The dark tower movie

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

SpazzTheBassPlayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2014
296
1,156
58
Fellow Constant Readers, a few things I feel the need to point out. Sorry in advance for my long winded introductory post lol.

1) Regarding the producer's comments regarding racists. I think a lot of you only saw the last part of that statement and took it out of context. He never said that everyone who has a problem with Elba's casting are racists and that they should all go F* themselves. If you read his entire statement, he actually addresses 2 separate camps of naysayers. There are the people who are legitimately concerned about how that change effects the story, to which he stated "I understand that people who are thoughtful about the storytelling and the racial politics of the storytelling might want to understand how that informs that storytelling, and I respect that and I hear that, and those things are not things we didn't think about or don't think about." That's a perfectly acceptable response in my opinion. But he also took the time to address that second camp of haters, those who are simply racist (and yes, those are out there too), to which he said (and rightfully so) that they can go F* themselves. I think many of you may have just read the last part of his statement and flew off the handle without taking the whole thing in context.

Hi SC, and Welcome :)

Da Vinci painted another Mona Lisa but we, the public, recognize that 'one'....however, that other painting is still a legitimate Da Vinci Mona Lisa nonetheless. If a hypothetical-still-alive Da Vinci pulled the one the public has embraced for centuries and replaced it with the other one, its still a DaVinci Mona Lisa, but how would the artworld react?

Its a bit of a Catch-22: As a person that feels I sort of have a grasp on the gestalt mechanics of Mr King's universe, yes there can be a possibility of a black Roland ( any and all possibilities, really) based on the history I understand of re-reading the book series over time. On one hand, I do understand that a writer, or musician, or anybody in the arts owes their fans nothing and create as they - the artist - deems fit. I am OK with that. On the other hand, I do appreciate when artists recognize what their fans want and find a way to precariously balance the tightrope of creative indulgence and progression with the substance of the paradigms that fans cherish about the artist...........Mr King is an AC/DC fan (at least thats what Ive heard). AC/DC is a band that has done exactly what I have described above: Progression within the greater framework of their usual paradigms ( Im trying to avoid the word "formulaic").... What kind of reaction would AC/DC fans - including Mr King - have if they released an album of computer generated techno?
 
Last edited:

danie

I am whatever you say I am.
Feb 26, 2008
9,760
60,662
60
Kentucky
Da Vinci painted another Mona Lisa but we, the public, recognize that 'one'....however, that other painting is still a legitimate Da Vinci Mona Lisa nonetheless. If a hypothetical-still-alive Da Vinci pulled the one the public has embraced for centuries and replaced it with the other one, its still a DaVinci Mona Lisa, but how would the artworld react?
This.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
Hi SC, and Welcome :)

Da Vinci painted another Mona Lisa but we, the public, recognize that 'one'....however, that other painting is still a legitimate Da Vinci Mona Lisa nonetheless. If a hypothetical-still-alive Da Vinci pulled the one the public has embraced for centuries and replaced it with the other one, its still a DaVinci Mona Lisa, but how would the artworld react?

Its a bit of a Catch-22: As a person that feels I sort of have a grasp on the gestalt mechanics of Mr King's universe, yes there can be a possibility of a black Roland ( any and all possibilities, really) based on the history I understand of re-reading the book series over time. On one hand, I do understand that a writer, or musician, or anybody in the arts owes their fans nothing and create as they - the artist - deems fit. I am OK with that. On the other hand, I do appreciate when artists recognize what their fans want and find a way to precariously balance the tightrope of creative indulgence and progression with the substance of the paradigms that fans cherish about the artist...........Mr King is an AC/DC fan (at least thats what Ive heard). AC/DC is a band that has done exactly what I have described above: Progression within the greater framework of their usual paradigms ( Im trying to avoid the word "formulaic").... What kind of reaction would AC/DC fans - including Mr King - have if they released an album of computer generated techno?
....If Kiss can do Disco, AC/DC can do techno......:biggrin2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpazzTheBassPlayer

SpazzTheBassPlayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2014
296
1,156
58
....If Kiss can do Disco, AC/DC can do techno......:biggrin2:

great example: KISS lost a lot of their loyal followers after the "I Was Made For Loving You" Dynasty-period......also, KISS is never really just about the music anyway :)

Which brings up a good point - to Stephen King, Stephen King is an author -- no matter how hard he tries, he can never understand the POV of the fans (for example: we anticipate what he may write about next and eagerly await the arrival of his next stories - He can do that if hes a fan of another author, but not for himself). To the public, "Stephen King" is a brand: When you pick up a jar with "Skippy" on it, you dont have to read much more than that to know what you have in your hand --- Im not pigeon-holing here: Skippy is usually peanut-butter, but it can also be Crunchy or Smooth as well as being Cashew Butter or something completely unorthodox - it can even be jelly --- but what we do know for sure is that it won't be laundry detergent (Hey Mr. King, if youre reading this, that may be a good story idea :D )
 
Last edited:

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
great example: KISS lost a lot of their loyal followers after the "I Was Made For Loving You" Dynasty-period......also, KISS is never really just about the music anyway :)

Which brings up a good point - to Stephen King, Stephen King is an author -- no matter how hard he tries, he can never understand the POV of the fans (for example: we anticipate what he may write about next and eagerly await the arrival of his next stories - He can do that if hes a fan of another author, but not for himself). To the public, "Stephen King" is a brand: When you pick up a jar with "Skippy" on it, you dont have to read much more than that to know you aren't picking up a jar of laundry detergent (Hey Mr. King, if youre reading this, that may be a good story idea :D )
....I agree with the KISS comments.....They were about "The Show".....and I stuck with them, but had to swallow my gorge trying to reconcile "God of Thunder" and "I Was Made For Loving You" coming from the same band......
 

SpazzTheBassPlayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2014
296
1,156
58
....I agree with the KISS comments.....They were about "The Show".....and I stuck with them, but had to swallow my gorge trying to reconcile "God of Thunder" and "I Was Made For Loving You" coming from the same band......

This is my issue with a black Roland.....theres a book by Robert Heinlein titled "Tunnel In The Sky". In the book, Heinlein makes plenty of references that its central character, Rod Walker, is black. If Hollywood ever decided to stop recycling and look at this book for a movie idea, I would be just as upset if Rod Walker was cast to a white actor
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
This is my issue with a black Roland.....theres a book by Robert Heinlein titled "Tunnel In The Sky". In the book, Heinlein makes plenty of references that its central character, Rod Walker, is black. If Hollywood ever decided to stop recycling and look at this book for a movie idea, I would be just as upset if Rod Walker was cast to a white actor
....indeed.....this is why I struggle to enjoy movies based on stories I've read.....my own imagination is far richer than any production studio could ever conjure up.....
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Fellow Constant Readers, a few things I feel the need to point out. Sorry in advance for my long winded introductory post lol.

1) Regarding the producer's comments regarding racists. I think a lot of you only saw the last part of that statement and took it out of context. He never said that everyone who has a problem with Elba's casting are racists and that they should all go F* themselves. If you read his entire statement, he actually addresses 2 separate camps of naysayers. There are the people who are legitimately concerned about how that change effects the story, to which he stated "I understand that people who are thoughtful about the storytelling and the racial politics of the storytelling might want to understand how that informs that storytelling, and I respect that and I hear that, and those things are not things we didn't think about or don't think about." That's a perfectly acceptable response in my opinion. But he also took the time to address that second camp of haters, those who are simply racist (and yes, those are out there too), to which he said (and rightfully so) that they can go F* themselves. I think many of you may have just read the last part of his statement and flew off the handle without taking the whole thing in context.

2) I've seen some people complaining that Eddie and Susannah are not in this movie. Within the boundaries of the story, it's normal for them not to be there. This is the first movie. This is the beginning of the story. Eddie and Susannah were not introduced until book 2. It's normal for the first film's focus to be Roland, Jake and Walter. The director did confirm in an interview that Eddie and Susannah are being saved for the sequel.

3) Someone mentioned Scott Eastwood. Scott Eastwood would might be a good choice for Roland.....in 20 years.....and after more than a few acting lessons. As it stands right now, he's way too young for the role, way too much of a pretty boy, and while he may kind of look like his Dad, he doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of commanding on-screen presence as Clint did/does. He's actually pretty forgettable. I saw Suicide Squad a couple of times and didn't even realize he was in it until I read it somewhere. He really was not noticeable at all. That's not the kind of presence Roland should have. It wasn't just Clint's look that inspired King, it was the way he carried himself, and the iconic way he commanded everyone's attention. When Roland is on screen with other characters, Roland needs to command your attention. I just don't get that from Scott. Elba on the other hand, has all those same qualities as a performer that inspired King to base Roland off of Clint. If you ask me, it's way more important to get those elements of the character right than to just get someone with the right complexion but who otherwise doesn't fit the required characteristics. And just looking at it from a practical standpoint...the Dark Tower is an unknown property for most of the general movie going public. Yes, you need to get someone who fits Roland's characteristics, but you also need to get someone who puts butts in seats. Scott Eastwood doesn't meet either of those requirements.

4) In regards to Susannah's relationship with Roland. I think people are putting way too much emphasis on a few of Detta's more colorful lines of dialogue. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of reading the series for the umpteenth time as we speak and it's fresher in my mind, but the root cause of Detta's beef with Roland has very little to do with race despite her "tough talk". Detta's talk of "Honk Mahfahs" and "white candles" was largely bluster to hide the real reasons she hated and feared Roland, to hide those reasons from them and from herself as well. Roland's psychic rape of her mind came with a sense of familiarity, a feeling that this kind of intrusion had happened many times before. Roland's invasion of her mind opened the door to her taking the first steps towards accepting and acknowledging her other half, and that's a door both personalities wanted kept closed at all costs. They're both terrified of facing that truth about themselves. That's where Detta/Odetta's fear and hatred of Roland stems from. Not to mention the way he kidnapped her from her world without so much as a "Hey. How's it going?". It's also why the Odetta side of her personality also fears and distrusts him. If it was all about race, Odetta would have no problem with Roland. After all, she clearly doesn't have a problem with Eddie. Even after her personalities merge as Susannah, she continues to be distrustful of Roland for quite some time. Again, if it were about his being white, then it wouldn't it stand to reason that those feelings of distrust would also extend to Eddie and Jake? But it doesn't, because her distrust is not about his being white. It's about who Roland is as a person and what he did to her. All this casting changes is a few lines of dialogue. Sorry but I don't think having Detta refer to his junk as a "white candle" is really all that crucial to the story lol.

5) So far, I'm really digging the "Sequel" approach they're taking to adapting it. That might change once I see the movie but for now I'm stoked. I've read the series at least 6 or 7 times and will likely read it at least a dozen more times before I enter the clearing. I'm also up to date with the comics which is essentially the same story. I already know that particular story inside and out. For the life of me, I can't see anything wrong with having two great versions of the story to enjoy instead of just one. Just means bonus DT goodness for me. And if it sucks, well like I said, I would have been reading those books over again anyway. As Dark Tower fans we have everything to gain and literally nothing to lose from this. And lets be objective about this shall we? The story as King wrote it is completely unadaptable to either movies or TV. It's way too weird and unconventional for that. The original story only really works in a literary form. For this to have even a chance of being successful, major story changes were inevitable. With this approach, they're at least trying to include the core fanbase while still having the freedom to make the necessary changes required to make a successful movie that appeals to a wider audience. They could just as easily have ignored the fans and just went off and made all these changes without the "sequel" element (which is what most studios do when faced with this kind of situation).

6) Lastly, I'm not too worried (yet) about the lack of marketing. It's not unusual for lesser known properties like this to release their trailers shortly before release. Things like the Marvel movies or Star Wars can release a trailer almost a year out because they know they have a huge built in fanbase among general movie goers, people who aren't likely to forget about the movie in that time. The Dark Tower doesn't have that luxury (yet). A Dark Tower trailer dropped too early would lose any of its steam and momentum among general movie goers by the time the movie actually comes out. Film marketing is all about timing. And sometimes patience is a virtue. The first trailer for John Wick dropped about 2 or 3 weeks before its release. That was the right choice for that movie. 10 Cloverfield Lane had its first trailer about a month before its release. That also worked for that movie. Aside from huge fan favorite properties like Marvel and Star Wars, most new movies only really start their marketing push 2 or 3 months (sometimes less) before the film's release. That's actually the norm.
Gunslinger Crow.jpg

Welcome to the SKMB ScreenCanuck :friendly_wink:
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Fellow Constant Readers, a few things I feel the need to point out. Sorry in advance for my long winded introductory post lol.

Why? Who are you? What have you to do with the production? An extremely long defensive post made by someone who hasn't seen the film anymore than the rest of us doesn't make any sense. If you "feel the need" it stands to reason you have some dogs in this race. You might as well put that out front.

1) Regarding the producer's comments regarding racists. I think a lot of you only saw the last part of that statement and took it out of context. He never said that everyone who has a problem with Elba's casting are racists and that they should all go F* themselves. If you read his entire statement, he actually addresses 2 separate camps of naysayers. There are the people who are legitimately concerned about how that change effects the story, to which he stated "I understand that people who are thoughtful about the storytelling and the racial politics of the storytelling might want to understand how that informs that storytelling, and I respect that and I hear that, and those things are not things we didn't think about or don't think about." That's a perfectly acceptable response in my opinion. But he also took the time to address that second camp of haters, those who are simply racist (and yes, those are out there too), to which he said (and rightfully so) that they can go F* themselves. I think many of you may have just read the last part of his statement and flew off the handle without taking the whole thing in context.

No, you just assume most of us didn't look into the matter. I've read the transcript in its entirety. I could post it. The statement he made was poorly voiced. I don't care what you think he stated or what you think he intended. This isn't a case of taken out of context. I'm a fairly literate person and I don't take kindly to him calling me a racist. Spin it however you like, but if intended to mean something different, it came out wrong.

2) I've seen some people complaining that Eddie and Susannah are not in this movie. Within the boundaries of the story, it's normal for them not to be there. This is the first movie. This is the beginning of the story. Eddie and Susannah were not introduced until book 2. It's normal for the first film's focus to be Roland, Jake and Walter. The director did confirm in an interview that Eddie and Susannah are being saved for the sequel.

The Director should have stayed true to the original story then. There are lots of things in this film, already confirmed, that don't belong in this film if the focus is going to be Roland and Jake. The Man in Black the Great White Shark from Jaws in the first book, i.e. seen entirely only at the end. We get only snippets of him in the first book. There shouldn't be any damn focus on him at all in my opinion. Other posters have already given ample examples of things which were not introduced until later books so your argument is specious and inconsistent.

3) ...Elba on the other hand, has all those same qualities as a performer that inspired King to base Roland off of Clint. If you ask me, it's way more important to get those elements of the character right than to just get someone with the right complexion but who otherwise doesn't fit the required characteristics. And just looking at it from a practical standpoint...the Dark Tower is an unknown property for most of the general movie going public. Yes, you need to get someone who fits Roland's characteristics, but you also need to get someone who puts butts in seats. Scott Eastwood doesn't meet either of those requirements.

I won't pretend to know if King was inspired by "qualities as a performer" but I somehow doubt the casting of the role played any part in his writing of the Dark Tower. I do know what he has clearly stated in interviews over the years and he isn't talking about any of the spin you list here. If we want to get down to the nitty gritty, the qualities of Roland's behavior that come across to many a casual observer were in The Drawing of the Three, wherein a cop who had the misfortune of running into a man being controlled by Roland died of a heart attack in a movie theater after seeing the Terminator and recognizing a like style. Elba is an emotive actor in all the roles I've seen him in, whereas the Terminator is the opposite. All that is irrelevant, however, the get butts in the seat argument is also specious. That is Hollywood garbage the likes of which was on full display recently when Ghost in the Shell was released with ANOTHER inappropriate casting choice. No dobut she was picked, despite the character in fiction, to put butts in seats and because she is a great actress. She was still WRONG for the role and the film is dreadful.

4) In regards to Susannah's relationship with Roland. I think people are putting way too much emphasis on a few of Detta's more colorful lines of dialogue. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of reading the series for the umpteenth time as we speak and it's fresher in my mind, but the root cause of Detta's beef with Roland has very little to do with race despite her "tough talk".

Then you clearly have missed a lot of passages speed reading. When Roland first invades her mind we are privy to Detta's thoughts and feelings. She is used to another mind and hates giving up power, but it specifically states that she feels his "whiteness" and that is the worst of it all for her. Detta's racism isn't a minor thing; it is born from the racism of others and her reflection of it is important.

Detta's talk of "Honk Mahfahs" and "white candles" was largely bluster to hide the real reasons she hated and feared Roland, to hide those reasons from them and from herself as well. Roland's psychic rape of her mind came with a sense of familiarity, a feeling that this kind of intrusion had happened many times before. Roland's invasion of her mind opened the door to her taking the first steps towards accepting and acknowledging her other half, and that's a door both personalities wanted kept closed at all costs. They're both terrified of facing that truth about themselves. That's where Detta/Odetta's fear and hatred of Roland stems from. Not to mention the way he kidnapped her from her world without so much as a "Hey. How's it going?". It's also why the Odetta side of her personality also fears and distrusts him. If it was all about race, Odetta would have no problem with Roland. After all, she clearly doesn't have a problem with Eddie. Even after her personalities merge as Susannah, she continues to be distrustful of Roland for quite some time. Again, if it were about his being white, then it wouldn't it stand to reason that those feelings of distrust would also extend to Eddie and Jake? But it doesn't, because her distrust is not about his being white. It's about who Roland is as a person and what he did to her. All this casting changes is a few lines of dialogue. Sorry but I don't think having Detta refer to his junk as a "white candle" is really all that crucial to the story lol.

There are lots of specious arguments in here, so I'm just going to boil it down to perhaps your umpteenth time of reading it is causing to to gloss over a few things? She doesn't like Eddie either and is more than happy to kill him however her other personality feels. She thinks of Roland as the really bad man, but saying she doesn't have a problem with Eddie is downright wrong.

5) So far, I'm really digging the "Sequel" approach they're taking to adapting it. That might change once I see the movie but for now I'm stoked.

It suffices to say that I am not. First, it isn't a sequel no matter how much some may which to spin it so. There is only one person who can write the sequel if any is needed. Even if the film turns out to be good, it isn't a sequel. It will only ever be a pale imitation of an idea which other people (many of them) rewrote someone else who didn't need rewriting.

I've read the series at least 6 or 7 times and will likely read it at least a dozen more times before I enter the clearing. I'm also up to date with the comics which is essentially the same story. I already know that particular story inside and out. For the life of me, I can't see anything wrong with having two great versions of the story to enjoy instead of just one. Just means bonus DT goodness for me.

As I state above, it isn't two versions of of the story. There is only one Dark Tower series; there can be only one. There is only one author.

And if it sucks, well like I said, I would have been reading those books over again anyway. As Dark Tower fans we have everything to gain and literally nothing to lose from this. And lets be objective about this shall we? The story as King wrote it is completely unadaptable to either movies or TV.

We can agree to disagree here too. The first book, in particularly, could be adapted easily. It is almost in storyboard form already. Pretending otherwise casts a lot of doubt on your credibility. The first book is short and going almost exactly to the book would produce a move of about 2 hours to 2 1/2 tops. It has clear scenes, a linear direction, a few flashbacks, and plenty of action. There is NOTHING in that book that is impossible to shoot.

It's way too weird and unconventional for that. The original story only really works in a literary form. For this to have even a chance of being successful, major story changes were inevitable. With this approach, they're at least trying to include the core fanbase while still having the freedom to make the necessary changes required to make a successful movie that appeals to a wider audience. They could just as easily have ignored the fans and just went off and made all these changes without the "sequel" element (which is what most studios do when faced with this kind of situation).

You, like most of Hollywood, vastly underestimate the average viewer. Chopping up a great story in a woodchipper and churning out slurry that looks just like ever other bit of mindless garbage isn't going to appeal to a wider audience. You think semi-weird and different will cut it with this story competing with the Marvel Cinematic Universe for conventional superheroes? Perhaps I'll be eating crow, but I think not. The strongest thing going for the Dark Tower series was the weird and different style of the Dark Tower series. It would have made it stand out. It would have appealed not only because it a great story, but because people are starved for that difference.

6) Lastly, I'm not too worried (yet) about the lack of marketing. It's not unusual for lesser known properties like this to release their trailers shortly before release. Things like the Marvel movies or Star Wars can release a trailer almost a year out because they know they have a huge built in fanbase among general movie goers, people who aren't likely to forget about the movie in that time. The Dark Tower doesn't have that luxury (yet). A Dark Tower trailer dropped too early would lose any of its steam and momentum among general movie goers by the time the movie actually comes out. Film marketing is all about timing. And sometimes patience is a virtue. The first trailer for John Wick dropped about 2 or 3 weeks before its release. That was the right choice for that movie. 10 Cloverfield Lane had its first trailer about a month before its release. That also worked for that movie. Aside from huge fan favorite properties like Marvel and Star Wars, most new movies only really start their marketing push 2 or 3 months (sometimes less) before the film's release. That's actually the norm.

The average release of promotional material is between six months to a year, particularly if you are hoping for a blockbuster with a huge opening. Trying to promote last minute is extremely expensive. Moreover, the release date of this film is considered one of the WORST of the year. You shouldn't make the assumption that those of here at this website aren't familiar with the film industry. Just because we are bookworms doesn't mean we don't have other jobs or interests. August through September is a dump month. It isn't an inspiring choice of time for them to put the film out. Either they don't think it can compete with the big summer blockbusters (but isn't bad) and needs only dump month competition, or they are simply not willing to waste the good time slots on what they don't believe will rake in the dough. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but the simple facts are:

1) They are going low budget on promotion.
2) They have chosen the dog days of summer for the release.

Judging by the name you chose for yourself here, you know as much about the business as I do. That means you have to understand these issues too.
 
Last edited:

SpazzTheBassPlayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2014
296
1,156
58
It wasn't just Clint's look that inspired King, it was the way he carried himself, and the iconic way he commanded everyone's attention. When Roland is on screen with other characters, Roland needs to command your attention. I just don't get that from Scott. Elba on the other hand, has all those same qualities as a performer that inspired King to base Roland off of Clint. If you ask me, it's way more important to get those elements of the character right than to just get someone with the right complexion but who otherwise doesn't fit the required characteristics.

I won't pretend to know if King was inspired by "qualities as a performer" but I somehow doubt the casting of the role played any part in his writing of the Dark Tower. I do know what he has clearly stated in interviews over the years and he isn't talking about any of the spin you list here.

I agree with Mr. Gray: Look at the IMDb characters list and count how many black actors have been cast........

The Dark Tower (2017) - IMDb

I find it more reasonable to surmise this is more of a marketing ploy to expand the audience potential and - more importantly - to avoid the negative (social) media backlash of being an "All White" movie

Matthew McConaughey was cast for both Roland and the Man In Black and won both. He chose to be the Man In Black. Had he chosen to be Roland, i predict we would be looking at a black Walter instead (Nah, maybe not: that would be the 'good' white man chasing the 'bad' black man. Jake would have been black, instead). This is just how sensitive the public is now, and also why shows like "All In The Family" and "The Jeffersons" will never ever return.....Yes, just an opinion. Your Mileage May Vary and all that jazz
 
Last edited:

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
What? No Detroit Rock City? No Cold Gin? No Hotter Than Hell or Calling Dr. Love? I bet you haven't heard Rock Bottom? Well, I could go on, but maybe you haven't heard all the lesser-known songs. Beth is beautiful though; I agree. :)

Lol.

When I first met DH's siblings (when we were first dating) his little brother was telling me all the bad things of him he could think of. He ended with "and he has KISS posters all over his bedroom".

So....I've heard all the songs. Even saw that movie, was it called Detroit Rock City? About the fans trying to get to a concert.

I went with him to the Rush concert....he went with friends to Kiss.
 

Constant Reader XIX

Active Member
Apr 13, 2017
34
129
The man in black fled across the desert (on the big screen!), and the gunslinger followed...

I just hope it's good and stays somewhat true to the universe!
(And that King's cameo comes early, so I can pay full attention to the movie instead of being on the look-out for him sneaking past me through most of it!)

NOTE: Apologies for my long-windedness in advance. I get excited when I talk about the Tower!

I've never encountered a level of the Tower that I didn't thoroughly enjoy. (And that's including the comics, which I thought were great. To be honest though, I only followed the comics from Gunslinger Born to up until just before
it was time to draw Detta
, but you can bet your fern that it continues to impress.)

Back on topic, I, along with most everyone else, was slightly taken aback at first when I heard that Mr. Elba would be starring as Roland, but only because I've been picturing 'an older version of Clint Eastwood' (for some reason) for a couple of decades now, every single time I've ever envisioned Roland. (I also picture Ray Liotta in his mid-thirties as Eddie, but that's besides the point.)

The point is, either the cast and crew have put their all into a good film (and maybe a few of said notables had read at least The Gunslinger before they showed up on set, do ye ken...), OR a group of people just showed up for a paycheck and filmed a terrible excuse for a movie. (That's right! There is no in-between scenario in my mind.) But, the good news is: from what I've seen and read, it looks like we should be getting prepared for the former, but hey... you never really know, right? And even when the movie is finally released, there's usually gonna be a good percentage of those of us who love the books who are destined to feel let down by something which we hold dear. (Usually.) There are a handful of good King adaptations, though. There are also some fine actors in starring roles in this upcoming film. So, my hopes are up.

Idris Elba has been good in everything I've seen him in, even when I didn't enjoy the movie.

McConaughey is usually (or sometimes) on his game, as well.

Jackie Earle Haley has entertained me quite a few times. (I really, really didn't like the Freddy reboot at all, but his Rorschach was on point!)

Fran Kranz was pretty much the best part of Cabin in the Woods.

No other names rang any bells, although my finger is far from the pulse of society lately. I only follow three or four authors and the same number of film-makers on Twitter -- so I know when to expect good material to be released. (I am otherwise commercially detached, so sometimes I am ignorant of awesome goings-on... but, anyway...)

My main worry is that the added content may contradict something, hence causing a Beam-Quake that ends all hopes for future films to complement the universe that Mr. King has so lovingly crafted over all these years.

Anyway, after having babbled on incessantly about all that, I will say this:

When I read through the Dark Tower this last time, I started with Carrie, then read every single thing published by King, in order of publication date, including Bachmans, short stories, TV shows/movies/mini-series/events, 'Hollywood' movies, B-movies, Kindle exclusives, online games, comics, even Joe Hill's stuff ties in at points -- gotta throw those in during the two-and-a-half-year Dark Tower marathon, too! (I probably left something out, sorry if so; it's like 70 novels - with a few short-story collections sprinkled in, 2 comic series, and I'm not counting the movies and TV shows because that sounds like work. Point: if I left something out, it's because I'm just lazy, okay?) Anyway, I even read the stuff that isn't printed in bold-face type to signify its connection to The Dark Tower. (I'm not tooting any of my horns, either, friends and neighbors; merely pointing out that I'm not just blowin' smoke -- I know a little bit about Sai King's universe. So, my comments, opinionated though they may be, are always based on my impressions after having actually read whatever it is that I may be rambling on incoherently about.)

"So what?" you're probably saying. You've probably done the same thing, right? You probably know that reading and watching everything in the order it was released is definitely (ahem, arguably) the best way to properly and completely immerse yourself in the universe King has created. So what am I getting at?

Heck, I forget... (You believe that happy-crappy?)

Oh yeah: I'm not expecting this movie to stand up to King's entire library (I mean, his entire library is the story of the Tower... one big, infinite tale...), and, deep down inside, that's what I think we all want the movie to be. But, again, I don't even really know what I want a movie to be sometimes...

All (I think) I do know is this:
the last we heard of Roland (not counting the starkblast story) was that his adventure had sort of reset. The man in black was fleeing across the desert, and the gunslinger was following... Only, this time: he held the Horn of Eld!

Sold! I'll be there!

(As if I wouldn't be there regardless...

I mean, come on:

It's the freakin' Dark Tower movie, you guys!)

Long days, pleasant nights, and nightmarish dreams to ye all,
Constant Reader, XIX
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT

TheOneTC

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2013
47
37
Western Massachusetts
It suffices to say that I am not. First, it isn't a sequel no matter how much some may which to spin it so. There is only one person who can write the sequel if any is needed. Even if the film turns out to be good, it isn't a sequel. It will only ever be a pale imitation of an idea which other people (many of them) rewrote someone else who didn't need rewriting.



As I state above, it isn't two versions of of the story. There is only one Dark Tower series; there can be only one. There is only one author.

Merriam-Webster's definition of "Sequel" is a "subsequent development" or "the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one."

Like it or not, this is a sequel. You have every right to choose not to accept this film into your own personal cannon, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a continuation of The Dark Tower story.

Sai King has been involved with this film. He has promoted it, he has given interviews about it, he has tweeted about it, etc. It's not like someone has gone and made a fan-film without his permission. Sure, someone other than Stephen King wrote the script, but that does not disqualify it from being a sequel, especially with Sai King on board.

You can choose to ignore this and hold your belief that the original books written by King are the only story, but that will only pertain to you. The fact is, having only one author is not a prerequisite to be considered a sequel or a continuation. To claim otherwise and state it as fact, is arrogant.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Merriam-Webster's definition of "Sequel" is a "subsequent development" or "the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one."

Like it or not, this is a sequel. You have every right to choose not to accept this film into your own personal cannon, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a continuation of The Dark Tower story.

Sai King has been involved with this film. He has promoted it, he has given interviews about it, he has tweeted about it, etc. It's not like someone has gone and made a fan-film without his permission. Sure, someone other than Stephen King wrote the script, but that does not disqualify it from being a sequel, especially with Sai King on board.

You can choose to ignore this and hold your belief that the original books written by King are the only story, but that will only pertain to you. The fact is, having only one author is not a prerequisite to be considered a sequel or a continuation. To claim otherwise and state it as fact, is arrogant.


Ummmm... no. That is a rather broad interpretation. A subsequent development would be Stephen King writing another book. If all it takes to to be a sequel is a subsequent development, every bit of fan fiction ever written is a sequel. There is only one author of the series. He writes the books. He might provide the rights for people to make movies of his works, but he retains the right to do the next book, i.e. continue the story. Anything based on something written by someone else, is not a sequel. Sorry. My standards of fiction are simply the same as the copyright.

P.S.
By your logic, we have seen sequels (MANY OF THEM) to Children of the Corn, Pet Semetary, etc. :) I don't believe any of us think of those as sequels either.
 
Last edited:

TheOneTC

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2013
47
37
Western Massachusetts
Ummmm... no. That is a rather broad interpretation. A subsequent development would be Stephen King writing another book. If all it takes to to be a sequel is a subsequent development, every bit of fan fiction ever written is a sequel. There is only one author of the series. He writes the books. He might provide the rights for people to make movies of his works, but he retains the right to do the next book, i.e. continue the story. Anything based on something written by someone else, is not a sequel. Sorry. My standards of fiction are simply the same as the copyright.

P.S.
By your logic, we have seen sequels (MANY OF THEM) to Children of the Corn, Pet Semetary, etc. :) I don't believe any of us think of those as sequels either.

The textbook definition of sequel is quite broad, yes. Those Children of the Corn sequels are pretty terrible, but that doesn't mean they are not sequels. Hell, if someone wrote a fan-fiction story that continued The Dark Tower, to them and anyone who wants to read and consider it, it would technically be a sequel, because it continues the story. It might not be an authorized canon sequel, but it's still a sequel in the smallest sense.

However, in the case of this Dark Tower movie, it is canon. Sai King has given permission for this film to continue the story, and unless he writes another book that retcons this film at a later time, this is where the story continues. Again, you don't have to like it, you can choose to ignore it, but you can not state that this film is not a sequel. Your personal feelings on the matter do not change the facts.

P.S.
By your logic, the new Star Wars films aren't sequels because they aren't witten by George Lucas.
 

Constant Reader XIX

Active Member
Apr 13, 2017
34
129
I think that this movie will more than likely fit into the Dark Tower universe in much the same way that the last three Star Trek films fit into that universe.

Do those stories build upon and continue the main story?
Yes.
...and no.

I think the idea behind that first Trek reboot/sequel was pure genius, though. They basically said, 'hey, guys! Here's the new Star Trek! It's in an alternate universe, so now we can do whatever we want, and you'll have no room to ever complain about us changing any plot points!'

That being said, if I were a Trek fan, I would have been offended by the first reboot. (Which I opine is just a Star Wars fan-fic with a Star Trek wrapper, including all popular catch-phrases.) I enjoyed it, but I never felt like I was really watching Star Trek. I, admittedly, was never really into Star Trek, though. (I'm more of a Star Wars guy (who dislikes Episode VII, but doesn't pretend that it isn't the new Star Wars), do ye ken.)
 

SpazzTheBassPlayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2014
296
1,156
58
I think that this movie will more than likely fit into the Dark Tower universe in much the same way that the last three Star Trek films fit into that universe.

Do those stories build upon and continue the main story?
Yes.
...and no.

Good point --- because Star Trek LOST me as a lifelong fan because of the reboot ---- mainly due to the sophomoric lack-of-believeable-hard-science in it as it evolved (devolved, really) ......Star Wars has LOST me even further for the same reasons - the first time I saw a starship on fire in the vacuum of space (Empire Strikes Back), I knew I was done

What does any of this have to do with Roland now being a different race, even if the story is written with the intent as a Post-book sequel?
 

Constant Reader XIX

Active Member
Apr 13, 2017
34
129
Good point --- because Star Trek LOST me as a lifelong fan because of the reboot ---- mainly due to the sophomoric lack-of-believeable-hard-science in it ......Star Wars has LOST me even further for the same reasons

What does any of this have to do with Roland now being a different race, even if the story is written with the intent as a Post-book sequel?

Absolutely nothing.

Just voicing my concern about the same thing happening with The Dark Tower.