Let's face it's not that bad. OK it has a 90's TV sifi feel to it. Like a Next Generation or Battlestar Galactica episode in the production, and Travolta has some hammy chops at overacting, but overall I see some redeeming qulities.
A lot of people heard others and critics say how bad it was and jumped on the bandwagon without ever viewing yet. And because of the religious angle and the fact that Travolta "really" was in love with L. Ron Hubbard and his book and was suppose to put millions of his own $$ into the project just made people hate it before it ever got a chance. My thoughts. The sheeple have spoken.
This movie is bad on it's own merrits. Don't make Scientology take the blame.
FYI, this movie has more a modern SyFy TV movie feel. And that's not good. SyFy hasn't made anything truly good since the CHILDREN OF DUNE mini-series.
This movie is bad on it's own merrits. Don't make Scientology take the blame.
The movie is indeed bad on its own merits, and the novel as much better as one might expect. In both cases, Scientology is to blame.
The novel is lacking not only because Lafayette Ron Hubbard was a third rate writer, but because he infused his deranged life view and his borderline paranoid schizophrenic believes that also formed Scientology into it. Battlefield Earth isn't so much science fiction as it is Scientology fiction. And that's just the novel.
The movie itself was overseen by David Miscavige personally, who saw all the details as they came in, and gave production notes while his underlings handled the Lisa McPherson debacle. When the movie was finished but had not yet opened, he had nothing but praise for it and John Travolta.
Only when the movie bombed did the tune change. That's when Scientology distanced itself from it, and Miscavige threw Travolta under the bus. But make no mistake about it, the movie was from Scientology's point of view seen as means to lure fresh meat into Scientology and scam them for all they got.
The movie is indeed bad on its own merits, and the novel as much better as one might expect. In both cases, Scientology is to blame.
The novel is lacking not only because Lafayette Ron Hubbard was a third rate writer, but because he infused his deranged life view and his borderline paranoid schizophrenic believes that also formed Scientology into it. Battlefield Earth isn't so much science fiction as it is Scientology fiction. And that's just the novel.
The movie itself was overseen by David Miscavige personally, who saw all the details as they came in, and gave production notes while his underlings handled the Lisa McPherson debacle. When the movie was finished but had not yet opened, he had nothing but praise for it and John Travolta.
Only when the movie bombed did the tune change. That's when Scientology distanced itself from it, and Miscavige threw Travolta under the bus. But make no mistake about it, the movie was from Scientology's point of view seen as means to lure fresh meat into Scientology and scam them for all they got.
I don't know much about Scientology, but that couldn't possibly be the case, could it? Sounds more like a paranoid conspiracy theory.
Even as a kid, I thought nothing of the film but weird, poorly made science fiction. Not as weird as David Lynch's DUNE, but I barely noticed anything religious, aside from hints at "no gods, our people" which could easily pass for Atheism rather than Scientology.
Or, do you mean the bit about Hubbard infusing his Scientology and his deranged life view in the novel?
That is clear as day to anyone that has actually read the novel and knows a bit about Hubbard. Johhny Goodboy Tyler is written as a thinly veiled version of Hubbard himself, and his story mirrors that of Hubbard, as he WISHES to be seen by the public.
I probably should begin by stating that the parallels between Johnny Goodboy Tyler and Lafayette Ron Hubbard is in the 1000 page brick of a book "Battlefield Earth", not nearly as much in the movie derived from it.
The novel rivals the complete and unabridged Lord of the Rings in size, scale and scope (but not in quality mind you!!!), and the movie is a mere two hours long. Plenty was lost in adaptation, a lot of parallels between Tyler/Hubbard and the story/Scientology among them.
If any serious and independent scholar knowledgeable about LRH, both as he was and how he portrayed himself, had given this book the time of the day, analyzed it and published that analysis online - this is where I would have linked to it.
Alas, no serious professional scholar has ever given Hubbard's literary output that time of day (for good reason), so in lieu of that, you'll have to settle for that I have read the book, and that I have sufficient knowledge about Scientology and Hubbard (both as he portrayed himself and how he was) to spot the parallels and similarities. And they are really, really obvious and easily spottable. So much so that there isn't even any real room for debate. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge about Scientology, Hubbard and literary analysis will see it too, if they can stomach to actually read the damn thing.
"Battlefield Earth" the novel really is a fictionalized retelling of Scientology. The movie might not have had too much to do with Scientology, but the novel sure as hell does.
Humanity as it appears in the beginning of the book is much like hardline Scientologists view our wog world prior to Scientology - man is lost, having forgotten his past, held down by his own ignorance and superstitions and past events that screw him over to this day, he just doesn't know it. Enter Johnny Goodboy Tyler, who was always exceptional in every way (just like Hubbard, whose alleged childhood exploits rivaled those of Kim Jon-Il). "You are too smart for your own good", the tribal elders scold him, and try holding him back. But Tyler is so far beyond them, he has fundamental questions that needs answering. Like Hubbard did, he sets out traveling to learn the answers to his questions. Like Hubbard, he finds the answers to what has been plaguing man. Like Hubbard, he becomes a philosopher, a nuclear physicist, a military commander, and a crapload of other things. Like Hubbard, he walks through "the wall of fire" which nearly kills him, but he escapes alive, and learns the way to "clear the planet" so man can realize himself. Like Hubbard, he finds a batch of followers that see him as a savior and messiah to be worshipped. He has no trouble recruiting an army (essentially the Sea Org) among his followers. Tyler is humble in all of this, he doesn't want to be a hero, but reluctantly accepts the role as champion and figurehead to the people - but his real priority is continued research into the continued salvation for mankind (sound familiar?). And like Hubbard, Tyler eventually gets detractors, despite all the great things he has done in the service of both humanity, the planet, and the universe as a whole. Miserable, jealous, "Suppressive Persons" who want nothing more to see him fail, just because they are so petty and stupid, and spread lies about him and corrupting governments to go after him on bogus charges and even ally with the evil psychs to bring him down, jeopardizing the future of the planet and the entire universe in the process. In other words, non-scientologists are potential trouble sources and needs to be shown the light that is the truth of Scientology. And psychiatrists (here represented by the Psychlo's) are evil. Eeeviiiilllll!!!!!!!
And that is just the quick summary. I could embellish craploads more.
Suffice to say, Johhny Goodboy Tyler = L. Ron Hubbard, as he wants to be viewed by Scientologists - and he wants everyone to become a Scientologist, as they is the only possible salvation for not just the planet, but the whole UNIVERSE!!! Otherwise, we are all doomed and the psychiatrists (sworn enemies of Scientology) win.
What part of it sounds like a "paranoid conspiracy theory"?
This part.
Only when the movie bombed did the tune change. That's when Scientology distanced itself from it, and Miscavige threw Travolta under the bus. But make no mistake about it, the movie was from Scientology's point of view seen as means to lure fresh meat into Scientology and scam them for all they got.
The one guy is actually right. There are quite a few parallelizes to this movie and Scientology's belief system. The easiest one to name off is that the psychlos are an analogue for psychiatry. Strapping you down and beaming information into your mind. Controlling your thoughts. That's how Hubbard viewed them.
Spot on! Thanks for your posting. I love watching ex scamtolgists expose the venal cult. But it's true..the movie and Revolta's over the top performance makes this a stand alone pos. I love that David Miscavage was the insane micromanager behind the scenes. PERFECT.
This film will stand as another testament against the crazy stuff the cult teaches. Fortunately top CoS people are leaving and blowing the whistle.
My thoughts: You're a pretentious git who thinks that people only hate on stuff in order to belong. While you're an "individual" who goes against the perceived flow of popular culture and champions things that were badly received and dump all over anything that was popular.
There are many flaws related to this movie that have nothing to do with Scientology. I didn't even know about Scientology when I first seen this movie.
I saw this movie before I ever knew about Scientology or Travolta's connection to it, and it was still overtly obvious that this flick was a pile of dogsh-t.
I love the book (I read it three times, and every time I finished I wanted to start again), I don't care about Scientology, and I like Travolta, but this movie is beyond crap. The way it was filmed, the atrocious pace and plot... I think is on par with Almighty Thor, from The Asylum.
It'll make me laugh, simply on the basis of how horrible it is. But that does not make it good. This movie was simply awful, awful, AWFUL film-making. Nothing more to be said. It was actually painful to watch it unfold (collapse is the better word). Sure, I do think scientology is really, really stupid (not to mention dangerous). But even if I didn't, I still wouldn't like this movie.
On Travolta. He's made some good flicks. He can act. But his performance in this 'movie' was simply abysmal in every sense of that...well....not very often used word.
Anyway. It sucked. Nothing to do with the cult of scientology, nothing to do with John Travolta. It just sucked. That is all. The first time I saw it, I had no idea it had anything to do with Scientology. After it was over I said 'God **** that movie sucked!'.
It sucked. Nothing to do with the cult of scientology, nothing to do with John Travolta.
The movie did indeed suck on its own terms, but the suckage of the movie was in no small part derived from two things:
- The suckage of the novel, which has EVERYTHING to do with Scientology. - The movie being micromanaged by David Miscaviege personally. He is the head of Scientology.