ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

I did not dislike Battlefield Earth

Discussion in 'Movies, Plays, and Documentaries about Scientology' started by minnesotabrant, Dec 12, 2018.

  1. Because of bad reviews I did not watch it when it came out but I watched it on Netflix awhile ago and kind of liked it even if I thought it was a bit strange, and sort of dated. It kind of reminded me of the 60's sci-fi and fantasy pulp fictions I used to read and/or watch. I never did get into reading the series because it has a connotation even then. Ok since there probably is a thread to this somewhere on this site and you are probably sick of the movie. I am going to exit with one criticism of the title. Where was the battlefield, and how would you know that was earth? No way humans acted like that in prehistoric times.
  2. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    You write "No way humans acted like that in prehistoric times". But Battlefield Earth was actually set in the future, the year 3000.
  3. Well that makes more sense. Maybe I should read the books. I was kind of thinking it was the future. It had a feel similar to the movie a Boy and his dog with more special effects. I read a lot of sci-fi back in the day and sometimes had trouble separating reality and fiction at times.

    I am way too lazy to read those tomes. Do they have movie versions for all the books somewhere?
  4. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Battlefield Earth is not a series, just a single book, but a large one, over 1000 pages.
  5. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

  6. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Don't confuse the single SciFi book "Battlefield Earth" with the multiple SciFi books "Mission Earth".

    I liked "Battlefield Earth" book except for the contrived ending about a time/space traveling camera where it looked like Hubbard had not planned out the entire story completely before he started writing it.
  7. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    Well, I read in the News yesterday that Voyager I or was it II just entered Interstellar Space....


    Star Trek did a show or two about the same Alien Civilization finding Voyager I .......
  8. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    It was mediocre sci-fi - I liked these much better:

  9. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I didn't like the part in ME where he dumped the ice on Russia and wiped them out, nor the similar wiping out of all the psychlos in BE. It reminds me of his calloused fair game policies, over boarding, chain lockers, selling fraudulent technology for an exorbitant amount of money, etc.

    Leland likes this.
  10. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    I don't think Scientologists are going to necessarily agree with you.

  11. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Since BE was a sci-fi movie set in the future, the movie you liked about prehistoric times must have been a different movie.

    Do you remember the name of the movie you actually liked that wasn't Battlefield Earth?
  12. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Wasn't BE written as a history of past event, which will be in our future history? Speaking of his fiction - I liked his pulp stuff he wrote prior to scientology - that was the genre he wrote in but it wasn't as mean spirited. Slaves of sleep, the ol' doc series for instance. Mimsey
  13. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Please express my gratitude to Billy for his feedback on my comment. As always, it is much appreciated.

    I do have one question though for him as concerns his recommendation that I do the DATA SERIES COURSE so that it will help me think more clearly.

    If that course really helps people think more clearly then why is it that so many Scientologists who have already done the course don't seem to realize that the person currently running the CoS is obviously guilty of countless high crimes? Miscavige seems so focused on the Ideal Org program which seems to be counter to the intention of LRH who had recommended that Scientologists blow up headquarters when buildings become so important.

    Just to be clear, I'M not recommending that Scientologists blow up headquarters. That was Ron's idea. He said in a lecture back on New Year's Eve, 1960:

    "We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material, and so forth. And it keeps growing. But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters. If someone had put some H.E. [high explosives] under the Vatican long ago, Catholicism might still be going. Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the masses of buildings, because that’s not important."

    Perhaps blowing up headquarters would be out-gradient, but minimally I would expect that every single Scientologist on the planet would write up a High Crime Report on David Miscavige. Why hasn't that happened? And more importantly Billy, what have YOU done to take responsibility for this state of affairs?
    HelluvaHoax! likes this.
  14. Well, Ronnyboy got to fulfill his fantasy of being #1 on the New York Times bestseller list at least. He is not the first person to buy his way on to it. What happened to Scientology when Ronny died. Did a lot of people leave or was it 'business as usual".
  15. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    I would recommend a book that was on the NY Times bestseller list that will answer most all your questions, after which you'll know more about Scientology then 99% of the population:
    Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
  16. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    If you read the book, you would know why the movie tanked. The book was much better than the movie. The reason why the movie sucked is attributed to DM micro managing the movie production. If he had left it to Hollywood it might have been good.
  17. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    It's a very interesting challenge to try and adapt (transition) a book to a movie. Two utterly different art forms that "seem" connected because both have a narrative thread that runs through them. But that's where the similarly ends.

    The greatest (and most commercially successful) cinematic adaptations of a book to a movie most often involve (gasp!) creative license in order to "make it work" as a movie.

    Even the greatest true-life stories don't just adapt themselves to a two hour movie structure---they have to be re-engineered so that the story works as a motion picture. If one looks into the TRUE STORY behind most movie adaptations, one would find an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of events, characters and scenes, leaving one to wonder "WHAT THE HELL REALLY HAPPENED OR DIDN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE?" LOL.

    There have been countless movie disasters (commercial bombs) that were a "sure thing" because the movies were based upon a hugely successful novel or true-life story that went viral. Look at the recent box-office and critical DISASTER that was Travolta's movie "GOTTI". One could not even imagine better movie material to work with, yet they blew the movie in every conceivable way.

    I am quite sure that had i been hired to help develop the movie BattleField Earth, I would have been fired in the first 3 minutes of the 1st story meeting when I said: "Hey before we get into this, can we all agree that we need to get rid of some of the super-cringey, cartoony, b-movie, cornball names like "Johnny GoodBoy Tyler" and "Psychlo"??? I mean, that sounds like a little kid's comic book from the 1930s, who wrote this shit anyways?" LOL
  18. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Have to wholeheartedly agree with you that EX MACHINA was a brilliant movie! Loved it.

    I have an unusual question to ask you about that film. I always wondered what people unfamiliar with the term "ex-machina" thought when:

    -- They first saw the movie poster
    -- They watched the movie​

    I mean, in your case did you already know what that term meant when you saw the film? If so, how? Or did you look it up later? Or have you looked it up more recently? Or never looked it up?

    Just curious how people reacted to that movie title if they were not already familiar with the term. What did the movie's title mean to you when you first saw it?

    I always thought that movie was wildly under-valued, with such extraordinary production values, originality and performances---wondered if the movie's title was an impediment to people wanting to see it. It is one of the greatest Independent films to be made in decades, produced for only $15M, but it only grossed a paltry $36M at the box-office. Never found its audience, but it is an astonishingly well made film nonetheless.
  19. I heard they were going to do a series on Issac Asimovs Foundation Series. I might want to go for that. I heard the books were good.
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The hand of god. I was aware of that before I saw the film - if I am recall-- it originated in the greek or roman plays, the playwrite would write themselves into a corner, and then have Zeus or some other God save the day, which differs from today's most popular theme where the protagonist must solve the dilemma himself. It's weird when somebody else solves the issue at hand after our going through the journey with the hero.

    Another great sci fi film is District 9. I could have mentioned the Terminator, and Alien, which in the case of the Terminator shows story can trump production values. Could the Sixth Sense be considered a sci-fi film though it had no ray guns etc? If so, it's another great film that breaks your expectations.

    To answer your question - some 30 years ago, I dabbled in screen writing for a while, read a bunch of books on the theory, bought Final Draft, entered in a screen writing contest or two - was in the top third, but soon came to realize the time commitment you need to invest in selling a screen play was staggering, not so much the writing or classes, but the networking.

    There's a thing I read in real estate - avoid ruinous competition - meaning don't buy an apartment building in the apartment building district and expect to get high rents. Back then the writers guild was registering 30K screenplays a year and the film industry was making about 300 films a year, the way to get ahead was to network, to get known, so as to get your stuff read by people who could get it made.

    That was too much time to outlay when I had a family to support. Ex machina was discussed as a cinematic sin in some of the books, so that's where I learned of it.

    I know no one asked, but my favorite sci fi film from the 50's was Forbidden Planet.

    I would be interested in what you consider the best sci fi films are.


    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
    JustSheila likes this.