Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
I think as well that once works become historical it is easier to accept them based on attitudes of the time. Works that use racial slurs like Heart of Darkness or Huckleberry Finn for example. Also, works that contain blatant anti-semitic or sexist attitudes like Eliot or Hemingway. We tend to read them with mindful of when they were written.
That said, I regularly do not support works by actors or celebrities I disagree with. You will never see me at a Tom Cruise movie for example, or staying at a Hilton unless someone is paying for it. This current boycott, however, is far more likely to draw attention to the film than it is to encourage people not to see it.
I didn't say that. I said it is why I dislike Tom Cruise not that I dislike every single scientologist. Tom Cruise openly speaks more shit than the rest of them.
I can tolerate John Travolta though I don't often watch movies he is in because he is bit of a crap actor. The last movie I watched him in was The Taking of Pelham 123.
His last good movie was Pulp Fiction and he's far from the best performance in it.
Face/Off?
At least you didn't mention Broken Arrow.
Though, actually, enjoyed his voice work in Bolt.
Face/Off?
At least you didn't mention Broken Arrow.
Though, actually, enjoyed his voice work in Bolt.
Face/Off is one of the greatest action movies of the '90s.
If it does, it does, I suppose. However, others in this thread are trying to make it about the book. "the book isn't homophobic" etc, etc. And time and time again, it seems, it needs to be repeated: it's not about the book. It's not about this specific work of art. It's about this man and his actions, not just his views, his actions.
Face/Off?
At least you didn't mention Broken Arrow.
Though, actually, enjoyed his voice work in Bolt.
Face/Off is one of the greatest action movies of the '90s.
I love Wild Hogs.
I make no apology for it.
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?
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?
Personally, I mostly ignore it, with the HUGE caveat that i'll easily boycott someone's work if it is reflected in their work. If there were anti-gay things worked into the book/movie, or it was trying to convert me to Mormonism or whatnot, I'd have no issues staying away. Otherwise? Eh.
You must have missed the whole point that subsidizing Card's work now is going to directly subsidize him. Why should I make his life any easier or better (financially speaking) when I so thoroughly detest his words and actions?
^ Actually, his specific method of payment for this film is irrelevant. Either way, the more successful the movie, there more positive outcomes there are for Card. There's always a chance sequels could be made. Additionally, and more importantly in terms of royalties, a highly successful film will raise awareness of his books (beyond the awareness associated with the film and beyond a mediocre film performance) - which will drive increased book sales for years to come. And so forth. Should the film flop, or even have an unremarkable performance, those positive outcomes will be less likely for Card.
All that being said, as I've mentioned before, the film's success hinges much more on the filmmakers themselves than on any decision by me, or any one else, who chooses not to subsidize it - and, by extension, Card.
All that being said, as I've mentioned before, the film's success hinges much more on the filmmakers themselves than on any decision by me, or any one else, who chooses not to subsidize it - and, by extension, Card.
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.
Samuel Walters
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.
'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.
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.
'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.
Actions are motivated by views. But that doesn't mean views are the same as actions and you can switch them out interchangeably.
When you are actively participating in trying to stop people from getting equal rights, that's crossing a line for me.
I'll put it this way: would you be friends with a member of the KKK? If you were only friends with people who agreed with you 100% you wouldn't have a lot of friends, would you? OR... would you? I have a lot of friends... I don't agree with them on 100% of things... Like there are artists who I am SURE I don't agree with 100% of the time. But, this isn't about agreement or disagreement....
This is about a man who was ACTIVELY campaigning to stop people from having equal rights because of who they fall in love with. I see no problem, morally, ethically, whatsoever in NOT seeing the movie, or buying another one of his books. And I don't think I'm hypocritical.
And no, I don't think the organization that Card is a board member is all that different than the KKK. Both are organizations trying to prevent equal rights for minorities.
You, uh, don't understand how people make money do you?
Do explain then how Card will turn the movie, if successful, in a cornucopia for him.
And many of the greats actively campaigned for slavery/unthinking obedience to king&church/racism/etc.
And the ones who didn't most definitely made their views into actions in day to day life.
Yes, Card is not an example of an enlightened human being. Many artists - most past artists - would make Card look enlightened and then some.
by what samuel walters said happening that you already dismissed