quote:Originally posted by Child_of_Ender: Did you see Silent Hill? It was taken almost DIRECTLY from videogame to movie, shot beautifully, aimed at the fans of the game who held it close, and still managed to come out number one at the box office and number one in america its opening day.
You name Silent Hill as a good example? That movie's been out for weeks and it's only made $44 million. It hasn't even covered the $50 million production cost. I'd say it qualifies as something of a bomb. Resident Evil actually did a lot better worldwide. Debuting at #1 isn't that impressive if there's nothing big to compete against.
In any case, I'll be okay with any changes that are made in the EG movie. After all, it's just a movie. Even if it's totally horrible I'll just shrug and read the book again. It's like David Lynch's adaptation of Dune. I find it comical for all the wrong reasons, but the book is great, so I don't care.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I name Silent Hill as a good example mainly b/c it was the first videogame to movie production that didnt completely destroy the story. You are right on production costs though...but then again, they probably shouldnt have speant that much on a movie with somewhat of only a cult following. Touche, got me on that one...I had thought it had done much better. There just needs to be a way to stick to alot of the story, only changing whats needed to translate it to screen and still be sucessful. Unfortunatly, I guess we dont live in that world
Anyway, I agree with your dune comment, and I guess if the movies bad, it just means life goes on. Itd just be nice if for once it was done right, but then again, I have faith in Mr. Cards decisions.
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I disagree with all of the ten reasons (except perhaps for #10 -- I haven't made up my mind yet), I have to admit that I will be surprised if I'm not dissapointed in the movie when it gets made.
posted
Well... I know I'm late, but I lost internet access.
In responce to reason number two... They absolutely need to be one movie. I think one of the things that Ender's Game has going for it is the big twist at the end... Why on earth would somebody watch Bean slowly unravel (Something it did with internal dialogue and thought processes, something that would not work in a movie) a twist which everybody knows about?
I mean, we have to think about hollywood... I think this was reason number four. It has two have some hollywood appeal for those who don't like sci-fi... Characterization is hard in movies. Most of OSC's books have a lot of characterizations reflected by the character's thinking.
Which brings me to number ten... Should this be made into a movie? I dunno... Will it be a stand alone movie, or is it a prelude to other Books? There's no knowing until I see it. Which I think is what all converstation on this topic boils down to.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Books aren't made into movies. The storyline of the book, some of the major dilemmas and events, and many of the characters can be put together into a shorter story that works for film.
If you've never adapted from one medium to the other, it's easy to fret about all those awful changes they make in adapting books to film. And indeed, many of the resulting films ARE awful. But some are brilliant. Most of the time, screenwriters try for the latter.
Ender's Game poses very difficult problems for the screenwriter. Most of the character motivation is internal, and can't be externalized while being true to both the character and the medium. That's why adding Ender's Shadow to the mix was so helpful - it gave us a foil, a rival, a "buddy" to make Ender's dilemmas accessible in a filmic, rather than novelistic, way.
As to the novelist having too much influence over the adaptation - doesn't that rather depend on the novelist? The real question is whether a playwright like me has any business writing novels <grin>. Apparently once you start in one medium, some people believe you can never learn to write well in another. And certainly a novelist who thinks that he can just sit down and write a screenplay is probably going to get disappointing results. However, I'm now about a dozen screenplays into learning this art, and since four of them are complete new drafts (based on new approaches) of Ender's Game, there ain't nobody on this earth who knows more about the problems and pitfalls - and strengths and cool solutions - involved in adapting Ender's Game to film.
But ... my script STILL may suck, in which case, somebody else will once again be brought in to write it. Warner Bros. ain't gonna put a hundred million bucks into filming Ender's Game based on a bad script, if they can help it.
Here's the real answer to the post that started this thread: Don't go see the movie. It's that simple. Don't watch it. Don't rent the video. Ignore it. You won't be offended or disappointed (though at this point I can't imagine how you could BE disappointed, having no expectations at all), and best of all, not going to the movie is absolutely free. And you get coolness points for being able to say to your friends, "I'm not going to go see Ender's Game. The author wrote the screenplay, he combined it with Ender's Shadow, and I don't like sci-fi films anyway." The better they like the film, the more you sneer at it, and you'll be so cool people won't even be able to touch you.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
A Hundred Million Dollars!?
How does Ender's Game cost that much? Its a bunch of kids flying around in 0-G? I prey that it does really really reaaaaally well.
IP: Logged |
posted
*applauds Mr. Card* very well stated...see? all the more reason to keep my faith in the writer's hands.
The movie has been spoken over for many years now...the thought that hadnt occured to me earlier, was that the reason that it hadnt been put to screen yet was a movie would not be made until it was done properly. I remember being a child and wanting to grow up simply to direct a movie out of it. And Mr. Card is right (after all...he should be) that most of the book is internal...half of the reason why time and time again we all identify with Ender so closely...we get to know him like a friend...or like he was, as the hive queen so aptly states, our otherself. So in attempts to translate this to film, one can only be left with the immense challange of, "How on earth do I express similar ideas and internal notions without this turning into face shot after face shot with voice overs and ultimatly, a boring movie?" When we read it, of course its not boring, as we translate such events into images and ideas, but on screen it will simply not make for a movie.
And after some thought, I honestly dont think i could be disapointed in this film, if indeed it gets to that point. Ultimatly because it came from the one story that has spanned my childhood into adulthood and never gotten old, but because the movie itself came from the brain and the ambitions of the very same man. Ive seen plenty of terrible movies. Ive seen fewer good ones. But I have also seen bad movies and liked them because to me, they meant something beyond what was laid out in film.
I iwsh you the best of luck, Mr. Card, in however this turns out.
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, and in after thought, to emphesis on Mr. Card's statement above, I think more credit is due given the fact that again, if instead of trying to keep internal thoughts internal, and made them into outward conversation with others, part of Ender's entire personality would be lost. He was not social, and he was close to very few, and only, for the most part, when he had to be. He would cease to be Ender. So I can only begin to imagine the difficulty in trying to translate a character as diverse and complex as Andrew "Ender" Wiggen to a screen character, and thus as a person as if he were standing before us. I cannot read your mind just as you cannot read mine, and sci fi or not...does not really fit this book (jane and the hive queen do not count.)The only way I can concieve portraying him is a loner with few words and great facial expressions (though not entirely Ender at all...), more social (which again loses him), or introduce Jane early...having starting themes expressed through conversation with Valentine...but again, fails me as an appropriate idea.
So more "props" to the man who has the only power over the portrayal of Ender. No matter how the movie gets made, how can you argue with it? He created Ender and the Enderverse, so it is his to build and conquer. Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: it gave us a foil, a rival, a "buddy" to make Ender's dilemmas accessible in a filmic, rather than novelistic, way.
Apparently once you start in one medium, some people believe you can never learn to write well in another.
First, I love that you said "Filmic" instead of Cinematic
Second, people's confidence can often be placed falsely upon a person who is sucessful at one aspect of the creative process, and not the other. Take pianist Glenn Gould, who was a horrible conductor, or Stravinsky, who was also a terrible director.
With writing I agree, the opposite seems to be true, and I have no idea why that is. Douglas Adams spent the latter decade of his life fighting with producers and directors about his Hitchiker's guide film, and in the end it took nothing short of his death to get the movie on its feet. Though he is credited with the screenplay, he wrote not one word of it himself.
It seems that directors and producers feel the writers as a nuisance, or else the writers actually do make themselves into a nuisance because they are so in possesion of the material. I would hate to have another person interpret my work wrongly, and then sell it on the fact that it was MY idea. This is the ultimate character murder of the absolute artist, to have his work reinterpreted and called attributed to him.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luet, How dare you say those things about LOTR! Peter Jackson left out Tom Bombadil! The movies were horrible! Seriously, I did like the LOTR movies. I DO think Bombadil should have remained in, but honestly, that's just because I can't get figure out the tune Tolkien had for his Tom's songs.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sad to say that I must agree with some of the reasons (or opinions, I do not care to argue) the Magic Rat has mentioned, especially with his evaluation of Wolfgang Peterson's films. (Troy was awful, an outrage for all the people who really love the Greek myths). When I read what OSC wrote about Troy, I had a very unpleasant feeling too. (Well, we do not need to have the same taste for movies, so why is it necessary to write so hateful responses to Meryl Streep or Pleasantville or American Beauty... on every occasion?) Do I need to say that I am even more sad to see the responses of many of you Hatrack people to The Magic Rat post? We all want the EG movie to be as good as possible. Let's face it, it has some risks too. I think The Magic Rat succeeded in pointing out some of them.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I go to see EG im not going to go in thinking its going to be exactly like the book. If you want it to be, then you wont like it. Like when I saw LOTR and Harry Potter for the first time I was really upset that they werent exactly like the books, but when I looked at them as something completely seperate from the books, I really enjoyed them.
I think the movie is going to be great, even if isnt what people who have read the books want it to be.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tired of hearing the same shpiel about "you can't expect the movie to be the same as the book etc." The statement has been driven into the ground. I expect the movie to be as good as the book, not the same as the book.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe it or not, I'm actually doing a mini-documentary on the transformations of literary works to motion pictures.
What I've discovered in my research is that opinions generally come from two camps: the stay-true-to-book and the make-a-good-movie. I don't know if it is really possible to satisfy both groups at the same time. After all, it is hard to shorten a novel into two hours and pocket change, and there are always those people who have a very firm idea in their heads of what the movie should be.
What do you think? If anyone would be willing to offer their opinions, or even consent to an email exchange/interview thing, that would be fantastic.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the second camp, as long as the film is in the spirit of the original work and does not offend the sensibilities of the original audience. With Ender's Game I don't think there will be much chance of that happening.
I'm particularly confident in Mr. Card's ability to distill his stories into a new and condensed form, since he has had so much experience doing so with his writing (the Worthing stories are on my mind at the moment). Every Ender book seems to cast the events in previous books in a new light, and I think it would be refreshing if the film did the same.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at Gone With the Wind, a classic movie - and a classic book. They eliminated two of Scarlett's children. The compression was "horrible." Instead of a movie about a fascinating woman going through terrible trials, with one thread of the story being her romance with Rhett Butler, the movie became almost entirely about Scarlett and Rhett.
Yet that's exactly what the movie needed to be - it needed a single strong thread to pull the audience through a hodge-podge of historical events. The best they could do for the book readers was leave most of the interesting characters in, often in near-cameos, so you could see them and remember for yourself what they actually did in the book.
The astonishing thing about GWTW as a movie is how faithful it FEELS to the book while leaving out huge swathes of material.
So in Ender's Game, as we compress everything into one year so that the same actors can play the same kids from beginning to end, is anyone going to serious argue we should have spent six years filming it at intervals so we could watch these kids grow up?
Likewise, do we need battle after battle just because the book had them? It's rather like Harry Potter and Quidditch. The game was fun when we read it, because we were inside Harry's head, paying attention to whatever was important to him. But in the film, the game came perilously close to being BORING. It's just a different medium.
That's why in the EG movie there'll be almost NO explanation of the rules. You'll see game activity going on at important moments, but what we'll be concentrating on is what it means to Ender and to the adults watching and evaluating him. It will NOT be a course in battleroom strategy <grin>.
So you'll SEE the game, but you won't PLAY the game (that's for the videogame adaptations <grin>). As with GWTW, we will focus in on a clear story that can be dealt with in two hours or so, leaving much of the story to be the secret pleasure of those who also read the book.
There IS no other choice in adapting a full-length novel - unless the novel is so full of excess verbiage that the actual flow of scenes can be handled in two hours, or the novel was so short ("Rosemary's Baby," "Love Story") that it might as well have been a screenplay to begin with.
Look at William Goldman's adaptation of his own masterpiece, "The Princess Bride." I just got through reading the book aloud to friends, most of whom had seen the movie without ever reading the book. They were astonished at how much had been left out - yet also at how much had been left IN. (And I was astonished to be reminded that the annoying speech impediment of the bishop who marries Humperdinck and Buttercup was in the book, as well as the movie!)
As to the complaints about my complaints about Meryl Streep, Pleasantville, and American Beauty, I didn't just complain, I explained exactly why I reached the conclusions I reached. I don't repeat any but the Meryl Streep complaint except where it's directly relevant to what I'm discussing, and I treat the MS remarks as a running gag. Sorry if you don't find it funny. Sorry, too, that you thought that some enormous audience needed to have gods floating around in retelling the story of the Iliad - I still say it was a brilliant job of adaptation and a moving, powerful movie - at least for those who didn't expect it to be a faithful replication of Homer's history AND theology. (Personally, I think it would have been laughed off the screen if we'd seen a whole bunch of gods manipulating events for their petty purposes, the way Homer told it.)
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the original post did not say that making Ender's Game would be difficult, it said that it would DEFINITELY SUCK. This sort of prediction is bound to get people's dander up, so no one should be surprised if it was greeted with some defensiveness. The movie MIGHT suck. It might even suck because of mistakes I make. That's always possible. But to declare that it WILL suck, and partly because I'm involved, is hardly designed to be a reasonable start to a civil discussion on my own website. The surprise is that this discussion HAS been so civilized. It speaks well of the tolerance that Hatrackeurs have for divergent opinions.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The movie MIGHT suck. It might even suck because of mistakes I make. That's always possible.
Card is sooooo arrogant. (laughing)
OK, back to work now... you've got a movie script to complete! After watching Chronicles of Riddick for the 8th time (shot so wonderful, yet so badly acted and written), I can assure you that there is at least one movie that Ender's Game, no matter what mistakes you could possibly make, will NEVER (And I mean EVER) suck worse than. There....that should let everyone sleep better at night. I know I do.
posted
If the script is up to OSC's standards (and since he's writing it I have a hard time imagining that it wouldn't be), then they could film the movie with cellphones, using federal prisoners as the actors, and it'd still be better than twenty big budget sci-fi movies I can think of off the top of my head.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I'll mention Magic Rat's original (and only) defense of the thread post that lists examples of his opinions don't count as facts. Just because you listed your opinions in nice 1-10 order doesn't make them facts. I see this all the time on the (especially cable) news networks. And as someone posted earlier, you can't argue with facts. Opinions, definately.
I find it frustrating, albeit refreshing, that as I am reading down these longer-ish threads someone points out a thought I've been trying to hold onto. Refreshing because it's usually OSC himself who steals my thunder. I like it that the big man himself has this whole thing under control.
Anyhoo...I agree with the point OSC made about using Enders's Shadow because having Bean as a stronger character so that Ender has someone to interact with Ender as a more central figure. To myself, I even thought of the on-screen relationship using Bean as Ender's foil.
As far as novel/movie adaptation...There are the two different styles. You can either take the actual story, the plot and simply use that as the road by which the story travels down. Or, you can simply take all the little things that happen in the novel and make them the landmarks along a different path. Where we can look and say, Hey! I remember that from the book. It's nice, but its almost irrelevant. They are learning alot from the big-budget comic book movies these days. You can't adapt it page for page. But you have to have enough source material so that hardcore fans don't mutiny. At the end of the day though, pretty words don't come off as pretty pictures. Tweaking must be done.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and that's exactly how I felt about the first two Harry Potter films. They felt really episodic. THIS happened and then THIS happened and then THIS happened and then THIS happened. The end.
It wasn't until the third one that I really started feeling like the whole movie was one coherent story.
I don't know that the movies would have made anyone care about Harry Potter as much as the books managed to.
That's what it sounds like OSC is trying to rise above here. By putting the emphasis more on the story and less on getting "THIS" in and "THIS" in, Card's free to do what he does well, which is create scene after scene that pull you further into the conflict and the dillemas and the story until by the end, you really care about these people in a way you can never care about a scene.Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did I say that I needed to have gods floating around in retelling of the Iliad? Am I blind? I do not see it there. For me, the Greek myths are about people (and gods). Peterson's Troy was about stupid fighting and Hollywood acting. I mean, if he wanted to make a movie just about THAT, I find it shameful to use just the names and some situations; it would be fair to invent them. If I want to have some fun with 21st century retelling of the Illiad, I will always prefer the originality of Dan Simons's "Ilion" to the Peterson's bore in his "Troy".
Posts: 35 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troy was apparently made for me, not for you. I found it brilliant - and marvelous in its evocation of another time and place. For Hollywood, it was extraordinary.
But if I wanted to do a serious film that depicted Greek life in various periods, I would go to the brilliant novels of Mary Renault and use THEM as my guideline.
What Troy succeeded in, for me, was being true to the FEEL of the epic. I believed that the deeds we saw on screen would have been remembered generation after generation, sung by poets.
You didn't say that you needed gods - you said the film wasn't faithful enough. I assumed that if faithfulness was the goal, the gods would stay in. Apparently faithfulness is NOT the goal - they just should have checked with you about what to leave in. Did I miss Cassandra and other major figures? Of course; I believe I even said so in my review.
But Troy being "stupid fighting and Hollywood acting." I'm really puzzled. The Iliad is full of noble heroic speeches that no real person would ever have uttered - it was the literary tradition at the time. How, exactly, should those speeches be delivered, except by Hollywood actors? Or did you simply want a cast of Brits? Or ... here's a thought ... Greeks speaking Greek! (The Aramaic worked in Passion of the Christ, right?)
And as I read the Iliad, most of it IS about fighting - either showing the fights, or talking about the fights afterward, or explaining what fights they want to have, or who's not going to fight any more, etc.
I'm still waiting to know what's REALLY wrong with Troy (since I think NOTHING is) - "stupid fighting and Hollywood acting" describes, oh, most of the top money-making movies of the past fifty years.
So I referred to Pleasantville and American Beauty twice. Sue me. Count the columns. Is twice out of nearly five years of weekly columns THAT often? Are people overburdened by that? They were socially vile and dishonest movies; I now regard them as icons of anti-traditional-culture propaganda by the extreme Left. So I'll refer to them that way. For what it's worth, most ordinary middle-class suburbanites who don't think of themselves as "movie experts" know exactly what I mean when I refer to them that way in conversation. When you're on the receiving end of Hollywood's smug, self-righteous social attacks, you remember and resent the films that do it.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I watched Troy I wasn't expecting a historically or mythically accurate reproduction of the Iliad, so I wasn't disappointed.
That said, one thing that I felt detracted from it was the way the characters repeatedly emphasised how important glory and legendary-status was to them. I thought it was repetitive or at least overemphasised, however important these things were to the cultures of Archaic Greece. It's a minor point, but it did reminded me of Star Trek scenes in which Klingons repeat their now long-cliched views on 'honour'.
Another thing that came to mind while watching the film was that one of the qualities that make the ancient Greeks so attractive to storytellers is their 'earthiness'. It's something that characters in a lot of American literature and film also share - take the cowboys in old Westerns, say. So when Hollywood actors try to portray this aspect of the Greeks on camera, it might come across as the encroachment of stereotypically American attitudes onto a Greek story. I think it added to the film makers' challenge of not appearing superficial. Once I thought about it, I was able to appreciate the film a bit more.
---
If anyone is interested in good novels set in ancient Greece by the way, I recommend Valerio Massimo Manfredi's books. He is probably best known for his trilogy on Alexander.
posted
Wow! With so much OSC in this thread it is almost intimidating. I first read Ender's Game as a short story as a kid, what I remember from that experience was the twist at the end.
What I remember most from the Book was the courage OSC had to portray Child Ender's ruthlessness in killing the boy in the fight at the beginning. It is the realistic fact that in a time a crisis the government is looking for qualities that in gentler times they would consider criminal tendencies.
I think the movie is going to capture the first in what for the viewer will likely be a fake secret, everyone will know it is real long before it is done. The child killing though, it will not make the cut, and the story will suffer for it.
As for compressing the training into a single year, well they could show the young Ender being taken away and then do the 6 yrs later... thing as long as we are not expected to swallow the premise that all the needed training was done in a single year.
I think the movie can be very good, assuming Hollywood does not try to make it mock itself as they did Starship Troopers. I think it has every chance of being a classic, but I do not know if they can keep that element of 'looking for atavism for its survival value to the species' message that made the book so good.
'Ender will Save us' because he is brilliant, has fast reflexes and was born a ruthless calculating SOB. I fear he will come across as a Brilliant, Idealistic, Video Game Playing Dupe of the Government.
The clear message must be that the human race must do what it needs to in the face of extinction, not that we must watch the government to prevent them from exploiting the little darlings that children have never been.
posted
I also wonder how they will handle Stilson and Bonso's deaths. If the audience only learns about them as Ender did at the end, it might be okay. Or... maybe they will be successful in getting the viewer to wish they could kill the bullies.
Interweaving the story of Bean and Achilles might also clarify things. Or would you have them remove Poke's death as well?
One way would be for the fight to commence, then Ender's house is shown (it would have to have been introduced previously) with the cop car pulling up. You might think for a second that Ender was hurt or killed, except for the movie having just started.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: 'Ender will Save us' because he is brilliant, has fast reflexes and was born a ruthless calculating SOB. I fear he will come across as a Brilliant, Idealistic, Video Game Playing Dupe of the Government.
Am I the only one who thought: "Matrix" Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting question - have fist-fighting and killing among small children ever been on film before (outside of horror)? It would certainly disturb a few people, even if it was filmed in a milder way, and drive the viewer rating up.
Perhaps it's better to see the beginning of the fight and find out later that Ender actually killed his opponent, or find out about the whole thing when the IF comes to the Wiggin house to take Ender away?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: 'Ender will Save us' because he is brilliant, has fast reflexes and was born a ruthless calculating SOB. I fear he will come across as a Brilliant, Idealistic, Video Game Playing Dupe of the Government.
Am I the only one who thought: "Matrix"
Does anyone else picture Ender facing off with Stilson, the techno music cues. Ender puts on some badass shades and the camera pulls waaay out. NEOEnder commences asskicking.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too make the cost of attacking me so great that nobody ever attacks me again...
Ender
It occurs to me that Ender was not suffering brutality at Peter's hand, he was suffering frustration. Peter was big enough and smart enough that Ender could not kill him to make him stop. Peter was not addicted to inflicting pain, he was addicted to courting danger. He knew that Ender would kill him if he could and so he pushed him without knowing why, courting his own destruction for the rush of risking death.
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I'm still waiting to know what's REALLY wrong with Troy (since I think NOTHING is) - "stupid fighting and Hollywood acting" describes, oh, most of the top money-making movies of the past fifty years.
It clearly was nothing at all to do with trying to present any kind of accurate retelling of a classic story. That is, as you say completely pointless and boring.
Here's the thing I think bothered me: The movie said nothing to me. It was well acted, and well shot (though the music was terribly IMO), it just sort of floated around on an idie fixe about honor and history. That's fine, but the movie spent so much time looking classic and timeless, providing so many picturesque moments, that it never got around to telling me anything I didn't feel I knew better than the people who told the story to me.
In the end, Troy did nothing interesting beyond holding down the fort for the classic movie tradition. It wasn't BAD on any of the counts you defend, but it is hardly a step in any particularly inspiring creative direction. It's just another example (to me) of play-it-safenomics in Hollywood. As long as it makes money, who cares?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like you might be taking issue with Homer, rather than Mr. Peterson. I've never read the book or seen the movie, but I've enough to know(?) that the story is basically a tale of larger-than-life-ness. If there is any deep meaning to be found, it maybe isn't so much inherent in the story as found extraneously in Homer's telling of it.
This is just baseless speculation for the sake of argument, but I have this thing where I'm like, right all the time, so it was still probably worth saying.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...of course they must be good looking to attract the young teenage girl audience."
And this is supposed to spoil the movie? Think again: as far as the characters in the books are described, most of them they are either good-looking or at least not decribed as not good-looking. Have a little faith. They won't cast actors only because of their looks. Beauty does not except talent, and action does not except quality, does it?
A propos action and special effects. I like The Matrix, only I wished I had never seen the second and third part of the Trilogy. I could have lived with the open end of the first one.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:He knew that Ender would kill him if he could and so he pushed him without knowing why, courting his own destruction for the rush of risking death.
Peter tended to underestimate other people (his parents, Achilles...). I don't believe that he believed (before Stillson) that Ender would have the guts to kill another human being. Especially in contrast to his own personality, Ender was rather a wimp in Peter's eyes, wasn't he?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't think Peter saw Ender as capable of murder. I think that to Peter Ender was too weak to fully protect himself and maybe even a bit malleable, as he saw Valentine. Mostly though, as Peter admits later, his attitude towards Ender must have been borne out of jealousy.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since people are talking about Troy, I have to pitch in and say that the fighting really was intensely stupid. No, it isn't the kind of thing that matters to 99% of people who go to see movies (I mean, people go to see John Woo and...um, whatshisnamedammmitwhoever films). But if you know anything about melee combat, the action in Troy was just utterly stupid.
The other thing is that the bias against war and warriors is so hilarious as to be funny. I mean, look at the portrayal of Agamemnon, and compare that with the Agamemnon of the Illiad. Look at the portrayal of Hector compared to Paris. Look at Brad Pitt playing a peace loving Achilles. If you've spent time studying the behavior of fighting humans, you can't believe the actions of these characters for a moment, which is fine because the depiction of their fighting skills is merely hilarious.
And you know what? That bit where they show a pile of naked women (Achilles' conquest of the previous night) at the beginning of the film didn't earn points with my sensitive side. Particularly when I couldn't help but notice that they had digitally carved off the nipples of one of the women who happened to be 'cheated' the wrong way. It's not like I'm eager to see some stranger's nipples exposed, but doesn't removing them rather than simply reshooting the scene seem a little excessive to anyone else?
For me, that moment pretty much summed up the whole film. Yeah, pile of nude women...but to keep it "tasteful" they decided to desecrate at least one unfortunate (I didn't bother to check and see if anyone else got the same treatment) in an obvious and disgusting manner. Yuck.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
The people on Digg seem to mostly agree with what OSC had to say:
quote:I think the inclusion makes sense, both Ender and Bean had alot of internal motivation, something that is quite difficult for a movie to produce. If you have both characters as primary characters you can bring the motivations external, them communicating and the audience understanding it.
Just out of curiosity, is Discolada a Jatraquero?
Personally, I thought Troy was a horrid movie. On the other hand, A Perfect Storm was a great movie and it has a lot of similarities with Ender's Game (a crew learning to work together, facing impossible odds, a lot of characters with interesting back stories, etc).
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you on some levels, but just to provide some input here are my thoughts:
1. You are right. Wolfgang Peterson is yet to have his big movie and may remain that way for the rest of his life. But, maybe the big movie he needs is Ender's Game, maybe this movie will bring him fame. For now, it's only maybe.
2. This is OSC's biggest flaw, i think. Ender's Game and Shadow are too the same, yet too different to be the same movie. Card will have a tough time trying to get all the events or information into two or three hours, while keeping his audience entertained, showing all demensions of both books, and keeping the same storyline. Yet, the fact remains that Card is attempting to pull it off. My hat goes off to OSC.
3. You again are right. The movie has to be at least two hours long. Who says it can't be three and a half hours long.
4. Your opinion that this movie has too much hollywood is true. OSC needs to focus a little less on the action and more on the whole thinking part, to pull it off. Also, when you said they would need cute teenage actors to attract the teenage girl audience you are right, then again most of america thinks that way and Card would be right to pick good looking actors. Who wants to see a butt ugly Ender or Bean, when they are both described in the book as likable characters.
5. This movie will cost a big chunk of change, but then again, this is supposed to be a hollywood blockbuster isn't it? I think that the crew will be able to pull the movie off with a lot of special effects and good editing. This movie is intended to make a lot of money with the glitz and glamour of hollywood.
6. I agree, if Card wants this done right, he has to take it into his own hands. After all, being the author, you'd think he would have the best idea of how to portray it.
7. Wolfgang Peterson didn't do the best job in Troy, but he didn't exactly kill it either. I think that Peterson could pull it off, but it will take his best directing performance yet.
8. I agree. A 3D version would completely kill a movie that otherwise has a fantastic chance of becoming the best Sci-Fi movie ever. A 3D form would completely demolish Peterson's, Card's, and basically everyone who is involved with the making of this film's, reputation.
9. Here i must disagree. I think now could actually be the perfect time for the next great sci-fi film, there hasn't been a good one in a while. Also, The Matrix is one of the greatest movies, overall, of all time!
10. Finally, that is said. If Card is going to take anymore time on this movie, we'll all be on our deathbed's. Card needs to make this movie now, well, and with almost no flaws at all to live up to the expectations of his fans, including me.
CARD NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS MOVIE, that decision is to go full speed ahead and to not screw up this great story I have come to love. Do this movie right, or don't do it at all. Card, on behalf of all your remaining fans, please do not kill possibly the greatest science fiction story of all time. Do it right, or leave it be.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe animation for "Ender's Game" isn't a bad idea. Life action can be so clunky when it comes to highly imaginative fiction...
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you watched the Oscars the year Das Boot was competing, you wouldn't be dissing Wolfgang Peterson. He was dominant in a way that only Life is Beautiful and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon have been in the Foreign Film category since then. I watched the 9 hour director's cut and it was fantastic. (Das Boot was also a 14 hour miniseries on German TV, is how that came about - I'm also not sure if it was 9 hours. It didn't seem overly long). I also really liked The Perfect Storm. However, I had some issues with Air Force One. They may have been due to some personal problems I was having at the time, but I'm not curious enough to review it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
woah Das Boot is 9 hours long!? nevah noticed.
IP: Logged |
posted
There are quite some versions of Das Boot with different lenghts. The film that most people have seen has 149min, the Director's Cut 210min, and the TV-mini series has 330min. A few years ago, I bought kind of a hybrid for my father - the series on video, but changed into a movie with 282min lenght. But I don't know if one of the two latter is available in English. Maybe with captions.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoeNobody: The movie has to be at least two hours long. Who says it can't be three and a half hours long.
Probably the younger kids that the movie will be marketed to. It's a tricky audience that EG will have to reach out to, and it will likely put off many if it becomes LotR-length. Rings worked because it was so popular to begin with, and EG is not up to that level. Besides, a longer movie means less showings and less money in the long haul.
quote: OSC needs to focus a little less on the action and more on the whole thinking part, to pull it off. [/QB]
I'm sure everyone loves an audio/video medium where all people do is think and focus on philosophy. (Sorry for that jab.) The thing is, "thinking" movies are usually boring to at least half of the general audience, merely because they are not suited to the medium. Plus, I think you can't really get that in-depth intelligent discussion in a two-to-three hour movie. You can in a book, but not on the big screen. I don't think there should be no "thinking" elements to the movie, just that the action should have the majority.
quote: Also, when you said they would need cute teenage actors to attract the teenage girl audience you are right...
Coming from a teenage girl, let me say that in general we are not mindless hormone-filled dolts, and can appreciate a good movie without attractive teenage boys, thank you very much. Who would these teenagers be, by the way? I've heard that the cast is supposed to be around 9-12 years old, meaning many won't have reached the puberty stage. I say go for hot Battle School teachers, and attract the middle-aged woman audience...
quote: I agree. A 3D version would completely kill a movie that otherwise has a fantastic chance of becoming the best Sci-Fi movie ever. A 3D form would completely demolish Peterson's, Card's, and basically everyone who is involved with the making of this film's, reputation.
Amen to that!
quote: If Card is going to take anymore time on this movie, we'll all be on our deathbed's. Card needs to make this movie now, well, and with almost no flaws at all to live up to the expectations of his fans, including me.
What, does a major nuclear exchange start tomorrow? I have plenty of time to wait around as long as the movie gets "done right". I think the mistake would be to go "full speed ahead", as you suggest. Slow and steady wins the race--tortoises rule! Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I think it has every chance of being a classic, but I do not know if they can keep that element of 'looking for atavism for its survival value to the species' message that made the book so good.
. . .
The clear message must be that the human race must do what it needs to in the face of extinction, not that we must watch the government to prevent them from exploiting the little darlings that children have never been.
BC
You saw what you wanted to see. I don't like movies with "clear messages." The brilliance of Ender's Game is that it didn't give you any easy answers. Both of the elements you referred to were certainly there, but there was no clear moral lesson. Frankly, I think the only worthwhile way to focus on moral issues is when you don't know the answer. Anything else isn't a story; it's a parable.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I know is that when Brad Pitt spryly (sp?) took down the giant dude at the beginning, I got the shivers. The pic far exceeded your average hollywood fare. I easily put it in Ridley Scott epic category.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(laughing)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I have plenty of time to wait around as long as the movie gets "done right". I think the mistake would be to go "full speed ahead", as you suggest. Slow and steady wins the race--tortoises rule! 
