Welcome to Jim Hill Media - Entertainment News : Theme Parks Movies Television

Monday Mouse Watch: Why Disney is counting on the international release of "The Lone Ranger" to bring in significant silver

Jim Hill

Jim's musings on the history of and rumors about movies, TV shows, books and theme parks including Disneyland, Walt Disney World. Universal Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood.

Monday Mouse Watch: Why Disney is counting on the international release of "The Lone Ranger" to bring in significant silver

Rate This
  • Comments 20

If you look around the Web today, you're going to see some pretty extreme "Lone Ranger" -related headlines. Take -- for example -- the one that Roger Friedman placed atop his after-actions article about this new Jerry Bruckheimer production over at Showbiz 411:

"Lone Ranger" Financial Disaster: Will Disney Heads Roll Again?

Yet over at Deadline.com, Nikki Finke (who is infamous for her take-no-prisoners, no-BS take on Tinsel Town) showed remarkable restraint while writing about this Walt Disney Pictures release. While she obviously didn't sugarcoat her coverage of how "The Lone Ranger" has been doing domestically (The headline that Ms. Finke affixed to her Sunday morning story about how various movies did over the long Fourth of July weekend deliberately talks about " ... 'Lone Ranger' Disastrous $47 M" box office take), Nikki did also make a point of mentioning that ...


Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved

... [Johnny] Depp's worldwide popularity may, repeat may, help overseas where oaters usually don't excel. Lone Ranger opened day and date in 30% of the foreign landscape but only 4 big markets: Italy and Russia (releasing July 2) and Australia and Korea (July 4).

And why is that worth mentioning? Because -- as Lynda Obst points out in her terrific new book, "Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the NEW ABNORMAL in the Movie Business "  (Simon & Schuster, June 2013) -- ...

If a studio spends $200 million or more on a movie these days, that's because that studio is hoping that this film will be a success internationally, rather than a domestic blockbuster.


Copyright 2013 Simon & Schuster. All rights reserved

Welcome to -- as Ms. Obst describes it -- the NEW ABNORMAL ("Why the NEW ABNORMAL?," you ask. Because things were never normal in Hollywood to begin with). Where, thanks to the collapse of the DVD & Blu-ray sales back in 2008 ...

... These huge tentpoles, $200-million-fueled missiles, are lined up on the studio distribution pads with "must-have" famous names and launched like international thermonuclear devices toward foreign capitals ... International [box office] has come to be 70 percent of our total revenues in [modern day Hollywood]. When [Obst began in the business back in the 1980s] it was 20 percent.

Lynda was the perfect person to pen this 284-page industry exposé. Given that she's been in the business for 30+ years at this point (Her credits include being the associate producer of "Flashdance ," the producer of "The Fisher King ," and the executive producer of "Sleepless in Seattle " & "Contact "), Obst is close friends with some of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Which is how Lynda was able to get someone like Jim Gianopulos, the Chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment, to talk frankly about the growing influence that the international market has been having on the types of movies that Hollywood has been making for the past five years or so.


(L to R) George Lucas and Jim Gianopulos, CEO and
Chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment

As Gianopulos explained in his interview with Obst:

"Those of us who have been in the [film] business for a while see it as a fundamental fact. We [the United States] are five percent of the world market. Ninety-five percent of the ticket buyers are out there. It does not take a lot of math to tell you that's where the future  and the opportunities are. [Which is why] more and more time and focus has been devoted to how we engage [foreign filmgoers], how we make sure our product travels."

And right from the get-go, there were some concerns at Disney about whether "The Lone Ranger" would actually appeal to international audiences. Why For? Well, it wasn't for the reason that you might think (i.e. that the Company was trying to build a $200 million tentpole picture around a set of characters that had last been considered genuinely popular with the public back in the late 1950s), but rather (as Lynda points out in "Sleepless in Hollywood') ...


(L to R) Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels

[In modern Hollywood, it's considered] a rule of thumb that movies with what movie people called "dust" -- i.e., westerns, or movies in the dusty hinterlands -- never work abroad. Why this is, we don't really know. In the old studio days, we exported our classic westerns. But in the modern movie business, the mere presence of either "dust" or cowboy hats -- or horses, for that matter -- is thought to make a movie dead on arrival, even if it isn't a western.

This is why -- even though Disney announced with great fanfare (with the USC Marching Band parading down the aisles of Hollywood's Kodak Theatre playing the William Tell Overture) back in September of 2008 that it would be producing a brand-new big screen version of "The Lone Ranger" starring Johnny Depp as Tonto -- it would still be another 3 1/2 years before production would actually begin in New Mexico.

And why did it take 'til February of 2012 before filming finally began? To be blunt, both Disney & Bruckheimer were looking for some additional international insurance. They were hoping to persuade another big name performer to pair with Depp's Tonto. With the hope that two world famous film stars might then be enough to overcome the fact that westerns don't actually play all that well overseas.


George Clooney and Brad Pitt

And just who was on Bruckheimer & Disney's dream list when it came to casting the Man with the Mask? As Johnny himself explained in an December 2010 interview that he did while working on "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides " :

"There's so many interesting possibilities out there. Brad [Pitt] would be great. [George] Clooney would be great. Don't know who it's going to be just yet."

But in the end, a decision was made to go with Armie Hammer as this film's title character because ... Well, as you may recall, the Studio initially put a lot of pressure on director Gore Verbinski to keep "The Lone Ranger" 's production costs down. They even went so far as to shut production of this Jerry Bruckheimer film down back in August of 2011. Then-head of Disney studio Rich Ross wanted Gore & Jerry to shave at least $50 million off of this film's proposed production budget so that "The Lone Ranger" would then cost $210 million or less to shoot. When Verbinski refused to compromise in regards to his creative vision for this film, Ross publicly pulled the plug. And it would take another two solid months of behind-the-scenes wrangling before the Studio would then finally agree to allow production of "The Lone Ranger" to go forward.


Johnny Depp and Gore Verbinski talking up "The Lone Ranger" at CinemaCon 2013

Of course, the downside of this very public fight over this film's financials is that the start of production on "The Lone Ranger" had to then be pushed back from Fall of 2011 to March of 2012. Which meant that this Jerry Bruckheimer production had to sacrifice its original release date -- which was December 21, 2012 -- and go with July 3, 2013 instead.

Which brings up an interesting question: If "The Lone Ranger" had actually been able to make it into theaters on December 21, 2012 (when the films that this Walt Disney Pictures release would have been opening up against would have been "This is 40," "Jack Reacher" and "Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away 3D"), would this Jerry Bruckheimer production have done any better at the box office? Based on what studio insiders have been telling me over the past few days, they now believe that it was a grave mistake to have "The Lone Ranger" go head-to-head with "Despicable Me 2." Given that the family audience which was out there over the long Fourth of July weekend was undoubtedly going to chose Gru & his girls over going to see Kemosabe & Tonto.

One other interesting side note: "The Lone Ranger" wasn't the only high profile motion picture that was forced to give up its originally announced December 21, 2012 release date. Paramount Pictures initially announced that it would be releasing "World War Z" on this exact same date. But when that studio opted to reshoot the third act of this Marc Forster film, the release date of this Brad Pitt pic then got pushed back 'til June 21, 2013.


Copyright 2013 Paramount Pictures. All rights reserved

Anyway ... Getting back to "The Lone Ranger" : Another factor in Disney's decision to go forward with production of this Gore Verbinski film with Armie Hammer in the title role was how well Johnny Depp's movies typically perform internationally.

Take a gander at how the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films did overseas:

"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"    $305.4 million domestic         $348.8 million foreign       $654.2 million total
"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"                      $423.3 million domestic          $642.8 million foreign          $1.06 billion total
"Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End"                              $309.4 million domestic              $654 million foreign      $963.4 million total
"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"                          $241 million domestic              $802 million foreign          $1.04 billion total


Copyright 2003 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved

Did you pick up on the pattern there? While the last three "Pirates" movies have done less & less well domestically, foreign ticket sales for these films have continued to rise. And that's largely because of Mr. Depp's stardom overseas.

Even movies that Johnny has made that weren't all that successful in the States ...

"Dark Shadows"        $79.9 million domestic        $165 million foreign
"The Tourist"               $67.7 million domestic     $210.7 million foreign


Copyright 2012 Warner Bros. All rights reserved

... have still managed to sell two & three times the tickets they sold stateside overseas.

Now couple this with the fact that even Jerry Bruckheimer movies that seem to under-perform in the U.S. market ...

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"     $90.7 million domestic           $244.3 million foreign
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"                        $63.1 million domestic           $152.1 million foreign


Copyright 2010 Disney Enterprises, Inc.
All rights reserved

... still obviously appeal to foreign film-goers.

And then when you factor in that the very last project that Johnny Depp & Gore Verbinski collaborated on ...

          "Rango"        $123.4 million domestic             $121.8 million foreign


Copyright 2011 Paramount Pictures. All rights reserved

... did a quarter of a billion dollars at the worldwide box office (Which is pretty impressive for Paramount Pictures' initial foray into producing original feature-length animated films), in the end, what Disney thought they had with "The Lone Ranger" (as Lynda Obst so aptly describes in her book, "Sleepless in Hollywood ") was the sort of super-sized tentpole that the studios just crave these days.

By that I mean: It was a project which had pre-awareness [meaning that would-be moviegoers were already familiar with this title & set of characters and/or readily understood the key creative concept behind this motion picture] with a star who had international appeal attached. Which is why Disney Studio executives seemed so surprised when "The Lone Ranger" stumbled at the domestic box office over the long Fourth of July weekend.

So though there's bound to be all sorts of talk in the Trades today about whether the Mouse (just as they had to do with "John Carter") will soon be taking a write-down on "The Lone Ranger," execs at Disney Studios are already crying "Whoa!" They're insisting that this new Jerry Bruckheimer production can't honestly be considered a flop until they see how much box office silver can be hauled in from important new international movie markets like Russia and India.


Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer at the Russian premiere of
Disney's "The Lone Ranger"

This is actually why Depp, Hammer, Verbinski and Bruckheimer journeyed to Mother Russia last month and then walked the red carpet at the Moscow International Film Festival. They were there to help raise awareness about "The Lone Ranger" among Russian filmgoers. Lend a little star power to the international promotion of this production.

And speaking of promotion: A similar publicity tour to an equally important international market -- China -- was abruptly postponed this past Friday. All because Chinese film officials have yet to set a release date for "The Lone Ranger" in that country.

Which obviously has to be a point of frustration for Disney Studio officials. But given that China is now the world's second largest film market, Mouse House officials chose their words very carefully when they publicly discussed this abruptly cancelled promotional tour. In a statement that was released to TheWrap last Friday, an unnamed Disney Studio was quoted as saying:


Johnny Depp, Jerry Bruckheimer and Bob Iger smile for the cameras
at last month's ceremony when Bruckheimer was recognized with
his very own Star on Hollywood Boulevard.

"As part of their promotional activities for 'The Lone Ranger,' Johnny Depp and producer Jerry Bruckheimer plan to visit China in early September closer to an expected release date."

And in the meantime, The Walt Disney Company will continue to move forward with its long-in-the-works plans to promote & support "The Lone Ranger." Treating this new motion picture as a valuable asset that can then be leveraged across multiple platforms.

Case in point: The "Long Ranger" Play Set that will be part of the official launch of Disney INFINITY next month.  A Disney Interactive official that I spoke with last month at Disney Consumer Products' annual Holiday Preview Party insisted that -- no matter how this Walt Disney Pictures release did at the box office in July -- the Lone Ranger & Tonto were still going to be a vital part of the Disney INFINITY universe.


Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved

"They're great characters. And the Wild West world that Disney & Jerry Bruckheimer have created for the 'Lone Ranger' movie is just the sort of environment that little kids are going to love playing in and exploring," this unnamed official explained. "So no matter what happens with the 'Lone Ranger' movie, the 'Lone Ranger' Play Set is still going forward."

So how many of you got out to your multiplex over the long Fourth of July weekend and saw Disney's "The Lone Ranger" ? Did you (like me) find this Gore Verbinski film to be a great old-fashioned summer blockbuster loaded with colorful characters, great gags and amazing action sequences? Or were you among the millions who opted to go to "Despicable Me 2" instead?

If that was the case, what exactly was it about Disney's "The Lone Ranger" that turned you off? Was it the way that this motion picture was promoted? Its cast? Or was it that you just weren't in the mood for a western?


Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc.
All rights reserved

More to the point, if it had been George Clooney or Brad Pitt as the Lone Ranger (rather than relative newcomer Armie Hammer as the Man in the Mask), would that have made a difference?

Your thoughts?

Blog - Post Feedback Form
Your comment has been posted.   Close
Thank you, your comment requires moderation so it may take a while to appear.   Close
Leave a Comment
  • * Please enter your name
  • * Please enter a comment
  • Post
  • My wife and I went to see Despicable Me 2. The trailer completely turned me off from The Lone Ranger. It looked like Depp was just playing Jack Sparrow again. I do think that getting a bigger name for The Lone Ranger would have helped.

  • The biggest problem with the film is that it was made as an ACTION! picture and not a western and it woudn't have mattered who was in the lead.

  • I got to see The Lone Ranger at a special sneak preview a couple of weeks ago from Chase Disney Visa. I've been to a lot of free screenings of Disney movies in the past and I noticed the crowd is always enthusiastic and cheers on the film. With The Lone Ranger, the full audience was extremely quiet. The person running the screening tried to generate applause from the rear of the theater at the end of the film but it fell on deaf's ears. I am not one to be squeamish at violence and horror but for a movie being marketed to families I found it to be extremely graphic in its violence but my biggest gripe with the movie was after the opening action sequence (which they were showing at Hollywood Studios as an "Exclusive Sneak Peek") I just found the film fell flat. I just stopped caring about John Reid, and even Tonto for that matter.

  • I could write a ton about why the Lone Ranger was a flop, but here are the big points:

    1.  Tonta wasn't 'cool'.  He spoke like he had a speech impediment, and had a flat emotional profile.  Capn' Jack was/is cool.  Guys want to be him, and women like him.  A dead bird on your head is not cool.

    2.  The Lone Ranger wasn't cool.  He looked like the kid in The Boy Who Could Fly, clueless, also poor acting as you see him smirk before he asks Tonto who he is (in the trailer).  The fact that the trailer makes fun of his white hat shows you that even his own movie was against him.

    3.  Most trailers hint about the plot/main villain.  I just see people jumping from trains, and some voice mumbling about how trains are gonna change the west.  Nobody cares if you don't have a plot.

    4. Too action driven, the character development looks like a series of lame jokes.

    5.  Every scene from the trailer looked so scripted/forced.  Movies like Pirates at least attempt to appear spontaneous.  Bad acting, bad screenplay.  I was going to puke with the, "Why'd you ever want to come back to a place like this?" line followed by, "It's my home."  OK . . . whatever.

    I really wanted to love Lone Ranger, I eagerly anticipated the trailer . . . but when I saw the trailer I never got goose bumps.  The acting seemed unbelievably flat, you've got two straights guys: the Lone Ranger and Tonto, and no main villain who is interesting. Haven't seen the film, will wait for it to be on cable.

  • I plan to see both Dispicable Me 2 and Lone Ranger this week.  Based solely on the trailers I've seen, I would criticize two things about The Lone Ranger:

    1.  The challenge shouldn't have been 'How do we turn the Lone Ranger into an epic action blockbuster?' it should have been 'How do we turn the Lone Ranger into a believable, compelling, adult western?'  The horse galloping through the train just made my eyes roll.  Too much spectacle and not enough real human drama.

    2.  They spent WAY too much time promoting Johnny Depp at Tonto.  The reason people aren't pulled in by Armie Hammer is because the trailers TREATED him like a nobody.  They should have presented Armie Hammer (a fine actor) as a new star and made him more of the focus of the trailer.

    Here's what I hope to see:  A human story, told through the eyes of Tonto, of a man outraged by injustice but ill-equipped to do anything about it, who--through sheer force of will--transforms himself into a superhero driven by honor and justice.  Someone Tonto initially thinks is kidding himself, but eventually earns Tonto's respect and love.  Now, if that story had been rooted in reality rather than blown up into another over-the-top action movie . . . it would probably have been a better movie.

  • A misfire with moments to enjoy, but a misfire nevertheless. It's uneven in tone --- is the Lone Ranger a ham? A goof? Someone to root for? I can't imagine making Han Solo or Indiana Jones look so silly. Is Tonto insane?  Let's make fun of the "Hi yo Silver!" line while we're at it, as though we're too embarrassed to make an a straight up, honest film. Has South Park and or hipsters infused irony throughout all Hollywood productions now? I enjoyed the last 20 minutes. The rest was all over the place, and when there's countless reviews questioning if a Disney film is too violent to take young kids to, Disney needs to rethink some things or at least dust off the Touchstone label. This film is WAY more violent than Dick Tracy was, and they put that one out with the Touchstone label. Last, get out of the desert --- Prince of Persia, John Carter, this one --- Disney's stuck in dry, dusty landscapes, figuratively and literally. I really think Disney's lost its way. How about an article noting that Despicable Me 2 appears likely to overtake Monsters' box office in short oder?

  • I tend to go to Disney movies on the opening weekend if the movie sounds interesting. This movie didn't sound all that interesting to me, so I skipped it and went to see "Despicable Me 2" instead. I'm not anti-Western or even anti modern Western by any means; the movie just didn't sound worth paying for a full-price ticket. I'm waiting for the movie to hit my local discount theatre or home video.

  • I was surprised how much I liked "The Lone Ranger," but what surprised me the most was how genuinely subversive and strange it was. On the surface it looks to be a generic Western/Pirates ripoff, but beneath that surface is an angry attack on the evils of Manifest Destiny, Big Business and the American military. All of which makes it's 4th of July release date even funnier.

    "The Lone Ranger" is also, to my knowledge, the only summer blockbuster in recent memory dedicated to the horrors of the Native American genocide. That fact alone raises my estimation of the movie. So many summer blockbusters aren't about anything that it's nice to see a movie that actually has a point of view and something it really wants to say.

    I actually want to congratulate Disney for letting such a weird movie get released but I imagine the common argument in the next few weeks will be that it's an unqualified failure. Too bad. Maybe in 20 years we'll look back kindlier on it.

  • I saw the movie via a free preview from my Chase Disney Visa. It was telling that in a free screening, in NYC, the theater was less than 1/4 full. Then the movie came up, the Disney logo was proudly displayed, and 30-40 minutes later the villain is literally cutting out a heart and eating it. Um, why is this necessary? It wasn't needed for the plot; it wasn't needed to establish how "bad" the villain is; we got that from the 7 people he just killed. That was just the start of the extreme violence that is at odds with both the Disney brand and a film attached to so many children's toys.

    I know the arguments about Pirates movies being violent, but they also were fantastical, full of magic and sea creatures, so the violence is a bit removed from reality. The Lone Ranger is most certainly real. I don't understand how Disney can justify marketing so many toys aimed squarely at the 5-10 year old market (Lego sets, Infinity, etc.), when the film is rated PG-13.

    The Lone Ranger didn't know what it was: it was obscenely violent one second, and campy the very next. It's hard to play for laughs when scores of men were plowed down by Gatling guns seconds before. And if you are to play for laughs, the jokes and situations should be funny. Don't get me started on the underwritten hero, who was inept through the whole film.

    I wasn't expecting much, but I was hopeful this movie would be a fun Western the way the first Pirates was a fun adventure yarn. Instead, I was bored, and appalled by the violence in a family film (and I'm not opposed to violence in movies made for adults). I regretfully told everyone I knew to avoid the many train wrecks that are The Lone Ranger film.

  • "they now believe that it was a grave mistake to have "The Lone Ranger" go head-to-head with "Despicable Me 2." Given that the family audience which was out there over the long Fourth of July weekend was undoubtedly going to chose Gru & his girls over going to see Kemosabe & Tonto."

    How ridiculous is this? Disney didn't consider that DM2 was going to draw their family audience away from the film? What about the fan boys? Oh, gee, maybe they though they would come even though Superman and Pacific Rim are bookending Lone Ranger. Doesn't look like Disney got them either!

    A big part of the story here is the complete failure of Disney's marketing and distribution strategy on Lone Ranger. To quote Len Grossman, they must have a nut-less monkey crafting their strategy.

  • Maybe I'm just not as discriminating as some viewers, but the trailer made me want to see the movie, and I'm glad it didn't give away too much of the plot.  And I enjoyed watching the movie.  It's a good popcorn flick.

    Does it have flaws?  Yes.  But for someone reason everyone can ignore the plot holes in movies like Monsters U and Despicable Me, but when it comes to the Lone Ranger they're fatal flaws.

  • I saw  The Lone Ranger this weekend, and I have to say I was unimpressed.

    The title of the movie does not fit. A better title would have been "Crazy Tonto's Wacky Wild West Adventure"

    My main complaint is that is wasn't really about the Lone Ranger. Johnny Depp's character becomes the focus of every scene he is in, and he plays nearly every scene for laughs. Next to him, Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger, who is portrayed as incompetent and extremely naive, is completely forgettable. You end up spending each scene in which they are together waiting for Depp to say or do something clever. Only towards the end does the Lone Ranger actually start acting like a hero, rather than a straight man.

    Also, at nearly 3 hours in length, this movie is way, way, way too long. I'm afraid this movie must be placed in the better off as a rental category. Much of it is fun to watch (and watch and watch), but don't expect the heroic Lone Ranger character from the past. He's too busy serving as the butt of Tonto's jokes.

  • I saw the film and absolutely loved it!  This is a film not getting a fair shake from the media or film-going audience who are pre-judging without seeing it.

  • I saw the lone ranger with my 11 year old daughter and we both thought it was great.  I vehemently disagree with the reviews and think this is a case of people looking to find a reason not to like it.  It was action packed and had a good story line for this type of movie.  I think it was a fun movie for families.  I would tell people not to judge it until you see it.  It may just surprise you.

  • To be fair to Jim Hill, I haven't seen the Lone Ranger yet.  So, I am judging the film based on the trailer.  

    I didn't plan on going to see John Carter, but I did based on Mr. Hill's recommendation.  John Carter certainly wasn't the worst film I've seen, but it kinda felt like it was made in another time, and I felt that it didn't take today's sensibilities to heart, and while it wasn't a "thinking man's movie", it kinda didn't care to put in a plot twist or something original.  

    I enjoyed John Carter a lot more than I thought I would, but I wouldn't buy the DVD so that I could view it later.  There are simply some films that you can watch a couples time and enjoy them, like Avengers.  John Carter had funny moments, like with John Carter escaping arrest, but then that tempo is lost.  Sounds like Lone Ranger wasn't scripted very well.

    I've seen Avengers maybe 3-4 times at home, sure I know what is going to happen, but the comradery between the major players is entertaining.  I think for comradery to be entertaining you need to have chemistry between the major players.  I don't get the sense that there is any sort of comradery between the Lone Ranger and Tonto . . . they both seem to be off in their two worlds.

    John Carter and Lone Ranger also both star a male lead who has limited acting experience.  Both bombed.  True Grit had Jeff Bridges, a veteran actor that knows how to convey emotion, and someone we'd love seeing a western, and it had a character driven plot.  Cowboys and Aliens had Harrison Ford, but the plot wasn't anything to get excited about.  

    Depp seemed too constrained by the Tonto character, apparently Tonto (spanish for 'slow' or stupid), still has to have very slow speech and be kinda out of it.  A modern Lone Ranger would have had a Tonto who perhaps "played stupid" to avoid brushes with the law, but was verbally adroit around friends.  I haven't seen of Armie Hammer's other films . . . but from the trailers he seemed kinda like a snobbish Lone Ranger, and too clueless for a leading man.  There needed to be a twist, not just a Lone Ranger episode writ large.  

    Both John Carter and Lone Ranger seem like interesting concepts, but at face value there is sort of, "that could be cool".  Let's make a Sci-Fi movie based on book that came out before people knew what Mars looks like . . . "could" be cool.  Let's remake the Lone Ranger even though he looks terribly dated and Tonto is a stereotype . . . "could" be cool.

    Pirates was an original screenplay, maybe Disney shouldn't buy up/use older properties to make into films.

Page 1 of 2 (20 items) 12