Skip to comments.
Disney to Ron Howard--No Alamo Movie Unless PG Rated
Media and Policy Review ^
| 9/19/02
| Kevin Kelley
Posted on 09/19/2002 8:22:53 AM PDT by Kevin Kelley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
To: Kevin Kelley
In other words, Disney wished to portray Santa Ana and his brutal army as Welcome Wagon hosts who's hands were bitten by the ungrateful Americans and reluctantly had to vanquish them.
2
posted on
09/19/2002 8:30:55 AM PDT
by
Northpaw
To: Kevin Kelley
Kudos to Ron Howard for this one.
3
posted on
09/19/2002 8:33:52 AM PDT
by
Desdemona
Disney to Ron Howard--No Alamo Movie Unless PG Rated ... and unless you make Davy Crocket gay.
I wish Disney would just get lost. They do nothing good anymore, IMO. The Disney movies of old are incredible to look at, but these new ones rely too much on computer animation, and anything else they stick their nose into is just not worth viewing.
4
posted on
09/19/2002 8:34:46 AM PDT
by
al_c
To: Kevin Kelley
Howard obviously sensed this and surely knew that pressure would mount to placate the Hispanic community and tone down any level of patriotism. It is highly unlikely that this had anything at all to do with Ron Howard's thinking.
5
posted on
09/19/2002 8:39:21 AM PDT
by
jlogajan
To: Kevin Kelley
Disney has lost a lot of it's once highly held regards. It's stock has plummeted. Visits to it's amusement parks has plummeted. Their movies, targeting children markets, simply suck. There is no magic left at Disney.
I think many people are fed up with Disney's agendist oriented programing. They butchered Pearl Harbor, the movie. They were the first to offer same sex couples insurance, and lessen the importance of traditional family programming which had been the staple of the original Disney baby boomers grew up with. They removed shooting games from Disneyland because of their anti gun orientation. They have become a PC tool of ABC news, Hollywierd and it's socialist political agenda.
It is obvious that the Christian Coalition's boycott on Disney has had a tremendous effect on it's bottom line. But disney would never admit the boycott has had any effect.. If one has invested in Disney to make money, alas, they are just as wrong.
To: Kevin Kelley
I heard on the radio that the fall network lineups include reduced numbers of minority actors in lead and secondary roles, and there was much adieu about the declineHe means "ado", right? I can't believe he means there was much French goodbyes.....
7
posted on
09/19/2002 8:47:15 AM PDT
by
Lizavetta
To: Kevin Kelley
8
posted on
09/19/2002 8:49:54 AM PDT
by
hosepipe
To: Kevin Kelley
Disney would not be happy until "both sides" were equally representedIt'd sure be a distortion of truth is that were to happen. However the thought of both sides being equally represented in the actual fight has appeal; ie: the outcome sure would have been different!
9
posted on
09/19/2002 8:52:20 AM PDT
by
zlala
To: Alamo-Girl
ping
To: BansheeBill
Thanks for the heads up! Hugs!
To: hosepipe
"the Constitution, to be worth having, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'" - Horatio Bruce Thanks for the link. Excellent letter. The above quote is lifted from the link and holds true today as much as it did then.
To: Kevin Kelley
This is a laugh. Disney owns numerous pornography interests and ABC which is violent and pornographic in its own right, and it's balking at an R rating for a movie? There's a dichotomy at work here.
13
posted on
09/19/2002 9:07:44 AM PDT
by
exmarine
To: Kevin Kelley
Although I'm sure Disney would have been extremely sensitive to the racial issue (btw, you will find hispanic surnames listed among the defenders of the Alamo), from the article, it appears that the issue was violence, and how it would be depicted. It sounds like Howard was wanting to make an 1830's version of Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, in terms of the battle scenes. Disney, which is in a very reactive mode right now, wanted more of a late fifties early sixties approach to the violence (instead of seeing a cannonball take off a guy's leg, he would get shot, grab his chest and fall over.)
I also think it's possible that since Eisner is flailing for his corporate life right now, that Disney just started throwing conditions into the movie to try and kill it. Eisner does not want ANY controversy at this time. Let's face it, no matter how a movie about the Alamo is made, SOMEBODY is going to protest it.
To: exmarine
Disney owns numerous pornography interests
Can you provide a reference for this? Seriously.
15
posted on
09/19/2002 9:18:30 AM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: Kevin Kelley
So, how about Mel Gibson as John Wayne?
He seems to be the only one that can do a movie like this.
16
posted on
09/19/2002 9:29:57 AM PDT
by
marron
To: Kevin Kelley
Actually, I wish Mel would do Sam Houston. He's a fascinating character; his cherokee background, the war, his religious conversion, his presidency...
17
posted on
09/19/2002 9:32:28 AM PDT
by
marron
To: Kevin Kelley
What's the big stink? Disney owns Touchstone, and they've put out garbage before. A well-done movie about the Alamo should be far above that.
Unless he's right, and it's all about "PC". But not Eisner. He's not all about PC. No way.
18
posted on
09/19/2002 9:36:35 AM PDT
by
HeadOn
To: Richard Kimball; Dark Wing
I agree.
"I also think it's possible that since Eisner is flailing for his corporate life right now, that Disney just started throwing conditions into the movie to try and kill it. Eisner does not want ANY controversy at this time. Let's face it, no matter how a movie about the Alamo is made, SOMEBODY is going to protest it."
19
posted on
09/19/2002 9:38:39 AM PDT
by
Thud
To: Kevin Kelley
Ron Howard walked off of this project months ago (and it didn't seem to be about the rating)
Ron Howard forgets about "The Alamo"
Also:
Gaghan Drives to 'Alamo' Gig
Fri Jun 28, 5:07 AM ET
By Cathy Dunkley and Claude Brodesser HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Remember the Alamo?
You probably don't, but Academy Award-winning "Traffic" screenwriter Stephen Gaghan wants to change all that. He has signed on to rewrite Ron Howard's upcoming period picture, "The Alamo," which was originally written by John Sayles.
The Disney picture, expected to be Howard's next, would reteam the Oscar-heavy team behind "A Beautiful Mind" -- Howard, his Imagine Entertainment producing partner Brian Grazer and Russell Crowe, who will be one of the ensemble cast of "Alamo." Though neither Grazer, Howard nor Crowe's deals are closed, all three parties are negotiating with Disney for a potential December start to shoot on location in Texas.
"Alamo" was at one time aiming for as early as a September start, though script delays and actor availability are understood to have played some role in the date change.
"Alamo" is expected to deal with many of the historical complexities -- including the Mexican point of view -- that were glossed over in John Wayne's 1960 film. Alamo heroes William Barret Travis' serial marital infidelities, Jim Bowie's slave trading and Davy Crockett's overall political incorrectness will also be addressed.
Gaghan recently made his directorial debut for Paramount Pictures on the Katie Holmes' starrer "Abandon," which will be released in September via Paramount.
20
posted on
09/19/2002 9:43:10 AM PDT
by
weegee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson