« Forged in the Fires of Mt. Tiffany's | Main | Fan Mail »

January 16, 2003

Saddle Up

The Commander clued me into this yesterday. Long story short, the WB had commissioned a series based around a “hip and sexy” updating of “The Lone Ranger”, realized it costs too much money per episode, and cut it back to only a TV movie. But look at what they would have beamed into our homes on a weekly basis:

Wow. Let’s all take a moment, shall we?

Feeling better?

Not yet? OK, walk it off…that’s good.

Alrighty then.

Unless my eyes deceive me, the WB went and made a live action version of “The Ambiguously Gay Duo”. Holy Nathan Lane, Batman.

Lone Ranger: Now that we’ve rounded up the bandits, let’s head to the local bathhouse, Good Friend!

Tonto: Um, Kemosabe, what’s wrong with the saloon?

Later that evening:

Lone Ranger: Can you scrub my back, trusty sidekick?

Tonto: Um, OK, “Rides Horse While Only Wearing Chaps”.

One studio executive is quoted in Entertainment Weekly as saying, “''There's certainly a place for a sexy Western on network TV.” Apparantly "dressing up like The Village People" is sexy at the WB, but it doesn't hold much water where I'm at.

I can just see the scene now though. Flash forward to a Sunday night, in the Bible Belt, and Dad is putting down his copy of “The Economist” and thinking about Jesus. And in the other room, he hears the television, some gunfire. Alarmed, he asks from his recliner, “Son, what are you watching?”

“The Lone Ranger, Dad!”

Excited, remembering the show from his youth, the dad decided to see what his son is doing for the first time in nine years. “Great, Jimmy! I remember watching that show, and SWEET JESUS WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU WATCHING!”

And then holding an emergency baptism.

Posted by Ryan McGee at January 16, 2003 02:37 PM

Comments

The best part is that the Lone Ranger has that pouty, scraggly hair, emaciated look down pat so much that I can't even imagine him winning a single fight. His arms are such pipe cleaners that it looks like if he tried to punch someone, his forearm would snap right off.

Also, for the love of Mike, why is Tonto wearing a pink shirt? (Aside from the same answer Chris Kattan got from Jon Stewart on "20 Lamest Videos" when he asked why George Michael was wearing gloves in the video for "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go": "Because he's gay.")

Posted by: Commander Foley at January 16, 2003 03:03 PM

Ok Ryan dude:

Could you write a post about what makes men think that other men are gay?

I mean, from the fashion p.o.v.... I've been getting a lot of "Orlando isn't wearing socks in that pic so he looks gay" type comments (second only to the "the Miami Vice look is soooo over" type comments (see the second Orlando pic on my site).

So what gives, (straight) guys--what (apart from a marked preference for Barbra Streisand and Bette Midler) tips you off that some guy is gay or makes some guy "look gay"?

I'm curious as to what sort of stereotypes straight men hold re using appearances to judge?

Posted by: glovefox at January 16, 2003 06:54 PM

Hahahaa, thanks for making me laugh Ryan! Excellent insights.

Posted by: moxie at January 16, 2003 08:14 PM

I'm thinking they based the movie on the cartoon series back in the early 80s - The New Adventures of the Lone Ranger... If your tv's colour was off enough I'm sure Tonto's shirt looked pink. Also, if you check out the pics from the cartoon you'll also see that the Lone Ranger had a cleft chin that they didn't always draw well - thus the black spot on the chin of the "Spaghetti Ranger" pictured above...Ahh well at least Tonto's belt matches his shirt... Wonder what shoes he's wearing? Gotta be shiny white patent leather... with tassels of course...and pretty silver spurs with the male sign instead of the traditional star...

Posted by: trish at January 17, 2003 01:21 AM

I'm sorry, there's nothing ambiguously gay about those two there.

Posted by: Dan the Goose at January 17, 2003 08:25 AM

Glovefox, I would say that if you took both the Lone Ranger and Tonto by themselves, you might not have much fodder to jump to conclusions. The Lone Ranger has very soft, pouty features, little to no muscle tone, that wisp of scraggly hair, the casual, "too cool" -- pretty much looks like a "pretty boy" GAP model. All that is abundantly clear is that he doesn't match the pop culture image of a strong, masculine, John Wayne-esque Lone Ranger. Tonto has less of a smooth, feminine face, but he's still got a not terribly masculine haircut-- very poofy, very manufactured, not at all the haircut of someone who's used to not bathing for weeks. He's Native American, which explains the beadwork, but beadwork in todays fashion world is more of a feminine look than a masculine one. Then there's the completely random pink shirt. It's not even a particularly natural looking pink. You start throwing in details like that and you think, "Hm, maybe something is meant by these odd idiosyncracies."

But the kicker is we already know the relationship of the Lone Ranger and Tonto is one of "good chums" and enduring friendship. We know these guys hang out all the time. So if you pool together all of the details that stick out as being "not what I would expect from an action hero," the mind rushes to supply an explanation.

Also, the WB has come right out and *said* they're going for a "sexy" Lone Ranger, so they've already injected sexuality into the discussion. Heterosexual men have a tendency to associate "sexiness" in other men not in terms of what they'd find sexually attractive but what they'd want to be. Heterosexual men have no trouble thinking Sean Connery or Viggo or Mel Gibson or Pierce Brosnan are "sexy" because we associate them not only with good looks but with power -- they're charismatic, and charming, and powerful, and good-looking in a way we'd like to be and in a way that we'd hope that women would find attractive. We have a much harder time conceding that pretty boys like Leo or Elijah Wood or, because he's all over the place all of a sudden, Ashton Kutcher because the parts that are most attractive about those folks don't make us want to be like them -- Leo has great features, but *just* great features, and if we don't have 'em, we can't emulate him. It's hard for a guy to want to be a pretty face. Pierce Brosnan has great features, but if we don't have 'em, we can at least dress in a tuxedo, be fascinated by cars, order martinis, be fascinated by gadgets and try to approximate his cool and confidence, because that's what's in him that we find most attractive, even more so than his looks.
So, in short, a "sexy" Lone Ranger where his sexiness doesn't seem to derive from his cool, his power, or his confidence just doesn't jive with a heterosexual male sense of sexiness -- so we naturally jump to the conclusion that he's not intended for a heterosexual male sense of sexiness. And since we desperately hope that a heterosexual female sense of sexiness would approximate ours (otherwise, boy are we in trouble), we conclude that it's not meant to be a heterosexual sex appeal.

Posted by: Commander Foley at January 17, 2003 10:58 AM

OK, here we go. Perfect example. "Cary Elwes" in "The Princess Bride." (Gentleman in question happens to be gay, but as you'll see, that has nothing to do with anything.) First few scenes in the movie, he's got the perfect features, he's got the sensitive lover look, extremely deferrential... NO GUY WANTED TO BE HIM AT THIS POINT. Just wasn't what we equated with sexy. But then, when he comes back as the Main in Black, he's got the exact same features, but he's overflowing with confidence, he has a kick ass sword-fight, a hand-to-hand fight, a battle of wits -- this is one cool, powerful, confident guy. He's no longer deferrential to Buttercup but even gets a little cruel--that's how much in control he is. Plus, he jokes while he's doing it, indicating even more confidence. He does what we'd want to do in the manner with which we'd want to do it. Damn sexy man at that point, and who of us didn't want to be as cool as he? If the emphasis is on features, heterosexual men won't respond. If it's on confidence and power, we sign up in droves.

Posted by: Commander Foley at January 17, 2003 11:26 AM

And I've single-handedly killed all discussion on this topic. Well done, Foley!

Posted by: Commander Foley at January 17, 2003 03:15 PM

Yea dude. That was totally gay of you.

Posted by: ryan at January 17, 2003 03:20 PM

That's the fruitiest picture I have ever seen. Is their target demographic, 18-34 and very gay?

Posted by: Dawn at January 20, 2003 12:14 PM

Ryan,

I am rather new to your "world" in fact its been only a mere 3 hours that I have read and laughed (respectfully of course ) "stories" and reviews. Can we say pitter patter on the heart? A man who is gifted with the skill of the english language and has a brain not to mention the fact a buffy fan. Aww. So nice to see a decent man is still alive in the world.

Posted by: ann at January 23, 2003 03:42 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?