Talk:Ender's Game (film)/Archive 1

OSC statement re: Serenity
From the Serenity article: "Science fiction author Orson Scott Card called Serenity 'the best science fiction film ever,' further stating 'If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made. I'd rather just watch Serenity again.'" Is there some way to work this into the article in an encyclopedic manner? - Ugliness Man 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... How about something like this? "Card has stated that he would only be satisfied with a very high standard for this movie, citing Serenity as an example of what he's aiming for, and would prefer that the movie never come to fruition if it would not meet this standard." A little clumsy, but it's something. 138.89.122.55 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Card mentioned that some critics suggest that Ender needs to be older and have a romantic interest. He flatly refuses saying when you were 14, did you believe adults almost implicitly? (paraphrasing). Some of the criticism is that the film would require large ammounts of high caliber child actors. He responds to this by mentioning the live action Peter Pan- which is very well done. I have sympathy for his views, but I also get discouraged as the project seems to be stalled.mokru


 * Hopefully Card ignores the critics; it's a very important plot element how young Ender is. Jon 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal
Using the term "development hell" sounds very informal. Even if it is a well known phrase doesn't sound like the kind of language that belongs in a encyclopedia.FastFoodKnight 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, golly, we have a whole article about it. Even though it sounds informal, what else do you want to call it?  That's the term they use in the industry. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Development Hell" is the standard term in the Movie Industry, or at least the US portion of it. There's a direct link to the article on the pharse already in the article, and there doesn't seem to be any other equally concise way to describe this. Jon 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ender's Game was a project in development over seven years ago and even had a director (Wolfgang Petersen) attached (see article). Per the notability guidelines for future films, it is too premature to have a stand-alone article when there is no near-guaranteed film. (When filming starts, it becomes a near-guarantee, as films in production are far more likely to be released and thus be responded to than films in mere development.) I recommend continuing to develop the "Film" section at Ender's Game. If filming does begin, we can recreate the article, and it will be lasting. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above comment, film now in more than a very embyronic phase.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Movie poster
Dose anyone know if any "Ender's Game" posters floating around is the official posters of the film. (see here). A number of them exist and claim to be the official poster, but I can't tell. Are they all "Fan" posters or actually book covers?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The jacket artwork by Sam Weber for TOR books remains semi-official (namely, see same image accompanying NovacVideo's coverage of a press release here?; however, Card himself uses this cover by John Harris at his website and Amazon). Even so, it likely serves no more than a placeholder until Summit/whoever's creative team comes up with new ones, no doubt featuring likeness/es of Asa Butterfield/et al.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I have seen a number of different "Ender's Game" movie posters, but I wasn't sure if any of them were the "Offical" posters.  We will just have to wait.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This one's a fan effort.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mick
Source, Brendan Meyer's sched. conflict - here.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMDb Jacob Leinbach has it that Jacob Leinbach has now earned this role--that is, for what such rumors are worth. (I'd put my money on it.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Carolina Actors Group link.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy" LGBT and pro-gay marriage
Why is this section even added? You have a section here about a small group that opposes one of the the author's personal viewpoints - that doesn't have *anything* to do with the book OR the MOVIE, heck there are millions of people who don't agree all kinds of things, why any don't we give them a section as well? I mean what if this GUY EATS MEAT?! Let's add a section about how PETA is probably against this movie too, er somehow or another. The logic doesn't make sense there, and it shouldn't make sense to include this section.

Darrellx (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it is very much a real and documented issue for the film and its studio  . Just saying, I don't agree with it (I've been waiting for this for years), but I wouldn't try to whitewash it either. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. As a well documented issue that may affect the film it needs to be mentioned here, especially as we are supposed to provide an Neutral Point Of View. -- MisterShiney  [[User talk:MisterShiney|''' ✉''' ]] 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulleted list item
 * I am pro LGBT and stuff and so on. But wow, some people are just plain stupid. He wrote the fucking book for the movie, so listing him in credits is the only right thing to do. --helohe (talk)  15:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this should be listed on the author's page, not for this movie. It seems a little ridiculous to exclude the author of the story from credit because of his personal beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.74.153 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, it's agreed then. I don't agree with is personal beliefs either, but he already does have a large, more extensive and better section on his authors page (like you said, where it belongs), about his personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with the film, plot, casting, philosophy, message, etc. This section is moved. It just echos what's already on the authors page.

Darrellx (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not agreed and you're responding to a two month old thread. Please read the rest of this talk page where editors (excluding sockpuppets) have formed consensus for including this abundantly-sourced content in this article.. - MrX 22:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation and verifiability problems
This section has some citation and verifiability problems. It says that "some ... groups began to criticize the film." It doesn't say which groups and it doesn't provide a citation for this assertion, so which groups are saying what about whom? I am inclined to delete the whole first half of this section, but it won't make much sense if we leave in only what is currently verifiable. Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
has thrice blanked an entire section of this article. As this content is adequately sourced and relevant to the subject of the article, I would ask Whatly to justify such a bold edit. Also, here is a fourth source from The Guardian. - MrX 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think its adequately sourced at all. I said why in the edit summaries, I'm wondering how you respond to what I've said. That Guardian source is also inadequate as it describes his views as "repugnant". Whatly (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources for Wikipedia's purposes is not determined by the choice of words that the sources use, for example "bigoted" or "repugnant". Reliability is determined by the reputation of the news organizations with respect to editorial oversight and accuracy of reporting. Salon and The Guardian easily meet our standard. Please see WP:RS or feel free to open a case at WP:RSN if you believe the sources are unreliable. As of now though, there are two experienced editors who disagree with your views, and rather than edit war, you should make your case here and try to gain consensus for removing this content. - MrX 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Salon doesn't say there's been any controversy. As for The Guardian, it is a blog piece with somebody of a clearly biased view against Card so it cannot be relied upon to give an account of any controversy about the his role. You could say "John Smith in The Guardian claimed that.....", though his opinion probably isn't noteworthy and so fails in the weight department. Whatly (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Salon doesn't have to say it's a controversy, since other sources plainly say it is a controversy and Salon doesn't contradict that characterization. The guardian blog post is perfectly acceptable to support that the film was a source of controversy, whether you believe the author is "clearly biased" or not. Here is another source that does call it a controversy. Here's another source and another and another and another. Here's one from The Daily Telegraph. There are many more corroborating sources available, as simple search will reveal.
 * Do you still wish to stand by your assertion that this controversy is irrelevant, trivial and of undue weight, or perhaps now would be a convenient time to restore the content that you removed? - MrX 01:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never disputed that there are sources. The sources proposed were just inadequate, including The Guardian because the author's view that the movie has been "weighed down" cannot be added as anything other than his personal opinion. I stand by it, as the sources you've proposed don't compare to news sources like the BBC or NYT which seem like a benchmark when adding an entire controversy section to a big film like this. I would take the Telegraph, but it doesn't say that there's been controversy, just that there could be in November. Whatly (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by the sources being inadequate. The sources are reputable agencies, and each article discusses the film and the controversy surrounding Orson Scott Card. More importantly, the coverage of the controversy is broad. That more than meets our inclusion requirements. A single editor can not dictate a requirement for specific sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. There is demonstrably a controversy at the center of this film's upcoming release. You may want to spend more time reading the sources if you sincerely do not grasp that fact. - MrX 02:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find sources for just about any claim or criticism. The problem is undue weight and notability. It doesn't necessarily meet our inclusion requirements just because there are sources. If there's a notable controversy about this film then it will be reported in notable media, like the BBC or NYT. I'm not being specific about them, any similarly noteworthy news sources is fine. For example, The Telegraph isn't on the same level as the BBC or NYT, though it's miles ahead of those other sources. Whatly (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Notability in this case is determined by non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Your assertion of the types of "noteworthy news sources" required to establish notability for purposes of inclusion are simply not consistent with our policies, or consensus. If you know of such a policy, please present it. - MrX 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are always different levels of notability. Is it notable enough for an entire "controversy" section on a 110 million dollar film? From the current choice of sources, I don't think it is. A requirement of being reported in actual news sources is a pretty low benchmark to add this. Whatly (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is being mentioned on the cover of Entertainment Weekly notable enough? Here's the article itself . TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The cover says DC Comics, a separate issue. In the article all it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Pretty weak stuff. Even if it was described in detail, its still just a magazine. A requirement of a real news source like the Washington Post, Daily Mail, etc isn't asking too much considering this is such a big film. Whatly (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was obvious to me before before, but that absolutely nails it. - MrX 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please share your realization. Whatly (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please point to the guideline that disqualifies a weekly publication with a circulation of 1.8 million as "just a magazine". The article is 75% regarding ender's game and is titled "The 'Ender's Game' controversy", whether the cover alludes to the other 25%, it is still on the cover. I don't think anyone here is trying to promote this issue (I can't wait until November), but you certainly are trying to sweep it under the rug. TerminalPreppie (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not a specific rule for that, obviously, but what does seem to disqualify it is the weight and notability requirement. An alleged controversy that has only been reported in magazines and entertainment sites isn't good enough for an entire section entitled controversy on a big film like this. If there was any real controversy of notability then it would be reported in respected news media. That article barely mentions any controversy. The most it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Everything else is irrelevant to the section you want to add. The only other thing that comes close is when it says "building backlash", but that could be talking about the comics or just opposition to Card in general (which the subsequent talk to the producer implies). Whatly (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Better yet, I will share our source's realization:
 *  "The 'Ender's Game' controversy - DC Comics' big gay controversy" 


 * To summarize, we have


 * The word "controversy" used twice in this one source, and repeated in several other sources.
 * Several major journalistic publications reporting the controversy.
 * One editor (out of four) who has objected to the content on editorial premises.
 * No policy based reason to omit the content.


 * - MrX 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They're certainly not major. No major journalistic publications have reported on this alleged controversy. If the major journalistic publications of the NYT, BBC, Independent, Washington Post, Times, etc have not mentioned this at all, despite each churning out stories like there's no tomorrow, then a controversy section on this 110mil film is unjustified due to the several policies that I've mentioned. I think we should stop going around in circles, this is getting too repetitive. Whatly (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * has now been blocked as a sock of, per checkuser - A l is o n  ❤ 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alison. - MrX 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-production
How long are we going to keep the section on this page before it becomes clear that the release date will not be changed? If they felt the change was necessary the studio would surely have said so by now. Trailers are playing and everything, and all the ads I've seen still say November 1. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Smith is the editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.82.160 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section
Please help the Wikipedia community at large and add Material to this wiki entry that relates to the film, who made it, the actors, special interesting FACTS about the making of the film, ect........ and please Stop Re-adding the section. When a person opens a REAL encyclopedia in a library and looks up a topic, the "Controversy Section" usually appears under the AUTHORS BIO. The authors PERSONAL BELIEFS have nothing to do with this film; are not even remotely expressed in the slightest detail in the films plot; and as the books author has no influence on how it is made the section titled Controversy SHOULD NOT be added to the biographical information of this STAND ALONE FILM.

WIKIPEDIA is not a place to find everything relating to someone and try to lambast that person for their personal beliefs on all related articles about that person. If you wish to point out the "controversy" then it should be done on the authors wiki bio entry (which it already has).70.196.197.46 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The controversy is well-documented: I count 92 Google News hits on this subject, all of them directly related to the film; there are currently three sources in the proposed section that are reliable secondary sources: two are the Hollywood Reporter and one is Salon.com. The first part of the section is a little weaker: there is a citation needed tag and the rest of the sources are primary, but that does not warrant your proposal to remove it completely, and your claims are baseless. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, given the views of the author and how widely they are known, there is no justified reason for their exclusion. You say his views have no effect on the film, but they clearly are clearly likely going to affect the views/box office. -- MisterShiney   ✉    07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a recently established CONSENSUS to include this content, as it is very relevant to what the media is reporting about the film. To put it another way, the controversy is what makes the film notable (at this point). Feel free to add content about the film's production, plot, etc., as long as it is reliably sourced. Please also read and follow WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. - MrX

Lead
objects (four times) to the addition of two sentences to the lede summarizing the controversy. I invite that user to discuss their views here. - MrX 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that it is directly releated to the controversy section I sub-sub headed it. -- MisterShiney   ✉    19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP. Stop removing content. You do not have a justified reason. Per WP:LEAD it goes in. Maybe it needs trimming. But not a blanket removal. -- MisterShiney   ✉    19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This controversy took up a third of the lead yet there`s little recognition of the controversy in terms of sources. Who care`s about the boycott by the unknown geeksout? Card mentions a boycott in passing but that`s it. There needs to be a lot more attention given to the boycott by sources for it to make it in the lead as the lead needs to summarise the most important aspects of the article and as it currently stands, this controversy is ignored in nearly all reports on the movie and so it is obviously not an important aspect.
 * I especially like how NPOV it was, describing his views as intolerant. Signed 190.235.83.32 (talk)‎.


 * Yes, thats why you break it down. It is not so much the unknown Geeksout, its more the fact that it was a Homosexual boycott because of his thoughts. -- MisterShiney   ✉    19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are abundant sources: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired to name a few prominent ones. The media cares about the boycotts. The top 10 Google News hits point to this controversy, and not other aspects of the topic (By the way, Google has a well-established track record of determining what's important and what's not).


 * Card has responded publicly, which is unusual and highly notable. Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the article. The film's notability at this point is largely due to this controversy. WP:LEAD states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. ". Also, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points— including any prominent controversies. " - MrX 19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I see these sources? As the article currently has no notable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.251.14 (talk • contribs)
 * Incorrect. There are citations in the article and Google is your friend.- MrX 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I`m after notable sources, not blogs. Has The Guardian and half a dozen similarly notable news sources published a news article on the subject?
 * Again: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired. If you would like to question the reliability of any of these sources, you are free to so so at can do so at WP:RSN. - MrX 21:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The google link you gave me had blog after blog with the wall street journal as a blog as well. I checked the guardian and I found a blog and a just published news piece. However, the controversy still doesn`t comàre the much larger, important and extensively sourced development setion which doesn´t make it into the lead. The controversy is dwarfed by the development in terms of notability and content, making the controversy barely reported and achnowledged in comparison.
 * Interesting. That's almost the exact same argument that banned user made here before his sock was blocked by . - MrX 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.251.14 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tagged some of the lead sources as better source needed. The geeks out source as is is just a tagged thread. Please cite the original article and where it is notable.  Also "Skip Ender's Game" website needs notability. Anyone can make a website that opposes anything they want, so please add the news article sources.  The Huffington Post articles are written under the Huffpost Gay Voices section so those references have been clarified.
 * The article about Card and Superman does not mention the film, only the novel, so it should be replaced with a better source pertaining to the film. There should be plenty of articles that relate the FILM to Card and his views; it does not need to be WP:SYNTHed from the Card/Superman article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that some of the sources needed improvement. I've added one and cited one that was already in the article, providing a couple of direct quotes. I left the original sources, but wouldn't object to them being removed now. I think this addresses all of the sourcing issues, but the section could probably still use some light copy editing. - MrX 01:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the media sources; keep 'em coming! They still need improvement or at least some organizing. The paragraph says that in March, "some LGBT and pro gay-marriage groups criticized the film," yet the sources refer to just ONE group, Geeks Out, which later organized the boycott in July. It is also not clear what they are criticizing in March: the film deal, the producer credit, the DC Comics deal, Card's views (not like that's changed in March 2013), Card's associations with certain organizations, or other national events (court rulings, BSA, prop 8).
 * Card's responses also need to be clarified and presented properly. Huffpost relates to the DC Comics deal and book, and was written in February, so I removed that, and call for a later article. I moved the "moot" statement to the second line of that paragraph but it needs similar clarification as to what he considers settled and moot.
 * The film's producers and directors have also responded to the issue so that definitely needs to be included in the article to keep it balanced. The Entertainment Weekly quotes boxed above would fulfill that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, and mostly agree. I will make a couple of adjustments to try to address them. - MrX 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now (as of this edit). It's balanced, precise, well-sourced and provides context without being too lengthy. - MrX 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree so I put it right back. MilesMoney (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed boycott now passes wp:N threshold...in SPADES
Eg from 3 days ago's NYT:

Indeed, '"Cf.'' Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy? --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding to the article the "completely irrelevant" quote that was missing from the Lionsgate response. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the majority of the above quote as a WP:COPYVIO. Attribution: it is from the link http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/the-enders-game-boycott.html Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Marketing
This article from Variety could be used for a "Marketing" section per the guidelines at MOS:FILM. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Official Website -- this should link to the official website (EndersGameMovie.com), whereas now it’s linking to the Tumblr blog. “Ender’s Game on Tumblr” is linking to the old production blog. Can we have that direct to our IF-Sentinel Tumblr blog (EndersGameMovie.tumblr.com)? We can keep the Production Blog too but can it be labeled distinct from the official Tumblr (you'll notice the production blog is no longer active). If we can add our Facebook and Instagram pages, that’d be great. But that's not as important as the updates above.

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

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


 * I went ahead and changed the two URLs you mentioned (official and Tumblr). I left off the Facebook and Instagram ones because they're usually discouraged. Thanks for recognizing your COI and posting your request here! &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * You are not seeing the bigger picture, it is not only the tomato-meter score that matters but also Metacritic and RTs top-critics, etc. Currently the movie has a score of 50 on metacritic and 63 on RT that is an average between 50 and 60 which is usually referred to as mixed. The tomato-meter score of 63 is plainly visible for everyone to see and form their own opinion. (Mixed is neutral, it doesn't say negative.) --Space simian (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...for example "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa" got 54 on metacritic (and 53 by RT top critics) which actually means it got a higher composite score than Ender's Game.--Space simian (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The bigger picture is a composite comparison to recently reviewed movies. Since you used "Bad Grandpa"- On Metacritic, 'Bad Grandpa' got a marginal 3 points better that Ender's Game (54 to 51) using less than 40 critics for each. On Rotten tomatoes, Ender's Game got a marginal 1 point better than Bad Grandpa (63 to 62) based on over 100 critics (substantially more). The big picture CLEARLY demonstrates almost exactly the same critical rating and yet Bad Grandpa's critical description on wikipedia was "generally positive." You can do this same juxtaposition with every other movie with around the same score and they will almost categorically say "mixed to positive" or "generally positive" even with lower scores. I provided 6 very recent examples to demonstrate this but there are legions of examples available.

Additionally, 'mixed' suggests an at least a relatively even amount of good and bad reviews. 80 positive to 47 negative is hardly even. Thus, it is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading to continue describing Ender's Game as "mixed" when countless precedent suggests a uniformly better description. To continue calling it mixed would be holding it to a standard Wikipedia overtly does NOT endorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.188 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are only looking at the 63% tomato-meter score. The summary should reflect both metacritic and rotten tomato. On metacritic it got 50 (!) and together with RT's barley above 60% the most neutral is to call it mixed reviews. (And I wouldn't object if someone changed the Bad Grampa summary to "mixed reviews" either.) --Space simian (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I very purposely used both RT and Metacritic and NOT just the RT tomato-meter score. Perhaps you personally believe that 63 on RT and 51 on MC deserves a description of "mixed." Not withstanding your opinion, wikipedia (as I demonstrated) routinely gives movies with around 63-RT and 51-MC a description of either "mixed to positive" or "generally positive." So we can either change thousands of movies with similar scores to a mixed rating based on your subjective opinion OR we can change Enders game to "mixed to positive." This is the only and objective and uniform decision. Further, Ender's Game received an audience score of 77% on RT and a 7.4 on Metacritic which metacritic itself considers a "generally favorable" review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.64.188 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On e.g. Metacritic a score between 40 and 60 is considered "Mixed or Average Reviews". If you take the average score of Metacritic (now 51) and Rotten Tomatoes (now 62) you end up in the 40-60 range. As pointed out even "Bad Grandpa" got better reviews if you consider all the scores and not just the tomato-meter (62% tomato, 55% tomato top critic, 54 metascore). Even so, I don't think the Bad Grandpa reviews qualifies as positive either to be honest, and two wrongs don't make one right. Audience/Site-user ratings are never included since they can be too easily manipulated. --Space simian (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Obama essay
This article is clearly becoming a WP:COATRACK for anti-Card criticism. It seems to me clear that an essay written by a guy who happened to write the book of the film is not an appropriate subject for the article about the film. Perhaps it is more appropriate for Barack Obama or definitely for Orson Scott Card. But to dedicate an entire paragraph here is to violate at least WP:DUE. At most - at most, a one-line sentence with prose and sources clearly demonstrating relevance to the film might be admissible as a compromise, but I don't like anything more than that. Oh yeah, and stop the edit war, am I really the first one to come to the discussion page about this issue? Are you asking for full protection here? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon review of the two sources currently provided, I will not permit any mention of this essay, as the sources are using the release of the film to comment on the essay and nothing else. No protest group has commented, Card has not commented, the movie studio has not commented on the essay. It's a non-story. The sources by no measure establish any relevance to this film. Elizium23 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Several reviewers have commented on the "Obama as Hitler" essay as well as the homophobia, I can provide more sources if you like but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It's not a coat-rack for anti-Card criticism, if that were the case the list would be much longer and mention the anti-evolution and climate-change-denial among other things. And yes, evidently you are the first. --Space simian (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, besides the two already used as reference ( & ) here are a few more examples:
 * 'I knew of Card primarily as an anti-gay-marriage crusader and vocal right-wing crank. In a column from last spring that falls at the exact midpoint between sci-fi thought experiment and paranoid screed, Card compares President Obama to Hitler and envisions him amassing an army of “Brown Shirts—thugs who will do his bidding without any reference to law.” Where will this paramilitary force be recruited? Among “young out-of-work urban men,” of course.' From a review of the film in Slate:
 * 'It's not news that Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card is a homophobic turd who has declared that anyone caught “flagrantly” engaging in gay sex “cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.” Or that in May of this year he posted to his website a “silly thought experiment” in which he likened Barack Obama to Hitler and predicted that the president will militarize “urban gangs” and “send them out to channel their violence against [his] enemies.”' From review in the Village Voice
 * '[...] he's also compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and accused him of wanting to raise an army of young, unemployed urban men to "channel their violence against Obama's enemies."' From article in San Jose Mercury News
 * --Space simian (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet they show no relevance to the film other than being written by the same guy. Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's what reliable sources find relevant to the film that matters, not what you or I think. --Space simian (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources are not as reliable as you think they may be. The Village Voice is a tabloid, meaning it is not reliable. Out of the other two sources, Slate magazine is a slanted news source and the San Jose Mercury News is a daily newspaper, which also reduces its reliability, so these three sources do not establish notability and reliability for this event. Also note that there is no consensus for the extraneous COATRACK content that you and ToFeignClef have been adding to this article. You seem to be editing solely to maintain this OFFTOPIC content in the article. That's tendentious editing, and we may have to take this to ANI if you continue to push pov editing and continue edit warring. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are wikilawyering, making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. The three sources I added here (besides the two already existing you are ignoring) are reliable in the sense being notable film reviews/film critics, they are listed as Top-Critics on Rotten tomato which should help give you some perspective. The two other sources you forgot to mention are the guardian and la times. It is clear that the essay comparing Obama with Hitler is yet another controversial aspect that is being mentioned in relation to this film by relevant reliable sources. If this was mere coatracking then there would be a whole bunch of other stuff we could mention that Card is also infamous for. --Space simian (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The website is a review aggregator; the top three reviews may have more weight than others, but despite its usage in film articles here in WP, Rotten Tomatoes is only relevant and reliable for the aggregation of all the 100+ reviews on the films, not for the reviews of a small number of individual reviewers. These events do not show enduring notability about the film, were reported as part of a daily news cycle popularized by the slanted Huffington Post source, and are brief reactions to specific events not relevant to the main topic and majority of the article, so even if the events were sourced by more than 3 sources, they are off-topic and irrelevant to the article scope as mentioned multiple times by various editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * San Jose Mercury is a legit newspaper that's been around for ages. That particular article does talk about the controversy of the film and Card's views in general if you need more general journalist reviews. But it is not the original source for Card's comments on Obama, which was popularized by Huffington Post. In the same article right after that quote, Tony Hicks writes "OK. Sounds like someone has been reading too much science fiction." So I would tread carefully when referencing this. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that some of this is becoming a coatrack for those that don't like Card. This is an article about the movie, not about Card. That a bunch of liberal commentators want to bitch about Card are using the movie as a conduit to attack Card does not mean that these criticisms have anything to do with the actual movie. Granted it is fair to make some mention of it because of the calls for a boycott of the movie, but we must be very careful not to simply turn this article into a way to attack Card. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is part of the controversy surrounding this film and it is mentioned by several reliable sources (Huffington post being only one other that AngusWOOF mentioned not I) as well as by notable film-critics reviewing the film. There is no good reason not to include this. Your personal opinion about what is relevant does not trumph that of reliable sources, and personal political views should matter even less. --Space simian (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is part of the controversy surrounding the writer, not the film! The writers of these reviews are only taking the opportunity of the release of the film for venting against Card. These sources have demonstrated no relevance to the film. They have not related the plot of the essay to the plot of the film, nor have they compared characters, nor have they drawn conclusions from any themes or imagery that these two works might have in common. Just because the writer's other works have been mentioned in reviews does not mean that they must be included in an encyclopedic article on the film by any stretch. Go put it in Orson Scott Card and leave his film alone. Elizium23 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The writer is highly relevant to the film of course. His statements in proximity to the release of the film has become part of the controversy surrounding the film. There is no reason not to mention this except that you seem to dislike the criticism and that should be irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that several reliable sources and movie critics mention this when they are discussing the film. --Space simian (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, forget Huffington Post, here's the essay (posted in May 2013) that the media is quoting:  There is no mention of the film or the book. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By that logic none of it should be included. The author has caused controversy in relation to the films release which several reliable sources and film critics mention when they discuss the film. --Space simian (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The quote from San Jose Mercury News lies saying he "compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and accused him of wanting to raise an army of young, unemployed urban men to "channel their violence against Obama's enemies." The start of the essay says he doesn't think it'll really happen, it just a work of fiction. So he wasn't really accusing Obama of wanting to "raise an army of urban men", etc.  Anyway, no reason to fill an article about a movie, with nonsense about the author.  It does not have anything to do with the movie itself at all.  Perhaps just state there was some protest do to things the author said, and then link to that section of his article, no reason to have any of it here at all.   D r e a m Focus  21:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that that quote was not intended to be inserted into the article (the section that has been removed was very careful to explain that it was "an experiment in fictional writing" by Card). The above quotes are merely meant to show that the essay has gotten a lot of notable comments by film critics and others in relation to the film. --Space simian (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * People were discussion if those sources were reliable, and I was just pointing out whoever wrote that one was an idiot. None of the major film credits are whining about this nonsense though.  The fact that a small number mentioned something like that, in their poorly edited gossip rags, doesn't mean we should mention it here.   D r e a m Focus  23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Comment/question - I don't understand why Card was awarded a co-producer credit if it's true (as reporters say) he recieves no back end. Could he have sold the rights to the book for THAT much, so many years ago? Something to research.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Buggers
So I just got back from seeing the movie's midnight release (yes, I am aware that I am the biggest nerd), and they didn't refer to the Formics as Buggers even once. So I'm going to go ahead and amend the part of plot description that reads "... alien race called the Formics (also known as the "Buggers")..." so that it reads "... alien race called the Formics (known as the "Buggers" in the book)...". Feel free to object if I'm wrong about them not using "Buggers". cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term looks like it was removed from the movie and later books. Here's a news article from The Charlotte Observer that mentions this: -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In 2000 Card gave a presentation associated with his Ender sequels at the Borders Book Store in Baileys Crossroads Virgina. He was asked why he changed the name from "bugger" to "formic". He said it was his reaction to the Starship Troopers movie and he did not want his work to be contaminated by using the same name for the aliens as that movie. ed Ecragg (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Differences from book section?
Isn't it pretty standard for articles about movies-made-from-a-novel to include a section about the differences between the two? I checked the Harry Potter films' wikipedia articles and they tend to have one. If I was more familiar with the editing process I would write up some notes, but here's a good starting point: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/8-Big-Differences-Between-Ender-Game-Movie-Book-40120.html  174.65.10.224 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This was removed as 'O.R.' maybe someone can find sources: There are many minor deviations but here is a list of plot changing deviations:
 * The books have Ender recruited at age 6 and he is age 16 in the movie.
 * The books contain more violence, strategy and character development
 * The books have Ender fight the war from an planitoid/asteroid close to earth not from a distant plant.
 * The books contain no FTL travel until the 15th book Children of the Mind
 * In the books the fact that Ender is fighting a real war and not just a simulation is more of a surprise.
 * The Formic egg is not found until the 11th book Ender in Exile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.11.47 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - the queen egg is found in the first book and Ender is carrying it with him for the next 3 books - ed Ecragg (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

The text that was removed:

Survey

 * Support inclusion. Mention of the essay helps the reader understand the nature of the controversy that isn't only about the LGBT boycott. The essay is higly notable and mentioned several times by reliable sources discussing the film as well as by top-critics reviewing it. A few examples:, , , , . If reliable sources think the criticism is relevant when discussing the film then so should Wikipedia. WP should follow RS. --Space simian (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The boycott had nothing to do with that. I read the first two sources you linked to, and they aren't really about the movie, mentioning it briefly, they about Orson Scott Card and what he has done not related to the film.    D r e a m Focus  08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The paragraph as written does not show its relevance to the series or the film, and is not neutral. It needs to mention its impact on movie critics who discuss whether the film should be reviewed on its own merit or on the original writer's current views, and its affect on the filmmakers whether they have to make a comment in response. How many general reviews (not specific anti-Card biased writers) seriously considered the Obama essay or the Superman news as influential?  On the flip side, the Supreme Court comments were related to the movie and had generated movie-specific discussion and reaction, which is documented in the current article.  Now, if Card wrote an essay that linked his Ender's Game characters or updated the film script to reflect current world leaders, that would be a lot more relevant and notable. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned my political beliefs. I am merely trying to ensure the paragraph will be neutrally and accurately written (trace to original sources and chronology of the reaction), and given due weight for the article, and posted suggestions as to how to make it so. That, and defend San Jose Mercury as a reliable newspaper source and not a tabloid. ;) -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The criticisms of Card largely have nothing to do with the actual movie.  Unless it is specifically related to the movie these are little more than little coats to hang onto this article.  Arzel (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of this RFC is to get input from uninvolved editors therefore it should not be closed per wp:snow now. You guys suddenly got interested in this about the same time yesterday and all seem to share the same view (and political beliefs); Elzium23 and mOrphzone will naturally also oppose. --Space simian (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that political beliefs are irrelevant to the notability of the content being discussed for removal. Also note that you should not be making wrong assumptions and personal/ad hominem attacks to other editors. Stay on topic, or you will be submitted to ANI for disruptive/off-topic comments. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you are alluding, but this page has been on my watchlist for some time now. Anyone can participate in an RfC; you are involved and have already stated your reason for support.  It is perfectly fine and natural for other editors already involved in the discussion to express there reason for objection or inclusion.  I actually don't agree with Card's personal views regarding this issue, however this article is not a political article so politics should not be an issue.  What I do object, however, is when editors try to use WP to push a political view.  It appears to be quite clear that this article is being used to attack Card's views on LGBT rights.  If the LGBT community wants to boycott Card that is their right, but the use of WP for their activism is not ok.  Arzel (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had this article on my watchlist for months, and the reason for my "sudden" visit to the talk page (after several visits starting in JUNE...) is that an edit war formed, mostly with Space simian on one side and others opposing him; I was shocked to find zero discussion of the issue here, so I started it. Space simian has been warned for edit-warring, other warnings will follow if it continues. Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not true, except that I have been warned for edit-warring by you which was entirely uncalled for (an attempt at intimidation?). The comment below this was in response to Arzel, not Elizium who for some reason inserted the above comment later, just pointing it out to avoid confusion. --Space simian (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have clearly failed to observe WP:AGF Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So have you, maybe you should start with the beam in your own eye.--Space simian (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that wikipedia shouldn't be used for activism. What I was objecting to is your wikilink to wp:snow implying this rfc should be closed before any uninvolved editor had a chance to comment, you like anyone else is free to comment of course. --Space simian (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I snowed it because your paragraph has nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with Card. Arzel (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose -- seems to me that the essay is getting press in relation to the film mostly for happening close in time, but not seemingly in relevance. Unless the essay itself is shown to have some tangible impact on the film or studio (and not merely on Card) then it might be relevant to include it. Chris857 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Card is the controversy here, his statements are a problem for the studio and has become a liability. The studio and actors had to publicly distance themselves from his views. The LGBT boycott got most attention, but it isn't the only thing that film journalists and film critics have been commenting on in relation to the film. Not mentioning the Obama essay as well gives readers the incorrect impression that the controversy was only about Card's views on homosexuality, which was only part of it (if you look at what has been written). Here is yet another article: . --Space simian (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Include. Card has been a PR nightmare for this film and his controversial views and activities have generated considerable press in relation to the film itself. His anti-gay activities have already ensured the studio distanced itself from him and he was pulled from the Ender's Game Comic Con panel. There will probably be sources out there that link his Obama "story" to the damage he has caused for the film's publicity, it's just a matter of finding them. The Guardian source from 16 Aug sort of makes a correlation by saying his Obama essay probably won't please the film studio because they've already had to do damage control over his anti-gay issues, but there must be something out there that is more tangible. And now that Ender's Game looks set to be the flop of the year, I'm sure some publications have made the connection between both of Card's two main controversial views (LGBT and Obama) and the film's dire box office performance, regardless of whether Obama supporters organised an official boycott or not. Particled (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional: This article in The Wrap delves into the issue more closely, though it was written in August before the film came out. It highlights the negative publicity that Card's Obama essay generates in relation to the film studio. Particled (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Particled is a blocked sock puppet.  D r e a m Focus  21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion per my comments above. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The section already pushes the limits of WP:UNDUE for the Article regarding Card. Morphh   (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:Coatrack ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Include The matter has become relevant in relation to the promotion for the film, and even Harrison Ford has had to make public statements trying to separate the two while he was promoting it . Roguana (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Roguana is a blocked sockpuppet.  D r e a m Focus  21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slate article is entirely about the differences between the book and the film and says almost nothing of the essay, and certainly does not relate it to the film, only to the writer. The digitalspy link once again discusses Ford's comments on the book and the film, and the author of the article brings in the essay only to smear Card and can't actually relate it to the film. Elizium23 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slate article states: "Card has repeatedly condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms and has compared Obama and his supposed “urban gangs” to Hitler and the Nazis. These views have posed problems for the film adaptation, which opened last night and is being boycotted by some supporters of equal rights for all. Those behind the movie have understandably defended the book by saying that it preaches tolerance and really has nothing to do with Card’s ugly political views." The Digital Spy article states: "Card, who penned the novel that the movie is based on, was a member of anti-same-sex-marriage pressure group the National Organisation for Marriage until recently, and sparked outrage with an opinion piece comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. However, Harrison Ford is adamant that Card's politics are not relevant to the content of Ender's Game." It isn't relevant what you believe the intentions of these article authors were or whether you personally agree with them, all that matters is that they have provided a professional commentary concerning Card's views and how those views may impact on the film's success. This issue therefore belongs in this Wiki article. Roguana (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If these so-called film critics only gave the essay half a sentence in each of their articles, how come we have been asked to provide a whole paragraph? Clearly a violation of WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that they have mentioned it in relation to the film's release and as long as it is reworded to directly reflect that, it warrants mentioning in this article. We aren't writing for their publications, we are writing for Wikipedia, so your argument about them and us isn't relevant. It was mentioned in multiple mainstream sources and the details can be adequately summarized in just a couple of sentences so there is no WP:DUE violation at all. Roguana (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As already stated, it belongs on Card's biography article, not this article. The essay is not the main point of the controversy; Card's views are. The essay is essentially irrelevant and off-topic, and serves no notable function other than as an additional trivia point to add to the coatrack. Rewording sentences from the sources to tie it with the other sentences is WP:SYNTHESIS, and gives undue weight to the otherwise irrelevant sentence. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the passage is not directly related to the film adaptation. The criticism related to the film has to do with homosexuality and homophobia, and we should cover only that here. I would suggest a More information template linking to Orson Scott Card if readers wanted to learn more about his views that do not have to do with this particular film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Include - for reasons stated above, there are various sources that pertain to it being a potential liability for the film's chances of success. GoldCoaster (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:GoldCoaster has been blocked for using sockpuppets.  D r e a m Focus  21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove/Oppose - per reasons given in preceding section. Card's personal views are irrelevant to the film scope; it belongs on his biography article, not this one. The content/sentences do not have enough reliable sources to establish enduring notability of the topic, were reported as part of a daily news cycle popularized by the slanted Huffington Post source, and are brief reactions to specific events not relevant to the main topic and majority of the article, so even if the events were sourced by more than 3 sources, they are off-topic and irrelevant to the article scope as mentioned multiple times by various editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * remove if that item is notable it is notable on Card's biography, certainly not on the film article which has no mention. That would be pure WP:SYNTH to include here. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove/Oppose - the book and film work long predated this essay. The essay is unrelated to the Ender Universe. It should be included in Orson Scott Card ed Ecragg (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The essay has nothing to do with the film. Criticizing the film and the essay together in the entertainment section is just a cheap trick that editors are using to give the article a wider audience. They know that most people will only read it if a Hollywood film is mentioned. At most we should add a general sentence: "Others have called for a boycott because they see some of Card's writing as being in bad taste." Connor Behan (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It’s relevant to Card himself; it’s not relevant to the movie beyond the fact that they share an author. If it does bear mentioning, it certainly doesn’t warrant three sentences of its own; the sources about the movie that were given in the first post, from Space simian, only refer to it in a single sentence. —Frungi (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I’m tempted to move for close per Godwin’s law. —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use it as an example of Godwin’s law in that article. --Space simian (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove, weakly. The vast majority of sources list the motive for the boycott solely as Card's views on marriage (which, by the way, warrant more here than a wlink and a quote of Card ceding the obvious, as this article makes clear).  While I've read a number of articles that mention the Obama screed in passing, it is only in passing.  It's an oh-by-the-way or a "Just in case you think the gay lobby is overreacting, he also wrote..." kind of thing.  It's not totally irrelevant to why people are avoiding the film, but it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT requirements here.  Rather it belongs at the Orson Scott Card article. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠  03:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove or minimize. It's not really relevant to the film.  It warrants at best a minimal mention, such as a single, short sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the focus of the article should remain on the film itself and not on the controversies in the background. JOJ  Hutton  16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The focus is on the film whether we mention it or not. Naturally the focus should remain on the film itself but that doesn't mean we can't mention controversies that's become a liability. --Space simian (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The political views of Card have nothing to do with the film. Wickedlizzie (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The film should be permitted to stand on its own if the articles, etc. are not directly related to the film, which they are not. In general, it seems like the publicity around the film is being used as a venue to create a media brouhaha about Card in order to bring light to a media agenda, rather than the film itself being something that justifies criticism. Metheglyn (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The text has nothing to do with the film. If anywhere, it should be on a Card  biography article.  Holdek (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * On top of that, , and are confirmed socks and have been inef blocked leaving only space simian as an include. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's both silly and dishonest Elizium23, I closed it as "no consensus to keep the text" but you left that last part out. Clearly there isn't going to be a consensus to keep the text which was what the RFC was asking if there were but for some inexplicable reason you want to keep wasting peoples time with this. --Space simian (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 17 so far against having it in the article, and one person for it who wasn't blocked for being or using socks. Someone not participating should close it as clear consensus to keep that out of the article.   D r e a m Focus  21:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Box office
Shouldn't there be benchmarks for the box office numbers, comparing them to other films in theaters and to production costs? --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:D5E1:ADCE:5838:DEF9 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo showed that it was #1 for that weekend. There are plenty of articles that compare the results to the production costs, but it is redundant with what's already been posted (references that announced the budget and references that announced the box office). -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it undue weight to show Variety magazine calling it a bomb? It made 112 million dollars at the box office! It can't be a bomb when it turned a profit at the box office, although a small one since it had a 110 million dollar production cost.  What about the film merchandising profits?  A bomb as a business investment, but certainly not a theater bomb, since it did well at the box office.   D r e a m Focus  00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like The Hollywood Reporter has a similar list here that does not mention Ender's Game. If we are to include it, we should mention when Variety reported it (before the last weekend of 2013) and what figures it used at the time. I think we need more context about the film's box office performance (which is certainly lackluster) than just calling it a bomb. Pinging, who is very knowledgeable about working with box office figures. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As well as the budget there are also the marketing costs too, and the studios don't get to keep the full gross either because theaters also get their cut. SNL Kagan, for example, use a profitability index of 1.75 i.e. the film's revenue (theatrical gross, home video sales, PPV and TV) must exceed 1.75 x the film's total expenditure to be profitable. I would prefer to avoid terminology like "flop" and "bomb" because usually it is often trade hyperbole and doesn't tell us anything substantive; sometimes films get called flops after the opening weekend if they simply undeperform. Something like this is preferable because it quantifies the failure. Betty Logan (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sam Raimi turned this film down in 1993!
I have a a number of documents as well as personal knowledge that Sam Raimi was offered this film in Script form in 1993. My future husband worked for him at the time and for a very long time thererafter. This is somewhat documented in Bill Warren's book: The Evil Dead Companion which was written in the mid 1990s but due to a change in editorial staffing, the book switched publishers and didn't see publication unitl July 2000. The info is on a page which should be numbered page 267 but isn't numbered since it's merely a list of all the films Bill was able to document as having been officially offered to Sam Raimi but turned down for one reason or another. In asking one of the other staff that was present in the offices back then, they also recall a script being offered to Raimi, not though Universal, but from an outside production company, in 1993. I will try and find some more documentation on this so it isn't just OR. I won't add anything until I can get more than just the reference from Bill's book. Would anyone else know who authored that script or which company had it in development hell at the time? It's an interesting piece history to consider. LiPollis (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Run on sentence
What does "the film did not pick-up what was not returned in the USA box office" mean, any ideas? I think it is saying it lost money even with a combined domestic and foreign box-office. Anyone want to re-write it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"However, due to mediocre returns and the fact that the film did not pick-up what was not returned in the USA box office during its run overseas, the plans for either the sequel or the television series have been uncertain."


 * That sentence had me perplexed as well. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 15:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very poorly written. I think it is trying to say: The film didn't make enough overseas to make up for what it didn't earn in the U.S. This is distantly covered by the source cited for the sentence. I'll try a fresh take on the source and see how it goes. As always, feel free to tweak, revert, remove, etc. as needed. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Film genre
It says in the article that the film is a science fiction action thriller. Are there any sources that prove that it is an action thriller, because the film seems to be made more for kids? I think is to drastically to be called a "thriller".--MJ for U (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic
Metacritic review data should not be cherry picked. If someone uses a primary source such as meta critic that offers a contrasting view on its own review page then the entire contents of the source that relate to the cited fact become relevant. the site clearly states that while globaly the review was mixed, metacritic users generaly liked the film. this RELEVANT fact should ALSO be part of the Cited text.70.208.21.26 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)