ROTTEN TOMATOES: Weekly Ketchup: Johnny Depp to play Tonto in The Lone Ranger Comments

Weekly Ketchup: Johnny Depp to play Tonto in The Lone Ranger

by Greg Dean Schmitz | September 26, 2008

Summary

The villain in this summer's The Incredible Hulk was the Abomination, and that sums up a lot of what is going on in this week's Ketchup. There's one great bit of casting news to start us off, but from there, and a couple of possibly interesting projects, but for the most part, get ready for lots of sequels and remakes. Back to Article

(1-46 of 46 posts) | Reply

yankeessuck.zach writes:
on Sep 26 2008 05:35 PM

please no I Am Legend prequal!

(Reply to this)

dank1134 writes:
on Sep 26 2008 05:39 PM

greg

im so flipping stoked you're still doing your thing on the web.. are you ever going to get your own site again?? man alive that was my favorite of all time

kelly

myspace.com/redmeansred

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Sep 26 2008 06:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2047927)
agreed, they already ruined the book now do they have to piss on its grave. I dig the Mody Dick idea, its a fresh new take and I like the Director. Also do wee need a ****ing Pirates 4?!?

(Reply to this)

piratefan60 writes:
on Sep 26 2008 06:14 PM

The Lone Ranger Can't wait to see Johnny in buckskin. He is a great actor. His roles my not please the critics, but he can act. I wonder who will be the Lone Ranger? Hi ho Silver away.

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Sep 26 2008 07:12 PM

There was already some crazy Japanese anime version of Moby Dick.

Well, actually are any Japanese anime's not crazy? I guess that's redundant...

I guess I'm on my own when I say that Megan Fox is the least attractive hottie out there. To clarify, she's physically attractive, but something about her makes my stomach churn.

And I can't wait for The Sims movie. I love sleeping in empty theaters...

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 26 2008 07:52 PM

Depp IS part Cherokee.

Megan Fox in . . .drooooooooool.......... do

the most important question of any film in a while.

Do we. . .

I am serious about this!

I base this on studying film in college, reading scripts, etc. ,

. . . see boobs?

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 26 2008 07:54 PM

HI! I am tomwaitsjr's secret girlfriend. . . from Canada!

I'm wondering about Fathom.

Do we get to see ***?

THank You.

and again, I'm not tomwaitsjr. Just his secret girlfriend from Russia.

(Reply to this)

blattman writes:
on Sep 26 2008 07:56 PM

I've seen Bedtime Story, and it was good. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was great and even made a good musical for Broadway. Why remake the movie? What more could be brought to the story?

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 26 2008 08:36 PM

The problem in America with films, is that we are now of a generation that doesn't want to see "old" movies. They are technically inept. So, many refuse to watch films of the 80's in droves.

That's why DRS is a smart way to go. It'll be cheap as hell to make. I only PRAY that Dane Cook isn't one of the main characters.

(Reply to this)

americandream50 writes:
on Sep 26 2008 08:54 PM

Looks like I'll be staying home this season. OK, maybe re-making movies isn't such a bad idea; maybe instead of copyright infringement they could re-package it as "sampling". Nostalgia has never worked for me; when they revived the 50's for "Grease" & "American Grafitti", nobody I know attended sock-hops in their poodle skirts or slicked their hair back. I guess the motto for Hollywood is "everything old (and Boring) is new and improved. I won't be in line for the "Citizen Kane" remake, even if Phillip Seymor Hoffman plays Charles Foster Kane(and he probably could pull it off). Like wise, I won't be there for the "screen adaptation" of Gilligan's Island. Please, someone tell the movie studios to fund something "NEW"!!! Stop insulting the intelligence of the movie-goer with something mundane as cancelled TV shows (we have TV Land) and stimulate our concious with something entertaining. By the way, I have never paid to watch a sequel in a movie theater, and with the current state of choices, I will never start now!

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 26 2008 11:36 PM

"One will never go broke understimating the intelligence of the American Audience."

-Jesus

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Sep 27 2008 12:06 AM

Wow...this is the news has made me most intrigued/uncomfortable.

(Reply to this)

mobetta writes:
on Sep 27 2008 04:14 AM

i just pray they don't let Johnny Depp wear make up to darken his skin a la old John Wayne films. And there are good Native American actors out there who could hold the role. Just because he has some native blood doesn't necessarily make him the best actor for the role. That's like saying Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson should be able to play Barrack Obama in a film because he's half African American. Though seeing Obama lay the smack down on McCain would be entertaining!

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Sep 27 2008 05:15 AM

CLOONEY As THE LONE RANGER..... YES!!!!!!

The Lone Ranger, is the Batman that Clooney SHOULD have played!
Not sure about a white Tonto though. And i hope its not a camp version ala batman & robin. I read a gritty adult Lone Ranger comic that was more like a vigilante version of Tombstone or 3.10 to yuma. Hope the film goes that route.

Also, Lone Ranger is the only film mentioned above that interests me.

(Reply to this)

greg_dean_schmitz writes:
on Sep 27 2008 06:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#2047929)
About Johnny Depp as Tonto, maybe they will just tweak the character a bit to make him an outcast because he's a "half breed"? That's a pretty common Western/cowboy motiff, and would basically explain away Depp's casting, yes?

So, who is the cooler upcoming classic pairing? Downey/Law or Clooney/Depp?

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 27 2008 06:30 AM

Jude Law is suck. Him in films = no money for film. Poo Hooh Boo blah.

Audience no like the Jude Law.

All Depp has to do is keep drinking,
he's naturally jaundiced that way.

Wobba Wobba Wobba

Me Kemosabe
You tin can
Me Kemosabe
You Happy Goat
Me Kemosabe
Gimme some Stone Fischer
GIMME NOW

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 27 2008 06:51 AM

Do any of you think Johnny Depp is a leprachuan?

'cause if he isn't,
I'm in BIG twubble. . .

(huntin wabbits)

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Sep 27 2008 07:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#2048435)
Really?!? Do you honestly believe that's true? OK, convince me. Name one Indian(I use the term not to be derogative to those peoples, but because personally I find the term Native American offensive to myself and my ancestors who were born of this country and fought, scraped and bled to make it the great nation it is today and noone elses white hippie delusions and guilt is going to make me think different) actor who has the credability, name recognition or BO history of Johnny Depp. Better yet name for me one full blooded Indian actor without using statements like "That one guy from Dances with Wolves" or "That kid from Windtalkers"...googling it is cheating as well. The simple truth is Indians and Indian actors make up such a small portion of the overall population that it becomes necessary to cast people of mixed or completely different races in order to insure a quality product/

Additionally I think it's a sad statement on our society's inherent racism that these discussion only seem to come up when A. they want to change an acknowledged white character to another race or B. Some American white guy wants to play another race. Where was the outcry when Antonio Banderas or worse yet Anthony Hopkins or Cathrine Zeta Jones play Mexicans? Did I miss the part in the history books where the British and Spanish built their empires thru a campaign of sunshine and rainbows?

Bottom line, affirmative action has no place in Hollywood. The best man should be chosen for his ability to pull off the job regardless of race color creed or political affiliation.

(Reply to this)

preyer writes:
on Sep 27 2008 08:23 AM

'OK, maybe re-making movies isn't such a bad idea; maybe instead of copyright infringement they could re-package it as "sampling".'

obviously they have the rights to make a movie.

'Nostalgia has never worked for me; when they revived the 50's for "Grease" & "American Grafitti", nobody I know attended sock-hops in their poodle skirts or slicked their hair back.'

your point being that every movie made has to have a legion of fans that live the part? i doubt middle-aged women will flock to rodanthe, either, but that's not the point of the setting.

'I guess the motto for Hollywood is "everything old (and Boring) is new and improved.'

probably why you'll never work in hollywood is because of statements like this. mainstream movies is a for-profit venture. were you in some decision-making position, you'd do the same because these movies make money. you don't pay a star $15M because you like them, but because of their box office draw. you stick to formulaic storytelling and tried-and-true premises because that's what people pay to see. you do remakes and resurrect old tv shows and movies because it's a brand name people trust/like, not because you don't have brilliant ideas which are untested and people won't go watch.
why risk millions of dollars, not to mention your job, making 'new' movies when you can guarantee buzz and have a built-in fan base? that's why movie studios so often use comics and books as a basis, because there's an audience waiting for it to happen. trust me, the masses aren't waiting for your ideas to come to fruition unless they're amazing... and they probably ain't.

'Please, someone tell the movie studios to fund something "NEW"!!! Stop insulting the intelligence of the movie-goer with something mundane as cancelled TV shows (we have TV Land) and stimulate our concious with something entertaining.'

hollywood funds 'new' stuff, you just choose not to include them. instead, you're focusing on just the movies that proves your point... well, proves your point to yourself, at any rate. there's no insulting going on ~ and if you feel insulted, just don't pay to watch it, it's that simple. this isn't the NFL where parity provides profit to even the worst teams. if moviegoers were that insulted, the numbers would reflect it and hollywood would change its tactics. you want entertainment *and* something new? new meaning untested. and you feel as if this is the right course to take, to chance your job and millions of dollars on a continued stream of movies without a fan base or built-in audience of any kind, that by virtue of being 'new' people will flock to it? HW would clock your tenure in nanoseconds. you want something entertaining *and* stimulating? walk up to your post office counter and say, 'i need to ship this package the fastest, cheapest way possible,' and wait for the laughter, because that's akin to what you're asking from hollywood to produce and the worldwide population to purchase.

'By the way, I have never paid to watch a sequel in a movie theater, and with the current state of choices, I will never start now!'

so, if you don't pay, do you just pirate them off the net? or just don't watch any sequels ever, which puts you in an even more ignorant position to judge than you're already in?

in short, if you think hollywood (for lack of a better term) never produces 'new' stuff then you need to open your eyes wider and shut your mouth more maybe. under the illusion you're promoting, movies like 'no country for old men' don't exist, nor is there any value to 'the dark knight.'

(Reply to this)

ironmanstarks writes:
on Sep 27 2008 08:31 AM

No Country was based off of a book.

(Reply to this)

Random_Jake writes:
on Sep 27 2008 08:40 AM

Wow you people are really long winded.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Sep 27 2008 09:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#2048577)
Someone always has to ruin a perfectly good rant with their damn logic and facts :)

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Sep 27 2008 09:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#2048583)
What do you mean by "you people", is that because my great-great grandmother was 1/32 pure blooded Hunkpapa Sioux on her mothers side?

(Reply to this)

7thhell writes:
on Sep 27 2008 09:38 AM

Can somebody please tell me what the hell tomwaitsjr is talking about?

Anyways, The Lone Ranger sounds interesting.

(Reply to this)

preyer writes:
on Sep 27 2008 10:05 AM

'Name one Indian(I use the term not to be derogative to those peoples, but because personally I find the term Native American offensive to myself and my ancestors who were born of this country and fought, scraped and bled to make it the great nation it is today and noone elses white hippie delusions and guilt is going to make me think different) actor who has the credability, name recognition or BO history of Johnny Depp.'

i can't because that person doesn't exist. and for the record, i don't feel any more guilty for what happened to the indians any more than i feel the need to provide reparations to blacks even if their ancestores were slaves. you don't like america, then here's your ticket back to the motherland. enjoy your third world country. perhaps the african chiefs shouldn't have sold their own population, eh? otherwise i'm sick of hearing about it. you know, i'm sure my ancestors were screwed at some point in history, too, but it lead me to where i am now, so i'm not complaining. sure, we more than screwed the indians and still do, but i personally didn't do anything. it's not like i was there hanging 38 sioux to be able to protest the predictable reactionary response to both those we were genociding and those forced to keep the peace through execution. some people at the time considered it a war, and in those archaic terms, you fight wars to win. history tends to paint the aggressor as evil anyway. it's not overly shocking that an expansionist government treats an indigenous, sometimes war-like, population they way we did.

me, guilty? no. it's just a shameful part of our history, a history most if not all superpowers have to claim they did themselves, sometimes even to themselves. the whole logic here is suspect anyway: had we not come along, tribes would war with one another, would slaughter and control those it was victorious over. in other words, some tribes would have done essentially what happened to them just on a smaller scale. in this regard, indians are hardly any more meritorious than any other people in the world. a lot of this whole thing is about perception, that a proud and noble race was just sitting around when wham! out of the blue comes foreigners and kills them all for no reason. i'd wager that had things not changed for them in the last two hundred years then they'd have killed as many and probably more of their own race through their own warfare than we thought possible.

anyhoo....

'Better yet name for me one full blooded Indian actor without using statements like "That one guy from Dances with Wolves" or "That kid from Windtalkers"...googling it is cheating as well. The simple truth is Indians and Indian actors make up such a small portion of the overall population that it becomes necessary to cast people of mixed or completely different races in order to insure a quality product/'

exactly. some asians were up in arms over casting good-looking white people for '21,' which was based on a true story whose real life participants were asians. keeping them asian served no point other than to have to probably go into a whole asian thing with the audience, and frankly audiences want to see people they can relate with. had the asian population ran to see it and somehow the bean-counters determined that keeping the people asian would have made good financial sense, they'd certainly have done that.

'Additionally I think it's a sad statement on our society's inherent racism that these discussion only seem to come up when A. they want to change an acknowledged white character to another race or B. Some American white guy wants to play another race. Where was the outcry when Antonio Banderas or worse yet Anthony Hopkins or Cathrine Zeta Jones play Mexicans? Did I miss the part in the history books where the British and Spanish built their empires thru a campaign of sunshine and rainbows?'

at the time, these guys were around the height of their careers, so wrapping them together in a 'brand name' made sense. i personally didn't question banderas as a mexican. hell, he played a mexican vigilante directed by a mexican director! hopkins and jones' characters weren't mexican anyway, they were spanish. big difference. i know that's not what you mean, just wanted some clarification in that one particular case.

'Bottom line, affirmative action has no place in Hollywood. The best man should be chosen for his ability to pull off the job regardless of race color creed or political affiliation.'

again i agree. two things to bear in mind: were you in a position to get either johnny depp *or* that guy from 'dances with wolves' you'd be a fool not to go with depp. otherwise, you might find your hollywood stint short. well, there's no 'might' about it, you'd be signing your resignation notice and not even realize it. second, people are too damn sensitive these daze. a black woman gets fired for horrible attendance and the NAACP charges the company for racism. well, i could go on and on, but if i need to then it's not worth my time trying to convince someone, and anyone who knows doesn't need it explained to them ~ AA is a nice theory, but terrible in practice.

certainly in the history of screens large and small you can point to some injustice. the old 'amos and andy' show, two white actors in black face, is safe to include in the 'must go' category. if you really, really try you can find some old copies from obscure sources, but otherwise those are effectively banned as far as i know, and that doesn't seem right, either, to ban history.

now, i agree with you up to a point. there's a line, and jane fonda crossed it. so did roman polanski. that's personal opinion, of course. call me crazy, but there's a difference between rattling off inane political viewpoints and treason and rape. people who are later vindicated (for example, fatty arbuckle) ne'ertheless has their career destroyed. ah, were life only fair, eh?

(Reply to this)

gm1200 writes:
on Sep 27 2008 10:29 AM

Well...The Lone Ranger is a fantastic story with a really wonderful history on screen and page...too bad the idiots at Disney are going to ruin that track record with an obvious ploy to draw little girls and flaming guys into the theatre with Depp. The guy absolutely sucks if he isn't playing a burned out psychopath...which Tonto had better not be.

I'd actually prefer them changing Tonto to a woman and creating some BS love interest than see this idiot in the movie.

(Reply to this)

ch31 writes:
on Sep 27 2008 10:57 AM

Hey idiot writer, Keanu is Canadian not American. Get it right.

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on Sep 27 2008 01:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#2048523)
Grahmn Greene

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on Sep 27 2008 01:53 PM

No one as of yet has been able to change Hockywoods mind about making movies.
They never will.
Its all about the money.
Oh sure you will have you independent films that are revered and mystified for years and they are freakin cool.
And the odd Hollywood movie that is beyond what people expect.
But forthemost part they will always do what they want.
Make money.
And the average movie goer is neither,I hate to use the word stupid, so lets say uninformed, schooled in film or taking it upon themselves to ge past the mediocrity of sub par films.
Unless you can get people to stop going to the theaters to see sub par movies than things will never change.
Its a moot point complaining about why they are making these movies.
We know why.
Until there is a revolution, it will always be about the money.
I read alot of posts on this site and don't comment too often cuz you guys are quite informed when it comes to movies(if we were talking music, well thats another story), but one thing I always see is that someone is complaining about casting choices and what they are doing with movies.
Yeah I wish I could change it but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Living with a medium that caters to the influenced market of teens, who have no idea(for the most part) we will always lose.
Gather all your friends and their friends and so and so on and start boycotting or just not showing up for the movie in question.Whatever it may be.
Sorry about the rant, but jesus pissed me off.

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on Sep 27 2008 01:59 PM

Oh yeah.
Johhny Depp and George Clooney seems like the perfect duo for the Lone Ranger.
Johhny Depp can do no worng.
Regardless of how you feel about TPOTC and 21 Jump Street.
He is the definitive actor of our generation.

Family guy episode about who you would pick Johhny Depp or Richard Grieco sums it up.

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on Sep 27 2008 01:59 PM

Megan Fox as Fathom.
Megan Fox underwater.
Maybe in a bikini?
Whats to think about?

Damn had to wipe my drool.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 27 2008 06:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#2048626)
I'm talking to you 7th hell,
and what I do to you when you are sleeping so gently,
what with the ether and all.

(Reply to this)

greg_dean_schmitz writes:
on Sep 27 2008 08:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#2049301)
Well, if it's like the comic, "Fathom" might be more like "Splash": Aspen is often depicted as naked, with conveniently placed seaweed, fish, hair, air bubbles, etc.

For example:

http://www.utb.falun.se/hbo/ivprogram/iv98mbe/BILDER/Fathom1.jpg

(Reply to this)

susan08 writes:
on Sep 27 2008 08:43 PM

Is it wrong for a man to have sweet babies \?? It is an absolutely extramarital relationship, but more and more services come out on Internet focusing on this kind of relationship, such as a tall dating site ____tallchat.com__ which is a hot dating site for all tall admirers,tall man and tall woman.

(Reply to this)

astrangefish writes:
on Sep 28 2008 05:15 AM

In the last week i've watched 'Tell No One' (a french thriller) and 'rec' (a spanish horror) - both were very good. Seeing some of the forthcoming hollywood titles (Pirates 4, National Treasure 3, Wildhogs 2, I Am Legend prequel), i again strongly suggest you all don't just rely on hollywood for your filmic pleasures.
P.S. Can RT do something about all these website promoters who keep posting?
People who like 'Transformers' or think 'Adam Sandler is brilliant' are IDIOTS, but i recognise they are still film fans and have as much right to post as me - but these 'others' are ruining it for the rest of us with their 'dating site' promotions etc. Can they be removed?

(Reply to this)

bijibadness writes:
on Sep 28 2008 06:10 AM

tomwaitsjr, get a life you dork

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Sep 28 2008 08:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#2049213)
Very nice, also Wes Studi, he played Maqua in last of the mohicans with Daniel Day Lewis, but you're kinda proven my point. When you said Graham Green most people on here probably thought "The guy from Battlestar Galactica is Indian?" Not really to the same level as Johnny Depp. Definately closer to the Richard Grieco level. Seriously, talk about divergent career paths.

(Reply to this)

Kshelton21 writes:
on Sep 28 2008 10:19 AM

a sims movie?
whatttttt

that's ridiculous.
and i agree on the moby dick thing...wtf.

(Reply to this)

Kshelton21 writes:
on Sep 28 2008 10:20 AM

also, wild hogs needs no sequel, and national treasure really doesn't either, but i'm praying that the next sequel for PoTC will rekindle the flame that the first one lit, bc Dead Man's Chest and World's End, while not that bad, weren't great.

(Reply to this)

greg_dean_schmitz writes:
on Sep 28 2008 11:38 AM

I know the debate is about full blooded NA's, but there are a couple of other (older) stars with some heritage: Burt Reynolds is half Cherokee and Cher is 1/4 Cherokee. As for the "biggest" star right now that is full blooded, that would probably have to be Adam Beach (Windtalkers, L&O:SUV), but yeah, he's not really that famous either.

(Reply to this)

caitriona18 writes:
on Sep 28 2008 02:13 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who's really, flipping excited for 'Pirates 4'. I'm also probably the only one who LOVED 'Pirates 2'. 'Pirates 3' and I are still trying to get along. But, dude, I so cannot wait for 'Alice in Wonderland', because Tim Burton is, like, a super genius. :D

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 28 2008 02:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#2051153)
Why say hurtful things about me? Do you want to make me cry?

(Reply to this)

merlinsteele writes:
on Sep 28 2008 02:57 PM

Personally, I think Johnny Depp is overrated, but then that's JMO. I'll be glad to see a movie based on The Lone Ranger. It was one of my favorite childhood tv shows. Oh, btw, I'm part Cherokee as well, but I would rather someone who looked like a Native American play one than even myself.

(Reply to this)

DodgeyDude writes:
on Oct 02 2008 01:26 AM

If they do get George Clooney to play opposite Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger, I'm worried that Johnny might out act George and the film will feel unbalanced because of it. I like the idea in principle, they just need to reign in Johnny so that the character of the Lone Ranger shines through as it is called The Lone Ranger not Tonto. If they can do it then I think it would be a good buddy film, but they will need to make it gritty as well as funny. You can imagine the banter between them both during dangerous fights.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Oct 02 2008 09:23 AM

How the heck are all these guy part Cherokee? Where the heck are the other tribes? Bunch of underachievers...That's right. I'm lookin at you Iroquois!!!

(Reply to this)

ed d. writes:
on Sep 11 2009 06:00 PM

Lone Ranger: History or trivia? Anyone who grew up believing in the character portrayed by Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels is cautious after the defamation by hollywood to unmask the man who dedicated his life to the character he portrayed on television/movies. In the early 80's a remake was released that featured an idiot who was an embarrassment as an actor and a public drunk. A complete turn-off resulted. The geriatric generation would embrace a realistic portrayal,simply to tell thier grand children that they remembered a time back when. Thanks, Old Geezer.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Lone Ranger

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links