![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I thought I saw this film listed on the IMDb's bottom 100 films list, but revisiting it, I see that the highest ranked film there has a 2.1, and this film is ranked 2.8. --KQ
Hey, I watched this movie on my VCR a year ago, & I wouldn't say it was that bad of a movie. Then again, I finished off a six-pack of beer watching it, so somewhere in the middle of my viewing I found all of the implausible parts simply funny. And I have to admit it had amazing special effects -- but special effects didn't save the Disney failure The Black Hole either. -- llywrch 02:06 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC), who drinks a lot less now.
Do we want to have the movie critic style reviews on an encyclopedic article? Dori 00:30, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I maybe went too far... feel free to bring it towards NPOV. -- Pakaran 00:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I gave it a shot at NPOV. I don't think the movie critic lines belong in there. If someone can find some links to reviews that will probably be fine, though we should find at least one good review (if it exists :). Also Scientology was linked many times unnecessarily. I hated the movie too (never read the novel), but there is no need for an encyclopedic article to make value judgements like that. That's my opinion. Dori 17:03, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
This movie was never going to win an academy award, but the way it was attacked was not really justified. Was Escape From New York really any better? What about that "Soldier" movie Kurt Russell made? What about all the crap movies Sylvester Stallone made? If it hadn't been written by Hubbard, and starred a scientologist, I doubt the movie would have been ridiculed the way it was. -- -- Commking 24 Apr 2005
Someone wrote that the species name "Psychlo" 'may be' derived from "psychiatrist". I think it's just about irrefutable. "Psychlo" and "Catrist" from a writer with a famous bee in his bonnet about psychiatrists? not exactly hard to figure out. =)
Second, the description confuses me, because it seems to use "Psychlos" and "Catrists" as synonyms for the same thing. I was under the impression that the "Psychlos" are the alien race, and later in the story than the movie gets to, it's discovered that the Psychlos are being manipulated by a medical cult called the "Catrists". Can anyone confirm this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there any poor bastard who's actually read the thing all the way through without sporking their eyes out who could do a plot summary? - David Gerard 17:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph under heading "The Book" suggests that copies sold at retail might have made their way back onto store shelves, thus inflating sales numbers. Is the statement as-is a little too subtle in its insinuation? Basically, I'm not sure that readers should have to connect the dots, as some might not get it.
The section stating that Scientologists were told or ordered to buy the book so that it would be a bestseller is ridiculous. Enemies of the Church have been spouting lies like this for decades. Notice that the only link of any evidence for this claim is a small-circulation rag that reads like a frothing-mouth lunatic wrote it. --unsigned comment by 205.162.204.4 ( talk · contribs)
Sorry, I didn't mean to "vandalize." I honestly believe that the sections on Scientology in this article are not NPOV. They seem pretty biased to me.
I have a copy of this book which is printed by 'New Era Publications International' - not a publisher included in the list. That's probably a minor issue I guess it is a scientology publisher as those other ones are listed?
Anyway, the real point, part way through the book is an advert for a 'BattleField Earth Soundtrack' - composed by Hubbard himself. It would be nice to add details of that. Sadly my google-fu is weak and I can find nothing authorative about it online. Anybody have any details to add? user:skx
The following paragraph has been repeatedly added to the article:
"While this book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology (earlier in the piece someone wrote that the book was first published in 1980--this time line does not jibe), the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the Story of how the Thetans came to be on Earth are almost identical. It was once rumoured that Hubbard started the Scientology cult as an attempt to raise revenue for his book."
The first claim, that the book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology, is completely untrue. The book was written and first published in 1980. This makes the last claim, that Scientology was started to raise revenue for the book, even more ludicrous than it is on the face of it (since when did one need to raise revenue to write a book??) The remaining claim, that the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the story of how thetans came to be on Earth are "almost identical", is also quite obviously false to anyone who is reasonably familiar with both; one can stretch for similarities but they cannot in any reasonable analysis be considered "almost identical". There is no true content in the entire paragraph; do not re-add it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There may be, unfounded, links between this MOVIE and scientology. However, whether these links are true or not, dose not determine this movie's inclusion in the Scientology Series.
This is a movie. It is not a significant part of scientology.
This article is part of the movie series of wikipedia articles. Not part of the scientology series.
AS such, since the scientology claims to this movie are disputed, the scientology series template CANNOT be used. However, hypothesised links between this movie and scientology can be written about within the article, as long as the spirit of the article is on the movie itself and is not lost in a debate of scientology.
As an anology:
The article on The Passion of the Christ, does not include the "Chirsitanity Series" wiki template. Even though its connections to christianty were much more evident then this movies connections to scientology.
The debate here is not whether this movie was influenced by scientology. The important fact is, this article IS NOT suitable for inclusion in the scientology series wiki template.
Please do no place a Wikipedia scientology series template on this movie article. Bmgoau 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There a a LOT of POV in this article. I'm no scientologist but I think there is a HUGE anti-Hubbard slant to this. In keeping with wikipedia's standards, this article should have a major overhaul or else get a NPOV tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.42.200 ( talk • contribs) .
I don't know about anything missing but I agree that there is a large slant to this article. I am going to put a cite needed tag on everything that should either be removed or cited. -- User:98percenthuman
I actually like the book, meandering pulp fiction nonsense as it may be. The complete lack of a plot section is rather worrisome. POV tag it is. Chris Cunningham 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone support Vossman ( talk · contribs)'s undiscussed decision to split this article off into two separate articles? I don't, frankly. Since the film is an adaptation of the novel and a fairly faithful one it makes more sense to discuss the two together. If the novel and the film had had less connection, or if the article had been an unwieldy size, a breakup might have made sense, but neither of those was the case. Unless someone has some really good reasoning to present, I'll be recombining the articles soon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battlefield Earth (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I thought I saw this film listed on the IMDb's bottom 100 films list, but revisiting it, I see that the highest ranked film there has a 2.1, and this film is ranked 2.8. --KQ
Hey, I watched this movie on my VCR a year ago, & I wouldn't say it was that bad of a movie. Then again, I finished off a six-pack of beer watching it, so somewhere in the middle of my viewing I found all of the implausible parts simply funny. And I have to admit it had amazing special effects -- but special effects didn't save the Disney failure The Black Hole either. -- llywrch 02:06 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC), who drinks a lot less now.
Do we want to have the movie critic style reviews on an encyclopedic article? Dori 00:30, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I maybe went too far... feel free to bring it towards NPOV. -- Pakaran 00:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I gave it a shot at NPOV. I don't think the movie critic lines belong in there. If someone can find some links to reviews that will probably be fine, though we should find at least one good review (if it exists :). Also Scientology was linked many times unnecessarily. I hated the movie too (never read the novel), but there is no need for an encyclopedic article to make value judgements like that. That's my opinion. Dori 17:03, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
This movie was never going to win an academy award, but the way it was attacked was not really justified. Was Escape From New York really any better? What about that "Soldier" movie Kurt Russell made? What about all the crap movies Sylvester Stallone made? If it hadn't been written by Hubbard, and starred a scientologist, I doubt the movie would have been ridiculed the way it was. -- -- Commking 24 Apr 2005
Someone wrote that the species name "Psychlo" 'may be' derived from "psychiatrist". I think it's just about irrefutable. "Psychlo" and "Catrist" from a writer with a famous bee in his bonnet about psychiatrists? not exactly hard to figure out. =)
Second, the description confuses me, because it seems to use "Psychlos" and "Catrists" as synonyms for the same thing. I was under the impression that the "Psychlos" are the alien race, and later in the story than the movie gets to, it's discovered that the Psychlos are being manipulated by a medical cult called the "Catrists". Can anyone confirm this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there any poor bastard who's actually read the thing all the way through without sporking their eyes out who could do a plot summary? - David Gerard 17:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph under heading "The Book" suggests that copies sold at retail might have made their way back onto store shelves, thus inflating sales numbers. Is the statement as-is a little too subtle in its insinuation? Basically, I'm not sure that readers should have to connect the dots, as some might not get it.
The section stating that Scientologists were told or ordered to buy the book so that it would be a bestseller is ridiculous. Enemies of the Church have been spouting lies like this for decades. Notice that the only link of any evidence for this claim is a small-circulation rag that reads like a frothing-mouth lunatic wrote it. --unsigned comment by 205.162.204.4 ( talk · contribs)
Sorry, I didn't mean to "vandalize." I honestly believe that the sections on Scientology in this article are not NPOV. They seem pretty biased to me.
I have a copy of this book which is printed by 'New Era Publications International' - not a publisher included in the list. That's probably a minor issue I guess it is a scientology publisher as those other ones are listed?
Anyway, the real point, part way through the book is an advert for a 'BattleField Earth Soundtrack' - composed by Hubbard himself. It would be nice to add details of that. Sadly my google-fu is weak and I can find nothing authorative about it online. Anybody have any details to add? user:skx
The following paragraph has been repeatedly added to the article:
"While this book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology (earlier in the piece someone wrote that the book was first published in 1980--this time line does not jibe), the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the Story of how the Thetans came to be on Earth are almost identical. It was once rumoured that Hubbard started the Scientology cult as an attempt to raise revenue for his book."
The first claim, that the book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology, is completely untrue. The book was written and first published in 1980. This makes the last claim, that Scientology was started to raise revenue for the book, even more ludicrous than it is on the face of it (since when did one need to raise revenue to write a book??) The remaining claim, that the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the story of how thetans came to be on Earth are "almost identical", is also quite obviously false to anyone who is reasonably familiar with both; one can stretch for similarities but they cannot in any reasonable analysis be considered "almost identical". There is no true content in the entire paragraph; do not re-add it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There may be, unfounded, links between this MOVIE and scientology. However, whether these links are true or not, dose not determine this movie's inclusion in the Scientology Series.
This is a movie. It is not a significant part of scientology.
This article is part of the movie series of wikipedia articles. Not part of the scientology series.
AS such, since the scientology claims to this movie are disputed, the scientology series template CANNOT be used. However, hypothesised links between this movie and scientology can be written about within the article, as long as the spirit of the article is on the movie itself and is not lost in a debate of scientology.
As an anology:
The article on The Passion of the Christ, does not include the "Chirsitanity Series" wiki template. Even though its connections to christianty were much more evident then this movies connections to scientology.
The debate here is not whether this movie was influenced by scientology. The important fact is, this article IS NOT suitable for inclusion in the scientology series wiki template.
Please do no place a Wikipedia scientology series template on this movie article. Bmgoau 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There a a LOT of POV in this article. I'm no scientologist but I think there is a HUGE anti-Hubbard slant to this. In keeping with wikipedia's standards, this article should have a major overhaul or else get a NPOV tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.42.200 ( talk • contribs) .
I don't know about anything missing but I agree that there is a large slant to this article. I am going to put a cite needed tag on everything that should either be removed or cited. -- User:98percenthuman
I actually like the book, meandering pulp fiction nonsense as it may be. The complete lack of a plot section is rather worrisome. POV tag it is. Chris Cunningham 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone support Vossman ( talk · contribs)'s undiscussed decision to split this article off into two separate articles? I don't, frankly. Since the film is an adaptation of the novel and a fairly faithful one it makes more sense to discuss the two together. If the novel and the film had had less connection, or if the article had been an unwieldy size, a breakup might have made sense, but neither of those was the case. Unless someone has some really good reasoning to present, I'll be recombining the articles soon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battlefield Earth (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)