Yes
No
He won't. No way in hell will one of the leads in a franchise starter get killed off.Originally Posted by Johnny Alien
I would bet everything I own that Roland doesn't let Jake die in the movie.Thats why I hope Jake dies. Plus the trailer mostly focused on Roland. So that gives me hope.
Did anyone notice part of the music sounds similar to the music from the final duel in A Few Dollars More. Since Roland is partly based on "Blondie" from that trilogy that ends with The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, I thought that was a nice touch.
They'll never kill Jake off, but that just seems wrong somehow. Even though it's a new "arc," that part was so important to the original book.
Trailer looks OK - there's lots of guns being fired but it's difficult to tell what's actually happening. I didn't see any signs of Tull or The Way Station or The Oracle. That makes me a bit sad, but I guess that's the way it's going to be.
I wonder how early we can buy tickets?
Its been a long time since I read the book, but after letting Jake fall didn't Jake just kinda ... pop back up immediately?
Not immediately - 2 books later. That would be pretty tough to pull off here, with the kid aging and movies being filmed years apart.
I made the mistake of watching this earlier. She might be tolerable if she knew anything at all about this series.
I just saw this and thought the exact same thing.
“Beyond the reach of human rage..A drop of hell, a touch of strange ...” ― Stephen King, The Gunslinger
Jake is killed in the film but comes back as a 43-year-old Asian woman in the TV series.
While the production value and acting looks good, the story looks like another cookie cutter Hollywood story. From the trailer it looks like the Tower is what keeps earth and Roland's world safe and in existence, without it everyone dies. Now we have the simple story of save the Tower save the world. Throw in some orc like slow mutants to get in the way and allow for a lot of death without people feeling bad with lots of gun shooting and action, then mix in some iconic images from the book, the tower, the beams even that house that tried to eat Eddie and you have a simple story that can bare the name of a much loved series. I know I will see it when it comes out, but I can tell you I am certainly not as excited as I was when I heard they were actually making the movie. I was not expecting an exact duplicate of the movie, and from what I have read here Stephen King said the same, but this just looks like a different story all together. I think the scope of this story would be much better told on the small screen in 3 or 4 seasons.
Roland is clearly the "hero" of the movie (series, we hope) - the importance of establishing his willingness to walk away and let an innocent child die in pursuit of the tower is tough to overstate (if he is a hero, he is not an ordinary one). Whatever else they change, this is a biggie.
On the one hand, I expect some trailers to be a visual list, and that may be what's going on here. On the other, if the movie is as you describe, and they "cookie cutter" the hell out of it (Jake never dying would be a big part of that), the problem won't be that they changed the story so much as that they neutered it. DT is a chaotic blend, but not blended to smoothness; it should be chunky, if you will.
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
I do not have high hopes for Hollywood. The track record of taking a book and making something amazing out of it on the screen is pretty bad. I would not be surprised if Jake was some key part in saving the Tower. Like get the boy to the tower, there is something special about him, some lineage to Arthur or something that makes him the only one who can really save the tower. Of course I hope all my criticism and negativity towards the film is proven wrong. And I agree, the DT is chaotic and dark and should be an R rated film for sure.Roland is clearly the "hero" of the movie (series, we hope) - the importance of establishing his willingness to walk away and let an innocent child die in pursuit of the tower is tough to overstate (if he is a hero, he is not an ordinary one). Whatever else they change, this is a biggie.
On the one hand, I expect some trailers to be a visual list, and that may be what's going on here. On the other, if the movie is as you describe, and they "cookie cutter" the hell out of it (Jake never dying would be a big part of that), the problem won't be that they changed the story so much as that they neutered it. DT is a chaotic blend, but not blended to smoothness; it should be chunky, if you will.
Does it have a rating yet?
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
I thought I read R somewhere.... Maybe Bev could chime in.
HELP ME FIND
Insomnia #459
ANY S/L #459
There is no rating listed on IMDB yet.I thought I read R somewhere.... Maybe Bev could chime in.
Not yet rated.I thought I read R somewhere.... Maybe Bev could chime in.
Author of The Road to the Dark Tower, Stephen King: A Complete Exploration of His Work, Life, and Influences and The Dark Tower Companion. Co-editor with Stephen King of the anthology Flight or Fright.
I highly doubt this would be rated R.
I don't get the "YA" vibe from the trailer that others do. Simply because we have an adolescent-aged character doesn't transform it into the Mid-World Hunger Games. YA movies and books have formulas and tropes, including, crucially, other major adolescent-aged characters and love triangles. Unless they have drastically re-written the series to the point that it is utterly unrecognizable, I don't anticipate we will see any of that in the movie.
Jake is undoubtedly one of the series most important characters -- possibly second only to Roland himself -- and the most relatable of the three major characters (Roland, Jake and Walter) that, for non-readers/general audiences, the trailer is supposed to introduce us to. It doesn't mean that the movie has suddenly become Jake's story more than Roland's, or that Jake is suddenly going to become the great-great grandson of King Arthur (esp. since that's Roland's job).
Having said that, it does appear that the movie-makers really want to hammer-home Jake's significance in the movie, more so than it is spelled out in the first book, when he pretty much played the role of sacrificial pawn. Again, the benefit of hindsight; if you believe King's "Song of Susannah" writer notes, he killed Jake off because he didn't know what else to do with him, and didn't realize his importance to the overall series until later: the movie makers know, and want to show that with the first movie in a way King did not/could not with the first book.
Jake dying (by Roland's action or inaction) seems a long shot, both for commercial purposes and story-telling ones. If this is, indeed, as the poster teased "The last time around," then I think a lot people would argue that Roland's decision under the mountains is one of the core changes he needs to make in order to ensure that it is, indeed, "the last time around." In the series, yes, Roland's decision underscores his ruthlessness and anti-hero status; he's an entirely different level of "good" guy. But he gets little of value from it, its consequences are nothing but negative throughout the rest of the series, and by the end it appears to be an action he sincerely regrets. If part of the theme of the series is the long, slow march to redemption, why would we want to see Roland make the same crucial mistake in the movies that he makes in the books? Just to underscore his ruthlessness? His obsession? Part of the message of the series is that Roland needs to let go of these things: he is not the *exact* same character making the *exact* same decisions in the movies that he is in the books, nor should he be.
Plus, IMO, general audiences aren't going to be thrilled with a "hero" that kills a kid, especially since, due to the contrast between movies/books, we won't be in Roland's head as events are happening. I find it far more likely that Roland will betray Jake in some other, almost-unforgivable way, but one that will not ultimately lead to Jake's death, setting the stage for, hopefully, movie two.
Well said Delah! I wholeheartedly agree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wanted:
Michael Whelan & DT Original Art
On principle, I'm sticking to my guns and won't be going to the theaters to support this adaptation. I'm still sour over Akiva Goldsman's comments over people disagreeing with Idris being the best pick, "The racist assholes should go fuck themselves." and never apologized for. So screw him.
But whoever edited the trailer, did their job well. It looks like a fun adventure movie. I see hints of some sort of Dark Tower story.
I wonder what he will do with Firestarter as I see he's attached to that now.
"That which you think, becomes your world" Matheson
I guess the question is: are we getting the original and unconventional story, but adapted to make sense in a new medium – same characters, events and relationships, but presented in a modified way so as to make sense in the new medium – or are we getting a different, conventional story?
Delah makes some spot-on observations to which I’d like to add some thoughts:
Absolutely true – simply having an adolescent-aged character doesn’t transform it into Mid-World Hunger Games; it’s the film makers I’m worried about. Why? Well, as Delah pointed out:
“Relatable” is exactly the sort of word I’d expect to come up at meetings where executive producers decide to start making revenue-driven changes at the expense of story – observing convention in order to make DT like every other would-be tentpole.
Speaking of convention:
For commercial purposes – absolutely. As fernandito said:
…although I am curious as to why Jake’s death would be a long shot for story-telling purposes (after all, it already worked in that capacity).
Aside from that, removing Jake’s death would be a major step in the direction of convention (the kid stays in the picture indeed).
That’s the point – he isn’t Batman, he isn’t Superman, he isn’t going to accept the key to the city – he seeks the tower.
Also quite the point: he is physically and psychologically worn down, becoming moreso as the series progresses – he suffers, but the series doesn’t.
[I would add that negative consequences and regret can make for compelling material; consider Pet Sematary.]
It’s tough to have a long, slow march to redemption without the “long, slow march” part – it’s supposed to be difficult for him (or else we have a different story). If your point is that his commission of these actions and mistakes the last time around obviates them for this time around, I understand that, but would point out that this time around might now be so different as to have possibly reached the critical mass of conventionality I’m afraid I might see in this film.
Yes! He doesn’t seek popularity or acceptance – he seeks the tower! No ruthlessness, no obsession – new (conventional) story.
Convention again.
To sum up:
I’m not saying I see YA or a bad movie in this trailer; I’m just kicking around ideas relating to changes we see and changes that might be implied. I am excited to see this; I just hope there’s enough left of the unwarm, unfuzzy Roland left to carry the story.
It seems I'm miles above the surface of the Earth
I can see across the whole of London and beyond
I'm loving that there are constant new posts in here and not because we're all speculating when the trailer will be released.
lolI'm loving that there are constant new posts in here and not because we're all speculating when the trailer will be released.
HELP ME FIND
Insomnia #459
ANY S/L #459
I watched the trailer several times last night - I don't know, it's only a trailer, and I understand we're on a different cycle than the books were in, but I'm still feeling underwhelmed by what I've seen. They're not just changing things, they're removing huge portions of the books to the point where it's hard to identify this thing as Dark Tower related anymore. Sure there's Roland, and Jake, and The Tower. But then what else do we have? The Man In Black isn't recognizable as the Walter we know. Even though we've seen portions from the Wastelands, there's nothing apparent from The Gunslinger or The Drawing of the Three. Not one scene. No Eddie or Sussanah or Oy. It could happen later, but if we're already seeing scenes from The Wastelands?
I don't know, it also looks like they want to turn it into a big action movie with lots of shooting and dive rolls and evil minions running around. And slow motion shooting. How many times did Roland even fire his guns in the first three books? Only in a few select times.
Then there's the talk about making a TV show for Wizard and Glass. How much will that change? They almost have to make it drastically different to match up with the movie.
The movie gets the benefit of the doubt until August 4th. But I'm not very optimistic.
Btw, that's funny how it sounds like Akiva played the race card as soon as Elba's casting was questioned. Like it could only be racists opposing the choices, and not purists. I guess that should have been the first sign that this really wasn't going to be a true Dark Tower movie.
"If your point is that his commission of these actions and mistakes the last time around obviates them for this time around, I understand that, but would point out that this time around might now be so different as to have possibly reached the critical mass of conventionality I’m afraid I might see in this film."
I think the crucial distinction between our views is that, while I acknowledge the role of marketing/packaging etc. impacting the plot/movie, I see a change where Roland *doesn't* drop Jake as a natural progression of the story cycle: Given King's interviews, Bev's book, Furth's book, and the series itself, it's what I believe King would write, were he to actually sit down and write an official "last time around" series of DT novels, rather than offer us a pseudo-Expanded Universe version in the films. For me, that makes it an artistic decision. Does it make it for a more conventional story? YMMV, but I see it as originating as a result of the writer's vision, rather than a movie focus group. Same with Jake's "relatability:" Yes, it's a buzz word that I can see focus group writers using to push his character, but the reality is that Jake was *created* as a relatable character; someone semi-normal for Roland to interact with in The Gunslinger.
In The Gunslinger alone -- and this is off the top of my head -- he uses his guns on at least three different occasions, squeezing out by my estimate roughly sixty rounds: Tull, mutants in the mountains, Walter. Then early on in TDotT there are the lobstrosities and Eddie's naked shootout. So yeah. He uses his guns plenty. He's the last of his kind and if I'm going to see a movie that advertises the main character as a gunslinger, I want to see a lot of gun work. Just like I want to see space battles in Star Wars.
Second point: Akiva posted his response after people started casually dropping the N-word in the comments section. No one should tolerate that shit and if it's upsetting to you that he called them out, that's your problem.
You know, I never thought about this but I would absolutely LOVE it if King were to write (and I know this will never happen) a humongous novel telling the story of Roland's final cycle. It wouldn't need to be as large as the original DT series, since the personal histories and background of the ka-tet could be skipped (those parts wouldn't change in a new cycle) and the rest of the story would play out differently anyway. That would be so cool....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
