Please read: I want your opinion on the story of Ender's Game.

I like you read Ender's game some time ago, BUT when told by a friend that movie was in production, I had to reread. So it's relatively fresh in my head.

As with any novel-into-film,.. things are missing.

It is ridiculous that they would want children running the military, but there are reasons that are not explained - or explained in one sentence of dialogue. My explanation is based on what I have just read and loosely based on what I have read of the other novels, years and years ago.

'The Program' referred to in the film is the selection of children whom are genetically advantageous in a number of key traits owing to ideal militarists. That is, - an uncanny flair for strategic brilliance, tactical ability, and overall superior intelligence. While Ender and co. are not 'genetically engineered' they are the result of genetic screening; as in 'Gee, these two highly intelligent people want to procreate? Wow, their kid is gonnna be a genius!' That's pretty much how it goes. The kids are preselected based on this, and pushed down a path pursuant of a life in the military. I personally think this could have been squeezed into the plot somewhere. What would have been more difficult would be mentioning that Ender's father was Polish child prodigy himself and Ender's mother was the daughter of an esteemed military leader in the good ol' US of A.

You're right when you say that the plot owes to that same plot used a thousand times in fiction about a young hero who is unique for whatever plot-driven reason, and is to be the savior. Classic. While the books get a little more philosophical as they progress, the first book is as you put it and as I also believe, - aimed at a younger audience, probably young fiction. As we get older, the weight of the world crushes our childlike spirit and we no longer believe we are special, that's adulthood for you.

I personally enjoyed the film. I did think the film was missing a lot, for example I was annoyed by the super-quick pace of the drama, not to mention the completely absent characters of Valentine and Peter (Whom by the way, not sure if you remember from the book, are fairly important parallel characters concerning the the political theater of Earth).

I enjoyed the film because I went into the film full well knowing that there was a probable chance that the 'powers that be' would transform the book into a film for a Juvenal audience. A money maker in the holiday season, or so they hoped it would be.. :/

The thing you've got to remember as well is novelists generally have large portions of time and little pressure to complete, or write sequel stories...decades if they choose. In another example I am currently reading the middle novel in an intended trilogy; between the first one and the one I'm reading it took the author 9 years; I will finish this in week or two, I ask myself: how long till the final novel??
How much does a film have? 1-2 years. Novels can be complex. Orson Scott Card himself years ago said the book was 'unfilmable' after many tried to write screenplays, buy the rights, etc, etc. It's been a saga for some time.


A friend and I shared this philosophical conclusion over some beers...

The problem is the inherit difficulty that all films face when transformed from their respective novels; - key information missing from the film's plot. I have this idea that there are two philosophies that 'the powers that be' have when making these films;

a) Time is Money. While 'the powers' wish to include all the necessary plot details when making a film, they simply cannot due to absolute, physical time constraints, for example production running too long, or the actual movie itself being way too long. Longer = more money. For example imagine if Lord of the things was canonical word-for-word put to film? I generally favor this ideal and emphasize with those involved in making the movie.

b) 'Hey here's a screenplay already written for us! [Insert book title here], let's put that to film and make some money!'
This is my least favored ideal, owing to capitalist profit without any regards to the quality, ergo, 'the quick buck'. Not much thought is put into the transformation from book to film. Ultimately making those who loved the original, hate the abdominal reproduction.






In Summary, if you understand the 'why' behind the film or any film for that matter, you accept, understand, and enjoy it for what it is. To channel Ender, when you understand your enemy, in that moment, you also love them.

Finally, someone who is capable of criticizing the movie without being an ass about it! Will you please teach the others how? ;) First, I loved both book and film, but the book is better. I hope others will similarly preface their own comments with their POV.

Your points have all been addressed on other threads on this board, but I've pretty much kept to the sidelines - and you began so nicely so I'll add my two cents if I may.

I agree that the premise of the story is reaching, but I wouldn't say ridiculous - same can be said of many other science fiction/fantasy stories. The terms "suspension of disbelief" and "deus ex machina" are thrown around often in these discussions, but I believe people forget to do the former, and see the latter where it doesn't exist. And if I hear "plothole" again...

There is a simple explanation for using children, in both book and film. They were in training from a very young age, many of them, so that prior life experiences don't interfere with that training or with "the simulation". The intention is that they grow up and become adult leaders. I mean the characters' intention, not the author's. So they ran out of time and accelerated teenage Ender and his friends, the best of the best. [So how did they not know much sooner that they were running out of time? Or have adult teams already in place as a Plan B? Ya got me, just accept it. Remember that the film condensed the 6-year story of the novel down to just a few months. It can be assumed that there was such behind-the-scenes military planning in the novel.] There are other valid points regarding kids and the "simulations" but I've gone long already.

There are real-life present-day militaries using children. Not necessarily in leadership and decision-making roles, but nonetheless. I don't want to go too far down that road though. If you still don't like this premise you might not enjoy books 6,7,8, the "Shadow" series, but I hope you'll give it a shot anyway.

As you already know, the film deviated from the book's story significantly, lacking much of the character development in favor of action and vfx. So I assume most of its fans were already fans of the book, and probably much like Ender himself. Many different types of people can get into his mind, but most of them are probably just as you described. Different or special, especially intellectually. A generally good kid, intelligent, shy, introverted, awkward. Bullied by peers and/or superiors. Identify more with adults than other kids. The story plays to the have-authority and save-the-world fantasy that many of us had when we were that type of kid.

Anyone who has real-life experience in military or emergency services understands "burnout" and we kinda like the way book Ender thought he was rebelling in the final game. This is a huge change in the film, where he was actually trying to win, not to quit.

In the 1991 print's Foreword, and Card's commentary on the audiobooks, he describes good and bad feedback from different types of audiences. I think you're right that the PG13 film was sanitized and targeted at a combination of young male general audience and adults already fans of the novel. But I disagree that the book should be labeled Young Adult or Teen. It's a fun story on the surface but the kids might not dig too deep for the psychology. There are two books on philosophy which I have not yet purchased but they seem very interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Enders-Game-Philosophy-Logic-Gate/ and http://www.amazon.com/Enders-Game-Philosophy-Genocide-Popular/

In summary, I agree with you that it is a very well-written novel. "The One" stories have been done many times before but this one takes a unique turn with it (making the audience question their belief that the antagonists are actually bad). It's about children but is not a children's book. I, like much of the fans, see myself in Ender. The story makes people think about the ethics of various aspects of war and the manipulation of children in the name of common good. It makes people think of these things without telling us which side we should take on any of the issues.

Ultimately though, you're right, children do not and will not run armies in real life. I don't think Card believes they do or will either.
Tim

I read the book a long time ago after someone recommended it. I found it a waste of time to read, simplistic and somewhat embarrassing. I don't recall all that much from the book since I don't really care to keep it in my mind. I had hoped they would make the movie better then the book, but no. At least there was some nice special effects and good music.

If humanity ever find itself in that situation, where an alien space armada navigate the stars to our planet and attacks us, and we believe that just because they can't talk they can't possibly communicate, then I hope they kill off our species. Even most humans have the capability to communicate in other ways then through sound. We can use sign language, body language, writing, lights and frigging math if need be. We can use simple cause and effect to communicate, it works even on dogs.

Though it might explain why humanity pick children as their commanders. On a subconscious level we might realize that we are too stupid as a race to be allowed to live after we have managed to convince ourselves that it is impossible to find a way to communicate with a race because they can't speak. Thus we pick commanders from the group of people that still need years of brain development before they properly can process cause and effect. After picking commanders who don't really understand this about consequences yet we will surely get what we deserve.

Seriously though, I believe the only reason why they have child commanders is because teens are an important demographic target. Then it kind of makes sense. Even if I find the idea to be bad I can live with it. There are like a million stories about the kid (often bullied and orphan) who happens to be the chosen one to save the day so it is kind of a valued part of our culture by now, or at least a part that we must accept is here to stay.

I like the basic idea that humanity wipe out a race that don't really want to wage war after they understood that each human was a sentient being. They kind of feel bad for murdering us and is far more forgiving then our own species. However... the pure stupidity of humanity is so unbelievable that the point is lost.

I also like that the aliens are alien, I like that a lot. Too bad I find the humans unrealistic, though. In fact, I can identify more with the aliens then this mankind species that is supposed to be sentient. Either way, when I find aliens more realistic than humans then they must have done something right. I can easily imagine the formics using lights and pulses, trying to communicate with math but the humans are too stupid to believe it is anything else than a coincident. It would be sweet if there were some scenes, after humanity time and again fail to recognize basic communication attempts, where the formics debate what really should qualify as a sentient being.

If we get a movie from the formics perspective then I would probably find Ender's Game a lot better. I bet the formics in the end decides to do genetic experiments on volunteers in an attempt to make them more compatible with human minds so telepathy is an option. The ape race is seemingly unable to decipher any other kind of communication attempts, even after trying to use different kinds of basic communication media and methods for decades, and the option to wipe them out isn't really on the table because it simply is wrong to wipe out an entire race.

Well, at least they didn't have any midi-chlorians or Jar Jars in the movie. That alone makes me understand why people find Ender's Game a good sci-fi movie, or at least get people in a more forgiving mood after watching whatever unreasonable things the movie is trying to sell to you. It could be far, far worse then it is, but it lacks much of what I want from a good movie.

The ridiculous premise ruins the story for me; That a child is a better general than an adult is just completely unbelievable. You don't see kids controlling armies, and there's a reason for that.

I think when you combine a number of facts from the book, you have a "reasonable enough" explanation for using children. The problem the book and movie face is that it looks like such an obvious plot hole, people want one equally obvious and airtight explanation. It doesn't look good when you have to combine a number of obscurities to come up with a defense.

A great deal of it probably depends on how you approach the book. Those like the OP, who obviously aren't looking to trash but still just can't look past the issue, are definitely in the minority imo. For the most part people who like the story will give it the benefit of the doubt, those who don't (or who have a problem with Card) will just use it against the book because they don't like it anyway.

People have already mentioned why they used children, but a few of the most important ones-

1. Children would be much easier to manipulate, and wouldn't ask the same sort of moral questions that an adult would. This is a very important point in the book.

2. The kids were genetically engineered from the beginning for one specific purpose. The fact that kids today would be inferior generals doesn't necessarily mean that the same would be true in the Ender universe.

3. There is something in the idea that kids have fresh minds, are quicker to learn new things, have better reflexes, etc. Ender's Game is often compared to gaming, there actually was a kid who became a professional gamer at the age of 6. Granted that's an aberration, but given genetic engineering its not all quite so implausible as it appears at first.

4. The battle wasn't meant to happen so soon, Graff and co. just got stuck with the guy they had been training for years... he just happened to be a kid.

Combined, I think its a strong enough explanation for why they'd use kids. Maybe not as strong as I'd like, but enough to establish suspension of disbelief.


We're police officers! We're not trained to handle this kind of violence!

That a child is a better general than an adult is just completely unbelievable. You don't see kids controlling armies, and there's a reason for that.

So why do you like this movie/story?

The ridiculous premise ruins the story for me; That a child is a better general than an adult is just completely unbelievable. You don't see kids controlling armies, and there's a reason for that.

Have you read Ender's Shadow or any of the other Ender related novels? I just read Ender's Shadow and it is a great parallel story about Bean's life as he goes through his unique childhood and see Ender's Game from his POV, as well as other info on Bonzo and Petra and others. I think if you read that novel, it would add some perspective to the child soldier question in Card's Ender series. Since Card wrote in in 1999, he was able to polish the story more in terms of the technicalities of the station, bureaucracy, and even some insight on Earth. Bean's story in itself is an interesting read in Ender's Shadow and I am currently reading Shadow of the Hegemon which is a unique story about Earth after the Bugger War is over with all of Ender's subordinates having to deal with being back on Earth and the changing political landscape.

Anyways, back to Ender's Game. I watched the movie before reading the books and recently watched the movie and reread the novel. One thing I liked what the movie did was that the "children" were a bit "older" from like the mid teens for the vets and like age 10 or so for the kids which I thought made it more believable as I think that it would work with even early teens or even at 10 "starting" the battle school as opposed to like 6-7 in the book. kids at 10 would have more comprehension abilities and would be starting to become stronger physically, as well as a bit more "maturity" than most 6-7 yr old kids. one thing I appreciated in both the movie and novel is that Graff and the other adults faced their own personal battles and misgivings about having to put so much pressure on these children to become weapons and having to use isolation, division, and other nasty tactics like changing the rules of the game in order to keep channeling these kid's emotions and killer instincts while finding the right kid who was able to think creatively and differently to become that leader.

As for Graff's reasoning that kids can process lots of information and things like that faster than adults, I could see that happening as they are all in a "game". likewise, younger people are more easily malleable mentally and haven't been fully developed so they can easier become indoctrinated and used for hours on those simulations and battle games more alertly in continuous action. while perhaps some 20 year olds and maybe some 30 year olds could handle it, and perhaps Ender's Game would be just as fine if they were all in their 20's, 30's, maybe even late teens, I do like that fact that since they are still new to life and haven't experienced much that they are mostly able to focus on their "classes", assignments, drills, etc., without having to worry about "adult" things like taking care of kids, paying taxes, bureaucratic paperwork, etc., they are able to stay flexible and imaginative while benefitting from Graff and later on Mazer's experience and guidance.