"The Alamo"s Status? (1 Viewer)

[David_B_K]

Was poking around on IMDB and found a link to this article re: "The Alamo".....the article basically says the film should NOT be saved, and even hints that these reasons are why MGM isn't interested in any restroration, because:

1- it's "lousy"
2- it's racist (because of the Jim Bowie character's devoted slave).

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/john-waynes-the-alamo-and-the-devoted-slave-should-the-film-be-saved

If either of these reasons is the actual "real" reason (other than cost) behind MGM's stance, then I am disgusted.....

That writer blogger is an idiot. And he's quite up front with his belief in censoring things that aren't PC.

 

[Reed Grele]

The Alamo is certainly not Lawrence of Arabia, but it is historically significant, was a labor of love for John Wayne, and deserves to be saved in its longest form for posterity.

The article linked above (by Sergio) pays deference to RAH, only to trash the film because "it sucks", and is politically incorrect. He goes on to say that he "can’t even recall if he has a single line of dialogue" referring to the character of Jethro played by Jester Hairston. While his role is not large, he does have a very memorable speech concerning his freedom, and explaining why he decides to stay and fight. Perhaps Sergio had slept through that part of the film.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

People like Sergio are the main reasons Song of the South will never be on home video here in America.

Putting it quite simply what I think of him.

 

[JoeDoakes]

As Roger Ebert said (before he learned to love Big Brother), political correctness is the fascism of our times.

 

[OliverK]

To be fair the writer of the article tries to give an explanation as to why MGM possibly does not want to touch it which may even be correct to a degree.Him not liking that movie is his right and it is just one man's opinion anyway - if lets say 150000 others were prepared to give 10 dollar each towards restoring The Alamo it could still be done even if hundreds of millions were against it.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Individual opinion should not matter in deciding whether a significant piece of American film history should be saved for future generations by a film studio, which has the responsibility to so do. The Landis clip was confusing, with him saying more than once "this is a bad film", but ending up saying "I like it". There are "bad" films that I like, and I don't think they should be allowed to deteriorate because of a few elements that may be considered "bad" by some. Buying a home video release, going to see it in the theater or supporting it in any other way is a personal choice, but preserving the film should stand above that.

 

[ScottGros117]

As Roger Ebert said (before he learned to love Big Brother), political correctness is the fascism of our times.

So the PC idiocy of society may have leeched into MGM? I hope to God not.

To be fair the writer of the article tries to give an explanation as to why MGM possibly does not want to touch it which may even be correct to a degree.Him not liking that movie is his right and it is just one man's opinion anyway - if lets say 150000 others were prepared to give 10 dollar each towards restoring The Alamo it could still be done even if hundreds of millions were against it.

Individual opinion should not matter in deciding whether a significant piece of American film history should be saved for future generations by a film studio, which has the responsibility to so do. The Landis clip was confusing, with him saying more than once "this is a bad film", but ending up saying "I like it". There are "bad" films that I like, and I don't think they should be allowed to deteriorate because of a few elements that may be considered "bad" by some. Buying a home video release, going to see it in the theater or supporting it in any other way is a personal choice, but preserving the film should stand above that.

Preservation is the ultimate goal. Absolutely nothing should stand in the way of that.

I am boycotting all MGM products (home video, theatrical, etc.) unless a restoration on The Alamo is allowed to procede. I can't stand this disrespect for our heritage which I'm very concerned may become contagious.

 

[ScottGros117]

[Post Deleted]

 

[antoniobiz1]

If it is true (and I believe it is) that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", burying films is an eccellent way to help to accomplish that.

 

[JColl]

Boy, Sergio seems like a really great writer. Somewhere a high school paper is really feeling that loss.

 

[Richard Stammer]

Man, I thought this thread was dead and then along came Sergio.

 

[CarlLaFong]

The director of "Oscar" shouldn't throw stones.

 

[FoxyMulder]

The director of "Oscar" shouldn't throw stones.

John Landis directed Oscar for sure but hey he also directed An American Werewolf in London and Trading Places.

I wish people wouldn't get personal when they disagree with another person's point of view, no need to use words like scum, just argue your point and say what you want to say without making everything personal, i know passions run high but you are more likely to be listened to by those who own The Alamo if you stay calm and put into words your feelings, count to ten before posting personal remarks, i know it's hard, sometimes i have to resist myself and sometimes i have amended posts after reading them.

 

[OliverK]

John Landis directed Oscar for sure but hey he also directed An American Werewolf in London and Trading Places. I wish people wouldn't get personal when they disagree with another person's point of view, no need to use words like scum, just argue your point and say what you want to say without making everything personal, i know passions run high but you are more likely to be listened to by those who own The Alamo if you stay calm and put into words your feelings, count to ten before posting personal remarks, i know it's hard, sometimes i have to resist myself and sometimes i have amended posts after reading them.

I can only say that people are overreacting here. Neither John Landis nor that Sergio guy came here into the Alamo thread to tell us that they think the movie sucks - they voiced their opinions and also explained why they do not think that much of it which is totally fine with me even though I may not agree on some or most of the points they make.Also both of them voice criticisms that I have read/heard from others over the years which is why I have decided to watch The Alamo only in a format that is as good or better than Blu-ray - one of the big strengths of the movie is its presentation and that suffers a lot in SD.

 

[CarlLaFong]

Good points. I regret my last post.

 

[JoHud]

I wouldn't put much stock in what people have to say on a blog like Indiewire. Just a few days ago a came across an review on the recent Dawn of Planet of the Apes films that blasted it as a bad movie for not having enough gender-equality. They're kinda big on using movie reviews and articles as a springboard for political agendas.

Pretty obvious they don't represent the average movie-goer let alone speak for MGM.

 

[Chris Coombs]

I hate all this PC crap. Thank God 'Gone With The Wind' didn't need to be restored...

 

[JoeDoakes]

I wouldn't put much stock in what people have to say on a blog like Indiewire. Just a few days ago a came across an review on the recent Dawn of Planet of the Apes films that blasted it as a bad movie for not having enough gender-equality. They're kinda big on using movie reviews and articles as a springboard for political agendas.

Pretty obvious they don't represent the average movie-goer let alone speak for MGM.

I can't stand simeosexism either.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Are we nearing the end of the big studio restorations? I'm talking about the Lawrence of Arabia type restorations. It seems it is no longer worth it for them to invest in that type of effort - the physical film prep, 8K scans and meticulous digital work. Could what we are getting from the niche labels, be it for catalog titles? I know some of you are thinking: well yes, we are already there, but have the studios actually come out and said this? My question, I guess, is, do you see any films getting that type of restoration in the future, or do you know of any that are currently getting one?

 

[rsmithjr]

Are we nearing the end of the big studio restorations? I'm talking about the Lawrence of Arabia type restorations. It seems it is no longer worth it for them to invest in that type of effort - the physical film prep, 8K scans and meticulous digital work. Could what we are getting from the niche labels, be it for catalog titles? I know some of you are thinking: well yes, we are already there, but have the studios actually come out and said this? My question, I guess, is, do you see any films getting that type of restoration in the future, or do you know of any that are currently getting one?

Perhaps more a question of the films themselves. Mad World and Oklahoma! are 70mm productions that just received expensive restorations. The question would be what films are now out there that would be considered prime candidates for such an effort.

I suspect that something is being done for Around the World in 80 Days, one of my favorites and arguably in the same class. I would like to see Porgy and Bess get this treatment, we will see what happens. Spartacus, My Fair Lady and Vertigo need help but there should not be a "preservation issue" with these three at least, like there is with The Alamo.