would it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been bett
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Battlefield Earth
chipandluna — 17 years ago(February 21, 2009 03:31 PM)
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.
~::~::~
The midget I'm dating could be my daughter! ~Denny Crane -
nephihaha — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 03:03 PM)
You're probably right, it would have been better received.
Then again, if Travolta hadn't been involved, it might have gone straight to video too.
My main issues with the film are not with any Scientology related aspects, so much as blatant mistakes and plot holes (Stone Age people learning to fly 1000 year old planes in a few days etc) Haven't they heard of rust? -
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.