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.

(Huffington Post)   Gore Verbinksi claims critics are the reason to blame for the failure of The Lone Ranger. Not, mind you, the terrible casting, acting, or script   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 130
    More: Dumbass, Lone Ranger, HuffPost Entertainment, Armie Hammer, Gore Verbinski, Johnny Depp, Jerry Bruckheimer, premieres, Dan Steinberg  
•       •       •

1633 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Aug 2013 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 07:17:59 AM
Since when do people listen to critics? Just go back to the Pirates well, crybaby.
 
2013-08-06 07:54:20 AM
Or the stupid bird head thing.
 
2013-08-06 07:54:56 AM
They tried to do the same thing with to 'World War Z,' it didn't work, the movie was successful.

Yeah, WWZ and its scathing 67% RT rating.
 
2013-08-06 08:25:50 AM

dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.


That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.
 
2013-08-06 08:28:59 AM
I kinda liked it. Not a lot of westerns made anymore nowadays too.
 
2013-08-06 08:34:11 AM

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.


Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.
 
2013-08-06 09:12:52 AM

dittybopper: Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.

Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.


Nope, Batman Doesn't Use Guns. At Least Post 1940s
 
2013-08-06 09:14:46 AM
Gore, you've been in the movie business long enough to know that. If a movie comes out that people aren't sure about, they'll read or listen to reviews. If enough of the reviews are bad, they won't go.
 
2013-08-06 09:19:13 AM
It would have done much better if they just called the movie "Tonto."  Then, people would have lined up to see Johnny Depp channel his inner Hunter S. Thompson, and, if nothing else, it would gain a cult following.
 
2013-08-06 09:20:51 AM
The only reason I attended or sat through that steaming pile was that it was a work function, and my absence would have been noticed.  I didn't hate it because of the critics, the filmmakers did that all on their own.

/Helena Bonham Carter as a whorehouse operator was a slightly redeeming addition, though
 
2013-08-06 09:24:27 AM
He should work on making a film with a running time of under 150 minutes.
 
2013-08-06 09:24:40 AM

dittybopper: Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.


Lead gets all the gadgets and girls. Sidekick gets a skimpy costume, few lines. Cheesy ones when he does.
 
2013-08-06 09:25:08 AM
i288.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 09:28:19 AM
I'm not going to see any modern Lone Ranger make that doesn't have an actual native American playing tonto.

When I first heard about this one I thought Depp would be the Lone Ranger - when I found out he'd be Tonto, that was it for me.
 
2013-08-06 09:31:54 AM

Vodka Zombie: if they just called the movie "Tonto."


Sequille ?
 
2013-08-06 09:39:53 AM

stoolpigeon: I'm not going to see any modern Lone Ranger make that doesn't have an actual native American playing tonto.

When I first heard about this one I thought Depp would be the Lone Ranger - when I found out he'd be Tonto, that was it for me.



Why? Native American groups have hated Tonto since the beginning of the TV show. Why would you want a Native American to demean himself playing what was often seen as a racist caricature?

Did you get this outraged when Al Pacino played a Cuban?
 
2013-08-06 09:40:54 AM

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.


From what I heard, this movie had the "easy to shoot" part down pat
 
2013-08-06 09:43:38 AM

dittybopper: Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.

Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.


More like "the Green Hornet is... the grand-nephew of the Lone Ranger." Or something like that.
 
2013-08-06 09:44:37 AM

LucklessWonder: dittybopper: Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.

Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.

Nope, Batman Doesn't Use Guns. At Least Post 1940s



I think 130 years ago qualifies as post 1940s.
 
2013-08-06 09:49:00 AM

LucklessWonder: dittybopper: Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.

Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.

Nope, Batman Doesn't Use Guns. At Least Post 1940s


Don't forget Tim Burton's flicks. Batman's a straight up mass murderer.
 
2013-08-06 09:51:33 AM
What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.
 
2013-08-06 09:56:23 AM

Carth: The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.


The question is, why would a western cost $200mill (I think it was more like 250)? I realize there's a big train chase at the end but it's not like they had a ton of elaborate sets and CGI robots and monsters to create.
 
2013-08-06 09:57:25 AM
-Cheesy ass IP that only appeals to old people
-Dude named Armie Hammer in the lead role
-Bird head
-Big budget action western rated less than R

Yeah, it was totally the critics
 
2013-08-06 09:57:45 AM
I think the nail in The Lone Ranger's coffin was when they did their kids' meal promotion with Subway.

If you EVER see a movie tie-in with Subway, it's because McDonald's, Burger King, White Castle, KFC, Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, Fazoli's, Taco Johns, Del Taco and Lee's Famous Recipe Fried Chicken have all decided to pass on it.  So you probably should, too.
 
2013-08-06 09:58:22 AM

Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.


Wild Wild We... oh, wait, you're right.
 
2013-08-06 09:59:07 AM
If Lone Ranger was anything like the later Pirates movies, it was a convoluted celebration of noise and excess designed to make ears and eyeballs bleed.  Cohesive plot went out the window after the success of the first Pirates movie and it was replaced by overly-long CGI scenes and Johnny Depp being weird for the sake of being weird.

I don't understand why a Western demands a $250 million budget.  If they'd stayed in the $50-$60 million range, they'd be well above profitable at this point.  Instead, Verbinski had to build his trains from scratch because he didn't like the look of the ones they brought in (true story).

I have no idea whether Lone Ranger is actually good, but Verbinski's track record is not.  There is no way I was going to pay $10 to go see this, so I'll wait for it to hit HBO.
 
2013-08-06 10:03:01 AM

Mugato: Carth: The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

The question is, why would a western cost $200mill (I think it was more like 250)? I realize there's a big train chase at the end but it's not like they had a ton of elaborate sets and CGI robots and monsters to create.


They made the True Grit remake for under 40 million (and it made more than Lone Ranger). A good Western should be cheap to make that is why they used to be so popular. I just don't get what they were thinking when they approved the budget for this one.
 
2013-08-06 10:05:07 AM

airsupport: Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

Wild Wild We... oh, wait, you're right.


Still doesn't stop me from wanting a $100+ million version of The Gunslinger.

/the man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed
 
2013-08-06 10:07:16 AM
It was corny, anachronistic, rife with over-the-top action and bad dialog... and I thought it was lots of fun. Shut up, "movies = serious business" crowd.
 
2013-08-06 10:09:55 AM

Mugato: Carth: The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

The question is, why would a western cost $200mill (I think it was more like 250)? I realize there's a big train chase at the end but it's not like they had a ton of elaborate sets and CGI robots and monsters to create.



I'm sure about $30-35 million went to Depp and Verbinski right off the top. Add in finding locations that are remote enough not to have any signs of modern life, well off the beaten path, the cost of moving and putting up a cast and crew near said location, building most of the sets from scratch, and CGI goodness, I can see how they ran up  a heavy tab, even if $200 million is excessive. Hell, 3:10 to Yuma cost $60 million, and most of that movie was ten guys on horses in the middle of nowhere.
 
2013-08-06 10:10:36 AM

Carth: A good Western should be cheap to make that is why they used to be so popular


Sure, the desert's right outside Hollywood, A couple of the big studios still have their outdoor western town sets and they could blow most of their wad on Depp's salary (which could be mostly points off the gross) and a climactic action scene. I think it would actually be a selling point to pitch this as a throwback to the old westerns, in a summer full of $200mill CG fests. But no one asked me.
 
2013-08-06 10:11:59 AM

Carth: I just don't get what they were thinking when they approved the budget for this one.


They figured the business model they set up with the Pirates movies would work here, as a half-serious, kid-friendly franchise, and therefore, could afford to blow money on stuff because they'd get it back because the rubes will buy anything because they can take their kids to see Johnny Depp in a funny costume?
 
2013-08-06 10:14:30 AM

airsupport: Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

Wild Wild We... oh, wait, you're right.


I was thinking about it and Django Unchained qualifies since it made a ton and was about half the cost of Lone Ranger. But before that you need to go back to the early 90s.
 
2013-08-06 10:19:43 AM
You know somebody is off the deep end when they confuse cause and effect.
 
2013-08-06 10:21:57 AM

Carth: airsupport: Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

Wild Wild We... oh, wait, you're right.

I was thinking about it and Django Unchained qualifies since it made a ton and was about half the cost of Lone Ranger. But before that you need to go back to the early 90s.


What about True Grit? That movie made like $250 million on a $50 million budget.
 
2013-08-06 10:45:13 AM

dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing


That told me everything I needed to know about the movie. More of the same crap from Verbinski and Bruckheimer.

Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger


If it costs 200 million to make a western, you're doing it very very wrong.
 
2013-08-06 10:48:33 AM

stoli n coke: Carth: airsupport: Carth: What was the last big budget action Western movie that made money? The fact most people can't think of one should be a clue not to spend 200 million dollars on the lone ranger.

Wild Wild We... oh, wait, you're right.

I was thinking about it and Django Unchained qualifies since it made a ton and was about half the cost of Lone Ranger. But before that you need to go back to the early 90s.

What about True Grit? That movie made like $250 million on a $50 million budget.


True Grit was an awesome movie but only cost 38 million. It was cheap, well made and made a ton of money. That is exactly how westerns should be made. My complaint isn't that westerns never make money just that investing 150-250 million dollars in one has never proved a good idea. If you can't do it cheap you probably shouldn't bother.
 
2013-08-06 10:51:33 AM

NewWorldDan: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing

That told me everything I needed to know about the movie. More of the same crap from Verbinski and Bruckheimer.


I guess they figured if they're going to have Depp as an Indian, they'd have to go as outrageous as possible. They couldn't just have Depp w/o makeup doing his Hunter S. Thompson voice and they couldn't put him in brown face. So they had to paint him white and stick a bird on his head to say, "We don't want it to be obvious that this is a white guy but we don't want this to be a minstrel show either".
 
2013-08-06 10:52:52 AM

dittybopper: Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: Or the stupid bird head thing.

That, and nobody but old people care about the story of the Lone Ranger anymore, and the old people like their injuns subservient or easy to shoot.

Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.


Nope.

Batman is Zorro and Zorro is the Scarlet Pimpernel.
 
2013-08-06 10:54:20 AM
And Green Hornet is the Lone Ranger.

John Reid/Britt Reid
 
2013-08-06 10:54:57 AM

dittybopper: Lone Ranger is Batman 130 years ago, in the West.  Tonto is Robin.

Discuss.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-06 10:55:55 AM

Carth: But before that you need to go back to the early 90s


Nobody was spending big budgets on Westerns in the 90s.  Unforgiven, which brought a bunch of very large names, had expansive sets and a long running time- was $14M.  Dances with Wolves, which kicked off the 90s western fad, was a mere $19M.

Silverado, in 1985, was a notoriously over-budget film and considered far too expensive for a Western- at $26M. By the mid 90s, a budget of $32M was a bloated western (1995's  The Quick and the Dead), or the $64M vanity project that was Wyatt Earp (both box office flops). Contrasted with  Tombstone, a more modest $25M (which doubled its money), the lesson that we learned in the 90s is that  big budget westerns flop.

NewWorldDan: If it costs 200 million to make a western, you're doing it very very wrong


This. Westerns don't draw big money. Dead properties don't draw big money in their first outing (John Carter, anyone?). You have to wonder what was in the Kool-Aid at Disney HQ.
 
2013-08-06 11:00:15 AM
The Lone Ranger movie reminds me of a quote made by a director of a successful movie from long ago that had no big names in its cast (I really can't remember the film but I been looking everywhere for the quote). The director said the reason he didn't cast Marlon Brando or another big name actor in his film is because then it would become "The Marlon Brando Film".

I think Johnny Depp should have never been cast in this film, let alone as the sidekick. He totally overshadowed the actor who played the Lone Ranger. The film should have had a moderate budget and they should have had a cast of up and coming actors. Still boggles my mind that a Western could cost close to $250 million to make. Were there aliens and UFOs in the movie?
 
2013-08-06 11:00:41 AM

t3knomanser: Nobody was spending big budgets on Westerns in the 90s. Unforgiven, which brought a bunch of very large names, had expansive sets and a long running time- was $14M. Dances with Wolves, which kicked off the 90s western fad, was a mere $19M.


Was back to the future 3 (adjusted for inflation) large enough? Looks like it would have been about $75 million? Small by today's standards it was pretty big for the time. Doesn't help that boxofficemojo doesn't have info for things like Tombstone, Young Guns 2 or Maverick.
 
2013-08-06 11:05:11 AM

t3knomanser: $32M was a bloated western (1995's  The Quick and the Dead), or the $64M vanity project that was Wyatt Earp (both box office flops)


Why the fark would Wyatt Earp cost that much more than Tombstone, which was the same movie released at the same time but not nearly as good? Unlike those movies, The Lone Ranger would be expected to have a big FX laden finale but even if that one... say 15 minute scene cost $10mill by itself, there's no way that thing should have cost $250mill. There wasn't even a giant spider in it.
 
2013-08-06 11:10:46 AM

Carth: Was back to the future 3 (adjusted for inflation) large enough? Looks like it would have been about $75 million?


Back to the Future III was the capstone on a franchise, released in very close proximity to the preceding film (they basically came out as one movie). Its budget at the time was $40M, and it also more than doubled its money.  Maverick probably wasn't all that expensive, but I can't find budget information on IMDB.  Young Guns 2 was a $20M budget.  3:10 to Yuma had a 2007 budget of $50M, which is cheap by modern standards.

Westerns are cheap, and a modestly budgeted western can easily double its money. You'll have the odd breakout success, like  True Grit. The only real flops are the ones that overspend themselves.
 
2013-08-06 11:13:55 AM

Sybarite: They tried to do the same thing with to 'World War Z,' it didn't work, the movie was successful.

Yeah, WWZ and its scathing 67% RT rating.


Yup, I was thinking "well World War Z proves you wrong" while reading and then he goes and uses it to prove his point.
 
2013-08-06 11:13:58 AM

Mugato: Why the fark would Wyatt Earp cost that much more than Tombstone, which was the same movie released at the same time but not nearly as good?


Kevin Costner.

Mugato: The Lone Ranger would be expected to have a big FX laden finale


I wouldn't have that expectation, myself. I would have expected the finale to be something more like  High Noon, except with the Lone Ranger kinda doing a Batman thing, picking them off in creative ways that doesn't create a body count. Tonto could have had a comic relief takedown, where he pushes a bad guy into a manure wagon and drops a weight on him or something. None of the townspeople catch more than a glimpse of the Lone Ranger, and as he rides off, someone has to ask: "Who was that masked man?"
 
2013-08-06 11:16:36 AM

t3knomanser: This. Westerns don't draw big money. Dead properties don't draw big money in their first outing (John Carter, anyone?). You have to wonder what was in the Kool-Aid at Disney HQ.


The guy who greenlit John Carter, The Lone Ranger and Mars Needs Moms is no longer with Disney.  He's been gone over a year now, but they're still reeling from the damage he did.
 
2013-08-06 11:16:54 AM
t2.gstatic.comThat's right. A grown man, on a full sized horse, in a train. With tons of head room.


I made up my mind when I say this in the preview. It was clear the director was not going to make even a SLIGHT effort to not destroy the suspension of disbelief.

It just looked like a stupid "Son of explosion man" movie.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 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