The Sword and Laser discussion

http://thedissolve.com/news/806-orson...

*Below quoted from linked article*

But according to a new story by TheWrap’s Josh Dickey, Card won’t see any additional profit participation from the film. His deal, which involved “zero say or creative imput in the adaptation” contains no “escalators” (cash bonuses tied to box-office milestones):

“Multiple sources from both inside and outside the companies that produced the Ender’s Game film–distributor Summit Entertainment, visual effects company Digital Domain and book-rights holder OddLot Entertainment–tell TheWrap that Card’s fee has already been paid through a decade-old deal that includes no backend.”

Essentially, Card was paid for the rights to his book and that’s it. Of course, Card still earns money from sales of his original novel, and with all the attention focused on the Ender’s Game movie, there’s renewed attention on Card’s book. TheWrap suggests if you want to boycott something, you refuse to buy a copy of the book instead.

Just curious since a lot of people have chosen not to see the film because they don't want their money in his pocket.

Since apparently he got his money already and that's it, do you think that paying to see the movie would effect book sales?

I think there's already been so much hype about it that his book sales won't be much hurt even if the movie is an epic flop.

Who knows what's going on with the merchandizing copyrights (they may sell more if the movie is more popular) or the possibility for a sequel (where he would get more money, and if the movie isn't popular then there wouldn't be a sequel).

For me personally in the end it comes down to me knowing I could never feel comfortable walking into the movie theatre holding my girlfriend's hand. His views are enough to cloud my experience of anything produced with his name on it.

Nah. I wasn't going to see it because I didn't like the book ;-)

Nope, that changes nothing. Personally, I just don't want to be exposed/contributing to whatever he produced. It doesn't matter what. And it doesn't matter if it's free or not. I won't see the movie when it's on tv, I won't watch it when friends might have it on DVD, I simply don't care. There seem to be a lot of people that don't have a problem seperating an artist's work from his personal world-views, but I'm not one of them. F.e. I haven't watched a movie with a known Scientology actor (Cruise, Travolta etc.) in over a decade.

For me it's a bit like this. If you see some members of a rock band beating up an innocent guy on the street, would you go and see their show and enjoy yourself, no matter if it's a free concert or one you had to pay for. I couldn't really do that.

No. I was going to see it before and I am going to see it now.

Doesn't change my mind. I was going to see it no matter what, although I understand and respect people's right to boycott it if they so choose.

No.

Card making a million less or more from this film isn't really my concern, nor the goal of the boycott. (The man makes heaps off his books anyway, and nothing is changing that anytime soon, so a failure of the film won't exactly put him in the poorhouse anyway)

The goal is, at least my goal, that if all this ruckus would result in the film being a flop, it might get the Hollywood high-ups hessitant about getting involved with bigotted hatemongers in the future.*

That, and same as Mpauli, I have a real moral problem knowingly associating myself in anyway with people who want to make life harder for people I care about for no other reason than their own smallmindedness.

*note: I'm not naive enough to think that this will actually happen, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

Mpauli wrote: "Nope, that changes nothing. Personally, I just don't want to be exposed/contributing to whatever he produced. It doesn't matter what. And it doesn't matter if it's free or not. I won't see the movi..."

I will probably eventually see Battlefield Earth because it's so bad it must be funny. L.Ron's dead and I'm pretty sure Revolta didn't have points of the gate for streaming it for free ;^P

Nancy wrote: "Doesn't change my mind. I was going to see it no matter what, although I understand and respect people's right to boycott it if they so choose."

That's a respectful dissenting opinion. Why are you here? (smirk, goodonya)

Maybe that is why the movie for me at least is not as good as the book.

Michele wrote: "http://thedissolve.com/news/806-orson...

*Below quoted from linked article*

But according to a new story by TheWrap’s Josh Dickey, Card won’t see any ad..."

No change. Supporting it is a betrayal of my solidarity with my gay and lesbian friends and relatives.

Plus, if this movie does well, they'll do more and he'll get more money. Which he will spend on hate groups and his loathsome hate speech.

Serendi wrote: "Nah. I wasn't going to see it because I didn't like the book ;-)"

Same here! Even if I liked it, I wouldn't, for the same reasons as Trike mentioned above.

Just to pass along what I've read in other corners of the internet: If this was the case all along, why is this news only coming to light a few days before the film's release, and not at any point in months-long marketing push beforehand?

I think the whole Card thing is complicated and people obviously have strong feelings towards the subject.

This gay man's opinion is that even though Card is a nasty little homophobic thug, that doesn't mean he can't produce something of artistic value.

I've never read the book, figure I'll get around to it someday, but the previews for the film look interesting and I think I will check it out.

Anyone here familiar with Stephen Fry's documentary "Wagner & Me?" Here's how the films website ( http://www.wagnerandme.com/Wagner_%26... ) describes the movie:

Stephen Fry is one of Britain’s best loved performers - a multi-talented actor, presenter and writer. He played the title role in the Hollywood movie Wilde, presents the cult quiz-show QI, and makes regular appearances in the hit US drama Bones. He is a lifelong fan of the music of Richard Wagner – the world’s most controversial composer.

But Stephen is also Jewish and, as he is acutely aware, the intensity of his enthusiasm for the composer was matched - or even surpassed - by that of Hitler.

In this film Stephen makes a journey to explore his fascination for Wagner and confront his troubled legacy. Can he disentangle the music he loves from its poisonous links with Hitler?

His journey plays out against the backdrop of preparations for the Bayreuth Festival - the annual Wagner extravaganza held in a theatre purpose-built by the composer. Immersing himself in preparations for the 2009 Festival, he eavesdrops on rehearsals and discovers more about the music he loves. He explores the backstage workings of the Opera house and discovers what makes the theatre, designed by Wagner himself, such a unique musical institution. He plays music on Wagner’s own piano and meets the composer’s great grand-daughter, Eva Wagner-Pasquier who recently took control at Bayreuth alongside her sister, after a long family struggle.

His exploration also takes him to the other key locations in Wagner’s turbulent life. He visits Switzerland where Wagner first dreamed up his masterpiece, The Ring Cycle. He marvels at the fairytale Neuschwanstein castle built by Wagner’s patron King Ludwig of Bavaria. In St Petersburg he meets legendary conductor Valery Gergiev and visits the Mariinsky Theatre to discover what Russian audiences thought of Wagner’s revolutionary music.

Finally he confronts the composer’s controversial links with the Nazis. In Nuremberg, home to Hitler’s infamous propaganda rallies, he discovers how the Nazis appropriated Wagner’s music. In London he has an emotional meeting with a Holocaust survivor who played in the prisoners’ orchestra at Auschwitz, where some of Stephen’s relatives died. What advice will she give as he prepares to return to Bayreuth for the opening night of the Festival?

Animated by Stephen’s wit and intelligence, and featuring a soundtrack of Wagner’s best-loved music, Wagner & Me is a fantastic introduction to the life and art of one of the most important composers ever, and a must-see film for those who already know and love his work.

Timothy:

Writers nearly always sign away control over movies made from their works. Unless you're King or Rowling, you're unlikely to be allowed anywhere near the movie decision-making. Your only control is who you sell the rights to.

Scalzi had some interesting things to say about it on his blog the other day.

I was just poking around today and ran across that article myself. I find the sources cited in that article more than a little suspect. First off, it seems to me that the deal they are talking about "Card’s fee has already been paid through a decade-old deal that includes no backend" is the deal they made with him as the writer of either the original novel or the deal they made for his adaptation of that novel into screenplay format. He also has a producer credit on the film. That's not the same deal as the fee that a writer/adapter gets paid.

It sounds to me like they are only giving at best 1/3 of the story. He probably doesn't have a deal for a gross or net percentage for writing the screenplay. As the author of the original and a producer on the film? Very likely he gets points for either or both of those.

In short, it's a misrepresentation of the truth meant to muddy the waters so people will go out and see the film despite their moral objections to what OSC does with his money.

Besides, Card has already made statements about how much he wants the film to succeed so that he has the power in Hollywood to get sequels made. Even if his only profit is going to be for the advertising value of the film on his books, a profitable film will give him greater earning potential in the film industry. So, even if he isn't going to make a direct profit off of the film itself (which I again think is a lie) he'll make a profit in the long run.

Serendi wrote: "Writers nearly always sign away control over movies made from their works. Unless you're King or Rowling, you're unlikely to be allowed anywhere near the movie decision-making. Your only control is who you sell the rights to. "

Card has said that one of the reasons it has taken so long to get a film adaptation is that he refused to give over that kind of control. Specifically, he rejected any contract that allowed the producers to age Ender and the rest of the cast. He was very specific about that.

So, I sincerely doubt that statement about giving up control is accurate. It's no longer the case that authors relinquish that kind of influence these days--and there is increasingly less reason for them to do so. It would be surprising if OSC suddenly decided to go the other way after having held out for as long as he did.

Oh - didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

I asked around yesterday; Card still has a financial stake in the film. It was part of the deal he cut.

Trike wrote: "I asked around yesterday; Card still has a financial stake in the film. It was part of the deal he cut."

Yeah, that article reads like a planted story meant to trick people. The timing of it is just too coincidental. If he really weren't going to get a percentage, why not say so when the boycott started up to deal with it straight away? Well, they wouldn't want to do that because people would have started asking more questions about the deal he has, and the truth would likely have come out.

Plus, by waiting until the last minute they can trick a few folks before the truth comes out. Opening weekend is the most important factor in the overall success of most films, so by putting out that article they are trying to fool the people who might be on the fence or basing their opinion on his political activities alone.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni56379954/?...

Projections for Ender's Game.

Gary wrote "Card has said that one of the reasons it has taken so long to get a film adaptation is that he refused to give over that kind of control. Specifically, he rejected any contract that allowed the producers to age Ender and the rest of the cast. He was very specific about that.

So, I sincerely doubt that statement about giving up control is accurate. It's no longer the case that authors relinquish that kind of influence these days--and there is increasingly less reason for them to do so. It would be surprising if OSC suddenly decided to go the other way after having held out for as long as he did. "

He said as much during an author interview at the end of the audio book for Enders Game that I read too. It was recorded around 2006 if I remember correctly. That's why I was wondering why he let them age Ender up so much for the film. Maybe he just got tired of waiting?

Also while I respect everybody's opinions on this forum the rampant speculation as to the nature and purpose behind the article about monetary distributions for Enders Game is just that. Speculation. You guys may be seeing conspiracies where none exist.

I hope to see the movie either this week or next. I am very trepidatious about it though because of the nature of the book. I wonder if it will transmit well to the big screen.

Being transgendered, I can't support him at all.

I'm sure he writes good fiction but he's also so homophobic he makes Stalin or other dictator types look sane.

I haven't read the book and won't read anything he writes either.

Lou wrote: "Being transgendered, I can't support him at all.

I'm sure he writes good fiction but he's also so homophobic he makes Stalin or other dictator types look sane.

I haven't read the book and won't r..."

He writes passable fiction. Not particularly good, but not as bad as say, Goodkind.

Many people write better than passable fiction, though, so there's little incentive to buy Card's if you feel he's a disgusting excuse for a human being.

I'm not seeing it mostly because the trailers make it look like a standard "chosen one saves humanity from bugs" story and what I liked about the book wasn't that aspect but the aloneness and isolation Ender felt for his whole life. From his earliest childhood he was better, special and apart. That internal sorrow was most of what was really good about the book. Effects-wise, the battle room scenes were fun to visualise. But because they're big and explodey the space battle scenes seem to be what the movie focuses on and when they do that it turns generic.

Firstname wrote: "He writes passable fiction. Not particularly good, but not as bad as say, Goodkind."

My library sucks when it comes to books, and I'm eternally broke, so I have never read Goodkind. But I do know that Card sucks and blows at the time.

Lou wrote: "Firstname wrote: "He writes passable fiction. Not particularly good, but not as bad as say, Goodkind."

My library sucks when it comes to books, and I'm eternally broke, so I have never read Goodkind..."

Don't. Overly gore-dependent, libertaryan lecture-filled twaddle for 1000+ pages/book. Atlas Shrugged is better, and not by much.

Firstname, so Goodkind is a hardcore Objectivist? I heard that his books degenerated into such tracts over the course of the series, but I did not realize it reached Ayn Rand levels. Also, apparently the prose is bad too.

Baelor wrote: "Firstname, so Goodkind is a hardcore Objectivist? I heard that his books degenerated into such tracts over the course of the series, but I did not realize it reached Ayn Rand levels. Also, appare..."

I don't know if he is personally Objectivist or not. He seems to just be a self-obsessed dickhead. The prose is bad enough that I only got through about ten pages, and I've read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for fun. I never had much use for Jordan's WOT, and Goodkind is that x 50.

Blerg. Thanks for warning me.

Mpauli wrote: "Nope, that changes nothing. Personally, I just don't want to be exposed/contributing to whatever he produced. It doesn't matter what. And it doesn't matter if it's free or not. I won't see the movi..."

I was going to say how much you were missing... but no, that 'decade' was really well timed. Now, if you hadn't been watching scientologists in the '90s, you really would have missed out (What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Almost Famous, Clear and Present Danger, American History X, The Simpsons, large parts of The West Wing, bits of Friends etc.) But the last decade? Nothing to get too upset over, I don't think. Some people tell me that My Name Is Earl was good, but I never found it funny. I suppose the big loss would be Mad Men. Also, Top of the Lake was interesting and worth watching, albeit not perfect.

Baelor wrote: "Firstname, so Goodkind is a hardcore Objectivist? I heard that his books degenerated into such tracts over the course of the series, but I did not realize it reached Ayn Rand levels. Also, appare..."

Apparently, yes, he's a dedicated Objectivist.

Wastrel wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Firstname, so Goodkind is a hardcore Objectivist? I heard that his books degenerated into such tracts over the course of the series, but I did not realize it reached Ayn Rand levels..."

I'll second the "Blerg", then.

Baelor wrote: "Blerg. Thanks for warning me."

You are quite welcome.

Firstname wrote: "... I never had much use for Jordan's WOT, and Goodkind is that x 50..."

Goodkind is way, WAY worse than that. I picked up his first book in an airport desperate for something to read for a flight. It was ordinary amounts of first-time author bad but it had a couple of signs that maybe his world could be entertaining and he might get better. Unfortunately, I have a completist streak so I kept reading the sequels hoping for it to get better and instead he started importing hundreds of pages of philosophy screeds into the books --- really DUMB philosophy screeds, like would have barely rated a C+ as a term paper level and he was clearly so proud of them . . .
You know how Newt Gingrich collaborated with David Drake way back when? Faith of the Fallen felt like the collaboration of Ronald Reagan and a really bad fantasy author but without the Gipper's sense of humor.

Alan wrote: "Goodkind is way, WAY worse than that. "

Heh, see what happens when I try to be understated?

Lou wrote: "Being transgendered, I can't support him at all.

I'm sure he writes good fiction but he's also so homophobic he makes Stalin or other dictator types look sane.

I haven't read the book and won't r..."
I feel like you don't know enough about Stalin....

I would also point out that the real potential of an Ender's Game movie is that it would open up most of his other works for movie and TV adaptation. If you believe the article and say that the movie won't profit him based on ticket sales, you should also take into account the idea of a popular Ender's Game making an Alvin Maker TV show more likely.

That Scalzi blog post that was mentioned is pretty fascinating. Note he is only talking about the financial realities of a movie deal and has nothing to say on the controversy.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/10/31...

The movie has already benefited Card in that Ender's Game is on top of all the bestseller lists again.

Trike wrote: "The movie has already benefited Card in that Ender's Game is on top of all the bestseller lists again."

All of them? Including nonfiction?

/runs

Firstname wrote: "Trike wrote: "The movie has already benefited Card in that Ender's Game is on top of all the bestseller lists again."

All of them? Including nonfiction?

/runs"

I'll get you! And your little surname, too!

Trike wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Trike wrote: "The movie has already benefited Card in that Ender's Game is on top of all the bestseller lists again."

All of them? Including nonfiction?

/runs"

I'll get you! An..."

Do you have any idea how hard it is to run while giggling? So I gave up and got ice cream.

Good thing people didn't listen to that article or the movie might've earned enough for the studio to greenlight the sequel that was already in the planning stages. Funny how nobody in the OP's article mentioned that factor.

Sean O'Hara wrote: "Good thing people didn't listen to that article or the movie might've earned enough for the studio to greenlight the sequel that was already in the planning stages. Funny how nobody in the OP's art..."

Yay.. the first good news posted in this thread:)

On Goodkind. His books may be political rants but, as far as I know, he doesn't spend his book profits on hateful causes.

Sean O'Hara wrote: "Good thing people didn't listen to that article or the movie might've earned enough for the studio to greenlight the sequel that was already in the planning stages. Funny how nobody in the OP's art..."

Honestly, I suspect the box office performance has a lot more to do with Harrison Ford's shrinking drawing power rather than anything to do with OSC. That makes the movie's release/mediocre success doubly sad for me. It's depressing watching the decline of Harrison Ford (who has, let's face it, been taking "talking head" parts for 10-15 years) AND a the whole connection with OSC's heinous ideas. Sad and vicious are a depressing combination.

Sean O'Hara wrote: "Good thing people didn't listen to that article or the movie might've earned enough for the studio to greenlight the sequel that was already in the planning stages. Funny how nobody in the OP's article mentioned that factor."

That's the thing about strategically timed leaks to the press... they seem to have an awful lot of coincidences attached to them.

That said, I'm skeptical about the value of this article too. It seems to be predicting failure a bit early, and mentions the boycott rather prominently.

$28m is a respectable opening. It's probably going to get knocked out of place by Thor next week, but it's a good, solid start. I don't think it's going to make it's budget back domestically... but that doesn't make a sequel an automatic cancellation. It depends on how many other issues (merchandising, DVD sales, etc.) are attached to the product.

Overall, though, I think the odds are against a sequel at present. I'd put it at 7:2 if I were a betting man. Just getting a book adapted in the first place is a big deal, though, so there are probably a few folks behind the thing. Some people in the studio who have the power to get things done. That kind of thing is always a wild card. (Hmm. Orson Scott "Wild" Card.... Why has that never occurred to me before?)

I have not seen it yet, but it seems to me that this movie was simply unneeded. The most successful recent adaptations are the Hunger Games movies, which coincided with the popularity of the books. Successful trilogies not flourishing in the wake of the source material's popularity, like the LotR movies, were top-notch in quality and offered something ineffable to the viewer.

Was anyone really clamoring for an Ender's Game movie? Are the individuals who were fans of the book in their youth the type of individuals to whom this movie would appeal?

It all seems very misguided to me. I hope that this is the beginning of the end of adaptations. Film still needs to establish itself as an original artistic medium.

I'm going to see it but I expect to hate it, the book was awesome, but I have little hope of a good adaptation. I'm avoiding the controversy/activism on both sides