The Lone Ranger - Part 2

I'm not surprised this didn't do so well, Westerns if any have hardly done bank at the B.O., Cowboys & Aliens anyone?
 
So, did anyone notice that the boy (the one the old Tonto tells the story to), looked exactly like Pee Wee Herman? Even his facial gestures.
 
Considering this was developed under the Dick Cook era and then greenlight by Rich Ross, I won't start throwing shade on Alan Horn's tenure just yet. This project happened because previous chairs could not tell Verbinski and Depp no. That just changed.

Well, let TLR be a good lesson for Disney not to hand over a blank check for the next Johnny Depp movie then.
 
I need to see it again, as I saw a late showing, but I kinda loved it. Just a good, solid fun film. Armie Hammer was fantastic as Reid. Depp was solid as Tonto, with some very humorous moments. I don't see the complaints over his performance, to be honest. He's not the cliché Indian, but he also didn't feel like he was just being Johnny Depp, either.

The movie in general is just good, old fashioned cinematic fun. It's fairly well written, the Ranger himself has some decent pathos, and Tonto has a nice backstory that is heavier and with more complexity than you'd expect.

The weak spot is the villains, but even then, Colby and Cavendish are solid, they have a sobering, truly evil plan, and they're the kind of scenery chewing serial villains that elevate this to something more than average. The bits with the kid are just charming enough not to pull you out of the film.

The final action sequence is fantastic, especially the bits with The Lone Ranger on Silver, that was just incredible stuff, along with a great version of the William Tell Overture. Verbinski's been working toward that sort of INDIANA JONES action sequence all his career, and here, I think it finally fires on all cylinders.

I can see where the budget for this movie went now. Beyond the trains and tracks and town they built (which all look fantastic), that last sequence is immense and pretty complex stuff. And it cannot be ignored that they shot is some INCREDIBLE locations, on location. This is an absolutely beautiful Western cinematically.

There's been a lot of talk about how this movie somehow makes fun of The Lone Ranger and Tonto. I don't think it does. Hammer plays every scene he's in almost deadly serious, which is half the charm when Reid finds himself in over his head again and again and again. Yes, there's comedy, but its situational comedy, not comedy at the expense of The Lone Ranger and Tonto as characters.

I think this is a movie that will grow on people.
Yes! I completely agree.
 
942981_10151456123236198_302415021_n.jpg


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151456123236198&l=f7b5e215cd
 
I'm not surprised this didn't do so well, Westerns if any have hardly done bank at the B.O., Cowboys & Aliens anyone?


This puts the nail on the coffin for 200 million dollar westerns.

Studio's will never go above 35 to 50 million for a western movie now.
 
This puts the nail on the coffin for 200 million dollar westerns.

Studio's will never go above 35 to 50 million for a western movie now.

They shouldnt have to. Westerns shouldnt be special fx bonanzas.
 
A Western doesn't need 200mil to be good in the first place so I for one am glad that 200mil Western's are dead. Good riddens I say.
 
310 to Yuma was very successful wasn't it. I think that is one of the all time greats
 
310 to Yuma was very successful wasn't it. I think that is one of the all time greats
If you're talking about the remake, I agree it was great, but it didn't even make back its budget domestically. And it only cost $55mil.
 
Hopefully this means Johnny Depp won't get a green light to do any old weird thing he wants to with characters who were never weird to begin with.

And the star of any movie about the Lone Ranger should never be anybody but the Lone Ranger. Not that there will probably be a movie about the Lone Ranger again anytime soon. Nobody seems to know how to make one successfully.
 
Is there one person in the entire universe that is surprised by The Lone Ranger's failure at the box office? I'm being serious, who on earth or Krypton or any other planet is even remotely surprised at the failure of The Lone Ranger? Even if you didn't think it was going to bomb this hard you knew it wasn't going to do well.

Everyone and their grandmother knew that a 200 million dollar Lone Ranger movie was not going to end well when Disney greenlit it and yet these highly paid people didn't seem to know that they had a movie with a 99% chance of failure? It's utterly, utterly baffling. I understand taking risks but this wasn't a risk it was an obvious avoidable failure. Disney should have just given that 150mil to charity if they didn't want it.
 
Last edited:
People we're calling this a bomb when it's production was first announced over 2 years ago.
When they halted production to cut out supernatural werewolves to save budget and it was still headed for a $225m+ cost they should have just called it a day.

There are some people who actually think this was some disney conspiracy to deliberately lose money haha.
 
The trailers were awful and based on what I've heard from people who skipped the film, played a big role in them not seeing it.
 
I think the only reason they still committed to this movie was out of good will to Verbinski and because he made so much money for them with the Pirates movies. No way this movie would have seen the light of day without Verbinski.
 
The trailers were awful and based on what I've heard from people who skipped the film played a big role in them not seeing it.

That's a whole nother issue I had. To be blunt, The Lone Ranger looked like a huge wuss in these trailers. He looked more like comic relief than a badass main character.

It would be like them putting comedic Iron Man moments in the trailer for the first Iron Man movie than the badass moments.
 
It's true. Disney felt like they owed Verbinksi a blank check film because of all the money he made, but now they gave him his freebie. Now Disney is thinking "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...", y'know the rest. They won't pull that move again.
 
They did the same thing with Stanton and it blew in their face. The problem is many of these pulp era heroes aren't popular. They all aren't Batman, Superman, Captain America, Zorro, etc.

Some won't make as smooth a translation to present day audiences as others.
 
And I actually agreed with them allowing Verbinski and Depp to do the film at the time, especially in light of them giving Andrew-Finding Nemo-Stanton 200+mil for a starless movie based on a 100 year old book that only sci fi geeks know about.

If a first time live action director was allowed 200mil then why shouldn't have Depp and Verbinski expected the same budget? I was fine with and agreed that Disney should have allowed Depp and Verbinski their IOU when it came to Ranger but they should have told their dreamteam 120mil budget at most or no go. I'm more baffled at the budget than the film getting made.
 
I truly believe it might have done better had it been made three years ago. If it was released in May 2010 in place of Prince of Persia, it probably would have done better because it would have been riding the wave of Depp's success in Alice in Wonderland. Now it seems that audiences are fatigued by anything he does now that isn't Jack Sparrow.
 
The Jack Sparrow fatigue is definitely there
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,535
Messages
21,755,262
Members
45,591
Latest member
MartyMcFly1985
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"