Printable View
I have faith that Amazon will do this right. I want to see a DT universe done right so, so badly. Don't let us down Amazon!Quote:
Originally Posted by mae
I'm fine if they age them up a little. Young actors sometimes don't have gravitas to pull off some of the more mature themes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RUBE
I finally got around to seeing the Dark Tower movie. Some thoughts:
It now amuses me that any of us thought casting a black Roland would lead to continuity/logic issues for potential later films - they barbecued so much of the material that that would be the least of the necessary adjustments going forward.
I'd thought that it was possible that a DT adaptation that displeased readers could still be, taken in isolation, a decent film that would please first-timers (and possibly it did please a few), but wow, what a chaotic mess, just an absolute casserole of nonsense.
I'm glad I watched it (I consider witnessing this my responsibility as a long-time King reader), but this was an awful film.
Onward and upward! High hopes for the series.
Yeah it really was the worst of both worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Troy
Ron Howard Admits Mistakes in ‘The Dark Tower’ Adaptation
During a guest appearance on the Happy Sad Confused Podcast for his new documentary Pavarotti, Howard admitted that yeah, the movie really should have leaned into the source story’s horror content. He also learned, a little too late, that a focus on The Gunslinger himself, instead of his kid sidekick counterpart, would have been a better approach:
“I think it should’ve been horror. I think that it landed in a place—both in our minds and the studio’s—that it could be PG-13 and sort of a boy’s adventure… I really think we made a mistake not—I mean I’m not sure we could’ve made this movie, but I think if we could’ve made a darker, more hard-boiled look and make it The Gunslinger’s character study more than Jake. I think in retrospect that would’ve been more exciting. We always felt like we were kind of holding back something, and I think at the end of the day it was that.”Howard admitted another error in planning, suggesting that a TV-first approach would have been a better way to conjure up interest in the sprawling franchise from the general audience:
“The other thing might’ve been to just straight-on tackle it as television first. Disappointing because I poured a lot of myself into it, and sometimes this happens on these projects where everybody’s best intentions—you’re all pulling in a direction, and then you sort of say, ‘Was that the right direction?’ And I wouldn’t say it was all compromise. I do think it was just a sense of maybe too much listening to what you think that the marketplace is calling for instead of the essence of what Stephen King was giving us.”
Apparently another image from the Amazon set
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7zrvd6W4AAa9OF.jpg
I actually don't think a horror approach would have worked. There are horror elements later in the series (Callahan and the vampires) but I would never consider horror to be one of the series' genres.
But yeah... anyone looking at the series and saying "This can be a PG-13 boy's adventure" never understood or respected the source material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
I agree completely. NOT horror and not so unsophisticated.
Guess I'll have to be disappointed! In an Italian interview, Flynn says he's playing "the father" -- presumably Steven Deschain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev VincentI'll be disappointed if he isn't Eldred Jonas.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000My bet is Cort.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
His first words will be "Roland, you've got to defend the fookin castle" :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev VincentGuess I'll have to be disappointed! In an Italian interview, Flynn says he's playing "the father" -- presumably Steven Deschain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev VincentI'll be disappointed if he isn't Eldred Jonas.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000My bet is Cort.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
Followed by "What's in it for me?"Quote:
Originally Posted by fernanditoHis first words will be "Roland, you've got to defend the fookin castle" :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev VincentGuess I'll have to be disappointed! In an Italian interview, Flynn says he's playing "the father" -- presumably Steven Deschain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev VincentI'll be disappointed if he isn't Eldred Jonas.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000My bet is Cort.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
Michael Rooker just confirmed this on his facebook.
http://www.michaelrookeronline.com/t...S-A_mnsc9hGmE8
Cort maybe?
Or Steven DeschainQuote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
Steven Deschain is played by Jerome Flynn. He already confirmed it in an interview.
Oh yeah, that's right. So many castings going on, I forgot about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari_Racing
TV is the best medium for such a long and intricate story. Movies, even spanned out over multiple movies are just too short to really delve into the characters. I thought the Marvel movies were great and worked with this massive universe they brought to film but it was still simple. HATED the movie, looking forward to a real adaptation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Girlystevedave
Having watched the Amazon show Hannah I could totally see Joel Kinnaman as Roland. We all have something different in our heads I am sure, he is just what I pictured at least for a middle-aged Roland.
I totally agree with you - these stories are much better suited for television. There's so much depth and detail, which the movie was totally lacking in. I think if this is gone about correctly, it could be epic.
As long as they don't make it too "PG"...like they did when they foolishly made Desperation into a TV movie. :rolleyes3:
As excited as I was about the movie initially, I now think it never could have been good even if they had tried to stay true to the books. The Lord of the Rings movies are great, held reasonably true to the books and they were 4 hours long each (extended edition) and still tons were left out. Movies are no longer the best venue for this medium, TV has taken its place for story telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by LizzyDeschain
I think theatrical films could work but they'd have to commit to multiple films. And the film we did get shows that the studio was not willing to commit to anything resembling a faithful adaptation so this is just wishful thinking.
The first three books as-is I don't see any significant problems into adapting into films.
I was going to suggest that the flashback in book 4 be done outside of the movies but maybe they could treat it like Rogue One?
The last three books would probably be the ones with the most changes regardless of what medium you do. Unless you go full cinematic universe you'd probably have to hack away at stuff like Callahan's storyline and all the stuff about Insomnia. Not to mention King's involvement which would really derail things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
I still don't think movies can come close to the story telling power a TV series can. Take walking dead as an example. They have 16 episodes in a season. That is pretty close to 16 hours of story telling per season. A single movie, even trilogy cannot come close to that.
Would love to see a TV series, each book one season and really delve into the story and characters. Can't see it happening though, that would be a big commitment without a guarantee of return.
When you take out commercials its closer to 45 minutes, which is about 12 hours, which the LOTR trilogy came pretty close to.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderingsQuote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
I still don't think movies can come close to the story telling power a TV series can. Take walking dead as an example. They have 16 episodes in a season. That is pretty close to 16 hours of story telling per season. A single movie, even trilogy cannot come close to that.
Would love to see a TV series, each book one season and really delve into the story and characters. Can't see it happening though, that would be a big commitment without a guarantee of return.
Which they easily could have done for one of the LOTR books. I guess it comes down to individual preference. I prefer a much slower burn and do not mind a long build up with plenty of character development. My favourite season of Walking Dead so far is season 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by IwritecodeWhen you take out commercials its closer to 45 minutes, which is about 12 hours, which the LOTR trilogy came pretty close to.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderingsQuote:
Originally Posted by CyberGhostface
I still don't think movies can come close to the story telling power a TV series can. Take walking dead as an example. They have 16 episodes in a season. That is pretty close to 16 hours of story telling per season. A single movie, even trilogy cannot come close to that.
Would love to see a TV series, each book one season and really delve into the story and characters. Can't see it happening though, that would be a big commitment without a guarantee of return.
‘The Dark Tower’: Amazon Pilot Helmed By ‘24’ and'Predator 2' Director Stephen Hopkins
So he has experience with action, horror and science fiction. Excellent.
Also OT but Predator 2 is underrated.
Watching the IT remake just reminded me and reinforced how sad I was watching TDT...
So far off the mark.. why dont these "professional's" every listen to the fans???
Alan Moore said, "If the audience knew what they wanted, they wouldn't be the audience." Maybe harsh but essentially true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sai Sheb
King has millions of fans. Whose opinion should the studios listen to? It's frustrating to see good books ruined but how many fans out of those millions have experience with photography, screenwriting, etc?
It 2 seems okay at best and I'll wait for the DVD.