MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Discussion > Gort

Gort

posted 13 years ago by azazoth246
21 replies | jump to latest

Anyone else think that a lot of Gort's potential was wasted? He was probably the only thing that could have saved this film from completely sucking, but instead they have him just stand there immobile for the whole thing until he breaks into a bunch of bugs. All he ever really does is bring down one plane with the laser in his eye, which was hardly better than the original's ability to vaporize entire tanks. If a man in a robot suit can have more action than their CGI counterpart, then you know you've screwed up royally as a filmmaker.

The robot in "Thor" was what Gort should have been.

[–] twforum 13 years ago

In the review section: the guy mentions the acronym of GORT. I missed this, what was it?

[–] psdhart 13 years ago

"In the review section: the guy mentions the acronym of GORT. I missed this, what was it?"

..an acronym for "Genetically Organized Robotic Technology" assigned to the robot while it is being studied by the military and scientists. He serves as the antagonist of the movie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gort_(The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still)

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

Gort was (mostly) motionless in the original version as well though. I think he did more in the remake than in the original, and on a grander scale. I just wish he would have obliterated Jaden Smith before he was neutralised.

[–] azazoth246 13 years ago

Maybe, but he did cooler stuff, like vaporize *beep* I guess it's just my personal opinion, but they really missed out on making Gort interesting. I'm talking stomping down Manhattan melting buildings and going Godzilla on everything. Not... bugs. You're right about Jaden Smith though. This movie screwed up in more ways than one.

[–] jcf2001 13 years ago

In the original Gort played a more integral part in the plot even if he was motionless most of the time. Gort picked up Klatuu after he was shot for the second time and took him back to the ship and brought him back to life. Don't forget the the scene where the Patrica Neal character gave him the command "Gort Klatuu baraata nickto".

The original Gort was much more ominous the the CGI one too. The CGI Gort did nothing to support the plot.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

^ This!

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

In the original Gort played a more integral part in the plot

Don't agree. In the original film, Gort just stood around for most of the time. The most he did was vaporize a tank. In the remake, Gort actually becomes the main antagonist of the film by the end and starts to destroy New York (followed by the rest of the Earth) until Klaatu stops him. I tend not to like CGI in films, but making Gort into this biological swarm rather than just a slow lumbering man in a rubber robot suit made him far more menacing.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

Well, I guess it worked for you.

I disagree with your disagreement. Gort did mre than that in the original. He was standing around but he was a figure of menace, and when he finally did act at the end he was unstoppable. His slowly advancing on Patricia Neal as she frankly tried to remember how to say "Klaatu barada nikto" was very suspenseful.

The CGI Gort had nothing like that.

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

I think you might be remembering the original differently to how it actually was. There was no evidence that Gort was unstoppable because not a great deal of action was taken against him. He melted a plastic block he was put in, but that was it. And Patricia Neal muttered three words which stopped him. Don't get me wrong, I love the original, and prefer it to the remake, but even though Gort is one of the most iconic robots in movie history, he was really little more than just a presence in the original version. Even though Klaatu said he could destroy the Earth, he was never really given the chance to show us what he could do on a grand scale. He just vaporized a few pieces of army equipment and a brick wall, and knocked a couple of the guards out.

Gort in the remake was a lot more dynamic and did far more. His "laser eye" was a lot more versatile (controlling the two fighter jets and making them crash), he survived the thermal blast at the military facility and then broke out by use of his locust-like nanites, proceeding to kill everybody in there by the same method (and the bit where his laser eye was following Kyle Chandler was brilliantly creepy). And then he proceeded to erase humanity from the Earth by disintegrating all man-made objects (and people). No man-made tool or weapon could stop him, and weapons fired against him seemed to make him more powerful. Not even Klaatu was sure he could stop him, which made it even more suspenseful. Gort was probably the best thing in the remake, it was the human characters that were the problem. I think if we'd had the CGI "swarm Gort" hanging around with Michael Rennie's more charismatic version of Klaatu, we'd have a more perfect version of this film.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

He melted the plastic block, he vaporized multiple targets, including tanks, at the very beginning.

If I remember right, which is up for debate I admit, Klaatu said Gort could destroy the planet.

But my point was, the tall wimpy guy in the rubber suit had more air of menace about him than the CGI construct which was woefully underused and underrepresented in the remake.

Clearly you and I disagree on this, and I respect your right to your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

I have already said he melted the plastic block and vaporized some army equipment, and I already said Klaatu said Gort could destroy the Earth. But just saying something is not a true representation of someone or something's power. The Gort in the remake actually did start detroying the world so you can hardly say he was underused. He was actually the primary antagonist of the film.

You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't really dispute the facts you see on the screen.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

The Gort in the remake came out and was in like 4 seconds of film, and then he was relagated to the silo where he became a swarm of nano bugs, which in and of itself I found incredibly silly.

Yes, I can say he was underused. He never created a sense of menace for me. He was just a big lump of CGI.

So I guess I can dispute how we interpret what we both saw in the film.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion, as I should be to mine. I vote we agree that we don't agree and move on.

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

4 seconds of the film? Were you watching something else at the same time? Gort in the remake (in his various forms) had more screentime than Gort in the original. And did far more in that time too.

You dont find a big lump of CGI menacing but you do find a big lump of rubber menacing?

I've agreed with you that you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're giving your opinion publicly you might at least know the subject matter well enough to back your opinion up.

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

I've agreed with you that you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're giving your opinion publicly you might at least know the subject matter well enough to back your opinion up.

And snark attempts to replace actual content in a discussion. And I have not once insulted you or your opinion. Amazing, the hubris of some of the posters here!

Think what you want. The remake sucked, and the Gort in the remake sucked worse. Non-functional, non-menacing, and not worth the computer power taken to create him.

The man in the rubber suit exuded more menance and sense of purpose, even though the actor in the rubber suit could not physically pick Michael Rennie up, proving that advanced effects and movie making techniques cannot replace actual story telling and acting.

Since you are resorting to being an ass in this discussion, think what you want. I am done with you.

I really am happy for you that you enjoyed it. Good luck and good riddance.

[–] MuMu2525 13 years ago

Pot/kettle/black much?

Where exactly have I insulted you? I suggested that you should know the subject matter better than you do to be giving such opinions about whether or not it was a good or bad film. And I still stand by that. If you are going to blindly trash a film (and you have done so on other threads, such as http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/board/thread/144571405) then you should at least know what you're talking about.

While you are welcome to have opinions, your opinions and perceptions are not facts, so do not try to pass them off as such. Not only are you wrong about various things, but you don't even have the maturity to admit it. And now you have resorted to name-calling because you don't like being called on it. Your last posting has proven to us all that you are simply a child that is incapable of adult discussion and critical thinking. You need to grow up.

[–] eschelar 13 years ago

I liked the robot in the new one too, but there was a layer of something unbelievable about the whole thing.

I would have much preferred if the robot had stayed a robot. The nanotechnology is just a load of crap. Nanites yes. Self-replicating with no care for intake - no. Consuming things like diamond by biting it... getting a little silly here. Then they turn out to be electric and felled by what appears to be a global EMP (not how EMP's work either) which somehow also affects things that are totally mechanical (see the old diesels in the UK...)

I could have lived with him self-replicating to becoming lifesized ubersoldiers, but it really wasn't necessary. His job was to exterminate human life. What was being shown was pointless and would have ruined any kind of time frame for restoring the planet.

I really liked that it was humanoid in form. It seems designed to instill fear with something recognizable without giving anything away about the other aliens.

But everything else kinda went flat in this movie. Needed a good couple of weeks with some intelligent people at the reigns. Too bad nothing like that was close to happening...

[–] dragon_x 13 years ago

. . . . my point was, the tall wimpy guy in the rubber suit had more air of menace about him than the CGI construct which was woefully underused and underrepresented in the remake.

WTF - should GORT have been angular and pointy like an Autobot or Deceptacon? However they are spelled the scarier thing is something that DOES NOT NEED to look intimidating - because it can føukk you an your planet up and it is no bluff.

GORT was only showing his friendly face - until the bunker/flash room tests.

If you do not think that is not scary - you must be living in a pretty dream - I applaud you and the beverage of your choice!

[–] starwolf 13 years ago

I applaud you and the beverage of your choice!

Thank you. That would be Diet Dr. Pepper. Or possibly sweet iced tea.

Serious question - is English not your native language? Not meant to be an insult, just a question.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 12 years ago

I totally agree. The original Gort was far more menacing, and a lot of that was assisted by the eerie musical score. The military then weren't able to haul HIM off somewhere to experiment on him. And, you knew he was just waiting... In the re-make the audience doesn't even know Gorts purpose. Klaatu explained it in the original. And, the idea of nanobugs was just stupid. Klaatu and Gort did not come to the Earth to save any species. They were going to OBLITERATE the whole darn thing probably on a nuclear level (the big bugaboo of the '50s). It wasn't about saving animal life it was about eliminating humans for their naked agression that they were on the verge of carrying off the planet to other worlds.

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] bradelli 12 years ago

Absolutely the whole movie stunk but the non use of a major star like Gort really blew it.
Awful directing.