Battlefield Earth...there's something about this movie...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Random (and not-so-random) thoughts on BE

Well, it's written by Hubbard.

• http://www.xenu.net/
• http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/05/051202.html

And from the Ebert review:

To be honest, I think it was an attempt to put Hubbard's name back in the public eye to reap fresh meat. If the film had been good, and the young people flocked to Hubbard as a storyteller ....

Unfortunately for Scientology the film absolutely sucked. With any luck, it will be twenty years or so before they try something so stupid again. But then again, since people are trying to turn The Matrix into a religion, maybe Travolta and Co. have a point.

After all, there is this review, which tries really hard to lend it some credibility.

But regardless of intentions, when critics are comparing you to both Ed Wood's Plan 9 and Waters' Polyester, you're in bad shape.

I did find this letter blasting the BE project and also L. Ron.

Personally, I think the ideological relationship 'twixt BE and Scientology can be found in the strange ideas that pop up in the script. It's kind of like watching a newly-discovered tribe and not understanding what their rituals and social customs mean. Scientologists, I'm told, understand the plot and script in a different way than the rest of us.

But I disagree with the Evil Dead comparison; at no time did Raimi expect us to take any of those films seriously. Watching ED2 (Dead by Dawn), it becomes clear that the director is laughing with us. Such an attitude, for comparison, is the redeeming aspect of Warlock, starring Julian Sands. Otherwise, it's an overstated B-class, and that, I think, was the deliberate point of the ED films. BE, though, somehow, expects us to take it seriously, and that's the biggest laugh of all.

As a barely-related critical note, though, look at the impact that has had on movies. Star Wars IV was a detailed production, but it's a B-class at heart, and that's what everyone forgets. In the modern day, though, I'll occasionally see films on that principle. I paid money to see Broderick in Godzilla and whoever the hell was in Deep Impact; I went into those films with B-class expectations and, as a result, got my money's worth.

The Matrix? Now there's a B-class that took itself too seriously. I honestly think that film was made because someone spent a load on a clunky effects system and wanted to show it off.

In that sense, I understand some people's attraction to BE. I love bad films, but only if they're self-consciously bad, like Rocky Horror or Microwave Massacre. It's the wacky ones like Class Reunion Massacre that disturb me; that film had a stick up its ass for how bad that was.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kmuh-heheh, whoops, guess I made a mistake there...

Tiassa don't feel like a loner if you love bad movies, there are plenty of people that I know that really enjoy just awful flicks. The thing about the camera tilting was right on, though, it's just tilted so much. I've never read the book (but do not lose faith in me, for I have read many other works of science fiction!)nor do I have any clue as to what scientology is. Could someone clue me in here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scientology is a religion centered in Hollywood, CA, that operates as a private corporation, as per the listing on the indictments. I'm not inclined to speak kindly of it.

Maybe I'll put together a topic in the religion forum, but to be honest, it's an exhausting exercise in futility because there's so much data out there. Suffice to say that its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, apparently lied quite frequently to the point that ... well, this rant should suffice; it's not too far from the dubious public perception the organization has achieved.

Ever see the book Dianetics? That's the foundation of Scientology, essentially. Though tavern mutterings hold that Scientology and Dianetics are drunken boasts of the author that he made good on, that he could "invent" a religion, and also that the uncanny frequency with which Tom Cruise (famous Scientologist) rescues some hapless person in England might be arranged by his publicist on behalf of the church. (This has no known foundation, but it seems strange that when Europe is strongly resisting Scientology to the point of it being outlawed in--I think--Germany, the highest-profile Scientologist on the market is becoming "Saint Thomas".)

The church itself has been indicted in the death of one Lisa McPherson. The indictment was eventually dropped, but if you want your stomach turned, here are the autopsy photos.

Suffice to say that Scientology needs its own topic in the religion forum, but to be honest, anything we say or do might get Porfiry sued. Scientology's first response to any implication of wrongdoing is not to address the issue itself, but to attack the reputation of the accuser. At this point, I risk digressing into a political rant, so I'll can it for now.

• Operation Clambake, The Fight Against the Church of Scientology
• What is Scientology? from the above-linked Scientology site.

Let's put it this way: even the brightest and most devoted student of Scientology cannot advance without giving the church money. Repeatedly.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks tiassa. I heard of Dianetics, also that it was a crock of sh*t, but nowadays every religion has some sort of scandal going on so I guess one incy wincy murder makes no difference.

OH MY GOD!!! CHRIST, THEY'RE MAKING ANOTHER ONE!!! WITH THE SAME DIRECTOR (WHO SHOULD'VE COMMITTED SUICIDE AFTER READING THE REVIEWS OF HIS MOVIES)!! This is nuts, truly most sequels are worse than the original, I don't know how this could be any worse than the very worst movie ever, ever made (I believe the 'Citizen Kane of bad movies,' Freddy Got Fingered (Tom Green) is the trophy holder in this category).

I'm definitely going to see it with everyone (cactus, oeddie) the day it comes out, though.

I think I speak for everyone when I say HOLY F*CKING SH*T WHAT THE F*CK ARE THEY F*CKING THINKING???

This is impossible, just impossible. Remakes are usually done with completely different crews and casts, this has everyone coming back for a completely new run. My god these guys really must be nuts, like exile-them-to-china-NOW-nuts, my god...

 

There must be a lot of closeted scientologists, I guess, for them to warrant a sequel. Tiassa I saw on the who's online that you were writing a reply so chances are that I won't get to it in THIS reply so don't explode in anger or anything...

Am I crazy to say that the guy who played 'Johnnie' really wasn't as terrible as really everyone else in the movie (his friends, his girlfriend, the aliens, the other humans)?

 

Am I to understand that the are making a sequel???

 

BFE the Second

Well, I hopped over to the Internet Movie DataBase to check out the listings for Roger Christian, apparently signed to direct the BFE sequel.

Christian has a couple of films slated for this year. Bandido, scheduled for 2002 release, is somewhere in production.

However, Christian also has Alien Agent slated, and as of last month it was in pre-production. The synopsis of the film ... I don't know, it could be a front. (I can't recall what the hell the Star Wars project was called, but it wasn't "Star Wars", in an effort to deceive other studios. "Red" something, I think it was known as a WWII film, also characterized by the rough cut with war footage instead of FX scenes. So there's that.) But those are the only two films slated for the director this year. Anyone more familiar with the books can tell me if Alien Agent sounds remotely like BFE (my new, preferred abbreviation for BattleField Earth).

And as a note to Pollux V ... hey, if you can find some redemption in that film, go for it. The worst movie I've ever seen had its redeeming points. I mean, Robin Williams did okay, but the script sucked. (The film was Patch Adams. Remarkably bad for so much potential. But as a general rule, if this is the bottom of the barrel, it's because it's 3.30 in the morning here and I'm out of cigarettes and I generally don't like most of the movies I see, so picking the worst I've ever seen is a little like naming my all-time favorite song.)

And about the camera angles: I read somewhere in those reviews that it had to do with the evil dudes being 10 feet tall. Christian apparently hasn't figured moderation or method, just concept. Of course, even during the period of X-Files that I liked, was it me or did Mulder change height from week to week? I just remember this one episode; he was about 15 inches taller than Scully ....

Maybe Travolta will buy him a nifty computer and they can FX every frame to make the evil dudes big. LOTR in reverse.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well I'm referring to the constant angle of the cameras, how they are usually slanted, like when that king alien guy warps in or when they're about to send the 'gastrones' to retake Earth. He just did it constantly.

Plus I managed to snag a picture of this director fellow, you'd think he was this fresh and young guy just out of a crappy film school but oh no it turns out that he's this old dude who's been making films for awhile.

 

I just hated Battlefield Earth, I dont have to explain why....

 

Pollux I know exactly what you mean. I hate that movie and i cant seem to stop watching it. WHY~? WHY!? GOD WHY!? am I drawn to watch such a stupid movie?!