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 35
    More: Fail, Lone Ranger, Disney, Peter Travers, Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp  
•       •       •

1432 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-07 02:06:59 PM
5 votes:
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 01:32:20 PM
4 votes:
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 01:50:35 PM
3 votes:

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 01:19:37 PM
3 votes:
Just a little friendly advice.  Don't make movies that suck and you won't have this problem.
2013-08-07 01:54:31 PM
2 votes:

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 01:53:01 PM
2 votes:

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 01:12:05 PM
2 votes:

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?
2013-08-08 12:15:09 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-07 07:39:51 PM
1 votes:

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 07:11:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:59:28 PM
1 votes:
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 05:39:07 PM
1 votes:
How the hell do you manage to spend $225 Million on a western?
2013-08-07 05:12:00 PM
1 votes:
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 05:08:33 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:22 PM
1 votes:
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 04:48:58 PM
1 votes:
Fark Johnny Depp.

Oooo look, Depp is playing an oddball, eccentric captain edwagilbwonkiccabarna something. How cutting edge.
2013-08-07 04:43:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:59:38 PM
1 votes:
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 03:37:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:55 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:48:24 PM
1 votes:

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 02:45:35 PM
1 votes:

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 02:28:31 PM
1 votes:
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 02:10:13 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:00:18 PM
1 votes:
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 01:50:58 PM
1 votes:
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 01:38:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:34:08 PM
1 votes:
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 01:30:26 PM
1 votes:
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 01:27:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:17:56 PM
1 votes:
Good. Maybe now, they'll try an original idea.
2013-08-07 01:05:21 PM
1 votes:
This may mean there won't be another Pirates movie.
2013-08-07 01:04:14 PM
1 votes:
That'll teach you to try new franchises. Now get back to casting Batman 14.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report