Don't scare us, Aros.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Positive with reservations.
What I took from those reviews is that one guy didn't like it, and the other two liked it for the same reason people liked the latest Star Trek films - Flashy but no substance. Read between the lines and you see them praising the speed, intensity, and special effects, but none of them seem particularly impressed by the story, which one of them describes as a mix of Starship Troopers and the Last Starfighter, which I have to admit, has an amusing grain of truth to it.
What I think these reviews say is that it's a fun ride. And that's great. But a lot of us might be expecting more than a popcorn thriller.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Why, why, why, why can't Hollywood produce a decent sci-fi with a real heart to it?
The whole 'fun ride' thing is getting old. Yes, I love a beautiful film with great effects. But it can't be that hard to incorporate both heart and effect, can it?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I only think one of the three was positive. And it was one of the most shallow, tag-line heavy reviews I've ever seen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I only think one of the three was positive. And it was one of the most shallow, tag-line heavy reviews I've ever seen.
Duh. That's why they farm advanced copies out to these hacks in the first place. Not one of these reviewers has read the novel (not that it's a requirement), and not one of them appears to be a sci-fi fan of any description. The studios are careful about who gets to write the first reviews. And these writers have spent years furnishing tag lines for the pimps who run the studios. Old news that.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:The rest of the cast of kids is made up of Hailee Steinfeld, who had her breakthrough in True Grit, as the love interest/inspiration for Ender, Aramis Knight, Jimmy Pinchak and Abigail Breslin as Ender's sister Valentine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a pretty scathing review.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I actually find that last review quite promising.
quote:The dialogue is often corny, and the twists and turns of the plot become so twisty turny and needlessly complicated, that at times it is hard to keep track. Oh, and the film opens with a quote from the protagonist, written across the screen. Is it just me, or is that weird?
If a reviewer who isn't familiar with the source finds it "weird" and "needlessly complicated", that's probably a good thing.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Wow. I'm shocked that nobody has pointed out the irony of avoiding spoiler-y reviews. It's not as though people on this site know what is going to happen. . . .
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I got passes to a screening next Tuesday (10/29). I'll try to remember to post a review here.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
IGN gave it a 7/10. It's from a fan of the book, too. He praises Asa butterfield and Ford's performances, but says the guy who plays Mazer hams it up pretty bad, which is surprising when you remember who the actor is and how good he normally is.
All that being said, his review is quite positive and says the ending will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.
I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the gorilla dies, the ship sinks, the jews kill mel gibson but he is resurrected, ender blows up the bugger planet but it turns out the buggers weren't actually trying to destroy earth it was all just a huge misunderstanding!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also, mockingly predictive presumption: spoiler alert, ha ha you thought a blockbuster movie wasn't going to try to water down political implications
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Saw it today, liked it lot. That's my review. Full disclosure, I also watched Bad Grandpa the other day and laughed a lot, almost to the point of tears in a couple places. That's two reviews in three sentences - you're welcome.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I just saw it. My thought was "they tried." It probably is not as good as many of us were hoping, but its definitely nowhere near as bad as we were fearing. They are several parts where I could tell the film makers really understood and were trying to do the book justice, but some other parts where they just fell short. There was only one part where I was actually kind of upset at a change they made.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
The author called it unfilmable, but he also tried to get it filmed... I guess it was doomed to not do as well on screen as it did in print. That really is one of the shortcomings of film: the inability to project or present deep, internal, brooding thoughts.
I mean, they could probably (were they to ever film the sequel) portray Jane as this wisecracking sidekick or whatever. But I don't know how they could possibly portray the layered intensity of when Ender shuts her off, in that split second of silence, or the existential crisis that emerges from it, triggering the events that lead to the climax.
OSC's books aren't made for the screen. They're too internal. This isn't a bad thing.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I think it's tough to make most any novel into a really good film. It seems like most of the really great film adaptations from literature are based on short stories or novella's. Movies just aren't long enough to properly portray all the content of a long novel. They are better suited to a TV format like Game of Thrones.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: tor.com review.
[ October 31, 2013, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I just got back fro watching it and I thought it was fine.
SPOILERS
They changed the ending so that Val doesn't go with Ender, but I guess I understand it. Although, I seriously doubt the I.F. would just give Ender a ship and let him leave with no one to help him. That part doesn't make much sense.
The part with the queen was pretty cool. I liked the art and battle room. It was a nice movie, all in all.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
Just got back from the movie (No Spoilers!), and I have to say that I think it's pretty much as good as they could have done in the medium with which they were working.
To me, it felt like they were trying to fit 500 pages of material into 50... but seeing as that's exactly what they were doing, it's not that unexpected.
I, for one, was very impressed with the ending. I didn't think they would be able to pull that off effectively, but I think the final scenes of the movie were successful.
Having just seen Gravity a couple of weeks ago, I think it's unfortunate that Ender's Game will inevitably be compared (unfavorably) to that movie. Gravity is a thin, predictable storyline surrounded by the most incredible special effects and realistic-looking space-effects I've ever seen in a movie. Ender's Game is, really, pretty much the exact opposite: a deep, idea-driven storyline that has some neat special effects along for the ride.
Unfortunately, movie audiences today want to see the former, not the latter, so I don't expect Ender's Game to do very well at the box office, and I don't imagine the reviews will be overly effusive about it. As for myself, I found it very satisfying; a far more satisfying movie experience than Gravity.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Harrison Ford was amazing, by the way. This movie shows he has serious acting chops. He's brilliant as Graff.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Harrison Ford was amazing, by the way. This movie shows he has serious acting chops. He's brilliant as Graff.
Absolutely! Old Harrison Ford was the perfect Graff.
Posted by RivalOfTheRose (Member # 11535) on :
Not that they can really help it, but the movie was too short for the book in multiple key areas. I don't mind the plot changes at all, and the visuals were great. Overall... Eh.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
quote:Originally posted by RivalOfTheRose: Not that they can really help it, but the movie was too short for the book in multiple key areas. I don't mind the plot changes at all, and the visuals were great. Overall... Eh.
Neh? Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I didn't like how they condensed so much of the Battle School time into what felt like a few short weeks. He moves up to Dragon Army so fast I had to pause and look at my phone to see how much time had passed. I get why they did it, but for someone who has read the book seven times, it was hard to get around.
Still, a solid film.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Harrison Ford was amazing, by the way. This movie shows he has serious acting chops.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if this was the movie he finally got an Oscar for?
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I saw it and I liked it. It's not the book but it clearly tried to be faithful to the heart of the story and I think the final product is something that fans can appreciate.
I do think that if I was unfamiliar with the story,there were many things that would have been very difficult to follow.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Well, The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me both leap to my mind, but those were short stories, not novels.
I've never read Fight Club, but it's one of the examples I frequently hear cited of the movie being better than the book.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro:
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: tor.com review.
In what way? Do you disagree with specific points she brought up, or just the overall tone of the review?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by vineyarddawg:
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Well, The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me both leap to my mind, but those were short stories, not novels.
I've never read Fight Club, but it's one of the examples I frequently hear cited of the movie being better than the book.
Fight Club is definitely one of the best book to screen adaptations I've ever seen. I don't know if I'd say it was better, but likely equal.
As for better, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind. Not only is the movie incredibly true to the source material (line for line much of the way), the acting and direction is just so superb that I don't ever see the need to read the book when you have the film.
The Road was also incredibly well done.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Somehow I missed that The Road was also a movie. I'll have to watch that sometime. Sometime when I can immediately emerge into sunlight and eat a strawberry.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Twilight. >_>
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Huh. I couldn't stand The Road adaptation. I had to turn it off 15 or 20 minutes in.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't know what's generally considered but, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I thought was better than the book. Though really the two were only tangentially related. 2001: A Space Odyssey I think is considered better by the majority of people, but it wasn't an adaptation (they were written at the same time). The Godfather maybe, though that's at best a toss-up. Personally I thought No Country for Old Men (to return to Cormac McCarthy) was better in movie form than book. But my guess is that most people who are the kind of people who read the book would be the kind of people to prefer that over the movie.
Which is always the problem: people who prefer one medium over the other tend to stick to their medium. At least to some degree. So you can't get a truly unbiased sample.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Oh, and on the topic of Stanley Kubrick movies, I really hope there's a consensus that The Shining was a better movie than book.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Contact
Julie and Julia Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
To Kill a Mockingbird? I'm curious what you mean by "highly acclaimed," though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There Will be Blood
Though it's a looser adaptation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually thought Contact the movie was considerably weaker than the book.
Posted by Hulgren (Member # 13074) on :
The movie effects were great. Loved seeing the battleroom, and the final battle played out better than I had imagined it.
though a 13 hour audio doesn't translate into a 2 hour movie well. Instead of hollywood I think this book would have done better as an anime or cartoon epic story. You could have more depth in character developement in a series of stories with more time. Maybe a couple chapters at a time. Not all of the content would have to be included. The movie just felt too rushed.
all in all I hope it makes enough to call it a success, though better audio plays or visual methods without editing out as much content would much be preferred.
Love your world. It always gives me plenty to dwell on in my long drives.
6/10
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Sense and Sensibility.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Can anyone name a highly acclaimed novel who's movie version is generally considered equal or better than the written version? I can't.
Twilight. >_>
I don't know if you were joking or not but I actually agree with the sentiment. For all its faults, I thought the movie was better than the book. It was pretty faithful to the book while the changes that were made improved it. Plus it was hugely popular though I don't think "critically acclaimed" applies. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I wasn't joking, but I didn't think "better than the written version" was a very high hurdle in this case.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Excellent review and excellent point about adding 20 minutes to the movie.
Moving the rest of my review to Spoil Ender's Game for me, where it belongs.
[ November 02, 2013, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: FoolishTook ]
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
My friend and I both agreed that it was better than we expected, though not as good as it could have been had it been presented on a long-format medium.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
I thought the script was horrible, and if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have known what was going on half the time or cared about any of the characters at all.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I just saw it and spent almost the entire time grinning. It wasn't perfect but it was better than I thought it would be. It made me want to come back to Hatrack.... What a nice surprise to see so many familiar faces. )
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nice to see you back. Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Another lapsed hatracker here, saw the movie with my girl friend and we both agreed it wasn't as bad as it could of been but it could have have been so much better if only they would of split the movie in two or three parts. If I hadn't read the book I would have no idea who most of the characters were. I wonder if there is a extended directors cut or something.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wowbagger AND jeniwren in the same thread? Wow...banner day!
I saw it, and loved it....right until the end. I hated the queen being right outside the bunker.....hated it had to be face to face. We can speak across the stars faster than light, and control thousands of drones, but can't make a small drone to explore the structure RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR FREAKING BASE THAT WE'VE BEEN USING FOR 50 FREAKING YEARS?
Of all the weird places to lose suspension of disbelief.....
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I saw it and I enjoyed it. The emotional impact at the end was better than I expected. There is so much about the film that could be better, of course, especially as I continue to think about it. But I enjoyed it and I am happy for that.
However, if I had not already read the book, I am not sure how much I would have enjoyed it. Much of my enjoyment came from the fact that I was subconsciously interpreting the story through both the lense of the movie and the book. But I was expecting it to have less heart than it did. I can tell they tried to retain the heart of the story, and despite all its flaws, I am appreciative of that, because that is the one thing that was most important to me to see in this movie.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I thought it was garbage from start to finish. The pacing was jarring in the extreme and the only actors turning in decent performances were the children. Many lines that worked well on the page come off terribly on screen (like the one about understanding the enemy and loving them in that moment).
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: My friend and I both agreed that it was better than we expected, though not as good as it could have been had it been presented on a long-format medium.
Yup.
For a two hour movie, I was happy with it. It could have had more focus on the core of the story rather than the glitz and peripheral details, but if it's going to be lacking in something, I'd rather it be that. The casting was good. The special effects were awesome. The arc felt compelling, if hurried, and the changes to the plot weren't ruinous to the story.
Of course it would be better if it was longer. Of course of course. But big movies like this tend not to be longer than two hours (Jackson movies excluded), and I'm irritated by the negative reactions centered on complaints of "if only it were longer it would be better!"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So much stupidity in this movie. For example, they trot out the "enemy's gate is down" line before the battle room game is even explained to them. It doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I thought it was garbage from start to finish. The pacing was jarring in the extreme and the only actors turning in decent performances were the children. Many lines that worked well on the page come off terribly on screen (like the one about understanding the enemy and loving them in that moment).
Nice to hear someone be that blunt about it. I always feel like I'm the wettest blanket in the room when it comes to bad reviews of adaptations.
I really tend to agree. But what I liked about it was that it proved a movie adaptation CAN work, but it needs to be done about 80% differently than this was.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Really, garbage?
I can think of so many adaptations that were much more trashy and awful than this one. The whole medium for movies like these necessitate a specific filter. A filter that brings more explosions, more campy moments, and more explanation of whats going on.
I can think of only a few movies that matched/improved upon the source material. Bladerunner was one. Naked Lunch another. The Road, I guess. Really, that's about it.
I can think of many that were disastrous. Golden Compass. Hunger Games. It. Battlefield Earth. Starship Troopers. Lorax. Dune. HG2G.
If I had $100 million dollars, and a lot of help, I could make Ender's Game pretty close to exactly what's in my imagination, but I've probably misinterpreted and given the story so much personal baggage that it would be blasphemous to other people. While I liked the Formics in this adaptation, my mind had a different image in mind. Black and shinier. The giant looked different. Bean looked different. The Battle Room looked different. Etc. Etc.
Lyrhawn, I know you have a very specific movie in mind, but do you think it ever could actually be made? Because if it can't, I think it's better to keep it comfortably locked away and treasured in each individual imagination.
P.S. Maybe I've given up on movies. Is this too cynical?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sometimes I think to some people anything lower than a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 is "garbage". At least that's the only way I can make sense of calling this movie garbage from start to finish.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Golden Compass was pretty bad. Hunger Games was not. Let's be clear, Hunger Games wasn't exactly Shakespeare. The movie was a pretty faithful adaptation to a decent to good YA book. I've never seen the Dune movie, but the Dune Miniseries that the Sci-Fi channel did, and the Children of Dune follow up that combined CoD and Dune Messiah were both pretty good. They left a fair bit out, but they told the story in a cogent, believable way that did the original justice.
That's what I want at the end of the day. Does the movie do the book justice? It doesn't need to be a word for word direct adaptation, it doesn't need to conform to all of my preconceived notions, it just needs to do the original justice. This movie failed on just about every measuring point that I would use to evaluate whether or not the book got its justice.
You're focusing on the visuals, which are okay, because pretty much everything in the movie looked different than I imagined it either, but that was really the smallest issue I had with it. Really it wasn't an issue at all. Much of it looked different, but by the end of the movie I was won over by just about all the visuals. The fantasy game's stylistic take was weird at first, but I bought it by the end. The Battle Room I think could use some tweaking, and I didn't like how the guns worked, but the overall visualization and function of Zero G combat worked. And I think they nailed how stars look and work. Bean looked fine to me, but he ACTED wrong. He was totally out of character. They could have made him a little white girl and it wouldn't have bothered me as much as the gutting of his character.
A good Ender's Game can be made. It might have to be two movies, or it might have to be a much more stripped down version of what this was, but it can be done. Pointing out all the holes in this movie isn't to say "it's unfilmable!" it's to say "Look, you could have fixed this, nixed that, added this, and it WOULD have worked!"
But they did what they did for purely financial reasons: 1. Those of us with an emotional connection were going to go whether it sucked or not. So they weren't really catering to us except in the same way JJ Abrams "catered" to Star Trek fans in Into Darkness. Just throw in some catch phrases and code words to make people smile at their favorite parts but don't actually try to use them within the correct context, thus robbing most of them of their meaning and impact. They threw us some bones, and for a lot of people that really worked, because their emotional connection was that strong.
2. It was for younger kids who weren't already fans. With us as a captive audience, they needed little kids who like explosions and flashy lights but have no tolerance for cerebral storytelling. Ender's Game is an internal, nuanced, character building story. That's something a young person can understand on paper if they like to read and they get it, but it's not what they go to their movies for. You don't see a lot of kids going to see documentaries and "serious" movies. Once they decided to target that audience and make it about "kids in space!" they really didn't need the story any more. So they gave kids the bare bones cliffs notes version they needed to get a basic understanding of the plot, then focused on a very surface layer treatment of Ender as the Chosen One, with everyone adoring him, and then a big space battle. Frankly it was a bit like Mary Sue fan fiction.
If they decided to focus on us, the long time slightly older reading crowd, they'd tell a much different, slower, less explodey story. It absolutely can be done. It wasn't done here because they made the decision not to, not because they're incapable.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
As soon as the decision was made to make a blockbuster style movie, the 'older reading crowd' was rejected.
As soon as the first trailer was aired, the producer's intentions were clear. If I wanted a longer Ender's Game adaptation, I would look to networks, brave, probably dying networks, to try something dramatic and amazing, at which they'd probably failed anyway.
Dune, I believe, is an exception because it's awesome purely on a YA basis, and awesome on a more mature basis. It stands out as one of the few things that works in both realms. The Dune movie was alright, and the series were a little bit better, but still paled in comparison to the novel.
I don't even think I'd want a great 2-hour Ender's Game. It would never be great. It'd only be good, or passable. I'll never look to a movie to get Cryptonomicon, or the Dark Tower, or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress right.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)