Anti-Gay Writer To Pen Superman

[JOE SOAP]

I would care that he was a homophobe, it wouldn't affect the way I view his acting skill's unless he moulded he abilities around his morals. That's when things get stickey.

What if he was playing the role of a homophobe?

[Hawkmumbler]

Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban. Sure, he has a choice to play the role, but circumstances can change how you view an actor in a role. I don't hold Sly in any lesser regard because he was in a porno, he was skint and starving at the time (he has no excuse for some of his other films though!).

[JOE SOAP]

Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban.

Why would it be a problem if it's a legitimate character?


Was Downfall less good because it was about Hitler*?


*Obligatory Godwin's Law example.

[locustsofdeath!]

A homophobe writing about a grown man in a spandex suit (and tight red undies worn on the outside) while flying around to save the day. Wonderfully ironic, can't wait.

[Richmond Clements]

Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban.

Why would it be a problem if it's a legitimate character?


Was Downfall less good because it was about Hitler*?


*Obligatory Godwin's Law example.

If the actor playing Hitler was known to have anti-semitic views, then yes, I think it would affect it, for me at least.

Someone up the thread mentioned Polanski - and to me that's another good example. He may well make good movies, but I will never know as I will never watch them, him being a pedophile child rapist and all that, it kind of colours my opinion of him.
I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated. 

[Frank]

I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated.

I despise Gary Glitter and deplore his crimes, but Rock 'n' Roll (part one) will always be a great tune. I've never understood the argument that the life of the artist invalidates or even contaminates their work; Dickens was a right fucking nob to his family, and even if I discovered Kev O'Neill was having sex with kittens I'd still love his art. I always thought Glitter was a ridiculous and repulsive figure, so having that confirmed by the authorities hasn't really affected my opinion of his (largely pish) oeuvre one fucking jot or tittle. Handily, everything Jimmy Savile was involved with was unmitigated pish, so there's no conflict there whatsoever.

Reluctantly returning the topic back to the original subject for a second, a geek pal gave me Enders Game to read in secondary school and I enjoyed some of the ideas. I could tell even then that it wasn't especially well written and when geek pal offered to give me a loan of the other books in the series I demurred. No sense abandoning that policy to read his take on the adventures of a muscle man in red bikini briefs and matching knee-high PVC boots who "can't" have sex with women.

[Spikes]

Only just caught this thread....

Blimey, ive read some of Card's novels before, and enjoyed them. Hadnt known about, or was aware of his views, though.
For me, like Polanski, it kinda poisons, and consigns to the rubbish bin, everything he's done.

My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.

It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.

Yep.

[JOE SOAP]

Someone up the thread mentioned Polanski - and to me that's another good example. He may well make good movies, but I will never know as I will never watch them, him being a pedophile child rapist and all that, it kind of colours my opinion of him.
I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated.

There are of course different degrees of tolerance to these things as there is in all of life's events but I think it's a bigger problem that Polanski never did prison-time when he should have nor was adequately punished, but his films can't be undone, aren't pieces of work made by him alone nor do any of them promote paedophilia, as far as I know.

Would I work with him if I had the chance? Considering how I feel about the nature of the crime itself, no, I wouldn't, but I can't stop others doing so nor would I, by consequence, ignore the work of those who have worked with him, knowing what he did, and have gone on to do other things. Where does that kind of thinking stop? I certainly refuse to ignore everything about them or connected to them. That to me is too black & white and you can't know everything about everyone who produces art.

Having said that, I've never been a Savile or Glitter fan - two monstrous serial-paedos whose work of self-promotion and general creepiness was their very public face (their 'work' or 'art') always seemed to be on show in people's faces and both were facilitated and thrived in a culture of denial, and whose evil actions now seem to have been generally known to a lot of people who never said a word of their crimes or were flat out ignored until decades later.

I've no desire and never did have, to engage with or enjoy their work, but I'm sure some still do and they're welcome to it.

[JOE SOAP]

Blimey, ive read some of Card's novels before, and enjoyed them. Hadnt known about, or was aware of his views, though.
For me, like Polanski, it kinda poisons, and consigns to the rubbish bin, everything he's done.

So even though you didn't sense any promotion of their personal beliefs in your experience of their work, they no longer have value to you?

[Spikes]

Glitter continues to release new material, which continues to sell - go figure.
And still earns a tidy sum of money each year from the use of his music...

But i think youve hit the nail on the head with Polanski - he never did prison time, nor was really punished for his crime. And knowing what he did, why anyone would want to work with him, is beyond me.
You have to think less of them - at the very least, for doing so.

EDIT: Just seen your last post Joe, but cant include it as a quote for some reason.

Yes, knowing what i know now, it does change things. And that colour's the full body of work, for me.

[JOE SOAP]

And knowing what he did, why anyone would want to work with him, is beyond me. You have to think less of them - at the very least, for doing so.

Not really; I never thought of them in those terms because I never knew these people personally, considered why they took or needed to take any job, what they thought while doing so, and what they think of it now. They could've changed their minds in the intervening period but why should I need to know any of that?

[JOE SOAP]

Yes, knowing what i know now, it does change things. And that colour's the full body of work, for me.

I can understand the coluring of Card's work but completely discarding it seems a bit extreme to me.


I'm sure there are many great works in the past by authors who had the same views as Card; there are hints in his work and anecdotes that Orwell was a bit of a homophobe, but I'll be damned if Nineteen Eighty-Four isn't one of the best pieces of work ever written and is the main artistic work that many behind the Iron-Curtain regard as the sole recognition by someone in 'the West' of their plight that inspired them in ways that astonishingly made manifest the 'reality' of the book in the physical world.

[Professor Bear]

A homophobe writing about a grown man in a spandex suit (and tight red undies worn on the outside) while flying around to save the day. Wonderfully ironic, can't wait.

See also: "Isn't it a bit hypocritical for a company that publishes Batman comics to employ a homophobe?" or "A member of a polygamist cult is promoting traditional marriage - how does that work, exactly?"
Panels from Card's first issue have begun to leak to the internet, too:

[locustsofdeath!]

The can't wait bit was pure sarcasm.

Truth be told, I could live the rest of my life without reading a Superman comic regardless of who writes it. But hey, DC's ploy worked - I haven't given a rat's ass about Superman since, like, ever. Yet here i am reading about and discussing him. I suspect many others in this thread fall into the same category.

Superman is a hot topic right now, because of Orson Scott Card. Card fans will check the title out, Card haters will monitor the series. Gay rights folks will keep their eyes on the comic, reporting anything that can be construed as a slur. The self-righteous lot (and they're the loudest) will be up in arms until Card's run is over. And lots and lots of people who would never read the comic will be suddenly very aware of it.

It's a good move by DC from a commercial standpoint. Ethically...well, as far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't use it as a hate platform, I could care less. And we all know DC won't allow that, so IMO there's much to do about nothing here.

[Hawkmumbler]

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait! That shit actualy got published? Wait to go and stir the crapper DC, incest is controversial to say the least.