Talk:The Lone Ranger (2013 film)

Source

My sourcing bank isn't working ATM, but here's the source [1]. RAP (talk) 2:11 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Superhero? Really?

It tells me so in the lead, but it seems silly. Don't superheroes have super powers? The Lone Ranger has been around for a very long time. This is the first I've heard him being a superhero. Many other amazing and hilarious things, but not a superhero. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is basis for identifying superhero elements within the film (this being an example), but it does not appear to be a widespread label and thus should not be "upfront" in the lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That article seems to be highlighting the fact that he doesn't fit the superhero description. It's a silly label that just doesn't belong here at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Batman194, HiLo48 and I do not support having "superhero film" in the lead sentence. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we include "the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified". The reviews have not been calling it a superhero film; it is being called a Western film, mainly. There may be some articles about superhero roots, but they do not rise to enough prominence for normal classification. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I'd agree I wouldn't call this a superhero movie, although I've seen some film critics refer to it as such. (FYI, superheroes don't always need superpowers — Batman, for instance, and most of the characters in Mystery Men.) Whichever way we go, I do think that in order to be consistent, we need to apply the same labeling criteria to both this article and to The Green Hornet (2011 film), which also is labeled a superhero movie. (Interestingly, they both were created some of by the same people.) --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly okay to talk about superhero roots in the article body or even later in the lead section. However, with this film, Googling "lone ranger" superhero seems to show insignificant results compared to "lone ranger" western. Something like this could talk about the roots, but I don't see evidence of it as a "normal" (standard) classification of this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I personally agree with you; I'd remove "superhero." However, I do also think it's important that we be consistent: There's nothing more or less "superhero" about the Green Hornet film than this film. If we don't have consistency between these two films based on the same creators' radio shows, neither of which where called "superhero shows" in their time, then we're not being encyclopedically objective but fannishly subjective. In other words, we can't have fans of The Green Hornet movie calling it a superhero movie and editors at The Lone Ranger, where there are fewer fans of the movie, calling it not. We need a single standard not affected by fannish subjectivity. Does this make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Tenebrae. Consistency is very important when it comes to encyclopedic content. We can't just rely on what we think, but what the subject in question has been popularly and constantly viewed as over the course of time. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd personally say that it depends, in part, on how the studio markets the film. Something like The Green Hornet was marketed as two people dressing up to fight crime, very characteristic of superhero films (in the trailer, Rogen's character says, "The city needs our help. We could be heroes. Here's what will make us different. We will pose as villains to get close to the bad guys..." [2]). Meanwhile, Lone Ranger was never marketed as such; I hardly suspect many people would even consider Lone Ranger a superhero film after seeing the trailer. (Disney's marketing team knew all that and tried to position the film as an action epic rather than a Western based on a 50-year-old radio program. "They're on horses, but it's really an action film," was how one Disney executive characterized it early on in the campaign. [3]) Who even suggested labeling it superhero film, anyway? It seems like one has to dig up reviews and analyses about the film to find out about its "superhero" characteristics. "2013 American Western action film" would be most fitting, in my opinion. - Enter Movie (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is getting to seem like one of those Wikipedia discussions people make fun of!  : )  How one interprets how the studio may have marketed a film is subjective — I don't think Columbia used the term "superhero — and like the Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger itself is about "two people dressing up to fight crime, very characteristic of superhero films." I mean, Butch and his gang commit murder and other crimes, and the Loe Ranger's whole raison d'etra is to fight crime, so you see how we're wandering into subjective territory? For the same reason I don't consider this a superhero film, I don't consider The Green Hornet a superhero film. They both have people dressing up to fight crime. They both have secret identities, etc. It's inconsistent to call one a superhero film and not the other. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've relabeled The Green Hornet a vigilante film. Google Books shows that this is a valid term, and I think it applies better here. Shall we go ahead and remove "superhero" from this article's lead sentence? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Enough agreement here. I've done it. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vigilante film is a far better label for both films. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with vigilante. Where I come from (Australia) and, it's obvious from our article, elsewhere, the word often has very negative connotations. Its most common use here would be to describe those who think that criminals, particularly those involved in sex crimes, who have served their time and been released into the community, have to be outed and publicly humiliated and hassled for the rest of their lives. That doesn't describe the Lone Ranger. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare Lone Ranger to Batman. Is Batman a real Super Hero? Batman trained in the martial arts; Batman has mechanical devices. Compare to the Lone Ranger: The Lone Ranger is an expert in horse riding; He is an expert in using his Lasso. He is committed to the same pursuit of justice as Batman. Neither one have the powers like Superman has! But the general definition of Superhero is met!! Lone Ranger is a superhero! Always upbeat; Always committed; Never defeated; Always has his companion Tonto; Always displays great physical abilities. MS, Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't mind how The Green Hornet is labeled. Leaving it as an action comedy is fine as it is. Removing superhero from this article was the right move, as nothing about how Disney has marketed the film, though subjective, is implied as such. Heck, that Disney executive quote I posted earlier said it was more action. (And here's another by the president: Sean Bailey, president of production at Walt Disney Studios, doesn’t see a problem internationally. “The Lone Ranger crosses multiple genres,” he says. “Ultimately, it’s a spectacular action adventure from the team behind one of film’s most unforgettable franchises, and that is appealing on a global level.” [4]) In addition, the history of the source material was never intended to be superhero material, it seems. "Vigilante film" is too vague of a genre/term for either film to be labeled, IMO (I actually had to Google that b/c I'd never of it before); it also doesn't seem to be a widespread term. Like I said, "Western action film" would be most appropriate, as I see no conflict that wouldn't deem it as such. - Enter Movie (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 

I think "supernatural" might be more accurate, since he's chosen by the white spirit horse and deemed a spirit walker by Tonto after he returns from death. He's sworn in as a Texas Ranger (even though they weren't officially called Texas Rangers for the first time until 1874) and given a badge by his brother, so vigilante's certainly not applicable.Darr247 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Vigilante was in the first sentence for a short while. It's gone now. It should stay that way. It has far too many negative connotations. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

YES, REALLY! By the way, in their original radio incarnations, The Lone Ranger was the great uncle of The Green Hornet, who inherited his mask. Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Tonto, The Green Hornet, Kato, John Ritter's character in that movie I think is titled "Hero", and others that aren't Superman himself, are listed in "The Encyclopedia of Superheroes", which also includes Superheroines for that matter. It isn't having SUPERPOWERS that separates them from mere heroes and heroines. You're average first responder is a "hero" or "heroine" for example. "Kick-Ass" and "Hit-Girl" lack powers, while the latter has the skills for the role. I'm not going to explain what makes certain characters "Super", because that has been done in plenty of books and magazines. Just refer to them! 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoStarDragon1 (talk • contribs)

How Was This a Box Office Bomb?

If the film made $260 million while in theaters, but had a production budget of $225 million, how exactly was it a bomb? $260 million is over half of $225 million. I'm pretty sure the information in the article is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE09:F040:21F:5BFF:FE3E:E12C (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because movie theaters get about half the gross (studios get the other half). Therefore, the movie needed to make about twice its production budget to break even.Crboyer (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it gets even worse. First, in certain major markets like China, the government limits how much the foreign studio takes home (the maximum is about 43% of the gross). Second, for a blockbuster film from a major film studio, the marketing budget is going to be somewhere from 20 to 50% of the production budget, depending upon how well it tests. For example, the marketing budget for Avatar was estimated by some analysts to be $150 million on top of a production budget of $280 million (about 53%). That sounds insane, but studios will do that to turn a good film into a cultural touchstone with a long afterlife in home video and merchandising rather than risk letting a film become a flop which no one ever wants to see. This is what makes running a film studio so hard. That is, they have to not just find and greenlight films with potential, but once the films are made, they need to decide whether to double-down on a risky film by promoting it aggressively, or cut their losses by releasing direct to video or releasing in January on the smallest marketing budget they can get away with. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Disney took a $160–190 million write down on the film. It may be worth giving the actual loss figure in the lede alongside the "bomb" claim though to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)