This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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? κ ατάστασ η 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: Moved with support. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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? κ ατάστασ η 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: Moved with support. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)