The Lone Ranger

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

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.

This isn't a question of relevant discussion. This is people playing accountant for Disney, and it makes little sense. How many here really know what kind of profits Disney is suspecting here? How much a film cost to make?

Budgets usually come up simply in an attempt to covertly bash a film. See the MoS board.

 

[Marvolo]

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.

Well this discussion more than most is redundant and pointless. They spent the money. Its gone. They obviously needed to spend it. Those who are more in the know than any of us decided that. The result is the film. Lets discuss the film. Not the money spent. Its like discussing the daily lunch bill on set. Who really cares unless its their job to care?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

There's still a tradeoff that many directors and producers have to make. The better quality means the more expensive the CGI. Avatar level CGI still cost $200+ million.

Even if Green Lantern have used better CGI, it would have been even more expensive to make it convincing, and Imageworks had many problems with the Green Lantern Suit even when they were given and extra $50 million to make it convincing.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

With that said it does depend on the studio. I'm curious to how the Green Lantern suit would have looked under a more capable effects company like Weta or ILM.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There's still a tradeoff that many directors and producers have to make. The better quality means the more expensive the CGI. Avatar level CGI still cost $200+ million.

Even if Green Lantern have used better CGI, it would have been even more expensive to make it convincing, and Imageworks had many problems with the Green Lantern Suit even when they were given and extra $50 million to make it convincing.

Quality of the talent and post production time is also very important. Just look at Blomkamp's films. He makes films that look many times their budget. Why? He doesn't waste money because he actually knows what he is doing.

You could give one studio the same time and money, and they won't produce the quality of someone like ILM or Weta.

With that said it does depend on the studio. I'm curious to how the Green Lantern suit would have looked under a more capable effects company like Weta or ILM.

Before I finished my response. But this is very much my point.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, I just remembered that Imageworks as I typed my previous post.

Everything just comes down to efficiency, budget, scope, and time.

 

[rayc1971]

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?

isn't this a discussion thread?im just giving my opinion about them putting 230mill into a western that's all.take for example jack the giant slayer 190mill budget and the cgi looked terrible seems like such a waste.big budget not well spent leads to disaster at the boxoffice.isnt their objective for the lone ranger to become a franchise I would like to see that but with that kind of budget it will probably tank.last yr john carter and battleship spent too much on their budgets to even have a chance to do well.

 

[rayc1971]

a good point tha was made earlier district 9 had a 35mill budget looked like a 100mill budgeted film.

 

[Marvolo]

a good point tha was made earlier district 9 had a 35mill budget looked like a 100mill budgeted film.

District 9 didn't build a working steam engine, build towns, and lay track. It also didn't deal with live animals. Horses i might remind everyone are neither cheap to acquire, train, nor maintain. Also, that was a different director and a vastly different project. You can not compare the two's budgets. No doubt some directors can stretch a dollar more than others. But in this case I see a $200 million dollar film when I look at Lone Ranger. All the costs are there on screen.

And people need to stop thinking this is a western. Yeah, its set in the west, but it is a fantasy adventure blockbuster from Verbenski. Those are two very very different things.

 

[Lighthouse]

Holy ****! The movie is 2hrs and 29min???

 

[ThePhantasm]

Really??

 

[Quasimod0]

Holy ****! The movie is 2hrs and 29min???

More movie for my money.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What is in the film that would justify that runtime? The only action sequence I even remember being in the trailers was the train bit...

 

[Lighthouse]

I actually thought about catching this on the 3rd even though I didn't think it would be very good, but at 2 and a half hours for this kind of film, I'll stay home and watch Oz again.

 

[BETArayBill]

just saw this movie is two and a half hours that clinches rental for me

 

[ThePhantasm]

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This isn't a question of relevant discussion. This is people playing accountant for Disney, and it makes little sense. How many here really know what kind of profits Disney is suspecting here? How much a film cost to make?

Budgets usually come up simply in an attempt to covertly bash a film. See the MoS board.

I took a break from the MOS boards. That movie is already a hit so whining about it's budget seems quite useless but like you said I suppose it's an attempt to bash the film.

If a film is a hit like MOS then the budget talk is at this time mostly pointless but if a film is tracking poorly and actually becomes a failure I do like talking about it's budget. It's not life and death of course and I guess they needed the money but I do wonder why most budgets for blockbuster films are 190-300mil these days? I mean the movies aren't getting any better and a lot of them are failing even if they make 350-400mil worldwide. Yet the budgets keep going up. It's just an interesting subject to me. Because even people in the industry are saying that Hollywood can't keep up the mega budgets forever because a string of failures would be catastrophic.

I get what you are saying and I'm actually hoping for the best quality wise for Ranger but I'll always wonder rather so many movies, a Lone Ranger movie in particular, need 200+mil to be made and rather the films are better than they would be without expensive visual effects on screen every second of the runningtime. And yes I get that inflation is part of it.

You are probably a better film fan than I for just not caring but I find it fascinating and wonder if Hollywood is going to implode soon because of it. I guess we will see how smart the budget was when we get some box office numbers from Disney. Maybe they are geniuses and the movie is going to be a huge Pirates style smash?

 

[Marvolo]

What is in the film that would justify that runtime? The only action sequence I even remember being in the trailers was the train bit...

Its not that long. Without credits its barely over 2 hrs. And the first POTC was 2hrs. 23 minutes so its not that crazy.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If the runtime is used well I won't care but I always look at runtimes like that cockeyed.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Its not that long. Without credits its barely over 2 hrs. And the first POTC was 2hrs. 23 minutes so its not that crazy.

The first 3 POTC films were overlong. The first one really drags on repeat viewings.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The first 3 POTC films were overlong. The first one really drags on repeat viewings.

I adore the first one. Its length has never bothered me. Lots of fun mood and world building. Also, if you think the first 3 are long, what the hell is the 4th one? They don't even do anything for hours.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The first one is great and I never got nor agreed with the complaints of it dragging. At Worlds End is terrible and drags like a mofo but Dead Man's Chest length doesn't bother me, it's only an okay movie though.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I adore the first one. Its length has never bothered me. Lots of fun mood and world building. Also, if you think the first 3 are long, what the hell is the 4th one? They don't even do anything for hours.

I've never seen the 4th one, so I didn't want to comment on it without knowing.

 

[terry78]

I think we're going to go into both Tonto and Reid's backstories a lot, hence the runtime.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The first one is great and I never got nor agreed with the complaints of it dragging. At Worlds End is terrible and drags like a mofo but Dead Man's Chest length doesn't bother me, it's only an okay movie though.

Agree on the first. It is great. Have the DVD, blu-ray and catch it every time it is on television.

Dead Man's Chest is definitely a better film then At Worlds End. But I enjoy AWE more. It is so ridiculous, I just go with it. I can enjoy all three though. Keira Knightley is in them after all.