6 ms·

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of potentially nice people that worked hard on this movie. People will boycott this because of peer pressu

by EnderMB 13y ago

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of potentially nice people that worked hard on this movie. People will boycott this because of peer pressure, and to follow the crowd. People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-semitic views. Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his work. His literary output has nothing to do with his views. Enders Game is a fantastic book and I have high hopes for this movie; not just that it'll be a good port to the big screen, but that it'll help the careers of a number of young actors.

sneak 13y ago
Nice people will know for next time not to work on projects that stand to enrich bigoted fuckheads. Alternately, these nice people could have Googled him before agreeing to work with the guy.
- Ziomislaw 13y ago
  you are almost correct, I disagree with calling those ppl nice. it was their choice to support him, and as such it was their own decision to accept responsibility for it. being stupid enough to not realize it is same excuse as nazis "only following orders".
  - skaevola 13y ago
    This is totally ridiculous. Working on a movie which has absolutely nothing to do with the author's admittedly terrible views is equivalent to being a Nazi? And they're now morally culpable for everything he's ever said? Seriously?
- EnderMB 13y ago
  It's Hollywood. Chances are their work has already enriched the lives of some bigoted fuckheads. Why single out a product based on another product by a noted homophobe when we won't do it to numerous others?
pron 13y ago
I'm not saying that your view is wrong, but I should point out that it neuters almost every kind of political action. Almost every undertaking is carried out by a large group of people. Most of them are innocent. All of them are probably nice. But bad things are often done by nice people -- sometimes because they don't realize that they're bad. Sometimes because they don't care enough. There are no bond-villains in real life. People who do evil don't think that that's what they're doing. A possibly controversial example relevant to this forum is Google. I'm personally convinced that Google is one of the most sinister and "evil" (to use their own parlance) corporations that has ever existed, and I can support that claim (though I won't be doing that now). Yet, I know that not only are most Google employees really nice and innocent, even their top management has the best of intentions. Still, Google is evil. Once you understand that good intentions often lead to evil actions, you get a different understanding of political action. Precisely because many people have participated in the making of this film, it is important to boycott it (if you agree with the boycotter's arguments). Otherwise, people will always have the defense of "but I'm just an actor", or "I didn't know". Everything we do is a political statement, and ignoring that fact is a political statement in itself, which says "I don't care about the message my work sends, I only care about my career". Maybe if you boycott the film, those innocent actors will learn that next time they should make it their business to learn who they're working for.
- pron 13y ago
  Replying to myself: I haven't read Ender's Game, and I don't even know what it's about, but reading the Wikipedia article I've found something ironic: Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality." Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault." It looks like (according to this criticism) that the author embodies the very viewpoint I pointed at. Namely that as long as your intentions are pure -- or, more precisely, innocent -- you are not responsible for your actions.
  - dmansen 13y ago
    I posted it above, but here's that essay if anyone is interested: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
shiven 13y ago
It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of gay people. People will boycott this because of their convictions regarding right and wrong. ...it'll help the lives of a number of young gays... --- Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his work. Hypocrisy disguised as equanimity or what? Bigotry is still bigotry if it spews from a person who saves countless lives, leave alone writing sci-fi.
anonymous 13y ago
When I first read the title, I thought they wanted me to boycott the movie because it wouldn't honour the book. Turns out it's because Orson Scott Card is an influential asshole who doesn't like gay people? I'm not sorry, and this is just petty poop-flinging. Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special.
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  Orson Scott Card more than "doesn't like gay people" and he has done far more than simple boycotting of movies. He has gone out of his way, time and time again, for decades, to support legislation which is discriminatory. Ironically, now he wants people to be tolerant of his discriminatory actions. Sick irony!
- sneak 13y ago
  Some fraction of your ticket price will likely fund the oppression of others.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    Doesn't it always?
- icebraining 13y ago
  Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special. Agreed! Thankfully, there are many movies being produced out of Hollywood. Just from last year, I saw great films such as Amour (French-German-Austrian), Barbara (German) and Lore (Australian-German), which were better than anything I've seen from Hollywood in years.
clhodapp 13y ago
Most of those 'nice people' will not be affected by this, given that they were paid a flat salary or wage for their work.
- EnderMB 13y ago
  Yet a number of users on here are slating those that choose to work with known homophobes. Does this not affect them?
algorias 13y ago
People are in many senses products of their time. It is a recent phenomenon that people are so acutely aware of discrimination (of all kinds) and the harm it does to society. If someone was born in a time or place where that kind of awareness wasn't widely established, I'm willing to cut them a lot more slack. See also HP Lovecraft for another famous author whose writings have awkward racist and misogynistic undertones when read from today's perspective.
a3n 13y ago
I won't see the movie for the same reason I won't see a Tom Cruise (scientology cultist) movie anymore, I don't want to contribute anything to their voice. I know I won't silence them, that's not my point or even my wish. There are so many things to do in a day, I don't feel like I need to contribute to anyone's ability to spout or deceive, even in a miniscule way.
e12e 13y ago
> People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-Semitic views. From what I can find, it is common knowledge that he would make outrageous, sometimes hurtful and insensitive statements -- and that he (especially after reviewing a book on Israel's invasion of Lebanon) considered himself to be anti-Israel and an anti-Zionist. That's hardly the same thing as being an anti-Semite. If you know of any sources I've missed, please let me know -- but as far as I can tell it isn't "common knowledge that he held anti-Semitic views".

by EnderMB 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

Nice people will know for next time not to work on projects that stand to enrich bigoted fuckheads. Alternately, these nice people could have Googled him before agreeing to work with the guy.

Ziomislaw 13y ago
you are almost correct, I disagree with calling those ppl nice. it was their choice to support him, and as such it was their own decision to accept responsibility for it. being stupid enough to not realize it is same excuse as nazis "only following orders".
- skaevola 13y ago
  This is totally ridiculous. Working on a movie which has absolutely nothing to do with the author's admittedly terrible views is equivalent to being a Nazi? And they're now morally culpable for everything he's ever said? Seriously?
EnderMB 13y ago
It's Hollywood. Chances are their work has already enriched the lives of some bigoted fuckheads. Why single out a product based on another product by a noted homophobe when we won't do it to numerous others?

pron 13y ago

I'm not saying that your view is wrong, but I should point out that it neuters almost every kind of political action. Almost every undertaking is carried out by a large group of people. Most of them are innocent. All of them are probably nice. But bad things are often done by nice people -- sometimes because they don't realize that they're bad. Sometimes because they don't care enough. There are no bond-villains in real life. People who do evil don't think that that's what they're doing. A possibly controversial example relevant to this forum is Google. I'm personally convinced that Google is one of the most sinister and "evil" (to use their own parlance) corporations that has ever existed, and I can support that claim (though I won't be doing that now). Yet, I know that not only are most Google employees really nice and innocent, even their top management has the best of intentions. Still, Google is evil. Once you understand that good intentions often lead to evil actions, you get a different understanding of political action. Precisely because many people have participated in the making of this film, it is important to boycott it (if you agree with the boycotter's arguments). Otherwise, people will always have the defense of "but I'm just an actor", or "I didn't know". Everything we do is a political statement, and ignoring that fact is a political statement in itself, which says "I don't care about the message my work sends, I only care about my career". Maybe if you boycott the film, those innocent actors will learn that next time they should make it their business to learn who they're working for.

pron 13y ago
Replying to myself: I haven't read Ender's Game, and I don't even know what it's about, but reading the Wikipedia article I've found something ironic: Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality." Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault." It looks like (according to this criticism) that the author embodies the very viewpoint I pointed at. Namely that as long as your intentions are pure -- or, more precisely, innocent -- you are not responsible for your actions.
- dmansen 13y ago
  I posted it above, but here's that essay if anyone is interested: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm

shiven 13y ago

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of gay people. People will boycott this because of their convictions regarding right and wrong. ...it'll help the lives of a number of young gays... --- Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his work. Hypocrisy disguised as equanimity or what? Bigotry is still bigotry if it spews from a person who saves countless lives, leave alone writing sci-fi.

anonymous 13y ago

When I first read the title, I thought they wanted me to boycott the movie because it wouldn't honour the book. Turns out it's because Orson Scott Card is an influential asshole who doesn't like gay people? I'm not sorry, and this is just petty poop-flinging. Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special.

yaddayadda 13y ago
Orson Scott Card more than "doesn't like gay people" and he has done far more than simple boycotting of movies. He has gone out of his way, time and time again, for decades, to support legislation which is discriminatory. Ironically, now he wants people to be tolerant of his discriminatory actions. Sick irony!
sneak 13y ago
Some fraction of your ticket price will likely fund the oppression of others.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Doesn't it always?
icebraining 13y ago
Hollywood as a whole is full of assholes and I don't see what makes this one special. Agreed! Thankfully, there are many movies being produced out of Hollywood. Just from last year, I saw great films such as Amour (French-German-Austrian), Barbara (German) and Lore (Australian-German), which were better than anything I've seen from Hollywood in years.

clhodapp 13y ago

Most of those 'nice people' will not be affected by this, given that they were paid a flat salary or wage for their work.

EnderMB 13y ago
Yet a number of users on here are slating those that choose to work with known homophobes. Does this not affect them?

algorias 13y ago

People are in many senses products of their time. It is a recent phenomenon that people are so acutely aware of discrimination (of all kinds) and the harm it does to society. If someone was born in a time or place where that kind of awareness wasn't widely established, I'm willing to cut them a lot more slack. See also HP Lovecraft for another famous author whose writings have awkward racist and misogynistic undertones when read from today's perspective.

a3n 13y ago

I won't see the movie for the same reason I won't see a Tom Cruise (scientology cultist) movie anymore, I don't want to contribute anything to their voice. I know I won't silence them, that's not my point or even my wish. There are so many things to do in a day, I don't feel like I need to contribute to anyone's ability to spout or deceive, even in a miniscule way.

e12e 13y ago

> People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-Semitic views. From what I can find, it is common knowledge that he would make outrageous, sometimes hurtful and insensitive statements -- and that he (especially after reviewing a book on Israel's invasion of Lebanon) considered himself to be anti-Israel and an anti-Zionist. That's hardly the same thing as being an anti-Semite. If you know of any sources I've missed, please let me know -- but as far as I can tell it isn't "common knowledge that he held anti-Semitic views".