Battlefield Earth...

[psychofiend]

...isn't that bad. Most critics said it was awful, but I saw it the day came out in theaters and thought it was an awesome movie. Since I've seen it at least twice and still loved it. I thought John Travolta was so good at being the fiendish character that he deserved to be commemorated(sp??) definitely not with an Academy award but maybe the top 25 performances of 2000.
http://image.allmusic.com/00/adg/cov150/DRT000/T090/t09005uf0fd.jpg

[ratm1966]

I didn't care for the movie, but that is just my opinion.

[Razorback]

It is not as bad as critics and some people (who have never seen it) say it is. However, when compared with the book, it is pretty bad. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

RB

[psychofiend]

Never read the book /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MattGoldman]

Yeah seriously...I read the book first...so when I saw it in theaters...I was so upset...how can u turn a 1050 page book into an hour and a half movie...it just doesn't work...

Personal opinion of it...ranks up there with Plan 9 From Outer Space, and Wild Wild West in terms of how horrible it was/is.

[marksiwel]

First the book was daunting. It was like a stephen king book but without the charm.

Second
The movie was supposed to be part of a trilogy or quadrilgoy? If you look at the movie its only 1-5th of the book.

Third
The critics are idiots. Look at any post on this site.
If I were to post "EVIL DEAD 2 WAS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER" Many many many people would agree, but you would get a couple of people who would disagree thats because MANY diffrent people come here. Critcs have something in common though they all work for the media and they all went through some sort of film school. It makes a huge diffrence from your average Joe shmoe. Example: You see a drama and you like it for what it is, the critic sees it and tries to compare it to the God Father and Great Expations and so on. THey missed they point, was the film any good? I want to see a romantic comedy, I dont need to know that it doest live up "When Harry met Sally".

My Rambling is done

[Omaru]

I wholeheartedly agree. bravo!

[Razorback]

Most critics just write cynically. I pay no mind to cynics.

RB

[MattGoldman]

First off, I hardly found the book daunting...so, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Second, it wasn't filmed as if it were supposed to be a trilogy...they told the story, from start - finish in an hour and a half. They certainly left out key scenes, however they did show the beginning, middle and end of the book. So I don't know what your sources are, but they appear to be lacking. (sorry if that sounds rude)

[GoreFollower]

I wouldn't want to watch a film that included John Travolta having braids.

[MattGoldman]

LoL...you have a point!

[Razorback]

Matt... I read the book 3 times, they did NOT "show the beginning, middle and end of the book." Perhaps you have not read the book in a long time (I agree that it is not daunting) but what the movie represents is the first half of the book.

RB

[Threadkiller]

I read the book before and after seeing the movie.

Is the movie as bad as the critics said? No (they love to pile on when a big budget doesn't live up to the hype)
Is the movie a good example of it's genre? Not as a sci-fi action movie nor a book adapation.

LoTR is a good example of someone who is a huge fan of a work of literature adapting it. I think Peter Jackson wasn't as concerned with making it a 'hollywood-formula-blockbuster' as he was with being faithful to the original work. And I think the people who bankrolled Jackson bought into that idea. On the contrary, the makers of Battlefield Earth wanted to make it so badly they sold too much of the soul of the original work just to get the money to make it.

I found the film imminently forgettable. And I even liked Freejack.

[Razorback]

If that was true about Peter Jackson then what the heck happened with THE TWO TOWERS? That was a worse adaptation of a book than was BATTLEFIELD EARTH. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

RB

[ILovePapaSmurf]

<font color="purple">Ok, Lord of The Rings was a great movie! I never read the books, but from what people tell me, the movies go somewhat with the books. And Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood make the movies a little bit more better for me if ya know what I mean.

As far as battlefield earth goes, all I can say is I had a great two hours or so of getting a high school on mrs. pacman. </font color>

[Threadkiller]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
That was a worse adaptation of a book than was BATTLEFIELD EARTH

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch!

I will only offer token defense of what I think is a great movie. To be fair, the three movies for LoTR were meant to be a single cinema adaptation of the LoTR sexology. Each of the books as published were actually two books combined. Anyway, the movie The Two Towers breaks off at a blah blah blah...

Ah, what the hell am I talking about Faramir was completely off as was the entire sequence of events featuring him (to name but one fan-boy overlooked flaw).

Oh well. I stand by my opinion that Jackson was all about making a good movie as opposed to bowing to Producers' ill-conceived opinions about making a blockbuster. BFE on the other hand didn't benefit from a filmmaker with this kind of vision.

[Razorback]

I am not picking apart the movie, just slamming the adaptation. Peter Jackson has released two movies that are the STAR WARS of a new generation (I don't know why critics and industry people keep trying to assign that title to THE MATRIX series when it is obviously LOTR)... hell, BETTER THAN STAR WARS!

However, the adaptation of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, while very flawed, remained within the spirit of the book(s). THE TWO TOWERS (at least the theatrical cut, maybe my opinion will change with the special edition) adaptation is pathetic. As an homage to events in the book it is great but as a work inspired and moved by a book it violates the spirit of the book more than BATTLEFIELD EARTH does its novel namesake.

RB