Stephen King's Epic "The Dark Tower" - Part 1

[childeroland]

Roland doesn't have to be American right? Elba could use his own accent no?

Roland and Walter/Flagg are from another world.

 

[Marvolo]

The Dark Tower is no direct adaptation - It's a sequel

THE DARK TOWER is not going to be a direct adaptation of Stephen King's series.

It's going to be a sequel of sorts.
Here's what Arcel had to say in EW's new cover story on the film...

“The hardcore fans of The Dark Tower series will know that this is actually a sequel to the books in a way. It has a lot of the same elements, a lot of the same characters, but it is a different journey.”

Now, if you don't want to be spoiled as to how that's going to happen, then avert your eyes, click away, something... But, if you do, probably because you've been invested in THE DARK TOWER for awhile, then you may already know the answer.
SPOILER TIME

Spoiler

Roland will possess the Horn of Eld from the very beginning of Arcel's film. This isn't going to be the same artifact that he doesn't take with him on his past trips to the Tower. This is going to be something he has for his journey, and it will change the entire layout of the film.

Familiar elements, as Arcel explains, will be introduced throughout, but they'll be different in a number of ways. They will no longer be forced to comply with how Stephen King's THE DARK TOWER is laid out, as they'll now be afforded the freedom to create something new.

That may not be THE DARK TOWER that you were expecting, but it does open up a number of creative avenues for Arcel to take... and it takes the audience, even those who are knee-deep in DARK TOWER knowledge, along for the ride of a new experience. Those viewers will be just as in the dark as everyone else.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/the-dark-tower-is-no-direct-adaptation---its-a-sequel-219

Yeah, cause being "forced to comply" with the source material is sooo horrible.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The Dark Tower is no direct adaptation - It's a sequel



Yeah, cause being "forced to comply" with the source material is sooo horrible.

It really is idiotic what they are doing. This could turn out to be a good movie, and because of the talent involved I hope it is. But as an adaptation it's a total fail already.

 

[moviedoors]

I LOVE what they're doing. This is a perfect way to get around tricky areas like Stephen King being a character and the ending. And as a Dark Tower fan, this just means I get more new stuff.

I'm honestly not interested in a straight adaptation. I love the series, but trying to be so faithful to it as films is a fool's errand. I've long thought Roland starting a movie with the Horn of Eld was a perfect way around that, and I'm delighted they're fully commuting to it. I've gone from being skeptical following this project over the years to become very genuinely excited.

 

[Marvolo]

It really is idiotic what they are doing. This could turn out to be a good movie, and because of the talent involved I hope it is. But as an adaptation it's a total fail already.

Yep. Im not even sure this can be called an adaption. Its Inspired by the books, but it doesnt sound like an adaption.

 

[Eddie Dean]

[YT]p2WzkgkufyE[/YT]

We haven't even seen a second of footage yet.

And as far as being faithful, maybe we should look at Kubrick's Shining and Mick Garris' Shining and decide what is better.

 

[Octoberist]

Yep. Im not even sure this can be called an adaption. Its Inspired by the books, but it doesnt sound like an adaption.

It's a catch 22 if you do a direct adaptation which is impossible. I acutllay like what they're doing.

 

[Eddie Dean]

The Gunslinger would not make a financially successful film, or maybe even a successful film.

 

[Octoberist]

I think that's why so many directors have passed on it.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Also, Idris looks like he just took his wardrobe from Ghost Rider and brought it along with him.

 

[Guts]

I don't like how new and clean Roland's clothes look.

 

[Octoberist]

His wardrobe is interesting to say the least.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, I guess that's good for us who read the books.

 

[Lighthouse]

The Gunslinger would not make a financially successful film, or maybe even a successful film.

To be honest, that's why I always thought this should have been a serialized TV or Netflix series.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

To be honest, that's why I always thought this should have been a serialized TV or Netflix series.

I do think a TV series would have been the better option, then we get Wizard and Glass and the whole story.

Making a trilogy out of 7 books, a few of them being large books, is just asking for trouble in my eyes.

And I wouldnt mind if they can't to a 100% adaptation of the books, but this movie seems like it barely hits 50% so far.

 

[Marvolo]

[YT]p2WzkgkufyE[/YT]

We haven't even seen a second of footage yet.

And as far as being faithful, maybe we should look at Kubrick's Shining and Mick Garris' Shining and decide what is better.

This director is not Kubrick.

Kubrick's story adaption isnt even that good. There is almost no character development and Jack is unsympathetic from the beginning. Its Kubrick's directing skills and Nicholson's stellar performance that makes that film the classic it is.

 

[The Apocalypse]

I'm still going to give this a chance but there are so many great moments throughout the books that could have translated so well onto film. I was hoping to one day see Eddie try and stump Blaine the Mono on the big screen. Oh well. If this movie does become a trigoly, I hope they don't shoehorn Eddie and Susannah into the story just to appease fans. If they have no plans to use them then just don't at this point.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Kubrick's take on Jack Torrance is a thousand times more interesting than King's. King's take is an obvious author stand-in, who could be so nice to his family if he just didn't drink (or in King's case do cocaine). Kurbick's Jack Torrance is a caveman stuck in the modern world, whose frustrations are so bottled up that all it takes is a little poke from The Overlook for them all to explode. King is apologizing for his actions, Kubrick is examining them.

 

[Victarion]

Kubrick's movie is better made, but his Jack Torrance was a one-dimensional *******.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The Gunslinger would not make a financially successful film, or maybe even a successful film.

Really? I think if it was a $30 million budget I think it would do just fine. It's a great and simple story. If it flopped, then The Gunslinger would work as a great stand alone film. Which is baffling as to why this movie is $60 million and they're still not adapting the first book. They could be biting off more than they can chew here. Why does everything have to be a massive thing now? Seems just another case of universe building and them trying to cram it in the first one to illuminate it all to tap into the superhero craze.

I don't get the reasoning of the filmmaker either. These books are complete stories like HP or LOTR, they're not like comic books.

 

[Marvolo]

Kubrick's take on Jack Torrance is a thousand times more interesting than King's. King's take is an obvious author stand-in, who could be so nice to his family if he just didn't drink (or in King's case do cocaine). Kurbick's Jack Torrance is a caveman stuck in the modern world, whose frustrations are so bottled up that all it takes is a little poke from The Overlook for them all to explode. King is apologizing for his actions, Kubrick is examining them.

King has always used his life experiences as inspiration. It doesnt matter what the inspiration for Jack was. King's Jack is sympathetic and has an actual arc. He's a man with demons and baggage and desire's that slowly loses himself. He's a rounded 3 dimensional person that goes on an actual emotional journey.

Kubrick's Jack is a cypher at first and in 15 minutes switches to a one note bastard. Wendy is a shrew from beginning to end. And the kid just alternates between a look of confusion and terror. There is nothing to examine.

 

[Victarion]

Really? I think if it was a $30 million budget I think it would do just fine. It's a great and simple story. If it flopped, then The Gunslinger would work as a great stand alone film. Which is baffling as to why this movie is $60 million and they're still not adapting the first book. They could be biting off more than they can chew here. Why does everything have to be a massive thing now? Seems just another case of universe building and them trying to cram it in the first one to illuminate it all to tap into the superhero craze.

I don't get the reasoning of the filmmaker either. These books are complete stories like HP or LOTR, they're not like comic books.

It would work well as a modern tribute to movies like Conan the Barbarian or The Road Warrior where your main character had the bare minimum of dialogue.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Shelley Duvall's performance as Wendy is one of the greatest of all time. Referring to her as a shrew is both reductive and a giant misunderstanding of the film.

 

[terry78]

The sequel thing works, as it does make it just as meta as the stories themselves now. with this medium they can get a little self aware.

 

[Brother Jack]

It's a catch 22 if you do a direct adaptation which is impossible. I acutllay like what they're doing.

I think it's a great idea. Using what's established in the source material as the keys to allow for adaptation, for change. It makes the inevitable differences actually consistent to the book in a roundabout way. A much more inspired idea than just taking the book and sticking to it.