If Abrams can't deliver, they can just go with the director I've been suggesting from the get-go, Brad Bird. (Seriously, judging from Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Bird is the only action director in Hollywood right now with anywhere near George Lucas' gift for pacing & visual imagination.) And while it's true that script issues where the big reason for the delays on Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek XI was pushed back from 2008 to 2009 because 2009's intended summer movie crop was decimated by the 2008 WGA strike. Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince was delayed for the same reason. I think that will always be the first role I think of when I think of her, if only because it seems to distill her Burton-esque visual image so well. But she's done a lot of other great work in recent years, particularly in Tim Burton movies. She totally steals the show as Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd. (But then, I've yet to see a production of Sweeney Todd where Mrs. Lovett didn't steal the show.) I loved her as the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. ("Use the curtains if you have to but clothe this enormous girl!") And her every tiny facial tic was pure comedy gold as the alcoholic psychiatrist in Dark Shadows. So I think she's had a pretty awesome career. From a purely visual standpoint, Hayek is more stimulating. However, if they both tried to seduce me, I think Helena Bonham Carter would jump to the front of the line. She has an inherent sultry-ness that's very appealing.
I know nothing about The Lone Ranger and I enjoyed the movie. The action scenes were great and Depp was very funny as Tonto. My one glaring complaint; there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the framing story. Cut that out and the movie would have been 15 minutes shorter. I also agree with reviews that said cutting out Helena Bonham Carter would have changed nothing to the movie and made it another 15 minutes shorter. I guess I'm in the minority but I really liked Wild Wild West. Smith and Kline were hilarious together and there was some crazy over the top action.
It might have not been necessary, but I liked it. Plus, people who don't like the changes can blame the teller for not telling the truth. Spoiler: The Lone Ranger Who would be responsible for the explosive distraction at the train station, then?
I want to see this....kinda...but there are too many other movies out there now that I want to see more. And movies are kindaexpensive these days...so I'll either see this on DVD or a the cheap $3 theater. But eventually I will see it. Weird, seems the for every *BRILLIANT* movie that Depp does, and BRILLIANT character that he plays...there's at leats one flop and one really weird character that has people thinking "What the h...!?" For every PotC and Sweeney Todd there's a Willy Wonka and an Alice in Wonderland...
They sound foolish! I have yet to see it but this thing had a lot stacked against it regardless of reviews. Its a character, property that has been dead for almost half a century!!! This thing had as much chance of success as The Shadow and The Phantom did. Depp never saw it as a Blockbuster! What a load of Crap!!!! Even if he did not Disney certainly did! They act like budget should not matter to the public. But everyone, knows these big summer movies cost a lot. Disney would never have agreed to make this at this cost unless they expected to gain a profit. I used to be a really big fan of Johnny Depp but he is embarrassing himself in his performances but also how he presents himself off camera.
Johnny Depp RE: Lone Ranger: ^^^ Yep, Disney spent $215 million NOT expecting a hit. Gotta love clueless actor logic.
I can totally see Depp tripping through his roles not thinking about blockbusters. "Do I get to wear white makeup? Where do I sign?"
He's not the one coming across as clueless. He was clearly referring to the reviewers and their expectations, as well as his own. Just because Disney is throwing money at a project and paying him a ridiculous amount of money doesn't mean he expects it to be a blockbuster, nor should the reviewers go into a movie with preconceived notions before they've seen it. That's what the armchair film majors on the Internet do, not what a professional reviewer/critic should be doing.
They might be right that critics were gunning for the movie from the start, but there have been plenty of instances where critics turned around and actually praised a big Hollywood blockbuster if it ended up being, you know, good. Titanic got an 88% RT score, and the first Pirates a 79%, and people ridiculed the hell out of those movies beforehand. And the third sequel of the Mission Impossible franchise got a 93%. And Avengers a 92%. And those movies are all about as blockbustery as you can get.
When the high point of your movie is a horse wearing a hat, I don't think the critics are the ones to blame.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of movies that have been shredded by the critics, but then went on to make a crapload of money.
And of course the opposite can be true at times as well. Critical darlings with good to great RT/Metacritic scores struggle or are out right flops. I saw Lone Ranger it was too long and too neutered for a Western about a vengeful duo in the late 19th century American West.
Zodanga is the name of Helium's rival city in the book. All the characters are names from the books. They made a fine adaptation of the series. It was far more enjoyable than Nolan's Batman films. As to the Lone Ranger, I've no great love of Westerns to begin with, and Tonto's visual design looks silly.
Don't blame the reviews...blame the trailers. All of this reminds me of a joke that Johnny Carson did about the last attempt at a big budget Lone Ranger film (quoted from memory): "My favorite part was when Tonto put his ear to the ground and said, 'Wait, kemosabe...I hear 8, maybe 9 people coming to see this film.'"
I saw that news report on the Beeb's news pages as well. All I can say is Ouch thats a hefty loss. Though with BR/DVD sales and TV rights they might just break even.