hi ho Silver, The Lone Ranger rides on....

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Any genre can be dead until someone revives it. What's the connection to the Christian DVD market?

I still think that the first Zorro movie is the sort of tone and feel a Lone Ranger movie ought to be aiming for; personally, I'd cut out the whole supernatural elements.

I think the Lone Ranger concept can tolerate some supernatural elements as long as they are subtle and eerie, in keeping with the Old West setting. Spooky legends. Kind of like Larry Blamire's haunted Western stories.

The bigger the name and the more shit gets blowed up, the more you add to the foreign take.

How does that differ from the domestic market?

They were? The first one was inane and I heard they got worse from there, so didn't bother to check them out. But Hollywood certainly isn't making movies for the fussy likes of me!

I thought they were all good. You can't go in expecting Errol Flynn-- they were totally trippy, off-the-wall rollercoaster rides. Not as good as Indy, but still....

Nope, they should do the opposite. They have the big name in Depp, so what they need is to amp the supernatural elements, make things bigger, crazier and more blowed up. So even if Americans (once again) say, pfft, I'm not wasting my money on this horrendous garbage, they still stand to make out like bandits.

Nooooo. That's not Lone Ranger. That will make it suck as much as nuDarkShadows and nuTrek.

 

[stj]

The classic Western is a dream West, where the Indians were mindless villains or insignicant noble savages (both conveniently doomed to extinction there were no African-Americans; Confederate veterans could find a new life free from the Yankee abolitionists who destroyed their homes; a man could reinvent himself; a strong man could reinvent society. None of these were true in reality. Of course, many of the best Western are remembered precisely because in some respect or other they contested the moronic premises.

In popular culture it seems like nothing ever dies. Of course there will be the occasional "Western," even the occasional attempt at a classic Western. But, barring a rollback of civil rights (like rolling back Social Security, this may be on the agenda) the classic Western will not achieve the widespread popularity it once had.

The term "Western" seems to be mutating by misuse. The recent Hatfields and McCoys miniseries has been labeled a Western, although it takes place east of the Ohio. Ditto the Justified television series! Given modern education this could just be ignorance. But I followed a link to a Variety article that slipped and called Westerns "hick flicks." I suspect the tendency is to revise "Western" to mean redneck (i.e., racist) and/or the violent strong man theme, which is notoriously close to some Fascist esthetics and philosophy. Which, incidentally, is why I suspect a strong overlap with the Christian DVD market.

 

[Saga]

I still think that the first Zorro movie is the sort of tone and feel a Lone Ranger movie ought to be aiming for; personally, I'd cut out the whole supernatural elements.

agreed

 

[Samurai8472]

Because you gotta respect a director who builds locomotives from scratch.

It was the only logical step after building an entire town, working saloon and railroad tracks.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I suspect the tendency is to revise "Western" to mean redneck (i.e., racist) and/or the violent strong man theme, which is notoriously close to some Fascist esthetics and philosophy. Which, incidentally, is why I suspect a strong overlap with the Christian DVD market.

Well, that's exactly what you did in your first paragraph. You were more right when you said that Westerns went against the stereotypes. I've recently been re-watching some old Lone Ranger episodes and many of them deal with anti-racist themes, both in terms of the Indians and Chinese immigrants. They may be considered simplistic or naive by some people today, but they are good-hearted. As for the dearth of Black characters, Westerns were no worse than other shows or movies of that era; it was a sign of the times, not a characteristic of the genre.

 

[stj]

...Of course, many of the best Western are remembered precisely because in some respect or other they contested the moronic premises.

The Western was a staple in movies for decades, with major stars who did only Westerns. There were hundred and hundreds of these things. As civil rights struggles heated up, the classic Western was increasingly subverted by revisionist Westerns, while the classic Western set in the dream West declined in popularity. Television is more retrograde because of the influence of businessment via advertising, but the same pattern holds with a delay of a decade or so. (Also, the Lone Ranger is a regular Western of any sort?)

Incidentally, attempts to revive the classic Western in a direct to DVD format are usually shelved at Wal-Mart in the same area as the Christian movies. I gather those are often not direct to DVD but have their own specialized distribution networks (direct via churches sometimes.) The real test of course would be if some of these Westerns also moved through these circuits as their version of "family viewing."

 

[JarodRussell]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rllNlamsDIo[/yt]

Teaser trailer.

I like how it says "Disney presents Johnny Depp. The Lone Ranger."

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm pretty sure he has to receive top billing by SAG rules. However, he also seems to be the star, which I'm not as much of a fan of. It should still be The Lone Ranger show.

 

[JarodRussell]

Not familar with the SAG rules, do they state something like "his last films were big hits, so top bill him"?

 

[trekkiebaggio]

Looks like that video has been blocked. Here is is via Empire.

I think it looks pretty cool.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Not familar with the SAG rules, do they state something like "his last films were big hits, so top bill him"?

I'm not sure what the exact rule was. It might be if you won an Academy Award, in which case he didn't have to receive top billing. However, a good example is Star Trek: Generations. SAG Rules would have mandated that Whoopi Goldberg be listed first (as opposed to William Shatner and Patrick Stewart). Since Whoopi didn't think that was fair, she agreed to not be listed at all in order to comply with the rules.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't mind that Depp gets top billing. I don't care that Tonto has a bird on his head. I'm open to revisionist takes on classic characters.

But would it have killed them to play "The William Tell Overture"?

 

[UssGlenn]

Hopefully we will get the Overture in the Full trailer. Crossing my fingers that it will be used in the movie itself, and not just played over the end credits.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The whole reason this movie is being made is because of Depp's star power, so it's only fair for him to get top billing. however, if they want to bring in his legion of POTC fans, I hope the movie has more personality and humor than this rather dour trailer implies. It looks like Hell on Wheels, and the moviegoing masses arent going to pay $12 for that. People want to see Depp doing some zany schitck, they don't want a lecture on the social perils of 19th C railroads.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't mind that Depp gets top billing. I don't care that Tonto has a bird on his head. I'm open to revisionist takes on classic characters.

But would it have killed them to play "The William Tell Overture"?

It would be hilarious if their excuse was "It would have been too expensive!"

 

[Captaindemotion]

Not familar with the SAG rules, do they state something like "his last films were big hits, so top bill him"?

I'm not sure what the exact rule was. It might be if you won an Academy Award, in which case he didn't have to receive top billing. However, a good example is Star Trek: Generations. SAG Rules would have mandated that Whoopi Goldberg be listed first (as opposed to William Shatner and Patrick Stewart). Since Whoopi didn't think that was fair, she agreed to not be listed at all in order to comply with the rules.

Why would Whoopi have top billing?

I don't know what the rules are but I can't see why the movie makers can't give top billing to whoever they want, so long as the actors agree to it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Jury's still out. The trailer didn't look bad, but it didn't look great; at least it's not like the Dark Shadows trailer.

People want to see Depp doing some zany schitck, they don't want a lecture on the social perils of 19th C railroads.

Actually, I would prefer the latter, and it would make for a better Lone Ranger movie.

 

[Gaith]

So much for hoping that stupid bird wouldn't be on his head the whole movie. I haven't been so underwhelmed by a trailer for a movie I might want to see since Green Lantern.

 

[the G-man]

Not familar with the SAG rules, do they state something like "his last films were big hits, so top bill him"?

I'm not sure what the exact rule was....

Brando and Hackman were both billed over Reeve for the first Superman movie. Nicholson was billed next to, but before, Keaton on 1989's Batman poster. In each case, the "supporting" character was played by an actor who just happened to be at or near the top of the A list.

I don't know if it's a SAG thing as much as it is a contractual thing. Or it might just be "first bill the guy who supposedly puts asses in the seats."

 

[Shazam!]

What an awful trailer.