The Lone Ranger - Part 2

[Eddie Dean]

I don't care about taking liberties in adaptations. If Batman vs Superman featured Ben Affleck as a literal half-man/half-bat and it was awesome, I wouldn't care.

 

[DyeLorean]

It depends on what liberties they take. If they drastically change the origin of a superhero *coughcoughAmazingSpiderMan2cough* is one thing, but rearranging some stuff to make it work on screen is another one.
I think for The Lone Ranger they didn't need to change the characters so much. Same thing happened with The Green Hornet. The essence of the original property gets lost.

 

[gwynplaine]

Not very familiar with the original Lone Ranger, a little more with the original Green Hornet, but I thought that the new TLR, even though pretty flawed, was still much more enjoyable than the new GH. At least it showed the creators' love and respect for Westerns (if not for the original material) And I enjoyed Depp's Tonto, especially his tragic origin (old Tonto's framing device was pretty bad and I could have done without.)
I can understand how making the Lone Ranger play second fiddle to Tonto could ruffle purists' feathers but like I said I'm not super familiar or attached to the original material and I see the film as a different take on the whole mythos (which doesn't take anything anyway from what came before), and probably the last time I will see a Western on such a grand scale. (I also liked the "John Ford vistas" and Zimmer's score.)

 

[gwynplaine]

I don't care about taking liberties in adaptations. If Batman vs Superman featured Ben Affleck as a literal half-man/half-bat and it was awesome, I wouldn't care.

Man-Batfleck?t:

 

[Kane52630]

You guys are wrong, this move is AMAZING.

Yeah, I saw it on tv recently, it still holds up.

 

[Eddie Dean]

My favorite thing about this movie is how it's basically a blockbusterized remake of Dead Man.

 

[Loki882]

Except it DOES take away from the spirit of the original. He's not even really the same character and they reduced him to being a bumbling idiot for no good reason. Well other than their juvenile and unfunny gags, oh and having that stuff in the same movie as a guy eating people's body parts DOESN'T WORK! Tonal whiplash, oh Hell yes. Also there's plot elements that they don't bother to explain, and the draw attention to the lack of explanation, completely underusing Ruth Wilson and Helena Bonham Carter, blatantly ripping off both POTC AND the Antonio Banderas Zorro films (much better movies). All in all, it's just a mess, and WAY too long.

 

[CGHulk]

This film is a good Gore Bervinski film but a bad Lone Ranger movie. Fortunately for me I was never a Lone Ranger fan, so I don't have a reason to be a hurt.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I hate it! the only part I liked about it was when I pushed the eject button on my DVD player. It's ugly, sadistic, depressing, disgusting and unfunny. Clayton Moore is turning in his grave...and I bet Walt Disney is spinning around quite a bit too.

1. Johnny Depp isn't Tonto at all. He's Jack Sparrow with face paint and a dead crow on his head. How original...

And why couldn't they use a real native American actor?

2. The Lone Loser is nothing like the original, they mock the character throughout the whole movie. I bet the Batman-fanboys would cry if they made a movie where Batman is a fool, and Robin is the smart one.

People whine about Batman & Robin, but even that movie didn't portray Batman as a joke or drag his face through horse****. But Batman is popular...who cares about The Lone Ranger?

3. The badguy eats hearts...in a Disney movie? What the...and a bunch of Indians are slaughtered, it's horrible... but wait, there's a horse standing on a tree branch! *slaps knee, and roars with laughter*. Make up your mind, movie.

4. The whole movie is like a nightmare. The eating of hearts, the old human dummy-Tonto, flesh-eating rabbits, tree-climbing horses...what kind of drugs were they on?

5. They made fun of Christians (how original) and Native American beliefs. I'm surprised they didn't include a Jewish stereotype or a minstrel show.

6. It was extremely boring. I wanted to turn it off after the first 60 minutes...nothing interesting happened. And when something finally happened (the last 8 minutes), it was too late. And the action scenes at the end were nothing new either...The Legend of Zorro, anyone?

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why did they even make it? It's not really the Lone Ranger. Couldn't they just make something "original" and leave The Lone Ranger alone?

The actors and filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves. The money they made should be taken away from them and given to homeless people, and Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp should be dragged by a horse through a mountain of cow dung...twice.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This was on TV here last night, I ended up watching it again all the way through, it really is a fun watch and it’s shame we never got a franchise out of it. Still crazy the money they spent on it, but the cast was great.

 

[David H.]

That train finale is pretty great.

 

[Teelie]

If the movie was not so expensive it almost certainly would have gotten a sequel. As much as people trashed it, it wasn't that bad, but it was that expensive it virtually guaranteed it wouldn't earn enough to get a sequel.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Sorry, I turned this mess off after 20-30 minutes. I can handle movies where one of the central characters is insufferable, but in this case they both were. Depp and Hammer were ridiculous in this thing.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That train finale is pretty great.

If the movie was not so expensive it almost certainly would have gotten a sequel. As much as people trashed it, it wasn't that bad, but it was that expensive it virtually guaranteed it wouldn't earn enough to get a sequel.

Agreed with both. No reason this movie couldn’t have been made for cheaper. If it had been, we even be on the 3rd movie now.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I can tolerate everything else if they didn't put down the Lone Ranger in order to prop up Tonto. You can not make Tonto a potentially offensive sidekick without putting down the Lone Ranger. Even making Tonto the point of view character was wrong. The basic approach was wrong.

Here how you fix the problem. You make it a buddy movie. Make them equals. And you can still call it The Lone Ranger and make it so he doesn't have to be so alone and maybe call the sequel The Lone Ranger and Tonto. It's that ****ing simple.

 

[Albright]

watched it the first time and enjoyed it...was afraid it might get erased for future audiences
both protagonists will never get a big job again

 

[Drizzle]

Depp at least has a chance. But Hammer? Forget about it. They might as well deepfake Chris Pine over any of his past performances. That dude is done.

 

[#root]

What a twist though. Who could’ve predicted that the wendigo was actually Armie Hammer all along .

 

[C. Lee]

I still put on episodes of the TV series and re-watch the Spillsbury movie.....but I watched the Johnny Depp show once and have no great desire to spend time on it again. They can make a great wetern action movie about the Ranger without making a mockery of the characters.

 

[DarkKnight88]

There are really great moments, the entire train scene at the end is wonderful, and it looks fantastic as all Gore Verbinski movies. But yeah, watching now, your lead good guy hero actually being awful. It would be like discovering Christopher Reeve ate puppies. Those movies wouldn’t play the same.