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

[Kahran Ramsus]

It is possible to make a great movie while taking from several different books in a series. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World did that and it was an incredible film. So it sounds like there are bigger problems with this film than just accuracy to the source.

 

[FunkMiller]

Who would have thought that one Dark Tower film that's not actually an adaptation of the Dark Tower novel would be met so poorly? Shocker.

"Glorified Dark Tower fan-fiction. That's what audiences want!"

'Buh - buh - but SEQUEL!'



I knew that was a ******** piece of justification the moment I heard it.

Everything about this stinks of Sony twisting an IP that nobody else could adapt into a young-adult friendly flick, along the lines of Percy Jackson or Divergent. Can anyone argue that their target audience for this pile wasn't the same as for those two asinine YA movies? They wanted a cheap, stupid film for cheap, stupid people that would make them an easy profit. So cue Akiva 'cinematic pus merchant' Goldsman, and his genius plan to make Jake the main character.

This was doomed from the second Sony got involved. They never had any intention of actually making The Dark Tower. They just wanted to take elements of the story and turn into the next Mortal Instruments.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It is possible to make a great movie while taking from several different books in a series. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World did that and it was an incredible film. So it sounds like there are bigger problems with this film than just accuracy to the source.

I think How to Train Your Dragon did something similar.

 

[Lily Adler]

Which studio should have done this series?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Not Lionsgate, that's what I'm thinking.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Yeah, being accurate to the book while I think is important doesn't make a movie bad or good.

Jaws and Jurassic Park are nothing like their books but they're still classic movies. Hell, The Shining is completely different yet is a classic. So you can change the source material as long as you keep the spirit of the book (or books) alive. It's not that the film is bad because it isn't exactly the books. It's that it's just a bad movie.

 

[StormC]

Which studio should have done this series?

Not sure any of them are a great fit. Universal, maybe?

 

[FunkMiller]

Not sure any of them are a great fit. Universal, maybe?

No 'old school' major Hollywood movie company would have been right for this project. The Dark Tower is simply too weird, surreal, dense, complex and downright difficult for any of them to do it justice - hence why it ping pinged around every studio, until the hacks at Sony got their claws into it.

Hell, there are very few TV studios who could take it on. People keep citing HBO because of GoT and Westworld, but I don't think even they would go near it. The best TV home would probably be AMC, given a lot of their output, but I have to wonder if they'd have the money or the inclination.

No, I think the best home for an extensive Dark Tower series is either Netflix or Amazon. Both have incredibly deep pockets, don't have to worry about censorship, and are willing to take on big projects that appear quite risky.

 

[:eek:]

He didn't like Stanley Kubrick's adaption of The Shining.

The Shining was a far more personal story for him which can explain him feeling a little ******** from the changes the movie did. Considering King have said in interviews that he isn't completely happy with the Dark Tower-novels, that he feels they are kind of a first draft of the story, I can see why he seems to have no problems with changes any adaptation of these novels makes. Hell, I think he even said once that he might one day rewrite The Dark Tower into just one book, although I'm not sure if he really was serious about that.

 

[TheVileOne]

If they move forward with a TV show, does it have a network yet?

 

[Rowsdower!]

If they move forward with a TV show, does it have a network yet?

No. And after the reviews of the movie and its inevitable failure at the box office, I'm sure there won't be many TV stations jumping at the chance to run it.

 

[Steamteck]

No. And after the reviews of the movie and its inevitable failure at the box office, I'm sure there won't be many TV stations jumping at the chance to run it.

Trailer still looked interesting to me. I'll give it a watch before I declare it awful and dead. Bad reviews are meaningless to the quality of this sort of film IMO. They could mean its bad or great but not what the critics wanted to see.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yep, excellent movies always get 80% negative reviews.

 

[Steamteck]

Woo hoo!!

98% still want to see. So do I.

 

[TheVileOne]

No. And after the reviews of the movie and its inevitable failure at the box office, I'm sure there won't be many TV stations jumping at the chance to run it.

That's an interesting point. However, Mortal Instruments still got a TV series pickup after the movie bombed, and it got renewed for a second season as well. The property might have more life as a TV series than a film franchise.

 

[Steamteck]

Yep, excellent movies always get 80% negative reviews.

My best friend feels that way about SF, fantasy and heroic films actually

As for me, growing up as an SF and fantasy lover, not always but yep it happens fairly Often. if almost as if critics and moviegoers are looking at different things in a film. Some of my favorite films have low ratings so I'm still down with it. Good non hard SF seems particularity beyond lots of critics.

It may be good or it may be awful but I feel modern critics are really disconnected from what makes an entertaining film for me so I'll judge for myself. If the audience rating were that low then i might think twice.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Critics are moviegoers. Like all moviegoers, they are looking for what works for them. And whether one agrees with them or not, they are pretty good at getting the general consensus on a film.

But I am curious, what good non-hard SF is beyond critics on the whole? They really liked the two new Star Wars and the three new Star Treks. Same for Edge of Tomorrow, both GotGs, most of the Hunger Games series, and The World's End. Heck, are we calling Fury Road hard sci-fi?

 

[Neno_Kos]

Which studio for Dark Tower series and book adaptation? Whoever did LotR. Hell I want same plan they used to make LoTR to be adapted for Dark Tower.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Critics are moviegoers. Like all moviegoers, they are looking for what works for them. And whether one agrees with them or not, they are pretty good at getting the general consensus on a film.

But I am curious, what good non-hard SF is beyond critics on the whole? They really liked the two new Star Wars and the three new Star Treks. Same for Edge of Tomorrow, both GotGs, most of the Hunger Games series, and The World's End. Heck, are we calling Fury Road hard sci-fi?

I wouldn't. Hard sci-fi to me would be something more along the lines of Interstellar or The Martian.

 

[StormC]

Fury Road is borderline fantasy. Its presentation of a post-apocalyptic world is more based on visual splendor and exciting adventure than anything based in reality.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree with both of you. Which is why I am confused. There is plenty of sci-fi flicks that get love that aren't hard sci-fi. Some of the most beloved films of the last decade qualify. Inception is another good example.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fury Road I guess is more post-apocalyptic sci-fi is what you would call it.

 

[Mysteryman]

Fury Road I guess is more post-apocalyptic sci-fi is what you would call it.

Are there any legitimate scifi apocalyptic fantasy films?

 

[childeroland]

Miracle Mile, maybe, or A Boy and His Dog

 

[StormC]

Are there any legitimate scifi apocalyptic fantasy films?

Planet Of The Apes?