I wonder if this film wasn't based on an L. Ron Hubbard book…
-
klawrencio — 17 years ago(March 12, 2009 07:03 AM)
would it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been betterat least slightly betterrecieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one.
WRONG. This movie flat out sucks. It's horribly written, terribly terribly terribly acted, is way too long, has absolutely no pacing whatsoever. All the idiotic scientology nonsense gets lost in the shuffle, so no, it wouldn't have made a difference. Although perhaps Travolta wouldn't have promoted this movie as much as he did had he not been a delusional scientologist so perhaps it would have gotten LESS attention. But certainly not more favorable attention. -
profundity — 16 years ago(May 26, 2009 03:49 PM)
I had barely heard of scientology before this film came out. It was nothing more to me than some new age thing that all the actors were clamoring over, so when I saw it I had no bias against it.
That movie still blew ass and that is as eloquent as I can put it. No grand statement from Tom Cruise or John Travolta could convince me that it seemed like a wonderful idea on paper or unjustly stands as a viewpoint of scientology.
Years later, I have now come to see just what idiocy L. Ron Hubbard was able to convince people of. I may despise the man, but I admire how he manipulated the ignorant.
I actually feel bad for Barry Pepper because after seeing him in 61*, all I could think of was that it only made up for half of this "movie." -
glock78 — 16 years ago(June 20, 2009 05:32 PM)
Had it not been a Scientology project - historically it would have been considered not as bad.
On the other hand Had they actually followed the book, instead of trying to rewrite a perfectly simple story - they could have actually made a beep of money for their "cause" and launch a new SF franchise.
I'm talking Star Wars or Star Trek material here.
Knowing the tendency of SF fans to turn their favorite franchise into a quasi-religion without actual incentive to do so (Trekkies anyone?) - fortunately they have failed to make anything even close to watchable. -
junk-monkey — 16 years ago(January 02, 2010 06:52 AM)
Nope. It would not have been better received. It is derivative trash. The story is full of holes, the acting is ludicrously OTT, it's just bad. Doesn't matter who wrote the original, this film just falls down flat on its face whichever way to try to stand it up.
"Look! - it's the Invisible Man!"
-
ffordegroupie — 12 years ago(April 24, 2013 11:46 PM)
Well it doesn'y really have anything to do with Scientology, so no I don't think it would have been received better.
But then it might not have been as WELL KNOWN if it had been an HG Wells book becuz a major Hollywood star would not have been so eager to make that. -
BertramWilberforceWooster — 12 years ago(April 26, 2013 08:00 AM)
I've often wondered about the possibility of success of an adaptation of Fear. Make no reference to Hubbard or Scientology and I think it would stand a fair chance with the horror crowd.
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/ -
trekkie313 — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 09:20 PM)
The movie would still be regarded badly. Big bad aliens who are less threatening than the Ferengi wearing rejected KISS costumes, a planet that explodes because of radiation/pollution, the relative ease of the villains defeat, technology that somehow still works perfectly after 1,000 years, the crappy CGI, "dutch angles", Barry Pepper, and my godthe cornrows, the cornrows!
-
joshb1966 — 12 years ago(August 10, 2013 07:18 PM)
I actually found the movie unwatchable, much much much worse than the book and I HATED the book. The movie is planet of the apes without the apes or the actors. At least the book took some time to develop characters. The whole point behind destroying the Psychlo planet was the surprise factor. The movie just treats it like a battle between equals. The Psychlos are supposed to be big, REALLY big, 9 feet and 1000 lbs. In the movie, they're more like 7 or 8 feet and 300 lbs. The humans are able to fight them hand to hand. Blech. Can I have my two hours back please?
-
Norse_Sage — 12 years ago(December 03, 2013 02:11 AM)
would it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been betterat least slightly betterrecieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one.
If the novel had the same basic story, but was written by someone else: meaning it wouldn't have Hubbard's crap choice of words, sentence structure, and overall Scientology idiocy, the book would have been better received.
You see, the book was mauled by critics
too
.
A movie based on an alternate "Battlefield Earth" written by a more competent author would have better starting point, but for the movie to do it justice, it would still have needed a better script, production design, cinematography and direction than the movie actually ended up having.
Tesla was robbed! -
nephihaha — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 07:55 AM)
Yes, it would have been better received. But unfortunately it's still a bad film. I just read the book - despite the fact it was pretty long, I raced through it and actually enjoyed it
"-recieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one."
Well, a certain high up Scientologist, Tom Cruise, appeared in a turkey known as "War of the Worlds". That was pretty bad.
It's not "Sci-Fi", it's SF!
"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker -
BertramWilberforceWooster — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 08:47 PM)
I was 18 when this came out, and knew nothing about Scientology. I bought the novel, read it, and, despite many of the same problems in the film, it was enjoyable. Hell, I liked it enough that I've gone back to re-read it twice since. It's a guilty pleasure.
Now, having said that, the film was just crap. Even without Hubbard's association to the story, it would STILL be crap.
Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. -
Authoring — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 10:00 PM)
Warning: If you care enough, you should copy and paste this somewhere before this guy:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2976184/
inevitably gets it deleted.
LMAO! Josh, out of what I can only imagine was utter embarrassment (and rightfully earned embarrasment at that), has finally stopped trying to get the last word (in this thread:
http://www.imdb.com/board/11454029/board/nest/220116505?p=1
using his various other accounts to delete posts that pointed out how he was wrong, and just went and deleted all of his and my posts and everyone else's posts, and changed his username from JoshuaHutchins to
BertramWilberforceWooster
! LMAO! Wow, this is hilariously amazing. I've never felt so vindicated over something that occured online. Whatever he changes his name to, here's a link to his main profile:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2976184/
Below is the argument between he and I in full with his old posts in the quote boxes and my old responses outside of those boxes and underneath his posts.
Summary of what this post is all about
: This is basically an argument wherein BertramWilberforceWooster/JoshuaHutchins claims to like a movie but not its book form. Then, when asked why he disliked the book, he confidnetly and rudely lists negatives that happened in the movie, not the book! When this is pointed out to him he basically mentally sharts himself a bunch then finally screams in all red capitol letters something that translated too, "I WAS TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE BOOK FOR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS THAT MY CLASS WAS FORCED TO READ IN HIGH SCHOOL ONCE BUT THAT I DIDN'T READ PAST PAGE 10 OF PERSONALLY PARTLY BECAUSE IT HURT MY HEAD BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE MAIN DUDE CRIED OVER HIS FRIEND WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE IN THE PART I READ AND THAT MADE MY INSECURE MALE EGO FEEL GAY OR SOMETHING SO I BURNED THE BOOK IN MY BATHTUB AND JUST KNOW ABOUT IT FROM CLASS DISCUSSIONS AND SEEING THE MOVIE 12 YEARS LATER BUT SINCE I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENEID IN IT, I'M CONFUSING WHAT HAPPENED IN IT WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MOVIE AND YOU POINTING THAT OUT IS EMBARRASSING ME WHILE I TRY TO PRETEND TO BE AN AVID READER IN FRONT OF THE BIG IMDB KIDS! GO AWAY!" After my on-the-nose reply to that tantrum he enlists the help of himself via his other accounts and goes on to first reply to me about how his JoshuaHutchins account/character was right and I was wrong without elaborating or anything. Then when I responded to those messages from his other accounts pointing out obvious facts that embarrased him even more, he went on a quest to use his multiple accounts to delete my posts in that thread as well as in other threads unrelated to that one.
I was only able to copy and paste his old posts because my old laptop broke while I had the tab with our original posts still open and upon recently getting it fixed, found it was basically a time capsule for my old internet activity. So below is our argument from before doughy pathetic Josh/Bertram, in utter shame, went delete-crazy. You epitomize unintelligent loser, Bertram/Josh. Unintelligent people go to great lengths to conceal their stupidity from the world, so you doing this makes total sense. Funny how if you didn't actually hate Perks because you never actually read or understood it before, I bet you
actually
hate it now because it must now always remind you of this shameful event where you were revealed to be an unintelligent simpleton and got so embarrased by that being made public that you deleted all of yours and your opponent's posts. How traumatizing for you. Lol, ya big dumb baby.
For the
tl;dr
crowd,
BertramWilberforceWoster
will delete your comments with his other accounts, as he did to mine, if you cotradict him with facts because he is incredibly unintelligent and very insecure about that fact. Below is our argument before he deleted everything:
by
JoshuaHutchins Fri Dec 20 2014 05:27:39 Flag
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
"]
by
RandomUser Thurs Dec 19 2014 02:27:39 Flag
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
"You did not just posted (sic) the Perks of Being a Wallflower. You did not just do that. OMG. NO! The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of the most amazing books ever! The film adaptation does not give justice to the beauty and the flawlessness of the narration in the printed material."
No, I did not just posted that. I wrote it four months ago. Charlie spent the first 3/4 of the book crying every other page, then he spends an 1/8 of the book talking about how he wouldn't cry. Around that mark, we finally get to why he tears up about everything.
Charlie was a pussy? Yeah, you're a moron. You don't seem to have a legitimate reason for disliking the book.
by
JoshuaHutchins Sat Dec 21 2014 07:47:39 Flag
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
This book was marketed toward my generation, was heavily advertised on MTV, I checked it out. It was horrible. The movie -
wallacesawyer — 10 years ago(August 15, 2015 02:17 PM)
I like to think this film is bad on its own merits. I know little of Scientology other than that SOUTH PARK episode. I don't know much of L. Ron Hubbard or most of his writings.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/