Battlefield Earth Screenwriter Accepts Razzie

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Post has a story about J.D. Shapiro, and his gracious acceptance of a Razzie award for writing Battlefield Earth. He first offers an apology to anyone who has seen it, then he offers a funny, outsider's perspective of dealing with Scientologists, and the subsequent mangling of his script for what was once allegedly referred to by John Travolta as 'The Schindler's List of Sci-Fi.'"

Comments

Why?

[zippthorne]

I mean, he did the best he could. Do you really think someone else would have come up with a better screen play from the same source material?

Re:Why?

[Opportunist]

No, but someone else could just have said no fuckin' way I'm gonna tag my name to that train wreck.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you haven't read the piece. He would have had to forfeit his fee to get his name off the movie. That's not something a writer can usually afford...

Re:Why?

[TheRaven64]

I don't normally RTFA, but it's worth it for lines like this:

As far as I know, I am the only non-Scientologist to ever be on their cruise ship, the Freewind. I was a bit of an oddity, walking around in a robe, sandals, smoking Cuban cigars and drinking fine scotch (Scientologists are not allowed to drink while taking courses). I also got one of the best massages ever. My friends asked if I got a "happy ending." I said, "Yes, I got off the ship."

Could anyone have done it better? I've not actually read the novel, but apparently it's pretty good. I actually enjoyed the film - it's at that level of so bad it's hilariously funny, not so bad it's unwatchable. I bought the DVD completely at random, knowing nothing about the story, for £2 in a charity shop a few years back and I've watched it a couple of times. It's great with a few friends and a few beers, although I probably wouldn't recommend watching it sober.

The article makes me want to read the original script. I wonder if it's online anywhere. For those who haven't seen the film, I suggest that you read the abridged script.

Re:Why?

[M. Baranczak]

If we believe his story, then the original screenplay was nothing at all like the finished product. The Scientologists asked him to totally rewrite it, he refused, they fired him and got someone else to rewrite it. So at that point it became a choice between taking his name off the credits or getting paid. I'm honestly not sure what I would have done in that situation.

Re:Why?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You would have taken the money, banged all the hot scientologists you could get your hands on, gotten the fuck out of there, and called it a night. Just like the rest of us ;) (And like this guy, off course)

Re:Why?

[syousef]

If we believe his story, then the original screenplay was nothing at all like the finished product. The Scientologists asked him to totally rewrite it, he refused, they fired him and got someone else to rewrite it. So at that point it became a choice between taking his name off the credits or getting paid. I'm honestly not sure what I would have done in that situation.

Are you kidding man? He got to TAKE money AWAY from Scientology!!! How many get that opportunity? Falling on his sword was a no brainer.

Re:Why?

[binarylarry]

Getting blowjobs from barbarino does not sound like my ideal work week.

Re:Why?

[WoodenTable]

That someone else would be very poor, though.

(Moreso than a writer is by default, I mean.)

Also, that someone else wouldn't have a Razzie. Awards are awards! They're like videogame achievements. Gotta collect em all! Even the crazy ones!

Re:Why?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Getting blowjobs from Barbarella does sound like my ideal work week.

T,FTFY

Re:Why?

[Tiger4]

Writers, uhhh shall we say, fictionalize, about this situation all the time.

They, like all of us, have certain principles they will not compromise. They also have a lot of things they would happily, or not so happily, do for money, if the money is right. Someone asked for changes to his precious baby of a script. It happens all the time. Nothing new about that. Certainly not unique to Scientology being attached. The only thing to know here is where the tearing point really was. They wanted changes. Did he really just refuse, or was it more of a negotiation, "I can add that scene X, but I need to rework Y", "No, add X and leave Y. Don't touch Z either", "but Z won't make sense anymore! Howabout..."? This goes on for a while until someone gives up. For the right price, the writer caves. After enough silliness, the writer says, "I'm out", or the producer says it for him.

But don't buy into the Writer's Crusade for Artistic Purity. They're craftsmen, like anyone else, and they give the client, more or less what they ask for.

Re:Why?

[NibbleG]

For a long time I wondered why John Travolta, being the scientologist that he is, thought that he was actually paying tribute to Hubbord. I read the book, and I loved it. Then I realized all scientologists are fucking nuts... thats it... there is no extra step called profit, they are just nuts.

Re:Why?

[Tiger4]

The novel isn't good. It is however a page turner. Hubbard was a good pulp writer, and Battlefield Earth is pretty much a pulp cliffhanger series, 1000 pages long. Lots of short chapters, in which our intrepid hero is always about to be killed or captured. The story never makes a lot of sense, but its fun watching it go along. It would make a great half hour summer filler series. Each chapter feels about like The Venture Brothers level of dramatization. As a movie, you have to cut out way too much to get the right campy feel.

Re:Why?

[cdrudge]

banged all the hot scientologists you could get your hands on

He addressed that too. Unless you were married, you weren't going to have sex with a hot scientologist. And yes, he even tried to use the loophole that it didn't say married to each other.

Re:Why?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I mean, he did the best he could. Do you really think someone else would have come up with a better screen play from the same source material?

From TFA, the final product was nothing like his original screenplay.

Re:Why?

[DaTroof]

Isn't that precisely the process that Shapiro described? He agreed to make certain changes, refused to make changes that he considered detrimental to the story, and eventually got fired. "Artistic Purity" aside, an important part of what you buy from a craftsman is an experienced opinion. An honest clockmaker should tell a paying client that it's a bad idea to make a watch out of papier mache.

Re:Why?

[nibbles2004]

not only take there money but make Scientology look like the idiots they are, win, win

Re:Why?

[PopeRatzo]

I've not actually read the novel, but apparently it's pretty good.

Unh-uh. Not good at all. It's barely even good as pulp sci-fi.

There were some great science fiction writers working at the same time as Hubbard, and Battlefield Earth is little more than a weak echo of them. The ideas are mostly retreads and the prose as purple as an orangutan's ass.

The only Hubbard story that's really interesting is the real one about his involvement with Jack Parsons, military intelligence mind control experiments, and Alistair Crowley's Church of Thelema. It's got everything: twisted sex, drugs, madness, Nazis, spies, violence and more real-life science fiction than a shelf full of novels. There's even an indirect Charlie Manson connection, but I'll leave that easter egg for the more curious and determined among you to discover for yourselves.

A lot of it is laid out in the most excellent trilogy by the historian Peter Levenda, entitled Sinister Forces, a Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. You read it and think, "OMG, this is some crazy bat-shit from a whacked-out conspiracy nut" until you learn that Levenda is an extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent historian who carefully sources every single item.

It's a pretty hard book to find, but it's worth the effort for the wild ride.

Oh, and not to make it sound too much like something from a Neal Stephenson novel, but it's rumored that Peter Levenda, who first became known for his books about the history of Chinese-American trade (which are still taught in business schools), is also one of the "translators" of The Necronomicon.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

Well, I'd be lying if I said I never wondered what it might be like to violate a Scientologist.

Re:Why?

[JackDW]

Parts of that story also turn up in "Bare Faced Messiah", the unauthorised biography of L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology tried to ban it, failed miserably, and now you can download it.

Fascinating stuff. Cult leaders are very interesting people.

Re:Why?

[cthulu_mt]

Thank you.

I enjoyed most of the novel but could quantify why parts sucked and others were good. This explains it pretty well.

Re:Why?

[Scuff]

You didn't read the article either? It says he has a pen name for stuff he doesn't want attached to him but he couldn't use it because there was too much money involved. Not a situation I've heard of, but it might have just been the studio's way of saying no.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he wasn't prepared, as Harlan Ellison was, with a registered pseudonym that he could insist they use instead of his own name;

From TFA:

Once it was decided that I would share a writing credit, I wanted to use my pseudonym, Sir Nick Knack. I was told I couldn't do that, because if a writer gets paid over a certain amount of money, they can't. I could have taken my name completely off the movie, but my agent and attorney talked me out of it. There was a lot of money at stake.

Re:Why?

[Hurricane78]

Who would make such a contract in the first place? I do work under a contract that gives me money for the work done, NO MATTER WHAT!
Just like when you buy no-name stuff, you still have to pay for it! (Normal price for no-name, premium price for getting the right to put my name on it... if I allow it at all.)

The above rule makes as stating in the contract, that for every time your client blinks while reading it, the costs go up by 20%. Completely retarded.

Re:Why?

[Wuhao]

Then he wasn't prepared, as Harlan Ellison was, with a registered pseudonym that he could insist they use instead of his own name; Ellison would use his 'Cordwainer Bird' pseudonym to both distance himself from work that he felt had been mangled beyond repair by others, as he did for the TV series 'The Starlost'.

From TFA:

Once it was decided that I would share a writing credit, I wanted to use my pseudonym, Sir Nick Knack. I was told I couldn't do that, because if a writer gets paid over a certain amount of money, they can't.

Re:Why?

[Tiger4]

The point is that it isn't usually as cut and dried as he presents. Rarely would you see one a quit decision after one set of notes comes back. And no matter how bad the notes were, the answer coming back would be more along the lines of, "yes, but..." not "No Way". You want a papier mache watch?, OK, but it won't keep good time or be at all durable or reliable. And it will probably be ugly as hell. Still want it?

Re:Why?

[Tiger4]

Hollywood is unionized, and the Writers are part of the Writer;s Guild. There Are Rules about credits given and how. For years producers and directors would credit themselves or their friends in a film when someone else did the work. The guild forced a change in that, but the flip side is that generally a writer MUST take credit for his work if it was a union project, which all the major studios would be. That actual rules for pseudonyms have changed over the years, but typically you can't just change it at will. Plus, Ellison mostly worked a while ago. Things could be different more recently.

Re:Why?

[DaTroof]

I don't think he presented it as cut and dried as you infer. According to his own account, he refused the second set of notes, not the first, and there was clearly some discussion about it.

If the client's new demands threaten to damage the project irreparably, I can understand any craftsman's desire to distance himself from it. Sometimes "Yes, but..." isn't enough. Sometimes you need to say, "This is so unfeasible that I'd rather not take any responsibility for it." Hence my ridiculous example of a papier mache watch. Even though you're giving the client exactly what he wants, the end result makes you look incompetent. You're the clockmaker, not him. You should have known better.

Granted, there's more objectivity involved in writing an entertaining screenplay than making a functioning clock, but either way, the client is totally free to do what the producers of Battlefield Earth did: ignore the craftsman's advice and let their own vision lead them to colossal failure.

Re:Why?

[MichaelSmith]

Clearly you haven't read the piece. He would have had to forfeit his fee to get his name off the movie. That's not something a writer can usually afford...

Then he wasn't prepared, as Harlan Ellison was, with a registered pseudonym that he could insist they use instead of his own name; Ellison would use his 'Cordwainer Bird' pseudonym to both distance himself from work that he felt had been mangled beyond repair by others, as he did for the TV series 'The Starlost'.

I wonder if the next version of Battlefield Earth was written by school children for a competition.

Re:Why?

[mestar]

"Ellison would use his 'Cordwainer Bird' pseudonym to both distance himself from work that he felt had been mangled beyond repair"

Well, so nice to see that it worked so well.

Re:Why?

[Landshark17]

"Do you really think someone else would have come up with a better screen play from the same source material?"

Yes, but the finished product would have looked nothing like the source. It would have required cutting parts out, adding new material in and seriously revising whatever remained. The human race fighting to overcome alien oppressors is not the worst movie concept I've ever heard. In the right hands it could be a pretty good movie, or at least something better than it ended up being.

It was pretty clear from the article that the CoS insisted that he write it their way. They didn't give him much leeway to adapt it into something that didn't suck so hard I took the DVD outside and curb-stomped till it shattered after watching it for Bad Movie Night.

Re:Why?

[Frosty Piss]

I'm honestly not sure what I would have done in that situation.

Do you like to eat?

Re:Why?

[M. Baranczak]

Sure I do. It's my second-favorite activity.

The problem is, attaching your name to something that you know will be a disaster is bad for your career in the long term.

Re:Why?

[name*censored*]

scientologists

there is no extra step called profit

I think you misunderstand the point of Scientology, friend. The ONLY step is called "profit".

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but then you have to be ready for something like that to happen.
If you are, then you're either weird, an eternal boyscout, or a total pessimist.
He is obviously neither a boy scout nor a total pessimist, but the weird thing is still in the running.

All in all, I like this guy, just not the hijacked and mangled piece of fecal matter that was called Battlefield Earth.
Also, it had way too much john travolta. (non-capitalized intentionally)

Re:Why?

[snowgirl]

banged all the hot scientologists you could get your hands on

He addressed that too. Unless you were married, you weren't going to have sex with a hot scientologist. And yes, he even tried to use the loophole that it didn't say married to each other.

Only if you're part of Sea Org. If you haven't signed the billion year contract yet, then you're not bound to this requirement.

Re:Why?

[TheLink]

If it's mangled till it no longer looks like your work, then they're not using your work.

It sure doesn't seem so unfair a punishment/reward that if he wants the full amount of money for someone else's piece of crap, he has to have his name linked with it.

Re:Why?

[Frosty Piss]

The problem is, attaching your name to something that you know will be a disaster is bad for your career in the long term.

You're thinking in *normal* situations. We are talking about Hollywood here. Different rules.

Re:Why?

[stor]

I can't vouch for the validity of this, but this is a fun read if your appetite was piqued by PopeRazto's post:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/aleister-crowley/

You should find the Charlie Manson easter egg there, and a lot of the other twisted stuff mentioned in PopeRazto's post.

I'd recommend taking it all with a grain of salt, and reading this stuff at home, not at work :)

-Stor

Re:Why?

[NibbleG]

Its possible that the idea was to throw us off their scent, by not profiting of this film... after all, they are smarter than me...

Re:Why?

[vivian]

I hate to say it, but I actually enjoyed the original book (I was aboit 15 at the time).
No, I am most definitely not into Scientology, (or any other religion for that matter) but I do think the original book is worth a second look.

Sure, it was before I had ever heard of Scientology, and had no idea that the author was a complete kook who started his own religion and apparently completely lied about everything in the "about the athor" section. It wasn't until years later, while wandering around the city that some guy stopped me and asked me if I'd mind doing a survey. They asked me if I'd ever heard of L. Ron Hubbard & said sure, I'd read one of his books. You should have seen the guy's eyes light up - though that dimmed a bit once I told him which book I had read. The survey was in a nearby office, which was practically wallpapered with copies of the "Dianetics" book - and the survey was a whole bunch of "moral dilemma" questions - a bit like the gypsie's questions in the beginning of Ultima IV (if any of you can remember that far back) After the first page of 30 or so questions, I realised there was still another 4 or 5 pages of questions to answer so decided to bail while I still could - all in all it was a slightly creepy experience.

The original book was basically just pulp Sci fi - a hero that was a hero's hero - morally and physically perfect, fearless, etc. and taking on the big bad aliens at their own game after learning their own technology as a slave.
The book also had a bunch of ( fairly stereotyped) Scots who made the guys in Braveheart look like whimps - those guys ere amongst my favourite characters in the book and completely missing from the movie. The book also had two main parts - beating the aliens (by eventually shipping a whole bunch of nukes vis their teleporter rig back to the home planet) , then dealing with the resulting power vacuum and problems after the galactic bank shows up and declares the Earth bankrupt, and therefore due for repo and resale to the next several bunch of aliens that show up.

All in all, if you can forget that the author actually has anything to do with Scientology and just read the book, it's actually not a bad read. You might want to cover it in brown paper or something though if you intend to read it on the train - just to avoid the embarrasing stares of incredulity that anyone's actually reading the book after such a bad movie. Sure, it's a bit over the top and the characters are a little too comic book like in their goodness and badness, but the technology ideas are interesting, and the story of the much besieged humans eventually overcoming the aliens by leveraging their greed and technology against them, plus overcoming a whole bunch of internal and external problems, both technologically and politically after the main battle is won was quite entertaining.

If you want to make sure you arent funding the Church of Scientology, borrow it from the library or pick it up from a second hand book shop.

Re:Why?

[TangoMargarine]

"Sir Nick Knack"? Really? He might as well have gone with Oddjob or Jaws.

Re:Why?

[cgenman]

Also, he didn't know how the rewrite would go at the time he would be associated with the movie. He says the first and only time he saw the movie was at the premier.

Personally, I wish the original script would "accidentally leak," so we can see if there is any validity to the assertions. Having been involved in licensed projects before, I know how much clueless meddling hands can screw up an otherwise talented team.

And he's a writer. In Hollywood. Getting paid. For a writer that's better, and rarer, than free sex from religious fundamentalists.

Re:Why?

[cgenman]

A customer can ask you to replace the driver of the watch with 3 interlocking gears that all connect, but that doesn't mean it will reach their goal of telling time.

Similarly, if you're on a project where the 3rd party forced limitations prevent reaching stated goals, it would be easier to step aside. "We want you to make a heroic, gritty action film, that launches a popular character and isn't at all campy. And it has to make back it's 100 million dollar budget" "Can do." "Oh, and the bad guys are made of toxic healthcare practitioners, the hero is in a wheelchair, and he fights by throwing his theatans from his brain at them." "What?" "The hero can only be in 20% of the film, and at least 95% of overall showtime needs to be expository dialog. Remember, it can't be campy and it has to make back it's budget." "Can't be done." "Fine, we'll find someone else who will claim that it can." Who they found was Corey Mandell, who penned an unused script for a TV show before being given a 100 million dollar movie.

Huge credit for accepting a Razzie in person, even if it was to deflect claim for it.

Re:Why?

[The Archon V2.0]

not only take there money but make Scientology look like the idiots they are, win, win

Given that he claims to have turned in a GOOD script that was hacked up, I think it's less about making them look like idiots and more about sitting back and letting their natural idiocy shine through.

Re:Why?

[firefly4f4]

The novel's OK -- far from the best sci-fi, but it's certainly not as bad as the movie. Gets kinda stupid after Psychlo blows up, IMO, but before then it's really a basic sci-fi action novel.

And at least it makes some sense within the guidelines set out, unlike the movie. For instance, these three plot points in particular irked me about the movie:

1) The Psychlos are gold hungry -- do you REALLY think they'd have not found as large a deposit as the bars Fort Knox (or any other large bank, for that matter)? Fort Knox (or some other large bank, I can't recall exactly) is in the book, but it was cleaned out. The humans happened to find a few gold bars gold in an abandoned Brinks van, but that's it.

2) The events takes place 1000 years after the Psychlos invaded. How likely is it that Harrier jets would still be fueled and in working order after all that time? The humans use a few of the Phychlo's own transport pads against them in the book.

3) They also KNOW their planet would be susceptible to nuclear attack, due to the composition of the atmosphere. The movie would have you believe they're so dumb that they had no protection against accidentally/intentionally transported nuclear weapons and that a single nuke would work to blow up the planet. In the book, due to the shielding in place, it actually took 7, with the shielding around the transport area actually forcing the combined explosions down into the mined out core of the planet. Granted, by the same logic as #2, it's hard to believe a nuke would work after 1000 years, but at least a nuke isn't as mechanically complicated (to my knowledge) as a harrier.

I'm not trying to defend the book -- if you haven't read it, you're not missing much -- but it actually did have the basis for a half-decent, if quite typical, sci-fi movie, instead of the atrocity that came about.

Mind you, the name of the characters sucked.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sir Nick Knack"? Really? He might as well have gone with Oddjob or Jaws.

Truth be told, that's probably why the refused to let him use it. I mean it's nowhere near as plausible a name as Cordwainer Birds, is it?

Re:Why?

[Dr Herbert West]

The book you're thinking of is: Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons Great read-- kinda like "everyone is Kevin Bacon" except with Satanists, physicists, and random movie and fine art scenesters from the 50s.

Re:Why?

[dargaud]

[BE is] arguably better than Mission Earth (which was a 10 book series that I think violates the UN Human Rights Charter to make someone read)

Having read both, I still want to defend BE (the book) like the GP did. It may not be deep but it IS entertaining. On the other hand I fully agree with your assessment on Mission Earth: that thing is guantanamesque torture. I kept hoping for something to happen but only the 1st and 10th book have anything that can remotely be called situation development (and let's not even talk about character development). It's a perfect example of starting with one (bad) book and saying: "so, now, how can we extend it to 10 volumes without adding any extra content?"

Re:Why?

[bytesex]

As a craftsman, you must think about your reputation and the long term as well. It's all well and good if you get to eat now because some stupidass client wants you to make a watch out of cardboard, but if the result of that is that you never get to eat again because you will permanently be known, amongst your future prospects and peers, as 'the guy who made a watch out of cardboard', then you may reconsider.

Re:Why?

[Angostura]

Moderators! You mark this informative when it describes an orangutan's ass as purple?! Honestly, what is Slashdot coming to?

Re:Why?

[Opportunist]

Problem is just that this is kinda an achivement that locks up some others forever. I dunno a single person that won a Razzie AND an Oscar. And I guess we agree that the Oscar is the achivement most want, unlike the Razzie.

Re:Why?

[stupid_is]

Problem is just that this is kinda an achivement that locks up some others forever. I dunno a single person that won a Razzie AND an Oscar. And I guess we agree that the Oscar is the achivement most want, unlike the Razzie.

Sandra Bullock: Oscar and Razzie

Re:Why?

[Ginger Unicorn]

It has worked because people either don't know who Cordwainer Bird is or if they do, they know that the work in question is something that Harlan Ellison should not be held accountable for.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

Really? The guy wrote "Robin Hood, Men In Tights", it's not like he hasn't made silly movies before. This hasn't done anything to hurt his reputation, I guarantee it. In fact, I suspect that no one would have ev

Re:Why?

[Faw]

Halle Berry: Oscar for Monster's Ball and Razzie for Catwoman (she actually went to the show to get the award, same as Bullock).

Re:Why?

[Mattskimo]

I felt that way about the Wheel of Time series. I managed to make it to about half way through the 4th book before giving up. I'm told it gets even more plodding around the 8th book or so. The last book of Stephen Donaldson's Gap series dragged hugely too but I managed to get through that. I've never managed to finish reading The Last Battle. It's a shame because I quite liked the Narnia series as a kid.

Re:Why?

[mcgrew]

Better than "Patty Whack".

Give the dog a bone!

Re:Why?

[PopeRatzo]

While not the best piece of fiction, it actually does make sense

That sounds like damning with faint praise to me.

Re:Why?

[PopeRatzo]

You mark this informative when it describes an orangutan's ass as purple?!

Sorry, I don't have a mirror.

Re:Why?

[LanMan04]

Ah yes, another series written by different religious looney also has that feeling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming_Saga

BOOOOOOORING!

Re:Why?

[SailorSpork]

Thanks for the synopsis, I had always wondered about the book vs. the movie. That first half sounds pretty stereotypical Sci-Fi, but your description of the second half just sounded like it's a missing chapter from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Or maybe that's just how my warped minded pictured it, but come on: Earth declared bankrupt and repo'ed? And this is *not* a comedy?

Re:Why?

[houghi]

Sci-fi? I thought it was based on a true story.

Re:Why?

[MrNiceguy_KS]

An even better line from TFA:

I took a few courses, including the Purification Rundown, or Purif. You go to CC every day, take vitamins and go in and out of a sauna so toxins are released from your body. You're supposed to reach an "End Point." I never did, but I was bored so I told them I had a vision of L. Ron. They said, "What did he say?" "Pull my finger," was my response. They said I was done.

Re:Why?

[Obfiscator]

I know one problem that aged nukes have that aged Harriers don't: radiation. A big question in the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal now is how much that radiation changes the properties of the surrounding materials of the bomb, and if the bomb will still work as promised. This is why the DOE invests so much in computational power; since they can't perform actual explosive tests anymore, they're trying to simulate it all on the computer.

If this is something they're concerned about after 50 years, I can only imagine it's a bigger problem after 1000. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Harrier being more likely to work. Actually, I'd bet on neither of them working, but that doesn't make as good of a story.

Re:Why?

[geekoid]

Absolutely. It's a good book, probably the last one before he went completely overboard and nuts.

Have you read it? If not I recommend checking it out from the library and giving it a read.

Re:Why?

[geekoid]

It's a fun and entertaining read.

, "OMG, this is some crazy bat-shit from a whacked-out conspiracy nut" until you learn that Levenda is an extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent historian who carefully sources every single item"
So? You acts as if those two things can't coexist int he same person.

Re:Why?

[firefly4f4]

This is entirely true -- they do call it a half-life for a reason, so there would be some question about if there's enough material for the bombs to actually detonate.

That aside, I can still at least accept that a nuke has a partial chance of working, since the half-life of U-235 is still well over 1 million years (or plutonium about 24,000 years).

A harrier still being able to fly after sitting around without maintenance, not so much. I imagine at least some parts of it would be prone to corrosion.

Re:Why?

[DerekLyons]

A lot of it is laid out in the most excellent trilogy by the historian Peter Levenda, entitled Sinister Forces, a Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. You read it and think, "OMG, this is some crazy bat-shit from a whacked-out conspiracy nut" until you learn that Levenda is an extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent historian who carefully sources every single item.

So, you've actually verified that his sources are themselves reliable and that his citations actually say what he says they do? There's nothing about being being extremely well-respected, erudite and diligent that intrinsically rules out also being a whacked out conspiracy nut.

Re:Why?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Normally I like pulp; but I never made it far enough into that doorstop to get interested or care. I think I made it through about the first 5 chapters before getting bored and chucking it. It was highly unmemorable.

Re:Why?

[Yamata no Orochi]

I'm...under the impression he was suggesting that the prose was, in fact not purple. Much like an orangutan's ass.

Re:Why?

[networkBoy]

deff NSFW
Restricted Category: Adult/Mature Content;Violence/Hate/Racism;Extreme
that's my proxy's hit.

Re:Why?

[e4g4]

That's certainly true of the other 99.9% of rotten.com - but that particular link is perfectly SFW.

Re:Why?

[DarthVain]

I read the book, I thought it was good.

In defense of the movie, it was going to fail from the start. Take a book that is arguably longer than all three books of Lord of the Rings put together, then squish in all into a movie that is 118 minutes long for at a cost of 44$ million bucks. In comparison, LOTR in total was 683 minutes long and cost 285$ million dollars. That is why it sucked. I bet if Jackson spent 44$ million, and made LOTR 118 minutes it would suck also. You have to cut out so much stuff you make the rest look stupid and ridiculous because you have no understanding what is going on, why, etc...

I don't care how good a writer you are, doing what they did will ruin it before you write the word "The".

Anyway that's my rant. I dislike when people say it sucked as its a stupid silly story (which some might argue anyway), but I enjoyed it (book) and the main reason why the movie sucked was that it was done on the cheap and was about 3 times too short. I would love to see a proper remake, though with the accolades this got, fat chance of that. However I would argue if I was a director/producer and could take a stinker of a movie and do it so that that it rocks would reflect much better on me. The problem is marketing. Too many only want to take a popular movie back in the day, and try to do it "justice". They should be taking crappy movies and retelling them in hopes of improving on them. But I digress...

Re:Why?

[Dread_ed]

My true test of a good novel is not how well it reads, but how well it re-reads. Case in point, I read Battlefield in my early 20s and liked it. Due to its hefty size it was shelvled for about 5 years before re-reading. When I did it was as if all the luster seeped out of the pages and puddled on the shelf below it. I could hardly make it through the second time. I only finished by stubborn willpower and morbid curiosity.

Re:Why?

[ImprovOmega]

Earth's bankruptcy and the plans for repossession are laid out much better in the book. There's actually a chapter where they figure out *by reading the laws of the galaxy* how to work around what the bankers are saying. It plays pretty well as political intrigue (though Poul Anderson does it *MUCH* better in The High Crusade), but ultimately it works out as a more or less peaceful takeover of an alien civilization due to some darn good lawyering.

<spoiler> As an aside, they also master the Psychlo art of teleportation (by stealing it from Terl), which gives weight to their claims since without new teleporters galactic commerce would grind to a halt. So the humans become necessary and are allowed to step into the Psychlo's shoes. But they do end up using the laws regarding ownership as a premise for allowing them to do that.

Re:Why?

[Red Flayer]

Blowjob is blowjob. Close your eyes and let your imagination do the work.

Five o'clock shadow and calloused man-hands tend to intrude on your imagination some, I've heard.

Re:Why?

[treeves]

Kevin Costner: multiple of BOTH.

Re:Why?

[treeves]

Yeah, he was five foot ten!

Re:Why?

[Mursk]

I think you missed his point. As I read it, he's not talking about the radioactive material itself decaying, but the effects of the radiation on the other components of the bomb over time. I don't know enough about it to say either way, but I agree that after 1000 years the uranium/plutonium would likely be the least of your worries in terms of functionality.

Re:Why?

[Belial6]

There was a Scientology office that I would pass regularly for years. One day, me and a friend decided to go that their "Free Personality Test" just for whoots. At the end of the test, they did their rating thing, and told me that I was very well adjusted, and that that I was doing just fine. They thanked me for coming, and that was the end of it. No sales pitch, nothing. They didn't even offer to sell me a copy of Dyanetics.

I'm not sure if that says something good about me, or REALLY REALLY bad.

Re:Why?

[atamido]

I agree. The book was pretty decent. Really should have been cracked into 2 books.

The movie was sub par. Everyone seems to want to make it out as some horrible atrocity. Honestly I have seen *MUCH* worse.

I actually thought the book was two books that had been bound as one. It is a really clean separation between the two parts. I enjoyed both parts, but I was probably 15 when I read them. I don't have any real desire to go reread them, but there were several parts that I thought were exceptionally clever and good ideas (and a few others that were over the top hero+luck).

That's basically how I felt about the movie too. I thought that putting John Travolta in platform shoes was a really poor excuse for the aliens though. And the humans were too much like monkeys, and the whole "use equipment from an ancient airbase" change in the movie was just goofy.

Re:Why?

[DadLeopard]

He could have done like Harlan Ellison and given them the Bird! Harlan made them use the Name Cordwainer Bird instead of his own name for a TV series where they messed up his script! Actually Battlefield Earth wasn't "ALL THAT BAD", considering it was Space Opera and supposed to be Hokey in the first place, or at least I hope it was! The movie really sucked though, left out all the best parts and "Switcheroos", that had you changing your opinion on who the BAD guys were several time in reading the book!

Re:Why?

[Opportunist]

Then get one of the more effeminate cocksuck... I mean, I could imagine that could ...

Re:Why?

[Miseph]

It means they didn't take you for a big enough sucker to be worth their time.

Dunno

[MightyMartian]

You know, I made it through about fifteen minutes of the movie, turned to my wife and said "There's got to be something good on TV tonight." It wasn't even bad in a fascinating way, like Plan 9 From Outer Space. It was just awful crap. I hope the $cientologists lost a boatload on this one.

Re:Dunno

[Nerdfest]

I figured people were just trashing it unfairly, so I watched it with my 'free PPV' perk I got with my cable plan. I paid nothing and still felt ripped off. If you haven't seen it, don't ... seriously. This is not a 'Hudson Hawk', or other movie that some will like and some won't. I'd put it up with 'Stepbrothers' and a few others for worst movie of all time.

Re:Dunno

[JackDW]

Actually, I rather enjoyed it. It's not a good film, it's really quite bad, but not unwatchably so. Certainly nowhere near as bad as the Internet will tell you.

If I had to watch a film, and could only choose from really bad ones, I would pick Battlefield Earth before Plan 9. Although maybe it's a close thing!

Re:Dunno

[Bigjeff5]

Ditto!

The book was a lot better than the movie, if a little... drawn out. I wouldn't put it in my top-10, but it was a good read.

What sucks about the movie the most is the most interesting part of the story was in the second half of the book, which the movie didn't cover. That's when rebellious-human-slave-boy takes over the universe. That was classic wtf, but in an entertaining way.

It's been a good six or eight years since I've seen Battlefield Earth, I've kinda got a hankering to see it again now.

Re:Dunno

[techno-vampire]

The book was a lot better than the movie, if a little... drawn out

If so, the movie must have been even worse than I'd heard, because the book was absolute, utter crud. Hubbard couldn't be arsed to to make the story line plausible (The bit about one A-bomb after another blowing up inside a force field without destroying each other was probably the worst bit, unless you consider his ideas about how they mangled their math.) and his hero makes two-dimensional cut-out heroes look well fleshed out by comparison. Remember, when the book came out, the Hubbardites tried to buy a hugo award for it and couldn't even manage that!

Re:Dunno

[budgenator]

When ever in causal conversation scientology comes up I simply say;
John Trivolta is to a Scientologist like Charleton Heston to a Christian Fundamentalist,
"Battlefield Earth" is to a Scientologist like "The Ten Commandments" is to a Christian Fundamentalist, then I put "Battlefield Earth" in the DVD player and let them decide for themselves! Gee I wish Tom Cruise was in it too. If "Battlefield Earth" doesn't convince them I put The Profit in next.

Re:Dunno

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Plan 9 has a soul, though. Love was put into that movie. Battlefield Earth is barely watchable without the Rifftrax commentary.

Re:Dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it comes up in acausal conversation?

Re:Dunno

[cptnapalm]

Buffy stakes Edward.

The End.

Re:Dunno

[iluvcapra]

I hope the $cientologists lost a boatload on this one.

The backers of the film were primarily: Intermedia, a German film funding entity -- basically a hedge fund that uses the (then) favorable German tax laws on film production to make money for its investors; and Travolta himself, though he only put in $5 million. Warner put up something like $20 million in marketing.

There was a huge lawsuit after the film failed to turn a profit, because Elie Samaha -- persident of Franchise, the company the put together the funding/distribution package -- had lied to Intermedia and grossly understated the budget of the film. Intermedia had agreed to put up $35 million of the budget for the film, with the understanding they were going to get the foreign distribution rights on a $75 million Hollywood sci-fi action movie. However Samaha had lied to Intermedia about the budget and simply put in none of his own money, thus the film was quite anemically-budgeted, which definitely hurt it.

So aside from the $5 million JT put into it (and he probably made that back in his acting fee), the CoS itself lost no money. The production was really careful about avoiding any links to the Church itself... though they probably made a tidy amount on the sale of the book and character rights to the film and toy companies.

Re:Dunno

[MightyMartian]

Come to think of it, if MST3K ever decides to ramp up again, this might be the perfect movie.

Re:Dunno

[_UnderTow_]

"then I put "Battlefield Earth" in the DVD player" So, you're admitting to owning a copy of Battlefield Earth.

Re:Dunno

[WeatherGod]

You must be a lot of fun at parties, carrying around copies of Battlefield Earth and The Profit just to torture your friends with...

Re:Dunno

[dhalgren]

Understanding Christian Fundamentalism: you're doing it wrong.

Re:Dunno

[dhalgren]

No. At most, the OP is admitting to having had access to a copy.

Re:Dunno

[Rallion]

Veering pretty off-topic here, but I wanted to point out that Step Brothers actually received middling to above-average reviews, even from critics, so it definitely doesn't fall into the same "hated by everybody" category as Battlefield Earth.

Re:Dunno

[MadKeithV]

Just to back that up - I love bad movies - I have several Uwe Boll DVDs that I actually enjoy for their total camp bad-ness.
Battlefield Earth is one of two movies I couldn't be bothered finishing, it's so devoid of any redeeming feature. It's on the same level as Moulin Rouge.

Re:Dunno

[jcr]

> Abraham Fucking Lincoln was what you'd call a Christian Fundamentalist.

Not even close. Lincoln was always ambivalent about religion. After he was killed, the deification propaganda tried to convince people he was acting from divine inspiration.

-jcr

Re:Dunno

[MartinSchou]

"Battlefield Earth" is to a Scientologist like "The Ten Commandments" is to a Christian Fundamentalist

So fundamentalist in fact, that they've reverted to Judaism. I've never quite understood why so many "Christian fundamentalists" find all their arguments in the Old testament. That's not your book. You have a new - it's called The NEW Testament.

Re:Dunno

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Pretty sure I said Rifftrax already did it.

If you're a MSTie and you don't know what Rifftrax is.. it's basically the funny people from MST3k (aka not Joel) doing audio commentary for new movies. Because they only release the audio track they don't have to get the movie rights.

Re:Dunno

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Joel's a failed prop comic. His jokes almost always fell flat because his delivery was just awful. Maybe if he wasn't always high he could have been funny.

The invention exchanges were an excuse for him to shoe-horn his shitty props into a TV show.

If you liked Joel's humor, you liked Mike's writing. I think it's hilarious that Joel quit the show when he did, because it only got bigger over the following few seasons, after which he came back to do a cameo (during which his delivery of his "jokes" was terrible).

I thought it was a good movie

[Matt Perry]

Although, John Travolta is never the right guy to be in a scifi film.

Re:I thought it was a good movie

[spire3661]

HE was alright in Swordfish. Being that im in I.T., I would almost certainly label that movie as SciFi

Re:I thought it was a good movie

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Science Fiction != Bullshit.

Just saying.

Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from complete bullshit.
"You can't do that, that's complete bullshit."

Re:I thought it was a good movie

[mcgrew]

Science Fiction != Bullshit.

More importantly, Bullshit != Science fiction (horse == 4 legged animal, 4 legged animal != horse). Eraser was on yesterday and I watched maybe half an hour of it, when the Governator blew up the house by tearing a gas line out of a stove and turning up the thermostat, my suspension of disbelief overloaded and I put on the news (which also sometimes stains credibility). I mean, what idiot wrote that script? Who wouldn't know that an old fashioned thermostat has a mercury switch, and any spark is completely enclosed in the switch? Sheesh!

I can accept faster than light travel and time travel, despite their breaking the laws of physics, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea of space aliens that look anything at all like us, especially the ones that look like a human with an ugly mask. But I still like Star Trek, despite that.

Swordfish was entertaining, too, despite its impossibilities. As were the Die Hard movies.

Re:I thought it was a good movie

[ImprovOmega]

That should go down as a corollary to Clarke's law.

Schindler's List of SciFi?

[Opportunist]

If you replace Schindler's List with Killer Tomatoes and SciFi with Propaganda Movies, we can talk.

Re:Schindler's List of SciFi?

[dkf]

If you replace Schindler's List with Killer Tomatoes and SciFi with Propaganda Movies, we can talk.

Oh, it works just fine. It's just the wrong Schindler and the wrong List. We're talking Dave Schindler and his List of 100 Best Ever Fart Jokes.

Re:Schindler's List of SciFi?

[nacturation]

They could always make a movie about Schindler's Lift: http://www.schindler.com/

Re:Schindler's List of SciFi?

[plague911]

Killer tomatoes was amazing you bastard

Re:Schindler's List of SciFi?

[Opportunist]

So was BE. Watch the movie while stoned out of your mind and it makes sense. At least the scene where the killer robot starts shooting everyone around and then the giant atmosphere engine explodes with a lot of aliens trapped inside that try to make their way out.

Re:Schindler's List of SciFi?

[Opportunist]

You give 'em way too much credit. This is Scientology, not Anonymous.

You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, don't even — you're glib. You don't even know what bad movies are. If you start talking about bad movies, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these screenplays, Slashdot, okay? That's what I've done.

I loved that movie

[DeadRat4life]

in the same way The Room is my favorite film of all time. I think i enjoy bad movies a lot more than good movies. I also smoke a lot of pot, so that might have something to do with it.

Re:I loved that movie

[mcgrew]

May I suggest, then, Battle Beyond the Stars, an incredibly bad science fiction movie. That movie requires lots of reefer.

Re:I loved that movie

[mcgrew]

I have that movie on tape. Watch it sober as an adult and you'll see what I mean. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad directing, cringe inducing sound effects. I did like the computer in it, though, as unrealistic as it was.

Re:I loved that movie

[elrous0]

Written by John Sayles, FX by James Cameron, a pre-A-Team George Peppard doing a comic role--should have been the greatest movie ever, but somehow wasn't.

Re:I loved that movie

[mcgrew]

The few good actors really highlighted the rest of the actors' acting. Cameron did the visual effects, but the sound effects were not good. I think the directing and maybe editing was what killed it.

YouTube Link...

[JohnSearle]

Worst PICTURE of the Decade - Battlefield Earth accepted by J.D. Shapiro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKlEE18R5d8

Re:YouTube Link...

[ScrewMaster]

If Battlefield Earth is one of your all-time favourites, you've either only seen one movie, you're mentally retarded, or a Scientologist, but now I repeat myself.

I will admit that I enjoyed the part where Travolta got his arm chopped off and was feeling the stump. That was about it though.

I read the original novel by L. Ron (yeah, I know, there are some things one should not admit to in public) and while it was about what you'd expect from writer of Hubbard's caliber, the movie didn't even measure up to that. How the Scientologists could have so badly botched the film adaptation of one of their founder's better-known works is beyond me.

I've got chills

[FuckingNickName]

...

Re:I've got chills

[donaggie03]

Yeah, but are they . . muliplyin?

Re:I've got chills

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, but are they . . muliplyin?

I've got a spark coil here that could help with the "electrifyin'" part. Maybe if we connect it up to John Travolta's earlobes we can shock some sense into him. Probably have to crank up the voltage to make a dent on that Cruise asshole though.

Re:I've got chills

[gmhowell]

Yeah, but are they . . muliplyin?

Not only that, but I'm losin' control.

Re:I've got chills

[FuckingNickName]

I'd gladly pay up...

Re:I've got chills

[FuckingNickName]

And my wallet's set on you!

This guy rocks

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Now, looking back at the movie with fresh eyes, I can't help but be strangely proud of it. Because out of all the sucky movies, mine is the suckiest.
In the end, did Scientology get me laid? What do you think? No way do you get any action by boldly going up to a woman and proclaiming, "I wrote Battlefield Earth!" If anything, I'm trying to figure out a way to bottle it and use it as birth control. I'll make a mint!

Read the whole interview. It's totally worth it. A mans odyssey while trying to get laid at all costs.

Re:This guy rocks

[Concerned Onlooker]

"I'm trying to figure out a way to bottle it and use it as birth control. I'll make a mint!"

I'm confused. Is he going to make birth control or mints?

Re:This guy rocks

[_Sprocket_]

Read the whole interview. It's totally worth it. A mans odyssey while trying to get laid at all costs.

I sense a Hollywood pitch...

Re:This guy rocks

[MemoryDragon]

Yes definitely, one of the best pieces of articles written ever... perfect material for a sitcom!

Re:This guy rocks

[ImprovOmega]

Harold and Kumar Go to the Scientology Center?

Re:This guy rocks

[tomthegeek]

Mint flavored birth control pills.

The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[djdevon3]

The reason why Battlefield Earth deserved worst film of the decade was because it tried to be a serious film and fail Fail FAIL FIALED epiccccc fail. The premise wasn't bad, the execution is what killed it.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[robogun]

Part of the problem is that the production company ripped off the film's backers to the tune of $75 million.

Viewing the film (torture) will reveal numerous places where horrid shortcuts were taken with sets, special effects, unknown bad actors, etc.

The rest of the problem is that the movie covers the worse half of the book. The second half would have actually made a good space shoot em up, the first half is nothing but cave man wandering about. There is no noticeable Scientology proselyzation in either the book or the movie.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[Bigjeff5]

Yup.

I actually read the book after I saw the movie, and the second half was much better than the first. Still, the first half of the book is significantly better than the story they told in the movie - they probably would have made the second half suck too.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[Chris Rhodes]

proselyzation - what's that mean, proselytization? But I agree with your assessment. Although I've never actually seen the movie. I read the book, and was ok with it for a once-through.

Then I found out who Hubbard really was, and never sought out any of his books again. Of course, I'd already read Dianetics, so it was too late to scrub my brain completely.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[CODiNE]

I dunno man. What's up with the fighter jets that sat in a cave like 1,000 years and started up just fine? The ancient walkie-talkie's with working batteries? The stupid aliens accepting pallets of gold bars with official seals stamped on them??

That's about all I can remember from the movie, it HURT MY BWAIN.

So I ask you... was that nonsense from the book or added because of low budgets? It seemed pretty integral to the plot to find the planes so... the book couldn't have made much sense could it? GIGO.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[ScrewMaster]

What's up with the fighter jets that sat in a cave like 1,000 years and started up just fine? The ancient walkie-talkie's with working batteries?

Why not? It worked for Woody Allen.

It's probably where the Scientologists got the idea.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[ScrewMaster]

So I ask you... was that nonsense from the book or added because of low budgets?

It was from the book, sort of. In other words, the human survivors found a couple of vast Russian and American underground bases (presumably Cold War-era) and scavenged them for guns, books, and whatever else they could find.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[AndrewStephens]

I have also wondered about the $75 million budget - Battlefield Earth just looks cheap. If you compare it with an ambitious episode of something like StarGate SG1 (for instance) made about the same time, the TV episode made for 1/20th of the cost looks much more competent.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[djdevon3]

lol well that's the crux of the problem right there. complete and utter incompetence from just about everyone involved in the making of that poor excuse for a movie.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[ImprovOmega]

And what guns they recovered were carefully packed away for *extreme* long-term storage. The fighter jets -- that were FREAKING WORTHLESS during the original invasion -- were just ridiculous, notwithstanding the obvious "no way in hell they would run after 1,000 years" and the whole "how THE HELL did they learn to fly them" parts. The whole movie was bad, bad, bad.

Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie

[ScrewMaster]

The whole movie was bad, bad, bad.

No argument from me. I'll admit, Hubbard had a good premise for Battlefield Earth, but his book wasn't exactly great literature (mainly because he was a mediocre sci-fi author at best.) Still, they could have done a lot better: who knows, maybe if they'd stuck with the original screenplay rather than try to promote their worthless value system they'd have had more commercial success. Maybe.

Didn't think it through....

[drjuggler]

FTFA: "In the end, did Scientology get me laid? What do you think?" That's why I became Unitarian! Not much screenplay material here oddly enough...

Re:Didn't think it through....

[Tiger4]

You could always go for the truly obscure and join the Urantia movement.

hilarious article

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

if he wrote a movie based on his experience with The CoS, it'll be one of the funniest comedies ever.

Re:hilarious article

[initialE]

Who would fund it? The BBC? Hollywood is full of those CoS types.

I think its great

[interval1066]

I have the RiffTrax version of it and its hilarious.

Re:I think its great

[dzfoo]

Oh man, really? I didn't know there was a RiffTrax version!

I'll have to find it now, thank you.

      -dZ.

ALERT-- Important Notice

[MarkvW]

This time, TFA really, really, is a good read!!!

Re:ALERT-- Important Notice

[Rimbo]

Yes, it is. If for nothing else, to see that there are folks in Hollywood for whom the pull of Scientology is ... nonexistent. ;)

You're Doing It Wrong

[eldavojohn]

Although, John Travolta is never the right guy to be in a scifi film.

Here, let me help you with that.

(And if you want more)

I know they make fun of good movies just as successfully but this movie is flawed on too many levels for me to get into. I'm not even talking plot or story at this point, just delivery, directing and acting. And that Rifftrax clip points out a few of them.

Hopefully I'm just missing your humor. If so, well played.

Re:You're Doing It Wrong

[Matt Perry]

I know they make fun of good movies just as successfully but this movie is flawed on too many levels for me to get into.

It's been a long, long time since I saw the movie. Alcohol may have been involved.

Re:You're Doing It Wrong

[Bigjeff5]

Weed is what you need, man BFE would be so awesome high.

Of course, anything is awesome high - I know a guy who watch six hours of "The Puppy Bowl" while high.

Re:You're Doing It Wrong

[demonlapin]

I know a guy who watch six hours of "The Puppy Bowl" while high

Kids, this is why your parents tell you that pot makes you a loser. Just FYI.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[NiceGeek]

Because it was the Razzie for the worst movie of the decade, you kinda have to wait for the decade to be over before you do that.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[Trepidity]

The award he was accepting was just given now: at the 2010 awards, Battlefield Earth won "worst picture of the decade", and he showed up to claim it.

Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[preaction]

... my VCR spit out the tape about 5 minutes in, thus saving me from ever seeing any substantial part of the movie and wanting to claw my own eyes out. That VCR no longer works at all, but I keep him around, just to stop by and say "Thanks" every once in a while.

Re:Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[twidarkling]

Heh, my DVD player did that with Street Fighter this week.

Re:Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[bertoelcon]

My TV burned out when I tried to watch The Star Wars Holiday Special on it from a friends tape. Then I downloaded it from the Internet and it burned out a video card. Streaming it to an Xbox360 played it and then got a RROD.

Re:Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[sorak]

"I once saw Battlefield Earth at a gas station for a dollar...but they had blank VHS tapes for $2. That means that, by copying Battlefield Earth onto a VHS tape, your are reducing its' value by one dollar."

Paraphrased from an old Conan O'Brien monologue

Re:Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[ImprovOmega]

Dude, I watched the Nostalgia Critic's review of the Star Wars Holiday Special and wanted to claw my own eyes out. There's no geek cred there, it exists only to ravage your soul and leave you a hollow, weeping, terrorized shell.

Re:Battlefield Earth was so bad...

[KingAlanI]

I first saw that on bash.org, with John Denver cassette tapes as the focal point of the joke.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[longhairedgnome]

Just responding to your sig, Nick Montfort was at my university(University of North Dakota) this last week, it was awesome to meet him!

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[Trepidity]

Sounds cool! I've read a good bit of his stuff, though never met him. I've taken two classes from the other co-author (Ian Bogost), though, which is how I found out about the book.

Re:Using a pseudonym when it sucks

[Servaas]

Or this guy wasn't a hypocrite. He wrote a bad movie, shrugged, paid some bills, and got on with his life.

2042

[future assassin]

is when it all happens again http://churchofxenu.com/

Strange comparison.

[MindlessAutomata]

I would've thought Travolta would've compared it to Passion of the Christ

Re:Strange comparison.

[chill]

Uhhh...Passion of the Christ was released in 2004. Battlefield Earth was released in 2000.

Repeat after me, John Travolta is not God and cannot travel thru time.

Actually, just saying it once is enough. You shouldn't take a lot of convincing with that. Laughing, maybe. Convincing, no.

Re:Strange comparison.

[MindlessAutomata]

Quit being such a suppressive person.

No way it was the worst

[jdayer]

I can't even begin to talk about how much worse other movies have been. Every year a few hundred movies that are so bad DVDs are never made of them. In a nut shell there are millions of people who are interested in being involved in movies. Some of these people end up on lists of potential investors that production companies purchase. When I say production companies I mean con artists, but, con artists just this side of legal. These guys solicit money from these "interested investors", they put together a really bad film crew, some really bad actors and they make a movie. Sometimes they hire a has been or two for walk ons, they put together a lame party for the "investors" with the has beens as main course. Typically the only distribution these movies get is a short run (sometimes the producers make the copies themselves) that is sent out to the investors. The movie is submitted around to film festivals, distributors and is summarily rejected by everyone. I have some internet friends in the production business that complain about these losers because it makes it harder for independents to raise money. Not to hard though, there are always people who want to be in the movie business.

Re:No way it was the worst

[phantomfive]

In fact, this is exactly what happened here. The production company later was investigated by the FBI, sued, and lost in a $121.7 million judgement. Apparently they managed to inflate the budge from $44 million to $75 million. Ouch.

Re:No way it was the worst

[stockard]

Sounds like they took a page straight from The Producers.

Re:No way it was the worst

[_Sprocket_]

These guys solicit money from these "interested investors", they put together a really bad film crew, some really bad actors and they make a movie. Sometimes they hire a has been or two for walk ons, they put together a lame party for the "investors" with the has beens as main course.

But enough about Uwe Boll's career...

Re:No way it was the worst

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yeah like this one : "2012: Supernova" from the "Let's make a movie whose title sounds like another movie so people will rent it by mistake" school of filmmaking, starring the guy from Charmed. I think they mean worst as in worst movie made by Hollywood insiders and intended as a serious project.

unacceptable

[jollyreaper]

I won't take his apology seriously until he takes it seriously. The Japanese have a ceremony that helps to convey complete sincerity. I suggest he uses it.

Re:unacceptable

[Ekhymosis]

Seppuku?

Re:unacceptable

[Stormwatch]

Thank you, Captain Obvious! Here, have this rock.

Isn't that the award that's....

[genner]

Isn't that the award that's both a candy and gum?
Lucky guy.

Re:You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do

[kramulous]

What's glib got to do with it?

It solves all sorts of portability problems.

Well, I liked it

[roland_mai]

I watched the movie while coding on a project and I remember liking it. I have found out that bad movies are not as bad if you code while watching them. This allows one to only allocate to the move a very small fraction of brain power. You'll feel happy because you actually did something, and that you did two things at the same time.

Re:$cientology == M$

[ChromeAeonium]

Microsoft may not be all puppies and kittens, but there's no comparison between them and the COS. Even on a bad day they're not even close. When you see MS doing stuff like this, then maybe your argument that it's hypocritical to give their mockings unequal attention will hold water.

Good read

[yoshi_mon]

TFA is written by someone who actually knows how to write. If your reading this instead of it, 'your doing it wrong'.

Reason for a huge flop

[mestar]

You need a bunch of very powerful people with no connection to reality. Nobody can stop them, nobody can correct them. Thus that movie.

wow

[rawg]

Wow... I liked the movie. I didn't realize that it was awful. Strange. Maybe I should watch it again. I've certainly seen worse movies over the past few years.

I had no idea about the Scientologists part.

Re:wow

[Culture20]

Same here. Of course, I also like Timestalkers.

Re:$cientology == M$

[Jonathan]

Nobody ever made me use a Scientology product for work though. Maybe the FSF doesn't use Microsoft products, but everybody else does. Try to send a non-geek a LaTeX or Open Office document and they'll just complain "I can't open this". On the other hand it is easy to avoid Scientology.

I won't begrudge anyone a paycheck, but . . .

[SlappyBastard]

Did this guy really not think the involvement of the Church of Scientology was gonna cause the whole endeavor to get a tiny bit weird?

Also, there were major red flags. For example, he says that he pretty much repeatedly insulted them to their faces and they just kept on with the offer. It's pretty clear they were using him to get L Ron's unsellable script through the door far enough that the studios would accept there was no going back. They used him to front a sellable, perhaps even awesome, script to the studio when they knew all along the were filming their version of the movie.

They didn't bat an eyelash at his misbehavior because he was their frontman.

It's pretty psychopathic behavior when you get right down to it.

Re:The lesson here?

[Xiroth]

This is related to why anything of the form [religion] [normal thing] generally just means [sucky] [normal thing].

While I'm not in favour of religion myself, Bach's body of work (amoung many, many others) might just disagree with you...

Re:You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do

[twidarkling]

Actually, it was probably a case of "woosh." Hell, I didn't make the connection until you said "Tom Cruise."

Re:The lesson here?

[H0D_G]

Of course, all the best bands are affiliated with Satan :)

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[kimvette]

It was made in the same decade as Starship Troopers, The Phantom Menace, the Look Who's Talking sequels, Highlander II, and let's include Supernova since it was actually reproduced in the '90s, although not released until 2000. Let's not forget Lucas' destroying the original Star Wars trilogy, changing A New Hope so that Greedo shot first.

There were far worse movies made in the 90s.

Re:$cientology == M$

[TangoMargarine]

I like how you waited a full 41 minutes before you condemned Slashdot for its hypocritical complete silence.

Re:$cientology == M$

[TangoMargarine]

Oops. Actually 29. Math fail...

Actually

[commodoresloat]

given how bad the movie was, they knew it would win the award as early as 2002.

if it was such a bad movie

[jdc18]

if it was such a bad movie, why i have the feeling everyone here saw this crap

Re:if it was such a bad movie

[denzacar]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

Another famous Ellison turkey:

[toby]

The Oscar.

What makes "The Oscar" so mesmerizing is the consistency of its deranged vision. All its monumental problems and excesses somehow lead to a critical mass that defies all criticism. If it were any better, it wouldn’t be nearly as great. Like Hitchcock’s "Vertigo," it conjures up its own reality, and somehow, the insane parts make the whole less of a movie, and more of an immersive experience. James Cameron’s Pandora has nothing on Frankie Fane’s Hollywood. Neil Gaiman began watching "The Oscar" by himself but was soon overwhelmed. He had to bring some friends in to complete the journey.

Bad is good.

[AshboryBass]

You might also enjoy these gems:

1. R. Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet" (uncensored). Lots of people talking about feelings while having guns pointed at them. Available on DVD (including Netflix). The sequel isn't as amusing.
2. "Fifteen": The Nickelodeon soap opera based around the lives of 15-year-olds. Here's the only video I know of that's a full episode:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBgWdlyt4VA

The Billy character is played by Ryan Reynolds.

Re:You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do

[longfalcon]

flawless execution. +1 internets to you sir.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[Captain Nitpick]

It was made in the same decade as Starship Troopers, The Phantom Menace, the Look Who's Talking sequels, Highlander II, and let's include Supernova since it was actually reproduced in the '90s, although not released until 2000. Let's not forget Lucas' destroying the original Star Wars trilogy, changing A New Hope so that Greedo shot first.

There were far worse movies made in the 90s.

Then it's a good thing Battlefield: Earth was released May 10, 2000, and not in the 1990s.

The official nominees were Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered, Gigli, I know Who Killed Me, and Swept Away.

I guess Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 was too awful to acknowledge.

Schindler's List of Sci-Fi?

[matunos]

More like the Auschwitz of Sci-Fi.

There, I said it.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[marsu_k]

Hey now, Starship Troopers was brilliant. I really don't get how people don't understand that it's satire, how obvious do you have to be?

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[anss123]

Yeah, loved how the movie was one big propaganda piece for the "bad guys". In the book humans aren't "the bad guys" and the bugs really are the aggressors, etc, making the book just another forgettable scifi skit.

Re:$cientology == M$

[michaelhood]

Nobody ever made me use a Scientology product for work though.

Heh, you just need a job in Hollywood.

Because: Unions are dictatorships

[Snaller]

Freedom is an illusion

Sooo....

[denzacar]

You need a bunch of very powerful people with no connection to reality. Nobody can stop them, nobody can correct them.

Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones: The Fridge Chronicles didn't flop because there is only one George Lucas?

Re:Sooo....

[mog007]

The Star Wars prequels and that "thing" people called Indiana Jones 4 didn't flop because they didn't lose money.

That's sort of the definition of "flop".

People went to see those movies, even though they knew they were bad. Why? Because they had Star Wars and Indiana Jones in the title, so they couldn't be THAT bad.

Re:Sooo....

[denzacar]

You are missing the point...

I am not contradicting the point of "flop".
I am asking could it be that they didn't flop because there was only one George Lucas, while there were many would-be LRHs involved with the Battlefield Earth.
It's not like they lacked the resources to "create" the number of people who would buy the ticket to see it. After all - they've done that before with their other "bestsellers".

For once an award I agree with...

[js_sebastian]

Worst PICTURE of the Decade - Battlefield Earth accepted by J.D. Shapiro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKlEE18R5d8

This movie has been sitting at the top of my personal top-10 of worst movies I have seen in a movie theater. I only went because Forest Whitaker was in it. I don't resent a very bad movie on tv now and then, but when they manage to con me into going to a theater for one I hate them for ever... For me, that movie is reason enough to ban scientology and travolta and exile them to the frozen oceans of ganymede.

Re:For once an award I agree with...

[elrous0]

I saw Xanadu in the theater. I find it hard to believe anything could be worse than that.

Re:For once an award I agree with...

[phayes]

I've seen both. BE was worse: Absolutely no redeeming qualities (but then I had crush on ONJ & always liked ELO).

Re:Why not post his script ?

[trdrstv]

Simple solution to this is for him to post his script, and let the readers decide.

I actually saw it at the theaters!

[Aaron32]

I remember this movie vividly as it's my single most biggest disappointing movie, EVER!

Seeing the previews I just KNEW it would be a fantastic show and on the same level as The Matrix. Boy was I ever wrong. My friends still to this day rub it in my face that I saw it at the theaters.

I was so let down, it's not even funny. I think what really clenched it was when the cavemen taught themselves how to "break in" a harrier jet the same way they would break in broncos.

However, the good side of it is I'll never forget this lesson, and IMDB is my friend when questioning whether I'm about to see another Battlefield Earth.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[Mattskimo]

Surely I can't be the only person who LOVED Freddy Got Fingered? Yes it was extremely juvenile but that was sort of the point.

Re:Why not post his script ?

[AndersOSU]

probably because he doesn't own the copyright for it.

Re:Why not post his script ?

[trdrstv]

Call it "Fan Fiction"

I just watched it, too.

[maillemaker]

After reading this article, I went and watched it instantly on Netflix.

Man, what garbage.

Travolta just doesn't strike me as an alien bad guy. His black sidekick doesn't either. I just kept seeing retarded-acting Klingons.

The idea that after 1000 years of disuse they found working flight simulators and Harrier fighter planes, and electricity and fuel that had not jellied or evaporated away, and learned how to use it in a week was just absolutely beyond any ability to suspend disbelief. Total shark-jump at that point.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[geekoid]

2000 was the end of the last decade.

Re:Book was FANTASTIC - movie was not so much

[Thud457]

You're just full of Thetans. If you were clear, you'd be able to appreciate it for the masterpiece it is.

Hell, this whole thread's just crawling with Thetans. My E-meter's ticking just from me reading this hateful crap.

Re:The lesson here?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Not true.

The Passion of the Christ was a well made movie. The pacing was great, the scenes were shot very well, and the characterization was excellent.

I mean, it was still a snuff film hiding as a jesus freak film but still.

Re:why has he decided to accept it now?

[Captain Nitpick]

2000 was the end of the last decade.

2000 was not the last year of the 1990s, 1999 was.

2000 as the end of the 20th century works because it's counting time since the switch to positive integers, and there was no year zero. Decades such as the 80s, 90s, and whatever we end up calling the period from 2000 to 2009 (inclusive) are not set from the origin, but are based on the tens digit of the year. 2000 may have been part of the 20th century, but it wasn't part of the 90s.

Also note that kimvette made an exception to include a movie released in 2000, which establishes that the conventional 1990-1999 definition of the 90s was intended.

Re: Cults

[conureman]

Sea Org is those zombies in the blue uniforms, right? Part of cult control is to be sure no one gets any sex without total compliance.

To those who actually watched/read BE...

[KingAlanI]

Congratulations for at least giving it a chance.
I've obviously heard of its really-low critical opinion, but I wouldn't feel confident repeating that myself until I've actually tried it

To provide an audio example (as I hesitate to use the term 'music' here), Ke$ha sucks, but I'll only say that because I actually (tried to) listen to her album.

While critics are often right, and critical opinion does sometimes serve as an information-processing heuristic, I keep the following factors in mind:
* there's lots of stuff that's better than the critics think (or worse than the critics think)
* You're one of the sliver of people the thing appeals to and/or the critic(s) are one of the sliver of people the thing doesn't appeal to.

Re:At least Boll was a known pro in film making

[_Sprocket_]

Off topic again, apk?

And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Re:Seems like that last comment got to you

[_Sprocket_]

Naw, apk. Doesn't bother me a bit. If anything, I'm mildly amused. We've progressed in your play book to the phase where you start to follow me around. Just like last time I showed that you didn't know what you were talking about.