Thankee, Bev.
Share your thoughts after viewing the movie **DEFINITE SPOILERS**
- Thread starter Moderator
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Thank you. I didn't know CD stood for Cemetery Dance.
For me personally, I don't know that there's any way this was ever going to work as a film, and that's admittedly more because of my own nature than any shortcomings by the filmaker(s). I've had an almost spiritual relationship with books my entire life. Books made me who I am. Good writing, more than any other art form I've encountered, affects my mind, my heart, and my soul. And these books have affected me more than any others. I've walked with these characters, in these worlds, for over 30 years and in some weirdly possessive way I take offense to anyone else manipulating the story. I hated the comics with a passion, and feel they're fan fiction (albeit sanctioned fan fiction) at its worst. This movie apparently follows in that same direction, and honestly, for anyone to take this masterwork and assume they have the ability, creativity, and skill to ADD to the canon? Hubris.
I'll see the movie eventually. But my opinion on it will be overwhelmingly biased and I'm okay with that.
I'll see the movie eventually. But my opinion on it will be overwhelmingly biased and I'm okay with that.
I'm seeing it Sunday evening... though, I might end up watching Al Gore's new film instead. 
Thanks, Bev! You gave me some hope.
...I will go see it in time....I didn't make the journey with Roland in one night....and I don't plan on racing to the redux.....I truly don't care what the critics think, said it before-in most cases they'll write reviews to make themselves look smart, humorous or charming....meh.....I've had to work up to the idea of this never having a chance as a faithful nod, and to come to grips with another vision....here's my feeling, pre-popcorn immersion, I will enjoy it as a big screen fling, but will at least cringe inwardly at some liberties, if not outright cursing once or twice.....it's how the big dawg walks.....
People need to go into it as fresh material, it sounds like. Forget there were books at all, and take in what is offered, THEN form an opinion.
As I said before, TWD gives me hope that the story can come together in a different format. Another recent source of hope for me: The Children of Men. The book was good and the movie was good, and they have nearly nothing in common. Though that might be frustrating for the author, for me as a reader/watcher it worked just fine.
As I said before, TWD gives me hope that the story can come together in a different format. Another recent source of hope for me: The Children of Men. The book was good and the movie was good, and they have nearly nothing in common. Though that might be frustrating for the author, for me as a reader/watcher it worked just fine.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Neil Gaiman's American Gods on Starz has proved to me you can have a nearly direct adaptation and have it be excellent in that longer format. Hollywood and filmmakers just need to trust that the audience can handle it (because they can). I don't have an opinion on the Dark Tower movie yet as I've not gone to see it. I'm waiting on more reviews from those here.
That's a good example you cited. I read American Gods just when the series premiered. I was amazed at how faithful the television adaptation was, and they only covered (I think) about a third of the book in that first season.
I will go see it tomorrow with an open but still baffled mind. If you choose not to adapt the material and mash up a bunch of Easter eggs into an hour and half of Hollywood formula then don't call it the Dark Tower. Cast all women and call it Orange is the New Man in Black.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Yep. That series is wonderful, true to the source material, and doesn't dumb a damn thing down. It doesn't insist that things MUST change for the medium. That is a myth. It can be done right and still be attractive to audiences too. That series is blowing people away and very popular. I suppose that has been the thing that bothers me most over the last year, this notion that the literal adaptation can't be done. Of course it can be done. Yes, it can sell tickets. Yes, it can make money. It is my personal opinion, biased though it may be, that the DT languished in development hell all these years for no good reason. They spent all this time arguing about how to change it for film. They couldn't agree on how it should be changed, never once embracing the notion that it didn't really need any changes at all.
You could, in fact, storyboard the first book almost word for word. It is a very short novel and broken down into very potent scenes. There are wonderful flashbacks. There are large bits of description that would work very well in montage. Why the decided to spend decades trying to reinvent the wheel when they already had a perfect one in front of them baffles me. I tale solace in the fact that the excellent series being done all but ensures we will see a faithful adaptation of the Dark Tower someday (and I think soon). Please note that I am not talking about this to cast shade on the film release. I haven't seen it. I'm just discussing the adaptation we all hope to see someday.
Yup. I think the TV route would be the best for a real adaptation of the DT series.
The film doesn't open in my country until next week, so I'll have to wait until then. I'd like to indulge in a few observations, if I may.
Whenever I watch any film based on existing literature (book, play, comic, poem), I always critique it based on two criteria: how well it holds up as a film on its own, and how well it stands as an adaptation of the source material. Understandably, it's difficult to separate the two. There were instances where I was entertained by a movie but didn't think it was a good/faithful adaptation of the source material (those instances were so few that I can't even think of an example right now). Other times, I've been intrigued by how closely a film would stick to the source material yet leave me emotionally un-invested (Watchmen is a perfect example) by the time the credits roll.
I mention the above because I think that for us SK fans, it has a lot to do with how we approach any of his filmed work. The minute I saw Mr King's "Last Time Around" tweet and then the follow-up announcement explaining that the film is the final cycle of Roland's journey, I thought: okay, that's interesting. Obviously not what I want, but the creative team now have the luxury of cherry-picking parts of the entire series to weave an entirely new narrative which should be intriguing not to mention being able to translate it better for cinema. I kept an open mind. I was happy when I heard the lead actors announced. I enjoy both their work and I thought it was one of those rare cases where the roles could have been reversed and it would still make for a great watch. I was disappointed when Ron Howard left the project and Akiva Goldsman remained in charge because the latter has a poor track record of adapting any genre material that isn't a straight-up drama. But I kept an open mind. I saw the trailers, both the leaked and the official releases. It looked like a fun action movie, but it did not fill me with anticipation.
That being said, I'm still going to watch it. I read a few of the reviews today and yes, they weren't terribly enthusiastic. But reviews don't sway me. I pretty much make up my mind whether I want to see a film based on the story, creative and casting teams involved, and the trailers. Critics aren't paying for my ticket, so I couldn't care less what they say. If any money gets wasted, it's mine and mine alone, and life will go on. This isn't the Dark tower adaptation I want, but since I don't have clout in the entertainment industry or a hundred million dollars to produce my own film, i'm gonna saunter into the cinema next week and hope for an enjoyable film. For good or ill, I'll be happy to exchange thoughts with you folks when I do. In the mean time, keep Ka and carry on.
Whenever I watch any film based on existing literature (book, play, comic, poem), I always critique it based on two criteria: how well it holds up as a film on its own, and how well it stands as an adaptation of the source material. Understandably, it's difficult to separate the two. There were instances where I was entertained by a movie but didn't think it was a good/faithful adaptation of the source material (those instances were so few that I can't even think of an example right now). Other times, I've been intrigued by how closely a film would stick to the source material yet leave me emotionally un-invested (Watchmen is a perfect example) by the time the credits roll.
I mention the above because I think that for us SK fans, it has a lot to do with how we approach any of his filmed work. The minute I saw Mr King's "Last Time Around" tweet and then the follow-up announcement explaining that the film is the final cycle of Roland's journey, I thought: okay, that's interesting. Obviously not what I want, but the creative team now have the luxury of cherry-picking parts of the entire series to weave an entirely new narrative which should be intriguing not to mention being able to translate it better for cinema. I kept an open mind. I was happy when I heard the lead actors announced. I enjoy both their work and I thought it was one of those rare cases where the roles could have been reversed and it would still make for a great watch. I was disappointed when Ron Howard left the project and Akiva Goldsman remained in charge because the latter has a poor track record of adapting any genre material that isn't a straight-up drama. But I kept an open mind. I saw the trailers, both the leaked and the official releases. It looked like a fun action movie, but it did not fill me with anticipation.
That being said, I'm still going to watch it. I read a few of the reviews today and yes, they weren't terribly enthusiastic. But reviews don't sway me. I pretty much make up my mind whether I want to see a film based on the story, creative and casting teams involved, and the trailers. Critics aren't paying for my ticket, so I couldn't care less what they say. If any money gets wasted, it's mine and mine alone, and life will go on. This isn't the Dark tower adaptation I want, but since I don't have clout in the entertainment industry or a hundred million dollars to produce my own film, i'm gonna saunter into the cinema next week and hope for an enjoyable film. For good or ill, I'll be happy to exchange thoughts with you folks when I do. In the mean time, keep Ka and carry on.
I've said it several times before: the real loser here (besides us fans of course) is HBO. They need another breakout hit with Game of Thrones winding down and should have jumped at a DT adaptation. However, I did initially like Ron Howard's idea of the main volumes (The Gunslinger/Drawing of the Three, Wolves of the Calla & the final book) given cinematic treatments with season-long adaptations of the other books running in-between the film releases. Ah well, guess we have another 15 years or so before the reboot.
I think you have to add a caveat that it depends on the original material. Gaiman and King are very different writers. Gaiman's books are very visual, as befits a former graphic novel writer, whereas King's material tends toward inner monologues. Not every book, of course, but many of them. That is very hard to film without massive expositionary dialogue, which is boring to sit through for the average moviegoer. Visually representing thoughts without that kind of narrative takes time, and that is exactly what movies don't have to spare, especially when Mr. King has leaned toward TOMES (that word needs the pomposity of all caps
) in recent years. Of course, that's not to say that H'wood can't cock up even the more visual books. Look what happened to Cell *smdh*
I think you have to add a caveat that it depends on the original material. Gaiman and King are very different writers. Gaiman's books are very visual, as befits a former graphic novel writer, whereas King's material tends toward inner monologues. Not every book, of course, but many of them. That is very hard to film without massive expositionary dialogue, which is boring to sit through for the average moviegoer. Visually representing thoughts without that kind of narrative takes time, and that is exactly what movies don't have to spare, especially when Mr. King has leaned toward TOMES (that word needs the pomposity of all caps
Of course, that's not to say that H'wood can't cock up even the more visual books. Look what happened to Cell *smdh*
Good point. Which is why the more successful King adaptations tend to be the mostly drama/thriller-type storeis (Stand By Me, Shawshank, Dolores Claiborne, Misery).
did i tell you i enjoyed Battlefield Earth?
so i never really care for critics or critiques, it's just DT is getting slated by everybody , fans, movie goers, critiques, die hards, magazine snobs, poncy rotten tomatoes reviews, even folks i thought would hold back.
i'm waiting for 1 guys verdict, and he is watching the movie as i type . He has the same views as me, so i'll trust his judgement.
i never want to be disappointed with a movie again, the way i was with that pile of $&!7 that was magnificent 7 redux.
so i never really care for critics or critiques, it's just DT is getting slated by everybody , fans, movie goers, critiques, die hards, magazine snobs, poncy rotten tomatoes reviews, even folks i thought would hold back.
i'm waiting for 1 guys verdict, and he is watching the movie as i type . He has the same views as me, so i'll trust his judgement.
i never want to be disappointed with a movie again, the way i was with that pile of $&!7 that was magnificent 7 redux.