MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion > Great for its time, but the 2008 version...

Great for its time, but the 2008 version is superior

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8242)
79 replies | jump to latest

I watched this version and the 2008 remake back-to-back and was curious to determine which one was better. I'll have to go with the 2008 version because this 1951 version is too dated. Although Michael Rennie as Klaatu is arguably superior to Keanu Reeves, I like the fish-out-of-water approach Reeves took, sort of Spock-like. Basically, the 2008 version took everything about this version and made it better: color, drama, f/x, Gort, the biblical typology and the spectacular apocalyptic climax.

That said, this '51 version was great for its time and is definitely worth catching or owning. It has a nice eerie 50's sci-fi score.

Although some parts are just lame and boring, I found it interesting to see how the USA was back in 1950, the way people dressed and talked, etc. Other than that, though, the 2008 version is leagues superior in every conceivable way. Unless you're thoroughly tainted by nostalgia, it's the simple truth. Maybe YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The 2008 version is garbage.

[–] Wuchak (8242) 5 years ago

That's curious, I found it genuinely Intriguing, Spiritual, Insightful, Moving.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm glad you enjoy it.

[–] Wuchak (8242) 5 years ago

I usually think/say something similar when I come across people who like a flick I don't. Thanks and enjoy the holiday weekend!

[–] Lifesabeach (26) 4 years ago

1951 for sure!!! But I would also have really enjoyed the remake except for one huge block: that talentless little turd Jaden Smith. Just can’t deal. And it is hard to beat Michael Rennie for ‘cool’ 🥰

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

that talentless little turd Jaden Smith. Just can’t deal.

I know what you mean, but try separating the movie from the actor.

Yes, the kid is initially annoying but this is understandable as he's an archetype for what humankind is: an annoying, untrusting, simpleminded child-race. His sudden change into "maturity" in the last act represents how 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 dangerous escaped convict. Klaatu's strange actions helped feed this negative mindset.

[–] Lifesabeach (26) 4 years ago

Oh I get all the philosophical moral fantasy....plot points. I just don’t want to look at his face and hear his voice. It’s just me and a whole whole lot of other people. Other than him I was fine with both casts including both Gorts. And I am twisted in the nostalgia as a previous poster states but Billy Grey is a much better actor. Bud

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

He was definitely a bit of a turn-off but it was intentional and, later, I felt sorry for him when he was at his dad's grave. He finally accepted Klaatu as a spiritual father type.

[–] huwdj (4563) 4 years ago

I've just watched the two versions and still prefer the original. I do actually like the remake and think Keanu Reeves is well cast plus the tweaks to the story work - though the first five minutes are unnecessary.
But the original seems both a stronger and simpler telling and works better for me.

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

The 2008 remake was a piece of wimpy, watered down, commercialized junk.

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

No, it kicked axx on practically every front.

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

You probably think the Twilight series is auteur cinema.

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

Pointless, arrogant drivel

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

yes you are

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6058) 4 years ago

The IMDb ratings of the 1951 original are so much higher.

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

This is one of the greatest Sci-fi movies of all time and 2008 version is terrible

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

Like I said, the 2008 version took everything about the 1951 version and made it better: color, drama, f/x, Gort, the biblical typology and the spectacular apocalyptic climax.

No doubt the '51 version was great for its time and is definitely worth catching; I appreciate the eerie 50's sci-fi score.

But, let's face it, some parts are just lame and boring. While it's interesting to see how the USA was back in 1950 (when the film was shot), the way people dressed and talked, etc., the 2008 version is leagues superior in every conceivable way. Unless, of course, you're tainted by nostalgia.

[–] lankyrogerbert (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

I'm a "troll" because I honestly favor the 2008 version to the dated 1951 version? Seriously?

I'm sure the speech at the end of '51 version is great (I can't remember much of it off the top of my head since I haven't seen it for a year), but I found the '08 version's ending both spectacular and moving. To each his/her own, brah.

You’re off your fucking meds.

It's curious that you would say that 'cause I make it a point to not take "meds" of any kind. My body/mind does better without foreign substances.

Your arrogance in insisting that the '51 version is superior to the point of unnecessarily insulting people who simply disagree with your position is curious, to say the least. There are many variables in why a person appreciates a certain piece of art over another. I've explained my reasons for favoring the '08 version in fair detail on this thread whereas your reasoning comes down to liking a speech at the end of the older version.

In any case, the insane bashing of the '08 film is largely the result of a critical feeding frenzy. If people would disregard the monkey-see-monkey-do panning and view the flick with an open mind -- separate from what they liked about the first film -- they might actually enjoy it and discover something worthwhile, not to mention savor its uniqueness.

[–] greatrogerebert (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wuchak (8242) 4 years ago

Humble word of advice: Including a cuss word every sentence doesn't actually improve your position; it just makes you seem juvenile and inarticulate.

What the fuk is so “moving” about the dumb 2008 ending?

Klaatu gains important insights on humanity via Mr. Wu, the professor and Helen & Jacob, which compels him to sacrifice himself to save humanity by stopping the death swarm. While there was a great price, the human race is saved and has another chance.

You’re also a stupid hypocrite by accusing everyone who doesn’t like the 2008 version of being a lemming and being part of some grand conspiracy.

Yeah, like I think there's this "grand conspiracy" to hate it (rolling my eyes). Ever hear of hyperbole?

No doubt there are people who honestly don't like the '08 version and can back up their opinion with valid reasons. For instance, someone on this thread explained how he didn't like the cold, mechanical vibe, particularly in the first act, which I can understand. Yet I've also seen a lot of unreasonable bashing of the flick, like citing plot holes that don't exist (if you watch the film carefully), etc. It's like it's the 'hip' thing to do.

I say disregard the critical feeding frenzy and watch what is a powerful and moving movie.

PS: Roger Ebert would be offended by your using his name (for obvious reasons). I encourage you to read some of his reviews and learn a thing or two on how to effectively criticize/debate film.