Jesus Christ you whiny pricks
He's an amazing actor, stop wrapping yourselves in Confederate flags and just be excited for the movie.
sharehave you read the books??
he is a white character.
his race plays a major part in how other characters interact with him.
Now they need to change detta to a white woman
Uh...how Roland's melanin is perceived plays a somewhat important part of perhaps half a book, but any relevant parts that show up can be rewritten and still keep in a similar tension.
If people would just admit they don't like any change to the source material whatsoever (which is fine...I completely get that), things would go a lot smoother compared to them making a mountain out of a molehill and shouting "PC! PC!" like a Vietnam veteran talking about the Viet Cong ("VC! VC!").
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I for one am not opposed to some changes to the source material, but I do think that it should be as limited as possible... I mean after all there is a reason why someone thought the story was worth making, so why change it in unnecessary ways?
Is Idris Elba a good actor? I have only seen a small sample of his work so I don't really have an opinion on that question...but I do think that changing the race of a character (especially when that character's race is in any way connected to the plot of the story) is unnecessary. There have been numerous examples where changing a character's race has no bearing on a story and in those cases race does not matter.
It can of course be done, but what are the reasons? Is it to satisfy a quota of race diverse characters? Is it because the actor is the best possible choice for the role?
These questions are not moot, they are important questions that need to be asked, because if the reason is anything other than that the actor in question is the best possible choice for the role, then the change should not even be entertained; to do so is to change for the sake of change.
This book has a large following, (somewhat of an understatement there I believe.) I have heard and read many varying opinions about the possibility (now an apparent reality) of casting Roland as a black man; and all of the ramifications and changes that this will effect within the story. I agree that the story could be made to fit the change. But again, my question is why?
It seems that Akiva Goldsman is convinced that if anyone objects to the casting of Idris Elba, they must be a racist. I believe it was in an article from Variety Online where he said that if people didn't like the casting they could go to hell (or something to that effect). Probably not the best idea to alienate a built in audience for the film which has already made a controversial casting decision by calling people who disagree with it racists. Especially not when for every one of your successful screenplays (A Beautiful Mind) you have a terrible one (Batman & Robin). From what has been reported thus far about the Dark Tower script, it seems to be headed more in the Batman & Robin territory which does not bode well for said built in fans.
Having said all that, I will likely see this movie if it does actually make it to the screen...but I fear that I will be lamenting the fact that it wasn't another Frank Darabont production; as he seems to be the only director who respects Stephen King's work enough to not stray very far from what is already wildly successful source material...Because we have mostly come to a point (due to the sheer volume of terrible screenplays based on King's stories) where the mere presence of King's name on a movie no longer guarantees a successful box office draw. And if this movie fails, it will likely end any possibility of future DT movies ever being made, and that would be a travesty.
There have been numerous examples where changing a character's race has no bearing on a story and in those cases race does not matter.I actually consider Roland a good contender for a race change because he comes from a world in which this world's racial dynamics do not exist; as such, his skin colour has had no effect on his experiences and character development as it would for Eddie or Jake or Susannah. The only time in the books where his race is an issue is in how it informs Detta's hatred of him, but given her personality, I find it extremely unlikely that she would have been any kinder had Roland been black. (Another poster said that she'd just call him a honky loving mahfah instead of a honky mahfah.)
From the director talking about the casting:
"For me, it just clicked. He’s such a formidable man,” says Arcel, who says he’s been a fan of Elba’s since The Wire. “I had to go to Idris and tell him my vision for the entire journey with Roland and the ka-tet. We discussed, who is this character? What’s he about? What’s his quest? What’s his psychology? We tried to figure out if we saw the same guy. And we absolutely had all the same ideas and thoughts. He had a unique vision for who Roland would be.”
and from Stephen King:
"The author, who raves about Elba’s recent work in the child-soldier drama Beasts of No Nation, says he hopes fans of the books have no problem accepting a man of color as Roland. “For me the character is still the character. It’s almost a Sergio Leone character, like ‘the man with no name,’” King says. “He can be white or black, it makes no difference to me. I think it opens all kind of exciting possibilities for the backstory.”
Source: www.ew.com/article/2016/02/29/dark-tower-rises-stephen-king-idris-elba-and-matthew-mcconaughey
It can of course be done, but what are the reasons? Is it to satisfy a quota of race diverse characters? Is it because the actor is the best possible choice for the role?I don't think the answer is always that simple. For instance, white actors continue to get cast in non-white roles all the time, and I doubt the reasons for that are always as easy as either racism or because they were the best possible choice for the role. Sometimes the filmmakers see something in them that matches their vision for the character, or they did a really brilliant audition, and any other number of factors.
It seems that Akiva Goldsman is convinced that if anyone objects to the casting of Idris Elba, they must be a racist.Not true; that quote was misinterpreted. What he did was refer to two separate groups of people: those who objected to the casting because they were fans of the book and concerned how it would affect the racial dynamics of the ka-tet and other parts of the story, regarding whom he said he heard and respected their views and wanted to assure them they were aware of these things. Then he addressed the second group, people who were making racist comments about the casting. He told that group to go *beep* themselves.
This was badly phrased and often quoted together, so people wrongly assumed that he was telling everyone who objected to the casting that they were racist and to go *beep* themselves.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42. share
you can argue about how a change is acceptable, post facto rationalization and all, but you cannot argue why a change in race is desired in the first place.
What new dimensions and enrichment to the story can be brought about by this change?
cynical me says the change is a a reduction in value. I'll say it's for the money. To make the movie as palatable for all audiences ( especially for international sales) by neutralizing the racial tensions pivotal to the character personalities in the book.
It's just going to be made and sold as a action-adventure with fantastical elements.
but you cannot argue why a change in race is desired in the first place.It's because they wanted Idris Elba for the role. A few other actors were considered alongside Elba, and all of those were white, which wouldn't make sense if they had first decided to change Roland's race; the race-change was the result of the casting, not the reason for it.
I'll say it's for the money. To make the movie as palatable for all audiences ( especially for international sales) by neutralizing the racial tensions pivotal to the character personalities in the book.I think that's very unlikely. Studios have often decided against movies with non-white leads precisely for the money - they don't think they'd be marketable, especially internationally. (I can't remember where I read it but there was some Hollywood guy who said that movies with black leads wouldn't sell in China, so they avoided that.) Making a film with a non-white (or female lead) is always a financially risky move, and I've heard from people who work in scriptwriting (Reddit AMAs, elsewhere online) that they're specifically discouraged from picking such scripts because the studios prefer to stick with tried-and-tested formulas for money's sake.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42. share
that's why i said they are going to write out the racism subplots.
and no one, including the producers/studio had come out and explained why they HAD to change the race.
Idris is not Cruise / Depp / DiCaprio. He cannot sell movies just by his name.
and no one, including the producers/studio had come out and explained why they HAD to change the race.It's because they wanted Elba, as I said. Harry Potter is a good analogy - they picked Daniel Radcliffe even though he had blue eyes and Harry's green eyes were one of his defining characteristics. Fans were pissed off about that, but I don't recall anyone asking "why hasn't anyone explained why they HAD to change Harry's eye colour?"
There's more to casting than who will make money. The director explained that when talking to Elba, he discovered that they had the same vision of Roland's personality and motivations and who he was as a person, and that he believed Elba would bring something uniquely special to that role - which he apparently hadn't seen in the other actors who were being considered. And it was enough for him to want to cast Elba, even if it would mean changing Roland's race.
It wasn't a matter of "hey, let's make Roland black! Now, who could we pick?" If so, they wouldn't have had white actors in the running.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42. share
Because contact lenses are a bit easier than white face. Seriously, how is that even an argument?
Not to mention changing a character's race changes their whole background, while eye colour doesn't.
He didn't wear contacts though.
Not to mention changing a character's race changes their whole background, while eye colour doesn't.Not in the case of Roland. How does his race affect his background? He didn't come from Earth.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42. share
He's in a land where racism is clearly a thing, based on Susannah. Growing up in a racist land would absolutely affect his background. Not to mention growing up a different race affects your customs, your family, your traditions etc. Unless he came from a town where there's an equal number of people of all nationalities who don't interbreed yet have the same customs, traditions and attitudes as each other. Which is garbage because that doesn't even happen in the most tolerant places on Earth.
Not to mention King himself stated he is excited what the race change will do to Roland's backstory.
The fact that he didn't wear contacts is irrelevant. He could have, quite easily. Having blue eyes means nothing. I don't have a problem with any actors playing a character of another race, even it means black/whiteface, I just don't see the point, and that includes Americans playing Germans or French or whatever. (I also find it funny how Blackface is so offensive when used for African-Americans, but it's fine when white actors play dark-skinned Indians, like Ben Kingsley)
Da fook are you talking about?
Roland grew up in a land on a world that NEVER experienced the same history of ethnic discrimination/slavery that we on Earth did. A gunslinger with dark skin isn't going to be met with howls of hatred and an impromptu lynching.
So sad how too many people are taking Roland'a melanin and trying to make it out to be SO VERY ALL ENCOMPASSING compared to that which is actually IN THE BOOKS.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Really? There's no discrimination or racism or anything? So why is Odetta so racist then? Hmmm, must just be an anomaly.
Race is always a big thing. Don't be ridiculous.
Odetta, a woman from EARTH during the CIVIL RIGHTS ERA is not the same as Roland, a man from MID-WORLD that NEVER had a history of discrimination/slavery against dark-skinned people.
You can suggest that some people of Mid-World might have had a beef with dark skin, but this is never shown to be the case in either the books or the comics. If it does exist, it is so inconsequential as to not warrant a mention.
Stop inventing setting details and pushing them as fact. Disinformation pulls us back when we should be moving forward.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Which is garbage because that doesn't even happen in the most tolerant places on Earth.Yes, but Roland didn't grow up on Earth.
Ben Kingsley is half-Indian. True, he's not dark-skinned, but he's not white either, and neither was there any blackface involved on his part. I'm not sure that people were all fine with that, though. I'm sure if you look around you'll find someone who wasn't.
Regarding the differences in offensiveness, it's mostly down to the history of blackface where white actors would put on blackface to make fun of black people in often cruel ways. Doing that today thus reminds people of that, which is where the offensiveness comes from.
It's like if you've got a friend named Tom who's in mourning because his mom just died in a bungee jumping accident, and you tell him, "hey you know what would cheer you up? Let's go bungee jumping this weekend!"
While there's nothing inherently offensive about bungee jumping, you'd be a huge jerk to say that. It's similar with blackface. It's the context and history that makes it wrong, not blackface per se.
---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42. share
Let's be real, white people play changes in race all the time, i.e 21. It is not a big deal. To make a big deal out of it is a bit ludicrous.
"A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility"
Yeah, but when you have ass_holes like the OP insulting people by calling them whiny pricks and saying they should stop wrapping themselves in Confederate flags, then I don't really blame people for calling out "PC! PC!" "SJW! SJW!".
share