Simple, great story that was very interesting. Not sure the reason as to create this whole new world that may end up being trash when you have gold material on hand.
I don't get it.
All Hail Zorg
Because the wheel turned at the end of the last book, so the story can continue.
Hey, having a great book doesn't mean it will definitely make a great movie. Sometimes projects are botched. Sometimes stories don't transcend to the big screen very well. It has the potential to be trash whether or not there is preexisting material.
I'm sorry you don't like what you've heard/seen so far, but this also has the potential to be gold, too. Some disagree and that's fine, but none of us will actually know until we get a finished product.
The Gunslinger as is would make a crap movie. Good book, but it wouldn't translate well. The audience would hate Roland.
shareSo you have this wonderful piece of fiction with millions of fans ready to be sculpted into a great movie but naaa. You'd rather create something completely new and use the reputation of the books as a launching pad.
How do you know it wouldn't translate well? Have you ever written a screenplay and had it produced?
Every King book made into a movie that relied on source material was very good and every one that went off script sucked.
All Hail Zorg
They're not "creating something new and using the reputation of the books," though. They're continuing the story where the books left off. Roland was given a do-over. Now we get to see how he do.
shareGee, with a rebuttal like that, I sure hope you don't complain about how unoriginal Hollywood is...
Grant discovered raptor eggs in Jurassic Park
I agree, Butch. Choosing the Tower over the life of a child? That's protagonist murder right there. General audiences wouldn't get it at all. Hell, I didn't even get it and I'm a huge fan of the series. I had stated before how much I resented Roland for that decision a few months ago. I got over it (obviously), but he had a lot of proving to do to get back into my good graces!
shareChoosing the Tower over the life of a child?
Actually, I didn't care why because in my estimation there was no reason that would satisfy me. I'm not sure if it was in the original or just the revision, but Roland even came up with a couple different scenarios for ways he could have handled everything differently. I think *he* even knew the ends weren't going to justify the means. I honestly think it would deter audiences from a sequel.
shareThe thing is the first book is so polarizing for readers. Its a hard read for some people. Doing it this way can draw more people easily. I think we can get a more direct adaptation of DT2 down the line. I really think Jake will die in this movie. And be the 3 door in the sequel.
shareI AM mad that we're probably not getting a TULL scene though:(
shareSay what? Why aren't we getting a Tull scene?! That would be a let down!
shareIts just speculation. Since no alice, nort, etc have been Cast. People have theorized Tull may full of Taheen instead.
shareWow, I didn't even pick up on that. Very good point. That is disappointing! *sigh* Well, maybe we'll get something better, or maybe it's been reworked somehow. Hopefully that trailer will show up and give us a little more insight.
shareChoosing the Tower over the life of a child? That's protagonist murder right there. General audiences wouldn't get it at all.
Hold on a second... Let's take a big old time out, Ben. Were you implying that I don't want to see my hero murder a child... because I'm a girl? And here, I thought I just didn't enjoy that because I was a human being.
We do live in a cruel world. Yes, this is true. That is why we go to the movies though; to get away from that crap! And the reason we love our heroes has a lot more to do with the fact that they protect the world or the woman or the child. I certainly don't believe the movie should be about "roasting marshmallows by a campfire," but a story where my hero doesn't let a child fall will help me love him more.
I flipping hate Titanic, by the way. It's on my list of top 10 most hated movies. I can appreciate complexity. I can just do so without watching a child die if it need not happen.
joannatn's Ka-tet.
Didn't know you were female, BTW.
But dude; do you really want a Roland who is pure-at-heart at the very start?
Aside from the Tull massacre, watching a child (Jake) die is what first introduces us to this guys cold-heart; and is suppose to evoke apprehension in the novel.
If this was omitted from the film (and I suspect it probably already has), all we'd have is a Road Trip film with a bunch of buddies...and at no point will anyone ever need to think of Roland as 'The Really Bad Man'.
Black History Will Now Be Accepting Martyrs👮
I disagree. We live in a cruel World where sht happens daly. So how would General Audiences not 'Get It'? I not only think General Audiences will get it, but will embrace it.I do think that audiences would get the cruelty of Roland's world and many might even embrace it, especially given the popularity of shows like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, etc. But there are always some people that will be turned off by such things. I personally wouldn't mind it if Roland stayed the same flawed character he was in the books; flawed heroes tend to be more interesting to me, even if they're not necessarily more likeable. But, of course, not everyone feels the same way.
Cruelty is nothing new.
I wouldn't wanna watch 4 or 5 DT movies featuring a Gunslinger being a Goody-Two-Shoes that fights for Truth, Justice and The American Way. Eddie and Suze loved Roland, but still harbored a fear of him because of all he confessed; and realized deep down they were just as expendable as the bodies he left along his journey.
They knew that Roland had drawn them for specific purpose/reason; and it wasn't to roast marshmallows by a campfire. They understood that they were there to be either pawn or sacrifice.
Jake knew this more than either of them.
No offense, but females love crybaby Titanic love stories, but Roland should remain the selfish, Anti-Hero.Agree with the selfish anti-hero sentiment, but as a woman who would definitely not list romance as one of my preferred movie genres, I strongly disagree with the "women love crybaby Titanic love stories" sentiment. (Also, there are plenty of men who like the romance genre, though many might not like to admit it. In fact, some of the more popular romance movies in recent years - The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, and Dear John, to name a few - are based on books written by a man.) share
I don't know why I always automatically assume I'm talking to a guy on these message boards.
Stupid habit that I need to shake.
Black History Will Now Be Accepting Martyrs👮
I don't know why I always automatically assume I'm talking to a guy on these message boards.Ha - well you're not alone there. Several people I've talked to here over the years have assumed I was a guy for some reason. I always figured my rather girly username would let most people know I'm a woman, but I guess that name could be used by a gay man or a male Powerpuff Girls fan lol. It's cool. share
Stupid habit that I need to shake.
Is cool. I'll tactfully ignore the ka-tet jab, but I'm with Sug. I thought Joanna was traditionally a girl's name, but you weren't the first to mistake my gender 'round these parts.
Ben, I totally get what you and Sug are saying. But I just always believed that the Tower chose Roland's fate based on the horrible, damning decisions he made along the way. Stopping a child from dying doesn't make him "a good man." He simply shows a shred of humanity. I understand a character being flawed and making tough decisions, but I think there are levels. Roland, for instance, making the tough decision to break Susan's heart in his youth. He was willing to do that (but he had no idea what was actually going to happen to her), whether or not it was the "good" thing to do. He can still be that flawed, complex character even if he chooses not to let Jake drop. Eddie and Susannah? He loved them. By Wizard and Glass he confesses that he no longer considers them pawns and expendable. He gives them the option to bow out if they want to try and find their ways home. He gives them the choice to stay, and later on when member of the ka-tet reach the clearing at the end of the path, it was because of choices they made and not because Roland let them fall.
Ah, well. We all have our hopes for the story, and none of us are wrong in those hopes. But the creators of said movie aren't going to make everyone happy. Hopefully we'll still get a product we all can enjoy.
He should not only let Jake drop in the first film, but should spit on him on the way down.
But wasn't it Walter/Flagg who tossed this Katet in Roland's path in the first place?
He sent him Jake; whom Roland thought of as a trap.
Then he convinces him to draw two more companions.
I wonder what would have happened had Roland left Jake at the station and walked past all those doors on the beach.
No sacrifices to worry about.
Straight to the Tower all by himself. Horn in hand.
I just wonder.
Black History Will Now Be Accepting Martyrs👮
Isn't the point of the Dark Tower to give Roland a "Do Over"?
All Hail Zorg
Essentially...yes. When he finally has the horn in the Mohaine, the scenario becomes a "New Game +".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewGamePlus.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Personally, I was much more upset by the death of Oy than I was him dropping Jake. I think he needs to keep that ruthless "I will do whatever it takes to finish my quest" mentality. Yes I realize that is not an endearing quality to many people, but it does make up the core of Roland.
shareBasically, because the people behind this production are complete morons. They have great books to adapt but instead of doing that they are making stupid sh*t up and slapping the Dark Tower name on it.
A proper adaption by people who actually bothered to read the books and had some respect for them would be great... Instead we have this future bomb with its cheap director, poor writer and publicity stunt casting of Roland.