85 MINUTE RUN TIME

>85 MINUTE RUN TIME
>85 MINUTE RUN TIME
>85 MINUTE RUN TIME

JUST
WE

Is Roland a magical negro?

Holy shit, really? I would almost consider watching it then, I'm fucking tired of 3h+ slogs.

Jesus, really? Source?

No fucking way, action blockbusters are never that short.

Shit confirmed

I thought this was a series.

Nice digits.

They managed to turn the Dark Tower into Roland vs MiB, anything is possible.

Do we even know what half of what book it adapts?

>*gets jiggy with it*
>AYO HOL UP, I'M JUST TRYANNA KEEP MY BABY MAMA SON SAFE Y'ALL

Must be a mess lmao

Holy shit.

This is looking worse than an asylum movie.

It's a very loose adaptation of parts of the first book.
>Why call it The Dark Tower if it's only about The Gunslinger

They're not going to adapt the rest of the series. They're just pumping something out to get the DT bux.

Sup Forums is shitting on it, so that must mean it's going to be great. Sup Forums is literally always wrong.

>Ghostbusters
>Fantastic Four
yeah Sup Forums is always wrong. always.

it is a yrev very short movie i have seen it

Even a broken clock, m8
Even a broken clock.

>Ghostbusters
It wasn't nearly as bad as anyone thought. It was average at worst
>Fantastic 4
Wow, Sup Forums was right about something that was released 2 years ago. If that's the best example that you can come up with then you're just proving my point.

>It wasn't nearly as bad as anyone thought. It was average at worst

this fucking nigga

Why couldnt we get Scott Eastwood as Roland?

This is just fucking Jumanji at this point.

>It wasn't nearly as bad as anyone thought. It was average at worst
It was trash; the only thing Sup Forums was dead wrong about was the idea Snacky and Blacky would be worst girls, when Wacky and Tacky were far worse

This isn't a blockbuster, it's clearly low-budget despite the cast.

Scott Eastwood is a mediocre manlet actor with a babyface-version of his father's face.

t.didn't watch the movie
>b-but muh feminists!
go ahead and name some valid criticisms of the movie.

>guise, Sony's attempt to start a new extended universe based off of one well-loved classic and using feminism as a marketing tool was barely average.

You're a fucking idiot user and your mother's a cunt.

i was expecting Jake to be....cuter

they really done goofed

Wasn't funny

>go ahead and name some valid criticisms of the movie.
It was boring. I called it halfway in.

Next.

Your mom wasn't sucking my dick when I watched it

Source on this?

I'm all for shorter movies, but goddamn that's barely longer than a tv show.

I'm actually fucking hype on this, I'm so sick of big blockbusters bleeding deep into 2 hours.

This makes me really want to see this.

>having faith in hollywood to do a good adaption at this point

also Dark Tower isnt a simple story and its very mood dependent
Theres no way they can establish the universe + have a meaty story arc within 85 mins

To be honest, the first book ended abruptly and almost prematurely. Not to mention that most of it was about an emo cunt wandering through a completely empty desert finding dead campfires.

The book was pretty much a short piece of garbage as far as literature goes. If anything the movie will be a slightly better short piece of garbage.

>DURRRR I DIDN'T LIKE IT SO IT WAS BAD!
so you have no criticisms of the movie?

>he's not even trying anymore

Roland Deschain is the protagonist and hero of The Dark Tower Series. He is the son of Steven and Gabrielle Deschain and is the last of a long line of "gunslingers", peacekeepers and diplomats of Roland's society. He is also the final human descendant of Arthur Eld. His image and personality are largely inspired by the "Man with No Name" from three of Sergio Leone's westerns.

Some of his hair is gray or white, but some remains black. His facial features are described as rough (although Susannah once compared them to that of a tired poet; Eddie frequently refers to him as "old long tall and ugly"), and he has light blue eyes, often referred to by characters and Stephen King as "bombardier's eyes."

...

The Gunslinger could be adapted into a competent 90 minute film.

This looks incompetent and all over the place.

WE

Besides the inclusion of Affirmative Action Action Guy, how does this movie look "incompetent"?

the first book wasnt meant to be a full length book and started as a short story that king didnt play on turning into a full length series. It could be read in a sitting or 2 and doesnt really do anything other than establish the tone and the setting. You can skip it entirely and not miss any of the story.

Thats actually good.

...

If you've read the books it's obviously an incompetent adaptation.

They are dropping about 80% of the plot and 95% of the exposition in favor of some Roland v. Rust showdown fanfic

FFS this has nothing to do with politics, you literal fucking cuck. We're talking about whether or not it's a bad movie. Saying "but SJW's tho" doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the film.
Still waiting for legitimate criticisms of the movie itself.

Wasn't funny

as a guy who has read all the books like 12 years ago and again when wind through the keyhole came out they HAD to make big changes. As it stood the story would only work in novel format. Not saying that the adaption will be good but its better to try than do a faithful adaption.

It would be like filming The Silmarillion as a movie, it just wouldnt translate well.

"It's boring" is a legitimate criticms. I'm not going to give you a scene-by-scene breakdown. I laughed at a couple of jokes; there must be 50 or so jokes and gags in the first half so this isn't saying much.

At about the halfway point I got up to make a sandwich and when I came back I felt zero desire to resume to movie so I did something else.

I read the first book. It was a gaping pile of ass with very little substance. Nothing fucking happened in the book other than the first town, wandering for a hundred pages, then the caves and the mountains.

You haven't said anything other than it's incompetent without explaining how. Just admit it's because there's a nog playing Roland and you don't like that. Other than that, thus is how I would expect a movie based on the first book to appear.

The previews for this movie honestly look better than the book read.

>not 2.5 hours long

That's actually a good thing. Too many shit movies are way WAY too fucking long and overdue their stay. Having a normal runtime may actually help this SWJ shitfest.

>It would be like filming The Silmarillion as a movie, it just wouldnt translate well.

Wtf are you talking about? Did we read the same books?

Nonsense, the only problem the books have is chronology. You can rearrange the story or have it told in a different way.

>cold open in book II, roland on the beach
>roland, "how did i get here etc"
>the story thus far is revealed in flashbacks
>roland draws eddie
>exposition/dialogue with eddie to fill in the rest of the gaps

that's movie 1

the 2nd and 3rd books have the most substance in that they are the books where the most is happening and the storyline is always progressing. The 4th book is one enormous flashback told via roland sitting around a campfire but it was by far the best one if you can ignore the fact that king writes like a horny teenager. The first book is an easily skippable introduction and doesnt even begin the story. Read further before you form an opinion because books 2-5 and parts of 7 are actually pretty good as far as fantasy goes

What in the fuck?

You couldn't even do The Gunslinger properly in 85 minutes, let alone half of the 2nd book.

This is going to be a travesty.

i couldn't care less about roland being black you stupid cunt. my problem is them dropping everything that made the first compelling, like Hey Jude on the piano, or the entire town going mad and Roland executing every last one of them. The slow mutants; I guess we get ninjas instead. Roland sacrificing Jake, a foreshadowing of Roland's tendency to sacrifice his fellows for his quest. the prophetic meeting with the Man in Black at the end.

you're just a brainlet faggot

85 mins is an IMDB placeholder, it's not confirmed

Movie will be at least 2 hours. There's 0 fucking chance they're cramming it into less than 1:30

the BLACKED tower is going to be kino

Guys!

Dont worry, im sure Stephen King will like it and recommend as being a faithful adaption....

>Roland DeShane

Humor is subjective
>"It's boring" is a legitimate criticms
No it isn't. Saying something is boring doesn't mean it's poorly made. If someone says that Citizen Kane is boring, does that mean that Citizen Kane is a bad movie? Besides, even if that was a valid criticism, that's just one issue, it takes more than one flaw to label a film as bad.

Doubt it.
85 min runtime often translates to:

>capekino/hollywood formula
>3 acts
>ADHD pacing
>interesting opportunities for character interaction reduced down to a catchprase or gag
>action sequences take up too much of limited time
>side characters neglected/omitted
>exposition takes up too much of limited time
>no denouement or other kinds of in between scene that allows the actors to chew the scenery
>concepts referenced briefly to score geek points rather than creatively explored
>not enough time to add risky scenes, lots will be cut, and it won't be the catchphrases and one liners
>attempt to condense story and character arcs making an unsatisfying mess
>shortcuts- everywhere

At least in sci-fi, fantasy and action.
I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything, but I have seen this happen to other adaptions and remakes I was optimistic about, and I'm set up for disappointment as the trailer confirms a least some of my concerns.

Fuck that guy. King is a man who lacks the courage of his convictions. Writes about kids fucking in a sewer and then walks it back.

They did get him on camera endorsing the movie. Why he lets people fanfic the work he considers his best this late in the game, with his kind of bank, I do not know. Maybe he got fucked contractually or maybe he's just a faggot.

did we? the movie would be a complete mess as a movie because of its structure, miniseries maybe but LOTR style movie? fuck no

the movie would have to be some flavor of arthouse bullshit just to get the setting right. A big draw of the series is the post apocalyptic setting of several universes at different time periods beginning to break down and meld together. as shown through the decaying billboards, the rundown teleportation stations, the destroyed cards, and the oil fields despite the "current" timeline of mid world that roland and the RPG party travel through being a 19th century arthurian flavored american western. You cant convey these themes without either

1. confusing the fuck out of everyone
2. outright telling them which makes for bad storytelling

>If someone says that Citizen Kane is boring, does that mean that Citizen Kane is a bad movie?
Ghostbusters is supposed to be a comedy film

This weak bait, you have lost all my respect. No more (You)s. Cherish this one.

Did they drop all of those things? Have you seen the movie? Ahh, you've seen it then?

>Movie based on the first book
>READ THE OTHER BOOKS!

I don't care about the other books in terms of my opinion about the movie because the movie is going to be based on one of them. The first one. You're worse than a Game of Thrones faggot that tries to explain shit in the show based on George RR Martin's writing. They're not the same thing. If it's based on the first book and not the others, film it according to that source material alone. Everything else can fall into place afterwards.

Does the movie have dodachoc dadachee?

the book would be a complete mess as a movie*

>movie based on the first book
based retard. learn what you are talking about before spewing garbage

the 1st book is the only good one

>film critics

I beg to differ. I think you can easily protray the themes the same way anime (bear with me) does; exposition. Simply show it to us. Use the medium of visual storytelling. It looks like they are doing this somewhat but only in the venal desire to cross-link this film with their others. It's too bad the most lore-specific moments will be marketing tags.

you seem to be arguing the world is too dissonant to portray without looking comic, you might be right strictly speaking. you don't have to make a 1:1 adaptation to be faithful or do it service.

fun fact, in American Psycho the book, the exhaustive fashion descriptions Bateman gives of his colleagues, when actually assembled, make everyone look like clowns with mishmashing styles and garish colors. But in the film they all dress immaculately, because that's what we would expect to see.

not even close. literally nothing happens. It does nothing but establish the setting and feel of the series and can be completely skipped without missing much

>Ghostbusters is supposed to be a comedy film
What exactly is your point, you fucking idiot? Anyone could just as easily say that the original Ghostbusters is boring.
>This weak bait, you have lost all my respect. No more (You)s. Cherish this one.
This is what retarded underage children do when they realize they have no argument.
>N-No you're wrong! I'm leaving!
I'm glad that we could come to the conclusion that you're a dishonest fucktard with autism that hasn't seen the movie. Cheers mate.

The books arent that complex.

The second book is basically an exploitation movie with a interdimensional travel plot device.

>Condensing a series of books into 85 minutes

Well this definitely isn't going to flop

im not saying that its completely impossible but I wouldnt trust the best director on the planet with pulling that off while keeping the main feeling intact without alienating general viewers. I just cant see it being turned into film 1 to 1 cleanly enough to be good

the story itself is easy to follow if very strange but there is a lot of strange imagery that I believe would be hard to properly capture without losing too many people

>any criticism is met with "that's not a valid criticism" followed by bullshit reasoning
>calls other anons dishonest
You need to look in the mirror, you worthless cunt.

>Have you considered some slow-motion?

>Jack getting BLACKED

Mmm

>dude critics are always wrong
>dude word of mouth is always wrong
>dude Sup Forums is always wrong

>the only way you can know is to go see the movie yourself!

Alright. Go ahead and explain to me how "I didn't like it" is a valid criticism of the quality of the movie.

There's plenty to have in a movie. You left out the way station, the first town's got the saloon, then the priestess before he slaughters them. The caves have the mutants and the mountains have the oracle. You could also have more of Jake's back story rather than having that where it was in the third book.

Are you fucking serious? Are you really asking me to explain how not enjoying a movie is a valid criticism?

He doesn't understand markets

Oh, and the first book also has scenes in Gilead in flashback, particularly Roland fighting Cort with his hawk.

It's a combination of all the books. There's characters in this movie that don't appear until the last two books.

It's essentially fan-fiction.

The series is heavy enough with flashbacks, there's no way it wants even more in.

should've posted a pic of angry fat joe.

>if you can ignore the fact that king writes like a horny teenager.

To be fair, he was writing about a pair (mostly) of horny teenagers.

That was a crazy cool chapter.

>Roland surprises everyone
>If he loses the bird he will be defenseless
>Roland is 15, he cannot overpower Cort
>Cort getting his shit ruined and having to smash his own face to kill the hawk

was fantastic.

If a comedy doesn't make you laugh, it's pretty fair to call it bad.

Yes, you stupid fucking nigger. What the fuck do you not understand about this? Saying "I don't like it" doesn't mean shit. If I don't enjoy a movie, does that make the movie bad? No, you fucking dipshit. Name a flaw of the movie itself. Personal enjoyment doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the movie.

>The Dark Tower
What did (((they))) mean by this in relation to Idris Elba?

Comedy films are not the same from what we erroneously call "drama" films. Comedies are generally lighthearted, the exception being black comedies, and are meant to entertain with jokes, bantz, pratfalls and other humorous devices.

the Ghostbuster movie has all this but much of it was found extremely wanting by the moviegoing public including me. therefore it failed in it's task.

saying this is the same as "well citizen kane is kind of a ponderous movie, some might say it's boring, therefore it must be bad right" is not the same as "nu-ghostbusters being light on cognitive substance, is explicitly meant to generate a positive emotional response in me but instead i was bored which is a negative response."

GB was supposed to be fun, and funny, and it was neither, it failed.

>Ghost in the shell

Nope, Sup Forums is never wrong. That movie was uttershit

>The first book is an easily skippable introduction and doesnt even begin the story.

I don't understand how it's not a beginning of the story. You have some of young Roland, and you learn he's chasing Walter, and some of the reason why. Walter gives an explanation of what the tower is. Roland starts alone but meets the first of his ka-tet. Also establishes the setting, obviously, but much more than the second book does, where most of it's in normal Earth.

>the Ghostbuster movie has all this but much of it was found extremely wanting by the moviegoing public including me. therefore it failed in it's task.
It's rated 73% on RT, 60% on Metacritic, and 5.3/10 on IMdB. You're basically saying that some people don't like the movie, so the movie is bad. Going off of the public opinion, more people enjoyed the movie than not. This argument doesn't make any sense. None of this matters however, because you still haven't directly criticized the movie itself. All you've done is say the same fucking thing you've been saying but worded differently. For the last fucking time (hopefully), what are some crititcisms
ABOUT
THE
MOVIE
ITSELF
?

>Snacky, Blacky, Wacky and Tacky
>mfw reading this post.