That would make sense, I thought he meant 2 because of both the picture and the fact that the cowboy vs spacemen thing was important regarding the villain's motivation in the second film.shrekfan246 said:
The Big Picture: The Lone Ranger: What Happened?
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I have no problem with Depp playing a Native American. I'm not Native American, but I also didn't have a problem with Robert Downey Jr playing a Black man in Tropic thunder. I thought it was a great caricature of a caricature in a Blackploitation film. It was funny and well done. Of all the actors in hollywood, you'd think that Depp would be the one to "get away" with playing a Native American???
I do understand how America's history plays a role in making this a bad idea. A stupid and offensive bad idea.
What I'm not ok with is M Night Shamalamalasfjf doing what he did with Airbender. Casting one white guy as a Native is nothing compared to casting a white guy as the brother of an Indian ruler of a, clearly Asian, culture. It's just stupid and blatantly racist. Not the one white guy, but white washing the Water tribe and Aang, and brown washing the Fire Nation. If there was a real purpose behind the change, I wouldn't have a problem with that awful movie other than the awfulness...
Also ok with....
Parry White being Black
Nick Fury being Black
Heimdall of Thor being Black even though it's odd
Tonto being White
Yay from mixing it up every now and then.....'cept Airbender :I
I do understand how America's history plays a role in making this a bad idea. A stupid and offensive bad idea.
What I'm not ok with is M Night Shamalamalasfjf doing what he did with Airbender. Casting one white guy as a Native is nothing compared to casting a white guy as the brother of an Indian ruler of a, clearly Asian, culture. It's just stupid and blatantly racist. Not the one white guy, but white washing the Water tribe and Aang, and brown washing the Fire Nation. If there was a real purpose behind the change, I wouldn't have a problem with that awful movie other than the awfulness...
Also ok with....
Parry White being Black
Nick Fury being Black
Heimdall of Thor being Black even though it's odd
Tonto being White
Yay from mixing it up every now and then.....'cept Airbender :I
Here are some things people don't seem to know about Depp playing Tonto:
1) Sometimes, Native Americans wear white facepaint and animals on their heads [http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/07/14/johnny-depp-philanthropy-begins-healing-wounded-knee-massacre/]
2) He is, in fact, a small part Native American.
3) "Before signing up for his role as Tonto, he asked for blessings from the Native American community, and was actually offered to be adopted into the family of Comanche activist Ladonna Harris." (from the above-linked article)
If there are real controversies to be found with the movie, Depp's portrayal of Tonto is not one of them.
1) Sometimes, Native Americans wear white facepaint and animals on their heads [http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/07/14/johnny-depp-philanthropy-begins-healing-wounded-knee-massacre/]
2) He is, in fact, a small part Native American.
3) "Before signing up for his role as Tonto, he asked for blessings from the Native American community, and was actually offered to be adopted into the family of Comanche activist Ladonna Harris." (from the above-linked article)
If there are real controversies to be found with the movie, Depp's portrayal of Tonto is not one of them.
He never stated "Toy Story 2", but Toy Story featuring Woody as the main character was released almost 20 years ago. His theme is the "nostalgic cowboy toy" theme. I'm sure Bob was talking about that.Vault Citizen said:
Simple.
It was a film from a genre that has struggled to have anything resembling industry clout for practically half a century with mass movie goers only being able to stomach one or two westerns every couple of years. (Just look at what happened in the late 80s early 90s the last time the genre was attempted to be resurrected for mass popularity and took off like a flung rock tied to a 2 ton anvil.)
It was manufactured by an organization that was built on the foundation of leaving ruin and misery in their wake. They have spent almost a century proactively working to corrupt and manipulate entire generations of youth that when they have to approach something that either needs or would benefit from a level of maturity greater than that of a 14 year old they do so with all the grace and painful awkwardness of the average socially backward, homed schooled, head gear wearin`, walking oil and pus factory 14 year old talking to a girl for the first time. On top of that having all of the integrity of the most morally and consciously absent shyster throwing its own mother under a bus to collect the life insurance.
Then it was ventured to fall back on the strength of albeit a talented actor, one that has been so milked over the last decade that not only are audiences tired of seeing his "chameleon act" but has been stretched to the limits of even his ability.
And all that before perhaps the most relevant part, the fact it is a franchise that had became unpopular even before westerns as a whole fell off in popularity and that most of what would have been the fanbase of this franchise who could have been excited for this reboot are predominantly either dead or dying. Without that innate fanbase to fall back on it falls to the film to basically rebuild such a fanbase from scratch and as I pointed out that would be a Sisyphian exercise in futility given that the genre struggles to generate widespread interest, the "main" drawing actor is becoming over used, too worn out in public perception and being controlled by a company that has absolutely no interest in creating something "good" so long as they get to fall back on their "clean" image that dupes lazy and neglectful parents into buying into their products because they are publicly seen as safe and non offensive. Thus giving them no reason to show any care or effort and instead throwing together whatever patchwork scraps that can be slung together haphazardly because it is cheap and easy.
This is one of those instances that honestly there really was no way that anyone couldn't see this coming from a mile away and it is practically impossible to NOT know it would at absolute best be very mediocre from even the first preview trailer six months before its debut. Almost to the point of being so painfully apparent that if you honestly have to wonder what went wrong, there is no reason to ask anyone else because any answer would come off just as incomprehensible as its failing.
Edit: I just find it really surprising. Why is it that so few people proactively try to look forward in situations and not simply take them at face value but to visualize where they will go or what they will do? If those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, why do more people not compare new situations proactively to historical trending to at least prepare themselves for what "might" come.
Edit 2: Surprisingly close, hitting on some, but still missing on a lot. I think the whole "racist" schtick being blamed is getting WAY too much credit at the expense of giving credit where credit is due on the beast that is the house of mouse.
I didn't know skin color was so important to people. Sheesh. I really do wonder why everyone is so absolutely fixated 100% on the ethnicity of people and who play characters. It hardly has any bearing on talent or capability of said actors.bobleponge said:
But enough of that sarcasm. If the character isn't historical, or defined by their skin color, then I don't see why having a change is inherently bad either way you do it. So long as it's done for the right reasons, or at least, not racist reasons then it's got it's own set of problems outside of race relations.
Johnny Depp claims to be from three different nations, and has no documented heritage. Each time he brings it up he's said his great grandmother was probably native. He then changes his story from interview to interview, sometimes she's Creek, sometimes Cherokee, and sometimes Choktaw.DiMono said:
Not only that, Native Americans come from hundreds of different nations, and do not have a set view on anything. Just because some people gave him their blessing, does not mean that it's a consensus. Furthermore, his portray is racist. Based on stereotypes and caricature.
So, the answer is to merge it with other genres? Then it is no longer a western. It's a hybrid with western elements.Jenny Jones said:
Usually I don't like characters with a known characteristic (race, hair color, disfigurement, etc) to be altered. But man, Samuel L. Jackson owns that role.Mr_Terrific said:
Sooo... why couldn't they cast Johnny as the Lone Ranger instead? If they where afraid that the main character couldn't be the wacky one, allow me to point something out; a straight-man sidekick is 1) not that uncommon, and 2) the Lone Ranger came back from the dead!
Think about it; he either suffered a near-death experience (and severe sunstroke), or he literally died and was then brought back by that spirit animal horse. Either one could easily leave a man a tad bit unhinged.
Tonto comes along, looking for Cavendish, finds the Ranger patrol dead, and decides to be a decent human and bury the men before moving on, when he discovers that Johnny is alive. He can either pass this off as a religious thing ("The spirits have brought you back to stop Cavendish") or he can go with the rational explanation ("Cavendish killed my family, killed your brother and almost killed you. Want payback? Me too, let's team up"). In either case you have a perfectly valid reason for Tonto playing straight-man and the Ranger acting like the Western-ized Jack Sparrow the studio so desperatly wanted.
Think about it; he either suffered a near-death experience (and severe sunstroke), or he literally died and was then brought back by that spirit animal horse. Either one could easily leave a man a tad bit unhinged.
Tonto comes along, looking for Cavendish, finds the Ranger patrol dead, and decides to be a decent human and bury the men before moving on, when he discovers that Johnny is alive. He can either pass this off as a religious thing ("The spirits have brought you back to stop Cavendish") or he can go with the rational explanation ("Cavendish killed my family, killed your brother and almost killed you. Want payback? Me too, let's team up"). In either case you have a perfectly valid reason for Tonto playing straight-man and the Ranger acting like the Western-ized Jack Sparrow the studio so desperatly wanted.
Not according to this video. Mr. Chipman says in it the original Tonto was played by, uh, I forget his name. Eric Silverheels or something. I guess he could be white--a last name isn't proof of ethnicity--but I got no reason to doubt Mr. Chipman's word thus far.triggrhappy94 said:
Why thank you, sir! I liked your observation about people wanting a clean, upbeat Western. I suddenly want to see Robert Downey Jr. in a Western. I'd love to see an hour of him playing some guy who's given up the gun and just him clowning around the way he does until finally it's time to get serious and he spends the last thirty minutes doing that crazy-eyes stare of his while shooting dudes down.faefrost said:
Seriously, this needs to happen.
Didnt you say before that the latest spiderman remake movie was a movie by accountants?
the problem i saw with the lone ranger was that depp made it his movie when its not supposed to be. and also that themade this movie and called it the lone ranger but baiscally fucked up the entire back story too him and changed him so he wasnt the lone ranger anymore. its the same problem bob had with the amazing spiderman.
wait whats wrong with grown ups 2? I saw the first and thought it was pretty good and as a standard summer comedy movie you could do worse and they got together a decent cast of funny guys to do it. the second looks alright from its advertisement.
the problem i saw with the lone ranger was that depp made it his movie when its not supposed to be. and also that themade this movie and called it the lone ranger but baiscally fucked up the entire back story too him and changed him so he wasnt the lone ranger anymore. its the same problem bob had with the amazing spiderman.
wait whats wrong with grown ups 2? I saw the first and thought it was pretty good and as a standard summer comedy movie you could do worse and they got together a decent cast of funny guys to do it. the second looks alright from its advertisement.
I'm in a very tiny minority here, but I did find the last samurai offensive on a level. Not racially offensive, heck it was wildly popular in Japan, but I do find it sort of intellectually offensive.PunkRex said:
Firstly, it completely subordinates the entire point of the events it is depicting. There was actually a rebellion against the Meiji government whose leader (Saigo Takamori) was the basis for Ken Watanabe's character.
The thing is, what they were actually fighting for was the retention of the enormous social privileges which were being taken away from the samurai class in favor of a more meritocratic society. Being a samurai was not a profession anyone could pick up, it was a birthright, and these people were fighting because they believed that that birthright should make them socially superior to other people.
The whole "life in every breath" thing is also just weird, not just in that it's absolutely meaningless but also in that it's actually the opposite of how samurai at the time tended to describe Bushido. Samurai seem to have been relentlessly obsessed with death. The "philosophy" of the samurai is all about treating life with detachment and being ready to sacrifice yourself if required.
But what's really dody about this is that this kind of misrepresentation (i.e. "anyone can be a samurai", "bushido is a part of Japan's national character", etc) is that it was a huge component in the ideology of Japanese militarism. It has absolutely nothing to do with what real samurai actually believed, but it does have an awful lot to do with what the people who pushed Japan into World War 2 believed, with massive and terrible consequences for just about everyone involved. The film is referencing that pretty much directly.
Now, I'm not saying that The Last Samurai promotes militarism (and regardless, I'd be a massive hypocrite if I said that I could never enjoy films or books which are supportive of militarism) but it's still directly referencing that era and the way that era sought to rewrite history.
Now, the real issue for me is not about that. Heck, the actual ideas behind the film are so meaningless that it doesn't really promote anything except that Japan is cool. It's really just about selling the really stereotypical imagery of "traditional" Japanese culture (inner peace, cherry blossom, submissive women) as something good and wholesome and which you can be part of irrespective of who you are, and that's.. a bit offensive in just how shallow it is.
On topic though, great episode. I always love it when Bob talks about Hollywood.
I can't help but feel that maybe the issue here is that Hollywood doesn't get the "mainstream audience" (if such a thing exists at all). I mean, people who watch a lot of similar movies and tend to have very clear viewing habits are easy to market to. I guess that's why Hollywood can get away with pumping out so many mediocre horror or action movies, because some people will always go out and see them just because they are horror or action.
But the "average" person probably doesn't actually watch many movies in theatre, especially now, and thus it's harder to really quantify their viewing habits in that way and to predict their behavior. I suspect Hollywood also underestimates how aware and media savvy this audience actually is and sometimes seems to assume that simply hyping a film in public space (i.e. outside of film journalism and targeted campaigns) will be enough to sell it on the basis that it's an event.
My guess would be that actually people are increasingly more interested in the content of what they're watching than whether it can be said to constitute an event, and yet a lot of the marketing I see tends to focus much more on making a movie look socially important rather than inviting engagement, the focus seems to be on making it clear that all your friends will be talking about this movie as opposed to telling you why you personally will actually enjoy it.
Maybe it's just my opinion, but the promotional material I've seen for Lone Ranger for example seems to be far less focused on telling me what I'm going to see or why I should care and much more on who is in it and that the team behind it also did Pirates of the Caribbean, and frankly I don't think many people fall for that any more.
That's not to say people always have the most sophisticated taste in films (Transformers) but I suspect they're much more conscious in their decision making about what films to watch than Hollywood execs think they are.
Just a theory though.
I can't help but feel that maybe the issue here is that Hollywood doesn't get the "mainstream audience" (if such a thing exists at all). I mean, people who watch a lot of similar movies and tend to have very clear viewing habits are easy to market to. I guess that's why Hollywood can get away with pumping out so many mediocre horror or action movies, because some people will always go out and see them just because they are horror or action.
But the "average" person probably doesn't actually watch many movies in theatre, especially now, and thus it's harder to really quantify their viewing habits in that way and to predict their behavior. I suspect Hollywood also underestimates how aware and media savvy this audience actually is and sometimes seems to assume that simply hyping a film in public space (i.e. outside of film journalism and targeted campaigns) will be enough to sell it on the basis that it's an event.
My guess would be that actually people are increasingly more interested in the content of what they're watching than whether it can be said to constitute an event, and yet a lot of the marketing I see tends to focus much more on making a movie look socially important rather than inviting engagement, the focus seems to be on making it clear that all your friends will be talking about this movie as opposed to telling you why you personally will actually enjoy it.
Maybe it's just my opinion, but the promotional material I've seen for Lone Ranger for example seems to be far less focused on telling me what I'm going to see or why I should care and much more on who is in it and that the team behind it also did Pirates of the Caribbean, and frankly I don't think many people fall for that any more.
That's not to say people always have the most sophisticated taste in films (Transformers) but I suspect they're much more conscious in their decision making about what films to watch than Hollywood execs think they are.
Just a theory though.