|
Okay, I watched this movie, and I suggest everyone of you to watch it. Even if you don't agree with the author's politics. Ender's Game is a good movie in its overall story. It's a horror science fiction movie that is as much a psychological thriller than for it's science fiction action. It's a "Soft" sci-fi movie, dealing with the Science of Psychology more than using science to solve a problem.
For a story to be good, it must present a problem that the mind must solve through eight facets. These are the Overall Story, the story of the Main Character, the Subjective Story, and the Emotional Story.
THE MAIN CHARACTER VS. IMPACT CHARACTER story.
Ender Wiggin is our main character, we are supposed to empathize with him through the story. Despite what they say, he's an emotional. Played by Asa Butterfield, Ender Wiggin is the unlikely future Fleet Commander for the International Fleet of Earth. I was unimpressed with Asa's performance as Ender Wiggin, but at least he's better than Mick Caulkin. Card didn't want an actor that would Caulkinize the character.
The Protagonist is Colonel Hyrum Graff, played by Harrison Ford. Hyrum Graff wanted to prevent the Formics from coming to Earth and destroy the human race.
The Guardian is Mazer Rackham, the first man that defeated the Formics. He guides Ender in his role as the Fleet Commander.
The Impact Characters are the Formics -- which are also the Antagonists, well, ostensibly. The real Antagonist is the military life that Ender is subjected to. Ender had to beat up bullies, and nearly kills Bonzo (pronounced Bone-SO, it's Spanish). This conflict is symbolized by the interaction between Colonel Hyrum Graff and Ender Wiggin in the film.
However, the Formics communicate with Ender through the Mind Game, hoping to present their side of the conflict. Unable to stop Ender but planting the seeds of doubt, they give him a location of a Queen pupa on the world that is Mankind's advance base in Formic territory.
THE EMOTIONAL STORY
This story is lacking, as the acting wasn't as well delivered by Asa and others as well as it could be. Both Ford and Kingsley act their parts strongly, however.
THE OVERALL STORY
Ah, yes. This is the underlying horror of the film. It shows that if we ever have first contact with a race that is trying to kill us, we would return the favor, in spades. Ender's Game is about duping a child to commit Xenocide against an entire species. Which actually worked, they turned Ender into a killer, into a destroyer. As foreshadowed by Peter telling Ender Wiggin that he's a killer now.
This movie should be watched for the overall story throughline, at least. We are so spiritually primitive that if we encountered a species that intended to do us harm (like the aliens in "V"), we would build a fleet of spaceships -- send it to one of the race's planet -- and destroy the planet in a heartbeat. If only we could see ourselves as our own worst enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am failing to see how destroying a species bent on exterminating us is spiritually primitive.
The idea that we should deny that part of ourselves is what strikes me as spiritually primitive; it's intentionally denying part of the human survival instinct and saying it's a bad thing when that survival instinct is the only reason our species is still alive. In essence, it is not coming to terms with an important aspect of human nature, coming to understand it, and understanding when it is okay to unleash and when it is best controlled. Because without it, you wouldn't be alive right now.
The most important thing to remember is that, at our core, we are killers. We are very, very good at it. And once you strip away the self-delusions encouraged by human civilization, you get a species that actually enjoys it; the top-selling video games are all violent, after all. And look at the very kind of thing most of Pathfinder's rules concentrate on: Combat. Most of us who play Pathfinder play it with the idea that, at some point, our characters will take a life. And we find it fun.
But that is not being spiritually bereft. Consider that statistics have repeatedly shown that roleplayers and people who play violent video games are typically less likely to commit violent crimes or take a life. That is because we have, whether we realize it or not, embraced the violent aspect of our natures and found a healthy outlet for it where it harms no one. We're not denying it exists... but we're making it less likely we'll ever call upon it without necessity.
Identification, acceptance, and control. That is what strikes me as spiritually healthy and spiritually advanced. Not denying that we would exterminate an entire race; if it came down to it, we wouldn't even hesitate. Because it would be the survival of our species on the line, and because we know ourselves well enough to know that we would go to great lengths to make certain our species survived. After all, if we wouldn't, our species wouldn't have survived one of the times it nearly went extinct.
As for the movie: The fact they had to trick him into it is what annoys me. That makes me question their military training routines. A simple explanation of the fact those aliens have made it very clear it's us or them, combined with military training, should have been enough. But maybe that's just me. My survival instinct tends to be a lot closer to the surface.
As Asa Butterfield was born in 1997, that makes him almost 10 years too old to play Ender Wiggins.
I cannot comment on how the movie was, but the novel was the simple psychological and physical torture of a group of young children. By the end of the war, Ender and the remaining Children/Generals are recklessly throwing away the "lives" of the men in their commands in an attempt to kicked out of the "training" because of the stress. It is only after the final battle that they are told that not did they commit the complete genocide of an intelligent species (which was later revealedto be false) but that they killed countless human beings also.
And yes the term Children is correct, as if my memory is correct the eldest of "candidates" was about 16, and Ender was under 10, only allowed in to keep him from finding out that he had killed another child. By the end of the war, the only remaining children were under 13 or so.
So now I won't be going to see this movie.
And wow did they clean up the movie for public appeal. Ender kills Bonzo in the novel, along with the other child he had killed before entering the "training."
As for the movie: The fact they had to trick him into it is what annoys me. That makes me question their military training routines. A simple explanation of the fact those aliens have made it very clear it's us or them, combined with military training, should have been enough. But maybe that's just me. My survival instinct tends to be a lot closer to the surface.
This is the only thing I disagree with you on.
Maybe it wasn't adequately explained in the movie (Like a lot of other stuff) but the military didn't deceive Ender because he had a problem killing Formics. They misled him because they needed him to fight to win, without thought of saving as many lives as possible. If he had known that he was playing for real, the losses he was suffering in each conflict would have dulled his fighting edge.
As for the movie: The fact they had to trick him into it is what annoys me. That makes me question their military training routines. A simple explanation of the fact those aliens have made it very clear it's us or them, combined with military training, should have been enough. But maybe that's just me. My survival instinct tends to be a lot closer to the surface.This is the only thing I disagree with you on.
Maybe it wasn't adequately explained in the movie (Like a lot of other stuff) but the military didn't deceive Ender because he had a problem killing Formics. They misled him because they needed him to fight to win, without thought of saving as many lives as possible. If he had known that he was playing for real, the losses he was suffering in each conflict would have dulled his fighting edge.
To be honest, from what I'm hearing from both here and elsewhere the books actually do a far better job of going into Ender's character and explaining some details. The books apparently make his utter ruthlessness in a game simulation utterly believable, while the movie doesn't quite hit it.
Loved the book, did not see the movie. In the book "Ender" is a genius but what his special quality really is is his ability to "end" trouble before it gets started. This is represented by his killing of the two bullies at various points in the book. It is that killer instinct that according to the book humanity has lost but still needs if it is going to survive in the universe. Ender does not like killing and in the book does not realize he has killed the two boys, but he did intend to put them down so hard there would be no future fights. In this Ender represents the whole human race. We are fragile when faced with the vast cosmos and need to act if we are to survive.
going to have to disagree here.
Saw the movie in the theater, and was a fairly big fan of the book (although I haven't read the initial series since I was in high school).
I thought that overall...the movie was a poor adaptation. The movie felt obligated to beat the audience over the head repeatably with "how special" Ender is, where the movie should have felt obligated with SHOWING him being special.
The training portion of the movie felt too rushed and compacted, which was totally unnecessary given all the scenes of adult talking about how special Ender is, or the fact that I think they showed the same attack footage of the first bug war 3 times. And I also feel rather annoyed that they discard the FTL limits in the book. It made the "twist" at the end a bit too obvious.
As Asa Butterfield was born in 1997, that makes him almost 10 years too old to play Ender Wiggins.
You know, while I think it was a poor adaptation, I don't think you can blame directors for aging up the character and getting a young looking actor to play him. Actual good child actors are incredibly rare, especially those who can actually pull off drama. I would rather we get an older Ender than an age faithful Ender incapable of anything more complicated than mugging the camera.
You know, while I think it was a poor adaptation, I don't think you can blame directors for aging up the character and getting a young looking actor to play him. Actual good child actors are incredibly rare, especially those who can actually pull off drama. I would rather we get an older Ender than an age faithful Ender incapable of anything more complicated than mugging the camera.As Asa Butterfield was born in 1997, that makes him almost 10 years too old to play Ender Wiggins.
The problem is that while turning a near adult into a genocidal mass murderer is bad, doing it to a 10 year old is evil on a completely different level, and that shock is lost.
It's the same thing that makes me glad I never started watching The Game of Thrones. The Stark children, are just that, children. Ranging from 15 to 3.
Ender passed for early teens (13-14), and I still think the age was fine for getting across the horror in the situation (although from a plot perspective, they botched that).
As for Game of Thrones...The child actors on the show are actually one of the best things going for it. Especially Maisie Williams. I really doubt making her a few years older has had any impact on her plotline on the show, and this is from someone that has read the series three times now.
You know, while I think it was a poor adaptation, I don't think you can blame directors for aging up the character and getting a young looking actor to play him. Actual good child actors are incredibly rare, especially those who can actually pull off drama. I would rather we get an older Ender than an age faithful Ender incapable of anything more complicated than mugging the camera.As Asa Butterfield was born in 1997, that makes him almost 10 years too old to play Ender Wiggins.
The problem is that while turning a near adult into a genocidal mass murderer is bad, doing it to a 10 year old is evil on a completely different level, and that shock is lost.
It's the same thing that makes me glad I never started watching The Game of Thrones. The Stark children, are just that, children. Ranging from 15 to 3.
See, you wouldn't have that problem if you were watching Game of Thrones, 'cause in the TV series their ages range from, like 17 to 5. They're younger in the the book series. I've only watched the trailer of Ender's Game, but the first thing I noticed was that the actor playing Ender was, like, obviously post-pubescent, whereas Ender wasn't in the book. Like, at all.
Full disclosure, I enjoyed the book (Ender's Game) the first time I read it, but really haven't felt a need to see the movie. The character development just feels obvious at this point.
I am failing to see how destroying a species bent on exterminating us is spiritually primitive.
I think the point is that the Formics were NOT bent on exterminating us. In the 50 years since their first attack, they never attacked again. Its allowable in some situations to use violence in self defense, but one should use the least violent means available, not the most.
No they attacked twice and then all was quiet for 50 years. And the second attack was a full colonization force.
No they attacked twice and then all was quiet for 50 years. And the second attack was a full colonization force.
In the book or the movie? I never read the book, but in the movie I think that they attacked only once, were defeated by Mazer Rackham who killed their queen, and then not again for 50 years.
Either way, it scarcely seems like they were bent on exterminating humanity 50 years later.
Book there were two prior attacks, the first consisting of largely small scale skirmishs in the asteroid belt and off world
The second was a major colonization fleet
Movie are often, if not always, poor mirrors of the books after which they come. At best, they can have a equally successful "life", both being good for different reasons on different aspects.
For example, Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is a popular and acclaimed series of film even if they are poor adaptations of the novels from which they draw their inspiration. Or perhaps we can say that they are good adaptations, insofar as they are nothing like the books themselves. Perhaps such it's the same for Ender's Game.
Knowing nothing about the Ender's book (books?) myself, I enjoyed the movie for what it was. It was consistent with itself, acted out in ways that served the movie IMO.