Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)

Battlefield Earth (film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Battlefield Earth (film) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Template:Film needs synopsis

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has an archived peer review.

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)[reply]

Umm... the title is spelled correctly? -- ChrisO 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end had a bit of cool action. Toxic Ninja 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• I've always enjoyed it, but that might just be me. Matthew 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I enjoyed it, for the same reason I enjoyed Plan 9 from outer space. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's black&white! :-P. Matthew 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Mangojuice^talk 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

I don't know how to edit the article with new references properly, or else i would've done so already.

I suggest the part on Battlefield Earth in "Films Considered The Worst Ever" to replace the "it was a notorious commercial and critical succes" part.