Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 17:35:48 GMT -5
Something that also made me think: who the **** is Armie Hammer to be complaining about this kind of thing? Isn't this, like, his 2nd big movie (he played Leo's guy-pal in J.EDGAR)? And even though he played the Lone Ranger, he was hardly the perceived lead...... Just be happy Arm & Hammer hasn't sued you yet, dude. Meanwhile, I picture Depp sitting in France sipping on wine sitting atop piles of money, dead hookers and 40 Tim Burton scripts as he speaks in some accent that's not really his..... Armie's great-grandfather was on the board of directors for the company that made Arm&Hammer. The product had been around before he was born, but still Armie has ties to the company that makes it, doubt they will sue. Seriously. I just got schooled and I'm so glad for it. That's some awesome sh*t to know.
|
|
|
Post by wallabylikeyou on Aug 6, 2013 17:37:39 GMT -5
Seriously, apart from the Depp-fatigue, apart from the whitewashing, apart from the negative press-I don't think audiences care about an old character like the Lone Ranger. It was a similar deal with John Carter, a lot of problems around it but at the core not enough people care about an old character. You think they would have learned their lesson with The Shadow back in the 90's. Ok, I'm thinking I'm gonna enjoy THE LONE RANGER now. Because I loved - LOVED - JOHN CARTER (currently reading the books - love 'em). I loved THE SHADOW. And THE PHANTOM. That pulp era is tricky - enjoyable as all hell, but not sure vast mainstream audiences would give even half a sh*t. While I'd love to see a new DICK TRACY or BUCK ROGERS, I fear they'd suffer because the kind of film-making that needs to bring them to life....something older, not as flashy & new....is not really around anymore. ......this is why comic books exist. Hey if it's your jam, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 6, 2013 17:39:55 GMT -5
Seriously, apart from the Depp-fatigue, apart from the whitewashing, apart from the negative press-I don't think audiences care about an old character like the Lone Ranger. It was a similar deal with John Carter, a lot of problems around it but at the core not enough people care about an old character. You think they would have learned their lesson with The Shadow back in the 90's. Ok, I'm thinking I'm gonna enjoy THE LONE RANGER now. Because I loved - LOVED - JOHN CARTER (currently reading the books - love 'em). I loved THE SHADOW. And THE PHANTOM. That pulp era is tricky - enjoyable as all hell, but not sure vast mainstream audiences would give even half a sh*t. While I'd love to see a new DICK TRACY or BUCK ROGERS, I fear they'd suffer because the kind of film-making that needs to bring them to life....something older, not as flashy & new....is not really around anymore. ......this is why comic books exist. Here is the thing with John Carter. I watched the movie and at the time, I thought it was okay. Then when I read the books, I looked back on the film and oh boy, was I pissed off at the film.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,586
|
Post by Bo Rida on Aug 6, 2013 17:53:06 GMT -5
To be honest he's got a point with the whole Schadenfreude thing, people increasingly seem to want things to fail, you see it with struggling retail chains, Nintendo, TNA, certain celebrities, sports teams etc. In the movie world there was a time the sharks seemed to be circling Avatar. www.nbcconnecticut.com/entertainment/movies/Avatar-Might-Be-The-Longest-Biggest-Flop-Ever-78773732.htmlI suppose the difference is people are willing to change their minds if something is good enough, sadly for the people involved in The Lone Ranger it appears their movie wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Aug 17, 2013 19:02:16 GMT -5
I saw the film tonight.
It's actually a really good action western adventure. Characters are well developed, plot is effective, Depp is good as tonto and Arnie Hammer is good as the Lone Ranger.
I'd give 4 out of 5 and I am no longer going to pay attention to critics.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 17, 2013 19:17:58 GMT -5
Here's the thing with criticism.
Of course taste is going to be up to the individual, and someones likes/dislikes are going to be subjective.
At the same time, there are areas in terms of quality, whether it's plot, dialogue, characterization, etc that are always gonna be able to be criticized completely objectively and fairly.
Where people get confused, fans and actors, and even critics alike, is forgetting that the two things aren't really intertwined.
You can love a film, and still recognize any legitimate flaws, or you can look at a work that's probably not great quality wise and still recognize where it might be enjoyable.
It's not all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Aug 17, 2013 19:26:12 GMT -5
Here's the thing with criticism. Of course taste is going to be up to the individual, and someones likes/dislikes are going to be subjective. At the same time, there are areas in terms of quality, whether it's plot, dialogue, characterization, etc that are always gonna be able to be criticized completely objectively and fairly. Where people get confused, fans and actors, and even critics alike, is forgetting that the two things aren't really intertwined. You can love a film, and still recognize any legitimate flaws, or you can look at a work that's probably not great quality wise and still recognize where it might be enjoyable. It's not all or nothing. Bingo. For example, Street Fighter is a dumb as hell movie, I still enjoy the hell out of it, cause it is goofy fun to me, but objectively speaking it is pretty horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Aug 18, 2013 17:10:06 GMT -5
Here's the thing with criticism. Of course taste is going to be up to the individual, and someones likes/dislikes are going to be subjective. At the same time, there are areas in terms of quality, whether it's plot, dialogue, characterization, etc that are always gonna be able to be criticized completely objectively and fairly. Where people get confused, fans and actors, and even critics alike, is forgetting that the two things aren't really intertwined. You can love a film, and still recognize any legitimate flaws, or you can look at a work that's probably not great quality wise and still recognize where it might be enjoyable. It's not all or nothing. Bingo. For example, Street Fighter is a dumb as hell movie, I still enjoy the hell out of it, cause it is goofy fun to me, but objectively speaking it is pretty horrible. Street Fighter should shown to every theater student serious about getting into film, if only to take notes from Raul Julia about how to make the best of a bad situation.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Aug 18, 2013 17:14:51 GMT -5
Bingo. For example, Street Fighter is a dumb as hell movie, I still enjoy the hell out of it, cause it is goofy fun to me, but objectively speaking it is pretty horrible. Street Fighter should shown to every theater student serious about getting into film, if only to take notes from Raul Julia about how to make the best of a bad situation. He owned the f*** out of his role as Bison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 17:15:57 GMT -5
The Lone Ranger bombed because nobody cared about The Lone Ranger.
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Aug 18, 2013 17:25:21 GMT -5
I want to see this movie but wasnt going to pay to see it in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 18, 2013 17:29:35 GMT -5
Street Fighter should shown to every theater student serious about getting into film, if only to take notes from Raul Julia about how to make the best of a bad situation. He owned the f*** out of his role as Bison. Well, if you consider this day the alternative being M. Bison from Street Fighter: Legend of Chun Li, you're damn right Raul Julia is going to be the better Bison. Also, you could see that Julia tried to give his kids the M. Bison they would know since that is the reason he did the film.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 18, 2013 17:51:16 GMT -5
The Lone Ranger bombed because nobody cared about The Lone Ranger. Not really, cause people can grow to care about people they don't know about if you build a movie to set up that purpose. It's the fault of the writers that they couldn't get anyone to care about a hero like The Lone Ranger, mostly cause they turned him into a utter wimp for most of the film.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 19, 2013 7:11:58 GMT -5
Has there ever been one of these old serials/pulps that has been successfully revived for new audiences and spawned a franchise?
The Rocketeer - Bombed The Phantom - Bombed The Shadow - Bombed The Green Hornet - Disappointment The Lone Ranger - Bombed twice
I guess you could make an argument for Zorro, as that had a successful revival, but eventually that fizzled again as well. It just seems like all of these attempts to revive these characters fail.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Aug 19, 2013 7:20:26 GMT -5
Having just recently seen the movie, I feel the same way I did about John Carter; the movie was okay, but for how long it was at times there was a whole lot of nothing going around and it hurt the film a little. The love interest in the movie was also completely pointless... and I mean REALLY pointless as she and Armie probably share a grand total of 5 minutes on screen together if that.
How they wrote the Lone Ranger as well kind of made it hard to like him at times as he pretty much complains the entire movie. Some of the comedy was really forced though I admit I laughed at a few things (When the Ranger says Hi Ho Silver Away and Tonto just goes Never do that again).
But to repeat, the biggest issue was trying to extend the movie into an epic making it way too long rather than just making a movie hurt it the most (if that makes sense)
|
|