# Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 (2000)



## Ice (Jun 22, 2001)

*Great film!!!!*

When I picked up the movie from the video store I was nearly positive that it would be some cheepâ€™o film, with really bad acting.
I was wrong.
It turned out to have an intelligent story line, with special FX and superb acting.
I really enjoyed it.
~Ice~
:rolly2:


----------



## Curupira (Jul 25, 2001)

I liked it too! Man, John Travolta was uuuugly!!! :laugh2:


----------



## ray gower (Nov 12, 2001)

Sorry it didn't do a lot for me. The book is a lot more soundly written.


----------



## Ice (Nov 18, 2001)

there's a book?????????? 

I'm going to have to go to the library tomorrow.

~Ice~


----------



## ray gower (Nov 18, 2001)

By Hubbard- a Sixties writer- Had to see the films title credits to remember it, or recognise it


----------



## JACKER (Feb 24, 2002)

All right!  Finally people that liked this flick to.  You don't know how long I've waited for this day.


----------



## nic (Mar 12, 2002)

Nah, it wasn't for me.
I watched it at the pictures and came out feeling like I'd wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life.
I'm not sure what I was expecting from it.
How long ago did it come out? Maybe I can catch it on cable. Some films have a way of growing on you.


----------



## JACKER (Mar 12, 2002)

It has been out for over a year.  I know its been on HBO.  The DVD is pretty cool though.  You should check that out.


----------



## JACKER (May 5, 2002)

*Battlefield Earth*

This must be brought up.  

Just want to say that after viewing this film a few times and evaluating it on different levels, this may be the most underated, and most undeserving of abuse sci-fi film ever made.

It's the year 3000 thousand and the world has been ruled by an alien mining corporation for an estimated 1000 years.  Barry Pepper plays Jonnie Goodboy Tyler.  A human rebel that rallies man kind after centuries of not knowing what has happened to them, while also blaming themselves and eachother in a way for the what's happened.  

John Travolta plays Terl.  The Psychlo chief of security(also a bad @$$) for the Earth base in Denver.  He's consumed with greed and power.  Like pretty much all the Psychlos on Earth, he wants out.  But when denied his right to passage, he cooks up a sceme to train "man-animals" to mine gold in a radiated area that has a deadly reaction with the Psychlo breathing gass.  Yeah, they breath gas.   

 The film uses elements from L.Ron Hubbard's novel, but goes about them in different ways.  Thus displeasing those that read the book first.  All I ask is to go rent it right now and tell me what you think.


----------



## themuMmy (May 5, 2002)

John Travolta gives away that its gonna be a crappy movie...


----------



## rde (May 5, 2002)

Inane, simplistic, vacuous... but three of the words that can safely be used to describe this execrable film.
What's so good about it.


----------



## JACKER (May 5, 2002)

Well, they're on Earth and they have a battle.   

No, it's an old school style scince fiction film about an under dog/heroe's journey to save the world.  There's many little metaphores throughout the film that some can probably pick up on.  Another thing is that I can't think of another movie like it.  Have we actually seen a movie with aliens ruling our planet!  

The aliens (Psychlos) represent the darker side of humanity.  They're greed, cruelty, and pure arrogance.  

All in all, I just think more people should see this.


----------



## rde (May 5, 2002)

Well, there was Dalek Invasion Earth 2150 AD. It's the story of an evil race who've enslaved mankind, leaving only one man and his brave buddies to wrest control from the alien conquerers, thus saving mankind.

It was pretty simplistic, but it _was_ made in 1966. And excuse Battlefield Earth doesn't have.


----------



## JACKER (May 5, 2002)

Why does it matter that the movie was made in 1966 that gives it an excuse to be simplistic?  There's actually things in BE that can be left up to interpretation of what certain things mean.  But yes the main premise is simplistic, but I don't see why it has top be incredibly intelligent.  It was a summer movie.  Some of the actors have explained the movie as "juju" and not meant to be taken seriously.


----------



## rde (May 6, 2002)

<I>Why does it matter that the movie was made in 1966 that gives it an excuse to be simplistic?</I>
Back in those good old days, vacuous **** was released as such; no-one would claim the Daleks are a credible threat to anyone these days.

<I>There's actually things in BE that can be left up to interpretation of what certain things mean</I>
Or to put it another way, it's a ham-fisted attempt at conferring depth onto an otherwise boring movie.

Every single aspect of Battlefield Earth has been done better in a different movie. The graphics were pretty but unspectacular, the dialogue was appalling, the allegory clumsy... I could go on.

And being a summer no-brainer is no excuse. No-one could accuse Blade of intellectual depth, but it still manages to be an entertaining movie.


----------



## JACKER (May 6, 2002)

Like I said, it's an old school type of Sci-Fi.  It's also a comic book movie so...

Anyway, I've argued a lot about this movie and I'm not gonna anymore.  I just put this up here for people to see, so they can see it themselves sometime.  There's a lot (and I mean a lot) of people and film critics that feel the same way you do.  You're not saying anything that no one's said before.  Except I'm sure there was some intelligent movie made in the 60's.


----------



## JACKER (May 11, 2002)

See this movie.


----------



## JACKER (May 11, 2002)

Another pic.


----------



## DragonBaby (May 11, 2002)

I thought that the idea behind this movie and the storyline were fantastic. It's a really clever idea. Sadly though it was badly planned out and very badly acted. Firstly if  the areas humans lived in were radiated,the reason the aliens couldnt go there, then the radiation wold have slowly killed them, as stated in the film. However we are suppoed to believe that the aliens invaded earth so long ago that the humans didnt remember anything about cities or civilisations and lived as primitives. Hang on, how long can we survive radiation? And doesnt it affect fertility????
Secondly John Travolta looked as if he just didnt take the role seriously (cant blame him but why do the movie then??) His acting was appaling!!
That aside it was a good theme and needs some better people to rework it.


----------



## JACKER (May 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DragonBaby _
> *I thought that the idea behind this movie and the storyline were fantastic. It's a really clever idea. Sadly though it was badly planned out and very badly acted. Firstly if  the areas humans lived in were radiated,the reason the aliens couldnt go there, then the radiation wold have slowly killed them, as stated in the film. However we are suppoed to believe that the aliens invaded earth so long ago that the humans didnt remember anything about cities or civilisations and lived as primitives. Hang on, how long can we survive radiation? And doesnt it affect fertility????
> Secondly John Travolta looked as if he just didnt take the role seriously (cant blame him but why do the movie then??) His acting was appaling!!
> That aside it was a good theme and needs some better people to rework it. *



The Star Wars and Independence Day crew wasn't good enough huh?   I thought Travolta relished his role, but this isn't a serious film either.  It's just some Sci-Fi fun.   Humans did lose what they once were and therefore forgotten about old civilization.  Yes radiation is dangerous for humans and in the book there's some deformed babies being born, but they were killed.  They should have given the old guy (Staffor) a deformed foot, because that's what he had in the book, but his life was spared at birth.  Once again I love the idea of the whole human race losing everything because of a corporation's greed (there's probably a metaphore in there).  And then you see the Psychlos lose their power because of greed.


----------



## JACKER (Mar 1, 2003)

bump


----------



## Tabitha (Mar 1, 2003)

bump=spam?


----------



## Dave (Jun 16, 2005)

Wow, people who actually like this film! Up to now Iâ€™ve only heard bad things about it, so I just had to watch it myself. Iâ€™m afraid Iâ€™m with Rde on this one, though it did have some good ideas.

I was trying to work out what actually makes it was so bad. To begin with it started okay, or at least it was comparable to those post-apocalyptic sci-fi films of the early 70â€™s such as â€˜Loganâ€™s Runâ€™, â€˜Zardozâ€™ or â€˜Battle for the Planet of the Apesâ€™. That is one of the problems; it is too out of date, if it couldnâ€™t be made in the 1970â€™s it shouldnâ€™t have been made in 2000.

Secondly, John Travolta is one the main characters, but he is also the villain. As such we feel no sympathy for his situation. And is he really relishing the role, and not just hamming it up?

I guess he did it to promote Scientology. Travolta is a follower of L Ron Hubbard. But if you want to promote something, you need to make it better than this.

The story is very slow to develop, almost 45 minutes before Terlâ€™s plan is revealed. Into the second hour before Johnnieâ€™s plan is broken. The jokes are weak; the state lines on the map, for instance. And it is much too long at two hours.

Cavemen flying 1000 year old jets? Maybe, they did had a flight simulator and lots of time. No problems of electricity supply though? And aviation fuel? 

The radiation plot device was a problem, also the exposed seam of gold on the rock face, yet no similar weathering having taken place to city buildings and cars in the streets. In fact, books are in good condition despite being in the open air, cars have still-pressurized tires and wrecked buildings have completely intact plate glass windows.

There are many other goofs in this film all detailed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185183/goofs

Having said that, it is no worse than â€˜Independence Dayâ€™!


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 10, 2017)

The book is gully Pleasure .

The film is not.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 11, 2017)

I tried to read the book a long time ago. I had heard a lot about it and most of it was good at the time.  I got about half way through and couldn't pick it back up again. I also bought and read most of his ten novel "Mission Earth" series. (Don't judge me, they were cheap at Forbidden Planet.) It was mildly entertaining, but not good Sci Fi. I wouldn't recommend it. 

I still haven't seen the Battlefield Earth movie, but there is a perverse part of me that wants to.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 30, 2018)

I thought at one point ,t here was supposed to be anime adaptation of this one , but it never came to pass.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 12, 2018)

I would like to see them do a reboot of this film.


----------

