Film | News | NOM | Orson Scott Card

Lionsgate Entertainment Statement: 'Ender's Game' Has Nothing to Do With Orson Scott Card or NOM

Endersgame

Earlier this week, the LGBT group Geeks OUT launched an online protest of the Lionsgate film Ender's Game, based on the 1985 sci-fi novel by NOM ally and outspoken homophobe Orson Scott Card, urging all members and allies of the LGBT community to boycott the film:

"Do NOT see this movie! Do not buy a ticket at the theater, do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand. Ignore all merchandise and toys. However much you may have admired his books, keep your money out of Orson Scott Card’s pockets."

The planned boycott made national headlines, and elicited a plea for "tolerance" from Card shortly thereafter. LGBT advocates didn't buy it, or Card's claim that the same-sex marriage battle was over, thus rendering his prior homophobic remarks "moot".

Lionsgate Entertainment has now issued a statement to the NYT, defending Ender's Game and distancing itself from Card:

As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from “Gods and Monsters” to “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and a company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of “Ender’s Game.” The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message. Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes and, as part of this ongoing process, will host a benefit premiere for “Ender’s Game.”

Will you be boycotting Ender's Game?

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I'm not going to see it anyway cause it looks terrible and I'm not a fan of the books.

    But IF Mr Card makes a groveling apology for his past comments and admits he was completely wrong in every particular about gay people and their families, I may refrain from taking part in a boycott.

    OSC must do what that guy from Exodus did: apologize UNRESERVEDLY for his wasted, malicious and grossly wrong past statements.

    Posted by: Chaz | Jul 12, 2013 5:02:29 PM


  2. Who cares if I, one guy see it or not? But if Scott-card does not make a full withdrawal, I will certainly make sure that the many mothers I know (and I know MANY mothers of small boys and girls) will NOT be allowing their children to see this film in the theaters. They are VERY pro-gay and they will shun this movie if I make them aware of the reasons why it should be shunned.

    Posted by: Chaz | Jul 12, 2013 5:04:40 PM


  3. Sorry, Lionsgate, the writer's terrible history of homophobia is not "irrelevant." Let the boycott begin.

    Posted by: Richard | Jul 12, 2013 5:05:40 PM


  4. Chaz: "I wouldn't see it anyway, but if he apologizes, I won't be boycotting when I don't see it!"

    Seriously?

    Posted by: Mike8787 | Jul 12, 2013 5:05:45 PM


  5. If you want to organize a real boycott: remember to educate the young mothers and fathers you know: this is a family film: if they families keep their kids away, it will collapse.

    80% of my young friends have young families, and all of them will stay away if they know why.

    Posted by: Chaz | Jul 12, 2013 5:06:01 PM


  6. It's a children's film: why would I watch a film made for little kids?

    Posted by: Chaz | Jul 12, 2013 5:07:07 PM


  7. The small amount of money they raise is nothing compared to what OSC has spent to destroy the reputation of the LGBT community and keep us from equal rights. If they (Lionsgate) decided to match what OSC has made in donations to NOM, I might forgive them for this incredibly stupid move. But I'm still not seeing the movie. And I agree with others, it doesn't even look that good. I hope it bombs and sends a message to hollywood to think about, perhaps even google, who they work with and decide to give money to. I'm so proud of our community finally standing up to these nitwits and making a stand.

    Posted by: Shawn | Jul 12, 2013 5:19:53 PM


  8. Won't ever eat Chick-fil-a again either - no matter how much they "change". Same thing applies here. The brands have become poisoned.

    Posted by: Richard | Jul 12, 2013 5:20:30 PM


  9. 1) Not a children's film, kids are in it but... so is war, famine and genocide.

    2) CARD GETS MONEY, CARD GIVES TO NOM, SEEING THE MOVIE WILL SUPPORT THOSE THINGS.

    I am really surprised that Lionsgate would try such a stupid trick, Card IS going to be compensated, HE IS A PRODUCER. For some people the boycott is justified on the grounds that Card gets money no matter what since they made a film out of his works, so even if you did remove the producer credit they would still be "right" in boycotting.

    I'm more concerned with the rights very strong ability in re-branding things. I mean look at this site, how many people complained at the gay guys forming the protest that this isn't right and is overstepping? Maggie's whole press release is just to paint us as intolerant or the right, if you aren't careful those kinds of thought will prevail until nobody is quite sure what happened.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jul 12, 2013 5:25:14 PM


  10. If Orson Scott makes a single cent from Enders Game movie, then this has to do with Orsonn Scott. Will definitely boycott.

    Posted by: AndyTowlette | Jul 12, 2013 5:26:18 PM


  11. I will not be seeing this move, because one dime of my money is far too much to go to someone who will invest in destroying my future.

    Posted by: Joel | Jul 12, 2013 5:27:48 PM


  12. I will not be seeing the film. I have avoided everything related to Card, since encountering his essay "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" in 1990. (In looking up the essay to make certain I had the name right, I see that Card has issued a half-hearted softening of what he says in the essay. "Half-hearted," because he tries to defend his call to prosecute people for being gay "in flagrant cases" "a liberal and tolerant view.") It's at http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

    In the twenty-three years since he wrote that, I obviously stopped buying and reading his books. When "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" started a column by Card, I let my subscription lapse. When a local convention had Card as their guest, I stopped attending.

    No, I'm not going to the movie. It would be unfair to the person next to me, who presumably wouldn't want me to be grinding my teeth.

    I could make some suggestions about what Card should say. Not "I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books" (note the ambiguity, because he did call for them to be selectively enforced when they were on the books), but "laws against gay people are wrong and even un-American."

    Taking up arms against a government that permits same-sex couples to marry should be described as "just about the craziest opinion that anyone could come up with."

    There are plenty of other good books and movies out there whose creators don't make my stomach churn.

    Posted by: John D | Jul 12, 2013 5:28:13 PM


  13. @Chaz: The book certainly wasn't for kids, though it was about kids.

    What I learned from Ender's Game (the book):

    1. It's OK to lie to children, abduct them, and make them compete against one another if it serves society's interests.

    2. Orson Scott-Card likes to write about wet, naked children.

    I won't be seeing the movie.

    Posted by: Kevin | Jul 12, 2013 5:30:02 PM


  14. Must be running scared. Even my syfi nut partner won't see it.

    Posted by: Michael White | Jul 12, 2013 5:34:18 PM


  15. Nothing to do with him or NOM, except he can profit millions from this and NOM (or other bigoted groups) can benefit from that.

    Posted by: Ryan | Jul 12, 2013 5:34:45 PM


  16. Notice that Lionsgate tries to make it seem like Card just has an opposition to same-sex marriage. 'cause if they got into specifics, that image would fall apart, as Card has a LOT of vile anti-gay statements going back decades, including where he argued that laws against homosexual acts remain on the books [quoting Card:] "...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

    Or how about his recent version of Hamlet (all the creepy characters are gay and Hamlet's father wants to molest his son in Hell), which plays on the most hateful stereotype of gays there is, equating "gay" with "pedophilia"?

    Notice Lionsgate doesn't mention things like THAT. Let's NOT let Lionsgate try to sweep this aside by making it sound like Card's only offense is having a religious view against same-sex marriage.

    Specifics are our friends here, and there are a LOT of specific Orson Scott Card quotes to choose from to show that his hate is a longtime thing and that he's been willing to express it in terms that wouldn't be out-of-place in the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Jul 12, 2013 5:37:06 PM


  17. I saw the trailer for this last night and it look really good, unfortunately as much as I'd like to see it I will not support a homophobe who gives his proceeds to a group like NOM. I absolutely love chick-fil-a sandwiches but I haven't stepped foot in one since I learned Dan Cathy gives to hate groups. BTW Pacific Rim was very good, a diverse cast and the non-white female hero kicks ass and actually lives through the movie. Sorry if I spoiled anything.

    Posted by: Jersey | Jul 12, 2013 5:38:26 PM


  18. "The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message."

    Yeah, the message is "slaughter anyone you disagree with down to the last living being, nuke their planet, and then take over their now empty real estate as your profit in the deal. Oh, and, it's okay to kidnap elementary school kids without parental permission and put them in the military so that you can manipulate them into doing the dirty work for you.

    As for the idea that the movie doesn't support the marginalization and elimination of gay people from society "in any way" - show me the gay characters in the book or the movie. There are none.

    How is "there are no gay people anywhere in evidence over the course of over a dozen novels spanning the entire Earth and a variety of Earth colonies" not aligned with the "let's completely eliminate homosexuality via government action?"

    Posted by: Lymis | Jul 12, 2013 5:41:11 PM


  19. Liongates position, that if they have a benefit and raise money for LGBT causes misses the point. Its like carbon off-sets. Just because you are sticking up for a good cause does not negate the harm Card's and NOM's words have done for a bad cause. Its like those people who instead of boycotting will see the movie and then donate to a LGBT charity. In the end Card will still get the money. How about instead don't go to the movie and donate to a LGBT charity? That is a much better result.

    Posted by: KT | Jul 12, 2013 5:47:33 PM


  20. Lionsgate, it comes down to one simple question.
    Does Card make any money off ticket sales?

    Because if he does then you already have your answer.

    This man has inflicted tremendous harm on the LGBT community for decades and still participates as a board member of the now INTERNATIONAL hate group NOM. He has made anti-gay animus his life's work.

    Disclose his percentage of profit and make a binding agreement to donate the equivalent to LGBT children's charities and we'll talk.

    Posted by: JONES | Jul 12, 2013 5:49:42 PM


  21. "Bugger" has been a homophobic word for 500 years, a very derogatory word used for religious reasons. OSC's use of the word isn't subtle.

    Posted by: Kev C | Jul 12, 2013 5:51:19 PM


  22. I won't see it.

    But I will see Pacific Rim (for the giant monsters not the robots).

    I'll never eat at chick fil a either.

    Posted by: Josh | Jul 12, 2013 6:12:16 PM


  23. No, I support the boycott.

    Posted by: Aaron | Jul 12, 2013 6:15:20 PM


  24. I'm still boycotting Snapple for their sponsorship of Limbaugh from the '90s, and Exxon-Mobil for their discrimination against LGBT employees from at least a decade ago. It hasn't brought them down, but it makes me content with my purchases.

    Lionsgate should be delighted that I'm only boycotting this one film, and not everything they touch.

    Posted by: Randy | Jul 12, 2013 6:20:33 PM


  25. I wouldn't say I'm boycotting it, but ever since I learned of Card's views I've been unable to read his books. It's too hard to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story when you are scrutinizing the story for anti-gay subtext. So no, I don't feel it's a boycott It's just that there would be no way this movie would be entertaining to me. And I was a big fan before I learned about his politics.

    Posted by: DJSauvage | Jul 12, 2013 6:23:55 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Prop 8 Authors Ask California Supreme Court To Stop Same-Sex Marriages« «