The Sword and Laser discussion

I have been listening to several people who are excited about Ender's game movie finally happening but I have major concern.

This movie will have to heavily rely on 8-12 year old child actors. They could skew it a little older but not much. There are examples of excellent performances from child actors (True Grit) but most of those performances are with really great adult actors and while Endor's game does have some adults those parts are fairly small and most scenes will be all children. Does anybody have an example of a great movie that relied heavily on child actors? The closest I can think of is the harry potter movies and those movies got better once the kids were older and they do have a large cast of great adult actors.

Good child actors are rare and hard to find. As an example, just look like Game of Thrones, that is why are the kid/teen roles are a couple of years older.

i think the perfect ender wiggin would have been Haley Joel Osmitt (sp?) circa the sixth sense. one of the problems of armchair casting this movie is that by the time we laypeople hear about a child actor he is already too old to play the part.

ellen page would make a kick ass valantine too

Perhaps they could just use older child actors and then CG the whole thing like Avatar.

it's generally been thought likely that the children would be older in any film version, maybe early teens, just because of public sensitivities. not sure if there's been any concrete news on this yet.

I can't even think of any viable child actors outside of Abigail Breslin...

I say we forget about giving Card any more money until he's long dead.

I'm all for just complete CG. I'm also worried about them condensing the story.

yeah i have always worried about the moon base zero gravity scenes which are so crucial and really hard to make look right. And i think they will just nerf alot of stuff, they cant really portray children killing each other much either now can they

Halbot42 wrote: "And i think they will just nerf alot of stuff, they cant really portray children killing each other much either now can they."

It's not necessarily verboten. Tom and Veronica mentioned some examples in the past - I would add Lord of the Flies. That Piggy scene still haunts me. Let's hope they don't handle this with kid gloves, so to speak.

aldenoneil wrote: "I say we forget about giving Card any more money until he's long dead."

Word.

Veronica wrote: "aldenoneil wrote: "I say we forget about giving Card any more money until he's long dead."

Word."

Why the OSC Hate?

I'm kind of curious, too.

I vehemently disagree with his views on homosexuality.

Here's one example: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hy...

But I loved Ender's Game. I'm just saying I'd love it more if it were public domain.

Ah. I already knew he was a devout Mormon, so I also knew that I would disagree with the bulk of his belief system. This doesn't diminish my enjoyment of his work in any way, though.

I have similar disagreements with many authors. I know I would not have liked them as people, but I still enjoy their work. David Eddings thought all of his readers were idiots. Heinlein was about as rabid a Republican as you could ever meet. Tolkien was an intellectual snob & misogynist who only added Eowyn at the urging of his friends...& then wrote her like a man wearing a dress.

I guess what I'm trying to say that while I get where you're coming from, I disagree with your chosen form of protest. From the little of Card's diatribe that I read (he does go on, doesn't he?), I found several things I could knock holes in. In my experience, you can't fight for what you believe in if you refuse to open a dialogue with those who disagree with you.

Writers are people, too. They're far from perfect. You can enjoy the product without liking the person. I do it all the time.

Mary wrote: "Writers are people, too. They're far from perfect. You can enjoy the product without liking the person. I do it all the time. "

I agree completely. After all, I like Wagner.

In this case, the writer's views are not just political, and they're pretty clear-cut (as opposed to the more debatable charge against Tolkien, for example, as he didn't come right out and write an essay on the demerits of women - that I know of :) ) - Card's outright denouncing a whole group of people, and I think we're past the point of dialogue with a bigot where this issue's concerned. If we're discussing gay marriage, I understand there's a need for a political discussion, but as far as I'm concerned there is no need to open a dialogue on whether or not homosexuality is sinful.

I won't refuse to read his work or rants, I just won't support him with my money.

aldenoneil wrote: "Mary wrote: "Writers are people, too. They're far from perfect. You can enjoy the product without liking the person. I do it all the time. "

I agree completely. After all, I like Wagner.

In this ..."

Your position seems entirely reasonable. The best ways not to support folks with differing political and social views is to not support them financially, and or not grant them the power of your time.

I, for better or for worse, tend to compartmentalize. Meaning that In this case I take the writing as the writing and the "man" as the man. I do this to a fault this most times I don't take the time to understand the writer and only engage with the writings. This said if I read something that implies that the Holocaust was a just action, i may continue reading if the actual writing is exceptional even though i believe that the concept is asinine, all along forging counter augments and thinking that there may be something wrong with the writer.

Feel free to mock my wordy comment/reply.

Sorry for that.

For the record, I don't disagree with your method of dealing with OSC. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to impose that on the rest of the group, though. There are so many reasons Ender's Game would be difficult to adequately translate to the big screen. I'd just as soon not kill the discussion about ways to work things out by saying "OSC is an idiot & a jackass, so nothing he created should ever see the light of day again."

I haven't watched GoT, mostly because I don't have access to HBO, but I've already seen discussion about whether or not the ages of the child actors changes the way the story can be told. How does one tell a story about 6 to 8 year olds on the big screen? How do you capture the Battle Room? What about the machinations of Peter and Valentine? Can it be done adequately, or should it be set aside until justice can be done to the story?

Mary wrote: "I'm not sure it's entirely fair to impose that on the rest of the group, though."

Sorry if it came across that way - that wasn't my intention. I'm all for the discussion - Card's moral stance just happens to be my largest concern among many.

No worries. To be honest, I'm truly enjoying the civility of this discussion. It's not often I find a place where the trolls seem to be few & far between...

aldenoneil wrote: "I vehemently disagree with his views on homosexuality.

Here's one example: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hy..."

Hmmm I see what you mean. I didn't realise he held such views.

Mary wrote: "Ah. I already knew he was a devout Mormon, so I also knew that I would disagree with the bulk of his belief system. This doesn't diminish my enjoyment of his work in any way, though.

I have si..."
I understand where you're coming from and agree with much of what you said but I'd take issue with your comments on Tolkien. I admit he didn't go out of his way to understand them but that doesn't make him a misogynist. As for being an intellectual snob...hmmm.

Mary wrote: " In my experience, you can't fight for what you believe in if you refuse to open a dialogue with those who disagree with you."

I agree completely. Unfortunately, opportunities for dialog with OSC are few and, as inarticulate as it is, giving him money or not giving him money is one of the only options.

Don't know why everyone likes to bring up that he's a Mormon when complaining about his opinions on things. If he'd been Catholic, Baptist, or just about any other religion, nobody would even mention it in association with his views, even though just about every one of those religions has held similar views.
Either don't read him, or ignore his opinions and enjoy good stories by a good storyteller.
Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one, they all stink, nobody is interested in the crap that comes out, but everyone insists on talking about it.

Actually, had he been Catholic or Baptist, that would have replaced Mormon in my sentence. I'm the only one, I think that actually mentioned his faith, because I think that had a great deal to do with forming his strong opinions about homosexuality, among other things.

I am a Christian myself, but I have found that most folks who hold strong yet narrow-minded opinions generally do so in great part because of their religion, which is why I mentioned it. I did not intend to offend anyone, & I apologize profusely if I did so.

as far a ages go and the comparison with GOT, the important thing is that the kids MUST be pre-pubescent. 12-13 at the most, and younger is by default necessary for some specific roles.

the whole point of the story is that these kids have not begun the transition to adulthood, if they have than this might as well be a story about starfleet academy, or any other of the numerous stories about teenagers being heroes, from young x-men to buffy to the animorphs.

so either do the best casting job in the history of Hollywood or CGI it.

I agree, good animation would be the way to go. It would solve the problems everyone mentions, the battleroom scenes, needing child actors who could pull off all the various facets of the characters, plus it'd only cost about 1/10 of the money a live action movie would. That may make it easier for Hollywood to green-light the movie.

Snokat wrote: "I agree, good animation would be the way to go. It would solve the problems everyone mentions, the battleroom scenes, needing child actors who could pull off all the various facets of the character..."

That's an interesting idea. Has Hollywood ever done a successful CGI adaptation? I can only think of Shrek and Cloudy with a Chance..., which were based on children's books. There's Beowolf, too, but I can't think of anything else. All of the Pixar films are original stories, from what I know.

I wasted way too much time in the late 90s being excited about an Ender's Game movie, so I refuse to give a care until this thing is on Blu-ray. Or memory crystal, or eidetic brainwave transmission.

I remember talk of Haley Joel Osment being tapped for Ender, and now he's like, 40.

They could always cast Elijah woods, he still looks 10. :-D

"The gate is always down, Sam!"

Responding to the hate towards OSC (the man), I can't understand why there can't be a freedom of speech towards opposing views. We need to defend what we feel is correct; but we cannot deny that right to others. This is specially true with religion.

Now to respond to the true question about Ender's Game the movie. I have waited many years to see in a movie the characters that live in my head. I can see that the casting is the main problem. Just trying to picture Ender's Jeesh will be monumental getting good actors from almost all races. If we get a good cast, that Ender, that Valentine and that Bean truly will become great actors.

Wow, could have really done without knowing that about OSC. Sure is funny that the people who seem squeaky clean turn up tapping on mens room stalls, but a savage bloody bastard like Joe Abercrombie turns out to be so decent. I think tolerance of intolerance is always a mistake.
I think animation would be the best way to do this project as well, since so much of the bugger stuff will be all cg anyway. 3d battle room anyone?

I don't really get what the problem is. He's expressed no hatred, only an opinion that marriage should stay the way it is. If you're going to castigate him for that, you'd have to ignore over half the US population too. I'd be surprised if there weren't more than a few people in this group that held similar views.

No.
"This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
That's bigotry kids. Its one thing to advocate his opinion regarding how his church should treat gays. Once he crosses the line to telling me how my society should limit the rights of people he disagrees with, he's a bigot. You are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to my laws. My favorite stat about this is that in the 1950's the exact same majority 55% or so felt that interraccial marriage was immoral and should be illegal. Were our grandparents right about that?

Well, he is an author who wrote a book. That is his chosen profession, and in that he has done a good job. I think that people who have differing opinions and beliefs still deserve to make a living, after all, it would be just as bad if someone were to not buy an author's works because they were homosexual, right?

The times I did not buy books by authors I enjoyed because of their beliefs were when the beliefs were woven into the story/book as a central theme. For instance, I never purchased or read Dianetics. I also found the Philip Pullman "His Dark Materials" series very disturbing, as it was disguised as a children's fantasy, but led to a very polarizing anti-religious statement in the third book, after most parents would have stopped reading the series before letting their kids have them. I suppose the same argument could have been made about C.S. Lewis' Narnia books.

Other than direct political/religious statements or outright deception to "teach" young children what you wish them to believe, I've felt that even authors I disagree with strongly as a person deserve financial compensation for their works (and I have enjoyed many of those books).

I agree he deserves to be paid for his work. I guess its just somewhat disheartening to know i have supported someone who feels that way, and knowing that, i will probably choose not to pay him any more. I think your analogy would be better to say just as bad as not buying his books because he's LDS. My objection isnt to his beliefs or personal conduct, but rather his attempt to project his personal religious beliefs on my society.
I think it comes as such a surprise and to me with a sense of betrayal is that i never percieved this particular bent in his works, and i've read most of Card's work and love the Ender series. Indeed it is hard to imagine Ender speaking for the Dead and having to explain this. This seems much more like Peter's behavior that Ender's.

The notion that over half of US people are against same sex marriage is outdated. The most recent Gallup poll shows 53% in support. (See www.livescience.com/14248-americans-s...)

I think people that wish to avoid spending money on someone's work because of the creators political activities are allowed to speak with their money the same way the artist chose to speak with their influence.

Boy, I came into this thread thinking it would be about a potential Enders Game movie, but what an odd tangent you are all on. Seems a little misplaced for the intent of this thread.

I'm curious is ther any real status on an eventual movie at this point?