|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 9:54:09 GMT -5
Here's the opposite view on the Golbey model.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 9:55:16 GMT -5
Widmark's last stand, from the "Golbeymo".
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 9:56:41 GMT -5
Here's is Laurence Golbey's brother Ray with the model in its early stages.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 9:58:35 GMT -5
The Golbey's chapel.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 10:01:54 GMT -5
The center of the plaza is hollow for now, so that the Golbey brothers can work on the model comfortably from any angle. NOTE: Laurence and Ray Golbey built a shed in Laurence's backyard just to accomodate the model. Can't wait until it is finished so that I can pay them a visit and check it out.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Mar 29, 2008 10:12:22 GMT -5
Nef, thanks for sharing pics of Golbey's Alamo. It's nice that someone's changing it up a bit by doing the Wayneamo. Where did he get those figures of Bowie Jethro?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Mar 29, 2008 10:21:41 GMT -5
Nef, thanks for sharing pics of Golbey's Alamo. It's nice that someone's changing it up a bit by doing the Wayneamo. Where did he get those figures of Bowie Jethro? He modified them from a kit, changing practically everything, save the torso. Laurence is a great portrait artist. Here is Laurence Golbey's version of Laurence Harvey's last stand. The figures were originally British and French Waterloo kits. He made Harvey's outfit piece by piece.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Mar 29, 2008 10:32:42 GMT -5
Your friend Golbey did a fantastic job modifying the figures! You should tell him to come over here and join in on these discussions!
|
|
|
Post by valerowest on Mar 30, 2008 2:32:43 GMT -5
Apologies and kudos to the Golbeys! I must say though, that to have mistaken their scale Waynamo for Kenny Pruitt's is quite a compliment!
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Mar 30, 2008 8:08:05 GMT -5
BTW, Welcome Valerowest!
|
|
|
Post by valerowest on Mar 31, 2008 3:16:21 GMT -5
Thanks, Greg - been a lurker for a long time, thought it was time for a few contributions.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Mar 31, 2008 5:39:32 GMT -5
Thanks, Greg - been a lurker for a long time, thought it was time for a few contributions. Any contributions are always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Apr 5, 2008 13:35:48 GMT -5
Just watched the Wayneamo last night and I remember now why I love it so much and why it was so much better then the 2004 version. I really don't care about historical accuracy any more because that's what made it all the more exciting!
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Apr 5, 2008 20:55:52 GMT -5
The lack of historical accuracy made it all the more exciting? I think it would have been just as exciting if they had paid more attention to the historical facts. It would still have had the same players and the same atmosphere. Anyway, I´m glad that you´ve started to watch Alamo movies again!
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Apr 5, 2008 20:58:54 GMT -5
Historical accuracy only makes things worse, as we all saw with the 2004 movie. The more accurate the movie makers claim it to be the more people want to denounce it...
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Apr 5, 2008 21:32:24 GMT -5
Well, I think some people denounced it because of the way Hancock had chosen to tell the story, not because of the historical facts. And some people did´nt like the music. I have´nt heard anybody say they did´nt like it due to too much historical accuracy. It would be sad indeed if the only way you can make an interesting historical movie would be to forget about some of the important facts and make up your own instead. The historical facts aside, I like the 2004 version much better. To me it has more drama! The waynamo is more of a "boys movie" to me, with all the jokes, "folksy" humor and silly characters like the beekeeper. That does´nt mean I don´t like it! I grew up with the Waynamo and it has played a big part in getting me interested in the Alamo. As David Webb would say: It´s apples and oranges! The reason why you like the Waynamo better, has that really anything to do with lack of historical facts at all? Is´nt it because you like the script better, the actors better, the humor better, and so on? I´ll give you just one example of a historically correct movie that worked beautifully: Der Untergang (The Downfall), about Hitlers last days in the bunker. I believe you´ve seen it. I´m sure you could find many examples. "Lawrence Of Arabia" and "Gandhi" comes to mind...
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Apr 5, 2008 21:46:05 GMT -5
Der Untergang was an excellant film. Bruno Ganz WAS Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Apr 6, 2008 0:50:07 GMT -5
I think the main question is, do you want an entertaining film, or a good documentary? It's kind of hard to attempt to balance the two and then please everyone.
THE ALAMO (1960) is film. THE ALAMO (2004) is very expensive TV docu-drama. I like it a lot, but I love The Waynamo.
Another historical film I love that strays from history is PATTON. Would I change a single frame of it though? Not on your life! If it didn't happen that way, it should have.
|
|
RebAl
Senior Member
Civil War Photographer
Posts: 296
|
Post by RebAl on Apr 6, 2008 7:50:15 GMT -5
I think the main question is, do you want an entertaining film, or a good documentary? It's kind of hard to attempt to balance the two and then please everyone. THE ALAMO (1960) is film. THE ALAMO (2004) is very expensive TV docu-drama. I like it a lot, but I love The Waynamo. Another historical film I love that strays from history is PATTON. Would I change a single frame of it though? Not on your life! If it didn't happen that way, it should have. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Apr 6, 2008 8:20:06 GMT -5
Doesn't the Narrator of "Price Of Freedom" say something like "This is where fact gets mixed with lednd.."?
|
|