Disney Pulls the plug on The Lone Ranger

[mike the canuck]

http://www.slashfilm.com/disney-pulls-plug-the-lone-ranger-johnny-depp/#more-109798


Sometimes even Johnny Depp is too expensive. Deadline is reporting that Disney has pulled the plug on The Lone Ranger, the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced, Gore Verbinski-directed action western based on the classic TV show that was scheduled for release next Christmas. According to reports, the proposed budget came in north of $240 million and even when it was cut back, was still more than $230 million. With expensive films like John Carter and Oz The Great and Powerful already at various stages of production, and The Lone Ranger not yet shooting, Disney cancelled the film to save some bucks. There’s more after the jump.

There’s no word on where this leaves the project, which also had Armie Hammer attached as the lead character along side Depp’s Tonto, but according to Deadline “the studio and filmmakers are trying to figure out the next step, which would either be to shop it elsewhere or put it back together at a later date at a lower budget.”



This is a surprise because Depp and Bruckheimer, but Depp in particular, has been pure platinum for Disney. He’s made four incredibly successful (and incredibly expensive) Pirates of the Caribbean films with the studio and the latest one, On Stranger Tides, the most successful yet, grossing well over $1 billion internationally making it the #8 highest grossing film of all time. He also starred in Alice in Wonderland, another billion dollar bonanza.

Deadline’s story places the blame squarely on the shoulders of John Carter and Oz. Carter’s budget has, reportedly, ballooned over $300 million because of reshoots and Raimi’s Oz prequel is in the same range as Lone Ranger would have been – well north of $200 million.

Timing might have also be a culprit. The only major release for Disney in the coming months is the not-sure-thing The Muppets, followed by the even bigger gamble Carter in March. Plus, with Cars 2 considered a disappointment – at least at the box office – one tends to believe maybe there just wasn’t enough money rolling in for three (four if you count Brave) incredibly expensive films to all be in production at once, and only one coming out in theaters to off-set the cost. Maybe they’ll just put the film on hold (it already had a release date, after all) until some more cash rolls in from productions that are already paid for.

 

[zorro77]

Sorry to hear that Lone Ranger is off at this time. Being a old timer and loved the original with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels to bad it cost to much to produce.

 

[nytimez]

Crazy that they'd need $240 million to make a cowboys-and-Indians flick. Just to compare it to current films, that's a little less than Cowboys and Aliens ($163 million) and Rise of the Planet of the Apes ($93 million) -- COMBINED.

I'd normally be the first to accuse Disney of cheapening out... but I don't see any reason for a film of this nature to cost anything close to that kind of money.

 

[charliebrown]

 

[diamondpixienc]

As the Previous Poster just illustrated w/ the "screaming" cat NNNNOOOOOOOO! I am so bummed to hear of this. Although, DH & I did not get to enjoy The Lone Ranger when they originally aired; we are a part of the generation that had the priviledge of seeing it in re-runs as children. In fact we even bought the box set so that our kids could enjoy it and they do. Oh, well I hope they can make it work but then again, I would rather they wait until they have the funds to do it right.

 

[Golf4food]

Crazy that they'd need $240 million to make a cowboys-and-Indians flick. Just to compare it to current films, that's a little less than Cowboys and Aliens ($163 million) and Rise of the Planet of the Apes ($93 million) -- COMBINED.

I'd normally be the first to accuse Disney of cheapening out... but I don't see any reason for a film of this nature to cost anything close to that kind of money.

I'm with you on this one. As much as I'd like to see a Lone Ranger movie I can't see how the costs could be so high. How much CG do you need in a Lone Ranger movie? I can't think of any other reason the cost should be so high unless Depp wants $150M just for his paycheck.

 

[Polydweller]

I'm with you on this one. As much as I'd like to see a Lone Ranger movie I can't see how the costs could be so high. How much CG do you need in a Lone Ranger movie? I can't think of any other reason the cost should be so high unless Depp wants $150M just for his paycheck.

There have been rumblings about this in the trade sites for a couple of months. Essentially, Disney has been asking the same questions and also can't understand why Bruckheimer has had the costs get out of hand. Pulling the plug because they are too high and might be going higher so it no longer fits in the expenditure stream since it's possible % return goes down with each cost increase.

 

[Disco]

Yeah I don't get it. All of Disney's movies have been way over budget lately. PoC 4 may have done well internationally but it's the worst of the bunch domestically and it cost 100mill more than the original one to produce. Tangled cost 170 mil?! Cars2 200mil (vs Cars 1 120). Tron 170mil.
Man a lot of these movies would have done great if it wasn't for the outrageous production budgets.

 

[Faldred]

Tangled cost 170 mil?!

IIRC, wasn't there a fair amount of infrastructure/R&D for the animation department as a whole that was charged to this film rather than amortized over a bunch of individual projects? If I'm remembering that right, it makes Tangled look artificially high, cost-wise.

 

[nytimez]

Yeah I don't get it. All of Disney's movies have been way over budget lately. PoC 4 may have done well internationally but it's the worst of the bunch domestically and it cost 100mill more than the original one to produce. Tangled cost 170 mil?! Cars2 200mil (vs Cars 1 120). Tron 170mil.
Man a lot of these movies would have done great if it wasn't for the outrageous production budgets.

IIRC, wasn't there a fair amount of infrastructure/R&D for the animation department as a whole that was charged to this film rather than amortized over a bunch of individual projects? If I'm remembering that right, it makes Tangled look artificially high, cost-wise.

Kind of. It wasn't just the technology costs, although there were some -- I think they created their own software or something for photorealistic hair, for example -- but that the film had a number of problems in development. I think it went through a few different teams before it finally took shape. Or something like that.

 

[mike the canuck]

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...s_disn/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed

So How Come ‘The Lone Ranger’ Was Going To Cost $250 Million? 5 Reasons Disney Got Cold Feet

Hollywood are heading into an unusually thrifty mode these days, with several big potential projects, like Guillermo del Toro‘s “At the Mountains of Madness” and Ron Howard‘s “The Dark Tower” being scrapped since the start of the year. But of all the big movies in the works, one that reunited the producer, writers, director and star of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, which has taken over $3 billion worldwide theatrically alone, seemed to be a safe bet. And yet “The Lone Ranger,” which was to star Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, to be directed by Gore Verbinski and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, has been shut down by Disney after concern over the film’s budget, said to have risen to a whopping $232 million (that itself cut down from an original $250 million price tag).

Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere wrote over the weekend that the film was “a kind of an Indian-spirituality werewolf movie” with extensive CGI, hence the gigantic budget, based on his ready of a 2009 draft of the film by ‘Pirates’ writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. It’s been no secret that the film, like the swashbuckling franchise, would involve supernatural elements, but we’ve read the same draft, and Wells doesn’t have it quite right: there are supernatural wolves, and a legion of coyotes, but they’re not strictly speaking werewolves. Instead, the major supernatural element in the script involves the Wendigo, a cannibalistic Native American spirit capable of possessing humans.

As such, the effects workload wouldn’t have been any higher than the average blockbuster —of course there would be heavy CGI elements, but probably far less than something like, say, Disney’s other forthcoming tentpoles “John Carter” and “Oz: The Great and Powerful”—and the fantastical elements, at least in Elliot and Rossio’s draft (Justin Haythe has since come on board to rewrite) aren’t massively prominent, the film being more of a straight action Western.

So the idea that the film’s hit a speedbump because it’s stacked with CGI isn’t accurate, the reasons being far more varied. We suspect that the film will still move ahead at some point—Depp’s likely to be on a pay-or-play contract, and Disney won’t want to take that hit without getting something out of it. It might even make its October start date if the budget can be trimmed down enough (although whether Verbinski comes along for the ride is more of a question mark—as Warners did with “Akira,” the studio may go after a younger, cheaper helmer who can bring the film in on a budget). But how did that budget get so big? And why did Disney start to feel so nervous about something which only a few months ago seemed like a sure-fire hit?

1. It Was, After All, An Expensive Big-Scope Action Picture
It might not have been stuffed with CGI creatures, but there’s no denying from a look at Elliot and Rossio’s draft (which gives at least a guide of where the film was heading, as most of the casting announcements gel with roles in it) that it would have cost a pretty penny. Period pieces are always expensive, for one, and particularly one like this; shooting in New Mexico won Disney tax breaks, but it also meant they couldn’t shoot on a backlot—enormous sets, of which several are written in, would have to be constructed from scratch. As you’d expect from a film like this, there are plenty of big action sequences as well—two set on a train, including a bridge collapse and derailment, a Comanche attack and a wild horse stampede, plus the coyote/wolf sequence that Wells talks about. None of these things can be skimped on for a hopeful tentpole.

2. It Had Hefty Above-The-Line Costs
Even if the film involved nothing else but Verbinski filming Depp playing with a cup and ball, it likely would have cost at least $60 million, possibly more. According to Vanity Fair, Depp made $35 million upfront alone for “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” and we’d imagine it’s unlikely that he’d be doing this for any less. Verbinski was probably picking up a hefty paycheck, as were Bruckheimer and the writers, meaning that the film has cost the average budget of a movie before anything had been shot. And all likely had major back-end deals too: Depp is expected to make around $100 million in total off the success of ‘Pirates,’ which would curb Disney’s profits severely. And all this without taking into account the cost of press and advertising, likely to be at least another $100 million on top. There’s no denying Depp’s star appeal, but it’s not bulletproof—witness the domestic underperformance of “The Tourist.” To put it simply, there’s a reason that many blockbusters go with relative unknowns—look at the Marvel pictures, or “Star Trek.”

3. The Failure Of “Cowboys & Aliens”
It’s no coincidence that this news came only a few weeks after Jon Favreau‘s “Cowboys & Aliens” became the biggest flop of the summer season. Another $200 million Western mash-up with two big stars in the lead, it’ll be lucky to clear $100 million in the U.S, despite having a highly marketable title and premise. It’s not like the Western is ever a home-run at the box office these days: the top-grossing film in the genre remains “Dances with Wolves,” which took $400 million worldwide 20 years ago. Behind that, there’s last year’s surprise hit “True Grit,” but that film only took 30% of its total in foreign territories, which has to be a concern for Disney considering that ‘Pirates 4’ took 75% of its gross abroad. Furthermore, the grim, serious tone of “Cowboys & Aliens,” thought by many to be part of the problem, looked to be where “The Lone Ranger” was heading: Haythe is best known for “Revolutionary Road,” and Jeff Wells says that Depp, keen to honor his own Native American heritage, “didn’t want to do any kind of jaunty performance that plays it light and spoofy with the Native American thing. No Captain Jack crap this time around.” People love Depp in crazy mode, but this wasn’t necessarily going to play to that audience.

4. December 2012 Is Crazy Busy
More and more, we’re finding that the prime blockbuster seasons are proving to be cluster-****s, with this summer busier than ever and 2012 shows no sign of changing that: even March, until a few years ago a relatively quiet month, has several big blockbusters lining up. Disney had set “The Lone Ranger” for a prime Christmas slot on December 21st, but that week would also see the release of Ang Lee‘s “Life of Pi” and the Brad Pitt vehicle “World War Z,” while, more worryingly, the first part of “The Hobbit” would land the week before, and Quentin Tarantino’s Western “Django Unchained” four days later. And we’re sure more will be added to the slate in the next year. And November has hopeful tentpoles like “Bond 23,” “Ouija,” “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2,” “47 Ronin” and “Gravity.” Of course, pulling or delaying “The Lone Ranger” leaves Disney without a big Christmas movie, but it’s totally conceivable that they’ll move the already-filming “Oz: The Great and Powerful” up from March 2013 to Christmas 2012, seeing as it’s a bigger, more holiday-friendly property. (If “The Lone Ranger” does live to fight another day, it could then slip to March or Summer 2013.)

5. Disney Have Overspent On Other Tentpoles, And It Hasn’t Necessarily Paid Off So Far
New Disney boss Rich Ross raised some eyebrows at the start of last year when he announced that the company would now focus solely on four-quadrant tentpoles and low-budget teen flicks, but scrapping safe-bet mid-budget sequels to films like “The Proposal” and “Wild Hogs” as a result. But things haven’t gone too well so far: ‘Pirates 4’ did fine, obviously, but both “Tron: Legacy” and “Cars 2” have disappointed, relatively speaking (the latter is one of Pixar‘s lowest grossers), while at the other end of the scale, “Prom” struggled to make back even its meager $8 million budget. And the budgets keep going on: the budget of “John Carter” has risen to $250 million and it faces a March full of other effects-heavy blockbusters and an uphill battle to gain an audience, while “Oz: The Great and Powerful” will cost about the same, and with an untested tentpole lead (because “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” wasn’t exactly sold off the back of James Franco), it’s still kind of risky. “The Lone Ranger” seemed to be a safer bet than either, but if the studio can pinch some pennies, they will. And if “John Carter” tanks, expect “Wild Hogs 2” to look like a far more tempting proposition…

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . Being a old timer and loved the original with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels . . .

1) Let's not forget John Hart, who took over during a Clayton Moore salary dispute.
2) Of course, The Lone Ranger beliefs (still pretty good, even today) . . .
. . . that to have a friend, a man must be one.
. . . that all men are created equal and that everyone has within himself the power to make this a better world.
. . . that God put the firewood there, but that every man must gather and light it himself.
. . . in being prepared physically, mentally, and morally to fight when necessary for that which is right.
. . . that a man should make the most of what equipment he has.
. . . that 'this government of the people, by the people, and for the people' shall live always.
. . . that men should live by the rule of what is best for the greatest number.
. . . that sooner or later...somewhere...somehow...we must settle with the world and make payment for what we have taken.
. . . that all things change but truth, and that truth alone, lives on forever.
. . . in my Creator, my country, my fellow man.

 

[mike the canuck]

‘Lone Ranger’ May Not Be Dead Yet

http://www.slashfilm.com/lone-ranger-dead/#more-110029

At the end of last week the biggest news might have been that Disney had canceled development of Gore Verbinski‘s Lone Ranger, which was set to star Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the title character. At issue was the budget. The film, based on a script full of visualizations of Native American mysticism and werewolves, and featuring a few big action sequences, was going to cost about $250 million to make.

What? $250m for a western! The Coens spent barely $40m on True Grit. Another $210m? Even with Johnny Depp, that’s a lot of digital werewolves. Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer aren’t ready to let the movie go just yet, however. Quite a few script changes and fee cuts are under way now. The werewolves have been given the boot (thankfully!) and it looks like some other big alterations are taking place in order to get the cost down to a far more reasonable $220m or less.

Yeah, that’s right — Lone Ranger will still be at least a $200m movie. Here’s what THR says is being re-worked:

Fees: Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer have reportedly both cut their fees, to the tune of a $10m savings. (Yes, that’s an offhand cut of more money than you’ll see in your life, to get Lone Ranger made. Cynical yet?)

The Supernatural: The “werewolves and other supernatural creatures” from the last draft have been cut. That seems like an element very much for the better — do we need the Lone Ranger and Tonto firing silver bullets and arrowheads at werewolves? ****, no.

Trains: The current draft still has three “massive action set pieces involving trains,” including “one described as the biggest train sequence in film history.” That I can accept; trains are a huge part of western lore, and of western movie history. I’d rather see the script be good, and make the whole “Don Quixote from Sancho Panza’s point of view” approach really work, but a train setpiece or two doesn’t sound way out of bounds. That is, until they start to push the movie into the $200m range. Just imagine what sort of wonderful success Disney might have if they could make something that people responded to in the way that audiences took to True Grit, but at $100m rather than twice that cost?

Now the question: will Gore Verbinski still direct? Bruce Hendricks — the guy who just said that tentpoles are more about spectable than story — reportedly frowns (that’s putting it mildly) on Verbinski’s spend-happy habits as evidenced on the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films. We’ve got no answer at this point about whether someone else might be brought in to direct. (Rob Marshall?)

Another question: will this be settled this week, in time to trop everyone out on stage during Disney’s D23 expo this weekend?

 

[harrismargaret9]

I am still not able to understand how the movie would come out to be so expensive. I hope the plans of making The Avengers continues. I so much want to watch this movie for sure.

 

[mike the canuck]

Disney Chief Wants ‘Lone Ranger’ to Ride; Will Gore Verbinski Be in the Saddle?

http://www.slashfilm.com/disney-chief-lone-ranger-ride-gore-verbinski-saddle/


Speculation continues as to whether Disney will or won’t bankroll a $200m Lone Ranger from producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski and star Johnny Depp. The studio canned the film just over a week ago thanks to budgetary concerns (it was running north of $250m) but various sources within Disney have indicated the project remains a possibility. Johnny Depp, after all, has been part of some of the studio’s biggest movies in the past decade — the Pirates of the Caribbean series and Alice in Wonderland — and is seen as one of the last bankable movie stars. (Tell that to the producers of The Rum Diary and The Tourist.)

The latest word on Lone Ranger comes from Disney executive Rich Ross, who said during the studio’s D23 Expo this weekend that he still very much wants to make the film. But he evidently omitted Gore Verbinski’s name when talking about the project, leading to even more rampant speculation that the studio wants to make a cheaper version of the movie with a different director.

Deadline talked to Ross, who said,

I’m hoping to do it. I’m certainly hoping. I think it’s a compelling story and no one wants to work with Jerry and Johnny more than me, so we’ll see how it works.
The absence of Verbinski’s name in that comment led Deadline to think that, despite the director and Jerry Bruckheimer cutting their fees for the film, Disney might be starting to think about using a different director. The site indicates that tweaks to Justin Haythe‘s script and the fee cuts are pushing the budget down towards a Disney-approved $215m, but wonders whether Verbinski would be able to deliver a film at that budget that will have the right combination of whiz-bang action and effects to earn enough to make the endeavor worthwhile.

There are several considerations here: first, Verbinski and Depp are essentially a pair, after having made the first three Pirates movies and Rango together. Would Depp do the movie for a different director? And could another director have the luck that Rob Marshall did with the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film? Which, truth be told, only had to be steered in vaguely the proper direction to make a mint — audiences went with brand recognition when buying Pirates tickets.

The bankability of the western is also a concern — it’s just not a blockbuster genre, with very few exceptions. (It’s been a long, long time since the mega-success of Dances With Wolves, for instance, against which the very good box office take of last year’s True Grit seems modest.) Even with Johnny Depp, Lone Ranger seems like a reach for a very distant brass ring. And if Disney is really going to spend more than $200m on the film there’s no way to argue that Lone Ranger is anything other than a bet for commercial success.

Losing Johnny Depp, whose fee likely accounts for a huge percentage of that budget, would cut costs considerably. But then Disney would have a $150m western anomaly that is almost guaranteed to fall short of recouping. Can we just scratch this one altogether and move on?

 

[donaldduck1967]

I am still not able to understand how the movie would come out to be so expensive. I hope the plans of making The Avengers continues. I so much want to watch this movie for sure.

That's already filming.

 

[mike the canuck]

That's already filming.

I think he is refering to future sequels.... i think

 

[mike the canuck]

http://www.slashfilm.com/adventures-lone-ranger/

The Further Adventures of ‘Lone Ranger:’ The Budget is Cut, Disney Remains Undecided

Today in The Continuing Adventures of Disney’s Lone Ranger, that film production cliffhanger that I’m not certain actually has people on pins and needles to discover what happens next, we’ve got budget cuts and stalwart friendship. One of those things is, at least, a core value of the Lone Ranger.

What we’ve known so far is that producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski, star Johnny Depp and screenwriter Justin Haythe handed Disney a script that was going to cost well over $250m — closer to $275m — and the studio rightly balked. So for the past couple weeks there has been a very public back and forth over the film, with Disney exec Rich Ross saying he wants to make it, but only for a much lower price. Script changes are being made; supernatural elements are being (thankfully) cut; and there was even discussion about whether the film might get made with a director other than Gore Verbinski.

So what’s happening now? The budget is lower, but perhaps not low enough, and Disney is looking at ponying up more than seems reasonable for a Western, or not making the movie at all. Read on…

Deadline says that Bruckheimer and Verbinski have trimmed the script and budget to the tune of a new $215m budget, which isn’t quite low enough, but might do. Both men had cut their fees as part of that budget trim.

The position now is that Verbinski reportedly has the budget as low as he’s willing to go — any lower and it won’t be the same movie he intended to make, says an anonymous insider. Johnny Depp wants to make the movie, but only with Verbinski. So Disney can accept the budget as-is, or continue to balk and risk losing the director, at which point they also likely lose Depp. Then they don’t have a movie. (That might not be so bad.)

Beyond that, there are two more financial factors. Verbinski is a notorious over-spender. Even if he and Disney agree to do this for $215m, can he? And then there’s the simple fact of making a $215m western, which to me still seems completely absurd. That core idea of doing the film — that Depp’s Tonto would be the core character, and the film would be a bit like Don Quixote told from the point of view of Sancho Panza — is a good one. But inflate it with huge train setpieces and other action, and does that interesting character and narrative angle just go away?

Finally, can Disney count on this being a billion-dollar-plus moneymaker worldwide? Between the budget and marketing and the fact of DVD no longer being a money tree, Lone Ranger might have to take in over $1b worldwide to break even. And that seems very unlikely.

So take that core idea. Embellish it with comedy rather than action and it can work for $100m and be certain to make money. But that’s obviously not the approach anyone here is willing to take. All that taken into account, canning the movie still seems like the best move Disney has made with it so far.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

Here is an update that I don't think has been posted. If it was already sorry.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/119/1192015p1.html

 

[mike the canuck]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/03/the-lone-ranger-215-million-depp-disney_n_947765.html

'The Lone Ranger': $215 Million Budget Decision For Depp, Disney

The showdown over "The Lone Ranger" is coming down to a final financial shootout three sunsets from Saturday.

A few weeks back, Disney shut down the pre-production on the planned Johnny Depp-starring big screen remake, unhappy with a proposed $250 million budget coming from director Gore Verbinski.

The film called for Depp to star as Tonto, the Lone Ranger's traditional sidekick, in a kind of role reversal in which the Native American character would take the lead in the pursuit of justice. Armie Hammer, best known for his dual work in "The Social Network" and a co-star in the upcoming Clint Eastwood-directed J. Edgar Hoover biopic, was set to play the title character.

Depp and Verbinski have worked to pare down the budget, though the high-powered actor refuses to go ahead without Verbinski, eschewing suggestions that perhaps a less ambitious director would help with cost-cutting. Now, Variety reports that the two sides are set to meet early next week, following the Labor Day holiday, to hash out whether they can get on the same financial page and move forward with the film.

The shutdown was an unexpected turn of events, given the studio's massively successful partnership with Depp and Verbinski on the first three "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, which together grossed over $2.5 billion worldwide. But with Disney pouring big money into films such as "John Carter" and "Oz: The Great and Powerful," word was that they were uncomfortable putting a quarter billion dollars into production, and more into promotion, of a film based on a radio serial and 50s TV series.

The movie is a passion project for Depp, who has spoken of his love of the series and his desire to portray the famous sidekick in a more fair, powerful light.

Depp has a long line of other films on the docket, even if this one doesn't work out. He just signed on to produce and star in a remake of the classic noir book/film series, "The Thin Man," and is currently filming a big screen adaptation of the bizarre goth TV series, "Dark Shadows." There's also word that he'll adapt the TV show "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" into a film, as well as develop and star in a film based on Paul Revere.