Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Walt Disney to lose millions on Lone Ranger film

paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
edited August 2013 in Everything else LEGO
Pretty bad news for the future of the Lone Ranger theme, I guess:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23598825

"Walt Disney has warned that its Lone Ranger summer blockbuster will lose it between $160m-$190m (£104m-£124m) after heavy spending on promotion failed to bring returns."


«1

Comments

  • PhoneboothPhonebooth USMember Posts: 1,430
    More like, "a shitty movie failed to deliver returns." I can promote a pile of dog %^#* but that won't make anyone buy it.
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
    I haven't seen it, and probably won't, yet some of the sets still appeal to me!
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,354
    Many people have found the film quite enjoyable (I have yet to see it), it just does not glorify the US much and therefore flopped over there from what I have heard.
  • kyrotekkyrotek Southampton, UKMember Posts: 212
    They have done the same as they did with John Carter and failed to promote it the right audience with the right material. If they tried to make it more appealing to a wider audience they'd get more interest and viewers too.
    pantboyjasor
  • luckyrussluckyruss UKMember Posts: 872
    I guess is always was going to be a "one and done" theme. This came up on the predictions thread - and probably belongs there - but for me raises chance that they run it to Christmas and then it EOLs and goes on sale thereafter. However, I don't think the sets will languish on the shelves like PoP for example. I've found them pretty much my favourite sets of the summer releases (and there's a lot of good stuff to choose from!)
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    I don't think there was anything wrong with the actual film itself because it looks like the actual films budget has already been paid back.

    A user rating of 6.7/10 on IMDB across 31,000 users is actually really good because IMDB scores tend to be on the lower side so it seems like a large majority of people who watched it actually liked the film itself. The critics in contrast only rated it at 3.7/10 which shows how out of touch professional critics are yet how important it is to buy them off because of the effective protection racket they run.

    The colossal screwup here seems to have been that hundreds of millions were blown on ineffective marketing and that's where the loss is occurring. It seems they blew over $100 million on marketing without actually achieving anything, which isn't surprising as I've seen hundreds of posters and adverts for Monsters University but nothing in the UK for The Lone Ranger. It seems more than anything it's the marketing executives that need to be fired for spending so much money and not having anything to show for it.

    I think in other discussions here the amount of people who said they liked it probably do outnumber those who said they don't by about 2:1 which does reflect the IMDB score it has quite closely. The problem has largely been one born of bad management rather than bad acting, directing and storywriting by the sounds of it. I haven't seen it yet but I intend to.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    @luckyruss One of the things that surprised me somewhat on Saturday at my local Lego shop is that they had completely sold out of cavalry builder sets and stagecoaches and had shifted a decent number of the others.

    It seems the sets are selling well even if the film hasn't made up it's marketing budget. I don't know what happens in that case though, if the film is a flop and Disney axes any future products or further films then does Lego have the option of carrying on the sets if the sets themselves are successful? I don't think I've ever really seen a relatively new set sold out before, but maybe I don't look for the right ones. I just found it unusual to have such glaring gaps in shelf space in a Lego store like that for a specific range.
    hissingsid99
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,310
    Xefan said:

    I don't think there was anything wrong with the actual film itself because it looks like the actual films budget has already been paid back.

    How can you totally separate the film from the advertising though? Some of those people going may have been prompted by advertising. You don't know if you will enjoy a film until you see it, especially where there are very mixed reviews.
  • mountebankmountebank Member Posts: 1,237
    The film was reviewed on Front Row on Radio 4 last night. They said it was pretty good, with entertaining action sequences, neat jokes, and clever references to the Western genre, and they were surprised that it had received such a critical mauling.

    From their comments it does sound like the comments by Depp about bad reviews isn't just sour grapes. Odd.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Well the point is that marketing didn't get enough people to go see it, but those that did go see it overwhelmingly had a positive view of it. That's why as I say there was nothing wrong with the film itself, just with the marketing folks not getting enough other people to go and see it. The sample size of voters on IMDB of over 30,000 is plenty large enough to give a representative view of how the general population would feel about the film on average.

    You're absolutely right that the two are intrinsically linked in terms of determining overall financial success of the product but to achieve that success you need both a good product and good marketing whereas it seems in this case they had a good product, but bad marketing. This is why I think it's reasonable to feel a little sorry for the product if it was mostly decent but victim of an inept and incompetent marketing department.
  • mountebankmountebank Member Posts: 1,237
    I get that. What I don't get is why it got such a critical mauling when this seems to be quite at odds with the general audience experience.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Because as mentioned above many professional review sites/publications are not about giving consumers a reasonable overview of the film but more about making money by staking a control in the industry, they do this in a number of ways (and it's the same for books and computer games too):

    1) Direct funding from industry to give good reviews. Bad reviews are given if they don't pay up.

    2) By bringing in readers by getting interviews and exclusive news - interviews. Guess what happens if an actor doesn't want to deal with the press? They get slated, they become victims of hate stories and they get bad reviews. Play ball and give the press their interviews and they'll given you a good write up.

    3) By creating populist/controversial headlines to sell views. $150million dollar flop! It'll never be as good as the original! Johnny Depp is racist as Tonto!

    The problem is there's more money in being underhanded in that sort of business than there is in being honest. Giving honest reviews may get you a bit of advertising money or it may get you a few paid subscribers but that's never going to be as much as you'll get by telling a major studio you'll tell all your readers their new film is crap if they don't pay up.

    There are reviewers and review sites out there that are honest, but when they're at an inherent financial disadvantage they find it difficult to compete with the large underhanded players. In this respect it's not really much different to the British press whereby papers such as The Daily Mail that routinely lie and make stuff up have much higher circulation figures and hence money than those that break real actual news and stick to the facts.

    That's why if you want honest reviews then go see what the user reviews say. Aggregated numbers from multiple user reviews are always best, hence why IMDB's figures are such a good example. They don't care about money, they just tell you what the average consumer thinks..
  • 14hours2save14hours2save Member Posts: 24
    edited August 2013
    Xefan said:

    In this respect it's not really much different to the British press whereby papers such as The Daily Mail that routinely lie and make stuff up have much higher circulation figures and hence money than those that break real actual news and stick to the facts.

    Yes, this.

    And not so coincidentally, Baz Bambigoyne used to/may still write reviews for the mail, and routinely touted average films (and plays, and musicals) as much better than they are, presumably so he'd be more likely to get access for interviews from the major stars. For instance, the war of the worlds remake from a few years back was, according to Baz, 'the greatest action adventure film of all time'.
  • mountebankmountebank Member Posts: 1,237
    I see where you're coming from Xefan, thanks for the explanation.
  • jockosjunglejockosjungle Member Posts: 701
    Plenty of decent films don't make huge returns. However when you factor in DVD sales, TV rights, etc. No film actually loses money. Still there won't be a sequel and clearly there won't be a second wave.
    andheYellowcastle
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,310
    ^ Don't forget to factor in lego sales / license sales!
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark Near ManchesterMember Posts: 4,220
    Hopefully if this range sells well and there's no more, TLG will realise there's a market for a western theme and do a non-licensed line in a year or two.
    caperberryJennijasorsidersddYellowcastle
  • crosseyedpiratecrosseyedpirate Member Posts: 44
    The film was't shown at the AMC/Loews near me, as a large chain I assume those decisions aren't per theater, it would seem this could have a pretty big influence on the ability of the film to make money.
  • SchwallexSchwallex Member Posts: 121
    edited August 2013
    Xefan said:

    IMDB scores tend to be on the lower side

    You lost me right there.

    I remember the times when a 6/10 on IMDb was reserved for truly stellar masterpieces. (Before you ask, my sample size are thousands of movies, from all over the world, over the course of 15+ years, which is how long I've been a registered user there.)

    Today, absolutely everything across the board begins life at 8+, and takes literally years to be knocked down to more realistic levels. Complete trash barely ever gets below the 4 mark. The bottom 100 still get as high as 2.5.

    And of course with big releases in particular, it doesn't help that there are tons of fake accounts misused for marketing.
    Xefan said:

    The sample size of voters on IMDB of over 30,000 is plenty large enough to give a representative view of how the general population would feel about the film on average.

    I beg to differ yet again, as that number is not representative of the people who decided the movie was so bad that they didn't bother attending in the first place. It is only representative of the people who did go in (or are paid to praise), despite all the criticism the thing is getting. So a disproportionate number of them are either fans come what may, or their expectations had been lowered so much they could only be exceeded.

    Also, for a summer blockbuster, 30k votes after over a month is literally nothing. It is not plenty large enough at all.

    Lastly, the movie hasn't even been released worldwide. In fact in Germany, the biggest European movie market, it is only to be released tomorrow. Expect the ratings to drop even further.
    cheshirecatpharmjod
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Schwallex said:

    Complete trash barely ever gets below the 4 mark.

    You have to be careful not to project your personal feelings about a film and assume that your view represents everyone elses. If a few tens of thousands of people have voted it and it's reached 4 then just because you feel it's complete trash does not mean that everyone thinks it is.
    Schwallex said:

    The bottom 100 still get as high as 2.5.

    Why is that a problem? It simply tells us that even for films where the general population thought it was awful there are still some that thought it had at least some redeeming features to give it at least one point or two.

    On the same note, the top 250 also get as low as 7.9 so at 6.7 The Lone Ranger really isn't doing that bad. Yahoo user reviews give is 3.5/5 (7/10) so tells a similar story (though across a much smaller sample size of just under 1000 users).
    Schwallex said:

    I beg to differ yet again, as that number is not representative of the people who decided the movie was so bad that they didn't bother attending in the first place.

    How can you decide the movie is so bad it's not worth seeing if you haven't actually gone to see it? That's kind of the point as to why it's a failure of marketing and why it's a pretty decent movie based on the opinions of those who did go see it. If people are deeming it a bad movie without ever having seen it then that's not a commentary on the quality of the film itself but mere opinion based on a failure of marketing. It's absurd to suggest that the opinion of people who haven't even seen the film can give a reasonable opinion of the film.
    Schwallex said:

    Also, for a summer blockbuster, 30k votes after over a month is literally nothing. It is not plenty large enough at all.

    Yes it is, even if 1bn people went to see it 30,000 is overwhelmingly a valid sample size to draw a reasonable conclusion from with a healthy degree of accuracy - you can do the calculation manually yourself if you wish, or simply use a calculator to do this for you, there are plenty online or as part of statistics packages. It's even large enough for a hundred or so marketing accounts to be trivially filtered out, especially when you consider that for each marketing account giving it 10, there will be a troll account giving it 1 in a sample size that large.
    Goldfreek
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    Xefan said:

    Because as mentioned above many professional review sites/publications are not about giving consumers a reasonable overview of the film but more about making money by staking a control in the industry, they do this in a number of ways (and it's the same for books and computer games too):

    Note: the exact same thing is true of the main news media, it is just a product to be sold, honesty and fairness and what is "right" has nothing to do with it.

    So many things go on in the world that never get reported for one reason or another, and none of those reasons are in your best interest.
    RomanticWarriorDougoutdougts
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,985

    I get that. What I don't get is why it got such a critical mauling when this seems to be quite at odds with the general audience experience.

    I think one of the problems here is that I was hearing bad reviews of it months before it ever was closes to coming out. I am sure I was not the only one that heard these rumors.

    I have seen it. My dh and I enjoyed it as a fun summer action movie.
    Everyone that I know that has seen it has also enjoyed it. I have heard more than a few people mention they were surprised how enjoyable it was after such bad reviews. Our entire theater was cracking up at all the right parts, and I overheard at least a few people walking out surprised it was enjoyable after all the horrid reviews.
    Sure there were a few things that did not work for me, but overall it was an enjoyable experience.

    I do think the reviews did have an impact, combined with the overall poor job marketing it. I think those that marketed it seemedto have forgotten, they really needed to show why folks should go see a western. There are so many that really just did not know who the Lone Ranger was.
    Goldfreek
  • mountebankmountebank Member Posts: 1,237
    edited August 2013
    For me the surprising thing isn't that this kind of mischief goes on, as LegoFanTexas says, there's mischief a-plenty, but that it is usually far better hidden and in this case it appears to be lying there in plain sight.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,310
    Xefan said:



    Yes it is, even if 1bn people went to see it 30,000 is overwhelmingly a valid sample size to draw a reasonable conclusion from with a healthy degree of accuracy - you can do the calculation manually yourself if you wish, or simply use a calculator to do this for you, there are plenty online or as part of statistics packages. It's even large enough for a hundred or so marketing accounts to be trivially filtered out, especially when you consider that for each marketing account giving it 10, there will be a troll account giving it 1 in a sample size that large.

    That does depend on whether the demographic of people rating movies on imdb is the same as the general demographic. I don't think I've rated a film since it was moved from Cardiff. In the old days, there was quite a skewed distribution of people using it.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited August 2013
    This "news" affects me only a bit, because it likely means there will be no sequel for the movie, nor the stellar Lego sets.

    Other than that, my boys and I loved the movie and we love the sets, so I'm content and comfortable with how this news affects my life, as in it doesn't.
  • ACWWGal2011ACWWGal2011 Member Posts: 534

    Pretty bad news for the future of the Lone Ranger theme, I guess:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23598825

    "Walt Disney has warned that its Lone Ranger summer blockbuster will lose it between $160m-$190m (£104m-£124m) after heavy spending on promotion failed to bring returns."


    to be honest, I don't think the LR sets are destined to last that long anyway. Most of the licensed themes in the last 2 years have been 1 year themes at best
  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,985
    ^ That's a valid point. I have always assumed this was release was all TLR sets we would be getting.
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    Of course it failed, Disney is saving all it's good ideas for the Star Wars movies, duhhh.

    I heard that the failed blockbusters this summer are going to spawn premium ticket prices for blockbusters and such. Looks like new Star Wars movies will be $25 a pop.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    CCC said:

    That does depend on whether the demographic of people rating movies on imdb is the same as the general demographic. I don't think I've rated a film since it was moved from Cardiff. In the old days, there was quite a skewed distribution of people using it.

    That's right but is there any suggestion as to why IMDB would be biased? The internet is so global now and apps for things like IMDB some of the most popular downloaded to phones and such also as well as being one of the most frequently visited sites on the net that I struggle to see any reason why some bias would exist.

    This is further the case when as I say, if you check other user review sites you find similar aggregate results.

    About the only thing then that could skew it is if internet users are more likely to like The Lone Ranger than non-internet users but I can't see any good reason why that would be true when the internet user demographic is so broad and representative in itself.
  • BoiseStateBoiseState Member Posts: 804

    Many people have found the film quite enjoyable (I have yet to see it), it just does not glorify the US much and therefore flopped over there from what I have heard.


    Yes, that's it. It doesn't show enough to America, and we Americans have boycotted the movie. Not because it sucks, because our egos aren't being stroked.

  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
    IMDB is owned by Amazon.
    Amazon also owns LoveFilm.

    Being in control of a movie review site must be a great way of ensuring favourable relationships with your movie distributors.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,310
    Xefan said:

    CCC said:

    That does depend on whether the demographic of people rating movies on imdb is the same as the general demographic. I don't think I've rated a film since it was moved from Cardiff. In the old days, there was quite a skewed distribution of people using it.

    That's right but is there any suggestion as to why IMDB would be biased? The internet is so global now and apps for things like IMDB some of the most popular downloaded to phones and such also as well as being one of the most frequently visited sites on the net that I struggle to see any reason why some bias would exist.

    This is further the case when as I say, if you check other user review sites you find similar aggregate results.

    About the only thing then that could skew it is if internet users are more likely to like The Lone Ranger than non-internet users but I can't see any good reason why that would be true when the internet user demographic is so broad and representative in itself.
    Age is still a factor. I don't know if imdb publish age statistics of their users. I just took a quick look but couldn't see anyway of breaking down the rating into how different ages rated the film - couldn't you do that in the past? If many more younger people use imdb than older, and older people tend to rate it higher, then it will get a lower score than it should otherwise be.

  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    edited August 2013
    This is probably what you're looking for:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210819/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

    Interesting that IMDB weights the average so it's not a true average, though looking at the actual breakdowns it looks roughly the same. The actual average is 7.1, which is again about the same as Yahoo's arithmetic average.

    But it looks like across all demographics an average weighted for "accuracy" or not 6.5 - 7.5 is a realistic range for it which is puts it healthily in the realm of "not too bad" either way.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,310
    ^ Yes, thanks.

    I guess "not too bad" is all relative - and you need to look at the scores of other films out at the same time if you want to decide on which film to watch using only metrics.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    edited August 2013
    I wouldn't decide on whether to watch a film based on it personally anyway as my tastes rarely align with the "average" taste. For example Oblivion got rated slightly higher than this but I can tell you now that I found that film so utterly dull and uninteresting that I'll find The Lone Ranger more enjoyable no matter how bad it is.

    If it gets around 7/10 then I'd say most people felt there wasn't an awful lot wrong with the film yet it's still not done great and that goes back to my original point - the film had a major PR problem. The critics were slagging it off before it was even out (sounds like most before they'd even seen it) and people like myself who are always around various forms of media hadn't heard they were even making a new Lone Ranger until I found out about it by Lego rejecting the Western Cuusoo theme because of it. If with $100m marketing budget that happens then you've done something very wrong on the marketing/PR front. Contrast this to the new Avatar or Star Wars films and I know they're being made years ahead of actually being able to see them which is effective marketing as it builds anticipation. Disney completely failed to do that with The Lone Ranger and what was generally not perceived as a bad film flopped because of it.

    Everyone's going to have their own tastes and views but ultimately if we're trying to pin a general label on a film as to how most people who actually experienced it perceived it on average which is really the only objective measure you can place on a film being "good" or "bad" then this sort of measure is the best we've got.

    But you're quite right, just because the average suggests the film was moderately decent doesn't mean there aren't better things to watch out at the same time that may take priority and doesn't mean that you personally will absolutely hate it or absolutely love it.
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    If IMDB ratings are lower it's probably because it's a site frequented by people who love and understand film far more than one of people who merely go to the movies (ie, people with filmmaking or film studies experience versus regular moviegoers).
    Yellowcastle
  • charlatan13charlatan13 Member Posts: 118

    IMDB is owned by Amazon.
    Amazon also owns LoveFilm.

    Being in control of a movie review site must be a great way of ensuring favourable relationships with your movie distributors.

    I just consulted the Washington Post and I couldn't verify this information. Ha!

    Seriously, as others have mentioned - the DVD/BluRay sales and rentals will recoup even more money so I doubt that Disney will lose as much money as is speculated. Time will tell.
    Yellowcastle
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967

    IMDB is owned by Amazon.
    Amazon also owns LoveFilm.

    I just consulted the Washington Post and I couldn't verify this information. Ha!
    http://www.imdb.com/privacy - "We share user information with our parent corporation (Amazon.com, Inc.)"
    http://corporate.blog.lovefilm.com/ - "LOVEFiLM is an Amazon company"
  • charlatan13charlatan13 Member Posts: 118
    I believed you the first time and I appreciated the information. Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon) just put in an offer around $250 million to buy the Washington Post and some other media outlets. I was trying reaffirm the fact that we are sometimes unaware of all of the connections that take place behind the scenes and help forge our view of information.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    edited August 2013
    I think IMDB was one of Amazon's earliest acquisitions to be honest. Wikipedia suggests Amazon bought them in 1998.

    It was one of those dot com era purchases.
  • piratemania7piratemania7 New EnglandMember Posts: 2,147
    Saw the train on sale at Target yesterday for 69.98, not sure if it was a mistake that it was on clearance already or not; but doesn't bode well I am sure for the line going forward. I guess that CUUSOO submission of actually well made Western sets looks better and better everyday. Its OK TLG, we all make mistakes!
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,482
    I guess it shows Disney that you cannot just throw Johnny Depp into anything and slap his name on it and expect it to be a hit..
    Let this be a learning lesson for Pirates 5
    HarryPotterLover
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,482

    Saw the train on sale at Target yesterday for 69.98, not sure if it was a mistake that it was on clearance already or not; but doesn't bode well I am sure for the line going forward. I guess that CUUSOO submission of actually well made Western sets looks better and better everyday. Its OK TLG, we all make mistakes!

    If you find a TLR train set for 70 then I suggest buying it, I would be very surprised to see it for much cheaper.
  • LootefiskLootefisk Member Posts: 67

    The film was't shown at the AMC/Loews near me, as a large chain I assume those decisions aren't per theater, it would seem this could have a pretty big influence on the ability of the film to make money.

    The Lone Ranger opened in about as many theaters as Despicable Me 2.

  • doriansdaddoriansdad CTCMember Posts: 1,337

    I guess it shows Disney that you cannot just throw Johnny Depp into anything and slap his name on it and expect it to be a hit..
    Let this be a learning lesson for Pirates 5

    Pirates are cool. Cowboys are not. Everyone knew this was going to tank hard (except for Disney apparently).

  • gifinimgifinim UKMember Posts: 174
    Disney can afford to lose money on a film like this because they know they'll get enough back from toy sales, tie-ins, DVDs etc. If they'd wanted it to be the next PotC they'd have cast someone bigger as the Lone Ranger and marketed it like they did the Pirates films.

    As it is we get a fun little action film and a chance to pick up some nice Western sets at a reduced price before Christmas :-)
    andhe
  • ereiamjhereiamjh Member Posts: 182
    prof1515 said:

    If IMDB ratings are lower it's probably because it's a site frequented by people who love and understand film far more

    You've never read the IMDB boards have you?

    andhevitreolum
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    ereiamjh said:

    prof1515 said:

    If IMDB ratings are lower it's probably because it's a site frequented by people who love and understand film far more

    You've never read the IMDB boards have you?

    I have, though rarely because there's not much by way of useful information on them, and there's a difference between those who post and the entirety of the site itself. I know filmmakers who are listed on IMDB but have no idea that there's such a thing as boards on the site.

  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,482
    gifinim said:

    Disney can afford to lose money on a film like this because they know they'll get enough back from toy sales, tie-ins, DVDs etc. If they'd wanted it to be the next PotC they'd have cast someone bigger as the Lone Ranger and marketed it like they did the Pirates films.

    As it is we get a fun little action film and a chance to pick up some nice Western sets at a reduced price before Christmas :-)


    Now I have heard many reasons why movie studios do this, one reason is truth in advertising (They really got hammered), another is to short those who have the percentage of the movie profit clauses as they can say the movie made nothing, so those people get nothing..
    In any case i think it is safe to say that this movie did not live up to Disney's blockbuster expectation and with all of the publicity and advertising for it it is going to hurt them making other movies.
    They made the movie with stars, that is the first problem.. they suffered from Carter-itis.. which is they felt that for this movie you have to cram as many Buton stars as they could get.. the problem is they all cost too much for what the bring to the table IMO, and that along with the directors obscene salary, hurt them.

  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561

    They made the movie with stars, that is the first problem.. they suffered from Carter-itis.. which is they felt that for this movie you have to cram as many Buton stars as they could get.. the problem is they all cost too much for what the bring to the table IMO, and that along with the directors obscene salary, hurt them.

    One of the contributing factors was the lack of a star in the lead. Armie Hammer is a relative unknown to most moviegoers and was overshadowed by Johnny Depp who got equal billing at the top (and far more press). For a lead character to not only be behind a mask but to be a face that even without the mask generated no name-recognition was a serious detriment to the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.