posted
Has anyone involved in the production of Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" seriously proposed the possibility of producing the book as a full-length CGI film?
Wouldn't that eliminate concerns about many basic troublesome elements of recreating the novel: Casting, the Battle Room, the Game, and the script, among other things?
Especially, wouldn't CGI allow for the creation of a movie that is faithful to the book and to our imaginations?
1) Recent successes -- with "Polar Express," the CGI medium allowed that team to produce what would have been an impossible movie to make in live action, and the "acting" and voice work were fantastic. Similarly, "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within," though crippled by a weak, hard-to-follow plot, had production values that were top of the line, though ultimately too expensive - at the time, audiences weren't ready to accept a full CGI movie and the animation didn't make up for the third-rate story. On the other hand, "Final Fantasy: Advent Children" is also a beautiful movie, and, though it's plot may be hard to follow for people who aren't die-hard fans, it's still enjoyable. The success of other full-CGI movies (generally, children's comedies) is unquestionable.
2) Casting -- perhaps the the biggest obstacle facing Ender's Game is finding a large cast of young (in some cases VERY young) actors of many races who can portray a depth that many adult actors lack. Also, the passage of time in the movie will be impossible to portray in live action. - Through CGI, it would be possible to recreate the characters at their exact ages in the books, and the age/time progression would be a matter of aging the character design - simple to portray, and, more importantly, they could fit the author's description of the characters in all cases, child & adult (i.e. the young and old, half-Maori Mazer, a fattening Colonel Graff, the tiny (but growing) Bean, and Ender's racially diverse Jeesh). - Like "Polar Express," a handful of adult actors, through motion capture, could provide the facial expressions and movements for dozens of child characters whose voices would be provided by children. This would drastically increase the dramatic value of the movie. The characters of Ender and Bean alone require Oscar-worthy performances.
3) The Battle Room -- with Hollywood technology, it's probably possible, but wholly impractical, to recreate the Battle Room as OSC intended (refer to the aerobatics in the recent "Peter Pan" movie, "Matrix Revolutions," etc). However, in the case of the Battle Room, we're talking about putting dozens of child actors on the flying rigs which would have to be integrated with CGI shots anyway. - Full CGI would give complete freedom of movement to the characters. - There would be no risk involved to actors (eliminating insurance and other concerns). - There would be no need for expensive stunt equipment or the necessary staff. - OSC has said many times, the idea of "Ender's Game" was born in the Battle Room. It is absolutely necessary to recreate the Battle Room as imagined by OSC and all his fans. Without satisfactory Battle Room sequences, the "Ender's Game" movie is "Star Wars" without lightsabers.
4) The Game -- we can assume that a lot of the final game sequence is going to be produced in CG anyway. Beyond that, the movie will be filled with hundreds of effects shots - the futuristic earth, space ships, Battle School, Eros, the Bugger Invasions, etc. Setting out with a full CGI mindset will give animators a much broader canvas for creating these sequences (it would also re-open the possibly of Ender's meeting with the Hive Queen, among other elements sacrificed in live-action).
5) Rating -- yes, "Ender's Game" IS a violent book. A movie that sticks faithfully to the book would be R-Rated (what censor is going to gladly accept a movie that depicts children hurting - and killing - each other violently?). CGI, while it would still depict violence, might lessen, to a degree, the SENSE of violence (between computer animated characters).
6) Budget -- certainly, CGI would create new costs and challenges in production, but it would free up substantially more money saved on casting, location, set construction, rigs, insurance, and the other massive amounts of money that go into making a live action movie, from just feeding the actors and crew to housing them and jetting them between sets. The amount of time necessary to produced the movie would also be drastically reduced.
7) Scripts -- the movie adaptation has already been through half a dozen forms. Press releases and OSC's statements indicate that it has been necessary to eliminate many aspects of the book because of the limits of producing a live-action movie. Of course, the novel is going to be changed in the transition from page to film, but CGI would lessen the pain of it.
What all of this boils down to is giving the producers, director, scriptwriters, and OSC the ability to faithfully recreate the book. The handicap of any SF movie and any book made into a movie is that you have to recreate the universe. A book as popular as Ender's Game, demands a faithful production or even the fans will turn on it. CGI will give the crew the opportunity they need to produce a fantastic movie.
A director with live-action like Wolfgang Petersen may shy away from scrapping the model that has worked for him for so long. But in "Polar Express," Robert Zemeckis found a beautiful book, recognized the limits of making it in live-action, ditched the real world, and created a CGI movie than puts his previous (and unfortunately, subsequent) movies to shame.
For a director like Petersen, CGI will not limit his ability but will give him the chance to really express himself. It will given Orson Scott Card the chance to see his novel as he sees it in his mind's eye. It will give fans the chance to view a movie that is faithful to the book.
I feel this is possible. I believe it will give us the movie we all want to see. Depending on the response to this and other posts at other sites, I would like to submit this proposal to Mr. Card and Mr. Petersen, including a petition from fans who want to see "Ender's Game" realized as it was always meant to be.
A Faithful Fan, J. Drake
Please feel free to e-mail me, ozzymandiaz@aol.com.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, I believe that Mr. Card has said that there is almost no chance of this happening. If I can find the relevant post, I'll link it here.
Personally, I am a proponent of doing the movie in CGI, for many of the reasons you have listed. Personally, I think that some movies have done a pretty good job of animation. For example, I think that Advent Children did an excellent job of animation, not just in the fight scenes, but in facial expressions and movement in general.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love and adore animation, and I recognize the brilliance involved with works like Polar Express and Final Fantasy, but I'm a little sad that CGI has become the "one and only" form of animation for feature-length films these days. I miss cell.
I also think having Ender's Game be animated, even in incredibly good CGI, would take me out of the story somewhat. I'd rather see it acted out by actual humans. It's such an emotional story that having everything played by real people (well, except the Buggers, if they make an appearance) would bring me that much closer to it.
So, I'm glad he's said no to animation. But J. Drake brings up some very interesting points all the same! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the reason OSC has shot down ideas to do Ender's game as any kind of animation or CGI has been because, for most people, the very fact that it is animated will mean it is a "Kids movie" This means that either it can't show any part of the novel that would interfere with it being PG, or it shows what it wants, and no one sees it; Parents won't take their kids to see PG-13, and they won't leave the kids at home and go see a kids movie.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hank has a point. CGI or anime with an accurate rating might serve many of Card's existing fans well, but it is not going to carry his ideas to a wider audience which I believe is why he would take the risk of selling it to Hollywood.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I initially began considering solutions to some of the problems they would face making Ender's Game into live-action, I considered - and immediately shot down - any kind of cell animation, for the reasons mentioned above: it would lessen the impact of the emotional drama of the movie, and would carry with it that "kids movie" handicap. It would certainly allow a faithful recreation of the book, but it would appear immature.
One of the reaons that I believe CGI solves the problem is that it is ready to grow up: "Spirits Within" was before its time (and plot weak); "Advent Children" is superbly animated but only appeals to a very limited audience. "Polar Express" was definitely a kid's movie, but was mature in its animation and drama. And, of course, there are the scores of fun, eye-candy kids' movies using CGI.
But, CGI animators have long said that they have to scale down their animation - supposedly, they've reached a level of realism that people aren't ready to accept.
I would love to see the movie in live-action, but I think that "Ender's Game" would be near impossible to make as a live-action movie while still staying true to the book. The casting logistics alone, finding that many racially-diverse, talented, mature child actors, seem unattainable.
I'm no huge proponent of CGI; I much prefer live-action. But, I think the world is ready for a SERIOUS CGI-animated movie. I think "Ender's Game" is a mature and deep enough storyline that the strength of its plot, under the direction of Wolfgang Petersen and OSC, would negate the kid/outsider aspect of CGI and would, in effect, create a new genre of films, on par with any live-action production.
-- I've apparently missed OSC's comments on a CGI movie. If anyone can provide those, I'd really appreciate it.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ozzymandiaz: -- I've apparently missed OSC's comments on a CGI movie. If anyone can provide those, I'd really appreciate it.
I've been looking, but I couldn't find them using the search function. I could have sworn he said he was against CGI, but I suppose I could be mistaken.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hank: I believe the reason OSC has shot down ideas to do Ender's game as any kind of animation or CGI has been because, for most people, the very fact that it is animated will mean it is a "Kids movie" This means that either it can't show any part of the novel that would interfere with it being PG, or it shows what it wants, and no one sees it; Parents won't take their kids to see PG-13, and they won't leave the kids at home and go see a kids movie.
I find this very true. I would not have seen FFVII: Children Advent unless I played the game when I was younger. Why? Because, stereotypically, animated movies are for children.
Would Ender's Game work as a full length CGI movie? Definitely. However OSC obviously doesn't want to go that route and justifiably so.
I think the movie could work either way but the revenue will be less if it's 100% CGI. In my opinion at least. People just don't think of animated movies as adult movies unless they are based on a cartoon show that is specifically for adults (Family Guy, The simpsons, etc.)
Posts: 28 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You couldn't have a CG Ender's game film. Because the computer game and the war game have to be made different from the real world. In a CG film, this would be difficult.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. They could do the movie like titan AE where they do everything CG making it looked handdrawn and then make the war game and comp game actually CG. Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Titan AE didn't look very appealing to me. The preview reminded me of some of the early attempts to meld cell and computer animation. Like the basket in the river scene of Prince of Egypt. But if there was some consistency to it, I might pick it up at the library.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can see why you think CGI would be a good idea, but there are a number of reasons why this would lessen the films impact, potentially ruining it. Let's go through your argument:
1) Recent Successes - The reasons that The Polar Express and other well-made CGI movies worked was because they took place in a fantasy world. When we look at CGI characters, we subconciously think to ourselves "This is not real." This does not mean we can't like the characters, or make a connection with them, but there's always a barrier between us and the character that a skilled live actor can overcome (although sometimes that barrier is the whole point of the character).
Case in point: Gollum. Awesome character; Andy Serkis' performance is one of the best I've ever seen. And while we can identify with him, we see him as almost-human. This worked with Gollum because that's what we were supposed to see him as, but what if Frodo had been a CGI? Or Sam? Or Gandalf? The movie is ruined, as Ender's Game would be. Perhaps there will come a day within my lifetime (perhaps even OSC's) where CGI characters become totally indistinguishable from real actors, even to our subconcious minds, but I'm certainly not going to sit on my hands and wait until that day for the movie to get made, and neither is OSC.
2) Casting - You know, there's a reason why CGI films are thought of as "Kid's movies." It's because that barrier that I mentioned above doesn't exist within the mind of an eight-year-old, or at least isn't as prominent. When adults see The Polar Express, they see remarkably life-like animations of children. When kids see The Polar Express, they see CHILDREN. That's the magic of that particular story, and all the good children's movies (or children's stories, for that matter); out of all the meanings that people of different ages take out of it, it's still an enjoyable film, but for different reasons. Ender's Game would not be one of these films, so it's foolish for it to try to emulate the success of something to which it is wholly different.
As far as aging goes, this is not an impossible feat to accomplish without CGI. Ever see "The Wonder Years"? It takes a little patience, and is a bit risky, but showing young characters grow and develope over time is not a new thing in Hollywood. Although it's rare to put that whole growth in one movie, it has been done (Anne of Green Gables is the first one that comes to my mind).
On casting: I'm concerned over that part myself, but I assure myself that it seems that OSC has a large amount of control with this movie. He will be demanding of the actors, and won't tolerate any child who can't perform up to his standards, harsh though it may be. Brilliant child actors are out there, and unlike in Harry Potter, the appearance of the Ender and his Jeesch is fairly non-descript, so that those who do the casting don't have to narrow their choices down to a skilled young actor who "Looks like Harry Potter."
3) The Battle Room - You're looking at the wrong movies, friend. "Peter Pan", "Matrix: Revolutions", and others like them have the flaw of depicting human beings flying on their own power with perfect manueverability. This is hard to portray, because the animators don't have a frame of reference. We're talking about something that can achieve lift-off instaneously, dive like a falcon, and stop and change directions like a hummingbird. How would your body react to all the bobbing and weaving? This is the difficulty that animators face with movies like that.
Fortunately, in Ender's Game, people don't fly in the battle room; they float. They push themselves off the walls and stars, and the only thing affecting their movement is the laws of physics: The force and angle of their push, and inertia. And the best part of all is, we don't need CGI to do it! It helps, and I certainly wouldn't turn it down, but the characters on screen don't need to be digital; they can be the actors/stuntpeople in the flesh. Don't believe me? Take a look at Hero, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, or even the non-flying action scenes in the Matrix movies. They were all done with cables. This would not be like Harry Potter, where the characters are moving so fast and bobbing and weaving so much that it would be impossible to do without CGI. The battleschoolers all float in straight lines, with the exception of special tactics like pushing off one-another mid-flight. Just film it slow and then speed the film up, like they do in all action movies.
4) The Game - The Game is one of the main reasons why the film should not have CGI characters. Ever seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? Now picture what that movie would be like if the characters were all in CGI. Suddenly, we're not nearly as surprised when objects start randomly dissappearing, or by any of the other brilliant effects of the movie, because we are already convinced that this world is not real.
The same goes for the Game. CGI Ender? Why shouldn't he stab a giant in the eye? The whole point of the Game is that it is a world not bound by the laws of the real world. When I think of the game, I think of the juxtaposition between Ender (who comes from the real world) and the highly fictionalized world around him (with lots of CGI effects, a lot like they use in all the previous movies mentioned). This juxtaposing is nearly impossible to achieve when Ender is also just a CGI-rendered image. This is what makes Eternal Sunshine so great: it convinces you that the world inside Jim Carey's head is real, and then throws in the dissonance of CGI effects.
5) Rating - This is where you're whole argument breaks down. Up until here, you approached the CGI-character issue as though they could be portrayed to be just as human as normal actors, but here, you're basically saying the exact same point I've been making, but trying to turn it in your favor. Yes, violence between animated characters certainly WOULD seem less violent than with real actors, because CGI characters are NOT AS HUMAN as humans are. The audience knows that, and when violence breaks out, we have already dehumanized the characters. Do you see how you have subtley disproven yourself? You acknowledged that violence between two animations is less offensive than between two actors, hence even you, the proponent for the digital revolution, seem to believe that there is a quality in real human performance that can't be duplicated (or even captured) digitally.
OSC put the violence in the book for a reason; there is a meaning behind it. That meaning is obliterated when you have anything less-than-human doing the violence on the screen. The rating is irrelavant; I would prefer the movie be rated NC-17 and have real human characters than PG-13 with cartoony ones who don't evoke the necessary emotion of the story. Leave the kids at home and go see a cinematic masterpiece.
6) Budget - In this case, I'm afraid you get what you pay for.
In summary, Ender's Game is a human drama. It needs human characters. There's no substitute for that, no matter how much easier it would be to film digitally.
posted
You could have the kids wear helmets that cover their faces in the battle room, and do those scenes in CGI. The rest of the movie would be with real actors. The rest of the movie should be fairly easy and cheap to shoot.
The violence in the movie was not all that great. The language of the kids is probably a sticking point with the studios, but that can be managed too.
I agree with what has been said already about finding good child actors. That, and perhaps Mr. Card keeping things close to the heart of the book, are probably why it has taken so long to bring this great book to the big screen.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
