The Lone Ranger

Rate the Movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we talking about the same Gore Verbinski? The three Pirates of the Caribbean films he directed were pretty heavy with CGI, specifically the second and third films.
They CGI'd what had to be CGI'd. A lot of practical work and sets in those film still. Go and watch 2 and 3. The set work is ridiculous.
 
And he technically did practical work for Rango, as all the motion capture was done with the actors in costume and on sets similar to what we saw in the animated versions.
 
Where exactly did the 200 million go into this movie
 
Johnny Depp's salary, obviously.
Exactly. Depp gets paid a ****load of cash for every film he does. Nothing wrong with that if the studios are welling to give him the cash.
 
Last edited:
He prints money when he does wacky. It is what it is. When he does a Rum Diary or a Dark Shadows, it's just not wacky enough.
 
you cannot justify a western costing 230mill even cowboys and aliens didn't cost that much.i want this to do well but with that budget don't see it happening then it will take another 30yrs for a reboot.
 
Depp and Verbinski both took pay cuts on this film
And yet the movie still went over budget. The pay cuts only got the initial budget down to like $215 million down from like $250 million.

I remember reading like producer Lorenzo Di Bonaventura and director Michael Bay took pay cuts for the first Transformers movie and that was to keep the movie at $150 million.
 
Apparently the budget went into building westerns towns and trains from the ground up.
 
All the work shows even in the trailers. The movie looks really, really nice but then again so do all Verbinski's films.
 
What is all this talk about "where is the budget". Do people need constant CGI to believe something actually cost money to make? Practical effects on the whole can cost a lot more. From the creation of sets to the actual execution of filming the scenes.

I woud have kept the budget at 150mll tops
Ok, but it wasn't your choice. Why does everyone have the need to tell Disney how to spend their money? Why does anyone care?
 
It usually depends on what is being built for cost. Sets are cheaper with CGI, while creatures, suits (like Green Lantern's), and other things are cheaper with practical effects.
 
It usually depends on what is being built for cost. Sets are cheaper with CGI, while creatures, suits (like Green Lantern's), and other things are cheaper with practical effects.
Crappy, unconvincing practical creatures and suits are cheaper with practical effects. You aren't going to pull off Davy Jones or the Hulk with practical effects with nearly the same kind of quality.

Thus my point earlier on Pirates. What had to be CGI, was CGI.
 
The Hellboy movies were convincing. My point still stands. Some things can be practical, and some things can be CGI. It's a case by case basis.

The Green Lantern Suit didn't look better with CGI when it was better to use just a normal suit.
 
I wonder how many people fussing about the budget have their own budgets completely sound? What a studio does with its money is its business. We are just spectators. Consumers. If you don't want to reward them with your money for what they spend their money on then don't go to the theater.
 
Last edited:
I guess what gets me is how many people fussing about the budget have their own budgets completely sound? What a studio does with its money is its business. We are just spectators. If you don't want to reward them with your money for what they spend their money on then don't go to the theater.

Exactly. I don't get it either. I don't see people worried that the budget might prevent it from being successful thus preventing the sequel they might want. Or discussing the budget balooning due to production problems, as with WWZ. Just people concerned about budget for budget sake which doesn't really make sense.
 
What is all this talk about "where is the budget". Do people need constant CGI to believe something actually cost money to make? Practical effects on the whole can cost a lot more. From the creation of sets to the actual execution of filming the scenes.


Ok, but it wasn't your choice. Why does everyone have the need to tell Disney how to spend their money? Why does anyone care?
Of course it doesn't matter because it is Disney's money but then again none of this stuff matters. The entire SHH boards might as well be shut down. Talking about the business side of things is just what some film fans like to do. It doesn't make the actual film better or worse but it's an interesting topic to myself and some others. I understand why some don't care for it but I guess those people should ignore it then.
 
The Hellboy movies were convincing. My point still stands. Some things can be practical, and some things can be CGI. It's a case by case basis.
Del Toro has bemoaned the budgets of the Hellboy films more then once. I am guessing he didn't find it quite that convincing.

As someone who loves those films, I would be the first to say they look quite cheap at times, especially Hellboy. His chest, hand and horn stumps just look fake.

The Green Lantern Suit didn't look better with CGI when it was better to use just a normal suit.
Bad CGI does not mean CGI wasn't the way to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,289
Messages
22,080,816
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"