Join 3,363 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


February 12, 2001
6:15 PM   Subscribe

The Oscar® nominations won't get announced until tomorrow, which means that the noms for The Razzies were announced today. The biggest contender? John Travolta revolting pet film, "Battlefield Earth," with eight.
posted by honkzilla (23 comments total)

 
I have read Battlefield Earth the 1000 page book and it was great. I had hoped that the hype about the movie being "bad" was just that, until i rented the video and forced myself to watch about half of it before i had to switch it off.

Bad movie on it's own merit, even worse if you have read the book.
posted by Zool at 6:31 PM on February 12, 2001


has anyone else noticed battlefield earth is a top-seller at a lot of DVD sites? some kind of scientology conspiracy/viral marketing scheme i imagine.
posted by kliuless at 6:40 PM on February 12, 2001


Or just people curious as to how bad the bad movie really is. I admit, I'm tempted to go rent it just so I can chip in my two cents when everyone else is saying how crappy it is..
posted by zempf at 7:05 PM on February 12, 2001


The movie is bad for sure, but I think a lot of critics slammed it extra-hard because of the Scientology connection. People constantly talk about it as though it were the worst movie ever made, but really, was it any worse than some of the other sci-fi crap that has been released recently? I'm thinking in particular of movies like "Mission to Mars", "Picth Black", "Supernova", etc.
posted by Potsy at 7:20 PM on February 12, 2001


dude, if madonna doesn't win for the next best thing, i don't know what i'm gonna do. that was honestly the worst movie i've ever seen. and i've seen a lot of crap.
posted by sugarfish at 10:12 PM on February 12, 2001


I like the nod to Brian DePalma as Worst Director for Mission to Mars. I don't understand how he can make even interesting, talented actors seem so wooden. He's done some good films in the past but his dead-hand style undoes any excitement the script might generate. Anyway, he's my favorite in the Worst Director category.

I'm not curious about how bad Battlefield Earth is. I believe the hype.
posted by Loudmax at 10:33 PM on February 12, 2001


Hey why's Thandie Newton up there? I sorta liked her. And MI:2 was a decent movie.. hardly deserves to be nominated for a Razzie.

As for Battlefield:Earth, I think it'll be one of those cult movies that are just so bad you've got to see it.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:51 PM on February 12, 2001


If anyone knows of a place where I can pick up the DivX for Battlefield:Earth, please contact me. Thanks!

Heck... to think I'd have to waste money on top of the hours wasted watching the movie! Yeesh.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:52 PM on February 12, 2001


B:E is poop.
posted by anildash at 11:13 PM on February 12, 2001


I don't get the Razzies, they'd nominated Oscar (1991) for Worst Actor: Sylvester Stallone, Worst Director: John Landis, & Worst Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei. I mean come on Oscar was a really nice movie.
posted by riffola at 11:31 PM on February 12, 2001


riffola,

As much as I agree with you that Oscar was a nice movie, we are in the definite minority on that one. It was brutally slammed when it came out. Stallone doing musical comedy? That's a pretty big target. But yes, I think it was a lovely little film.
posted by Optamystic at 11:53 PM on February 12, 2001


Battlefield Earth is considered one of the worst movies ever because of how much it cost to make.

Somewhere in the $70 million dollar range, and it only grossed $24.5 million or so.

Critics expect a better movie when that much money is spent, and not the crap that Travolta produced.

Remember Waterworld? Heavily criticized, cost around $200 Million, and barely broke even.

As for MI2, I would agree... not a very good movie. Typical John Woo. His movies were good when he first started, but now they are becoming a cliche.
posted by da5id at 6:06 AM on February 13, 2001


According to the CoS, the only reason Battlefield Earth made the list is because enemies of Scientology were conspiring to vote against it (second item). Mind you, these folks do have a bridge to sell you.
posted by harmful at 7:15 AM on February 13, 2001


According to the CoS, the only reason Battlefield Earth made the list is because enemies of Scientology were conspiring to vote against it (second item). Mind you, these folks do have a bridge to sell you.
posted by harmful at 7:15 AM on February 13, 2001


It appears that the most reliable way to double-post is to sneeze while clicking on the "Post" button.
posted by harmful at 7:18 AM on February 13, 2001


It's long been alleged that Scientologists are ordered to go out and buy L. Ron books en masse in order to make them "bestsellers," so it wouldn't be surprising if they're being made to go out and buy up BE DVDs as well.

As for its awfulness, Battlefield Earth got a lowly 6% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer, which I believe is the lowest score of any major motion picture in the site's history.
posted by aaron at 7:22 AM on February 13, 2001



I was a little disappointed not to see Coyote Ugly nominated... although John Goodman did make a decent go at being the father...
posted by salsamander at 7:49 AM on February 13, 2001


What about "Dungeons and Dragons"? Not even one nomination? Among the group I saw with, all D&D fans, none liked it and over half considered it the worst movie they'd ever seen.
posted by Jeanne at 8:29 AM on February 13, 2001


Hey - I'll be the first to admit I bought the DVD. Why? Because I had heard from several sources that it was the most inept film since "Plan 9 from Outer Space", and I covet bad films.

The sad fact is, the film was so pathetic it can't even be enjoyed as a bad film. The only real fun comes from listening to the second audio, where the filmmakers still doggedly insist the film is a top-flight masterpeice. I can't imagine how Scientologists could be so self-delusional. They're usually such rational folks...
posted by Perigee at 9:13 AM on February 13, 2001


There is precedent here.

Back in 1984, "Battlefield Earth" was nominated to the final ballot for SF's Hugo Award for Best Novel. It was widely believed in SF fandom that the only way it got on the ballot was by ballot stuffing by CoS flunkies.

Anyway, SF fans got their revenge: on the final ballot, out of the five nominees, "BE" came in last, behind "None of the Above".
posted by dragonmage at 9:22 AM on February 13, 2001


"I can't imagine how Scientologists could be so self-delusional. They're usually such rational folks..."

Hee hee.

Zool: I read BE back in '84 because there were rumors that the movie was going to be filmed in Denver that year, that they would be hiring lots of midsized blond extras, and I (at the time) didn't have a lot of exposure to El Ron and his wacky band... Even without a negative CO$ bias, I thought the book blew. Lame science, lame story, lame lame lame.

I tried to convince myself to see the movie, just for the cheez factor, but everyone I talked to said it was too bad to even enjoy the badness... and given the high tolerance levels that my friends have for movie suckitude, that was saying something. So I opted out.

posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 11:16 AM on February 13, 2001


I think the fact that the movie can't even be enjoyed as a triumph of bad movies should, in itself, win it the Razzies.

Either that or exclude it from the running completely, I haven't decided which.
posted by cCranium at 11:39 AM on February 13, 2001


How come Dude Where's My Car didn't make the list?
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:19 PM on February 13, 2001


« Older This week's bit of helpful corrective...  |  The W3C opens a can of whoopas... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments