Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Are you ready' A BATTLEFIELD EARTH test review...

Ok, well we got our first review of BATTLEFIELD EARTH today... and it's a doozy. The reviewer, who I'll call Tony Manero, well... didn't care too much for the movie. Citing 'INCREDIBLY HUGE plot holes' as his main critique. He also doesn't seem to have gotten any camp pleasure out of the film. In a weird way this film reminds me of FORTRESS. There are spoilers described below, but I'd rather you go see FREQUENCY today... So go out... and see FREQUENCY it's very very good.

I was able to attend a sneak preview of Battlefield Earth last night in Towson, MD last night. What initally started out as a very slick, stylish movie with an interesting premise, quickly turned into a stardard Sci-Fi Action flick with some INCREDIBLY HUGE plot holes. Below are my thoughts, with some potential SPOILERS of the movie, although I do not give away the ending.

The movie starts in the year 3000. Man has already been overrun by the aliens, and is on the verge of extinction. A nomad (Barry Pepper), who lives in the mountains with his clan, leave the village to see the 'demons'. He stumbles into an abandoned city, and is captured and sent to a prison. at this point, the movie then turns into the Generic action flick, and starts to break down. John Travola plays an Alien who is the head of Security on Earth who is forced to stay wile stripping of natural resources continues. His assistant (Forrest Whitaker) finds a vein of gold in the mountains, and they come up with a plan to train some 'man-animals' to use their machinary to strip the mine. (The aliens cannot go into the mountains because of the differences in air that they breath) The humans who are trained to go there decide to fight back, and the inevitable Big Battle occurs. I really wanted to like this movie, however, it had WAY to many glaring problems. Here are a few ! of the most glaring ones:

1. There is a bar scene in the beginning, which seems to exist only to point out the fact that John Travolta is the Bad Guy. It's almost as if this scene is filmed with a big Neon sign stating this, even though you already know this.

2. Travolta's character has six fingers on his right hand. This is shown early in the film in an obvious manner. No other aliens have six fingers on their right hand, and this is never explained in the movie.

3. Travolta uses a device that beams info into the head of the Hero (Barry Pepper) in order to be able to teach him their language so they can communicate. For some reason, he also beams in history on the alien race, and how their technology works, and also teaches him how to fly their planes. Hmm.

4. Travolta takes him to a library to read up on earths history. This man has been living like a caveman his whole life, wall drawings and all, and now he is able to read American History Books ? And in this time period, he is also able to determine exactley where in America Washington DC is, and Fort Knox, and is able to fly them there without error.

5. Fort Knox is described as being raided for the gold supply, yet when they arrive, it is completley filled! (On a side note, 1000 years in the future, you can knock down the front door and walk right into the wide open vault to get the gold in Fort Knox)

6. THIS IS A MOVIE WHERE 1000 YEAR OLD, PERFECTLY WORK HARRIER JUMP JETS ARE EXPERTLY PILOTED BY CAVEMEN WITH 7 DAYS OF TRAINING !!! Earlier in the movie, Travolta tells Pepper "When we arrived, All your technology, and all your intelligence, and we were able to beat you in 9 minutes" 15 minutes later in the movie, Cavemen who were carrying spears and grunting at each other are flying Harriers with precision, hovering inside abandoned buildings, and jinxing like experts while blowing the Alien craft out the sky left and right. (They were also grunting after blowing up enemy ships with sidewinder missles) All in less than 9 minutes....

7. The actors who played the aliens are supposed to be 9ft. tall. Unfortunately, in order to accomplish this, the actors had to wear HUGE lifts. This gave them an awkward looking walk, similar to the way that people on stilts walk. . Sometimes very distracting.

I went into this movie with no preconceptions, just wanting to see a good 'Popcorn' movie. The first 15 minutes or so were very stylish, with lots of slo-mo and interesting camera angles, however, it then fell into a generic Action flick pacing soon afterwards. Travolta was good as the alien, but there were 3 or 4 scenes where I felt he was acting WAY over the top. Forrest Whitaker could have used more screen time. Barry Pepper's character felt way too intelligent, given the fact that he lived in a hut in the mountaing his whole life, worshipping 'The Gods'. Overall, the effects were very good, and the underlying 'Us vs Them' them ware played out fairly well, but again, I just couldn't get past the holes in the plot, as they were way too distracting.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 28, 2000, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Not sursprising...

    by Achilles

    A piece of crap book like "Battlefield Earth" caould only yield a piece of crap movie. Travolta is so blindingly devoted to all that Scientology hogwash, that if L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book about a guy picking his nose for three hours, Travolta would be clamoring to make that into a movie too. What a whacko.

  • April 28, 2000, 7:43 a.m. CST

    What did we expect?

    by Monster Rain

    I would have liked this to have been a decent film with some escapist action and cheesy thrills, but Hubbard was a sub-par writer and nothing can change the fact that the story is ridiculous. Grunting cavemen in planes? Hooo-boy! People who hated ID4 are going to think it's "Childhood's End" after they see this one.

  • April 28, 2000, 7:47 a.m. CST

    perhaps the worst film i've ever seen

    by hitch's ghost

    I saw a screening of 'Battlefield Earth' last night in Washington, DC. I can't begin to say how terrible it is. Nothing works. John Travolta is awful. Forrest Whitaker is awful. Barry Pepper runs a lot, reminding me of Daniel Day Lewis in 'Last of the Mohicans'. Don't waste your time seeing it. You'll never get those two hours of your life back.

  • April 28, 2000, 7:58 a.m. CST

    I'll have to wait and see...

    by asder

    I happen to really like the book Battlefield Earth ( I like the mission earth series a bit more though) All these plot holes that have been mentioned seem a little 'hasty' to me. Every one mentioned has a reason, at least in the book it is written in a way that makes these events logical...maybe they did'nt translate it well in the movie, I can't say, I have not seen it yet. I hope that the person who wrote the review was just not really watching and paying attention to the movie dialogue (I hate people like that...nitpickers! I hates them all!)...anyway I'll wait till I see it and by the way L. Ron Hubbard Is a great writer in my opinion...sci-fi would not be where it is today without him.

  • April 28, 2000, 8:11 a.m. CST

    Scientology will strike back

    by xenu

    You can expect that Scientology is going to strike back with his own positive review, which will praise and praise the movie. And of course it will compare it to Star Wars :) More BE information: www.geocities.com/xenu2000/

  • April 28, 2000, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Question to Reviewers

    by xenu

    One question to these guys, who saw the movie. In the first screenplay draft was one scene, where Travolta was shooting on COWS. Is this scene still in the movie or how I expect it was it cut out. Thanks in advance!

  • April 28, 2000, 8:31 a.m. CST

    But does he dance?

    by Darth Philbin

    I think John Travolta dances in EVERY FUCKING MOVIE that he is in!!! I also think that Travolta makes quite possibly the shittiest antagonist known to mankind. He sucked in "Face/Off" and sucked even more in that other goddamn John Woo film with Christian "No Dick" Slater where a helicopter fucking exploded every 15 minutes. Man, it truly wound suck if the race of beings that conquered Earth were led by Vinny Barbarino. WORD TO YOUR MOTHERS!!!

  • April 28, 2000, 8:38 a.m. CST

    I am supprise either...

    by Minarvia

    ...because this movie is based on a novel that is over a 1000 pages long. They had to cut things out so that the movie can be two hours long or an hour and a half hour long. Which is the noraml lentgh of these type of movie. The novel, I am currently reading, is quite intressing. It is alittle boring in some parts, and in the novel, Ker, I think that is part that is being played by Forrest Whitaker, get more time. I don't know if this is in the movie or not, and I don't know if there is anymore in the novel, but there is scheme were are on the Psychol alien's homeworld. As you can see novels are always better than the movie. Sometimes more than other in better ways.

  • April 28, 2000, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Niether Warner Brothers or Scientology will take the financial h

    by Mesma Mahar

    The Friday Wall Street Journal always has a weekend edition covering entertainment news. They ran an article the week before AICN ran that putrid picture of John Travolta in Spice Girl boots a while back. There is a guy in hollywood who used to work at Studio 54, now he runs a chain of Hollywood nightclubs that cater to the stars. He's been trying to break into Hollywood for years on the producer end. A year or two ago he actually made his own film which was called 20 Dates, he filmed himself going on 20 dates in the LA area and made a movie out of it-what an ego. I saw the box at Blockbuster, looked like the stupidest form of self promotion I've ever seen. He's from Lebannon originally, and still has financial contacts there. His whole thing in the Hollywood scene is to go to actors in his clubs and say, "What project do you really want to do that you've never been able to get financed?" He helped get The Whole Nine Yards with Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry financed, which is also a Warner Bros movie, and Battlefield Earth is John Travolta's baby. The article went on to say how this guy financed the majority of the movie whith his own money and some investor associates from the middle east. Then when it went over budget by 20 million, he and Travolta had to campaign to get the rest of the money, which again came from private investors. Bottom line, the article stated, was that Warner Bros was not going to lose anything on this, which is good news for them. And contrary to widespread rumor, the church of scientology (not worth capitalizing the name) will not make anything if the movie does do well, which we all know it won't. My god, read the reviews. The only losers in this deal will be John Travolta's career and this dumb schmuck who took a chance on it and is going to lose large sums of money and have to answer to his Lebannese investors-god is he screwed. He'll be found dead after the first weekend box office results are released.

  • April 28, 2000, 9:07 a.m. CST

    waiting for the shill boys to show up

    by leescratchperry

    . . . Oh Boy!! More hatred of BE on the web!! Come, my friend, let us join hands and try and rain as much abuse on this Travolta-smelling Scientologistic propaganda. All I need now for my perfect day is to sit back and wait for the word to get out to those $cientology-shill-boy losers, MatteoH, and his pet chihuahua harryb, so that can can slither on over to AICN and tell us all how great it really is going to be. Hurry up, my little jackasses, leescratchperry awaits!! BTW, MatteoH, my edict of declaring FAIR GAME on you still stands. Because to me

  • April 28, 2000, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Fuck it, I'm going to see this movie

    by Mickey Finn

    I'm going to see this. Sure, Scientologists are nuts, Travolta's a nut, the book (from what I've heard) is 1000 pages of solid bunkum of the kind the world hasn't scene since boy's pulp adventure magazines stopped selling, Travolta looks hilarious with all that shit on his head, but so what? I'm sure it will either be FUN or FUNNY, and I get a kick out of watching turkeys when they're so misconceived you go 'What were they THINKING?' Battlefield Earth sounds like a real contender in those terms. The great thing is, they're already planning the sequel... HAHAHA!

  • April 28, 2000, 9:21 a.m. CST

    I'm the reviewer.

    by Worf53

    Yes, the cow scene is still in the movie. I really wish this movie was campy, as Harry stated in the opening, as I can enjoy good camp now and again. Unfortunately, it was played straight by everyone in the movie, which was another reason why I was so underwhelmed by the movie.

  • April 28, 2000, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Buy ticket for Gladiator, sneak into BE

    by xenu

    If you really want to see this movie: Buy a ticket from Gladiator at a Multiplex theater and sneak into Battlefield Earth. At least you avoid to fill the pockets from Scientology. More Battlefield Earth Information: www.geocities.com/xenu2000/

  • April 28, 2000, 9:33 a.m. CST

    More Stuff answered & more spoilers

    by Worf53

    And No, John doesn't dance in the movie, although it couldn't have hurt. And I also read Dianetics about 12 or 13 years ago, and luckly, there doesn't seem to be any traces of Scientology in the movie at all, it's a straight Sci-Fi flick. If you think the bi-plane alternate ending of ID4 sounded hokey, you will be disappointed in this movie ;-) To be honest, except for the moments of extreme plotholes, it was actually pretty enjoyable. Had a whole 'Planet of the Apes / War of the Worlds' thing going for it. And other that a few moments of over-the-topness, Travolta was good as the Alien. BTW, to the person who had read the book, what WAS the deal with the six fingers. These things may have been explained in the book, but they were not explained at all in the movie. *SPOILER* both Forest and Travolta have their arms\hands blowns off in the movie, and I was thinking maybe it was a regeneration thing, but it appears not to be, as neither one gets their respective digits back.

  • April 28, 2000, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Travolta Must Be Worried

    by Mesma Mahar

    He was on ET last night signing autographs at a grocery store in a suburb of Chicago. All it was was 14 year old girls screaming- maybe the same fan base from Titanic will show up to see the movie 4 and 5 times, that's about the only thing that could possible save this movie. That investor guy is going to pay for this with his life. There will be a nice little follow-up story in WSJ in a couple weeks.

  • April 28, 2000, 10:35 a.m. CST

    #1 Sci-Fi book of all-time...

    by KingMenthol

    They tout that fact in all the commercials. There's a very simple reason this is the case: Scientologists have gone out and buy buttloads of the book so they can say this about their fearless leader. Scientology is a cult of bald-faced liars. Oh, and this movie doesn't even look entertaining. It looks plain silly to me. I'll be watching Russell run through some Roman baddies.

  • April 28, 2000, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Positive Sript Review (CINECON) written by Scientologist

    by xenu

    Can you remember the positive script review from Brad Linawaver on www.cinecon.com? Well, he is a Scientologist. He is the winner of the L.Ron Hubbard New Author's Award and "This year he is helping with publicity for the film version of Battlefield Earth." $cientology uses every dirty trick to create some positive buzz! And where are our Scienos? I'm waiting! More Info: www.geocities.com/xenu2000/

  • April 28, 2000, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Xenu, give it a rest for fuck's sake

    by Mickey Finn

    Hey, Xenu, you know what? It's a good job there are scientologists around, because if there weren't you wouldn't have anything to bash. No I'm not a scientologist, but I don't make scientology-bashing a hobby. Yeah, so they're nuts, manipulative, vindictive towards those who quit their own ranks, and they have an elite cadre that caters for Hollywood stars who need to give their hollow existence meaning. But they're also diminishing in numbers, actively persecuted in Germany, and quite frankly anyone dumbass enough to hook up with them in the first place should take some responsibility for the consequences. So their prize novelist praised the Battlefiel Earth screenplay? Good for him. And I'm going to be *paying* for my front row seat and tub of popcorn at this picture.

  • April 28, 2000, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Sounds like the book

    by arthurat

    I read the book that this movie is based on. It appears based on this review that the movie is faithful to the book. The charachter Travolta plays in the movie was not very smart in the book. An example of the 'Peter Principle' in action. Yes, Travolta's character basically gives away the 'rosetta stone of knowledge' because he is lazy. The book was OK, L Ron Hubbard is not a great Sci-Fi writer. His books fall down at the ending. The only reason the movie is being made is Travolta's like to Hubbards religion of Scientology. The story is too weak to make a really good sci-fi MAJOR motion picture.

  • April 28, 2000, 11:24 a.m. CST

    To Mickey Finn

    by xenu

    Only idiots are sitting in the front row!

  • April 28, 2000, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Scientology: Communism with bad propaganda skills

    by Project: 2501

    Honestly people, sink this movie. Don't let it see another weekend int he theaters. Even if they made toys I wouldn't buy them only to blow them up in spite. Do they really think they can fill their coffers by trying to bank off of the sci-fi fans? What bastards. They're a cult with poor marketing. And when will people stop being impressed that they were able to turn Vinne Bobarino into a puppet? Big fucking deal. He sucked then, he sucks now. He sucked in Pulp Fiction (you lie to yourself if you disagree). I wouldn't watch this film even if I were forced to do so in a manner like Alex was in Clockwork Orange. Instead, I would divert the agony of that visual turd by imagining many rough textured objects being sideways into Hubbard's ass.

  • April 28, 2000, 11:50 a.m. CST

    whats with all the scientology bashing?

    by enigma

    do half you people even know what scientology is? or what belief structure it has? bunch of sad individuals with too much time on your hands you people are.did you not like the matrix for its christian sub text? did you hate last temptation of christ because it was about jesus? how about the fatalism in NBK? didy ou not like that either. its really sick when film makers try and put a message in their films isn't it. you think scientolgists are oney grabbers? so are christains, so are hindus, so are jews, so are democrats, so are republicans, so are communists, so are all humans. geez personally i am gonna give the movie a chane, because so far i see no problem with the plot holes, if they even are plot holes and travolota and whittaker have been intelligently praising the fimls meanings and style throughout. you wanna talk about the fiml? or just be a scientology hating neo nazi?

  • April 28, 2000, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Travolta over the top? Never!

    by superhero

    Why is it I feel as if every time I turn around Travolta is in another movie? God, this man has worn out his welcome! Take a break already Johnnie boy! Haven't you made ENOUGH money? But then again after this movie...

  • April 28, 2000, 12:06 p.m. CST

    122312: Yes And No

    by JVoorhees13

    Howdy! OK, you're right about the Lebonese guy (his name is Elie) and his financing. His company will take the big hit if/when this film tanks. But he was not the writer/star/director of "20 Dates". Elie was the producer of it. And despite the premise, I still found "20 Dates" to be pretty damn funny. Anyway, getting back to "Battlefield Earth," you are also correct about how he gets his films off the ground. He also did Cuba Gooding Jr's "A Murder Of Crows" and Alec Baldwin's horrific "The Confession." Having had the opportunity to take a look at the script, all I can say is our fair reviewer is right on the money. Sadly, this film is going to be the next "Lost In Space:" The film sucks, the acting is OK, the effects are great, the writing is horrid and it will make nearly $100 million anyway. Not only will the public go see it just because they're damn pig-headed, but the Scientologists, while they won't make any money off the film, will go see it over & over to make Travolta & Hubbard look good. Might I add, Elie & friends have their sequel already in the works.

  • April 28, 2000, 12:09 p.m. CST

    b.e. gets a zero on the e-meter scale

    by parrotheadpsu

    I made myself an e-meter out of an old potato clock I had lying around my house and electrocuted myself... can I possibly sue L. Ron Hubbard and Ron Travolta?

  • April 28, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Y'know how every summer has a HUGE boxoffice bomb? well this is

    by gilmour

    This film will die a horrible death.

  • April 28, 2000, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Die scientologist! Die!

    by fear of a ted

    How could anyone take L.Ron Hubbard seriously after he said, "The best way to get rich is to make up your own religion" and then commence in making up his own religion. I hereby declare my new religion "Ted-ology", in which members are made to watch movies, the Simpsons, and read independently published comic books. And maybe play video games. And you have to like burritos. And you're not allowed to live in tract housing ala Orange County, California, because only souless fuckers live there. But other than that, I think it's a good religion. Who wants to join?

  • April 28, 2000, 1:44 p.m. CST

    read the book

    by ibbangin

    It sounds to me that, those who have read the book might enjoy this movie alot more. I've read it and am still psyched to see this flic

  • April 28, 2000, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Re: Tedology

    by creamy goodness

    Wow. That sounds like a religion for me. Kind of what I've been doing for a while. Except... I used to live in souless tract housing in Orange County California. Does that exempt me? Oh great Tedostolic Father, please thusly enlighten thou myselfeth unto thee for sooth amen. Cheers. -CG

  • April 28, 2000, 1:54 p.m. CST

    one word...

    by thepete

    PROOFREADING!! I understand everyone here is passionate about what they type, but JEEZ, try READING THE DAMN THING BEFORE YOU POST IT! You're making us Fanboys look like uneducated IDIOTS! Oh and this movie's going to suck PERIOD - plot holes or no - it's just a typical Hollywood piece of Crapola - anyone can tell that from the trailer. I'm going to catch a matinee and MST the hell out of it - my fiancee and I will be trashing it for fun - like we do most hollywood crapola - including last Friday's atrocity U-571! -thepete@thepete.com

  • April 28, 2000, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Part 1 of 2

    by emarkp

    I recall that they're filming two movies--which fits since the book should have been two books. Sounds like they messed up the adaptation, though. I read the book quite a while ago, and I recall that the six fingers on one hand had to do with their math, which had to do with their tech secrets. Also, Nitrogen is supposed to be poison to the aliens, so they wore masks all the time to breathe--this figured fairly important in the plot. Plus, I'm pretty sure the cavemen used the alien ships to fight back (not 1000-year old planes). Sigh. I was hoping they could take the good parts of the book and make a movie out of it (I didn't think it'd be that hard, since the good bits could probably compress to a normal-sized screenplay). I guess I'll just wait for video/go to a matinee/skip the movie. It isn't _that_ great a story anyway.

  • April 28, 2000, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Inigo Montoya?

    by Seuss

    Excuse me mr Travolta..How many fingers you have on your right hand? My name is Inigo Montoya, you keel my father. Prepare to die...

  • April 28, 2000, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Don't you dare compare this to Fortress.

    by LSHB

    At least Fortress, staring the blind-as-a-bat Christopher Lambert, took pride in its semi-camp qualities (and low budget). I mean, gut bombs! Can't go wrong there. This film, however, makes me laugh uproariously, and I haven't even seen it. Cavemen. Fort Knox. John Travolta on technologically advanced go-go boots. The Year 3000. In the vast kingdom of crappy direct-to-discount videos, we could be looking at an ascendant Prince.

  • April 28, 2000, 3:38 p.m. CST

    To the Reviewer

    by Mazinger

    It's been a while since I've read the book, but I'll try to answer some of your questions about the movie. 1. The six fingers thing. As far as I can recall, all the Psychlos should have six fingers on one hand, and five on the other. I don't know why Travolta's character was the only one with six fingers visible... are you sure you just didn't miss that detail on the other Psychlos? This is actually a plot point in the book. One of the keys to the Psychlo domination of the universe is their possession of a form of interstellar teleportation. This teleportation system uses base-11 mathematics to calculate coordinates. Base-11 math is supposedly very difficult to understand and use, and only high-ranking, intellegent Psychlos are taught how to use it at all. Of course, Johnny eventually figures it out himself. 2. The air problem. In the book, the gas the Psychlos breathe explodes when exposed to uranium. This is why they must train humans to do their mining for them in the uranium-rich area where the gold is. It sounds as though some of this might have been brought out in the movie, but perhaps not explained very clearly. 3. Ancient technology. I know that I recall something about the humans digging up ancient weapons to use against the Psychlos, although I also think they eventually used captured Psychlo technology. From what I recall, the equipment they did use was in storage in military bases. In the real world, I know that it's not impossible for well-maintained or properly stored equipment to last for a long time. Overall, from your review, I'm surprised that the movie follows the book as closely as it seems to do. Personally, I wish that they had decided to make the aliens look more like they were described in the book (rather like skull-headed sasquatches, IIRC), and employed digital technology or animatronics to make the humans and psychlos appear to be in the proper scale.

  • April 28, 2000, 3:47 p.m. CST

    It's abonafide "Cult" Movie!

    by narf

    Besides the fact that NO religious group should be allowed to make a film without a HUGE disclaimer at the beginning, this film just looks pukey. And if you want a top-notch made-up religion, check out the Universal Life Church! You can become an ordained minister online for FREE at http://www.ulc.org , then you can choose to preach whatever you like! Don't like Hell? No problem. Want to preach malt liquor and whores? Go ahead. Declare Ron Jeremy your ultimate Lord? Do it now! Now THAT'S religion!

  • April 28, 2000, 3:58 p.m. CST

    MCJERK

    by Elronisabitch

    First of all, L Ron wasn't a genius: his followers are morons. If he truly had been a genius, then don't you think that he would have been able to complete more than one year of undergraduate studies at George Washington University? One would think so, but, in fact, he did terribly, flunking out of the only course in physics that he took (which makes the "church's" claim of his having been a nuclear physicist a little dubious). In addition, a genius (and a genius nuclear physicist in particular)would not have published a book titled, "All About Radiation" in which the ridiculous claim is made that, through a silly purification ritual, one can remove drugs, toxins, and radiation from the body. Radiation? Anything with a temperature above absolute zero is radiating energy, so, without lowering someone's body temperature to absolute zero, it would be a little difficult to rid that body of radiation. If you want the real info behind Scientology, then visit www.xenu.net. If you want to see what Scientologists are really like, then go watch some of the brilliant work at www.xenutv.com.

  • April 28, 2000, 4:05 p.m. CST

    To Mazinger

    by Elronisabitch

    I just wanted to comment on what you said concerning the Psychlos' use of base 11 math, how "complicated" base 11 math is, and how it is only taught in full to high ranking Psychlos. Umm.. This is really ridiculous, and, once again, points out how little L Ron actually knew about what he was writing about. Base 11 math is absolutely NO MORE complicated than base 10, or base 9, etc... We are only used to base 10, and probably use it because it is a convenient system for people with 10 fingers. However, as I pointed out, it is no more complicated that base 10. I know that you were just posting what L Ron wrote, but I just can't let things like that slide.

  • April 28, 2000, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Bring on Ender's Game

    by sparkwood&obiwan

    The best Sci-Fi book I've read is Ender's Game. Take all this money floating around in Hollywood and use it to make this movie. Orson Scott Card has been trying to get this made for a long time. GOOD LUCK ORSON!

  • April 28, 2000, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Ah Yes the celebration of tact and diplomacy that is the "BATTLE

    by THE SALEM SLUT

    this movie is going to suck. and be terribly embarrasing for all concerned. It is the WILD WILD WEST OF Y2K. CIAO

  • April 28, 2000, 4:47 p.m. CST

    let me reemphasize BE's suckiness

    by hitch's ghost

    As bad as the film is, it really would not have taken much to transform it into even mild entertainment. The reviewer mentioned the Psyclos' lifts. Not only did the tall shoes force the actors to lumber like Frankenstein, but it forced the DP to shoot lots of close-ups to avoid the lower half of the Psychlos' bodies. Many of the scenes with Travolta and Whitaker feature uncomfortable, quick-cutting close-ups which make for a very clasutrophobic atmosphere. The film's title is 'Battlefield Earth', yet all we see are two cities (the decaying Denver and the newly barren wilderness of Aspen), crappy CGIs of Washington, DC and Fort Knox, and a panorama of the planet Psychlo mimeographed from 'Blade Runner'. A little extra cash devoted to more convincing 9-ft tall Psychlos would've been well spent. And this may sound insensitive, but the film would benefit from more violence. Cows are shot and a slave's head is blown to bits off-screen. The audience must rely on the reactions of a bevy of hack actors for dramatic effect. Doesn't work. Since the movie is a straight, non-campy interpretation of Hubbard's work, serious, graphic consequences would've proven more effective and added texture to this flat-as-a-pancake venture. The score is another major problem. There are very loud instrumental sequences reminding us that this scene is important or that scene is poignant. It's clear that the filmmakers are trying to fool us, distract us, from what they know is a major flop. This film won't last 4 weeks before it'll headline your local discount theater. Finally, didn't Forest Whitaker look like the Michael Jackson werewolf in the 'Thriller' video??

  • April 28, 2000, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Xenu-travolta and scientology

    by flashy

    Hmmm--- I'm sure you've heard these reports, but I didn't see them on your page, so perhaps you haven't. I'll warn you, that this is all hearsay... It has been a long standing, popular rumour that Tom Cruise, a Scientologist, is/was a homosexual /bisexual and that his ties to Scientology have all been about "curing" his sexuality. Either Cruise himself wants to be "cured" or whether the church wants him to be cured changes from one story to the next. Is he gay? Who the hell knows? I haven't heard of one single story supporting it. I've never heard reports of him and some dude getting it on. None. Although there is plenty of gossip. Tom and Nicole have severed ties to Scientology after the making of Eyes Wide Shut. I thought that was a great movie. To those who didn't: at least it had one positive outcome. Alrighty, bear with me. Now here's the deal with Travolta, and I'm sure this move has been telegraphed by the above paragraph. I keep hearing that Bobarino is a gay man. Gay, gay, gay. Or bi-sexual. Kelly Preston is what is known as a beard. She's there to present Travolta as a "normal" hollywood actor star - not necessarily to the public at large, but to Scientology, since the group finds homosexuality to be a heresy, bad, boo-boo thing. I'm sure those are his kids, but from what I've heard (rumors again), this takes a backseat to backdoor shenanigans. Here's the part that's not a rumor: I think Travolta is a decently talented actor. I think he's been pretty good in the movies after his comeback in Pulp-Fiction. I've skipped some (Phenomenon) and really didn't like others (Michael), but in all, I think he's a decently talented actor. I think showbiz stock in Travolta is going to go way down after this picture. Okay, back to the gay thing. Heard from my girlfriend: she had talked to some one who worked on one of Travolta's movies (Face/off?) who mentioned that during filming, he appeared, as on screen, a tough, manly man - but after shooting stopped, he turned very, very gay. This is all heresay again. I don't know the name of the friend, and even then, it's based on heresay. Here's tidbit #2. For the millenium celebration, Travolta was going to fly some great distance, perhaps around the world, in his giant jumbo jet plane with family and friends. Okay, points to Travolta for being a pilot, that's pretty cool. But, get this, he went on a practice run of the trip with a bunch of male friends. Just guys. I can't say if they were GAY male friends, or just a bunch of dudes having hetrosexual fun. I can't even point to where I heard that - somewhere on the national news sometime last Fall. But there it is. Last piece: Okay, just LOOK at him. Listen to his voice. It is amazingly fey. His mannerisms, his style of dress. And it goes beyond being slightly effeminate - it's quite pronounce. Check it out. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I've got nothing against it. Gay folk can, and often are, some of the coolest people you're likely to run into. What I do have against this whole thing is the masking, or percieved masking of actualities by Scientology. Apparently, the state of "clear" is also supposed to remove homosexual tendencies...which is pretty awful enough...let's just deny who you are - but on top of that, Travolta, because he is the group's golden boy, gets preferential treatment. The group looks the other way for him and covers it up very well. Because he's the star. Again, this is pretty much all heresay...there's no proofs offered here, just observations and heresay. ks

  • April 28, 2000, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Xenu-travolta and scientology

    by flashy

    Hmmm--- I'm sure you've heard these reports, but I didn't see them on your page, so perhaps you haven't. I'll warn you, that this is all hearsay... It has been a long standing, popular rumour that Tom Cruise, a Scientologist, is/was a homosexual /bisexual and that his ties to Scientology have all been about "curing" his sexuality. Either Cruise himself wants to be "cured" or whether the church wants him to be cured changes from one story to the next. Is he gay? Who the hell knows? I haven't heard of one single story supporting it. I've never heard reports of him and some dude getting it on. None. Although there is plenty of gossip. Tom and Nicole have severed ties to Scientology after the making of Eyes Wide Shut. I thought that was a great movie. To those who didn't: at least it had one positive outcome. Alrighty, bear with me. Now here's the deal with Travolta, and I'm sure this move has been telegraphed by the above paragraph. I keep hearing that Bobarino is a gay man. Gay, gay, gay. Or bi-sexual. Kelly Preston is what is known as a beard. She's there to present Travolta as a "normal" hollywood actor star - not necessarily to the public at large, but to Scientology, since the group finds homosexuality to be a heresy, bad, boo-boo thing. I'm sure those are his kids, but from what I've heard (rumors again), this takes a backseat to backdoor shenanigans. Here's the part that's not a rumor: I think Travolta is a decently talented actor. I think he's been pretty good in the movies after his comeback in Pulp-Fiction. I've skipped some (Phenomenon) and really didn't like others (Michael), but in all, I think he's a decently talented actor. I think showbiz stock in Travolta is going to go way down after this picture. Okay, back to the gay thing. Heard from my girlfriend: she had talked to some one who worked on one of Travolta's movies (Face/off?) who mentioned that during filming, he appeared, as on screen, a tough, manly man - but after shooting stopped, he turned very, very gay. This is all heresay again. I don't know the name of the friend, and even then, it's based on heresay. Here's tidbit #2. For the millenium celebration, Travolta was going to fly some great distance, perhaps around the world, in his giant jumbo jet plane with family and friends. Okay, points to Travolta for being a pilot, that's pretty cool. But, get this, he went on a practice run of the trip with a bunch of male friends. Just guys. I can't say if they were GAY male friends, or just a bunch of dudes having hetrosexual fun. I can't even point to where I heard that - somewhere on the national news sometime last Fall. But there it is. Last piece: Okay, just LOOK at him. Listen to his voice. It is amazingly fey. His mannerisms, his style of dress. And it goes beyond being slightly effeminate - it's quite pronounce. Check it out. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I've got nothing against it. Gay folk can, and often are, some of the coolest people you're likely to run into. What I do have against this whole thing is the masking, or percieved masking of actualities by Scientology. Apparently, the state of "clear" is also supposed to remove homosexual tendencies...which is pretty awful enough...let's just deny who you are - but on top of that, Travolta, because he is the group's golden boy, gets preferential treatment. The group looks the other way for him and covers it up very well. Because he's the star. Again, this is pretty much all heresay...there's no proofs offered here, just observations and heresay. flashy

  • April 28, 2000, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Xenu-travolta and scientology

    by flashy

    Hmmm--- I'm sure you've heard these reports, but I didn't see them on your page, so perhaps you haven't. I'll warn you that this is all hearsay... It has been a long standing, popular rumour that Tom Cruise, a Scientologist, is/was a homosexual /bisexual and that his ties to Scientology have all been about "curing" his sexuality. Either Cruise himself wants to be "cured" or whether the church wants him to be cured changes from one story to the next. Is he gay? Who the hell knows? I haven't heard of one single story supporting it. I've never heard reports of him and some dude getting it on. None. Although there is plenty of gossip. Tom and Nicole have severed ties to Scientology after the making of Eyes Wide Shut. I thought that was a great movie. To those who didn't: at least it had one positive outcome. Alrighty, bear with me. Now here's the deal with Travolta, and I'm sure this move has been telegraphed by the above paragraph. I keep hearing that Bobarino is a gay man. Gay, gay, gay. Or bi-sexual. Kelly Preston is what is known as a beard. She's there to present Travolta as a "normal" hollywood actor star - not necessarily to the public at large, but to Scientology, since the group finds homosexuality to be a heresy, bad, boo-boo thing. I'm sure those are his kids, but from what I've heard (rumors again), this takes a backseat to backdoor shenanigans. Here's the part that's not a rumor: I think Travolta is a decently talented actor. I think he's been pretty good in the movies after his comeback in Pulp-Fiction. I've skipped some (Phenomenon) and really didn't like others (Michael), but in all, I think he's a decently talented actor. I think showbiz stock in Travolta is going to go way down after this picture. Okay, back to the gay thing. Heard from my girlfriend: she had talked to some one who worked on one of Travolta's movies (Face/off?) who mentioned that during filming, he appeared, as on screen, a tough, manly man - but after shooting stopped, he turned very, very gay. This is all heresay again. I don't know the name of the friend, and even then, it's based on heresay. Here's tidbit #2. For the millenium celebration, Travolta was going to fly some great distance, perhaps around the world, in his giant jumbo jet plane with family and friends. Okay, points to Travolta for being a pilot, that's pretty cool. But, get this, he went on a practice run of the trip with a bunch of male friends. Just guys. I can't say if they were GAY male friends, or just a bunch of dudes having hetrosexual fun. I can't even point to where I heard that - somewhere on the national news sometime last Fall. But there it is. Last piece: Okay, just LOOK at him. Listen to his voice. It is amazingly fey. His mannerisms, his style of dress. And it goes beyond being slightly effeminate - it's quite pronounce. Check it out. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I've got nothing against it. Gay folk can, and often are, some of the coolest people you're likely to run into. What I do have against this whole thing is the masking, or percieved masking of actualities by Scientology. Apparently, the state of "clear" is also supposed to remove homosexual tendencies...which is pretty awful enough...let's just deny who you are - but on top of that, Travolta, because he is the group's golden boy, gets preferential treatment. The group looks the other way for him and covers it up very well. Because he's the star. Again, this is pretty much all heresay...there's no proofs offered here, just observations and heresay. flashy

  • April 28, 2000, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Simple logic dictates B:E will suck

    by Ursus

    Let's face facts folks, the book is about a foot thick. To even condense the first half (which the producers have claimed to have done) leaves @ 500 pages to adapt for a screenplay. A 120-140 page screenplay. I haven't read the book, and I don't plan to either, so I'm not saying shit about it's literary merits. But whether it's good or bad, THERE AIN'T NO WAY IN HEAVEN, HELL, EARTH OR WHEREVER YOU PERSONALLY HAIL FROM YOU CAN CONDENSE 500 PAGES INTO 140 WITHOUT DOING DAMAGE TO WHATEVER INTEGRITY THE STORY HAD!!!!!

  • April 28, 2000, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Entertaining disscussions...

    by KOLOBOS REXX

    Hey There and Howdy, Kiddieees! Hellknight here with some quick commentary on this whole "Battlefield Earth" thing. Bottom line: Scientology is NOT the important issue here. What really matters here is the film itself. sure, the FX look pretty neat. And, I am sure it will be entertaining on the level of a big-budget version of those cheesy 1950's sci-fi films they used to lampoon so wonderfully on "Mystery Science Theatre". I am guessing that that is the feel of the film, though playing it up as a send-up like "Mars Attacks" (10 times better than the uncredited remake of "War of the Worlds" called ID4!), would have been a lot smarter than expecting anyone with average-and-above intellect to take it at all seriously... Man, "Battlestar Galactica" looks like a cinematic masterpiece compared to most of today's sci-fi efforts... Why doesn't someone put out something powerful and meaningful, like "2001", "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "Brazil", "War of the Worlds", "A Clockwork Orange", "Blade Runner", ect... Occasionally, a purely entertaining film like "Split Second", "Robocop 1+2", "Predator", "The Thing" or "Aliens" makes it out, but these days, even such films as those are few and far between... Look at some of the most recent attempts... I for one, would love to see H.G. Well's "War of The Worlds", faithfully adapted, set in Victorian England and whatnot... Hey, anyone remember "Zardoz"? Great, bizarre film... Anyway, that's all I have for now... remember, Kids: "PLAY NICE." Later!

  • April 28, 2000, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Ah Yes,the great celebration of tact and diplomacy that is the "

    by THE SALEM SLUT

    ...So...many...jokes!...my...head...is...AGHHH! This movie is going to suck. and be terribly embarrasing for all concerned. It is the WILD WILD WEST OF Y2K. I know that people are playing down the CoS angle with this movie and all. If I were a member of that church I wouldn't know which way to look cuz I heard they've been known to really propagandize Hubbard stuff before but how the hell can anyone throw their weight behind some thing which is obviously complete Poo? Ther's no accounting for taste but anyone who claims to like this movie will Immediately all doubt regarding their religious affilliations. (unless they say it's cuz it's such a great comedy)CIAO

  • April 28, 2000, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Perrrrrrrrrrfect, Travolta's entry into the dark side is now com

    by HorrorBiz777

    I'm going to love this film. Cuz I love to bitch and moan about bad movies and this will fuel me for years and years and years and even beyond that. Thank you John Travolta for making a movie that will define what it is to be a pissant Hollywood sell-out. Thank you everyone who was a part of this, maybe now your careers will forever be ruined once and for all and we will be rid of your putrid artistic excuse for *cough* talent. Serves you right for following the visions of fools. And an extra special "Thank You" to everyone who is going to go see this movie like the mindless souless sheep they are. It just gives me yet ANOTHER reason to hate you all. Die die die, please die ! Be the morons Hollywood thinks that you are; watch COPS, buy Gap pants, get your hair implants and breast implants... and die !!! NOTE: I'm so proud of you guys here for despising this movie as much as me. I may not like the movies you guys do, but at least, at the very LEAST, we can agree on what is an abominable waste of fucking time and what is not. I love you guys !!!!! ((((HUGS)))) HB777

  • April 28, 2000, 5:21 p.m. CST

    There's an Old Adage for This...

    by Lemmy Caution

    ...and I believe it's that one cannot "polish a turd", no matter how many special effects bucks and bought hype the L. Ron Hubbard Varsity Pep Squad toss at it. Think of all the millions of starving art students that could be fed for what these bombs cost to produce.

  • April 28, 2000, 5:34 p.m. CST

    for the fans

    by Dawson's Crack

    Personally, I think they should have someone at the door of every screening supply all of the ticket holders with a complimentary b*tch slap. HOW can you go see this? John Travolta must be stopped! If this is successful, how much longer do you think you'll have to wait for the L. Ron Hubbard story? By the way, the recent issue of US magazine stated that it is rumoured that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are leaving the church of scientology, and Tom considered the making of this movie to be a "mistake".

  • April 28, 2000, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Bomb

    by Bloodstained

    Okay, I only got three or four talk balks along before I had to stop and tell everyone that this film will in fact not bomb at the box office, but be, at least on the surface, one of the more profitable of the summer movies. Why? The Scientologist, of course. All the little L. Ron drones will flood the theaters over and over again, thus assuring financial success for a Scientology project. This is the same underhanded crap they've been doing for years now with all of Hubbard's low-wattage intelligence books. This is why, despite common logic, the new reissued copy of Battlefield is currently tearing up the paperback bestsellers lists. The little drones are hard at work buying up copies. The Church of Scientology will not dare let this movie prove to be an embarrassement to them, at least not in a money sense. Watch this thing hit #1 on its opening weekend, despite harsh reviews and cold negative word of mouth, shocking many as its passes the previous week's champ Gladiator, and holds on strong in the top five for many weeks to come. The drones will be ordered to see this thing over and over, most probably will only buy tickets and not even bother with going in and seeing it for the umpteenth time. This is a sad fact, but one I'm depressingly confident will come true.

  • April 28, 2000, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Battlefiled Earth website

    by flashy

    Yep. Here's the message board. http://wbboards.warnerbros.com/ultimate/cgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=145&SUBMIT=Go Can't believe 1) there hasn't been any postings for the past 8 days. I guess they've been busy censoring the messages, then forgetting to reinsert the "legitimate" postings. 2) That there is nary a negative word about the movie on the board. Despite that it is ALL OVER THE NET what a piece of doo this movie is.

  • April 28, 2000, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Official BE message boards ARE active...

    by iamroman

    They moved them to another URL, the link is on the page you mentioned but it's not real prominent. It is: http://community.warnerbros.com/pages/messageboard/board.jsp?board=-536882617 It's basically the opposite of this board, mostly gushing praise by thinly veiled Scientologists with the occasional Xenu.net-flag-waving dissenter. I stopped posting there, arguing with the Scienos and getting the same lame responses gets tired after a while. You know how I know they are Scientologists? Because on every message board for any movie/show (Star Wars, Trek etc.), the true fans talk about how everything regarding the show/movie/book sucks and is going down the tubes. True fans typically don't babble endless and mindless praise like the shills on the official BE boards.

  • April 28, 2000, 7:33 p.m. CST

    BE message boards

    by yoshue

    I just got back from the reading the BATTLEFIELD EARTH message boards at the official site, and I feel sick. The poster above said the truth when he said that there NOT A SINGLE NEGATIVE comment about the movie on the site! Those are the same $cientologist freaks who are going to go to this movie a million times so it makes money. And everyone on the site kept praising the book calling it "the greatest sci-fi book of our time". WHAT THE FUCK! The book was a HUGE piece of shit! One person actually said, quote, "i'm looking more forward to BE than Episode 2 and LOTR combined." I'm not surprised though, because the same people there calling LHR the greatest sci-fi writer ever, called Tolkien a hack. One person on the board (just one) said he didn't really like the book BE(he didn't say he hated it, he just said it wasn't as good as everyone there was making it out to be). The whole board started flaming him, calling him "not a real sci-fi fan." Those people then went about saying "if it wasn't for LHR, then Star Wars wouldn't exist. That was the point where i fell off my chair, laughing. In closing, i will NEVER see this movie (unless Travolta hunts me down, sits on me while calling me a "rat bastard", and forces me to watch it. I won't really have a choice then, because, as we all know, Travolta is fattest thing on the planet). And, off topic, i saw his wife, Kelly Preston in Kevin Costner's awful FOR LOVE OF THE GAME. [extremely sarcastic] MY, WHAT A TALENTED ACTRESS SHE IS!

  • April 28, 2000, 8:38 p.m. CST

    What's all the hubbub, bub?

    by The Observer

    This Talkback is getting ugly. There are people who hate Scientology, people who despise John Travolta, and folks who are just plain disgusted with "Battlefield: Earth." You know what? I really don't care. Frankly, I don't care about Scientology, I don't care about Travolta, and I really don't care about this film. Why? Because it's just a movie. Nothing more than a big ol' roll of 35 millimeter film projected onto a big white screen at 24 frames per second. Nothing to write home about. I'd rather go do something more constructive with my life than fret over a dumb motion picture that won't amount to a hill of cous-cous in this crazy, mixed up world.

  • April 28, 2000, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Plot holes? Sounds like a winner!

    by b_right

    Plot holes in a science fiction adventure yarn? Never! Star Wars, Independence Day and Armageddon were all totally seemless. Yeah right. Half the fun of these movies is using your imagination to fill in the holes. Like for example, it is totally possible that the psychlo culture had diminished since they first took over the Earth to the point where they could be beaten. They certainly weren't expecting a counter attack. An Johnnie -- for all his primitive surroundings -- had a big advantage. He knew the psychlo technology and mentality. Plus he didn't have gas drones all over the place poisoning the whole planet before he could react.

  • April 28, 2000, 10:12 p.m. CST

    is it just me but i really want to see

    by kroll

    You know...I can't wait to see this one...I must have nothing better to do...

  • April 28, 2000, 10:14 p.m. CST

    I've read the book, and if the movie sucks it's YOUR fault

    by Craiggers

    When I first heard about this project, and I heard John Travolta's rantings and ravings about how great the book is, I thought "Damn, this guy is pretty enthusiastic about this. Maybe I should check this book out..." I make it a habit to read the books before the movie translations are released. Then I finally read "Battlefield Earth". I dug deep; looked for any, ANY, sort of wierd, scientology propaganda that could explain Travolta's enthusiasm. But I found nothing. Instead, I read a great story; simplistic in nature, but with plot twists that twisted and turned. Bobbed and weaved. I loved that crazy 1000 page book, and have been anticipating the movie's release since then. The movie, as far as I can tell, looks to translate the book pretty well. Sure, Travolta's acting may seem over the top; sure, the evil aliens seem too damn evil to be believed. But what you don't know can prevent you from seeing and possibly enjoying a great movie. Travolta said that the whole book won't be translated to movie form due to it's length. So it probably won't explain the nature of the Psychlo's evil. So allow me to explain the "stupid" villians of the film: a.) The aliens are so evil because they are MADE to be evil. The "Psychlo" wanted to be the dominant species in the universe, so they had to be aggressive. So the government implemented a law that all new Psychlo babies have a chip implanted in their head that give them pleasure in other creatures' pain. They derive a sort of sexual pleasure when they perform acts of violence or mischeif. So that's why they are so evil; because they like it. b.) Their name sounds corny, sure, but that's because they changed it. It wasn't always "Psychlo". Soon after the empire began to spread, they adopted that name to imtimidate potential adversaries. c.) Travolta is over the top because his character, Terl, is over the top. Terl is a sadistic, cunning, evil SOB but he is also quite stupid. He regards man as "animals"; the way we might regard a dog. He doesn't care to learn man language, and he doesn't care to teach his language. So he let's man learn for themselves. d.) Johnny, the main human character, is able to learn all about flying because the learning machine Terl give him teaches it to him. It is a lot like how they can learn new skills in "The Matrix"; they can just upload it to their brains in a snap. That's what Johnny does, and Terl doesn't care. He doesn't believe Johnny is smart or brave enough to try to pull something. Well, I'm starting to write too much so I'll just end by saying don't crack a movie you don't understand. If the sucks, then maybe it just sucks. But take these words I write into consideration before you pass judgement.

  • April 28, 2000, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Huge Bomb = Huge 1st Weekend Box Office

    by Rey12

    I've been talking to people about this film, and my impression is that people will want to see this film precisely to find out for themselves how bad it really is. For that reason, I predict it will be Travolta's biggest opening weekend box-office. However, there will be a backlash, and on his next film, Nora Ephron's Numbers, no one will show up. Travolta's career, in other words, will never recover.

  • April 28, 2000, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Shaft in Space!!!!!!!!

    by Tornado_Jackson

    No way will this movie suck. I just saw another great trailer tonight for it. You guys said the exact same thing about Ready to Rumble and look how wrong u were. The .O56 box office intake of that film just proves u haven't clue whats good and whats bad. STAY LOOSE BABY!

  • April 28, 2000, 11:40 p.m. CST

    If Krankor and Count Rugen had a son...

    by Sorcerer

    "Hello! My name is Dougray Scott! You conquered my planet! Prepare to die!" "Stop saying that! Heh heh heh."

  • April 28, 2000, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Oops...

    by Sorcerer

    It should be Barry Pepper pulling an Inigo Montoya in my last post. Hell, you expect me to know who he is?

  • April 29, 2000, midnight CST

    Hilarious Travolta, Cruise & CoS sexuality message

    by Wesley Snipes

    Flashy, that was an amusing message. If I had been drinking milk, it would've come shooting out of my nose! Anyway, I think Travolta is just an effeminate heterosexual. Either that, or he's bisexual for the novelty of it. This guy has been a megastar since he was a youngster, starting in the free-loving 70s no less. He's probably had so much sex with so many women that he's gotten bored of it. So he starts to experiment with men to change things up a bit. Or maybe I'm losing it and need to finish these projects before I go completely insane. Anyway, I don't think Cruise is gay - He's just more interested in other things. I remember reading an interview with that big-breasted chick who used to be his gf (wife?) - You know, the one who played the mom in Lost in Space - and she criticized him to that effect. More interested in meditating than sex and what not. If their relationship had merely been an arrangement to prove his heterosexuality, then I don't think she would have so openly criticized him for his lack of interest, or even criticized him at all. Finally, Travolta is promoting this sucker like mad! I'm seeing him on half-assed local shows that he would never have done in the past! And what's with all the young chicks swooning over him? I mean YOUNG. Like teens or less! WTF?! Aren't they usually only fans of the Keanu-and-younger stars? Maybe they're ringers?

  • April 29, 2000, 12:25 a.m. CST

    To DarthEvil

    by xenu

    It seems you are the guy who doesn't understand the movie. Only one hint: According to L.Ron Hubbard (Yes, L.Ron hinself) the Psychlos are the Psychologists. More Info: www.geocities.com/xenu2000/

  • April 29, 2000, 12:37 a.m. CST

    My theory on the nubile Travolta fan club:

    by Vegas

    Scientologists make kids too (unfortunately)! Seriously, this movie will suck no matter what tax shelter, oops! I mean religion is funding it. Look at the trailer people. These are supposed to be the best moments of the movie, displayed to draw your interest. The trailer is ASS. Think about it, how many of your favorite movies had shitty trailers? Probably not a lot, right? Now even the shitty movies sometimes have GREAT trailers: TWISTER, INDEPENDENCE DAY, ARMAGEDDON... How is this possible? Because any moron with a camera can come up with two minutes of gold if given a $100 million budget! If Batter Fried Girth can't come up with three minutes of even decent footage for its fucking trailer, it doesn't take a Stephen Hawking to realize the movie itself will reach depths of shite previously thought unattainable.

  • April 29, 2000, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Listen, this movie isn't going to suck...

    by Pips Orcille

    ...like Inspector Gadget the movie!

  • April 29, 2000, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Darth, Darth, Darth

    by jeffv

    Is it just me or does anyone else think there's getting to be way too many Darths in the Talk Backs? Though I don't think I've seen a Darth Brooks yet... (On a semi-on-topic question: how many people here who aren't going to see the movie, on principle, also adamantly reject Volkswagens, on principle?)

  • April 29, 2000, 1:09 a.m. CST

    Cruickshank is right.

    by Uncapie

    The CO$ will make sure that this movie does great at the B.O. They won't let it fail to embarass their fearless leader's memory. Mind control to their slaves. Pavlovian dog's of $cientology. Do as I say, not as I do. And if you dare oppose them by leaving their group, they hound you, threaten you and do everything they can to ruin you. And they call $cientology a religion. HA!

  • April 29, 2000, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Scientology is bullshit and L. Ron Hubbard was a asshole

    by 1831

    All the ads for the movie said it was based on the national best seller. However, what they don't tell you is that the brainwashed scientologist buy all of Hubbards books and then return them to their Scientology centers. Who in turn ship them back to the book stores just so they can go back and buy them again. They hope that once their "Best Sellers" that a regular person might say "Hmmm, maybe I should check this out". Something else to remember about this wacko cult is that it is growing, gaining more main stream acceptence (Our own Gov't now lets them exist as Tax free organazition), and has in its mandate to over take the world. NO BULLSHIT.

  • April 29, 2000, 3:36 a.m. CST

    My opinion

    by Wolvie6

    While I agree that this movie looks like total crap, the book was actually pretty good. It was pure science fiction and had no overtones of scientology. and yes I also agree scientology is a buttload of crap as well. The book was a good read thou. No way the movie can do it justice. It was far too long.

  • April 29, 2000, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Flashy et. al.

    by tomswiftly

    Does everybody just read the main article, or do they also read the talkbacks?? Because you are scaring me. Yes, I roll my eyes when I see those imposing commercial for DIANETICS. But the vehemence of the responses is appalling. Is everyone afraid of some sort of subliminal brainwashing to coerce the film-goers to become or appreciate scientology?? Because I have news for you folks, it happens everydaywhen we are subjected to media images. Not the praising of scientology, but the hardworking men who feel fulfilled when they drink Miller High Life, or how sexually fulfilling women who wear Victoria's Secret underwear are. or how wacky those protester's in D.C. were during the IMF conference. FLASHY goes off on a long homophobic rant about Travolta and Cruise (but as he says to prove he isn't really homophobic in a non-Sienfeld response "Not that there's anything wrong with that") and it just get tossed on the burn pile with the other Hubbard rantings. You know myself and three of my friends (all male) went to a ballgame the other night. According to FLASHY, hey, it could have been plain heterosexual fun (like what kind is that???) but.... I think this over-reaction in geekville would actually make a funny movie (maybe by Don Roos or someone like that)>

  • April 29, 2000, 4:23 a.m. CST

    You're the reason I hate film students.

    by Dreck

    You all realize that 98% of the posts about this movie might as well have been written by my fellow film monkeys (I mean students) here at NYU. Never in my life have I ever met people more willing to judge a book by its cover, a film by its trailer, a person by his skin. (Oops, did I just say that?) I have to admit that I don't know JACK SHIT about Scientology, but ever since I picked up the book I have been accused of being a Follower and stymied accordingly. What the fuck? First of all, I thought we were in the 21st century in the freest nation in the world, not in WWII Nazi Germany. Secondly, I'm reading a damn book. It's a book. It's 1050 pages of words written on paper that just-so-happen to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard. Yet I found nothing cultish, subliminal, or in any way mind-fucking about this book, so lay the fuck off. Fuck. You guys, especially you film-oriented bastards out there, would cum yourselves over a chance to work on a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster film like this, so why don't you stop taking out your insignificances and insecurities on a film that you haven't even seen yet? Apparently your parents should have been sterilized. Now, if this movie sucks, then it sucks, but it's NOT because of Scientology, it's NOT because Travolta produced it, it's NOT because of L. Ron Hubbard, and it's NOT because of a bad story. (The book is QUITE enjoyable and everything in it makes sense!) I've always said that cinema is wasted on the public, but you assholes are convincing me more and more each day that it's also wasted on most film students, film critics, and FANBOYS.

  • April 29, 2000, 5:37 a.m. CST

    An objective opinion

    by L Ron Asshole

    Okay, so you can probably tell where this post is going from my moniker. To those who would assume anything less than a fair and unbiased post from me, go fuck yourself. Now, onto the abomination that is the feature film adaptation of "Battlefield Earth." Ever since hearing about Travolta's desire to bring Hubbard's literary folly to the big screen, I was less than enthused. Of course, I paid it as much creedence as I did the front page of the Scientology newsletter that spoke of Travolta's intentions to bring an adaptation of Hubbard's "Fear" to the silver screen. Sure enough, a few years later, Travolta has roped in more than a few "believers"; a fairly capable if unproven director, a hungry young character actor given a chance to lead, etc. Not to mention that it gave Elie Samaha a break from banging Tia Carrere. And now, the release date approaches. As expected, the early screenings have been disastrous. An earlier post made a valid point, in that a fair adaptation of a 1,000 plus novel into a two-hour film is just impossible. But this is letting off the filmmakers and "creative" talent behind "BE" off a little too easily. Only after Travolta and Samaha were able to secure independent financing would a studio like Warner Bros. even touch this would-be disaster with a ten-foot pole. This says what we all really know, deep down; this film was a mistake from the beginning. No one, aside from the rotund Travolta and a few other clams, had any faith in this project. And Corey Mandell's atrocious screenplay didn't help matters either. Anyway, here's my point: Despite the "Psychlo/Psychologist" thing, I do not think "BE" is Hubbard propaganda. I do believe "BE" was Hubbard's vision of what a world run by psychologists would be like. Let's remember that Hubbard was, above all, a horrible writer. Now, I also believe Travolta and the Church is personally championing this film as a way, like all of their other recruitment techniques, as a way to draw people to the Church. I can even envision using references to the film in their advertising and PR content. This doesn't make "BE" a propaganda film... just a really fucking awful one. Any and all attempts by the Church, with the assistance of good dog Travolta, to support this film must be looked at for what it really is... pure, hideous, ugly capitalism. Anyway. Suck eggs, clams.

  • April 29, 2000, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Get a grip

    by Ed007_uk

    Personally, I don't mind films which are far fetched but not too far fetched. I don't like to admit that I was a big fan of Independence Day when it came out, but B.E. sounds like a load of crap. From what was said, I'm not even going to bother going to see it. It makes Pokemon sound appealing.

  • April 29, 2000, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Nordling's last word on Battlefield Earth

    by Nordling

    Think about it. Does anyone actually know any Scientologists personally? I don't. So, ergo, they don't exist. This movie does not exist. One can only hope. This movie will suck so bad that whole continents will be drawn together. The physical configuration of the universe will change. That's it.

  • April 29, 2000, 8:53 a.m. CST

    sanity alert!!!

    by enigma

    does anyone actually have a valid reason why they think this film will suck? other than its by L Ron Hubbard. and unless you've all had your head up yer asses you'd know that most religions trash films made reflecting it. Domga, Last temptation of christ anyone? so lets see the evidence, we have a kick ass trailer, and some very expressionistic symbolic sets/costumes. can anyone present a valid reason why its bad? gcrawl back under your neo nazi holes boys

  • April 29, 2000, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Kick Ass Trailer???????

    by yoshue

    Hey Enigma, the trailer certainly does not "Kick Ass" as you said in your post. It was terrible. That is one of the many reasons this "film" will suck hard. Lousy Script based on a lousy book, it stars Travolta who doesn't have Tarantino or Woo to bail him out, and It's from the director of fucking MASTERMINDS. If you want more reasons, read through all the talkbacks again.

  • April 29, 2000, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Kick Ass Trailer?

    by yoshue

    Hey Enigma, the trailer certainly does not "Kick Ass" as you said in your post. It was terrible. That is one of the many reasons this "film" will suck hard. Lousy Script based on a lousy book, it stars Travolta who doesn't have Tarantino or Woo to bail him out, and It's from the director of fucking MASTERMINDS. If you want more reasons, read through all the talkbacks again.

  • April 29, 2000, 10:41 a.m. CST

    recruiters

    by Dawson's Crack

    To the poster who asked if anyone knows a scientologist, I happen to know of one through a couple of friends of mine. She DOES try to recruit people. As a matter of fact, my friend was telling me she called one of their old friends who she has not spoken to in a while an invited him out. He agreed, and she later stated that the event they where supposed to attend was "cancelled", and would he like to attend a scientology meeting with her instead, and began to extoll the benefits of scientology. This is what is so shameless about this "religion". And yes, I know the book has nothing to do with scientology, bla,bla,bla, and yes, I'm being judgemental bla, bla, bla, but this is a CULT. I'm telling you, they're testing the waters with this one. What do you think would happen if they were filming a love story written by David Koresh? Extreme example, I know, but how far off is it REALLY? John Travolta deserves nothing less than to sink right back into the depths of obscurity with this one, and no indie darling will be able to rise him back up again. And yes, I also hate the new volkswagon beetle.

  • April 29, 2000, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Hey Enigma, you Co$ lapdog, you...

    by Vegas

    ...I think many people here have given reasons why this movie will suck that have nothing to do with its cult ties. LOOK AT THE TRAILER! The acting is shit. The dialogue is shit. The effects are great if you're watching a made for TV miniseries, but shit after you just came off a year of The Matrix, Phantom Menace, and Fight Club. Hell, even the trailer for Wild Wild Mess looked better than that (albeit just barely, and only because of Salma Hayek)! And to any who say I am wrong to base an opinion of a movie on its trailer, keep in mind that about 400 movies come out each year. 400 times $6.00 (the average price of a ticket where I live) is $2400. Not all of us have that kind of money in our budget to go see everything, so the trailers are a nice little way of knowing what we most likely will or will not like. I don't know about you, but when a trailer looks like as much ass as Battlefield Earth's does, I spend my $6.00 on something else.

  • April 29, 2000, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Buy a ticket for ANOTHER movie if you see this!

    by Skaught

    That way Scientology doesn't make more money to scam people with their bait-and-switch bullcrap.

  • April 29, 2000, 12:28 p.m. CST

    It makes sense if...

    by Slytherin

    If you'll read the book, it makes much more sense. The book tells us that the machine that Terl uses on Jonnie starts teaching him the alphabet by showing letters on a screen, both in Earth and Psychlo language, then proceeds to plant further info (history, how to operate machinery, planes, etc.) directly into his brain. This explains how they can pilot ships on such short notice. Also, as for the 6 fingers, they have eleven fingers in all. The book tells us that the Psychlo numeric system is based on 11, instead of 10 like us. That is why their mathematic system was so hard to crack. I guess they just screwed up on not giving the other aliens 11 fingers.

  • April 29, 2000, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Skaught

    by Dreck

    Well I'm glad to see that even if none of you have addressed my tirade directly, at least we seem to not be using our assholes to preach against Scientology much anymore. I enjoy reading legitimate criticisms of a film, not ones that rant on about "Scientology is EVIL! So is this MOVIE!" Because, quite frankly, we do live in America where, by the very essence of the Constitution, every man has the inherent right to do as he pleases. So SKAUGHT, in regards to your "buy a different ticket" theory, why don't you keep on blowing your cousin and shut the fuck up. I have a secret... your parents tried to drown you when they realized how dumb you were, but failed. Too bad. Now, if you want to buy a ticket for MI2 and sneak into BE, then you go right ahead. But stop your fuckin' preaching, because posting your ideas and trying to get others to comply unknowingly sounds an awful lot like the very idea you're fighting against. Don't be a fucking hypocrite. You sound like you belong here at NYU.

  • April 29, 2000, 3:21 p.m. CST

    What movie did you see?

    by France

    Which movie did you see? Since the discussion seems to be deteriorating into attacks on L. Ron Hubbard and scientology I will start by saying that I am a life long Episcopalian and have never even read most his work. I have been reading SF for more than thirty years and will be starting work on my Master's in Professional Writing in the fall. I was also at the preview in Towson with ten other friends and fans and we thoroughly enjoyed the film. First of all the Psychlo's couldn't mine the gold because the radiation in the area would combust with the gases they breathed. They couldn't breathe any of our air, which was the point of the dome. To address the rest of the reviewer's points: 1. While the bar scene does give Travolta the opportunity to be the psychlo we love to hate, the point of the scene is to let us know how much he is counting on going home. He is destroying his network of informants because he does not anticipate needing them any more. 2. I can't say that I noticed this "vital point." The pace of the film was fast enough that I wasn't taking the time to count alien fingers. If the reviewer was, it might explain why he didn't care much for the movie. It would be easy to miss things if you weren't paying close attention. I have every intention of going to see it again when it is released because I'm sure there were details that I missed. 3. I have learned to speak two other languages than my native American and I can't imagine how you would give someone a language telepathically without including history and culture in the lesson. You absolutely cannot get the meanings and nuances without the context of the culture. The flying lessons, done in a separate scene were given so that Jonnie could fly into the gold site beyond the area where Terl (Travolta) could safely travel. Jonnie learns the technology on the basis of the language and math he has been given. Why do you assume that the alien technology would be impossible to master? No where do they imply that all Psychlo's are geniuses, they would also have to make technology usable by the lowest common denominator. 4. In you speak a language and understand the concept of reading and writing you should be able to puzzle out the language in it's written form. This scene seemed to be a condensed time period. We see Jonnie dropped off and then we see Terl coming back for him. In a two hour movie that has as much ground to cover as this one there isn't the luxury of stretching a scene like this out. Would you really want to watch Jonnie exploring the library for a lengthy period of time? If the Psychlo, Terl, wants Jonnie to be able to find the gold site, he'd be pretty stupid not to teach him map reading. 5. The rebels do raid Ft. Knox for the gold to give Terl, about the same amount as would fill half a boxcar. The scene where the vault is full is after they have won the battle and they are using it as a prison for Terl. I just assumed that they retrieved the gold afterwards. 6. Ok, the seven-day fighter training bothered me a bit too, but not enough to ruin the movie and to be fair they are not shown as expert pilots. In the later fight scenes the planes are wobbling all over the place and none of the pilots look comfortable, so I wrote it off to needs must when the devil drives and enjoyed the rest of the effects. 7. The only alien that really struck me as obviously stilted was the planatarie's lady friend who was on screen for about 20 seconds. The movie was fun, with some serious notes that really only catch up to you later as you think about it. I would hope that the main themes of knowledge as power and working together are universal and not solely limited to scientology. It seems to me that there's a lot of assumptions being posted about this movie and I just wanted to clarify some of the issues that I disagreed with.

  • April 29, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST

    The best science fiction book of all time?

    by Ryouga

    Er... When did this book become the so called 'greatest science fiction novel of all time'? And exactly where did they get this information from? Popularity = greatness? I think not.

  • April 29, 2000, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Enigma- why I'm not looking forward to it.

    by Sorcerer

    I will go on record as saying the whole Scientology thing means jack-squat to me. When evaluating a film's quality, you look at the film and ONLY the film. Not who financed it or who gets the merchandising revenue. That said, the trailer fails to grab me for several reasons. 1. The Pschlos- as said before by many of us, John Travolta looks like Krankor. I don't know about you, but I'd find it pretty hard to be intimidated by villains who look like Shylock after a year in Jamaica. It's the NIGHT OF THE LEPUS principle- when trying to make a serious movie, don't make the antagonists look ridiculous. 2. The director- who? The screenwriter- who? I'm all in favor of giving new talent a chance, but the complete lack of recognizable names except for Travolta (and Forest Whitaker) gives one pause. 3. The design doesn't really stand out either. Some ruined buildings, some basic "high-tech" look Psychlo technology, and the familiar jets. 4. The protagonist- who? Not only is the actor unfamiliar, but the character isn't given any exposure at all. What's the point of having campy villains if your heroes are bland and featureless? Even the protagonists of ID4 had some personality- broad personalities to be sure, but distinctive nonetheless.

  • April 29, 2000, 4:30 p.m. CST

    plot holes

    by 7thYearJnr

    The story makes much more sense if you read the book, but thats if you can stomach reading L. Ron Hubbard.

  • April 29, 2000, 4:33 p.m. CST

    FRANCE is right on - -The rest of you all have your heads UP YOU

    by IM Your Daddy

    Including the reviewer. Plot holes? - maybe you're just a dumb-ass reviewer who cant follow a plot line. I've read the book & all you say makes sense to me. Also - Johny Goodboy Tyler was telepathically trained in everything he does. You cant say you buy the "aliens took over earth" bit & not go for higher technology. I WILL see this movie - you all know you wish you were as cool as Travolta, instead of lame-ass geeks. ******* To the retard who said we only use 10 based cuz we're used to it - no shit sherlock. but that doesn't mean we could pick up 11 based math when every computer etc was based on 11 with no reference point.

  • April 29, 2000, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Peace be unto you, my children..

    by L Ron Hubbard

    Please, stop spreading your hatred and negative energy here. Focus, instead, upon the positive aspect of this film, which my loyal followers have blessed you with: It keeps Travolta from making another "Look Who's Talking" movie.

  • April 29, 2000, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Would have been nice if reviewer read the BOOK

    by universequeen

    As an avid fan of Battlefield Earth, I wonder how much of the reviewer's confusion comes from the fact that he didn't read the book (for instance the 11 fingers bit is a major part of the story, but not until the 2nd half) and how much just comes from the fact that he was counting fingers instead of watching the movie. Don't know how I'll like the movie, but I loved the book! Every science fiction fan I know who read the book feels the same way.

  • April 29, 2000, 7:07 p.m. CST

    "Read the Book" isn't a defense

    by Sorcerer

    When you translate a work to a new medium, it will be seen by a new audience. Therefore, you can't just justify plot holes in the film by saying "read the book", because a film has to stand on its own.

  • April 29, 2000, 7:09 p.m. CST

    And is this guy Elvis on Tuesdays?

    by universequeen

    And what's with this L.RonHubbard dude? Did they let him out, or do psych wards have Internet access now? Do you put on a dress and play Marilyn Monroe on Mondays, dude?

  • April 29, 2000, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Defense?? What for?

    by universequeen

    Um.. I didn't write the book. I didn't write the screenplay. I didn't act in the movie. I didn't direct the movie. I didn't do the costumes. Why would I need a "defense"? I don't get it, dude. I have no idea if I'll like the movie or not. I was just saying that the reviewer's point of view has little to do with my own since I read the book and he obviously didn't. I might love it where he hated it. Or, I might sit there counting everyone's fingers and toes, who knows?

  • April 29, 2000, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Just discovered ONE redeeming quality of B:E

    by Ursus

    I just saw the 10" (or was it 12" -frankly, who gives a shit) Talking Terl figure at Toys R Us. You think the Trendmaster Sonyzilla line sucked goats? Think the human figures for the ID4 line bit turd? Baby, you have to check out 10 (or 12)" of dreadlocked Travolta with Gene Simmons boots jabbering some unintelligible nonsense about "human animals." It was the funniest damn thing I've seen since the Tickle-Me Ernie with the squeezie-thing in his stomach an inch lower than it should be. Brother, if the toy line for B:E doesn't sink Trendmasters, there'll be a little less justice in the world.

  • April 29, 2000, 8:09 p.m. CST

    universequeen

    by Mr. Sartre

    I noticed how you mentioned the reviewer should have read the book. The fact of the matter is that when one makes a film based on a book, the film has to stand on its own so it is equally accessible to both those who've read the material and those who haven't. If one were required to read the book in order to understand a film, then why even make the film in the first place? Seriously, to say that the reviewer had a responsiblity to read "Battlefield Earth" is not applicable to this situation. The only time a reviewer has an obligation to read a given book is if the reviewer is a literary critic. Hope that clears things up. Take care. Mr. Sartre, loving those pygmy marmasets...

  • April 29, 2000, 8:48 p.m. CST

    well...

    by Twisted Mentat

    I've read ALOT of SF books, and B:E was one of those. By far it is one of the absolutly worst books i've ever read. Okie, the premise is pretty cool, but the writing! arrgh! i can write better than that! The book is filled with plot holes, for example, Terl spends alot of time saying how stupid humans are, but then later on says how they were very advanced even spending probes into space and such...blah! #1 SF book ever written? i just wonder were that poll was taken...where was Dune, Ringworld...hell even SNowcrash or a mass market Trek Novel would be better than it. AH well...at least they took out the scenes were Terl and Johnny are shooting the legs of cows for no reason at all, or Being attacked by Bears constantly. Anyways, I belive (i'm not sure about this but i sounds like something he would say) Harlen Elison said "the worst thing Hubbard Ever did to humanity was to Make people think he was a good SF writer". As i said, i'm not sure if he said that, but it was said by someone! ah well.... i will not see this movie, unles i somehow get to go free or something... well, at least we can count on every reviewer from Ebert to Joe Blow in nowhere Manatoba giving it a bad review, and those who do see it tell everyone that is blows. Second week it will be 11 on the top ten...for the second week is the most important week for a movie, because thats when the 10 friends that Bob told on monday see the movie...or don't...

  • April 29, 2000, 8:50 p.m. CST

    There you have it.....

    by 60091

    My gut feelings on this movie have been confirmed. Part of me wanted this picture to be an inteligent Sci Fi movie. But what did I expect? Another piece of shit made for the 'lower than low attention span' teenage crowd.

  • April 29, 2000, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Hmmmm....

    by alpha

    So many points to address. So little time. First off RE: the constant putdowns on some of the most succesful Genre films of all time, ID4 was entertaining it had numerous references to and tips of the hat to a lot of Sci-fi classics and the humans won through the aliens arrogance not our brilliance - the Aliens were like the Romans they had such superior tech that they simply couldn't concieve that they could have a weakness. Twister was a fun entertaining disaster flick. Armorgeddon was pure B-Grade but I dont think they had pretensions of being anything else so I was able to enjoy it (Bruce Willis was terrible though). SW1:TPM made $430 million for gods sake....its not that bad a film, its just that we all hoped it would be so much better....it was worth it just for Darth Maul (Vader was such an enormous villan to follow and the sheer visual impact of that character and his battle with the two Jedi made the film fun for me). Starship Troopers was a reasonable attempt to adapt an almost unadaptable book...sure they changed a lot and edited out a lot but they kept the central idea of we humans being pretty unlikable intact. Why must people always trash these unashamably commercial films, sure they are not high art but in most cases they acheived their aim... to entertain the masses. Blade Runner, 2001 and the like are great films but when you think about it how entertaining were they to the average person....2001 is very slow and more than a tad obscure in parts and Blade Runner had the suprise revelation at the end that the Replicants were really the Good Guys who only really wanted to live and be free and were using the only means they had been programmed to understand (violence - Rutger Hauers choice at the end not to kill elevates him above the humans in his last moments of life) we Humans as usual were cruelly mistreating them....thats a heavy and depressing point for the average person to digest if they are really looking to be entertained. I think people should look at what a film is trying to achieve when judging the result....Mission to Mars was trying to be art therefore its a failure, Galaxy Quest was trying to be fun and succeded therefore its success. As for BE and its supporters and detractors I have to fall in the catergory of the latter...the book was a very poor B-Grade Sci-fi schlock book with pretensions of greatness which has become a best seller on the back of a bizarre buying policy by a cult. It had some good ideas but its execution was pretty poor, I really doubt if Travolta or his lackeys have tho objectivity to take the good concepts and alter them to make it entertaining. The plot wholes addressed sound like the groaningly bad kind of things that destroy ones ability to suspend disbelief which is such an important part of any film going experience combine that with the stiltwalker effect and you get a bad attempt at making a sci-fi film with pretensions of art (hey their the ones saying its the greatest sci-fi book not me). I think I'm going to be saving my money and go watch something that might make me think or I might just enjoy for enjoyments sake. Cavemen flying Harriers 1000 years in the future ...hmmmm...BWAHHHHHaaaAAAa....that has to be one of the worst concepts I have ever heard.

  • April 29, 2000, 9:58 p.m. CST

    dreck

    by kojiro

    according to Websters dictionary. dreck\'drek\n.[Yiddish]: trash, rubbish It's the little things like this that make me believe the creator of our universe was just a warped little underling of The Creator. I love it. Idiots like this are why life is worth living.

  • April 29, 2000, 10:02 p.m. CST

    No - I'm YOUR daddy

    by Elronisabitch

    To the retard who said that I am a retard: "To the retard who said we only use 10 based cuz we're used to it - no shit sherlock. but that doesn't mean we could pick up 11 based math when every computer etc was based on 11 with no reference point." Think about it. If our use of base 10 is nothing more than a convenience related to our having (most of us) been born with 10 fingers, then the reasons for learning base 10 over any other system are very superficial, and learning any of those systems would not (perhaps you are excluded from this) be terribly difficult. If you think that the laws of physics somehow change depending on what system we are using, then you are completely out of your mind. Whatever is expressed in base 11 could be expressed in base 10. In other words, there is no reason that base 11 would lead the Psychlos to discover teleportation. There just isn't. Retard.

  • April 29, 2000, 10:10 p.m. CST

    battlefield earth

    by scifi oldie

    What the heck is going on anyway? what has happened to the concept of seeing a movie before you bash it? I have seen many for the last 50 years and have seen a few better a number worse than this one. It has a few flaws but is a darned good evening. I saw it at the preview also along with a full house of others who seemed to enjoy it.

  • April 29, 2000, 11:26 p.m. CST

    To the dude who's user name is "Elron is my bitch"

    by IM Your Daddy

    dude, why diss the guy if you want him for your bitch? Please refrain your faggoty-ass from referring to me in your TB. You obviously never read the book. ***** TWISTED MENTAT - got a news flash for ya: No, you cant write better than Hubbard. Your tripe was lame - take your boring-ass out of here. ***** Cave men flying planes? - not in the book I read. The people had no tech - but they weren't cave men, nor stupid. I'd say the reviewer got the movie wrong, probably too busy with ElronIsMyBitch in the balcony.

  • April 29, 2000, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Box Office Bomb? Doubtful, unfortunately.

    by w1ggle

    In addition to other points made in this thread, remember what how the Xians rolled out en masse for 'Omega Code' last year? I personally know a few holy rollers who bought up tickets, just to keep the numbers up. Somehow I doubt all the Scientologists are going to stand by and let 'their movie' slide off the radar screen after a week or two... Just a thought, personally I could care less about this pile of celluloid.

  • April 29, 2000, 11:59 p.m. CST

    About "The Omega Code"

    by Sorcerer

    Yes, it made more money than expected thanks to Churches helping cook the books, but that can only go so far. When a film's already opening on a huge number of screens and a lot of people are (probably) seeing this on the first weekend, word of mouth will be harder to quell. Besides, I'm not so sure there are as many Scientologists as there are Fundamentalist Christians.

  • April 30, 2000, 12:08 a.m. CST

    There is a very good reason

    by 1831

    There is a very good reason for the attacks on scientology. They have every intention to take over the world. It's very nice for people to sit at the computer and write "Oh who cares the talk balk is for the movies". I think people should be more concerned about the worlds largest cult or someday in the future people will say why didn't they stop them sooner the same way they did with the Nazi's. In fact Germany may be the country that saves us because by law scientology is illeagal there as no totalatarian groups are aloud to exist.

  • April 30, 2000, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Die evil movie, die and go to hell

    by MrGreen

    My god in heaven. never before have I WANTED a movie to suck. I want this movie to die a fast painful death. I was vary happy to have read this review. I have seen Travoltas "action" figure. I am so glad I never had toys growing up with HUGE bulges in there pants.

  • April 30, 2000, 12:12 a.m. CST

    IM Your Daddy

    by Robin Goodfellow

    No offense, buddy, but you sound like a prick. *smirks* C'mon, man. Stop acting like a pompous elitist just because you think "Battlefield Earth" is high art while another guy thinks its lowly crap. We all have a right to an opinion, don't we? Just shut up, read the damn book, and go see the damn movie. I'm just tired of this type of bullshit from people like you. Just because someone hates something I like doesn't means I have to mock them, does it? Am I saying "Battlefield Earth" is bad? No. I haven't seen it or read it and I'll have to see it or read it before I can say if it's good or bad. I'm just saying you're an asshole and I think many other share that opinion. Take it easy, buddy. GYMKATA RULES!!!

  • April 30, 2000, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Battlefield Klingon

    by mattonio

    John Travolta's character looks like a rip-off of a klingon!

  • April 30, 2000, 2:29 a.m. CST

    All the anti-boringlamegeek people need to find a different plac

    by MrBadExample

    It seems statistically unlikely that the people posting fan-boy hatred messages are all pillars of sophistication and wit. The empirical data also points to a tendency toward a lack of erudition in that group, but that's another matter enitrely. Seriously, though, if you think that everything posted in the talk-backs is garbage, go read something else. I heard they print words on paper now. That has the added advantage of keeping your grating rants away from your fellow human beings.

  • April 30, 2000, 5:55 a.m. CST

    yoiks! my ID4 (crapola) alarm is going off!!!

    by half vader

    Pee-yew. I can small the stench from here (and I'm Down-Under)! In the 80s Travolta almost ended his career by choosing 'Stayin' Alive'. In the 90s he picked 'Look Who's talking'. Looks like he's found his stinker for this decade.

  • April 30, 2000, 10:48 a.m. CST

    why this will die

    by Dawson's Crack

    Gladiator is being released the previous week-end. It will have fantastic word of mouth. BE might open strong, but there is no way it is going to carry through on word of mouth. They're aren't THAT many scientologists.

  • April 30, 2000, 10:54 a.m. CST

    the world would be a better place if....

    by nukethegenyers

    ...all the stupid scientology losers did the world a favor and committed mass suicide. think about all the fine actors we would lose! john travolta, tom cruise.... my god if they died then who would make the super shitty movies! SCIENTOLOGY = ITS GONNA BOMB BABY

  • April 30, 2000, 11:46 a.m. CST

    I Dont Get It

    by Stalker

    Why is there so many people who WANT to hate this movie? I dont care anyway but at least I'll wait till i see it to put in my two cents. ********************************** Is there any alien sex in it?

  • April 30, 2000, 3:16 p.m. CST

    wild wild west...

    by filcore

    usually if a movie looks kinda cool, I'll see it, regardelss of critics or others. But after last summer's piece of crap known as wild wild west (which we were forewarned about) I'll take the criticism a little more seriuosly from now on.

  • April 30, 2000, 3:21 p.m. CST

    what they should have done

    by johnnyangelheart

    I seem to remember a somewhat similar science fiction story about Earth invaders subjugating the earthlings and killing most of them off except for a few crazy Mormons hiding in the mountains of Utah. They decided it would be more fun to let those last remaining survivors kill each other off gladiator (I love that word) style. And it was. So much more so in fact that they decided to upgrade the games by giving the gladiators some of their own sophisticated alien weapons to fight each other with. Big mistake. Now that would make a cool movie.

  • April 30, 2000, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Love the film!!!!! Hate the Film!!!!! But stop hating your fell

    by avilon

    I know the subject line sounds a little preachy, but it's nevertheless a fact. Everyone is entitled to their own vehement opinion of the film, the quality of the acting, the plot or lack thereof, the special effects, etc. But no-one has a right to wish that a whole group of people should be dead because of their beliefs, no matter how "non-mainstream" they are. Nor should one hate a film solely because of the beliefs of an actor in that film. Do you hate Richard Gere and all of his films because he studies under the Dalai Lama? Do you wish every Buddhist dead? Do you despise Courteney Cox because she believes in "energetic balancing" from the Max? Is she a ****ing bitch and untalented actress because of it? Does Jason Alexander's work suck because he is involved with Aish Hatorah, an orthodox Jewish group which attempts to get young American mainstream Jews to become religious again? The fact is that there are many, many different belief systems, and many actors/writers/directors in Hollywood may not necessarily follow the mainstream Judeo/Christian beliefs or the currently popular "God is my Mercedes Benz" faith. But every person has the right to his own faith, and it is inherent in the American way that one's beliefs are not ever to be used to judge one's job performance. You wouldn't fire a worker at a company because he was a Jehovas Witness? And if you did, I pity the legal mess you would be in shortly thereafter. Furthermore, much of the tone of this message board is openly fascistic, wishing the demise, death and unhappiness of Travolta, and any Scientologist merely because of their beliefs. This sort of behaviour has occurred throughout history, whether it is the slaughter of Croats in Serbia, or the extermination of Jews in Germany/Poland/Russia. It always starts innocently enough with a few extremist "rabblerousers", but it doesn't make it right. So I would encourage those of you who are posting inflammatory messages solely because you dislike Scientology or Scientologists to take a long, hard look at what sort of statement you are making about our society as a whole, and whether you want to be a part of that negativism, no matter how much fun flaming an "asshole Scientologist" may seem. Just think about it.

  • April 30, 2000, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Crapiness of this Movie Transcends Religion

    by Huluzu

    I saw a test screening of the movie too, and I don't care if it's based on scientology or christianity or whatever ... It's just ... complete crap. I mean seriously - the crapiness of this movie transcends any religious denomination. Don't worry about the movie being related to scientology ... worry about it being related, in quality, to movies like "Time Chasers", "Lawnmower Man 2", or "Space Mutiny". Worry even more that it takes itself so seriously. One small thing that's going for this movie though - unintentional comedic stilt walking. But that's not nearly enough.

  • April 30, 2000, 7:04 p.m. CST

    I have just one thing to say...

    by tripod

    ...John Travolta with dreadlocks.

  • April 30, 2000, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Avilon

    by Cannonball

    I'm taking a long hard look at what I'm about to say....ok now that that's over with, $cientology sucks as hard as your mom on New Years Eve. Hopefully all scientologists do die, and more importantly I hope it's very painful. Perhaps by means of acid...anyway God will never be my Mercedes...He's a Vette all the way!

  • April 30, 2000, 10:08 p.m. CST

    well...

    by spoonerism

    Scientology makes a movie and it sucks... if a big gaggle of mormons (excluding OSCard, who is a genius) got to together and made a movie, would you knock before seeing it just 'cuz they belonged to a crackpot religion? I'm not going to see the movie cuz the movie doesn't interest me (this talkback is much more entertaining than most movies I've seen lately), but the thing is... don't knock a "religion" just cuz it's "stupid", and don't knock a movie till you see it, because (this pertains to both the religion and the movie, any religion and any movie) A: you are not giving it a far chance. B: you are insulting something that people devote their lives to. and C: it makes you look like an idiot. PJACK

  • April 30, 2000, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Like I said - I'm *your* daddy

    by Elronisabitch

    Dear Poor Illiterate Fuck (IM Your Daddy) - If you pay close attention, my user name is "Elronisabitch" and not, repeat, NOT, "Elsronismybitch." Although I do wish that he were. But, that would mean his having to come back to Teegeeack from the planet "one galaxy over" where he currently is, studying the future of Scientology. Of course, if you believe that, then I have a bridge to total freedom that I could sell you.

  • May 1, 2000, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Scientologists

    by Merlyn

    I don't know too much about this movie but I was under the impression that the Scientologist get all profit that come from whatever toys, posters, etc. that are made of this movie. I could be wrong...but i doubt it.

  • May 1, 2000, 6:23 a.m. CST

    Not A Lousy ...

    by Mad_Man_Moon

    Book ... That's for sure. I live in England and I will watch the film. The only way you can tell how good a film is, is to see the film yourself. Unless you have a psychic link with the reviewers you admire and respect. No offense 'reviewy people', but you're only good for the information you provide. The opinions are nice because then at least you have more character than a news reader. Cheers

  • May 1, 2000, 7:33 a.m. CST

    My God, What piece of $!@%!!!

    by FutureLucas

    How ANYONE couyld be excited for this film is beyond me? The picture I saw of Travolta from the Chest up, had me interested...FOR 10 SECONDS!!!! Then the shot I saw of him full body, I don't think I ever leughed so frickin' hard in my life! That costume is the most insane piece of crap I had ever had the privilege of looking at...I must have showed it to 40 people ALL with the same reaction. Travolta has just made "Stayin' Alive 3" This film will bomb, it looks like shit. I have ZERO interest in seeing this film. He nmeeds a bit more time at the "Clay Table" for some private time!

  • May 1, 2000, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Sounds just like the book to me

    by The Eleminator

    Well what did you expect, the book was a big load of shite, full of plot holes and really bad science. Like all that stuff about the periodic table of elements and the bit where all the nukes go off beside each other ONE AT A TIME! Damn that book was shitty

  • May 3, 2000, 5:19 p.m. CST

    The Book vs. The Movie

    by MarkMcWane

    This was the first review I have seen that details some of the main parts of the movie. If this report is true, then as a fan of the book, I am dissapointed already. In the book, the remaining humans did NOT live in caves, but in dilapidated houses maintained through the ages in the mountains above Denver, Colorado. They were able to remain there unmolested by the Psychlos due to the fact that their village sat very near to buried nuclear missiles tied to a massive underground American military base a few miles from them. The Psychlo air, breathe-gas, explodes when it comes into contact with uranium. The gold vein was found by Terl in the book, from a flyover drone photo, and he kept this from everyone else so as to have the humans mine it, and then have it transported back to the home planet for his own personal fulfillment. The humans that were used in the book did NOT fly old American military craft, as these craft had disintegrated. They learned to fly Psychlo technology so as to mine the gold. They adapted stored military weapons with nuclear tips and such which could take down Psychlo craft and kill Psychlo's when the rounds penetrated (uranium in the blood stream explodes when the rounds penetrate). Why any of these major story points from the book would be changed for a movie is beyond me. The humans in the book were not reverted to cavemen status, but had maintained English and their history via the "minister" of the village passing down from generation to generation. I am appalled as an avid reader and fan of the book if this review is correct and these major changes to the book were made. The book did not need any Hollywood changes, and this, if it is true, will be why the movie fails. The book was good, as it simply dealt with greed (Terl's lust for gold) becoming the downfall of the invaders. If the movie sucks, read the book instead and enjoy it as a good escapist science fiction tome.

  • May 9, 2000, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Scientology is bad sci-fi, why would B.E. be any better?

    by zzjerry

    Common... we're talking about the ramblings of a highly dillusional schizoid. You think the movie has plot holes??? Try the logic holes in the whacko religion he invented.

  • May 9, 2000, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Good Book, sounds like bad movie

    by Deathass

    I'm about halfway through the book (ie - through the part covered by the movie) and I actually enjoy it. Like one user said, the holes that the author pointed out were probably not explained properly (except I don't remember anything about 6 fingers). Also, it looks like Travolta isn't keeping to his promise to honor the book. 1st, There aren't any 1,000 year old planes in the book. They steal Alien planes. And Travolta's character trains the humans because he thinks the uranium is around the gold, and uranium is extremely deadly to the Psyclos. Also, the humans become smart because the knowledge is beemed into their brains by a different race of Alien learning machines. Most of what the humans learn are history recorded by the another alien race (who were enslaved by the Psyclos) who make the learning machines. Terl (travolta's character) doesn't care about much of what the humans are learning because he believes they are so inferior, that they could not pose a threat. The book is fairly logical in how everything works out. It looks like the movie is skipping things and completely changing things. Too bad. It's really a fun book.

  • May 9, 2000, 1:33 p.m. CST

    And another thing

    by Deathass

    Can't people get off the scientology bashing and just talk about the merits of B.E. as a both a book and/or a movie? or at least move that to a different message board. B.E. is a sci-fi novel pure and simple. There is not much of a message other than greed is bad and big corporations become old, stale and uninnovative (like the big Psyclo mining company). In other words, no earth shattering messages here. L. Ron Hubbard obviously got carried away with himself, and his followers like Travolta are typical examples of Hollywood wackos. Anyone who thinks that Hollywood actors are spiritually enlightened need a labotomy anyway, so just let Scientology be the crackpot organization that it is. Let these boards be about movies and sci-fi. That way, we can realize that this stuff isn't important enough to get all worked up about.

  • May 11, 2000, 6:29 a.m. CST

    Indianapolis Preview

    by decker_66

    Where: The Kerasotes 16 in Indianapolis. When: May 10, 7:30 Sorry folks, this one's a clunker. I never once felt anything but boredom--the movie never drew me in. I was always 100% aware that I was sitting in a theatre watching a movie. The acting was completely overwrought in every performance--characters were either DESPERATELY struggling, or COMPLETELY evil. That's not so bad, but the acting was campier than Batman and Robin. The Plotholes were many--buildings fall apart, but Harrier Jets still work nearly perfectly 1000 years from now (good thing that Flight Simulators apparently have internal, eternal power sources). The opening of the movie consists of a series of 30 second scenes (roughly) that do nothing but desperately try to fill in back story. The special effects, especially of Washington DC, were woefully sub-par in this day of the Matrix. I went in with a neutral view, but my friend was a huge fan of the book. He'd just finished the book on tape again to prepare for the movie. I sat through the thing thinking how to tell him that this was an atrocious film. Thankfully, as we left, he turned to me and said, "What a stinking load of crap." Honest--that's from a fan of the book. This movie NEARLY succeeded in being bad enough to be funny, but unfortunately caused way too much boredom for that to happen. Sorry, this one's a loser. I see it opening big, and then disappearing from the box office.

  • May 11, 2000, 7:33 p.m. CST

    But...but....

    by askhere

    Who cares about this lame movie when Lord of the Rings is due out in just over 18 months!!! Save your $8.50 on this one and go see LotR an extra time!

  • May 12, 2000, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Battlefield Earth quick review

    by licnstokil

    I just got back from watching Battlefield Earth at my local theatre. I was very excited about seeing this movie because I am a big Sci-Fi fan and I really like John Travolta, too. I had been looking forward to this since I saw the teaser and subsequent trailers about a month ago. Like most everyone else, it took somebody else to tell me that that was John Travolta as the bad guy with the dreadlocks! Now I was pumped! Well, so much for Hype!! This movie had such great potential...seemingly good storyline, a great cast, and awesome special effects! I havent been this disappointed since I saw "The Haunting". What a mess B.E. was! As much as I like John Travolta, his character really bit the big one! Just goes to show you that even a good actor will have a hard time overcoming a bad script! (Reminiscant of Sean Connery in "The Avengers") I really wanted to like him in this role and I was willing to forgive several campy, and very un-badguyish comments, and corny dialogue. But it was just overwhelmingly poor dialogue, cheesy situations, and just plain stupid holes in the plot I could have driven an interstellar freighter through! That is just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion, but to just give you the short version...dont pay full price for this one. Go by yourself to a matinee, when its cheaper. Dont take a date. See it alone so no-one will be pissed that you took them to a crappy movie. But it was enjoyable to see some of the very good special effects on the bigscreen. Just goes to show...again...that big stars, big effects, and big hype doth not a big-hit movie make. The whole experience was very much like how I felt after going to go see Waterworld. Cheated and insulted.

  • May 29, 2000, 1:50 p.m. CST

    BE

    by shoppingvt

    Without bashing ElRon and his own version of psych-therapy, the film sucked big time. Bottom-line is... script/cinematography/and a long incoherent read of a book are not good ingredients for $7.00 and a Saturday afternoon.