Critics label Disney's $250 million production, "The Lone Ranger," a gigantic flop. I agree that it was a terrible flop. But as a long-time fan and student of The Lone Ranger, I think the critics flunked just as badly - they panned it for entirely the wrong reasons.
Here's an example. A prominent critic quipped, "The moviemakers knew the story but lost the character." They lost the character all right. But where did he get the idea that they "knew the story?" They got it totally wrong.
John Reid's background, his origin with the Texas Rangers, the excursion to capture the Butch Cavendish gang, the ambush and its aftermath, Tonto's rescue of John Reid and evolution of The Lone Ranger, acquisition of the great horse Silver, the role of brother Dan Reid's wife, the Lone Ranger's eventual link up with nephew Dan Reid - it was all totally and completely wrong, in no way true to the story.
Okay, what if the movie wasn't intended to be "true to the story" as written by creator Fran Striker? And so the intent was to reinvent the story. Fair enough, but say so up front. Don't try to pawn off to those unfamiliar with the legend that the moviemakers "knew the story" of these iconic characters. They didn't.
This costly failure was a curious mixture of blood and gore, farce, fantasy, comedy with some slapstick, and black humor, with a touch of science fiction.
It wasn't enough to completely re-invent the Lone Ranger's origin; his acquisition of Silver; and his relationship with Tonto, brother Dan and his wife, and nephew Dan. Silver magically appears saddled and ready to bond with the law student from the east, the emerging Lone Ranger. Pure fantasy.
The action scenes were ridiculous. Silver was a great horse, but let's not have him jumping off two-story buildings or galloping on top of a speeding train. More fantasy. Yet even the know-nothing critics hype the latter as the "fun" part of the movie.
In another scene, The Lone Ranger and Tonto are buried in the sand with only their heads sticking out. Along comes a troop of U.S. Cavalry. To the rescue? Nope. After the Lone Ranger says, "The Army, at last someone who will listen to reason," the horsemen gallop right over the top of the protruding heads of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.
Of course the Lone Ranger and Tonto have not a scratch, their heads remaining untouched by the thundering hoofs. How are they rescued? Silver ambles over and drops his reins in front of The Lone Ranger who grabs the reins with his teeth. Silver backs up, and pulls the Lone Ranger out of his tomb. Fantasy again.
From fantasy to blood and gore. After ambushing the Rangers, Butch Cavendish stabs the still-living Dan Reid, cuts out his heart, and eats it. Surely, the ambush, and leaving for dead the six Rangers would have been enough to cast Butch and his gang as legitimate villains. But why waste a chance for sensationalism?
The Disney studios probably figured that special effects and endless, ridiculous action scenes during the runaway trains were necessary to attract audiences of today who expect sensory overload. Maybe they're right. Even critics thought those parts were "fun." But even that wasn't enough to make it a financially successful movie.
Okay, let's accept that The Lone Ranger is a legend. And we accept that creator Fran Striker used some artistic license in his Lone Ranger novels, particularly with the Lone Ranger's marksmanship and ability to disarm adversaries without injuring them. But surely, there is enough in the legend, properly narrated, to make an enthralling story and a very good movie without resorting to overuse of special effects and sensationalism.
For a movie true to the legend as created by Fran Striker, all participants would be well advised to start by reading Striker's novels. In particular, his first novel, "The Lone Ranger," published in 1936, gives a detailed, dramatic account of how he acquired his great horse, Silver.
Striker's 1946 novel, "The Lone Ranger Rides North," informs readers how he was reunited with nephew, Dan Reid. That novel also provides the most detailed account of how young Dan's father, the elder Dan Reid as the only married Ranger of the six, was advised not to go on the excursion to capture Cavendish. He went anyway, with younger brother, John, as part of the patrol that was ambushed, with John the sole survivor, and rescued by Tonto.
In Striker's novel, a dramatic sequence of events brought death to young Dan's mother, Linda Reid, and Dan to northern Montana. The Lone Ranger and Tonto, on the trail of an outlaw, wind up in northern Montana, where he finds nephew Dan. This is the stuff of a dramatic plot that rings true to the legend.
There would be well-timed action in such a movie. But as real Lone Ranger fans know, his success at bringing outlaws to justice was as much about clever planning and use of disguise, as his uncanny marksmanship. Seldom did either his novels or his radio episodes end with wild shootouts.
A quality movie about the Lone Ranger would not depend on countless explosions, special effects, and ridiculous fantasy. Nor would it require big name actors such as Johnny Depp. But it would require serious acting by those who would study and appreciate the characters, and desire to portray them accurately. And it would require good script writing. Screenwriters would be well advised to go back to the authority - Fran Striker. Don't play fast and loose with childhood heroes that shaped the values of generations of American kids.
All this may not produce a "blockbuster." But it could result in a darn good movie, true to the legend.
And it would not cost $250 million to do it.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Here's an example. A prominent critic quipped, "The moviemakers knew the story but lost the character." They lost the character all right. But where did he get the idea that they "knew the story?" They got it totally wrong.
John Reid's background, his origin with the Texas Rangers, the excursion to capture the Butch Cavendish gang, the ambush and its aftermath, Tonto's rescue of John Reid and evolution of The Lone Ranger, acquisition of the great horse Silver, the role of brother Dan Reid's wife, the Lone Ranger's eventual link up with nephew Dan Reid - it was all totally and completely wrong, in no way true to the story.
Okay, what if the movie wasn't intended to be "true to the story" as written by creator Fran Striker? And so the intent was to reinvent the story. Fair enough, but say so up front. Don't try to pawn off to those unfamiliar with the legend that the moviemakers "knew the story" of these iconic characters. They didn't.
This costly failure was a curious mixture of blood and gore, farce, fantasy, comedy with some slapstick, and black humor, with a touch of science fiction.
It wasn't enough to completely re-invent the Lone Ranger's origin; his acquisition of Silver; and his relationship with Tonto, brother Dan and his wife, and nephew Dan. Silver magically appears saddled and ready to bond with the law student from the east, the emerging Lone Ranger. Pure fantasy.
The action scenes were ridiculous. Silver was a great horse, but let's not have him jumping off two-story buildings or galloping on top of a speeding train. More fantasy. Yet even the know-nothing critics hype the latter as the "fun" part of the movie.
In another scene, The Lone Ranger and Tonto are buried in the sand with only their heads sticking out. Along comes a troop of U.S. Cavalry. To the rescue? Nope. After the Lone Ranger says, "The Army, at last someone who will listen to reason," the horsemen gallop right over the top of the protruding heads of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.
Of course the Lone Ranger and Tonto have not a scratch, their heads remaining untouched by the thundering hoofs. How are they rescued? Silver ambles over and drops his reins in front of The Lone Ranger who grabs the reins with his teeth. Silver backs up, and pulls the Lone Ranger out of his tomb. Fantasy again.
From fantasy to blood and gore. After ambushing the Rangers, Butch Cavendish stabs the still-living Dan Reid, cuts out his heart, and eats it. Surely, the ambush, and leaving for dead the six Rangers would have been enough to cast Butch and his gang as legitimate villains. But why waste a chance for sensationalism?
The Disney studios probably figured that special effects and endless, ridiculous action scenes during the runaway trains were necessary to attract audiences of today who expect sensory overload. Maybe they're right. Even critics thought those parts were "fun." But even that wasn't enough to make it a financially successful movie.
Okay, let's accept that The Lone Ranger is a legend. And we accept that creator Fran Striker used some artistic license in his Lone Ranger novels, particularly with the Lone Ranger's marksmanship and ability to disarm adversaries without injuring them. But surely, there is enough in the legend, properly narrated, to make an enthralling story and a very good movie without resorting to overuse of special effects and sensationalism.
For a movie true to the legend as created by Fran Striker, all participants would be well advised to start by reading Striker's novels. In particular, his first novel, "The Lone Ranger," published in 1936, gives a detailed, dramatic account of how he acquired his great horse, Silver.
Striker's 1946 novel, "The Lone Ranger Rides North," informs readers how he was reunited with nephew, Dan Reid. That novel also provides the most detailed account of how young Dan's father, the elder Dan Reid as the only married Ranger of the six, was advised not to go on the excursion to capture Cavendish. He went anyway, with younger brother, John, as part of the patrol that was ambushed, with John the sole survivor, and rescued by Tonto.
In Striker's novel, a dramatic sequence of events brought death to young Dan's mother, Linda Reid, and Dan to northern Montana. The Lone Ranger and Tonto, on the trail of an outlaw, wind up in northern Montana, where he finds nephew Dan. This is the stuff of a dramatic plot that rings true to the legend.
There would be well-timed action in such a movie. But as real Lone Ranger fans know, his success at bringing outlaws to justice was as much about clever planning and use of disguise, as his uncanny marksmanship. Seldom did either his novels or his radio episodes end with wild shootouts.
A quality movie about the Lone Ranger would not depend on countless explosions, special effects, and ridiculous fantasy. Nor would it require big name actors such as Johnny Depp. But it would require serious acting by those who would study and appreciate the characters, and desire to portray them accurately. And it would require good script writing. Screenwriters would be well advised to go back to the authority - Fran Striker. Don't play fast and loose with childhood heroes that shaped the values of generations of American kids.
All this may not produce a "blockbuster." But it could result in a darn good movie, true to the legend.
And it would not cost $250 million to do it.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
