Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Unanimous?

Are there any redeeming qualities regarding this monumental turkey? While it's quite universally agreed that this fine piece is a atrocity of monumental proportions, could there be anything praiseworthy about this bomb? --Tirolion 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... the title is spelled correctly? -- ChrisO 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The end had a bit of cool action. Toxic Ninja 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see. Many of the negative reviews were hilarious - it's been a while since a movie provided that much entertainment without you needing to even see it. If you dislike Scientology or John Travolta, you can also feel warm about how the movie embarassed them. Lastly, if you're a professional writer, director, or actor, you can now defend your worst projects by saying "Yeah, well, at least I didn't do Battlefield Earth", and your critic will have to concede that you have a point. There, three whole redeeming qualities. Vivisector9999 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They showed Travolta in his true form... 23:17 Fentoro

I laughed hysterically during the cow-shooting scene. However, if the question is, did I enjoy any part of the movie for the reasons the makers thought it would be enjoyed... er... most probably no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know where to write this but Battlefield Earth did not win any academy awards that I remember. In any case that particular tidbit in the intro sentence is not cited and seems more like scientology lies forced into the public domain. beansfortheart~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.181.222 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody out there?

Ok I have to admit, I really liked the movie. But I have never found anyone else that liked it. Am i the only one? --nocturnal omnivorous canine 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You may well be, other than brainwashed Scientologists. I have yet to hear anyone else express a genuinely positive opinion of this movie. Even the review blurbs on the DVD cover had to reach as far as "Some of the nicer screen transitions of the year" from the JoBlo site. Vivisector9999 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've always enjoyed it, but that might just be me. Matthew 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I enjoyed it, for the same reason I enjoyed Plan 9 from outer space. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But it's black&white! :-P. Matthew 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a good movie - but I don't think it's so terrible either - Independence Day and isn't much better, imho
  • I think this is the best worst movie ever made! I loved the book (being a pulp space opera junkie with a taste for epics,) and seeing Travolta play Terl like some outraged, effete british lord is hilarious! I could almost imagine Graham Chapman (as the major) under all the costume and makeup. 206.45.135.233 22:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it makes the viewer want to shoot him/herself, it's extremely dull crap, it's probably the only dull scifi in the universe. Markthemac 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheap Rip-off?

Do the "Psychlos" resemble ridgeless Klingons. 59.183.138.182 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Vader1941

You must die for that insult, human. — Garthok. Well not really, and beside the book was written before Star Trek. I think they are just supposed to be your standard, ugly, dumb, brutish alien.70.21.231.66 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Razzies

Recently, someone changed the year of "2005" to "1995" in the sentence "This was the second highest number of Razzies "won" by a single film at that time, behind Showgirls's eight "wins"; in ????, Battlefield Earth was awarded an eighth Razzie for Worst 'Drama' Of Our First 25 Years." The change was defended by the claim that the "1995" referred to Showgirls and not to Battlefield. If this were indeed the intent of the sentence, then the sentence was grammatically incorrect. A semicolon appears between what would otherwise be two separate sentences. Thus, the 'in 2005' grammatically referred to Battlefield, not to Showgirls. Even if the sentence structure did specifically identify the "1995" as applying to Showgirls, in 1995 Showgirls won only seven Razzies. The eighth was not awarded until 2000.

However, there is reason for investigating a little deeper to make sure our reporting is accurate. This article from the official Razzies site dated 2001 says that Battlefield tied the seven Razzies held by Showgirls. Unusually, even though they mention the eighth Razzie, won by Showgirls in 2000, they seem to not be counting that for purposes of the tie. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've passed this article as a GA candidate. I agree with Nehrams that the images need specific fair use rationales, but the GA criteria don't seem to require this. I also think the article could be improved by toning down the critical reception part... I laughed out loud at some of the reviews (and I've seen the movie and remember it vividly) but I wonder if the extreme pans chosen here are really representative. And were there any good reviews? I understand that would be a fringe viewpoint, but still, it's worth mentioning if they exist. Mangojuicetalk 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the criteria was recently modified and the images point now states: "6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly." I'd also recommend expanding the lead somewhat to summarize the article. But altogether, good job, I'll make a mention of its passing in the WP:Film newsletter. --Nehrams2020 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would actually be interesting to see if there were any "good reviews", and if so, in which sources... However, from a perusal of the citations utilized in that particular subsection, it looks like they are all from quite reputable sources, such as the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and the Washington Post... I'll see if I can scout around for some other citations from the major mainstream papers... Smee 08:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Allegations of subliminal messages

The article already notes that allegations were made that the film might contain subliminal messages, and that these allegations were generally not treated as credible. However, I think we might note that many of the reviews of the movie discussed the allegation -- I seem to remember one that said something like "there's no trace of Scientology in it, or of any system of thought", but I haven't been able to find that review to get the exact quote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

It's been a few months since Mangojuice (talk · contribs) passed this article as a Good Article. I put it up for a Peer Review, to solicit some comments from other editors not normally involved in this article, on how to improve its quality to Featured Article status. See the top of this talk page, or feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battlefield Earth (film). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

The worst movie i ever , ever seen

--Jonybond 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious Link in "Cast" Section

The link for Christopher Freeman goes to the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Freeman

I have my doubts that a well-known economist would show up as a cast member in a major (albeit very bad) Hollywood film. Could someone correct this? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.153.169 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the link is wrong. IMDB's page on the "Christopher Freeman" in the film implies that we're talking about a different Chris.

untruths

I got to this article by clicking on a link in the Films considered the worst ever article, which cites alot of negative reviews and awards (7 Raspberry, 8 Razzies, 3% rotten tomatoes etc...) and has 8 references to negative articles.

Yet on the top of the battlefield earth article one of the first things said is: "It was a notorious commercial and critical success and has been widely criticized as one of the "greatest films ever made".

Clearly the negative reviews and articles outweigh the single guardian unlimited article which is referenced here, So it cannot be widely criticized as one of the best movies ever made, if anything the opposite is true, it has less then 2 out of 10 on IMDB.COM and has over a thousand of negative reviews on this site.

I don't know how to edit the article with new references properly, or else i would've done so already. The statements throughout the article about how succesful the movie was and how well received it was are just lies, probably put there by scientologists.

I strongly suggest the part on Battlefield Earth in "Films Considered The Worst Ever" to replace the "it was a notorious commercial and critical succes" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just vandalism. Even Scientologists aren't deluded enough to try to pan this movie off as a success.71.35.252.65 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg

Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Y Done. Fair use rationale provided on the image page, for use in this article. Cirt (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Plot

The plot section of this article seems slim compared to other movies/books referenced in Wikipedia. I just think it should be beefed up a little. Now that would require the input of someone who has seen the movie more times than I have (once, I was one of the opening weekend suckers) but I definatly think it needs somthing more than a brief one paragraph summery.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a more detailed precis, sourced from the May 2000 issue of Sight & Sound magazine. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Now I am almost sorry I asked for it, I think I am having a flashback. I really like the summery, and think it really adds to this article... now people have some idea of why it got such a critical reception. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Maltin cite to add

Add the review from Leonard Maltin. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Added the cite here so I don't have to format it later, will add the info to the article later. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Y Done. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Other refs

The first has part of the strange trip to finally becoming a movie, and the second has sequel news, and finally a Scientology critic who didn't buy the subliminal idea. (Most critics didn't, *rolls eyes*, as I recall.) I've dropped them here so that they can be gracefully added (if at all) rather than just jamming them in. AndroidCat (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites could use standardizing with WP:CIT

Some of the cites in the References section have long external links that go off the page, and they use different formats. The cites should be standardized throughout the article with Wikipedia Citation templates. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Update: I went through and standardized all cites with WP:CIT. At least, I think I got all of them. When adding new sources to the article, please keep with current format and use WP:CIT for the citations, in keeping with uniformity of the article. Cirt (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for doing that! The reason why I didn't do it that way in the first place was simply to save time - I've been writing the article directly from library databases (Lexis-Nexis and Factiva), but my access is very limited. I thought it was better to get the info in the first place and use basic citations to save time, then reformat the citations later. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, in that case, go ahead and keep doing that, especially if you have limited access. I will be glad to chip in, do my part and help with standardizing stuff after you add new material/sources/cites. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
OK, I think I'm pretty much done now. I've got as much out of Lexis-Nexis and Factiva as I'm likely to, and I've expanded the intro as requested. Shall we submit it to WP:GA and see what response it gets? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, look above, the article is already a WP:GA, and had a peer review, though looks like not a very fruitful peer review. I still have a bunch more sources I found that could be added, as well as the sources from AndroidCat (talk · contribs), from below. After that's done, I think it'd be a good idea to go for another peer review, seeing as a lot has changed between the last one. I think I can ask some experts from WP:FILM to give some good detailed feedback at that point... Cirt (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
In cites, I prefer not to put the publication ("New York Times") in the work field and use the full company name ("The New York Times Company") as the publisher. Some publishers (CNN) are owned by a constantly shifting thicket of media holding companies, and it's usually the publication that's important to the cite, not the current owning company (or should that be the owning company on the date of the article?). Unfortunately, there's no consistency in the definition of the work and publisher fields across the cite templates. (See web and news, for example.) I can't say that I'm completely consistent either. :) AndroidCat (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article was rated a GA. :-) Considering how much it's changed since then, would it be worth resubmitting it for review? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Response to AndroidCat (talk · contribs) -- The correct form is The New York Times for the work, and The New York Times Company for publisher. Response to ChrisO (talk · contribs) - I think what you might be referring to is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment - but I don't think it's worth the bother - really, the WP:FILM editors are really really good about this stuff, Erik (talk · contribs) in particular, to name one, I think the next step should be a second Peer Review. If you really want to, however, I can ask someone in particular to do a quickie Wikipedia:Good article reassessment who is really good at those, that would be VanTucky (talk · contribs), who I've seen do a lot of those. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

A quickie reassessment sounds good, could you ask VanTucky? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, here. We shall see... Cirt (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Cirt, do you have a link for an MOS or guideline page that suggests those uses of work and publisher? Using The Times as an example:

The Times and its sister paper The Sunday Times are published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International. News International is wholly owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch.

So, the work would be The Times, but would the publisher be Times Newspapers Limited, News International, News Corporation group, or Rupert Murdoch? And what about old references if the corporate structure changes next month? AndroidCat (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, no you wouldn't change it every month. The one to use in this example would be Times Newspapers Limited. And if anything changes, that is the publisher that historically had published the piece as of that date, so you would retain the old information. But one should always err on the side of citing the subsidiary actual publishing company, as opposed to the parent corp like News Corp or Murdoch. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but which MOS or guideline page are you basing this on? AndroidCat (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, it just seems most logical. If you really want a MOS cite, I could look into it somewhere, but I don't even think MOS manuals will specify, they'll probably just say "this is the place in the citation where 'publisher' is noted" - but I doubt they'd comment in detail on the publisher item itself. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Press releases and WP:V

I {{fact}} tagged some cites that are Press Releases that I don't know whether or not they are verifiable. Perhaps if they had more info (author, or title of the press release, where it was published, etc.) but at present they really don't satisfy WP:V that well. Cirt (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

They were published via Business Wire, which is archived on Lexis-Nexis and other wire services, so they're eminently verifiable. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you perhaps provide some more info on the ones that are scant? Specifically, the article/heading title used on the press releases, not just the date and "press release", if possible? Cirt (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
That's the problem, not all of them do have titles - I've included titles where those have been given. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay - also the extra info you added about Business Wire will help for verifiability. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Y Done, okay, they look good now. I think all the existing cites have been standardized - the References section looks really nice, a lot easier to read/work through. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Assessment request

Hi, sorry I was so late doing this. The truth is, there is very little that needs fixing with this article to keep it up to GA. The quotes and other things needing a cite are almost 100% taken care of (the 2nd sentence of the 6th paragraph of Development, the bit about Elie Samaha, should really have an in-line cite). I would change the Plot section to be called Plot synopsis. Though technically per the guidelines of WP:LEAD the intro is of a good length, it feels a bit long. I would recommend trimming it some, keeping in mind that you're trying for a "concise overview". Other than that, I think you've done really good work. If there are any specific questions about content you have, feel free to ask. VanTucky 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
After addressing the above concerns, we should contact VanTucky (talk · contribs) again for a more formal reassessment, and if he states that the article is now of a really solid GA quality, we can update the article history above, to reflect this. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Someone should do a quickie article start and make the 2 redlinks in the article blue, either w/ new stubs, or just quickie short new articles w/ a couple good refs. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor cite thingy

Now that all cites (I think all of them) are standardized with WP:CIT, we should just double-check to make sure that anything that could be wikilinked within the cites is - for example full dates per WP:MOSDATE. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just found a dup cite (Campbell) - we should just check to make sure there are no other cites accidentally listed twice in the References sect. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

Added (9) {{fact}} tags, not really sure which cite was backing up what in these places, best to also have a cite at the end of these sentences. Hopefully someone else will help w/ this, I'm not familiar with some of those sources. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed most of these tags - in each case, the next citation along covers those sentences. There are a number of places in the article where multiple sentences are sourced from a single citation; we don't really need to add citations to the end of every sentence, do we? We'll end up with a lot of duplication if we do that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Jury's out on that one on Wikipedia - some say yes, some say no. Also seems to be a good idea the more controversial the article... Cirt (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec - some of those fact tags I added were directly after uncited quotes from people. Those should be cited, even if the source is in the next sentence over. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Heya found my way here via the FA page.

I think the lead would be better with a little less of the specifics of the plot... for me it cuts down the flow of reading. I had to go back and re-read it a couple of times to get it. Sethie (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I had initially reverted that because I liked the detail, but your rationale makes sense and it's best for it to be easier and more accessible to the average reader, so I self-reverted. Thanks for the explanation here on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is possible I overcut... and I definately think some trimming would be really helpful there.
I mean I am a sci-fi/fantasy addict, and it was confusing to me! :) Sethie (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No no, I respect that you are a newcomer to this article and a sci-fi fan, and perhaps you are right that simpler is better. But if someone else objects to the trimming, we can of course discuss. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent mention, CNN

CNN Staff. "Robbed! The Screening Room's top ten Oscars that weren't. - Battlefield Earth "succeeds" in every category", CNN, Time Warner, February 22, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-23. 

Battlefield Earth "succeeds" in every category

John Travolta's Scientology/sci-fi movie was nominated for a meager eight awards, but brought home the bacon as it took seven of those awards on the night. Only Forrest Whitaker failed to convert his nomination, pipped to the post by co-star Barry Pepper. If it makes them feel any better, we think they deserved all eight.

Recent mention. I'll add this later. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article date and summary text

Let's request this article to be featured on May 12, the 8th anniversary of its premiere. I've come up with the following text and image:

John Travolta signing copies of Battlefield Earth (novel)
Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 is a 2000 American film adaptation of the novel Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. The film stars John Travolta (pictured), Forrest Whitaker and Barry Pepper. It was a commercial and critical disaster and has been widely criticized as one of the worst films ever made. The film depicts an Earth that has been under the rule of the alien Psychlos for 1,000 years and tells the story of the rebellion that develops when the Psychlos attempt to use the surviving humans as gold miners. Travolta, a long-time Scientologist, had sought for many years to make a film of the novel by Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. Franchise Pictures, an independent production company that specialized in rescuing stars' pet projects, eventually provided funding. Battlefield Earth received abysmal reviews on its release and failed to recoup its costs at the box office. Franchise Pictures was later sued by its investors and was bankrupted after it emerged that it had fraudulently overstated the film's budget by $31 million. (more...)

Any thoughts? (Don't worry about any red links, I'll fix those.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, moved the cropped image to Commons as Image:Be travolta in 2000 100px.jpg. Seems okay so long as the redlink is no longer a redlink by the time we request it, but doesn't the blurb seem a tad short? Cirt (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't link to the image on Commons, as it won't be under cascading protection that way. See Category:Protected main page images. The blurb is about the standard length for such things (roughly 170-180 words). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops, did not realize about the cascading thing. Okay, in that case blurb looks good, if the redlink turns blue at some point. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)