Yes. Movie and book sales share a symbiotic relationship, especially in this modern era where social media increases the radius of brand awareness at an exponential rate.Originally Posted by Merlin1958
Yes
No
Yes. Movie and book sales share a symbiotic relationship, especially in this modern era where social media increases the radius of brand awareness at an exponential rate.
GOT had sold 15 million before the series started - so TV had a huge impact, clearly.
But...since there had been ONE book in 11 years (1996, 97, 98, 2000 - then 2005 - then 2011), that's still not too bad.
DT has obviously been helped by the multiple re-releases in hardback and paperback. They're comparable series as far as that goes.
A number of movie news websites are quoting the site below as confirmation of Idris Elba playing Roland.....
http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles...#disqus_thread
I don't consider that a reliable source -- and the information contained in it is based on previously reported non-finalized information.
Author of The Road to the Dark Tower, Stephen King: A Complete Exploration of His Work, Life, and Influences and The Dark Tower Companion. Co-editor with Stephen King of the anthology Flight or Fright.
+1
All the article did was reconfigure Goldsman comments that it COULD be Elba into it IS Elba, which isn't at all what Goldsman said in that interview. He was just defending the possibility of Elba.
It will be all over Deadline when it's confirmed for real.
It ain't real til it's on Twitter lol
Thank you.Off topic but a Black/Hispanic Spiderman already exists.. although he's a completely a new persona, not Peter Parker.
Spoiler:
For real? Where do you get all of these wild ideas of yours?
Spoiler:
And why would you assume that? Does this not seem like a type of forum that might possibly attract people who argue passionately about precisely those issues for years on end?
lol I'm pretty sure a good chunk of SK fans were pissed off by Kubrick's film (King is still peeved) and The Mist is probably one of the most controversial endings I've seen in a while. Everyone was talking about it when it came out and I still see it brought up.
Another example, when the movies came out for Hearts in Atlantis and Dreamcatcher I remember lots of fans grousing over how they altered the original story. If anyone remembers the SKEMERs, the latter was discussed so much it didn't even warrant a spoiler warning because everyone was talking about the ridiculous ending.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
You film fanatics are about to feel the "Wrath of Khan"!!!!!
Long live the Supreme Ruler & Crimson King!!!!
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
Obviously, that Daredevil movie was so bad that everybody forgot it happened. As for Michael Clarke Duncan playing Kingpin - he was terrible, so black, white or green, it didn't matter. As for Spiderman, it's a NEW Spiderman - they didn't reboot Peter Parker as a black kid.For real? Where do you get all of these wild ideas of yours?
Spoiler:
It seems like you have something to say, but you aren't coming out and saying it.
All four of those movies changed the stories a lot - I liked the Kubrick Shining, but preferred the King-written miniseries (where he ALSO changed the ending, btw)...
The Mist is ridiculous...of all of them, it was the worst change of all. Hearts of Atlantis and Dreamcatcher just weren't very good, so I didn't really care.
But in ANY of those movies, the race of any of the characters had no impact on the narratives. So they were all "white" protagonists, which is fine, but they didn't have to be - anymore than DT "must" have a white Roland.
Coming soon: Straight Outta Compton with an all-white cast...Roland is white. Maybe Oy should be played Jar Jar Binks. Jake could be a 4000-year old purple dude. Either make a film of the books or write your own.
Straight Outta Compton = real people.
Roland isn't white. He isn't black. He isn't purple or green. He doesn't exist in this world or any world. Roland is words on a page that represent a character in fiction that can be any color your imagination allows.
If you can find the place in any of the seven books where his color actually impacts the narrative events, post it - not irrelevant physical description written in 1982, but actual events of the story.
By the way, when the producers buy the rights, it becomes THEIR book, not King's. They don't have to write their own book - they bought it. That's why they call it the "rights."
As I've said ad nauseum, I certainly don't care if Elba's cast - but his casting, while a dramatic visual change, would have no impact on the actual events of the story - unless your imagination is so stunted that you can't bear to see dark skin instead of light skin....and again, since the story WILL be changed if/when these movies become reality, anybody's skin shade is going to be least of fan's concerns.
Straight Outta Compton = real people.
Roland isn't white. He isn't black. He isn't purple or green. He doesn't exist in this world or any world. Roland is words on a page that represent a character in fiction that can be any color your imagination allows.
If you can find the place in any of the seven books where his color actually impacts the narrative events, post it - not irrelevant physical description written in 1982, but actual events of the story.
By the way, when the producers buy the rights, it becomes THEIR book, not King's. They don't have to write their own book - they bought it. That's why they call it the "rights."
As I've said ad nauseum, I certainly don't care if Elba's cast - but his casting, while a dramatic visual change, would have no impact on the actual events of the story - unless your imagination is so stunted that you can't bear to see dark skin instead of light skin....and again, since the story WILL be changed if/when these movies become reality, anybody's skin shade is going to be least of fan's concerns.
Can't really argue with this statement. Good post. Would you care to be included in the "New Regime" as a say, "Royal"? Just for "giggles" of course. Love to have you!!!
William R
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
I prefer to remain in the insurgency.
If Roland was depicted as being a blonde guy with Fabio hair fans would be upset. Not everyone is a closet racist about this.
Heck I'm not happy that the new Joker has tattoos and capped teeth and that's purely cosmetic as well.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
I don't think anybody is a closet racist.
What I DO think is that people are very conservative and unwilling to change THEIR perspective and memories, and are unwilling to think of the next 50 years, versus their past 50 years.
As I said a few pages ago, it's not about "our" memories - I get it, we all enjoyed the books. Great, wonderful. Nobody can take those memories from you.
But IF - a big IF - they change the character of Roland from the conventional, conservative, frankly uninspired, lanky Clint Eastwood-esque gunslinger that has been a trope in movies since about 1939 - WHY is that a bad thing? Why does/would someone's brain and imagination have a problem with that?
All the 1982 Gunslinger really is, is a literary take on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood - it's not new, not original, not modern. It was neat in 1982 because it was a fantasy take on the old west, with a King Arthur vibe (that really came later). Fine, great, good story. It was new then - it's not new now.
So it's 2016 - are we going to say "No, MY memory and perspective is so vital that I am unwilling to risk seeing anything other than the white version of Roland presented on screen. Even though we live in a completely different world than 1982."
I'm not saying it's wrong to hold on to our memories and nostaliga, but the movie represents NEW memories and NEW nostalgia for the audience of 2016...and that's the next 34 years, not the previous 34 years.
Again - I'm not saying Elba should be cast - but if you're not open to that possibility and you're (not "you," but the general you) going to bitterly complain if it happens, then what you're really saying is "MY past memory is more important than YOUR future memory," and that's not right - is it racist? No, it's selfish - but like I've said, if your imagination is SO stunted that the shade of skin color trips you up that badly, that's something you should ask yourself "why?"
I'm a hypocrite in plenty of ways - I thought changing the Johnny Storm to a black guy was ridiculous - but I understood why they did it, and I get from the business point of view, it was a smart move getting that actor (bad movie, smart move). And does a character's race matter to the story of the Fantastic Four? After a few tweaks, not at all. And I hated the ending to the movie Mist. I think it totally failed the book. But that's the point - the movie was NOT the book. Whatever version of Gunslinger gets produced isn't the book either.
I get what you're saying about the Joker - but that's a good example. They're "redefining" the character from what it used to be...and Heath Ledger had already sort of broken out of the old model anyway...but that's a fair point. It's not what we're used to, so we don't like it.
There is one moderately surprising change of race of a character in 11.22.63 -- and it's an important change because it allows the show to discuss more meaningfully the issue of race in the early 1960s.
The miniseries also more or less completely dispenses with a substantial part of the novel that some people might think was important to the story. But the miniseries works perfectly well without it.
So, then, how important to the overall story of Roland's saga is the racial tension with Susannah? Can the story be told successfully without it? I believe so. That being the case, then, Roland's race doesn't matter any more. Not to me, anyway.
Author of The Road to the Dark Tower, Stephen King: A Complete Exploration of His Work, Life, and Influences and The Dark Tower Companion. Co-editor with Stephen King of the anthology Flight or Fright.
If somebody disagreed with that observation about Roland/Susannah, for example, and could provide the meaningful moments when that tension mattered (personally, I don't remember it, but that doesn't mean anything) then in my opinion, that would be a completely valid reason to disagree with Elba's casting - if the STORY has an important racial dynamic between Roland and Susannah, then I could see being put out by the change.
Just because I don't see it doesn't mean someone else does.
But I agree with the above - I personally don't see where Roland's race makes a difference to that dynamic (while Eddie and Susannah's DO make a difference), at least not enough to where I really would care if it was Elba -I think he'd be neat. But other people have mentioned completely reasonable reasons why he doesn't work for the part any more than Daniel Radcliffe would - and that's understandable.
I am looking forward to seeing 11/22/63 eventually, and I think I can understand why changing the race of a character would give the story a little different depth for TV.
I don't think anybody is a closet racist.
What I DO think is that people are very conservative and unwilling to change THEIR perspective and memories, and are unwilling to think of the next 50 years, versus their past 50 years.
As I said a few pages ago, it's not about "our" memories - I get it, we all enjoyed the books. Great, wonderful. Nobody can take those memories from you.
But IF - a big IF - they change the character of Roland from the conventional, conservative, frankly uninspired, lanky Clint Eastwood-esque gunslinger that has been a trope in movies since about 1939 - WHY is that a bad thing? Why does/would someone's brain and imagination have a problem with that?
All the 1982 Gunslinger really is, is a literary take on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood - it's not new, not original, not modern. It was neat in 1982 because it was a fantasy take on the old west, with a King Arthur vibe (that really came later). Fine, great, good story. It was new then - it's not new now.
So it's 2016 - are we going to say "No, MY memory and perspective is so vital that I am unwilling to risk seeing anything other than the white version of Roland presented on screen. Even though we live in a completely different world than 1982."
I'm not saying it's wrong to hold on to our memories and nostaliga, but the movie represents NEW memories and NEW nostalgia for the audience of 2016...and that's the next 34 years, not the previous 34 years.
I hear what you are saying, but "New" for "New's" sake is not necessarily good either. Also, I don't think you are being fair regarding the "Eastwood" cowboy character. It's Iconic, it's familiar and he was the inspiration for the character. Also the part where you state that "The Gunslinger" is no longer "new" is not quite right either. It's still a paradoxil story. A "Old West Cowboy" thrust into a "Sci-Fi/Fantasy" world is still extremely interesting in and of itself if done right. The books did it right, IMHO. That's why, to me, Roland should be a stereotypical cowboy in that it more starkly shows the difference in the genre's/worlds? Hope I am saying this the way I mean it!! LOL
I like, Idris Elba and generally enjoy his work. He was great in "The Wire", "Prometheous" and "The Avengers". He actually may make a good Roland, but he would never be "The" Roland as depicted in the books to me. Fresh and new, maybe, but sometimes you just gotta roll with it IMHO.
Timothy Olyphant or Walter Goggins, for Roland!!! LOL
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
You know, Walter Goggins would make a pretty good Jack Mort too.
I do agree, and frankly it makes me nervous that they'd cast Elba just to make a one-dimensional splash and then change the whole story around and basically have bought the NAME "The Dark Tower," without any intention to being faithful to the story.
I'm with Goggins as Eddie...haha
Goggins, would work as, Eddie as well. Frankly, the guy is a pretty good actor. I suppose I just lean towards that "Eastwood", Long, tall and handsome characterization. Olyphant and him both fit the profile, IMHO. Then again, I'm an "Old Fart" and what do I know? LOL LOLI do agree, and frankly it makes me nervous that they'd cast Elba just to make a one-dimensional splash and then change the whole story around and basically have bought the NAME "The Dark Tower," without any intention to being faithful to the story.
I'm with Goggins as Eddie...haha
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
While Mr. Elba isn't what I pictured Roland looking like in reality, I am happy to give the man a chance to make the role his own. After all, the vast majority of Roland's characterization/interactions did not rely upon him having a Caucasian appearance.
Dolph Lundgren as Jesus in The Passion of the Christ?
Hmmm...
All that's left of what we were is what we have become.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
