Stephen King's The Dark Tower

The White Wolf

I liked parts of MMc's performance, in that he came across as deliciously creepy at times. As with everything in the film, his performance was given little room to breathe.

I'm not sure what to call the finish product anyway, as I got the impression that they had tied themselves up in such a knot during production that a 90 minute film, that went at such a fast pace that it gave the viewer no time to process anything, that what we got was a mercy in the end.

MilesMorales1

It was really bad, but Elba/MMC saved it from being a total trainwreck.

I really didn't understand about 99% that was going on in it.

MilesMorales1

I read it was an adaption of the books, but according to wikipedia its a sort of sequel?

MilesMorales1

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

I read it was an adaption of the books, but according to wikipedia its a sort of sequel?

I saw it with a few people last night. One of them had read all the books and, according to her, it's essentially all of them condesned down to a single hour and a half movie.

From talking to someone else that had also read the books -

I didn't realise the Crimson King was something or other that had been locked in the Tower or something. From the movie, I thought the MiB was the Crimson King.

.

It was just a poorly executed movie, with too much happening in the running time, with so little of it actually explained. Supposedly it makes sense if you read the books, but as someone who didn't, I would compare it to the Ryan Reynold's Green Lantern - but with better CGI.

I'm sure the Gunslinger's Creed carried more reverence in the books and was better explained, but to me it just sounded... cheesy. Why was forgetting the face of your father a curse?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure the Gunslinger's Creed carried more reverence in the books and was better explained, but to me it just sounded... cheesy. Why was forgetting the face of your father a curse?

The way I read it is that the Gunslinger culture is patriarchal, gunslingers learn from their fathers who pass on the belief system from generation to generation and to act dishonorably is seen disrespecting the code of all. The father does not just refer to Roland's father but all those who came before him. A gunslinger who does not follow the code or deliberately acts against it has forgotten the code and in doing so the face of his father.

MilesMorales1

The creed sounded better in the trailers as a voice over.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The way I read it is that the Gunslinger culture is patriarchal, gunslingers learn from their fathers who pass on the belief system from generation to generation and to act dishonorably is seen disrespecting the code of all. The father does not just refer to Roland's father but all those who came before him. A gunslinger who does not follow the code or deliberately acts against it has forgotten the code and in doing so the face of his father.

From a movie point of view, I did not get that at all. I might have missed it, but I didn't know that Gunslingers were passed down.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

From a movie point of view, I did not get that at all. I might have missed it, but I didn't know that Gunslingers were passed down.

I thought it was pretty clearly explained in the film. They didn't go into detail but it was there. I liked that they let a few things go unexplained, I went with my fiance and she got what the creed was about, having never read the books.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought it was pretty clearly explained in the film. They didn't go into detail but it was there. I liked that they let a few things go unexplained, I went with my fiance and she got what the creed was about, having never read the books.

But if the whole thing is about fathers and whatnot, then how can the kid be a gunslinger if he isn't related to Elba's character?

TBH, the whole thing just was a bit of a mess in my opinion. It was very disjointed. I had heard stories that McConaughey's dialogue had to be redone in some scenes and that they supposedly had to redo his lips digitally. It kind of made sense, because some of it looked very odd.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But if the whole thing is about fathers and whatnot, then how can the kid be a gunslinger if he isn't related to Elba's character?

TBH, the whole thing just was a bit of a mess in my opinion. It was very disjointed. I had heard stories that McConaughey's dialogue had to be redone in some scenes and that they supposedly had to redo his lips digitally. It kind of made sense, because some of it looked very odd.

The father doesn't necessarily refer to a literal father, it refers to all the gunslingers who came before. Jake in the film has a good moral center, the constant reference to his father as a good man who shaped Jake into a good man is exactly what the gunslinger code is about.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The father doesn't necessarily refer to a literal father, it refers to all the gunslingers who came before. Jake in the film has a good moral center, the constant reference to his father as a good man who shaped Jake into a good man is exactly what the gunslinger code is about.

Again, as a person who has never read the books - hell, who has only ever heard of them in passing, this is something I felt was explained unbelievably poorly.

kerplun k

Whats not to get?
I took my 14yo nephew to it, and he understood it just fine with no previous knowledge of the books.
I was curious about peoples perception, so, on the way home, I pretended that I didn't know what was going on, and asked him to explain it to me. He basically said. Roland/Jake are the good guys, and want to save the tower, MiB, was the bad guy and wants to destroy the tower which protects our world.

Also, its not a condensed version squeezed into one movie. Its an introduction into the dark tower universe which can either work as standalone or an entry point.

kerplun k

kerplun k wrote: »

Whats not to get?
I took my 14yo nephew to it, and he understood it just fine with no previous knowledge of the books.
I was curious about peoples perception, so, on the way home, I pretended that I didn't know what was going on, and asked him to explain it to me. He basically said. Roland/Jake are the good guys, and want to save the tower, MiB, was the bad guy and wants to destroy the tower which protects our world.

Also, its not a condensed version squeezed into one movie. Its an introduction into the dark tower universe which can either work as standalone or an entry point.

It might be an introduction into the universe, but somehow I suspect we'll not be getting any more of them. Given that it's received $42m on a $60m budget. And that it was seemingly critically panned - it sits at 16% on Rotten Tomatoes and 34% on Metacritic.

kerplun k

Deleted User wrote: »

It might be an introduction into the universe, but somehow I suspect we'll not be getting any more of them. Given that it's received $42m on a $60m budget. And that it was seemingly critically panned - it sits at 16% on Rotten Tomatoes and 34% on Metacritic.

True.
This film was never going to sit well with critics. It hasn't performed at the box office, so this could very well be the last movie.

Glen Mazzara, formerly of The Walking Dead was recently hired as show runner for a planned TV show. So, it looks like something might happen in that format. We'll see what happens.

The White Wolf

I read on the wiki page that Elba is up to continue with a tv series but can't see him committing to a show unless it's an on going miniseries of 4/5 episodes a season akin to Luther.

Not so shocked in MMc's case as things have been going rough for him lately. Good thing about TMIB/Flagg/O'dim though is that he can easily be recast.

So the movie was a $60m introduction to a planned TV show?

It could have been great. Nobody in it was bad, as such, but it needed to be trimmed. It should have had better focus. The one that had read the book echoed my sentiment; it felt so much longer than it's 90min runtime.

kerplun k

Exactly, Taylor and Elba are both contractually obliged but McConaughey isn't, but as you said, Flagg has many incarnations, so if they wanted, they could kick on without him.

I'd like to see more of this, but if it doesn't happen, no biggie, at least they wrapped up this film so it could be concluded as a standalone film.

kerplun k

Deleted User wrote: »

So the movie was a $60m introduction to a planned TV show?

It could have been great. Nobody in it was bad, as such, but it needed to be trimmed. It should have had better focus. The one that had read the book echoed my sentiment; it felt so much longer than it's 90min runtime.

Yes, It was supposed to be an introduction to a planned series of TV shows, and further movies.

I thought the movie was very enjoyable. Its a shame it wasn't that well received.
As you said it already, it had a short runtime, so not sure they could have trimmed it any more than it was

kerplun k

kerplun k wrote: »

Yes, It was supposed to be an introduction to a planned series of TV shows, and further movies.

I thought the movie was very enjoyable. Its a shame it wasn't that well received.
As you said it already had a short runtime, so not sure they could have trimmed it any more than it was

I'm not talking about the runtime, as such, but more a lot of the various plots, which ultimately added nothing. Again, this is my own personal opinion, but the likes of the themepark section, any mention of the Crimson King. Things like that. When you take the movie for a standalone movie and not further ones or a TV show - like, I would assume, most cinemagoers would be doing, then these aspects added nothing.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not talking about the runtime, as such, but more a lot of the various plots, which ultimately added nothing. Again, this is my own personal opinion, but the likes of the themepark section, any mention of the Crimson King. Things like that. When you take the movie for a standalone movie and not further ones or a TV show - like, I would assume, most cinemagoers would be doing, then these aspects added nothing.

They are Easter eggs, it's like watching 11.2.63 and complaining that the Captain Tripps moment adds nothing. It's not supposed to add anything other than be a throw away moment.

The Dark Tower was full of King references, from the family from Cujo, Christine, the twins from the Shining, the Overlook Hotel, the copy of Misery's Child, the Rita Hayworth poster, the portal being 1408, the smiley face from Mr Mercedesand so on. None of them add anything to the film, they're there for those who have read King's work.

Glebee

Folks, im about half way through the The Dark Tower book series, should I stay away from the film???

kerplun k

Glebee wrote: »

Folks, im about half way through the The Dark Tower book series, should I stay away from the film???

If your interested in seeing the film, go see it. It won't spoil anything for you in the books.

Xofpod

Big fan of the books, went into the movie very sceptical after everything I had read in advance, but I have to say I enjoyed it. The key thing for me is that it was an entirely different iteration, separate from the books.

If I compare it to something like the (godawful) Watchmen movie which was completely ruined by a slavish and heavy-handed devotion to the original text, I was pretty happy with the end product.

It was far from perfect, and the elements they chose to mash together in the abridged plot were ....a curious choice, but would I watch more of it? Absolutely. It's a pity that doesn't seem very likely though.

Riddle101

Went to see it the a few days ago but I couldn't get into it. My dad who is a fan of the books didn't like it either. Just not my cup of tea.

kerplun k

Riddle101 wrote: »

Went to see it the a few days ago but I couldn't get into it. My dad who is a fan of the books didn't like it either. Just not my cup of tea.

It seems to have gotten a very strange reaction from people. The critics hated it, most DT fans I know liked it, and your average movie goer had mixed opinions, but no matter the reaction, I asked the same question to people I know who seen the film, I asked if they'd be interested in seeing some form of continuation, whether it be a sequel or TV show? And almost every person, regardless of their opinion, said they would definitely be interested in seeing more.

It just broke a 100m against a relatively small budget, so I wouldn't completely rule out a sequel, I think a sequel starring Aaron Paul as Eddie would be epic.

Snake Plisken

Just watched it there and having read the books and I was pleasantly surprised it had the heart of the books I did feel they could have fleshed out the characters back stories and the 90minutes was way to short to do it justice. Idris does a fine job as Roland and the young kid as Jake was fine. So decent enough but it could have been a lot more.

Avatar MIA

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Just watched it there

Hah! When I saw this I thought, hmmm, it must be "available" :pac:

Avatar MIA

Have work in the morning, but just finished watching. I enjoyed it, not sure if cannon, and a bit strange considering how much material that was in the books that they've skipped over. 7.5/10.

kerplun k

I think the beauty of this story is that this film can be cannon, and not be related to the version we read in the books.