Kevin's Watch

www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=401332

Get thee guns out Sheemie!!!

J.J. Abrams to Climb Stephen King's "Dark Tower"

Posted by Scott Weinberg on Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007, 03:20 AM


Scott Weinberg writes: "Well, here's a book (ok, series of books) that I've been waiting to see on the big screen for what seems like an eternity. Actually this project might hit the small screen. It's a little confusing, but producer J.J. Abrams will definitely be involved.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Abrams and Stephen King will bring the author's "Dark Tower" series to the cinemas (with Paramount) or to your TV screen (with Warner Bros.)

All we seem to know for sure is that A) Stephen King really loves Abrams' TV show "Lost," and B) the "Dark Tower" series is certainly ripe for some kind of visual adaptation. How large the scope will be remains to be seen.

What do you guys think? A TV series? A mini-series? A movie followed by two sequels and a prequel? How would you turn King's (awesome but pretty darn weird) "Tower" books into a movie/TV show?"

Hmmm interesting, not sure how they would manage it to be honest. I'd still love to see an adaption though.

You'd probably have to eliminate the Lobstrosities, the kidnpping of Jake by Gasher, ....perhaps a fair amount of the telling of Susan and W & G, as well as the whole Mordred plot. But a season or two on HBO, or a 5 part series of 3 - hour movies might do it.

No! The Lobstosities are one the the best bits! I REALLY hope they stay. However i agree W&G will mostly go.

No way. It would suck.

They culdn't manage a decent movie of the Stand and that was one book.

--A

Avatar wrote:No way. It would suck.

They culdn't manage a decent movie of the Stand and that was one book.

--A

JJ Abrams mifght be able to pull it off somehow, Av. The man is truly gifted.

It will suck, there's no way around it. It'd take 4-5 seasons of a show to tell the story, and that's not gonna happen.

Yeah, no matter how gifted the director is, it's always a Sisyphean task...

Name a movie adatation of any series, or single book, that was as good as the original book?

--A

The Ten Commndments.

Seriously... I'd point to the LotR series as something that was as good as the books; in fact better in some ways and worse in opthers, but a wash to me.

It would be hard to adapt, but I can't rule out success out of hand. It's the pie-eyed optimist in me.

The LotR films blew. Pretty visuals, but that's about it. You simply can't take a book with that scope and transfer it to a 2 or 3 hour film.

In so many ways, I'd love to see a DT adaptation, but there's simply no way to do it right.

right...perhaps not..if by "right" you mean a page by page adaptation. It could be done differently, while remianing true to the core of the arc, and still be done excellently, IMHO.

By "right" I mean capturing the flavor and the nuance of the story. Its never been done with any of King's work, despite all the talent that has worked on the adaptations.

Cail wrote:By "right" I mean capturing the flavor and the nuance of the story. Its never been done with any of King's work, despite all the talent that has worked on the adaptations.

I thought the Dead Zone captured those nuances fairly well. Also the orignal miniseries for Salem;s Lot was a success, but by and large you are correct. I blame the horror genre.

I don't think King would allow the tower to be done poorly. As little as 2 mos ago he was saying NEVER to a tower adaprtation. He believes in Abrams though.

I'll give you the Dead Zone (though it was still missing something, it is easily the best adaptation of King's work).

The Stand was King's baby too, and he allowed that to be done badly.

Cail wrote:I'll give you the Dead Zone (though it was still missing something, it is easily the best adaptation of King's work).

The Stand was King's baby too, and he allowed that to be done badly.

I thought the biggest problem there was Jamey Sheridan as Flagg. Decent actor, but he lacked the jolly malice that defines good 'ol RF. That and i wanted more out of Larry. Storke was OK, but you didn't get the sense of dynamic change that defined Larry. He was "no nice guy" in the beginning, but was a Gunslinger by the end... ya know?

I have little issue with the actors or how they played their parts, I just thought the story lacked the texture and nuance of the book.

Avatar wrote:Yeah, no matter how gifted the director is, it's always a Sisyphean task...

Name a movie adatation of any series, or single book, that was as good as the original book?

--A

Shawshank Redemption.

Mr Fixit wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, no matter how gifted the director is, it's always a Sisyphean task...

Name a movie adatation of any series, or single book, that was as good as the original book?

--A

Shawshank Redemption.

Seconded.

Also, if the lobstrosoties are gone, how would they explain the missing finger? I mean, that was a pretty key part.

I'd suggest they'd not have the 1/2 hand aspect at all.

Actually, you're right. I mean, it would take out a lot of the little stuff that makes the sotry great (astin ) but it wouldn't change the base plot line too badly.

Still wouldn't be too happy about it, though.