The issues that are coming up now are not part of the book, which is twenty-eight years old. So they don’t really concern me. [long pause] ‘Concern me’ are really not the right words. I think it’s better to say that they are simply not issues; his point of view on some of these issues that are getting such attention now is not promoted by or part of the story that we’re telling.”— Sci-fi stalwart Harrison Ford who’s been repeatedly asked about the antigay views of Orson Scott Card, author of the book that was adapted into his latest film Ender’s Game, in an interview with GQ
MikeE
And Harrison Ford, privileged white heterosexual wealthy male, again demonstrates that he simply does NOT understand the issue AT ALL.
No one cares if the book contains no homophobic material at all.
The issue is that the author of the book, a virulent homophobe actively campaigning to deny/remove equal rights from LGBT people, will PROFIT financially from this film AND any sequels that might come from it being a financial success.
If Harrison Ford wants to demonstrate that O.S.C. will never see a penny of profit from the “Ender’s Game” movie, then sure, go ahead. If O.S.C. is barred from any financial gain whatsoever directly related to the movie, then sure, the boycott becomes pointless.
HOWEVER, as long as O.S.C. stands to gain financially from this film adaptation, then the film is a tool in his hands to continue and help fund his anti-gay activities (and fund NOM, of which he was – until only very recently – a board member).
lickety splitz
Harrison Ford and others associated with this movie are heavily invested in it success and will say what they have to to make Card’s statements seem benign. It’s important to keep reminding the public of Cards hostile statements and his dark vision for LGBT people:
http://www.glaad.org/cap/orson-scott-card
Pistolo
I’m more angry about Dustin Lance Black saying this “Boycotting a movie made by 99% LGBT equality folks in an LGBT equality industry is a waste of our collective energy.”
That always pisses me off when people claim gay people run Hollywood. We still see movies with homophobic jokes in them, gay characters are almost never played by gay actors nor are they main characters ever, gay actors are encouraged to stay in the closet, and forget about seeing a gay person featured in a blockbuster because they want to appeal to the homophobic countries that buy tickets (China, Russia, etc).
There are a lot of gay people in the industry but lots of them have subservient roles, they’re not necessarily decision makers.
sportsguy1983
The books are great and I am looking forward to the movie
Kieran
Something tells me Harrison wouldn’t be so mealy-mouthed about this if the guy in question were a renowned anti-Semite.
Ogre Magi
@sportsguy1983: Card is not that good a writer. The aliens in this series are all ripped off from other works. The Buggers came from Starship Troopers and the Piggies are just a rip off of the Gamorrean? Guards from Star Wars
BitterOldQueen
“Please please please go see my movie, even if it’s based on a book by an ignorant, derivative homophobe!” Sheesh. Fortunately, I saw a preview before “Gravity” last weekend and EG looks like badly-scripted, overblown, noisy CG nonsense, so that makes not giving Orson Scott Card a single dime of mine that he can use to support anti-marriage equality efforts an even easier call. He’s an ass, and wasn’t Harrison Ford over some time ago?
Stache1
@Kieran: Well, that’s easy. It would never have been made in the first place.
DarkZephyr
@sportsguy1983: You are proving more and more to be in a class with BJMcFrisky, Fagburn and Miagoodguy. Welcome to their club.
Harley
Unfortunately OSC got paid already. A boycott will only hurt those individuals paid with royalties. I’m sorry those folks are in the crossfire. I’m just hoping all the controversy will prevent any sequels. I’ll skip the movie.
MikeE
@Harley: You don’t get it do you.
1. OSC is one of the producers, and as such shares in the profits. ie: money to OSC
2. IF the film is a success, it will mean a resurgence in sales of his novels. ie: money to OSC
3. IF the film is a success it means the studio will want to do sequels, meaning OSC will be able to negotiate steadily more money for the rights to his books. ie: money to OSC
4. No one other than the author upon which the material is based gets “royalties”. No actors do, no technical staff, no background workers. ie: money to OSC
5. None of the actors in this movie have signed “profit sharing” contracts. Hollywood doesn’t do this with films they think will be huge hits. And none of the actors were absolutely crucial to the production, had one insisted on a profit-sharing contract. (it’s not like a Star Wars sequel, where one of the iconic characters might be able to negotiate this type of deal).
6. No one involved with this film is “in the crossfire”, and there are no “innocent victims” who will suffer as a result of the boycott. All those involved (actors, crew, writers – and that doesn’t mean OSC) HAVE been paid already. The issue here is potential profit post-release.
So you see, Harley, that you are wrong.
A boycott would be MOST effective on this particular project.
Simply “hoping all the controversy will prevent any sequels” is simplistic and contradictory to your stance on the boycott. If there WAS no boycott there would be no “controversy” to prevent any sequels. And controversy is the last thing that will stop a major studio from doing a project, if that project has the potential to make massive amounts of money.
Just in case you are STILL unclear on how all of this works:
– Producers secure financing for a project.
– The producers+studio pay ALL of the people involved in the production from caterers to gaffers to camera operators to CGI animators to lead actors, including the director, BEFORE the film actually hits the screens of multiplexes.
– The Producers+studio are the only ones who stand to make extra money (return on the money they invested) if the film is a financial success.
Palmer Scott
@MikeE: I have to correct you on a couple of small points.
Actors do receive residual payments for movies from pay-per-view, DVD sales and televised airings. Not a lot, but it’s a pleasant surprise to open your mailbox and find a check you weren’t expecting for a couple of hundred dollars waiting there for you.
Also, for a star of Harrison Ford’s magnitude, with his subsiquent drawing power, I would at all be surprised to hear he has a back-end deal paying him a percentage of the box office.
But even if Card were guaranteed not to receive another penny from this film I wouldn’t go to see it. All the time I would be sitting there I would gritting my teeth in rage at that vile piece of walking excrement!
Palmer Scott
That should read “wouldn’t at all be…”
MikeE
@Palmer Scott: residuals aren’t based upon the success or failure of a movie, however. Actors will get residuals from DVD sales, from pay-per-view, and from broadcast airings, regardless of whether a film made a return on its investment. (the money for residuals doesn’t come from the box office of a film, it comes from licences for airings, reproduction, etc…)
Do you think none of the actors in Battlefield Earth ever get residuals when it plays on TV? After all, that film was a massive bomb. So the residuals question is a red herring.
And if Harrison Ford has a back end deal to pay him, then HE is just as guilty as the studio and the director of not making sure they weren’t in fact promoting the work of a monstrous homophobe. Which thus makes his cries for tolerance and not boycotting rather self-serving. Ergo, another red herring.
VanessaAlmeida
what Kelly explained I’m dazzled that anybody can make ($)9568 in a few weeks on the internet. browse around these guys>>> http://smal.ly/pQ38Y
sportsguy1983
@DarkZephyr, luckily I don’t care what you think.
2eo
@sportsguy1983: We don’t care what you think, but if someone will post your obituary that’d be swell.
Palmer Scott
@MikeE: Red herring? What an odd and combative thing to say. I’m not trying to refute your premise, just pointing out that additional funds will be paid out which seemed to be missed in your fifth point. If the movie is successful it will air more often, which means more residuals will be paid, more dvd’s will sell and more orders for pay-per-view.
And you said no actors had any back-end deals (honestly, unless you’ve read each actor’s contract there’s no way for you to legitimately make that assertion). I merely pointed out it was likely that Ford has such a deal.
And what you seem to have missed entirely is that I am AGREEING with you! Not everyone who replies to a comment you make is an enemy to be attacked.
MikeE
@Palmer Scott: I’m not attacking you. I am bringing precision to my comments. I’m sorry if you read that as “combative”.
as I said, the issue of residuals is a red herring (meaning “a point that detracts or distracts from the fundamental issue at hand”). the financial success or failure of the film has no bearing whatsoever on the payment of residuals (which are not drawn from profits made at the original release of a film).
What I tried to point out (and may have subconsciously been combative, I apologise) was that any additional funds were entirely unrelated to the success or failure of the film. Battlefield Earth gets LOTS of airplay (which generate residuals), and yet was a dismal critical and popular failure.
You seem quite sure that Ford has a deal for profit sharing, I highly doubt it. Let me simply put forth my reasons for doubting this is the case here as well: Ford isn’t “the star” of this film. This isn’t his franchise (ie: Indiana Jones, or Blade Runner, or Star Wars, for example). His is, in essence, a supporting role. He isn’t listed as a producer credit. TO me, this all indicates that he does not have a profit-sharing contract. Let’s agree that neither of us knows for sure.
My first post, to which you responded with your “corrections” was meant to clear some obvious misunderstandings some people seem to have about how the film industry works. I pointed out that both of your objections are not essential to this particular discussion.
Since we both agree that this film should be boycotted, maybe it is important that we agree that making the issue simple (without pulling a Faux News and actually LYING about it) is one sure means of getting people to understand.
I have come across far too many examples of people saying: “yes but think of all the hairdressers and makeup artists that are gay that you’ll be hurting with the boycott”.
My post was intended to point out that none of these people are the target of the boycott, and that the boycott has absolutely no financial impact on them.
And, as I pointed out, IF Mr Harrison Ford DOES have a profit-sharing deal, it would make his grovelling defence of the film and its author more than disgusting and self-serving, “See my movie, or else I won’t make millions”.
/hand extended in peace to Palmer
sportsguy1983
@2eo Not for many years, but thanks. ha!
Cam
I LOVE how Ford keeps trying to lie and claim that this boycott is about some guy’s Opinions”.
1. Card doesn’t just have anti-gay “Opinions” Card is a principle board member of NOM, the largest anti-gay organization in the country.
2. Card’s decisions as a board member of NOM are directly responsible for NOM funding and pushing nearly every single piece of anti-gay legislation in the nation.
3. NOM is currently trying to get a law passed in Hawaii that would allow anybody to discriminate against gays just by claiming they had a moral belief against them.
4. If this movie is a hit, Card will reap money as a producer AND it will make his many other books attractive to movie studios giving him a windfall of tens of millions of dollars which will directly help NOM fund continual anti-gay activities.
Ford needs to stop lying and trying to minimize Card’s bigotry.
Palmer Scott
@MikeE: I understand what your saying and am in complete agreement with your sentiments.
The only reason I believe Ford MIGHT have points in this movie is because he’s the biggest name connected with it and his agent would have to be brain-dead not to ask for every cent possible.
And no matter what he needs to either address the issue of what kind of profits Card could be making or to shut the hell up!
Cam
@Palmer Scott:
And don’t forget, Orson Scott Card DOES have producer credit in the movie which means he DOES get a share of the profit.
sfbeast
@lickety splitz: lickety, thanks for the link. That was helpful. I think it really clarifies what a sick and dangerous, and likely closet case, he is.