In this episode, Zach finally watches Kill Bill, and gets a little schooling in homages to the past.
[podcast]http://traffic.libsyn.com/majorspoilers/msp504.mp3[/podcast]Kill Bill is a two-part 2003–2004 action/thriller film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Kill Bill was originally scheduled for a single theatrical release, but with a running time of over four hours, it was separated into two volumes: Kill Bill Volume 1, released in late 2003, and Kill Bill Volume 2, released in early 2004.
Subscribe to the Major Spoilers Podcast Network Master Feed!
A big Thank You goes out to everyone who downloads, subscribes, listens, and supports this show. We really appreciate you taking the time to listen to our ramblings each week. Tell your friends about the podcast, get them to subscribe and, be sure to visit the Major Spoilers site and forums.
14 Comments
DC totally calculated the hiring of Orson Scott Card. They know he has a large, very loyal fanbase. They are not so stupid to be unaware of his controversial positions. They analysed the potential backlash vs. potential sales and decided the risk to sales from backlash would not be greater than the impact to sales due to the built in fanbase.
The fact that the book is digital only confirms this. It is a water-testing assignment. If the book sells really well and his fans jump on board, he’ll be back possibly on something more regular or higher profile. If the boycott and backlash cause the book to be a money loser, or if the backlash leads to a broader boycott on non-Card books then DC will distance themselves from him.
It’s the economy (of the controversy) that matters.
I completely disagree with the agreed upon statement that Superman should not have a voice on gay marriage. Him, being an alien and having gotten married to a human female (in various incarnations), would have no reason to be against gay marriage in the slightest. In fact I would think he would completely be for it, seeing as how his pal, Jimmy Olson, is a notorious cross-dresser. He is supposed to be the pinnacle of tolerance. Saying he should have no voice on gay marriage is like saying he should have no voice on immigration or rights for other minorities in America.
Did someone say that?
I believe it was said that it would be a disservice to the character. Perhaps bringing it up so blatantly in a story is what you meant, I just understood it to mean that Supes should not have an opinion on it.
Would you be as vehement about Supes opinion if the writer took it in a different direction? What if it was Frank Miller who got the job of telling you what Supes thinks? I doubt you would be as excited and would probably be upset by the revelation.
Some people would just like to enjoy a comic book and not have to worry about the political affiliations of fictional people.
Initially, I rolled my eyes at this news because I didn’t know the extent of Orson Scott Card’s views, and ended up getting called out by Phil Jimenez on Facebook (btw, you haven’t lived until you’ve been called out by one of your favorite artist on Facebook).
But that’s why I don’t think this is stunt-casting on DC’s part, at least in regards to Card’s views. I’ve read tons and tons of his work, and it never occurred to me that his views were this extreme. I knew he was politically conservative, so it didn’t surprise me that he didn’t support gay marriage (as many of the people I go to church with do not), but I was totally blind-sided by just how homophobic his comments were.
Phil Jimenez’s point was that he couldn’t support DC’s move not just because of Card’s views, but because Card was intentionally using his writer status to push his agenda. While I agree with you guys that at a certain point you can separate the art from the artist, I think there’s another factor here because, however “The Adventures of Superman” performs, Card will continue to use his platform to further his agenda.
But apparently he isn’t using it as a platform otherwise you would have picked it up through the tons and tons of his work that you have read. Yes?
Exactly. That’s what frustrated me when I was talking to people about this Facebook. Many of them who were not familiar with Card thought it must run through his writing, but from at least the Ender books (and there are a lot of them) I haven’t seen any sort of homophobia. In fact, just the opposite, I noticed an emphasis on speaking out against xenophobia in later books (particularly Speaker of the Dead).
So the issue here is not what Orson Scott Card is doing WITH his writing, but instead OUTSIDE of his writing.
Believing in traditional families does not mean being homophobic. It does not mean hatred of people different from yourself. It means that some people do not think of same-gender sex as a healthy behavior for the betterment of society or for the individuals involved in it. It does not mean that the people who hold this view are ‘afraid of’, or ‘filled with hate towards’, people that take part in that behavior.
I was rather disappointed to hear Stephen invoke the word ‘homophobia’ when discussing this issue. I have always been a fan of Card’s work and I wanted to do a bit of research so I went back and found the original article. Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. “Homophobia” definitely doesn’t apply. Read the article if you’d like. http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Finally, DC hired Orson Scott Card to write the online Superman, because he wrote Ender’s Game (and a bunch of other really good books). He has a big name and a lot of talent so they are hoping that he will write a good story that will sell a lot of issues. DC is out to sell books. If people don’t buy them, they won’t ask Card to write more. If it turns out to be a big seller and a great issue, they probably will. That’s it.
A relevant quote…
“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. “
I don’t advocate a categorical imperative of not supporting art when you’re at odds with the artist, but it’s something you have to take into account, especially when the artist is as outspoken on their issue as Card is on his. These aren’t just his privately held personal beliefs—he actively supports his cause, both with words and wealth—and, consequently, requires a moral decision on the part of the purchaser: Should I buy this work when such an action can be read as an implicit endorsement of the writer and will potentially provide him with more of a financial boon with which to further his message?
It’s easy to blow this off as “Oh, well it’s a digital issue” or “it’s really less than a full print issue when you get right down to it,” but that’s a superficial assessment that ignores the larger moral question. There’s a lot of subjective grey area here—at what point do you decide that an artist’s behavior is so anathematic to your beliefs that you can no longer give them your money? There’s no easy answer, but it’s easy to see it as a largely moral decision, rather than an artistic one. As Matthew suggested, I doubt we’d even have to have the discussion if Card were suddenly discovered advocating anti-Semitism, but social issues are a much more nebulous mire to navigate.
I haven’t quite finished yet, so I don’t know if you guys brought it up, but the RZA and Quentin Tarantino are apparently good friends. RZA did some of the music on volume one. RZA is a big fan of the old Shaw Brothers kung fu movies and the two bonded on that. There’s a bit about this on the volume one special features. That’s probably why The Man with the Iron Fists seemed so influenced by Tarantino, besides the fact that he was executive producer.
I liked the part where the bride did that cool thing
What bothers me the most is the entitled behavior of those who protest people trying to make a living. We saw a similar situation on a much grander scale with the Chickfila hoopla a few months back. Just like there is no forthright anit-gay propaganda in Cards writing, there were no illegal or anit-gay practices being used by Chickfila. In both cases people are incriminating someone because their personal views don’t align with theirs. Those who feel slighted are not content with just voting with their wallets like most rational people do, they feel the need to try and run someone out of business so that they can feel more comfortable with what is socially available.
I came to the realization long ago that the majority of comic producers have a leftist point of view. There have been issues of comics that I have not bought simply on principal (Spiderman: Election Day being the first one that comes to mind). What I did not do is lambast Marvel online, try to organize protests or attempt to get anyone fired. People such as those who are protesting Cards work act like they have the right to not be offended. Grow up and go vote instead of whining and trying to intimidate people.