Battlefield Earth Screenwriter Accepts Razzie 295
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.'"
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
No, but someone else could just have said no fuckin' way I'm gonna tag my name to that train wreck.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Better than "Patty Whack".
Give the dog a bone!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
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' [wikipedia.org].
From TFA:
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Getting blowjobs from barbarino does not sound like my ideal work week.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Getting blowjobs from Barbarella [imdb.com] does sound like my ideal work week.
T,FTFY
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
[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
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [the-editing-room.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you misunderstand the point of Scientology, friend. The ONLY step is called "profit".
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I enjoyed most of the novel but could quantify why parts sucked and others were good. This explains it pretty well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cmu.edu].
Fascinating stuff. Cult leaders are very interesting people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [rotten.com]
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Moderators! You mark this informative when it describes an orangutan's ass as purple?! Honestly, what is Slashdot coming to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Dunno (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 comparis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [imdb.com] in next.
Re:Dunno (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 [randi.org], then maybe your argument that it's hypocritical to give their mockings unequal attention will hold water.
I thought it was a good movie (Score:5, Funny)
Although, John Travolta is never the right guy to be in a scifi film.
I've got chills (Score:5, Funny)
...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're Doing It Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Although, John Travolta is never the right guy to be in a scifi film.
Here, let me help you with that [youtube.com].
(And if you want more [rifftrax.com])
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: (Score:2)
It's been a long, long time since I saw the movie. Alcohol may have been involved.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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:I thought it was a good movie (Score:4, Insightful)
Science Fiction != Bullshit.
Just saying.
Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from complete bullshit.
"You can't do that, that's complete bullshit."
Schindler's List of SciFi? (Score:5, Funny)
If you replace Schindler's List with Killer Tomatoes and SciFi with Propaganda Movies, we can talk.
Re:Schindler's List of SciFi? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
They could always make a movie about Schindler's Lift: http://www.schindler.com/ [schindler.com]
You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do. (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:You don't know the history of the Razzies. I do (Score:5, Funny)
What's glib got to do with it?
It solves all sorts of portability problems.
I loved that movie (Score:3, Funny)
YouTube Link... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKlEE18R5d8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This guy rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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...
The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The reason why Battlefield Earth Won the Razzie (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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. [veoh.com]
It's probably where the Scientologists got the idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Didn't think it through.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always go for the truly obscure and join the Urantia [wikipedia.org] movement.
hilarious article (Score:4, Funny)
if he wrote a movie based on his experience with The CoS, it'll be one of the funniest comedies ever.
I think its great (Score:2)
I have the RiffTrax version of it and its hilarious.
ALERT-- Important Notice (Score:5, Insightful)
This time, TFA really, really, is a good read!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is. If for nothing else, to see that there are folks in Hollywood for whom the pull of Scientology is ... nonexistent. ;)
Battlefield Earth was so bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, my DVD player did that with Street Fighter this week.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I first saw that on bash.org, with John Denver cassette tapes as the focal point of the joke.
2042 (Score:2)
Strange comparison. (Score:2)
I would've thought Travolta would've compared it to Passion of the Christ
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Quit being such a suppressive person.
No way it was the worst (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
unacceptable (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Isn't that the award that's.... (Score:2)
Lucky guy.
Reason for a huge flop (Score:3, Insightful)
You need a bunch of very powerful people with no connection to reality. Nobody can stop them, nobody can correct them. Thus that movie.
I won't begrudge anyone a paycheck, but . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Schindler's List of Sci-Fi? (Score:4, Funny)
There, I said it.
Re:why has he decided to accept it now? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [razzies.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.