What the internet has taught me about the acronym "PC".
It translates to "anything or anyone not a heterosexual Caucasian/white male".
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
No, it means changing white male heterosexual characters to blacks or women or something else, because PC is racist at heart.
shareSooooo...wanting people other than straight white males to have a fair shot at...well, anything, is racist? How? Please explain.
shareIt's the new tactic of this era of social media: preemptively call minorities racist to deflect from racism.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Sadly, that does seem to be the case more and more often nowadays.
shareNo im calling people who are racists racist. If you think Ray Charles should have been given to daniel day lewis then its fine. I personally was happy with that film casting a black person for the role. You racists think it should have been daniel day lewis a white man instead??? Omg.
shareIf you think Ray Charles should have been given to daniel day lewis then its fine. I personally was happy with that film casting a black person for the role. You racists think it should have been daniel day lewis a white man instead??? Omg.
http://topstepconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/free-vector-straw-man-clip-art_104413_Straw_Man_clip_art_hight.png
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing . share
Lol
shareNo im calling people who are racists racist. If you think Ray Charles should have been given to daniel day lewis then its fine. I personally was happy with that film casting a black person for the role. You racists think it should have been daniel day lewis a white man instead??? Omg.Okay, first, the Ray Charles/Daniel Day Lewis analogy makes no sense in reference to this movie due to the context surrounding each person (Roland Deschain and Ray Charles). Second, "racist".....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg
P.S. - Still waiting for that explanation, by the way. share
Wrong.
shareWrong.Is it? Please explain. share
Let's imagine the police ask you for a description of Roland Deschain... Or the Wendy's girl, or Aunt Jemima, or Uncle Ben... Are you gonna not mention their racial characteristics? Hair colour maybe? Eye colour? Height? Weight? Sex? Age? How about Martin Luther King, or Colonel Sanders, or Abe Lincoln? The point isn't race, or any sort of bizarre ideology, it is simply the idea of casting according to the character's physical description with good actors... It isn't rocket science to know when a movie's makers don't even understand a fundamental aspect of the material they are using.
shareLet's imagine the police ask you for a description of Roland Deschain... Or the Wendy's girl, or Aunt Jemima, or Uncle Ben... Are you gonna not mention their racial characteristics? Hair colour maybe? Eye colour? Height? Weight? Sex? Age? How about Martin Luther King, or Colonel Sanders, or Abe Lincoln?I understand what you're trying to say here, and to be clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting a character to look as they were written for fidelity's sake. But the thing is, this point has nothing to do with what you're implying via the analogy in your last post, which is that casting Idris Elba as Roland Deschain is exactly like casting Daniel Day-Lewis as Ray Charles. In short, this is not an equal comparison, which makes it a false equivalence. Why? Two reasons: 1) Roland Deschain is a fictional character; Ray Charles was a real person. 2) From the information Stephen King gives us, Roland's race is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Since a societal structure based on race doesn't seem to exist in Mid-World, race doesn't shape his background, his character, or affect his life experiences before meeting O/Detta/Susannah and after she is made whole again. On the other hand, Ray Charles's race was very significant to his background, his sense of self, and the way he viewed and interacted with the world (and vice versa).
The point isn't race, or any sort of bizarre ideology,...Well that's interesting, because you clearly made your earlier post - and other threads, for that matter - all about chiding those you deem "racists," "SJWs," etc.
it is simply the idea of casting according to the character's physical description with good actors...As we all know, the only one who truly fits Roland's physical description as written is '60s-era Clint Eastwood...which obviously was never going to happen. As such, fans especially attached to Eastwood-esque Roland were probably going to be disappointed with whomever they chose for the role. However, even if they found an Eastwood lookalike who was willing to play the part, if he failed to embody the many aspects of the gunslinger as a character, he still wouldn't be Roland. Long story short, there are many aspects of the gunslinger as a character which make him unique that have nothing to do with his appearance, and the filmmakers believe that Elba has the ability to convey that.
It isn't rocket science to know when a movie's makers don't even understand a fundamental aspect of the material they are using.Seeing that I hardly consider Roland's melanin content a "fundamental aspect of the material" across 4,000+ pages of story, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. share
Oh, I see. The Daniel Day Lewis Ray CHarles thing... Let me fix it. Instead of Roland/ Rey Charles, let's fix it. How about having an asian woman play Peter Pan, a black man play Roland. How about a white Ray Charles, and a black Abe Lincoln. Doesn't really matter how you twist false equivalency arguement in this case, because I already explained the greater point. Which is exactly what you think: they should be honouring the material.
shareHow about having an asian woman play Peter Pan, a black man play Roland.Not sure if you're aware of this, but even though she wasn't Asian, a woman - Mary Martin - played Peter Pan for years on Broadway and NBC telecasts. So that kind of proves my point.
How about a white Ray Charles, and a black Abe Lincoln.Eh, I still don't think that would really work considering the context surrounding their individual stories. But who knows - with the success of Hamilton, maybe someone would try that in a theater production. (Then again, compared to film, theater is a completely different beast altogether.) I'd be interested to see how they'd handle certain race-related aspects of their stories, though.
Doesn't really matter how you twist false equivalency arguement in this case, because I already explained the greater point. Which is exactly what you think: they should be honouring the material.So then, does "honoring the source material" = nothing less than an exact 1:1 adaptation of said source material to you? Because if that's the case, then very rarely does any filmmaker honor the source material when translating a work to film. But if not, then who can say for sure that they're not honoring the material? With the director being a huge fan of the series, I'd say there's at least a chance of that. Besides, none of us have even seen a trailer yet, but for some reason, you're totally convinced that they've wrecked the story and done everything all wrong, which is a bit unfair. Of course that's my opinion and you're certainly welcome to yours, but in the spirit of fairness, I'm reserving my judgment until I see the movie for myself. share