I spoke with a friend of mine over the weekend who had gone out and spent too much of her hard earned money to see the latest Johnny Depp bomb, The Lone Ranger. She actually said that she had enjoyed herself and that the movie had been funny in spots, really good in spots and also…kinda stupid in spots. She also happens to be a big fan of Depp's, which probably explains the fact that she could overlook those stupid spots and still manage to enjoy herself. Because in that regard, she is part of a very small crowd, comparatively speaking.
I only say that because The Lone Ranger, the latest venture to come from Disney, managed to post what was a pretty grim five-day debut of $48.9 million, far from enough to make up for the high cost of the Johnny Depp-Armie Hammer Western. Despite Depp's supposed popularity at the international box office, Lone Ranger turned in a soft performance as it began rolling out overseas, grossing $29.4 million from 24 markets for a worldwide opening total of $73.2 million. But westerns have always been a tough sell with foreign audiences.
This film cost at least $250 million to produce which marks it as being the third major disappointment thus far of the very short summer. With Lone Ranger, Disney had hoped to whip up the same magic that producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski and Depp created with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which played heavily to families, as well as adults and teenagers. In this latest film, Depp applies his penchant for playing quirky characters to the role of Tonto while Hammer plays the Lone Ranger.
As it was, at one point, before Verbinski even began shooting, the plug was almost pulled on Lone Ranger because of budget concerns. The filmmakers agreed to bring the budget down to $215 million, but the price tag steadily rose once shooting began (all the stunts are real). Another issue is the film's lengthy running time of 149 minutes. The movie suffered in appealing mostly to older moviegoers, with 58 percent of the audience over the age of 35. Moviegoers under the age of 18 only made up 16 percent of the audience, while males made up 57 percent.
Since these I am not much of a fan of Hollywood these, and never have been a fan of Depp personally, I don't plan on seeing this movie. I did see the original "Pirates of the Caribbean" in the theater and some of the sequels on television. So try as I might, I just could not visualize "Captain Jack Sparrow" as Tonto. And when I'm paying almost eleven dollars these days just for the privilege of seeing a movie, I'm become rather picky about the movies I do see. Which are pretty few and far between. I can't remember the last movie that I saw.
And the bottom line here is that I think it pretty fair to say that these pathetic Hollywood types need us much more than we need them. And I would argue that the fact that they continue to identify those of us who must pay higher and higher ticket prices as essentially being too stupid to get out of our own way, is not really conducive to our being willing to pay those prices. I hope movies continue to bomb. Because since when is a night out at the movies worth $60? Which is what it cost for me, my wife and my daughter to see a movie. That's crazy!
If the makers of these movies were as smart as they think they are, what they would do is to tie what these big name actors are paid to how much the movie brings in. I mean, how smart is it to pay a guy like Depp $20 Million to be in a movie that has thus far made barely $50 Million? Who are the stupid ones here, the makers of the movies or those sitting in the audience? I would argue that is those who agree to pay these 'actors' such huge sums of money essentially for nothing. But hey, what do I know, I'm too stupid to get out of my own way.
No comments:
Post a Comment