It did. In fact, Chik-fil-a is a prime example of unintended consequences of boycotts. Last summer, after anti-gay marriage comments made by it’s CEO, and the reactions by some mayors and subsequent calls for a boycott----there was a large right wing counter-reaction . The restaurant near me, literally, had busloads of people come on “chick-fil-a” appreciation day, and they did experience a surge in business for weeks afterwards. Was all over the news for a bit, and googling will easily confirm.
Not saying this movie shouldn’t be boycotted–I certainly won’t be seeing it. But just noting that if the other side took up calls to boycott as a challenge, it could have the opposite effect when it’s 1.) a main stream product with 2.) appeal to both sides of the issue at hand.
That’s why the comic book thing DID work, by the way. The calls for taking Card off the project represented a much larger percentage of the customer base then movie boycotters can hope to, and there was no ready and eager consumers of the product looking to counter/exploit the issue. Not so much with chicken sandwiches and movies.
I think change.org petitions are well down in the picoFuck range. Sometimes I sign them, but they’re worth all the effort they take to sign and no more.
Not actively funding this hate-monger is worthwhile, though.
But can you show that overall, Chik-fil-a showed a net gain in profits long term? So busses of people showed up to show their support. Did that mean more that the people who quietly chose to no spend their money there? The problem is not the boycott, it’s that some mayors saw it as a way to win points so they went overboard. Instead of leaving it up to the individual to choose not to go there, they tried to block them coming to town.
I suppose that I understand wanting to not support Card’s viewpoints, given what I’ve read on the thread, but I really get the impression that this boycott is displaced and weak, at least in relation to boycotting say Rush Limbaugh or Paula Dean. Ender’s game is first a story, next a production, and far down the line an endorsement of Card in one shape or form. There’s a lot of levels of value with limited construal that Ender’s might have that have nothing to do with homosexuality and may be positive (having read the book I can attest for its high value on many levels). Contrast this with boycotting Paula Dean, who’s product is closely related to the person/persona. Contrast this again with say Miles Davis, who’s well documented for spousal abuse and other evils, but who’s music had some of the largest impact on music of any other 20th century artist. Who (when he was alive) would a boycott benefit then?
While I don’t have the strongest argument necessarily for someone making the personal choice to not see the movie based on Card’s views (you can value things however you want), the whole movement of it is a bit weak, and the proclamation of seeing it as supporting the “enemy” equally so. Is this really necessarily a good way to express pro-gay views?
I read the article/editorial by Steve Burst that you mentioned, and there’s something about his analogy with McCarthy that I found really troubling.
To me, there’s a difference between a social movement to boycott, or make their sentiments heard, about a specific individual and a person in political power using his office of considerable power to influence and sway the public.
I’m boycotting on the simple fact that it looks like a terrible movie. Lots of explosions with little of the small moments of Ender actually being human. And, worst of all, making war look Totally Awesome and Necessary.
Actually over half the country believes in gay marriage. [quote=“ierez89, post:60, topic:3138”]
When they see people protesting a movie which hurts noone, and has little to do with the issue at hand, they perceive it as crying wolf.
[/quote]
I guess that all hinges on your definition of hurting no one. Yours obviously does not include what he certainly does with the profits from his work.
Thanks for the tip on walking in other’s shoes, because I never really thought that way. Yes that was entirely snarky, but I found the shoes comment entirely condescending.
I think I am looking at it from the outside. I will tell people “hey, don’t give that shitbag more money to spend on pushing his hateful, harmful, agenda”. If they think I’m silly for that and decide “shoot, I care less now about those gay people because of how sill that is” I’m willing to risk that. They will choose for themselves if seeing the movie is completely unrelated to what he does with the money or not.
Agreed. And, depressingly, in some corners (I’m looking at YOU, Io9), the first thing any work has to deal with is crowds of folks going ‘I wish this was a film/Tvshow!’ Yak.
Apropos Ender’s game, I’m not going to see it. I’ve never read any OSC either, mind.
I saw the Last Starfighter when I was 8, I don’t need to see it again.
so yeah, empty protest, if you like. But I’ll explain it to my nephew though, and he’s probably more the target market. Maybe people should read Only You Can Save Mankind instead?
And that makes me wonder if Ford or Hood knew of Cards rabid homophobia before taking on the movie. People are calling this a “weak protest” but if it brings to the forefront of public knowledge what Card does with his profits, it has achieved some of its purpose. If some people choose to not see it because of this weak protest, it has achieved more of its purpose. If it causes big time actors and directors choose to not work on his projects because they actually support equal rights, then it has achieved even more of its purpose. The purpose of boycotts is NOT just keeping your money from going to those you oppose.
I’ve said my peice. I am glad you took the time to read it. We disagree. That’s cool. And I get where you are coming from. That’s cool too. And we live in a country where we get to just plain disagree. That’s also cool.
Your right Cory… I was going to refuse to pirate this film to let Scott Card know that I don’t agree with his viewpoints… but should we judge a work of art based on the morality of the creator? I’ve decided to pirate it, but not talk about it with my liberal friends.
Corey, serious question here. Does the fact that he’s a writer and that you’re a writer have anything to do with this? Did you love Ender’s Game as a book? I’m not trolling here, just pointing out that sometimes it’s hardest to make clear distinctions about things that are close to our hearts. Do you really, in your heart, believe that Card making money from this won’t lead to Card spending that money on promoting hate and inequality? Do you really believe that a successful movie release, where no one talks about his political action, won’t lead to more movie deals and more money? If you like a book enough that you really want a movie version of it, does that make it OK? I really would like your thoughts on this, as I’ve bought some of your books.
Put me with those who are saying that Blacklist =/= boycott.
Blacklist’s are secretive, generally driven by authoritarian figures or organizations, and typically seek to deprive someone of something. You could be blacklisted and never know it.
Boycott’s are extremely public, open, and upfront about what they want. They are also (with exception) non-violent. You will always know if you are being boycotted.
@RemusShepherd: Mr. Card has talked plenty of times about the need to keep GBLT people illegal - and to have a few display prosecutions every so often to keep us in line. It’s totally about exactly that.
I’m absolutely boycotting this film - and will do so until Mr. Card is dead. Then I’ll get back my OSC books and put them back on my bookshelf but not before. (Further, as noted: a boycott isn’t a blacklisting.)
As for whether it’s “enough,” as has been asked by Bleeding Cool? This isn’t even an apology. Hell no, it’s not “enough.” It’ll be “enough” when I’ve had a lifetime of active, direct, and brutal persecution taken back. I’m not political by nature and I hate politics, but thanks to him and his compatriots I’ve spent a lifetime spending blood and treasure to be a legal person. Give me some of that back. That’s when it’ll be enough.
Until then, this is all I have to say about this particular subject:
So if a majority of people believe that minorities shouldn’t vote, and we make it illegal for minorities to vote, that’s OK too? Last time I checked, our system wasn’t based on “51% gets to make the rules, as long as no body gets killed”. Something about inalienable rights, pursuit of happiness, liberty… something like that, right? But I’m glad you don’t want anyone butchering me or throwing me in a mass grave. [quote=“RemusShepherd, post:75, topic:3138”]
he has his beliefs and preferred laws, and I have my beliefs and preferred laws, and one of the two viewpoints will win
[/quote]
Sort of like a cage match of ideas.
Cory, You encourage us to support humblebundle because the profits are used for good causes. This is fair, but the flip side of the coin is that some of the profits from this film will be used for bad. Orson Scott Card uses his own money to support NOM and actively campaign against gay rights. I don’t think there is any justification for supporting him in this context. You enjoyed his book, and that’s fair enough. Many books have been ruined by poor film adaptations, so why take the time to see this one?
You quote Brust to say ‘it’s an ineffective way to create change’. Card has already begun to backtrack on his comments (though apologist, rather than apology would probably sum up what he has said) so clearly this isn’t the case. More pressure on his wallet could yet lead to more change. Your second point is that a blacklist/boycott could work against us. Personally it couldn’t work against me, as I’m not a creator, but I appreciate that you are, and that your livelihood depends on people supporting you. I doubt, however, that your audience would be put off by you boycotting this film (a decision you could have kept private). Far more likely they will boycott your work for supporting it, especially since you have been so vocal.
There are times when you can separate the body of work from the artist, but when profit from that work is used to support the artist’s negative actions it is worth reconsidering whether to support them.
Oh, and I’m not the first to observe this, but I presume this “moot” thing means that Card’s anti-gay National Organisation for Marriage will be closing its doors?
