Dark Tower Palaver Podcast - The Dark Tower (2017) Discussion

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

Will check it out now :)

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

Great quote. I used to have "Why are you wearing that stupid man suit" for the better part of my 12 years on imdb.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

Heh thanks. Yeah love that movie. Sad that Richard Kelly didn't really have another Darko-class film in him.

On another note, loving that podcast. Will be my eardrug of choice for the forseeable future :)

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

Agreed about Richard Kelly. I check his filmography every other year hoping he got a new promising projects coming up, but I'm beginning to doubt that he'll pull off another movie even remotely as good as Donnie Darko. What an exceptional movie!

I'm glad you enjoy the podcast! The bookclub episodes are so much fun when you're reading the book at the same time as they do. They're now about 300 pages behind my own Dark Tower reading but t'was fun as long as it lasted. Looking forward to the new live show.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

So, as I was listening to episodes trying to get up to date I came upon an episode where they started discussing a - supposedly old - version of the script. In detail. I switched off immediately. I've seen people discuss the/a script here on the boards and I don't understand why you'd ever want to read a script of a movie you're excited to watch. It would be like someone telling you what every scene is going to be like.

I don't know... other people don't seem to mind, might just be me, but I'm not risking learning more about individual scenes etc.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

Wow I'm glad that I missed that episode, I never heard the guys talk about script details. I have no plans to listen to that either by the way, I'm even put off by that amateur video people have made of The Leper in "IT". I want to be as surprised as one can be with a book adaptation once it hits the screen, especially with something as important to me as a Stephen King adaptation.

I strongly recommend the interview they posted with Anthony Breznican from Entertainment Weekly though, if you haven't listened to that yet. There's some extremely interesting tidbits in there, Anthony was on set in South Africa and was very careful not to spoil anything beyond what he has already written about on EW.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] TaddWinter 8 years ago

It was an article claiming to have read the 2014 script, they gave some details but withheld a lot (so he claimed). We figured it would not be a huge deal for 2 reasons, first it was not the shooting script (it appears it may have had 3 re-writes between that script and the shooting script, including by Director Arcel which is a huge fan of the series), second it was a Round Table so we figured it was mostly readers listening all of which have a pretty good idea of what was going to be involved.

We hadn't read said script, just looked at the guys article. Hope the rest of the show has been enjoyable.

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed...

reply

[–] MaximusGrandimus 8 years ago

This is a great podcast. There was one piece of info I came across that kind of defeats a LOT of Spider's arguments. He keeps saying Arcel is a "hack" director who "obviously" hasn't read the book. And then dismisses when we bring up articles that state he used the writings of Stephen King (The Dark Tower in particular) to learn English. He says all this because he cast Elba as Roland, ignoring the obvious melanin difference between the two.

And the real funny thing is, the podcast where they discuss the fact that Arcel learned English from Stephen King books, is from LOOOONG before they even started casting. This, and McCaunahey was cast as The Man in Black long before Idris Elba was cast as Roland.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

You're right about that of course, defies pretty much all of the ignorant hate he has spouted around here. I had no idea that Spider-Douche is still posting though, the ignore button works a charm for me. :)
I'm quite confident in Arcel, and I think it's a great thing that it's now people that grew up reading and loving King sitting in the directors chairs and writing the screenplays. Speaking of which, Anders Thomas Jensen, who co-wrote the script, is not only a huge Stephen King fan but also, and I can't stress this enough, a *beep* genius. He wrote a danish film called Haevnen, one of the most brilliant films I've seen in a long time, and "After the Wedding" which is extremely impressive too! I hope he was sufficiently involved in the writing process and will stay on board for possible sequels.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] TaddWinter 8 years ago

Thanks for the shout-out. I haven't looked in these parts for some time (when they deleted The Dark Tower page and board when it looked like it wasn't happening). Glad you are enjoying the show. I might have to keep an eye in these parts, though it seems there is an unsavory character around these parts. Seems to be a lot of talk about a particular person on a few of these threads.

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed...

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

You're definitely right about the unsavory character in these parts, as you've noticed by now, some people have a huge problem with our hero's casting and some are just trolling or spouting hate about the filmmakers. One guy, hopper27, actually started a petition to stop Idris Elba from playing Roland, can you imagine? It's a shame really because there's lots and lots of posters who have great discussions and inputs about The Dark Tower and Stephen King in general.

It would be great to have you posting here every now and then, but I get that the variety of negative posts put you off. In any case, what you guys contribute with the podcast is truly phenomenal already, I'm looking forward to the next episode on Wednesday. If you do want to keep an eye on imdb, you can easily filter out the majority of people who have forgotten the face of their fathers, spewing nothing but hate. I suggest you start by putting these posters on ignore, as these are completely unable to have a reasonable discussion.

Saul_Coulson
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur58886907/

tylerrepotter
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur46909397/

jigger-26015
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur67488883/

Sider198
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur9190303/

gogo_444_444
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5634204/

From the "It" board

Pozdnyshev
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23745625/

stones78
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23264446/

bossdog677
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur8330150/

Frenchie_Pred_The_Legend
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur54367689/

Long days and pleasant nights.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] TaddWinter 8 years ago

Yeah trolls will troll, but Idris is and amazing pick for Roland, I think he will do incredible.

Yeah I will keep an eye on here, I used to be super active on IMDB threads, I have been a IMDB-hound since the late 90's (pre-Amazon owning it) early 2000s I was really active but I deleted my account (can't recall why now) and started a new one in 2005. Honestly before the original IMDB page for TDT was deleted it was as dead as Tull, all it was at that point was a few people discussing fantasy casting or lamenting developmental hell.

Look forward to being involved in this corner of Dark Tower fandom, again.

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed...

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

I recognize most of the names on that list, and they are ugly personalities (at least here, online), so Sawyer_Lost appears to be in the right .

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] tinasparklesau 8 years ago

I disagree. That is actually an unfair list to put up. From my brief time on this board i have only seen people state their opinions. If their opinion runs to hating the casting or whatever it may be then they are entitled to that. Yes, some are more opinionated than others which may irk some posters, but who wants this to become a stepford wives board?

These are all opinions only and don't necessarily need to be challenged. Or they can/should be for the entertainment and or enjoyment of debate. Blocking/Ignoring posters or persecuting them to other posters doesn't appear to be helping this board: if anything it lowers the bar further.

I enjoy debate, challenge, friendly repartee, socialising in general etc etc on this board. Why try and exclude unpopular speech? If i may be so bold to express my opinion...: you yourself appear to pounce on opinion that you don't agree with.

Whereas i may agree with your opinions at times, you do present yourself as an antagonist at times. Just as much as the other antagonists you claim to abhor. I give you full respect for your intelligent posts, but i do think you use your wordsmith talents to embarrass or quiet their opinions. Kudos to you that you are able to do that, we all love winning an argument eh?

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Yet another false equivalency...big surprise .

"Difference of opinion" =/= "insulting the ever-loving sh** out of people at the drop of a hat and spreading false information born out of a Chicken Little mentality." The latter is garbage which in no way contributes positively to a message board.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] tinasparklesau 8 years ago

I don't believe i've done either of these.

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

In that specific instance, I was not referring to you.

There are others who have constantly engaged in tactics centered around the latter method of "contributing". However, you are (not so subtly) implying that those who push back against them are somehow equally egregious.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] tinasparklesau 8 years ago

You did accuse me of using false equivalency (again). At least it's not hyperbole this time. Who are these 'others' you are referring to? The 9 people that you agreed should be put on ignore because they expressed opinions that you disagreed with?

Or is it just one or two people that you go after? Like Hopper and Spider? Hopper was engaging positively until you brought to everyone's attention that once he was vehemently against Idris playing Roland (and maybe he still is, but that's not the issue, it's about posters contributing to discussion now). And Spider... sure his name calling isn't appropriate, but you constantly harass him yourself right back. At the moment, he's engaging quite politely with interesting opinions over on the favourite King books thread, are you going to derail that thread also?

I think you are more guilty of false equivalency than i am. You literally stop threads that were going just fine to encourage the haters to get back on their soapbox against individuals, not topics. How exactly does this help with 'contributing'?

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Oh, of that there is no ambiguity. You seem to have a fondness for equating, even when the individuals in question are different in their intent and approach.

I was under the impression you were referring to ""insulting the ever-loving sh** out of people at the drop of a hat and spreading false information born out of a Chicken Little mentality.""

To the best of my knowledge, you do not engage in that sort of behavior.

Anyhow, Sawyer? I do apologize for feeding into a response which in and of itself lead to a potential derailing. Consider my participation in this diversion to be over.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

The point where someone actually backs up a hateful moron like Spider, a narcisstic prick that is even too dumb to come up with a username that is indistinguishable from the one of his main account when opening a new imdb-profile to spew more hate, that is the moment I clink out of the conversation. Those people I listed have poisoned and spammed this message board to the point where it's very hard to find threads containing positive discussions, and when you do find one, it's a safe bet that they troll that discussion too and post their annoying, negative shít there as well, insulting other posters, the filmmakers, the actors. What this has to do with what tinasparklesau calls "friendly repartee and socialising in general" is beyond me. And I don't give a rat's ass if Spider or any of those other posters actually have something to contribute that isn't complete offal (doubt it) in another thread. I don't mind calling those people out on their bullshít and push back a little, especially if it means we can get more positive people (like TaddWinters) to join the discussion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

So, finally decided that I felt safe from further script readings so I went back to listen to the latest podcast. Was really nice. There was a debate on how they might introduce Eddie in a later movie/tv-show.

One of the guys argued that the whole drugs-on-a-plane scenario wouldn't work anymore as it would be unrealistic that anyone would have that kind of dope on their person while flying on a commercial jet. If we accept that point (not sure I agree, but for argument's sake) then we need a different way to introduce Eddie. But what way?

To me, one of my favorite small moments in all the novels is when Roland opens the door on the beach and is completely shocked to be staring into the world from an incredible height. So instead of a plane maybe Eddie is in a high rise doing a drug pickup. And when Roland opens the door Eddie is looking out the window at a sprawling world beneath. Maybe Roland is similarily staggered by this view. Maybe he even thinks for a second that he's in the Tower?

They could set it up any way they like. Maybe the police is watching him, ready to make a sting once he leaves with the drugs that he picked up there or whatever.

Anyway, just a thought.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

reply

[–] joannatn 8 years ago

Buuuuuuut, wasn't Eddie from the 80's? I mean, why would that have to change? Just sayin. I don't see any reason to modernize him, thus making the scenario much more plausible.

reply

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

Yeah not sure about that tbh. Think the assumption might be that they are updating all the "our world" story lines. As it seems this movie will revolve around Jake and Roland I think it's been gathered that Jake lives in present day America and not America of the 80s or 90s. That could well be completely wrong but I think that's what the podcasters were basing their assumptions on.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

reply

[–] joannatn 8 years ago

And, see, that makes sense. Jake should come from a more modern day era as far as the reader/viewer is concerned. But Detta is still going to be from the 50's when racism was a very prevalent, very real problem she'd face daily. At least I'd think they would. That being the case, I see no reason to change Eddie's timeline, too. But we have a long time before we'll see if it's even going to be an issue. That's just a strange topic to me. I'd have never even considered pulling Eddie from the modern day timeline!

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

So instead of a plane maybe Eddie is in a high rise doing a drug pickup. And when Roland opens the door Eddie is looking out the window at a sprawling world beneath. Maybe Roland is similarily staggered by this view. Maybe he even thinks for a second that he's in the Tower?

This...could work.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

When and where exactly did Captain Wesker say that you did?!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] tinasparklesau 8 years ago

It was a direct reply. I presume that the new apps have confused this going by the messages boards of late.

reply

[–] joannatn 8 years ago

Glad to have you aboard, Tadd! It's nice to have likeminded, positive individuals posting every now and then. I only ignore posters when I have to (such as when it gets personal and start to make me put on my sad face), but it's so much nicer to hear that other people can approach this with an open mind.

By the way, I feel your pain. I used to play with the GameFAQ's boards. Dude, that's the place to go if you feel like troll hunting. There's like 4 to every legit poster.

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

1 more day until the new Dark Tower Palaver episode... makes waiting for new developments much more bearable. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

reply

[–] sugrnspyce4 8 years ago

I keep forgetting, but I'll have to give this a listen soon. Sounds like a fun time. :)

reply

[–] Sawyer_Lost 8 years ago

Dark Tower Round table #25 is up online! If a certain someone from Germany is reading this, I want you to know that your email was read in this episode and that your pictures from Portugal would indeed make for a great shooting location for the western sea. And thankee-sai big big for the shout-out to my humble self, it definitely made me smile. (Auch mir haben King's Bücher geholfen englisch zu lernen!) 

Books are a uniquely portable magic. ~Stephen King

reply