Replies

That was my opinion too, which I expressed on another thread as my reason for not seeing the film. Several other Freepers who did see the film responded that I was wrong: the film was actually pretty evenhanded. But that's the problem in a nutshell: Disney puts out PC Hollyweird garbage so often that whatever the studio makes is unattractive to an increasingly enlightened general public. If The Alamo had been released by some other studio, or an independent producer, it probably would have done better.

You're right -- when I hear the word "Disney" my radar immediately goes up for leftist spin.

Of course, with The Alamo you had Ron Howard and BillyBob Thornton (is that his name?), guys who would be suspect regardless of the studio, at least to conservatives. I'm not sure if the general public would be savvy enough to pick up on these sorts of political overtones or not.

I read an early review, that claims every significant "texican rebel" is portrayed as deeply flawed. Alcoholism, adultery! etc. Every significant mexican figure is portrayed positively.

Nothing is said about the main event that precipitated the impulse that led the texicans to declare independance. Santa Ana had just months before declared himself military dictator of mexico in a coup. Living under an illegal dictatorship was NOT an option for former americans of that day. The movie is typical, shallow, PC revisionist history.

Finally rhetorically speaking, how stupid is it too alienate the natural demographic the movie would attract?
Conservatives, Texans, patriotic types are the movie's natural demographics, not liberal types from berkely...

As CEO, Eisner is directly responsible. Anyone with stock in Disney who can't see the writing on the wall deserves their fate.