Talk:Ender's Game (film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:22, 23 July 2013 editElizium23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,953 edits →Proposed boycott now passes wp:N threshold...in SPADES: WP:COPYVIO http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/the-enders-game-boycott.html?_r=0← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:29, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,905,061 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
(193 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old XfD multi\|date=22 March 2007\|result='''merge''' until reprieved from ]\|page=Ender's Game (film)\|collapse=yes}}
	{{oldafdfull
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=C\|1=
	\| date = 22 March 2007 \| result = '''merge''' till ever reprieved from ] \| page = Ender's Game (film)
			{{WikiProject Film\|American-task-force=yes}}
	\| collapse = yes }}
			{{WikiProject Science Fiction\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{WikiProject AfroCreatives}}
	{{Film\|American-task-force=yes\|class=Start\|B-Class-1=\|B-Class-2=\|B-Class-3=\|B-Class-4=\|B-Class-5=\|Comic-book-task-force=yes}}
	{{Science Fiction Project\|class= Start\|importance= low}}
	}}		}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	== OSC statement re: Serenity ==
			\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 3
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:Ender's Game (film)/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives\|auto=short\|collapsible=yes\|search=yes\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=60}}

			== Differences from book section? ==
	From the ] article:
	<blockquote>Science fiction author ] called ''Serenity'' "the best science fiction film ever," further stating "If '']'' can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made. I'd rather just watch ''Serenity'' again."<ref>{{cite web \| last = Card \| first = Orson Scott \| authorlink = Orson Scott Card\|date = ] \| url = http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2005-09-30-extra.shtml \| title = "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything" \| work = Hatrack.com \| accessdate = 2006-05-19}}</ref></blockquote>
	Is there some way to work this into the article in an encyclopedic manner? - ] 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmm... How about something like this? "Card has stated that he would only be satisfied with a very high standard for this movie, citing ] as an example of what he's aiming for, and would prefer that the movie never come to fruition if it would not meet this standard." A little clumsy, but it's something. ] 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	Card mentioned that some critics suggest that Ender needs to be older and have a romantic interest. He flatly refuses saying when you were 14, did you believe adults almost implicitly? (paraphrasing). Some of the criticism is that the film would require large ammounts of high caliber child actors. He responds to this by mentioning the live action ]- which is very well done. I have sympathy for his views, but I also get discouraged as the project seems to be stalled.]

			Isn't it pretty standard for articles about movies-made-from-a-novel to include a section about the differences between the two? I checked the Harry Potter films' wikipedia articles and they tend to have one. If I was more familiar with the editing process I would write up some notes, but here's a good starting point: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/8-Big-Differences-Between-Ender-Game-Movie-Book-40120.html 174.65.10.224 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
	: Hopefully Card ignores the critics; it's a very important plot element how young Ender is. ] 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

			This was removed as 'O.R.' maybe someone can find sources: There are many minor deviations but here is a list of plot changing deviations:
	== Informal ==

			* The books have Ender recruited at age 6 and he is age 16 in the movie.
	Using the term "development hell" sounds very informal. Even if it is a well known phrase doesn't sound like the kind of language that belongs in a encyclopedia.] 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
			* The books contain more violence, strategy and character development

			* The books have Ender fight the war from an planitoid/asteroid close to earth not from a distant plant.
	:Well, golly, we have a whole article about it. Even though it sounds informal, what else do you want to call it? That's the term they use in the industry. — ] \| ] 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
			* The books contain no FTL travel until the 15th book Children of the Mind

			* In the books the fact that Ender is fighting a real war and not just a simulation is more of a surprise.
	: "Development Hell" is the standard term in the Movie Industry, or at least the US portion of it. There's a direct link to the article on the pharse already in the article, and there doesn't seem to be any other equally concise way to describe this. ] 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
			* The Formic egg is not mentioned until the 11th book, Ender in Exile <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			::Actually it was mentioned in the first book, only it was called the bugger queen egg - and was a part of the 3 subsequent books ] (]) 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
	''Ender's Game'' was a project in development over seven years ago and even had a director (Wolfgang Petersen) attached (see ). Per the ], it is too premature to have a stand-alone article when there is no near-guaranteed film. (When filming starts, it becomes a near-guarantee, as films in production are far more likely to be released and thus be responded to than films in mere development.) I recommend continuing to develop the "Film" section at '']''. If filming does begin, we can recreate the article, and it will be lasting. ] (] \| ]) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
	:Per above comment, film now in more than a very embyronic phase.--] (]) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

	== Movie Poster ==

	Dose anyone know if any "Ender's Game" posters floating around is the official posters of the film. (see ). A number of them exist and claim to be the official poster, but I can't tell. Are they all "Fan" posters or actually book covers?--] (]/]) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
	:The jacket artwork by Sam Weber for remains semi-official (namely, see same image accompanying ?; however, Card himself uses cover by John Harris at his website and Amazon). Even so, it likely serves no more than a placeholder until Summit/whoever's creative team comes up with new ones, no doubt featuring likeness/es of Asa Butterfield/et al.--] (]) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
	::Good to know. I have seen a number of different "Ender's Game" movie posters, but I wasn't sure if any of them were the "Offical" posters. We will just have to wait.--] (]/]) 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
	::: one's a fan effort.--] (]) 23:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)--] (]) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Mick ==
	Source, Brendan Meyer's sched. conflict - .--] (]) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)--] (]) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:IMDb that ] has now earned this role--that is, for what such rumors are worth. (I'd put ''my'' money on it.)--] (]) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Carolina Actors Group .--] (]) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

	== "Controversy" LGBT and pro-gay marriage ==

	Why is this section even added? You have a section here about a small group that opposes one of the the author's personal viewpoints - that doesn't have anything to do with the book OR the MOVIE, heck there are millions of people who don't agree all kinds of things, why any don't we give them a section as well? I mean what if this GUY EATS MEAT?! Let's add a section about how PETA is probably against this movie too, er somehow or another. The logic doesn't make sense there, and it shouldn't make sense to include this section.

	] (]) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	:Well, it is very much a real and documented issue for the film and its studio . Just saying, I don't agree with it (I've been waiting for this for years), but I wouldn't try to whitewash it either. ] (]) 19:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree. As a well documented issue that may affect the film it needs to be mentioned here, especially as we are supposed to provide an ]. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] [[User talk:MisterShiney\|<font color="Red">'''<big>✉</
	* Bulleted list item
	big>'''</font>]]</span> 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
	: I am pro LGBT and stuff and so on. But wow, some people are just plain stupid. He wrote the fucking book for the movie, so listing him in credits is the only right thing to do. --] ] 15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
	It seems that this should be listed on the author's page, not for this movie. It seems a little ridiculous to exclude the author of the story from credit because of his personal beliefs. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Well then, it's agreed then. I don't agree with is personal beliefs either, but he already does have a large, more extensive and better section on his authors page (like you said, where it belongs), about his personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with the film, plot, casting, philosophy, message, etc. This section is moved. It just echos what's already on the authors page.

	] (]) 22:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
	:No, it's not agreed and you're responding to a two month old thread. Please read the rest of this talk page where editors (excluding sockpuppets) have formed consensus for including this abundantly-sourced content in ''this'' article.. - ]] 22:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

	===Citation and verifiability problems===
	This section has some ] and ] problems. It says that "some ... groups began to criticize the film." It doesn't say '''which''' groups and it doesn't provide a citation for this assertion, so which groups are saying what about whom? I am inclined to delete the whole first half of this section, but it won't make much sense if we leave in only what is currently verifiable. ] (]) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Comment ==
	Ender's Game series is an inspirational series. It would be a tragedy if they took away the integrity of the story by changing the plot or the characters' personalities. The emotion within the story would only be enhanced with stirring music. The formics could be either extemely disturbing or disappointingly dull.
	We hope they put in an effort to make this meet the high standards the book sets.
	Valentine & Wang-mu<br>

	Does anyone have any more information on this? This has been the subject of much talk for about 10 years, and many rumors have abounded, but nothing substantial has yet to be seen.

	:The author has shared your sentiments. That's why he took so long in allowing the movie to be made. Although movies are rarely as good as the book, this has not changed.
	] (]) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	Please note that ] and therefore please refrain from making such comments in future. <span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Controversy ==

	{{user\|Whatly}} has thrice blanked of this article. As this content is adequately sourced and relevant to the subject of the article, I would ask Whatly to justify such a bold edit. Also, here is a fourth source from '']'' . - ]] 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I don't think its adequately sourced at all. I said why in the edit summaries, I'm wondering how you respond to what I've said. That Guardian source is also inadequate as it describes his views as "repugnant". ] (]) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
	::The reliability of sources for Misplaced Pages's purposes is not determined by the choice of words that the sources use, for example "bigoted" or "repugnant". Reliability is determined by the reputation of the news organizations with respect to editorial oversight and accuracy of reporting. Salon and The Guardian easily meet our standard. Please see ] or feel free to open a case at ] if you believe the sources are unreliable. As of now though, there are two experienced editors who disagree with your views, and rather than ], you should make your case here and try to gain consensus for removing this content. - ]] 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well Salon doesn't say there's been any controversy. As for The Guardian, it is a blog piece with somebody of a clearly biased view against Card so it cannot be relied upon to give an account of any controversy about the his role. You could say "John Smith in The Guardian claimed that.....", though his opinion probably isn't noteworthy and so fails in the weight department. ] (]) 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::Salon doesn't have to say it's a controversy, since other sources plainly say it is a controversy and Salon doesn't contradict that characterization. The guardian blog post is perfectly acceptable to support that the film was a source of controversy, whether you believe the author is "clearly biased" or not. Here is that ''does'' call it a controversy. Here's and and and . Here's from '']''. There are many more corroborating sources available, as simple search will reveal.
	::::Do you still wish to stand by your assertion that this controversy is irrelevant, trivial and of undue weight, or perhaps now would be a convenient time to restore the content that you removed? - ]] 01:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I've never disputed that there are sources. The sources proposed were just inadequate, including The Guardian because the author's view that the movie has been "weighed down" cannot be added as anything other than his personal opinion. I stand by it, as the sources you've proposed don't compare to news sources like the BBC or NYT which seem like a benchmark when adding an entire controversy section to a big film like this. I would take the Telegraph, but it doesn't say that there's been controversy, just that there could be in November. ] (]) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I don't understand what you mean by the sources being inadequate. The sources are reputable agencies, and each article discusses the film and the controversy surrounding Orson Scott Card. More importantly, the coverage of the controversy is broad. That more than meets our inclusion requirements. A single editor can not dictate a requirement for specific sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. There is demonstrably a controversy at the center of this film's upcoming release. You may want to spend more time reading the sources if you sincerely do not grasp that fact. - ]] 02:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::It's easy to find sources for just about any claim or criticism. The problem is undue weight and notability. It doesn't necessarily meet our inclusion requirements just because there are sources. If there's a notable controversy about this film then it will be reported in notable media, like the BBC or NYT. I'm not being specific about them, any similarly noteworthy news sources is fine. For example, The Telegraph isn't on the same level as the BBC or NYT, though it's miles ahead of those other sources. ] (]) 03:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Not really. Notability in this case is determined by non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Your assertion of the types of "noteworthy news sources" required to establish notability for purposes of inclusion are simply not consistent with our policies, or consensus. If you know of such a policy, please present it. - ]] 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::There are always different levels of notability. Is it notable enough for an entire "controversy" section on a 110 million dollar film? From the current choice of sources, I don't think it is. A requirement of being reported in actual news sources is a pretty low benchmark to add this. ] (]) 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Is being mentioned on the cover of Entertainment Weekly notable enough? Here's the article itself . ] (]) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The cover says DC Comics, a separate issue. In the article all it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Pretty weak stuff. Even if it was described in detail, its still just a magazine. A requirement of a real news source like the Washington Post, Daily Mail, etc isn't asking too much considering this is such a big film. ] (]) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}Nonsense. It was obvious to me before before, but that absolutely nails it. - ]] 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::Please share your realization. ] (]) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Please point to the guideline that disqualifies a weekly publication with a circulation of 1.8 million as "just a magazine". The article is 75% regarding ender's game and is titled "The 'Ender's Game' controversy", whether the cover alludes to the other 25%, it is still on the cover. I don't think anyone here is trying to promote this issue (I can't wait until November), but you certainly are trying to sweep it under the rug. ] (]) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::There's not a specific rule for that, obviously, but what does seem to disqualify it is the weight and notability requirement. An alleged controversy that has only been reported in magazines and entertainment sites isn't good enough for an entire section entitled controversy on a big film like this. If there was any real controversy of notability then it would be reported in respected news media. That article barely mentions any controversy. The most it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Everything else is irrelevant to the section you want to add. The only other thing that comes close is when it says "building backlash", but that could be talking about the comics or just opposition to Card in general (which the subsequent talk to the producer implies). ] (]) 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::Better yet, I will share our source's realization:
	:::'''<u>"The 'Ender's Game' controversy - DC Comics' big gay controversy"</u>'''
	{{quote box\|align=center\|width=90%\|source= - Entertainment Weekly\|"There's talk of a potential boycott, but unlike the familiar scenario, this furor isn't over the film's content — it's aimed at novelist Orson Scott Card, who has used the success of the Ender best-sellers to position himself as a national voice against same-sex marriage."

	"So what does the building backlash mean for the $110 million Ender's Game, which stars Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Abigail Breslin, and Hailee Steinfeld and opens Nov. 1? Producer Roberto Orci (Star Trek, Fringe) says he wasn't aware of Card's views when he decided to adapt the beloved sci-fi classic: ''It didn't occur to me to do background checks on anybody.'' Still, he says, the movie should be judged on its message, not the personal beliefs of the original author."
	}}

			::: Gavin Hood's commentary on the DVD discusses Ender's age choice in the movie, the lessening of the violence especially with Peter's fight (deleted scene), Bonzo's fight (keeping it short). The decision to cut Peter and Valentine's virtual leader stuff is also publicized. However, the comments about "more strategy and character development and simulation vs. reality are of opinion and original research. -] (]) 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::To summarize, we have
			::::If it was sourced in the above link it wasn't OR and the editor who removed the text just didn't like it. --] (]) 11:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

			== See also ==
	:::#The word "controversy" used twice in this one source, and repeated in several other sources.
	:::#Several major journalistic publications reporting the controversy.
	:::#One editor (out of four) who has objected to the content on editorial premises.
	:::#No policy based reason to omit the content.

			Editor ] removed the "See also" section from this article that linked to ] out of concern that it would attract ]. Per ], such sections are good to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics, like the aforementioned list article. If other links are added that are not related enough, we can remove them. The Battle School in this film was highlighted by ] , so it is not an indiscriminate link here. In addition, per ], categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and the list is good to have here because of its explicit referencing. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::- ]] 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
			: See also sections are a dumping ground for barely relevant links. Lists are easy, prose takes effort. It would be better to use that Space.com article to add some interesting ] to the article. Ideally if someone could find out about the Special effects or production design and add details about that to the Production section it would be far more informative to readers and more meaningful. -- ] (]) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
	::::They're certainly not major. No major journalistic publications have reported on this alleged controversy. If the major journalistic publications of the NYT, BBC, Independent, Washington Post, Times, etc have not mentioned this at all, despite each churning out stories like there's no tomorrow, then a controversy section on this 110mil film is unjustified due to the several policies that I've mentioned. I think we should stop going around in circles, this is getting too repetitive. ] (]) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	* {{User\|Whatly}} has now been blocked as a sock of {{User\|Acoma Magic}}, per checkuser - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	::Thank you Alison. - ]] 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	== Post-production ==

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:3\|one external link\|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	How long are we going to keep the section on this page before it becomes clear that the release date will not be changed? If they felt the change was necessary the studio would surely have said so by now. Trailers are playing and everything, and all the ads I've seen still say November 1. ] (]) 03:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
			* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140106102953/http://endersgamefandom.net/tag/growing-basics/ to http://endersgamefandom.net/tag/growing-basics/
			* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140106113230/http://www.pik-nik.com/enders/enders-landing.htm to http://www.pik-nik.com/enders/enders-landing.htm
			* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130911001918/http://endersgamefandom.net/tag/if-battleschool-com/ to http://endersgamefandom.net/tag/if-battleschool-com/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	== Controversy section ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	Please help the Misplaced Pages community at large and add Material to this wiki entry that relates to the film, who made it, the actors, special interesting FACTS about the making of the film, ect........ and
	please Stop Re-adding the section. When a person opens a REAL encyclopedia in a library and looks up a topic, the "Controversy Section" usually appears under the AUTHORS BIO. The authors PERSONAL BELIEFS have nothing to do with this film; are not even remotely expressed in the slightest detail in the films plot; and as the books author has no influence on how it is made the section titled Controversy SHOULD NOT be added to the biographical information of this STAND ALONE FILM.

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
	WIKIPEDIA is not a place to find everything relating to someone and try to lambast that person for their personal beliefs on all related articles about that person. If you wish to point out
	the "controversy" then it should be done on the authors wiki bio entry (which it already has).] (]) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:The controversy is well-documented: I count 92 Google News hits on this subject, all of them directly related to the film; there are currently three sources in the proposed section that are ]: two are the Hollywood Reporter and one is Salon.com. The first part of the section is a little weaker: there is a {{tl\|citation needed}} tag and the rest of the sources are ], but that does not warrant your proposal to remove it completely, and your claims are baseless. ] (]) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::Well, given the views of the author and how widely they are known, there is no justified reason for their exclusion. You say his views have no effect on the film, but they clearly are clearly likely going to affect the views/box office. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	::There is a recently established ] to include this content, as it is very relevant to what the media is reporting about the film. To put it another way, the controversy is what makes the film notable (at this point). Feel free to add content about the film's production, plot, etc., as long as it is ]. Please also read and follow ] and ]. - ]]
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130718150032/http://universe.byu.edu/2013/07/16/1orson-scott-card-praise-for-work-of-enders-game-director-movie-executives/ to http://universe.byu.edu/2013/07/16/1orson-scott-card-praise-for-work-of-enders-game-director-movie-executives/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	=== Lead ===
	{{user\|190.235.83.32}} objects (four times) to the addition of two sentences to the lede summarizing the controversy. I invite that user to discuss their views here. - ]] 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:Given that it is directly releated to the controversy section I sub-sub headed it. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	{{od}} Dear IP. Stop removing content. You do not have a justified reason. Per ] it goes in. Maybe it needs trimming. But not a blanket removal. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:This controversy took up a third of the lead yet there`s little recognition of the controversy in terms of sources. Who care`s about the boycott by the unknown geeksout? Card mentions a boycott in passing but that`s it. There needs to be a lot more attention given to the boycott by sources for it to make it in the lead as the lead needs to summarise the most important aspects of the article and as it currently stands, this controversy is ignored in nearly all reports on the movie and so it is obviously not an important aspect.
	:I especially like how NPOV it was, describing his views as intolerant. Signed 190.235.83.32 (talk)‎.

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 03:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes, thats why you break it down. It is not so much the unknown Geeksout, its more the fact that it was a Homosexual boycott because of his thoughts. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	::There are abundant sources: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired to name a few prominent ones. The media cares about the boycotts. The top 10 Google News hits point to this controversy, and not other aspects of the topic (By the way, Google has a well-established track record of determining what's important and what's not).

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::Card has responded publicly, which is unusual and highly notable. Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the article. The film's notability at this point is largely due to this controversy. ] states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, <u>according to published reliable sources.</u>". Also, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—<u>including any prominent controversies.</u>" - ]] 19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::Can I see these sources? As the article currently has no notable ones.{{unsigned\|190.233.251.14}}
	::::Incorrect. There are citations in the article and .- ]] 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::No, I`m after notable sources, not blogs. Has The Guardian and half a dozen similarly notable news sources published a news article on the subject?
	::::::Again: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired. If you would like to question the reliability of any of these sources, you are free to so so at can do so at ]. - ]] 21:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::The google link you gave me had blog after blog with the wall street journal as a blog as well. I checked the guardian and I found a blog and a just published news piece. However, the controversy still doesn`t comàre the much larger, important and extensively sourced development setion which doesn´t make it into the lead. The controversy is dwarfed by the development in terms of notability and content, making the controversy barely reported and achnowledged in comparison.
	::::::::Interesting. That's almost the exact same argument that banned user {{user\|Acoma Magic}} made ] before his sock was blocked by {{user link\|Alison}}. - ]] 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Great minds think alike. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	: I've tagged some of the lead sources as better source needed. The geeks out source as is is just a tagged thread. Please cite the original article and where it is notable. Also "Skip Ender's Game" website needs notability. Anyone can make a website that opposes anything they want, so please add the news article sources. The Huffington Post articles are written under the Huffpost Gay Voices section so those references have been clarified.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106191124/http://www.langers.com/EndersGame/EG_offer.htm to http://www.langers.com/EndersGame/EG_offer.htm
	: The article about Card and Superman does not mention the film, only the novel, so it should be replaced with a better source pertaining to the film. There should be plenty of articles that relate the FILM to Card and his views; it does not need to be ]ed from the Card/Superman article. -] (]) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.popcornindiana.com/fb/enders-game-screening
	::Agreed that some of the sources needed improvement. I've added one and cited one that was already in the article, providing a couple of direct quotes. I left the original sources, but wouldn't object to them being removed now. I think this addresses all of the sourcing issues, but the section could probably still use some light copy editing. - ]] 01:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224131305/http://www.hypable.com/2013/11/07/enders-shadow-script-game-sequel/ to http://www.hypable.com/2013/11/07/enders-shadow-script-game-sequel/
	::: Thanks for adding the media sources; keep 'em coming! They still need improvement or at least some organizing. The paragraph says that in March, "some LGBT and pro gay-marriage groups criticized the film," yet the sources refer to just ONE group, Geeks Out, which later organized the boycott in July. It is also not clear what they are criticizing in March: the film deal, the producer credit, the DC Comics deal, Card's views (not like that's changed in March 2013), Card's associations with certain organizations, or other national events (court rulings, BSA, prop 8).
	::: Card's responses also need to be clarified and presented properly. Huffpost relates to the DC Comics deal and book, and was written in February, so I removed that, and call for a later article. I moved the "moot" statement to the second line of that paragraph but it needs similar clarification as to what he considers settled and moot.
	::: The film's producers and directors have also responded to the issue so that definitely needs to be included in the article to keep it balanced. The Entertainment Weekly quotes boxed above would fulfill that. -] (]) 05:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::I understand your concerns, and mostly agree. I will make a couple of adjustments to try to address them. - ]] 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think it looks good now (as of ). It's balanced, precise, well-sourced and provides context without being too lengthy. - ]] 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I agree so I put it right back. ] (]) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	== Proposed boycott now passes wp:N threshold...in SPADES ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	''Eg'' from 3 days ago<blockquote></p><p>Both Mr. Card and Lionsgate have issued statements in response to the boycott movement, emphasizing that “Ender’s Game” has nothing to do with gay rights or really any contemporary debate. Lionsgate said that while it does not “agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card,” his opinions “are completely irrelevant to a discussion of ‘Ender’s Game.’ ” The studio’s response, though self-serving, is exactly right.</p>--] (]) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
	: Adding to the article the "completely irrelevant" quote that was missing from the Lionsgate response. -] (]) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:29, 11 November 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2007. The result of the discussion was merge until reprieved from development purgatory.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AfroCreatives

This article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Differences from book section?

Isn't it pretty standard for articles about movies-made-from-a-novel to include a section about the differences between the two? I checked the Harry Potter films' wikipedia articles and they tend to have one. If I was more familiar with the editing process I would write up some notes, but here's a good starting point: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/8-Big-Differences-Between-Ender-Game-Movie-Book-40120.html 174.65.10.224 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This was removed as 'O.R.' maybe someone can find sources: There are many minor deviations but here is a list of plot changing deviations:

The books have Ender recruited at age 6 and he is age 16 in the movie.
The books contain more violence, strategy and character development
The books have Ender fight the war from an planitoid/asteroid close to earth not from a distant plant.
The books contain no FTL travel until the 15th book Children of the Mind
In the books the fact that Ender is fighting a real war and not just a simulation is more of a surprise.
The Formic egg is not mentioned until the 11th book, Ender in Exile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.13.21 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was mentioned in the first book, only it was called the bugger queen egg - and was a part of the 3 subsequent books Ecragg (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Hood's commentary on the DVD discusses Ender's age choice in the movie, the lessening of the violence especially with Peter's fight (deleted scene), Bonzo's fight (keeping it short). The decision to cut Peter and Valentine's virtual leader stuff is also publicized. However, the comments about "more strategy and character development and simulation vs. reality are of opinion and original research. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If it was sourced in the above link it wasn't OR and the editor who removed the text just didn't like it. --Maxl (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ender's Game (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ender's Game (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130718150032/http://universe.byu.edu/2013/07/16/1orson-scott-card-praise-for-work-of-enders-game-director-movie-executives/ to http://universe.byu.edu/2013/07/16/1orson-scott-card-praise-for-work-of-enders-game-director-movie-executives/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ender's Game (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories:

Latest revision as of 10:29, 11 November 2024

Differences from book section?

See also

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified (January 2018)