Lone Ranger Is Getting Panned

[johnmiic]

I'm going to see it-first showing today. I have no expectations except it be fun. And that's all I'm hoping for.

[Brazoo]

Lone Ranger hasn't had a feature film since 1981 and IIRC the critics hated that one too. Most of them weren't too thrilled with the original SW trilogy, either.

I know Lucas likes to say that about the Star Wars movies, but it makes no sense for him to say that. All three were universally praised. There were a few critics who didn't love Star Wars, notably Pauline Kael, but she certainly didn't pan it, if you read her review. Star Wars even won the LA Critics Association "Best Picture" award.

If anything Jedi was generally liked, but a little less loved than the other two - but that actually follows what fans generally think as well.

[MIB41]

I think the Lone Ranger character suffers from perceptional issues. You have generations of people who have a general idea of who he is. But really only one live portrayal has taken hold in all this time and that's by Clayton Moore in the 50's. Yes, kids grew up watching the cartoon in the 70's. And there was a brief attempt to revitalize him to film which flopped badly in the early 80's. But the character has remained dormant for such a long time, there has never been any true gauge on what people want (or don't want) from those treatments for a modern interpretation. What do you keep as relevant and discard as too "yester-year"? I think critics went in with their own ideas and that's why you're getting these reactions. I've enjoyed the trailers and I'm not so married to the Clayton years that I can't look through a different scope to see him in a new light. The fact that critics don't like it actually has me encouraged!

[Bronxboykev]

I could care less what they think. The Lone Ranger is going to actually get my father into a movie theater for the first time in years. I have Friday off, so me, him and my kids are going to go see it. I think we'll have fun with it.

Chris

Love it!!! Dad's day Awesome... Enjoy the day and the company! and take the film for what it is entertainment

[Brazoo]

I think the Lone Ranger character suffers from perceptional issues. You have generations of people who have a general idea of who he is. But really only one live portrayal has taken hold in all this time and that's by Clayton Moore in the 50's. Yes, kids grew up watching the cartoon in the 70's. And there was a brief attempt to revitalize him to film which flopped badly in the early 80's. But the character has remained dormant for such a long time, there has never been any true gauge on what people want (or don't want) from those treatments for a modern interpretation. What do you keep as relevant and discard as too "yester-year"? I think critics went in with their own ideas and that's why you're getting these reactions. I've enjoyed the trailers and I'm not so married to the Clayton years that I can't look through a different scope to see him in a new light. The fact that critics don't like it actually has me encouraged!

Honestly, I don't think anyone thinks that much about The Lone Ranger one way or the other - except for you guys. I really don't know anything about The Lone Ranger apart from clips I've seen of the old serials. I actually know him more through the countless parodies. The only appeal the character has for me is that he's iconic looking and kinda quaint.


I think if reviewers are being bias by going in with preconceived notions, it's that they're sitting through ANOTHER directionless A-typical summer dumbfest that's been drizzled with money, cheesy effects, and features Johnny Depp mugging and going hog wild for 2 1/2 hours.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Here's a positive review:

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/07/fanboy_flick_pick_the_lone_ranger_a_tone_stranger.php

Don C.

[enyawd72]

I think the Lone Ranger character suffers from perceptional issues. You have generations of people who have a general idea of who he is. But really only one live portrayal has taken hold in all this time and that's by Clayton Moore in the 50's. Yes, kids grew up watching the cartoon in the 70's. And there was a brief attempt to revitalize him to film which flopped badly in the early 80's. But the character has remained dormant for such a long time, there has never been any true gauge on what people want (or don't want) from those treatments for a modern interpretation. What do you keep as relevant and discard as too "yester-year"? I think critics went in with their own ideas and that's why you're getting these reactions. I've enjoyed the trailers and I'm not so married to the Clayton years that I can't look through a different scope to see him in a new light. The fact that critics don't like it actually has me encouraged!

What you said. Personally, I can't wait to see it.

[Gorn Captain]

I had hoped it would have had a "classic western" feel to it, without the OTT action and explosions and CG.
People like Eastwood have shown us that you can make a modern exciting western, but still respect the genre rules.

I'll probably watch this movie on TV so I can truthfully give my opinion on it, but I haven't enjoyed any of the previews I've seen of it. I'm glad that some of us here liked it, though. Enjoy!

[Brazoo]

Hmmmm....

Here's a positive review:

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/07/fanboy_flick_pick_the_lone_ranger_a_tone_stranger.php

Don C.

That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads. I actually think I might get a kick out of a huge climactic action scene scored by the William Tell Overture.

To bad most people on here don't like movie reviews!

[MIB41]

I just think the Lone Ranger has a limited scope for attracting new audiences. I don't place his potential beyond that of the Phantom. He has a specific origin that can only be played so many ways to remain true to the source material. And just as Brazoo has demonstrated, awareness of the character is based solely on one's personal exposure to those different treatments through the years. The Lone Ranger has been played straight as well as been the butt of jokes. So depending on where you came in, expectations or general interest in the character will vary greatly.

[Bionicfanboy66]

Personally, I'd rather see The Lone Ranger during it's theatrical run and wait for Man Of Steel to hit Redbox. I've seen Superman's orgin retold so many times over the last few decades that it's actually become boring. Why do I need to see it played out again?

[ctc]

>That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads.

I think nowadyas you gotta look for more subtle stuff like this to get much out of mass entertainment. I've noticed (for myself, anyhoo) that the last decade or so of movies have been really bah: the highs not that high, the lows not that low. It shows that the formula has been perfected again, which is why there are so many returning ideas, tropes, scenes, themes, actors, directors.... So you gotta step outside of your own head a bit to see what MIGHT be there. Like this review. Are all those things REALLY in the film, intentionally; or did the reviewer subconsciously add them?

Maybe it doesn't matter, and THAT'S what this era will be known for.... a sort of "tabula rasa" wherein the viewer can read whatever into the essentially blank (my buddy Rob prefers "empty") entertainment. Sorta like all the weird stuff folks read into the cartoons of their youth; it's the result of two human psychology bits: the need for completion, connecting up things that have been grouped (rightly or wrongly) into sets by the brain.... and the idea that the brain can't abide emptyness, and thusly fills in the essentially empty presentation. Be it film, book, comic, whatever. Maybe that's the post-deconstructionist thing. No longer breaking down the artifacts of culture, but spackling in the holes.

>He has a specific origin that can only be played so many ways to remain true to the source material.
>So depending on where you came in, expectations or general interest in the character will vary greatly.

Those apply to a LOT of characters, especially nowadays when everyone mines the past instead of opting for something new. And it's a problem as well as a blessing. You get the name recognition, but you have to time "your" version so's to key up with whatever position on the nostalgia wave said character is currently coasting. I think part of the problem with the Lone Ranger is that he's generally considered WAY old; a product of our parent's time more than ours. So there's a lot of distance for a new audience. He was filler when we were kids, and he's ancient history for our kids.

So maybe you do a complete redo.... which is an option, but risks cheesing off the oldster fans or making the character too much like current characters, boring a new crowd.

>I've seen Superman's orgin retold so many times over the last few decades that it's actually become boring. Why do I need to see it played out again?

That's my complaint with a lot of stuff; Lone Ranger AND Superman included. Entertainment-wise we're living in a post-scarcity world. You can find ANYTHING out there without much effort.... meaning the past incarnations of almost any character are readily available. Which means, really; NO character is obscure. Dropping the time between reboot films doesn't help. Hell; they were announcing the next version of the Batman films BEFORE the last one came out. Who do they think they are, DC Comics?

Normally you get something every decade or so that completely upends the formulas, a sort of refresh for entertainment, allowing at least SOME new ideas to get in.... but we seem overdue.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

>That makes it sound a lot more weird, fun and interesting than I would have thought it was from the ads.

I think nowadyas you gotta look for more subtle stuff like this to get much out of mass entertainment. I've noticed (for myself, anyhoo) that the last decade or so of movies have been really bah: the highs not that high, the lows not that low. It shows that the formula has been perfected again, which is why there are so many returning ideas, tropes, scenes, themes, actors, directors.... So you gotta step outside of your own head a bit to see what MIGHT be there. Like this review. Are all those things REALLY in the film, intentionally; or did the reviewer subconsciously add them?

Maybe it doesn't matter, and THAT'S what this era will be known for.... a sort of "tabula rasa" wherein the viewer can read whatever into the essentially blank (my buddy Rob prefers "empty") entertainment. Sorta like all the weird stuff folks read into the cartoons of their youth; it's the result of two human psychology bits: the need for completion, connecting up things that have been grouped (rightly or wrongly) into sets by the brain.... and the idea that the brain can't abide emptyness, and thusly fills in the essentially empty presentation. Be it film, book, comic, whatever. Maybe that's the post-deconstructionist thing. No longer breaking down the artifacts of culture, but spackling in the holes.

I totally do that! Or if I see a movie with 3 entertaining things in it i end up liking it. The last Punisher movie and that Hansel and Gretel movie come to mind. My standards have lowered for these kinds of movies, I'm afraid.

This reviewer sounds like he enjoyed the Pirates movies a lot more than me, so I'm not putting too much stock in his review. I do like the William Tell thing though - I'm always happy when movie scores do something fun, all the movie scores are so serious and bland now.

[kingdom warrior]

I don't care what the critics say, gonna go see it on the weekend and enjoy it for what it is........there is NO version of the Lone Ranger that is BEYOND great.....
the Tv show is solid but seen one episode seen them all.....and the movie serials were Ok. The TV movie a few years ago sucked and the 1980's movie was cheesy......

[ctc]

>My standards have lowered for these kinds of movies, I'm afraid

I wouldn't think of tham as LOWERED, just a little sideways. I've long felt that what we get from mainstream films are really, REALLY expensive B-Movies; with some of the flair that makes a good B-Movie sucked out 'cos that'd be too much of a risk. To that end, finding something within entertaining is perfectl;y okay. I think of old, 50's monster movies. I love 'em, even though they're all EXACTLY the same. I watch for the weird monsters. Don't care so much about anything else.

My lament nowadays is the the current crop of B's have budgets in the hundreds of millions, and they don't take the same chances the old B's did: the 50's movies HAD to come up with weird, wacky, over the top monsters and stories and situations 'cos that's all they had. So you'd get a giant marionette menacing town, with an explanation about it being from another dimension, and therefore made of anti-matter, rendering it immune to our weapons.... or maybe a gorilla with a diving bell on it's head and a bubble machine, from outer space.... or crawling, (mostly) invisible nuclear brains.... I'm kinda tired of "they're aliens, and they look like Master Chief, until you take the helmet off.... then they look like Predator."

Don C.