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.

(Newser)   Who was that masked man, anyway? Perhaps it would have been better if Disney never found out. The company yesterday announced it has projected it will lose $160 million to $190 million on flop The Lone Ranger   (newser.com) divider line 122
    More: Fail, Lone Ranger, Disney, Peter Travers, Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp  
•       •       •

1436 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Aug 2013 at 1:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-07 01:04:14 PM  
That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.
 
2013-08-07 01:05:21 PM  
This may mean there won't be another Pirates movie.
 
2013-08-07 01:05:31 PM  
I'm sure they wont be going broke anytime soon. They will jsut jack up prices at the resort to make up the shortfall.
 
2013-08-07 01:08:35 PM  
And they didn't even get a Thank You Masked Man.
 
2013-08-07 01:09:05 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.


The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?
 
2013-08-07 01:10:50 PM  

Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.

The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?


He didnt say concept, he said franchise.
 
2013-08-07 01:11:43 PM  
oopsy
 
2013-08-07 01:12:05 PM  

Piizzadude: Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.

The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?

He didnt say concept, he said franchise.


The Lone Ranger is a new franchise?
 
2013-08-07 01:13:11 PM  
FTFA:  Disney's CEO acknowledged that "high-cost, tent-pole films" were a risk, but that the company still believes "the tent-pole strategy is a good strategy,"


/I got YOUR tent pole right here, buddy
 
2013-08-07 01:17:06 PM  

Mrbogey: The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?


To modern audiences. Most middle aged people aren't very familiar with the originals.

They were taking a chance with a franchise that isn't a proven moneymaker these days. If it had done well you'd be seeing a new Lone Ranger churned out every year or two until people get sick of it.
 
2013-08-07 01:17:56 PM  
Good. Maybe now, they'll try an original idea.
 
2013-08-07 01:19:37 PM  
Just a little friendly advice.  Don't make movies that suck and you won't have this problem.
 
2013-08-07 01:21:08 PM  

Piizzadude: Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.

The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?

He didnt say concept, he said franchise.


i1.cpcache.com
 
2013-08-07 01:21:12 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Mrbogey: The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?

To modern audiences. Most middle aged people aren't very familiar with the originals.

They were taking a chance with a franchise that isn't a proven moneymaker these days. If it had done well you'd be seeing a new Lone Ranger churned out every year or two until people get sick of it.


Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the  characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them?  If no one really remembers the Lone Ranger just write a new story.
It's a fact.  Hollywood is completely out of new ideas.
 
2013-08-07 01:27:58 PM  

for good or for awesome: J. Frank Parnell: Mrbogey: The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?

To modern audiences. Most middle aged people aren't very familiar with the originals.

They were taking a chance with a franchise that isn't a proven moneymaker these days. If it had done well you'd be seeing a new Lone Ranger churned out every year or two until people get sick of it.

Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the  characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them?  If no one really remembers the Lone Ranger just write a new story.
It's a fact.  Hollywood is completely out of new ideas.


The entertainment industry has been out of idea since before Shakespeare's time.  Even he's accused of being a thieving hack.

//Looking forward to "The Taming of the Shrew Redux #300,000"
 
2013-08-07 01:30:26 PM  
Who knew spending $400m to make a movie based on a program no one under the age of 60 ever watched would be a bad business decision?
 
2013-08-07 01:32:20 PM  
I saw it, and I think the only thing that really hurt it was Johnny Depp. The script was decent (overlooking that the transcontinental railroad didn't go through Texas), had a solid telling of the Ranger's origin, had a decent amount of complexity in the dealings between the settlers and the Natives (showing that many of the conflicts were caused by robber barons sending thugs dressed as Natives to commit crimes and murder), and had a good, action-packed finale. Armie Hammer (aside from the name), was good in the lead; far better than Klinton Spilsburry's emotionless hack job back in '81. The other Native characters were treated with resect and had much more realism and impact than Tonto. The huge problem was Depp as Tonto; the quirky Depp style just didn't sit right with a character that was already maligned for decades before this film. It added insult to injury. And Michael Horse's performance in the '81 film was really spectacular and gave Tonto a lot of depth and respectability. Johnny Depp was the biggest reason why the movie failed; as soon as he showed up in the trailers and production pics with that bird on his head, people gave up on the film.

And no, I'm not going off memory for the '81 film, I actually watched it again the night before I saw the new Lone Ranger. It's worth it for Jason Robards and Christopher Lloyd.
 
2013-08-07 01:32:26 PM  
A previous generation might have cared about the Lone Ranger. Now it's just one more IP that should just be left well enough alone.

While we're at it, can the Superman movies stop now too? The guy's a Mary Sue and can't be made into anything else because people don't buy him as anything else.
 
2013-08-07 01:34:08 PM  
The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.
 
2013-08-07 01:36:54 PM  
I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.
 
2013-08-07 01:37:46 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age.


This.
 
2013-08-07 01:37:46 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Who knew spending $400m to make a movie based on a program no one under the age of 60 ever watched would be a bad business decision?


It's in the bin with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which was also based on characters only the War-babies and early Boomers would remember and a lousy movie with a really stupid plot.
 
2013-08-07 01:38:20 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.


Really?

www.digitaltrends.com

www.lassothemovies.com

eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-08-07 01:42:54 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


The Mouse scoffs at such minor inconveniences.  A mere drop in the bucket.

/Mr. Garibaldi's comment about Disney Planet did not fall on deaf Mouse ears...it's a safe bet it's on the drawing board.
 
2013-08-07 01:42:56 PM  

for good or for awesome: Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them?


They keep dragging them up because they made money in a different time, hoping they make money again.

Older generations would still be familiar, and maybe they were banking on them influencing younger generations, or something. The cowboys and indians thing isn't a big box office draw anymore, so it had to be something like that.
 
2013-08-07 01:46:52 PM  

devilEther: This may mean there won't be another Pirates movie.


You're right. It means there will be TWO more Pirates movies.
 
2013-08-07 01:47:23 PM  
Jonah Hex was better. There, I said it.
 
2013-08-07 01:50:35 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: The huge problem was Depp as Tonto; the quirky Depp style just didn't sit right with a character that was already maligned for decades before this film. It added insult to injury. And Michael Horse's performance in the '81 film was really spectacular and gave Tonto a lot of depth and respectability. Johnny Depp was the biggest reason why the movie failed; as soon as he showed up in the trailers and production pics with that bird on his head, people gave up on the film.


That's what did it for me. I was on the fence initially, but in the previews I didn't see Tonto, I saw Depp playing Tonto. It was a poor casting decision.
 
2013-08-07 01:50:58 PM  
I still stand by the fact that this movie failed due to bad promotion and bad casting. If Johnny Depp were the Lone Ranger this movie should have done better, IMO.
 
2013-08-07 01:51:03 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.


It's not to early to revive Brisco.....
 
2013-08-07 01:53:01 PM  

meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]


Not to mention

movieboozer.com
 
2013-08-07 01:54:31 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


Such a shame John Carter didn't do well. It wasn't a faithful adaptation but it was a fun movie nonetheless.
 
2013-08-07 01:55:07 PM  

meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?


The problem being those are actually GOOD movies. This was a steaming pile of..well, Disney.
 
2013-08-07 01:56:17 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


I just read a book about what happened with John Carter.  It was horribly horribly marketed, which is kinda strange given they spent $100 million on marketing but had almost no online presence and the commercials just weren't that interesting.  It seems like a decent enough movie, but since the works of Burroughs has since been copied by everyone from Star Wars to Avatar, seeing the original just makes it look like a copy.
 
2013-08-07 01:58:00 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


Avengers, Monsters 2, and Iron Man 3 did rather well.
 
2013-08-07 01:58:30 PM  
I betcha Depp's check has already cleared the bank, though.
 
2013-08-07 01:59:20 PM  
No biggie for the Mouse, the theme parks saw a 9% increase in attendence for the 1st quarter this year.  And thats with an increase in ticket prices.
 
2013-08-07 01:59:42 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


These aren't accidents. If it does well great, but if it flops they'll write off the losses against every money making movie from here on out.

/Probably will get a better return.
//would love to see a big movie house get audited just once.
 
2013-08-07 02:00:18 PM  
Blaming the critics is laughable.  The critics thought "Grown Ups 2" was a steaming turd but that didn't stop it from making $117m to date.  I'd start looking for other reasons why people didn't want to see the studio's Lone Ranger movie and try to do better next time around.
 
2013-08-07 02:02:50 PM  

Savage Bacon: meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Not to mention

[movieboozer.com image 450x317]


Well, to be fair, that movie was 20 years ago. I don't know what the boundaries was being used for "modern age".  That's a kickass movie, though.

I thought "Maverick" was pretty fun, too.
 
2013-08-07 02:06:14 PM  
"The cowboys and indians thing isn't a big box office draw anymore, so it had to be something like that."

You ain't kidding...aliens didn't even help.
upload.wikimedia.org

I was disappointed that John Carter sank, really wanted to see the sequel and more Lynn Collins in skimpy Dejah Thoris costumes would have been just fine as well.
/she would be a good Wonder Woman too.
 
2013-08-07 02:06:41 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.


yea, brave new originality was the failure here.

/who's cute?  you are!
 
2013-08-07 02:06:54 PM  

Savage Bacon: meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Not to mention

[movieboozer.com image 450x317]


Also

jaymzbee.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-07 02:06:59 PM  
That's because they made "The Tonto Show" and called it "The Lone Ranger" all the while, it was really "Pirates of the Southwest"
 
2013-08-07 02:08:44 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


Someone in yesterday's thread had the interesting point that the films greenlit by the guy who resigned after the flop of "John Carter" are still coming through the pipeline and will be for several more months.
 
2013-08-07 02:10:13 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Savage Bacon: meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Not to mention

[movieboozer.com image 450x317]

Well, to be fair, that movie was 20 years ago. I don't know what the boundaries was being used for "modern age".  That's a kickass movie, though.

I thought "Maverick" was pretty fun, too.


Maverick is a gem. Faithful in spirit to the original, fun wordplay, charming actors.

I was thinking about it while watching Support Your Local Sheriff yesterday.

Query: with the disasters of wild wild west, heaven's gate, lone ranger, etc., why do studios keep giving big time money to westerns? To top everything that has been done before? The old westerns were made because the costumes, props, and desert were cheap and readily available.
 
2013-08-07 02:10:53 PM  

ristst: acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

The Mouse scoffs at such minor inconveniences.  A mere drop in the bucket.

/Mr. Garibaldi's comment about Disney Planet did not fall on deaf Mouse ears...it's a safe bet it's on the drawing board.


THIS. Plus, you don't really believe those numbers are accurate do you?
 
2013-08-07 02:14:58 PM  

whither_apophis: acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

These aren't accidents. If it does well great, but if it flops they'll write off the losses against every money making movie from here on out.

/Probably will get a better return.
//would love to see a big movie house get audited just once.


losing $100M to get $5M back on your tax return is still a $95M loss.

/marginal tax brackets don't work that way
//What corporate tax rate does Disney pay anyway? 5%? less than that?
 
2013-08-07 02:16:07 PM  

Kurmudgeon: "The cowboys and indians thing isn't a big box office draw anymore, so it had to be something like that."

You ain't kidding...aliens didn't even help.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x326]

I was disappointed that John Carter sank, really wanted to see the sequel and more Lynn Collins in skimpy Dejah Thoris costumes would have been just fine as well.
/she would be a good Wonder Woman too.


...I liked Cowboys vs Aliens :-(
 
2013-08-07 02:23:41 PM  

Fano: Query: with the disasters of wild wild west, heaven's gate, lone ranger, etc., why do studios keep giving big time money to westerns? To top everything that has been done before? The old westerns were made because the costumes, props, and desert were cheap and readily available.


Then there's the interesting sidenote that the recent successful westerns like True Grit and Django Unchained were made on modest budgets.
 
2013-08-07 02:23:50 PM  
They plan to make it back on their Little House on the Prairie movie coming out this Christmas.
 
2013-08-07 02:26:33 PM  

Fireproof: acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

Someone in yesterday's thread had the interesting point that the films greenlit by the guy who resigned after the flop of "John Carter" are still coming through the pipeline and will be for several more months.


Interesting fact... the guy who had to resign after John Carter was not the one who greenlit John Carter.
 
2013-08-07 02:28:30 PM  

ongbok: They plan to make it back on their Little House on the Prairie movie coming out this Christmas.


No.  Just no....

//Google says Sony and not Disney though...
 
2013-08-07 02:28:31 PM  
i1168.photobucket.com

Ah...much better....and it didn't cost a hundred gazillion bucks to produce.  And is still revered as the greatest.

I watch every afternoon with drink in hand.  Dillon has the most wicked backhand punch in entertainment history.

/but greatest western film?  EASY.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.
 
2013-08-07 02:38:49 PM  
I don't usually say this but yes, I could have made a better movie with half the budget.
The script was too long and terrible.
Also, too few heroic moments.

It was the equivalent of the Green Lantern movie.
 
2013-08-07 02:39:50 PM  
FTA:  (That budget was $225 million, by the way.)


Like I guess most americans, i didn't see the movie, but.......was there that much CGI in the movie?  how could a story about a cowboy and indian fighting bad dudes (or whatever) need thaaaaaaaaaaaat much money?  avatar you have to create a set and CGI all the creatures and spaceships and shiat, but.....wow.  225M for just going to arizona to watch Johnny Depp ride a horse for 6 weeks of principal?

225 million?  jeesh.
 
2013-08-07 02:44:47 PM  
Disney is about to dig up Norman Tokar and put his bones in a director's chair.
 
2013-08-07 02:45:35 PM  

enry: I just read a book about what happened with John Carter. It was horribly horribly marketed, which is kinda strange given they spent $100 million on marketing but had almost no online presence and the commercials just weren't that interesting. It seems like a decent enough movie, but since the works of Burroughs has since been copied by everyone from Star Wars to Avatar, seeing the original just makes it look like a copy.


Another fun thing to think about:

Back when Burroughs was writing these stories, astronomy was a huge mystery and Mars was a romanticized ideal.  We could speculate about some sort of life forms living there and we had no way to know whether we were wrong about that or not.

Fast forward to now, and we've been landing rovers on the planet for 35 years.  Mars still has an attraction to it (we still need to land humans there) but we know far more about the planet than we did 70 years ago, and some of the magic has been stripped away.

There are no naked chicks on Mars.
 
2013-08-07 02:45:40 PM  

Mr.Poops: I still stand by the fact that this movie failed due to bad promotion and bad casting. If Johnny Depp were the Lone Ranger this movie should have done better, IMO.


To paraphrase another Farker, The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp as Tonto makes about as much sense as Man of Steel starring Johnny Depp as Jimmy Olsen.
 
2013-08-07 02:48:24 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Who knew spending $400m to make a movie based on a program no one under the age of 60 ever watched would be a bad business decision?


FTFY
 
2013-08-07 02:54:28 PM  

ongbok: They plan to make it back on their Little House on the Prairie movie coming out this Christmas.


I hear they've cast Depp to play Laura Ingalls Wilder.  Should be a sure-fire winner....
 
2013-08-07 02:54:59 PM  
But  ... But... Johnny Derp  tied a bird to his head
towleroad.typepad.com
 
2013-08-07 02:55:53 PM  

Zombie DJ: It was the equivalent of the Green Lantern movie.



I'm a fan but yeah, that sucked.  i saw it about 2-3 weeks into its release and it had already been relegated to the little shiatty side theatre in a 20-screen-plex.  i knew it was a steaming pile but i had to see it.

another giveaway was, while critics had already destrtoyed the movie, i remember a thread here where someone claimed to be the relatiive or whatever of a Toys R Us bigwig, and he posted that toy retailers were already cancelling merchandise orders for GL and what's more, dumping existing inventory.  this was while the movie was in theatres!

and i went to target or toys r us, and yeah, the various GL toys were vastly marked down.
 
2013-08-07 02:57:31 PM  

acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.


John Carter has already passed the point of profitability.  It's called a gigantic "financial disaster" but it made Disney money.  Just like other huge "financial disasters" like Water World (that actually turned a profit).  I predict the same thing will happen with the Lone Ranger.
 
2013-08-07 02:58:08 PM  

ristst: but greatest western film?  EASY.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.


no sir. it's The Treasure of Sierra Madre

/
I'm not a huge John Wayne fan or there'd be a couple more up there as well
 
2013-08-07 03:08:38 PM  

ristst: [i1168.photobucket.com image 218x232]

Ah...much better....and it didn't cost a hundred gazillion bucks to produce.  And is still revered as the greatest.

I watch every afternoon with drink in hand.  Dillon has the most wicked backhand punch in entertainment history.

/but greatest western film?  EASY.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.


Shane.
 
2013-08-07 03:09:55 PM  

SunsetLament: John Carter has already passed the point of profitability. It's called a gigantic "financial disaster" but it made Disney money. Just like other huge "financial disasters" like Water World (that actually turned a profit). I predict the same thing will happen with the Lone Ranger.


Agreed.  While Disney is taking a $160M charge this quarter over theatrical losses, they will eventually make some of that money back in the rental and disc markets.  Supposedly it did better in Japan and Germany than North America, so they may prove strong once people start watching it at home.
 
2013-08-07 03:15:49 PM  

ristst: greatest western film? EASY. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.


Agreed. Just watched it on Netflix last weekend, for the first time since I was a little kid. It's still brilliant.
 
2013-08-07 03:29:22 PM  
Disney is still happy, since greenlighting Lone Ranger was a condition of Depp doing at least one more Pirates movie, which will easily cover Lone Ranger and make an assload of profit for them.
 
2013-08-07 03:33:22 PM  
"...I liked Cowboys vs Aliens :-("

Me too, bub, me too. This is the thread to mourn in.
 
2013-08-07 03:37:02 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: Disney is still happy, since greenlighting Lone Ranger was a condition of Depp doing at least one more Pirates movie, which will easily cover Lone Ranger and make an assload of profit for them.


I saw the first movie - is there really any reason to watch the rest of them?
 
2013-08-07 03:54:31 PM  

D135: whither_apophis: acefox1: I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

These aren't accidents. If it does well great, but if it flops they'll write off the losses against every money making movie from here on out.

/Probably will get a better return.
//would love to see a big movie house get audited just once.

losing $100M to get $5M back on your tax return is still a $95M loss.

/marginal tax brackets don't work that way
//What corporate tax rate does Disney pay anyway? 5%? less than that?


Except that of that $100m loss, $75m they actually paid themselves through shell companies and subsidiaries who did various project tasks, which they can then offset with other costs.

It's all a shell game to minimize their reported profits.  If they really lost that much money, don't you think they'd have stopped by now?
 
2013-08-07 03:59:38 PM  
He rode a horse THROUGH a train with plenty of room on both sides and over head.

Through. A. Train.


On. a. horse.


bird. on. head.
 
2013-08-07 04:00:56 PM  

Sefton: ristst: [i1168.photobucket.com image 218x232]

Ah...much better....and it didn't cost a hundred gazillion bucks to produce.  And is still revered as the greatest.

I watch every afternoon with drink in hand.  Dillon has the most wicked backhand punch in entertainment history.

/but greatest western film?  EASY.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.

Shane.


All fine movies, but put me down for For a Few Dollars More.

/Bravo.
 
2013-08-07 04:05:12 PM  

enry: I just read a book about what happened with John Carter. It was horribly horribly marketed, which is kinda strange given they spent $100 million on marketing but had almost no online presence and the commercials just weren't that interesting. It seems like a decent enough movie, but since the works of Burroughs has since been copied by everyone from Star Wars to Avatar, seeing the original just makes it look like a copy.


I've seen a crapload of fan comments on the film, and a lot of them complain that the script was a meandering mix of names, places, events, and ideas from several of the books in the series, all jumbled into something that kinda sorta resembled the source material.  I found it to be OK I guess...but nothing special, certainly not on the level of the original story, since all the details in the various Barsoom novels dovetail into an intricately woven tapestry.

I felt exactly the same way about the Lord of the Rings.
 
2013-08-07 04:21:55 PM  

Burr: It's not to early to revive Brisco.....


So much this.  That show was what each of the following wanted to be:

1) Wild Wild West
2) Cowboys vs. Aliens
3) Jonah Hex

That being said, Hollywood would probably fark it up.  So better just leave it where it is: a great show that I enjoyed the hell out of.
 
2013-08-07 04:24:06 PM  

Griftin Rubes: But  ... But... Johnny Derp  tied a bird to his head
[towleroad.typepad.com image 450x275]


Your argument is invalid.
 
2013-08-07 04:25:23 PM  

wjllope: ristst: but greatest western film?  EASY.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.

no sir. it's The Treasure of Sierra Madre

/I'm not a huge John Wayne fan or there'd be a couple more up there as well


Oh I love me some Walter Houston in that one.  And Tim Holt was superior as well.  It was Bogart's favorite (according to his son Steve).

John Houston made *great* films...of that there is no contention.  I love the stories about how he and Bogart scrapped on several occasions during the shoot for Treasure...!  For me though, there is something about John Ford's films that set them apart.  One thing is how he fills the screen with minor (but very memorable) characters....they really flesh out the story and give it much added depth.
 
2013-08-07 04:30:15 PM  

Griftin Rubes: But  ... But... Johnny Derp  tied a bird to his head
[towleroad.typepad.com image 450x275]


It's so unfair. Nicholas Cage had a panty on his head in Raising Arizona. And that movie continues to rake it in.

media.screened.com
 
2013-08-07 04:34:16 PM  
funnycatwallpapers.com

/Please don't fark up Star Wars.
 
2013-08-07 04:34:38 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)


If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.
 
2013-08-07 04:43:46 PM  
I saw the John Carter trailer and went to work on the books.  In a period of 3 weeks or so, I read all 13 of the Barsoom series.  I felt like I had been re-acquainted with an old friend.

I went to see the movie and I walked out of there like I had watched that old friend die.

It was obvious to me that the producers and screen writers did not give 2 shiats about the source material.

The same thing happened to me with I Am Legend.  I don't think the screen writers understood the story at all.
 
2013-08-07 04:45:28 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.


They can have the cell right next to Richard Marx's parents.

I want to assume that these are stage names, but who would willing choose either of those names?
 
2013-08-07 04:45:47 PM  
Saw it yesterday, and thought it was great fun.  Has a far better time at this than Man of Steel.

Seriously, how can you make Superman boring?

SpectroBoy: He rode a horse THROUGH a train with plenty of room on both sides and over head.

Through. A. Train.


On. a. horse.


bird. on. head.


Did you see The Lone Ranger?  The whole film is a story an elderly Tonto is telling a young boy.  And Tonto proves to be an inconsistent storyteller.  As a viewer, it's up to you to decide what's true or what he's exaggerating.
 
2013-08-07 04:48:58 PM  
Fark Johnny Depp.

Oooo look, Depp is playing an oddball, eccentric captain edwagilbwonkiccabarna something. How cutting edge.
 
2013-08-07 04:50:24 PM  

SpectroBoy: He rode a horse THROUGH a train with plenty of room on both sides and over head.

Through. A. Train.


On. a. horse.


bird. on. head.


The horse was magic.  Not in a "this is so unbelieveable, let's say 'it's magic' and laugh" type of way, but in a "the film flat out says the horse is magic and can bring people (the Lone Ranger) back to life and bestow magical properties on them" type of way.  The horse also climbed trees for food, could jump between trains, and was able to climb buildings to get on their roofs.
 
2013-08-07 04:56:26 PM  
Looks like they will be shiatcanning their "Murder, She Wrote" and "Matlock" movies.
 
2013-08-07 04:58:22 PM  
There is a pretty decent discussion on Twitter and sites like Hitfix.com firing back at Bruckheimer and others who claimed the problem with The Lone Ranger were that the critics had it in for them from the beginning.  The critics are firing back with proof that they were engaged and interested in everything through the trailers and other features until the final cut of the movie came out, which was just bad.

To me, and I have seen the movie, the problem was not the critics (who I read but still go see movies they claim are bad and hate movies they love) but the fact it got Bruckheimer-ed.  It was probably a decent story but then Jerry had to turn it in to and movie with stupid stunts and big explosions, forsaking things like a coherent plot, decent villian and actor that could carry the movie (Armie Hammer).

Everyone give Uwe Boll crap but honestly, Bruckheimer makes the same movies but with bigger budgets and Disney's backing.  When was the last decent Bruckheimer produced movie?  Black Hawk Down in 2001, maybe... And this is coming from a guy who will always give Jerry the benefit of the doubt because he gave us "The Ref'
 
2013-08-07 05:08:33 PM  

Dog Welder: enry: I just read a book about what happened with John Carter. It was horribly horribly marketed, which is kinda strange given they spent $100 million on marketing but had almost no online presence and the commercials just weren't that interesting. It seems like a decent enough movie, but since the works of Burroughs has since been copied by everyone from Star Wars to Avatar, seeing the original just makes it look like a copy.

Another fun thing to think about:

Back when Burroughs was writing these stories, astronomy was a huge mystery and Mars was a romanticized ideal.  We could speculate about some sort of life forms living there and we had no way to know whether we were wrong about that or not.

Fast forward to now, and we've been landing rovers on the planet for 35 years.  Mars still has an attraction to it (we still need to land humans there) but we know far more about the planet than we did 70 years ago, and some of the magic has been stripped away.

There are no naked chicks on Mars.


There's still some pull with the plot:  stranger in a strange land, through some colonialism tropes, becomes the strongest person there and 'tames' the wilderness with nothing but his innate abilities (or some superhuman power that he's always had or gained through the weird setting).  The only real problem is that the novel was written a hundred years ago and several major leaps forward in society have occurred.  Not to mention that the novel, as noted, is a capstone to adventure stories after it.

But the main problem is that the marketing sucked on ice and this was a pet project that could have benefited from some editing to a decent level.  'John Carter' means nothing.  "John Carter on Mars" would have been more apt.  "A Princess of Mars" with a concentrated re-release of the novels, stories, and a smart marketing push would have been better than just airing a very mysterious and ill-explained trailer occasionally that offered people nothing.

When you're putting millions upon millions of dollars into a project, it would serve people to take some care with it.  If anything, all these failures show that Disney likes blowing money and writing off incompetence as a flaw of the audience rather than simple managerial error.
 
2013-08-07 05:12:00 PM  
Night Court predicted this decades ago. There was an episode where the actor who player a Lone Ranger type character was upset about a new, grittier movie that went completely against what his show/movies were about. He threatened to kill himself with a suspended air conditioner. In the end, it all worked out because the movie bombed with audiences, so the old guy won a moral victory.

Even then, someone knew that trying to revive the Lone Ranger was a fool's errand and would lead to failure. Never go against the wisdom of Night Court.

/actually saw Lone Ranger and thought it had a lot going for it
//the train chase at the end was cool
///But I can see why people weren't flocking to it.
 
2013-08-07 05:13:06 PM  
Jack Reacher is like 6-foot-5 in the books. They make a big deal of it.

Tom Cruise, starring as Jack Reacher.

Tonto is an Indian.
 
2013-08-07 05:23:16 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.


Ummmm... Not sure if serious. He was named after his great grandfather, who was a pretty famous oil tycoon.
 
2013-08-07 05:24:01 PM  

D135: losing $100M to get $5M back on your tax return is still a $95M loss.


That's not how corporate accounting works.

You pay tax on your yearly corporate profits, not on a per movie basis.
 
2013-08-07 05:29:39 PM  
It really wasn't that bad, had some good laughs in it.
 
2013-08-07 05:34:26 PM  

blacksharpiemarker: [funnycatwallpapers.com image 680x453]

/Please don't fark up Star Wars.

Too late.  Already been done.

 
2013-08-07 05:38:47 PM  

debug: FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.

They can have the cell right next to Richard Marx's parents.

I want to assume that these are stage names, but who would willing choose either of those names?


I used to talk crap about Channing Tatum's name; 'Dude, you've got a name that combines two famous Hollywood actresses: Stockard Channing and Tatum O'Neal'. Then I saw 'This Is The End' and he can call himself whatever he wants from now on in my book.
 
2013-08-07 05:39:07 PM  
How the hell do you manage to spend $225 Million on a western?
 
2013-08-07 05:46:50 PM  

groppet: I'm sure they wont be going broke anytime soon. They will jsut jack up prices at the resort to make up the shortfall.


There's actually a separate reason for the raise in ticket prices. It's to keep the parks from overfilling.
 
2013-08-07 05:52:06 PM  
If Disney is claiming they lost $190 million it means they really lost $250+ million.

An agent, to an under-appreciated screenwriter (re: successful but notorious hacks Elliot & Rossio):  "Those guys are notorious hacks who keep getting rewritten into success.  Don't worry.  When they eventually fail they're gonna fail BIG!"
 
2013-08-07 05:59:28 PM  
Magic has no place in The Lone Ranger.  Sure, it's less "real" than other Westerns, but the supernatural has never been a part of it.  A magic horse?  Was this meant to appeal to Bronies?  Even if you somehow simply have to have magic, why would Silver make the train bigger and not just stop the damn thing?  Make the engine suddenly smaller and coast to a stop.

Having the whole thing be a story told by Tonto is as silly as those movies and TV shows where weird things happen, but at the end "It was all a dream."  This is already a movie, obviously none of it could actually happen.

John Carter earned back its budget a month after release: link.  Finally saw it a week or so ago, wished I'd seen it in the theaters.  My wife saw it and asked if Lucas ever had any original ideas ("Banths / Banthas, Jedak / Jedi?")
 
2013-08-07 06:06:33 PM  

justtray: D135: losing $100M to get $5M back on your tax return is still a $95M loss.

That's not how corporate accounting works.

You pay tax on your yearly corporate profits, not on a per movie basis.


I'm very sorry, I didn't realize that I had said "you pay federal corporate income tax on a per project basis."

What I had intended to say was "purposefully throwing away money for 'write-offs' if farking retarded and marginal tax brackets don't work that way"

/very sorry for the confusion
 
2013-08-07 06:25:37 PM  

Foxxinnia: How the hell do you manage to spend $225 Million on a western?


Real silver bullets fired by Gatling gun.
 
2013-08-07 06:33:21 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Piizzadude: Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.

The Lone Ranger is a "new" concept?

He didnt say concept, he said franchise.

The Lone Ranger is a new franchise?


They had hoped, I didn't way it was
 
2013-08-07 06:51:35 PM  
Alongside "WTF were they thinking?",  I should also say "Hate the sin, love the sinners".

I'm bored with hating Johnny Depp and Armand Hammer is cute.  So I'll wish them both good luck for any future their careers have left.
 
2013-08-07 07:11:03 PM  

Lodger: My wife saw it and asked if Lucas ever had any original ideas ("Banths / Banthas, Jedak / Jedi?")


huh.....i did not know that as i didn't see (or read) that movie.

i re-read "The Odyssey" recently and finally made the connection between the "House Of Atrides" (i think the honorific for either agamemnon or menelaus) and wondered if "Dune"'s "House of Atreides" was related, and folks familiar iwth Herbert's work (i'm not, other than watching "Dune") said that he basically copped to stealing being inspired by the Odyssey.
 
2013-08-07 07:39:51 PM  

meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]


Really. While True Grit did okay, I'd argue that Django is not a western it is revenge porn.
 
2013-08-07 07:44:27 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Really. While True Grit did okay, I'd argue that Django is not a western it is revenge porn.


It can be both.

Wasnt "Debbie does Dallas" about football and porn?

Rename it "The longest yard is a cawk"
 
2013-08-07 07:47:53 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: for good or for awesome: Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them?

They keep dragging them up because they made money in a different time, hoping they make money again.

Older generations would still be familiar, and maybe they were banking on them influencing younger generations, or something. The cowboys and indians thing isn't a big box office draw anymore, so it had to be something like that.


Yes, but in the case of the Lone Ranger, we're talking about people well into their 60s, at the youngest.  I'm in my 40s and even as a kid I was only vaguely aware of the lone ranger as some show from a bygone time.  I checked, and the Lone Ranger tv show went off the air in 1957.  So even if a kid was only 12 when the show went off the air, he'd be 68 now.
 
2013-08-07 08:14:17 PM  

rickythepenguin: Lodger: My wife saw it and asked if Lucas ever had any original ideas ("Banths / Banthas, Jedak / Jedi?")

huh.....i did not know that as i didn't see (or read) that movie.

i re-read "The Odyssey" recently and finally made the connection between the "House Of Atrides" (i think the honorific for either agamemnon or menelaus) and wondered if "Dune"'s "House of Atreides" was related, and folks familiar iwth Herbert's work (i'm not, other than watching "Dune") said that he basically copped to stealing being inspired by the Odyssey.


I saw something on TV (don't ask me what!) that was 2 hours of long and detailed exposition on why everything in the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings was nothing other than recycled & recast myths & legends - pretty much scene for scene... Beowulf, Iceland's Poetic Edda, The Finnish Kalevala, England's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, etc... or better yet  let's just go to the wikipedia...

/yada yada "there's only seven basic stories in all of literature" yada yada... cheers
 
2013-08-07 08:35:17 PM  

Hebalo: FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.

Ummmm... Not sure if serious. He was named after his great grandfather, who was a pretty famous oil tycoon.


Dude, his name is Armand Hammer. Arm And Hammer.

Seriously, they could have made Armand his middle name. Naming your kid after an old dead relative is usually not a good idea, unless you want to saddle the poor kid with a name like "Aloysius" or "Murgatroyd"
 
2013-08-07 08:37:16 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: debug: FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.

They can have the cell right next to Richard Marx's parents.

I want to assume that these are stage names, but who would willing choose either of those names?

I used to talk crap about Channing Tatum's name; 'Dude, you've got a name that combines two famous Hollywood actresses: Stockard Channing and Tatum O'Neal'. Then I saw 'This Is The End' and he can call himself whatever he wants from now on in my book.


The shiatty part about his name is that it's backwards. I'm still hoping he divorces his wife, marries Rooney Mara, and names his kids Smith, Miller, and Jones.
 
2013-08-07 10:53:31 PM  

meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]


No Country for Old Men is considered as a "modern western"
 
2013-08-07 11:00:49 PM  

natazha: Outrageous Muff: Who knew spending $400m to make a movie based on a program no one under the age of 60 ever watched would be a bad business decision?

It's in the bin with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which was also based on characters only the War-babies and early Boomers would remember and a lousy movie with a really stupid plot.


I don't know if you're stupid or a troll, but League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was based off of a comic book.
 
2013-08-07 11:36:26 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Good. Maybe now, they'll try an original idea.


Just like "John Carter" (maybe true geeks heard of it before the movie, but I sure didn't)
 
2013-08-08 02:04:34 AM  

DisposableSavior: natazha: Outrageous Muff: Who knew spending $400m to make a movie based on a program no one under the age of 60 ever watched would be a bad business decision?

It's in the bin with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which was also based on characters only the War-babies and early Boomers would remember and a lousy movie with a really stupid plot.

I don't know if you're stupid or a troll, but League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was based off of a comic book.


Think lad, think. What characters were used in that comic book?
 
2013-08-08 07:23:48 AM  

FuryOfFirestorm: Hebalo: FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.

Ummmm... Not sure if serious. He was named after his great grandfather, who was a pretty famous oil tycoon.

Dude, his name is Armand Hammer. Arm And Hammer.

Seriously, they could have made Armand his middle name. Naming your kid after an old dead relative is usually not a good idea, unless you want to saddle the poor kid with a name like "Aloysius" or "Murgatroyd"


Well Heavens to Aloysius!
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-08 12:15:09 PM  

RyansPrivates: Burr: It's not to early to revive Brisco.....

So much this.  That show was what each of the following wanted to be:

1) Wild Wild West
2) Cowboys vs. Aliens
3) Jonah Hex

That being said, Hollywood would probably fark it up.  So better just leave it where it is: a great show that I enjoyed the hell out of.


...which was made in Hollywood.
 
2013-08-08 12:17:16 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.


You may want to check up on the name.
 
2013-08-08 12:33:30 PM  

Lodger: John Carter earned back its budget a month after release: link.


There's so much wrong with that link.  To calculate whether a movie has broken even take this simple formula:
Cut the domestic gross in half.
Cut the foreign gross to 30%.
Add the two together.
Subtract the sum from the budget.

73 *. 5 = 36.5
283 *.3 = 84.9

36.5+84.9=124.4
250-124.4= 128.6

That means not including advertising and print costs the movie lost almost 130 million dollars.

This ignores both print costs and advertising, but is closer to fact than what the article states.
 
2013-08-08 02:52:55 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: FuryOfFirestorm: RoyFokker'sGhost: Armie Hammer (aside from the name)

If you think his name is bad, consider that "Armie" is a shorten version of "Armand".

His parents should be thrown in jail for pulling that stupid crap.

You may want to check up on the name.


Yes, yes, I know he was named after his great-grandfather, but you'd think his parents would have put more thought into the name or made it his middle name. Obviously, even he knows his name is stupid, since he goes by the name "Armie" - which isn't any better since it makes him sound like a 5 year old.
 
2013-08-08 04:06:38 PM  
I haven't seen it.  But why would a western require the eighth highest budget of all films?
It's a western!  Painted propped up buildings, stock clothes.  Horses.  Come on.
 
2013-08-08 04:29:46 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: RyansPrivates: Burr: It's not to early to revive Brisco.....

So much this.  That show was what each of the following wanted to be:

1) Wild Wild West
2) Cowboys vs. Aliens
3) Jonah Hex

That being said, Hollywood would probably fark it up.  So better just leave it where it is: a great show that I enjoyed the hell out of.

...which was made in Hollywood.


You do realize I was using "Hollywood" to mean the movie industry, which is fairly common practice?  But if you prefer I will make the sentences more explicit so you can understand:

"That being said, the major motion picture studios, many of which are based in in the Los Angeles area, colloquially known as Hollywood ("Hollywood', henceforth),  would probably make terrible decisions that would make a moviedbased on the television series Brisco County, Jr. (coincidentally filmed in the Los Angeles area) a bad moviegoing experience; "Hollywood" wold fark it up.  So better just leave it where it is, a great Television Show (produced by Warner Brothers Television, which is part of the same company that operates Warner Brother Pictures, a movie studio), that I enjoyed immensely.
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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