Re: Michael Eisner's "Alamo."

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Steve Hanson, Feb 17, 2004.

  1. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Richard wrote in <>:

    >It's coming...really fast.
    >-Rich


    About ten years too late to make any difference. I never understood
    how his Disney was anything other than a merchandizing empire with a
    small movie subsidiary attached to it.
    Steve Hanson, Feb 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Hanson

    Jim Hollis Guest

    apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor
    "Steve Hanson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Richard wrote in <>:
    >
    > >It's coming...really fast.
    > >-Rich

    >
    > About ten years too late to make any difference. I never understood
    > how his Disney was anything other than a merchandizing empire with a
    > small movie subsidiary attached to it.
    Jim Hollis, Feb 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve Hanson

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Jim Hollis
    <> wrote:

    > apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    > Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    > thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor


    They said similar things about John Wayne's version too, iirc. There's
    lots of reasons for a film to flop, and being bad is only one of them
    :)

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Feb 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Steve Hanson

    TSKO Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:403276cc$0$3103$...
    > Invid Fan wrote:
    >
    > >>apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    > >>Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes.

    Me
    > >>thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor

    > >
    > > They said similar things about John Wayne's version too, iirc. There's
    > > lots of reasons for a film to flop, and being bad is only one of them

    >
    > In Ron Howard's case, the other reason is for a historical film to be
    > try and be "new" by updating the story with modern-perspective "True
    > Facts" historical revisionism (Santa Ana's political
    > motivations!...19th-century racism!...Davey Crockett was a coward!)--
    > Which usually ends up being sent through more studio rewrites than it
    > should get, reducing the script to a mix of approved big-budget "good
    > scene" hash and needless last-minute subplots, and pretty much how
    > "Pearl Harbor" became such a mess in the first place.
    >
    > Derek Janssen
    >



    Of course maybe the studio didnt want the movie going head to head w/ Return
    of the King...
    >
    TSKO, Feb 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Steve Hanson

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Jim Hollis wrote:
    > apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    > Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    > thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor


    I'm sure that they'd be quite happy to spend 150 million and gross 450
    million.

    dick
    --even if it were a bad movie
    Dick Sidbury, Feb 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Steve Hanson

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <403276cc$0$3103$>, Derek Janssen
    <> wrote:

    > Invid Fan wrote:
    >
    > >>apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    > >>Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    > >>thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor

    > >
    > > They said similar things about John Wayne's version too, iirc. There's
    > > lots of reasons for a film to flop, and being bad is only one of them

    >
    > In Ron Howard's case, the other reason is for a historical film to be
    > try and be "new" by updating the story with modern-perspective "True
    > Facts" historical revisionism (Santa Ana's political
    > motivations!...19th-century racism!...Davey Crockett was a coward!)--


    Well, anything would be better then the non-historical Wayne version,
    although I understand a more accurate telling of the tale probably
    wouldn't make a successful or maybe even good film.

    > Which usually ends up being sent through more studio rewrites than it
    > should get, reducing the script to a mix of approved big-budget "good
    > scene" hash and needless last-minute subplots, and pretty much how
    > "Pearl Harbor" became such a mess in the first place.
    >

    So they're removing all the modern-perspecitve "True Facts" historical
    revisionism to make it more viewer friendly?

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Feb 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Invid Fan wrote:

    >>apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    >>Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    >>thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor

    >
    > They said similar things about John Wayne's version too, iirc. There's
    > lots of reasons for a film to flop, and being bad is only one of them


    In Ron Howard's case, the other reason is for a historical film to be
    try and be "new" by updating the story with modern-perspective "True
    Facts" historical revisionism (Santa Ana's political
    motivations!...19th-century racism!...Davey Crockett was a coward!)--
    Which usually ends up being sent through more studio rewrites than it
    should get, reducing the script to a mix of approved big-budget "good
    scene" hash and needless last-minute subplots, and pretty much how
    "Pearl Harbor" became such a mess in the first place.

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Feb 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Steve Hanson

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <40328ca1$0$3069$>, Derek Janssen
    <> wrote:

    > Derek Janssen (so...did we just have somebody here say it would make
    > $450M, or did I just dream that?)


    They commented that's what the "failure" Pearl Harbor made. Point
    being, just because a film sucks and nobody admits to going to see it
    doesn't mean it won't make a huge profit once all is said and done.
    Naturally, Alamo could also just pull in $30M worldwide :)

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Feb 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Invid Fan wrote:

    > In article <403276cc$0$3103$>, Derek Janssen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Invid Fan wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>apprently the intial preview shwoing s in December 2003 were a disaster.
    >>>>Film was called back for new edit and possibly some re takes on scenes. Me
    >>>>thinks Disney may have a turkey on their hands ala Pearl Harbor
    >>>
    >>>They said similar things about John Wayne's version too, iirc. There's
    >>>lots of reasons for a film to flop, and being bad is only one of them

    >>
    >>In Ron Howard's case, the other reason is for a historical film to be
    >>try and be "new" by updating the story with modern-perspective "True
    >>Facts" historical revisionism (Santa Ana's political
    >>motivations!...19th-century racism!...Davey Crockett was a coward!)--

    >
    >>Which usually ends up being sent through more studio rewrites than it
    >>should get, reducing the script to a mix of approved big-budget "good
    >>scene" hash and needless last-minute subplots

    >
    > So they're removing all the modern-perspecitve "True Facts" historical
    > revisionism to make it more viewer friendly?


    Pretty much--Or, at least, the same downstaging and smudging-out that
    happened to all those Jon Voight "40's Asia-phobic reasons for entering
    into war" subtexts that were studio-streamlined out of the early "Pearl
    Harbor" scripts, so they could concentrate on the Ben Affleck love story
    and the Michael Bay CGI effects...

    Derek Janssen (so...did we just have somebody here say it would make
    $450M, or did I just dream that?)
    Derek Janssen, Feb 18, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Bradleys

    The Alamo 193 min edition?

    The Bradleys, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    972
    jayembee
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. Mark Spatny

    Re: Michael Eisner's "Alamo."

    Mark Spatny, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    353
    Richard
    Feb 18, 2004
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 28, 2004
  4. Hillen120

    FT: The Alamo

    Hillen120, May 16, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    496
    Hillen120
    May 16, 2004
  5. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    500
    Jay Stewart
    Jun 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page