Doesn't look bad. Although I have a bad feeling that the Bean character is going to be a sliver of what he was in the books. In the books the war was won largely due to the combined efforts of both Ender and Bean. I really hope they don't short change the Bean character in the movie.
bean really didn't have all that large of a role in the actual ender's game (which I will refer to as EG) book, in ender's shadow (ES) they reveal how large of a role he played, but he was barely mentioned in EG. wow this thread has really gotten hung up on OSC as a person. while I may not agree with the man, that really isn't the point of a thread talking about a movie trailer.
also
the only planet that was targeted by the Dr. Device was the formic homeworld, this was why they were uncertain what would happen, no other battle was based directly around a planet, some of them had planets off to the side or in the backround but none of them resulted in the destruction of a planet until the last one, which was done by way of a kamikaze attack with a Dr. Device payload which was retconned in ES to be two beams that converged and caused molecules to separate, the second part wasn't a retcon, but the first was, it was then retconned again in Children of the Mind when the attacking ship launches the payload at lusitania which is intercepted by peter. I may be mixing up which one EG or ES had the solid "bomb" and which used the beams but I know there was a retcon there somewhere. the point I am trying to make is that the cruiser destroying the planet, had to have been the formic homeworld and therefore is not true to the source material. also I think they may be able to use careful camera angles for the shower fight scene, but I hope they deal with it somehow
I hope this movie is good, but I have my doubts seeing as it will be really difficult to fit the source material in a two hour movie that will interest people who didn't read the books (read EXPLOSIONS, they don't need all that many, but they probably will have quite a few)
sleeky01 said:
Desert Punk said:
[
Oh, and why is battleschool in orbit? It was supposed to be in one of the outer asteroid belts to keep its location secretive Not very secret if its in orbit.
If I recall correctly the Battleschool was indeed in earth orbit. The facility(s?) in the asteroid belt was where the fancy Command and Control gizmo was located. It was were Mazer Rakum showed up in the story.
this is correct, however this may be quite nitpicky, but battle school was just pretty much a ring, not that long space station that appeared in the trailer.
This looks cool, but you really have to separate the man from his literary production. I hate what Card stands for and I don't understand his opposition to gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I don't understand that the Ender series is some of the most important sci-fi we've ever written. It's not Azimov and it's not quite Karel Kapec or Mary Shelley; but it's interstellar wartime with an actual brain.
I might see this. Although I'll admit I always approach OSC the same way I approach Doug TenNapel: I remind myself why I used to love him as a kid, back when I knew nothing of the guy's political and moral stances and didn't care to learn about them, either.
Ratfist and Earthworm Jim are both utterly awesome, even if their creator is kind of a douche.
I personally have strong doubts that the movie will succeed. For starters, the book isn't exactly action-heavy. But worse than that, it's not particularly dialogue-heavy, either. In fact, much of the book consists of the characters thinking to themselves reflectively. Ender reflecting on the philosophies of war, Graff considering about the ethics of breaking a child mentally - it's people just thinking to themselves for about half the book. How do you show that on the screen?
Answer: You don't. Instead, you add in dialogue and amp up the action. I imagine the Battle Room will suddenly be the central setting of the story, rather than something that appears roughly halfway into the book.
I also imagine that's the reason why Major Anderson is now a main character and being played by a big-name actress (I would also imagine gender balance is why Major Anderson is now a woman). Presumably, she and Graff will be carrying much of the story.
I'm also guessing that they likely shoehorned in some romance story into the narrative. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that Petra, as the only significant female from the book, is now a romantic lead.
Which sort of leads me to another major problem: Ender's Game is about children. Prepubescent children. That's the entire premise. Which has certain downsides in terms of a movie.
1) You need child actors. A lot of child actors. And child actors ... tend not to be great. So the solution is to shift the focus on to the adults (again, Anderson is now a lead role) and diminish the number of significant child characters. I'd imagine that outside of Ender, Petra, Val, and maybe Peter, the other children are more or less scenery with nametags.
2) Ender's Game is about prepubescent children who are all super-geniuses. Like, doing advanced university-level calculus before they're ten. Like, getting their doctorates in all science, humanities, and engineering disciplines before their teens. And their dialogue in the book reflects that genius. How convincing will it be to have child actors discussing calculating the physics of space travel when they can't pronounce half the words? The solution: dumb down the dialogue, and decenter the story as you do so.
3) Ender's Game is about prepubescent super-genius children WHO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF EACH OTHER. And, on a few occasions, actually kill each other. How is the audience going to respond when one kid smashes the other kid's nose up into his brain? Or when they're threatening to murder each other brutally in the hallways as the teachers look on, encouraging them with silence? It seems likely - especially since this preview is for "All Audiences" - that this film will sold as a family feature. It's got kid actors and a sci-fi plot - it'll be hard to sell it as an adult-oriented film. So the violence and the beatings and the killings will probably be removed, and just make the focus about Ender vs Aliens, which is, of course, only about the last 20% of the book.
So, what I'm expecting is that we're getting Ender's Game ... minus the reflections, the philosophy, and most of the major cast - plus Harrison Ford and Viola Davis as the headliners - plus generic teen love story - minus the violence and the fighting and the conflict of most of the book - plus a lot more ship explosions, and alien battles.
And, potentially, a new ending. Because without all of Ender's inner reflections - his inner turmoil, his personal, unspoken struggle with being turned into a genocidal weapon, to mindlessly kill and destroy - then his final breakdown upon realizing he's actually destroyed the alien race becomes meaningless as a moral.
That's ultimately the main problem. The central theme of Ender's Game is the ethical and moral quandary of essentially brainwashing children into becoming humanity's most brutal killing machines, in the face of a species-wide threat. The other students are foils for Ender; some of them become brutal psychos - like Bonso - some are jealous, spiteful, and competitive - like Petra - and others burn out - like Dink. But all are systematically destroyed psychologically and spiritually by the process that Graff and Battle School put them through - and this is by design. Ender is humanity's best and brightest hope ... to become humanity's worst and most depraved monster.
So the question is - will the producers and directors of this film preserve that central theme, that main tension, and deliver it with the same impact it deserves? Or will they just make a family movie about kids fighting aliens with big explosions and special effects?
Had I had an authoritative voice in the creative process, I'd have told them to a) give up, and b) if you can't give up, then change the superficial elements of the story to preserve the fundamental themes. First, I'd say make them teenagers, not children - it'd make casting easier and the violence more palatable.
And second, I'd have told them to combine Ender's Game with its companion book, Ender's Shadow. Because Bean, the protagonist of Shadow, has a lot more action and dialogue that are conducive to a visual medium. And because Bean provides a character who can act as Ender's confidant, in order to turn those inner monologues into spoken conversation. You could try the same with some of the other characters, but Bean works best because Bean is the one kid who actually knows everything that's going on with Ender and the school anyway.
And Bean also works because he has much involvement with the school's Teachers, which could also bring out Graff's inner struggles. Ender's Shadow accomplished the task of fleshing out several key characters and ideas that were kind of thin in the original - Graff being one of them.
Anyway, TL;DR - I'm an Ender's Game fan and I expect the movie to crash and burn.
Also, had no idea about Orson Scott Card's political views. Don't really think that'll affect the crashing and burning.
The visuals remind of a J.J. Abrams movie (think Star Trek with less lens flare, or maybe Mission Impossible III). Supposedly when OSC originally wrote the script for the movie, he decided to have the "twist" already revealed to the audience but Ender wouldn't know in order to create... what's it called... dramatic irony? He also scrapped the Peter and Valentine subplot. That was years ago though, so who knows what direction the movie'll take.
The trailer looks awful haha. It's kinda cliche to say that it isn't like the source material, but the Ender story I remember was really....ugly. The book was a gritty and depressing, atmospheric.
That trailer was something more akin to Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, which was awwwwwwful.
I never knew that about the author though. Interesting how I can throughly enjoy his books, but not agree with him on his radical ideas. Strange.
And second, I'd have told them to combine Ender's Game with its companion book, Ender's Shadow. Because Bean, the protagonist of Shadow, has a lot more action and dialogue that are conducive to a visual medium. And because Bean provides a character who can act as Ender's confidant, in order to turn those inner monologues into spoken conversation. You could try the same with some of the other characters, but Bean works best because Bean is the one kid who actually knows everything that's going on with Ender and the school anyway.
And Bean also works because he has much involvement with the school's Teachers, which could also bring out Graff's inner struggles. Ender's Shadow accomplished the task of fleshing out several key characters and ideas that were kind of thin in the original - Graff being one of them.
first of all, that was a pretty good analysis and that was pretty much what I was trying to say in my previous post
secondly I think this would be a good idea if they could make it a two part movie, because in order to do those two books justice they would need that much time if not more. I think that if they were planning on doing this however they would have included bean in the trailer, and would have had a more difficult time casting because it would have added quite a few other child actors to the cast that needed to be good, Bean and achilles being two of them
what are you talking about, Valentine at least is definitely in the move, she will be played by Abigail Breslin, I am concerned about them cutting some of the peter stuff though (animal cruelty doesn't tend to go over well)
Books, movies, and video games are meant to be entertainment sold to the vast public, that is why they exist. That kind of automatically disqualifies them as art.
GAH! Spoilers! What the hell, trailer? That's one of the biggest points in the book(s)! Might as well have told us about Locke and Demosthenes, or what happens to Bonzo. Sheesh.
I have to say, it's kind of nice to see science fiction return to the big screen. Whether you think it's worthy to be called sci-fi, it's a nice change of pace.
As for the trailer. Looks okay, nothing too mindblowing. And it's great to see Hailee Steinfeld in a movie again. She was great in True Grit.
Books, movies, and video games are meant to be entertainment sold to the vast public, that is why they exist. That kind of automatically disqualifies them as art.
Not sure where you're coming from mate, but you have a very, I would say, limited, understanding of the concept of art, a physical copy of ANYTHING is technically a product, as you are "The product of your genetics and upbringing" I could use the same reasoning to say that only certain people are people, but then I'd be called a bigot.
Music, is art, literature is art, oil paintings, watercolour paintings, charcoal sketches, are all art, movies I would say are art, at least the making of it, that's like saying (insert genre of music here) is not music, just because you're a pretentious hipster and have somehow gotten to the point where you deem your opinion as law, and everyone who might think differently, a fool.
I challenge you to tell me, WHY the things you mention are NOT art, take your time, formulate a complete and precise answer, and maybe, just maybe, my opinion of your opinion, might change significantly, though I doubt it.
Books, movies, and video games are meant to be entertainment sold to the vast public, that is why they exist. That kind of automatically disqualifies them as art.
I would really like to know how you're defining art. From what I can tell, you're definition is rather narrow. The thing is, defining art is a very complicated thing, particularly when you move outside of any one culture's perspective. I would still like to know yours, but I'll give you mine in the meantime (lifted from a cultural anthropology class:
Something created for an audience meant to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas that is socially influenced and individually interpreted.
This is the working definition I subscribe to until presented with something I find more suitable. I see no reason why movies, books and video games don't fit into that definition.
Well that trailer really does spoil stuff. I never read the books , but after seeing the trailer, i had the same thaughts that you guys had in those spoiler tags.
Not interested. Card is a piece of shit. Worse, he's a politically active bigot, and any cash that finds its way into his pockets (from this, and all his other works) might be spent campaigning to curtail the rights of people I care about.
That's more than enough reason to forget about it.
Meh, people need to grow up. Your opinion of a man should not influence your opinion of a man's work. Looks interesting enough. Truth be told, I never found OSC all that interesting of a writer. Probably something to do with people always telling me I should like his work.
I think there are quite afew authors who would disagree with you immensely.
valium said:
But when the Author then centers his works around his beliefs, that is where problems arise.
Ender's Game does not center around OSC's offensive beliefs, but a lot of his other books do.
Then those authors are delusional, literature is educational and/or entertainment. Movies are not art, video games are not art. Does not mean these things can not be so good that people can compare them to art, still does not make them art.
Books, movies, and video games are meant to be entertainment sold to the vast public, that is why they exist. That kind of automatically disqualifies them as art.
Such utter nonsense. The Sistine Chapel's ceiling was a commission piece done for the church (the iconography contained within intended to convey Biblical stories). Norman Rockwell was paid to do all those covers for the Saturday Evening Post. Great works of art have often been done for money/mass consumption.
Trailer looks bad, btw. It appears as though they've played down the psychodrama in favor of generic action sci-fi. Not necessarily damning though, given the fact that a trailer like this is probably more likely to get asses in the seats than a trailer of people talking for 2 minutes.
This is a particularly odd one for me as I loved the initial trilogy (I was less fond of the constant rehashing of the initial plot for new paydays a la Ender's Shadow et al.). His Mormonism was never really an issue and I actually found it interesting that books featured both Mormons and Catholics as thriving with their religions in a future sci-fi setting. It's a topic that is rarely explored in Sci-Fi and I thought he had an engaging take on it.
However, why I find it odd is that those books had very strong themes of everyone being "people" and getting along while accommodating the differences between people. Political views. Different religions. Bug eyed insect aliens. Funky half mammal/half plant aliens. Everyone. They were books that I read in middle school that got me thinking about what it means to be a person and how this exceedingly open view of personhood (at least for the 80s, which is when I read them) and non-human "humanity" allowed for treating everyone as being worthwhile while letting each group do their own thing. Xenocide in particular had explicit scenes of "we are appalled by your behavior, but it's what you do and you are a self aware individual and so we shall support your ability to carry on with your behavior."
Which is why his bigotry strikes such a nerve with me. I expect higher percentages of elderly people, religious fundamentalists, and minimally educated people to be anti-gay. Kind of comes with the territory and poll after poll show that correlation. However, it continues to shock me that someone whose works influences me to be more open to others would be so bigoted themselves. It's as if Marx had used slave labor to print The Communist Manifesto. The cognitive dissonance astounds me.
TL;DR I love the works of art. I am appalled that the artist behind them seems to lack the themes of his own work.
Art is the expression of the artist, the point of art is to convey something; thoughts, emotions, illicit thoughts and/or emotions. Art is intent. Art would exist even if the artist thinks it will not be profitable.
Movies/games/books are products, the point of a product is to sell, make money. These would not exist if they are not expected to make money.
There are infact art that come in the form of a movie, there are a few on display at the closest art museum to where I live. The difference here is that the artists made the movies to be viewed by any and all, the artists made these movies with the sole purpose of saying something. Intent.
"Movie" is just a medium, it can be art or it can be a product. The difference is intent.
Being charitable, this may be another case of misleading trailers, which is a pet hate of mine. The three most heinous examples of interesting, thoughtful movies which I nearly didn't watch because of crappy, generic trailers were Fight Club, Three Kings and A Bridge To Terabithia. All of them did the same thing: take a few moments from the film that looked 'exciting', present them out of context and give the impression that the whole movie had that flavour.
So it's entirely possible that this is the same thing - they've taken the footage of the first Bugger war, a few bits of the Battle Room and some of the final war, spliced them together and missed out the 90% of the movie that consists of the kids training and battling against one another. That's perfectly possible and par for the Hollywood course.
But for me, the most heinous thing in the trailer is the age of the kids. The whole point of Ender's Game is that these are *children*. Not teenagers, children of eight, nine, ten. The whole thing is about the abuse of innocence. If you make them thirteen, fourteen, then that's a very different experience. Now, I understand it's hard to get compelling performances out of kids that young, and also they want a teenage audience to be able to identify with the characters, but it seems to me that the casting rips the soul out of the book more than any focus on spaceship battles and explosions.
As for the author thing, I'm very torn. I want to boycott Card for his opinions. But I still recognise the quality of his writing, and at least as far as the Ender books are concerned, his opinions are certainly not evident there. So I don't know. Maybe we've finally found a moral case for movie piracy
I guess I'm a slowpoke as this is the first time I have ever heard about this book series so I guess with that in mind, I find the trailer to be insteresting. Time to do some research on this book series!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
