Why would you think that? I haven't deleted any of your other posts which are merely an expression of your opinions about the matter.
Elba's Casting CONFIRMED?!!
- Thread starter OldDarth
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I felt like it could be perceived that I was attempting to put words in King's mouth, or ascribe ulterior motives to him. I really don't know what inspired him to say that, but simply repeating it as if it settles the matter doesn't wash with me as an argument. If he had been speaking to me when he said that, I would have challenged the statement. I really feel like someone should.
And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to express. I have a little more insight into it but I'm keeping that to myself as that's part of the confidentiality aspect of my job.
I'm sure you know more than any of us, true.And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to express. I have a little more insight into it but I'm keeping that to myself as that's part of the confidentiality aspect of my job.
The thing is, though, Roland's being white informs how Susannah reacts to him and not just for one book. They have several racial discussions throughout the series and the two characters have issues getting over their perceptions of the other. Roland is aware of other races and skin tones, but to him that's no-never-mind, because in his world, such lines have been erased for ages upon ages. Susannah, meanwhile, comes from a world and time period where those lines are sharply drawn, and Roland not only being white but coming from "the ruling class" means she has a hard time wrapping her head around the idea that Roland cannot see himself as "privileged" or an oppressor due to his skin color.
I don't think King would have included details like this if they "don't matter", as he reportedly said.
Also, I don't know if King took into account that his readers have grown up with Roland and to many of them, he's almost as real as King himself. Not everyone pictures Roland looking exactly the same way, but if you do a google image search for "Roland Deschain", the images that come up all clearly follow the same lines, and it's easy to tell what character they're portraying. We have an image in our head that is Roland. No, there's probably not an actor who looks exactly like that, but there are actors that can be made to look close enough that it's like Roland walked off the page and onto the screen.
I compare it to the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies. No, I didn't picture Frodo looking like Elijah Wood, but now I can't see him any other way. I had ideas about who should play Gandalf, but after seeing McKellen in the role I can't imagine anyone else. Viggo Mortensen now is Aragorn to me.
Casting someone who has a clear, noticeable, striking difference in appearance from book Roland will make it so that this can't happen.
Takoren I agree with all you have said except about thinking your post would be deleted.
That's not how they roll here.
Differences of opinion are allowed here, even if it's King you are disagreeing with. And you expressedmy your opinion without being offensive.
King and I not only disagree on UTD (and apparently Roland) but also on The Shining. I liked the original and hated the second. He apparently was the opposite.
Just speaking for myself, but I think I'm throwing in the towel when it comes to films based on his work, at least for the foreseeable future. I went through that with his books too. There was a period where I did not like what he was writing, and I still do not like the books from that period. Maybe in the future he'll go back to having his books turned in to movies/series I'm interested in.
That's not how they roll here.
I have had one or two posts deleted. One because political memes are not allowed and I had forgotten that. If there was a second deleted it was because it was a double post. I've had that happen on a few sites and this might have been one of them.
Differences of opinion are allowed here, even if it's King you are disagreeing with. And you expressed
King and I not only disagree on UTD (and apparently Roland) but also on The Shining. I liked the original and hated the second. He apparently was the opposite.
Just speaking for myself, but I think I'm throwing in the towel when it comes to films based on his work, at least for the foreseeable future. I went through that with his books too. There was a period where I did not like what he was writing, and I still do not like the books from that period. Maybe in the future he'll go back to having his books turned in to movies/series I'm interested in.
[/
Differences of opinion are allowed here, even if it's King you are disagreeing with. And you expressed
That's cool. I was a bit worried that it would seem like I was making assumptions about King's intentions, which I try not to do, but I do agree that King probably couldn't have said anything else and not been crucified for it. I'm not saying he was insincere, but it doesn't jibe with how he wrote the character, so I can't believe that Roland's color never mattered to him.
The book beats both, in my opinion. The first film was a great horror film, but a miserable adaptation of a great book. The miniseries suffered from poor casting, poor direction (I loathe Mick Garris's work), poor special effects and, honestly, while it was more true to the book than was the movie, there were some off-book changes that seemed arbitrary and didn't make sense. I'd love to see a faithful adaptation that is also of high quality.
I'm curious as to what period that was. It might match mine! I have a few, really. I have yet to read (past the first few chapters or so) any book written post-Dark Tower. I was massively disappointed with how the series ended, and I mean the last three books in general. There were things that worked and things that made me want to hurl the book across the room. What finally made me angry, though, was not just how the book ended, but how King put in the text that readers demanding an ending was somehow wrong of us.
I'm presently reading everything he wrote in the order he published it in (I'm currently on Pet Sematary) so I'll get to the post 2004 stuff eventually.
Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong, I should take up drinking anything stronger than coffee and sparkling water. I'm afraid that Steve might have to get me in the Program and become a sponsor if I started, though.And a big reason as to why Ms Mod drinks?
This sounds like a better strategy than what I was currently doing. I just finished reading his Bachman stuff and had planned on just going through the rest of his books in Alphabetical on the shelves. So 11/22/63 would be next up for me, but I think I like your idea more since some of his earlier books were "thinner" in length. lol
As for this whole Roland casting business. I would have suggested Timothy Olyphant...even though the role would basically be a walk in the park for him and probably end up feeling too much like Justified and Deadwood. Other than that, I think an unknown would really be best and cast well known actors in major supporting roles.
LOL. Hey, there are a lot of things worse in life than having Stephen King as your sponsor, I figure.Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong, I should take up drinking anything stronger than coffee and sparkling water. I'm afraid that Steve might have to get me in the Program and become a sponsor if I started, though.
(And I'm just relieved you didn't say you wanted me gone... as we know what happens when you do.
)
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
I've had my say on the subject. My preference is for a film adaptation as close to the book as possible. There isn't any reason to keep revisiting the subject because the idiots in Hollywood will do what they do regardless of what we say. In fact, if there is a whiff of fan angst, they feed on that believing that any publicity (good or bad) works for them. All in all, I don't care about the movie. I have the book. If they change things drastically, I won't go see it at all. I'll get around to it when it hits Netflix or the like. To date, there hasn't been a movie better than the camera in my mind's eye, so I don't think it will be my loss.
I don't think this issue is worth getting worked up about too much because we won't make any difference to the outcome.
I don't think this issue is worth getting worked up about too much because we won't make any difference to the outcome.
Nineties I think. Rose Madder, Delores Claiborne, and a few others around then. Others liked them, that's fine. I really detested them. Some I never even finished.
Then, one day, a friend (or maybe my sister) told me he was back to good writing so I read another of his books and have been a fan of almost everything since. (I found Joyland boring, but I didn't hate it.)
~~~
I have enjoyed most film adaptions of his work, even though they never are as good as the book, and some do not follow closely. But at least they are basically the same story. Well, other than UTD.
And maybe if there was better acting I would have enjoyed the tv version of The Shining.
Yeah, and I hear the Producer says that if we don't like a black actor cast as Roland, we can just go "f*ck ourselves". Great start there. I am not racist in the least....but I would not cast a white actor to play Martin Luther King, either. I've loved the Dark Tower series and have waited eagerly for a film version....then I hear Goldsman tell me to...well, you read it. Ok, then! I'll just pass on watching anything this jerk produces....I'd rather keep it as a fond memory then watch this d-bag ruin it. Can't believe Stephen would shaft his "Constant Readers" this way!! SMH
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Well, authors sell the rights to make a film. It rarely affords them much (if any) say in how the film is made. Mr. King won't be responsible for a bad movie, or even a good movie that bears little in common with the source material. I expect he is just like most of us, hoping for the best. King's books are driven by characters and not explosions or actions sequences. Even the Dark Tower, which boasts enough action for a war, is considered too slow by Hollywood standards. More is the pity. What makes the stories great is the people and the inner conflicts and their particular interactions. We almost always lose that in films because Hollywood (in general) doesn't care about nor understand how to translate that to the screen. It CAN be done. It HAS been done. They largely, however, don't bother.
But that era also has The Green Mile, one of his best, and Desperation, which was a damn good horror novel. But then, I liked Insomnia, and several have said they hated it. I have yet to read the "abused wife trilogy", which I have heard both good and bad things about. I tried three times to get through Dreamcatcher, getting a bit further each time but never liking it. However, I loved Black House and From a Buick 8, so I can't say my irritation with certain novels comes from certain eras.
While I agree with everything else you say, this isn't really an apt comparison, because on the one hand you're talking about a fictional character and on the other you're talking about a man who really existed. A better comparison would be to say that you wouldn't want white actors playing, say Kalam and Quick Ben in a film version of the Malazan Book of the Fallen series. I won't be shocked if you haven't read it, or even heard of it. It's a fantasy series, and I'm a fantasy nerd as well as a horror nerd.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
Actually, the best comparison would be if they had decided to make John Coffey from the Green Mile Caucasian. Both are fictional characters from Stephen King's mythos, and in both cases the race of the character is key in how he interacts with other characters.
If I were an Elba apologist, and I'm not, I would say the two comparisons still don't match up because Roland comes from an alternate world and Coffey comes from our own world (at least, one close enough to ours as to make no difference), and from a time period where color really mattered.
I've had this argument over and over with them on the IMDB. "Roland is from another world. The racial politics of our world don't exist on his world, so why should he have to be white?" they argue. "Susannah is a Civil Rights activist from the 60's, so her color matters, but Roland's doesn't."
Now, most of them don't see the irony in this statement, because when I point out that Susannah's past as a Civil rights activist colors nearly all her interactions with her entirely white (except for her) ka-tet, and that her immediate distrust of Roland (both Detta and Odetta have trouble there, they just express it differently) is based on the fact that he's white, they suggest that this is just a "b-plot" easily gotten rid of.
Well, Elba apologists, which is it? Is her skin color and status as a Civil Rights activist so important that changing it would be too vast a change or does it amount to a B-plot which can be easily glossed over? You really can't have it both ways this time!
Just for some background on my argument; the Malazan Book of the Fallen series is a high fantasy series that takes place on not just an alternate Earth but from what I can tell, an entirely different planet. It has hundreds of characters and many of them are dark-skinned to various degrees. People native to the country known as Seven Cities are described as dark black, and Kalam and Quick Ben, two very major characters, are both Seven Cities natives.
That said, their struggles as a nation are somewhat analogous to the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. If these stories were to be adapted to film (good luck; these books probably really are unfilmable), it wouldn't really alter the story at all to have the Seven Cities natives suddenly be played by white actors. After all, this is a fictional setting. It's not our world at all. There's no reason these characters have to be black. But nonetheless, readers of this series would revolt (and I would absolutely be among them) if such a thing were ever to happen.
Robert Gray
Well-Known Member
We will have to agree to disagree. One, I don't think you get to put words in the mouths of those you deem to be Elba apologists. While we agree Elba is not right for the role, I think this behavior is beyond the pale. I think it is rude and insulting. I think we should steer clear from putting words in other people's mouths. Returning to the point YOU are making (as you are the one who posted it), color is an issue in the time period where Detta/Odetta comes from and from where Eddie comes from. It also isn't our world. Eddie and Detta/Odetta do not come from our level of the Tower, and NEITHER does John Coffey. He is a man who evidences supernatural abilities. All of these characters are fictional. All of them come from the mind of Stephen King. All of them will, should this Dark Tower series of films be made, be translated into the cinema. I submit that John Coffey is the only comparison one could make in the current debate, i.e. changing Roland's race (which would change character interactions with other key characters whose conflicts have a racial component) would be very much like changing the race of John Coffey. It would fundamentally change the character and the story. That is the only thing I care about. You seem to have other issues which are coming across somewhat uncomfortably. If you don't have these other issues, I would suggest that you rethink your approach.
I don't care what discussion you have had over at the IMBD or what anyone there said. I don't want to get angst transference from other Forums. It is pointless. I'm only interested in the discussions here. To some degree, I think your irritation from other conversations is bleeding into your commentary here. That is what you need to be careful about. As to whether or not racial politics matter much in Roland's world, I don't think we've seen enough to know. Lacking conclusive evidence, I'm not willing to make such a statement. Racist bigots are kind of a universal thing and I expect they are found the the world that has moved on too.
Again, what you have argued about over there is kind of not relevant here. I will say that I feel that those interactions between the characters are key to why I loved the books. Eliminating them or relegating them to a minor echo would doom the film for me. Of course, Hollywood isn't making a film for me. I don't think Hollywood is making the film for any fan of the book. The only thing Hollywood ever wants from a successful book is the title, the names of the characters, and the author's name (if famous). Beyond that, they tend to just shred the books after making a thin outline of what happened and rewrite everything the way they think it should be.
Again, this is insulting and rude. I think if you reread your posts and consider what you are doing here, you will find that you have the desire to apologize. While I disagree with those who don't see a problem with Elba playing the part (or those who think it is a great idea), I don't think trying to demonize them is appropriate. I think simply making the point of just how much the story is altered (and in my opinion hobbled) by dropping the book's important character connections and interactions would be far more effective than what you are doing.
Last edited:
Wow, lots of assumptions you're making about me.
I'm putting words in precisely no one's mouth. I'm reiterating arguments that have been given by other people. Putting words in their mouths would mean I assume they believe something. When they actively use that argument, that's no longer putting words in their mouths, it's just quoting them. Multiple Elba apologists have used this argument, namely that Roland's not from our world so his color shouldn't matter, in many arguments with me, including on this board.
You and I are mostly on the same side here. I don't see why you have such a problem with me pointing out what I see as weaknesses in the arguments of the other side. I also want to make the strongest argument possible for our angle, which is that no matter what world the Gunslinger is from, his color does matter.
[/QUOTE]
I'm putting words in precisely no one's mouth. I'm reiterating arguments that have been given by other people. Putting words in their mouths would mean I assume they believe something. When they actively use that argument, that's no longer putting words in their mouths, it's just quoting them. Multiple Elba apologists have used this argument, namely that Roland's not from our world so his color shouldn't matter, in many arguments with me, including on this board.
You're missing the point. We, as CR's, understand that none of the worlds these stories take place in is the Keystone world, but casual readers or non-readers assume that King means for these other worlds that are close to ours to be our world. I honestly don't know how many times someone has told me that Susannah comes from "our world" and therefore her color matters. Again, I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. These things have been said.
And what issues would you assume I have? I just re-read everything I wrote and I cannot imagine what "issues" are being communicated by my approach.
First you accuse me of putting words in peoples' mouths, then you tell me you don't care what they said because it wasn't on this forum (even though some of it was). If you don't care what they said, I assume you haven't read the arguments, which means you can't know what they said, yet you accuse me of putting words in their mouths.
Again, some of it has taken place here.
Yes, I was both quoting their arguments and then saying what I think of them. See, when you made your Coffey comparison, I could see someone making the counter-argument that Coffey comes from the "real" world and Roland does not. While it's a wrong argument, it's an argument that has been made on these very boards and IMDB and Lilja's Library and other sites.
That's not my argument. That's the argument that's been made by people in favor of Elba's casting. They argue that the racial politics of America, particularly America's past, don't matter in Roland's world and therefore Roland's race shouldn't matter. I'm just repeating other arguments, I don't agree with them.
Except, again, those arguments have been made here. Not in huge number, but there are several Elba apologists here who have said very similar, even exactly the same, arguments that I have seen on other boards.
We are in total agreement here.
True, and this will be their downfall. Hollywood has a history of buying the rights to a popular book, making a film that only superficially resembles the book, and the result is a bomb. There were some that were faithful that bombed anyway, but nine times out of ten if they show disrespect for the source material, it is a critical and commercial disaster.
In what way am I trying to "demonize" them? I'm literally quoting their arguments and then pointing out how they don't match. I won't name any names, but I have seen the same person both argue that Susannah's color, as a 60's Civil Rights activist, is important to her character, but then suggest that her issues with Roland's race are a "B-plot" that not only likely won't be included in the film, but shouldn't be. This is a blatant attempt to have their cake and eat it, too. I don't see how that's "demonizing" them. That's a very strong word to use for me just poking holes in their arguments.
You and I are mostly on the same side here. I don't see why you have such a problem with me pointing out what I see as weaknesses in the arguments of the other side. I also want to make the strongest argument possible for our angle, which is that no matter what world the Gunslinger is from, his color does matter.