Why Disney Will Never Spend $250 Million on The Lone Ranger
As you may have heard, Disney shockingly put the brakes on the planned big-screen adaptation of The Lone Ranger that star Johnny Depp, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski were aiming to bring into theaters next Christmas. The reasons were budgetary -- the cost of Ranger had reportedly ballooned to $250 million -- but it appears that a mere ("mere") $20-30 million is all that separates the studio from the filmmakers. Provided some cuts can be made -- a task easier said than done, as backend deals and three large-scale action scenes revolving around trains reportedly threaten the compromise -- The Lone Ranger could conceivably hit theaters at some point. Unless, of course, Disney realizes it might not be the best idea anyway.
Ahead, five reasons why Disney will never spend $250 million on The Lone Ranger.
The December release date
Per THR, even at the $220 million budget that Disney wants for The Lone Ranger, the film would have to earn $800 million worldwide to hit the black when backend deals and marketing are taken into account. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln! Of the 30 films that have grossed more than $800 million worldwide in Hollywood history, only five have been released in December: Titanic, the three installments of Lord of the Rings and Avatar. Unless The Lone Ranger is a cultural phenomenon on the level of those films (early guess: it won't be), pushing ticket sales into that tax bracket seems like an impossible task from a Dec. 23 launch. Speaking of which...
Brad Pitt, Peter Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio
Even taking that imposing box office history into account, The Lone Ranger could flirt with $800 million worldwide, provided it was lone; after all, the last two Johnny Deep-led live-action blockbusters -- Alice in Wonderland and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides -- reached $1 billion in sales around the globe. Unfortunately, it's not. The Dec. 23 bow for The Lone Ranger places it against the second weekend of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and -- just announced last week before the news of Ranger's budgetary dirty laundry hit -- World War Z with Brad Pitt. Oh, and Django Unchained, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, which arrives two days later. Johnny Depp is one of the biggest stars on the globe, but even he could have a hard time cutting through against competition like that.
It's a non-sequel
There's an obvious reason why multiplexes are littered with Final Destination 5s, Transformers 3s and Harry Potter 7s: Hollywood loves a sequel. It's often a real risk to launch something that isn't part of a larger storyline. (For reference, see Cowboys & Aliens.) Granted, The Lone Ranger is a known property -- and a veteran one, which might actually work in its advantage if you believe the success of The Smurfs -- but it's still not an easy sell to audiences, even with Depp's background launching franchises. Perhaps Disney would be a little more open to spending between $210 and $250 million on The Lone Ranger if there was a number after its title. And sure, we could always go back to Titanic and Avatar, but those were fairly unique cases that actually underscore one critical Lone Ranger hurdle...
It's a Western
When True Grit became a surprise box office smash in the winter, Hollywood was ready to love Westerns again; when Cowboys & Aliens become a (not) surprise box office wash-out in July, Hollywood was ready to toss the genre back into the dust bin. Which goes to show that Hollywood is finicky like a house cat with Westerns, you never know whether the audience will show up or not. It's an older-skewing genre, and Hollywood blockbusters aren't built for older patrons. Will millennials (especially female millennials) pay money to see The Lone Ranger when Johnny Depp isn't even playing the titular hero -- and the titular hero is a cowboy?
It's too risky
Real talk: Even if Verbinski and Bruckheimer can get this film in under budget, and even if Disney threads the needle on the marketing campaign, and even if they find a perfect release date for the film (perhaps late spring 2013), The Lone Ranger still might wash out. When the stakes are this high, why bother taking such a risk? "It's our intention to take a careful look at what films cost," Disney CEO Robert Iger said recently, "and if we can't get them to a level that we're comfortable with, we think that we're better off actually reducing the size of our slate than making films that are bigger and increasingly more risky." Translation: Hi ho, Silver! Go away!
· 'Lone Ranger': Director, Producer Offer to Trim Fees as Budget Battle Rages [THR]
[Photo: Getty Images]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Shocking about those Disney 'breaks,' which must be less like the things that stop your car and more like Arthur Penn's Missouri Breaks, I guess.
Aren't you clever.
The clear antecedents to this potential boondoggle were "Wild Wild West," and even schlocky genre experiments like 90's absurdity "The Quick And The Dead."
Those films had Will Smith, Kevin Kline, Leo DiCaprio (when she was still purdy,) Gladiator (when he was still purdy,) and SHARON "MENSA" STONE (when she was still purdy) collectively.
So on screen talent can't draw blood from an ill-conceived stone. If the fresh prince himself can't hold up the pole on an overblown action/genre hybrid, what chance does even the mighty Depp have?
The opportunity for a small scale, intimate character study is the core of the western's appeal as a genre. Unforgiven is a the most thoughtful contemporary precedent. True Grit is another that got it right.
Sigh.
Of course, in a pinch we can just retreat to HBO and bask in the baroque seediness of Deadwood, a lineage descending quietly from the pure characterization and raw confrontation of McCabe & Mrs. Miller.
To be fair, the difference between Cutthroat Island and Pirates Of The Caribbean is only Johnny Depp. And that one man in a funny hat has made blockbusters of at least a few recent mediocrities. How funny would his hat be in this?
I understand the spectacle will not be halted.
But, can we just get a straight western? You know, a STORY taking place in the old west? No aliens. No Brukheimer. No adaptation or extraction of an all caps RECOGNIZABLE POP CULTURE PROPERTY.
All our dads would be so pleased. They might even venture out to a theater...
But, alas, I fear the nostalgia mining will continue.
After BATTLESHIP will come OPERATION! wherein Channing Tatum, playing an idealistic young surgeon-hunk is forced to cut the butterflies and funny bones from a specially made alien replica of a human form meant to test the human race, its blaring rudolph-like nose an ominous siren worked into Hans Zimmer's guttural score.
OPERATION! pitch copyright Jack Knive. 2011.
P.S.
Where are all the gritty, revisionist Founding Father tea-party-baiters? I know we got that John Adams mini-series a few years ago (which was actually thoughtful and full of verisimilitude.) But where's the wave of Mel Gibsonesque patriot-porn?
How about we meet in the middle. Johnny Depp as a quirky pseudo-gothic Thomas Jefferson with daddy issues-- directed by Tim Burton. Mr. August should get on that.
P. P. S.
Can you believe there was once a methodical, earthy western scored with Leonard Cohen songs?
Now i just wait for the inevitable Taylor Swift/Justin Beiber cover of Hallelujah produced by Kanye West.
Sigh. I'm old.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln!", it's been a while since i've heard/read that.
Johnny Depp would make a great Lincoln-as-action-hero. It's a part with a funny hat.
National Treasure 3: The Secret Of Lincoln's Beard. Anyone?
But yes, your point to my impertinence is valid.
How dare I write so much for free.
He wasn't talking to you. He was talking about Mr. Rosen's use of the phrase. I do like Depp in fuuny hats though and Leo was real purdy back den.
Oh, my. I have em-bare-assed myself.
That is a great phrase, Christopher.
Disney's actually making sense. Who out there is crying out to see The Lone Ranger again? And how exactly does it take $250 million to tell a familiar Western story? Are there robots involved now? Depp should keep his guaranteed flops to the small and arty variety.
According to Jeffrey Wells, there were actually werewolves involved in the first draft of the script (dated 2009); that has been changed in favor of those three massive set pieces revolving around trains. Still not sure how it could cost even $220 million, but, hey...
As long as Jon Peters isn't involved, it won't have a giant mechanical spider.
If you're going to make a joke like that, you have to make sure it isn't a Mickey Mouse One.
The Quick and the Dead is a lousy example here, if only because nobody involved in it was a real draw at the time. Sharon Stone got top-billing and was already on her way down after the failure of Sliver. Crowe and DiCaprio still had a good 3 years before you could consider them stars. Raimi was making another genre experiment, getting to work with a bit bigger budget.