Talk:The Dark Tower (2017 film)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Carrie (novel)#Adaptations|Carrie]] The anchor (#Adaptations) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

New Poster

Can some add this poster along with a para :) Ralph men too ping the negative effect (see here: http://whatculture.com/film/10-fiendishly-clever-secrets-hidden-in-famous-movie-posters?page=8) A poster with a hidden detail truly is better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty Smith (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional poster"

I believe this poster is a fan creation posted to IMDb. I've only seen it there and in a The Wrap article, but it is possible that the writer got it from IMDb. We know that IMDb features user-generated content, so I believe this is most likely a fan poster and not an official one. Any thoughts? κατάσταση 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb shouldn't have fan content on its page about the film. If it does, then it also needs to be deleted from IMDb. I'm not sure how we'd know though. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on the IMDb page, so I think you're right. I'll remove it from the article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title move

Why was the moved from "The Dark Tower series film adaptation" to "Untitled The Dark Tower series film adaptation"? This is not about the 2017 film itself, that would require a separate article, but the overall process and an overview of the series, should the plans all come to fruition. The intent of this is to be a kind of article like Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe. Jmj713 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. I don't know of any articles that are about the process of adapting rather than about the resulting adaptation (which would include a background of the adaptation process). The main topics of the MCU and DCEU articles are the film series. There are articles about film series. If this film leads to a series, then we can make an article about the series, but the first article needs to be about the first film. Info on possible sequels will be included in the first film's article until a second film actually starts to be made, warranting its own article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with support. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Tower series film adaptation → The Dark Tower (film) – Article is about upcoming film, so should follow naming conventions guideline at WP:NCF. No other The Dark Tower film exists, so "(film)" disambiguation is accurate. Current title is unusual for Wikipedia and inappropriate. What's notable for Wikipedia is the produced film itself, not its long production history (which is covered in the article), and thus the page's title should reflect that. Wikipedical (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above in the "Title move" section, this is envisioned as an overview article for the entire project. Jmj713 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands right now, there is no 'series.' It may never happen. Just one film, due out in 2017, which is currently in production. The development history section relates to that film. Once there is an actual, not proposed, series, it would be appropriate to have an encompassing article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This page really should be moved. No film series exists as of yet, it's just one film. Tammydemo 14:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support As there's only one film thus far any article should focus on that. NathanielTheBold (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Massive spoilers for series in the introduction?"

The end of the introduction spoils the end of the book series. Most people reading it won't have read the books and might be put off or spoiled. It doesn't belong in that part, maybe under another subheading. Could we get that moved to somewhere else on the page and maybe shortened so as to not give away large plot details? GetRicht (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally doesn't avoid spoilers. I have no knowledge of the books or film, and the last sentence of the introduction is fairly meaningless to me. It doesn't seem to spoil anything. However, if there is a better way to write the article, you're welcome to edit it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a sequel to the books rather than a direct adaptation seems important enough to mention in the lead. —Flax5 11:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's one case where Wikipedia *DOES* still avoid spoilers, and that's when the work hasn't been released yet. As the film will be very different from the books and will thus also end in a different way, it's save to say the narrative hasn't been released before. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take place after book 7. It takes place in an alternate timeline.

Could you guys get editors that have read the books? This is super frustrating. Misinformation and enormous spoilers, IN BOLD and all over the page. GetRicht (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's what Sony and Sai King are officially saying: It's a sequel to the books. And all that matters for this article is what they're saying. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 The whole story was confusing like if it was after the books or during the books (but without other main characters) and theres been no confirmations on the topic so yeah (P.S I really wanted to see Oy but i think the ad Roland sees on the TV in the hospital  was a little tribute sorta thing to oy because they were talking raccoons lol) Topkek 19:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkekin (talk • contribs)

19% on RT

If somebody's (i. e. reliable source) noted the irony yet that the film's managed to land smackdown on 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, given the number's significance in the books, it should definitely be mentioned in the article. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in lede

This piece was quite a journey from the original source: "...and received generally negative reviews, with criticism focused on its incomprehensible plot and unfaithfulness to King's novels."

The source said it was discussing "first reviews", not the reviews the film received in general. It did not say the plot was incomprehensible and unfaithful to King's novels, it said the early reviews said the plot was incomprehensible (etc.), which is considerably different.

I've changed it to read, "Early reviews found the film to be 'a dull disappointment without any set audience: incomprehensible to newbies, and wildly unfaithful and simplistic to fans of King's books.'", citing the same source, but using a direct quote to avoid the sloppy synthesis in the earlier version. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0 I'm all for using exact quotes, but the "early critics" line seems pointless and misleading; the film is released and there are "big" publications cited in the Independent review roundup. I feel saying only "early critics" is a bit disingenuous. TropicAces (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

The cited quote says, "More bad news, however, as the first reviews that have trickled out present the film as a dull disappointment..." IMO, "early reviews" fairly represents "first reviews". I don't see anything in "early reviews" conflicting with the idea that some of them are "big" publications. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because the film is out and been out, and "later" (aka all) reviews have followed in same path: the film is a boring, convoluted mess. No need to label the reception to the film "early" thoughts, as it implies "later reviews" had different opinion. TropicAces (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

No, not "all" the reviews. Further, as the film has been out for all of 4 days, all of the reviews so far are early. Anyone reading that early reviews say it sucks and deciding that future reviews will disagree needs a bit more intellectual hand-holding than we can really provide. That said, if you have a reliable source to that broadens the statement, we probably have room for that. (For the record, I don't expect that future reviews will do an about face on this, but my guess is not a sufficiently reliable source to add anything that I expect will come to pass.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic chat

Extended content

Is this a huge waste of money?

Given the reviews and at best break even financials this seems like a vanity project. I have not read any of Kings books but if goes the way of The Dome then I will give it and any TV spinoffs a big miss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.92.81 (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not or general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Goldsmith is a hack

This Hollywood hack has ruined multiple movies. Why is there a comment indicating praise for his work? He's the reason this movie didn't live up to its potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:200:57A0:38D7:FB03:B740:96F9 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed tag

A lot of this is discussion many years before the film even eventually happened of failed WP:CRYSTAL, such as rumoured castings that didn't work out and so on, sourced to gossip outlets or reprints of gossip outlets. I just cut some of the most egregious - on the face of it, Viggo Mortensen being rumoured six years before the film was actually made is unlikely to be encyclopedic - but there should be some way to cull this down to things that actually happened - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roland’s Direarms

They are not Colt Single Action Army's, they are closer to Remington 1858 revolvers that somehow magically have a swingout cradle Kittywonton (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]