Ender's Game Trailer Released 470
The first trailer has been released for the movie adaptation of Orson Scott Card's sci-fi classic Ender's Game. It gives us a good look at Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff, Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham, and Hugo's Asa Butterfield as Ender. It also demonstrates just how much money they put into the special effects for this movie.
FX spaceships are cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
FX spaceships are cheap. The effects are no better than Iron Sky. Since this has Big Name Actors, they probably spent too much.
In the book, the adults barely appear. But if they paid for Harrison Ford, they probably let him talk too much.
I can't see it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:5, Insightful)
[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?
Re:I can't see it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really sure you read the same book I did. Ender's game isn't about "just following orders"... I can't think of a single character who has that as their motivation at any level. Everyone involved is either being lied to and manipulated or is trying to save the world by any means necessary. If you insist on making it about the military, I would take it as an attack on spending soldiers' lives on wars that the soldiers know and care nothing about. Especially since most of the people doing the fighting 'on screen' were drafted into the situation long before they could make that decision for themselves (even genius children can be manipulated).
But really it should be a story of "the ends justify the means" and questioning if they really do or not. Ender's Game is a story about adults who put kids through hell, leading to nervous breakdowns and at least a few deaths. All because they think it's the only way to save the world and in the end not only were they wrong, but their crimes were far worse than we had been led to believe.
Re:Climax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:2, Insightful)
What a moronic argument, Nietzsche fucked some animal in a street, does that mean we should disregard him as a philosopher?
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art. So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
If I am correct in understanding this line of reasoning, it must be a terrible burden to bear. For consistency's sake, it would implicate you in the wrong doing of anyone to whom you pay for services, whether a news-paper editor who runs the local daily, a car mechanic, or a doctor. We could imagine the editor, the doctor, and the mechanic attend rallies on the weekend where they say things we consider reprehensible. But according to this line of thought, by paying for the weekly classified ads, getting bronchitis treated, and having brakes checked, is funding reprehensible speech. To be truly consistent in this line of reasoning, you'd need to evaluate the politics (or morals, if you prefer) of everyone you interact with in civil society before exchanging money with them.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society. One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It may be a fine movie, but I don't want any portion of my ticket price to be funding anti-gay hate speech, period.
Tolerance goes both ways. It is far too easy to claim the high road and seek to prevent those with different viewpoints from being heard. It is another thing entirely to stand and defend a persons right to freedom of speech when you don't like their message. If you can't acknowledge his right to speak his mind, then you are no better than he is.
There is a big difference between a person acknowledging his right to speak his mind and buying the megaphone for him to speak it loudly.
so its basically hunger games in space (Score:4, Insightful)
annnnnnnnnnnnnnd thats why its getting made. not because of its grand artistry or whatever the f**** excuses people use.
Re: every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read both books, and as far as I can recall, the comparison is fairly apt.
There's nothing particularly ground-breaking in either, despite Slashdot's glorification of Ender's Game as some sort of nerd canon. It's pretty much EVERY sci-fi/fantasy story ever told:
It's Mary Sue Fantasy, dressed up with a bit of techno-babble about faster than light communication. Hunger Games didn't bring much new to the genre either (other than the film adaptation's use of the talents of Jennifer Lawrence, who I happen to think is a primo piece of ass second only to the adorable Anna Kendrick) - it's Lord of the Flies + Running Man + Logan's Run + every other dystopian fantasy you've ever read.
Neither of them are particularly ground-breaking literature, both are light, relatively enjoyable takes on established genre fiction, and neither of them are as momentously, insightfully philosophical as their fans try to make them out to be. The reason teenage girls like Hunger Games is because it has a tough teenage girl protagonist. The reason geek boys like Enders Game is because it has a loner misfit boy who turns out to have special powers that let him save the world, even though he's unappreciated by the society that birthed him. Each book provides its fans with the hero they wish they were.
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't look at the superficial plot. Books are more than that. Look at the characters and how they interact with other characters and how they change.
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: "would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it."
I would not object if GP thought Ender's Game was homophobic and therefore refused to give money for it. But based on his desire to get the movie through bittorrent, GP thinks Ender's Game is something he'd enjoy. His objection, therefore, isn't to this particular work of art, but strictly to the views of the artist. So you're quite right to say that he doesn't deem the artist fit to receive money.
To make clear my objection to this, I'd ask whether the same attitude ought to be applied in other spheres of life. If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
Or to put this another way, imagine a different set of circumstances. Imagine an evangelical walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee. This evangelical receives very good service and is about to give a tip but notices the barista has an earring in his right ear. What would we think of this evangelical if he did not then give the tip because he regarded the barista as unfit to receive it? (Mind, I'm not trying to say all evangelicals would do such a thing--some undoubtedly would but most are just ordinary folks like the rest of us.) Is it anyway to participate in a society, not to distinguish between a worker and his work when the work is not what we find reprehensible?
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it may support his efforts to broadcast those views (I find it hard to believe that he doesn't already have enough money to do this adequately, anyway), but buying a copy of one of his books, or watching one of his movies, does nothing to "validate" his views.
To think about this in a more sensible way: you've spent 30 seconds reading this post of mine - you've given me some of your time & attention. Does this mean you now automatically and unreservedly agree with every opinion I hold, now and forever, on any topic - even those unrelated to anything I've written here?
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a lie. You are a liar.
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:4, Insightful)
You base all your purchasing decisions based on the personalities of who created the products? Do you read Shakespeare or avoid it because he wasn't a thoroughly modern politically correct person? Do you discount the writings of Jefferson because he owned slaves? Do you see Lincoln as someone who freed the slaves or instead as the dictator who suspended constitutional rights? Do you interview all people in the supply chain before buying, only use open source software if you can check the bios of everyone who worked on it, etc?
What about your family? Disowned all your ancestors as worthless scum who don't follow your political views? In the political war of Us vs Them you can't go soft and let some of Them go free.
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an interesting point but isn't there a difference between giving money to someone alive right now who is actively working against your interests and reading the works of someone who has been dead for over 200 years?
I think you need to recast it in other terms.
For example- if you were sick and had to go to the emergency room, would you turn down the assistance of a racist, homophobic doctor?
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh... and in the end it's my money so I get to decide where it goes. I reduced my consumption of Domino's Pizza tremendously as a related example.
I won't be a jerk in mixed company- but when I have the choice, I choose another company.
For example- Papa Johns tried to be jerks but relented under tremendous pressure. Darden's (Olive Garden) tried to be jerks and relented under pressure. Your consumer pressure can make the world a better place.
Re:Climax (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it's a morally complex point, I have little doubt that part will be cut from the film.
Hell they are flat out telling him what they are doing. When did they ever admit to their goals in the novel?
Quite. What a miserable mess. They rewrote it basically from scratch. Kept the names and the We Win part and redid everything else. Half of the point of the book was Ender didn't know. That he fought every single battle thinking it was just particularly grueling training. That the military lied to him and almost everyone else throughout the entire book. Little doubt? How about no doubt whatsoever? How can he "come to a realization" when that entire element has been completely removed from the plot? 5 seconds of footage is enough to know they completely rewrote the destruction of the alien planet. Where is Ender's despair? Where is his giving up on the "training"? The only part that's left is his decision to just blow it all up with the Little Doctor, and they turned that into a triumph, rather than the training failure Ender believed it to be.
No better than I expected. There was no way in hell they were going to do the book justice. Odds went up after Hunger Games, I guess. I could have sworn audiences would rebel against kids killing kids, but I constantly underestimate the bloodthirstiness of contemporary audiences. Still, looks like they failed, as expected, despite being able to keep the violence.
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:5, Insightful)
But it also highlights the fact that hindsight is always 20/20.
The information given by Mazer towards the end basically points out that humanity had no other foreseeable option. (Adult) human strategists were incapable of giving tactically brilliant but suicidal for anyone chosen maneuvers. The long travel time for fleets meant ANY force sent would automatically be obsolete by the time it arrived causing any REASONABLE commander to simply withdraw. The military forces the Buggers were able to field we numerically so overwhelming that defensive strategies by humans were hopeless. Logical answer? Suicidal, "deal with what you got", "Never tell me the odds!" attacks.
The Bugger Queen only reinforces this fact. Once the Bugger Queen realized what they had done, they understood that they would have retaliated the same way the humans did had they suffered the same experence. Even if the Buggers wanted to end the war, they were aware the biological/psychological differences prevented communications (and therefore diplomatic means) from happening.
Were the crimes of the leadership bad? Yes. Were they irredeemably, unforgivably bad as they're made out to be in the sequels? In hindsight, Yes; in context, No.
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, when you give money to famous people who use it to become more famous and they share views which disagree with yours you are funding a future you don't want to live in. They have more influence than you do, and you're helping them use it to create a lesser world from your viewpoint. You have a choice as to where you spend your money, and while it can be difficult to determine what the results of your actions will be, when it's obvious then you really owe it to yourself to change your purchasing habits.
Re:Torn (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about Gays being evil, it's about Gays being pitiful. The most obvious example is Anton from the Shadow series (I can't remember which novel the events take place in, perhaps spread between the second and third books). The first time you meet Anton, he's a depressed, suicidal, utterly devoid of purpose or direction and just so happens to be gay. His homosexuality isn't really the cause of his depression or other problems, that stems from things in his past both that he did and that were done to him. The next time you see him, he's happy and engaged and helpful. What changed? He got married to a young woman. It's mentioned that physical intimacy is an issue, but they're working through it. Gay Anton is a depressed, suicidal mess. "Straight" Anton is happy, mentally healthy, and genuinely wants to help.
Company vs. person (Score:5, Insightful)
By all means disagree with the guy but disagreeing, even vehemently, with him does not mean that you can't admire his skills as an author (although to be honest I'm not impressed with those either).
Re:I'd be excited about this movie, except... (Score:4, Insightful)
He's an active practicing Mormon who wrote an article for a Mormon audience about how someone can't be a practicing Homosexual and dedicated to the Homosexual scene and also be dedicated to the Mormon church.
Presuming you know anything about the Mormon church, is there anything in that sentence you disagree with? His article was basically you can't serve two masters.
This is all much ado about nothing.
Re:Company vs. person (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Company vs. person (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I'm saying that I won't give my money which I spent my time on to support a person I don't like.
There is more entertainment (and more pizza...) than I can possibly consume.
The ideals of the US are free speech -- which means the government shouldn't censor you.
And the best way to confront free speech you do not like is with more free speech. And the supreme court (as you may recalled) drew an equivalence between our money and our speech.
I liked the book.. when I was in my 20s. I read it once. Never reread it.
Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise didn't become bad actors when they showed themselves to be major asshats. But-- after they did, I didn't enjoy their work any more. I can't watch a mel gibson film without hearing that angry racist spouse beater and I can't go to a cruise film without hearing him ragging on Brooke Shields ( a really nice person ) and saying that stupid shit about post partum depression.
I'm not *obligated* to give my money to anyone to support them.
Re:every time i see "Ender's Game" (Score:4, Insightful)
When you say "they" I think you missed part of the point. A huge part of speaker for the dead was the power of the stories of the Hive Queen and the Hegemon. Ender's self hatred was so powerful and his empathy with the hive queen so strong that he was able to tell the tale of her life and death and make himself the villain. As humanity took over the planets that the buggers/formics originally colonized, they realized the sadness inherent in that loss, and the horror of a single person killing an entire "beautiful" race.