The Lone Ranger remake shut down by Disney

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm just as happy to have the werewolves left out of it. There may be Native American myths about werewolves, but the basic concept is not unique to Native American culture. They should throw in supernatural elements that don't have multiple cultural resonances.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course, there are those who predictably are blaming the film's failure on it being 2-D:

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/07/cowboys-and-aliens-feeling-blue-this.html

That does predictably undermine opening box office now so it's almost axiomatic.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'd pretty much say that any comic book character established as being white in their respective comics should not be cast by a black man.

Nothing racist about that but Superman is pretty firmly established as being a white-colored man in all itterations of the character. It may not be important to the character's identity but it's certainly how he's seen and expected to look. You could probably make the argument that Superman and Batman shouldn't be cast by black people for the same reason that you don't cast a white man in a NA role.

It's not what the character is and I'd I say on the front of black-for-white it's just pandering.

Now, given what is currently going on in Ultimate Spider-man I could see a Spider-man movie with a black Spider-man (since there's a black version of the character being done) but, again, it'd probably take a lot of "selling" to a general audience who expects to see a white Superman.

Race is really a tricky issue when you're talking about fictional characters. But I would say if the character in popular vision is a certain race then stick with that race and mind you I'm only talking about major characters.

Changing that character's race is taking a bit of a gamble as if it's a black character going to white you're going to draw a LOT of ire from pretty much everyone. If it's a white character and you're going to black you're going to need to do a lot to "sell" the change. If the character is even more of a minority (Tonto) and you change it to satisfy casting desires then you're just playing with nuclear weapons.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If the character is even more of a minority (Tonto) and you change it to satisfy casting desires then you're just playing with nuclear weapons.

Playing with pop guns would be a better analogy.

The number of people who care about Tonto's race is miniscule compared to the legions of Depp's fans who will automatically make this movie a monster hit without knowing or caring what race any of the characters "should" be.

And I think Superman should be black. That balances it all out.

The only time race matters is when for historical reasons, it wouldn't work. A black Captain America would be implausible for instance. That's why Tonto does need to be established as being at least part Native American, but Depp fills that bill just fine.

 

[Dream]

I think Superman should be black. That balances it all out.

Nah, they should find a real Kryptonian to play the character.

 

[Trekker4747]

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

It's as insulting as when Amos and Andy did their show in blackface. Well, maybe not as insulting considering it'd likely be missing the racist undertones. But Tonto's character is esablished as being Native American. Hell that's the entire basis for his character! And there's pretty much no notable roles out there for NAs. So casting one of the few roles with a white person is insulting.

Casting a black man as Superman is just dangerous on the level of messing with an iconic character with a lot of expectation behind him so you'd have to do a lot to sell the idea to the audience expecting certain things from Superman.

I'm not saying you can't have a black Superman just that a white one is more expected because the popular image of the character is white.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sigh, I'm probably in the minority, but a sure way to get me not to see this movie is to cast Depp as Tonto.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

It's as insulting as when Amos and Andy did their show in blackface. Well, maybe not as insulting considering it'd likely be missing the racist undertones. But Tonto's character is esablished as being Native American. Hell that's the entire basis for his character! And there's pretty much no notable roles out there for NAs. So casting one of the few roles with a white person is insulting.

On TV Amos and Andy were played by two African American actors. Of course, the roles themselves were such awful racist stereotypes... Much like Tonto in the TV show... By today's standards, even casting those roles ethnically "correct" is still insulting. But, I agree with your point.

Casting a black man as Superman is just dangerous on the level of messing with an iconic character with a lot of expectation behind him so you'd have to do a lot to sell the idea to the audience expecting certain things from Superman.

Dangerous... It's a strong word. Risky, financially, perhaps.

I'm not saying you can't have a black Superman just that a white one is more expected because the popular image of the character is white.

Though, it's not like someone would be SURPRISED when they went to the movie. "Holy shit, when did they do THIS!?" There would be a lot of press (free) shortly after the announcement. There would be a lot of talk (free) leading up to the movie...

Plenty of time and free press to explain it.

Hell. Terrance Howard would make a great Batman. Before Iron Man came out, I thought he'd make a great Tony Stark.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

They're an even smaller minority by global standards. Hollywood thinks about the global, not just American, audience when making blockbuster type movies. Typically, the domestic/international split hits around 50/50, with some movies, especially the action-heavy and and kids' movies, skewing way to the international side. Throw a huge international star like Depp into the equation, and you'll typically see a stronger international skew even if the movie isn't action centric like Transformers or specifically for kids.

That means over half the potential audience for the movie won't even be familiar with who Tonto is supposed to be (even if we assume 100% of the American audience is familiar with a character from a TV show decades ago, which is a rash assumption). So whoever is in the movie, that guy will be Tonto to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if number of Johnny Depp fans globally is greater than the total number of Native Americans in the whole world. The guy is a serious force in the movie biz.

And I wouldn't fret about the subject matter (Western) driving away the foreign audience. People worried about Captain America too and last time I checked it was 54/46, with the international BO still trailing behind domestic. Subject matter is not a particularly important concern compared with factors like the amount of action and bankable names.

As for Superman, I've no doubt that Will Smith (another very bankable name internationally) in the lead role would do much stronger box office than Henry Cavill, who may look the part but has no box office clout. Worrying about the race of an actor is completely beside the point. Check boxofficemojo to see the real story.

As for Batman, Vin Diesel has proven his international bankability in the Fast & Furious franchise (last movie: 43/57). Diesel as Batman? Why not?

When it comes to decisions about what movie to go see, identities like "I am a Johnny Depp fan" or "I am a Will Smith" fan can be more important than ethnic or racial identity. It's important to realize that race and ethnicity are just two of a myriad of factors that people use to sort themselves into groups, and that sorting can have a strong influence on their behavior.

 

[CaptainCanada]

So you're fine with turning one of the few Native American roles in Hollywood into a white guy so that Johnny Depp can play him because there are no Native American stars because Hollywood never casts any Native Americans in big roles? You're basically saying that there will never be any Native American film stars. You can't explain it away with business rationales (which is something minorities are well familiar with); it's diminishing an already marginalized group. The fact that Native Americans are small doesn't make it okay for them to be treated this way.

 

[David cgc]

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

I think that was intended as "very much a minority" and not "a large proportion of minority people."

 

[Dream]

Disney's Rich Ross Hopes For 'Lone Ranger'; But Is His Gore Verbinski Omission Telling?

EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive to Deadline's Pete Hammond during Disney's D23 Expo, Rich Ross made his first comment on The Lone Ranger since I revealed the film had been halted for budgetary reasons. “I’m hoping to do it. I’m certainly hoping. I think it’s a compelling story and no one wants to work with Jerry and Johnny more than me so we’ll see how it works.” The surprise is that Ross mentioned Johnny Depp and producer Jerry Bruckheimer, but not the film's director Gore Verbinski. Would Disney be happier making The Lone Ranger without him?

The rumblings I've heard since my first story on the stoppage are as follows: Verbinski and Bruckheimer have been working hard to tone down or lose some of the budget-busting spectacular scenes in Justin Haythe's script. At the same time, Bruckheimer as well as reps for Depp and Verbinski have been discussing ways to defer big chunks of their upfront paydays. Salary between all three likely accounts for $30 million or more. And if the trio's back end deals weren't at cash break before, they likely will be now if the film moves forward. Because simply adjusting above-the-line salaries isn't enough to bring down what insiders told Deadline 9 days ago was a $75 million budget gap to get to the $200 million Disney wants to spend on the Western. I've heard since that the studio will agree to make The Lone Ranger at $215 million. One major question is whether Verbinski can deliver at that number and retain enough spectacle "wow" factor to give The Lone Ranger a shot at a big overseas gross and sequels.

If Ross's comments indicate that Disney would be open to making The Lone Ranger with another director, that is taking a big risk with Depp. Outside of Tim Burton, no director has made as many movies with Depp as Verbinski, with three Pirates Of The Caribbean films and Rango. Would Depp continue in the movie if Verbinski was moved aside or quit? Good question. The Lone Ranger is a giant risk in the first place because Westerns don't traditionally perform well overseas.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/dis...r-but-is-his-gore-verbinski-omission-telling/

 

[Captain Craig]

$215m is still about $65m more than should be spent.

 

[Sci]

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

So the fact that America's 19th Century extermination campaign against the Indians was mostly successful means modern American businesses should continue to abet the invisibility of Native Americans in our cultural scene?

 

[Gov Kodos]

$215m is still about $65m more than should be spent.

Yeah, that's a crazy price tag for a western, and I don't see why they didn't have Depp play the Ranger or the main villain?

 

[Trekker4747]

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

Considering <1% is a pretty damn small number compared to the percentages of whites, blacks, Asians, Middle Easterners and pretty much every other race in the country, let alone the planet, then, yes, I would say Native Americans are a "huge minority."

And I would also expect that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would recognize "Tonto" as being a Native American name, most people would now who and what Native Americans are and the very context alone of the movie would necessitate making Tonto played by someone with at least some Native American in their genes or NA features.

I think it's completely offensive to say that a white person should be allowed to play a minority character simply to give some show-boating actor another face to put on or because "there's too few NA actors." That's just an insane and narrow way of thinking.

A way of thinking that should be decades behind us.

Tonto is a Native American character, an actor playing him should be Native American or at least have some Native American in his ancestry. Hell at the very least it should be played by a person who at least looks Native American.

Not by Hollywood's biggest, white, middle-aged showboating actor.

Shit, it'd be less offensive if a black person was selected to play Tonto. But Johnny Fucking Depp is who they were planning on going with? That's just damn insulting on several levels.

 

[Cicero]

^ I read that as I think Temis did, as "a minority which is a huge part of the population," (e.g. African-Americans) not as "a minority which is a hugely small part of the population" (e.g. Samoan-Americans).

But by replacing Tonto's race you're taking a group of people who are a huge minority and saying they're worth even less and having a white man play them.

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

So the fact that America's 19th Century extermination campaign against the Indians was mostly successful means modern American businesses should continue to abet the invisibility of Native Americans in our cultural scene?

There is no evidence of such a campaign. Were there, would it be relevant? Populations have been obliterated and savaged throughout history, whether by accident, by nature, or by intent. That the Berbers are few and the Hans many has no bearing on our moral calculus; why should wars before our lifetimes be considered simply because they happened here?

Whom on Earth might you find acceptable to play a Carthaginian? To paraphrase a fictionalized Salah ad-Din, we are not those men.

 

[Gaith]

"Huge" minority? The 2010 census lists Native Americans as being less than 1% of the US population.

So the fact that America's 19th Century extermination campaign against the Indians was mostly successful means modern American businesses should continue to abet the invisibility of Native Americans in our cultural scene?

​

Quick poll: does anyone here actually want to see a Lone Ranger movie? Because, especially after Cowboys & Aliens, I'm having a hard time giving a damn about non-adult westerns. I'd probably rather see Depp in another Pirates movie, even though I skipped this last one in theaters, because swords and tropical islands sounds more fun than six-guns and desert plains pretty much any day of the week.

 

[Trekker4747]

^ I read that as I think Temis did, as "a minority which is a huge part of the population," (e.g. African-Americans) not as "a minority which is a hugely small part of the population" (e.g. Samoan-Americans).

I guess I can see the confusion in a "If I want it to be warmer in my home am I turning the A/C up or down" sort of way.

But I think, reading between the lines, the intent of what I was saying should be clear as anyone who, well, spends any amount of time in the US knows that Native Americans are the most minoritiest people who ever minoritied.

 

[Thestral]

And I would also expect that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would recognize "Tonto" as being a Native American name...

I'm sure you can come up with some proof for this, kemosabe...

There is no evidence of such a campaign.

Oh dear...

Quick poll: does anyone here actually want to see a Lone Ranger movie?

Here. Do it in a similar tone as the Zorro movies, and whyever not?