Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. Mangojuice^talk 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)

•  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).

• Maltin, Leonard (August 2003). Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2004 Edition. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. pp. Page 91, "Battlefield Earth (2000) C-117. BOMB". ISBN 0-451-20940-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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).

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

Other refs

• Rackham, Anne (1991-09-02). "Scientologists emerge as creators of mystery-shrouded movie firm". Los Angeles Business Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Earth under threat again as Travolta hints at sci-fi sequel". Guardian Unlimited. 2000-10-19. Retrieved 2008-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Lattin, Don (2000-05-15). "Travolta's Religious Battlefield: Critics say movie bolsters Scientology". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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)

 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).

•  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 (February 22, 2008). "Robbed! The Screening Room's top ten Oscars that weren't. - Battlefield Earth "succeeds" in every category". CNN. Time Warner. Retrieved 2008-02-23. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

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)

Washington Post Service

The Slide: That reservoir? It's been lowered, inch by inch, by such Scientology propaganda as Battlefield Earth and cash-ins like Wild Hogs. Next, look for Travolta costarring with Robin Williams as friends who unexpectedly find themselves caring for 7-year-old twins. That sucking sound you hear is a reservoir finally draining away.

(In a discussion of John Travolta).

• Hornaday, Ann (Washington Post Service) (May 11, 2008). "They swerved off track -- how they can make it back". The Miami Herald. The Miami Herald Media Company. Retrieved 2008-05-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Could be used in the article, interesting that the film is characterized quite simply as "Scientology propaganda" in the Washington Post Service. Cirt (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

fradulently overstated

"Franchise was later sued by its investors and was bankrupted after it emerged that it had fraudulently overstated the film's budget by $31 million."

"Fraudulently overstated" is an oxymoron.

Should read either:

"Franchise was later sued by its investors and was bankrupted after it emerged that it had committed fraud by overstating the film's budget by $31 million."

OR simply:

"Franchise was later sued by its investors and was bankrupted after it emerged that it had overstated the film's budget by $31 million." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbr2000 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean tautological, not oxymoronic, but actually I think the current wording is right. It was fraudulently overstated as opposed to accidentally overstated. Both your alternative wordings are correct but I don't think quite as succinct. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image use

This article contains the images Image:Battlefield earth planetship.jpg and Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg, one to describe the actors, and one to describe Dutch camera angles. To comply with wp:nfc#3a, can there not be a single non-free screenshot of the characters, taken from a dutch angle, and thus illustrating both points? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. At least both these images are in fact embedded in analytical discussion, as they should be. If all fiction articles used images like they do here, I'd be happy. Let's first get the real crappy ones out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By the standard of other articles it is a minor infraction, and the image use is notably better than most televisual articles Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

More panning

One critic described the film as "has to be seen to be disbelieved". I'd like to add this to article but I can't recall which.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Should this article be locked? It seems like this one has a high risk factor for vandalism. Discuss? 70.187.208.109 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

somebody messing with article please edit dont know how thanks NatrlBrnKiLLER (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this article contains references to John Travolta and Scientology, it is likely that "Anon" will make vandalism a high priority. MaxoremNihil (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Vandalism isn't that extreme right now. Cenarium (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its Anonymous. They tend to want people to see the scientologiests for themselves so they can see how crazy they all are. On a side note, how on, pardon the pun, earth did this get on the front page.--Sylvok (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the "Development" section, it says:

After Battlefield Earth was published in 1294, L. Ron Hubbard suggested that a film version of the book was in the works. He gave an interview in February 1264 to the Rocky Mountain News in which he told the reporter, "I've recently written three screenplays, and some interest has been expressed in Battlefield Earth, so I suppose I'll be right back in Hollywood one of these days and probably on location in the Denver area for Battlefield Earth when they film it."

Is this vandalism? Or is the year 1294 in reference to a Church of Scientology calendar that I'm not aware of? In any case, it should be fixed up to a Gregorian calendar year. —Micahbrwn (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is vandalism. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is a version of the article before most of the vandalism kicked in from WP:TFA day. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot?

This is a featured article? Nothing about the plot? The changes from the novel? There's virtually nothing about the film itself! I'd write it myself, but I'd have to watch the film again, and I can't bring myself to do that. Schoop (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we really need a brief plot synopsis. Is it so bad that everyone who sees it has to erase it from memory? LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That must have been removed by vandalism temporarily. The plot summary is back now. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Third

I read the article, and I think the overall quality is good, but also pretty harsh. Even though I think John and his companions deserved it a bit, I also think that the article could be toned down some day after it's been on the Main Page.
The only part that I would like to change right now however, is the third sentence: "It was a commercial and critical disaster and has been widely criticized as one of the worst films ever made". Perhaps we shouldn't put it there. It's a bit too rough, not to say unnecessary. The movie and Travolta are already disgraced enough in the rest of the article, so I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that the movie was commercially and critically disastrous. If I hear no objections, I will remove that sentence within 24 hours. I've also contacted Raul about this. Cheers, Face 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of this sentence, and think that the blurb is fine, as well as the article's WP:LEAD. This was gone over in quite detail through the review process, most recent of which was the WP:FAC discussion. To this day the film doesn't have too great of a rating at Rotten Tomatoes, not to mention that it is listed prominently on multiple "worst of..." lists. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's reasonable to leave it in, given that the film has, as Cirt says, featured on numerous "worst of..." lists. Its "worst of" status is, after all, one of the things that gives this film its particular notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt that there's nothing wrong with the WP:LEAD. Except for that sentence. I also agree that the article shows considerable efforts at gaining neutrality, but I still think that the article goes a bit over the top with its use of strong quotes, like: "as entertaining as watching a fly breathe", "a cross between Star Wars and the smell of ass", "a Scientology stinkburger", "God above, it's bad. Sweet baby Jesus, it's bad.", et cetera. Those are of course amusing and sensational cries, but in the end, they are empty, and could be seen as article filler. I know this is not a good time to do something about it, so that's why I considered the subtle removal of one sentence in the intro instead. - Face 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, you guys opposed, so unless someone supports me, I'll leave this article alone. Thanks for your comments, and I hope to join you patrolling the recent changes on May 12. Cheers, Face 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While working to get this article up to WP:FA status with ChrisO (talk · contribs), I searched through probably over 150 reviews of the film. I added a bunch of quotes with some sort of positive perspective on the film, but there just really wasn't much there, at all. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also this comment from Raul654 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reality check here. What's so important about the Washington Post quote "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth"? The Critical reception section of this article has become an orgy of swooning quotes from witty writers. It is about twice as long as I would expect a section of that type to be, for any film, good, bad or average. It gives undue weight to the extent to the point that the article reads like its purpose is to quantify just how bad the film was, not inform readers about it. If I had encountered this on FAC, it would have been a firm oppose from me in its current state.

I'm not supposing that bad reviews should not be quoting bad reviews, or denying the sparseness of positive ones, but this gives us the freedom to be selective in what we use. Even the most worthy of the critic quotes delivers less useful information than the reference to Rotten Tomatoes, the Razzies, the DFWFCA award, etc. I suggest removing all quotes which do not directly comment on the film, except for a possible select few of the strongest worded reviews from more authoritative sources. For example it's fine to quote Jonathan Ross saying "Everything about Battlefield Earth sucks. Everything. The over-the-top music, the unbelievable sets, the terrible dialogue, the hammy acting, the lousy special effects, the beginning, the middle and especially the end." but irrelevant that he says "God above, it's bad. Sweet baby Jesus, it's bad. By all that is holy and sacred on the Earth, this is a bad, bad, bad film.". Ross is a comedian, not a journalist. He says these things all the time and the article is about a rather awful film, not an homage to the work of the likes of Ross. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Jonathan Ross's review depends very much on context, but I believe the Ross quote was from the BBC Film Programme, which he presents not as a comedian but as a journalist and serious movie critic. I'd personally expect that the quote in question comes from this show (I think I vaguely recall watching the episode), but I've not checked. Adacore (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the quote is cited to an article by Ross in tabloid newspaper The Mirror. Besides, the wording is clearly chosen to entertain more than inform. Again I ask: what information does this add to the article? BigBlueFish (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed the second portion of the quote from Jonathan Ross. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the third sentence should be altogether removed, but instead of it linking to the page List_of_films_considered_the_worst, which has warnings at the top of the page, offer some citations of actual sources, such as Rotten Tomatoes (as listed above). It is ridiculous for this to be a featured article if the third sentence bases its claim on a Wikipedia page that is unverified. Macduffman (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations listed later on in the article for that factual info. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are also 2 citations backing up that info right at the end of the sentence in the lead in addition to the citations later in the article. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following passages from the article:

• Jon Stewart put it even more succinctly on The Daily Show when he described the movie as "a cross between Star Wars and the smell of ass".
• Rita Kempley of The Washington Post commented: "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth."
• Richard Roeper placed the film at number five on his list of "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel". Roeper commented, "The real danger of Scientology is that John Travolta may someday make another movie based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard."

What they all have in common is that they don't provide any critical comment, and their main purpose is to entertain. None of the sources rank highly in weight compared to some of the others on their page, so they should not be missed, especially with the need to improve the length of the article and that section. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this removal of sourced material, but will deal with these changes after WP:TFA day. Too much vandalism and changes going on to address this now productively. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the only criterion for including information in an article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The article was no more effective in conveying the nature of the reviews when those quotes were there, and had no extra information about the points faulted by critics or anything else for that matter which could possibly justify their encyclopedic worth.

For the record, another quote has been removed by an anonymous user:

• In her book Celebrity Tantrums!: The Official Dirt, Lisa Brandt called the film a "Scientology stinkburger".

I disagree about this one because it's the only one that makes reference to criticisms relating to scientology, which goes on to receive comment by the producers in this article. On the other hand the source is hardly authoritative. Perhaps another more suitable source could be found (I'm sure I saw at least one other Scientology reference in the full version of one of the other sources). However, I can see sufficient justification to re-include that quote. Not so for the others. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The quote from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show illustrates a mention on television in popular culture. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

   This is a multi-million dollar film starring John Travolta. Does it surprise anybody that they talked about it on TV? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The quote from Rita Kempley of The Washington Post is uniquely worded and interesting, and was highlighted subsequently in Entertainment Weekly. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

   If the Post published something uniquely worded and interesting, maybe it should appear in the article on The Washington Post. Seriously, this article is not short of interesting things to say. It is too long. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

3. The quote from Richard Roeper is a quote from a notable film critic, and is necessary to illustrate the film's inclusion in multiple "worst of" lists. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

   The underlying theme here seems to be that the notability of the quotee justifies the quote. This is not how Wikipedia works. You could easily go through Roeper's articles and his books and find loads of statements about other movies, but they don't appear in those respective Wikipedia articles. His list, by the way, is not a "worst of" list; there is no indication that it is supposed to be exhaustive. In fact, it is clearly named in order to entertain, and seeing as there are plenty of other more objective rankings of this film, this is no longer notable. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All these quotes were considered in the WP:FAC process, and were included as part of a balance, along with positive information later on in the same subsection. In order to maintain balance, if these were to be removed, we should add other quotes from critical reviews. However I do not think that these should be removed. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the quotes discussed were mentioned individually in the FAC, and FA status doesn't preclude the potential for improvement in any aspect of quality. I would welcome other, more relevant, quotes, but I disagree that they are needed for balance. I think you have a distorted view of WP:UNDUE. Balance does not require there to be amounts of text proportionate to the point of view. This article, with or without those quotes, makes it perfectly clear that there were hardly any good reviews and lots of bad reviews, which include the representation of the film as a notable flop, one of the worst films of all time, a universal failure, the subject of ridicule in the critical arena and popular culture. What then do these quotes add? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My rationale above still stands, your rebuttal points notwithstanding, though they are interesting. I still think that the mention on The Daily Show is worthwhile to keep in the article, as is the quote from The Washington Post, later selected for inclusion in a discussion by Entertainment Weekly, and a quote from Richard Roeper, a noted film critic. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt. The Daily Show comment is worthwhile as a representative television review, the Washington Post quote was widely quoted at the time as a definitive comment on the film, and Roeper's prominence as a serious film critic makes him a very logical choice for a quote. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Cirt. These cites were all fully considered and approved during the FAC process. Messing with them now strikes me as knee-jerk WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT however tenuously that essay is invoked. I am trying to address perceived problems with the article, and I would thank you for giving this due respect. The other editors have been perfectly reasonable about the content. With phrases like "messing with them now" I suggest you review WP:CCC and WP:OWN. The cites were not "all fully" considered or "approved" unless there is some discussion that I missed; there was some discussion on the suitability of the weight given, the conclusion of which was eventually that it was okay, but no specific reviews were mentioned.

The main problem is that the section is too long. Partly as a result of this it is also poorly organised, especially at the beginning, and makes the importance of the more questionable quotes unclear. At best, it is borderline quality writing for an FA. This should be resolved whether or not it can be expedited by cutting out redundant, possibly undue quotes.

Following ChrisO's comment, I agree that there is a place for the Daily Show quote, which would become clearer with a better organised section. However the other two seem to continue to be justified by the quality of the review. This is not Wikiquote, nor is it Rotten Tomatoes. The other numerous quotes are witty enough to convey the fact that it was popular among critics to mock the film and compete for the most eloquent means of totally panning it.

If the Post quote was considered the definitive bad pan then this should be stated in the article, and possibly even moved to the lead to keep section lengths balanced. However, it seems to me that this title might go to the NYT.

Let me reiterate that following WP:UNDUE does not mean quoting lots of bad reviews because of the fact that there were lots. It is actually more effective to note the most significant ones, the statistics and so on, things that the section does fine without these quotes. Add quotes which are just a different way of saying the film was bad and it conveys the impression that the article's purpose is to revel in the funny jokes that the critics made. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be going in circles with this discussion, which is not productive. Myself, ChrisO (talk · contribs), and Bullzeye (talk · contribs) have all commented and expressed a sentiment to keep the current material in the Critical reception subsection. Cirt (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think coming to agree on one of the three points in question was going round in circles. Any circle-going is because you keep giving the same reasons to keep the quotes and I'm telling you that they (that is, "it made it past FAC", "it's interesting" and "the person who said it is important") are not self-sufficient reasons to say something in a Wikipedia article. Have I misinterpreted the rationale here or are these acceptable reasons to add length to an article? BigBlueFish (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked ChrisO (talk · contribs) for comment on this because at this point in time it seems that this discussion thread is beginning to be a waste of time, as three different editors feel that the material should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than recruit meatpuppets in a discussion which is not a vote, you could always answer my simple binary query and maybe you could make that figure four. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO (talk · contribs) is not a meatpuppet, he is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, but more importantly was a principle nominator on this article's WP:FAC, and thus his opinion is most certainly warranted. And for the record I have no idea where Bullzeye (talk · contribs) came to this article's talk page from. And my rationale above still stands, and I agree with the latest comments by Bullzeye and ChrisO. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I despair. "My rationale above still stands". Am I right in summarising your rationale to be "it made it past FAC", "it's interesting" and "the person who said it is important" or not? It was a simple question, and answering it would save you, me and ChrisO a truckload of time. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My rationale was last best described in summary by ChrisO (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well "the Washington Post quote was widely quoted at the time as a definitive comment on the film" is not how the quote is presented in the article or a sourced statement, and "Roeper's prominence as a serious film critic makes him a very logical choice for a quote" is not a rationale for a quote, it is a criterion for using a quote which adds something useful to the article. I also dispute the notion that "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel" is the title of a serious piece of film criticism. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Disaster

• A tornado is a "disaster". An earthquake is a disaster. I'm not so sure one should be applying the word "disaster" to something as inconsequential as a bad Hollywood film. No one died from this movie, as appallingly bad as some felt it to be. Can we not find a better word? How about "disappointment"?Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "commercial failure and critical flop" is more accurate. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Any film that singlehandedly takes down a studio or production company can be classified as a disaster in Hollywood parlance. The term is acceptable. See Heaven's Gate (film). Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree with Neapolitan Sixth (talk · contribs), but the wording has been changed and the current wording is fine. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable

The article reads like a group of Wikipedians scoured the net looking for every single possible negative review of Battlefield:Earth to include. Yes, it is a crapfest, but I think the four paragraphs of negative reviews could be pared down to something more manageble.

For starters I've removed the reference to Lisa Brandt's book "celebrity tantrums: the official dirt." The book is no longer in print, and Brandt's sporadic writing for small community newspapers in the northeast does not qualify as notable under Wikipedia guidelines.

Feel free to remove other non-notable figures from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't attempting to write a Lisa Brandt biography or establish her as a notable person. What matters is that she had a reputable publisher. In print/out of print status is not relevant (if it were then a lot of featured articles on academic subjects would lose quite a lot of their citations). If you wish to check for accuracy you may request an interlibrary loan through your local public library. Bear in mind that this is already a featured article and has passed community review for neutrality and proper citations. If you think a new discussion is needed, suggest you open a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard or open an article content request for comment. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you're basically saying is: this article has passed a fairly hefty review. Therefore any further changes to the article must be wrong, because it's already passed several reviews, and those reviews take primacy over any further potential edits. What an incredibly non-scientific way of looking at things!

You haven't addressed the basic fact of my edits, which is that the "critical reception" portion of the article reads like a grocery list of critical reviews, many of which add little to the discussion. I removed Brandt's comment first because it was the most obvious. I am certain more thorough combing of the article would yield more reviews which could similarly be deleted without a loss in encyclopedic quality.

Neither your cutesily anti-intellectual retort that we're not "attempting to write a Lisa Brandt biography" nor your inane process argument comparing out-of-print works of substantial academic merit with a tome titled "celebrity tantrums: the official dirt" address the fact that articles should be readable, smooth, clear, and concise, and that a grocery list of opinions from everyone who's ever been published by a reputable source does not make for encyclopedia reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here, my comment was not meant as a retort, but rather to educate. Please also be mindful of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for educating me in the subtleties of Wikipedia's codes and processes. Please re-read WP:Ignore and then respond to my central argument, which is how we can pare down the article to something cleaner, shorter, and more readable without sacrificing content or encyclopedic quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.133.231 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the more dubious sources should probably be removed and it's not like anyone doubts that this movie has been universally panned by critics. A relevant RfC has already been opened below questioning the necessity of quotation. However, you need to keep it a bit more civil. Ignore all rules only applies when it clearly helps the encyclopedia. Insulting other users never falls under this. I suggest you post any more suggestions in the RfC below. Sasquatch t|c 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Quotations of critical reviews

Concerns regarding certain quotations of critical reviews of this film. 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by BigBlueFish

This article has attracted the concerns of a number of uninvolved editors that although the film is a universally accepted critical flop, ranking one of the worst received of all time, the section detailing the critical commentary goes too far and quotes some critics unnecessarily. The current state of the article has been primarily defended by Cirt (talk · contribs) and ChrisO (talk · contribs), the key editors responsible for the article's quality today and participants in the article' FA candidacy. I would like to see the comments of some other experienced editors with the benefit of a fresh look at the article.

My key concern, as discussed above, is with two particular quotes, both of which I feel are gratuitous:

• Rita Kempley of The Washington Post commented: "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth."
• Richard Roeper placed the film at number five on his list of "40 movies that linger in the back chambers of my memory vault like a plate of cheese left behind a radiator in a fleabag hotel". Roeper commented, "The real danger of Scientology is that John Travolta may someday make another movie based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard."

The reasons that I understand to have been put forward for their presence in the article are that the authors are notable, and that the comments are interesting. However, there are plenty of interesting comments by notable authors in the article, but they also offer encyclopedic substance (for example, criticising a technical point). The first quote has also been said to have been widely quoted; if this is why it is there then I'd like to see a source saying so. The second is also an example of a "worst films list" ranking; however there are already several more impressive, more serious examples of this.

The fact that every purpose of these quotes is fulfilled by others means that they simply make the article longer, give undue weight, or both. The lack of specific encyclopedic purpose enhances the impression that the article is simply revelling in the bad reviews like the plot summaries of many television episodes do, and this dilutes the credibility of purpose of the other quotes.

Other quotes have been questioned, including:

• In her book Celebrity Tantrums!: The Official Dirt, Lisa Brandt called the film a "Scientology stinkburger".

which has been deleted by other users twice, although I think it constitutes a valid example of the fact that critics picked up on the Scientology lists in their reviews. It is an example of how some unnecessary quotes can make others seem equally gratuitous to editors.

If we find that these quotes are all necessary to the article, how can we improve the section they are in? It is quite clear from the fact that it has attracted these comments several times independently that the tone of the section is not right, and does not deliver itself in a believably balanced style. I have already helped adjust the wording around one quotation to clarify what new information the quote embodies. Maybe we can do more in that respect. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Re:Coffeepusher: I totally agree with your comment on the tone of the quotes. That said, do you not think that the other quotes deliver this tone sufficiently? For the same reason that we avoid citing a million sources for a single fact even if several very good ones exist, not every good quote (which might help the article in the absence of others) should always be used, in the interest of succinct prose. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Re:Cirt: In the event that a nod from the Post or the author being a notable film critic is enough for a quote to remain in an article, and that the "40 films ..." list is comparable in reliability and importance to the other "worst of" lists, do you have any other ideas on how to improve the conciseness and informative tone of the section? BigBlueFish (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Re:Cirt again: At the risk of sounding uncivil, your attitude goes totally against the spirit of this project. Featured Article quality is not the final goal of Wikipedia articles. If you really believe this article is perfect and beyond improvement then please say so in plain English. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the spoof movie poster comes from the same source that is supposed to justify the notability of the monkey quote. Since I have no access to the source, could somebody confirm whether the quote is referred to elsewhere in the source? If not, the argument is void. The New York Times quote (which has critical substance and is already included in the article) is the only one given special attention. Can anyone explain why we should choose the monkeys quote out of that particular bunch of equal-sized fonted quotes, with special attention to WP:SYNTH? BigBlueFish (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Both reviews are from sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, so that is not in dispute. Both reviews are also from notable sources, The Washington Post and Richard Roeper, and give value to this article in discussing the manner in which film reviewers have critiqued the film. This article has undergone extensive review, and is one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia as a Featured Article. I object to the removal of these quotes. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to BigBlueFish (talk · contribs), yes the quote from The Washington Post has been subsequently cited as a noteworthy quote, in:

"John Travolta Battlefield Earth". Entertainment Weekly. 2000-05-26. p. 9, Issue 542. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Richard Roeper is a noted film critic and his critique is notable, not to mention the classification as a "worst of" 40 movies list. And the issue you mention of "undue weight" was actually also raised and addressed successfully at the WP:FAC discussion. If anything due to the proportion of negative/positive reviews that exist about this film, the subsection on critique of the film is underweighted and should actually include more, not less, critical reviews of the film. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 3 percent positive rating out of 114 reviews [1]. Metacritic gives the film a rating of 9 out of 100 - characterized as "Extreme dislike or disgust", based on an analysis of 33 reviews [2].Cirt (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• In response to the comment below by Justallofthem (talk · contribs), seemingly unrelated to this particular RfC but rather about a different issue - I would simply say that the events described in the subsection Controversies-Scientology were described in the media in secondary sources at the time, and the information is verifiable to multiple sources. The various claims are presented, with the differing opinions also given and rebutted by the involved parties. This subsection of the article was indeed present prior to the WP:FAC discussion, in which the article was promoted. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to Justallofthem, my comment was not meant to "disparage", merely to point out that this RfC is related to the subsection "Critical reception". And yes, I did immediately revert myself regarding the removal of material by Justallofthem, I believe that material was sourced at one point, I will endeavor to find the cite again. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: to BigBlueFish: I think the current state of the Critical reception section is currently of WP:FA quality, just like the rest of the article. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: to BigBlueFish: I am not saying that the article is "perfect", simply that I respectfully do not agree with your assessment that the "Critical reception" subsection requires any improvement. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justallofthem

On the whole, I agree with BigBlueFish that the extensive quoting of critical reviews is a bit over the top. I would not go so far as to call the article a "quote farm" of course but the Critical reception section comes close. I also see the article as serving as a vehicle for panning "all things Scientology". Example, featuring the ridiculous rumors spread by anti-Scientologists such as the alleged subliminal messages. Example, the entire Controversy - Scientology sub-section that leads off with an OR interpretation that there was something controversial about the rights holder, Author Services, and continuing with undue emphasis to further invented controversy based on scant and clearly biased sources, mainly two anti-Scientologists, Bunker and Wollersheim. In actual fact all we have is a pet project of Travolta that was produced by a questionable character (not a Scientologist) and that was a big flop. The rest is invented controversy. I do not think this project, as an encyclopedia, needs unduly forward invented controversy, let alone invent more. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Careful, big guy. I think my comment is clearly related to the topic. Could you please respond without trying to disparage first? Thanks. Oh, BTW, thanks for reverting yourself after you reverted my removal of unsourced material. Next time if you would please check the source before reverting me instead of after reverting me then I would appreciate that. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• In response to a number of references and a general tone of "this article is FA, therefore it's all good and don't change it", I do not think it is the intent of FA review to enshrine a particular version of an article and such would be counter to the basic nature of this project. Therefore I think any argument made that relates to its FA status is specious. Whatever the consensus is here and now with the editors that are interested here and now will determine what belongs in the article and what does not. FA reviewers are of course welcome to come over here and express their opinions and notification of them is permissible if done in accordance with WP:CANVASS. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Coffeepusher

While I understand the consern about these quotes beeing "unencyclopedic" in the fact that they don't offer spacific critisism, I believe the tone of the quotes does add to the artcle. The fact that reputable critics would offer such analogies is so out of charicter that it validates how bad they thought the film was, and to a degree that other quotes would not be able to convey. Now I do agree with Justa... in the fact that FA status should not be a block for change, however we do need to recognise that if this is a FA, then the community has agreed that there are no grevious flaws within the article. The consensus of the community is that this article is well writen, so we should be cautious with any major changes, or sweeping critisism. I actually like the contriversy section, because it shows the real world fallout of this film (and shows how the film fits into a larger socieological context).Coffeepusher (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblbrox

I like the quote from Rita Kempley, and I don't feel it's gratuitous. That it is not critical on a technical level is a good thing. Your average moviegoer is not going to walk out of the theatre talking about camera angles and so forth, they are going to be talking about whether they were entertained by the movie, whether they could form an emotional connection to the story the way you do when you see a great movie. Roeper has always rubbed me the wrong way, and there isn't much substance to the his quote, just that it is on his oddly named list, and I think the article would be better without it, given that it has already been established that it was on a great many "worst movies" lists. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved and clarified some stuff

On a related note, I move some non-controversial material out of the "Controversy" section and clarified the sub-headings of the controversies. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Soon...

The copy I have of the paperback of the book has a large 'star' on the cover with "Soon to be a major motion picture". The printing date of that edition is fourteen years prior to the movie actually being made. If I could find the book (most of my books are in storage) it's too worn (I got it that way, used) to make a good scan for the article. If someone can find or scan a good image of that edition, I think it'd be an interesting addition to the pre-movie history. (I haven't seen the movie, don't really want to... I knew it'd stink the instant I saw that teaser pic of a clean-shaven Johnnie Goodboy Tyler.)

Well it would be interesting to see the book cover, not sure if it would necessarily add anything to the article or might be better off in the article about the book as far as marketing tactics. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Director omitted from the lede

Is there a reason the director of the film is not revealed in the opening paragraph?  Skomorokh  12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image book cover

Disagree that there is any need to include a fair use book cover image, in the article about the film. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic

[3] = stuff to add to article. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also searches for news articles with terms "Elia Cmiral" and "Battlefield Earth". Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

change to cite 91 - small update needed

Worst of the Worst list seems to have been updated by Rotten Tomatoes

I cannot find the cited list and instead find this: http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/8/

Where the film is now #27 of the worst films of the last ten years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.189.5 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

possible source

• "Movies That Should Die With The Decade" (transcript), interview with Bob Mondello, All Things Considered, December 27, 2009.

APK whisper in my ear 11:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will look into it. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

Reverting this diff

Rationale: I find this sentence non compliant with WP:NPOV:

It was reported that the merchandising revenues would be passed on to the Scientology-linked "social betterment" groups Narconon and Applied Scholastics, with movie-related sales of the book funding the marketing of Hubbard's fiction books and the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future contest.

Why? Because describing Narconon and Applied Scholastics as "social betterment" (quotes included) is either promoting them as betterment organizations (which does not comply with NPOV) or ridiculing their position sarcastically (which does not comply with NPOV either). The edit I made was WP:BOLD, in the sense that it gave no POV and described the groups for what they actually do. Narconon provides drug rehabilitation programs based on Hubbard's writtings and Applied Scholastics promotes Hubbard's Study Tech. To be honest, I was baffled to see my edit reverted for being "POV". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That was an unsourced change. It was also POV because it relied solely on how the organizations describe themselves. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I can source it. And the paragraph needs a short description of both, as any reader might ponder what those are. And how else can it be described without losing the topic discussed? I think "a drug rehabilitation program based on Hubbard's writings" is a sufficiently brief, neutral description of Narconon, and "a group aimed to promote Hubbard's Study Tech" is the same for Applied Scholastics. These two are not the topic of this article, it is not necessary to copy the whole controversies section. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is disputed if it is regarded by a preponderance of independent secondary sources as being known primarily as a "drug rehabilitation", rather than as a front organization for Scientology, or both, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I checked the secondary source at the end of the sentence, which confirms the change made by RUL3R (talk · contribs). My mistake. Sorry about that, my apologies, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics in the article head

Removed by Rich on AWB, readded by Cirt, and I removed it again. Cirt added it sometime in April (I just went digging) with an edit summary of "ital". I am completely against the use of this template anywhere, especially on a featured article when the RFC turned up a no-consensus (that said, I !voted in said RFC). Thought to bring it here. Tbh, I didn't even realize it was used here until I hard-refreshed the title page. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What RFC? Link please? -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a link on Template:Italic title right at the top. The RFC took place at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay!!! Thank you very much!!! No worries!!! -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange criticism source

Who is Lisa Brandt and why should her review in an almost completely unknown celebrity gossip book be a part of this article? Her "review" is not only childish and unfunny, but it seems from the gist of the rest of the article that it's not even true, with regards to the influence of Scientology on the film. You might as well be quoting a random unknown blog. There are two reviews of the mentioned book on Amazon, at least one of which is quite obviously written by the author herself (Lisa B from Canada, who praises the author's genius. The other review is equally glowing and also originates from Canada, and is the only review by that reviewer).

This source was added here by Cirt. LuftWaffle0 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is used as a part of commentary, nothing more than that. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any criteria for this commentary? I can understand prolific reviewers like Ebert having a quote in the article, but I'm baffled by this seemingly random citation. I'm somewhat curious about where you even found out about it. I can't picture this commentary being part of a print version of an encyclopedia given how unknown the source is. Thanks. LuftWaffle0 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Per talk page. Removed the source.  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cast

Removed sect, already discussed in article in other sect, in paragraph format. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Error: Critical reception section contradicts itself

The first line of the first paragraph currently reads, "Critically, the movie was viewed as a disaster and was universally panned by critics."

The first line on the eighth paragraph, on the other hand, reads, "The reviews were not uniformly negative."

These are clearly contradictory, and the second is probably the accurate statement. Very few movies are universally panned, and while Battlefield Earth came close, it isn't one of them. I'd add that this section is incredibly long and looks less like a succinct, accurate, and relevant sampling of notable critical reviews and more like a fight between general ridicule regarding the monumental bulk of terrible reviews and some contrarian with an interest in noting the tiny minority of positive reviews. Both points of view cite substantially more reviews (some with substantially less importance) than strictly necessary.

This section is redundant and belabored. Any thoughts on fixing it? Verminjerky (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is virtually indeed universally panned. Less than I believe two percent of reviews of it were positive in nature in any fashion - and even those that were characterized as "positive", were not actually fully positive. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction you mentioned was clearly an error (even if it's a small one), so I've changed the wording slightly to "was almost universally panned". I agree the section is long and repetitive and could probably use some culling. From the Rotten Tomatoes percentages, it seems like the positive reviews currently receive far more weight than they should. Their paragraph is around 1/9th of the section, when only 3 of 119 RT reviews are "positive". There should probably be a single positive quote, with everything else negative. Since the movie is so famous for getting terrible reviews, a longer-than-normal critical reception section seems appropriate--maybe 60% of the current length would be nice. 67.158.43.41 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Derivative plot

Anyone ever notice how similar the plot of this movie is to that of Fantastic Planet? 75.92.134.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

Neutrality when virtually all sources take the same view?

This article seems to me to illustrate a possible problem with the WP:NPOV policy. When all (or almost all) reliable secondary sources dealing with a topic take a single position, I'm a bit uncomfortable with saying that a (necessarily) one-sided article on the subject is truly neutral. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest? — Cirt (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Clearly, the movie meets the notability standard, so there ought to be an article on it. And if all the available reliable sources that are favourable have already been included, that may be all we can work with. I'm of divided opinions as to whether any positive reviews from Church of Scientology–allied sources (of which I'm sure there must be more than a few!) would qualify per WP:SELFPUB and could (or should) be used sparingly here, or not.

The fact that the article is so one-sided — even if, per policy, that's what it has to be — does make me wonder whether it really ought to be a Featured Article. I will emphasize here that I have no desire to wage a one-person campaign to get this page delisted, but I'm concerned that it may (again, perhaps by necessity) not be an exemplary model of what a balanced and neutral Wikipedia article ought to be. How do you currently feel regarding this article vis-à-vis the FA criteria? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The article has been through the GA nomination process where it was successfully promoted to Good Article Quality status.
2. It had a Peer Review where it was examined by experts from WikiProject Film.
3. It was promoted to Featured Article Quality after discussion at FAC.
4. And it was under scrutiny as a WP:TFA.

• If you wish to suggest positive reviews of the film, that would be interesting to read some additional secondary sources I've not yet come across.
• However, per WP:WEIGHT, policy states: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not add the same criticism to every christian/islam fanatic movie ever made?

The only reason critics/public(the brainless mass) hate this movie is because of L. Ron hubbard, believe me I hate scientology, but... what subliminal messages? One critic said: "Unbelievable plot", why nobody says the same thing about all the narnia/twilight movies, those are a terrible collection of movies with unbelievable plot and subliminal messages.

If the movie is so "bad" then why sci-fi dedicated TV channels are still showing the movie? because this IS a Science Fiction movie, this movie is not a prophesy... nor a documentary. If it's so terrible... Why it hasn't been destroyed? Why there are customers that are NOT scientologist?

I have this movie among my favorites, but as far as I know I'm not a scientologist sectarian and my hatred for scientology is bigger now than before... not because of this movie of course.

But when I see hatred of thins kind: one sided because of some major religious group hate against the writer because he's not one of them(christian)... what can I say? this article remind me of the spanish wikipedia, full of BIAS everywhere.--201.247.28.2 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to read closely. This article is not criticizing Scientology. Otherwise, the criticism would not be here. The article is only discussing the film's ties to Scientology, a controversial religion, and the views expressed by legit sources with no affiliation to Wikipedia. This website objects using point-of-view analysis, and I repeat, the views stated in that article has noting to do with the views of Wikipedia or its editors. See also the Critical Reception section, which focuses on critics discussing its quality, and very little to do with religious debate. Thank you.

P.S.: If you read this piece:

"Scientologist Nancy O'Meara, at the time treasurer of the Foundation for Religious Freedom and currently treasurer of the Scientology-run Cult Awareness Network, responded to Bunker's statement: 'Gimme a break ... That's like saying people are going to go see Gladiator and then suddenly find themselves wanting to explore Christianity.'"

Then you'd know that there is no one-sided issue. Freshh (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stinkers Bad Movie Awards

The movie was also nominated and won several Stinkers Bad Movie Awards and was voted number one in the list 100 Years, 100 Stinkers The Worst Films of the 20th Century, an official parody of AFI's "100 Years, 100 Movies" list. Here the comment for the movie. --87.20.82.151 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is another official link, while this is an interview with the Stinkers founders. Can you add this information? --87.20.82.151 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Budget

Not 73, that was the point of the lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.77.166 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@2.30.77.166: That is correct. @Smuckola: apparently didn't read about the lawsuit, nor did anyone else you are implyinng. We should at least find a source for the lawsuit, since Box Office Mojo isn't the correct source since it doesnt have the correct info. Right now I'm trying to watch Enemy, so I'll come back later on. - Theironminer (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont know anything about a lawsuit. I just know that thou shalt not make unexplained, contrarily-sourced or unsourced, edits. Especially on a highly ranked article, but never anyway. Good luck! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*4 images, 28 citations. Smee 08:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 08:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061125004604/http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/battlefield_earth_christian_000511.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/battlefield_earth_christian_000511.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061125004653/http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/battlefield_earth_travolta_000503.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/battlefield_earth_travolta_000503.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD on Category:Scientology in popular culture

An editor, Steinbach, boldly removed the category. Another editor, Prioryman, reverted it. Disagree? Time for discussion, not more reverting.

The category is for articles related to Scientology in popular culture. This film is mentioned in that article. The connection of the film to Scientology is discussed in independent reliable sources cited in this article.

• "The film is not about Scientology, contains no references to Scientology and is not thought to contain subliminal messages of any sort." - The category does not mean the film is about Scientology. The category does not mean the film is thought to contain subliminal messages of any sort.

• "you're missing the fact that, as the article says, the Church of Scientology was heavily involved" - The category does not mean Scientology was "involved".

• "So? There are films where Christians were heavily involved, those don't fall in the category 'Christianity in popular culture'". - No one is saying "Grease", "Saturday Night Fever" or "Orange is the New Black" should be in the category, much as no one is trying to add "Braveheart" to Category:Christianity in popular culture. "The Passion of the Christ" is in that category, as is "Monty Python's Life of Brian".

Discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I find it very logical when a category "X in popular culture" means "X as depicted in popular culture", not "involvement of X in popular culture". I already made the point, which SummerPhDv2.0 expanded above, about films by Christians not being included in the category "Christianity in popular culture". Moreover, inclusion of this film in the category "Scientology in popular culture" would make that category rather hybrid, containing both depictions of Scientology and items of popular culture in which the CoS was involved. The various articles in the category would lack one connecting property, and the category would miss its point. But again, if an overwhelming majority wants the article to carry this cat, go ahead. Steinbach (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is in the category "Christianity in popular culture" because reliable sources have identified Christianity as a strong influence on the film (though the author denied it was a Christian allegory). This film, made by several notable and vocal Scientologists and based on a work by the founder of the Church of Scientology, has reliable sources finding Scientology to be a strong influence on the film. To me, that seems to be a comparable situation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, but my main point remains. All articles in one category should share a single characteristic. Including both cultural expressions in which Scientology (or any other religion) was involved and expressions in which it is depicted is almost like including both Liver and Riga Cathedral pipe organ in the category "organs". Moreover, it is utterly misleading. People may easily think Battlefield Earth is in fact about Scientology (how many people have seen it after all?); including the article in this category will feed that misconception. Steinbach (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC) And to be sure, if The Chronicles of Narnia is in in fact in the category "Christianity in popular culture", I think it should be removed, too. Steinbach (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You're still missing Summer's point, I'm afraid. Look at it this way: if you had a work that was by Jesus Christ that presented allusions to Christianity, was published by an offshoot of a Christian church, was made into a film by a prominent Christian and was the subject of controversy over its links to Christianity, of course you would put it in a category of "Christianity in popular culture". The film literally would not exist without the religion. By the way, it's very strange that you think The Chronicles of Narnia should be taken out of that category as it was quite overtly written as a work of populist Christianity. Heck, the main character Aslan is a representation of Jesus, as Wikipedia's article and innumerable scholarly sources – to say nothing of the author himself – confirm. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I noted Lewis as saying "The Lion..." was not a Christian allegory. Seems I misremembered and overstated this. Lewis merely downplayed this. My main point still stands: Independent reliable sources repeatedly and extensively discuss this film in relation to Scientology. A better comparison might be "Fahrenheit 451". At one point the book was the go-to book for high school lit teachers who wanted to discuss freedom of speech. As a result, not including free speech as a category would we an obvious omission, though the novel is not about free speech. Whether or not this film has anything else to do with Scientology is so widely discussed that the film is inexorably tied to Scientology. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/1999-07-29#film1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807192748/http://blogs.amctv.com/movie-blog/2008/05/the-10-least-ef.php to http://blogs.amctv.com/movie-blog/2008/05/the-10-least-ef.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207172857/http://www.factnet.org:80/govintervention.htm to http://www.factnet.org/govintervention.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219140029/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/film/0020,159653,14861,20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0020,159653,14861,20.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207173315/http://www.factnet.org:80/subliminaladvertising.htm to http://www.factnet.org/subliminaladvertising.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721012133/http://cache-origin.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=51e04b9f-62f2-475c-a813-3ef6f414da49 to http://cache-origin.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=51e04b9f-62f2-475c-a813-3ef6f414da49
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C989944%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20000512%2FREVIEWS%2F5120301%2F1023
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4023865%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2001%2F01%2F19%2FDD162654.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210085955/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/8/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/8/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216074349/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_March_26/ai_72286078/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_March_26/ai_72286078/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2000%2F05%2F15%2FDD13098.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factnet.org/govintervention.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0020%2C159653%2C14861%2C20.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factnet.org/subliminaladvertising.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331182718/http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/penned_the_suckiest_movie_ever_sorry_MdXedZpTMWJmfpw80Xc7aO/0 to http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/penned_the_suckiest_movie_ever_sorry_MdXedZpTMWJmfpw80Xc7aO/0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209130220/http://www.battlefieldearth.com/movie/movie.html to http://www.battlefieldearth.com/movie/movie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215161422/http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/news_pf/Floridian/Battlefield_of_dreams.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/news_pf/Floridian/Battlefield_of_dreams.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525233801/http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/Alive/Space_aliens_without_.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/Alive/Space_aliens_without_.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a certain detail in the plot

Hello. I have a concern regarding Rock's involvement in the plot section, which is read as "Carlo’s friend and companion Rock (Michel Perron) is shot and killed by the Psychlos' Psychlo Blaster ray gun while being pursued by the Psychlo raiding party." I think it might be unnecessary detail per WP:FILMPLOT? As such, should the detail be included in the summary? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Rock

I think that Rock (Michel Perron) should be included here because he played a part here. He is an actor. I will continue to edit until Rock’s part is included. Michael Perron’s part must be included here. Thanks. User:Subway NYC64 (User talk:Subway NYC64) 06:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, but we don't want to edit war (which is forbidden), that's why I wanted to open a discussion about it. I've asked SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) and Erik (talk · contribs), two uninvolved users, for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So Let is leave this as it is without any one of us making an edit Lord Jones. I say we must include Michel Perron because he played the part of Rock in Battlefield Earth. He is an important character in this movie. So you are right, let us leave everything as it is until we reach a consensus. But I still believe that the part of Michael Perron who is a Canadian actor should be included here in the article. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Point of order: The edit warring must stop. Per WP:BRD, best practice is to edit boldly, revert if you disagree and discuss the issue. Subway boldly added to the plot. Sjones reverted...then they were a whole bunch more. By my count, we are now at BRRRRRRRRD.

Until the issue is resolved -- barring rare issues like WP:BLP -- general practice is to stick with the status quo. As such, I am restoring the article to it's state before the bold additions.

Once any interested editors have had a chance to add to the discussion, if there hasn't been input from enough others, I'll read through and see if I have anything to add. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I still mention Rock the character being killed by the Psychlo Blaster ray gun? Can I also mention the actor Michel Perron who is Canadian. If you want I can put something similar but just tell me if Rock (Michel Perron) should be included in the article. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You want to add all of that. We get it. Another editor says it should not be added. You don't seem to understand that.

Please briefly explain why you feel Rock (Michel Perron (who is Canadian)) being killed by the Psychlo Blaster ray gun should or should not be included. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well there was a movie called Alien Apocalypse. It was a SciFi original movie shown on the SiFi Channel in 2005. It said that one of their team is killed after sustaining a sprain. So I think that Rick (Michel Perron) should be added here. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 23:24 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another article about a different movie includes a certain detail.

That article might be horrible or it might be great.

That movie might be similar in some way or completely different.

That detail might be like this detail or it might not.

That is similar to arguing that you should do something because you saw someone else do something that might be similar. That's a very weak argument. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Still there’s nothing wrong with just mentioning Michel Perron who plays the character of Rock in Battlefield Earth. I’m very sorry that I spelled the name wrong. It is Michel Perron. He should be added here. I mean if Alien Apocalypse could include the Bulgarian actress Neda Sokolovskaya then Michel Perron must be included here. I mean come on both are SciFi movies dealing with alien invasions of Earth. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 1:49 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What someone added to a different article about a different actor (of a different nationality?) in a different film has no relevance here.

From the looks of it, you want to add a minor plot detail involving a minor character played by a little-known actor to the plot summary. Why this minor detail about this minor character and this unknown actor? (Before you answer, the fact that he is Canadian is not relevant in any way.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So what Neda Sokolovska stared in the SiFi Channel original film Alien Apocalypse. She was killed at the beginning of the film. The same thing with Michel Perron who played the character of Rock. So let us add the part of Michel Perron killed by the Psychlo Blaster ray gun while he was being pursued. There’s nothing wrong with it. Why does Alien Apocalypse have to include Neda Sokolovska who was killed whilst sustaining a sprain. Rock was killed after he jumped from the top level and his leg broke. Let me add the part of Michel Perron or Rock here. Michel Perron is an actor who played in Battlefield Earth. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 17:00 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you want to include it. Repeatedly asking is not helpful.

Yes, there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia. Picking one at random, deciding it must be right and we should do what it does is a horrible idea. You do not seem to understand this and do not seem to have any policy or guideline based reason to include this trivial bit of info about a minor character played by a non-notable actor.

I see absolutely no reason to include it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Then why was Neda Sokolovska included in Alien Apocalypse. There is then absolutely nothing wrong with including Michel Perron and the character Rock here. So just give me the chance to edit this article and put Michel Perron and Rock here. I will only make that edit once and then you can correct me. But now I know the the actor’s correct name. It is Michel Perron and not Michael Perron. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 23:33 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sokolovska is included in Alien Apocalypse because other articles exist.

This is a minor element in the film involving a minor character played by a non-notable actor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That is true but the same thing can also be said about Michel Perron as well. I mean come on he was included in other movies as well. Let us put Michel Perron here. Let us mention him here or let us just put him in the cast lust like in the film Alien Apocalypse. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 18:40 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we should not include a trivial event featuring a non-notable actor in a minor role. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let us still put Michel Perron in the cast list. He played the character Rock. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 19:26 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, let's not but pretend we did. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

But can we just add him in the cast list and just mention not the character’s name in the plot. Instead let us say that he was a companion hunter of Carlo and that he was killed by the Psychlo raiding party after he broke his legs during a fall while he was being pursued. That is another compromise that I suggest. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 20:50 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Omit Too minor to include - I agree with Lord Sjones23 on SummerPhDv2.0 on this. I've not seen any good arguments in the above that go against that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what guys. This is better let us put Michel Perron-Rock right in the cast list. Then in the plot let us write that Carlo’s companion was shot and killed during the Psychlo raid while he sustained a sprain during a fall. We don’t mention the name directly. This would be better. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 12:08 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly asked, repeatedly answered. No. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I write Something else here? That mentions that Johnny Goodboy Tyler met Carlo and another hunter and that hunter was killed by the Psychlo raiding party. I will never ever mention Michel Perron here at all. I will only mention that Johnny traveled with Carlo and anther hunter.Then I write the other hunter was shot and killed by the Psychlo raiding party after he was injured during a fall. User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 2:00 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the idea that this is supposed to be a plot summary, giving a general outline of the entire plot. It should neither explain everything that happens nor necessarily include your favorite parts. Minor generally characters aren't going to be in a summary.

If that scene were cut from the movie, would the rest of it be pretty much unaffected? It is a minor plot detail involving an unnamed character. It sure sounds trivial to me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Not trivial at all let me add something here but never again mention Michel Perron at all. Let me just say that he was a companion of Carlo and that he was shot and killed by the Psychlos .User:Subway NYC64 (talk - contributions) 18:04 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Rotten

I disagree with the wording of Rotten Tomatoes score, specifically the addition/restoration of the word "rotten".[4] (I removed it as part of a larger edit fixing some references, the link is a subsequent edit restoring it.) The website use the phrases "rotten" and "fresh" as synonyms for positive and negative. I don't think there is any need for this encyclopedia to use such site specific jargon (with the exception of the "Certified Fresh" designation given to top rated films). The numbers speak for themselves anyway, 3% is pretty clearly a very very bad score. Just present the score, that's the NPOV, there's no need to add extra emphasis with an additional "rotten" label. -- 109.77.205.42 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

An editor restored it and in the edit summary claimed it is standard.[5] A few pages do it but it is neither necessary nor standard. It is not desirable to use site specific jargon such as fresh/rotten (or Tomatometer or Metascore) it is better that an encyclopedia use plain English. -- 109.77.207.155 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)