The Alamo

Box Office
Budget:
$107,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA:
$9,124,701, 11 April 2004, Wide Release
Gross USA:
$22,414,961
Cumulative Worldwide Gross:
$25,819,961


I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's historically based. Great set.


I should add that I am teaching a Texas History class and we show clips to the kids. They all love it as well.

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

No John Wayne, no care.

Hell I've lived in Texas my entire life, my old neighbor is IN the movie, and I still have zero desire to ever watch it.

apparently, I don't remember the Alamo (movie).

powerbelly said:

---

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

---

Its boring, its long, and its not really that interesting of a story. We learn about it in 7th grade history class, and no one outside of Texas knows anymore about it than "Remember the Alamo".

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

The Milkman said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

---

Its boring, its long, and its not really that interesting of a story. We learn about it in 7th grade history class, and no one outside of Texas knows anymore about it than "Remember the Alamo".

---

Partially right. We do learn about it in 7th grade, it is boring and long, but it is interesting. People outside of Texas absolutely know the story, including internationally.

The largest collector of Alamo historical artifacts is/was Phil Collins, who grew up loving the story of the Alamo over in England. He recently donated the $100mm collection to the new Alamo Museum.

But even with my rebuttal to some of your post, we basically agree that the movie didnt' do better because it didnt' have any sort of hook or hype to see it other than "The Alamo: Newer version this time"

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

powerbelly said:

---

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

---

I disagree. Phil Collins loved the tales of Davy Crockett and his role in the Alamo.

Raptor said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

---

I disagree. Phil Collins loved the tales of Davy Crockett and his role in the Alamo.

---

I love anecdotes too!

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

Which good role are you talking about? Fargo, Bad Santa, Slingblade, Friday Night Lights?

The Alamo needs to be done by Netflix in a series. With no name actors. No BBT. No Quaid. Famous people doing these moves suck.

If The Crown can be made interesting (with no wars really covered)...so can Texas/Mexico/US/Indian history in the 1800's.

WestAustinAg said:

---

The Alamo needs to be done by Netflix in a series. With no name actors. No BBT. No Quaid. Famous people doing these moves suck.

If The Crown can be made interesting (with no wars really covered)...so can Texas/Mexico/US/Indian history in the 1800's.

---

Next Taylor Sheridan project?

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

Which good role are you talking about? Fargo, Bad Santa, Slingblade, Friday Night Lights?

---

I liked Slingblade, Friday Night Lights was fine. Those are good roles.

Name me something good he's done in the last ten years

astros4545 said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

The Alamo needs to be done by Netflix in a series. With no name actors. No BBT. No Quaid. Famous people doing these moves suck.

If The Crown can be made interesting (with no wars really covered)...so can Texas/Mexico/US/Indian history in the 1800's.

---

Next Taylor Sheridan project?

---

Working on a show called Yellowstone with Kevin Costner.

The Milkman said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Because no one gives a **** about the Alamo outside of Texans.

---

Its boring, its long, and its not really that interesting of a story. We learn about it in 7th grade history class, and no one outside of Texas knows anymore about it than "Remember the Alamo".

---

The Alamo and the whole Texas Revolution isn't that interesting of a story? You serious Clark?

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

Which good role are you talking about? Fargo, Bad Santa, Slingblade, Friday Night Lights?

---

I liked Slingblade, Friday Night Lights was fine. Those are good roles.

Name me something good he's done in the last ten years

---

Fargo.

I saw the movie in theaters and remember walking out thinking it was just OK.

Modern filmmaking has conditioned viewers to care about characters more than plot/scope.

It's likely why Alexander was, likewise, bad. The character was uninteresting. So to make a historical film, you really have to make up a fictional portrayal of who the character is in order to be interesting...to fill in the gaps so to say.

If Crockett was like Deadpool and jim bowie were like tony stark, that would be awesome movie. But how accurate would it be?

The Debt said:

---

Modern filmmaking has conditioned viewers to care about characters more than plot/scope.

It's likely why Alexander was, likewise, bad. The character was uninteresting. So to make a historical film, you really have to make up a fictional portrayal of who the character is in order to be interesting...to fill in the gaps so to say.

If Crockett was like Deadpool and jim bowie were like tony stark, that would be awesome movie. But how accurate would it be?

---

That would be an awesome movie.

If I remember, there was a lot of negative buzz around the movie. It was originally envisioned to be a gritty, realistic take on the Alamo (in the vein of Saving Private Ryan), but the studio balked and made the movie more vanilla to try to draw in a larger audience. Ron Howard was originally behind the film but left after the studio's decision.

It's because Dennis Quaid was top-billed for this picture. That is an almost certain kiss of death for any movie.

Looking through his resume on imdb, there is basically not a single movie he's gotten top billing where anyone has thought "I'm going to go see that Dennis Quaid movie!"

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

Which good role are you talking about? Fargo, Bad Santa, Slingblade, Friday Night Lights?

---

I liked Slingblade, Friday Night Lights was fine. Those are good roles.

Name me something good he's done in the last ten years

---

Goliath

Tanya 93 said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

Which good role are you talking about? Fargo, Bad Santa, Slingblade, Friday Night Lights?

---

I liked Slingblade, Friday Night Lights was fine. Those are good roles.

Name me something good he's done in the last ten years

---

Goliath

---

Why can't you people just let me be right?

Disagree on the story/concept of the Alamo being boring.

But I also agree that its kinda hard to pinpoint exactly why that movie failed so badly. Yes it was kinda slow and maybe that had to do with it.

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

1. Because that movie has been made like 100 times

2. Because Dennis Quade and BBT suck

---

Billy Bob Thornton does not suck.

---

Agree to disagree. Just because someone was good in a role 20 years ago doesn't mean they don't get the "suck" label after making trash films for the last decade

---

He killed it in Fargo, on tv. Not saying he wasn't in a lot of mediocre films though.

The Alamo sucked. That's why it bombed. And the John Wayne version is only slightly better.

wxguy95 said:

---

If I remember, there was a lot of negative buzz around the movie. It was originally envisioned to be a gritty, realistic take on the Alamo (in the vein of Saving Private Ryan), but the studio balked and made the movie more vanilla to try to draw in a larger audience. Ron Howard was originally behind the film but left after the studio's decision.

---

So right...I loved both Fess Parker and John Wayne versions, but Howard's was (possibly not his fault) full of stupid jokes and really felt like a California liberal version. It was only good in parts.

Because they didn't have any scenes in the basement.

Good grief. Not a single spoiler tag!

I love Billy Bob in that movie

I always thought it looked generic. Came in a time of numerous historical epics, too.

That's a fair point. Timing may have not been great, I feel like there were a ton of period piece and historic movies around that time. Probably saturated.