The Lone Ranger

[xtremegoogler]

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest. Whole island of cannibals.

Then there was that scene of the guy getting his throat slit.

-Omi

You're right, the Lego PotC movie tie in was problematic as well.

But with this movie, it's like they're saying: "Moralists, eat your heart out!"

[TheLegoDr]

They still released LEGO cannibals though. The set was even called The Cannibal Escape....I'm pretty sure kids are aware that people eat other people.

EDIT: Plus the bunnies were cannibalistic in this movie too. But I do agree that the actual eating of a heart was not placed appropriately in a movie that they expect children to see, and a Disney movie on top of it. Very odd. Although, now we can use the Davy Jone's heart 1x1 round brick in a set with Butch. We could re-enact the whole scene.

Edited July 13, 2013 by TheLegoDr

[Cammo]

You see what I mean: Critics may be right at some aspects of the movie but the general viewer loves it:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lone-ranger

I have a feeling that critics seem to meet and decide which movie they are going to diss...

[BlueberryWaffles]

^ Let's see, here's this weekends movies......eenie, meenie.......

[refriedbeans]

I accidentally talked about the movie in the theme forum so I thought I'd share my thoughts here: I wouldn't say the movie bombed because of the movie itself...but because of the poorly decided release date. I think it would have done very well had it been released another week this month. I mean Despicable Me 2 had so much more advertising and kids basically drag their parents to the movie they want to see. I think the entire movie was good minus the unnecessary eating of Dan's heart...that was so gross. On another site I said: I think the critics may have had to much to drink when they reviewed this amazing movie. Every second was used wisely I even stayed to the very end of the credits. It all-in-all fulfilled and surpassed my expectations. ^^Haha yes I totally agree with you!

Edited July 16, 2013 by refriedbeans

[Faefrost]

I think there is a slight difference between a gag about canibals, and actually depicting the villain graphically ripping out and eating a human heart? Granted its a fine somewhat blurry line. We tend to be overprotective of kids sensibilities these days and forget what true bastards kids are and how much they glorify in this stuff at a certain age. Heck the "heart tearing out" scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom remains one of the deliciously terrifying yet cool moments from my childhood.

I often suspect that scaring or grossing kids out is just fine. Just so long as we don't turn it into a "how to" manual. ("Look Jimmy! How to Serve Man. It's a Cookbook. Yum! Chili!"

I accidentally talked about the movie in the theme forum so I thought I'd share my thoughts here: I wouldn't say the movie bombed because of the movie itself...but because of the poorly decided release date. I think it would have done very well had it been released another week this month. I mean Despicable Me 2 had so much more advertising and kids basically drag their parents to the movie they want to see. I think the entire movie was good minus the unnecessary eating of Dan's heart...that was so gross. On another site I said: I think the critics may have had to much to drink when they reviewed this amazing movie. Every second was used wisely I even stayed to the very end of the credits. It all-in-all fulfilled and surpassed my expectations. ^^Haha yes I totally agree with you!

The movie bombed for three reasons and schedule was not one of the big ones.

1. It's not a Western. It's the same stupid action movie we keep getting from these people, just dressed up in western clothing. The first PotC movie worked because it was a really really good classic Pirate movie. It had swashbuckling adventure, great classic tall ships. Simple yet deep characters. Watching it brought to mind a classic Erol Flynn movie. The later Pirate films seemed to miss what worked with the first and just went with wilder and more absurd action set pieces.

2. It's not a Lone Ranger movie. Really they used the name, but somehow missed the spirit and appeal of the title character. We forget that not all Western were ever darker Clint Eastwood movies. There was a time when Westerns were about clean virtuous heroes. Roy Rodgers, John Wayne, Randolf Scott, etc. it is actually possible to make a good fun modern action movie that follows some of those old school themes. In fact that's what a lot were hoping for in this one. Instead we got bumbling fools, cannibals, corrupt government, a vague line between heros and terrorists and a rather ugly caricatured take on mental illness? Yeah, no. Not a great approach.

3. Finally the real reason it failed. Because in spite of #1 and #2, a lot of people did go to see it. Enough to be a rousing success for most other movies. Look at it this way. In two weeks of release The Lone Ranger made $100 million in US ticket sales. In two weeks of release the Sandra Bullock cop chick flick The Heat made $100 million. One of those movies is considered the years biggest surprise success. One is considered the years biggest failure. Can anyone see what the difference is? If you said one cost $20 million to make and the other cost over $200 million you would be a winner! The Lone Ranger failed because its path to success was so narrow and unforgiving that it was all but unreasonable. It cost too much to make. Like most summer blockbusters. Yes a few of them managed to recoup their astronomical costs, IM3, MoS and FF6 being the big positives. But chasing that payout can be a fools errand. If the LR had maybe cut the CGI train sequences in half, and instead tightened up the script just a hair, it would have made money. And just as with the modern AAA video game industry, these movies rapidly reach a point where the money being poured into effects and dazzle suddenly no longer equals a commensurate payout.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Faefrost

[Spider-Man]

As for the whole Cannibal thing, the rating on this movie is PG-13 which technically isn't for kids then. I think teens can understand the fact a lot easier than kids can. The problem with this movie and the LEGO sets is that kids now think it's a movie for them and can see it (which is the decision of each parent). My 7 year old brother loves the sets and has been heartbroken since he found out he wasn't old enough to actually see the movie yet.

[BlueberryWaffles]

Gahh. The one thing I hate about the sets is kids want to go to the movie. There was like 5 and 6 year olds at IM3. "Daddy where's Iron Man? This isn't iron man I wanna see IRON MAN!"

[Omicron]

But I do agree that the actual eating of a heart was not placed appropriately in a movie that they expect children to see, and a Disney movie on top of it.

It's PG-13. It's not a kid movie to begin with. :P

-Omi

[Faefrost]

It's PG-13. It's not a kid movie to begin with. :P

-Omi

Which was sort of one of the root problems to begin with. One shared by Man of Steel and to some degree the Nolan Batman movies. Just who are these movies for? What's the target demographic? These were all based on properties that were traditionally serviced by a very broad audience starting at a fairly young age. Say 7+. Who are these new interpretations targeted at? The aging nerd population? I mean kids can't grow up watching Superman, Batman or the Lone Ranger anymore because the movies are too dark and adult for them? How did we get to this point?

[Hey Joe]

Who are these new interpretations targeted at? The aging nerd population? I mean kids can't grow up watching Superman, Batman or the Lone Ranger anymore because the movies are too dark and adult for them? How did we get to this point?

They're killing the golden goose. Extremely short-sighted of them, isn't it?

Joe

[gryffindorcommonroom]

Hans Zimmer? A movie with his music in it is a must-see for me.

[Omicron]

Which was sort of one of the root problems to begin with. One shared by Man of Steel and to some degree the Nolan Batman movies. Just who are these movies for? What's the target demographic? These were all based on properties that were traditionally serviced by a very broad audience starting at a fairly young age. Say 7+. Who are these new interpretations targeted at? The aging nerd population? I mean kids can't grow up watching Superman, Batman or the Lone Ranger anymore because the movies are too dark and adult for them? How did we get to this point?

Target demographic is 13+, but doesn't stop parents to bring their kids. Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Forever were also PG-13. Batman & Robin, a movie especially written to sell to kids is also PG-13. All the Marvel movies are PG-13 (with exception to Blade series).

-Omi

Edited July 19, 2013 by Omicron

[TheLegoDr]

I guess I don't pay attention to ratings.

I remember watching Batman/Returns and The Indiana Jones movies as a kid, easily age 7...odd. Granted I watched R movies from an early age too. Must be why I don't pay attention to it.

I think of Lone Ranger or Super Heroes, I think of children wanting to watch the movie, that's why I made the connection earlier. I guess if it isn't for children to begin with, then cannibalism can be present in the movie, although it didn't really make much sense to have that scene in the movie. I don't know what it really did for the plot, other than make him more vile...

[Omicron]

although it didn't really make much sense to have that scene in the movie. I don't know what it really did for the plot, other than make him more vile...

From my understanding (didn't see the movie) is the villian is a cannibal, so only fair to show his evil nature. Can't have a movie about serial killers and such without showing them doing what they do best.

But I get ya.

-Om

[Mr Man]

All the Marvel movies are PG-13 (with exception to Blade series).

And the Punisher films. All the previous Batman films are a 15 (B / BR) or 12 (BF / B&R) and I remember watching them in early childhood.

[Hey Joe]

Man...those Batman films are some of the sickest movies I've ever seen IMO. Not sick in a -what do you call the genre?- slasher movie kinda way, you expect those to be pretty vile, but considering the fact that Batman is basically just a rich detective with fancy toys those movies are really twisted.

I couldn't imagine a child watching them and it makes me sad to think about it.

EDIT; Today is the one year anniversary of the Aurora shootings. 'Nuff said!

Joe

Edited July 20, 2013 by Hey Joe

[Omicron]

And the Punisher films. All the previous Batman films are a 15 (B / BR) or 12 (BF / B&R) and I remember watching them in early childhood.

Yup them too.

Batman and BR had a legit excuse to be PG-13, and that's because they were dark movies, with BR being a bit more toward the adult side with the sexual tones in the movie.

BF and B&R were just sex this and sex that (with the innuendos). Batman and Robin were literally bidding on Poison Ivy for "stuff".

-Omi

[Cammo]

I saw the movie and it was good; great even. I really don't get all the negativity around it. I didn't felt too long for me. The only thing I did not like was the way the story was told, in other words: The old Tonto parts...

[Ardelon]

I saw the movie a few days ago, and I liked it just fine. It seems to be very much a kids movie - non-flawed heroes, gratitious action, the antagonists bring about their own deaths, etc. The scene where a heart is said - not seen - to be eaten and the inclusion of "dancing girls" (I dont think they where refereed to as anything else?) doesnt really move it into mature territory IMO. Enjoyable on this level, shame the critics seem to think every movie has to be some goundbreaking philosophical or technical masterpiece.