IMPORTANT:
IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content.
As part of our ongoing effort to continually evaluate and enhance the customer experience on IMDb,
we have decided to disable IMDb's message boards on February 20, 2017. This includes the Private Message system.
After in-depth discussion and examination, we have concluded that IMDb's message boards are no longer providing
a positive, useful experience for the vast majority of our more than 250 million monthly users worldwide.
The decision to retire a long-standing feature was made only after careful consideration and was based on data and traffic.
See more
David Gerrold : The unvarnished truth...
The unvarnished truth...
The unvarnished truth...
The following is an email, unedited, I recieved from David Gerrold. Anything else you read on this site about his motives for how this movie came to be, in its current bowlderized state, you can now disregard. This is literally gay from the horse's mouth. It appears with my heart-felt apologies to Mr. Gerrold and his son Sean.
The information on IMDB is inaccurate. Other people are putting words in my mouth, misinterpreting things that they took out of context. I have already asked the individual involved not to do that anymore. What I said was, They paid me a lot of money to make the movie they wanted to make; if anyone else wants to pay me a lot of money to make a movie they want to make Ill be happy to take it. It was a bittersweet joke I made to friends who already knew the backstory, and who already knew that this is the way that the movie industry usually works. I did not realize that this flip comment would make its way to the Internet. You have my apology.
Heres the story that hasnt been told, and you have my permission to repost this.
I argued long and hard that the picture should be about a single gay man adopting a little boy. Then I argued long and hard that at least we shouldnt add a dead ex-wife. Just have him be a single man, period. The gay audience would get it. I lost both those arguments.
Heres the reasoning of the production company:
1) If the picture is about a single gay man, it will earn less than if it is about a widower. There are large segments of the movie-going audience that will not go see a picture if the hero is gay. But they will sympathize with a man who has lost his wife. This is the studios argument. Studios think about profits. Thats part of how movies get made. I think Brokeback Mountain destroys that argument, but at the time the decisions had to be made about The Martian Child, who knew?
2) Is the movie about a single gay man, or is the movie about a man adopting a child and the two of them each discovering their own humanity in the family they build together? For me, the story has always been about a father and a son; if you take out the fathers homosexuality, does the story still work? Yes, it does. Indeed, my sexual orientation was never mentioned in the original short story.
And while there are a lot of movies and TV shows addressing the issues of gay people, not a lot are being made about kids in group homes who need parents. Given a choice a story that argues gay issues or a story that helps the half million kids still in the foster care system find homes faster, I personally choose the latter. Not because I dont think gay issues are important; I certainly do think theyre important. (Remember, Im the guy who wrote a gay-themed script for Star Trek: The Next Generation, then quit the show when it became apparent they had no intention of filming it. So Im no stranger to this battle.)
But at this moment in time, my personal priority is the well-being of the children. Its part of the commitment I made when I chose to become an adoptive parent. My son is only one child out of half a million. There are too many other children who will never know the loving touch of a committed parent because theres a critical shortage of qualified adoptive parents willing to take on the challenge of a special needs child. I intend to use the publicity machine of the picture to be an advocate for qualified people to apply for adoption so that we can find homes for those kids who otherwise would never have a family.
Bottom line? Yes, Im disappointed that I could not sway the studio. But I still intend to make sure that the rest of the story gets told.
Since the picture has been filmed, I have continued to have long conversations with the producers. Theyve asked me how Im going to deal with the reaction of the gay audience. I told them that I would tell the truth that I argued for the character being gay and was repeatedly overruled by others. I also told them that if theres any embarrassment, it will be theirs for de-gaying the hero of the story. It was outvoted. Repeatedly.
I understand your position. As you pointed out, I had a choice between letting them make this picture or not having the picture made at all. Given the opportunity for the picture to inspire people to adopt, and to help kids get out of the foster care system, it was not a difficult choice for me. I know where my heart is. My son was lucky, he got out of the foster care system. The other kids well, if I can be their voice for a while, I will.
Thanks for understanding.
dg
The information on IMDB is inaccurate. Other people are putting words in my mouth, misinterpreting things that they took out of context. I have already asked the individual involved not to do that anymore. What I said was, They paid me a lot of money to make the movie they wanted to make; if anyone else wants to pay me a lot of money to make a movie they want to make Ill be happy to take it. It was a bittersweet joke I made to friends who already knew the backstory, and who already knew that this is the way that the movie industry usually works. I did not realize that this flip comment would make its way to the Internet. You have my apology.
Heres the story that hasnt been told, and you have my permission to repost this.
I argued long and hard that the picture should be about a single gay man adopting a little boy. Then I argued long and hard that at least we shouldnt add a dead ex-wife. Just have him be a single man, period. The gay audience would get it. I lost both those arguments.
Heres the reasoning of the production company:
1) If the picture is about a single gay man, it will earn less than if it is about a widower. There are large segments of the movie-going audience that will not go see a picture if the hero is gay. But they will sympathize with a man who has lost his wife. This is the studios argument. Studios think about profits. Thats part of how movies get made. I think Brokeback Mountain destroys that argument, but at the time the decisions had to be made about The Martian Child, who knew?
2) Is the movie about a single gay man, or is the movie about a man adopting a child and the two of them each discovering their own humanity in the family they build together? For me, the story has always been about a father and a son; if you take out the fathers homosexuality, does the story still work? Yes, it does. Indeed, my sexual orientation was never mentioned in the original short story.
And while there are a lot of movies and TV shows addressing the issues of gay people, not a lot are being made about kids in group homes who need parents. Given a choice a story that argues gay issues or a story that helps the half million kids still in the foster care system find homes faster, I personally choose the latter. Not because I dont think gay issues are important; I certainly do think theyre important. (Remember, Im the guy who wrote a gay-themed script for Star Trek: The Next Generation, then quit the show when it became apparent they had no intention of filming it. So Im no stranger to this battle.)
But at this moment in time, my personal priority is the well-being of the children. Its part of the commitment I made when I chose to become an adoptive parent. My son is only one child out of half a million. There are too many other children who will never know the loving touch of a committed parent because theres a critical shortage of qualified adoptive parents willing to take on the challenge of a special needs child. I intend to use the publicity machine of the picture to be an advocate for qualified people to apply for adoption so that we can find homes for those kids who otherwise would never have a family.
Bottom line? Yes, Im disappointed that I could not sway the studio. But I still intend to make sure that the rest of the story gets told.
Since the picture has been filmed, I have continued to have long conversations with the producers. Theyve asked me how Im going to deal with the reaction of the gay audience. I told them that I would tell the truth that I argued for the character being gay and was repeatedly overruled by others. I also told them that if theres any embarrassment, it will be theirs for de-gaying the hero of the story. It was outvoted. Repeatedly.
I understand your position. As you pointed out, I had a choice between letting them make this picture or not having the picture made at all. Given the opportunity for the picture to inspire people to adopt, and to help kids get out of the foster care system, it was not a difficult choice for me. I know where my heart is. My son was lucky, he got out of the foster care system. The other kids well, if I can be their voice for a while, I will.
Thanks for understanding.
dg
Re: The unvarnished truth...
Wow , that sums it all up. Now when in the hell is he gonna finish the Chtorr?