| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen such passion against people who are choosing not to see a movie.
That's what you call "directly"?!
Card has made it no secret he financially supports them, and will continue to do so while he's got money coming in. The only question is whether he receives royalties.
If so, ticket sale -> money to OSC -> money to NOM. That's pretty direct.
If not, I'm totally willing to accept that the boycott is of no consequence.
LOL, but continue on with the posturing. It's all about people feeling better about themselves anyway.
So, I guess you bought that candy bar, AD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My lack of financial support for this film won't effect those transactions.So then, just out of curiosity, what will your lack of financial support affect?
I'll have more money to donate to Lambda Legal and the Transgender Law Center (BTW, F#$$ the HRC.) I'll have dollars to watch some other movie (at matinée) or rent DVDs, even if that means I might unknowingly channel some small percentage to anti-LGBT lobbying. I'll probably have a little extra cash to support Paizo, or Jon Brazer, or 4Winds/Purple Duck, or another gaming company that supports LGBT inclusiveness. And I'll have paid for that stamp on my letter to Lionsgate explaining why I and many of my friends will not support an OSC production.
Maybe you consider it posturing or going after a white whale, but I'm 100% ethically-comfortable boycotting OSC, even if it ultimately means I denied him half-a-penny of my money. That Lionsgate felt enough heat to donate to (still undisclosed) LGBT-cause(s), and OSC felt it necessary to abandon NOM and his public position proves the boycott has already had some small positive impact.
Cinema and the Class Struggle
EDIT: Throwing this in, because I like lists: "Ebert was born two and a half years before me, fortunate enough to be a young man in what were arguably cinema’s greatest years. That must have factored into his selection of the ten greatest films ever made: 2001: A Space Odyssey; Aguirre, the Wrath of God; Apocalypse Now; Citizen Kane; La Dolce Vita; The General; Raging Bull; Tokyo Story; The Tree of Life; and Vertigo. Anybody who includes Aguirre is okay in my book, for damned sure."
This one is just a f#&!in' goldmine. I took the liberty of extracting a nugget for you all:
Independence Day (1996)
What should the international proletariat do when space aliens
attacking earth with the intent of killing all humans? ID4,
doesn't say, but once the principal contradiction shifts from
imperialism-vs.-oppressed nations to Humanity-vs.-Space Aliens, a
lot of old enemies work together against the new enemy. Of course,
Hollywood makes the Amerikans the smart ones who have to lead
the fight. After the aliens are defeated, the oppressed may have
a revolutionary opportunity amid all the destruction. Still, MIM
asks, "who wrote this?" For now, aliens are cultural creations,
and therefore class creations. If this was a movie written with
proletarian politics, advanced aliens would more likely be communists,
not evil imperialists. Or in a different as yet unwritten revolutionary
alien movie, the proletariat unites with the space aliens behind the
bourgeoisie's back. Then, at the crucial moment, the bourgeoisie
realize they have been outflanked by the combined forces of the
space aliens and the proletariat. Then, the aliens and what's left
of humanity peacefully coexist.
That's what you call "directly"?!Card has made it no secret he financially supports them, and will continue to do so while he's got money coming in. The only question is whether he receives royalties.
If so, ticket sale -> money to OSC -> money to NOM. That's pretty direct.
Actually, I'm nearly positive that that's the definition of indirect. (You also forgot a few steps, in there - ticket sale -> theater operator -> film distributor -> film studio -> Orson Scott Card (maybe) -> NOM.)
Maybe you consider it posturing or going after a white whale, but I'm 100% ethically-comfortable boycotting OSC,
I know you are. And I think that's the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doodlebug, once you start spelling America with a K, you're just going to alienate the people who would benefit the most from your message. (Seriously, when I want to whip up anti-goblin fervor, I just explain to everyone how goblins spell "Amerika.")
Actually, I'm nearly positive that that's the definition of indirect.
If I drive from Houston to Pittsburgh and happen to pass through Memphis on the way, I'm still driving directly from Houston to Pittsbugh. In fact, I once passed through Little Rock, Memphis, AND Cincinnatti when I did so!
If I detour to Utah, then I'm taking an indirect route.
Maybe you consider it posturing or going after a white whale, but I'm 100% ethically-comfortable boycotting OSC,I know you are. And I think that's the point.
So, you're saying that even though I'd be supporting causes to which I'm ethically opposed, I should eat at Chick-Fil-A and McDonald's, shop at WalMart, buy Exxon gas, and support OSC's projects?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter in no way advocates spelling "America" "Amerika," nor even "AmeriKKKa" (except for on picket signs, where it looks great). Nor, in fact, does Comrade Anklebiter necessarily endorse anything in that above post. Louis Proyect, for example, hates Wes Anderson and wrote that Moonrise Kingdom made him want to throw up.
Comrade Anklebiter in no way advocates spelling "America" "Amerika," nor even "AmeriKKKa" (except for on picket signs, where it looks great). Nor, in fact, does Comrade Anklebiter necessarily endorse anything in that above post. Louis Proyect, for example, hates Wes Anderson and wrote that Moonrise Kingdom made him want to throw up.
I liked that part where the tween-aged kids made out on the beach, though, that bit was pretty good . . . what?
Comrade Anklebiter in no way advocates spelling "America" "Amerika," nor even "AmeriKKKa" (except for on picket signs, where it looks great)...
With that attitude, you will never rise above padawan level at Scrabble.
I don't allow Scrabble at the Dice Estate; it can be used to teach the illiterate lower classes how to read, and that's where things go awry . . .
I liked that part where the tween-aged kids made out on the beach, though, that bit was pretty good . . . what?
That scene was beautiful. Polanski couldn't have done it better.
[Eats Scrabble tiles]
So, you're saying that even though I'd be supporting causes to which I'm ethically opposed, I should eat at Chick-Fil-A and McDonald's, shop at WalMart, buy Exxon gas, and support OSC's projects?Maybe you consider it posturing or going after a white whale, but I'm 100% ethically-comfortable boycotting OSC,I know you are. And I think that's the point.
No, I'm saying that you should seek to effect change in meaningful, substantive ways, rather than in ways that do little or nothing except for appeasing your own sense of guilt. Supporting LGBT rights is an incredibly worthy cause. As Dustin Lance Black pointed out, however, this is a counter-productive boycott (it seeks to do direct financial harm to companies and an industry that are overwhelmingly personally supportive of gay rights), and something as simple as calling someone opposed to gay rights to have a discussion with them would be a thousand times more meaningful.
Actually, I'm nearly positive that that's the definition of indirect.If I drive from Houston to Pittsburgh and happen to pass through Memphis on the way, I'm still driving directly from Houston to Pittsbugh. In fact, I once passed through Little Rock, Memphis, AND Cincinnatti when I did so!
If I detour to Utah, then I'm taking an indirect route.
That's great. Now explain to us how having to go through five steps in a chain that literally have nothing to do with anti-gay groups before reaching someone who will perhaps put a portion of that money into a donation to an anti-gay group qualifies as "direct".
That's like flying to Alaska, Hong Kong, Capetown, and Dublin before landing at Ontario and driving to Pittsburgh. Or we could stop using unnecessary metaphors to explain something as straightforward as what it means to give money directly to something, and what it means to give money indirectly to something.
Well Scott, I was never going to see the movie to begin with; there's no requirement to purchase a product you won't enjoy just because a boycott isn't in effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm saying that you should seek to effect change in meaningful, substantive ways, rather than in ways that do little or nothing except for appeasing your own sense of guilt. Supporting LGBT rights is an incredibly worthy cause. As Dustin Lance Black pointed out, however, this is a counter-productive boycott (it seeks to do direct financial harm to companies and an industry that are overwhelmingly personally supportive of gay rights), and something as simple as calling someone opposed to gay rights to have a discussion with them would be a thousand times more meaningful.So, you're saying that even though I'd be supporting causes to which I'm ethically opposed, I should eat at Chick-Fil-A and McDonald's, shop at WalMart, buy Exxon gas, and support OSC's projects?Maybe you consider it posturing or going after a white whale, but I'm 100% ethically-comfortable boycotting OSC,I know you are. And I think that's the point.
No, because 1) the boycott is already productive and positive for LGBT visibility and donations, and 2) it isn't zero sum: we can boycott Ender's Game and work for pro-LGBT causes. Lionsgate and the film producers thought they could ignore OSC's anti-LGBT work and donations, and everyone wouldn't care. Apparently in 2013, enough LGBT people and allies do care and won't put up with this anymore. Discussions about LGBT peoples' equality, or even their basic humanity, doesn't work by itself when it comes to for-profit companies like Lionsgate. You have to demonstrate that supporting open anti-LGBT lobbiers, even indirectly, hurts their bottom line too.
Well Scott, I was never going to see the movie to begin with; there's no requirement to purchase a product you won't enjoy just because a boycott isn't in effect.
That is certainly true. I'm really only talking about people who would have otherwise been interested in a progressive sci-fi film like Ender's Game, but have decided to boycott it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if you're calling Ender's Game progressive, I think you should read the book again; it's like OSC decided to see how many kinds of repression he could fit in one story.
No, because 1) the boycott is already productive and positive for LGBT visibility and donations,
Again, not as productive and positive as it would have been if the organizers of the boycott had approached this differently (see above). And, of course, it ignores the fact that the boycott (if effective) will have done many times more financial damage to those responsible for making the film and the causes they support (which, again, overwhelmingly include pro-LGBT groups).
and 2) it isn't zero sum: we can boycott Ender's Game and work for pro-LGBT causes.
Sure. Or you can do the second without doing the first, since the first is actually counter-productive on top of being functionally meaningless.
Lionsgate and the film producers thought they could ignore OSC's anti-LGBT work and donations, and everyone wouldn't care.
I think a lot of them probably had no idea that OSC was a raging homophobe.
Apparently in 2013, enough LGBT people and allies do care and won't put up with this anymore. Discussions about LGBT peoples' equality, or even their basic humanity, doesn't work by itself when it comes to for-profit companies like Lionsgate. You have to demonstrate that supporting open anti-LGBT lobbiers, even indirectly, hurts their bottom line too.
Right, I get that. But the people organizing this don't understand how boycotts work. When you boycott a grocery store chain, for instance, the expectation is that the chain's owners will see a significant drop in sales, and that they will attribute that drop to the boycott, and act to remedy the situation. But this is a film studio. When someone organizes a boycott of a film (and it's successful), then yes, they'll see low ticket sales. But they have no context to place those sales in. They have no way of reasonably determining what the cause for those low sales was. Was it because of the boycott? Or was it because the actors didn't deliver solid performances? Or was it because a progressive sci-fi film doesn't resonate with the American audience? Or was it because the timing of the release was poor?
Again, this sort of boycott does not send a financial message. It tries, but the fidelity of the message is utterly lost along the way due to the way the film industry functions. It goes from, "We didn't like your film because the guy who came up with the idea is homophobic," to "We didn't like your film."
Dude, if you're calling Ender's Game progressive, I think you should read the book again; it's like OSC decided to see how many kinds of repression he could fit in one story.
Progressive in the sense that it deals with the emotional and societal impact of the emergence of futuristic technologies and concepts (for instance - and not to spoil too much - the idea of interaction with war that is simultaneously intimate and detached). Not progressive in the political sense.
Lionsgate and the film producers thought they could ignore OSC's anti-LGBT work and donations, and everyone wouldn't care.I think a lot of them probably had no idea that OSC was a raging homophobe.
So if the boycott has given Lionsgate et al. reason to consider the political stance of the the authors whose work they adapt (say that five times fast), hasn't it had a greater effect than just denial of profits? It seems to me that boycotts have always been about public shaming more than monetary effects.
Edit, in response to your post immediately above: Yeah, but there are much better books that talk about that.
LOL, but continue on with the posturing. It's all about people feeling better about themselves anyway.So, I guess you bought that candy bar, AD.
A strange game you propose Kirth. The only winning move is not to play.
So I choose not to play.
So I choose not to play.
Any day now...
Edit, in response to your post immediately above: Yeah, but there are much better books that talk about that.
Your personal opinions aside, Ender's Game has won both Nebula and Hugo awards, placing it firmly in the company of the most highly-regarded science fiction pieces ever written.
Or we could stop using unnecessary metaphors to explain something as straightforward as what it means to give money directly to something, and what it means to give money indirectly to something.
Just as soon as we agree on what the definition of "is" is! Look, I get it, you've got a really big hard-on for everyone to go see this movie. But the lengths of the side-roads you're insisting on going down in order to try and make that point doesn't seem to be changing anyone's mind.
On the other hand, I've already told you what would immediately change a lot of people's minds: providing credible evidence that OSC isn't getting royalties.
So let's take this to its logical conclusion then.
Let's see who is actively, directly involved in supporting this film, and therefore, by the logic advanced in this thread, directly supporting an anti homosexual agenda:
Producer - Summit Entertainment
Director - Gavin Hood
Primary actors:
- Harrison Ford
- Ben Kingsley (so much for "Ghandi")
- Abigail Breslin
- Asa Butterfield
- Hailey Steinfeld
Are you boycotters now morally bound to boycott any further endeavors these companies/individuals are involved in?
If not, why not? After all, they are all engaged in the anti-homosexual agenda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you boycotters now morally bound to boycott any further endeavors these companies/individuals are involved in?
Same answer as repeated so often before: only if some portion of the proceeds of those endeavors go to said anti-homosexual agenda.
But I thought you weren't "playing" anymore, and were going to hide the thread because you "have no interest"?
Edit, in response to your post immediately above: Yeah, but there are much better books that talk about that.Your personal opinions aside, Ender's Game has won both Nebula and Hugo awards, placing it firmly in the company of the most highly-regarded science fiction pieces ever written.
Ender's game was originally one of the most critically acclaimed and recognized SHORT STORIES before it was extended to novel length, where it was AGAIN recognized as brilliant.
Are you boycotters now morally bound to boycott any further endeavors these companies/individuals are involved in?Same answer as repeated so often before: only if some portion of the proceeds of those endeavors go to said anti-homosexual agenda.
But I thought you weren't "playing" anymore, and were going to hide the thread because you "have no interest"?
I'm not playing your silly moral equivalence game Kirth. That's the "game" I'm "ending."
Nice to see you're reading my posts though. :)
Some of the proceeds of their acting, directing and producing ARE going to OSC Kirth.
I'm not playing your silly moral equivalence game Kirth.
It was actually your game; I just provided another example. In any event, I understand that you really, really like Ender's Game, and that it's really, really making you upset that some people are talking about boycotting it. But neither your arguments nor your tone seem to be convincing anyone to buy tickets.
If you want to see the movie, by all means, go see it.
If others want to stay home, why not let them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, because 1) the boycott is already productive and positive for LGBT visibility and donations,Again, not as productive and positive as it would have been if the organizers of the boycott had approached this differently (see above). And, of course, it ignores the fact that the boycott (if effective) will have done many times more financial damage to those responsible for making the film and the causes they support (which, again, overwhelmingly include pro-LGBT groups).
H&!~+*#+!. Everyone who worked on Ender's Game has already. been. paid. Everyone. Some select few are hoping to make percentage points off the movies take (and related video games, toys, comics, t-shirts, etc), but that's frosting on the cake. The majority of the cast and crew already have as much money out of this film as they're gonna get. As for poor Lionsgate, they (like all studios) take out insurance just for weird circumstances, like boycotts, and movies are always a crapshoot.
and 2) it isn't zero sum: we can boycott Ender's Game and work for pro-LGBT causes.Sure. Or you can do the second without doing the first, since the first is actually counter-productive on top of being functionally meaningless.
A one-person boycott is functionally meaningless. The boycott has already produced positive results because of the numbers behind it, and the heat it places on Lionsgate and OSC. People like Mel Gibson or Polanski doing hateful or harmful things outside of films has led to a noticeable reduction in work for them in film. Maybe it can work with OSC too.
Lionsgate and the film producers thought they could ignore OSC's anti-LGBT work and donations, and everyone wouldn't care.I think a lot of them probably had no idea that OSC was a raging homophobe.
Utter flamin h+!#%@~~%. Are you really that naive? Seriously, a major film is an investment. Smart people do their research, and OSC's hate comes up on the first page of Google results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently in 2013, enough LGBT people and allies do care and won't put up with this anymore. Discussions about LGBT peoples' equality, or even their basic humanity, doesn't work by itself when it comes to for-profit companies like Lionsgate. You have to demonstrate that supporting open anti-LGBT lobbiers, even indirectly, hurts their bottom line too.Right, I get that. But the people organizing this don't understand how boycotts work. When you boycott a grocery store chain, for instance, the expectation is that the chain's owners will see a significant drop in sales, and that they will attribute that drop to the boycott, and act to remedy the situation. But this is a film studio. When someone organizes a boycott of a film (and it's successful), then yes, they'll see low ticket sales. But they have no context to place those sales in. They have no way of reasonably determining what the cause for those low sales was. Was it because of the boycott? Or was it because the actors didn't deliver solid performances? Or was it because a progressive sci-fi film doesn't resonate with the American audience? Or was it because the timing of the release was poor?
Again, this sort of boycott does not send a financial message. It tries, but the fidelity of the message is utterly lost along the way due to the way the film industry functions. It goes from, "We didn't like your film because the guy who came up with the idea is homophobic," to "We didn't like your film."
Anyone looking to see this film, or fund other OSC adaptations, is aware of this boycott and the bad publicity. They might spin it as something else, but without some other evidence (bad reviews, viewers heads spontaneously exploding, etc.), they'll know it was the boycott. Edit: And like I said, I wrote Lionsgate a reasonable, non-hateful letter explaining why I and my friends won't be seeing it. I'm also encouraging others to do the same so the reasons are crystal clear.
Ender's Game isn't progressive for 2013, with kids segueing from playing video games at home to killing brown people in foreign lands with military drones.
Ender's game was originally one of the most critically acclaimed and recognized SHORT STORIES before it was extended to novel length, where it was AGAIN recognized as brilliant.Edit, in response to your post immediately above: Yeah, but there are much better books that talk about that.Your personal opinions aside, Ender's Game has won both Nebula and Hugo awards, placing it firmly in the company of the most highly-regarded science fiction pieces ever written.
Yeah, but "Driftglass" is still a better story. :P
I'm not playing your silly moral equivalence game Kirth.It was actually your game; I just provided another example. In any event, I understand that you really, really like Ender's Game, and that it's really, really making you upset that some people are talking about boycotting it. But neither your arguments nor your tone seem to be convincing anyone not to do it.
If you want to see the movie, go see it.
If others want to stay home, let them.
LOL, I'm not upset at all. If I were upset and emotionally invested in the issue I'd be, oh, I dunno, advocating a boycott or something equally futile and smugly self-satisfying.
As it is I'm just pointing out that the very same people who are hyperventilating about OSCs supposed anti homosexual agenda have never, at least on these boards, raised their voice to complain about Hollywood's support of pedophiles, tax cheats, fraudsters or a host of other moral failings. Nope, apparently pedophilia gets a pass. But speak out against gay marriage? Outrageous! Why it's like TERRORISM in fact.
I just feel compelled to point out hypocrisy like that sometimes.
Some of the proceeds of their acting, directing and producing ARE going to OSC Kirth.Are you boycotters now morally bound to boycott any further endeavors these companies/individuals are involved in?Same answer as repeated so often before: only if some portion of the proceeds of those endeavors go to said anti-homosexual agenda.
If any of them publicly disclose, or it is later discovered, they are donating money or directly working to prevent LGBT equality, then yes.
This isn't about the content of the film. This isn't even about the bilious hate coming out of OSC's columns and writings and public statements. Money to OSC funds anti-LGBT influence in laws and policies; that's it.
Who's hyperventilating, in your opinion, on these boards?
Edit: Ninja'd by a slaad; I played an adventure one time where exactly the same thing happened. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish people would boycott Adam Sandler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hollywood's support of pedophiles,
Woah. I shiznit you not, I'm listening to Chuck Berry. The synergistic weirdiosity is freaking me out!!
It's not that I'm boycotting him, I just won't watch any of that s**t. (True story)
Well, Punch-Drunk Love was awesome, and Spanglish was, adequate, I guess, but as for the rest . . .
LOL, I'm not upset at all. If I were upset and emotionally invested in the issue I'd be, oh, I dunno, advocating a boycott or something equally futile and smugly self-satisfying.
As it is I'm just pointing out that the very same people who are hyperventilating about OSCs supposed anti homosexual agenda have never, at least on these boards, raised their voice to complain about Hollywood's support of pedophiles, tax cheats, fraudsters or a host of other moral failings. Nope, apparently pedophilia gets a pass. But speak out against gay marriage? Outrageous! Why it's like TERRORISM in fact.
I just feel compelled to point out hypocrisy like that sometimes.
Your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Speaking for slaadself, I deliberately avoid most political discussions on the Paizo boards simply because it is a mostly pointless gesture. There are numerous political and social causes all of us devote our limited time and resources on, and most of us don't rush to discuss them all here or on Facebook or wherever.
As it is I'm just pointing out that the very same people who are hyperventilating about OSCs supposed anti homosexual agenda have never, at least on these boards, raised their voice to complain about Hollywood's support of pedophiles, tax cheats, fraudsters or a host of other moral failings. Nope, apparently pedophilia gets a pass. But speak out against gay marriage? Outrageous! Why it's like TERRORISM in fact. I just feel compelled to point out hypocrisy like that sometimes.
The thing is, last I saw, this is the "Ender's Game/OSC" thread, not the "Boycott Roman Polanski Movies" thread or the "Boycott all movies" thread or the "boycott everything" thread. If you want people to not rent old Polanski movies anymore, there's nothing preventing you from starting a thread to raise awareness of that effort.
Well, Punch-Drunk Love was awesome,
Shiznit, I forgot about that one. Boycott off, people.
I'm still fully in favor of the boycott (or whatever), just on a case-by-case basis.
Kirth, I'm just pointing out that there have been any number of movies written, produced, directed or acted in by people with acknowledged, sometimes convicted moral failings, up to and including pedophilia. Yet I have yet to see a call on these boards for boycotting any of those films.
I am forced to conclude that in the hierarchy of moral failings, the consensus from members of this board is that supporting those who promote anti-homosexual behavior is a more heinous moral failing than supporting those who promote anally raping 14 year olds.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose. People have to have standards. I just feel like pointing out what they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I find many of Mr. Sandler's choices of objects of ridicule and his taste in "humor" to be questionable... to the best of my knowledge, Sandler has never lobbied lawmakers or company boards to enact hateful anti-equality laws and policies. To the best of my knowledge, he does not donate to anti-equality lobbyists and groups. So no, I don't boycott him. I avoid his movies 'cause they generally suck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD, why did you have to go there? No one on these boards has ever endorsed, never mind promoted, anything like that, anal or otherwise, no matter the age of recipient.