|
|
Post by ronald on Jun 26, 2011 10:03:40 GMT -5
I have to wonder, why both Alamo movies had to have such expensive sets, Both had to build a whole Alamo and town. If Ron Howard had just refurbished Alamo village and not started off with such a hugh debt, could he have made the movie he wanted to? It turned into a pretty good show mostly because of Billy Bob, But by golly a Russell Crow and more blood would have made a movie that would have brought in more and maybe even made a few $. I also wonder if working with John Wayne, sparked an intetrest in the alamo for Howard or just because of his age he remembered Davy Crockett and Disney being a winner?
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 26, 2011 13:10:05 GMT -5
Join the crowd Ronald. There seems to be quite a gap between making an historically accurate Alamo and an entertaining one. History usually takes a backseat. But too much historical accuracy could be boring. Someday, someone will make an Alamo movie of the caliber of Gettysburg or Zulu. It could be done; I just hope I can live long enough to see it.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but I still enjoy sharing my list of Alamo favorites:
#1 - The Last Command
#2 - Wall Disney's Davy at the Alamo
#3 - The Martyrs of the Alamo (DW Griffith silent)
#4 - John Wayne's Alamo (Director's Cut)
#5 - The Alamo 2004 (Ron Howard)
#6 - Thirteen Day's to Glory (TV Movie)
#7 - Heroes of the Alamo (B & W)
I would include the IMAX Alamo near the top, but I only got to see it once and DVDs of it don't yet exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 26, 2011 13:13:55 GMT -5
What is interesting to me is that the 1955 TV episode "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" is probably the lowest budge effort of the lot, is short on details, not accurate, yet created a generation's obsession with the Alamo and may be more cinematically effective than all the others. In about 50 minutes, they conveyed the Alamo myth and Crockett, Bowie and Travis's share of that myth. And we never even see Santa Anna!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 4, 2011 17:54:13 GMT -5
Truly a good question, Allen. I still find Disney's 52 minute "episode" to be tremendously fullfilling (except, of course, historically). And that is without one ounce of movie blood or flying body parts. I am a strong advocate of "Blood does not a good film make." Thus, I find the Bowie death scene in John Lee Hancock's The Alamo to be far more effective BECAUSE there is no blood, at least in the sense of the killing. He's alive; he's dead -- with sound effects that draw the picture far better than Mole-Richardson Technicolor Blood. For that matter, for a 1955 "childrens'" show on Disneyland, Disney's had a pretty gruesome Bowie death scene too -- trimmed way down for the theatrical release. Regarding big budget Alamo pix, it's more a matter of saying (as a filmmaker), "Is my best canvas for this *painting* a small, paint-by-numbers tablet or is it a mural the size of a train station?" Each artist has his favored medium. John Wayne's was always big screen and finally epic proportions. Ron Howard likewise. One of my favorite Ron Howard films is Far and Away. The epic scale (he chose 70 mm. for the first time in decades) and grand John Williams score captures and transports me every time I watch it. So it is not out of place to see him want to do Alamo with the same brush strokes. Regarding the new sets, on a movie of this scale, you simply do not *wear last years clothes.* You hire a taylor to make them to your specifications and to fit perfectly. This more than anything else is why Ron Howard chose to "build his own," as Michael Corenblith put it. That, plus the choice to set the story in a more lush area which was only 30 minutes from a major film service community, nixed using Alamo Village. This was after some very serious consideration. I have heard that Ron indeed *got the bug* while on The Shootist and probably bugged Duke to death with questions about a movie he wished to forget.  What I know for fact is that Ron kept Alamo on sizzle on a back burner throughout the late nineties rather than trash-can it, because he really wanted to make it -- if the marketplace were to swing that way. He also sank millions into development to create several drafts of the script, shop it around Town and then build that set -- all this with his Imagine Entertainment company BEFORE any studio greenlighted the production. That is extremely risky. Few Hollywood folks would do that. My call is that Ron Howard's enthusiasm to make Alamo was one of many years, just like Duke's. Unfortunately, it is a different era and he works within instead of without the studio system -- and money ruled. Thus John Lee Hancock did an admirable job of taking the production down a different track -- the only track available to him -- that of a PG-13 film. Ron's movies are usually R-Rated. John's previous excellent movie ( The Rookie) was a G! His recent phenomenon The Blind Side was PG-13. He is charcter-driven, and thus delivered IMO fine character studies set against the background of war. He didn't need blood. Different film from the same source. |
|
|
|
Post by ronald on Jul 5, 2011 14:17:22 GMT -5
You have a good overview of how the movie came about. I guess it may be the last Alamo movie looking at the bussiness side of it. John Waynes movie got me hooked on the Alamo,but I find myself looking at Hancocks more often! At first I wondered why he was picked but I think Billy Bob was a great Crockett!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jul 5, 2011 17:11:34 GMT -5
To me, Davey at the Alamo was like a Cliff Notes version, there was enough there to stir the interest and entertain a nine year old, but it really fell short on facts. The Wayne version was like the Scholastic Comics version, a few more facts, but way too much entertainment, most of which was totally unnecessary. I was very disappointed when I learned that Ron Howard would not complete the 04 version,yet it is still my favorite. Billy Bob can play Davey for me anytime. In fact I liked all the portrayals of the trinity. I do hope that someone makes another attempt to tell the story in movie form in my lifetime. I would even settle for a full length documentary with all the updates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 5, 2011 18:26:13 GMT -5
After the postmortems on the Hancock film, I came to believe it would have worked far better as a much longer TV miniseries, possibly on HBO, without the PG restrictions and the truly horrible editing. I'd prefer to see any new attempt to dramatize the story done that way as Alamo movies are notorious failures. An updated, accurate documentary would be nice too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 6, 2011 8:41:05 GMT -5
I guess it may be the last Alamo movie looking at the bussiness side of it. I highly doubt it. A good filmmaker interested in the story who has the clout to throw his weight around Hollywood can always pull off another one -- and all the same pressures will work on him. I remember Michael Corenblith's Styrafoam tombstone outside the office at the set after Ron Howard pulled out and the Mouse House cut the budget. "$50,000,000 - R.I.P." And they did a fine film anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jul 6, 2011 11:24:23 GMT -5
It would be a hard sell to the studios. Their target audiences aren't interested in historical epics. The '04 Alamo production started out as a labor of love from what I remembered from postings on the older forum site before Michael Eisner and Disney threw everything under the bus. Then there was the anticipated release date, then the delay of the release, and then the final release where it was having to compete with 'The Passion of the Christ.' Look at what they did with the story of the siege at Thermopylae. When they could have based that one on the very fine historical novel, 'Gates of Fire,' we got '300.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Joy Manuel on Jul 6, 2011 15:15:26 GMT -5
Russell Crow would have gotton the ladies intrest, I'll tell ya that! For sure they would have went with the hubbys to see the movie.
As far as the 'The Passion of the Christ' I didn't like it only because you had to read the movie. If I have to read a movie I would just rather read the book. I want to watch and hear a movie not read it. Just my Opinion
But Russell Crow in an Alamo movie, now thats good food for thought.... from a womans view ofcourse. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 6, 2011 15:37:43 GMT -5
Why don't Alamo movies make money? It reminds me of a Social Studies teacher I had in 11th grade who was about to get to the strategy and battles of the Civil War. He was an excellent teacher and speaker and I couldn't wait for his class. Imagine how I felt when he said, "I was going to discuss battles of the Civil War today, but every time I do, the North always wins." So he skipped everything: Fort Sumpter, Gettysburg, Monitor and Merrimac, etc. and jumped to reconstruction. To this day, I'm still screaming AARGH!!!!!
What I'm getting at, is that too many people believe they know enough about the Alamo. e.g., A bunch of men in buckskins tried to defend a crumbling old fort against thousands of Mexicans and they lost and all died. Who wants to see a movie about that?
Of course, every one of us who belong to the Forum would make major sacrifices to see that movie. But, there aren't enough of us to make a proper Alamo movie venture profitable. So we pine and kvetch about the few versions we have, like I did in Reply #1 and hope that someone will finally make that movie. After seeing what HBO and STARZ have done with their dramatic series like "Sparticus" and "Camelot," I think that may be the way to go.
Does anyone know how to start a letter writing campaign? Also, are any of our Forum Memebers talented enough and capable of writing the book and screenplay? If we want it done right, we'll have to do it ourselves.
Now that would be fun!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jul 6, 2011 15:49:02 GMT -5
Hey, how about that mural project that was up on the forum. Actors in garb shot against green screens and then photoshopped into breathtaking scenes. We could use the shots out of Mark Lemon's book. Everything be done on a soundstage and finished on a computer. CGI out the wazoo. Just got to figure out where you can put some sex in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 7, 2011 8:19:57 GMT -5
We tend to forget that one Alamo movie has constantly made money since 1988-Alamo...the Price of Freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jul 7, 2011 9:31:58 GMT -5
A colleague of mine has seen it and said it was very good. He is the sport's writer for our athletics department. He is also an Alamo buff. He had traveled with our basketball team to San Antonio awhile back when they had made the play-offs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blacksmith John on Jul 13, 2011 1:18:56 GMT -5
I have to wonder, why both Alamo movies had to have such expensive sets, Both had to build a whole Alamo and town. If Ron Howard had just refurbished Alamo village and not started off with such a hugh debt, could he have made the movie he wanted to? In the case of Alamo (2004), they could have used a 'bluescreen fill' technique, in which only the crucial parts of the compound would have been built (the Church, barracks, gun emplacements) and the rest 'outlined' with to-scale bluescreen panels to be later replaced with CGI or miniature models. By employing such a method, the filmmakers could have retained the exact dimensions of the historical plaza--that goes for Bexar as well. However, I do understand the temptation in wanting to 'build the whole thing,' though no one ever actually gets there. Don't get me wrong, I love Alamo (2004), but for goodness sake, the fort looks like a styrofoam crackerjack box! |
|
What I know for fact is that Ron kept Alamo on sizzle on a back burner throughout the late nineties rather than trash-can it, because he really wanted to make it -- if the marketplace were to swing that way. He also sank millions into development to create several drafts of the script, shop it around Town and then build that set -- all this with his Imagine Entertainment company BEFORE any studio greenlighted the production. That is extremely risky. Few Hollywood folks would do that. My call is that Ron Howard's enthusiasm to make Alamo was one of many years, just like Duke's. Unfortunately, it is a different era and he works within instead of without the studio system -- and money ruled.