The Day the Earth Stood Still - Grading & Discussion

[archeryguy1701]

Overall, I enjoyed it. There were a few things that took me out of it (why are they assembling crack teams of scientists to witness the end of the world via death by "asteroid"?), but I thought it was well paced and it kept my interest. What's sad is that is probably how we would handle first contact as well... we would shoot it and then classify everything about it. The worst part of the movie for me was the ending. It wasn't a bad ending, but it was very abrupt. It seemed like the ending just came on too suddenly and just happened. The ending needed to be worked up to a little bit more, IMHO.

 

[3D Master]

Also, I really miss the line klaatu barada nikto It needed to be in the movie

It was, it was just so drowned out by other sounds that it's almost impossible to hear. It's right after Kleanu gets shot and Gort starts repelling all the soldiers with his mega-dog whistle.

I was pleasantly surprised by the movie after the awful reviews. It didn't blow me away by any means, but it was a decent scifi flick. I'd give it a "B."

I didn't really find the environmental message to be copped-out on. It was pretty clear what Klaatu was referring to and what the aliens were trying to prevent, so I don't get all the critical reviews that say they don't know what it is humans are supposedly doing wrong to draw the aliens ire. It's made perfectly obvious on several occasions either directly by Klaatu or by the actions of the spheres. Do people have to hear "global warming" or some other environmental phrase mentioned explicitly in order to read between the not vague at all lines?

The big problem with this message, is that we're not destroying the planet. Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't) wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying our planet. If we drop and detonate all our nukes to boot, we STILL wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying the planet, or for that matter life on it. Oh, it would be bad for US, and there's a chance - although a small one - we wouldn't survive, and the place would be a nice hell hole for a few decades, but the planet itself, and the life on it, would just consider it just another day of it's long life of destruction and rebuilding - nothing special about it. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, all the nukes and all the pollution that would cause this apocalypse and rebirth of the Earth, measures as only a tiny tiny insignificant event in comparison to previous all natural destructions that happened.

And when Klaatu went about how there's only so much planets that support complex-life, I was wondering why nobody put an arm around his shoulders, and said, "Say friend, ever heard of terraforming. Let me explain to you this concept we came up with. We don't have the technology to go do it effectively yet, but you, have a good chance. And if you can't do that; there's this lovely concept of a dome, and filling it with air."

It is quite frankly, right up there with the ridiculous message of the original, "You evil barbarians! You better stay put on your planet, bow to our wishes and our ideas about how you should behave, or we blow up your planet!" Eh... who's the barbarians here again?

The new one: "You evil destructive barbarians! We don't like to build a dome and fill it with air! So because we think you're not acting the way we think you should be acting, we're going to commit an act of genocide, commit a few more acts of genocide with the species we couldn't save, slaughter countless animals and what not, and then put the saved animals back. That way, we have a nice planet to live on, and don't have to put in the effort of terraforming or building habitable domes!" Eh... who's the destructive barbarians here again?

In that, it was rather faithful to the original actually.

Seriously, I found this a rather poor movie, but at least remotely entertaining enough if you ignore the ridiculous science, unlike the original which was just plain boring - nothing happens!

 

[stj]

In the original the aliens flatly declared that war was illegal or we would be punished for breaking the law. In the new one, the aliens flatly declared we were not the top of the food chain and couldn't destroy species or we would be removed from the food chain instead. In both cases, the aliens had alien values. Neither movie was about justifying the alien values, even if such a thing were possible. Both posited extreme alien viewpoints to metaphorically pose questions about our values. The original made Michael Rennie a supernice version of us as a way of "justifying" its viewpoint while flattering us simultaneously. The aliens even approve US democracy! The original doesn't do this. The original tells us that mankind might perish. The new version shows some of it. It is genuinely darker and grittier look at its subject matter. As such, it is not popular. As ever, "dark and gritty" as used in practice are code words with little relationship to their supposed meanings.

The resistance to the harsh tone leads to an nearly unconscious refusal to engage the movie in its own terms. Not even the most obvious issues can be addressed. For example, does the way the US government in the film preempt the world community (explicitly mentioned) constitute a direct political statement on the contemporary US regime. (I think it does, and is yet another reason for the mindless critical attacks.) For another instance---is the casting of the famously charming Kyle Chandler as the official who orders the sacrifice of a young man, only to turn coward himself really neither noticeable nor noteworthy?

By the way, although extinctions of species are in fact quite common, recovery from mass extinctions---and yes, the advent of humanity threatens to constitute a mass extinction parallel to the Permian and K-T extinctions---is by no means assured. A brief comparison of Mesozoic and Cenozoic megafauna suggests that the biosphere has not yet truly recovered!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What gave us the right to impose our will on Earth in the first place?

We live here. The Earth is *ours*. That's what gives us the right.

I don't tell my next door neighbor how to decorate his house, because his property is none of my concern. This is just more of that, writ large.

What makes us the dominant species?

We have the power to decide the fate of all other species. We should use that power wisely, of course. But we do have it.

Is the Earth ours to do with as we please, or on loan from our grandchildren?

A little bit of both.

 

[Siwilliams]

Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't)

wrong. humans are a huge factor in global warming, except it

 

[Admiral2]

Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't)

wrong. humans are a huge factor in global warming, except it

The word is "accept".

And though I don't mind watching movies that preach it, I don't accept it. The only planet in the system destroyed by global warming - Venus - never had humans on it.

 

[RAMA]

Overall, I enjoyed it. There were a few things that took me out of it (why are they assembling crack teams of scientists to witness the end of the world via death by "asteroid"?), but I thought it was well paced and it kept my interest. What's sad is that is probably how we would handle first contact as well... we would shoot it and then classify everything about it. The worst part of the movie for me was the ending. It wasn't a bad ending, but it was very abrupt. It seemed like the ending just came on too suddenly and just happened. The ending needed to be worked up to a little bit more, IMHO.

I don't agree with this at all. The ending was the end result of the last 1/3rd of the movie. Klatu was convinced to give the human race a chance by exposure to different people. His sacrifice and the resulting (apparently) permanent stoppage of power on the Earth was a major event!

RAMA

 

[3D Master]

In the original the aliens flatly declared that war was illegal or we would be punished for breaking the law. In the new one, the aliens flatly declared we were not the top of the food chain and couldn't destroy species or we would be removed from the food chain instead. In both cases, the aliens had alien values. Neither movie was about justifying the alien values, even if such a thing were possible. Both posited extreme alien viewpoints to metaphorically pose questions about our values.

This has nothing to do with alien values, their alien values are pretty much our values. "We shouldn't murder and fight wars", "we shouldn't destroy". The problem is that the aliens violate those values, THEIR OWN values, FAR WORSE than we do.

"Don't fight wars! Don't kill!" --> "Let's blow up a planet!"

"Don't destroy life." --> "Let's destroy countless species, including a sentient one."

They're hypocrites, more destructive and barbaric than we are. None of us, with the exception of a minority evil few, would even think of such actions.

By the way, although extinctions of species are in fact quite common, recovery from mass extinctions---and yes, the advent of humanity threatens to constitute a mass extinction parallel to the Permian and K-T extinctions---

No, it doesn't. Even if we went to deliberately attempt to destroy our world with everything we've got, at best we'd manage a scratch.

is by no means assured. A brief comparison of Mesozoic and Cenozoic megafauna suggests that the biosphere has not yet truly recovered!

Of course it is fully recovered. There's life and trees everywhere. Just because trees no longer grow that tall, doesn't not mean the biosphere has not fully recovered. It simply means that the atmosphere has changed, the biology has adapted to that change and is happily continuing on.

Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't)

wrong. humans are a huge factor in global warming, except it

No, we're not, accept it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

What gave us the right to impose our will on Earth in the first place?

We live here. The Earth is *ours*. That's what gives us the right.

I don't tell my next door neighbor how to decorate his house, because his property is none of my concern. This is just more of that, writ large.

What makes us the dominant species?

We have the power to decide the fate of all other species. We should use that power wisely, of course. But we do have it.

So in your opinion might makes right. It doesn't matter if we use that might "wisely" or not (even in that case, it's just illuminated despotism). Besides, the Earth is not *ours* in any reasonable way: humans are part of the Earth's biosphere, not above it.

And why are you so pissed at the aliens? They are just exporting democracy!

 

[stj]

This has nothing to do with alien values, their alien values are pretty much our values. "We shouldn't murder and fight wars", "we shouldn't destroy". The problem is that the aliens violate those values, THEIR OWN values, FAR WORSE than we do.

"Don't fight wars! Don't kill!" --> "Let's blow up a planet!"

"Don't destroy life." --> "Let's destroy countless species, including a sentient one."

They're hypocrites, more destructive and barbaric than we are. None of us, with the exception of a minority evil few, would even think of such actions.

Official US policy decisively refutes the claim that rejection of war is one of "our" values. It is obvious that the original's aliens believe in capital punishment, but that's not actually the same thing.

The aliens in the update value all forms of life equally, putting no weight on sapience. That is very alien. Neither movie is genuinely arguing for either viewpoint. They are arguing for something much less extreme by a fiction that uses an extreme contrast.

The comparison of Mesozoic and Cenozoic megafauna (and megaflora, as kindly pointed out,) provides evidence that today's biosphere can capture less energy. That surely must mark an impaired ecology.

 

[TGTheodore]

we're not destroying the planet. Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't) wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying our planet. If we drop and detonate all our nukes to boot, we STILL wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying the planet, or for that matter life on it.

And we've never been to the moon ...

And the Earth is flat ...

Must be nice being an ostrich.

--Ted

 

[3D Master]

This has nothing to do with alien values, their alien values are pretty much our values. "We shouldn't murder and fight wars", "we shouldn't destroy". The problem is that the aliens violate those values, THEIR OWN values, FAR WORSE than we do.

"Don't fight wars! Don't kill!" --> "Let's blow up a planet!"

"Don't destroy life." --> "Let's destroy countless species, including a sentient one."

They're hypocrites, more destructive and barbaric than we are. None of us, with the exception of a minority evil few, would even think of such actions.

Official US policy decisively refutes the claim that rejection of war is one of "our" values. It is obvious that the original's aliens believe in capital punishment, but that's not actually the same thing.

The ones who make US policy would be one of the minor evil few; even then, they're not simply nuking Iraq off of the face of the map, now are they?

The aliens in the update value all forms of life equally, putting no weight on sapience. That is very alien. Neither movie is genuinely arguing for either viewpoint. They are arguing for something much less extreme by a fiction that uses an extreme contrast.

I don't give a fuck what they're arguing for. What I care about is the aliens being hypocrites who can't keep to their own rules and values. Whatever value they're supposed to represent or arguing for, however extreme or not, is rather defiled by them happily breaking their own rules and values.

"Thou shalt not kill!" ulls gun, kills a hundred people:

Oh, yeah, that's such a magnificent teacher and example!

The comparison of Mesozoic and Cenozoic megafauna (and megaflora, as kindly pointed out,) provides evidence that today's biosphere can capture less energy. That surely must mark an impaired ecology.

No, it doesn't, it just makes it a DIFFERENT ecology. Even if you would qualify it as "impaired" please show that this impaired ecology came about through a catastrophic mega-extinction event; and not simply evolutionary changes through the years.

we're not destroying the planet. Global warming, even if we were doing it (which we aren't) wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying our planet. If we drop and detonate all our nukes to boot, we STILL wouldn't come anywhere close to destroying the planet, or for that matter life on it.

And we've never been to the moon ...

We have been.

And the Earth is flat ...

No, it's a sphere, with many height differences on its surface.

Must be nice being an ostrich.

Not an ostrich, just someone who understands science, keeps up with it, and understands how to read a graphic.

 

[Ethros]

Isn't Earth technically a prolate ellipsoid (3D oval) and not a sphere. As its actually taller than it is wide, or vice versa I can't remember what my Geography teacher once said exactly

 

[Ptrope]

In the original the aliens flatly declared that war was illegal or we would be punished for breaking the law. <snip>

You've never actually seen the original, have you? Of if you have, you weren't paying attention - Klaatu "flatly declared" nothing of the sort.

It is quite frankly, right up there with the ridiculous message of the original, "You evil barbarians! You better stay put on your planet, bow to our wishes and our ideas about how you should behave, or we blow up your planet!" Eh... who's the barbarians here again?

Apparently, neither have you ...

Klaatu explicitly says, 'We don't care how you conduct your wars - blow yourselves up, for all we care. Only if you attempt to spread your destructive tendencies outside your own world will we intervene, and our intervention will be final and fatal.'

Klaatu's community didn't care about humanity or Earth - they just said, "Crap on our lawn and you die." Their police force were defensive, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Siwilliams]

it has made its budget back, worldwide, cool

 

[AJBryant]

The thing is, not everyone thinks global warning is man-made. Not every fears it killing us all. Back then, almost everyone was worried about nuclear strikes.

No one is glued to the TV watching the polar ice caps melt. They were however, fearful of a nuke strike during the Cuban missile crisis and watched THAT closely.

There are no "duck and cover" movies for global warming.

The two items simply don't match in scale.

There is a reason the original The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic and the Day after Tomorrow is mocked; the two items are not equal in American culture. That is why, ultimately, the REMAKE of TDTESS is a steaming pile of turdburger.

 

[Siwilliams]

nah..... The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) is a classic

 

[btflash]

I have to agree that the second half with the sfx laden section was the part that seemed off.

Also, I really miss the line klaatu barada nikto It needed to be in the movie

it was in the movie. when gort is reaching for klatu after he was shot he uttered it. it was metallic and muffled but he did indeed say it.

 

[Siwilliams]

seen the film four times, and he does say it, you have to listen carefully

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What gave us the right to impose our will on Earth in the first place?

We live here. The Earth is *ours*. That's what gives us the right.

I don't tell my next door neighbor how to decorate his house, because his property is none of my concern. This is just more of that, writ large.

What makes us the dominant species?

We have the power to decide the fate of all other species. We should use that power wisely, of course. But we do have it.

So in your opinion might makes right.

You will not, ever again, put words in my mouth.

Besides, the Earth is not *ours* in any reasonable way: humans are part of the Earth's biosphere, not above it.

I didn't say we were. But the fact remains: We live here, we always have, therefore the Earth belongs to us. It is ours to do with as we will. Of course we should do so wisely, but no alien race has the right to blunder in.

And why are you so pissed at the aliens? They are just exporting democracy!

No, they're not. They are, ironically, exporting barbarism and chaos and death (which would be the inevitable result of what they did at the end of this film. Chrissakes, has no one ever fucking READ the Emberverse novels?), even if they don't realize it.