Stephen King Shuts Down Dark Tower Rumors: What He Really Thinks About Flanagan’s Series!

by

As a movie enthusiast, I’ve noticed that Stephen King tends to adopt two different strategies when it comes to adapting his books. Most often, he prefers a more detached role, offering his approval for certain choices but generally keeping his distance – recognizing that each film or TV series is its own unique creation. On rare occasions, though, he dives headfirst into the project, penning screenplays and teleplays himself. The buzz this week was that Mike Flanagan’s adaptation of “The Dark Tower” would fall under the latter category… but I’m sorry to say, it appears that isn’t accurate after all.

This week’s edition of The King Beat features an update on the evolving adaptation of the western/sci-fi/fantasy epic as our main story. However, there’s more to explore! I’m thrilled to share my exclusive interview with the talented writer and director, Osgood Perkins, of the acclaimed series, The Monkey. So, let’s dive right in!

Big Bummer: Stephen King Says He Isn’t Actually Working On Mike Flanagan’s Dark Tower Series

Every now and then, it’s not a secret that Stephen King has been quite busy lately, adapting his own novels for the big screen. Just last year, I was part of the team that worked on the remake of “The Stand,” collaborating with my father Owen King to pen the finale, giving some resolution to Fran Goldsmith’s tale. Additionally, I wrote all eight episodes of the Apple TV+ limited series, “Lisey’s Story.”

Recent rumors have been circulating about my involvement in the development of Mike Flanagan’s adaptation of “The Dark Tower,” but unfortunately, those reports have turned out to be untrue.

Following numerous online articles announcing Stephen King’s resumption of storytelling in Mid-World this week, the writer clarified on his individual Bluesky platform that there seems to be some misunderstanding concerning his previous Dark Tower statements. In essence, King stated that he had been misinterpreted.

In contrast to what the web often claims infallibly, I’m not penning scripts for Mike Flanagan’s Dark Tower adaptation. As a cinephile, I find myself engrossed in numerous tales, but this one isn’t mine.

The origin of the uncertainty can be traced back to recent comments made by Stephen King in an interview about Mike Flanagan’s upcoming adaptation of “The Dark Tower.” Trying to keep his cards close to his chest, King stated about the project, “I can only say that it’s happening. I am writing material now and I believe that’s all I want to say because the next thing you know, I’ll inadvertently cause a stir that I don’t necessarily wish to create just yet.” Paradoxically, this very statement ended up causing exactly what King was trying to avoid.

If Stephen King isn’t involved in writing “The Dark Tower” adaptation as suggested by some, what does it imply about his comments? Although it’s not entirely certain, I have a hunch that the books he was referring to in the interview are his upcoming sequel to “The Talisman” and “Black House.” Even though these stories don’t directly concern Roland, Eddie, Susannah, Jake, and Oy’s adventures, they do share the setting of Mid-World. I suspect this is the root of the confusion from his brief statement.

As a passionate movie buff, I must admit that this turn of events is certainly disappointing… but it’s not the end of the world. The fact remains that Stephen King is penning an ending for one of his most cherished book series, and Mike Flanagan continues to work diligently on adapting the epic “The Dark Tower” in a way that does justice to its original source material. As devoted readers, we have much to look forward to, and I dare say that with “The Dark Tower” still in its early stages of development, there’s always hope for King to lend his writing talents to the series yet. So let’s keep our fingers crossed!

An Interview With The Monkey Writer/Director Osgood Perkins

Previously in The King Beat’s weekly issue, I revealed excerpts from my chat with the talented writer/director Osgood Perkins. This discussion focused on aspects such as the original title of “The Monkey”, the reasons behind modernizing the story’s setting, and his personal connection to Stephen King’s works. With the movie now playing in cinemas nationwide, I invite you to delve deeper into our talk!

(The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.)

Last year, I was approached by the film’s producers to write the screenplay for a movie adaptation of The Monkey. They had a script that they felt wasn’t quite working, and when I read it, I agreed that it seemed too somber and serious. However, the monkey’s face in the original material evoked an unsettling sense of humor mixed with disgust in me, which didn’t align with the script’s tone. So, I decided to approach the project from a different angle. After writing the script, it sat around for some time before finding its place with a studio that wasn’t fully on board with my vision.

Once I completed Longlegs and worked with an amazing team, we thought, “Why not do it all over again? We have this unique opportunity to explore another direction with this project.” And so, we went ahead and started production with a fantastic cast, keeping the momentum going from our previous collaboration. The secrecy surrounding the film was likely intentional as we wanted to create an air of mystery and anticipation around its release.

Could you describe how your adaptations evolved throughout the process? Was there a tendency to deviate further from the original work with each revision, or was the departure already planned out from the beginning?

The final movie feels very much like the initial version of the script, which is quite unusual because not everything we create ends up being successful. However, in this case, I felt a strong connection to the material right from the start and could visualize it clearly. This doesn’t always happen. Often, ideas don’t come to fruition or get lost along the way. But sometimes, things just click, and that’s what happened here. I found my vision early on and stayed committed to it.

Is it possible that I’m overanalyzing, but the title “lawnmower kill” reminds me strongly of the movie “Maximum Overdrive.” Could there be subtle hints of other references hidden within as well?

As a follower, I believe there’s no limit to the depth at which one can interpret a work. You perceive what resonates with you in the text, and that’s precisely the intention. Just like an artist who creates a movie, we, as the audience, have the freedom to interpret it in our unique ways. For instance, the lawnmower could symbolize something sinister rather than just another Stephen King reference. The characters, relationships, and even the portrayal of families were more inspired by Stephen King’s writing style and experiences, rather than his characters themselves. In essence, I was exploring King’s literary world instead of his fictional characters.

I also like the girl bullies. I thought that was just a fantastic touch.

Girl bullies in the bathroom, that definitely was Carrie for sure.

I’d like to know more about the structure of these monkeys you’re referring to. Were multiple ones created, and did they function properly?

In a summary, we had approximately four mechanical monkeys. One was highly advanced and operated by a skilled puppeteer using a Sega Genesis-like remote control, allowing it to perform an array of actions such as spinning drumsticks, smiling, or playing the drums at different speeds. This was our main character, filmed from multiple angles at all times. We also had one monkey that could be thrown around, another that could be roughly handled, and one that we could disassemble – its arms were magnetically attached to its body. So, in essence, there were three functional monkeys. There might have been a fourth less-than-optimal monkey that was discarded or damaged somehow. Our goal was to maintain the traditional appearance of the monkey, as we felt it would evoke a peculiar feeling or fear associated with a toy monkey in people’s collective consciousness. We entrusted skilled craftspeople to create our design.

Since your current project deviates significantly from your past works, could you share what other areas of exploration, either within the horror genre or outside of it, have caught your attention? Additionally, are you open to the idea of revisiting a different Stephen King story?

If I were to attempt something reminiscent of Stephen King’s style, I’d prefer to create something akin to Creepshow – an anthology of short, playful stories or scenes, much like brief, humorous gags. I admire the structure of productions such as Creepshow, Tales from the Crypt, and others in that vein. I believe it’s challenging to execute effectively, and unfortunately, it has not always been successful or has missed the mark on occasion. However, I am intrigued by the idea of giving it a try.

On the other hand, it seems like my collaborators and I are gradually moving away from traditional horror – for instance, Longlegs had a horror-comedy blend, while Creepshow served as its foundation, but it also contained humor. Now, we’re delving into an absurd, surrealistic comedy with this current project, followed by the next film, Keepers, which is a more intimate, personal, almost grown-up horror story.

In essence, I feel that we can continue to explore and broaden our horizons in terms of blending horror with other genres, as it offers immense potential for growth and expansion. Given its versatility, horror remains one of the most expansive genres out there.

This concludes today’s episode of The King Beat, but remember, I’ll return here on TopMob next Thursday for more updates on Stephen King news. So, keep an eye out!

Read More

2025-02-27 20:38