So here’s my question about “Ender’s Game”

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Just came back from the film and I’m left wondering one thing:

Will SF fans have the balls to nominate it for a Hugo?

In a landscape where PC and boycotts dominate, will the fans have the nerve to see that this is, with the possible exception of Gravity, the best SF film to come out this year? It should be up for best dramatic presentation. If anyone else’s name than Card’s were attached, it would be. It was simply wonderful. So will the fans be able to do what’s right or won’t they?

PAD

50 comments on “So here’s my question about “Ender’s Game””

  1. I think the fans who separate Card’s politics from his work and go see the movie probably will at least put it on their nomination ballots. Whether that will get it enough to put it on the main ballot, I dunno.

  2. From trailers, looks like book storyline abandoned, i.e., Ender Wiggins knows nothing more than he is “playing Wargames” in Battle School. Am I wrong? I won’t avoid a film or book based on author personal beliefs. But I will, if filmmaker takes hachet to storyline.

    1. The movie holds VERY true to the book. Other than dialogue, almost all of the major scenes are there. I was really impressed with how close it kept to the source material.

      1. There were a few changes that I found questionable at best, but overall I agree that it held as close to the book as it possibly could within the limits of only one actor playing Ender and only one movie. My beefs were more the additions than the subtractions, the location of Command School, and the final scene.

        But still a REALLY good adaptation, and an extremely good movie, and I hope to see it again. Although I would’ve liked to have seen more Battle Room sequences.

        But Ender knows full well that he’s training to fight the Formics.

  3. While I find his personal views reprehensible, I don’t associate the art with the artist. I’m just not interested in the movie because I didn’t like the book.

    I did like the Alvin Maker stuff though.

  5. Nope. The biggest PC reactions to the film that I’ve seen have been from within the genre community. The film could be the greatest single film to have hit theaters in the last 50 years and it will still likely be considered too tainted by far too many genre fans despite the story not having one bit of Card’s more backwards personal views on homosexuals and homosexuality in it.

  6. I agree with Jerry. The PC saturation in the genre community is at toxic levels. Considering the SFWA recently expelled a member for having conservative political views, I’d say there’s not a chance in hëll.

    1. Just for the record, SFWA didn’t expel him for being conservative. They expelled him for misusing the SFWA Twitter feed and insulting other writers.

      PAD

      1. And his views aren’t conservative, they’re racist, misogynist, and downright paleolithic. Assuming we’re talking about the same guy.

  7. Just our of curiosity Peter, how did you feel about the film? I saw a couple of movies today, and while Ender’s Game was playing at that theater, there were actually other films I wanted to see more.

    1. I thought it was great. I’ve never read the book so I was coming into it cold. I found the story compelling and the characters engaging. Well filmed, well acted.

      PAD

  8. The phrasing of the question seems to imply that the fans are a Borg-like collective who nominate with a single mind. Some fans will like the movie and vote to nominate it; some will see the movie, not like and not nominate it; some will refuse to see the movie or nominate it; and there will probably some people who nominate it just to spite group #3. Plus the others who nominate it or don’t for other reasons. Whether it gets nominated depends on how many are in each group. (Volume does not necessarily equate to numbers here–those who have strong opinions are going to speak more loudly than those who don’t feel strongly one way or the other, so the noise of the outcry isn’t an indicator of how the entire Hugo nominating pool will vote).

    However, the people who refuse to nominate it on principle would by and large also be those who refused to see it on principle. Should they nominate a film they haven’t seen, just because other people think it’s good? It seems like that really would be an example of group-think.

    1. As an example of how you can’t mistake volume for voting trends:

      John Scalzi Redshirts Hugo winner: 10,500 hits on Google.

      John Scalzi Redshirts Hugo controversy: 29,500 hits on Google.

      Nearly 3 times as many pages are talking about the people who don’t want Scalzi to win than the ones who are just mentioning the fact that he won. With so much noise being made about it, “Redshirts” couldn’t possibly have been nominated, let alone win, could it?

  10. People should be able to separate their personal beliefs from a work of fiction. So, yes, they should put it up for a HUGO.
    Even though (only being able to glean it from some of your posts) it seems that we’d disagree politically, you’re still one of my favorite writers and I’ve purchased quite a bit of your work(s).
    All that being said however, I believe that today, some of the very thin-skinned people who call for these boycotts have been brought up in a world of Participation Trophies and have likely never seen an “F” on a Term paper in red ink. So even though “Ender’s Game” may deserve a HUGO nod, the Noise will be such that it’ll be left off the ballot for fear of hurting someone’s feelings.
    Political Correctness is a plague and only works to take Free Speech and make it Free Silence.

    1. I honestly don’t think what many people call “political correctness” is a plague at all–most of what I have seen people derisively call “PC” seems to be basic human decency and politeness, in contrast with some pretty vicious homophobia, racism, sexism and the like. That doesn’t mean the bad kind doesn’t exist–and who knows, maybe we travel in different circles?–but generally, when I encounter someone saying that they’re “not PC,” they’re about to put down someone’s ethnicity or the like.

      2. You’re defining Political Correctness by people who you think use it incorrectly. So my question is–what IS political Correctness?

      3. Actually, I didn’t say that I thought people used it incorrectly per se. I think that as it’s generally used, it’s become nothing more than a pejorative.

        For one good definition of what it means, I recommend this:

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct

        “htagreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people”

        or

        “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated”

        Wikipedia has issues, so it’s not really an authoritative source per se, but it goes more in depth:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

        “Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. … In modern usage, the terms PC, politically correct, and political correctness are pejorative descriptors, whereas, the term politically incorrect is used by opponents of PC as an implicitly positive self-description…”

  11. Probably not. There is little to be gained and much risk involved in doing so (other than the satisfaction of having done the right thing). I expect there will be a few snippy comments toward you for even suggesting this.

  12. I think things are a bit more complex than “nominating this movie for a Hugo is good, any other position–especially if it has to do with the writer’s anti-gay activities–is ‘PC’ and bad.” “Will fans do what’s right?” seems to imply that, if I read this correctly (and I welcome correction if I am mistaken).

  13. I don’t know “what is right”. But as a sci if fan and as a gay man, I am passing on this film. For years I have kept an eye on Card and listened to him state that gays need to be arrested. How can I give my money to someone like that? Rumor is that he has already been paid, but he’s listed as a producer and I am sure that somewhere down th line (DVD sales….) he will be seeing more. And if the movie is great then it will birth a sequel and that’s more money in his pocket. I have seen friends beaten and die due to homophobia and I am not giving a cent to this man.

  14. Two thoughts–
    1. Is there enough “OOH! That’s New~Never Seen It~” in the picture to distinguish it from Star Wars, Last Starfighter, anything else? Even if Card wasn’t involved in any way, people have become jaded by the brilliant science fiction work, print and film, of the past two, three decades? Is there enough to elevate it above the, for lack of a better word, Cardiness?

    2. A few years back, Powder came out. Wanted to see it, heard from a few people that it looked good. Right after, Victor Salva’s criminal record hit the media. My mother asked that I not see the movie because of it. My view? He paid his debt to society. (Hey, look at me, I was an evolved guy of the ’90’s.) I believe people can grow, learn from mistakes. That’s not my point, here, though. Did news about Salva kill the movie? No. Lack of interest seemed to. No one remembered it a few weeks after it opened. Will lack of interest kill Ender’s Game? Wouldn’t like to see that happen.

  15. Peter David: Will SF fans have the balls to nominate it for a Hugo?
    Luigi Novi: What for? Hugo is already starring in the dámņ thing; What do they need another for?

    🙂

  16. Orson is a good guy. I have met him and he is a very kind and respectful man. I hate that he is being dragged through šhìŧ over his beliefs.

    1. I don’t think the issue is that he screams or rants at people he meets in person. But I dámņ well don’t think that wanting gay people to be jailed, actively trying to make sure we don’t have rights, and the like count as “kind and respectful” by any stretch.

      And, again, it’s not just about his beliefs, as if he were one’s crazy uncle who rants about Obama at the Thanksgiving dinner table–he’s been a member of the board of directors of a group which was formed to pass an amendment that tried to deny people human rights–and, for a time, succeeded. He became part of the *decision-making body* of a group that many of us consider to be *actively, genuinely harmful*, and which has successfully done *real, genuine harm to real people.*

      It’s not just about opinions. It’s not just theoretical. This isn’t about finding out that a writer one has liked is (or is not) like Archie Bunker when you meet him. This is like finding out a writer has been an active member of the KKK.

      1. And therein lies the problem. Card isn’t just a guy with an opinion, he’s a monster with an active agenda. If I might break Godwin’s law for a moment: Hitler was a decent painter, his canvases show skill and a haunting sense of composition. Charles Manson wrote catchy pop tunes that have a good hook. OJ Simpsons was a hëll of a running back. It’s up to the individual to decide which is the larger weight in the balance of life. Ender’s Game might well be a masterpiece of science fiction, I’ve heard nothing but good things about the book for decades. But the author is simply too much of a pariah to consider giving him an honour at this point. It would come off as tacit approval of his shameful lifestyle of hatred and activism, even if it wasn’t meant to be. And by the way, it’s never a bad time to mention Card is a piece of garbage, even if his art is clever and thoughtful.

    2. Remember what Dave Barry said: Someone who’s nice to me but treats the waiter like crap isn’t a nice guy.

      I don’t care if OSC takes me to Disneyland and buys me cotton candy every day for a week, the fact that this is a guy who says the US government should be overthrown if it recognizes gay marriage means he’s not a nice fellow.

  19. Just a note: When did the hatred of a certain segment of the population count as “politics”?

    On the topic, I think that some in Hollywood still respect a guy like Roman Polanski, despite his history. Card isn’t the director of the film. If it’s as good as you say, then why would it be overlooked? Is Orson Scott Card the only controversial figure ever tied to a film? As I write this, Woody Allen comes to mind. Another controversy, another person who is still respected and recognized for his talent.

    1. “Just a note: When did the hatred of a certain segment of the population count as “politics”?”

      When the one doing the hating took it to the political arena, actively campaigning against same-sex marriage in a state he doesn’t live in and calling for the downfall of any government that allows it. There’s a fine line between not liking someone, and actively working to limit their legal rights.

  20. PAD: “[…] this is, with the possible exception of Gravity, the best SF film to come out this year?”

    I have not seen Ender’s Game, but I feel compelled to state: Pacific Rim, dude.

  21. Card’s politics aside, when the only other possible competition is “Gravity”, aren’t we setting the bar a little low for an “award”?

    (Actually, “Gravity” may be a great movie as PAD implies. But every time I see a commercial, I get “Solaris” flashbacks.)

    (On the other hand, anything that gets DeGrasse-Tyson’s panties in a bunch can’t be all bad.)

    1. I saw Gravity last night, and it’s an amazing film. I honestly can’t see anything else beating it out for the award.

    2. I haven’t seen Gravity, but from what I’ve read, it doesn’t sound like it is actually science fiction.

      Which is actually pretty dámņ cool.

  22. Don’t forget the people who nominate Hugos aren’t the general public. So it might have a hard time getting nominated.

  23. Haven’t seen it – Kate did, and liked it – but i’ll be waiting for the DVD. And not because of Card’s personal agenda; i’m really just not interested enough.

    If it had been an “Alvin Maker” film that looked even fairly-competently-done, i’d likely be there.

    But

    (A) If i’d seen it

    and

    (B) If i thought that – as a film, forgetting Scott Card’s personal agenda it was good enough

    and

    (C) If i were going to be nominating (which i’m not) …

    Then, yes, i’d nominate it and/or vote for it.

    1. If Roman Polanski made another film that could legally be nominated for a Hugo, and if i saw it (which, if it looked interesting, i would), and if i thought it was a good film in and of itself …

      Then i’d nominate that.

    1. Thanks JC, that was really an incredible reading – almost poetic – which summarizes not the controversy, but the whole ambiguity of the spirit of the work versus the spirit of the writer.
      And even though I despise Card’s opinion and battle against gay marriage, I will definitely watch the movie whenever it opens here in Brazil.

  25. The nice thing about the Hugo Awards is that for a major award, they’re remarkably transparent in their process and procedures.

    Based on the public report on Hugo Award voting and nominations at http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2013HugoStatistics.pdf , as well as the details about Hugo administration in the WSFS constitution (http://www.wsfs.org/bm/const-2012.pdf ) it seems pretty likely that if at the end of the day, we’ll at least be able to see how many votes ENDER’S GAME receives during the nomination balloting and, if nominated, how many votes it receives for the actual award.

    Looking over the details for the 2013 Hugos, I see that the nominees were determined by 1343 valid nomination ballots and final winners by 1848 valid voter ballots. I guess I don’t have a good frame of reference for such things, but I was amazed that those numbers are only in the low thousand range. Live and learn…

  26. I don’t have a problem with people refusing to read the works of a given author whose views they find repugnant and disagreeable, though I must say when said work doesn’t reflect those views the idea seems a bit silly to me. However, when boycotts are made to extend to the publishers of those works, films and/or other adaptations made from those works, and actors involved in said adaptations of those works, again with those works not in and of themselves containing traces of the ideas found repugnant or disagreeable, then I think it ventures into the realm of PC bullying. And worse, you’re letting the person you disagree with essentially control you; you’ve given him or her the power to make something inoffensive offensive just by touching it, apparently regardless of what it is. If Card expressed a preference for the color blue, would that make the Smurfs homophobic? Some people, it seems, would think so.

    For the record, I have read Ender’s Game and I enjoyed it. I saw the movie too, and felt a bit lukewarm about it. You seem to be creating a bit of a false dichotomy here, Peter; SF fans might not nominate Ender’s Game for a Hugo because they simply don’t feel that strongly about it. If it doesn’t get nominated for a Hugo, that’s not necessarily evidence of anything except itself.

    1. “If Card expressed a preference for the color blue, would that make the Smurfs homophobic?” Of course not. But he didn’t *create* the Smurfs, either.

  27. Peter,
    I saw the film last Saturday.
    In answer to your question,
    I dont know if it will be nominated for a Hugo,
    But it should be .
    It was an exquisite film.
    And, I never read the book either .

Comments are closed.