[Patrick H]

That was the least of its problems. Those Karankawas should have stayed on South Padre. Wait. Karankawas riding horses? (sort of, but we'll skip the horsemanship for now).

Nate, I am so darned ignorant that I don't even know what a Karankawa is. Sorry about that, but it's true. Anyway, I love your responses to just about any post on these forums. I am sure you were giving me good information, but my brain is not programmed to received and process what you just told me. Oh well. Stick with me and keep trying to teach me and I will be the better for it!

 

[TerryB]

Mediocre script, costumes that look too modern, dialogue that strains credulity. A lot of old Western movie cliches thrown in. Not much else on late at night so I'll come back for more.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Yes well I was hoping Nate would tell us how she really feels about the show. It can't be good for her keeping it all bottled up like that.

It does make me happy Pennsylvania is not perceived by Hollywood to have roootin' , tootin' cowboys, Injuns, Jaundiced females or invading armies led by psychotic chicken abusers. They've pretty much ignored us. It's weird though, we kill an awful lot of chickens.

 

[unionblue]

Take a close look at the firing squad scene about 27-28 seconds into the preview. A Mexican soldier brings his musket up to his shoulder and prepares to fire--except the frizzen on his flintlock is open.

Spoil sport!

 

[Stony]

The wife and I watched it last night. She enjoyed it more than me. Not bad. It's Hollywood, not a documentary.

 

[ErnieMac]

Entertainment, not history. I agree with TerryB.

Mediocre script, costumes that look too modern, dialogue that strains credulity. A lot of old Western movie cliches thrown in. Not much else on late at night so I'll come back for more.

 

[Patrick H]

I haven't seen it because I don't have a subscription t.v. service. However, I usually don't have any trouble separating fiction from documentaries and I'm usually entertained by either. If I could, I'd probably watch at least an episode of it.
(In spite of the Mexican firing squad member who tries to shoot with his frizzen open).

 

[TinCan]

Too much Hollywood, not enough History, IMO the real story is much more exciting.

 

[James N.]

Emily Morgan ( aka The Yellow Rose of Texas ) was supposedly working (she wasn't a slave) on one of the primitive plantations near what is now Houston. (We're not talking Tara, "real" or imagined by Hollywood, or anything like at Natchez - think a big farm with a few slaves.) Santa Anna was a notorious lecher who had amused himself while in San Antonio waiting for his artillery to show up so he could storm the Alamo by engaging in a mock marriage and real enough "honeymoon" with a local senorita who he quickly packed off to Mexico City to join his other mistresses. While trailing the fugitive government of the Republic he encountered Emily and added her to his entourage. A few days later while having a "siesta", he and Emily were surprised in the afternoon of April 21, 1836, by the attacking Texicans, including 2 companies of U.S. Regulars from Louisiana "loaned" to Houston by Andy Jackson! Santa Anna fled on horseback and was captured lost and wandering around in the swampy bayous and brought back to camp where he was almost lynched; Emily disappears into the mists of history after that.

 

[yellowthornoftexas]

Entertainment, not history. I agree with TerryB.

true! bad entertainment, well, mildly bad, not a history documentary.

 

[AndyHall]

I don't even know what a Karankawa is.

The Karankawa were a small coastal tribe that never adopted the horse culture of the Plains, and had been mostly wiped out by the time period of the miniseries.

 

[18thVirginia]

Y'all are sure picky about details--muskets, too new costumes. Seriously, guys?

You didn't notice this is the most terrible acting ever? Bad scriptwriting? Worse directing? I watched an episode from the middle of the series last night. Frankly, I think Nate was being nice to talk about it as of the level of a B movie western. I can think of B movie westerns that I'm quite fond of. As for historical details, who can even follow the story well enough to notice?

I had to turn the channel and watch old Law and Order reruns.

 

[James N.]

So far the most telling comment has been in an interview with actor Ray Liota who plays a wholly fictional character; in it he said that it takes place in the 1860's around the time of the war with Mexico! Of course, what can you expect from a Goodfella from New Joisey - but you would think he might've at least picked up a few basics while on set - assuming anybody else was paying any attention, that is. (After all, it is the Alternate History Channel!) He also commented that none of the Mexican horses used in the film were in any way acclimated to gunfire or other routine movie work.