Pretty much sums up the whole trailer for me. Never read the book, but this looks like a bunch of same old same old gibberish to me. It's like they took a YA novel, Jonah Hex, Doctor Strange, that sh*tty FOX drama Lucifer, and The Neverending Story, uploaded them to a half-baked A.I. program, told it to spit out a movie, and this is what it came back with - the blandest, most cliched, nonsensical action/fantasy imaginable. I literally have zero interest in watching this. Simplebay is right. I'm afraid this thing is going to flop hard. The fact that it's literally the last summer movie to get a trailer, this late, should tell us everything we need to know. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong and see this be the franchise it was intended - to finally be the thing that spans across multiple movies and TV seasons - but unfortunately, it looks like it's likely going to be DOA. I usually try to give everything a chance, but every once in a while there's a movie like this that has stinker written all over it and you just know.

Sex Panther said:

---

"He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father"

What kind of dumb line is that?

---

you serious?

PatAg said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

"He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father"

What kind of dumb line is that?

---

you serious?

---

Yeah... it's really stupid. Maybe it's from the books and had some profound meaning that actually makes sense, but In the trailer, it's eye rollingly bad.

Simplebay said:

---

This will be crap and flame out. Book it. Huge flop.

---

Yep. The original story has a whole lot of social commentary along with it being a story of evil and obsession. Roland should absolutely be the central character. This movie looks like every other scifi movie recently and if it doesn't get the fans of the series then it's going to fail miserably because it doesn't have any name recognition otherwise.

It's kind of the most important line in the book, capturing the most central essence of the main character.

I don't think this is going to work out

Sex Panther said:

---

PatAg said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

"He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father"

What kind of dumb line is that?

---

you serious?

---

Yeah... it's really stupid. Maybe it's from the books and had some profound meaning that actually makes sense, but In the trailer, it's eye rollingly bad.

---

It's pretty much THE memorable line from the book. It's a central aspect to The Gunslingers. Since they appear to have screwed up the entire theme of the story, it appears completely out of place.

I'm sure it works in the book with King's prose... but to the majority of people who have not read it and are only going off this trailer, it's a silly line.

BrownCoat said:

---

I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.

I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.

I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.
Stephen King, The Gunslinger (The Dark Tower, #1)

---

This is the code of the Gunslingers. It is pretty much beaten into them at a young age, think the agoge of 300.

I think others are right, the regular movie viewing public/non-book reader will have no context for this and will thus find it stupid.

This movie could start strong just by opening with the line "The man in black fled across the desert, the Gunslinger followed" ala "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"

I guess I'm in the extreme minority here, but I'm really interested in seeing the movie after watching the trailer. I have not read any of the series so I don't know (or care) if it's true to the feeling of the book. I just think the trailer looks interesting, fun, and I'm excited to see what Elba and McConaughey do in these roles.

But I do understand those who love the book being upset with a movie that doesn't have the same feel. I felt the same way with WWZ, but you just need to completely divorce the movie as much as possible from the book. I may audiobook some of these before the movie comes out and I could end up feeling as you all currently do - but for now, this non-Dark Tower-book-lover is excited for the film. Hopefully that's how most feel as well, but we'll see . . .

I think the real concern here is that the movie will be both terrible and nothing like the book(s)

King literally tried to incorporate ALL of his works into the DT universe. So it's many worlds, many timelines, etc. So as long as you get a small number of elements right, you could make a hundred different movies that you could claim more or less followed the spirit of the story.

I thought this article was pretty good. As a huge DT fan, I'm very concerned. This article did a bit to help me kind of reign in some of my worries.

It's a little spoilery, so I'm going to clip the article. You can read the whole thing here.

WIRED: If You Want to Like The Dark Tower, Reset Your Expectations

Quote:

---

"THE MAN IN black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

This is Stephen King's best opening line. It's one of the best opening lines in literature. However, it is not the opening line in the trailer for The Dark Tower that dropped this morning. That trailer instead opens with Idris Elba slinging guns, cuts to a shadowy Matthew McConaughey, then to New York, then back to Idris. This, Constant Viewer, is not the movie version of a Stephen King seriessuch a thing could open in no other way but with the man in black fleeing across the desertbut a very self-conscious adaptation, and you and I (and other fans) are going to have to learn to live with that. Reluctantly.

If you have not read the eight-book, 1.3 million-word series that forms the basis for The Dark Tower, then here is a short version of the plot: In an entropic world full of killer lobsters and magic and almost-remembered technology, a gunslinger named Roland Deschain (Elba) is on a difficult journey to a dark tower to save the world. The long version is, well, longer.

. . .

Basically, we're talking about a lot of nested tales and back-storied characters, and some exuberant world-building that combines Old West and Middle-Ages themes with some Lord of the Rings-ish stuff, and some ley line business and a trip to see the Wizard of Oz. The inspiration for the series is actually Robert Browning's "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" which prefigures T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland," which is (almost) the title of one of the books, so there's plenty of literary fan-fiction and high-fiving for the high-minded.

The series also spills into our own personal but fictional world (or some version thereof) thencuriouser and curiouser!there are also doorways into actual real-world events that happened to the author of the made-up world in question who then inserts himself into the fantasy narrative of the book he is writing, which, by the way, also tendrils out into other worlds HE has built (as he is famous for doing) like The Stand and 'Salem's Lot. (I see you there, Pennywise, at moment 1:30 in the trailer.) Which is to say, it's a complicated series. One without what you'd call a Hollywood ending.

So you can't really expect the movie adaptation to capture it all. Some wise parts of the internet have made their peace with thatand, maybe to its credit, the movie doesn't try. It seems instead to promise a more Manichean struggle between good and evil, one punctuated with a trip to the Dixie Pig and some humor wrung from Roland's first encounter with our world. (Maybe we might get a little tooter-fish sandwich action going, too?)

Speaking of guns, the bullet juggling in the trailer is fantasticthe mid-air drop-swipe! the belt riffle! The Lifesaver, where you flick them out of your palm with your thumb!and I'd watch the movie just for lizard-brain-stirring gun lore: "I do not aim with my hand I aim with my eye. I do not shoot with my hand I shoot with my mind. I do not kill with my gun I kill with my heart." But what the movie does not promise is the band-of-brothers ka-tet that (to me) made the books so interesting.

. . .

I mean, I get it. Adaptations have to be different than the original material, and that alone doesn't make them bad. I thought Arrival was more perfect on paper, but the movie was still fun, and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptation was genius. (My family is listening to The Fellowship of the Ring on Audible right now and let me just say that we are closing in on hour 10 and I am getting awful tired of Tom Bombadil.)

When a world is this huge and multi-dimensional, there's no hope of cramming it into a 2-hour movie. But I fear the spirit of the books may be lost.

. . .

I'm willing to use the books as a reference point to watch the movie, just as King used Childe Roland as a reference point to write his series. I mean, he created a multiverse that suggests worlds upon worlds overlapping, intersecting, kissing up against each other and tearing themselves apart. Why shouldn't whatever is in the movie be canonical enough to stand up to scrutiny? But the sorts of binary struggles promised in the trailer aren't really what our particular world needs right now, and they're not the Kingish themes that stand up well on screen. Some of the most successful adaptations of his books are the movies based on two stories in Different Seasons, the novellas that became Stand By Me and Shawshank. Those books and films are about relationships between people, personal journeys, and thinking yourself around a corner, through the wall, and straight out of prison. Apocalyptic shoot-outs between cowboy knights and creepy monster-things are fun enough to watch, but there are other worlds than theseand we need to find them.

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Also, I agree with everyone saying Matty doesn't pull off the Man in Black. He might've played Eddie, but this role is **** for him. Not enouogh range.

---

Did you ever see him in True Detective? He nailed the dark, intense, brooding character who appeared to everyone else to be borderline psychotic.

If you're looking for the Man in Black to have the joyful sadism that Randall Flagg displays in some of King's other books (similar to Heath Ledger's Joker), then MM might be a bit of a stretch, but he'll be a great fit for a more somber version of the character.

Sex Panther said:

---

PatAg said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

"He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father"

What kind of dumb line is that?

---

you serious?

---

Yeah... it's really stupid. Maybe it's from the books and had some profound meaning that actually makes sense, but In the trailer, it's eye rollingly bad.

---

The Gunslingers are obsessed with history, tradition, and acting in a way that brings honor to their ancestors. So to forget your father's face is to forget your lineage and duty.

I can see how it comes across as cheesy in the trailer, but it works very well in the books.

I believe that for sure... I know what an amazing writer King is and he developed this world over 20 years and several books.

Like I said, I'm sure it works in the books. It's just tough to convey what King built in a trailer, especially if you don't know the source material.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Also, I agree with everyone saying Matty doesn't pull off the Man in Black. He might've played Eddie, but this role is **** for him. Not enouogh range.

---

Did you ever see him in True Detective? He nailed the dark, intense, brooding character who appeared to everyone else to be borderline psychotic.

If you're looking for the Man in Black to have the joyful sadism that Randall Flagg displays in some of King's other books (similar to Heath Ledger's Joker), then MM might be a bit of a stretch, but he'll be a great fit for a more somber version of the character.

---

That's kinda the thing...The majority of the scenes of the MiB in the Dark Tower are of him and his joyful sadism.

Off the top of my head there's maybe only one or two parts of the series where the Man In Black is "dark and brooding" and they are very late in the book and not parts that involve Roland (talking late-late Mordred scenes, which obviously won't be in this movie).

MM has proven he's got acting chops... But you're going to get cheesy ominous lines like you hear in the trailer or worse -- the joyful sadism he showed in Texas Chainsaw Massacre which is going to be cringe-worthy.

But ultimately the downfall of this movie isn't going to be Elba, MM or whoever plays the kid... They all look more than competent to handle what they are given... the problem is what it looks like they have been given is cliched-cookie-cutter-young-adult garbage.

Sex Panther said:

---

"He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father"

What kind of dumb line is that?

---

FAIL

Quote:

---

This movie could start strong just by opening with the line "The man in black fled across the desert, the Gunslinger followed" ala "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"

---

If they don't do this, it's a gigantic missed opportunity.

free_mhayden said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Also, I agree with everyone saying Matty doesn't pull off the Man in Black. He might've played Eddie, but this role is **** for him. Not enouogh range.

---

Did you ever see him in True Detective? He nailed the dark, intense, brooding character who appeared to everyone else to be borderline psychotic.

If you're looking for the Man in Black to have the joyful sadism that Randall Flagg displays in some of King's other books (similar to Heath Ledger's Joker), then MM might be a bit of a stretch, but he'll be a great fit for a more somber version of the character.

---

That's kinda the thing...The majority of the scenes of the MiB in the Dark Tower are of him and his joyful sadism.

Off the top of my head there's maybe only one or two parts of the series where the Man In Black is "dark and brooding" and they are very late in the book and not parts that involve Roland (talking late-late Mordred scenes, which obviously won't be in this movie).

MM has proven he's got acting chops... But you're going to get cheesy ominous lines like you hear in the trailer or worse -- the joyful sadism he showed in Texas Chainsaw Massacre which is going to be cringe-worthy.

But ultimately the downfall of this movie isn't going to be Elba, MM or whoever plays the kid... They all look more than competent to handle what they are given... the problem is what it looks like they have been given is cliched-cookie-cutter-young-adult garbage.

---

Well, to be fair, most of the early times you see Marten, he is a cutup and likes to joke around a lot.

It's dumb, sorry

Sex Panther said:

---

It's dumb, sorry

---

A more accurate statement would be "from the trailer that line is dumb"
I would imagine, once you have seen the movie and have context you will no longer think it's dumb. That line is in their to appeal to the book readers like "hey, we put this in here, you recognize this"

I'm just wondering if maybe the person making the trailer just did a poor job, it wouldn't be the first time a trailer took the wrong tone in promoting a movie.

Or it could suck, who knows, but I don't see how anyone could KNOW it's going to suck based off a short trailer.

I agree

the only thing I got from that trailer was an itch to watch For A Few Dollars More again

So I just watched this trailer and I'm extremely confused.

1. I didn't recognize anything from the trailer that was in the books. Seriously, the Man in Black doesn't want to destroy the tower, WTF? He's a small character that is mostly in the first book. Are they combining the Crimson King, Randall Flagg, Walter, and Marten into one single character?

2. Is this the only film of the series? Are they going to try to jam 7000 pages into a single movie?

This is destined to fail.

Blatant Disregard said:

---

2. Is this the only film of the series? Are they going to try to jam 7000 pages into a single movie?

This is destined to fail.

---

I was really wondering about that myself, and have not been able to find an answer anywhere.

This just looks awful, which is a shame.

Is the "movie, tv show all one big story" not a thing anymore now that Ron Howard dropped out?

I'd expect it to be self-contained, but have an open ending.... "Roland you've saved the tower and vanquished the man in black... for now..."

My guess is at this point with the way things have been handled the studio no longer realistically sees/hopes this as a Lord-of-the-Rings or even Hunger Games-esque franchise and would instead be happy if it becomes a franchise in the vein of Transformers/Maze Runner/Divergent... Sequels that might have halfway interesting concept on their own but really aren't going to be something that fans are eagerly awaiting them in advance.

Just my 2 cents... With Goldsman at the helm and the paltry marketing this is no longer in consideration for a real franchise studio cornerstone.

PatAg said:

---

Is the "movie, tv show all one big story" not a thing anymore now that Ron Howard dropped out?

---

There's still talk, but I think it's moved from "this is the plan for this franchise" to "if this movie takes off then these are the pie-in-the-sky possibilities for the franchise".

Blatant Disregard said:

---

So I just watched this trailer and I'm extremely confused.

1. I didn't recognize anything from the trailer that was in the books. Seriously, the Man in Black doesn't want to destroy the tower, WTF? He's a small character that is mostly in the first book. Are they combining the Crimson King, Randall Flagg, Walter, and Marten into one single character?

2. Is this the only film of the series? Are they going to try to jam 7000 pages into a single movie?

This is destined to fail.

---

I think they are combining the different iterations of the Man in Black, but he mentions the writing on the wall that references the Crimson King. Still, this is definitely stories from multiple books smooshed together.

HONKY MAHFAH

Blatant Disregard said:

---

So I just watched this trailer and I'm extremely confused.

1. I didn't recognize anything from the trailer that was in the books. Seriously, the Man in Black doesn't want to destroy the tower, WTF? He's a small character that is mostly in the first book. Are they combining the Crimson King, Randall Flagg, Walter, and Marten into one single character?

2. Is this the only film of the series? Are they going to try to jam 7000 pages into a single movie?

This is destined to fail.

---

Well, now I'm confused....On your first point, Randall Flagg, Walter, and Marten are one single character and the Man in Black wanted the tower for himself and did not want to destroy the tower from what I can recall. Primarily because it's the epicenter of all world's and he who controls that controls everything.

Your second point is valid in that it looks like they are combining the whole thing into one movie.

Flagg/Marten/Walter/ManInBlack (which is confusing for many because Walter and Marten weren't originally written as the same person but have since been revised to be) - want to capture/control the tower

Crimson King - wants to destroy the tower

You're correct. I know King went back and retconned Walter and Marten. I had forgotten about that.

I picked up The Gunslinger again last night and read about half way through. The movie trailer still looks like it doesn't have anything to do with the book.

I finally trudged my way through the final book.

What a huge mess of a horrible story.

Gunslinger, drawing of the three, and the one about his past in Mejis were the only interesting ones.

The other 4 books are just complete crap.

I just don't know how anyone could be a superfan of this. It took me about 6 weeks of trying to get through book 7... nothing in it made me want to keep reading... I only finished it because I had to see how bad the ending was.

Yep. bad.

I get it that he supposedly tied his entire "universe" together, but that was not what he intended in the first 2 books. Think he just got stuck and the thought "Oh, yeah... this is what I'll do" and then forced it all together.

Just a really bad story.

The man in black is made out to be the ultimate villain early on, then later he's just an after thought... and Oh, yeah... this character and this character and this other character all with other names was really the man in black... way after the fact

The crimson King... WTF. The ultimate bad guy... and all he has at his disposal is box of sneetches. Oh and he dies because some kid draws him and then erases him

Geez, that woman with cancer who wrote King back in the 90's wanting to know how it ended and King couldn't tell her because he had no idea what he was going to do. I think she would have been really disappointed had King been able to tell her that this was how it was going to end.

UGH!
Stephen King owes me a lot of time back.

91_Aggie said:

---

UGH!
Stephen King owes me a lot of time back.

---

Hold my beer - Robert Jordan