Talk:Battlefield Earth

message: Is there any poor bastard who's actually read the thing all the way through without sporking their eyes out who could do a plot summary? - David Gerard 17:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read the whole book. But judging from the date on your comment, it's taken more than a year to find someone. 194.66.157.42 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: The last paragraph under heading "The Book" suggests that copies sold at retail might have made their way back onto store shelves, thus inflating sales numbers.  Is the statement as-is a little too subtle in its insinuation?  Basically, I'm not sure that readers should have to connect the dots, as some might not get it.
The section stating that Scientologists were told or ordered to buy the book so that it would be a bestseller is ridiculous. Enemies of the Church have been spouting lies like this for decades. Notice that the only link of any evidence for this claim is a small-circulation rag that reads like a frothing-mouth lunatic wrote it. --unsigned comment by 
:While someone posting from a Delphian school might not want to believe it, it's fairly common knowledge in the publishing industry and I've heard two first hand accounts of people at book stores who received "recycled" shipments of books. That's original research on my part, of course, but I'll keep a look out for other published accounts. AndroidCat 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts to place on bestseller list

message: The following paragraph has been repeatedly added to the article:
"While this book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology (earlier in the piece someone wrote that the book was first published in 1980--this time line does not jibe), the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the Story of how the Thetans came to be on Earth are almost identical. It was once rumoured that Hubbard started the Scientology cult as an attempt to raise revenue for his book."
The first claim, that the book had been released many years before Hubbard founded Scientology, is completely untrue.  The book was written and first published in 1980.  This makes the last claim, that Scientology was started to raise revenue for the book, even more ludicrous than it is on the face of it (since when did one need to raise revenue to write a book??)  The remaining claim, that the storyline of Battlefield Earth and the story of how thetans came to be on Earth are "almost identical", is also quite obviously false to anyone who is reasonably familiar with both; one can stretch for similarities but they cannot in any reasonable analysis be considered "almost identical".  There is no true content in the entire paragraph; do not re-add it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed paragraph 

message: There may be, unfounded, links between this MOVIE and scientology. However, whether these links are true or not, dose not determine this movie's inclusion in the Scientology Series.
This is a movie. It is not a significant part of scientology.
This article is part of the movie series of wikipedia articles. Not part of the scientology series.
AS such, since the scientology claims to this movie are disputed, the scientology series template CANNOT be used. However, hypothesised links between this movie and scientology can be written about within the article, as long as the spirit of the article is on the movie itself and is not lost in a debate of scientology.
As an anology:
The article on The Passion of the Christ, does not include the "Chirsitanity Series" wiki template. Even though its connections to christianty were much more evident then this movies connections to scientology.
The debate here is not whether this movie was influenced by scientology. The important fact is, this article IS NOT suitable for inclusion in the scientology series wiki template.
Please do no place a Wikipedia scientology series template on this movie article. Bmgoau 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments. Personally, I'm not sure that the Scientology template belongs on this book article. (It's primarily a book after all, and probably part of a few book series as well.) There are connections between BE and Scientology and these are well founded, justifying links in the article. I just think that the full template is overkill. AndroidCat 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty much my conclusion as well.  Bmgoau does seem to be forgetting that there was a book as well as a movie, and the fact that the book lays a very thin veil over its Scientology content does not make that content only "hypothesized".  But with that being said, this simply isn't a "core" article on Scientology; if we place the template on every single article with some connection to Scientology it simply duplicates what the category system is already doing.  So I support removing the template. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for your considerations, i did indeed forget the importance of the book, though my conclusion remains the same. Thankyou for the comment. I appreciate that we can now conclude that although this movie is related to the cult of scientology, it is not an article directly needing the scientology template. Bmgoau 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: There a a LOT of POV in this article. I'm no scientologist but I think there is a HUGE anti-Hubbard slant to this. In keeping with wikipedia's standards, this article should have a major overhaul or else get a NPOV tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.42.200 (talk • contribs) .
:I'd be interested in knowing why you think that, by Wikipedia's standards, there is a "HUGE" anti-Hubbard slant to this.  What do you think is missing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came across the article a few days ago and have been filling out the infoboxes, but it certainly needs more work. -- ChrisO 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A whole lot of POV 

message: Does anyone support 's undiscussed decision to split this article off into two separate articles?  I don't, frankly.  Since the film is an adaptation of the novel and a fairly faithful one it makes more sense to discuss the two together.  If the novel and the film had had less connection, or if the article had been an unwieldy size, a breakup might have made sense, but neither of those was the case.  Unless someone has some really good reasoning to present, I'll be recombining the articles soon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this does seem to be standard practice for films-of-books. Compare e.g. Atonement (novel)/Atonement (film). I don't think it's an unreasonable split, and it does stop the individual articles from getting too long - shorter is better. -- ChrisO 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that the film is so loosely based on the film as to feel like it was written first and then rebranded is also a consideration. That said, a split is a bit premature right now. Chris Cunningham 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a split artist. When I find pages that get so freaking long about unrelated material, I split them up. That said, I firmly believe in be bold policy. Yeah, I could have posted a do you want me to break this up? But by the time the votes were in I'd quit caring. I felt that the book and film though sharing the same story are completely unrelated the film dives into its production, poor box office, bad critic reception, and worst film ever status while book covers the plot, its relation to scientology, and its literary aspects. I just didn't feel they have alot of overlap. If you disagree, be bold and switch it back. --vossman 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the length of each article, combined with the fact that the movie is actually quite divergent from the book in significant ways, combined with precedent (In Cold Blood gets separate articles for book and for film, for example), all point to Vossman's edit as doing the right thing. wikipediatrix 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I'd definitely like to see more added to the account of the novel explaining what was actually different, rather than just skipped for time.  Obviously even covering only the first half of the book they were still going to have to gloss over stuff (especially stuff that's already mentioned in the article, like Johnny teaming with the lamas and highlanders) but if there's any truth to the claim that the two are so different it  feels like the movie was "written first and then rebranded" then we really need much more about the book.  I'd always heard that it was a very faithful adaptation considering that they could only turn about two hours' worth of book into a movie. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battlefield Earth (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress