Slashdot Mirror
Ender's Game Trailer Released
The first trailer has been released for the movie adaptation of Orson Scott Card's sci-fi classic Ender's Game. It gives us a good look at Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff, Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham, and Hugo's Asa Butterfield as Ender. It also demonstrates just how much money they put into the special effects for this movie.
FX spaceships are cheap. The effects are no better than Iron Sky. Since this has Big Name Actors, they probably spent too much.
In the book, the adults barely appear. But if they paid for Harrison Ford, they probably let him talk too much.
Shut up, meatbag! Bender's the best one of the bunch!
This is one book that I couldn't see Hollywood doing justice to. The trailer doesn't really leave me feeling any better about it. Lots of nice effects, but I think it's going to come out all bubble-gum.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
You mean like the trailer at the top of the page?
It's not mentioned in the text of the article, but it's there when you go to post.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
That's why I'm going to pirate it.
Actually, can I just pirate a good movie?
[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?
On the one hand, I really did enjoy Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow as a kid (and to a lesser extent the other books in the series). On the other hand, art does not exist in a vacuum and I really do have a hard time separating Card's homophobic views from his works; especially since, in retrospect they do creep into his books at least occasionally.
On the gripping hand, this will almost certainly be a dud. It won't live up to the expectations and hopes of those who wanted the movie made 20 years ago and it won't have much appeal to the others.
With Orson Scott Card's emphatically homophobic world view, I refuse to help finance any of his works.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I was kind of confused about that too. Still are.
I don't understand what relativistic deep space combat has to do with F22s in atmosphere.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
There is a distinction between enjoying art separately from it's creator, and participating in commerce that funds people and organizations that you don't support.
I'm not really sure you read the same book I did. Ender's game isn't about "just following orders"... I can't think of a single character who has that as their motivation at any level. Everyone involved is either being lied to and manipulated or is trying to save the world by any means necessary. If you insist on making it about the military, I would take it as an attack on spending soldiers' lives on wars that the soldiers know and care nothing about. Especially since most of the people doing the fighting 'on screen' were drafted into the situation long before they could make that decision for themselves (even genius children can be manipulated).
But really it should be a story of "the ends justify the means" and questioning if they really do or not. Ender's Game is a story about adults who put kids through hell, leading to nervous breakdowns and at least a few deaths. All because they think it's the only way to save the world and in the end not only were they wrong, but their crimes were far worse than we had been led to believe.
"Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV!" -F.A.R.T.
That's not the climax. The climax is when Ender realizes what he's actually done. Since it's a morally complex point, I have little doubt that part will be cut from the film.
Bean was more badass
I think there are some very good reasons for pirating, opposing current copyright law, etc. I do not think the fact that the artist who produced something you enjoyed is one of those reasons.
obvious troll is obvious.
Perhaps they were trying to invoke that sci-fi classic, Independence Day? :-D
you don't know who Nietzsche is do you?
This reminds me of 2 of my ex-girlfriends.
One would not read The Chronicles of Narnia because she was Christian and the books were not.
The other would not read them because the books were too Christian.
I am with Cervesaebraciator on this one – judge art on it’s own sake. And if it bugs you too much then borrow the DVD from the local library – Card won’t get too much money that way.
All that stuff in atmosphere is presumably part of a recap of the invasion of Earth.
The most fascinating part of this, for me, is that I connected with Ender's Game more easily as a young adolescent precisely because I was gay and understood how harsh and how quickly a child has to grow up. I also understood empathizing with my enemy, my enemy not understanding the degree of harm he was doing to me, and not trusting adults or authorities.
I also keenly felt the idea of being tested in subtle ways, in manipulating adults and politics with their own fears, and deeply appreciated the affects of demagoguery before I even knew what it was called.
I felt like Orson Scott Card so deeply understood the plight of being a bright, homosexual child with more self-awareness and introspection than many an adult, that I was shocked to find out that he was so antagonistic to it. This was after I read Speaker of the Dead which seems to so perfectly capture that sensation of oppression.
Maybe my sense of connecting with the author and his general outlook on human emotion was so great, that to find out he is as homophobic as he is caused a deep-seated sensation of betrayal and cognitive dissonance. Also, I don't even want to separate my knowledge of the artist from the art, which is a topic worthy of an essay itself.
Also, I feel that while it seems a bit pushy and bitchy, and will evoke the typical "uppity homosexual" response, complaining about a popular person's homophobia and suggesting that they, and even their art, be considered as lesser because of it, still seems to me to be an effective way at showing strength and causing people to realize the tenuousness of their position.
No art or artist is held to account for all their crimes, and in the fullness of time people will forgive Card as a fuddy duddy for his homophobia, but in the here and now where it has extreme political relevance to my life and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on this globe, I say he is an ass for his views and I do not wish to patronize him. Let the future enjoy him unfettered by these concerns like I can enjoy Wagner now.
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art. So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
If I am correct in understanding this line of reasoning, it must be a terrible burden to bear. For consistency's sake, it would implicate you in the wrong doing of anyone to whom you pay for services, whether a news-paper editor who runs the local daily, a car mechanic, or a doctor. We could imagine the editor, the doctor, and the mechanic attend rallies on the weekend where they say things we consider reprehensible. But according to this line of thought, by paying for the weekly classified ads, getting bronchitis treated, and having brakes checked, is funding reprehensible speech. To be truly consistent in this line of reasoning, you'd need to evaluate the politics (or morals, if you prefer) of everyone you interact with in civil society before exchanging money with them.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society. One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
Mazer Rackham is Maori -- the facial tattoo is typically applied to the face if you are a male.
Exactly. It may be a fine movie, but I don't want any portion of my ticket price to be funding anti-gay hate speech, period.
Tolerance goes both ways. It is far too easy to claim the high road and seek to prevent those with different viewpoints from being heard. It is another thing entirely to stand and defend a persons right to freedom of speech when you don't like their message. If you can't acknowledge his right to speak his mind, then you are no better than he is.
There is a big difference between a person acknowledging his right to speak his mind and buying the megaphone for him to speak it loudly.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Looks to me (based on this trailer alone) that the book got hammered and bashed to fit into the current Hollywood "sci-fi" form factor, lots of shiny graphics/scenery and some fractions of elements from the book (similar to I robot).
Children trained as soldiers? The film Soldier already did that very well, and I got a feeling it is closer to the book than the Ender's Game film will ever be.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
annnnnnnnnnnnnnd thats why its getting made. not because of its grand artistry or whatever the f**** excuses people use.
I've read both books, and as far as I can recall, the comparison is fairly apt.
There's nothing particularly ground-breaking in either, despite Slashdot's glorification of Ender's Game as some sort of nerd canon. It's pretty much EVERY sci-fi/fantasy story ever told:
It's Mary Sue Fantasy, dressed up with a bit of techno-babble about faster than light communication. Hunger Games didn't bring much new to the genre either (other than the film adaptation's use of the talents of Jennifer Lawrence, who I happen to think is a primo piece of ass second only to the adorable Anna Kendrick) - it's Lord of the Flies + Running Man + Logan's Run + every other dystopian fantasy you've ever read.
Neither of them are particularly ground-breaking literature, both are light, relatively enjoyable takes on established genre fiction, and neither of them are as momentously, insightfully philosophical as their fans try to make them out to be. The reason teenage girls like Hunger Games is because it has a tough teenage girl protagonist. The reason geek boys like Enders Game is because it has a loner misfit boy who turns out to have special powers that let him save the world, even though he's unappreciated by the society that birthed him. Each book provides its fans with the hero they wish they were.
Don't look at the superficial plot. Books are more than that. Look at the characters and how they interact with other characters and how they change.
Re: "would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it."
I would not object if GP thought Ender's Game was homophobic and therefore refused to give money for it. But based on his desire to get the movie through bittorrent, GP thinks Ender's Game is something he'd enjoy. His objection, therefore, isn't to this particular work of art, but strictly to the views of the artist. So you're quite right to say that he doesn't deem the artist fit to receive money.
To make clear my objection to this, I'd ask whether the same attitude ought to be applied in other spheres of life. If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
Or to put this another way, imagine a different set of circumstances. Imagine an evangelical walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee. This evangelical receives very good service and is about to give a tip but notices the barista has an earring in his right ear. What would we think of this evangelical if he did not then give the tip because he regarded the barista as unfit to receive it? (Mind, I'm not trying to say all evangelicals would do such a thing--some undoubtedly would but most are just ordinary folks like the rest of us.) Is it anyway to participate in a society, not to distinguish between a worker and his work when the work is not what we find reprehensible?
We didn't change, OSC did. Well, actually, he didn't change, he just stopped hiding the crazy and became an embarrassment.
The seven digit crowd grew up only knowing OSC to be a horrible little shit, so Ender's Game doesn't have the same influence for them.
Reading Nietzsche (as opposed to most sophomoric interpretations of him) doesn't encourage him to write more. Purchasing books from Card means my money will help in a bigoted crusade against a people that makes him feel funny inside. The funniest part is how Ender's Game was disallowed from a middle school for being too homoerotic. Methinks he doth protest too much.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
No, it may support his efforts to broadcast those views (I find it hard to believe that he doesn't already have enough money to do this adequately, anyway), but buying a copy of one of his books, or watching one of his movies, does nothing to "validate" his views.
To think about this in a more sensible way: you've spent 30 seconds reading this post of mine - you've given me some of your time & attention. Does this mean you now automatically and unreservedly agree with every opinion I hold, now and forever, on any topic - even those unrelated to anything I've written here?
You clearly were asleep when they covered freedom of speech and tolerance in High School. Freedom of speech: the ability to not have the government regulate what you can and cannot say. Tolerance: the willingness to let others live their lives in peace, for as long as they return the favor. Furthermore, merely declining to financially support someone you disagree with is not nearly the same as preventing someone with different viewpoints from being heard.
You're conflating three very different things in one message. Not to mention that that message alone is born, and smells of, intellectual laziness.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
There's a lot of controversial concepts wars, homosexuality, etc.. in the Bible, better stop reading that too (or financially support it lmao) and burn it...
or not.
the posters today are seriously dumber than nails. What gives?
This is a lie. You are a liar.
You base all your purchasing decisions based on the personalities of who created the products? Do you read Shakespeare or avoid it because he wasn't a thoroughly modern politically correct person? Do you discount the writings of Jefferson because he owned slaves? Do you see Lincoln as someone who freed the slaves or instead as the dictator who suspended constitutional rights? Do you interview all people in the supply chain before buying, only use open source software if you can check the bios of everyone who worked on it, etc?
What about your family? Disowned all your ancestors as worthless scum who don't follow your political views? In the political war of Us vs Them you can't go soft and let some of Them go free.
Do excuse me, but did you ever read the book?
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
It's an interesting point but isn't there a difference between giving money to someone alive right now who is actively working against your interests and reading the works of someone who has been dead for over 200 years?
I think you need to recast it in other terms.
For example- if you were sick and had to go to the emergency room, would you turn down the assistance of a racist, homophobic doctor?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Oh... and in the end it's my money so I get to decide where it goes. I reduced my consumption of Domino's Pizza tremendously as a related example.
I won't be a jerk in mixed company- but when I have the choice, I choose another company.
For example- Papa Johns tried to be jerks but relented under tremendous pressure. Darden's (Olive Garden) tried to be jerks and relented under pressure. Your consumer pressure can make the world a better place.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Since it's a morally complex point, I have little doubt that part will be cut from the film.
Hell they are flat out telling him what they are doing. When did they ever admit to their goals in the novel?
Quite. What a miserable mess. They rewrote it basically from scratch. Kept the names and the We Win part and redid everything else. Half of the point of the book was Ender didn't know. That he fought every single battle thinking it was just particularly grueling training. That the military lied to him and almost everyone else throughout the entire book. Little doubt? How about no doubt whatsoever? How can he "come to a realization" when that entire element has been completely removed from the plot? 5 seconds of footage is enough to know they completely rewrote the destruction of the alien planet. Where is Ender's despair? Where is his giving up on the "training"? The only part that's left is his decision to just blow it all up with the Little Doctor, and they turned that into a triumph, rather than the training failure Ender believed it to be.
No better than I expected. There was no way in hell they were going to do the book justice. Odds went up after Hunger Games, I guess. I could have sworn audiences would rebel against kids killing kids, but I constantly underestimate the bloodthirstiness of contemporary audiences. Still, looks like they failed, as expected, despite being able to keep the violence.
You're describing elements of the Hero's Journey. That shows up damn near everywhere because it's a compelling template - the reluctant or unlikely hero who turns out to have more strength than they thought... it's an easy model to imagine yourself into, to draw inspiration from, as well as providing counterpoints to what would otherwise be "Awesome person saves the day again, the end"
That said, Ender's game does particularly gel with certain geek-guy stereotypes; the bullied outcast who gets to be entirely justified in striking back, and whose unique genius makes them valuable. There's a potential comparison with Twilight also; both books make for good escapist fiction (for the gender they're aimed at) whilst having some somewhat disturbing moral assumptions buried just below the surface.
The difference (I think) is that Ender's Game does that at least somewhat knowingly, to force you to consider some ugly ideas that it's holding up as virtues.
"you don't know who Nietzsche is do you?"
Sure, he was a gay philosopher who got his syphilis from a gay brothel in Italy who told people God was dead.
IOW a dream candidate for the Republicans.
But it also highlights the fact that hindsight is always 20/20.
The information given by Mazer towards the end basically points out that humanity had no other foreseeable option. (Adult) human strategists were incapable of giving tactically brilliant but suicidal for anyone chosen maneuvers. The long travel time for fleets meant ANY force sent would automatically be obsolete by the time it arrived causing any REASONABLE commander to simply withdraw. The military forces the Buggers were able to field we numerically so overwhelming that defensive strategies by humans were hopeless. Logical answer? Suicidal, "deal with what you got", "Never tell me the odds!" attacks.
The Bugger Queen only reinforces this fact. Once the Bugger Queen realized what they had done, they understood that they would have retaliated the same way the humans did had they suffered the same experence. Even if the Buggers wanted to end the war, they were aware the biological/psychological differences prevented communications (and therefore diplomatic means) from happening.
Were the crimes of the leadership bad? Yes. Were they irredeemably, unforgivably bad as they're made out to be in the sequels? In hindsight, Yes; in context, No.
If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
You seem to be missing a rather large point - the bartender is unlikely to use his position to promote his views in the way that Card can. However, if the bartender is flying a flag in his bar that proudly proclaims "Faggots aren't human" or other reprehensible statements, than absolutely he's unfit to receive my money. Would you happily hand over your money in that case? Surely there's some viewpoint you find reprehensible - would you willingly immerse yourself in it simply because the wings are good?
The artist or celebrity that uses their position to promote any viewpoint should indeed be regarded in light of those views. That's not to say their art, or service, should be regarded as such, but it should by all mean affect what I do with my money.
And let's not forget it was Card that made a choice to use his position to promote such views and used his position as an artist to gain exposure for them. So why should the 'art' be separate?
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
In short, when you give money to famous people who use it to become more famous and they share views which disagree with yours you are funding a future you don't want to live in. They have more influence than you do, and you're helping them use it to create a lesser world from your viewpoint. You have a choice as to where you spend your money, and while it can be difficult to determine what the results of your actions will be, when it's obvious then you really owe it to yourself to change your purchasing habits.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Card doesn't just have beliefs; he is politically vocal about them. He funds multiple organizations that campaign against gay marriage including the LDS and the National Organization for Marriage... which has no purpose other than to oppose gay marriage. He funds them with money earned from creative works like this movie, and even cares enough to become a member of their board of directors.
Card has also said that people engaging in homosexual acts should be imprisoned. His more recent "clarification" of what he meant when he wrote it doesn't change anything. A careful reading reveals it's merely a passive aggressive attempt to deflect attention away from the comment without actually disowning or modifying it in any way.
But no, according to people like you, people who believe that this kind of oppression is immortal are not justified in boycotting card. We're never justified in boycotting card, apparently, because if we did that then, why, we'd have to familiarize ourselves with the life histories of every single person we gave money to.
I don't buy it. The slope is not that slippy. This is someone who has been outspoken on this for decades and is actively using his celebrity and royalties to fund his cause. You speak of tolerance and diversity? It's not fucking tolerant in any way, shape or form to give money to a politically active man who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned.
Well the comparison fails on a couple counts since a) the argument is about financially supporting the author and all the people you mentioned are long dead, and b) they were products of their time and were fine by that standard, OSC on the other hand is a bigot by the standard of this time.
That being said I'm not a big fan of boycotting something because of someone's views. There's nothing bigoted I remember about Ender's Game, but knowing Card's views does change how I perceive Ender's Game and how much I enjoy it, for that fact I might decide it's not worthwhile to see the movie. But I'm not going to go as far to say that any support of the film is an attack on civil rights, particularly when the hypothetical beneficiary organization, NOM, is on the side of a culture war that has pretty much lost.
I stole this Sig
Just remember that Card is a person motivated by what he thinks is right not a corporation motivated by money. While you have the right to legally spend your money as you want what you are effectively saying is that you are trying to do is to force someone to change their beliefs or lose their job. So, while you might be acting within your rights, just remember that by doing so you are going against those ideals of free speech and belief that the US was founded on...and if you can't follow them is is any wonder that your government can't either.
By all means disagree with the guy but disagreeing, even vehemently, with him does not mean that you can't admire his skills as an author (although to be honest I'm not impressed with those either).
I've seen so many bashing comments that this one was my breaking point. Any "cause" that describes the other side in such insulting terms isn't helping itself. I wonder how angry you would be if someone said "It's the matter of giving the despicable bag of flesh that is [insert famous gay person here] a single fucking dime." where the whole decision was based on the fact that they were [famous gay person]. But perhaps even asking such a non-politically correct question makes me "homophobic".
Quite right. Shakespeare, Jefferson, etc are all long dead and reading (and promoting their works) gains them and their personal views nothing. Supporting an artist who is alive now and using the money given him to support or further hate speech strengthens their platform. I'm not saying it should be the only factor in deciding whether to view the art in question, but I believe it should be a factor. Certainly something to consider if a person is on the fence.
Personally I'm not really a fan of Card's work. Ender's Game was okay, for a young adult novel, but it wasn't something I'd care to read again, nor see as a movie.
Not watching Ender's Game is not censorship, I agree, but that is not what is being discussed. Instead we have people calling for the absolute suppression of a film because they do not agree with Orson Scott Card's politics. If you make the personal choice not to watch the film, I support you. Getting online and telling people that civil rights will suddenly go away because of this film is an attempt at censorship and it is the reason why we have the Freedom of Speech in the first place. I do not support people making allegations that our way of life is under fire for a film about a kid who fights Space Bugs. "Any support of Ender's Game is an attack on civil rights." There is no option in this quote for anything but absolute suppression of the film. The comment's author leaves no room for other people to agree or disagree. To engage in the idea that watching a fictional film (which does not address the author's opinion on homosexuality) is an attack on civil rights is hyperbolic.
It's the deviations from the Hero's Journey that make a story interesting. The human brain is very good at looking for patterns; once a pattern is learned, the subtle changes away from the pattern are what provides the interest. This is how we distinguish faces, and it's why all Asians look alike to a westerner (the base pattern is tuned to one facial style, but Asian faces introduce more than just subtle differences from that pattern, which really throws things off).
Also interesting reading, a list of examples of the Hero's Journey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monomyths
Hell they are flat out telling him what they are doing. When did they ever admit to their goals in the novel?
Quite. What a miserable mess. They rewrote it basically from scratch. Kept the names and the We Win part and redid everything else.
You can tell all of this from the trailer? Or you're just choosing to interpret things this way to give you an excuse to vent your nerd rage?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
He's an active practicing Mormon who wrote an article for a Mormon audience about how someone can't be a practicing Homosexual and dedicated to the Homosexual scene and also be dedicated to the Mormon church.
Presuming you know anything about the Mormon church, is there anything in that sentence you disagree with? His article was basically you can't serve two masters.
This is all much ado about nothing.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
What is it with religious fanatics that can so little tolerate a hint of disagreement that it ruins their enjoyment of so many things in life? And no, I'm not talking (only) about OSC.
Intelligent people will have contrasting deeply-held beliefs. That's human nature. Your life will be better, and society will involve far less conflict, if one learns some tolerance for people who disagree. It's pure arrogance to think all of your beliefs are right in any case - you're assuredly wrong about something important, something that people a century from now will be shaking their heads sadly about. Monoculture and uniform orthodoxy of belief is a failure mode for a society in any case - diversity of mindsets gives us strength.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The entire movie was shown in the clip. I don't even need to go pay to watch it.
And the book wasn't about the special effects and the space battles. It was about Ender. This would've been much more interesting to see filmed on a tight budget, with all the focus on acting, not graphics (which look the same as all of the last space movies released within the last two years).
Yes I read the book, I thought it was garbage pulp fantasy for those of limited breadth and imagination.
At the time I read Ender's Game as an adolescent, I thought it was awesome. Years later I picked it up again, and came to the same conclusion you did.
On the other hand, I didn't take much note of "Speaker for the Dead" as a young reader; it seemed a rather ho-hum sequel. I've since since changed my mind -- as a work of Science Fiction literature, it is the superior work. OTOH, Children of the Mind is still crap, Full Stop.
This trailer looks like they've turned the book into an action film - which the book most definitely was not. The things I remember most about it (and it's been some ten years since I last read it) was the relationship Ender had with his strange brother and sister, that he was bred for the job, and throughout he has no idea that what he's doing is not a test or an exercise. He also kills two of his fellow children whilst growing up, albeit somewhat accidentally. And he ends the story has a haggard and worn out child who is at the end of his tether.
This looks like yet another film with climatic space battles and lots of special effects - an action film rather than a science fiction film. I'm disappointed they've lost all of the mystery and pathos. The central part of the story was about Ender training in zero gravity, to be able to lead large groups of people and to innovate tactically. That seems to have been lost as the main element of the film.
I'm not going to go see this, based on this trailer, it's lost all elements of the story that I really liked. Ender never screamed commands as a world exploded. I don't need to see Harrison Ford and Ben Kinsley, both excellent actors, wandering about looking serious (again) and telling Ender he has to save the world. Ender did, but he didn't know it at the time.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down".
Speaking of the plot, the part in the trailer when he says "now" is the climax of the book (though arguably the revelation that comes afterwords is the "punch line"). Why the hell did they put the finale of the book in the trailer?
(and no, this isn't a spoiler post, because if you haven't read the book then you won't know what you're seeing or what it means)
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
That was what really bugged me in Speaker for the Dead -- they labeled him as the worst human being to ever live, the "Xenocide". Were people not told of the circumstances? Did they intentionally hide the context? If so, why would they do that? To save the skins of the people who orchestrated the events in the first book? It was left unexplained.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
If I remember correctly, in one of the invasions, the aliens landed in China.
Mr. Card has a long and well-established history of homophobia and attacking gay rights. He's been a board member of the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage for years, and has written far more than, "one article for a Mormon audience". Here are some examples, more can easily be found with a quick google search.
"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that’s being attempted. And the idea of ‘gay marriage’ — it’s hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison." Interview with Salon
From his article for the Deseret News, "The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America." That's not directed at a Mormon audience, it's a local paper.
From People For the American Way, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the booksto be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens."
You're remembering it wrong.
They told him they needed a hero, but they never told him that he was going to lead the fleet. He thought it was going to be a defensive war.
Also, they attacked Earth first (First Invasion; that's when they used Eros as the staging point, that's when humanity "discovered" the ansible and artificial gravity). Then they attacked again (Second Invasion; Mazer defended earth). After that, they realized that humanity was intelligent and they decided to stop trying to invade Earth.
The Third Invasion was Ender attacking them.
Absolutely with regard to my political views.
Papa Johns was going to deny health care to their employees to save 14 cents per pie in expenses.
I disagree with your characterization of my position as smarmy arrogance. While you haven't stated it- it appears you basically support wage slavery and suffering for others as long as you are okay yourself.
Why do you feel that way?
Why do you think a company should be free to treat its employees very badly (ala Darden's) without the customers reacting to that poor treatment?
I also don't like Olive Garden because their portions suck and their pasta content has gone through the roof. Seriously--- it used to be half a bell pepper and 6 large shrimp. Now it's a quarter bell pepper, 3 shrimp halved, and the price has gone from 9.99 to 15.99 in less than 8 years. Way over the rate of inflation.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
When you say "they" I think you missed part of the point. A huge part of speaker for the dead was the power of the stories of the Hive Queen and the Hegemon. Ender's self hatred was so powerful and his empathy with the hive queen so strong that he was able to tell the tale of her life and death and make himself the villain. As humanity took over the planets that the buggers/formics originally colonized, they realized the sadness inherent in that loss, and the horror of a single person killing an entire "beautiful" race.
Perhaps more to the point, it's recently become poignant. In these days of drones, war is becoming like a video game for at least some of those who are fighting it. It's a pretty timely film, from that perspective.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
For the same reason why the bullet time sequence was in the trailer for The Matrix: it's the best visual effects shot of the whole movie.
BTW, I think you answered your own question with the parenthetical comment.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
That was my question too.
Sour grapes are a favored snack on Slashdot. I've often wondered if displays of behaviour like this are one of the causes of nerd ostracization.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Remember where the term "Speaker for the Dead" comes from (in-universe), though. Ender himself, anonymously, wrote The Hive Queen (also The Hegemon, though that's not relevant here) to tell the story from the perspective of the buggers, and that story is the one that the vast majority of the human universe read. Not an explanation of how the military treated him - if anything, that was covered up - and not the story of how humanity never had any other chance. Ender's goal was to give the Buggers a voice, to make humanity sympathetic toward them. If he was to succeed in that, it was neccessary that the one human who ordered the entire species wiped out be considered a monster. Sure, he could have (and it probably would have been more justified) pinned that on Graff, or on Mazer Rackham, or on any number of other people who put him in the position to unknowingly give that order... but that would have distracted from the story, and they didn't have the insight into the alien race that he did, anyhow. He made himself the scapegoat, accepting responsibility for what he did without knowing the consequences, because it made the story better, and thus furthered the goal of "speaking for the dead".
As a sort of side note, a little over a hundred years ago, Americans who managed to kill an unusually large number of "Indians", or to hold out against them in desperate combat, were regarded as heroes. Today, they are still sometimes seen as legends, but also sometimes as monsters or at least murderers. From a time when "wiping them out" was perceived as a laudable goal, to a time when there is a sort of nationwide shame for what we did, in a mere century. That's without anything even remotely close to the impact of The Hive Queen (as described in Card's fiction), and without an actual, literal [g|x]enocide. Imagine how it will be viewed after another 400 centuries...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Is my position that people who want to own stuff have to decide between supporting the industry that produced it and not owning it? Hell yes, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if it's some sleek electronics gadget produced in China under bad labor and environmental controls or entertainment IP produced by someone who actively campaigns against the rights of fellow human beings.
You certainly have the right to spend money on anything you want. You can buy stuff from the KKK too. You just don't get to delude yourself that you are not contributing, in a tiny way, to making the world a worse place.
"what you are effectively saying is that you are trying to do is to force someone to change their beliefs or lose their job... remember that by doing so you are going against those ideals of free speech and belief that the US was founded on"
Logically inconsistent. This is what passes for +5 these days?
TL;DR: It's not his personal beliefs that we're objecting to, it's his attempts to force them on the nation as a whole. That's directly counter to the ideals of the USA, incidentally.
First of all, none of the people I've met who have stated their goal of avoiding giving Card money have said it was because they don't agree with his beliefs, it's because they don't agree with how he spends his money. It's more akin to not giving money to a wino who spends every cent he acquires on turning himself into a human-shaped puddle of urine and rags in an alley. That said, there are almost certainly some who would nonetheless boycott his works even if he announced that henceforth he would have nothing to do with, nor provide any funding to, the National Organization for Marriage or any similar group, yet stood by the beliefs he had expressed, so that's a relatively weak point.
On to "force somebody" in paricular: if a street preacher or televangilist shouts at me about sin and hellfire and damnation for anybody who doesn't donate to his particular church, and I choose not to donate, would you claim I am attempting to "force somebody to change their beliefs"? Not at all! I don't care whether his beliefs change, but I'm not going to pay him after he shouts them in my face and attempts to indoctinate me in beliefs that are contrary to my own. People whose beliefs are in line with his will take care of him, or perhaps not, but it's not my job to ensure he has a job!
Of course, that's really the crux of the issue: "forcing" somebody to do something by voting with your wallet. Hypothetically, is OSC gets blacklisted by all major publishing houses and all bookstores refuse to carry his works - an extremely absurd hypothetical, but that's pretty much what it would take for an author to "lose his job", he can still self-publish and start his own distribution system. Nobody is stopping him from authoring books. The decision of whether that's worth doing when nobody will buy them is on him, but nobody is forcing him not to.
Oh, and while we're discussing "forcing somebody...[to] lose their job", bear in mind that people lose jobs as a consequence of actions which are unappreciated by their employers (and for an author, one's "employers" are really "the people who purchase your books") all the time. If somebody breaks into a house and steals a TV, they can be fired for that. "Thief" is not an employment-discrimination-protected category of person. Nor is "homophobe". Incidentally, in many states, "homosexual" is, though that's not really relevant here.
That brings us to the "ideals of free speech and belief" part of your post. Exactly which ideal upon which the US was founded indicates that we should financially support people who use their wealth to push for institutionalized discrimination against a minority population, again?
Card is allowed to talk all he wants. The government isn't going to shut him up (unless he starts threatening violence against people). Any citizen who tries to shut him up will be committing a crime, and be prosecuted for it. Nobody has to give him a podium, though. The podium Card uses is the money he receives in return for his writing. Why do you imply that he is entitled to that podium? "All men are created equal" certainly doesn't suggest that just because one person writes good science fiction, that person's opinion on civil rights should be given more weight than those of a pauper in the streets!
I could also turn your argument right back on you: a boycott is a form of speech. Why should Card be permitted to preach hate and prejudice, and the rest of us not permitted to tell him that we refuse to support his position?
As for "... and belief", that's really the crown on the
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
There's nothing particularly ground-breaking in either, despite Slashdot's glorification of Ender's Game as some sort of nerd canon. It's pretty much EVERY sci-fi/fantasy story ever told:
Yeah, but some of that is the John Carter problem. It was groundbreaking and fresh when it came out, but in the interim it has been copied so many times that now the original story feels trite and formulaic.
The John Carter books *invented* the space opera, the alien princess, the lightsaber, and arguably the superhero. Just because those concepts have been rehashed ad infinitum shouldn't diminish the earlier work. Ender's Game invented some literary concepts also -- young heroes fighting for their lives, the misfit hero, the special academy, a desperate future. It established the subgenre, and was groundbreaking when it appeared.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Kinda thought facial tattoos were always applied to the face, regardless of maleness...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
The military command lied to Ender by pretending he was still in a training exercise, but they did not lie about the need to "end them." Without communication with the aliens, there was no way for the humans to know that the queens had realized their mistake and were perfectly willing to live in peaceful coexistence. Given the sheer luck that allowed Razer to win the previous battle for Earth, they were reasonably certain Earth would never survive another attack.
It was only later that Ender was able to communicate with the remaining queen and learn the full story. He was upset about being lied to and having caused so much death, but I think he understood why they lied to him. He didn't like it, mind you, but he understood it was the only way to get him (or anyone) to do what he did.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
**Spoiler Alerts**
Ender's Game is a great work of fiction because of the relationships, not because of the technology (which was for the general public visionary at the time) or because of the loner hero with latent superpowers (which he didn't have). Ender became great not because he was a genius but because of the deep bonds he formed with the other students, because of the community he built up around him that was greater than the sum of its parts. The climax of the book isn't beating the final boss, it's the betrayal of one of those relationships and the fallout that defines Ender's Game.
Ender changed the Battle School through his empathy and his relationships. It's why Ender was selected and not Peter. If you missed that the first time around, it's worth re-reading the book in that context.