Ender’s Game
discussion
Ender's Game Movie Sequel Petition
date
newest »
newest »
I loved the movie. It was very well made. I am definitly signingthe petition.
Candy wrote: "I loved the movie. It was very well made. I am definitly signingthe petition."Thanks Candy!
No thanks.The direct sequels (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind) would be possible, but really wouldn't work that well as films imo. Think of how much was cut out of Ender's Game to fit it into a movie, and then consider that the sequels are each at least twice as long as the first book. Add the fact that there is a lot of action that takes place in situations that can't really be shown in film - how would you effectively illustrate Jayne hopping inside and outside for example - and you can start to see that it's unlikely to be a success.
The Shadow series would work better, but they've utterly messed that up by mixing up all the characters in the first film. A number of the key characters from the Shadow series didn't exist in the film, and most of those who were included had their identities mashed up. Since their nationalities and personalities are key to their roles in the Shadow series, that would make it a nightmare to untangle what's actually supposed to happen.
Either way, there is no doubt that they would chop and change everything from characters to plot and pacing, and end up with a completely different story - one that is far weaker and less inspiring than the original - as they did with the first film.
RaptorSaur wrote: "No thanks.The direct sequels (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind) would be possible, but really wouldn't work that well as films imo. Think of how much was cut out of Ender's Ga..."
Well said! The sequels to Ender's Game were so very philosophical and slow by comparison that any movie adapted from them would likely be very long and boring. And then there are the prequels and spinoffs which were nothing but more of the same. Hollywood does seem to love making movies like these, but not when it comes to novel adaptations.
And given Card's virulent homophobic views and his political campaigns against gays, I'd much rather sign a petition that prevents a sequel, mainly to make sure this cynical bigot and his cause to outlaw tolerance do not benefit any further from public endorsement.
Matthew wrote: "I'd much rather sign a petition that prevents a sequel."So, you're pro-war and pro-genocide. I bet your Jewish friends find you fun at parties.
Bill wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I'd much rather sign a petition that prevents a sequel."So, you're pro-war and pro-genocide. I bet your Jewish friends find you fun at parties."
What a stupid conclusion to come to. As anyone with half a brain would notice from my statement, I'm in favor of all forms of tolerance, which this man does not embrace and is therefore a hypocrite. And considering the watered down nature of the book's moral, at once embracing genocide as a necessity, then claiming it's wrong as an afterthought, your logic is also incredibly weak. Hell, I might as well accuse you of being a homophobe for defending him. But then again, I'm not a recriminating moron like you.
Still, it's good to see you are still cyber stalking me like the little joke of a man you are. I thought for your last communique that you were hiding out in your house and waiting to see if I would come around to fight you. Seriously, how stupid and psycho are you that you would think anyone would see that other than a completely idiot and sick thing to say? But then again, you always did betray the signs of bipolar disorder. Good-day, bitch!
Matthew wrote: "What a stupid conclusion to come to."Is that how you explain your neo-Nazi skinhead self to your friends and colleagues? That's kind of sad... but I guess any camouflage works to keep you in polite society, eh?
While Matthew is stewing in the corner trying to come up with a witty (to him) comeback (or personal attack... seriously, kids, he's a bully, and should be treated as such)....Sheena-kay wrote: "Right now there a no plans to make a sequel to Ender's Game movie."
Let's sit down and understand why this isn't such a bad thing.
First of all, you have to understand the core of modern Hollywood:
Laziness.
See, the big studios have become complacent and risk-averse to the point where, if a movie idea doesn't fall into a neat formula (or isn't being paid for by Scientologists), it's tossed aside for some low-budget second- (or third-) tier studio to try and make it into a movie.
Ever wonder why the market is flooded with romantic comedies and superhero movies? They are almost guaranteed to put asses in seats. Anything else is a risk to be thrown aside, probably for Troma or Full Moon to try to produce and market (direct to video, of course).
Then, you have the script "writers" who are too busy to read and understand the source material, preferring a Cliff Notes summary and their own "creative" ideas. By the time their "homage" to the original is done, it doesn't look at all like the novel.
Exhibit A: Starship Troopers. The novel had an excellent plot, and while it was critical of the military, it still retained some respect for the military and its traditions. The movie... it kind of waved the book over the celluloid it would be filmed on, then took an industrial laxative and shit all over it. Heinlein would have been embarrassed.
Finally, there's the filming itself. So many of the older actors are making obscene amounts of money and are willing to just mail in their performances (Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull springs to mind), while the younger stars are too busy pouting and looking "pretty" to actually act (hello, Kristen Stewart). The result is uneven acting and no real character development.
BUT HEY! None of that matters, because CGI is here to cover those critical flaws. It's like David Copperfield, or the Wizard of Oz ("Pay no attention to the lack of real drama, because HERE'S A CITY-BLOCK SIZE EXPLOSION!" said Michael Bay before the release of every Transformers movie).
It's not like they took Ender's Game seriously, anyway... it got a release date in that crease between summer popcorn flick and Oscar contender, so you had to know they didn't even care about the first movie, much less any sequels.
So while I wish you all the best in regards to your petition, I will also not hold my breath and hope that films for Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind never see daylight, out of respect for the source material.
Bill wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I'd much rather sign a petition that prevents a sequel."So, you're pro-war and pro-genocide. I bet your Jewish friends find you fun at parties."
Not only is that an unwarranted and obscene personal attack, it shows a real lack of intellectual integrity or a basic ability to follow an intelligent conversation. You should find the character to apologize for making such a statement in public.
Gary wrote: " You should find the character to apologize for making such a statement in public."Why? You are unaware of Matthew's several personal attacks on me, simply because I dared to respectfully disagree with him on one subject. He has never apologized for said attacks, or even acknowledged that he was even in the wrong... so no. No apologies to bullies.
Bill wrote: "Why? You are unaware of Matthew's several personal attacks on me, simply because I dared to respectfully disagree with him on one subject. He has never apologized for said attacks, or even acknowledged that he was even in the wrong... so no. No apologies to bullies. "Are you talking about his response to your attack in post #8? If so, that was after you made your accusation. If you're talking about things that have been said in other threads, I can only suggest that following someone with whom you've had an argument and posting outlandish accusations in an unrelated thread is not an emotionally mature (or even emotionally stable) response. Again, you should find the character to accept responsibility for your own behavior.
Gary wrote: "..."Actually, the fact that I managed to pick exactly the one person who has a problem with me on this site was an accident... I just picked someone at random to make a point, and it just so happened to be him. I thought I had blocked him; apparently, Goodreads did an update or a server reset or database upgrade that unset the block flag.
As to the rest... why do you care? Are you white-knighting some random person on the internet because you're bored, or do you actually know this particular internet tough guy? Do you really believe that you can shame someone into apologizing for some comment you disagree with? What exactly is your stake in this?
(In case you're wondering... no apology will be forthcoming. Any attempt to coerce, persuade, cajole, extort, or otherwise extract said apology is wasted.)
Gary wrote: "If you're talking about things that have been said in other threads, I can only suggest that following someone with whom you've had an argument and posting outlandish accusations in an unrelated thread is not an emotionally mature (or even emotionally stable) response. Again, you should find the character to accept responsibility for your own behavior."I'm guessing this.
Bill wrote: "Gary wrote: As to the rest... why do you care? Are you white-knighting some random person on the internet because you're bored, or do you actually know this particular internet tough guy? Do you really believe that you can shame someone into apologizing for some comment you disagree with? What exactly is your stake in this?"
I'm completely with Gary on this. Regardless of whatever history there is between you and Matthew, you hijacking this thread with insults and aggression is not what I'd expect from someone rational. Assuming that what you say about Goodreads resetting the fact that you had blocked him is true, how does that justify your reaction to seeing his posts again? Why wouldn't you just block him again if it offends you that much?
As to why anyone would care, frankly I hate it when people act in the way that you have. It's childish and completely unnecessary - the way to deal with bullies and trolls is to ignore them, not to continue arguments with them - or even worse, seek them out. It also happens to get in the way of the discussion - which is the whole reason I go on this site.
Hokay....In any case, there was a boycott about the first film, as I'm sure some folks will know. So, that's something of a hurdle to overcome, given that it got an awful lot of attention (on the Internet, at least.)
Somebody pretty influential would have to jump on board to get a sequel made, and at this point, I think OSC is toxic enough that most of the principals would quietly bow out rather than have to put out more press releases about how the book and the author are two different things, blah, blah, blah. The big name guys (Ford, Kingsly) all have other films in their history that they could mine for sequels should their career(s) hit a rough patch.... Hood might be able to step up if he's really passionate about a sequel, but I don't think he has that kind of juice in the industry. (Hard to say.)
See Bill? You have no friends and even less in the way of dignity. Still, it's funny to watch you squirm and try to justify your hostility with self-righteous hypocrisy. And considering that I blocked you a long time ago, any response you make would be futile unless I choose to read it. But I anticipate you will respond anyway, because trolls like you can't survive without attention.
RaptorSaur wrote: "..."Let's take this a step at a time, because I'm bored and the truth is more bizarre than you will ever believe.
First off, about a year ago, the guy everyone is sticking up for tried to bully me off of a respectfully-voiced position that Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is not a dystopian novel. In fact, he decided not only to disagree with me, but to get personal, and to flag my responses to his insults (while conveniently forgetting that he started the personal attacks in the first place). We had further words over another thread, I withdrew from the thread and blocked him, and that was that.
There... that's out of the way.
About a week ago, a friend of mine posted on Facebook that he was watching Ender's Game on DVD. I brought up the whole "Card doesn't support gay marriage, so the movie was boycotted" angle, and jokingly said that if I saw anyone talk about how they didn't watch the movie because of it, I would straight-up call them pro-war, pro-genocide.
Why?
Lack of access by gay couples to marriage has never killed anyone. In fact, it's only in the past few years that anyone has given more than a single tin-plated iota of a shit about it.
War has killed billions over the years. Genocide has wiped out significant chunks of several populations during those years, and continues to do so today. Child soldiers, ripped from their families and brainwashed to fight, have been slaughtered in Africa over the past decade.
Ender's Game comes out very powerfully against all of these things. It's a very important book, and people who are too lazy to read could have learned some of that from the movie...
...except people were too busy crucifying the author, because he doesn't agree with them on an issue that in all likelihood doesn't impact them AT ALL.
So I said what I said in this thread. By sheer dumb luck, I managed to call out the one person on all of Goodreads that has any issue with me, because seriously... how rare is the name "Matthew," for Christ's sake?
I won't apologize for what I said, no matter how much people try to pressure me on it, because I am right in what I said, I firmly believe that focusing so much on the beliefs of Mr. Card takes too much away from a positive message of peace, understanding between races and a stand against weaponizing kids ...and seriously, Matthew's a complete asshole.
Furthermore, I do not, nor will I ever, apologize to bullies. I've was pushed around for my size and for my interest in reading for my entire childhood, have permanent scars on my face from beatings I took from people like Matthew, and refuse to back down from any fight, regardless of where it is.
Bill wrote: "..."I'm just going to ignore the whole thing between you and Matthew.
Moving on from that, first off I think you've expressed your point in an unnecessarily confrontational way. If you wanted people to consider your thoughts on the subject, then a reasoned and rational approach would make them far more receptive to thinking about your argument. As it is you didn't even make any argument at all, and it came across as you just being insulting. After that, most people would feel justified in ignoring anything else you say, so you'd have then lost the chance to discuss what you think.
On to your actual point, I completely disagree. It's ludicrous to claim that boycotting this film because you don't want to fund the campaign against gay marriage makes you pro-war and pro-genocide. The reason people boycotted the film is not that "Card doesn't support gay marriage", it's that he actively campaigns against it, and his actions include donating money to the anti-gay marriage cause. Buying a ticket to see the film potentially enriches Card - even if he doesn't get royalties per ticket, high sales would increase the chances of him selling other scripts. It's a reasonable response, therefore, to boycott the film if you do not wish to fund anti-gay marriage campaigns.
It's a completely illogical leap from "these people don't want to contribute to the campaign against gay marriage" to "these people support war and genocide". The two viewpoints are utterly irrelevant to each other, and don't interact in any way in this instance. The fact that people's reason for boycotting is that they are pro-tolerance and equality makes your stance even more indefensible.
Interestingly, some people would disagree with your fundamental analysis of the book - many people believe that Ender is a clear analogue of Hitler, and that the book's excusing of his flaws is actually a pro-holocaust message. If you combine that viewpoint with yours, then buying a ticket is pro-Hitler and pro-holocaust.
Frankly, claiming that buying a ticket for/boycotting a film means you agree/disagree with it's message is nonsensical. I own a copy of Sweeney Todd, that doesn't mean that I sympathise with the emotional problems of mass murderers. Films are entertainment. You can enjoy one without agreeing with everything it says. You can also dislike or completely ignore a film without disagreeing with it's message.
Insisting you're "right" without entertaining any discussion is a bit over the top - other people will undoubtedly view things completely differently to you. Entering a discussion without entertaining the possibility that the other person may in fact be correct is pointless.
RaptorSaur wrote: "I think you've expressed your point in an unnecessarily confrontational way."I like the direct approach. Monkeying around with circumlocutions and rhetoric is boring. Too many people ignore good ol' fashioned "shock value" as a valid approach.
As for the rest... I'll let some random guy who commented on a friend's FB post say it for me:
Some Random Guy said: "It's really time to let people have their own opinions and not crucify them for it. I'm neither pro nor con gay marriage, but when people start losing their jobs over being con, isn't that as bad as people losing their jobs over being pro? It's a fucking double standard and what I DO hate is hypocrisy."
Bill wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: "I think you've expressed your point in an unnecessarily confrontational way."I like the direct approach. Monkeying around with circumlocutions and rhetoric is boring. Too many ..."
I'm also a fan of the direct approach. However, in my view you should explain what you say if it's as outlandish as what you said, since otherwise your message is lost because people will mentally label you as a troll. You can retain the directness and shock value by keeping your initial sentence, but then appeal to rationality once you have people's attention by explaining yourself. You provided no explanation, so your attention grabbing was pointless and came across as aggression and idiocy.
The act of boycotting a film does not prevent OSC from having an opinion, or crucify him for it. It stops the person considering buying a ticket from potentially contributing to his funding of those campaigns, and increases publicity about his views so that others can choose whether they feel the same or not. In no way does that stop OSC from talking about what he wants. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone's opinion has to be treated as valuable. It just means that they have the right to say what they think.
What both you and that random guy are failing to understand is that it's not about making people lose their jobs for their opinions, and it's not about preventing people from expressing their opinions. It's about people not paying money into the pockets of people who will then spend that money campaigning against something they believe in.
If some filmmaker wanted to fund another 9/11, would you buy tickets to see his films despite knowing that you'd be effectively paying for someone to fly into a skyscraper? Personally, I'd boycott that guy too, even if the moral of the film he made was "everyone must love each other".
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
However there is still hope. If you want Ender's Shadow to be made please sign the petition link. The more people sign up the more likely a sequel will be considered. If Vampire Academy have fans fighting for a sequel then why not us too?
https://www.change.org/petitions/lion...