Just want a place to vent about this. I still see these books as having the potential to compete with LOTR. If budget were no problem, and many passionate people were working on this to make it a reality, I think a kind of direct translation is possible. Each page of each book should be storyboarded. 100's of hardcore dark tower fans should be in on the process, so they can agree that the look of each thing is right. If they all agree you know you're getting close to something many can accept as Roland or Walter or various items or locations or whatever. Great detail should go into every aspect. Then figure out how to put that information on screen, bringing each scene to life with the storyboard as the guide. Trim where you can but nothing important and as little as possible. Sorry if I sound naive, but I don't think this is impossible. I guess its just a dream really.
Do you still want the original books translated to screen?
- Thread starter Baz
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
...I'd still like to see a faithful adaptation.....emphasis on faithful....
Naive quite. Impossible most definitely. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of hardcore fans, getting them all together is not the problem. The problem in that situation is getting them all to agree on something. Everyones different; no one will agree with other peoples interpretation; they might respect it, even lean towards that interpretation, but completely agreeing with it is another situation completely; especially considering how large of a fan base The Dark Tower Series has.
Either way someones, if not everyones, interpretation will be sh*t on.
The best thing you can hope for is that they can carry the spirit of the book onto the big screen. Myself, I approach both The Dark Tower adaptation and the IT remake with a high level of leeriness, and my hopes for both are pretty much nil.
Last edited:
With the exception of being suckered into watching all three damned seasons of Under the Dome, I steer clear of SK adaptations. I'd rather let the books speak for themselves. So in answer to your question, no.
I would have to test that before I was certain. Say if 50% agreed with an idea and 50% disagreed, you could readjust the idea to get more agreement, I know its a bit out there, but do think you could at least make better progress potentially that way. Like if 90% of people think an all female Ghostbusters is a bad idea, ya might wanna listen to that and make a change. I also respect an artists right to create whatever they want according to their own vision. In the case of this book translation maybe a mix of these ideas would be better than just having a really bad idea that's gonna be trashed cos its terrible. If the fans saw themselves as producers there might be more cohesion. Director would have final say obviously.
The thread title is a bit confusing.
Still want, or are we all preparing ourselves for the worst? Yes, of course I want it to be everything that I imagined in my mind.
And the voices too. I've seen no mention of OY.
Not gonna happen. Everyone has their own journey and thought while reading.
It might be a wonderful series of movies - not faithful, who knows?
But I have the books. Always have the books.
Still want, or are we all preparing ourselves for the worst? Yes, of course I want it to be everything that I imagined in my mind.
And the voices too. I've seen no mention of OY.
Not gonna happen. Everyone has their own journey and thought while reading.
It might be a wonderful series of movies - not faithful, who knows?
But I have the books. Always have the books.
I was taking a bit of a jab at the continuation nature of the film. But yeah the wording is a bit off. I meant original story vs continuation story where the universe has completely changed somehow. I'm interested how they are gonna explain Roland's transformation physically from the Roland we know previously. How many alternate Roland's are there? It's pretty wild.
I'm more concerned with modern trends in film making- the over-reliance on CGI, the need to sell a whole franchise instead of making strong, coherent films, the attempts to please all audiences at once that just make everything into bland product- than anything else. Some things don't necessarily translate well from book to screen, and adaptations can differ greatly from their source material and still be good in their own right, but I'm getting more and more annoyed by Hollywood's current approach to movies than anything else (and also the constant stream of sequels/remakes/reboots; at least the DT series isn't that...)
As many as there are turns of the wheel.
I was watching a guy on Youtube talk about how Akira Kurosawa used action sequences and combined them with emotion, and how inspirational this was even the techniques he used at the time. Marvel films are pretty dead emotionally in that sense compared to Seven Samurai. Hollywood is willing to pump out any old ****, and with narcissism levels at an all time high I can't see developers giving a **** anytime soon.
Don't know if when you did that you get a faithful adaptation. At best a film can come close to a book, it can never be the exact book translated to film.
For one, you can not translate an author's voice, the way he tells things, the words he uses, the style he writes in etc.
Secondly, it's been often said, but books and films are two very different media really. For example, in a book you can follow a person's thoughts and thoughtprocesses for pages on end (a whole book really), in a film you can't do it that extensive.
Thirdly the images a book invokes in the reader will be completely personal to each reader. Everyone will have read the same story, but imagined it differently.
I recently mentioned this, but I will repeat it. In King's case, because his books are so much about character, the best you can do is find actors who nail a character (like we've had Sissy Spacek or Kathy Bates) and build the films around them. Those have been the best adaptations.
I wonder if there is a place where Stephen goes extensively into the differences between writing books or screenplays? I haven't come across something like that, but that'd be interesting to read.
He's often (I feel a bit unfairly) criticised for his screenplays, saying he doesn't know what works on screen, but I wonder about that. 'Pet Sematary' I felt was a really good adaptation, which added things not in the book which worked very well on screen.
In general with his screenplays, I think the problem is more that he has worked a lot in the medium of television, which is not ideal for horror, because of many restrictions (budgetary for one, or not being able to put on too much violence, writing around commercial breaks etc.), but he still managed to work around those and produced good work for tv too, like 'Storm of the Century', which is generally well regarded.
For one, you can not translate an author's voice, the way he tells things, the words he uses, the style he writes in etc.
Secondly, it's been often said, but books and films are two very different media really. For example, in a book you can follow a person's thoughts and thoughtprocesses for pages on end (a whole book really), in a film you can't do it that extensive.
Thirdly the images a book invokes in the reader will be completely personal to each reader. Everyone will have read the same story, but imagined it differently.
I recently mentioned this, but I will repeat it. In King's case, because his books are so much about character, the best you can do is find actors who nail a character (like we've had Sissy Spacek or Kathy Bates) and build the films around them. Those have been the best adaptations.
I wonder if there is a place where Stephen goes extensively into the differences between writing books or screenplays? I haven't come across something like that, but that'd be interesting to read.
He's often (I feel a bit unfairly) criticised for his screenplays, saying he doesn't know what works on screen, but I wonder about that. 'Pet Sematary' I felt was a really good adaptation, which added things not in the book which worked very well on screen.
In general with his screenplays, I think the problem is more that he has worked a lot in the medium of television, which is not ideal for horror, because of many restrictions (budgetary for one, or not being able to put on too much violence, writing around commercial breaks etc.), but he still managed to work around those and produced good work for tv too, like 'Storm of the Century', which is generally well regarded.
Couldn't add it anymore, but obviously, I'm talking about the time when he wrote the screenplays. Nowadays much more is possible in terms of budget and violence for tv, evidenced by The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones. I think nowadays if he wrote for a broadcaster who would give him that freedom he could achieve more. Although 'Storm of the Century' already had a certain scope for tv.
In terms of budget: what lets down a lot of the tv-productions of the past were the special effects, which should be the star in a horror or fantastic film really, or at least the icing on the cake. If you don't have a convincing monster a lot is lost in a horrorfilm.
In terms of budget: what lets down a lot of the tv-productions of the past were the special effects, which should be the star in a horror or fantastic film really, or at least the icing on the cake. If you don't have a convincing monster a lot is lost in a horrorfilm.
Loved Storm of the Century. And The Stand, don't remember if Sai King worked on the TV version? Think he did though.
...he was in it, that's fer sure....picking up Nadine, to go meet Mother......
I dunno. I mean, I'm kinda interested in seeing this thing they're doing now, which, by all accounts, sounds like a mere novelty. An homage. An Easter Egg hunt. And that's all fine and dandy, I suppose...but I don't, by God, I WON'T consider it part of the DT canon. How could I? King ain't writing it, therefore, it ain't the real DT.
But I've been saying it way back since before the thing had even been cast: we don't need a DT movie. No mere film can match what happens inside my brain when I read those books. I have my Roland, my Eddie, my Suze, etc. I know who I see when I read DT, and, to be honest, I'd rather not see someone else's take on the series. And, as I've said elsewhere, much of what is cool about those books stems from the simple fact that they are books. The riddle of literature is woven into the fabric of The Dark Tower, and, cry yer pardon, ya can't replicate that on film.
But I've been saying it way back since before the thing had even been cast: we don't need a DT movie. No mere film can match what happens inside my brain when I read those books. I have my Roland, my Eddie, my Suze, etc. I know who I see when I read DT, and, to be honest, I'd rather not see someone else's take on the series. And, as I've said elsewhere, much of what is cool about those books stems from the simple fact that they are books. The riddle of literature is woven into the fabric of The Dark Tower, and, cry yer pardon, ya can't replicate that on film.
I've walked with Pere Callahan way back when he was denied entrance to his church. I've stood on cemetery streets after Captain Trips laid waste to America. I cried when Gage died, and shivered on those Derry nights when Pennywise ran amok. All this, and more, do ya, is woven into what makes DT great. You think some Hollywood producer can even grasp this concept? I say thee nay.
Last edited by a moderator:
...yep, The Muskerman nails it...I have felt just this same way, plus I stayed awake with the Insomniac Club, wandered the hallways of The Overlook and fired Roland's big guns...all in my head and heart...