The Lone Ranger

[C. Lee]

Yeah, that'd be as stupid as something dumb like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstien/Meet the Invisible Man/Meet Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde. Oh wait, those were awesome. Nah, I love genre mashups. I'd rather have a film about Indiana Jones versus Dracula and the Wolfman anyway, though.

The Abbott and Costello movies were great...but they were comedies. The Lone Ranger isn't a comedy nor is it a monster hunting genre....it's a western.

 

[Secret Fawful]

The Abbott and Costello movies were great...but they were comedies. The Lone Ranger isn't a comedy nor is it a monster hunting genre....it's a western.

I know, but to be honest, there is already a lot of great Lone Ranger material. I'd love a more by the book Lone Ranger film, but if one comes along that wants to take a more fantastical approach, I'm not so quick to dismiss it just because it's a different take. I'm not saying it would have been great, but I would have had hope for it.

 

[C. Lee]

There hasn't been any live action Lone Ranger stuff for decades...and the last 2 attempts made at it were considered failures (the CW pilot that was West Texas 90210, and the Klinton Spillsbury movie that recieved extremely bad press and critical reviews - I personally liked it though)...we need to have a decent old west version made before we get into satierizing it.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Fair enough.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Still moving forward.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/wil...imism-disney-film-is-alive-again/#more-172394

For the first time since Deadline broke the shocking news that Disney had pulled the plug because of a huge budget on the Gore Verbinski-directed The Lone Ranger with Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, insiders tell me that things are starting to look up for the film and there is now optimism that the picture might actually get made.

...

Verbinski’s difficult challenge has been to pare costs while retaining the spectacle that made the movie worth making in the first place. Bruckheimer, Depp and Verbinski have all made salary concessions to get the film made. We should have an answer shortly, but don’t be surprised if The Lone Ranger rides again.

Sounds like the werewolves/mysticism still might be in but done with practical effects

 

[TheVileOne]

I got to be honest, I find spending over $200 million a project like this is ridiculous. If you can't make a movie like this even with the big names for say $100-150 million, then you shouldn't make it.

Downey's Sherlock Holmes movie only cost $90 million and that was Robert Downey Jr. coming off two HUGE hits in the previous year in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder.

Cowboys Vs. Aliens had a ton of big names behind it and a lot of buzz and it bombed. That was a $170 million movie.

If Depp and Verbinski feel that strongly about it they should think "Let's make this movie so we can make it and not make an out of control budget."

I mean look at the Lone Ranger adventures is there anything in these stories that justify the scope of a $250 million budget? I mean really geez.

What I find ridiculous are the Deadline pundits that are insulted by the idea that Disney is hesitant to do this project. Depp, Bruckheimer, and Verbinski have delivered before no question. But this project is still a big risk. They've all had their own misses before. Look how big Bruckheimer struck out with Sorcerer's Apprentice and Prince of Persia which Disney spent a ton of money on.

You can make a good tight movie for under $150 million and save some crazy **** for your sequel if it does well enough.

 

[cherokeesam]

I got to be honest, I find spending over $200 million a project like this is ridiculous. If you can't make a movie like this even with the big names for say $100-150 million, then you shouldn't make it.

Downey's Sherlock Holmes movie only cost $90 million and that was Robert Downey Jr. coming off two HUGE hits in the previous year in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder.

Cowboys Vs. Aliens had a ton of big names behind it and a lot of buzz and it bombed. That was a $170 million movie.

If Depp and Verbinski feel that strongly about it they should think "Let's make this movie so we can make it and not make an out of control budget."

I mean look at the Lone Ranger adventures is there anything in these stories that justify the scope of a $250 million budget? I mean really geez.

What I find ridiculous are the Deadline pundits that are insulted by the idea that Disney is hesitant to do this project. Depp, Bruckheimer, and Verbinski have delivered before no question. But this project is still a big risk. They've all had their own misses before. Look how big Bruckheimer struck out with Sorcerer's Apprentice and Prince of Persia which Disney spent a ton of money on.

You can make a good tight movie for under $150 million and save some crazy **** for your sequel if it does well enough.

Amen.

A $250 million Western has "Heaven's Gate" written all over it.

 

[dark_b]

i would pay to see a 250 million Verbinski western movie with monsters. its not my money that they are spending.

 

[C. Lee]

i would pay to see a 250 million Verbinski western movie with monsters. its not my money that they are spending.

Just don't call it THE LONE RANGER.

 

[terry78]

Cowboys and Aliens already did this whole thing with the sci-fi slant, as did Wild Wild West, though the latter was more in tune with the source material. This one just needs Lone Ranger's origin, his meeting up with Tonto, and his vendetta against Butch Cavendish, which leads up to him at the end of the movie becoming the vigilante that takes out the outlaws that the law can't seem to handle.

 

[Dark Raven]

Cowboys and Aliens already did this whole thing with the sci-fi slant, as did Wild Wild West, though the latter was more in tune with the source material. This one just needs Lone Ranger's origin, his meeting up with Tonto, and his vendetta against Butch Cavendish, which leads up to him at the end of the movie becoming the vigilante that takes out the outlaws that the law can't seem to handle.

The Valley of Gwangi did it too with Cowboys and Dinosaurs. That, however, was an original story, not turning an established character into something completely different. If I see The Lone Ranger billed on a movie theatre, I expect to see a proper traditional version of it, not Cowboys and Werewolves.

Why do they feel they need to even call it Lone Ranger? It's not like, if they're relying on Depp and all the werewolves to open it, that they're depending on the Lone Ranger name. They could easily call it something else and it would still probably have the same box office numbers. Just don't ruin The Lone Ranger. Call it something else. Maybe "The Silver Bullet" which would fit in with werewolves.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Just don't call it THE LONE RANGER.

TONTO.......with special appearance by the Lone Ranger



C'mon do they really expect us to go to see Armie Hammer?

 

[Ultra Lantern]

I hope they do this movie right.I really don't want to see Vampires,Zombies,Robots,Monsters,Aliens,or Mutants in a Lone Ranger movie.

Did I leave anything out?

 

[cherokeesam]

I hope they do this movie right.I really don't want to see Vampires,Zombies,Robots,Monsters,Aliens,or Mutants in a Lone Ranger movie.

Did I leave anything out?

Nope.
But knowing Verbinski, this movie will feature all of the above.

 

[rayc1971]

why cant they make a traditonal lone ranger film? a example the first zorro film was fun and it made back over its budget! okay the sequel sucked but there is proof you dont need the lone ranger vs the wolfman!

 

[cherokeesam]

why cant they make a traditonal lone ranger film? a example the first zorro film was fun and it made back over its budget! okay the sequel sucked but there is proof you dont need the lone ranger vs the wolfman!

I'd think that the utter financial failure of Cowboys and Aliens is all the proof you'd need that cross-genre Westerns are a very, very bad idea.

 

[carrrnuttt]

I'd think that the utter financial failure of Cowboys and Aliens is all the proof you'd need that cross-genre Westerns are a very, very bad idea.

To be fair, it wasn't the premise that killed that movie.

 

[terry78]

I like Craig, but I feel that if Downey had taken that role it would have made more.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

Disney Puts 'The Lone Ranger' Back On-Track; Production To Start Early 2012

EXCLUSIVE: Deadline told you a week ago that things were looking up for The Lone Ranger for the first time since we broke the shocking news on Aug. 12 that Disney had pulled the plug over budget. I’m hearing that the studio is likely to have everything resolved by next week, and can start rehiring crew so that the picture will be ready to begin production in January or February. How that late start impacts the Dec. 21, 2012 release date remains to be seen, but Johnny Depp will get to play Tonto (Disney wouldn’t make the movie without him), and Armie Hammer will be back in as the title character. Ruth Wilson, the scene-stealing killer from Idris Elba’s British cop series Luther, is also expected back as the female lead.

Source

The budget for the project is still not cheap as the budget is reported to be $215 million, but at least they trimmed down $35 million. Regardless, I'm just glad that the project is moving forward.

 

[GunRanger]

Just don't call it THE LONE RANGER.

The '60s cartoon had science fiction, and even vampires. What Verbinski is doing isn't out of the realm from where they've taken the character before.

 

[Sawyer]

They really couldn't take the budget under $200 mill.?

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm sorry but over $200 million for this movie still sounds ****ing ridiculous.

They make it sound like the team making this movie for that much is for a bargain price.

Even Alice In Wonderland didn't cost as much.

I get the Lone Ranger is like this sort of classic character and all but I mean . . . so was the Green ****ing Hornet for some people and looked how that turned out. Over-budgeted, ridiculous, over-produced piece of crap.

If the material is that good it should prove itself on a smaller budget before getting that kind of money. Sorry but that's what I truly believe.

 

[terry78]

Disney has the money, and they tend to make giant blockbusters out of everything they produce, but that's more for show I think.

 

[cherokeesam]

The '60s cartoon had science fiction, and even vampires. What Verbinski is doing isn't out of the realm from where they've taken the character before.

The original TV series didn't. It was a straight-up oater, and was managed adequately for several seasons on a regular budget. There was *nothing* in the realm of fantasy or sci-fi in The Lone Ranger.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I hope the budget will be worth it. I doubt it now, but I'm gonna wait for the trailer to make a decision.