quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes Blayne. Claiming the specific point you made, one which was demonstratably wrong and that you didn't explain in detail at the time, is nitpicking.
Its a non trivial plot point in both novels, yes, it damn well is nitpicking.
And it isn't demonstratively* wrong. It's the correct argument to make in context. Both Demothenes and Bean come to this conclusion in the novel(s) as the "real" purpose of Battle School hidden behind its official purpose.
*I'm actually confused as to whats actually wrong with your spelling, but this is what google spell check tells me.
IP: Logged |
posted
If you want my honest opinion on the whole matter, I still think that Speaker for the Dead should be made first. Imagine what a director like Tarkovsky could have done with it, or what Terrance Malick could do to it. Even people like Werner Herzog or Peter Jackson could make it turn out well.
I've always felt like Ender's Game was the weaker story of the two, and I'm worried that if the first movie turns out bad then it'll kill any chances the sequels had.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I guess I wasn't clear. I was saying that "The Hunger Games" wouldn't need to cast nearly as many children as Ender's Game, even if they cast the leads from actual teenagers, though if they're 17, I'm not sure why you would.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Even if they don't though, you aren't talking about nearly as many "children" that need serious casting.
RLM went a little into how child actors can easily be the kiss of death for a movie, and it's something that A/V Club said you have to 'strike gold just to avoid.'
It's easier when you only have to strike gold once (Osment, Steinfeld, to a lesser extent, Fanning) and can mostly rely on dialogging where they're bouncing off of fully mature actors.
Ender's Game is children mostly dialoguing with other children children playing complex, credulity-stretching ideals (they're all supergeniuses, etc)
I really don't think I can overstate it enough: the challenge that casting and production face in having to pull together a workable child cast — and saw their performances into a workable screenplay — is stratospheric.
To top it off, they're all specific nationalities that have to be cast towards or fudged, and they're going to have to fudge them. I could offer you money guarantees. ("Okay, you're a spaniard kid, so .. like, drop the mid-american thing and use swear words like 'mearde.'").
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: If you want my honest opinion on the whole matter, I still think that Speaker for the Dead should be made first. Imagine what a director like Tarkovsky could have done with it, or what Terrance Malick could do to it. Even people like Werner Herzog or Peter Jackson could make it turn out well.
I've always felt like Ender's Game was the weaker story of the two, and I'm worried that if the first movie turns out bad then it'll kill any chances the sequels had.
posted
A good story does not necessari;y translate into a good movie. As awesome as Speaker and the other sequels are as books, they're really a lot of talk and very little action. A movie has to appeal to people who aren't already fans, and I think most people would find watching Speaker boring.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I disagree, my rereadings of Speaker present a very engaging story with very relevant themes and conflict. "Action" has never been to my mind in of itself a requirement for success, plenty of failed action movies can attest to this. If the audience are engaged and kept to the edge of their seats its just as good.
IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand the appeal of Catcher in the Rye. I hated nearly every second of reading that book. The main character is not only boring, but a very bad person, and he doesn't learn anything. He just stumbles about, being a bad person and then the book ends.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I can get behind that kind of book. it's slice of life but instead of 4 girls its 1 really big douche.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'll say this about Holden. I never drink. Never have. Never will. But dammit, if I had the chance to get wasted with Holden Caufield, I would do it.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: It's da best.
Calling him a bad person is an oversimplification. Douche isnt. But who cares. Assholes are awesome.
Agreed. Its why we love House.
Oh yeah, that family guy clip, I think Quagmire went too far.
IP: Logged |
posted
Pixar should just do it. Well, if it was animated, anyway. I could get behind a Pixar or even a Dreamworks adaptation.
As for live action, I think no matter who gets to make it, it's going to dissapoint half of the fans in some way. This isn't Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or anything else that so directly involves a group of adults who never really age over the course of a single movie. This is Ender's Game. Half of what makes the book so interesting is that it is about a child, a six year old kid, who slowly grows into a twelve year old adult. The aliens and the science fiction tone are simply pawns in what ultimately comes down to a story about a kid who has to grow up really fast, make horrible decisions, and then live with all of it. There's a reason why there are military schools that have it as required reading for the psychology of leadership, and why people can connect so much with Ender's lonliness and pain. It touches people on a level that an action flick never could, and that's not hollywood scifi.
Honestly, I just don't see it working in live action unless they up the budget to 150-200 million dollars and take massive steps to use CGI for Ender's face (transplanting it on taller actors as he ages). It's too much to ask of a hollywood studio for a book that's not as big as Lord of the Rings to do something like that or to invest that kind of money. I mean, let's be realistic. This isn't a comic book film like Batman or Green Lantern. Ender's not like that.
Unless they generate a massive amount of hype around this project (which is always possible), I don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe in a few more decades, but not right now. And if it does get made, which (don't get me wrong) I am completely in favor of, I doubt it will be all that good.
But hey, at least we have the comics, and you know, personally, I don't even need those. I've read the book four times and I've enjoyed it very much on each read-through. I've bought it and rebought it about eleven times, given it away and insisted people read it so that they can see what I see, and every one of them has loved it. Just try to remember, the book is where the magic is, not some big hollywood action flick. That's not why you fell in love with the story anyway.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, I just don't see it working in live action unless they up the budget to 150-200 million dollars
What budget information do we have on the movie? Where's it at now?
Right now I doubt there even is one, but if I had to predict what it's going to be, I'd say less than 100 million. Of course, that's if it even gets that far.
The company handling the film is Summit Entertainment, supposedly, which in my opinion is just bad news. Their biggest franchise is the Twlight series. They also made Hoodwinked 2, Furry Vengeance, Next Day Air, and a lot of other crappy films (in my opinion anyway). On the other hand, they did make Red, the Hurt Locker, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, so maybe they'll get lucky. Who knows? However, one thing I can tell you is that none of their movies cost more than 100 million. Most are less than 60.
Still, I could be completely wrong about it. Maybe they'll pull off a Moon or District 9, both of which were fairly cheap and still looked remarkable. Here's hoping.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
