The Dark Tower series filmed adaptation

[Rahfa]

This thread has become extremely boring. Idris, is a fine actor, but black or white he is not, Roland as I perceive him. Too much muscle, not enough lank. I do see him as, Eddie though, adjusting for more modern times I suppose. I'll move along, Rahfa has successfully "co-opted" the thread. IMHO

As was previously mentioned, it probably will never get made in any case.

I didn't "co-opt" anything - people posted, I responded with plenty of things to talk about and people ran and hid and clucked behind curtains.

So now my opinion does not count? Apparently, you are the only one who has an opinion and therefore authority over the discussion. Can't we just move on to other topics or, are you not done as yet? Just out of curiousity is all. I think we all know what your thoughts are and they are registered and valid. Now, where do we go from here?

What are you talking about? Your opinion counts fine - I didn't say anything to or about you (in fact, you were one of very few posters who actually clearly, and honestly and frankly engaged with the topic in a disagreeing way that made sense and I agreed with - other people called me a RACE BAITER!!!! for even bringing it up.

If people post, I said I'd post back. If people bring up other topics, that's fine - I'm only responding. If people bring up THIS topic, I'm going to respond if I think something should be said. We can talk about this New Year's Day 2017. If people want to post about Idris Elba shits all over the source material, you can expect I'll post again.

But I agree with you about "too much muscle, not enough lank." Another poster made the same point and that's true - Elba creates a "superhero" Roland that doesn't fit the character for that reason. For the millionth time, I'm not advocating for Elba - I'm saying we should open ourselves to a different idea. Damn - I wrote a pretty long post about "creative choices" and nobody even wanted to consider that? Or talk about it?

But I have to say, you got some brass balls talking to me about "boring" when half your posts make a Yankees reference. All I've done is post on-topic about the topic at hand...isn't that what's the board is for? Posting and responding. So we don't go anywhere from here except using the board for what the board is for.

Sooooo sorry I'm making people scroll down a comment page on an internet forum - oh, the horror! I'm a monster!

[Rahfa]

[Snipped out boring cynicism and above-it-all irony.]

Whatever.

[Rahfa]

"...hid and clucked behind curtains."

What the hell does that mean?
Its an interesing visual to contemplate...

Haha - I don't know...it was a good line at the time.

(now that this topic has switched to a new page, I'm done with it....for now)

[Lookwhoitis]

Roland is a HONKEY MAHFAH!!!

also

I'm still mad they cast a brown-eyed, non english speaking, steroid juicing Austrian and a green eyed Hawaiian as Conan

[Lookwhoitis]

This whole Idris Elba thing is just a spin-move designed to create controversey, generate buzz, and get attention on the project. He will not be Roland.

The beancounters are very sketchy on greenlighting this Franchise as it is. They are certainly not going to make such a big change that could possibly alienate a chunk of the die hard fans.

I'm hoping my favorite literary story is adapted faithfully, on par with a quality level similar to the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (two of the most honest, true to the book adaptations that have occured to date)

[Johnny Alien]

I'm hoping my favorite literary story is adapted faithfully, on par with a quality level similar to the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (two of the most honest, true to the book adaptations that have occured to date)

Season 1 of GOT was pretty dead on. It slowly moved away from the books a little more each season. The past 2 have had some major reworking.

[Rahfa]

The beancounters are very sketchy on greenlighting this Franchise as it is. They are certainly not going to make such a big change that could possibly alienate a chunk of the die hard fans.

I'm hoping my favorite literary story is adapted faithfully, on par with a quality level similar to the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (two of the most honest, true to the book adaptations that have occured to date)

And we're off!

By eliminating the Scouring of the Shire from the filmed RotK, Peter Jackson basically neutered the last third of the books....Tolkien's whole point at the end was how the Hobbits were changed so dramatically, and that theme is totally gone.

So of course I love the movies - but don't call the trilogy "honest" or "true to the book," cuz at one of the most important parts, it wasn't. I'm with you on Jason Mamoa's Surfer Conan, but I think Schwarzenegger's iconic - sorry! Haha

(I agree the DT beancounters are likely to make a conventional safe choice as far as Roland's casting - they aren't paid to take big risks, so we'll get Hugh Jackman again - hooray)

[Johnny Alien]

The beancounters are very sketchy on greenlighting this Franchise as it is. They are certainly not going to make such a big change that could possibly alienate a chunk of the die hard fans.

I'm hoping my favorite literary story is adapted faithfully, on par with a quality level similar to the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (two of the most honest, true to the book adaptations that have occured to date)

And we're off!

By eliminating the Scouring of the Shire from the filmed RotK, Peter Jackson basically neutered the last third of the books....Tolkien's whole point at the end was how the Hobbits were changed so dramatically, and that theme is totally gone.

So of course I love the movies - but don't call the trilogy "honest" or "true to the book," cuz at one of the most important parts, it wasn't. I'm with you on Jason Mamoa's Surfer Conan, but I think Schwarzenegger's iconic - sorry! Haha

(I agree the DT beancounters are likely to make a conventional safe choice as far as Roland's casting - they aren't paid to take big risks, so we'll get Hugh Jackman again - hooray)

I could not disagree more. Sure the Hobbits that went on the adventure were changed but I don't think the entire race was even after the scouring. And even if that were true it is hardly the main point of the entire epic tale. There will always be those that hate that anything at all was cut but even with the 5 hour director cuts there was content missing....something had to be removed and honestly I have zero problem with that being the Scouring.

[Priest]

Hum, a black hobbit would not be a problem for me , strange. I read both books , multiple times , imagine Sam or Gandalf played by a black actor is not disrupting my personal vision , while Roland is. Can't explain why...might have something to do with the fact that I have seen the LOTr already

Strange how different that can be ...

[Rahfa]

I could not disagree more. Sure the Hobbits that went on the adventure were changed but I don't think the entire race was even after the scouring. And even if that were true it is hardly the main point of the entire epic tale. There will always be those that hate that anything at all was cut but even with the 5 hour director cuts there was content missing....something had to be removed and honestly I have zero problem with that being the Scouring.

I don't think it was the main point of the WHOLE tale - but I think Tolkien wanted it to be a big part of the conclusion - it's 100 more pages AFTER the ring gets destroyed, after all.

But - in the real world of movie making, you can't have TWO conclusions - so I totally understand what you're saying and why the cut was made. Personally, I didn't like how the movie version of the Shire basically got away with everything unscathed, while in the books it's more clear that the War of the Ring affected every part of Middle Earth and nobody could avoid the war. But, yeah, as entertainment, it was fine and we agree another 20 minute climax just wasn't going to work.

But EVERY adaption has to face those creative choices - we're very, very rarely going to get a literal or truly "honest" adaption (ironically, Shawshank probably comes very, very close...and look at the casting decision they made there). Who knows what compromises the Dark Tower filmmakers will have to make - even the importance of "19" will be hard to translate to film, so that could easily be an elimination - and then what will we do! Haha

[Rahfa]

Hum, a black hobbit would not be a problem for me , strange. I read both books , multiple times , imagine Sam or Gandalf played by a black actor is not disrupting my personal vision , while Roland is. Can't explain why...might have something to do with the fact that I have seen the LOTr already

Strange how different that can be ...

I think we hear "gunslinger" and automatically see a specific archetype. I certainly didn't have Idris Elba in my head when I read the books...I'm not sure what actor, actually, not Clint Eastwood either. More like Steve McQueen maybe?

(and people were a little put off by the female Elf in Hobbit - but did that choice matter? Not really - frankly, it was good to get a female voice after the sausage party of the LOTR movies, even with Eowyn)

[Priest]

I took myself 20 minutes , To think about what you have written. And, Yes that's true, but I think it's something more.

I already have seen the Lord of the rings and I know that I like the movie, so it's easy to give some free space for some things that are not 100% , as its retrospectively, and knowing that it was good makes it easy to judge.

For the gunslinger, a book I liked, and a movie I really look forward and where I hope it's good, I don't have these free space, as I'm afraid that every little inch you could move away from the plot could ruin the movie. I think, that's why am very very strict with the gunslinger very loose with the Lord.


I'm pretty sure that ones I've seen the gunslinger, expecting it was good, everybody will say yeah whatever it was fine

If it was bad everybody will blame the black actor.

[Rahfa]

I took myself 20 minutes , To think about what you have written. And, Yes that's true, but I think it's something more.

I already have seen the Lord of the rings and I know that I like the movie, so it's easy to give some free space for some things that are not 100% , as its retrospectively, and knowing that it was good makes it easy to judge.

For the gunslinger, a book I liked, and a movie I really look forward and where I hope it's good, I don't have these free space, as I'm afraid that every little inch you could move away from the plot could ruin the movie. I think, that's why am very very strict with the gunslinger very loose with the Lord.


I'm pretty sure that ones I've seen the gunslinger, expecting it was good, everybody will say yeah whatever it was fine

If it was bad everybody will blame the black actor.

You've summed up exactly why the creative choices are often very conservative. Your comment about that "free space" is quite brilliantly put. I totally understand and agree with that argument.

Nobody will get upset with Hugh Jackman/Russell Crowe/take your pick playing Roland - it's what we expect, no controversey, and we can watch the movie, focus on the story and if the movie fails, then we blame the movie.

If they make a bold choice then we go in already thinking "they're manipulating this just to make a change for change's sake, and I'm skeptical." That's not a bad thing - we've all felt that way about casting choices that have nothing to do with race.

Then - maybe we'll like it, maybe we don't - but now we have an easy reason to think "maybe it was the casting." Like Shia LeBeouf in Indiana Jones #4 - I went into that movie already unimpressed with his casting, and then when the movie sucked I basically blamed him...but the SCRIPT was terrible - no actor could have saved it. But if you ask me why it sucked, my first answer will be Shia.

In the LOTR example, you're 100 percent right. We ALREADY know it worked. So if we travelled to an alternate universe where Morgan Freeman plays Gandalf, we already know the script/production/etc. turned out well, so we would be willing to think "eh, Morgan Freeman's a great actor, it will be interesting to see his take on Gandalf...the movie's going to be fine either way."

So because the WHOLE movie turned out well, we could probably accept another interpretation.

Star Wars Force Awakens is a good example too - people were nervous about Rey and Finn, but the movie was good enough so any discussion about "black stormtrooper" or "female Jedi" quickly dissipated. If the movie had been terrible, those creative choices might have been blamed for the failure of the WHOLE movie, even though it was maybe just the script that sucked (like Phantom Menace, where Hayden Christensen probably deserved more of the blame).

I would argue that the flaw with US an audience is we say we want the conventional choices - we want the comfortable, "honest" choices and there's nothing wrong with that.

BUT - we never let ourselves see something NEW that we didn't know we wanted.

So Idris Elba as Roland - it could be terrible, total trainwreck. OR it could be amazing - it could redefine the character in a way that is stunning and we never dreamed we could expect. I mean, Matthew McConnagey as Flagg? Huh? But...he's such a good, dark actor that I think it might just work....so I'm open to that interpretation.

When we get wrapped up in very specific, comfortable interpretations based on written description, I get it - we WANT what we expect. But if we opened ourselves up to something dramatic and different, it might change our perception into something brand new and much better. Who knows?

In fact - I'm complaining about LOTR above, cutting out Scouring/Shire...BUT by changing the book's ending, the hobbits in Jackson's NEW story are changed, but their world in the Shire is NOT. THEY have grown as characters in a world that stayed the same....that makes their shared glance at the end that much more poignant...they know something about the world that their friends in the Shire do NOT know.

So I'm complaining because it was NOT a literal adaption - but that's because I was unwilling to open myself up for Jackson's different intepretation.

Now...maybe I haven't changed my mind, but I can see the other side of my own argument. And in my defense, I did SEE the movie and still felt this way, so I didn't go in ready to be disappointed.

But I would say that if a viewer could accept that fairly significant change to the pivotal ending of a three-book trilogy than changing something as simple as a character's race is no kind of leap at all...

(Another iconic change/creative decision - in the book "Old Yeller," the dog does not necessarily have rabies....he MIGHT have rabies. So the point of the book's ending is that you have to make sucky decisions without full knowledge and it's hard and rotten, but that's life...in the movie, the dog DOES have rabies, so it's sad, but there's no mystery why they have to do it. That hard choice has been removed and replaced with just a sad tragedy. Totally different intepretation. Again, if we as audiences can accept these HUGH reinterpretations, than why is the race meaningful at all? They change the whole message all the time, so why does skin color matter? I'll answer my own question - for the audience's conservative comfort and for no other significant reason)

And - I don't care if people disagree with me on all my ranting...I would probably disagree with someone as strident as I'm being. But at least fucking THINK about it - ASK yourself why you feel a certain way. Look inside yourself a little bit instead of taking the lazy "he's white in the book, so he should be white in the movie" route. Why can we accept one kind of huge change, but not another kind of relatively small change? WHY?

Priest's comment about "free space" is a great explanation.

(This is a good thread on why Elba might be a bad sign for reasons that have nothing to do with race, but what the producers might be thinking as far as Susannah/Odetta...all just speculation, but makes sense. If Elba's cast, I DO think they change the race of Susannah so they don't have two black leads - and that WOULD be a mistake...so that's a valid reason to NOT want Elba, because changing Susannah's race would dramatically change the story: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1648190/...3?ref_=tt_bd_4)

[CyberGhostface]

I'm hoping my favorite literary story is adapted faithfully, on par with a quality level similar to the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (two of the most honest, true to the book adaptations that have occured to date)

Season 1 of GOT was pretty dead on. It slowly moved away from the books a little more each season. The past 2 have had some major reworking.

Yeah we've now gotten to the point where they might as well be writing fanfiction. Each season I'm like "They can't screw the books any worse" and they top it with the next. At this point Bran will probably suffocate Hodor in his sleep in Season 6.

[Absttractharmony]

Did you read GRRM's latest on why the Winds of Winter is not finished?

Was a very interesting read especially about the books vs series argument.

It actually put me in mind as to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and how every single adaptation (Radio, books, TV, movie) has been different but all enjoyable nonetheless.

[Merlin1958]

Walter Goggins for Roland!!!!

[Absttractharmony]

Kenny Loggins for Roland?!!!

lol

[Merlin1958]

Kenny Loggins for Roland?!!!

lol

LOL Just viewed "Django" and "Hateful 8"!!! LOL

[Rahfa]

Walter Goggins for Roland!!!!

Wait - what about Timothy Oylphant?

(I really like Goggins for Eddie, actually...)

[mattgreenbean]

How about Clint's son Scott? He's in a new western. He looks a lot like his dad. Haven't seen him act though.

[Merlin1958]

Walter Goggins for Roland!!!!

Wait - what about Timothy Oylphant?

(I really like Goggins for Eddie, actually...)

He fell on deaf ears, but old, Walter would work!! LOL

[Rahfa]

Walter Goggins for Roland!!!!

Wait - what about Timothy Oylphant?

(I really like Goggins for Eddie, actually...)

He fell on deaf ears, but old, Walter would work!! LOL

Oylphant as Walter? That could work...

[Absttractharmony]

I'd love to see Walter played by various actors all the way through the movie so bring em on...McConahey, Olyphant, Idris...all of em

[fernandito]

Walter Goggins would be a fantastic Eddie.

[Merlin1958]

Walter Goggins would be a fantastic Eddie.

Or Roland. Just saying

Spoiler:

I still like Timothy Olyphant better as Roland and Goggins as Eddie. Lets have, Jamie Foxx in drag as Odetta!!! LOL