The Dark Tower Run Time is 94 Minutes

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.

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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

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 :(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :'(
 
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.