|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 10, 2012 19:04:47 GMT -5
I'm a great Poppins (and Julie Andrews) fan and have always admired Dick Van four-letter-word's performance!
I was also very pleased to hear just how much making Saving Mr. Banks means to John Lee, Michael and Dan Orlandi.
John Ford used to say that one out of every ten movies was one that he wanted to make. "Banks" is clearly that film for these wonderful guys. I can't wait!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 10, 2012 20:02:37 GMT -5
Back to the topic, every year that goes by takes us closer to the next Alamo Movie. Whether theatrical or mini-series, the day is coming. I'm 63, and I plan to live long enough to see it. Hey, I'm 65, and I plan to live long enough to MAKE it! ;D The first hint that another Alamo movie will be made is that everybody is saying, "After that last one, NObody will make another Alamo movie." Think how many times you heard that in the sixties, seventies, eighties........ Well, I'm close behind you (63) and I would love to shake your hand some day and tell you personally, "You were right and I was wrong." Actually, a mini-series of some sort could happen, but I don't foresee another movie on the big screen.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 10, 2012 20:39:41 GMT -5
Twice the length (more or less) of Wayne's epic. So much of the story, characters, events that led up to the Alamo, could be developed and told. I agree with this treatment totally. I just don't want to see HBO's story agenda attached to the Alamo. Imagine having to wade through each and every one of Travis' 56 love affairs while watching him lie to Rosanna and then spend night after night with him and Rebecca fighting about his extracurricular activity. Then a bloody and pointless 30 minute Battle of the Alamo, but ending the season before Santa Anna kills Crockett, Bowie and Travis so they can advertise all summer about the show that will allow you to see the HBO spin on what happened.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Aug 10, 2012 21:15:02 GMT -5
Or HBO could do to it like they did to Deadwood and just kill it before the proper ending.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 11, 2012 2:18:21 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking in terms of an ongoing season-to-season treatment (as in STARZ and "Spartacus), and I wasn't even suggesting HBO should be the channel to do it -- it was just an example. The key is "mini-series", done over a few nights, start-to-finish, without a season-ending "cliff-hanger". Something like that could have real merit.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Aug 11, 2012 14:41:55 GMT -5
Excellent idea, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Aug 11, 2012 16:56:48 GMT -5
Speaking of cuts, I guess the porn-editor feature doesn't like the spelling/use of Dick's last name, Given his first name, It ain't so smart
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 11, 2012 23:05:19 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking in terms of an ongoing season-to-season treatment (as in STARZ and "Spartacus), and I wasn't even suggesting HBO should be the channel to do it -- it was just an example. The key is "mini-series", done over a few nights, start-to-finish, without a season-ending "cliff-hanger". Something like that could have real merit. I do indeed agree. After I watched The Blue and The Gray in the early 80's (I think), I was inspired to write an outline for a similar miniseries on the Texas story. It had six shows, if I remember correctly (gotta find the outline). No. 1 was about Austin and the colonization and militia period -- the epitome of the diplomat respected by both cultures. No. 2 brought Jim Bowie to Texas as contrast to Austin -- Bowie was the "leather stockings" type Austin hated but he warmed naturally to the Tejanos -- and climaxed with the San Saba Battle. No. 3 was about Sam Houston coming in with visions of American empire, completely ignoring the Tejano goals and needs. No. 4 was Travis the hotspur with too much get-up and go. No. 5 carried all this into the revolution and ended with the Alamo. No. 6 was the Runaway Scrape, Goliad and San Jacinto ending with a wounded Sam Houston passing out kernels of San Jacinto corn to his men the day after the battle and sending a victory laurel to a young girl he loved.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Aug 12, 2012 11:30:58 GMT -5
Thanks Paul for clarifying why Van d**e was sensored with **'s. You know, I love this site because it's so devoid of any garish material (which I'd rather enjoy on the sites made for it.) The Forum is so faithful to Judeo/Christian values, it's a nice respite from the vulgarity in the rest of the Internet. Keep it up!
And Rich, you have my unqualified spiritual support, since I won't have any money until I hit the Mega Lottery.
How's this for a title?: "The ALAMO: Getting it Right Once And For All!"
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on May 17, 2013 20:24:49 GMT -5
Has anyone else here read the full, uncut script at the end of "The Alamo: The Illustrated Story of the Epic Film"?
It's much, much better than the final product. I enjoy the film, but the finished script not only makes the history clearer to the average viewer, it has multiple subplots and more character development, facts and story behind it. It's simply, dare I say it - much, much better.
One of the faults of the film is it hardly focuses on Houston, and yet after the fall of the Alamo, turns to him and makes him a main character. In this script, there are much better written scenes with Houston, especially with him at the Cherokee camp. He and Matthew (the boy in the shop at the beginning, who watches Houston drink) both become a father-son like pair, and Houston had a character arc with his drinking and conflict with the council.
Not a perfect script, but I would have loved to see it fully. I know the majority of it was filmed, yet cut from the final run.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 19, 2013 11:42:26 GMT -5
Rileyrandom, I'd love to know how to get the script you wrote about. I had heard during the production that there was much controversy over the finale and the editing. It looks like the script had a lot to do with it as it often does. It's not just the Alamo 2004. Somewhere between the elements of the script, the director and the edits, many good movies fail to become great movies when one of more of those elements fall short. I always felt John Wayne's Alamo had good directing, good editing and awful script. Two out of three ain't bad, but what could have been a masterpiece in my eyes is lost between parody and hocum, with one hell of a slam bang ending.
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on May 19, 2013 12:03:37 GMT -5
Rileyrandom, I'd love to know how to get the script you wrote about. I had heard during the production that there was much controversy over the finale and the editing. It looks like the script had a lot to do with it as it often does. It's not just the Alamo 2004. Somewhere between the elements of the script, the director and the edits, many good movies fail to become great movies when one of more of those elements fall short. I always felt John Wayne's Alamo had good directing, good editing and awful script. Two out of three ain't bad, but what could have been a masterpiece in my eyes is lost between parody and hocum, with one hell of a slam bang ending. Hey there! The script is at the end of the book "The Alamo: The Illustrated Story of the Epic Film". It was published way back when the movie was just released. For a film buff or an Alamo buff, it's a fantastic read-through. I still stand by what I say: the script is much, much better than the final outcome. It's certainly not perfect, but it brings the story to a better close. Of course I'm a screenwriting major in college, so I see these things all the time. Here it is on Amazon: www.amazon.com/The-Alamo-Illustrated-Newmarket-Pictorial/dp/B005K5QDZ6/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368982827&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=the+alamo+the+story+behind+the+epic+motion+picture
|
|
paul
Full Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by paul on May 19, 2013 15:56:29 GMT -5
You're right about the script in that Making of book having so much more than eventually ended up in the finished version. But since Disney made John Lee Hancock cut so much of it, we shouldn't be surprised.
If you can find it, Frank Thompson's novelization of the original script (ISBN: 0-7868-9082-7) gives a glimpse of what might have been.
I know JLH apparently filmed some different versions of different scenes, including a grislier version of Crockett's death.
Disney deserves most of the blame for how the final version came out, though without that studio, the film likely never would have been made in the first place. So it's a mixed blessing.
I knew someone in California who saw a sneak preview of Hancock's original version. She said the finished product contained many, many changes, some based on test-audience feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 19, 2013 16:24:54 GMT -5
Test audiences show the degree to which films are made for money, not art. Did Leonardo test out the Last Supper or Mona Lisa on test audiences? Of course, he didn't have tens of millions riding on them. Nonetheless, whatever response Disney had to the test audience problems only made things worse. The film was a total bomb and has serious flaws due to the editing.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 22, 2013 21:20:40 GMT -5
All of these have been natural reactions to what the final film turned out to be, but I really don't have any trouble with it as a film -- just as what John Lee Hancock had planned it to be.
When you read the Final Draft Screenplay in Frank's book, you are reading John's filmed version of the movie. This was his screenplay based on earlier drafts by Les Bohem and John Sayles, and he filmed all of it.
JLH's plan for the film was totally intact through what is called the "director's cut." The DGA (Directors Guild of America) insists by the director's contract that he be given 13 weeks to complete his edit. Unfortunately, unless the director is Spielberg, Howard, Coppola or Cameron (who have the clout to get "final cut" on their movie, even if it's 4 hours long), the studio can recut it as soon as he delivers it to them.
In the case of The Alamo, JLH requested and was permitted to do, a second cut after the two test audience screenings -- which are done for every major motion picture and are ALWAYS observed. Unfortunately, by that time (after Disney had first publicized it well for a Christmas release), they wrote it off as a loss and failed to publicize it for its Good Friday release. An old addage: "When you don't promote, a terrible thing happens -- nothing." John Lee would like nothing more than to be enabled to do his director's cut, even if only for a home video release. Unfortunately, there is no support from the Mouse House. So.....
As you guys are indicating above, there are major story arc and character arc violations due to the Disney cuts -- these aside from history. But, in a way, this makes JLH's *save* with the current version that much more cherished for me. It wouldn't have been there at all without his astounding dedication.
Had his original cut been approved, you would have seen a soft side to Houston, and thus, Dennis Quaid's performance would have been less harsh, since it was planned, directed and performed with this balance in mind.
You would have seen a Bonham-Travis subplot -- and a ride of sheer bravado into the Alamo with word that no help was coming.
Another subplot was the parallel story of the two young boys (the one mentioned above who went with Houston and also Jesus, whom you have seen as the Mexican conscript with the Battery Sargent in the Mexican camp). They were to have died together at San Jacinto after realizing they were both -- the same.
Houston with his Cherokee wife and the Indian children would have been priceless, as would Wes Studi's cameo as Chief Bowles. It is Talihina (his wife) who sets him on his San Jacinto destiny. (And yes, I know she wasn't with Chief Bowles but rather at Cantonment Gibson with Chief John Jolly -- creative license that worked great).
You would have seen a heart-rending scene in Gonzales where blind Mrs. Millsaps thanks Houston in advance because he is on his way to save her husband in the Alamo (when he knows better). And you would have seen Mrs. Dickinson arrive in Gonzales with Angelina and Joe -- and seen Houston's face. All wonderfully appropriate stuff that was trodden under the feet of the studio.
Sorry, I just get in a tiff every time I think of what was there vs. what was distributed -- and how much heart these fellers had invested in what they were doing as filmmakers.
|
|