Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
like how sales of lord of the rings books didn't increase after the films came out. oh wait, they did.
just stating you don't agree is not even slightly proof.
authors would never want their work turned into succesful films and possibly interest some new readers. they hate recieving royalties too. yeah right.
just stating you don't agree is not even slightly proof.
authors would never want their work turned into succesful films and possibly interest some new readers. they hate recieving royalties too. yeah right.
You don't know a whole lot about the book industry, do you? About how important it is for authors to not only have their books optioned for film, to not only have the films completed, but also for the films to be successful.
Do you have any idea what happened to the sales of Hunger Games, Life of Pi The Invention of Hugo Cabret and World War Z (to name a few of the most recent ones), when the films were successful - both critically and at the Box Office? Heck, look what Game of Thrones has done for sales of George R.R. Martin's books. Divergent is an upcoming filmed based on a very successful book that will soon see a movie - if the film is a hit, the book's sales, as well as its sequels, will skyrocket. If it fails, the books will still sell well - but not nearly as well.
Why? In large part because book stores, like B&N, will have movie tie-in promotions. They want to ride the success of films, too. The Hobbit, The Lorax, Hunger Games, World War Z, and so on, have all had prominent displays over the past couple of years. If the movies are a success, if more movies are made, those displays go back up. Just wait until the autumn. I guarantee you'll see prominent displays for Catching Fire.
When films don't work particularly well - such as what happened to the His Dark Materia series (Golden Compass), or the Dark is Rising (The Seeker) or Eragon - no further films are made. Heck, even the Narnia is struggling to have other books made into films. Do you not think those authors (or their estates) would be better off if the films had succeeded?
If you don't think that the future sales of a book adapted for film are related to the film's success, then you're not paying close enough attention. In fact, Ender's Game is currently in Amazon's top 100 books sales for 2013 - after not appearing there in previous years. Why? Raised profile from the upcoming film and promotions by booksellers both online and in brick and mortar stores.
And, of course, the whole point here is that - with the rare exception of a huge advanced for a flopped book - authors make the lion's share of their money off the royalties on book sales. In many of these cases, the authors are already doing very well, even without the increased sales from the films. But there's no way one can reasonably deny that strong film performances have an explicitly positive effect on book sales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1362097/Rowling-vs-Tolkien.html
XYZ wheres yours? or are you going to insist your opinion is fact again?
proof
XYZ wheres yours? or are you going to insist your opinion is fact again?
Money made or not made does not come into my boycott at all. I care little about Card's wealth or lack of wealth. I simply dislike him immensely and don't to watch or read anything that was created by him. It would annoy me to watch this movie.
And I am quite capable of disliking artists etc from the past. Most notably Dante Gabriel Rossetti - I wouldn't any picture of his in my house no matter how well it was painted.
And I am quite capable of disliking artists etc from the past. Most notably Dante Gabriel Rossetti - I wouldn't any picture of his in my house no matter how well it was painted.
He would have been paid in some way for the right to make the movie (Maybe a flat fee or maybe a percentage of the take, or maybe both). If this movie makes a ton of money, the Studio will want to make another one, and a new payment deal will be made to make another movie (Depending upon how well this movie does, it could be much more lucrative for a sequel). They also may be interested in buying the rights to another of his works, which, once again, is another payday, and someone else may want to get in on the action and buy rights to another work. After the money wears down for this round, the Studio may re-up their rights with another payday.
All of this, if the movie does well, will almost certainly add to his book sales, maybe only a couple new book sales, but, likely more than just a couple if it does well, just like as noted, LotR surged in sales after the Movies. You get millions of folks going to the movie, if even 100 of those people decide to buy the books, they're not likely to stop at just the first one, if they went to the effort to get the first one, so, that's 100 times his entire collection as a possibility.
As far as Bigots of old also being "The Masters", they're dead, they're no longer profiting. They are no longer able to spend the money we spend on their product in order to continue their war against their favorite minority group they want to take rights away from. Completely different from someone who is still living, and still engaging in spending money that he earns from his art to conduct War against Gay Rights.
If the movie does really well, Card stands to make 100s of thousands of dollars or more in the future. I don't know about you, but, I have a pretty decent paying job, and it would take me years to earn Hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the movie bombs, that's it, they won't be coming back to him giving him more money to adapt more of his product.
Samuel Walters
In many cases, authors receive a pay for their work and that's the end of it. Do you even know whether Card still receives royalties from Ender's game? Well, I guess there's a chance he does.
And yes, in blockbuster movies cases, the books sold better afterwards. But these are very rare exceptions. How many movies/series based on books were produced to give your sample of ~a dozen? But I guess there's a chance this movie will be one of these blockbusters (it's highly unadvisable to bet on this, though).
And I guess there's a chance card will use the money to go on a anti-gay campaign (again, don't bet on it).
What you are saying can aptly be compared to ~'Card plays the lottery, so I'll boycott it, because there's a chance Card will win and I don't want to give him the money I used to buy a lottery ticket.'
And that's why I find your justification unconvincing.
In many cases, authors receive a pay for their work and that's the end of it. Do you even know whether Card still receives royalties from Ender's game? Well, I guess there's a chance he does.
And yes, in blockbuster movies cases, the books sold better afterwards. But these are very rare exceptions. How many movies/series based on books were produced to give your sample of ~a dozen? But I guess there's a chance this movie will be one of these blockbusters (it's highly unadvisable to bet on this, though).
And I guess there's a chance card will use the money to go on a anti-gay campaign (again, don't bet on it).
What you are saying can aptly be compared to ~'Card plays the lottery, so I'll boycott it, because there's a chance Card will win and I don't want to give him the money I used to buy a lottery ticket.'
And that's why I find your justification unconvincing.
There's an almost complete certainty he will spend his money to continue his Anti-Gay campaign, he is on the Board of such a group, the same group he has already been doing this with, that's what he does with his time.
citation needed, can you point to many cases?
citation needed. again.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
What? It's not rare at all. Reissues of novels that movies are based on and movie tie-in novels are a hugely successful market. Of course not all do well, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a well-proven strategy to capitalize on the success of a film to sell related books.
I think I hear Greg Cox's bat-signal lighting up.
First - I find it quite ironic that you request citation when you can't even be bothered to come up with anything that isn't unsupported dictums.
And, based on their posts on this forum, many trek tie-in authors make most of their money not from royalties, but from the initial pay.
Also - what's the percentage of movies that become blockbusters, sojourner?
Given your lack of arguments, your dictums have little value.
But the only way this leads to significant increases in the finances of an author is if the movie/series is hugely successful.
And the chances of this movie becoming hugely successful are small, at best.
If not for this boycotting movement, I would not have even heard of it.
BTW, it's quite probable that all the boycotting will only make the movie better known and, ultimately, increase its popularity and profits. It's even possible that Card posted his ~'don't boycott the movie', at least in part, in order to give rise to such discussions, popularising the movie.
Where your proof for this assertion? Unless you can prove otherwise, I'll go with the hundreds of authors with whom I've directly spoken to, or heard speak, in which they've talked about royalties they've received from their books sales (and, in some cases, from the movies produced from their work) - not to mention the agents and editors with whom I have also spoken.
There's a difference between writing your own book (in which you own the content in its entirety), and accepting a job writing content owned by someone else.
(For example, this is the difference between writing your own thriller novel and accepting a flat rate from James Patterson to "co-write" one of his books).
Life of Pi was a blockbuster? Game of Thrones is a blockbuster? Hugo Cabret was a blockbuster?
The fact remains: The more successful the movie, the more likely the book sales will increase. You asked for facts, I've provided tangible evidence that shows that successful film adaptations lead to increased book sales.
Well, you find it unconvincing because your posts are obtusely ignoring the evidence supporting the justification.
I'll try to make it simple: Card has said and done things - has donated his own money - for causes which I find reprehensible. I can't and won't stop Card from expressing his opinion, but I will do the one thing I can to protest his actions: Not buy a ticket. Why? Because, based on the evidence above, the more successful the film, the greater financial success for the author (from more than one potential revenue stream). I'm under no false illusions that my decision will significantly affect Card's wealth; he'll do just fine without my buying the ticket. But if I did, it would, in a very real sense, support him. And, because of his words and actions, I'm not going to do that.
It's really that simple. I'm not going to be sitting here, tracking the film's box office. I'm not protesting in front of a theater. Hell, I'm not even going to try convincing anyone else that they shouldn't see the film if they wish. I'm just going to let it go through my local theater, and on the BluRay shelf at the store (or online Warehouse or digital media server), without me paying money for it.
Nah. Orson Scott Card isn't a biggot. He doesn't hate homosexuals. Card believes that everyone is homosexual and men only have sex with women because of social pressure to conform.
He sincerely and genuinely believes that if gay marriage were legal then heterosexual marriage would stop, maybe not immediately or completely but certainly in time and for the majority, because it's easier for men to get along with other men and women with other women than it is for the two profoundly alien sexes to commingle with one another.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.htmlCard said:
Those aren't the words or opinions of a heterosexual man. No straight person thinks like that.
Obviously, Card is very very gay and struggles to represses his own sexual desires. He, of course, assumes that this is normal and most people are just like him in this regard, that men only marry women because of social expectation and nearly everyone would leap at the chance to marry someone of the same sex if that option were available and that removing the stigma from homosexual unions would end human civilization.
I wouldn't call that bigotry. I'd just call it pitiful.
Kinda hard to affect the wallet of those that aren't alive, don't ya think?
And again, I'm beginning to wonder, if he was campaigning against the rights of blacks and latinos, would there be such a long discussion? Are gay rights LESS than those of blacks and latinos? Because it feels like people are making excuses... "well, if stopped reading everyone you disagreed with..." But, it's not about his views, but his actions.
I've also seen people say, "gay marriage is coming sooner or later, what's the big deal." In 1950, would you tell a black man, "Hey, chill, civil rights are coming sooner or later..."?
Card is obviously free to write and say whatever he wants, I'll defend him to that end. But, seriously, I think if he was fighting against what we would consider settled issues, I don't think he would have as many defenders.
The International Fleet didn't need soldiers. They had plenty of soldiers, all of whom were deployed decades ago because they didn't have FTL and it takes that long to even get to the enemy planets.
What they needed were generals; strategists who uinderstood who to wage war in a three-dimensional gravityless and frictionless environment. They didn't want some kid with an AK-47. They could get plenty of those. Battle School would have been a waste.
What they wanted was a juvenile MacArthur, someone they could put in command of their entire fleet and who could win.
They say that todays generals always prepare for yesterday's war. They picked kids at the age of 5 and took them up into space so that they could become acclimated to a zero gravity environment and learn how to maneuver in one to a degree that no adult born and raised on Earth would have been able to. They give those kids very little training or guidance so that they would be forced to work out strategies and tactics themselves and wouldn't be bogged down in old two-dimensional Earthbound modes of thought.
They wanted to reinvent the wheel in terms of military strategy, so they used kids who didn't even know what strategy looked like and let them work it out on their own.
And none of them even saw combat. They just gave orders from a safe and secure command facility.
Lionsgate has issued a statement of their own in response to Card. They say, basically, "We're committed to LGBT rights, so whatever your beef with Orson Scott Card, it's nothing to do with us."
Is this a joke? 
Edit_XYZ comes in, declares his opinion to be fact, then lectures others over doing the same, decrying their inability to produce evidence to back up their claims while providing none himself, and ignoring the evidence provided by Samuel. Quite interesting.
Even ignoring the lopsided nature of that "debate", I find the demand for justifications baffling. Have since this whole discussion began, and every time there is a similar discussion.
There are LOTS and LOTS of movies, books, TV shows, video games... Choosing not to spend your money on a particular one happens all the time, for a variety of reasons. If someone just doesn't like Card, as a person, and for that reason, chooses not to go see the movie... then, ok. That's all the "justification" they need.
The argument against it comes from some kind of weird assumption that you SHOULD go see the movie, and if you're not going to, WE NEED TO KNOW WHY! NO, THOSE REASONS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH!
I mean... what?
Equally baffling is the idea that Card actively putting his time and money toward further attempts to deny gay people their rights is somehow unlikely... despite the fact that he sits on the board of an anti-gay hate organization and has directed large chunks of his time and money to said attempts in the past.
Most baffling of all is the idea that people shouldn't be choosing to not partake in the work of some artists with whom they disagree without making sure they are not partaking in the work of ANY artists with whom they disagree. Firstly: it's not practical. If you spent the amount of time required to make sure you knew every last facet of the political and social beliefs of every artist whose work you might consume, well... you'd never have time to actually consume any of the work.
Something is brought to our attention. "Card is a bigot who works to deny gay people their rights". Well, I didn't know that. Guess I won't support him anymore. This isn't complicated.
Author B is also a bigot. But I don't know it, because I haven't scrutinized their life - I didn't scrutinize Card's life either, but I didn't have to, it's become common knowledge that he is a bigot. I didn't go out of my way to study anyone's beliefs or political views; the knowledge that Card is a bigot and a douchebag was dropped in my lap without me having to DO anything. Thus, I stop supporting him. So Author B "gets away with it", and still gets my money, until and unless I learn more about him somehow (assuming I CAN: not every artist even makes their political views available for scrutiny in the first place!). That's a shame, but that's life. You are GOING to spend money on some things that are associated with people who hold beliefs you find offensive or immoral or whatever. It's GOING to happen. That's the nature of the modern world.
Therefore, when we are presented with an opportunity to STOP supporting someone we KNOW holds beliefs we find reprehensible, and who acts on those beliefs to try and do real harm to real people, it's bad to do so? Hypocritical? Makes no sense.
Since always consuming art ONLY produced by those who agree with you 100% is in fact completely impossible, the argument would seem to be: "If you're going to boycott Card for his beliefs, you should boycott everyone whose beliefs you disagree with. Since this is utterly impossible to do while still consuming any art at all, if you boycott Card and consume any art at all, you are a hypocrite."
And frankly, degree also matters. Which issue is at hand also matters. Card is a bigot and a douchebag, who
A) actively works and spends money to promote his bigotry, rather than just holding those views
B) is a bigot and a douchebag about something that I happen to feel very strongly about.
If either A or B were different, I might not be inclined to boycott him. Note that I'm not saying that if A or B were different, I absolutely wouldn't boycott him - I said MIGHT, and it would depend on the circumstances, and no, I'm not going to list every possible permutation and whether or not I would boycott him in that circumstance. It's a case-by-case thing.
Note also that I'm not saying "You MUST boycott Card, or you are a bigot yourself" or anything of the sort. If you DON'T boycott artists you disagree with, no matter what; if you choose to separate completely the artist from his actions outside his work, then hey, sure, fine. I'm not saying that's wrong. But choosing to stop supporting someone who you find reprehensible requires no more justification than "I'm choosing to stop supporting this person because I find them reprehensible." Period.
That's pathetic. His views on men and women, and on sex in general, seem to be no less insane than his views on homosexuality.
Edit_XYZ comes in, declares his opinion to be fact, then lectures others over doing the same, decrying their inability to produce evidence to back up their claims while providing none himself, and ignoring the evidence provided by Samuel. Quite interesting.
Even ignoring the lopsided nature of that "debate", I find the demand for justifications baffling. Have since this whole discussion began, and every time there is a similar discussion.
There are LOTS and LOTS of movies, books, TV shows, video games... Choosing not to spend your money on a particular one happens all the time, for a variety of reasons. If someone just doesn't like Card, as a person, and for that reason, chooses not to go see the movie... then, ok. That's all the "justification" they need.
The argument against it comes from some kind of weird assumption that you SHOULD go see the movie, and if you're not going to, WE NEED TO KNOW WHY! NO, THOSE REASONS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH!
I mean... what?
Equally baffling is the idea that Card actively putting his time and money toward further attempts to deny gay people their rights is somehow unlikely... despite the fact that he sits on the board of an anti-gay hate organization and has directed large chunks of his time and money to said attempts in the past.
Most baffling of all is the idea that people shouldn't be choosing to not partake in the work of some artists with whom they disagree without making sure they are not partaking in the work of ANY artists with whom they disagree. Firstly: it's not practical. If you spent the amount of time required to make sure you knew every last facet of the political and social beliefs of every artist whose work you might consume, well... you'd never have time to actually consume any of the work.
Something is brought to our attention. "Card is a bigot who works to deny gay people their rights". Well, I didn't know that. Guess I won't support him anymore. This isn't complicated.
Author B is also a bigot. But I don't know it, because I haven't scrutinized their life - I didn't scrutinize Card's life either, but I didn't have to, it's become common knowledge that he is a bigot. I didn't go out of my way to study anyone's beliefs or political views; the knowledge that Card is a bigot and a douchebag was dropped in my lap without me having to DO anything. Thus, I stop supporting him. So Author B "gets away with it", and still gets my money, until and unless I learn more about him somehow (assuming I CAN: not every artist even makes their political views available for scrutiny in the first place!). That's a shame, but that's life. You are GOING to spend money on some things that are associated with people who hold beliefs you find offensive or immoral or whatever. It's GOING to happen. That's the nature of the modern world.
Therefore, when we are presented with an opportunity to STOP supporting someone we KNOW holds beliefs we find reprehensible, and who acts on those beliefs to try and do real harm to real people, it's bad to do so? Hypocritical? Makes no sense.
Since always consuming art ONLY produced by those who agree with you 100% is in fact completely impossible, the argument would seem to be: "If you're going to boycott Card for his beliefs, you should boycott everyone whose beliefs you disagree with. Since this is utterly impossible to do while still consuming any art at all, if you boycott Card and consume any art at all, you are a hypocrite."
And frankly, degree also matters. Which issue is at hand also matters. Card is a bigot and a douchebag, who
A) actively works and spends money to promote his bigotry, rather than just holding those views
B) is a bigot and a douchebag about something that I happen to feel very strongly about.
If either A or B were different, I might not be inclined to boycott him. Note that I'm not saying that if A or B were different, I absolutely wouldn't boycott him - I said MIGHT, and it would depend on the circumstances, and no, I'm not going to list every possible permutation and whether or not I would boycott him in that circumstance. It's a case-by-case thing.
Note also that I'm not saying "You MUST boycott Card, or you are a bigot yourself" or anything of the sort. If you DON'T boycott artists you disagree with, no matter what; if you choose to separate completely the artist from his actions outside his work, then hey, sure, fine. I'm not saying that's wrong. But choosing to stop supporting someone who you find reprehensible requires no more justification than "I'm choosing to stop supporting this person because I find them reprehensible." Period.
Sweet muster, intersexual swamp?
That's pathetic. His views on men and women, and on sex in general, seem to be no less insane than his views on homosexuality.
Intersexual swamps make me wet.