Remember 'The Alamo' Next Year

LOS ANGELES-- Touchstone Pictures' production of "The Alamo" has been given a new release date of April, 2004, it was announced Tuesday (Oct. 28) by Dick Cook, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, and the film's director John Lee Hancock.

"The Alamo" stars Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton, Jason Patric, Jordi Molla, Emilio Echevarria, and Patrick Wilson.

Commenting on the announcement, Cook says, "The decision to move 'The Alamo' to April 2004 was made at the request of the filmmakers, who felt they needed additional time to complete this great movie. Ultimately, the end product is more important than the need to meet arbitrary deadlines for awards, etc. Audiences will have to wait just a bit longer to see 'The Alamo,' but we feel that the wait will be worth it and result in a motion picture that is superior and satisfying in every way."

Hancock comments, "Dick and Nina Jacobson have been 100% supportive of this film throughout the entire production process and I am thrilled that they have agreed to give me the necessary time to complete it to my satisfaction. Post production on an epic ensemble piece takes time and no deadline, no prestige release date, no awards season is worth more to me than the movie being fantastic. I owe that to myself as well as the film."

This should be an interesting movie.

With Ron Howard out of the picture, or not shooting this picture, because of some conflict he encountered from production, and the actors of questionable qualifications, I can only think of how Duke would be turning in his grave.

I guess we'll have to wait and see April 2004.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Well I maybe way off base here but I don't think this picture will see a release date.

I think there are more issues/problems under the surface, this is a tough story to film. Look back at The Duke and see how it stressed him. He was pushing 5-6 packs of smokes a day during the filming of his 1960's film.

Hmmm... pushing it back that far could mean: bad preview notes, re-shooting, re-editing, re-everything. Not a good sign.

Not to mention the cost of putting this off, and the investment that must have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars. Couldn't have happen to a better group of idots who think classics should be buried and lost for their new ideas.

Sorry, just had to put in a political announcement for a company who needs to stay out of politics!

Cheers, Hondo B)

But don't forget that Disney when Davy Crockett was considered just another frontiersman fired the story up with its series and the Crockett craze. Disney played a vital part in the building of the legend, and I rather like the movie version of King of the Wild Frontier (even though the 3-part-series was tuned down on brutality for the movie version for kiddie's sake)

True! Very true.

They didn't even go into the Alamo story except that he went there where he died in battle. Disney should stay with that and went on to what makes them successful. Don't you think so, itdo?

Cheers, Hondo B)

I think we're in for a movie with tons of CGI-Mexican soldiers storming The Alamo and that will look as breathtaking as in Lord of the Rings but still not half as good as Wayne's real extras, real humans, real stunts.
I think we'll get to see a very accurate yet un-romantic picture of this story as this is common in filmmaking today - and it would be the only reason to re-do the story.
And I think it'll mirror the current events of the US "taking a stand".
In any event it will make for an interesting flic.

My question to you, Roland, Do you think it's accurate the way they protray films today, or do they slay to a certain direction to get their beliefs or manipulation in to their thinking?

Movies have recently in the past have been very distorted, and I know that in actuality, you can never get the complete truth from any story from history. But the main reason is to get people to think like they do and change public opinion toward a side that might not be thought of before.

Just one man's opinion.

Cheers, Hondo B)

They're probably not any more accurate than 50 years ago. It just seems they get you closer to the story by taking you with the characters: steadycam, faster editing - you seem to be "there". You get the point of view of a character more often than they used to. There seldom is a master shot with all the characters in one room, the editing very often puts us in the place of one of the characters (even the bad guys). They give us the impression through explicit brutality that they are more accurate.

Good point. I just wish they could leave a story alone. They seem to do the remakes, and they usually don't do them well. There are a few that I liked, Sabrina & The Fugitive. But most of them are really bad.

I guess that when I see Billy Bob Thornton playing Davy Crockett, my stomach turns, only knowing that he's playing the part that Duke played. And Thornton is no where in the same league as John Wayne, not even close.

Cheers, Hondo B)

To get back to the Disney/politics thing, Disney has come a LONG way since the days of the Davy Crockett fad. If you think Duke is turning in his grave, imagine how poor old Walt would feel.

Jen,

You make a very strong point. Walt Disney would probably spinning in his grave if he knew what the film industry was doing today, not to mention Disney pictures.

After Disney's death in 1966, the studio was trying to define where they were going and who would continue to run this. They had some projects out that Walt was involved in (of course he was involved in everything), and they finished what he started. But then for about 10 years after that, they couldn't do anything, and the studio was about to fold. They just didn't have the Walt Disney touch, and needed a lift.

They made compromises, and started into what I would call non-family entertainment. They started productions under a different name but with the Disney signature, and Disney was changed forever. The family sold their soles for this, but have profited very well for it.

They brought in Michael Eisner to the ranks of CEO, and run it the way he wanted. He has kept a lot of classics from the general public, and started more of a run with the way pictures are made like Paramount, Warner Brothers, MGM, United Artists, Columbia-Tristar, etc. They also started to monopolize the field by buying up corporations like, ESPN, ABC, etc. Disney has come a long ways, but I personally don't think it was for the better. I only wish Walt or Uncle Walt had that insight to have someone who had the same dreams as he did to continue the dream of Starting Out with a Mouse

Cheers, Hondo B)

Obviously, there was a preview and the audience didn't buy it. So that's why they're pushing the release date back, doing re-editing, even re-shooting. Anyway, here's the trailer.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0318974/trailers

Interesting to note:

First: They use the legendary Alamo icons, the Bowie knife, the front of the chapel, the name of Davy Crockett.
And second: they use the bloody soundtrack of Buena Vista's "The Rock" again which is what they always do when the real soundtrack isn't ready yet. I think I heard that Zimmer-sound on 4, 5 trailers so far.

This tidbit on IMDb today. Has anyone mentioned this yet?

Last week's announced decision to delay the opening of Disney's The Alamo came after test audiences reacted angrily to the depiction of Davy Crockett as a coward begging for his life in front of General Santa Ana, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times has reported. It said that preview audiences told researchers that the film's producers were going overboard to make the film "politically correct" in order to appeal to Mexican-Americans and other U.S. Hispanics. The newspaper commented: "Any Texan worth his lizard skin boots and Willie Nelson albums knows better than to smear the legend of Davy Crockett."

Bravo, bravo!

It's great to see people stand up to the political correct idiots. History cannot be changed just because it might offend someone or some group! I watched the trailer that Roland put on his post above. I was offended that the Crockett character made a comment that he would run if he was the only one here from Tennessee. That is a bunch of grap, and I believe that Davy Crockett did not say that or even think that. I have read biographies about Davy Crockett and there is no indication of him ever going anywhere in that direction.

I will see the movie, if it ever comes out, and I will slice it up as it should be done, if they don't present this movie as accurate with the history of the Alamo. What a bunch of morans!

Cheers, Hondo B)

The "Did Crockett surrender" theory - or controversy - is really not a new one. Even though it was never really prooved historically (there's this diary of a Mexican soldier telling this tale). Takes some guts to put that one on film. Better not get caught with that one in Texas, they might hang ye!