Don't think i like any TV show thats been made into a movie. The originals are usually so good. Big budget doesnt mean a good movie.
Wild wild west was the worst ever remake.
Hope they keep the theme music. One of the best themes ever!
Either than or Quantum Jump ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchOYs_d_Bw
Another interesting piece on Depp's recent choice of films. Like many, I'm going to give this a miss, even though it's already paid for via my Cineworld Unlimited card. Looks total crap and I'm sick of his weird shtick.
I've been saying that since the third Pirates movie came out. Depp can be a very good actor, but his choices of late have been very lazy. I absolutely hated him in Alice in Wonderland (i hated that film as a whole though). Hopefully he'll stop doing the wacky Jack Sparrow style characters soon and get back to actually acting. I'm hoping that Wally Pfister's Interstellar will be a step in the right direction for him.
I've been saying that since the third Pirates movie came out. Depp can be a very good actor, but his choices of late have been very lazy. I absolutely hated him in Alice in Wonderland (i hated that film as a whole though). Hopefully he'll stop doing the wacky Jack Sparrow style characters soon and get back to actually acting. I'm hoping that Wally Pfister's Interstellar will be a step in the right direction for him.
BTW, I think you mean Transcendence, Interstellar is the Chris Nolan film Pfister won't be doing because he's too busy with Transcendence...
Pirate copies have appeared online already. When will the studios learn that staggered release dates are a terrible idea?
Anyway, I won't be seeing it in the cinema. Johnny Depp hasn't made an even half-way decent movie for years now, imho, and TLR does look like complete tripe. Choosing poor scripts or ideas is a real waste on Depp's part because he's a great actor when he wants to be.
Johnny Depp needs to stay away, far far away from Tim Burton, same old same old in every film. Last good performance I remember from him was the Libertine, way back in 2004. And I do believe he is a great actor, just a bit jaded and of late has consistently been making poor film choices.
I went to the screening in Leicester Square last night.
I thought it was terrible. The jokes were predictable and really not that funny, it was too long and there were plot holes a-plenty.
I'm going to see The Lone Ranger on Saturday and I'm looking forward to it despite the negative reviews from the US.I thought the trailer looked good and Empire have given it four stars so I'm going to give it a try.Hopefully it will be a pleasant suprise!
I see Depp has taken the time-honoured route of blaming critics for its box-office woes or somesuch.
Conveniently forgetting, of course, that many films take a critical hammering and still succeed, sometimes wildly. But then these are probably films that 'know their audience' so to speak (e.g. Sandler, Transformers). Perhaps this was the stumbling block Disney didn't consider, even if they did have Depp in the saddle in full 'eccentric' mode. As a subject, did TLR really have much in the way of built-in audience or public interest to tap?
I see Depp has taken the time-honoured route of blaming critics for its box-office woes or somesuch.
the bizarre thing is the comparison to World War Z, a film with a troubled production that was widely reported on by the media, but when the reviews came out were moderately good, indicating that far from deciding in advance the film was going to be cr*p the critics actually gave it a fair shot. So far from supporting his argument it actually undermines it.
Because I'll get to see it for free with my Unlimited card I'll probably go to see it, although it has no appeal to me.
I think this film was doomed from the initial idea stage, long before there was a script, casting or anything else. As a reviewer on TV mentioned, as a genre the western is dead. Every so often you get another western come along and it tanks at the box office. With all the numerous TV channels you don't have four or five western series. Deadwood for HBO was a minor success but was axed after three series. Thefilm based on a comic that was supposed to be the big film of the year "Wild Wild West" tanked despite having one of the biggest names at that time, Will Smith in it coming off the success "Bad Boys" and "Men In Black."
Passing time has pretty much killed the genre. If you ask younger people who half of the "legends" of The Wild West are and what they are famous for they wouldn't have a clue.
I'm in my late forties so am of an age that had shows like Rawhide, Wagon Train, The Virginian, Bonanza, The High Chapperal and yes The Lone Ranger on TV every week as a kid, so when The Lone Ranger was announced I had a memory and knowledge of the character, who Tonto was, "Hi Ho Silver Away!" and of course The Willaim Tell theme.
People in their twenties don't have that to fall back on. Is it a coincidence that retro mean in the 80's and not before? Well occasionally the 70's too. You now have all the new young people in film and TV that are saying that used to be so cool, lets remake that. When you look at their ages, they were kids in the 80's and 90's. To them anything from then is old. Earlier than that is unknown or archaic.
Another thing I grew up watching was Tarzan films. Could you imagine them announcing that they are making a Tarzan film? Pretty much everyone in their 20's and younger will think.... who? They may have heard the name, but they don't know the old films and TV series that I grew up watching. Would a Tarzan film work today? Of course not it would seem silly and tame, it wass of it's generation. Unfortunately The Lone Ranger and in many ways westerns are of a generation too. So this film was always heading for failure.
Of course making it a comedy didn't help, pretty much the same as Dark Shadows. The series wasn't an "intentional" comedy, so making a comedy version of it was again, doomed as you've changed the essence of what the series was and why it was so popular.
Because I'll get to see it for free with my Unlimited card I'll probably go to see it, although it has no appeal to me.
I think this film was doomed from the initial idea stage, long before there was a script, casting or anything else. As a reviewer on TV mentioned, as a genre the western is dead. Every so often you get another western come along and it tanks at the box office. With all the numerous TV channels you don't have four or five western series. Deadwood for HBO was a minor success but was axed after three series. Thefilm based on a comic that was supposed to be the big film of the year "Wild Wild West" tanked despite having one of the biggest names at that time, Will Smith in it coming off the success "Bad Boys" and "Men In Black."
Passing time has pretty much killed the genre. If you ask younger people who half of the "legends" of The Wild West are and what they are famous for they wouldn't have a clue.
I'm in my late forties so am of an age that had shows like Rawhide, Wagon Train, The Virginian, Bonanza, The High Chapperal and yes The Lone Ranger on TV every week as a kid, so when The Lone Ranger was announced I had a memory and knowledge of the character, who Tonto was, "Hi Ho Silver Away!" and of course The Willaim Tell theme.
People in their twenties don't have that to fall back on. Is it a coincidence that retro mean in the 80's and not before? Well occasionally the 70's too. You now have all the new young people in film and TV that are saying that used to be so cool, lets remake that. When you look at their ages, they were kids in the 80's and 90's. To them anything from then is old. Earlier than that is unknown or archaic.
Another thing I grew up watching was Tarzan films. Could you imagine them announcing that they are making a Tarzan film? Pretty much everyone in their 20's and younger will think.... who? They may have heard the name, but they don't know the old films and TV series that I grew up watching. Would a Tarzan film work today? Of course not it would seem silly and tame, it wass of it's generation. Unfortunately The Lone Ranger and in many ways westerns are of a generation too. So this film was always heading for failure.
Of course making it a comedy didn't help, pretty much the same as Dark Shadows. The series wasn't an "intentional" comedy, so making a comedy version of it was again, doomed as you've changed the essence of what the series was and why it was so popular.
That's great, but wasn't Deadwood axed because it costs $5m an episode, and at the time HBO couldn't afford to pay? Rather than not necessarily popular enough
That's great, but wasn't Deadwood axed because it costs $5m an episode, and at the time HBO couldn't afford to pay? Rather than not necessarily popular enough
I have no idea. Like most HBO shows I gave up after the first episode of the first series.
Many HBO I've seen = lots of "F" words and unnecessary nudity. I don't have a problem with either, but when it becomes exxcessive I get bored and switch off very quickly.
It's very possible that it was budget that killed this show off, but it doesn't explain why there are so many channels worldwide yet westerns are so scarce?
Unlike the Victorian drams atht have lavish costumes and sets, westerns are quite basic so visually they don't attract viewers. They don't tend to have the decadence and fantasy f another time that period dramas have so that means it relies on the cast or the storylines. You can only do the same story so many times before it starts to get the same and you have the feeling of seen it all before.
You then of course have the problem that if you stick to a certain amount of authenticity of the time, women's roles in society were completelt different. Men were men and women were women, often the homemaker etc. In 2013 that is going to be hard to pull off. It's certainly easier to do with Victorian or Roman films and TV shows.
If you look at shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prarie. Where are the strong female roles?
Can you write better roles for woem? yes, will it come across as authentic? probably not. The minute you start changing too much it stops being realistic and so it may then lose it's appeal to fans of the genre.
As I say, this film may tank because it's a bloody awful film, but IMO it was always going to be a risk owing to the fact it's a western and that is a near dead genre or at the very least one that is liked by the minority not the majority.
As I say, this film may tank because it's a bloody awful film, but IMO it was always going to be a risk owing to the fact it's a western and that is a near dead genre or at the very least one that is liked by the minority not the majority.
I like loads of westerns, but I wouldn't waste my money or time on something like this film. Unforgiven is the most recent really great western movie I've seen, though, and that's over twenty years old now.
I thought Deadwood was alright at first, but I lost interest in the second season. I think they ran out of ideas, and it was just treading water. The Lonesome Dove miniseries is my favourite tv western.
The thing I'm surprised about with it is with all the negative hype this film has been getting that Disney seemed to have chosen a terrible week to release it over here!
Percy Jackson, Alan Partridge and Grown Ups 2 are all out this week as well and are all big films which will be on at all the multiplexes alongside it.
It's like they've sent it out to die! Surely you'd pick a quieter week and hope some people go and see it out of curiosity if nothing else.
The thing I'm surprised about with it is with all the negative hype this film has been getting that Disney seemed to have chosen a terrible week to release it over here!
Percy Jackson, Alan Partridge and Grown Ups 2 are all out this week as well and are all big films which will be on at all the multiplexes alongside it.
It's like they've sent it out to die! Surely you'd pick a quieter week and hope some people go and see it out of curiosity if nothing else.
Release schedules are planned out and decided on months (and even years) in advance, with any changes rarely happening late in the day - usually a good few months prior if the film's in difficulty or whatever.
Obviously Disney were thinking it would be one of the summer's big hits and do better than any competition opening beside it.
But...the glove might be on the other foot now, as Alan might say.
Release schedules are planned out and decided on months (and even years) in advance, with any changes rarely happening late in the day - usually a good few months prior if the film's in difficulty or whatever.
Obviously Disney were thinking it would be one of the summer's big hits and do better than any competition opening beside it.
But...the glove might be on the other foot now, as Alan might say.
Also, being the UK they don't give a shit.
We're not a big enough market for them to care. Sure we're fairly big, but not as big as China, Japan and the US, so they probably weren't even paying attention when they set the date.
We're not a big enough market for them to care. Sure we're fairly big, but not as big as China, Japan and the US, so they probably weren't even paying attention when they set the date.
I think that's grossly inaccurate, our box office takings may seem small compared to grosses seen in the US and China, but the UK is still classed as one of the major markets for box office takings. You only have to look at the "foreign charts" section for films on Box Office Mojo to see that we're always one of the higher grossing countries on the list. Distributors definitely care about the UK, so I imagine that the reason why Disney stuck to their release date is because they were hoping it'd hold it's own against the competition. Some thought obviously went into the release date considering they waited until the school holidays to release it.
I found it funny the other day that the people behind the movie were blaming the critics for the failure of the film...maybe if they'd made a better film then the film wouldn't have failed. World War Z just shows that a troubled development and critics having their knives out doesn't always lead to a box office bomb.
I think that's grossly inaccurate, our box office takings may seem small compared to grosses seen in the US and China, but the UK is still classed as one of the major markets for box office takings. You only have to look at the "foreign charts" section for films on Box Office Mojo to see that we're always one of the higher grossing countries on the list. Distributors definitely care about the UK, so I imagine that the reason why Disney stuck to their release date is because they were hoping it'd hold it's own against the competition. Some thought obviously went into the release date considering they waited until the school holidays to release it.
I found it funny the other day that the people behind the movie were blaming the critics for the failure of the film...maybe if they'd made a better film then the film wouldn't have failed. World War Z just shows that a troubled development and critics having their knives out doesn't always lead to a box office bomb.
Third in the world (presumably when combined with Malta and Ireland), is hardly brilliant.
If they care about us that much, why did we get Cloud Atlas (Warner Bros.) about 6 months after it's US release. Any why did they wait until February to release Wreck-It-Ralph (Disney), instead of the November half term or Christmas holiday? Why is Pain and Gain (Paramount) coming out in the UK a few days after it's get released on Blu Ray in the US?
Indies can do it day and date (eOne's Looper), but seemingly not the bigger studios with more money and manpower. Or more likely they just don't care...
Comments
Lone Ranger was originally a radio serial .
I've been saying that since the third Pirates movie came out. Depp can be a very good actor, but his choices of late have been very lazy. I absolutely hated him in Alice in Wonderland (i hated that film as a whole though). Hopefully he'll stop doing the wacky Jack Sparrow style characters soon and get back to actually acting. I'm hoping that Wally Pfister's Interstellar will be a step in the right direction for him.
BTW, I think you mean Transcendence, Interstellar is the Chris Nolan film Pfister won't be doing because he's too busy with Transcendence...
Anyway, I won't be seeing it in the cinema. Johnny Depp hasn't made an even half-way decent movie for years now, imho, and TLR does look like complete tripe. Choosing poor scripts or ideas is a real waste on Depp's part because he's a great actor when he wants to be.
Ah yeah, oops:o
I thought it was terrible. The jokes were predictable and really not that funny, it was too long and there were plot holes a-plenty.
Conveniently forgetting, of course, that many films take a critical hammering and still succeed, sometimes wildly. But then these are probably films that 'know their audience' so to speak (e.g. Sandler, Transformers). Perhaps this was the stumbling block Disney didn't consider, even if they did have Depp in the saddle in full 'eccentric' mode. As a subject, did TLR really have much in the way of built-in audience or public interest to tap?
the bizarre thing is the comparison to World War Z, a film with a troubled production that was widely reported on by the media, but when the reviews came out were moderately good, indicating that far from deciding in advance the film was going to be cr*p the critics actually gave it a fair shot. So far from supporting his argument it actually undermines it.
I think this film was doomed from the initial idea stage, long before there was a script, casting or anything else. As a reviewer on TV mentioned, as a genre the western is dead. Every so often you get another western come along and it tanks at the box office. With all the numerous TV channels you don't have four or five western series. Deadwood for HBO was a minor success but was axed after three series. Thefilm based on a comic that was supposed to be the big film of the year "Wild Wild West" tanked despite having one of the biggest names at that time, Will Smith in it coming off the success "Bad Boys" and "Men In Black."
Passing time has pretty much killed the genre. If you ask younger people who half of the "legends" of The Wild West are and what they are famous for they wouldn't have a clue.
I'm in my late forties so am of an age that had shows like Rawhide, Wagon Train, The Virginian, Bonanza, The High Chapperal and yes The Lone Ranger on TV every week as a kid, so when The Lone Ranger was announced I had a memory and knowledge of the character, who Tonto was, "Hi Ho Silver Away!" and of course The Willaim Tell theme.
People in their twenties don't have that to fall back on. Is it a coincidence that retro mean in the 80's and not before? Well occasionally the 70's too. You now have all the new young people in film and TV that are saying that used to be so cool, lets remake that. When you look at their ages, they were kids in the 80's and 90's. To them anything from then is old. Earlier than that is unknown or archaic.
Another thing I grew up watching was Tarzan films. Could you imagine them announcing that they are making a Tarzan film? Pretty much everyone in their 20's and younger will think.... who? They may have heard the name, but they don't know the old films and TV series that I grew up watching. Would a Tarzan film work today? Of course not it would seem silly and tame, it wass of it's generation. Unfortunately The Lone Ranger and in many ways westerns are of a generation too. So this film was always heading for failure.
Of course making it a comedy didn't help, pretty much the same as Dark Shadows. The series wasn't an "intentional" comedy, so making a comedy version of it was again, doomed as you've changed the essence of what the series was and why it was so popular.
That's great, but wasn't Deadwood axed because it costs $5m an episode, and at the time HBO couldn't afford to pay? Rather than not necessarily popular enough
I have no idea. Like most HBO shows I gave up after the first episode of the first series.
Many HBO I've seen = lots of "F" words and unnecessary nudity. I don't have a problem with either, but when it becomes exxcessive I get bored and switch off very quickly.
It's very possible that it was budget that killed this show off, but it doesn't explain why there are so many channels worldwide yet westerns are so scarce?
Unlike the Victorian drams atht have lavish costumes and sets, westerns are quite basic so visually they don't attract viewers. They don't tend to have the decadence and fantasy f another time that period dramas have so that means it relies on the cast or the storylines. You can only do the same story so many times before it starts to get the same and you have the feeling of seen it all before.
You then of course have the problem that if you stick to a certain amount of authenticity of the time, women's roles in society were completelt different. Men were men and women were women, often the homemaker etc. In 2013 that is going to be hard to pull off. It's certainly easier to do with Victorian or Roman films and TV shows.
If you look at shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prarie. Where are the strong female roles?
Can you write better roles for woem? yes, will it come across as authentic? probably not. The minute you start changing too much it stops being realistic and so it may then lose it's appeal to fans of the genre.
As I say, this film may tank because it's a bloody awful film, but IMO it was always going to be a risk owing to the fact it's a western and that is a near dead genre or at the very least one that is liked by the minority not the majority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23598825
If that turns out to be the case, it will actually become the biggest cinema flop of all time ..
I like loads of westerns, but I wouldn't waste my money or time on something like this film. Unforgiven is the most recent really great western movie I've seen, though, and that's over twenty years old now.
I thought Deadwood was alright at first, but I lost interest in the second season. I think they ran out of ideas, and it was just treading water. The Lonesome Dove miniseries is my favourite tv western.
I'm seeing it on Friday morning. BTW I thought John Carter was an awesome film.
I really liked John Carter as well. Yes it was silly, but as a pure 'saturday morning adventure' film it worked well and was quite enjoyable.
Percy Jackson, Alan Partridge and Grown Ups 2 are all out this week as well and are all big films which will be on at all the multiplexes alongside it.
It's like they've sent it out to die! Surely you'd pick a quieter week and hope some people go and see it out of curiosity if nothing else.
Loved John Carter as well
Obviously Disney were thinking it would be one of the summer's big hits and do better than any competition opening beside it.
But...the glove might be on the other foot now, as Alan might say.
Also, being the UK they don't give a shit.
We're not a big enough market for them to care. Sure we're fairly big, but not as big as China, Japan and the US, so they probably weren't even paying attention when they set the date.
I think that's grossly inaccurate, our box office takings may seem small compared to grosses seen in the US and China, but the UK is still classed as one of the major markets for box office takings. You only have to look at the "foreign charts" section for films on Box Office Mojo to see that we're always one of the higher grossing countries on the list. Distributors definitely care about the UK, so I imagine that the reason why Disney stuck to their release date is because they were hoping it'd hold it's own against the competition. Some thought obviously went into the release date considering they waited until the school holidays to release it.
I found it funny the other day that the people behind the movie were blaming the critics for the failure of the film...maybe if they'd made a better film then the film wouldn't have failed. World War Z just shows that a troubled development and critics having their knives out doesn't always lead to a box office bomb.
If they care about us that much, why did we get Cloud Atlas (Warner Bros.) about 6 months after it's US release. Any why did they wait until February to release Wreck-It-Ralph (Disney), instead of the November half term or Christmas holiday? Why is Pain and Gain (Paramount) coming out in the UK a few days after it's get released on Blu Ray in the US?
Indies can do it day and date (eOne's Looper), but seemingly not the bigger studios with more money and manpower. Or more likely they just don't care...