Hah. Hah. Hah. Your gesticulations would be so funny if you weren't so utterly serious.
Hm. You're ignoring the shtton of substance I wrote -- and it
was substance, full of articulate examples, like the distracting ethnicity of the Hispanic man they replaced Liam Neeson with in one of the sequels to Raimi's "Darkman" -- and then you just basically say "ha ha you're funny."
😐 okay. You're an idiot. By "idiot," I mean "incapable of thinking critically about your beliefs." You're the exact kind of person this pile of sht is marketed to.
And no, you did not refute anything.
Yes. I did. But then IMDB coddled you.
I said that race exists. I said that there are certain physical and mental traits that typically occur in all the races. I said that to disbelieve this is to ignore the realities that inform stereotypes. And then I said that these stereotypes, which we've all unconsciously internalized for a good reason, have a huge effect in how we relate to characters in the movies we watch.
That's why some Hispanic dude who sounds like Ricky Ricardo is a crappy replacement for Liam Neeson in Darkman. And that's why Idris Elba is a crappy replacement for a young Clint Eastwood lookalike.
But you don't even have to get into that un-PC sht. Another retarded point you made was that a fictional character's casting is more flexible than a real person, as say in a biography.
This is bullsht. Fictional characters, at least ones that are as deeply embedded in the collective consciousness as Roland of Gilead, are the sum of their traits. Just like real people, like MLK or Gandhi. Their race is one of their traits.
Remember that stunningly dumb movie they made of "Pinocchio" in the early 2000s? You know, the one where Pinocchio was played by a freakin' balding 50-year-old man with a bowling ball belly? Yeah, that movie tanked because they ignored the traits that make the character Pinocchio who he is.
Pinocchio's a little boy. Not a middle-aged man. Retarded fail. But you know what's more retarded? Calling me an "ageist" for noticing this obvious fact.
*shrugs* I honestly don't know what's wrong with you that you don't just "get" this. And you're college educated, plus a published author? Jesus wept.
You stopped at my first point and went on a long-winded diatribe that was sound and fury, signifying nothing.
No it wasn't. I made more well-presented and interesting points than you ever will in your life. if your points weren't refuted, then feel free to tell me why. then i'll feel free to patiently explain to you again why you're in delusion because of some strange emotional reason which I do not understand.
Who exactly expressed outrage or offense at Roland's whiteness prior to the casting of Elba?
............... what?
what in hell are you on about here?
........ are you trying to imply that Elba's casting was the result of people who were mad that King's Roland was white?
No one was outraged... They made the decision to cast Elba because they thought it was a neat gimmick to make money, and maybe stir up negative publicity.
And what exactly is the financial gain in appeasing that small of a group that, by all accounts doesn't seem to be very vocal?
your very, very strange suggestion that there is necessarily a "small group of people who were outraged at Roland's whiteness" is just retarded to me, I don't know where that even comes from, that's like saying the whole story is really about diabetes or that Sheb was the real Gunslinger all along or something.
reply
share