Up Front: Card on the Table
121 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You, sir, have a great eye.
-
-
ChrisW, in reply to
Thanks, Ben. Tried to come up with a photo-response, but ...
best not clutter Emma's place with more lurid photos.Fact is, the good eye's been disconcertingly singular lately, the other one problematic.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
The more I think about Bakshi’s speech, the angrier I get.
He and his ilk lost. History will prove them utterly wrong. His words now are meaningless and he is irrelevent to the future. It's time to relax and let him have his pathetic little whine, while we raise a glass to a slightly better New Zealand.
-
Gee,
Forgive the de-rail (re-rail?) but... I'm going back to the support-the-art-or-support-the-artist question when people reveal themselves as vile bigots or sex offenders... The Steubenville rape case (on top of the Jerry Sandusky / Joe Paterno case) is making me wonder what about sports? Is there anything fair in supporting a team which has supported/hidden someone who has e.g., raped or molested people? Especially when scholarships and professional fees are considered... Just so horrible to hear the victim-blaming in the Steubenville case, and so much of it has to do with the team support network. So, genuine question: Is supporting rugby or cricket teams the same thing as going to Ender's Game?
-
linger, in reply to
My take on that is that it depends on how close to the actual on-field players the agency/enabling goes; so it’s more complicated than the single-author=moral agent problem originally posed. I think you could potentially support a team while condemning its management or coaches, without hypocrisy.
(Or to put it another way: as a supporter, you don’t have to subscribe to the philosophy that everything any member of the team does is by definition OK.)
But if you’re placed in the position of admiring the playing skills of someone who has committed (or allowed to be committed) an offence against another person, then that seems to be back in the same place as liking (some of) Card’s fiction. Maybe worse, if it’s a physical offence and you’re interested in physical skills. -
WTF? Central Wellington in this day and age?
-
Probably a bad place to comment on this- sorry.
But crikey. Appointing Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner is giving the big finger to anyone who's concerned about race relations in Aotearoa. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
WTF? Central Wellington in this day and age?
Maybe not such a big surprise when bridge-and-tunnel types flock to the Courtenay quarter at night.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Probably a bad place to comment on this- sorry.
But crikey. Appointing Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner is giving the big finger to anyone who's concerned about race relations in Aotearoa.Has Judith Collins never heard of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter or Emma West?
-
So, resurrecting this thread after a Twitter convo.
IF you are of the opinion that Ender's Game is actually quite good, and a re quite excited about the possiblility of the movie being quite good, BUT are also quite aghast at the crap falling out of OSC's mouth and very much not in favour of doing anything to directly, or indirectly send money to him so he can spend it on causes that are abhorrent to you, THEN (correct me if I'm wrong) your options are: Wait, see it on TV, rent it from video shop, buy it second-hand (all legal options that send little, or no money to OSC, but involve delaying gratification) or download it illegally.
Since all the scare-ads make the point that illegally downloading deprives artists, and leaves their children starving in the gutter, is this a legit option? Bearing in mind that OSC is not the only one gaining a livelihood from this movie, can you handle being responsible for Harrison Ford going hungry?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Since all the scare-ads make the point that illegally downloading deprives artists, and leaves their children starving in the gutter, is this a legit option?
Yeah, I've been quietly pondering this question, and sort of hoping it wouldn't become explicit, because I don't really know the answer. It's a solution to the "want to see it, don't want to fund bigotry" problem, but it's ethically fraught in itself. It also doesn't, I think, have the same impact as an actual boycott, as far as deterring people from working with Card in the future - witness the Superman kerfuffle, which was largely framed around people saying they wouldn't buy the issue, as well as the damage by association to DC's brand. So maybe the compromise position isn't as strong a stand, regardless of how you feel about opyright-cay.
-
There is that, considering that, at the same time as trying to stamp it out, the studios are tracking downloads as much as possible to use in their metrics of how popular a work is. c.f. Game of Thrones producers & HBO kerfuffle recently.
I guess I'll wait for some reviews to arrive - if the nerderati declare it to be worse than Episode 1, then the problem becomes moot. Its easy to boycott something you no longer want to see...
OTOH I still can't pay to see Game of Thrones in a reasonable time period at a reasonable cost :-(
And when is someone going to attempt a Malazan Book of the Fallen epic series? -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It also doesn’t, I think, have the same impact as an actual boycott, as far as deterring people from working with Card in the future – witness the Superman kerfuffle, which was largely framed around people saying they wouldn’t buy the issue, as well as the damage by association to DC’s brand. So maybe the compromise position isn’t as strong a stand, regardless of how you feel about opyright-cay.
Well put. And as I said up-thread, there's also the larger context of OSC's hiring by DC, namely the company's pretty shit record when it comes to diversity. Alyssa Rosenberg has an interesting piece on An Ethical Guide To Consuming Content Created By Awful People Like Orson Scott Card is relevant here; and well as the post where she points out how DC could actually have learned a thing or two from the movie's producers.
-
The Steubenville rape case (on top of the Jerry Sandusky / Joe Paterno case) is making me wonder what about sports?
Sports teams tend to try and avoid any political issues like the plague of course. They'd much rather have the homophobes and the PFLAGs and everyone in between support the team without realising that they're opposite sides of an issue.
Hence that Greek footballer getting major headlines with his nazi salute the other week. When they step outside that small field of play they look like a mess.
-
Jeremy Andrew, in reply to
That ethical guide brings up an option not mentioned here thus far - offsetting. If OSC is getting a portion of your ticket price, and a portion of what he get will go to a cause that you are opposed to; donate to that cause's opposition. If I'm paying $15 bucks to go see Ender's Game, odds are the amount OSC gets from that is measured in fractions of a cent, so if I donate $30 to a pro-equality cause, that not only counteracts any money I gave to Card, but offsets pretty much the rest of the theatre as well.
Is that a valid way to have my cake & eat it too? The upside is that all the other people in the film, and making the film, will get their legitimate cut and dues; a bunch of promising young actors won't have the black mark of a bomb against their records; and Harrison Ford will be able to afford to demand script approval for the next Star Wars flick.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
If I'm paying $15 bucks to go see Ender's Game, odds are the amount OSC gets from that is measured in fractions of a cent, so if I donate $30 to a pro-equality cause, that not only counteracts any money I gave to Card, but offsets pretty much the rest of the theatre as well.
This is actually the argument I buy least. I mean, okay, you're pro-equality. You have money to give to a pro-equality cause? Just give it. If you didn't go to Ender's Game then theoretically you'd have $45 to give to a pro-equality cause, right? (I'm not saying people Must Give Money to their Causes. There are lots of cheaper and more visible ways to support something.)
Also. When it comes to Ender's Game's supporters making their cause, whether it's that Card's involvement wasn't damaging, or that there should be a Speaker for the Dead movie or whatever, you count as someone who saw it. Your presence counts for the numbers, your dollars count for the box office take. What else you did with your money? Doesn't count. It's not visible.
What would make it work is if someone organised a big, visible Offsetting Campaign, where people who were going to EG could very obviously donate to a specific pro-marriage-equality fund. This has just come to me as I type, and it seems like a pretty sweet idea. Mostly, tbh, because I imaging it would really annoy the piss out of Card.
-
Jeremy Andrew, in reply to
What would make it work is if someone organised a big, visible Offsetting Campaign, where people who were going to EG could very obviously donate to a specific pro-marriage-equality fund. This has just come to me as I type, and it seems like a pretty sweet idea. Mostly, tbh, because I imaging it would really annoy the piss out of Card.
That sounds like so much fun! Wonder how much Event or Hoyts charge to rent out a theatre for an event like that - I know they do corporate bonding sessions.
-
What would make it work is if someone organised a big, visible Offsetting Campaign, where people who were going to EG could very obviously donate to a specific pro-marriage-equality fund.
Orson Scott Card-bon offsets?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Orson Scott Card-bon offsets?
Nice,
like a Heinlein in the sand... -
Gee,
Post your response…
This topic is closed.