Stephen King's Epic "The Dark Tower" - Part 2

[FunkMiller]

BOM's weekend estimates have it at $19.5 million. However, the budget for this one was only $60 million.

So, chances are...what? A 60% drop second weekend? That's probably being generous as well. So, maybe 7 to 7.5 million next weekend, absolute tops. Deadline guessed 90 million total WW at end of its run. Sounds about right. That's a money loser for Sony right there, even just on a 66 million budget (6 for reshoots).

 

[Elysium94]

That's one thing I never cared for about the books either. I thought the Crimson King was massively underutilized.

No kidding.

"EEEEEEEE!", what the hell was that? The big threat to Stephen King's world was a deranged Santa Claus throwing grenades?

In the script I posted, the King appears similar to how he does in the comics, this monstrous man-spider hybrid.

 

[chaseter]

Another bomb from Sony...not shocked.

 

[souvlaki]

Should have been a tv series like American Gods

I agree. I kind of feel like this was a missed opportunity and could have been a nice seven season series. If the Stand ever gets back off the ground again I hope they don't make the same mistake and instead just pass it on to Starz or HBO.

 

[rogue trooper]

So I liked it well enough.... it obviously doesn't even scrape the surface of the books but... I'll take it as what it is. Idris and Matthew saves the whole movie. The kid who acts as Jake is good too. And the hot korean woman who was in Age of Ultron is good too. I doubt there'll be a sequel but hope this continues on TV like Mortal Instruments or something

I echo these sentiments too. It's a bit of a conventional take on King's more complex material. As its own animal, I found the film very watchable. It really exudes the feel of a weird 70's sci-fi film like Beneath The Planet of The Apes and Zardoz. The performances are solid. On the other hand it did feel a bit rushed, and I really hope there'll be an extended/director's cut down the road(preferably R-rated).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's one thing I never cared for about the books either. I thought the Crimson King was massively underutilized.

Yeah after all of the build up he was a let down. Walter and Mordred were much better villains imo.

 

[Tony Stark]

I loved the gunslinger series, and I was walking in knowing I'd probably be disappointed. Probably one of the worst things about this is there is very little actually about the Dark Tower, despite the title. They left out all the subplot of Rolland trying to get to the Dark Tower. The whole thing was just strange. I'd read that this was meant to be a "sequel" to the books and not an adaptation, so if that's the case why does it seem like they were trying to do a half ass adaptation?

The movie mostly deserves the bad press it's getting but I did like a few things. I thought Idris Elba and Matthew Matthew McConaughey were both good choices for the role. I did like some of the action scenes with Roland and the gun fighting. I liked the house demon, although it might have been confusing to those who hadn't read the books. Some might have thought it was the Man in Black attacking Jake. I also liked the kid they picked for Jake.

The movie suffers because it feels like it was thrown together. The film is only 1h 35min yet feels like it drags. This is another film that had last minute massive reshoots, and it certainly felt that way.

While there were moments of promise, ultimately this is a disappointment.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No kidding.

"EEEEEEEE!", what the hell was that? The big threat to Stephen King's world was a deranged Santa Claus throwing grenades?

In the script I posted, the King appears similar to how he does in the comics, this monstrous man-spider hybrid.

The idea for the Crimson King is that [BLACKOUT]he has lost his power. That is what he was reduced to. Not his original state.[/BLACKOUT] The pursuit of the Tower does bad things to people.

 

[FunkMiller]

I loved the gunslinger series, and I was walking in knowing I'd probably be disappointed. Probably one of the worst things about this is there is very little actually about the Dark Tower, despite the title. They left out all the subplot of Rolland trying to get to the Dark Tower. The whole thing was just strange. I'd read that this was meant to be a "sequel" to the books and not an adaptation, so if that's the case why does it seem like they were trying to do a half ass adaptation?

Yes indeed, when adapting a series of novels about a Gunslinger questing for The Dark Tower, the first thing you should always do is not have the Gunslinger questing for The Dark Tower. Makes perfect sense.

Also, make your main protagonist a secondary character, and your secondary character your main protagonist. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I agree. I kind of feel like this was a missed opportunity and could have been a nice seven season series. If the Stand ever gets back off the ground again I hope they don't make the same mistake and instead just pass it on to Starz or HBO.

Isn't it going to be a TV series regardless? Wasn't that the plan from the get-go? Having it launch on film and continue on on TV.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yes indeed, when adapting a series of novels about a Gunslinger questing for The Dark Tower, the first thing you should always do is not have the Gunslinger questing for The Dark Tower. Makes perfect sense.

Also, make your main protagonist a secondary character, and your secondary character your main protagonist. Makes perfect sense.

Yep

I honestly for the life of me can't figure out what the screen writers were thinking about when they made this. They had a great cast, and a franchise that could have been Sony's "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings", and they just completely squandered their opportunity.

 

[Tony Stark]

Isn't it going to be a TV series regardless? Wasn't that the plan from the get-go? Having it launch on film and continue on on TV.

The TV show needs to be a complete reboot, and based on the books, or I have no interest in it. They f'ed this up so bad you can't continue off this adaptation.

 

[squeekness]

Why is it so hard to make a really great Stephen King film? You'd think with such solid source materiel it'd be so easy. The tv shows haven't been all that great (at least the ones I've seen). The Dome was just awful.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's not impossible. Misery does exist, even though it came out in 1990.

The Dark Tower just seems like it's very weird and unconventional material, even for fantasy material.

 

[squeekness]

It's not impossible. Misery does exist, even though it came out in 1990.

The Dark Tower just seems like it's very weird and unconventional material, even for fantasy material.

Misery was really good as was The Mist movie (the tv show has been underwhelming). But those seem to be the exceptions. I do hope the It movie is one of the better ones.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Shawshank Redemption. The Green Mile. Pet Sematary...

 

[Mysteryman]

Stand By Me was pretty good.

 

[:eek:]

Shawshank Redemption. The Green Mile. Pet Sematary...

Stand By Me, Dolores Claiborne, The Dead Zone. There are definitely some good King-adaptations out there. Although it's often his non-horror stories that are translated best to the screen.

 

[Marvolo]

The guy directing the new IT movie, Andrés Muschietti, said the other day that he wants to do a new Pet Sematary film.

If the Muschiettis get their way, It will just be the first of several Stephen King-related projects to make it to the screen. The siblings own the rights to King’s sci-fi horror short The Jaunt, which was first published in 1981.

But they really want to tackle a big-screen redo of 1983’s Pet Sematary.

“We’re huge fans of Pet Sematary,” Muschietti says. “If we can get our hands on that and do the Pet Sematary we want to do, that will be something. One day, maybe.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/04/stephen-kings-pennywise-is-back-secrets-from-the-set-of-it

 

[FunkMiller]

The guy directing the new IT movie, Andrés Muschietti, said the other day that he wants to do a new Pet Sematary film.

Would he like to reboot The Dark Tower? Can't do any worse...

 

[squeekness]

Shawshank Redemption. The Green Mile. Pet Sematary...

I forgot about those. Green Mile was fantastic.

 

[Tony Stark]

Stand By Me, Dolores Claiborne, The Dead Zone. There are definitely some good King-adaptations out there. Although it's often his non-horror stories that are translated best to the screen.

My absolute favorite King adaptation was Misery. There are a few differences from the book but they are relatively minor and most of all the movie captured the heart of the story. The book was a bit more gory (like she chops off his entire foot, not just breaks his leg) but Kathy Bates was perfect in that role, and James Caan did a great job as well, and the script was perfect.

There was a made for TV version of the Shining which was closer to the book, but I actually like the Kubric version better even though it's significantly different. The TV version was just not scary, where the Kubric version scared the crap out of me, despite the differences.

I've always had an afinity for the Shining, I grew up in Colorado and have stayed at the Stanley hotel in Estes Park which the book was based on. The place is really not that scary in real life, so I'm not sure what his inspiration. The only thing I can think of is in the winter time there's hardly anyone there but the locals. Scariest thing you might run across is a mountain lion or a black bear.

 

[Mr.T]

Just watched this with the family and came away thinking it was ok. The editing in the 3rd act was odd and felt very choppy. The ending just felt incomplete. Not sure what to make of the man in black, the dark tower itself, and what the hell actually happened at the end. Gunslinger defeats Man in Black, everyone eats hotdogs, bam the end???
So much potential there with Elba & McConaughey. Didn't like the lead that played the boy. His acting was very subpar.
I guess it was worth the price of admission....

4/10

 

[Neno_Kos]

My absolute favorite King adaptation was Misery. There are a few differences from the book but they are relatively minor and most of all the movie captured the heart of the story. The book was a bit more gory (like she chops off his entire foot, not just breaks his leg) but Kathy Bates was perfect in that role, and James Caan did a great job as well, and the script was perfect.

There was a made for TV version of the Shining which was closer to the book, but I actually like the Kubric version better even though it's significantly different. The TV version was just not scary, where the Kubric version scared the crap out of me, despite the differences.

I've always had an afinity for the Shining, I grew up in Colorado and have stayed at the Stanley hotel in Estes Park which the book was based on. The place is really not that scary in real life, so I'm not sure what his inspiration. The only thing I can think of is in the winter time there's hardly anyone there but the locals. Scariest thing you might run across is a mountain lion or a black bear.

I think hotels, specially old hotels can can be pretty scary when no one is there. No guests, no staff, no living soul. And that's what Kubrick's Shining captures so well. The camera movement and then a long scenes. For example. You follow in scene innocent kid on trolley (from his perspective down low) going through those corridors and rooms. So you can sense the size of hotel, it's practically a *** labyrinth even though one is outside. It captures immediately atmosphere of something unsettling not knowing what's behind next corner. And then It's a sound when trolley hits the parket and trolley hits a carpet or no sound in that case. And that's put in motion with previous scene when kid doing laps around the room.

Movie it's so well shot. And good director can do things like this.

 

[dallywhitty]

Watched this on the 19th. It really is a poor adaptation of the novels. Hardly recognisable with elements of Books 1, 3 and even Doctor Sleep mashed together. Character motivations are changed, Mid-World is barely established, the implementation of the famous opening line is extremely awkward...

HAVING SAID THAT, as somebody with an appetite for schlocky, hammy nonsense, it was strangely entertaining, largely because of Matthew McConaughey's performance. He was basically playing Randall Flagg, one of The Man in Black's many guises, but he was fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed him strutting around commanding people to 'burn' and 'stop breathing' and things of that ilk. And the instances in which he referred to his abilities as 'my magics' were hilarious.

Not a good film, but I didn't hate it as I expected to.