Dude, I've got serious goosebumps over this. It looks REALLY good.
It does indeed. But I am hoping some of the dialogue is taken out of context otherwise it makes it sound like they are going to change some key points from the source material. But maybe I am reading too much into a trailer.
Read the book, enjoyed it. Looking forward to the movie. Saw a trailer on Io9 and was dumb enough to read the comments.
First comment: "So, it's basically Mass Effect combined with the Hunger Games?"
Thankfully there were several other literate people who responded to educate him, as I think I was having a fit and couldn't type. I really, really, really, need to stop reading internet commentary.
|
Read the book, enjoyed it. Looking forward to the movie. Saw a trailer on Io9 and was dumb enough to read the comments.
First comment: "So, it's basically Mass Effect combined with the Hunger Games?"
Thankfully there were several other literate people who responded to educate him, as I think I was having a fit and couldn't type. I really, really, really, need to stop reading internet commentary.
lol, thats really funny.
At least there wasn't anyone saying it was ripping off Halo or something.
Since the entire series' premise with the Spartans was explicitly based off of the idea of "What if the kids from Ender's Game had all gotten steroid enhancements and powered armor?"
Kept wondering when this was going to drop. :)
How many books in this series?
How many books in this series?
Hooo boy! Here we go.
Card began Ender's Game as short story (1977) and expanded it to a novel (1985), adding an ending to lead it into some sequels, Speaker for the Dead (1986), Xenocide (1992), and Children of the Mind (1996).
(I wish Card had stopped there, so I could give you a simple answer: four. Back when there were only four books, I liked them enough to read them twice.)
But later, Card decided to write the Ender's Game story from the perspective of a different character, Bean. The resulting novel was called Ender's Shadow (1999). Card then continued Bean's adventures in the sequels Shadow of the Hegemon (2001), Shadow Puppets (2002), Shadow of the Giant (2005), and Shadows in Flight (2012).
(Most of the way through Shadow Puppets, I gave up, feeling that the series was stretched way too thin, and that Card was exaggerating certain points too much for me.)
Card also wrote a bunch of short stories about the characters in the Ender saga, some of which were published in a book called First Meetings (2002).
There was another novel set in the same universe, called A War of Gifts (2007).
Card later added another Ender novel taking place between Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, called Ender in Exile (2008).
But wait! There's more! There's also a new book called Earth Unaware (2012), apparently the first novel of a planned prequel trilogy to Ender's Game.
Also, I understand that Card is planning a novel called Shadows Alive, which will tie the Ender's Shadow books in with the original Ender saga.
So how many books are there? I don't know!
It does indeed. But I am hoping some of the dialogue is taken out of context otherwise it makes it sound like they are going to change some key points from the source material. But maybe I am reading too much into a trailer.
This was my reaction as well. I hope i just misunderstood. :/
I just hope the screenwriters understand and are driven by the fact that "Ender's Game" is not an adventure story, but is instead a morality play.
Truth.
I just hope the screenwriters understand and are driven by the fact that "Ender's Game" is not an adventure story, but is instead a morality play.
Hopefully they're just trying to highlight the action in the book, because there is a bit of it, but I fear you could be right. Look at what they did with I, Robot.
Good science fiction is always a cautionary tale. But Hollywood needs hype so laser beams and planets exploding is expected for a trailer.
That's a pretty impressive cast.
Hey, on the bright side, at least they're not actually adding IN lasers and planets exploding where previously there was none.
While I was initially a bit skeptical of an Ender's Game movie, the more I think about it the more I think that it already comes pre-packaged with enough action to satisfy the action crowd without people needing to trade off the moral lessons and character study moments for more bareknuckle bathroom boxing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's basically Harry Potter meets Starship Troopers?
After I Am Legend's test audience-approved crap ending, I'm very sympathetic to folks worried about the core of science fiction/fantasy stories being butchered for Baysplosions. Hopefully Ender fans will be luckier.
After I Am Legend's test audience-approved crap ending, I'm very sympathetic to folks worried about the core of science fiction/fantasy stories being butchered for Baysplosions. Hopefully Ender fans will be luckier.
Hope is all we have. I Am Legend...thanks for tearing the scab off that wound. Between the ending and the rewrite of the dog's role in the film I wanted to punch the screenwriter in the junk. I'll forgive Will Smith because he did well with what he was given. The dog's scene in the book is still one of the most heartwrenching things I've ever read.
Here's what gets me about the trailer:
Here's what gets me about the trailer:
** spoiler omitted **
Repeated testing has shown that audiences respond better to trailers that give away major plot elements, despite the fact that audiences SAY they don't like. When asked to rate trailers, plot reveals score higher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeated testing has shown that audiences respond better to trailers that give away major plot elements, despite the fact that audiences SAY they don't like. When asked to rate trailers, plot reveals score higher.Here's what gets me about the trailer:
** spoiler omitted **
I didn't know that, and now my soul has been crushed.
|
The trailer seems to emphasize the war, while in the book the war is really more in the background, because it's told through Ender's perspective, and as a kid he is very self centered.
I just hope the movie will be able to capture the rare combination of a very unique story about morality, combined with some ingenious tactical games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repeated testing has shown that audiences respond better to trailers that give away major plot elements, despite the fact that audiences SAY they don't like. When asked to rate trailers, plot reveals score higher.Here's what gets me about the trailer:
** spoiler omitted **
And, importantly, without context that scene doesn't really mean anything. There was no plat reveal involved, just some special effects. If you've read the book, you know what that scene was, but it's hardly a spoiler for you. And if you haven't read the books, you don't really have any idea what that scene represents, so it still doesn't spoil anything.
I didn't know that, and now my soul has been crushed.Repeated testing has shown that audiences respond better to trailers that give away major plot elements, despite the fact that audiences SAY they don't like. When asked to rate trailers, plot reveals score higher.Here's what gets me about the trailer:
** spoiler omitted **
My hypothesis for an explanation is relatively simple: When people know a little more of what the movie is about, they are better able to make an informed decision about whether to see it.
A vague trailer isn't informative, a more specific trailer is informative. People don't want major spoilers, but even from a hindsight perspective the destruction of that planet isn't the real spoiler, it would be the revelation of Ender's dreams.
|
|
Hope is all we have. I Am Legend...thanks for tearing the scab off that wound. Between the ending and the rewrite of the dog's role in the film I wanted to punch the screenwriter in the junk. I'll forgive Will Smith because he did well with what he was given. The dog's scene in the book is still one of the most heartwrenching things I've ever read.
After I Am Legend's test audience-approved crap ending, I'm very sympathetic to folks worried about the core of science fiction/fantasy stories being butchered for Baysplosions. Hopefully Ender fans will be luckier.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't blame Smith for that one. That's on the studio.
I seriously stress to everyone I know that thinks about watching it to check out the "alternate"(pre-test audience) ending. It's not perfect, but hot damn it is closer tot he spirit of the original story.
From Cracked.com, "5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last-Minute Changes":
Where you can find the original ending:
The oringal ending is available as a bonus scene on the recent DVD release, where it is advertised as the "controversial original ending". Yes, coming to a peaceful reconcilation with your enemies is now more controversial that blowing them right the @#$% up.
Current prints of the DVD allow for the original cut to be viewed in one go rather than just the ending. At least hte version I have does.
Squeee!
I have mixed feelings after seeing the trailer.
I usually enjoy Harrison Ford, but in the scene they put in the trailer Harrison is obviously acting. Like he wants an award or something.
The sets are too polished and pristine. Ender is too.
The scenes shown imply that the reader is aware from the first instant that Ender is a real soldier. In the book the awareness that what Ender and his peers were doing was actually happening was something that slowly dawned on Ender, and since the book was relentlessly told from Ender's point of view, the reader was also brought to this awareness the same way. Which was one of the great triumphs of the book. In fact that was part of the core of the moral lesson presented.
I couldn't tell from the trailer if the audience knew but Ender did not, or if Ender knows all along.
There's a'storm brewing over the movie.
It's been very well known for many years that Orson Scott Card - who wrote the ENDER'S GAME book and the first draft of the movie script - has strong anti-equality views. He opposes equal rights for gay people and has campaigned vociferously in support of Proposition 8 in California and against gay marriage in the United States.
For a lot of people who enjoy ENDER'S GAME, that's not much of a problem. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and obviously the film is not about homosexuality as an issue at all, so it's not a problem about the film's storyline, characters or content itself.
Where the problem arises is because, for the past five years or so, Card has been a member and funder of the National Organisation for Marriage, an American organisation that directly funds anti-equality campaigning in the USA and has been implicated in funding some activities in Africa (including Uganda, which has passed laws making homosexuality a capital crime, punishable by death). As a producer on the film, Card certainly gets percentage points on the profits, meaning that for everyone who puts pays for tickets (or for his books), some of that money may be going into the hands of people opposed to gay rights and directly funding campaigns against them.
A lot of people won't care or will support Card's viewpoint, but a lot are bitterly opposed to money being used in this fashion, and are calling for people of a like mind not to see the film. Card has gotten the arse on about this, saying:
"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
SF writer David Gerrold (STAR TREK, BABYLON 5, novelist, creator of tribbles) was rather unimpressed with Card's words, replying at length via Facebook (spoilerised for length):
"Puh-leeze.
After twenty years of despicably virulent homophobia ... no. This is just another detestable characterization of LGBT people -- that we are intolerant.
Intolerant? Of people who want to lock us up, put us in concentration camps, deny us our civil rights? Intolerant? Are you f&%&ing kidding me?
You want me to be tolerant, Scott? First be one of those people who understands. Or to put it bluntly -- get your f@*&ing foot off my neck, then we'll talk tolerance.
See, Scott -- I don't dislike you. I honestly don't. I think you're a very interesting author and you've turned out some works I admire. But you've made PR Mistake Number One. You've sided with hate-mongers. You've targeted a minority and you've characterized yourself as the righteous warrior. That gives you a short-term gain and a long-term loss. Look up Father Coughlin and Anita Bryant and Kirk Cameron.
Now you've made PR Mistake Number Two -- instead of honestly and sincerely apologizing for the hurt you have caused others, you have doubled down. You have played the martyr card, arguing that you are the victim.
What this demonstrates is that you have no idea of what the issue really is. It's about the 1138 rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations attendant to the civil contract of marriage. It's about social security benefits and inheritance and child custody and joint taxation and deathbed decisions and hospital visitation and adoption and community property and all the other things that you and your wife take for granted. It's about equality in the eyes of the law.
This is the goal that women set out to achieve when they first demanded the right to vote. This is the goal that Dr. Martin Luther King set out to achieve for African-Americans and other minorities when he started the Montgomery bus boycott. This is the goal that Harvey Milk set out to achieve when he opposed CA's Prop 6 and when he ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Our nation was founded on the idea that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights -- and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Your public statements, Orson Scott Card, put you on the wrong side of that declaration. Until you recognize that your public utterances have been at the service of bigotry and prejudice, there can be no redemption for you in the eyes of the LGBT community. Or anyone else, for that matter."
Of course everyone must make up their own minds on what to do, but by buying Card's books or going to see this film, people are financially supporting a group that opposes equal rights for gay people in the United States and elsewhere. It's important to make an informed choice on whether they want to do this.
Ugh.
Still gonna see the movie.
If he wants to waste his money on futility, then he can knock himself out.
That's his right.
Half the people in Hollywood and in politics have views directly opposed to mine, and if I were to boycott all of those people's many enterprises or projects...well, I wouldn't get out much.
Also don't see the point in ruining everyone else who is involved with the film's career becasue of one asshat on the wrong side of history.
Just my 2 cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Kryzbyn. If I refused to purchase products that were associated in some way with someone whose political views I disagreed with, I might as well strip naked and go live on a deserted island.
But then again, I don't really like the idea of using boycotts as a means of political expression, primarily because boycotts hurt far more than the intended target, and generally hurts the intended target much less than the honest, hard-working regular folks whose jobs and mortgages depend on the product.
Of course that's also because I don't turn every single thing in my life into a political or ideological calculation.
It's worth noting that all of the people involved in the movie who even have a mortagage - the crew and extras - will have been paid already out of the budget. Their work is done. The people with a stake in the film's box office will be the bigger-name actors, the director and the producers (including Card).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that all of the people involved in the movie who even have a mortagage - the crew and extras - will have been paid already out of the budget. Their work is done. The people with a stake in the film's box office will be the bigger-name actors, the director and the producers (including Card).
No, that's not even close to reality. Especially for a blockbuster movie like this.
Movie ticket sales drive the whole process, and the bulk of the money from those ticket sales are collected at the movie theater and pay for the salaries of the movie theater staff. Movie theaters are businesses and as such they pay bills to stay in business. They employ accountants, janitors, managers, etc. Movie theaters themselves are usually capitalized, meaning large loans were taken to build the theater and movie ticket sales provide the money to pay those loans off. That means those movie tickets are paying the salaries of the construction workers who built the theater, the factory workers who made the construction components, the truck drivers who hauled the materials... Before you say "those people have already been paid" they were paid based on the projection of success of the theater, and if theaters prove to be a bad bet, they won't be paid to build new ones.
Movies drive traffic to and from movie theaters, economic analysis shows that every sold movie ticket provides additional economic impact for everything from buying gas to get to the theater to the inevitable stopping for dinner on the way home.
And movies like this are intended to have sequels, so if they succeed then all those people you think have been paid already will have additional income from Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead when they are filmed.
And that's not even addressing the whole merchandising side of the equation. Did you know that George Lucas made more from selling Star Wars toys than he did from the movies? So did a lot of other people.
Try again.
I don't really like the idea of using boycotts as a means of political expression, primarily because boycotts hurt far more than the intended target, and generally hurts the intended target much less than the honest, hard-working regular folks whose jobs and mortgages depend on the product.
I can think of no better and American way to boycott as a means of personal expression. If I don’t like something, I don't spend my money on it. Simple, quiet and effective.
I have a hard time with this one. On one hand Enders game is one of my favorite books that and his equally good (if not better) Seventh Son. On the other hand I can't stand what I've learned about the author.
I'd boycott...but. I still listen to Michael Jackson's Off the Wall. It's a brilliant album made by a child rapist. Where were my ideals then...
Conflicted by my own hypocrisy
-MD
Movie ticket sales drive the whole process, and the bulk of the money from those ticket sales are collected at the movie theater and pay for the salaries of the movie theater staff. Movie theaters are businesses and as such they pay bills to stay in business. They employ accountants, janitors, managers, etc. Movie theaters themselves are usually capitalized, meaning large loans were taken to build the theater and movie ticket sales provide the money to pay those loans off.
Movies drive traffic to and from movie theaters, economic analysis shows that every sold movie ticket provides additional economic impact for everything from buying gas to get to the theater to the inevitable stopping for dinner on the way home.
All 100% true.
However, none of that is dependent on going to see this one, specific film. At the same time this movie is on release you will also be able to go and see THOR: THE DARK WORLD, THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE or, a couple of weeks after that, THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG or ANCHORMAN 2, all of which would do the same thing for your local economy.
And movies like this are intended to have sequels, so if they succeed then all those people you think have been paid already will have additional income from Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead when they are filmed.
That would be assuming the sequels get made and assuming that the exact same crew would work on them (which is not a given) and they wouldn't be working on another movie instead.
In fact, we know they probably would: studios have a certain production budget for a year and will fill that budget with projects. If ENDER'S GAME bombs (for whatever reason) and no sequel is made, the studio will simply apply that money to another project instead.
[derailment]Also, based on their complete and total tonal dissonance from ENDER'S GAME, I think we can safely assume any movie sequel would not be based on the sequel books.
"Well, Ender is all grown up and it's thousands of years into the future and he spends the whole movie bascially wangsting in guilt over blowing up the aliens in the first movie but then finds a kind of peace over it by delivering philosophical sermons on behalf of the dead aliens."
"How many space battles?"
"None."
"...I think we need a new script."
Try again.
Yes, you should :-)
I'd boycott...but. I still listen to Michael Jackson's Off the Wall. It's a brilliant album made by a child rapist. Where were my ideals then...
A slightly different situation. The extent of Jacko's bizarre behaviour was not known until relatively recently. In addition, he's now dead, so by buying his records right now you are not enabling his dubious activities to proceed further in the future.
As I said before, there's the rub. I don't agree with Dan Simmons's politics - and his books usually suck when he starts trotting them out, as in OLYMPOS and the recent FLASHBACK - but he doesn't use his money to fund organisations dedicated to oppressing equal rights either, so I have no problem spending money on books like THE TERROR because it's a fantastic novel.
Werthead, I am pretty sure that they'll find a way to make sequels if the movie is successful.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one.
The overall success of a movie theater is based on the sum of individual films. And if enough films bomb, the theater fails. In some cases a single movie can make the difference between a movie theater paying its bills or not.
I'm with Adamantine on this one. I vehemently disagree with Card on this matter, but boycotting something I enjoy because I don't like the political views of the guy who made it would mean I'd be a very bored person a lot of the time.
I have a hard time with this one. On one hand Enders game is one of my favorite books that and his equally good (if not better) Seventh Son.
You know, I don't see many people that talk about that series. I really liked that one.
A slightly different situation. The extent of Jacko's bizarre behaviour was not known until relatively recently. In addition, he's now dead, so by buying his records right now you are not enabling his dubious activities to proceed further in the future.
It is almost the same. I had no idea OSC was a raging hater till this year. I've read...reread his books for many years.
As I said before, there's the rub. I don't agree with Dan Simmons's politics - and his books usually suck when he starts trotting them out, as in OLYMPOS and the recent FLASHBACK - but he doesn't use his money to fund organisations dedicated to oppressing equal rights either, so I have no problem spending money on books like THE TERROR because it's a fantastic novel.
God...I do not want to know about Dan Simmon's...only so much I can take in a day. I love his books, don't make me hate him. /sob
-MD
|
|
Remember Golden Compass? Teh Catholics were up in arms about it telling people to not see it. Didn't make any difference. This is a non issue.
If theaters in your local area are anything like mine you will have at least a dozen other choices. If somehow Enders bombs because of a boycott I doubt it would start a trend and ruin the film industry.
I get what folks are saying in theory about boycotts but if Americans love anything its movies. Hell look at 20 years ago on boxoffice mojo. The number 1 film is taking in by itself the entire box office from then. Teh film industry is a juggernaut even with films losing 100's of mills like John Carter and Lone Ranger. Yeap, Disney is still going and the lights are still on at my local theater.
God...I do not want to know about Dan Simmon's...only so much I can take in a day. I love his books, don't make me hate him. /sob-MD
There is another solution Paul. You can simply learn not to hate people you disagree with.
Remember Golden Compass? Teh Catholics were up in arms about it telling people to not see it. Didn't make any difference. This is a non issue.
If theaters in your local area are anything like mine you will have at least a dozen other choices. If somehow Enders bombs because of a boycott I doubt it would start a trend and ruin the film industry.I get what folks are saying in theory about boycotts but if Americans love anything its movies. Hell look at 20 years ago on boxoffice mojo. The number 1 film is taking in by itself the entire box office from then. Teh film industry is a juggernaut even with films losing 100's of mills like John Carter and Lone Ranger. Yeap, Disney is still going and the lights are still on at my local theater.
I suspect if the movie is good, it will do well. Regardless of how a few people might choose to "make a stand" on such an issue.
I wonder how many of those "take a stand" people will be posting their righteous indignation on Apple Computers or iPhones.
You know, the Apple Computer that has been caught paying for child labor, did not pay taxes, has been found guilty of price fixing and who has outsourced virtually all of their labor to China.
Yeah, that Apple.
But you know, priorities and all. Those iPhones are pretty cool after all.
I'm with Adamantine on this one. I vehemently disagree with Card on this matter, but boycotting something I enjoy because I don't like the political views of the guy who made it would mean I'd be a very bored person a lot of the time.
Normally I would agree in full if it was a simple case of political/ideological/religious disagreement and you can say live and let live and that's as far as it goes.
In this case, as mentioned, Card is actively funding campaigning against equal rights. He's taking the money he makes off people buying his books and going to see his film and using that for something that a lot of people don't agree with.
And the organisation he financially supports has been accused of supporting the recent passing of laws in Uganada which made homosexuality a capital crime. Which, you know, people can be killed over.
There's a difference between, "I'm boycotting this because I don't agree with the director's choice of teabag," which is the sort of thing I don't usually have much truck with, and "Actually, I don't want to part-fund - even if 0.001p of my ticket goes towards it - discrimination and state-sponsored murder," which I am not down with.
Fortuitously I'm not boycotting the film at all, since I'd already decided not to see it because ENDER'S GAME isn't a very good book (IMO), far too heavily reliant on its twist ending which half the readers see coming from a mile off. The most interesting things about EG are actually the moral/philosophical implications of that ending, which are more thoroughly explored in the more interesting sequel, SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD. Which, as discussed upthread, will almost certainly never be made into a film.
There is another solution Paul. You can simply learn not to hate people you disagree with.
This I'd agree with. I don't hate Simmons, I politely disagree with his views and they have no bearing on my enjoyment of his fiction. I don't hate Card either, despite the evident loathing and contempt he holds a sizable number of people in. I actually think Card is quite a smart guy and, at one time, used to be a good author.
What I disagree with quite vehemently with is an author taking my money and using it to try to crush other people's rights.
Werthead, as on many other threads, the issue becomes somewhat cloudy when it is not entirely clear what "other people's rights" themselves are. It has become quite common for people to accuse other peopel of "crushing rights" for simply disagreeing.
I'm not an expert on Orson Scott Card. I have read interviews and public statements from him on the subject of gay marriage and homosexual acts. He wrote a famous essay in 1990, most of which he now disavows, that is usually used as evidence of how he is "crushing rights".
You have repeatedly suggested that the main case against Card is that "the organisation he financially supports has been accused of supporting the recent passing of laws in Uganada which made homosexuality a capital crime".
Forgive me, but "accused of" and "guilty of" are not the same thing. And I have found that public discourse on issues like this are absolutely overflowing with emotional hype and outright distortion.
Forgive me if my natural skepticism asserts itself here. I suspect that Orson Scott Card disagrees with the notion that he opposes anyone's "rights". And if pressed you and he would probably discover that your idea of what is a "right" and his idea are not mutually compatible.
Which is the same thing as saying...
You disagree with him.
|
For me one of th big things is I can't find anything homophobic in Ender's Game, in fact when I taught the novel this year many of my male students felt "uncomfortable" with parts because they thought the author must be gay. (There were many interesting conversations that day...) Card's already got enough money to do whatever he pleases with his political views whether I agree with him or not, in fact he's probably already been paid for the film. Instead of boycotting the movie, which really hurts the stars of the film, the director, and those who worked hard to bring this to life, why not go see it if you want, then donate to the LGBT charity of your choice. In fact staging boycotts is great advertisement for the film, which defeats those who wish to boycott it's purpose.
I hope you realize my comment about hating was in jest...
I blame the Ariel font for its lack of satirical nuance.
-MD
It's worth noting that all of the people involved in the movie who even have a mortagage - the crew and extras - will have been paid already out of the budget. Their work is done. The people with a stake in the film's box office will be the bigger-name actors, the director and the producers (including Card).No, that's not even close to reality. Especially for a blockbuster movie like this.
Movie ticket sales drive the whole process, and the bulk of the money from those ticket sales are collected at the movie theater and pay for the salaries of the movie theater staff. Movie theaters are businesses and as such they pay bills to stay in business. They employ accountants, janitors, managers, etc. Movie theaters themselves are usually capitalized, meaning large loans were taken to build the theater and movie ticket sales provide the money to pay those loans off. That means those movie tickets are paying the salaries of the construction workers who built the theater, the factory workers who made the construction components, the truck drivers who hauled the materials... Before you say "those people have already been paid" they were paid based on the projection of success of the theater, and if theaters prove to be a bad bet, they won't be paid to build new ones.
Movies drive traffic to and from movie theaters, economic analysis shows that every sold movie ticket provides additional economic impact for everything from buying gas to get to the theater to the inevitable stopping for dinner on the way home.
And movies like this are intended to have sequels, so if they succeed then all those people you think have been paid already will have additional income from Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead when they are filmed.
And that's not even addressing the whole merchandising side of the equation. Did you know that George Lucas made more from selling Star Wars toys than he did from the movies? So did a lot of other people.
Try again.
If people don't spend money on something they boycott, they spend it somewhere else.
The gas station doesn't care that you went to go see a movie. They just care how much you drove.
If you buy other products, truck drivers will just get paid to deliver those.
Construction workers will build other buildings.
etc, etc, etc.
For a boycott to have a negative effect on the overall economy, you'd have to demonstrate that the money not used in the boycott is somehow forever lost, like protesters burning money. The boycott can impact the people targeted, and temporarily the support chain for those people, but as long as the money is spent SOMEWHERE, the economy will shift to serve those needs.
For me one of th big things is I can't find anything homophobic in Ender's Game, in fact when I taught the novel this year many of my male students felt "uncomfortable" with parts because they thought the author must be gay. (There were many interesting conversations that day...) Card's already got enough money to do whatever he pleases with his political views whether I agree with him or not, in fact he's probably already been paid for the film. Instead of boycotting the movie, which really hurts the stars of the film, the director, and those who worked hard to bring this to life, why not go see it if you want, then donate to the LGBT charity of your choice. In fact staging boycotts is great advertisement for the film, which defeats those who wish to boycott it's purpose.
There are two points I can see that might erroneously lead someone to believe that Ender's game has "homosexual overtones." The first is that they have no other clothes than their training suits. Hence they tend to lounge around and sleep naked in their quarters. The second is a scene where one of Ender's friends kisses him on the cheek.
Of course, taking either of those things as homosexuality is just silly. Guys go naked in front of one another all the time in locker rooms and public showers. The second would hardly be misinterpreted anywhere outside of North America. The boy kisses his cheek and whispers "salaam," which means "peace" in Arabic. It was a touching moment where Ender realizes he actually has a friend.
The fact that Card puts that scene in the book tends to be contradictory to me. Most homophobes look askance at any sort of affectionate gesture between two men that could be interpreted as erotic or sexual, yet Card makes it a poignant scene. It's hard to reconcile that with his outspoken stance against homosexuality.
|
|
There are two points I can see that might erroneously lead someone to believe that Ender's game has "homosexual overtones." The first is that they have no other clothes than their training suits. Hence they tend to lounge around and sleep naked in their quarters. The second is a scene where one of Ender's friends kisses him on the cheek.
Of course, taking either of those things as homosexuality is just silly. Guys go naked in front of one another all the time in locker rooms and public showers. The second would hardly be misinterpreted anywhere outside of North America. The boy kisses his cheek and whispers "salaam," which means "peace" in Arabic. It was a touching moment where Ender realizes he actually has a friend.
The fact that Card puts that scene in the book tends to be contradictory to me. Most homophobes look askance at any sort of affectionate gesture between two men that could be interpreted as erotic or sexual, yet Card makes it a poignant scene. It's hard to reconcile that with his outspoken stance against homosexuality.
And you totally nailed the scenes my students had problems with. Did I mention that I teach really immature 11th graders (or 11th graders who've failed 11th grade twice) who, if you asked about the scene with Alai even today, they'd insist I was wrong about what it meant. Not all of them, but seven of my students really had a problem with these two parts and nearly refused to finish the book.
I also agree with you about the contradiction between scenes like these and his views. It's interesting and makes one wonder what happened in his life between writing the novel and well now.
According to interviews with Card, his views have shifted dramatically towards accepting homosexual the lifestyle since 1990 when he wrote his infamous essay.
He wrote Ender's Game in the late 70s.
Werthead, as on many other threads, the issue becomes somewhat cloudy when it is not entirely clear what "other people's rights" themselves are. It has become quite common for people to accuse other peopel of "crushing rights" for simply disagreeing.
No.
'Crushing rights' would be campaigning to, erm, crush people's human rights. This isn't exactly semantic gymnastics.
As for what other people's rights are, I would suggest being allowed to get married to their partner of choice is fairly close to the basic definition of that.
You have repeatedly suggested that the main case against Card is that "the organisation he financially supports has been accused of supporting the recent passing of laws in Uganada which made homosexuality a capital crime".
Members of the National Organisation for Marriage have visited Uganda and preached there about how homosexuality is wrong and, in some cases, how it can be 'cured'.
Some of them did later retract or disavow their visits, saying they didn't know this law was on the books. But that association is still there.
Forgive me if my natural skepticism asserts itself here. I suspect that Orson Scott Card disagrees with the notion that he opposes anyone's "rights". And if pressed you and he would probably discover that your idea of what is a "right" and his idea are not mutually compatible.
Sure, in OSC's view gay people should not be allowed to get married and are only gay because of childhood abuse anyway.
That is not a view I share. I also think it's a view that a lot of other people would be horrified by. And I have no wish to fund the organisations he supports that actively campaign against those basic rights.
You disagree with him.
Yes.
That was the point of the discussion.
According to interviews with Card, his views have shifted dramatically towards accepting homosexual the lifestyle since 1990 when he wrote his infamous essay.
So you're saying that Card was a homophobe in the 1990s but isn't any more?
Card has been fairly consistent in opposing homosexuality and the normalisation of rights for gay people right up the last year or so. If he's been quiet-ish on the subject in the last year, it's probably because he's been told by the film company to keep schtum. The fact that they've pulled him from the Comic-Con presentation and admit internally that he is a marketing problem for the film backs that up.