The Dark Tower series filmed adaptation

[Merlin1958]

Well, it's never really possible to adapt a story from one medium to another with no changes. In this case, they'll be making a statement about the philosophy of the work either way.

DT 7

Are we going to get scenes set in 1999, showing that King had to write the books for the multiverse to continue, thus giving the films a documentary-type role of detached perspective, or will this new version also paint itself as pivotal to the Tower's advancement?

i completely agree that things will have to be changed, we all know that.

but in my opinion, you cant change some very important details. smaller details that affect HOW the plot unfolds, yes. but changing certain things alters the whole interpretation of the story, and that should not be done. King made a very big deal of that Horn, and to present it at any other time is just poor understanding of its importance.

an example where we see plenty of discrepancy between book and movie is LOTR. There were many liberties taken with the telling of the story, but the fundamental elements remained intact, and that's why it worked so well. For instance, they couldn't separate The Two Towers into half a movie about Merry and Pippin then half a movie about the rest. It just would not have fit the flow of a movie, and we understand that. There were even many omissions (ie, Tom Bombadil) and character alterations. Specifically, Frodo is by and large a much more cowardly character in the movies than in the books. Escaping the Nazgul after fighting them at Weathertop are scenes in the book that portray him as very brave and courageous, yet both incidents were altered drastically in the movie. But such changes did not formulate a re-telling of the story. while the characters are slightly different, the end result is the same.

Roland already holding the Horn of Eld would completely change the story in a fundamental way. It automatically will set Roland up as a more heroic and nostalgic character in the viewer's eyes. The books however, tell the story of a man who constantly battles between his need to save the Tower and his haunted memories of what he has done to meet that end. It is in this character struggle that we come to understand his complexity. The horn is a symbol of Roland's humanity, and if presented at the beginning of his quest it loses all meaning. Unless,

DT 7

they plan to weave the theory of "looping" within all the movies and series right off the bat, in which case, why even bother telling the story at all. part of the fun is in the discovery of what is going on in the first place.

also, in regards to this:

DT 7

Are we going to get scenes set in 1999, showing that King had to write the books for the multiverse to continue, thus giving the films a documentary-type role of detached perspective, or will this new version also paint itself as pivotal to the Tower's advancement?

i feel that this must be addressed because we start seeing the theme as early as DT5. so it cannot be omitted, though the second half of that with the movie asserting itself is very interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I would still maintain that it is different than the Horn though. Specifically that detail needs to remain in the story as it is.

You make some very salient points there. Personally though, to me the bulk of Roland's past trials & tribulations was contained in the W&G FB. I have a feeling they may utilize the (now) TV mini-series to tell that story earlier than as done in the books. Logistics would seem to say that they will have to get to Wastelands in the 1st movie. Logic would also say that they will break up the movies utilizing the natural cliffhangers in the books. So to me that would leave the Mini-series to cover almost all the back-story elements prior to "The Man in Black fled........."

I don't feel that King "Made a big deal" out of the horn.

Spoiler:

It was an extremely significant plot point for the end, having confirmed the "Loop" and allowing for hope and speculation. but they could easily weave the "loop" theory in through other means and the last movie could (and maybe should) end with Roland opening the door at the top of the tower, fade to black.

Probably piss off all viewers save, those who have read the books and encourage those who have not to do so.

[Myste]

Just in general; I'm really looking forward to this adaption - even though I'm very "protective" what comes with adaptions to King's novels (especially DT)

[Seneschal]

I don't feel that King "Made a big deal" out of the horn..

i thought the same thing when i first finished the books years ago. I am currently on book 6 of my second reading, and my opinion is completely changed. knowing its significance has made me more aware of how much King actually mentions it, which is often starting at the end of Wastelands/beginning of W&G. I would say that places a large amount of importance on the object, as the theme it starts to represent spans the remaining 4 books. Perhaps because I am looking for it, the mentions seem more prominent. But again, i didn't place much value in it the first time around (until the end obviously).

other than that, i definitely agree with your sentiments of how this thing would likely be presented. the natural cliffhangers are perfect for cinema, no doubt.

[Merlin1958]

Yeah, in retrospect I guess its just semantics. No doubt the Horn is significant. I had forgotten how many other times it is mentioned in the series, even though I've read it 4 times. After I got over being pissed after my first read thru, I realized that the Horn was significant

Spoiler:

in that King was throwing the story over to the fans imagination. The Horn, to me, represents "Hope" and a chance for the future, as well as confirming Roland had indeed made strides in redeeming his character and overall life-philosophy.

LOL, I remember after I first read the ending I swore off King for like six months!!!!! I was pissed!!!! After thirty years of reading, waiting and anxiously anticipating that was it? However, I finally cooled down and gave it another crack. LOL

On a side note: Shouldn't there be a "Spoilers" in the title? or did I screw up?

[Josh]

It has to be Viggo Mortensen.

I admit I haven't read this whole thread, but is anyone concerned about NBC being the network for the TV portion? I don't see how the story could be done justice on broadcast TV.

[mae]

It will most likely be on a basic cable channel owned by NBC, such as Syfy or USA, allowing for some more freedom, but not as much as premium cable channels.

[Merlin1958]

I'm not familar with the rules regarding TV ratings, but FX and Comedy Central get pretty blue after 8pm so it could work. I mean look at the Roasts and SOA or even "Rescue Me".

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i agree FX is like that & so is "Comedy Central" but since they've never done anything like a project like "DT" before i doubt it will be them. i think it should be HBO or showtime. to be honest. anyways, i was thinking about WHO could play the walking dude "Randall "Flagg" if "Jamey Sheridan" doesn't do it.

& i think "Jason Issac's would be good. the dude who played 'Draco's father in the "Harry Potter" films. obviously they'd prolly have to give him hair extensions if he'd do it. i am of course just going by when "Jamey Sheridan" played him in 'The Stand" which i think was the right look to have him have long hair. if ya ask me. so what do you guys & gals think?

[Merlin1958]

i agree FX is like that & so is "Comedy Central" but since they've never done anything like a project like "DT" before i doubt it will be them. i think it should be HBO or showtime. to be honest. anyways, i was thinking about WHO could play the walking dude "Randall "Flagg" if "Jamey Sheridan" doesn't do it.

& i think "Jason Issac's would be good. the dude who played 'Draco's father in the "Harry Potter" films. obviously they'd prolly have to give him hair extensions if he'd do it. i am of course just going by when "Jamey Sheridan" played him in 'The Stand" which i think was the right look to have him have long hair. if ya ask me. so what do you guys & gals think?

Dude, I was referring to the "TV content" ratings allowance. C'mon, stay on point no?

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i know, i was thinking about the show 'Sons of Anarchy" when i read that & how that show's langauge & sex scenes wouldn't be allowed on a channel on say ABC. but i was also thinking on how 'FX" normally doesn't do big projects like say 'DT" tv shows yes but to my best of knowledge they haven't done movies yet. bear in mind i don't watch much FX so i may be wrong. & while comedy central has made a couple movies.

i dunno of they would want to do it? i was also thinking of Content as well.

[Iwritecode]

i know, i was thinking about the show 'Sons of Anarchy" when i read that & how that show's langauge & sex scenes wouldn't be allowed on a channel on say ABC. but i was also thinking on how 'FX" normally doesn't do big projects like say 'DT" tv shows yes but to my best of knowledge they haven't done movies yet. bear in mind i don't watch much FX so i may be wrong. & while comedy central has made a couple movies.

i dunno of they would want to do it? i was also thinking of Content as well.

Nobody has done a big project like this because it's never been done before.

They show movies all the time though. I just watched 'Iron Man' on FX last night.

[kluker]

I think syfy would be a good channel to show series on.

[pathoftheturtle]

...King made a very big deal of that Horn ...

Like Browning did before him.

...to present it at any other time is just poor understanding of its importance.
...

Well, not necessarily. I see your point, but I'm not sure you get where I'm coming from.

...
Roland already holding the Horn of Eld would completely change the story in a fundamental way. ....

Of course.

...if presented at the beginning of his quest it loses all meaning. Unless,

DT 7

they plan to weave the theory of "looping" within all the movies and series right off the bat, in which case, why even bother telling the story at all. ...

....

Good question. There would have to be a new ending. And it'd have to be a good one that extends the story and/or adds further meaning.

...

DT 7

...part of the fun is in the discovery of what is going on in the first place.

....

Aye, but everyone who has read the books has already done that. Lots of people have previously had that story told to them, so why even bother making movies of it? Just as a courtesy to the illiterate?

[Merlin1958]

Not sure I agree with you guys on the horn/story points.

Spoiler:

If, they start the movie story with Roland having the horn they would have to weave the whole "loop" thing into it. Since it is a loop, and for the sake of argument lets say the movie is depicting the 20th loop the one following the end of DT7, they would have to tell the same basic story, no? Roland would have to be presented with the same character choices and/or situations. However, now both folks that have read the books and those that have not would have to sit-up and pay attention to follow the story for changes to the Books story. That way they are acknowledging the sanctity of the books to the readers. It would present a scenario that would interest both audiences (readers/non-readers), preserve the Books story, entertain and maybe entice folks to go buy the books!!

The ending in my mind, if they go that way, can only be that Roland opens the door at the top of the Tower and flash of white silhouetting him and then fade to black, "The End".

[Roland of Gilead 33]

1stly NOT everyone has read the "DT" books yes a LOT of us here as read some of them or all of them many times. but there are people out there who don't read much or who've never read any "SK" & they i'm sure will discover the "DT" series when the film comes out. pretty much like i think when i 1st heard they were going to do a "Harry Potter" Film 11 or 12 years ago. & read what it was about i got curious & discovered a great series.

& by the time the 1st film opened & the 4th book came out i had already read the 1st three books. it wouldn't surprise me if people are discovering the series after hearing about this being made into a series of films/mini-series. anyways as for FX goes i know they show movies all the time.

i was thinking more along the lines about how them doing original movies. kinda how like the "Syfy" channel does a film a B film & shows it every saturday nite. sometimes they show an A-list movie of course. but most of the time they are B films. kinda like there deal with "Roger Corman"

who've so far has made i believe 2 films for them. so far anyways. & they've been succesfull or so i've read. one of those stunk. the other was decent. but i DO think Syfy Channel would be a good fit cause they've done projects like this before. big projects for example like "Dune" for example "Alice in wonderland" etc.. etc.. etc.. some of these projects were just tv movies but some of them were quite long & VERY expensive to make. so in short i can see them do it.

[Dan86]

[Kidd Ikarus]

I jut think, IMHO, if you are a fan of the books, there really shouldn't be a reason for 'said fan' to want drastic changes to the story in the movie/ tv adaptation. If a director goes into an adaptation project and feels the nedd that he or she has to change most of the story, then why make the movie?

[Merlin1958]

Nobody said "Drastic" changes, but if you've read the books why wouldn't you want to see an adaption that made some sense? They did'nt even faithfully adapt the LOTR, you think that's gonna happen here? I mean lets stay in the 'NOW", no? And what makes sense. If they tried to do a faithful adaption fans would rip it apart, If they have a bonafide reason for "Imagination" that's a different thing. no?

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i can't argue with that. there are the rarites where the change is for the better, but of course NOT always. a lot of people i've read online hate the idea that "Ron Howard" will do the series. i don't hate it though cause i am curious on what his take on it will be. i love the fact that "SK" is i believe a consultant isn't he? on the films. so that's always a plus if the writer is involved.

plus there's no doubt he'll have a role just like in the books from what i hear. & honestly i've always thought he was a decent actor to be honest.
though i can't wait until the 1st film comes out. & i'm extremely impatient on the waiting. it is nice that they aren't doing a rush job though. as we all know that when they do that, the film or films suffer because of it.

[Kidd Ikarus]

I realize many things were changed in LOTR, but we're not talking about LOTR are we? And to be honest . . . IMO . . . Changing the ending is a pretty drastic change, no? I think a lot of people have been talking about that over the last couple of pages.

[pathoftheturtle]

1stly NOT everyone has read the "DT" books yes a LOT of us here as read some of them or all of them many times. but there are people out there who don't read much or who've never read any "SK" & they i'm sure will discover the "DT" series when the film comes out. ...

Sure, I realize that. What to say to that part of the audience, and how to say it, is also an important part of this, naturally.

I jut think, IMHO, if you are a fan of the books, there really shouldn't be a reason for 'said fan' to want drastic changes to the story in the movie/ tv adaptation. If a director goes into an adaptation project and feels the nedd that he or she has to change most of the story, then why make the movie?

But, again, this particular series is complicated.

DT7

Some of us who are still fans are still fans because we like metafiction. Those who hate that kind of thing probably bowed out already. So if the films are aimed at fans of metafiction, then they don't really need to be strictly literal in adaptation, right? I think that I, for one, finally will be turned off if these movies so clarify the story that it turns out the point all along was nothing more than a conceit which treats Stephen King as God.

I realize many things were changed in LOTR, but we're not talking about LOTR are we? And to be honest . . . IMO . . . Changing the ending is a pretty drastic change, no? I think a lot of people have been talking about that over the last couple of pages.

DT7

But it is the nature of the ending of this book that it is not really an ending at all.

Why be narrow minded about it?

Anyway, all of this is kind of moot. I mean, they've already decided what they're going to do, right? We're just guessing and making wishes. I just hope that whatever the plot, it's handled wisely in terms of ultimate theme.

[Kidd Ikarus]

I don't think I was being narrow minded at all. But your last sentence pretty much says it all and its all any of us can hope for.

[pathoftheturtle]

Thanks. And nothing personal meant by "narrow minded." I was only saying that change can sometimes be positive.

[Kidd Ikarus]

Don't worry about it man. I don't think I've ever been as curious or (even more so) worried about a movie before. And hell, we still have 2 more years to wait for it.

[Merlin1958]

It's true, DT is not LOTR. LOTR is a straight forward tale while TDT is a metafictional tale that in its very nature would seem to demand some changes.

Spoiler:

The original ending of the books sums that up. To me it signify's ongoing change within each and every story relative to each loop/story and King was only telling one story.

Add to that the fact that many LOTR fans tore up Jackson for his transgressions for the sake of the movie flow and you can see why Howard & Co may want to go with a different slant to preserve the integrity of the books and the movie's as well. That's just my three beans though!!! LOL