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

[Rowsdower!]

I haven't seen any of those, and I have no real desire to.

So an Oscar-winning action epic, arguably the most influential sci-fi film of the past 30 years and a new film praised by 95% of critics don't interest you at all, yet THIS 95-minute attempt to cash-in on a beloved book series does?

Okay, man. Sure.

 

[Grootster]

So an Oscar-winning action epic, arguably the most influential sci-fi film of the past 30 years and a new film praised by 95% of critics don't interest you at all, yet THIS 95-minute attempt to cash-in on a beloved book series does?

Okay, man. Sure.

Are you referring to the Matrix? I just don't care that much about it, from what I've heard it hasn't even aged all that well, and everything about the plot has been spoiled by pop-culture at this point. Maybe someday I'll sit down and watch it just because of the impact it's had, but there are a lot of other sci-fi movies on my list to watch first.

Mad Max just looks dumb to me, I don't know how stuff like Transformers gets bashed to death by pop-culture (and arguably rightfully so) for being a plot-less explosion fest, but somehow Mad Max gets a free pass. I know nothing about Baby Driver, I haven't even seen a trailer, so I can;t judge how it looks.

And I'm by no means saying the Dark Tower will be the best movie ever, I even said a few posts back that if I decide to watch it, it probably won't be until DVD. But I don't see how we can say it's a cheap cash-in just yet. I've seen movies that deviate from the source material and end up with a film just as good (if not better) than the original story. The original Willy Wonka and the 2016 Jungle Book are examples that come to mind, at least for me. I know hardcore fans of the books are upset, and I do sympathize with them; but as a member of the general public, I think a relatively short PG-13 movie would attract me more than a rigorous adaptation of the book would. Everyone wants their franchise to be treated the same as LOTR was, but that can't happen with everything.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Mad Max: Fury Road, nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars and on countless best of list for 2015 looks dumb.

This doesn't however.

Well, I can now understand why you think Rey is boring at least. Our taste are vastly different.

Also talking about this movie being potentially as good as the novel. They have removed all nuance from this film. Its so clear, it hurts. You bring up LotR. That is what this is. It is King's LotR. The entire idea is its sprawling, even as it starts out incredibly intimate. And this looks nothing of the sort. It looks cheap and cheerful. And it is clear why. All the big plans they had for this series, fell through. And then we ended up with a half-assed attempt to save face with a super generic film and just move on quietly.

Using your attitude towards such things is the exact opposite of how we ended up with LotR. A lack of respect for the source material and a down playing of its potential is what we see here.

 

[StormC]

The director did an AMA on Reddit. I feel kinda bad for the guy, I'm sure this is all studio BS.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Mad Max: Fury Road, nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars and on countless best of list for 2015 looks dumb.

This doesn't however.

Well, I can now understand why you think Rey is boring at least. Our taste are vastly different.

Also talking about this movie being potentially as good as the novel. They have removed all nuance from this film. Its so clear, it hurts. You bring up LotR. That is what this is. It is King's LotR. The entire idea is its sprawling, even as it starts out incredibly intimate. And this looks nothing of the sort. It looks cheap and cheerful. And it is clear why. All the big plans they had for this series, fell through. And then we ended up with a half-assed attempt to save face with a super generic film and just move on quietly.

Using your attitude towards such things is the exact opposite of how we ended up with LotR. A lack of respect for the source material and a down playing of its potential is what we see here.

Definitrly, this could have been something truly great. Instead they have messed it up big time.

 

[FunkMiller]

The director did an AMA on Reddit. I feel kinda bad for the guy, I'm sure this is all studio BS.

Just had a read through it. He's saying some encouraging stuff, but so did Josh Trank before Fan4stic came out...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just had a read through it. He's saying some encouraging stuff, but so did Josh Trank before Fan4stic came out...

What is "encouraging"?

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I haven't read the books and it looks terribly generic

 

[FunkMiller]

What is "encouraging"?

Oh, the usual ********. About how it's an honour to make this movie, how King was fully supportive and was pleased with the final result, about how this is just the start of telling a larger tale, about how they will address the lack of racial tension between Roland and Susanna (if it gets that far), about how plans are in place for future movies, about how much The Dark Tower means to him. Yadda yadda yadda.

He seems to know a lot about the books from some of the obscure references he comes out with, but I saw nothing to suggest that this film is anything other than the simplistic, kiddie friendly movie the trailers are telling us we're getting...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That doesn't sound encouraging at all.

 

[Grootster]

I fail to see how either of those shots are 'dumb', maybe a bit action movie-generic, but not really dumb. Mad Max has a guy standing on top of a car during a sand-storm playing a guitar.

Dark Tower may be Stephen King's LOTR, but it's not LOTR. Tolkien's work is pretty one-of-a-kind in terms of the scale and treatment of the film adaptation, and I think it's kind of unreasonable to expect other books to get the same treatment. Even Narnia didn't get a movie series at nearly the same scale as LOTR. Keep in mind that fans of everything in existence want their franchise to be like LOTR, but most studios aren't willing to fork over that kind of budget. Who knows, maybe if this movie is a decent success it will pave the way for a full adaptation like fans want.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The 3 LotR movies cost less then 300m to make combined. 281m according to Mojo.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=lordoftherings.htm

The Narina films cost 180m, 225m and 155m respectively. 560m combined according to Mojo.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=chroniclesofnarnia.htm

So, what were you saying again exactly?

And would you like to explain what is "dumb" about the flaming guitar player in Fury Road exactly? As opposed to the fake looking bullets clearly not going into the guns, faking looking glass, and the villain looking like he has no idea what he is doing?

 

[Doctor Jones]

So this movie without credits will be like 88 minutes long?

That's ****ing hilarious.

It means it's awful and they cut down as much as they could to have it play in as many showtimes to get the most out of it.

 

[Mysteryman]

So this movie without credits will be like 88 minutes long?

That's ****ing hilarious.

It means it's awful and they cut down as much as they could to have it play in as many showtimes to get the most out of it.

No credits?
Why did they do that?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No credits?
Why did they do that?

No, there are credits. He is just saying what the legit will be without credits, because credits for a movie like this is usually at least 7 minutes.

 

[Grootster]

The 3 LotR movies cost less then 300m to make combined. 281m according to Mojo.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=lordoftherings.htm

The Narina films cost 180m, 225m and 155m respectively. 560m combined according to Mojo.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=chroniclesofnarnia.htm

So, what were you saying again exactly?

In terms of budget Narnia may have been bigger, but Lord of the Rings is by far the more successful series in terms of vision and planning by the studio and director. Lord of the Rings filmed three movies at the same time and released them a year apart (and then went on to do three Hobbit movies the same way). Narnia made three movies released two or three years apart, and never even finished the series. The Lord of the Rings movies have had a huge impact on the film industry and are still a relevant part of pop-culture, while the Narnia movies are rarely ever talked about these days. (For the record I actually enjoy the Narnia movies, aside from maybe the second one, but I don't feel it can be argued that Lord of the Rings is by far the more successful and innovative series).

I don't think they're going to do three (or more) Dark Tower movies filmed back-to-back with the same planning and forethought that went into LOTR, I can't imagine a studio okaying that. Lord of the Rings is a pretty one of a kind series, I recall hearing that even Peter Jackson had to push for LOTR to be made the way it was.

And would you like to explain what is "dumb" about the flaming guitar player in Fury Road exactly? As opposed to the fake looking bullets clearly not going into the guns, faking looking glass, and the villain looking like he has no idea what he is doing?

Well, just ask yourself why we don't have guitar players standing on high-speed automobiles during adverse weather conditions in real-life, and you'll see why it's dumb. Also, why would you strap a blood donor onto the front of a car during a sandstorm instead of putting him somewhere safer? That movie just revolves around nonsense logic. Maybe that's part of the fun, but I don't see how it can be passed off as anything other than dumb fun. At least the characters in Dark Tower don't know the bullets and glass were animated in a computer.

Also, I honestly didn't notice that the bullets or glass were fake-looking until you pointed it out. Yes, now that I'm looking at them directly they do look fake, but it's saved by the fact that the majority of the audience won't be focused on the bullets, they'll be focused on the overall action of the shot, mainly the gunslinger himself. In my opinion it's better to have fake looking bullets that are on-screen for a split-second than, say, to have fully CGI characters walking around in-your-face CGI environments for long period of time, like certain other trailers recently that shall go nameless.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

In terms of budget Narnia may have been bigger, but Lord of the Rings is by far the more successful series in terms of vision and planning by the studio and director. Lord of the Rings filmed three movies at the same time and released them a year apart (and then went on to do three Hobbit movies the same way). Narnia made three movies released two or three years apart, and never even finished the series. The Lord of the Rings movies have had a huge impact on the film industry and are still a relevant part of pop-culture, while the Narnia movies are rarely ever talked about these days. (For the record I actually enjoy the Narnia movies, aside from maybe the second one, but I don't feel it can be argued that Lord of the Rings is by far the more successful and innovative series).

I don't think they're going to do three (or more) Dark Tower movies filmed back-to-back with the same planning and forethought that went into LOTR, I can't imagine a studio okaying that. Lord of the Rings is a pretty one of a kind series, I recall hearing that even Peter Jackson had to push for LOTR to be made the way it was.

So what you are saying is why would anyone expect legitimate effort? See, using this logic, LotR never happens. TDKT never happens. Star Wars never happens. The MCU never happens. Lawrence of Arabia, Fury Road, Gone with the Wind, or any significant film of scale, ever.

If you are willing to spend stupid money on films, why wouldn't you want them to succeed, especially as you are spending the money anyways? Narina is a perfect example of how dumb it is to spend this kind of money, and half-ass it.

Well, just ask yourself why we don't have guitar players standing on high-speed automobiles during adverse weather conditions in real-life, and you'll see why it's dumb. Also, why would you strap a blood donor onto the front of a car during a sandstorm instead of putting him somewhere safer? That movie just revolves around nonsense logic. Maybe that's part of the fun, but I don't see how it can be passed off as anything other than dumb fun. At least the characters in Dark Tower don't know the bullets and glass were animated in a computer.

Also, I honestly didn't notice that the bullets or glass were fake-looking until you pointed it out. Yes, now that I'm looking at them directly they do look fake, but it's saved by the fact that the majority of the audience won't be focused on the bullets, they'll be focused on the overall action of the shot, mainly the gunslinger himself. In my opinion it's better to have fake looking bullets that are on-screen for a split-second than, say, to have fully CGI characters walking around in-your-face CGI environments for long period of time, like certain other trailers recently that shall go nameless.

Are you asking why post-apocalyptic desert viking cult members with short life spans live in the moment and do crazy things to serve their manipulative master, who promises them salvation for their service? Really? And that guy playing the flaming guitar on the rig? Clearly the war horn/war drum. The signal of the coming storm, the intimidation.

It was the first thing I noticed, because the shots focus on those things. And the movie looks rather artificial to me.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Mad Max just looks dumb to me, I don't know how stuff like Transformers gets bashed to death by pop-culture (and arguably rightfully so) for being a plot-less explosion fest, but somehow Mad Max gets a free pass.

Transformers and Fury Road are wildly different. Miller can tell more story with one visual than Bay can in his exposition-filled narration. How can you even speak on it if you haven't seen it?

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Is someone seriously comparing Fury Road to Transformers?

I think I just threw-up in my mouth a bit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Someone who has never seen Fury Road.

 

[super85]

Man does this look generic and bland. I mean the CGI looks like from the "Arrow" TV-show and there's like not a single great shot in the trailer. Somebody mentioned it looked fresh, yeah like a fresh turd.

It just looks ugly and completely uninteresting. Why is The Gunslinger not wearing a hat? why does he have a coat that looks like he recently purchased it ?

Even the posters look cheap. Like an intern at SYFY channel designed them after a night of drinking .

The Dark Tower as a 90-minute Movie also just sounds silly.

 

[FunkMiller]

I don't think they're going to do three (or more) Dark Tower movies filmed back-to-back with the same planning and forethought that went into LOTR, I can't imagine a studio okaying that. Lord of the Rings is a pretty one of a kind series, I recall hearing that even Peter Jackson had to push for LOTR to be made the way it was.
.

Your entire attitude towards the source material and the film made from it seems to be 'it's just The Dark Tower, and not as important as something like Lord Of The Rings'.

Sadly, this is the attitude Sony also seems to have, which is why we're getting what we are.

Film makers need to be 100% dedicated to the project for it to turn out well. No good film has ever been made when those responsible for it do it in a half-assed, non-commital way. And they're relying on audience members like yourself, who are prepared to accept a sub-standard product because they either don't know, or don't care about the source material. This is a strategy that always fails.

Commit 100% or don't make the bloody movie. The Dark Tower is far from perfect, but it deserves respect and the proper dedication from the film company responsible for the movie of it.

 

[elgaz]

We're going to get a broadstrokes take on The Dark Tower with zero nuance. It'll all be good vs evil, with about as much depth as a WWE booking. Roland is going to be presented as a square jawed upstanding hero - and not the obsessed, cold, driven bastard that he should be. Walter is going to be a moustache twirling, scenery chewing super villain - and not a cunning, conniving, enigmatic trickster with mysterious motivations. This is a watered down, child friendly sci-fi action movie that will bear little resemblance to its source material, and will not feature a majority of its themes and tone. It's been made to grab a fast buck, not to set up a long running, complex saga.

I suspect you're right. I can't imagine this film version of Roland Deschain is the kind who will let Jake fall to his death because of his obsession with seeing out his 'mission'. He'll be a more typical Hollywood hero, probably moulded a bit like Eastwood in terms of being the strong/silent/capable type, but with him and Walter being very black & white (no pun intended!!) in terms of good/evil, and lacking all the shades of grey that the book version had.

 

[elgaz]

Your entire attitude towards the source material and the film made from it seems to be 'it's just The Dark Tower, and not as important as something like Lord Of The Rings'.

Sadly, this is the attitude Sony also seems to have, which is why we're getting what we are.

Film makers need to be 100% dedicated to the project for it to turn out well. No good film has ever been made when those responsible for it do it in a half-assed, non-commital way. And they're relying on audience members like yourself, who are prepared to accept a sub-standard product because they either don't know, or don't care about the source material. This is a strategy that always fails.

Commit 100% or don't make the bloody movie. The Dark Tower is far from perfect, but it deserves respect and the proper dedication from the film company responsible for the movie of it.

Sony could be the problem, but I also wonder if we had got a director who was as entranced with the source material as Jackson was with LOTR, would they have pushed a greater vision for The Dark Tower than what we're getting?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Your entire attitude towards the source material and the film made from it seems to be 'it's just The Dark Tower, and not as important as something like Lord Of The Rings'.

Sadly, this is the attitude Sony also seems to have, which is why we're getting what we are.

Film makers need to be 100% dedicated to the project for it to turn out well. No good film has ever been made when those responsible for it do it in a half-assed, non-commital way. And they're relying on audience members like yourself, who are prepared to accept a sub-standard product because they either don't know, or don't care about the source material. This is a strategy that always fails.

Commit 100% or don't make the bloody movie. The Dark Tower is far from perfect, but it deserves respect and the proper dedication from the film company responsible for the movie of it.

This, 100% this. The Dark Tower is widely considered to be King's magnum opus. But because its not LOTR it shouldn't have as much effort going into adapting it? Can't believe some of the stuff i am reading here.

And that's without mentioning the Fury Road comments.