No more feeding the trolls. Who's with me?

You've called for people to lose their jobs because of their involvement in this film and for others to get injured in order to prevent this film from going forward. Sounds like a troll to me.

How's that for reality?

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

Reality is all a matter of perspective, friend Spider. Your reality is not the only valid view of reality. Most of us are open to true, considered conversation, but bitterness is hard to get past. Be fluid in your position. Rigid structures break.

I'll bite your line, Spider. I'm totally down to have a good palaver. I know you've been labeled a Troll, but for some reason I understand your frustrations over this adaptation. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with the way you come across.

I'm okay with Roland being black, tho I disagree with Idris Elba being the final choice. I'm just not sure he can *be* Roland, beyond the color of his skin. I actually just watched Django Unchained for the first time and I loved it. While watching Jamie Fox do his thing I totally saw Roland in him. And not just because he was wearing a hat and was a deadshot. Fox would have been fantastic, in my opinion. I'd rather have someone closer to how I envisioned Roland while reading, which was Eastwood in the Dollars Trilogy. Perhaps I'll be suprised by Elba and I'm trying to reserve judgement till I see the final product. But this casting choice irritates me.

I also do not agree with the changes I'm hearing about (perhaps just rumors at this point) and seeing (from the unfinished trailer). I understand that books rarely survive the adaptation process to film and things must be changed to make a movie work, but many of these changes appear to be 'just cause'. Again, reserving final judgement till I see the finished product, but I'm not understanding the why (from what I see in the trailer).

I also understand that this adaptation is being approached as a sequel to the books. At first I was upset by this, but I've come to understand that this isn't a bad thing. Perhaps even a good thing. I still would rather a direct adaptation, but a sequel isn't a bad idea either. Things will be different this time. But... again, changes. I'm not recognizing things from the book.

Sure, I get the tired retort of 'go make your own adaptation', but this is a stupid thing to say. I won't claim to be a writer when I can't (or won't, take your pick) produce my own work for anyone here who would read it, but I have edited others short stories for publication and have my own work (forever being edited and revised in my head). I am confident in my ability to structure a story and I am confident in my ability to effectively tell a 'good-enough story' (engaging to some, at least). I am not even tempted to toot my own horn, so don't take this as a braggarts response to mean 'i could do this better'. But I am capable of judging others work. I wouldn't call myself a professional, but I have been paid to edit more than a handful of stories that have been published. I'm getting bad editors vibes from this so far. And I do believe an editor can effectively apply his trade to film critiques. Especially when they are more than familiar with the source material. No, it doesn't have to be a straight adaptation to be good. Yes, changes must be made to fit the format of film. But the essence of the story must remain and certain elements must be included in the final product. Otherwise it's a film using the Dark Tower in name only.

Anyway, there's a start to our discourse, Sir. Take from my words what you will. I know you have been labeled a Troll, but I'm not totally convinced of what you are yet. Shall we palaver, Mr Spider?