THE LONE RANGER GETS SHOT DOWN

Jesus. I thought we were entering a new phase of more affordable movies. "There is no way I can make your cowboy movie for less than $250 million dollars" is not something that should ever be thought.

Dear Hollywood,

A little fiscal responsibility goes a long way. A western, for example, shouldn't even cross $100 million in budget. Beyond that, you're just wildly overestimating the audience for a Lone Ranger film in 2012.

I think Cowboys & Aliens definitely had something to do with it. If that film had made 200 M+, I doubt we'd be getting this announcement.

Then again, the pirates genre was dead and burried before 2003. That film was almost cancelled a few times.

There is an audience for a Lone Ranger movie, it's just they're all dead.

$250 million dollars?!!! Fuck off. Seriously. What a waste of resources. I don't ever get uppity about film budgets but spending that amount of money for Depp to mince about in the desert is ludicrous.

Smart of Disney to halt the production. They probably don't want a runaway star vehicle like Men In Black 3 on their hands. Especially with the very unimpressive looking John Carter's bloated budget, and underwhelming returns on shot-in-the-dark blockbuster junk like Tron Legacy, Prince of Persia and Sorcerer's Apprentice on their shoulders.

Admittedly though, my dad would love to see a Lone Ranger movie. On DVD. At home.

Who the fuck is making out like a bandit embezzling money over at Disney?  How in the holy hell was this going to cost 250 and John Carter costs 300?

That said, I'm a bit disappointed that we aren't getting this film.  Rango was fantastic and I was hoping Verbinski could bring that energy and creativity over to this.  I was also looking forward to Hammer as the Ranger and Dwight Yoakum & Tom Wilkinson as the villains.  There is no way that this should have cost anymore than 150 million, even with Depp involved.  I'm kind of dumbfounded.

Also, if John Carter cost 300 million so far, there is no way it is going to make enough money to spark a trilogy like they are hoping.  That's ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

That said, I'm a bit disappointed that we aren't getting this film.  Rango was fantastic and I was hoping Verbinski could bring that energy and creativity over to this.  I was also looking forward to Hammer as the Ranger and Dwight Yoakum & Tom Wilkinson as the villains.  There is no way that this should have cost anymore than 150 million, even with Depp involved.  I'm kind of dumbfounded.

Despite every film blog kicking this project into the grave, that doesn't actually seem to be the case. Or at least not according to Variety, who are reporting the project is still alive, but just on hold until the powers that be do some serious budget trimming.

Color me shocked at the money that was thrown at John Carter. Wow.

As for The Lone Ranger tanking. Good if for no other reason than that if they were gonna make a film version they should have done it 30 years ago.

Johnny Depp playing a Native American is not funny and would have been laughed at.

We don't need The Green Hornet western style.

Anyone has an itch to see a great western thats a comedy rent Rustlers Rhapsody and thank me later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Episode29 

 

 

Despite every film blog kicking this project into the grave, that doesn't actually seem to be the case. Or at least not according to Variety, who are reporting the project is still alive, but just on hold until the powers that be do some serious budget trimming.

I kind of hope you are right, especially if we can get something out of it that is even half as entertaining as Rango and the first Pirates.  What we don't need is a Pirates 2&3-sized bloated mess, so budget trimming sounds like a good thing.

I'll add in the chorus of "How in the hell does The Lone Ranger cost $250 million?!" If anything, Disney should be looking at the returns True Grit got-- $250 million worldwide on a $38 million budget. Of course, they want it to be a tentpole, but how in the hell does it clear the $100 million range?

It's a shame, because it was something I was interested in seeing. I think Verbinski is great, and anything that propels Armie Hammer to further fame can only be good in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

If anything, Disney should be looking at the returns True Grit got-- $250 million worldwide on a $38 million budget. Of course, they want it to be a tentpole, but how in the hell does it clear the $100 million range?

To be fair, I think they're looking at Pirates of the Caribbean. That film proved that it doesn't really matter what other films in the genre had made. I remember everyone calling it Cutthroat Island 2 before it was released. Lone Ranger was going to produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp. There's no way they aren't thinking a billion dollars and a re-invention of the western just as they re-invented the pirates genre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

Good if for no other reason than that if they were gonna make a film version they should have done it 30 years ago.

 

The less said the better.

I'm not terribly up to speed on the process of this besides Depp's and Wilkinson's involvement, but the wikipedia entry makes terrifying references to "a supernatural tone." Maybe they stumble upon a crew of outlaws that are cursed in to undead serviturde?

There's no way I see this just being a straight up western adventure at this budget without aliens, zombies, a time machine, and the Titanic involved.  Speaking of which, this reminds me of when the Titanic budget balooned over 100 million, and everyone lost their shit.  That seems like so long ago.

Shit, now that I think about it, that was a long time ago.  I feel so old.

Verbinski's a serious talent, and only needs a great script to really kick him into high gear - I know people think he's already there but there doesn't seem to be much excitement when he's involved in a film. And this is the guy who made Mouse Hunt, The Ring, Pirates and Rango. That said, I think Lone Ranger is beneath him and $250 mil is nucking futs!

I was excited when he was attached to Bioshock.

As for that movie User32 never heard of it before. And I watch a lot of movies color me surprised.

I don't think they can reinvent the western either.

Who wants to see Depp in Kato mode? I don't get it.

Again watch Rustlers Rhapsody.

250 for a western, 300 for Prince of Persia in Space? Where comes all the money from? How could anyone agree to a western double as expensive as the one with aliens in it?

And whatever they see in Carter to risk so much, it's not in the first trailer. If that was released next week, it'd terribly bomb, even if just cost 150m.

There's a report circulating out there that said they were going to embrace the Native American mystic elements, with some possible werewolf stuff, and it was going to be a big adventure in the "Pirates" mode. I still don't see how it could cost over $200 million, but considering Depp probably getting $40 million, and Bruckheimer and Verbinski taking a huge chunk, a supernatural Lone Ranger breaking the bank seems plausible.

Bummed I missed out on Ruth Wilson in a major movie, though. Rowr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Bummed I missed out on Ruth Wilson in a major movie, though. Rowr.

God, don't do that.

Well there's already an article on Variety about how people "close to the production" are saying  the movie is far from dead and they're working on getting the budget down.

Somebody really needs to do something about these fucking budgets. John Carter looks about as interesting as watching paint dry from that trailer I saw, and that cost 300 million? The average "blockbuster" should have between 100-150 million spent on it. Anything more is just throwing money down the toilet, unless the movie is going to have TONS of practical effects in it.

What they need to do is get this version of The Rawhide Kid out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) 

Somebody really needs to do something about these fucking budgets. John Carter looks about as interesting as watching paint dry from that trailer I saw, and that cost 300 million? The average "blockbuster" should have between 100-150 million spent on it. Anything more is just throwing money down the toilet, unless the movie is going to have TONS of practical effects in it.

 

What they need to do is get this version of The Rawhide Kid out there.

 

One of my all-time favorite comics, made all the more enjoyable by the complete fucking melt-down some fans and reviewers had. A perfect candidate for one of those Marvel indie/budget/whatever movies they're planning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) 

Somebody really needs to do something about these fucking budgets. John Carter looks about as interesting as watching paint dry from that trailer I saw, and that cost 300 million? The average "blockbuster" should have between 100-150 million spent on it. Anything more is just throwing money down the toilet, unless the movie is going to have TONS of practical effects in it.

The actual budget probably will be about 150 (of the 200 million budget) once you subtract Depp and Verbinski's fees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadew1 

Well there's already an article on Variety about how people "close to the production" are saying  the movie is far from dead and they're working on getting the budget down.

Yeah, it seems now that everyone jumped the gun on this one.  Multiple sites are now reporting that the project is not cancelled, but that pre-production has just been halted for the moment until they can lower the budget.  Supposedly they have whittled it down to 232 million, but Disney won't let them start back up until it is at least at 200.  Bruckheimer has given them some BO duds lately (Persia, Apprentice), but I can't see them outright shitcanning this with Depp involved.  I have a feeling this movie is going to get made, but it might not make that December 2012 release.  Summer 2013 seems far likelier.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out for sure at Disney's big ass convention (next week?) because there is supposed to be a Lone Ranger panel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) 

Somebody really needs to do something about these fucking budgets. John Carter looks about as interesting as watching paint dry from that trailer I saw, and that cost 300 million? The average "blockbuster" should have between 100-150 million spent on it. Anything more is just throwing money down the toilet, unless the movie is going to have TONS of practical effects in it.

 

What they need to do is get this version of The Rawhide Kid out there.

 

The best thing about this book was John Severin's art, otherwise, it's a largely unfunny, meandering, superficial piece of shit littered with offensively stale gay jokes. I'd be all far a gay Rawhide Kid movie so long as they took no more than Severin's aesthetic from the source material.

Disney are total idiots if they let this get made for any more than 100 mil. That said, with their ownership of Marvel and Pixar, they are probably the only studio that can continuously shoulder giant financial flops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

I'm not terribly up to speed on the process of this besides Depp's and Wilkinson's involvement, but the wikipedia entry makes terrifying references to "a supernatural tone." Maybe they stumble upon a crew of outlaws that are cursed in to undead serviturde?

Not exactly, at least according to the rumors spreading the web now.  Apparently Depp was/is taking his role as Tonto VERY seriously (not Sparrow-esque performance or antics here), the film was/will be going heavy into Native American mysticism, and then there is the part of the Lone Ranger's iconography where he always leaves behind a silver bullet...............

What else can silver bullets be used for?  You now have your answer about the "tone" and the budget.

Anyway, from the sound of it, this seems to be a passion project for Depp.  With that in mind, I'm banking on this getting made.

I had an epiphany about Johnny Depp yesterday.  Back when he wasn't bankable, when he had no money, he was forced to be creative and did quirky, interesting, creative things.  He was exciting, and his creative output was worth watching.  Now, he's successful, and he has become a prisoner of his success.  He is resting on his laurels, taking the easy way out.  His latest films make money, but they are reviled by fans and savaged by critics.

Johnny Depp has become George Lucas.

You know what I have to say about this? Good. 

I don't really need a Lone Ranger blockbuster, and I'm glad we're not getting one. Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a listed budget of like 93 million dollars and features some of the best cgi I've ever seen. Why would this need to cost 250 million? Even with werewolves.

I'm interested to see how some of Depp's upcoming smaller projects turn out (Rum Diary, Wild Roses)...........at least in terms of his performance.  The current group of Lone Ranger rumors indicate that Depp is wanting to give an actual performance in it as opposed to a new caricature (Sparrow, recent Burton films), which makes me kind of want Ranger to happen even more.

I don't think Depp is lost forever like George Lucas seems to be.  He's still in there somewhere, but if he doesn't come up for air soon then he might end up being gone for good in a few years time.

The man still clearly has talent and ambition that alone makes the Lucas thing null and void.

However what he's done over his career is fascinating in total retrospect. Its as if he's pulled a big middle finger and stuck it to his fans of his smaller works over recent years.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next. As for me I have no desire to see Depp in a Lone Ranger film none.

COWBOYS and WEREWOLVES =

HIGH MOON?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 
It'll be interesting to see what happens next. As for me I have no desire to see Depp in a Lone Ranger film none.

I realize that I am in the minority when it comes to wanting this project to actually happen.  Hell, if it weren't for Verbinski's involvement, I'd be really worried about how this might turn out.  While Gore can have his problems (i.e. Pirates 3), on the whole he is one of the more interesting "blockbuster" directors out there and my enjoyment of Rango (one of my favorites so far this year) has gone a LONG way towards making me look forward to Ranger.  While it could turn out to be just as bloated as the Pirates sequels he directed, it would still be FAR more interesting than most blockbusters we have been getting lately.  Say what you will about Pirates 2&3, but they definitely marched to the beat of their own drum...............which is something most sequels can't claim these days.

I want more supernatural westerns. As long as they're done right. I liked the patchwork job that was Jonah Hex, but I'm sure it could have been 100 times that if they would have just let things be the way they were supposed to originally be.

There's also a western that Neil Marshall wants to direct that purportedly is The Thing, but in a western setting. I want that one made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) 

There's also a western that Neil Marshall wants to direct that purportedly is The Thing, but in a western setting. I want that one made.

 

 

That would be Sacrifice, which was/is supposedly set up at Universal.  Sadly, I haven't read diddly squat about what exactly Marshall is making next.  He has plenty of projects waiting in the wings (some of which have actual production companies), but nothing seems to be making it to production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

I had an epiphany about Johnny Depp yesterday.  Back when he wasn't bankable, when he had no money, he was forced to be creative and did quirky, interesting, creative things.  He was exciting, and his creative output was worth watching.  Now, he's successful, and he has become a prisoner of his success.  He is resting on his laurels, taking the easy way out.  His latest films make money, but they are reviled by fans and savaged by critics.

 

Johnny Depp has become George Lucas.

I think this is simultaneously giving Depp too much and not enough credit. He's certainly done great work throughout his career, but I think the highlights tend to overshadow some of the stuff that, while not flat out terrible, sort of wavered between meh and good but generic. Films like Nick of Time, The Ninth Gate, From Hell, Secret Window and various genre and quasi-blockbuster films mixed in amongst the really great stuff. I'd say his output over the last 3 years has largely continued this trend, with a great film (Rango), a couple of middle-of-the-roads (Public Enemies, Imaginarium) and a few duds (Alice, The Tourist, Pirates IV: The Quest for Peace). I don't see his early movie career as a result of not being bankable (he had definite heat off  21 Jump Street), but rather a creative decision which same him mix it up with a variety of films that appealed to him for whatever reason, and now that the Pirates films have set him up for life, I don't see why his style should suddenly change.

EDIT: And for the record, I'd be interested in his take on Tonto, and I give him enough credit to think he wouldn't turn it into some sort of cartoonish caricature.