Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Yminale, Jul 9, 2013.
Thank you both !
Nope, I made it clear that if people were at a funeral shouting absolutely incomprehensible monkey jibberish next to the family then it'd still be wrong. The offensive opinion isn't what bothers me, it's people breaching other individuals' privacy and space, when they're unwanted.
I suspect that this entire thing is Card setting himself up to be the victim of the Evil Gay Community if his film bombs, rather than having to acknowledge that perhaps it failed for creative reasons.
All of that aside, a major film is a collaborative work of hundreds of artists, so Card himself is just one small part of what went into it's creation. So while I think Card is a vile bigot, and I personally don't plan to see the movie, I don't really have a problem with others checking it out.
Well, they aren't next to the family. Usually they're across the street. Also that's still allowed in America. You can be a total ass here. The only times you see the families of the people they protest is when they confront them. The Phelps are smart, they want you to come to them and attack them so they can sue you. Most of them are lawyers and they get a lot of money from it. They never seek people out and get right into their faces.
They're the ultimate test to free speech, but as long as they're allowed to do what they do, no one else is in danger of losing theirs. That's why we can't stop them, because then we may decide to limit some other group. It's a slippery slope argument to some degree I admit, but we can't call it free speech if we don't include all speech.
Popular speech doesn't need protecting.
I think this is more a case of the studio or his agent's persuading him to make a public statement on this.
I was thinking that maybe this attitude stems from his religion so I went to wikipedia to find a little more information on the Mormon's official stance in this case. Although they did support P8 in California, wikipedia does say this about church leaders'
There is nothing in the article that suggests Mormonism is even close to the extreme nature of Card's beliefs. Of course wikipedia could be incorrect.
It is hard to talk about these things on the internet, in text..mostly because text and intentions can be easily misunderstood and people view the text in a different light than they perhaps were meant to see/understand it.
Personally for me the reaction that comes out is that Card is being given too much visibility about this. All this boycott talk is doing is making me curious about the movie..and about reading more of card's books beyond ender's game(which I've read and liked). The view for me actually comes down to a trend that saying anything from "the wrong side" isn't politically good..I tend to begin to watch what i'm saying because suddenly I would be on the wrong side and judged from it..in my opinion all this does is make things more invisible. We would need a good dialogue in this world to really improve things but when you're afraid that people will be torching you for presenting an idea about something they consider wrong (on their own moral basis which necessarily isn't the same as everybody else's)..you could even be making a "play on an idea" in speech hoping that other people would consider and think about it with you and most likely what you'll get is other people assuming it is how you see things.
So to me this "boycott" noise is more about there being no actual discussion and no actual try to understand and comprehend all sides of the issue(if there really is an issue) I don't personally care about Card's views but I do care about the reaction that I'm seeing and it terrifies me a little(very little and more based on what I see in daily life). I'm just afraid that people aren't going to be open minded and that there will be certain restrictions on "tolerated point of views". I don't know if my writing makes any sense for you guys but I think both Card's plea is misunderstood(colored glasses) and that the replies/backslash to it are misunderstood and that the opinions and thoughts on sides if there are any are also seen through existing biases and moral systems which vary from person to person.
I'll probably go see the movie(and if it didn't come through on what I wrote I support total equality even to a point where most people would not like it on any sides..)
<SIGH>Those not defending Card have repeatedly stated that he has the right to say anything, there is no hint in this thread of Americans wanting to abridge or legislatively penalize Card for his statements. It's all Private and Capitalism, no Legal barriers have been suggested, except by those who are arguing against judging him personally, but no one judging him personally is suggesting any Legal abridgement
Having now read the links...
Wow, I never knew what a turd this guy was.
Well said. In saying the things he's said as a very vocal blogger, he's attracted negative attention on himself. He's of course entitled to his views and opinions, but to think that they wouldn't have any consequences is rather silly of him. He's made his bed; he should sleep in it. And while he's asking for tolerance of his views, I find it interesting that he hasn't had tolerance for the other side of the issue, making it very one-sided. He wants his cake and to eat it too.
Anyway, I've read the book, but I didn't care all that much for it and have no intention to see the movie. Not because of a boycott, but because of a personal preference.
Are you trolling us? Orson Scott Card calling for the imprisonment of gays and violent overthrow of our government is *less* extreme than people not buying tickets to his movie?
I'm a bit surprised everyone keeps calling Card a "good writer," even those against him. EG, David Gerrold said he's enjoyed a few of Card's novels. But, in all honesty, I don't find him to be that great an author.
Back in the winter I had some boredom to kill, and so I decided to check out the Ender series, primarily because of the coming movie. I read Ender's Game just before Christmas with no previous knowledge of Card or his beliefs. And while the book was okay, it's hardly the masterpiece everyone makes it out to be.
A few months later I was bored and while at the book store I saw copies of the next two books (Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide) and decided I had nothing else going on for the next few weeks, might as well give them a shot. At this point I had learned about Card and his homophobia and admittedly it shocked and disturbed me, and I actually felt a little uncomfortable being seeing with the books in public. But I decided that was an equally stupid attitude, a book should be judged on its own merits and not on the fact the author is such an ass, and read them anyway.
And you know what, those two books were complete pieces of crap. They were both chores to get through. Speaker for the Dead is just so depressing and dreary I was actually put in a bad mood reading it. And Xenocide was just bad. Really bad.
While I still might check out the Ender's Game movie (hey, I take my sci-fi movies where I can) I will not be checking out any more Ender series novels. The novels turn to crap, and I'm not going to endure crap written by someone who makes me uncomfortable anyway.
interesting. "Speaker for the Dead" is my favorite of the series. I enjoy it much more than "Ender's Game," because it doesn't have the militarism element as much, and it's much more mature.(it seems like every fourth word in "ender's game" is fart. It gets tiresome.)
Maybe that's it. The militarism of Ender's game kinda appealed to me and the complete lack of it in the sequels was jarring. Yeah, I know all the stories, Speaker was originally written first and then Card wrote Ender's Game. Speaker was the story he wanted to tell, but it just didn't appeal to me at all.
It will be interesting, if the Ender's Game movie is a success how they're going to handle the sequels. My own opinions aside, both Speaker and Xenocide seem to be very much stories that can only be done as a novel and wouldn't really translate too well to the screen.
I agree. "Speaker for the Dead" is almost completely without action. It's almost like a play. I don't think they'd even try to make a movie out of it.
So did Card not get paid upfront for the rights? Maybe he gets a percentage of the profit?
At the very least, there's a bit of status and prestige that go along with the film's success (see: Rowling, Tolkien, Collins, etc.) If the film tanks, there goes the chance for prestige.
In any case, despite my own decision to not see the film, I think its chances of financial success rest more with the skills of the filmmakers than with the influence of any potential boycott.
I'm not one for confusing the art and artist - Picasso was a misogynistic prick, but that doesn't make his paintings bad. Card's not exactly going to use the money he makes from Ender's Game to go on any anti-gay rights campaigns, so I don't see the point of a boycott based on his personal opinions about homosexuality. If you only partook of art created by people whose every single thought and opinion you agreed with, we'd all have a very limited selection of art to chose from.
That being said, Ender's Game has massive problems as a work of art. It creates a character who is morally spotless and yet commits genocide. It is a morality play based on the twisted Christo-Mormon glorification of innocence, violence, guilt and martyrdom. Reading it as a young person, it's perverted morality made me a tad ill. I've always been baffled at its popularity and I can't imagine wanting to go see the movie adaptation.
Yea, and there's a possibility it could make the film controversial (IE: Must See for the curious masses) and benefit the box office greatly
I don't have to "boycott" the movie - I just have no interest in it. The trailers look cheap and lame; there's nothing intriguing about them.
Separate names with a comma.