Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jan 23, 2014 - 4:32 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Hell, the way Butch Cavendish looked wasn't anything to laugh at.


Which once again proves that old saying, "William Fichtner ROCKS".

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 23, 2014 - 4:40 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Hell, the way Butch Cavendish looked wasn't anything to laugh at.


Which once again proves that old saying, "William Fichtner ROCKS".


I think he was a great villain in Lone Ranger, he did not any credit for it, cause everyone spent the summer beating this movie up.

 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 6:01 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

I think that line is just garbage - if casting a superstar was the goal, they could have easily cast a bankable star as the lead instead of Armie Hammer, and cast a Native American as a Native American.

Yeah, well this is not that complicated, Depp wanted to do this picture, he wanted to do Tonto, he makes like $25 million a movie, so they were not going to hire another $25 million guy for the other part, two actors $50 million, uh, no. That was not going to happen. This picture was built on the relationship between Depp, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Gore Verbinski, who made 4 Pirates pictures together that made tons of cash for Disney. That is where Lone Ranger came from, it was never going to be made without these three guys intact. You should know some backstory before tossing out 'garbage'.


Oh, now that I know some backstory I can completely ignore the fact that they earnestly released a movie with one of the main characters in redface wink

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 7:16 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I think that line is just garbage - if casting a superstar was the goal, they could have easily cast a bankable star as the lead instead of Armie Hammer, and cast a Native American as a Native American.

Yeah, well this is not that complicated, Depp wanted to do this picture, he wanted to do Tonto, he makes like $25 million a movie, so they were not going to hire another $25 million guy for the other part, two actors $50 million, uh, no. That was not going to happen. This picture was built on the relationship between Depp, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Gore Verbinski, who made 4 Pirates pictures together that made tons of cash for Disney. That is where Lone Ranger came from, it was never going to be made without these three guys intact. You should know some backstory before tossing out 'garbage'.


Oh, now that I know some backstory I can completely ignore the fact that they earnestly released a movie with one of the main characters in redface wink



I really hope that you are not this nieve.
Do you really expect Hollywood to represent your value system?
It might be a great value that you want a real Native American to play such roles, but that has nothing at all to do with how movies are made or how they are cast.

Hollywood is about celebrity and money - that is it.
I guess I assumed everyone knew that already.

 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 7:19 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

I really hope that you are not this nieve.
Do you really expect Hollywood to represent your value system?


I am well aware of how people rationalize the things they do, but it doesn't make those things any less disappointing.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 7:59 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I really hope that you are not this nieve.
Do you really expect Hollywood to represent your value system?


I am well aware of how people rationalize the things they do, but it doesn't make those things any less disappointing.



That is true, but we are talking about the entertainment industry here, which is a business, not a person. If they have a decision between casting the ethnically correct actor, or making more money using a celebrity it is not at all a mystery what they are going to do every single time. Yeah, you can not like it, but it is they way it is. Perhaps you should write a letter to the Disney CEO and Bruckheimer.


 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 8:11 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

Unfortunately, writing a well-worded letter to people in power about systemic discrimination is just about as effective as being angry on a film score message board smile

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 8:28 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Unfortunately, writing a well-worded letter to people in power about systemic discrimination is just about as effective as being angry on a film score message board smile


Yeah, true, sometimes though just saying what you feel is important to you is good in itself.


 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 9:22 AM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

Why would a Native American actually want to play Tonto as written into the script? There's no reason to demean one's self or one's culture... even for the $$$

 
 Posted:   Jan 24, 2014 - 2:39 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

Pain & Gain is worse than all of those movies COMBINED.

No way. That film is my second favourite film of 2013 (second only to GRAVITY).


Last year it was PROMETHEUS, and now this!

You're killin' me Thor - please stop it!


AHHAHAHHAHAHHA!
bruce

 
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2014 - 12:27 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

Boy, was STAR TREK ID 'snubbed'!
It may not have bben the worst film, but it mos def 'desrves' a nomination.
A travesty.
bruce

i think "Pacific Man 3": Into Darkness" was the 'worst'
:;

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2014 - 7:06 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Oh give me a break Bruce,

There is nothing about Into Darkness that is anywhere near worthy of a Razzie nomination. That is not a defensible statement. ID is a very fine production and a reasonably good story with decent actors and well directed and shot and scored with nice sets and terrific effects.

You might not like it, you might quibble with how it took bits of the past and changed it, you might quibble with casting, but ID is not a bad film. ID is a pretty good film, and very entertaining. It is not the Star Trek that I love, but it is a pretty good movie.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2014 - 8:14 AM   
 By:   MikeP   (Member)


But it doesn't negate the fact that most Hollywood decisions are made by collective heads of knuckle. On that I think most of us agree.



Yep. As soon as Depp and Verbinksi were attached, the movie was doomed.

There is no reason in the world this movie needed to cost as much as it did. If anyone at Disney were really thinking, they'd have said no to a $200 million dollar western, thrown out Depp/Verbinksi, had a lean, aggressive western written and shot this for under $60 - 70 mil.

Make a good movie instead of trying to make a tentpole picture. Good looking westerns are being made today for peanuts ( they may not be really good pictures, but there is a flood of westerns today that direct to video and most of them look fine on smaller budgets ).

Over $200 million for a western. Really ?

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 29, 2014 - 8:55 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)



Yep. As soon as Depp and Verbinksi were attached, the movie was doomed.

There is no reason in the world this movie needed to cost as much as it did. If anyone at Disney were really thinking, they'd have said no to a $200 million dollar western, thrown out Depp/Verbinksi, had a lean, aggressive western written and shot this for under $60 - 70 mil.

Make a good movie instead of trying to make a tentpole picture. Good looking westerns are being made today for peanuts ( they may not be really good pictures, but there is a flood of westerns today that direct to video and most of them look fine on smaller budgets ).

Over $200 million for a western. Really ?


You are pretty correct Mike. I actually do not blame Verbinsky or Deep as much as Bruckheimer and Disney. Verbinsky is a pretty good director on the right project, Rango was good, and Mouse-Hunt. He does tend to cut his pictures too long though, Lone Ranger is at least 20 minutes too long.

Unfortunately the studios have affirmed the strategy of high stakes ultra expensive movies. Disney even said after Lone Ranger bombed that it does not change their strategy of tentpole picture series. Of course they bought LucasFilm this past year, so that is two more series of very expensive movies, Indy and Star Wars. The bad thing is that this strategy does pay off for them, Avengers (unremarkable film to me) was a monster hit, and Iron Man 3 (at best okay) was a huge money maker. And of course there was Batman and Harry Potter.

 
 Posted:   Jan 30, 2014 - 2:42 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

Oh give me a break Bruce,

There is nothing about Into Darkness that is anywhere near worthy of a Razzie nomination. ,,

.... It is not the Star Trek that I love, but it is a pretty good movie.


No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce

 
 Posted:   Jan 30, 2014 - 2:58 PM   
 By:   Mark R. Y.   (Member)

No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce


Amazing! I agree with Bruce on this one!

 
 Posted:   Jan 30, 2014 - 4:58 PM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce


Amazing! I agree with Bruce on this one!


My issue with the film is that rather than "go where no script has gone before"... it does quite the opposite and goes exactly where countless other screenplays have been. The 'good guy / bad guy' cookie cutter story begs for truly new ideas, IMHO. They've got the whole universe to play with, but you would never know from one predictable Star Trek to the next. I think the original TV show tried harder.

 
 Posted:   Feb 2, 2014 - 4:07 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce


Amazing! I agree with Bruce on this one!


No need for such an emotional reaction Mr. Young.
It is only logical that you should agree with me.
I am, after all the Voice of Authority!
Logical.
smile
brm

 
 Posted:   Feb 2, 2014 - 4:08 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce


Amazing! I agree with Bruce on this one!


My issue with the film is that rather than "go where no script has gone before"... it does quite the opposite and goes exactly where countless other screenplays have been.... .


What "script"?!

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 2, 2014 - 4:25 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Oh give me a break Bruce,

There is nothing about Into Darkness that is anywhere near worthy of a Razzie nomination. ,,

.... It is not the Star Trek that I love, but it is a pretty good movie.


No. it is bad.
Maybe not the worst, but it is bad.
bruce


Nah, sorry, you are off on this one, there are at least a few ST movies worse than this one.
Bad, nah, perhaps not excellent or very good. Bad has to contain something more than just a not original script, because Hollywood makes lots of movies that are pretty good, that do not have an original script, or much of a script at all. Some of the Oscar best pictures winners have had very little script orginal idea to them. So your standards for 'bad' has to contain something more than merely that it copies other pictures.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.