NOTE: Brief spoilers.
The idea seemed bulletproof. Disney would bring back the creative team behind their famous Pirates of the Caribbean franchise: director Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and actor Johnny Depp. At a press event, former head of Studio Production, Dick Cook announced Disney’s intention to produce a new Lone Ranger film to great fanfare with Johnny Depp stepping on stage in full Jack Sparrow attire with a Lone Ranger mask on with a local high school band performing the “William Tell Overture”.
Unfortunately, the script that was being developed had only the “Overture” to do with what the public knew about the characters of the Lone Ranger and his faithful Native American sidekick, Tonto. Depp reportedly wanted the film to be Hollywood’s apology to Native Americans as he himself is 1/16th Cherokee Indian. Though heavily denied by the filmmakers, the initial drafts had darker elements to the film including having villain Butch Cavendish shape-shift into the Native American equivalent of a werewolf, which would be the film’s explanation for the silver bullets that the Lone Ranger carries. Disney was quietly worrying that the film was wandering so far away from the radio and television show that people knew well.
 |
| "I won an Oscar for turning Johnny Depp into a talking lizard. Turning him into a Native American oughta get me a Nobel prize!" |
Or… at least pulled the plug. For one weekend. Claiming they needed time to strategize going forward with the idea, Disney found themselves at the epicenter of a massive conspiracy theory. The two schools of thought:
1. Verbinski, furious with the treatment Disney was giving him (after giving them a billion-dollar franchise with Pirates and winning an Oscar for Rango), leaked the drama to Deadline Hollywood writer Mike Fleming.
2. Someone from within Rich Ross’ own office accidentally snitched Disney’s plans to non-reputable sources.
For one weekend, Disney was clamored with phone calls, demanding updates. Unfortunately, this was a holiday weekend and no one was at their offices. In fact, the only person that reporters managed to get on the line was Johnny Depp himself. Calming the waves, Depp assured reporters the film would still get made. When the heads of Disney returned to their desks horrified at the reaction, they immediately set about trying to get the film back up and running. After taking off 20% of their own salaries, Verbinski, Depp and Bruckheimer pleased Disney enough for them to green-light The Lone Ranger.
Despite having their release date changed frequently and a crew member fatally drowning on set, The Lone Ranger came out just as Disney had wanted. And… the public and critics were ready to eviscerate it. The film opened to just below $30 million in its opening weekend and received a 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Many were comparing the film to John Carter, in terms of box office shame and studio marketing idiocy. It even won a Razzie for “Worst Prequel, Remake, Ripoff or Sequel”. The filmmakers attempted to decry the critics’ hate-filled opinions as an attack on how large their budget was. Surprisingly, one of the film’s supporters was Quentin Tarantino who remarked, “When I saw it, I kept thinking, ‘What, that’s the film everybody says is crap? Seriously?’”
That is enough from me talking about the behind-the-scenes stuff I enjoy dearly. Everything else but the movie aside, what is wrong with it? First and foremost, the film cannot commit to its lead characters as serious heroes. Oddly enough, this was the same main problem with The Green Hornet, another film from the creators of “The Lone Ranger” (George W. Trendle and Fran Striker) and also starring Tom Wilkinson in an antagonistic role. The question I pose to the filmmakers is this: “If you are embarrassed to make a movie about the Lone Ranger, an American icon who has existed for almost 80 years and is a part of the pop culture lexicon, to the point where you have to make fun of everything the character stands for, why even make the movie?” Yes, branding. I get it. But it doesn’t work if the character you’re branding is almost completely different than what the audience has in their mindset. As created by Trendle and Striker, the Lone Ranger is a kind-hearted, polite, well-meaning action hero who prefers to use his mind to solve problems rather than his fists or his pistols. He will protect the town he resides in while not allowing himself to be captured by the local police believing himself to be working alongside them.
The second biggest problem I have with the film is one scene in particular. While Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) goes to investigate what has happened to John Reid (Armie Hammer) on the train, she leaves her young son holding a gun at a guard. A Disney movie where a kid holds a gun on an adult. This leads to a somewhat unnerving scene where three adults have to talk down an emotionally destroyed kid - who just learned his father was violently murdered - out of killing someone. In a Disney movie. Verbinski is no stranger to making films for families: his first film was the wacky Nathan Lane comedy Mouse Hunt. But there is another film that was clearly not made for families that had the sense to not put a gun in the hands of a kid - Terminator 2: Judgment Day. On the audio commentary, director James Cameron made it clear that John Connor (Edward Furlong) never holds a gun at anyone; however, because of his training to be a military leader, he shows that Sarah has taught him how to reload weapons which helps them in their escape from the T-1000.
All in all, The Lone Ranger is yet another example of what happens when a studio exec buys a property thinking it'll be perfect for a franchise, gets fired and leaves a studio in disarray trying to figure out how to market said film. It's not an unwatchable film by any means, but it just does not have what the public expects a "Lone Ranger" movie to be. Are these bygone characters that don't work anymore in the 21st century? Maybe. Superheroes that were created around the same time still exist and are box office bonanzas. Disney still managed to use these characters in their popular video game "Disney Infinity" (with Armie Hammer reprising his role). It's all about the respect that a filmmaker/production company/studio gives a property. If they don't care, we don't care. It's just that simple.
P.S.:
2. Someone from within Rich Ross’ own office accidentally snitched Disney’s plans to non-reputable sources.
 |
| "All I see are dollar signs." |
Despite having their release date changed frequently and a crew member fatally drowning on set, The Lone Ranger came out just as Disney had wanted. And… the public and critics were ready to eviscerate it. The film opened to just below $30 million in its opening weekend and received a 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Many were comparing the film to John Carter, in terms of box office shame and studio marketing idiocy. It even won a Razzie for “Worst Prequel, Remake, Ripoff or Sequel”. The filmmakers attempted to decry the critics’ hate-filled opinions as an attack on how large their budget was. Surprisingly, one of the film’s supporters was Quentin Tarantino who remarked, “When I saw it, I kept thinking, ‘What, that’s the film everybody says is crap? Seriously?’”
That is enough from me talking about the behind-the-scenes stuff I enjoy dearly. Everything else but the movie aside, what is wrong with it? First and foremost, the film cannot commit to its lead characters as serious heroes. Oddly enough, this was the same main problem with The Green Hornet, another film from the creators of “The Lone Ranger” (George W. Trendle and Fran Striker) and also starring Tom Wilkinson in an antagonistic role. The question I pose to the filmmakers is this: “If you are embarrassed to make a movie about the Lone Ranger, an American icon who has existed for almost 80 years and is a part of the pop culture lexicon, to the point where you have to make fun of everything the character stands for, why even make the movie?” Yes, branding. I get it. But it doesn’t work if the character you’re branding is almost completely different than what the audience has in their mindset. As created by Trendle and Striker, the Lone Ranger is a kind-hearted, polite, well-meaning action hero who prefers to use his mind to solve problems rather than his fists or his pistols. He will protect the town he resides in while not allowing himself to be captured by the local police believing himself to be working alongside them.
The second biggest problem I have with the film is one scene in particular. While Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) goes to investigate what has happened to John Reid (Armie Hammer) on the train, she leaves her young son holding a gun at a guard. A Disney movie where a kid holds a gun on an adult. This leads to a somewhat unnerving scene where three adults have to talk down an emotionally destroyed kid - who just learned his father was violently murdered - out of killing someone. In a Disney movie. Verbinski is no stranger to making films for families: his first film was the wacky Nathan Lane comedy Mouse Hunt. But there is another film that was clearly not made for families that had the sense to not put a gun in the hands of a kid - Terminator 2: Judgment Day. On the audio commentary, director James Cameron made it clear that John Connor (Edward Furlong) never holds a gun at anyone; however, because of his training to be a military leader, he shows that Sarah has taught him how to reload weapons which helps them in their escape from the T-1000.
All in all, The Lone Ranger is yet another example of what happens when a studio exec buys a property thinking it'll be perfect for a franchise, gets fired and leaves a studio in disarray trying to figure out how to market said film. It's not an unwatchable film by any means, but it just does not have what the public expects a "Lone Ranger" movie to be. Are these bygone characters that don't work anymore in the 21st century? Maybe. Superheroes that were created around the same time still exist and are box office bonanzas. Disney still managed to use these characters in their popular video game "Disney Infinity" (with Armie Hammer reprising his role). It's all about the respect that a filmmaker/production company/studio gives a property. If they don't care, we don't care. It's just that simple.
P.S.:
No comments:
Post a Comment