MovieChat Forums > The Dark Tower (2017) Discussion > C.S. Lewis On Adaptations...

C.S. Lewis On Adaptations...

posted 8 years ago by ruink
23 replies | jump to latest

Hey guys,

Since this board is constantly debating whether or not the DT film being a loose adaptation is a good idea or not, I thought I'd share this quote I stumbled across when I was reading C.S. Lewis' article on stories.

He talks about seeing a film adaptation of the book King Solomon's Mines. Long story short, he gets upset because the film version changed the ending of the original book. He concedes in saying that he understands why the director would change the ending, to make it more cinematic, but:

it would have been better not to have chosen in the first place a story which could not be adapted to the screen only by being ruined.

Two things:

1.It is always interesting to see that fanboyism is nothing new, only the term fanboy is new.

2. Even though he believes the book should not have been adapted period, the point still stands:

What is the point of adapting something in the first place if you are not going to properly represent it?

Again, this is just one man's opinion, but it is interesting food for thought.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Given that this film is a sequel and not pretending to be a 1:1 copy of The Gunslinger, Lewis' point is, well...less on point in this particular instance.

However, feel free to keep dredging up the same pabulum. Even after close to a year, I am sure there is a spot of flesh on the deceased equine that has yet to be bludgeoned into a fine red paste.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] ruink 8 years ago

Wesker...

...This particular upcoming film is an adaptation of the DT books/series...

...hence why it is called DT...

....because it is an adaptation of the DT books...

Who was ever talking about gunslinger on this thread ?

So, no. Lewis' point is not irrelevant. At all.

Much love for you Wesker. I admire your passion for the movie. I really do.

Passion is a great thing to have, most people don't even have it for anything.

I'm not being sarcastic, despite the fact you've called me names and a prick on multiple occasions.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

The Horn of Eld makes it a sequel. On a cosmic reset/reboot level, sure, but a sequel nevertheless.

...hence why it is called DT...

By your logic, a film titled "The Dark Tower" would be an adaptation of the seventh novel. Again, this film is not trying to be The Gunslinger or The Dark Tower (for the sake of reiteration...specifically the seventh novel).

We were never going to get seven - or eight, if you count The Wind Through the Keyhole - films.

I'm not being sarcastic, despite the fact you've called me names and a prick on multiple occasions.

Don't try to be weasely by continuously asking people "Are you sure that's how you really feel?" when they're in support of this film (implying they're dishonest) and by supporting bizarrely racist posters, and you won't be.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] ruink 8 years ago

Ugh.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

There is one more consideration that makes the comparison less valid in regards to the creators of these respective works of fiction.

King has already given his blessing on The Dark Tower adaptations/sequels.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] ruink 8 years ago

Lol you're acting like this statement is a mic drop moment.

Incidentally, his blessing means nothing in terms of whether or not the movie will be any good.

[–] Spider198 8 years ago

King also gave his blessing to Cell and Under the Dome, and go sit through both of them and tell me that they deserved any praise.
Also you fall back on this a lot, but you still complain about changing a character's race on the Ghost in the shell board, and the director of the original anime is in support of that film. So if that argument was really that important to you then you would be supporting that film as much as you do this... But you don't, because you are completely full of sh*t.

[–] ruink 8 years ago

I haven't looked up Wesker's posting history, but if what you say is true it brings up something I've been wondering.

I've been comparing the outcry of Ghost in the Shell with the broadway play Hamilton.

For full disclosure, I love Hamilton. The songs, the craft, its all superb.

But, people are alway complaining about the "white washing" of Ghost in the Shell. TBH, I could care less either way about the casting of the Major in GITH. Hell, watch the original anime. It's debatable what race her actual physicality represents.

My point is...Why is most of Hollywood okay with the race bending of a play like Hamilton, but pissed about the casting in GITS?

Look, I get the artistic purpose of having a diverse cast in Hamilton. The whole diversity message etc.

But, the point still stands. Race bending is race bending, no matter the artistic reasoning. I'm just saying all of this feels likes a one way street and it is simply not right.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

No clue about Hamilton. Regarding GITS, however...

The whitewashing is one aspect of it, but there is another: economic opportunity. Even in 2016, prospects are slim for Asian (any Asian ethnic background, and yes, Asian-American counts too) actors seeking a lead role in a Hollywood film. Even the role they were typically typecasted in - martial arts film lead - is increasingly denied to them as an exclusive "right"...which is good, in a way, because obviously the martial arts are a worldwide practice and anyone can be good at them if they have the right frame of mind/training regimen/body.

Compare Caucasian/White and even African-American or African-British leads. There is no contest.

So, while you are technically correct in that both changes are change, the comparison still feels like putting jaywalking next to manslaughter: differences in severity.

Finally, the two franchises aren't really comparable. You've got a fantastic land where you aren't locked out of advancement because of ethnic heritage/skin color (Gilead of Mid-World and the Gunslingers...a kingdom where one's class/station is the determinate factor to advancement) and what is essentially the real world fast-forwarded by a few decades (futuristic Japan with a heavily nationalistic agency). There's nothing in story that would prevent a dark-skinned Roland from being a successful Gunslinger whereas Motoko pretty much has to be ethnically Japanese and a Japanese citizen to work for Section 9.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] Spider198 8 years ago

That just sounds like more of your excuses for your own double standard there Wesker. Can't have it both ways, either you are for race changing or you're not. This imaginary line you've decided is the rule everyone should follow is ridiculous and your own over inflated sense of self importance.
Fact is you are just slightly racist. You treat all white roles as blank slates and any others as untouchable. And pretending that Roland's race is unimportant simply to back up your point is ridiculously wrong. Especially when it's the basis a of an entire plot point in one book and this is claiming to be a sequel (still a sh*t idea), and it makes no sense for Roland's race to magically change the second time round (especially when you'd criticise it if such a change applied to a certain other character).

Here's another interesting fact for you, Japanese people couldn't care less about the race changing in GITS. Just like the original director is supportive of it. Just a lot of touchy SJW's feeing offended for them.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Fact is you are just slightly racist.

.

And pretending that Roland's race is unimportant simply to back up your point is ridiculously wrong.

How is his skin color important to him being a ruthless dealer of lead and leader of men (and women...and Billy Bumblers...)? Are these traits exclusive to certain ethnic approximations? Would he have been a pariah in Gilead for looking black?

Especially when it's the basis a of an entire plot point in one book and this is claiming to be a sequel (still a sh*t idea)

Beneath the surface stuff, Detta hated and feared him for more substantial reasons. If you want to ignore that, feel free to.

Here's another interesting fact for you, Japanese people couldn't care less about the race changing in GITS.

Old news. A handful of interviews off-the-cuff on the streets of Hokkaido/Tokyo do not a nation make.

Just like the original director is supportive of it.

You mean the producer (someone that stands to profit). What a shocker that they support the live-action adaptation.

Even if it were the director...so what? You clearly have no problem going against a creator in support of an adaptation (Stephen King) you personally disagree with in the first place.

Just a lot of touchy SJW's feeing offended for them.

Nah: just people sick of a very broad ethnic category getting shoved aside in an industry stationed in what is supposed to be a leader among first-world nations. Japanese-American actors exist too, y'know.

Since it does not affect you, however, it must be worthy of derision.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] Spider198 8 years ago

The usual post of excuses, and how you can still continue to pretend you aren't racist when the slightest mention of changing any character not white triggers your usual bullsh*t yet you clearly think of white people as blank slates ready to be changed.

You can try and discount the fact all you want but it is a fact that Roland is very much the classic Clint Eastwood like western figure. All your stupid comments in the world to pretend that his race is irrelevant won't change that.

You've never actually read the Drawing of the three have you?

Your excuses for your hypocrisy are actually getting worse, that's a skill.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

you clearly think of white people as blank slates ready to be changed.

You keep parroting that, but nothing points to it.

I think characters not dependent on their skin color/ethnic background (especially in regards to how the world treats them in the story or presents/denies them opportunities) are ones that can be played by virtually anyone.

Here's a good example: Ving Rhames' character of Kenneth from "Dawn of the Dead (2004)". There is absolutely nothing that says he can't be played by a Mexican man, Irish man, Egyptian man, etc. All that is required of the actor is for them to be a no-nonsense police officer with a strong sense of duty and a hidden sense of humor.

You can try and discount the fact all you want but it is a fact that Roland is very much the classic Clint Eastwood like western figure. All your stupid comments in the world to pretend that his race is irrelevant won't change that.

How is the character of Roland Deschain contingent upon him looking like an approximation of a Caucasian/white European man? Are only Caucasian/white actors capable of playing an engimatic hardass with a fixation on a goal who's intensity rivals that of the most desperate needle-freak?

Take your time. We've got half a year.

You've never actually read the Drawing of the three have you?

As it is my favorite novel in the entire series - followed closely by The Waste Lands - I have in fact read the book multiple times. At no point does the way Roland act or behave depend on him having fair skin. How psycho-cartoon character Detta Walker slings insults pales in comparison to why she really fears him.

If you take that out, of course there are going to be some differences, but the spirit is going to be the same...moreso if you have Detta constantly aim her profanity to Roland by calling him various terms for "race traitor".

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] Spider198 8 years ago

It's true. Wesker talks big about not caring about race, but he's completely full of cr*p. He's the biggest hypocrite on this board.

And yes the double standard when it comes to race changing is ridiculous, even 'the great wall' which is an original story with Matt Damon's character who wasn't ever supposed to be Asian is getting accused of whitewashing by people like Wesker (and the others that defend Elba's casting in this).

[–] sugrnspyce4 8 years ago

I've been comparing the outcry of Ghost in the Shell with the broadway play Hamilton...

Well to be fair, these two aren't really comparable since theater/stage productions (i.e., plays, operas, musicals, ballet, etc.) tend to be different beasts compared to film, as there have been many instances of both genderbending and racebending in the case of the former. A few examples: There's kabuki theater and boy players (male actors playing female roles), actresses like Mary Martin and Kathryn Hunter playing male roles (Peter Pan and King Lear, respectively), and people of color have taken on traditionally white roles in various iterations of Cinderella, Romeo and Juliet, etc., and as you mentioned, there's Hamilton.

Films, on the other hand, have largely done the opposite for most of Hollywood's history, as evidenced by whitewashing, which still continues to this day. Even now with POC getting much more visibility than ever before, Hollywood in general is still mostly white (and mostly male). Therefore, no matter how strongly casting POC in traditionally white roles might feel like a "one-way street" to some people, the opposite has been true for the most part.

As for the complaints about whitewashing surrounding Ghost in the Shell specifically, comic creator/writer Jon Tsuei and Co. put it better than I ever could.

https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2016/05/06/jon-tsuei-is-right-a-whitewashedout-ghost-in-the-shell-misses-the-cultural-mark/

[–] ruink 8 years ago

The two are actually, like, insanely comparable.

Your basis of the argument is that because two forms of art are different mediums then they cannot be compared.

That's crazy talk, my friend.

Sorry to say that.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sugrnspyce4 8 years ago

The two are actually, like, insanely comparable.

Your basis of the argument is that because two forms of art are different mediums then they cannot be compared.

That's crazy talk, my friend.

Sorry to say that.

That's actually not what I was getting at. Yes, one is able to recognize similarities between the two mediums. But to clarify, what I meant when I said they're not really comparable is that the two are not equivalent when it comes to casting, as evidenced in the examples I gave in my earlier post. Sure, both mediums use actors and actresses to tell a story to audiences. However, the differences lie in the ways these stories are executed through each medium - and the difference I'm referring to specifically is how varied each medium is in its casting. Now this isn't to say that there aren't still diversity issues in theater/stage productions, but from what I've seen and read, they seem to be somewhat more inclusive (both on stage and behind the scenes) than their film counterparts.

So, all that to say this: It seems to me that people usually make a bigger deal out of whitewashing in film than they do for racebending in theater/stage productions because 1) casting for theater/stage productions generally tends to be more inclusive than in film, and 2) the historical context of whitewashing and its practice in film still continues today.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

As for the complaints about whitewashing surrounding Ghost in the Shell specifically, comic creator/writer Jon Tsuei and Co. put it better than I ever could.

https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2016/05/06/jon-tsuei-is-right-a-whitewashedout-ghost-in-the-shell-misses-the-cultural-mark/

Nice find . A while back, I too made the argument that the deconstruction of Japanese nationalism is one of the key themes in Ghost in the Shell behind the primary message of "What makes a human human?".

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] sugrnspyce4 8 years ago

Nice find . A while back, I too made the argument that the deconstruction of Japanese nationalism is one of the key themes in Ghost in the Shell behind the primary message of "What makes a human human?".

Thanks! And yeah, I thought that article was really interesting and to the point, with lots of great details and historical context. It also reminded me that it's been years since I last saw Ghost in the Shell. I really should watch that again soon.

[–] Spider198 8 years ago

If it's not an adaption as you say they can simple rename it something completely different, change the character names (which is literally all they've taken from the books). Then a competent director whose actually read the books can adapt it with a better cast.

[–] MatthewKeen 8 years ago

What is the point of adapting something in the first place if you are not going to properly represent it?

Sometimes, an adaptation takes a life of its own. It can happen for various reasons. A 100% faithful adaptation of The Caine Mutiny, for instance, would likely be tedious and boring to all but the most ardent fan. It was cut to its barest elements, changed a few details, and is now a highly regarded film. Similarly, a faithful adaptation of Who Censored Roger Rabbit would bare little resemblance to the film many know and love.

While The Godfather is 92% faithful (discounting removed subplots and backstory, and a slightly altered ending), not every adaptation can strive for accuracy. Even before it was announced this film would serve as a sequel, many of us on here argued for changes in adapting the final three novels. The meta aspects, for instance, divided readers. To be 100% faithful would have divided viewers just as well.

By making this a new timeline, the screenwriters free themselves up to change things as necessary or to stay along the same path as before. We won't know for sure until the movie is released when it will stand or fall on its own merit.

--
Listen to them—the children of the night. What music they make!

[–] ruink 8 years ago

Well said.