# Battlefield Earth...good or bad?



## jonak (Nov 27, 2004)

I personally like Battlefield Earth, specifically because there's another species from a distant galaxy there on Earth in the year 3000 with advanced technology and the ability to take over planets. The only thing that I hated about it was...the actors didn't actually speak in Psychlo. They all spoke in English, which was annoying. But supposedly, they WERE speaking in their native tongue, yet it was done in English so we all could understand. Which IS understandable. But I think it would've been so much more interesting if the Psychlos actually SPOKE in Psychlo. What're your sentiments on the movie Battlefield Earth?


----------



## dwndrgn (Nov 27, 2004)

I thought the movie was utter crap.  However, I enjoyed the book immensely.  If they had stayed closer to the story in the book it might have been more interesting.  I agree that the Psychlos should have been speaking their language, but I can understand the creators for not wanting to get into that kind of intricacy - they clearly didn't have the time or energy to read the book so actually creating dialog in another language would have been way to difficult for them.

Have you read the book?  While not liking L. Ron Hubbard's strange con-man ways, I thought Battlefield Earth was an engaging space opera.  It had all the great elements - the embittered, weakened and utterly subdued race, the vulgar and horrible conquerers, the extremely intelligent and clever hero...fun stuff.


----------



## jonak (Nov 27, 2004)

I find that "con-man" remark offensive, please don't say things like that. Ron Hubbard was a brilliant man, and until you find the truth about him and his works, please don't make remarks like that.

Oh yeah, I started to read the book, but I stopped and never finished. I didn't get very far. I was having other interests in other books...so you know how it goes.


----------



## Esioul (Nov 27, 2004)

I've never read the book, but I saw the first part of the film and found it very boring, always wondering, 'now when is this film actually going to start?'


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 27, 2004)

jonak, if you find the comments offensive, then please don't start threads on controversial authors and their works, without considering that something of the controversy around such figures might enter the discussion thread.


----------



## Leto (Nov 27, 2004)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Have you read the book?  While not liking L. Ron Hubbard's strange con-man ways, I thought Battlefield Earth was an engaging space opera.  It had all the great elements - the embittered, weakened and utterly subdued race, the vulgar and horrible conquerers, the extremely intelligent and clever hero...fun stuff.


Yup, all the clichés of the genre. And I didn't like the way he wrote them. it gave me the sensation to read a commercial recipe to make fast money instead of a sci-fi novel. 
The answer to the question is for me : Bad for the books and from the trailers I've saw bad too for the movie. IMO


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Nov 27, 2004)

_Battlefield Earth _is one of the worst novels I've ever read. Stilted, wooden, overwrought dialogue from stilted, wooden, overwrought characters. When I'm writing and I feel that I'm not doing my best--I read _Battlefield Earth_ just to remind myself that even I can't sink that low.

The movie was horrible too. It has to be the worst SF film ever made.

For a good read about Hubbard and his bizarre, outlandish hijinks--from being a pathological liar, con-man, and ego maniac, read _The Bare-Faced Messiah_. You can read it here:

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

You can also read more at www.xenu.net . . . .


----------



## Princess Ivy (Nov 27, 2004)

In all honesty i've never read anything by hubbard, although been bombarded by copies of his scientology books by a family member. In fact, I've avoided all of his works for that simple fact. Not realising that the film was based on a novel by the man, I've wanted to see the film for some time, although more in my 'i love b movies' role than as a paying theatre goer. I think i'll give it a miss now!


----------



## The Master™ (Nov 27, 2004)

can't say hubbard has ever interested me - dunno why, but they just never jump out at me... i have the film on dvd, and enjoy the sheer escapism for a couple of hours, but never take it seriously... as for being the worst sci-fi film ever - dude, there are a number of contenders in THAT category!!!

 oh, and jonak, i'd suggest easing up... everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you don't like it - tough...


----------



## AmonRa (Nov 29, 2004)

i found it quite an entertaining film, not very deep or anything but then i do have several mystery science theatre 3000 DVDs, but thats just my taste ^.^


oh btw, u might have noticed in the film that when the phychlo's were in their own atmosphere they spoke english, but when they were in the earths atmosphere they spoke their native language (atleast i think so, it has been a while since i saw it last >.<).


----------



## jenna (Dec 9, 2004)

i was prepared for a really awful film, from the wrap it got. but i actually thought it was okay. definitely not close to the best SF out there, but i thought it was decent enough.


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 9, 2004)

for so-called awful movies... i enjoyed waterworld, even though it got slated... i never take notice of the critics...


----------



## AmonRa (Dec 9, 2004)

critics are ignorant gits imo ( no offense to any critics reading these boards ) but they all seem to be wanting to look for the most artistic scene, or deep and meaningful philosofy, but what they dont realise is that most of the time, films tend to be just about entertainment.  

p.s water world rox the sox


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 9, 2004)

they only pander to the studios to get free tickets... look at all the rave reviews for crap films... you go see it, and wonder why you wasted £4 and 2 hours of your life that you'll never get back!!!

yet the good ones get slated..

(and yeah, waterworld did not suck rocks!!!  )


----------



## Mark Robson (Dec 13, 2004)

Enjoyed the book.  Never read the sequels and haven't seen the film.  Judging by the comments above, I'm not likely to either.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 13, 2004)

If I hadn't read the book I might have enjoyed the film purely on it's own. However, I was hopeful for a good adaptation and as usual was disappointed.

(I liked Waterworld though  )


----------



## Stalker (May 24, 2005)

The movie is shity. The novel (actually, it's series of several novels) by Ron Hubbard is wonderful. His subsequent findings in the field of human psychology that led to the Church of Scientology are intriguing and touch those realms of knowledge that still remain too risky to explore.


----------



## Rahl Windsong (May 26, 2005)

I personally thought Battlefield Earth was excellent and I highly recomend that book and also just about anything you can get from L. Ron Hubbard that he did before Battlefield Earth. 

However I can't remember the name of the series, I think it was 10 or more books long and like most series that long it went from not bad to terrible. In fact I think that the scientology religion, that was started from a book L Ron Hubbard wrote, took over the writing of that series after his death. The style and quality of the writing drastically changed after book one, which at the time made me think the Scientology people were writing those books in an attempt to cash in on his good name.

Anyway the early stuff, before Scientology, is brilliant and I would recomend anything of L Ron Hubbard's work up until that point. Especially the short stories he wrote for SiFi Magazines, brilliant if you can find them!

Rahl


----------



## Hypes (May 26, 2005)

Yes, Scientology is indeed brilliant. It's a brilliant scam.


----------



## Stalker (May 26, 2005)

Hypes said:
			
		

> Yes, Scientology is indeed brilliant. It's a brilliant scam.


 
Sure, Hubbard was a genius, those who forced him establish Scientology were merchants and frauds as it often happens.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (May 26, 2005)

Erm - he was quite happy to set it up, and did it on a dare from editor Don A Stuart (or possibly Campbell himself) as I recall. No one coerced him into going for the gold.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (May 26, 2005)

I really enjoyed the book but didn't like the movie.
Barry Piper (I think that's his name) and John Travolta just hammed up their lines ridiculously and its a very long book so it was always going to be hard to cram it into 2 hours. I don't think they did a good job of portraying Terl as the genuis he is in the books. His only flaw was in not believing that "an animal" could ever outwit him.

Don't know much about the scientology sect he started, but then I'm not exactly a fan of organised religion anyway. 

Oh and Rahl, it was the Mission: Earth series that stretched to 10 books.


----------



## dwndrgn (May 26, 2005)

There aren't any sequels that I recall, Mark.  He does have a 10 part scifi space opera type series out also so maybe you're confusing it with that.


----------



## Medieval (Jun 4, 2005)

The book is pure genius. I barely even put it down whilst reading it.

The movie, I hear, is pure crap.


----------

