The movie adaptation has recently been revealed to be a sequel to The Dark Tower book series. The movie will begin where the books technically end, now with Roland beginning his quest once again, only this time with the 'Horn of Eld' in his gunna.
All Hail Zorg
Correct.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
hmmmm, ok so that changes things a bit for me. Not sure why they would do that but ok.
Why not follow source material that has been beloved by fans for decades?
I've been waiting on a Dark Tower movie for 20 years. I guess we are not really going to get one, or at least how i've imagined it.
Still looking for the trailer thou or that script someone posted they have read.
All Hail Zorg
It's odd isn't it, why not adapt the books, nobody wants a sequel to the books, basically a pointless spinoff.
I guess it's a way for them to do what the hell they want and sell it on the back of the books and Kings name. Oh well.
Its not odd at all. If you do a straight adaptation, then every awful fanboy will stand up at any difference between screen and source material screaming "BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED IN THE BOOKS!!!!!"
It makes perfect sense. It allows them to tell a familiar story but with the freedom to make changes.
Moreover, if you adapt the source material, how much? Just he original seven books? Anything from wind in a keyhole? What about the comics or other outcroppings? What about other King books?
Let us not forget that this gives the filmmakers the ability to completely ignore the meta-aspects of the books.
--
Listen to them—the children of the night. What music they make!
And ignoring the books entirely, using a few names and slapping the Dark Tower name on it under the ill advised idea of it being a sequel will somehow stop people who actually want the films to be the like the books (that crazy idea) will stop people being annoyed at massive changes?
It makes no sense at all. Nobody asked for a sequel to the books, so that not only does it make for a cr*p film it actively negatively impacts the ending of the book.
They follow the books aside from Wind in the keyhole, which is unrelated to the main story anyway. Not that complicated.
[quote] allows them to tell a familiar story but with the freedom to make changes. [/quote
]
Or they could have just rename it, changed the name of characters and make their own film instead? I know slapping 'the dark tower' in the title will more then likely sell more tickets but if they want to make something different then they should just go and make something different.
I have a feeling I would find a similar thread on the new star trek movies
Lo-Pan, which Lo-Pan, the basket case on wheels or the ten foot tall road block?
My guess on why the movie is a sequel is because the original goal was too ambitious. Originally, Ron Howard had wanted to do a trilogy of movies, with two television miniseries filling in the gaps. For years, Howard and Goldsman worked to get the project off of the ground, often being told the first film was too costly (iirc, there was once a projected budget of $150 - $200 million for just first movie).
With something that is not half as well known was Lord of the Rings in 1999, greenlighting the entire trilogy and two miniseries, would be too risky.
--
Listen to them—the children of the night. What music they make!
Yeah because why be ambitious and at least attempt to do it right? Because it's such a good idea to aim low and do it on the cheap with just another in name only King adaption.
shareThe movie/tv thing is still the basic plan, assuming people who can't get past the skin color of the lead actor don't cause the first movie to bomb.
shareOh it's going to bomb.
share"It's going to bomb."
Mind making that a prediction? How do you define "bomb"? If it makes its budget back, does that qualify it as "not bombing"? Or does it need to make that twice over? Thrice? Be specific. That way, when it gets released we can either call you sage or laugh in your face. But let's not do the thing where it comes out, makes its budget back and then you say, "Oh, but it needed to make it twice over to not be a failure." Let's prevent you from (as you will very much want to do) moving the goalposts. That's a football term. It's a terrible sport. As is the sport *you* call football.
The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed.
Not sure why they would do that
Partly because it gives the filmmakers the freedom to explore other aspects of the The Dark Tower universe without being beholden to scriptu...er, strict canon.
Series spoiler below for those of you who many not want to know how the whole thing concludes before seeing the movies:
But... Okay, am I remembering the ending of the series incorrectly? Because isn't it just like a hard reset with one minor alteration? Because isn't he just thrown right back to where the series began (for the readers), only this time Roland actually saved the horn?So just because it's a "sequel," considering the way the series ended, all of those characters we knew and loved (as in I loved Eddie so hard they BETTER do Drawing of the Three) can easily be reintroduced.
Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but a sequel of this nature seems rather inspired.
.pmuB
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .