MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Discussion > Why this is a GREAT film (superior to th...

Why this is a GREAT film (superior to the '51 flick)


This is an intriguing, powerful and even moving modern sci-fi blockbuster. I particularly like the symbolism: Klaatu=Christ, GORT=YaHWeH, as well as the numerous biblical references: Noah's Ark, the death plague, human beings trying to put God in a box literally, the sacrificial nature of agape love, etc. In other words, the film tackles subjects of great depth that every human being can relate to whatever their belief system. This itself separates it from the usual idiotic blockbuster fare.

Now let me address some common criticisms (SPOILERS):

The kid is initially quite annoying but this is understandable as he's an archetype for what humankind is: an annoying, untrusting, simpleminded child-race. His sudden change into "maturity" represents how humanity needs to "grow-up." This helps make sense of the kid's repeated statements about killing Klaatu, which were magnified by the media's slander of Klaatu as a dangerous escaped convict. Klaatu's strange actions helped feed this negative mindset. As for the kid's dead father, the boy was only 9 years old and understood his father to be a soldier. Why wouldn't he have a mythical impression that he killed 'bad guys' for a living, likely with his bare hands?

The judgment of mass human destruction was already set for the earth after hundreds of years of observation, including an Asian scout who lived with humans for 70 years. Klaatu was sent to activate the judgment UNLESS he observed some clear indication that the harsh judgment wasn't necessary yet. Klaatu didn't change the original plan UNTIL very late in the story, which is why he stated to Helen that he wasn't sure if he could overturn it. Although Klaatu was the primary agent, he wasn’t necessarily alone. Gort was there and he was only partially robotic, as well as Mr. Wu. There were probably hundreds/thousands of other aliens involved in one way or another.

The military attacks because their modus operandi is to defend the nation, which was augmented by the destructive nature of humanity in general.

When Bate's character finally decides to send Helen out to talk with Klaatu she was the government’s proverbial last hope. All other governmental attempts to prevent the judgment failed abysmally up to this point, not to mention the judgment of mass destruction was ALREADY well into motion. Other national leaders were concerned with saving their own.

The biggest sphere was the central command orb. Klaatu didn't possess the power to stop the swarm himself; he had to get to the central orb to attempt to stop the mass destruction. Even then, he wasn't sure if he could do it. In fact, it cost him dearly.

The alien swarm only destroyed humanity and all human imprints (like the stadium, the the installation and the semi); I saw no evidence of the swarms destroying trees or animal life. The animal ark-orbs were obviously precautionary in nature; in other words, the aliens knew there would be collateral damage due to the nature of the swarms so they snatched away all manner of animal life as a precaution.

Klaatu made it quite clear what he was doing: saving the earth by destroying humanity and their intrinsic bent toward destruction. The way he put it was: If humanity lives the earth will die, but if humanity dies the earth will live.

The Aliens are powerful, but it's inaccurate to call them careless. They monitored the planet for centuries and their decision was carefully decided.

To write-off humanity's destructive bent as "minor-league carelessness" is shallow and un-enlightened, as well as wholly inaccurate.

The aliens' actions had nothing to do with "might makes right" but everything to do with saving a planet from the infection that would wholly destroy it (people) if they failed to act. Their celestial judgment was that the cancer HAD to be cut out and time was of the essence.

Really, the only "detestable characters" are the government as a whole, which is displayed as a cold machine. Helen (Jennifer Connelly) is a character of beauty, reverence and wisdom while the professor plays humanity's wise intercessor. Kathy Bates' character is unlikable because she represents the government and comes off as an arrogant machine-like biyatch. After she's completely humbled, however, she changes her tune. Meanwhile the kid is only 9 years-old and lost both biological parents; cut him some slack. Besides, he also changes his tune and Klaatu takes on the role of his spiritual father.

The plots of both versions are IDENTICAL and they have the same main characters. the aliens in this newer version didn't come to warn us of impending obliteration if we don't change, but rather to ENACT the impending obliteration because we haven't changed. This is a great new take on the same basic story.

The insane bashing of the film is simply the result of an unjust critical feeding frenzy. If people would disregard the monkey-see-monkey-do panning they might actually discover something worthwhile.

reply

This post is a joke right? Satire? Surely it must be. Everything this movie did the original did better.

The biggest problem with the remake was the climate change angle - makes no sense why an advanced alien race would even care about it. It felt more tacked on for the greenwashing brigade. Also it’s hilariously ironic that a film supposedly concerned about the environment would be so heavily sponsored by McDonalds.

In the end, the remake was just another watered down, weak, vanilla, corporate product for the political correctness crowd. It was also extremely disappointing how the filmmakers had the chance for GORT to perform some serious carnage, but he barely does anything other than transform into a swarm of bees. I mean the first 20 minutes of the film is watchable, but after that it falls apart. Don’t even get me started on the idiotic ending and atrocious acting. Give me 1951 anyway of the week.

reply

This post is a joke right? Satire? Surely it must be.


Nope. I have no idea why you would assume it's a joke or satire.

The biggest problem with the remake was the climate change angle


I didn't see the "climate change" angle, but rather the save the species from the destructiveness of humanity angle, which -- let's face it -- is a relevant message.

As far as "climate change" goes, it's a big hoax with a Leftwing agenda.

the remake was just another watered down, weak, vanilla, corporate product for the political correctness crowd.


I don't remember it being especially politically correct, speaking as someone who sneers at political correctness. Rather I found it profoundly spiritual.

Everything this movie did the original did better.


I saw 'em both back-to-back. The original was good for its time, even great in some ways, but this version improved upon it IMHO. My post explains how.

reply

Again, it doesn’t make sense why an advanced alien race would care about some termites making other termites extinct. It was far more plausible they’d be worried about them becoming a nuclear power.

The original was arguably far more “spiritual” with its Christian symbolism and second-coming theme. His name is even “Mr Carpenter.” The remake ruined any “spiritual” or environmental messages it might have had with the obnoxious McDonalds product Placement.

Saying the 2008 version improved upon it is an insult to cinema.

Anyway, the fact you thinking climate change is a hoax (btw you do realize the remake was about climate change, right?) just shows you’re not the brightest bulb.

reply

The alien coalition was concerned about the human race's destructiveness, which was getting out of hand. This includes nuclear power.

The original was spiritual, yes, but this one is even more so.

Saying the 2008 version improved upon it is an insult to cinema.


Yeah, right (rolling my eyes).

So there was a (potent) scene that took place at McDonalds, whoopee. People go to McDonalds by the millions every day. So it is in the movie.

Anyway, the fact you thinking climate change is a hoax (btw you do realize the remake was about climate change, right?) just shows you’re not the brightest bulb.


No, it wasn't about "climate change," but rather the destructive nature of humanity and potential redemption thru a willing mediator.

As far as "climate change" goes, the climate has been changing for millennia regardless of what humanity does.

The fact that some people seriously think that bellowing Left-leaning politicians, huge tax increases and implementing the ludicrous Green New Deal will actually change the climate of the Earth is laughable.

Idiotic climate change scares go back to the 1800s and no doubt earlier, for example:

• 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
• 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
• 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
• 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
• 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
• 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau

reply

Klatu flat out says If man dies the earth will live. Klatu doesn't care if people kill each other its the earth he's interested in saving and says as much by continuing to say this is not our planet. IE the earth has value people don't. How can you not see this as a movie aboutt climate change?

reply

Klatu doesn't care if people kill each other its the earth he's interested in saving and says as much by continuing to say this is not our planet.


If Klaatu didn't care about people why did he choose to sacrifice himself for humanity? Why was the alien masquerading as an Asian man at McDonalds willing to die with humanity?

Humanity destroying the Earth through mismanagement, idiocy or war isn't the same as "climate change." Have you ever seen the gross pollution in India? Or consider the mass destruction in Europe, Japan & elsewhere after WW2, which had zero to do with "climate change."

As far as animal lives go, consider the over 60 million bison in North America in the second half of the 19th century: the population was reduced to about 550 by 1889. That had nothing to do with the mythical "climate change," which is linked to the Leftwing agenda.

reply


If Klaatu didn't care about people why did he choose to sacrifice himself for humanity? Why was the alien masquerading as an Asian man at McDonalds willing to die with humanity?
[/quote]
That was after his transformation at the very end.

[quote]
Humanity destroying the Earth through mismanagement, idiocy or war isn't the same as "climate change." Have you ever seen the gross pollution in India? The mass destruction in Europe, Japan & elsewhere after WW2 had zero to do with "climate change."[/quote]

That still misses the point that humanity is being blamed for the earths destruction and that the earth in a more prestine form is more valueable then humanitry.

[quote]
As far as animal lives go, consider the over 60 million bison in North America in the second half of the 19th century: the population was reduced to about 550 by 1889. That had nothing to do with the mythical "climate change," which is linked to the Leftwing agenda.

Again you miss my point. It seems you only zeroed in on climate change when the point was the movie is yet another self loathing critique on man kind and blames man for destroying the environment, and that unless we go back to the stone age man is evil and will destroy the earth. While man kind has flaws I tend to hold a more optimistic view of humanity then your average leftest.

reply