Escape to the Movies: The Lone Ranger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Well I guess I'll be the person who breaks the trend here and say that I actually enjoyed The Lone Ranger.

By the time it reached the final action sequence I was definitely thinking "Damn, finally" but I would not consider it the terrible movie Bob makes it out to be. It didn't need to be two and a half hours long though, there was a significant amount of fat that should have been trimmed from the movie but I get the feeling was left in due to their contract saying it was going to be 2 1/2 hours.

The least surprising news in hollywood history.

Considering that the film opened up behind Despicable Me 2, it looks like everybody thought it would suck.

WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?

Holy crap, am I glad I went into this without having read the reviews. I went in with no real expectations, good or bad, and I walked away from it thinking that it was a solid popcorn flick in the vein of Pirates of the Caribbean (not quite as good as the first one, due to the slow pacing in the first half, but the second half elevates it above the sequels). Imagine my surprise when I go on the internet and find, nope, I'm wrong and it's a terrible movie :eyeroll:

It's actually very similar to the reaction to the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I LOVED that movie, but when I read the reviews I found stuff like "Goes around in circles JUST LIKE THE RIDE! IT'S BASED ON A RIDE THEREFORE TERRIBLE!" Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No, as I mentioned the first half needed some more tightening up, and even at best it's a summer action movie. But a flop, or at least deserving to be a flop? Hell no, the quality is FAR too high for that. Live Free or Die Hard, now THAT deserved to flop, but Lone Ranger had too much chemistry between the leads and too high quality action to fall nearly so low.

Scarim Coral:
So the better question is which Western film is worse now? This or Jonah Hex?

Eh. I reckon neither of them are Westerns, just bastardizations of the asthetic. Movies like this - a Frankentstein of explosions, bad comedy, and whatever else they can cram in to mesmerize dumb people and make them feel smart - are too homogenous to belong to any genre. It isn't enough just to call it "mindless blockbuster popcorn flick", because sometimes even those can be actually unique, interesting, or even good.

But to answer your real question.... I don't know. Avoided both. ;)

CharlesCarmichael:

It's actually very similar to the reaction to the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I LOVED that movie, but when I read the reviews I found stuff like "Goes around in circles JUST LIKE THE RIDE! IT'S BASED ON A RIDE THEREFORE TERRIBLE!" Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No, as I mentioned the first half needed some more tightening up, and even at best it's a summer action movie. But a flop, or at least deserving to be a flop? Hell no, the quality is FAR too high for that. Live Free or Die Hard, now THAT deserved to flop, but Lone Ranger had too much chemistry between the leads and too high quality action to fall nearly so low.

....everyone loved the first Pirates Of The Caribbean movie.

And even for its length, it still does have a solid narrative that knew how/when to use its characters effectively without getting SO needlessly complicated like its sequels.

Yeah, I'm not surprised you felt POTC vibes because it WAS just a shoddy rehash of POTC ostensibly set in the Wild Wild West. That's EXACTLY what they were banking on when they cast Johnny Depp to play Johnny Depp in The Johnny Deep Movie.

The Dubya:

....everyone loved the first Pirates Of The Caribbean movie.

The 63 Metacritic rating would tend to disagree with you

The Dubya:

Yeah, I'm not surprised you felt POTC vibes because it WAS just a shoddy rehash of POTC ostensibly set in the Wild Wild West. That's EXACTLY what they were banking on when they cast Johnny Depp to play Johnny Depp in The Johnny Deep Movie.

Why do you say POTC rehash like that's a bad thing? As stated I thought POTC was awesome, so if they try to recapture the same magic I say go for it! And I think they actually did a better job recapturing it here than they did in the actual sequels, which is really all I'm looking for.

--Edit--
And in my original post, I meant 'A Good Day to Die Hard'. The most recent one. 'Live Free or Die Hard' was OK.

Butt hurt Chris Nolan haters are the worst.

bificommander:
And here I was expecting a World War Z review. Funnily enough, one of the big criticism I have on that one was mentioned almost literally here: Why call it World War Z, when that name will only draw attention of the fans of the book. and since most of those fans are the typical escapist-crowd, who will find out that it's nothing like the source material BEFORE buying their tickets, it'll only piss them off and make sure they don't see it. So even if the movie is good on it's own merits (the judge is still out on that one I hear), the name recognition does nothing positive for your movie. Why not make it an original movie that drops the WWZ pretense.

Well, far as I get it (haven't read the book(s)), they're selling the WWZ movie as a prequel/origin story. Still, yeah, I can see why people, especially fans of the original source material, would be crying

*SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE AHEAD BUT SINCE BOB"S REVIEW HAD TONS I WONT WORRY ABOUT IT.***

I'd firstly say this to anyone going to see the movie...basically expect Pirates of the old west. That's what I went in thinking, and I enjoyed it just fine.(The supernatural background is very similar.) Depp more or less is being Jack Sparrow in this film, and the character he isn't entirely noble by any stretch. I think it's less offensive to have him be an outcast being played by someone who wasn't Native American than the reverse. Especially since the movie hired a ton of legit Native Americans to stand along side him as the true noble savages the white man exploited.

As someone of Cherokee descent, I wasn't bothered in the slightest.(entertainment has no affirmative action, and it shouldn't. People have the right to tell whatever story they wish and have no responsibility to waiver for sake of PC.) I was glad they played it straight on the whole situation because that sort of thing really happened. The Comanche and other groups really did get horribly slaughtered, betrayed, and kicked off their land. (Which I didn't think the plot was that complicated, dude sells out and gets everyone to play along or he kills them. That was consistently the story and was hardly complicated or hard to follow.) The movie didn't have the Lone Ranger magically keep that from happening. While he stopped the main villains over all plot, progress still trampled the natives. Even the Lone Ranger can't stop the manifest destiny. In some campier story they'd probably had go down that way. I'm glad they stuck their guns, and showed both sides of America's history. Progress indeed came, by at a terrible price all around. I think showing that uncomfortable aspect more than offsets a single character being cast as another race.

As for Supernatural stuff, just because Tonto is believed to be nuts, doesn't mean everything he said was wrong. Like Jack Sparrow people don't believe him even when he is telling the truth. John Reid really is the spirit walker and Silver is the spirit horse. John actually starts believing in it and himself at the end why he actually saves the day. We don't see him be the True Lone Ranger till end of the film, but he definitely gets there. The movie just tries have fun getting there. I guess I enjoy people having to take a journey of faith to it's end. Feeling like a farce, but still staying true to their convictions and following them to it's end no matter how over their head they get. No matter how scared they might feel in the moment. John Reid follows his convictions and doesn't believe in taking lives pointlessly. He disarms and captures enemies first and foremost. That aspect of his character hasn't changed.

Tonto still does exactly what he said he would to the villains. He takes the silver and return them to the Earth. He obviously ends up doing it in a bit differently still fulfills his destiny. Butch Cavendish is still a monster, but he's the different kind...the real variety. While the openly show that he is a flesh eater, he is however never shown on screen actually eating or cutting out the people's body parts. It's just strongly implied by what people watching him doing that it's disturbing, but it's a PG-13 movie. I think it's still ok for kids above the age of 8 to see.

Overall I took my mom to see it since I knew she wanted to go, and we both liked it. As someone who's always had nostalgia for Cowboys(I loved Clint Eastwood and Galaxy Rangers...space cowboys...even cooler hehe.) , and the Lone Ranger I was happy to watch.(I'd watch the Legend of the Lone Ranger every time it was on TV since it aired a lot during the 80s on movie cable channels.) If a movie hits all buttons that makes my inner 6 year old want to see it, then I do. I'm usually happy when they do heh. Bob is allowed to have his opinion and I have mine. I liked it and that's my story.

MB202:
Oh, and by the way Bob, you already pointed out that the Green Hornet was the Lone Ranger's relative in your review of the Green Hornet movie a few years back.

Yeah, but who remembers the Green Hornet movie? Much less the review.

But, yes. Both characters were created for radio by the same guy, George W. Trendle, with Fran Striker doing the actual writing duties. Look it up and decide for yourself who deserves the real credit. Nice to see bad movies run in the family, I guess.

I can't help but wonder if this movie would have been better with Depp in the lead as the Ranger and an actual Native American actor as Tonto who was not dressed like a gay burlesque performer. I don't know if that would have worked, even with a different, better script after watching Depp play serious in the awful and forgettable Public Enemy. When doing serious roles, Depp turn into wood. Lebanese poplar, if I know my lumber. He just kind of stares into the middle distance because he's used to ooze charisma by just standing there chewing gum (see the TV show 21 Jumpstreet). Well, he's getting old and can't coast on his youthful good looks anymore. Too bad that's what his skill set relies upon. Yet he still makes money and there are people who actually think he's a good actor. I'm reminded of the piano player Ernie in Catcher In the Rye.

I'm not too sure what the name of the song was that he was playing when I came in, but whatever it was, he was really stinking it up. He was putting all these dumb, show-offy ripples in the high notes, and a lot of other very tricky stuff that gives me a pain in the ass. You should've heard the crowd, though, when he was finished. You would've puked. They went mad. They were exactly the same morons that laugh like hyenas in the movies at stuff that isn't funny. I swear to God, if I were a piano player or an actor or something and all those dopes thought I was terrific, I'd hate it. I wouldn't even want them to clap for me. People always clap for the wrong things. If I were a piano player, I'd play it in the goddam closet. Anyway, when he was finished, and everybody was clapping their heads off, old Ernie turned around on his stool and gave this very phony, humble bow. Like as if he was a helluva humble guy, besides being a terrific piano player. It was very phony--I mean him being such a big snob and all. In a funny way, though, I felt sort of sorry for him when he was finished. I don't even think he knows any more when he's playing right or not. It isn't all his fault. I partly blame all those dopes that clap their heads off--they'd foul up anybody, if you gave them a chance.

He doesn't know he's terrible because people keep telling him he's good. This is part of the reason why I don't make Youtube videos reviewing thirty year old video games. That and I'm pretty sure my voice is the brown noise.

So, yeah. Depp is terrible. Can't speak for Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. He might be a decent enough actor whose career will not recover from this. But these Disney action-adventure movies have been grating on me for a while now. I really hate Pirates. I hated Depp in that movie. I was expecting a swashbuckler and I got the foppish town drunk. The first sequel was better because it built on small things hinted at in the previous movie. But overall, they're just cynical crowd pleasers. They offer nothing deep or interesting, but they get asses in seats. That's all they really need to do, I suppose. Maybe turning Capt. Sparrow into a effeminate drunk was part of the plan, to not give us what we were expecting. To turn the genre on it's head. So they turned the Lone Ranger into a bumbling buffoon because they had already done the gay town drunk and made Tonto the real brains of the outfit. What next? Sherlock Holmes?

Oh, wait.

Difference is, that movie is actually enjoyable.

Jetsetneo:
Now, I can't name a Native American star who puts that part of themselves up front, but i don't know if thats yet ANOTHER problem with hollywood or what.

Name a Native American Actor. Just one.[/quote]This sounds like more of a problem with the industry than with The Lone Ranger. Apparently there AREN'T any Native American actors that would be capable to play the role in the studio's eyes.

Native American actors aren't exactly popping out of the woodwork. I guess you could have gone with http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0671567/ - Michael Peņa, but he's Mexican and not directly Native American but is frequently typecast as one.

CharlesCarmichael:

The Dubya:

....everyone loved the first Pirates Of The Caribbean movie.

The 63 Metacritic rating would tend to disagree with you

And the 79% critic rating/86% audience rating on RottenTomatoes (and the 8.0/10 on IMDB) would disagree with you.

Let's not play this game. It was generally well liked, it made tons of money, and it turned Depp into the A-lister he is today. People liked it. Moving on.

Why do you say POTC rehash like that's a bad thing? As stated I thought POTC was awesome, so if they try to recapture the same magic I say go for it! And I think they actually did a better job recapturing it here than they did in the actual sequels, which is really all I'm looking for.

Because it's reeks of uncreativity and laziness. It shows a basic misunderstanding of why people liked the first movie in the first place and what MADE the dynamic in the first film work in the first place and why it still resonates with people over a decade later. It just tries to Force The Issue and force lighting to strike twice under completely different circumstances, regardless if it makes sense or not. We've seen this dynamic and this type of film done before MUCH elsewhere, so what use do I have for an inferior copycat that's not even going to try to give me anything new? Why should you be rewarded for your lack of effort?

I use rehash in a negative connotation because they were trying to make THE SAME FILM as Pirates Of The Caribbean, rather than use the framework of that movie to springboard off into its own unique thing worthy of my dollars. Bioshock Infinite is the good kind of retread of previous entries, that uses its predecessors to create a completely new experience with its own identity while still keeping the recognizable spirit of a Bioshock game. Something like The Lone Ranger just checklists off badly done cliches ripped from other, better sources, hastily chucks elements of stuff to remind you of "Hey look, it's kinda like ______, ain't it?" and calls it a day.

If you liked it, fine. Technically SOMEONE has to enjoy it I guess. You'll probably forget mostly all about it in a month's time, but hey, more power to you. The rest of us however will hold out for something that looks like it actually gives a damn.

Does Johnny Depp even act anymore, or does he just show up, slather himself in makeup, and do his Emo Philips impression?

Mangod:

bificommander:
And here I was expecting a World War Z review. Funnily enough, one of the big criticism I have on that one was mentioned almost literally here: Why call it World War Z, when that name will only draw attention of the fans of the book. and since most of those fans are the typical escapist-crowd, who will find out that it's nothing like the source material BEFORE buying their tickets, it'll only piss them off and make sure they don't see it. So even if the movie is good on it's own merits (the judge is still out on that one I hear), the name recognition does nothing positive for your movie. Why not make it an original movie that drops the WWZ pretense.

Well, far as I get it (haven't read the book(s)), they're selling the WWZ movie as a prequel/origin story. Still, yeah, I can see why people, especially fans of the original source material, would be crying

I haven't read the books either, so I'll be fair to the movie adaptation of World War Z and say this....

It's still hot garbage on its own merits.

The Dubya:

CharlesCarmichael:

The Dubya:

....everyone loved the first Pirates Of The Caribbean movie.

The 63 Metacritic rating would tend to disagree with you

And the 79% critic rating/86% audience rating on RottenTomatoes (and the 8.0/10 on IMDB) would disagree with you.

Let's not play this game. It was generally well liked, it made tons of money, and it turned Depp into the A-lister he is today. People liked it. Moving on.

I just brought it up to show that it's demonstrably false that EVERYONE loved the first Pirates. Yeah, more people liked it than didn't, but that doesn't mean the latter didn't exist, especially among the critics. But I'm fine with moving on.

The Dubya:

The rest of us however will hold out for something that looks like it actually gives a damn.

So...wait, have you actually seen the movie? Or are you just going off of what the reviews have been saying?

I don't think its that big a deal that Johnny Depp plays tonto, isn't the point of acting to take on the role of someone you're not?

Eric Sachs? I don't get it.

CharlesCarmichael:

The Dubya:

The rest of us however will hold out for something that looks like it actually gives a damn.

So...wait, have you actually seen the movie? Or are you just going off of what the reviews have been saying?

Yeah I saw the dumbass thing.

Just not in theaters....

..........

Moviebob, how can you spoil a movie that has no story and it predictable as hell?

That being said... what was actually being spoiled? It's not like the thing from Iron Man 3, or something.

So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

the antithesis:

MB202:
Oh, and by the way Bob, you already pointed out that the Green Hornet was the Lone Ranger's relative in your review of the Green Hornet movie a few years back.

Yeah, but who remembers the Green Hornet movie? Much less the review.

I do, since I'm a dork like that. :P

The Dubya:

CharlesCarmichael:

The Dubya:

The rest of us however will hold out for something that looks like it actually gives a damn.

So...wait, have you actually seen the movie? Or are you just going off of what the reviews have been saying?

Yeah I saw the dumbass thing.

Just not in theaters....

..........

*shifty eyes*

Uh...Huh... Well if you're that type, then I can see we're going to have some difficulties connecting on the same level. But OK, you ask why they should be rewarded for making the same movie, let's look into that (leaving aside the fact that critics aren't saying "It's the same movie as POTC and therefore bad," but rather "It's bad on its own").

Sequels that try to copy the formula of the original movie while still keeping continuity with the original are bad because it forces you to hit Reset on any character development that may have happened in the first movie (see: MIB 2). They're the same characters, ostensibly older and wiser, but they're still doing the same old stuff.

Productions that try to copy what made an original good but in a new setting, on the other hand, are not inherently good or bad. Do you decry as 'lazy' any movie that, say, uses Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet as their template (even ignoring the ones that do direct 1-to-1 translations)? Whatever you may say about it, 10 Things I Hate About You wouldn't be described as 'ripping off' Shakespeare.

If you want a springboard off into new directions, then that is the realm of actual sequels. Empire Strikes Back is still Star Wars, but it obviously isn't the same formula as A New Hope. But you can't 'springboard' a franchise off a completely different franchise. Why should one see the Lone Ranger instead of POTC again? Because, as a new franchise in a new setting with similar but not identical characters, it has the freedom to go off in new directions once this baseline is set.

Seldon2639:
So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

That's cherry picking, there have been many Native American Groups speaking out against the casting of Johnny Depp. Some are okay with it and that's fine but some are not and I am will to bet some of them will be Native American actors.

As for Bob; aye he did get very angry and I can understand why and as I have said there have been Native Americans also getting angry. Just because bob is not a Native American does not mean he can not comment or express his dislike (or like) of the casting choice and as a film critic I would expect him to do so.

MB202:

the antithesis:

MB202:
Oh, and by the way Bob, you already pointed out that the Green Hornet was the Lone Ranger's relative in your review of the Green Hornet movie a few years back.

Yeah, but who remembers the Green Hornet movie? Much less the review.

I do, since I'm a dork like that. :P

Would have been nice if both movies were any good. Also would have been nice if both movies were made by the same company so they could play off this connection. Maybe using the same actor as the Ranger and Hornet. That would be kind of nice.

Seldon2639:
So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

Clearly those Native American tribes are racist and need Movie Bob to enlighten them (sarcasm).

Thank you much for pointing this out.

This centuries 90's period came quite early it seems. Everything is DARK and HIGH OCTANE ACTION!

Everything is also incredibly boring, I didn't grow up with the Lone Ranger but even I am outraged at this horseshit, you could have made a nice action movie with this but instead money grubbing executives once again felt they had to pick up a pen and write a mandated script.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.820668-The-Big-Picture-With-Great-Power?page=13

case in point.

Magog1:
I'd like to point this out before friday about this new enlightened kinder gentler bob,

I'm full expecting him to tare into the long ranger.... cause he will
likely have a bugg up his ass about dep getting in his opinion to much work.

I could be wrong.. but if i'm right...

this will be a case of bob asking us to do something he couldn't stomach himself.

Great responsibility my ass
he's the mouth piece here.
the major responsibility is on him

Bob... you are a dull, and predictable.

freakonaleash:
I don't think its that big a deal that Johnny Depp plays tonto, isn't the point of acting to take on the role of someone you're not?

Yeah but it's only okay if you're not white, apparently.

CharlesCarmichael:

Sequels that try to copy the formula of the original movie while still keeping continuity with the original are bad because it forces you to hit Reset on any character development that may have happened in the first movie (see: MIB 2). They're the same characters, ostensibly older and wiser, but they're still doing the same old stuff.

Good example. Go on...

CharlesCarmichael:
Productions that try to copy what made an original good but in a new setting, on the other hand, are not inherently good or bad. Do you decry as 'lazy' any movie that, say, uses Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet as their template (even ignoring the ones that do direct 1-to-1 translations)? Whatever you may say about it, 10 Things I Hate About You wouldn't be described as 'ripping off' Shakespeare.

Well at least you scored one point.

Well for starters, yes I would still call something 10 Things I Hate About You and similar 90's teen dramas like that pretty lame. But Shakesphere's stories are simple and universal enough that they can be recontextualized to fit different settings/periods of the times and still feel natural and realistic. It's the THEMES of his stories that people use to make workable adaptations for modern era retellings, not necessarily the plot beats/specific characters themselves.

Pirates of the Caribbean ain't Shakespere, let's just put it that way. And I'm not even saying it in a good or bad way.

POTC is its own world with its own unique rules and its own unique sensibilities. It has its own unique characters that make sense to inhabit this world and for the story they were telling. Everything is tight and clear and focused and works WITH one another to make it a reasonable reality to immerse oneself/get invested in. You take one or a few elements out and you get a completely different film. You try to copypasta this character into another world, it's just going to feel out of place because they were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to work in their world, not anyone elses. You lose what unique characteristics they brought to the table and you just end up with a watered down fanfic'd shell that's only there to pander.

Like you gave the example of A Good Day To Die Hard: The John McClane of that movie is just a pandering watered down version of everything you loved about the original guy. Now he's just a hollow fanfic character that does actiony stuff tangentially related to Die Hard in the most shallow ways possible.

Dramas like Shakesphere's works (and others) are broader and tend to be able to be more flexible. Genre films are more about the specific details to create a new workable universe, so they have less leeway to bend without breaking.

CharlesCharmichael:
If you want a springboard off into new directions, then that is the realm of actual sequels. Empire Strikes Back is still Star Wars, but it obviously isn't the same formula as A New Hope.

Or.

That's what we simply call "a progression of story." The second part of a three part story. That's like...basic logic dude. ESB is clearly a direct sequel of ANH, DOES still follow the Hero's Journey formula very closely despite its cliffhanger-ish ending, and certainly isn't the same as a tangential spinoff like the Bioshock: Infinite example.

But you can't 'springboard' a franchise off a completely different franchise.

My point exactly.

Why should one see the Lone Ranger instead of POTC again? Because, as a new franchise in a new setting with similar but not identical characters, it has the freedom to go off in new directions once this baseline is set.

New directions.....that's a good one. LAWLZ.

Okay so riddle me this if you will, mi amigo:

Why did The Lone Ranger HAVE to be similar to Pirates of The Caribbean? Why COULDN'T it have its own distinct framework to tell its own story? Why couldn't have actually been about, ya know, THE LONE RANGER doing distinct Lone Ranger stuff? Why do we have to bring in elements of other properties instead of relying on what made Lone Ranger uniquely the Lone Ranger in the first place? Keep the heart of The Lone Ranger intact, update it a bit if you want to fit modern times or have a fun throwback homage, and just have a simple tale like that. What's the point of trying to combine two distinctly different franchises together for little to no apparent reason (other than the obvious: well it's KINDA like _____ so you'll like us naow, right?!")

That what it boils down to, really. The heart of this movie isn't real. It isn't genuine. It wasn't made because of an appreciation for The Lone Ranger. It's deceptive, fake, and phony; cynically produced to dupe a few of the less discerning members of the audience. It was made because they didn't have any new ideas/people are getting sick of the BS the actual POTC series is doing, and thought they could get away with giving the same turd a different paint job. I'm basically being LIED to; I go in wanting to see one movie but instead get you constantly reminding me of a better movie I could be watching instead of a half-assed redo. Dumbass move.

I can take underwhelming movies and even flat out bad movies if its heart is in the right place. But if you were already cynically produced AND you suck at it to boot, then fuck you Lone Ranger Of The Caribbean. My money's staying right in my pocket and you deserve to tank.

Magog1:
saw this movie with my family.

Everyone liked it.

The whole audience liked it. No one boed. Great responsibility, huh bob>? I predicted yesterday you'd just go back to being a douche in your last big picture. Go look.

you did. anyone can see coming from 2 miles away. Dear God do you suck

Was any of that SUPPOSED to make sense, or is this some kind of new avant-garde forum speak I'm not up to date on?

Mr. Q:
Given the fact that casting Johnny Depp as Tonto is perhaps the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas from Hollywood, I don't blame Bob for spoiling the hell out of this

Problem is, it probably won't tank. Not that it will set box offices ablaze or anything, but it has all the right pieces (as Bob points out via Smithers and Burns) to attract the lowest common denominator crowd. Even quasi-movie-buffs will notice that the first Pirates movie worked best, partly because Orlando Bloom played a proper straight-man to balance out Depp's antics, and as such, might Army Ham might fill the same role here.

I do hope it tanks. But I feel it's much more likely that it does decent business, and we get a sequel... or just another movie with Depp in a silly hat.

The Dubya:

Why did The Lone Ranger HAVE to be similar to Pirates of The Caribbean? Why COULDN'T it have its own distinct framework to tell its own story? Why couldn't have actually been about, ya know, THE LONE RANGER doing distinct Lone Ranger stuff? Why do we have to bring in elements of other properties instead of relying on what made Lone Ranger uniquely the Lone Ranger in the first place? Keep the heart of The Lone Ranger intact, update it a bit if you want to fit modern times or have a fun throwback homage, and just have a simple tale like that. What's the point of trying to combine two distinctly different franchises together for little to no apparent reason (other than the obvious: well it's KINDA like _____ so you'll like us naow, right?!")

Hmm, I think we may be approaching the heart of the issue. I have no experience with the Lone Ranger, beyond being aware of the characters' names, the silver bullets, and the William Tell Overture. So coming into it I had no conception of what a Lone Ranger movie 'should' be. So POTC meets Spaghetti Western with shades of Chinatown was 100% fine with me. You, apparently, have in your mind what 'Lone Ranger: The Movie' should be (most likely based on the TV show), and when you got themes of POTC you rejected the disparity.

That's a perfectly valid perspective, especially nowadays with lots of games following the same trajectory of taking the themes old games and slapping them on new mechanics; Syndicate is an example of a game that does this poorly, Fallout 3 is an example of a game that does it well. But like Fallout, just because it's a bad 'Lone Ranger Movie' (whatever that means) doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

tdylan:
I feel compelled to ask:

People complained about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. They were greeted with "stop being so closed-minded! it's just a movie and Idris is a great actor."

Johnny Depp plays Tonto, and it's extremely racist. Please don't get me wrong. When I heard Idris was playing Hemidall I knew people would get offended, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Some made the argument "what if they got a white man to play John Shaft?" and I think it's valid.

With Depp playing Tonto, I again expected this negativity, but can anyone explain the double standard?

Heimdall's character is not defined by his race/skin tone. He is the guardian of the Bifrost and Asgard. Tonto on the other hand is defined partially by his ethnicity as a Native American, like how the Prince of Persia is you know, Persian. John Shaft is defined by his race. It's central to understanding him as a character as a inner-city cop at the crossroad of the economic struggles by those in the black community and the system dictated/created by white people. Those last three each share a part of their cultural heritage as a fragment of their character. Heimdall is Asgardian, an alien, skin tone is rather less important.

And the whole for every minority role in the media today there are dozens of white roles, even when the character's skin color doesn't matter so shifting in favor of a minority is far less important than shifting away from roles for actors in the minority.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here