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.

(Deadline)   Despicable Me 2 trounces the competition, raking in over $140 million at the box office for the #1 spot. The #2 film is The Lone Ranger, which became the third bomb of summer, taking in a paltry $47 million   (deadline.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup, Lone Ranger, Despicable Me 2, humans, Peter Chernin, box offices, movies, Oompa-Loompa, Illumination Entertainment  
•       •       •

2304 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Jul 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-07 10:01:13 AM  
The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.
 
2013-07-07 10:08:32 AM  

Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.


Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.
 
2013-07-07 10:28:45 AM  

Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.


I couldn't have said it any better. They're nowhere close to recouping their investment.
 
2013-07-07 10:49:46 AM  
Despicable Me 2 was a good movie. I loved the intro scene for El Macho.
 
2013-07-07 10:50:32 AM  

Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.


So it's like real estate?

cameroncrazy1984: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

I couldn't have said it any better. They're nowhere close to recouping their investment.


It's not an investment. It's a gamble.
 
2013-07-07 10:53:34 AM  
The reviewers have been calling TLR #2 for some time, now.
 
2013-07-07 11:00:19 AM  
Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?
 
2013-07-07 11:00:31 AM  
Heap big pile of boredom/racism.
 
2013-07-07 11:07:02 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

So it's like real estate?

cameroncrazy1984: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

I couldn't have said it any better. They're nowhere close to recouping their investment.

It's not an investment. It's a gamble.


Not a problem.  Films are made today to make money overseas, not for the US.  They will flock to see "American Cowboy Movie".  They know what they are doing.
 
2013-07-07 11:07:22 AM  
I want to go see the new Almodovar movie.
 
2013-07-07 11:15:11 AM  

LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?


White House Down, according to tfa
 
2013-07-07 11:22:19 AM  

sage37: LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?

White House Down, according to tfa

Haha.

www.historycentral.com

 
2013-07-07 11:26:31 AM  
I walked out of The Lone Ranger after MAYBE 20 minutes for fear of serious brain damage.
 
2013-07-07 11:26:31 AM  

LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?


The Internship
 
2013-07-07 11:27:40 AM  

sage37: LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?

White House Down, according to tfa


good, all those movies looked terrible from the trailers. My hope in the moving going public has been slightly restored
 
2013-07-07 11:31:05 AM  
"...younger audiences avoid Westerns, w/ Wild Wild West, Jonah Hex, and Cowboys and Aliens all under performing. The Coen Brothers' True Grit remake made major coin..."

Hmmmm, I wonder what is different about True Grit, why that one made money and the others didn't? That's some mystery, a real conundrum.
 
2013-07-07 11:33:50 AM  

LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?


Jar Jar Abrams's shiat Trek: Into shiatness
 
2013-07-07 11:34:47 AM  
I love this guy!
i1.wp.com
 
2013-07-07 11:36:53 AM  
Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?
 
2013-07-07 11:38:03 AM  

Trocadero: "...younger audiences avoid Westerns, w/ Wild Wild West, Jonah Hex, and Cowboys and Aliens all under performing. The Coen Brothers' True Grit remake made major coin..."

Hmmmm, I wonder what is different about True Grit, why that one made money and the others didn't? That's some mystery, a real conundrum.


Coen brothers aside, True Grit was made for and marketed to people who actually go to westerns. That helped.
 
2013-07-07 11:38:41 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

I couldn't have said it any better. They're nowhere close to recouping their investment.


Plus Depp probably gets some off the top of the gross.
 
2013-07-07 11:40:26 AM  
Ha Hee! Ho hah!
 
2013-07-07 11:42:14 AM  

Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?


I felt the same way about films like "The Phantom," "The Shadow," or "The Green Hornet."  I don't know anyone under the age of 50 who gives a shiat about any of those old characters.
 
2013-07-07 11:44:54 AM  
The Lone Ranger will be fine. The PotC series has averaged about 500 million per film in the overseas market. The Lone Ranger will most certainly do well overseas.
 
2013-07-07 11:47:21 AM  

Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?


People gave money to a Tucker Max movie and probably out there are movie scripts for movies based on WhatWhitePeopleLike.com and TronGuy.

People who aren't good at marketing equate awareness with marketability without understanding that it's part of a package and the other half of that package isn't "throw money at Jonny Depp and hope people go just for him"

So, my understanding is, then the studios start tinkering with it testing on audiences and adding things to try to drive the numbers up across all of the quadrants and then open it wide to squeeze the money out of it.
 
2013-07-07 11:51:27 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

So it's like real estate?

cameroncrazy1984: Sgt Otter: Madbassist1: The Lone Ranger may be a bomb, sure, but if 47 million is "paltry", just give it to me.

Sure, but you have to invest $250,000,000 first.

I couldn't have said it any better. They're nowhere close to recouping their investment.

It's not an investment. It's a gamble.


All investments are gambles. Anyone who says different is probably trying to rip you off.
 
2013-07-07 11:59:30 AM  
I saw Despicable Me 2, and it was cute, but that's it. Maybe 'Mediocre Me' based upon the fact that

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER-


Gru isn't evil anymore. And he didn't make a convincing good guy, either. Oh well, the Minions are funny.

 Based upon the trailers I have no desire to see TLR.
 
2013-07-07 12:01:04 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The Lone Ranger will be fine. The PotC series has averaged about 500 million per film in the overseas market. The Lone Ranger will most certainly do well overseas.


PotC was a surprise hit that became a bankable franchise.  There hasn't been a Lone Ranger anything produced since a movie released back in 1981.  That also bombed.

There's a reason this franchise has been dead and buried for 30 years, and throwing $350 million at it was a big mistake.  They could easily have made a movie for $50 - $60 million and would be on track to profit right now.
 
2013-07-07 12:08:40 PM  
How do people make such bad movies? I'm no screen-writer, and probably borderline retarded, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with something better than "After Earth".
Who say's "wow, that sounds like a great idea... and great screenplay!"?
 
2013-07-07 12:14:26 PM  

Steve Zodiac: I saw Despicable Me 2, and it was cute, but that's it. Maybe 'Mediocre Me' based upon the fact that

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER-


Gru isn't evil anymore. And he didn't make a convincing good guy, either. Oh well, the Minions are funny.

 Based upon the trailers I have no desire to see TLR.


I didn't think he was that evil in the first movie. As a super villain, he was completely inept and constantly being one-upped by his rival. And ultimately, the movie gets bogged down in a treacly "curmudgeon gets won over by adorable moppet(s)" storyline, even indulging one of my least favorite tropes of all time: will they/won't they make it to my school play/ballet recital/what have you?

I liked Megamind much better.
 
2013-07-07 12:17:14 PM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?

People gave money to a Tucker Max movie and probably out there are movie scripts for movies based on WhatWhitePeopleLike.com and TronGuy.

People who aren't good at marketing equate awareness with marketability without understanding that it's part of a package and the other half of that package isn't "throw money at Jonny Depp and hope people go just for him"

So, my understanding is, then the studios start tinkering with it testing on audiences and adding things to try to drive the numbers up across all of the quadrants and then open it wide to squeeze the money out of it.


OK, challenge: What modern director could do a good reboot on the Lone Ranger?

The bar: Christopher Nolan with Batman, after the Joel Schumacher fiasco.
 
2013-07-07 12:20:08 PM  

WhippingBoy: How do people make such bad movies? I'm no screen-writer, and probably borderline retarded, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with something better than "After Earth".
Who say's "wow, that sounds like a great idea... and great screenplay!"?


Studio execs who all have their say, give "notes", demand changes to fit whatever fad or marketing buzzword they overheard in the elevator ten minutes earlier. Since they control the money the screenwriter has to do what they say or they'll get another screenwriter. They'll almost certainly get another screenwriter anyway. Then when they hire a top director he'll demand that his favourite screenwriter has another go. Then the big star actor will get the script and either demand changes to make his character bigger or just ad lib and/or refuse to speak the written lines anyway. Russell Crowe for example had to be ordered and cajoled into saying the "My name is..." speech from Gladiator, and that was the best bit of the film. He thought it sucked and didn't want to do it.
No matter how great a script is by the time everyone and their dog has had their say they almost all end up a confused mess trying to appeal to everyone.

/Of course there are exceptions. Johnny Depp for one who came up with the Jack Sparrow persona against the wishes of the studio.
 
2013-07-07 12:20:19 PM  
Saw this is the end. That was a pretty funny movie from beginning to end. Also the action sequences were pretty good all things considered.
 
2013-07-07 12:24:48 PM  

thecpt: Saw this is the end. That was a pretty funny movie from beginning to end. Also the action sequences were pretty good all things considered.


I haven't laughed that hard in a theater in several years. Very surprised by how much I enjoyed that movie
 
2013-07-07 12:31:53 PM  

Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?


False comparison is false.

John Carter (note the missing Of Mars in the title) was a well-documented, deliberate financial sink for Disney. As soon as they realized Star Wars was going to become their property, the last thing they wanted to do was allow the Barsoom franchise to become successful. That's why the "$200 million" marketing for John Carter involved no prime-time commercials, promotional tie-ins with fast food franchises, licensed collectibles, and most notably: no mass-market toy ranges or  console video games.

In other words, Disney didn't give it a single thing necessary to make a science fiction franchise successful. With the right effort and investment, they could have made tens of millions profit in merchandising alone, and had 3-5 financially successful films. However, by getting Star Wars, the Mouse is guaranteed billions of profit in merchandising - with no additional effort than already exists.

/no excuse for Lone Ranger though, unless they really are counting on the international market
 
2013-07-07 12:32:43 PM  

Useless Destruction of Exergy: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?

People gave money to a Tucker Max movie and probably out there are movie scripts for movies based on WhatWhitePeopleLike.com and TronGuy.

People who aren't good at marketing equate awareness with marketability without understanding that it's part of a package and the other half of that package isn't "throw money at Jonny Depp and hope people go just for him"

So, my understanding is, then the studios start tinkering with it testing on audiences and adding things to try to drive the numbers up across all of the quadrants and then open it wide to squeeze the money out of it.

OK, challenge: What modern director could do a good reboot on the Lone Ranger?

The bar: Christopher Nolan with Batman, after the Joel Schumacher fiasco.


Coen Brothers
Richard Donner
 
2013-07-07 12:33:41 PM  

Useless Destruction of Exergy: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?

People gave money to a Tucker Max movie and probably out there are movie scripts for movies based on WhatWhitePeopleLike.com and TronGuy.

People who aren't good at marketing equate awareness with marketability without understanding that it's part of a package and the other half of that package isn't "throw money at Jonny Depp and hope people go just for him"

So, my understanding is, then the studios start tinkering with it testing on audiences and adding things to try to drive the numbers up across all of the quadrants and then open it wide to squeeze the money out of it.

OK, challenge: What modern director could do a good reboot on the Lone Ranger?

The bar: Christopher Nolan with Batman, after the Joel Schumacher fiasco.


Go in a completely different direction and give it to the guy who made Bridesmaids. Cast Melissa McCarthy as the Ranger and Maya Rudolph as a wise cracking, pregnant Tonto.
I'm talking, in your face, sassy, vaginal.
 
2013-07-07 12:33:43 PM  

tblax: I haven't laughed that hard in a theater in several years. Very surprised by how much I enjoyed that movie


So were you high, drunk or on some other drug? That's the only way anybody could have enjoyed that piece of shiat movie. HAHAHAHA that demon has a huge cock.
 
2013-07-07 12:35:23 PM  

Cosmk: I walked out of The Lone Ranger after MAYBE 20 minutes for fear of serious brain damage.


Honestly, what the fark were you expecting?
 
2013-07-07 12:35:42 PM  

thecpt: Saw this is the end. That was a pretty funny movie from beginning to end. Also the action sequences were pretty good all things considered.


That movie made me laugh throughout the whole thing.  Would recommend, two thumbs up.
 
2013-07-07 12:40:00 PM  
"We're rich, biatch!"
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-07 12:40:44 PM  

Bslim: LucklessWonder: Bombs:
#1 After Earth
#2...?
#3 The Lone Ranger

What am I missing?

Jar Jar Abrams's shiat Trek: Into shiatness


Nope.  In addition to having the best RT score of the summer blockbusters thus far, it's also made 443 million worldwide, which is 50 more than the first one made.  It's a success and a third is guaranteed in 2016.
 
2013-07-07 12:41:57 PM  
Why do they expect the Lone Ranger to do well in the international market? Even when it was popular, it was mostly in the United States.
 
2013-07-07 12:42:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: tblax: I haven't laughed that hard in a theater in several years. Very surprised by how much I enjoyed that movie

So were you high, drunk or on some other drug? That's the only way anybody could have enjoyed that piece of shiat movie. HAHAHAHA that demon has a huge cock.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-07 12:43:55 PM  
Minion 2: "I'm the Lone Ranger!"
Minion 1: "*PUNCH*Fark off."
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-07 12:44:06 PM  

gunga galunga: I liked Megamind much better.


"Megamind" was a much better movie; I thought a lot of DM1 was kinda phoned-in. However, DM2 was pretty entertaining and it's nice to see another animation idiom besides Pixar/Disney getting some popularity. At this time the appellation "Despicable Me" is more of an ironic in-joke, because Gru has become more of a chaotic good character than anything else.

Basically, DM2 is a pretty good movie, but not a great movie. However, I think they could make it into a long-running serial with the characters they're developing. Not everything is lined up yet story-wise, but if they keep making money they'll get Pixar-level plots by DM4 or 5.
 
2013-07-07 12:45:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So were you high, drunk or on some other drug? That's the only way anybody could have enjoyed that piece of shiat movie. HAHAHAHA that demon has a huge cock.


All the word-of-mouth I'm hearing says it's surprisingly good, especially given the absolutely dumbass marketing they're doing for it.
 
2013-07-07 12:47:06 PM  

clkeagle: Dog Welder: Was there anybody actually sitting around and thinking, "You know, this world could really use a new Lone Ranger movie even though anybody who remotely remembers the characters are long dead?  Same with "John Carter of Mars."  So why was it a good idea to spend $250 million making these movies and another $100 million to market these movies?

False comparison is false.

John Carter (note the missing Of Mars in the title) was a well-documented, deliberate financial sink for Disney. As soon as they realized Star Wars was going to become their property, the last thing they wanted to do was allow the Barsoom franchise to become successful. That's why the "$200 million" marketing for John Carter involved no prime-time commercials, promotional tie-ins with fast food franchises, licensed collectibles, and most notably: no mass-market toy ranges or  console video games.

In other words, Disney didn't give it a single thing necessary to make a science fiction franchise successful. With the right effort and investment, they could have made tens of millions profit in merchandising alone, and had 3-5 financially successful films. However, by getting Star Wars, the Mouse is guaranteed billions of profit in merchandising - with no additional effort than already exists.

/no excuse for Lone Ranger though, unless they really are counting on the international market


John Carter was a turd that cost Rich Ross his job and bombed long before Disney got a whiff of "Star Wars."
 
2013-07-07 12:52:37 PM  

thecpt: Saw this is the end. That was a pretty funny movie from beginning to end. Also the action sequences were pretty good all things considered.


Where is it on the dudebro scale?
 
2013-07-07 12:52:37 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Coen Brothers


That's who keeps coming to mind for me. But it would need to be closer in tone to No Country for Old Men and True Grit than Raising Arizona and O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

Maybe James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma)? Or Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad)?
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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