American Atheist Magazine Online Forum - Boycott Battlefield Earth?

[an error occurred while processing this directive] Magazine Home

Print Edition

Events

Search

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Tell Us What You Think

name: Fredric L. Rice
email: frice@skeptictank.org
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 11:54 PST

In the article, it was commented "Spokespersons say that ASI is independent of the church. Critics, though, point to an agreement negotiated between Scientology and the Internal Revenue Service that shows a link to the "Church of Spiritual Technology" also known as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library." Indeed, Author Services was founded in 1982 to handle Hubbard's prodigious output of writings, and until 1987 was headed by one David Miscavige, the present head of Scientology."

In fact one can find copies of the legal documents which show that ASI and Bridge Publications are both Scientology front groups -- contrary to what the Scientology cult would like people to believe.

Numerous court and legal documents were lately posted to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup which covers the fact that ASI and Bridge Publications are Scientology front groups. A good starting place to review these documents would be:

http://x27.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=610570863.1&CONTEXT=957898230.100859912&hitnum=3

Amusingly, ASI has tried to demand that that Scientology not get any revenues off of merchandising the Battlefield Earth video though the dolls and other items that are planned to be marketed. Since ASI is Scientology, society is given another look at what criminal organizations have managed to accomplish when they call themselves a religion.
name: William E. Pigg
email: wpigg58917@aol.com
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 14:06 PST

It appears certain movie stars are accustomed to getting a "free ride" when it comes to their particular brand of primeval psychosis. Exposure is warranted.
name: D. Kelly
email: ruiner_9@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 16:18 PST

I'm an Atheist, I don't care much for Scientolgy any more than I do for Christianity or other religions, but I don't think it would effect whether or not I saw this movie.

As to whether or not I care if some of the money ends up in Scientology's hands, I don't think it would keep me awake at night.

The movie looks bad anyway, I've read the book once and the Psychlos look nothing like the creatures in the previews.
name: Chris Leithiser
email: cleithis@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 17:51 PST

I plan to see the film (but not to pay for a ticket--I'll be paying for Gladiator & moving next door.

I don't want to enrich the cult by even the few cents my ticket would contribute.
name: Lianna Skywalker
email: liannaskywalker@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 18:52 PST

Well, there's an alternative choice to the ones on the poll that I would have liked to see... I'm a Scientology critic, I don't like the cult at all, but I still want to go see Battlefield Earth. There's a good reason -- I wasted a week of my life reading the book so I could do a review of it for my website (http://freespeech.org/liannaskywalker/clams/b-earth.htm) and I want to see just how bad the movie is. I've heard awful awful things.

However, none of my money is going into Scientology's coffers. So, I'll simply select a movie playing at approximately the same time in the same theater, purchase a ticket for that, and then slip into the BE theater. Quick, easy, not messy at all. It's a floor polish and a dessert topping!

Lianna Skywalker "A drunk driver was better than no driver at all, wasn't it?" -- L. Ron Hubbard http://freespeech.org/liannaskywalker
name: Kerry Wildermoth
email: cleanair@aircleanse.com.au
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 18:57 PST

They deserve no more support than the nazi party did, and for exactly the same reasons, and the fact that the US Government has been coerced by them into gaining tax free status as a religion highlights the depths to which religion is prepared to lie to gain tax free profits. Scientology has a criminal record in the USA and in many other countries around the world, and must be exposed as such at every oportunity.
name: Jim Challender
email: jimc@gxcnet.net
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 20:26 PST

Morons like Pat Robertson, Tom Delay, John Travolta, et al are everywhere

Like pot holes, I avoid them when possible.

Over the next 2 or 3 generations, the proliferation of information from the scientific community will plant enough seeds in the minds of children (and adults with open minds) to drastically shift the balance of "power" between the religious right and the secular community.

My grandchildren will live in a world of radically different technology and philosopy.

There is hope fellow secularists/freethinkers.

I think it's time for some "in your face" attitude towards religious morons from those of us that "GET IT".
name: Cobalt
email: cobalt@tigrden.com
Tuesday, 09-May-2000 22:58 PST

Let's face it - Hubbard wrote the book when he was in his deepest cult mania (and on the run from the police, for government infultration, thanks) so obviously it carries his personal dogma within it's words. The PSychlos are thinly veilled refrences to Psychiatrists, which he considered the enemies of his cult. The movie also stars the cult's most vocal public figure, who practically blackmailled Warner Brothers into releasing the thing - and eports from the set point to the crew being cult-member heavy. On TOP of all this, reports from inside the cult have leaked info that Scientology members are being ordered to buy multiple tickets for the film, whether they plan to see it or not (and that purchased, but unused tickets can be redeemed at Scientologyheadquarters for price-reductions on upcoming courses) ... add to this that Scientology wrote themselves into the toy merchandising, and have been running the official website for the film off their own servers.. they even did public fundraising to get te thing made, hitting up their own members for donations.

This film is a scientology project, period. And since everything Scientology does is carefully designed for the sole purpose of filling their bank accounts, it's easy to refuse to go see it.
name: Kevin "Syko"
email: sykodude@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 02:19 PST

No, I don't think Atheists should boycott Battlefield Earth. It's just a movie made from one of the greatest science fiction books ever written. I see no harm in the Church of Scientology getting proceeds from the movie, the top guy wrote the book, but as soon as or if they ever start pushing they beliefs as much as christians organizations do, then I would fight them, but not for a movie. I will definately see this movie. I'm not even sure what Scientology truely is.
name: Magister
email: magister@frodo.net
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 04:55 PST

As a scifi fan and a freethinker, I'll go see any good flick, no matter what its pedigree. The only reason NOT to see a particular film, at least to my way of thinking, is because you're not interested in its artistic merits. Just because we suspend our belief, doesn't mean we can't suspend our disbelief. Besides, I'd rather take on a mob of Scienies than one Baptist any day!
name: Simon L. van Woerekom
email: woerekomslvan@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 06:24 PST

No, I don't think that it a good idea to boycott your oppenents, because that's exactly the way those religious people behave towards their opponents. It seems better to me to talk to religious people and try to convince them that their is no ground for their iedeas.
name: Shelly Hattan
email: shelly@civilgrrl.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 06:33 PST

I boycotted the TBN sponsored movie, "The Omega Code" precisely because TBN would directly benefit. In today's American society, spending money is like voting. Money gives a cause or person power. People really need to be careful as to how they spend their money if they do not support a certain group.
name: Ried Crowe
email: ried.crowe@lmco.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 09:21 PST

While I certainly would never support any crackpot movement like Scientology (by paying good money to watch a film that is believed to have as one of its objectives that of financially benefitting them), I would not make a judgment as to whether or not to see a film based on the politics or opinions of any of the individuals that worked on it. If I were to do this, then that would probably limit the films that I would feel comfortable in seeing to maybe 5 or 10 at most, given that the lifestyles and even religious doctrines of most of the people of Hollywood that I know of are, in my opinion, generally irrational and offensive. (The same can be said of many merchants, athletes, and literary figures, whose efforts I would also not want to live without.)

Thus, I am only compelled to boycott events that benefit a cause I disagree with due to a concerted effort of all involved producing parties.
name: PJ Albee
email: Paul@Albee.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 09:25 PST

Having read A fair amount of Hubbard's writing, including "Battlefield Earth", I think I can make a couple of observations. First, Hubbard was not that good of a writer. He took 3 pages to make a point where 3 lines would have been appropriate. His characters are characitures of themselves, see the "Mission Earth" series for examples. Second, unless you're already prone to accepting the tenates of scientology, watching a feature length film isn't going to convert you.

On the topic of an actors political/religious views. Using the logic that a scientologist was in the work, we should boycott the work, the following links list works would have to be boycotted:

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Travolta,+John
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Cruise,+Tom
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kidman,+Nicole

I can't honestly say I've seen all of the movies Travolta, Cruise, and Kidman have been in , but I've seen several and some were excellent movies. If a movie needs to be boycotted, it should be based on the movie, not the actors themselves.
name: Doug Ittner
email: qwenzo@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 10:39 PST

A boycott probably isn't necessary. From what I've heard about the movie and the book the movie will bomb. There are numerous holes in the plot, the only thing that can keep the movie in the theatre (besides regular attendance by cultmembers) is the special effects.

Please now, a Harrier jet works after being dormant for 1000 years? Training spear wielding, horse riding cavemen to fly such a jet in 7 days? Looks like Plan 9 From Outer Space might have competition for the worst sci-fi movie ever.
name: Keith Flores
email: kaeman11@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 11:19 PST

Films are a free expression of a persons ideas and opinions (or at least 'good' films are). I would go see any film that had the artistic expression of ideas as a main issue. I may not agree with the conclusions of the film, but it won't make me any less to view it and decide for myself.

It's foolish to avoid any media that is geared toward or linked to any group for purely ideological reasons. I have been an athiest for years, but I read the bible all the time.

The movie looks good, and I have a feeling that the action is going to be very entertaining. Any underlying themes of Scientology or otherwise are not going to be strong enough to stear me from the path of reason.

Don't boycott this film. It just doesn't make good sense.
name: XeNO
email: xeno6696@earthlink.net
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 13:00 PST

I think that it should be boycotted only if the church of scientology attempts to hide any money it makes from the film. And regardless--it should DEFINITELY be taxed if it goes to the group.
name: Brek
email: Brek@pacbell.net
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 13:30 PST

Yes. Just as I would not support a church charity (although they may do work that I would like to see performed, I choose not to support the church directly and would prefer to support a humanist or other secular organization that performs the same type of services), I would also not want to support a church by paying them to view their art, even if I would enjoy viewing that art. It still amounts to supporting a church, with your money, so that they can grow, and expand their influence. Something I certainly do not support.
name: Steve Carmichael-Timson
email: steve.carmichael-timson@technologist.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 14:20 PST

This movie has been sponsored by one of the most destructive cults this century and I will never go an see it because if I do I will be paying into the coffers of the Church of Scientology.
name: robin garrett
email: robin_garrett@amat.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 14:23 PST

Atheists should NOT boycott Battlefield Earth, at least not on any official level or in any vocal way. Doing so would just serve to draw attention to the film, and cause it's attendance numbers to go up. If there is any issue with where the funds are going to be funneled, a better course of action might be to help expose exactly where those funds are going and what they are being used for.
name: J. DeVincent
email: j.devincent@wxs.nl
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 14:35 PST

Unless there is a question of religious or other scientifically questionable ideas actually acquiring the force of law, why should anyone object to them? To paraphrase Voltaire, even though we may not approve of someone's ideas, we should defend their right to express them! To boycott this film would be the moral equivalent of not defending the right of free speech. The real battle will be fought on the battlefield of ideas.
name: Wade Smith
email: morbius@channel1.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 16:54 PST

I have continually refused to financially support any effort by Scientology, which means that I have never purchased any Elron books, or paid to see a with Cruise or Kidman or Travolta or Alley in it.

I totally support any effort to educate the public about the criminal activities of Scientologists, and have signed petitions in favor of removing this organization's religious (tax-exempt) stature.
name: Nathan White
email: natwhite@mediaone.net
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 17:20 PST

I do not like censorship. I am a freethinker. People should be able to read and see what they want to see. It's supposed to be a free country.
name: garnet
email: garnet785@mail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 18:50 PST

No, of course not. The movie is based on a fictional book. Its purpose is to entertain, not endorse. Any religios person who feels threatened by it is saying that their faith is found in a fictional book.
name: Sam Kite
email: cosmufet@u.washington.edu
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 19:21 PST

This is a waste of effort. Watch the movie, determine if there's really a problem with it and then recommend it to friends based on your impression. Just because a Scientologist is involved, doesn't mean you have to curb your movie going.

save it for things like when X for Christ starts putting up signs near grade schools or colleges.
name: Zachary Moore
email: zacharym87@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 20:20 PST

One of the first relevant considerations in this debate is the fact that Christians have using movies, TV Shows, books, and everything else they can find as vessels for religious propoganda ever since before I can remember (Anyone catch the "Jesus" TV Movie?). If the people in the American population are really so intellectually naieve to change their metaphysical beliefs after a two-hour movie, then we've got much bigger problems than the content of Hollywood films. As for the charges that Scientology brainwashes its members to extort money and power, these are merely the defining characteristics of religions/cults everywhere (we must remember that the difference between a religion and a cult is soley a matter of scale).
name: Stephen Guilliot
email: s.guilliot@vanderbilt.edu
Wednesday, 10-May-2000 23:31 PST

I loved the book "Battlefield Earth", and I'll see the movie. Maybe this sounds odd, but L. Ron Hubbard is a great sci-fi writer, despite his crackpot cult. Scientology can raise millions and it'll still sound like lunacy (yes, even more so than Christianity). I say, put aside (non)religious fears and see the movie if you like a good alien romp!
name: John Mason
email: falun@orac.net.au
Thursday, 11-May-2000 03:48 PST

Scientologists do not do anything by accident. They would not put their pet star, Travolta, into anything that would not promote their nutball cause. This can't be anything except a promo for Scientology and any atheist worthy of the name will boycott it. john
name: Joseph Harper
email: dharper@otfs.state.ga.us
Thursday, 11-May-2000 04:44 PST

As an atheist and freethinker I am intolerant of intolerance. Being openly atheistic is not always easy. The religious belief of an actor or performer is not relevant. I judge an actor on his or her talent.

I would hope that all atheists would be tolerant of the beliefs of others.
name: Jason Packer
email: jason_packer@softhome.net
Thursday, 11-May-2000 06:06 PST

Scientology, like most religions, has a small kernel of useful information buried in the morass of mythology and nonsense.

I'm sure their whole "engrams" issue is nothing more than a fanicied up way to make people buy new and more expensive biofeedback monitors, and I think it's obvious that people can change themselves over time through use of such devices to train their own reactions.

There's some hard science underneath all the nonsense. I just wish they didn't brainwash people and fleece them of every penny in the process. If they didn't, we'd not be having this debate.
name: 2DawgZ
email: wotzizname@yahoo.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 07:31 PST

I have seen two friends ruined financially by this greedy, grasping cult. The only reason Travolta is in it as deeply as he is is because he was outed by Paul Baressi several years ago and the church has him blackmailed.
name: Jason Cournoyer
email: jasononetwo@hotmail.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 12:45 PST

Hello, why boycott a movie anyway, do you take Hollywood that seriously? I'm an atheist and I really enjoyed "The Temptation of Christ". Yes, that movie was considered sacrilegious but I still learned about the story of Christ, yadda yadda yadda and I'm still an Atheist. If you go to the movie or not, who cares? I'm surprised not every movie out of LA is about Scientology, that religion rules LA (have you ever been there?). If your worried that the movie is going to convert some minds to Scientology, who needs these minds? They are worthless if they join Scientology after watching John Travolta fly around Earth dressed as Rob Zombie. I'm going because I like sci-fi movies, end of story. If you decide to boycott the movie, that's your choice, but be consistant and boycott ALL Hollywood movies. Jason
name: alex
email: alex_is@post.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 12:53 PST

This is a film, it is not propaganda on the Scientologist's part. I, as an atheist, can tell tell the difference between a good time and brainwashing. Of coarse, those who can't must be educated. We must remember that this movie does not directly propagandise Scientology.
name: Kelsey
email: geek@visi.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 14:21 PST

I think that the movie is, well, fiction and should be treated that way. As for it being a recruitment for scientology, well, that's scary if you are weak minded. I think it could be interesting to see.
name: Jim Lynch
email: anaximander47@hotmail.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 14:40 PST

Anyone, religious or not, has a right to make a movie. I think anyone would agree with that.

There is quite a lot of evidence, which I will not go into in this short-message medium, that Scientology is a fraidulent and manipulative organization. There is also a small amount of evidence that suggests that the Church of Scientology is to gain financially by this movie. Also, there is some evidence that, if it is true to the novel of the same title, _Battlefield Earth_ presents ideas not unlike core teachings of Scientology.

But that is the business of those who made the movie, and those who will see it. Personally, I applaud any church that uses creative means to raise money, just as I deplore the tried-and-true method of not paying taxes. If the Scientologist church wants to fund a movie to make money, good on them.

But I don't have to see it.

Anyway, Mr. Travolta's starring ventures are usually marred by his overacting and wooden characterization. In the end, one should make an aesthtic decision not to see this movie. Think of Blowout, or Michael, or the horrendous The General's Daughter, then decide. I think you'll agree with me.
name: Eric Busch
email: herictic2048@aol.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 14:28 PST

I went to a free preview last night and am glad that I did not have to pay money to see such dreak! I am starting to think that the contraversy about this being a recruiting film for $cientology, containing subliminal messages, and/or being used to promote or fund the Co$; is all part of the marketing hype to try and get people to go see a substandard, loud lewd and cude sci-fi/action flick. I could find nothing in it that related directly to $cientology or Co$, and certainly nothing subliminal or subtle. The practical effects were good, but the character development was thin at best, and I thought I was seeing several scenes from other films other than one story. (One scene is a direct lift from "The Matrix") The movie "What Dreams May Come" was a much better vehicle for subtle indoctrination in aspects of $cientology (whether it was intentional or not) and/or other new age cults. I would not boycott the movie just cause some of the money goes to John Revolta and or Co$ (though I would not want to encourage them to make more), but because there are better things to do with 2 hours, like watching the grass grow, or go see "Gladiator". (a movie that treats the pagan practices with respect, and does not feel the need to introduce the "saving grace" of Xinsanity or Geesus, like the cold war era "sword and sandal epics" did!)

Eric the Heretic
Born Again Atheist

"For man so feared his ignorance, that he created god in his image" - Eric3:16
name: Kaelyne
email: kaeli@klis.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 19:31 PST

The reason why I think atheists should boycott Battlefield Earth is that, even though the Church of Scientology denies it, it does have connections to the CoS (Church of Scientology). The CoS has claimed to be a religion, and has stated so in various court proceedings against its critics.
name: Todd Adamson
email: toddAdamson@yahoo.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 19:47 PST

I find it amusing that we give grief to Christians for judging a film without even seeing it, when they boycott something like Last Temptation of Christ, then we turn around and do the same thing to their films.

I will not be seeing the film, because, having attempted to read Hubbard's hack work in the past, I doubt anyone can salvage anything of value out his stories.
name: John Britschgi
email: john111763@yahoo.com
Thursday, 11-May-2000 22:06 PST

No one should boycott this film because of its possible Scientology viewpoint. That no one will see this film because, from all indications, it sucks artistically is another matter.

Remember when everyone kicked up a fuss about 'Life of Brian' or more recently 'Dogma'. Did we ever think, "What principled, high-minded people who won't allow any viewpoint contradicting theirs go unchallenged"? Hardly, it was, "What a bunch of close-minded morons." Let's not, as atheists, be like that.

Skip the movie because it is bad. Go to the Sistine Chapel and enjoy the art. Watch 'Birth of a Nation' and learn something about film history. Appreciate 'Paradise Lost' for the poetry. Reason is strong enough to stand up to a little propoganda.
name: Ric Frambach
email: rframbach@atheists.org
Friday, 12-May-2000 04:02 PST

Under the headline, " 'Battlefield Earth' BOMBS" and a NO STARS rating, Marshall Fine of Gannett News Service says: "Memory fails to summon the name of a movie as ludicrous and inintentionally funny as BE, John Travolta's act of hubris in service to the late Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard. ..." "Adapted from Hubbard's unreadable sludge-pile of a novel..." "Slavery appears to be Jonnie's [the protagonist] fate (which is preferable to acting in this movie)" "It's hard to imagine anyone of any age beig entertained by the steaming pile of vanity that is 'Battlefield Earth'. John Travolta may have earned a place in Scientology heaven, but he did it by digging a grave for himself." [end of quote]

With reviews like that, I think a boycott would just extend its run in the theaters. I'm predicting quick release to video. This is a case of the Emperor has no clothes; and everyone knows it
name: Adrianna Pinska
email: ishtar42@crosswinds.net
Friday, 12-May-2000 05:45 PST

I think that this issue has been blown way out of proportion.

Yes, the movie (if it is like the book) probably shares a number of plot elements with the Scientological belief system, what with both beiong works of science fiction produced by the same author, and all. So what? I will not magically be indoctrinated into Scientology by watching the movie.

Yes, there are a lot of Scientologists involved in the project, so a substantial whack of the profits will doubtless be going into the coffers of the Church of Scientology. So what? I want to watch a movie. I pay for it. What the people who made it choose to do with the money is their own damn business, and something for which I do not accept responsibility. My purchase of a ticket is not morally equivalent to a donation to the Church of Scientology. If I had to worry about the eventual destination of all the money I ever spent, I would never buy anything.

I have read the book. It is by no means one of the world's greatest works of science fiction, but it was entertaining, fluffy space opera, and I had fun reading it. I expect no more and no less from the movie.

I think that the boycotts are a misguided effort. There are more important things to fight.
name: Modemac
email: modemac@modemac.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 05:46 PST

I've hosted the unofficial "Introduction to Scientology" Web site (from a criticial perspective) for nearly five years now, and I have been opposed to a boycott of 'Battlefield Earth' from the beginning. Why? Because "boycotts" are the stuff that movie execs dream of. They create controversy and additional hype for the movie -- look at the furor over "The Last Temptation of Christ" as one of the best known examples. ("Temptation," BTW, is an outstanding movie.) I've been confident that Travolta's movie would sink under its own weight, and I believe there is no need for anyone to bother picketing or boycotting the movie. It's going to disappear quickly, because even Scientology can't afford enough money to make it into a box-office smash.
name: Dwargon
email: dwargon@operamail.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 06:30 PST

As far as I can see, the movie will suck because it is based off of a book that is just too big to show on the screen. Even if they only take the first half... its still too much, so it's religious affiliation is less important than it's sucitude.
name: Magyck
email: MagyckMe@aol.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 07:51 PST

L. Ron Hubbard, before he founded a religion, was considered to be a science fiction author of grand master status, or damned close to it. "Battlefield Earth" is one of his best. It has nothing to do with scientology, and everything to do with some very well done hard core science fiction. Certainly, Hubbard's estate will benefit from the movie, and thus Scientology indirectly. And certainly Travolta's bank account will grow and, through any donations he chooses to make to his religion, so will Scientology. But to boycott "Battlefield Earth" without a direct connection merely because the author of the original espoused a philosophy we disagree with, or because the star and executive producer espouses a philosophy we disagree with, is just about as hypocritical as the Baptist boycott of Disneyland while they continue to rent "The Little Mermaid" or buy Mickey Mouse watches for the kids. I'm embarrassed. I'm also looking forward to what, if it adheres at all to the book, is a VERY good movie.
name: Dave Keever
email: dlkeever@hotmail.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 08:32 PST

Why boycott, particularly publicly with pickets? We'll be giving 'em the one thing they crave: Publicity.

In this case, we'd be doing their PR for them at no cost to them.

Nah, I'll pass on the boycott.

Besides, I kinda like ol L.Ron, as an sf author, as a 'messianic leader'.... Bwahhaha, giggle, chortle, choke, gasp, wheeze.... get real!

dk
name: Lyn Milnes
email: llm@chong.co.nz
Friday, 12-May-2000 08:50 PST

Selective boycotts are dangerous. Sometimes members of grassroots groups who think they are just social activists are being used by vested interests to attack a commercial competitor.

(Read books like Sharon Beder's "Global Spin" if you want to get to know how the public relations industry covertly exploits us all to help commercial and other vested interests. Great book, erudite woman, readable style, gripping stuff, well documented, fascinating.)

Aside from the usual inter-church rivals, does Scientology have this sort of corporate vested interest as enemies?

Well, yes.

Scientologists were the ones who exposed the "Deep Sleep" psychiatric abuses to the public, through their CCHR organisation. Remember Deep Sleep, twenty or so years back? People apparently connected to the CIA did horrific, sometimes fatal experiments on helpless psychiatric patients in hospitals, to see if they could erase memories, using texchniques like massive electric shock treatments and administering very heavy drug doses of various kinds. If you want to check some of this out maybe try a search Dr Ewan (Ewen?) Cameron on the web - CIA funded doctor. The Scientologists are now fighting fluoxetine/prozac, the happy pill, and its makers, that's one of their battles I know about. In general they make a lot of trouble for the pharma industry.

If you fight the pharmaceuticals industry (thus also the chemicals and petroleum industry, plus the medical industry and all its supply industries) - then you are making some powerful enemies.

I don't say this makes the Scientologists innocent. For all I know, they might represent one of these vested interests and be opposing only selected parts of the others. But their work in anti-psychiatry has been so impressive I have sometimes sent them donations saying "thanks, that was good". Parts however of their operations I am very cautious about.

This boycott is a dangerous proposal, that's my central point. Don't support boycotts unless you know who you are working for. And, generally, you won't know.

A lesser point is that Scientology is a fascinating demonstration of how religions are constructed, as synthetic as it is possible to be. It is thus a lesson to the public and an enduring slap in the face to religion in general.
name: Robert J. Pease
email: bobpease@concentric.net
Friday, 12-May-2000 11:16 PST

In General Atheists should consider the Civil Liberties issues involved.

As long as Scientologists are not violating any laws, they have a right to make and distribute any movie whatever.

I choose to boycott the "movie" because of the fascist viewpoints of the COS and their dangerous anti civil liberties stance.
name: Johnny Barrett
email: merlin87@earthling.net
Friday, 12-May-2000 12:57 PST

No, atheists should not boycott the movie. Even if it is a recruiting tool for a bogus religion, it still might be a good movie. I think Jesus Christ Superstar was a wonderful flick, but, like BE, it is a work of fiction.
name: Lewis Camacho
email: PRicanAshe@godisdead.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 16:33 PST

I don't see anything wrong with seeing the movie. However,... I saw the movie and frankly,... it stunk! If the film is meant to be a recruiting tool... I doubt anyone will be attracted to that cult.
name: Kelly
email: Lilac434@aol.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 16:46 PST

First let me sat that I do believe that CoS is a religion - a fact that they themselves point out when it is convenient for their intersts.

That said I feel that EVERYONE should boycott this picture because it stinks. The review in my morning paper said "The movie is mostly filmed to look dark and gray. However at the times the film is supposed to suggest a little sun coming through the clouds it looks mainly as if someone urinated on the master copy. Of course for this film that is not a bad idea." OUCH

Other than that CoS is so hypocritical. I mean they trot their celebrity members and assume that the whole of American society is shallow enough to think "Well if all these famous people belong how bad can it be?" PLEASE.
name: Michael Short
email: shortuba@aol.com
Friday, 12-May-2000 21:55 PST

I read this book when it was first published in 1982, not because of Scientology, but simply because of its value as a work of Science Fiction. It was a pretty tenditious book, and I would re-read it now, but the mere thought makes me break out in a cold sweat. It was a hard book to plow through. I think the entire outcry is simply because of Travolta's connection to Hubbard's Scientology sect. Of course, Christians, and particularly Catholics, do not want to be seen as aiding a group like that. I notice, however, that this does not affect Tom Cruise's movies. Will we see a similar outcry on Mission Impossible 2? Of course not. Hubbard didn't write it.
name: Temy R. Beal
email: temybeal@earthlink.net
Friday, 12-May-2000 22:10 PST

I read and thoroughly enjoyed "Battlefield Earth" many years ago, long before I knew that such a thing as "Scientology" existed.

I think that generally, boycotting movies is just silly and for atheists to do it would place us in the same league with the Christian fundies who call for boycotts of movies they don't like.

I love Travolta as an actor, I very much enjoy science fiction movies, and I will see this one, and can only hope that it lives up to the hype as a terrific movie.

I couldn't care less who profits from it financially.
name: Richard Joseph Baay
email: rbaay@mmcable.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 02:14 PST

We atheists have nothing to fear from profits from "Battlefield Earth" possibly going into the coffers of the "church" of Scientology. The cult's biggest adversaries are other religionists. We should just sit back, watch, and laugh at religionist's shenanigans.
name: Scott Motyka
email: tyka26@home.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 09:36 PST

As passionate as I am regarding the topic of religion in all its facets, it seems to me not to benefit the cause of Atheists to boycott this film. I am an Atheist, and also a fervent believer in freedom...this is a piece of work, specifically a film, its merits have yet to be judged by its viewers, but the process must be allowed and available to all. If there is some legal issue found which is being violated, Scientology being a "religous organization" and responsible to those inherent laws, then those issues should be brought to light and addressed more clearly. Boycotting this film for being a film with content or actor's beliefs contrary to one's own is ironically the behaviour and mentality,I being an Atheist, am attempting to clarify as wrong to those of a theistic disposition. In addition, practically speaking, it will only draw unwanted attention to the actual significance of this film. The critics say it is horrible, let us find more a beneficial battle to fight.
name: Essay
email: sseifert@pol.net
Saturday, 13-May-2000 09:49 PST

I don't know about 1000 year-old Harrier jets, but I was fully prepared to believe that a 200 year-old Volkswagon Beetle would start up on the first turn in "Sleeper." I agree with those who suggest the somewhat subversive idea of buying a ticket to the Gargantanplex for some other movie in order not to have any of the profits go to the CoS.
name: April Williams
email: alcomene@HOTMAIL.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 11:06 PST

I don't care if Travolta is a studier of scientology, he's a good actor and I don't see why everyone cares! It's none of our business to boycot a person's career if the person in question has different beliefs than us. I don't condone the use of the viewers' funds for a church of any kind.
name: Tommy L. Brown
email: lgfr@teamgixer.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 12:43 PST

Boycott it? Nah, it's sh*te anyway, don't see it! By the way, does everyone here have a middle initial "L" ;-)
name: Lee Markland
email: markland@rockisland.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 16:51 PST

I'm personally fed up with the invocation of religious themes, not only by "hollywood" but on TV As well, from Oprah, to JAG, to PBS and History channel. And I'm disgusted with Eisner (Disney) for continuously pumping out the fiction of the OT as though they were fact (e.g. Prince of Egypt and Technicolor Dreamcoat)
name: Linda Shumate
email: det.bilsgal@excite.com
Saturday, 13-May-2000 21:09 PST

We don't need to make an issue of boycotting this turkey. Ignore it and it will sink under the weight of the bad reviews!!
name: Carl Condit
email: mordley@uswest.net
Saturday, 13-May-2000 21:11 PST

Is the real, or possible, involvement of the "Church" of Scientology reason enough to stay away from this film? YES!! They have gotten away with brainwashing people for far too long. It should be understood that L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology and author of Battlefield Earth (and Dianetics) was a student of Aleister Crowley's black magic. His writings are Crowley's ideas filtered through Hubbard's twisted, meagre mind. There is no question of Scientology's involvement in this film, nor should there be. Educate yourself about it - read Bare-Faced Messiah, by Russell Miller, or A Piece of Blue Sky, by Jon Atack, or the various websites devoted to exposing Scientology. Don't get fanatical, get informed!!
name: Bruce Jacobson
email: brucejacobson@uswest.net
Saturday, 13-May-2000 21:12 PST

I think people should have better things to do with their time rather than worrying about a stupid movie. It's simple: If you don't like what it might stand for or support-THEN DON'T SEE IT! But, also-don't complain to the rest of the world about it. Why should atheists even care when every other movie out there mentions GOD in it. How about boycotting those movies, too? What's so special about Battlefield Earth? The movie interests me because it's a science fiction movie. I could care less about any religion. Anyway, thanks for listening :-)
name: Matthew Read
email: Nightfuzz@usa.net
Saturday, 13-May-2000 22:32 PST

I have read the book. I thought it was very good. I've seen the movie. I thought it was almost as good as the book.

You can choose to find some deeper meaning in it if you want. But it's still a good movie and it's your loss and not mine.

But really folks. Whats the point of us boycotting the movie? Hubbard said that the best way to make money would be to start a religion.

If somebody wants to fall for it then it's their life. Can't we be a little open-minded and see the movie and book for what it truly is(a good story for you slow ones)?
name: John Aalborg
email: jbaalborg@aic.fl.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 04:37 PST

If proceeds from a movie I want to see go to a religious organization, and there is no god to stop this from happening, then the benefited believers have more money to spend on bullshit. Not exactly empowering. Whether legal or not, there is always going to be a percentage of the population addicted to drugs and/or belief in comfortable but dumb stuff. Fuck'em.
name: George Ricker
email: gricker@iu.net
Sunday, 14-May-2000 06:53 PST

Although I enjoy good science fiction, I doubt I'll see this film. L. Ron Hubbard never impressed me much as a writer. Beyond that, I won't knowingly support any film that directly benefits any religious organization. That doesn't mean I'll participate in a boycott - though I see nothing wrong with such activity - just that I don't intend to see the film myself.
name: Frank P. Araujo
email: artzau@pacbell.net
Sunday, 14-May-2000 07:26 PST

Probably. The thing about the Scientology movement that I personally find so distressing is their blatant dishonesty. Selling a box of wires and lights that can supposedly let you see through walls for $1,800 and that can be bought at Radio Shack for a few dollars, is in my view a scam. I would never contribute to any institution that out and out scams the gullible. As for the film, I think Ebert's review speaks for itself. Tripe is tripe, great for menudo but lousy for movies.
name: Frederich Bach
email: fbach@netscape.net
Sunday, 14-May-2000 10:00 PST

Boycotting "Battlefield Earth" simply isn't worth the trouble. Like most things, an awkward religious agenda enhances nothing. The movie is almost amazingly bad and will fail on its own. Any added publicity will only generate curious ticket sales. If this movie represents Scientology, then critics have remarkably little to worry about.
name: Natalie Jaran
email: jesty.me@mindspring.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 10:19 PST

My main reason for boycotting this film is that I am certain that Scientology is benfitting financially from the film. The fewer people who see it the less money they make. And if they were involved in financing the film, they may even lose some money.
name: dogon
email: dogon@iserv.net
Sunday, 14-May-2000 10:36 PST

There is so much useless junk cluttering our society as it is, I must be more selective for what I use my time. If the movie becomes a basis for some other event in the realm of real life instead of just another source of entertainment, it may be worth my playing it on my VCR at home, but from the reviews of it I won't shell out $7 at a theater. I rarely find movies based on religion worth my time, and a possibility that I would be funding a religion is appalling to me.
name: Robin Cassidy
email: sciencebkfan@aol.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 10:59 PST

I don't think atheists should boycott Battlefield Earth. Any boycott would just draw attention to a bad movie made from an unreadable book. The movie will fail on its own.
name: Antonines
email: Robin_98@hotmail.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 11:46 PST

Why bother. The film's a dog. Let it sink by itself and prove that Scientology doesn't work.

OT powers indeed!

Antonines
name: John Mason
email: JMason@aol.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 12:22 PST

The decision to see or not see a movie should be made on rational grounds, usually whether one thinks it will be entertaining or informative.

"Battlefield Earth" (the book) was a terrible potboiler by a mediocre author (yes, I did try to read it years ago and was unable to finish it). I doubt the film will be an improvement.
name: Greg
email: tetrault@home.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 15:59 PST

L. Ron Hubbard, a writer of science fiction and other novels, founded Scientology (probably as an evil joke). He also wrote the novel Battlefield Earth which now is made into a movie. Why should anyone, atheist or not, care about the remote link between a novel and a cult that lives on after the novelist's death? Especially when the novel has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. Atheists have better things to do than organizing a boycott against the Battlefield Earth movie (which reviewers have slammed so hard that a boycott hardly seems necessary).
name: Samantha Atkins
email: samantha@objectent.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 16:32 PST

This is a very worthless brou-haha. The film hasn't anything in particular to do with scientology. That funds from the film may go to this or that orgnization is well within the rights of the producers aof any film. Scientology is simply not worth fighting so hard that we waste energy agonizing over whether a mediocre sci-fi film's proceeds go to support it or not.

Surely there are far more important things to put this kind of energy into.
name: Samantha Atkins
email: samantha@objectent.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 16:35 PST

This is a very worthless brou-haha. The film hasn't anything in particular to do with scientology. That funds from the film may go to this or that orgnization is well within the rights of the producers aof any film. Scientology is simply not worth fighting so hard that we waste energy agonizing over whether a mediocre sci-fi film's proceeds go to support it or not.

Surely there are far more important things to put this kind of energy into.
name: Ian Altenbaugh
email: rmic@home.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 17:09 PST

I feel that people should not boycott a film because of a cast members religious beliefs but instead not see it for it's value. I saw battlefield earth, it was an awful film, full of plot holes and what have you, up there with waterworld as an overpriced and overhyped piece of media swill. The only way i look at it is this, people should see art for it's artistic value,not for anything more. If in fact it does benefit an organization, i'd be undecided if i should see it or not, but people should not see this movie for it being a piece of crap and nothing else. An analagy for it would be this, would you not go into an art gallery to see the paintings if it had paintings depicting something of a religious faith? I don't think that should be a factor, You should not see it if you dislike the art value of it. If it lacks artistic value, which this film surely did, then no it's not worth seeing. Another example would be this, would you not read Dante's Divine Comedy for it's religious beliefs? It surely is a beautifal work of art, one of the greatest epics ever, but it is religious. Again though, If this film does in fact contribute profits to scientology, there should be no question in wether you see it or not.
name: R. Chinn
email: qrgezus@aol.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 17:43 PST

When you phrase the questions about an actor's religion, etc and state would this affect you in going to attend "the" film, then I have to say yes; because presumably you are speaking of the film BAttlefield. If you pose the question about "a" film then I would have to answer "no" not knowing the specific film. Bad phrased question for me.

I don't indulge in mental masturbation of the SciFi variety, so I would not be interested in doing anything with SciFi films. The masturbation involved in this film may, might produce money, give credence to (gawd knows why) or new initiates to this hocus-pocus in the religious garden.
name: Neil
email: neilinmich@home.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 19:19 PST

I've seen "Battlefield Earth". The movie is a typical science fiction story. The people who are advocating a boycott will appear to be radical and irrational on this one. If you dislike Scientology I recommend fighting on another front because you'll be way out in left field by attacking the movie.
name: WILLIAM MARQUEZ
email: wmarquez@cfl.rr.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 21:15 PST

Boycotting this movie is no different than "good old book burning". It is a waste of time and energy. I believe that John Travolta is a great actor and I will most likely pay to see the movie.

Yes, I will pay, because to do otherwise (slipping into to the movie next door) is robbing the actors, producers et al of their livelihood. Since when have Atheists become censors and "soul converters"? Let us spend our time petitioning the government to take away the tax free status of religious organizations. Lets us spend our time protecting our eroding rights. Freedom of speech and expression are not just our speeches and expressions. If you are an adult and moronic enough to genuinely believe (and not just pretending to believe in order to profit from it ....like Hubbard did) that 170 million years ago a demonic alien came to earth to spread some semen, or that Noah managed to build a V.V.V.L.A.C (very, very, very large animal carrier) in seven days, evolution will inevitably thin your herd. Further, if you are that gong-ho on seeing that the cult does not profit from this movie, boycotting is certainly not the way to go. Remember Tinky Winky, prior to Farwell "boycotting" the Drag Queen, I did not know who Tinky Winky was. Now I'm the proud owner of three (3) Tinky Winky dolls. Sales went through the roof the very next day. I would not be surprised, if the P.R. machine over at the Church of Scientology are not the ones planting the seeds of controversy in the media in order to boost sales.
name: Shirley Jackson
email: djackso@tampabay.rr.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 22:11 PST

I live in FL near the headquarters of the church of Scientology founded by L. Ron Hubbard. This group has made quite a few headlines in our area due to the ambiguity relating to circumstances surrounding the death of one of it's members who tried to leave the group. Besides the fact that the teaching of this group are just down right weird, their practices are manipulative and covert. I simply could not support them in any way and if there is even a chance of any profits from this film would go to the church of sientology, then I would indeed support a boycott. My family likes science fiction films, but not to the point of compromising our values.
name: Paul J. Ellison
email: paule1957@aol.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 22:57 PST

Certainly one of the concerns with a boycott is that we will draw attention to the subject of a boycott, which, in this case, according to numerous reviews, is emminently forgettable. Hold off on the boycott and let the piece of trash die an ignominious death, without infusing life into this DOA film.
name: Norma
email: SnkEys@aol.com
Sunday, 14-May-2000 23:40 PST

Boycotting a film JUST for it's content is not letting someone have free speech and I don't think Atheists would be against that.
name: Don Baiar
email: dbaiar@home.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 00:47 PST

How can one boycott a movie they have not seen and pretend to be rightous about it? Knowlege is power. We athiests are usually critical of thiests who subscribe to closed belief systems. It is best that we don't imitate them by boycotting thier message.
name: Dr. Michael W. Ecker
email: thisisnti@aol.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 00:59 PST

I am having difficulty understanding the call for a boycott. I saw the movie and found it mildly entertaining but clearly disappointing. Although I confess to knowing little about Scientology, having suffered through only 50-60 pages of L. Ron Hubbard's questionable seminal work, I see NO connection between the movie and any point whatsoever, never mind a religious one.

I'm a critical atheist, but I see little or no connection between this movie and my usual contempt for religion, cults, and the supernatural.

It could further be argued that a boycott assigns to the movie a credibility it does not deserve. It likely will fail at the box office anyway, but on principle, why boycott?

Michael W. Ecker, Ph.D.
Critical but Conciliatory Atheist

name: Rod Batschelet
email: airbrush@sovernet.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 04:51 PST

The question as I see it is not so much should Athiests boycott Battlefield Earth as it is should anyone boycott Battlefield Earth. If you mean, should a person relinquish their option to judge a piece of work with an open mind and based soley upon its merits. Well,...no. I do not. As an artist, I prefer to let a work stand or fall in spite of the personality/beliefs of the artist, choice of subject matter or percieved "message" the subject matter seems to send. I find it strange that such a question should even be asked. Why is it that I did not see a similar question about boycotting a painting with elephant dung? I feel that no matter what particular belief system one holds, it becomes most dangerous when it seeks to try and see to it that the whole of it's populace is "protected" from dangerous ideas. The true solution is not for Athiests, or anyone else for that matter, to boycott this movie or that movie, book, painting, etc... but to encourage all members of the group to "see for themselves". This is not to say that people should try to see everything, a patently absurdist concept, but within one's own particular interests one should feel absolutely no compunction to summarily avoid any work of art based upon the ideals of the belief system that one proposes to subscribe to.

Again, as an artist, I would feel outrage were someone to not even view my work simply based upon what were percieved to be my beliefs and or motivations for having created the piece. It amounts to a self imposed form of censorship, a concept that most of us would find odius were it forced upon us.

Battlefield Earth may indeed be the biggest piece of shit since Last Temptation of Christ (the book was fantastic, the movie...eh) but until I see it for myself, I will not really know how it will appeal to me. I think we all can name at least one really crappy movie that we treasure as a guilty treat.

Athiesm is not exempt from the failings of other belief systems, one of which is the dogged adherance to the "party line". If one tries to seek out and dismiss every offering by every artist that does not particularly agree with our own points of view, besides the impossible logistics of such a task, one is no better than those who seek to censor those very artists that we do support. I really cannot stress enough...no organized suppression of any artistic expression can ever consider itself justified. The work, in the end, must be allowed to stand for itself.
name: Barb Reiland
email: theblab@yucca.net
Monday, 15-May-2000 04:54 PST

Although Sci-Fi is the genre I choose to read, I have never read Hubbard's works. The fact that his 'fiction' exemplifies his cultic insanity dissuades me completely. I will NOT see the movie, but will publicize the fact that "Battlefield Earth", the movie, is an effort to funnel funds into the cult and impress minds with Hubbard's nonsense.
name: Stan Strain
email: xix@thevision.net
Monday, 15-May-2000 08:32 PST

As a former movie theater owner, I have experienced this "boycott" attitude of prejudice without justification. When the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released, christians exhibited this attitude merely on the advice of their religious leaders who more than likely had never viewed the film! If the film is bad, tell other people. A bad product will be much more harmful to the producers and distributors than giving them added publicity by calling for a boycott.
name: Madelaine Sauk
email: msauk@hotmail.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 08:33 PST

I went to see the movie last week, and I have taken a class at the University of Pennsylvania on the subject of religious cults, which included a brief section on Scientology. The movie itself is based only about 1/3 of the book, and is more about high tech special efects than plot, storyline, dialogue, or religious propaganda. If a person knows nothing about Scientology, they will have no idea that this movie is even related to such, and those that do know a little something about Scientology will simply say, "Ugh, what a terrible movie." L. Ron was a sci-fi writer long, long before he was a Scientologist. This movie has little, if anything, to do with promoting Scientology. Atheists should avoid this movie because it is poorly written and acted, not because it has ties with Scientology.
name: Robert Evans
email: roevans@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us
Monday, 15-May-2000 15:59 PST

I saw the movie, before I took the poll. Almost anything you buy is going to benefit someone or something, even if only indirectly (donations, tithes, etc...). In many cases it'll be something you disagree with. That, in itself, is not my *primary* determination to boycott (otherwise I'd be boycotting all MPAA affiliated movies).

One reason to boycott this movie would be the idealization of the plot. Come on now, reality is rarely that nice (Nukes operating after 100 years? Contemporary H-bombs have a functional half-life of far less than that.) If you don't mind the heavy-handed idealizations of Star Wars, you probably won't mind Battlefield Earth.
name: joey baker
email: joey-is_god@yahoo.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 18:30 PST

IS it just me but im tired of being oppressed because i belive there is no god, so why try to oppress another relign, and it shouldnt matter what the actor thinks.if the movie suports a giffernt belief you dont like dont watch it. the great thing about are government is we get to belive freely. dont boycott, it is oppressive to other people no matter how stupid it may seem.
name: Adam Felson
email: a.f.2@pobox.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 19:21 PST

I'm not going to see the movie --

not because of CoS but simply because the movie is an extreme stinker!

I won't even rent it; the last scifi stinker I rented, "lost in space" was bad enough!
name: Lisa Kiefer
email: lisakkkkkk@aol.com
Monday, 15-May-2000 21:42 PST

Yep, I remember reading "Battlefield Earth" when it first came out. This was before I'd ever heard of CO$. If you haven't read the book, let me explain the plot. You see, there's thisk,ijuh7ykixzdcf4.....sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard.

Should Atheists boycott this movie? I've got a better idea. Everyone, regardless of religon, (or lack thereof) boycott terrible movies adapted from terrible books.

On the other hand, if you're having trouble sleeping, "Battlefield Earth" is a wonderful sleep aid. And trust me on this, it is not addictive.
name: David Collier
email: odin371@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 16-May-2000 05:27 PST

Having read the book and seen the movie, I can honestly say there is NO danger of falling under the spell of the Church of Scientology because of the film. The book was a passable work of fiction but the 1000 pages didn't fit into the 90 minutes very well. In fact, it was probably the worst big budget film I have seen. Ever. Most of the character developement and subtility were lost. I don't think boycotting is necesary, it will flop all on its own. Even so I don't think there is a need to boycott different or opposing views. I believe we should examine everything and decide for ourselves. The concept of a boycott due to views or ideas strikes me as similar to the tactic used out of fear to prevent a better belief or idea from showing its merit when the one you are protecting cannot stand up to closer scrutiny. In this case that clearly doesn't happen. It was a horrible work of film. Horrible.
name: mayoshe
email: mayoshe@pacbell.net
Tuesday, 16-May-2000 08:55 PST

a dumb movie without direct preaching poses no threat to anything. there is no such thing as subliminal suggestion.
name: Kevin Nieman
email: wez2001@excite.com
Tuesday, 16-May-2000 10:18 PST

I saw Battlefield: Earth on 5/14/00, and it never left my consciousness that this was a book by the founder of Scientology, and that it starred a well-known actor who is a member of the cult. First of all, the movie is horrible whether you are a Scientologist or not. But that being said, no movie, no matter who it benefits, or whatever its content might be, deserves to be boycotted by the public. I am an advocate of free speech and freedom of expression. Scientology has the right to make a movie and put it out if they want, and we have the right to avoid that movie at all costs. Boycotts are selfish attempts at publicity for the group or groups organizing it. Remember "Dogma?" Catholics were at my local theater with signs declaring a boycott. They had the right to peaceably protest, but what did it accomplish? The movie was a modest success for a lower budget film, and everyone forgot about it after a week. I do not recommend "Battlefield: Earth" NOT because it is an L. Ron Hubbard story. I do not recommend it because it is a lousy movie. A boycott would not accomplish anything but giving the film more publicity. Wait until there is a film that portrays an atheist as evil, and then boycott it all you want. This movie isn't worth the effort.
name: Paul Woozle
email: p_woozle@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 16-May-2000 11:34 PST

Should an Atheist boycott Battlefield Earth? Probably, but not just because it was written by a second rate author who created an insidious and potentially damaging 'religion' on a bet.

As a minority of people in our culture it is the gift of Atheists to be able to judge what we see and experience based on what WE think, not on what others want us to think. In this context it is up to us to take the first step in letting movie makers know that just because they say that a film is worth seeing does not necessarily mean that our time and money is well spent on it.

I can think of many movies which, at first glance seemed watchable, but in hind sight were a waste of time and money that I can not get back. Battlefield Earth is yet another movie which is based on a 'popular' book, which in my opinion should remain firmly on the shelf, to be read only as an example of how not to write a good book. The series of books is overlong, predictable and carries a very trite message at best. Hardly worthy of spending the amount of time that it would take to read it. Then again, I would say the same thing of the bible.

The recent trend to make so called 'blockbuster' movies, based on religious precepts continues to disturb me. It has always been my hope that the general public would, sooner or later, drive the point home to Hollywood that, if a movie is yet another dreary schlockfest then no-one will pay money to see it. Unfortunately such recent releases as Stigmata and End of Days have proven once again that a film maker can sell any piece of garbage if it has a christian god theme.

This latest offering is just another attempt to make a quick buck, using the controversy that surrounds Scientology to sell more tickets. From all accounts the film lacks any positive attributes, being yet another quickly made attempt to rake in yet more cash from gullible people.

The sad thing is that a great number of those people who hear the debate over the movie, will still fork over the cash to go and see it for themselves. Whilst I am always in favor of people making up their own minds on a subject, it should by now be fairly obvious that when it comes to movies such as this, the level of hype is often inversely proportionate to the quality of the film.

If anyone wishes to stand outside of a movie theater and protest this movie, then my best wishes go with them. I, on the other hand will do my best to ignore the film as much as possible and boycott it in the best way I know how. By not spending any money on the movie or on any of the merchandise that will inevitably appear at fast food outlets.

Go to Poll/Results.

Back to Top of Forum.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.