Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   "The Lone Ranger" is going to be the "Long-ass Ranger;" it clocks in at 149 minutes, plus tip   (denofgeek.com) divider line 61
    More: Fail, Lone Ranger, Gore Verbinski, Armie Hammer, post-productions, Dead Man's Chest, Neill Blomkamp, Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean  
•       •       •

898 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Jun 2013 at 8:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-11 06:13:03 AM  
No good movie is too long. No bad movie is short enough. (Ebert).
 
2013-06-11 07:26:56 AM  
The Guinness record holder for "Longest Film Shown Commercially In Its Entirety" is the German film "Heimat 2," with a 25.5 hour running time. "Heimat 1" ran 15.5 hours.

Longest American movie was the 1996 "Hamlet," at 242 minutes.

/The "William Tell Overture," incidentally, is about 12 minutes long.
 
2013-06-11 07:39:17 AM  
A massive, long, special-effects laden retelling of a decades-old story. Why doesn't the trailer say "From the company that brought you 'John Carter?'"
 
2013-06-11 07:47:09 AM  
Nice to see the youth of today have long attention spans. I'd insult subby's mother but he's already moved on to the next post.
 
2013-06-11 07:51:55 AM  
It looks bad.
 
2013-06-11 07:52:12 AM  
The only Lone Rangers I care about.

dalje.com
 
2013-06-11 07:59:55 AM  
"The Lone Ranger" is going to be the "Long-ass Ranger;" it clocks in at 149 minutes, plus tip

imgs.xkcd.com

Long ass-ranger sounds like a dildo marketed to gay men.
 
2013-06-11 08:09:58 AM  
That's 149 minutes of Johnny Depp wearing a bird on his head.
 
2013-06-11 08:24:05 AM  
Why, that's over TWO HOURS.
 
2013-06-11 08:27:37 AM  
Why is this considered long? Avengers was only 6 minutes shorter.
 
2013-06-11 08:30:55 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: A massive, long, special-effects laden retelling of a decades-old story. Why doesn't the trailer say "From the company that brought you 'John Carter?'"


John Carter wasn't a bad movie, it just wasn't anywhere near the blockbuster quality they had hyped it up to be. I think the problem was that they forced a scifi epic into 90 minutes and tried to sell it as the new Star Wars.
 
2013-06-11 08:31:54 AM  
Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?
 
2013-06-11 08:34:17 AM  
Are directors being enough time to tighten their movies in post-production?
Are editors being enough time to edit their sucky blogs before they publish them?
 
2013-06-11 08:35:23 AM  
So we get to see 149 minutes of Johnny playing Captain Jack Sparrow only with a different accent?
 
2013-06-11 08:45:10 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Why doesn't the trailer say "From the company that brought you 'John Carter?'"


The movie wasn't worthless.
guiltysnob.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-11 08:46:28 AM  

JerseyTim: That's 149 minutes of Johnny Depp wearing a bird on his head.


He should have a bird-off with Nick Cage.
 
2013-06-11 08:49:46 AM  

Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?


Supposedly his great-grandmother was Cherokee.
 
2013-06-11 08:49:57 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: JerseyTim: That's 149 minutes of Johnny Depp wearing a bird on his head.

He should have a bird-off with Nick Cage.


Regardless, our arguments are all invalid now.
 
2013-06-11 08:50:54 AM  
Why is his ass long? You had a respectable pun there subby, but you had to go and mess it up with "humorous" cursing.
 
2013-06-11 08:51:03 AM  

Kurmudgeon: The movie wasn't worthless.


She was the only reason I sat through that entire movie, I kept thinking man this plot sucks and that dude sucks at acting....ohh wait she's pretty to look at.
 
2013-06-11 08:55:03 AM  

Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it?


"Side kick" isn't exactly a dignified role.
It's not "noble"
 
2013-06-11 08:57:30 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: The "William Tell Overture," incidentally, is about 12 minutes long


The best orchestral rendition of that song is played by Evan Marshall in one take on one instrument.

You're welcome.
 
2013-06-11 09:07:03 AM  
just the tip?
 
2013-06-11 09:08:16 AM  

Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?


Because Johnny Depp has proven he can carry a summer tentpole film, whereas movie-goers probably aren't as likely to line up to see The Lone Ranger because Wes Studi is playing Tonto.
 
2013-06-11 09:11:19 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?

Supposedly his great-grandmother was Cherokee.


That makes it less racist? Or is it just the best Hollywood excuse he could come up with?
 
2013-06-11 09:12:12 AM  

Claude the Dog: Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?

Because Johnny Depp has proven he can carry a summer tentpole film, whereas movie-goers probably aren't as likely to line up to see The Lone Ranger because Wes Studi is playing Tonto.


1. Wes Studi is too old to play Tonto.
2. Wes Studi is too badass to play Tonto.
 
2013-06-11 09:15:53 AM  

dittybopper: Wes Studi


Then let's use Graham Greene, he has some comedic acting chops.
 
2013-06-11 09:17:36 AM  
The Lone Ass-Ranger as a title?

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
Approves
 
2013-06-11 09:23:43 AM  
HOLY FRAK!  A MOVIE LONGER THAN 2 HOURS?!?!?!!!?!ONE!!  ZOMGBBQWTF?!!!eleven!!?!!

Really, people, shut the frak up about "long" movies.  You are the reason why the industry is pumping out these 90 minute clusterfarks.  Yes, if it's 90 minutes, I grow suspicious, because the track record for those kind of movies are pretty bad.
 
2013-06-11 09:39:37 AM  
I think the most appropriate follow up question is "How many of those minutes will Ruth Wilson be in?"
Yum.
 
2013-06-11 09:57:52 AM  

dittybopper: Claude the Dog: Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?

Because Johnny Depp has proven he can carry a summer tentpole film, whereas movie-goers probably aren't as likely to line up to see The Lone Ranger because Wes Studi is playing Tonto.

1. Wes Studi is too old to play Tonto.
2. Wes Studi is too badass to play Tonto.


He was the first Native American actor that came to mind.
 
2013-06-11 10:27:49 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: A massive, long, special-effects laden retelling of a decades-old story. Why doesn't the trailer say "From the company that brought you 'John Carter?'"


Because what they did to turn John Carter into a deliberate failure has been pretty well documented... they probably want to distance themselves from it entirely. Not that it was a breakthrough film by any means, but there wasn't really anything wrong with it.

See also: what Kurmudgeon posted.
 
2013-06-11 10:28:54 AM  
I wonder why this movie was made at all.
Seriously, who is the target audience?
 
2013-06-11 10:32:07 AM  
I doubt the reason films like this are running so long is because the productions were rushed. More like the director is successful enough that they have it in their contract that the film can run up to 2 hours and 30 minutes (or 40 minutes).

If this was Verbinski first big budget summer movie it seems like a sure thing the studio would have ordered him to cut it down to as close to 2 hours possible.

Case and point is Peter Jackson. He had to cut each of the Lord of the Rings movies. Now with The Hobbit, he's turned one book into three 2 hour and 50 minute movies.
 
2013-06-11 10:41:39 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Why is this considered long? Avengers was only 6 minutes shorter.


Avengers was too goddamn long. The action sequences were dragged out beyond any possibility of entertainment. The Helicarrier scene was the worst, especially because it made no sense at all, but the climax was also pretty mind-numbing. It was a decent enough comic book movie, but had the action been more compressed and intense, it would have been more entertaining. I tend to feel that action sequences should explode suddenly and resolve quickly. Instead of having endless set pieces, films should favor  more action sequences which are individually smaller.

I hate to do it, but I have to point to  Crank as the best example of this. While the movie is painfully stupid, it's a perfectly paced action film. What little plot it has moves seamlessly from one action sequence to the next. No single action sequence ends up dragging on too long (well, some of the ones in the middle could have been trimmed), and each is structured in a unique way to maintain variety. The film weighs in at 88 minutes.

The first commandment of story-telling: Thou shalt not waste the audience's time. These longer films always feel like they're wasting my time. The  Transformers flicks are the worst offenders, but even otherwise good films (like  Avengers) fall into this trap of padding the running time and dragging action sequences well past the point where they're exciting.
 
2013-06-11 10:51:41 AM  

t3knomanser: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Why is this considered long? Avengers was only 6 minutes shorter.

Avengers was too goddamn long. The action sequences were dragged out beyond any possibility of entertainment. The Helicarrier scene was the worst, especially because it made no sense at all, but the climax was also pretty mind-numbing. It was a decent enough comic book movie, but had the action been more compressed and intense, it would have been more entertaining. I tend to feel that action sequences should explode suddenly and resolve quickly. Instead of having endless set pieces, films should favor  more action sequences which are individually smaller.

I hate to do it, but I have to point to  Crank as the best example of this. While the movie is painfully stupid, it's a perfectly paced action film. What little plot it has moves seamlessly from one action sequence to the next. No single action sequence ends up dragging on too long (well, some of the ones in the middle could have been trimmed), and each is structured in a unique way to maintain variety. The film weighs in at 88 minutes.

The first commandment of story-telling: Thou shalt not waste the audience's time. These longer films always feel like they're wasting my time. The  Transformers flicks are the worst offenders, but even otherwise good films (like  Avengers) fall into this trap of padding the running time and dragging action sequences well past the point where they're exciting.


In the case of Avengers, I wonder if those action scenes weren't extended due to the 3D versions? Again, it's an incredibly stupid reason to extend it... but that sounds like studio logic to me.
 
2013-06-11 10:54:19 AM  
It'll be a good movie, it'll make a ton of money and we'll get the requisite two sequels afterward.
 
2013-06-11 11:40:05 AM  

clkeagle: Again, it's an incredibly stupid reason to extend it... but that sounds like studio logic to me


I think the reason that they were overlong is because "that's just what you do". With advancing technology as a force multiplier, you can make action sequences as large as your little heart desires. There is nothing that can't semi-convincingly be thrown onto the screen. Sure, some of it will look a little like a video game, but if it moves fast and there are lots of sudden movements and lights and explosions, the eye probably won't notice.

This happens in Hollywood all the time- feedback loops of making it "bigger and betterer". Back in the 50s, you had the historical epics. Each got more ornate, crowded with more extras, until a series of bombs ripped the bottom out of that. Slasher-flicks went through the same thing, with ever increasing quantities of gore until the whole thing fell apart and we now have an entire genre of torture porn. And so on. Movies that center on the same core elements are going to escalate those elements so that they can differentiate themselves from the competition.
 
2013-06-11 11:42:01 AM  
Didn't want to see this piece of sjit film anyway
 
2013-06-11 11:48:36 AM  

t3knomanser: clkeagle: Again, it's an incredibly stupid reason to extend it... but that sounds like studio logic to me

I think the reason that they were overlong is because "that's just what you do". With advancing technology as a force multiplier, you can make action sequences as large as your little heart desires. There is nothing that can't semi-convincingly be thrown onto the screen. Sure, some of it will look a little like a video game, but if it moves fast and there are lots of sudden movements and lights and explosions, the eye probably won't notice.

This happens in Hollywood all the time- feedback loops of making it "bigger and betterer". Back in the 50s, you had the historical epics. Each got more ornate, crowded with more extras, until a series of bombs ripped the bottom out of that. Slasher-flicks went through the same thing, with ever increasing quantities of gore until the whole thing fell apart and we now have an entire genre of torture porn. And so on. Movies that center on the same core elements are going to escalate those elements so that they can differentiate themselves from the competition.


Even when nobody is talking specifically about those specific aspects of the story? The Avengers (and most other Marvel Studios films) are generally well received, but how many reviews are praising the length or detail of the action scenes?

Echo chambers only work if there's at least one idiot who says it first. Maybe if we find that one idiot and silence him, they'll back off the video game sequences and improve the story pacing.
 
2013-06-11 11:50:57 AM  

clkeagle: t3knomanser: clkeagle: Again, it's an incredibly stupid reason to extend it... but that sounds like studio logic to me

I think the reason that they were overlong is because "that's just what you do". With advancing technology as a force multiplier, you can make action sequences as large as your little heart desires. There is nothing that can't semi-convincingly be thrown onto the screen. Sure, some of it will look a little like a video game, but if it moves fast and there are lots of sudden movements and lights and explosions, the eye probably won't notice.

This happens in Hollywood all the time- feedback loops of making it "bigger and betterer". Back in the 50s, you had the historical epics. Each got more ornate, crowded with more extras, until a series of bombs ripped the bottom out of that. Slasher-flicks went through the same thing, with ever increasing quantities of gore until the whole thing fell apart and we now have an entire genre of torture porn. And so on. Movies that center on the same core elements are going to escalate those elements so that they can differentiate themselves from the competition.

Even when nobody is talking specifically about those specific aspects of the story? The Avengers (and most other Marvel Studios films) are generally well received, but how many reviews are praising the length or detail of the action scenes?

Echo chambers only work if there's at least one idiot who says it first. Maybe if we find that one idiot and silence him, they'll back off the video game sequences and improve the story pacing.


Or back on topic... let's find the one idiot who says that the public is aching for more 2.5 hr Johnny Depp adventure films and silence him.
 
2013-06-11 11:53:47 AM  

Wolf892: Explain to me again why Depp is playing a First Nation's person in this film when there actual First Nation's actors that could have done it? If Depp wanted to play a character, why not the actual sorta Lone Ranger?


Simple: summer tentpole movies need actors who can open big with their names above the title.

Also: The Lone Ranger is not historical fiction but rather fantasy, so there's no obligation to historical accuracy.
 
2013-06-11 11:59:27 AM  
We live in an age of bloat.

CGI has lent a big, messy, obtrusive hand to this.  It's easy to just cram bunches of cityscapes and more crap rolling around than it used to be, when you had to build sets and time things perfectly.  No one cares enough to trim.
 
2013-06-11 12:25:01 PM  
A well made movie isn't too long at 3 hours, a bad one is too long at 90 minutes.
 
2013-06-11 12:25:15 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: We live in an age of bloat.

CGI has lent a big, messy, obtrusive hand to this.  It's easy to just cram bunches of cityscapes and more crap rolling around than it used to be, when you had to build sets and time things perfectly.  No one cares enough to trim.


Most movies in the 60's and 70's were at least two hours long, so your point is not very valid.
 
2013-06-11 12:29:18 PM  
Nice to see I'm not alone in thinking those with ADD should shut the fark up.
 
2013-06-11 12:33:47 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: We live in an age of bloat.

CGI has lent a big, messy, obtrusive hand to this.  It's easy to just cram bunches of cityscapes and more crap rolling around than it used to be, when you had to build sets and time things perfectly.  No one cares enough to trim.

Most movies in the 60's and 70's were at least two hours long, so your point is not very valid.


Not talking about movies in the 60s and 70s, are we?  Talking about why blockbusters are getting longer and longer.
 
2013-06-11 12:49:38 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Lando Lincoln: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: We live in an age of bloat.

CGI has lent a big, messy, obtrusive hand to this.  It's easy to just cram bunches of cityscapes and more crap rolling around than it used to be, when you had to build sets and time things perfectly.  No one cares enough to trim.

Most movies in the 60's and 70's were at least two hours long, so your point is not very valid.

Not talking about movies in the 60s and 70s, are we?  Talking about why blockbusters are getting longer and longer.


Of course you're not, since that discredits your theory. Maybe you should talk about why movies got shorter in the 80's and 90's and now they're moving back to regular 2-hour length.
 
2013-06-11 12:57:45 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Lando Lincoln: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: We live in an age of bloat.

CGI has lent a big, messy, obtrusive hand to this.  It's easy to just cram bunches of cityscapes and more crap rolling around than it used to be, when you had to build sets and time things perfectly.  No one cares enough to trim.

Most movies in the 60's and 70's were at least two hours long, so your point is not very valid.

Not talking about movies in the 60s and 70s, are we?  Talking about why blockbusters are getting longer and longer.

Of course you're not, since that discredits your theory. Maybe you should talk about why movies got shorter in the 80's and 90's and now they're moving back to regular 2-hour length.


You do realize the thread is about how summer blockbusters have been pushing far past 2 hours, and why, right?
 
2013-06-11 01:14:56 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: You do realize the thread is about how summer blockbusters have been pushing far past 2 hours, and why, right?


Summer blockbusters of the 70's:
Jaws: 130 minutes.
Star Wars: 125 minutes.
Midway: 132 minutes.
Superman - The Movie: 143 minutes.
Apocalypse Now: 153 minutes.
Moonraker: 126 minutes.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report