1 posted on
04/13/2004 2:16:24 AM PDT by
kattracks
To: kattracks
I'm glad the movie bombed. It was an affront to everything Americans revere about their history and the heroes who died at the Alamo. Americans had the good sense not to watch Disney's politically correct dud about what happened in 1830s Texas. We're tired of Hollyweird forcing its anti-American garbage down our throats and voted with our pocketbooks to send Disney a message. We hope they heard it loud and clear.
2 posted on
04/13/2004 2:19:47 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: kattracks
Home on the Range also had a disappointing weekend. From a business perspective, we are looking at a massive loss of goodwill by the Disney company. Audiences used to trust the Disney name and would flock to theaters, often based on the brand alone. They do not anymore.
The bottom line is that over time, all the PC nonsense (which is just another form of lying) erodes trust between a company and its customers, and with it, shareholder value.
7 posted on
04/13/2004 3:48:27 AM PDT by
Huber
(If Catholics voted per the teachings of the Church, there would be no abortion in the US!)
To: kattracks
When I saw the previews, I just knew it was gonna be a flop. Yeah, the Passion would be a bust, but a movie where we know beforehand that the main characters all DIE, that's gonna be a hit. What were these people smoking?
To: kattracks
I haven't (& probably won't) see the new Alamo....
..but the version with John Wayne stands well through time, IMO.
Surprisingly (having just watched it again, recently)....
..it doesn't sugarcoat the personalities or character of Bowie, Crockett, or Travis, IMO.
It protrayed them as real, warts & all.....but in a respectful manner.
I found it showed them as imperfect people...(aren't we all)....who found courage & had the conviction to do the right thing when the odds were against them.
15 posted on
04/13/2004 4:57:10 AM PDT by
Guenevere
(..., .Press on toward the goal!)
To: kattracks
ps...I've been to the
Alamo, as I'm sure many have...
.. and felt it an honor to be there....
..it held an aura of a very special place, in spite of the tourism and crowds of people...most of whom were very respectful.
16 posted on
04/13/2004 5:00:39 AM PDT by
Guenevere
(..., .Press on toward the goal!)
To: kattracks
Eisner is toast. And as it so happens, so is Disney's non-executive chairman, former Democrat Senator George Mitchell. From tvweek.com:
Meanwhile, in a move that could signal his acknowledgement that his work as Disney's non-executive chairman won't be easy, George Mitchell said he won't seek re-election to the Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide board when his term expires May 7. He has served on the hotel chain's board since 1997. Mr. Mitchell was named non-executive chairman of Disney immediately following the Disney board's decision to strip Mr. Eisner of his chairman title after the no-confidence vote by shareholders. However, Mr. Mitchell's appointment hasn't been without controversy. He garnered a 24 percent no-confidence vote at the March 3 shareholders meeting.
18 posted on
04/13/2004 5:15:29 AM PDT by
arasina
(So there.)
To: kattracks
Perhaps, as some have written, people who would have wanted to see "The Alamo" did not go because of their dislike of Eisner.
21 posted on
04/13/2004 5:30:46 AM PDT by
Dante3
To: kattracks
How ironic that so many theatres bounced The Passion _on Good Friday_ to make room for this. An awful lot of money, to say nothing of goodwill, just got lost by the Hollywood establishment.
22 posted on
04/13/2004 5:34:47 AM PDT by
Paul_B
To: kattracks
$100 million to make this movie when Gibson made the Passion on $25 million? That should tell you something.....
26 posted on
04/13/2004 5:54:40 AM PDT by
NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
(Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
To: kattracks
Eisner may have released this movie, at this time, specifically because of the Comcast take-over bid.
1. If Comcast takes over Disney, Eisner is toast. Eisner knows this. Eisner had to temporarily "devalue" the company.
2. The movie bombed in viewer screenings. It was originally going to be released in December (before Comcast showed public interest in Disney).Why release a big budget movie in the weakest movie month (April)? This movie would have done much better in the summer. Because its after the shareholder meeting that was held in Philly in March.
3. Right now Disney looks less attractive. However Disney movies generally do very well on DVD/VHS release (about Christmas-time), and park attendence is way up. Eisner will survive the spring and will look like a star at the end of the year.
Of course this is Mr. Eisner thinking of himself and not the good of the Disney product.
BTW - I saw the "Home on the Range" cartoon. An hour and a half long. Unimpressive graphics. Predictable story line. Lots of "bathroom" humor. No original music score. Rosanne Barr was the voice of the main character. It was a Hanna-Barbarra quality cartoon. Not worth the price of a matinee ticket and not worth the cost of a DVD/VHS. Hard to believe that this same company turned out gems like Snow White or Toy Story. This will be no one's favorite movie.
27 posted on
04/13/2004 5:57:26 AM PDT by
kidd
To: kattracks
"The Alamo" raked in a paltry $9 million in its opening weekend, coming in tied for a distant third behind Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and "Hellboy," a comic book adaptation. Interesting trifecta: Heaven, Hell, and Texas. In that order.
To: kattracks
I just saw it and I liked it. Any movie that can get me misty a few times.... Except perhaps for a little poetic license here and there, what was wrong with it?
45 posted on
11/21/2012 9:29:05 AM PST by
onedoug
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson