I was perusing facebook the other night when Ben Burnham (writer of the After Earth review a few weeks ago) sent me a very interesting article. Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, and Jerry Bruckheimer apparently blame the financial shortcomings of their "Lone Ranger" adaptation on critics biased towards its budget and production problems.
Here's the article, so you can go ahead and read exactly what and how things were said by the cast and producer. But here are a few key quotes.
"This is the deal with American critics," Hammer says, "they've been gunning for our movie since it was shut down the first time. That's when most of the critics wrote their initial reviews."
"I think the reviews were written seven to eight months before we released the film," said Depp.
"It's unfortunate because the movie is a terrific movie...It's one of those movies that whatever critics missed in it this time, they'll review it in a few years and see that they made a mistake," said producer Jerry Bruckheimer.
Lets really look at what they're saying here; Hammer is saying that critics had their eyes on this movie since it first was shut down. He believes that when the movie was shut down, critics wrote their reviews...what? Depp sides with Hammer, except that he thinks that the reviews were written well after the production halted in 2011. Mr Bruckheimer suggests that this is a movie that is before its time, that perhaps in a few years critics will go back and look at the film, and see that it is actually a work of brilliance.
So I really gotta hand it to these guys - they make my blog look a heck of a lot more relevant than the rest of the world believes.
What Does Bad Press Mean For A Movie?
It's no secret that critics have absolutely no say in a films success. If we look at the highest grossing films of all time, quite a few of them are ranked "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes (which I will frequently cite, as I do really enjoy the concept of the site. That's for another article, though). Conversely, there are plenty of films ranked very highly that did not do well financially. In fact, my personal favorite film, the Shawshank Redemption, was an initial box office failure until it rereleased for Oscar season. If critical response mattered remotely to a films success, than Transformers movies, Grown-Ups, and many more poorly received films would have tanked far worse than The Lone Ranger. Conversely, if good critical response meant profit, then perhaps Pacific Rim would have had a much stronger start than it did, maybe Treasure Planet wouldn't have been the first animated Disney film in years to do poorly. Or maybe Hugo would have done significantly better than it did, after only turning a minimal profit.
But that's not the only issue I take with these actors and producer blaming their financial problems on critics. After Hammer's above quote, he went on to say, "They tried to do the same thing with World War Z. It didn't work. The movie was successful. Instead they decided to slit the jugular of our movie."
This quote reveals a few things. First of all, that Hammer has no idea what "poor reviews" means - World War Z has a ranking in the high 60's on Rotten Tomatoes, 30%+ higher than the score The Lone Ranger received. But more importantly, he seems to think that critics work together to tear down a film. That's preposterous. As a critic myself, I hate associating with other critics. I hate being compared. These are my opinions, I write them for myself. I definitely don't write them for the approval of other critics, even the ones that I admire. A critic is only a critic when he believes in his own opinions despite the general public. Furthermore, critics pride themselves on going into movies with as few preconceived notions as possible (although admittedly seeing a directors name with particular actors might give us a bias based on their past work). To suggest that critics would form some form of group to tear down any film on the basis of its initial problems with productions is absurd. What reason would there be? In fact, I had a lot of respect for the filmmakers when I learned that World War Z was going to push its date back in order to write an ending that they felt would be stronger than the one made. It showed integrity to a product, to art, rather than pushing a film out on time.
Is A Movie Before Its Time Justifiably Good?
Now, as for Mr. Bruckheimer, I have to simply ask - how dare you? How dare you suggest that the film is better than the general consensus suggests. Perhaps the film will be admired later, perhaps its going to become a cult classic for a large group of people who admire the film. But to suggest that this is bound to happen, that this film is going to be admired later on for sure, and to say that initial reviews are wrong, is incredibly stupid and narcissistic. Especially when he is quoted saying "If I made films for the critics, or for someone else, I'd probably be living in some small Hollywood studio apartment." What you say there is that you think critics are stupid, and money is the ultimate reason that you produce the films you choose. To suggest that your film is some form of sleeper masterpiece is frankly pretty funny, considering the low critical score.
But what this group of film makers fail to do entirely is to actually read the reviews. Instead, they look at the consolidated number and see low reviews, and assume the worst. This doesn't work. Rotten Tomatoes tries to fix this issue by having a "general consensus." This is where the readers of the reviews post what generally the critics are saying about a film. So what is the rotten tomatoes consensus?
"Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp make for an appealing pair of leads, but they're not enough to make up for The Lone Ranger's bland script, bloated length, and blaring action overkill."
So the actors are good, but the script is boring, it's way too long, and there's not enough story to support the action. That doesn't sound like bias towards budget and production problems. That sounds like problems with a film. And more importantly, they're not issues that save a movie years later. Rather, they're issues that make a movie so forgettable that years later, nobody cares to give it another chance.
More importantly, lets say I released a film about subject matter that was flat out irrelevant. In a few years, suddenly we see a major world change that makes the subject matter in the film relevant all of a sudden. Does this suddenly make the film good, and the critics wrong? Certainly not. If a film is released at the wrong time for the wrong audience, that simply means that the producers made a mistake thinking it was the right time to release this film. I will agree that sometimes the quality of a film might change in the eyes of its audience depending on circumstance and timing. However I hardly believe that critics would be wrong to write a negative review of a film at any point - the fact is it is how they felt leaving the film when they saw it. Isn't that what a review should be?
The Failure of The Lone Ranger
So why did The Lone Ranger fail? I'd say there's an abundance of reasons. Ben pointed out to me that the only reason he went to see it was to hang out with me - he initially saw the score on RT and decided that he'd skip it. Perhaps there is a certain amount of control that this website has on movie goers. But then, what about other terrible movies? Why is Grown-Ups 2 turning an enormous profit with a laughable rank of 7%?
The Death of the Western?
Well first of all, this is a western. The American Film Institute has a great definition of what a western film is; a film that is "set in the American West that embodies the spirit, the struggle, and the demise of the new frontier." This is a dead concept. Sure, it can be made today. Do I think it can be made well? Absolutely, with films like True Grit and Django Unchained freshly in my mind. But do I think it's necessarily relevant with that definition? Not in the way it was in the past. So there's a certain amount of irrelevance to the subject matter already for the audience.
But what about past westerns? Sure, Django and True Grit were wildly successful. But was that because they were westerns? No, I defend it was because they were released as action movies right around Christmas with Oscar buzz surrounding Jamie Foxx and Jeff Bridges. What about other American Western films in recent years? Casa de Mi Padre only grossed about $8 million, enough to cover its $6 million budget but hardly enough to be considered a wild success. Cowboys and Aliens pulled in close to $175 million for itself, narrowly missing failure with a budget at $163 million. Jonah Hex pulled in an abysmal $10 million on its $47 million budget. No, we have to go all the way back to 2007, where There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men both were successes, where we see the Coen brothers again and Paul Thomas Anderson as directors.
Even Rango, an animated western
also directed by Gore Verbinsky and starring Depp, pulled in $245 million on its $135 million budget. Sounds great, right? Except that the also animated Rio, Kung Fu Panda 2, Cars 2, Puss in Boots, and the Adventures of Tintin all shattered that number. Heck, even Gnomeo and Juliet managed to make $193 million on a $36 million budget. That's still more profitable.
So what does this show?
America simply is not interested in westerns. Even if we look at the highest box office record from recent years, Cowboys and Aliens managed to pull in $175 million, which is close to what The Lone Ranger is at now. How could they really expect anymore? The recent numbers prove that it's not something to expect without some Oscar buzz to save it. But is that really it? Is America really that disinterested in a western, even on the 4th of July weekend?
Boring = Poor Word of Mouth
This movie coasted on the beauty of its entire production team having worked on a previous success - Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirates was not going to be a hit. Many journalists and analysts believed it was going to fail, considering the poor response to the pirate genre in years leading up, Depp being relatively unknown at the time, and a PG-13 rating. So what made it successful? Well, I think its safe to say the 4th of July weekend was definitely a plus. But more importantly, I'd say it was an exciting movie that also benefited from a strong, consistent word of mouth. What am I saying? It was a good movie. And in this case, coupled with awesome leads, fun action, and 4th of July weekend, we have a success.
The Lone Ranger had the 4th of July weekend, the same director, the same producer, the same leading man, AND the same screenwriters as Pirates. So, what happened? Well, simply put -
it's a boring, bland, stupid movie. While this is no indication of a films success, when you have a poor movie mixed with an uninteresting and somewhat dated premise, especially when it's based on something most of the viewers you're aiming for don't know at all, even a holiday weekend won't save you. But again, the film did pull in about $175 million, on par with Cowboys and Aliens. Is this really an unexpected result?
What should also be noted is that a film can have plot holes, poor acting, bad special effects, shaky camera, etc, and the audience will forgive it.
But what is the one thing no audience forgives? Boredom. This is especially true for summer blockbusters. An audience member is paying to be entertained, and with the biggest criticism of this film being its length and dryness, why should an audience member pay to see it with other more exciting movies (World War Z, The Heat, Monsters University, Despicable Me 2, Man of Steel, and This Is The End all competing at the same time)?
The Cast
As strange as it is to think considering his past career, lets look at the leading man. Sure, he has his moments of total brilliance. But I do think it's safe to say that
America is getting a bit tired of Johnny Depp. Let's look at his last few roles - Dark Shadows, Jack and Jill, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 3 and 4, The Tourist, Alice in Wonderland. These movies all received mixed reviews. Many people were disappointed with the performance that he gave in many of these, losing the charm of Jack Sparrow and replacing it with a zaniness that didn't really work. But in addition, this is a character that feels like the least of a stretch for Depp - normal speaking voice, maybe a few quirky lines, but not nearly as fun as the Sparrow character, or defendable as crazy as his Mad Hatter.
Also, it's pretty insulting to cast a white actor as a Native American. Racial casting issues are always a soft spot. The Last Airbender is a very prominent example of this, many people boycotting the film at its obvious racism (an all-white world versus an all-Indian army, in a Chinese and Korean inspired world).
Finally., there's Armie Hammer. I have nothing against the man; in fact, I think he very much deserved an Oscar nomination for his role(s) in The Social Network and his role in J. Edgar. But here is a man who's relatively unknown the wide public, trying to sell a 4th of July movie? Mind you, this is against two animated movies, Brad Pitt, a Superman movie, and Seth Rogan. Hammer's last film in my mind was a poor one, Mirror Mirror. As an obviously frequent filmgoer, that stuck out for me. Why should I be excited about the man who had two great supporting roles in two amazing movies, but one horrible leading role in a film so horrendously bad I considered walking out? Obviously this doesn't deter me from seeing the film. But I can image an audiences thoughts on this relatively overlooked actor, mixed with indifference towards Johnny Depp. Who's selling this movie? Frankly, I didn't even know the rest of the cast from watching the trailers. I only realized who they were while watching the film.
Conclusion
So, what took The Lone Ranger's success? I would argue -
- It is a western, a genre that is not only a bit dated but one that America has shown it doesn't care for.
- People still interested enough to go to the western were disappointed by the movie, resulting in poor word of mouth.
- Johnny Depp is the most marketable actor in the film by far, and his appeal is starting to die out as his films take more and more critical bashing. It is also notably insulting to cast a white man as a Native American.
- Finally, I'd say at this point maybe those who are deciding what film to see look at websites that show its low critical score, and decide from there to not watch the film.
Does this mean that there is a formula for a film to do poorly at the box office, one that is undeniably always true? No, that's ridiculous. People don't care what critics say about a film. But what this does mean is that they will always be there to blame for the outcome, no matter how ridiculous sounding it is.
I do have to thank the actors though - you gave me a new sense of purpose. Did my review contribute to the poor box office gross? I don't think so, but the cast and crew do.
