Benioff and Weiss To Write Ender's Game Script 507
nighthawk127127 writes "According to the Fresco Pictures website, David Benioff (writer of the screenplay for Troy) has been signed on by Warner Brothers to write the script for the movie adaptation of Ender's Game. Rumors of the Ender's Game movie have been circulating for a long time now, but this is the first time in a while we've gotten some definite information. The movie will be a combination of Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow by Orson Scott Card." Well, gosh, with Troy under his belt, all my concerns about the movie sucking are straight out! *cough*
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL... (Score:3, Interesting)
My how times haven't changed.
Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. (Score:1, Interesting)
"a long time"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had the idea of the movie filed away with Duke Nukem Forever and the like.
Enders Game (the book) (Score:2, Interesting)
Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jedidiah.
Too bad they didn't pick the good version. (Score:5, Interesting)
The ambuiguity at the end over just who the Enemy was is wonderful - see, there's no aliens in there, and the one reference in the short story to the planet Ender's living on implies that it's noth Earth, so it COULD be a rebellious colony... which would make the Enemy planet Earth.
Whoops.
Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. (Score:1, Interesting)
The first year or two of it's publication, I thought for sure it was an ironic bit of humor that was going over my head, as he wrote endlessly about his latest great snack cracker find, or how wonderfully written the latest Sandra Bullock vehicle was...but it has become painfully clear in recent years that he just sucks. I just can't even pull his books off of the shelf anymore.
Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than wanting to hurt homosexuals, which is what a homophobe does, he wants to "help" them. I think both points of view are wrong, in their own way, but there's a hell of a big difference between them.
Expand your awareness ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many times I've been shocked about how little some people know or understand about the Internet, especially considering that it surrounds so many aspects of their everyday lives. And yet, since this is the same with film, a much older medium [cln.org], I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise at all.
I'll constantly read commentaries blaming the suck-factor (in their opinion) of a film on this particular actor or that particular director, or on the quality of the writing. Let me offer only that it isn't that simple.
Many, many, many people touch a film and can have the power to change it significantly before any public audience views it. By the time a studio movie is publicly released, the script has gone through, oh, ten, twelve, twenty major revisions, producers have had their say, the director his, and the editor his (all masculine pronouns used for the sake of convenience, now lost completely due to this note). During that time each major player in the production of the film has been presented with choices -- choices, mind you, not creations from their own brains, but choices based on the quality of the people who've been hired, and who may have been hired for any number of experience, quality, or political reasons -- about costuming, production design, sound design and mixing, and even photography which, although affected by directorial input is almost always actually executed by a director of photography who, like the others, makes *strong* suggestions and provides choices.
Given how collaborative and varied film is, it's almost a miracle that any good movies get made at all. And yet, there are still many times I'll hear comments like the one above, as if the writer had any real input at all on the quality, good or bad, of Troy. Believe me, they were fucking given 10,000 notes, and expected to make changes quickly. And they did so, with a smile, even when they were faced with the problem of taking a fucking stupid note and trying to figure out how to incorporate it into the script without having to rewrite the entire story to justify it. And it was a *they*. I don't care if only one (living) writer is listed, there were more who didn't get credited. That is the way it works.
Keep in mind that this is the industry that employs Harvey Weinstein, the man who, when he owned the Lord of the Rings rights, wrote to Peter Jackson asking, "Why does there have to be so many hobbits?"
I realize that the above quote doesn't exclude the possibility that the film sucked, in that opinion, due to the efforts of others. But it would be nice if, sometimes, people could keep an open mind and realize that when a film sucks, there may be no direct reason. Sometimes they just suck. Same for the reverse, sometimes they're just great and all of the elements came together. But it's not useful to assign blanket blame or congratulations to anyone in film, unless they've got an established track record and what you're doing is evaluating a body of work.
I rescind my comments in the case of Joel Schumacher, whom I still blame for Batman's nipples. I hate you with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, you bastard.
Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just another movie to not see (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider that the figureheads in the Open Source and FSF world are also intelligent, fundmentalists in their own right, and often voice their beliefs without worrying about what other people think, why do people single out OSC?
When it comes to the potential impact on other people of actually carrying out those beliefs, what is the difference between Mormon fundamentalism, purist Libertarian philosophy, and the idea that there should be no commercial software at all?
There is way too much of a double-standard at Slashdot. The people iconized at Slashdot are "eccentric" or "admirably consistent", but in other disciplines it is okay to cast people in a spectrum of black and white judgements?
All political movements are "incrementalist" (Score:5, Interesting)
By your statements, I'm guessing you think being gay is somehow subhuman, disgusting, or at the very least, not something you want going on in your town. All I can say is that we know very little about human nature, but one thing is clear: you can't legislate it away. All you can do is drive it underground, and strip dignity from your fellow human beings.
OSC recently commented on this movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Uncle Orson talked about this movie at a signing a week ago. Here is the gist of his comments:
Re:From a recent OSC talk (Score:4, Interesting)
"Das Boot" was truly an excellent film. It is the submarine movie, and nothing else comes close. Having said that, even a film of that quality only buys you so much respect. After "A Perfect Storm", "Air Force One", and "Troy" Peterson has spent it all. Maybe it's the influence of Hollywood producers, but whatever it is, the end results have been utterly appalling. I don't see Peterson signed on as Director as the least bit positive.
Jedidiah.
Your choice... (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe R.K. Milholland, who writes Something Positive [somethingpositive.net], has been addressing that issue in some [somethingpositive.net] recent [somethingpositive.net] comic [somethingpositive.net] strips [somethingpositive.net]. I'd mod him insightful, but mod points don't seem to work off slashdot for some reason....
As far as Card's stated views [ornery.org], he makes a better case than most religious zealots as for why gay marriage is a bad idea from a sociological standpoint. He's at least willing to argue from a sociology standpoint, which while not as rock solid a science as physics, are at least an improvement over "Thuh Bible saiyz so."
Not that his argument is convincing. I think several of his assertions in the (typical) article I noted are made with insuficient justification (EG: "Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization") or just plain wrong ("Calling a homosexual contract 'marriage' [...] will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization"). I think he is right to be concerned about the continued impact of some earlier social changes from the early to mid-20th century. The changes that have weakened "the family" over the last 50 years, that have led to the symptomatic high divorce rates and working single parents, have in turn caused major problem on a lot of levels, and that the present situation has Major Problems. Unfortunately, he sees allowing gays to marry as yet another step towards doom, instead of potentially increasing the number and variety of stable model family units for children to imprint off of, in the event that they are in a disfuntional family.
He also doesn't get that by prohibiting gays from marrying, it artificially and unjustly creates a legal discrimination of heterosexual non-reporoductive partnerships versus homosexual non-reproductive partnerships. Of course, his reference to Plessy versus Fergesson [bgsu.edu] when condemning judicial activism in his followup shows he's closer to a legal idiot than a legal scholar-- that case upheld the law as legislated all the way.
His worry for society is well placed, but his fears have the wrong target. Frankly, most of this attention deficit generation seems to lack the long-term focus and the ability to compromise that seems necessary for maintaining a stable partnership. The problem is further compounded by the last several decades' economic strains on the family; now, two working parents seems all but required. The present situation is dangerous, but trying to force the clock back will trigger disaster; though it has risks, further change offers hope.
As for his wrtiting, Card isn't worth buying in hardcover (except perhaps Ender's Game itself), but I've still picked up some of his more recent books in paperback after checking them out from the local library. As for the movie... I'll wait for the reviews.
Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? (Score:5, Interesting)
He was popular and funny and accessible. If I were to compare his works to anyone today, it would be Andrew Lloyd Weber.