Battlefield Earth

Hey, I read Battlefield Earth. I re-read it just a few months ago. This is a great story, and has nothing to do with Scientology. Hubbard explains in the forward in the book that it is an experiment in pure science fiction, and it holds true to that form.

The book was a great, if long, read.

The movie, however, I don’t have high hopes for. Travolta stuck his whiny nose into it and demanded that he play the part of the bad guy, which IMHO is going to ruin the story. I mean, he’s just NOT an 8ft tall purple alien.

That is a large part of the conflict in this story, the fact that this race of Pchychlos are so much more physically and technologically dominating. That is what makes Johnny’s adventures seem so heroic, ect…

Plus, I think that it’s sad that the merest whiff of Scientology can scare a bunch of otherwise perfectly rational people away. No, I’m no fan of that organization either.

Um…do you know anyone who is?

~~Sunshine

I don’t know how much of this movie is sponsored by the Church of Scientology (Cos) (they don’t mention it on their web site), or how much of the profits would go to the Church. Warner Bros. is obviously aware of the negative press that the CoS gets, because I haven’t seen any article or review that mentions that L. Ron Hubbard is the founder of the CoS.

I’m not going to tell anyone to not see the movie. But if someone tells me that the association with scientology or the fear that the CoS will benefit from the profits of the movie is what’s dissuading them from seeing it, then I won’t disagree with them either. I don’t think this movie will be such a cinematic masterpiece (from what I’ve read about it) that missing it will create a cultural void in your life.

If anyone has seen the previous movie “Masterminds” by director Roger Christian (starring Patrick Stewart), you will not have high hopes for this movie. With all due respect to Patrick Stewart, “Mastermind” (the 40 minutes I saw) was an abomination. Screenwriter Corey Mandell has no other credits besides “Battlefield Earth”, so I don’t have anything to judge him on. I started reading an L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi novel once out of curiosity and I thought it was second-rate writing. Those are the main reasons that I personally will not see the movie. If I want to see a bad movie with impressive special effects there are plenty to choose from.

Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here.

First of all: The Scientologists did not pay for this movie. That’s a bit of Internet scare lore; instead of believing what I read in e-mail, I actually look at the trades, so I know what I’m talking about. I won’t say anything else about the relative merits of the CoS organization, but they are not responsible for the financing of Battlefield Earth.

The prime financial backer for this purported turkey is Elie Samaha. He’s one of those wanna-be producers who has flitted around the edges of Hollywood for many years; his filmography up until a couple of years ago included such direct-to-video snoozers as The Peacekeeper (the one with Dolph Lundgren, not the similarly-titled flick starring George Clooney) and Scar City. He got a little notice for the indie flick 20 Dates, in which his wife, Tia Carrere, makes an appearance; he’s the voice of the irate producer chewing out the director. (And no, it wasn’t acting.) Read Ebert’s review for more info on 20 Dates: http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1999/03/031201.html

Lately, simply by dint of his persistence and international financial connections, he’s been able to rack up some more significant deals. He put together the financing for the Bruce Willis comedy The Whole Nine Yards, for example, and he’s also backing the Sly Stallone remake of Get Carter as well as Steve Buscemi’s second directorial outing Animal Factory.

Who is he? Just another Eurotrash money man, like Menachem Golan in the 80’s. He’s got a shingle at Warner Brothers, Franchise Entertainment, which is the money front for Battlefield Earth. If the movie makes money, the Scientologists won’t directly collect any profits, although they will, as always, be able to raid Travolta’s bank account for a big chunk of his share. And they may pick up some fringe dollars from people who go read the book as a result of the movie, and then check out Hubbard’s other work. But by far the man who stands to gain the most is Samaha.

And no: He is not, repeat not, a Scientologist.

Now: As far as the movie’s quality, it has extremely poor buzz, CoS issues aside. For a raft of ordinary-Joe advance-screening reports, check out this link: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=5915

I’ll be there, though, regardless of the extremely negative advance word, because, well, because I see everything. If you want to see it also, but you’re worried about the tiny risk of supporting the Scientologists, then do what I do: Go to a big multiplex, and buy a ticket for another movie starting about the same time, preferably a smaller movie that needs the support (e.g. Time Code, or The Big Kahuna). Then, after they wave you through the gate, go see the movie you’re there for. (For example, when I saw Wild Wild West, it was Summer of Sam that got my money.)

weirddave: Please go back and identify where I issued a “pretty blanket condemnation of christianity”. Careful reading will reveal that I did no such thing. You must have me confused w/ someone else.

The book length/movie length ratio, i.e. 1000 pages/2 hours, has been brought up before; it is an excellent point which I neglected to comment upon … I’d like to take this opportunity to spoil the movie for ALL of you; BE the movie only covers the first half of BE the book. The Cult has already lined up the money to pay for “the sequel” which will actually be just the second half of the book. Regrettably for all you suc - I mean, professed BE fans planning to reimburse the Cult by seeing the movie - it will be a few years yet before you get to see the female Psychlos learn math or whatever laughable nonsense the conclusion entails.

http://www.xenu.net

Um, RTA, That was a JOKE…

I did a little poking around today to check into this some more.

http://www.geocities.com/xenu2000/
One thing they did, they didn’t like the Cult Action Network, an internet group set up to deal with victims of cults, because it dealt with former scientologists. So it sued them, forced them into bankruptcy, bought them out, and proceeded to carry on the Cult Action Network under that name, except now they try to pull everyone into the CoS.

Cervaise said:

And who owns the rights to Battlefield Earth? The CoS.

from http://www.scientology-kills.org/befile.html :

The site at the top has links to reviews that say it stinks. From the pictures of Travolta’s costume, I’m betting that holds true. Take a look at his boots and tell me that isn’t rather silly.

http://www.chud.com/news/mar00/mar30pics.php3

It’s been very funny today to read all the horrible reviews on this movie. Being called the next Ishtar/Waterworld/Plan 9 from Outer Space and worse. That’s been funny enough.

Doubt I’ll go see it tho. I see Revolta and still see a sweathog trying to act.

David Edelstein of Slate has declared BE to be the worst sci-fi movie ever made. There have been some horrendously shitty sci-fi movies, so that’s quite a statement. Has anyone given this movie a good review? (Ebert gave it half a star.)

My understanding (although for the life of me I can’t remember where it came from) was that the COS wouldn’t (directly) receive any money from the movie itself, but would receive all the profits from the merchandising. So if you feel compelled to have a Travolta In Bad Costume action figure, you should re-think it.

I’m still waiting for the Xemu movie, myself.

Dr. J

BE, the novel, is not steeped in Scientology propaganda, maybe about the level of Christian prop in the Narnia series. BE is a 1940’s Sf “Space Opera”, which might have been Ok in 1940, but is “to laff” in the 80’s. I have heard BE the film has pretty damn good special effects, but the plot & acting “sucks donkey dicks”. (the decology was NOT written by LRon, and has a lot of Sc propaganda). I’m not gonna see it, until it comes on cable (if then), but if you REALLY like SF special effects, there could be worse ways to waste $8. :smiley:

It’s rather interesting how Scientology spreads in Hollywood.

[ul]
[li]Mimi Rogers/Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman - Tom converted in 1990, the year he divorced Mimi and married Nicole[/li][li]Lewis family, Geoffrey/Lightfield/Juliette - Father Geoffrey obviously influenced children[/li][li]Ribisi family, Giovanni/Marissa - Giovanni and Juliette Lewis starred in movie together.[/li][li]Bohdi & Jenna Elfman[/li][li]Kirstie Alley/John Travolta/Kelly Preston[/li][li]and a bunch I can’t link together: Isaac Hayes, Jason Lee, Edgar Winter, Anne Archer, Karen Black, Nancy Cartwright, Priscilla Presley, Leah Remini, Chick Corea.[/li][/ul]

The reviews have been uniformly terrible. Ebert had the best line so far: ““Battlefield Earth” is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time.”

And anyone who thinks BE was a good SF novel has read very little SF other than ST and SW novelizations.

RealityChuck,

Now that was just plain uncalled for. I’m not sure who exactly you think you are, or what qualifies you to make this remark:

I could think of a few choice invectives to call you sir, but I’ll leave it up to your imagination as we are in the wrong forum for that.

Hey Maw!..Maw!..Stop slopping them pigs and git yer ass in here, we got us a bone-eee-fied xpert!!!
Pu-leese! What’s the matter, Chuckie, are you so afraid that if you enjoy a novel by L.Ron, you’ll be helpless when the big bad Scientologists come over to brainwash you and take your money? BE is a fine book. I enjoyed it. Is it the best I ever read or in the top 10? No, it’s not, but that dosen’t mean there is anything wrong with it. I have read and enjoyed Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Ellison and Sturgeon too. David Gerrald is not bad, except he seems to want to tell “tribbles” over and over again. Harry Turtledove is an absolute master of blending sci-fi with alternative history into a compelling web. Neil Gaiman is a master storyteller the likes of which have not been seen in a long while, though his stuff is more fantasy like- though not at all like, say, Connan. Anne McCaffrey has created in her Pern books a world that I want to live in, and her other stuff is equally impressive. I have read a bit of ST fiction, and find some authors who are quite able to write outside a Roddenberryian universe.( but certainly not all) The ONLY SW fiction I have read is “Splinter of the Minds Eye” by Alan Dean Foster, and I wonder how many of the current SW fanatics even know that it exists. Speaking of ADF, I highly recommend “To The Vanishing Point” as a great book for those looking for an enjoyable read. So to sum it all up, Chuckie, you seem to be a narrow minded, condescending…(reigning myself in 'cuz it’s not the pit)…Putz!

In a Canadian magazine issued today there are some interviews with Montrealers involved in BE’s production in Montreal.
Quotes:
“Montreal Film Commission’s Andre Lafond”: “No…We didn’t feel the presence of the Scientology group or leaders. No references, no influences, nothing. You wouldn’t have known it had anything to do with Scientology.”
(spoken like a true bureaucratic toad)
“a crew member who worked on second-unit special effects”: “They sent around a lot of propaganda-type stuff. They distributed this magazine to everyone with a giant picture of L. Ron Hubbard on the front, stroking his chin. A few months later, I got a Scientology Christmas card. I was, like, the lowest person on the totem pole there, so the fact they sent me a Christmas card means they probably sent one to everybody.”

A pro science fiction writer whose been reading SF since before you were born.

Now get this straight – I meant nothing pejoritive about ST or SW. They are fine entertainment. But no one whose read any science fiction would consider them great novels.

If you’ve read very little SF (and think it’s about space battles and Ming the Merciless), you may actually like BE. If you’ve read widely in the field, you can see it for what it is – a clumsy and very unsophisticated boy’s adventure that’s no better than a thousand other books. The book has never been considered particularly good – it was never up for either of the major SF awards, and didn’t make the Locus Recommended Reading list or Reader’s Poll in the year it came out. (Locus is the newsmagazine of the field.) When Locus polled for the best SF novels of all time, BE never came close to making the list. (Neither did any ST or SW novels, which was my point.)

All right, first of all, I don’t know who you are, but even if you’re some fantastical award-winning SF wiriter yourself, that doesn’t make whatever you say the truth. I am offended by your claim that I am an unsophisticated boy because I loved the BE book. I have read quite a bit of SF but I have never read any ST or SW book. I will agree with you that BE was no award-winner. That is not the only qualifying factor that makes a book good. How about entertainment? BE was superbly entertaining, especially for its time. When I read it, I could really imagine the events happening. The story and characters were well developed and it had an excellent plot.

That said, the most important point I want to make to EVERYONE reading this, is a public service announcement:

DO NOT GO SEE THE MOVIE! IT SUCKS!

It didn’t do the book justice, the costumes were awful, the camera angles were annoying, the characters were shallow, the story jumps around illogically, important things are not explained…I could go on. Anyway, please don’t waste your time or money on the film! I wanted the two hours of my life back that I squandered watching this film. I feel bad that Travolta has tried to get this movie made for 20 some years and this is what he ended up with.

**

I have not read the book, my spouse has–in fact, just recently due to the movie’s debut–

I wanted to be nice–being the one who had not read the book. But we both agreed.
Stink-a-roony.
It won’t make you want to read the book if you haven’t. It will just tick you off if you have.
If you’re still curious…please save your money and wait to rent it. Trust me, it won’t get any worse for the wait.
Don’t think I’m a basher–I wanted to like the movie. I thought there were some cool effects and all, but I’d sure like to have my money back. I like you all. Just thought I’d do you a favor.

I read it when it was new, back in 1980 or so. The book was based on a possible sequel to the first movie. If SW had been only a small success, this story would have been filmed instead of The Empire Strikes Back. Without any expensive-to-film space battles, Splinter would’ve cost less to make than the original.

The “Splinter of the Mind’s Eye” was a jewel said to greatly magnify the Force in the person holding it. Naturally, Darth Vader wanted it. Luke, Leia and C3PO try to stop him. Han Solo, Chewbacca and R2D2 are not in the novel at all. Perhaps if this had been filmed, the whole cast would have appeared in a slightly different story?

But SW made more money than Monaco, :wink: so…

Sunshine, you said:

Just in the interest of fairness, I think the sentence was supposed to be read: “…a clumsy and unsophisticated boy’s adventure…” rather than “…a clumsy…unsophisticated boy’s adventure [story]…” RealityChuck’s opinion apparently being that the book fits the genre of ‘Juvenile Adventure’ as well or better than it fits ‘Science Fiction.’

Having pointed that out, I certainly agree with you that 'Chuck’s opinion, though an “inside” and informed opinion, is just another opinion.

RealityChuck, while I happen to agree with your assessment of the book, I think our opinions are entirely personal and subjective. It’s perfectly plausible to enjoy the best of Wolfe, Asimov, Clarke, Silverberg, et. al. and still enjoy lesser works. (That’s why “Laverne and Shirley” —Asimov’s favorite TV show, BTW!— was more popular than “Masterpiece Theater.”)

Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t do it or teach it write reviews…