At this point I'm wondering when we'll get a teaser trailer. They've gotta start promoting it at least 6 months out to allow the hype to start gaining traction.
I'm thinking we'll see a teaser trailer sometime in late September/early October.
Printable View
At this point I'm wondering when we'll get a teaser trailer. They've gotta start promoting it at least 6 months out to allow the hype to start gaining traction.
I'm thinking we'll see a teaser trailer sometime in late September/early October.
Sounds about right. The viral stuff is picking up speed right now, I believe.
Sony have any big releases this fall that you all can think of? Might see it then...Quote:
Originally Posted by fernandito
Maginificent Seven seems a likely contender, opens september 23. September 22 in a lot of other markets. Who knows, maybe we'll get an early taste on King's birthday.
I am confused : the movie gets released in february, not septemberQuote:
Originally Posted by georgiesarm
The Magnificent Seven remake will be released in September. Perhaps there will be a trailer by then for The Dark Tower movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbertwestI am confused : the movie gets released in february, not septemberQuote:
Originally Posted by georgiesarm
This is likely to be a real bomb since it will be compared to films like Lord of the Rings and maybe Harry Potter and found lacking. Even if it is good there is no audience for this for anyone under 40. I was amazed at his recent book tour where there was hardly anyone under 40 and few minorities. Some marketing exec probably wants to broaden the audience with a black lead but I doubt that works. King has an aging, mostly white fan base who are not the type to flood the movie theaters unless they are wheelchair accessible. It's a niche audience - big only by book standards - that probably won't generate a large gross at the box office. I sound like the voice of doom but that's my prediction.Quote:
Originally Posted by brethren
I guess they're thinking "King general audience awareness + Elba/McConaughey appeal + present day moviegoer hunger for multifilm epic = possible success." Maybe.
The director (Nikolaj Arcel) and writer of the source material (Stephen King, duh) both expressed how much they were impressed by Idris Elba. That, along with his rising star power and an attitude that skin tone are not crucial to the character of Roland Deschain, are what likely contributed to him landing the role.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardX
Notions that the man got the job because of "political correctness" (i.e. something or someone that is not a Caucasian heterosexual male) or some quota for demographic-specific marketing are pretty insulting.
P.S. People who believe that the novel fanbase is going to be the deciding factor in this adaptation-sequel's success are, in all likelihood, selling themselves one grand delusion.
If you think the current fan base will have no effect on this movie... well that is delusional my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu DysonThe director (Nikolaj Arcel) and writer of the source material (Stephen King, duh) both expressed how much they were impressed by Idris Elba. That, along with his rising star power and an attitude that skin tone are not crucial to the character of Roland Deschain, are what likely contributed to him landing the role.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardX
Notions that the man got the job because of "political correctness" (i.e. something or someone that is not a Caucasian heterosexual male) or some quota for demographic-specific marketing are pretty insulting.
P.S. People who believe that the novel fanbase is going to be the deciding factor in this adaptation-sequel's success are, in all likelihood, selling themselves one grand delusion.
You're absolutely right, they gave a big F U to the book by coming up with their "sequel" and so I won't go to the theater in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000
I'm sure it will be a cool movie. If King movie fans enjoy it, that's great. But I spent the years and paid for the books and damn it, I wanted the movie to be faithful.
The novel fan base will have an effect.. but it will be a very, very, very, very small effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000If you think the current fan base will have no effect on this movie... well that is delusional my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu Dyson
Like, less than 5%.
The mythical 'average movie goer' is what will - for better or for worse - decide if this becomes a box office bomb or not.
True but there's this guy called Stephen King and it took him years to write the damned books. It's his story and his choice what to do with it. If you don't want to give him your ten bucks, fine. But don't act like this adaptation is some affront to the so-called fans. The fans who shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie can kiss my ass. And I'm sure King doesn't give a flying F either. His connection to the books is deeper and stronger than yours could ever possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbeanYou're absolutely right, they gave a big F U to the book by coming up with their "sequel" and so I won't go to the theater in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000
I'm sure it will be a cool movie. If King movie fans enjoy it, that's great. But I spent the years and paid for the books and damn it, I wanted the movie to be faithful.
From my understanding, it's marketing that sells the movie. Books will get the author's fans into the seats but an average person will see it based on the trailer. I can only go by my own experience but in most cases I've bought the book after seeing the movie, not vice versa.
If the movie tanks, it tanks. But I'm not going to pre-judge because, gasp!, Roland's guns aren't the way I imagined them to be.
http://img.pandawhale.com/157772-Kob...Tumbl-YeMJ.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLeadTrue but there's this guy called Stephen King and it took him years to write the damned books. It's his story and his choice what to do with it. If you don't want to give him your ten bucks, fine. But don't act like this adaptation is some affront to the so-called fans. The fans who shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie can kiss my ass. And I'm sure King doesn't give a flying F either. His connection to the books is deeper and stronger than yours could ever possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbeanYou're absolutely right, they gave a big F U to the book by coming up with their "sequel" and so I won't go to the theater in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000
I'm sure it will be a cool movie. If King movie fans enjoy it, that's great. But I spent the years and paid for the books and damn it, I wanted the movie to be faithful.
From my understanding, it's marketing that sells the movie. Books will get the author's fans into the seats but an average person will see it based on the trailer. I can only go by my own experience but in most cases I've bought the book after seeing the movie, not vice versa.
If the movie tanks, it tanks. But I'm not going to pre-judge because, gasp!, Roland's guns aren't the way I imagined them to be.
I agree that King and the DT film's producers owe readers nothing, but turning away from the existing story is analogous to stating outright that they're less interested in who got them to the prom (DT's existing audience) than they are in who else might be on the dance floor once they got there (the casual moviegoer). That is all their right, of course - and given how the numbers add up, I see why it happens - but being left in your chair for the other guys/gals at the dance stings, and the stung often say "ow."
Not to mention that the story, as it was, was already pretty good - it might have even made for a decent movie(s). :drool:
King is like the child and the parent is saying "do you want a burger or chicken nuggets?" He's got no real say in how the movie turns out. I don't think when they told him, "We like your story that you took years to write, BUT we don't think it's good enough." King was exactly thrilled. He is at a point in his career that he doesn't care as long as someone can enjoy it. Yes he has the strongest connection to the books he wrote, and then the readers who spent years follow the story have the next greatest connection, but the movie is apparently being made to hopefully gain some connection with people who have vested zero time in a connection with the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLeadTrue but there's this guy called Stephen King and it took him years to write the damned books. It's his story and his choice what to do with it. If you don't want to give him your ten bucks, fine. But don't act like this adaptation is some affront to the so-called fans. The fans who shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie can kiss my ass. And I'm sure King doesn't give a flying F either. His connection to the books is deeper and stronger than yours could ever possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbeanYou're absolutely right, they gave a big F U to the book by coming up with their "sequel" and so I won't go to the theater in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000
I'm sure it will be a cool movie. If King movie fans enjoy it, that's great. But I spent the years and paid for the books and damn it, I wanted the movie to be faithful.
From my understanding, it's marketing that sells the movie. Books will get the author's fans into the seats but an average person will see it based on the trailer. I can only go by my own experience but in most cases I've bought the book after seeing the movie, not vice versa.
If the movie tanks, it tanks. But I'm not going to pre-judge because, gasp!, Roland's guns aren't the way I imagined them to be.
I know some have "shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie" and that's not what I mean by what I've said a few times in this thread. I'm just saying that if a person like me, feels that the producers/director took a great story and instead of translating to film, are instead making their this-is-the-way-I-think-it-should-be movie, they should talk with their wallet and not support the movie at the box-office.
The movie will probably be good with this star power. Although, Cell had it too and it has a horrible rating. I and others aren't upset over something as trivial as what the guns look like. We're upset that the story was picked apart, rearranged, and formed into what the director calls a sequel. They asked us what we wanted, we said hamburger and they're giving us chicken nuggets.
By the way, the director did attack the book-fans that weren't happy with his choices. So we were affronted.
FWIW I don't think their approach to tackling this story is so much that they felt it wasn't good enough, but more due to film logistics and money than anything else. IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbeanKing is like the child and the parent is saying "do you want a burger or chicken nuggets?" He's got no real say in how the movie turns out. I don't think when they told him, "We like your story that you took years to write, BUT we don't think it's good enough." King was exactly thrilled. He is at a point in his career that he doesn't care as long as someone can enjoy it. Yes he has the strongest connection to the books he wrote, and then the readers who spent years follow the story have the next greatest connection, but the movie is apparently being made to hopefully gain some connection with people who have vested zero time in a connection with the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeDealInLeadTrue but there's this guy called Stephen King and it took him years to write the damned books. It's his story and his choice what to do with it. If you don't want to give him your ten bucks, fine. But don't act like this adaptation is some affront to the so-called fans. The fans who shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie can kiss my ass. And I'm sure King doesn't give a flying F either. His connection to the books is deeper and stronger than yours could ever possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbeanYou're absolutely right, they gave a big F U to the book by coming up with their "sequel" and so I won't go to the theater in support.Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000
I'm sure it will be a cool movie. If King movie fans enjoy it, that's great. But I spent the years and paid for the books and damn it, I wanted the movie to be faithful.
From my understanding, it's marketing that sells the movie. Books will get the author's fans into the seats but an average person will see it based on the trailer. I can only go by my own experience but in most cases I've bought the book after seeing the movie, not vice versa.
If the movie tanks, it tanks. But I'm not going to pre-judge because, gasp!, Roland's guns aren't the way I imagined them to be.
I know some have "shit on this before even seeing a single second of the movie" and that's not what I mean by what I've said a few times in this thread. I'm just saying that if a person like me, feels that the producers/director took a great story and instead of translating to film, are instead making their this-is-the-way-I-think-it-should-be movie, they should talk with their wallet and not support the movie at the box-office.
The movie will probably be good with this star power. Although, Cell had it too and it has a horrible rating. I and others aren't upset over something as trivial as what the guns look like. We're upset that the story was picked apart, rearranged, and formed into what the director calls a sequel. They asked us what we wanted, we said hamburger and they're giving us chicken nuggets.
By the way, the director did attack the book-fans that weren't happy with his choices. So we were affronted.
Sorry in advance if this comes across as overly acerbic but this strikes me as an extremely uninformed view of the reality of film making today.Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Troy
If we're all buying into the axiom which posits that changes from novel to screen are a necessity, then it is doubly so for The Dark Tower as the sheer structure and approach of the story makes it 'unfilmable' as it currently stands.
There are aspects of the novels - like Roland getting raped by a demon Oracle, or Roland slaughtering a town full of women and children - that simply cannot play out on a silver screen. Execs would laugh Ancel and Goldsman out of the building if they showed up with a script depicting the events word by word, as it were.
This is probably part of a larger conversation in which the crux of the argument would be "Do we really need adaptations of beloved franchises if they can't be translated exactly as they exist in their original medium?"
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I'm excited as hell to see an interpretation of this story as envisioned by a fellow Dark Tower junkie (Ancel). I don't feel duped or shortchanged knowing that significant changes are abound.. the demands of cinema simply do not allow for a top to bottom interpretation of the novels, it is just too difficult.
So if Roland has black skin and Jake is wearing Jordans instead of Converse and Roland's guns are 10" instead of 12", I won't mind as long as the spirit of the story is intact.
I did not say "no effect", I said "deciding factor".Quote:
Originally Posted by webstar1000If you think the current fan base will have no effect on this movie... well that is delusional my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu DysonThe director (Nikolaj Arcel) and writer of the source material (Stephen King, duh) both expressed how much they were impressed by Idris Elba. That, along with his rising star power and an attitude that skin tone are not crucial to the character of Roland Deschain, are what likely contributed to him landing the role.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardX
Notions that the man got the job because of "political correctness" (i.e. something or someone that is not a Caucasian heterosexual male) or some quota for demographic-specific marketing are pretty insulting.
P.S. People who believe that the novel fanbase is going to be the deciding factor in this adaptation-sequel's success are, in all likelihood, selling themselves one grand delusion.
Hm...Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbean
Not much ambiguity, i'm afraid.Quote:
This Dark Tower Sequel is the stupidest piece of f-you fans crap I've ever heard of.
I WILL NOT SPEND ANY OF MY MONEY ON IT.
Can we delete this thread and pretend it never happened?
LOL. Are you the guy from the Monty Python skit who "came here for an argument"? Nothing like that was said. My point is that King's audience is primarily older white people. Adding a black actor might broaden the appeal of the film. I doubt King gives a crap if Pee Wee Herman had been cast so long as they send him a check. This is Children of the Corn part 12 guy. The film is going to bomb though. There is no audience for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu DysonThe director (Nikolaj Arcel) and writer of the source material (Stephen King, duh) both expressed how much they were impressed by Idris Elba. That, along with his rising star power and an attitude that skin tone are not crucial to the character of Roland Deschain, are what likely contributed to him landing the role.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardX
Notions that the man got the job because of "political correctness" (i.e. something or someone that is not a Caucasian heterosexual male) or some quota for demographic-specific marketing are pretty insulting.
P.S. People who believe that the novel fanbase is going to be the deciding factor in this adaptation-sequel's success are, in all likelihood, selling themselves one grand delusion.
Wait, can you elaborate on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardX
It's a cross dimensional epic with warlocks, guns, vampires and lightsaber wielding cyborgs grafted onto the skeletal outline of The Quest.
I gotta imagine that one of these will strike a chord with a good cross section of the movie going public.
I mean, right?
Haha yep. I did call it stupid which it probably won't be, but I do believe it's an F you to the story. But the point is, if you don't like the idea of this sequel version, don't spend your money on it. And I think enough silent persons out there will skip the movie as well. If ppl go see it, I hope they have a fun night at the movies regardless of what the movie does to the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu Dyson.
Hm...Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgreenbean
Not much ambiguity, i'm afraid.Quote:
This Dark Tower Sequel is the stupidest piece of f-you fans crap I've ever heard of.
I WILL NOT SPEND ANY OF MY MONEY ON IT.
Can we delete this thread and pretend it never happened?
All due respect and everything, but that is just stupid. Are you kidding me? The content will derail the film? Logistics and money maybe, but............ I'm sorry I just do not agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by fernanditoSorry in advance if this comes across as overly acerbic but this strikes me as an extremely uninformed view of the reality of film making today.Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Troy
If we're all buying into the axiom which posits that changes from novel to screen are a necessity, then it is doubly so for The Dark Tower as the sheer structure and approach of the story makes it 'unfilmable' as it currently stands.
There are aspects of the novels - like Roland getting raped by a demon Oracle, or Roland slaughtering a town full of women and children - that simply cannot play out on a silver screen. Execs would laugh Ancel and Goldsman out of the building if they showed up with a script depicting the events word by word, as it were.
This is probably part of a larger conversation in which the crux of the argument would be "Do we really need adaptations of beloved franchises if they can't be translated exactly as they exist in their original medium?"
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I'm excited as hell to see an interpretation of this story as envisioned by a fellow Dark Tower junkie (Ancel). I don't feel duped or shortchanged knowing that significant changes are abound.. the demands of cinema simply do not allow for a top to bottom interpretation of the novels, it is just too difficult.
So if Roland has black skin and Jake is wearing Jordans instead of Converse and Roland's guns are 10" instead of 12", I won't mind as long as the spirit of the story is intact.