Well, it looks like the movie people are starting to bring out the “classic” sci-fi books and attempting to make them into a 2 hour picture show. I saw Bicentennial Man, and it actually wasn’t bad…they added a bunch of stuff to the story, and it had a romantic bent to it that was absent in the short story…but not a bad rendition. I was fairly impressed that they at least attempted to follow the story.
But I saw the trailer for Battlefield Earth, and I’m pretty sure I’ll hate it. Nothing against John Travolta, but I don’t think he’ll be able to play a believable Terl…sigh…I’ll probably go and see it, but I’m almost sure to be disappointed.
Ahhh…you’re right Chief…forgot about that…about the only thing they got right in there was the citizen/non-citizen thing…but they didn’t stress it nearly as much as in the book…although it’s been over 10 years since I’ve read it…
No, you were right. Forget all about Starship Troopers. Incredibly stupid flick.
BTW, unless you’re a Scientologist, no one in science fiction thinks Battlefield Earth is a classic.
Hollywood has a terrible record in translating written SF to the screen. About the only first-class job (true to the story and a good movie, too) was A Boy and His Dog.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
Well, I don’t know as I agree with your statement there…I am about as far as you could get from being a Scientologist, but I love the book…so do several sci-fi readers that I know…Although he could have ended it in about a dozen places, I thought it was incredibly well written. Of course, that is IMHO…of course.
Hollywood’s been butchering good SF for years now. Besides the revolting Starship Troopers (Considering that Verhoven probably lied his ass off to Ginny Heinlein to get the go-ahead to make it, I would not be surprised if she swears a mighty oath to never give permission to make a movie out of one of Heinlein’s stories ever again), don’t forget the hash they made out of The Postman. Sigh. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if ‘creative’ and ‘original’ weren’t four-letter words in this town…
I doubt they can make the movie version ofBattlefield Earth any worse than than the book was, though. There’s a point when crap just doesn’t get any crappier.
To this day, Harlan Ellison has not forgiven L. Q. Jones for messing with the ending. (Of course, Unca Harlan’s known for not forgiving people who muck with his stories.) In the story, it’s quite clear that only Blood (the dog) eats the dead girl, that Vic (the boy) does not. In the movie, it seems that they both did so and Blood, totally out of character, dismisses the whole event with a wisecrack about the girl having “good taste.”
However, Harlan has said that other than the ending, he likes the story, and thought the sperm-milking machine was a good idea. On reflection, it made sense the people of underground Topeka (I think that’s where Vic went) would use this method of continuing their population, rather than allowing Vic to have his way with their fair, young daughters.
While we are on to Scientology: I understand the L. Ron Hubbard wrote mostly crap, and that they enormous sales of his SF novels are largely due to Scientologists being forced to buy them. Was this Hubbard insane? Some people told me that he spent time in mental hospitals, and that he was widely known to be unbalanced.
Hardly! How many untalented hack pulp fiction writers do you know who have died millionaires with thousands of fawning followers? The man was clearly a genius. Now, if you want to suggest his followers are insane, you might have a case.
I have to agree here. Hubbard was no fool. I’m not too sure about his followers though.
Also, Battlefield Earth was written to be a science fiction work in the classical definition (see the intro to the book) - which it accomplishes well.
His Mission Earth decology wasn’t too bad either. A bit repetative, but humorous and fast-paced.
It’s interesting how Harln Ellison’s name came up in a discussion about L. Ron Hubbard. It’s interesting because Harlan hated Hubbard as a no-talent hack even before Dianetics. And Harlan claims to have been a witness to the moment Hubbard decided to invent Scientology. Read this: http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/Harlan.Ellison
Harlan also claims that writers Alfred Bester, Cyril Kornbluth and Lester Del Rey were also present.
When Hubbard complained he wasn’t making enough money as a writer, the others, jokingly, suggested he start his own religion if he wanted to be REALLY rich.
This interview was first published in the November-December 1978 issue of a now-defunct magazine called Wings–The New Age Satire Magazine. The link to the online version was provided by Harlan’s own website, http://harlanellison.com/
I’m not sure why we’re picking on science fiction as a genre that Hollywood can’t get right. Good adaptations of great novels are scarce in Tinseltown.
Hmmm… this sounds like a new thread.
“Cheddar?”
“We don’t get much call for that around here, Sir.”
Movies of novels are generally worse than the original, but science fiction has a particularly egregious record on that fron. Dare I mention Dune? There have been a few exceptions, though.
The Man who Fell to Earth was less powerful than the novel, but still a good movie.
2001 A Space Odyssey was better than The Sentinel
If we include fantasy, the list grows:
The Princess Bride was an excellent movie based upon an excellent book.
Nosferatu is better than Dracula.
*JFK[/] is better than The Warren Commission’s report.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Any critical discussion of L. Ron Hubbard’s books is inevitably colored by his creation of Scientology. Scientologists claim he was a major name in the field; anti-scientologists call him a no-talent hack.
As far as I can see, the answer lies in between (of course). Hubbard was a successful pulp SF writer, with some highly regarded at the time (notably, “Fear” and “Typewriter in the Sky,” the latter’s portrayal of an author as God quite telling in light of later events). He was not a top name in the field even back then, but he could be counted on providing a decent potboiler.
Then he retired from the field for about thirty years. When he returned with BATTLEFIELD EARTH, the consensus is that is was a novel hopelessly outdated and poorly written, something that might have been successful as a hack potboiler in 1940, but not published by any SF publisher in 1980, since the themes and characterizations had been done to death in the meantime. The same with MISSION EARTH. There have been wild claims about the popularity of the books, but since Bridge Publications hadn’t, to my knowledge, ever given any audited sales figures, they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Certainly the church bought a lot of copies to enhance Hubbard’s reputation. The Scientologists did work hard to market the books, so they probably sold decently, but their critical reception was poor.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
I wonder if the sales stategy for Battlefield Earth was similar to that for Dianetics. My understanding is that the publisher spends two times the coverprice on marketing for each book sold.
Lets see… I’m no scientologist, I have questions about Hubbard’s overall skill as a writer, I’ve never been able to finish any of his other books…but…I love Battlefield Earth. Travolta is gonna play Terl??? That’s weird. I would have thought he’d play Johnny Goodboy Tyler. Anyone know when the movie is due out?
I believe the movie is coming out in May. I saw a poster for it in the theatre, but didn’t give it much regard. However, the movie is supposedly so good and such a sure thing that they have already greenlighted a sequel. Not that that bit of news will get me into the theatre.
Any potential patron of the movie Battlefield Earth should remember that ALL the royalties from this movie go STRAIGHT into the Cult of $cientology’s coffers. Straight, as in “do not pass go and if you collect $200, bring it with you”. Author Services Inc. controls the rights to LRH’s sci-fi product and is itself managed under the auspices of the Religious Technology Center, copyright holder of all the Cult’s secretive teachings and one of their prime revenue generators. So if you go and see this movie, you will be helping to fund the Cult’s empire of Orwellian misery.
Crazy? - In his final years, L.Ron was indeed a demented and megalomaniacal hermit with a deep fear of germs and a mean drug habit, all much like Howard Hughes. (This after a lifetime of fabricating stories about his own accomplishments …)