Absolution Fabulous

I was talking to some friends at SDCC, as we walked past the giant Ender’s Game Experience dome where I assume children put on the Sorting Space Helmet and are divided into the houses of Griffindead, Slacerated, Ravenclinging Onto Dear Life, and Hufflepunted Directing Into The Gaping Maw Of The Alien War Machine, about the whether or not spending money to see Ender’s Game constituted supporting a known, vocal and proud homophobe. The problem with the situation is that Orson Scott Card has already been paid for his efforts by the studio. Not seeing the movie in theaters would only effect the studio’s bottom line, not his (unless he has some sort of backend deal, which authors typically do not unless they are J.K. Rowling). But not seeing the movie in the theaters might also serve to send a message to Hollywood that making movies with hate mongers is bad business. Then again, I DO like space movies where things in space get blowed up in space. Morality is hard sometimes.

COMMENTERS: Following up on a previous discussion, should we always separate the views of the creator from our enjoyment of the creation? If some despicable shitwaste like Donald Trump accidentally cured AIDS, would we NOT use said cure on principle alone? Is there a creator whose worked you were no longer able to enjoy after learning they were a giant dick? Is there one whose work you love so much, you have to pretend they don’t exist in order to continue your enjoyment?

Comments (222)

Admin Options

It’s a really tough decision and I think it varies from person to person and creator to creator. For me it depends on how terrible they are, if it seeps into their work, and who you’re hurting by not supporting them. I probably won’t buy/see in theaters another Mel Gibson film because I’m not a huge fan and he seems really really hate-filled. I’m not buying anything more from Frank Miller because not only is he filled with hate, but his hateful opinions seep into pretty much all of his works(see Holy Terror). I’ll probably see the Ender’s Game movie because I agree with this article: http://chezapocalypse.com/why-i-wont-boycott-ende… that it’s supporting more people that are good and desperately need that support than Orson Scott Card, and it seems everyone at Lion’s Gate wants to like his work despite how awful he is.

I think with some things you can separate the creator from the creation, but it’s also about willfully supporting a detestable human being. And I really don’t know if Boycotts work to change bigots’ minds, but it is a deep personal decision not to willfully give them any of your money.

A despicable shitwaste like Trump would mark up the cost of the cure for AIDS by 500%, so there’s that.

I will see Ender’s Game guilt free. By paying for another movie at the cineplex and walking in on it.

And also, the last panel?? Awesome. You look good in a pornstache. Now squeal for me.

3 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Fortunately I’m not a huge EG fan anyway – it’s a great short story padded out to novel length with a bunch of precious “lookit me, I’m world-building” wank, full of child characters who act nothing like children. I wouldn’t be terribly interested in the movie even if OSC *wasn’t* a despicable human being.
Trudy's avatar

Trudy · 98 weeks ago

Card is also a producer on the film, which means he will make more moeny the more tickets are sold. There’s also the possibility of a franchise, with more of his books turned into films.

Card is more than a raving homophobe. He was on NOM’s board for a long time, he’s donated a lot of money to fight marriage equality, and he’s said that gays should be imprisoned just for being gay, as that would ‘send a message’.
This is a dispickable man who should be shunned, not rewarded with movie deals.

I suggest if one absolutely must watch Ender’s Game (but why?!? the trailer was a borefest), there are ways to do so without giving Card or Lionsgate any money.

6 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Good to know. In all honesty I will probably wait until the DVD/BR release and torrent it out of curiosity.
Thank you for mentioning that OSC is a producer, so he’s getting a cut of the box office, not just the up-front rights fee.

As far as I can tell, OSC only just resigned from NOM’s board this year as the Ender’s Game movie boycott shitstorm started landing. Up until that point, he certainly was acting as one of the public faces of that organization. He was also one of the driving forces in getting the LDS Church to publicly oppose California Prop 8.

And just for shits and grins, his “okay, you won, please spend money on my books & movie” “apology” statement after the SCOTUS decisions last month was nothing of the sort:

“Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Therefore we should all just forget all the disgusting stuff that comes out of his mouth and give him our money.

Um, no. While I’m interested in seeing the film, and the studio, the cast, and the rest of the crew have distanced themselves from OSC, I’m not interested in OSC getting a cut of my ticket price or BR purchase. I stopped eating at Chik-Fil-A (despite their tasty chicken sandwiches & waffle fries) for much the same reason. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things if little ol’ me spend my money elsewhere? Probably not. If I was to be honest, it’s really just for my own satisfaction that I’m not indirectly supporting something I find abhorrent with my purchases.

The rest of the production, including the cast, had to have known this might blow up in their face at some point. The property lingered in Development Hell long enough for OSC’s socio-political positions to become well-known. And Lionsgate is taking some steps in a positive direction. But OSC is still listed as a producer, and thus he’s still going to get a percentage of the sales.

“With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. … Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

This is like saying “Oh we won WWII, so the issue of genocide is now moot and we can all start going to Nazi bake sales again.”

I for one will not be spending any money on seeing this film.

Exactly. OSC is also operating under the illusion (or is that delusion?) that LGBT equality issues didn’t exist prior to the last few years and magically popped into being sometime during the late Bush 43 administration.
Generic Babbling's avatar

Generic Babbling · 98 weeks ago

Um, No it’s nothing like that. Can we please stop comparing things to WWII, and Nazis?
OSC expressing offensive, bigoted and discriminatory opinions, and supporting the political advancement of those opinions is NOTHING like mass murder and attempted genocide.

By not drawing a distinction between expressing of IDEAS and the committing of real ACTIONS as severe as mass murder, you are completely invalidating your own opinion.

There is a big difference between tolerating others opinions, and their right to politically pursue those opinions (even if those opinions are WRONG, backwards and despicable). And of someone committing mass murder.

Look at this basic situation but scaled back. If some guy who had a job as manager of of your local dairy-queen had these same opinions, member of the same political activist groups, and gave an equal % of his savings to support the “cause”, would you refuse to go to Dairy-Queen any more? would you try to send a message to the DQ corporation that they shouldn’t employ people with his beliefs, would you basically say that NO ONE should give this person any jobs/pay him for anything, based on his personal opinions? Even when those opinions in no way show in his “work”, only outside of it.

I’m not defending OSC’s douch’baggery at all, I’m just trying to give some perspective.
If you think no studio should work with him based on his personal opinions OUTSIDE of his work. Then that standard should apply to ANY company working with ANY person with offensive outspoken beliefs. Which means every one should be screened for all their person ideas before they are allowed to be employed, because you wouldn’t want to accidentally financially support someone you disagree with.

The book/movie in question isn’t related to or influenced by this issue, the studio isn’t supporting/agreeing with it (they are actually using it to benefit the LGBT cause, which is an even better spit in OSC’s face then boycotting in my opinion), so your ticket money isn’t in any way supporting those ideas.
So one jackass profits off the project, but he be forbidden to ever work again because he’s personally a bigot?

Free speech works both ways, you can’t support peoples right to say and politically support their ideas, UNLESS those ideas are offensive to us, in which case they should be ostracized for their opinions and never work again.

If the “product” isn’t influenced by the offensive ideas, and the “brand/manufacture” doesn’t officially support it, and profits from “sales” aren’t being used to promote the ideas, then your money isn’t supporting it in any way either.
Avoiding a “product” because one of the people involved in creating it is personally a bastard, is an impossible goal. Because I guarantee that right now you’re using/wearing/eating/etc some item that the sales of which profited some jackass twice as bad as OSC, and who misuses his money even worse, only difference is this un-named bastard isn’t famous enough for you to know about it.

The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

“OSC expressing offensive, bigoted and discriminatory opinions, and supporting the political advancement of those opinions is NOTHING like mass murder and attempted genocide.
By not drawing a distinction between expressing of IDEAS and the committing of real ACTIONS as severe as mass murder, you are completely invalidating your own opinion.”

So, let’s do that…how long does it take between the IDEA becoming the ACTION?
Ask Matthew Sheppard. Ask George Zimmerman. Ask MLK.

While I’m not going as hyperbolic as a Hitler reference, what exactly do you think someone such as OSC does with his free time/extra cash?
Why, he uses it to promote his agenda of wanting someone like me in jail, a concentration camp (this is a precept of homophobes), or just flat out dead.

I’m big into sci-fi, but never read his stuff. Quite frankly, think whatever you want about whomever you like…that’s an IDEA.
Once you open your mouth, put finger to trigger, word to pen/computer, etc. then it becomes actions.
While I respect almost all of the people who were overall involved in the creation of the film, I can choose to not pay to see it. I do so without much fuss beyond this comment here.

Perhaps you or someone else wish I would drop dead, etc. too. Good for you. I also have my prejudices, but I work to keep them to myself and not let them out where they would affect others. Unlike some people.

lauren's avatar

lauren · 98 weeks ago

all the actors, the director and producer were asked their views on gays and marriage equality at SDCC, and all are very much for gay rights. The book itself, like almost all of Orson Scott Card’s work, doesn’t even have gay characters. In his work he pretty much glosses over them even existing. and his severely anti gay views only seemed to emerge in the last decade or so. If his work itself had a strong anti gay subtext I could understand boycotting the movie, but it doesn’t. It is instead very much a labor of love by people who really enjoyed the source material. He is still one of my favorite authors, not only with the Enders Game series, but with amazing novels Like Pastwatch: the Redemption of Christopher Columbus and Treason, and I am also very much in favor of gay rights and marriage equality. I don’t really like OSC as a person, and I would probably actively try to NOT meet him in person, as there would be good chance I would just yell at him, but I will be lining up to see Ender’s Game.

4 replies · active 97 weeks ago

The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

And if you want to see it, please go and see it. It’s totally up to you.

Sadly, what you wrote reminds me of Star Trek and gays…can you count how many canon references there are to homosexual men in it, after nearly 50 years? Zilch.
There are some good lesbian scenes, for reasons that I’m sure would be delightful to talk about.
There’s also some “stories” about how ol’ Gene liked the gays, wanted some gays in, and there’s some retconning/addition of gays into the novels and such, just as there’s stories about the studio execs vetoing anything that would be remotely referring to gay men.

But, point blank, gay men don’t exist in the age of Trek broadcast/film trek. It’s very much a hetero world…and that’s just the way it is. Do people hate it because of that? Is it lacking because of that?
I’m still a Trekker and have been since I was born, and I doubt that will ever change unless Trek gets Lucas’d.
But what is, is.

Read “Section 31” by Andy Mangels. It’s a Star Trek: TNG novel about a gay Starfleet member, written by a gay comic book author.

Signed, a fellow gay Trekkie.

lauren's avatar

lauren · 97 weeks ago

that tends to true for much of sci fi and fantasy, especially before the 90’s, and it is true of lots of media primarily created by straight males. people of my parents generation didn’t know many gay people, as many of that generation were reluctant to come out of the closet. shift to now, where one of my best friends in high school came out at age 15 (he’s also built like a linebacker, so not too many people would have tried to mess with him). as social perceptions change so does media. it wasn’t until Torchwood that there was a non completely straight lead in a sci fi show.
lauren's avatar

lauren · 97 weeks ago

also I find John Phillips creepy incest rape and the aforementioned Polanski rape of a 13 year old (not just statutory, he actually drugged her and forcibly raped her). many people in Hollywood came to his defense, and he has since won an Oscar. I was never a Chris Brown fan, but I did find the support given to him at the Grammys, 3 years after brutally assaulting Rihanna really sick. There are a great many celebrities who have done many terrible things, like Sean Penn tying up and beating the crap out of Madonna when they were married. He is also very outspoken in favor of gay rights. I personally afford more thought to actions than views, and while I don’t like hate mongering getting bankrolled, I feel less comfortable enjoying works of art, music, books and film that were created by rapists and the like. It is obviously different for everyone, and I am sure that as a woman I am more sensitive to being able to enjoy a work created by a rapist, just like a gay person would have trouble enjoying work by someone who actively hates what they are, even if said work doesn’t include those views in any way.
That trailer looks pretty cool. Im intrigued.
GrendelVS's avatar

GrendelVS · 98 weeks ago

Answering Joel’s question: Card is one of the authors whose work I enjoy less now that I know what kind of person he really is. I find this quote helpful in dealing with the cognitive dissonance of an author who is a shit.

“There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is ‘idiot.'” – SM Stirling

I believe in “Live and let live”. (As long as you aren’t harming others) If you chose to try and stop someone from doing what comes naturally (again, without harming others), then you deserve all negative things that come your way. You brought it on yourself.

If you want to see this movie, then go see the movie.
If you’d rather make a statement, then don’t see this movie.

You just need to decide in advance if you want to be an activist over this topic or not.

1 reply · active 98 weeks ago

The problem with boycotting Ender’s Game is actually the same as the benefit from it: low ticket sales. Sure, Card et al. won’t get more money. But if you think Hollywood will learn from it that working with bigots doesn’t pay, you’re putting far too much faith in them. No, I guarantee that the lesson they’ll “learn” is that people don’t want big-budget, well-crafted, space-based sci-fi movies. And as someone who happens to be a fan of just such things, that’s sort of the opposite of what I want them to take away from this experience.

1 reply · active 97 weeks ago

In past discussions of this issue, this is how I have thought this will all shake out.
Conversely, I have trouble imagining that, if the movie does well, people will translate that into “OSC must be right about gays.” That seems like a little too big a leap.
Cecil0812's avatar

Cecil0812 · 98 weeks ago

Personally, I agree with your second statement: Card already got his money, but you need to send a message to Hollywood that they shouldn’t work with shitwastes.
Dave's avatar

Dave · 98 weeks ago

Scott Kurtz is the one case where I couldn’t separate art from artist. After meeting him several times, and seeing him in action when I was a volunteer at SDCC.. I found I couldn’t enjoy his work anymore.

Which is going to take a little explaining. OSC is far far FAR worse of a human being. I still appreciate Ender’s Game and the sequels as works of art, but I refuse to spend another dime on them because I can’t allow my money to work its way to hate groups. Kurtz isn’t anywhere near this evil; he’s just a prick.

I think it comes down to how personal webcomics are when compared to novels, and how little of OSC’s voice is actually in his work. Most webcomics are combined with a blog of sorts. The art inherently includes a direct interaction with the artist. One of the very best things about HE (your secret genius move IMO) is this ‘question for the group’ you pose with each comic. There is just a far greater personal connection between the creator’s ACTUAL self and their audience in webcomics. So when it turns out that part of reading your comic involves interaction with a blustering fronting cockbite (Kurtz) it really kills the fun.

Card is almost the complete opposite. There are BEAUTIFUL messages in his books… which are so incredibly opposite his actual beliefs I get brain cramps trying to understand how these messages about empathy and understanding for even your most hated enemies could come from such an evil person. His books are great sci fi because they CAN exist in a vacuum where his opinions don’t exist.

That said I just can’t fund his causes. When people ask me about Ender I suggest that they read the books, but only if they borrow them from someone or a library.

3 replies · active 98 weeks ago


my council advises me to…


no comment.

groklife's avatar

groklife · 98 weeks ago

“I think it comes down to how personal webcomics are when compared to novels, and how little of OSC’s voice is actually in his work. Most webcomics are combined with a blog of sorts. The art inherently includes a direct interaction with the artist. One of the very best things about HE (your secret genius move IMO) is this ‘question for the group’ you pose with each comic. There is just a far greater personal connection between the creator’s ACTUAL self and their audience in webcomics.”

I think this is a great point. I don’t know Kurtz, but I do read his stuff.
I really do like the way that you, Joel, invite us to discuss what you are talking about every time you post. And invite us to your FB group. It’s a very personable thing you do, whether I agree with you on a particular issue or not. And you are able to have a discussion without it dissolving into an argument, something I truly respect.

Thanks for doing what you do.

That’s very kind. Thank you.
Kyrinthic's avatar

Kyrinthic · 98 weeks ago

I will start by saying I fully plan to go see this movie, maybe even more than once. I will also state unequivocally that I am completely for gay rights, and have always supported the equality in general.

He has long been my favorite author, every book I have read by the man has been good, I have never gotten any anti-gay sentiment from any of his works, or really any bad messages to speak of.

It has become clear that the man has several core beliefs that differ from mine, likely due to his very strong Mormon religious background. I stand fully by his right to have these opinions, as that is the very foundation of our society. If people were crucified for having different beliefs, there wouldn’t even be a gay movement. He has not done anything illegal or even amoral really. I have read (past the one or two lines quoted all over) the full context of his arguments, and while I disagree with them, I respect that his view does have more depth than most.

The very idea that so many people who actively preach for tolerance and equality would so thoroughly vilify the man boggles me. There are so many more vile and uneducated anti-gay proponents, yet I read more crap against Card then Westboro, its insane.

So you can follow the herd and pretend boycotting the movie will somehow make a man change his religion for you, or you can just enjoy an adaption of an amazing story and get over your self-righteous crap. I’ll be in the latter camp.

18 replies · active 22 weeks ago

That Guy's avatar

That Guy · 98 weeks ago

Basically you’re saying that his opinion makes him a bigot period. That your opinion is the only and true right opinion God-given. Cute. Heaven forbid someone have a different opinion and NOT be Satan-incarnate. You have the truth. We must all bow and obey.

Grow up and practice some of that acceptance stuff you preach. Maybe he advocates against you, and you advocate against him, whose the saint now, both hands are dirty. Honestly who cares. The man is entitled to his own opinion, and his books (which freaking rock I think) do not depict that opinion.

Seriously, I have to agree with the original comment here, boycotting this movie serves no purpose, it’s not like Card is waiting on box office money to funnel it into more anti-gay pamphlets that no one reads anyways.

One thing I’ve noticed and that Card has noticed, is that all this anti vs anti is coming to a head in this country. He wrote a book and a sequel on it. Go read Empire by OSC, it’s one of his newer books based on right vs left civil war. Even then it doesn’t turn into as big of a whine-storm about gay marriage or something in the book, and that’s the premise of the book.

Dislike a man for his views, but like someone else posted, just because he has those opinions, don’t mean his books do.

Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Just to throw a stick of dynamite into this slug fest I think it’s worth pointing out that the definition of bigot also applies to the people who hate the anti-gay groups; “or” is the key word here.

Hate is slung by one group and the other retaliates with more hatred. Therefore, by definition, both the pro-gay and anti-gay groups are bigots.

Isn’t language fun? 😀

Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

I’m not making anything up. Here, I’ll even grab the full definition that the original provider so conveniently edited.

“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
(Source: Webster’s Dictionary)

If we adhere to the strict, and wide casting, definition of “bigot”, then both groups fall into said definition. Orson and his ilk hate the gays for being gay, and the gays hate Orson for hating them. Because “or” sits there between the words hatred and intolerance then it is denoting that to be a bigot it is not required a person both hate and be intolerant of a group.

It is abundantly clear here that the people choosing to boycott EG are doing so out of hatred for Orson and his views, and that the ultimate goal of this protest is to show that they will not tolerate people with views like him having successful careers. In this regard, and instance, the individuals boycotting Orson’s work fall squarely into the provided definition of Bigot as provided above.

Orson, and his allies in the anti-gay groups, are bigots in every sense of the definition.

If you are a supporter of this boycott or the pro-gay movement, then by definition you are also a bigot.

Again, isn’t language fun? 😀

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

…You’re arguing that not being a bigot makes me a bigot because I’m bigoted against bigotry.

You’re LITERALLY stating that NOT hating a minority group makes me a bigot. Being the very definition of not being a bigot makes me a bigot. You’ve attempted to twist the meaning of “bigot” to cover bigots, but you’ve made a super-obvious error… you didn’t explain how not-hating is somehow hate to fit your twisted version.
Maaaaybe you’re using the language wrong.

Oh, and reacting to somebody’s actual behavior is the opposite of prejudice. Like, that’s what you’re supposed to do and prejudice means that’s not what you’re doing. It’s the word for when you’re not doing that.
That’s what prejudice is.
So, you definitely don’t get to call that prejudice.

And the definition you’ve quoted does include a few words to demonstrate what is meant by “group”; hate groups don’t count. They fall on the other side of this particular definition.

No part of it fits.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

“Basically you’re saying that his opinion makes him a bigot period.”
Well, yes. That’s literally what being a bigot means.
It’s not an opinion that he’s a bigot, it’s a fact. Facts don’t get more factual than that fact.

“We must all bow and obey.”
Did you know that Card tries to restrict the rights of others and his opponents are literally people who don’t do that/

“Grow up and practice some of that acceptance stuff you preach.”
Ah yes. The “stop being bigoted against bigotry” thing. You know that’s really dumb, right?
See, your argument is that if I think hurting people because they’re part of the wrong minority group is bad, than I also have to tolerate folks who hurt people because they’re part of the wrong minority group.
If your definition of “acceptance” means I need to join a hate group to show solidarity with the poor oppressed hate group, maybe you need to realize that using words to mean literally the opposite of their actual meanings makes you dishonest.

“Maybe he advocates against you, and you advocate against him, whose the saint now, both hands are dirty.”
Problem: That second part is a lie so extraordinary I’m not sure why you bothered telling it. Nobody did anything to him.

“The man is entitled to his own opinion…”
How come evil bigots are entitled to the opinion that I’m inherently inferior to themselves and should be treated as such–and are entitled to run hate groups with the sole goal of doing me harm–but I’m not entitled to the opinion that I shouldn’t have to perpetually endure that?

Why do you hate the freedom of speech?

Everything you say is utter bullshit, but it’s also all so very extraordinarily hypocritical.

I realize this post is ancient, but… I can’t let this one pass without comment because everything about it is just so fundamentally horrific in every way.

Kyrinthic's avatar

Kyrinthic · 98 weeks ago

It will be fun one day when you strongly disagree with something that your kids believe in, and they become the moral majority and you find out that ‘freedom of speech’ has slowly turned into ‘freedom to agree with the crowd or have your livelihood threatened’.

I disagree with a lot of people about a lot of things. But if they are just talking, expressing their opinion, then I find that listening is the best action, if only to ascertain that my dissenting view is still the best one.

Have you actually read, in full, the articles he is being crucified over? He states that being gay is an aberration, which is to say, its a distinct minority with no genetic future (he specifically explains this). This isnt exactly hateful or even wrong. He also hates divorce as it weakens traditional marriage as well. Basically, He is strongly tied to Mormon beliefs. Are all Mormons bigots because their beliefs now differ with the moral majority? Perhaps the core of their religion is flawed, but that doesnt mean everyone should set out to run every Mormon business out of town either.

When a person makes a decision like ‘I dont want to see card’s movie because I disgree with his views’ thats fine, and personal. But when they say ‘I put up an online petition and told everyone I know that they are a bigot if they go see card’s movie’ you become as hateful as you claim he is.

Toon's avatar

Toon · 98 weeks ago

“This isn’t exactly hateful or even wrong” — erm, yes it is, on both counts.

His religion, like mine, prohibits same-gender sex. Being part of a religion that prohibits it isn’t necessarily hateful. Making up reasons WHY your religion is RIGHT to prohibit it, and insisting that really your religious beliefs are the laws of nature, when there is readily available proof that they aren’t? Insisting that anybody who doesn’t follow those precepts is abominable in the eyes of your god? That’s both hateful and arguably wrong, but by itself it’s relatively harmless.

But here’s the part you’re leaving out: Card is an ACTIVIST. He doesn’t just sit in his house and gripe about how this country’s morals are going to hell; he WORKS to deny equal rights as citizens to this particular group of people who don’t follow this particular precept of his religion.

And that crosses a line.

Card has every right to follow his religious beliefs without people rallying against him, whatever those beliefs happen to be. He does not have the right to expect UNITED STATES LAW to fall into accordance with his religious beliefs.

Or, rather … he has the right to expect it, and to agitate for it, and to be called a bastard and a bigot for doing so. The same laws that protect his free speech protect ours.

I have no illusions that my not paying to see this movie will impact OSC in any way, shape or form, aside from a slight dip in his pocketbook if enough people are similarly-minded regarding paying to see the movie.

Nor do I wish for OSC’s opinions to be censored or suppressed in any way, shape, or form. He’s perfectly within his rights to speak his mind on any topic he cares to. Hell, as far as I’m concerned, the more light shining on his words and deeds, the better everyone can see them for what they are.

However, the flipside of free speech is that you do not have freedom from the consequences of that speech. If, while freely speaking your mind, you say you desire for, and work towards making real, society to round up and imprison – or kill – an entire group of people simply for being who they are, don’t be surprised if others choose to exercise THEIR right to freely express themselves by NOT giving you their money, and by saying what came out of your mouth is wrongheaded and hateful. They’re well within their rights as well.

Want to see the movie and give OSC some of your money? Have fun. I hope you enjoy it and that the movie is well-made and the performers have done well. But, as the saying goes, you can’t get good fruit from bad roots. OSC poisoned the earth his works are planted in with his oft-stated hatred of “otherness”. As great as many of those works are (something not really in dispute), there are many who choose not to support someone operating from a position of hatred.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Oh WELL, as long as you get to enjoy a movie, who cares if he actively supports anti gay groups, its just “respecting his views”.

Hey, guess what? I happen to be in that group thats being so self righteous, so excuse the hell out of me for not taking it well when people trip over themselves to justify why their entertainment is more important than my civil rights.

Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Perspective, I think, is an important word that seems to have been left out of this discussion. People going to see Ender’s Game is not going to dissolve the pro-gay movement; if it were that weak I doubt we’d be having this conversation.

The attitude of “You’re either with me or against me,” helps no one, especially the side you’re rooting for. Only Sith deal in absolutes, be careful that your crusade does not lead you down the same path to the dark side as your enemy.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Okay, first of all, enough with the Star Wars crap, alright? This is real life, stop trivializing an important issue with pop culture references. Second, yes, this issue IS black and white. Youre either pro gay, as in acknowledging them as regular people with the same rights as everyone else, or you’re anti gay. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND. So yes, supporting an anti gay creator because you want to see a space movie is wrong.
I think he’s trying to keep it light, defuse a little bit. One of the reasons I like these boards is that it doesn’t usually have the same frothing rage as, say, every article’s comment board on cnn.com.

Second, I think his point, which is likely a valid one, is that no amount of success of this movie is going to retroactively change, say, the latest Supreme Court ruling. Or the upcoming ones. I suppose the war isn’t over, but all the big battles probably are.

“The very idea that so many people who actively preach for tolerance and equality would so thoroughly vilify the man boggles me. ”

If tolerance requires tolerating the intolerant, then the entire concept is a snake eating its own head. Tolerance of people that actively pursue the limitations of the rights of others based on sexual identity is THE OPPOSITE of tolerance. Tolerating bigotry is THE OPPOSITE of tolerance. Live and live let does not apply to those that seek to restrict the ability of an entire section of the population to LIVE with the same rights as everyone else.

The very idea that you don’t understand this distinction boggles me.

THANK YOU! Sorry, but the whole “pro-gay people are bigots too” thing was pissing me off.
Toon's avatar

Toon · 98 weeks ago

You said this so much better than I could. Thank you.
BDM's avatar

BDM · 98 weeks ago

I am capable of enjoying the art of people I don’t agree with about everything. I love the films of Mel Gibson, Roman Polanski, and Frank Miller. In fact, I think it’s important to look at viewpoints you might disagree with, and even find reprehensible. That’s the definition of tolerance.

It’s also interesting what view points we consider worthy of boycott and what we don’t. Mel Gibson is being boycotted in Hollywood for saying mean things in a nasty breakup, but Polanski is given a free pass after breaking the law by having sex with an underage girl. Why are Mel Gibson’s (legal) actions worse than Polanski’s? It’s an odd inconsistent moral standard.

Card is a committed Mormon, and his views are well reasoned, even if based in what I find to be an absurd premise (Mormonism foundings make it look like a ridiculous ponzi scheme turned cult to me). I respect his thinking even if I disagree with it. I’ll be at Ender’s Game opening night.

15 replies · active 97 weeks ago

james's avatar

james · 98 weeks ago

I don’t think “well reasoned views” means what you think it means.
Tom327Cat's avatar

Tom327Cat · 98 weeks ago

His views are well reasoned, and fairly moderate. It is only when you take them way out of context so you can have someone to hate, that reason begins to disappear.
People do not always believe what you believe, that does not make them your enemy. The fact that a great number of people want so desperately to have an enemy is confusing to me.
For full disclosure I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “Gay” person. I think that any human can have sex with any other human given the proper set of stimuli (along with most animals and objects with of without helpful shape). Also I believe that people confuse natural tendencies toward dominance or submission as being masculine or feminine tendencies.
Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

You are incorrect, and frankly, your views on sexuality are appaling.
I agree. You dont have to believe in gay people for them to exist. They aren’t leprechauns.
The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

Well, I am 1/4 Irish, so I could be….wait, I remember. Whaling captains and horse thieves is why that bunch came to American.
Your mommy told you you were special, didn’t she? No such thing as “gay” people? So, that means my dad didn’t exist? He had sex with a woman exactly TWICE in his life, when he was trying to be NOT gay; I was the result. There’s nothing taken out of context regarding OSC’s views on homosexuality; he’s pretty blatantly, virulently homophobic, to the point that, in one of his essays/blog posts, was threatening ARMED INSURRECTION if the government DARED to legalize “The GAY.” This wasn’t taken “out of context” to make him look bad. I’m feeling too lazy to dig around for the links (also, going through his dialog of hate makes me feel like I’m coated in filth), so either someone else can post them, or you can go look for yourself. Given the size of the shit-storm he’s stirred up recently with Ender’s Game and the aborted Superman run, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to find. /rant
The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

Thus, someone’s IDEAS start the tipping point towards ACTIONS.
And as a gay man, some posters want me to believe that there aren’t people out there that wouldn’t want me dead for being gay, if they thought they could get away with it?

And, so you straight folks understand, there are a minority of gays who think that people who aren’t “gold star” gays (never had sexual congress with a female) aren’t *good/pure* gays…I could care less who you’ve slept with/sleep with/will sleep with as long as you’re not a down-low closet case.

So yes, there’s intolerance or bigotry wherever you’d like to find it…it’s how you act on that which is the larger issue.

My father’s attempts at heterosexuality came about in the early 70’s, not long after Stonewall. He grew up in a rural part of California (Humboldt & Trinity Counties), and at the time, hated what he was. He mostly hated it because he was AFRAID: Afraid of what would happen when his family & friends found out. Afraid of what would happen when/if the community/world found out. He was literally afraid for his LIFE…

Even in the early 90’s, right before he died, he was very adamant in hoping that I was straight, because he didn’t want me to go through what he went through. I never told him that I was bisexual, because I didn’t want him to worry about me. Now, I wish that I’d told him… Of course, I wish he was still around; he died from AIDS in 1991.

“Mel Gibson is being boycotted in Hollywood for saying mean things in a nasty breakup”

That and the Jew hating thing. Also “mean things in a nasty breakup” and “horrific, nightmare, misogynist terror rant” are different things.

“horrific, nightmare, misogynist terror rant” and drunken anti-Semitic gibberish (Gibson) != drugging and raping a 13-year-old (Polanski). One is (execrable) speech, the other far worse. I’d say BDM’s point holds up.
Who’s supporting Roman Polanski?

From IMDB (Venus in Fur-2012, Carnage-2010, The Ghost Writer-2009, Oliver Twist-2002, The Pianist-1999, The Ninth Gate-1994, Death and the Maiden-1993, Bitter Moon-1988, Frantic-1986, Pirates-1979, Tess-1976)
I’ve heard of two of these movies and haven’t seen any of them.

BoxOfficeMojo shows an average of $10M per movie gross. Not what I’d call support.

Polanski is hailed and fêted as a great director, and garnered enormous Hollywood support a couple of years ago in relation to his ongoing legal situation (flight from prosecution). He’s a convicted child rapist who fled the country rather than face the heat. His crime continues to be treated as an indiscretion by much of the entertainment press.

Attention to detail, DetailBear. 🙂

@BDM’s point continues to be valid — the moral outrage one sees in pop culture is deeply inconsistent. It’s almost as though a herd of hedonistic moral infants were operating via mob rule.

Im not comparing the crimes of the two men at all. I’m pointing out that Gibson is not so innocent as the original commenter was portraying him.
Touché. As long as you aren’t undermining the idea that the “moral standard” promulgated in our culture is random to the point of dark comedy, I’ll completely concur.
I also think you need to check on the meaning of “boycott”.
So this means that I need to boycott the works of anyone who disagrees with me on something important? That’s going to seriously hamper my reading.

Card has been enduring boycotts for many years. He offends all kinds of people (including, frequently, his coreligionists). You won’t even be a rounding error. As far as I can tell, this ongoing boycott’s only effect has been to reaffirm his assertion that the hysterical hypocrites on the extremes of this debate are far less tolerant than those they criticize.

And he has a point. If y’all were rational about it, and read the scope of what he has written on the topic instead of reading cherry-picked, slanted excerpts, you might get a different perspective on his so-called homophobia.

If you actually noted the gay characters in his books, you might understand even better. ‘Course, that’s harder than riding the wave of ignorance.

OK, getting off the soapbox.

7 replies · active 98 weeks ago

“his so-called homophobia.”

Clearly one of us is “riding the wave of ignorance.”

Oh, look! My soapbox!

I was mostly commenting on the discussion rather than the comic, which I found amusing — especially the fact that Josh could go to Ender’s Game without any guilt.

It’s often hard to convince someone lacking in information that there’s more out there to know. However, I will excerpt some of Card’s discussion of the topic to clarify the points I was trying to make.

I’ll warn you that some of the things he says will anger most people here — he sees the world very differently from most of the posters here. A tolerant and level-headed person will be able to accept that fact. What I hope you extract from this is the difference between political disagreements and hate, a distinction many find challenging.

“There are communities within American culture that regard homosexuality as just another viable lifestyle, absolutely harmless and therefore no more to be shunned or censured than an inability to carry a tune (and LESS obnoxious than a predisposition toward, say, public nose-picking). There are other communities within American culture that regard homosexual acts as sins, so that good people try to control any such desires and not act them out. And there are communities that regard homosexuality as an evil which must be violently expunged.

The violent ones are themselves engaging in a far more serious anti-civilized pattern of behavior, of course, and I think there is no room in America for violence directed against any group (or any individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical attack — which doesn’t often come up with homosexuals. But apart from the violent ones, I do think there is room within our society for people with many views of homosexuality, as well as of other non-majority behaviors. (Race and gender are not behaviors, and so what I am saying about attitudes toward homosexual behavior does not necessarily extend to attitudes toward race or gender.)

As long as we can freely leave one community and enter another, either geographically or socially, then doesn’t reasonable tolerance of others’ beliefs and practices allow communities that voluntarily agree to regard certain behaviors as sins as much right to their beliefs as communities that voluntarily agree to regard those same behaviors as acceptable? I find that those who plead for tolerance are far too often prone to wanting to hunt down and wipe out the last vestige of what they call intolerance — and are incapable of realizing that this behavior is, in itself, exactly as intolerant and usually as unjust as the behavior they so rigorously oppose.”
“The only thing I would quarrel with in any of the attitudes I’ve seen expressed on this subject in this particular discussion [online] is the use of two words: abomination and homophobia. Both are relatively meaningless these days, and are most often used to express loathing; therefore, while the loathing may be sincere, the words become less than helpful in serious discussion.”
“Likewise, there are people who show a virulence in their hatred of homosexuals that is obsessive, personal, and pathological, and I suppose homophobia could be regarded as the technical word for that. The overwhelming majority of the cases where I’ve seen homophobia used, however, it was used not to describe the pathological condition, but rather as an ugly word to fling at anyone who does not go along with the political agenda or self-story of various activist wings of the American homosexual community. If you don’t accept the full politically-correct line (i.e., homosexuals can’t help it and shouldn’t ever be expected not to do as they like, and should be treated as martyrs and given special protection under the law), then you are a homophobe in the view of these people.

Frankly, I find that this quickly turns into a delicious hypocrisy: Those whose agenda is “tolerance” and who insist that ugly words like ‘faggot’ not be used against them have found an exactly analogous word to use as a weapon in their virulent intolerance of those who disapprove of either their behavior or their political agenda. They use the word to silence opposition, to subvert legitimate discussion. Those who use the word this way are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to deny the right of others to disagree with them. Thus, in the name of tolerance of diversity, they seek to force others into a perfect uniformity of thought. The fascism of the left is no more attractive than the fascism of the right.

In Songmaster (and also in the third Homecoming novel, The Ships of Earth, the only other place where I have dealt with homosexuality in my fiction) I attempt to create real and living characters. I find it nearly impossible to create a character that I do not end up understanding and sympathizing with to some degree. Thus it should surprise no one that I treat homosexuals in my fiction with understanding and sympathy. This does not mean that I don’t also regard homosexual behavior as inappropriate for those who purport to be Latter-day Saints. I see no contradiction between the two ideas; indeed, I fail to see how an uncompassionate person could be a good Christian, or a good Latter-day Saint in particular.

I suppose I can take some comfort from the fact that over the years I have been savaged both for showing too much sympathy for the “abomination” of homosexuality and for showing too much “homophobic” opposition to the political agenda of the radical homosexual community. If either group of intolerant extremists felt comfortable with my works and my words, I would have reason to reexamine my position. As things stand right now, however, I think I am annoying exactly the right people on both sides, and so will continue as I have in the past, to attempt to discover the truth of every aspect of human life and then to tell what truth I believe I have found, as best I can, in both my fiction and my nonfiction.”

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

…and this is “so called homophobia”?
This is the textbook definition of homophobia. If you tolerate this type of sentiment, then you’re a homophobe. If you support someone for stating these views, then you’re a homophobe.
“But I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Hall)… that’s sort of an American sentiment, isn’t it?

In the marketplace of ideas, the hardest part is putting up with the ones you think are malignant idiots.

I think you need a textbook from something later than third grade. 😉 The one you’re reading is simplistic.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

It also doesnt mean that his speech is somehow protected from criticism and to be told to shut the hell up. Freedom of speech only ensures protection from goverment censorship, not protection from backlash from the groups you shit on.
james's avatar

james · 98 weeks ago

There are enough things to enjoy in life that I don’t need to find them through people like Orson.

1 reply · active 98 weeks ago

That’s a fine perspective.
“If you don’t see/read/listen to something because you disagree with something the creator did or believes, then you need to do that for everything.”

I thought about this at length and here’s the difference I’ve come up with. Card is going out of his way to make sure you KNOW how much he hates homosexuals. He’s been a part of organizations that actively seek to limit the rights of gays. It’s one thing to have a shitty opinion. It’s another to make sure everyone knows you’re a shitty person as well.


None of his fiction readers (and I mean NONE) have ever seen anti-SSM or anti-gay material in his books. Just isn’t there.

That’s why so many are shocked and appalled that this writer they loved and trusted has turned out to be such a hateful, evil cad! Betrayal! (I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of comments in this vein). Turns out, they got this information because Card feels free to mention in other fora that 1) he has beliefs, and 2) he’s willing to share them.

Other helpful souls made sure to spread his views far and wide, without being hired, paid, or asked to do so. Sometimes they’re so helpful, they summarize the best bits without all of the context.

In other words — I think your distinction fails. There are plenty of entertainers with whom I disagree, many of which contribute *massively* to campaigns I dislike, as well as using their (much larger) megaphones to actively sway public opinion.

Since I’m a grownup, I take what good I can from whichever of their works I choose to purchase, and feel free to disagree with those things I dislike. Is this so hard?

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

No, as long as you put money in their hands, you also support their views.
“1) he has beliefs, and 2) he’s willing to share them. ”

Calling a deplorable, hateful, ignorant opinion a “belief” seems to be a pretty easy way to justify being a bigot. I’m sure lots of people believed, and still BELIEVE that black people are genetically inferior to whites. Too bad. Can’t challenge them on that. It’s their belief. Beliefs are sacred.

Beliefs are just dressed up opinions, and opinions are always subject to being total bullshit.

Your point was that he forced people to listen to his deplorable, awful opinions/beliefs. My point was that he didn’t, and that point would stand even if he were a flat-earth, holocaust-denying, perpetual-motion subculture skinhead.

Those things Just. Don’t. Show. Up. In. His. Fiction.

You have to go looking for them.


Now, as to the points that you and others are making — that Card is a terrible man, human garbage, etc…

This mode of discourse really *is* immoral. Say, in your example, someone really IS racist. My appropriate action would be to defund and ostracize them? Shame and shun them? What kind of people are you?

My recently deceased neighbor was an old Texas lady. She was deeply racist, wildly suspicious of my wide variety nonwhite friends and coworkers. I made sure she knew that they were great people, and fixed her broken faucets and sprinklers and mailbox, talked to her and had the kids play with her.

I lived in France/Switzerland for many years, where racism/anti-Semitism is real and rampant. Did I shame and shun people who expressed their shockingly casual racism? Of course not — I just took every opportunity to kindly and calmly offer counterpoints and examples.

So yeah, morality is hard… but this one is easy. You are not heroes for vilifying people because of one substantive disagreement. Many here are acting like spoiled children, in my opinion.

Breaking society into (figurative) armed camps is worthwhile only when all else has failed — and if you think, in any way, that the plight of homosexuals in America is in any way comparable to the 1960s civil rights movement… you have some serious remedial history work to do.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Oh my god, do you even read the stuff you put in here? Yes, yes it IS comparable. You know why they werent visible back then? Because if you were gay in the 60s, you got put in jail. Or just beat to death in the street. Who the hell are you to tell people how they should and should not respond to being mistreated?
I suspect you’re the one here with reading issues.

I did not say that homosexuals had not suffered, nor that they do not now suffer.

What I said (and maintain) is that their plight is *trivial* in comparison to being black for most of American history. Supporting documentation is readily available to the interested student.

Who am I to tell people how they should respond? No more or less than you. That is, if you were willing to crack a book or two and see what the consequences of such polarizations tend to be.

Annnnnnd now you’re just antagonizing people. I’m going to go ahead and save us all the trouble and block you. Not because I disagree with you, but because you have long since moved on from debate to personal attacks and that kind of behavior isn’t tolerated on my site. You’re looking for a fight, so I’m going to deprive you of one.
Thanks, Joel. I was about to go off on this person. My father was TERRIFIED of me being gay. Not because he was homophobic; far from it. He was terrified because of what HE went through, being a gay teen in the late 60’s-early 70’s, and being a gay man every year since. He died in 1991, before a lot of the cultural progress towards being more accepting/welcoming of the LGBT community. As a result, I was never able to be honest with him about my bisexuality.

Stradling’s whole attitude about the problems of the LGBT community being “trivial” REEEEALY pissed me off. While I’ll admit that we were never enslaved like black people were, we’ve had more than our share of beatings/maimings/deaths because of who and what we are, and for the most part, have NOT been protected by law at the Federal level.

Also a good idea.
The Other Guy's avatar

The Other Guy · 98 weeks ago

Honestly, I follow this comic because I think it’s hilarious, regardless of personal beliefs. I am not personally for gay marriage and the whole business, I honestly don’t think the government has any place to dictate what marriage is and that it ought to step out of the whole process. I’ve however had gay and lesbian friends who I think are great people, and I want them to live happy lives. What I think they need to do and what they think they need to do may be different, but I support them in their personal pursuits of happiness.

As to what I think about this, Ender’s Game is one of the greatest critically acclaimed scifi novels ever written, and this comic is based off of how awesome great sci fi is I.E. Firefly, Doctor Who, etc. Anybody who wants to see an unbiased yet great work of Sci Fi ought to go see the movie, because the movie has nothing to do with Card’s personal beliefs, and it’s not like he’s waiting on this movie to fill up his piggy bank for more anti gay hatred.

I’d also like to reiterate from what I said in a previous comment, it’s one man’s opinion, you have yours, and while you scream for equality and a respect of your views, respect someone else’s. Must they be a bigot simply because their opinion is opposite your own? I invite anyone to think, feel, and have an opinion as they wish on homosexuality, but to also just practice a little less abject hatred for others. Go see the movie for what the movie is, not for what Card’s political opinion on one subject is.

11 replies · active 22 weeks ago

Trudy's avatar

Trudy · 98 weeks ago

Is it disrespecting to boycott a movie? Are there some sort of laws or rules that say you have to watch every movie ever made?

I’m so sick of this ‘tolerate my intolerance’ crap. Your intolerance IS tolerated. You have the law on your side when you state your opinion, whatever that may be. Just like other people have the law on their side when they state their opinion, which is that your opinion is bigoted.

And let’s not forget that there’s a difference between being for equal rights for all and being for segregation. It’s not just a difference of opinion. The anti-equality folks can’t give a single argument founded in reason and reality; there’s always the ‘God’s law’ or ‘Nature’s law’ and electrical sockets and because I say so.

They can believe whatever they want. The problem is that they won’t let other people live their lives in peace.

Neph Sy's avatar

Neph Sy · 98 weeks ago

“I’m so sick of this ‘tolerate my intolerance’ crap.”
Right with you Trudy, just saw a relative who has gone beyond the bend into Jewish conspiracy theories, and other racist nonsense like multiculturalism is a myth.
When I was angered, his wife told me to calm down because it was “just words”.
“Just words”
Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Under no circumstance are people required to tolerate intolerance, there has been way too much of that already. But then, 90% of the people who say things like that have not faced a single bit of prejudice their entire life, and have no idea what it means.
“I invite anyone to think, feel, and have an opinion as they wish on homosexuality”

Unless that opinion dictates the level of civil rights homosexuals are given. You can be still be a racist, but you can’t pass racist legislation or limit the rights of racial minorities. IT IS THE SAME ARGUMENT.

If you honestly think you are doing your gay friends any favors with this attitude, then I submit you might not actually be that good of a friend.

The Other Guy's avatar

The Other Guy · 98 weeks ago

Again, I think the government has no place in saying who can and can’t marry. I think that it’s going through the government at all is a crock of crap. If I were to have my say, all basic tax rights and other ‘marriage rights’ would be under civil unions, which you’d have to enter into through the government. I.E. getting married doesn’t automatically qualify you for civil union rights. Then, leave marriage and it’s definition to religions on their own basis, as in, Catholics define marriage in the catholic church, mormons in the mormon church, baptists in the baptist church. If some baptist church decides that they’re ok with gay marriage, fine, that’s their deal. I still believe in the separation of CHURCH and STATE. I think not only on this matter, but in many others, the state needs to get the hell out of it.

Again, I invite you to have whatever opinion you want on this matter of whether to be or not to be for gay marriage. It’s fine, I don’t support it, but I see no reason attack them for their beliefs either. I”m not here to tell them how to live their lives. I just hope they make the choices that make them happy. And what happiness is to them is left to them to define.

So attack me and call me a bigot all you want, call me a bad friend, whatever you’d like to do, I honestly thought you’d be above it. I love this comic, I think it’s hilarious and inventive, and I’ll continue to read it even though you seem to hate the person I am. I also wish you good luck on it in the future, making a living through a comic seems like an awesome though I’m sure crazy at times job to have.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

The word “marriage” never belonged to the Catholic church, hon.

And you do know that “marriage” and “union” are synonyms, yes? They mean the same thing, and we already have civil marriages.

You actually want to impose your religious beliefs on others, which would be exactly what the separation of church and state means you can’t do.

The state needs to treat all citizens equally.
Now, all religions SHOULD do that as well, but that’s another matter.

Also, you’re literally here to tell people how to live their lives.
Except with different rules for you and me. I shouldn’t get married–shouldn’t even be ALLOWED–but you can. You don’t get to claim that people asking not to be hurt are somehow the ones trying to control or restrict others.

See, you’re the one doing the attacking. You have thoroughly explained that you are not a friend.
And he certainly is above you. I mean, you literally just described not hating the people you want him to hate as hating you. Your religion doesn’t have the false witness thing? Well, I guess it didn’t have the love your neighbor thing or the whatsoever you do to the least of these thing or anything like that, either.

The Other Guy's avatar

The Other Guy · 98 weeks ago

Read my other reply in the previous post if you want to know what I think. Yes, I think civil union should have the same general rights as marriage, and the government ought to step out of defining marriage, which I think it has no right to.

The only thing I’d say in response is that for a group espousing equality and love, you can be very hateful towards people who have done nothing more than disagree with you. I haven’t undertaken any hate campaigns, I’m not on here telling you that you’re a horrible person and attacking your ‘ilk’ or anything. I’m just expressing a basic opinion in the most non-confrontational way I know how.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

“The only thing I’d say in response is that for a group espousing equality and love…”
Yes. Which Card is against.

“…people who have done nothing more than disagree with you.”
Even if you weren’t outright lying, you’d still be lying by omission.
See, it’s not that they disagree with me, it’s that they think I’m subhuman, inherently inferior to themselves, less deserving of love and respect, and should be treated as such under law.
That’s more than “disagreeing” with me. Hell, I don’t have to disagree at all for it to be more than that.
Actually, if I DON’T disagree, that would be evidence of how they’ve harmed me.
Buuuut… you were also lying outright. We’re talking about people who actively try–and succeed–to inflict harm.

“I’m just expressing a basic opinion in the most non-confrontational way I know how.”
Oh gosh, were you being *non-confrontational*? Gosh, I didn’t notice!
Well, since you were being *polite*, that’s clearly what’s most important.
…Why are there so many bigots who think that being polite is more relevant than the substance of what they’re actually saying, anyway? Bonus points: They’re never as polite as they claim.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

“Must they be a bigot simply because their opinion is opposite your own?”
Oh look! It’s a liar!

Yeah, it’s not that his “opinion” is the opposite of my own that makes him a bigot, it’s the fact that his “opinion” is that members of a certain minority group are inherently inferior to himself and need to be treated as such.
Y’know, the meaning of the word?

He could go on having different opinions than me about the best flavor of ice cream without demonstrating that he’s a bigot. It has nothing to do with how different from me he is, and everything to do with his actual substance.

Also, you contradicted yourself. When you stated that you are opposed to equal rights for all persons, you clearly proved that you are, in fact, a bigot.
But that aside, you then claimed that your position is that the government has no right to limit marriage–you realize this is the opposite position, yes?
And it’s actually quite an important point–you can be an evil gay-hating bigot and still stand for equal rights on this issue for any number of reasons. Such as supporting the Freedom of Religion (lots of the super-religious anti-gay bigots who love screaming those words ought to pay more attention to what they mean; if they think it means that the highest-powered religious group can enforce their beliefs in law [curiously enough, that’s exactly what it FORBIDS], they should probably watch out for their own population percentage dwindling…).

Here’s my 6 cents <cause I like charging more dammit>

I’ve read his books for years, personally I like them even when he paints himself into a damn corner.

I don’t care about homosexuality in the same way I don’t care about sports or politicians. For years people didn’t care about geekdom except when they realized they could goldmine the hell out of it. Geekdom is my thing…people at work don’t care about it..they care about whether I show up and do the work.

America really is getting to the point where if your opinion differs from the next person, it’s like you’re a terrible person. I don’t care about homosexuality, it’s not for me, I prefer and like women far too much to ever stop or even go bisexual. I’m straight and proud of it. Don’t hate and bully me into accepting something that isn’t for me

8 replies · active 22 weeks ago

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Oh Im so sorry that groups of people getting reduced to second class citizens is inconvenient for you. Please, dont trouble yourself with the suffering of others as long as you get what you want.
Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

It’s okay for people to not care about something. Indifference is sometimes a sign that things are changing for the better, and sometimes it’s a sign that both sides in an argument have become so bogged down in their rage against each other that those with more even keel temperaments simply bow out of the fight from frustration.

Cool the fires of your rage and let your enemy make fools of themselves.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

The only reason they dont care if because it doesnt affect them, and I am SICK of being told to be quiet about a horrible issue just so someone else can justify their support of this bastard. Because you know what? Thats what you do. You support this mans views by giving him money, you are just as bad as he is through your indifference.
Easy, Stranger. The last guy got blocked for personal attacks.
Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

You’re supposed to be indifferent to what minority groups a person is a member of.

You’re not supposed to be indifferent to minority groups being oppressed in law.

And cut out the “both sides” thing; if one side is a harmed minority group and the other side is those who would harm them, they’re not opposing “teams”.
But don’t worry. They definitely make fools of themselves.

You are missing the point entirely. I think you’re internalizing the concept a bit too much. Homosexuality is not a hobby that you can either “care about” or “not care about.” Saying it’s “not for you” and likening it to sports is just so dismissive. That’s like saying being a black person “isn’t for you.” No one would ever expect you to change races, nor would they expect you to change your sexual identity. What does any of that have to do with limiting the rights of others?
15 years of working overnights in a grocery store has shown me both good and bad in people. I don’t bother the customers and they don’t bother me…I guess that attitude extends to the Internet as well…people should have their freedoms…just let me get back to my quiet life. I really do think I should have been in a monastery.
Jenn's avatar

Jenn · 98 weeks ago

I seem to only not be able to enjoy the work of a creator if they have offended me personally. Like with Celine Dion who shrunk bad in disgust rather the sign the autograph I had paid for because “Oh God, she is so fat. Gross!” I only weight 126lbs at thime and could hardly be considered fat. Also, Meryl Streep asking my supervisor if her personal escort through my facility could be “someone more attractive”. My few incounters with celebraties gave been mixed, Shaq was the sweetest gentleman I ever met, and Mike Tyson was very kind to those helping him.

2 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Personal stories about celebs, writers, etc from friends or even from my own experience go much longer way towards shaping my opinions of them than public stories in the press ever could. Adam Baldwin has been a HUGE DICK to one of my friends on more than one occasion, so I know he isn’t good people. Same with Anthony Michael Hall. Guys like that will never get active support from me.
FuryOfFirestorm's avatar

FuryOfFirestorm · 98 weeks ago

Not surprised about Adam being a colossal dick. Based on what i’ve heard about him, and reading his online posts, he’s a rabid right-wing dickhead.

I am surprised about AMH being an asshat. Never heard anything bad about him.

“Garbage human being”. I’m seeing this a lot. Since I know the guy, I’ll take exception.

Seems to me that most of you don’t get outside your ideological sphere much. You have dismissed a lot of very fine people as garbage because they see problems with your agenda.

That looks almost like religious zealotry.

It happens a lot. Like Joel says… morality is hard. People might even see it differently.
“morality is hard” was a joke. It’s not hard at all. The idea that wanting to see a stupid flick is more important than defending the civil rights of my fellow man is preposterous. That was the point I was making.

“You have dismissed a lot of very fine people as garbage because they see problems with your agenda. ”

Equal rights for all is not an agenda. Or at least it’s not MY agenda. It EVERYONE’s agenda. Anyone who professes that NOT to be their agenda is a bigot and worthy of being called garbage. Clearly equal rights is not YOUR agenda, which immediately cancels out any consideration I would ever give your opinions, beliefs, arguments, etc. In 25 years, you and Card and those like you will be viewed exactly as we view those that supported racial segregation and opponents of womens’ rights.

Joel, let me break this to you gently.

Morality is hard. It always has been, and it always will be. It takes deep consideration.

Your slogans are stirring, and I have read them many, many times. They are, however, bumper-sticker propaganda. They simplify to the point of self-contradiction.

You are an interesting cartoonist, and passionate in your views. You’re not a moral philosopher. Much of this conversation is clearly out of your intellectual league, and it seems you prefer to keep it that way.

So cheers.

Sounds like it’s hard for you. Not for me.


You’re blocked for your shitty condescending tone, and personal attacks. Not for your beliefs.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago


How come he can dismiss an entire minority group–the good, the bad, and the mostly innocent bystanders–and that’s okay… but dismissing him as an individual based on something OBJECTIVELY EVIL that he has ACTUALLY DONE is bad?

I mean, even if the “both sides” bull that your ilk like to pull made any sense, you’d still be laughably hypocritical there.
Seriously, if you lie to make yourself look better, laughably hypocritical is still the BEST you can get.

lauren's avatar

lauren · 97 weeks ago

it is actually a space version of the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage, with the battle school system based on Spartan training. Card was a student of military history, so as both a history and sci fi buff I really liked the end result. yes OSC is a pretty terrible human being, but he is also a great writer, and his personal views on gays does not come out in his fiction.
bubblespuppies's avatar

bubblespuppies · 98 weeks ago

To the moral(?) quandary of whether one should support enjoyable or well-done products/art/media from companies or individuals who, as GrendelVS so aptly put it, are shits, I find the answer simple.

Pirate it.

I know piracy is a whole ‘nother discussion, but I find it’s the best solution I’ve come across when there’s a product I really want to support, but a creator that I really don’t.

3 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Drakey's avatar

Drakey · 98 weeks ago

Pretty much, yeah. I like (much) of his work, but given that he apparently thinks I ought to be condemned and scorned for having the audacity to fall in love, I absolutely refuse to pay him for any of his work. I will be pirating this movie, and if I ever buy another OSC book again, it will be from a used bookstore, and I will be checking to make absolutely sure that he receives no money for it. He got enough of my money from the purchases of his books that I made. I’m glad he put an afterward in Empire where he shot his mouth off about it, or I would probably have kept buying his books, and eagerly, until all this hullaballoo started up.
Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Piracy is a terrible form of protest. It shows that when faced with the situation of giving something up in protest you instead non-commit and watch it anyway by stealing it off the internet.

Though I would argue that the phrase “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” makes logically no sense at all, in this instance you cannot boycott EG and then watch it anyway through illegal means and not be a raving hypocrite.

You know what’s a great way to state your moral objection to someone’s anti-social behavior?


What you should really do is steal a couple of copies from the shelf, sell them on Craigslist and give the proceeds to the charity of your choice.

See? Morality is not so hard after all.

Except that you sold the books, and they might contaminate the minds of some poor folks, and turn them into raging homophobes.

I’ve been waiting for this movie for YEARS ever since high school when it was first rumoured to be in production. I am a fan of all of Card’s works, including his women of the bible series. (I have a copy of The Crystal City still on my bookshelf unread… i don’t like reading the last of a series)

That said, his opinions on homosexuality is sad. As long as he does not begin to preach to me in any of his books of his religious views, i’m fine. Everyone has their own opinions on life, some are more vocal than others, and some or more hateful than others.

Will his views on life change my views on his work, no. I’m not that closed minded, his books are good and really got me into science fiction as a teenager, it was also one of the only series my brother read (he didn’t read a lot), so to me that’s a win as well. I was actually surprised that he was a norman as I did not see that side of him in any of his characters.

I hope this makes sense. I do not agree with Card at all, but I’m not going to continue this cycle of hate back at him. He made his mistake and will have to live with it as we all do.

1 reply · active 97 weeks ago

You gotta watch out for those Normans. Always invading, that lot.
Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Honestly? I’ve never read a single book in the Ender series, and didn’t even know there was a movie coming out until people started crying boycott; I also had never heard of the author.

I probably would have gone to see it anyway once I saw some trailers, so the idea of a bunch of people being angry that I saw a movie is kind of a bonus.

Orion M's avatar

Orion M · 98 weeks ago

So when I first learned what a raving, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic OSC is, it was kind of a shock to me. I mean. Hasn’t he read his own work from the ’80s? With it’s fist-pumping anthems about understanding and working through our differences? Is that an “except the Gays, Jews, and others I arbitrarily hate” sort of deal? Really disappointing.

7 replies · active 97 weeks ago

I thought that was Battlefield Earth.
Thats sort of my point. In terms of recently created religions, I find the two to be eerily similar in their obviously false origins.
Wow, two religions in one sentence.
It kinda puts a meta spin on the whole “creators you love” vs. “the creators’ statements” discussion.
And Alvin Maker is Joseph Smith. So what? He’s Mormon. It screams from every page of all of his series!

As do the deepest assumptions of all authors.

See, this is what is fascinating about the discussion. You read his works and say, “Wow! Someone who really understands interactions with the Other! Framlings, ramen, varelse! Who knows how to question belief and dogma, and does so deeply! Wait — how can he possibly believe something so silly/repugnant as _____?”

When you find such a contradiction, check your sources and understanding. You might be caught in a dogma trap. And if it turns out that he’s wrong… try dialogue rather than condemnation.

jiynx's avatar

jiynx · 98 weeks ago

honestly, i haven’t really given a damn about the movie.

honestly, the best part of it is, it looks terrible(and is based on fairly mediocre sci-fi to begin with), so all the anti-gay folks that are going to go as a sort of passive-aggressive counter-protest are going to blow their money on a dogturd of a movie, and somehow thing it’s a good thing!

Calyph's avatar

Calyph · 98 weeks ago

If you’re not going to support someone based solely on what they believe, what makes you any better than them? Personally, I’m tired of all this hate-bred hate these days. It seems like everywhere I turn, I see people hating others, because those people in turn are hating someone. It’s a vicious cycle that won’t change if we keep up efforts like this. Don’t discriminate because of what Card believes, just know that with the striking down of DOMA, we won a small victory. And we’ll keep winning those small victories if we fight the battles, not the people.

First time commenter by the way, just wanted to throw my .02 into something relatively meaningful.

7 replies · active 22 weeks ago

Huttj's avatar

Huttj · 98 weeks ago

It’s not because of what he believes, per se, it’s because of the prior board membership of a group that financially pushed for jailing homosexuals.

You can believe what you like, but when you take action to support those beliefs to the detriment of others, you no longer get to fall on “free belief.”

Like the Chik Fil A stuff. It wasn’t the owner’s beliefs, it was financially supporting groups that go around killing homosexuals in Africa.

If someone believes the planet is 6000 years old? Fine, until they want to teach that to my kid, or interfere with the teaching of science and history to their kid in a public setting.

When beliefs cross over into actions, the actions are fair game.

Exactly. I dont HATE Card for his dumb beliefs. I despise him as a creator because he’s actively sought the limiting of rights for gays. He’s campaigning for gays as second class citizens and I can’t tolerate or be accepting of that. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Sure you do. It comes through in most of your posts.

Certainly you hate him more than he purports to hate homosexuals. So I can call you a cardaphobe.

It’s textbook, after all. 🙂 You would, if it were possible, remove his livelihood and public influence, since you think him unworthy of it. You label his language as hate speech, which is… criminal.

See how much fun labeling is?

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Yeah, except he’s using HIS money and influence to lessen the worth of homosexuals. So why does he get to play that game then? And he’s still apparently a great person, since youre tripping over yourself to defend him. Or you just really enjoy playing devils advocate. And stop putting smileyfaces in your arguments, it trivializes the issue.
SOOOOOOO glad I blocked you. Sweet merciful bastard if you’re this condescending in real life I weep for those that actually know you. Intolerable.
FuryOfFirestorm's avatar

FuryOfFirestorm · 98 weeks ago

I sincerely doubt this asshat personally knows Card. He’s just some troll who’s purposely being contrary and condescending to get a rise out of others. The block (or ignore) button is their Kryptonite.
Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

I don’t have any public influence. Were we all entitled to that and I got in the wrong line?

And hate speech isn’t criminal.

Also, what you call “labeling” I call “language”.
Try writing a post without using any labels–in other words, well, WORDS. You just call them “labels” when a negative one is used on something you want to support… but y’know, claiming the word magically doesn’t apply doesn’t actually change that the thing was negative to begin with–which is the reason the “label” sounds negative at all.

Ali's avatar

Ali · 98 weeks ago

I think it depends on how much the problematic belief appears in the work. Heinlein’s and Bradbury’s misogyny appears in their writing much more obviously than Card’s homophobia appears in Ender’s Game, to my recollection. As long as the work itself isn’t actively spreading messages of hate, I see no problem with enjoying the work in a fashion that does not give more money to the bigoted creator.
Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. If you reflect calmly on the set forth definition of bigotry, young padowan, then you will find that Orson’s crusade and yours are not all that different from one another. From this common ground you will be able to make peace with both yourself and your enemy.
Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

He wants gay people to not exist. We want anti gay people to shut the hell up and keep their homophobia to themselves. Its not the same thing
Fengor's avatar

Fengor · 98 weeks ago

Both are a form of hatred and intolerance, that they both lie at either extremes of the spectrum does not inherently make them different. By the standard definition of “bigot” your hatred of homophobes makes you a bigot; likewise Orson and his ilk are also bigots for their hatred of the gay community.

Think on this calmly, and the path to peace will present itself.

Bigotry and supporting equal rights for all are not two ends of the same spectrum.

Card exercises his right to free speech both with his books and with his public statements on homosexuality. He’s perfectly within his rights to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants. He is NOT free from response, reprisal or consequence for what he says, however. He is also free to marry a woman, divorce her, marry again, take a mistress, divorce his second wife, marry the mistress, and go on about his life however he pleases. The line is drawn at the fact that he, and those like him, seek to control who can and can’t exercise that same right to enter into a legally binding marriage contract and reap the same rewards as he can from it.


Um… citation?

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

My “crusade” for everybody to be able to live peacefully is actually different in literally every way from Card’s crusade to do harm to a minority group.

And how come I got to make peace with the one trying to harm me, which presumably means I have to let him hurt me? Oh, and other people. Lots of other innocent people, including children. I think I’d have to sacrifice my conscience to stand by and say nothing to THAT…
But I got off topic there a bit. How come I have to make peace with him? He’s the one that did the attacking…

Fletcher's avatar

Fletcher · 98 weeks ago

Not hugely interested in the movie, TBH – I didn’t read Ender’s Game at an age at which I was vulnerable to it, and so coming across it later I was unimpressed. Precocious Kid Saves World isn’t really a narrative I’m that interested in nowadays.

With that said, I’m definitely not about to support Card – the dude funded the lobbyist group which pressured Uganda into instituting the /death penalty/ for homosexuality for God’s sake! Jesus wept.

As for other authors … I used to read Ringo occasionally, but stopped after, well, google “Oh John Ringo no”. Similarly I never could get into Allen Steele because his Coyote series seemed like libertarian wish fulfillment. I liked John C Wright’s /Chaos/ trilogy, but his latest novels just seem like egregious snide mockeries of ideologies he doesn’t understand (and the Hermetic Millenia reads like he shat on the corpse of Cordwainer Smith).

I liked Holly Lisle back in the day, even signed up for her email newsletter – but then /Hawkspar/ featured a protagonist culture that was a fictionalized idealization of US Republicans, and an antagonist culture that was a blatant strawman of US Liberals … and then she sent a newsletter doing linguistic gymnastics to claim that anything less than absolute and total Freedom was support of Slavery. It was the transparent intellectual dishonesty of the argument, more than anything, that annoyed me into unsubscribing.

2 replies · active 98 weeks ago

“not about to support Card – the dude funded the lobbyist group which pressured Uganda into instituting the /death penalty/ for homosexuality for God’s sake”

Anyone that says Card is just “representing his beliefs” is fucking delusional.

Huttj's avatar

Huttj · 98 weeks ago

Ringo, well, I felt too much of his views were coming through in the writing, and it felt more like an author voice than a writing style, or character voice.

Similar to how I really like the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis, but after about Dawn Treader it becomes a bit too “Aslan is Jesus” heavyhanded for my tastes. Still some wonderful stories though.

Chaucer59's avatar

Chaucer59 · 98 weeks ago

OSC is typical of deeply-closeted gays raised by the LDS (I used to spend a lot of time with his old SCA group in Salt Lake City). He doesn’t know what he believes, but whatever it is, it pisses him off. I liked his early works, but his novels starting with Ender’s Game? You guys have to be kidding. Libertarian claptrap full of ridiculously adult “children.” Poor fool must have read some Atn Rand in there somewhere and bent his brain.

7 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Fletcher's avatar

Fletcher · 98 weeks ago

Holy hell, I just realized you’re right – my (lesbian) mother’s former partner was one of four daughters. Three of them were fundamentalist Mormons, two of them were out of the closet … and the other two were vociferously homophobic. It’s a cliche to say that homophobes are secretly closeted … but it would explain a lot.
You’ve got the chain wrong. This wasn’t a response to your post at all.

“I’m perfectly tolerant of any consenting adults’ right to get straight-married.”

Also, that’s a really deplorable joke. Not funny at all.

I dont even think it’s necessarily that they are all closeted sexually as much as they are emotionally. When you’ve been taught to hate something so much for no reason the internal conflict can stem from your logical brain being unable to reconcile with the irrational hate you’re being taught.
Huttj's avatar

Huttj · 98 weeks ago

In addition, if you’re denying some aspect of who you are (whether by choice, belief, cultural standard, what have you), it can lead to resentment and anger at those who, well, don’t restrain themselves.

Just gotta make sure to keep cause and effect in the right order. Angry bigot does not mean closeted repressed person, but the other direction can definitely happen.

Four kids, enduring marriage to a great woman. Yeah, definitely closeted.

Isn’t this trope all worn out by now?

The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

Perhaps I could show you all the men with enduring marriages and kids that also try to get some action with men on the side, for whatever reason.

But then, I don’t really need to give you concrete examples, because your fairy dust of disbelief will blind you to the obvious.

Lonely's avatar

Lonely · 98 weeks ago

Do like me, get it for free at the library when it comes out on DVD/Bluray. With the hundreds of people in line ahead of you to see it, you know they aren’t buying too many copies bumping up sales like if you went to a place like Blockbuster, (they still exist! I know, weird, right?)

But yeah, the last two movies I’ve seen in theaters are Pacific Rim and Cowboys vs. Aliens, so I’m not going to use my rare few visits to the theater for this.

1 reply · active 98 weeks ago

I’m almost fine with that (for I really support libraries) but if a lot of people do that, the library will end up buying MORE copies of the film. Maybe the dilution level is high enough that it’s not a problem for people. Or maybe not.
Faye's avatar

Faye · 98 weeks ago

I have to separate Moffat from Doctor Who and Sherlock. I still think he is a decent writer, the best of the revival writers, but I’m not a fan of his opinions. ‘Asexuality is boring because they’re happy and there’s no drama in that’? Has he ever MET an asexual person? HAPPY? Ugh.

I will concede that sex is not a topic for Doctor Who, and as such, asexuality is hard to present in such a forum. That’s not my issue. I’m not expecting to see a member of such-and-such sexuality and/or gender identity in the show. (It’d be nice, if it managed to not be offensive, but not holding my breath. For either.)

I would like to see a proper apology (the ‘happy’ line came from his first attempt at an apology, but only made things worse) but I’m not going to quit the show over it. He is only one cog in a larger machine: I don’t support him, but I do support everyone else involved, on both sides of the camera. It’s not fair that they should have to suffer, just because of one guy.

2 replies · active 98 weeks ago

To me is sounds like he’s saying, “As a writer, Im going for maximum drama and having an asexual doctor (or was he talking about Sherlock?) limits the story I want to tell.” I don’t find that offensive if he’s saying, “For MY STORY this is not what I want to write about.” If he was making a blanket statement about humanity, then I would take issue but I do not think that was the case.

That said, isn’t Sherlock SUPPOSED to be asexual? That’s the vibe I’ve always gotten from the show.

Faye's avatar

Faye · 98 weeks ago

In this instance, he was talking about Sherlock: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/jan/… – but he has also said that the Doctor is not asexual.

I picked out a couple of quotes from that article, regarding Sherlock’s sexuality. (I still linked the whole thing, because I don’t want it to seem like I’m unfairly choosing these quotes and ignoring something potentially redeeming.) I actually find the first more problematic than the second.

“There’s no indication in the original stories that he was asexual or gay. He actually says he declines the attention of women because he doesn’t want the distraction. What does that tell you about him? Straightforward deduction. He wouldn’t be living with a man if he thought men were interesting.”

“It’s the choice of a monk, not the choice of an asexual. If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that — it’s someone who abstains who’s interesting.”

The ‘apology’: “Asexuality isn’t a a boring LIFESTYLE, just less dramatic in this case. As happy is less dramatic than sad. Apart from the cake”

Capitalisation his. I don’t feel able to sum up my feelings on these quotes, so I’ll link to a good (and relatively neutral, though I may be biased) post on the subject instead. Written by a writer:

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

When it comes to something extreme, like the AIDS thing you mentioned, thats one thing, thats a matter of saving lives, but when it comes to entertainment? No, you have no excuse. You cant separate a creator and his work just because you want to be entertained, if you support the work, you support the creator by extension, along with his dickhead opinions.

2 replies · active 97 weeks ago

The gray area I see in this argument is the level of involvement of the creator. If you hate me and hate my opinions, then every single bit of attention you pay to me, every dollar you spend is wasted. I get all of it (other than my costs, etc). When you buy my book or shirt I get most of the money. If a shithead writer get’s $50,000 10 years ago to option his work, then eventually the movie gets made and he has almost nothing to do with it… I just don’t think it’s the same thing. Granted, I am NOT talking about Card or Ender’s Game in this example. Card is a producer on the film and will be getting paid nicely if the film does well. Just trying to put another idea out there. Classical works and works in the public domain get adapted constantly with little to no regard for the original authors proclivities toward bigotry. Of course we also know more about people these days, and their personal lives than we ever would know about someone in the pre internet world.
lauren's avatar

lauren · 97 weeks ago

everyone is different with their ability to enjoy a work if they do not like the views or actions of the creator. personally as the work itself has no anti gay subtext, I have no problem still loving it as much as I did before I knew his personal views. I do however have problems enjoying music by the Mamas and the Papas after finding out about the creepy incest rape for years by John Phillips, but many people (my mother) still love them as one of their favorite bands. I will still, for the most part, try to never meet OSC in person, as I would probably end up yelling at him, in between fan-girlish ravings of his work, and being thought of as a crazy person I would then be committed. unfortunately not all sci fi and fantasy can have such forward thinking creators as Joss Whedon (though what a world that would be)
Julie's avatar

Julie · 98 weeks ago

So, Joel (and others talking boycott), let me ask you this, have you considered boycotting John Scalzi for his hateful comments as well?

One of my favorite authors (because he tells a “rippin’ good yarn”, not due to his politics) is an unabashed conservative, and there have been several mentions on his blog about comments Scalzi has made that seem (at least on the surface, I admit I’ve not read the direct statements in question any more than I’ve read Card’s statements on homosexuality, so either or both could be misquoted) just as full as hate for the Republicans/conservatives in the US as Card’s statements are for gays.

The reason I’m asking, is because the question I think people should be asking in this case is “Am I really against hateful speech or am I just against hateful speech against my viewpoints?”

Now, again, I’ve not read the direct quotes in either case, so it’s possible Scalzi is being misquoted, but it’s also possible Card is. But if Scalzi is saying things on his blog like conservatives are idiots who deserve no voice in modern politics (thus being a proponent against their even having a right to vote– which is a fairly fundamental US right), that’s pretty much as hate-filled as any statement Card could make about denying the rights of marriage to gays. The difference being is that most of the commenters here would probably agree with Scalzi to some extent and not to Card.

Just food for thought. Don’t really expect I’ll get a lot of agreement here, but figured I’d try. =)

8 replies · active 98 weeks ago

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Yes, yes it is wrong. Also, dont put smileys in serious discussions, it looks incredibly disrespectful
🙂 Howdy, Stranger. She’s actually right.

Isn’t childish argument fun?

“I’ve not read the direct quotes in either case, so it’s possible Scalzi is being misquoted,”

He is. John is a good friend of mine and far too intelligent to ever say something as stupid as “conservatives are idiots who deserve no voice in modern politics”. He’d called conservatives idiots, sure. Saying they deserve no voice? Doubt it. If it’s the author Im thinking of, he likes to misquote John, take his words out of context and poke, poke, poke at him in order to get a response. He’s just trying to stir shit up and people like you get caught in the middle of a misinformation storm.

Julie's avatar

Julie · 98 weeks ago

Joel, just wanted to say thank you for a calm and rational response. I accept that I am misinformed in this case, and just to clarify, (as I mentioned in response to autojim), it wasn’t the author himself (Larry Correia, if you’re really curious) who made the comments about Scalzi, but rather several commenters on that author’s blog, in response to a post the author made about the SFWA kerfuffle a few weeks back.
You’re asking the guy who Scalzi commissioned to do the art for Scalzi’s Gamma Rabbit shirt if he’s going to boycott Scalzi because of the rabid frothings of Teddy Beale (who is so determined to malign Scalzi that Beale can’t even recognize a parody even when it’s identified with flashing neon signs and arrows and a very loud PA system and has repeatedly called Scalzi a rapist based on that epic inability to recognize said parody) — without reading the original Scalzi?

Wow. Just… wow.

For the record, Scalzi has said no such things. As Joel said, he’s called some conservative policy positions idiotic, but never has he suggested that they don’t have the right to their opinions, their voices, their votes. Quite the opposite, in fact. And, if you look at who is behind district gerrymandering, polling-place misinformation campaigns, limitations on early voting, and voter ID laws that inherently discriminate against the poor, you’ll find conservatives and self-identified Tea Partiers behind each one. If you look at who took the recent SCOTUS decision vacating major portions of the Voting Rights Act and immediately started enforcing laws/policies that had been stopped by the VRA, you’ll find conservatives and self-identified Tea Partiers.

But if you only read Beale’s blog and don’t bother checking to see the originals Beale references in his own, um, “colorful” style, you’re not seeing the whole of the picture. And given Beale’s demonstrable — and habitual — slander of Scalzi, I would strongly recommend visiting the source and deciding for yourself if Beale is being honest.

Julie's avatar

Julie · 98 weeks ago

For the record, I don’t know who Teddy Beale even is. And to clarify (it was early in the morning when I wrote my post), it was commenters on the blog that were the ‘several mentions’ to which I referred, not the author himself. Yes, I didn’t research carefully, but I made a comment on a blog post, I’m not writing a political essay.

The point I was trying to make by my example was simply to highlight the difference between contemplating a boycott because one doesn’t agree with a point of view and contemplating a boycott because of how one said it. By calling it hate speech, or similar language, it sounds more like the 2nd option, and if that’s the case, the way someone makes a comment can be just as insulting from whichever standpoint the speaker comes from.

It’s a subtle distinction, perhaps, but it’s one I see a lot online, where people take offense when someone says something horrible and it’s ‘the other guy’, but when it’s ‘my guy’, well, it’s perfectly all right to say it. I threw out an example because it would make it more concrete than the abstract concepts I’ve been discussing in this reply.

Perhaps you know Beale by his pseudonym, Vox Day. He seems to be Patient Zero of the anti-Scalzi ‘net contingent. (ETA: Just saw your response to Joel. Correia is not an SFWA member, but is loosely aligned with Beale’s small faction of the SFWA and is apparently butthurt that the organization is taking steps to not be offensive to its female members in what it chooses to publish on the cover of, and inside, its official newsletter.)

I just figure if you’re going to sound off about something in a public forum, it’s a good idea to know the facts on the position you’re taking. Your mileage may vary.

As I’ve said elsewhere in the thread here, I don’t really care how OSC says what he says, nor do I want him to not be able to speak his mind. In fact, the more his message gets out there, the better, as far as I’m concerned, as it allows more people to hear – in his own words – how backward-thinking his ideas are.

It’s not about the means of expressing the idea; it’s about the idea. OSC’s oft-stated ideas regarding how an entire subset of the population should be disenfranchised from basic human rights, in the US guaranteed to all by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, his stated ideas that this subset of the population should be rounded up and incarcerated simply for being who they are, his stated support via funding and active leadership participation in organizations which have successfully lobbied other countries to have this subset of the population put to death are repulsive on their face. It doesn’t matter if he speaks them in a kindly, grandfatherly tone or as an angry shout laced with profanity: the *ideas* are repulsive.

Take OSC’s statements about homosexuals and replaced the word “homosexual” with “black”, “Arab”, “Asian”, “Muslim”, “Jew”, “Catholic”, “Mormon”, “Hispanic”, “athiest”, or “white”. When you do that, how does it come across? Does it sound racist or bigoted? Yes, it does: those statements are still calling for a [strikethrough]minority[/strikethrough] subset of the human population to be disenfranchised, incarcerated, and/or put to death. It doesn’t matter *what* the [strikethrough]minority[/strikethrough] subset is. It’s not mysteriously more acceptable to say those things about homosexuals than it is to say them about any other minority group.

It’s about people. And treating people equally. OSC doesn’t seem to think that’s necessary, and puts his opinion out for all to see. He also spends his money funding groups that promote discrimination against minorities, at least one of which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. Because of that, I don’t really feel a compelling need to give him any of my money, however little his cut of my ticket may be.

OSC also gets a severe case of butthurt that people are calling his ideas and actions bigoted and discriminatory. It’s a common theme: “I’m free to speak my mind, and if you say I’m wrong, you’re the one doing the oppressing”. No, not at all. You’re free to speak your mind, and others are free to speak theirs, including calling your ideas wrongheaded.

The correct response to hateful speech isn’t suppressing it. The correct response is MORE speech calling it what it is.

bean's avatar

bean · 98 weeks ago

I think there’s a lot of good points here on both sides. I’m going to push my own views entirely to the side for a moment, and comment on both sides of the situation.

First off…I can completely understand why people would refuse to see the movie based on OSC’s views. The financial end of the argument makes basically no sense to me, (Because there are so many shades of grey in this situation that anyone can be the bad guy there) but the personal end of it is completely correct and well motivated. There is essentially no valid argument against it.

That said, though…Aside from the heart being in the right place, it’s unbelievably lazy ‘activism’. In my opinion, it’s in extremely poor taste to talk passionately about how you’re skipping this movie because he’s a homophobe unless You do other volunteer work to advocate for human rights. When it comes right down to it, skipping this movie is an extremely small ‘sacrifice’ compared to the people who actually put themselves out there and subject themselves to public ridicule and worse for their beliefs.

If you believe that skipping this movie is the right thing to do for your personal beliefs, then it’s simply something you ought to have done. Not something that you should talk about for a round of back patting.

Conversely, if you believe you have the right to see this movie guilt free-then by all means, go see it, but using loopholes “He has the right to free speech too” to defend your point of view only weakens it. “I wanted to see it.” is a perfectly valid position no one has the moral authority to assault.

I do apologize to all of you if you see my statements as attacking your positions. It’s not meant to be. But the increasingly intense debate here seems to me to be overlooking actual freedom of speech and thought in favor of recruiting people to your own ideological positions.

2 replies · active 98 weeks ago

bean's avatar

bean · 98 weeks ago

Addendum, Because it seems to me that I commented more on the Boycott side than the anti-boycott side, and I was trying to be equally critical to both sides:

If you are planning to go see the movie and you feel compelled to make arguments like “He has the right to free speech as well” to defend your position, You may want to re-examine your feelings on the matter. Because aside from the wobbly position you’ve placed yourself on by giving tacit approval to every single monster who has ever put out extremely offensive opinions, feeling the need to put that out there may mean that you’re not all that convinced yourself.

As I said before, if you want to see this movie, by all means, go! And I sincerely hope you enjoy it. But if you believe that you have to defend questionable opinions in order to do so-perhaps you should re-examine your position. It may be that you can’t actually go see the movie without compromising your conscience.

I suppose playing devil’s advocate is a logical debate position, but there are some limits. OSC’s opinions on human rights are his right, and we should all defend to the death his right to have them, but that doesn’t extend to defending the views themselves. Some things are really indefensible.

That in no way affects the ability to enjoy his work on it’s own merits, though.

PokeyPuppy's avatar

PokeyPuppy · 98 weeks ago

“…but using loopholes “He has the right to free speech too” to defend your point of view only weakens it. “I wanted to see it.” is a perfectly valid position no one has the moral authority to assault. ”

Yes! If you feel morally conflicted over seeing this movie, look at WHY and find what works for you. Trying to justify Card’s position so you can see a movie is pretty weak.

PokeyPuppy's avatar

PokeyPuppy · 98 weeks ago

I have been reading Orson Scott Card since I was a kid, and I love most of his books. It was a surprise to find out that Card himself is so against gays, but I guess it shouldn’t knowing he’s a Mormon (I will never understand how a faith in a greater good and dehumanizing others goes together, but it seems to happen often).

Others have pointed out that most of his books do not reflect his anti-gay sentiments. Even if Card fails, and cannot extrapolate his message of acceptance to include homosexuals as human beings, I CAN. And his writings are part of what taught me acceptance of others, no matter how different they may be.

I think most people are not arguing that Card’s WORK is anti-gay rights. They are arguing that giving him money when you KNOW he will use it to block gay rights isn’t right. This is a complicated issue, and there is no set answer. Each person really needs to decide for themselves what matters to them. I’m sorry Card feels it is acceptable to spend his time and money in that way, and I will continue to donate MY time and money to Human Rights Campaign and other organizations.

(I’m not interested in seeing the film, mostly because I just assume the movie will be terrible. I am happy with the book.)

3 replies · active 98 weeks ago

“I will never understand how a faith in a greater good and dehumanizing others goes together, but it seems to happen often”

It happens, almost exclusively. Non of the big 4 American religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Mormonism) treat all sexes or sexual identities equally. Where a particular sect does this or not, Christianity as a whole subjugates women. That’s some pretty basic failure of equality right from the get go.

“his writings are part of what taught me acceptance of others”

This is why his personal views and actions are so detrimental. When I see parents lying to their kids to get them to behave (Stop fighting, because Santa is watching you, etc), I always wonder what’s going to happen to the lesson of “stop fighting” when they learn Santa isn’t real. How about “Stop fighting because no one will ever want to be your friend if you run around hitting people all the time”? Same thing with Card. If you learned acceptance from him, then find out it was all a lie, does the lesson fade? As an adult, I doubt it would. But maybe a young teen or middleschooler wouldn’t have such an easy time making the distinction.

PokeyPuppy's avatar

PokeyPuppy · 98 weeks ago

I try to tread lightly in regards to religion – I’m not religious, at all, and I have yet to find a way to say “Your basic beliefs sound completely stupid to me” without sounding like an ass. So sometimes I shut up, and sometimes…well, sometimes I sound like an ass, because I just have to say “your basic beliefs sound completely stupid to me.”

“If you learned acceptance from him, then find out it was all a lie, does the lesson fade?”

Good point! I hadn’t thought of that, and admittedly, I didn’t JUST learn acceptance from his books. It certainly wouldn’t have stuck with me if I hadn’t already been taught “think for yourself” as the most important lesson from my parents, and read Theodore Sturgeon, Octavia Butler, Sheri Tepper, and so on. I didn’t find out about Card’s intolerance until I was an adult, which definitely does make a difference.

bean's avatar

bean · 98 weeks ago

“I will never understand how a faith in a greater good and dehumanizing others goes together, but it seems to happen often”

It happens, almost exclusively.”

I’d like to point out that faith and religion are not interchangeable concepts. Most of the breakdowns in respect for others (at least for Christianity, which I’m most familiar with) are dogma, rather than rooted in any biblical passages themselves.

The Bible goes out of it’s way to cite more than a few instances of Jesus going out of his way to hang with people that the religious leaders of the time shunned or looked down their noses at.

I suppose I’ll take heat for sticking up for the religious point of view, but I really do want to remind everyone that some of us really do take the bible’s ‘Love ALL people’ theme very seriously.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Okay, for the last time, freedom of speech means you are protected from GOVERMENT censorship, it does NOT protect you from backlash from the groups you shit on. The fact that so many of you are tripping over themselves to protect Card from the consequences of his actions is frankly deplorable.
A little off topic here, so forgive me for that, but this needs said, I think.

Some of the commentary and some of Joel’s amazement at the civility of the commentary makes me think that maybe, just maybe, we as a society need to take a closer look at how we see other people.

A lot of times I see people from differing viewpoints whether it be on gay/marriage rights, guns, abortion, whatever, automatically classifying those on the opposite side of the debate as horrible people.

Well, maybe that person who doesn’t believe in abortion helps little old ladies across the street, hits every single red cross blood drive, donates bone marrow to kids with leukemia and rescues starving puppies.

Or maybe that anti-gun person volunteers at the nursing home reading to blind, lonely old people, goes to national and state parks for the weekend not to camp but to work at maintaining trails and cleaning up trash in the backcountry, gives money to the Boy and Girl Scouts and supports FFA and 4H.

One choice or stance that disagrees with your own does not instantly transform another person into a puppy kicking axe murderer, and yet so often I see surprise when that fact is demonstrated.

Go see the movie, don’t go see the movie, it’s your choice, and if you decide to go despite your opinion of Card, then fine. If you decide to go even though you think it’s not a very “Good person” thing to do, well, own that, and do some self assessment about your beliefs.

If you decide to go because it looks to be a nifty high budget sci-fi film and you like those, and could care less about any of the politics, awesome.

And if you decide not to go because you think Card is awful and you refuse to give him your money, again, awesome.

Hurray for a free society. Now if we can just learn to be a little bit less blind in our disagreements….

6 replies · active 22 weeks ago

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Yeah, sorry, it doesnt work like that. You can be a saint in all other regards, but when you actively, ACTIVELY, oppose me for something I have no control over, you can, and pardon my french here, go fuck yourself. Your rights end where they start to infringe on mine, and I am tired of being told to be quiet and let the bigots have their day. Theyve had their day, theyve had their way for centuries, ENOUGH already!!
I’m not saying to be quiet about your beliefs. I’m saying maybe we should stop making people into complete monsters in our own minds (I’ve been guilty of it myself, though I try not to these days) because they don’t agree with our opinions and beliefs.

To me, that kind of thinking leads to holy wars and persecution on both sides.

Make your (collective) voice heard, just remember that guy on the other side of the argument isn’t an all around horrible person just for not agreeing with you, is what I’m saying.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

He might be Mother Theresa for all I care, but if he’s on the other side, he’s the enemy. It could BE Mother Theresa on the other side. All their actions other than what theyve done to me is irrelevant. They dont think of me as a human being, why should I give them that courtesy?
I’m going to make an assumption here and please correct me if I’m wrong about it, but I’m guessing you’re a homosexual. That’s only relevant because I couldn’t think of a more general way to phrase this:

You’re assuming that they don’t consider you human because you’re gay, or rather that anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage sees homosexual people as sub-human, and that’s just not true. Yes, there are people in the world who loudly proclaim that kind of nonsense, but they aren’t everyone, and just because someone may have the same stance on one issue doesn’t mean they agree with *everything* the worst examples say.

Alternately, insert whatever issue you’re passionate about into this statement.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

FarmGirl, how come the person who actively opposes the human rights of others has to have his humanity respected, but no such expectation is made of the bigot in the first place?

Nobody is assuming Card views members of a certain minority group as sub-human–that part was demonstrated. You may have noticed, it’s actually the topic here.
Opposing human rights isn’t a neutral position that decent people can have–it is beyond the pale.

Pat's avatar

Pat · 22 weeks ago

“persecution on both sides”

The topic of the conversation is literally persecution.
The persecution side is, in fact, more guilty of persecution than the anti-persecution side.

Card’s actions don’t make him evil–they PROVE that he is. That isn’t erased because he once saw a puppy without kicking it.

Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 98 weeks ago

Really? Thats your rebuttal? A remake of a movie of a book that wasnt that great in the first place might usher in a new era of science fiction movies, and if we dont see it we are punishing the poor movie industry?
The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

I think the point is that whether or not you see it, if you’re not seeing it because of OSC beliefs, then DO something to counteract him.
And if you’re seeing it and don’t care for his public stance, then you can still DO something about it.

Or, if you don’t give a flying fig and don’t want to do anything while you see/don’t see the movie, that’s your choice too.

I’ll reserve my minority 2nd class citizen outrage for something of slightly more import than just one general release movie.

Nick's avatar

Nick · 98 weeks ago

In life there is no true BLACK or WHITE path to follow. We all just sort-of meander down a dusty grey trail.
I would point out that the idea some have promoted that _Ender’s Game_ is a near-universally lauded “classic” is rather seriously overstated.

To quote one of my favorite authors (David Brin) on the book – “Boy genius Ender Wiggin trains to save the world from alien Buggers. A blatant ‘chosen one’ fantasy that appeals to the Harry Potter ‘I’m a demigod’ reflex.”

And for anyone who claims there’s no anti-gay content to the book – it’s mentioned right there: BUGGERS. Interesting that he chose a term that could apply to an insectoid species – or to a kind of sex that people who loathe gay folk fixate on.

Want to send the right message to Hollywood? Skip Ender’s Game and go see Europa Report.

4 replies · active 98 weeks ago

PokeyPuppy's avatar

PokeyPuppy · 98 weeks ago

Interesting take on choosing the slang term “buggers” for the alien race. Did you read Ender’s Game, or any of the other books? Because the buggers have a voice through Ender, and are further developed as a species that were maligned and misunderstood.
No, I’ve never read the book; it’s never sounded interesting to me and since finding out how hateful OSC is – now even less so.
PokeyPuppy's avatar

PokeyPuppy · 98 weeks ago

Understood, not recommending the book if you’re not interested – just saying the buggers are never actually drawn as the enemy in the books. It is clear in ALL the books that the buggers are considered our enemies through a lack of communication, not because they are evil.
The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB · 98 weeks ago

So, is that irony I’m smelling, or is it just my upper lip and the c*m-soaked ‘stache on it?

(And I’m joking…I don’t have a ‘stache and I shower after the secks)

Jingy's avatar

Jingy · 98 weeks ago

The idea of boycotting “sending the studio a message about working with hate mongers”, isn’t realistic or accurate in reality.

All you’re really promoting for that studio, any other studios, or society in general is “Don’t work with people with unpopular political opinions”. Which only serves to discourage political activity, taking part in our political process, or speaking out.
It just teaches Hollywood and our culture in general to be more afraid of being politically incorrect, or of being caught supporting the “wrong” ideas.

And ultimately, what are the “wrong” ideas? the losing side, the “politically incorrect” side, and the “minority” opinions. None of which means they are ACTUALLY wrong, because as we know many of our most important beliefs today would have fallen under those categories in the past (gay rights, even women’s right, both would have been seen in those categories back when)

By trying to teach Hollywood/big business/etc not to work with bigots like OSC, you’re really teaching them to avoid any vocal individuals whose opinions might offend any sizable group. Which in turn is teaching any remotely public figure not to stick their neck out and support their beliefs if there is any risk of those beliefs being controversial.
“Gee, I better not speak out/support/contribute to this cause I believe in, because if it becomes controversial, no studio/publisher/manufacturer/investor/etc will come anywhere near me”.

And it extends beyond effects on “public figures” (as ever social trend ends up doing). Business owners have to start fearing revealing any of their political opinions, because then those with the opposing opinions will boycott them. people in need of investors, people in any influential/powerful job, people who just want to get that promotion/raise even have to start worrying “sure I’d like to sign that petition/donate to that cause/attend that rally, BUT, if my bosses find out, they may not give me that promotion/raise/etc because the company is afraid to appear like it supports this cause by proxy”.
And you just end up with people hollowly agreeing with whatever seems safest at that current moment, regardless of what they really think. Or worse yet, being so blindly obedient to majority rules thinking that they don’t even HAVE their own opinions.

All boycotting a movie, due to the unrelated personal beliefs of one person involved, does in the end is punish political involvement/support. And further empowers the already strong tend towards the mindless following of the All Mighty Deity that is “Political Correctness”.

Also, when the tide has gone the other way, and people who publicly supported things such as gay rights, were punished for it in their professional lives, we all agree that is horrible, wrong and shameful. But then when the shoe is now on the other foot, you’re all suddenly in favor of destroying someones professional life (which face it, if you’re saying no studio should work with OSC again, then you’re saying no one should employ him ever again), because he supported a cause you believe is wrong (ok, yeah it IS wrong. 100%. He’s a total shit for sure, but the principle still stands despite that fact).
Even if I may technically approve of the net result, I F’ing HATE double standards.
Yes OSC is a bigoted dick, who deserves to be repeatedly kicked in the shin every time he walks down the street. But saying that he should be black balled for his political beliefs is to validate every time a person has had their career ruined for supporting any idea currently seen as “wrong”. And the world would be an even shitter place if the “powers that be” (in this case, just a movie studio) always caved to that sort of popular opinion strong-arming.

just another seven foot doofus's avatar

just another seven foot doofus · 85 weeks ago

…yup…the band Disturbed…I enjoy their music, but as a person, I find David Draiman to be a reprehensible bag of snot…Hosted them at a bar I ran years ago, and his diva attitude (utterly unjustified especially as they were an emerging band at the time) pissed off my bouncers and I so badly that we threw them off the stage…well, they escalated it to the point of violence in the alleyway behind the bar…they lost…local radio stations gave them honestly deserved, brutal abuse for days thereafter, and although I do still enjoy the music, it’ll never feel quite the same, and I buy their CD’s used so they receive nothing from me…
mist42nz's avatar

mist42nz · 68 weeks ago

As long as he’s not selling his hate through the show, his views are his business.

What phobic things he does in the privacy of this own home, or through the right of free speech, that doesn’t resent actual hate inciting…is his business.

1 reply · active 68 weeks ago

It’s not a show, it’s a book that was made into a movie. And his views ARE his business and, as a public figure, the business of anyone that decides to support/not support his creative endeavors. Free speech allows him the right to say what ever hateful thing he likes, but not to be free from the consequences of his actions. Card uses his money to support discriminatory legislation and buying his books or seeing his movie gives him more money. If the informed consumer wants to limit his ability to fund hatred, depriving him of more money (and encouraging like minded consumers to do the same) is an effective means of fighting back.

Jaeger Bomb

Wil and I made you a Sparks McGee T-Shirt! 

sparks mcgee t-shirt wil wheaton sharksplode

Confused? Of course you are! Read up on Sparks McGee and his awesome adventures.

Guys, please go see Pacific Rim. Let’s cancel this film’s financial apocalypse before it happens. Let’s be the giant robot heroes that stand up for the a movie that is basically a love letter to monters movies, robot movies, sci-fi, and nearly everything I hold dear all at the same time. Seriously, if my kid was in this movie I would probably cry just thinking about it.

Remember a few years ago when all the economists said the economy was going to go in the shitter, so people got terrified and stopped buying stuff and the economy went in the shitter? The jackbags calling an early death for Pacific Rim are participating in the same self fulling negativity. The more people that read “this movie is probably going to loose a hundred million dollars,” the more people are going to say “Meh, that won’t be good enough for the theater. I’ll see it on the bluetubes.” Stand up for scifi and robots and monsters and Idris Elba! GO SEE PACIFIC RIM THIS WEEKNED!

[Sweet miserable crapbastards, please don’t let this be another Prometheus…]

COMMENTERS: Have you ever assumed something (a movie, a tv show, a book, a game, a whatever) was no good because you read a bunch of negative press about it (not bad reviews, just general negativity), only to find out later that it was great? On the other hand, what thing that was SUPER HYPED WITH OVERWHELMING POSITIVITY were you the most disappointed in?  

Comments (41)

Admin Options

jjp's avatar

jjp · 101 weeks ago

District 9
The Lone Ranger.

What? I liked it!

1 reply · active 101 weeks ago

Myles's avatar

Myles · 101 weeks ago

Woo! High five!

I think part of why I liked it was expecting it to be a 3-4 out of 10 at best, so I was pleasantly surprised it was about a 7 for me. Also, having few to no expectations due to never having seen/heard any old lone ranger episodes.

Kernanator's avatar

Kernanator · 101 weeks ago

Meanwhile, in Ancient Greece, someone complains that they like Hercules better when he was called Gilgamesh.
You’re our only hope.
Daveren's avatar

Daveren · 101 weeks ago

godspeed you fancy bastard.
Fren's avatar

Fren · 101 weeks ago

Whether or not it sucks, I’m giving them my money just to support the concept. We NEED more film like this. Where’s my live-action Voltron?

I’m just glad they stopped making films based on board games. Rock ’em Sock ’em Robots: The Movie was horrid, Battleship was worse, and Hungry Hungry Hippos the TV program is bluh. Give us more kaiju!

2 replies · active 101 weeks ago

lou's avatar

lou · 101 weeks ago

There’s a Hungry hungry Hippos TV show?!
Fren's avatar

Fren · 101 weeks ago

You may refer to it as Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo.
Super hyped with overwhelming positivity, but ended up sucking? Easy.

Star Wars: Episode I.

Remember how excited we all were when the trailers came out for that? It was going to be so great! *sobs*

1 reply · active 101 weeks ago

Had the world ended after the trailers for episode 1 but before the movie came out, we’d all be happier.
DuckAmuck's avatar

DuckAmuck · 101 weeks ago

All of the Matrix movies.

I read/heard bad things about the first one, which turned out to be awesome.
Everyone super-hyped *all others* which sucked so much I refuse to admit they exist.
The “story” didn’t need them.

1 reply · active 101 weeks ago

Myles's avatar

Myles · 101 weeks ago

wait, you heard the first sucked but the others were awesome?

Your friends are from a mirror universe. Draw goatees on their faces then kill them to preserve the sanctity of our existence.

Godzilla. The one in the late 90’s with the guy from that movie where he does that thing.

2 replies · active 101 weeks ago

Oh man. That was a MEDIA FUCKTON BLITZ, wasn’t it? I probably still have one of those Taco Bell cups somewhere.
Oh god…. I have the movie on VHS somewhere. I was young and naive and knew nothing of the true greatness of the King of Monsters so I thought it was a good film…

That’s all been rectified now that I know better

Dave's avatar

Dave · 101 weeks ago

Got to see a free advance screening of Pacific Rim yesterday.

GO SEE THIS MOVIE. I never watch movies twice but I’m going this weekend because it’s good enough that I should have paid for it…. so I will.

It is SO much fun you guys. It’s the perfect example of the difference between a big dumb fun movie that doesn’t ask you to think and a big asshole movie that assumes you are too stupid to think.

Beautiful fun escapism as opposed to whatever the hell Michael Bay thinks he’s doing.

Go See It.

2 replies · active 101 weeks ago

Dave's avatar

Dave · 101 weeks ago

Go see it and find out for yourself!
Katie's avatar

Katie · 101 weeks ago

Prometheus. I caught it on cable recently and really enjoyed it. Yeah, there are some plot problems with it, but not enough to warrant the hate it got.

As for a super-hyped shitty movie… I don’t know. Maybe Sucker Punch? Was that movie super-hyped? I know I absolutely hated it.

2 replies · active 101 weeks ago

It wasn’t so much super hyped as it was SUPER directed at nerds, so I think we felt it more than most. And yes it was terrible.
HandiGoat's avatar

HandiGoat · 101 weeks ago

I think that movie was more of a demographic fail than an honestly bad movie. As an appreciator of both nerditry and “film art”-type-movies, I would put it 100% in the latter category. My girlfriend (who mostly loves foreign and independent films) absolutely adores it.
Jenn's avatar

Jenn · 101 weeks ago

I have never assumed a movie would be bad and got a surprise of goodness, but I have had a hyped up movie disappoint me… Avatar was NOT as good as everyone said it was. I am not saying it was horrible, I just felt it was merely an ok film that was hyped to be the be all and end all of the film world. A CG’d live action FernGully is all I got out of that.
Kirby's avatar

Kirby · 101 weeks ago

I’m bad at not liking things. I’ve only ever disliked one movie that I’ve seen, and that was because I was a kid, wanted to see a war movie, and went to see Jarhead.

I always like movies when I go to see them. Sucker Punch, John Carter, the Matrix Sequels… the Star Wars Prequels… etc.

1 reply · active 101 weeks ago

lou's avatar

lou · 101 weeks ago

You’re a brave person to admit those things.
Chaucer59's avatar

Chaucer59 · 101 weeks ago

God, so many bad, over-hyped movies:

Avatar (Dances with Toruks or Ferngully in Space)

Aliens (Alien was a brilliant horror movie. Aliens was a 2hr 17 minute long demo for a single-shooter video game)

There Will Be Blood (should have been here called There Will Be Rigo Mortis)

Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet (Branagh must still be picking scenery out of his teeth)

Dances With Wolves (if I were Lakota Sioux, I would hunt down and kill Kevin Costner with my bear hands)

2 replies · active 101 weeks ago

Upvoted for Avatar; wanted to downvote for Aliens.
HandiGoat's avatar

HandiGoat · 101 weeks ago

You’re so racist: Native Americans don’t actually have bear hands. They do have eagle wings, however.
Candace's avatar

Candace · 101 weeks ago

Yeah, I thought Avatar was overrated, too.

I don’t usually let bad reviews put me off of seeing a movie I otherwise would want to see. I often find that I disagree with critics and the opinions of the majority.

John Carter. I’m the only person I know who saw it in theatres and everyone I know who saw it later loved it.

1 reply · active 100 weeks ago

anxiety.junkie's avatar

anxiety.junkie · 100 weeks ago

This +1000. I loved this movie, and I actually have read the book (and most of the sequels). Love it.
HandiGoat's avatar

HandiGoat · 101 weeks ago

Pleasantly surprised by: Harry Potter. I was expecting a bunch of kids’ movies. What I got was a bunch of teenager movies, so I’ll call that a win.
When Legally Blonde first came out, I thought “Oh, great, a movie about a rich ditzy blonde – PASS!”

And then much later I saw the film described in ways that made me think “wait – WHAT?” and I rented it… and discovered how dreadfully wrong I’d been. I don’t know if the advertising was misleading or if it was my own internal biases or a little of both, but it’s now one of my favorite films. (The sequel… not so much; the main reason to see that is for Bob Newhart.)

1 reply · active 101 weeks ago

Trebor's avatar

Trebor · 101 weeks ago

I thought it’d be such a chick flick that I refused to acknowledge it when it came to the cinema. Then when a friend got me the DVD as a *Joke* present I decided to watch it one afternoon when I was bored. I couldn’t believe how funny it was and Reese Witherspoon did such a good job with the part.
Just saw Pacific Rim. Delightful fun. Robots smash monsters.
Now I want Guillermo del Toro to direct a Rufallo Hulk movie.
Mcecny's avatar

Mcecny · 100 weeks ago

Pacific Rim was fantastic! Great movie
Stranger's avatar

Stranger · 100 weeks ago

The Dark Knight Rises. UGH. Such a great predecessor, and Nolan gives us that trainwreck?


Apparently my finger is squarely on the twin pulses of the 12th Doctor casting situation, because when I stared into the untempered Vortex and asked myself who the next Doctor should be the very first name that came to mind was the unpronouncable one belonging to Chiwetel Ejiofor (CAUTION: His name is a killing word). So is this how we’re doing things now? I just DECIDE on the ways in which I want the universe to be awesome and the pieces all start to fall into place like so much reverse JENGA? I am 100% OK with this.

I have a store where I sell books and shirts. If you buy that stuff I can pay my mortgage and feed my family like a regular dude with a real job.

It was probably right around the moment someone said, “Hey, maybe not a lanky white dude for The Doctor this time?” that C.E.’s intensely impressive talent, range and ability to say something softly, calmly and so terrifyingly serious that you know he means business and is NOT to be trifled with began to stick in my brain as a potential successor to the Sonic Screwdriver. Imagine the simple, calculated and honest way The Operative from Serenity explained to people how they had failed to meet his expectations and exactly how they were going to die… now apply that same badassery and emotional weight to a “Doctor speech.” That shit is chilling. I want that in the blue box.

How badass would it be if A) he was cast as the Doctor and B) a few years from now they just go ahead and use his actual name as the name of The Doctor? It sounds Gallifreyan enough for me.

COMMENTERS: Dream-cast The Doctor and his next companion. 

Comments (85)

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

me neither i sincerely hope this is just a rumor
90percentgeek's avatar

90percentgeek· 103 weeks ago

Really? Why? I know it’s not who you might have wanted (if indeed he gets the role) but in everything I’ve seen him in (especially Black Mirror) he was a very good actor. And the Doctor role (like Neil Gaiman said) is very much about being pleasantly surprised by what a guy you didn’t expect in the role is able to bring to the character.
Plus I get a sort of Sylvester McCoy vibe off the guy!
TheWatcher's avatar

TheWatcher· 103 weeks ago

I hate to tell you this, but the original source of the Chiwetel Ejiofor rumour is the Daily Mail. Over here in Old Blighty, The Daily Mail has a reputation for being less than accurate. Much less than accurate, actually.

Franky, I rate the chances of me getting the part over The Daily Mail getting it right.

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

Paige's avatar

Paige· 103 weeks ago

Damn it.

I’m not touching the 12th Doctor discussion (well I am, but I want no part of it), but Chiwetel Ejiofor actually would be a great Doctor.

since I’m not even on the right rock, I’ll throw my two cents in and say I’ll just wait until the person gets announced. Both Tennant and Smith said they had some time in between being selected and finally being announced so probably the same situation here.
If you’re going to go with a far-out prediction, you can’t beat the one proposed by other webcomic Capes N Babes: http://www.capesnbabes.com/2013/06/07/873-doctor-…
Roger Daltrey!
not just for the obvious “Who” wordplay, but also…
(1) he used to have the same hair as Tom Baker… and has more of it left
(2) instead of “alons-y” or “geronimo” he can just yell “YEEEAAAHHH” (if CBS will let him)
(3) I remember him guesting on several episodes of “Sliders” as what was essentially an Evil Time Lord. He was the best thing on the show at the time (not that difficult, I know).
Just sayin’
Faye's avatar

Faye· 103 weeks ago

It’s probably going to be some unknown. This sort of casting rumour isn’t a new thing, though.

Just watch Curse of Fatal Death (Comic Relief themselves have put it up here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do-wDPoC6GM ) – the Doctor blows through half a dozen regenerations in 20 minutes, and just about every actor to play the Doctor was rumoured to be ‘the next Doctor’ at one point or another. (Joanna Lumley was rumoured for Five, for example.)

If you don’t want to watch, the Curse of Fatal Death Doctors were: Rowan Atkinson, Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Joanna Lumley.

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

Joanna Lumley would have rocked actually. And for those who don’t know who she is, she was Patsy on AbFab.
90percentgeek's avatar

90percentgeek· 103 weeks ago

Why wouldn’t you want to watch Curse of the Fatal Death – it was awesome! And of course Richard E. Grant finally got to go on and play a villain in mainstream Doctor Who!
I don’t mind as long as they don’t cast Billie Piper *ugh*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-2274….
nenslo's avatar

nenslo· 103 weeks ago

They’ll find a way round it. To be honest the first thing they should do is cut the late 90s TV movie with Paul McGann from the canon.
Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 103 weeks ago

I’m pretty sure they already have. The Doctor sure as Hell ain’t half-human.
Faye's avatar

Faye· 103 weeks ago

I think last but one – the first regeneration was One into Two, so the twelfth regeneration will be Twelve into Thirteen.

The limit is because regeneration is a kind of mutation, and can lead to defects later down the line. It’s like making photocopies, a copy of a copy of a copy isn’t going to be as clear as the original.

When the Doctor does his funny ‘still got legs!’ thing, it’s not a joke, regeneration could seriously mess him up some day, and there’s no ‘undo’ on that. See also: Each Doctor being less mentally stable than the predecessor.

scarlettb's avatar

scarlettb· 103 weeks ago

Back in the day, the Master had reached the end of his regenerations, and he got a new set from the Time Lords for, like…helping out with something. (I am less than clear on the details.) So I have always thought of regeneration limits as more of an administrative ruling, to prevent Time Lords from just regenerating limitlessly, than a biological restraint. Now that there ARE no other Time Lords, I assume said limits would be revoked.
The Time Lords gave the Master more lives because they needed him to be a super-soldier or something for the Time War, but he wussed out and high tailed it to the heat-death of the universe.
Hotsauce's avatar

Hotsauce· 103 weeks ago

They’ve already said “meh, that’s just something the Doctor said. The Doctor makes shit up all the time.”
nenslo's avatar

nenslo· 103 weeks ago

The showrunners won’t go for anyone obvious, so if someone’s touted in a news article as “being in the running” then you know for certain they’re not.
Big John's avatar

Big John· 103 weeks ago

From what I recall back in the 80s, Time Lords had 12 regenerations. However, The Master was able to get around it and weasel himself another 12 through his dastardly deeds. That said, they haven’t mentioned it at all in the new series and it wouldn’t be the first time cannon got changed without any other explanation.

3 replies · active 94 weeks ago

Faye's avatar

Faye· 103 weeks ago

That “507” could be interpreted as ‘I am crawling backwards through an air duct, please stop asking me things.’, so I dunno.

It’s possible, but I don’t think the 500th Doctor would resemble a Time Lord at all by that point. See above, re: mutating regenerations.

Or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawdryn_Undead – the guy with the brain outside his head suffers from unlimited regenerations.

First of ALL,
First of ALL,
Its called math bitches: 12 Regenerations ( 12.5 so far ARE CANNON )
means 13 Doctors.

Although with the new insertion of SAD doctor, between 8-9 … we are going on 13 )
12.5 Regenerations = A regeneration crises after = Evil Doctor= The Valeyard

Of course between body stealing and the Elixer Of Life , the Master earned and scammed 5 extra lifes…
WE already know the Valeyard goes breaks the OLD time lock on Gallifreys past,
or maybe he’ll take the RegenerationEnergy from Donna Noble, and blood from Jack , and make himself TImeLOrd Victorious for realz…

Even the new Bad timelords will give him a new set for breaking them out.

The Rizz's avatar

The Rizz· 103 weeks ago

I still think Don Warrington would make an incredible Doctor.
Lani's avatar

Lani· 103 weeks ago

In my dreams the next Doctor and companion are Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry. Doesn’t matter which one is which, but that would be wonderful. They’re really the only white males I’d be okay with. I’m hoping for a female Doctor.

3 replies · active 103 weeks ago

Hugh Laurie would be a badass Doctor, if he brought in the same attitude as House.
Now I’m imagining a Bertie Wooster Doctor. In some ways it’s appropriate, but mostly quite strange.
Rikonius's avatar

Rikonius· 103 weeks ago

If they put Fry and Laurie in, then I think I’d rather see Fry as the Doctor and Laurie as the Master.
Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 103 weeks ago

I’ve had this discussion with FB friends and on a message board, and the consensus was that it’ll be somone as unknown as Smith was before DW.
That said, the two names floating around that got me excited were: 1. Olivia Colman (probably only known outside the UK for playing Margaret Thatcher’s daughter Carol in The Iron Lady, but she is a brilliant comedic actress with dramatic chops) for the first female Doctor – but she was in The Eleventh Hour as the mother who got possessed by Prisoner Zero, so I’d say her chances are slim to none.
2. Julian Rhind-Tutt, who has almost exclusively been on TV in Britain (he’s had a few small movie parts) and thus is known, but not really famous. He has done comedy (Green Wing) and drama (The Hour), and, most importantly: he’s a Ginger! A sexy Ginger at that!

3 replies · active 103 weeks ago

Faye's avatar

Faye· 103 weeks ago

Just noting here, a previous role in the show doesn’t rule out a recurrence. Sixth Doctor actor previously played a Gallifreyan guard captain, who shot at Five.
Shayz's avatar

Shayz· 103 weeks ago

As Faye said, on the previous role thing, because Karen Gillan appeared in one of the episode during season 4, The Fires of Pompeii as one of the Seers (or whatever they were), before she later became Amy Pond.
Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 103 weeks ago

I don’t know about Six shooting Five, but Karen Gillan was pretty much unrecognizable in Fires of Pompeii, and any resemblance could have been explained by making her Amy’s distant ancestor. Which works for a companion, but the Doctor is a different animal, and Olivia Colman was pretty recognizable (and memorable, if only for the creep Prisoner teeth) in Eleventh Hour.
I did a piece on my website, with my top six choices for the next Doctor:

1 reply · active 103 weeks ago

UnderTheDark's avatar

UnderTheDark· 103 weeks ago

Oh, Siddig would be brilliant! And close enough in stature and demeanor that the change wouldn’t be too jarring for the delicate sensibilities of life-long Who fans ;p
Shocking plot twist: Wil Wheaton knows who it is because Wil Wheaton is going to be the 12th Doctor. Also, the Doctor’s real name is Wesley Crusher. And Stand By Me takes place on Trenzalor.

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

The dead body he finds is… HIS OWN! TIME TRAVEL AAGHAGHAGHAGHAGH!!!!
Rikonius's avatar

Rikonius· 103 weeks ago

And Ace Merrill is Davros!
Rikonius's avatar

Rikonius· 103 weeks ago

On a more serious note, I think that Chiwetel Ejiofor would rock as the Doctor, and I like him a lot more than Idris Elba for the role.
I think Elba is cool, but I think he has too much of a physical presence for the role. I think the Doctor should be scary in a more nerdy manner, and I don’t see Elba pulling that off.
A Doctor with kinky boots. I could see it!

1 reply · active 103 weeks ago

His head makes the most adorable noises.
Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 103 weeks ago

If we’re going for a dream Doctor, I’d throw my vote for Sir Patrick Stewart. Back to the first Doctor’s stubborn old grandpa vibe.
Nice focus pull in the split panel
Liam's avatar

Liam· 103 weeks ago

I would like to see Bill Nighy as the Doctor. He was the museum guide in “Vincent and the Doctor”.
90percentgeek's avatar

90percentgeek· 103 weeks ago

I don’t mind what colour skin he has, but the Doctor has to remain British!
Candace's avatar

Candace· 103 weeks ago

Speaking as an American, I actually have to agree with you there. I can’t even imagine a non-British actor as Doctor Who. Regarding recent speculation, I think it might be kind of fun/funny for the Doctor at some point to “wake up” as a woman (which I think is highly unlikely), but even then, the actress would have to be British, or it just wouldn’t feel right.
anxiety.junkie's avatar

anxiety.junkie· 103 weeks ago

My best friend is convinced that it isn’t just MS leaving, but they are going to end the series entirely. But she’s still bitter about the lack of a new season of Torchwood, so I think she’s projecting. I hope she’s projecting. 😛
Bron's avatar

Bron· 103 weeks ago

Its a pity in my mind that meera syal has already had a fairly prominant role in one episode as she’d make a fairly awesome doctor who.

Firstly I think we need an older doctor, someone who is more like your favourite teacher (I imagine like one of those older slightly mad science ones or maybe art or drama if you think about them (my english teachers all were ex-steel workers who were insane chain smoking nutters for some reason)) or an eccentric but fun relative when you were a child.

Secondly the female thing. The doctor mentions in “the doctor’s wife” that one of his friends a fellow timelord always had a specific tattoo put somewhere on his or her’s body. This does mean that timelords can change gender canonically. Also add into this the fact that the doctor has been seemingly having more and more violent regenerations and it could be seen as the doctor trying to repress a change he doesn’t want. Maybe he isn’t a fan of being female? Maybe he knows that a female form of the doctor is the precurser of something bad he doesn’t want to happen?

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

90percentgeek's avatar

90percentgeek· 103 weeks ago

In fact, as difficult as it is to fit the scene in canonically, Romana’s regeneration scene during Tom Baker’s tenure featured her trying on several different forms including that of Tom Baker (which he heartily approved of as he said he liked the look of that form). So we know a Time Lord can switch gender. The question is, which actress should take on the role?
Faye's avatar

Faye· 103 weeks ago

The form the Doctor approved of was a repeat of the first one she tried, just dressed like him – not actually regenerated into him. Romana just hid her actual face behind the scarf and hat.
I don’t like the idea that it’s Rory Kinnear, though I do like him. I DEFINITELY want it to be Idris Elba.
I really liked this comic. No opinion on Doctor Who casting, just really enjoyed reading this.
Orion M's avatar

Orion M· 103 weeks ago

I’d love Chiwetel, but I’d only love him after my crushing post-Matt Smith depression ended.

Matt Smith is leaving Doctor Who. I’LL NEVER BE HAPPY AGAIN.

(Just like I would never be happy again after I got to the end of Eccleston’s run, actually. Tennant I didn’t mind leaving, it may be sacrilege in some quarters, but I wasn’t all that impressed by the end of his time.)

1 reply · active 102 weeks ago

Tennant left no scenery unchewed. His turn at the end of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Firewas more understated than his last season as the Doctor.
90percentgeek's avatar

90percentgeek· 103 weeks ago

The wierd thing for me is Ejifor is my friend Will’s uncle. I’ll never be able to look at Will again knowing he’s part Time Lord!
I don’t mind who they cast as the Doctor really (no pun intended) as the last 3 choices have all been excellent and have been ‘the best Doctor ever’ for me, so I’ll probably enjoy whoever gets the job. I just don’t want them to do it for reasons of political correctness. “Ooh, we’ve not had a black Doctor, lets fix that!” or “It’s time we had a woman Doctor!” It shouldn’t be about skin colour or gender, just a question of who has something to contribute to the character. As long as they’re British!

We’ve had a half serious/half clownish broken man in Ecclestone. Then we had the loveable geek with a core of steel in Tennant. Finally Smith gave us a goofy toddler who’s actually a lot cleverer than he let on. What type of Time Lord should the next one be?

scribly's avatar

scribly· 103 weeks ago

All wishful thinking. Sadly enough we all know it’s going to be Jeremy Clarkson who’s going to “drive” the TARDIS from now on…

2 replies · active 103 weeks ago

Candace's avatar

Candace· 103 weeks ago

Holy crap, I never thought of that, but Jeremy Clarkson could actually be a great Doctor! I can just picture him with that evil twinkle in his eyes…I doubt he would take the role, though.
Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 103 weeks ago

I can just see him wildly flipping switches in the TARDIS’ control room while it spins through time and space: “MOAR POWERRRRRRRRRRR!!!”
AmyLynn's avatar

AmyLynn· 103 weeks ago

As far as the 12 regenerations go, I remember River being concerned about him using up his regeneration on her. She spoke as if it were a quantity of energy that could be used up, not a power that could only be used a specific number of times. The writers could have added that in to redirect our attention though.
Poodles McGee's avatar

Poodles McGee· 103 weeks ago

Doctor: Wil Wheaton
Companions: Several webcomic artists/writers

I’m not kidding. I’ll take hostages to make this happen.

Jingy's avatar

Jingy· 102 weeks ago

“I also begged Chewie…”
The last time I heard a sentence starting like that, it was from someone accounting their comicon- sexcapades.
Liam's avatar

Liam· 103 weeks ago

How about an American for the Doctor?

1 reply · active 102 weeks ago

Bron's avatar

Bron· 102 weeks ago

No just…. just no……

I dont think an American doctor would work for British audiences and we are still the primary market so that would be insane to do. Sorry.

An American actor could work but only if he could do a British accent that was fantastic which I can’t really remember seeing yet.

Bean's avatar

Bean· 103 weeks ago

I’d just like to say that I am 100% supportive of the idea of Hugh Laurie or Stephen Fry as the Doctor. Whoever they cast, I’d really like it to be an eccentric older person.

This is probably somewhat hypocritical of me to say, since David Tennant is ‘my’ Doctor, But enough with the Young Actors. If I wasn’t so attached to David Tennant, Christopher Eccelston would be my favorite.

1 reply · active 102 weeks ago

Bron's avatar

Bron· 102 weeks ago

I agree with the older, I think we need an eccentric curmudgeon type doctor again.

I would stop watching if it was Steven fry though, I just find him incredibly annoying.

I think that Hugh Laurie would also be a mistake he is just too well known it would be Hugh Laurie not the doctor.. I love him but I think wrong for the role.

have i missed something but i thought that john hurt was number 12? or is he number 0?

1 reply · active 103 weeks ago

Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 103 weeks ago

No, he’s supposed to be an earlier regeneration, presumably from the Time War – the one who broke the promise. At least that’s what my insanely knowledgeable DW-geeky friends say. They’re placing him between 8 and 9 (which should throw off the whole counting system, but I guess that’s all very wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey).
We’ll find out in the 50th anniversary special, I guess!
Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 103 weeks ago

Which would make my “Who, M.D.” t-shirt almost prophetic!
And if Stephen Fry gets to be his companion (like some others already suggested), we’d have Jeeves & Wooster all over again!
xero's avatar

xero· 103 weeks ago

I really can’t argue with that choice i honestly don’t have a better one
BaneDeadpool's avatar

BaneDeadpool· 102 weeks ago

The new Doctor needs to be a lesser known name. They need to be the Doctor, not a ‘whats-his-name from whatever that movie or show was who is now the Doctor’. Also, I think a cool take would to have the Doctor regenerate as a ginger woman.
Tim Roth is one I hadn’t heard mentioned in any of the speculation (until this thread), but I think he could do a really good job. His character in Lie To Me had moments of out-there-weirdness/zaniness and a LOT of intensity too. And then we’d have a Doctor who’d fought the Hulk and lived, and should therefore fear nothing anyway!
Chaucer59's avatar

Chaucer59· 99 weeks ago

I was deeply disappointed when David Tennant left (no, NOT my first Doctor–that was James Baker). I don’t think anyone before or since has so embodied The Doctor as Tennant. Matt Smith is just so…meh. I think it’s truly sad that so many outstanding scripts were wasted on an actor with less charisma than a sea cucumber and less range than William

I agree wholeheartedly with Ejiofor. He’s a brilliant choice and can go from loving to menacing and back again with aplomb. If not a black Doctor, what about a sex change? I can see it now: the Doctor Who page 3, the Doctor Who Playboy spread, the Victoria’s Secret Who line.

Everybody stop and listen to me right now!

I decided it would be awesome if, perhaps for a double-ep season finale, they fire through like 4 Doctors by the closing credits. Fall off a building, shot in the face, cut in half by a band saw, whatever. Nothing ups the stakes in a plot like the main character repeatedly paying the ultimate price to save humanity/the universe/the Queen Mum.

That would also give them the opportunity to give a few British actors the ability to play the big guy, if only for 15-30 minutes. Hows about Sir Ian Magneto with a sonic screwdriver? Companion looking on in horror at his repeated grisly deaths…

This is the greatest suggestion I have ever made on the internet. Seriously, think about it.


Into Dickness


David and I will be at booth 243, NOT 1749 and NOT by the LEGOs. Come in the main entrance, hang a left and head to the back corner. Here’s a photo of David peeking over a handy map.

COME SEE ME AND DAVID IN PHOENIX THIS WEEKEND, APRIL 23-26! BOOTH 1749 way in the back by the LEGOs! BOOTH 243! More details HERE


Check out the winners of the Fancy Fan Art Contest RIGHT HERE.






Over the last several months I had done a very thorough job of avoiding all Star Trek Into Darkness spoilers. I was planning to go into the theater NOT knowing whether or not Khan was the villain. Then, at the very last possible moment, a random Internet headline spoiled the secret identity of Cumberbatch’s character for me. It really wasn’t that big of a deal. I mean the movie gives his secret away in the first 25 minutes or so. The thing I was in no way prepared for (similar to the Mandarin reveal in Iron Man 3) was that Into Darkness is an alternate timeline reboot of Wrath Of Khan. It just is. Don’t argue with me. There aren’t just a few parallels and nods here and there. It IS Wrath of Khan, told from the perspective of the new timeline established in Star Trek (2009). Also, it is fantastic.

I will admit that a couple of the “let’s tie this into Star Trek 2 or other Trek canon” moments were (almost) cringe worthy. Spock yelling, “KHAAAAAN!” was certainly at the top of that list. The rest, however, I found entirely delightful. When old Spock said they had defeated their Khan, “at great cost,” I actually clenched my fist and looked at my wife with this dopey grin that screamed, “I CAN’T WAIT TO TELL YOU WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT WHEN THIS IS OVER!” When Kirk was in the radioactive chamber and he and Spock went in for a SciFive, I was audibly chanting, “SAY THE LINE, SAY THE LINE!” He totally said it, and it was awesome.

Other things that were badass: The Klingons, the idea that this is the Federation BEFORE it becomes Earth’s military and that it serves more of a NASA role at this time and how that is inevitably going to change, the idea that Admiral Robocop is essentially right about the impending war and the need to fortify Earth’s defenses despite being a despotic, mass murdering mad man, BENEDICT MOTHER FUCKING CUMBERBATCH, Benedict Cumberbatch’s voice, every line Cumberbatch delivers, BENEDICT MOTHER FU… you get the idea, how Spock has grown since the first film and getting to see the emotional side of him, how he deals with his emotions and how is reacts when he can’t deal with them, how it finally makes sense (by the end of the film) for Kirk to be a captain (this is a MUCH LONGER discussion, but I think the ONLY reason Kirk was made captain in the first film was in service to the expectation that the movie have a guy named Captain Kirk. He was certainly a brave, intelligent and heroic man, but in NO WAY was he a leader or able to accept the responsibility of taking care of all of the lives on a ship. By the end of Into Darkness, he’s earned it.), and pretty much every moment Scotty is on screen.

Things that were less badass: Not enough Sulu (seriously I think he had just that one line), too much “Everyone changes jobs and ranks and quits and is rehired and whatever” in this one (there was enough of that in the last one), Peter Weller (Admiral Robocop) already played a Starfleet officer with designs on being a warlord in an episode of Enterprise WHICH ISN’T CANON SHUT UP IT ISN’T SO WHY AM I COMPLAINING?!, the unrealistic stupidity of the security guard on Admiral Robocop’s ship that finds Scotty, and the “We need to get on the GIGANTIC, WAY MORE POWERFUL THAN OUR SHIP” ship to stop the big bad plot that seems incredibly familiar to the first film.

All of that said, I can HIGHLY recommend this movie to anyone who isn’t necessarily a Star Trek fan but enjoyed the first film and appreciates a good scifi action movie, AND to Star Trek fans who enjoyed the first film as well. If you hated Star Trek (2009) then you will hate Into Darkness for the same reasons. It’s not as cerebral or philosophical as any of the series or most of the TOS and TNG movies (which I think is a positive, since it makes a lot more sense to explore the really heady stuff in hour long snippets over the course of a 24 episode season that it does to spend 2 hours in a theater on space metaphors for race relations and equality), and it isn’t as inaccessible to the masses as some nerds would probably prefer it to be. Regular people can enjoy this movie, which will certainly piss off some hardest of core fans.

I don’t love J.J.’s Star Trek in the same way that I love classic Star Trek or even for the same reasons, but I do love it. At this point I consider it to be a very high budget fan fiction that just so happens to entirely enjoyable and present fans with at least 10 reasons to love it for every 1 reason to groan or complain. I really hope after Star Trek 3, J.J. opens up the door for a new series set in his Trek universe. Even something set in the TNG timeframe of his timeline would be fantastic.

Oh, and one more thing about Cumberbatch and his voice and his charisma and his whole deal… set panties to melt.

COMMENTERS: I wrote a lot of opinions up there. Tell me what you think about them or what you think about Into Darkness in general. Spoilers are cool for this thread so be warned:


Comments (76)

I loved that tribble scene, because it totally was for shits and giggles.

While somewhat established in the film, I think the best establishment for the technical brilliance of Khan was in TOS, the episode where they find him and his family. If that were still relevant, I would buy the part where the Admiral forced him to design a starship.

Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

Yeah, Khan and his crew figured out in short order how to take over the Enterprise in TOS, so I considered that precedent for Khan being able to look at Federation starship tech and figure out how to improve it.

I also enjoyed the tribble scene, and think McCoy’s resurrection of Kirk is great because it now allows Dr. MCCoy to add yet another miracle to his resume. 🙂

I think Kirk normally Kirk would have allowed Scotty to open one of the torpedoes, but he had just been spanked. OTOH, he had seemed unrepentant at the time, so @Cyrankoss might have called that one right.

I also thought Kirk was acting un-Kirk-like with Scotty and the torpedoes… but I figured they wrote it that way on purpose. I mean, everybody’s yelling at him telling him this is a stupid mission, and he just lost his one father figure and is a bit unhinged. His acting out-of-character and the firing of Scotty and dismissal of Bones’ and Spock’s concerns all contribute to the feeling of “this is wrong no stop it this is not right” that I thought was very effective at that point in the movie.
I only saw Wrath of Khan for the first time a year or so ago and it wasn’t that great. That is – it wasn’t that great as ‘a film’. As ‘a Star Trek film’ it was brilliant, but that’s because there are so many bad Trek films and so few good ones.

I saw Into Darkness with a group of friends of varying orders of geekitude. Of the 5 of us I was the 3rd most geeky. The 2 major nerds were torn throughout the film between enjoying seeing something bright and shiny involving Cumberbatch and Star Trek and apoplexy about the lack of Roddenberry-esque soul.

That said, we all loved the film.

I wanted more Karl Urban – for science reasons – but it was a fun movie. It aint art, but none of the Trek movies are. Few movies are. And art movies aren’t necessarily enjoyable movies (cough*TreeOfLife*Cough).

What shits on my whiskers is when people argue that brand X is better because its more philosophical. More philosophy doesn’t make something better, especially if its piss poor philosophy. When I watched Khan it was because my friends wouldn’t shut up about how deep and thought provoking it was. “Its like a meditation on man’s place in the cosmos and the nature of friendship as a catalyst for change.” Sure, it is. Here’s some first-year Aristotle; read that and then we’ll talk philosophy. Khan is the finest of original Trek, but nostalgia is what makes it taste so good.

Anyway, I’m hoping Nu-Trek III just fucks with everyone by introducing a transgendered French cyborg time-traveller named Jean-Lucy Picard…

4 replies · active 106 weeks ago

And I just realised that there’s a chance Wil Wheaton may read what I wrote. I can’t handle that level of meta.

I’m not sure if I should perform an act of penance now or wait until instructed.

Suggestions for acts of penance anybody?

Eh…in the new canon, Singh appears to be a mastermind villain; superweapon and all.

In the old canon, Singh was a brilliant warlord, trained in the tactics of the most famous conquerors in his history. He displays this in the series (where he’s established and quickly learns to suborn starships), as well as in the movie.

There was drama and suspense. There was spectacle, but it made sense for the plot. It probably is nostalgia, but I would much prefer the SFX from that movie to this one…because not once did I feel ANY suspense in this flick.

Matt's avatar

Matt· 106 weeks ago

At every point in WoK you understood why everyone was doing what they were doing and how they felt about it.

It sounds so basic, but I can’t say the same for STID.

I can. The motivations were pretty clear to me, but that didn’t help me enjoy it much more.

I would have to see Wrath of Khan again (like I need an excuse), but nostalgia tells me they did it better in WoK.

I also had a blast. If I have any complaint, it’s that we could have used less time spent on people hanging from ledges and more time explaining who Khan was in the past. The guy should be as recognizable as Hitler, but nobody knew who he was. I mean, we did, but we have the benefit of three hours of previous screen time with him.

I had no problem with Khan being able to design advanced weapons, as I see some other silly people do. Give him an hour with a technical manual to catch up, and he’ll then surpass you. Because he’s better. At everything.

And can we just have Uhuru speaking Klingon all the time, if ya know what I’m sayin?

3 replies · active 106 weeks ago

Kirby's avatar

Kirby· 106 weeks ago

Not to mention, as they say several times, they live in a time of peace and exploration. Khan came from a time where technology meant trying to blow the **** out of each other.

The Hitler thing could kind of be explained by it being 300 years ago that he was around, during a part of history that Humanity is largely trying to ignore/cover up. I mean, I don’t know if I can think of many historical figures from 1713 that I’d recognize right off the bat… or at all.

Besides, he’s got a common last name. Unless Data’s creator’s a direct descendant or something… which would make an interesting movie on its own.

(side note: Tom Hiddleston for Data reboot. Seriously.)

You just blew my mind. I never made that connection.

Anyway, the andriod kept throwing me off balance. I did, however, like how the aliens were just part of the crew and not spectacles for the camera.

I agree with you entirely. I get that hanging off ledges is supposed to be a running gag, but there could have been a little less… running time.
Adwxx's avatar

Adwxx· 106 weeks ago

God damn it JJ, try and get the a little of the fake science right. Just call it a super conducting absolute zero bomb.
old_pines's avatar

old_pines· 106 weeks ago

Thank you.

Thank you for giving a well-reasoned, balanced review. The fact that it exactly mirrors my feelings about the movie notwithstanding, I appreciate that you were able to reflect upon the movie without obsessing over Trek canon. Too many other reviewers have tried to measure the movie off of the classic serieses (precious) and forget that each awesome movie and episode was built on the backs of previous episodes/series/movies that this new franchise simply does not have.

The trek reboot has to take into account that Kirk isn’t the strong, willful product of a Star Fleet officer who groomed him for leadership. In this timeline, Kirk’s dad was killed by dimension-jumping psycho Romulans and he is naturally still having problems because of it. The events of TOS haven’t happened and can only happen now within the context of the new time structure.

I couldn’t buy into Chekov as engineering chief and I agree that Sulu could well have played a bigger part. Ignoring the unfortunate “KHAAAAAAN”, I think the character development for Spock is fantastic. Kiel’s growth is believable. Khan….

Ok, all apologies to my wife, but I wouldn’t turn down a three-way with Benedict Cumberbatch and Ian McKellan. Mmmm. That said, Khan in this movie made me believe that this small group were actually genetically-crafted superwarriors. Khan and gang from TOS and WoK did not sell that fact. Especially his cronies. Leaving them out of it in this movie and focusing on one psychotic superman was the right call.

I can’t wait to see the next installment. I want to go there, boldly.

1 · active 106 weeks ago

Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

Yeah, I was like, “Why is Chekov Scotty’s understudy?” It was kind of weird.
old_pines's avatar

old_pines· 106 weeks ago

Also, how interesting would it be if the universe of the new timeline was the mirror universe from DS9?

3 replies · active 106 weeks ago

I might hold out for that. Maybe.
Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 106 weeks ago

You mean the mirror universe from TOS. DS9 grabbed the same universe and ran it into the future.
BowtiesAreCool's avatar

BowtiesAreCool· 106 weeks ago

Nerd Text to Follow: I don’t think that makes sense. It’s still the Federation. The mirror universe started thousands of years ago going the wrong way. (We know this because of Mirror Doctor Phlox reading the “great works of literature” from our Universe, saying they were “less agressive”. Except Shakespeare. Mirror = Aggressive and morally-eroded.

But seeing the mirror universe and Kirk being a bigger better badass would be very cool!

Malady's avatar

Malady· 106 weeks ago

The one thought stuck in my head is “What if we get a TNG reboot in another decade or so?”
I was so wanting Wesley Crusher to show up on the bridge of the Killerprise, put his hands on his hips, and say “Robocop!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLyY_aOh4bM

This movie so actively avoids making sense, that I wonder if Lindelof did it on purpose. Or, was his carefully crafted script hacked apart and stitched back together specifically to service the action/effects scenes? Based on Lost, I’m guessing the former.

And yet, I enjoyed the movie. Part of this is that I LONG ago gave up on Star Trek making sense. There have been precious few tightly scripted Trek episodes, and no movies. The whole damn premise is a plot hole. So, I went in expecting big effects, a difficult moral choice, a bunch of fan service, and some awesome Cumberbatch. That’s pretty much exactly what I got, plus some really good Kirk/Spock moments.

1 · active 106 weeks ago

Matt's avatar

Matt· 106 weeks ago

Knowing Roberto Orci, I wouldn’t be surprised if the script initially had a lot of false flag/9.11 was an inside job nonsense that got taken out relatively late in the production (because it was stupid and potentially offensive) and left everything really muddled.

It would certainly explain why Khanberbatch’s and Adm. Robocop’s plans were so aligned early in the move.

Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

Yeah, that kind of took me out of the movie a bit.
Twistednic's avatar

Twistednic· 105 weeks ago

Remember though, they didn’t have the correct codes to open the others. Bones said that had they tried there was no telling how well they may/ may not have defrosted. Lame but at least they acknowledged it
Also, I was thinking that maybe not all of them are superpersons in the exact same way. For all they/we know, Khan is the only one with the healey blood.
I liked it. I thought it was refreshing to see Khan actually doing things that a normal hu-mon would be incapable of. Too often in the past, Trek would hold back on showing characters with superhuman physical attributes actually demonstrating said attributes. But BC’s Khan, Spock, and Nero from the last film all showed their superhuman traits quite well. And the voice… holy shit, it’s like if young Alan Rickman was a Kryptonian Terminator from Hell.
The retelling of WoK was cool. The brief team up, the Kirk/Spock flip, the KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! moment. All awesome. And I think Spock’s yell actually makes sense. In Amok Time, we saw that Spock is capable of losing his Vulcan control (“JIM! Er um, I mean I’m not emotional, shut up!”), but there’s another thing that occurs to me about this scene: As a Vulcan, I’m guessing that Spock usually restrains his physical strength (for much the same reason Spider-Man does). But he knows that Khan is too strong to pull punches against, the stakes are too high, and Khan is not deserving of that consideration. So Spock, at that moment, seems to me to have made a decision to unleash himself. To Khansciously release his self Khantrol. To basically become a Romulan, ruled by his passions instead of logic.
The fight afterward bears this out. Spock is a badass, he is pissed off. He is Spock at 11.

Regarding needing Khan alive: yeah McCoy could probably save Kirk with dead Khan blood, or with one of the popcicles. but the odds would be lowered. Fresh blood, obviously is better than older blood. And it’s possible that the popcicles’ blood would only be workable if they get revived right. So yeah, Bones probably could have saved Kirk with a popcicle or blood drawn from a dead Khan. But he’s not about to take that chance.
Really the one thing that perplexed me about this was the bit where he’s experimenting on a tribble. Superhuman blood fixing an alien? But then I remembered the TNG episode where it’s revealed that all the major races are from the same space seed and maybe some of the animals were also seeded thusly.

1 · active 106 weeks ago

I like your explanations, especially the one about Spock consciously deciding to be rage-ful. Much more exciting that way!
On the whole, I guess I agree with your views. Although, I was in a rather poor mood, and so did not appreciate quite as many of the “tie-ins” as you did, Joel.

In the end, I said the same thing as I said at the end of the last one:

“It was a good movie, but a mediocre Star Trek movie.”

I was wrong, though. I’m upgrading this one to “ok” status, due to the exploration of the concept of a Star Fleet before it became a true military organization (despite the name).

However, too little was established in the new canon. You pretty much have to accept a ton of stuff from the old canon in order to appreciate the new Star Trek, like the poorly-established Vulcan strength, and also the Kolinahr (which they’ve tried establishing for two movies, and…well…Spock keeps breaking it). Also, I’m really, really bored of the “falling through space to the tiny target” gimmick. Every time I see it, I think of that Dead Space trailer, and wonder why I’m not playing that game instead. It looks pretty awesome.

It had good fight scenes, great explosions and decompression, some character development, and attempted to recapture the exploration of ideas of the original movies. It was an ok Star Trek movie.

4 replies · active 106 weeks ago

Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

I may be mistaken here, but I don’t think either version of Spock ever actually completed the Kolinahr.
It is quite true! I couldn’t remember the name of the actual practice of repressing emotions, so I used a sub-optimal word that really didn’t mean what I wished for it to mean.
In that case, I agree with you. I think there wasn’t enough of a chance to establish a baseline of Spock-never-reacts-to-things-emotionally for all the emotional reacting he’s been doing to have the impact it should.
Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 106 weeks ago

So Spock is the only survivor of the true timeline and is this sage mentor character. AltSpock gets to kiss Uhura, yell KHAAAAAAAAN, is generally more of a dynamic character than PrimeSpock, and Kirk dies (but gets better)?

This entire universe is PrimeSpock writing fanfiction about himself.

1 · active 105 weeks ago

“This entire universe is PrimeSpock writing fanfiction about himself.” – this is the best bit of criticism of the JJ-verse I’ve seen.

I’ve quoted it, with attribution, in my review of the movie at http://www.bgmhall.com/star-trek-spoilers.

Citizen Alan's avatar

Citizen Alan· 106 weeks ago

Cumberbatch was awesome, but was there any explanation of how a Sikh Indian, previously played by a Mexican, is now the Whitest Man In the World.

2 replies · active 105 weeks ago

Which just makes it all the suckier that they made him SO WHITE. Cause, you know, white people are the utter epitome of the human race… [eyeroll]. I’m not as bugged by it as most of my friends were, but I see why they make the criticism.
Nevest's avatar

Nevest· 106 weeks ago

I really didn’t like the first movie. Way too many illogical plot holes, just pulled me out of it and made it unenjoyable. The second movie was fantastic. Everything fit, everything made sense and flowed. Very enjoyable.
Liam's avatar

Liam· 106 weeks ago

Another actor playing Khan who isn’t Indian? At least this time they got an actor from a country that has some history with India.
In regards to Peter Weller already appearing on Enterprise, I think it’s GOOD they’re keeping up the Star Trek tradition of reusing actors from previous movies/series’. (COUGHDavidWarnerCOUGH)

2 replies · active 100 weeks ago

Am I wrong, or was that Tony Todd playing the one demasked Klingon. He was Worf’s brother Kurn (Kern?) and at least one other Klingon.
firstfallen's avatar

firstfallen· 100 weeks ago

He was Kurn. IMDB says he wasn’t in STID, but I remember him as adult Jake Sisko from DS9 :P. Also apparently Alpha Hirogen in a Voyager episode!
StephC's avatar

StephC· 106 weeks ago

Am I the only one who wasn’t surprised by the reveal of the true Mandarin in Iron Man 3? I wasn’t expecting Trevor to be so hilariously strung out, but the fact that Killian was the mastermind? Called it after Tony left him waiting on the roof. And the fact that Cumberbatch is Kahn wasn’t a shock either. If you’re going for a Big Bad Baddie, Kahn’s an obvious choice.

3 replies · active 97 weeks ago

Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 106 weeks ago

Yeah, I was spoiled (in a thread about the original WoK, the day before ID came out, and the guy had the audacity to say “what, I said ‘spoilers’,” as if we’d know what movie he was spoiling) but it’s not really a surprise. They were doing so much denial that he was Khan that he was at LEAST going to be a Khan-with-serial-numbers-filed-off.
I was shocked by the Mandarin thing just because of how it defies the role of the character in the comics. I didn’t hate it. I thought it was pretty clever for movie continuity, but I did think Kingsley laid it on a little thick.

I thought BC was Khan from moment one but then they started the whole “SHUT UP YOU IDIOTS HE’S TOTALLY NOT KHAN!” campaign.

I was SO DISAPPOINTED when they revealed the Mandarin. They had been building to it since the beginning of the first movie and the terrorists who belonged to “the Ten Rings.”
I was ready for some real magic vs tech throwdown, and, in a perfect world, Fin Fang Foom. Instead it was just a pothead actor. What a waste of potential awesomeness.
Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

As a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie who grew up on TOS, I enjoyed the film, although there were a couple of plot holes other commenters have already mentioned above which took me out of the movie. That being said, TOS episodes *never* had plot holes. (Said wryly.)

It didn’t bother me that Peter Weller was used again in a similar role. TOS re-used actors for different roles a couple of times, too, so there is precedent. (I guess they thought no one would notice?!?)

As far as the underuse of Sulu, to be fair, he was actually a supporting character in TOS, who did not appear in every episode. That being said, he and Chekov were my favorite characters when I was growing up, although that was primarily because I had crushes on George Takei and Walter Koenig. OTOH, he did get to be awesome for a bit while Acting Captain.

1 · active 106 weeks ago

I would have loved at least one “OH MYYYY,” when he sat in the big chair.
I really enjoyed the movie but yeah, it’s not the same as the old Star Trek. The old Trek had a greater emphasis on the details and continuity. You can’t really nitpick the Abrams Trek the same way you can nitpick the old Trek. The dialogue, action, acting, and effects were all great but the plot was probably on the level of a Voyager or Enterprise episode.

Regardless, I still wished the movie had been a bit slower and more subtle. The old Section 31 used elaborate secret plans filled with political manipulations, lies, and betrayals. It kind of sucks how they’ve been turned into a bunch of dumb warmongers who barely even try to hide their existence. Also, I wish there had been a greater focus on Khan’s intellect and charisma rather than his physical strength.

Orion M's avatar

Orion M· 106 weeks ago

I was mostly very happy with it.

But yeah, not even Zachary Quinto could keep a straight face through Spock yelling KHAAAAAAAAN! The whole theatre was laughing uncontrollably. Possibly because it was the Cinnebarre and they serve all the boozes, but still.

Benedict Cumberbatch sold Khan to me as measured and superior in a way Ricardo Montalban never did. I’ve seen basically the gamut of Trek, and for all I was told it was The Awesome Special Sauce, I never cared much for Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan in ST2 showed severe devolution from his remarkably well-crafted appearance in TOS. He wasn’t brilliant or deadly or even particularly dangerous.

(And the Space Magic that resurrects Spock is no less ridiculous than the Space Magic that resurrects Kirk. More ridiculous, actually. But Star Trek has always been about ridiculous Space Magic, so I forgive them both on that count.)

Anyway, I don’t agree that it’s entirely 100% a reboot of ST2 – it’s the main story threads of ST2 and The Undiscovered Country rolled into one, with some name-drops of things from DS9 and TOS to establish background flavor. It’s my hope that Section 31 gets some more love in Trek 3.

On a completely unrelated note, if I ever work with Benedict Cumberbatch, I will only ever call him by his full name. “Would you like some more coffee, Benedict Cumberbatch?” “Strange weather today, isn’t it, Benedict Cumberbatch?” “You make a very good point, Benedict Cumberbatch!” “My good friend Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent actor. Oh, Benedict Cumberbatch, I was just talking about you!”

I’m sure he’d deck me after like half an hour, but that would be totally worth it. I mean, how many people get punched by Benedict Cumberbatch?

Saw it again tonight and thought of a couple more things I would have added to my review. I LOVED the inclusion of Section 31 from the DS9 Canon. Considering how Section 31 is never fully understood in DS9 or even an official part of Starfleet, they could totally be hopping over from the Abrams continuity into the Berman/Moore-verse.

Does Carol Marcus change her name to Carol Marius at the end, or does Kirk just say her name weird when he welcomes her back on the ship?

I totally blanked on the fact that when the dad at the beginning goes to work at the “archive,” that he walked right past the missiles and a bunch of non-archive weapons manufacturing equipment. Also that the archive was named the “Kelvin Memorial Archive.”

I missed the reference to “the Mudd incident” the first time through.

Right when Bones looks on in disbelief at Kirk’s dead body, my friend Rob goes, “You’re dead, Jim,” and I lost my shit.

6 replies · active 104 weeks ago

OH! And the model of the Phoenix on Marcus’s desk. That was an additional bit of badassery.
Nice list of easter eggs here: http://screenrant.com/star-trek-into-darkness-eas…

I was a little disappointed that Bones didn’t tell Kirk that he had only been “mostly dead”, because Princess Bride references rock 😉

The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB· 105 weeks ago

They (Lindelhoff, et al) also wrote another prequel comic for this movie, like they did the ’09 one, which has a good deal of set up for this movie, along with a nice backstory to another captain of the Enterprise.
They kind of missed the point of Section 31. It’s supposed to be a super secret organization that almost no one knows exists. Its methods are supposed to be almost impossible to track. Most importantly, people are supposed to be surprised and appalled by its existence. The very idea that something so antithetical to what the Federation stands for can exist within the very heart of Starfleet is supposed to be extremely controversial and hard for people to believe. It’s kind of like learning that your nice friendly neighbor who gets along with everyone and is a pillar of the community turned out to be a mafia hitman.
Bryce's avatar

Bryce· 105 weeks ago

While Kirk was hot on the revenge warpath when he was told about it, the reactions of everyone else on the Enterprise to the torpedoes seems to be about what you wanted. I loved that Scotty put his foot down and they actually carried that through to the repercussions, even if it was to get him in place to come back into the picture in Act 2/3. Chekhov’s look upon his “promotion” was both a meta “oh crap I’m putting on a red shirt” and an “oh crap I need to keep this ship running.”
Yes, I found a lot of the music cues too intrusive/instructive. For example, when Kirk is trying to kick the warp core into place. It takes forever, which is great for suspense, but you know EXACTLY the kick when it’s going to start working again because the music SUDDENLY CRESCENDOES before he kicks it. Which kind of momentarily ruins all the suspense they were trying to build.

This is not a subtle movie.

The Unknown FB's avatar

The Unknown FB· 105 weeks ago

I’m just glad to know that kicking things to get them to work is still a valid repair technique, even into the 23rd century.
I am very glad you liked it! The fan community that I’m a member of that sprang up around the 2009 movie has been… less than supportive. I guess the first time around people would only join if they’d liked the movie, and now everyone’s been hanging around for four years waiting and there’s no guarantee they’ll like it.

I enjoyed it. On second watching I found the plot holes and glaring inconsistencies more bothersome, but I still love most of the character beats and all the funny quips. And I really loved the first part of the plot where Kirk loses his captaincy because yes, he is an irresponsible ass at that point. I think a lot of things about the movie were very well done.

And Benedict Cumberbatch… I believe I am permanently melted into a puddle of goo about that man. Between my recent re-watching of Sherlock and then seeing STID twice, I just can’t stand what an excellent actor he is.

It was… enjoyable on the whole, I suppose. But there were just too many moments that utterly killed the tension and/or pacing for me. One in particular really just ruined the rest of the movie for me; The scene where Kirk “dies” has NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER, because of poorly delivered, heavy-handed foreshadowing about magical anti-death-blood. The premise is… silly, but forgivable, BUT I literally spent the entire scene between Kirk and Spock at the radiation shield screaming in my head, “SHUT UP, HE’S GOING TO BE FINE”.

There are a million little details that bug me, but those can be overlooked in service of the story. Sort of. But a major point of dramatic tension being ruined by sloppy writing is a serious no-no. (I mean, we knew Kirk wasn’t staying dead, but there was NO MYSTERY AT ALL COME ON.)

I love J.J.’s alt universe as long as I keep reminding myself that he is rebooting the franchise. Frankly, anyone who wanted this movie to be a remake of Wrath of Kahn or “Space Seed,” the episode where you actually find out everything about Kahn, is an idiot in my opinion. I’ve heard it screamed on forums that Cumberbatch is great, but he didn’t get to be KAHN in the sacrosanct, undiluted, original series way they wanted, but you know what? Cumberbatch can walk over my cold corpse any day (feel free to interpret that anyway you want to) and his Kahn is just as compelling as Montalban’s. I don’t want to sit through a remake of the Wrath of Kahn. I want new, fresh material, and new takes on the most frightening villains and that is exactly what J.J. gave me.
Rev-e's avatar

Rev-e· 105 weeks ago

I was thinking that the old school original timeline movies made more of a point about taking on big-picture real world issues…then I remembered starfleet authorizing a drone strike on someone else’s sovereign territory to take out a terrorist and got the point.
Spot on review. Well done Joel. Big ups.
manbeardman's avatar

manbeardman· 105 weeks ago

i just saw it last night and …….. meh i couldnt get into it i think cause i loved the original wrath of khan so much still a good movie
Chaucer59's avatar

Chaucer59· 99 weeks ago

I hated Chekhov in the original series, and I hate that JJ brought Jim back–and WAAAAAAAYYYY too early in the first movie. All the crew were seasoned veterans in TOS compared to Chekhov. Why do we need a cheesy Russian accent? I was thrilled in the beginning of Star Trek II when they infected Chekhov with that brain slug that was SUPPOSED to be fatal, but then they miraculously saved him at the end. Of course, I was the rare exception to all the Star Trek geeks at the time Wrath of Khan came out–I hated what they did with Khan. In the original story, Khan was a powerful farkin’ genius–a truly remarkable opponent. In Wrath of Khan he was a raving whack-job who they defeated because he got a case of the dumb and forgot that space is three-dimensional. COME ON, that wasn’t Khan–that was Khan’s crazy, Alzheimer’s-addled uncle Bernie Noonien Singh.
My wife and I, for the next several days, found an astounding number of opportunities to say: “YOU SHOULD HAVE LET ME SLEEP.”

Avert Your Eyes

True story. Two true stories, actually, and both come from this year’s Calgary Expo. I did see John Barrowman  (Doctor Who, Arrow, the concept of human beauty, etc) at the Calgary Airport, and I DID lose one of my senses. It wasn’t my sight, however. Instead I lost the power to make words come out of my face in an order and at a cadence or volume that another human being could interpret as speech. I said something like, “Mr. Barrowmaaaghhhh I GLAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHBBZZZZZZZZhurflhurfldurfl.” I’m sure he’s had enough practice at this point to know exactly what I meant. Something along the lines of, “You’re a neat guy who I like to see on my tv. Good job. Also, very pretty. Good that too.” Even with a month of reflection I still can’t make it eloquent.

The other true part of this story is the eclipse box part, which is the advice I gave to Wil when he was struck dumb by the fact that Lena Headey kept talking to him… ON PURPOSE, and putting her hands on his shoulders… ON PURPOSE and not throwing fire at his face… ON PURPOSE! She’s a very talented and very pretty lady, is the point we were examining.


David and I will be at booth 243, NOT 1749 and NOT by the LEGOs. Come in the main entrance, hang a left and head to the back corner.

COME SEE ME AND DAVID IN PHOENIX, APRIL 23-26! BOOTH 1749 way in the back by the LEGOs! BOOTH 243! More details HERE


COMMENTERS: Have you ever had a chance encounter with a celebrity or someone you admired? Did you manage to make face words sound good?

Comments (37)

Alexander Burns's avatar - Go to profile

Alexander Burns· 106 weeks ago

I met Summer Glau and was totally stunned by her gorgeous, gorgeous brown eyes. 

The big one, though, was I ran into James Hong (Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China, Old Asian Guy in every other movie that needs an old Asian guy) while visiting friends in LA. I had ignored celebrity sightings prior to that, but him I totally geeked out on and had to go talk to. He was awesome and got his wife (I assume) to take our picture.
Dave's avatar

Dave· 106 weeks ago

I grew up outside of LA and live in San Diego. Years of exposure, Comic Con, and folks like you who are both insanely gracious with their time and very real normal people in person have robbed me of being excited by being in the same room with movie stars and such. 

There are many folks like you who are who they are in the middle of the public. There are others who, when surrounded by fans, slip into actor-mode and resume playing a character. This isn’t a criticism of them, I can see the necessity. You do it to protect your privacy and core self… whether you realize it or not. But folks like you, Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, Chris Hardwick who simply can’t help but be who they are (Or are even better at tricking me than the other guys) and the difference can be jarring but also normalizing. 

I realized just how numb I had become when I was in line for a concert and a few band members were outside catching a smoke before the show. The drummer and the basist I believe… folks less immediately recognizable than some of the others. It took a moment for the crowd to realize who these folks were but once they did there was a line of giddy people excited to get their pictures taken and such. I didn’t get it. He’s just a dude. 

BUT I’m not completely immune. For some reason professional athletes still surprise me. Poor Troy Polamalu and Paul Kariya never saw me coming =/ Also Mr. T. But C’mon. that’s Mr. T. I bet Momma Mr. T gets tongue tied when he comes to visit.
HikingViking's avatar

HikingViking· 106 weeks ago

At this point I actively avoid celebrities because, well mostly because nearly all of my celebrity encounters are similar to yours was with the Face-of-Beau. I think the last celebrity encounter I had was at the Emerald City Comicon. I stalked this artist’s booth, waited for his line to die down, and then went and nervously asked for a sketch of the majestic trash whale. The artist managed to understand my mumbling and did a fantastic sketch. The whole time I thought about saying something like “Your comic is seriously one of the highlights of my day”, or, “How are you so spot on with your assessments of geek culture?” But instead I just thanked him for the sketch and shuffled away. Damn celebrities!
Leah's avatar

Leah· 106 weeks ago

This is one of my favorite Hijinks Ensue comics ever. So much good stuff in every panel.
Ceri's avatar

Ceri· 106 weeks ago

Meeting famous people makes me sweat profusely and say aweful condecending things that I REALLY DON’T MEAN. My mouth seems to uncouple from my brain in these moments. Neil Gaiman and John Green have had to suffer from this (I geek out over authors the most).
Hypersapien's avatar

Hypersapien· 106 weeks ago

Wasn’t it Max Headroom?
Puja's avatar

Puja· 106 weeks ago

Once served Anthony Stewart Head when I used to work in PC World. I made the conscious decision that any attempt at non-computer-based conversation would result in me incoherently fanboying at him and embarrassing both him and me. So I very calmly put what he wanted to buy through the till and spoke no more words to him than to any other client. 

Once he had safely left the store, I was able to go out back to the staffroom and hyperventilate. 

Nakari's avatar

Nakari· 106 weeks ago

I once, on a vacation, bumped into Stephen King. I ended up standing there, glassy eyed, trying to even say “Hello”. I think what ended up coming out was something like “HIILOVEYOURBOOKSYOU’RETHEREASONIAMTRYINGTOBECOMEAPUBLISHEDAUTHORIWANTTOHUGYOU!”…

Actually not a bad guy. He laughed and told me good luck with my writing, and gave me a little advice to the tune of: “You’re going to hate your early work, then look at your new work, and love your early work again. It’s a cycle”. I proceeded to have my brain leak out my ear, and forgot how to speak for a week afterwards.
Liam's avatar

Liam· 106 weeks ago

Almost saw Bill Murray here in Charleston. I was told that he was at the bakery next to the library that I work at but the bakery had just closed and I didn’t want to go over there just to see Bill Murray I wanted to treat it as something casual. “Oh I’m just in here to buy a cup of coffee and look it’s famed actor Bill Murray.” I could also see Stephen Colbert since he comes down here often.
I think it was in 2011 that I decided to spend much of my Fan Expo days in line for autographs. I was able to meet Kevin Sorbo, Tom Felton and William Shatner to name a few. Kevin Sorbo was by far the greatest person to meet, he even knew of the Scottish Festival our town holds every year, which was pretty cool. Even Tom Felton was great and awesome to communicate with. 

I don’t think i’ve ever met a celebrity i’ve gone absolutely crazy over, but i’ve never really hero-worshiped any in my lifetime either. They are actors and their job is to entertain us, to that i’m grateful, but they are still people like you and me. (So i keep my bubbly giggles to myself and squeal after i’m out of earshot of them)
I’ve met celebrities, actors, directors, writers, politicians, and I’ve never had a problem making conversation or talking like a human person, except once: Terry Pratchett. I went completely blank. He couldn’t have been nicer or more patient, and by the time I went through his line the third time (I had a lot of books with me) I was nearly approximating actual speech.

1  · active 106 weeks ago

OMFG – If I had met Terry Pratchett, I would probably break down and cry. I mean, I love Joss and would have a hard time being coherent if I met him, but Pratchett is like a god to me.
missmushu's avatar

missmushu· 106 weeks ago

As I work in a major international airport, I routinely see celebrities big and small at both their best and their worst. 

The worst in my personal experience has to be Richard Dean Anderson. He used to pass through town regularly (on the ass end of a drunkening) and frequently made a complete fool of himself. 

My all-time favourite traveller is Mark Sheppard (of Firefly, BSG, Supernatural etc.). I’ve dealt with him several times now and he is always polite and patient and gracious and he has the dreamiest voice! I always try to keep my cartoon hearts to myself because I have a very serious job to do but my co-workers have noted that my eyelashes work overtime whenever he comes through. I can’t resist.
Ali's avatar

Ali· 106 weeks ago

Not a chance encounter, but at the height of my obsession with a certain band, their guitarist played a gig with his side project band at a venue whose owner happened to be friends with my dad. I went into the green room to say hi and was a bit of a blushing idiot. He signed my band sweatshirt though and after the show he gave me a hug and said he’d seen me singing along and was glad I enjoyed the show. Squee.
amerikanuak's avatar

amerikanuak· 106 weeks ago

Yeah, I met Alton Brown. He was waiting in the wings to go and be introduced. All I could think to say was, “Who cut your hair, man?” a la Sgt. Stadanko (Cheech and Chong). He responded, “Who cut yours?”. I think there was some sort of tie in with one of the episodes of his show, Good Eats, but I don’t remember exactly.
I was listening (from Germany) to a radio-show David Tennant was in. It was very early and I had done a nightshift and I was alone in the office. So I wrote a mail into the studio, when they were searching for a few people from different countries for a conference-call with Mr. Tennant. AND THEY CALLED ME! So I had to try to talk to David Tennant on the phone – on air! – without making a fool out of myself 🙂 I told him, that he had whispered into my ears all night – because I had listened to one of his audiobooks during work 😀 It was fun and I was a nervous wreck the whole day afterwards 😀
Everything about this comic and what was said about how “sentences” come out while speaking directly to a celebrity in the description are accurately me. I have experienced this lack of being able to form words in front of James Cromwell, Joely Fisher, Olympia Dukakis, Adam Baldwin, Felicia Day, Kevin Spacey, and even Tony Danza, and Robert Sean Leonard. Heck, I couldn’t even talk when I met comedians like Bill Engvall or Jeff Foxworthy. *sigh* 

Shockingly ,despite my viewing them in near god-like ways, the few people I’ve been able to talk to are all from the Whedon “verse”. I was able to form nearly a complete sentence when I met Nathan Fillion and a few sentences when I met Joss Whedon and gave them each the Dr. Horrible/Captain Hammer figures I’d made for them. Though, I couldn’t tell you what I said, but my friends told me I was totally able to talk. 

My only real celebrity win was totally chatting with Maurissa Tancharoen, Jed Whedon, and David Fury at an SDCC party back in 2010. There was talking, tweeting, and picture taking. Massively impressive for me. 

Of course, now I also want to bring a pinhole box to SDCC this year.
Dean's avatar

Dean· 106 weeks ago

One time I walked into my local comic book store and Neil Gaiman was there, talking aboutBeowulf. He’s much shorter than you’d expect. 

I could barely even look directly at him.

1  · active 106 weeks ago

Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

I met Howard Jones after a concert once when he was doing autographs, and was surprised to find myself looking directly into his face. (I’m only 5’1″, so he can’t be taller than 5’3″). I believe I managed to form at least one complete sentence and not make a total fool out of myself. He was really nice.
Candace's avatar

Candace· 106 weeks ago

Also, awesome comic, Joel! And yeah, Barrowman is dreamy. I’m fairly sure I would have done no better.
In 2008 I ran into John Kerry in the French Quarter here in New Orleans. I was very drunk and in a hurry to catch the last streetcar. What comes out of my mouth? “I’m sorry you lost, man. I totally voted for you.” 


1  · active 106 weeks ago

Christ. 2005 I meant. I can typing.
lou's avatar

lou· 106 weeks ago

At WonderCon 2011, their last appearance in San Francisco for the foreseeable future, I moseyed around the DC booth and, despite not getting an autograph from Grant Morrison in one of the books he wrote, I got them from Judd Winnick, Geoffe Johns, Marv Wolfman, and Paul Levitz. Funny thing was, I was supposed to get Johns to autograph my friend’s Hardcover of Green Lantern: Rebirth, but I didn’t know which booth he was working at that weekend. But I got the book the next day, suckered up to Levitz by saying we like his Legion of Superheroes work (since he’d credited as Publisher when GL:R was made), and got him too sign it.
Scruff's avatar

Scruff· 106 weeks ago

I was at a developer conference for Apple some years back, I hung around in the auditorium after the presentation to write some notes on my laptop. Munhead was buried in my work when I hear a ‘hi, what did you think of the presentation?” – looked up and it was Steve Jobs. I said ‘Gurkkhdhhu’. He turned and walked away.
I bought a super fancy pass for the last con I went to and it included tickets for the after party. Which, silly me, I thought was just for the pass holders. 

I realised my mistake when a hand dropped on my shoulder while I was at the bar and it was David Hasselhoff trying to get passed me. I stepped aside to another con goer to freak out only to be face to face (or chin to eyes with) Eliza Dushku. Turns out the party was just for the 40 of with us with fancy bastard tickets and all the celebrity guests. 

Highlights of that night included chatting over cocktails with Alex Kingston (who is the most amazing woman I have ever met), and bumming a smoke off Tonks which Atreyu (FALCOR!) then lit. 

After 5 minutes speaking with Alex (ohmygod thisisriversong you’retotallytalkingtoMrstheDoctor) I got so nervous I had to run to the toilets and vomit. Not my finest hour, but certainly my favourite night involving celebrities.

1  · active 106 weeks ago

Wow. That is the story. You totally win this one. I LOVE Alex Kingston, she does seem awesome! And Tonks and Atreyu? My childhood and adulthood collide! <3
Gordon's avatar

Gordon· 106 weeks ago

I met Darth Vader in a target in the early 80’s. apparently they used to do promo shit like that back then. My little kid self shook his hand whilst terrified and said nice to meet you. As we’re getting our picture taken I told my step Mom “That hand didn’t stop Han Solo’s blaster!” It was close to becoming like that scene in the movie Elf when “Santa” visits the toy store.. Good times.
Koan the Barbarian's avatar

Koan the Barbarian· 106 weeks ago

I worked as a security guard at a TV studio and saw a few Celebrities of my local area going in and out and once or twice an international comedian and for the most part I was articulate and polite. 

One time though… I was working weird hours that didn’t give me much chance to sleep so at about 6 in the morning on about two hours worth of sleep I let into the building the two hosts of a national show that reviews video games. To this day I have no idea why I did what I did next but I will forever remember bellowing out the name of the show at the top of my voice. 

To their credit, they took it in stride.
Chaucer59's avatar

Chaucer59· 99 weeks ago

Ursula K Le Guin, twenty years ago at a small get together of graduate students. Charming lady. Signed my dog-eared old SF Book Club copy of The Wind’s Twelve Quarters.
I was at the state fair once in Arizona, (not) coincidentally the day that Weezer would be playing a show there. My wife and I were walking through the food booths looking for a (fried) bite to eat, and drummer Pat came walking the other direction. 
My eyes went wide and followed him as he walked past. My head turned a complete 180 degrees as he passed, snapping my neck and killing me instantly. 
Okay, not really, I went up and got a photo with him.
Baskerville 's avatar

Baskerville· 31 weeks ago

Got a picture taken with Barrowman and Doctors 5,6,7,8 in the same day. Managed to stutter out “Hello you guys are awesome thank you for doing the TV thing” or something along those lines. Then again, they did hug me. Incoherence is expected.