"Lone Ranger" Filmmakers Blame Critics

[trmiv]

He does live in france and so does john malkovich both american hating weirdies :biggrin:

Malkovich doesn't live there anymore. He left France like 10 years ago over some tax issue.

 

[Sonikku]

I knew Goonies was bad because the trailer was bad.

Dodged a bullet with that one.

 

[clamum]

I ignore what critics say about a movie when deciding on whether or not to see it; after watching the trailer for The Lone Ranger, I had no interest in seeing it whatsoever. Maybe it's a really good movie, who knows, but I'm still not interested.

 

[Hugo L.]

My stepson saw it and enjoyed it. His taste in music is awful. So it's sfe to say that it sucks.

 

[Strk]

I haven't liked Depp since the first Pirates movie.

Ever since, it seems every character he plays is Jack Sparrow in a different suit - eccentric, supposed-to-be-lovable, dimwitted rogue.

Haven't wanted to see any of his movies since that either; especially westerns which except for a few films are pretty much the same bad stories.

Yeah, it's such a shame. He's done a lot of good movies, but now he just rehashes the same character over and over

He was awesome in Donnie Brasco.

 

[CZroe]

I couldn't believe they thought it was a good idea in the first place. Modern update to a racist story that people nostalgic about will reject in favor of the classics (not like they ceased to exist) and a new generation will ignore thanks to massive derivative works. Despite being the origin of many such cliches, even the younger generations has seen it all before (just like John Carter).

 

[BladeVenom]

My favorite was,

Bruckheimer, "The critics keep crying for original movies. You make one, and they don't like it."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...s-lone-ranger-fiasco-20130806,0,1703205.story
Original? LOL!

 

[shortylickens]

I haven't liked Depp since the first Pirates movie.

Ever since, it seems every character he plays is Jack Sparrow in a different suit - eccentric, supposed-to-be-lovable, dimwitted rogue.

Haven't wanted to see any of his movies since that either; especially westerns which except for a few films are pretty much the same bad stories.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/reference

 

[JimKiler]

they also had to reshoot Titanic's ending. We all know how that turned out. Maybe sometimes it's good to listen to the critics/audience.

Very true but there is a stigma with reshoots that means the movie will not make money. you know how Hollywood hates to think out the box despite examples like Titanic and WWZ.

I was just upset Titanic got best picture that year when it should have gone to LA Confidential which is just as good today as it was when it came out.

 

[BladeVenom]

Very true but there is a stigma with reshoots that means the movie will not make money. you know how Hollywood hates to think out the box despite examples like Titanic and WWZ.

WWZ is original? They took an original book which was a collection of stories, and bastardized it into the typical Hollywood paint by numbers 3 act structure. How is it original?

 

[cubby1223]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/28069/-lone-ranger-filmmakers-blame-critics

Apparently the stars and Producer of The Lone Ranger never saw the trailer for their movie because they think the critics are the reason the movie tanked. Note the idea that we have seen Johnny Depp play a character with Makeup on how many times before? Or that the action looked too over the top and unrealistic. Or maybe it is the fact that we have seen this movie several times before because the concept is unoriginal but dressed up in a new suit.

But i never saw this movie, i saw the trailer and did not see anything new or worthwhile to watch.

They could still be correct. The movie was god-awful and never should have been made, *but* without negative critics more suckers would have thrown their money away watching their crap (i.e. more revenues, less "tanking").

This is the whole plot to the Lone Ranger: "I don't believe in guns, and although I am unable to stop the bad guys from raping, pillaging, and genociding for the next 3 hours, the children will still respect me for my moral superiority!" Makes for a very, very stupid waste of time...

 

[lxskllr]

One look at Depp with the dead bird on his head convinced me not to waste my money.

I saw the trailer, and found that bird highly distracting. Maybe the movie explains why he has a clunky dead bird on his head? I won't see it, but I don't see many movies.

 

[mmntech]

Spielberg is right. The industry is going to implode sooner rather than later. The problem is not so much how bad blockbusters have become, but rather how much they're costing. When Star Wars: Episode 1 came out in 1999, it cost about $100 million (about $135 million today). That was pretty unusual for the time. Now even dumb comedies like Hangover 3 are costing that much. For the record Star Wars: A New Hope would cost about $43 million to make today.

The problem is that studios are having a great deal of difficulty recouping these costs. The Lone Ranger stands to lose $190 million. To put that into perspective, I found a TIME article from last year listing the top 10 biggest movie flops. Cutthroat Island lost a whopping $147 million to take the #1 spot on their list. Lone Ranger's losses could beat that by a wide margin.

Nor is the international market saving these films. Viewership in big markets like China has actually dropped considerably and most revenue gets eaten up by theaters and import taxes.

The only choice will be to raise ticket prices for blockbusters. However, people already complain about current ticket prices. It's already expensive to go see films in the cinema with snacks. Ultimately, Hollywood is going to have to get their budgets under control. Or else the blockbuster system will implode. Though that might not be such a bad thing if it means higher brow, lower budget films get more attention.

 

[Doppel]

I couldn't believe they thought it was a good idea in the first place. Modern update to a racist story that people nostalgic about will reject in favor of the classics (not like they ceased to exist) and a new generation will ignore thanks to massive derivative works. Despite being the origin of many such cliches, even the younger generations has seen it all before (just like John Carter).

Yep, has John Carter written all over it.

 

[JimKiler]

WWZ is original? They took an original book which was a collection of stories, and bastardized it into the typical Hollywood paint by numbers 3 act structure. How is it original?

I never said it was original, I was merely saying there is a stigma in hollywood that if reshoots are needed it means the movie is going to flop despite the examples to the contrary.

Spielberg is right. The industry is going to implode sooner rather than later. The problem is not so much how bad blockbusters have become, but rather how much they're costing. When Star Wars: Episode 1 came out in 1999, it cost about $100 million (about $135 million today). That was pretty unusual for the time. Now even dumb comedies like Hangover 3 are costing that much. For the record Star Wars: A New Hope would cost about $43 million to make today.

The problem is that studios are having a great deal of difficulty recouping these costs. The Lone Ranger stands to lose $190 million. To put that into perspective, I found a TIME article from last year listing the top 10 biggest movie flops. Cutthroat Island lost a whopping $147 million to take the #1 spot on their list. Lone Ranger's losses could beat that by a wide margin.

Nor is the international market saving these films. Viewership in big markets like China has actually dropped considerably and most revenue gets eaten up by theaters and import taxes.

The only choice will be to raise ticket prices for blockbusters. However, people already complain about current ticket prices. It's already expensive to go see films in the cinema with snacks. Ultimately, Hollywood is going to have to get their budgets under control. Or else the blockbuster system will implode. Though that might not be such a bad thing if it means higher brow, lower budget films get more attention.

Spielberg is not right, yes the big studios are going to have issues but the costs have been escalating for decades, this is nothing and now with digital cameras and DSLR cameras that cost $5 but are as good or better than $100K hollywood cameras it is easier for people to get into filmmaking. Yes the production values may still be cheap but Hollywood just have stop wasting money and make more indie style films.

 

[Ichinisan]

Very true but there is a stigma with reshoots that means the movie will not make money. you know how Hollywood hates to think out the box despite examples like Titanic and WWZ.

I was just upset Titanic got best picture that year when it should have gone to LA Confidential which is just as good today as it was when it came out.

Did you see Plinkett's review for Titanic?

 

[JimKiler]

Did you see Plinkett's review for Titanic?

no, but now I have to. I still love the Red Letter Media review of Prometheus.

 

[Linflas]

They forgot the Lone Ranger is the main character, not his sidekick Tonto. All the buzz centered around Tonto. Audiences don't care about the character Tonto, thus few showed up to see their movie, other than diehard Depp fanlets.

Haven't seen it myself - that's just my perception. I did hear the show on tape growing up.

This. They turn the concept upside down and PC it so anyone familiar with the Lone Ranger would not recognize it and are surprised it flopped? They could have written Tonto without all the Indian stereotypes and not made the Lone Ranger a clueless dumb ass.

 

[MontyAC]

A critic's response:

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...film-critics-to-the-makers-of-the-lone-ranger

 

[K1052]

When I was told the premise I was worried. When I saw the trailer I was certain of disaster. Sometimes you just know. The critics piled on but the studio/filmmakers only have themselves to blame.

On the scale of bombs this is a pretty bad recent one. Even the horrible John Carter drew with budget after foreign and ended up posting a modest profit. The lesson is that Hollywood will no longer green light $200-$300M films that won't appeal internationally if it tanks domestically.

 

[purbeast0]

so everyone in this thread says the movie is awful, but only 1 person in this thread has posted who has seen it, and he said it was bad.

but a couple other people (myself included) have posted that they know people who saw it and said it was fantastic.

i will definitely be seeing it when it comes to redbox. i thought it looked very entertaining, and word of mouth from people i know said it's a fun movie. the past has proven that ATOT is definitely not the place to get movie advice. most people here hate everything, even without even seeing it.

 

[Doppel]

Spielberg is right. The industry is going to implode sooner rather than later. The problem is not so much how bad blockbusters have become, but rather how much they're costing. When Star Wars: Episode 1 came out in 1999, it cost about $100 million (about $135 million today). That was pretty unusual for the time. Now even dumb comedies like Hangover 3 are costing that much. For the record Star Wars: A New Hope would cost about $43 million to make today.

The problem is that studios are having a great deal of difficulty recouping these costs. The Lone Ranger stands to lose $190 million. To put that into perspective, I found a TIME article from last year listing the top 10 biggest movie flops. Cutthroat Island lost a whopping $147 million to take the #1 spot on their list. Lone Ranger's losses could beat that by a wide margin.

Nor is the international market saving these films. Viewership in big markets like China has actually dropped considerably and most revenue gets eaten up by theaters and import taxes.

The only choice will be to raise ticket prices for blockbusters. However, people already complain about current ticket prices. It's already expensive to go see films in the cinema with snacks. Ultimately, Hollywood is going to have to get their budgets under control. Or else the blockbuster system will implode. Though that might not be such a bad thing if it means higher brow, lower budget films get more attention.

Their costs are stupid and they throw special effects at it like candy, hoping for effects to make up for a shit script.

Do you know what District 9 cost? $30M. And that included special effects--very good ones--and a lot of them. What it didn't include was a $25M pay day for an actor, which is beyond ludicrous. If Hollywood keeps jacking up budgets and making duds I won't shed a tear. Movie making is a fast-growing business, regardless of who is making the movies, and it has a very bright future.

 

[Svnla]

I saw this movie while it was in theaters. While I would not say it was great but it was not horrible either. Grade of 6/10 from me.

 

[Perknose]

I had zero interest in seeing the movie BUT everyone that I have talked to, that went to see the movie, loved it.

^^This.

i know a handful of people who saw this movie and they all really enjoyed it. once again i don't care at all what movie critics say about movies. i'll gladly watch it when i get a chance to at redbox. i think it looks great.

^^And this.

Despite being nearly universally panned by the critics, I thought I'd like it and I did.

I think some not insignificant part of the reason people didn't cotton to it lies below:

I saw the trailer for this movie and had absolutely zero interest in seeing it. I don't care about the Lone Ranger and I definitely don't give a fuck about Tonto (especially if a white guy, even if the white guy is Johnny Depp, is playing the role).

The trailers looked bad and seemed to focus more on Tonto than The Lone Ranger. That and I never cared for the character/story anyway. Johnny Depp as Tonto was just a bad decision.

As a geezer, with one palsied foot in the grave, I grew up with "The Lone Ranger" on TV. It was a half hour show. The one hour "special" origin story was an enormous event to my six or seven year old self, especially in the cultural desert that was the black and white, 3 network TV choices of that time.

So, the subject resonates with me in a way it doesn't for most of you. It's just like how many of you are more inclined to care about the latest movie based on a Marvel Comics hero, while I don't give a fuck in quite the same way.

Yeah, yeah, I realize I'm the oddball outlier in this majestic compendium of OT Kultural Kritics.


Also, I don't normally cotton to many of the same films most of you have seen, and that many of you have liked. You couldn't pay me (well, maybe you could pay me) to see any of those Depp Pirates flicks. So I'm not suffering from Depp kitsch overload.

I also haven't seen "John Carter," Jimmy Carter, his dead brother Billy, Mother Maybelle, June Carter Cash, or those little liver pills.

Regularity, bitches, it's the tits! :biggrin:

But I digress . . .

"The Lone Ranger." I liked it, so get off my lawn! <---- Shakes cane with feeble ferocity.

 

[dbk]

imma wait until it shows up on cable. i'll be sure to come back here and provide my review!