[depricated]

supersloth, on 19 December 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

a lot of the killing that goes on in the book is... distant.

(⌐■_■)
( •_•)>⌐■-■

well played sir

[modi123_1]

Sixteen thousand yeses to this!



Looks like they may be downplaying the kid on kid killing.. then again HungerGames was nothing but that.. so.. we'll see.

[jon.kiparsky]

I swear I'm not going to the movies until one of these people comes up with an idea.

"Hey, Bob, let's make a movie"
"Sure, Bob, what should we make a movie about?"
"Dunno, Bob. Haven't a thought in my head"
"Me either. And we're running out of Phil Dick, too"
"Hm. Tolkien?"
"No, they did that."
"Douglas Adams?"
"No, someone did that, it was terrible"
"Comic books?"
"They've all been done"
"Even the bad ones?"
"Even Iron Man."
"Criminy. Star Trek again?"
"They're doing that."
"We could rip off Ellison again."
"Are you kidding? He ripped our balls off for Terminator!"
"How about Card?"
"Oh, what the hell. Beats thinking."

What's next? Peter Jackson could spend the rest of his working life on the Amber novels, and Cameron could dig up DeChancie's Starrigger books...

... or someone in the movie business could have a fucking idea.

[lordofduct]

Terry Gilliam does every damn time... and no one ends up watching them. I mean srsly, look over his stuff, awesome shit there. Sometimes he does book adaptations, but even then they're obscure fucked up books like "Tideland" (great film by the way).

Looking forward to his next film, "Zero Theorem", with Matt Damon.

Speaking of Matt Damon, I'm also looking forward to Blomkamp's next movie "Elysium"... DYSON SPHERE!!! (well not quite, but close enough)

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 09 May 2013 - 08:14 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

Okay, yeah, Gilliam's brilliant. But he makes about a movie a decade. (if you've seen Lost in La Mancha, you get a sense of why...)

Quote

DYSON SPHERE!!! (well not quite, but close enough)

Niven and Benford have got a nice one-up on the Dyson Sphere in Bowl of Heaven. They sort of fall flat on the story, but the concept is awesome.

[depricated]

jon.kiparsky, on 09 May 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

... or someone in the movie business could have a fucking idea.

Easy to criticize Hollywood for something they didn't do. OSC has been working on the screenplay and finding the right director/etc to make the movie for at least 13 years that I'm aware of. This has been a project pushed by him, not the other way around. Unlike Hunger Games, which basically went along the lines of "I read this book it's great we should make a movie out of it, hey author can we make a movie of your book" it's "I wrote this book, it's treated as course material at West Point, and I want to see it made in to a movie - but we need the right team."

Card has pulled it from multiple greenlights because he didn't like the director chosen or agree with changes they wanted to make to the script. It's come near production several times before now. I've been following the project anxiously since 2000.

edit: I accidentally a word

This post has been edited by depricated: 10 May 2013 - 05:02 AM

[h4nnib4l]

depricated, on 19 December 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I could do without the rampant veiled homoeroticism that's in the book.

Rampant veiled homoeroticism? Because military personnel stopped giving a shit if they were naked or not? I think you have it backwards. In marine corps boot camp for example, there are no stalls around the shitters. You almost never have a urinal to yourself. It isn't unusual for there to be 4 people in a porta-potty trying to piss. 54 people share a shower with 4 posts that have 6 heads each, and get it done in about 10 minutes. The intent of this (and of many aspects of the early training cycles) is to stress mission accomplishment over troop welfare, destroy pesky things like modesty and sensitivity to the bodies and bodily functions of other humans, and teach you to be (relatively) comfortable in extreme situations. Trust me, nobody is thinking about fucking. I can't help but wonder if people who find that homoerotic are afraid that they would be...

EDIT: Are you saying that Ender's Game is treated as course material at West Point? I'd like to see a citation for that if you have one, because I highly doubt it; there are thousands of years of military history and tactical study, which makes it seem a little silly that the US Army's academy studies a work of fiction targeted at young adults. I would find it very troubling if that were true...

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 10 May 2013 - 05:16 AM

[modi123_1]

Last night my buddy made the comment the trick for the movie will be to keep a muzzle on Card long enough to not damage sales for tickets. I am certain the studio has a pack of suited gorillas on perma-watch to tranq OSC if he starts getting fidgety and cranky, but it could be amusing to see what happens when the talking heads start trotting him out.

@h4nnib4l - this has some citations and what not... though mostly about the Marine Corp.

[jon.kiparsky]

Funny, I was included on a mass email a few months ago from an old friend of mine, asking people to boycott Card's work because of his opposition to gay marriage.

The irony is, this friend of mine is a long-time civil rights and free-speech advocate, and he sees no conflict in his views at all. Sigh...

[depricated]

h4nnib4l, on 10 May 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

depricated, on 19 December 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I could do without the rampant veiled homoeroticism that's in the book.

Rampant veiled homoeroticism? Because military personnel stopped giving a shit if they were naked or not? I think you have it backwards. In marine corps boot camp for example, there are no stalls around the shitters. You almost never have a urinal to yourself. It isn't unusual for there to be 4 people in a porta-potty trying to piss. 54 people share a shower with 4 posts that have 6 heads each, and get it done in about 10 minutes. The intent of this (and of many aspects of the early training cycles) is to stress mission accomplishment over troop welfare, destroy pesky things like modesty and sensitivity to the bodies and bodily functions of other humans, and teach you to be (relatively) comfortable in extreme situations. Trust me, nobody is thinking about fucking. I can't help but wonder if people who find that homoerotic are afraid that they would be...

EDIT: Are you saying that Ender's Game is treated as course material at West Point? I'd like to see a citation for that if you have one, because I highly doubt it; there are thousands of years of military history and tactical study, which makes it seem a little silly that the US Army's academy studies a work of fiction targeted at young adults. I would find it very troubling if that were true...

I didn't see it as "veiled homoeroticism" until it was pointed out to me by my ex. I laughed a little at it, but the thought of sex never crossed my mind. The fight scene between Ender and Bonzo definitely does have some undertones, but I think a lot of that is my perception from it being pointed out.

I like Card's writing, despite his points of view. Like George R.R. Martin - good story, terrible writing, terrible person (complete douchenozzle to his fans).

As for the West Point comment; as I understand, it is on their required reading list. A quick google search reveals lots of blogs where people mention that, but I don't have access to any official documentation from West Point to indicate whether that is the case or not. I wouldn't use a blog as a citation, but a number of agreeing blog posts from different people, I think, at least supports it. But, millions of idiots can be wrong, and I'm just another idiot so I could be wrong too.

jon.kiparsky, on 10 May 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Funny, I was included on a mass email a few months ago from an old friend of mine, asking people to boycott Card's work because of his opposition to gay marriage.

The irony is, this friend of mine is a long-time civil rights and free-speech advocate, and he sees no conflict in his views at all. Sigh...

I don't see a conflict in his views either. I do see a potential conflict in yours though:

This is what I've come to refer to as the Chic-fil-A Fallacy. When Chic-Fil-A was being railed against for their stance on gay rights and a boycott was declared, flocks of idiots started barking that Chic-Fil-A was being censored, that their rights were being trampled. Boycotting is not Censorship. It does not violate free speech, it does not disregard civil rights. More importantly, those rights are not protection from repercussion for your actions. You have a right to speak your mind, and I have a right to ridicule the everliving shit out of what you say. I have the right to not buy from a store or author who has used their position to push an anti-civil-rights agenda. That's my choice, I am under no obligation to buy Chic-Fil-A or see Ender's Game - me choosing not to based on the actions of the owner does not mean that I am censoring them or violating their rights.

Opposing someone's opinion does not mean you oppose their right to speak it.

[jon.kiparsky]

It's hard to imagine how punishing someone for holding beliefs that you don't agree with is consistent with either a respect for free speech or for civil society.

[supersloth]

fight club has homosexual undertones, enders game does not.

mostly i'm shocked that trailer didn't look like a big piece of shit. but also, it focused more on colonel graff than ender, so who knows.

[h4nnib4l]

I vaguely remember our required leading list, although as an NCO in a hard-hit MOS (mechanized infantry), I never had time for that: after I was finished with my various training schools, I spent over 50% of my time in Iraq, the rest of it stateside training to go (or go back). Saying that something is a part of doctrine and something is on the required reading list are two TOTALLY different things (although I certainly don't blame anyone for mistaking not understanding that from the outside).

@modi123_1 - thanks for that link. They mention the book several times, but not really what effect it has, if any (that's how I felt about a lot of the books on our reading list too). And claiming that Generals see themselves as Ender? You generally don't reach the general officer grades until your 40s, and I can't picture General Mattis, General Hagee, or any of the other generals I ever met empathizing with that story. I suspect (and feel like I've confirmed) that the yahoo ascribing these feelings and opinions to combat-experienced general grade officers was never himself any part of the military; that sounds like the type of romanticism/idealism that usually belongs to those for whom warfare is a purely academic endeavor. However, OSC did do a pretty solid job of creating the people and the feel in that environment (or what I imagine my experience would have been like had I been a hyperdeveloped, genius 6 year old when I joined), even if it was a bit comic-book-esque. And in defense of the book being on that list: books make it onto those reading lists for a number of reasons, and Ender's Game is a hell of a lot more qualified than some of the books I saw, if for no other reason than the immersive, well-written, military-centric story.

EDIT: bold because I made a pun.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 10 May 2013 - 09:41 AM

[depricated]

jon.kiparsky, on 10 May 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

It's hard to imagine how punishing someone for holding beliefs that you don't agree with is consistent with either a respect for free speech or for civil society.

See, that's the thing. Respecting free speech and a civil society requires that you fight against civil injustice (such as oppressing a class of people for possessing a biological trait because it gives you the willies). To present an example of something that would actually be discordant with those views:

Passing a law which states that (people who believe X) are not entitled to (perform public role Y). That is discrimination.

Passing a law which states that discussion of (X topic) is a chargeable offense.

So saying that [people who oppose gay marriage] are not entitled to [open a business] would be a violation of their civil rights. Being vocal about their bigotry to raise awareness, and calling people not to give them business - is an exercise of freedom of speech and a consequence of capitalism. Boycotting isn't the issuance of a law, it isn't violent, it doesn't suppress - in fact, you could say that they're helping spread the message. Just look at all the drooling morons that flocked to Chic-Fil-A when word spread that they were anti-gay.

The reason I call it a Fallacy is that it's based on faulty logic. The idea that being punished for what you say is a violation of your freedom of speech is simply wrong, and the fallacy is based on assuming it to be correct. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre you can be arrested - also not a violation of your freedom of speech. If you sit and catcall some girl at a bar for an hour, her boyfriend is likely to beat your ass. Also not a violation of your freedom of speech (and in fact, harassment). Insult a customer at work and you can be fired - not a violation of freedom of speech.

One of the best ways I've heard it put is that "your rights end where mine begin." You cannot use your claim to rights as a means to strip someone else of theirs.

[jon.kiparsky]

I love that this is on the reading lists for people who are going to be leaders in our military. Really, I do, because what Card is talking about is a huge question that they're going to have to grapple with: the question of turning children into warriors, and all of what that means. It's also a question that we, the civilian segment of society, can't ethically ignore, since we have and apparently want to have a military to defend us.

The rhetorical exaggeration involved - reducing the age of recruitment somewhat - only sharpens the questions he wants you to work over, it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the questions. And since the questions are ones that matter to us, and they have no easy or obvious or possibly even any right answers, it's important that we think about them seriously.