MovieChat Forums > The Lone Ranger (2013) Discussion > It is easier to tear down than create

It is easier to tear down than create


In the world I must live in today, there is far more energy put into tearing down; denigrating, lambasting, commenting as holier-than-thou. It seems how we have raised this generation. No consideration, no pause button. It used to be rotten fruit and vegetables, now it is fresh, steaming feces.

Charlton Heston once made the statement, "No one starts out trying to make a bad movie." Consider that the forces behind "The Lone Ranger" are passionate film makers, with many, many successful years of movies and TV series. These people have made themselves, others, and their studios TONS of money.

One of the things that "went wrong" with "The Lone Ranger" was that the negative press started rolling in before the movie was even completed!

I've had to live a life where my beloved comic book characters have been revamped, humanized, demonized, and damn near twisted into something they never were. Case in point, Bryan Singer's Superman... a dead beat dad? Unprotected sex? A stalker? A peeping tom? I bet Bryan never thought in those terms. And his defense was "the movie made 400 million dollars..."

Granted, "The Lone Ranger" didn't fare so well. But I think it was for a number of reasons, starting with the negative press issue; running through the "nobody likes a western," and continuing on with casting critiques.

Okay, all that said? You can't please all the people all the time. Even now, the entire country is polarized nearly 50-50. I think that's proof of no one is "right" or "wrong," we're just different, with different reactions and different opinions.

I was hesitant about watching "The Lone Ranger," but it has quickly become one of my favorite movies. Depp was great; yes, it was more "his" movie, and perhaps that was another issue. Press had it that Depp though it should have been told from Tonto's point of view from the beginning; that he was the hero and LR was an idiot. They didn't quite get there, but they came close.

But the casting was great, the cinematography was excellent. Was it a little campy? Yes. Was it "true" to the Clayton Moore version? Nope! But film makers need to, want to, have to, create their own version of these iconic figures.

I hope Hollywood hasn't given up on the Ranger. Even if they want to explore the Bass Reeves mythos (brought to my attention by "Drunk History" and "Timeless"), making the masked man a real black man, whose dime novels had to rewrite him as white. But the thing is, boys and girls, we are given entertainment for a single purpose - to entertain. If it weren't for the internet, blogs, reviews and comments, we wouldn't feel quite so self-righteous, might not be quite so critical.

You didn't like TLR? Okay, that's absolutely fine. But others did.

Respect isn't dying. It's being murdered.

The Lone Ranger, if you haven't seen it, is not that bad. Just pop the corn, pour the fizzy drinks, take the phone off the hook. I don't think you'll be too disappointed.

reply

The audience loved it when I saw it in the theater. I think word of mouth would have spread if it had stayed out longer.

People were too focused on Johnny Depp playing a (fictional) American Indian. He was great in the role.

People didn't like the mixed tone. Goofball comedy and dark violence.

People didn't like the Lone Ranger being a greenhorn bumbler, even though he wasn't. He had grown up in Texas, knew how to ride, had gone to college in the East and knew how to fight (college boxing team).

People didn't like the focus on some of the darker aspects of American history. But it's part of our history.

This movie had great stunts (they built 2 real trains and wrecked them, no silly CGI) and a great character arc, for both the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

reply

If the movie is not very good, that doesn't mean people cannot still enjoy it. Doesn't mean the critics were wrong though.

reply

I just saw the movie again with my family and we all enjoyed it from start to finish.

Looking back, I think I might know why it tanked.

Who are the heroes and who are the bad guys?

The heroes are an Indian and an disillusioned lawyer and the bad guys are a criminal, a corrupt businessman (with his coward cohorts) and a corrupt army commander (with his corrupted soldiers).

Doesn't speak to well of the rich and those used by the rich to control the dirty masses now does it?

Much better to push a piece of fluff like Barbie - people might get ideas.

reply