MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Discussion > Lots of Death, Killing and Murder in The...

Lots of Death, Killing and Murder in The Remake - Unlike the Original

posted 10 years ago by victor-200
10 replies | jump to latest

Also the huge waves of nanites killed untold hordes of biological entities - including any humans. We saw when the trio of Klaatu, Dr. Benson, and little Jacob hid under the aqueduct that the nanites were about to kill the earthlings.

Very violent and bloody in comparison with the original.

I expect this has been discussed before, but this version seemed to have lots less respect for humanity and for life itself than the original.

Discuss. Serious answers only. Thanks in advance.

''I'm fortunate the pylons were not set to a lethal level.''

[–] MuMu2525 10 years ago

The point in this version was to get rid of humanity because it was destroying the Earth. So samples of all other life on Earth were preserved in "arks" so the planet could be wiped clean and Earth could have a chance to exist without humans on it. Try to think of it like Noah and the Ark, with God wiping the Earth clean with a flood.

In the original (which had a slightly different premise), the threat of destroying humanity was certainly made clear but never carried out.

[–] victor-200 10 years ago

by MuMu2525 - Sun Mar 8 2015 19:45 -
... to get rid of humanity ...

So why were the nanites programmed to destroy everything; plants, buildings, animals, and everything? If you're correct, the nanites should have only been programmed to destroy people?

''I'm fortunate the pylons were not set to a lethal level.''

[–] MuMu2525 10 years ago

It's one of the things that isn't made entirely clear in the film, but it didn't appear the nanites were destroying everything, they only seemed to target people and man-made objects (buildings, trucks, roadsigns, etc). That's all we saw them destroy anyway. The man-made objects were generally the product of man's abuse of the planet and I felt the intention was to erase not just humanity but all trace of humanity from the Earth so it could begin anew. I didn't notice that the nanites destroyed any plant life since there were still trees around the Central Park area where the finale took place, even though a massive swarm of nanites had just blown through there. When the nanites were all neutralised, they fell to the ground like ash. A process so destructive though is obviously going to endanger other life on the planet whether it is the intended target or not, which is assumingly why the spheres acted like arks.

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 10 years ago

Shutting off all the Earth's power would leave mankind doomed.

I can only see chaos resulting. A few good ones might band together.

With the nanites total destruction of the race would have occurred.

But, shutting off all power would only just delay the inevitable.

Was that really the only 'solution'?

[–] MuMu2525 10 years ago

Humanity has only been using electricity for the past century or so and survived quite well for thousands and thousands of years before then. It could again, despite the initial upheaval it would cause. The alternative was death, so the choice is would you prefer to be inconvenienced or prefer to die?

It wasn't so much having power that was the problem though (Klaatu's sphere was obviously powered somehow), but more the way the power was generated. We burn fossil fuels and employ nuclear technology that leads to hazardous waste which pollutes the planet. Not to mention using it for weapons of mass destruction that could ultimately kill everything on the planet because we're so adversarial with little respect for the planet, other lifeforms or each other. Humanity could quite easily use cleaner, renewable energy supplies such as solar, water and windpower on a much wider scale then it can power all of its technology again without polluting the planet. We use those power sources already to some degree, but not enough because we're all still content to burn fossil fuels despite the damage it causes. Klaatu's "solution" was about prompting humanity to change its nature and learn to be more responsible.

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 10 years ago

You raise a lot of good points.

In spite of chaos, there would still be many banding together. Probably an interesting "mixed bag" of people now brought together to pick up the pieces, having now put aside their old 'differences' for a greater goal; the survival and reconstruction of our world.

Hopefully, the aliens might end up being impressed, or at least open to the possibilities of positive change.

I kept wondering what the next steps would be.

If we were sent back to the Stone Age, how long before we would basically recover?

That alone could make a compelling follow-up feature.

[–] MuMu2525 10 years ago

Yes, I think the state of the "new world" that was left after Klaatu's visit is an intriguing idea and it would be interesting to see what the Earth was like a few years later. From the initial chaos, could humanity adapt to its new situation and therefore evolve (like Klaatu's people had to when their sun was dying). I don't think humanity would have been sent back to the stone age, it would just have to adapt to generate power in safer, cleaner ways. So I could imagine an Earth that is covered by windfarms and gigantic solar panels. Further down the line, technology could have advanced to the point where the windfarms and solar panels were made to be more efficient and no need for them to be so big. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever see a sequel to this version of TDTESS (though I'm sure many people once said that about Tron and now they're planning the third film).

[–] victor-200 10 years ago

by MuMu2525 - Tue Mar 10 2015 17:43 -
... using electricity for the past century or so and survived quite well for thousands and thousands of years before ...

Hope this makes sense. Yeah humans lived without electricity - when the average lifespan was 45 years.

We did live without any technology, for most of our species' existence. According to most anthropologists, humans in the present form (homo sapiens) have been around for 100-300k years and we only began using technology for AT BEST the last 10k years. Actually more like the last 3k years, if you count the ability to read and write as a beginning mark of civilization.

Also there have been humans around for several millions of years, proto humans who're most likely pretty much as intelligent and capable as we are. Going back to homo erectus, homo hablis, homo neanderthalis, and probably many others. You can probably go back as far as THREE MILLION years and find an ape intelligent enough for the ability to function in a modern society. I mean with education and given the proper environment. Just because we didn't develop any thing like civilization till relatively recently means nothing.

Actually it does mean something. It means that civilization probably doesn't make a lot of sense - to people. If you're living in a savannah or a forest or a jungle and all your ancestors have lived that way for thousands of generations, why would you ever want anything different? Think about it. Think about how long three million years is. That's alot. It's unimaginable. One million years is - one thousand times, one thousand years ... and civilization started in 1/2 of 1/1000th of that amount of time. We were totally satisfied to live without any but the most very basic technology for 1000 millenia or more. That was the Stone Age - a three million year Garden of Eden.

So if we went back to the Stone Age? How long would it take to go back to civilization? Maybe never.

''I'm fortunate the pylons were not set to a lethal level.''

[–] MuMu2525 10 years ago

If I'm following you correctly (forgive me if I'm not), I don't think the "Klaatu event" would have sent humanity back to the stone age. It wouldn't have erased the knowledge we already have as a species, or our desire to live in a modern world with technology. Rather than go and live back on a savannah or forest like our ancient ancestors did (though there are many people who would actually love to do that), humanity would just be prompted to adapt and come up with cleaner sources of energy and technology that didn't have negative repercussions for the planet. I don't think humanity would stagnate or regress, although it would be a huge cultural shift to adapt to a new way of life. I took the Klaatu event (what a great name for a rock group) as a means to change human nature, not halt human progress.

[–] nerevar59 10 years ago

No, these "cleaner" fuels are not as good as fossil fuels.