DC Tom Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I've been wondering this for a while, and finally decided to ask. I heard Disney cancelled their remake of the Lone Ranger. I've heard it was to be a movie including werewolfs (which is the most ill-advised movie concept since Gigli). I've heard Disney cancelled it because the budget was at $250M. So here's my question: How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does it cost a quarter-billion dollars to remake the Lone Ranger with werewolves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Well, what with Twilight, etc., you've gotta take into account the demand price for false fangs and theatre glue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Hi-ho, Silver, away (from theaters!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Why spend $250 million on CGI werewolves and special effects when you can get some dork to fornicate a pie and set box office records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I've been wondering this for a while, and finally decided to ask. I heard Disney cancelled their remake of the Lone Ranger. I've heard it was to be a movie including werewolfs (which is the most ill-advised movie concept since Gigli). I've heard Disney cancelled it because the budget was at $250M. So here's my question: How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does it cost a quarter-billion dollars to remake the Lone Ranger with werewolves? I, for one, am glad to hear this. They should not be investing any more money into these second rate characters until they finally come to their senses and remake one of the most underappreciated films of all time!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) I've been wondering this for a while, and finally decided to ask. I heard Disney cancelled their remake of the Lone Ranger. I've heard it was to be a movie including werewolfs (which is the most ill-advised movie concept since Gigli). I've heard Disney cancelled it because the budget was at $250M. So here's my question: How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does it cost a quarter-billion dollars to remake the Lone Ranger with werewolves? Special visual effects are very expensive. I don't know how many werewolves they were planning on making for this movie, but obviously enough that it caused the budget to be as big as it was. Especially if they want to use the "Motion Capture" effects technology. Also Johnny Depp's contract for the movie would be pricey as well. I also think Jerry Bruckheimer was a part of this project and he loves his expensive films. I believe Disney could justify whatever budget they got for "The Avengers", but "The Lone Ranger" is a whole other matter. I agree that the idea of the Lone Ranger fighting werewolves sounds ridiculous. Having said that, 20th Century Fox has "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" scheduled for next summer, and people may just laugh at that notion. However I did read the book it is based on, and found it to be a good story. Edited August 24, 2011 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I've been wondering this for a while, and finally decided to ask. I heard Disney cancelled their remake of the Lone Ranger. I've heard it was to be a movie including werewolfs (which is the most ill-advised movie concept since Gigli). I've heard Disney cancelled it because the budget was at $250M. So here's my question: How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does it cost a quarter-billion dollars to remake the Lone Ranger with werewolves? Ha! I actually have the script open on my computer at this very moment. What are the odds? Truth be told, I haven't read it yet (though the original writers are two of my all time favorites). This is the first I've heard of werewolves in it -- but that doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, I'm not even sure if I have the final draft of the script (I'm pretty sure I don't). 250 million is an absurd sounding number. I don't work with Disney on the feature side, so I'm really just speaking from what I hear around town. But most of the cost is for the talent. Depp alone is 25 million plus back end points. Gore I believe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15. Bruckheimer's fee is probably in the 20s as well (or maybe higher, I have NO idea what a producer of his clout would get on a feature of this scope). The writers have quotes in the high 7 figures as well. The packaging alone, just the actors, writers, directors, producers -- probably account for close to 100 million of the budget. And then you're looking at easily another 100 million in marketing for a big tent-pole like this would be. Sadly, this is the truth of studio movies these days. Which is why studios are so risk adverse and focused on making movies that already have a built in audience (remakes, sequels, comics, book adaptations) rather than original material. I'll ask around though and try to find out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I also heard it was canceled because its a western, and after the way "Cowboys vs. Aliens" ended up at the box office, they decided to stay away from the western genre for a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I also heard it was canceled because its a western, and after the way "Cowboys vs. Aliens" ended up at the box office, they decided to stay away from the western genre for a little while. This certainly played a big role ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I also heard it was canceled because its a western, and after the way "Cowboys vs. Aliens" ended up at the box office, they decided to stay away from the western genre for a little while. I thought they canceled it because they just found out Jay Silverheels had been dead for over 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Kemosabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) I also heard it was canceled because its a western, and after the way "Cowboys vs. Aliens" ended up at the box office, they decided to stay away from the western genre for a little while. And "Wild, Wild West" about 10 years ago. Perhaps that was the death knell for Western/Sci-fi crossover genre, at least? But... probably not. Wait another 10 years, they'll make another with Orlando Bloom as a gay cowboy who has to fight time-traveling robots bent on the destruction of earth because we're causing a global warming epidemic. In all seriousness, though, while Hollywood is on a known-quantity/sequel kick, I'd love to see a "Starman 2" where they can get into what happens with the child. I recently caught the first after seeing that Jeff Bridges "American Masters" program on PBS, and found out he got an Oscar nod for it. Imagine where they could take it today, given the right story. And seriously, tgregg, if you write this, at least let me proofread it. I graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa Journalism/English. Edited August 24, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 And "Wild, Wild West" about 10 years ago. Perhaps that was the death knell for Western/Sci-fi crossover genre, at least? But... probably not. Wait another 10 years, they'll make another with Orlando Bloom as a gay cowboy who has to fight time-traveling robots bent on the destruction of earth because we're causing a global warming epidemic. Brokeback Mountain Martian man??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/08/every-movie-must-have-werewolves-andor-vampires/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does it cost a quarter-billion dollars to remake the Lone Ranger with werewolves? Cynical side of me says theft and graft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 Ha! I actually have the script open on my computer at this very moment. What are the odds? Truth be told, I haven't read it yet (though the original writers are two of my all time favorites). This is the first I've heard of werewolves in it -- but that doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, I'm not even sure if I have the final draft of the script (I'm pretty sure I don't). 250 million is an absurd sounding number. I don't work with Disney on the feature side, so I'm really just speaking from what I hear around town. But most of the cost is for the talent. Depp alone is 25 million plus back end points. Gore I believe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15. Bruckheimer's fee is probably in the 20s as well (or maybe higher, I have NO idea what a producer of his clout would get on a feature of this scope). The writers have quotes in the high 7 figures as well. The packaging alone, just the actors, writers, directors, producers -- probably account for close to 100 million of the budget. And then you're looking at easily another 100 million in marketing for a big tent-pole like this would be. Sadly, this is the truth of studio movies these days. Which is why studios are so risk adverse and focused on making movies that already have a built in audience (remakes, sequels, comics, book adaptations) rather than original material. I'll ask around though and try to find out more. It actually occured to me shortly after I posted that Depp's salary could easily be 10% or more of the budget. It's just such an insane number, in general and for The Lone Ranger in particular. It actually makes me wonder: is Hollywood killing itself with these ridiculously inflated budgets? $150M used to be a credible showing for a major motion picture; Captain America is considered a flop for it, since it barely covered its budget. X-Men First Class made nearly as much as the first X-Men...again, bombed, didn't even cover its costs. Between the glut of nine-figure movies and the ticket prices forcing a movie-going public to be choosier about what they see, how is this possibly sustainable? Disney was smart to kill Lone Ranger, just on the grounds that a quarter-billion dollar movie is unlikely to be a financial success without possessing some truly remarkable quality (basically: without immersing the viewer in a completely alternate reality, like Avatar or Transformers. Tonto vs. werewolves, not so much.) What would a $250M movie have to pull in these days to break even? I know the old rule-of-thumb was $3 for ever $1 spent...either that doesn't hold anymore, since there's lots of $100M-$150M movies not pulling in $300M; or Hollywood's out of its collective mind. Or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I can't believe you dissed Gigli like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 It actually occured to me shortly after I posted that Depp's salary could easily be 10% or more of the budget. It's just such an insane number, in general and for The Lone Ranger in particular. It actually makes me wonder: is Hollywood killing itself with these ridiculously inflated budgets? $150M used to be a credible showing for a major motion picture; Captain America is considered a flop for it, since it barely covered its budget. X-Men First Class made nearly as much as the first X-Men...again, bombed, didn't even cover its costs. Between the glut of nine-figure movies and the ticket prices forcing a movie-going public to be choosier about what they see, how is this possibly sustainable? Disney was smart to kill Lone Ranger, just on the grounds that a quarter-billion dollar movie is unlikely to be a financial success without possessing some truly remarkable quality (basically: without immersing the viewer in a completely alternate reality, like Avatar or Transformers. Tonto vs. werewolves, not so much.) What would a $250M movie have to pull in these days to break even? I know the old rule-of-thumb was $3 for ever $1 spent...either that doesn't hold anymore, since there's lots of $100M-$150M movies not pulling in $300M; or Hollywood's out of its collective mind. Or both. No, you're 1000% correct. The studio system has always been run by the stars. Not the producers, directors, writers or execs. A star is the only person who can get a movie green-lit. A star is the only reason studios will invest money in a film. A star is the number one draw for audiences. There aren't a lot of true stars in existence. Maybe 8? Probably less. As such, it becomes supply and demand. Stars like JD have huge quotes. Often times they'll take a steep pay cut in exchange for more of the back end -- but studios are hesitant to do that as it eats into their profits. The WGA and SAG strikes a few years ago helped studios by giving them an excuse to streamline development (read: fire studio execs and stop paying millions of dollars to writers who's projects are in perpetual development hell). That certainly helped the studio's bottom line ... but it did nothing to address the problem you bring up. I don't know the answer to be honest. Stars are the most important part of any movie (from a studio perspective) ... But it's gotten to the point where attempting to make an original movie has become far riskier financially for the studios than to just keep pumping out adaptations, sequels and the like. It's depressing for the creatives in the business. That's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I saw that the other day....I thought it was because of how badly Cowboys and Aliens bombed...... Its not the only big project that has recently been put on hold/canceled.....I have a couple of PARF friends that their kids had roles in the "the dark tower" and the same thing happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Special visual effects are very expensive. I don't know how many werewolves they were planning on making for this movie, but obviously enough that it caused the budget to be as big as it was. Especially if they want to use the "Motion Capture" effects technology. Also Johnny Depp's contract for the movie would be pricey as well. I also think Jerry Bruckheimer was a part of this project and he loves his expensive films. I believe Disney could justify whatever budget they got for "The Avengers", but "The Lone Ranger" is a whole other matter. I agree that the idea of the Lone Ranger fighting werewolves sounds ridiculous. Having said that, 20th Century Fox has "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" scheduled for next summer, and people may just laugh at that notion. However I did read the book it is based on, and found it to be a good story. theyve been filming al:vh down here in new orleans. i know many people working on the crew, some extras etc.... i still laugh every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts