At a reported budget of $250 million, you have to wonder if anyone behind Gore Verbinski’s The Lone Ranger actually has respect for the source material. The character is a guy with a Native American partner who fights bad guys. That’s about it. But apparently that’s not cool enough for modern audiences and this notion that bloated spectacle is automatically better is why you now have Disney holding off on making The Lone Ranger and their sticking point is that they have to make it cost $215 to $220 million (or less) instead of $250 million. A source tells THR, “It all starts with [Verbinski]. If there is any saving this version of the movie, he’ll have to find substantial savings. If he can, maybe we can hold this together.” Only in modern blockbuster filmmaking run amuck could knocking $30 million off a $250 million budget qualify as “substantial savings.”
Hit the jump on why the film still costs so much and why Disney remains skittish (and rightfully so). Johnny Depp is still attached to play Tonto with Armie Hammer set as the title character.
If you’re wondering how a freaking western can cost $250 million, here’s how:
The original script included werewolves and other supernatural creatures from Native American myths. Those bells and whistles have been jettisoned, but according to sources who have read recent drafts, three massive action set pieces involving trains remain, including one described as the biggest train sequence in film history.
I can get on board with one train sequence (how can you do three in one movie unless it’s something routine like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?) and making it really spectacular. But Verbinski has reached the point where he doesn’t know how to go small. That doesn’t mean he now makes bad movies (Rango is one of the year’s best), but he’s asking Disney to make a huge gamble on a film that could easily flop.
We don’t even need to go back to The Wild Wild West (another big-budget adaptation of an old western TV series) to see how this could all go terrible wrong. We can go back eight months. First, there was The Green Hornet, which was also based on an old TV and radio serial. It was a flop because the audience it was trying to reach (male teenagers) had never heard of The Green Hornet and I seriously doubt that demographic is familiar with The Lone Ranger.
And then of course there’s Cowboys & Aliens. You can put two major stars in the leading roles and you’ll still barely beat out the freaking Smurfs (and then sink like a stone in the following weeks). Part of that has to do with the movie not being any good and its spectacle being unspectacular. However, it’s also proof that audiences aren’t going to automatically go for a high-concept western and may prefer something that doesn’t feel the need to embellish on a genre (e.g. True Grit).
Disney also has prior obligations to the $300 million John Carter. But they’re also a studio that has gambled big in the past and come up with huge victories. Last year they became the first studio in history to have two films gross over a billion dollars worldwide (Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3). However, the studio also played hardball with Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, lowered the budget and still got a $1 billion worldwide gross.
Even if Disney and the filmmakers are able to negotiate the movie down to $215 million, that price tag basically says “We want the title, the lead characters, and we’ll CGI in some charm in post.”
Green Band Trailer for EVIL DEAD Remake
Collider Goes to the Playboy Mansion for PARKER Screening and “Art of the Heist” Gallery Competition
Sundance 2013: KILL YOUR DARLINGS Review
Sundance 2013: DON JON’S ADDICTION Review
New IRON MAN 3 Toys Show Off Iron Man, Iron Patriot, War Machine and Interchangeable Armor
Each of Verbinski’s Pirates films could have lost 20-30 minutes easily. It would have improved them, in fact. I’m thinking that’s a good place to start with this flick.
Yeah, sorry, but I can’t begin to fathom how cutting 20-30 minutes out of Verbinski’s PIRATES films will save any money being spent on THE LONE RANGER. You’ve really crossed into Twilight Zone territory with that logic.
I mean that Verbinski’s films run long and that’s a good place to cut budget. As I read the story, there’s three train sequences in this film. That indicates to me that this film, like the Pirates films, is probably in the 150-160 minute range. Lop out 20-30 minutes of the shooting script, and you’ll probably save $20 million plus. Sorry if I was unclear.
If it was a problem with his Pirates films then it may be a problem with The Lone Ranger. In which case removing 20-30 minutes at the script stage before filming would reduce the budget.
OK, for the record, I’m stating up front that I’ve contended — from the beginning — that a Johnny Depp-starring LONE RANGER is a j-o-k-e. Now, a $250M budgeted WESTERN?! This is astoundingly ludicrous, and, when I first read it a week ago when this story broke, I seriously thought it was a piece from The Onion. I couldn’t begin to fathom how a WESTERN that wanted to stay true to the Lone Ranger’s origins could even begin to approach that figure UNLESS there were incredible sums tied up in these douchebags salaries, and I’m quite certain that’s where the money is going. Hollywood, this is beyond ridiculous.
I mean … what’s he fighting? The Transformers, for God’s sake?!?!
I agree with you Ed! Salaries and fat ass back end deals pretty much makes sense with that bloated figure.
I’m baffled about the budget as well. I dont get how a western could cost that much even with CGI, Oh wait Johnny the most overrated actor in history Depp thats it. What I am most blown away about is the comment that John Carter is a 300 million deal!? Are you kidding me? No name crappy NBC actor who had a bit part in Wolverine and destroyed Gambit for me ( Should have been Josh Halloway from Lost as gambit.) Not to mention his next god awful film Battleship
So instead of a $250 million or $230 million flop, they’ll have a flop that costs $215 million or less?
And another FYI to the story’s original “writer”: since when is THE LONE RANGER a ‘high concept Western’? I’m a h-u-g-e fan of the original TV “Lone Ranger” and, yes, I’m probably one of the few who actually enjoyed that 80′s flick, but I’ll be the first to admit that the basic origins of the Lone Ranger are essential not really most more than your basic revenge film. There’s nothing ‘high concept’ about it. Nothing in the slightest. As others here have chimed in agreement, a $200M-plus LONE RANGER film defies any possible hint of logic unless, as I stated, he’s fighting the Transformers. It’s just plain silly.
I agree with the points about $250 million being spent on a western. The part about modern audiences not caring is crap. Green Hornet did fine at the box office and was clearly not a flop. I think you guys editorialize in news content without any facts to back up your very ludicrous opinions. A little research wouldn’t kill you, Matt!
Speaking of research…Green Hornet cost $120 million plus advertising. And made $98 million domestically. It made $227 million (domestic & internationally) which means it probably barely broken even after advertising and theaters taking their cut.
In other words, Green Hornet did not do “fine” at the box office.
Regarding such an expensive Lone Ranger movie. Lose Depp. Yeah, he’s a draw, but he’s also very expensive. It’s not guaranteed that his involvement will push such a relatively-unknown property into having huge returns. Westerns are almost US-centric in their appeal, which has to be taken into account.
And just trim the budget. Lavish, big-budget Westerns haven’t really made waves at the box office in quite some time. Perhaps something more modest would be profitable for the first film in a potential franchise.
I’d say breaking even at the box office is “fine” and most certainly not a flop. Cowboys and Aliens and Green Lantern are more in the flop category since they are not EVER going to earn their studios money. Hornet’s basically all ready in the black.
If they make it, when it finally rolls out all the media will want to talk about is why it costs 200+ million to make a Western. I think this kind of outrageously profligate spending in extremely tough times is going to be a turn off for audiences, particularly for a what amounts to a another soulless, money grabbing goof for Depp. The guy owns an island, how much more back end does he need?
Neil Blompkamp did District 9 for 30 million. if you add a star there then it would have probably cost 60-90 million. i know a good studio period film needs atleast 100 million to have a production value and a good attention to detail(heck Fincher’s dramas needs atleast a 100 million budget to satisfy the director’s obsessive attention to detail) . but this kind of budget for a western is just plain stupid. how can Neil Blompkamp make a sci-fi flick for 30 million and Stephen Sommers makes GI Joe for 200 million.
cost cutting is needed here.
This figure for a western is preposterous. Whatever you say about their quality, Michael bay was able to bring in every one of his transformers under 200 million, and the latest one had scenes on the moon, on cybertron, and 1 hr of hardcore city destruction starring expensive cgi robots and he only did it with 165 (195 after 3d). Now to tell me this film is gonna cost 200 plus is like a joke, unless they plan on having cg aliens in this ( oh wait, they did it already, and it flopped!)