[Grimjust Bearegular]

[Ceda Cicero]

Things aren't looking so hot for the adaptation... http://www.movieweb....versal-pictures

[QuickTidal]

Ceda Cicero, on 19 July 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

Things aren't looking so hot for the adaptation... http://www.movieweb....versal-pictures

Yeah, I read this earlier today...but it COULD get moved to another company like LOTR did (From Miramax who didn't want to invest in a 2-film adaptation, to New Line who let Jackson shoot 3 back to back)

But yeah, it's not good news...

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 19 July 2011 - 05:00 PM

[Slow Ben]

I have a hard time being too upset by this.

I love this series so damn much there is no possible way it could live up to my expectations.

[Abyss]

Slow Ben, on 19 July 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

... there is no possible way it could live up to my expectations.

Many, many people said that about GAME OF THRONES too.

- Abyss, just sayin'...

[Ceda Cicero]

Abyss, on 19 July 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

Slow Ben, on 19 July 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

... there is no possible way it could live up to my expectations.

Many, many people said that about GAME OF THRONES too.

- Abyss, just sayin'...

I'm 50/50 on this. The THRONES comparison is well-made and well-taken. On the other hand, there are certain surreal elements in the DARK TOWER that just might not translate well to screen. Blaine the Mono is harrowing in the books. On screen it would be hard to make that anything but ridiculous. Pretty much everything in WOLVES OF THE CALLA would be much the same. Gigantic robotic wolves? Sneetches? Then of course there's the spider baby who shits his pants halfway across End World, the insane clown with Evil Empathy powers... it goes on and on. Stuff that already straddles the line between terrifying/credible and over-the-top/silly in the books would be even more in danger of toppling into silly on screen. Sure THRONES has some elements of fantasy (White Walkers, zombies, fucking dragons and a handful of other things) that are similarly difficult, but it's a very, very different situation.

[Gust Hubb]

You also have to remember that Stephen King himself would be exceptionally active in the film making (the guy loves making movies after all).

[Ceda Cicero]

Gust Hubb, on 19 July 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

You also have to remember that Stephen King himself would be exceptionally active in the film making (the guy loves making movies after all).

Yeah, he was heavily involved in the making of DREAMCATCHER, and look how that turned out.

Oh, wait.

[Feathersmith]

Ceda Cicero, on 19 July 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 19 July 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

You also have to remember that Stephen King himself would be exceptionally active in the film making (the guy loves making movies after all).

Yeah, he was heavily involved in the making of DREAMCATCHER, and look how that turned out.

Oh, wait.

Yeah, it's best not to look at that one at all D:

[Gust Hubb]

Ouch.

[RolandDeschain]

Not too sad about this news. I was also afraid the movies/series wouldn't do the books justice. The story is just too weird for movies I think, too much stuff would need to be left out to make movies most people would want to see.

But if the movies ever come out, I'll still watch them.

[Abyss]

Feathersmith, on 19 July 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

Ceda Cicero, on 19 July 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 19 July 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

You also have to remember that Stephen King himself would be exceptionally active in the film making (the guy loves making movies after all).

Yeah, he was heavily involved in the making of DREAMCATCHER, and look how that turned out.

Oh, wait.

Yeah, it's best not to look at that one at all D:

Oh, it's worse than that. go back through the last few decades and there are a stack of truly awful movies based on King stories, most of which the author was involved in. The list is long (starting with CARRIE in 1976) and at times eyebleedingly bad (GRAVEYARD SHIFT comes to mind...poorly).

Now that being said, he also wrote the source material for THE SHINING, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, STAND BY ME, MISERY, the utterly underrated but totally enjoyable anthology CAT'S EYE (which is notable for its troll vs cat combat scene) and a couple of others that for their time were pretty good CHRISTINE comes to mind, and CUJO is THE. SCARIEST. MOVIE. E.V.E.R.).


All of which is to say, in the right hands, DT could work... take some of the more eclectic and literary weirdness out and you have a solid post-apocalyptic setting, great characters and the basis for some awesome set pieces and action scene. I still think it would work far far better as a film series than as a tv series if only because you need a budget to make certain things work... Blaine the monorail could be frikkin terrifying if you crank up the sfx of a futuristic train barreling over a fucked up landrscape while the computer voice taunts the passengers. But i don't care what tv production team you have... a legless woman in a wheelchair throwing plates at robots isn't going to work as an action scene without serious bucks behind it, and anything less will just look rank silly. Tho again, leave out the plates and the 'hit the antennae' part you have a perfectly solid gunslingers vs robots gunfight scene.

[Use Of Weapons]

And you left out The GREEN MILE

[Abyss]

Among others.

But arguably the best ones were where someone took the King material and went with it. I have no stats, but i'm pretty sure the weaker films and tv series' had King directly involved.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

Abyss, on 20 July 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Among others.

But arguably the best ones were where someone took the King material and went with it. I have no stats, but i'm pretty sure the weaker films and tv series' had King directly involved.

This.

King hated Kubrick's Shining and made a tv series that ,according to him, was closer to his work. It was horrible.

[QuickTidal]

Yeah, King has actually chimed in about UNIVERSAL dropping out and he got a dig in about them as well:

Quote

"I'm sorry Universal passed, but not really surprised. As a rule, they've been about smaller and less risky pix; maybe they feel it would be better to stick with those fast and furious racing boys. I bear them no ill will, and trust Ron Howard to get Roland and his friends before the camera somewhere else. He's very committed to the project."

Personally having only read the first book I can only think that it would translate well...but beyond that my friend swears some of it is unfilmable unless they had oodles of money and King let them take some creative license with certain more out there ideas.

[Ceda Cicero]

King Kazma, on 20 July 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, King has actually chimed in about UNIVERSAL dropping out and he got a dig in about them as well:

Quote

"I'm sorry Universal passed, but not really surprised. As a rule, they've been about smaller and less risky pix; maybe they feel it would be better to stick with those fast and furious racing boys. I bear them no ill will, and trust Ron Howard to get Roland and his friends before the camera somewhere else. He's very committed to the project."

Personally having only read the first book I can only think that it would translate well...but beyond that my friend swears some of it is unfilmable unless they had oodles of money and King let them take some creative license with certain more out there ideas.

In it's own right, the first book would make a spectacular short film. After that... especially around book 3 and reaching a crescendo in volumes 5, 6, and 7 (definitely, definitely, definitely 5) the surreal stuff that would be nigh on impossible to directly translate reaches a crescendo.


Though like book 1, book 4 would make an excellent film in its own right. A part of me would almost rather see just a movie about the Mejis/Roland/Susan story culminating in the Fall of Gilead to Farson than an attempt to adapt the series in its entirety.

This post has been edited by Ceda Cicero: 20 July 2011 - 04:21 PM

[Abyss]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 20 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

Abyss, on 20 July 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Among others.

But arguably the best ones were where someone took the King material and went with it. I have no stats, but i'm pretty sure the weaker films and tv series' had King directly involved.

This.

King hated Kubrick's Shining and made a tv series that ,according to him, was closer to his work. It was horrible.

Oh god that tv version was awful. I actually think the Kubrick film is untouchable for scare value and sheer mindfuck. King tells brilliant stories most of the time, that in the hands of someone who knows tv or film can be awesome, but i wish he would leave it to them.

Sticking too close to the source material would guarantee failure for a TDT film or tv project. A lot of what works in the books on a textual level won't work in a 'show me don't tell me' medium.

Consider the central plot device of DRAWING OF THE THREE... Roland wanders through a wasteland finding random doors that lead him to certain people in our world. Ummm. what? How did those get there? Who left them there? Why THOSE people? Was he on a plane? What's with the subway sociopath anyways? Now consider that in the mindset of a non-book viewer... "just go with it" doesn't fly. it's going to take a certain deft hand to make that work on screen, or work around it. King would just leave it in as is.

And let's be honest... the lobstrocities were just silly.

[Ceda Cicero]

Abyss, on 20 July 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

Bauchelain the Evil, on 20 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

Abyss, on 20 July 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Among others.

But arguably the best ones were where someone took the King material and went with it. I have no stats, but i'm pretty sure the weaker films and tv series' had King directly involved.

This.

King hated Kubrick's Shining and made a tv series that ,according to him, was closer to his work. It was horrible.

Oh god that tv version was awful. I actually think the Kubrick film is untouchable for scare value and sheer mindfuck. King tells brilliant stories most of the time, that in the hands of someone who knows tv or film can be awesome, but i wish he would leave it to them.

Sticking too close to the source material would guarantee failure for a TDT film or tv project. A lot of what works in the books on a textual level won't work in a 'show me don't tell me' medium.

Consider the central plot device of DRAWING OF THE THREE... Roland wanders through a wasteland finding random doors that lead him to certain people in our world. Ummm. what? How did those get there? Who left them there? Why THOSE people? Was he on a plane? What's with the subway sociopath anyways? Now consider that in the mindset of a non-book viewer... "just go with it" doesn't fly. it's going to take a certain deft hand to make that work on screen, or work around it. King would just leave it in as is.

And let's be honest... the lobstrocities were just silly.

Did-a-chuck?

[Feathersmith]

Ceda Cicero, on 20 July 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

King Kazma, on 20 July 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, King has actually chimed in about UNIVERSAL dropping out and he got a dig in about them as well:

Quote

"I'm sorry Universal passed, but not really surprised. As a rule, they've been about smaller and less risky pix; maybe they feel it would be better to stick with those fast and furious racing boys. I bear them no ill will, and trust Ron Howard to get Roland and his friends before the camera somewhere else. He's very committed to the project."

Personally having only read the first book I can only think that it would translate well...but beyond that my friend swears some of it is unfilmable unless they had oodles of money and King let them take some creative license with certain more out there ideas.

In it's own right, the first book would make a spectacular short film. After that... especially around book 3 and reaching a crescendo in volumes 5, 6, and 7 (definitely, definitely, definitely 5) the surreal stuff that would be nigh on impossible to directly translate reaches a crescendo.


Though like book 1, book 4 would make an excellent film in its own right. A part of me would almost rather see just a movie about the Mejis/Roland/Susan story culminating in the Fall of Gilead to Farson than an attempt to adapt the series in its entirety.

In terms of translating to film, that may be true, but I don't think I could bear to watch that one. I've read that book 2 or 3 times, and - no. Never again. Watching things fall apart so badly, written the way King likes to do with all that foreshadowing and stuff, is something I've got low tolerance for.

Also I thought the lobstrosities were f-ing horrifying, actually. Creepy creepy. (multi-quote hates me)