Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 8/22/2002 news item <b><a href="http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/020822/128/d7zyz.html" target="_blank">Teletext: Disney replaces Crowe's pricey Alamo</a></b> According to the August 22nd <I>Teletext</I>, Disney has opted for a less expensive production of <I>The Alamo</I>.
Originally Posted By kennect A film based on the Alamo...Any thoughts for anyone around here as to how interesting the public might this subject in this day and age?
Originally Posted By tmonee11 I would agree that $135 million budget for an Alamo movie is too much. For some reason I just don't see it being a "huge hit."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It'll play well in Texas. They'll probably be shooting at the on-screen Mexican Army from the audience. It'll be like a Texas-style Rocky Horror, with audience participation.
Originally Posted By chalkboy8 i'm for it as long as there isn't too much speechifyin' like there was in the John Wayne movie. Hopefully it will be historically accurate and not appease the Politically Correct crowd.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I thought Disney did this movie already. It was called "Davy Crockett". And this is a remake of a John Wayne picture. Is this all Disney can do - remakes?
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Is this all Disney can do - remakes?<<< Well, that's what they're doing in the asphalt formerly known as the Disneyland Parking Lot...
Originally Posted By terwyn Why would Disney want to do a remake of a boxoffice dud? I remember watching a documentary on John Wayne's "Alamo". Wayne wanted to make this movie for years and when his production company finally got all of the financing and Wayne called in favors from some of the biggest western flix actors the movie fizzled at the box office, nearly ruining JW for years. Coming on the heels of that other "disaster" war epic, "Pearl Harbor", "Alamo" looks sure to flop again. I thought PH film was a good idea with the 60th anniversary of the start of WWII for the US and the sucess of "Saving Pvt. Ryan." However, the lackluster acting and that sappy love story really sank that film. "Alamo" just doesn't seem to have an audience. Westerns aren't that popular, the Texas mystique isn't what it use to be , and bashing Mexicans or Native Americans isn't what it use to be in Am. pop culture. I think "Alamo" will be the "Country Bears" of westerns, it'll kill off that type of film for the next generation. Just like Disney killed off WWII movies.
Originally Posted By TikiRoomer From what I understand, it wasn't all Disney's decision. Supposedly, Ron Howard pulled out because he wasn't happy with where the project was going, and Russell Crowe followed him out. Without Crowe, Disney had a big-budget star vehicle with no star. Of course they cut the budget.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I don't think this film would have been a remake. It would have just been another take on the whole Alamo story.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >And this is a remake of a John Wayne picture. Is this all Disney can do - remakes?< >I don't think this film would have been a remake. It would have just been another take on the whole Alamo story.< I agree with the latter statement. This "Alamo" would be another retelling of a historical event, much as "Titanic" was not a remake of "A Night to Remember" or "Pearl Harbor" was not a remake of "Tora! Tora! Tora!". And considering the infamous history of the John Wayne "Alamo" (take a look at any Oscar history book for the juicy details), I would think any studio making an Alamo movie would want to distance themselves from that one as much as possible.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 I will get to judge this one for myself tonight, as I get to attend a test screening of it! Does anyone know the release time frame for it?
Originally Posted By arstogas Terwyn, PEARL HARBOR was hardly a disaster, other than in the historical event itself. Though the film wasn't great, it still just grazed $200 million at the American box office, and did respectably overseas. Regardless of its extreme budget, that's still big business, indicative of a galvanized public. And the previous outings for TITANIC were not huge films indicating a need to return to the well. Nor was OCEAN'S ELEVEN, a remake that effectively makes the original seem even more glaringly bad. Sometimes, a vision for a new telling of an old story can really result in something special. It's rare, but it happens.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Does anyone know the release time frame for it?" << It is scheduled to open on Christmas Day. -Jeff
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >Christmas Day< Is that a recent date change, Jeff? I thought it was 12/12.
Originally Posted By JeffG The official website lists the opening date as December 25, 2003. <a href="http://alamo.movies.go.com/main.html" target="_blank">http://alamo.movies.go.com/mai n.html</a> I'm not sure if that was changed at some point or not. I suppose it is also possible that it might be getting a limited release on 12/12. They typically advertise the wide release dates. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DBitz2 They told us the movie was coming out in December, but didn't mention the specific date. This is not the kind of film that I would want to go to at Christmastime. But, I suppose, it could build momentum that will carry into January and February, a good time for it, in my opinion. I liked the film a lot. I've seen just about every take on the Alamo story ever filmed and this was by far the most compelling. The actors were all very good, the story told in an interesting way, and the photography excellent. It could probably stand to be cut in length a bit and some slightly unclear exposition improved, but overall I thought it was good. We were asked to sit in on the panel discussion afterwards. Pretty much everyone liked it, though several thought it was too long. It'll be interesting to see if it gets tweaked by the time it is released.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 What's the current running time? Usually if a film has Oscar aspirations, Christmas is usually when it comes out.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 Our screening ran just about 2 1/2 hours. If I remember correctly, they didn't run the names of the principle actors at the beginning (just the title and director's name), but those could be added over the opening sequences. They also did not run any end credits. It kept my interest, but I could see the point of view of some of the others that it could be shortened a bit.
