Film adaptation of Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" is apparently a disaster - Sensationalist Headlines

[url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_tower_2017/[/url] Sony can't catch a break, 21% at RT [quote]For over a decade, some of Hollywood's most successful storytellers have wanted to turn Stephen King's eight-book [I]Dark Tower[/I] saga into movies. Few, presumably, started out with the idea that the best way to wrangle this mountain of plot was to write a new sequel to it. That's roughly what Danish director Nikolaj Arcel offers in [I]The Dark Tower[/I], weaving elements from the published books into a new premise suggested by the series' end and paring the whole mythology down enough to fit into a mere hour and a half. Recent industry gossip described a troubled shoot and early edits that were so confusing to test audiences they prompted much postproduction tinkering by producers and studio execs. That's tough to believe when looking at the finished product, a save-the-multiverse sci-fi fantasy that is, if anything, too easily digested.[/quote] [quote]There’s no half-assing a fantasy epic. Either you want to draw people into a big, strange new world or you want to keep them grounded in ours. Either you want to transport the audience into a land of magic, unique cultures, and curious histories, or you want to stay Earthbound. [B]Nikolaj Arcel[/B]’s adaptation of [B]Stephen King[/B]’s [URL="http://collider.com/tag/the-dark-tower/"][B][I]The Dark Tower[/I][/B][/URL] exists in some weird middle ground where it doesn’t have either the inclination or the budget to be truly majestic so it just keeps teasing the audience with thoughts of a bigger, bolder movie. Despite strong performances from leads [B]Idris Elba[/B] and [B]Matthew McConaughey[/B], [I]The Dark Tower[/I] is too meager to feel grandiose, and too haphazard to feel grounded.[/quote] [url]http://collider.com/the-dark-tower-review/[/url] [url]http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower-review[/url]

that's intensely disappointing

I had no idea this was made by Sony. Was tempted to go see it, but the trailers didn't really present enough for me to be interested

Yea I never really cared for anything I saw in the trailers so this isn't too surprising. But unless it somehow bombs really fucking hard outside the States it'll still most likely end up churning a big profit tho since it was apparently made for just $60 million.

As a big fan of The Dark Tower series, this is hugely disappointing. However, it was a foreseeable outcome with Sony at the reins. The worst part is that it'll be a long while before someone considers adapting the books again.

Just finished reading the first book and started the second in preparation for seeing the movie. Not really wasted time since I really enjoyed the book, but disappointing because I was looking forwards to the movie. The

No surprise, they turned The Mist into a TV show, and apparently after 6 episodes, not a single monster and virtually no mention of arrowhead like the movie, just tons of drama between people and nothing else.

so much wasted potential fantastic actors held down by literally everything else

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52534905]No surprise, they turned The Mist into a TV show, and apparently after 6 episodes, not a single monster and virtually no mention of arrowhead like the movie, just tons of drama between people and nothing else.[/QUOTE] Man this doesn't surprise me one bit. I guess writing up drama is the quickest way to fill up episodes if you're on a tight budget.

While I'm sad this means I'll never get to see what Hollywood thinks lobstrosities are supposed to look like, this felt inevitable. Sony is in full trash mode right now, and all their movies are suffering.

I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but was defaulting on it ending up more-or-less like this. I mean, the optimal way to read the Dark Tower series is essentially as an endcap to [i]almost every other story Stephen King has ever written[/i]. This is [i]actually[/i] a situation where the "Cinematic universe" cash cow studios have been chasing since Marvel pulled it off would have not only been fitting, but bordering on [i]necessary[/i].

The fact that they cast Idris Elba (Good actor, but in this, a poor choice of casting imo) as Roland pretty easily points out that they aren't gonna be faithful to the source material, and thus, likely a disaster, the trailers didn't help either. While swapping race of a character mostly doesn't matter, in TDT, it's something of an important plot point for some of the later characters. That and the trailers kinda show how obvious that this is less an adaptation of the series and more taking shit from the books, stuffing it in and calling it TDT. (Literally, it seems like they cherry picked parts of books 1, 3 and 5 and 6 at the very least) Which is sad, because it'd be a fantastic adaptation all on its own merits. A strict translation from the books to a movie would please a hell of a lot of TDT fans and be good enough to draw new people in.

[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;52534887]As a big fan of The Dark Tower series, this is hugely disappointing. However, it was a foreseeable outcome with Sony at the reins. The worst part is that it'll be a long while before someone considers adapting the books again.[/QUOTE] Should have been an HBO series to begin with, maybe even with the same cast.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52534905]No surprise, they turned The Mist into a TV show, and apparently after 6 episodes, not a single monster and virtually no mention of arrowhead like the movie, just tons of drama between people and nothing else.[/QUOTE] I haven't seen the show but, the drama between people was always the most engaging part of The Mist to me. Where the monsters came from and the greater scenario was always just window dressing to the human conflict of a small group of people isolated in a life-threatening situation and turning on each other as a result.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;52534905]No surprise, they turned The Mist into a TV show, and apparently after 6 episodes, not a single monster and virtually no mention of arrowhead like the movie, just tons of drama between people and nothing else.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that was always the premise. The producer said it was always going to focus on its characters and not on horror.

The one book adaptation after Harry potter that I really wanted to see and it apparently stinks. Damnit. I'll probably see it over the freaking emoji movie regardless.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;52535210]The fact that they cast Idris Elba (Good actor, but in this, a poor choice of casting imo) as Roland pretty easily points out that they aren't gonna be faithful to the source material, and thus, likely a disaster, the trailers didn't help either. While swapping race of a character mostly doesn't matter, in TDT, it's something of an important plot point for some of the later characters. That and the trailers kinda show how obvious that this is less an adaptation of the series and more taking shit from the books, stuffing it in and calling it TDT. (Literally, it seems like they cherry picked parts of books 1, 3 and 5 and 6 at the very least) Which is sad, because it'd be a fantastic adaptation all on its own merits. A strict translation from the books to a movie would please a hell of a lot of TDT fans and be good enough to draw new people in.[/QUOTE] Major spoilers from the end of the dark tower series: [sp] My assumption is that they were going to explain most of that away with the simple reasoning that this isn't the story from the books. It is the next story. King posted this image as part of the promotional material for the movie: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci0CFrfWgAApSjV.jpg:large The ending to the series is Roland reaching the tower and realizing that he has been there countless times before and gets thrown back to the start of the story over and over with no memories of his previous trips to the tower. The book ends with him starting the story again, but this time he starts with the horn of Arthur Eld in his possession, which hints that this upcoming time may be the final go around.[/sp] None of that explains why he is suddenly black though. That just seems pointless. Elba is excellent, but there really is an entire collection of story arcs that sorta rely on his race being what it is.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52535475]Major spoilers from the end of the dart tower series: [sp] My assumption is that they were going to explain most of that away with the simple reasoning that this isn't the story from the books. It is the next story. King posted this image as part of the promotional material for the movie: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci0CFrfWgAApSjV.jpg:large The ending to the series is Roland reaching the tower and realizing that he has been there countless times before and gets thrown back to the start of the story over and over with no memories of his previous trips to the tower. The book ends with him starting the story again, but this time he starts with the horn of Arthur Eld in his possession, which hints that this upcoming time may be the final go around.[/sp] None of that explains why he is suddenly black though. That just seems pointless. Elba is excellent, but there really is an entire collection of story arcs that sorta rely on his race being what it is.[/QUOTE] Thats my major thing, I imagine [sp]Each cycle of the tower means minor details and situations change, small subtle changes, each cyle and minor alteration a path towards redemption for Roland[/sp] Not something somewhat massively big as they have. TDT is a western, post apocalyptic,redemption cycle, regressive tech sci fi with a dash of the supernatural. The trailers however make it seem like a typical post apocalyptic action thriller with a dash of Inception/Dr Strange weirdness. Quite different feels and not changes that do the series justice imo. Like sure, for this film, race doesn't matter, but for any others, where they introduce the cornerstone companions, yeah, it kinda fucks up the plot arcs.

How the hell do you fuck up a film with Idris Elba in it? Sony continues to prove that they have no fucking idea what they are doing.

Hopefully this doesn't cancel the TV series, I feel like that's where a story like TDT could really work

Can Hollywood [i]please[/i] stop trying to cash in on every book franchise? At some point they'll have to understand that not everything needs a film adaptation.

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52535664]How the hell do you fuck up a film with Idris Elba in it? Sony continues to prove that they have no fucking idea what they are doing.[/QUOTE] Idris Elba's a great actor but he's not a miracle worker. No matter how good of a performance an actor gives, it won't change what the rest of the production put out.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;52535210]The fact that they cast Idris Elba (Good actor, but in this, a poor choice of casting imo) as Roland pretty easily points out that they aren't gonna be faithful to the source material, and thus, likely a disaster, the trailers didn't help either. While swapping race of a character mostly doesn't matter, in TDT, it's something of an important plot point for some of the later characters. That and the trailers kinda show how obvious that this is less an adaptation of the series and more taking shit from the books, stuffing it in and calling it TDT. (Literally, it seems like they cherry picked parts of books 1, 3 and 5 and 6 at the very least) Which is sad, because it'd be a fantastic adaptation all on its own merits. A strict translation from the books to a movie would please a hell of a lot of TDT fans and be good enough to draw new people in.[/QUOTE] I've never read the books and I've seen people say that having a black actor play the main character was a bad choice, but I don't know why in regards to the story. What's the explanation?

I've seen it, it's bad. They don't set out for the Tower until the credits roll. [sp]The Man in Black dies from Roland ricocheting a bullet into him[/sp] Spoiler below. [QUOTE=Demeschik;52535869]The Dark Tower. Spoilers ahead. It sucks. If a movie makes you think about a scathing review while you are watching it, then it's a shit movie. No style, no substance, no stake, no thrills. Absolutely nothing to ride home about. They made the kid the main character. The kid who doesn't know how to do anything in a world where a house can turn into a demon and try to eat you while you are inside. By the way, the monster house in the movie dies on its' own after 10 seconds of no struggle. Roland is not on a mission to protect the Tower. Instead, he wovs to kill the Man in Black by any means necessary. OK, fair enough, it's something new. Except, it seems that he hadn't done anything to advance his goals before the movie took place. He is found wandering the desert, they even let the kid say THE line, but the Man in Black has left the desert long, long ago and has been winning the war for the Tower for quite some time. McConaughey was the perfect man to do the part of the Man in Black. I would have been fine if the only thing he did that the movie was shit-talk Roland with a smile across his face. Unfortunately, he barely says anything witty and his magic amounts to saying a couple of words every scene he is in. No resurrections, no rabbit-out-of-sleeve, no fireballs. Just words like "stop breathing", "hate", and "burn". The Man in Black is supposed to be on top of things. For some reason, all his henchmen do is fuck up. The portal guy can't stop the kid, Tyrana doesn't do anything in the movie and gets burned slightly by the Man in Black, the tracker gets shot and dies. The bad guys are really miserable, yet, somehow, they are supposed to be "winning". You don't get enough context to care about what is supposed to happen if the bad guys win. The rose is just a graffiti, the Crimson King is just a name on two walls and is never mentioned by any characters, the monsters from "outside the universe" do not anything except get shot by Roland once. By the way, Roland takes out his guns only five or six times in the movie and there are only three gun action scenes. It's nothing you haven't seen done better in other movies. If you want revolver action and sacrifice, watch The Wild Bunch instead. The final showdown between Roland and McConaughey's paycheck is flaccid, no emotion from either of them at all. They out some King references in the movie! Tet Corporation is a logo in the title sequence. Remember 1408? That number is featured on a wall once! Christine is a toy car! Overlook hotel photo on the psychiatrist's desk! Barlow and Straker is a shop and their logo is shown for a couple of seconds towards the end! That last one doesn't make any sense, because real world scenes are supposed to take place in the Keystone world. As in, the REAL real world. All in all, it's a bad, boring movie. They know how to roll the cameras and put actors in focus, but you all can do the same, yet you don't get paid millions for it. The only good bits are the hospital scene and the Man in Black chucking Roland's bullets back towards him. Not worth it. Edit: Forgot to mention, they don't reach the Tower and the Horn of Eld stays in Roland's bag at all times.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52535815]I've never read the books and I've seen people say that having a black actor play the main character was a bad choice, but I don't know why in regards to the story. What's the explanation?[/QUOTE] I'll put it in spoilers for those that don't want. Firstly, Roland is described through the series as white, (imagine Clint Eastwood/The Man with no name, thats pretty much what he's described as) [sp]secondly of his companions is a black woman from the Segregation Era of the US, Owing to a head injury, she has multiple personalities, one of which is an over the top stereotype of that period (described as an act that the personality doesn't know is an act) the strange new world, combined with the over the top inherent distrust the other personality has towards the white men in the group, is a cause for tension and danger, until the personalities are forced to confront each other, combining into a 3rd personality)[/sp] I've probably not made a great description, and it may seem like a silly point, but in the books, it all works, and relies on the races of the characters as has been described. (admittedly, I started on the 3rd book and got the races of Eddie and Suzie flipped, so that in my mind Suzie was white and eddie black, but its the 2nd book where race plays the major factor.)

At least the upcoming adaption of IT is looking promising.

Can Sony Pictures just quietly fuck off already?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52535815]I've never read the books and I've seen people say that having a black actor play the main character was a bad choice, but I don't know why in regards to the story. What's the explanation?[/QUOTE] On top of RayvenQ's point, [sp]One of the Gunslinger's defining traits is his "bombardier" blue eyes. That aside though, the analogues to Clint Eastwood are literal, because further into the journey to the Tower, they enter different versions of our reality. When they make it to the "Keystone" world, that is our one true reality, Roland and company meet Stephen King whom has been drawing from Roland's world for his books; namely the The Dark Tower. However, following a car accident, King, has since gone on hiatus (reflecting his real world accident and hiatus from writing The Dark Tower) which starts to affect Roland and his journey. King. Both in the book (through characters like Eddie Dean) and as a character describe Roland as Blondie in many ways and even that he was the inspiration for the character. Roland being modeled off of Clint Eastwood's character isn't just for the sake description. It ties in to how Mid-World and the Keystone worlds are connected; how King, Roland, and the Tower are connected and connected to the overall point of the story. Furthermore, the argument for the recast is often "it's the new cycle for Roland" (since at the end, we discover that Roland's journey- like the philosophy of ka- has been cyclical; returning him to the beginning of his quest with a glimmer of hope that this time will be different (because he now carries a symbol of his birthright: the Horn of Eld). Now, from what we can surmise from the end of the book is that the Horn is the only thing that has changed seeing as when the reader read the story he had lost it in battle. The change implies that he may this time succeed in his journey as last time he 'wasn't ready' to reach the top of the tower. Changing his race/overall image implies that somehow that will help him accomplish his goal and severs that connection I mentioned earlier between King/Roland/The Tower. [/sp] Now, there are ways that something like this could have worked, but it's obvious that in the hands of Sony their reasoning isn't because it's to benefit the story; but more than likely to cash in on a big name actor- Idris Elba- and possibly interject "diversity" regardless of context. Or they barely read or cared for the book at all, so context completely eluded them.

Sony needs to get better writers and producers or just fucking stop throwing their money away.

I knew it would be like that the momment I saw how much they were trying to cover in a single movie. [editline]3rd August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;52536020]On top of RayvenQ's point, [sp]One of the Gunslinger's defining traits is his "bombardier" blue eyes. That aside though, the analogues to Clint Eastwood are literal, because further into the journey to the Tower, they enter different versions of our reality. When they make it to the "Keystone" world, that is our one true reality, Roland and company meet Stephen King whom has been drawing from Roland's world for his books; namely the The Dark Tower. However, following a car accident, King, has since gone on hiatus (reflecting his real world accident and hiatus from writing The Dark Tower) which starts to affect Roland and his journey. King. Both in the book (through characters like Eddie Dean) and as a character describe Roland as Blondie in many ways and even that he was the inspiration for the character. Roland being modeled off of Clint Eastwood's character isn't just for the sake description. It ties in to how Mid-World and the Keystone worlds are connected; how King, Roland, and the Tower are connected and connected to the overall point of the story. Furthermore, the argument for the recast is often "it's the new cycle for Roland" (since at the end, we discover that Roland's journey- like the philosophy of ka- has been cyclical; returning him to the beginning of his quest with a glimmer of hope that this time will be different (because he now carries a symbol of his birthright: the Horn of Eld). Now, from what we can surmise from the end of the book is that the Horn is the only thing that has changed seeing as when the reader read the story he had lost it in battle. The change implies that he may this time succeed in his journey as last time he 'wasn't ready' to reach the top of the tower. Changing his race/overall image implies that somehow that will help him accomplish his goal and severs that connection I mentioned earlier between King/Roland/The Tower. [/sp] Now, there are ways that something like this could have worked, but it's obvious that in the hands of Sony their reasoning isn't because it's to benefit the story; but more than likely to cash in on a big name actor- Idris Elba- and possibly interject "diversity" regardless of context. Or they barely read or cared for the book at all, so context completely eluded them.[/QUOTE] The only problem I had with Elba was that the initial dynamic (which is most of the plot of the second book) between her and Roland woudn't work if Roland was black.