The Lone Ranger

[DACrowe]

No, what I meant was in the 70s there were tons of westerns. When the 81 Lone Ranger bombed it not only destroyed interest in the character, but in making Westerns. There were a few in the 80s like Pale Rider and Silverado, but compared to what they were in the 60s and 70s.

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.

 

[TheVileOne]

^I agree.

 

[DACrowe]

Ditto. Kickass wasn't exactly a critic darling, and did dismal at the BO, but damn, it has to be one of my most favorite movies of all time. At least in the top 5 for me. (The Man From Snowy River, Independence Day, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1990, Kick Ass, The Black Stallion, Django Unchained, Avengers, Adventures in Babysitting, Posse, Bad Boys 2, Star Trek are in my tops right now.)

Kick-Ass had 78 percent good reviews and was heavily defended from some moral purists like Ebert by publications such as Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone. Not really comparable, in my opinion.

 

[Drizzle]

Oz and Tony Stark say hello. Disney has very little to lose this year

It's true. Also, don't forget Monsters University, and they have Thor 2 and Frozen later this year. If Lone Ranger bombs, it won't be too devastating for Disney. If anything, it'll be more crushing for Jerry Bruckheimer. Besides the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, he hasn't had a successful hit in a few years.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

DACrowe just laid down some mad knowledge yo...I'm so sorry for that.

EDIT: I forgot about Bruckhimer. He is on a losing streak right now.

 

[jacobed]

I thought this was average at best. They crap all over the character of The Lone Ranger. He's a complete buffoon in this, almost more than The Green Hornet. All just for a few jokes, its cheap and frustrating to watch. Reminded me of how they treated Loki in The Avengers completely disrespect the character for a dumb joke. Angers me greatly and I felt that movie never recouped for that garbage. I thought Johnny Depp was funny but I can't stand that he was the main character. The action had cool moments but it gets tiresome and there's way too much cgi. This is a western there should be no cgi. Its about 30 minutes too long and there is definitely fat that needed to be trimmed. Still don't see where $250 million went into this thing. A town, train tracks, and train don't even come close putting a dent into that amount of money. I'd love to see a sequel that focused squarely on the western aspect and The Lone Ranger himself, no Tonto and no over the top action scenes. Look at 3:10 to Yuma, one of the best westerns out there and its one action scene at the end is 3 times better than any of the action in this movie easily. This definitely isn't the mess I thought it was going to be and is nowhere near as bad as Pirates 2-4 but it just has some really awful awful writing and that completely derails the movie pun intended. 6/10. Despicable Me 2 on the other hand, freakin phenomenal 9/10

 

[TheVileOne]

Dude Loki was a badass in Avengers.

 

[jacobed]

Dude Loki was a badass in Avengers.

I wouldn't say bad ass but he was decent up until the end when they completely crap over what 2 movies built up for him for a stupid joke

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not in love with The Avengers but I loved that moment you hated. I thought it was hilarious. Maybe it wasn't the greatest thing to do if you are trying to make your villain look super fearsome but eh, it worked for me.

 

[bullets]

Westerns don't do very well overseas , but hopefully the star power of Johnny Depp will help the situation.

 

[bullets]

I wouldn't say bad ass but he was decent up until the end when they completely crap over what 2 movies built up for him for a stupid joke

He was taken down by a giant green rage monster. I think it worked out just fine.

 

[Octoberist]

That was a great moment.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Kemosabe does not mean what is said in the movie. It actually means "trusted friend."

Kemosabe is a word that Jim Jewell created because he thought it sounded Native American. It worked waaaaaay back then just like comics called "Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen" were popular sellers.

I'm a lifelong Lone Ranger fan, but having Tonto call him "trusted friend" simply does not work nowadays unless it's in a Veggie Tales version of the story.

It's very simple, they have to change the dynamic between the two main characters so people would believe the plausibility of their relationship.

People seem to forget this mythology was created in the 1930s and has gone through very little change in the past 80 years. You just can't get away with the streamlined simplicity of this character that was presented so long ago. We, as a moviegoing audience, want layers of depth and character development nowadays that was completely unnecessary back then. Hence the new explanations for [BLACKOUT]Tonto telling him to wear the mask, the silver bullets, Reid not wanting to kill, etc, etc.[/BLACKOUT] You need it. That's not at all what was wrong with this movie. The length, unnecessary framing and pockets of wasted screentime are what will turn people off; not the characterizations.

This movie ends with [BLACKOUT]him choosing to be The Lone Ranger. If the franchise continues I have no doubt it will carry a much more steady story/tone similar to the Dynamite Comics run.[/BLACKOUT] That being said I'm very happy with what was given and I really don't care if a sequel is made. The Lone Ranger is at its core a parable of morality and justice geared towards children. As long as it maintains that essence doesn't change, other things about the property can be modified. But acting like the mythology shouldn't be updated at all to have it make better sense seems silly.

 

[Poni_Boy]

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.

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.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Well, looks like I'll definitely be skipping this one.

But reading through this thread just made me realize that I want to watch Airheads again.

Obscure reference for the win!

 

[Poni_Boy]

^ It's on Netflix. Just watched it yesterday


The more I think about it the more I notice how Man of Steel and The Lone Ranger had the exact same concept but polar opposite execution. It all comes down with your preference to how a story is told, not what is actually being told.

 

[jacobed]

Man of Steel treated their character with the respect it deserved. Lone Ranger did not at all

 

[Poni_Boy]

Can't agree with that at all.

Man of Steel's Clark did everything notable in his character arc because people told him to. He didn't question or make any decisions for himself aside from [BLACKOUT]breaking Zod's neck.[/BLACKOUT] In the end he became Superman out of happenstance.

Lone Ranger's John made all of the important decisions in his character arc himself, and continuously questioned the things he felt were not right/just. In the end he became The Lone Ranger out of a realization that justice is not only black and white.


How exactly was he not respected? Because they used his deconstruction from a naive "civilized" man of the law to a rough and tumble one humorously?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Sounds to me like The Lone Ranger fans are trying to avoid talking about the dismal reviews and opening day numbers for the film. Yeah, 44% of the critics were right about Man of Steel but 77% of the were wrong about The Lone Ranger. I like to bash movies off thread as much as the next person but I'd pick another movie to compare it to guys.

Of course the RT score for LR wouldn't mean a hill of beans to me if I were interested in seeing the film. I still hope the film is good but I'll probably be finding out on DVD.

 

[Poni_Boy]

So... we're only allowed to talk about reviews and box office instead of analyzing the good, bad and ugly parts of the movie for ourselves? I haven't seen anyone who liked the movie say it was perfect/flawless/etc. As a matter of fact everyone has acknowledged its flaws. And what exactly is wrong with comparing the story structure or characters of this movie to Man of Steel? Is that movie off limits?

Are you just trying to stir the pot out of boredom or do you actually have anything to contribute aside from the repetitive "I'm not gonna see it"for the 20th time?

 

[Tim_Riggins]

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".

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Do I tend to repeat myself Poni_Boy? Yes, it's a quirk of mine, I damn near just post whatever comes to mind. You don't like my mentioning for "the 20th time" my reluctance to see The Lone Ranger and I don't like you using a dismally reviewed could be flop to bash a hit film with mixed reviews that I happen to enjoy. We both don't care for eachother's posts in this thread and we will both just have to just deal with that in a civil manner because we can't ban eachother or anything. (I guess um the ignore list is an option but I don't see any reason what-so-ever to use it).

To sum up my feelings, I found the avoidance and shifting of the topics at hand from you, and another dude on this thread, damn near hysterical and couldn't help commenting on it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Can't agree with that at all.

Man of Steel's Clark did everything notable in his character arc because people told him to. He didn't question or make any decisions for himself aside from [BLACKOUT]breaking Zod's neck.[/BLACKOUT] In the end he became Superman out of happenstance.

Lone Ranger's John made all of the important decisions in his character arc himself, and continuously questioned the things he felt were not right/just. In the end he became The Lone Ranger out of a realization that justice is not only black and white.


How exactly was he not respected? Because they used his deconstruction from a naive "civilized" man of the law to a rough and tumble one humorously?

Uh, that is a flat out falsehood. Everything after the age of about 10 is Clark's decision. Pa Kent emphasis this, as he knows he can't make Clark do anything. He is after all an alien of immense power. Making his presence known to protect Earth, not decking every fool, traveling the world and saving people, etc.. All his choice. Then there is of course the two big decisions, not siding with Zod and [BLACKOUT]the destruction of the Genesis chamber[/BLACKOUT].

 

[lime]

The score is awesome!

 

[Raiden]

He was taken down by a giant green rage monster. I think it worked out just fine.

I agree. And besides, Thor was also hit by Hulk like a rag doll when both were on that levithan space ship earlier for a laugh, and it didn't diminish his character one bit. I think Loki will turn out to be the bomb in Thor 2.