|
Post by billchemerka on Sept 28, 2011 9:33:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Sept 29, 2011 9:07:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 29, 2011 23:09:46 GMT -5
That's sad. Terrible fires out that way. Hundreds of homes lost, not just old movie sets. We need some gulley washer rain storms.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 2, 2011 12:25:44 GMT -5
Studying the photos, I see nine buildings still standing plus part of a tenth and two jacales behind the town. The Alamo is totally gone, as is San Fernando, the Veramendi Palace, Travis' Townhouse, the Casas Reales, the Yturri House, and everything in between on the "Potrero." Remaining are the Cantina and the building to its right (which Michael Corenblith had originally named Graciela's Cantina for his daughter Grace), the two long buildings in the opposite corner of Plaza de Armas, and five buildings in what would be historically the S.E. corner of Plaza de las Islas.
Either the media didn't know what they were seeing or many structures (not just two collapsed ones) were already down, because the reports were saying 9 or 10 buildings out of a dozen were destroyed. Duh! The set was originally 70 buildings (including the 18 in the Gonzales - San Felipe set 3/4 mile to the southeast of Bexar). Of course, we would view the sets as a number of buildings in a row, whereas the fire department would probably see that as one long structure (and correctly so).
But their relativity is what confuses me. I see it as 9/10ths. of the sets being totalled.
The Gonzales-San Felipe remains were evidently not touched by the fire. Nor was the Reimers' home. I'm hearing that the 18 pounder and Gunade are safe.
|
|
cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Oct 2, 2011 18:47:37 GMT -5
So the Alamo Mission Fortress is totally gone as are some San Antonio buildings. Such a loss. I originally thought it was just a part of the City sets. The Alamo Fort is gone. What a loss to Texas and the World. I hope they will all remember.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Manuel on Oct 3, 2011 11:57:45 GMT -5
Here is an aerial view of what the Alamo movie set use to look like. Just thought some would like to see. I couldn't see on the News pictures where the Alamo building had burnt, but saw where the cross was for the San Fernando church burned. So sad that most of its gone.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 3, 2011 19:47:53 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this. I've never seen this view of the set and it puts the movie scenes in better perspective.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 4, 2011 11:49:41 GMT -5
Very cool shot. Thanks billm. There is one news photo of the Alamo site from the burnt ruins of the bridge. All that is standing and recognizable is on of the buttresses from the "south" wall (actual east) of the Alamo Church. This kid's talking real separation anxiety here.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 4, 2011 12:00:37 GMT -5
A lot of e-mails have passed between Michael Corenblith and me in the last week or so. Even though he is used to seeing his mega-sets torn down immediately after filming (i.e. Whoville in How the Grinch Stole Christmas), I believe he had an attachment to his Dripping Springs sets that surpassed all and even surprised him. Here's a portion of one of his responses (actually to Mike Bolt and copied to me):
I've been thinking of Neil Young's "It's better to burn out, than rust," and Elton John's "Burn Down The Mission." Think there is both poetry and closure in the Set going out in a Blaze of Glory...just like our heroes. The loss of the artifact only makes the Film more precious, as a Timeless Moment....so many memories that will live on a long time. It was exactly 10 years ago that I began designing this set, and the purification by fire seems an apt metaphor for the close of this 10 year cycle....so many things that were set into motion 10 years ago are only now coming to fruition, so having "the curtain come down" on this chapter is more bittersweet than anything else. What will survive is a wonderful film, and more important, all the wonderful friendships and colleagues that it brought into all of our lives. Thanks for the kind words.....it's been an interesting and emotional day. Michael
(posted with Michael's permission)
|
|
|
Post by Bill Manuel on Oct 4, 2011 13:24:18 GMT -5
Question if I may, Did the land owner have to pay taxes on the buildings that were there although they were not liveable? I have always wondered about that. Thanks for the letter above. Its an emotional time for everyone I think. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 6, 2011 0:52:24 GMT -5
I really don't know the answer to that, Bill. I know Reimers was trying to get special tax consideration and was basing the total feasibility of keeping the sets standing on how that decision would come out. One can only assume that something happened in his favor back in 2004 when he had to make the decision. Disney would have been contractually under obligation to tear it down and restore order unless Reimers decided to let them walk away from it, thus having to worry about it himself. This is much the same as the decision Happy Shahan had to make each time a temporary set was built at Alamo Village.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 6, 2011 10:29:35 GMT -5
Posted for Rich:
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 6, 2011 12:06:17 GMT -5
If you soak this in water, it gets bigger (or just click on it). The buildings I have outlined in red are the ones that were still standing after the fire. These include the Cantina set in the bottom left corner. All that is left of the Alamo is one of the buttresses on the "south" side of the church -- and a lot of piles of black.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Manuel on Oct 7, 2011 6:26:07 GMT -5
Thanks for posting what is left of the set. I didn't realize that, thats all was left. I guess they will take the rest of it down as wth out the alamo and the rest of the buildings not much use in leaving the rest of it there. Maybe some one will do a new Alamo movie some place and make a new town. That would be nice. As for this one such a great loss.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 7, 2011 17:33:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't hold my breath for a new Alamo movie for at least a few more decades (maybe 2036?). The 2004 movie bombed and I would guess except for Alamophiles like us, there wouldn't be much interest in a new film any time soon. Of course, I would happily admit I was wrong and eagerly embrace another movie, but I'm still not holding my breath.
Paul
|
|