Latest Movie News Headlines

The Lone Ranger team blames critics for why the film bombed in theaters

Aug. 6, 2013by: Jesse Giroux

The Lone Ranger

Oh boy, this could get ugly. A good chunk of the cast and crew for THE LONE RANGER (Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, director Gore Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer) were recently interviewed by Yahoo! Movies Uk & Ireland about their big summer flop, and they put almost all the blame on the critics as to why the movie bombed so hard in theaters.

Hammer starts by saying that he feels most critics already reviewed the film when it was originally shut down due to concerns about the movie's budget:

This is the deal with American critics. They’ve been gunning for our movie since it was shut down the first time. And I think that’s probably when most of the critics wrote their initial reviews.

Johnny Depp also added his thoughts on critics of THE LONE RANGER and how he didn't expect the film to be a blockbuster:

I think the reviews were probably written when they heard Gore [Verbinksi] and Jerry [Bruckheimer] and me were going to do ‘The Lone Ranger.’ Then their expectations of it that, you know, it must be a blockbuster. I didn’t have any expectations of that. I never do. Why would I?

Gee, I don't know Mr. Depp. Maybe people thought THE LONE RANGER was suppose to be a huge movie since over $200 million was sunk into the sucker. Why would such an ungodly amount of money be spent on a film if someone didn't expect it to be financially successful? I'm pretty sure studios don't like losing money.

Jerry Bruckheimer continues the THE LONE RANGER conversation by talking about the film's budget:

I think that they were reviewing the budget and not reviewing the movie. The audience doesn’t care what the budget is. They pay the same amount to see the movie whether it cost a dollar or $20 million. [...] It’s one of those movies that, whatever critics missed it this time, will re-review it in a few years and see that they made a mistake. [...] The critics keep crying for original movies. You make one, and they don’t like [it], so what can I tell you?

I partially agree with Bruckheimer's comments about the film's budget. Many average movie goers aren't going to care about how much a film costs to make, but I don't think that many critics (or movie sites) were ready to declare the film bad just because of the its budget. And would any of you really call THE LONE RANGER an original film? It's not like Gore Verbinski created the character.

Although Verbinski seems to think THE LONE RANGER is original as well:

Our movie is not a sequel, and it doesn’t have giant robots and the Lone Ranger can’t fly. I think we’re counter-programming. So, if you want to see something different, come see the movie. It’s odd to be given a lashing because of that.

I'm sorry but even with those slight differences from other films, a huge big budget film by Disney in the middle of the summer starring Johnny Depp is NOT counter-programming. It's just...well it's just programming, isn't it? Armie Hammer than goes on to talk about how many negative reviews for THE LONE RANGER weren't actually about the movie:

If you go back and read the negative reviews, most of them aren’t about the content of the movie, but more what’s behind it. It’s got to the point with American critics where if you’re not as smart as Plato, your stupid. That seems like a sad way to live your life. While we were making it we knew people were gunning for it. I think it was the popular thing when the movie hit rocky terrain they jumped on the bandwagon to try and bash it. They tried to do the same thing with to ‘World War Z’, it didn’t work, the movie was successful. Instead they decided to slit the jugular of our movie.

WORLD WAR Z actually isn't a great comparison since most critics actually ended up liking that movie. There are those that enjoy kicking a film when it's down or it's the popular thing to do (BATTLESHIP and JOHN CARTER come to mind), however it's not like those films turned out to be amazing. Sure JOHN CARTER might be underrated a bit but that doesn't make it a masterpiece.

I think all of them are a little butt hurt about THE LONE RANGER failing, but they shouldn't place that much blame on critics. It would be refreshing if at least one of them was like, "Well the production was kind of a mess, way too much money was sunk into it, and while it isn't perfect I'm still proud of my work on the film and hopefully fans respond to the movie when it gets a home release," but unfortunately it just sounds like they are angry at critics for not liking the film.

I can understand wanting to defend something you have put a lot of time and effort in to, but don't try to say the only reasons why your film collapsed in theaters was because of unfair critics and people bitching about the budget.

Extra Tidbit: How much of what THE LONE RANGER team has to say do you think is true and how much of it is just them being pissy?

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

3:01PM on 08/07/2013
As I get older I am no longer interested in films, with a reality based background, having over the top action sequences that have no basis in reality. This movie looked to be loaded with such scenes and as such I decided to pass.
As I get older I am no longer interested in films, with a reality based background, having over the top action sequences that have no basis in reality. This movie looked to be loaded with such scenes and as such I decided to pass.
Your Reply:



5:04PM on 08/07/2013
I hear you. As I get older, I feel like my time is worth more than it was when I was in my teens and 20's, so I only go to a moving picture show (see what I did there) if it look really good. And I absolutely hate over the top, completely unrealistic action.
I hear you. As I get older, I feel like my time is worth more than it was when I was in my teens and 20's, so I only go to a moving picture show (see what I did there) if it look really good. And I absolutely hate over the top, completely unrealistic action.
+2
1:42PM on 08/07/2013

"Counter programming"

Oh man, I almost fell out of my chair on that one. Sequels, superheroes and robots. He left something off that list...Oh right, guns, explosions, buddy action/comedies, neo westerns, Disney bux, remakes of classic programs with commodity actors and modern humor... I suppose White House Down was counter-programming as well, I mean it didn't have robots after all. Or did it?
Oh man, I almost fell out of my chair on that one. Sequels, superheroes and robots. He left something off that list...Oh right, guns, explosions, buddy action/comedies, neo westerns, Disney bux, remakes of classic programs with commodity actors and modern humor... I suppose White House Down was counter-programming as well, I mean it didn't have robots after all. Or did it?
Your Reply:



11:55AM on 08/07/2013
It wasn't the critics giving bad reviews, if that was the case then the luke warm reviews of Man of Steel would have tanked that film like this one. The public didn't listen to the critics and MOS did very well. These guys just made a bad movie. They need to acknowledge that.
It wasn't the critics giving bad reviews, if that was the case then the luke warm reviews of Man of Steel would have tanked that film like this one. The public didn't listen to the critics and MOS did very well. These guys just made a bad movie. They need to acknowledge that.
Your Reply:



+4
10:42AM on 08/07/2013

I don't take heed of Critics...

...It was on my own account that I thought 'The Lone Ranger' looks terrible and decided not to go see it.
...It was on my own account that I thought 'The Lone Ranger' looks terrible and decided not to go see it.
Your Reply:



7:07AM on 08/07/2013

Ok, I'm not sure just *how* much blame should be placed on critic's or the filmmakers...All I know is that

"World War Z" was one of the worst fucking movies I've had the unfortunate opportunity to sit thru in recent years while "The Lone Ranger" was a good, old - fashioned action / adventure flick which reminded why I love movies in the first place. So...there's that.

But (in the immortal words of Dennis Miller) then again, that's my opinion...I could be wrong.
"World War Z" was one of the worst fucking movies I've had the unfortunate opportunity to sit thru in recent years while "The Lone Ranger" was a good, old - fashioned action / adventure flick which reminded why I love movies in the first place. So...there's that.

But (in the immortal words of Dennis Miller) then again, that's my opinion...I could be wrong.
Your Reply:



1:51AM on 08/07/2013

return to the 90's success

This may be a little out of left field but I think this should be a wake up call for Disney to recognize that huge investments in films like this and "John Carter" are contributing way too much to this expected implosion in Hollywood. It may behoove big studios like Disney to finally take a step back and start thinking more about making films that are more accessible and modest in nature. In the 90's Disney released a lot of "Family films" which usually turned pretty nice profits. I truly
This may be a little out of left field but I think this should be a wake up call for Disney to recognize that huge investments in films like this and "John Carter" are contributing way too much to this expected implosion in Hollywood. It may behoove big studios like Disney to finally take a step back and start thinking more about making films that are more accessible and modest in nature. In the 90's Disney released a lot of "Family films" which usually turned pretty nice profits. I truly feel that the family film genre has been abandoned for these big budget hail mary productions that aim to market to such specific demographics. If Disney made a conscious effort to tell stories of real human dramas more akin to the quirky indie dramas that are gaining popularity in the vein of Little Miss Sunshine, I feel Disney could make real strides towards leading general audiences to more manageable cinema. Take a movie like the remake of "The Parent Trap," obviously this isn't a piece of high cinema but it was made with a MUCH smaller budget at 15mil but it made almost 100mil in the box office alone and sits with a pretty high rating on RT. It wouldn't take much to make "Little Miss Sunshine"-esque films accessible to a G/PG crowd, and it would be nice to see studio's with such rich cinematic history take a stab at making more modest stories that would probably garner more ticket sales (and not suffer nearly as much when they don't).
Your Reply:



12:22AM on 08/07/2013
What Starburst said!
I've been a big fan of the Lone Ranger for years, since I was a little kid actually. And a Lone Ranger movie wasn't AT ALL what I wanted to see in a Lone Ranger movie. A western shouldn't cost 250M to make. It doesn't need horses running on top of trains and explosions after explosions and as much as Depp can be a good actor, he wasn't needed in that movie. He was there to try and sell tickets and cash-in, to some degree, on his Pirates run. Well, didn't go as planned!
What Starburst said!
I've been a big fan of the Lone Ranger for years, since I was a little kid actually. And a Lone Ranger movie wasn't AT ALL what I wanted to see in a Lone Ranger movie. A western shouldn't cost 250M to make. It doesn't need horses running on top of trains and explosions after explosions and as much as Depp can be a good actor, he wasn't needed in that movie. He was there to try and sell tickets and cash-in, to some degree, on his Pirates run. Well, didn't go as planned!
Your Reply:



11:52PM on 08/06/2013

Want a little cheese to go with that whine, folks?

The movie didn't do well because longtime LONE RANGER fans didn't like how you treated their favourite characters and newbies weren't that interested in the film. And word of mouth sucked. It bombed because you delivered a bad product - end of story. Now quit whining and learn something from your mistakes.
The movie didn't do well because longtime LONE RANGER fans didn't like how you treated their favourite characters and newbies weren't that interested in the film. And word of mouth sucked. It bombed because you delivered a bad product - end of story. Now quit whining and learn something from your mistakes.
Your Reply:



+0
11:35PM on 08/06/2013

I didn't see it, but...

It had nothing to do with the critics, and it wasn't because it looked like a bad film. It was simply because I have no interest in the story. I do like the cast and the director, so I figured I'll check it out on video. Now, if the reviews were great, maybe I'd be swayed to check it out on the big screen, but even then, I don't care much for The Lone Ranger story, and never have. Depp is right that critics can effect a films performance, but on a very small scale. I have given some films
It had nothing to do with the critics, and it wasn't because it looked like a bad film. It was simply because I have no interest in the story. I do like the cast and the director, so I figured I'll check it out on video. Now, if the reviews were great, maybe I'd be swayed to check it out on the big screen, but even then, I don't care much for The Lone Ranger story, and never have. Depp is right that critics can effect a films performance, but on a very small scale. I have given some films a chance based on their reviews that I normally would've skipped, and I've skipped some movies when the reviews were bad (although, that's usually if I hadn't made up my mind about the movie yet). But the general movie going public are not very bright. I'm not referring to most of the people reading this, of course... I'm referring to all the teen girls who flock to Twilight; or the boys to Michael Bay movies; or the bored housewives to the same old rehashed rom-com with Katherine Heigl or Kate Hudson that is the exact same film they saw the year before. Most of us want something fun, something smart, something entertaining, and most of all, something new out of a movie. Movies like Avatar and The Lone Ranger just substitute style for substance. They act as if we are a toddler that asked their parent to read us a story, and they decide to just give us an expensive new toy to play with instead. Sure, the shiny toy is pretty, even very impressive, but that's not what a lot of us want. We want the story. Some people want the toy. Some people are cats chasing the red dot on the wall. Take, for example, the woman who tried to sue the studio that released Drive. She saw the trailer, and was expecting a "The Fast and The Furious" type movie (her words, not mine) and hated the film, so she tried to sue to get her $10 back.
Your Reply:



11:36PM on 08/06/2013
Sorry for the ridiculously long comment. It just kinda kept coming out.
Sorry for the ridiculously long comment. It just kinda kept coming out.
11:34PM on 08/06/2013
Alright Verbinski, you got your major flop outta the way, now get on that Bioshock film, and don't fuck it up!
Alright Verbinski, you got your major flop outta the way, now get on that Bioshock film, and don't fuck it up!
Your Reply:



10:55PM on 08/06/2013
If critics make such a big impact on box office, then why do those fucking Transformers movies keep making so much god damned money?
If critics make such a big impact on box office, then why do those fucking Transformers movies keep making so much god damned money?
Your Reply:



10:42PM on 08/06/2013

The Lone Ranger Wasn't Bad.

It was just marketed badly and placed between two kid-grabbers (Monsters Uni, Despicable Me 2), thereby losing their primary target demos (kids and their parents). I saw it and I thought it was a decent, entertaining film. Was it $200mil worth of anything? Nope. Was it a lil' preachy with the Native American genocide sentiment? Definitely. But overall I had a good time and didn't think it sucked. Had it been released in October, I'm pretty sure it would have made much more. Moral of the story:
It was just marketed badly and placed between two kid-grabbers (Monsters Uni, Despicable Me 2), thereby losing their primary target demos (kids and their parents). I saw it and I thought it was a decent, entertaining film. Was it $200mil worth of anything? Nope. Was it a lil' preachy with the Native American genocide sentiment? Definitely. But overall I had a good time and didn't think it sucked. Had it been released in October, I'm pretty sure it would have made much more. Moral of the story: critics are f*cking irrelevant to the mass public, especially international audiences. Proper marketing and good placement (like The Wolverine) is what makes you f*cktons of money.
Your Reply:



10:22PM on 08/06/2013

Jesus Delusional Christ

Yeah, several fanboys and critics were weary of the movie before the film came out due to it's troubling production, but only because it's very rare that a movie with such issues behind the scene does become good- too many cooks in the kitchen, etc. However, most people like that (myself included), don't want to see a bad movie, and hope that this is the exception.

Now, while I found this to be one of the worst films of the year, if you liked it, awesome. However, I think everyone can agree
Yeah, several fanboys and critics were weary of the movie before the film came out due to it's troubling production, but only because it's very rare that a movie with such issues behind the scene does become good- too many cooks in the kitchen, etc. However, most people like that (myself included), don't want to see a bad movie, and hope that this is the exception.

Now, while I found this to be one of the worst films of the year, if you liked it, awesome. However, I think everyone can agree that the comments here are truly beyond pretentious and shows a fundamental lack of insight as to why people are rejecting their film (solely based on the marketing):

Too reminiscent of the POTC franchise, Depp's schtick is old, what is the plot (seriously, the trailers showed jack all about that)?, and most importantly, who knows 'The Lone Ranger' as a property any more?

All of the cast and crew need to grow a pair and admit that (even if they are proud of the movie) that they created something that didn't connect with an audience at all. Finally, calling it 'counter programming' is the dumbest thing I have ever heard that's not spewing forth from Use Boll's mouth.
Your Reply:



9:52PM on 08/06/2013

Here is why your movie bombed...

It wasn't because the critics didn't like it. How many times has a movie been panned by the critics yet still become a huge box office success? Plenty of times! (As someone mentioned below, transformers is a prime example)
The trailers just weren't interesting, and that's the main reason you didn't get my money. You lost me at the horse jumping down on the train just before the tunnel scene.
And the word of mouth wasn't excellent which is a huge factor, maybe even bigger than bad reviews
It wasn't because the critics didn't like it. How many times has a movie been panned by the critics yet still become a huge box office success? Plenty of times! (As someone mentioned below, transformers is a prime example)
The trailers just weren't interesting, and that's the main reason you didn't get my money. You lost me at the horse jumping down on the train just before the tunnel scene.
And the word of mouth wasn't excellent which is a huge factor, maybe even bigger than bad reviews from critics.
So stop blaming the critics. No one likes them when they pan our favorite movies, but everyone has their opinion. To say they were reviewing the budget and not the film is the most ridiculously thing I've ever heard. Just accept the fact that you made a bad movie, learn from your mistakes, and use that going forward when you make your next one.
Your Reply:



9:47PM on 08/06/2013

This movie suffered from the same problem as "Green Hornet", and it wasn't the critics.

They took an interesting character and tried to make it slapstick and campy instead of taking it seriously.

I was excited to hear that Both of those films were being made until I learned who was starring in them, and the tone of the film. I didn't pay to see either of them in theaters, but I would have been first in line to see movies with the same characters taken seriously. Some have said that the Lone Ranger is not relevant to today's audience, but I completely disagree. If you have
They took an interesting character and tried to make it slapstick and campy instead of taking it seriously.

I was excited to hear that Both of those films were being made until I learned who was starring in them, and the tone of the film. I didn't pay to see either of them in theaters, but I would have been first in line to see movies with the same characters taken seriously. Some have said that the Lone Ranger is not relevant to today's audience, but I completely disagree. If you have read the outstanding Dynamite comics that have been published the last few years you would see a great representation of the Lone Ranger taken seriously. This film stunk because of the overall tone and the decision to make the Lone Ranger character an idiot and the sidekick the brains and brawn of the duo (just like Green Hornet).
Your Reply:



11:19PM on 08/06/2013
I agree with every word of your post! Interestingly the Dynamite comics Kevin Smith version of the Green Hornet is also vastly superior to the cinematic goop they turned it into. So sad to see these characters being mocked on screen by the filmmakers.
I agree with every word of your post! Interestingly the Dynamite comics Kevin Smith version of the Green Hornet is also vastly superior to the cinematic goop they turned it into. So sad to see these characters being mocked on screen by the filmmakers.
3:19AM on 08/07/2013
I was actually going to write my own post but I am glad I read yours because you saved me a lot of time fanboy71; you expressed my feelings exactly and I agree 100% with everything you wrote.
I was actually going to write my own post but I am glad I read yours because you saved me a lot of time fanboy71; you expressed my feelings exactly and I agree 100% with everything you wrote.
7:06AM on 08/07/2013
fanboyu71, one thing I think you're overlooking is this -- the average moviegoer (and in fact, many super movie geeks, like me) haven't ever heard of the comic version of Lone Ranger. So to us, the "source material" is the original radio broadcasts of the 1930s or the so-so TV version from black and white TV of the 1950s. Neither of those sounded remotely interesting, and as such THAT source material is irrelevant to today's audience. If the comics are awesome, then wonderful....but a movie
fanboyu71, one thing I think you're overlooking is this -- the average moviegoer (and in fact, many super movie geeks, like me) haven't ever heard of the comic version of Lone Ranger. So to us, the "source material" is the original radio broadcasts of the 1930s or the so-so TV version from black and white TV of the 1950s. Neither of those sounded remotely interesting, and as such THAT source material is irrelevant to today's audience. If the comics are awesome, then wonderful....but a movie based on those awesome comics would STILL be seen by folks like me, and in general, as only tied to the radio/tv version of Lone Ranger and still would suffer.
4:57PM on 08/07/2013
Drexxell, I mentioned the comic not because I consider it source material, but because it is a great example of what this character brings to the party in terms of story IF it is done right. I am an older fanboy (71 being the year I was born) and realize the long history of The Lone Ranger. I loved the character growing up, and even loved the Legend of the Lone Ranger film that came out in the early 80's (I was 11. It doesn't hold up... but it's still better than this latest turdfest. Hell,
Drexxell, I mentioned the comic not because I consider it source material, but because it is a great example of what this character brings to the party in terms of story IF it is done right. I am an older fanboy (71 being the year I was born) and realize the long history of The Lone Ranger. I loved the character growing up, and even loved the Legend of the Lone Ranger film that came out in the early 80's (I was 11. It doesn't hold up... but it's still better than this latest turdfest. Hell, the CW series pilot was better than this abortion). My point is: The story and characters are there, and it was a horrible decision to make it into a campy and stupid CGI fest. I mourn for the Lone Ranger movie that could have been (as well as the Green Hornet film that could have been).

HCM, I agree about the Green Hornet comics. Just about any story suffers from being campy IMO, and these classic characters deserve a serious take.
9:36PM on 08/06/2013
Critics hated the Transformers movies. Clearly nobody listens to critics.
Critics hated the Transformers movies. Clearly nobody listens to critics.
Your Reply:



+1
9:10PM on 08/06/2013
I am no critic, but who greenlit this crap? And furthermore, who drowned 200 mil into it? I could have told you this would flop the second I saw the trailer or even heard the premise. Same thing for battleship, John carter,,etc...
I am no critic, but who greenlit this crap? And furthermore, who drowned 200 mil into it? I could have told you this would flop the second I saw the trailer or even heard the premise. Same thing for battleship, John carter,,etc...
Your Reply:



9:02PM on 08/06/2013
There's a lot of people complaining on here, and most haven't seen the movie. Granted, I don't really agree with Depp's and Co's statements. I saw the movie with my Dad and we both enjoyed it, and it really seemed like most the audience in the theater enjoyed it as well. I just think Westerns aren't the type of films that attract a big audience, kind of like some sci-fi (like John Carter). Lone Ranger might not be original, but it's not exactly the "hip" thing either, unlike comic books,
There's a lot of people complaining on here, and most haven't seen the movie. Granted, I don't really agree with Depp's and Co's statements. I saw the movie with my Dad and we both enjoyed it, and it really seemed like most the audience in the theater enjoyed it as well. I just think Westerns aren't the type of films that attract a big audience, kind of like some sci-fi (like John Carter). Lone Ranger might not be original, but it's not exactly the "hip" thing either, unlike comic books, novels, toys, and sequels which are the biggest money makers for movies these days.
Your Reply:



9:54PM on 08/06/2013
I saw it. It was horrible. These characters are featured in comics (Dynamite publishing has an excellent LR series right now), and have had many films, novels, and TV series based on them. The problem is not the characters, it's the tone the film makers decided to take with the material.
I saw it. It was horrible. These characters are featured in comics (Dynamite publishing has an excellent LR series right now), and have had many films, novels, and TV series based on them. The problem is not the characters, it's the tone the film makers decided to take with the material.
10:42PM on 08/06/2013
This is based on a somewhat well known property, with the character originating in radio. How is that more original than being based on a comic or book? It's not.
This is based on a somewhat well known property, with the character originating in radio. How is that more original than being based on a comic or book? It's not.
11:45PM on 08/06/2013
I'm not saying one if more original than the other. I'm just saying the current trend is superheros, fantasy novels, etc. They have a wider fan base and therefore a larger built-in audience willing to pay to see a movie. Westerns are no where near as popular these days.
I'm not saying one if more original than the other. I'm just saying the current trend is superheros, fantasy novels, etc. They have a wider fan base and therefore a larger built-in audience willing to pay to see a movie. Westerns are no where near as popular these days.
8:01PM on 08/06/2013

Failed because it wasn't a good film. Period.

It was 2 hours of torture (with only two good scenes in its entirety) that knowingly took a dump on its 80 year old legacy fueled source material. It could've/should've been a cool summer crowd pleasing blockbuster instead of a campy western comedy. I guess now we'll never know. I'll stick to the Dynamite Comics version.
It was 2 hours of torture (with only two good scenes in its entirety) that knowingly took a dump on its 80 year old legacy fueled source material. It could've/should've been a cool summer crowd pleasing blockbuster instead of a campy western comedy. I guess now we'll never know. I'll stick to the Dynamite Comics version.
Your Reply:



+2
7:09PM on 08/06/2013

THIS IS ACTUALLY A COMPLIMENT.

They're acknowledging that people DO listen to critics before watching a movie.
They're acknowledging that people DO listen to critics before watching a movie.
Your Reply:



+3
6:57PM on 08/06/2013

HA

that's funny. the EXACT same thing happened to Transformers Revenge of the Fallen.,,,,, wait.
that's funny. the EXACT same thing happened to Transformers Revenge of the Fallen.,,,,, wait.
Your Reply:



6:20PM on 08/06/2013
Depp should be congratulated for his comments, The Lone Ranger despite its foibles was dead before it left the proverbial stable. Yes, the film was slightly longer than it should've been; maybe it was too adult for a Disney produced picture and, sure, they unnecessarily and awkwardly tried to adress Native American genocide. But even with those faults along with it's type and paste screenplay, Lone Ranger was a fun and engaging summer blockbuster waiting to be enjoyed. You can't honestly say
Depp should be congratulated for his comments, The Lone Ranger despite its foibles was dead before it left the proverbial stable. Yes, the film was slightly longer than it should've been; maybe it was too adult for a Disney produced picture and, sure, they unnecessarily and awkwardly tried to adress Native American genocide. But even with those faults along with it's type and paste screenplay, Lone Ranger was a fun and engaging summer blockbuster waiting to be enjoyed. You can't honestly say you didn't feel like a kid again hearing the overture blast during the third act, or weren't even slightly intrigued by the off beat tone of the film; even the Tonto narrative was something to admire for its ingenious structure. It's unfortunate so many people stayed away simply due to the bitterness of a vocal few, like I mentioned the film while not perfect was an interesting ride which lived up and beyond to standards set during the original POTC trilogy. I think this film will find life in the home video market as a camp favorite which perhaps will help in a sequel.
Your Reply:



10:51PM on 08/06/2013
I can honestly say that this movie failed to make me feel like a kid or invest in the maim characters. You list a plethora of faults, and yet state that you can't see why people didn't like it? That's special bus kind of retarded.

More importantly, it's not just that critics don't like it, it's that no one is seeing it. It's a huge bomb, which means regular folks just weren't that engaged by what they saw marketing wise. Those are the same regular folks that gave the 'Transformers' franchise
I can honestly say that this movie failed to make me feel like a kid or invest in the maim characters. You list a plethora of faults, and yet state that you can't see why people didn't like it? That's special bus kind of retarded.

More importantly, it's not just that critics don't like it, it's that no one is seeing it. It's a huge bomb, which means regular folks just weren't that engaged by what they saw marketing wise. Those are the same regular folks that gave the 'Transformers' franchise more money than God, despite the sequels critical lashings. So they should blame their marketing team, or the fact that they made a racist, offensive film that used CGI in replace of thrills. But yeah, I see what you mean. Artists shouldn't have to be held accountable for their failures because that's crazy talk. The world will run towards anarchy if that happens!
10:54AM on 08/07/2013
It's a huge bomb because you were already being told it was a flop. Transformers, Avengers, Fast & Furious among others were all given passes despite their ludicrousness and criticaly praised for their shortcomings, yet this film was declared DOA before opening day. Why ? Because Depp's Lon Chaney bit has become tiresome ? Budget not present on screen ? Too quirky ? Not an established franchise ? Why out of all the more worthy trash in the summer cineplexs of 2013 was The Lone Ranger deemed
It's a huge bomb because you were already being told it was a flop. Transformers, Avengers, Fast & Furious among others were all given passes despite their ludicrousness and criticaly praised for their shortcomings, yet this film was declared DOA before opening day. Why ? Because Depp's Lon Chaney bit has become tiresome ? Budget not present on screen ? Too quirky ? Not an established franchise ? Why out of all the more worthy trash in the summer cineplexs of 2013 was The Lone Ranger deemed sacrificial. Not even your confusing tirade on Joe and Jane Popcorn can give a clear answer. Are you lauding or condemning them for being spoon fed entertainment. The failures I pointed out are also similar problems which plagued POTC trilogy yet people drove in flocks to the theaters. It takes a special bus kind of retard like yourself not to at least analyze the final results while idling accepting dumbed down byproduct from Hollywood.
6:09PM on 08/06/2013

Didn't like it...

Plain and simple, but I'd go a step further and say it was painfully boring and unfunny. This is a case of a bloated and uninteresting blockbuster doing what its supposed to do. Glad that for once the general public rejected something that sucked.
Plain and simple, but I'd go a step further and say it was painfully boring and unfunny. This is a case of a bloated and uninteresting blockbuster doing what its supposed to do. Glad that for once the general public rejected something that sucked.
Your Reply:



6:08PM on 08/06/2013

Give it a rest already

I didn't see it because I don't care about the source material, the trailers showed it to be more over the top then need be, Johnny Depp playing a Native American so over the top and for comic relief seems offensive to me (and I'm not sure why it doesn't to anyone else), and I'm just tired of silly Johnny Depp in general.
Depp seriously needs to take a break from Verbinski and Burton... a long long break. That shit just really isn't working for you anymore, buddy.
I didn't see it because I don't care about the source material, the trailers showed it to be more over the top then need be, Johnny Depp playing a Native American so over the top and for comic relief seems offensive to me (and I'm not sure why it doesn't to anyone else), and I'm just tired of silly Johnny Depp in general.
Depp seriously needs to take a break from Verbinski and Burton... a long long break. That shit just really isn't working for you anymore, buddy.
Your Reply:



+3
5:59PM on 08/06/2013
What did they expect with a budget that big? Do you really need to spend 200 million dollars on a movie? There's just no way a movie can recoup that much. Seriously, budgets are getting way too inflated nowadays.
What did they expect with a budget that big? Do you really need to spend 200 million dollars on a movie? There's just no way a movie can recoup that much. Seriously, budgets are getting way too inflated nowadays.
Your Reply:



+1
5:58PM on 08/06/2013
I don't know how they think the film is original. It's based on a TV show. How is that original? They also should have suspected that this, being a western, wasn't going to go over that well. But these guys have to come to terms: their movie just wasn't that good. I will admit that everyone seemed out to get them from the beginning, but that doesn't say anything about the final product. And I read plenty of reviews that called the final product everything but good. This sounds like an awful lot
I don't know how they think the film is original. It's based on a TV show. How is that original? They also should have suspected that this, being a western, wasn't going to go over that well. But these guys have to come to terms: their movie just wasn't that good. I will admit that everyone seemed out to get them from the beginning, but that doesn't say anything about the final product. And I read plenty of reviews that called the final product everything but good. This sounds like an awful lot of butt hurt going on.
Your Reply:



5:31PM on 08/06/2013

Re: schwarzgeršt's comment on my post

He wrote, "You're comparing 1 box office gross (USA) against dozens of box office grosses (Rest of the World) and saying that international audiences like US movies better than US audiences? Uh... no. Do it on a country-by-country basis and you'll see that we're not "eating up" these big Hollywood films more than US audiences."

Why, then, is Hollywood increasingly outsourcing its stories and productions overseas? Why has the domestic market become less of a point of success? Compare any big
He wrote, "You're comparing 1 box office gross (USA) against dozens of box office grosses (Rest of the World) and saying that international audiences like US movies better than US audiences? Uh... no. Do it on a country-by-country basis and you'll see that we're not "eating up" these big Hollywood films more than US audiences."

Why, then, is Hollywood increasingly outsourcing its stories and productions overseas? Why has the domestic market become less of a point of success? Compare any big action franchise - whether it's Pirates, Transformers, Avatar, any comic book movie - and the overseas totals are almost always huge. In some cases (like Pacific Rim) the international cume has saved a film from being a failure. Marvel included scenes with Asian actors in the Chinese cut of Iron Man 3 to capitalize on the expansion of that market. More and more studios are doing this, and more and more films are being set overseas (Wolverine) to capitalize upon the international audience. So do homework of your own before claiming I'm wrong, because I can back up my statements with facts: international audiences love big action movies, so for Armie Hammer to deride American critics and imply that foreign audiences have superior taste is not just wrong, it's insulting.
Your Reply:



4:10AM on 08/07/2013
I'm claiming you're wrong because you're wrong. WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, international audiences lead to big box office takings. But that doesn't mean France likes US movies more than US audiences. It doesn't mean that Italian audiences like US movies more than US audiences. It doesn't mean that Australian audiences like US movies more than US audiences.

What's the French box office takings for this movie?
What's the Spanish takings?
The German?
The Dutch?

ADD THEM TOGETHER and it looks
I'm claiming you're wrong because you're wrong. WHEN ADDED TOGETHER, international audiences lead to big box office takings. But that doesn't mean France likes US movies more than US audiences. It doesn't mean that Italian audiences like US movies more than US audiences. It doesn't mean that Australian audiences like US movies more than US audiences.

What's the French box office takings for this movie?
What's the Spanish takings?
The German?
The Dutch?

ADD THEM TOGETHER and it looks impressive. But, country-by-country, we foreigners generally DO NOT like US movies more than US audiences. If you disagree, please feel free to post country-by-country box office totals and compare them with the US total.

The reason why the pooled international box office looks huge "compared" with the American one is for the simple fact that the vast majority of the world's population resides *outside* the USA. But we are not one people, we are not one nation, we are not one box office.
4:50PM on 08/06/2013
Jeez...what they dont seem to understand the obvious...While they got the basic understanding of the Lone Ranger story..they completely missed the rest of the story. Had they kept to the original source material, I think they would have made a better movie.
Jeez...what they dont seem to understand the obvious...While they got the basic understanding of the Lone Ranger story..they completely missed the rest of the story. Had they kept to the original source material, I think they would have made a better movie.
Your Reply:



4:38PM on 08/06/2013

Get your head out of your asses

The movie was too long, with lame jokes, and the two leads had no chemistry.
The movie was too long, with lame jokes, and the two leads had no chemistry.
Your Reply:



+3
4:05PM on 08/06/2013
This argument also ignores the PLETHORA of critically reviled films that make a fortune. Michael Bay's whole career is testament to this fact. Critics in no way determine a film's box office unless it is an arthouse or Oscar bait movie. This movie failed because it sucked, people are a bit tired of Depp, indifferent to Armie Hammer, and it looked exactly like a million films you have already seen that weren't that great either. It had a real WIld Wild West vibe to it, which also flopped. It was
This argument also ignores the PLETHORA of critically reviled films that make a fortune. Michael Bay's whole career is testament to this fact. Critics in no way determine a film's box office unless it is an arthouse or Oscar bait movie. This movie failed because it sucked, people are a bit tired of Depp, indifferent to Armie Hammer, and it looked exactly like a million films you have already seen that weren't that great either. It had a real WIld Wild West vibe to it, which also flopped. It was a bad idea from the gate, and they gave it a paint-by-numbers blockbuster treatment that inspired no one.

How stupid do you have to be to point out WWZ, a film with the exact same pre-release problems that solved those problems and went on to success?
Your Reply:



+2
4:02PM on 08/06/2013
Whether the movie sucked or not, maybe nobody gave a flying fuck about seeing a Lone Ranger movie.
Whether the movie sucked or not, maybe nobody gave a flying fuck about seeing a Lone Ranger movie.
Your Reply:



9:59PM on 08/06/2013
I would actually LOVE to see a good Lone Ranger movie. I love the characters (when done seriously). You should pick up the Dynamite comics and give them a shot.
I would actually LOVE to see a good Lone Ranger movie. I love the characters (when done seriously). You should pick up the Dynamite comics and give them a shot.
3:50PM on 08/06/2013

Hilarious ignorance!

I hate it when anyone says shit like this - I doubt they believe in their hearts that critics really have the power to influence THAT much.
To have an armada of blame-throwers for the same film? Come on, now! Especially Depp - $25million dollars later - he should just keep his fucking mouth shut.
I hate it when anyone says shit like this - I doubt they believe in their hearts that critics really have the power to influence THAT much.
To have an armada of blame-throwers for the same film? Come on, now! Especially Depp - $25million dollars later - he should just keep his fucking mouth shut.
Your Reply:



3:48PM on 08/06/2013

i didn't see it because it looked fucking dumb.

it had shit-all to do with reviews.
it had shit-all to do with reviews.
Your Reply:



3:36PM on 08/06/2013

FU Johnny Depp

Johnny Depp has started taking himself too seriously. The douchey clothes, douchey movies, douchey fake accent he uses in public, and most of all his douchey over the top defensive attitude about his movies when they really do suck. Quit selling out to Disney, no more movies with them period. Next make a sex tape with you and Amber Heard, then do a character that doesn't resemble Jack Sparrow for a change (Tonto). The only way I can see him redeeming himself to the public.
Johnny Depp has started taking himself too seriously. The douchey clothes, douchey movies, douchey fake accent he uses in public, and most of all his douchey over the top defensive attitude about his movies when they really do suck. Quit selling out to Disney, no more movies with them period. Next make a sex tape with you and Amber Heard, then do a character that doesn't resemble Jack Sparrow for a change (Tonto). The only way I can see him redeeming himself to the public.
Your Reply:



3:08PM on 08/06/2013
somebody call a wahhh-mbulance... they're bitchy cause now they have to find a new franchise to milk for the next decade... I mean to them this was supposed to be a hit... then a sequel would come out in 2 or 3 years and then another after that and another after that, so now they have to find something else to do.
somebody call a wahhh-mbulance... they're bitchy cause now they have to find a new franchise to milk for the next decade... I mean to them this was supposed to be a hit... then a sequel would come out in 2 or 3 years and then another after that and another after that, so now they have to find something else to do.
Your Reply:



+12
3:05PM on 08/06/2013

Lone Ranger is not original

District 9. Inception. Super 8. Those are original movies. Bruckheimer is wrong and just pointing the finger. They all are.
District 9. Inception. Super 8. Those are original movies. Bruckheimer is wrong and just pointing the finger. They all are.
Your Reply:



2:53PM on 08/06/2013
I never listen to critics. I'll read reviews but if the movie looks good I will go see it. If not then I wait. I didn't go see Lone Ranger. It looked ok but nothing that I was in a hurry to see. I will wait for Blu Ray.
I never listen to critics. I'll read reviews but if the movie looks good I will go see it. If not then I wait. I didn't go see Lone Ranger. It looked ok but nothing that I was in a hurry to see. I will wait for Blu Ray.
Your Reply:



2:47PM on 08/06/2013
Let's blame everyone *except* the people who made a shitty-looking film. That makes perfect sense.

It's *my* fault for not going to see it! I'm an absolute fucking rotter!
Let's blame everyone *except* the people who made a shitty-looking film. That makes perfect sense.

It's *my* fault for not going to see it! I'm an absolute fucking rotter!
Your Reply:



2:42PM on 08/06/2013

D:

I didn't see it because the movie didn't look interesting. If it was a something people missed, it will find an audience on blu ray/dvd.
I didn't see it because the movie didn't look interesting. If it was a something people missed, it will find an audience on blu ray/dvd.
Your Reply:



2:39PM on 08/06/2013
Have no interest in ever seeing this ridiculous movie. Does Tonto really go the entire movie with a dead bird on his head? Would, however, be interested to know how a freaking Lone Ranger movie can possibly cost $200M to make. That must be an interesting story. Was half of that Depp's salary?
Have no interest in ever seeing this ridiculous movie. Does Tonto really go the entire movie with a dead bird on his head? Would, however, be interested to know how a freaking Lone Ranger movie can possibly cost $200M to make. That must be an interesting story. Was half of that Depp's salary?
Your Reply:



+0
2:30PM on 08/06/2013
I could see how negative reviews caused many people to pass but honestly I think it was Disney's fault it bombed because they opened this the same day as Despicable Me 2. Everyone was for sure going to that so this would have to be really good to warrant two movies in one week. I base my expectations on reviews but whether I go or not is up to me, not critics. I saw it and it was okay but it was far from great. It would have been multiple times better if it was 45 mins shorter though for sure.
I could see how negative reviews caused many people to pass but honestly I think it was Disney's fault it bombed because they opened this the same day as Despicable Me 2. Everyone was for sure going to that so this would have to be really good to warrant two movies in one week. I base my expectations on reviews but whether I go or not is up to me, not critics. I saw it and it was okay but it was far from great. It would have been multiple times better if it was 45 mins shorter though for sure. I think they should own up and admit that it wasn't a blockbuster not because of reviews or whatever but because they didn't make a blockbuster.
Your Reply:



1:51PM on 08/06/2013
I didn't think the movie was as bad as the critics said, but I think it was obvious long before their reviews it was going to tank. Not many people are that into Westerns anymore. And the Lone Ranger isn't exactly the popular franchise like they seemed to have thought. Maybe if this were 1950, but it's not. Either way, they spent way too much making this thing.
I didn't think the movie was as bad as the critics said, but I think it was obvious long before their reviews it was going to tank. Not many people are that into Westerns anymore. And the Lone Ranger isn't exactly the popular franchise like they seemed to have thought. Maybe if this were 1950, but it's not. Either way, they spent way too much making this thing.
Your Reply:



+0
1:46PM on 08/06/2013

not gonna lie....

i had no interest in this movie because of the bad reviews. after reading this article though, i'm kind of curious and might check it out. only because i want to be able to see who's really right. maybe this is just a hail mary marketing tactic.
i had no interest in this movie because of the bad reviews. after reading this article though, i'm kind of curious and might check it out. only because i want to be able to see who's really right. maybe this is just a hail mary marketing tactic.
Your Reply:



+1
1:35PM on 08/06/2013
I'm somewhere in the middle of the road on this. Of course they're butt hurt, filmmaking isn't easy, you invest so much time, money, and a year, possibly more, of your lives to make it work and sometimes it just doesn't. Then you watch all of that hard work immediately get trashed and you're the butt of many jokes. That's gotta crush the soul a bit. No, Lone Ranger wasn't very good and yeah, they're whining a bit, but I see where they're coming from. It's tough. And Lone Ranger wasn't a total
I'm somewhere in the middle of the road on this. Of course they're butt hurt, filmmaking isn't easy, you invest so much time, money, and a year, possibly more, of your lives to make it work and sometimes it just doesn't. Then you watch all of that hard work immediately get trashed and you're the butt of many jokes. That's gotta crush the soul a bit. No, Lone Ranger wasn't very good and yeah, they're whining a bit, but I see where they're coming from. It's tough. And Lone Ranger wasn't a total shit show, it started off fairly well and that last action scene was INCREDIBLE, just a shame everything in the middle was a snore fest.
Your Reply:



1:34PM on 08/06/2013

My 2 year old can whine too...

I'm gonna say that I heard ZERO reviews for this but still chose not to go. Why? Because it's a premise that didn't interest me.

Perhaps if the creators had THOUGHT a little bit about modern society's interests and the source material they might have found themselves deciding not to make this movie. Whining about critics shows a lack of responsibility for their own inabilities.
I'm gonna say that I heard ZERO reviews for this but still chose not to go. Why? Because it's a premise that didn't interest me.

Perhaps if the creators had THOUGHT a little bit about modern society's interests and the source material they might have found themselves deciding not to make this movie. Whining about critics shows a lack of responsibility for their own inabilities.
Your Reply:



1:47PM on 08/06/2013
"Our movie is not a sequel, and it doesn’t have giant robots and the Lone Ranger can’t fly. I think we’re counter-programming. So, if you want to see something different, come see the movie. It’s odd to be given a lashing because of that."
"Our movie is not a sequel, and it doesn’t have giant robots and the Lone Ranger can’t fly. I think we’re counter-programming. So, if you want to see something different, come see the movie. It’s odd to be given a lashing because of that."
6:44AM on 08/07/2013
Sure, The Lone Ranger is different in THOSE ways, but different from some of this shit coming out of Hollywood doesn't mean this wasn't ALSO shit. To whit: Nobody wanted to see a re-hash of an old, outdated "hero" right now.

Had they, perhaps, *invented* a new character this might have gone differently. But all I could think of was "the Lone Ranger was boring when my mother was a child, why would it be interesting now?"
Sure, The Lone Ranger is different in THOSE ways, but different from some of this shit coming out of Hollywood doesn't mean this wasn't ALSO shit. To whit: Nobody wanted to see a re-hash of an old, outdated "hero" right now.

Had they, perhaps, *invented* a new character this might have gone differently. But all I could think of was "the Lone Ranger was boring when my mother was a child, why would it be interesting now?"
1:32PM on 08/06/2013
Of course, that's it.
After all everyone knows no big action film has EVER made money unless the critics said it was good. It's the printed word that convinces the kids, teens and young adults, they pay no attention to the trailers, posters and endless TV ads for a film.
Of course, that's it.
After all everyone knows no big action film has EVER made money unless the critics said it was good. It's the printed word that convinces the kids, teens and young adults, they pay no attention to the trailers, posters and endless TV ads for a film.
Your Reply:



1:30PM on 08/06/2013
This will definitely be in the next Awfully Good article.
This will definitely be in the next Awfully Good article.
Your Reply:



1:25PM on 08/06/2013

THIS MOVIE WAS ACTUALLY GOOD

I'm seeing a lot of comments on here from people full of opinions on this film, BUT HAVENT ACTUALLY SEEN IT. I admit that I didn't want to see it, but I had 2 hours to kill after The Conjuring and it was the only movie starting at that time. So bought my ticket and was prepared for disappointment. But to my surprise I found myself actually enjoying this film. Depp was great as Tonto and I loved how he (spoiler) slaps the Lone Ranger around like his #$%@!$ through the whole thing. I do agree
I'm seeing a lot of comments on here from people full of opinions on this film, BUT HAVENT ACTUALLY SEEN IT. I admit that I didn't want to see it, but I had 2 hours to kill after The Conjuring and it was the only movie starting at that time. So bought my ticket and was prepared for disappointment. But to my surprise I found myself actually enjoying this film. Depp was great as Tonto and I loved how he (spoiler) slaps the Lone Ranger around like his #$%@!$ through the whole thing. I do agree that there was a lot of CGI used, but it didn't necessarily ruin the movie for me. I expected this to be the 2013 equivalent of WILD WILD WEST, being the worst movie ever made to date. (I'm still pissed that the role of Jim Wet was stolen from Clooney). The Lone Ranger was a good movie. Its not the greatest but it is what it is, fun and entertaining. So please see it first and then judge it if you must. We are all entitled to our opinions but at least base them on seeing the thing in its entirety rather than trailers or what ever some loser critic who hates everything has to say about it.
Your Reply:



3:21PM on 08/06/2013
You do have a point, but here the discussion is about if the movie is good or not, rather is the discussion of "why it failed". You take sagas such as Twilight, or the Star Wars prequels and they all sucked rats asses, yet they were "successful". And come on.. you said it yourself... " I admit that I didn't want to see it". Everyone thought the same thing, it looked like crap with a premise that noone really cared about (Pirates of the Caribbean with Horses). They shouldn¬īt be blaming the
You do have a point, but here the discussion is about if the movie is good or not, rather is the discussion of "why it failed". You take sagas such as Twilight, or the Star Wars prequels and they all sucked rats asses, yet they were "successful". And come on.. you said it yourself... " I admit that I didn't want to see it". Everyone thought the same thing, it looked like crap with a premise that noone really cared about (Pirates of the Caribbean with Horses). They shouldn¬īt be blaming the critics.. the trailers themselves did nothing to draw people in. The failed with the concept, they failed with the execution, the marketing and even the target for a film like this, what was it?
10:29PM on 08/06/2013
I did see it, and hated it, however, I do respect that you liked it. With that said, you are way off base here.

The schmoes here are stating they had no interest in seeing it, which is a marketing issue, above all. They are stating it looked dumb, and I agree. The trailers are so bad and don't tell you about the plot at all. Same damn thing happened with 'John Carter' (awful marketing) but that ended up getting better reviews than most expected. This simply didn't, due to a host of reasons,
I did see it, and hated it, however, I do respect that you liked it. With that said, you are way off base here.

The schmoes here are stating they had no interest in seeing it, which is a marketing issue, above all. They are stating it looked dumb, and I agree. The trailers are so bad and don't tell you about the plot at all. Same damn thing happened with 'John Carter' (awful marketing) but that ended up getting better reviews than most expected. This simply didn't, due to a host of reasons, on top of not connecting with people.
1:11PM on 08/06/2013
I lost interest in the movie based on how much CG was used. A Western movie can get away with far more practical effects than waste it on CGI. That's really what pushed me away. Also I am more than bored of Depp and his same ol' schtick. Had this movie been more grounded with practical effects I would have gone to see it. Cowboys and Aliens looks like it has less CGI and it feels like a movie that needed it more than Lone Ranger. I'll catch it someday but it feels like POTC with horses and
I lost interest in the movie based on how much CG was used. A Western movie can get away with far more practical effects than waste it on CGI. That's really what pushed me away. Also I am more than bored of Depp and his same ol' schtick. Had this movie been more grounded with practical effects I would have gone to see it. Cowboys and Aliens looks like it has less CGI and it feels like a movie that needed it more than Lone Ranger. I'll catch it someday but it feels like POTC with horses and absurd amounts of CGI. To me, that's part of the downfall.
Your Reply:



4:06PM on 08/06/2013
Wasn't one of the biggest expenses Gore Verbinski's insistence on building the train and track from scratch? The CGI may be bad, but that is a waste of money when actual trains exists already intact.

From a previous article about the budget on this website: I can't imagine it's an easy task directing a big-budget tentpole release film, but sometimes you have to question just how much it takes to truly make such a film. In Gore Verbinski's case, the director opted to have the production
Wasn't one of the biggest expenses Gore Verbinski's insistence on building the train and track from scratch? The CGI may be bad, but that is a waste of money when actual trains exists already intact.

From a previous article about the budget on this website: I can't imagine it's an easy task directing a big-budget tentpole release film, but sometimes you have to question just how much it takes to truly make such a film. In Gore Verbinski's case, the director opted to have the production "construct its own locomotives from scratch rather than employ existing railroad vehicles." - See more at: [link]
1:08PM on 08/06/2013

Or

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
Your Reply:



1:07PM on 08/06/2013
I blame Siskel & Ebert!
I blame Siskel & Ebert!
Your Reply:



-4
12:57PM on 08/06/2013
How can they say this movie didn't make money? They spent $200 million dollars which means somebody, somewhere made $200 million dollars.
How can they say this movie didn't make money? They spent $200 million dollars which means somebody, somewhere made $200 million dollars.
Your Reply:



3:42PM on 08/06/2013
Ok so you do not understand how movies are made.
Ok so you do not understand how movies are made.
9:44PM on 08/06/2013
His point is that everyone who worked on this movie got paid to the order of $200 million. It's the investors who lost money and they're complaining that it wasn't their fault even though they are all collectively $200 million richer. Note that the $200 million is just the cost of making the movie and not the cost of distribution and advertising.
His point is that everyone who worked on this movie got paid to the order of $200 million. It's the investors who lost money and they're complaining that it wasn't their fault even though they are all collectively $200 million richer. Note that the $200 million is just the cost of making the movie and not the cost of distribution and advertising.
12:54PM on 08/06/2013

Insulting.

"The movie was good, guys! Really! The critics just hate us. That's ALL! They will watch the movie in 5-10 years and be like 'OMG, why were we so harsh with this MASTERPIECE?!?!'"

Ridiculous. Talk about the top arrogant people of Hollywood. Go away. Thank God I didn't give you my money.
"The movie was good, guys! Really! The critics just hate us. That's ALL! They will watch the movie in 5-10 years and be like 'OMG, why were we so harsh with this MASTERPIECE?!?!'"

Ridiculous. Talk about the top arrogant people of Hollywood. Go away. Thank God I didn't give you my money.
Your Reply:



12:52PM on 08/06/2013
Oh, y'know..poor marketing and lack of consumer demand for a Lone Ranger movie and a budget that could only be raised back if it was a huge success. Y'know, those factors may be why it did bad.
Oh, y'know..poor marketing and lack of consumer demand for a Lone Ranger movie and a budget that could only be raised back if it was a huge success. Y'know, those factors may be why it did bad.
Your Reply:



12:52PM on 08/06/2013

how dare they

the critics calling a crap film crap.... bastards, utter bastards for doing their jobs properly.
the critics calling a crap film crap.... bastards, utter bastards for doing their jobs properly.
Your Reply:



12:51PM on 08/06/2013

This video made me hate Armie Hammer.

The smugness in his voice when he's deriding American critics. I love the pomposity people have about international audiences supposedly having better taste - when in fact they're often the ones eating up these huge, loud action franchises like PotC (the fourth movie didn't do particularly great in North America but made 750 million dollars overseas) and Transformers. The brainless insinuation that critics tried to break World War Z and went after this one instead. WTF? Critics gave WWZ
The smugness in his voice when he's deriding American critics. I love the pomposity people have about international audiences supposedly having better taste - when in fact they're often the ones eating up these huge, loud action franchises like PotC (the fourth movie didn't do particularly great in North America but made 750 million dollars overseas) and Transformers. The brainless insinuation that critics tried to break World War Z and went after this one instead. WTF? Critics gave WWZ positive reviews, but at the end of the day, critics don't have much input in a film's success, or Transformers 3 wouldn't be in the top ten highest grossing movies of all time. If I were that interviewer I would have countered his idiotic statements with cold, hard facts. I hope this guy's next movie bombs as well and we forget about him quickly because his attitude really turned me off whatever talent he may have.
Your Reply:



2:58PM on 08/06/2013
You're comparing 1 box office gross (USA) against dozens of box office grosses (Rest of the World) and saying that international audiences like US movies better than US audiences? Uh... no. Do it on a country-by-country basis and you'll see that we're not "eating up" these big Hollywood films more than US audiences.
You're comparing 1 box office gross (USA) against dozens of box office grosses (Rest of the World) and saying that international audiences like US movies better than US audiences? Uh... no. Do it on a country-by-country basis and you'll see that we're not "eating up" these big Hollywood films more than US audiences.
12:30PM on 08/06/2013

Grow up!

This feels like someone crying over being picked on. When you make a piece of art, it's subjective. That comes with the territory of being creative. Not everybody is always going to love your stuff. Pissing an moaning about it only makes you a victim. Maybe the team should realize that they could have done better. Maybe it could have had less CGI. Maybe they could have hired a real Native American to play Tonto. Maybe you don't market your film as basically Pirates of the Caribbean on
This feels like someone crying over being picked on. When you make a piece of art, it's subjective. That comes with the territory of being creative. Not everybody is always going to love your stuff. Pissing an moaning about it only makes you a victim. Maybe the team should realize that they could have done better. Maybe it could have had less CGI. Maybe they could have hired a real Native American to play Tonto. Maybe you don't market your film as basically Pirates of the Caribbean on land. If you think it was really good, take that with you, have pride in it and ask to make another that's even better in your mind. But don't act like a 12 year old who was told their science project stunk.
Your Reply:



12:25PM on 08/06/2013

Honestly, what scared me away was the trailers

They were a convulted mish-mash of big-budget action set pieces, and characters that seemed totally unoriginal and uninspired. It looked and felt like a movie structured like Pirates of the Carribean, but set in a Western Genre. I got more than my fill of those movies. To be honest, I don't think I bother reading the reviews for Lone Ranger.
They were a convulted mish-mash of big-budget action set pieces, and characters that seemed totally unoriginal and uninspired. It looked and felt like a movie structured like Pirates of the Carribean, but set in a Western Genre. I got more than my fill of those movies. To be honest, I don't think I bother reading the reviews for Lone Ranger.
Your Reply:



12:17PM on 08/06/2013
Critics loved Dredd and yet not enough people seem to have gone to see it in theatres. I think this really is Bruckheimer and gang trying to cover their asses. The Lone Ranger was not a terrible movie but it certainly was not a great one, and when your *western* amasses a budget north of $200 million, somebody somewhere is doing something wrong - and it isn't the critics.
Critics loved Dredd and yet not enough people seem to have gone to see it in theatres. I think this really is Bruckheimer and gang trying to cover their asses. The Lone Ranger was not a terrible movie but it certainly was not a great one, and when your *western* amasses a budget north of $200 million, somebody somewhere is doing something wrong - and it isn't the critics.
Your Reply:



10:05PM on 08/06/2013
I agree with everything you said except "The Lone Ranger was not a terrible movie ".
I agree with everything you said except "The Lone Ranger was not a terrible movie ".
12:13PM on 08/06/2013
If it's a film I really want to see and it's gets bad reviews I really don't care anymore. I'll still go see the film and make my own decision.

Everyone likes a film or a few that they consider awesome or great, but most critics maybe hated. The Lone Ranger falls into that category for me.
If it's a film I really want to see and it's gets bad reviews I really don't care anymore. I'll still go see the film and make my own decision.

Everyone likes a film or a few that they consider awesome or great, but most critics maybe hated. The Lone Ranger falls into that category for me.
Your Reply:



3:59PM on 08/06/2013
That philosophy is very clear to everyone, since you seem to like any movie, even those that are generally hated by critics and audiences. That is why I wouldn't go to you for advice on a film I should spend money to see. I might turn to someone who is more selective and understands the qualities that make a good movie. Of course, this doesn't only include critics, but as someone who tends to be more discerning in regards to good storytelling (though I am willing to see dumb movies for the
That philosophy is very clear to everyone, since you seem to like any movie, even those that are generally hated by critics and audiences. That is why I wouldn't go to you for advice on a film I should spend money to see. I might turn to someone who is more selective and understands the qualities that make a good movie. Of course, this doesn't only include critics, but as someone who tends to be more discerning in regards to good storytelling (though I am willing to see dumb movies for the sake of entertainment, fully aware that this does not equal a good film), I do find myself agreeing with professional reviewers (a good example was the consensus on The Wolverine regarding the ending). I actually value good cinema, which is why I avoid movies that are a waste of my time. I have Netflix and Amazon Instant, so if a bad movie is made available there, I'll give it a shot, since it costs nothing extra, but I'm not going to waste time and money on bad cinema. I'll leave that to you, and ignore your opinion.
11:33PM on 08/06/2013
LOL @ BrokenDreamer. Clearly Soloist loved Green Lantern, which was equivalent to Lone Ranger in some aspects. But either way, he's the last person I'd ask for advice on what movie I should see and why. But his opinions are funny at times nonetheless.
LOL @ BrokenDreamer. Clearly Soloist loved Green Lantern, which was equivalent to Lone Ranger in some aspects. But either way, he's the last person I'd ask for advice on what movie I should see and why. But his opinions are funny at times nonetheless.
+5
12:06PM on 08/06/2013

The real reason...

is the concept of the movie itself! A western must look like a western, not like a sci-fi fantasy action film! E.g. Cowboys and Aliens, Wild Wild West. Everything made it look a Pirates of the Caribbean on horses (and everyone is tired of those).

You want a hip or "modern" western, fine! But keep it simple, keep it grounded, not super-duper ultra bambostic film. Take Tarantino for example, he took a classic and made a classic of his own.

And yes, the budget gave the movie the mega
is the concept of the movie itself! A western must look like a western, not like a sci-fi fantasy action film! E.g. Cowboys and Aliens, Wild Wild West. Everything made it look a Pirates of the Caribbean on horses (and everyone is tired of those).

You want a hip or "modern" western, fine! But keep it simple, keep it grounded, not super-duper ultra bambostic film. Take Tarantino for example, he took a classic and made a classic of his own.

And yes, the budget gave the movie the mega blockbuster look noone wants on a western. Besides, who cares about critics?

Honestly, what was their target? Middle age men are the main consumers of westerns, not teenage girls wanting to see a cute guy with a sombrero.
Your Reply:



+1
12:06PM on 08/06/2013

The movie was just bad, no excuses...

I was actually excited to see this movie even though everyone else was bashing it. I love the team behind it and I enjoyed most of the pirate movies. Then it came out and I saw that it got terrible reviews... I still went in open minded thinking that I would enjoy it for what it was... I didn't even make through the whole movie.... It was a campy movie that was too long starring a hero that I didn't even want to root for and when my friends that I dragged to see it turned to movie and said
I was actually excited to see this movie even though everyone else was bashing it. I love the team behind it and I enjoyed most of the pirate movies. Then it came out and I saw that it got terrible reviews... I still went in open minded thinking that I would enjoy it for what it was... I didn't even make through the whole movie.... It was a campy movie that was too long starring a hero that I didn't even want to root for and when my friends that I dragged to see it turned to movie and said let's leave this movie sucks, I couldn't really argue.... It was the biggest disappoint of the summer.... Look at world war z... It went through the same problems as the Lone Ranger, maybe even more.... And critics didn't hate it just b/c it had production problems... Critics are paid to review the ending product... And I completely agree w/ them on the Lone Ranger.... Worst big budget (block bluster) movie I've seen since transformers 2. The wolverine was the shit!
Your Reply:



11:58AM on 08/06/2013
On the topic of "professional" criticism, I have to agree with their sentiments. I won't speak about The Lone Ranger, because I haven't seen it, but generally speaking, there is an alarming amount of people who actually listen to critics. I have seen people completely turn on actors and films because of what critics say. I don't care what they have a degree in, at the end of the day they are stating their opinions which are based on their own personal preferences, experiences, emotional and
On the topic of "professional" criticism, I have to agree with their sentiments. I won't speak about The Lone Ranger, because I haven't seen it, but generally speaking, there is an alarming amount of people who actually listen to critics. I have seen people completely turn on actors and films because of what critics say. I don't care what they have a degree in, at the end of the day they are stating their opinions which are based on their own personal preferences, experiences, emotional and psychological stimuli, etc. The vast majority of movie goers do not know these critics, so how can you just read something someone posts online or says on tv and suddenly think, "I've changed my mind,?" The existence of critics seems to serve only one purpose and that is to think for those who are incapable of thinking for themselves and forming their own unique opinions. I can't even express in words how sick to death I am of "Rotten Tomatoes," for example, coming up in almost every single conversation I have about movies with people. I don't care what Rotten Tomatoes says. I care what *I* think. Does the movie look good to ME? That is what will determine whether I see it or not. Not whether some random person on the internet says it's good or bad.
Your Reply:



11:48AM on 08/06/2013
I agree with them 100%. Don't admit it if you want, but if this came out before Pirates or immediately after, we'd just be getting tired of it's sequels, and the first one(the one we all hate now) would be loved.
I agree with them 100%. Don't admit it if you want, but if this came out before Pirates or immediately after, we'd just be getting tired of it's sequels, and the first one(the one we all hate now) would be loved.
Your Reply:



3:47PM on 08/06/2013
Terrible reasoning: it didn't come out before Pirates of the Carribean. You cannot play a what-if game when judging the quality of a movie. The first Pirates movie was well received by critics, but the sequels were reviewed progressively worse. Gore Verbinski, Johnny Depp, and Jerry Bruckheimer have a clear formula, but they are doing little to revitalize or improve it with successive projects. Instead, some of the flaws become amplified (bloated running time, convoluted story telling). If
Terrible reasoning: it didn't come out before Pirates of the Carribean. You cannot play a what-if game when judging the quality of a movie. The first Pirates movie was well received by critics, but the sequels were reviewed progressively worse. Gore Verbinski, Johnny Depp, and Jerry Bruckheimer have a clear formula, but they are doing little to revitalize or improve it with successive projects. Instead, some of the flaws become amplified (bloated running time, convoluted story telling). If this team showed growth in execution instead of demonstrating the same over and over again, when "the same" is flawed, they might have a critical and commercial success again. However, you can't erase what has already been done.
+2
11:47AM on 08/06/2013
Isn't this sort of like a politician blaming news organizations for reporting on the stupid things they say once they've lost an election?
Isn't this sort of like a politician blaming news organizations for reporting on the stupid things they say once they've lost an election?
Your Reply:



+2
11:45AM on 08/06/2013

heh

I'm just wondering who they are trying to convince.
I'm just wondering who they are trying to convince.
Your Reply:



11:29AM on 08/06/2013
Hmmm, critics would say the movie is bad. It's like you fail a Math exam but you blame the test that it was too hard for you. Well, study hard and you'll ace that Math exam. Same as this situation. And frankly I don't think there's enough target audience for The Lone Ranger.
Hmmm, critics would say the movie is bad. It's like you fail a Math exam but you blame the test that it was too hard for you. Well, study hard and you'll ace that Math exam. Same as this situation. And frankly I don't think there's enough target audience for The Lone Ranger.
Your Reply:



+6
11:23AM on 08/06/2013

Oh, please.

What a bunch of whiny, disingenuous, butt-hurt nonsense. When you are calling your Bruckheimer, Depp, Disney movie (based on a previously established property) the intellectual counter-programming to your average summer blockbuster you have clearly lost the thread. Do you think any of these people are actually going to accept responsibility for the millions and millions that Disney lost on this?

Some people will like ANYTHING if it has an actor they like or director or enough special
What a bunch of whiny, disingenuous, butt-hurt nonsense. When you are calling your Bruckheimer, Depp, Disney movie (based on a previously established property) the intellectual counter-programming to your average summer blockbuster you have clearly lost the thread. Do you think any of these people are actually going to accept responsibility for the millions and millions that Disney lost on this?

Some people will like ANYTHING if it has an actor they like or director or enough special effects. It is more about politics or rooting interest than anything they actually produce. The movie sucked. It failed. The market, for once, got it right.
Your Reply:



+12
11:20AM on 08/06/2013

Yes, let's get rid of all critics who do their job.

Because if there's one thing the movies need in the age of brand-focused filmmaking, zero risk business formulas applied to a medium whose lifeblood is innovation, artificial hype, quote whoring, unjustifiably inflated ticket prices, unprecedented actor salaries, instant sequel greenlighting, and superfluous remakes of less than six years old franchises, it's LESS quality control.
Because if there's one thing the movies need in the age of brand-focused filmmaking, zero risk business formulas applied to a medium whose lifeblood is innovation, artificial hype, quote whoring, unjustifiably inflated ticket prices, unprecedented actor salaries, instant sequel greenlighting, and superfluous remakes of less than six years old franchises, it's LESS quality control.
Your Reply:



11:27AM on 08/06/2013
Brilliant. I couldn't agree with this more.
Brilliant. I couldn't agree with this more.
11:15AM on 08/06/2013

Depp must have forgotten about Alice in Wonderland

Or about every Pirates of the Carribean for that matter. Make one or two bad movies and people can forgive, but keep making them over and over again and people stop trusting you.
Or about every Pirates of the Carribean for that matter. Make one or two bad movies and people can forgive, but keep making them over and over again and people stop trusting you.
Your Reply:



10:57AM on 08/06/2013
I think the movie failed because they failed to re-invigorate the idea of the Lone Ranger for any specific audience. Apart from the budget and studio issues (which most of the public doesn't know about), it just didn't look that interesting and had Zero cool factor (sorry Depp). Hence no one (including me) brought a ticket. Simples.
I think the movie failed because they failed to re-invigorate the idea of the Lone Ranger for any specific audience. Apart from the budget and studio issues (which most of the public doesn't know about), it just didn't look that interesting and had Zero cool factor (sorry Depp). Hence no one (including me) brought a ticket. Simples.
Your Reply:



10:56AM on 08/06/2013

Agree with a lot of what they said..

However critics opinions don't really matter all that much.. Twilight, Alice in Wonderland, Paul Blart.. ect. I will say that this movie got way more hate than it deserved. I enjoyed it. I rarely get to see a Western in theaters these days and I thought the dark aspect of it was great. I think they lost their audience when they tried to counter the dark with the hokey Disney comedy/ characters. Should have just gone one way or the other. I do feel people wanted to hate this movie more than they
However critics opinions don't really matter all that much.. Twilight, Alice in Wonderland, Paul Blart.. ect. I will say that this movie got way more hate than it deserved. I enjoyed it. I rarely get to see a Western in theaters these days and I thought the dark aspect of it was great. I think they lost their audience when they tried to counter the dark with the hokey Disney comedy/ characters. Should have just gone one way or the other. I do feel people wanted to hate this movie more than they actually did. Don't get me started on RT critics. Some of those people are a joke and its a travesty they get a vote to sway the percentage one way or the other..
Your Reply:



10:53AM on 08/06/2013

white house down/RIPD all had the same issues

My friends went to see Lone Ranger without any expectations, they all blamed the long running time and the pancy Lone Ranger. They had said it was like Mummy without the charms, I agreed. The film lacked any chemistry between the characters. Sick to death of seeing Tom Wilkinson being villains/hard ass. I honestly can't see teenagers or college kids enjoying the movie but I could be dead wrong. It works as a comedy.
My friends went to see Lone Ranger without any expectations, they all blamed the long running time and the pancy Lone Ranger. They had said it was like Mummy without the charms, I agreed. The film lacked any chemistry between the characters. Sick to death of seeing Tom Wilkinson being villains/hard ass. I honestly can't see teenagers or college kids enjoying the movie but I could be dead wrong. It works as a comedy.
Your Reply:



10:46AM on 08/06/2013
I like Gore Verbinski, but I disagree on what he said. I have yet to catch the movie, but nor do I want to, but in a way when it's convenient enough, I'll go see it. To be honest, the reason that I want to see it is because of Hans Zimmer.
I like Gore Verbinski, but I disagree on what he said. I have yet to catch the movie, but nor do I want to, but in a way when it's convenient enough, I'll go see it. To be honest, the reason that I want to see it is because of Hans Zimmer.
Your Reply:



10:43AM on 08/06/2013
There are plenty of movies that got bad reviews that did just fine at the box office. This is honestly kind of pathetic on all of their parts. I had zero interest in seeing the movie in theaters because the trailers seemed ridiculous and, quite frankly, I'm all blockbustered out. It had nothing to do with the opinion of film critics.
There are plenty of movies that got bad reviews that did just fine at the box office. This is honestly kind of pathetic on all of their parts. I had zero interest in seeing the movie in theaters because the trailers seemed ridiculous and, quite frankly, I'm all blockbustered out. It had nothing to do with the opinion of film critics.
Your Reply:



10:32AM on 08/06/2013
I like Gore Verbinski, but I disagree on what he said. I have yet to catch the movie, but nor do I want to, but in a way when it's convenient enough, I'll go see it. To be honest, the reason that I want to see it is because of Hans Zimmer.
I like Gore Verbinski, but I disagree on what he said. I have yet to catch the movie, but nor do I want to, but in a way when it's convenient enough, I'll go see it. To be honest, the reason that I want to see it is because of Hans Zimmer.
Your Reply:



+3
10:29AM on 08/06/2013
I thought the movie was really good and did see a hell of a lot of negativity right from it's inception. So in a way I agree with a lot of what was said. People lash the shit out of movies right from the start. Pre-judging without even seeing the film. That shit pisses ME off and I'm not even a filmmaker, so highly understandable if it pisses them off.
I thought the movie was really good and did see a hell of a lot of negativity right from it's inception. So in a way I agree with a lot of what was said. People lash the shit out of movies right from the start. Pre-judging without even seeing the film. That shit pisses ME off and I'm not even a filmmaker, so highly understandable if it pisses them off.
Your Reply:



10:35AM on 08/06/2013
I think it happens more with us and Internet bloggers than actual critics - when we see production art and go OMG electro didn't look like that in the comics, there's way to many villains, this is gonna be terrible I know it, it's not following the original comics. But at the same time, and I thought the movie was solid just say too long, I understand ppl hating on Depp now.
I think it happens more with us and Internet bloggers than actual critics - when we see production art and go OMG electro didn't look like that in the comics, there's way to many villains, this is gonna be terrible I know it, it's not following the original comics. But at the same time, and I thought the movie was solid just say too long, I understand ppl hating on Depp now.
10:24AM on 08/06/2013
I'm surprised that M. Night Shyamalan hasn't used this excuse yet
I'm surprised that M. Night Shyamalan hasn't used this excuse yet
Your Reply:



10:19AM on 08/06/2013
"The critics keep crying for original movies."

Um. Author correct: this is NOT an original film you vain imbeciles.
"The critics keep crying for original movies."

Um. Author correct: this is NOT an original film you vain imbeciles.
Your Reply:



+3
10:18AM on 08/06/2013

Hmmmm....

I can agree with some of these statements, all of them really but depp's. I do think ppl were kinda gunning for this film bc of what Hammer said, but mainly bc of Depp still doing the same old thing. Any summer block buster with Depp is gonna have a target on it until he changes it up. Obviously these ppl didn't create this movie so it's ridiculous to say bc it wasn't a sequel it's original, although I do agree that it was counter-programming for summer blockbusters and really different. I
I can agree with some of these statements, all of them really but depp's. I do think ppl were kinda gunning for this film bc of what Hammer said, but mainly bc of Depp still doing the same old thing. Any summer block buster with Depp is gonna have a target on it until he changes it up. Obviously these ppl didn't create this movie so it's ridiculous to say bc it wasn't a sequel it's original, although I do agree that it was counter-programming for summer blockbusters and really different. I agree that critics were gunning for WWZ, but the reason it ultimately was successful was bc it was a good movie. The Lone Ranger is an okay movie, great in parts, but as bloated as its' budget. It's not awful by any means, but it looks like they all think their film is a lot better than it is. Cut 25 mins out of it and they might be right, but I do agree with critics ruining movies for ppl, bc I feel I am an intelligent movie goer. I saw fruitvale station the day it opened here, couldn't wait, and loved it. I go see the movies at my art house theater and the big(er) budget ones at the other theatres, and I saw Battleship, and I saw John Carter, and both of those are great (dumb) summer movies. I was out of the U.S. when Battleship came out, but couldn't believe it wasn't a success with audiences. So I agree with that point.
Your Reply:



10:25AM on 08/06/2013
However, a weird thing has happened where this film has gotten good reviews in the UK, and some other areas abroad. I wish Rottentomatoes would average in those countries critics reviews. It's interesting how American critics could dislike a big budget summer movie, when most of the British critics have enjoyed it.
However, a weird thing has happened where this film has gotten good reviews in the UK, and some other areas abroad. I wish Rottentomatoes would average in those countries critics reviews. It's interesting how American critics could dislike a big budget summer movie, when most of the British critics have enjoyed it.
10:13AM on 08/06/2013
I've lost respect for Johnny Depp over the past few years, not only because of his project choices but his hubris. He's gotten to a point where he thinks his shit don't stink, and slum it at every role and everyone will slobber over him.
I've lost respect for Johnny Depp over the past few years, not only because of his project choices but his hubris. He's gotten to a point where he thinks his shit don't stink, and slum it at every role and everyone will slobber over him.
Your Reply:



10:50AM on 08/06/2013
I think his ego is getting the best of him and it's truly upsetting. I would prefer he just take a step back and get back to smaller projects.
I think his ego is getting the best of him and it's truly upsetting. I would prefer he just take a step back and get back to smaller projects.
+11
10:13AM on 08/06/2013

That's odd

Since when does a movie getting ripped apart by critics have an influence on its box-office? If this were the case, Twilight, Transformers, Grown Ups, and over a five dozen of other movies wouldn't have had financial success. The cast and crew behind this couldn't possibly admit that they hate the movie they made, but wait a few years and the regrets will come pouring in.
Since when does a movie getting ripped apart by critics have an influence on its box-office? If this were the case, Twilight, Transformers, Grown Ups, and over a five dozen of other movies wouldn't have had financial success. The cast and crew behind this couldn't possibly admit that they hate the movie they made, but wait a few years and the regrets will come pouring in.
Your Reply:



10:28AM on 08/06/2013
I also agree that what are you going to say when you are being interviewed and asked "why do American critics think your movie sucks?"
I also agree that what are you going to say when you are being interviewed and asked "why do American critics think your movie sucks?"
11:59AM on 08/06/2013
I was just thinking of Grown Ups (or Adam Sandler movies in general) and Transformers! Torn apart a LOT worse but still made money. I doubt anyone from the cast and/or crew will be admitting that they didn't like the movie years later. Disney has got a very long memory for that stuff.
I was just thinking of Grown Ups (or Adam Sandler movies in general) and Transformers! Torn apart a LOT worse but still made money. I doubt anyone from the cast and/or crew will be admitting that they didn't like the movie years later. Disney has got a very long memory for that stuff.
+8
10:07AM on 08/06/2013

Here's a crazy thought

maybe the movie failed cause it sucked! Ohh no couldn't possibly have failed because of that!! has to be because mean old critics hate us & they are all powerful and have 100% sway over what movies succeed and don't....these guys need to get over themselves & accept the fact that they made a shitty movie
maybe the movie failed cause it sucked! Ohh no couldn't possibly have failed because of that!! has to be because mean old critics hate us & they are all powerful and have 100% sway over what movies succeed and don't....these guys need to get over themselves & accept the fact that they made a shitty movie
Your Reply: