Quantcast
Family

Lionsgate responds to 'Ender's Game' boycott

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    Tolerance to all who believe like they do

    Great job card!

    I believe like you do!

    Your comments were right then. And now.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    July 12, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    To paraphrase from a song out the Musical South Pacific,

    "You've got to be carefully taught"

    You've got to be taught to hate and fear,

    You've got to be taught from year to year,

    It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,

    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught to be afraid

    Of people who love is oddly made,

    And people whose love is a diff'rent shade,

    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught before it's too late,

    Before you are six or seven or eight,

    To hate all the people your relatives hate,

    You've got to be carefully taught!

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    July 12, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    Yes, you certainly do not what to get on the bad side of the LGBT group. They are super sensitive and very intolerant of other people's beliefs and standards. It's hard not to offend them. I just wish businesses would stay neutral and not feel like they have to support their often offensive and vulgar Pride Days and parades.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    @monsieur le prof
    "It's hard not to offend them."

    Actually I find it easy, then again I don't call them sinners, brand them as unfit parents, or try and impose my religious beliefs on them.

  • BusStopRatBag Layton, UT
    July 12, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    I missed the boycott news and when I saw this headline I figured it was over spoiling the reveal in the trailer.

  • VA Saint Chester, VA
    July 12, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    It's not a scandal or a controversy. It is a personal and deeply held belief. If you don't agree with it, then don't see the movie.

  • Ltrain St. George, UT
    July 12, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    Now, I'm going to boycott Lionsgate!!

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 12, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    There are hundreds of people responsible for any movie. If one of them does something you don't like you boycott the movie?

  • Turtles Run Missouri City, TX
    July 12, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    @monsieur le prof
    "It's hard not to offend them."

    I would like to add that wanting to deny them the same rights that others enjoy will probably tick 'em off too.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    July 12, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    Typical reaction by heterophobes.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    July 12, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    Surely Card is entitled to his 1st amendment right without fear of retribution, the same way anyone else might be. You don't have to agree with the way that someones expresses their 1st amendment right, but you have to respect their right to say it. That is what makes this country so great. The freedom to express yourself without fear of retribution.

  • BYR Woods Cross, UT
    July 12, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    (How can I say this without offending someone....hmmm) If I did not separate the art from the artist, I would never enjoy the many wonderful things created by those in the LGBT community. Tolerance must be from both sides.

  • Emjay Somewhere in Time, UT
    July 13, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    Isn't it amazing that supporting something that has been the norm for thousands of years is controversial. Isn't it amazing that truth telling is now controversial.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 13, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    @monsieur le prof
    "It's hard not to offend them."

    Ah, yes... that elusive "them" again. It's different, though, when "them" includes a relative or a friend and you discover that "they" are human beings very much like the rest of us with the same hopes and dreams, the same desires for a happy life, the same hobbies and interests, and that "they" aren't drooling monsters wanting to destroy your lifestyle.

    While I've been a fan of Card's writing for years and enjoyed Ender's Game when it was first published, that doesn't mean I have to buy into his personal beliefs any more than those who've read my novels will always agree with my beliefs or that my publisher will agree with them. I'm sure that Card was aware that Lionsgate didn't agree with his beliefs when he signed the contract with them, so I don't see any issue here, although he probably would have found it difficult to locate a homophobic film studio to produce the movie.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    July 13, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    It's unfortunate so many are unable to distinguish between "same rights" and "similar opportunity", for it is the latter they seek (on the subject of gay "marriage") and not the former. Marriage is not a right, but an opportunity afforded by the state to those who meet certain initial requirements. It offers benefits to couples who are willing to abide by continuing requirements that are designed to protect children. Neither the initial nor the continuing requirements stipulate anything about sexual attraction or love.

    I appreciate the difficult challenges faced by those burdened with same sex attraction, and, speaking of actual rights, desire that they have the same rights as anyone else. I would be willing to support some mechanism by which gay couples would be afforded certain legal benefits when entering into a formal contractual relationship. But I do not support including children in the mix because I believe each child has a right to be raised by both of its biological parents; putting children into the mix would constitute legal imprimatur to the denial of that right. (If anything, we ought to strengthen marriage laws to better protect children.)

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    July 13, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    I'm with you Ltrain, but first a nice chicken sandwich.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    Gently, kindly, who cares. I wish the DesNews would stop running stories like this. Everytime someone expresses an opinion there is talk about someone boycotting. If the GLBT community does not to see a movie because they do not believe that Mr. Card has the right to his opinion, then don't go. I do not get why the DesNews has to waste time it. All it does is encourage the bullies and intimidate people from sharing their points of view. There are to many on both sides who believe in free speech as long as the speaker is agreeing with them. I hope the DesNews will stop supporting bullying by not giving the bullies their 15 minites of fame.

  • Burnham Bountiful, Utah
    July 13, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    In my opinion Lionsgate is in it for the money only and anyone can see that.Don't do anything to drive away the almighty buck. I don't know what Card said and don't care. He is entitled to his own opinion and to state it. I believe in freedom of speech. However, I do not believe that anyone should pander to any group simply to make money.We are all people and should be treated with respect but not catered to because we believe differently, regardless of that belief system. If you want to boycott anything that is your right. Has anyone heard of just ignoring? Why must everyone state their opinion all the time and make an issue of everything from soup to nuts. Do you know that most of us simply don't care what you think????

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    July 13, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    @Jim: You comment is incorrect. Card has the 1st ammendment right to freedom of speech as does everyone living in the U.S.A. Nobody has the right to expect no repercussions (retribution in your words)from exercising that right.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    July 13, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    @Emjay: What is amazing to me, is that there are so many people who make statements about what is/was the accepted norm and that with just a little bit of effort these people could find the actual documented facts. It seems to me to be less of wanting to know the truth and more about revising history to fits ones religious beliefs.

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Thank you BYR for your comment about separating the art from the artist. I have never judged anything by who wrote or sculpted or painted or created it. I have refrained from seeing some movies because they were vulgar, profane, or uninteresting to me, but not because of who produced it.

    And thank you, too, Jim for your simple, yet profound insight into what makes this nation great.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 13, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    I suspect we've got the next 'battlefield earth' here.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    July 13, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    I will boycott because i thought the book was awful and usually the movie versions are worse.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 13, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    @Pops --

    "Marriage is not a right"

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    From the US Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). "

    As for the movie --

    IMHO Lionsgate brings up a very good point. They obviously HAVE supported gay rights issues in both their employment practices and their movies -- and paying for a ticket will help to support that company, its policies, and all its employees (who owe a special thanks to all the anti-gay-rights people who go to the movie just to spite them evil ol' gays).

    OTOH, I believe that publicizing the boycott was a good thing. It promotes more awareness and discussion, whether or not it affects the movie financially -- and hey -- now Lionsgate is going to do a pro-gay benefit, which they probably wouldn't have done without the controversy. That's all to the good.

    And now I'll probably go see the movie. I'll tell myself I'm supporting Lionsgate, not Card. ;-)

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    July 13, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    I would like to know how many of my fellow LDS would react if Orson Scott Card was a raging Anti-Mormon/Mormons are devil worshipper/Sinners/not Christian/cult school of thinking.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    July 13, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    This makes me not want to see it more than what Orson Scott Card said.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    July 13, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    And in response to a couple of other comments, no, marriage is not a right, and what the Supreme Court says changes drastically over time depending on who is running. Not that the Supreme Court case cited there is dated from 1967. Pretty sure the court didn't have gay marriage in mind when they made that statement. The essential nature of marriage at that time to our survival was obviously tied to its role in procreation. Clearly that has nothing to do with gay marriage, which is incapable of naturally producing children.

    The plain historical facts show that marriage has always been an inter-gender proposition. The number of people involved in marriage has fluctuated depending on the time and the culture, but it has always been between men and women, not between men and men, or women and women. To argue that it can be such is to ignore the very purposes for which marriage came into existence, as well as the basic laws of nature. But who cares about any of that anymore. "If it feels good, do it" has been the rule now for 40 years. This is the result.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 13, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    @antodav --

    "marriage is not a right"

    I believe that the Supreme Court knows more about US laws and the Constitution than you do. ;-)

    "what the Supreme Court says changes drastically over time"

    The court cases cited in that court statement were from 1967, 1942, and 1888. I'm pretty sure there were different justices and different presidents on each of those dates. ;-)

    "The essential nature of marriage at that time to our survival was obviously tied to its role in procreation. "

    Marriage is also essential in creating stable relationships, which are essential to a stable civilization.

    "The plain historical facts show that marriage has always been an inter-gender proposition."

    Actually, the "plain historical facts" show that you are 100% wrong here.

    In fact, we know from written legal codes that gay unions have been recognized as far back as the Mesopotamians and Assyrians, if not earlier. They were also recognized as early as 600 BC in the Roman Empire (and please note that, despite frequent claims to the contrary, Rome didn't fall for roughly 1000 years AFTER this point).

    In fact, same-sex marriages have been recognized at points throughout human history. And that's the "plain historical facts".

  • scootd28* SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 13, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    To all who jumped on Monsieur le Prof's comment...There is little in life or in society that is more essential, more basic, more private, more intimate than the relationship between a man and a woman. In the interest of the survival of society, a man-woman-child family is indispensable - obviously, without it, society would die out. Yet, those of us who speak out for building it up and supporting the man-woman-child family structure are ridiculed as bigots (and yet - being called a bigot still means something to us). We do not try to tell anyone how to live their lives, but we should have the right to voice our concerns over the long-term social impact of promoting formal family relationships that we feel undermine the family and therefore undermine society. Yet, we don't seem to have that right. Why not? Why must we constantly grant the right of others to express their opinion and concerns, but we are not able to? Why?? Why?? Why??

  • scootd28* SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 13, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    Another thing Monsieur le Prof referred to - the offensive and often (very often) vulgar parades. They ARE offensive and vulgar. I lived for 18 months in Paris, and worked every day very near the Marais district of the city, which is commonly known as the "gay" district. We frequently had posters and flyers left in the windows of our office, and they were ALWAYS sexual. I don't care if it is heterosexual or bi-sexual or homosexual, such displays are offensive to me. Sex should be private, and from what I've seen of the "gay community", sex is patently not private. That is what I believe, that is what my morals are based on, that is how I was raised. Not to hate ANYONE, (I truly do not hate) but to keep my sexual relationship sacred and intimate between my wife and me. As a result, I find such public displays of sexuality offensive - again, whether it be hetero or homosexual

    I don't expect anyone to agree or sympathize. I fully expect significant backlash. Again - why? Why can I not speak without ridicule?

  • onceuponatime Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    Why don't those who are for traditional marriage boycott anyone who has spoken in favor of gay marriage as they LGBT's do with those who don't have the same views that they do. Let's play their game. I am tired of their economic blackmail. If you don't do what we say we will ruin your career. Let's fight back with our wallets. Members from the LGBT community aren't the only people who buy products and services.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 13, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    The group is reacting to the following statement made by Orson Scott Card almost a quarter of a century ago.

    “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but 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.” - “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality,” Sunstone Magazine, Feb 1990.

    While I disagree strongly with the above statement I don't think you fight intolerance with more intolerance. I think the place to challenge Orson Scott Card's repugnant statement is in the political arena - not the movie theater.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    July 13, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    ok....i say lets enjoy a good movie. personally i do not support movies with zombies, sex, vulgar language, violence, homosexual subjects, blood-guts-gore, unkind acts towards an animal. i try to support movies with good subjects, funny without language, family friendly. yes that cuts out most of the movies so i save money ! enders game was an interesting book. i also enjoyed the hunger games series. sadly many follow the footsteps of popularity in movies and music. as for me and my hubby and hopefully my adult children will only support family friendly movies.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    July 13, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    Those of you who called for a boycott of that musical "Book of Mormon" by the South Park creators probably shouldn't be casting stones at the people supporting this boycott.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 13, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @Henry Drummond --

    "...statement made by Orson Scott Card almost a quarter of a century ago."

    Card advocated insurrection against the Federal government in 2008 -- and he's made many other recent statements as well.

    @onceuponatime --

    "Why don't those who are for traditional marriage boycott anyone who has spoken in favor of gay marriage..."

    NOM currently has two boycotts -- one against General Mills, and the other against Starbucks.

    Card has been a board member of NOM for years. If he thinks boycotts are acceptable, why should they bother you?

    @scootd28* --

    "Sex should be private"

    Tell that to all the companies that advertise worldwide using nearly naked women to sell their products. Victoria's Secret, anyone?

    "Yet, those of us who speak out for building it up and supporting the man-woman-child family structure are ridiculed as bigots"

    Here's the thing: building up heterosexual families DOES NOT REQUIRE tearing down homosexual families.

    I'm all for straight marriages. Most people are, gay or straight. Supporting gay marriage DOES NOT MEAN objecting to straight marriages.

    You only get called a bigot because you think that your marriage requires denying somebody else the rights to have THEIR marriage. It doesn't.

  • small town granny small mining town, UT
    July 13, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Gays have the same rights as all of us. If a man and a woman want to marry, they can. They want "special" rights and special treatment. Maybe I would like some special treatment because my husband is a man, and I am a woman! How do I demand some special treatment? Where shoud I go, what should I do??

  • Zona Zone Mesa, AZ
    July 13, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    Right on, RBB. I agree. Deseret news writers are too hung up on this issue. Move on, D'News

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    July 13, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    How come none of you anti-LBGT people/traditional marriage people accept shows like Bachelor and Bachelorette that makes a complete mockery of the sanctity of marriage by making it a game show? If heterosexuals are going to mock marriage like that, I have no problem with two committed same sex people having civil marriages.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    @scootd28
    "We do not try to tell anyone how to live their lives,"

    I sense a "but" coming...

    " but"

    there it is.

    " we should have the right to voice our concerns over the long-term social impact of promoting formal family relationships that we feel undermine the family and therefore undermine society.""

    So you don't try to tell people how to live their lives... you just express disapproval with how some people choose to live their lives.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    July 13, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    Re: "We do not try to tell anyone how to live their lives, but we should have the right to voice our concerns ..."

    Of course you have that right, but are you aware that when you voice those concerns others will still hear disapproval in your voice and sense that you are telling them, even if indirectly? And when you start passing laws, then you are in fact telling them how to live their lives.

    You may feel that certain relationships undermine society, but that doesn't mean that they do. Feeling, even strong feeling, isn't knowing. Others may feel just as strongly that those same relationships strengthen society, and their feelings are as valid as yours.

    Nobody likes to be told, even indirectly, "Do as I say, because I know what's best for everybody." Such imperatives almost guarantee that people will not do as you say. If you have the need to teach, teach by example. You will influence more people that way than with a hundred lectures. Live your own life as you feel life should be lived, and - even if you disapprove - let others live their lives as they feel life should be lived.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 13, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    Too bad Card is not capable of practicing the tolerance he does such a good job preaching in his books.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    July 13, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    I have found LGBT to be far less interested in human rights than they are in their agenda; a strong faction of it is vulgar, tries to bully and coerce; it is a bad influence they peddle, a self defeating philosophy that is neither noble nor good.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    July 13, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    Many who post here are not aware of Card's exact, stated words. They include:

    "The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant."

    "This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but 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."

    I don't really need to add anything to this. Beauty (or lack thereof) is in the eye of the beholder.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    antodav says:

    "The plain historical facts show that marriage has always been an inter-gender proposition."

    ---

    Sorry, but you are incorrect. Same-gender marriages have been accepted in many ancient cultures right along with opposite-gender marriages. You could easily do a google search to find information about this. My guess is that you're not willing to make the effort though because it'll pop your self-induced bubble.

    @scootd28*;

    Nobody is "ridiculing" your support of man-woman family styles, you're being criticized for your obstinate opposition to family styles that differ from yours.

    @onceuponatime;

    Another simple google search will find the requisite boycotts you're interested in.

    @small town granny;

    Do you want me to marry your granddaughter, and do you NOT want great-grandchildren?

    @DRay;

    Can I please, please, please get a copy of the "gay agenda", I was never issued one and am sorely in need of it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    @Ranchhand
    "Can I please, please, please get a copy of the "gay agenda""

    I think it was displayed on a protest sign a woman was carrying at one of the rallies.
    6am: Wake up.
    6:30: Walk dog.
    7:00: Breakfast with family.
    7:45: Go to work.
    4:30: Help kids with homework.
    5:00: Cook family dinner.
    6:00: Kids sports.
    7:45: Break up a heterosexual man-woman marriage.
    8:00: Relax with family.
    8:45: Tuck kids in bed.
    9:00: Watch Rachel Maddow.
    10:00: Go to bed with wife.