Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Orson Scott Card shares micro-bits regarding ENDER'S GAME!

Hey folks, Harry here the latest in the seemingly neverending trials of bringing Orson Scott Card's wonderful ENDER'S GAME to the big screen. I can't wait for Wolfgang Petersen to do this one. This could be a great great film.

Ho guys,

Orson Scott Card said the following in his Hatrack forums (direct link: Orson's Hatrack!), regarding changes being down for Ender's Game, and acknowledging the difficulty using child actors:

1. We compress the action of the book to one year, and the youngest of the characters (Bean) is about nine or ten.

2. It's very hard to work with child actors, but it can be done, as witness the stellar performances of every child actor in Peter Pan and Finding Neverland.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 21, 2005, 4:43 p.m. CST


    by DAS JANKE

    please don't be too slow, server of mine

  • May 21, 2005, 4:43 p.m. CST


    by Windfola

    I hate myself for that...

  • May 21, 2005, 4:44 p.m. CST

    almost first

    by ykb

    Enders game should make an awesome movie.

  • May 21, 2005, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Nice to hear that this project is moving along...

    by DarthCorleone

    ...although this really wasn't very substantive information.

  • May 21, 2005, 4:48 p.m. CST

    ok, as for this story:

    by DAS JANKE

    firstly, i absolutely LOVE this book... i don't like the changes. i realize that, YES, for logical purposes, it must be changed into a shorter time frame; however, it won't, in my opinion, lend the story its forlorn and desolate feel of year after year of unchanging isolation and pressure. as i read the story, that was a huge part of ender's growth--his isolation--and to be sure, a year is a long time to a small child, but it wouldn't chip away at his SELF as much as was needed in such a time. this should be at least 2 movies--hell, a trilogy would be sweet, seeing as how that's all the rage these days. but alas, i fear one of my favorite books of my youth will be raped and pillaged as only hollywood can. also, wolfgang peterson sucks so much asshair i don't even know what to say at the mere mention of his name.

  • May 21, 2005, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Just as long as the cast is like 75% non-white

    by Ribbons

    Not to open up a can of worms, but this had better be the case. Probably won't be though. Danm Hollywood.

  • May 21, 2005, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Compressing the action to a year

    by Ribbons

    I think it's less hairy because kids grow so fast that you'd probably have to recast in order to justify the lapse in time.

  • May 21, 2005, 5:57 p.m. CST

    re: Just as long as the cast is like 75% non-white

    by DAS JANKE

    I agree with your sentiment. However, I recall a story on (i think) IGN concerning the studio execs making it clear that they wanted a majority cast of white actors with a few token characters that were non-white. fuck them.

  • May 21, 2005, 6:24 p.m. CST

    I havent finished this book

    by The Data

    But a beautiful girl whom i am trying to impress LOVES the book and asked me to read it so we could talk about it. I am far to busy with comic books and the "Hollywood Babylon" books to actually read this, can some one give me some footnotes so i can BS my way through a discussion or 2 with this lady?

  • May 21, 2005, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Not political correctness so much as literary accuracy, jackass.

    by DAS JANKE

    but of course, you clearly can't see the innate racism in the changing of the cast anyway. i wonder: are you one of those that screamed bloody murder when beyonce was rumored to be up for lois lane? or when mos def got casted in hitchhiker's guide?

  • May 21, 2005, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Sci-fi almost certainly means CGI

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    And while I love Wolfgang, having seen the horrible plane crash sequence in Air Force One and Troy, I really question his judgement as a director when it comes to using/incorporating CGI into his films. (I'm just assuming this story would need CGI though, I've never read Enders, so don't slam me if I sound too ig'nant).

  • May 21, 2005, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Oh, and Pan doesn't have anything on...

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    RUFIO! Bangarang bitches.

  • I mean seriously, the guy is a genius, he'll figure out the best way to adapt the books into a great movie.

  • May 21, 2005, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Oh, if you guys are interested...

    by Bean_

    I didn't add this in the news post, but if you want to, OSC defends Peterson in the same thread: The attitudes toward Wolfgang Petersen and toward Troy expressed here are kind of strange. Wolfgang is one of the most respected directors in the industry - both by money people (his films make money) and by artistic types (his films are brilliantly conceived). No one here has actually given a coherent reason why ANYTHING is wrong with Troy. It was a powerful evocation of another era. My wife and I saw it twice in the first few days - it was powerful, entrancing. The writer, director, and actors achieved the sense of a heroic, semi-civilized era and captured the tone and feel of the world of the Iliad (while leaving out the gods). Meanwhile, you also don't understand how Hollywood works. Writers don't "pick" directors. The only power I had was to veto the ones who would have been horrible. Beyond that, we looked for directors who found the project interesting, who were on the short list of those capable of directing it AND of getting a studio to back the project with that director attached. What some folks don't seem to grasp is that the ONLY reason Warner Brothers picked up the Ender's Game movie project was that Wolfgang was attached. If Wolfgang were not the director, THERE WOULD BE NO PROJECT. We'd still be going begging to the studio doors. Wolfgang, not I, is driving the project. That's how Hollywood works, when it works at all. The very fact that the alternative proposed was a director like the one who did "Close Encounters" shows amazing insensitivity to what would make Ender's Game work. Take a look at Hook, for instance, or the false and dishonest over-the-top ending of Schindler's List ... you want a director who can't bear a tough ending? A director who has no understanding of character? I'd rather NOT see Ender's Game be nothing but a special effect-driven extravaganza, thanks ... That last sentance alone makes me think this film can't go wrong.

  • May 21, 2005, 7:47 p.m. CST


    by MrCere

    Dude? What the hell? Are your title and post somehow related? Are you under the impression that the Mormon Church makes movies? When Steven King writes a story and a studio makes it a film is it then sponsored by King's church? I just don't get what you are saying - if anything. Incidently, there should be a variety of races involved as the kids in the story were taken from the whole of the earth, but I can't imagine who - besides Talkbackers - is worried about it at this point, as it's a bit early to bitch. I take that back, here it is never too early to bitch.

  • May 21, 2005, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Wow Data

    by PurdueSith

    If you are going to get out of reading a damn good book to try and impress this beautiful girl, then you really don't deserve her anyways. I've read it about five times and there is no way in hell, I'll tell you what happens. Just read it man, no need to cover it up with lies.

  • This should be a syndicated show or a 6-8 hour mini-series. It's fucked at birth. Orsen please pull out and wait for a better deal and wait until you can get a studio to bank roll the thing so that they can afford to work with the child actors. And if it never gets made, no problem! You still have a wonderful book and the knowledge that after you die your kids (if you have any) will eventually sell the rights and a crappy movie will be made really fast and you won't have to deal with all the headaches. You'll be spinning in your grave but you won't have to be frustrated. But what the hell do I know.

  • May 21, 2005, 11:29 p.m. CST

    video game climax

    by Draal16

    This movie is to be a mix of Ender's Shadow and Ender's Game, so it can use what Bean knows and cut to the action that he is aware of, with out relying on Ender's point of view of the simple video game.

  • May 21, 2005, 11:30 p.m. CST

    The Data

    by Russman

    Just read the book, it's a great quick read. If reading Ender's Game can get you some poon, you can read the comic books later. Remember... vagina trumps comic books - all of the time.

  • May 22, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST

    racism, blah blah blah

    by HillaryLovesMe

    The majority of Hollywood's audience is white. Hollywood making movies starring mostly white actors for a mostly white audience is equivalent to book publishers making books for people who can read. It's just demographics. Call it political correctness, call it racism, or whatever. It's the same thing with predominantly black neighborhoods; cops in those areas can get fired for arresting "too many" blacks in a black neighborhood. (Ever wonder what would happen if, under these conditions, cops said to hell with it? What if they already have?) There's just too much racial sensitivity. Grow up, people. It's no big deal if Hollywood casts a predominantly white movie from a predominantly non-white book. It's no big deal if cops arrest mostly blacks in a mostly black neighborhood. The only people in America who really care about race are Klukkers, Nazis, and liberals. (And ain't that a fine, upstanding conglomeration of people.)

  • May 22, 2005, 12:09 a.m. CST

    If this ever gets made...

    by AeroB

    ...and gets made right... it could be one of the greatest sci-fi films ever. I know Card wants it to get made, he talked about it some when I was at one of his literary boot camps, but he wants it made right, which might be why it's been shopped around so much without getting made.

  • May 22, 2005, 12:14 a.m. CST

    And the issue with race

    by AeroB

    Really doesn't have as much to do with political correctness as with the realism of the story. In the book, the children were from all parts of the world because the only qualifications for their entry were that they be brilliant enough and of the right temperment for command. One excellent example of where this is important is with one of Ender's best friends, Alai, a black Muslim.

  • May 22, 2005, 12:17 a.m. CST

    You know, I really respect OSC as a novelist...

    by Elohim

    But the man has shit taste in movies. Although nothing else specific comes to mind right away, I remember having this thought before. In any case, a few quick points: #1 Screenwriting and novel writing are two VERY different arts. Skill at one does not necessarily translate to the other. #2 If OSC thinks he doesn't have the power to choose a director, he better check his balls and think again. Any name director that he can manage to get interested in the project (there's the catch) could get the movie greenlighted. If he thinks Petersen is the bee's knees, get him by all means. But don't take him just because you think it's the only way the movie is going to get made. #3 Like all directors, Wolfgang has made some good stuff and he's made some shit. But if you're going to worry about something, don't worry about the implementation of the special effects, that's what effects houses are for. Worry about how he handles actors, that's a director's main responsibility on the set. Bottom line, I have yet to see a great performance come out of an English language Wolfgang Petersen film. And if this movie is going to work at all, it's going to need some GREAT performances from a subset of actors that is notoriously difficult to work with, children.

  • May 22, 2005, 12:33 a.m. CST

    RE: HillaryLovesMe

    by Elohim

    Actually, it is a big deal. And here I go with bullet points again. #1 I think the assertion that white audiences will only watch movies about white people to be incredibly condescending, not to mention biogoted, not to mention false. #2 Show me a cop who got fired for arresting "too many" blacks, and I'll show you a cop who doesn't want to admit the real reason he got fired. I'd be surprised if you could come up with one example, though, much less the pattern of firings that you assert. #3 Actually, the only people in America who DON'T care about race are the ones who have never suffered racism. I'm guessing that's you. #4 It's a big deal if they change the cast to mostly white because it would affect the realism of the story (as AeroB already mentioned), but it's also important in the bigger scheme because (not to sound too preachy) if white people only ever see white faces in their neighborhood, and they only hear stories about white people, and the few stories they do hear about other kinds of people get changed to be about white people, then how are they ever going to learn to empathize with other races and cultures, much less get along in a society with them?

  • May 22, 2005, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Sci-fi almost certainly means CGI?

    by logofdoom

    well, actually that's true in most cases but not this book. It is technically scifi but not like trek, starwars, galactica, etc., cards book is 99% character stuff. The effects budget for one episode of enterprise could practically pay for all the effects needed in an enders game movie. Almost the entire book takes place in a single location and the aliens are rarely glimpsed. The few times aliens are seen at all is on old videos and even then they're all dead. btw - I agree with you russman, I think it would fit better as a mini series. Although I'd be happy enough to see this on the screen in any form I just think there's too much great character development to cram into 2 hours.

  • May 22, 2005, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Ender's Game rules

    by Tacodave

    It's my favorite book, and I've read quite a few in my day... Orson Scott Card seems to have a firm grasp on this project, so I feel it is in safe hands. And if you don't think he has what it takes (including moron Archenemysis who tried to spoil the ending, but screwed it up), check out his work on PC game "The Dig" or his novelization of the movie "The Abyss." He knows what he's doing.

  • May 22, 2005, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Oh, and...

    by Tacodave

    This "news" is about 2 years old. If you want better updates, check out or

  • May 22, 2005, 1:38 a.m. CST

    One problem, no studio will EVER let a main character (a child n

    by logofdoom

    ... and that is a HUGE factor in ender's development in the book. Even though the beatings aren't meant to be fatal and he has good reasons for doing it, there is no studio that has the balls to portray the heroic child killing other children no matter the provocation... it just won't happen and that would really affect the entire story.

  • May 22, 2005, 3:13 a.m. CST


    by Tacodave

    It might not be shown, but it could be referenced in dialog. I don't think that would be too hard. Plus, it could show him breaking the kid's arm on the shuttle, which is another indicator of his "go-for-the-throat" nature.

  • May 22, 2005, 3:25 a.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    I love how this Acroyear guy was a total douche and no one has the balls to call him on it because then you wouldn't be "cool" by his standards. If anyone's interested, I'm neither from the church of Latter Day Saints (a comment which doesn't even make sense to me) nor am I "wringing my hands" right now. Also, anyone who confuses racism with "political incorrectness" is either a racist or doesn't understand why they don't fit into the same camp. Will I see the movie even if they make the movie mostly white? Sure, even though I think I said something contrary to that a while back in my more "naive" days. I understand the politics behind such a decision. I just wonder what it must be like for studio execs who have to consciously make them.

  • May 22, 2005, 3:56 a.m. CST

    I'd put a lot of money on them not having this an all white movi

    by andrew coleman

    I know a lot of people like to scream about it but really the racism thing is off balance. I can only think of three movies with major black bad guys in it Daredevil, Live and Let Die, and Sahara. No one seems to care about that, but whatever I think they should cast who they want like Mof Def was perfect in Hitch Hikers I think but Beyonce as Louis Lane is just a case of hell no. It should be based on performance and acting talent not skin color.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Yep, OSC has bad taste.

    by Prankster

    Let's see... he called Diary of a Mad Black Woman "one of the best movies you'll see this year", claims that James L. Brooks "is a better director than Martin Scorsese could ever hope to be", lambasted About Schmidt for "hating average Americans" but had great praise for Napoleon Dynamite, declared The Passion of The Christ to be pretty much the greatest movie ever made (for the usual reasons) and just generally praises the literal-minded and sappy while complaining (quite shrilly, too) about movies that require a bit of thought or go someplace that isn't utterly predictable. And his politics are just as idiotic. He's written some great books, but the man has been off the deep end for a while now. if you don't believe me.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Bring It On!

    by Evil Chicken

    Great book - it could be a great movie.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:50 a.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    Interesting...sounds like he's got a case of the crazies.

  • May 22, 2005, 6:39 a.m. CST

    This has been going on for years...

    by jimmy_009

    ...and is hardly news. Card is desperate to get a movie made of this book, which I don't think would make that great of a movie.

  • May 22, 2005, 8:20 a.m. CST

    OSC is a right-wing, fascist pig

    by Jerri Blank

    I live in the same town as OSC and he writes a weekly column for a far-right rag, and to agree with an earlier post, his taste in movies does indeed suck. He thinks Sideways, American Beauty and About Schmidt are three of the worst movies ever made. And he supports Bush, hates gays and gay marriage (he wrote that all gay people were either abused or molested as a child) and is very, very pro war-for-oil. And personally, I think his books are total crap.

  • May 22, 2005, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Yes, he's conservative...

    by AeroB

    ...but if you think he's a "fascist pig" you obviously don't read what he writes. He supports the war in Iraq not for oil but for the Iraqi people. I'd like you to point out where he said "all gay people were either abused or molested as a child", because I don't buy it. He doesn't support gay marriage because he believes it takes those people out of the natural reproductive cycle and is counterproductive to furthering the human race, and therefore shouldn't be supported by law. And whether you agree with his taste in movies or not (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't) he DOES tell you why he likes or dislikes them. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I know there are a helluva lot of people here who have both bad taste AND refuse to back it up with any kind of logical reasoning. And FYI Card is a fantastic writer who has had not just experience with writing novels but also extensive experience in playwriting--I think he COULD handle screenwriting if given the chance, but it's a moot point because they're not going to let him near the project in that capacity.

  • May 22, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Prankster and Jerri...

    by Tacodave

    It's so easy to calls someone names behind the safety of your computers, isn't it? Not to turn this into the typical AICN "liberals vs. conservatives" crap, but to say his politics are 'idiotic' and to call him a 'fascist' just shows us your true mental capacities. I read OSC's columns every week and find his positions to be well-thought-out, and, more importantly, based on factual research and a keen understanding of history and world politics. Disagree with his positions if you want, but calling him names and labels just makes you look like idiots.

  • May 22, 2005, 1:02 p.m. CST

    and AeroB

    by Tacodave

    Card actually wrote the first draft of the screenplay himself... And I've officially worn out my welcome by posting 42 times in one thread...

  • May 22, 2005, 3:06 p.m. CST

    By the way, why is it that...

    by AeroB

    ...when a conservative is getting a movie made, he automatically gets denounced on this site just for his political standing, and yet when a liberal is doing the same it's just accepted without the blink of an eye? I think it's because you liberals are so used to dominance in Hollywood and the media that you take it as a horrible crime when a conservative actually dares to put something forward (see: the constant FOX News bashing).

  • May 22, 2005, 3:18 p.m. CST

    OSC is indeed a fascist

    by Jerri Blank

    AeroB, you asked me to point where OSC wrote about homosexuality linked with abuse. Follow the link

  • May 22, 2005, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Bush, Cheney, Rummy & Rove=fascists; OSC=Lieberman

    by tombseye

    OSC is actually a registered Dem. He votes Dem most of the time as well and is liberal EXCEPT when it comes to religion and moral majority crap. He's super pro-Israel and I find his pro-war stance on Iraq suspect as I think that just ties into his support for Israel (make the neighborhood better for them to dominate as if they already don't with nukes and the best military in the region) and I don't buy the, "I want to help Iraqis," line either. He is raving lunatic of a homophobe though. Of course, I think Lieberman's a douchebag too so... The Dem party has been moving to the center and has its rightwing fringes, i.e. Liebs and a few of the midwest Dems, while the GOP has no leftists elements at all with McCain and Voinavich being among the actual moderates left. Obviously the, OSC falls into this group of center-right Dems who now have a home in the Dem party that is about as "leftist" as Adolf Hitler was. He's tolerant as long as you aren't gay and you are cool with Israel uber alles views i.e. with the Iraq war. With that said, I really liked Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead. I even thought Xenocide was okay, but after that, not very interesting. It'd be interesting to see this as a movie. But like most I'm wondering how the violent stuff will be handled.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Jerri Blank:

    by jimmy_009

    Let me quote you first: "(he wrote that all gay people were either abused or molested as a child)" Now let me quote what Orson Scott Card actually said (and you later quoted to prove your point(!?)): "The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse" I didn't read anywhere in there that Card said all homosexuals were abused. He stated that a lot were, which is true. You just made something up to try and support your view. It's fine to have an opinion on something, but don't make up things or put words in people's mouths to try and back it up.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:08 p.m. CST

    JerriBlank, that reminds me of a recent Daily Show episode

    by tombseye

    Jon Stewart had this segment where they had a OSC-esque homophobe on claiming (more like pulling out of her ass) that studies done in Illinois revealed that 70% of gays sexually abuse their children and thus should not be allowed to adopt. The gay rights advocate said it didn't sound kosher and then the CNN anchor just shrugs as if it's a two way argument rather than interjecting and asking, "what study is that exactly and actually there is no such study is there you lying sack of crap?" Then the other co-anchor comes on and says she has something ot say about THAT, but that the two of them will talk about it off the air! Segue back to Stewart who is like, "wtf?! How about calling her out instead?! Good ol' 'liberal' media." They've so cowed by that neocon b.s. about being liberal that they now let them make up stuff on the air and do about as much investigative reporting as the National Enquirer. OSC's an above average writer (his Ultimate Ironman wasn't all that ultimate even though he was given some good foundation from Millar), but his tolerance level only goes so far.

  • May 22, 2005, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Jimmy009, Jerri was paraphrasing

    by tombseye

    His statement pretty much says just what Jerri said. And this dark "secret" comes from what study and data? OSC's full of crap with the homophobic madeup assertions. I mean okay, he doesn't like homosexuals, okay. No one says he has to like them. but in this country we are supposed to tolerate other people, including those who are born gay/lesbian and not accuse them of all being mentally screwed up b/c they were raped or molested. OSC's being intellectually dishonest and he probably knows it deep down or he's in denial. Either way he's full of crap.

  • May 22, 2005, 5:01 p.m. CST

    What do I call the gay person who calls me "a breeder?" Is ther

    by Oompa_Radar

    And once again, people on both sides of the coin are calling names. As far as I'm concerned, the first person to bring up the Nazi's or fascism loses by default for lack of an articulate or meaningful response. And today it came from the liberal side. Thanks for playing. (This is from a very gay friendly, half jewish libertarian woman with her own biases--none of which include patholgoical hatred for republicans or liberals--only those individuals who make stupid, sweeping generalizations about the other without having a clue where the other person is actually coming from .)

  • May 22, 2005, 5:08 p.m. CST

    I don't think so...

    by jimmy_009

    Jerri's statement "pretty much" says what OSC said? Not so. There's a world of difference between all people are this way and a lot of people are this way. Jerri, twisted the statement in his "paraphrasing" to reflect what he wanted it to say. If it was Orson Scott Card or another Right-winger "paraphrasing" someone that way you would nail him against the wall for it, but since this case of twisting the facts supports your view, it's forgivable I guess. I know questioning scruples is usually a one-way street when it comes to most people...

  • May 22, 2005, 5:09 p.m. CST

    And now back to topic: Great book when I was in the 7th grade,

    by Oompa_Radar

  • May 22, 2005, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Well fascism is an ideology that is now derogatory

    by tombseye

    but then liberal is used that way by neocons. The term actually fits for much of the GOP as they ARE characterized by extreme nationalistic beliefs (check) and, let's face it, they, as in the party faithful, are very obedient towards Dubya as well. How is that not fascism then? That's all that means basically. Expanded meanings include extreme subervience or alliance with corporatist elements and/or religious groups as well. That's why the term fascist is so applicable. As for everyone having biases, yes true, but that doesn't mean that all opinions have equal validity. Case in point, OSC's assertion that many gays/lesbians were abused sexually. How does he know that? I agree sweeping generalizations suck, but OSC isn't living a whole lot of room for dialectics here.

  • May 22, 2005, 5:14 p.m. CST

    well the only valid point is that OSC didn't say all or most

    by tombseye

    But ask yourself, why would he bring up something that has no reputable data to back it up? Yes, I'm very tolerant of homosexuality. Guilty as charged. OSC's a homophobe and yet also liberal in some ways. He's not a fascist either so much as a center-rightwinger.

  • May 22, 2005, 5:26 p.m. CST


    by Oompa_Radar

    Calling every statement that doesn't say "gayness is wonderful" homophobic is also fascist. Wanting to control thoughts and speech is also fascist. Most of the environmental and feminist agendas might also be considered by many to be fascist. I think most of the US really ought to get rid of the mudslinging and look at what BOTH PARTIES are doing right and wrong. Most politicians are power hungry, greedy and morally corrupt. What I find most amusing as a liberatarian (though I most often find myself voting for a dem here, a repub there) is how most liberals just flat out accuse republicans of being racist, hateful, religious nuts. As if all you liberals are the abortion at nine months loving communists they accuse you of being. It's funny, but what's truly sad, is that IT IS BIGOTRY. And I'm sorry, I see this current bigotry most often in liberal attacks on conservatives. Me, I just accept that people are people, they are all stupid and smart all at once, and they are absolutely blind, in most cases, to their own biases. I simply vote for sensible policy whenever possible and try not to paint any single human being with broad strokes. Just an observer and I'm done with the off topic politics........

  • May 22, 2005, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Oompa, I'm not saying he needs to say gayness is wonderful

    by tombseye

    But he brought up it for a reason, clearly. I mean obviously we can also say, "Many heterosexuals have been molested." Now why would I say that for exactly? Makes little sense. I accuse most of the GOP as being many different things actually. The McCains, Voinavichs, Snowes are moderates and vote centrist overall. However, discourse in this country has, as you correctly put it, devolved into 2 sided arguments when in fact there is also facts to consider. I also agree with the interpretist approach that bigotry comes in many forms, however of the two terms in question, communism and fascism, one fits moreso than the other. There aren't many liberals who call for the formation of worker councils to run the country or even neo-Gramscian western communism that is democratic in nature albeit redistributionist in terms of taxation. Whereas the term fascist as I explained literally is what I wrote. the flag-waving goes on on both sides, and the Dems to me are just the lesser of two evils most of the time. The problem with taking a 3 third way view is that the GOP has been winning elections and setting the agenda and preference shaping and moving the "center" to the right. the Death penalty is now considered the center. The war on terror has few critics, while supporters of the war on terror are found in both parties. Most politicians are hampered by the system. they have to fundraise and they become beholden to special interests. Although it is popular to view politicians as all scumbags, what do people expect when they have to cater to groups and people who help them get elected? IF we could change this system and, frankly, go parliamentary, then I'd say there would be a chance to have more of a political discourse that takes place in Canada and Europe. The rise and fall of parties etc. Also, if you watch Fox News you'll see that more often than the "liberal" attacks on cons, there is a virulent lack of tolerance amongst the extreme right that is now in power. These guys aren't the Reagan types who were for a statusquo and favored the rich. that's a given. This new group is advocating to change the country and you go to churches and see which party they are practially instructing people to vote for. The Dems feed from the same trough and frankly I don't find many of them to be very liberal at all. I can't agree that people are stupid and smart at once myself. Nuances exist, but some people are more capable of rational discussion than others. My bias is that I think everyone needs a fair shake and a chance to make a better life and this war on terror is a joke and the war in Iraq was not about the Iraqi people at all. Bush names things that do the opposite of what the title claims like "Healthy Forest Initiative" so I'm gonna go with he's a lot worse than most of the Dems at this point in time, but with the caveat that the Dems mostly have been unable or unwilling to be very leftist of late.

  • May 22, 2005, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Aaah! Tombseye!

    by Tacodave

    Too much, dude. At least separate your 'paragraphs' with elipses like this.....I can't read that much text at once........////As for the term 'homophobe,' it is idiotic. Most people who are "anti-gay" aren't afraid of the homosexuals or gay culture, we just don't like it much. Or to put it another way: 'phobe' means 'fear of' so 'homophobe' means 'fear of homosexuals.' That's quite a misnomer...

  • May 22, 2005, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Tacodave, hey that's fine if people don't like it

    by tombseye

    OSC appears to be rationalizing why it's aberrant behavior by connecting it to his assertion that many gays are victims of sexual molestation. That can be said both ways. You're partially correct on the meaning of homophobe, but it also means 'hatred' as well. Phobe indeeds refers to fear, but in the context of that particular word it appears that it has been expanded to include hatred as well. With that said, I think you have a valid point that it can be termed a misnomer of sorts. I happen to be straight and I've never fancied another guy, but I also don't dislike others who do. I think if you're hetero obviously you aren't interested in gay anything. I'm not even arguing that people need to like it, just tolerate and stop rationalizing why "it's wrong" in their minds with, frankly, bogus "data". Sorry about the paragraphs. I write this stuff quickly as I'm working and yet I keep procrastinating obviously as well. :)

  • May 22, 2005, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Actually, a lot about the quote depends on your take on the "dis

    by FluffyUnbound

    It is in fact very common in the gay community for a younger man to be "initiated" into his homosexual activity by an older man. This is actually not that surprising, when you consider the fact that ordinary adolescent social and sexual interaction is very easy for heterosexuals and up until very, very recently was damned near impossible for homosexuals. But it's very easy for someone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin to see the entire process of seduction-as-initiation as a "disturbing seduction". That's silly, though, since I for one when I was 16 wished that we heteros had similar tendencies.

  • May 22, 2005, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Jerri Blank

    by AeroB

    It's ironic that you call Card a fascist for telling people how to live when that's one of the major points he made throughout the very article you linked--that liberals are doing the exact same thing through their "Propaganda Mill" with which they emphasize politically correct things (such as the all-to-common notion of the bumbling idiot dad and the smart composed mother) and censor others (if a television show dares portray Muslims as terrorists, they're jumped on for discrimination). THAT is fascism, and it's the same thing happening in this very Talkback--left wingers are jumping in and taking over the conversation about a legitimate book-becoming-film and turning it into a bashfest of its conservative author. As for your point regarding Card's so-called assertion that ALL homosexuals were abused--he never said that. He didn't even quantify his statement, and it was merely a short aside from the major point of that section. In any case, if you want to fling around accusations like "fascist", I suggest you check your own so-called fascism out the door first.

  • May 22, 2005, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Addressing two issues...

    by Elohim

    I just want to jump into this conversation before it furns into a flamewar and make two quick points. 1) Arguing that anyone (liberals or conservatives) has any kind of "fascist" control over the media is ridiculous. Media businesses are trying to make money and they will put anything on that they think will draw viewers. If some liberals get upset that the only portrayals of muslims on TV are terrorists, it is their right to voice their opinion. Conservatives, similarly, can picket Will and Grace all they want. That's America. 2) Yes everyone has biases, but I think it's disingenuous to say that calling someone a "fag" and calling them a "breeder" are at the same level of offensiveness. Same with "nigger" and "white trash." It's a difference of power, folks. Show me someone who has been denied a job, been beaten up, or beaten to death just for being straight, and maybe you can start to claim that being called a breeder is offensive. Similarly, show me people being enslaved and oppressed just because they are white, then we can give "white trash" an equal rating on the offensiveness scale.

  • May 22, 2005, 7:27 p.m. CST

    YAY more off topic bullshit.....

    by Hairy Nutsack

    My son works in commercials and print ads. Over the many years of auditions and actual work I've met an awful lot of homosexual people in Hollywood. Why? Because there are a helluva lot of homosexual people working in Hollywood. Guess what, almost to the person, when the molestation thing has come up during conversation they admitted to having been molested. Some have played it off as normal experimentation, others have actually told me THEY were the ones doing the seduction. Whatever the case, gay or straight, any child getting molested or willing to get molested is fucked up in the head. It does not matter if you think you were born gay or straight, kids should be worried about school finals and prom, not about getting boffed by adults. We should be trying to protect the innocence of children, not trying to figure out when it's appropriate to go down on them. Jesus Christ on a pogostick what the fuck is wrong with people?

  • May 22, 2005, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Hairy Nutsack.

    by Elohim

    Come on, man. How many gay people have you talked to about molestation? If it's only one or two, then I question your scientific reasoning. If it's two hundred, I question you conversation skills. And I don't know about anyone else, but when I was thirteen, I wanted to get blown by Cindy Crawford. Why should we pretend our kids are any more innocent than we were?

  • May 22, 2005, 7:49 p.m. CST

    aero, that's not what fascism means

    by tombseye

    Many of your points may or may not be valid, but fascism does not equal political correctness or censorship, although censorship can and often does go hand in hand with fascism. At its core meaning, fascism refers to extreme nationalism and allegiance to one leader/ship. What you are referring to can be called many things. Social control, hypocrisy, coercion etc. However, the moral "majority" groups practice their own brand of "political correctness" in that increasingly the fundamentalist form of Christianity, whenever criticized, receives massive backlash from said groups who now have their rep in the WH, Congress and the Supreme Court leans their way. P.C. is perhaps overused and even reactionary. As for OSC, I for one didn't call him a fascist. Just the folks in the WH to which I stand by as the dictionary backs me up on. Card's work may or may not work after Hollywood gets through with it.

  • May 22, 2005, 7:57 p.m. CST

    elohim, I agree that the media is ratings based

    by tombseye

    yet one of the strange phenomenon of today is that Fox News gets both ratings and leads in partisan political messaging. Now this may seem innocuous enough and yet the problem stems from the impact this has had on other news organizations that have either gone for more limited investigative reporting as a result of the backlash that they are too liberal (which is at the very innane unless we are talking about the Village Voice and some editorial columnists who are more than counterbalanced by the cons/neocons). Nor is it a fantasy to surmise that b/c most corporate heads who run the media happen to also be either GOP-leaning or outright supporters makes a difference. As does Gallup's CEO's public support for the GOP. The Dems, while basically co-opting many, if not most, GOP positions, are viewed as GOP lite and are increasingly on the retreat. The dominant paradigm has become, "there are two sides, liberal and conservative and that's it." Meanwhile, the 3rd option is to say they are both right and wrong, which is accurate enough, but rarely are we hearing that perhaps BOTH are wrong. The airwaves are licensed and not directly owned by corporations and yet the agenda has been set. Deregulation largely by the GOP, while McCain was the one voice who vehemently opposed to the fusion of media outlets into a mere 5 hands. OSC's a rightwing Dem along the lines of Lieberman and indeed his views on gays are not popular with the Dems at any rate.

  • May 22, 2005, 11:31 p.m. CST

    Elitist Trek Basher, Movie Doomed to Suckage

    by meersan

    This movie is doomed. Look at all the compromises OSC has already made to get this thing produced. It's shaping up to be Starship Troopers meets Flight of the Navigator. The best thing about it will be the movie tie-in paperback that might possibly get some 11-year-olds to read the original novel before they chuck it in favor of KOTOR2. OSC can trash movie and tv scifi all he wants but any attempt at semi-faithfully porting books to film has resulted in snorefests like 2001 and Polaris. And since when did AICNers go see a movie because it was 'literary', anyway? OSC's day in the SF sun has shriveled up like a grape in the Sahara. He can trash 30s and 40s scifi all he wants, but modern SF is in the hands of wonderboys like Stephenson and Doctorow, not him. And may metaphorical anthropmorphisms have mercy on our souls.

  • May 23, 2005, 12:44 a.m. CST

    meersan is blind...

    by Tacodave

    Just for the record, I picked up "Ender's Game" when I was 14 and have read it 15+ times since (I'm now 28). I've also purchased every book Card has written, and have yet to be disappointed, so I disagree with your 'shriveled like a grape' comment.... Oh, and Starship Troopers and Flight of the Navigator (both watchable films) don't really have anything to do with Ender's Game, so I don't see your comparison. There is no fighting of bugs in EG (at least not shown), nor is there a boy who flies a spaceship around by himself............ One other thing - you're right, books turned into movies suck. Like "Lord of the Rings" and "Jurassic Park" and the Harry Potter movies were dreadful. Nobody watched them and they were worse than straight-to-video crap, right?

  • May 23, 2005, 2:30 a.m. CST

    Calling Orson Scott Card "conservative" is like calling Harry "c

    by TheDevilsBidness

    Orson Scott Card: Complete Whackjob. Harry Knowles: Fucking Fatass.

  • May 23, 2005, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Card is not that conservative

    by AeroB

    He just seems that way to left-wing extremists because most "conservatives" people on this site would be likely to encounter are actually moderates in the Republican tent. Card has a fairly typical ideological viewpoint for a conservative, at least on social and foreign policy issues (on economic issues he's decidedly liberal). Although he does justify his viewpoints in different ways than many conservatives.

  • May 23, 2005, 4:15 a.m. CST


    by Hairy Nutsack

    Let me clarify for you Elohim so there's no misunderstanding. After many conversations with many gay people who were friends, co-workers, people working with my son, and family members of some of my close friends it has been my experience that the majority of gay people I have met were in fact molested in some way. You are right that this is in no way scientific, but it does support what is being discussed here. Our conversations were not always specifically about molestation, but any time a child is "seduced" by or "seduces" an adult it is molestation pure and simple. You bet kids get enfatuated with and want to have sex with adults. It is up to the adults to be responsible, and no amount of trying to explain it away can excuse bad behavior on the part of the adults in these situations. RAPING children, even if they want you to, is wrong. Now is the molestation of these particular people the root cause of their homosexuality? Hell if I know. I'm not trying to draw any conclusions I'm just pointing out what has been my experience.

  • May 23, 2005, 5:39 a.m. CST

    What religion was asimov?

    by logofdoom

    this shit is hillarious. Who the fuck cares about cards polotics? I lean very heavily left in the political world but I love cards books. He could be a mass murderer for all I care. I like his stories. It reminds me of a guy I know that stopped listening to his favorite band after he learned the singer was gay. I find that funny.

  • May 23, 2005, 8:24 a.m. CST

    I'm going to let this one drop...

    by Elohim

    As much as I would love to get into a discussion of the finer points of gay politics... on an Orson Scott Card sub... on a geek movie news site... with a man named Hairy Nutsack. I think I'd rather... well... not. Suffice to say that you have a right to the views that your personal experiences have led you to. However, I would reiterate FluffyUnBound's post and also warn that implication and innuendo can be just as harmful as outright bigotry when it comes to gay rights. When you discuss things like this, be aware not just of what you're saying but also what you're implying.

  • May 23, 2005, 9:04 a.m. CST

    hairynutsack, that's so meaningless

    by tombseye

    So if the majority of straight people I MEET are also "molested" (and I have problems with the whole voluntary thing here) then this is something worth mentioning why exactly? Elohim's correct and Fluffy made some correct points here. Homosexuals do what they do b/c of how society treats them and responds to them. And I don't see how it's wrong for a gay teen to seek out or even be "seduced" by someone older if that's the only option they have available (and it's VOLUNTARY) since, let's face it, straight kids are having sex as early 12 and 13 and nary a word of protest except for the "moral majority" who of course would prefer a return to puritanical times. Many things in society are messy and the age of consent itself varies so much from 14 in some countries to 21 in others that it becomes a matter of opinion as to what is right and wrong. Statutory rape is obviously legally sanctioned, BUT right and wrong is another matter. To me, voluntary participation, at least to the age of 16 or so, isn't rape. I mean if you're much older it's weird, but rape, in the actual sense, implies forced sex whereas statutory rape is another matter. If gays weren't so ostracized than perhaps the "initiation" that many go through wouldn't happen as much. OSC's a homophobe and he brought it up for other reason. With that said, i can and will judge his work separately with no problem at all.

  • May 23, 2005, 11:24 a.m. CST

    I agree with logofdoom

    by Nizzuts

    I tend to lean toward the right, but does that mean that I won't watch a Tim Robbins movie? Of course not, I think that Tim Robbins is a fine actor and I love his work. (I just wish he would shut the fuck up about politics sometimes) Just because my political views are different from an actor, or author, or band, does not mean I am not allowed to enjoy their work. If I boycotted every movie that contained a left-leaning, liberal actor, I would not watch many movies. Fuck the politics, if the story is good, then I will watch/read it. If it sucks, then I won't. I think that Ender's Game is one of the great Sci-Fi books of our time. I think it will be a shitty movie though. There is too much going on for a single movie to encapsulate into two hours.

  • May 23, 2005, 11:44 a.m. CST

    how it ends

    by pablo2004

    Ender grows up and takes 6 wives, three of whom are his prepubescent cousins.

  • May 23, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST

    re: The Data


    Buy an audiotape dude...

  • May 23, 2005, 3:07 p.m. CST


    by cutest_of_borg

    He dissed my beloved TREK in a recent L.A. Times article.

  • May 23, 2005, 3:09 p.m. CST

    by cutest_of_borg

    I'm talking KIRK TREK people. His article read like sour grapes to me.

  • May 23, 2005, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Politics dropped.....

    by Hairy Nutsack

    I'm done, and for the record I have not drawn any conclusions regarding my experiences. I think we would be foolish to ignore a common phenomenon in the gay community though, not because of some anti-gay agenda but because there are the lives of children involved here. BTW Tombseye, if you think 12 and 13 year olds having sex is okay then you have a screw loose, seriously.

  • May 23, 2005, 4:19 p.m. CST

    How about an on topic post.....

    by Hairy Nutsack

    Having all of this take place in a year is just plain stupid, STUPID!! Besides being a radical departure from the book, it's just plain unrealistic. The better part of a year would be taken up just in the flights to Battle School and Command School. STUPID!! One of the MAJOR plot points is that there is no FTL travel in the Ender universe until much later, this plot point is at the very foundation of the finale of the story. My son is almost 5 years old now and he auditions for work from a range from 3-7 years old. There's no reason they can't artificially age these kids and give us at least a somewhat realistic timeline for the movie. Plus, what happened to the duology of Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow being shown in consecutive years? Bean begins his story as a 6 year old that looks like a 3 year old(IIRC), are they going to ignore this completely in favor of compact Hollywood storytelling? These changes have ASS written all over them. I would also be very dissapointed if Battle School became the Aryan army recruitment center. I've really enjoyed the Bean/Achilles/Petra/Peter books and in a perfect world they'd be making those movies too, but that can never happen if they eliminate the international flavor Battle School should have.

  • May 23, 2005, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Great news!

    by pizzatheface

    I, for one, am excited about this movie getting made! I think it has the potential to be an intellectual blockbuster. Also, there's no point in arguing politics on these forums. (A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still.) I just wish it didn't have to be brought up EVERY TIME Card is mentioned! But, hey, who am I to limit anyone's speech? Gay.

  • Especially since it can have disastrous effects later in life. However, teens around the age of 16 I really don't have a problem with. Nor do I have a problem realizing that different mature at different levels. The point you are missing is that the initiation process takes places in the PLACE OF what would otherwise be something similar to straight male-female interaction. Since that is largely absent other venues are sought. Failing to question the whys often leads to silly and pointless statements and comments like OSC's. And why is it that everyone says they are done with politics after they've had their say anyway? Okay now I'm done.

  • May 23, 2005, 7:52 p.m. CST

    about politics discussion & OSC

    by tombseye

    Politics is something that is everywhere. People seek escape and that's cool, but I don't see anything wrong with having these conversations. even if the person engaged in doesn't change their minds others do think. It's kind of a ripple effect. OSC's kind of put himself out there by making the comments in the first place. That's probably why he gets flack. If he was just an apolitical writer (and few, if any, writers are) then hey no political talk. OSC does imbue many of his characters with a degree of open-mindedness and Speaker for the Dead did that better than Ender for me anyway. It's strange that homosexuality is such a sore spot for him when he has written quite well about how miscommunication and misunderstanding can lead to Xenocide. Similarly, miscomprehension of the gay issue can lead to many people finding it acceptable to demonize people who are born a certain way and cannot help that they were. That's one of the paradoxes of OSC I suppose.

  • May 24, 2005, 12:04 a.m. CST


    by Tacodave

    Yeah, I read your name. It doesn't make sense (unless you're a girl and it means Arch Enemy Sister), but I saw it........I didn't lash out at you because of emotional connections to Ender's Game, rather I seriously respect OSC's beliefs, work ethic, and skill at writing. He makes it a point to have his characters face moral dilemmas and reach realistic resolutions based on their life experiences, as opposed to writers who only write from their own elitist point of view. He has said in interviews that his characters often say things he disagrees with, but they do so because they are not just soapboxes for his own ideals. I respect that.

  • His original draft of the Ender's screenplay demonstrated that he doesn't understand what screenwriting is. He doesn't get the adaptation thing. Thank the gods he has high regard for Wolfgang so there'll be a level-headed film person making it happen. The reason it's taken so long? Card is like the immovable object in meetings. He's also a ranter -- partially because he is so highly intelligent, and partially because he is a Mormon goose-head who believes all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jedi, Wookiees and Gays are going straight to hell so why put up with them on Earth. Ender's could be a classy, brilliant film. Let's hope Peterson pulls this shit off.

  • May 24, 2005, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Tombseye, 16-year-olds shouldn't be having sex either.

    by Ray Garraty #47

    Seriously, man.

  • May 24, 2005, 3:58 p.m. CST

    The Homecoming series.....

    by Hairy Nutsack

    I'd like everyone who thinks Card is a maniacal homophobe to explain to me why he included a gay character on the ship that returned to Earth in the Homecoming book series. In that series a gay man was intentionally brought on board an expedition designed to repopulate the Earth with humans. The gay man was specifically included in the expedition so that homosexuality would not be lost from the genepool. Yeah, sounds like Card wants all gays dead to me. pfffttttt

  • May 24, 2005, 4:11 p.m. CST

    why ray? & who decides that other than parents to some extent?

    by tombseye

    Seriously, when I was 16 I used condoms and did it with consenting girls. Now it's weird as hell if it's some guy in his 20s at that time, but with your peers and with protection? Why is it wrong? If it was wrong our bodies wouldn't be prompting us to act. Maybe due to the emotional factor many shouldn't, but it's absurd to lump people together as if everyone develops at the same rate. I'm studying in the UK, but I'm American, and guess what the age of consent is? 16.

  • May 24, 2005, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Hairy nutsack... (OSC paradox)

    by battery

    That's the OSC mystery. How he can include these characters in his work, like Homecoming and Songmaster, and craft such dutiful stories of human understanding, and then tell his fans (check out his site and the many posts on these topics) that although homosexuality is not "wrong" per se, performing a homosexual act is a sin and homosexuals should not be allowed to be married because the one reason for life is propogating the species as GOD hath determined. This man is a dyed in the wool conservative and a Mormon -- they believe that anyone who isn't with them is going to hell. Someone on his site pointed out (in defense of him) that he is a social republican and a fiscal democrat. That's the ugliest unintentional slam I've ever heard. Honestly, I have no idea how to judge him as a person. His work is phenomenal, I IDOLIZE his work, but reading his zealous religious-right wing rants makes me puke -- though even I think it's fun when he reduces liberals on his site to gibbering apologists of their own point of view. He's a damn genius. Anyway, ENDER'S GAME RULES!! Hope this movie gets fucking going!!

  • May 24, 2005, 6:03 p.m. CST

    I'm not saying that it's MORALLY wrong.

    by Ray Garraty #47

    My clumsily made point is that 16 year olds, even the ones who are luckily educated enough to use birth control, still aren't emotionally ready for some of the unwanted side effects of sex, like kids or disease. Hell man, when you were 16 and having sex with those girls, I'm sure it was great. Every 16-year old in the world wants to hook up. But there is a percentage of teenagers who screw up their b.c. method or get caught up in the moment and end up doing something that can change their lives. If you are 16 you aren't wired to deal with that properly. Yes, if you are a parent you need to play the card of "Please, if you feel that you need to have sex, you need to protect yourself." But speaking as a former high school teacher, I feel that I am qualified to lump 16-year olds together into any group I'd like. Out of the hundreds of high schoolers I taught there wasn't ONE who was emotionally ready to start a family. When they would get a girl pregnant some would rise to the occasion and man up and do the best he could to support the child, but a lot of them wouldn't. Congrats on getting laid at age 16 - but don't tell me that you wouldn't have completely felt lost, at least for a little while, if one of those girls had gotten pregnant. And don't tell me that the girls you slept with were so mature, either. Physically ready is one thing, but emotionally ready is another. I stand by my assertion, once again, that 16 year-olds shouldn't be having sex. I am not saying they are bad people if they do.

  • May 24, 2005, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Never read Homecoming

    by tombseye

    Heard mixed things about it so never read it. Ahh, why would homosexuality be lost anyway? It's a little more random then "gee I have a gay parent" since most of the time gay parents can't reproduce themselves unless they do the artificial insemination or in the case of males adopt. That just sounds bizarre though and I'd have to read it to understand the context. Okay, you tell me why he made the statement then? Without quantifiable data I might add. Aren't straight kids also molested at times? I'm getting a big disconnect here at various levels.

  • May 24, 2005, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Well Ray, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you actually

    by tombseye

    You make some valid points in terms of mental preparedness of many teens around the age of 16. As for the girls I slept with (a whopping 2 so it's not a lot here and one of 'em I stayed with until I was 18) well they were mature yes. More than me at the time. One went on to Princeton and became a lawyer and was pretty well adjusted last I heard and married. Lost track of the other one after she got engaged to a G.I. Actually, girls do mature faster than guys so that shouldn't be that surprising. However, you make a valid point that if they had become pregnant that would have been a whopper of a problem to deal with at that age. Not to mention getting killed by my parents. With that said, hey we used protection AND we were mutually exclusive. I just don't think all 16 year olds can all be lumped together. People vary. Now I will agree that it's creepy as hell for a much older guy to hook up with a really young girl, but to be honest at 16 if an older woman gave me the time of day and I thought she was hot, I'd have been in heaven. And still used a condom. Sex is too repressed in many ways in the US and yet, as you say, the consequences can be dire and many are perhaps not ready. I'm not gonna disagree. Then again, many aren't ready even in their 20s so this becomes somewhat difficult to ascertain. The reality of it is that many teens do have sex early and they don't grow up warped, but then I'm sure many that do also end up with problems ranging from pregnancy to diseases. That isn't universally the case though.

  • May 25, 2005, 12:17 a.m. CST


    by Tacodave

    I find it odd that most liberals or "progressives" think that just because someone bases their life on morals, their ideas don't make sense. I, for one, think OSC's attitudes towards homosexuality make perfect sense. IF the Bible is true, then the parts that say "a man shall not lay with a man as a man lays with a woman, for this is an abomination" must be God's true feelings. And if God doesn't like it, then I can't support it either...This doesn't mean I can't like gay people or write about them or watch Will & Grace or whatever, it just means that I think people who engage in gay sex are sinning against God. I wouldn't have gay sex myself the same way I wouldn't kill anyone or pick on a homeless person: I try to avoid doing things that offend God. That's not too difficult, nor is it bigoted.

  • May 25, 2005, 4:42 a.m. CST


    by Hairy Nutsack

    I liked Homecoming a lot actually EXCEPT for the last book UGH!***** You ask why would homosexuality be lost, well I have yet to see anything remotely convincing that there's a genetic link to homosexuality, so for me the point is moot. You correctly pointed out that people who end up straight are oftentimes molested, but you forget something VERY important. Kids who get molested have to deal with lifelong problems as a direct result of that molestation. Unfortunetely I have had to witness the effects of this firsthand because one of my siblings was molested when they were 5. It fucked him/her up big time and it took many years of counseling to overcome the terrible pain and guilt that he/she felt and held in for way too many years. Guess what, this affected his/her sexuality very negatively and it is only by some miracle that there wasn't a child made and no STDs were contracted. He/she spent many years, starting in the early teens, going to bed with any willing partner and our whole family struggled with the "whys" of their actions. Only after some very heart wrenching conversations with my parents did the truth finally come out and the healing could begin. So forgive me if I react negatively to anyone suggesting it's "okay" for kids to be having sex.

  • May 25, 2005, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Point taken and understood

    by Ray Garraty #47

    I think we've beaten this dead horse enough. Enjoyed the chat. Now where's my copy of Barely Legal? :)

  • May 25, 2005, 4:17 p.m. CST

    "The majority of Hollywood's audience is white. Hollywood making

    by minderbinder

    First off, wow. Second, sure the majority of moviegoers are probably white. But there are still 30% or more of the audience is minorities, yet proabably only 10% of actors in films aren't white. And do white audiences really have to have the characters oncscreen be white to enjoy the movie? If the story is written with the characters of multiple races, stick with the story. No reason to pander to a few bigots in the audience.

  • May 25, 2005, 7:12 p.m. CST

    political correctness aside, a multicultural cast is integral to

    by logofdoom

    granted it doen't have a huge inpact in the first book but later books practically revolve how the "battleschool kids" are used/viewed by there respective countries and the impact they have on global politics. Most movies these days aspire to have a seguel and an all (or even mostly) white cast would make that difficult.

  • May 26, 2005, 6:28 a.m. CST

    stupidest post I've ever read...congratulations

    by devil0509

    "Big mistake, Taco Dave. Big Mistake. Did you read my name? I love making archenemies. In case you didn't realize that. please, Feel free to post more." Please, man, tell me you weren't even a little bit serious with this shit.

  • May 26, 2005, 7:02 a.m. CST

    yea, more pathetic poster rivalry adds a lot

    by logofdoom

    why is it that that aicn talkback always becomes a grade school editorial page? Essentially, "my dad could beat up your dad", "nuh uh, my dad could beat up your dad." And yet, I keep coming back. Christ, I feel like a spouse that is too stupid to leave an abusive relationship.

  • May 26, 2005, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Harry Potter meets Star Wars...

    by Carniphage how the Warner Movie dumb-wads are describing Enders Game. Y'know I have a bad feeling about this.

  • June 21, 2005, 7 a.m. CST

    Hopefully a bit more off topic enlightenment.

    by Jaewulfe

    Battery's "Mormon goose-head" comment and others on this thread have led me to speak up for a poorly understood group of people. While I am not a Mormon myself, I've been friends with quite a few and even attended an LDS church for a while. I've been to a LOT of churches and the Mormons I met at that church were among the kindest and most accepting people I've ever met. It would take pages and pages to dismiss all of the misleading stereotypes about the Mormon faith, but here's a quick attempt to take care of some that are relevant to the... off-topic. Mormons DO believe in a sort of Hell, but it is only reserved for the worst cases of humanity, people who are consumed with hatred and cruelty for other living beings. They believe that most people (average people that haven't done anything REALLY bad) will find themselves in an afterlife known as the "Terrestrial Kingdom." This "kingdom" is considered a place beyond your wildest imaginings of what heaven might be like. Without going in to too much more detail, there are also 2 other kingdoms even better that the Terrestrial, with true Mormons attempting to be worthy of the highest kingdom, the Celestial (Hey, I didn't say I believed in it, heh). What I'm trying to point out is that Mormons are not your typical "Believe what we believe or you're going straight to hell to burn for eternity! FIRE! BRIMSTONE!" On the contrary, Mormons (unlike most Christian faiths I have encountered) accept the fact that God loves ALL his children, and unless they are going out of their way to defy Him (see previous comments about Hell), God wants them to be happy. Homosexuality does not condemn anyone to Hell, in the eyes of the Mormon faith. (I figure I should cover my ass and mention that there are always those "colorful" characters out there that claim they practice the "true" LDS faith and contradict what I just said, but the TEACHINGS of the Mormon faith are consistent with my words). OSC is certainly entitled to his opinion on homosexuality, but, if he is truly of the Mormon faith, he does not condemn gays to eternal damnation. That all said, the book was great, it shall be butchered (comes with the territory) but we can still hope for a film that stands alone as a good movie. Hell, we know everyone on this thread will spend the money at least once and see this movie in theaters. That's all that really matters to Hollywood. Thanks for reading my rant, and I appreciate any replies. :)