Ender's Game - Book vs. Movie

It has to be a difficult task to make a movie based on a widely-read book.  Sometimes it turns out well, but often, it doesn’t.  Peter Jackson did a great job with “The Lord of the Rings”, and I really enjoyed the first installment of “The Hobbit”.  The translation of the Harry Potter series from written word to live action was well done, too.  “The Twilight Saga” (while not exceptional in either form) was a true and faithful adaptation of the books, though some of the casting left a lot to be desired.  And, with the exception of a few changed plot points, “The Hunger Games” was probably one of the best movies based on a book that I’ve read.

Then there are the ones that don’t turn out so well.  (I’m having a hard time coming up with examples, because I don’t have any in my movie collection…)  But, in my opinion, one of them was “Ender’s Game.”

There are several challenges to making a movie based on a book that I can think of.  First, people who have read the book have their own ideas about how the setting and the characters look.  Another is deciding what to keep in and what to leave out.  Sometimes a decision has to be made about plot points that need to be added or completely changed to make the transition from the page to the screen work.  With ever decision and every change, there’s a risk that fans of the original form of the story will be upset.  There has to be a balance between the familiar and the different.  There’s a threshold at which people who know the book become too disappointed with the film.

As a medium, live action film has a lot of limitations.  For example, the viewer is chained to the vision of (essentially) one person—and that person isn’t likely to be the viewer.  Also, the way to get into a character’s head is mostly restricted to emoting and dialogue.  Then there’s the time constraint.  In general, a book has to be stuffed into a 2-3 hour time slot.  Finally, there’s the acting ability of the cast.

In my opinion, “Ender’s Game” failed in all but one of those categories.

The good:  The set designs were amazing; the adults in the film were really well cast; and a lot of the important plot points were preserved.

The look of the movie was magnificent.  I loved the design of the ships, the planets, and other sets I can’t mention without spoiling things.  I liked that there was at least some attempt to think 3-dimensionally in zero-G.  I also liked how the technology worked—typing out letters, manipulating screen views, etc.  It seems like it was taking where our technology is now and progressing it farther into the future in a logical and believable way.

The younger cast was somewhat of a disappointment to me, but I thought that the adult cast was very good.  Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Ben Kingsley were fabulous.  Their portrayals of their characters were spot on.  I have no complaints on that front.

Sacrifices always have to be made when making a book into a movie.  That’s understandable.  And, even though I thought more could be left in, I think that the essential parts of the story were there.  That doesn’t mean that I think that they were well presented (as I’ll get to later), but I’m glad that the major parts of the story survived intact.

The bad:  The portrayal of the main character was VERY different from how I imagine him to be; most of the book is the main character’s internal observations and musings, and not many of those made it into the film; and the movie moved way too fast.

I understand that you really can’t have a six-year-old (the age he is at the start of the book) in the role of Ender Wiggin for a movie.  Six-year-olds just don’t have the acting ability needed.  It would also be really hard to get a six-year-old actor age five years (the time span of the book) from the start of the movie to the end of it.  So I’m mostly okay with a young teenager or a tween in the role.  My gripe is that the actor cast for the role of Ender was way too tall.  He was too much arm and leg.  And his portrayal of the character was not at all how the Ender in my imagination was.  He wasn’t strong enough.  And I don’t mean physical strength.  I’m talking about strength of personality.

In an interview at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, Orson Scott Card, the book’s author, was quoted as saying, “Ender’s Game is an ‘unfilmable’ book, not because it’s too much violence but because everything takes place in Ender’s head.”  (Melissa Young, “Orson Scott Card Talks About ‘Ender’s Game’ Book and Movie”, Neon Tommy, April 20, 2013.)  Some attempt was made to take us into Ender’s head with body language and dialogue, but it didn’t feel quite the same.  I suppose the filmmakers did the best they could with their chosen medium and style, but it didn’t do the book or the character justice, in my opinion.

Finally, I thought that the pacing was way too fast.  Elements of Ender’s progression were there, but he moved from one thing to the next with superhuman speed.  It didn’t seem like he had enough time to really learn.  So many of the events of the book were left out.  I understand that, as packed as the book is, things had to be left out.  But these days, a 2 ½ or 3 hour movie isn’t unheard of.  I think more of Ender’s story could have been told, and I was left dissatisfied with the amount that wasn’t.

So while there was some good in the movie, I thought the bad outweighed it.  I think the best thing about this movie is that it is likely inspiring more people to read the book—which is excellent!