So did I.
The Day the Earth Stood Still
- Thread starter splodenode
- Start date
So did I.
The "brat" was a key part of the story. If you believed that Klaatu would in fact save him from falling in one scene, and that Klaatu regretted not being able to revive the kid's father, then Reeves' acting did what it had to. If the reconciliation scene between Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smth didn't move you, then no acting by Reeves would have turned that into the dramatic turning point of the plot.
The remake is more in your face than the original, but like the original, it rapidly pulls back to avoid dramatizing consequences. I think a lot of people accept the original from nostalgia, but one aspect, the way superior aliens threaten to annihilate humanity, is much more offensive to modern US sensibilities. It's the US which threatens to annihilate peoples today as it polices the world, and topsy turvy is dizzying, not entertaining.
On a technical note, the scenes with James Hong and John Cleese pretty much telegraph the plot of the movie, which does tend to diminish the impact.
The remake is more in your face than the original, but like the original, it rapidly pulls back to avoid dramatizing consequences. I think a lot of people accept the original from nostalgia, but one aspect, the way superior aliens threaten to annihilate humanity, is much more offensive to modern US sensibilities. It's the US which threatens to annihilate peoples today as it polices the world, and topsy turvy is dizzying, not entertaining.
On a technical note, the scenes with James Hong and John Cleese pretty much telegraph the plot of the movie, which does tend to diminish the impact.
I did not enjoy the remake, but there was one plot point I liked.
Despite the fact that Keanu Reeves arrives on Earth not with a warning, but plans already set in motion to annihilate humanity, he still follows in the footsteps of the original Klaatu in requesting a meeting with the UN. But considering the original Klaatu wanted merely to warn humanity of a threat that could potentially annihilate their way of life, whereas the remake has him fully intending to do that no matter what humanity says or does, I have to wonder just what Keanu-Klaatu wanted to tell every country in the world. Something along the lines of "Ha ha, I'm going to kill you all"?
Despite the fact that Keanu Reeves arrives on Earth not with a warning, but plans already set in motion to annihilate humanity, he still follows in the footsteps of the original Klaatu in requesting a meeting with the UN. But considering the original Klaatu wanted merely to warn humanity of a threat that could potentially annihilate their way of life, whereas the remake has him fully intending to do that no matter what humanity says or does, I have to wonder just what Keanu-Klaatu wanted to tell every country in the world. Something along the lines of "Ha ha, I'm going to kill you all"?
I saw it on HBO a while back. Compared to the original it stinks. But on its own, it isn't that bad and has some decent ideas. I liked the concept of the aliens being more concerned with Earth than humans and their nanobot-based technology.
The major problem with it is humanity's interaction with Klaatu. The original meets humans who convince him that mankind deserves a second chance. The remake version is more or less constantly confronted with the worst pieces of trash our species can spit out. Even the kid keeps going on about how they should just kill him. Then John Cleese shows up out of the blue, tells him that mankind only gets its act together at the last possible minute, and then walks off to collect his check. This somehow convinces Klaatu to wipe out our technology and allow the species to continue. Although without our technology, there will be a massive die off due to lack of food, medical technology, and water purification. Extinction may have been a better fate.
Still a few decent ideas in there.
The major problem with it is humanity's interaction with Klaatu. The original meets humans who convince him that mankind deserves a second chance. The remake version is more or less constantly confronted with the worst pieces of trash our species can spit out. Even the kid keeps going on about how they should just kill him. Then John Cleese shows up out of the blue, tells him that mankind only gets its act together at the last possible minute, and then walks off to collect his check. This somehow convinces Klaatu to wipe out our technology and allow the species to continue. Although without our technology, there will be a massive die off due to lack of food, medical technology, and water purification. Extinction may have been a better fate.
Still a few decent ideas in there.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I found the remake dry and boring.
Also too preachy, especially when Kathy Bates' character asks why Klaatu came to our planet and he says with a surprising look "Your planet?"
C'mon, don't be a dick...we all now what she meant, using the character to show that using the possesive pronoun for Earth shows some sort of attitude toward it is silly. I let my friends call me their friend.
Just a little thing, but y'know.
Also too preachy, especially when Kathy Bates' character asks why Klaatu came to our planet and he says with a surprising look "Your planet?"
C'mon, don't be a dick...we all now what she meant, using the character to show that using the possesive pronoun for Earth shows some sort of attitude toward it is silly. I let my friends call me their friend.
Just a little thing, but y'know.
The original Klaatu didn't change anything. Coming back to life just meant humanity wasn't exterminated for killing him. An entire planet of people for one life is a serious case of master race syndrome! He still threatened humanity with robotic extinction if they brought nukes into space, or didn't give up war, or whatever exactly he ordered. His approval of humanity's nobility was just feel goodism. Which is one way the remake is both better and more offensive than the original. It wasn't just the worst that the new Klaatu saw, of course.
The point about the lives lost is exaggerated, but that is a problem in both the original and the remake: The consequences of the alien dictate are not dramatized. I mean, in the Fifties, didn't lots of people think that giving up nukes would mean the triumph of the USSR?
After the US authorities refuse Klaatu permission to address the UN, Klaatu receives the report of the resident alien observer, played by James Hong. It is Hong's negative report that prompts Klaatu to begin the cleansing process. It appears that Gort must return to the ship (for energy, extra materials?) to complete the process.
The Russians had nukes by this point, and it's pretty obvious from the perspective of the film that everyone needs to disarm if they want to bring their squabbles to space, not just the Russians.
Klaatu's actions make ethical sense if we buy into his logic, and I'll concede that's a big if. If Earth can't be made to see reason, he and other aliens consider it inevitable that it will expand into outer space and continue its military conflicts there, which may result in significant collateral damage to those alien races (and maybe a war waged upon them). While it does seem to be a zero-sum game - if Gort can destroy the world, surely eventually the robo-policemen would do the job - the mess of Earth's certain destruction is basically inevitable if it can't be made to see reason.
So, oddly enough, it is a bit of Them or Us Cold War brinkmanship, even if it is one done by a supposedly more advanced people and allegedly with an anti-Cold War message.
Extinction to prevent significant collateral damage seems like a pretty extreme remedy. Again, the original Klaatu seems to regard it as natural to destroy humanity for its sins. This fits with the Christ motif (dropped in the remake, another reason the remake is better in my opinion,) but I just wanted to emphasize both movies didn't look too closely at the consequences. And it is a weakness in both.
Me too, bu angsty parent/child relationships seem to be the "In thing" nowdays.
Idiotic, but there it is.
I can understand why people want to remake bad movies that have potential. Why do people try to remake classics? They're doomed to fail.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Star Trek is technachly not a remake.
It's an update of a 1960s TV show with different actors playing the characters. How is it any less of a remake than the movie versions of Lost in Space or Wild Wild West?
Similar threads
