I'm concerned not about direct money going from the box office to the author, but how we parse what happens next. Like it or not, a big box office may result in a narrative that someone like Orson Scott Card can take the most objectionable positions in public, can spend money on homophobic activity, and then escape consequence. That's not a narrative I want to see.
I understand there are alternative narratives possible.
Meanwhile, here's a problem that has nothing to do with Card - it glorifies the child soldier.
The problem I have with the movie has to do with the entire concept of child soldiers. Though it makes some gestures towards the idea that Ender is going through a psychological wringer, primarily by portraying him as a target of bullying who knows that his only way out is an even more vicious show of retaliatory force, and to a lesser extent by Viola Davis’s Major Anderson character agonizing over what’s happening to Ender, his military education is still a fairly antiseptic, sanitized environment. The zero-gravity war games aren’t a source of tension; instead, they’re presented as exhilarating, practically fun. There’s even a bit where Asa Butterfield, as Ender, floats through his enemies in slow motion with a gun in each hand, firing away John Woo-style as the music swells. It’s a moment that feels completely at odds with the dark vision of the novel—basically, reducing Ender’s military training to Space Quidditch.So, yeah, that's more typical. The depth of a book is lost beside the action sequences.
Enjoy the movie everyone going!