The specific method of payment is quite relevant.
If he was already payed, the movie or sequels will not give him material leverage.
And the chain from 'if the movie is succesful' to 'maybe his books will sell better (assuming he even still gets money from those books, this movie-books connection seldom happens, and only with the biggest blockbusters)' is so tenuous as not to be satisfactory as an explanation - especially given that you obviously have no relevant information about Card's finances. It really seems to be more of a justification.
From this thread, it seems the reason many boycott Card is because going to see the movie is, in some sense, honoring him, acknowledging him as an artist, as if he has something worthwhile to say.
Many posters choose to deny Card this acknowledgement by boycotting the movie.
Professor Zoom wrote:
The question discussed here is 'is it morally OK to boycott an artist's work because you don't like his views'?
The obvious answer is - it's your money and choosing not to pay and see a movie is well within your power and even moral right.
Of course, if you boycott Card for not agreeing with his views, you should boycott a LOT of other artists, as well.
Certainly everyone from more than 200 years ago; back then, they had views that make Card's look like politically correct central.
Otherwise, isn't the attitude somewhat hypocritical?
SIGH. Except your question is wrong.
The question being discussed, is it morally OK to boycott an artist's work because of his ACTIONS? Not his views. His ACTIONS.
'Actions' can easily be put in the place of 'views' - with no change whatsoever in my point. The actions of a person reflect his/her views; this is true about artists, as well.