I found that the less I put on the stage, the more the audience would imagine a much more compelling set than I could ever build
Analogous to Card's statement, lately I've come to realize that I like movies better when they don't explicitly tell you everything. I think a good formula for writing is to lay all the facts out, then remove one or two of them from the script.
I'd almost agree with you, but as you describe it, the result would just be deus ex machina. It's not fair to just pull a resolution out of your butt, that couldn't possibly have been predicted.
Better to have all the facts there, but not in your face. Commonly, a film with focus on a key point, or dwell on an image, to ensure that the viewer gets it, and I think that's a mistake. A good example of a movie that gets it right is Silence of the Lambs, in which all the information is there, but the viewer needs to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I didn't mean deux ex machina. You can provide the information and let the audience infer the result, or you can explicitly show the result. As you build the storyline and subplots, judiciously allowing the audience to interpret what happened at intermediate points in the story or at the end can make it more interesting than simply laying it all out.
It's always a balancing act. Chances are any specific level of detail will belabor the point for some readers/watchers, while simultaneously leaving others in the dark.
Analogous to Card's statement, lately I've come to realize that I like movies better when they don't explicitly tell you everything. I think a good formula for writing is to lay all the facts out, then remove one or two of them from the script.