This Series DESERVES A Faithful Adaptation.
Not a sequel.
It's just senseless.
Senseless and shameful.
Come quietly, or there will be...trouble.
I agree. But i thought you were trolling this board
Would you care to explain what exactly you are unhappy with for the purpose of debate?
Sure. And I'll keep it pretty straightforward. For years I've looked forward to seeing an adaptation of The Gunslinger on film, which, to me, seems like a relatively simple thing to do, seeing that the book is relatively simple in structure. And now, after waiting for a really, really long time, we are getting...something...that just doesn't feel quite right. That's it.
P.S.
I'm still trolling the sht out of this board.
Come quietly, or there will be...trouble.
I have to agree, much to the chagrin of the board. I think The Gunslinger alone could have been adapted amazingly.
Here's one i prepared earlier but won't win me any fans:
I would love to throw a temper tantrum that I WANT a proper adaptation. Yep from start to finish, starting with The Gunslinger, but how many people is that going to appeal to? Sure, if done well, maybe a LOT. Realistically however, i can see why they've steered away from that and are trying to reach the broadest audience possible (on a 60mil budget) and not just the die hard fans. But have they gone too far in that direction? The leaked trailer showed so much of Jake that it appears he is the lead character, Walter working magic while looking all sexy and cool, Roland doing some crazy action matrix stuff, a monster jumping out of nowhere, stylish vampires and taheen from later books, all to the tune of 'behind blue eyes' (I don't know if that was meant to be a nod to fans but it felt more like a slap). Where was the essence of Roland and his story, his quest? This is his story, not Walter's or Jake's. I felt no Roland at all from that trailer, but i did feel some blockbuster popcorn action movie crap that unnervingly felt a little too YA. I honestly hope they scrap that trailer and release one that at least feels like the books.
HAHAH @ your P.S.
*your use of of the word feel prompted my response. It is about essence and substance and feeling. Not BS action movie crap. They could have changed a lot of things but kept the feeling of Roland intact but the leaked trailer is missing this.
shareTina, I thought you were a little more on board with this movie. Was I mistaken, or did you rethink it?
Anyway, I don't disagree with much of that. (Utill Spider chimes in below with conspiracies). I still think this could be good. As you said, it depends on the feel.
Hi jerry! The unfortunate thing about being a fencesitter is that i find myself swinging from optimism to pessimism and back about this movie quite regularly (do you swing jerry? ). So, you haven't got me wrong... next week you may see me singing the praises of Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, MM and Jackie Earle Haley, the interesting Danish twist, etc.
I've noticed that there's been a growing trend in posts that are proclaiming that this mashup is actually a better idea than an adaptation and i personally think that's nuts. I mean, when this movie finally got off the ground was there a single fan that thought "Geez, i hope they change almost everything about TDT because i never really wanted an adaptation"? What annoys me about this trend is that there hasn't been anything to indicate that this is a better idea than an adaptation. If anything, the opposite... Idris hasn't read the books (i just can't comprehend that one at all), the leaked trailer was atrocious imo, Roland's dialogue is being stripped to bare bones (for a character that rarely speaks to begin with, wtf?), etc.
I'm hoping like mad that the final product will nail Roland. His presence, depth, substance, essence, being... Roland IS this story, and if they succeed in this then i will be a very happy camper despite the other huge deviations in the source material. Roland is what matters imo.
I've noticed that there's been a growing trend in posts that are proclaiming that this mashup is actually a better idea than an adaptation and i personally think that's nuts.
How dare the rabble...the proletariat...the commoners...think this ?
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing . share
Now now Wesker, when it comes to being sanctimonious, you certainly give one a run for their money
shareIf that is the metric you have to go by then, by all means, mint the badge and i'll wear it.
You do know there are people who consider The Gunslinger to be rather on the thin side for a 2 and a half hour plus film, correct? Additionally, some folks really did want a continuation rather than a (close) adaptation. Then, there are those like me who wouldn't mind a 1:1 cinematic representation of the first novel, "broad strokes" adaptation/sequel and/or an animated film...two-dimensional, preferably.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
You do know there are people who consider The Gunslinger to be rather on the thin side for a 2 and a half hour plus film, correct?
Apart from stating that different people have different opinions, i don't see the relevancy. Shawshank is a 2 and a half hour film based off 100 odd pages of source material. Roland is also a very complex character that would need to be explored more throughout the telling of The Gunslinger if they had chosen that direction so i see no forseeable problem with the size of the book being adapted. The only potential problem i could see is that Roland is an extremely nasty piece of work in The Gunslinger and the non-readers of the series could easily be put off by this.
My negative stance on a continuation as preference is that King never wrote a continuation. It begs the question of how much TDT remains to be able to be labelled "Based on The Dark Tower series" vs. "Inspired by The Dark Tower series". For me, there's hands down no question about preference. If you took issue with my statement that to think otherwise is 'nuts', granted, i was heavy handed in my wording and am happy to retract it in the spirit of people being entitled to their opinions without others being uncivil.
(I still think it's nuts though ) share
The relevancy lies in the fact that The Gunslinger is mostly beige prose of Roland moving from Point A to Point B with the occasional thrilling roadblock along the way. We don't really delve into his inner monologue until The Drawing of the Three. Also, while I can appreciate exploration of the character, the simple act of expanding what already exists with such exploration would miss the mark of what the story was supposed to be about...making it less of a direct adaptation.
What I would like to see in a faithful adaptation of The Gunslinger sits closer to the four plus hour long epics of Hollywood's golden age.
"Four plus hours?!", you say? "That's insane!", you say? Well, read on...
Ideally, the first section of this epic would contain all of The Gunslinger with slight expansion beyond Roland's POV to show us just what this Mid-World is all about. Play up the otherworldly nature in a low-key way while never taking focus off of the man himself without making him too human. Keep him mainly as a single-minded automaton or perhaps a force of nature for the time being. The brief tryst with Allie and each interaction with Jake will provide some glimpses of humanity which lie beneath his stony exterior.
After the story wraps up with our "hero" stumbling and collapsing onto the endless sprawl of gray beach sand, the film would then shift to Mr. Deschain waking up from his deep sleep with a lobstrosity snapping its killer claws a hair's breadth from his face. Following the disfigurement, oodles of introspection and displaying the full width of the man's emotional spectrum will be key. The rest of The Drawing of the Three would progress until we finally finish with Roland and Eddie having their final talk in the woods by the Western Sea.
The Gunslinger would comprise the first hour and a half or so (give or take several minutes). The Drawing of the Three would run for the remaining two and a half hours (ditto).
Unrealistic, especially in modern Hollywood's climate, I know. However, I also know that it would reward people expecting to see the first two books represented as a cinematic journey on par with The Lord of the Rings.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I got nothing . What you just pitched is pretty much exactly how i think it should be adapted, and given the right team, i believe it could have been done just that way and still appeal to the broader audiences. Obviously 4 hours wouldn't fly, but 3-3 and a half could with only minor condensing/omissions or leaving a cliffhanger possibly at the third door.
I don't understand how something like what you pitched could have been turned down in lieu of what we appear to be getting instead.
Because it is a sequel...not a straight adaptation. Apparently, this is a concept which is too slippery for some to grasp.
The year is almost over and people apparently want to magically re-shoot the entire film into something that it is not through sheer force of will and a lot of typing .
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I understand the concept, i'm referring to way back when it was still in the pitching stages. What you pitched vs. what they settled on doesn't make much sense imo (consider it a compliment ffs ) . Yes, i suppose you're right in that it's too late to continue complaining, but what are the odds of that.
shareI don't think any fans would have a problem with that idea. However, it is clear me that people don't have the attention spans that they used to. I love the Revenent, and The Hateful Eight, but I see tons of people complaining that they are too long.
shareYou do know there are people who consider The Gunslinger to be rather on the thin side for a 2 and a half hour plus film, correct? Additionally, some folks really did want a continuation rather than a (close) adaptation. Then, there are those like me who wouldn't mind a 1:1 cinematic representation of the first novel, "broad strokes" adaptation/sequel and/or an animated film...two-dimensional, preferably.
Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, Secret Window, Apt Pupil, Stand By Me, all adapted from novellas into feature films. Don't see where you're coming from with the "thin" argument. Besides, look what they did with The Hobbit.
EDIT: Of all the fans of this series that I know, not one of them wanted a sequel to the books, as far as movies go. Not one. In fact, everyone I know that's a fan of these books is pretty much dismissive of it altogether.
Come quietly, or there will be...trouble. share
I certainly would have wanted book sequels. As far as movie sequels to books, the thought never occurred to me.
shareAs far as movie sequels to books, the thought never occurred to me.
Until relatively recently, the thought of a book soundtrack (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Empire_(soundtrack)) was a foreign one to me. That said, we learn of new things all the time.
Ideally, anyhow .
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing . share
Besides, look what they did with The Hobbit.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey felt overinflated from start to finish. On the flipside, I always found myself wanting more with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
King's The Dark Tower series would not benefit from the treatment Jackson's later cinematic trilogy received . As good as these books are, there are definite issues in the latter half of our ka-tet's adventure that need to be heavily rewritten - if not omitted altogether - if they are to be adapted for mass movie-goer consumption.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing . share
Translation: Excuses, excuses. Blah blah, ultimately revealing you never liked the books to begin with and wanting them dumbed down on screen for people as mentally deficient as you.
share[deleted]
Wesker can take care of himself, but I find it hard to let such rudeness, and idiocy stand.
1. Stephen king signed off on this.
2. This doesn't affect the books in any way. If you love the books, you can still love the books.
3. You were promised nothing, and you are owed nothing as far as a movie adaptation goes.
Of course you know all this, but you probably forgot to put it in your "package".
2. This doesn't affect the books in any way.
1 & 3 have been addressed enough times by others to not merit a response.
But I bet you would be stunned to learn that number 2 of your bracing onslaught against me is indeed false as well.
I don't expect you to understand why...after all...you are here championing this "film". But I couldn't pass up the chance to place this little easter egg.
As apparently the date of this upcoming abortion has been pushed back you and your cohorts have several months before I begin my campaign.
At that time I will tell you why number 2 is false as well as a many other things that will haunt you for the rest of your days.
I wonder if you could figure it out before then.
I doubt it. It would require a level of insight and understanding of how the world works that is, for the most part, depressingly absent on this board.
Feel free to flag this post a well.
Evidently my words have so much power your only recourse is to attempt to get them hidden from view.
My delicate little snowflakes. share
Haunt the rest of my days? You are a hyperbolic one aren't you? I doubt I will give you much more thought after this post.
Good luck with your campaign though. I am sure you will put a halt to this travesty that no one has seen yet.
1. Stephen King also signed off on the 'Cell' and 'Under the dome' adaptions, King doesn't care anymore as long as they pay him.
2. But by making it a sequel they are tacking this YA PC sh*t onto the great ending of the books. As well as making sure no faithful film will ever have a chance of being made.
3. The main reason this is being made at all is because of the success of the books, therefore the people that made the film a viable option in the first place are owed filmmakers that will at least try to do it somewhat faithfully and not change to appeal to teenagers and fulfill a PC agenda.
Never stop being a cartoon character, bro .
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
[deleted]