andythinkpad
Member
That's a really low budget for a "Cinematic Universe" launch movie.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Dark Tower Run Time is 94 Minutes
- Thread starter BoogieWoogie
- Start date
That's a really low budget for a "Cinematic Universe" launch movie.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Movie looks awful to me, but I support this. Every blockbuster doesn't need to be 2.5+ hours long.
The books are basically Stephen kings lotr. Which I ve loved since highschool.
This sequel/new game + was the only option for making a film out of a series that was infamous for being the impossible film adaptation.
I m just glad to finally see Roland on the big screen, even if it's a let down to those in the know and a strange mess to new comers.
This sequel/new game + was the only option for making a film out of a series that was infamous for being the impossible film adaptation.
I m just glad to finally see Roland on the big screen, even if it's a let down to those in the know and a strange mess to new comers.
Inferno313
Banned
This is launching a cinematic universe?
andythinkpad
Member
Stephen Kings Cinematic Universe
cj_iwakura
Member
Feels like major studio interference.
Inferno313
Banned
Source? I can't find anything on this. Does Colombia even have the rights for other King stories?
To me this series is my most beloved IP. I read them all as they were released basically-I read 1&2 and then from there it was upon release. So as I grew up I read the books. I moved around a lot as well so I can vividly remember where I was when each book came out. They mean so much to me and it breaks my heart to think it's being thrown out to die like this.
The Elite
BOSS
They don't have the rights but I bet that came up in a pitch meeting.
Skellig Gra
Member
That's honestly a perfect length for me. This 2.5 hour standard is just dumb.
old manatee
Banned
There is literally nothing intrinsically good or bad about a specific runtime. Either they use the time to properly tell a story or they don't. Same as a 2 hour movie, a 3 hour movie, or a 5 minute short.
tryagainlater
Member
The first book is pretty short so it's not a big deal. Then again, the trailers don't look like they're basing too much off the first book so who knows.
Father_Brain
Banned
Worth noting that this was already delayed for six months, and no trailer until less than three months before release is usually a very bad sign for a big-budget film with big-name stars. (There's probably a more recent example I'm forgetting, but Tim Burton's Dark Shadows comes to mind.)
I'm thinking more along these lines.
Also, I read the first book, thought it was mediocre, so most of that stuff they can cut and I wouldn't care.
Nerd_Incognito
Member
The trailers for this movie have already shown easter eggs of the Overlook Hotel from The Shining and an abandoned sign in the woods that says Pennywise. The Dark Tower novels connect all of Stephen King's works as other worlds, so even the small nods in this film hint to a bigger connection with his films.
Seijuro
Member
There is certainly positive things to be said about a movie that knows when it overstays it's welcome. Many action movies and comedies (they are the worst offenders the last few years) suffer from running for over 2 hours.
But I seriously doubt that it is this movie that is based on a series of long books
I don't think the run time allows for good world building... but maybe we will be surprised.
But I seriously doubt that it is this movie that is based on a series of long books
be it a sequel or not
cr0w
Old Member
It basically is though, with a few things from later books thrown in due to the story being told a little differently this time.
The movie has always been intended to be the Gunslinger of the movie series, not a one-and-done adaptation.
Labelling it a sequel just gives them the space they need to pick and choose what they want from the books - but it doesn't need to be a super long film to build a little back story (on the understanding that it will get fleshed out more if more films follow) introduce the key characters and play out to a climax of some description (
).
I've been wary from the trailers I've seen (though I saw a longer trailer at the cinema on Saturday and though it worked better than the shorter spots) but I love the casting of Idris Elba (and what that might mean for Roland's interactions with the rest of his group) and I love the source material. I'm going to give it every change when it releases.
assuming a tête-à-tête with the Man in Black, albeit perhaps less peaceful than in the book
I've been wary from the trailers I've seen (though I saw a longer trailer at the cinema on Saturday and though it worked better than the shorter spots) but I love the casting of Idris Elba (and what that might mean for Roland's interactions with the rest of his group) and I love the source material. I'm going to give it every change when it releases.
Inferno313
Banned
That's not a cinematic universe though...
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
The trailer looks so boring. I haven't read the books either. I think I will skip the movie in theaters unless it gets great reviews.
bananafactory
Banned
This is the worst movie related post I've seen in a while
What if it was good? Do you judge everything by how long it takes to finish?
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
The '90s. It wasn't until LOTR that tentpole action movies felt comfortable stretching out well past two hours again.
(Ninety minutes is probably below average but most movies came in well under two hours.)
Inferno313
Banned
Ok...
But for example you've got IT coming out soon, which is by a wholly different creative team and studio. There's no way that's connecting to this in a real way, outside of an easter egg in The Dark Tower to the story of IT.
So those won't be in the same cinematic universe.
flatearthpandas
Member
If it's just the gunslinger that's more than enough time.
On the other hand, I have zero expectations for this and will now go back to pretending it doesn't exist for as long as possible.
On the other hand, I have zero expectations for this and will now go back to pretending it doesn't exist for as long as possible.
Based on this post I'm going to assume that you were very young in the nineties.
Like very, very young.
Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is being a bit naive at least as far as the quality is concerned. There's no way they went in to this expecting it to be less than 2 and a half hours. If the final product comes in at 90 minutes, that means they had to chop it to hell and back just to salvage something. It basically gives more credence to the fact that the movie is probably not going to be very good.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
If the movie is good at 94 minutes, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
John Wick, as an example though, had the most basic story in action movie history and even that was 107.
John Wick, as an example though, had the most basic story in action movie history and even that was 107.
I agree with this. Often less is more.
But the movie looks so terrible. Hard to get excited after reading most of the books. I really need to get back to that.
Jest Chillin
Member
So many people coming in the thread not bothering to read replies.
I can understand not knowing that this movie is not the entire series truncated. The title would suggest it and not everyone is going to read the trade articles that clarify that it isn't that.
But to come into the thread and not bother with so much as a glance at some the exchanges that explain that seems lazy.
No, the movie is not the whole series and was never planned to be the whole series.
Yes the movie is closer to "New Game +" and is said to contain elements from multiple books BUT the reason it contains elements from multiple books is BECAUSE it's "New Game +." Basically different decisions get made that result in things happening differently.
So maybe wait until the movie comes out before doomsaying?
I can understand not knowing that this movie is not the entire series truncated. The title would suggest it and not everyone is going to read the trade articles that clarify that it isn't that.
But to come into the thread and not bother with so much as a glance at some the exchanges that explain that seems lazy.
No, the movie is not the whole series and was never planned to be the whole series.
Yes the movie is closer to "New Game +" and is said to contain elements from multiple books BUT the reason it contains elements from multiple books is BECAUSE it's "New Game +." Basically different decisions get made that result in things happening differently.
So maybe wait until the movie comes out before doomsaying?
Inceptional
Member
I'm probably completely wrong but between the runtime and the ads totally dropping the kid, maybe they realized all the kid shit made it feel to y/a and cut all they could of him out. If it's just a focused mano-y-mano battle between The Gunslinger and The Man in Black then I still have hope it can be at least semi-entertaining. It's Sony though so the smart bet is on it being a giant pile of shit.
It's a lot of books, thousands of pages. It's great though, and well worth a read. I've read the wiki description of the movie a couple times and I'm still not totally clear whether reading just the early books would suffice or no.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Saw the trailer the other day and this looked so shitty. Even Mcnnogheuhgh (sp?) couldn't figure out how to act (literally); his lines were god awful.
You think the LotR trilogy should be 4 and a half hours at most?
That's not what the source material is like though.
No Susannah, no Eddie, no Oy.
This is a standalone adaptation of the material from what I've heard which is seven books.
Just Ake and Olan? Why bother?