has anyone actualy read the book? is it any good? I’m a bit reluctant to go see a movie based on somthing L. Ron Hubbard wrote, but damn, it looks mighty cool. is there any sort of scientlogy propaganda in the movie?
also, is there any truth to the rumor that the reason John Travolta took the role was because he is an L. Ronner himself?
…it’s ok.
Nothing great but not a bad beach/poolside book either. It’s actually the first of something like 15 books in the series. I think I got through three of them. Not because they were awful but mostly because most bookstores have crappy sci-fi sections and tend to carry books 1, 6 and 8. I didn’t like them enough to go to the trouble of ordering them either though :).
Don’t let the L. Ron Hubbard thing put you off. I know just enough about Scientology to think it’s very bizarre. While I’m no expert I didn’t see anything in his Battlefield Earth series to suggest they were anything other than mediocre sci-fi novels.
As for John Travolta maybe he thought it was cool to play a part in a movie written by someone he respected. Beyond that I doubt there’s much else to it.
I thought the book was pretty good, if long. But I read it years ago. I was not aware there was a series, but probably won’t go looking for them.
I have no idea if the movie will remain true to the book or not, but as has been hashed out on this board in various threads, it will likely suffer some “damage” due to differing formats. The ads look okay. The movie may or may not be good - depending on if there’s a story and characters or just effects.
I do not know for sure on how the movie was cast, but I do know that both John Travolta and Tom Cruise are Scientologists. I’m not sure who else is in the movie.
I suppose you can treat it like any other movie - go to see it if you think you’ll like it, otherwise don’t. I don’t think the movie will be a big propaganda. It is possible that the movie is being supported/produced by the Scientologists, and they have a deal for a cut of the profits, so that could play a role in your motivations, but you’ll want to verify that with someone else, 'cause I sure don’t know.
Actually IIRC, ‘Battlefield Earth’ is a stand alone. The series (of 10 IIRC) is ‘Mission Earth’. I read all 11 and frankly wasn’t very impressed with Battlefield Earth but I really enjoyed the Mission Earth series which tends to be much more humorous.
One of the reviews I read in the newspaper said that the movie was financed by the Church of Scientology and the strategy is to get people to start reading Hubbard’s crap, including their bible “Dianetics”. Because this was in the newspaper it may not necessarily be true, but it makes sense, because the movie-going demographic is young and gullible. Travolta is a hard core Scientologist (meaning they’ve sucked him off for millions of dollars).
I know Scientology agents are going to read this post so I’m glad I don’t publish my email. This is one very nasty aggressive cult capable of anything.
I enjoy science fiction movies but this one I will not watch even for free on TV, just on principle.
I read B.E. when I was 13 - 14 y.o. and heavily into science fiction at the time. Still like it (SF) but don’t read it exclusively anymore. At the time I thought it was fantastic. That was in the Piers Anthony / Terry Brooks / etc. days. A year or so before I ‘found’ Bradbury, Assimove, Clark et al. Who knows what I’d think of the book today?
funneefarmer is right, BE is stand alone, Mission Earth is a decology. I preferred BE to ME, mainly because the main character in ME was a pathetic looser, more so than my he is supposed to be that way tolerance. Anyway, I don’t recall any scientology in the books. I am going to see the movie out of a sense of nostalgia.
BE’s production was paid for by $cientologists and firms run by $cientologists … the Cult will get most of any profits from this movie (hopefully not a dime - the movie cost $80 million and from all reports, it sucks monkey butt). Not merely “possible”, this is cold fact.
And John Travolta has tried to get this movie made for YEARS - he originally wanted to play the hero, now he’s too old, so he plays the villain. Travolta, of course, is Hollywood’s (and perhaps, the world’s) most prominent $cientologist and exhibits a dyed-in-the-wool loyalty to the Cult.
All of L.Ron’s writings (ALL of them), according to the Cult’s most basic tenets, contain deep spiritual truths. BE is considered by the Cult not only one of L.Ron’s masterpieces but one of his most powerful religious allegories. With BE (the movie), it is the direct intent of the Cult to get more people interested in the Cult of $cientology via L.Ron’s crappy and long-winded sci-fi novels. Beware. Semi-subliminal references to the Cult’s “teachings” will certainly infest this movie (for example: BE’s aliens are called “Psyklos”, whereas the Cult teaches that psychologists are mortal enemies of humanity).
(For what it’s worth, Tom Cruise and his wife have - allegedly - recently severed ALL ties with the Cult. Great news, if it’s true.)
You can learn more about the many misdeeds of the “very bizarre” and black-hearted, money-grubbing, preposterous UFO cult at http://www.xenu.net
The general critical consensus of the book BATTLEFIELD EARTH was that it was a 1940s potboiler. The fact that it came out in the 1980s made it seem even worse – Hubbard used themes that were badly dated and ultimately ridiculous.
Of course, current SF films tend to be rehashes of 1940s SF, so who knows?
I doubt you’ll see much direct Scientology propaganda; the church isn’t dumb.
BBQ Pit response:
Don’t hold back, RTA, tell us how you really feel.
GD Response:
How is that any different from Christianity?
GQ Response:
I’ve read BE and part of ME. Besides the “Psychlo” reference, what aspects of BE will “brainwash” people? That is, I read a fairly mediocre sci-fi epic. Obviously I missed some indoctrination. What?
I liked BE (the book). It’s not bad, just a little long. I’m re-reading it right now before the movie comes out. In both my readings I didn’t see any scientology in it only some “basic truths” that I’ve seen in a lot of books and movies.
I heard the movie isn’t that good but I’m gonna see it anyway.
I know enough about Scientology to know they’re loons but Hubbard’s sci-fi books ain’t bad.
Movie reviews are really more of an MPSIMS thing. I’ll move the thread over there for you.
The book was about 1,000 pages long. The movie is, I assume, about two hours long. You think maybe they cut some stuff out? 
Travolta is a Scientologist.
The movie was financed by Scientology.
Draw your own conclusions.
(for andros)
BBQ Pit answer:
Token sarcasm accented by boldface for emphasis? Is that the best you can do?
GD Response:
Different from Christianity … hmm, let’s see … one is the 2,000 year old heir of a much older rabbinical tradition and is 100% free to belong to; the other was founded 50 years ago by a creep hack looking to make a buck and all adherents are expected to eventually fork over a total of approximately $350,000. One elevates the family above all else, the other orders its adherents to sever all ties from their families, or else. One renders assistance to people in prison, the other has its own prison where “discipline cases” toil in slave-like conditions. One …
GQ Response:
Where did I say brainwash? Surely people cannot be expected to collapse to the will of the $cienos after suffering through one long book. Though it’s true that after reading BE, you elected to pick up even more L.Ron. Imagine where you would be today if you decided that he was actually a great writer … probably walking around some compund in a light blue shirt and khakis, talking about how you’d rid yourself of your latest “thetan” (parasite spirits from outer space who live inside your body and cause things like backaches, the flu, or allergies). The Cult used its power to finally push BE the movie into being, and we can expect to see much advertising which intimates that “just as BE=L.Ron, so does L.Ron=Dianetics”, and “you liked BE, so why not give Dianetics a try?”, and “Dianetics - a manual for living from the author of BE - ‘I couldn’t put it down!’ - John Travolta”. This is not advanced marketing theory.
Gee, I’m a big sci-fi fan, so when I saw the movie was coming out, I rushed out and read the book. This was just a couple of months ago. I found the book to be highly entertaining and very enjoyable.
Never once while reading the book did I give even a fleeting thought to the whole Scientology bit. I am really looking forward to seeing the movie because I liked the book and I like John Travolta. I guess I don’t really care who gets my $7.
IMHO, it’s a free country, so if somebody wants to pay $350K to be part of a religion, who am I to say anything? I know basically nothing about Scientology, but if what RTA says is factually correct, well, I guess I’d have to say I think Travolta’s a little nuts to be part of something like that. But are they actually persecuting people or doing physical harm? What’s the big Scientology threat? Is there really some big moral dilemma over whether I should see the movie? Like I said, I don’t know a lot about it–these are honest questions.
By the way, I have never read anything else by Hubbard. And as a result of reading BE, I have no desire to flee my current religion in favor of Scientology.
I really loked the book, BE. I’ve read it saveral times. ( so sue me, I’m a loser:). I am looking forward to the movie,'cuz I enjoyed the book. That’s all.
BTW, RTA, that’s a pretty blanket condemnation of christianity, there. It seems a little harsh…
Sunshine, the reasons scientology has a bad reputation are multiple:
(you can find some anti-scientology information at http://www.xenu.net)
[ul]
[li]They are reputed to viciously attack people who criticize them and try to slander their reputation. As an example, the author of a Time magazine article calling the church of scientology “The Cult of Greed” said this in his article: “For the TIME story, at least 10 attorneys and six private detectives were unleashed by Scientology and its followers in an effort to threaten, harass and discredit me.”[/li][li]They try to stifle criticism of their religion on the internet through lawsuits and spam.[/li][li]There are several accusations of mistreatment of followers, one notable example being the death of Lisa McPherson.[/ul][/li]
I also read an article in the Los Angeles Times about 10 years ago where they mentioned that the Church of Scientology, when being investigated by the IRS, had some church members apply for jobs at the IRS to try and “spy” on the auditors. Those church members were later arrested and convicted. (I don’t think the article is on-line anywhere, but I think I still have it at home somewhere and can find more details if you’re interested.)
I’ll be the first to admit that I am biased against Scientology and Dianetics, because a friend of mine in Switzerland ruined himself (and cut off contact with his friends) after joining the church. So you should take whatever I say with a grain of salt. I personally believe that they are worse than other organized “religions.” (At first Dianetics claimed to be a “science” and then switched to “religion” and the appelation “church of scientology”; critics claim that the change was for the tax advantages.)
I could be mistaken, but I think BE was actually written before Scientology was founded, so I wouldn’t go looking for propaganda in it. (If that’s all you’re looking for, go see “Phenomenon.”)
I read both BE and the ME series back in high school, when my tastes weren’t particularly refined. I recall liking BE, but even then I recognized that the ME series was absolutely terrible, even worse than the worst excesses of Piers Anthony.
[big]SPOILER ALERT:[/big] [small]IIRC, humans triumphed by teaching the subjugated female Psychlos how to do basic math. It’ll be interesting to see whether this plot point makes the transition to the Hollywood blockbuster format.[/small]
Well, it reads like it was written before Scientology was founded, but it was published in the 1980s. At the time, it was claimed to be Hubbard’s return to SF, implying it was all new. But it’s certainly possible it was one of his old trunk novels (i.e., a novel you can’t sell and keep in a trunk until years later).
Well, shoot. Thanks a lot, Captain Bringdown. Now how am I supposed to go see the movie with a clear conscience? How about I pay for a different movie and then sneak into BE? Then the Scientologist jerks won’t get my $7 and I still get to see the movie.
In all seriousness, thanks for the info and the grain of salt. (Insert tequila joke here.) Ok, ok, really–that was very informative stuff you provided, Arnold. I can’t say that I’ve ever actually heard anything good about Scientology. My (I guess somewhat naive) philosophy of life has always been to assume that people are basically good. Sometimes that’s not a good thing.
~~Sunshine
[QUOTE]
IIRC, humans triumphed by teaching the subjugated female Psychlos how to do basic math[/quote}
For the record, you recall incorectly. The psychlo/female math bit was in the book, but it was a very minor point and had nothing to do with overthrowing the Psychlos. Basicly, P females could not be taught math,(They had a chip in their brains to prevent it) that’s all.