I dont understand why people keep saying Why are they condensing all the books into 95 minutes? when that is clearly not what they are doing. Theyre not adapting seven or eight books here.
This movie appears to have elements of The Gunslinger, a bit of Jakes story from the second book overlaid with his Gunslinger stuff, and some minor characters/threats from later books...at least this is actually what the writers/filmmakers and people in the know have outright said.
But they are not shoving Eddie, Susannah, Oy, etc, into this film. They are not trying to depict Rolands entire journey through the various parts of Mid-world, either. They are trying to set up the basics of the worlds in The Dark Tower story. Which is what most fantasy/sci-fi movies do, isn't it?
It is clear that they do not want this to be the only film they make of these stories. Their plan is to make more films, and hopefully a TV series. That has been their plan for some time. Just because its called "The Dark Tower" does not mean they are just randomly shoving everything from seven or eight books into one film, anymore than it means they are only adapting the final book in the series under that name.
Now, a 95 minute runtime is absolutely cause for concern. That's a Rothman trademark, if there ever was one.
But if this first films story is essentially Roland's quest from The Gunslinger with some of Jakes stuff from The Drawing of The Three mixed into his story from The Gunslinger and a few threat elements, I do think thats somewhat doable storywise.
From an adaption standpoint, there's the whole "Why doesn't this rate the LOTR treatment" going on here. Theres a fairly obvious reason this isnt receiving the Lord of The Rings treatment; it is simply not as well known or beloved a story.
Most major franchises dont receive the Lord of The Rings treatment. That was a massive undertaking, but it was also a massive undertaking to adapt a widely beloved piece of literature, and a piece of literature that had been beloved for more than half a century. The Dark Tower, as good as it is, is a bit more niche, and which has received mixed reactions over the years. Even something like Harry Potter didnt have multiple films made at once until it was a juggernaut of a franchise.
We were never going to get a movie with all the internal monologue/musing found in the books. It just wasnt going to happen, because it's a film. This movie was always, always going to be a bit broader and "dumbed down". Even LOTR suffered this adaption fate.
I read The Gunslinger again last night. Much of it, while cool and dense as hell, is not entirely necessary to the overall narrative of The Dark Tower saga. A lot of it is random, awkwardly inserted from the standpoint of a standalone story (which King himself has stated), and not entirely satisfying, and frankly, a bit derivative of other concepts without being strongly tied to the story and character arcs (I know, theres some derivative stuff on display here). What Im getting at is that not every word of The Gunslinger is gold. And really, you can say that about any of the books.
From an adaption standpoint, they absolutely need to get Roland, Jake and their relationship, and Rolands pursuit of Walter right. They need to set up the significance of the tower. From a cinematic standpoint, they need to establish an overarcing threat and conflict.
They need to establish Gilead and hint at its role in forming Roland.
They need to get some of the high speech in there.
Tull would be nice.
But its not like this film is going to be a failure as a story if we dont see Roland and Jake escaping from slow mutants Indiana Jones style, or see multiple demon rape sequences, and so on and so forth. The best parts of this storyline are found in later stories. Susannah, Eddie and the really trippy stuff.
