|
Mantis42 posted:It's going to be a lazy, formulaic movie that's indistinguishable from a superhero movie.  It feels like someone trying to jump on the ultra-profitable cinematic universe thing. Only it won't really work with King's stuff because too much of it is close to canonized. Like, good luck even incidentally tying Kubrick's Shining to something like this.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
And More posted:Would I be very lost if I just picked up Wizard and Glass without having read the other ones? So what I'm saying is, if that doesn't make a goddamn lick of sense, just go ahead and skip it and start with the next section.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Seriously, theres a lot of Idris Elba haters in here. What the gently caress. I'll play Devil's advocate because I understand the feeling. Sort of. Idris Elba is cool as gently caress and I loved him in The Wire and Luther, and there's no way to say he's the wrong pick for Roland without someone accusing me of racism. But he is the wrong pick for Roland, because - beyond the physical description of him in the prose; who gives a gently caress about that - the arc of three characters (Odetta, Detta, and Susannah) is built on them accepting/hating Roland for being white (among other things). I mean, that's a pretty major part of someone who ends up being a pretty major character. But on the other hand, the way King wrote Detta aged like milk, so I understand why the writers didn't bring her into the story, and without Detta there's no reason Roland had to be white. Which is fine, sure. But that sort of writing shows a disregard for the thing that fans loved enough to follow through seven books and about a million pages. Readers generally want some sort of fidelity to the source material, and except for some names and a few locations, this movie doesn't seem to have it. Fidelity isn't always a good thing - I mean, Kubrick's Shining is a lot better than that lovely miniseries - but still, you gently caress with the story at your peril. edit: I'll go ahead and throw down the gauntlet and say that McConaughey is a serious miscast, too. Asbury fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Fidelity to the racist as poo poo characterization of Susannah et. al would've been a bigger mistake than whatever disaster they've committed to film already. Yeah, don't get me wrong about that. If they make a sequel to this and it has Susannah and she has multiple personalities and one of them talks like the caricature of a valley girl and hates black people I'd laugh my loving rear end off, because it'd be a neat response to the original story that says something new while being aware of its origins. Of course, that'd sell about as well as Crystal Pepsi. But all that over-thought poo poo aside, I'm totally gonna go see this because I want to see Idris Elba do some cool poo poo, and if it's garbage, well, it can't be worse than Dreamcatcher. Asbury fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Arcel confirmed in his AMA like a week or two ago that Oy, Eddie and Susannah are all planned for the sequel. And that they've had a lot of discussions on how to write Detta with Roland being black now. Hey, do you have a link to this, by any chance? It'd be cool to read up on the writing process.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
That AMA posted:In the movie, as in the first novel, he's distracted by The Man In Black and by revenge. One of the things I love about the theme of the novels is that Roland has to learn the right path in order to reach the Tower "correctly." We brought that more to the forefront of the film. quote:As I think it will be pretty obvious to the fans when they see the film, the whole Ka-tet is poised to meet in the next movie...if we're lucky enough to be able to make one. Okay, that's fair. My biggest worry was that this was a paint-by-numbers summer blockbuster (and, to be fair, it's still a major worry, looking at the previews), but at least what the guy's saying shows he's a fan and gave his adaptation some thought. Asbury fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I always thought his opinion of The Shining was the opposite of true. The book really piles on that Jack is a violent piece of poo poo from the first page. It does, but it also goes to some length - especially in the "Up on the Roof" chapter - to show that he's aware of it, hates himself for it, and is finally willing to admit to himself that he needs to change his behavior. That's what makes him such a good and tragic character; if he hadn't come to the Overlook, he probably would have come to some peace with himself and become a better person. Jack, and Larry Underwood from The Stand, are some of King's best characters, because they start off lovely in a way that isn't, like, comically evil; they're just selfish people who don't understand or accept that the things they do hurt other people. It's human, and insightful, in a way that most people can't write about. But Nicholson goes nuts like, what, half an hour into the movie? Looking creepy over the hedge maze model? He's totally unsettling and that's cool and good - Kubrick nailed the feeling of the story perfectly. But he didn't understand the characters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:This felt like someone gave a screenwriter a synopsis of all the books, a bottle of Jim Beam, and a 90-minute cap on the runtime. The little nods were all to generic Stephen King stuff, not necessarily Dark Tower stuff, with the exception of the ol' plot device in the satchel. But it just felt ham-fisted to an extreme degree, like 'aw poo poo we gotta cram all this in' with the exposition all up in your face from the start. Yeah. "Spot-the-reference" is a really terrible way to get audience buy-in. It's supposed to show that the screenwriter knows the story and the details and respects them enough to put them into the script...but if you're doing that, why not tell the original loving story that the script is ostensibly based on? Edit: I mean, there's always gonna be changes in any adaptation, and sometimes even big ones can work (e.g., changing the time forward from the 50's to the 80's in the upcoming It remake doesn't seem like a terrible idea, since it still ties in to an idea of cyclic evil), but if the changes aren't necessary or don't serve any purpose, why even make them? The built-in audience wants to see the story they know, not one made generic to pander to the largest customer base. Asbury fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Isn't 90% of The Jaunt just exposition? Yes, and I think it would work for an episode of Black Mirror for just that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 18:55
|
|