I think it's fascinating that you have relatives going all the way back to the Alamo.
I hope you don't mind my talking about the subject, being a foreigner in terms of Texas history, but the theme is definitely intriguing. I think you should watch the new version, just for the sake of having seen it. Because I think they didn't set out to destroy the myth, just to make a new version with aspects we haven't seen so far. As production values goes, it certainly is the most handsomely mounted production since Wayne's version, certainly there was more money spent than on the other films, including the IMAX film and the Burt Kennedy version. The Alamo and the town they built look really great and ring true to historical paintings. They are true to little details, even re-creating Crockett's west, the one shown in The Alamo today. With the exception of the Crockett execution, the battle seems to be all the way true to the facts (they don't show someone trying to blow up the pulvera).
But then of course they want to give the audience what one expects - just with little differences. The death of Bowie, for instance, is directed like all his movie deaths before, shooting two pistols from his stretcher - yet this time he just has time to reach out for his knife before they cut him to ribbons. Being true to history and yet trying to be entertaining was a difficult task I imagine. Like in the scene of Crockett arriving in Bexar, someone greets him: Hey, Davy! And one of his men instantly clears this one up: "He prefers DAVID." Which is true to the records, of course, yet as an avid Alamo fan, wouldn't you just want to hear them call him DAVY?