Ender's Game!

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Wed May 08, 2013 3:10 am

Okay, so Orson Scott Card is a cock wart toward the gays, but he still wrote a hell of a book, and the movie looks like THA SH*T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP0cUBi4hwE

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed May 08, 2013 6:45 am

How does this work, exactly?

He gives money to anti-gay groups, so let's not buy an issue of Superman he was probably going to make a few grand on...but supporting the movie that will likely put millions of dollars in his pocket is okay?

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed May 08, 2013 8:52 am

Sounds that way.

Yuck. Agreeing with Smooth. Never feels right.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed May 08, 2013 11:46 am

Brendocon wrote:Sounds that way.

Yuck. Agreeing with Smooth. Never feels right.

Post by **Computron** » Wed May 08, 2013 1:43 pm

Not really interested in Ender's Game to be honest. The trailer certainly looks snazzy enough, but I never really could get into the story.

However what I am interested in is Europa Report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U02LIg6dr1Q

I love hard sci fi flicks like 2001, so this one looks promising, and has a bit of that vibe you get from the first Alien movie.

Plus, music done by Bear McCreary.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Wed May 08, 2013 9:11 pm

That looks awesome.

I will justify my viewing of Ender's Game thus: it's not just money going to Card, it's going to a whole ton of professionals who wanted to make a good movie based on the story. He's probably getting very little off the returns, at least compared to Harrison Ford.

But I'm not going to see it multiple times...

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed May 08, 2013 10:16 pm

bumblemusprime wrote:That looks awesome.

I will justify my viewing of Ender's Game thus: it's not just money going to Card, it's going to a whole ton of professionals who wanted to make a good movie based on the story. He's probably getting very little off the returns, at least compared to Harrison Ford.

But I'm not going to see it multiple times...

Was he going to write, draw, letter, color, print, distribute, and sell the comic book on his own?

We're all hypocritical on some things. I pre-ordered Fort Max after saying I wouldn't buy any "new" Transformers because of the bad working conditions they're manufactured under.

But don't try to justify it. You want to see the movie more than you want to condemn a homophobe. No problem. You're making an exception in this one case. Just means you're human.

Post by **Best First** » Thu May 09, 2013 7:39 am

Brendocon wrote:Sounds that way.

Yuck. Agreeing with Smooth. Never feels right.

Yuck, agreeing with Brend agreeing with Smooth.

I think reality just sprained something.

Post by **snarl** » Thu May 09, 2013 9:04 am

Professor Smooth wrote: Was he going to write, draw, letter, color, print, distribute, and sell the comic book on his own?

We're all hypocritical on some things. I pre-ordered Fort Max after saying I wouldn't buy any "new" Transformers because of the bad working conditions they're manufactured under.

But don't try to justify it. You want to see the movie more than you want to condemn a homophobe. No problem. You're making an exception in this one case. Just means you're human.

Got to give thumbs up to this ****.

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Thu May 09, 2013 9:28 am

You really don't want him to get money from you for it that much? You might want to consider pirating it. (disclaimer: piracy is totally illegal in certain locations and with certain products, but definitely not illegal in Taiwan if it's Japanese porn)
Plenty people will do so, and they'll do it with far less noble intentions.

Or borrow a friend's DVD sometime. They haven't outlawed that. Yet.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu May 09, 2013 9:55 am

Sunyavadin wrote:Or borrow a friend's DVD sometime. They haven't outlawed that. Yet.

Give em time.

Once Microsoft have tested the waters with their attempt to kill the second hand game market, it'll be films next.

YOU WOULDN'T LEND A CAR.

YOU WOULDN'T LEND A HANDBAG.

YOU WOULDN'T LEND A SET OF ALLEN KEYS.

BORROWING MOVIES IS STEALING.

Post by **Best First** » Thu May 09, 2013 11:19 am

YOU WOULDNT LEND AN AIRBED WHEN YOUR FRIEND IS MOVING HOUSE

BAD TECHNO

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu May 09, 2013 2:09 pm

I love you all!

Post by **Computron** » Thu May 09, 2013 3:23 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I love you all!

Oh dear, I think he's drunk.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu May 09, 2013 4:05 pm

Computron wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:I love you all!
Oh dear, I think he's drunk.

It's just been a really long, terrible day.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu May 09, 2013 9:38 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Computron wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:I love you all!
Oh dear, I think he's drunk.
It's just been a really long, terrible day.

Mine too. One of my students found out, in class, that his brother died today. That wasn't covered in grad school.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Fri May 10, 2013 11:32 pm

GRAVITY

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2 ... um=twitter

Post by **Computron** » Sat May 11, 2013 3:59 am

bumblemusprime wrote:GRAVITY

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2 ... um=twitter

Now that I want to go and see!

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Fri May 17, 2013 6:38 pm

On the "support Card or not by seeing the movie" issue:

Interesting question. Lots of approaches to justify it, lots of problems as well. Of course it all boils down to "I'm human and I want to see the movie," but in complicated versions:

- One of my problems with the Superman comic was the idea of a bigot writing Superman himself. Supes represents the best of humanity. He is supposed to be an ideal we all aspire to. In this mode, you might not care if Card writes Tony Stark, as he has, but you do care about Superman.

- The way Hollywood works, Card got paid a long, long time ago for this movie and probably won't see a dime from royalties. That's fallacious reasoning without proof, yes...

And most of all... well, this seems to be a troubled debate in this age of the Internet, but I still believe we can separate the artist from his art. At least in this case. Ender's Game, as a book, is a paean to the pains of being different. Card apparently wrote it for all the wrong reasons (according to his own definition of 'wrong'), because it strikes a chord in people who feel different and demonized over their sexuality.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri May 17, 2013 7:52 pm

bumblemusprime wrote:Supes represents the best of humanity. He is supposed to be an ideal we all aspire to. In this mode, you might not care if Card writes Tony Stark, as he has, but you do care about Superman.

Little bit of vomit.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Fri May 17, 2013 9:49 pm

Brendocon wrote:
bumblemusprime wrote:Supes represents the best of humanity. He is supposed to be an ideal we all aspire to. In this mode, you might not care if Card writes Tony Stark, as he has, but you do care about Superman.
Little bit of vomit.

One person's interpretation, vomiticious.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri May 17, 2013 10:17 pm

And most of all... well, this seems to be a troubled debate in this age of the Internet, but I still believe we can separate the artist from his art. At least in this case. Ender's Game, as a book, is a paean to the pains of being different. Card apparently wrote it for all the wrong reasons (according to his own definition of 'wrong'), because it strikes a chord in people who feel different and demonized over their sexuality.

That's a lot easier in the case of a **** like Wagner, who has been dead for about 4,000 years. Going to see Gotterdammerung is not going to put money into the pockets of assholes, the kind around in the early 30's who liked to promote white supremacist agendas.

Card, unfortunately, will be getting money from this movie. And his book sales. Aided by publicity for being an utter ****. Aided further by the 'he's a dick but the books are like being fellated by Jesus!!!11!' mantra. Money that will no doubt find its way back to the various mentally delusional causes he thinks are furthering his vision of how other humans should live and making our lives a little more miserable.

As far as I can tell, in my capacity as 'some guy', he's a writer of second rate SciFi, not a Nobel Prize winning laureate. You want to read about being different and demonised based on sexuality? Try The Velvet Rage, written by a psychologist who deals with unpicking the damage done to LGBT people. Leave the science fiction at the door, especially when the author is this personally destructive to LGBT rights.

Either go and see his movie, prove the studios right that this guy deserves the cash (presumably with more to come for screenplays based on his other books) and accept you're tacitly supporting him and by extension the causes he funds, or boycott it. I'm not sure why one minute you quit a volunteer writing gig because this bozo was something to do with it and now you're looking for a cookie about a movie you will pay him to go see, but it's the pseudo justifications that are making me break out in a rash...

My apologies for the tone. I can't think of a polite way of rewording it

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sun May 19, 2013 1:06 am

Not looking for a cookie here. FFS, I can see a movie without Transfans' approval.

I'm more interested in the aesthetic question. Don't know if that came across. I'm not sure why you feel that we can't discuss this without an abrasive tone. If you want to convince your friends that they're taking a flawed stance, don't stage an emotional attack that straw-mans a person's intent.

I'm not seeing the movie. Reasons below. But I would like to hear people's ideas on the aesthetics of the situation.

I'm interested in the theory behind artist-vs.-art, etc. It leads to an interesting debate. Can we see this only in terms of currency and profit? At what point do we separate an artist from his art? At the point when the artist might not use his profits in an actively harmful way? How can you judge that?

For that matter, aren't we giving money to Hasbro each month even indirectly through IDW? Hasbro's human-rights sweatshop issues are surely as emergent an issue of respect and equality as gay marriage. Those of us who oppose sweatshop labor are clearly separating James Roberts from Hasbro in our aesthetic judgment. Even though Roberts is now providing material to release with toys through Spotlights.

I didn't like my name appearing with Card's on his magazine, in what appeared to be a tacit endorsement of him in any way. I don't like the professional association.

I am not seeing the movie, despite my initial excitement. I decided it really was too much of a supportive action, though it didn't seem so to me at first. Other things are off-putting and betray Card's assumptions of privilege. Putting a British actor in Maori facial tattoos because he's vaguely brown is a ******* slap in the face to indigenous peoples. Either get a Maori actor, or leave that part out.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun May 19, 2013 7:55 am

Did I miss your post where you said 'I'm not going to see it I just want to talk about the philosophical nature of supporting art when the art has socioeconomic impact'? I can't see it, and I've just looked twice.

If I have, then I'm genuinely sorry. I've been insulting and behaved terribly towards you.

If I haven't, and I don't think I have, then I'm still sorry. But this remains as my answer:

Flawed stance, hogwash. I genuinely thought you actually cared about LGBT issues- then one damn film comes out, directly associated with the antithesis of that, and you're soul searching over whether you should go see it! More than soul searching, actually defending going to see it. Morally justifying that you can go and see it. Strawman is where, precisely?

My abrasive tone betrays my genuine anger: I deal with this background radiation daily. People who are supposed to be okay with 'different', but can't help themselves. They're okay being 'tolerant' because they know they can just dip in and out when it suits them, retreating back to the safety of being white, straight (usually male) Westerners.

Your last direct input on the subject was "I'm going to see it but not multiple times". Correlation != causality, but I take away that bonking you on the head worked.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:08 pm

So the first movie it's morally right to torrent, right?

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon May 20, 2013 9:15 pm

Harrison Ford only makes good sci-fi movies.

So far.

Post by **Computron** » Mon May 20, 2013 10:12 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:Harrison Ford only makes good sci-fi movies.

So far.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull?

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon May 20, 2013 11:27 pm

Computron wrote:
spiderfrommars wrote:Harrison Ford only makes good sci-fi movies.

So far.
Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull?

Fantasy adventure meets schlocky B-Movie?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu May 23, 2013 5:13 am

Karl wrote:Did I miss your post where you said 'I'm not going to see it I just want to talk about the philosophical nature of supporting art when the art has socioeconomic impact'? I can't see it, and I've just looked twice.

bumblemusprime wrote:
Of course it all boils down to "I'm human and I want to see the movie,"

Perhaps not terribly clear. But I meant to say that Smooth was right, fundamentally. I know it's not a morally defensible position. Is separating an artist from art a moral position? Seems to me like an aesthetic one. I was never trying to justify it.

I know a whole lot of people presenting those justifications I just listed, many of them queer or queer-allied. I don't think venom is going to help that situation.

Karl wrote: I genuinely thought you actually cared about LGBT issues- then one damn film comes out, directly associated with the antithesis of that, and you're soul searching over whether you should go see it! More than soul searching, actually defending going to see it. Morally justifying that you can go and see it. Strawman is where, precisely?

My abrasive tone betrays my genuine anger: I deal with this background radiation daily. People who are supposed to be okay with 'different', but can't help themselves. They're okay being 'tolerant' because they know they can just dip in and out when it suits them, retreating back to the safety of being white, straight (usually male) Westerners.

I'm sorry to have stirred this up. But I would hope that you wouldn't think that I have never stood up for, been troubled by, or risked anything for my stance on LGBTQ issues because I'm conflicted about, or justifying, a potential lapse on a hard-line stance because there's a book I loved as a preteen.

My family is Mormon. My sister is gay. I sided with my sister against my family when the LDS Church told them they had to vote against gay marriage. Everything since has been a sh*tstorm. Half of my family decided that I must be gay and sneaking off for man-trysts. I don't see a lot of difference in how my family perceives my sister's actual homosexuality and my theoretical homosexuality, except that they're all convinced that I'm betraying my wife and children.

I very publicly rejected my writing mentor and a respectable paycheck because of his points of view. It might be easy for you to dismiss, but there's a big risk as a wannabe writer in burning any bridges, at all.

I can't "step out" of any of that. It's public. It's out there. Don't simplify it and put me in that box just because I am straight and male.

I don't like to go around listing "sh*t I get for supporting gay rights," because I know my sister and others have gone through worse and it's par for the course.

But seriously, do I get a pass because I'm straight and male? My privilege undoes every sh*tty lecture I've gotten about the evils of my lifestyle? The astonishingly sh*tty communication I got from people involved with the magazine when I quit? The calls and texts and emails that made my own wife question me for a while?

Because I go through less sh*t than a person with less privilege, does that make sh*t less sh*tty?

Your last direct input on the subject was "I'm going to see it but not multiple times". Correlation != causality, but I take away that bonking you on the head worked.

Last input was "I'm not going to see it."

I fanboyed out and ignored the greater context of a geeky work. And I'm sorry, again, that I stirred up some painful stuff because of that. But man. Give me the benefit of the doubt here, and try to have this discussion without venom. I sure don't get that from the other side, which includes people who are supposed to care about me no matter what and are instead trying to destroy my marriage. I'd like to think I could find the benefit of the doubt among people I consider friends and allies.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu May 23, 2013 4:04 pm

Alright. Christ knows where I'd be if nobody had ever given me a break, and I've done much worse than want to see a movie. For what it's worth, I hate arguing and this disagreement has made me feel ill, so I value you enough that unpleasantness between us has a physical effect. Venom seems to be my natural reaction to many things, these days.