Jump to content

Talk:Ender's Game (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.65.10.224 (talk) at 18:53, 27 November 2013 (→‎Differences from book section?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

OSC: "minimal involvement" ??

"Roberto Orci responded ... the original author ... had minimal involvement in the film."

Is that true? OSC is listed as one of the producers and I'm pretty sure he has stated on numerous occasions that he was heavily involved in the screenplay and in ensuring a faithful abridgement (albeit with heavy modifications he approved) of the story for film. He carried ideas from the Ender's Game screenplay project into the writing for the upcoming dramatization "Ender's Game Alive." The impression I've gotten from everything I've read about the Ender's Game film which wasn't a response to the LGBT community's hypocritical intolerance, anti-Mormon bigotry and witch-hunting indicates that OSC was, in fact, heavily involved with this film, especially in the early stages. Among other things, he insisted absolutely on an authentic twelve year old Ender rather than the teen vampire heartthrob cliche Hollywood naturally wants. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Geoff Boucher, the Entertainment Weekly writer stated. If he's heavily involved, you can strike out that part, and beef up the production section with the new references. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official sites

I'm working with Summit Entertainment as a digital consultant. I realize this presents a conflict of interest but I'm here to help provide factual information and I would like to suggest the following changes to be made. I will not make direct edits to the page but only request items that I feel most accurately reflect the correct info on behalf of the film or information that would be of interest to users.

Below I've listed the following requested updates to the list of Official Sites for ENDER'S GAME:

Official Website -- this should link to the official website (EndersGameMovie.com), whereas now it’s linking to the Tumblr blog.

“Ender’s Game on Tumblr” is linking to the old production blog. Can we have that direct to our IF-Sentinel Tumblr blog (EndersGameMovie.tumblr.com)? We can keep the Production Blog too but can it be labeled distinct from the official Tumblr (you'll notice the production blog is no longer active).

If we can add our Facebook and Instagram pages, that’d be great. But that's not as important as the updates above.

https://www.facebook.com/EndersGame http://instagram.com/endersgamemovie

Kenneth1978 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the two URLs you mentioned (official and Tumblr). I left off the Facebook and Instagram ones because they're usually discouraged. Thanks for recognizing your COI and posting your request here! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buggers

So I just got back from seeing the movie's midnight release (yes, I am aware that I am the biggest nerd), and they didn't refer to the Formics as Buggers even once. So I'm going to go ahead and amend the part of plot description that reads "... alien race called the Formics (also known as the "Buggers")..." so that it reads "... alien race called the Formics (known as the "Buggers" in the book)...". Feel free to object if I'm wrong about them not using "Buggers". cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term looks like it was removed from the movie and later books. Here's a news article from The Charlotte Observer that mentions this: [1] -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 2000 Card gave a presentation associated with his Ender sequels at the Borders Book Store in Baileys Crossroads Virgina. He was asked why he changed the name from "bugger" to "formic". He said it was his reaction to the Starship Troopers movie and he did not want his work to be contaminated by using the same name for the aliens as that movie. ed Ecragg (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The film got 51 on metacritic and 63% on the tomato-meter which means mixed reviews. Mixed is a neutral term meaning both negative and positive reviews. Mixed also reflects the current average score accurately. Calling it positive reviews would be very biased. --Space simian (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT. Look at the wikipedia page of the following movies released contemporary with Ender's Game and review their critical reception description, all released in 2013-

Riddick 60%- "mixed to positive" despite a lower score. 2 Gun 64%- "positive reviews" Epic 64%- "mixed to positive reviews" Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain 62%- "positive reviews" despite a lower score. Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa 62%- "generally positive reviews" despite a lower score. The Heat 66%- "generally positive" as 2-3 points higher.

This means that the Wikipedia standard characterization for films anywhere in the low to mid 60s on Rotten Tomatoes are deemed to be either "mixed TO POSITIVE review" or "positive review". This is objective and comprehensive proof of this standard so any departure from this standard would represent a personal subjective opinion. Therefore, Ender's Games (fluctuating between 62-66% on RT) can be described only as "mixed to positive" or positive and NOT mixed. To describe it as mixed goes against Modern Wikipedia film custom and is misleading as positive ratings are virtually 2 to 1 to negative ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.188 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not seeing the bigger picture, it is not only the tomato-meter score that matters but also Metacritic and RTs top-critics, etc. Currently the movie has a score of 50 on metacritic and 63 on RT that is an average between 50 and 60 which is usually referred to as mixed. The tomato-meter score of 63 is plainly visible for everyone to see and form their own opinion. (Mixed is neutral, it doesn't say negative.) --Space simian (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...for example "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa" got 54 on metacritic (and 53 by RT top critics) which actually means it got a higher composite score than Ender's Game.--Space simian (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger picture is a composite comparison to recently reviewed movies. Since you used "Bad Grandpa"- On Metacritic, 'Bad Grandpa' got a marginal 3 points better that Ender's Game (54 to 51) using less than 40 critics for each. On Rotten tomatoes, Ender's Game got a marginal 1 point better than Bad Grandpa (63 to 62) based on over 100 critics (substantially more). The big picture CLEARLY demonstrates almost exactly the same critical rating and yet Bad Grandpa's critical description on wikipedia was "generally positive." You can do this same juxtaposition with every other movie with around the same score and they will almost categorically say "mixed to positive" or "generally positive" even with lower scores. I provided 6 very recent examples to demonstrate this but there are legions of examples available.

Additionally, 'mixed' suggests an at least a relatively even amount of good and bad reviews. 80 positive to 47 negative is hardly even. Thus, it is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading to continue describing Ender's Game as "mixed" when countless precedent suggests a uniformly better description. To continue calling it mixed would be holding it to a standard Wikipedia overtly does NOT endorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.188 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are only looking at the 63% tomato-meter score. The summary should reflect both metacritic and rotten tomato. On metacritic it got 50 (!) and together with RT's barley above 60% the most neutral is to call it mixed reviews. (And I wouldn't object if someone changed the Bad Grampa summary to "mixed reviews" either.) --Space simian (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I very purposely used both RT and Metacritic and NOT just the RT tomato-meter score. Perhaps you personally believe that 63 on RT and 51 on MC deserves a description of "mixed." Not withstanding your opinion, wikipedia (as I demonstrated) routinely gives movies with around 63-RT and 51-MC a description of either "mixed to positive" or "generally positive." So we can either change thousands of movies with similar scores to a mixed rating based on your subjective opinion OR we can change Enders game to "mixed to positive." This is the only and objective and uniform decision. Further, Ender's Game received an audience score of 77% on RT and a 7.4 on Metacritic which metacritic itself considers a "generally favorable" review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.188 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On e.g. Metacritic a score between 40 and 60 is considered "Mixed or Average Reviews". If you take the average score of Metacritic (now 51) and Rotten Tomatoes (now 62) you end up in the 40-60 range. As pointed out even "Bad Grandpa" got better reviews if you consider all the scores and not just the tomato-meter (62% tomato, 55% tomato top critic, 54 metascore). Even so, I don't think the Bad Grandpa reviews qualifies as positive either to be honest, and two wrongs don't make one right. Audience/Site-user ratings are never included since they can be too easily manipulated. --Space simian (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with plot summary

The Plot Summary is confusing some of the movie scenes with those in the book, particularly toward the end. The military base is not on the asteroid Eros, but on a planet in the Formics solar system ( probably this is to avoid the book's complicated explanation about instantaneous communication and relativity). The place where Ender finds the egg is not in a mountain (as in the book) but in the ruins of the Formics ship, which had crashed on the planet after Mazer rammed it.

Also I think the Summary needs some pruning. We don't really need to know about the monitoring device or Peter's attempt to beat up Ender or the guy throwing up in free fall; they don't really play a role in the plot. On the other hand it doesn't explain what "freeze" means during the battle games ( temporary paralysis that represents the participant being "killed') CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Soundtrack/Score section?

I'm currently listening to Peace Sword by the Flaming Lips. The album cover has images from the Ender's Game movie... I'm not sure if this is the soundtrack or not. Can anyone make a new section going over the soundtrack(s) and score? StevePrutz (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama essay

This article is clearly becoming a WP:COATRACK for anti-Card criticism. It seems to me clear that an essay written by a guy who happened to write the book of the film is not an appropriate subject for the article about the film. Perhaps it is more appropriate for Barack Obama or definitely for Orson Scott Card. But to dedicate an entire paragraph here is to violate at least WP:DUE. At most - at most, a one-line sentence with prose and sources clearly demonstrating relevance to the film might be admissible as a compromise, but I don't like anything more than that. Oh yeah, and stop the edit war, am I really the first one to come to the discussion page about this issue? Are you asking for full protection here? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the two sources currently provided, I will not permit any mention of this essay, as the sources are using the release of the film to comment on the essay and nothing else. No protest group has commented, Card has not commented, the movie studio has not commented on the essay. It's a non-story. The sources by no measure establish any relevance to this film. Elizium23 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several reviewers have commented on the "Obama as Hitler" essay as well as the homophobia, I can provide more sources if you like but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It's not a coat-rack for anti-Card criticism, if that were the case the list would be much longer and mention the anti-evolution and climate-change-denial among other things. And yes, evidently you are the first. --Space simian (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, besides the two already used as reference ([2] & [3]) here are a few more examples:
  1. 'I knew of Card primarily as an anti-gay-marriage crusader and vocal right-wing crank. In a column from last spring that falls at the exact midpoint between sci-fi thought experiment and paranoid screed, Card compares President Obama to Hitler and envisions him amassing an army of “Brown Shirts—thugs who will do his bidding without any reference to law.” Where will this paramilitary force be recruited? Among “young out-of-work urban men,” of course.' From a review of the film in Slate: [4]
  2. 'It's not news that Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card is a homophobic turd who has declared that anyone caught “flagrantly” engaging in gay sex “cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.” Or that in May of this year he posted to his website a “silly thought experiment” in which he likened Barack Obama to Hitler and predicted that the president will militarize “urban gangs” and “send them out to channel their violence against [his] enemies.”' From review in the Village Voice [5]
  3. '[...] he's also compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and accused him of wanting to raise an army of young, unemployed urban men to "channel their violence against Obama's enemies."' From article in San Jose Mercury News [6]
--Space simian (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet they show no relevance to the film other than being written by the same guy. Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's what reliable sources find relevant to the film that matters, not what you or I think. --Space simian (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not as reliable as you think they may be. The Village Voice is a tabloid, meaning it is not reliable. Out of the other two sources, Slate magazine is a slanted news source and the San Jose Mercury News is a daily newspaper, which also reduces its reliability, so these three sources do not establish notability and reliability for this event. Also note that there is no consensus for the extraneous COATRACK content that you and ToFeignClef have been adding to this article. You seem to be editing solely to maintain this OFFTOPIC content in the article. That's tendentious editing, and we may have to take this to ANI if you continue to push pov editing and continue edit warring. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you are wikilawyering, making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. The three sources I added here (besides the two already existing you are ignoring) are reliable in the sense being notable film reviews/film critics, they are listed as Top-Critics on Rotten tomato which should help give you some perspective. The two other sources you forgot to mention are the guardian and la times. It is clear that the essay comparing Obama with Hitler is yet another controversial aspect that is being mentioned in relation to this film by relevant reliable sources. If this was mere coatracking then there would be a whole bunch of other stuff we could mention that Card is also infamous for. --Space simian (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The website is a review aggregator; the top three reviews may have more weight than others, but despite its usage in film articles here in WP, Rotten Tomatoes is only relevant and reliable for the aggregation of all the 100+ reviews on the films, not for the reviews of a small number of individual reviewers. These events do not show enduring notability about the film, were reported as part of a daily news cycle popularized by the slanted Huffington Post source, and are brief reactions to specific events not relevant to the main topic and majority of the article, so even if the events were sourced by more than 3 sources, they are off-topic and irrelevant to the article scope as mentioned multiple times by various editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
San Jose Mercury is a legit newspaper that's been around for ages. That particular article does talk about the controversy of the film and Card's views in general if you need more general journalist reviews. But it is not the original source for Card's comments on Obama, which was popularized by Huffington Post. In the same article right after that quote, Tony Hicks writes "OK. Sounds like someone has been reading too much science fiction." So I would tread carefully when referencing this. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some of this is becoming a coatrack for those that don't like Card. This is an article about the movie, not about Card. That a bunch of liberal commentators want to bitch about Card are using the movie as a conduit to attack Card does not mean that these criticisms have anything to do with the actual movie. Granted it is fair to make some mention of it because of the calls for a boycott of the movie, but we must be very careful not to simply turn this article into a way to attack Card. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the controversy surrounding this film and it is mentioned by several reliable sources (Huffington post being only one other that AngusWOOF mentioned not I) as well as by notable film-critics reviewing the film. There is no good reason not to include this. Your personal opinion about what is relevant does not trumph that of reliable sources, and personal political views should matter even less. --Space simian (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the controversy surrounding the writer, not the film! The writers of these reviews are only taking the opportunity of the release of the film for venting against Card. These sources have demonstrated no relevance to the film. They have not related the plot of the essay to the plot of the film, nor have they compared characters, nor have they drawn conclusions from any themes or imagery that these two works might have in common. Just because the writer's other works have been mentioned in reviews does not mean that they must be included in an encyclopedic article on the film by any stretch. Go put it in Orson Scott Card and leave his film alone. Elizium23 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The writer is highly relevant to the film of course. His statements in proximity to the release of the film has become part of the controversy surrounding the film. There is no reason not to mention this except that you seem to dislike the criticism and that should be irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that several reliable sources and movie critics mention this when they are discussing the film. --Space simian (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forget Huffington Post, here's the essay (posted in May 2013) that the media is quoting: [7] There is no mention of the film or the book. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic none of it should be included. The author has caused controversy in relation to the films release which several reliable sources and film critics mention when they discuss the film. --Space simian (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from San Jose Mercury News lies saying he "compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and accused him of wanting to raise an army of young, unemployed urban men to "channel their violence against Obama's enemies." The start of the essay says he doesn't think it'll really happen, it just a work of fiction. So he wasn't really accusing Obama of wanting to "raise an army of urban men", etc. Anyway, no reason to fill an article about a movie, with nonsense about the author. It does not have anything to do with the movie itself at all. Perhaps just state there was some protest do to things the author said, and then link to that section of his article, no reason to have any of it here at all. Dream Focus 21:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that that quote was not intended to be inserted into the article (the section that has been removed was very careful to explain that it was "an experiment in fictional writing" by Card). The above quotes are merely meant to show that the essay has gotten a lot of notable comments by film critics and others in relation to the film. --Space simian (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People were discussion if those sources were reliable, and I was just pointing out whoever wrote that one was an idiot. None of the major film credits are whining about this nonsense though. The fact that a small number mentioned something like that, in their poorly edited gossip rags, doesn't mean we should mention it here. Dream Focus 23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Is Card's essay on Obama relevant?

Should the criticism section include a mention of Orson Scott Card's essay on Obama? --Space simian (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text that was removed:

Card has also received criticism for a controversial August 2013 essay that he described as "an experiment in fictional writing." In it Card imagines a future in which US President Barack Obama rules as a "Hitler- or Stalin-style dictator" with his own national police force of "young out-of-work urban men." Obama and his wife Michelle would amend the U.S. Constitution to allow presidents to remain in power for life, as in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Hitler's Germany.[1][2]

Survey

  • Support inclusion. Mention of the essay helps the reader understand the nature of the controversy that isn't only about the LGBT boycott. The essay is higly notable and mentioned several times by reliable sources discussing the film as well as by top-critics reviewing it. A few examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. If reliable sources think the criticism is relevant when discussing the film then so should Wikipedia. WP should follow RS. --Space simian (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The boycott had nothing to do with that. I read the first two sources you linked to, and they aren't really about the movie, mentioning it briefly, they about Orson Scott Card and what he has done not related to the film. Dream Focus 08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The paragraph as written does not show its relevance to the series or the film, and is not neutral. It needs to mention its impact on movie critics who discuss whether the film should be reviewed on its own merit or on the original writer's current views, and its affect on the filmmakers whether they have to make a comment in response. How many general reviews (not specific anti-Card biased writers) seriously considered the Obama essay or the Superman news as influential? On the flip side, the Supreme Court comments were related to the movie and had generated movie-specific discussion and reaction, which is documented in the current article. Now, if Card wrote an essay that linked his Ender's Game characters or updated the film script to reflect current world leaders, that would be a lot more relevant and notable. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not mentioned my political beliefs. I am merely trying to ensure the paragraph will be neutrally and accurately written (trace to original sources and chronology of the reaction), and given due weight for the article, and posted suggestions as to how to make it so. That, and defend San Jose Mercury as a reliable newspaper source and not a tabloid. ;) -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that political beliefs are irrelevant to the notability of the content being discussed for removal. Also note that you should not be making wrong assumptions and personal/ad hominem attacks to other editors. Stay on topic, or you will be submitted to ANI for disruptive/off-topic comments. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not quite sure what you are alluding, but this page has been on my watchlist for some time now. Anyone can participate in an RfC; you are involved and have already stated your reason for support. It is perfectly fine and natural for other editors already involved in the discussion to express there reason for objection or inclusion. I actually don't agree with Card's personal views regarding this issue, however this article is not a political article so politics should not be an issue. What I do object, however, is when editors try to use WP to push a political view. It appears to be quite clear that this article is being used to attack Card's views on LGBT rights. If the LGBT community wants to boycott Card that is their right, but the use of WP for their activism is not ok. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had this article on my watchlist for months, and the reason for my "sudden" visit to the talk page (after several visits starting in JUNE...) is that an edit war formed, mostly with Space simian on one side and others opposing him; I was shocked to find zero discussion of the issue here, so I started it. Space simian has been warned for edit-warring, other warnings will follow if it continues. Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not true, except that I have been warned for edit-warring by you which was entirely uncalled for (an attempt at intimidation?). The comment below this was in response to Arzel, not Elizium who for some reason inserted the above comment later, just pointing it out to avoid confusion. --Space simian (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that wikipedia shouldn't be used for activism. What I was objecting to is your wikilink to wp:snow implying this rfc should be closed before any uninvolved editor had a chance to comment, you like anyone else is free to comment of course. --Space simian (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose -- seems to me that the essay is getting press in relation to the film mostly for happening close in time, but not seemingly in relevance. Unless the essay itself is shown to have some tangible impact on the film or studio (and not merely on Card) then it might be relevant to include it. Chris857 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that Card is the controversy here, his statements are a problem for the studio and has become a liability. The studio and actors had to publicly distance themselves from his views. The LGBT boycott got most attention, but it isn't the only thing that film journalists and film critics have been commenting on in relation to the film. Not mentioning the Obama essay as well gives readers the incorrect impression that the controversy was only about Card's views on homosexuality, which was only part of it (if you look at what has been written). Here is yet another article: [13]. --Space simian (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Include. Card has been a PR nightmare for this film and his controversial views and activities have generated considerable press in relation to the film itself. His anti-gay activities have already ensured the studio distanced itself from him and he was pulled from the Ender's Game Comic Con panel. There will probably be sources out there that link his Obama "story" to the damage he has caused for the film's publicity, it's just a matter of finding them. The Guardian source from 16 Aug sort of makes a correlation by saying his Obama essay probably won't please the film studio because they've already had to do damage control over his anti-gay issues, but there must be something out there that is more tangible. And now that Ender's Game looks set to be the flop of the year, I'm sure some publications have made the connection between both of Card's two main controversial views (LGBT and Obama) and the film's dire box office performance, regardless of whether Obama supporters organised an official boycott or not. Particled (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: This article in The Wrap delves into the issue more closely, though it was written in August before the film came out. It highlights the negative publicity that Card's Obama essay generates in relation to the film studio. Particled (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Particled is a blocked sock puppet. Dream Focus 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Slate article is entirely about the differences between the book and the film and says almost nothing of the essay, and certainly does not relate it to the film, only to the writer. The digitalspy link once again discusses Ford's comments on the book and the film, and the author of the article brings in the essay only to smear Card and can't actually relate it to the film. Elizium23 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Slate article states: "Card has repeatedly condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms and has compared Obama and his supposed “urban gangs” to Hitler and the Nazis. These views have posed problems for the film adaptation, which opened last night and is being boycotted by some supporters of equal rights for all. Those behind the movie have understandably defended the book by saying that it preaches tolerance and really has nothing to do with Card’s ugly political views." The Digital Spy article states: "Card, who penned the novel that the movie is based on, was a member of anti-same-sex-marriage pressure group the National Organisation for Marriage until recently, and sparked outrage with an opinion piece comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. However, Harrison Ford is adamant that Card's politics are not relevant to the content of Ender's Game." It isn't relevant what you believe the intentions of these article authors were or whether you personally agree with them, all that matters is that they have provided a professional commentary concerning Card's views and how those views may impact on the film's success. This issue therefore belongs in this Wiki article. Roguana (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these so-called film critics only gave the essay half a sentence in each of their articles, how come we have been asked to provide a whole paragraph? Clearly a violation of WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that they have mentioned it in relation to the film's release and as long as it is reworded to directly reflect that, it warrants mentioning in this article. We aren't writing for their publications, we are writing for Wikipedia, so your argument about them and us isn't relevant. It was mentioned in multiple mainstream sources and the details can be adequately summarized in just a couple of sentences so there is no WP:DUE violation at all. Roguana (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, it belongs on Card's biography article, not this article. The essay is not the main point of the controversy; Card's views are. The essay is essentially irrelevant and off-topic, and serves no notable function other than as an additional trivia point to add to the coatrack. Rewording sentences from the sources to tie it with the other sentences is WP:SYNTHESIS, and gives undue weight to the otherwise irrelevant sentence. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the passage is not directly related to the film adaptation. The criticism related to the film has to do with homosexuality and homophobia, and we should cover only that here. I would suggest a {{More information}} template linking to Orson Scott Card#Personal views if readers wanted to learn more about his views that do not have to do with this particular film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - for reasons stated above, there are various sources that pertain to it being a potential liability for the film's chances of success. GoldCoaster (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GoldCoaster has been blocked for using sockpuppets. Dream Focus 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove/Oppose - per reasons given in preceding section. Card's personal views are irrelevant to the film scope; it belongs on his biography article, not this one. The content/sentences do not have enough reliable sources to establish enduring notability of the topic, were reported as part of a daily news cycle popularized by the slanted Huffington Post source, and are brief reactions to specific events not relevant to the main topic and majority of the article, so even if the events were sourced by more than 3 sources, they are off-topic and irrelevant to the article scope as mentioned multiple times by various editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
remove if that item is notable it is notable on Card's biography, certainly not on the film article which has no mention. That would be pure WP:SYNTH to include here. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove/Oppose - the book and film work long predated this essay. The essay is unrelated to the Ender Universe. It should be included in Orson Scott Card ed Ecragg (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I have reverted the closure by Space simian (talk · contribs) because he is the poster of the RFC and its conclusion of "No consensus" clearly does not describe a clear consensus against inclusion above. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that particled (talk · contribs), GoldCoaster (talk · contribs), and roguana (talk · contribs) are confirmed socks and have been inef blocked leaving only space simian as an include. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's both silly and dishonest Elizium23, I closed it as "no consensus to keep the text" but you left that last part out. Clearly there isn't going to be a consensus to keep the text which was what the RFC was asking if there were but for some inexplicable reason you want to keep wasting peoples time with this. --Space simian (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 so far against having it in the article, and one person for it who wasn't blocked for being or using socks. Someone not participating should close it as clear consensus to keep that out of the article. Dream Focus 21:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Child, Ben (August 16, 2013). "Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card compares Obama to Hitler". The Guardian.
  2. ^ Horn, John (August 15, 2013). "'Ender's Game' author compares Obama to Hitler". Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ender%27s_Game_(film)&oldid=583562988"