What went wrong?

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board will be closed from Thursday, May 21st at 4pm EST until Tuesday, June 2nd at 8:30 AM ET
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

  • The message board is open 8:30am ET Tuesdays to 4pm ET Thursdays. Posts cannot be made outside of board hours.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Hall Monitor

All bars serve the Beam.
Nov 7, 2013
187
1,013
New Jersey
I'm not sure why I want to jump into this, but here I go. I'll start off by saying that I have not seen the movie. That is not a protest or a statement, just part of my reality (working a lot of hours with two kids, my options to go to an actual movie theater are extremely limited.) I will buy the DVD when it comes out, because that is what I do.

Here's my take on it. If we are using SKs greater universe as a setting, I'm cool with an alternate version of the Dark Tower existing. This is really nothing new for us. We have Kubrick's The Shining and the miniseries version. We have Christoper Walken as Johnny Smith, and Anthony Michael Hall as Johnny Smith. Soon, we'll have two versions of IT. Damn, we even have two versions of 'Salem's Lot. The remake is the version that probably developed my feelings about the Dark Tower, because I was enraged, absolutely off my rocker, about what they did with Father Callahan in the remake. Here was a cornerstone in the SK universe that they took completely off the rails. Then I thought about it, and realized that the different levels of the Tower support these different realities. You can still decide which version is the "right" version for you, and accept that other possibilities could exist. Maybe on another level of the Tower, Carrie White got counseling and the Prom never happened. Perhaps Cujo never got bitten and lived out his old age with his family. Maybe Big Jim Rennie survives and becomes a politician ... oh, wait, we did get that.

Where I'm going is that there is room for all of this and more, and we can choose to accept it or not on an individual basis. If you love it, I respect that. If you hate it, I respect that. If you don't want to even entertain it so it doesn't cloud your vision of the books, I respect that too. The most important thing to remember is that we all have a personal connection to this story, and with those connections come intense feelings and emotions. Just because they are my feelings doesn't make them right for you, and they shouldn't.

On another note, I do believe mysef to be a "purist", for whatever that means. I still hope that we will see a faithful adaption of all of the books someday, hopefully in a GoT-style format. If they announced that today and pre-sold the entire series, I would buy it right now. That doesn't mean both versions can't exist, because they can. We've held out this long for that version, we can keep dreaming.
 

danie

I am whatever you say I am.
Feb 26, 2008
9,760
60,662
56
Kentucky
I'll respond to this since you lifted most of my wording.

Not one person has said someone with a negative review can't post it without being condemned. There have been quite a few people who just didn't like it, said so without the insults, and contributed to the conversation.

Just as they have a right to hate the film, I have a right to call someone a purist -- which I'm not sure why you are seeing that as a bad thing. It's not. It's just what they are. They wanted to see a pure adaptation and they didn't get it. I don't begrudge that. Where the lamenting and pearl clutching comes in is when someone goes off on a tangent when they haven't even seen the movie. Once they do, and they still feel the same way, it's a whole different ball game.

We're all fans of this story and very passionate about it. And we all have a right to our truth. Everyone is getting their say. Just direct the negative in the right direction.
I do understand what you're saying, and I thank you for replying.

I didn't mean to say that someone actually said, "If you're going to post a negative review, then you'll be condemned." To me, it seemed as if those who were passionately negative were being insulted by the wording of posts.

The reason it seemed as if you thought being a purist was bad is this:

Of course purists are going to gnash their teeth and clutch their pearls. So they will trash the movie just so they can say, "I told you so" and feel all superior. And who are the people flooding the review market right now. Dark Tower fans.
These purists in your quote are people who are DT fans who have seen the movie and still don't like it. If I see myself as a purist, "lamenting, wailing and pearl clutching" is not exactly a respectful image. With that description, I picture myself bitching, complaining, falling out in a faint on my chaise lounge sofa while someone brings the smelling salts. When I come to consciousness, then I trash the movie just to feel superior. Again, not a nice or accurate image. Seems a bit harsh.

And I still think people can judge a movie based on the criterion that it's not an adaptation of the books. They don't have to see it to make that judgment. If I hate bananas and you bring me a new fruit I've never tried, saying it tastes just like bananas, I can judge that I will probably not like that fruit even though I've never tasted it. Now, it is possible that I'll like it after trying it, but that's very remote due to my hate of bananas.

Yes, we do all have a right to our truth. I have purposely stayed out of the DT film discussions because I was never going to see the movie, but I do feel it's important to recognize that those who are staying away aren't trying to be superior or make any kind of statement. I just don't want my brain images changed by someone else's less-than-faithful visualizations. Plus, it's just a movie. It's not like anyone can force me to go see it. I wanted a more faithful adaptation of the books, but it's not that big of a deal that I didn't get one, as expectations were low that I ever would. I'm not even complaining/lamenting/wailing that it didn't happen. I don't understand why it couldn't have been (knowing that if we Constant Readers hold the story so dear, how must Mr. King feel about it), but that's where it ends. There are a lot of things I don't understand in the world, and so many that are more important than a Hollywood movie not being what I would have liked.
 

Dana Jean

Moderator
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,069
233,593
Thornfield
I do understand what you're saying, and I thank you for replying.

I didn't mean to say that someone actually said, "If you're going to post a negative review, then you'll be condemned." To me, it seemed as if those who were passionately negative were being insulted by the wording of posts.

The reason it seemed as if you thought being a purist was bad is this:


These purists in your quote are people who are DT fans who have seen the movie and still don't like it. If I see myself as a purist, "lamenting, wailing and pearl clutching" is not exactly a respectful image. With that description, I picture myself bitching, complaining, falling out in a faint on my chaise lounge sofa while someone brings the smelling salts. When I come to consciousness, then I trash the movie just to feel superior. Again, not a nice or accurate image. Seems a bit harsh.

And I still think people can judge a movie based on the criterion that it's not an adaptation of the books. They don't have to see it to make that judgment. If I hate bananas and you bring me a new fruit I've never tried, saying it tastes just like bananas, I can judge that I will probably not like that fruit even though I've never tasted it. Now, it is possible that I'll like it after trying it, but that's very remote due to my hate of bananas.

Yes, we do all have a right to our truth. I have purposely stayed out of the DT film discussions because I was never going to see the movie, but I do feel it's important to recognize that those who are staying away aren't trying to be superior or make any kind of statement. I just don't want my brain images changed by someone else's less-than-faithful visualizations. Plus, it's just a movie. It's not like anyone can force me to go see it. I wanted a more faithful adaptation of the books, but it's not that big of a deal that I didn't get one, as expectations were low that I ever would. I'm not even complaining/lamenting/wailing that it didn't happen. I don't understand why it couldn't have been (knowing that if we Constant Readers hold the story so dear, how must Mr. King feel about it), but that's where it ends. There are a lot of things I don't understand in the world, and so many that are more important than a Hollywood movie not being what I would have liked.
I see what you're saying and understand your feelings. If you don't fall into that category, then don't accept that image.

I wasn't really talking about the people who were respectfully disliking the film or choosing not to see it, and should have made that clearer. The people I described are the ones who are asking, "did you read the books?" "Stephen King is just cashing a check." "Those who have accepted this have forgotten the "face of their father." "If you disagree with my negative comment, you do so because you think I'm a racist." Some of that has been said here. And although I didn't read professional reviews, I have read joe blow reviews elsewhere. So, my harshness was in direct correlation to their comments. Again, here on this board and reviews from DT fans elsewhere -- When these people post their reactions, they must be prepared for an equal and opposite reaction as their comments are a bit harsh.

You absolutely can judge what you "suspect" the film will be or not be. And you have a right to that opinion. For sure. But then to give detailed descriptions of why it is bad, why the acting will be bad, why the director will be bad, why the settings will be bad, how THIS particular version of the story will be bad-- you can't say that unless you see it. And even doing that can be done without the venom I have read.

And yes, people here have done that without seeing the movie. But again, if they go see it and still hold those same opinions, I respect that. Just as I respect your right not to see it based I what you have heard, what you know, and how it will be different from the books.
 
Last edited:

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,151
7,043
The Netherlands
Everything about it is so overwhelmingly negative. I don't care so much about critics, but the general audience (not just fans of the books) gives it just above average, which is clearly a sign that it's not a great movie. Obviously that means you can still enjoy it for what it is, but it's most likely overall not a good movie or adaptation (or sequel in this case).
I hope I still like it. I liked the trailer, but even that felt not like the books or comics. I think you have to find a way to like it as a separate thing or just discard it.
I think the chances are slim it gets a second chance as something more faithful, as it already took them so long to make this one. I think what went wrong is they tried to do it as a theatrical film (or some sort of combination with a tv-series, the plans of which they never seemed to be able to work out clearly), they should just have gone for a tv-series.
 

johntfs

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2008
277
966
I haven't seen the movie yet and I am a Dark Tower fan. I'm fine with the idea that things are different from the books. For one thing, recall that at the end of the books, Roland got the horn. Time was effectively changed. Events happened differently somehow. The movie is the sequel to the book series. It's not supposed to be a "faithful" adaptation of the books. It's about what happens after the books end and Roland begins his journey anew, having earned the right to fully complete it the "right" way. So, yeah, stuff should be different.

Now, the movie could still be crap. However, "Wahhhh! Blah, Blah and Blah weren't in it/like I thought in my head!" should not be a criticism of this movie, because it's not an adaption. It's a new work in the same universe going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Mr Nobody

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2008
3,306
9,050
Walsall, England
First off, I've not seen it yet. Second, I probably won't, at least not at the cinema.

Around here, cinema tickets run to £9.15 for peak times (after 5pm, Mon-Sat) and £7.50 at all other times. Concessions are available for other groups, but even kids get to fork out £6.50, so...not cheap. Due to the high ticket price, I don't generally bother with drinks and snacks - I'm going to be in there for 2-3 hours; I'll live. However, I generally go with my better half and she will always opt for popcorn and a Pepsi (they don't do Coca-Cola and the other option is supposed to be Fanta, but it tastes like lukewarm p**s with a hint of oranges). That's another £6-7, easy. At least parking is free (though you leave your vehicle in the car park At Your Own Risk).
So, given that a movie now costs at least £15 just for the tickets, but due to constraints, etc, is more likely to be over £25 and involves writing off three hours or more due to travel, running time, and so on, I'm very selective in what I go to see.

The way I make my choice is to a) see what the critics are saying and then b) see what the audience reaction is/has been. In some cases the critics have panned a film while the audience has loved it. In others, the critics have loved it but the audience reviews have been negative. Since the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, I'll take a punt if it's something I had had my eye on or had been looking forward to anyway, but if it's only a 'that looks interesting...' thing then I won't bother. And it should go without saying that if critics and audience agree that something is great, I'll be there...and if they agree it's rotten, well, if it's something I've been really looking forward to, I might go anyway (which I'm fully expecting to be the case with the Blade Runner sequel).

I'm always cautious about fan reactions to big cultural things (Star Wars, Star Trek) or movies based on books that have a large, passionate fan-base (like DT), though, because fans aren't the most reasonable, rational people. Individually, they can be, but as a group entity, definitely not. But hey, 'fan' is short for 'fanatic' and you don't generally expect fanatics to react in a reasonable or logical manner. Everything is either Wonderful! The Best Thing Ever ('Til The Next Great Thing)!, or it's irredeemably sh!t and they're off to see what carbon monoxide's like because they can't live with how irredeemably sh!t the thing was, it's single-handedly ruined their lives, etc, etc.
So then, generally, I'll rely more on a few professional critics whose opinions, over the years, have seemed fairly well in tune with my own and whom I've come to trust. Any hint of snobbishness, I'll ignore (though if they're snobby as a matter of course, chances are I disregarded them long ago).
As it stands, with particular regard to the DT film, all the professional reviews from those I follow have been generally negative. Only one has picked out things that work, but even then the tone is one of 'these things are OK, but get swamped and dragged down by the rest', and I was on the fence about some of the decisions surrounding the film in the first place.
Given all that, I think I'll save my money and catch it in a few months when it arrives on TV/Netflix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Vivy

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
2
3
72
After reading the reviews and the rotten tomatoes score of 18%, I decided not to watch the movie. I wanted so hard for this movie to be good and the disappointment is huge. Here is what I would have done different.

The source material for the first book is so good, why go make something different? Sony suffered from a lack of vision and faith in the source material. Why try to remake the wheel?

The first book in the series should have been the easiest to portray on the big screen because of the episodic nature of the "The Gunslinger".

I would have set out to make a six movie series based on books 1-3 and 5-7. I agree that W&G should be made into a TV series. That is one thing that the producers got right.

There is enough material in the first book for a 2 hour movie. I haven't seen the movie, but I'm guessing that a lot of elements of the first book didn't make it to the movie. The incident in Tull and the attack under the mountain by the Slow Mutants were what I was most looking forward to.

Could you imagine how fun it would be to watch the gunslinger murder everybody in a town? This would have established Roland's anti-hero's credentials. The only thing I would have changed from the book is that I would end it with the story of how Roland won his guns. I would have the scene where Roland finally catches up to the Man in Black, and Walter reads Roland's future. I would end the movie in a dream sequence, showing how he first began his quest.

This would set up the second movie with the attack on Roland by the Lobstrosities and his trek along the Clean Sea. The second movie would roughly coincide with "A Drawing of the Three" Susannah Dean would be the star of the second movie. The third movie would include most of what happened in "The Wastelands" This would probably be a little longer than the first two movies, due to the length of the book. I always thought that "The Wastelands" was one of the strongest book in the series and the one that really hooked me.

The Dark Tower had potential of becoming another LOTR or Star Wars, but that dream appears dead. I can only hope that one day someone will either make a television series about the Dark Tower or another studio will take another shot at it (pun intended).

I've often heard at how difficult it would be to portray a story as rich as "The Dark Tower" on the big screen. I disagree because of LOTR and Harry Potter series. Both of those books were big in scale, with a rich well of source material. Both of those series were exceptional. Why should the "Dark Tower" be any different?

I'm not sure if the movie did well enough to warrant a sequel, but if not, I think that the next producer and director who decides to tackle the story, be a fan of the series. They need Stephen King in the studio to ensure that the movie does the book some sort of justice.

So the question remains.....what do you think went wrong with the first portrayal of the one of greatest fantasy series in modern literature? I'm especially interested in the opinions of those who saw the movie.
Good choice not to see it. It was so frustrating and sad. Not the book at all. Jake was not the hero. So sad and mad! Vivy
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,507
357,509
58
Cambridge, Ohio
....people still haven't gotten the point, that this film had no aspirations to be a faithful re-telling....in their defense, it took me a long while to wrap my head around the fact we weren't going to see an attempt at bringing the Opus to the huddled masses....however, it was certainly no secret and was pretty much slathered all over the Inter-webs....yet, the wailing and gnashing of teeth continues.......
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
....people still haven't gotten the point, that this film had no aspirations to be a faithful re-telling....in their defense, it took me a long while to wrap my head around the fact we weren't going to see an attempt at bringing the Opus to the huddled masses....however, it was certainly no secret and was pretty much slathered all over the Inter-webs....yet, the wailing and gnashing of teeth continues.......
To be fair, I don't think it is them (the general teeth-gnashing audience) that hasn't gotten the point. It isn't what people wanted. The only real point, or lesson from this exercise is you give the people what THEY WANT not what you think they want.
 

staropeace

Richard Bachman's love child
Nov 28, 2006
15,209
48,840
Alberta,Canada
I think I would go see it if I could actually hear it. It is one of the ones I probably would see but it would just come out muffled. Consider yourselves lucky that you have an option. I NEVER like a movie as much as a book so I would not be disappointed with expectation. We are Ka-Tet. Maybe folks who were not part of our merry group would just like the movie on it's own merits. Say thankya!
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,507
357,509
58
Cambridge, Ohio
To be fair, I don't think it is them (the general teeth-gnashing audience) that hasn't gotten the point. It isn't what people wanted. The only real point, or lesson from this exercise is you give the people what THEY WANT not what you think they want.
.....yet another example of wanting instant gratification....
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
.....yet another example of wanting instant gratification....
Heh. Why shouldn't we want instant gratification? It is a movie. That is all movies are... if a theater-goer didn't want instant gratification... they would read the book. :) I'm not arguing with you; I'm simply stating the obvious. From the start, it was foolish to make a movie called The Dark Tower which wasn't going to actually be an attempt to adapt the Dark Tower. Nobody here or anywhere else was asking for a sequel (or a reboot in this case). The fans wanted the books. Those that never read the books just want a good film with something they haven't seen before. This film managed to fail on both fronts.

The name of this thread is "what went wrong?" I submit it went wrong from the very start. They made a film that nobody was asking for, titled it after one of the greatest epics in literature, and then play surprised that it doesn't impress. I've looked at the film on its own merits. It isn't any better. It goes without saying what happens when you look at it compared to the books. In regards to instant gratification, I actually think that is a bit of red herring. Audiences have shown they want longer films these days. They appear perfectly content to take YEARS to resolve a story. Besides, this film has been (literally) decades in trying to get made. With it taking this long, I don't think anyone can be blamed for having high expectations.
 

danie

I am whatever you say I am.
Feb 26, 2008
9,760
60,662
56
Kentucky
....people still haven't gotten the point, that this film had no aspirations to be a faithful re-telling....in their defense, it took me a long while to wrap my head around the fact we weren't going to see an attempt at bringing the Opus to the huddled masses....however, it was certainly no secret and was pretty much slathered all over the Inter-webs....yet, the wailing and gnashing of teeth continues.......
People have gotten the point. Most of the posters in this thread have stated that they know it's not a faithful re-telling. So, now that they know that, they just need to never talk about it, right? If I even dare to bring it up, I am wailing? I'm gnashing my teeth?

Hey, everyone that knows this movie isn't an adaptation of Mr. King's books, stop posting about that! Because you know about it, you are no longer allowed to express your feelings on that subject without someone saying you are being a baby, crying and wailing and gnashing your teeth. Once you are aware about something you don't like, you should keep your mouth shut about it.


Or I guess we could let people complain about things and understand that everyone has a different opinion (without insulting them for having that opinion).
 

Spideyman

Uber Member
Jul 10, 2006
46,025
192,671
75
Just north of Duma Key
I think I would go see it if I could actually hear it. It is one of the ones I probably would see but it would just come out muffled. Consider yourselves lucky that you have an option. I NEVER like a movie as much as a book so I would not be disappointed with expectation. We are Ka-Tet. Maybe folks who were not part of our merry group would just like the movie on it's own merits. Say thankya!
staropeace
have you seen this:

and this tell about availability in Canada:
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,507
357,509
58
Cambridge, Ohio
People have gotten the point. Most of the posters in this thread have stated that they know it's not a faithful re-telling. So, now that they know that, they just need to never talk about it, right? If I even dare to bring it up, I am wailing? I'm gnashing my teeth?

Hey, everyone that knows this movie isn't an adaptation of Mr. King's books, stop posting about that! Because you know about it, you are no longer allowed to express your feelings on that subject without someone saying you are being a baby, crying and wailing and gnashing your teeth. Once you are aware about something you don't like, you should keep your mouth shut about it.


Or I guess we could let people complain about things and understand that everyone has a different opinion (without insulting them for having that opinion).
...you are taking this in a way unintended...I am referring to those who have become "new members" only to gripe about King and be pissed over the fact they didn't get what they wanted.....that's where my thoughts lay.....not to insult those who have come and discussed this in a reasonable fashion, pro or con...I will endeavor to be more specific in the future, with my insulting behavior....
 

danie

I am whatever you say I am.
Feb 26, 2008
9,760
60,662
56
Kentucky
...you are taking this in a way unintended...I am referring to those who have become "new members" only to gripe about King and be pissed over the fact they didn't get what they wanted.....that's where my thoughts lay.....not to insult those who have come and discussed this in a reasonable fashion, pro or con...I will endeavor to be more specific in the future, with my insulting behavior....
They (new members) should be able to come here and express their opinions, many of whom have done so perfectly reasonably only to have members insult them. And Robert Gray isn't a new member, and this
.....yet another example of wanting instant gratification....
is being reasonable? He presents his points very reasonably without being insulting to those who would differ with his opinions. "Yet another example..." just says, "I'm dismissing everything you say because your opinion is not mine." Let's "discuss this in a reasonable fashion," yes; let's.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,507
357,509
58
Cambridge, Ohio
They (new members) should be able to come here and express their opinions, many of whom have done so perfectly reasonably only to have members insult them. And Robert Gray isn't a new member, and this

is being reasonable? He presents his points very reasonably without being insulting to those who would differ with his opinions. "Yet another example..." just says, "I'm dismissing everything you say because your opinion is not mine." Let's "discuss this in a reasonable fashion," yes; let's.
...again, Robert knew where I was coming from and took no insult....I was merely commenting on people being so accustomed to getting what they want-when and how they want it, they don't react well when it's denied.....not sure why you're spoiling for a fight, but I'm not giving it you....I'm out and will refrain from injuring anyone's feelings further.....
 
If It Bleeds - New Collection Coming 4/21/2020 The Institute - Available Now The Outsider - Now Available in Trade Paperback!