because this film, most probably, is going to be a boat anchor or a dog's breakfast
believe me, I hope it is not, but Im not holding my breath.
as for your juvenile comment, I was most probably reading the dark tower before YOU were a juvenile,
Does that mean you have considerable experience wasting your time being bitter over something you have little to no interest in?
---
Funny how you keep trying to put words in my mouth. Im not bitter, Im a realist... It looks to me like King's opus is getting turned out like a whore. We shall see.
Im hoping the film pans out but I am going to be very surprised if it is quality. Akiva Goldsman is a hack with the touch of death.
It will be something, though and I guess that is better than nothing. We shall see.
I am quite interested in the dark tower. In fact it is my favorite written property. I doubt my time is being wasted. In fact, I am steeling myself for this adaptation to be THE SUCK ahead of time so the hurt is not as great. If it turns out good or even passable, I win either way
Wanted
CD Carrie Portfolio 719
Dark Tower S/N LE's 171 or 203
ANY Stephen King S/N LE #171 or 719
A Storm of Swords #218 or 346
Ancillary Justice #455
American Gods (+ SC Reader copy) #624
Michael Whelan original art
DT VII: Michael Whelan Remarque
I am quite interested in the dark tower. In fact it is my favorite written property. I doubt my time is being wasted. In fact, I am steeling myself for this adaptation to be THE SUCK ahead of time so the hurt is not as great. If it turns out good or even passable, I win either way
You could call this live-action adaptation an unfaithful reproduction of the books on the silver screen and you would have a point. Thing of it is, it doesn't look like it's aiming to be. What i've seen so far leans toward a re imagining with core elements being preserved or, if the Horn of Eld plays a role, a cosmic "sequel"...reboot?...of sorts.
However, saying it will flat out be terrible/sucky/amazing/stupendous/etc is more prognostication than anything. Unless I see photos of the Man in Black shirtless while armed with two machine guns and a cigar in his mouth or Blaine the Mono turned into Blaine the Tricycle, i'm going to hold off on stoking the fires of hate.
I for one want to see a faithful adaptation of the books. I have read and reread the books several times, I want to see THAT on a movie screen. Not a reimagining. That's for comic books or cartoons. It's one of my favorite written stories, I want to see THAT story, not a version of what that story may have been if somebody had something different, blah blah blah.
Now, that story may be good. I dunno. But with all the changes they have made, it will certainly be different. I don't wanna pay to see different. I wanna see what was in the book.
Having seen favorite books translated to movies and fail many, many times, I don't have a lot of hope for this. Neither do I have a lot of excitement. If it's good, I'll be wrong. If not, well then I won't be surprised.
Well let's compare 'The Shining' and 'It'. I would consider 'It' faithful in ways that 'The Shining' is not even though both make considerable changes.
'The Shining' is an example of Kubrick throwing 80% of the original novel out and doing his own thing. He's not trying to be faithful at all, he's just using the basic outline of the novel about a haunted hotel, a snowbound family and a father going crazy and going off from there. It's barely King's story.
"It" on the other hand is faithful to the book despite all the changes because I feel the filmmakers goal was not to "reimagine" what King wrote but present his story as close as possible within the limitations of the medium. The Losers and Pennywise are all recognizable as the characters from the book. They may not have included the Ritual of Chud or the Turtle but it's still Stephen King's story.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
First as been mentioned many times this is likely starting with Roland having the horn..
Spoiler:
That frees up everything to be slightly different as it's no longer the same cycle in the book.
Second we have zero idea what they are changing. It looks like they are showing us stuff that was happening at the same time earlier but we didn't know about until the end. LOTR did the same thing by moving back Sam and Frodos hike up Mt Doom to the third film. It was in the correct order time-wise but not in the same spot it was in the book text.
Jake 100% had the touch in the book so it makes sense that he might be a target for the crimson king to be a breaker. I think thats a smart way to introduce some of that story while also branching out into some stuff that was exposed in Black House. My guess is that
Spoiler:
Jake is not going to die this time under the mountain as this is Roland's redemption cycle.
If that is true then I totally get why they would move around how he is called into the world the first time.
When they say they are starting in the middle it really just seems like they are exposing things that we found out later in the book and not really starting Roland and Jakes story from the middle. Otherwise there would be an Eddie and Susannah and it doesn't seem like there is. I honestly think that they might be making some smart decisions with this.
I for one want to see a faithful adaptation of the books. I have read and reread the books several times, I want to see THAT on a movie screen. Not a reimagining. That's for comic books or cartoons. It's one of my favorite written stories, I want to see THAT story, not a version of what that story may have been if somebody had something different, blah blah blah.
Now, that story may be good. I dunno. But with all the changes they have made, it will certainly be different. I don't wanna pay to see different. I wanna see what was in the book.
Having seen favorite books translated to movies and fail many, many times, I don't have a lot of hope for this. Neither do I have a lot of excitement. If it's good, I'll be wrong. If not, well then I won't be surprised.
I think you're definitely going to be sorely disappointed then. If one can't walk into this movie open minded about the adaption, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. I totally feel that way about The Shining. My mind is closed off to it and I'll never watch it again. Frankly I don't see what people see in it. It's a pretty shitty movie if you ask me and just plain boring. To each his/her own and you might feel the way I do in regards to this film. Like Johnny said, I too think it's just a different turn of the wheel that we'll be getting with the film/s. Not the series we've read. After all, the world has moved on .
You don't know my kind.....You don't my mind.....Dark necessities are part of my design.....
I never read LOTR and I saw The Shining and IT and The Stand before I read them. Frankly, the LOTR movies are a bit too much for me. The Shining movie is great, and the book is great as well. I love both versions of the Stand.
I guess there are different ways to look at it. I really wanted something faithful to the book, scene for scene kinda thing. If the movie is a good movie, then it will stand on its own. I hope that they focus more on making it a good movie in general. I guess we'll see.
First as been mentioned many times this is likely starting with Roland having the horn..
Spoiler:
That frees up everything to be slightly different as it's no longer the same cycle in the book.
Second we have zero idea what they are changing. It looks like they are showing us stuff that was happening at the same time earlier but we didn't know about until the end. LOTR did the same thing by moving back Sam and Frodos hike up Mt Doom to the third film. It was in the correct order time-wise but not in the same spot it was in the book text.
Jake 100% had the touch in the book so it makes sense that he might be a target for the crimson king to be a breaker. I think thats a smart way to introduce some of that story while also branching out into some stuff that was exposed in Black House. My guess is that
Spoiler:
Jake is not going to die this time under the mountain as this is Roland's redemption cycle.
If that is true then I totally get why they would move around how he is called into the world the first time.
When they say they are starting in the middle it really just seems like they are exposing things that we found out later in the book and not really starting Roland and Jakes story from the middle. Otherwise there would be an Eddie and Susannah and it doesn't seem like there is. I honestly think that they might be making some smart decisions with this.
I really like the way you think here!!! I'm with you, Johnny.
Isamu & Lookwhoitis you had a real shot at a fun old "flame war" and then you both pussied out. Give me your "Man" cards for two days!!! LOL
I never read LOTR and I saw The Shining and IT and The Stand before I read them. Frankly, the LOTR movies are a bit too much for me. The Shining movie is great, and the book is great as well. I love both versions of the Stand.
I guess there are different ways to look at it. I really wanted something faithful to the book, scene for scene kinda thing. If the movie is a good movie, then it will stand on its own. I hope that they focus more on making it a good movie in general. I guess we'll see.
Despite not emulating the narrative as closely as you would like, do you still believe this adaptation can, at the least, embody the spirit of The Dark Tower?
Originally Posted by Lookwhoitis
because this film, most probably, is going to be a boat anchor or a dog's breakfast
Reply With Quote
.
