family_guy
Member
Should have just reached out to HBO or AMC and done a tv series.
-
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
Jest Chillin
Member
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.
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.
Shadic7700
Member
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.
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
*breathes deeply into a paper bag*
sans_pants
avec_pénis
this movie is such an obvious bomb i really can't believe they went through with it
at least they didnt spend much
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.
cr0w
Old Member
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
Sequel, not adaptation
Nappuccino
Member
How is that possible?
ProtomanNeo
Member
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
This is Sony right? How are they so fucking bad at movies?
I have never read a worse idea in my life.
cr0w
Old Member
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 Nazgûl 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.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
This is why I laugh at the prospect of a Silmarillion TV series. That material is even larger in scale.
Jest Chillin
Member
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.
Background info-wise, it's a bit complex.
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
It's actually a low budget lol, someone here said 65 million I believe.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
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 :'(
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!
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).
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
Any shorter than that and it could be an episode on an HBO 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.
The Stargate movie was a frame of an idea that the tv fleshed out and made better.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Personally would have preferred a two hour run time. Hour and a half always feels way too short. Never understood complaints about long movies.
Haha. No it fucking wasn't!
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
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
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.
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
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.
wesleyshark
Banned
94min seems awfully short. Ugh
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.
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
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.
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
I think it's an amalgamation of several books.
Jest Chillin
Member
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.