It wasn't that bad !
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Battlefield Earth
microbit — 16 years ago(July 27, 2009 09:19 AM)
Well, for years I've had the conviction that BE is so bad to not bother with it.
(it looked quite bad judging from the trailer).
But hey, I finally gave it the benefit of the doubt and - providing you're willing to 'plough' through the first 40 mins - it wasn't all that bad really.
I wanted to have an informed opinion, so I could substantiate the "why" next time it's a topic somewhere.
So it was a bit of a shock to find that this movie was quite OK. Perhaps some dumb stuff here and there, but overall it entertained me.
And that's what counts : it entertained. I've started watching movies that were raved on about sooo much and that turned out to be complete dissapointments.
Battlefield Earth couldn't possibly dissapoint since I was only wathing to confirm its banale content.
I'll be urging people to give it a chance at least, next time it's mentioned in a conversation.. -
scottarnold — 16 years ago(August 28, 2009 11:46 AM)
Caution: Possible spoilers in this reply
If they were to remove and replace every scene with a fighter jet in it with something less retarded, I would perhaps actually like this movie. But the whole fighter jet thing made it feel like they couldn't figure out how to get to the finish line and started taking advice from elementary school students.
If they really wanted to keep the whole fighter jet thing, they should have invented another secret sect of humans who already had the capabilities but lacked the proper intel that the insiders could provide. -
pgbright — 16 years ago(August 30, 2009 01:06 PM)
Not that bad ? It was tripe. Arse gravy. Bilge, every bit of it. Acting, plot, dialogue all abysmal
You may have guessed that I hated this garbage. No redeeming features WHATSOEVER.
And to think, those Scientologists, think its all a true story -
jaddjamar — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 03:43 PM)
'Only film I've ever walked out ofthat's how dreadful it is.'- foof833
Or that's how dreadful your taste is.
Or you're poor and can't afford to go to movies that often, let alone walk out of them.
Or you forgot your oven was on and had to leave.
Or your ankle bracelet started beeping and you had to get back home.
Or you didn't understand the big words they were using and had to run to the library. -
joshsureisgreat — 16 years ago(January 10, 2010 07:11 PM)
They're not worth fighting. Some people will hate Scientology just because it's different, and they can't be saved. Those who talk bad about this movie are disgusting and pitiful and not worth our time.
-
Buggs_UK-638-78721 — 16 years ago(January 19, 2010 06:58 AM)
dude, hes insulting it because it was terribly made, its not a true story its a fiction novel and its not even an accurate portrayal of the book, the book was the hardest read i have ever had, it took me longer than the three lord of the rings and dune, the book is so complex that after all the events of the movie the book carries on for at least twice the length of the events covered in the movie and im still not sure i have them all nailed down (especially the value of the planet in new weight and age), in fact, the movie doesnt even cover the main point of the story, human survival and resourcefulness in the face of complete hopelessness and near and total extinction, its a true example of how we learn and adapt to our surroundings in a way that brings us out on top. and worst of all the movie is so damned inaccurate to what small part it does cover its damn shameful, it kills off characters that dont die in the book, it misses out WHOLE storylines and concepts, it creates characters, settings and events that never happened in the book and COMPLETELY MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT the book was attempting to make.
my feelings about a religion set up by a science fiction (self confessed liar) novelist who charges people to be in a religion based on what sounds scarily similar to a science fiction story aside, the book is a work of absolute sci fi genius and will forever be in mine and the worlds top ten sci fi novels due to the gound it covers(and breaks), the movie, is so beep terrible it should be struck from the record, im ashamed i bought it for my father as it was abismal, it didnt even have decent effects or props for an $80mil movie.
and to the people saying this is a true story how gullible are you? its set three thousand years in the future when the world has been near destroyed and the human race on the verge of extinction with aliens coming to earth to enslave us (the book goes on further to take the planets ownership to an intergalactical banking company and somewhere on the borders of interstellar war) we are currently occupying the year 2010, if its a true story, its a damned good prequel, considering its nine hundred and ninety years before the events. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(May 14, 2012 07:45 PM)
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
However, in terms of Scientology, the reason its offensive to call it a Church to the abov is that Churches sdtarted based on genuine beleif and Scinetology began as a "Science of the Mind' that was turned into a Religion so Hubbard could get tax exemption and not need medical liscensing.
Oh and to avid beign sued. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(September 05, 2012 05:59 AM)
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
Theism - Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism - Lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not "believe" in anything. In fact, they do the exact opposite. They do not practice any sort of organized theology. Atheism is not ritualistic in anyway. Nothing about Atheism is religious.
To put it simply, Atheism is anti-religion. How can one's religion be to be anti-religious? That doesn't make sense.
P.S. - Philosophy and religion are two completely different things. Philosophy is rational and is about trying to explain life, existence, purpose, etc through logic and reason.
Religion is dogmatic, spiritual, and about faith.
Philosophy is about the natural.
Religion is about the supernatural.
I hope this clears things up for you.
The world is yours & everything in it. Its out there; get on your grind & get it. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 05, 2012 06:07 AM)
Wel-
Theism - Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism - Lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
Not that it matters, as Religion is not the same thing as Theism, and you seem to conflate the two as if Atheism is a lack of belief in a god therefore is not a Religion makes any sense to what Ive said
Atheism is not a religion.
I never said it was. But Theism is also not a Religion.
However, being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesnt require Theism.
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isnt saying Atheism is a Religion, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but theres more to it than this.
Everyone has a Religion because everyone has some sort of Paradigm that tells them how the world works and thats all Religion is.
You cant prove that Atheists arent Religious by saying thy dont believe in a god.
Atheists do not "believe" in anything. In fact, they do the exact opposite. They do not practice any sort of organized theology. Atheism is not ritualistic in anyway. Nothing about Atheism is religious.
This is not True. Atheism is a positive position that there are no gods, it is not a lack of belief in gods.
Further, no one is ever just an Atheist, there are always corollary beliefs in addition to Atheism that explains how the world works. EG, if you follow Secular Humanism, the most common Atheistic Religion, then you subscribe to the tenets of Humanism as outlined in the various Humanist Manifestos. If you follow Ayn Rands Objectivism, you follow her outline of how the world works.
Atheists do not lack beliefs about the world they live in,.
To put it simply, Atheism is anti-religion.
This is only True is Religion is defined as Theism. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. But Theism is not the same thing as Religion.
How can one's religion be to be anti-religious? That doesn't make sense.
You misdefine Atheism, and Religion. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, and Religion is not the same thing as belief in gods.
And I never said Atheism is a Religion, I just said that being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious and even Atheists have Religious beliefs.
P.S. - Philosophy and religion are two completely different things.
No, they arent. Religion is in fact nothing more than a type of Philosophy dealing with the foundational matters of our existence.
Philosophy is rational and is about trying to explain life, existence, purpose, etc through logic and reason.
Religion is dogmatic, spiritual, and about faith.
Faith is not belief without evidence, before that cobbler is thrown out there. And Relgiion is also about Logic and Reason. The idea that Religion rejects Reason in Favour of Faith is nothing but a Talking point in the neo-Atheist community, but anyone whose bothered to look into Religion realises that Religious thought is actually rooted in observation and logic as much as anything else. The idea that its not is simply daft nonsense.
Philosophy is about the natural.
Religion is about the supernatural.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Actually plenty of Philosophers have dealt with the Supernatural, and plenty of Religion deals in the Natural. Indeed, the very idea of the Supernatural didnt even exist till about 200-300 years ago, so what your saying is that Religion didnt exist at all till 300 years ago. This is of course silly nonsense.
Religion is not all about the Supernatural, and Philosophy does sometimes deal in the Supernatural itself. You are simply wrong. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 05, 2012 02:42 PM)
Religion is not the same thing as Theism, and you seem to conflate the two
You are simply wrong.
I won't bother responding to the rest of your lengthy, contradictory post.
Instead, I'll just leave these here
theism
noun /ˈTHēˌizəm/
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures
religion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.
If you need any more clarification as to why you are absolutely wrong, I'll refer you to this link.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 03:55 AM)
My post isnt contradixctory, and you are still wrong.
here are other definitios for Religion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
religion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Modern Eno-Atheists fit def. 1. No, Def. 1 does not say that Relgiion requires beleif in a superhumn agency. The sdefinition ends at Universe. The word "Especilly" connotates a usual trait, not a Universal one. Itis not essential tot he definition. If you dont beleice me, look up the ord Especialy.
it also fits dedinitions 2, 3, and even 5.
Here are some mroe "conrradictory' materials.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes it plain that Religion doesnt reqire Theism.
So does the encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497082/religion
So, you are wrong. Relgiion is not beleif in, and reverence of, gods and supernatural powers. Religion is a Philosophical system that explains the nature and meanign of our existance.
Tryign to make Atheism the opposite of Relgiion may help you define Relgion as a force you struggle agaisnt, but it doesnt change the fundamental fact that in reality allyou are doign is trign to oust one setof beleifsin favour of another. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 04:47 AM)
First things first, did you actually read the link that I provided? It explains in great detail everything that I was trying to convey. It's even backed up with sources. If you didn't, which is most likely, I must suggest again that you read it. It is very informative and explains why you are wrong about what you are saying.
As for your links, they actually prove my point.
The Stanford article goes on and on about theism and religion and how they are interchangeable.
It talks about the history of religion, and how it evolved. It talks about the various forms of theism, such as monotheism and polytheism. The only possible exception would be "deism", but even then you are still expressing a belief in a god, you just choose not to define it. One could argue that Buddhism is a type of deism.
The point is that theism is a belief in a god figure of some sort. Whether you believe that "God" is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Zeus, the Earth, or the Universe, you're still expressing a belief in some sort of "superior" or "supernatural" being. What you choose to call it is your prerogative.
Your Britannica link proves my other point. Religion is about a practice of beliefs. Religion is dogmatic and ritualistic. Even if you are a spiritualist and believe that "God" is the trees and the grass and the water and the sky, etc and don't actually believe in a singularly or plurally defined "God", you still believe in
something
.
The point of religion is that you practice something. You have a set of beliefs, rituals, and practices. You have dogma. Religion is organized.
There is no such thing with atheism. Atheists don't get together and hold services. Atheists don't practice any set of rituals. Atheists don't all hold a shared set of beliefs. Hell, the odds are that if you a group of randomly selected atheists together in a room, they'd all disagree with each other about a great number of things.
Atheism is literally a lack of a belief in any sort of "supernatural being". That's it. We don't just disbelieve in Yahweh and Jesus, we disbelieve in everything. We disbelieve in Islam and Greek Mythology and Wicca and everything in between.
What you're confusing is the true definition of an Atheist. If you actually bothered to read the link that I provided, you'd understand. To put it simply, people misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism mean. People think Agnosticism means "on the fence" or "undecided", but that is not true. Even somebody who is "undecided" is an Atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Agnosticism literally means the belief that one cannot know or possess the knowledge of "God". There are actually Agnostic Theists. Imagine that! How can one be both undecided and firm in their belief in God at the same time? Because Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in a god or gods! Just like there are Agnostics Theists, there are also Gnostic Atheists!
What people misconstrue as "agnosticism" is actually weak Atheism. Strong Atheists are firm in their belief that there is no "God" of any kind and many of them are also anti-theists as well, which means that they oppose any sort of religion.
Weak Atheists are those that are not sure that there is "God" of some kind, but are also unsure that there is no "God" either. They are Atheists simply because they doubt the existence of God. One does not have to be firm in the belief that there is no God in order to doubt the existence of one in the first place. I cannot say with 100% conviction that there is NO Bigfoot, but I also cannot be sure that there is one. I am reserving judgement. The same goes for God. I'm what you'd call a weak Atheist.
The point is that you were completely erroneous in your original assertion that Atheism is a form of religion. This simply isn't so. Atheism is not a "religion" by any definition or sense of the word.
By the way, you also proved my point that Philosophy and Religion are two completely different things as well. The Stanford article you linked to is titled "The Philosophy of Religion". If Religion and Philosophy are one and the same, then you could alternately call that article "The Philosophy of Philosophy" or "The Religion of Religion". Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 05:56 AM)
First things first, did you actually read the link that I provided? It explains in great detail everything that I was trying to convey.
Do you really think Rational Responders is an academic and unbiased source? Its clear that they have their own agenda and he whole Anti-Religious mentality they hold to isnt going to allow them to honestly examine any topic.
I really dont care what they have to say. Just calling themselves rational doesnt mean they actually are and it certainly doesnt mean that they are right.
It's even backed up with sources. If you didn't, which is most likely, I must suggest again that you read it. It is very informative and explains why you are wrong about what you are saying.
I wrote a peer reviewed masters thesis, and your answer back to me is a website that makes it a point to attack Religion. Yeah, theres logic for you. Do you even understand the concept of bias?
The Rational Responders are what Im referring to, by the way. They have made a Religion out of hating Religion. They are clearly just a militant form of Humanism and dont really want you thinking for yourself and arriving at your own conclusions, they want you to arrive at the ready made conclusions they tell you are Rational.
As for your links, they actually prove my point.
No, they dont.
The Stanford article goes on and on about theism and religion and how they are interchangeable.
No, it doesnt. In fact, if you actually read the article ( as opposed to skim it) it mentioned non-theistic Religions like Theravada Buddhism.
It talks about the history of religion, and how it evolved. It talks about the various forms of theism, such as monotheism and polytheism. The only possible exception would be "deism", but even then you are still expressing a belief in a god, you just choose not to define it. One could argue that Buddhism is a type of deism.
1: it is stupid to see Deism as an alternative to Theism, as Theism mean you believe in a god. Deism is a type of Theism.
2: No, Buddhism is not a the of Deism. In fact, Buddhism comes in many varieties and some are Atheistic.
The point is that theism is a belief in a god figure of some sort. Whether you believe that "God" is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Zeus, the Earth, or the Universe, you're still expressing a belief in some sort of "superior" or "supernatural" being. What you choose to call it is your prerogative.
1: Allah and God are the same thing. Allah is just Arabic for the God. Allah is not a proper name for God.
2: Your point here doesnt seem to mean anything. I never said Theism was not belief in a god, I said that Religion is not Theism.
Even Austin Cline agrees that Theism is not the same thing as Religion. Though he still says he has no Religion.
http://atheism.about.com/od/religionnonreligion/a/theism.htm
Im also certain that like most Neo-Atheists you wont listen to anything that contradicts your view and wont even Ive me the benefit of a doubt. You need to nto be Religious. Pity that in reality there is no distinction.
Your Britannica link proves my other point. Religion is about a practice of beliefs. Religion is dogmatic and ritualistic.
Actually Britannica doesnt say that religion requires Practice of beliefs or Dogma or Ritual. Not that it matters, as your own Rational Responders are very much Dogmatic. Oh sure, they will say they have no Dogma, but just try to contradict one of their own Sacred Cows. Calling Dogma something other than Dogma doesnt make it not Dogma. Atheists can be, and often are, very Dogmatic.
Below is what Britannica actually says.
religion, human beings relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of ones relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of ones relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshipers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
Note: It does not say Ritual or Dogma are essential requirements of Religion.
It does mention Humanistic Religions, that are not Theistic, though.
Even if you are a spiritualist and believe that "God" is the trees and the grass and the water and the sky, etc and don't actually believe in a singularly or plurally defined "God", you still believe in something.
Atheists believe in something.
B