MovieChat Forums > Martian Child (2007) Discussion > Shame on the writer, SHAME on him!

Shame on the writer, SHAME on him!

posted 16 years ago by ynoel-2
31 replies | jump to latest

One of the two screenwriters mentioned above must be the writer of the
book(alias David Gerrold) by the same name. What a shameful, shameful
bit of artistic/moral prostitution the author has therefore indulged
in...: the book related of the same story, yet one of the most
important factors, and what makes it distinctly 'modern' is the fact
that the single father, is a single GAY father. This is one of the
reasons he is left with the sort of emotionally 'incurable' children
like Dennis. This is why they are able to 'bond' - both being outcasts.
The message of the book is a of course a positive one, not least (if
not most importantly BECAUSE a gay man has been able to overcome all
the hurdles, and become a good father). ......and appallingly...the
writer is prepared to SELL HIMSELF, sell the moral foundation of his
book, and sacrifice an otherwise progressive concept, and accept a book
where the father is changed into a grieving heterosexual ....just for
the money. Dear writer, you have let down a community that might have,
otherwise benefited from this message a great deal. You could have
advanced an otherwise delicate message. Instead, by selling yourself to
Hollywood, you have simply confirmed that gays could not possibly make
good fathers/mothers, and that it is wholly socially unacceptable. Your
truly appalling person you are. Do not ever represent a gay person ever
again. Take your money, and hide from now on. ..or once again give yourself another pseudoyme to try and cover up this profound dishonesty.

As non-gay and uninterested in the adoption process, i dont feel I am 'on a band-wagon'.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] craboo 16 years ago

Such high and mighty self-serving piousness. My goodness, aren't you the arbiter of morals and reality? Presumably the fact that David Gerrold's short story doesn't mention he is gay is of no concern to someone as crusading as YNOEL. Indeed not. Slam the screenwriters for not having a crystal ball to know that Mr. Gerrold would choose to relate the fact of his homosexuality only AFTER WRITING THE SHORT STORY. Get over it. He wasn't gay in the short story and NOTHING was changed. He was gay in the autobiographical "novelette," but that is not the basis for this movie - and it was written after the short story. Personally, I loved the movie just the way it was.

[–] comicbookfanatic 16 years ago

Um... your wrong: An important difference between the novelette/movie and the novel is the fact that David Gerrold was out about his homosexuality when he adopted his son. The movie does not include this information; however, the 2002 novel does bring it up.

[–] craboo 16 years ago

Um... YOU'RE wrong. The short story makes no mention of the character David's sexual preference. The story is about a single man who makes no mention of being gay, and since the majority of the known world is straight, most people would naturally assume that a character not otherwise defined/indicated/drawn is also. The screenwriters long ago explained that not being "fans" of the science fiction genre at all, and never having heard of David Gerrold (let alone knowing that he would write a subsequent novelette in which he revealed he was gay) they had no knowledge of Gerrold's private life, let alone that the short story was really about him. Perhaps devoted fans of David Gerrold were aware of every aspect of his life, every foible and all nuggets good and bad - but you can hardly accuse people who had virtually no clue who he was of changing information they were never privy to. Let's face it, David Gerrold writes for a relatively small hardcore science fiction fan base (and the weak sales of his novelette attest to that) - and outside that group, it's high unlikely ANYONE has any clue who he is or what the *beep* the Chtorr series is, who the THE MAN WHO FOLDED HIMSELF is, etc.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] john-720 15 years ago

So, Seth Bass and Jonathan Tolins, whose rare previous credits include collaborating on gay-themed film "Twilight of the Golds" (and one singly for "Queer as Folk"), didn't know that the author of the original work was gay? An autobiographical story by an openly gay author (contrary to your assumption above, Gerrold was "out" long before the book was published) whose central character is a middle-aged single father? Sounds like they didn't do much research (sadly a typical Hollywood writer mistake). Was the producer really that ignorant of the facts behind the story he bought?

And what's with John Cusack playing his second autobiographical role as a gay author that's made straight for the sake of box office??? Didn't we already get enough of that in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil?" Didn't Hollywood learn then that, in the absence of overt actions to the contrary, "assuming" a single man is heterosexual and adding a love interest (or dead wife) when there is none in the origial story just muddles things. Yes, many stories must be modified from book to screen, but I can't think of one screenplay that was improved by changing a character from gay to straight.

I don't buy the belief that the story was made better or more focused on the child by making the character a widower. The cold hard fact that this movie did worse at the box office than almost any "honest" gay-themed film is testament to the fact that the screenwriters missed the real story; the story worth telling.

While, unlike the person posting the original message of this thread, I'm not ready to roast the producer or writers for their poor decisions (the box office has done that far better than anyone online could) I'm not buying any of the "explanations" I've seen posted here. It's far more believable that they made poor, but informed, decisions that backfired.

Maybe if this comes on TV late one night I might watch it, but for now I wouldn't waste a single NetFlix rental on it.

And, just for the record, its a sexual orientation, not a preference. A person may have a preference for red heads or big boobs, but they have an orientation toward those of the same or opposite sex. The distinction is important.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] john-720 15 years ago

I'm well aware that the movie was based on the short story and not the book. I've read, thoroughly, all the comments made about the film in this thread and all the others (I think I made it pretty clear in my original post that I was replying to multiple messages, not just the one linked to my reply).

That does seem to be the story the writers wanted to tell. Fine. I just don't buy the excuses made here that the producer and writers were completely unaware of the autobiographical nature of the story (the character remained a science fiction writer) and must have made a conscious decision to make the father a widower rather than simply heterosexual single or even gay. Nor do I buy the theory that making the father heterosexual made the story better in any way. The story they chose to tell has already been told many times before. I sincerely doubt that they managed to tell it any better.

As for seeing the film first I’ll stick by my original statement: Maybe if this comes on TV late one night I might watch it, but for now I wouldn't waste a single NetFlix rental on it.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShroudOfFrost 16 years ago

First of all, there's a ton of posts about this already... so stop wasting space. Secondly, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, you're part of the problem, as my friend would say. Let's say when they made Walk the Line, the actor who portrayed Johnny Cash signed autographs left handed, but in real life he was right handed. Since it's really not part of the story, does it really matter? You're saying that it's no big deal to be a homosexual, but yet you turn it into a big deal by pointing out they changed his sexuality here, even though it was never part of the short story. If homosexuality is normal, as you claim to say here, then isn't it the same as being left or right handed? Plus, David Gerrold was on the set while the movie was made, obviously he was never offended, so by saying don't waste your money you're going against David Gerrold himself. Nice try, but you just made yourself look like a complete fool.

the ellipsis was a stupid idea

[–] comicbookfanatic 16 years ago

An important difference between the novelette/movie and the novel is the fact that David Gerrold was out about his homosexuality when he adopted his son. The movie does not include this information; however, the 2002 novel does bring it up.

[–] ynoel-2 16 years ago

Hi there, Rabid...whatever,

Thanks for your homophobic response. Pity it had no basis in anything but your intolerance.
I'll let gay people answer that one.
I have to point a couple of things out, briefly if I can:
The bit added at the end of my first post, though I dont take offence, was in fact 'hacked' by someone. Not sure how, though have a pretty good who (and response will come in an unexpected and concrete form to him shortly).
I felt entitled to this, precisely because I am not gay, and have no want at all of adopting any child.
Hard to answer all the comments above, none of which actually answered anything. Only one pointer from a poster about the fact that a short story came before the 'novella' and the film came in between.
Now, if the writer chose to write his short story NOT being gay (when actually he is), then re-wrote it (after acceptance of the first script) as gay character (that yes, if you read the book, is of GREAT significance, as they are both outcasts, whcih is suggested is the basis of their 'communion' - or do you not know how to interprete the book?), we must surely assume he was seeking acceptance, social acceptance in the first instance. You know, the hollywood kind.
If the truth is (so we hear) that this is autobiographical, ...apologies, but I must maintain my verdict of 'shame on him'!
If he succeeded that far as a social reject,a gay single parent, his duty, surely, is to tell the truth, and not sell himself out to hollywood.
I should know: i was recently offered a contract just recently for a film of mine, on condition I took out some 'controversial' parts of it. Needless to say I refused. Imagine if all artists sold themselves to the latest morals of the day in their country...!
For a start we wouldnt have the Sisteen chapel, etc etc.
Thanks for your answers and do try and convince me, and convince other readers I was wrong, but for the time being I have just read a personally motivated anti-gay attack, and a 'fact' (about there beig a short story prior) which, in fact, changes nothing considering what we know (or what we are told) are facts are about the author.

p.s. I cannot help to notice how many poeple state, with such dignity and self-importance that one 'makes a fool out of oneself'... apart from the fact that no one actually cares (since no one knows each other), it seems that all the criticisms of being on my 'high-horse' become projections!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShroudOfFrost 16 years ago

Even though Rabidgoldfish went about it in the wrong way and is being completely ridiculous making us Christians look terrible, because if I remember correctly Christians are accepting, but I find it amusing that you are quick to answer his post and have nothing really to say about mine, except talking about the short story. The thing is, Gerrold was on the set the entire film! He was not the least bit offended by making him straight. This movie was inspired, hear that, INSPIRED by the short story. In no way is this a direct reference. And plus, the book that was written later has nothing to do with this film. The writers screenplay wrote it based on the short story, not the true story or anything, so they did not take out any homosexuality whatsoever. So again, if David Gerrold was never offended, I don't understand what you are wasting your breath about. I also made plenty valid points in my last post, which I do not wish to completely restate because it is already previously written, so if you care to read them and actually argue against them, or admit defeat, then do that rather than post against a person who is just being offensive and trying to get you fired up.

the ellipsis was a stupid idea

[–] kitty1685 16 years ago

Imagine if all artists sold themselves to the latest morals of the day in their country...!
For a start we wouldnt have the Sisteen chapel, etc etc.

A brief art history lesson:

Actually Michelangelo (who painted the Sistine chapel) was a sculptor. He hated the idea of doing frescoes and really did not want to paint it, but pressure was put on him by the Pope and the Catholic church and he had no choice but to comply. To further ruin your point, most artists throughout history WERE forced to adhere to the conventions of the era they painted in. Do a search for Parisian salons or the Academy and you will find out that artists during the 17th and 18th centuries were forced to paint historical works, portraits, or classical works if they expected to sell any paintings (or sculptures, or whatever). Landscapes were considered to be the "lowest form" of art work, and were generally dismissed. It wasn't until the Modern era that avant-garde artists were able to push the boundaries of what is called "art". And even then, artists like Monet, Manet, and Degas were not allowed to display their works in the salons. They were given their own gallery only after fighting the local government, a gallery called the "Salon of the Rejected".
So yes, all artists (even many present-day ones) sell themselves to the conventions of the period and social structure in which they live. Do a little research before you make claims that are so obviously untrue.

[–] smash_ogre19 16 years ago

I have a curious for you all. did the writer know he was a gay father. if he dies then why did he allow it to be changed for the movie? that is something you have to ask why he did it?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rgcustomer 16 years ago

It's important to note that the writers of the film also did not know that the author (or character) was straight. Their statement is that they discussed whether he could be gay in the story, and then decided that he wasn't. Rather than honoring the short story by taking the same approach of leaving it unspoken, they decided to make him a widower. Apparently they know better than an award-winning author. If they had to understand and explain to the audience why a single man would adopt a child, they could simply have asked that author, who is after all the lead character in his own story. They didn't do this, and that shows how lazy they were. Of course, they didn't really even have to ask him. Regardless of when he made an official announcement, David Gerrold was out long before this film was made, and at least as far back as the mid-90s when I learned about him as the gay author of the Trouble With Tribbles episode of Star Trek. So I simply do not buy the assertion that the writers did not know, or could not have known he was gay. If I knew, anyone could have.

Why is straightening this character a great crime? First, because it's not their story. Regardless of the legalities behind it, this is David Gerrold's story. It's his short story, his novel, and his film. If they wanted to write a story about a widower adopting a strange kid, I suggest that's what they should have done. Instead they took someone else's story, changed it, and kept the title. So Hollywood.

But why is this a greater crime? Because it is part of an unnecessary anti-gay pattern Hollywood has, particularly when compared with other movie-makers. Hollywood gay characters almost always fall into a few limited categories: (a) dead (b) going to be dead (c) criminal (d) pathetic (e) the victim (f) the entertainment (g) the help (h) the best friend. Then there's (i) not-there-at-all-because-we-decided-they-were-really-straight. The Man Without A Face is another example of that category, as is the Zach character in the TV series Heroes.

I expect better (and I get it from non-Hollywood films). We need a variety of movies, and that means some times the gay guy is going to be the hero.

[–] frequency-2 16 years ago

ynoel2
You should try writing and selling a screenplay about a gay adopting a child. No doubt you would have dozens of companies wanting to pay you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The writer is a writer. If he wants to continue writing for a living then he has to agree to write what the people with the money say. I think he would rather pay for his son's education and all the other things a child needs with his talent.
Gerrold has supposedly said that he tried to get the movie made the way the story is in reality, but nobody want to make that movie.
I don't think he should be ashamed of one dam thing. If anything, those who are interested enough to learn more will find out.
Keep your shame to yourself.

[–] cinemajunky 16 years ago

I think the answer is really quite simple: homosexuality would have added another element of conflict into the story and convoluted the message. The focus of the movie would shift away from The Martian Child and onto the father. Ultimately, the message is to be who you are and not to worry about conforming to what other people think you should be - a very strong message that gets stifled by popular media. Throw in another variable such as a homosexual father trying to win an adoption against a group of social workers who have been taught that 1) single fathers are never good canidates and 2) homosexuals molest children (I know, I know, both points are incredibly erroneous, but that's what some people think!), the story becomes a jumbled mess trying to appeal to too many audiences. Better to keep it at a swift 90 minute feel-good movie than try to make too many points and lose everyone.

Beyond that, stop going to movies expecting them to stand up for your beliefs -do that on your own. Accept that not everyone is as comfortable in your lifestyle as you are and that that's ok as long as they don't impede on your ability to enjoy your life. The fact that someone allows himself to be portrayed as a heterosexual does not in any way limit your freedom to be homosexual. Deal with it.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

[–] frequency-2 16 years ago

Too Bleeding Right, cinemajunky! I expect movies to entertain and tell a story. I expect to get some message, but I don't pay to be preached at about some particular point of view, that's for the unobjective documentary folks to do, so go out and make a doc about your sexuality if you aren't happy with the way "society" views it. The small amount of support you will recieve will come from those who think exactly like you do. Good luck with that, because I don't know of anyone who think's exactly like I do ...except maybe Donald Rumsfeld :)

[–] cinemajunky 16 years ago

It's not that I think a movie about a homosexual struggling to adopt a son wouldn't do fantastically in theaters, because I wholeheartedly agree that it would at least be nominated for several awards just for content alone. It's just that portraying this particular movie's father as homosexual would only serve to detract from the main focus of his struggle to understand and accept a child who does not feel like he has a place in this world. The movie isn't really about John Cusack's character as much as it is about Bobby Coleman's.

As for the entertainment industry preaching at us, there will always be celebrities and directors trying to make their point known. The whole purpose of a movie is to illustrate their beliefs in an entertaining fashion.
My particular point, in this case, is that complaining that a movie didn't go far enough to promote your own particular belief when it was never about your particular belief is like getting vanilla ice cream and complaining that it wasn't chocolate enough for you.

Furthermore, I think the OP needs to consider what would happen had he gotten his way - John Cusack's character is portrayed as a homosexual who feels like an outcast because of his sexuality. Instead of sympathizing with a widower, we're asked to sympathize with a self-hating homosexual. I really don't see that being profitable even with the homosexual audience.

__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] craboo 16 years ago

For the record, your facts are incorrect. 1) It is by no means standard that the originating author gets ANY chance to write a screenplay based on his material. 2) David Gerrold NEVER wrote a draft of the script for David Kirschner. He wrote a draft on his own, predating Kirschner, that was shopped, but met with a cold reaction and never sold. Kirschner came into the process years after the fact. The issue of David Gerrold's homosexuality was NOT mentioned in the short story he wrote that was given to the writers to adapt. His subsequent novella (that did, in fact, include his homosexuality) was written AFTER the movie script. Expecting the writers to somehow know this fact (that was conspicuously missing from the source material) would have required a crystal ball on their part. And more to the point - the version of Gerrold's story in the novella is not what the writer's sold to the studio, because it wasn't the version of the story that Gerrold sold to Kirschner. As for your factual mis-statement that "David Gerrold didn't have a say in what ultimately became the story," it has been well publicized that he met with the writers after-the-fact, and while he had "notes," they were on entirely separate issues, and he never once protested omitting the homosexuality, because IT WASN'T OMITTED by the screenwriters. Gerrold accepts that he didn't include it in his short story. You should, too. End of story.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozz723 16 years ago

Thank goodness he wasn't gay in the story. It would have completely ruined the movie and overshadowed it. Not to mention Cusack wouldn't have been good as a gay man.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]