Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Shadow on November 05, 2013, 10:09:04 pm
-
Saw it this past weekend. It was quite enjoyable. Story and acting was pretty nice. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet but I've heard its a decent adaption, not perfect of course, but better compared to most other book adapations.
-
Won't give my money to that homophobic bastard Orson Scott Card. Gonna pirate it when it hits the internet though. Can't say it doesn't look good, just that I'm not giving the fucker my money.
-
I really liked this movie.
-
Won't give my money to that homophobic bastard Orson Scott Card. Gonna pirate it when it hits the internet though. Can't say it doesn't look good, just that I'm not giving the fucker my money.
Card's deal is from a long time ago and doesn't include receiving any of the box office proceeds. So... He gets exactly as much money regardless of how you watch it.
-
no thanks ill just watch the movie when it comes out
-
im going to see it tomorrow evening,.
-
good movie. I'll be interested to see what they do with the sequel.
also I hope they don't get too preachy regarding pacifism.
-
Won't give my money to that homophobic bastard Orson Scott Card. Gonna pirate it when it hits the internet though. Can't say it doesn't look good, just that I'm not giving the fucker my money.
Card's deal is from a long time ago and doesn't include receiving any of the box office proceeds. So... He gets exactly as much money regardless of how you watch it.
yes, but by not watching it, the company that bought the rights will be sent the message that card's works are not profitable, and will not give him money in the future, hopefully.
i couldn't watch it anyway without constantly realizing that the author hates me as a person despite never having met me, just because of who i am. fuck that garbage.
-
ARE YOU ALL TROLLING?
The casting and the SFX were good, but the movie was HELLA rushed. Maybe it's because I red the book, and recognize that what happened in 30 days in the movie is 7 YEARS in the book.
Not to mention HOW much they cut out, and everything else.
I know movies from books aren't usually good, BUT THIS WAS A FUCKING TRAVESTY.
-
I don't mind it if they stray from the book. I mean, look at Blade Runner.
-
ARE YOU ALL TROLLING?
The casting and the SFX were good, but the movie was HELLA rushed. Maybe it's because I red the book, and recognize that what happened in 30 days in the movie is 7 YEARS in the book.
Not to mention HOW much they cut out, and everything else.
I know movies from books aren't usually good, BUT THIS WAS A FUCKING TRAVESTY.
Fucking thank you.
The movie was so god damn bad. The impact of Peter on Ender was terrible; the whole
And Bonzo came off as such a fucking loser, He's supposed to be the god damn pride of the Spanish. My favorite line of all time, Bonzo so precise he piss on a plate and don't splatter.. .And Ender knows he killed them? Whole point is that he doesnt know. The whole shit was rushed and terrible imo.
Also the battles against the buggers and in the war room weren't well played imo. They barely showed any strategy, sigh.
-
I am in agreement that the movie was kinda trash, I really hated how they skipped so much of battle school.
-
Personally, if I were to make it, my biggest decision would have been 2 movies.
Enders Game: Battle School
Enders Game: Command School
Probably better named...
Also, THE FUCK WITH BEAN?
"My names bean, you know, not worth beans?"
FUCK THEIR DESTRUCTION OF ONE OF THE GREATEST CHARACTERS OF ALL TIME WITH A FUCKING MULTI-PRONGED AIDS INFESTED RAKE.
-
Anyone notice how Pterrydactyls been on his periods for over a week now?
:D
Dude, get that shit checked out man.
-
Personally, if I were to make it, my biggest decision would have been 2 movies.
Enders Game: Battle School
Enders Game: Command School
Probably better named...
Also, THE FUCK WITH BEAN?
"My names bean, you know, not worth beans?"
FUCK THEIR DESTRUCTION OF ONE OF THE GREATEST CHARACTERS OF ALL TIME WITH A FUCKING MULTI-PRONGED AIDS INFESTED RAKE.
Yeah and Bean being in the same launch class as Ender; dafuq?
-
Exactly. Noy to mention: "lol besties with bernard?"
-
they probably wanted to change the tone to not offend the same adults who thought the books were a bad influence on kids.
-
I can understand why some people might oppose it. We actually had a discussion about it once in my Modern American Literature class at DePaul.
The discussion was about how, Despite OSC's SUPER homophobic stance IRL, he did not semm to have a problem with creating what some people believe is a semi-homosexual relationship between characters (Ender and Alai in Enders Game). Despite the fact, that the situations people claim to be sexual seem to stem more from the effects of the world the characters live in (at least, at battle school) than any actual sexual orientation.
However, the counter to this point, was the Ender is so oblivious to anything sexual (due to his age), he even comments that Bonzo's rule about the members of his platoon not being in "skin" around Petra was stupid because it isolated her as different from the boys in the platoon.
Now, while I don't have a problem with them cutting out all of the MASSIVE amounts of nudity that they would have needed to put in (since, in reality, there was only one part of the book involving nudity that actually did anything for the plot, which they did a good job with their version of), I was VERY upset that they pulled the fact that Ender actually killed both Bonzo and Stilson, which was CENTRAL to his character development post-bugger war (when he found out about the deaths during the court-martial hearings). They cut MANY key aspects of Ender's character development which made it seem from the beginning, that he was the "super commander", instead of growing into it as he did in the book.
Again, while I know it's stupid to expect a movie faithful 100% to the book, I was VERY disappointed in how they seemed to use nothing from the book except quotes, character names, and a few situations. It was more like the book "inspired" the screenplay, than we converted into it.
-
1) A book and a movie are not the same thing. Dude Where's My Car was nothing like the book, but it was still a masterpiece.
2) Ender's Game was one of the best science fiction books ever written. I imagine Speaker for the Dead would be a little like having a Jesuit running amok among Ewoks. That turn into trees. No movie please.
3) Who cares what OSC had to say about queers? His closing comments on the subject were perfect; The queers won the national debate, and let's see if they can be as tolerant in victory as they wanted everyone to be when they were the underdogs.
I am happy that fags can marry - love transcends equipment. But now that the battle is over, do I still need to see men kissing each other in every single show I watch? Every single episode? Really? Not everyone is gay, you know. Of course, maybe I could change the channel from Gay TV...
It's like when every comedian was Jewish, and TV and movies were bombarded by racist jokes that only Jews could repeat. Or Chris Rock's delightfully riskée racism mining. And I can't even write the word "nigger" on this board (not that I would in any case).
Or is it going to go the way of Women's rights, and are Universities going to have half of their humanities curriculum dedicated to Homo Studies? Really, do women really need that much higher education to learn how to be themselves? And now every woman thinks she is the pointy tip of the women's lib movement, when all the real ground was broken 70 - 100 years ago.
My philosophy is simple: If you want to suck a dick, go for it. If you want to wear a hat, go for it. If you want to marry, go for it. Government has no place in interfering with a citizen's choices. If you disagree, go for it.
And if you write a good book, it should be judged on its own merits.
-
I really enjoyed the last two sentences of your post... the rest not so much. Not everyone watching public television is heterosexual either slug. It isn't about 'tolerance' it's about equality so you can shove that whole post right back up your ass. And it isn't women's lib(60s), it's also about equality. Now I don't know what ruined the beauty of feminism for you but I seriously think you need to turn your radar back on.
-
Equality should be proportional, that's all. It is not proportional today.
I have nothing at all against feminism. Women's lib did not happen in the 60s, it happened in the 20s and in the 40s. That's when women acquired rights they did not have. What happened in the 60s was simply the result of those women raising their children differently - an undeniably female dominated domain. The 60s was about redefining the social fabric, driven by the previous generation, and the result of the pill and MAD. Population could be controlled, and women did not have to be factories for putting the next generation of soldiers on the front line. The promiscuity of the 60s was also a value change driven by the previous generation - with so many men killed in the wars, boners were simply in demand. Like father like son, and like mother like daughter.
If you look at a typical university's humanities curriculum, it is sexist. Very sexist. When is the last time you hear of a 'Men's Studies' course. And please don't tell me that this is everything else.
If I have a daughter, I will treat her as an equal, not as a retard who needs to learn some academic's opinion of what a woman should be (ie as distinct from a man). I certainly won't teach her to spend a lifetime arguing that blue is not equal to red, and that it is not fair. Men and women, queers included, are humans, and divisive special interests only denigrate the people they think they are supporting.
-
There is actually men's studies now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_studies)
Women's Studies has been slowly phased out and is part of "Gender Studies" nowadays.
Equality is a sticky subject because there are many forms, and women are still massively underrepresented politically, still earn less than men with equivalent education, etc. Should a toniculation that is more than 50% of the US toniculation only have 20% of Senators and 17% of the house of representatives? This is WAY better than in the past, but it's not equality.
This is nothing compared to the lack of representation of gay folks though. Gay folks make up somewhere around 10% of the US toniculation, but have only six openly gay representatives, or about 1.3% of the house of representatives, and no senators. Again this is LIGHTYEARS ahead of the past, but it's another thing to say that discrimination is over and people don't need special protections or whatnot to further the push towards equality.
-
I really enjoyed the last two sentences of your post... the rest not so much. Not everyone watching public television is heterosexual either slug. It isn't about 'tolerance' it's about equality so you can shove that whole post right back up your ass. And it isn't women's lib(60s), it's also about equality. Now I don't know what ruined the beauty of feminism for you but I seriously think you need to turn your radar back on.
I think he might actually be watching the gay channel. It exists...
-
Equal rights does not mean statistical equality. I'll try to be succinct. Using gender equality as an example, if half the toniculation is female, and they have absolutely equal opportunities, it is still completely possible for men to dominate in some fields and women to dominate in others.
This is because people make their own choices, as individuals being influenced by their own differences, not because society is forcing them or oppressing them.
Women may innately prefer more social, stable, artistic careers. Men may innately prefer riskier ones. This may always lead to men making more money. It would be sexist to say all women are this way, and that they may never change.
It would also be sexist to tell women that in order to be equal they must make all the same decisions that men make; that they are inferior because they choose not to make as much money or occupy as many administrative or political positions. Essentially saying, 'you are less of a woman because you are not a feminist.'
This example applies to any subgroup when looking at statistics regarding that group. Equal opportunities and rights are important, but equal results are impossible. we will always get different results because individuals make different choices.
TLDR if everyone is equal, certain groups may still tend towards certain behaviors in a statistically disproportionate manner. Statistical equality requires forced conformity, forcing every 'group' to be the same... a form of oppression.
-
Gay thread is gay.
-
Oggy, your example sucks - since politicians are generally professional liars, I would estimate that there is a disproportionately higher number of homosexuals in office than in the general toniculation. The fact that they are not open about it is a simple reflection of the fact that they lie for a living. The fact that they are not open about it is also a reflection of social values, and in that regard I agree that there is work to be done.
Connecting Oggy and Llamavore's comments, is it a surprise that the US has a black male President before a female one? I don' think so. I think a lot more men want to be President, and the unfortunate sexist truth is that a lot more women want a male president than a female one. Similarly, men and women prefer male managers in general, and there is a lot of evidence to support this. And yet the person you love most in life is likely your mother. Possibly the person you hate most as well. Does this reflect inequality?
The UK had Margaret Thatcher, who was basically a man in a skirt. She may have been a Scotsman for all we know. I don't see her as a triumph of female values, on the contrary she was an androgynous creature who leaned more on the side of male values than most testosterone-poisoned men.
Society is open to many more kinds of people than it has ever been. It is not about Gay Rights, or Women's Lib, or Civil Rights, or the right to worship Allah, but about embracing pluralism over particularism. This is what irritates me so much about seeing so much gayness in the media - gay culture is introspective and overbearing, and fails to connect with the rest of society except for the thrill of making others uncomfortable. And they never accept you, no matter how many dicks you suck.
-
And they never accept you, no matter how many dicks you suck.
So much this.
"I got me some gay friends to help me with my fashion sense but they mostly just fuck me." -Tosh
I tease my gay friends mercilessly about being gay.. they get no preferential treatment from me. I treat them just as badly as my straight friends.
-
I am in Madrid right now, and was momentarily tempted to go see El Juego de Ender at the Cines Caello.
Unfortunately, I don't speak gardener.
-
kill this topic
-
Equal rights does not mean statistical equality. I'll try to be succinct. Using gender equality as an example, if half the toniculation is female, and they have absolutely equal opportunities, it is still completely possible for men to dominate in some fields and women to dominate in others.
This is because people make their own choices, as individuals being influenced by their own differences, not because society is forcing them or oppressing them.
Women may innately prefer more social, stable, artistic careers. Men may innately prefer riskier ones. This may always lead to men making more money. It would be sexist to say all women are this way, and that they may never change.
It would also be sexist to tell women that in order to be equal they must make all the same decisions that men make; that they are inferior because they choose not to make as much money or occupy as many administrative or political positions. Essentially saying, 'you are less of a woman because you are not a feminist.'
This example applies to any subgroup when looking at statistics regarding that group. Equal opportunities and rights are important, but equal results are impossible. we will always get different results because individuals make different choices.
TLDR if everyone is equal, certain groups may still tend towards certain behaviors in a statistically disproportionate manner. Statistical equality requires forced conformity, forcing every 'group' to be the same... a form of oppression.
We still raise girls to be childbearers and housewives. Look at toys. Boys get to play with LEGO, erector sets, K'nex, Tinker Toys, and whatnot. What do girls get? Dolls. Overly sexualized Barbie dolls. Lifelike baby dolls. They get a play kitchen set, they get fake jewelry and pink dresses. They get fake, miniature vacuum cleaners and Easy Bake Ovens. We encourage boys, from an early age, to be creative and to build things, while we encourage girls to just be housekeepers and caretakers.
The inequality in adulthood is no surprise, it's how they were raised from birth, to be subservient and second class. While we've made a lot of progress, we still have a long way to go.
-
And Slug, while I appreciate the Libertarian perspective of "no government interference," as a Libertarian myself, I must say that you are excessively homophobic in this thread. You know what kissing another guy in public falls under? Freedom of fucking speech. A core Libertarian value as well. When you speak of all the "progress" we've made, and then with the same breath suggest that we shouldn't be open in public, whereas heterosexual couples get to put on a show of it everywhere they go? That I can be gay as long as you don't have to be reminded that gay people exist and to kindly just keep it behind closed doors? That's fucked up.
I'm not saying that people should be allowed to hump in public, I'm just saying that the standards need to be applied equally. Perhaps you just notice gay love scenes more in the media because it's shocking to you. But they are few and far between when compared to straight love scenes. I mean, shit, it's hard to go a single episode without a straight kiss. But fictional gay couples aren't allowed to display the same degree of affection?
I don't know what else to say. It's hypocrisy and ignorance at it's finest.
-
PS: You don't get to call us queer, or fags, or homos. You can call us "gay," or "homosexual" if you want a strict scientific term, or if you really want to go nuts with big words, you can call us "non-heteronormative," but "gay" is probably the simplest. Technically, I'm bi, and technically technically, I'm genderqueer pansexual (and you can use both of those words as well, also "pan" to abbreviate the latter), but I accept "gay" as a catch all.
You cannot call us queer, fag, homo, fairy, tranny, or any other term that has been used in a derogatory manner towards us - unless, of course, your intent is to be derogatory, because that's exactly the sentiment you convey. That's how this whole re-appropriation thing works. The oppressed group reclaims the words used against them. That's why only jews can call each other "kike," why only blacks can call each other "nigger." If you're part of the class that did the oppressing, you don't get to share in that re-appropriation.
-
Mrs. Valt and I decided to NOT pressure our kids in any way appertaining to specific gender roles and assign chores equally... the girl takes out the garbage and walks the dog just as much as the boy and the boy does the dishes and vacuuming every bit as much as the girl.. You know what? I spite of this... the girl loves pink and dolls and make-up and the boy loves blue, and guns, and bugs. Hand the boy a stick and it becomes a sword.. hand the same stick to the girl and it becomes a fairy-wand.
I detest public displays of affection... perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but there's a place for that. Don't get me wrong.. I think it's cute to catch a little peck here or there.. or folks out walking holding hands... but I have to draw a line for what I consider decent and wet snogging in the open air is a bit past that line for me.
I call my straight friends horrible shit.. why should my gay friends be any different? I get what yer sayin about reclaiming hateful words... but I am an equal-opportunity asshole and will rib anyone, for any reason... regardless of their sexual identity.
-
You have to remember vault, its not only how you treat your children, but how they see themselves fitting into the wide world that dictates how they react to things. Do you let them watch TV, have friends their own age, watch movies, read (comic)books? if so this is most likely why your son thinks of himself as a warrior and war hero because that is what he thinks is 'cool'.
Yes you have every right to call someone a derogatory name such as 'i fail at life' or 'fag' or any other of the millions of obvious choices you can pick from whos soul existence is to make an entire group of people feel less like people. You live in america (most of us do anyhow) and as such you get the first amendment to cover your ass. Saddly this right is abused more and more. Just keep in mind that everyone is a person, no matter how diffrent from you or me they are.
TL;DR its about respect
-
We still raise girls to be childbearers and housewives. Look at toys. Boys get to play with LEGO, erector sets, K'nex, Tinker Toys, and whatnot. What do girls get? Dolls. Overly sexualized Barbie dolls. Lifelike baby dolls. They get a play kitchen set, they get fake jewelry and pink dresses. They get fake, miniature vacuum cleaners and Easy Bake Ovens. We encourage boys, from an early age, to be creative and to build things, while we encourage girls to just be housekeepers and caretakers.
The inequality in adulthood is no surprise, it's how they were raised from birth, to be subservient and second class. While we've made a lot of progress, we still have a long way to go.
certainly there's conditioning going on, but even in the absence of it, there is still a tendency for women to gravitate towards the things we consider womanly, and for men to gravitate towards things we consider manly.
I see a lot more 'gender neutral' or non stereotypical girls' toys these days. What are you going to do when a little girl says she doesn't want those, and she wants the typical girl stuff? 'Sorry kid, you're not allowed to be womanly, because society has moved past that (looks down on it)'?
Which brings up another point -- the inherent sexism and condescension that exists between feminism and 'mainstream' femininity. It's evident when you say girls are encouraged to *just* be housekeepers and caretakers. As if there's no inherent power in that position, or as if it isn't a vital part of society, that we wouldn't fall apart without.
Granted, men can be housekeepers and caretakers, and women can be creative and builders... actually I see examples of this all the time, so I'm wondering if you haven't just swallowed a bunch of propaganda. I see women being creative and building things all the time. And I see them choosing, of their own volition, to do the things you call conditioned responses.
What could be more condescending to such a women than to say, 'you did not actually make your own choice, someone else made it for you'? What if you're wrong? If an individual regardless of their age really is choosing that innately, then what all this works out to is an attempt to change that woman. Especially if the majority of women innately choose these things due to seeing them in a loftier and more noble light than feminists or progressives do.
You see the results of these choices as inequality, but that's only partly true. There is a degree to which women have been limited and forced into these roles. But to the extent that they were not forced, but chose those roles, it is not a reflection of weakness but of power. To assume that women never 'owned' their own roles and life-choices is the most insidious form of sexism, because it pretends to be about bettering women. Ultimately it is about devaluing the social roles which we associate with femininity. It sees these roles as weak and useless, and disrespects and condescends to anyone who chooses those roles. It could be a female internalization of male perspective, or it could be a female perspective which men internalized... probably a bit of both.
Think of it as a bitter mother-in-law constantly finding fault with her son's wife but covering it up with 'I'm only telling you this for your own good.' It is not really possible to please the mother because she has started out with the assumption that her daughter in law is not good enough. Everything the daughter does is then interpreted according to this presumption. This is the way feminism still relates to the majority of women. I don't know how often I've seen feminists presume to speak for all women either... but it's hilarious when a woman stands up to one of them. They are completely incapable of discerning their own sexist tones toward the people they're supposed to be helping.
Equal opportunities are important, but as I said before, in order to get equal results you must force your system of values on everyone and control them. And that is never going to happen. There will always be 'unequal' results, and people will eventually realize it's part of individuality and stop self-hating over wanting different things.
-
Now hold on
Grilled Slug is worldly so we should accept his opinion as canon
-
I don't agree that it is society which dictates what are acceptable gender roles. As you said, my son adoptef yhe hero role because that is what he chose, just as my daughter chose princess. They decided... among a miriad of choices that could have been made. We allowed no guntoys, no gun related media, and yet.. my son picked up a stick from our yard and promptly shot me with it. At an age where peers were no influence... I think he was just 2 at the time. We painted my dauhhters room in earth tonesand when tje power of speech was discovered, asked to have her room repainted pink. We, as parents and our children's first line of defense from the outer world, have little power to proof our kids against these outside influences. Unless there is found a way to change every facet of our society in terms of gender roles, these ideals shall persist despite our desire to see them tempered.All I can do is give my kids the tools to decide for themselves.
P.S. I would never use derogatory terms brfore a solid relationship had been built... hence my use of the term "friends".
-
I don't know what else to say. It's hypocrisy and ignorance at it's finest.
Yet you would want to dictate your vision of an androgenous society. And then dictate to them what words they are allowed to use, and tell them to respect a double standard. Rediculous. I can call anyone anything I want for the simple reason that you cannot enforce your opinion. And I can bear the consequences of doing so. The fact is that I do not have any lack of respect for the gay community, or any minority (of which I am a member of a few), but I will use whatever words I want in defence of freedom of speech. Jesus, read your note - you don<t even know what to call yourself and you presume to dictate vocabulary lessons to me. I bet you would want me to spell women as wymin...
I have 2 young boys, and I have to agree with Valt in the nature vs nurture debate. I once watched my 1 1/2 year old looking at a snail with a group of friends. Then he suddenly and callously squashed it with his foot, and all the girls ran away. The boys remained and looked on curiously as he leaned in to pick up the slimy remains. The girls screamed, he laughed, and I ran to catch him in time, worrying that I had a budding psychopath for spawn. I have many stories along these lines that don't involve snails, but the fact is that boys and girls are very different, and always will be, and trying to train everyone to be the same smacks of dystopian communistic bullshit. I don't think you know what Libertarian means.
As for raising girls to be childbearers, well, the biological fact is that only they can be, and it takes a little expectation-setting to be willing to pass a watermelon through your hoo-ha. Also, the fact is that a male can be careless with his sexual organs and never get pregnant, whereas a female cannot unless she is barren. Creating life and preparing the next generation is inevitably decided by women (when they are deliberate about it). No matter how much time I spend with my kids (and I am very attentive father), "mother is the word for God on the lips of children everywhere." If you ever have kids of your own, you will see what I mean. Further, I have no pity for women in Saudi Arabia: women have unequalled power to raise each next generation, and they get the sons and daughters they deserve.
I also agree with Valt on the point of public displays of affection - I wish it were more moderate. I would like to watch a show with grandparents, parents, and kids in one room without stressing out someone in the room. Imagine how great Glee would be without the constant queerness. And as for the hetero action, my point was that it is not proportional - that's all. The amount of homo action is out of step to the point that it has a propagandistic feel to it, and no, I don't just notice it more. If 5-10% of the population are fags, I have no problem seeing 5-10% of episodes deal with homo relations. To confirm my hypocracy, I have no problem whatsoever with women kissing - the more the better.
Brian's comments are fair, but when I am trashing someone or trolling them, the purpose of name calling is not to elevate them. People call each other dick and pussy, and asshole, and boner, and Vancouverite, and shithead all with the same stroke. The real question is if your sensitivity to a word interferes with your ability to understand another's perspective.
Grilled Slug is worldly so we should accept his opinion as canon
Quite right. I have lived on 3 continents, and travelled to 50 countries. I have sold products and services in almost 40 countries, and delivered training in almost as many. The world is not US culture, so I speak with a broader background than some passport-less yokel from Ohio or BC.
-
Grilled Slug is worldly so we should accept his opinion as canon
Quite right. I have lived on 3 continents, and travelled to 50 countries. I have sold products and services in almost 40 countries, and delivered training in almost as many. The world is not US culture, so I speak with a broader background than some passport-less yokel from Ohio or BC.
So you're in essence a white, semi educated male, and a career tourist. Yeah I'll pass.
-
Not white, but yes, semi-educated. Not a tourist, but an explorer and a passionate student of human nature. My job is just a vehicle to pursue my real passions.
-
hey let's try to keep it a little less... yeah.
this was a thread about a movie.
-
hey let's try to keep it a little less... yeah.
this was a thread about a movie.
Don't try to repress our social dialog, you facist!!
e: I haven't read the book or seen the movie.. I may read the book now but I still have no desire to see the movie.
This is what Sci-Fi has been a good platform for.. stimulating the social dialog.. it has always been a means to externalize internal factors so they are more palatable... usually our fear of things different from ourselves. And yet.. over and over again.. the result is that a great many people put aside their differences in order to combat some other difference. It delves into, "I know we're different, but that guy over there is WAY different and poses a threat.. let's kill it before it kills us." Which sends a mixed message, to me anyway.
-
I am a big sci-fi fan, and I have never thought it was about fear of things different from ourselves. In my experience it is about exploring and expanding our understanding, and inevitably getting past labels. Ultimately, that's what Ender's Game is about.
-
hey let's try to keep it a little less... yeah.
this was a thread about a movie.
sry, got a little wall-of-texty
-
hey let's try to keep it a little less... yeah.
this was a thread about a movie.
sry, got a little wall-of-texty
Yeah that's kind of your thing.
-
Saw it, didn't hate it. I am curious though, has anyone not read the books but seen the movie? I am not actually sure that you would have any fucking clue what was going on at all. They moves so fast through battle school and didn't explain...well....anything.
-
Saw it, didn't hate it. I am curious though, has anyone not read the books but seen the movie? I am not actually sure that you would have any fucking clue what was going on at all. They moves so fast through battle school and didn't explain...well....anything.
I didn't read the book, but I'm a pretty big sci-fi buff so I followed the whole thing.
-
I haven't the slightest clue what any of this is about. Maybe I should go back and read through the thread.
-
I haven't the slightest clue what any of this is about. Maybe I should go back and read through the thread.
No, don't do that.
I have read the book, but that was a long time ago. I am thinking of rereading it before seeing the movie so I can really be disappointed.
-
I am a big sci-fi fan, and I have never thought it was about fear of things different from ourselves. In my experience it is about exploring and expanding our understanding, and inevitably getting past labels. Ultimately, that's what Ender's Game is about.
Maybe I'm watching scary alien films?
-
Maybe you're watching Gay TV.
-
hey let's try to keep it a little less... yeah.
this was a thread about a movie.
sry, got a little wall-of-texty
Yeah that's kind of your thing.
nah-uh. 99% of my posts aren't text walls.
-
nah-uh. 99% of my posts aren't text walls.
That 1% is probably more than the rest of this mono-syllabic alliance combined.
-
now you're just flattering me
-
I just read that as "flatten" you. It was pretty funny. I bet I forget this in the morning.