MovieChat Forums > The Dark Tower (2017) Discussion > It's NOT about race ...the gunslinger sh...

It's NOT about race ...the gunslinger should look like he is in the book

posted 9 years ago by SinisterCreep
71 replies | jump to latest

I'll be honest i've never read the DT but I see yet again some bozo/s in Hollywood have decided to go all pc on us and make the gunslinger look different to he is in the book.

From what i can see the gunslinger should look like Clint Eastwood yet they've decided to cast Idris Elba who looks absolutely nothing like him. it's not about being racist [i'm the least racist person you could meet] it's about being faithful to the books which this should be

thank god LOTR and the Hobbit wasn't politically correct like this.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

thank god LOTR and the Hobbit wasn't politically correct like this.

Thank Pazuzu no one else here has inserted their opinion-disguised-as-fact about Idris Elba's casting decision being "politically correct".

Oh, wait....

(P.S. Roland is also described as looking like Stephen King.)

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

[–] drm2642 9 years ago

I actually think that Idris is a great choice for this role. Roland is a cool emotionless guy and I think Idris can pull this off well based off other things he has been in. They should have him wear blue contacts though...

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

it's not about being racist [i'm the least racist person you could meet]

I don't know. Thinking Iris got this role because of a PC move rather than because of his acting ability says otherwise. The implication being you'd have no problem if his skin wasn't so dark.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

I don't know. Thinking Iris got this role because of a PC move rather than because of his acting ability says otherwise. The implication being you'd have no problem if his skin wasn't so dark.

Typical deflection from the point i was making. so would I still be racist if I wanted the gunslinger to be a black guy if he was a black guy in the book [which I would]?

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Now that's deflection.

Would you be spouting the white guy got it only because of PC nonsense?

You clearly think Idris only got it because he's black and they can be PC about it. Not that he's a good actor. Has great credentials. Or that even Stephen King has endorsed him.

Nope, it's just to be PC. Which actually doesn't mean what most people think it does.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Now that's deflection.

Would you be spouting the white guy got it only because of PC nonsense?

You clearly think Idris only got it because he's black and they can be PC about it. Not that he's a good actor. Has great credentials. Or that even Stephen King has endorsed him.

Nope, it's just to be PC. Which actually doesn't mean what most people think it does.

Utter cobblers. you trying to tell me there's no actors around who fit the description in the book?

oh yes I'm sure it's all down to his talents as an actor. and maybe King does endorse him and think it's a good idea but i wouldn't be surprised if King felt under pressure from the the pc mafia that's endemic in Holywood lately. at least be honest if the casting is "positive discrimination". They're doing the same thing with gender too. swapping the genders of established characters and a deluge of female action roles. not necessariy a bad thing to have females in action roles but all of this gender and race stuff in films etc is so endemic lately it is like it's an agenda being forced upon everyone even if we get things like stupid casting decisions.

and no I wouldn't be spouting the white guy got it because of PC nonsense because at least then we'd have a good idea that they were probably at least trying to find someone who fit the books description [unless they picked some 45 stone white guy or a guy who's only 4 feet tall].

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Anakin_McFly 9 years ago

They're doing the same thing with gender too. swapping the genders of established characters and a deluge of female action roles.

Statistics show otherwise, actually; apparently Hollywood protagonists in the past few years are far less diverse than they used to be a decade or two ago, the irony being that those few films with non-white-male leads thus end up standing out more and seeming more prevalent than they actually are. We have so many movies featuring white men that they end up blending into the background noise, and then when a movie comes along that has female or non-white leads it seems very noticeable in contrast.

There was an interesting study about how if you showed people a show with roughly equal numbers of men and women, they believed it to be mostly women with a few men, because we're too used to seeing male-dominated scenes on TV, or ensemble casts that are mostly men with perhaps one or two women. Whereas shows that people thought had equal gender representation were actually skewed heavily male.

---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42.

[–] chris-w-1 9 years ago

Nothing against Idris as he us a brilliant actor (Luther especially) but om just worried about how the Odetta parts of the book are now going to play out as that was one of the key parts of 'The Drawing Of The Three'.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Statistics show otherwise, actually; apparently Hollywood protagonists in the past few years are far less diverse than they used to be a decade or two ago, the irony being that those few films with non-white-male leads thus end up standing out more and seeming more prevalent than they actually are. We have so many movies featuring white men that they end up blending into the background noise, and then when a movie comes along that has female or non-white leads it seems very noticeable in contrast.

There was an interesting study about how if you showed people a show with roughly equal numbers of men and women, they believed it to be mostly women with a few men, because we're too used to seeing male-dominated scenes on TV, or ensemble casts that are mostly men with perhaps one or two women. Whereas shows that people thought had equal gender representation were actually skewed heavily male.

Really? and where are these statistics from [lies, lies and damn statistics eh] and you could have fooled me as there's plenty of women and black people in films and tv [increasing each year]? Even if that is true that doesn't mean they should be casting actors that don't look like what's written in books. Peter Jackson wisely cast Gandalf as an older white male as that's what he is in the books and the gunslinger should look like he is in the books too. people would have gone mental if Jackson had cast Gandalf as a black guy and that's got nothing to do with racism. they want what's in the books. simple as that.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Madhaxman 9 years ago

Dude, your priorities show massive amounts of racist thoughts.

As far as we can tell, the only thing different about Roland is his race. Meanwhile, you go on praising Peter Jackson who cut out side plots, forced in other arcs that weren't in the original books, radically changed several characters and extended the Hobbit into a bloated mess. But that's okay! Because Gandalf is a white guy

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Dude, your priorities show massive amounts of racist thoughts.

As far as we can tell, the only thing different about Roland is his race. Meanwhile, you go on praising Peter Jackson who cut out side plots, forced in other arcs that weren't in the original books, radically changed several characters and extended the Hobbit into a bloated mess. But that's okay! Because Gandalf is a white guy

Dude ....you're just another person who's looking to shout anyone down with cries of racism. Yes some of the changes in LOTR were a bit annoying but There's a big difference between getting the core characters right than changing some things like side plots. you can bet DT will have both annoying things. changes from the book and characters who don't fit the books description.

again do you think a black or female Gandalf would have been acceptable?

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Madhaxman 9 years ago

Dude, the changes made to The Hobbit weren't just "annoying". They lead to a bloated mess of a trilogy.

I'm not using the r word because you don't like the changes from the source material. I'm dropping the r word because a change of race is where you seem to cross the line. Taking a simple children's book and forcing in unnecessary plot lines and fanservice after unnecessary plot lines and fanservice until its a tiring, bloated mess of film is "a bit annoying", but change one characters race, which only effects his relationship with one character in about a quarter of one book out of seven, is where you cross the line

And a black or female Gandalf? Sure.

See unlike so many others on the board, I'm comfortable enough with my love of the source material that I don't mind changes to the film. Whether the movie is good or bad, and whether Iris will be a good Roland or a bad Roland, the Clint Eastwood esque Roland in the first Dark Tower books will still be there. So will the Stephen King looking Roland in the latter books. And the broad muscular Roland from the comics. I would rather a director and actor try to add their own interpretation to the series than to try and just trying to recreate the series on film

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

the Clint Eastwood esque Roland in the first Dark Tower books will still be there. So will the Stephen King looking Roland in the latter books. And the broad muscular Roland from the comics.

.

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

[–] rcolfer 9 years ago

If you think a black or female Gandalf would have made any sense in the LotR universe you're obviously not a real fan of the books.

Roland looks like a skinny version of Clint Eastwood with a few minor differences. There's only one part where he's described as looking like Stephen King and that's pretty far removed from his description up to that point, so you can't take it too seriously. The comics weren't written by Stephen King, I don't consider them canon. Does anyone?

[–] sugrnspyce4 9 years ago

If you think a black or female Gandalf would have made any sense in the LotR universe you're obviously not a real fan of the books.

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to read all the LotR books for myself, but I have seen the movies. If I could play devil's advocate for a minute, I'll say this: From what I understand of the story, or at least the story in the film version, there may be something to be said about things being slightly different if Gandalf were a woman, given that there seemed to be a social structure based on gender in that world. But to be fair, it's possible that a female Gandalf would transcend those gender roles because of her status as a very powerful mage, making the effect of a female Gandalf in that world negligible. As for Gandalf's race, is there any part of the story that would change significantly, or any part of his character or abilities that would be greatly altered or diminished if his skin were darker?

Roland looks like a skinny version of Clint Eastwood with a few minor differences. There's only one part where he's described as looking like Stephen King and that's pretty far removed from his description up to that point, so you can't take it too seriously. The comics weren't written by Stephen King, I don't consider them canon. Does anyone?

As for The Dark Tower, in the books, yes, Roland is described as looking similar to Clint Eastwood - "similar," not "exactly the same" - but that wasn't the only way he was described (plus, as long as we're being nitpicky, Eastwood's hair is brown, not black like Roland's). As has already been mentioned, he's also described as looking like Stephen King, and later, Irene Tassenbaum (the woman who helps Roland and Jake save Stephen King) thought of him as a crossbreed of Quaker and Cherokee. So all that to say this: The Eastwood-like description does appear much more often, but the lesser number of times Roland is described in "non-Eastwood" terms doesn't negate the fact that those alternate descriptions exist. So basically, while Roland's looks are most reminiscent of Eastwood, I think it's safe to say he looks like all of those descriptions combined.

[–] rcolfer 9 years ago

[LotR]Regarding Gandalf's race, the Istari (Wizards) were sent into Middle Earth to influence the actions of the (potential) opposition of Sauron, normally subtly. There would be nothing subtle about a black person in the parts of Middle Earth they'd be active in.

Gender - well - you'd have to come up with a lot of entirely new story to explain Gandalf being very different to Saruman, the point being that in the books they started from a very similar point but ended up somewhere else entirely due to Saruman's desire for power. The story would lose something, certainly.[/LotR]

Yeah, Roland's described probably hundreds of times, averaging out to a skinny Clint Eastwoodish figure. Nothing like Idris Elba, anyway.

[–] sugrnspyce4 9 years ago

Regarding Gandalf's race, the Istari (Wizards) were sent into Middle Earth to influence the actions of the (potential) opposition of Sauron, normally subtly. There would be nothing subtle about a black person in the parts of Middle Earth they'd be active in.

Fair enough. Though as a wizard, I'd think Gandalf could easily use magic to disguise himself if conspicuousness was a problem. But going by what you've said, it seems that neither Gandalf's abilities nor his character would be changed significantly, if at all, if his skin were darker.

Gender - well - you'd have to come up with a lot of entirely new story to explain Gandalf being very different to Saruman, the point being that in the books they started from a very similar point but ended up somewhere else entirely due to Saruman's desire for power. The story would lose something, certainly.

Again, fair enough. I do remember something about all the wizards starting out with the same mission to aid the people of Middle-Earth against Sauron and that Saruman veered off that path due to his desire for power. But assuming that female Gandalf's status as a powerful mage would transcend the traditional gender roles, making her equal to the other wizards in that world, it seems that the only real difference between the two would be physical appearance, not their respective roles in the story.

Yeah, Roland's described probably hundreds of times, averaging out to a skinny Clint Eastwoodish figure. Nothing like Idris Elba, anyway.

Well, aside from his son (who's too young and whose acting is lackluster, if the comments I've seen here are to be believed), no actor looks much like Clint Eastwood, so people who are extremely attached to that particular image of Roland would be disappointed with whomever they chose anyway. But personally, I don't think a higher melanin content will hinder Elba's ability to portray the stoic, dogged, quietly dangerous man we know from the books.

[–] Madhaxman 9 years ago

If you think a black or female Gandalf would have made any sense in the LotR universe you're obviously not a real fan of the books.

Except you know, any hypothetical film adaption with a woman or coloured Gandalf isn't set n Tolkien's Middle Earth. It would be based on a cinematic universe inspired by Tolkiens Middle Earth. It would be quiet easily, especially if we are only doing a cinematic adaption of a single middle earth story to re write a story where Gandalf's colour or sex doesn't matter.

And by good, terms like "true fan" or "canon" just needs to die off all ready. They are largely terms used by blind fanatics to play gate keeper over who is allowed in a fanbase and what ideas, interpretations and critiques of a text are acceptable.

Canon in the instance of TD series is itself really silly considering how self contradictory the 7 original books, which includes yes, Rolands appearance. And thats not even including the official illustrations and how largely the differ from book to book

[–] rcolfer 9 years ago

What? LotR is a film of the book LotR. It's not another story. Shh.

By 'real fan' I'm suggesting you can't understand what the Istari were there to do (see my above post). Can you be a real fan without understanding the Istari? What do you think?

My Dark Tower books have very few illustrations and almost none of Roland, if I remember correctly. They have a lot of verbal descriptions which are all you need. There are a few contradictions in the books but SOMETHING has to be the official line, otherwise why would anyone care?

[–] Madhaxman 9 years ago

[LotR]Regarding Gandalf's race, the Istari (Wizards) were sent into Middle Earth to influence the actions of the (potential) opposition of Sauron, normally subtly. There would be nothing subtle about a black person in the parts of Middle Earth they'd be active in.

both Gandalf and Saruman where well known to just about every high profile figure we can come across during The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The subtleties Gandalf used weren't about keeping a low profile as much as it was about guiding and mentoring the denizens and the resistance.

Gender - well - you'd have to come up with a lot of entirely new story to explain Gandalf being very different to Saruman, the point being that in the books they started from a very similar point but ended up somewhere else entirely due to Saruman's desire for power. The story would lose something, certainly.[/LotR]

Because those pesky, emotional women are nothing like us rational men, am I right fellas?

Pot shot aside, I don't know why changing Gandalf would cancel out the comparison with Saruman or heck why Saruman can't be a woman.

What? LotR is a film of the book LotR. It's not another story. Shh.

So Saruman in the books never makes it to the shire, and is instead killed by wormtoungue soon after being beaten by the Ents? And Faramir in the books struggles with the temptation of the ring, even dragging the hobbits away in chains into a ruined town before learning his lesson? And the hobbits never meet Tom Bombadil?

But even putting changes like that aside, changing the entire medium well necessitate changes to the story as well. Yes, the movies are based on the book, but the books and the movies are not based within the same universe.

I could go on in more detail on how I think the idea if canon is given to much importance these days, as it distracts from deeper and more important questions about fictions, like the quality of the texts, or how a text can use interact with others text whether from the same author or not, but I want to get onto this....

By 'real fan' I'm suggesting you can't understand what the Istari were there to do (see my above post). Can you be a real fan without understanding the Istari? What do you think?

This is exactly what I was talking about. One fanboy trying to use canon to denounce someone else as a non fan in order play gatekeeper on what opinions and interpretations are acceptable. Are you okay with the next LotR film having a black Gandalf? Well your obviously not a true fan, because in the back story of the book which isn't mentioned in the movie itself its mentioned that this one guy really wanted a white Gandalf. Your okay with Iris as Roland? Well, you are not a true fan, because one character who is in one book for about a quater of its length calls him a honkey, and the entire rest of the movie will full apart without it. You like DmC? Well then, your not a true fan, because this is what Dante looks like. Whats that? Your don't like how women are portrayed in Comic Books? Then your obviously not a true fan

[–] rcolfer 9 years ago

That's a reeeeeeeally long post. I don't do these, life is too short.

Part of the subtlety of the Istari was in the fact they look like uninteresting old men at a glance. You should know this.

Don't pretend I criticised women, I didn't. Pot shot indeed. I'm saying if you make them at all different to start with, other than their seniority, you cheapen the story. Again, obvious.

There are small changes to the story of LotR to get into *just* three very long films. They were almost all made for the sake of pacing. The changes to Dark Tower have *nothing* to do with pacing. Try again.

You want someone called Iris to play Roland? Yeah, that'd be even worse. Sorry, what's the point of your whole last paragraph?
Unnecessary change is bad, yes.
Unnecessary change is bad again, yes.
Some junk about comics - no idea what that is, pal.

[–] Madhaxman 9 years ago

Part of the subtlety of the Istari was in the fact they look like uninteresting old men at a glance. You should know this.

Old men who don't age in the hundreds of years they are in middle earth. And then one of them builds a large tower. Subtle.

What they look like doesn't matter if by the time the story comes around both Sauron and Gandalf are known by sight by every major political leader the party comes across. Being unnoticed isn't part of their ploy during the events of a hypothetical adaption. Holding back information and letting the races and leaders of middle earth find their own strength as opposed to just saying *beep* it, will do it myself" is how they use their subtleties

There are small changes to the story of LotR to get into *just* three very long films. They were almost all made for the sake of pacing. The changes to Dark Tower have *nothing* to do with pacing. Try again.

Regardless of the reasons, there are changes, meaning once more THE MOVIES ARE NOT THE EXACT SAME STORY AS THE BOOKS AND CANNOT EXIST WITHIN THE SAME UNIVERSE.

Oh,and Farmir trying to take the ring back to daddy wasn't done for the sake of pacing. Now where the elves and Helms Deep, nor almost any change made to The Hobbt

You want someone called Iris to play Roland? Yeah, that'd be even worse. Sorry, what's the point of your whole last paragraph?
Unnecessary change is bad, yes.
Unnecessary change is bad again, yes.
Some junk about comics - no idea what that is, pal.

Unnecessary change is neutral. Its sometimes good. I mean there is a reason Stanely Kubricks is one of, if not the greatest Stephen King adaption in film history. And that because any adaptions first priority is to be a great film. Like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factor. Or Ian Mckellens version of Richard
III. Dismissing change because its changes is just nails up the nose stupid

[–] rcolfer 9 years ago

"He walks here and there, they say, as an old man hooded and cloaked, very like to Gandalf, as many now recall." ... they are capable of subtlety. Are you *sure* you've read the books?

*Almost* all the changes were made for the sake of pacing. You saw that part, right?

Stephen King! Now I know what you're talking about. The book of The Shining is excellent. You couldn't make it as a film in 1980. In the book Jack smashes his own face with a roque mallet until it's unrecognisable. The hotel effectively possesses him. These things, and others, are (at least were) very hard to portray in a believable way.

That said, I would argue that it's necessary to try to make the best film you can. If you can do that by improving on the source material (possibly that Richard the Third film, I've not seen it) then good luck to you. If you think the Dark Tower changes are an improvement on the source material you are entirely wrong.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Dude, the changes made to The Hobbit weren't just "annoying". They lead to a bloated mess of a trilogy.

I'm not using the r word because you don't like the changes from the source material. I'm dropping the r word because a change of race is where you seem to cross the line. Taking a simple children's book and forcing in unnecessary plot lines and fanservice after unnecessary plot lines and fanservice until its a tiring, bloated mess of film is "a bit annoying", but change one characters race, which only effects his relationship with one character in about a quarter of one book out of seven, is where you cross the line

Apart from 1 or 2 things i found the Hobbit great and there was a lot of nonsense talked about those films. they captured the spirit of the books very well like LOTR.

And a black or female Gandalf? Sure.

Funny .....i had a feeling you'd say that. what about a black lesbian with no legs?

See unlike so many others on the board, I'm comfortable enough with my love of the source material that I don't mind changes to the film. Whether the movie is good or bad, and whether Iris will be a good Roland or a bad Roland, the Clint Eastwood esque Roland in the first Dark Tower books will still be there. So will the Stephen King looking Roland in the latter books. And the broad muscular Roland from the comics. I would rather a director and actor try to add their own interpretation to the series than to try and just trying to recreate the series on f

Yeah right. i bet you're not even a fan of the books and you're just someone who's come on here to call peoiple racist if they dare to want the gunslinger to actually resemble the guy from the books.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

i bet you're not even a fan

Ah, the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY .

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

[–] MatthewKeen 9 years ago

i bet you're not even a fan of the books

said the man who has never read the books.

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

[–] Anakin_McFly 9 years ago

they want what's in the books. simple as that.

So why is it when fans are angry about non-white characters played by white actors on screen, those fans are told to just chill and stop being such SJWs about it?

---
It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

and no I wouldn't be spouting the white guy got it because of PC nonsense

Enough said.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Enough said.

What do you mean "enough said"? I'm just telling the truth and what i said is perfectly reasonable. you seem to have this bizarre idea that anything goes when it comes to something like casting. maybe you'd like to see Alice in Wonderland cast as some 6ft tall white guy? what about Han Solo as some overweight black guy with one arm?

I don't think you're interested in debating why the person chosen as the gunslinger should look like the gunslinger from the books. you're just out to call people racist.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

what about Han Solo as some overweight black guy with one arm?

More issues against black people, I see.

you're just out to call people racist.

They show it on their own. Especially the ones who cry about PC. They're the worst.

I don't care what the Gunslinger looks like as long as he acts like The Gunslinger.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

More issues against black people, I see.

You're desperately trying t make out people are racist aren't you. so because i think the gunslinger should look like the books description that makes me racist. great logic.

They show it on their own. Especially the ones who cry about PC. They're the worst.

I don't care what the Gunslinger looks like as long as he acts like The Gunslinger.

Yeah i think we've got someone who cries racist at every opportunity with you. maybe you don't care what he looks like but many people have an image in their head of the gunslinger looking like Clint Eastwood and they do care.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Pericles3614 9 years ago

You're desperately trying t make out people are racist aren't you.

Even if that's the case, you haven't read the books. You are arguing for racial integrity from a point of ignorance, so what does it matter? You are either ignorant or racist at this point, so fix it by reading the books. Or would you rather be a racist? Read the books. All the way.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

Even if that's the case, you haven't read the books. You are arguing for racial integrity from a point of ignorance, so what does it matter? You are either ignorant or racist at this point, so fix it by reading the books. Or would you rather be a racist? Read the books. All the way.

Utter rubbish. it's not ignorant at all to know he looks nothing like the character described in the book. i bet 99% of the fans of the book will agree with me on this.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] Pericles3614 9 years ago

Utter rubbish. it's not ignorant at all to know he looks nothing like the character described in the book. i bet 99% of the fans of the book will agree with me on this.

Ignorant of the body of work you claim to be defending. You are absolutely ignorant of the story and hold no emotional stock in this production. You are only here to cry about a race change in a book you are not taking the time to read. You are defending a faulty principle from a point of ignorance.

Why don't you align yourself with the 99% (that you seem to think would be an accurate percentage for some reason) and read the bloody books?

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

It's not desperation. It's super easy. You guys just hand over all the ammunition needed.

so because i think the gunslinger should look like the books description that makes me racist. great logic.

Not at all. It's not racist to want a character to look how they're described. It is racist to think the only reason the actor got the part was because of PC or SJW. Why? Because all you're focused on is the color of his skin. Not his acting ability. Not the character arc. Not the story. Just his melanin content. That's where the racism comes in. A point you've made very clear many times.

maybe you don't care what he looks like but many people have an image in their head of the gunslinger looking like Clint Eastwood and they do care.

Unfortunately for them, their opinions don't matter. They'll just have to deal with that. Or not. It really doesn't matter. The movie's going forward.

Just re-read the books or option them to make your own movies if you're that displeased.

Here's a tip to everyone, and I mean everyone, complaining about the movie: You won't be forced to watch it. Crazy, I know, but it's true.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] SinisterCreep 9 years ago

It's not desperation. It's super easy. You guys just hand over all the ammunition needed.

What do you mean "you guys"? Obviously trying to tarnish everyone with the same "racist" brush. there again that doesn't surprise me.

Not at all. It's not racist to want a character to look how they're described. It is racist to think the only reason the actor got the part was because of PC or SJW. Why? Because all you're focused on is the color of his skin. Not his acting ability. Not the character arc. Not the story. Just his melanin content. That's where the racism comes in. A point you've made very clear many times.

Well the way you talk you'd swear it is racist to want a character to look how they're described in the book.

The only point i've made is that they should have gone for someone who looks like the books description. and questioning why he got the part when there would no doubt be other actors about who actually look like the books description is not racist either. if you're trying to do a faithful take on a book then certain actors should be chosen for certain roles. You don't have to have every part open to everyone. Just like the gunslinger shouldn't be a 50 stone white guy with no legs.

Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating site...a miracle!

[–] sommdude 9 years ago

There is no use arguing with PreachCaleb. I had this same conversation with him before, he lost the argument and reverted to just calling me racist.

I wonder though, if they cast a white actor to play The Black Panther in a marvel movie and we protesting to have a, faithfull to the source material, black actor (which i would).
I wonder if he would call us racist for wanting a black actor...

I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

I had this same conversation with him before, he lost the argument and reverted to just calling me racist.

Well, it's not my fault you were saying racist things. That's on you. Own it.

I wonder though, if they cast a white actor to play The Black Panther in a marvel movie and we protesting to have a, faithfull to the source material, black actor (which i would).
I wonder if he would call us racist for wanting a black actor...

I'm going to go to the Spawn board and see if you're making the same argument for Terry Fitzgerald. If you're not, then we know where you stand.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] sommdude 9 years ago

Good job avoiding a question you can't answer.

I want to know where YOU stand.

I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

You didn't actually ask a question. Hell, it wasn't even directed at me. You just wondered to yourself. It's an easy way for someone to answer their own question themselves.

In any case, to make it easy for you, here's my response: It all depends on the person's attitude.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] sommdude 9 years ago

It all depends on the person's attitude.

Perfect! Great job contradicting everything you've posted so far. You now have zero credibility.

I'll try to educate you one more time so you can stop looking like a fool. This has nothing to do with racism. NOTHING. No one here is racist against black people. Racism is about hate. No one here hates black people or Idris Elba. Its about wanting a character they envisioned in their head, because it was described to them that way, to look the same way on screen. Thats it, no hate involved. Its a very simple concept, of course im not surprised you can't understand.

I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers.

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

No one here is racist against black people.

On this thread? On this board?

What you say is certainly false as far as this board goes. Steve Jussen calling Idris Elba a "blackbird" is pretty ******* racist.

People that made the argument about a black cowboy being impossible are quite possibly racist or at least very stupid (not to mention ignorant about the source material and Mid-World's sociopolitics specifically).

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

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Perfect! Great job contradicting everything you've posted so far. You now have zero credibility.

No, silly. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

This has nothing to do with racism.

Don't delude yourself.

No one here is racist against black people.

Just their skin color.

Racism is about hate

No, it's not about that:

"racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Hate's not in there anywhere.

Its about wanting a character they envisioned in their head, because it was described to them that way, to look the same way on screen.

As long as the skin color's correct.

Thats it, no hate involved.

 Adorable. Read some of the other posts on here and tell me there's no hate towards blacks. So young. So naive.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] sommdude 9 years ago

No, silly. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

yeah it does

Don't delude yourself.

not deluded, its not about racism for me.

Just their skin color.

black people have darker skin. at least you got something right.

No, it's not about that:

Definition of racism
1
: belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others
2
: discrimination or hatred based on race

there's the word hatred right there

As long as the skin color's correct.

skin color is often used when describing a person

I'm a Gunslinger. I deal in hard calibers.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

No, it doesn't. Please quote me.

not deluded, its not about racism for me.

You just don't want a black actor. Nothing racist at all.

"rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
noun: racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Nope. Still not in there.

skin color is often used when describing a person

And you don't like darker skin on a fictional character.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Well the way you talk you'd swear it is racist to want a character to look how they're described in the book.

If that's all someone is focused on or they only think the black actor got the part because of PC, then yeah, they're racist.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] thedarkplite1 9 years ago

From PreachCaleb:

If that's all someone is focused on or they only think the black actor got the part because of PC, then yeah, they're racist.

There is no way you can disprove that the actor got the part because of PC.

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

There is no way you can disprove that the actor got the part because of PC.

There is no way you can disprove the existence of Thoth.

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

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

There is no way you can disprove that the actor got the part because of PC.

It's up to the racists to prove he did. If they can't, well, then it shows where they stand. All they see is skin color.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

Exactly.

"Burden of proof" means that the person making a claim has to produce the proof, not the the person that doesn't automatically go with the first person's assertion.

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

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Yeah. They seem to be under the impression they can make whatever claim, but it's up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

Which actually would be easy. I'm sure there are interviews with the filmmakers talking about what a great actor Idris is and how he's just owning the role.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

Which actually would be easy. I'm sure there are interviews with the filmmakers talking about what a great actor Idris is and how he's just owning the role.

"CONSPIRACY THEORY! "

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

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Oh that's right. Anything that disproves them is false.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] thedarkplite1 9 years ago

Idris Elba is an exceptional actor. While I don't believe he was cast for "PC" reasons, I cannot dismiss that possibility.

However, it is up to you to prove that someone is racist if they believe PC interests lead to Elba's casting.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

While I don't believe he was cast for "PC" reasons, I cannot dismiss that possibility.

There's no reason why you can't. Nobody making the movie has said anything about PC or affirmative hire or anything. So there is literally no evidence other than people who don't really understand what political correctness means. It doesn't mean randomly hiring black actors. Or actors who aren't white.

However, it is up to you to prove that someone is racist if they believe PC interests lead to Elba's casting.

They prove it themselves with their own claims. That means they're ignoring his acting ability and focusing only on his skin color. And claiming he doesn't deserve the part of a fictional character purely on his skin color.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] sugrnspyce4 9 years ago

Exactly, PreachCaleb. Exactly.

[–] thedarkplite1 9 years ago

Well, PreachCaleb, you once commented that Buffy the Vampire Slayer's race, gender and hair color are inherent to her character - as she embodies a redefining of the white blonde female's history in horror cinema. You further postulated that making her black would significantly change the course of her stories.

The white cowboy hero is, like the white blonde cheerleader, a familiar trope in American culture. Stephen King uses this overdone icon and slowly turns it on its head - gradually placing the character and his actions further from his stereotypical trappings - but he accomplishes this surprise by starting with Roland as a common western archetype. Having Roland cast as a British black actor significantly changes this foundational trope, as we know that most African American cowboys shared a fundamentally different collective experience.

To make Roland black instantly changes the dynamic that Stephen King carefully twisted throughout the length of the first novel. Instead of the old-timey western being turned on its head, we have an updated western - which, in our postmodern society, is already rife with corrected perspective and contemporary spiritualism.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

I also said I'd be fine with a black Buffy and that it would open up even more avenues of storytelling. Which are good things.

And those points you make are irrelevant to people who only cry "PC!"

Besides, king's ok with it. So even the author knows it's not that big a deal.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

Besides, king's ok with it

Nup. He's apparently secretly a sellout that's also secretly in fear for his life from the liberal hordes ready to descend upon him if he disagrees with the casting of a minority male.

Didn't you get the memo with your introductory tinfoil hat?

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

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

You mean old-timey Hollywood western. Contrary to a 1950s-1960s cinematic education, there were quite a few cowboys/lawmen of African descent in the American Wild West.

So, if anything, this adaptation is representing that which was but was suppressed rather than a modern invention.

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

[–] thedarkplite1 9 years ago

Exactly! King was exploding a stereotype that did not reflect real life in the wild west.

Casting Roland as black shows us that this a is a contemporary Hollywood western, instead of a film rooted in myths and legends of the Pop American landscape. This is not a small leap; we are now significantly distant from our cinema legend, so exploding it won't be terribly surprising.
Quentin Tarantino has already done this very thing in his last two films.

[–] Captain_Wesker 9 years ago

.

Bang-up job on that twisting of another poster's intent to support your own. You guys never cease to amaze.

This is not a small leap; we are now significantly distant from our cinema legend

Kind of like casting a white man to play Martin Luther King Jr., am I right?

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

[–] thedarkplite1 9 years ago

No. More like casting a white man to play John Shaft.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Nup. He's apparently secretly a sellout that's also secretly in fear for his life from the liberal hordes ready to descend upon him if he disagrees with the casting of a minority male.

Doh. You're right. What kind of man would want to get paid for his work? Total sellout.

Let's be bad guys.

[–] calcaneus67 9 years ago

Producers thought black cowboy = hit movie because of Django Unchained. However, there's a word for a movie that has great artistic differences between the director and the audience, that word is "flop". I guess we'll see if that idea was brilliant or stupid when the movie is released. I anticipate the movie being mediocre at best because of so many changes from the book---not even considering the Roland change.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

http://cdn.movieweb.com/img.news.tops/NEkkTw3rv3O4nn_2_b.jpg

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

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

it's about being faithful to the books which this should be

Says who? Seems to me it should be about producing a movie that isn't a hunk of sh*t, whether that means staying faithful or not.

[–] kaspergordon 8 years ago

Since the movie isn't out yet, it is still too early to jump to conclusions - hopefully they will make him white in post production with CGI. If CGI can make Jeff Bridges 30 years younger, and turn Andy Serkis into a monkey, making a black man white really shouldn't be that hard.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

hopefully they will make him white in post production with CGI

http://tinyurl.com/gse5cn3
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] MrX2848 8 years ago

it's not about being racist [i'm the least racist person you could meet]

You know, there's a line from "Hamlet" that pretty perfectly describes this sort of attitude...

I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait