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.

(SlashFilm)   "Lone Ranger" now on track to lose $150 million after having only a few lone viewers   (slashfilm.com) divider line 140
    More: Fail, Gore Verbinski, Cowboys & Aliens, Lone Ranger, Box Office Mojo, Wild Wild West, TV spot, Monsters University, Jerry Bruckheimer  
•       •       •

2827 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jul 2013 at 8:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 08:53:46 AM
maybe someone will take this as a cue to STOP PRODUCTION ON LASSIE because who gives a fark about that?
 
2013-07-17 09:01:00 AM

uptonogood: maybe someone will take this as a cue to STOP PRODUCTION ON LASSIE because who gives a fark about that?


Yeah, if they can't get a proprietary trademark on fluffy collies they won't be able to market that shiat properly. If they can't get $50 from every collie born on the demand from a Lassie movie they'll never cover production costs.
 
2013-07-17 09:03:02 AM
"few lone viewers" subby?

moviesijustwatchedforthe1sttime.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-17 09:05:03 AM

uptonogood: maybe someone will take this as a cue to STOP PRODUCTION ON LASSIE because who gives a fark about that?


THIS!'d
 
2013-07-17 09:08:30 AM
Thank you, Masked Man.
 
2013-07-17 09:08:49 AM
So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?
 
2013-07-17 09:11:18 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


Promotion budget is at least equal to the cost of making it
 
2013-07-17 09:11:21 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


Hollywood math.
 
2013-07-17 09:16:56 AM
I know nothing about this movie so I may be wrong, but I am under the impression this movie should've been called Tonto and not Lone Ranger.
 
2013-07-17 09:19:58 AM
If the movie is any where near as boring as the reviews (not what the reviews are saying, but how they are saying it), why bother?
 
2013-07-17 09:22:48 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


"Cost to make" does not equal total cost.  Advertising, partnerships, promotional events, etc. run up costs dramatically, especially on something of this scale.
 
2013-07-17 09:23:00 AM
Are we looking at a Pluto Nash-level bomb here?
 
2013-07-17 09:29:05 AM
The sad thing is, it's really a pretty good movie. Maybe not Oscar quality, but definitely a lot of fun.
 
2013-07-17 09:30:28 AM
WHAR PACIFIC RIM THREAD?
 
2013-07-17 09:32:13 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


You know they don't get ALL of that money, right?

And this article is 9 days old. It might be even worse.

As of now, experts estimate that The Lone Ranger will earn around $275 million ($175 million domestically, $150 million internationally) in its entire theatrical run.

It would be a miracle if TLR made $175 million domestically. It's at $72 million now and dropping fast. And it's only made $48 mil overseas, though I understand it has a lot more markets to open in yet.
 
2013-07-17 09:32:49 AM

Khellendros: "Cost to make" does not equal total cost.  Advertising, partnerships, promotional events, etc. run up costs dramatically, especially on something of this scale.


Not to mention that the studio only gets about half of what it makes at the box office.
 
2013-07-17 09:36:12 AM
Maybe if it did not cost $75 to bring a family of four to a hour and a half long movie, more people would go!
 
2013-07-17 09:38:16 AM

theurge14: I know nothing about this movie so I may be wrong, but I am under the impression this movie should've been called Tonto and not Lone Ranger.


And "Blondie" shoulda been called "Dagwood", amirite?
 
2013-07-17 09:38:43 AM

Bith Set Me Up: Are we looking at a Pluto Nash-level bomb here?


I would argue it's more Scott Pilgrim. My wife and I saw it, and we enjoyed it. The movie had its moments, especially the climactic train chase scene at the end. And I'm a fan of Johnny Depp doing weird characters, so that worked for me. But I can also see how other people wouldn't be interested or wouldn't like it, as perhaps the public is tired of Depp's zany characters. Or perhaps the Lone Ranger isn't as marketable a property as they thought. And it was less zany action and more long, ponderous tragedy with some zany action thrown in.


So it can be enjoyable and there are people who like it, and people might come to appreciate it in the lone run. But it was also a big misfire.
 
2013-07-17 09:51:46 AM
The studio cancelled this film once, so they have no excuse. I'll be happy to give them my unsolicited and useless advice.

1. Johnny Depp's salary. Before the movie came out, a comedian (I don't remember who) summed it up nicely: "Johnny Depp playing a weirdo. How refreshing." Probably a quarter or more of the budget went to pay Depp alone. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies have been overlong, overexpensive, and successful, but Depp is now basically a matinee idol for children. Few adults are clamoring to see Depp play yet another weirdo, because we've seen it too much already.
2. Confusing marketing. "The Lone Ranger" starring Johnny Depp as Tonto makes about as much sense as marketing "Man of Steel" starring Johnny Depp as Jimmy Olsen.
3. Too long. They could have had twice the screenings and made double the money had the film been half as long as it is. If the studio doesn't have enough guts to demand that their kids action movie be at a length that kids can tolerate it, they can't blame anyone else. Does Gore Verbinski really think he's creating art? I'm all for filmmakers making a good film, but does the material really need 2 and a half hours to tell effectively?
4. Too little of the Lone Ranger in a movie that's overlong as it is. He spends over two hours becoming the Lone Ranger, and then twenty minutes at the end actually being the Lone Ranger. Is there no one at the studio who saw the problem with that?

Lassie is cool, and I think a decent and reasonably successful 90 minute Lassie movie could be made by spending 50 million on a few unknown actors and a handful of well trained collies, and then marketed as a movie about a smart, determined dog.

A 2 and a half hour 200 million dollar Lassie movie with Johnny Depp's picture on the poster instead of Lassie, and starring Depp covered in tons of makeup as Timmy's weird friend Buggy, and featuring only 20 minutes of Lassie at the very end is a recipe for another failure. But, there's no reason to think they won't do that very thing... again.
 
2013-07-17 09:52:15 AM

soporific: So it can be enjoyable and there are people who like it, and people might come to appreciate it in the lone run.


*rimshot*
 
2013-07-17 09:53:27 AM
I love how this movie bombing is now because it's The Lone Ranger, and not because the property passed through like 5 hands before settling at Disney, the script went through several major re-writes, the budget got so out of control they had to shut it down before filming even began, etc etc.

This movie was a train wreck since the word go.
 
2013-07-17 09:55:12 AM
Well, that movie is no Smokey and the Bandit.
 
2013-07-17 09:55:19 AM
Can we get a big budget Denis the Menace movie? That is exactly what hollywood needs.
 
2013-07-17 09:55:29 AM

soporific: perhaps the public is tired of Depp's zany characters. Or perhaps the Lone Ranger isn't as marketable a property as they thought. And it was less zany action and more long, ponderous tragedy with some zany action thrown in.


So it can be enjoyable and there are people who like it, and people might come to appreciate it in the lone run. But it was also a big misfire.


This.

Anyway, Lone Ranger isn't even the worst western starring Johnny Depp.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-17 09:56:05 AM

lemurs: Not to mention that the studio only gets about half of what it makes at the box office


Would you go through the trouble of running a movie theater for less than half the ticket price? High end gear, expensive location, fewer people buying from the concessions each year, have to hire HS students to clean because Mexicans won't do that job.
 
2013-07-17 09:57:45 AM
This is what happens when the motivation behind making a movie *does not* include the script.

Disney's calculus on this movie was: Johnny Depp + existing property + franchise potential + huge budget + holiday weekend opening = $1 billion. As for what the movie would actually be about, they just decided to work that after starting production.
 
kab
2013-07-17 09:57:46 AM
FTA:
As of now, experts estimate that The Lone Ranger will earn around $275 million ($175 million domestically, $150 million internationally) in its entire theatrical run.

Article also suggests that the movie cost 215 million to make.

How is this a 150 million dollar loss again?
 
2013-07-17 09:59:25 AM

Carth: Can we get a big budget Denis the Menace movie? That is exactly what hollywood needs.


cf2.imgobject.com
 
2013-07-17 10:00:40 AM

Funbags: Anyway, Lone Ranger isn't even the worst western starring Johnny Depp.


you shut your whore mouth
 
2013-07-17 10:01:42 AM

Khellendros: MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?

"Cost to make" does not equal total cost.  Advertising, partnerships, promotional events, etc. run up costs dramatically, especially on something of this scale.


You can generally assume that the ad/promo budget for a tentpole film is equal to the production budget, so a film like this has to more than double its original budget to start turning a profit.

tl; dr answer: Hollywood accounting
 
2013-07-17 10:04:02 AM

Funbags: soporific: perhaps the public is tired of Depp's zany characters. Or perhaps the Lone Ranger isn't as marketable a property as they thought. And it was less zany action and more long, ponderous tragedy with some zany action thrown in.


So it can be enjoyable and there are people who like it, and people might come to appreciate it in the lone run. But it was also a big misfire.

This.

Anyway, Lone Ranger isn't even the worst western starring Johnny Depp.

[i.imgur.com image 320x213]


Stupid white man.
 
2013-07-17 10:09:15 AM

kab: FTA:
As of now, experts estimate that The Lone Ranger will earn around $275 million ($175 million domestically, $150 million internationally) in its entire theatrical run.

Article also suggests that the movie cost 215 million to make.

How is this a 150 million dollar loss again?


Hollywood Accounting, it's got more magic than Harry Potter's universe

soporific: And it was less zany action and more long, ponderous tragedy with some zany action thrown in.


I would say it wasn't marketed correctly and placed in a bad release time. Should have marketed it more serious from the start and released it in March for one of those Spring surprise hits.

I liked it and thought it was easily re watchable.
 
2013-07-17 10:10:20 AM
I just hope Hollywood doesn't take this to mean westerns can't do well anymore. It's still a great genre and most recent ones have been really enjoyable. 3:10 to Yuma remake, True Grit remake, Open Range, etc.
 
2013-07-17 10:10:49 AM
i saw it last night albeit i am in colombia right now so it was in spanish.

the other people liked it in the theater, and so did the wife, but these are people who watch sabado gigante.

it was more of a kids movie than anything, very apple dumpling gangish with a bit of added violence.

Tonto in spanish is called Toro because Tonto means full and Toro means bull.
 
2013-07-17 10:10:51 AM
If you want me in a theater for 2 1/2 hours, you'd better be prepared to wow the shiat out of me. Nothing in the trailers made me think that was going to be the case for Lone Ranger.
 
2013-07-17 10:14:21 AM
This just in-
Hollywood is out of ideas.
 
2013-07-17 10:15:54 AM

litespeed74: This just in-
Hollywood is out of ideas.


And its funny because everyone always says, just go to a damn library and pick up a book there are thousands of ideas out there. So coked out producers do just that and things like this is what we get

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-17 10:18:22 AM
Studio should round up all the execs that had anything to do with this disaster and have them beaten to within an inch of their lives, right there on the parking lot.
 
2013-07-17 10:24:30 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


Generally speaking, box office income is split between the producers of the film and the distributors of the film. That takes a significant % off the top (usually a ballpark of 30-50%). Also, production costs do not include marketing costs. A movie like The Lone Ranger easily hit at least $50m in marketing.
 
2013-07-17 10:37:19 AM

buntz: Carth: Can we get a big budget Denis the Menace movie? That is exactly what hollywood needs.

[cf2.imgobject.com image 850x1271]


Damn it. Denis the Menace, Beverly hillbillies, Bewitched... Mr Ed? Maybe they can do a Mr Ed movie?
 
2013-07-17 10:46:23 AM

kab: FTA:
As of now, experts estimate that The Lone Ranger will earn around $275 million ($175 million domestically, $150 million internationally) in its entire theatrical run.

Article also suggests that the movie cost 215 million to make.

How is this a 150 million dollar loss again?


Make doesn't include promotional costs which can be high.  Also, gross is gross, studios don't get all of it.  Ticket sales are split between theater owner and studio.  The studio gets the vast majority of opening weekend, theaters get an increasing percentage over time.  At this point theaters are getting most of the gross (so Disney is getting very little of the gross).  Foreign box office splits are generally much less generous to the studios than domestic, as well).
 
2013-07-17 10:47:39 AM

Uncle Pooky: MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?

Generally speaking, box office income is split between the producers of the film and the distributors of the film. That takes a significant % off the top (usually a ballpark of 30-50%). Also, production costs do not include marketing costs. A movie like The Lone Ranger easily hit at least $50m in marketing.


More importantly, the theaters showing the movie get a pretty sizeable chunk of the money.  Opening weekend dollars tend to favor the studio, but the theater benefits greater from a longer run.

And the studios generally do not benefit heavily in foreign markets.

A general rule of thumb is about 50% of the take goes to the movie theaters.
 
2013-07-17 10:49:08 AM

Carth: Mr Ed? Maybe they can do a Mr Ed movie?


cps-static.rovicorp.com

/don't forget "Sgt. Bilko" starring Steve Martin or Tom Arnold in "McHale's Navy"
 
2013-07-17 10:50:05 AM
thatguyoverthere70:
Lassie is cool, and I think a decent and reasonably successful 90 minute Lassie movie could be made by spending 50 million on a few unknown actors and a handful of well trained collies, and then marketed as a movie about a smart, determined dog.

Yeah, a cute family orientated dog movie made on the relatively cheap shouldn't be a problem. Box office mojo breaks out "live action family animal movies", and the best earning ones top out at 70 million or so.  Dolphin Tale, had a production budget of $37 million...and made 72 million, which is good enough for a sequel. So it seems that if you are doing Lassie, most of your movie *should* take place on a farm...there's no reason why your production budget can't be half of Dolphin Tale. 

Except that the studio will want it to be a tentpole sequelizable project, so it will star Adam Sandler, David Spade, and Melissa Mccarthy as the voice of Lassie. And probably be a fish-out-water-story that takes place in an expensive city like New York to film. (Not to mention the gritty reboot ending where Lassie snaps the neck of the evil property owner next door in the name of justice).

And then when the final tallies are in, and the movie only makes 70 milliion, and which doesn't even cover the $80 million in "star salary" costs, not to mention the extensive CGI work, it's the fault of the licensed property.
 
2013-07-17 10:52:21 AM

MayoSlather: So the movie is estimated to make 275 mill over its run, and it cost 215 mill to make. Where are they getting this 150 million dollar loss from?


I may be mistaken, but I believe advertising for any given movie averages about 50% of the budget of the film itself.

275 / 2 = 137.5 million.

So it would actually have to make $412.5 million to break even. And this is just an estimate. There may be other costs involved.

I'm sure it will eventually recoup its loss on DVD sales, though.

Oh, and this -  http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7735-The- L one-Ranger-What-Happened
 
2013-07-17 10:54:16 AM

Funbags: soporific: perhaps the public is tired of Depp's zany characters. Or perhaps the Lone Ranger isn't as marketable a property as they thought. And it was less zany action and more long, ponderous tragedy with some zany action thrown in.


So it can be enjoyable and there are people who like it, and people might come to appreciate it in the lone run. But it was also a big misfire.

This.

Anyway, Lone Ranger isn't even the worst western starring Johnny Depp.

[i.imgur.com image 320x213]


i78.photobucket.com

"Stupid f*cking white man."

;-)
 
2013-07-17 10:54:43 AM

Homer Nixon: I just hope Hollywood doesn't take this to mean westerns can't do well anymore. It's still a great genre and most recent ones have been really enjoyable. 3:10 to Yuma remake, True Grit remake, Open Range, etc.


Rango was excellent as well, as was the Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Bslim: Studio should round up all the execs that had anything to do with this disaster and have them beaten to within an inch of their lives, right there on the parking lot.


That's not the way things work in Hollywood; they'll fire all the low-level execs (who'll find better jobs elsewhere) and promote the upper level people.  Like Kevin Smith said, In Hollywood, people fail upwards.
 
2013-07-17 10:55:27 AM

Drachirryz: The sad thing is, it's really a pretty good movie. Maybe not Oscar quality, but definitely a lot of fun.


I enjoyed it as well.  I have used the exact wording to my friends that you have when talking about it.  It's never going to win an Oscar, but it was a fun movie.
 
2013-07-17 10:56:25 AM
Bullshiat! Strongheart was the first canine hero, and Rin Tin Tin predates Lassie. This is some bullshiat, nothing but sexist bullshiat! Apparently it isn't PC for a strong, male German Shepard to be the hero.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report