Okay, I get what you're saying now. I just needed the explanation--not spoiling for a fight (surprised at this phrasing since you and I have known each other a looooong time), but spoiling for a reasonable discussion.
What went wrong?
- Thread starter The Mad Dog of Gilead
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
...sorry, nerves are raw from real life things and I'm not playing well with others....
I think this guy is very right about why the first book at least would never be filmed literally:
You can see Hollywood executives coming to the part in Tull and going: 'Wait, the hero kills EVERYONE in town? The HERO...?'
I doubt even in a tv-series they would do that.
You can see Hollywood executives coming to the part in Tull and going: 'Wait, the hero kills EVERYONE in town? The HERO...?'
I doubt even in a tv-series they would do that.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Whether or not they have the courage to shoot it has no bearing on whether or not audiences would react favorably to it. Roland isn't a hero in the first book. That is entirely the point. He is, at best, an anti-hero. Sai King himself, in several interviews as well as written commentaries, has spoken to the fact that Roland isn't likable (paraphrased at best) at the end of the book. But not likable isn't the same as not compelling. Roland is compelling in that story, no matter how angry one is at the end of it. None of us is any angrier at Roland than Roland is with himself. I happen to believe that the book will be filmed very close to the source material one day, and I will double down and say it will be very well received. Audiences have, time and time again, shown that anti-heroes do interest them.
I'll take the third option.
I'll admit I haven't seen it, but also say its probably not bad. It is probably GOOD for what it is or what have been a great fun adventure movie had been it made pre-Game of Thrones and LOTR adaptations. Think...in the 80s or 90s. I think the reason for the backlash is because people expect more from their fantasy adaptations these days. They do and if you deliver material that isn't on A-Game for a book series which usually makes top 10-20 greatest fantasy series ever written list than people ain't going to be happy.
They just won't.
I can respect that and in time I'm sure there will be more DT material in film and television which is more fitting to what is wanted. It is probably a good movie, though overall.
Will I see it? I don't know. I just don't have any desire to atm. Not cause of the changes or anything or reviews...I'm just not pumped.
I'll see IT, though....ironically.
I'm not big on IT book but love Dark Tower LOL
I'll admit I haven't seen it, but also say its probably not bad. It is probably GOOD for what it is or what have been a great fun adventure movie had been it made pre-Game of Thrones and LOTR adaptations. Think...in the 80s or 90s. I think the reason for the backlash is because people expect more from their fantasy adaptations these days. They do and if you deliver material that isn't on A-Game for a book series which usually makes top 10-20 greatest fantasy series ever written list than people ain't going to be happy.
They just won't.
I can respect that and in time I'm sure there will be more DT material in film and television which is more fitting to what is wanted. It is probably a good movie, though overall.
Will I see it? I don't know. I just don't have any desire to atm. Not cause of the changes or anything or reviews...I'm just not pumped.
I'll see IT, though....ironically.
I'm not big on IT book but love Dark Tower LOL
I haven't seen the film yet, but the marketing alone seems to try to make Roland into a full hero. On the posters he is seen in heroic poses, with taglines like 'One sworn to destroy it, one sworn to protect it.' and 'In a world of superheroes there is only one gunslinger'. The whole tone of the trailer is one of a triumphing hero rather than a tormented anti-hero.
I think too audiences are interested in anti-heroes. Isn't Batman a kind of anti-hero? But in general Hollywood seems to prefer straight heroes. They would have to trust the audience is able to empathise with Roland as he is in the first book and I think they don't. It is the franchise starter after all and it doesn't show Roland's best side. Will the audience come back after such a dark film in which the hero hates himself? I think if you got the right actor it might work very well, any good actor would find it a challenge. But it won't be blockbuster material most likely, and that's what they seem to have wanted with the way they have presented the film as it is: a summer blockbuster.
Batman is more of a hero than an anti-hero. He's dark, brooding, and yes uses extreme methods at times but he's still very much heroic. Bruce would have NEVER let Jake fall and chosen to go after The Man in Black.
He'd probably instinctively go after the boy instead.
He'd probably instinctively go after the boy instead.
I can't make up my mind. I was very enthusiastic about the trailer and we have been waiting so long for it. But the whole buzz has been so negative. And then with the short length... I'm just afraid I will come out so disappointed.
There's a review that compared it to Neverending Story, so it may have that '80s fantasy vibe you talk of, rather than the gritty GoT fantasy. But then they also may allude to the fact that it's more Jake's story now than Roland's, seen from his eyes, just like the child from that film.
I'm no filmmaker and have never aspired to be one and any opinion I have should taken with a grain of salt. But if audience interest was strong enough and so on and there was a HUGE budget...I'd of gone this route for The Gunslinger adaptation.
R- Rating: The Gunslinger movie - You start with Jake so that the viewers are going to experience this weird world through him. Next, have him go to Mid-World and STAY there or have him be there at the start. He meets Roland, they travel and so on. ACTUALLY, maybe have Jake be with Roland when he guns down Tull.
Yet really focus on their relationship and have them both show their different sides.
Have it end with Roland letting Jake fall.
Next movie or season or whatever - You can easily have Roland as the main focus and it be a massive twist when he meets Eddie and so on. He can also be grappling with his choice from the previous installment.
Something like that?
R- Rating: The Gunslinger movie - You start with Jake so that the viewers are going to experience this weird world through him. Next, have him go to Mid-World and STAY there or have him be there at the start. He meets Roland, they travel and so on. ACTUALLY, maybe have Jake be with Roland when he guns down Tull.
Yet really focus on their relationship and have them both show their different sides.
Have it end with Roland letting Jake fall.
Next movie or season or whatever - You can easily have Roland as the main focus and it be a massive twist when he meets Eddie and so on. He can also be grappling with his choice from the previous installment.
Something like that?
Also, Last Action Hero is a good movie. Silly, but alright. The comparisons don't make sense just cause both feature children traveling to another world. I mean that's a huge part of literature in general. Last Action Hero ain't Citizen Kane nor is it the best comedic deconstruction action movie, but it does exactly what its supposed to do. It is a parody/deconstruction of an action movie.
It is more like Hot Fuzz than say a serious fantastical film. Also, Hot Fuzz is easily the best movie mentioned so far on this thread btw ..well, except Citizen Kane. Everyone go watch those two movies
It is more like Hot Fuzz than say a serious fantastical film. Also, Hot Fuzz is easily the best movie mentioned so far on this thread btw ..well, except Citizen Kane. Everyone go watch those two movies
Last edited:
After reading this thread I have finally made up my mind about seeing the movie. Way to go danie for calling out the b.s. and pointing out the things that needed to be pointed out! I want all opinions, whether based on experience or thought or whatever. While I hope this venture will expose new readers to Mr. King's work I think they did a disservice to Mr. King's stories legacy. At the end of the day if Mr. King doesn't care then I support that, and hopefully laugh with him. I'll see it eventually and probably like it. I'm not that critical and very forgiving. Last point...the person who started this thread should have directed it...I think he's definitely on the right path! I'm just one more idiot full of sound and fury. All the best, mal.
Okay, last post.
The Dark Tower movie was money wasted. No, not cause it was faithful or bad or nothing like that. It is probably good. They made it a movie about a young boy's adventure in another world. They made it a movie about a young boy's adventure in another world in a time where darker PG-13 is the desired rating, children's and YA stuff is booming, and so on.
DT does have Jake in another more world, but its not his like focused coming of age story. So, yeah...A YOUNG BOY'S ADVENTURE IN ANOTHER WORLD.
Come on IT, Stranger Things, Disney making all their movies live action and even an Anne of Green Gables series?
This was wrong to use that money on DT.
We all KNOW the book that needs funding for an adaptation with a BIG fat runtime.
They should have championed that book which I'm referring to. I would TRAVEL to the theaters in a heartbeat.
The Dark Tower movie was money wasted. No, not cause it was faithful or bad or nothing like that. It is probably good. They made it a movie about a young boy's adventure in another world. They made it a movie about a young boy's adventure in another world in a time where darker PG-13 is the desired rating, children's and YA stuff is booming, and so on.
DT does have Jake in another more world, but its not his like focused coming of age story. So, yeah...A YOUNG BOY'S ADVENTURE IN ANOTHER WORLD.
Come on IT, Stranger Things, Disney making all their movies live action and even an Anne of Green Gables series?
This was wrong to use that money on DT.
We all KNOW the book that needs funding for an adaptation with a BIG fat runtime.
They should have championed that book which I'm referring to. I would TRAVEL to the theaters in a heartbeat.
Last edited:
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Yes and no. They did simplify the film down, painfully so, to White Hat versus Black Hat. Roland is the hero. The Man in Black is the villain. Jake is the fulcrum. It would be more accurate to say that they made Roland into the "reluctant" hero who needs a little reminding (although not much) to get him going. I have literally seen this film at least ten times before, i.e. this exact same thing with different costumes and masks. I think that, more than anything else, is problematic. We are told he is this awesome cool Gunslinger but it is largely out of context and meaningless because no time has been taken to show rather than tell. A few action sequences of shoot'em'up isn't enough these days to define THE Gunslinger. More to the point, Roland's defining characteristic has been more his relentless willpower, his snapping turtle tenacity, and unintentional sense of humor. When we look back at the westerns from which the general idea is drawn, i.e. the man with no name, we find a character who says little, is defined by his actions, and whom in short order we know is the BEST at what he does.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966) might be the perfect example of what I'm talking about because it has not one such character but three. Ostensibly none of them are heroes, and some of them are down right evil. They are anti-heroes all. We go along for the ride with these mercenaries pursuing a simple, selfish goal because of our interest in their characters. Are their gunfights? Sure. Is there lots of action? Certainly. But whereas the most recent film is simplistic and makes the characters barely fleshed out cartoons, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly invests us utterly. The final showdown isn't some massive, long battle. It is simple, brutal and quick... and yet totally satisfying. This is because we did the work to get there. It wasn't just another gunfight. So in the modern film we have the Gunslinger battling his way through countless minions, a fantastical duel with the Man in Black, and an escape from an exploding base. All that and it still felt forced an anti-climactic. In the older film, we have a simple showdown involving three men and a total of three shots. At the end you cheer, breath a sigh of relief or simply laugh. Am I being fair in comparing this recent film to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? Yes, I think I'm being totally fair. I think one showcases what the other one lacked.
I think they would. The Hateful Eight did very well. Personally I think Kurt Russel (whom we have also seen in Tombstone) should be old Roland. We have seen him play several parts which emulate bits of Roland. He has the acting chops. He has the look, and the eyes. But that is neither here nor there. I think people would go. I think people would be entranced. I think people would come back for the sequel. Hollywood has a tendency to underestimate its audience.
....my "guy" is for certain an "anti-hero", but made a butt-load of money at the box office....I speak of course, of Deadpool.....
But why focus on Jake? It's the story of Roland. I don't even get why in the actual movie they focus on Jake. I can see their need to condense the eight books for the screen, but why do that by looking at it from Jake's perspective? There could have been other ways to do that.
Wow - this is quite a thread. For as long as I've been reading about adapting DT, I've always had the notion that it simply cannot be done, at least in a satisfactory manner. Then when I saw the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films, I realized that the game had changed in terms of what Hollywood can produce that will both please longtime fans and create new ones. It can be done; we've seen the results. BUT - to do so requires an incredible commitment from so many entities: studio execs, producers, writers, directors, actors, etc. And then there's the big financial gamble, which every film is really.
Given the rather troubled production history of this DT 'adaptation', I can't help but think that the forces behind it ultimately just did not believe whole-heartedly in the project. So the end result is a 90 minute action film, touching upon on only the most basic elements of the series. It's a no-win scenario and the execs can only hope that the marketing draws enough people in to break even or make a small profit.
Now, I haven't seen the film yet. I will eventually, as I have it feeling it will hit Redbox within the next couple of months. I'm glad to have read the reviews, at least I'll have advance warning on what to expect, and maybe I can enjoy the film on it's own merit.
Given the rather troubled production history of this DT 'adaptation', I can't help but think that the forces behind it ultimately just did not believe whole-heartedly in the project. So the end result is a 90 minute action film, touching upon on only the most basic elements of the series. It's a no-win scenario and the execs can only hope that the marketing draws enough people in to break even or make a small profit.
Now, I haven't seen the film yet. I will eventually, as I have it feeling it will hit Redbox within the next couple of months. I'm glad to have read the reviews, at least I'll have advance warning on what to expect, and maybe I can enjoy the film on it's own merit.
So, I will admit to two things. I have not seen the movie, and I did not read ALL the comments here but I do have an answer to the original posted question. "What went wrong?"
Its simple.
They made a movie that should of never been made, and to throw salt in the wound they miscast the lead character horribly, and if you didn't accept that the director himself said you were a "racist" and all that happened before the first still shot came out.
Its simple.
They made a movie that should of never been made, and to throw salt in the wound they miscast the lead character horribly, and if you didn't accept that the director himself said you were a "racist" and all that happened before the first still shot came out.
Disagree, they could have made a good product, they choose to just put something out. They discarded the decade of work put into the project by far more talented people, and in the end, in a rush to get something out, created a generic summer action piece, aimed at no particular audience, while simultaneously throwing a bunch of meaningless SK buzz words and images, hoping no one would notice that Sony and MRC should really get out of the film business.
My answer to the question in the thread title is:
Akiva Goldsman.
Akiva Goldsman.