Interesting ideas.
Yes
No
Interesting ideas.
The answer is within
all matter is energy, all energy is GOD
Well I always thought DT1 and DT2 would be combined into a single movie if filmed.
I think it would work fine if it went in the same order of the books, although as far as mixing stories I think that some early parts of DT7 could be put into song of susanna
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
Definitely agree about attaching some DT7 stuffs to SoS.
And, I for one am so stoked about a movie that the changes might not bother me all too much, as long as it's not stupid.
Big town's got its losers, small town's got its vices...
I think that W and G would be a good starting point. Told in chronological order, it detracts much less from the main story. I think that W and G is one of the strongest stand-alone stories in the book and that it would translate well to the big screen. It also has plot points that would please many different tastes. Gunfights and Romance. In other words, I think that it would hook a larger audience (SK nieve that is) than any other story in the series. And for a project of this magnitude, generating a big following with the first installment is an absolute must.
Sloth Love Chunk
Understand where your all coming from, however if you were to do it as a stand alone i would prefer it to be at the end as a tag on (much like the hobit will come after LOTR)Originally Posted by BROWNING'S CHILDE
For me the main story is the Ka tet of Eddie and co and i was never really into the Cuthbert tet
Same here, candy. I think a combined DT1/DT2 movie would be a much bigger success than a DT4 movie to start things off. You have so much weird stuff happening in those two books, especially in DT2 that lots of people will be intrigued, just like they were intrigued by the weird goings-on when Lost just started, and that kept them coming back to find out what the heck was going on. Same thing with DT1/DT2. But not a lot of that in DT4.
The order of the series worked just fine for books. I don't see why it would be an issue for moviegoers. When The Godfather Part II had the DeNiro scenes, people understood that they were looking at Vito Corleone before the events of The Godfather. I'd put it right where it belongs, after The Waste Lands.
I don't need any weird goings on to capture my interest with W&G. It's Roland in his own world before it moved on. That is all kinds of interesting all by itself.
Are sins ever forgiven?
For those who loved this world... and knew friendly company therein. This Reunion is for you.
http://www.zazzle.com/Kidd_Ikarus*
WTF was edited in my post? I was looking through this thread and saw that it was edited. What the hell was edited in the post?When I was reading the books I all ways pictured Roland looking like Josh Holloway.
For people that never read the series that would make a lot of sense to make the series like that. But I don't think that hardcore DT fans would like if they started out with the fourth book in the series.
Nothing was edited out. It was simply two consecutive posts of yours merged into one. Everything you said in each of them remains intact.
Got it. I sometimes forget to just add to my other posts if I'm posting back to back.
no problem. sorry for any confusion it may have caused you.
The Dark Tower is officially on IMDB, slated for 2010.
See, I'm the exact opposite. I personally found myself much more drawn (pun intended) to the young Roland story even during my first readthrough of the series. I remember distinctly always having to force myself to read through the present narratives in books 1 and 2 and hoping that King would shed more light on Roland's origin.Understand where your all coming from, however if you were to do it as a stand alone i would prefer it to be at the end as a tag on (much like the hobit will come after LOTR)
For me the main story is the Ka tet of Eddie and co and i was never really into the Cuthbert tet
Gunslinger Spoiler
^ That type of stuff held my interest much easier, and it only whetted my appetite for more stories of Roland's past. In fact, I honestly didn't relate to, or even 'like' Roland until I read W&G. Can we really expect a film audience to like him at all if their first image of him is the near-heartless, emotionless shell of a man he is in the current story? Film audiences aren't as patient as readers. Even myself personally, It was only after that fourth book when I was able to fully enjoy the current story of Roland, Eddie, Susannah and Jake. Why? Because I felt like I understood the character of Roland a lot better by that point. The ending of the series, for instance, would not have been nearly as psychologically satisfying to me had I not seen all of the events that had led Roland to that point.
In my view, the character of Roland isn't nearly as interesting or sympathetic without the origin story. If the young Roland ka-tet story arc (Which would include the flashback sequences from book 1, the Marvel comics, and the W&G narrative) is not told initially, a movie audience is simply going to see Roland as the selfish, mindless wanderer he ultimately became, and will never be able to sympathize with him by the time the story ends/begins. They are going to want answers about this character right off the bat, or at least not too far into the series.
Yes, the past story could in theory be told in fragmental flashbacks just as it is in the novels, but I'm with Bev in that the popularity of the comics has opened the doors to a whole new legion of DT fans who are very attached to young Roland. And frankly, I am, too. I love young Roland and his companions, and I don't see why King's mythology should be told out-of-order on screen. Hell, we don't even get to see the depth and richness of it all until those earlier pieces are added to the puzzle.
Think about it: if the story is told exactly in the same fashion it is in the books, we're looking at roughly nine hours worth of movies before any real depth is added to the main character of the story. On the page, that works, but film audiences won't be patient enough to sit through three, no doubt epicly long, films before light is shed on Roland's past. It comes across as poor pacing when in a film setting, not suspence-building.
.
^I personally liked how it seemed that Roland wasn't necessarily a good guy; rather he just wasn't as bad as the person he was after. However I'd still be okay with them going a more chronological route with the story. Personally, I think that if they did so, the first movie could open with Steven Deschain seeing Roland and his ka-tet off. From there we get the events of WaG. I would want the director to save the surprise that Roland killed his mother for the Emerald Palace scene though.
See, I'm the exact opposite. I personally found myself much more drawn (pun intended) to the young Roland story even during my first readthrough of the series. I remember distinctly always having to force myself to read through the present narratives in books 1 and 2 and hoping that King would shed more light on Roland's origin.Understand where your all coming from, however if you were to do it as a stand alone i would prefer it to be at the end as a tag on (much like the hobit will come after LOTR)
For me the main story is the Ka tet of Eddie and co and i was never really into the Cuthbert tet
Gunslinger Spoiler
^ That type of stuff held my interest much easier, and it only whetted my appetite for more stories of Roland's past. In fact, I honestly didn't relate to, or even 'like' Roland until I read W&G. Can we really expect a film audience to like him at all if their first image of him is the near-heartless, emotionless shell of a man he is in the current story? Film audiences aren't as patient as readers. Even myself personally, It was only after that fourth book when I was able to fully enjoy the current story of Roland, Eddie, Susannah and Jake. Why? Because I felt like I understood the character of Roland a lot better by that point. The ending of the series, for instance, would not have been nearly as psychologically satisfying to me had I not seen all of the events that had led Roland to that point.
In my view, the character of Roland isn't nearly as interesting or sympathetic without the origin story. If the young Roland ka-tet story arc (Which would include the flashback sequences from book 1, the Marvel comics, and the W&G narrative) is not told initially, a movie audience is simply going to see Roland as the selfish, mindless wanderer he ultimately became, and will never be able to sympathize with him by the time the story ends/begins. They are going to want answers about this character right off the bat, or at least not too far into the series.
Yes, the past story could in theory be told in fragmental flashbacks just as it is in the novels, but I'm with Bev in that the popularity of the comics has opened the doors to a whole new legion of DT fans who are very attached to young Roland. And frankly, I am, too. I love young Roland and his companions, and I don't see why King's mythology should be told out-of-order on screen. Hell, we don't even get to see the depth and richness of it all until those earlier pieces are added to the puzzle.
Think about it: if the story is told exactly in the same fashion it is in the books, we're looking at roughly nine hours worth of movies before any real depth is added to the main character of the story. On the page, that works, but film audiences won't be patient enough to sit through three, no doubt epicly long, films before light is shed on Roland's past. It comes across as poor pacing when in a film setting, not suspence-building.
i think we shall have to agree to disagree
i just cant see a 'new' audience having the patience to sit through a film about someones back story who they dont know. i think its asking a
lot for them to go see a film about a young gunslinger and a ka tet and then ask them to come back for whole new characters. \esp as to me the eddie/suz ka tet is the more interesting one. what i would not want is the audience to get attached to the cuthbert ka tet and then not give the love and support to eddie ka tet - in fact it would upset me greatly (drama queen moment sorry)
i enjoyed the fact that roland was cold and heartless and slightly alien, personally i could have done without the back story as for me it distracted away from the main story.
i do agree with the comment about the length of any film they make - and if its is to be a film (a series of films) i fear an awful lot of the books substance will be taken out (ala harry potter) you may even find that most of rolands past is deleted and only small parts told in flash back. which would free them away from W&G almost completley
well they could show parts of many of the events of W&G throughout the entire film series. Ironically enough, i was gonna say to do so like LOST.
Well, I can certainly see where you are coming from, and I admit that my arguments are based soely on the fact that I personally prefer the young Roland story to say,See, I'm the exact opposite. I personally found myself much more drawn (pun intended) to the young Roland story even during my first readthrough of the series. I remember distinctly always having to force myself to read through the present narratives in books 1 and 2 and hoping that King would shed more light on Roland's origin.Understand where your all coming from, however if you were to do it as a stand alone i would prefer it to be at the end as a tag on (much like the hobit will come after LOTR)
For me the main story is the Ka tet of Eddie and co and i was never really into the Cuthbert tet
Gunslinger Spoiler
^ That type of stuff held my interest much easier, and it only whetted my appetite for more stories of Roland's past. In fact, I honestly didn't relate to, or even 'like' Roland until I read W&G. Can we really expect a film audience to like him at all if their first image of him is the near-heartless, emotionless shell of a man he is in the current story? Film audiences aren't as patient as readers. Even myself personally, It was only after that fourth book when I was able to fully enjoy the current story of Roland, Eddie, Susannah and Jake. Why? Because I felt like I understood the character of Roland a lot better by that point. The ending of the series, for instance, would not have been nearly as psychologically satisfying to me had I not seen all of the events that had led Roland to that point.
In my view, the character of Roland isn't nearly as interesting or sympathetic without the origin story. If the young Roland ka-tet story arc (Which would include the flashback sequences from book 1, the Marvel comics, and the W&G narrative) is not told initially, a movie audience is simply going to see Roland as the selfish, mindless wanderer he ultimately became, and will never be able to sympathize with him by the time the story ends/begins. They are going to want answers about this character right off the bat, or at least not too far into the series.
Yes, the past story could in theory be told in fragmental flashbacks just as it is in the novels, but I'm with Bev in that the popularity of the comics has opened the doors to a whole new legion of DT fans who are very attached to young Roland. And frankly, I am, too. I love young Roland and his companions, and I don't see why King's mythology should be told out-of-order on screen. Hell, we don't even get to see the depth and richness of it all until those earlier pieces are added to the puzzle.
Think about it: if the story is told exactly in the same fashion it is in the books, we're looking at roughly nine hours worth of movies before any real depth is added to the main character of the story. On the page, that works, but film audiences won't be patient enough to sit through three, no doubt epicly long, films before light is shed on Roland's past. It comes across as poor pacing when in a film setting, not suspence-building.
i think we shall have to agree to disagree
i just cant see a 'new' audience having the patience to sit through a film about someones back story who they dont know. i think its asking a
lot for them to go see a film about a young gunslinger and a ka tet and then ask them to come back for whole new characters. \esp as to me the eddie/suz ka tet is the more interesting one. what i would not want is the audience to get attached to the cuthbert ka tet and then not give the love and support to eddie ka tet - in fact it would upset me greatly (drama queen moment sorry)
i enjoyed the fact that roland was cold and heartless and slightly alien, personally i could have done without the back story as for me it distracted away from the main story.
i do agree with the comment about the length of any film they make - and if its is to be a film (a series of films) i fear an awful lot of the books substance will be taken out (ala harry potter) you may even find that most of rolands past is deleted and only small parts told in flash back. which would free them away from W&G almost completley.DT V Spoilers
But that's just my opinion, and since everyone has their own takle on what is the 'best' part of the DT story, there is no way in hell everybody will be 100% happy with how it all ends up being adapted.
My only main wish is that, however they choose to present it all, the backstory has its place and gets its due screentime, in whatever capacity the filmmakers feel it would be best received.
I agree with you when you used that Harry Potter film adaptations as examples. Half the time the parts of the story thaty were embellished and re-written were very unimportant, while a lot of (seemingly) necessary information was completely missing. A shoddy job like that when adapting any book, but especially with the Fantasy genre, ends ups confusing the film audiences who have never read the books, and at times leaves them feeling alienated and unsure of the how and why behind the events on screen. Sure, the readers of the book will follow it just fine, but that is because they subconsciousely reach into their memories of the books themselves to fill in the blanks, and in the HP films, the blanks are many, in my opinion.
That's my biggest fear; the the DT films(series?) will alienate new audiences due to poor pacing and pages of usueful information completely thrown out to save time. As long as this can be avoided, I will be happy with whatever they come up with, and that's the truth.
Still, I would rather the young Roland story be gotten out of the way quickly, that way the rest of the series can focus on modern Roland, but hey, that isn't my call.
If Rolands "backstory" were to be told first as I have suggested, it would cease to be "backstory" and would become the story told in chronological order. I don't think that I nieve audience would be bored or confused by this. Quite the contrary in fact. I think the transition would be smooth.See, I'm the exact opposite. I personally found myself much more drawn (pun intended) to the young Roland story even during my first readthrough of the series. I remember distinctly always having to force myself to read through the present narratives in books 1 and 2 and hoping that King would shed more light on Roland's origin.Understand where your all coming from, however if you were to do it as a stand alone i would prefer it to be at the end as a tag on (much like the hobit will come after LOTR)
For me the main story is the Ka tet of Eddie and co and i was never really into the Cuthbert tet
Gunslinger Spoiler
^ That type of stuff held my interest much easier, and it only whetted my appetite for more stories of Roland's past. In fact, I honestly didn't relate to, or even 'like' Roland until I read W&G. Can we really expect a film audience to like him at all if their first image of him is the near-heartless, emotionless shell of a man he is in the current story? Film audiences aren't as patient as readers. Even myself personally, It was only after that fourth book when I was able to fully enjoy the current story of Roland, Eddie, Susannah and Jake. Why? Because I felt like I understood the character of Roland a lot better by that point. The ending of the series, for instance, would not have been nearly as psychologically satisfying to me had I not seen all of the events that had led Roland to that point.
In my view, the character of Roland isn't nearly as interesting or sympathetic without the origin story. If the young Roland ka-tet story arc (Which would include the flashback sequences from book 1, the Marvel comics, and the W&G narrative) is not told initially, a movie audience is simply going to see Roland as the selfish, mindless wanderer he ultimately became, and will never be able to sympathize with him by the time the story ends/begins. They are going to want answers about this character right off the bat, or at least not too far into the series.
Yes, the past story could in theory be told in fragmental flashbacks just as it is in the novels, but I'm with Bev in that the popularity of the comics has opened the doors to a whole new legion of DT fans who are very attached to young Roland. And frankly, I am, too. I love young Roland and his companions, and I don't see why King's mythology should be told out-of-order on screen. Hell, we don't even get to see the depth and richness of it all until those earlier pieces are added to the puzzle.
Think about it: if the story is told exactly in the same fashion it is in the books, we're looking at roughly nine hours worth of movies before any real depth is added to the main character of the story. On the page, that works, but film audiences won't be patient enough to sit through three, no doubt epicly long, films before light is shed on Roland's past. It comes across as poor pacing when in a film setting, not suspence-building.
i think we shall have to agree to disagree
i just cant see a 'new' audience having the patience to sit through a film about someones back story who they dont know. i think its asking a
lot for them to go see a film about a young gunslinger and a ka tet and then ask them to come back for whole new characters. \esp as to me the eddie/suz ka tet is the more interesting one. what i would not want is the audience to get attached to the cuthbert ka tet and then not give the love and support to eddie ka tet - in fact it would upset me greatly (drama queen moment sorry)
i enjoyed the fact that roland was cold and heartless and slightly alien, personally i could have done without the back story as for me it distracted away from the main story.
i do agree with the comment about the length of any film they make - and if its is to be a film (a series of films) i fear an awful lot of the books substance will be taken out (ala harry potter) you may even find that most of rolands past is deleted and only small parts told in flash back. which would free them away from W&G almost completley
Imagine the end of the first movie, as the camera zooms in on young Roland for the extreme close up eyeball shot, and then zooms back out on an older weather-beaten gunslinger.
Sloth Love Chunk
I don't think they'll start with DT4 and the Marvel stories for the simple reason there's no Dark Tower anywhere there really. There's just too much backstory. Unless they start with the quest at the end. Otherwise they'll have a film called The Dark Tower with nary a mention of said tower.
Hypothetically speaking, they could invent some dialogue in the scenes with the fathers sending the boys to Mejis that discusses the Tower. I wouldn't want it to be that way, but it's possible.
If there has to be a movie, I prefer it start with the Man in Black fleeing across the desert and the Gunslinger following. Any other start would be downright sacrilege.
Amen to that brotha.Hypothetically speaking, they could invent some dialogue in the scenes with the fathers sending the boys to Mejis that discusses the Tower. I wouldn't want it to be that way, but it's possible.
If there has to be a movie, I prefer it start with the Man in Black fleeing across the desert and the Gunslinger following. Any other start would be downright sacrilege.
For those who loved this world... and knew friendly company therein. This Reunion is for you.
http://www.zazzle.com/Kidd_Ikarus*
double amen
Make that triple.
Time spent with cats is never wasted.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
