• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

family_guy
Member
(07-17-2017, 09:17 PM)
Should have just reached out to HBO or AMC and done a tv series.
Jest Chillin
Member
(07-17-2017, 09:18 PM)
Jest Chillin's Avatar

Originally Posted by cyba89

You think the LotR trilogy should be 4 and a half hours at most?

The LotR trilogy should've been a high budget tv series on a premium network. That wasn't en vogue really, at the time, but such a thing would've allowed a good structure with pacing and details that matched the actual novels.

Because even at the super long runtimes of the LotR films (and they're all great films imo mind you) they had to cut a lot of things, truncate others, and made a lot of changes that upset fans of the books.

This is just a reality of converting Epics to a Film. There isn't enough time to do it justice because no one wants to sit in a theater for 5 or 6 hours for a single book in a multiple book series.

Originally Posted by Omadahl

Just Ake and Olan? Why bother?

Again, because this is not a straight adaptation but rather much closer to a sequel. Things don't happen the same way. But the characters do exist in the world and will be brought in eventually, provided the movie does well enough for the full plans for the Universe to get put into motion.

“They’re certainly out there,” explained Arcel while speaking to EW. “I think the entire story deserves to be told and should be told. I would certainly be disappointed in myself or my collaborators if we didn’t bring them in. They’re such a huge part of the story.” King added that “I’m fine with it…I know exactly where Akiva [Goldsman] always planned to bring them in and that’s cool with me.”

Last edited by Jest Chillin; 07-17-2017 at 09:23 PM.
Shadic7700
Junior Member
(07-17-2017, 09:21 PM)
Shadic7700's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jest Chillin


This is just a reality of converting Epics to a Film. There isn't enough time to do it justice because no one wants to sit in a theater for 5 or 6 hours for a single book in a multiple book series.

This is super true. That said I'm on the extreme end where if it's the Dark Tower I'd totally sit for hours on end Elba looks great as Roland.
Faddy
Member
(07-17-2017, 09:21 PM)
Faddy's Avatar
If you think about it every movie should be 2 hours long.
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
(07-17-2017, 09:32 PM)
Patrick Klepek's Avatar
*breathes deeply into a paper bag*
Azzanadra
(07-17-2017, 09:33 PM)
Azzanadra's Avatar
This kind of adds to my dear of the movie being a one off, from the trailer and now this I am getting the impression that a franchise is a big maybe only if this first movie is successful.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
(07-17-2017, 09:34 PM)
sans_pants's Avatar
this movie is such an obvious bomb i really can't believe they went through with it


at least they didnt spend much
Busty
when Jesus ain't watching Kinect will watch over you
(07-17-2017, 09:43 PM)
Busty's Avatar

Originally Posted by sans_pants

this movie is such an obvious bomb i really can't believe they went through with it


at least they didnt spend much

IIRC a Gaffer 'in a position to know' said that they spent well into nine figures on this which I can well imagine if they reshot the hell out of of it.
Shy
The Reasonable Negro™
That You Can Live With
(07-17-2017, 09:45 PM)
Shy's Avatar

Originally Posted by duckroll

No, it's New Game+.

That should be the thread title.

The Dark Tower |OT| New Game +
mug
Member
(07-17-2017, 10:07 PM)
mug's Avatar
I doubt this movie will be successful which is really unfortunate as I love the series.
cr0w
Member
(07-17-2017, 10:19 PM)
cr0w's Avatar

Originally Posted by Omadahl

Just Ake and Olan? Why bother?

God damn it do any of you bother to read more than one reply?

This is an adaptation of THE FIRST BOOK, The Gunslinger, with elements from other books as the story unfolds differently due to it being a sequel to the books. If this one is successful, they intend on making future projects, including movies and TV mini-series, to encompass the entire story.
Boombloxer
Member
(07-17-2017, 10:23 PM)
Boombloxer's Avatar

Originally Posted by SocksAndShoes

It's not a good sign for a film consider the universe it's pulling from has a huge backstory and a lot of world-building.

As a huge fan of the books I definitely expected a 2hr or more runtime.

Sequel, not adaptation
Nappuccino
Member
(07-17-2017, 10:57 PM)
Nappuccino's Avatar

Originally Posted by Busty

IIRC a Gaffer 'in a position to know' said that they spent well into nine figures on this which I can well imagine if they reshot the hell out of of it.

How is that possible?
ProtomanNeo
Member
(07-17-2017, 10:59 PM)
ProtomanNeo's Avatar
Had the pleasure seeing a couple of TV ads in the last couple of hours and I'm starting to think 'The Gunslinger' might have been a better name for this.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
(07-17-2017, 11:07 PM)
sans_pants's Avatar

Originally Posted by Busty

IIRC a Gaffer 'in a position to know' said that they spent well into nine figures on this which I can well imagine if they reshot the hell out of of it.

This is Sony right? How are they so fucking bad at movies?
Dec
Member
(07-17-2017, 11:18 PM)
Dec's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jest Chillin

The LotR trilogy should've been a high budget tv series on a premium network.

I have never read a worse idea in my life.
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)
Slayven's Avatar
Considering the lore i just don't see how you an make a sequel to bunch of books only read by nerds(sorry nerds) and expect success
norm9
Member
(07-17-2017, 11:34 PM)
As long they coherently squeeze in the first four books in that runtime, I'm cool.
cr0w
Member
(07-17-2017, 11:35 PM)
cr0w's Avatar

Originally Posted by norm9

As long they coherently squeeze in the first four books in that runtime, I'm cool.

Loxley
Member
(07-17-2017, 11:53 PM)
Loxley's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jest Chillin

The LotR trilogy should've been a high budget tv series on a premium network. That wasn't en vogue really, at the time, but such a thing would've allowed a good structure with pacing and details that matched the actual novels.

Because even at the super long runtimes of the LotR films (and they're all great films imo mind you) they had to cut a lot of things, truncate others, and made a lot of changes that upset fans of the books.

This is just a reality of converting Epics to a Film. There isn't enough time to do it justice because no one wants to sit in a theater for 5 or 6 hours for a single book in a multiple book series.

In a perfect world, sure. Television by it's nature tends to lend itself better to lengthy-novel adaptions. But I have no idea how the hell you would do realistically adapt The Lord of the Rings on a TV budget. Game of Thrones has a the biggest budget on TV and they still have to cut corners. The show also benefits from the fact that it has fewer fantastical creatures to contend with, it's mostly just humans with the occasional white walker/zombie + dragon thrown in.

The Lord of the Rings, meanwhile, would need money and tech to faithfully create all of these:

- Gollum
- Trolls
- a Balrog
- Ents
- Wargs
- Dwarves
- Hobbits
- Orcs
- Uruk-hai
- Oliphants
- Fell beasts (those things the Nazgűl ride)
- Eagles
- Army of the Dead

And that's all on-top of the massive battles they'd have to depict like Helm's Deep, Pelennor Fields, Battle of the Black Gate, etc. Adapting The Lord of the Rings to TV would be a logistical nightmare, budget-wise.
NekoFever
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:04 AM)
NekoFever's Avatar
I actually laughed at Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields on a TV budget. Game of Thrones's budget is downright opulent by TV standards and it once knocked the POV character unconscious to avoid showing a battle between a few thousand men.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:11 AM)
Alexander DeLarge's Avatar

Originally Posted by Loxley

In a perfect world, sure. Television by it's nature tends to lend itself better to lengthy-novel adaptions. But I have no idea how the hell you would do realistically adapt The Lord of the Rings on a TV budget. Game of Thrones has a the biggest budget on TV and they still have to cut corners. The show also benefits from the fact that it has fewer fantastical creatures to contend with, it's mostly just humans with the occasional white walker/zombie + dragon thrown in.

The Lord of the Rings, meanwhile, would need money and tech to faithfully create all of these:

- Gollum
- Trolls
- a Balrog
- Ents
- Wargs
- Dwarves
- Hobbits
- Orcs
- Uruk-hai
- Oliphants
- Fell beasts (those things the Nazgűl ride)
- Eagles
- Army of the Dead

And that's all on-top of the massive battles they'd have to depict like Helm's Deep, Pelennor Fields, Battle of the Black Gate, etc. Adapting The Lord of the Rings to TV would be a logistical nightmare, budget-wise.


This is why I laugh at the prospect of a Silmarillion TV series. That material is even larger in scale.
Jest Chillin
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:22 AM)
Jest Chillin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Loxley

In a perfect world, sure. Television by it's nature tends to lend itself better to lengthy-novel adaptions. But I have no idea how the hell you would do realistically adapt The Lord of the Rings on a TV budget. Game of Thrones has a the biggest budget on TV and they still have to cut corners. The show also benefits from the fact that it has fewer fantastical creatures to contend with, it's mostly just humans with the occasional white walker/zombie + dragon thrown in.

The Lord of the Rings, meanwhile, would need money and tech to faithfully create all of these:

- Gollum
- Trolls
- a Balrog
- Ents
- Wargs
- Dwarves
- Hobbits
- Orcs
- Uruk-hai
- Oliphants
- Fell beasts (those things the Nazgűl ride)
- Eagles
- Army of the Dead

And that's all on-top of the massive battles they'd have to depict like Helm's Deep, Pelennor Fields, Battle of the Black Gate, etc. Adapting The Lord of the Rings to TV would be a logistical nightmare, budget-wise.

All of this comes down to quality of effects work, which still isn't guaranteed to be better just by being a film. Being a film simply makes it easier to throw more money at effects to attempt to solve the issues of the massive scales and fantastical creatures.

We could also talk about the difference between having one director in film vs multiple directors in tv, unified creative direction, time to develop and choreograph action, and a lot more. But none of that changes the point.

Of course a perfect adaptation will have both style and substance. But the style can't carry subpar substance while the latter can carry the former. LotR is as close to a perfect Epic adaptation as film can do and it's still not perfect. The fact that The Hobbit pales in comparison to LotR as well, also goes to show that it's rare to even get that close.
zeemumu
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:23 AM)
zeemumu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Quonny

Why is this bad?

Background info-wise, it's a bit complex.
TheXbox
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:32 AM)
TheXbox's Avatar
If I'm a Dark Tower fan, I really only need this movie to do well enough to ensure the TV series with Idris gets off the ground. The movie can be so-so, but the show can be amazing. (see Stargate)

Originally Posted by Alexander DeLarge

This is why I laugh at the prospect of a Silmarillion TV series. That material is even larger in scale.

The Children of Hurin is tame enough, so as long as they excise the Battle of Unnumbered Tears (which was glossed over in the text anyway). Not that Tolkien's estate will ever part with the rights :(
samar11
Member
(07-18-2017, 08:43 AM)
samar11's Avatar

Originally Posted by Father_Brain

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.)

It's actually a low budget lol, someone here said 65 million I believe.
Real Hero
Member
(07-18-2017, 08:47 AM)
Real Hero's Avatar
It's going to be so bad you guys
EGM1966
Member
(07-18-2017, 08:59 AM)
EGM1966's Avatar
Would be about right if this was more or less the first book.

From trailers and what I gather this is a larger chunk than that though so this seems short.
sankt-Antonio
Member
(07-18-2017, 09:00 AM)
sankt-Antonio's Avatar

Originally Posted by Slayven

Considering the lore i just don't see how you an make a sequel to bunch of books only read by nerds(sorry nerds) and expect success

I bet Sony hoped for a LotR / GoT situation happening. Which I honestly could see given the material - but its Sony Studios doing this... so it will most likely bomb :'(
Achamian
Member
(07-18-2017, 09:04 AM)
Achamian's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheXbox

If I'm a Dark Tower fan, I really only need this movie to do well enough to ensure the TV series with Idris gets off the ground. The movie can be so-so, but the show can be amazing. (see Stargate)

The Children of Hurin is tame enough, so as long as they excise the Battle of Unnumbered Tears (which was glossed over in the text anyway). Not that Tolkien's estate will ever part with the rights :(


Um the Stargate movie was about a million times better than the tv show!
Mokujin
Member
(07-18-2017, 09:04 AM)
Mokujin's Avatar
Just a bit over an hour and a half seems little time to stablish world, characters and plot to me, I like movies being 110-120 min myself.

Not trying to shit on the movie really, for good or for bad I'm not really interested in this movie (haven't read the books and the trailer didn't click with me).
CaviarMeths
Member
(07-18-2017, 09:17 AM)
CaviarMeths's Avatar
Any shorter than that and it could be an episode on an HBO TV show.
Carcetti
Member
(07-18-2017, 09:33 AM)
Carcetti's Avatar

Originally Posted by Achamian

Um the Stargate movie was about a million times better than the tv show!

What? The movie's barely better than any above average straight to VHS scifi despite the lead actors while the show had many genuinely excellent episodes and even better cast chemistry.
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(07-18-2017, 09:52 AM)
Slayven's Avatar

Originally Posted by Achamian

Um the Stargate movie was about a million times better than the tv show!

The Stargate movie was a frame of an idea that the tv fleshed out and made better.
ShemhazaiX
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:48 AM)
ShemhazaiX's Avatar
Personally would have preferred a two hour run time. Hour and a half always feels way too short. Never understood complaints about long movies.
moggio
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:51 AM)
moggio's Avatar

Originally Posted by Achamian

Um the Stargate movie was about a million times better than the tv show!

Haha. No it fucking wasn't!
darkwing
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:53 AM)
darkwing's Avatar
that sounds good, this is just for the first book right?
120v
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:54 AM)
i don't care that the movie is relatively short but i wonder why they're starting with jake/real word, "we must save the multiverse", ect... just seems like way too much of an infodump for a casual audience to get hooked in

really should've just started with roland in mid world, on some kind of adventure tangentially related to the overall arc, didn't even have to be an adaptation of The Gunslinger or anything. main appeal of these was supposed to be the western fantasy aspect
CaviarMeths
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:56 AM)
CaviarMeths's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShemhazaiX

Personally would have preferred a two hour run time. Hour and a half always feels way too short. Never understood complaints about long movies.

Even "long" movies are still too short for the scope of world-building that a lot of sci-fi/fantasty works are going for. Lord of the Rings extended trilogy is 12 hours long and still feels like they barely scratched the surface of Middle Earth lore.
wazoo
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:57 AM)
wazoo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jest Chillin

The LotR trilogy should've been a high budget tv series on a premium network

One hour budget of GOT would only pay the sandwiches on LOTR filming. To be exact, GOT is quite expensive for a TV show and is around 6M$ by episode, which is nothing for a movie.

TV shows can be excellent, but they cut and hide a lot, they are in fact very good exercise for new directors to manage a budget and make the most from nothing. In that sense, directing a Sify episode could be as good for a new guy as directing Piranha 2 was a good lesson for Cameron back in the days.
ShemhazaiX
Member
(07-18-2017, 11:16 AM)
ShemhazaiX's Avatar

Originally Posted by CaviarMeths

Even "long" movies are still too short for the scope of world-building that a lot of sci-fi/fantasty works are going for. Lord of the Rings extended trilogy is 12 hours long and still feels like they barely scratched the surface of Middle Earth lore.

Yeah, I get that. Only said two hours because don't want people thinking I'm crazy for being happy to watch a four hour movie.
Monocle
Member
(07-18-2017, 11:26 AM)
Monocle's Avatar
Well great, noise I'm worried it will be rushed and unsatisfying.
wesleyshark
Member
(07-18-2017, 11:29 AM)
wesleyshark's Avatar
94min seems awfully short. Ugh
Draft
(07-18-2017, 12:00 PM)
Draft's Avatar
Fade in on a vast desert. The sun bakes everything into a hard white haze. A solitary figure splits the horizon. It is a man, ROLAND THE GUNSLINGER.

Voiceover: the multiverse. Infinite realities. Some achingly beautiful. Some twisted and dark. All dangerous in their own way. The spoke of the wheel upon which they turn is The Dark Tower. It is the key to existence itself. No one knows who... or what lives in the tower. But I'm going to find out, and anything that gets in my way is going to become so much deedle-chum.

This movie is going to be pooooooooo.
Ghost_Messiah
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:38 PM)
Ghost_Messiah's Avatar
As someone who's read The Gunslinger, and researched the other books and heard amazing things about them, they really should have just gone LOTR style with this and just converted each book in to a film, to respect the source material. This 94-minute frankenstein monster of a film, that's kind of a sequel, but not, that is kind of based on the books, but also not, just has disaster written all over it.

I saw the new trailer before Spiderman a few days back, and thought it looked pretty cool, but the way they're going about this, grabbing ideas from the books but also going creatively crazy with it, and now the short running time - I just can't see this being any good.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. I'll still see this, but have set expectations low accordingly.
Whompa02
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:40 PM)
Whompa02's Avatar

Originally Posted by darkwing

that sounds good, this is just for the first book right?

I think it's an amalgamation of several books.
Real Hero
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:41 PM)
Real Hero's Avatar
Saying it is a sequel kinda is just to give them a license to change whatever they want
Zulithe
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:55 PM)
Zulithe's Avatar
A damn shame. This world is so rich, so bursting with stuff to show, I don't believe at all that 94 mins is enough to firmly establish this franchise. Not when we're talking 2+ years between installments, either. If it even gets a second one.
JaggedSac
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:58 PM)
JaggedSac's Avatar
This movie looks like complete dogshit.
Jest Chillin
Member
(07-18-2017, 05:48 PM)
Jest Chillin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ghost_Messiah

As someone who's read The Gunslinger, and researched the other books and heard amazing things about them, they really should have just gone LOTR style with this and just converted each book in to a film, to respect the source material. This 94-minute frankenstein monster of a film, that's kind of a sequel, but not, that is kind of based on the books, but also not, just has disaster written all over it.

I saw the new trailer before Spiderman a few days back, and thought it looked pretty cool, but the way they're going about this, grabbing ideas from the books but also going creatively crazy with it, and now the short running time - I just can't see this being any good.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. I'll still see this, but have set expectations low accordingly.

As someone who's read The Gunslinger and has read all the other books, not just researched them, I'm telling you straight up that the "kind of a sequel, kind of not" is a genius way of going about this particular adaptation.

And the overall plan is to do a combination of Movies and TV shows to tell the tale. They've already got a decent amount of actors cast for the TV show iirc. But in order for this to happen, this movie does have to be successful enough to justify the expenditure. Which is true for all movie series.

Thread Tools