...would it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been better--at least slightly better--recieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one.
~::~::~
The midget I'm dating could be my daughter! ~Denny Crane
Yeah, I think people hate it so much just because of scientology. I've seen plenty of way way worse movies. This one even had interesting things going, despite the ginormous plot holes.
shareYou're probably right, it would have been better received.
Then again, if Travolta hadn't been involved, it might have gone straight to video too.
My main issues with the film are not with any Scientology related aspects, so much as blatant mistakes and plot holes (Stone Age people learning to fly 1000 year old planes in a few days etc) Haven't they heard of rust?
And on top of that kerosene would have decayed. Fossil fuels have a shelf life.
sharewould it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been better--at least slightly better--recieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one.
Of course it would have been better received, because it at least would not be based on a piece of trash by L. Ron Hubbard.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
[deleted]
Well I for one cannot fathom the thought of John Travolta not getting an oscar for his performance......but then again, the Academy has always been flawed.
shareI had barely heard of scientology before this film came out. It was nothing more to me than some new age thing that all the actors were clamoring over, so when I saw it I had no bias against it.
That movie still blew ass and that is as eloquent as I can put it. No grand statement from Tom Cruise or John Travolta could convince me that it seemed like a wonderful idea on paper or unjustly stands as a viewpoint of scientology.
Years later, I have now come to see just what idiocy L. Ron Hubbard was able to convince people of. I may despise the man, but I admire how he manipulated the ignorant.
I actually feel bad for Barry Pepper because after seeing him in 61*, all I could think of was that it only made up for half of this "movie."
[deleted]
Had it not been a Scientology project - historically it would have been considered not as bad.
On the other hand... Had they actually followed the book, instead of trying to rewrite a perfectly simple story - they could have actually made a *beep* of money for their "cause" and launch a new SF franchise.
I'm talking Star Wars or Star Trek material here.
Knowing the tendency of SF fans to turn their favorite franchise into a quasi-religion without actual incentive to do so (Trekkies anyone?) - fortunately they have failed to make anything even close to watchable.
Nope. It would not have been better received. It is derivative trash. The story is full of holes, the acting is ludicrously OTT, it's just bad. Doesn't matter who wrote the original, this film just falls down flat on its face whichever way to try to stand it up.
----------
"Look! - it's the Invisible Man!"
Well it doesn'y really have anything to do with Scientology, so no I don't think it would have been received better.
But then it might not have been as WELL KNOWN if it had been an HG Wells book becuz a major Hollywood star would not have been so eager to make that.
Well it doesn'y really have anything to do with ScientologyIt has everything to do with Scientology. Only thing missing is the great overlord Xenu himself.