The BLOG FLUME - Marcia Marcia Marcia!

Jan Brady used to whine about her big sister getting all the attention. But that's what happens when you are the biggest. So more Disney news...

Jan Brady used to whine about her big sister getting all the attention. But that's what happens when you are the biggest. So more Disney news...

THE A-LAME-O
Entertainment Weekly - Apr 7
NY Times - Apr 9
Chicago Sun-Times - Apr 9
USA Today - Apr 8
USA Today - Apr 8
Hispanic Business - Apr 10

The Alamo is out and it is wowing 'em. If by "'em" you mean Roger Ebert. Most other critics are praising the lack of outright jingoism and are spastic for Billy Bob Thornton's portrayal of Davy Crockett, but are dismissing the rest of it. EW gave it a C+, Elvis Mitchell calls it "oppressively solemn" and Mike Clark calls it "too true to be good."

And I have a little problem with that statement right there. I knew when they were making another movie on the Alamo that they would never dare touch on the real truth behind the story. Yeah, yeah, Jim Bowie isn't exactly portrayed as hero material here, and Crockett is shown to be captured and executed instead of the Hollywood legend which has him dying in the heat of battle. (That brain trust Oliver North is having a hissy fit over this too. For some reason he doesn't believe it is heroic to be captured before being killed by an army that outnumbers you. Shut up, Ollie, and go back to lying.)

My problem lies with the real reason for this battle. Sure, it was a battle about freedom, but American "patriots" don't want you to know that the freedom these "heroes" were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. Mexico outlawed slavery about 30 years before the US did, and these people were almost all slaveowners. Santa Anna was sent to enforce Mexican law, since that land was owned by the country at that time, and his "army" consisted mostly of peasants who were recruited on the march north. So why all the love for Davy Crockett? Are slavetraders heroes now?

It's this reconstructionist history that made me fear the Disney's America theme park concept. Disney has made Crockett a hero for decades now and this supposedly historical account hasn't changed matters. Although the America theme park still lurks, my bigger fear was that something Alamo-related would show up at the American Adventure in Epcot.

Fortunately The Alamo looks like it will be an even bigger bomb than anyone predicted. The film is expected to gross a measly $9M in its opening weekend, and it cost around $100M to make. Bad buzz and reviews may be blamed, but when I heard about the project I immediately said, "Who cares about the Alamo? Apart from Texans, of course?" The answer, evidently, is nobody. Coupled with the wretched performance of Home on the Range, it looks like Eisner is going to have MAJOR problems delivering on his promise of 30% growth in profits. Hee.

SHAREHOLDERS ARE REVOLTING... I MEAN, REBELLING
Orlando Sentinel - Apr 10
LA Times - Apr 8

At one time Disney was the company others imitated. Now Disney seems to often be caught imitating. Not anymore! One thing has come out of Disney that is spreading like whatever that virus was in 28 Days Later: Shareholder revolts!

Yep, shareholders have tasted blood and they want more, more, more, more. (First one to name that obscure reference wins my undying love.) A proxy advisor is challenging Warren Buffett's independence on the Coca-Cola board by advising shareholders to withhold. And CalPERS is at it again, this time withholding for several members of Safeway's board. It appears as if these votes will only grow in popularity, which means Disney's board could be in serious trouble next year if this year continues as badly as it has started.

BRING IT ON!
Jim Hill Media - Apr 5

Back when Imagineers were designing Pleasure Island, they were coming up with ideas that would ensure Eisner greenlighting it. At the time, Eisner had a strange obsession with the movie Splash, so Imagineers created a club around Madison, that film's mermaid.

Called Madison's Dive, the club sounded like the Adventurer's Club with fish tales. It was also supposed to be the most expensive club, with underwater views of "Lake Buena Vista" (obviously special effects that would include an occasional view of a mermaid). Being the most expensive meant it was also the first to be chopped when costs soared. (Why does Disney seem unable to do proper cost analyses for their projects? How often do you hear about enormous cost overruns at Universal?)

With PI raking in the dough, why not bring this idea back from its watery grave? The BET SoundStage is a perfect location, since it is on the lake and is conveniently the LEAST popular club inside PI. Furthermore, it has been made mostly irrelevant by the opening of Motion, a club with far more than half of its music falling into BET's R&B category. The Adventurer's Club, on the other hand, is the most popular club and can sometimes be uncomfortably crowded. A second likeminded club would not only ease crowds here, but at all other clubs, since the BET club sure isn't helping matters.

So build it already! Transforming the more-popular-than-BET country-music bar into Motion has been a glorified success, hasn't it? And while you are at it, how about an Adventurer's Club in Anaheim??? I needs my Kungaloosh fix!!!

So, Kevin, is Eisner or Roy the creature of the night?

(C'mon. Obscure? Puhleeze.)

"Stanley!" "Mr. Disney!" "Stanley!" "Mr. Jobs!" "Mitchell!" "Grm?"

Of course if disney had made the r-rated movie Ron Howard had wanted with Russell Crowe staring it wouldnt have been the flop it is now. But instead due to red-writes/re-do's they spent almost the same money and have another disaster on there hands.

An R-Rated movie is even a harder sell. And Ron Howard sucks. His last movie didn't do crap at the box office. And although I think John Sayles is pretty damn awesome, most of his writing would not appeal to the mass market. But Russell Crowe definitely would have helped matters.

I stick with my reasoning that non-Texans don't give a damn about the Alamo. Plus, most of us know everybody dies, which isn't really the kind of war movie Americans want to see. Americans want to see us killing Germans or Japanese or Koreans or each other. They don't want to see us being killed by Mexicans.

II knew you'd get the reference, Robert. I should have said anyone younger than the movie who gets the reference wins my undying love. As a consolation prize, you win my undying like.

No matter what you're feelings about Ron Howard Kevin, you have to admit that, considering the timing, the movie could potentially have done much better had he not bailed on it. He and Crowe were coming off the huge success of A Beautiful Mind (another film I could care less about, but it was sucessful). Alamo would have been able to take advantage of some of that momentum. personally, i could care less about Crowe, Howard or The Alamo, but it still had more potential with that line up than it does in it's final product.

The Alamo is a great story. The only issue there has ever been with this event in history is what really happened on that day. When most of us think about the Alamo, we think about all that stuff about freedom and bravery, as well we should...but if you look into the historically accurate, non-Disney version of Davy Crockett's life, you will find that he wasn't always a saint. He was a politician. The same can be said for Jim Bowie, who was also no angel. If one can sort through all the folklore, truth-stretching, and exaggerations, they will find accounts by Mexican soldiers of capturing and killing Davy Crockett after the battle, and as much as Americans and especially some Texans don't like to hear that, the fact still remains that this event is recorded. Bowie was indeed a hardcase, and he was also confined to a sickbed for most of the standoff. He and William Travis were at odds because Travis was given command and Bowie wasn't. Some biased historians and filmmakers also like to blow up the number of the Mexican army for the sake of drama. The number 6000 has been used in most films about The Alamo, but most historians have set the number at about 2500, and even that number is generous. The bottom line is that people like to hear the story that makes them feel good, and in this case, sometimes the truth doesn't make you feel so good. People or critics who care about this subject in one way or another will go to the movie with baggage, in the same way that people went to see The Passion with baggage. Granted that The Alamo and The Passion are two completely different films, but Ollie North doesn't like the historically accurate version because he has preconceived notions about the story, and probably never bothered to investigate beyond a Texas history book. As far as an R rating, I think that big time battle movies like this need to be graphic and realistic. When I think of those kind of movies, I think of the film Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, and how the violent battle scenes make the film realistic and more effective. If it bombs, then it certainly wouldn't be the first Alamo movie to do so.

I would agree that a r-rated movie would have likely been a harder to sell that a pg-13 movie.
But the topic material isnt likely going to have the juvenile crowd excited anyway so i think it would be a wash(unless of course maybe orlando bloom or some other hunk was in it to excite the girls.
Ron Howard and Russell Crowe who were initially supposed to make the movie
have proven track records which isnt the case with the people involved in The Almao. But alas disney tryed to make the movie on the cheap and will suffer for there stupid decisions.

As for the The Passion of the Christ, the only baggage the movie had was the attack from hollywood and there friends in the media who tryed to pull of scam by claiming the movie was anti-semtic before they saw it and contuined to parrot that wrong way of thinking. Of course we see no anti-semitic actions as a result of this movie but we do see it welcomed by the paying public who are making it one of the biggest moives of all time.
Nice to see that Mel Gibson put his own money where his beliefs are(a unheard of thought in hollywood where you risk other peoples money) and is being rewarded with a artistic and financial success!!

Sorry, but if there was no anti-semitism in The Passion then why did Gibson go change the script to add a "sympathetic" Jew? Why did he ultimately remove "His blood be on us, and on our children." line after showing it uncut to a Christian screening? That line is often considered anti-Semitic not by the Jewish, but by many Catholic theologians.

In fact, most of this alleged controversy sprung almost solely from the mouth of Gibson himself. Over a year ago he appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show defending his movie, when no one had even attacked it yet. I guess if you are going to lie, that's a perfect show for it. Gibson further fueled the fire by showing it solely to Christian pastors and pundits but refused to show it to Jewish leaders who requested a viewing. Icon, Gibson's company, did start that whole Pope-endorsement crap, after all.

All this was detailed in Entertainment Weekly before the film even opened. Gibson refused to participate because he didn't want a balanced story on the film. He picked and chose which outlets would get facetime with him, and publicly fought others to keep the film in the public eye. Even more disgusting, Gibson held a screening at Azusa Pacific University and all attendees had to sign confidentiality agreements... UNLESS it was to support the movie. Gibson has a long history of being both a misogynist and a bigot, and I am not someone who will be swayed from these beliefs because he puts on his charming persona for film crews. Pity those who praise the messenger instead of the message.

As for Ron Howard/Russell Crowe, you may be right that the target crowd wouldn't care. I still think it is a hard sell outside of Texas. In fact, this week's EW has an article about it and the film's director would ask people all the time what they knew about the Alamo and most knew little except the outcome... except for Texans. And I bet those Texans don't know - or pretend not to know - about the whole pro-slavery angle. And, thank you, Jason for calling out "A Dangerous Mind." Was that the most overrated film, or what? Ron Howard bites.

hmmmm... you almost confused me there? "A Dangerous Mind"? wasn't that Michelle Pfiefer in a high school? LOL! but yes, completely overrated! and from what I understand (from those who cared enough to read the book), completely innaccurate.

When I say baggage, I am referring to critics and people who bring their personal beliefs into their criticism of the film. People criticized The Passion for violence, they called it anti-semitic, and they said it would bomb. As far as the violence goes, people are kidding themselves if they think that the Romans were gentle when it came to punishment. The bottom is that the violence, no matter how excessive, was in my educated opinion the best representation of what happened and made the film realistic. As far as anti-semitism, if you are going to call this movie, anti-semitic, then you might as well call the bible the same thing, because only in isolated insignificant cases did I see the movie stray away from the gospels. Why do you think this movie caused such a stir, because everyone's personal beliefs were stirred, and if you ever discuss religion with anyone, then you know how opinionated we all are on the subject. People complained about the violence, and the anti-semitism, and praised the movie for it's message and power. What we didn't really do is acknowledge just how good of a movie it is. The acting, imagery, and overall direction were second to none. Obviously something went right, because Mel has made a buttload of money, broken box office records, and now all of the sudden, we are hearing utter silence in Hollywood and seeing networks trying to ride the coattails by putting out movies like Judas.
Some people didn't like the way that story was told, so they unjustly dismissed a good film because it violated their personal beliefs. This particular film about the Alamo rings a little more true with history, and some people won't like that. I still say that it should have been made in the style of Braveheart or The Patriot.

so... you're trying to say that if you strip away the "baggage" of everything that was the media circus revolving around The Passion, it was in the end a good movie? that's funny. I can't judge for myself because the only interest I've ever had in seeing it was out of media driven curiosity. however, from the reviews I've read, and the people I've talked to, the only people who really think it is a great movie are the hardcore christians. and as far as I can tell it's not the filmaking that they love. they love it because the message is what they beleive in. everyone else either thinks it's "ok, but not great" or doesn't like it at all, or has no desire to see it. the only people that seem to truly love the film are the ones who went in with a biased opinion already.

What I am saying is that outside the message of it, The Passion is still a good film. There is no question that James Caviezel owned the screen with practically no dialogue. Most of the reviews I have read either dismiss the film, or play it down as an ordinary film. One reviewer in particular struck my fancy. Roger Ebert, who claims to be agnostic, praised the film, even though he didn't necessarily agree with the message.... Funny how he also liked the Alamo. I'm not one to really listen to critics in the first place, but I bet that if The Passion were to somehow have different subject matter, then critics would have liked it at least a little better. I think that Caviezel deserves at the very least an academy nomination for best actor, but whether or not he gets one remains to be seen because Hollywood didn't like this film and they didn't like the content. I have yet to see an acting performance this year that is even close to being better, and if the academy snubs him, I seriously doubt that it was because he wasn't good enough.

I guess that the point is this, we shouldn't go to movies like these on the basis of what other people say...critic or not. The Passion wasn't the greatest movie in history, but it was a good movie, by far the best of it's kind, and worthy of recognition aside from the story that it tells.

I am staying away because I refuse to give allow Mel Gibson to take one penny of my hard-earned money. Well, I'm not interested in it either, just as I wouldn't be interested in a movie focusing solely on my belief system. I believe what I believe and I don't need a movie to justify my belief system. As the popularity of rightwing radio shows, Americans LOVE to have their views told back to them.

As for the quality of the movie, there are a lot more things than acting and directing which make a movie good. Like a script. Like The Alamo, the ending of this one is already known to everybody. But The Alamo would have been different had it been written by John Sayles. A literal translation of the Bible wouldn't hold any surprises for most of us.

As for the critics, most did praise the cinematography and acting, but found the story lacking. As a writer, if the script isn't there, then I am going to have problems with the movie. That's number one for me. Number two is copious nudity. Is there any of that????

I was really, really excited when I heard they were making "Alamo." It was easily the best book in the "Preacher" series...

Wait, this isn't based on the comic book? Oh, screw that.

Hell, if it had been a documentary on Alamo Rent-a-Car, it probably would have made more money!

I wonder how 'Troy' will do at the box office. Perhaps 'Alamo's' failure has less to with a lousy script and more to do with the public's lack of interest in a historic epic.

If 'Troy' gets good reviews it will probably boost ticket sales. But its final numbers may still be lackluster when compared to production costs and the fact that it will only have two or three weeks before Harry Potter zooms into theatres.

Troy will do better than Alamo based on one very simple fact... Good looking stars who spend most of the film half naked. I'm not reareally sure how well it will do, but I've seen and heard a lot of chatter from people (mostly women) who neither know nor care anything about the plot, but will be there for sure just to drool over the cast.

These would be the same women who think the film is about a guy named "Troy."

It doesn't matter what they think it is about, they're still paying customers who will flock to the theater to see their hunky stars. In a lot of cases this could be the "compromise" movie for couples, the guy wants to see it for the action and historical tale, the woman wants to see it for the hunks. works out pretty well for both.

You mean it's not? They need to clearly state that in the advertising!

Hell, I'll go see TROY simply because it has the "4 'B's"

BLOOD
BLADES
BOATS
BOOBIES

Speaking of boats and Orlando Bloom in movies, was anyone else waiting for Bloom to shout "I AM NOT A PIRATE!" when he jumps off the boat in RotK's final battle?

Okay, just me.

Yeah, just you.

Recent history has shown that epic films like this can do very well. Master and Commander is one example. But there are more than a few problems with someone's analysis of this.

First off, Troy is by no means historical. This is Greek mythology, you might recall. So maybe the problems with Alamo are because it is historical, allegedly. As allegedly historical as Gladiator which did well, by the way. Historical warmongering films, like Braveheart and Pearl Harbor, tend to do pretty well, if epic in scope.

And there's the second problem with that analysis... the story of the Alamo is anything but epic. It's a small little story that means nothing to anyone outside of Texas. It wasn't a Civil War battle, it wasn't Custer's last stand, it wasn't the Revolutionary War, it wasn't Pearl Harbor. It was Mexico trying to keep law and order in its own territory, and the only reason anyone outside of Texas knows anything about it is because that's where slavetrader Davy Crockett and hardcore moron Jim Bowie died. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

As for Troy needing to fear Harry Potter... that's preposterous! Why would an R-rated Brad Pitt movie have to fear a PG movie about teenage wizards? One is a movie aimed mostly at adults, the other mostly at kids. The only thing that crosses over into either territory is Orlando Bloom, who might actually hurt Harry's grosses since teenage girls would definitely choose him, if given the choice.

The film will almost make $50M this weekend, so the only thing that will hurt Troy in the long run is its running length. There's no real competitor contentwise, so its R-rating will only hurt it in that many teens won't be allowed to see it on their own (or will buy tickets to another movie and sneak in, which also doesn't help the movies tally). But it's kind of silly to sit there and say Potter will hurt it a few weeks down the road when there are two other movies expected to be much bigger than that this year: Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2. And the green ogre starts much nearer to Troy at a whole five days later. And it actually has more crossover than Potter since single adults want to see CG movies but don't much care about pimply schoolkids.

Wow. You spent a lot of time writing that.

Good work!

Good comeback.

I think the issue comes with the fact that Disney spent years indoctrinating a generation into a love for the MYTH of Davey Crockett, to the point where he became an American legend on the scale of a Pecos Bill, Johnny Appleseed or Paul Bunyan. To kids in the fifties, he was a hero...blazing trails, fighting indians, being a political activist and congressman for his home state of Tennessee.

In his zeal to, apparently, erase every sign of Walt's legacy, Eisner allowed a film to be produced that actually undermined the value of one of Disney's most classic live-action characters.

The baby boomers, the people who are mainly the ones who are buying up these Disney Treasures DVDs, don't want a piece of their childhood corrupted.

What next, an expose` on how Howdy Doody was actually puppeteered by a big, cigar-smoking teamster instead of being a magically moving marionette?

It's the same reason that ZORRO: THE GAY BLADE bombed. Or why the new TRANSFORMERS and MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE tv shows did well. It made fundamental changes that the original audience for the characters hated.

Good point, Kenny. Though I would question the reasoning of the Zorro thing. That movie just sucked.

Had Disney made a Davy Crockett movie, that showed historical facts of his life, good and bad, up to the point of the Alamo, people might have gone out to see that. I still say no one cares about the Alamo, and that's what killed it.

That's funny- I thought this was a site about themeparks. Seems that your have gotten off task a bit here. Apparently you guys know everything about everything-visiting themeparks somehow qualifies you to make literary judgements on the writing skills of SUCCESSFUL screenwriters and directors? "Good on ya", as my Aussie friends might say. Too bad Ebert died, or was it Skiskel?

Try to stay focused boys-you're sounding silly..

You're new here, aren't you? ;-)

TPI rule: If you can't be insightful, at least be silly.

Wait a minute, did I just make a silly comment?

Of course some of us know everything about everything. That's how all you people who know a lot about one thing learn.

I appreciate the opportunity to learn. Thanks....

Another tidbit to learn... TPI doesn't stand solely for Theme Park Insider. It also stands for Tangents Please Immensely. We have never met a tangent we didn't like. And you should always read ever article because you never know when one of them might end up turning into an indictment of Martha Stewart or a discussion of thong colors.

Kevin, for the love of God, please do not *ever* use the terms "Martha Stewart" and "thong" in the same post again.

It's a good thong... I mean THING.

Guys,

Is there a site that IS really and industry insider forum? I've been to screamscape, but would rather find something that is more FOR themepark professionals than for the themepark guest. Maybe some inside gossip about who working where, or real infomration about what is happening in terms of trends and capital expenditures?

Try Intercot.com. They're renowned for their unbiased discussions on the theme park industry.

LOL.

We've broken some stories in the past about cap ex. (Notably forecasting two years ago Six Flags' current predicament.) But once a source is exposed online, that source tends to lose access to inside information. Plus, companies often change their mind during the development process, making yesterday's scoop look like today's bad information. (The Van Helsing Robocoaster at IOA being a recent example.) Disney is notorious for greenlighting stuff, only to axe it months later. Lance Hart at Screamscape does about the best job out there at compiling a reasonable list of projects in development. (Though, like I said, something in development today might not be tomorrow.) And if I can ever find a CPA/theme park fan who wants to write (paid) weekly column on the financial side of the industry, we'll get back in this game on a more reliable basis, too.

Tweet

Plan a Trip

• Find a Travel Agent
• Shop U.S. Attraction Tickets
• Shop World Attraction Tickets
• Browse Our Visitor Guides

Subscribe by Email

Subscribe by RSS

New Attraction Reviews

• 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020
• 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010
• 2009, 2008

News Archive

• 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020
• 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012 , 2011, 2010
• 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 (12/27-31), 2005 (1/1-12/26), 2004

© Theme Park Insider^®   About · Rules · Privacy · Contact