I am the only one pissed off to find out that bean is cast as a white kid? as far as i remember bean is black. why......
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm pretty sure Bean's ethnicity, as far as can be determined provided his interesting genetic situation, was Greek; though, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him from having a darker complexion.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Just be happy you get to watch the obnoxious little kid from Hannah Montana get murdered. Good times.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yeah, the book never clarifies Bean's skin color, if I remember correctly.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Bean is always represented as sort of ambiguous, but he is implied to be white-ish in the first Shadow book or two. And then implied to be, if not black, then notably not-totally-white, in the later books in the series.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I think Dan is correct, his appearance is ambiguously Mediterranean, he passed well enough in Greece, and in Rwanda.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bernardini: I am the only one pissed off to find out that bean is cast as a white kid? as far as i remember bean is black. why......
I believe in Shadow Puppets Bean clarifies that he is half Greek, half African: to Greeks he looks "rather African" and to Africans he looks "rather Greek." This is open to interpretation, but the casting directors probably didn't want to limit themselves to only half Greek, half African actors (can you think of any in the right age group that would also portray the character of Bean well?)
The more blatant race-lift in the casting is Ben Kingsley as the Maori Mazer.
Race-changing in film adaptations is only offensive when a single group becomes overrepresented, or a significant part of the story is compromised, to the point of leading to unfortunate implications. In this case, however, the cast for Ender's Game is still diverse, even if not every character has the exact same ethnicity as they do in the book.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
If you want to complain about changing character ethnicity, then complain about the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
The more blatant race-lift in the casting is Ben Kingsley as the Maori Mazer.
I'm bummed about this one. It's not like Maori actors don't exist-- the one off the top of my head I can think of is the guy who played Boba Fett in the Star Wars Prequels. Insert joke here about the Prequels being a bad for people's careers.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Some Ender's Game teasers, it is just four of the army emblems. I do find it curious that the army symbols are generically colored, I hope they didn't abandon the color schemes all together.
Because the books just won't shut up about how he has facial tattoos. And yes, this is a very definite and affable answer to the issue of Ben Kingsley not being Maori.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, so they take a non-maori actor and have him play a guy with tā moko all over his face
thankfully for the movie, today's american audiences are as of yet mostly ignorant as to why this is profoundly offensive so they'll still get away with it
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I was ignorant. After reading a bit, I understand that it's pretty important to some Maori for outsiders not to imitate or appropriate tā moko.
Does that definitely extend to actors with temporary/fake tā moko? That isn't very clear to me from what I've been able to find.
If so, is it similarly offensive to create a fictional Maori character complete with tā moko in the first place? If not, then where does the specific offense lie in having an actor portray that character? In other words, since an actor isn't exactly appropriating the culture but merely trying to represent it in a fictional context, is this not just about cultural misappropriation but also about a ritual significance of particular markings?
Given the existence of kirituhi which is apparently not considered offensive, I do have to wonder if the offense is tied to particular patterns or symbols, and thus: What if Kingsley and others involved said it was kirituhi, not tā moko? What if it's meant to represent tā moko but the actual markings are kirituhi?
I wasn't of the impression that it's generally considered offensive for actors to play cross-culture*, so I am curious about how this works from a Maori perspective. (Of course I'm also wondering if it makes sense, generally, to respect a culture's internal view to the point that it dictates external actions.)
*I understand it's generally agreed to be offensive when actors play ugly stereotypes or distortions of other cultures, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does the book say that Rakham has tā moko on his face? I can't remember. If it does, then it wouldn't be offensive in the book, so why would it be in the film.
If it's not in the book, it seems perfectly reasonable for Rakham, a warrior, to have them. In fact, it helps establish the characters ethnicity as Kingsley is decidedly not Maori, but needs to play one in the movie.
But I'm willing to listen as to why this is offensive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
For pretty much the same reason it would be offensive if Rackham was written as an asian man, and we had Kingsley playing asian Rackham in yellowface.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That hardly seems comparable. Were you similarly offended when Robert Downey Jr used skin toners so as to look black in Tropic Thunder? How about Ben Kingsley using an accent to sound Indian in Gandhi?
Further, these are tattoos. It's not like he's playing a Jew and so they gave him an artificially large nose just to press the point.
I don't know how prevalent tā moko is today amongst the Maori, but people in the US certainly don't think about them when you mention New Zealand, so it's not a "Hey! You need to know this guy is Maori, here's an easy way for the audience to realize this!" It also seems entirely plausible that Rackham would have them, and it makes for a visually memorable character. At least to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Were you similarly offended when Robert Downey Jr used skin toners so as to look black in Tropic Thunder? How about Ben Kingsley using an accent to sound Indian in Gandhi?
1. Tropic Thunder was deliberately satirizing the offensiveness of blackface but was still problematic.
2. Ben Kingsley trying to sound Indian is not offensive to me at all for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
quote:That hardly seems comparable.
It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kingsley is part Indian, so yes Asian, but not Pacific Islander. And you'll have to indulge my idiocy, but I don't see a substantial difference between employing an accent that is commonly found in a group of people, and employing a visual medium like tattoos or clothing to increase people's willful suspension of disbelief.
I get that perhaps they should have found an actual Maori to play a Maori, but since they did not, I don't have a problem with trying to make who they did find as convincingly Maori as reasonably possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Nor is he a genius space fighter from the latter half of the 21st century. The role that he is playing, however is. Actors often take on symbols while playing characters that they have no right to in real life. Heck, I acted in my Catholic high school's production of Fiddler on the Roof, despite not actually being a turn of the century Jewish-Russian peasant. I don't think you've successfully made the case that this is any different. I don't actually see that you've tried to, actually.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The issue is that I have no problem with Kingsley, born Krishna Pandit Bhanji, playing an Indian.
He is not, however, a Maori, so there's a problem there. It's him essentially dressing up as and playing a race that he is not, complete with the appropriation of moko.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It is, as a point of fact, directly comparable. Kingsley is neither asian nor maori.
Nor is he a genius space fighter from the latter half of the 21st century.
Not gonna lie, this is an off-putting comparison. Genius space fighters from the latter half of the 21st century are not a marginalized group that often find themselves represented by persons appropriating and playing their race; they aren't even a real thing. They don't exist. There is no longstanding practice reinforcing glass ceilings against genius space fighter performers. There are no real people in this group who find themselves passed by for a role because writers would rather change the race of a majority role, or just have someone play dress-up in their features. No young Genius-Space-Fighter has to look at the screen and see that they've yet again had actual genius space fighters passed up to give the roles to someone who can just dress as them (or be given their facial features and skin tone with makeup, if that were applicable).
There are also, it might be noted, no more turn of the century jewish russian peasants left around these days to note that they are being passed by in a patterned fashion in favor of other non-marginalized actors, who will instead dress as them to portray them.
Maori, on the other hand, are a people that exist.
Race appropriation in television and movies has a discriminatory impact on underrepresented cultural communities and actors from those communities. We've started to figure out that it's pretty tacky and problem-ridden. It's almost completely gotten rid of blackface, making it too much of a poisonous thing for a film to dare attempting. Yellowface is not far behind, though it's worth noting that Cloud Atlas managed to sneak in a breathtakingly stupid last hurrah for the practice. Like I said, people are probably going to give Maoriface a pass, because we're pretty ignorant here about things like whether a temporary tattoo being made into moko which isn't tikanga Maori (making it one of the rare cases of appropriation I will pretty much categorically grant as a terrible faux pas) isn't, uh, quite offensive. We're also really good at coming up with very self-convincing explanations, like how there must not have been a good enough selection of actors from x, y, or z.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam: if they'd cast Kingsley and changed the story so that Rackham is an Indian, what would you think? Good? Bad?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Gotta side with Sam.
It sounds like it would be much harder/impossible for a Maori, particularly one bearing the cultural symbol being represented, to be given the opportunity to play an Indian man. And if you're fiction takes advantage of a minority culture as a point of curiosity, then you should cast from it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Having just attended and reported on a Kiwi film festival in Europe, I've met several people recently who would probably comment that the availability of Maori actors (particularly racially mixed actors) is quite good.
Now, I am not an expert on how many very professional actors are available in New Zealand, but it would be hard to argue that there isn't a well established casting system there. The producers might have tried. But of course, as a I said a long time ago about this casting decision: this was about money, and there is definitely no Maori actor that is bankable as a Hollywood star (bankable in the sense of being a household name, and reason to see a film).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Personally, I try to form a mob every time a find out about a woman playing Peter Pan.
Or when Romans have British Accents. (Or every ancient European except Spain.)
I picket every time I hear about a church doing a nativity play, unless they happen to find Jews to play the role of Mary and family.
In fact, has Jesus ever been filmed as a middle eastern person?
[ May 02, 2013, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules. I think some of this has to do with the subject matter of the film.
It's normally okay for a non-Jewish person to play a Jewish person, for example, although I think there would be examples where such a thing would be less okay. I think a Jewish person character in space would be more okay than a Jewish person character in a context expressing more sensitive aspect of Jewish oppression.
Similarly, we are pretty vague across bounderies providing people look the same or similar. A person from India can play a character from any country around India in which people look Indian. Again, this is probably dependent on the film. In America, a Chinese person can play a Japanese or Korean person, particularly in an American context. Is this acceptable everywhere and in every film?
Religious bounderies come into play, too. We usually are pretty relaxed about Christians playing other types of Christians. But in a film where religion is important, is it okay for Christian to play a Muslim, or a Muslim to play a Hindu?
What about cultural things? Is it okay for a English person to play a Scottish or Irish person? Is it okay for an American person with English heritage to play a Scottish or Irish person? Clearly in lots of situations this is fine. In others, less so.
It's a complicated situation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Race being a social construct anyway, as opposed to a biological category, it's sometimes hard for me to understand why people stake so much importance on an actor "really being" a member of the race he/she is portraying. If the actor doesn't look like a member of that race, that's a separate and legitimate problem. Also if dressing up as that race has a problematic history, as with black and yellow face, that could also be a good reason to take offense.
As a side point, I don't have any problem with Downey in Tropic Thunder. Humor needs to be able to push that sort of boundary.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Related issue: is it similarly a problem to have actors made up to look fat?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Real actors put on the weight :colbert:
I find the casting to be unfortunate, but at the same time it isn't as if Ben Kingsley is white from the suburbs of North Carolina. I'm willing to forgive it as long as the rest of the movie is good.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
Or maybe (SPOILER: actually yes!) the people vocally upset with this, which you would like to belittle, generally have a better understanding of how movies get made and financed, and are rightfully upset with the patterns of marginalization.
The movie industry doesn't just fill race tokens with more bankable races (usually white), it actively goes to lengths to swap out minorities. Whatever makes the movie have more mass appeal, right? Like how the real-life leader of the MIT Blackjack team, Jeff Ma, was reborn as "Ben Campbell" in the movie 21. And the issue is a reliable pattern seen across multiple forms of media, like television, and so does not get to get explained away with a "oh you must just have zero understanding of how movies get made, quit getting your panties bunched up hur lul."
In fact, most people who get their 'panties bunched' up about this, in your eyes and prescribed words, are doing so precisely because of awareness of the incentives and cycles at play here in this and other media elements. I guess it makes it much more comforting to explain as simply a complaint generated by ignorance, though — and that's rather idyllically a reinforcement of my prediction about what you can still get away with, and why.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Personally, I try to form a mob every time a find out about a woman playing Peter Pan.
Or when Romans have British Accents. (Or every ancient European except Spain.)
I picket every time I hear about a church doing a nativity play, unless they happen to find Jews to play the role of Mary and family.
In fact, has Jesus ever been filmed as a middle eastern person?
I'm glad you are ready and rearing to fight against the very real social issue of the marginalization of Peter Pan, Roman Legionnaires, and Team Nativity.
and now, a goodpost™
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I was ignorant. After reading a bit, I understand that it's pretty important to some Maori for outsiders not to imitate or appropriate tā moko.
Does that definitely extend to actors with temporary/fake tā moko? That isn't very clear to me from what I've been able to find.
If so, is it similarly offensive to create a fictional Maori character complete with tā moko in the first place? If not, then where does the specific offense lie in having an actor portray that character? In other words, since an actor isn't exactly appropriating the culture but merely trying to represent it in a fictional context, is this not just about cultural misappropriation but also about a ritual significance of particular markings?
The real issue here is that Kingsley is playing dress-up as another race. And in a way which hits all the tokenism issues, with them making sure to really play up the maori-ness as they see fit, which in this case is having Ben in full Maori face tattoo. Probably also darkening his skin up as much as they can get away with. This is like if another movie came out where you have to have someone of native american ancestry, but the movie wants some name-brand talent and tells itself "oh it's totally fine if we cast some non-native in this" so they get Ben and bronze his skin up and the story and design guys were like "oh dude, so like, let's totally play up his indian-ness, like, so he'll like, wear a headdress in it with feathers so it's all like yeaaa cool our movie has a badass indian in it. Like and not even just feathers let's get our design guys to come up with something that looks like way native warrior. YEAH."
Nominally, the continuation of practices like this should make someone leery. What really makes the practice a problem, however, is a cycle I can oversimplify like this:
1. here in america, movies have an abundance of roles for white people, because hey, cultural majority (and, at least until recently, numerical majority). You get ten, twenty, fifty times more roles as a white person everywhere all the time always. The big names fit the bill appropriately; you have a far greater chance and opportunity to succeed as a white actor than as a black or asian or any other sort of actor, because you are automatically "niche." Far more white actors succeed, and they usually have the leading roles all to themselves, because "niche" actors often find themselves in supporting roles. Big name big time actors aren't "niche." But any minority actor who wants to become a big name big time actor already has to hammer through a ceiling imposed by this. It rarely happens, and progress on that front is slow in coming. Lucy Liu is still surprised that she got a role not in some (or all) significant ways typecast or where she has to be 'dragon-lady-ey,' where she is not there specifically to play an asian, she is there to play a character. a person. Not an exotic token. Even for her, these opportunities are few and far between. In 2013.
2. Actors of various cultural communities and race appearance which keeps them in these niche-lands also can't rely on the field providing a proportionate opportunity for them to bust into non-niche, leading, big-name roles. They can actually usually expect the system to work against them. Mako Iwamatsu detailed what it was like for him as an actor: "Asian-American actors have never been treated as full-time actors. We’re always hired as part-timers. That is, producers call us when they need us for only race-specific roles. If a part was seen as too “demanding,” that part often went to a non-Asian." There's no real field to succeed in if you're <insert "niche" here> and a movie comes out based on source material specifically with roles about your race and culture, but (as was the case in TLA) they switch all the leading roles to white. Or they cast some white person as you after concluding that there wasn't enough leading talent from that community (odd this happens when you're never given lead roles). Or as is so often the case it's a combination of pulling from majority talent and getting name-brand names in there to get people in seats. Sure, there's a wide selection of acclaimed maori talent but BEN KINGSLEY will put people in seats, so we went with Kingsley and just put your hoodoo tattoos on him, good enough. Who wants some nobody?
3. Cycle loops on itself. You don't get leading roles or become leading names, so that tomorrow's producers can say the exact same things: "well, there's no star talent in that community." "well the people who draw viewers aren't .."
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam: if they'd cast Kingsley and changed the story so that Rackham is an Indian, what would you think? Good? Bad?
Also bad. At least now the maori don't have people playing dress-up maori warrior for cultural tokenism, so you can cynically say it's marginally better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules.
I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media. ~My asian friends~ have talked at length about how their portrayal in media mad themselves feel niche lessers from a long history of seeing themselves only as supporting characters with heavily prescribed typecast habits. A few even ended their careers in theater and acting because of the relentless marginalization.
We're just not yet at the point where we should be talking ourselves into a narrative of how equal society should mean this stuff shouldn't matter.
Though, I guess, many people totally will.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Oh look . . . another pointless cause to rally around.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
quote:Oh look . . . another pointless cause to rally around.
Well that's one way to address the slew of points that Samprimary made. I'm glad we have some good dialogue going.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media.
Could you re-state this sentence in a more understandable way, Sam?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The tattoo doesn't really suit Kingsley's face. I feel like Ender is gonna meet him and burst out laughing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think Sam is wrong that movie companies regularly state, "This movie needs a marketable star" in lieu of what the author intended.
Heck, Mr. Card specifically mentions wanting to use a black actor for Graff and movie producers (from a previous attempt) resisting the idea by saying no black actor can carry a movie. Whereupon Mr. Card used Will Smith as a counter-example.
Refusing to stand up to these sorts of producers is a form of tacit racism, even if you feel it's justified so as to make sure the movie is made in the first place.
I wasn't there when this particular movie was cast. They may or may not have made an effort to diversify the cast beyond the actual results which we will all see in a few months. I do know trying to remain faithful to every ethnicity, and every age, and casting a talented actor from each one would have been exceedingly difficult. I would call it the casting accomplishment of the last decade easily.
That they made concessions in this department is sad, I really do feel that way. But I am willing to enjoy a movie primarily if each character is treated with respect, each actor acquits themselves well, and a good story is told.
I also admire movies that attempt to be brave, and discard old incorrect ideologies about what a movie must sacrifice in order to make money.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm glad they made Starbuck a girl. That'll go a long way to promoting equality among the races.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Race being a social construct anyway, as opposed to a biological category, it's sometimes hard for me to understand why people stake so much importance on an actor "really being" a member of the race he/she is portraying.
This. Without the caveats.
Sam, your points are an accurate description of a predominantly "white" culture and how this matter of fact can make it hard for a person of a distinctively other ethnicity to be successful as an American actor. This will change with time. Slowly, but it will happen. In fact, it's already happening, perhaps to a far greater extent here than in other countries because we are the most culturally diverse country in the world. Consider mainstream black actors today as a prime example. Morgan Freeman is in just as many crappy blockbusters as the next white guy.
The way I see it, this is acting we're talking about here. Art. Entertainment. This is nothing like segregation in schools or paying women less than men to do the same job, or any other form of actual discrimination. Producers and directors, by and large, on an individual basis, are not doing anything morally reprehensible by choosing an actor of one ethnicity to represent a character of a different ethnicity, and I don't see any good reason for someone to be offended by that choice. I can see not liking the choice, and I'd respect that position. But taking offense? I don't get that.
Which isn't to say I'm not willing to consider what else you might have to say about it, so please elaborate if you'd like.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Morgan Freeman is in just as many crappy blockbusters as the next white guy.
Context of grammar? I didn't know Morgan Freeman was white!?! Talk about blackface. . . .
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: The way I see it, this is acting we're talking about here. Art. Entertainment. This is nothing like segregation in schools or paying women less than men to do the same job, or any other form of actual discrimination. Producers and directors, on an individual basis, are not doing anything morally reprehensible by choosing an actor of one ethnicity to represent a character of a different ethnicity, and I don't see any good reason for someone to be offended by that choice. I can see not liking the choice, and I'd respect that position. But taking offense? I don't get that.
A cause for offense? I don't think so. A catalyst for debate about adequate depiction of race? Why not?
Both sides have a point. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. But acting is an art. Is a thoughtful, sensitive portrayal of someone from another race or culture acceptable? Is this different from a straight person playing a homosexual on television?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Both sides have a point. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. But acting is an art. Is a thoughtful, sensitive portrayal of someone from another race or culture acceptable? Is this different from a straight person playing a homosexual on television?
Yes, I believe it is. And no, it's quite similar, and equally unoffensive in my opinion.
I get cultural sensitivity to representation with negative connotation. I also understand and agree with promoting awareness of great minority actors being overlooked for roles they'd be great in and ethnically appropriate for because a white actor was chosen instead.
[ May 02, 2013, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bah! Black face was a symptom of oppression and mockery that plagued that time. I doubt Sir Ben is donning the face tats to belittle and embarrass Kiwis.
Further, the character's race never really was that important in the book.
Sensitivity is nice and all, but good gravy this is so nitpicky and uptight it is cringeable.
nobody is supposing that Kingsley is donning Maoriface with malicious intent. intent is also not a magic shield against the effects of marginalizing media casting. nobody can say "oh i doubt Mickey Rooney was donning a little oriental hat and yellowface to belittle Asians" and have that be relevant, any more so than tasking Kingsley with good intent vindication is relevant to the awareness I'm promoting.
if it makes you cringe and reject as "nitpicky," good. i expect it to be uncomfortable to confront, and easy to reject. for now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So many interesting posts, and he picks the least interesting one to reply to.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Aros, I like the point about straight actors portraying gays. There are also a million little distinctions we can draw in the "race" category:
Is it bad for a Native American actor to portray a Native American character from a different tribe?
Is it bad for an Indian actor to portray an Indian character of a different caste?
Is it bad for a mixed-race actor who can "pass" for white to portray a character of their non-white ancestry? (Think of Keanu Reeves playing a Chinese character. Or for a less ridiculous example, Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider.)
Is it bad for an African American actor to portray a Jamaican character?
The fact that Kingsley is himself a minority actor also complicates the issue in the present case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So many interesting posts, and he picks the least interesting one to reply to.
yes indeed, that was the one i.. sorry, Hhe responded to. I'm.. sorry, he is on his phone in a boat at sea, and it was the last post at the time he started constructing a response, and it had the most straightforward deconstruction. easy enough for him to respond to on a phone.
he also shouldn't be faulted in any middling easy for lack of effort or response in this thread, of course.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It's a missed opportunity.
[ May 02, 2013, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I get cultural sensitivity to representation with negative connotation. I also understand and agree with promoting awareness of great minority actors being overlooked for roles they'd be great in and ethnically appropriate for because a white actor was chosen instead.
A role that YOU think they'd be great in, you mean. Seriously, come on. How many Maori actors are there at Kingsley's caliber? Mana the Polynesian Warrior? Would he be a better choice?
"So . . there's this movie. It looks great, it's about some kind of game. It has that kid from Hugo in it. Oh, and Harrison Ford's in it too. And Mana the Polynesian Warrior. He's an awesome actor; haven't you heard?"
ANYWAY . . . Kingsley isn't white. His ancestry is mixed: Kenyan, Indian, British, possibly Jewish at some point. . . .
So, you're saying that people of mixed, one might say homogenized race, can't play characters that fit certain racial / ethnic profiles? What kind of roles can he play? A role from a book that says "we didn't really know where he was from . . . he was just . . . a little brown?"
Racist.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Now what I really do find offensive is in a cartoon like Aladdin where everyone is of the same race, but only the evil people have the accent.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, if everyone is brown, how the heck else are we Americans to know who to hate?
But seriously...
I don't mind having a discussion of race in culture or media, that's fine. Where I boggle is the outrage, when there are so many actually outrageous topics out there which just seem to slip by the way side...like children starving to death.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I vote Jemaine Clement!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: I vote Jemaine Clement!
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:when there are so many actually outrageous topics out there which just seem to slip by the way side...like children starving to death.
There's a name for that kind of fallacious argument, but I can't remember what it is...
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:when there are so many actually outrageous topics out there which just seem to slip by the way side...like children starving to death.
There's a name for that kind of fallacious argument, but I can't remember what it is...
And your criticism is even better, I just don't know why. . . .
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Why are you even on this message board arguing this point when there are kids dying?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Meh. It's just death and racism. It's not like one person can make a difference.
There's Maori actors crying somewhere because Sir Ben Kingsley got their part in the Ender's Game movie. I heard that Mana the Polynesian Warrior can't eat or sleep. Too bad Sam isn't the casting director -- he'd have had it in the bag!!!!
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Funny point from the Wikipedia on Maori people:
quote:Originally posted on Wikipedia: Māori actors and actresses are present in many of Hollywood's productions for being able to portray Asians, Latin Americans and Arabs because of their resemblance. They are in films like Whale Rider, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, The Matrix, King Kong, The River Queen, The Lord of The Rings, Rapa Nui, and others, and famous television series like Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, The Lost World[disambiguation needed] and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Famous Māori actors and actresses include Temuera Morrison, Cliff Curtis, Lawrence Makoare, Manu Benet and Keisha Castle-Hughes.
These Maori come in here, playing all manner of folk. I say we get Sir Ben Kingsley to play EVERY Maori part, in every tv show and movie. That'll teach 'em a lesson about racism.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does the book say that Rakham has tā moko on his face? I can't remember. If it does, then it wouldn't be offensive in the book, so why would it be in the film.
If it's not in the book, it seems perfectly reasonable for Rakham, a warrior, to have them. In fact, it helps establish the characters ethnicity as Kingsley is decidedly not Maori, but needs to play one in the movie.
But I'm willing to listen as to why this is offensive.
Rackham never had it in the books. In fact, in the Shadow series he is represented as running around in open society freely with no one recognizing the face the THE Mazur Rackham.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Funny point from the Wikipedia on Maori people:
quote:Originally posted on Wikipedia: Māori actors and actresses are present in many of Hollywood's productions for being able to portray Asians, Latin Americans and Arabs because of their resemblance. They are in films like Whale Rider, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, The Matrix, King Kong, The River Queen, The Lord of The Rings, Rapa Nui, and others, and famous television series like Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, The Lost World[disambiguation needed] and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Famous Māori actors and actresses include Temuera Morrison, Cliff Curtis, Lawrence Makoare, Manu Benet and Keisha Castle-Hughes.
These Maori come in here, playing all manner of folk. I say we get Sir Ben Kingsley to play EVERY Maori part, in every tv show and movie. That'll teach 'em a lesson about racism.
I would love to know what other ethnicity the Maori performers were impersonating in the emboldened titles.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Why are you even on this message board arguing this point when there are kids dying?
literal laugh out loud
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Meh. It's just death and racism. It's not like one person can make a difference.
There's Maori actors crying somewhere because Sir Ben Kingsley got their part in the Ender's Game movie. I heard that Mana the Polynesian Warrior can't eat or sleep. Too bad Sam isn't the casting director -- he'd have had it in the bag!!!!
you are actually kind of being terrible. I'd appreciate it if you give up on Troll Aros, or leave the thread in the capable hands of people who aren't going to concertedly try to drag the discussion down.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Funny point from the Wikipedia on Maori people:
quote:Originally posted on Wikipedia: Māori actors and actresses are present in many of Hollywood's productions for being able to portray Asians, Latin Americans and Arabs because of their resemblance. They are in films like Whale Rider, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, The Matrix, King Kong, The River Queen, The Lord of The Rings, Rapa Nui, and others, and famous television series like Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, The Lost World[disambiguation needed] and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Famous Māori actors and actresses include Temuera Morrison, Cliff Curtis, Lawrence Makoare, Manu Benet and Keisha Castle-Hughes.
These Maori come in here, playing all manner of folk. I say we get Sir Ben Kingsley to play EVERY Maori part, in every tv show and movie. That'll teach 'em a lesson about racism.
There are hundreds of instances where those ethnicities are played by authentic members of that ethnicity. When an casting a character with an ethnicity that is rarely characterized in hollywood characters, and in a situation where much of the population of the audience are ignorant to their culture and economic disadvantages (or really, that they even exist), I think you have a little more responsibility than normal. And I can understand if someone of that ethnicity is disappointed at what is a big missed opportunity. It could have been awesome.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Aros, I like the point about straight actors portraying gays. There are also a million little distinctions we can draw in the "race" category:
Is it bad for a Native American actor to portray a Native American character from a different tribe?
Is it bad for an Indian actor to portray an Indian character of a different caste?
Is it bad for a mixed-race actor who can "pass" for white to portray a character of their non-white ancestry? (Think of Keanu Reeves playing a Chinese character. Or for a less ridiculous example, Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider.)
Is it bad for an African American actor to portray a Jamaican character?
The fact that Kingsley is himself a minority actor also complicates the issue in the present case.
I think these are interesting questions.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam: if they'd cast Kingsley and changed the story so that Rackham is an Indian, what would you think? Good? Bad?
Also bad. At least now the maori don't have people playing dress-up maori warrior for cultural tokenism, so you can cynically say it's marginally better.
So once OSC wrote that Rackham was half Maori it was a foregone conclusion. There is literally no scenario in which they can do anything but hire a half Maori actor if they want to avoid allegations of racism (from you). Doesn't matter who answers the casting calls, or how well they do. Every other race need not apply.
That's pretty racist, it seems to me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QUOTE]So once OSC wrote that Rackham was half Maori it was a foregone conclusion. There is literally no scenario in which they can do anything but hire a half Maori actor if they want to avoid allegations of racism (from you). Doesn't matter who answers the casting calls, or how well they do. Every other race need not apply.
That's pretty racist, it seems to me.
It seems to me that, once you start talking/thinking in moral absolutes about issues as complex as race and class, you might be missing the forest for the trees.
And I'm not accusing you of this specifically, Dan. Other posters more so, if anything.
Ultimately, though, it's art. If you don't like the casting, cast your own damn movie. I mean, it's not like this is Porgy and Bess, for Pete's sake. Rackham's ancestry is clearly an afterthought, more to give an impression of the thoroughly global and mixed nature of humanity and human society during the events of the book. OSC figured he had already included all the major ethnicities and cultures, and was obviously casting about for an obscure one. Bam! Maori it is, and half-Maori to emphasize that there's lots of racial mixing! ROFL
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Also, OSC apparently was more than a bit frustrated with the choice of a non-Maori actor for Mazer back when Kingsley was first announced - but it seems like the marketers have decided to hang quite a bit on Kingsley and Ford as their bankable stars. I can see their point (and hope it does draw a lot of people to the film), but I personally would have loved to see a Maori actor as Mazer - even though I am a fan of Kingsley.
I would argue that perhaps Mazer's race was originally just texture or diversity tokenism, but both Card and Aaron Johnston have done quite a bit to flesh out the Maori side of Mazer in "Mazer in Prison" and the Formic Wars materials.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: [QB] OSC figured he had already included all the major ethnicities and cultures, and was obviously casting about for an obscure one. Bam! Maori it is, and half-Maori to emphasize that there's lots of racial mixing! ROFL
Maori was specifically chosen as an answer to a supposed superstition in the IF that Jews don't lose space battles. Reflected upon by Ender as being a bit off, considering a half-Maori Kiwi commanded the auxiliary fleet that actually defeated the bugger invasion.
In that sense, at least by my recollection, it didn't feel to me like any kind of literary affirmative action.
That being said, token casting is something which I actually often associate with OSC- his characters, especially in later years, pretty much *have* to be racially distinctive in some way: black Brazilians, Serbian, Maori, Samoan, Japanese, Qechua, Greek/African, etc. Even such that he retconned (or side-conned) some of his characters like Bean into races that had not been specified earlier.
And I call it token casting because the way OSC tends to do it, the characters that he makes racially distinctive usually benefit from some ennobling feature of their race which subtly makes them better than others. Most subscribe fully to the magical racial concepts inherent in token casting: race = spiritualism, and all that.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
Johnny Depp is playing a native American in this summer's Lone Ranger. So far there has been no uproar.
This entire discussion is silly.
*Actors play roles*. The whole point is that they aren't really the characters they are portraying.
If we refuse to allow a half-Eglish, half-Indian actor to portray a Maori, it leads to an endless game of rules, of what actors are allowed to portray. Others already provided long lists of examples of this.
For example, we should have not allowed Kingsley to play Gandhi. It would be easy to argue in historical context, that it's in fact very offending that a half-English actor was allowed to play arguably the most famous Indian of all time, *who became famous by fighting against English colonialist rule*. In fact, back in the day there was an uproar among Indian ultra-nationalists, who hated this idea.
Also it could be argued that Kingsley should have never been allowed to play the countless of pure-breed British roles he has played. I'm sure you can find many British anti-immigrant thinkers and white supremacists, who agree with this idea.
These kind of limitations sound pretty prejudiced me. You are judging actors and their ability to play a role based on their ethnicity. If anything, this kind of thinking will increase racism.
Maybe we should just let a proven *great* actor do his performance, and then judge him, eh? Before we put him in a ghetto where he is only allowed to play half-English, half-Indian roles.
The 15 seconds of teaser look pretty neat. The kid looks like a good Ender.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So, anyone see the 10 seconds from the film yet?
Oh man, my body is ready.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh man, my body is ready.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Major Anderson was (from what I gathered from the book) a white male.
They cast Viola Davis in the role, and I've no problems with that.
I would have REALLY liked to see Manu Bennett as Mazer, however I understand why Sir Ben Kingsley was cast in the role.
Placing big name actors like Ford, Davis, and Kingsley provide a sort of "free" type of marketing simply because their names are recognizable.
They will also have a very easy time making it onto late night shows as guests to talk about the film as well.
From a marketing perspective, the casting is brilliant. They got some of the biggest adult actors and arguably the biggest names out there for child actors to be in the film. Based on name recognition alone, the movie will probably make a ton of money.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: They cast Viola Davis in the role, and I've no problems with that.
Well duh. One is a necessary double standard to alleviate institutional racism and the other is institutional racism.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
There was never anything in the book (From what I can remember) that said all of the major characters were white males.
In my opinion Changing Anderson from a white male (now that I think about it, his race is never mentioned in the book) to a black female shouldn't be taken as alleviating any kind of institutional racism. There are numerous examples of people from different races present in the books! The children are form a variety of countries, there is no reason the adults couldn't be as well.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
A particularly poignant feature of reading EG over and over as I've grown up is the blindly and silent inclusiveness. On my third reading I figured out that the other boy who Bernard was mocking (for the life of me I can't remember his name) was black. I had to become aware of Islam and the Middle East to understand how OSC intended me to visualize Alai.
When Battle School becomes a white majority, or an American majority for that matter, institution it loses some its powerful premise. An idea that I learned from as I became cognizant of the world and people far away. For it to be trivialized and made into a caricature would be unfortunate in my opinion.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
The cast for the film is very multi-national and multi-ethnical.
I don't think casting a half-Indian man and a black woman is making it more homogenous.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: They cast Viola Davis in the role, and I've no problems with that.
Well duh. One is a necessary double standard to alleviate institutional racism and the other is institutional racism.
Wow.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I agree that double standards can be justified in this sort of thing. But I think the important thing is that more minority actors get cast in more good parts, not that every part in an adaptation must go to an actor of the specific race that part was written for. I have a problem with Depp being cast as Tanto and Rooney cast as old mister whatever, but I have zero problem with Kingsley being cast as Rackham.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
On a lighter note, I have recently become in possession of a class set of hardbound copies of Ender's Game and will be teaching the novel next year to my eighth graders, leading up to the movie premiere!
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
That's awesome, Belle! I have Ender's Game on my list of books my students can read for their final paper, and hopefully several of my students next semester will do it!
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: On a lighter note, I have recently become in possession of a class set of hardbound copies of Ender's Game and will be teaching the novel next year to my eighth graders, leading up to the movie premiere!
Reminds me of how we studied The Great Gatsby this semester in my American Literature class.
Though I am convinced the Gatsby movie will be terrible.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
What lucky kids! I wish I had teachers with such good taste instead of reading The Hobbit four times.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
MovieBob most likely doesn't have a problem with a half-Indian minority actor being chosen instead of a Maori minority actor. If you think so, you pretty much missed his point.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: What lucky kids! I wish I had teachers with such good taste instead of reading The Hobbit four times.
What was the point of reading The Hobbit? It breaks good writing practice on purpose by making the opening very boring, in imitation of Norse epics.
I had to read Madame Bovary. Dude, it was lame and pretentious. Also, kind of woman-hating.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It was the era of Peter Jackson's movies, and instead of having a banned book list my school district had an approved book list. And they say there isn't enough conservatism in public schools.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: It was the era of Peter Jackson's movies, and instead of having a banned book list my school district had an approved book list. And they say there isn't enough conservatism in public schools.
Arizona, right? Yeah, I hear they suck.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: There was never anything in the book (From what I can remember) that said all of the major characters were white males.
In my opinion Changing Anderson from a white male (now that I think about it, his race is never mentioned in the book) to a black female shouldn't be taken as alleviating any kind of institutional racism. There are numerous examples of people from different races present in the books! The children are form a variety of countries, there is no reason the adults couldn't be as well.
In part your recollection is incomplete. In Ender's Game, it's stated at several points that the leaders of Battle School are Americans, as Ender is. Crazy Tom, from The Netherlands, points out that the system of the school is based on American values, and therefore favors American thinking, despite the fact that many of the students are not Americans.
So while we can't precisely say what racial backgrounds are represented by America, surely the cultural values were mostly those associated with America (or whatever those might be in two centuries, etc).
In later books this is also retconned (kind of) to include Chinese, Indian and other staff members in the Battle School, and it is subtly implied in Ender's Exile that Graff may actually be Irish, insofar as he has any national identity.
It is also stated in the short story (or at least strongly implied), that Bean was a ward of the state, but that this was the rule rather than the exception- later OSC seized upon this detail to develop Beans backstory, when he decided that the background of Battle School children wasn't "Soldier" style child farms. The implication that presence at Battle School is planned from much earlier on is erased by the idea that it is merely coerced. Then in later books, OSC softens that also to make it seem like it's a matter of prestige, whereas he had played upon the tension some of the students there felt at having been coerced to be there in the earlier books (particularly in Ender's Game).
So as much as OSC worked to soften the image of battle school over subsequent books, it was originally presented as being much more brutal and violent than later. It was also originally presented as being culturally dominated by Americans and American values- something that was probably more relevant to readers 30 years ago than today, given that one of the background elements of the first book was about American and Russian conflict over Earthwide hegemony. In the Shadow books we see that shift to a kind of free-for-all board game style Earth, freely referred to by OSC as based on the concepts of Risk (something that critics of his political sci-fi world building have referred to as naive).
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: It was the era of Peter Jackson's movies, and instead of having a banned book list my school district had an approved book list. And they say there isn't enough conservatism in public schools.
Arizona, right? Yeah, I hear they suck.
Indeed. On occasion there were even christian rock bands playing in the middle of the school as students waited for the bus. The principle didn't have much appreciation for freedom of speech or the display of cultural inheritance. Only two of the teachers I knew and respected are still teaching, everyone else was either fired or bullied out.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Your principal sounds like a great guy, in a great state, doing a great job. ROFL
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
The problem with that way of thinking is, when are you ever going to *find* a bankable Maori actor in Hollywood, if you never give him roles in films for him to build his resume, even for the tiny fraction of roles that he/she would be physically *perfect* for?
It's a self-perpetuating problem. No one will hire the actors because they're not famous, and none of the actors will be famous because they're not being hired.
We're looking at a big-budget adaptation of a popular young adult novel with an already huge name attached (Harrison Ford). They didn't need to add another big name in Ben Kingsley, who might not even resonate with the target audience of teenagers and young adults as much.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
The problem with that way of thinking is, when are you ever going to *find* a bankable Maori actor in Hollywood, if you never give him roles in films for him to build his resume, even for the tiny fraction of roles that he/she would be physically *perfect* for?
It's a self-perpetuating problem. No one will hire the actors because they're not famous, and none of the actors will be famous because they're not being hired.
We're looking at a big-budget adaptation of a popular young adult novel with an already huge name attached (Harrison Ford). They didn't need to add another big name in Ben Kingsley, who might not even resonate with the target audience of teenagers and young adults as much.
To your first point--most big-budget blockbuster movies are written, made, and financed in the US, by Americans. There's not exactly a large Maori population here. The black community has broken into movie-making here and there (Will Smith, Denzel, etc.) by simply being here and also by being a large enough population (with enough regular movie-goers) to have some influence. Maoris are not in the US (largely), and also don't have a large-enough population here or worldwide to have much effect box office numbers, or on DVD sales, etc..
To your second point--kids, especially boys, were already going to show up to a sci-fi blockbuster with a young boy as the star. Harrison Ford and Ben Kingsley help ensure that older folks will also give it a try.
And finally, let's be real about Maori culture--they were brutal cannibals. They killed and ate several of Captain Cooks' crew, and then taunted him when he did nothing about it. This isn't a warm-and-fuzzy culture. Breaking the cannibalism taboo is a tough PR problem to overcome.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Also, this is the very first movie of any of OSC's writing. I think it makes sense to establish him as a bankable writer in the eyes of Hollywood executives before trying to get all high and mighty with obscure PC issues regarding casting, maybe.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: People who get their panties twisted over name actors being cast in major Hollywood movies over nobodies who would satisfy fanboys (by being the EXACT right race that the author made up for the character) have zero understanding of how movies get made and financed.
The problem with that way of thinking is, when are you ever going to *find* a bankable Maori actor in Hollywood, if you never give him roles in films for him to build his resume, even for the tiny fraction of roles that he/she would be physically *perfect* for?
It's a self-perpetuating problem. No one will hire the actors because they're not famous, and none of the actors will be famous because they're not being hired.
We're looking at a big-budget adaptation of a popular young adult novel with an already huge name attached (Harrison Ford). They didn't need to add another big name in Ben Kingsley, who might not even resonate with the target audience of teenagers and young adults as much.
Maori actors mostly act in NZ movies. Probably not an coincidence.
However, how many older Maori actors do you know of the acting calibre of Ben Kinsgley? This is actually a rather important question.
I don't know any.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Kingsley seems like a so-so casting for Mazer though. But he was great is Shutter Island.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't agree...about soso casting...but I'd have liked to have seen Ed Harris in that role. Forget all that race hullabaloo, he is such a great actor!
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
MovieBob most likely doesn't have a problem with a half-Indian minority actor being chosen instead of a Maori minority actor. If you think so, you pretty much missed his point.
Why would I think he does?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's so much I have to catch up on and work through. Some good points have been raised, and some extremely concerning attitudes have been engaged to try to defend marginalizing behavior, but I'll start with this.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's pretty racist, it seems to me.
I can only hope! We have already determined from before that your definition of the word "racist" includes some things that are good and productive and that we will keep for good reasons. So stating that something I am advocating is "racist" does not really categorically say anything about it except that you are okay for it for what I can only assume are idealistic and probably 'raceblind' reasons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But I would like to reiterate that there are plenty of extremely worthwhile questions that I intend to engage probably far less reflexively than you think I would, and I know why.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's pretty racist, it seems to me.
I can only hope! We have already determined from before that your definition of the word "racist" includes some things that are good and productive and that we will keep for good reasons. So stating that something I am advocating is "racist" does not really categorically say anything about it except that you are okay for it for what I can only assume are idealistic and probably 'raceblind' reasons.
Who is "we" in this context? You didn't capitalize it the second time, so I know it's not the royal We. So... what gives?
Also, can you read this sentence again? You might want to read it aloud... "So stating that something I am advocating is "racist" does not really categorically say anything about it except that you are okay for it for what I can only assume are idealistic and probably 'raceblind' reasons."
I'm not real sure what you're saying here, and it doesn't hang together grammatically. In particular, "you are okay for it for" really jumps off the page.
What does "raceblind" mean in this context?
And finally... so, was my characterization of your position (the one you cut from your quote) correct? That is: Once OSC wrote the character as half-Maori, any casting choice or rewrite that did not leave us with a half-Maori actor playing the role would constitute an example of a Bad Racist Thing?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dan, nitpicking Sam's grammar makes you seem petty and. disingenuous. Now, if you had just said: "I don't understand what you mean," which you often do anyway, it might sound like you actually wanted to have something clarified. But this is just another variation on your old strategy: "I don't get your argument (subtext: your argument is too stupid or abstruse to be understood by me, a common sense kind of guy). You do this a lot; I wonder if you know that it is transparent.
You'll probably ask me to clarify what I mean by all this. That would be nice.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Someone suggested Cliff Curtis for Mazer, and while he doesn't immediately spring to my head as "that's what Mazer should look like" (honestly, Kingsley's angular face really does work in my head, despite the race issue), having really enjoyed his performance in "Push," I could totally see him as Mazer (perhaps a tag young, but what's makeup for
I think there are definitely good ways to bring up the profile of actors - in general, it's tough to cast them in such central roles as a breakout role (and I'm sure there are tons of exceptions). My guess is that studios (who make really weird decisions anyway) are much more comfortable casting a major part in something with a small budget like The Hurt Locker, where they probably won't make a big difference to marketing or hurt the bottom line, but might garner nominations and awards like Jeremy Renner did in that film. (Speaking of which, it's made me so sad that Anthony Mackie hasn't had the same meteoric rise as Renner, though maybe appearing in Captain America: The Winter Soldier as a superhero will help - one can only hope).
(Side note: what's with the Maori culture-bashing? I mean, what race doesn't have widespread skeletons in its closet?)
Long story short - people were throwing around some names of Maori/part-Maori actors when Kingsley was cast (which OSC was also a bit irked at, according to this: http://www.honkifyoulovejustice.com/2011/12/12/enders-game-news-ben-kingsley-and-hollywood-whitewashing). However, I hope that Kingsley's appearance in the film will raise the profile of Maori characters, and maybe open the minds of producers willing to take a chance on doing a similar character, only casting them as Maori.
I also hope the film with 1) be awesome; 2) be successful. I'm really not sure of either. But right now, I'm inclined to be very excited.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Curtis is awesome, but he's a little young to play Rackham.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: (Side note: what's with the Maori culture-bashing? I mean, what race doesn't have widespread skeletons in its closet?)
They ate people. It's not like there were any non-cannibal Maori. They were all cannibals. It was part of the culture.
I'm not bashing. I'm observing that an entire culture than regularly and enthusiastically killed and cannibalized outsiders is a tough sell to the dominant cultures on this planet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here, I can give a copyedited revise:
We have already determined from before that your definition of the word "racist" includes some things that are good and productive and that we will keep for good reasons.
"We" being me and other people who have paid attention to your ideological tendencies.
So saying that something I advocate is pretty racist doesn't really say anything about it, except that probably gets your dander up as a policy and that you very much so Do Not Like It in your idealized racial theory. The category of "Things Dan thinks are racist" encompasses a lot of good, neutral, and bad things.
As for raceblind ideology: it is that sort of thing you get when someone talks all like "there should be no policy that takes a person's race into account! Our law and our morals should be colorblind!" or any variation on that theme. It's such a useless ideology, yet it comes up even when law isn't at issue, like here wherein I am not even positing something like "it should be illegal for someone to play dress-up as a maori so that they can have their ethnic tokenism while still getting the casting power that said practice often denies actual maori actors" but am instead positing that people should be aware that it is offensive and is Yet Another Example of problematic marginalization endemic to hollywood that movies should strive to be above.
If someone being aware of and speak up about these racial issues turns into "No sam, YOU are the REAL racist!" I should only laugh in response.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dan, nitpicking Sam's grammar makes you seem petty and. disingenuous. Now, if you had just said: "I don't understand what you mean," which you often do anyway, it might sound like you actually wanted to have something clarified. But this is just another variation on your old strategy: "I don't get your argument (subtext: your argument is too stupid or abstruse to be understood by me, a common sense kind of guy). You do this a lot; I wonder if you know that it is transparent.
You'll probably ask me to clarify what I mean by all this. That would be nice.
Woah! This really speaks volumes about how reluctant most people are to admit to ignorance. I'm not, though, Orincoro.
I don't mind admitting when I don't understand something. It's not a subtle ploy, or a rhetorical trick. I pretty thoroughly hate both of those things. I like clarifying things when I don't understand. That's really all it is. It's just me admitting when something didn't make sense to me.
Now, I might think the common cause of this is that other people are speaking obtusely, but what the hell do I know? I would think that was the reason. You or Sam or Blayne are well within your rights to argue that I'm just not paying enough attention or whatever.
[ May 06, 2013, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Er...is anyone trying to deny that Maori WAS (in the Past Tense) a cannibalistic culture? Are there instances of people trying to argue that Maori cannibalism wasn't really a bad thing? I...can't see where this "PR fiasco" is coming from. And how casting Ben Kingsley, and making him sport really obvious Maori tatoos, is going to make it any better. Kingsley would probably flub any questions about the culture much worse, since he's...um...not Maori. Which was the point of the complaint in the first place.
It's like casting a white person in blackface as an African slave trader who sold slaves to American and British slave traders. Like...why does casting a white person make it better?
Finally, I agree with you completely about Kingsley being a huge asset to the production in performance and marketing. I think it's a smart decision - and I also have reservations about possible cultural appropriation. Those reservations have nothing to do with my expectation that he will be a great Mazer. I've also said that I think Kingsley actually looks like Mazer in my head (which...erm...might say sad things about my vision of Mazer as a Maori, but...well...there you have it).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Er...is anyone trying to deny that Maori WAS (in the Past Tense) a cannibalistic culture? Are there instances of people trying to argue that Maori cannibalism wasn't really a bad thing? I...can't see where this "PR fiasco" is coming from. And how casting Ben Kingsley, and making him sport really obvious Maori tatoos, is going to make it any better. Kingsley would probably flub any questions about the culture much worse, since he's...um...not Maori. Which was the point of the complaint in the first place.
It's like casting a white person in blackface as an African slave trader who sold slaves to American and British slave traders. Like...why does casting a white person make it better?
OK, fine, sue me, I'm culture-bashing.
And as far as a possible PR fiasco, things look different when it's your own money on the line. Things also look different if you are the person whose responsibility it is to make sure this kind of thing CAN'T happen, and your job (and future employability) DEPEND on such things NEVER happening.
I guarantee you that there is more than one person (on this production) whose future employability would be curtailed or damaged if such a fiasco WERE to happen. And if you were in their shoes, you'd see this differently...or you lack a normal sense of self-preservation, one or the other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you imagine 'fielding potential cannibalism questions' made even the top 10 reasons to go with Kingsley rather than a Maori actor of any or no skill or repute, well.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you imagine 'fielding potential cannibalism questions' made even the top 10 reasons to go with Kingsley rather than a Maori actor of any or no skill or repute, well.
I never said I imagined that, did I, Rakeesh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, what, then, top 20? That weird cannibalism press conference scenario you posited a PR guy being concerned about wasn't...well, you positing a PR guy being concerned about cannibalism press?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So, what, then, top 20? That weird cannibalism press conference scenario you posited a PR guy being concerned about wasn't...well, you positing a PR guy being concerned about cannibalism press?
Enjoy the box. I'm not coming in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, so you *do* remember! That's good to have a stock phrase for when you say something silly. Quality by volume!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maori cannibalism didn't really arise until the moa and other large birds had gone extinct and there wasn't a suitable replacement source of meat.
But the idea that they were all cannibals is oversimplifying the matter. AFAIK There's no culture in known history where virtually, or even most everybody was a cannibal.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
Really?!
Carrying on... As a New Zealander I would have loved to have seen a Maori playing Mazer. We are a small country who are VERY proud (and protective and possessive) of our high achievers, be it sporting, entertainment or academic. We think it's awesome when we see mention of anything "kiwi" anywhere else - I got a thrill when reading Ender's Game and finding that Mazer was a half-Maori and that would have been the same if Mazer had been played by a New Zealander in the movie as well. However, wasn't to be. I never imagined Mazer with a moko (though had no trouble imagining him as Maori), but it looks ok.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I'm curious - how common is the moko today? I'm just wondering in terms of plausibility of a person many hundreds of years in the future having one.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, so you *do* remember! That's good to have a stock phrase for when you say something silly. Quality by volume!
I don't know what you're referring to when you say "so you *do* remember!", but you seem triumphant for some reason, so...yay?
Why DO you spend so much time in the box, exactly? Do you just enjoy it, or are you getting some kind of perceived benefit from it?
Rakeesh, instead of you aggravating the heck out of me until we get so acrimonious that Blackblade forbids us from interacting, how about you just start ignoring me NOW? I want nothing to do with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
This is the most asinine reason anyone has come up with for why Kingsley playing dress-up as a maori is a preferential alternative. "Oh, so if we let a maori represent a maori character from the book, they might become famous, and people might discover that the maori were cannibals and ask the actor some tough questions. God, wouldn't that be terrible? See why it's better we don't have the maori representing themselves and instead we have non-maori play dress-up in fake moko tattoos.
And besides, it's more bankable!"
It's amazing to me that you're serious about this.
Also. Steven. Shut up about "the box" forever.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
This is why we don't let white Americans become big time actors, you know with that whole slavery thing and all. Embarrassing!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't believe steven actually thinks concerns over uncomfortable press questions about cultural cannibalism were much of if at all a reason for choosing not to go with a Maori actor, even though the words he used to describe the scenario certainly paint it as a not-first but still present concern some hypothetical PR guy might have been thinking of.
I think if someone other than myself had pointed out how silly that notion was-and for the record, I didn't suggest it was *impossible* for some PR guy to worry about that, only that there were far, far more reasons to choose a Kingsley before that would even be a factor-this discussion might've gone differently.
But it was me, and so far as I can tell steven really wants that box schtick to sting which is why he continues to use it. As for me, I just thought it was funny and continue to do so. Not only is it an amusing exercise in hypocrisy to come from steven, but the whole exercise of 'Hey, you! [Insult someone else thought up], haha!'
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Looks pretty fascinating - there's a ton of interesting worldbuilding clues revealed. I'm particularly interseted that Mazer is supposed to have died...but they're showing Kingsley in the teaser to the teaser trailer, so seems like there's some odd stuff going on in the marketing campaign.
Furthermore, the 2-child policy is apparently only 15 years old in the film, whilst in Polish Boy, it's clear that the policy has been going on for several years before Ender's father was born.
Thoughts? I'm very excited at the detail here!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
This is the most asinine reason anyone has come up with for why Kingsley playing dress-up as a maori is a preferential alternative. "Oh, so if we let a maori represent a maori character from the book, they might become famous, and people might discover that the maori were cannibals and ask the actor some tough questions. God, wouldn't that be terrible? See why it's better we don't have the maori representing themselves and instead we have non-maori play dress-up in fake moko tattoos.
And besides, it's more bankable!"
It's amazing to me that you're serious about this.
Also. Steven. Shut up about "the box" forever.
I only got to that point after giving MANY other reasons why Kingsley is the best choice. None of the common sense reasons worked for you or miller-whatever, so...I came up with some random BS at 1 in the morning. If you didn't like what I came up with, maybe you should have stopped arguing before I ran out of GOOD reasons. ROFL
YMMV, I see no reason to risk a bankable franchise over some BS random choice that OSC made 30 years ago. He can retcon all he wants, but Mazer could just as easily have been from one of 500 other tiny cultures, and we all know it.
As far as the box thing goes, dude, you've not got the guts to talk to me that way in person, and everybody knows it. How about that?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't believe steven actually thinks concerns over uncomfortable press questions about cultural cannibalism were much of if at all a reason for choosing not to go with a Maori actor, even though the words he used to describe the scenario certainly paint it as a not-first but still present concern some hypothetical PR guy might have been thinking of.
I think if someone other than myself had pointed out how silly that notion was-and for the record, I didn't suggest it was *impossible* for some PR guy to worry about that, only that there were far, far more reasons to choose a Kingsley before that would even be a factor-this discussion might've gone differently.
But it was me, and so far as I can tell steven really wants that box schtick to sting which is why he continues to use it. As for me, I just thought it was funny and continue to do so. Not only is it an amusing exercise in hypocrisy to come from steven, but the whole exercise of 'Hey, you! [Insult someone else thought up], haha!'
You're right, my response to you was based on our previous interactions. It was also based on the fact that you have a problem with getting obsessed with specific posters and following them from thread to thread, like you did with me here, in this thread.
I don't care about the box, it's simply a way to get you to shut up. I don't understand why you post here, and I've never had a productive interaction with you. Why not just leave me alone? I nailed you. Get over it. the next step is moderation, like with you and Stone_Wolf. Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I'm curious - how common is the moko today? I'm just wondering in terms of plausibility of a person many hundreds of years in the future having one.
Ta Moko on the body is very very common. Facial moko less so, however, I feel it would be entirely plausible for a Maori hundreds of years in the future to have a facial moko. Maori are fiercely proud of their cultural heritage - tattoos are definitely a way in which they can express their connection with that heritage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven. Seriously. You've now gotten to the point where you're physically thumping your chest, so to speak, about an Internet argument, accusing others of being too afraid to 'face' you. You nailed me exactly to the extent you proved Samprimary a coward and yourself a fearsome specimen just now.
Forget the box. Throw it away. It's more than a little silly. Or...keep bringing it up. I'd count it as better if you ditched it, but continually trying to zing me with it is still funny too. And to be clear, this shift in the conversation? It's you. Had you said 'yeah, I know that's not likely at all' or 'hey, lemme clarify what I meant', or even 'lighten up Rakeesh, I meant this'...but you didn't. Instead you attempted to deny saying it at all, and then when I busted your balls over it 'insulted' me with (oh, no!) the box.
You're a step off of being the guy who says 'let's meet here and fight!' You don't have to be that guy.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Thanks so much, stacey! I was very curious, and really enjoy learning more about such details of real life culture, even more so when they make it into great stories like Ender's Game. I wonder if Mazer got his moko before or after the Second Invasion.
steven: Erm...not sure why my username is so hard to type...especially when you quoted me. But I HAVE agreed with many of your reasons - it's the "Maori are cannibals" argument I found confusing and a bit offensive. Kingsley is 1) a great actor (I adore him in Twelfth Night and have enjoyed him a lot in many other films); 2) bankable (especially after doing Iron Man 3, which he's getting rave reviews for, and I'm thrilled, since it means people who may not have followed Kingsley in his art films or his long, long career will be like "Hey, that dude who played the bad guy in that awesome Iron Man movie this year is in this other movie"); 3) looks a lot like my mental image of Mazer - wiry, tan, hook-nosed, bony featured.
So, it's not that you haven't convinced me about Kingsley doing a great job - I think he will - but it's more that I just didn't think the comment about Maori and cannibalism was helpful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: As far as the box thing goes, dude, you've not got the guts to talk to me that way in person, and everybody knows it. How about that?
I totally would, if for some inconceivable reason I was forced to have a face-to-face encounter with you. I would be able to say so just as effortlessly in person.
Let's say I wasn't, however. Let's say I had some sort of a social anxiety disorder or was for some reason actually intimidated by you and would avoid having to say it to you in person. What bearing would that have here, at all? What would successfully pulling the internet-tough-guy chest pounding prove? The box thing would be just as dumb, and you would only have proven that when challenged on the validity of your ideas, you like to invent validity through posturing. There is none. It's, like, painfully irrelevant as to whether or not I would tell you to stop the box thing in person. Painfully.
I'm actually mostly just surprised you expected or are playing on the notion that posturing gets you any leeway in this environment. I might as well have some fun with the idea that chestpounding grants any sort of argumentative validity here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light...
Me, I vividly recall the press conference that Richard Donner had to hold when he was removed from Superman 2 after the gruesome story of the Donner Party came to light.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [I don't mind admitting when I don't understand something. It's not a subtle ploy, or a rhetorical trick.
Yes it is.
quote: I pretty thoroughly hate both of those things.
No you don't.
Here's proof:
quote: Woah! This really speaks volumes about how reluctant most people are to admit to ignorance. I'm not, though, Orincoro.
This is a rhetorical trick. Specifically it is an ad hominem, it is the implication that because I drew the conclusion that you often use an appeal to credulity or ignorance as a ploy that I am afraid of admitting my ignorance, and am therefore unqualified to assess what you say, or otherwise biased against you, and that therefore my assessment is not worth consideration.
This is what we call "rhetoric," and nobody *doesn't* do it. You might as well hate syntax. It's not a thing to be liked or not liked. It's just a thing.
You may respond with some appeal to the etymology of rhetoric: please don't. Rhetoric is not a communist dictator yelling into a microphone, in the sense that this is not what rhetoric encompasses, no more than it encompasses all speech.
quote: It's just me admitting when something didn't make sense to me.
Sometimes. But not always. You tend to overuse a narrow set of rhetorical tricks because you are so used to them, you don't even think they're tricks. This is what I am pointing out to you, and you helpfully supplied an example of exactly what I meant: an appeal to ignorance that you are even using rhetoric, which is in itself rhetorically loaded.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nope. I have no particular opinion about how reluctant you may or may not be to admit ignorance.
But the assumption you make when someone else admits ignorance is that it's a trick. I guessed that the reason for this is because you very rarely see someone do it in earnest.
You're looking for nasty subtext and implications where I don't intend any. Misunderstandings are easy, though, so you can pretty much do that all day. All I'm telling you is that you're wasting your time.
Do you really think that all rhetoric is rhetorical tricks? That it's impossible to argue without them? Or did I misunderstand? (Oh no I'm allowing that I may have misunderstood again, how nefarious)
[ May 07, 2013, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But the assumption you make when someone else admits ignorance is that it's a trick.
No, this is not my assumption. This is my conclusion. About you. One based on my experiences with you.
quote: I guessed that the reason for this is because you very rarely see someone do it in earnest.
Yes, I very rarely see *you* do it in earnest.
quote: Do you really think that all rhetoric is rhetorical tricks? That it's impossible to argue without them?
In the sense that all persuasive speech is rhetorical no, not all rhetoric is a "trick," nor is any rhetoric really a trick, unless the intent is to use rhetoric to disguise actual intent.
In the sense of how you, Dan_Frank, typically argue, the "trick" involved is that you very often attempt to support your opinions (to argue) by misconstruing the meaning of another person's view of the facts: that is, to attempt to disable another person from arguing by refusing to accept the basis of the argument on one ground our another. I am characterizing this as dishonest because it allows you to pretend to be trying to establish facts (or your own understanding of another person's argument), while you actually try to discourage someone from communicating something that you don't agree with *and* establish your own views on the subject (which nobody has time to argue against, because you "don't understand" the responses).
And occasionally, you leap far enough down that road to start criticizing someone's grammar as a proxy for the quality of their thinking or reasoning, as you did earlier in this discussion. Anything *not* to accept a premise you don't agree with, valid as a premise or not, and allow someone else to make a point based on that premise, that puts you in danger of not keeping up. Of course, all the while, you don't keep up, but you at least think you do.
In a few words, this is what we refer to as "bad faith" argumentation, and it is the resort of weak parties to an argument that nevertheless wish to represent their views, and have no other recourse.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So before I waste my time, let me just ask: is there anything anyone could say at this point to change your mind? Any way you think you could be mistaken? Any way you could have misunderstood me?
I think I already know the answer but I want to be sure.
Because you've laid out a broad characterization above and I disagree with pretty much all of it. You haven't really explained why you think I do this, either. Just laid it out as The Thing That I Do.
Arguing against that is tricky. I think it'd be made trickier because you aren't interested in finding the truth, you're certain you've already found it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And occasionally, you leap far enough down that road to start criticizing someone's grammar as a proxy for the quality of their thinking or reasoning, as you did earlier in this discussion.
Oh I wanted to respond to this specifically too.
I wasn't saying that Sam's bad sentence structure was a proxy for his bad argument. Hell I had a whole different paragraph for that.
I mentioned the sentence, though, because it's indicative of something else. Here, I'll address Sam directly:
Sam I think that you're usually a clear writer. But I've noticed that sometimes when you put on your professorial Smart Person hat in Serious Discussions the readability of your prose takes a hit.
It's not a horrible nosedive or anything (that's Blayne) and it doesn't mean anything you've said is wrong. But your sentences get longer, and more convoluted. You also start using unnecessarily specialized terminology without explaining, upfront, what you're referring to. That's less of an issue than the long, convoluted sentences, though.
Anyway, it makes it harder to follow you, in my opinion. Just so you know.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's not a horrible nosedive or anything (that's Blayne) and it doesn't mean anything you've said is wrong. But your sentences get longer, and more convoluted. You also start using unnecessarily specialized terminology without explaining, upfront, what you're referring to. That's less of an issue than the long, convoluted sentences, though.
Anyway, it makes it harder to follow you, in my opinion. Just so you know.
I agree with this. If you look back at the first page of this thread, you'll see that I also asked Sam to restate a sentence which was borderline unreadable.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Anyway...trailer in half an hour! Anyone read up on the IF site yet?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Kids look a little old. But the effects, acting, and tone look great.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules.
I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media.
This one, right?
Does it require being put in simpler terms for you? Unlike with the other request for rephrase, nothing in this portion is mis-typed, though there are swype errors below it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Was Peter cut from the story?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I doubt it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
he's on the imdb page
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think so. But that might be too much stuff for a trailer to show.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Ok, so the trailer is out. Did they just give away the ending?
I don't think so. Shhhhhhhhh!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Does it require being put in simpler terms for you? Unlike with the other request for rephrase, nothing in this portion is mis-typed, though there are swype errors below it.
Yeah, I think simpler terms would help. What does it mean for us to see that a way of relaxing the rules is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a marginalizing system?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That was terrible, plus, you know, spoiled the entire plot.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Naw. If you've read the book, you' know the ending. If you haven't read the book, you have no idea what that explosion is.
What a thing. Wow. The tone does look right.
But I was watching the talking heads about the movie production and am a little sad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't want to get in the habit-reputation of negative nancying everything about this movie but hey I gotta say some things
1. bad trailer is bad
2. spoiler trailer is spoiler
3. harrison ford's dialogue just sounds more stiff and forced every year and the dialogue in that trailer kinda gives a good example of that
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, Ford sounds awful. It's like someone doing a cheesy impression of him playing the president from Air Force One.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If you haven't read the book, you have no idea what that explosion is.
Yeah, but you are going to know when you see the movie.
quote:What a thing. Wow. The tone does look right.
We live in very different worlds. The tone (kick ass space adventure) was exactly what I was afraid it was going to be. Ender's Game, the book, is primarily a psychological work. What "Wow, cool!" stuff there is is on a child's level.
In this, they opened with a Michael Bey sequence and turned Ender's agonized quitting "I don't even care anymore" final use of the MD device into a resolute attack.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Could be just the trailer.
I remember the trailer for Moon being all high octane action mystery, but the real movie was far from that. And in a very good way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I'm hoping it is just the trailer.
But, you've got to really wonder if they get the book when they put a huge spoiler in the trailer and make it look like an "America, heck yeah!" moment, instead of the action of a beyond exhausted, broken little kid who can't take any more.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I am pretty weirded out by all the spoilers.
However...ENDER AND VALENTINE AT THE LAKE WITH GRAFF IN THE CAR. Now that is super promising stuff!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
FORD: When they attacked us, there was a lot of CGI.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: If we're going to survive, we need an Inception BWAAAAAWM.
BWAAAAWM: BWAAAAAWM.
FORD: Thank you.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: We will .. need ... for Asa Butterfield to be the best superwarrior genius ... ever.
BUTTERFIELD: Will I be the best superwarrior genius ever?
FORD: Yes.
KINGSLEY: Since I'm literally wearing the name "Rackham" on my shirt I hope the movie doesn't make too big a deal on whether or not I'm alive before my 'surprise' reveal. Hi I played the manchurian and
BUTTERFIELD: Shall we CGI our way to the generic action sci-fi movie conclusion?
FORD: With pleasure.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Interesting choice to not put OSC's name on it. I predict we'll see a lot of this attempt to include the accolades for the book without getting into who the author actually is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, I'm hoping it is just the trailer.
But, you've got to really wonder if they get the book when they put a huge spoiler in the trailer and make it look like an "America, heck yeah!" moment, instead of the action of a beyond exhausted, broken little kid who can't take any more.
Trailers are designed to appeal to the largest common denominator. As a means to get people to the theater, it's probably succeeded.
As a tool to reassure me that the movie is going to be a fantastic film, it doesn't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: FORD: When they attacked us, there was a lot of CGI.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: If we're going to survive, we need an Inception BWAAAAAWM.
BWAAAAWM: BWAAAAAWM.
FORD: Thank you.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: We will .. need ... for Asa Butterfield to be the best superwarrior genius ... ever.
BUTTERFIELD: Will I be the best superwarrior genius ever?
FORD: Yes.
KINGSLEY: Since I'm literally wearing the name "Rackham" on my shirt I hope the movie doesn't make too big a deal on whether or not I'm alive before my 'surprise' reveal. Hi I played the manchurian and
BUTTERFIELD: Shall we CGI our way to the generic action sci-fi movie conclusion?
FORD: With pleasure.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, I'm hoping it is just the trailer.
But, you've got to really wonder if they get the book when they put a huge spoiler in the trailer and make it look like an "America, heck yeah!" moment, instead of the action of a beyond exhausted, broken little kid who can't take any more.
Trailers are designed to appeal to the largest common denominator. As a means to get people to the theater, it's probably succeeded.
As a tool to reassure me that the movie is going to be a fantastic film, it doesn't.
I agree with you, BlackBlade.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: FORD: When they attacked us, there was a lot of CGI.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: If we're going to survive, we need an Inception BWAAAAAWM.
BWAAAAWM: BWAAAAAWM.
FORD: Thank you.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
FORD: We will .. need ... for Asa Butterfield to be the best superwarrior genius ... ever.
BUTTERFIELD: Will I be the best superwarrior genius ever?
FORD: Yes.
KINGSLEY: Since I'm literally wearing the name "Rackham" on my shirt I hope the movie doesn't make too big a deal on whether or not I'm alive before my 'surprise' reveal. Hi I played the manchurian and
BUTTERFIELD: Shall we CGI our way to the generic action sci-fi movie conclusion?
FORD: With pleasure.
CGI: pyoo pyoo pyoo!
I think you should write screenplays for Micheal Bay.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't want to get in the habit-reputation of negative nancying everything about this movie . . .
Then stop.
I don't want to say that you sound like a jilted ex-girlfriend. . . .
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Is it going to be a devoted love letter to the book? No.
Is it going to be a CGI fueled popcorn flick with vague leanings on the book. Yes.
Is it going to make some (whiny) fanboys scream about character motivations, race, tone, theme, or intention? Yes.
Is there any likelihood that it will succeed, as a film, on its own merits, being likeable to non-rabit fans? Probably, based on the trailer.
Carry on. . . .
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yeah, they Michael Bay'd the hell out of that trailer. But trailers rarely say much about how a movie actually plays out. As for spoilers - you know they're spoilers because you read the book. The average movie goer who hasn't is just gonna see the doctor in action and go "what the...?"
I'm still pretty excited. In fact, Ford's voice over was the most off-putting thing about it to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't want to get in the habit-reputation of negative nancying everything about this movie . . .
Then stop.
I don't want to say that you sound like a jilted ex-girlfriend. . . .
Like I said, quit reaching really hard to troll the thread.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
One of us is trolling. That's a correct statement.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Wow, that was awful, for the all the reasons stated already.
Every time I see a trailer that is about how one person is going to save us all from the aliens, I just roll my eyes. And the Ender's Game trailer fell into this mold and failed to differentiate itself from every other movie that I can't name because they are all the same. And I never saw them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: One of us is trolling. That's a correct statement.
Good. It's you. you've been acting pretty trollish ever since your thread deletion spree and your open statement that you're going to 'teach the forums a lesson' — and it's not invisible to people that you've been taking potshots at me here. for now, i'm just going to opt not to bite, even if you keep attacking me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What I like about this is that the previous discussion I managed to invoke (heavily enough for pages of discussion) brought forth a persistent argument in favor of casting decisions which were more "bankable" rather than using more courageous and authentic options. And now, there's a sort of irony in that the trailer just threw everyone here a heavy indication that the movie has — not just in casting but in every conceivable way — taken the source work and tortured it through the most broadly marketable, generic and non-courageous, safe and "bankable," formulaic action blockbuster treatment possible.
When they went into making this movie, much like all the other false starts the movie had, there was a pronounced concern and a consistent theme of people here and elsewhere engaging in ameliorative talk about OSC's creative control, how he was hopefully not going to allow this movie to be watered down into a generic blockbuster instead of demanding they make something that used the strengths of the story, make the movie emphasize and draw most heavily from the psychological elements of the book which were great and which would allow the movie to be great.
But we just saw a trailer for a painfully generic blockbuster action film, with absolutely zero emphasis on what or who Ender is other than a generic young Last Hope Youth Wunderkind. If the trailer is any indication (hint: unless the producers are pulling an unprecedented fakeout, it is) then we know which route they have taken. You wanted the bankable option? You obviously have it.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Wow, that was awful, for the all the reasons stated already.
Every time I see a trailer that is about how one person is going to save us all from the aliens, I just roll my eyes. And the Ender's Game trailer fell into this mold and failed to differentiate itself from every other movie that I can't name because they are all the same. And I never saw them.
Yeah, but a lot of people did. That's the advantage of the faustian bargain of Blockbusterizing a source work. Do it with the exact sort of pablum competency which is required and pay a lot of people a lot of money to put in a lot of flashy visuals, and you got bank.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
asa sees the reaction to the trailer, chimes in on reddit
quote:Hey there, Asa Butterfield here (Ender) Proof: http://twitter.com/asabfb/status/331884661389271040/photo/1 I don't think there is a need to do a dedicated AMA post so I guess I can just answer some questions here. Firstly I'd like to say that if you have any fears of this film being all 'Hollywood', I can say that there is no need to be scared. The heart and soul of the story are as much a part of the film as they were in the book. Enders 'inner struggles' (yes I'm looking at you bugpoker) are still key in the film. Once again, AMA! Edit: it appears the people want me to do a proper AMA. So I will! In the morning. G'night.
so asa will be up on reddit soon
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
>If the trailer is any indication (hint: unless the producers are pulling an unprecedented fakeout, it is) then we know which route they have taken
Honestly, while I think the movie IS most likely a pretty generic blockbuster (because that's what most movies like this turn out to be), the trailer is also basically zero evidence for it one way or another, because trailers basically have to look like this now - it's the rule or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Trailers are habituating like that, but they've become abnormally consistent in showing the elements that the movie is prioritizing, and it's pretty consistent that you can guess what story and tone elements are going to be the most important in an adaptation by watching trailers.
Caveat, though: extended trailers add a lot to that. This may just be the Action Trailer and there's more extended trailers which will feature something else, like maybe some angsty overlayed dialogue with Ender. Something like "I don't know if I can handle this ;_;" or "Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing ;_;" and supporting characters (female usually) giving supportive talk like "you have to be strong don't you know what's at stake!" or "you can't let them get to you!" and maybe it'll cut to similar overlayed dialogue with battle school crew going "YOU JUST CAN'T PUSH THEM LIKE THIS" and some heavy moody thrums and
hm
maybe i should stop watching movie trailers altogether.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Sam,
I just think you're being way too fanboyish about the whole thing. And you seem to be taking the whole thing rather emotionally, down to the slightest minutiae. Yes, I'm often too dismissive. But you're coming off as a little . . . obsessive. You even admitted it in your post.
Dial it back a notch, brother.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Brother buddy pal chum tiger, if you think i'm fanboyish about this movie or are taking it 'too emotionally' that the trailer is a study in generic blockbusterification, I can't help you. I'm already compromised in that this is proving that I'm really bad at not taking your bait. Mix things up and stop talking about or to me, thanks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, I'm not sure 'fanboy' is a term that really fits well with being really interested in and enjoying a story such as Ender's Game. For me the term has a connotation reserved for strong liking of something that's, if not necessarily shallow, also not especially deep either.
For example, I'd call myself a Skyrim fanboy and think it was fair. Or a Choose Your Own Adventure fanboy. Or a Whose Line fanboy. But although I would self-describe my liking for the following other things, I wouldn't say that fanboy fits: Julia Child cooking shows, Lord of the Rings, To Kill a Mockingbird, Twelve Angry Men, Heavy Rain, the list could continue.
I'd put Ender's Game in the latter list-I've read that story cover to cover at least six times, and in full probably ten or more in the last...twenty years? It would be an understatement to say that I'm passionate aboit and appreciative of the story. It's got some weight to it.
So if the film does in fact take the story and 'splosion it up with a bunch of meaningful grim-faced emotional shots instead of the deeply meaningful examination about what it means to feel alone and pushed and wanting to do good but unable, a peek into the mental suffering of war, then I really don't think-and this is just my connotation of the word-that being upset about it is a sign of a fanboy.
Particularly not in this case where the word is almost certainly used as a mere insult in service to a preexisting grudge.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
FWIW, the book cover of the original paperback is pretty horrible itself.
I saw a few other things, and those are what make me think it could be good. The scene with Valentine. The scene with Anderson.
I think some people are forgetting that this is a movie full of technological WOW sci fi. It gets absorbed in the story of Ender and what is going on in his head. But it is all there. What are they going to play up?
The first part of the trailer WAS edited badly, though. It sounds like a normal conversation speed, so I suspect his words were lifted from a scene. I wish they'd rerecorded him for the trailer.
I also watched most of the Google hangout as well, till I had to leave. It gives me hope. And makes me sad that Card's name wasn't mentioned at all, but I see the strategy.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
My thoughts on the trailer:
The Formic ships are great. The way they swarm and the exotic alien design are a fantastic transposition of the book's sparse descriptions.
As for the shots of the Second Invasion, I don't expect that to play a huge part in the movie. My guess is that those shots will be shown at the beginning of the movie to establish the stakes, and then a cut away will show that they were part of IF propaganda reels.
Harrison Ford's voiceover sounds pretty phoned-in, and Asa sounds way older than 12. I will just have to accept that the characters are teens going into the movie, but I at least hope Ford will make up for the lackluster trailer voiceover with a nuanced and compelling Graff. His recent roles, even if they were in mediocre films, show that he can still act.
There are a couple of shots (one of which is at 1:08) that might be Eros, but don't really look like an asteroid, what with the cloud cover. What the heck is that place supposed to be?
The Battle Room looks great, but I'm worried that since the Earth is visible through the glass it will invite viewers to think of it as down, rather than the enemy's gate. As long as the camera doesn't stay in one orientation and doesn't always show the Earth as below, hopefully that won't be a problem.
The trailer does not spoil anything really meaningful. Yes, it was a bit of an epiphany in the book that Mazer was still alive, but we all know what the real plot twist is and we don't see that get spoiled.
Lots of CGI. LOTS of CGI. Looks pretty, but I hope the visual effects don't take priority over the emotional spirit of the story. Having just come off of a May the Fourth Star Wars marathon, the CGI looks a lot better now than sci-fi effects did 10 years ago. I do appreciate that they used a lot of practical effects; the Battle Room scenes are all done with real wire-work.
The simulator Ender uses in Command School appears to be a big hologram chamber with gesture-based and voice controls. Not exactly how I envisioned it, but I guess it makes sense for as visual a medium as film. I wonder how they'll show him talking to his toon leaders in those battles (Bean and Petra et al are going to be in those scenes, right?)
By far the most worrisome thing about the trailer is the end where Ender shouts "Now!" and there's a huge explosion. Not because it spoils the ending, but because the tone of that scene is supposed to be very different from the swashbuckling resolve we see. How they handle the final battle and the moments after that is critical to the success of the movie in my eyes.
Then again, that part of the trailer might actually be there to deceive audiences so that the real plot twist has its full effect. People will come into the theater expecting a popcorn space flick and find that the climactic moment that they saw in the trailer is actually much more emotionally complex than expected.
The trailer, interestingly, neither made me more nor less excited for the movie. There's nothing in it to get outraged about, but there's nothing making me wet with glee besides the fact that the Ender's Game movie that I've been wanting for over a decade is finally coming.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'll just come out and say it:
The Muppets had the best trailers of the last half-decade.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I thought the inside of battle school looked good.
other than that we just mostly saw expensive effects, so I don't have anything really to add.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Also, I think the use of the Little Doctor we see is probably at the very start of the war. The formics don't know we have it yet, and are hiding in the asteroid field.
It isn't actually firing on the planet at all.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Nice take on it, C3P0 DS.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The movie looks bad, but Butterfield's performance could save it any way (it won't). And at least I;m definitely not going to be bored while watching it.
curious to see Stanefield's Petra.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
The big "Now!" explosion could certainly be a spoiler, but I figured it's a totally different incident. It could be some other weapon that Ender is being trained to use in a simulation.
Refresh my memory. The Little Doctor was essentially a kind of missile, which had to be launched from a ship that was near enough to a planet's surface to work. Correct? The trailer is showing a death beam fired from a seemingly safe distance. I feel like the teaser is faking out people who have read it. "Why would they spoil the ending? Grumblegrumble." But it's not the ending at all. It's part of some training montage or the like.
Purely a guess.
And apparently Asa Butterfield will be doing an AMA(Ask Me Anything) tomorrow morning on reddit.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Had to be launched at something with mass. The more mass, the more of a knock-on effect it had.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
Ah, thank you, Bok. That jogged my memory perfectly.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Sam is such a drama queen.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Synesthesia was quoted on Salon.com Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Synesthesia was quoted on Salon.com
what. link.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
already calling it, it's a quote where something 'frustrates,' 'annoys,' or 'drives her crazy.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This trailer means absolutely nothing. I've seen footage used in trailers that was cut from the movie, alternative takes and utterly mangled timeline to represent something the -advertisers- wanted to put out there that the film didn't even have.
Remember folks, the people who made this trailer did not work on the movie, they work for the production company, and their sole job is to take whatever original, nuanced creation that comes across their desk and bland it down to the lowest common denominator. Boom! Bam! Flashy!
It is a bit upsetting to see a planet blowing up in the trailer, but considering the utter lack of really real explosions in the story, it's hardly surprising.
The only thing this trailer tells me is there will be more, better, deeper trailers coming out soon, because this trailer is the widest, mass appeal net they will cast.
[ May 08, 2013, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And as proof, here is a trailer for The Shining...as a romantic comedy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, I'm hoping it is just the trailer.
But, you've got to really wonder if they get the book when they put a huge spoiler in the trailer and make it look like an "America, heck yeah!" moment, instead of the action of a beyond exhausted, broken little kid who can't take any more.
Those two shots could have been cut together arbitrarily. This is not very meaningful.
Having said that, the trailer sucks.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Three things that bug the crap out of me now with movies:
1. Lens flares 2. Inception low brass tones (BWAAAAAAAAA), so annoying 3. Minority Report air manipulation of computer display
I'll go watch it in the theater, but I'm less excited about this movie than I was yesterday before the trailer came out.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Here's an article on io9:
article Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
It shows a mean-looking River, Serenity firing lasers (!?) in a Star Wars style space battle, and a tough looking Zoe and Mal fighting off a horde (!?) of zombie (!?) reavers. It's intended to grab the attention of as many people as possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the Ford's monologue doesn't even end up being a part of the film as is. Perhaps they recorded it right for the trailer? It does sound like the forced voice over narrative for Blade Runner, which IIRC he made to sound dull in protest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I forgot how bad the serenity movie promotionals were.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Synesthesia was quoted on Salon.com
what. link.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Three things that bug the crap out of me now with movies:
1. Lens flares 2. Inception low brass tones (BWAAAAAAAAA), so annoying 3. Minority Report air manipulation of computer display
4. Shaky-cam 5. Those annoying flashy-strobe light cuts between extreme closeups of someone's face (or eyes) and a battle 6. You know what? Extreme closeups of someone's face in general. Especially when that face metamorphoses Lord of the Rings-style into a CGI hell-demon. 7. Exploding title cards
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: This trailer means absolutely nothing. I've seen footage used in trailers that was cut from the movie, alternative takes and utterly mangled timeline to represent something the -advertisers- wanted to put out there that the film didn't even have.
Remember folks, the people who made this trailer did not work on the movie, they work for the production company, and their sole job is to take whatever original, nuanced creation that comes across their desk and bland it down to the lowest common denominator. Boom! Bam! Flashy!
It is a bit upsetting to see a planet blowing up in the trailer, but considering the utter lack of really real explosions in the story, it's hardly surprising.
The only thing this trailer tells me is there will be more, better, deeper trailers coming out soon, because this trailer is the widest, mass appeal net they will cast.
I pretty much agree with this.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Synesthesia was quoted on Salon.com
what. link.
I don't want to link it because it's a really harsh treatment of OSC, and I think it would be impolite to link to it from a site he pays for.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Thumbs up for last comment Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Synesthesia was quoted on Salon.com
what. link.
I don't want to link it because it's a really harsh treatment of OSC, and I think it would be impolite to link to it from a site he pays for.
ahhh damnit
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It isn't exactly difficult to find the article in question using said website's search bar, you lazy bum.
Syn isn't quoted by name, but if you click the link to the GoodReads review, you can see that was who posted it.
I went to grade school with one of their writers. I win. :-P
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I didn't think Syn's review was all that harsh. I think she painted all his later works with an overly broad brush, though. The Mithermages and Pathfinder series don't get preachy at all, and there was less than 1 page of preachiness in Crystal City.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh. yeah. i'm dum. it's also now all over my facebook
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
Found it, its from a Goodreads discussion about Ender in Exile Synesthesia participated in. Just go to salon.com and search for Ender's Game, the latest article is the one that quotes her.
quote:In between things actually happening it’s ALL lecturing about marriages and heterosexuality to the point of propaganda and driving me insane.
e;fb
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well done, Sam. You lose on a technicality, but as far as I'm concerned your prediction was spot on.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I didn't think Syn's review was all that harsh. I think she painted all his later works with an overly broad brush, though. The Mithermages and Pathfinder series don't get preachy at all, and there was less than 1 page of preachiness in Crystal City.
I'm talking about the Salon article, not the review.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Interesting choice to not put OSC's name on it. I predict we'll see a lot of this attempt to include the accolades for the book without getting into who the author actually is.
Because movie going audiences know so well the many OSC novels that have been adapted into oh...
No, I think they're of course hoping that the horrifying things that the author of the book has said over the years will go unnoticed in the press. It just might.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"The first decision I made was not to pursue the Peter/Valentine subplot with the Internet, because that's just watching people type things into the computer. The second decision I made was to give that information about the surprise at the end from the start. In my script we know who Mazer Rackham really is and we know what is at stake as Ender plays his games. But Ender doesn't know, so I think the suspense is actually increased because the audience knows we're about the business of saving the world and that everything depends on this child not understanding that. We care all the more about whether he wins – and we worry that he might not want to. As we watch the adults struggle to get control of Ender, we pity him because of what's happening to him, but we want the adults to succeed. I think it makes for a much more complex and fascinating film than it would have been if I had tried to keep secrets."
- osc, apparently
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I hope they don't forcefeed a bunch of bullshit monologues.
(they will)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I didn't think Syn's review was all that harsh. I think she painted all his later works with an overly broad brush, though. The Mithermages and Pathfinder series don't get preachy at all, and there was less than 1 page of preachiness in Crystal City.
I'm talking about the Salon article, not the review.
Yeah, well...it was pretty close to being a flat-out screed.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Interesting choice to not put OSC's name on it. I predict we'll see a lot of this attempt to include the accolades for the book without getting into who the author actually is.
What do you mean, calling the film "Ender's Game" instead of "Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game?" Or neglecting to say "Based on the worldwide bestselling novel by Orson Scott Card?"
Orson Scott Card's name appears twice in the quick credit reel at the end, being credited as a producer and as the author of the original novel, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Interesting choice to not put OSC's name on it. I predict we'll see a lot of this attempt to include the accolades for the book without getting into who the author actually is.
What do you mean, calling the film "Ender's Game" instead of "Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game?" Or neglecting to say "Based on the worldwide bestselling novel by Orson Scott Card?"
Orson Scott Card's name appears twice in the quick credit reel at the end, being credited as a producer and as the author of the original novel, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
I think it remains to be seen as to whether OSC's involvement will be deliberately downplayed or not.
My guess is, because of his relative anonymity AND his unfortunate anti-gay campaign, yes it will be downplayed. But, to be fair, MOST author's names aren't used to promote their movies. Stephen King and a few others get their names used like this, but it's pretty rare.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Funny, because in nearly all his books, his name is the biggest thing on the cover. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: Do you have a source for that quote?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Funny, because in nearly all his books, his name is the biggest thing on the cover.
That's because he has established a name for himself in the literary world. In the cinematic world, however, that name doesn't mean as much. A simple artifact of book-vs-movie marketing.
Yes, I expect Lionsgate/Summit/whoever's-in-charge-of-marketing will try to avoid controversy over OSC's politics, and thus focus on how beloved the novel is rather than how beloved the author is. It's a simple fact that OSC's politics are a PR liability. But I don't see any evidence in the trailer for an alleged "choice to not put OSC's name on it." I think they're going to tread a careful line by acting as if OSC's producer credit means the adaptation is going to be "true to the story" and avoiding any discussion of OSC's irrelevant personal views.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: Do you have a source for that quote?
quote:Originally posted by steven: My guess is, because of his relative anonymity AND his unfortunate anti-gay campaign, yes it will be downplayed. But, to be fair, MOST author's names aren't used to promote their movies. Stephen King and a few others get their names used like this, but it's pretty rare.
It's exceedingly rare. Even King's name was not much attached to publicity for Shawshank Redemption. Granted, that movie had some of the world's worst marketing, and only became profitable on video, once people heard it was a great story.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The Mithermages and Pathfinder series don't get preachy at all
Sorry this is going offtopic, but I'll shut up after this one post. I haven't read the Pathfinder series, but The Gate Thief devotes a huge amount of time to Danny North heroically not having sex with his cadre of eager female friends because "I'm not married. That's the point." (OSC puts Ender through the same paces in Ender in Exile.) It was difficult to read through the uncharacteristically and unbelievably sex-desperate behavior of the girls, but at least that ultimately had an explanation. Who knew teenage boys (atheist ones, no less) are so resistant to the idea of premarital sex? Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by steven: The Mithermages and Pathfinder series don't get preachy at all
Sorry this is going offtopic, but I'll shut up after this one post. I haven't read the Pathfinder series, but The Gate Thief devotes a huge amount of time to Danny North heroically not having sex with his cadre of eager female friends because "I'm not married. That's the point." (OSC puts Ender through the same paces in Ender in Exile.) It was difficult to read through the uncharacteristically and unbelievably sex-desperate behavior of the girls, but at least that ultimately had an explanation. Who knew teenage boys (atheist ones, no less) are so resistant to the idea of premarital sex?
That's a good point, I remember doing a bit of eye-rolling during those parts. As far as OSC pro-family preaching goes, though, it was fairly mild, and definitely better-handled than in some of his older works.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Hmmm. Really off topic, but I do think there was more to Danny's reasoning than "I'm not married" - it felt to me like he didn't want to take advantage (which is its own brand of unrealistic), and also didn't feel anything for at least two of the girls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: Do you have a source for that quote?
I don't get my news about Orson Scott Card or his works from Hatrack. Way too much of a bias there.
Posted by Rudy (Member # 12176) on :
Just watched the trailer! After so many years it's finally here... few more months It gave me the goosebumps even though I know the book by heart Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Hmmm. Really off topic, but I do think there was more to Danny's reasoning than "I'm not married" - it felt to me like he didn't want to take advantage (which is its own brand of unrealistic), and also didn't feel anything for at least two of the girls.
The italicized part is what I was eye-rolling about. I doubt many teenage boys would have that much self-control in that situation. Some might. Gay ones would, anyway. ROFL
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I'm a bit disappointed it wasn't James Horner, as previously rumored. I haven't watched any of the movies that Jablonsky has scored; can anyone reassure me that this guy is capable of writing good film music?
Music is such an underrated component of the quality of a film that I'm very apprehensive. Ender's Game deserves a good soundtrack, now that it has got a good cast and good effects, and at least judging from the Google+ hangout, a director that cares about the integrity of the story. Theoretically, bad music doesn't break a good movie, but I can't for the life of me think of a single example of a movie that I think is great that also has remarkably bad music (though maybe Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind with its annoying baby-singing "na-na" track comes close).
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what I feel. I love the last cue for The Island that Jablonsky did, but his stuff is too Hans Zimmer, not enough thoughtful, thematic, and intelligent. I mean, I wasn't super thrilled with Horner - he's never done anything I really loved (though I quite like The Four Feathers). My ideal score would have been composed by James Newton Howard. But...well...I can hope.
C3PO - Jablonsky is one of Hans Zimmer's proteges, and as such, tends to write with an overreliance of electronic drums and synth/sampled orchestra and choirs. His melodies aren't terribly memorable, and his harmonies are pretty much bog standard (though the last isn't actually uncommon these days, even for composers I respect more). When he does come off his electric drums, his stuff can be quite nice, but I really want Ender's Game to have a smart, beautiful score, not something I only like one or two cues from.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I wonder how John Williams would have handled scoring this movie. Sure he can do blockbusters and swashbuckling space adventures well (REALLY well), but (assuming this movie is true to the book) can he do a story like this as well, about the stress on Ender's crumbling psyche and the intimate details of his emotions? I just wonder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fiddler on the Roof, Empire Strikes Back, Schindler's List, Sabrina, Amistad, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report...well, you're certainly right that he's bigger in movies with `splosions or bitchin' action scenes, but I think he's definitely got the chops for something much more subtle and emotional than that.
Of course it remains to be seen whether this movie will *be* one where stresses on Ender's psyche are featured, but time will tell!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm really curious to see if they do the "Giant's Drink" storyline, and if they show how the Bugger queens are part of that.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Well, Butterfield said they filmed some of the Fantasy Game, and Giant's Drink is a big part of that.
I agree that Williams could do it - it's just that the scores of his that I think are his best are the ones with flashy themes. Perhaps the Harry Potter themes indicate there is more there, but on the whole, I wouldn't see Williams as a fit for the book.
Of course, I wouldn't fit Jablonsky, either. Honestly, if I had to pick a Zimmer-protege, I would probably go with John Powell or Henry Jackman.
But I'd rather not have a Zimmer-protege, sadly.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:But I'd rather not have a Zimmer-protege, sadly.
Agreed. Unfortunately most Zimmer-influenced films tend to recycle old themes/motifs, and I can't think of many Zimmer or Zimmer-influenced films that would work for what I have in mind for Ender's Game. The only exception: I loved Geoff Zanelli's work on "Into the West" and have heard he did a good job with "The Odd Life of Timothy Green." A Zanelli-scored movie may just work.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Well, sadly, we get Jablonsky. Who, as I said, composed some good stuff at the end of The Island, but on the whole, is one of the less varied Zimmer-proteges. I'll have to check out Zanelli, though - thanks for the rec!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I wonder how John Williams would have handled scoring this movie. Sure he can do blockbusters and swashbuckling space adventures well (REALLY well), but (assuming this movie is true to the book) can he do a story like this as well, about the stress on Ender's crumbling psyche and the intimate details of his emotions? I just wonder.
No.
John Williams is the most overrated composer in modern history. He's a good composer, but overall his influence had a negative effect on film composition after his earlier work, if it had an effect at all.
He also helped to pioneer the "composer as name brand" paradigm in Hollywood. The dirty little secret being that John Williams himself hasn't scored much of any of his movies for decades- this is done by one of the countless hundreds of talented younger composers who waste their creative efforts working for him after finishing programs at USC, or wherever. This instead of doing small films or just doing something new with their talents.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
That sounds like Hans Zimmer. I've not really heard Willaims collaborated/had ghostwriters, though I believe he has used orchestrators for most of his career. Is there anything written on this subject?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: That sounds like Hans Zimmer. I've not really heard Willaims collaborated/had ghostwriters, though I believe he has used orchestrators for most of his career. Is there anything written on this subject?
It's not *exactly* ghostwriting. And while plenty of professional composers use orchestrators (really most of them have to use editors due to the complexity of the work*), Williams runs something similar to Phillip Glass's composition workshop: that is, he "sketches" a few ideas, and somebody else, or rather a team of people, compose and orchestrate the music under his direction. He is more a director than a composer, and as a composer he is not the titan his reputation has made him.
Zimmer is worse, btw, but only by degrees. And both of them are at least better than James Horner, who sinks so low as to just blatantly re-use the same thematic material over, and over, and over again in film after film.
Granted, and please note, I am saying this based on hearsay and things told to me by people in the industry (I know a number of industry composers and sound people). This is a well known paradigm in Hollywood, and one that usually gets kept under wraps with non-disclosure agreements, for obvious reasons. Given that, take what I say as merely a product of hearsay- nevertheless, this is a bit of an open secret. It is profitable and marketable to use a name composer, and for practical purposes, it matters very little how much input that person has on the actual output. Does he work with the musicians? Does he plan the orchestration himself? Does he draft the work? Does he write the parts?
Somebody like Tan Dun, who has done a little bit of film, sketches the themes, drafts the work, overseas the editing and orchestration work and works directly with the soloists, and then conducts the recordings himself. But he gets significantly less work done than Williams does- his work is just much better for the effort he puts in. Same for Johnny Greenwood, Nick Cave, and others. They do a film every few years, if that. Williams is a brand: he has been credited with an average of one award winning film score a year for nearly 50 years (and has written many other works in that time). But a single film score represents an incredible amount of work, and for someone like Williams, that means a significant number of people making more than minor contributions during that time.
I'm not trying to say Williams is a complete hack. He is a talented impressario and a talented director, melodist and orchestrator. He would have to be. But the myth of the great 20th century composer is that he sustains this output on his own. Meanwhile, there are quite a few new and equally talented composers who get no chance to fill his shoes, because he occupies the space in the industry that he has.
*As for orchestration, I have no problem whatsoever with orchestrators working from sketches. Orchestration in detail is complex, time consuming, and repetitive work, and certain aspects of it can be left to worker-bees who do it for a living. Many composers of large pieces will use apprentices or orchestration studios to do this work- I've known people who did this for a living. Often a music typesetting workshop will extend these services to composers who are not completely versed in orchestration for the ensemble being used.
Orchestrating for a diverse group is excessively complicated and often requires input from multiple specialists, because different instruments have their own very specific methods of notation. A high budget, highly professional score will employ the work of specialists in different instrument types to refine the orchestration and the notation- no one person can really do that well.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Interesting - I would actually accuse Zimmer of more self-plagiarizing than Horner, though I don't actually like Horner's work that much, so I haven't sought it out (and it hasn't been forced upon me like Zimmer and his proteges).
I was under the impression that Williams does conduct his own work.
I don't know if it's entirely accurate, but I believe Howard Shore's reputation is that he hand-writes his own scores, orchestrates, and conducts them.
The "Williams" (or Zimmer or what have you) brand is definitely a truth about film scores. I've been much more frustrated with television scoring, which uses the same principle - one name becomes the credit for a whole studio of people working the same method. Additionally, the scoring, simply due to the constraints of time (and, sadly, taste), is so much less complex and satisfying.
Thanks for sharing! Until you commented, the biggest complaint I'd heard/voiced about Williams' work is that he tends to be a bit blatant in his rips from classical/contemporary art composers (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring for Star Wars: A New Hope, Off's O Fortuna for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, etc, etc).
I wish there was more credit and transparency in collaborative businesses, but it's often much more profitable to hide things under one name. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: was under the impression that Williams does conduct his own work.
He does. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Orincoro, you make Williams sound like the Dread Pirate Roberts. ROFL
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Good night George Lucas. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I thought the question millernumber1 was raising was not "Does John Williams has artistic integrity?", but rather "Would a John Williams score for Ender's Game be a good score?"
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Well, both questions are good ones, actually. But since this is the Ender's Game thread, more the latter.
I'm torturing myself by listening to James Newton Howard scores and wishing he was the one on Ender's Game...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I listen to Zimmer, Horner, and Williams when I write precisely because their work is anonymous enough I can kind of apply it to any scene I happen to be writing.
It doesn't really work with someone like, say, Phillip Glass.
I recently listened to the Episode IV soundtrack and was surprised at how inventive and oddball it was. His recent work is cold cereal by comparison.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm looking forward to the movie. I hope they don't screw it up.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Good night George Lucas. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.
ROFL
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "The first decision I made was not to pursue the Peter/Valentine subplot with the Internet, because that's just watching people type things into the computer. The second decision I made was to give that information about the surprise at the end from the start. In my script we know who Mazer Rackham really is and we know what is at stake as Ender plays his games. But Ender doesn't know, so I think the suspense is actually increased because the audience knows we're about the business of saving the world and that everything depends on this child not understanding that. We care all the more about whether he wins – and we worry that he might not want to. As we watch the adults struggle to get control of Ender, we pity him because of what's happening to him, but we want the adults to succeed. I think it makes for a much more complex and fascinating film than it would have been if I had tried to keep secrets."
- osc, apparently
The reasoning is sound but I'll be mortified without any part of Peter and Val taking over the world not making it in
It's what sets the stage for the Shadow Books for Petes sake, and that could make a good mini series. The only requirement for it to work is to make sure to show that the "Internet" as we know it no longer exists but is very much heavily controlled by the Hegemony.
Which I think was the dumbest argument I ever had online was with someone who actually held it against Card for not predicting the internet despite that very reasonable interpretation.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
The IF Sentinel site seems to indicate that the internet discussion is a part of the worldbuilding (though I'm guessing they're also tying into official forums or what have you). And I hope that casting Abigail Breslin indicates some kind of strong role for Val.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I recently listened to the Episode IV soundtrack and was surprised at how inventive and oddball it was. His recent work is cold cereal by comparison.
There are not many composers who keep the fire for 50 years. Writers sometimes experience their very best periods in later years precisely because the passionate urgency is gone. Cormac Mcarthy springs to mind as an example of an older author who's latter day coldness is exactly what makes his work so good. This is rarely a positive attribute for a composer: Stravinsky, Copland, Carter, Haydn, all became exceedingly skilled, but less urgent- less gripping. Composers, much more than writers, are likely to live to see the day in which the art has passed them by.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I completely agree, but there are a reasonable number of exceptions. Strauss's "Four Last Songs" spring to mind, as does Wagner's transcendent orchestral score for Parsifal. John Adams is still turning out what I consider to be first rate work, from his "Transmigration of Souls" to Dr. Atomic. Whatever you think of Stockhausen, his Licht opera cycle is one of the more ambitious works attempted by a modern composer and he was working on that until I think four years prior to his demise.
Which isn't to downplay your point, just that I always have hope for those composers whose work I really love.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Context of grammar? I didn't know Morgan Freeman was white!?! Talk about blackface. . . .![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)