"Ender's Game" film

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BenG

It doesn't open in the U.S. until November 1.

Oh, I see - that explains it . It opened in the UK on 25th Oct.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

November 8 here in Norway. Although if I wanted to I could no doubt track down a torrent before it even gets near the cinema....

I really wouldn't. It's a film that really benefits from the "big screen" experience.

[Istvan diVega]

Rest easy, I've no intention of doing so. It just annoys me that an industry which constantly decries the woes of piracy nevertheless continue to do their best to see that it goes on, with their staggered releases and much delayed DVD/BluRay releases.

But that's more OT, so I'll shut it until I actually get to see the movie.

[DiapDealer]

Quick question for those who avoid movies due to fears/worries that it can't possibly do the original material justice: would it actually be possible for the movie to somehow retroactively ruin the joy you experienced when you first read it? Don't get me wrong; I understand wanting the big screen to "get it right," I just don't understand overly worrying about whether or not it actually does. You will always have the original experience, after all. Is it not possible to separate the experiences?

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight; It's just a phenomenon that seems to happen when particularly nostalgic books get made into movies ... and it's always puzzled me. Can a newer bad movie experience somehow eclipse an older great book experience?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Can a newer bad movie experience somehow eclipse an older great book experience?

No, but sometimes films can be a let-down. A good example was the film version of the first part of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. I really enjoyed the book, but the film just massacred the story, and it was really disappointing. It didn't make me think any less of the book, though.

[DrNefario]

I think what's most disappointing about a bad adaptation of a book you love is that it will put other people off.

I think if you read the book first, the movie can exist as a separate thing and not affect the book, but if you see the movie first it's hard not to see and hear the actors when you read the book.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, but sometimes films can be a let-down. A good example was the film version of the first part of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. I really enjoyed the book, but the film just massacred the story, and it was really disappointing. It didn't make me think any less of the book, though.

But like Ender, apprehension didn't stop you from giving the movie a chance to be good, right? I get that. Disappointment seems natural to me ... depending on the reasons. But surely (precisely because it is a different medium), people give these adaptations the leeway to be different AND still good, no? Or does acceptance (or enjoyment) depend entirely on how little they stray from the original material? Bad is bad; I get that. But does "different" have to be bad?

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I think what's most disappointing about a bad adaptation of a book you love is that it will put other people off.

I was sort of afraid of getting that very response. But it would certainly explain why I don't quite "get it." I hope it's not a very common worry. I fail to see how it could possibly be relevant. People don't like (or are uninterested in, or put off by) some of my favorite books already ... with or without a bad movie adaptation.

Anyway... thanks for the responses. I don't want to hijack the thread any more than I already have.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But like Ender, apprehension didn't stop you from giving the movie a chance to be good, right? I get that. Disappointment seems natural to me ... depending on the reasons. But surely (precisely because it is a different medium), people give these adaptations the leeway to be different AND still good, no? Or does acceptance (or enjoyment) depend entirely on how little they stray from the original material? Bad is bad; I get that. But does "different" have to be bad?

No, different doesn't necessarily imply bad. This is very closely related to what we're discussing in this thread.

[arjaybe]

Is anyone boycotting the movie because of Card's political views?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Is anyone boycotting the movie because of Card's political views?

I never boycott 'artists' because of their political views. If I did, there'd be precious little entertainment for me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Is anyone boycotting the movie because of Card's political views?

Whatever happened to the idea of "freedom of speech"? I don't agree with his opinions, but I'm certainly not going to financially punish someone because they have an opinion which differs from mine.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whatever happened to the idea of "freedom of speech"? I don't agree with his opinions, but I'm certainly not going to financially punish someone because they have an opinion which differs from mine.

What ever happened to asking a question without having motives imputed?

rjb

[DrNefario]

What's freedom of speech got to do with it? He's said it already. There's no need to deny him his right to say what he wants. Some of us aren't so comfortable with funding things we completely oppose. That's our freedom to choose where we spend our money. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can't disagree with what you say.

Yes, most people are idiots at least occasionally, and yes there are plenty of other people involved in the film who maybe don't deserve to be boycotted, and honestly, they might be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a boycott and a non-boycott from me - I can't remember the last time I went to the cinema - but it is something that is on my mind.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

What ever happened to asking a question without having motives imputed?

rjb

I was answering your question.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whatever happened to the idea of "freedom of speech"? I don't agree with his opinions, but I'm certainly not going to financially punish someone because they have an opinion which differs from mine.

An individual or organization boycotting or promoting a boycott of a person because of that persons opinions on a social or political issue is not a violation of that person's “free speech”. Free speech means that the person has the right to say what ever they wish, but not that those who find what was said offensive or harmful cannot express this by boycotting and encouraging others to do so.

Financially punishing someone or an organization because you find their views offensive and/or their actions harmful can be a good way to change what they say out loud or do, even if it does not really change their hearts or minds.

I won't eat at a McDonald's restaurant because of the low wages they pay their workers and because this deficit in wages must be made up by social programs paid for by taxes. I would like to see them go out of business if they do not reform that.

Ender's Game is unlikely to matter to me. I don't go out to see films that often anyway, and I'm still waiting for Gravity to come to the one theater that is close enough to where I live.