New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: I tend to agree that it's a slight disappointment, but it's also not a book series that has the kind of following of any of the young adult series it's been compared to (Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games). There are certainly die-hard fans, but the generation that would have read them as kids is...well, in their 30s and 40s now. I think it was a very difficult series to develop, particularly because the subsequent books in the series are a lot deeper philosophically and also not YA, in my opinion. They're much harder science fiction, whereas Ender's Game itself does have an all-ages and mass audience appeal. I'm sure they would have loved to kickstart a franchise - and perhaps international results will mean they can - but I really have no idea where they go with it. Speaker for the Dead? Go read the synopsis on Wikipedia if you're not familiar with the story. I just can't see it.

Kim Hollis: Ender's Game found itself the center of controversy due to the book's author, Orson Scott Card, having written various commentary pieces speaking out against homosexuality in general and gay marriage specifically. Do you think its box office was impacted by this controversy?

Jason Barney: No...not really.

Matthew Huntley: I second Jason's blunt answer. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of his comments until today, and even if I had been, I still would see the movie. Like the novel, it's not like there's anything anti-gay about it.

Bruce Hall: I do, but I can't prove it. It's not that I believe Card's detractors alone were the difference between $27 and $75 million. It's that I believe Ender's Game had a short but potent list of things already working against it, and the rather old story of Card's white hot homophobia was just one more on a list of unpleasant truths. And you've got to remember, the type of people who enjoy this brand of science fiction - basically the movie's core audience - tend to be a pretty tolerant crowd. So while I DO think it kept a significant chunk of people away, I don't think removing that issue alone makes this movie a hit.

Now, retooling the marketing push so that people have at least a minimal idea of what the hell the movie is about... replacing Harrison Ford with someone less prone to phoning it in... THAT would have helped a lot more.

Felix Quinonez: I'm going to echo Bruce. I do think it had some impact on the movie's box office performance but a very minimal one. I think the real reason it failed was because of the marketing. It just didn't seem like it was even really trying to attract outside of the already converted. Maybe they overestimated how many people were familiar with the source material.

Edwin Davies: I agree with Bruce that it had an impact, though it probably wasn't the main obstacle the film failed to overcome. Mainly, the controversy affected the enthusiasm of both the core audience of people who have read the books, and science fiction fans who haven't read them but know that they are very well regarded. Those were the very people who needed to be brought on board and to proselytize about the film to help sway people who were undecided, and for many Card's views were so repellant that they decided to avoid the film entirely. It may have not been a controversy that many people were aware of, and even when it got mainstream coverage it was for a limited time, but I think it had a real impact on a key potential audience in a very negative way. The bigger problem seems to be that the ads did a dreadful job of selling the film, but the controversy was probably enough to drag the film down from a $30 million plus opening, in my view.

Continued:       1       2       3       4