I haven't seen this one. I recall there was a lot of hype for it a few years back.
How does it compare to the original? I'm surprised there isn't a topic on this, but maybe this board was cleared.
After re-watching the original the other day, the remake has piqued my interest. But go ahead, spoil if need be, what are some of the major differences between the two?
Thanks.
There have been numerous discussions on this - and this is why IMDB forums need a search engine!
Okay, spoiler alert. Fair warning...
Briefly:
1) The original had the aliens coming to earth to warn us not to bring our warlike nature armed with nuclear weapons into space. The remake had the aliens showing up to kill us all off because we polluted our planet.
2) The remake replaced Billy Gray as the boy with Jaden Smith. Since the mother was Jennifer Connelly, to make the obvious discrepancy work he was sort of adopted.
3) Gort became a CGI monstrosity which didn't really figure that much in the movie until the very end.
4) There was a subplot about how angry Jaden was that his father died, and he "got over his anger" because of the interaction with Klaatu, who learned to be human because of his interaction with Jaden.
5) Gort went from being a CGI monstrosity to being a CGI cloud of "nanobots" which began to scour the earth, ridding it of people and their works.
6) Jennifer Connelly, while always fun to look at, was useless in this movie, as opposed to Patricia Neal who actually had an important role to play by having Gort rescue Klaatu.
7) In the remake Klaatu didn't need rescuing by Gort. Klaatu and Gort never really interacted but the one time when Klaatu originally left the spaceship.
8) You can't really hear the words "Klaatu barada nikto" spoken, and they are only spoken once, by Klaatu when Gort first emerges from the ship.
9) As stated Gort begins to destroy everything, but Klaatu, because of his interactions with the boy and woman, somehow intercedes and makes it stop.
10) In the original, Klaatu turned off the power for an hour to make a point. At the end of the remake, Klaatu turned off the power worldwide, period.
You didn't ask for it, but I will give you my opinion anyway. Don't compare this to the original - it can't hold up. In my opinion, it's a CGI crapfest with horrible acting from Jaden Smith, a pointless reason for the aliens to show up in the first place, and, as opposed to the original, the Gort in the remake has no presence or air of menace about him.
Having said that, other people have liked it and maybe you will also. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't.
But I suspect if you are a real fan of the original you are not going to be blown away with this dreck.
Summed up very nicely Starwolf.
This is a miserable time compared to the original. In a similar vein as Andromeda Strain orig vs the waste of time remake.
TDTESS has stood for 60+ yrs. This version will not.
Best
Paladin
"Nothing but a silent mass of impenetrable vapour hiding its dead"
Thank you for the reply, starwolf. This is exactly what I was looking for.
From what I gathered from the commercials, the remake seems like it's trying to be more theatrical than the original. But I didn't know the message in the new one was about environmentalism.
Also, why did Klaatu kill all power worldwide? He sounds more sadistic than the original Klaatu who was trying to send a message to get through to Earth's people to warn them.
In the remake, Klaatu wasn't sent to earth to give a warning, but with orders to execute a plan put together by other "civilizations" to wipe out humanity because humanity was killing the planet. He was to speak to a "spy", if you will, who had been sent here previously and receive a report as to whether there was any chance humanity would change their ways and not continue to decimate the planet. The report was "no", so Klaatu implemented the plan. He was convinced after "becoming" more "human" that humans could change their ways so he stopped the total destruction, but eliminated the "technology", apparently permanently, but who knows since that is when the film ends as I recall.
shareHmm.
Why would the other civilizations care what the earthlings did to their own planet?
In the original, Klaatu flat out said no one cared what humans did to each other, but didn't want them to export their nuclear devices to space.
I guess I'll have to watch the 2008 version.
You missed it where Klaatu tells the Connelly "Helen" character that "they" need to remove the humans from earth as earth is only one of a handful of planets in the cosmos that is capable of sustaining intelligent beings and as humans is destroying the rare planet, thus human existence must be ended.
_________________________________________
"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Homer Simpson
That's still a stupid reason. It would be like Europeans showing up and telling Native Americans, "You don't know how to properly use your land so we're taking it."
Wait...
I believe play began around Massachusetts, 1st down and mid-west to go.
Best
Paladin
"Nothing but a silent mass of impenetrable vapour hiding its dead"
"You don't know how to properly use your land so we're taking it"
Actually that's exactly what the Europeans told the Native Americans.
I never saw the 2008 movie in the first place, so I missed the whole thing.
It's a major difference from 1951 then, as in the '51 version Klaatu flat out says the other planets don't care what earthlings do to each other, so long as they don't export their nuclear devices to space.
Why would the other civilizations care what the earthlings did to their own planet?(My emphasis.)
I don't think you are using the word "biosphere" properly. It's not a word applied to the universe as a whole, but to the environment inhabited by living things, which with our current understanding does not include intersellar (or even interplanetary) space. Certainly Earth organisms can't exist there without taking a part of their biosphere with them.
That aside, and even assuming your definition, it is still the same justification the Europeans and others used to conquer and wipe out New World natives - "we can make better use of this than you can." Put in those terms, not so attractive. It just doesn't wash.
Unless the aliens were planning on coming and taking over or using the Earth anyway, it is no loss to them if we burned the place to a cinder.
It's just a poor excuse to try to "update" the motives of the aliens to something more "relevant" to our time, but I think the original motivation would work even better now.
It's fine if you think that is a good justification on the aliens' part, but I don't. Perhaps if the movie itself had been any good this part could be glossed over, but the movie isn't, IMHO.
At least in the original the aliens were reacting to a real threat to their civilization instead of acting like New World conquistadors.
In the end, if the movie worked for you, I am happy for you. People ought to enjoy movies. I wish it had worked for me. I was looking forward to a good remake and I don't feel I got it.
I don't think you are using the word "biosphere" properly. It's not a word applied to the universe as a whole, but to the environment inhabited by living things, which with our current understanding does not include intersellar (or even interplanetary) space. Certainly Earth organisms can't exist there without taking a part of their biosphere with them.Uh, where in my post did I say anything about the "biosphere" extending beyond the earth?
That aside, and even assuming your definition, it is still the same justification the Europeans and others used to conquer and wipe out New World natives - "we can make better use of this than you can." Put in those terms, not so attractive. It just doesn't wash.That, unfortunately, is the history of migration throughout human history isn't it? Why limit it to Europeans and the New World?
It's fine if you think that is a good justification on the aliens' part, but I don't.Where did I state or imply anything about "that" being a "good justification" in any of my posts?
At least in the original the aliens were reacting to a real threat to their civilization instead of acting like New World conquistadors.Again? Are you native American? or just another person who thinks they can judge the ethics of people living 500 years ago from the comfort of their heated, insulated, electrified home with a supermarket down the street filled with more food than those people could ever imagine? I didn't live 500 years ago in a hovel that leaked cold air constantly, that was heated by a fireplace, if at all, that had no running water, when sanitation was non-existent, when food came to people a day at a time and often skipped days. Applying modern-day sensibilities and ethics to a group of people out trying to survive and make sure they could try give their own children a better life and a full belly every day doesn't seem quite right to me. I really don't feel competent to judge them and their behavior because I've never had to live their life. I guess you do.
In the end, if the movie worked for you ....Care to quote me?
Uh, where in my post did I say anything about the "biosphere" extending beyond the earth?
That, unfortunately, is the history of migration throughout human history isn't it? Why limit it to Europeans and the New World?
Where did I state or imply anything about "that" being a "good justification" in any of my posts?
Again? Are you native American? or just another person who thinks they can judge the ethics of people living 500 years ago from the comfort of their heated, insulated, electrified home with a supermarket down the street filled with more food than those people could ever imagine? I didn't live 500 years ago in a hovel that leaked cold air constantly, that was heated by a fireplace, if at all, that had no running water, when sanitation was non-existent, when food came to people a day at a time and often skipped days. Applying modern-day sensibilities and ethics to a group of people out trying to survive and make sure they could try give their own children a better life and a full belly every day doesn't seem quite right to me. I really don't feel competent to judge them and their behavior because I've never had to live their life. I guess you do.
Care to quote me?
Here's what I thought about this movie. I'd rate it a 5, maybe a 6. The military characters were laughable cliches - buffoons. The politicians were no better. The science absolutely sucked, so did the story plotting (according to imdb, the screenwriter had one previous credit before and has had one since), including having the military try to blow up a space craft with enough power for interstellar travel (personally, I'd be afraid I'd take the eastern seaboard out when it blew, if not the planet); scientists apparently not knowing that things flying through space not following gravitational trajectories are being powered; sending your scientists to the expected crash site to do clean-up BEFORE you know how big a crash there will be; etc., etc., etc.
That said, I think most viewers also missed some of the more subtle points of the film
You know, there's reading between the lines and then there's making things up out of thin air, which you did.
You should write fiction.
Thanks. Most posters won't ever admit anything.
As far as "subtlety" goes, most posters here, at least, seem to miss out completely on the evolution of Klaatu's character, for example.
The film wasn't well done from a story standpoint. Too many people, for example, don't like being told that humans are trashing the planet. So, automatically the environmental aspect gets criticized. They don't like the "Big Brother Alien" aspect, yet that seems to be the nature of present-day state (as in nations) action - always telling other nations how to do things, whether it is the form of government, the economic system, or whatever. They don't like the idea of being wiped out on "our" planet, forgetting that the whole history of human civilization has in fact been about manipulating the environment at a cost to every other species other than domesticated mammals and a few domesticated birds, driving more than a few into extinction and creating a cesspool out of huge chunks of the planet. If we're so superior, what's there to stop another "more superior" species from another planet as viewing us the the same way? We might be viewed like dolphins or chimpanzees are by many humans, species that have been hunted and killed, sometimes simply for sport, or captured indiscriminately and removed from their natural surroundings, or experimented upon.
It has been said that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members - the poor, the imprisoned, the powerless. Perhaps it should be said that a species is judged by how it treats the rest of the biosphere.
Most people just get pissed off without thinking any deeper about whatever questions the film might have been trying to ask. The problem is/was trying to put those questions and issues in front of people without coming off preachy about it - which the film ended up doing.
All that said, the movie still wasn't good for any number of reasons.
Most people just get pissed off without thinking any deeper about whatever questions the film might have been trying to ask.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
I wouldn't say most people, just conswervatives. Less thinking, more reacting.
[deleted]