Great for its time, but the 2008 version is superior - The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Is this a sick joke? I think it is. Keanu Reeves has as much personality as a plank of wood. The original is better.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

The "You can't handle the truth" part was meant to be amusing, but the rest is serious. The role of Klaatu called for a wooden Spock-like approach and Reeves fulfilled it, although Michael Rennie in the original is arguably better. Patricia Laffan played a similar wooden role as the titular character in "Devil Girl from Mars" (1954).

I saw both back-to-back and honestly feel the remake is all-around superior for the reasons cited. But the old version is a worthwhile historical piece and great for its time.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I haven't seen the remake in years, in fact, since it came out in cinemas, but I thought that the Gort robot somehow indefinitely suspending power on the whole planet Earth and making humanity suffer for no good reason was rather defeating the point of the original.

In the original movie, Klaatu's spaceship suspending power for one hour or whatever across the planet was meant to be a warning of what humanity was up against, and allowing them a chance to change their path, as Klaatu suggested in his speech before he left. I think that was rather more rational and even inspirational and eye-opening, especially considering that he had actually been shot and killed before being resurrected by Gort BEFORE that speech.

I thought the remake was much more downbeat, and had far too much spectacle with Gort when it didn't really need it. If I'm wrong about anything I've said about the remake, tell me, as I haven't seen it for years, as I said. My memory of the remake may be hazy.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

Yeah, in the remake judgment was already set to save the earth by destroying the human race, which the alien coalition determined was inherently destructive in their decades of study. Thus GORT looses the death swarm. Meanwhile Klaatu gains important insights on humanity via Mr. Wu, the professor and Helen & Jacob, which compels him to sacrifice himself to save humanity and stop the death swarm. While there was a great price, the human race is saved and has another chance.

The 2008 version is downbeat, but also reverent, insightful and inspiring. What really wowed me were the deep spiritual themes: Klaatu=Christ, GORT=YaHWeH, as well as biblical references like Noah's Ark, the death plague/swarm, human beings trying to put God in a box literally, desperately trying to kill the Creator (symbolized by GORT), the sacrificial nature of agape love, etc. These heavy subtexts separates the film from the usual idiotic blockbuster fare.

This is one of the reasons I found the story more compelling than the 1951 film, amongst others.

Yet, as pointed out in my opening post, I want to stress that the original is great early 50's sci-fi. I just favor the remake for the reasons cited.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

In that case, I don't agree. I hated the remake from the start, and don't want anything more to do with it.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

That's your prerogative. But you haven't seen it for 11 years; I encourage you to give it an openminded second chance sometime without insisting that it stick to the exact themes of the 1951 flick. It might surprise you. (Just a friendly suggestion).

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Lol. This is the sort of comment by young people that makes me despair for young people.

The 1951 version is "too dated".... (70 year-old movies are "dated" by definition.)

Some parts are just "lame and boring"... (The idea of extraterrestrials is anything but "lame and boring".)

This is a better film because "it's in color and it's got f/x and a spectacular climax"... (words fail me.)

It has a nice eerie 50s sci-fi score, (I'm surprised you didn't say, "by some dude named Bernard Herrman, whoever he is.")

I'm not bagging you. I'm just shaking my head in mild disbelief. (Actually, I think maybe Foebane was right the first time.)

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Agreed with what you said, Popcorny. And thank you for your acknowledgment of me ;)

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

:)

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

Lol. This is the sort of comment by young people that makes me despair for young people.

Useless presumption; 'nuff said.

70 year-old movies are "dated" by definition.

...which agrees with my point, obvious though it might be.

Speaking of which, the "obvious" isn't always obvious to some, which is why it's relevant to point out.

Also, while all films from a certain era reflect the filmmaking of that time period, not to mention the culture (that is, if the stories take place in the current day), they're not all "dated" in the negative sense. "Shane" and "Forbidden Planet" are good examples.

The idea of extraterrestrials is anything but "lame and boring".

I wasn't talking about that element; I said "some parts" are lame and boring. View the movie without nostalgia worship sometime and you'll see what I mean.

words fail me.

Your quote of me is inaccurate. What I actually said was: "Basically, the 2008 version took everything about this version and made it better: color, drama, f/x, Gort, the Christian typology and the spectacular apocalyptic climax."

Is the 2008 version superior to the 1951 film in all these areas? Yes, clearly. That was my point. It also has a more compelling story minus the aforementioned "lame and boring parts." What is it about this that causes you to lose your ability to express yourself?

I'm surprised you didn't say, "by some dude named Bernard Herrman, whoever he is."

This is a covert ad hominem device, which is condescending and tries to denounce me as ignorant. Actually, I'm familiar with Herrman; his "Mysterious Island" is an all-time favorite. I posted a list of some favorite scores/soundtracks a few years back here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls073707674/

Conclusion: Your entire critique of my post is just hollow bluster.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Haha, I see you put on your Big-Boy hat to write that response. So, why couldn't you write an intelligent post in the first place?

Not that this one is all that intelligent. You repeated your opinion that all the technical decorations that were added to the original story made it a "better film". Obviously you still can't see the flaw in that thinking. An older, more mature person probably wouldn't think that way. A young, easily-wowed person would.

But I grant your point about the term, "dated". On reflection, the 1951 film does have some elements of style, characterisation etc, that clearly ID it as a 50s film. BUT, you cited its "datedness" as evidence, for you, that it's an inferior film! So, clearly my "presumption" that you are young and immature was a correct one...

It would be embarrassing to even try to reply to the "It has a more compelling story" remark...

My remark about Hermann wasn't "covert" at all! It was a plain, straight-out observation about you, based on your own posted comment. Anyone who's familiar with Bernard Hermann would know that the "nice eerie 50's sci-fi score" of TDTESS is by him, and they would always point out that fact in their review of the film.

That's if they were actually honestly reviewing the film. But let's be honest; you don't really know anything about the original film; you've only seen it once; you already had negative expectations about it before you watched it; and you already love modern glitzy, colorful, special-fx movies with spectacular climaxes. Truth be known, you're probably also a fan of Keanu Reeves.. (I mean, there must be one...)

Finally, my post is "Hollow bluster"... Really? You couldn't come up with something clever? The guy who quotes, "You can't handle the truth" as if it's a real good'n...?

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

My opening post didn’t lack intelligence. It was a serious commentary succinctly comparing the two films, yet with a wink of humor, which explains the (supposed-to-be) amusing “You can’t handle the truth” line. Practically everyone on this thread was able to grasp this while you evidently took the post so gravely it’s worthy of a duel to the death.

You repeated your opinion that all the technical decorations that were added to the original story made it a "better film"

No offense, but you must have issues with reading comprehension because what I actually said was "Basically, the 2008 version took everything about this version and made it better: color, drama, f/x, Gort, the Christian typology and the spectacular apocalyptic climax." This includes way more than just technical decorations.

A young, easily-wowed person would… you already love modern glitzy, colorful, special-fx movies with spectacular climaxes

Actually, I like all kinds of movies, old and new, from practically every genre, expensive and cheap.

You imply that I was wowed by the f/x, but that’s not what really wowed me since great f/x are expected in all modern blockbusters. What I said was that the f/x were superior to those in the original film.

What really wowed me were the deep spiritual themes: Klaatu=Christ, GORT=YaHWeH, as well as biblical references like Noah's Ark, the death plague/swarm, human beings trying to put God in a box literally, desperately trying to kill the Creator (symbolized by GORT), the sacrificial nature of agape love, etc. These heavy subtexts separate the film from the usual idiotic blockbuster fare.

This is one of the reasons I found the story more compelling than the 1951 film, amongst others.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Settle, petal. I'm not taking this "gravely", but you certainly seem to be getting your knickers in a knot. And upon repeated reading of your comments, I think I know why.

You're a god-botherer, aren't you? The movie you love so much was instantly appealing to you, because you noticed it had a "christian" theme.

The original film was unsatisfying to you because it didn't emphasise or develop that theme, and it didn't explore the "christ-like" attributes of the main character enough. That must have been frustrating for you, like a poor sermon on Sunday, where you grumble about the pastor after you leave the church.

(By the way, the color, special effects, robots and the CGI ending, are the technical decorations.)

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

My remark about Hermann wasn't "covert" at all!

I didn’t say your remark about Hermann was covert, I said that it was a covert ad hominem device obviously used to denounce me as ignorant. I then shared proof that I wasn’t ignorant of the composer.

This brings up something interesting: Even when I praise the 1951 version you curiously criticize me and mock, which isn’t a positive testimony to your character. Just sayin’.

Speaking of praising the original, I plainly said it was “great” for its era. So why are you so up in arms here? Lighten up.

they would always point out that fact in their review of the film

I’m not obligated to mention anyone by name in my review, whether it’s a long critique or brief. You’ll notice that I didn’t mention the director, writer, original author or most the cast members either.

you don't really know anything about the original film; you've only seen it once

Honestly, I’ve never encountered anyone so full of gross presumptions. I originally saw the film in the 80s, a couple of decades before the remake (and loved it).

my post is "Hollow bluster"... Really?

Very much so, my friend. I encourage you to improve your debating skills and purge empty bluster: Focus on data relevant to the topic while omitting presumption and anything ad hominem.

You’re welcome to the last word.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"I didn’t say your remark about Hermann was covert, I said that it was a covert ad hominem device..."

I said the same thing, only in a short form.

"Even when I praise the 1951 version you curiously criticize me and mock, which isn’t a positive testimony to your character."

Where did I criticise and mock you for praising the '51 version? Geez, you're sounding more and more like a preacher! Oh.........

"I encourage you to improve your debating skills and purge empty bluster.."

LOL. And while I'm at it, should I say three Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers??

Amen. (There's my last word).

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The 2008 remake bombed for a reason.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

Actually it didn't bomb, it cost $80 million, but made that back in the USA while taking $233,093,859 worldwide. It may have under-performed, but it obviously didn't bomb.

Besides, all kinds of great movies bombed at the box office when they debuted.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23360) 4 years ago

So it barely broke even worldwide. The aliens were fascists.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It's had 11 years to unbomb, and it hasn't yet.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

That's funny because it unbombed with me the first time I saw it and every time since.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Of course it did!

As I said, easily-wowed...

reply

[–] liscarkat (16543) 4 years ago

"Great for its time"

As though great movies were in short supply in the past.

reply

[–] strntz (10830) 4 years ago

Have to heartily disagree.

I mean, 2008's version must be summarily dismissed because of the totally ridiculous and asinine plot of aliens destroying humanity for "altruistic" reasons (altruistic to the planet I mean).

1951 was clearly more cerebral in message and 2008 action sequences were excellent (mostly the first 10 minutes). 2008 had that truly annoying child whereas 1951 had a nice respectful child who had electric trains.

About the only thing I say was better about 2008 was Jennifer Connolly. I mean, Patricia Neal was a handsome woman, but Jennifer Connolly? Take Connolly for the win.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

The kid is initially quite annoying but this is understandable as he's an archetype for what humankind is: an annoying, untrusting, and overly-simplistic child-race. His sudden change into "maturity" represents how abruptly humanity needs to "grow-up." This helps make sense of the kid's repeated statements about killing Klaatu, which were magnified by the media's slander of Klaatu as a very dangerous escaped convict. Klaatu's strange and powerful antics helped feed this negative mindset in the boy.

The kid was only 9 years-old and understood his dead father to be a soldier. This explains his mythical impression that he killed 'bad guys' for a living, likely with his bare hands.

reply

[–] MikeCable (1663) 4 years ago

I really wanted to like the remake but I couldn't get into it. I found it dark, lifeless and uninteresting. It is a great premise but I felt that it just wasn't very engaging. This is going back a decade, as I haven't seen it since. I just remember wishing it would end sooner.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

I found it dark, lifeless and uninteresting.

It is dark. And I can understand why you would describe it as lifeless, although I took it as reverent. I also didn't find it uninteresting: When I view it I'm engaged from beginning to end and even experience a "Wow" reaction to several aspects.

reply

[–] MikeCable (1663) 4 years ago

I just watched it for the first time in a decade, hoping to rediscover and appreciate it more. But I didn't, it seemed to all happen too fast with too little on screen this time. I'm not the kinda person who sits and uses their phone while watching a movie. I was engaged and watched it all, but felt like we saw very little when it was such a bigger concept. Maybe because a lot of it happens at night, so it felt like that crappy 1998 Godzilla movie.

With a budget of $80m back in 2008 I really expected a lot more. It felt more like it was made with much less of a budget. I'm not talking crazy action and special effects, just that it should have had more to it.

Was great to see Jennifer Connelly, as I grew up with Labyrinth. She looked quite different, except in the real close ups.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

it felt like that crappy 1998 Godzilla movie

...which is way more all-around entertaining than the 2014 one.

With a budget of $80m back in 2008 I really expected a lot more... I'm not talking crazy action and special effects, just that it should have had more to it.

I know what you mean, but that's probably why I like it -- it wasn't just another overdone relatively shallow sci-fi blockbuster with constant "exciting" things going on. It's heaviness was in its thematic depth. I'm talking about the reverent tone and the deep spiritual themes: Klaatu is symbolic of Christ while GORT is figurative of YaHWeH, the incarnation, the Noah's Ark angle, the death plague/swarm, human beings trying to put God in a box literally, the created desperately trying to kill the Creator, the horror of celestial judgment, the sacrificial nature of agape love (observed in Mr. Wu and Klaatu), the price of redemption, etc.

Then there's the annoying kid who's an archetype for what the human race is: an untrusting and overly-simplistic child-race. His sudden transformation into "maturity" in the last act once he accepts Klaatu -- who becomes his mentor (big brother) -- illustrates how humanity needs to be reborn and mature. This helps make sense of the kid's curious conviction to kill Klaatu in the second act, which was spurred by the doofus lamestream media's slander of him as a dangerous escaped convict augmented by Klaatu's otherworldly and dynamic doings.

These heavy elements separate the film from the typical blockbuster fare.

reply

[–] atomicx (234) 4 years ago

I have to disagree. What we didn't see in the 2008 film was the day after the day the earth stood still. The day that mankind was thrown into anarchy. I can only imagine the looting, pillaging and raping that would have ensued. Total chaos on a global scale. I don't think this would have taught mankind anything. I found it to be a rather cruel punishment that would have succeeded in doing nothing but producing a bunch of pissed off people.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8116) 4 years ago

Klaatu said he might be able to save humanity by stopping the swarm, but he emphasized that there would be a great price. After his sacrifice & success, there were still alien agents on earth, like Mr. Wu. Since the extraterrestrials were now known, these agents would openly help the human race recover. Bear in mind that the death swarm reduced the population before Klaatu stopped it; the lower population would help the recovery, e.g. food supplies and so forth. The human race would hopefully have learned a lesson it would never forget.

reply

[–] strntz (10830) 4 years ago

I can only imagine the looting, pillaging and raping that would have ensued. Total chaos on a global scale. I don't think this would have taught mankind anything.

Agree: it wouldn't have taught mankind anything, but that wasn't the message nor the purpose of this film.

Whereas the 1951 had a simple and brilliant story along with a message for humanity (including those in the theaters), the 2008's destruction of humanity along with the misery to humanity that would follow is a left-wing environmentalist's wet dream, and this film delivers it with boners to spare. Break out the KY and napkins.. I've spoken to several "environmentalists" who simply hate humanity and would very much love if humans disappeared from the earth.

Porno for the greenies..

reply

[–] huwdj (4562) 4 years ago

I was a surprised how much I like the 2008 version but I still think the original is the best. I think it's a stronger story without layering on all the features the OP lists as making it better.

reply