Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Umm... the title is spelled correctly? -- ChrisO 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The end had a bit of cool action. Toxic Ninja 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanimous? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anybody out there? 

message: Do the "Psychlos" resemble ridgeless Klingons.
59.183.138.182 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cheap Rip-off? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Razzies 

message: The images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations of subliminal messages 

message: It's been a few months since  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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: --Jonybond 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The worst movie i ever , ever seen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  untruths 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Add the review from Leonard Maltin.  Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leonard Maltin]] cite to add 

message: *
*
*
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)
thread_title:  Other refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: A quickie reassessment sounds good, could you ask VanTucky? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , here.  We shall see...  Cirt (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but which MOS or guideline page are you basing this on? AndroidCat (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cites could use standardizing with [[WP:CIT]] 

message: I  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay - also the extra info you added about Business Wire will help for verifiability.  Cirt (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press releases and [[WP:V]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks very much for doing that! -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After addressing the above concerns, we should contact  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)
thread_title:  Assessment request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Minor cite thingy 

message: Added (9)  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent mention, [[CNN]] 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Featured Article date and summary text 

message: 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).  
*
: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)
thread_title:  Washington Post Service 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fradulently overstated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image use 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More panning 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: That is vandalism.  Cirt (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

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

message: *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 DoroshTalk 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disaster

message: 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  and , 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)
thread_title: Statement by BigBlueFish

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Justallofthem

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Coffeepusher

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Beeblbrox

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved and clarified some stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soon... 

message: Is there a reason the director of the film is not revealed in the opening paragraph?  Skomorokh  12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Cirt (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director omitted from the lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use image book cover 

message: = stuff to add to article. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also searches for news articles with terms "Elia Cmiral" and "Battlefield Earth". Cirt (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allmusic 

message: 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)
replies: text: . Cirt (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  change to cite 91 - small update needed 

message: * "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)
replies: text: Thanks, will look into it. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nevermind. I checked the secondary source at the end of the sentence, which confirms the change made by . My mistake. Sorry about that, my apologies, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, Cirt (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: 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)
replies: text: What RFC? Link please? -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay!!! Thank you very much!!! No worries!!! -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in the article head 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is used as a part of commentary, nothing more than that. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Per talk page. Removed the source. . -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange criticism source 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Error: Critical reception section contradicts itself 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Derivative plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Stinkers Bad Movie Awards]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is correct.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battlefield Earth (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor, , boldly removed the category. Another editor, , 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]] on [[:Category:Scientology in popular culture]] 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I disagree with the wording of Rotten Tomatoes score, specifically the addition/restoration of the word "rotten". (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)
replies: text: An editor restored it and in the edit summary claimed it is standard. 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)
thread_title:  Rotten