jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (13 posts)

Is Johnny Depp losing his touch?

  1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

    Well it's apparent.  Transcendence was a big flop last weekend.  The movie only made like 10.9 million at the box office on a production budget that was 100 million dollars.  This brings up an interesting question...is Johnny Depp losing his touch?  Are people getting tired of him?  I mean think about it.  Really think about it.

    The last few movies that he's done haven't done that well.  "The Rum Diary" was a flop.  "Dark Shadows" was bashed by film critics, and was a commercially failure at the box office.  "The Lone Ranger" under performed at the box office, and now this one flops too.  So what gives?  Is Johnny Depp's name no longer going to entice audiences to see a movie anymore?  What are your thoughts on this?

    1. vocalcoach profile image94
      vocalcoachposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I, too was disappointed in the movie Transcendence.  I personally don't think Depp is losing his touch, I think the scripts are bad. How can anyone get tired of Johnny Depp?

      In his next film he plays the part of the wolf in the musical "Into The Woods."  I have worked on this production so many times, I'm not in the least interested in seeing the movie version.  But hey - I love Johnny Depp and will bite the bullet and see the film just to see Johnny.

    2. AnastasiaMcGowan profile image59
      AnastasiaMcGowanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I actually enjoyed "The Rum Diary" i thought it was weird and good but I feel that Johnny Depp has been consistently good in a lot of his movies and that because a movie is bad people automatically say it was the actors fault but in reality they are doing the best with what they were given and I just think maybe the script was bad or the over all story, even the director could have been bad, I have not seen the movie yet but from the movie trailer I saw I wasn't too excited for it however I still want to check it out.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Unless it's a campy 80s action movie, the actors will never be the determining factor in whether a film will be good or not. That falls on the director's shoulders.

    Example: Morgan Freeman was in both The Shawshank Redemption (one of the best movies ever made) and Evan Almighty (one of the most vapid and unfunny comedies ever made).

    Example: The Coen brothers directed Fargo. The Coen brothers also directed O Brother, Where art Thou?. The Coen brothers also directed The Big Lebowski. All three films are consistently excellent. See the commonality?

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's a fair point.  I guess i should've worded the op a bit better, but why do you think Johnny Depp's recent string of films have been financial flops though?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can't say anything about Transcendence (because it looks generic as hell), but The Lone Ranger was a massive failure because...well, everything. Making an origin story for the Lone Ranger completely misses the point of the Lone Ranger.

        What The Lone Ranger Should Have Done: Start with a bad guy doing bad stuff, Lone Ranger appears from out of nowhere and, after a display of firearm mastery, arrests bad guy and rides off. Lone Ranger meets with Tonto, gives some exposition, and learns that two new bad guys just rode into town. Lone Ranger confronts one, accidentally kills him, has a moment of moral conflict, picks himself up and rides in to arrest second bad guy. Big dramatic gunfight inside building, fight goes nowhere, both agree to a duel. Lone Ranger and second bad guy do classic Western quick-draw outside, second bad guy pulls dick move and shoots Lone Ranger while back is turned, Second bad guy gloats and rides off. Lone Ranger pulls himself up, gets on Silver, epic climactic horse chase sequence, Lone Ranger takes second bad guy down without killing him, justice is served, roll credits. Good old-school fun is had by all.

        What The Lone Ranger Actually Did: Piss on the franchise.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
          Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          well that is an interesting point.  Plus, i think they might've spent too much money on the movie as well, as i know they spent well over 200 million on it, and that's way too much for any western.  What they should've done was keep it at a modest budget like maybe 80 million at most, as they just over estimated Depp's popularity with that one.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Which is beyond ridiculous, if you ask me. The only major expenses in a Lone Ranger movie should be hiring the actors, training the stuntmen, and training the horses. The end.

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
              Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                agree too

  3. FatFreddysCat profile image94
    FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago

    There was no reason for "Lone Ranger" to be a $200 million movie.

  4. lisavanvorst profile image79
    lisavanvorstposted 3 years ago

    I still think he is a great actor. Maybe he is just not getting the right role in a movie. Actors need to make money just like we do and I guess he is taking what ever he can get. I've seen Robert Deniro in so many movies and commercials. Not all the movies he has chosen did great at the box office either. The one actor who seems to be getting the great roles is Mark Walburg, not to mention he has a show with his brothers. Eventually Depp will get a role that is well worth mentioning.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hope so , been waiting.

 
working