How does the fact that other movies also have this problem make it not a problem here?
It's stupid casting. Why not have Depp play the Lone Ranger and get an actual Native American to play Tonto?
The Lone Ranger remake shut down by Disney
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
It's stupid casting. Why not have Depp play the Lone Ranger and get an actual Native American to play Tonto?
If there was a Native American actor who had Depp's international BO pull, yeah, then Disney should go ahead and cast that guy. But that guy doesn't exist. And without Depp, this movie will never be made. If it is made, the only reason will be Depp's international BO clout. Now that it's in trouble, it's only chance at being made is that Depp is interested. My bet is that that will be enough to save the project.
It won't matter either way because the majority of the international audience has never heard of either character, doesn't know what a Native American is supposed to look like, and will see the movie because Depp's face is on the posters.
And yeah, Depp will be on the posters, not Armie. Think being the title character guarantees otherwise? Go ask Alice.
But Depp as The Lone Ranger would be a problem for domestic audiences, because tall, blond Armie is more the type. And since the international audience doesn't know enough about the characters to give a shit which role Depp plays, they might as well stick with the casting they've got. Just as I can't think of a Native American actor with Depp's clout, I can't think of one that has Armie Hammer's comedic potential. It's not like Native American actors are thick on the ground.
It won't matter either way because the majority of the international audience has never heard of either character, doesn't know what a Native American is supposed to look like, and will see the movie because Depp's face is on the posters.
And yeah, Depp will be on the posters, not Armie. Think being the title character guarantees otherwise? Go ask Alice.
But Depp as The Lone Ranger would be a problem for domestic audiences, because tall, blond Armie is more the type. And since the international audience doesn't know enough about the characters to give a shit which role Depp plays, they might as well stick with the casting they've got. Just as I can't think of a Native American actor with Depp's clout, I can't think of one that has Armie Hammer's comedic potential. It's not like Native American actors are thick on the ground.
More detailed article on deadline.com
http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/shocker-disney-scraps-johnny-depps-lone-ranger/
A 275 million budget for this is crazy! Are there aliens and giant robots in this thing? The True Grit remake was a huge success because it only cost 38 million to make. There is no excuse for a western these days to cost more than 80 million. If the reported budget is accurate, Disney is smart for shutting this down. Jerry Bruckheimer needs to stop spending so much money on his damn productions.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/shocker-disney-scraps-johnny-depps-lone-ranger/
A 275 million budget for this is crazy! Are there aliens and giant robots in this thing? The True Grit remake was a huge success because it only cost 38 million to make. There is no excuse for a western these days to cost more than 80 million. If the reported budget is accurate, Disney is smart for shutting this down. Jerry Bruckheimer needs to stop spending so much money on his damn productions.
And we all remember how much the public ate that up in Public Enemies.
Damn you, truth in advertising!
I think Depp has zero interest in playing the Lone Ranger, the straight man. He has talked about wanting to play Tonto from day one. The Tonto role is probably the only reason he wants to do this thing.
Why do you think Armie would remain in the cast? If they recast Depp as the Ranger, Armie would be out on his ass. Most people don't know (or care) that Armie would have been originally cast. They would be interested in Depp.
Right, and when you get to be a star of Depp's level, you can pretty much do what you want and nobody's going to tell you no -- which is how we got actor vanity projects like Battlefield Earth, Gigli, and Catwoman. If Depp wants to play Tonto, he'll get it, whether it's a good idea or not.
Wasn't George Clooney attached to this to play the Lone Ranger originally? I seem to recall that when it was first being developed.
I also don't think this is going to signal the end of the western genre. "Cowboys and Aliens" was a mesh of it with science fiction. Plus you've got Django Unchained down the pipe as was mentioned and I believe I read that Leo DiCaprio is being sought for a western role that cinemablend reported last week.
I also don't think this is going to signal the end of the western genre. "Cowboys and Aliens" was a mesh of it with science fiction. Plus you've got Django Unchained down the pipe as was mentioned and I believe I read that Leo DiCaprio is being sought for a western role that cinemablend reported last week.
Adam Beach would be the most obvious choice.
As to the supposed scarcity of Native American actors (and yet they always seem to find however many they need to fill out westerns), even if that were true, wouldn't that have a lot to do with the fact that Hollywood almost never has any roles for Native Americans to play? How many major parts last year were there for Native American actors? And so you have Johnny Depp commandeering one of the few.
Johnny Depp isn't Native American, so he shouldn't be playing the part, any more than John Wayne should have been cast as Genghis Khan (which was a bad idea in a number of other respects as well).
Well, Depp says he has some Native American ancestry a few generations back, but then, there are probably very few "white" Americans who don't have some Native American or African-American genes in the mix somewhere, unless their families only came over from Europe within the past couple of generations.
The remake of 3:10 to Yuma in 2007 cost $55 million. Even the first Pirates of the Caribbean only cost $140 million.
I mean, the premise is about as simple as it gets: Dude rides a horse. Has Indian sidekick. Shoots bad guys. How in the blue hell was a fucking Lone Ranger movie supposed to cost $232 million -- more than Green Lantern?
I mean, the premise is about as simple as it gets: Dude rides a horse. Has Indian sidekick. Shoots bad guys. How in the blue hell was a fucking Lone Ranger movie supposed to cost $232 million -- more than Green Lantern?
Well, the 3:10 to Yuma remake was able to save a lot of money by having several scenes of character talking to each other - sometimes while sitting in a room, on chairs. If Prince of Persia is anything to go by, I doubt this project would have had that luxury.The remake of 3:10 to Yuma in 2007 cost $55 million. Even the first Pirates of the Caribbean only cost $140 million.
I mean, the premise is about as simple as it gets: Dude rides a horse. Has Indian sidekick. Shoots bad guys. How in the blue hell was a fucking Lone Ranger movie supposed to cost $232 million -- more than Green Lantern?
Interesting bit of info from Jeffrey Wells about just why the film was going to cost so much:
You can read the whole thing here:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2011/08/dances_with_wer.php
You can read the whole thing here:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2011/08/dances_with_wer.php
But even Sherlock Holmes was only $90 million and that looked damn impressive. There's no reason to spend more than $100 million on a Lone Ranger film, even with Depp.
And Sherlock Holmes recreated 19th century London; I would think that would be pricier.
As to the above suggestion of what the movie was going to be like...okay then. Even that still doesn't sound that expensive.
As to the above suggestion of what the movie was going to be like...okay then. Even that still doesn't sound that expensive.
Cowboys & Werewolves? Wow, that sounds so dumb.
Well, it would explain the silver bullets . . . .
I wouldn't be surprised if that what was inspired the idea in the first place:
"So why does the Lone Ranger use silver bullets anyway?"
"To fight werewolves? Hey, that's not bad! Write that down . . . ."
Doubtful.
Completely unfair given that is a character poster, and given that they, among other characters, made one for Alice too.
Domestic audiences won't care, because they'd want to see the newest Johnny Depp film regardless of what role he plays.
Robert Downey Jr. would have brought a different dynamic to the role that Daniel Craig played and obviously has a more easier rapport working with Favs but that doesn't mean the movie would have been more of a success. That's like saying if Ron Howard had remained director this film would have been a success.
RDJ wouldn't have the stone cold look Craig brought to the role. He would be the town drunk who has a weapon on his wrist.