MovieChat Forums > The Lone Ranger (2013) Discussion > Cutting the budget by 100 million would ...

Cutting the budget by 100 million would have saved this film

posted 10 years ago by GameofMoans
6 replies | jump to latest

Has there ever been a movie like this? How could a producer, director or writer think that a 2.5 hour 300 million dollar western was a good idea? All of the problems with this film could have been solved by cutting the budget. Cut the budget and you cut the runtime. That massive CGI buffalo herd at the begining? How much did that cost? Was it really vital to the story? I get the point of the shot(man's progress impeding nature) but this film would have been so much better off with a smaller budget. Think about it, smaller budget, smaller runtime=less box office money required to break even & more showings per Theater AND it would solve the "bloat" criticism almost every review mentioned. How could all these people miss that?

I actually like this movie. I have my issues with it(Armie Hammer was miscast and unlikable, the brother's widow love story was weird) but that ending? Perfect! Depp was great as Tonto & the villian's were great bad guys. Just all the excess really sunk this film. And it's so obvious too I wonder what the heck the producers were thinking. There is a great movie somewhere in the 2.5 hours. But Helena Bonham Carter? Her character was useless. I didn't mind the 1930's framing device but it wasn't vital. You could easily cut out 100-150 million dollars from the budget. Disney would have had a profitable film even if the box office results remained the same as they are now. But I think they would have made MORE money by cutting the budget. Reviews would probably have been more positive & word of mouth might have helped the box office numbers. Filmmaking is a business, how do these people make millions of dollars with terrible business sense? It's so odd. Anyone who greenlits a 200-300 million dollar film that isn't a sequel or superhero movie is asking for trouble.

True Grit and Django Unchained proved that westerns are as viable as ever, but True Grit was made on a budget that wouldn't even cover this films catering bill. Yikes,

[–] virgiltx 10 years ago

Supposedly there was a major effort to rein in the budget. After the failure of Cowboys & Aliens, as I recall, production for TLR went on hiatus. There was a well publicized effort to reduce the budget.

Here's the alleged skinny on that from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Ranger_(2013_film)#Setback

So I guess your plan was easier said than done.
____________________
The story is king.

[–] politicidal 10 years ago

It just illustrates how you can't throw money at something if the end result is below-standard. I actually did have hopes that this film would be decent but it was like 1999's Wild Wild West all over again.

[–] ellandroad_allstars 10 years ago

It's crazy to think this cost more than True Grit and Django Unchained. Especially seeing as those movies had to pay Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon's salaries. But both of those directors know how to produce decent stories, whereas Verbinski has trouble keeping anything tight and structured. He'd rather throw in a few more million than solve a problem.

[–] smoko 9 years ago

@ellandroad_allstars I couldn't agree more - True Grit and Django Unchained relied on telling a great story, not on special effects. And not only does CGI cost more than a great screenplay, but it doesn't belong in a Western.

[–] Film_Guy76 9 years ago

The runningvtime needed a major trim too.. 150mins is insane , excessive for a
Disney anthing
Heil to pure cinema.. Death to digital lesser kind

[–] Norran 9 years ago

How were you going to do that ending with the train on a $100 million budget. That's where a lot of the money went on those two train sequences at the beginning and end of the movie.

You Never Go Full Retard