Escape to the Movies: Ender's Game

[Kingbingo]

Bob really let himself down in this review, switched off after the first few seconds.

Having a different opinion from you does make someone an the worst human being.

This is more of the same liberal BS thinking that says if you don?t exactly follow the liberal consensus you?re not only wrong but disgustingly evil. What?s more amusing is that this bloke is actually a liberal himself, just so happens he is not sold on Obama and the latest gay agenda.

 

[themilo504]

Maybe it makes more sense in the book\movie but training children to be generals seems like a terrible idea for so many reasons, either way the movie doesn?t look very interesting to me.

I do hate it when something I like is tied to a cause I disagree with, I?m looking at you domino pizza.

Question, say we have AI, and Robots that can simulate input 1:1 on the battlefield, but need to be operated by a human. Do you use a bunch of old guys that are being trained for the first time in their life on operating these war machines, or do you use children unspoiled by years of dogmatic teaching, who have been interfacing with this technology for much of their young life.

Right, you use the children. Same premise with Ender's Game.

I guess it makes sense when you look at it that way.

 

[Anaphyis]

I'm not a big fan of Card's personal views, but he is being a normal human being about it. He disagrees with something and he fights against it. I understand disagreeing and fighting against him, but I don't understand the sheer hatred the man gets. Maybe he's said something awful I didn't read, or maybe it's because he is relatively famous. I don't know.

It's one thing to have shitty opinions. It's another to spend a considerable amount of money, effort and use their celebrity status to actively prevent people from being happy.

liberal BS thinking
follow the liberal consensus
gay agenda.

That's some tinfoil hat shit, it's almost satire. Are you even a real boy?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, political tirade against Mr. Card aside, Bob's spiel falls largely in line with what I've been hearing about Ender's Game (including from some fans of the book): Scenes of boredom spliced together with overglossed Hollywood CGI spectacle.

Also, is the kid playing Ender the kid from Hugo? (should probably hop over to IMDB but...eh)

 

[everfreeDragon]

Look, OSC is a douche, yes. He wrote one unarguably good book (Ender's Game) and he's been writing spin-offs and sequels ever since(that are mediocre at best). But he already got payed for this movie. And even if he still has some money coming his way is that a reason to miss out on a decent movie? Seriously, if you start boycotting movies because awful people make money from them just how many movies a year do you think you'll go to?!

As for the review, yeah, totally agree. I mean any science-fiction movie that doesn't have heroes in costumes (preferably from the marvel universe) isn't worth it anyway. See this is exactly why we won't any have good SF that thinks outside the comic-book box.

I'm personally boycotting Ender's Game because Card funds organisations that actually harm those under the LGBT* umbrella. I personally detest the thought of my money being used to make life harder for myself and others like me.

 

[Lightknight]

Saw the movie last night. They did justice to the book more than I thought they possibly could. I think it's a solid entry but not a "fantastic/OMG/Classic" movie like they said. A few things could have made it better but it is what it is. I think it's worth watching.

I disagree about the twist ending not being twisty enough. That's probably just something that is hard to not see if you know the twist.

I get the politics behind the whole thing. I don't think that holding an old fashioned (archaic) mindset makes the author an evil person. I just think it makes him old. All of us are a product of our environment and he grew up in a particularly generation that was pretty heavily divided on the issue of homosexuality. Considering the homosexual undertones of his book he may even have some unresolved issues that could be solidifying his positions. Not that it justifies the position, maybe just that it rationalizes the man behind it to some extent. So to start off a review with basically calling a person behind it the devil or bottom feeder of the human race certainly calls into question the partiality of the reviewer (not that reviewers can somehow divorce their personal biases from a subjective review, nor should they).

Objectively, it was an enjoyable movie. It's doing well at the box office and the main studio behind the project has been nothing but pro-gay. In boycotting the movie the wrong people are being impacted with the author's check already being cashed and his involvement in the film likely being a condition in them getting the license to produce an otherwise remarkable story that basically prophesied the likes of Ipads, relativistic time travel effects and a few other novel ideas that are only just now coming into fruition or being proven true.

The book itself is about the nature of humanity to destroy first but the possibility of understanding and pursuing peace instead. Regardless of anything beyond that, this movie has a message to be upheld.

 

[MaddKossack115]

I knew Bob was going to touch on (well, bludgeon would probably be a better word) the big "controversy" surrounding the movie, but at the very least I didn't think he'd stoop so low for his political leanings. Because what I took away from this was: Roman Polanski raped a teenage girl, and that's bad...a bit. So it's okay to like his movies! But Orson Scott Card isn't overly fond of gay people (but hasn't physically hurt anyone, just their feelings), and that's horrible. So let's all boycott his movie and shoot it down when any piece of drivel who's creator agreed with Bob would get a free pass, or at the very least a very light panning. While I didn't really care about seeing the movie and never read the books, I think now is the time to give Bob and all those like him a little poke in the eye. Amazon.com here I come, and tomorrow night I'm bringing friends.

Technically, he didn't want the movie boycotted because of Card's political ideology - he just said that, since the "Ender's Game" movie is so bland and "by-the-numbers" for an adaptation, you might as well skip the movie if you wanted to protest Orson Scott Card, and probably would want to if you wanted to save your money for a better film. Much of his criticism was that the movie is technically good, but doesn't come close to the greatness of it's source material, or would branch out beyond copying-and-pasting watered-down and obviously-telegraphed plot points of the book, and even saved most of his hate for Card at the pre-review part of the video rather than the rest of it. Now, back to the Roman Polanski example, he held up "Rosemary's Baby" as an example of a classic and well-done film, and thus worth checking out in spite of the controversy around Polanski. The "Ender's Game" film, in contrast, is a generic and forgettable "you've seen this done a thousand times before, and seen this done better at least a dozen times" movie, and thus not really worth checking out no matter what your opinions are on Card.

 

[Brett_]

I enjoyed the movie, particularly as it got into the "command school" section. The only real flaws were some of the casting choices, and the fact that it occasionally felt like they were checking plot points off on a list:

1. Get Ender to Battle School
2. Have him make friends with Bean
3. Put him under Banso
4. Have him form his own team
5. Have him come up with the catchy "The enemy's gate is down!" bit.

And so forth. It's unfortunately something that can happen with adaptations where they clearly can't fit it all into the movie.

 

[MrGrey]

Here's the biggest question on my mind. Why is classic-style sci-fi so enamored with young boys? Is it all based on the Campbell-type hero where a boy becomes a man as the setting looks towards the future? You couldn't really call Roddenberry out on this from TOS, but then TNG brings in Wesley Crusher. Is this remenants of the 50's sci-fi when boy-wonder sidekicks had to actually be boys for paternal parenthood themes?

One of the reasons I am hesitant to see the movie is that is pretty much logistically impossible to preserve this one key point from the book. In the book, Ender was six years old when he first entered the battle school and he is skipped ahead a few grades so he can enter the command school at ten. He is literally a kindergartner.

I am completely with you in never seeing a movie where Wesley goes grimdark and saves the day with hitherto unseen tactical ability of mankind, but I do not think this is applicable to the classic story. My quick internet search for Dick Grayson's age was twelve, Wesley around fifteen. Even though they became boy adventurers they had at least a small window to develop before the call found them. Even if they lacked an ability to maturely handle their adventure they at least approached it with a certain naive eagerness and sincerity. Ender was told to play a game so years from now, longer than his current lifetime, he might be able to lead.

Obviously they had to age up the characters for the movie, it really could not be helped. However asking a child, while outside their parents presence, to enter a military school is entirely different from asking a teen. Ender's struggle to remember the purpose of his training, the game, in the long run is incredibly different from expecting a teen to man up and be part of the team. Allowing children to settle differences might be loosely shown as encouraging normal self reliance, but leaving eight year olds with lethal intent to do the same? Ender never thought it was possible for adults to leave them abandoned to display the Lord of the Flies scenario, really who would do that?

So in short I can see a child diving into a fantasy game to deal with the stress of the battle room as a desperate attempt to reclaim something resembling a childhood, not a failure avoiding duty or responsibility. His own, after all, was monitored by the cybernetic implant IF installed near age five. Naturally the well known spoilers show this is simply one of the many insanely desperate stunts pulled by the true enemy.

Spoiler: TL;DR This

Spoiler: Not This

So, does anyone who has seen the movie have any interesting feedback how this necessary change was handled? It is an opportunity to shine a new light with different circumstances, I just want to know if it was used fully.

 

[The Deadpool]

I'm not a big fan of Card's personal views, but he is being a normal human being about it. He disagrees with something and he fights against it. I understand disagreeing and fighting against him, but I don't understand the sheer hatred the man gets. Maybe he's said something awful I didn't read, or maybe it's because he is relatively famous. I don't know.

It's one thing to have shitty opinions. It's another to spend a considerable amount of money, effort and use their celebrity status to actively prevent people from being happy.

It's only different because you disagree with him. If he spent the same time, money and effort to help a cause you believe in, would he be a horrible human being?

He, for some insane, illogical reason, thinks gay marriage is a bad thing. He's an idiot. But that doesn't make him an evil, horrible human being that's the jerk mayor of jerk town, does it? He uses his personal resources to help a cause he believes in. Is that wrong?

And when the world turned against his opinion, he doesn't go insane. He accepts the decision, begrudgingly. Still stupid, but not that evil, is it?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I went into the cinema knowing nothing about Ender's Game. I left the cinema thoroughly entertained, in shock, and discussing the likelihood of xenocide when/if we finally make first contact.

Personally, I thought it was a pretty damn good film, I didn't suspect the twist until the moment the final shot impacted. I came to much the same conclusion Ender did, why did someone program that, how could they have known?

I think it was a good film. But perhaps that's because I'm not biased with prior knowledge regarding the book or the author.