|
Kaboobi posted:I think Viggo could pull of Roland fairly well. Too bad he stopped acting. 
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2010 18:18 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 21:45 |
|
|
All I know is that Eldred Jonas has to be played by Sam Elliott. That's one of the few times I've read a book and thought that, if there was a movie version, there is only one actor I could envision for the role.
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2010 19:26 |
|
|
RCarr posted:The only person I can think of for Roland is a young Clint Eastwood. Nathan Filion as Roland, Alan Tudyk as Eddie.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 00:58 |
|
|
Death Bot posted:Nathan Filion as Roland Not grizzled enough.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 01:22 |
|
|
Death Bot posted:Nathan Filion as Roland, Alan Tudyk as Eddie. the worst idea. (just posted this in the GBS thread:) I'm guessing it's going to go: MOVIE - The Gunslinger SERIES - Drawing of the Three, probably with a lot of the Jake stuff from Wastelands, or maybe that could go in the film if it's truncated. My thing with DotT is that there doesn't seem like enough material there to base a series on it that's longer than 5 or 6 episodes. MOVIE - The Waste Lands - Obviously ending a little ways into the Wizard and Glass story SERIES - W&G. Obviously. MOVIE - Truncated version of the last three novels. Obviously this is a bit of a lopsided representation of the series. Perhaps it would work better if the second film comprised all the non- Jake parts of Wastelands along with the non-flashback parts of W&G (though those are all pretty much cast aside in the later plot), and then the next series was Wolves with the flashback scenes interwoven. That would work very well thematically, what with the settings being similar, Roland's bond with his travelmates becoming fully ka-tet, and Roland's relationship with Rosalita. edit: I love my idea a lot, and if anyone can come up with a more workable way to film the series in the trilogy/2 tv season format they're doing I'd love to hear it. The only issue would be finding somewhere to tell Callahan's story, but I think it's probably going to be cut EXTREMLY short. Like, a five minute monologue instead of a third of a book. edit2: The second TV series should be 10 episodes, with 7 devoted to the main story (and epilogue parts before the door of manni in SoS), 2 to the W&G flashbacks, and 1 to the Callahan story. The Walrus fucked around with this message at Sep 10, 2010 around 01:31 |
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 01:28 |
|
|
Death Bot posted:Nathan Filion as Roland, Alan Tudyk as Eddie. And Summer Glau as Susannah, and that Baldwin that played Jayne as Jake. Obviously. The Walrus posted:I'm guessing it's going to go: I think it was posted in this thread, but I think a good way of doing it is: MOVIE- The Gunslinger SERIES- Drawing of the Three and the first half of the Wastelands (until they meet Blaine anyway) MOVIE- Blaine and Wizard and Glass SERIES- Wolves of the Calla and a super short version of Song of Susannah MOVIE- The Dark Tower Soysaucebeast fucked around with this message at Sep 10, 2010 around 04:09 |
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 04:06 |
|
|
I'm just throwing it out as a suggestion, honestly I realize that neither of them are perfect for those roles, but they're better than most that I can think of. No need to jump all over it. That said, I would say that quote:MOVIE - The Gunslinger Sounds about good, except I would put Wolves of the Calla in with the second series, as most of it plays out more like a drama/mystery than an action, and both of the books could be shortened to a manageable length within the series.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 06:27 |
|
|
Cast: Clint Eastwood as Roland: I don't give a good goddam how old Clint is, he is always who I think of as Roland as well as a direct inspiration for King. And if he should die making the film versions, you dress up his corpse and someone operates him like a puppet. That is all.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 12:26 |
|
|
I could get behind a Weekend at MidWorld movie.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 12:42 |
|
|
Hugh Jackman would not be good as Roland. I don't think he can pull off the emotionless deadpan stuff that would be needed. He's always at least a little smarmy which is why he was perfect for Wolverine. They're better off going with no-names who are perfect for the role rather than shoe horning in famous people.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 13:47 |
|
|
Death Bot posted:Nathan Filion as Roland, Alan Tudyk as Eddie. Hellllllll no
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 13:50 |
|
|
Stephen King has apparently said he always pictured Angela Bassit as Susannah, and he wants to voice Blaine.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 13:51 |
|
|
Yeah I always pictured Blaine talking in a dorkass old man's voice. Might as well just make the whole thing anime.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 14:01 |
|
|
Daniel Day-Lewis is Roland. That's all I got.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 14:56 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Daniel Day-Lewis is Roland. That's all I got. That might actually work.
|
| # ? Sep 10, 2010 16:00 |
|
|
I've always thought of Randall Flagg as Rob Zombie.
|
| # ? Sep 11, 2010 07:08 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:Cast: Use the Avatar motion-capture technology to have Clint Eastwood play the role but replace him with a computer replica of how he looked 20 years ago. Bam, you've got your Eastwood. Also, like I said in the GBS thread Oy has to be a red panda.  
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2010 01:31 |
|
|
Just finished the Gunslinger last night. Going to start The Drawing of the Three tonight!
|
| # ? Oct 15, 2010 19:39 |
|
|
Clint Eastwood obviously plays Cort
|
| # ? Oct 15, 2010 20:03 |
|
|
ASSTASTIC posted:Just finished the Gunslinger last night. Going to start The Drawing of the Three tonight! I seem to be in a minority, but I really was not a big fan of Drawing of the Three. I won't say a whole lot about it since you are starting it up but let us know what you think about.
|
| # ? Oct 15, 2010 20:23 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:I seem to be in a minority, but I really was not a big fan of Drawing of the Three. I won't say a whole lot about it since you are starting it up but let us know what you think about. I liked it the first couple of times I read it, but every time I reread the series I get there and just want it to hurry the gently caress up already.
|
| # ? Oct 15, 2010 21:12 |
|
|
EC posted:I liked it the first couple of times I read it, but every time I reread the series I get there and just want it to hurry the gently caress up already. I seem to notice the drop-off in prose quality at The Wastelands, which I just started for the second time. Dunno if I'm going to make it through books 4 and 5 on this go around.
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2010 00:51 |
|
|
Guy Pearce with five-o'clock shadow and blue contacts would be a great Roland. And Bruce Willis is Cort.
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2010 16:34 |
|
|
ultraspice posted:And Bruce Willis is Cort. R. Lee Ermey as Cort?
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2010 23:03 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I seem to notice the drop-off in prose quality at The Wastelands, which I just started for the second time. I don't notice that drop-off, oddly enough. I don't know how much of a Stephen King fan you are, so take this with a grain of salt if you want. (Plus I'm gonna ramble for a bit, loving blocks of text coming up, but so the gently caress be it.) King has been a constant in American culture since Carrie. He's probably the best known writer in the world. Dude's published what, 50 novels? That's no small feat for anyone. I don't necessarily like the Dark Tower books (as a whole, though there are parts I do like), but I do admire them. Why? Because they show a writer's journey from undergrad indoctrination to drug-addled prose to success to redemption to post-traumatic stress. Each book, each one being so spaced apart in his career, paints a picture of his life. The first was written, like he said, as an undergrad, full of undergrad pretentiousness. Drawing was written in his haze of drugs (paragraphs 5 pages long, non-chronological time, the Western Sea being at the right). The Wastelands isn't accidentally subtitled Redemption--he wrote it sober after his battle with addiction. Wizard is a look back at his life. Books five six and seven were, of course, written after his accident, and in them you can see a man hurrying to get his unfinished business done, afraid he'd die before he could tell the story. He wanted to retire after he finished the Dark Tower (it's in the epilogue, after all), but of course he didn't. He's the kind of man who can't retire, because doing what he does is all he knows. I really don't see that drop-off in prose quality so much as I see each book (counting 5 6 and 7 as one, given their writing dates) as being a different part of his life. What they represent is the years of change between each. I don't necessarily like them (half of five was garbage, most of six, and again half of seven)...but I do admire them for what they represent. I honestly believe that King will be talked about for years after his death, if not because of the quality of his writing, but because of the quantity. Very similar, as it happens, to Dickens, back in the 1800's (another popular writer who was able to isolate and comment through fiction on the anomie and culture of his time). There are a dozen better writers than King, maybe a hundred, but through virtue of actually sitting down and writing hundreds of thousands of pages, he'll be remembered. Most likely for The Shining or The Stand or It, sure...but the people who actually delve in his work will see the Dark Tower as what explained his life.
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2010 23:35 |
|
|
I've actually read nothing else by King (except for "On Writing") and The Gunslinger is probably one of my favorite all-time books now 
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2010 23:48 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've actually read nothing else by King (except for "On Writing") and The Gunslinger is probably one of my favorite all-time books now Read The Shining, The Stand, It, and possibly Danse Macabre. I already mentioned the first three (The Shining is a perfectly American horror book; The Stand is a perfectly American post-apocalyptic book; It is a perfectly American monster book) but Danse Macabre is a perfectly American culture book. He references the movies, comic books, television shows, and other novels that influenced him as writer. I honestly believe that in ten years, maybe twenty, there'll be another famous author who references video games as an influence. Look at The Hurt Locker (detail incorrect as it was). You had a main character relieving the stress of combat playing a game where he shot people. When I was in Iraq I did the same thing except I played Battlefield 1942. (There's some really meta poo poo there playing a game about a prior war in the middle of your own, but whatever). Games are gonna define our generation's pop literature (and eventually capital L Literature) as our own. Reading Danse defines the 1960's (a common King era) and it's a great read to maybe compare it one day to the books that help define the 90's or the aughts (or whatever we use to describe this strange, brutal decade that included 9/11, two wars, a recession that people already call the Great Recession, the election of the first black president, and a massive oil spill).
|
| # ? Oct 17, 2010 00:46 |
|
|
3Romeo posted:I don't notice that drop-off, oddly enough. Me neither. I don't really understand the opinion of people who feel like the series went to poo poo after book 3 or 4 or wherever. I do think the books change their feel and tone over time, and I appreciate the change pretty much in the same way you do. Stephen King isn't a 19 year old self-proclaimed hotshit when he's writing book 7 as he is when he started out with "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." I think people who read his books were hoping for a continuation of the bleak, post-apocalyptic, post-morality deathfest that was the first book. I mean Roland starts out the series by slaughtering a whole town of ambiguously half-dead sheeple. That's hella metal. But it doesn't stay like that. By the time Roland gets to the Calla he is a different man. His companions have changed him, as he has changed them. By waiting 20 years (or however long) King did before he wrote the last volumes, he was able to actually create a pervasive and believable character change in all of the characters because HE had changed. I really love that about the series. Roland and the Ka-tet grow and change and mature because the author has grown and changed and matured. I like everything that other people complain about. I liked the Wolves of the Calla, I like the chap, I like how the series changes from a focus on Space to a focus on Time (because as one grows older and realizes their own mortality the reckless careening of Time becomes all-pervasive). I like how much more efficient everything is when its just Roland and Susannah, after Eddie is dead. I even like how Susannah is so accustomed to her life that she never even imagines that the dude who can draw anything could DRAW HER SOME loving LEGS. I even like how simplistic and anti-climatic the final battle between the Red King and Roland is. It seems to match with the change in priorities and importance you get as you grow older. So the Red King is the hand behind all the evils of the universe eh? So what. It ain't so bad. And I also love the fact that Roland goes back into the past, to the beginning of the series. Because that means he has both hands back now, which is the impossible desire I had for him all throughout the series. And hey, he's got the Horn now too. The next cycle in my imagination is going to be so much more awesome than what was actually written. King has given me the best gift he could ever give - the seed for my imagination in which to grow a more awesome story than he wrote. Its the perfect ending.
|
| # ? Oct 18, 2010 04:41 |
|
|
You don't see the problem with self-insertion ego-masturbation, or the Dr. Doom lightsaber quiddich throwing robots?
|
| # ? Oct 18, 2010 14:19 |
|
|
IUG posted:You don't see the problem with self-insertion ego-masturbation, or the Dr. Doom lightsaber quiddich throwing robots? King's self insertion didn't bother me too much. It's been a while since I read them, but in most instances the King portrayed in the novels came off as kind of an idiot, it was almost more like self-mockery rather than ego-masturbation. King's note in the clown house was almost hilarious in how knowingly meta it was. It was literally "wrote myself into a corner, oh well here you go Roland wink wink". I had no problem with the Dr Doom Lightsaber quiddich throwers. I thought it was pretty neat and tied into the various themes of Roland's world being comprised of many different works of fiction and sources. It did jar me a bit, because it was such a recent reference, and made me wonder if they just appeared in Roland's world because they had just been dreamt up/written in our world? Likewise I didn't have a problem with the Wizard of Oz stuff, or the train or any of the other various literary references thrown throughout the entire series. This seems like a silly thing to take issue. But I do have to disagree with the final confrontation with the Crimson King. That was a let down. If King wanted it to be simplistic, somber and anti-climatic he could have done a better job at it. It was sloppy, lazy and a let-down. Same with Mordred. If he wanted to be meta about readers expecting too much from a writer, expecting things that the writer is in no position to be able to deliver; about how the worlds that we dream up from his words will never match up to the world he has dreamt up and everything will be a disappointment in that regard, well he succeeded on that front. But I don't think that was his intent, I think he was just burnt out, eager to wrap up the story and didn't have any good ideas on what to do with those two except to have one die of the shits and the other being literally erased from the story so we could move on to the epilogue.
|
| # ? Oct 18, 2010 18:25 |
|
|
I honestly feel much the same way. Though the chap sub-plot did get a little annoying at times, I felt satisfied with it for the most part, though the conclusion was somewhat lacking. That said, I actually enjoyed the self-insertions because they were an interesting way to "explain" the delays and sudden start-ups in King's writing pattern within the context of the story. Yes, they were gimmicky as hell, but they were well-written, moved the story along, and weren't the center of the story but instead elements of the plot, all things that are untrue of most lovely fan-fiction (which in my mind is what makes it lovely fan-fiction) That said I've only read the series once and plan on rereading sometime in the near future, so maybe my opinion will change.
|
| # ? Oct 18, 2010 18:42 |
|
|
I'm currently reading the last quarter of The Drawing of the Three. It started off great, I liked Eddie and that whole plot. And then it got to Odetta's backstory and I just stopped reading. It bored me to tears. I finally forced myself through it and once Odetta is pulled through to Roland's wold it gets good again. But holy crap, I must've put the book down for over a month. Can't wait to read The Wastelands. It's my wife's favorite and I keep hearing great things about it.
|
| # ? Oct 19, 2010 19:26 |
|
|
I hated The Wastelands, but i loved The Wizard and Glass. Maybe it's something to do with me not usually being a King fan, i dunno. Also, he doesn't get to be Blaine he has to play the bullshit part he wrote for himself 
|
| # ? Oct 19, 2010 19:54 |
|
|
del
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2010 17:55 |
|
|
nerdly_dood posted:del Glad to see your shitposts aren't limited to the Modern Warfare 2 and Black Cops threads!
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2010 20:54 |
|
|
IUG posted:You don't see the problem with self-insertion ego-masturbation, or the Dr. Doom lightsaber quiddich throwing robots? No, to that second part. First: The Gunslinger was unique in its fantasy world. It got really odd with the Drawing of the Three. Roland in New York is like He-Man entering our world in that hideous 80's Masters of the Universe movie. It's poo poo that shouldn't work, but thanks to King, it does. Since you had New York in the 80's and New York in the 60's and New York in the 70's (Eddie and Susannah and Jake) and then in book three you have giant robot bears named after animals in Watership Down and Nazi airplanes and then in book four you have the loving Wizard of Oz...no, "Dr. Doom lightsaber quiddich" don't bother me so much. Do you hate the references because they are still in pop culture, while Shardik is not? But he was talking about the quality of the prose, not the quality of the story. A lot of authors have entirely loving degenerated from their first books (like Goodkind). Very few have gotten better. King isn't as great now as he was when he wrote Drawing or The Wastelands, but he's still a good writer.
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2010 00:36 |
|
|
Maybe it's more to do with the subtly. Those other things aren't beaten over your head like the references in the later books. Everything besides the Wizard of Oz stuff was there and discoverable only if you wanted to. The Dr Doom bots are called such, you read the plate on a Quiddich bomb, are told they're lightsabres, etc etc. Plus, the whole "See 9/11 happen!" just sounds like King was just pulling random stuff into his story that didn't really need to be there, and no longer doing it to support to story, but to make as obvious as stating "Hey, hey... get it? Did you get it yet? Let's just make sure you get it, because I'm making a point/reference here". If he spent that much time building up for Doombots, I was expecting some more epic than out-of-place parodies of popular media.
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2010 03:10 |
|
|
Forget the references to Harry Potter and 9/11, the worst part in the last 3 books is either when Roland asks King if he's gay or Odetta's Old Uncle talks like Stepin Fetchit until his daughter tells him to "stop talking like a friend of the family".
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2010 10:50 |
|
|
Tom Ripley posted:Forget the references to Harry Potter and 9/11, the worst part in the last 3 books is either when Roland asks King if he's gay or Odetta's Old Uncle talks like Stepin Fetchit until his daughter tells him to "stop talking like a friend of the family". King comes across as a liberal, forward-thinking guy who is disgusted by racism, classism, and other things of that nature. Until you read how he writes lots of black characters. It almost seems like a caricature of black stereotypes but King is writing them seriously. I mean, King has never shied away from stereotypes of anyone but it seems especially egregious when it come to black people for some reason.
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2010 15:37 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 21:45 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:King comes across as a liberal, forward-thinking guy who is disgusted by racism, classism, and other things of that nature. I know how I'll get them all to see racism as disgusting! Watch me write this next line "I can't tell which is worse, dirty loving niggers or rear end-loving queers" Oh man I really got them!
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2010 01:54 |
|
