The Dark Tower series filmed adaptation

[Isamu Dyson]

...The film is going to bomb though. There is no audience for it.

Wait, can you elaborate on this?

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?

In addition to what you have stated, there will inevitably be those interested in the film because of Elba and/or McConaughey.

--- --- ---

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.

http://screenrant.com/the-dark-tower...otage-october/

On the homepage for EW popfest, a special event being thrown by EW running from October 29th through the 30th, they have revealed that they will unveil the first look at the upcoming film. There is no word on what the “first footage” will be, leaving the door open as to how lengthy of a reveal this could be. With it just being described as footage and not a trailer, it is possible that a single scene could be shown to generate buzz for the movie. The important thing to note is that EW popfest is an in person event and there has been no indication as to whether or not the footage will be released online or not.

--- --- ---

Should anyone want a good laugh, check this out ->

[Mattrick]

People are upset that the movie that is a sequel of a book which is sequel to the previous yet untold retelling of the story which proceeded the previous sequel of the different version of the original quest...if there ever was one? Really? You would rather get the same cycle over and over instead of seeing the significance of holding The Horn of Eld? Maybe Roland finally gets it right and redeems himself? People are mad about this? WHAT?

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's illogical reasoning to me, the apotheosis of desertion. Read the books again and zip it. The books aren't changing. You don't want to see the movie don't. Just don't go see it. Hand us your ticket now. You've forgotten the face of your father. Now, you're going west.

[St. Troy]

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).

My observation on film making with regard to DT was a very basic one: just that the DT film makers are more interested in capturing a general (therefore potentially huge, or at least large enough to turn a profit) audience than in staying with what got the original audience (a smaller audience) - that profit is a motive, as it is in any business.

I doubt anyone expects a 100% exact translation (that's not what this conversation has been about), but tweaking or dropping unfilmable bits wouldn't require making the film(s) a sequel to the books (adding the horn), nor would it require making the first film something other than an adaptation of The Gunslinger. I'm actually very interested in seeing the movie they make, but I've given up on ever seeing the actual TDT story on film, and that's too bad.

I, for one, think the Tull massacre could very well be filmed, but it would take a group of people with skill (to keep it from descending into unintentional humor, like a Carol Burnett skit minus the red hair and the wink) and balls (to attempt it in the first place).

Side question: do we have any idea how much this film is costing them to make?

[St. Troy]

...the apotheosis of desertion.

Nice phrase; problem is, Constant Reader is more likely to apply it to those making the movie, or King himself for approving the abandonment of the existing story.

As I've said before, and speaking just for myself (although I'm sure some others will agree): I will see this movie and will probably like it, but I will always wish there had been a film version of the actual DT. Not an outlandish concept, not staking claim to rights over the works of SK, just simple fond readership.

[mae]

Side question: do we have any idea how much this film is costing them to make?

EW reported the budget as being $60M.

[mattgreenbean]

People are upset that the movie that is a sequel of a book which is sequel to the previous yet untold retelling of the story which proceeded the previous sequel of the different version of the original quest...if there ever was one? Really? You would rather get the same cycle over and over instead of seeing the significance of holding The Horn of Eld? Maybe Roland finally gets it right and redeems himself? People are mad about this? WHAT?

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's illogical reasoning to me, the apotheosis of desertion. Read the books again and zip it. The books aren't changing. You don't want to see the movie don't. Just don't go see it. Hand us your ticket now. You've forgotten the face of your father. Now, you're going west.

Imagine if Peter Jackson came out with a sequel to LoTR. Ppl would rightly have been upset. (And yes LoTR is more widely known, at least it is now due to the huge success of the film which was true to the source material.) Yeah we're mad that this is a sequel, I would have rather King write it then Hollywood. But we're mostly just mad that we'll never get to see the cycle that we spent all that time with. I've taken the journey 3 times and will several times more. It's an amazing story, that's why they got this ball rolling in the first place. I would argue that this reason makes it very logical to be upset. I would think sticking up for King's material would be remembering your fathers face as opposed to settling for a reimagined version.

Obviously I'm not gonna zip it, I think we can discuss politely here. And I'm hoping that we're wrong and the movie turns out truer to King's books than not. We're just basing everything on what we're told from the studio, which so far hasn't been very encouraging to a fan who was expecting The Gunslinger as is. But that's Hollywood I suppose.

[St. Troy]

The Dark Tower Motion Picture

*Remembering Your Step-father's Face*

[fernandito]

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.

Think about it.

Do you think parents will take their kids to a movie featuring rape and rampant slaughter? It will cut drastically into ticket sales.

Some content cannot be filmed.

People are upset that the movie that is a sequel of a book which is sequel to the previous yet untold retelling of the story which proceeded the previous sequel of the different version of the original quest...if there ever was one? Really? You would rather get the same cycle over and over instead of seeing the significance of holding The Horn of Eld? Maybe Roland finally gets it right and redeems himself? People are mad about this? WHAT?

I know, that shit is boggling my mind too.

When I heard of Ancel's plans to shoot the next (final?) cycle of the quest I thought it was sheer genius. It's an organic solution to making certain changes. We don't know what Roland went through in his previous cycles, but now we'll know what happens in the final one. Brilliant.

Imagine if Peter Jackson came out with a sequel to LoTR. Ppl would rightly have been upset.

People bitched and moaned anyway. I've seen sooo much hate online for the changes that PJ made by LoTR purists, like if he didn't just give them benchmark setting, Oscar winning films based on their favorite property. Spoiled shits.

I'd be fucking ECSTATIC if the Dark Tower films were anywhere near in quality as the LoTR films.

And you can't compare the two. LoTR had a finite ending so there is no room for an out and out sequel, the ending to DT is essentially a cosmic Reset button that wipes the canvas clean.

[Merlin1958]

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).

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.

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.

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.

First off, I would like to apologize for the word "stupid". "silly" might be a little more in the vein of decorum. Second, I suck at multi-quote posts so I went back to my original!! lol

I am a little surprised that you feel that "content" is an issue. "Rape" & "slaughter" will keep kids away? Have you seen films lately? lol Hell, the body count in most action films these days would far surpass, Roland in Tull. Rape? turn on your TV during prime time, especially if you have cable. What qualifies for "R" and "PG" these days wouldn't get an "X" in my day. Heck, the scenes in "The Exorcist" are more disturbing than the Dark Tower.

I still feel that money, logistics and story continuity will drive the script changes more than anything else. I for one am kind of happy they chose to go the "sequel" route. We get something fresh that can't, and shouldn't be compared to the books directly. With, king onboard (presumably) we also get something that the author feels right with as far as different dynamics/storyline (again, presumably). I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with. Hopefully,they will do a good job.

[Isamu Dyson]

fernandito is correct. There is simply some material which was never going to make it to the silver screen unless film studios suddenly gained a deeply passionate interest in marketing NC-17 films to the public.

Have you seen films lately? lol Hell, the body count in most action films these days would far surpass, Roland in Tull.

How many films have THE main hero protagonist clearly gunning down a village full of men (typically the expendable sex...), women (attitudes are improving and double standards are steadily being worn away, but we still have a way to go here), and children?

By the way, these films you are referring to are PG-13 and so, in addition to usually not featuring equally high female and juvenile/adolescent body counts, usually have their violence sanitized. You will note an abundance of quick cuts, distant shots, unorthodox angles, and minimized blood if you watch enough of the PG-13 action-fests Hollywood is currently churning out. Having Tull "softened" would, by extension, neuter the severity of the stakes not to mention grotesque nature of the slaughter.

[Merlin1958]

fernandito is correct. There is simply some material which was never going to make it to the silver screen unless film studios suddenly gained a deeply passionate interest in marketing NC-17 films to the public.

No way. First off the rape scenes need not be done graphically. The killing? Dirty Harry, Arnold and the outlaw josey wales have higher body counts. Graphic killing? Check out any "Horror" film these days. The "Saw" series? I just don't see it fellows. Not that I am saying the wholesale violence in TV & Film is a good thing. Just that it is a sad fact of our times.

[Isamu Dyson]

fernandito is correct. There is simply some material which was never going to make it to the silver screen unless film studios suddenly gained a deeply passionate interest in marketing NC-17 films to the public.

No way. First off the rape scenes need not be done graphically. The killing? Dirty Harry, Arnold and the outlaw josey wales have higher body counts. Graphic killing? Check out any "Horror" film these days. The "Saw" series? I just don't see it fellows. Not that I am saying the wholesale violence in TV & Film is a good thing. Just that it is a sad fact of our times.

Then there are the times when characters are outright naked for extended periods (not just Eddie Dean) in a non-sexual fashion, are masturbating (usually because of especially perverse motivations), are engaged in consensual sex, or have any of the aforementioned acts intermingled with violence.

One or perhaps a few instances might be excusable if glossed over, but everything at once? That starts becoming objectionable in a hurry.

[Merlin1958]

fernandito is correct. There is simply some material which was never going to make it to the silver screen unless film studios suddenly gained a deeply passionate interest in marketing NC-17 films to the public.

No way. First off the rape scenes need not be done graphically. The killing? Dirty Harry, Arnold and the outlaw josey wales have higher body counts. Graphic killing? Check out any "Horror" film these days. The "Saw" series? I just don't see it fellows. Not that I am saying the wholesale violence in TV & Film is a good thing. Just that it is a sad fact of our times.

Then there are the times when characters are outright naked for extended periods of time (not just Eddie Dean) in a non-sexual fashion, are masturbating (usually because of especially perverse motivations), are engaged in consensual sex, or have any of the aforementioned acts intermingled with violence.

One or perhaps a few instances might be excusable if gloss over, but everything at once? That starts becoming objectionable in a hurry.

Ever seen "Deadwood"? Again, none of the things you mentioned have to be done (or should) graphically or explicitly. I'm sure the "Eddie" scenes with the mob can be done naked without his dick flying in every shot. (that was kinda funny) I mean really, you don't think they can film around some of these things (sic) tastefully? Subject matter like this has never before been filmed? Think about it.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm sure the "Eddie" scenes with the mob can be done naked without his dick flying in every shot. (that was kinda funny) I mean really, you don't think they can film around some of these things (sic) tastefully? Subject matter like this has never before been filmed? Think about it.

http://watchmojo.com/video/id/10550/

[Merlin1958]

I'm sure the "Eddie" scenes with the mob can be done naked without his dick flying in every shot. (that was kinda funny) I mean really, you don't think they can film around some of these things (sic) tastefully? Subject matter like this has never before been filmed? Think about it.

http://watchmojo.com/video/id/10550/

Thanks, RF. I rest my case. lol

Spoiler:

That "Shoot em up" scene was awesome!!! LOL

[The Gasherman]

Speculation says that this will be PG-13 which might be one of the most disappointing things I've heard. You aren't going to get rape and graphic slaughter in PG-13. Have you guys looked at the casting lately on IMDB? Lots of Taheen casting. I'm pretty amazed that they would jump THAT far into the story into what most consider to be the 2 worst books. It almost makes me wonder if we are going to get an extremely condensed version of our loop ending with the horn. That seems almost impossible, but I'm at a loss on why Sayre and Taheen were thought to be good ideas for the first film.

And how is Pimli cast, but not Eddie? Would love to hear someone speculate.

[fernandito]

Ever seen "Deadwood"?

Deadwood is a cable TV show, NOT a film. It's on a premium channel with an advisory warning preceding each episode.

Again, none of the things you mentioned have to be done (or should) graphically or explicitly. I'm sure the "Eddie" scenes with the mob can be done naked without his dick flying in every shot.

To your point it could be done, but it's extremely difficult.

And I mean, does Eddie necessarily need to be buck ass naked for that scene? Probably not. The takeaway for me in that scene is that Eddie is vulnerable and helplessly outgunned.

http://watchmojo.com/video/id/10550/

That's all well and good, except for one thing... those films are Rated R.

The Dark Tower will be Rated PG-13.

Apples and oranges.

[Johnny Alien]

I don't think Roland's story is starting in the middle. This is the story of him and Jake and they are obviously not hitting DOTT yet. I think that they are jumping into the middle as far as showing us the plans of the Crimson King which honestly makes sense. Those things would have been going on during the course of the early books we just never saw it. It will help put into perspective the magnitude of what Roland is doing.

[Mattrick]

People are upset that the movie that is a sequel of a book which is sequel to the previous yet untold retelling of the story which proceeded the previous sequel of the different version of the original quest...if there ever was one? Really? You would rather get the same cycle over and over instead of seeing the significance of holding The Horn of Eld? Maybe Roland finally gets it right and redeems himself? People are mad about this? WHAT?

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's illogical reasoning to me, the apotheosis of desertion. Read the books again and zip it. The books aren't changing. You don't want to see the movie don't. Just don't go see it. Hand us your ticket now. You've forgotten the face of your father. Now, you're going west.

Imagine if Peter Jackson came out with a sequel to LoTR. Ppl would rightly have been upset. (And yes LoTR is more widely known, at least it is now due to the huge success of the film which was true to the source material.) Yeah we're mad that this is a sequel, I would have rather King write it then Hollywood. But we're mostly just mad that we'll never get to see the cycle that we spent all that time with. I've taken the journey 3 times and will several times more. It's an amazing story, that's why they got this ball rolling in the first place. I would argue that this reason makes it very logical to be upset. I would think sticking up for King's material would be remembering your fathers face as opposed to settling for a reimagined version.

Obviously I'm not gonna zip it, I think we can discuss politely here. And I'm hoping that we're wrong and the movie turns out truer to King's books than not. We're just basing everything on what we're told from the studio, which so far hasn't been very encouraging to a fan who was expecting The Gunslinger as is. But that's Hollywood I suppose.

Lord of the Rings doesn't end at the start of the first book with Frodo forced to trek to Mordor again. How can you even compare the two? This "sequel" is just Roland's next cycle. It's logical and it's perfect. If you can't see that...



This is the Horn of Eld

This movie is nothing more than MORE of the same story you've already enjoyed, directly following where the book pages left off. How is that a bad thing? HOW?

[Ari_Racing]

If you don't want to be pissed off, DON'T expect an adaptation but a spin-off.

[mattgreenbean]

If you don't want to be pissed off, DON'T expect an adaptation but a spin-off.

That's exactly what I am expecting, and that's why some of us are upset. We don't want a spin-off.

[St. Troy]

Hey, the Joanie Loves Chachi of SK adaptations - it could work!

[Mattrick]

I say wait until leaving the theatre to be pissed off. If they made The Gunslinger as a stand alone film as it exists in the book, it will flop and that will be the end of it.

[Isamu Dyson]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BJSopsSj2nF/

[CyberGhostface]

As I said before, "it's a sequel/spin-off" is basically an excuse to handwave this being a loose adaptation. For all intents this is an adaptation of the series.

And the logic of "everything is different because this is a new loop" clashes with what King has already said, that the 'loops' would in effect only have small increments of change. Roland, Walter, Pimli, Sayre, etc, wouldn't go through massive character shifts to the extent that this film is suggesting that they will because everything that happened prior to "the man in black fled across the desert" would still largely be the same.