|
UPDATE: not a good movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK9LpM7qmJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZC5FoJ-cPU August 4th 2017 The story of Roland Deschain, the gunslinger, a questing knight pursuing a wizard to the ends of a dying world. quote:The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing to the sky for what looked like eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devil-grass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied. Idris Elba as Roland Deschain  Matthew McConaughey as the Man in Black  Directed by quote:There they stood, ranged along the hill-sides, met Rando fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Aug 26, 2017 |
#
?
May 20, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
I sure hope old Long, Tall and Ugly does a little better this time around.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I'm siding with the gunslinger this time around. Drugs did me no good.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
This isn't being directed by Ron Howard, now - Ron was in the mix when it was still being worked as a weird cross-media thing. This version is directed by Nikolaj Arcel, who I think is most known for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? I'd actually feel better about it if it was Ron Howard.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:This isn't being directed by Ron Howard, now - Ron was in the mix when it was still being worked as a weird cross-media thing. This version is directed by Nikolaj Arcel, who I think is most known for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? oh poo poo, your right. thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:This isn't being directed by Ron Howard, now - Ron was in the mix when it was still being worked as a weird cross-media thing. This version is directed by Nikolaj Arcel, who I think is most known for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? So this isn't the one that's also going to have a tv show attached to it? I had no idea. I just finished the DT series last year and enjoyed it enough. Looking forward to the movie, interesting to see the differences and parallels in the cycle, as it were. It would be dope if the Low Men showed up in the Castle Rock tv show that's being planned.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
So here's a thing that's been bugging me about the advertising so far (but could just be part of the advertising and not the film): Walter is supposed to be always grinning, like really malicious and cold-blooded and just having a loving great time ruining things. You've got Matt McConnaughey, a dude known for that exact loving persona - why does he look like he's constantly just stubbed his toe? I want him going Dazed and Confused on this character and we just haven't seen any indication of that chaos-god yet. Not worrying or anything but an odd choice given the actor and the footage given to showcase him.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:So this isn't the one that's also going to have a tv show attached to it? I had no idea. DT has been in development hell for a very long time. This movie is what's left of that big cross-media endeavor. We ended up with no TV show, and this movie is a "sequel" to the DT books, essentially telling the story of the next turning of Roland's story. From the rumors, the movie we'll see in August will incorporate elements of the first three DT books, but won't be a 1-1 telling because it's not the same timeline.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:So here's a thing that's been bugging me about the advertising so far (but could just be part of the advertising and not the film): In the trailer, he reminds me of Pacino in The Devil's Advocate. He didn't go all crazy ham right off the bat either, you gotta build up to that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
The trailer is bad and this is my favorite book series. If the plot is actually about the nebulous tower falling, then I want no part of it. Just looked generic and stripped of almost everything that made it unique.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
I have a weird, sinking feeling that the framed photo of the Overlook shown in the trailer is more Chekov's Gun than easter egg. Those shots of Roland and the Man in Black facing off against each other certainly look like they take place in a dilapidated building which has been left to the snowy elements.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:The trailer is bad and this is my favorite book series. If the plot is actually about the nebulous tower falling, then I want no part of it. Just looked generic and stripped of almost everything that made it unique. Agreed. The tower would look much better with Palpatine on a balcony throwing Harry Potter props while cackling.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
So this is only now happening decades after the height of King's popularity. And it's going to be a sequel to the books at the start of the altered timeline. I don't understand any of this decision.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:So this is only now happening decades after the height of King's popularity. And it's going to be a sequel to the books at the start of the altered timeline. I don't understand any of this decision. If I'm being honest, that a DT movie is happening at all is kind of a miracle. There have been maybe a couple of adaptations of King's work that have been decent. And even if they made a decent DT adaptation, it likely wouldn't do gangbusters at the box office. It's just not that hot an IP, and it would be a costly project for any studio to take on - which is exactly why the big Ron Howard thing collapsed in on itself. It's a risky movie to make, and Hollywood is a tremendously risk averse place. I suspect that this is happening because they've already sunk a bunch of money into development over the last decade or so, and decided to produce SOMETHING from all that work to see if it stuck to the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:The trailer is bad and this is my favorite book series. If the plot is actually about the nebulous tower falling, then I want no part of it. Just looked generic and stripped of almost everything that made it unique. That's my issue really. The books aren't exacting lacking for evocative imagery or scenes but they somehow managed not to include any of it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
I thought the trailer looked good, but the fanboy whining starting up this early has got me excited. Thank you my faithful negative barometers 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
PerilPastry posted:That's my issue really. The books aren't exacting lacking for evocative imagery or scenes but they somehow managed not to include any of it. but didn't you see those sicknasty reloads brah
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Having not read any of the DT books and having only passing familiarity with them, I think this looks pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:If I'm being honest, that a DT movie is happening at all is kind of a miracle. There have been maybe a couple of adaptations of King's work that have been decent. And even if they made a decent DT adaptation, it likely wouldn't do gangbusters at the box office. It's just not that hot an IP, and it would be a costly project for any studio to take on - which is exactly why the big Ron Howard thing collapsed in on itself. Yeah, that's why it's so strange they're doing it now and not back in the early 2000s when the success of the LotR movies would've had producers looking for fantasy serials to adapt and King was still a pretty big name. The poster in the OP doesn't even have a big "Stephen King" prominently splashed along the top or even anywhere, which is half the point of adapting this over paying way less for another sci-fi/fantasy series by someone unknown to non-nerds, his name used to be free advertising.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:The trailer is bad and this is my favorite book series. If the plot is actually about the nebulous tower falling, then I want no part of it. Just looked generic and stripped of almost everything that made it unique. I'm trying to go into the movie with the mindset that it's inspired by the books but has nothing really to do with the books. Alternatively, the books took such a hard left turn after book IV that what the hell, this will probably fit right in lol
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
I haven't read the books, but the trailer looks oddly Young Adult-y. Do the books also have a hip teenager tagging along for the wild ride?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
I haven't read the books in a while but I remember Jake being 9-10, and taking to the dog-thing they pick up just like a kid would. It felt like the book about Roland's past had the most YA bend. He gets laid and feels emotions and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
ozza posted:I haven't read the books, but the trailer looks oddly Young Adult-y. Do the books also have a hip teenager tagging along for the wild ride? Yes, a preteen with a talking dog raccoon
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
There is nothing hip about Jake.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:If I'm being honest, that a DT movie is happening at all is kind of a miracle. There have been maybe a couple of adaptations of King's work that have been decent. And even if they made a decent DT adaptation, it likely wouldn't do gangbusters at the box office. It's just not that hot an IP, and it would be a costly project for any studio to take on - which is exactly why the big Ron Howard thing collapsed in on itself. Not really, unless I'm reading it wrong almost every movie based on a Stephen King work made a profit. Eight of them have made over $75 million if you adjust for inflation. Carrie, The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Misery, Stand By Me, it's definitely more than "maybe a couple" and he's a big name people go out to see his work. In total Box Office Mojo has his movies making over $2B with an average of about $56M which seems more than decent.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:There is nothing hip about Jake. If I remember correctly, his dad does lots of coke. I hope they keep that detail. e: are this and It being produced by different studios? I would love if they managed to squeeze in cross-references.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes, a preteen with a talking dog raccoon Sold.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Jummy posted:Not really, unless I'm reading it wrong almost every movie based on a Stephen King work made a profit. Eight of them have made over $75 million if you adjust for inflation. Carrie, The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Misery, Stand By Me, it's definitely more than "maybe a couple" and he's a big name people go out to see his work. In total Box Office Mojo has his movies making over $2B with an average of about $56M which seems more than decent. This is kind of uncharted waters though, because King's stuff has never really been the type to necessitate $100mil+ budgets, this is really the first time his material is being used to create a major blockbuster. The standards of success are a lot different, when you make The Mist for 18 million and it makes 60 million, that's a success. When you spend 80-100 million on The Dark Tower that puts it into a different category where just making a few hundred million at the box office isn't going to cut it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:This is kind of uncharted waters though, because King's stuff has never really been the type to necessitate $100mil+ budgets, this is really the first time his material is being used to create a major blockbuster. The standards of success are a lot different, when you make The Mist for 18 million and it makes 60 million, that's a success. When you spend 80-100 million on The Dark Tower that puts it into a different category where just making a few hundred million at the box office isn't going to cut it. I can see that, but I don't necessarily agree. The Running Man is Arnold just a couple years after Terminator with a pretty significant budget and it did pretty well. BUT then you have something like Dreamcatcher where they spent almost $70m and definitely didn't recoup that money so yeah it could go either way. I'm curious about your last point, though, how if the budget is $100m and they make "a few hundred million" presumably $300m+ how does that not cut it? That seems like a pretty decent profit but I'm sure I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Jummy posted:I can see that, but I don't necessarily agree. The Running Man is Arnold just a couple years after Terminator with a pretty significant budget and it did pretty well. BUT then you have something like Dreamcatcher where they spent almost $70m and definitely didn't recoup that money so yeah it could go either way. I'm curious about your last point, though, how if the budget is $100m and they make "a few hundred million" presumably $300m+ how does that not cut it? That seems like a pretty decent profit but I'm sure I'm missing something. A decent profit isn't really the return on the investment that studios are looking for from these huge tentpole blockbusters. It's a zero sum game, so that 100 mil and those years spent in development could have been used for something that theoretically could have done a lot better than "just" 200 or 300 million. It would be regarded as not a flop, yet still somewhat of a missed opportunity. I'm not saying I agree with that but its the way these huge films are evaluated these days.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:A decent profit isn't really the return on the investment that studios are looking for from these huge tentpole blockbusters. It's a zero sum game, so that 100 mil and those years spent in development could have been used for something that theoretically could have done a lot better than "just" 200 or 300 million. It would be regarded as not a flop, yet still somewhat of a missed opportunity. I'm not saying I agree with that but its the way these huge films are evaluated these days. Gotcha, I hadn't thought about that but it makes total sense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I hope they keep that detail. This movie is going to go down in marketing history by figuring out that the trick to silence the "it was different in the book" crowd was to show some random still of a horn and then have every book hipster go "heh, if you actually had read the book you'd know it was different because _______"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This movie is going to go down in marketing history by figuring out that the trick to silence the "it was different in the book" crowd was to show some random still of a horn and then have every book hipster go "heh, if you actually had read the book you'd know it was different because _______" The reason why the movie is allowed to be different really is fully explained in the books. The reason people are being tight lipped about that is because it would be impossible to explain without spoiling the ending of a series that people invest a lot of time in reading. It's a long series.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
I like a lot of weird poo poo but I still don't like the Dune movie in any version which I guess doesn't bode well for me and this film since they are both one-off films based on a very long source (I realize the Dune film was just Dune, but they were adapting a book with so much internal dialogue, it makes it feel a lot longer).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Unpopular opinion but if the DT movie gets me to a place where I can hear Idris Elba say "bumhugs" I can forgive just about anything.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The reason why the movie is allowed to be different really is fully explained in the books. The reason people are being tight lipped about that is because it would be impossible to explain without spoiling the ending of a series that people invest a lot of time in reading. It's a long series. You just did the exact thing he's riffing on.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
beejay posted:You just did the exact thing he's riffing on. So be it then. It's a legitimate point that isn't based on hipsterism or smugness, its me saying that its really not a good idea to fully explain why this movie is allowed to be different from the book. It would spoil a pretty large portion of a really long series, so I don't see what's so "hehe" about that.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
To be fair it's contextually obvious what the twist is just from reading elements of the thread critically.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Mulva posted:To be fair it's contextually obvious what the twist is just from reading elements of the thread critically. If you want to boil it down to two or three words, sure. But its really not about just a twist at the end. It's at the center of almost everything in the entire story in ways that are better left unspoiled.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Lets all agree to explain all the differences in the movie as the fact that the book we read was in universe written by an unreliable narrator stephen king having the story leak into his brain instead of explaining the differences as the time loop stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:00
|
|