PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield Earth bad science in a lousy movie



2001-Dec-04, 02:09 PM
Just a Quick question to settle a dispute,
If the atomosphere of the aliens homeworld ignited every time it was exposed to concentrated radiation how cuold it ever orbit close enough to a star to support life? I may be wrong but I thought the upper atmosphere of planets recieve a pretty good dose of radiation, from high energy UV to Gamma, and that only our ozone layer and the earths magnetic field kept us from recieving a daily lethal dose?

Valiant Dancer
2001-Dec-04, 03:20 PM
On 2001-12-04 09:09, ronin wrote:
Just a Quick question to settle a dispute,
If the atomosphere of the aliens homeworld ignited every time it was exposed to concentrated radiation how cuold it ever orbit close enough to a star to support life? I may be wrong but I thought the upper atmosphere of planets recieve a pretty good dose of radiation, from high energy UV to Gamma, and that only our ozone layer and the earths magnetic field kept us from recieving a daily lethal dose?





I have a question. What kind of radiation? Radiation goes from low energy (UV and radio) to high energy (gamma rays). Gamma rays are fairly uncommon. UV and visible light are very common. Also, is the term "concentrated" an important distiction? Concentrated light makes a laser. Other concentrated radiation may be the stuff that ignited the atmosphere.

Wally
2001-Dec-04, 06:32 PM
Ok. . . since you brought it up.

Was this the dumbest movie you've ever seen or what! I normally don't give much credence to movie critics, but they sure nailed this one on the head. Travolta must have bought "Directing For Dummies" from the local book store, then followed it to the letter. I mean come on! What was with that scene with the "hero" running the qauntlet in slow-mo while bullets shredded everthing around him, and he makes it untouched! The guy didn't even have a reason to do this, but hey, ya gotta have a slo-mo/hero running/bullets flying scene in a movie, right??? I've watched the darn thing twice now, just because I can't believe how God-awful it is!

Anyways, sorry for not addressing your question. . .

Aodoi
2001-Dec-04, 08:16 PM
Couldn't sit through more than about 5 minutes of this turkey, so I'm not sure of exactly what you're referring to. I'd probably assume that the author of the script (or Hubbard, the lunatic that wrote the book) simply didn't know enough about radiation to realize how silly that premise would be. Or else the specific kind of radiation was omitted or something. Definately sounds fishy.

MongotheGreat
2001-Dec-04, 09:01 PM
While not a great movie, I thought it was entertaining. I can understand why people didn't like it, but I don't understand why everyone hated it so much. Sure, some of the science was bad, and the plot wasn't great, but it was still enjoyable to me, so I'll say that I liked it and see if anyone agrees.

2001-Dec-05, 12:00 PM
On 2001-12-04 10:20, Valiant Dancer wrote:


On 2001-12-04 09:09, ronin wrote:
Just a Quick question to settle a dispute,
If the atomosphere of the aliens homeworld ignited every time it was exposed to concentrated radiation how cuold it ever orbit close enough to a star to support life? I may be wrong but I thought the upper atmosphere of planets recieve a pretty good dose of radiation, from high energy UV to Gamma, and that only our ozone layer and the earths magnetic field kept us from recieving a daily lethal dose?





I have a question. What kind of radiation? Radiation goes from low energy (UV and radio) to high energy (gamma rays). Gamma rays are fairly uncommon. UV and visible light are very common. Also, is the term "concentrated" an important distiction? Concentrated light makes a laser. Other concentrated radiation may be the stuff that ignited the atmosphere.

Geo3gh
2001-Dec-05, 04:07 PM
On 2001-12-04 10:20, Valiant Dancer wrote:


On 2001-12-04 09:09, ronin wrote:
Just a Quick question to settle a dispute,
If the atomosphere of the aliens homeworld ignited every time it was exposed to concentrated radiation how cuold it ever orbit close enough to a star to support life? I may be wrong but I thought the upper atmosphere of planets recieve a pretty good dose of radiation, from high energy UV to Gamma, and that only our ozone layer and the earths magnetic field kept us from recieving a daily lethal dose?





I have a question. What kind of radiation? Radiation goes from low energy (UV and radio) to high energy (gamma rays). Gamma rays are fairly uncommon. UV and visible light are very common. Also, is the term "concentrated" an important distiction? Concentrated light makes a laser. Other concentrated radiation may be the stuff that ignited the atmosphere.



Having read the book too, which is better than the movie (but it's still mediocre, turgid Hubbard), I get the impression that it's stuff like alpha and beta particles that do it, not EM radiation.

But keep in mind this is L.Ron we're talking about. The science in E.E. Smith's Lensman was better (better stories too).

Mr. X
2001-Dec-06, 05:11 AM
I'm with you MongotheGreat. I liked the movie. (Come on flamers, come at me! Show me what you got! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif )

I would say it was a great movie as in greatly entertaining! I liked it. Yeah, I did, OK!

I don't have any irrational disdain for that Hubbard guy either.

Well, my two cents which will get me seriously flamed, charbroiled to perfection. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Ducost
2001-Dec-06, 10:06 AM
On 2001-12-06 00:11, Mr. X wrote:
I'm with you MongotheGreat. I liked the movie. (Come on flamers, come at me! Show me what you got! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif )

I would say it was a great movie as in greatly entertaining! I liked it. Yeah, I did, OK!

I don't have any irrational disdain for that Hubbard guy either.

Well, my two cents which will get me seriously flamed, charbroiled to perfection. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Mr. X, Mongo, I'll stand with you.

Mr. X
2001-Dec-06, 01:58 PM
Well, we will be three VERY SERIOUSLY toasted people, but what the hey, as long as we fry together, right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The Curtmudgeon
2001-Dec-06, 07:53 PM
On 2001-12-06 08:58, Mr. X wrote:
Well, we will be three VERY SERIOUSLY toasted people, but what the hey, as long as we fry together, right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Well, since I admitted enjoying reading Sitchin's books on another thread, I can hardly be the one to flame-on here! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif And nobody flamed me then, so you're probably safe.

Unless, of course, you start taking LRH seriously. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

The (there's no excusing some things) Curtmudgeon

Oh boy! I'm now a Bad Apprentice! (I always was bad at taking direction.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2001-12-06 14:55 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-06, 08:00 PM
On 2001-12-06 14:53, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
Oh boy! I'm now a Bad Apprentice! (I always was bad at taking direction.)

Congrats! Here's your fireworks. (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011206.html)

The Curtmudgeon
2001-Dec-06, 09:46 PM
On 2001-12-06 15:00, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Congrats! Here's your fireworks. (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011206.html)


Beauty! Thanx! (Now I'm ashamed that I hadn't checked into the 'Comet LINEAR' thread over in the General Astronomy forum. Looks like I've been missing something, if they have any more pictures like that one.)

The (awesome, from any view of the origin of the cosmos) Curtmudgeon

Mr. X
2001-Dec-06, 10:39 PM
Geez, how many of those The Something Something Curtmudgeon are you able to make up!

Wyz_sub10
2001-Dec-31, 04:28 AM
Stichin? Hubbard?

All we need is a guy that likes Deepak Chopra and we have the trifecta!

Shouldn't you guys be at http://www.ridiculousnonsense.com?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

It's hard to have a beef with Hubbard, directly. Even he didn't believe his own nonsense.

It's Travolta and Tom Cruise that give me the creeps.

The Curtmudgeon
2001-Dec-31, 09:22 PM
On 2001-12-06 17:39, Mr. X wrote:
Geez, how many of those The Something Something Curtmudgeon are you able to make up!


Sorry, X, but I've never counted. That .sig form started on a pre-Internet in-house network umpteen-fratz years ago. I admit that there have been times when I couldn't make up something fitting (or even one size off), but I'm usually good for something trivially amusing.

The (sometimes I just punt) Curtmudgeon

The Curtmudgeon
2001-Dec-31, 09:35 PM
On 2001-12-30 23:28, Wyz_sub10 wrote:
Stichin? Hubbard?

All we need is a guy that likes Deepak Chopra and we have the trifecta!

Like him!? I can't even spell him! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

At least, both Sitchin and Hubbard have good Biblical names (no, wait, that was 'the witch of N. Dor', not 'L. Ron', wasn't it?). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



It's hard to have a beef with Hubbard, directly. Even he didn't believe his own nonsense.

It's Travolta and Tom Cruise that give me the creeps.


If you've heard anything about the schmooze number the Co$ does on celebrities, it's not hard to believe that otherwise empty-headed camera-whores would fall for it. I'm more worried about the more-or-less "normal" people who are taken in by the non-celebrity side of it all, where things are not nearly so glamourous. These people can easily get their lives seriously screwed up, if not completely wasted, by the Co$.

At least Sitchin doesn't set up a religion based on destroying peoples lives, so I can continue to enjoy his science-fantasy books (whether he calls them that or not!) without guilt. Really, he's a better writer than George Lucas.

The (Obi-Wan EN.ki, where are you?) Curtmudgeon

Wyz_sub10
2002-Jan-02, 05:14 PM
Hahaha! "Good Biblical names."

See, I've always felt L.Ron had more of a Tolkeinesque ring to it (no pun intended...okay, maybe a little one)

The problem I have with Scientology is that it outright exploitive. I know many would argue that all religion fits into this category, but Scientology has a real "Amway" feel to it. Combine that with superstar endorsement and you have a dangerous combination. (maybe Cruise has the $$$ to take all the "courses" but most people don't)

In the end, though, it is still the responsibility of the individual, and if you want to put a copy of 'Dianetics' in an ark over the fireplace, well...

David Hall
2002-Jan-02, 07:44 PM
What I really hate about Scientology (in addition to the fact that it's an outright scam) is that it's not even a religion. There's no god/gods, no worship (except L.Ron himself maybe), no services, faith, scripture, or anything that makes what is considered a real religion. It's really just a collection of pseudo-psychlogical babble mixed with some new-age/mystical imagery. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I'm sure most scientologists would scoff at the ideas and beliefs of organized religions. The CO$ is basically exploiting the tax-free status and psycological impact that churchhood brings. The whole thing is just a hypocritical, mind-controlling, money-making farce and those in control seem capable of doing anything.

Frankly these people scare me. There was a time in my life when I was attracted to that kind of thing and I would have been suceptable to their hooks. But now that I've read a little about them I get nervous just thinking about what might of been had I followed that path.

Ok, enough of this. Back to Astronomy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Calculon
2003-Jul-02, 12:16 AM
I rented "Battlefield Earth" after having read dozens of reviews on the net. It is not as bad as some said it was - how could it be? - but it is definitely in the Ed Wood / Ice Cube range of criminally insane bad directorship. Hard to pick out the BA when one is gagging at the "acting", the "humor", the "cinematography", etc. I would never criticize Scientology on the internet because I don't wish to die yet, but I do think "L. Ron" would be a good name for a phony corporation that steals people's energy and money and then goes bankrupt - but perhaps that's already been done by now...

Colt
2003-Jul-02, 06:04 AM
*hates reading a thread and then realizing it is two yeard old* -Colt

freddo
2003-Jul-02, 06:07 AM
*hates reading a thread and then realizing it is two yeard old* -Colt

True.dat!!

Calculon you sure did some dredging to find this thread eh??? :wink:

tracer
2003-Jul-03, 07:24 PM
I do think "L. Ron" would be a good name for a phony corporation that steals people's energy and money and then goes bankrupt - but perhaps that's already been done by now...
I was going to make some witty comment about stealing people's "energy" (what, you're going to put them in a reverse orgone accumulator box (http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/Reich/accumulators.html) or something?) -- until I got the joke and realized you were making a sly reference to Enron. Dang you! Dang you all to heck!!

wedgebert
2003-Jul-04, 11:01 PM
If I remember the book correctly, it wasn't radiation that caused the explosion, it was contact with uranium.

David Hall
2003-Jul-06, 04:50 PM
I would never criticize Scientology on the internet because I don't wish to die yet...

I would, have, and will criticize $cientology, especially now that I know even more about it than I did in my last post a year ago. I recently finished reading the online book A Piece of Blue Sky (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/), and there is very little I can find about the Co$ to even give it a polite response. It's a scam, pure and simple. Scientology is nothing more than third-rate science-fantasy masquarading as a religion, the organization practices the worst forms of mind and body control leaving people weak, ill-educated and destitute, and L.R.Hubbard himself was an arrogant pathological liar, paranoid, con-man, exploiter-of-others who often betrayed people close to him and used his organization as a personal tool for power and money games. He even had his own private intelligence agency once that spied on the U.S. government, infiltrating the IRS and other offices and stealing any documents relating to the Co$ they could get their hands on. There is nothing redeeming about them at all and the sooner the whole thing is shut down completely, the better.

Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/) (the anti-Scientology clearinghouse)

TriangleMan
2003-Jul-06, 05:18 PM
[/Counselor Troi voice] I sense . . . anger. [/end Counselor Troi voice]

C'mon David Hall don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about it. :lol: :wink: :lol:

Colt
2003-Jul-06, 07:52 PM
I've never heard of "Scientology". What is it, in short?

Just about any religion that actively exploits its followers is bad in my book. -Colt

Musashi
2003-Jul-07, 05:11 AM
Scientology (in short):

A long time ago there were some sort of aliens inhabiting Earth. They had magical, mystical powers over space, time, and energy. Then some other aliens came and threw all the 'good' aliens into volcanoes and then used nuclear bombs to destroy them. The good aliens discorporated and became spirits. These spirits are called Thetans and they inhabit everyone. If you can cleanse your mind and awaken the Thetan, then you will have magical, mystical powers. In order to be cleansed, of course, you have to spend a lot of money getting 'audited.' this is a process where the scientolgists use a special machine to read your mental state and help you work through the blocks that are keeping you from realizing your full potential. Oh yeah, if you decide you don't want to be a Scientologist anymore or if you say anything that they disagree with, you are labeled a "disruptive Person' or something like that and they will not associate with you anymore. This includes family, friends, even spouses.

And technically, I'm not sure that they want to be considered a religion (except for tax purposes).

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 05:16 AM
Just about any religion that actively exploits its followers is bad in my book. -Colt

Any organization that actively (or passively) exploits its followers/members/subjects is bad in my book.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-07, 05:42 AM
Just about any religion that actively exploits its followers is bad in my book. -Colt

Any organization that actively (or passively) exploits its followers/members/subjects is bad in my book.

Me to. Well except G'ism. That is the best religion. Now problems there. And absolutely no exploiting of anyone except Jim Brewer. I hate him.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 05:48 AM
Ha! There is an exception to every rule!

captain swoop
2003-Jul-08, 09:37 AM
I've never heard of "Scientology". What is it, in short?

Just about any religion that actively exploits its followers is bad in my book. -Colt


If you get an ache in your jaw it's because you remember when you used to be a Clam and you have an alien living in your head, when you die that alien goes to a waiting room on mars until it's his turn to live in someone elses head.

There it is in a nutshell, or is that case?

Anyway they will take lots of cash off you to tell you that.

If you don't like it they will put you in a 'rehab' centre until you kill yourself.

David Hall
2003-Jul-08, 08:18 PM
[/Counselor Troi voice] I sense . . . anger. [/end Counselor Troi voice]

C'mon David Hall don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about it. :lol: :wink: :lol:

Yes, sorry. Reading that book did make me very angry. Just about everything I read about Scientology and Hubbard was the absolute antithesis of everything I hold true and good. Hubbard was a true paranoid schitzophrenic and a compulsive liar, and it rubbed off onto his organization. It has a strong us-vs-them mentality and a disdain for anything percieved as weakness. Scientology not only condones dishonesty, it actively teaches it's followers how to lie effectively. People who try to question or break away from the organization are not just passively rejected, they are treated as "fair game", which means "true" scientologists are supposed to actively harrass and menace the traitors. This is true even if it's a spouse or other member of your own family. There are stories of members pretending to be supportive friends and neighbors simply to get close to these traitors so that they can harrass them more efficiently. The treatment of any infraction of the rules is treated with great severity, to the extent of physical and mental torture for some ranks. And they will find out about your transgressions, because the whole auditing process involves revealing everything you've thought about or done, and information about others as well. They don't believe in doctors, because illnesses are actually caused by "blocked thetans" or some such nonsense and therefore the prescribed treatment is heavy auditing and physical exertion. People have died from these "treatments". Children are not supposed to be given love or support, but are nuisances to be tolerated, treated essentially like adults, and given sub-standard educations. The CoS has all but taken over the downtown area of Clearwater, Florida, and has been trying underhandedly to gain control the government there as well. They've also taken over and surreptitiously run the Cult Awareness Network, and you can probably guess why. And last but definitely not least, the whole thing revolves around milking as much money as possible out of the people and skimming it off to feed the higher-ups, using dummy corporations and other financial chicanery that would make an Enron executive green with envy.

There may be worse cults out there, but this is the one that I'm familiar with. It's big, it's highly organized, and it's designed inside and out to limit as much personal freedom as possible and make it's followers believe that's a good thing. It's more than enough.

What is Scientology (http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html)

tracer
2003-Jul-08, 11:04 PM
If you don't like it they will put you in a 'rehab' centre until you kill yourself.
Now now, only one case of suicide induced by a Scientology rehab center has ever been confirmed.

No, what's really scary about the Scientologists is the little branch called the Sea Org (http://www.clambake.org/archive/so/).

jrkeller
2003-Jul-09, 02:14 AM
So why do you think the Hollywood types go for it big time?

captain swoop
2003-Jul-09, 09:39 AM
So why do you think the Hollywood types go for it big time?


Actors have small brains?

David Hall
2003-Jul-10, 04:46 PM
I think actor types go in for it because as a whole they seem to be interested in "alternative" stuff. New Age, alternative medicine, they love it. And the CoS deliberately pampers to celebrity, making sure they are happy and well-cared-for, and therefore perfect role-models and spokesmen for the cause. I'll bet dollars for doughnuts that none of them have ever seen what the real Scientology is like.

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-29, 05:57 PM
MAJOR BUMP - but we do have more news on this.

Writer apologizes for Battlefield Earth (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36083434#36083434) (video only)

Named worst film of the decade at the razzies last month.

"I penned the suckiest movie ever. Sorry"

Fazor
2010-Mar-29, 06:02 PM
I read this earlier. Here's a non-video (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/penned_the_suckiest_movie_ever_sorry_MdXedZpTMWJmf pw80Xc7aO/0) version of the story. I got a good chuckle from it, though I've never actually seen BE.

TampaDude
2010-Mar-29, 08:49 PM
1. Battlefield Earth sucked.

2. Scientology is nothing but a life-wrecking scam.

3. I am not afraid of the CO$. I am prepared to use deadly force to protect myself from any crazy scientologist, or any religious nutcase, for that matter.

slang
2010-Mar-29, 11:20 PM
I read this earlier. Here's a non-video (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/penned_the_suckiest_movie_ever_sorry_MdXedZpTMWJmf pw80Xc7aO/0) version of the story. I got a good chuckle from it, though I've never actually seen BE.

Thanks Fazor, that was a great read. I did see the movie, and I can completely understand his demeanor.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-29, 11:41 PM
It would be interesting to see the original screenplay. I'm sure it was modified heavily and it might have been better, with possibly a more coherent story, but I have serious doubts anything connected to "Battlefield Earth" would ever have been good.

swampyankee
2010-Mar-30, 02:18 AM
I read the book (I was desperate), so I knew enough to avoid the movie. Mysterious gas that goes all unstable when radiated? Planet with so few natural radioactives this works? Base 11 arithmetic being particularly better or worse than base 10?

The book was the first book by Elron I've read; it's also the last.

JustAFriend
2010-Mar-31, 09:01 PM
Well it's not like this is the first time that's been used in the movies.

The end of Planet of the Apes 2 (ok, Beneath the Planet of the Apes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065462/)- 1970) has the human holocaust descendents setting off a 'cobalt bomb' that ignites the Earth's atmosphere, obliterating all life - one of the creepiest movie endings ever...

And several Star Trek episodes had planetary atmospheres being ignited.

Still not good science, but it's been done before.