Remember way back in the day ...maybe 15 or 20 years ago... when you went to a movie because you wanted to do see it. When the average viewer didn't give a shit whether it was "poised" to make $75 million during its opening weekend or not? When your grandmother and the mailman didn't discuss box office numbers in relation to quality? "Well, I read in the USA Today that such and such is going to be a huge bomb."
Seems like such a more fun, simpler time.
Why should I, the average movie-goer with no real investment in the product of movie making give a flying fuck what the grosses are?
If you want to see The Lone Ranger, go fucking see The Lone Ranger and don't worry that everyone else in your office went to see Despicable Me 2.
Movies will still be made. Johnny Depp will work again. The Earth will continue to spin.
Ugh, Despicable Me 2 and The Lone Ranger
"Would you like me to heat up the shit before I drop it in your mouth, or would you like it right from my ass?"
It's 12 freaking PM and they're already declaring it a flop.
R3 = Tim Burton
No one under 50 knows who the Lone Ranger and Tonto are.
Will this FINALLY be the end of Depp's heyday? I'm so tired of him and don't understand the hype about him.
How in the world can someone so wealthy look so addicted to drugs? And dissipated?
With all of that cash you would think that Depp could hire a good nutritionist, trainer, make up artist, and doctor to look healthy and virile.
He looks like the richest, most impotent street addict of all time.
Johnny Depp does not strike me as being particularly intelligent. I'm tired of his blandness.
I did not know that the "in" thing for 50 year old rich men was to look like shit.
Dear God... what would it take to get me to a theatre this July 4 weekend. THOSE are the options?
When will they learn... you cast stud Armie Hammer, you better at least get him out of his clothes, show some butt cheeks, at least have him bound and gagged for the fetish market... WHO did they make this dumb movie for?
I really doubt that Depp will be "ruined" by this. If someone has to take a fall for it, I'm sure they'll be happy to push the blame onto Armie Hammer. Which is a shame because he's probably the least responsible of the big names involved.
Where can I get myself one of those crow-wing hats?
The trailer looked terrible. Not surprised this is flopping.
It might have been more appropriate to say "Lone Ranger Opens to Despicable Numbers."
This is Depp's 2nd blockbuster bomb in a row. Dark Shadows was the summer flop from last year. And before that there was The Tourist and Rum Diaries.
I think it's fairly apparent that people will only line up to see Depp play a drunken pirate and that's it. I can't believe movie execs think he can open just any movie. People are sick of him.
I don't know why everyone is so surprised Despicable Me 2 is probably going to beat it. That movie was strangely popular among teenagers and twentysomethings when it came out.
What, exactly, is "**DEVELOPING**"? Nothing story about a nothing movie with a nothing actor. Who gives a flying fuck? Nothing is "**DEVELOPING**" here.
[quote]Remember way back in the day ...maybe 15 or 20 years ago... when you went to a movie because you wanted to do see it.
Sorry, but that time never really existed, at least not 15 or 20 years ago. Movies like Heaven's Gate, Ishtar, Leonard Part 6, and Hudson Hawk received the same sort of advance beating that Lone Ranger is getting, maybe worse.
If ever a movie was dead on arrival it was Waterworld.
It's the schadenfreude movie opening troll.
R17, it means that the reports are starting to come in that no one is interested in seeing The Lone Ranger.
Although I have zero interest in this film, theatres are gouging moviegoers. I went in the last month to something that was in 3D. It cost an additional $3.50 bringing the movie ticket to $13. The cost of a drink and popcorn was about the same price. I paid for my brother so it ended up costing me $50. This seems extreme.
Armie Hammer can't carry a movie.
Wasn't there a Lone Ranger flick a few years ago that went nowhere fast? Why greenlight this one?
He's failed to capitalize on the buzz he got from The Social Network. It's been one bad movie choice after another.
Wasn't this film finished a year and a half ago but not released then because it looked like a bomb to studio executives?
Good. Glad to know its bombing.
I've always been a Lone Ranger fan, but was turned off just by seeing the trailers. Not interested in seeing a Pirates of the Caribbean version of the Lone Ranger.
Seems that the rest of America feels the same way.
I don't think this can be blamed on Armie. He's the only thing about it that interests me. The cons other than him are just so staggering enormous that he doesn't stand a chance. Depp alone has me running in the other direction, but that trailer, oh my god, you can tell it thinks the key to capturing the audience's attention is just to get louder and louder. The fucking thing gave me a headache at two minutes long.
I think Hammer will come out of this unscathed, R11, Depp and Verbinski will take the fall for this one, and Verbinski may feel it the most. Hollywood will assume he can't do anything but "Pirates" style films, and audiences are tired of them now.
Damn, I used to love Depp, and I hope he takes this as a wake-up call! Put down the face paint and the wine glass, dude, and start taking your job seriously again.
From the OPs sheer glee at a movie's poor box office, you just KNOW he waits tables.
I wanted to see this based on the trailer but decided not to because I was concerned that it would be hurtful to Native Americans.
Anyone else notice all the comments on the internet defending Depp because "he IS part Native American" so its OK?
Maybe DataLounge has made me cynical and bitter, but they look like PR posts to me.
If he is in fact "part Cherokee" (doubt it) then he would know that the Cherokees were slave owners of black people and he would hang his head in shame, then make reparations.
I can't stand Johnny Depp. I'm glad his piece of shit movie flopped. I'm sick of seeing him all done up in elaborate makeup and costumes.
I never liked him. He's always struck me as someone who has something...missing. He has a disturbing lack of affect; he seems emotionless and empty. A weird, weird guy.
R15 you conveniently forgot Alice in Wonderland, which was a huge hit.
It's currently at 12% among top critics at Rotten Tomatoes. "Execrable." "Overstuffed." "Slapdash." "Vulgar flapdoodle." "Jarringly misanthropic." "There's no shame in getting upstaged by Johnny Depp. Coming up third behind a dead crow, however, signals trouble." "Lone Ranger creators George W. Trendle and Fran Striker are surely doing pinwheels in their respective graves." "I mean, no wonder Depp's in disguise. No wonder Hammer wears a mask. Wouldn't you?" Yikes!
Being a junkie for 25 years will do that, R34.
r30, I'm a bitter, cynical cunt and I hate Hollywood as much as anyone. I'm nowhere near a table jockey.
Depp is nothing but a marginally talent culture vulture who was smart enough to steal the looks from underground/scene people like Al Jourgensen. Once he became famous, all the usual suspects buried his serious fuck-ups and made their careers on his.
He's the David Bowie of Hollywood.
I've had problems with him since I started paying attention to his Hunter S Thompson fixation. I think there's major weirdness just under the surface there, and I predict a bad ending to his story.
It would have been a better movie if the part of Tonto had gone to Bobby Trendy
This is actually a very well-made little film. I can see why people are so down on it, because it's such a by-the-books Syd Field Hollywood picture with so many Western cliches in it and the things that are special about it are so subtle and arcane. One thing that really surprised me is how much of it is an homage to Buster Keaton. Johnny Depp is basically doing a variation on Buster's Stone Face character (I think the black and white face makeup is part of this) and there are a number of sight gags straight out of Keatonland, including a massive homage to "The General." All of which is probably not going to make much of an impression on a moviegoing public who don't know Keaton from a hole in the ground, but I think what they did with this film is very cool.
Stealing material from Buster Keaton is not doing homage to him.
This is one of the worst Fourth of July weekends for movies in a long time.
How has this guy lasted so long in the business? He is not a good actor at all and has no personality in interview and always has a bitchface. Not likeable at all. And he always looks dirty and unkempt.
So why is he still getting lead roles? Hopefully this movie will be the start of his career decline.
[quote] This is actually a very well-made little film.
All 2 and a half hours, at a budget of $250 million. We're hardly talking Dogme 95.
[quote]Armie Hammer can't carry a movie
But he can carry me to his bedroom anytime!
What's with all these movies with these movies lately with $200+ million dollar budgets? Do they not realize that special effects aren't going to distract people if the script and the acting sucks?
It should have been the Blone Ranger with Mr. Denzel Washington as the title character. This bladaptation would also tackle Tonto's alcoholism head on.
Wasn't WWZ supposed to be the big dud of the summer?
[quote]No one under 50 knows who the Lone Ranger and Tonto are.
I do. I still have no interest in seeing this. Maybe it's because I can remember when every movie wasn't one big cliche of wall-to-wall explosions and CGI-overload.
Honey, if they could predict duds accurately then only successful movies would ever be released.
Cowboy and Indian genre don't seem to do very well. John Carter flopped last year. Second flop for Disney 2 years in a row.
Lone Ranger was before my time. It doesn't all that interesting.
I am shocked that a rival studio didn't see the weakness of this epic holiday weekend with Lone Ranger at bat and move their pic to this weekend. Despicable Me 2 would do well, but there is no real adult option out there that is opening beside LR.
I can see why this film isn't pulling in the crowds but I think it has a potential for a home video cult following. Tonto is a vintage weird little Goth guy Johnny Depp character, and I can imagine in a few years girls with black nail polish will be walking around with Tonto backpacks and smartphone covers.
[quote]I am shocked that a rival studio didn't see the weakness of this epic holiday weekend with Lone Ranger at bat and move their pic to this weekend. Despicable Me 2 would do well, but there is no real adult option out there that is opening beside LR.
Tell me about it. It's hot as hell here in New York and I would have loved to have seen in a move in a nice air conditioned theater, but there's nothing to see.
I am with you, r56. What about the Zombie Brad Pitt film? Have you seen that?
I saw the first two thirds of Lone Ranger, and then movie hopped to World War Z. I sincerely wish I hadn't. Lone Ranger wasn't special, but it wasn't bad either. I enjoyed what I watched. It really was very Pirates of the Caribbean in the old west. Depp was bearable, the horse had some funny moments, and, to me at least, Armie Hammer did a respectable job.
World War Z, on the other had, had absolutely no redeeming value.
[quote]He's the David Bowie of Hollywood.
Without all that talent, surely.
World War Z has absolutely nothing to do with the book other than the title and a couple of lines of dialogue the (many) writers borrowed.
It's an okay movie on its own terms with a couple of good set pieces (the opening, Israel, and a plane), but the ending was clearly written by Lindelof of Lost and Prometheus fame and is totally preposterous and not worthy of the rest of it.
It was obviously quite expensive, and not quite as ham fisted as I expected other than the terrible ending.
Also, the zombies are not zombies in World War Z, more of the 28 Days later type of zombies that run very fast and act more like big cats of the the African veldt than anything else, leaping on people, etc. They don't eat flesh, they just bite once and spread a rabies-like virus. They aren't inherently scary. The director is clearly mirroring images of ants and animals that work in tandem, which can be interesting, but is not really scary since it stretches plausibility that even infected, human bodies would ever be able to function that way.
Also, other than scenes of crowd frenzy, this is a PG13 movie and there is absolutely no bloody violence, central and important to zombie movies. It reminded me of Will Smith's I Am Legend, although it's somewhat better. It's an odd movie for Brad Pitt to do. He chooses to not be a warrior and seems to be an ineffective UN worker.
R56 I met a friend of mine yesterday to see a movie and had the same thought you did - instead I went to see the Danish film A HIJACKING at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema. It was riveting. A must-see.
r61, WWZ zombies were plenty scary. I think being pounced on by superfast and superstrong zombies is horrible enough, even if they don't totally consume human flesh. Moreover, the movie has the audience on edge from the very beginning, with an enormity and global scale threat that seems unstoppable and inevitable. This movie brought in a lot of people who are not zombie fans.
WWZ was an exercise in implausibility.
I've been a Depp fan for almost 20 years.
About two years ago I decided I was sick of watching him play freaks.
For now, he's finished.
The minions in DM2 are much cuter.
It was an exciting, summer popcorn movie.
The theater where I saw it was pretty packed.
It was funny, too.
[quote] With all of that cash you would think that Depp could hire a good nutritionist, trainer, make up artist, and doctor to look healthy and virile
How can you tell what he looks like? His eyes are always covered in black and hes got various other over-the-top makeup smeared all over his face.
His outfit in the movie was sort of telling. He was wearing some sort of high-waisted pant that would cover a bit of a muffin-top.
It looked like a cummerbund of some type. His chest was all covered as well.
He might be flabby but it was covered up pretty well.
The new sport of movie shaming.
It's like dog shaming only with movies that don't make enough money.
Okay, here's what I don't get: I saw "This is the End" over the weekend and saw it cost $25 million which made it all the more impressive since it's full of FX, hardly the home movie i expected. So they MUST be gouging the bill like they do in hospitals on that Disney movie, right? They WANT it to lose money for tax write off? No way a western in the desert had to cost that, right?
I'm guessing a large portion of the budge was eaten up by the salaries for Depp, Bruckheimer and Verbinski.
The dismal performance of the big-budget Western marks a major blunder for "Pirates of the Caribbean" producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski.
Disney's The Lone Ranger has ended up in the box office stockades, with the studio and even producer Jerry Bruckheimer facing a substantial loss after the meek opening of the Johnny Depp-Armie Hammer Western in North America and in its first overseas markets.
Just as Lone Ranger began rolling out in theaters July 3, Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Cruetz predicted a $100 million write-down for Disney. Now, box office experts and rival studio insiders tell The Hollywood Reporter that the loss could approach or even surpass $150 million based on final opening numbers, although they add that Disney likely can weather the storm thanks to summer box office hits Iron Man 3 and Monsters University.
Directed by Gore Verbinski, Lone Ranger — based on the 1930s radio show and 1950s television series — posted a five-day opening of $48.9 million domestically, an abysmal number considering the film's $250 million production budget and a worldwide marketing spend in the neighborhood of $175 million, the norm these days for many summer event pics.
Given its poor opening and stiff July competition, box office experts now calculate that Lone Ranger will reach only $125 million domestically, if that. Overseas, it may earn $150 million for a worldwide total of $275 million. In 2011, Disney was forced to take a $200 million write-down when the ill-fated John Carter -- costing more than $250 million to produce -- topped out at $282 million worldwide. (Disney should fare a bit better on Lone Ranger because it will do better domestically than John Carter's $73 million, and the studio receives a higher percentage of revenue from domestic theaters than it does from international theaters.)
"It's very disappointing," said Disney executive vp worldwide distribution Dave Hollis. "Everything was perfect on paper, so today was incredibly frustrating."
Despite Depp's international star status, Lone Ranger hasn't fared well overseas, where Westerns are an especially challenged genre. The film grossed a tepid $24.3 million from 24 markets for a lackluster worldwide opening of $73.2 million, trounced by Universal's Despicable Me 2. Lone Ranger took in $6.6 million in Russia, well behind the $16.5 million opening of Disney's ill-fated 2012 tentpole John Carter, and only $3.2 million in Australia, on par with John Carter.
Depp's big-budget films have done huge business overseas, even those that have underperformed domestically. The Tourist grossed just $67 million in North America in 2010 but took in $211 million internationally. Last May's Dark Shadows sputtered with $79 million domestic but doubled that total ($166 million) overseas. Lone Ranger could break that winning streak and raise big questions about Depp's star status.
Lone Ranger fared even worse in South Korea, opening to a dismal $1.6 million in a likely harbinger of how the movie will perform in the rest of Asia (as a way of comparison, World War Z recently grossed north of $6 million in its second weekend in South Korea).
Reuniting the same team behind the blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean franchise -- Bruckheimer, one of the most successful producers in Hollywood history, Verbinski and Depp -- Lone Ranger was intended to launch a new live-action franchise for Disney, even though Westerns are a tricky genre, particularly overseas.
In the film, Depp applies his penchant for playing quirky characters to the role of Tonto, while Hammer plays the Lone Ranger, both characters made first made famous in the radio show.
Disney insiders aren't trying to sugar coat their disappointment or gloss over the movie's problems, including a lengthy running time of 149 minutes and withering reviews. It has a 24 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 79 percent for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, the first title in that series.
Sources say Lone Ranger could strain relations between Disney and Bruckheimer, who are supposed to reteam on Pirates of the Caribbean 5, set for release on July 7, 2015. Outside of the Pirates films -- which have racked up $3.7 billion in global ticket sales -- and the successful National Treasure franchise, several of Bruckheimer's Disney films have underperformed at the box office, including The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and G-Force.
In August 2011, former Walt Disney Studios chairman Rich Ross suspended production of Lone Ranger because of concerns over the $250 million budget in the wake of box office bomb Cowboys & Aliens, likewise a Western.
But after Bruckheimer and Verbinski promised to scale back the budget to $215 million, Disney gave the go-ahead. As part of the agreement, Bruckheimer also agreed to pay for a portion of any budget overages, although it isn't known what the split is between he and Disney. That arrangement could put some of the financial loss on Bruckheimer's shoulders.
Ross was let go in April 2012 and by the time Alan Horn took over the top job that June, Lone Ranger was midway through shooting. There were a number of setbacks during the shoot, including poor weather and problems with complex train sequences, causing it to run over schedule and drive the budget up.
In North America, the film failed to appeal to younger moviegoers unfamiliar with the Lone Ranger brand. About 68 percent of the audience was over the age of 25 and only 16 percent of was under 18, a glaring deficit. Pirates of the Caribbean was fueled by both families and adults, and Lone Ranger needed to draw upon those same demos.
Some have criticized Lone Ranger for its violent beginning. Family friendly Internet site Parents Previews gave Lone Ranger a C grade overall, including a D for violence. Curse of the Black Pearl, released in 2003, earned a B- overall, and a D+ for violence.
In an interview with THR on the eve of Lone Ranger's opening, Horn said he takes responsibility for the film even though he didn't greenlight it.
"When I came in they were a little more than halfway through shooting. I want to assume responsibility. Bob Iger is running a $40-plus-billion gross-revenue operation. He’s got a really big job. So when I got here, the ship had certainly sailed, and it was halfway to shore. You’ll see that it’s entertaining, and we’ll see what happens," Horn said.
Poor Armie Hammer will never, ever happen.
If a good part in a TV series comes knocking, he should jump at it.
Will this FINALLY be the end of this morons' ridiculously huge paychecks?
I haven't seen the movie but I'm willing to bet that "transcrip" in R70's link is more entertaining than the entire movie.
Armie Hammer's going to be the next Batman. Because DC is determined to make crap movies forever.
Did anyone ever see Depp in that movie about the history of the cocaine trade? He was very good and not over-the-top.
R79, you mean "Blow". Great movie. Depp had a lot of good roles early on. He should just go back to regular roles - not all this costume shit.
I feel Armie's pain. Does anyone have his address so that I may send him a card?
This isn't going to help Hammer's career, but nobody's going to blame him for the debacle. He was just the hired help, it was Depp, Bruckheimer, and Verbinski who are responsible.
Don't you worry about your eye candy.
Why is there no talk of the current Disney chairman resigning because "The Lone Ranger" is a bomb? It was last year that there was much talk that gay chairman Rich Ross should resign because "John Carter" bombed. He quickly did. "John Carter" opened with $30 million in March with a $250 million budget. "The Lone Ranger" opened with $29 million on July 4th week (usually a good time for movie openings) with a $215 million budget.
That film.com article is hilarious. I love this part:
JERRY BRUCKHEIMER: That’s where it gets tricky. We don’t want anyone who will overshadow Johnny by being charismatic or interesting.
DISNEY EXEC. #3: Plenty of options there.
DISNEY EXEC. #1: I have Paul Walker on speed-dial.
DISNEY EXEC. #2: Sam Worthington is looking for a project.
DISNEY EXEC. #3: Josh Hartnett has been sitting in the lobby since 2009.
JERRY BRUCKHEIMER: What about Armie Hammer?
DISNEY EXEC. #1: Ha ha, that’s not a real person!
DISNEY EXEC. #2: No, it’s the guy who played the Winklevoss twins in the Facebook movie!
DISNEY EXEC. #3: Can we afford both of him?
DISNEY EXEC. #2: There’s actually just one of him.
DISNEY EXEC. #3: That movie was bulls***.
JERRY BRUCKHEIMER: I think Armie Hammer has just the right mix of bland handsomeness and congenial forgettability.
DISNEY EXEC. #1: He’s like the Chris O’Donnell of actors!
Whew maybe now they will forget about me.
Whose dumb idea was it to make a big budget movie about the Lone Ranger? Nobody gives a rat's ass about that old stuff. It isn't even rerun on TV that much. It doesn't even have a cult following.
Another attempt by out of touch old fart Hollywood producers to re-establish something from their childhoods that only they cared about.
And Tonto never rode around with that hideous make-up on, either. The Lone Ranger and Tonto were heroes, not a clown act. And that's why people aren't buying it.
Hollywood needs to stop trying to 're-imagine" stuff and leave the gimmick that it was alone.
Plus Johnny Depp is over-saturated. He's making too many dumb movies he thinks are going to be big hits and they fail. His mockery of the classic "Dark Shadows" was vomit-worthy. Had they just made a good horror movie out of it, without rehashing the vampire's origin (they keep doing this with each update) and made a good ghost story instead, it would have been a hit. Instead, there was Depp once again in freak show make up expecting audiences to buy his freaky brand of humor -- and they didn't buy into it.
It's a Jerry Bruckheimer film, woo woo, it's a Jerry Bruckheimer film!
GET RID OF JERRY ALREADY, he ain't all that!
HollyWeird Reporter writes: "Pirates of the Caribbean 5, set for release on July 7, 2015..."
Oh for Christsake, give it a rest, Jerry Bruckheimer! Four are ENOUGH!
Bruckheimer and Depp are gonna milk that franchise to death and ruin it. ANOTHER Pirates movie? Seriously?
More of Depp with over-blown make-up, more of the nasty pirates with creepy crawly things on them. More of the mean English army chasing Depp around...
It's like the story's been told, retold, rehashed and reworked! I mean how much can you milk out of a concept that was conceived out of an amusement park ride?
If Walt Disney knew what execs of his fine company were doing to the finances of his company with bomb-after-Depp-bomb, he'd FIRE THEM ALL. [Especially for what they did to the Alice in Wonderland story a couple of years back, a terrible boring movie.]
Just stop, Jerry Bruckheimer. Go away Jerry Bruckheimer. Go away Johnny Depp. Just... go... away
What's next - an explosion-filled blockbuster based on Fibber McGee and Molly?
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
The old site will remain around while things settle down but will go away fairly soon as we consolidate everything to the one "official" site.
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...