John Scalzi - A Case Study in Vanity, Courtesy of Battlefield Earth
"Hey," a friend said to me last week, "you know something about science fiction movies."
"Why, yes," I said. "Yes, I do."
"Then tell me," he said. "Is Battlefield Earth really as bad as everyone says it is?"
Oh my, YES, Battlefield Earth is bad, and not just the standard issue sort of bad, like, say, a Matthew Perry comedy; this one is the Grade A, genuinely epic sort of bad that fills movie critics' hearts with glee, because now they can be especially creative in their condemnation. For example, this, from Rita Kemply at the Washington Post: "A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth." It's so bad that if you haven't seen it, you literally can't imagine it's as bad as everyone says, because how on Earth could a movie that bad get made? And then you watch it and you realize it's actually worse. And then you start laughing, because the alternative is to implode into madness.
Yeah, it's bad. As to why it's bad, one could point to a bad story, lousy script, clunky direction, hammy and/or affectless acting and cheesy production value -- and indeed most critics do. But that's missing the point. There is a more primal reason for the movie being bad, which is simply that this is a movie one person really really really wanted to make. It was, in other words, a vanity project.
And you say, well, aren't all movies vanity projects? In a sense, yes; Hollywood being as it is, someone often has to desperately want to make a project to see it through to the end. But there's a difference between that and the vanity project, in which a director or producer or star, having reached a point in their career where few would gainsay them, pushes all his chips onto a particular work no one else wants to make, and says, "this is what I want to do."
Thus was the case with Battlefield Earth and its star, John Travolta. His attraction to the project is clear: The novel it's based on was written by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, of which Travolta is a member. When the novel was first released, Hubbard sent Travolta a signed copy and had reportedly hoped the star would one day adapt it.
Travolta had a hard time convincing anyone to make Battlefield. Most studio folks were spooked by the potential cost of an effects-laden scifi extravaganza, unimpressed with the novel and concerned by the public perception of Scientology, which given the source material and the star would be an unavoidable topic. But then came Franchise Pictures, an independent company that funded the flick by "bundling" it with other movie properties that investors were more interested in. Travolta himself cut his then-standard $20 million salary in half and invested his own money in the project, on the optimistic assumption that he would make it on the back end.
Which never happened: The movie was a critical and commercial bomb (it went on to sweep the "Razzies," the tongue-in-cheek awards for Hollywood's worst movies), Travolta's career momentum was squashed and Franchise Pictures was sued by its investors for fraud relating specifically to Battlefield Earth. (They eventually went bankrupt.) Travolta defends the movie, but then, he would. It's his baby. Which is the point -- and why this is a vanity project.
Not every vanity project goes the way of failure: Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, funded wholly out of his own pocket, grossed over $600 million worldwide. But for every Passion, there's a Battlefield Earth, and a Hudson Hawk, and a Heaven's Gate and a Razor's Edge (and heck, to some extent, a Star Trek V) -- a movie where one person who can't or won't be denied says, "Come on, this will be great," and everyone else realizes there's nothing else to be done but get through it.
So when your favorite actor or director starts saying their next project is "the film I've been trying to make for years," be prepared. But I will say this: When you watch Battlefield Earth, Travolta, at least, looks like he's having fun. Good for him. If only the rest of us could have shared in it.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.
Just to avoid the topic derailing the comment thread:
I understand many people have strong opinions about Scientology as a belief and as an organization, but I don't suspect this is the right place to go into great detail about all of that. The topic here is cinematic vanity projects, so let's please stay focused. Thanks.
Still, BE... not the worst vanity project I've ever seen.
I give you... Thomas and the Magic Railroad.
Britt Allcroft, who had made a HUGE amount of money adapting the Thomas the Tank Engine stories for TV, decided that it was time to step it up, and produce a film that would bring Thomas and her hideous US packaging of the Thomas stories for US consumption, Shining Time, to an international audience...
Ms Allcroft wrote it, produced it, and... well, we now take a turn into the realm of Mary Sue.
Vital to the storyline is a brand new engine. A magical engine. An engine that everyone says is so very very pretty, called Lady, that in the end doesn't do much apart from being pretty and magic and everyone loves her....
Voiced by Britt Allcroft.
If there was anyone capable of stopping her, they would have. But her company had funded the film, she wrote it, she featured as the magical engine that saves the day....
Surely the film can't get any worse?
Now, for the perfect train wreck (sorry), take that movie, which would be enough to gain a "you defiled my childhood" rating, and add in very, very late studio involvement. During production, Ms Allcroft's position at the company becomes shaky. Other people come in. The dreaded phrase "test audience" is mentioned, an all American one.
The authentic voices for the trains are dubbed "too old" for US kids. The villain is too scary. Furthermore, the damn thing runs for nearly three hours.
I daresay you can make a film that would keep kids in there seats for three hours. This wasn't it.
Editors come in with fire and sword. Voice talent is hired at the last minute. Characters are dropped (though not from all shots, nor merchandising). More scenes are shot with Peter Fonda (you can tell which ones they are: Fonda alternates between so very, very tired, and burning with barely concealed rage. Probably directed at his agent).
The patchwork of a movie comes out. UK audiences stay away. US audiences don't hear about it.
There are two morals to the story:
One: friends don't let friends make vanity movies.
Two: despite all this, my kids have made me watch this film a gajillion times. Because it's THOMAS.
What, no Waterworld mention? And I know everyone else on the planet hates Hudson Hawk, but I thought it was a hoot.
Waterworld wasn't a vanity project, it was just really big and expensive and somewhat ill advised. That said, what people forget is that it made a respectable amount of money domestically ($88 million in 1995), made twice as much internationally, and ultimately made a profit. It's not a great film by any stretch (or, really, even a good one), but it doesn't deserve its reputation for failure.
I also really liked The Hudson Hawk.
But, I also understand that I'm in the rare position of looking at Bruce Willis's inane side and saying, "Yeah, I'm right there with him." His "Breakfast of Champions" too... Though, not all of the crazy there was his fault.
The ultimate in vanity projects would have to be the Star Wars prequels, funded entirely by George Lucas.
If only George could write . . .
I've never understood the hate for Hudson Hawk, it's a fun movie. I'd really like to see a sequel someday.
It's time I came out with it. It's been a dark secret for far too long. Yes – I actually enjoyed Battlefield Earth. Sure, it was silly, but I thought John Travolta gave a bravura performance as the venal, scheming alien getting his comeuppance. But I know I am alone in a hostile universe because of this...
Here's another vote for the Star Wars prequels. In retrospect, Jedi is probably something of a vanity project too, but at least it's still watchable. (I have to admit though, Williams really outdid himself on the music for Phantom Menace. Best thing about that movie, along with Darth Maul's fight scene.)
I actually sat through the first 15 minutes of Battlefield Earth, and then my friends and I left and got our tickets refunded. Seriously, it was worse than a SciFi Channel (er, I mean SyFy) original movie, and those make me want to go all Oedipus on my eyes.
I once watched a few minutes of Battlefield Earth.
It does not come close to rivaling Jon Voight's debut in Fearless Frank as worst movie ever made.
But it wouldn't break my heart to agree to disagree with anyone on that. I will say BE was more painful to watch.
I once watched a few minutes of Battlefield Earth.
It does not come close to rivaling Jon Voight's debut in Fearless Frank as worst movie ever made.
But it wouldn't break my heart to agree to disagree with anyone on that. I will say BE was more painful to watch.
I could say Zoolander, but I don't know if that was truly a "vanity" project or not.
On the other hand, I hear that The Underground Comedy Movie, written, directed, produced, marketed and starred-in by the ShamWOW guy, is decidedly heinous...
man, why the hate for Hudson Hawk? I enjoyed that movie :(
my heart is now broken to discover that someone somewhere thinks that movie wasn't an absolute success.
This does beg the question, which is worse, BE the movie, or BE the book. Hmm. Life's imponderables.
BE the movie was decidedly worse than the book. Even though the book leaves you rolling your eyes at Jonnie "Mary Sue" Tyler, reading it was at least better than picking lint from your navel. With the movie your eyes want to jump out of your head to avoid having to see any more of it.
I'd argue that Hudson Hawk, although a commercial flop, is well on its way to becoming a cult classic (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course, but I don't see that happening with Battlefield, which is just an unwatchable mess).
Count me among the pro Hudson Hawk people. I love that movie but then I love Tank Girl too.
Damn it. I loved RAZOR'S EDGE. Curse you!
My immature idiot alcoholic ex-boyfriend made me watch Battlefield Earth, telling me how wonderful it was. I'd rather have that couple of hours back than all the money of mine he used to drink himself more stupid.
You know, I don't know if Battlefield Earth really is one of the most ridiculous movies to ever hit the big screen. But it's just so...ostentatiously ridiculous. I mean, it revels in its own silliness (but not in the ha ha ironic way.)
Anyway if you think the movie is bad, try reading the books. Bleh.
I never saw BE and have deliberately avoided Uwe Boll's output, no thats too favourable a word, excrement maybe?
You could say all his work seems to be vanity projects though.
I've also sat through the Thomas film, in a theatre! with my misty eyed five year old sitting next to me while I tried to remember if I'd heard some where that Peter Fonda had had a stroke.
Some directors do well with vanity projects though. Robert Rodriguez on Sin City and Zac Snyder has made a career out of vanity projects.
If the Star Wars prequels count, then I vote for them for worst vanity projects!
For good vanity projects (although the guys who made them are NOT vain at all), I submit A Dog's Breakfast and Dr. Horrible, both of which are available free on Hulu [to Americans], incidentally! Both are products of the WGA strike, both "pet" projects funded out of the writer/director's pockets (I think!), both TOTALLY AWESOME!!!
Who is criticising Zoolander? That's a brilliant movie! (I think it was profitable too)
I think you should listen to your friend, Billy Zane.
First, Hudson Hawk is awesome. And there is a near-100% correlation between it and Fifth Element - like one, like the other. They're both great genre-benders, and both stare Bruce Willis.
I just thought of another vanity project we're probably all rooting for - Dollhouse (and for what it's worth, people, it's finally gotten good - it certainly took long enough). Tell me Dollhouse is not the ultimate in vanity projects... "this week I'll play a tough, next week I'll play a hottie, and the week after I'll go all Meryl Streep".
I loved "Battlefield" when I went to see it in the movie theater...mostly because the theater was completely empty so my friends and I MST-ed it for all it was worth and basically it turned into one fun hang-out. I can't even remember much of the movie, except that it was very bad and very fun. :P
I, too, love Hudson Hawk. But I've read Richard Grant's book about filming it, and will freely accept that it was a vanity project far out of control. My favorite part: long after the producers had stopped trying to control the actor's demands for changes to the script, they simply listed every outrageous script change the actors demanded in a single exchange of dialog, and ended it all with "Yeah! That's probably what happened!" so that they wouldn't have to shoot any more changes.
raycun,
"You is talking loco and I like it!" Remember: "words can only hurt you if you try to read them. Don't play their game."
Actually, Tropic Thunder was the film Ben Stiller had "always wanted to do". Zoolander was made in response to people liking the Derek Zoolander shorts at the MTV fashion awards.
And the major difference between TT and BE is that TT is frelling brilliant.