Slashdot Mirror


Benioff and Weiss To Write Ender's Game Script

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*

507 comments

  1. Just another movie to not see by crivens · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh yeah, this will be another movie to not see. What a great decision that was!

    I guess dollars come before making a quality movie. Though I'd love to see what Peter Jackson could produce.

    1. Re:Just another movie to not see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this book was actually good, but I believe they did a knock off of this type of movie when they did that crappy TOYS garbage with the Army trying to get involved with the toy industry. Stupid stupid army....

      http://spamatwork.blogspot.com/

    2. Re:Just another movie to not see by mankey+wanker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am no expert on this writer, but I did enjoy the Ender series. But yeah, his politics turned me right off and I didn't buy a single one of the books - they were all borrowed from the library.

      As best as I can make out, Card is probably all of the following:
      1. a conservative, although I think he identifies himself as a democrat
      2. LDS, a.k.a Mormon
      3. in favor of the war in Iraq

      I apologize in advance to those that will think me intolerant, but being LDS is a huge mind-fuck. If you don't see it that way, that's okay with me. But it basically suggests to me that Card is not playing with a full deck.

    3. Re:Just another movie to not see by DeusExMalex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      honestly, i couldn't care less about his politics. his books are good and that's all i care about concerning whether or not i read his books.

    4. Re:Just another movie to not see by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Nah, his books might seem good at first. I've read the entire Ender Series so far, and the Bean saga has been written at a level that should embarass Card. Especially the latest book, Shadow of the Hegemon or whatever the latest one is called. It was just awful, with people running around (for the entire book) to save unborn disgarded fetus's, which were stolen. The entire premise of the Bean character is that he was genetically engineered, and how terrible it is to do this because unforseen effects caused him to be a freakshow. So don't make it out to seem like his politics doesn't effect his writing, it certainly does. And the Achillies plot if fucking stupid as hell.

    5. Re:Just another movie to not see by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Haha. Even as an atheist, I was with him until he started talking about schooling, and it's role in civilizing children. You could more easily civilize them by giving them a spear and sending them out to live in the jungle until age 18. Just goes to prove that christians only have good ideas as long as they agree with their bible, eh?

    6. Re:Just another movie to not see by DeusExMalex · · Score: 1

      honestly i don't care if his politics affect his writing - i enjoy his books. what, should he not be allowed to write books because of his politics?

    7. Re:Just another movie to not see by drsquare · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why wouldn't you want to see it? If troy's anything to go by I personally I can't wait to see it.

      What exactly is Ender's Game anyway? A game of some sort I presume?

    8. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You misspelled "Mormon".

      I don't really care what nonsense he believes, so long as he doesn't push it on ME. Just as I don't care what nonsense *you* believe, so long as it doesn't impact ME. :)

      Cripes, one of the best places to check out hot new SF/F authors is the "L.Ron Hubbard's Writers of the Future Contest" series. The fact that L.Ron was a flaming nutcase, and that the Co$ is the biggest baddest scam around, doesn't detract from the quality of these young writers.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Just another movie to not see by SunFan · · Score: 2, 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?

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    10. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Troy was *great*. (See my previous rants on this page :)

      Ender's Game is a book by Orson Scott Card ... See, we're at interstellar-war with the Buggers, and it's not going well. We need a fresh approach. Ender was, um, a fresh approach. :) You've really got to read the book, tho -- and for ghu's sake DON'T read any spoilers first.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Just another movie to not see by lgw · · Score: 1

      OSC wrote my favorite reference for hacking the Commodore 64 back in the day. He may be a loon, but he's at least a geek loon and we should probably cut him some slack. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Just another movie to not see by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Just like Dune, 2001, Fundation, etc... My best recomendation is to stick with the first one, or the first block of the serie, and maybe, just maybe, check one of the advanced books (i.e. Dune 5 was not very bad, neither Enders Shadow). But long series have high and low points, usually with high points at the very beginning and with with some rare great books in the middle (ok, Discworld is a good exception :) so you must know the risks of following a series of books.

      About the movie, cant say it will be good, bad, or whatever at least before it is done. It could be even better than the book, or give a complementary look if not very faithful to the letter. After at least watching a review or a rating cant say i will be willing to see it. For now, well, just hope it will be well done.

    13. Re:Just another movie to not see by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      I don't really care what nonsense he believes, so long as he doesn't push it on ME. Just as I don't care what nonsense *you* believe, so long as it doesn't impact ME. :)

      You have little to fear. In his own words,

      "Fiction is a very poor tool for conversion, because if I label it as fiction then I'm telling you it's a pack of lies from the very start."

      The most religiously-active part of the novel which I can recall is when he describes how Ender's parents were closet Catholics who were dissatisfied with the state's birth/population-control policies.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    14. Re:Just another movie to not see by Tassach · · Score: 1

      No, Card should keep his politics out of his writing because when he tries to mix them, the results suck.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    15. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yep. In fact, I think Card's best work is LOST BOYS (his only book besides Ender's Game [up to the Bugger Queen] that I read all in one sitting) -- which is set right in a Morman community, with strong Mormon values and even normal Mormon events, like "Family Home Evening". It *works* because the Mormon community is used only to create a strong sense of setting and personalities, not to proselytize.

      I picked up a signed preview copy of LOST BOYS off a freebie table. Good find, eh? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:Just another movie to not see by joetheappleguy · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, this will be another movie to not see. What a great decision that was! I guess dollars come before making a quality movie. Though I'd love to see what Peter Jackson could produce.
      And Peter Jackson didn't change the original story in the LOTR?

      Peter Jackson is no different than most other directors with their egos thinking that they could do the original story better and not leaving well enough alone, he made a visually stunning movie, but story wise it's just good enough to keep him in the graces of Tolkien fans.
    17. Re:Just another movie to not see by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      In Ender's shadow you can see how been is a cold blooded killer and atheist in the begining but change totally during the course of the novel and start quoting stuff from the bible. It doesn't even mention in the book when he actually read the bible or converted. With the exeption of that not very subtle message, the rest of the book is good.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    18. Re:Just another movie to not see by Simowen · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear!

    19. Re:Just another movie to not see by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Lots of authors mix their politics, philosophies and religious beliefs into their books. Herbert, an ecologist, mixed his scientific experience and his philosophies into his books all the time. However, he embeds them into the works themselves. The world of Arrakis is an embodiment of Herbert's ecological opinions and experience, and books like The Godmakers and Destination: Void are as much expositions on his philosophical views as SF novels. He does this without being preachy by making these organic elements of the story. Card simply isn't that good a writer, and thus should really stay away from it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Just another movie to not see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I know why I'm not going to see this movie, because I im not in the habit of supporting rabid fundamentalists.

      What exactly was rabid about the linked article. He used practically no religious justification to support his conclusions. It was primarily a socialogical arguement, with a hint of social darwinism. That is hardly what I would expect from a "rabid fundamentalist". While I don't agree with all of his beliefs, this article is hardly the example to hang your hat on if you are trying to show taint or negative bias.

    21. Re:Just another movie to not see by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      Since LotR,it seems like every time some one doesn't like the writer/producer/director/pet monkey assigned to a film Peter Jackson's name comes up as person/monkey they should have used instead. Get over it. tLotR are some of my favorite films of all time, but there are other directors out there.

    22. Re:Just another movie to not see by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      I just don't financially support those holding views with which I disagree. That's one of my own political strategies. There's nothing hypocritical in it.

      In the case of someone whose views I support in part, and disagree with in part - I try to simply support the idea and not the person.

    23. Re:Just another movie to not see by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Wow - he's really insane:

      " Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

      Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

      So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.
      "

      He thinks so much of marriage that he recommends sham gay "cover" marriages. That's what's keeping our civilization

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Just another movie to not see by gabec · · Score: 1
      As the wiccans say:

      "An ye harm none, do what ye will."

    25. Re:Just another movie to not see by foooo · · Score: 1

      Some of his religious motifs give me pause... but on the whole I like OSC. I'm not a religious person, but I am conservative and I'm glad that there are some fiction authors out there for me to support.

      Just because some people think he's a loon doesn't mean he doesn't have an audience. And while you may consider me a loon as well, I would posit that we just have a difference of opinion on politics. I don't usually try to enter into political arguments by starting off with marginalization and name calling. But that's just me.

      ~foooo

    26. Re:Just another movie to not see by yasth · · Score: 1

      I think it is more that some feel betrayed I mean he writes a book (Ender's Game) where a lot of the book was recognizing others. With a strong thread of not hating just because one is told to hate. Then he writes Speaker for the Dead, which strongly pushes accepting people as they are.

      Then he comes down hard on a side that is intolerant (NB there are times when it is fine to be intolerant, no judgement is used here) and that shook people. It would be like having Ghandi scream "Kill them all". Few people really have an issue with whatever you might believe (mostly because they really don't care to know), nor do they care what any long time conservative talking head feels, but OSC sudenly looked deceptive. There is a relationship between a reader and the author, and like any other relationship, deception is poison.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    27. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But Bean is an utter sociopath, willing to use anyone or anything if he sees it as needful to his own survival. So if quoting the bible furthers this goal, Bean will quote from the bible. Which does not mean he converted, only that to him, the bible was a useful survival tool.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Precisely. There are lots of other ways to phrase it, but that's the most succinct :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:Just another movie to not see by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      The point is that he is not anymore at the end with no real explanation of how it happened exept with quotes from the Bible.

      I'd describe more precise stuff but I don't want to give spoilers...

      The first book however rocks and is without preaching (or at least I didn't noticed any).

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    30. Re:Just another movie to not see by Reziac · · Score: 1

      REAL point being that Card often makes no sense! The Alvin Maker books are prime examples. (As far as I got, anyway. By which point I was mightily sick of lugging around a golden anvil.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. From the "Who Cares" department by mattspammail · · Score: 0, Troll

    and the list of who cares just keeps shrinking...

    --
    Now accepting PayPal donations!
  3. Hemos: by Tim_F · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In what way did Troy suck any less than your favourite movie of all time? What makes your favourite movie your favourite movie? What have you done to encourage a discussion here by posting such a flamebait comment?

    1. Re:Hemos: by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Slashdot 'editors' are pretty much the same as movie 'directors'. Their 'interpretation' usually 'sucks'. Such as it were.

    2. Re:Hemos: by to_kallon · · Score: 0

      In what way did Troy suck any less than your favourite movie of all time?

      i think hemos' point is that it did *not* suck less. i'm not very good at picking up these subtleties, but i'm reasonably certain that the implication is that Troy sucked *more*.
      on an unrelated note: kudo points for a creative spelling of favorite.

      --


      The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
      -Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Hemos: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      not creative - canadian

    4. Re:Hemos: by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Informative

      on an unrelated note: kudo points for a creative spelling of favorite.

      Uh, that's how most of the English-speaking worlds spells the word. Unless I am very much mistaken, it's only the US (and US dependencies) where the spelling "favorite" is used instead of "favourite".

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    5. Re:Hemos: by Tim_F · · Score: 1

      The point of wording it the way I was to suggest that his interpretation was subjective. I know a lot of people that liked Troy and that think that Hemos' favourite movie sucked donkey balls.

      Do you get it now?

    6. Re:Hemos: by Otter · · Score: 1
      on an unrelated note: kudo points for a creative spelling of favorite.

      As long as we're being pedantic* -- there's no such thing as a "kudo". "Kudos" is singular, like "ethos" or "pathos".

      (* And as long as I'm being made to feel inferior by the people who can remember which Greek guy in the Iliad is which...)

    7. Re:Hemos: by kwoff · · Score: 1
      Uh, that's how most of the English-speaking worlds spells the word. Unless I am very much mistaken, it's only the US (and US dependencies) where the spelling "favorite" is used instead of "favourite".

      I guess it depends on how you define "English-speaking world". If you go by number of native English speakers, the populations of the main English-speaking countries are (data found in the CIA World Factbook)

      • United Kingdom: 60 million
      • Australia: 20 million
      • Canada: 32.5 million (60% of which is English!)
      • New Zealand: 4 million (Maori also an official language
      • India: 1000 million (but what percentage English -- also the literacy rate is 60%)
      • United States: 290 million (not sure of Spanish percentage)
      So, depending on how you define it, the US might actually have more people spelling it "favorite" instead of "favourite".
    8. Re:Hemos: by TheEternalVortex · · Score: 1

      There are half a billion English speakers in the world, of which some 280 million are in the United States. QED!

    9. Re:Hemos: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum (there's no accounting for taste). That being said, I don't know anybody who actually liked Troy. Even ignoring its historical inaccuracies, it wasn't very good as a film.

      It tried to remove the gods from importance by pitching Helen/Paris as a love affair, but then having focussed upon that, failed to make the relationship believable - and if the viewer can't believe in that relationship, the whole film falls apart. Orlando Bloom is good at looking pretty and being an Elf, but he does not have the actorly chops to make a convincing lead. Diane Kruger, who played Helen, quite frankly was outacted by the wooden horse, and she and Bloom had less chemistry than a canister of argon. Brad Pitt thought that SHOUTING A LOT was a substitute for acting. Peter OToole was on autopilot and Petersen's directing was generally leaden - although he wasn't helped by a dull script.

    10. Re:Hemos: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you are very much mistaken. I am guessing you're from Canada... As it turns out the "ou" spelling was enacted in Canada by Sir John A. McDonald over 100 years ago and it stuck. In England and other English speaking areas a simple 'o' is sufficient. So yes the "ou" spelling is correct only in Canada.

    11. Re:Hemos: by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      New Zealand: 4 million (Maori also an official language)

      Pretty much everyone in New Zealand speaks English. The fact that Maori is an "official language" basically just means that all of the government minitries have Maori names as well as English ones, and Maori shows up in various government-produced documents. Almost no one (if anyone) speaks Maori as a first language, and very few speak it as a second language.

      You can read more about the status of English in India here. Sounds like a pretty high percentage of Indians speak English.

      You also forgot to include the many other members of the Commonwealth, which, since they are former British colonies, will include a lot of English-speakers. To say nothing of the huge number of Europeans who speak English as a second language. Ditto English-speaking Asians.

    12. Re:Hemos: by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      I'll cite as many sources as you did. Non-native English speakers outnumber native English speakers. The US is considered a country of native English speakers. QED.

    13. Re:Hemos: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-native speakers tend to learn US English.

      QED?

    14. Re:Hemos: by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Most educated Indians (ie, virtually all that can read and write) also speak English to some extent. English is used in the classroom to teach subjects like maths and sciences. Also, English literature is widely taught too.

      Your list ignores countries like South Africa (population 43 million), Ireland (population 4 million), most of the Caribbean countries and other members of the Commonwealth. Not to mention the other countries of Europe, where English is taught with English rather than American spellings.

      Whichever way you want to cut it, the US spelling "favorite" is used by less English-speakers than "favourite".

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    15. Re:Hemos: by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you are very much mistaken. I am guessing you're from Canada... As it turns out the "ou" spelling was enacted in Canada by Sir John A. McDonald over 100 years ago and it stuck. In England and other English speaking areas a simple 'o' is sufficient. So yes the "ou" spelling is correct only in Canada.

      An AC talking complete crap: why am I not surprised? "Favourite" is the correct spelling in Britain, Australasia and elsewhere, and the same is true for "colour", "favour", etc.

      In future, if you're going to tell the world and his brother how people in England spell words, please, either get your facts straight or choose a forum where people from England won't be around to cross-examine you. Otherwise, you might end up looking like a fool. Again.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    16. Re:Hemos: by coaxial · · Score: 1

      on an unrelated note: kudo points for a creative spelling of favorite

      Get a fucking education.

    17. Re:Hemos: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no they don't.

      Non-native speakers tend to countries that were former colonies of Britain, or close to former colonies of Britain. They invariably learn British spelling.

      I'll see your QED, and raise you a 5W (Which Was What Was Wanted) :)

    18. Re:Hemos: by seyglass · · Score: 1

      In what way is it possible for this movie to be worse than the actual book? It's not like Ender's Game is one of the great pieces of Western Literature, or even modern science fiction. Middling fair at best. Besides, don't assume that one bad movie makes a bad director - Ridley Scott was capable of both 'Blade Runner' and 'Legend', for example.

    19. Re:Hemos: by Entro-P · · Score: 1

      um, South Africa !!
      Last i checked most of our population speaks english too.

      This is what you get for trusting the same people who said Saddam had WoMD ;)

    20. Re:Hemos: by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Non-native speakers tend to countries that were former colonies of Britain, or close to former colonies of Britain. They invariably learn British spelling.

      That's just bullshit. English is the most widely spoken language on the planet. A sizeable portion of non-native english speakers come from countries that were never parts of the British Empire. American English is what is taught in almost all of those countries. Asian countries come to mind immediately. (Hong Kong and Singapore are exceptions)

  4. David Benioff ? by NoseBag · · Score: 3, Funny

    David Benioff?

    My heart soars like a brick.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  5. news? by CarlinWithers · · Score: 2, Funny

    gee... i can't remember the last time a good book was looking like it was going to be made into a not so good movie.

    1. Re:news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, two good books made into one steaming turd of a movie. I always liked Bean better than Ender, and preferred Shadow over Game.

    2. Re:news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmmm, LOTR?^H^H^H^H^HThe Matrix *sly look*

  6. hmm. by say__10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Troy was not bad but it also was not good. I cannot imagine a movie will do those stories the justice they deserve. I've read through the entire series 3 times and Enders Game itself probably 8-10. Id prefer no movie, but if they do I beg DO NOT FUCK IT UP PLEASE!!!!

    --
    Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
    1. Re:hmm. by Volvogga · · Score: 0

      I concure. But, when you think about it, has anyone ever read a book and then seen a movie adaptation that they didn't have some problem with? No matter if its good or not, chances are that you will find some problem with the movie. Just my experience anyway.

      --
      Vol~
    2. Re:hmm. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      Id prefer no movie
      Why on earth would no movie be better than any of the alternatives? If the movie turns out to be great, great. If it sucks, too bad, we'll all have wasted about 2 hours of our lives. Or would a bad movie somehow ruin the book for you?

      If you're scared of being disappointed, you've got one hell of a life in front of you ;)
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:hmm. by say__10 · · Score: 1

      lol oh i know that man, more than anything haha

      --
      Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
    4. Re:hmm. by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      A bad movie decreases the chances of a good movie some time in the future.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    5. Re:hmm. by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would no movie be better than any of the alternatives? If the movie turns out to be great, great. If it sucks, too bad, we'll all have wasted about 2 hours of our lives. Or would a bad movie somehow ruin the book for you? HEY MAN! My reputation as at stake here (Look at my Username.)

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
  7. special fx by mattspammail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the web site, apparently this movie will have significant "special effects". That was definitely noteworthy, because most viewers of this film probably would never have known that going in.

    Sometimes, it's better NOT to read the friggin' article. The summary sufficed.

    --
    Now accepting PayPal donations!
  8. Let me be the first to say... by clandestine_nova · · Score: 2, Informative

    What the fuck is wrong with people? Honestly, did they even read Ender's Game? It's not just some action movie with kids, you know. Well, at least I can get disappointed early.

    --
    Discworld.
    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait, yes it is. (an action movie with kids)

      Even the things that happen in Ender's "psyche" are in the book happening in a video game. Card is a terrible writer. There is nothing subtle in this book.

    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      I wonder about how they intend to depict certain scenes. For example, the scene where the kids are naked in the shower room and Ender fights and kills that other kid whose name I forget... Yeah, I want to take my kids to this movie!

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Since that video game is designed explicitly to manipulate Ender's psyche, that shouldn't be too surprising.

      Maybe it was too subtle for you. Me? I don't think subtlety is the only virtue of good authors. Making engaging characters do interesting things is of more interest to me.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ozn · · Score: 1

      So maybe it's not a movie meant for kids? I actually don't think the story is a good one for kids anyway, too much violence, etc. Why do so many people think negatively about a movie if they can't take their kids to it?

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Card is a terrible writer

      Ah, good, you've read more of his works than just Ender's Game, right? I'm not going to assume that you have though, so I'll give you a quick list of the OSC books that I've read.

      Seventh Son is quite good. As is Treasure Box. Pastwatch is good. The Worthing Saga was excellent. Songmaster was so-so, although written quite well.

      But terrible? You may not like him, but he's not bad at what he does.

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that other kid whose name I forget

      Bonzo Madrid
      in case you were wondering

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I read it when I was 11. And it still ranks as one of my favorite books.

      I hope they don't skim over the Battle School game. I personally found that one a lot more interesting than the Command School "game."

      However, how they represent the psycho-manipulative game will be very interesting. The way the book describes it, it ought to look kinda like the DOOM engine, but in 3rd-person instead of 1st-person.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      I've read every Ender book released so far. The rest I've avoided because I don't personally like any sort of 'fantasy' book, I know, my loss whatever.

      I've also read his "How to Write Science Fiction" book.

      Frankly, I liked Ender's Game alot, then I liked Ender's Shadow and Speaker for the Dead as well. However, the writing isn't good. It is the usual pulp fiction, and I can accept/embrace that. Ender's Game was the best in this respect, the rest are really just shit, especially that latest Bean book. Why does Achilles keep coming back? It's like a bad horror movie, every 10 minutes he is running a superpower nation. It's stupid shit.

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ozn · · Score: 1

      I think I was in my teens when I read it, and it's still one of my favorite books. I think it's more appropriate for younger readers in book form than it would be in a movie, unless they wanted to gloss over, cut away from, the violent scenes. And I agree about BattleSchool vs Command School, Battle School was more interesting.

    10. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Curious that a description of killing a child, in text, is considered less vulgar than killing a child in a movie. (sarcastically) You'd think people no longer believed in imaginations. (/s)

    11. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ozn · · Score: 1

      I didn't say if either was vulgar or not, just that if I had kids, I'd be more likely to let a younger one read the book than go see the movie (assuming they don't gloss over the violence just to appease the MPAA)

      I know people have imaginations, but I also think that your mind will visualize the scene in a way that fits in with what you can handle (emotionally, etc), whereas in a movie the way it's shown is decided for you as far as level of gore, how the violence is played out, how much is shown, etc. Not sure if I'm expressing that quite right, but hopefully you get what I mean.

    12. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's an excellent description. I might use it in day-to-day conversation. :)

      I used the term "vulgar" when I was really looking for the word "graphic."

  9. Hopeful Reply by r00td43m0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well hopefully Uncle Orson will come on here and give his perspective on it.

  10. LOL... by pb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I heard OSC talking about this years ago... at the time, I believe he had written a script, was circulating it, wanted Jake Lloyd (Anakin) to play Ender, (he assured us that Jake was actually a very bright kid and a good actor despite what we might think from having seen Episode I) but at that point nothing was really definite. He just sounded optimistic about finally getting it done.

    My how times haven't changed.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:LOL... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard OSC talking about this years ago... at the time, I believe he had written a script, was circulating it, wanted Jake Lloyd (Anakin) to play Ender

      As long as they get Hayden Christensen to play Ender in the sequel movie Speaker for the Dead, I have no problem with this.

    2. Re:LOL... by *weasel · · Score: 1

      I'd be optimistic too if I had Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty (Xmen 2) hired on to write it.
      (circa february 2004)

      This change to Benioff and Weiss... not so much.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    3. Re:LOL... by Orne · · Score: 1

      Judging how Hollywood works these days, it's either him or Haley Joel Osment... where else are you gonna find another science fiction type-cast teen actor?

    4. Re:LOL... by Brian_Confucius · · Score: 1

      Very funny, but Ender is 40-something in Speaker for the Dead.

    5. Re:LOL... by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1

      Indeed you are in error. I am well over 3000 years old. Thank god for time dialation, I got to miss most of it while in transit from one planet to another.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    6. Re:LOL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indeed you are in error. I am well over 3000 years old. Thank god for time dialation, I got to miss most of it while in transit from one planet to another.

      I hate to break this to you but
      Adm. Andrew "Ender" Wiggin the Xenocide (Original Seaker for the Dead)
      (a.k.a. you) are dead.
    7. Re:LOL... by Brian_Confucius · · Score: 1

      40 years subjective, 3000 years objective. He would look 40 anyway.

  11. never actually saw the movie, but... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    did play the Tron 2.0 game a couple times through. quite entertaining as far as FPS go.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  12. Well, I think that explains by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Funny

    the rather shocked expression on the face by the posting.

  13. Knowing hollywood, by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

    he has also been hired to write the script for the sequel (Eating the Dead), and has an option for a third film if the first two don't flop too badly.

    1. Re:Knowing hollywood, by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Informative
      The sequel to Ender's Game is not "Eating the Dead". It's "Speaker for the Dead"; the sequel to that is "Xenocide" and the sequel to that is "Children of the Mind".

      See the article in Wikipedia for more details.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Knowing hollywood, by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

      d'oh I was thinking of Michael Crichtons Eaters of The Dead

    3. Re:Knowing hollywood, by BJH · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, by the time Hollywood's finished with it the title of the sequel probably will be "Eating the Dead".

    4. Re:Knowing hollywood, by martian265 · · Score: 1

      Which of course has already been made into a movie "The 13th Warrior" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120657/.

      Which of course has nothing to the do with the story or anything else, just purely an aside.

  14. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I figure his primary audience for this movie is elsewhere, anyhow. Michael Jackson and his ilk are going to be waiting for this one like geeks for Star Wars.

    Where else do you get to see a bunch of naked little boys fighting in the shower?

  15. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Not a flame/troll, but this is the first I've heard of this and am interested. Any links to back up your claim?

  16. "a long time"? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The rumours have been out there "a long time"? That's an understatement. I swear, there are USENET postings from 1992 on the topic.

    I had the idea of the movie filed away with Duke Nukem Forever and the like.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:"a long time"? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      13 computer years? That's like 112 human years. That is a long time!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  17. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1, Informative

    Or into the pocket of the mormon church, which is where 10% of Card's income goes as a member.

  18. Enders Game (the book) by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand the fascination with this book. I found it very dry and poorly written. Most of the text seemed to revolve around "zero G" training tactics. I could not truly fathom why this would be an interesting primary subject. Does the interest come from the fact that the main character was a juvenile, and that is the target readership? I read the book when I was in my twenties, on the sole basis of the rave reviews I have heard and the fact that it won so many SF awards. Maybe that is why I disliked the book so much, although I can see how other books targeted at this audience could be compelling (Harry Potter, et all). I am interested in hearing comments from anyone who has read the book.

    1. Re:Enders Game (the book) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of people in the 'geek community' that gave this book rave reviews and SF awards also had childhood experiences similar to Ender's, where they were used for various selfish purposes by the adults in their life. If you didn't go through something like that, the book will resonate less with you.

    2. Re:Enders Game (the book) by HuffMeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The appeal to most readers (if I can generalize my own reactions to the book) is the deeper psychological impact that the circumstances surrounding the "zero G training tactics" have on Ender, and those around him. The psychological destruction of a young boy in order to save humankind, the deconstruction of the brutalities of military life combined with a "Lord of the Flies" environment, the mental games Ender plays with his enemy in order to love them and destroy them at the same time. I think those are the overarching themes of the book, not the "zero G training tactics." But, I guess that goes to show you that writing a novel is a two party process, which involves both the writer (encoder of the story) and the reader (decoder of the story) in order to create the intended effect, and that's why there's really more than one interpretation of any given text...

    3. Re:Enders Game (the book) by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Ah! I didn't recognize that as even a plot in the book. I assumed that kids were interested with him because he possessed remarkable abilities that they wished they had themselves. Thanks!

    4. Re:Enders Game (the book) by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      This is sure to draw fire, but here goes:

      Like much sci-fi, Enders Game is a terrific philosophical idea fleshed out with cardboard.

      The rest is just cardboard.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    5. Re:Enders Game (the book) by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      I can accept and look past the lack of depth while reading sci-fi. It always seems to me that most sci-fi authors haven't ever met human beings to me before. I can also accept the flat writing. However, I missed the philosophical idea of "Enders Game". The responses I received above were enlightening though.

    6. Re:Enders Game (the book) by JayBlalock · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In my experience, most people who are zealous fans of the book (myself included, I'll add, for the sake of removing any pretext of impartiality) are ones who read it when they themselves were children. If not quite as young as Ender, at least in their early teens. I think it's on that level that the themes of the book really resonate. Ender's manipulation by his elders being the major one, of course, but also in the subplots of Val and Peter. His psychological dissection of Peter, for example, was excellent and gave quite a bit of insight to anyone who'd ever been bullied by someone like him. (this is in contrast to the chariacture Peter became by the end of the Ender Saga)

      Also, and I'm reaching a bit further here, Ender's Game first came out JUST as computer networks starting coming to the fore. I would suggest that, at least as much as Neuromancer, it influenced the way people, especially younger readers, thought about the potential power of networks. At the time I read it (early 90s) I was heavily involved in online bulletin boards myself, and even more than Ender's story, the Val\Peter subplot rang true with everything I was doing online. I was not, of course, actually influencing the course of governments - but I was influential in a smaller circle none the less. I've often wondered how many people who would later turn into internet demagogues got their inspiration from Ender's Game.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    7. Re:Enders Game (the book) by parmadil · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed (and still do enjoy) Ender's Game. For me, the interest lies mainly in the portrayal of the characters and how they respond to the moral and mental difficulties of the situation they're placed in. I also think the book is much richer if you read Speaker for the Dead, which concerns an adult Ender Wiggin still dealing with the aftermath and guilt for the "xenocide" he committed.

      I don't think that the main interest comes from the fact that Ender is a child. It *is* important to the plot that this is so, but I don't see it as being the whole point of the story. Battle School and its associated zero-G tactics isn't the focus of the story - it's fun to read about (for me, at least), but Battle School, the age of the characters, and the Bugger War itself serve to create a background for the development of the character of Ender.

      Well, that's my two cents, for whatever it's worth. As you can tell from my sig, I'm an Orson Scott Card fan, so I can't really claim to be an unbiased reader.

    8. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 0

      Maybe the reason you found it dry and poorly written is because you're not a highly literate reader. I find that people who complains about the writing quality of books tend to do so because they aren't well read.
      br
      But, you're most likely a troll. The fact is that OSC is a very good writer, and his books are not targeted for the same audience as Harry Potter. If you can't distinguish between the two, I recommend reading less /. and more books ;)

      --

      Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    9. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the quality of people that visit this site has really gone downhill. What I asked for was some insight into why people found the book was so interesting. I received some very thoughtful responses which I appreciated. Suddenly my OP got marked as a "troll" and people like you popped up questioning how literate I am.

      This is not a troll. I was giving my opinion and asking a question to learn more. I am aware of and appreciate good writers (Umberto Eco, John Irving, etc). OSC is not in the same class. I don't think you will find anyone semi-literate that disagrees with this. I also don't like Harry Potter books, although I can see how young children might enjoy them. My original point is that I didn't have that insight into the Enders Game book. Now I understand, because others have come forward and provided me with insight.

      It is people like you that have ruined slashdot. Congratulations.

    10. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Tungbo · · Score: 1

      'Manipulation' is the main theme of the book, to me. The adults manipulate the children, but they also manipulate each other. Then the children start to manipulate the adults. Near the end, Valentine pretty much lays out that manipulation is an inherent part of the social fabric. The warfare tactics are just different examples of how the adult manipulate Ender's to learn and create.

      The emotional core of the book revolves around Ender's relationship with himself and with Valentine. Those tend to be the most moving portion of the book.

      I suspect people like the theme of being suspicious of authority - "they may trick you into committing genocide in the name of doing good." For the generations personallyl involved with US military interventions abroad, this can be a most resonate message.
      I think it's a pretty good book, not great. Better than most of Heinlein's. Certainly not as good as Dune.

    11. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      A lot of people in the 'geek community' that gave this book rave reviews and SF awards also had childhood experiences similar to Ender's, where they were used for various selfish purposes by the adults in their life.

      I thought you were gonna say "... where they kicked another boy to death after school" there for a second.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:Enders Game (the book) by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      This was actually one of the more interesting parts for me - Card's dissection and portrayal of the child's mind. To me, especially when I was twelve and thirteen, his portrayal of children made much more sense to me than some other portrayals of young adults I have read. Waht's funny is that somewhere, Card mentions that he gets letters from adults saying "children don't act like this, they don't think like this" and he gets letter from children and teenagers saying "yes, this is exactly how we think."

    13. Re:Enders Game (the book) by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What a ridiculously pompous thing to say. Card is a reasonably good writer. He certainly isn't an Asimov or an Arthur C. Clarke, or even a Larry Niven. I put him in the same class as David Brin. Both can play a good game, and even hit the odd one out of the park, but they're not exactly what I would call great, or even very good. As well, there's nothing wrong with Harry Potter books. They're a fun read, not great literature to be sure, but then again, neither is Card's writing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Moofie · · Score: 1

      How does this differ from every other artistic medium? Why do you single out sci-fi?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    15. Re:Enders Game (the book) by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      This differs a great deal from every other artistic medium: 1) Most other artistic media don't put so little stock in character as sci-fi does. 2) Most other artistic media don't focus on specific philosophical ideas and puzzles the way sci-fi does. There are exceptions, of course -- most operas have pretty cardboard characters, but then, they don't typically probe things like, what is the nature of free will.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    16. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't understand the idea of a 'hive mind' from Ende's game, you surely do now from the moderation you've received from the slashbots! How dare you question the quality of Holy Writ! LOL

    17. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think you're tarring with a pretty broad brush there, amigo.

      Go read some Sheri S. Tepper, and then talk to me about how little stock goes into character development.

      90% of everything is crap. I seem to remember some sci-fi author wrote that...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    18. Re:Enders Game (the book) by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      Well of course I'm tarring a broad brush. But that's what a genre is: a broad brush. Doesn't mean individual artists can't stray from the formula.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    19. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Rallion · · Score: 1

      It's true. I'm just SO glad that I read it when I was the same age as some of the kids in the book. Those adults, they'd forgotten what it was like to be a kid. Now, I can look at this book, and I can remember how I felt when I read it, and I won't forget.

      It's amazing to me that Card was able to do it so well.

    20. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. Ender's Game and Neuromancer were by far the two best books I ever read.I wonder how many people would cite exactly those to books?

      As for the Ender's sequals, I think I read two of them and if I could I'd *un-read* and I would obliterate them from existance. Chuckle. I'm not sure if it's that the sequals were actually so bad, or if I simply had such high expectations and was offended by such STAGGERING dissapointment. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:Enders Game (the book) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I thought you were gonna say "... where they kicked another boy to death after school" there for a second.

      Sorry, but we don't like to talk about that.

  19. Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Was anyone else disappointed by Ender's Shadow? Mostly I'm trying to forget about it. I truly enjoyed Ender's game, and thought the sequels were... medicore (except for Children of the mind, which was simply appalling). Then I went and read Ender's Shadow and it was Card quietly destroying Ender's Game for me. It was the whole "Well actually there's this other kid, and he's even smarter and better than Ender! He could have done the whole thing singlehanded without getting tired like Ender!". There seemed to be a need to "go one better" and hence make Bean "much better than Ender" which, at the same time, required a lot of Ender's speeches and actions (from the original book) to be recast as stupid and poor. Ender had enough flaws and issues in Ender's Game without making him semi-incompetent as well.

    Jedidiah.

    1. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Since the Shadow books are told from Bean's point of view, of course he'll be critical of Ender's actions. I thought the entire point of Shadow was that, while Bean was technically smarter and more competent, he utterly lacked the people skills necessary to get the job done. Ender succeeded for the reason he was selected in the first place - his combination of Peter's ruthlessness AND Val's empathy. He had to be *balanced* in these things to win, and Bean would have failed in the end just as Val or Peter would have. What I took away from the book was that it emphasized even more Ender's flawed humanity and how, ultimately, those flaws were needed instead of simple machine-like perfection.

      Don't forget, BTW, that while Bean had awesome deductive powers, he could also get off on wildly incorrect tangents precisely because he was too self-reliant. Unwilling to really trust any source outside of his own head, he lacked any real "reality check," and that too would have likely proven fatal had he been the child chosen.

      (don't take this as uncritical praise of Card, BTW. He seems to have a long history of taking a good idea and then running it deep into the ground. I was disappointed in Shadow Puppets and, while I haven't read Shadow of the Giant yet, I have a sinking feeling that he'll end up torpedoing the series by the end, just as he did the "Ender Saga")

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    2. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by canadian_right · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I liked Ender's Shadow. The whole point of Ender's Shadow was that Bean could NOT have done what Ender did, despite being "brighter". Bean lacked Ender's social skills, and his "killer instinct". Ender was a natural leader, while Bean was an awkward, self-conscious, loner. Ender could form and lead a team - a task the Bean struggled with. Ender killed his enemies, Bean humilated and angered his.

      I also enjoyed seeing the events of enders Game from a new viewpoint.

      And I agree that "Children of the Mind" was not that good. "Speaker for the Dead" was very good, Xenocide was ok.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    3. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I got the same feeling after reading the novel version of "Ender's Game". Everything that wasnt' in the original novella (novellette?) just seemed like filler, added on to justify some "deep meaning". Totally turned me off to reading the rest of the series.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Daniel · · Score: 1

      I thought the first two books in the original series were quite good, but the new one...in broad strokes it's interesting, but Card seems to spend half his time setting up straw men of his political opponents so he can knock them down. The earlier books had religious undertones, but they were universal enough that almost anyone (including, eg, the oh-so-dreaded "secular humanists") could appreciate them. In contrast, I get the feeling you have to be a fundamentalist in order to really enjoy the Shadow series (as well as the extra-Ender stuff I've read by Card).

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    5. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      It also looks like the Ender Saga isn't complete yet. Recently he posted on hatrackriver.com that he is planning another book that will bring the Ender Saga and the Shadow's books back together and cap them off. We'll see.

    6. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was anyone else disappointed by Ender's Shadow?

      Well, it kept me reading. Where I thought it failed--if you're going to write about a litle kid, you have to either have him act like a real little kid, or provide a reasonable explanation for why he doesn't. Card's approach to that issue was the great success of Ender's Game; Ender comes across as both a believable military genius and a believable little kid. While it's clear that his intelligence and fighting instincts are superior to those of his teachers, it's also clear that they manipulate him and not the other way around--basically because they're experienced and he isn't.
      To me, Bean just isn't acceptable. Not even if we just accept that he's some sort of super-mutant with inconceivable intelligence. He seems to have been born an adult, since at the age of two he already has incredible emotional maturity and enough experience and self-control to outwit and manipulate intelligent adults who have spent their whole professional lives dealing with extraordinary children. I can't suspend my disbelief that far.
      Ender's Game is science fiction. Ender's Shadow is fantasy. doesn't make it bad, or anything, but I didn't bother readng the sequels. (Didn't bother reading Children of the Mind, either, after the disappointment of Xenocide.)

      Haven't seen "Troy", so I can't comment...but I didn't have a lot of hope for it after seeing the trailer of Brad Pitt making a constipated face and saying "Immortality! Take it! It's YOURS!" in a pretty unconvincing attempt at a once-more-unto-the-breach-dear-friends effect.

    7. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right on -- sometimes I want to smack Card upside the head for not knowing when to leave well enough alone!

      You're exactly right about Ender vs Bean and Peter. And that is why I have good hopes that if Ender's Game is scripted akin to Troy, it will be about the people -- about how personality traits and flaws interact to create the mess we're in (and maybe how we get out of it, or don't as the case may be). Because that's precisely what Troy focused on -- character interactions.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      The whole point of Ender's Shadow was that Bean could NOT have done what Ender did, despite being "brighter". Bean lacked Ender's social skills, and his "killer instinct". Ender was a natural leader, while Bean was an awkward, self-conscious, loner. Ender could form and lead a team - a task the Bean struggled with. Ender killed his enemies, Bean humilated and angered his.

      That was the cop out Card used, yes. It just doesn't wash though.

      Bean lacked killer instinct? You mean the way he wanted to kill Achilles from the outset was lacking killer instinct? Bean was quite coldly ruthless most of the time.

      Bean lacked people skills and couldn't lead? He managed to get the other army leaders to join him in "not playing the game". He managed to get his army to rally around him. He managed to have enough people utterly loyal to him to take out Achilles. When it mattered he seemed to have no problem getting people to follow him.

      Sure Card threw in a few passages where Bean "lacked people skills" and used the "couldn't lead people" as an excuse as to why Ender was needed to do the job, but if you actually look at what Bean did in the book he was entirely capable of getting the job done.

      Jedidiah.

    9. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, Ender's Game had Ender slowly hardening over time. Ender's Shadow had Bean softening over time. In many ways, each character took on traits of the other.

    10. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Kwil · · Score: 1

      The thing is though.. Bean wanted to, but didn't. Bean was cold and without remorse, but not ruthless. Ender was the exact opposite -- he didn't want to kill but did anyway because it was what was necessary to guaruntee survival.

      Ender had the people skills to make people do things even though there was no benefit to themselves in doing it. Take Petra as an example.

      Bean had the skills to make people see when it was in their interest to do something. Very different.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    11. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Ender's Shadow was quite brilliant in many ways. Even ignoring the plot, it was a type of writing that I'd never seen done nearly as well. Many writers can cope with sequels, while prequels seem to be more difficult to do (e.g. Star Wars), however very rarely do I see another story told in the same time and space.

      For me, reading Enders Shadow was like watching Fight Club the second time -- it was exactly the same and completely different at the same time -- with the added amazement that the two were written years apart.

    12. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, in the newest "Shadow" book, "Shadow of the Giant," there's actually a scene in which Bean and the rest of Ender's Jeesh (minus Petra, Hot Soup, and Alai) are all sat down in a room together and Graff brings up the subject of Bean's leadership skills versus Ender's. The resulting conversation is actually pretty funny.

    13. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by rednox · · Score: 1

      The thing that bothered me the most was that it really felt like Card was trying to bend the first book into a different direction. Many conversations and events from the first book were retold so that they appeared to be the same on the surface, but completely different things were actually happening.

      The end result was a book that was very clever, but wasn't a very good story. It left me feeling that it had soiled the first book.

      I am disappointed to see that the movie will include Ender's Shadow.

    14. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. I could not agree more.

    15. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Essentially, they got down to the level of Superman comics?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  20. Shades of Dune? by nixman99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I get this feeling it will turn out like Dune; in other words, there will be a big Hollywood production, and it will suck. Then fifteen years later, the SciFi channel will do it right.

    1. Re:Shades of Dune? by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      As if...

      At least the Lynch version of Dune retained some of the spirit of the book, without recounting the plot. The scifi version was a lot closer to the plot (except for a few changes that absolutely destroyed it), but it sucked so badly, I could barely recognize the book behind the film.

    2. Re:Shades of Dune? by bfline · · Score: 1

      You're right on with this. I really enjoyed the SciFi version. Good acting, great set, great costumes AND actually following the original story for a change. Considering they named it, Frank Herbert's Dune, it would have been crazy not to just follow the story. Too bad William Hurt died so early on. I haven't seen Children of Dune yet, so I can't comment on the sequel.

      --
      sportsdot
      The slashcode sports site
    3. Re:Shades of Dune? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except that the SciFi version didn't get it right. They stuck to the original story far more, true enough, but the acting was, in general, horrible. Lynch's version at least got the mood of the book right, and you must rememeber that Herbert was very deeply involved in that project.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Shades of Dune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hwa? Did we see the same series?

      Terrible costumes...
      Horrible acting...
      Princess Irulan's suddenly one of the most important characters...

      and no Patrick Stewart?

    5. Re:Shades of Dune? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really enjoyed the SciFi version. Good acting,

      What's your secret? Watching it dead drunk?
      The made-for-tv thing bore me. The 1984 movie is confusing as hell, but at least it's confusing in a vey entertaining way.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Shades of Dune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lynch version of Dune is vastly superior to the sci-fi version. Christ, it has Patrick Stewart in it...The guy who plays Paul Atreides in the Sci Fi version was the dorkiest messiah(generally a dorky role to begin with) I have ever seen in my life...

    7. Re:Shades of Dune? by gr0kCalvin · · Score: 1

      The original dune sucked because the studio did not allow David Lynch to make the movie he wanted to make. If Lynch had been given more creative freedom, the movie would have been much better. And speaking of series that didn't go anywhere but down...

    8. Re:Shades of Dune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie version sucked.

      The tv miniseries of Dune, then Children of Dune (Dune Messiah included) were great.

      As for the 1984 version - what's YOUR secret? Watching it stoned? That must be the only way someone could let the butchering of a wonderful book go, the terrible dialogue, and the crappy acting.

      David Lynch should stick to tv shows and dressing David Duchovny up as a chick. It seems to be his only skill.

  21. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you get that he's a homophobe? Heck one of the characters in his Ships of Earth Series was a homosexual, and he's portrayed in a better light than most homosexual characters are in other books.

  22. Muahahaha by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all of you OSC geeks will suffer for endlessly bugging us to read your sacred texts! *cackle*

    --
    All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
  23. You gotta be kidding me.... by Bonzor · · Score: 0

    They're gonna mix the two books for the screen play? It's going to BLOW. Just take the first book, there is plenty of content to make a great book!!

  24. At least it didn't take 20 odd years... by vigour · · Score: 1

    at least with it being commisioned by Warner Bros there's a chance it might actually be made. It took poor Douglas Adams 20 odd years, and I don't know how many script rewrites to get to a point where they actually made it (and only once he popped the can).

  25. bad SF by vm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's not like Orson Scott Card is some kind of genius whose work is going to be denigrated by a film adaption. It's a pretty straight forward pulp story that's heavy on action and dialogue. It's not like Dune where everything is told from 3rd person omniscient and 80% of the story happens in people's heads. Quit your whining, people. Card should consider himself lucky if the SciFi Channel adapted his crap.

    1. Re:bad SF by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      I have to agree. Herbert was a masterful writer, though Dune did find the right match between his style of dialogue and philosophizing and a forward paced story (some of his other books, including the later Dune books, get a little bogged down). Dune is one of the major masterpieces of SF, so when it's made into a movie or a miniseries people tend to notice.

      Ender's Game is a good read, nothing fantastic. The ending is a neat bit of a twist, but certainly nothing that I would consider a GREAT book. I think one could make a reasonable adaptation. Thus far no one has been able to get Dune right, and my personal feelings are that the very nature of the book defies easy translation to the big screen.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I assume he's referring to Card's rantings against gay marriage, which aren't hard to find if you go hit Google.

    I've got to admit, I'm a little torn about this myself. It tears me up a bit to think that my patronage of this man's works (I've bought a lot of his books) has enriched someone who uses his money and fame to soapbox out his (IMO) detestable position.

    You can argue that the movie itself is not directly associated with his position, but that seems like a bit of a cop-out. It'd be like buying cookies when the proceeds go to benefit the Klan -- even if what you're doing is innocent, the cause it supports isn't any less vile.

    Anyhow, I figure that this won't be a big deal since it sounds like the movie's going to suck.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  28. Card is a copyright nut by Eunuch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He was quoted as saying it is rediculous that copyright could ever run out on a living author. I decided not to read any more of his books after that.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Card is a copyright nut by sharkb8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It Can't run out on a living author if the author still owns it.

      It's Life +95 years, or 120 years for a work for hire/psuedonomous/anonymous work.

      It's only been this way for a short time, but the U.S. had to bring their copyright terms in line with that of Europe after oining the Berne Convention, otherwise U.S. works would receive less protection in the other countries.

    2. Re:Card is a copyright nut by Specks · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget about the change in copyright law where he can file for an extension of his copyright. Then when he's dead his family can do the same again.

      --
      Specks
      Batteries not included
    3. Re:Card is a copyright nut by dmeranda · · Score: 1

      And he also denounced DRM in his 27 Feb 2005 Review, stating that he is himself boycotting Virgin Records for their abuse of copyright fair use.

      "I regard [encrypting CDs to prevent MP3 ripping] as cheating the customer, since it is widely known that many customers expect to be able to do exactly that, and copyright law allows it.
      "Therefore I will never again buy a cd from Virgin Records. Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me."

      So maybe his position isn't all black-and-white.

    4. Re:Card is a copyright nut by Triskele · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fucking hell - do you yanks actually believe that agit-prop? It was the USA that lobbied hard for the Berne Convention in the first place in particular the very long copyright lifetimes. Typical bloody American behaviour - connive away and then blame it all on the Europeans.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    5. Re:Card is a copyright nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, his position, like all hypocrites, is: I think such-and-such is good unless it is enforced against me. I wanted to be the only one to enforce it. I think so-and-so is bad unless I want to make use of it. I wanted to be the only one able to use it.

      Seriously, OSC is a hack and a screwed up moron of the likes of Michael Crichton. That's all you need to know.

    6. Re:Card is a copyright nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the other way around: the US lead the way, not Europe.

      If you're going to state a fact, at least make sure that it's accurate first.

    7. Re:Card is a copyright nut by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The Bern convention only requires life+50.

      It's really funny the way we increased to the current term because we wanted to harmonize with Europe... which presumably then means our terms and European terms would be the *same*... but then somehow in Europe they suddenly need to change their terms to harmonize with us. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  29. sorry about the troll rating dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    ...that is 100% true, OSC is a devout Mormon.

    1. Re:sorry about the troll rating dude by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      And he makes no secret of it. Heck, I've been told that the Homecoming"saga is based off the Book of Mormon.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:sorry about the troll rating dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would only be a rip off of The Original Battlestar Galactica, which is full of Mormon theology, and somewhat based off the Book of Mormon (Thirteen colonies of Men, Twelve searching for the one colony that was 'lost')

      Battlestar Galactica was so firmly based in Mormon theology, even the re-imaged series can't escape comparison. (Quorum of Twelve, Kobol (aka Kolob), 'gods', and finding Earth, the lost 13th colony)

    3. Re:sorry about the troll rating dude by andy4322 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the 13th colony Georgia?

  30. trivial Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  31. Hopefully... by bman08 · · Score: 2, Funny

    He can do for Ender what he did for the Illiad. It was nice to see someone get the whole Achilles-switching-sides-and-joining-the-Trojans thing right for a change.

  32. Troy Bad? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Troy was not bad but it also was not good. I cannot imagine a movie will do those stories the justice they deserve.

    Troy was actually pretty good. Let's see how people would like it if the story was followed letter for letter.

    Same applies to LoTR. How many people would have fawned all over the three films if all the characters spoke like they did in the books and all the dialogue was left in.

    As adaptations go, they were satisfactory. Heck, Troy was actually pretty good compared to a lot of the dreck people shell out money for.

    As for how you adapt Ender's Game to a screen play, lots of luck. I have high hopes for lots of revered novels, but realize too many of them would require significant change to fit. Can't have people standing around all the time doing soliloquies all the time so you know what's on their minds.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Troy Bad? by HumanTorch · · Score: 1

      Exactly - Troy was not merely allright because of the screenplay. It had some extremely amateurish overacting on the part of Mr. Pitt and others. As for griping about re-interpretation, I think we can safely say Homer did not have the silver screen in mind when he wrote it.

    2. Re:Troy Bad? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The siege of Troy lasted for ten years. The film made it seem like it lasted not more than ten days.

      Now, how many of the people who paid to see that movie do you think really have any appreciation of that revision? It might seem subtle to you but it changes the whole context of the story: celebrating keeping your enemy at bay and your city free from invasion after ten years of conflict is a world apart from doing it for a week or two. The timescale better explains the "gift" of the Trojan horse, why the Trojans accepted it and partied the night away, why they were so taken in by the deception, etc.

      As for Troy's other qualities: well, let's just say that it seemed badly paced and too long. I saw the film with four others, and we all agreed that we just wanted them to get it over and done with well before the conclusion came around. When you're all looking at your watch thinking "I hope this ends soon", then you know something is very wrong.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:Troy Bad? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      As for Troy's other qualities: well, let's just say that it seemed badly paced and too long. I saw the film with four others, and we all agreed that we just wanted them to get it over and done with well before the conclusion came around. When you're all looking at your watch thinking "I hope this ends soon", then you know something is very wrong.

      Likely as a result of your highly developed short-attention-span. I found Titanic unbearable, probably due in no small part to having had a 32 oz. coke and the damn lack of intermissions these days.

      Neither of us likely really cut out for drama, which when you come down to it, is about all Ender's Game is.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Troy Bad? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Uh, I don't have a short attention span. I watched the extended editions of the first two LOTR movies back-to-back at the cinema, then dived into watching the third part, without once being distracted. Titanic was a doddle, not a problem at all. Other long movies don't bother me at all: on the contrary, I often find today's 100-120 minute movies way too short for my liking.

      But Troy was just boring. If I was watching it on television I would have switched off or changed channels long before the end.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  33. Starship Troopers by ashmedai · · Score: 1

    Another perfectly good book falling to illiterate heretics. I'll probably watch it anyway and hope I get pleasantly suprised, but I'll be going into it assuming the movie has little to do with the book.

    1. Re:Starship Troopers by kevinx · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers is one of my favorite books. Unfortunately the movie doesn't remotely capture the essence of the book. Not to say it is a horrible movie on it's own. It's the case of book != movie. Basically, you'd have to watch it and pretend the title is "Troopers from a Starship".. and maybe, just maybe when you are watching it there will be a few scenes that remind you of a good book you once read.

    2. Re:Starship Troopers by hencethus · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about Starship Troopers (the movie), but you can't deny that it's a laugh a minute with all the goofy cut scenes and space-bug violence. The subplots laughably simple to the point of being completely uninteresting, and the dialogue is simply horrific. I love that movie.

      Incidentally, the sequal sucked even worse, but not in a good way. Don't see it if you haven't already.

    3. Re:Starship Troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Brain-sucking fiends! I wanted brain-sucking fiends! And they couldn't even get that right in the book version! Gah!!!

    4. Re:Starship Troopers by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie...but then the movie sucked all by itself, and I wanted to send a tactical nuclear device to every person involved with the project.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Starship Troopers by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie.

      I saw the movie first, for free, at a premiere, and I loved it.

      I only had seen the very first teaser (wich was mostly the bugs storming the base and the troopers looking scared).
      From then on I knew I wanted to see that movie, and I therefore avoided any exposure to it's source or promotional material. I had read other books by Heinlein, I knew he good write good sci-fi, and I knew that the director was the guy for a gory war movie.

      So I saw the action movie, I liked. Then I read the book, and I liked that too.
      I think it's the safest way to enjoy both.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Starship Troopers by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I simply don't understand why they took the title, and the character names, from a book that (compared to movie audiences) few people have read, and then proceed to not tell that story.

      Why not write their own story? Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story? This keeps happening in Hollywood, and I simply don't understand.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Starship Troopers by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story?

      How did they not tell the story? They left stuff out: the powersuits, the talking dogs (although there was a dead dog and a very upset and angry man there), the tall grey skinny humanoid aliens (you can see them, the bugs AND the powersuits in a computer game that shall remain nameless)... But it's still the same basic story of Rico's rise through the military as he kills the bugs that killed his family.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:Starship Troopers by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I got the feeling that the movie "Starship Troopers" was a propaganda film shown to noncitizens in the universe of the book "Starship Troopers".

      Your mileage may vary, but looked at that way, it is a very different movie.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    9. Re:Starship Troopers by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and along with the TOTAL PERVERSION OF HEINLEIN'S POINT, what else was different?

      They got the philosophy totally wrong. They lampooned Heinlein's idea as being neo-Nazi fascism, and I found it pretty annoying.

      Heinlein's argument was that people should serve in order to rule. I don't think that's fascism.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Starship Troopers by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Heinlein's argument was that people should serve in order to rule. I don't think that's fascism.

      Main Entry: fascism
      Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
      : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Starship Troopers by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Right. What does that have to do with what Heinlein was proposing?

      Anybody who wanted to could be a full citizen. All they had to do was serve the society (not necessarily in the military) for a brief period. The people who chose to not get full citizenship were not stigmatized: They simply didn't get to vote.

      Now, there are DOZENS of implementational hurdles that would need to be overcome to make that practical. However, as a statement of principle, I think it's remarkably sound. And not related //at all// to fascism.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Starship Troopers by lgw · · Score: 1

      The commentary to the DVD reveals that Paul Verhoven made the movie as a warning against what he saw as rising American fascism. He never read Heinlein's book, nor did he care to. The subtleties of Heinlein's ideas (for example, military service being only one form of service available for citizenship) were deliberately ignored in pursuit of making his rather shallow point (fascism bad? who knew?).

      We don't know how bad the script was before Verhoven got ahold of it, of course, but at least this way the movie has some value as a parody/lampooning of the original, rather than being close enough to just be a bad movie.

      The Starship Troopers animated series (available on DVD) was made after the movie by a crew that *had* read the book, and stayed as close to it as they could in the world of the movie. It's rather good, despite some primitive 3D amnimation, once you get past the first few shows, and brings back power suits and Skinnies, plus some whooly new and well written sub-plots and adventures.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Starship Troopers by ylikone · · Score: 1

      I read Ender's Game before Starship Troopers (the movie) came out. I went to see Starship Troopers and wondered if this was supposed to be hollywoods version of Ender's Game and thought it was pretty crappy. At the time I don't remember anybody mentioning anything about Ender's Game or making comparisons so I just figured the two were completely unrelated. I guess I was sort of right.

      --
      Meh.
    14. Re:Starship Troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone here realised that "Starship Troopers" movie was just a wonderfull parody?
      Where is your sense of humor?
      Movie is BRILIANT and Irronical.
      Starting like "BeverlyHills" in totalitarian world and ending like "SavePrivateRyan".
      Hiding cruel scenes with black stripes and then showing cut off limbs and pools of blood.

      And after war in Iraq, i found it a much wiser film than i though first, but maybe i'm just going too far ;-)
      Oh, and those gorgeous girls, especially red head one ;-P

  34. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. Post back if you have any questions.

    Excerpts for the lazy:

    Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
    Continues:
    The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
  35. Fears I have about the film by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have the following concerns/predictions:

    1. The ages of the characters will be upped by 5 or so years because the film execs won't think that people would find 5 year olds killing each other kosher. Ender will be 10+ years old in the beginning, almost guaranteed.

    2. The actor. There are few actors that could pull off the role of Ender. Haley Joel Osmont is the closest I can think of, but he's been getting older ("I see dead kittens") and would probably have a beard by the time this films.

    3. Peter.

    4. Conglomeration of enemies. Will Achille be combined with other baddies? This might not be bad, but if Bean and Ender both come from the same elementary school, that might be a little too pat. I understand that the story must be pruned to fit in 16:9, but I worry...

    The final worry: The ending. So many people have read the book, will they use the same ending? I've seen other movies from books where, to get a new emotional response or 'gotcha', the ending was changed from what you expect. The original ending is powerful and chilling (namely, the disposition of the final simulations), who knows what screenwriters the caliber of those who wrote Troy will produce?

    Here's my nightmare:

    MAZER: Ender, the bugger fighters are almost on me!
    ENDER: No! They've taken away the woman I love, they won't take away my teacher too!
    MAZER: Ender, (blasting noises in the background, static) there's something I haven't told you. I am.... your father.
    ENDER: Noooooooooooo!
    MAZER: Tell Valentine and Peter I loved them!
    (scene of Mazer's snub fighter being destroyed while doing the trench run on the Formic mothership that is approaching Earth)
    ENDER: NOOOOOOOOOO!
    (A Formic fighter pulls up behind Ender, whos ship has been damaged. Just as he is about to die, the fighter explodes and the shuttle that brought him to the Battle school descends into the picture)
    (radio): Hey Ender, thought you could use some help.
    ENDER: Valentine? Is that you?
    VALENTINE: It's me, and I brought some help.
    PETER: Hey Andrew, you were right. Let's blow this thing and go home.
    ENDER: Ayeeeeee! (fires D.R. Device)

    1. Re:Fears I have about the film by SunFan · · Score: 1


      Yeah, me too. Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow might be too good for a movie studio to make money off of it. Perhaps it could be better as an independent film, where the risk of actually depicting young prodigies in battle and the annialation of an entire race are less risky towards the bottom line?

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    2. Re:Fears I have about the film by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      That was the worst thing I've probably ever read. Even worse is that knowing Hollywood, it's entirely possible as well.

      I just read Starship Troopers, and I am quite angry at them for blowing that book-to-movie transition in retrospect. The folks in the movie industry need to either stick to the stories or not produce them. Do or not do, there is no try.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    3. Re:Fears I have about the film by jonastullus · · Score: 4, Funny

      you seem to be very much in touch with your worst nightmares.
      maybe you should do some script writing for george lucas there!

      BTW, those visions were awful, damn close to my personal nightmare of an ender's game movie adaptation. thanks for bringing this up so early, so i won't be shocked when the final film will actually be even worse!

      jethr0

    4. Re:Fears I have about the film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The final worry: The ending. So many people have read the book, will they use the same ending?

      I honestly don't see how they can. How can they make sitting down in front of a video game compelling or exciting to watch? And, after the audience gets the twist, how on earth do you stop them going "What - that's it? The movie's over? We were expecting another battle, where is it?"

      I don't think the same complaint can be levelled at the book. I can't put my finger on why, exactly, it's just a qualitative difference between reading a book and watching a film.

    5. Re:Fears I have about the film by nizo · · Score: 1
      The ages of the characters will be upped by 5 or so...

      This is why I think they should just animate the movie instead. CGI has progressed really well, I wonder if Pixar could get the contract after they escape the grip of Disney.... Plus the battleroom scenes (which will probably be cut :-( ) would be easier with CGI. As far as worrying about Peter, don't, since he will probably be nearly totally excised as well. I am hoping they will keep "Buggers" as the term for the enemy, but they will probably use Formics instead. Silly OSC, who cares that it is a naughty word across the pond? :-)

    6. Re:Fears I have about the film by jafac · · Score: 1

      MAZER: Ender, I promised I'd never leave you, and I don't mean to!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Fears I have about the film by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

      Card has stated that there are contractual obligations to leave the ages as they are in the book.

    8. Re:Fears I have about the film by homb · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ in some way regarding Startship Troopers:

      While I agree with you that keeping the name and the setting and the bugs clearly states that the movie should be a rendition of the book, I think that the movie was excellent.

      It wasn't excellent as a close adapation of the book, in fact I would contend that it was only loosely related to the book. But it was very witty and satirical, and well-acted. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I for one am glad that it wasn't a rehash of the book.

    9. Re:Fears I have about the film by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Ender 11 by the time he left Battle School? Or was that just in the short story? At 11 I think it works well enough for the screen.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Fears I have about the film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant, me and Weis were actually stuck dead over climatic conclusion, and there i spotted your post, excellent work, really professional, your gripped essence of Hollywood Action Movie, a little too psychological but after little polishing we surely use this. Thanks a lot! Expect your name in movie's credits.

    11. Re:Fears I have about the film by WNight · · Score: 1

      Here's where a small deviation from the book - VR helmets - could come in handy. You'd be "in" the game much more quickly. At that point the camera wouldn't be locked and it'd just be like a dream sequence.

      I think little deviations (changing "hooks" to jetpacks, for instance) can be fine. They're just a prop. It's only bad when you change something integral to the story (making battle-school 2D or getting rid of the battle suits in Starship Troopers).

  36. He should have expected it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    He should have expected it. How dare he challenge the Slashdot Hivemind?

    I mean, what's the struggle for equal treatment under the law when there's a possible mediocre Sci Fi movie in the offing?

    1. Re:He should have expected it. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the law already gives equal treatment. Any person, homosexual, heterosexual or transexual, is permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  37. Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ender's War (the short story) was a much better story than the novel Card expanded it into. Plus, it'd be easier to fit into 2 hours on the screen. Pity they didn't pick it instead.

    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.

    1. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by X_Caffeine · · Score: 3, Funny

      somebody hand me the Spoiler Stick, this guy needs a whackin'

      --
      // I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
    2. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I never read Ender's War (or knew of its existance until now). Having read EG as a teen and really liked it, I picked it up again a couple of years ago. It was far more hollow and predictable then I had remembered. Your description about EW sounds like a much better story.

      Also, I can't imagine putting both books into one movie and making it passable. There's just too much to deal with in a single book, let alone two.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by jsprat · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ender's Game (the short story) can be found at Orson Scott Card's website.


      OSC's site is good way to burn an hour or more - writing advice, forums (or is it fora?), philosophy, etc. Mr. Card is an interesting fellow.

    4. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it may have seemed predictable because you have already read it?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (or is it fora?)

      Yes.

      (Although forums is also valid, as a Latin geek I prefer to use those plurals. :)

    6. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by argent · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, that puppy's going in my Palm.

    7. Re:Too bad they didn't pick the good version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like I've got some other sites that might interest you as well then - there's the Mormon site, the Mormon's Friends site, the Mormons-are-good-guys-really-even-if-they-are-bigo ted-like-OSC-and-don't-think-everyone-deserves-equ al-rights-and-btw-TowelHeads-should-all-burn-in-he ll site, and other equally fascinating OSC-related finds.

  38. Yeah, cause we all know that the script is never.. by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...changed after it leaves the writer's hands.

    "Well, gosh, with Troy under his belt, all my concerns about the movie sucking are straight out! *cough*"

    - Rather a stupid thing to say when you realize that the director has far more influence on a movie than the script itself.

    --
    Loading...
  39. Ender's Game + Ender's Shadow = Not so good by Ki+Master+George · · Score: 1

    There's a reason Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow were separate books. It's a lot more pleasing to read Ender's Game before Ender's Shadow. It would be especially hard in a movie setting to combine the two, since the two movies cover mostly the same events. I'd guess the way they'd do it is leaving the middle mostly the same, and having two beginnings and two endings: one for Ender, and one for Bean.

    --
    Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
  40. 25th Hour as well by GunFodder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    David Benioff also wrote 25th Hour, which was an interesting movie. I guess all the geniuses here on Slashdot are too smart to bother spending 30 seconds on IMDB for more comprehensive information.

    1. Re:25th Hour as well by browngb · · Score: 1

      So? 25th Hour was barely worth remembering. It wasn't supposed to be a Hollywood blockbuster like Troy was supposed to be, and what we'd hope Ender's Game would be. Troy? They should have called it Suck.

      --
      Generally, I get bored with my replies and give up on making sense halfway through.
    2. Re:25th Hour as well by MerrieB · · Score: 1

      Okay, I rather liked 25th Hour, but Troy destroyed any credibility this guy has. I'm not saying it was bad... Okay it was bad, but only if you knew anything about The Iliad. The worst part is that the average American movie goer would not take the time to read the original story, so they will believe the Hollywood-ized bastard version is the only story. That's my issue with Troy as a Literature fan.

    3. Re:25th Hour as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I liked Troy as a movie. As a literature fan, you should understand and appreciate the *retelling* of stories with new interpretations -- and not the same damn exact story told over and over and over. As a literature fan, you should understand that a good story teller (being it live acting, film, literature, or other) puts themselves into it as much as the story script, and you appreciate it as much for that as enjoying the story retold.

  41. In a perfect world by fishdan · · Score: 1

    I'd get to decide what projects Peter Jackson takes next

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
  42. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Well, Card's never tried to hide his Mormonism, so I guess no one should be surprised. I enjoy some his books, but on a few occasions I've had the feeling I was being preached at. Card is allowed his predictable opinion, of course.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  43. Re:Yeah, cause we all know that the script is neve by SmokeHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    - Rather a stupid thing to say when you realize that the director has far more influence on a movie than the script itself.

    You have a point, but the script is also important. Terrible directing can turn a great script into a crappy movie, but without a good script, even the best director's hands are tied.

    --
    I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  44. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    Now, now, let's be nice and proper. That's the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", not 'mormon church'. And really, don't millions of Hollywood dollars already find their way into the Church of Scientology? (there are some big names in this list). I don't see how that could possibly be considered any less deplorable...

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  45. Re:Yeah, cause we all know that the script is neve by Ki+Master+George · · Score: 1
    - Rather a stupid thing to say when you realize that the director has far more influence on a movie than the script itself.

    Not to mention the actors...

    --
    Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
  46. I'm going to save my money... by zosa · · Score: 1

    ...for the Guns 'n' Roses "Chinese Democracy" CD ;-)

  47. Interesting idea by HBI · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe K-mart can start selling KKK bed sheets now that Martha Stewart is a convicted criminal. It would be not quite as disturbing as having the institution of marriage devalued as it is today for the sake of some filthy lucre in taxes and medical benefits. That is _all_ that this current tempest in a teapot is about. Beside the incrementalist gay agenda of making the 'lifestyle choice' more acceptable to the masses.

    Card is right on target with that stuff.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are an idiot.

    2. Re:Interesting idea by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Beside the incrementalist gay agenda of making the 'lifestyle choice' more acceptable to the masses
      Stop getting all your "news" from Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh.

      The gay marriage issue is about the seperation of Church and State, pure and simple. You have one group of people who want to use the power of government impose THEIR ideology on everyone else, and you have another group who are sick and fucking tired of having someone else's religion forced down their throat every time they turn around.

      If Bob and Neil want to marry each other, how the FUCK does that "dilute" my marriage? It doesn't make me love my wife any less, or her love me any less, or interfere in any way with us raising our children.

      Part of the problem that you narrow-minded nitwits can't get through your thick skulls is that the word "marriage" has two completely distinct meanings. There is the religious sacrement of marriage, which is whatever your religion of choice says it is; and there is the secular and legal institution of marriage which recognizes that a permenent bond exists between two people.

      No one is saying that your CHURCH has to marry gay couples -- that would be an unconstitutional limit on your free practice of religion. If your church only wants to perform marriages between people of the same race and opposite genders, so be it. What happens behind the doors of your church is your business; what happens behind the doors of other peoples' bedrooms is theirs.

      What they are saying is that ALL couples in binding relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of whether the gender of the participants. Get it?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:Interesting idea by Ykant · · Score: 1
      ...having the institution of marriage devalued as it is today for the sake of some filthy lucre in taxes and medical benefits.

      Presently, I fail to see marriage having any benefit beyond the monetary. Help me out here.

      --
      Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
    4. Re:Interesting idea by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well it's good to know that social conservatives now think the KKK is bad, and have moved the meter up to "evil fags that are ruining my life and must be greedy money hungry bastards". Bravo to you for letting the colored folks on your side of the line.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Interesting idea by realityfighter · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said, but I have to point out that financial survivability is also an issue. The substantial tax breaks given to married couples have been around so long that our economy has adjusted to it. Today two unmarried people living together have a much harder time surviving than might the same two people as a married couple. So getting those tax breaks is important to most gay couples who live together.

      However, the grandparent is wrong in thinking that the desire to get these particular tax breaks indicates some kind of greed. I don't mean wrong in the factual sense, I mean wrong in the way that should make them ashamed to say such things. If a convicted felon can get the tax break just by getting married, I think it's safe to say we give them out to more or less anyone, regardless of whether they "dilute" societal standards. Wanting to be on the same financial footing as everyone else is not "greed" - it's more like survival instinct.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
  48. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, it's good to see the slashdot branch of the SS is still up and running.

    -1 Troll? C'mon, you've got to be joking me. Tell me how a post which questions the morality of patronizing a man with disgustingly homophobic positions is a troll. Shouldn't people make an informed decision about who they give their money to?

    The mods ought to be ashamed of themselves on this one.

  49. The next thing you know... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...they'll make a really crappy movie out of a sort-of-crappy video game and... oh yeah. Wing Commander.

    And with that went any idea I ever had for any adaptation of Larry Niven's Kzinti works. It would either look like that or some furry fan's fantasy. Either way, a total clusterfark.

    I am of course fearing the worst with the Narnia project.

    Litmus test: if you can't translate something as simple as a video game or anime into a live action motion picture that doesn't suck like a Dyson, then you have no business taking on cherished SF or Fantasy classics. Think of it as learning to crawl before you do the Boston Marathon.

    Of course, since everything not forbidden is compulsory, adaptations of Anthony's Xanth must be coming soon. Thank G-d that some corners are humongous. Ringworld is supposed to be right around one. For the last five years or so.

    Am I the only one who wishes they could get tickets to a Vogon Poetry jam?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:The next thing you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...adaptations of Anthony's Xanth must be coming soon

      It's already been announced. They're adapting "A Spell For Chameleon."
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436786/

    2. Re:The next thing you know... by nutshell42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The reason the Wing Commander movie was so dissappointing was that WC3+4 had shown that you *could* do it better. One of less than a dozen games that used FMVs and didn't suck.

      At least we have Battlestar Galactica. It just feels like a Wing Commander series done right. Even without Kilrathi =)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:The next thing you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a Dyson upright.

      It was cool looking. The parts looked well made. Things went together nicely. It fit under tables and whatnot. It didn't suck.

      Literally. It wouldn't suck grit off a marble floor. Our old vacuum cleaner, with bearings shot badly enough to set your teeth on edge, picked up said grit no problem.

      Astonished, I vacuumed the entire downstairs, then again, with the Dyson, to see what it would pick up on the second pass. A bit, but not a lot. Then I vacuumed the whole downstairs with the old vac. Gave me a bad headache. Sucked up plenty of crap.

      The Dyson went back in the box and we had to find yet another vacuum, as Eureka had discontinued the Whirlwind model we had.

      Hmpf. Maybe I got a lemon.

    4. Re:The next thing you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...adaptations of Anthony's Xanth must be coming soon

      It's already been announced. They're adapting "A Spell For Chameleon."

      --- and ironically, who does IMDB list as producer on A Spell for Chameleon? David Benioff.

  50. Let me guess: Plot Revelations by TheGuano · · Score: 2, Funny
    First, the movie will not take place near Earth. Nor will it feature aliens or space warfare. Instead, it will be about a virus that infects people and turns them into zombies, but there WILL be a double-barreled shotgun. The reason? The writer claims, "The original book was so suspenseful and scary that we could never hope to top it."

    I can't wait.

    1. Re:Let me guess: Plot Revelations by sharkey · · Score: 1

      So long as they're true to the SPIRIT of Ender's Game...

      And have the Bio Force Gun.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Let me guess: Plot Revelations by CarbonPath · · Score: 1

      ....Starring Tobey Maguire as Ender, with Jessica Alba as Petra...The plot's emotional center being Ender's conflict of exploring his newfound love for Petra while at the same time becoming mankind's last hope for survival...
      Special appearance by Snoop Dogg as Mazer Rackham...

      AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

      --
      ' I'll eat anything, as long as someone else has tried it first. '
    3. Re:Let me guess: Plot Revelations by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      If Ender refers to the shotgun as his 'boomstick', I'm there.

  51. Young Anakin! by filtur · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can get that kid who played young Anakin to star as Ender, that would be wonderful!
    sarcasm

    1. Re:Young Anakin! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Informative
      It was seriously considered: http://www.philoticweb.net/movie/cast.phtml

      Orson Scott Card sez:
      "The Jake Lloyd story is old news. He's already too old to play the part. He would have been a great Ender, though, if we could have put it together in time. You never got a chance to see what Jake could do in a well-written part with a director who knows how to direct actors. Let's just say that Fantum Mennis had neither ingredient. Likewise, Haley Joel Osment would have been brilliant, and will be in anything he does. Like Roddy McDowell and Elijah Wood and Henry Thomas, he can act, but he's also too old." (B&N Chat, Jan 2) "

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  52. Don't make it a movie. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Make in a mini-series. Sci-Fi did ok with Dune (Kept to the story line but the acting and visuals sucked). BattleStar Galactica is working out better than I had hoped. Eathsea sucked but maybe they could pull off Enders's Game.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  53. Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the fucking Iliad.

    Achilles sits around for 9 books, while Diomedes (not even IN the movie) and Ajax (killed in the FIRST battle) and Menelaos (same) beat the crap out of people.

    Most of the action is dominated by the Gods, not the mortals.

    Achilles DIES before he gets to Troy, but that *isn't* in the Iliad.

    The Trojan horse bit is really written down in Vergil, but he was *never credited*.

    When Achilles and Hector fight, Hector *runs* first. The reason they fight is because Hector is trapped outside the city walls, not because he comes down to fight Achilles. Gods interfere with the fight.

    Aeneas isn't some random guy in the end, but he is a rather minor trojan prince who's the best fighter outside of Hector on the Trojan side. Read the Aeneid for more info.

    The movie Troy was a huge cinematic blunder ruining one of the greatest stories of all time.

    1. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie is only inaccurate to the people who've actually read these stories and/or are *extremely* familiar with it for other reasons.

      That pins down not very many people. Everyone else will remember the story just as it was shown.

      [sarcasm]Besides, you get to see Brad Pitt all but naked. That makes it a good movie! [/sarcasm]

      In all honesty, the general public doesn't know enough about it to care. Which blows.

    2. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Wow, I don't see a SINGLE bad thing about the movie in your whole post. At all. You just said it doesn't follow the old stories, which is not even a related matter in the slightest. You can't just say something is bad because it isn't like something else. (Well, clearly, you can, but you look like a moron if you do.) I might as well say that LotR (the books) sucked because they weren't based on real life.

    3. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by drsquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I fail to see what discrepencies with the Iliad have to do with the film. I, along with nearly everyone else in the world, haven't read, and don't care one jot about the Iliad. You're like one of those Tolkien nerds who rants on and on about how the Lord of the Rings films are not true to the books.

      Honestly mate, no-one cares. I can't imagine anything more lame than a film where everything gets decided by 'gods'. It would be like Jason and the Argonauts multiplied by a million.

      As for your last comment, the Iliad isn't that good. People wonly think it's good because it's old. If it was written today people would criticise it for being overly long and pretentious.

    4. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by DarkFencer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At some point, when you are going to differentiate SO MUCH from the original story - that's when you should just create your own fucking story with a new title.

    5. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Atzanteol · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What in the world don't you get? This guy screwed up one movie based on a book previously, and now he's going to do another one. That's *bad*.

      And the movie "Troy" did suck. I just saw it recently with my fiancee, and even she hated the thing.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that we are discussing making a movie based on a book (Ender's Game). The guys they are hiring to script it just finished doing something similar, and weren't very good as sticking close to the source.

      The concern then, since you seem to have missed it, is that they will not stick close to the book (Ender's Game) when they do this movie, and it will not, by extension, be as good as the original (since his point is that the movie's aren't as good as the original--whether or not you agree).

      So the point is this: did the changes they make enhance the story, give it more depth and help it along, or did the changes merely dumb it down for the masses?

      Related to this point is this: since Card is alive (and well) at this time, how much say does he get in these movies? After all, if he is directly involved, they are much more likely to, if nothing else, stay close to what he intended. Which is what I want to see. I don't care if there are minor changes (even in the dialog), but I DO care if the intent is changed.

      That's why I like the LOTR movies--they make it about telling a story--not some political mumbo-jumbo. I think Tolkien would have been moderately pleased with the movies, had he been around for them.

      I think that if they screw with the plot on this one, Card will be ticked. Keep it close to the original (in this case), and the movie will be good. Otherwise, no show.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    7. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point, when you are going to differentiate SO MUCH from the original story - that's when you should just create your own f'ing story with a new title.

      Umm, you mean like calling it "Troy," instead of calling it "The Illiad?"

    8. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by aftk2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      People wonly think it's good because it's old

      Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.

      Now doesn't that make more sense? And Jesus...how is the Iliad "overly long and pretentious?" Try reading Gravity's Rainbow.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    9. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wow, then it's a good thing they called it "Troy" instead of "The Illiad" huh? They told their own story about Troy - I'm not sure what the problem is there.

      That's not to say they won't go and ruin Ender's Game, however, where sticking to the book would be a good thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by drsquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Let me get this straight. People think the Iliad is good because it's around 3,000 years old? I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. The Iliad is still around after 3000 years because it's good.

      Not really. Let's face it, if someone came out with that today, it would be slated, no-one would like it. People read it to look sophisticated. A bit like Shakespeare really. It might have been acceptable centuries ago, but by today's standards, the characters are flat, the dialogue is ridiculous and the plots are very basic.

    11. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      And the movie "Troy" did suck. I just saw it recently with my fiancee, and even she hated the thing.



      Well... there you have it. I'm convinced. Next time, I'll be sure to visit www.reviewbyfiancee.com before I rent (or buy) a movie.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    12. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I guess how much the discrepancies matter depend partially on how much the movie was intended to be a strict adaptation of the book. I mean, the book is really a transcription of an oral-history/poem as it was at the time it was transcribed, and one might argue that the legend has some independance from the poem itself, the legend being much older than the poem as we have it, especially when we consider that there have been thousands of years in the meantime to interpret and reinterpret the story.

      And it's not even as if the movie was titled "Homer's The Illiad" or anything like that. Simply "Troy". In such a case, I'd allow a little latitude to think the filmmakers were producing their own interpretation of the legend rather than an attempt to exactly transfer the poem's medium from book to film.

      Not that I liked the movie-- I didn't.

    13. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by GPB · · Score: 1

      Card being alive during the making of these movies may not make a bit of difference. It all comes down to what rights he retained when he allowed his books to be made into movies. Most writers don't get to retain enough rights to their works to keep the movies on par with their books, which is why movies are usually much different.

      Does anyone know if Card retained some sort of creative control over the content of this movie?

      -B

    14. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er....he did do that. I don't believe that the movie was called "Iliad: The Movie" but it was an extreme adaptation of the events centered around the fall of troy....

    15. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Tassach · · Score: 1
      You're like one of those Tolkien nerds who rants on and on about how the Lord of the Rings films are not true to the books.
      If you are going to do a theatrical adaptation of a book, you should either BE FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK or call it something else. If you don't like the book the way the book is written, write your own damn story.

      So many "adaptations" of books these days are just blatant attempts to cash in on name recognition of a popular author.

      Jackson's adaptation of LoTR is particuarly frustrating to fans of the books, as he made such a big deal of how faithful he was going to be to the books when he started the project. When they hit the screen we found that he STILL wound up pulling a bunch of completely inauthentic scenes out off his ass and managed to completely screw up a number of key plot points for no good reason. It wouldn't have been so offensive if he hadn't lied to the fans from the start.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    16. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Tassach · · Score: 1
      by today's standards, the characters are flat, the dialogue is ridiculous and the plots are very basic.
      Compared to what? The same thing can be said of the VAST majority of modern literature.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    17. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by halber_mensch · · Score: 1
      Read the fucking Iliad.
      ...
      The movie Troy was a huge cinematic blunder ruining one of the greatest stories of all time.

      Hence in the titles - "Inspired by the Iliad", and not "This is the Iliad".

      Yes, they weren't true to the actual Iliad, but the movie wasn't supposed to be the actual Iliad. It was supposed to be a piece of entertainment centered around the names of Homerian heroes that would get people into theaters. I would agree with your anger if the movie made some claim at actually representing the Iliad, but fortunately it doesn't.

      The anger you show about the misrepresentations of fiction such as The Iliad is shared by many avid readers of the X-Men series who are pissed off because Lady Deathstrike's inadequate role in X-Men 2 completely ignored her real role with Wolverine in the comics. And it still holds as much weight - the movies are fiction extended upon fiction.
      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    18. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by schemanista · · Score: 1

      but by today's standards, the characters are flat, the dialogue is ridiculous and the plots are very basic.

      Even by Slashdot's standards that statement is ridiculously uninformed.
      --
      I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
    19. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If you are going to do a theatrical adaptation of a book, you should either BE FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK

      1. It's not theatre, it's film.
      2. The keyword is ADAPTATION, it doesn't have to be exactly faithful to the book, it's merely adapted from the book. Also I think removing the gods from Troy was a good move. Makes it a more human story rather than a series of deus ex machinas.

    20. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Shakespeare was supposed to be the cream of 1600s literature. If that was the best, and wasn't all that good, what does it say about the ones no-one remembers?

    21. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Man, I had mod points all weekend and they expired just this morning. What a frickin' shame; you've been modded down entirely unfairly.

      Not that I agree with you completely. I wouldn't call the Iliad "not that good". Too long, arguably, but if it's chanted at you by an expert in the original Greek, it's rapturous. Not that I'm expecting that, but the point is that an English translation is a different thing from the original.

      It's pretentious only if you're reading one of the cruddy Victorian translations, which most people do. The story can be very exciting if translated well. There are a few good new ones I like much better.

      I think a movie based on the Iliad could potentially be very interesting. But you're right that this isn't that movie. Me, I liked Troy. It had great performances by Bana, Pitt, and especially O'Toole, and some nice historical nods to those who have read the Iliad.

      Sorry about your karma.

    22. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      That's why the movie is called "Troy", and not "Illiad", doh.

      Seriously, while Homer had great ability to narrate, and a great skill as a poet, his story sucks. Every time a hero is going to do something decisive, a god gets in the way, helping him or not. There are almost no human achievements in the Illiad, because gods do all the hard work, while humans do all the dying.

      Have you heard about "Deux Ex Machina"? A magic plot device that solves any problem in the story? Illiad is plagued with them, so you cannot enjoy the story, because you know that, whenever thigns are getting interesting, a god will interfere.

      Troy, on the other hand, manages to tell a decent story about people. It's not a master piece of cinema, but at least is interesting.

    23. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Even beyond that, the movie Troy starts long before the Iliad starts and ends well after the Iliad ends. The Trojan Horse, as famous as it is, doesn't come from the Iliad; neither does the theft of Helen.

      The legend is quite independent of that one particular poem, and has historical relevance to boot. There really was a Troy; there's good reason to believe a battle was held there that razed it to the ground.

      They were trying to tell a fictionalized version of history. They took many sources, of which the Iliad was only one, and not all of them were legends. They left out the gods precisely because they were telling history rather than myth. The gods were mythical, but there's good reason to believe that Achilles was very real, and more realistically portrayed in the movie as a great warrior than as a man protected by a bath in the Styx.

      Then they modified the stories for the screen, and yeah, I think they kinda yucked it up when they did so. I wasn't the only one in the theater who said, "What?" when Menelaus died. (Nearly the only one, but not quite.) I'm sure they wanted a sort of closure they couldn't get by telling, say, the rest of the story of Agamemmnon, so they just killed him off there.

      I kinda liked it. I liked the nods to the Iliad. I loved Eric Bana and Peter O'Toole. I liked the idea of telling the story as history rather than myth. Not the best film I saw that year, but hardly ranking (as Roger Ebert did) with Alexander. Now _there_ was a piece of historical crap.

    24. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Have you read the Illiad? If you haven't, then shut up.

      It's boring because gods decide everything. One thing is to talk about predetermination and destiny, and represent those things as gods, and another very different is to have Hector kick ass ONLY IF he is helped by a god, and to be killed the very second the gods stop smiling on him. That's just pathetic.

    25. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      I don't know that, but I do know this:: if he was doing the agreement today, he would probably retain that. When it was licensed? I can't say.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    26. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Where do you get that Shakespeare is the cream?

      He was popular and funny and accessible. If I were to compare his works to anyone today, it would be Andrew Lloyd Weber.

    27. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Can you give the specifics on a good modern translation of the Illiad? I read a modern one a few years back, and I was quite unimpressed, but I'd love to find a translation with good prose!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Mercuria · · Score: 1

      won't that be kind of hard not to change major plot points? at least, if they leave in all the parts with Valentine and Peter. (They could make it entirely about Ender and sidestep this whole issue) It was pretty clear that the original alien invasion of earth had occured while the Cold War was still going on, so a lot of the political games that they played as "Locke" and "Demonsthenes" on the Internet were based on those tensions having been put on hold so that a cohesive world government could fight the Bugger menace, but heating back up again (train movements behing the Iron Curtain and such) because it had been so long since anyone had last seen an alien -- long enough that the Earth had re- and even over-populated itself.

      On the other hand, Card himself has had to gloss the end of the Cold War over in the Shadow books. So, if they do consult him, the unavoidable changes could be as acceptable as the new sequels, but if not...

    29. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The Robert Faigles version is pretty good. But it's poetry, not prose, as is the nearly-as-good Robert Graves version.

      Unfortunately I kind of overstated my case in the grandparent post. Some passages, especially the action-adventure ones, translate brilliantly. The long sections of "Then this guy came from over here with his 200 warriors in a big black boat, and than that guy with 1,000 warriors in a green boat..." sound better chanted in Greek but there's not much to do with them in English.

      What I'd really like is to get Seamus Heaney to do one; he did a bang-up job on Beowulf and another on Antigone. Why not take ten years out of your life to produce yet another Iliad?

    30. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Fareq · · Score: 1

      It was licensed not-all-that-long ago, IIRC.

      As for rights retained, card originally drafted a script for the movie, but the script he wrote is not going to be used (obviously, since they are having others write the script).

      According to his website, Card wants to see the best possible movie made out of the story, regardless of what must be changed or dropped.

    31. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase:

      Seriously, while the unknow authors had great ability to narrate, and a great skill as poets, their story sucks. Every time a hero is going to do something decisive, God gets in the way, helping him or not. There are almost no human achievements in The Bible, because God does all the hard work, while humans do all the dying.

      Have you heard about "Deux Ex Machina"? A magic plot device that solves any problem in the story?
      The Bible is plagued with them, so you cannot enjoy the story, because you know that, whenever things are getting interesting, God will interfere.

      In modern literary analysis, deus ex machina is used to describe actions that are improbable, unexpected, and create solutions to nearly insolvable problems. For instance, a calvary charge that turns the tide of a battle, or a train crossing the road at just the right moment to allow the hero to excape during a car chase. In The Illiad, the intervention of the gods was not unexpected or improbable (though their interference did often solve problems).

      On a side note, the gods are interfering on both sides of the battle, and (to my mind) the gods often make things more interesting. They are fighting each other as much as the mortals are!

    32. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      It's "Deus Ex Machina", and since the term refers to a device used in Greek Tragic theater not developed for at least 200 years after the Iliad, you're wrong.

      People certainly *do* make choices in the Iliad. Have you read it?

    33. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by srussell · · Score: 1
      Related to this point is this: since Card is alive (and well) at this time, how much say does he get in these movies?
      Don't hope for too much on this front. Look at what the Sci-Fi channel did to Ursula LeGuin's "Earthsea".

      It depends, a lot, on how much control Card retained when he sold the movie rights. It is very likely that he retained little enough that the studio doesn't give a rat's ass whether Card gets pissed or not -- especially not if they also bought the movie options for the other books in the series, which is almost certain. Studios like to have complete control, and can afford it. A tiny bit of money (to the studios) is a huge amount to even a popular, productive author like Card.

    34. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't understand your concern.

      I for one am brimming with anticipation at seeing how they'll film the dramatic death scene of Peter Wiggin when he fights the buggers on mars in the middle of the film and is split in half by their manta rays. It'll beat Menelaus's death no problemo.

      Oh, and the scene where Achilles is killed by Sister Carlotta by a rosary through the heel of his lame leg, followed by twenty other rosaries through his vital organs. Considering the screenwriters' previous credits this will be handled sensatively and will occur in the appropriate point in the story (First page of the script)

      And there will be no more of those generals spoiling the story like how the gods spoiled the Illiad. Ender just wanders onto a space station, kicks ass, sulks, then negotiates the Bugger peace treaty in the screenplay, falling in love with their bug princess, played by Natalie Portman painted green.

      Finally, and I think I speak for everyone, the cast of Dawson's Creek, who so successfully played teenagers even as they hurtled towards their thirties, are the ideal choice for the titular main cast. They can put asses in seats. Is the joke dead yet?

      --
      Yup...
    35. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like they did with "I, Robot" ... errr ... never mind.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    36. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Well, now, Troy certainly was pretty sucky. But besides that, I think I recently came to understand why Hollywood buys books and amkes completely different films form them - e.g. I Robot, Constantine, etc. etc.

      And this epiphany came from reading a review of The Avengers...

      The reviewer pointed out that Avengers fans hate the Avengers film, because it can not be the Avengers; no matter how well Finnes and Thurman act, they can never be MacNee and Rigg.

      But at the same time, regualar film goers hate the Avengers because it is nearly an Avengers film; they find the cosntant stream of surrealistic stuff too rich for their tastes.

      So the film maker, trying to adapt an existing work, will always loose if she tries to copy the source exactly.

      So, why adapt at all? Because adapting means that the public will have vaguely heard of it before as something that is "good", and so it might tip them over the edge into seeing it.

      Hence "I, Robot"; sure, it pisses over everything Asimov ever taught us, but we were always going to find fault with it; the general public just want to see a film where Will Smith runs some robots over in his car, but for a few quid you can give it a name that might ring a few bells.

      So, the correct approach for the new Enders Game film is this:

      Don't go and see it, because you will probably hate it. But at least Mr Card gets a pile of cash. (Even if you think Mr Card is broke, don't go see it or buy the DVD, buy a few copies of Enders Game and give them to people who've never read it.)

      I used this technique on Mystery Men, and feel a lot better for it. Piece of shit, but a pile of cash for the sainted Bob Burden that hopefully will go to making more Flaming Carrot comics. I worked out how much I would have spent on it, and bought FC comics instead.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    37. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by justins · · Score: 1
      The movie Troy was a huge cinematic blunder ruining one of the greatest stories of all time.

      You know what's funny? One actually can consider the film to have "ruined the story," if one considers movies to be authoritative and more important than books. In this case, books which have been around for thousands of years, and existed before that as oral traditions.

      If you don't share this warped view, you should view the thing as just a movie. Which is all it was intended to be, I imagine.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    38. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Tungbo · · Score: 1

      I accept a certain amount of artistic license and reinterpretation. So most of the film did not bother me. There are a few changes that I don't approve of as it changes drastically the nature of the tale.

      1. The Trojan war took almost 10 YEARS !
      That explains why the Greeks were so eager to conclude it one way or another. When you watch the film, you might have thought all the events took place over 2-3 weeks.

      2. Achilles was sulking because King Agamennon took his spoil of war (a not too famous woman). Achilles loved Patricles, but was not particularly chilvarous. Hollywood had to stick a romance in there.

      As for Aeneas, I conside it really a pastiche. Vergil was clearly doing the same as many ancient poets: trying to elevate his patron's cultural lineage by linking it to an ancient tale. Aeneas was molded to be a virtuous version of Oddyseus and a warrior founder of the Roman lineage. But this is scarcely supported by history and other accounts. It's the poetic skills of Vergil and the obsequious nature of the tale which quaranteed its survival.

    39. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by eumaeus · · Score: 1

      And they skipped the Catalogue of Ships! How dare they!

      I love the Iliad, deeply and widely, but I had no trouble enjoying Troy. Watching 9 years of indecisive war would get old, and watching Achilles sulk for a week would, too.

      It's a movie, and movies are different from poetry. I don't agree with every decision these guys made (and I regret having seen Brad Pitt forced to try to adopt a British accent), but I understand the need for most of them.

      Before the Iliad got rammed through a process of normalization during the 6th century BCE in Athens, you could have seen a gajillion different "Iliads" performed around the Greek world, with poets changing them to suit their audience and circumstances.

      And Menelaus? For 3000 years he has needed killin', IMHO.

    40. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hands off from Shakespeare!
      I'm not native english speaker nor reader, but i found Shakespeare's acts(for example Hamlet) very interesting and really funny, uncomparable in quality to modern bestsellers, most of them being bunch of poo.
      But real question is: Would scenarists destroy "Ender's Game"'s plot as they already destroyed Troy's?

    41. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good points! And don't forget Ender's final speech as president of united Galaxy.

      doh! i'm starting to hate an idea of this movie.

    42. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, you mean like calling it "Troy," instead of calling it "The Illiad?"

      Seeing as "The Iliad" means "The Story of Troy" doesn't make for that much of a change.

    43. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Both the Iliad and the Left Behind series are flat, somewhat boring stories with little character development, and lots of battle.


      Judging by the popularity of the Left Behind series among people, both religious and secular, I can only imagine that the Iliad would have at least the same popularity.


      PS: If you think the Iliad is boring, have you read the Ramayana?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    44. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Earthsea was funny. How you can take 700 pages on the importance of true names and then screw up the true names of the characters.... yeah, i really don't wanna know.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    45. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by ajs · · Score: 1

      "Shakespeare [...] was popular and funny and accessible [...] I [would] compare his works to [...] Andrew Lloyd Weber."

      Do you have any concept of how hard achieving that degree of popular, funny and accessible are?!

      I'll make this simple for you: ALW could not begin to write a piece of work with the layers of complexity of a King Lear or a Hamlet. It's that simple.

      Hamlet, just as an example, is cliche today because we've examined it endlessly, and had it shoved down out throats over and over, but the fact remains: you can pull that play apart into 1000 pieces and each one holds up under some pretty damned strict scrutiny.

      Its pacing is outstanding given the ground it covers (so much so that "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" was able to tell an entirely different story without having to diverge from the core timing... try this with most plays and you have to re-construct the timing entirely); the soliloquies and monologues ring so deep with us that every generation since has found new and profound ways to re-express them (many focus on Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be..." soliloquy, but I prefer Polonious's "to thine own self be true," monologue which manages to touch on themes that are just as profound, and yet maintain its comedic timing and raw humor value); and the characters are so engrosing that they have been lifted and re-used by thousands of playwrights, authors, screenwriters, etc.

      I think there were better playwrights throughout history, but ALW is not one of them.

    46. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by razjml · · Score: 0

      That would be fair to say (Rogers & Hammerstein would be closer though) if Shakespeare had only done comedies and romances - and maybe you've only read his comedies, with Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar thrown in for good measure?

      You're forgetting that Weber's Phantom of the Opera is a disney-fied, streamlined retelling of what originally was a dark, grotesque story. Shakespeare, on the other hand, took the story of King Leir, a popular fairytale with a fairytale ending, and turned it into what is often considered the darkest play ever written. He took the story of Troilus & Cressida, two characters from the Illiad, and turned it into a black, black, existentialist comedy about the meaninglessness of existence.

      And then he followed these up with a string of romances, like The Tempest. He contained multitudes.

      It's so fashionable for people to disparage Shakespeare based on the three plays of his they read in Sophomore English in high school. Maybe they should read the rest of his stuff before they make any hasty judgments.

    47. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by CryptoKiller · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. It's very easy to see Shakespeare in the way that it's presented to us now and to forget the historical context.

      Does that mean in 400 years we'll have the RSC performing Starlight Express and Cats?! ;-)

      *shudder*

    48. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by M'Barr · · Score: 1

      I heard from him 2 weeks ago, when he announced that this deal had been signed. It was at a signing at a B&N for Shadow of the GIant.

      A) He's very happy with the writers. He liked the movie. I didn't see it, so who knows.. but he liked it.

      B) William Peterson is attached. He likes to work w/ these 2 writers.

      C) Card has a huge amount of control over the production. It will not get made unless he likes the script. Have faith. Really. The mix of Game & Shadow is a very good thing, as it allows the movie to move out of Ender's head.

    49. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Mmmm. Yeah, the term may refer something that happens in greek tragedies. But since the term is LATIN, you cannot assure that it is not present in the Illiad.

      Yes, I did read the Illiad. It's a good book, but the gods ruin everything.

      People do make choices in Illiad, but they mainly do not matter. Paris kidnapped Helen because a goddess hated him for a previous contest between goddesses in which he was the judge. Achilles, the big hero is a mamma boy who goes crying after Agamenon takes his slave. etc.

    50. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      The Bible as a whole is not a good story. Some parts are, but the whole not. This has nothing to do with the bible religious importance, just as the bible as a book.

      Back to Illiad, the gods tell what is going to happen. They say "yay, let's make Patroclus kick ass for a while, then let him die", and, they do exactly that. And, when finally they do not help him anymore, does Hector kills him by his own hand? HELL NO, that might make Hector look like he is a good warrior! Apollo blinds Patroclus and only then Hector kills him.

      I think that the best part of Illiad is the whole fight for Patroclus body, in which gods basically do not mess (IIRC), and humans actually act heroically.

    51. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? by ilyanep · · Score: 1

      true. It was an embarrasment to anyone.

      Hector and Achilles ran around Troy for 4 or 5 times.

      Achilles got angry at Agamemnon.

      There WAS a lot of god intervention.

      oh, and the Trojan horse wasn't even in the Iliad

      Next thing we'll see: Troy 2 (How Achilles rebuilt Troy as his own and called it Chicago)

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
  54. Starship Poopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this turns out as good as Starship Troopers.

  55. How does this make him nutty? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    He was quoted as saying it is rediculous that copyright could ever run out on a living author. I decided not to read any more of his books after that.

    The whole original point of copyright is to make sure the author is able to make a living from his or her work. Once the author is dead, then sure, copyright should end, but until then, I don't understand your point. Particularly when in old age, earning new income can become harder to do.

    The time between the writing of a book and the author's death is often shorter than fifty years anyway.


    -FL

  56. Ender's Game = The Last Starfighter? by crovira · · Score: 1

    This is likely to suck just as badly.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  57. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is, of course, unfair to compare the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the Ku Klux Klan. The Mormons don't have tendencies to go out and murder homosexuals; the worst they do is excommunicate them if they're members.

    Besides, with millions of Hollywood dollars already funding cults like the Church of Scientology, how can any major film these days be considered "clean"?

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  58. Re:Yeah, cause we all know that the script is neve by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    LOL, let's not even go there... I can only imagine how good movies ever actually get made ("Good movies? Are there any?")

    --
    Loading...
  59. Troy, Schmoy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give Benioff and Weiss a break guys. Troy was only what it was because the story is so well known and its so hard to adapt to film because of its range and extensive personal stories that would have to be explored in full in order for anything to work decently.

    EVERYONE HERE should know that with stories like those that Troy are based upon are extremely hard to adapt to allow the general public to enjoy the movie let alone make a decent buck. Everyone complains about 8 hour series of movies like the lord of the rings and then they fail to see what has to go on in order to make a film work , book adaption or otherwise.

    Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow can make a great film, and with Card heading up the supervision of the script and direction we should be well on the way to at least having a film that will show off the main things that made the Ender Saga so wonderful and full of depth.

    It's obvious that you can't cram everything in a book into a 2.5-3hour film, it's impossible so complaining about it won't do anyone any good. Secondly hollywood will NEVER make a movie that will completely hit the target that all the fans of the series set for them. The target for making the fans happy is too small a profit margin, they have to look at the whole picture. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions of people out there that are potential customers and the producers and the owners of the movie rights always look at how to make the biggest buck, its up to people like Card to keep them on track and make the movie that happy medium that will make the fans happy as well as make the most money, and to be perfectly honest, if things don't go well I can be fairly certain that Card would attempt to pull the plug or disown everything that Warner Bros. does in relation to the film if it doesn't fit the criteria has wants met in order to preserve the depth of the story and its characters. It's obvious he'll have to make a few creative concessions but that is beyond what he's attempting to make work on the screen.

    So all of you who are skeptical, just wait till after production starts and we start seeing trailers before all of you bitch. I too am an avid Ender Fan, and I have been following the development of this movie since it's inception, and from my persepctive things look up in comparison to so many other book adaptations. I also have a large amount of faith in Card who has been the backbone of the entire production to help make the right calls and push this movie in the right direction even if he is only a creative adviser to the film.

  60. Combining the books? by Eternal_Flame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well.... that one took me by surprise.
    I've read both Enders Game and Ender's Shadow in the past, and I for one don't think merging the stories will exactly do them any good.
    They're both good books, but it's the different perspectives that differentiate them and make them two separate books, even though they share the same story, and still keep it interesting. Taking both accounts of the story and putting it into one script might ruin some of what makes the story so appealing.

    --
    ~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
    1. Re:Combining the books? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that Hollywood has enough trouble fitting ONE novel into the space of a 2-hour movie without killing it; the last thing they need to do is go and try to fit TWO into the same space.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    2. Re:Combining the books? by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Probably, they want the movie to have some more fully-developed characters. The only way that they could bring in the extra background material about Bean and some of the others that is found only in Shadow is to option that book, as well.

      Also, I wouldn't want to option the first book and then have somebody else option the sequel and come out with a competing movie. Probably wouldn't happen, but I pay for insurance even though I don't think my house will burn down.

  61. This suggests an uncertain studio by JayBlalock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The original Ender's Game book has more than enough material in it to support a movie. (as someone else commented, the original Ender's War short story alone could make for a movie) I don't know why they're roping Ender's Shadow into this UNLESS someone in the studio doesn't trust them to be able to adapt the book and make it work. Perhaps they realize a writer accustomed to writing spectacles is probably not going to be that good with detailed character work. Or perhaps they fear that they won't find an actor who'll be able to capture Ender and make his story, alone, compelling enough. Either way, I see the inclusion of Shadow as a way for them to be lazy. Instead of focusing on the character of Ender, they can have a half-dozen running subplots and keep the audience "entertained" that way. My hopes for this project have definitely sunk a couple notches.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
  62. Re:LOTR by Monkeyboy4 · · Score: 1

    LOTR was a great series of movies, and a pretty honest retelling of the books. I think that is why people earlier mentioned Jackson as a hopeful name to connect with this The issue with bad renditions of books is exemplified in some of Chrichton's movies - Timeline changes the relationship between key characters, drops characters, re-interprets the science involved in the sci-fi, adds an unnecessary love plot, etc. If they have Ender macking out with Petra, I'd be pissed (and disgusted. They are supposed to be pre-pubescent!!) MOnkyboy

  63. Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? yes,but loved TROY by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I agree entirely.

    OSCard also wrote a nice howto book, "How to Write SF/F" in which he says that one of the most important things is to know when to END a story. Well, he certainly fails to take his own advice. Ender's Game properly ended at the point where we killed off the Buggers. It went wrong from the moment the next section started (where Ender goes off and rescues the Bugger queen). It took the book from a heart-squeezing and memorable high to a "WTF? why??", and the sequels went downhill from there. (I don't even remember which one had us largely trapped on the planet of the Piggies, but I have seldom been so bored with any book.)

    As to Ender's Shadow, while the book isn't bad in itself, and explains a lot, I still agree that it dilutes Ender's Game to the point of insignificance.

    And over the course of the series, I really wasn't thrilled to learn that Bean and Peter had never outgrown the sociopathy that is to some degree normal in very small children; in fact, they had become really extreme examples of it as adults.

    Now, as to TROY -- it's a *wonderful* movie. If you expect to see a slavish re-creation of The Iliad, you're doomed to disappointment. But as a character-driven tale of how normal, honest people interact and react when confronted by a younger brother's stupidity, a ruler's arrogance, an overdose of hero worship -- it's absolutely believable, and very well done (and moves so well that it didn't seem like it was 3 hours long, either). Troy was the best film I've seen since Pirates of the Caribbean.

    If the film of Ender's Game gets the same attention to character development and interaction as Troy got, it will be GOOD.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  64. Re:Yeah, cause we all know that the script is neve by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    Indeed, but maybe the script for Troy was fantastic... We'll probably never know. Of course, the idea of squishing 10+ years of war into a 2 hour movie is, by default, ludicrous.

    --
    Loading...
  65. logline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goonies in SPACE!

  66. I think that's the whole problem. by khasim · · Score: 2, Funny
    What the fuck is wrong with people? Honestly, did they even read Ender's Game? It's not just some action movie with kids, you know. Well, at least I can get disappointed early.
    Scene: Ender's sleeping quarters.
    Mazer: "Get up!"
    Ender: "I just got to sleep."
    Mazer: "Get up NOW! You're on!"
    Cut to battle room. Other kids are there. All are tired. Lots of lights (two colours) are on the display.
    Ender rattles off some coordinates. Other kids rattle off coordinates. Lights blink out. All kids rattle off more coordinates. Finally, only one colour lights are left.
    Mazer: "Congratulations. You've won again."
    Other kids look at Ender with a mix of sympathy and admiration.
    Cut to Ender's sleeping quarters.
    Mazer: "Get up!" ... ... ...
    Ender: "Those weren't games. I was killing the Buggers! Nooooooooooooo!"
    Ender slaps both hands to his face ... fade to black.

    I'm predicting maximum suckage.
    1. Re:I think that's the whole problem. by Wog · · Score: 1

      Shamelessly stolen from http://rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/card.endersgame .shtml

      Ender: The government let my parents conceive me because they hope to mold me into the ultimate military commander.

      Government: Ender, become the ultimate military commander and go defeat the buggers.

      (He does.)

      Ender: Horror. I'm only nine years old, and I have already eradicated an entire species. I thought it was a game, but it was for real. I will fret about this in the sequels.

      THE END.

  67. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Card writes a column for our local Conservative Weekly that is the most bland thing I've ever seen (except when he's justifying his hatred of homos).

    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.

  68. Bailey's Zero G Commercial meets Bad News Bears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the pitch, maybe add Karate Kid in there.

  69. Take heart... by sczimme · · Score: 1


    David Benioff?

    My heart soars like a brick.


    Take heart: it could be David Hasselhoff.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:Take heart... by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Or Dave Callaham.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Take heart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again proving that age-old adage:
      "Germans love David Hasselhoff."

  70. No clue by Reignking · · Score: 1

    Does anyone want to sum up Ender's Game for those who have absolutely zero idea what it is about? I've never even heard of it.

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    1. Re:No clue by mgdupont · · Score: 1

      Yes - Ender's Game is the next book you are going to buy from Amazon.com.

    2. Re:No clue by FooAtWFU · · Score: 0
      Supergenius kid is taken off to orbital training facility where he learns the art of war, ultimately destroying an alien civilization.

      Of course, that hardly scratches the surface. (For example, he is ultimately tricked into destroying the aliens -- he's told it's a simulation and he doesn't want to go destroy the aliens so he's like "let's blow up their planet and wipe out the entire species so they think I'm some bloodthirsty monster and are unwilling to let me control the fleet in the future"). Or how his older sister and brother are busy plotting to take over the world while he's away (he ultimately succeeds, even). It doesn't even begin to touch on all the social issues raised (they have a limit of two children for family, Ender is a specially government-commissioned "third"), the various psychological dramas as he rebels against control by the Army and their devious computer-game freeform virtual reality which they try to use to psychologically mold him (with freakish mixed results), rivalries among competing Battle School "armies", the way that Ender is given an army of rejects and submitted to an utterly insane training schedule and wins some rather impossible battles... and the battle tactics and scenes are pretty amazing for mere text. If properly implemented, the eye candy factor alone would make this movie worth seeing.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:No clue by Macrobat · · Score: 1

      Short summary:

      A war in space breaks out between humans and an intelligent insect race. Turns out that space combat ability is a little like chess in that talent can show at a very early age, so the government takes children as young as five and trains them for combat by putting them through simulation games. "Ender" Wiggin is a young child with a talent for combat, so he is one of the recruits.

      The games aren't merely training, or, to put it another way, the training isn't simply in strategy and tactics. The games are also used as psychological evaluation and emotional manipulation, with games-within-games and tests that don't appear, on the surface, to be tests. Fairly creepy thing to do to adults, much less children.

      There's more, but I don't want to spoil it for a potential reader.

      --
      "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    4. Re:No clue by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      better make it Clicky (pops)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:No clue by mgdupont · · Score: 0

      Point noted, jackanapes.

  71. Easy..... by dcphoenix · · Score: 1

    Battlefield Earth

  72. My requested change: by El_Smack · · Score: 1

    Please don't make Ender 6 Years Old. You aren't going to be able to pull it off with a real 6 yo kid, and casting a 13 yo kid to play a 6 yo isn't going to help. Just make Ender 22 and find some guy with actual acting talent play him.

    And if Hayden Christiansen so much as drives by the set, I'm going to hurt someone. Badly.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:My requested change: by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And if Hayden Christiansen so much as drives by the set, I'm going to hurt someone. Badly.
      May I suggest Hayden Christiansen as the person to be hurt? :)
      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  73. Re:Yeah... what about the WRITER? by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1
    "But if the original author of a book is willing to rite the script as well, I fail to see why anyone would reject the idea, especially if the author is one as respected and experienced as OSC."

    Because writing novels and writing screenplays are worlds apart. One quick example: In a novel, the author describes actions and character's thoughts. The screenplay writer cannot do that. Instead he or she has to create everything through dialogue. It's like the difference between a book and a play. On the stage, it's dialogue all the way through. On the page, it's authorial voice much of the time.

    It's one thing to know this difference, and another to be able to be competent in a totally different format. Therefore it is typical for a movie to hire experienced screenwriters to adapt a book rather than have the original writer, inexperienced at screenwriting, try to learn a new art form.

  74. There is still a chance... by oren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that this will be a good movie. I heard OSC give a talk where he refered to the movie, about two years back. It sounded as though he was going to great lengths to ensure Holywood doesn't ruin it.

    It seems he once (almost) sold the movie rights, and as soon as the ink was on paper the studio started making changes like raising the age of the actors to teenagers, adding romantic interest, changing the plot to add a final confrontation between Peter and Ender, and so on. When he protested, they pointed out that the contract gives them the final say on the script. If you want an idea of how bad it would have been, think "Starship Troopers".

    That deal fell through for various reasons, and he swore that next time he'll make sure he has the final say. That's one of the reasons it took so long for the movie to get started - he absolutely insisted that the children be played by, well, children, that the script will not be butchered, etc.

    Another reason is that he wanted to wait until special effects caught up with people's expectations - specifically, getting the battle room scenes right. If you give it a moment's thought, you'll see that this is very, very hard. A *lot* of people at arbitrary orientations very energetically trying to shoot each other out of the sky, creating formations, hiding and launching from the "stars", all in believable zero-G... I can't wait for "the making of" DVD :-)

    At any rate, OSC made it clear he'll have the final word on the movie, otherwise there would be no movie (it isn't as though he needs the money :-). As long as he keeps his word, getting a professional *cough* script writer involved is actually a good thing; books and movies are very different mediums, so being a book good writer doesn't automatically make one a good script writer.

    1. Re:There is still a chance... by fermion · · Score: 1
      I read the book when it first came out, so it has been a while, but one thing stayed with me. The fact that ender was only accidentaly special. That it was not a coming of age, not a chosen one. Just a person with some skills who was tricked into doing dreadful thing.

      It was clasic science fiction where the fx and space was secondary to the people and situations. This is why I am not sure that film can be made. It is going to be hard to get a young actor that act that innocent and that hurt.

      It also sounds like card is giving into hollywood, changing the story from that a world that chooses to fatally damage a child in an effort to save itself, to that of a child that is fatally damaged, and then spends the rest of his life trying to make up for what he did. Which is of course what card did when he changed the book to a series, but at least the book existed to make that specific point.

      So, if final say is about ages, and special effects, and the like, then there is little hope. The tragedy will be turned into the standard chosen one redemption crap.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:There is still a chance... by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

      I note that Card said in the Enders Game mention on his production site:

      "I have every expectation that he and Mr. Weiss will be able to create a screenplay that will distill the strong characters and moral dilemmas of the novel into an exciting film that will justify the huge expense involved in filming it," said Card.

      I notice he didn't say "Belief". That's what I like about OSC, he says things particularly weighty like that, which enables him to take the project away. He's basically insisted on all the things he's usually insisted on, such as children being used, with creative ways for children to be "Shot" by the "Hook" mentioned in Ender's Game but without guns (as he has mentioned would have do be done if this were ever made into a movie).

      From everything Card has mentioned under HatRack River, http://www.hatrack.com/ He's putting alot of faith behind the director of Troy (who's caught some wind despite Troy sucking ass) and I'm all for it. In the end you're right- he'll have final word, and either the children's ages will change signficantly (which I doubt) or they'll use new conceptual technology to overcome it. This is going to be great.

      --
      "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
    3. Re:There is still a chance... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      It also sounds like card is giving into hollywood, changing the story from that a world that chooses to fatally damage a child in an effort to save itself, to that of a child that is fatally damaged, and then spends the rest of his life trying to make up for what he did.

      You need to reread Ender's Game--specifically the introduction. Card says that the only reason he wrote Ender's Game--the novel, that is, as opposed to the short story--was as a setup to Speaker for the Dead.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  75. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

    This is extremely relevant - Card's a pretty screwed up guy. I don't think it should be modded troll - this is a conversation many people here are interested in having.

  76. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Rallion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think people go overboard with this. While I certainly don't agree with his position, it's not as if he's all that vile about it. He simply has some strong religious beliefs. He doesn't advocate violence or mistreatment in any way.

    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.

  77. Re:Yeah... what about the WRITER? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Obviously I have not seen Card's script, and might have different opinions if I could read it. But speaking as one who has read a lot of Card, including all the Ender books:

    Card sometimes does not understand what is most important inside his own books. In fact, IMO Ender's Game is the most prominent example of that. (See my other post where I rant about how it goes wrong the moment we go off to rescue the Bugger queen.) So I find it perfectly plausible that to someone who had read and loved the original book, Card's idea of how to *script* it might well be a poor treatment, because (as the sequels amply demonstrate) he's lost sight of what really made the book have such drive, and may have concentrated on stuff that really relates to the sequels (all of which grate by comparison).

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  78. Expand your awareness ... by Chromodromic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, gosh, with Troy under his belt, all my concerns about the movie sucking are straight out! *cough*

    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, 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.

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
    1. Re:Expand your awareness ... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Troy was a long overblown homage to the concept of man-on-man love.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:Expand your awareness ... by ewhac · · Score: 1
      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.

      Corollary: Sometimes, when a movie is great, there is no direct reason.

      Case in point: Star Wars. Widely regarded as one of the best films ever made, I challenge anyone to point to the reason(s) why it's so great.

      I came upon this "realization" years ago while watching a screen blanker published by LucasArts which included the script of the movie slowly scrolling by, accompanied by still shots from the final film. Divorced from the actors and cinematography, the story was suddenly cast in a very different light. I read along for a while and finally thought to myself, "My $(GOD), this is really lame." (Try it some time. Read the script to Star Wars in plain text and see what you think.)

      Once I had that realization, I started wondering what made the film great (since it clearly wasn't the script). Was it the acting? The art direction/set design? The special effects? The directing? There are reasonable arguments against all of these. So what was it?

      Schwab

    3. Re:Expand your awareness ... by cmpalmer · · Score: 1

      I see where you're coming from and I agree with a lot of what you said, but...

      I'd rather watch an amatuer Shakespeare production than a really stupid screenplay produced with good actors and great special effects.

      I am partial to writers in judging how I think I might like a movie. Also, with Pixar being the exception, more than two writers usually means the story is crap. I also figure that any movie written, produced, and directed by one person is likely to be interesting (may be bad or good, but it is more likely to be someone's vision and not the result of a studio marketing meeting).

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
    4. Re:Expand your awareness ... by turnus · · Score: 1

      Although it is true there are many, many influences on the making of a film, the director generally makes the biggest difference. Even a great director may not be able to take a bad script and make it into a great movie, but he can raise it from a C- to B- grade. It is the director who takes the vision and gives it life. He is the one coordinating all the pieces into the whole of the movie. The one making sure the camera angles support the intended mood of a scene. The one making sure the actors know what is going on in the minds of the characters. The one who makes sure the special effects support the movie, and that they don't become the movie.

    5. Re:Expand your awareness ... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Troy was a long overblown homage to the concept of man-on-man love.

      Wasn't that Alexander?

      Not that I saw either of them.

  79. Mixing two stories into one. . ? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Funny
    At what desk in the editorial process does the brain damage occur?

    I would think that the condition should be easily detectable. --A medical professional should be hired to follow the process of making a screen play proposal along its natural path. Each time somebody says, "No, No! The public doesn't want a screen play written in close parallel to an amazingly popular book which was practically written in movie format to begin with! No! Listen to my small ego! Listen to MEEEE! We have to completely change things around!"

    Then simply have the brain-damaged individual put all of his desk things into a cardboard box and walk him kindly to the exit.

    Repeat the process until all the brain damage has been detected and burned away, (fired).

    The practice of medicine and film making ought to naturally go hand in hand, I think.


    -FL

    1. Re:Mixing two stories into one. . ? by Cyph · · Score: 1

      Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow aren't extremely different stories; mainly because they occur at the same time and at the same location as each other. Ender's Game follows Ender while he's training to destroy the buggers, while Ender's Shadow follows Bean while he's training alongside with Ender to destroy the buggers.

      My guess is when they say that the movie follows both books, they're just saying that they're going to be using the complete story that's developed throughout the two books as the two books essentially just complement each other.

    2. Re:Mixing two stories into one. . ? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      simply have the brain-damaged individual put all of his desk things into a cardboard box and walk him kindly to the exit.
      Repeat the process until all the brain damage has been detected and burned away


      Before and after.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  80. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Zxeses · · Score: 1

    The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.

  81. Homecoming Saga = long and booorrring by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    After reading everything in the Ender universe I could find (Yes, I DID like Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide, so sue me), I said "Hey, this Homecoming series looks pretty cool", and the first book or two was (with all the mind control and crazy foreign culture and what not), but boy did it go downhill after that. Once they're in space it sucks, and once they get back to Earth and discover the super-evolved moles and bats, it's really sucks. The books just went on and on and on with nothing substantial happening. Just my 2c.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  82. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by mandrake649 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I believe that my predilection for Baskin Robbins Black Walnut Ice Cream is genetic. I also feel oppressed because this flavor is not always available. I would like the US Congress to pass a law prohibiting me from being discriminated against and force Baskin Robbins to make this flavor available at all times.
    I also will no longer read posts from, oh, an Anonymous Coward, how appropriate.
    Give us all a break and take your agenda back home where it belongs.

  83. buggers by justforaday · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else think that his "wiping out all the buggers" plotline is just a little too obvious?

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  84. Gosh, just imagine if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they could get the Troy director to do this one, too, and Brad Pitt to play Ender!! The Dream Team reunited for the first time!

  85. Brad Pitt as Ender! by mgdupont · · Score: 1

    I've got my fingers crossed!!

  86. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by HuffMeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, you can be homosexual and be a member of the Mormon church, no problems. It's if you practice sex outside of marriage that gets you excommunicated. I suppose you could argue that this means that you can't be homosexual without being excommunicated, but I know a fair number of homosexual people who are happy with the Church and active members.

  87. All political movements are "incrementalist" by aristus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They have to be. That doesn't make them evil, sneaky, etc. Read up on the history of post-Goldwater Republicanism and expecially that inspired lunatic Ralph Reed. If you have a problem with the "agenda", fine, but there are a *lot* of tactics in common between the so-called Moral Majority and the icky Rainbow People.

    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.

    --
    Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
  88. Synthespians by PxM · · Score: 0

    Given the problems with getting children that are good enough actors, I'm guessing that there is no way to stay accurate to the book and pull off a good movie. If you stay accurate to the book, the bad acting will weaken it and American audiences (cause no moviehouse cares about anyone else for big movies) will freak out over the use of children. It might be better to wait for Final Fantasy level rendering to jump up a few steps and use that for the children. Then use adults who can play children for the voices. Assuming the rendering is good enough to not be distracting, there is still the question of whether moviehouses will think that Americans will like the plot and themes in the book. If that's the case it might be better to try to pitch it to a Japanese anime company rather than an American one. It would be similar to Now and Then, Here and There which was an anime about children being used for war with some similar themes.

    --
    Want a free iPod?
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof

  89. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Richthofen80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to my world, but on a tiny scale for you. I'm a conservative and almost every cool geeky work, whether it be music, movies, art, or anything else, is of the opposite beliefs as mine. Its hard to reconcile.

    For instance, every band I go to see usually gives some sort of political speech and I have to wait through it before I hear the music. A lot of movie stars that I enjoy seeing hate my beliefs too. As a matter of fact, its almost always more likely the opposite.

    So quit whining, one good sci-fi writer doesn't agree with you in the ballot box. So freakin' what? does that make his art any less good?

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  90. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do realize what you are advocating here, right? You're advocating a boycott of an Author's work, not based on the work itself, but based on the Author's religious views.

    Since you support this action, I can only assume that you think it is entirely appropriate for religious individuals to boycott the work of homosexual authors, not based on the authors work, but based on their homosexual views.

    You sure you're cool with this?

  91. not surprising by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have known for a while that OSC was LDS, and have wondered what his opinions on homosexuality were.
    I think that he is pretty fair and rational in these articles, except for the obvious, his casting of unrepressed homosexuals as sinners.
    But really, if you're homosexual, why would you ever want acceptance by the Mormon community? It irritates me that people want equal status wherever they find themselves, without giving into their society's accepted codes. Give people the right to discriminate, because they'll do it anyway, and there's no practical way to use the arm of the law to stop them.
    I don't care what people think the definition of marriage is; definitions, especially culturally loaded ones, are constantly changing. OSC shouldn't be upset about the Massachusetts supreme court deciding to make marriage legal between gays, but I do agree with him that social legislation is bad. The only good solution I see is to stop the government from recognising ALL marriage between anyone.

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
    1. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If anything, OSC is pretty cogent and honest with his views...

      "I learned that being homosexual does not destroy a person's talent or deny those aspects of their character that I had already come to love and admire. I did learn that for most of them their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex."

      And you know, he's right... sexual orientation has nothing to do with talent or (most) character traits that a given person finds admirable in others. He also gives some interesting insight into the LDS/Mormon church...

      "And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another."

      Take a look at that paragraph - he tells us that the LDS church demands utter allegiance of its membership. That he recognizes that and points it out - and still feels obligated to the church - should tell you where his loyalties lie - but that it's a willing allegiance, not a blind one. He understands what he's getting into... and his views seem pretty reasonable...

      The LDS church condemns the act of homosexuality. It is their perogative to do so. If a religion (in this case, the LDS church) is forbidden from teaching that things are "morally right" and "morally wrong" there's no point in having religion in the first place (since, generally, that's what religion is there for).

      I think, however, that another quote of his is perhaps most useful:

      "Oddly enough, even as I am attacked by some as a homophobe, I am attacked by others as being too supportive of homosexuality, simply because I cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself."

      This should tell you where he finds himself - some don't think he goes far enough in his views, which I think are nicely encapsulated here:

      "The predisposition toward various behaviors does not mean that a person no longer has volition. Desire is not identical to action, at least among civilized people. After all, the desire to do physical violence is far more pervasive among human males than homosexuality, yet human males are expected to curb it except when playing hockey. Civilization depends on people being able to master those of their predispositions that are regarded as unacceptable by the community they live in. ... (Race and gender are not behaviors, and so what I am saying about attitudes toward homosexual behavior does not necessarily extend to attitudes toward race or gender.)"

      Maybe I'm just weird, but I think he has a pretty good grasp on his position...

      1 - He feels the LDS church has the right to proclaim something as "morally right/wrong." (After all, that's what religions do).

      2 - He acknowledges that for some people there may be natural genetic disposition toward homosexuality (he's not sure).

      3 - He believes in free will; that is, even if we're pre-disposed to something, we have the free will to follow or not follow that urge (he casts homosexual urges in the same light as violent urges or, probably more appropriately, heterosexual urges) - he argues it's not the urge that is "morally wrong" but choosing (free will) to act upon that urge.

      That conclusion - that acting on an urge can be morally wrong - seems acceptable to me from a logical/philosophical standpoint if you subscribe to his axioms of (1) free will, (2) predisposition, and (3) moral right or wrong (in this case, he takes it as an axiom that the LDS doctrine is correct - that homosexual acts are morally wrong, which is certainly not a unique religious statement; several other religions also condemn homosexual acts, so this is not something coming in out of left field). If you don't subscribe to one or more of those axioms, of course you'll disagree with him!

      He points out that this view that "ho

  92. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    I took a quick glance at http://affirmation.org/, a site about 'gay and lesbian Mormons' and some questions in their FAQ seem to indicate some issues that some members sometimes have regarding excommunication. Sometimes. Hence "the worst".

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  93. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You know, when someone obsesses over homosexuality that much, it's pretty obvious what's going on. :)

  94. OSC recently commented on this movie by DoctoRoR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uncle Orson talked about this movie at a signing a week ago. Here is the gist of his comments:

    • He's rejected quite a few contracts that try to use older characters. He would catch little clauses like the producers reserve the right to make modifications of age.
    • While this movie sits in purgatory, possible lead actors age themselves out of the picture. OSC, though, is confident the actor who will play Ender has indeed been born :)
    • They had to combine Ender's Game with Ender's Shadow in order to get at Ender's inner thoughts. If you look at Ender from the outside, OSC said, he just looks like an angry, dangerous boy.
    • He trashed Lucas and the new Star Wars films and thought Ender's Game, when it's finally made, will have a substantially better storyline.
    1. Re:OSC recently commented on this movie by Drachemorder · · Score: 1
      "While this movie sits in purgatory, possible lead actors age themselves out of the picture. OSC, though, is confident the actor who will play Ender has indeed been born :)"

      It's not entirely a bad thing that the movie is in "purgatory". A few years back, I recall that OSC was interested in having Jake "yippee!!" Lloyd play Ender.

      Sometimes it's a good thing when a kid actor gets too old for a role... ;)

    2. Re:OSC recently commented on this movie by Spire · · Score: 1

      I remember my disappointment when I noticed that Elijah Wood had gotten too old to play Ender.

      --
      begin 644 .sig22&%I;"P@9F5L;&]W(&=E96 LA`end
    3. Re:OSC recently commented on this movie by MavenW · · Score: 1
      He spoke on this quite a bit on the remarks track at the end of the 20th anniversary audio book version of Ender's Game.

      He said he has actually written the screenplay himself--three times. It took three times for him to "get it right". But it will still have to be edited extensively by someone with more credibility before it gets filmed. He has no problem with that.

      Although he has written screenplays before, they weren't for a major motion picture of this magnitude.

      He said he doesn't feel any real need to stick extremely close to the story line. But he won't stand for anyone trying to make Ender be 16 years old and have a romantic interest. Not even Colonel Graff could manipulate a teen-ager into actually listening to an adult.

  95. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Rather than wanting to hurt homosexuals, which is what a homophobe does, he wants to "help" them.

    "Let me save you from drowning", said the monkey and he put the fish up a tree.

  96. Godwin, forgive me! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    assume he's referring to Card's rantings against gay marriage, which aren't hard to find if you go hit Google.
    I've got to admit, I'm a little torn about this myself. It tears me up a bit to think that my patronage of this man's works (I've bought a lot of his books) has enriched someone who uses his money and fame to soapbox out his (IMO) detestable position.


    We are talking about the guy who wrote books that had a race of super beings that were recognised by their blue eyes? If the aryan ubermench undertones didn't bother you so much, why are you so upset over the pink triangles?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  97. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Violence isn't required for someone to be a homophobe.

    From Wikipedia: The term homophobia means fear or hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice or discrimination against, people who are homosexual.

  98. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? yes,but loved T by haagmm · · Score: 1

    Card had actually written several drafts of the speaker for the dead before he began writting the novel of ender's game. The end of the book, and its odd wtf portions were designed to serve as a back drop to the next, partially completed, book.

  99. Double negative question? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    In what way did Troy suck any less than your favourite movie of all time?

    In no way whatsoever. None at all.

    Think about it.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  100. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by blamanj · · Score: 1

    In other words, psychological abuse.

    We'll keep this hammer behind our backs and we'll tell you we're not going to use it and most of the time we'll let you be, but every once in a while we're going to smack you down with this hammer, because you've crossed some invisible line that we've conveniently chosen not to define.

  101. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by anakin876 · · Score: 1

    when did Wikipedia become the undisputed source of all knowledge? That definition right there seems pretty broad and doesn't really allow one one to describe someone who is opposed to homsexuality but does not hate homosexuals (which is what Card seems to be conveying in his essay). Of course, if your personal political agenda includes homosexuality, it would be in your best interest to make everyone opposed to it seem to be hateful and dangerous.

  102. Starship Troopers as commentary on einlein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Starship Troopers is actually pretty good movie, if take as social critique or satire. My opinion is that Verhoeven is savagely mocking Heinlein's philosophy in the book (which leans pretty heavily towards conservative, militaristic, and uber-nationalist). If this is what he was actually trying to do, the best way to do it is with ludicrously cardboard characters and bad acting.

  103. Starship troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Starship troopers was a cheesy rip of Ender's game... must be room for more crap I guess.

  104. Correction by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Troy was not bad but it also was not good.

    Half of that sentence was true: Troy wasn't good.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Half of that sentence was true: Troy wasn't good.

      Oooh, you're witty!

  105. That's exactly what they did by Reziac · · Score: 1

    They didn't call it "THE ILIAD". They called it "TROY".

    As I've said every time the Troy film comes up, if you expect a slavish retelling of The Iliad, you'll hate it, because it deviates considerably, and the Greek gods are entirely absent. But if you view it afresh, and IF you like character-driven stories, you'll love it -- because it focuses most strongly on character interaction, and does a stellar job of it.

    Fundamentally, the film is about "How my testosterone-poisoned little brother caused an international incident", "why kings shouldn't be so damned stiff-necked", and "what happens when a talented but insecure athlete gets WAY too much hero worship".

    TROY could have built the characters and the setting from scratch without changing ANYTHING in the script. But instead they chose to use familiar settings and characters, and to retell The Iliad not as a series of *events*, but as a tangle of *character interactions* -- which I believe was Homer's intent anyway, AND precisely what made The Iliad an enduring work. It was about the *people*, not about the *events*.

    And that is what made Troy a really GOOD film, regardless of what it was based on or what changes it made along the way.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  106. in case you haven't seen Troy by revery · · Score: 3, Funny

    In case you haven't seen Troy (or even if you have), go here and read Troy in 15 minutes

    There is also a Van Helsing in 15 minutes as well, if you like this sort of thing.

    I should warn you though, don't drink anything that will burn your nose while you read these...

    --
    my monitor is still dirty

  107. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? yes,but loved T by Reziac · · Score: 1

    That has the smell of retroactive history to me. Or perhaps of retrofitting an existing partial manuscript (that just wasn't working and wasn't good enough to sell on its own) to make it fit around Ender's Game.

    And that would explain why the two parts are so jarringly dissonant.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  108. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by martin100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i wouldnt care if he hated asparagus or republicans or gays (which he doesnt hate anyway), i just want to see a good movie. religions are crazy, everything they believe is crazy. so what. i read ender's game and liked it, so i will see the movie, accused homophobe or not.

  109. Well, it started out all right. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    I sympathize with the sentiment. It did indeed start out much better than it ended. But you say that you read everything of his you could get your hands on? Dude, Card has some pretty crazy stuff, like Wyrms , A Planet Called Treason , Lost Boys , Lovelock... heck, even Enchantment was rather odd, and Treasure Box was downright freaky.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  110. From a recent OSC talk by banesong · · Score: 5, Informative

    I saw OSC at a book signing last Tuesday (Mar 15, 2005), and he had a few things to say in regards to the movie:

    1. He was pleased with the selection of Benioff and Weiss due to their past performance on pictures such as Troy and 25th Hour.

    2. The actors to play both Ender and Bean have, in his words "probably been born", but as of this moment are not old enough to really be on the radar.

    3. Currently Wolfgang Peterson is slated to direct, and is happy and supportive of the project.

    4. There is a specific clause in the contract to not change the ages of the characters, as this would shift the dynamic of the story in a direction that it should not go.

    5. The main reason for combining Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow is so that a good deal of Ender's emotions (which, for those who have read Ender's Game, is a good deal of the book) will be able to be externalized, or become available to the the viewer.

    1. Re:From a recent OSC talk by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Currently Wolfgang Peterson is slated to direct

      "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.

    2. Re:From a recent OSC talk by Brian_Confucius · · Score: 1

      "Das Boot" was truly an excellent film. It is the submarine movie, and nothing else comes close.

      The funny thing is actual WWII U-boat veterans hate that movie. They don't think it has a shred of realism to it.

  111. We interrupt this thread for this announcement: by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I'm a conservative and almost every cool geeky work, whether it be music, movies, art, or anything else, is of the opposite beliefs as mine. Its hard to reconcile.
    For instance, every band I go to see usually gives some sort of political speech and I have to wait through it before I hear the music. A lot of movie stars that I enjoy seeing hate my beliefs too. As a matter of fact, its almost always more likely the opposite.


    All your beliefs are wrong. Please adjust your worldview accordingly.

    Sincerly,
    Geekdom.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  112. Re:Ender's Game + Ender's Shadow by bsandersen · · Score: 1

    I saw OSC speak in Boston about a week ago. He spent the first
    few minutes discussing the movie and the tremendous problems of making such a work. The breakthrough came when a friend's wife told OSC that the story could be better told by combining these two books, otherwise, Ender's Game could only be told by Ender's inner dialog. The majority of the book is in Ender's head!

    OSC has done all he can to find people to make the movie who will hold true to its roots. It will become a "buddy movie", as he put it, because that's a form that works well for movies. It will not become a romantic chick flick or romantic comedy(!). Everybody signed up to do the work understands that. (Whether they remember it at all the key moments in the development is yet to be seen).

    OSC said, "I think I can now safely say that the actor who will play Ender has been born. Until recently, I couldn't say that."

    OSC responded specifically to some of the criticisms seen here, too. Will Ender be older? Yes, probably. Why can't this just be an instantiation of the book's story? Because as earnest as we all appear, we wouldn't sit through a 6 hour movie with voice-over dialog like, "I wonder what Valentine is doing?"

    OSC wants to see the movie made but didn't want to just "sell out" to the first offer that came along. This offer, the current stuff on the table, is the best he's seen and, he thought, the best he's going to see--so he took it, and the money. And, like he said, "Once you take the money, you lose control."

    Thoughtful comments welcomed. Flames to /dev/null, please.

    -- Scott

  113. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    I wish you'd posted as a non-AC. This would get modded right up.

  114. OSC is good, for small values of good by georgeha · · Score: 1

    I found Ender's Game to be obvious, manipulative and pandering. I don't find him fit to edit DFW's footnotes.

    If you want to read a highly literate writer, try Pynchon.

    1. Re:OSC is good, for small values of good by floorgoblin · · Score: 1

      speaking of ridiculously pompous, DFW is as pretentious as the come, and I don't even see why you are comparing him to Card. Card's books are at least easily enjoyable and readable, and are decently though provoking. I liked Jest, but it could have been about 400 pages shorter.

  115. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    I'm just saying that anyone who acts like it's surprising that Card doesn't like homosexuals clearly knows nothing about him. He goes out of his way to tell us about his Mormon faith, how great Mormons are, etc. etc. It's like being surprised because a Catholic author doesn't like abortion.

    That being said, I've been bitten too many times of late by SF/Fantasy adaptations. I didn't like LotR, and that horrific Costner reworking of the Postman (which is one of my favorite SF novels) approaches Battlefield Earth in the crappiness factor (especially the oh so cliched "bad guy can't rape 'cause he can't get it up big" bit). But we'll see how this turns out.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  116. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  117. You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by HBI · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Your whole second paragraph is some bs assumption on your part. I suppose you think straight people are subhuman, disgusting, and something you don't want going on in your town. Right?

    Maybe I think marriage is a useful construct given declining birth rates amongst Western societies. We are mostly below replacement levels. If we are to preserve our own cultures we have to have more children. These children need to be raised in a secure environment with two parents. Marriage in its traditional form encourages this. Devaluing marriage has no positives for the state and a significant negative.

    The failure of late 20th century social engineering projects has become manifest. This includes gay advocacy. We're going the way of the Romans unless we do something to stem the tide. If that's not cool, tough shit. Making people feel good about themselves in direct contravention to reality is not useful policy if we wish to survive.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by aristus · · Score: 1
      Marriage is far more than just useful, it's older than civilization... and if you've ever been married "for real", you know it's not something that comes from the outside. I couldn't care less what the government thinks of my wife.

      As for this tide of history stuff -- a key word in your post is "preserve". Truly vigorous societies aren't worried about preservation. They are too busy creating anew.

      Another interesting phrase is "positives for the state". I was not aware that people lived to please the State; in free societies it's the other way round.

      The Romans were fully aware of their decline as it happened; and there were many who ran around talking about how they would go the way of the Greeks unless, etc. Very shortly after that, Rome lurched into tyranny in an attempt to keep the State alive at all costs.

      --
      Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
    2. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, lets do some offtopic flamewars. I actually want to ask some honest questions, if you're willing to answer.

      Maybe I think marriage is a useful construct given declining birth rates amongst Western societies. We are mostly below replacement levels. If we are to preserve our own cultures we have to have more children.

      And what's so great about our society? I think we're kind of overcrowded, personally, so shrinking a little isn't a big deal. I come from a melting-pot culture, so I can't say that I have something specific to lose. And, I don't see that as a bad thing. However, revolutions have happened when people were forced to live a way they didn't want to, simply to preserve the local culture (Anglican church in England?) So, why should we tell a gay person he shouldn't be gay, simply to preserve our "culture?"

      These children need to be raised in a secure environment with two parents

      This argument always baffles me. To state the obvious: gay couples don't have children. They are already allowed to adopt, or they can surrogate, but they won't have any of their own. I think the orphan they adopted is better off having parents, gay or otherwise.

      No, the big question: How does allowing loving couples to get married "devalue" the institution of marriage? The general view is that two people in love are married in actuality before they are married legally, and will stay married with or without permission (Romeo and Juliet?). By preventing them from marrying, you are devaluing marriage, because if the state won't recognize reality, people will just turn their back on the state.

      Marriage is a great institution, and it is about responsibility, and making a pledge to each other. Preventing some people from joining in just prevents them from officially making that commitment to being responsible, and forces them to "live in sin". It doesn't make them, or you, better people. It just hurts everyone and the institution.

    3. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your "theory" on declining birthrates has about as much to do with reality as flying pink elephants. Declining birthrates are directly related to the relative average wealth of the majority of individuals in a society. Want to maintain your wealth, have far fewer kids. This process has been going on at least since the Industrial Revolution, and was at least partially responsible for why England was the first nation to see the rise of a middle class. The birth control pill sure helped too, but the declining number of children was going on long before that.

      As to this "Romans" bit. What the hell does that mean? By the time the Empire finally crumbled, it was a Christian state, and had been since the Edict of Milan in 313 AD (the Western Empire fell in 476AD, so that's 163 years of Christianity). I'm assuming you're referring to the absurd revisionism about the collapse of the family unit leading to the collapse of the Empire, which is a oft-repeated bit of B.S. If you're not, then I'd love to hear why you refer to Rome as being relevant to the discussion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Heay, I've got an idea? How about you try coming up with some agument that isn't just a rehash of the same old bullshit people were spouting when they were passsing laws against interracial marriage.

      "I don't like interracial marriage! Waaaa! Waaaa! Interracial marriage devalues marriage! Waaaa! Waaaa! Interracial couples are just doing it for the sake of some filthy lucre in taxes and medical benefits. Waaaa! Waaaa! It's just an incrementalist interracial agenda of making the 'lifestyle choice' more acceptable to the masses! Waaaa! Waaaa! If we are to preserve our own culture we have to have more children - more WHITE children."

      "The failure of mid 20th century social engineering projects has become manifest. This includes interracial marriage advocacy. We're going the way of the Romans unless we do something to stem the tide. Allowing interracial couples get married is just bullshit to make them feel better about themselves. Racial mixing has no positives for the state and a significant negative."

      Yep, if you let an interracial couple... oops I mean a gay couple get married that somehow prevents straight couples from getting married. Ayup. By reducing the number of marriages we are somehow INCREASING the number of marriages. Ayup. By denying people the freedom to get married we are somehow causing fewer children to have two parents. Ayup.

      You're just another bigoted moron who wants to deny other people equal rights. No one is forcing interracial marriage on you, and no one is forcing gay marriage on you. Don't like it? Don't do it.

      The fundamental point is that there is no constitutional way you can write a valid law prohibiting gay marriage any more than you can write a valid law to prohibit interracial marriage. Any law attempting to discriminate between marriage applicants on the basis of religion or gender is just as invalid as a law attempting to discriminate between marriage applicants on the basis of race.

      As far as drafting a law to do what you want, legally it is an identical to banning interracial marriage. Just substitute gender for race in the text of the law and it's identical. The reason you can't do it is identical. The reason you are wrong is identical.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know noone will ever see this post, but I'm going to post it anyway. If you actually see this and have an opinion to express about it. GO ahead and post. I don't have an email to give out yet.

      Folks, this has everything to do with belief.

      Belief and faith fly in the face of logic.

      I believe in God regardless of evidence to the contrary that he does not exist.

      Unfortunatly, in belief and faith there are things completely contrary to logic.

      Also, we have a thing in the US called the separation of church and state. Which very loosly translated says that institutions of faith will not interfere in matters of state and vice versa via Freedom of Religion. The problem is this. The gay community at large was tired of it being an impossibly difficult to be recognized as a couple for medical purposes, tax purposes, and other benefits readily and rightly recieved by heterosexual couples. As a state, there is nothing to be gained and it is wrong to deny gay and lesbian couples the right of a civil union. It allows any couple to recieve the benefits of a committed relationship. The arguments for the benefits and detriments of homosexual civil union should stop here. As many posters have said, the state can't legislate morality. We still do, but we try to limit it to the parts of it that don't directly hurt people. Usually they are things both morally and physically wrong like stating in law that you can't go around killing anyone without just cause. Life issues are another argument entirely.

      IMO, it goes too far when marriage is brought up and performed in a religious institution as a religious ceremony. Specifically in my case as a Christian ceremony. It is a slap in the face for myself and for other Christians. Marriage is a sacred institution for us. And people wonder why we are upset? I think the whole use of the word "Marriage" for a homosexual union is what got alot of people really upset. A semantic debate, but it makes me and many others upset. Why? Because it feels like a covert corruption of what Christian belief feels about homosexuality. (You can now begin the semantic and historical flamewar here about the validity or statments in the Bible that disprove or prove if the homosexual lifestyle is a sin.)
      For the record, I don't hate gay and lesbian people. I don't like the lifestyle, but we are all still people. People who should not be denied housing, health care, good occupations and many other rights as people and as US citizens. I went to college with gay people. I have friends who are gay and family members who are gay. [Suffice to say this causes some interesting discussions]. Also, not to be a hypocryte there are alot of things about myself and my lifestyle I'm sure God is not crazy about either. I'm sure there are people who would definitely and vocal disagree with the way I live my life.
      For example, I am married, but I am not the head of my household. My wife and I are a partership. I don't dominate my wife and demand to be the king of the castle at all times. BAM! Hypocryte! Even though it said during the ceremony my wife and I had. The words to my wife were "love, honor and obey". Do we love each other? Definitely. Honor each other? Sure. Obey? She does n't obey every single command I say. Back in the day she would be considered difficult, shrewish and maybe even wanton.
      Where am I trying to go with all this? Have I proved an argument against or for myself? Probably not. In all this jibbering I'm trying to set down that a complex issue such as this has no great resolution for imperfect people. People who also cannot resolve the divide between faith and logic without becoming hypocrytes to their beliefs or to reality.

      In the long and short, both sides need to really back down from their agendas. It's almost getting as bad as the deadlock between Israelis and Palestinians. Oh wait! They're actually backing off and figuring something out!

    6. Re:You specialize in putting words into my mouth? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Folks, this has everything to do with belief.

      As I'll explain, this has nothing to do with belief. It has no impact on churches at all. It has everything to do with constitutionality and law. Belief neutral law.

      IMO, it goes too far when marriage is brought up and performed in a religious institution as a religious ceremony.

      No one's trying to force churches to do anything. If your church doesn't want to preform gay marriages, fine. You your church doesn't want to preform marriages on thursdays, fine. If there are people inside your church asking for gay marriages or marriages on thursdays, well that's an internal matter. Do it, don't do it, that's up to you guys. You have your religious freedom and I have mine.

      If *my* church or synagog or mosque or chaple of the invisible pink elephant wants to preform gay marriages, or marriages on thursdays, well I don't think you have any right to complain about *my* religious ceremonies. And actually at this point it does not even matter whether gay marriages or marriages on thursdays are recognized by law. Hell, I can have a religious ceremony marrying my pet spider. The government may not recognize that as a legal marriage, but you have no right to complain about the ceremony if my religion wants to preform it. It would be a legally meaningless ceremony, but I have the freedom to go through the motions and say 'I Do' to my pet spider.

      Either way, no church has to do anything it doesn't want to do. Either way, a church can preform any ceremony it likes. Either way this never has any effect on religions or churches at all. The question is solely about what the law recognizes a marriage. A marriage preformed either at city hall or at *my* religious instutution.

      I think the whole use of the word "Marriage" for a homosexual union is what got alot of people really upset.

      Well, interracial marriage got a lot of people upset. Obviously that is not itself an argument *for* gay marriage, and people certainly have a right to get upset about anything they want, I'm just pointing out that people being upset has no bearing on legality.

      the right of a civil union

      Well a heterosexual couples can go to city hall right now and get a "civil union". And by law *all civil unions are marriages*.

      As for legally making gays into "civil unions", I think it's far more legally compex than it sounds. It would be no different than trying to make interracial couples into "civil unions". It would be absurd and pointless and I suspect side effects that no one on any side of the issue would like.

      Ok, lets FINALLY get to the question of legality of gay marriage. Chuckle. Pretty straightforward really. This is pretty much the legal basis for the Massachusetts court's ruling on the issue: It is unconstututional for the law to discriminate between people on the basis of race or gender or religion. You cannot write a law that discriminates on the basis of race or gender or religion. If you attempt to do so, either the unconstitutional portion is struck down as invalid or the entire law is struck down as invalid.

      You can no more have a VALID law that discriminates between marriage applicants on the basis of gender than you can have a law that discriminates between marriage applicants on the basis of race. You can no more write a VALID law to ban gay marriage than you can write a VALID law to ban interracial marriage. Either the unconstitutional disciminiatory portion is null and void and the remaining valid law grants marriages to ANY otherwise qualified applicants, or the ENTIRE law is null and void and NO ONE can obtain a marriage.

      The law can discriminate between adults and 8 year old minor applicants, the law can discriminate humans and animal applicants, the law can disciminate between two applicants and three applicants, the law *cannot* discriminate between applicants based on race gender or religion. The law is-and-must-be colorblind and genderblind and religi

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  118. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Tristan7 · · Score: 1

    Well said blammanj

  119. Knowing hollywood and having read the books... by Minute+Work · · Score: 1

    ...I'm picturing some unholy union halfway between Spy-Kids 3D and Starship Troopers. I can feel my philotic connection to Ender being dimished already.

  120. See what you want to see by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 1

    The first time I read through the intro I read "writer of the screenplay for Tron." And I was happy for a few nanoseconds, until harsh reality set in after the reread.

  121. Exactly! by Tim_F · · Score: 1

    You figured it out!

    1. Re:Exactly! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      You figured it out!

      Do I get a cookie?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  122. Three words: by Racter · · Score: 1

    ARRRRRGH PIGGY SLAUGHTER.

  123. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Minute+Work · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea right on!
    Since the hollywood industry isn't the least bit liberal, it's a shame to see some obviously right-winged movie such as Ender's Game getting made.

    I may buy this one instead of going to see it in the theatre, I'll file it in my alphabetical collection right between Dead Man Walking and Farenheight 911.

  124. Yoda is Vader's father, seek your feelings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know it to be true!

    So small Vader's mom didn't even realise it happened. I guess sort of like asian sex.

  125. The game by MrScience · · Score: 1

    I really hope that the game includes the computer game that Ender experiences. The evolving simulation that explores his psyche, and constantly improves itself to challenge him more.

    I'd provide quotes, but I haven't been able to track it down on the net (and the books are at home). Very innovative stuff, that I'd love to see come to market.

    --

    You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  126. Starship Troopers is grossly underrated by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Starship Troopers is a good movie.
    It is NOT, however, a faithfull adaptation of the book. It didn't even start as such. It started as a "hey, let's make a movie about soldiers shooting up giant bugs!" project, someone mentioned that there was a really good Heinlein book on that theme, and they got the gang from Robocop to make it into a movie.

    So, you have pretty much the same story: A future where humanity lives united under a single government run by the military. A young rich kid enrolls into the mobile infantry to earn the right to vote, since in that world citizen and veteran means the same thing.
    A giant asteroid destroys the boy's home town, the government declares war on the space bugs, things explode, people die, and we learn that the common soldier is a brave and resourcefull man of honour and discipline.

    None of the things I've heard as negatives about the movie made any sense. I've heard people say that it's a bad thing that everyone at the school and in the barracks is young and pretty. But the movie explains that there is a program of selective breeding enforced by the military government: It's easier to get a baby liscence if you go through the mortally dangerous basic training and do your term of service. Have you SEEN their training?

    I've heard that it's a bad thing that they changed things from the book. The book is from the FIFTIES! Its politics are outdated. You can't have a movie where it says that in the future women won't be allowed in the military. You could get away with that kind of thing before Star Trek, but not since.

    Starship Trooper was a good action movie based off a good sci-fi book. With good SFX, pretty people, impressive explosions, the works. It had clever little propaganda movies mixed up with news shows, it had lots of cool futuristic details. It also happened to have an ironic message about fascism, a lot of people missed that, unortunatly.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Starship Troopers is grossly underrated by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      You can't have a movie where it says that in the future women won't be allowed in the military.

      Actually in the book he goes into detail explaining that all the Navy pilots are female because they have better reflexes.

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
  127. mmmm, Klan Kookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got to admit that I would have to buy a box just to put on the old coffee table.

  128. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    Well, all I can say is Card is suggesting that homosexuals do the same thing that so many demanded the Mormons do at one time; be Mormons, but don't be too Mormon lest you creep out the mainstream Christians. I would hope a Mormon might have a greater appreciation for a free society where one doesn't have to cow-tow to the ever-changing whims of public "morality" (after all the Mormons were badly mistreated and that's why you find the largest concentration in Utah and not in New England). I guess once a group has gained sufficient acceptance and prominence, they forget what they went through and immediately look for some other group to put down.

    Quite frankly I don't think any church has any business telling non-members what they can or cannot do, or how they should practice it. If a homosexual is a Mormon, then the church can do what it pleases as far as throwing the individual out. But suggesting that it's healthy that religiously-motivated laws in a secular country where Church and State are separated is somehow a good thing is pretty hypocritical. If Mormons don't like homosexuals, then bully for the Mormons. I found, as an atheist, a goodly number of Mormon teachings to be questionable, if not outright laughable, but it's none of my business.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  129. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by maryjanecapri · · Score: 1

    hating gays is not political. hating gays is inhumane, ignorant, and - well - homophobic. i don't care what your politics are - if you're are against the right of an entire culture to marry one another then you're unamerican (if you're in the US of course). it might not make the movie less good. and i might still see it. but if there's any sort of anti-gay sentiment in it you can bet i'll walk right out.

    --
    nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
  130. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do you need a seperate word for someone who is opposed to homesexuality versus someone who is violently opossed to it?

    how bout homophobe and violent homophobe. you know adjectives which modify the noun?

  131. MOD PARENT UP by Lehk228 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    makes an excellent point, shame it was posted AC.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  132. Poor wording... by ThePyro · · Score: 1

    Having read Card's articles on the subject, I would argue that describing him as a "homophobe" is not only inaccurate, but it also waters down the term to the point of meaninglessness. I'm a conversative, so does that make me a "liberalphobe?" You can't go around branding everybody who disagrees with you as a whatever-phobe. Otherwise, you'll be at a loss for words when you need to describe an individual who really hates something. Everyone will assume that you're just overreacting to another differing opinion.

    And just where does this policy of boycotting people of different beliefs end? Are you going to boycott anything produced by someone who voted for the other guy? That's about half the country.

    Are you also boycotting products made in China? I'm sure that the Chinese government has a far worse human rights record than Orson Scott Card.

  133. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    I think people go overboard with this. While I certainly don't agree with his position, it's not as if he's all that vile about it. He simply has some strong religious beliefs. He doesn't advocate violence or mistreatment in any way.

    He does, however, advocate keeping various anti-homosexual laws (by this I presume he means sodomy laws) on the books. This sort of thing has already been tossed out as unconstitutional, so is this either an example of a poorly thought-out knee-jerk objection or a more comprehensive statement about how he feels about the basic law of the land.

    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.

    What I don't understand is why he should care one way or the other. This is, of course, one end of the spectrum, the tolerant individual who doesn't hate homosexuals, but rather feels them to be of some lesser moral position. He's allowed his opinion, but when you compare it to the desire that anti-homosexual laws be kept on the books, I think we can see that he isn't nearly as tolerant as he puts forward (or likely as he believes himself to be). This sort of pseudo-enlightenment that the "tolerant" social conservatives is simply just a form of rationalization.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  134. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by HuffMeister · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I didn't see "the worst," or if I did, I took as "it's routine." I have a few gay Mormon friends, none of whom have been treated in the way most of the Affirmation folks have, and I just wanted to get it on the record that excommunication is not the standard way of dealing with homosexuality in the Mormon Church.

  135. Re:Yeah, cause we all know that the script is neve by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget, Ficarra & Requa wrote Cats & Dogs, Cats & Dogs 2 - Tinkle's Revenge, and Bad(der) Santa. It's a living non-sequitur.

    Just because you know how to put food on the table doesn't mean you're a complete hack.

    I suspect most Big Hollywood writers have a script like Bad Santa squirreled away somewhere but piercing the veil of Hollywood isn't easy. Most writers aren't drawn to writing to churn out schlock but they'll take what they can get, because they make about as much as, well, screenwriters.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  136. ZoE by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1

    are we talking, Zone of the Enders here? that is the only Enders (except EastEnders) that I know off..

    --
    /. is good for you.
  137. hahahaha here we go again by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    "Most", by population or by number of countries? ;)

    Ah, the U.S... The world watches the U.S., while the U.S. watches the boob tube.

    1. Re:hahahaha here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... because we know there are no other countries that have television. I'm sure no one in Europe ever turns on "the telly".

      Oh please...

      If you're going to bash America, at least pick a valid criticism... Say "Your President's an idiot" and then at least you'll have made a substantiated point.

    2. Re:hahahaha here we go again by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      Say "Your President's an idiot" and then at least you'll have made a substantiated point.

      Well, I thought the parent to your post was valid. Case in point: Everyone in Europe can name the US President; I can name Tony Blair as the equivalent. That's it. It's not that I'm stupid; just intentionally ignorant. I don't know because I don't need to--their policies don't effect me as an American; Europeans know because they need to; Bush's policies effect them as Europeans.

    3. Re:hahahaha here we go again by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      Ok, then, if the number of people matters, will we start calling "soccer" "football" like the rest of the planet?

    4. Re:hahahaha here we go again by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Both. Last time I checked the population of the US was around 280-300 million. India's way past 1 billion. So, even from a population stand point, the US is blown away by that one country alone.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    5. Re:hahahaha here we go again by The+Milkman · · Score: 0

      Tony Blair is the European equivalent of George Bush?
      You're even more intentionally ignorant than you presumed.
      Keep getting high on Fox and you'll continue to believe that European policies don't affect the United States.

    6. Re:hahahaha here we go again by king-manic · · Score: 1

      "Ah, the U.S... The world watches the U.S., while the U.S. watches the boob tube."

      The world watches in fear that you will invade them and steal their natural resources... all the ones that can't defend themselves that is. The ones that can, just send their spies to make a mockery of your spy agencies and steal all of your technological secrets.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    7. Re:hahahaha here we go again by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      Tony Blair is the European equivalent of George Bush?

      No, not at all. He just happens to be the only European leader I can name off of the top of my head.

      I don't watch Fox, but I still really and truly believe that the owners of the United States won't allow themselves to be effected by European policies (unless it's an end-run around too-vocal civil libertarians in the US).

  138. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How would you like a constitutional ammendment that prohibits ice cream stores from carrying that flavor?

    --
    __
    Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  139. What's that sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you hear that? Hmmm. A loud slurping noise, like a giant toilet draining the entire Pacific. Could California finally be sliding off into the briny deep?

    Nah. We aren't that lucky. It's just Hollywood hard at work again producing crap that totally sucks.

    OK, move along. Nothing to see here.

  140. You moron... by kentrel · · Score: 1

    David Benioff is a fantastic writer. Sure, Troy wasn't the Orgasmotron you were conditioned by the hype to believe it would be, but it was a thoroughly decent flick.

    However, Benioff earned his credits with THE 25th HOUR, a perfect screenplay adapted from his own book. It became Spike Lee's greatest movie in years. Judging by that book and script I have the utmost confidence in whatever he writes. He's a writer to look out for.

  141. The only case like that, that comes to mind.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was later shown to be merely be a drug/theft murder. Just like the claim that the kkk/white supremacist killed the jewish judges family turned out was a jewish guy with cancer whose claim the judge regected. Hmm, I see a trend.

  142. Re:RTFP by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1

    Ah, I did miss that, and I apologize.

  143. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
    So, every cool geeky work, every band you see, and lots of movies you go to, have beliefs opposite to yours as a conservative?

    So, wait why are you a conservative?

    --
    Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  144. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by lumpenprole · · Score: 1

    Peronally, I think there's really only one front we need to keep an eye on in the war to protect the sanctity of marriage, and that's Mormons.

    Look, I know you're all going to jump all over me about intolerance and bigotry and all that liberal claptrap, but let's examine the facts for a minute.

    One, Mormons are supportive of Bigamy. I know you're going to throw that old 'The official church doctrine is against it, and the vast majority of Mormons are against it' stuff, but we've all seen the tv specials here. Just because most Mormons are afraid of the law, doesn't mean they aren't pushing their bigamist agenda. Mormons marrying is the thin edge of the wedge that will break marriage wide open. Once we let people marry twice because of their nutty religion, we'll be driving thought the Vegas strip past the church of the horse marriers.

    Two, preservation of culture. You may think that culture is passed through discussion and media, but we all know that it's inculcated into you as a child and that's the end of it. The problem with Mormons is that they use children to spread their ideology. Many Mormons go on to become teachers in schools that teach the children of non-Mormons. Maybe you're okay with the pledge of allegiance including a thank you to the angel Moroni, but that's not my America.

    I urge you to write your congresspeople and support legislation banning Mormon marriage. Because we want the America our forefathers dreamt of.

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  145. Like we "helped" the native americans to become.. by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    civilized ?

    Like the Spaniards 'helped' the Incans to save their immortal souls?

    I'm not implying anyone is bad due to their religious believes. Just to remembers that:

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  146. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Rallion · · Score: 1

    Well you are right, but as I see it Card still doesn't fit within that description either.

    Mainly because his problem is not with the people, but with the act.

  147. HBI is Absolutely right!!!!! by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 1

    Gays not getting married will cure this right? I mean two people who aren't going to act as brood mares for the state couldn't possbly raise a right thinking child. In Denmark they've had gay marriage since 1989, and they're fortunate to find a week without famine or drought or viking invasion!

    All sarcasm aside, an uninformed position defended adamently is a poor mask for ignorace. Be open about it, say that you just don't much like the gays and be out with it. ahhh, doesn't that feel better?

  148. The enemies gate ... by special628 · · Score: 0

    is down?

  149. The short story was good, when he expanded it by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

    to book length it go slightly worse. The second book went downhill, the third book sucked.

    If they try and do the book, it will suck, it's a great short story, as it was originally written.

  150. What happened to Harris and Dougherty??? by DestinyBWL · · Score: 1

    The following sites say that Harris and Dougherty (they wrote X-Men 2) were signed on a while back to write the screenplay...

    http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_a rt icle&articleID=VR1117899849&cs=1

    http://www.countingdown.com/movies/1500/news?ite m_ id=3357902

    http://www.countingdown.com/movies/1500/news?ite m_ id=3557285

    I wonder if that was all just rumor put into news or if they decided not to do it because they felt superman was more important...

    --
    Bradford L.
    http://www.modemhelp.net
    1. Re:What happened to Harris and Dougherty??? by DestinyBWL · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, I'm an idiot.

      These guys are writing the SCRIPT, while Harris and Dougherty are writing the SCREENPLAY.

      Not that I entirely understand the difference, but...

      --
      Bradford L.
      http://www.modemhelp.net
  151. Your choice... by abb3w · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Don't see how putting another dime into the pocket of that homophobe (Card) is something that I'd want to do, no matter how good the movie was.

    I believe R.K. Milholland, who writes Something Positive, has been addressing that issue in some recent comic strips. 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, 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 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.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  152. erm... 2nd draft of OSC's screenplay...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this guy is writing the 2nd draft of the screenplay, and Card wrote the first.

    So......

    It may not be as bad a suckfest as everyone's fearing. Or am I the only one who *read* the website?

  153. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by dragoncortez · · Score: 1

    Aren't all laws based in morals? I mean, I'm no student of the Law, but at some point, Society determines which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. A lot of people talk about how we should get rid of all these "religiously-motivated laws," but I think that all our laws were founded in religion at some point. The Constitution doesn't say anything about not having religious laws, it just says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" meaning that there should be no state-sponsored religion like the Anglican Church many people fled to America to avoid.

    --
    Making stupid comments so you don't have to.
  154. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? yes,but loved T by markhb · · Score: 1

    I'm just reading the books for the first time now (currently reading Xenocide), and the introduction to Speaker for the Dead tells the tale the grandparent poster spoke of: OSC discovered that Speaker needed far too much exposition to be workable, then hit upon "What if Ender were the Speaker?" (Ender's Game only existed as a novella at that point.) Hence, the novel-length rewrite of EG, to enable Speaker to be told.

    --
    Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
  155. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Rallion · · Score: 1

    This is, of course, one end of the spectrum, the tolerant individual who doesn't hate homosexuals, but rather feels them to be of some lesser moral position. He's allowed his opinion, but when you compare it to the desire that anti-homosexual laws be kept on the books, I think we can see that he isn't nearly as tolerant as he puts forward (or likely as he believes himself to be).

    When you look at his reasons for wanting such laws (and his religious background pretty much fully explains his desire to keep the laws) it lessens the effect. He says he doesn't want it for punishment, and not even solely as a deterrent, but to keep it discreet. This is coming from a man who believes (again, largely because of his religion) that the homosexuality he sees everywhere is harming society in some way. While we may not agree, I can't fault him for having that opinion.

    Of course, it is hard to understand about one the things they don't understand about themselves. As you imply, it's difficult to know what he belives when we can't even be sure that he knows. Such is the way of religious indoctrination.

    Speaking of religious indoctrination, I have to wonder whether the people who say that they refuse to give him a dime are aware of the source of those beliefs. I really don't think indoctrination is too strong a word with some creeds, and Church of LDS is one of them, partially because it's not only such a major part of the people's lives but it also has a tendency to somewhat isolate people from non-Mormons in many cases. It's logically akin to punishing somebody for having a sub-standard education.

  156. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because we don't have a word for adulteraphobe

  157. Re:Like we "helped" the native americans to become by Rallion · · Score: 1

    Yes. Like that. That's why I put "help" in "quotes."

    You said it yourself -- good intentions. I think he's got good intentions and is misguided. (Whether those lead to hell isn't really all that relevant.) Now which of those things makes it worth punishing him by missing out on a good movie? (Since the OP said he wouldn't see it even if it was good, not that it definitely will be.)

  158. It's not about plot accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I disagree that with the original poster that a film has to be exactly like the book to be good, Troy still sucked.

    It just sucked. It wasn't compelling, the characterizations weren't that good, soldiers dying left and right with no moral context about how war wastes the lives of men... it was *just* an action movie and not much else. It should have aspired to be something more.

    Perhaps that's why there's concern that Ender's Game - a novel where the morality of war is the central theme - won't be that good as a movie.

  159. What is annoying by knight37 · · Score: 1

    Is that everyone just goes along with the original post that Troy was a crappy film. I liked it. It was entertaining. It wasn't anything great or spectacular but it was watchable. There have certainly been much worse films.

    --
    Knight37 - Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer
  160. exactly! plus this is the guy by Savatte · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who wrote Spike Lee's masterful The 25th Hour.

  161. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, speaking against gay marriage is not the same thing as funding persecution of gays. If speech was the same as action, slashdot would have been shut down a long time ago when 90% of its members were jailed for treason in various countries.

    All you're funding by buying Cards works is free speech (oh, and his food and stuff, but i won't begrudge him that). If nothing else, every movement needs opposing voices to find any holes in a system before it's passed into law.

    I probably won't see the movie, but that's because i share your premonition that it's going to suck, not because of any politics.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  162. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that the reason we're seeing logical dissonance here, is that the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been so bent out of shape by the framing in public debate over the past 20 years, that they no longer share any relevant meaning.

    A social conservative might be of the "god hates fags" ilk. But a fiscal conservative should not give a damn. In fact, a pure, pragmatic, fiscal conservative would promote the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, and make it a "civil union", and not discriminate based on gender, and of course, the "perks" and tax breaks would go away. (Ironically, this would also be the best course for social conservatives to pursue, because the reason why most of them HATE the idea of gay marriage, is because they feel threatened by gay's "mocking" their straight lifestyle. If the state did away with marriages, and made them purely a religious institution, then Gays would have all the rights the state could possibly have the ability to grant (within the limits set by the first amendment) - but the Churches would prevent them from getting "Married" - so both sides "win".
    But Social Conservatives aren't about pragmatism.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  163. I thought the central premise was kind of silly... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    The stated reason for recruiting children at a young age was that space combat was much more complex than what came before it - so much so that kids not only had to be recruited and trained almost from birth, you needed special selective breeding techniques to get likely candidates. But this is hogwash.

    Think back to warfare at the turn of the last century - all combat was conducted at the surface of the earth, at relatively slow speeds. Within 50 years, we had fully developed air warfare, with ordinary mortals fighting 3d battles at hundreds of miles per hour... no genetic engineering or lifelong training required. And by the time the next 50 years went by, we were able to add long-range sensors & weapons, supersonic capabilities, multiple simultaneous engagement capabilities, etc, etc. Still no supermen required, and you could learn it with a few years of training.

    I've read Ender's Game, and the battle Ender was ultimately asked to fight was no more complex than this. Given the same technology, a US Navy battlegroup staff could learn to fight a battle like Ender's within a few years at most! This problem was so jarring for me that I found it impossible to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the book.

    Sean

    P.S. for mods: just because the parent didn't like the book doesn't make him a troll. The level of groupthink around here is getting ridiculous.

  164. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

    How is this comment insightful? "i wouldnt care what he thinks, i just wanna be entertained." Your position is nothing more than uneducated apathy. If that is what passes for insight in this day and age, I'm truly saddened.

  165. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, no.

    Mistreating gays physically is inhumane.
    Not knowing what homosexuality is is ignorant.
    Fearing gays is homophobic.
    And uniting on any issue, especially an irrelevant hotbutton one like gay marriage, is Unamerican.

    Hating gays fills none of these. If he wants to hate gays, jews, martians, white people, nazis, words starting with the letter "I" he's perfectly free to, and in fact, more power to him. I'm all for promoting free speech. He just can't act on his hatred unless his target is white people or nazis (sorry, couldn't resist).

    On a side note, i'm not sure your equating of hate and disapproval is entirely correct, either. My parents disapprove of me, but I'm pretty sure they don't hate me.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  166. ob Hitler reference by hymie3 · · Score: 1

    in this thread:http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/15 /1432236&mode=thread

    this comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9968&cid=50643 2

    From /. 2001, my favorite post about O.S.Card: Hitler comment

    I *still* haven't found a copy of the article online. Any help?

    A funny thing happened between Speaker... (Score:5)
    by localroger (258128) on Monday January 15, @12:41PM (#506432)
    ( http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/index.html ) ...and Hegemon. As it happens I was there to see it, and it was illuminating.

    A friend of mine hated Ender's game; she said it was the worst novel she'd ever read from its sappy tearjerking to its queasy morality to the blatant justification of genocide at the end. She refused to ever read another Card book. I didn't feel as strongly as she did, found the book readable, but I took her point.

    At the time she was a SFWA member so she got a free copy of Speaker. Since she didn't want it, she gave it to me. When I read it I got back to her and said, "you're not going to believe this, he escapes to a planet copied from Brazil."

    I gave her back the book, and next thing I know she is drawing up a tremendous list of coincidences, at least 75, between Ender's life and upbringing and that of one A. Hitler. This turned into a meticulously researched article -- I saw the doc package, which was an inch and a half thick -- which was published in the final issue of Science Fiction Review,. That article was titled Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman? by Elaine Radford.

    SFR is no longer with us but the article and Card's rebuttal were republished by Literary Review, so it's probably there in your meatspace library if you're curious. I don't think the article is online anywhere.

    While it was startling to see just how closely Ender parallels Hitler, even more startling was Card's reaction. He seemed to be completely unaware of many of the key passages in the book which Radford cited. This is clear from his rebuttal, which was amazingly lame and ignorant (several times stating bluntly that passages didn't exist which Radford had documented). It was obvious to me that he couldn't have written the book, at least not in anything finer than general outline.

    At the time it was expected that Card would sweep the Hugos and Nebulas for a third time in a row with the sequel to Speaker. Instead it took him, what, four or five years to get around to writing it. I am convinced that Superman had a lot to do with it. He pulled a mammoth con job off on the SF community and almost got away with it. For the most part he still has, but he did blink.

    Now, back to my copy of The Martians...

  167. How do you write a script for ender's game by noamsml · · Score: 1

    a lot of ender's game goes on in the minds of the charchters, how can they move that to the big screen?

  168. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by srussell · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.
    And I offer you this quote by C.S. Lewis:
    The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

    --- SER

  169. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by martin100 · · Score: 1
    look, if what people allegedly hate and dont hate is such a big issue to you, fine. to me it is rational to want to be entertained. i see nothing "uneducated" about that.

    maybe you gain utility from taking a brave stand against movies written by mormons. i dont care. i have long known that religions are jibberish, and religions make perfectly friendly people think all sort of loco ideas. they are brainwashed, i dont hold it against them. if michael moore or pat robertson made a movie i thought i would enjoy, i would watch it. i am not trying to protest or change the world, just kill an hour and a half at the movies.

    lets say card does hate gays. i hate lots of things too. people can hate whatever they want, why should i mind? christians hate logic, thats just the way it is. most of them are very nice though. we are talking about a movie here, not a contest to see who can be the most indignant about something.

  170. Re:I thought the central premise was kind of silly by Cerati · · Score: 1

    I thought it wasn't so much the complexity of war as it was the ability to come up with the best strategies. The way your thinking of things, using a Naval Battle group as an example is flawed. The US has the best weapon technology on the planet. So it basically uses brute strength to win. But what if the enemy had an exact same weapons as the US ? Then it boils down to who can come up with the better strategy. Hence the idea behind the book.

  171. I thought it was intentional satire by ucdoughboy · · Score: 0

    Wait, you mean to tell me the the movie was suppose to be somewhat serious. Cause i totally thought it was an intentional satire kinda like the movie Team American done by the creators of south park.....

  172. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mormons aren't any more isolated than anyone else... They live all over, work all over, study all over, etc.

  173. lots of naked kids hitting each other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of naked multisex pre adolescent kids hitting each other

    I enjoyed the book allot when I was about 13 but when I skipped through it aged twenty it really felt rather creepy.

    Mind you maybe it will just end up with a goonies like feel, someone has to save the day and theres only us spunky kids to do it. hmm.

  174. Madness and Civilisation by guet · · Score: 1

    Punk kid grows up for trained only for war. He is rebelious, resourceful and ruthless as only children can be, and thus groomed for success. Only in the end he realises the grown ups haven't been telling the whole truth - he succeeds on their terms and yet is left with no moral compass.

    A perfect counterpoint to The Lord of the flies; this time civilisation is the barbarity.

    Go read the novella. You'll probably enjoy it far more than this film when it comes out. I hadn't heard of it before this evening either, but it's a nice way to spend a couple of hours. Of the other stories there Atlantis was interesting - the others I didn't really appreciate.

  175. Kid on kid violence portrayal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how they will handle the kiddie ass-kicking. I mean there are broken arms and broken bodies in this. What will the rating be? will the right-wing nutties come out?
    A friend of mine made the point that they've managed to make two versions of "Lord of the Flies" but they managed to hide actual killing.

  176. cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without the cats.

  177. Children by Nemi · · Score: 1

    I truly don't mean this as a troll post, and I admit that I have not read the book, but I would have a hard time with suspension-of-disbelief that a bunch of children at age 5 or so could be great warriors. It would probably be much more believeable reading it (though I would still have a tough time), but I can't imagine it on the screen. Most children actors just can't pull it off, imho.

  178. Dumb question time but... by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 1

    Why the **** dont they get O.S.C to write the script? Its not like he's a crap writer.

    --
    See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  179. Re:I thought the central premise was kind of silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stated reason for recruiting children at a young age was that space combat was much more complex than what came before it - so much so that kids not only had to be recruited and trained almost from birth, you needed special selective breeding techniques to get likely candidates. But this is hogwash.

    Were you supposed to interpret this as the real reason? I've only read the short story, but it seemed to me like an excuse proffered by the authorities at the time rather than something you're expected to accept at face value. Not sure I'd bother to read the book, but the short story was good.

    The real conflict goes on inside the child's head between authority and morality - the story is there.

  180. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that boycotting and protesting against the people behind the works is what religious groups (including OSC and his Mormons) do all the time, I'd say it's about time they got a taste of their own medicine.

    Why shouldn't they be treated in the same way they treat others?
    Isn't that what most religions are about?

  181. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Luthair · · Score: 1

    I wasn't commenting on Card, I was commenting on the parent.

  182. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Its not an undisputed source of all knowledge. It just happens to be a convient reference.

    Feel free to check Merriam-Webster or Dictionary. As you'll see both have similar definitions and neither list violence as a requisite.

  183. crap. I thought it read "Tron" at first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that would be something.

  184. David Mamet's comment by scons · · Score: 1
    Many, many, many people touch a film... as if the writer had any real input at all on the quality, good or bad...

    In this vein, Hollywood's standard saying is, "Film is a collaborative medium."

    David Mamet amended this to summarize Hollywood's attitudes towards writers: "Film is a collaborative medium; bend over."

  185. Screenwriting by bayankaran · · Score: 1

    This is the best comment I heard on film writing.

    I am a filmmaker (not from US), an award winning one, and I write my stories for the films I can make.

    I dont let anyone touch my scripts. I have few very close friends who go through the script and look for mismatches and an important quality called "truth quotient".

    I had serious problems with my actors (who are big name stars) who wanted their ideas to be incorporated on my scripts. Once I told the male lead I will take the necessary changes and later, one day before the shoot I told him I cannot. If I was going to make the changes, I would not make the film.

    He got royally pissed. But he co-operated and we made the film. His performance is well regarded and got him a Special Jury Prize at an International Film Festival where the film won the Best Picture Prize.

    My gut instincts were right - he is the best actor of his generation, but he has no concept of a script/screenplay. Ditto with your average studio executive, Producers and even your crew.

    Why I say the above - I have read more than 100 good screenplays - when I see a good screenplay I understand.

    Mike Leigh said he does not differentiate between Writing and Directing.

    Now a days, average feature film you see has 3-4 writers - like 3-4 Directors on a single film.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  186. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by abb3w · · Score: 1
    If the state did away with marriages, and made them purely a religious institution, then Gays would have all the rights the state could possibly have the ability to grant (within the limits set by the first amendment) - but the Churches would prevent them from getting "Married" - so both sides "win".

    Actually, proposing that to them really pisses off religious reich types. As near as I can tell between the frothing at the mouth, they object because first they lose their "special status" that the state recognizes for their blessings (never mind that they can still get the secular part of the status and benefits under a different name), and second because they can't stop homosexuals from joining churches which have no problem blessing gay marriages (like the (l)unitarians) and then saying "Yay! We're married!"

    Worst of both worlds as far as the extreme social right is concerned.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  187. The only hope for this movie... by mud3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is if it's animated. That many child actors? Anyone know any good 6 year old stunt children?

    1. Re:The only hope for this movie... by Avenger337 · · Score: 1

      gah, no! Animated movies are good for movies with talking toys and green ogres (along with most movies aimed at children). Any movie that is even *half* attempting to be serious should be done with real people. The point is to be believable, and animation would completely spoil that.

    2. Re:The only hope for this movie... by klui · · Score: 1

      Yup. Computer graphics.

  188. Context is relevant by abb3w · · Score: 1

    That article, and its arguements against tolerating homosexuality are made within the context of a church (the LDS, in this case), and the laws to which he refers specifically church laws. Which is fine, so far as it goes. (He's not discussing it as part of my church, so it's not my problem.)

    On the other hand, he has held his opposition in more secular contexts, too. Homophobia seems an inappropriate characterization, as he at least portrays the appearance of a rational arguement for his position, as opposed to unreasoning fear. It would seem fair, however, to characterize his position as discriminatory against practicing homosexuals.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  189. Starring Will Smith as Ender Wiggin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope they pick a decent cast for this movie and don't turn it into another I ROBOT!

  190. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by botsmaster25 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how your quote applies to the quoted text. Could you explain?

  191. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Oh, is this a widespread problem among Mormons / the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I wasn't aware of that, but apparantly you know more about it than I do.

    The other poster never mentioned Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You did. You were the one that compared them to the Klan. You were the one who stated that there *IS* a problem there, but that it's not so bad that they actually go out murdering people. Seems to be a sore spot for you. I honestly hadn't heard about it before, but thanks for the tip.

    The other poster compared Orson Scott Card to the Klan. That Orson Scott Card is a ranting lunatic. I think I read one of Card's rants on the topic ages ago, and that it was pretty appaling. I sure hope that that sort of vile attidude isn't particularly common among Mormons.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  192. good heavens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a blithering idiot!

  193. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should stick to movies starring Arnie and/or Bruce Willis and switch your music allegiance to Britney Spears.

    Don't you realise that "every cool geeky work" that you take for granted today is the prodigy of groundbreaking works that were labelled "radical", "subversive", "destructive", "a bad influence", etc by conservatives of years gone by?

    I mean, who bats an eyelid at the lyrics of Come On Baby Light My Fire?, Take A Walk On The Wild Side, Lady Marmalade, etc nowadays? But, in their days, all these songs were castigated by the establishment as negative (if not evil) influences.

    Who do you respect more: Spears whose brilliant insight on the invasion of Iraq was "I trust the President" or someone like Chris Martin of Coldplay, a graduate of one of the finest universities in Europe, who's long been an advocate of issues such as Fair Trade? Which do you think knows what their talking about? And which do you think is totally clueless?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  194. meaningless distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    his problem is not with the people, but with the act

    And that's a meaningless distinction for any person who isn't celibate their entire life.

    1. Re:meaningless distinction by Rallion · · Score: 1

      And that's a meaningless distinction for any person who isn't celibate their entire life.

      Not really. It makes quite a big difference in how a person treats others. I'm sure you have at least one friend who has done something you don't approve of, at some point in their life, but that hasn't kept you from being their friend. Your problem is with the act. Not with that person.

  195. Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pho-bi-a
    2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

  196. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, he isn't just against gay marriage - he's in favor of laws against homosexuality. Just Google.

  197. Re:Disappointed by Ender's Shadow? yes,but loved T by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Let that be a lesson to aspiring writers: if something HAS to be shoehorned into a plot to make it workable -- it doesn't work.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  198. I won't be happy by AAeyers · · Score: 1

    unless OSC writes the script, directs, AND plays Graff.

    --
    "For Great Justice."
  199. And yet . . . by HeartOfThMatter · · Score: 1

    Despite OSC's ravings, he hasn't written one good (dare I say, "decent") book since he started writing Ender's Shadow. He's full of himself.

  200. Troy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say this even though it's probably too late for anybody to notice...

    I thought Troy was an absolutely GREAT movie. It told a great story and it really moved me.

    If you went in to the theater expecting Homer, of course you were disappointed. But if you went into the theater expecting a MOVIE, using the ancients' description of the Trojan War as a base but freely adapting and changing to tell the story the movie's creators wanted to tell... Then you would have been extremely satisfied.

  201. Did Card write any other good books? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1
    I read Ender's Game and stopped there. I feared that the sequels would be awful and it sounds from the comments here that my fears were justified.

    But still...did he write any other books that are nearly as good as Ender's Game?

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  202. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? (Enemy Mine again?) by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1
    Related to this point is this: since Card is alive (and well) at this time, how much say does he get in these movies?

    Well, Barry Longyear was alive and well when they made the film "Enemy Mine." While I've only seen bits of the film and barely remember what I did see, I have this worry that I'm going to see Ender brandishing laser rifles Rambo-style and shooting animatronic roaches for the big finale.

  203. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    he wants to "help" them

    equals

    those who torment us for our own good

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  204. Ha ha! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Very good.


    -FL

  205. Re:Wouldn't go, anyhow. by Coyoteold1 · · Score: 1

    I am gay, and I still enjoy Card's books. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage. I also respect his right to hold an opinion and his willingness to speak up for his belief system, even if I disagree with it. This is America after all. I've never noticed, in any of his writing that I have read, that he's included those stances which people are offended by. Besides... Karma in action: The screenwriter of that stinker, Troy (I made the token effort of asking for my money back from the theater after that one), will be working on the movie adaptation of what are probably his best-known books. That will teach him! Coyote

  206. Re:Basic Plot Inaccuracies? (Enemy Mine again?) by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1

    Laser rifles Rambi-style? Sign me up.

    --
    Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
  207. Best Ender Ever by nilbog · · Score: 1

    The best Ender candidate I have ever seen is Thomas Sangster. He played the kid in Love actually - he's like 15 years old but he looks like he's 7. He has a big head too. Check him out:http://www.risingstar.to/tsangster.html

    --
    or else!
  208. man, it really sucks to be you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't know how you can deal with such a burden of cognitive dissonance 24x7 !!

  209. the worst they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." -Orson Scott Card

  210. Re:I thought the central premise was kind of silly by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    I thought it wasn't so much the complexity of war as it was the ability to come up with the best strategies.

    There's really a problem of terminology happening here. The fact that the situation is very complex means that the tactics involved are very complex... how do you conduct 1 v 1, 1 v 2, 2 v 1, 2 v 2 air/space battles? It also means that the "operational art" is somewhat more complex... how do you manage your entire fleet of air/space vehicles to win the battle? But the "strategy", as it's defined by military science, doesn't care very much about the technology involved... "Engage a portion of the enemy's force with all of your force" is still a valid principle. So is "maintain the unity of command". Even at the tactical level, nothing goes on in Ender's Game that ordinary humans couldn't master today, given a few years training. And operationally/strategically, we already do this stuff.

    The US has the best weapon technology on the planet. So it basically uses brute strength to win. But what if the enemy had an exact same weapons as the US ?

    True today. But for most of the history of air combat, the US and its enemies were roughly equal in technology - in WWII, the US and Axis were about at the same level technologically speaking. Same deal during the Cold War - the Russians were not very far behind us technologically, and they made up for that with redundancy. Soviet airplanes not as good as the American ones? We'll throw more of them at you. But in neither case did it require any kind of superhuman capabilities to figure this stuff out.

    Sean

  211. Re:I thought the central premise was kind of silly by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    Were you supposed to interpret this as the real reason? I've only read the short story, but it seemed to me like an excuse proffered by the authorities at the time rather than something you're expected to accept at face value. Not sure I'd bother to read the book, but the short story was good.

    If it was an excuse, I was never able to figure out what the real reason was.

    The real conflict goes on inside the child's head between authority and morality - the story is there.

    Concur. But I couldn't ever suppress the thought that it was rather unbelievable that the child would be IN the situation postulated, which made it difficult to enjoy the book.

    Sean

  212. Oh dear God, don't let them break this book... by Mondor · · Score: 1

    Incredible story, a golden novel, the best book of many, how I wish the movie will be as good as the book itself, if only it is possible.

  213. Doctor Device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    (fires D.R. Device)

    It was actually the M.D. device, thus the nickname "Doctor Device."