RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Discussion On All Aspects Of The Film.

Moderator: NefariousNed

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby whiterabbitt83 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:59 am

RLC-GTT wrote:
whiterabbitt83 wrote:
RLC-GTT wrote:Absolutely, he's a pro.

u dont realy beleive that do u

Yes.

"RLC-GTT
this is the same Russell Crowe
who joined the cast of nottingham
and then had the script rewriten
and had his character become the star
so nottingham became robin hood
he would have have used his star power to
take the alamo 2004 and turn it into a movie called
HOUSTON
User avatar
whiterabbitt83
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Oak Park mi/Austin TX

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby K Hale on Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:16 am

Are you talking about the movie with Cate Blanchett? It's a Robin Hood movie. Who else should it have focused on?
Verum non in verbus, sed in testimonium.
User avatar
K Hale
 
Posts: 9086
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:17 pm
Location: Texas

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby RLC-GTT on Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:15 am

whiterabbitt83 wrote: this is the same Russell Crowe
who joined the cast of nottingham
and then had the script rewriten
and had his character become the star
so nottingham became robin hood
he would have have used his star power to
take the alamo 2004 and turn it into a movie called
HOUSTON

Once again I wonder where you get your information. IMDb lists "Robin Hood" as "AKA 'Nottingham'," which means "also known as 'Nottingham'." It is common for the distributor (not to be confused with the star) to have a different title on a film in certain markets (in different countries). The star has no say in this. Another possibility (probability) is that "Nottingham" was the "working title" of the film. This is usually the original title of the screenplay (which the star doesn't write or rewrite or name) and used throughout production and post-production as the title for labeling the film on all laboratory and production forms -- and press releases. Then, after the film is complete (and the stars are long gone), the DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (not the stars; not the director) decides what the marketing title of the film will be. This is purely a function of what they believe will sell and be the best "handle" for the product.

Ridley Scott directed "Robin Hood." He directed Russell Crowe without any problems. He also chose to work with Crowe on four previous movies including "Gladiator." If Crowe were less than professional, top directors would not want to work with him at all, let along again and again.
User avatar
RLC-GTT
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:03 am

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby RLC-GTT on Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:22 am

Another example of the studio's control over the title of a movie is THE ALAMO (2004). Ron Howard, who's project this was, wanted to simply title the movie ALAMO, not THE ALAMO. This was to clearly separate it from its John Wayne predecessor. When John Lee Hancock took over the helm as writer-director, he too simply titled his script ALAMO. This was the working title all the way through production and post production. Then, after they delivered the finished film to Disney, the distribution company (Touchstone -- a branch of Disney) chose to retitle it THE ALAMO against the wishes of its original producer Howard and its writer-director Hancock. The two with the most clout HAD NO SAY on what the movie would be titled, and nobody asked the stars what they wanted to call it.
User avatar
RLC-GTT
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:03 am

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby whiterabbitt83 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:09 pm

How Nottingham Became Robin Hood: the Story Comes Out
How does a good idea become a terrible movie? That’s the perennial question in Hollywood, where the intersection of creative ideas, business sense and big egos can so easily produce something very different from what was originally intended.
That seems to have been the case with Robin Hood, which was originally meant to be based on a hot screenplay by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris called Nottingham. Then Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott came along and everything changed. Eventually the result was a film that stands at less than %50 Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and was beat by Iron Man 2 in that film’s second weekend. So what happened?
Stage One: Nottingham

The script was originally sort of a procedural tale, told from the perspective of the Sheriff as he investigated Robin Hood’s actions and tried to figure out who was ‘terrorizing’ the area. Arguably not a bad take, certainly novel within the context of other movies that deal with the character. A little silly, perhaps, but likely to be easily salable to the audiences that make CSI and Law and Order monster pieces of programming.

Stage Two: Archery

Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe come on board, and Brian Helgeland is hired to rewrite. Frustrating given that the heat on the script is what caused the movie to move so quick in the first place, but let’s not confuse the heat of the actual pages with an enthusiasm for a concept that a studio knows it can sell like ice in the desert.

But here supposedly is where Scott, recently obsessed with archery, has the focus of the story shift to archers. That aspect is seen, to some extent in the final film, as Robin is part of an a division of archers that is returning from the Crusades with Richard the Lionhearted.
Interlude: Another Perspective on the Nottingham Script
While the script had a lot of heat, neither Crowe or Scott now seem to have liked it. Recently both commented upon that draft to The Times Online. Crowe said, “it kind of read like CSI: Sherwood Forest to me…And I just wasn’t into doing that.” Ridley Scott is more aggressive, saying, “It was fucking ridiculous…It was terrible, a page-one rewrite.”
Stage Three: The Twist
Then [Ridley Scott] came up with a brilliant idea! What if the Sheriff Of Nottingham and Robin Hood were the *same person*! Kind of like FIGHT CLUB. He’d be chasing himself for the whole damned movie! And there were some drafts of the screenplay written like that, until someone (maybe Helgeland) must have hinted that it might be a little silly.
But here’s where we’re missing something. It’s the ‘?’ stage in the old South Park ‘Collect Underpants / ? / Profit!’ equation. Because Martell goes from that statement to saying the movie was eventually rewritten many more times to become the generic re-telling we see on screens now.

And, while the version on screens is not good at all, it certainly is not generic. The film is rather ambitious, actually, and suffers to some extent from the same thinking that could cause problems for Marvel if they’re not really careful. That is, it is more interested in setting the scene for a future movie than telling a good story in this movie.

As Scott said in that same Times Online interview,
If there were to be a sequel to Robin Hood, you would have a constant enemy throughout, King John, and you would follow his reign of 17 years, and the signing of Magna Carta could be Robin’s final act.

So he’s thinking of Robin Hood as the first chapter in an epic telling/reworking of the middle history of England. No surprise, then, that the film is stuffed with too many characters, almost all of whom get short shrift, and too little compelling action. But is that notion of the film as the first part of a saga something that was in play all along, or just a good after the fact explanation? I’m guessing a mixture of both.

Sequel and saga planning notwithstanding, what we see now is unrealistic for a single film, but it is not generic, and it is not a lack of vision. Martell’s perspective is very much that there was a great screenplay right at day one, so why change it? Any deep, dramatic alterations there are almost certain to be misguided. He goes on to rail against a studio system that gives big directors free reign for their creative indulgences, rather than firing them. But because they need to keep their jobs, screenwriters who put dumb director notes into words are given a free pass. After all, another writer will always come in to implement the notes someone else refuses to use. (I get that angle, very much so, but Martell cries about the system being broken; if that’s the case, it is all broken, not just the emphasis on directors.)

Stage Four: Losing and Finding the Plot

And, just as I’m about to publish this, Vulture drops a little more info. The site says Universal spent $6.7m on scripts alone. Furthermore, the ‘Robin and the Sheriff are one’ idea came from the notion that Robin would assume the identity of the Sheriff in order to return to England, after the Sheriff is slain in battle. That idea remains, in altered form, in the existing film.

But Scott didn’t like Helgeland’s draft, and Universal hired Paul Webb. Under him, the film became more serious. Scott didn’t like Webb’s draft, either. Helgeland came back, and changed the impersonation plot thread to what is seen on the screen now. In the meantime, Crowe had become impatient with Scott, as the film’s first release date was blown. Their relationship reportedly became quite strained.

Meanwhile, the film’s dialogue was problematic, being as it was the sewn-together amalgamation of several scripts. So Tom Stoppard was hired to smooth and polish even as the cameras rolled. Hard to tell how successful he was; while the dialogue isn’t terrible, it also contains almost nothing memorable.

And that’s the story of Nottingham –> Robin Hood as we have it now. Tangled, ugly and short-sighted, this is the ugly side of movie development. And, while this is an extreme version with far more participants, it probably happens a lot more often than you’d like to believe.

(i found this online)
User avatar
whiterabbitt83
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Oak Park mi/Austin TX

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby K Hale on Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:24 am

I don't know who wrote that or what movie he watched, but I thought it was a super film. I was caught up all the way through and liked seeing a backstory for Robin Hood.
Verum non in verbus, sed in testimonium.
User avatar
K Hale
 
Posts: 9086
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:17 pm
Location: Texas

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby whiterabbitt83 on Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:07 pm

User avatar
whiterabbitt83
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Oak Park mi/Austin TX

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby cc nolen on Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:31 pm

:roll: Was Robin Hood at the Alamo? :lol:
User avatar
cc nolen
 
Posts: 10084
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: West Monroe, Louisiana.......Land of Bowie

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby Fargo Fenwyck on Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:31 pm

Yeah!!! he was in the deleted indian part along with Wes Studi. The were shooting apples off Houston's head. That scene SHOULD have stayed. :oops:
User avatar
Fargo Fenwyck
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Northwood, Ohio

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby Buckshot on Fri Dec 30, 2016 6:26 pm

Fargo Fenwyck wrote:Yeah!!! he was in the deleted indian part along with Wes Studi. The were shooting apples off Houston's head. That scene SHOULD have stayed. :oops:


I wish Wes Studi's scene with Dennis Quaid would have stayed, and so did Quaid. Apart from that, Wes Studi is a great actor in his own right.
Buckshot
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Location: Louisiana

Re: RECASTING ALAMO MOVIES

Postby Buckshot on Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:22 pm

whiterabbitt83 wrote: this is the same Russell Crowe
who joined the cast of nottingham
and then had the script rewriten
and had his character become the star
so nottingham became robin hood
he would have have used his star power to
take the alamo 2004 and turn it into a movie called
HOUSTON


WR: Russell Crowe seems to have a sort of great chemistry with Ridley Scott. Crowe might have had the power, as the excellent actor that he is, to suggest minor changes in his dialogue, but I doubt the changing of the title of the movie. In my very limited knowledge of movie making, I understand that many productions have a "working title", which can change, sometimes more than once.
Buckshot
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Location: Louisiana

Previous

Return to The Alamo ( 1960 )

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests