"Star Wars" a worn out series of movies

[Matthew Ota]

Just got back from watching the movie. I am no Star Wars fan. Never was, never will be. The original movie was a ripoff of Akira Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress" anyways, so even the original movie has nothing original in it.
"Star Wars" was never science fiction, never will be. It is a space opera series, and it is overblown, overhyped, and overmarketed to death.

I am glad I only wasted $5.50 on it by seeing the matinee.

They should make a series of Asimov's Foundation instead.

Star Wars sucks worse than a Black Hole.

Just my $5.50 worth.

[Jigsaw]

Why didn't you wait until it came to the $1.00 Theater?

[Martian Jim]

just because you dont like dose not mean everyone else should not like it.

[Chuck]

I'm waiting for it to hit UPN or WB.

[beskeptical]

I enjoyed it but I agree the story seems to be getting a bit repetitive.

It's too bad the screenplay for Battlefield Earth tried to cram the whole story into one movie. If it would have been done like Star Wars with a series of movies they could have done the book justice.

Anybody read that book? It is one of my all time favorites, absolutely nothing like the movie.

I think with the Star Wars series we know how the story ends so it is less interesting.

[Aodoi]

Apologies, but I stay away from anything with L. Ron Hubbard's name on it. Far, far away.

Though, while we're at it, we can point out the utter silliness of a planet that explodes when any radiation hits it. Good thing the star in it's system doesn't emit any. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[beskeptical]

On 2002-06-03 11:43, Aodoi wrote:
Apologies, but I stay away from anything with L. Ron Hubbard's name on it. Far, far away.

Though, while we're at it, we can point out the utter silliness of a planet that explodes when any radiation hits it. Good thing the star in it's system doesn't emit any. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Oh, I didn't say there wasn't any BA in the book. Another bizzare part was using the instant transfer device to get ahead of the light coming from said exploded planet and looking back to see the events that had transpired in the past.

But do not be put off by the author, (or the movie). The book was written back when L Ron was a sci-fi writer. There is absolutely no trace of Scientology appearing in Battlefield Earth. It was a best seller for quite a while and really is a good book.

[Firefox]

If the movie was any indication, the story itself screamed "scientology." The concept of "knowledge is power" was pretty evident throughout the film.

If it wasn't the theme of the book, then I guess the producers decided to play with that part, too.


Adam

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-06-03 06:14, beskeptical wrote:
I think with the Star Wars series we know how the story ends so it is less interesting.

You know what happens in episode IX?

[Kaptain K]

Rumor I've heard is that George has decided to stop after III, and has no intention of doing VII, VIII, and IX. I hope it's not true. Of course, if he hadn't taken 15 years between VI and I, he'd be done by now. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-04 14:41 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-06-04 07:01, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
You know what happens in episode IX?

Are you saying you can't guess what happens to 'young Annie' and his queen? You couldn't guess mom was toast? (We must have bitterness to turn to the darkside.) You haven't guessed the bad guy is taking over the good guys. Etc., etc. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[beskeptical]

On 2002-06-03 17:53, Firefox wrote:
If the movie was any indication, the story itself screamed "scientology." The concept of "knowledge is power" was pretty evident throughout the film.
Adam

Nah. There is nothing in the book but pure sci-fi. Since I had read the book first, I'd have to say John Travolta did a bad job as a producer by trying to put the entire epic into one movie. It really could have been a great movie if it had followed the book and been done in segments. I'm sure it was written long before L Ron's religious phase.

[Code Red]

They should make a series of Asimov's Foundation instead.

Are you kidding? I love the Foundation series (well, ignoring Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth anyway), but the plot is even more sedentary than Ep1 & 2 of Star Wars.

A film series based on books whose central premise is "sit back and do nothing for 5 centuries and history will sort itself out" is not the making of a blockbuster movie.

And of course, they'd have to do the Robots books to fill in the background too, so that would add up to oooooooh... ten movies? Which one would you start at?

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-06-05 06:11, beskeptical wrote:

On 2002-06-04 07:01, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
You know what happens in episode IX?

Are you saying you can't guess what happens to 'young Annie' and his queen? You couldn't guess mom was toast? (We must have bitterness to turn to the darkside.) You haven't guessed the bad guy is taking over the good guys. Etc., etc. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Lucas must be getting soft in the head--I personally wouldn't wait until episode nine for those plot developments.

[Firefox]

On 2002-06-05 06:20, beskeptical wrote:

On 2002-06-03 17:53, Firefox wrote:
If the movie was any indication, the story itself screamed "scientology." The concept of "knowledge is power" was pretty evident throughout the film.
Adam

Nah. There is nothing in the book but pure sci-fi. Since I had read the book first, I'd have to say John Travolta did a bad job as a producer by trying to put the entire epic into one movie. It really could have been a great movie if it had followed the book and been done in segments. I'm sure it was written long before L Ron's religious phase.

Well, considering Dianetics was written in 1950 when Battlefield Earth was written in 1982...

Seriously, when I thought about it, the movie was chock-full of Scientology references. The "Psychlos" could be viewed as an indication of Hubbard's disdain for psychologists, which is well known. And the whole film was based on the "knowledge is power" theme, a theme preached in Scientology.

That, and a friend of mine started reading the first page of the book, and had to put it back on the shelf.


Adam

[ToSeek]

On 2002-06-05 07:15, Code Red wrote:

And of course, they'd have to do the Robots books to fill in the background too, so that would add up to oooooooh... ten movies? Which one would you start at?

Harlan Ellison wrote a brilliant screenplay based on I, Robot. Now that would be a great sf movie!

[James]

On 2002-06-05 08:51, Firefox wrote:

That, and a friend of mine started reading the first page of the book, and had to put it back on the shelf.

Same here. Found a copy in the bargain bin at Goodwill. Fell asleep in the middle of each paragraph. I feel very glad I haven't seen the movie.

[Aodoi]

http://www.jabootu.com/be.htm

For a hilarious review of Battlefield Earth the movie, see the link. It's wonderfully brutal. I've only seen bits and pieces as it's too painful to sit through, but the 2 or 3 times I tried to watch parts I found myself laughing at the accuracy of that review.

[Timm]

On 2002-06-03 17:42, beskeptical wrote:
Oh, I didn't say there wasn't any BA in the book. Another bizzare part was using the instant transfer device to get ahead of the light coming from said exploded planet and looking back to see the events that had transpired in the past.

I don't know anything about battlefield earth, but I think that's a nice Idea.

But everybody told me that it's a crappy movie, and I really didn't want to pay Hubbart's rent, so I didn't see it.

The Robot books play in the same world as Foundation? I think I'll really have to re-read the foundation books, i missed that completely. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] (i was young [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img].)

[beskeptical]

Timm, it wouldn't be Mr. Hubbard's rent, he's dead.

Firefox, I see you have the chronology of L. Ron correct whereas I did not. Beats me, there is no tie to Dianetics in Battlefield Earth, the book. I read the book, so I feel qualified to say that.

I have read about many religions as it is such an interesting social science topic. But, I could not get through 2 pages of anything on Dianetics because it was so absurd.

I understand not being able to get interested enough to get into a book. Every sci-fi book is not going to be appealing to all readers. But I think those of you who are being critical of a book you haven't read are missing out.

As far as the movie goes, there are lots of great books that make terrible movies just like there are lots of great movies (well, maybe some) that are produced from lousy books. If you had never heard of Dianetics and had not seen the movie, I think your opinion of the book would be different.

[Bad Engineer]

I must be one of the few dorks here who really likes Star Wars - but then again, I know what to expect when I go into the theater. I don't go in expecting Oscar-winning dialogue or an intricate plot; I go in expecting light sabres, space dogfights, and action. It may be a bit lowbrow (to some), but it's FUN. If you get what you expect, how can you be disappointed, really? If you expected something else (dialogue, plot, etc), then you probably didn't watch the first 4 movies ... I mean, where else can a geek like myself get a combination of fantasy/magic (the Force, Jedi Knights, light sabres) as well large scale battles between spaceships and robots? No, it's not 2001 A Space Odyssey ... but then again, I didn't expect it to be

W.

[jumbo]

I`m another one of the dorks who like star wars. Thats mainly down to the jedi knights etc. Episode IX is after the return of the jedi ,so the queens fate should be wrapped up in the next movie(Episode III) i think.
I think i must be seeing thing but im sure i spotted a darth maul look alike in the movie. did anyone else notice this?

Oh and remember 'when nine hundred years old you get, even if the force have you.A sentence string together you cant'

[Silas]

A lot of people have complained that the most recent Star Wars movie lack drama, since we know what's going to happen. Vader is going to turn to the Dark Side, the Emperor takes control, etc. etc.

But isn't that true for just about any drama? When you watch an Indiana Jones movie, you know that he's going to win. When you watch a James Bond flick, you know he'll win. Where's the drama?

The drama is in the details! What surprises will we meet along the way? Of *COURSE* James Bond is going to win; what we're looking forward to is the clever twists of dialogue and devices (plot devices and Q-Branch devices!) that he uses to win.

Also, remember the Iron Law of Nostalgia: today's movies are never any good when compared to the classics they made when I was a young'un! (And music today, just noise. Hanh. And what happened to respect? Why, when I was a lad you said "Sir or Ma'am" to everyone. You couldn't tell if they were men or women by their hair, so you didn't take any chances. "Yessir, Yes Ma'am." And there was strontium 90 in our milk. Heck, I've got more strontium in my bones than you do in your entire chemistry lab. By gum...)

Silas

[Roy Batty]

You could also leave your door unlocked & walk the streets alone at night. People were more friendly then too, you actually knew your neighbours. And what about the price of everything nowadays? all in that decidocal funny money. We had turkeys then, only we called them walking birds.. and and and ...my brain hurts!

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Timm]

On 2002-06-06 02:45, beskeptical wrote:
Timm, it wouldn't be Mr. Hubbard's rent, he's dead.

... Oops. Now you say that... Silly me.

[SeanF]

On 2002-06-06 11:36, jumbo wrote:
I`m another one of the dorks who like star wars. Thats mainly down to the jedi knights etc. Episode IX is after the return of the jedi ,so the queens fate should be wrapped up in the next movie(Episode III) i think.
I think i must be seeing thing but im sure i spotted a darth maul look alike in the movie. did anyone else notice this?

Yup, I believe one of the Jedi Knights is the same species as ol' Maul, but without the red and black tattoos . . .

Oh and remember 'when nine hundred years old you get, even if the force have you.A sentence string together you cant'

"Talk funny you would, if Frank Oz' hand up your butt you had."

('course, that doesn't fully work anymore now that Yoda's 100% digital in Ep II) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

[Valiant Dancer]

Oh and remember 'when nine hundred years old you get, even if the force have you.A sentence string together you cant'

A friend of mine once put it "If great in the Force Yoda is, construct proper sentances why can't he?"

[Gramma loreto]

Star Wars meets Star Trek:TNG...

The Borg we are. Assimilated you will be. Futile is resistance.

[i,pinata]

Well, Timm, I don't know if this makes a difference, but I've always thought Bridge Publications was connected to Scientology. You aren't paying Hubbard's rent, but his estate. And I don't doubt some or all of that money is going into the Church's coffers. If you bought a second-hand copy of one of his books or Battlefield Earth after it went to video stores, all this is a non-issue.

"Knowledge is power" sounds vague. As a general notion, it's sound and intelligent. In itself the concept is not unique to Hubbard's doctrines. Did anyone catch allusions to thetans or E-meters? Perhaps those who saw BE and were familiar with Hubbard's oeuvre sensed themes or storyline developments dictated by a Dianetics or Scientology agenda. Probably the audiences for BE (book and movie) and Scientology are totally different and no serious attempt was ever made to preach doctrine in Hubbard's sci-fi work beyond potshots at psychoanalysis or conventional science. Making money was surely the purpose of stuff like BE or Mission Earth, never mind all those old pulp "classics", which I believe were written before Hubbard got wise and set his sights on near-deification.

Regardless of the extent to which Scientology or Dianetics ideology infects BE, the ultimate issue is whether the book or movie versions are entertaining and well-done. It could be full of Hubbard's wrongheaded thinking and still be worthwhile (Star Wars is full of Lucas's silly and shallow notions, but the five episodes do work for me, though I don't enjoy any of them the way I might were I younger and thinking less). The fear that one may be ratifying a belief system by saying one enjoyed an artwork supposedly developed in the context of that belief system is understandable. This fear, a prejudice, has nothing to do with whether an artwork is good or not, unless one feels the only good artworks are those whose ideologies one can agree with for the most part or even completely. I don't think the application of Scientology or Dianetics necessarily yields incompetent or boring artwork, though most artists might feel too constricted to want to remain working within such dogmatic systems (see Norman Spinrad's fine novel The Mind Game, which touches on this).

I haven't seen or read either version myself, not expecting much from either in terms of edification or entertainment. That doesn't mean they won't work for others. The value of any artwork, obviously, is subjective. It depends on the level of excellence you're holding it up to. Bad Engineer's comments about expectations for stuff like Star Wars can be fairly applied to BE. Skimming through a copy of the book, the writing sounds blah and the storyline elements creak embarrassingly. If I were a True Believer, I'd feel better knowing this was the moving finger of a ghostwriter, not the would-be messiah Himself. The best parts of the book are the audacious intro and the ending hagiography that frame the whole slab: these are hilarious. As for the movie, it looked like your standard sci-fi action nonsense with all the limitations that specific marketing genre usually suffers from. If I need some thrilling, bone-headed violence, I'll settle for The Road Warrior. Personally, I don't think filmed SF gets any better than 12 Monkeys.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: i,pinata on 2002-06-10 12:48 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

i,pinata on 2002-06-10 12:48: "the ending hagiography that frame the whole slab"

That's not in my vocabulary. Actually, the very ending of BE was out of place and did not contribute to the story. The guy goes off into the hills abandons his wife and son and becomes a memory of a legend. It didn't cut it. But that was all of one page.

Too much over analyzing of a fictional story, it reminds me of forced reading of 'The Old Man and the Sea' in high school. To this day I resent the discussion of all the 'wonderful symbolism' that I had to endure in the name of literature education. Talk about making kids hate reading.

It's a sci-fi book for heaven's sake! It's not a subliminal religious indoctrination. If you don't want to spend the cash there is the library. It is also on books on tape for the commuter crowd. It was a wonderful book, and I DID read it. Oh well. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]