MovieChat Forums > The Dark Tower (2017) Discussion > The ratio of Roland Deschain to The Man ...

The ratio of Roland Deschain to The Man In Black/Walter.

posted 8 years ago by Captain_Wesker
10 replies | jump to latest

As most of us are aware, when a big name actor is cast for a project, the studio they work with will want to get their money's worth out of them (a reasonable expectation, of course).

The problem with this practice is that, as all sorts of source material is adapted for television or the cinema, one of these big name actors will occasionally be cast in the role of a character that has real presence...yet does not appear as often as the protagonists. Temptation to "oversell" them by expanding their rate of appearance will thus increase, even if it may be detrimental to how the character ought to be portrayed.

Now, The Dark Tower is a special case because it is based off of source material which jumps all over the place (in a way that works for a literary format) and largely appears to be constructed on-the-fly from novel to novel like the pieces of various Erector sets brought together instead of laid out neatly ahead of time like a pre-assembled toy train track. Additionally, it contains significant chunks of extraneous detail which would not appreciably aid storytelling in a live-action format. To me, then, it is perfectly understandable that certain elements which appear beyond the first three books are brought forward as a means of getting the uninitiated on board and cognizant of the stakes while still leaving room for a journey to unfold, so I do not begrudge the filmmakers for making Walter more visible than he was throughout The Gunslinger up until the end of Wizard and Glass.

However...I hope the film manages to draw back Roland's nemesis enough to keep some of his mystery still concealed in the shadows.

What do you lot think? Will McConaughey's Man In Black share the screen equally with Roland and then Roland plus Jake, or will his appearances be fewer while remaining especially powerful?

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

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

Hard to guess, really, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Man in Black is more visible in the movie than in the books. McConnaughey is such a popular actor these days and the character has a lot more meat to it than what is initially introduced in the first several books (perhaps never as much as in The Stand where the denim clad devil is really at his best worst). So yeah, I wouldn't begrudge them for wanting to flesh out that character a bit more.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Have you seen the 1989 Batman film?

Jack Nicholson's Joker seemed to mug the camera more often than Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman. I know that in-universe The Joker is a bit of an attention whore, but it was a puzzling decision to emphasize the villain over the hero in the story. Marketing, however...that might be a different matter. I THINK Nicholson was a more accomplished/noteworthy actor by that point in time.

So, when it comes to this film, I hope that McConaughey's Walter does not overshadow Elba's Roland. Compliment, yes, but not overshadow.

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

[–] oki9Sedo 8 years ago

I think the Man in Black should be more of a character who only appears a handful of times but whose sinister presence is felt throughout the film. The shark in Jaws and the Joker in The Dark Knight come to mind.

 If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

We will see if the filmmakers managed to keep Matthew back enough so as not to make his "Man In Black" ubiquitous.

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

[–] Arm_the_Masses 8 years ago

I actually think it's fine if he's more of a presence than in the books. I think it's a great character. But yeah, don't want it to be Roland vs The Man in Black - the Movie.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tylerrepotter 8 years ago

I don't get it, sometimes you sound right, but what is the point of this post?

The ratio between the characters? WTF are you smoking? Time to quit the crystal, bud. The entire film is based on an expectation of a financial return. Also, it took them no time to shoot, so the actors basically walk in, mumble a few lines, then go home and the CGI teams go to work for..... five months.... LMFAO.

They don't even have time scheduled on the production to do the film right. They quickly shot, quickly edited, and are gonna slam it into theatres without showing anything. I can almost guarantee they hide it from critics and reviewers until maybe the day before release. Then they will hope the hype machine does the rest of the illusion. P.T. Barnum style, like Force Awakens, which you somehow pretend to understand was low quality.

[–] brett_md 8 years ago

LOL! This kid cracks me up!

"Mother Father, Chinese Dentist!"

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

There you go. At least now you're being honest rather than pussyfooting around with the mask of objectivity held loosely to your face.

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

[–] tylerrepotter 8 years ago

What? Did you forget to eat your Shreddies this morning? What I just said is based on direct empirical evidence known as facts. That is as objective as it gets. Have they released anything yet? No. Have they said they will let critics see it early so we can make an informed choice as ticket buyers? No. Was it a quick shoot and quick to theatre release? Yes. It is the equivalent of straight to VHS.

You are starting to slip.