Roland can be black. It really doesn't matter. This isn't even set on Earth. He can still have piercing blue eyes. Are you all really tryin' to watch a whole Suzanna racist tirade against whitey Roland - you think that's the part of the book that must be strictly adapted to the film - GTFO!
ELBA as ROLAND is PERFECT.
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
I'd love to know just how many Dark Tower books people have read before they add their opinion to Elba's casting. This movie is going to be highly dependent on the fan base. Its the fans who will do the best advertising for the movie when we talk about how great the books are. Casting Elba is taking a great big dump on the fans base. Anyone who disagrees probably wasn't that big of a fan in the first place.
share[deleted]
Considering the 8-book series is filled with illustrations of the characters, I think making some sort of attempt to cast actors that actually look like them would have been nice!
As it stands, between this being written by the race-baiting Akiva "Batman and Robin" Goldman, and first thing we get is somebody who looks NOTHING like Roland, I can't say I have any interest in the adaptation, and I'm a huge Dark Tower fan.
This could really wind up turning out to be another "Under the Dome" where they take a few character names and pump out something that is nothing like the book.
I mean, if they play it totally straight except for the skin color of Roland why would it be such a big deal? Do you just not like seeing black people? I get it that when you read the book you pictured Clint Eastwood, but no matter what it's not gonna be Dirty Harry on screen... so how come you're ok with a white guy who doesn't mirror the image but not a black guy?
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
Do you just not like seeing black people?
I get it that when you read the book you pictured Clint Eastwood
so how come you're ok with a white guy who doesn't mirror the image
Describe Roland's character and feel. How does his being white inform his character?
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
Roland is an embodiment of two archetypes; the wild-west lawman and the Arthurian knight. Sure, there can be re-interpretations of this archetype, and I can appreciate them. I enjoyed Django Unchained, and I've read many fantasy series with black leads.
But Roland is not meant to defy or reinterpret those archetypes. He's meant to be a personification of them.
However, regardless of all that, the simple fact is that I don't want to see any changes made that were avoidable. I don't want to see Susannah turned into a white woman or be given back her legs. I don't want her past as a Civil Rights activist removed, nor do I want to see Detta suddenly have no issue with Roland's color. I don't want Eddie's drug history to be removed. I don't want Jake to be a teenager, or a girl.
I don't want Roland to escape Tull without having to kill the whole town. I don't want Sylvia Pittston's references to the Bible removed. I don't want for the Oracle to have no sexual interest in Roland.
The only changes I want to see made to this adaptation are those that were unavoidable due to budget and/or time restraints or to interpret some of the stuff that wouldn't play cinematically.
You, racist that you are, seem okay with an adaptation in name only as long as Elba gets chosen.
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
Are you saying I'm like, racist against whites, because I think Elba can play Roland just fine? That's a new one, rather I think you're trying to bait me into a "no you are!" thing...
As for your whole archtype thing... You realize the archtype is just a framework, it doesn't inform skin color at all. So let me just crumble that whole argument for you in a single question... "What kind of accent does Roland have?" If you say British you spit in the face of your Western guy, and if you say American then your whole #KnightMeansWhite thing is out the window for skin color.
The irony of your whole Arthurian Knight argument against Idris is that Elba will prob be knighted at some point.
BTW I think Moses and the wanderer archtype is just as apt for Roland, and also archtypes do not have skin colors AT ALL.
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
No, I think you're a racist because you can't see opposition to Elba as Roland in any other way but racially. In your mind, anyone who doesn't leap on board the Elba train could only possibly be doing so because they're afraid of or hate black people, or feel black people need to know their place, or something. You've blatantly stated that you don't feel there could be any other reason, and you keep trying to turn our non-racial arguments into racial arguments. You see race before you see anything else. And that makes you a racist.
Roland's accent is described as "flat and inflectionless", like it could come from any number of places or none at all.
LOL to your third paragraph there. I am not talking about modern knighthoods and you know it. Nor do I preclude that all knights who fought for the British Empire when it was forming were white. There certainly could have been some that were not. But the classic image? It's white. Sorry, but it is. I know that it bothers you when people say things like that, because you are a racist and the idea that something that's classically white is not only good but shouldn't be changed is an anathema to racists like yourself.
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
could come from any number of places or none at all.
I don't want Scott Eastwood because he's too young.
I don't want Viggo Mortensen because he's too old and I don't think his speaking voice works for Roland.
I don't want Javier Bardem because of his accent and he's too handsome.
I don't want Russell Crowe because his face is too thick and he's far too well known.
I don't want Hugh Jackman because I don't want viewers to think of Wolverine as Roland.
I don't want Christian Bale because he looks far too young, and I don't want viewers to see Batman as Roland.
I don't want Daniel Craig because I don't want viewers to think of James Bond as Roland, plus he's a bit too short.
So, in that respect, no, I don't want Elba because he is black, and Roland is not black.
So, according to you, what sort of "ist" am I for not wanting Mortensen, Crowe, Jackman, Bale or Craig (I assume you'll call me racist for not wanting Bardem)? Why am I only an "ist" where Elba is concerned?
I don't give a fart in the wind about the "his skin color doesn't mean anything" argument. That argument cannot be applied universally, and your continued insistence that it can is racist. Roland is not just some character from some book that some people like. He's a beloved icon to many readers, and of all King's characters, it is imperative to me that he be done RIGHT. And that means PORTRAYED AS WRITTEN.
Would I be this adamant about it if he had been written black from the start? You bet I would! Probably more so. I understand "white-washing" and why it's wrong. I understand it already has a sinister history. But that does not mean I should never have a problem with the reverse. Sure, make Red from The Shawshank Redemption black; Red was just a character, and Morgan Freeman made him iconic. Sure, make another version of The Dead Zone or Firestarter or Carrie or Salem's Lot or Pet Sematary with black lead actors. You'll hear no complaints from me.
But Roland and the rest of the Ka-tet? Leave them alone! Portray them as written or not at all! What is so f ucking hard to understand about that? Why always bring in the racial argument?
Oh, yeah, it's because you're a racist.
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
🙌
Well said...
I don't want Elba because he is black, and Roland is not black.
But he could be, since the skin color of the character was essentially meaningless.
There's a difference between desiring fidelity for fidelity's sake and claiming that a character's skin color is essential to their character.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
In what way? If I insist on fidelity to the source material, why does that have to stop at race? Why is it okay, or at least understandable, that I want Roland's actor to be the right height, weight, age, etc., but if I want him to be the right race, suddenly that's going too far?
Everything is essential to the character. Just as I would not have accepted a Gandalf who was 5'5", brown-bearded, wearing yellow, played by a 45-year-old man, I do not accept a Gunslinger who doesn't meet the following criteria:
-tall (no shorter than 5'9", being generous, and MUST be made to look taller through camera tricks, preferably over 6')
-broad-shouldered
-wiry thin
-blue eyed (even if contacts are necessary)
-leathery-skinned (even if minor make-up is necessary)
-Baritone-voiced, even if it's not a big booming voice
-Between the ages of an old-looking 40 and a strong-looking 50
-Brown-haired, or at least able to be turned brown-haired believably
-And, last but not least, white.
KeyBrains believes I'm being OCD, even seeming to suggest that such an actor does not exist, or that as long as the actor has the internal gravitas, it doesn't matter what he looks like. I say *beep* If the Roland I grew up with, the Roland who has been immortalized in countless paintings, illustrations, digital art and the like, the Roland FROM THE BOOK is not the Roland I see on screen, then as far as I'm concerned, they didn't get the right guy. I have said many times, as have others on this board, that sure, Idris Elba is a very talented actor. I was bummed that he didn't get the Oscar nomination he deserved this year. But this does not mean I'm throwing my image of Roland away because the PC SJW's like KeyBrains, Cruel Awakens and Akiva Goldsman demand it.
And again, I do not respond this way to every adaptation of everything, even stuff I like. There is a huge difference between a popular book and an iconic book. Not even everything Stephen King wrote is iconic. Really, only about three or four of his books are (I count the entirety of The Dark Tower as one). I know that some stories are just stories and some characters are just characters. Reinterpretation in such a scenario is fine. But sometimes a character has gone beyond mere "fictional character" status. Roland is one of them.
Now, not even every character or plot point from The Dark Tower is iconic. This is particularly true of the last three books. If major changes are made there, not only do I expect it, I approve of it. I fully expect references to other King novels, and King's appearances in the later books, to be done away with, and I expect the role of the Crimson King to be presented far differently.
All I ask is that the core of the plot be left alone and that Roland, Jake, Eddie and Susannah be presented as close to how they were written as possible. Yes, Jake is going to have to be allowed to age past 12, but this can still work for the character as written, because Jake does not act like a young boy.
What bothers me the most about the Elba apologists (aside from their calling anyone who has a problem with it racist, and their insistence that skin color is meaningless--but only if it's a white character!) is their seeming belief now that Elba MUST BE cast, that not only will he do a great job but NOBODY COULD DO IT BETTER! That if for some reason another actor is chosen, it is a racist decision.
Seriously, I have never seen a bandwagon-jump quite this obvious. When Javier Bardem was cast, there were those who liked it and those who didn't, but there was none of this "JAVIER BARDEM IS THE BEST CHOICE EVARR OMG HE'S PERFECT NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY BE A BETTER CHOICE AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT *beep* YOU!!!!"
So why is this the reaction Elba is getting from some people? Why are you going to extravagant lengths to make excuses for him? And why are you acting like he's "perfect" for the part when you have to make said excuses?
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
Here's the diff (i'll use myself as an example): I want Roland to look like Roland as much as possible for the same reason I want Roland to make his quirky commentary on popkins and astin, for the same reason I want the Balazar shootout to feature a naked Eddie being unexpectedly awesome, for the same reason I want the lobstrosities to look as horrifying as they read, and for the same reason I want the sex demon plus genius loci (the haunted house) to be those things instead of anything else: because it will put a goofy smile (or grimace if that which is depicted is gruesome) to see something more faithful than not.
However...I will not be too upset if Elba is chosen to play Roland. Why? Because while some of the dialog contingent on him having a Caucasian appearance is going to be altered (particularly in the portions based on "The Drawing of the Three" and "The Waste Lands"), it is by no means impossible for the fundamentals of the character to be portrayed by the man. He's got the acting chops to secure my confidence in him. Also, the sole fact of him being cast does not mean that this adaptation is automatically going to be so off-the-rails as to be a shameful representation of the ka-tet's journey.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Sure, sure, I understand. It sounds very much like what I want.
Here's the thing; if Elba ends up being cast, I'll still see the film, and there's even a possibility that I might end up enjoying it. Detta can spit nails at this black man being a "house n-word" and "Uncle Tom" and treat Eddie like he's trying to be the "massa", even when he obviously isn't. Sure.
But...it's not going to feel like I'm watching the novel come to life. I got that feeling from the LOTR and Harry Potter movies. The feeling I'll likely get from this one is that it's more of a stage play based loosely off the novel.
It's not the sole fact of his casting that makes me think this movie is going to be an off-the-rails shameful representation of the ka-tet's journey. It's other things I've heard about, such as comments about Roland now having the Horn, meaning that this isn't even supposed to be the same journey, artwork showing a white Susannah with legs (still in a wheelchair though) and the fact that they're courting Matthew McConaughey for the role of Walter.
"Gunslaynger! How well y'all fulfeel the prawphecis of owld! Whazzup, whazzup, whazzup?"
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
Captain Welker, yours is my favorite response on this issue.
(No offense to jmparker78-382-6671)
I had to say something to inject a little sanity into the sea of rather frightening rage and intolerance i've seen swell up lately around live-action adaptations in general. Not everyone against the casting choice of Idris Elba for Roland Deschain is unreasonable, but there is an undeniable portion that are very much not the kind of people I would want to associate with.
There was a time when the Thor board was awash in similar complaints about Elba playing Heimdall, and he ended up knocking that role out of the park.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Frightening rage and intolerance? You mean like this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1648190/board/thread/251397019?d=251397019#251397019
I love how when I object to a white actor, it's just preference, but objecting to a black one? Must be "rage and intolerance" or, as KeyBrains openly said, racism. Think back to when you felt the way you did. Were you objecting then out of rage, intolerance or racism? No, it was because Idris Elba did not look like Roland.
You've obviously changed your mind, or decided it wasn't as important as you once felt it was that the actor playing Roland bear a resemblance to Roland, but once upon a time you felt differently. If you weren't motivated by rage and intolerance, why do you assume others are?
PS: I never had a problem with Elba playing Heimdall, and you're right, he did knock it out of the park.
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
I don't deny that my reaction was once "He isn't Roland". However, I reflected on that and soon changed my stance after learning that the guy is actually pretty damn good at acting (in point of fact, I had watched The Wire a while back and my memories of him as Stringer Bell floated back up the surface with a little encouragement).
As the passage of time continues, I find that I check myself on reflexive notions of what constitutes a poor decision in regards to live-action adaptations with a satisfying increase in frequency.
That said...did that post of mine genuinely make you think of frightening rage and intolerance (of the racial/ethnic variety, natch)? I'd hate to see what you think of people shouting about "white genocide", "libtards", and "Hollywood PC agenda" with an intensity not unlike that of a person that finds out their spouse has been cheating on them.
(By the way, did you miss the line of "Not everyone against the casting choice of Idris Elba for Roland Deschain is unreasonable" in my previous post here?).
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
You know who else is a great actor? Kenneth Branagh. Would you ever hire him to play Roland? Why not? Surely great acting is what matters!
I utterly reject the idea that "he's a great actor, so he'll be a great Roland". First, yes, sure, he's a great actor. No one is disputing that. Second, I hate these comparisons based on Luther and Stringer. NEITHER LUTHER NOR STRINGER ARE ANYTHING LIKE ROLAND.
Third, of course your post didn't make me think that. I agreed with it. I only wish you still did. Have any of mine made you think that?
By the way, I haven't noticed any posts talking about "white genocide" or "libtards", but I have seen the PC agenda posts, and I don't think a PC agenda on Hollywood's part can be denied.
What makes me think this is a PC thing is the sheer fervor which every pro-Elba person is displaying, and their immediate leap to "racism" as the reason we object, even claiming that MUST be the reason.
Explicit hoc totum; pro Christo da mihi potum!
Stringer is a bad guy, but he's a canny bad guy. Roland is canny if not straight up genius in his tactics. There is something here for Elba to draw upon.
Luther is much more of a hero, but it's an anti-hero instead of a straight-up good guy. Roland too is an anti-hero (if nothing else, he isn't squeaky-clean). Luther is also pretty damn weary despite never failing to soldier on in his own quest...for justice .
---
Third, of course your post didn't make me think that. I agreed with it. I only wish you still did.
Are you the brains of the operation?
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I fought to instill a positive mindset on this board and lost.
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
Whether you yourself affected any changes here, more people now are willing to call out unfounded claims than not.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Your broken heart can mend.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I understand that some people don't like that a black actor was cast. Personally I don't mind, Elba is an excellent actor and he will not disappoint. But I do remember getting a little pissed off when I saw that they cast the Raggedy Man in Cell (desribed in the book as a black man with rastas) with a white dude.
Also, some people got annoyed about the fact that Harry Potters hair wasn't as tously as described in the book or that you could see Sean Astin's beard shadow when he played a hobbit (which don't grow facial hair). So I can understand that people would get annoyed when it comes to book adaptations and the film industry getting stuff wrong that you had imagined differently. And that has nothing to do with racism...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
How's it going over here?
Content by KeyBrains is copyright protected not to be duplicated without accreditation (KeyBrains)
Things are slowly improving. We will see if this trend continues once the board experiences the next surge in user/member participation.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Bump.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .