Comments on: Disney Shoots Down ‘The Lone Ranger’ Over $200 Million+ Budget

By: Tazz3

Tazz3 — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

Why is there all these printed swear words? Simple decency should play some role in everyone\’s thinking.

By: Mr. Small

Mr. Small — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

Why do they insist on regurgitating this stuff? Do something interesting. I\’d rather stick my finger down my throat than to see more recycled bloated crap that \”hollywood\’ keeps churning out.

By: kintaro.west

kintaro.west — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

I\’m disappointed actually by this news cause I looking forward to this! They passed on Oblivion and this movie, but bankroll OZ, John Carter (soon be and for god knows why…like we fucking asked for it) Pirates? Send John Carter to Netflix, call off Pirates 5 and stop Mr. SpiderMan 3 from making another shitty movie!

By: Huffy

Huffy — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

$250 million?!? Are you fucking kidding me? That\’s James Cameron money. The fact that Disney was actually willing to go forward with the $200 million price tag is even more shocking. This is a franchise that no one under the age of fifty is familiar with and westerns just aren\’t popular with the under-25 set, which is the group that the film would have needed to attract to turn a profit. This trend of bloating budgets just because the last $200 million dollar movie did well is going to have to come to an end sometime.

By: padre

padre — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

They should have canned OZ instead. That movie sounds like a bomb and JOHN CARTER is a surefire mega-bomb that looks terrible.

Taylor Kitsch is a dead man walking. His reps have done something colossally stupid and have him fronting too many big films in too short a time, all without the audience feeling they had any say-so on him. Audiences hate it when they feel someone is being shoved on them and ALWAYS push back. Jude Law, Colin Farrell, Jake G, and more. All fine actors, handsome and charismatic men. If the audience had been allowed to \”discover\” them and let them grow in an organic way, all would be A-listers today. Instead they were force fed to the audience, and the public vomited them back out again and flushed them down the toilet. Kitsch is next.

By: hank

hank — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

what were they paying $250 Million for? Depp\’s salary and a shit load of explosions. Duh.

By: Laura Schmitt

Laura Schmitt — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

ENOUGH with the sequels, prequels, and shitty franchises

By: Yojimbo

Yojimbo — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

Probably the smartest move by any studio in the last five years. If a film needs to cost anything near 100 million dollars it ceases to be about story and more about effects. If a movie costs $200 million all the executives who green lighted the film need to be given performance slips. If two films they green light do not recoup their investment, they lose their jobs. That includes every executive regardless of stature. For the highest executives they are on a three strike rule, they surrender all options and golden parachute money if three films fail to recoup the entire investment with profit.. How many failed amusement park rides need to be made before a studio realizes that they need quality craftsmanship instead of circus film making .

By: KitCon

KitCon — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:02:04 +0000

Nice work on the Depp – Tonto photoshop. But that Hammer – Lone Ranger photo ….
I was actually looking forward to this more than Dark Shadows esp. as Depp was intent on reversing the image American Indians had from previous films. Maybe it was the poor showing of the similarly western themed Cowboys & Aliens that made Disney balk at the budget.