The Lone Ranger

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I was really hoping this was going to be awesome, so far even fan reviews seem disappointing, I still will wait and see it for myself.

 

[Tony Stark]

Eh, I will not blame the original Lone Ranger too much. The western was well on its way out in the '70s. The real heyday of westerns were the 1930s-1950s. The time of John Ford, Howard Hawks, Fred Zinnemann, etc. The '60s saw a subversion of that kind of ideal. Clint Eastwood in general and Sergio Leone in particular, and the advent of the Spaghetti Westerns, were almost a counterculture inversion of what came before.

But by the time of the 1970s, Westerns were kind of passé. The "film school generation" did not have any interest in the "popcorn" genres of their parents' time (Westerns and Musicals). That is why both genres died hard or were contextualized in films that whether interesting (McCabe & Mrs. Miller) or terrible (Doc, Heaven's Gate), were not making a whole lot of money.

Westerns still work on moderate budgets. See Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit and, if you want to count it, Django Unchained. All successful. But never make your western for nine-figures. Much less nearly half a billion dollars when marketing is added on. I mean that is just ridiculous.

The Outlaw Josey Whales was not passé. I agree about John Ford era though.

Heaven's Gate was released in 1980. It had a massive budget which adjusted for inflation is still one of the biggest profit losses for a movie of all time. Yeah it was bad but few had the patience to sit through a 4 hour long movie and also made it impossible to reclaim its costs.

everyone agrees this movie cost too much, and put it in a bad position.

The main point of what the article I posted says, is that this film has a long way to go, to be the disaster that the 81 film was. The biggest thing is that the Lone Ranger was culturally relevant in 81. After that film he was an after thought. Other than a failed 2002 television pilot that almost nobody knows about, the character hasn't been relevant for 30 years.

 

[DarkKnight88]

The main point of what the article I posted says, is that this film has a long way to go, to be the disaster that the 81 film was. The biggest thing is that the Lone Ranger was culturally relevant in 81. After that film he was an after thought. Other than a failed 2002 television pilot that almost nobody knows about, the character hasn't been relevant for 30 years.

Agreed. The popularity of Lone Ranger was still pretty high in '81 cause all the babyboomers who grew up watching The Lone Ranger as kids were now adults introducing their own kids to it. It was truly that film that sunk his popularity. They were positioning the film to be as big as Superman but failed.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Even in the 60s, the spaghetti westerns became so popular because they were cheap. The Italian film industry had crashed due in large part to rapidly increasing budgets. With the Western you could just grab a few guys with whatever was leftover in the prop department, then wander out to the Spanish desert and make a movie on the cheap. A Fistful of Dollars showed that you could make a good profit out of this and so everybody started copying it.

Since the 50s when a Western has gotten a gigantic budget it has usually been a disaster.

 

[Spideyfan93]

My review is in the signature...but this felt like a vicarious insecure Pirates movie. It had fun moments but its just so damn long and the flaws are obnoxious.

 

[warhorse78]

Nowadays, it feels more like critics and a lot of online folks like to just bash a movie (whether it is Man Of Steel or another) without looking at the qualities, the flaws, it's either "it was awesome", or "it sucked".

With all of TLR flaws, I still say it has the best villain so far (Ironman 3, Star Trek 2 and MOS all had pitiful villains who did nothing for me) and it also probably has the best action sequence in a movie so far this year, for me anyways.

 

[terry78]

We get too much info beforehand these days, that's the problem. Back in the day you only got info via commercials and trailers and maybe the occasional news snippet.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I was always curious why people who aren't involved in the movie even care how much it cost. Like really, who cares? It's not going to affect you in any way, shape or form. As if how much it cost will determine your enjoyment of the film.

 

[MrMaooz]

With all of TLR flaws, I still say it has the best villain so far (Ironman 3, Star Trek 2 and MOS all had pitiful villains who did nothing for me) and it also probably has the best action sequence in a movie so far this year, for me anyways.

Really?

 

[jacobed]

With all of TLR flaws, I still say it has the best villain so far (Ironman 3, Star Trek 2 and MOS all had pitiful villains who did nothing for me) and it also probably has the best action sequence in a movie so far this year, for me anyways.

Yikes I completely disagree

 

[ChickenScratch]

I cannot wait to see it. My sister is wearing her cutoff Cry Baby Johnny Depp shirt right now. Gotta love us kids off the 80's.

 

[Frodo]

Lone Ranger is pretty old hat at this point. Like Green Hornet, The Phantom, The Shadow, and John Carter, LR is a character who's time has kinda come and gone as far as the public at large is concerned. As it was pointed out , 1981 was the last time people really cared, even then, I'm skeptical about how popular it was beyond Boomers at the time.

 

[DACrowe]

The Outlaw Josey Whales was not passé. I agree about John Ford era though.

Heaven's Gate was released in 1980. It had a massive budget which adjusted for inflation is still one of the biggest profit losses for a movie of all time. Yeah it was bad but few had the patience to sit through a 4 hour long movie and also made it impossible to reclaim its costs.

everyone agrees this movie cost too much, and put it in a bad position.

The main point of what the article I posted says, is that this film has a long way to go, to be the disaster that the 81 film was. The biggest thing is that the Lone Ranger was culturally relevant in 81. After that film he was an after thought. Other than a failed 2002 television pilot that almost nobody knows about, the character hasn't been relevant for 30 years.

But The Outlaw Josey Wales was a kind of a hand-me-down of his Man with No Name days. As a whole westerns were flopping in the '70s. That's why they quit making them. The main reason being that boomers looked down on westerns and musicals--the preferred genres of their parents. Strangely, both have come back in the last ten years...if you keep your budget with in moderate reason.

But yes I agree this is not technically as big a flop. But it will have much more disastrous consequences for the industry it would seem.

 

[DACrowe]

With all of TLR flaws, I still say it has the best villain so far (Ironman 3, Star Trek 2 and MOS all had pitiful villains who did nothing for me) and it also probably has the best action sequence in a movie so far this year, for me anyways.

Really? Which one (of TLR's)? Both were pretty generic to me. Then again, generic is not bad for a movie like this. While so far this year has not produced a Bane or Calvin Candie, Zod was okay. And as bad as STID was, Benedict Cumberbatch is awesome. At least, in my opinion.

 

[terry78]

I think people want their villains to be all charismatic that's why. Cavendish was just a brutal mother****er and made no bones about it, which is something kind of fresh. No whiny backstory, he just wanted to get rich and craved the power that came with.

 

[DACrowe]

None of those movie wasted close to $50 mil solely because of production delays. Two years of script rewrites, casting calls, set construction/break down/reconstruction, contract renegotiation because of expiration... the list goes on and on.

Not to mention that when they did begin full on production they constructed an entire town (not some studio backlot) and a REAL, working railroad along with multiple real, working steam engines. That's without a doubt the most expensive, tangible set production I've heard of in years.

You're right. None of those movies built entire steam engines, rail lines and small towns (that are barely seen in the finished film).

And guess what? None of them cost over $100 million (two did not cost over $60 million) and they all made big profits. I think there is a lesson in this.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Lone Ranger is pretty old hat at this point. Like Green Hornet, The Phantom, The Shadow, and John Carter, LR is a character who's time has kinda come and gone as far as the public at large is concerned. As it was pointed out , 1981 was the last time people really cared, even then, I'm skeptical about how popular it was beyond Boomers at the time.

All great characters who I love and are not well handled.

The Phantom done now in a serious way with all the problems in the 3rd world could be an amazing story. Pick your hell hole in Africa, South Asia, and throw him in there. It can be done like any jungle action movie (think Rambo jungle scenes, but with a horse and wolf too), keep the costume as dark a purple (almost black) as you can get, let him kill people.

 

[C. Lee]

One of the things that hurt the '81 LONE RANGER movie was the treatment of Clayton Moore.

Clayton Moore was best known as the Ranger from the 50's TV series. He had been making his living for over 20 years by going to conventions, fairs, store openings, etc....dressed as the Lone Ranger and signing autographs. He was famous for this, everyone knew he did it, no one complained. When WB started making the movie, they took him to court over this and made it illegal for him to do this anymore...saying that his dressing up as the Ranger would somehow reduce the profits for the movie. In a way, they were right...because me and millions of others decided to boycott the film because of it. We felt their treatment of him was reprehensible, and did not deserve to be rewarded in any way.

 

[bullets]

I think people want their villains to be all charismatic that's why. Cavendish was just a brutal mother****er and made no bones about it, which is something kind of fresh. No whiny backstory, he just wanted to get rich and craved the power that came with.

Cavendish was pure evil and I liked that. Zod was just very idealistic and I could somewhat sympathize with Khan. I think all those actors gave very good performances , but Fichtner surprised me and I'd place him near the top of the list.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still would be open to a The Shadow remake. The 90's movie had good things about it but wasn't a very good film.

 

[Shazam]

Lone Ranger is pretty old hat at this point. Like Green Hornet, The Phantom, The Shadow, and John Carter, LR is a character who's time has kinda come and gone as far as the public at large is concerned. As it was pointed out , 1981 was the last time people really cared, even then, I'm skeptical about how popular it was beyond Boomers at the time.

These characters are not old hat.....They are as old as Batman or superman....how are those still hanging on??

Writing.....good story telling....

None of these got the Hollywood treatment they deserved!

 

[bullets]

One of the things that hurt the '81 LONE RANGER movie was the treatment of Clayton Moore.

Clayton Moore was best known as the Ranger from the 50's TV series. He had been making his living for over 20 years by going to conventions, fairs, store openings, etc....dressed as the Lone Ranger and signing autographs. He was famous for this, everyone knew he did it, no one complained. When WB started making the movie, they took him to court over this and made it illegal for him to do this anymore...saying that his dressing up as the Ranger would somehow reduce the profits for the movie. In a way, they were right...because me and millions of others decided to boycott the film because of it. We felt their treatment of him was reprehensible, and did not deserve to be rewarded in any way.

That's just awful . I also read there was a controversy over dubbing the main actor's voice.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

One of the things that hurt the '81 LONE RANGER movie was the treatment of Clayton Moore.

Clayton Moore was best known as the Ranger from the 50's TV series. He had been making his living for over 20 years by going to conventions, fairs, store openings, etc....dressed as the Lone Ranger and signing autographs. He was famous for this, everyone knew he did it, no one complained. When WB started making the movie, they took him to court over this and made it illegal for him to do this anymore...saying that his dressing up as the Ranger would somehow reduce the profits for the movie. In a way, they were right...because me and millions of others decided to boycott the film because of it. We felt their treatment of him was reprehensible, and did not deserve to be rewarded in any way.

I asked my mom about it and she said the same thing you did.

 

[Raiden]

One of the things that hurt the '81 LONE RANGER movie was the treatment of Clayton Moore.

Clayton Moore was best known as the Ranger from the 50's TV series. He had been making his living for over 20 years by going to conventions, fairs, store openings, etc....dressed as the Lone Ranger and signing autographs. He was famous for this, everyone knew he did it, no one complained. When WB started making the movie, they took him to court over this and made it illegal for him to do this anymore...saying that his dressing up as the Ranger would somehow reduce the profits for the movie. In a way, they were right...because me and millions of others decided to boycott the film because of it. We felt their treatment of him was reprehensible, and did not deserve to be rewarded in any way.

I didn't know that WB did such a repulsive thing to the actor of the 50's Lone Ranger TV series, and I'm glad they got their just dessert with the tanking of their 81 movie as a result of their mistreatment toward Clayton Moore.

 

[bullets]

That's pure Karma.