The Lone Ranger

[ThePhantasm]

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.

I actually like At Worlds End the best.

It is overlong too but I find the story more satisfying.

 

[Lighthouse]

I love the first one, and after seeing it I thought, "You know if they cut the running time a bit and steadied the pace, the sequel could be really good." Instead they made the sequels even longer. I cannot stand Dead Man's Chest or At World's End. Never saw the 4th one.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I actually like At Worlds End the best.

It is overlong too but I find the story more satisfying.

Keira Knightley sings and proceeds to pull out a giant pistol from somewhere. William Turner fails miserably at being dastardly. They make no attempt to hide their attempt to rip off Return of the Jedi. Davy Jones has a heart to heart with a crazy witch. Jack Sparrow has the most ridiculous conversations with himself, literally. This "fun film" starts with the execution of a child and has pretty big, and slightly heart wrenching character deaths throughout. There is a huge sword fight and marriage proposal in the middle of a maelstrom. The Pirate gathering (which has slightly veiled racism). Keith Richards is Jack's dad. Keira Knightley's thigh on the beach. That is why I watch AWE. It is insane.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Nothing wrong with liking At Worlds End. It's all opinions anyway.

 

[Lighthouse]

I feel like with how Gore Verbinski makes these kinds of movies, it should be no longer than 2 hours.

 

[terry78]

Verbinski just said "**** it" by the time that third one came out. He said, "Disney is doing PG-13 now and I am gonna push that **** as hard as I can."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I feel like with how Gore Verbinski makes these kinds of movies, it should be no longer than 2 hours.

I don't know. I watch the first and can't imagine any of it missing. Love it all too much. It is the perfect lazy weekend film.

Verbinski just said "**** it" by the time that third one came out. He said, "Disney is doing PG-13 now and I am gonna push that **** as hard as I can."

You are not kidding. It still shocks me half the stuff that happens. The movie opens on hangings. Implied rape. How they finish Beckett. When Elizabeth sees her father heading towards the afterlife and Norrington dies, I was like wtf? Was not expecting it and thus it actually got to me.

Then they make it very clear that Elizabeth and Will shag on the beach. Holy crap, this is Disney?

 

[Kane52630]

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

 

[Donut]

Keira Knightley sings and proceeds to pull out a giant pistol from somewhere. William Turner fails miserably at being dastardly. They make no attempt to hide their attempt to rip off Return of the Jedi. Davy Jones has a heart to heart with a crazy witch. Jack Sparrow has the most ridiculous conversations with himself, literally. This "fun film" starts with the execution of a child and has pretty big, and slightly heart wrenching character deaths throughout. There is a huge sword fight and marriage proposal in the middle of a maelstrom. The Pirate gathering (which has slightly veiled racism). Keith Richards is Jack's dad. Keira Knightley's thigh on the beach. That is why I watch AWE. It is insane.

That Pirate fight was horrible. Since all they did was stand there during the final fight & watch things. At least the Ewoks joined in on the final fight

 

[rayc1971]

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?

you made great points that's why I talked about the budget the poor tracking.im not trying to tell Disney what to do with their money just giving a opinion and discussion

 

[terry78]

I do like that Disney goes a little more risque with some of their franchises now as it reminds me of the stuff they used to release in the 80s. This movie will probably have people being shot full on to the chest or head.

 

[bullets]

I remember people being shot in the head during POTC: At World's End and it was kind of shocking. At least we know a few people people will die during the beginning of the film from watching the trailers.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

you made great points that's why I talked about the budget the poor tracking.im not trying to tell Disney what to do with their money just giving a opinion and discussion

Right.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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?

SPIDEY you are simply different then most here. You are far more genuine in your curiosity and discussion. I too discuss budget at times. But it is more in terms of what is on screen then whether a company should have spent the money. The only real concern is when I want a sequel and the cost makes that almost impossible.

But there is budget talk, and then there is "this going to bomb. They can't possibly make this money back" talk which just drives me up the wall. Mainly because it is said with glee. I can get saying a company shouldn't have spent a certain amount of money, but this almost becomes divorced from quality. If the film is great and it cost $400m, I don't think it should matter. There is also the point of not knowing what is actually going to happen with The Lone Ranger yet. What if it is a smash hit overseas?

And, I'd say the bigger budget films are becoming even more visually dazzling. The way special effects have progressed. Whether the movies are getting better is one thing, but the craftsmanship of the special effects is something else these days. Can you imagine Man of Steel, Into Darkness, Pacific Rim or Iron Man 3 even 10 years ago? With that high of quality special effects?

 

[Marvolo]

That Pirate fight was horrible. Since all they did was stand there during the final fight & watch things. At least the Ewoks joined in on the final fight

I get what they were going for. I don't think any other captain was going to take their ships anywhere near that maelstrom. That was a battle between the Pearl and the Dutchman. Beckett was hoping the Dutchman would cream the Pearl then the armada could engage the pirate fleet and without its flag ship it would have ran like the armada did after Becket went down. Becket could have just picked them off once the Pearl was gone. No need to engage all your ships at once. And battles like that tend to descend into chaos and misread orders due to terrible line of sight and bad systems of communications from ship to ship. Strategically the only reason all those ships were brought to the line was for intimidation with the hopes that they wouldn't be needed at all. You just can't command that many ships in a large battle on the open sea least not back then. These aren't starships with coms. Its sailing ships on the ocean where the only way to give commands is by way of line of sight (flags, light, and signals). Between the tides and the wind and the smoke from the cannons and the screams and just general confusion a flag ship would have a damn near impossible time of getting any kind of command to all the ships once the battle began. There would just be too much chance of buggering the fight and losing a large part of the armada. Not many leaders are that foolish. So I never really expected all the ships to fight, cool as it would have been.

 

[ThePhantasm]

You just can't command that many ships in a large battle on the open sea least not back then.

Tell that to Horatio Nelson, or John Jervis.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

SPIDEY you are simply different then most here. You are far more genuine in your curiosity and discussion. I too discuss budget at times. But it is more in terms of what is on screen then whether a company should have spent the money. The only real concern is when I want a sequel and the cost makes that almost impossible.

But there is budget talk, and then there is "this going to bomb. They can't possibly make this money back" talk which just drives me up the wall. Mainly because it is said with glee. I can get saying a company shouldn't have spent a certain amount of money, but this almost becomes divorced from quality. If the film is great and it cost $400m, I don't think it should matter. There is also the point of not knowing what is actually going to happen with The Lone Ranger yet. What if it is a smash hit overseas?

And, I'd say the bigger budget films are becoming even more visually dazzling. The way special effects have progressed. Whether the movies are getting better is one thing, but the craftsmanship of the special effects is something else these days. Can you imagine Man of Steel, Into Darkness, Pacific Rim or Iron Man 3 even 10 years ago? With that high of quality special effects?

I agree that it's not as if you don't see the budget and technological advances on screen because you do. And that is a interesting thing, for most blockbusters.

Honestly I haven't been perfect when it comes to budget talk but I am getting better and better. I always try to stress that the most important thing is a good film.

 

[Marvolo]

Tell that to Horatio Nelson, or John Jervis.

Nelson commanded 37 at Trafalgar and Jervis only commanded 15 at St. Vincent. (I dont say only to belittle the man tho. God knows they were both amazing at what they did.) They also weren't fighting a pirate fleet (who don't observe rules of war) and they didnt fight in a maelstrom.

And we have to remember, Nelson may have been a crazy bastard lol. There is a reason these names stand out in history and a reason more men didnt do the things they did. They had humongous balls and were possibly a smidgen of crazy. Becket was a wuss and a **** commander. Hardly a Nelson. Nelson would have sailed that whole damn fleet up the pirates asses I don't doubt. Or tried to anyway.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree that it's not as if you don't see the budget and technological advances on screen because you do. And that is a interesting thing, for most blockbusters.

Honestly I haven't been perfect when it comes to budget talk but I am getting better and better. I always try to stress that the most important thing is a good film.

And that is one of the big things that I will agree with when it comes to budget talk. It can be painful to see hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on a poor film. Wasted potential irks me to no end. Especially when you see so many great directors and storytellers struggling to find even small budgets to tell great stories.

 

[sueb1863]

Rotten Tomatoes has started posted the LR's score.

So far it's at 29%:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lone_ranger/

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Fascinating to see so many people rooting for this to fail, I just don't get it, probably Depp backlash or something, or because it's Disney, the budget is huge and so, many want this to bomb. Such a pathetic behavior........

 

[Project862006]

it is this years john carter they wanted that movie to fail before it even came out

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Yup, exactly.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not rooting for it to fail. I like Hammer, Depp and Verbinski. I am disappointed with how generic and Pirates sequels like the film looks. I guess some people are but I'm not.

 

[Rowsdower!]

The cinematography in this film looks good, from what I've seen. Everything else though...