The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) - trailer & info

docm · Jul 11, 2008

Looks like Klaatu is a non-corporeal entity that takes over an Earthling to communicate and that they are sticking to the spirt, if not the literal script, of the first film and not the book. Release: Dec. 12, 2008 Director: Scott Derrickson (Exorcism of Emily Rose) Cast Klaatu: Keanu Reeves Helen: Jennifer Connelly Jacob (the kid): Jaden Smith (son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith) Dr. Barnhardt: John Cleese Dr. Granier: Jon Hamm ? name: Kathy Bates Apple Trailers link (Quicktime).... YouTube.... And frame grabs of the ship and Gort from the trailer <img src="http://digitalvideo.8m.net/dtessship.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <img src="http://digitalvideo.8m.net/gort.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Jul 11, 2008

Looks like it might be pretty good.  I am a big fan of the original film.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

Carrickagh · Jul 11, 2008

Thanks for this info. Due to budget, etc, I don't go the movies more than once a year. I wasn't aware they had remade this. I love the original and probably watch it too often. The story really holds up.Someone with time on their hands did a complete timeline of events after Klaatu's departure. Eventually Bobby Benson actually becomes a world leader and Klaatu's visit actually leads to world peace and demilitarization. In that timeline Klaatu returns around this time (early 2000's). I don't often see remakes (the last one I was up for was Carpenter's remake of the Thing, which followed Campbell's original "Who Goes There?" pretty closely.) I may see this remake, however. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/0/35a0f1b0-97ab-44bc-a031-62298c09f71e.Medium.jpg" alt="" />   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Jul 11, 2008

"The Day The Earth Stood Still" ... and said "Whoa" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 12, 2008

<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/3/a9699f33-13f5-4011-8308-7d038301adf6.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Nov 23, 2008

I feel like Taylor looking up a the Statue of Liberty and realizing just how stupid mankind is.  I've just seen the commercial for the re-imagining, yes not a remake, the re-imagining of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still.  While it was not true to the short story on which it was based, the new movie isn't true to either.  Why bother calling it by the same name, it's not like the average movie goer has ever heard of the original.  From the wiki on the new movie ...A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to Earthto assess whether humanity can prevent the environmental damage they have inflicted on their own planet. Klaatu himself already has a negative opinion of humans, and when barred from speaking to the United Nations, he decides they shall be exterminated so the planet – with its rare ability to sustain complex life – can survive. It is up to Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith) to convince Klaatu humans are worth saving: but it may already be too late.Baaah, now it's just another big bad alien wants to invade the Earth story .... but with great CGI effects no doubt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

docm · Nov 24, 2008

YAGWP = yet a nother global warming preach-a-thon.I could easily retch.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jim48 · Nov 24, 2008

I'm holding out until the movie comes out. For the most part I have been disappointed by re-makes of sci-fi films, although Speilberg/Cruise War of the Worlds was good. The Day the Earth Stood Still is right up there with Forbidden Planet in the CLASSIC category and why re-make it when they got it--mostly--right the first time? Again, I'm keeping my mouth shut until I see the new movie. I could be quite good or another disappointment. Of course visually it will blow anything out of the water. Part of the appeal of the original film was--surprisinglly--lack of action. It was a talky movie, which is a no-no these days in Hollywood. Movies for so long now seem to require lots of whizz-bang, high paced stuff for today's young audience. Still, I'll buy a ticket and some soda & popcorn and see what they have for us, then I'll look forward to what all of you have to say about this new movie! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/5/b369222d-b4d5-48d6-a550-dc9da99f5f63.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I feel like Taylor looking up a the Statue of Liberty and realizing just how stupid mankind is.  I've just seen the commercial for the re-imagining, yes not a remake, the re-imagining of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still.  While ie was not true to the short story on which it was based, the new movie isn't true to either.  Why bother calling it by the same name, it's not like the average movie goer has ever heard of the original.  From the wiki on the new movie ...A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to Earthto assess whether humanity can prevent the environmental damage they have inflicted on their own planet. Klaatu himself already has a negative opinion of humans, and when barred from speaking to the United Nations, he decides they shall be exterminated so the planet – with its rare ability to sustain complex life – can survive. It is up to Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith) to convince Klaatu humans are worth saving: but it may already be too late.Baaah, now it's just another big bad alien wants to invade the Earth story .... but with great CGI effects no doubt. Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV>Ouch.   So it's almost, but not complete, unlike the the 1951 movie.I just can't understand why any director would be nuts enough to want his work to compared against a classic by Robert Wise.  I mean, Robert Wise!!!  The man was an artistic genius.  And while Keanu Reeves is a better actor than critics often like to say (he really needs the right script and a strong director), he is no Michael Rennie."The Day the Earth Stood Still" has a truly timeless message about the utter futility of our endless bickering and fighting amonst ourselves, timeless in large part because it's grounded in the most ancient of archetypes: man's inhumanity to man.   Climate change isn't a timeless theme.    Oh, it does recur from time to time in science fiction, but it just doesn't speak to the broader human experience.  It speaks only to its limited focus of "don't screw up the environment".I've also got a lot of doubts about the plot's coherence just reading that snippet.  If that synopsis is correct, I have to wonder a) why the aliens think Earth is so rare, b) why simply annhilating an entire species (which isn't likely to just sit around and wait) will improve the climate situation, and c) why indeed Klaatu would even care unless he's a total ass and really bored.  In the 1951 version, Klaatu's people really genuinely do not care about the business of Earth.  It's just that there is an interstellar alliance that forcibly keeps the peace by means of extremely powerful robot policemen (like Gort), and they feel that Earth deserves a fair chance to know about those robot policemen before rocketry gets good enough to present a threat to other worlds.But climate change? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Nov 25, 2008

Part of what made the original great was that the alien community would leave the Earth alone to destroy itself if that's what "we" managed to do.  We weren't being forced to save ourselves. We weren't being wiped out because we were violent.  The aliens only cared that we didn't export our violence to the larger community.  In this new version the aliens are imposing their moral code on us.  We'll be forced to save ourselves ... or else.  So naturally the end of the movie will have you believe we'll eventually save ourselves from global warming because otherwise the aliens will wipe us out.  It's a no brainer.  In the original you were left wondering if mankind would survive it's violent tendencies.  It's not the same thing.Plus the logic of the aliens is all wrong.  Let's suppose they are correct and mankind is ruining the planet via climate change.  OK, so we humans might bite the dust but life itself certainly wouldn't and even w/o mankind the climate will eventually change anyway.  Recognizing the latter you'd think the aliens would run about handing out climate stabilizing systems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 25, 2008

Ah, but you see, that would make sense, and more to the point, wouldn't support the moral that they're trying to present.  (Which apparently is that humans are incapable of doing good unless it's at the point of a gun.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah, but you see, that would make sense, and more to the point, wouldn't support the moral that they're trying to present.  (Which apparently is that humans are incapable of doing good unless it's at the point of a gun.) Posted by CalliArcale</DIV> There's a front page article on SDC today by the technical advisor, Seth Shostak.http://www.space.com/entertainment/081208-shostak-daythe.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

CalliArcale · Dec 8, 2008

Well, his last paragraph is spot-on -- what makes a movie good has nothing to do with the quality of the science but instead depends on whether or not it engages you emotionally.  To do this, the story itself needs to be believable.  Good, solid science helps enormously with that, but it's not the most important thing.  It needs to make sense in terms of the human condition.  Even a movie that isn't about humans.  It may seem rather species-centric, but the fact is that we understand the universe through the lens of our own behavior, and so therefore a story will only make sense if it is constructed in the same way as that lens.I am not overly worried about the science being implausible, especially with Seth Shostak involved.  But I still worry a great deal that the *story* will be implausible.  Perhaps a reason is given for why the aliens care about the Earth's environment.  Frankly, they seem rather implausible if they're just intergalactic busybodies.  They need more motivation -- and then things start getting a bit rickety, if it takes a long time to explain their motivation.  Shostak even points this out in his article: there's no plausible reason for aliens to intervene in our own self-destruction (assuming, of course, that what we are doing really is self-destructive, and there's no possible hope for us). The best, most powerful stories are much simpler.  In the 1951 movie, the aliens just wanted to make sure we knew what the rules were in interplanetary space before we got ourselves zapped.  And it wasn't exactly an anti-nuke message.  It was an anti-war message.  They weren't solving our problems for us.  They were just giving us fair warning. On a more personal note, I was a bit peeved when Shostak described the original Gort as "an interstellar Robocop brought along by Klaatu who looks as if he could barely stumble across a busy street."  Part of the *point* of Gort was that he was invulnerable and possessed an impossibly powerful weapon.  It didn't really matter that he was slow moving on foot.  Why would Gort care about chasing down individual humans, when he could wipe out the entire planet without breaking a sweat?  The individual humans were largely unimportant to him.I think it also enhanced his menace.  Sure, his physical limitations were a limitation imposed by the costume and the frail health of the very tall gentleman who wore the suit.  (Suits, actually: one with a zipper in the front, one with a zipper in the back.)  But because he was used so sparingly, and for most of the movie was utterly motionless, the focus was not so much on Gort's menacing power but on the much more interesting story of Klaatu finding his way among the humans.  It was also consistent with the fact that the aliens were not really intending to frighten humans (at least, not until Klaatu was convinced that some kind of demonstration was in order), and that Gort himself really wasn't in the least bit concerned for his own personal safety.  In terms of relative power, humans are like houseflies next to Gort.  Able to annoy, but generally not worth paying attention to.  When Gort goes to retrieve Klaatu's corpse, he completely ignores the humans around him.One other thing: why did Helen become a scientist?  Sure, it's nice seeing a woman in such a role, but part of the appeal of the Helen played by Patricia Neal was that she was an "everywoman".  Well, not all that typical for the day -- she was a working single mom, a war widow whose son never got the chance to know his father.  She's a secretary, and her son is hugely proud of her, remarking that she's a real secretary, not like those secretaries in the White House, who aren't really secretaries at all.  ;-)  She's courting an insurance salesman, who could've been played as a stereotypical jerk but instead has depth -- a basically nice guy who cares about her and her son and who really wants the best for her, but is a bit controlling and jumps to conclusions about Klaatu -- just like the soldiers did the day Klaatu landed and was immediately shot.  By the end of the film, that relationship is clearly not going to work, and she may be falling for Klaatu -- but uncharacteristically for a 1951 sci-fi movie, she isn't just Klaatu's love interest, and he quite clearly is not falling for her, and the relationship is quite platonic.  I've always found that refreshing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, his last paragraph is spot-on -- what makes a movie good has nothing to do with the quality of the science but instead depends on whether or not it engages you emotionally.  To do this, the story itself needs to be believable.  Good, solid science helps enormously with that, but it's not the most important thing.  It needs to make sense in terms of the human condition.  Even a movie that isn't about humans.  It may seem rather species-centric, but the fact is that we understand the universe through the lens of our own behavior, and so therefore a story will only make sense if it is constructed in the same way as that lens.I am not overly worried about the science being implausible, especially with Seth Shostak involved.  But I still worry a great deal that the *story* will be implausible.  Perhaps a reason is given for why the aliens care about the Earth's environment.  Frankly, they seem rather implausible if they're just intergalactic busybodies.  They need more motivation -- and then things start getting a bit rickety, if it takes a long time to explain their motivation.  Shostak even points this out in his article: there's no plausible reason for aliens to intervene in our own self-destruction (assuming, of course, that what we are doing really is self-destructive, and there's no possible hope for us). The best, most powerful stories are much simpler.  In the 1951 movie, the aliens just wanted to make sure we knew what the rules were in interplanetary space before we got ourselves zapped.  And it wasn't exactly an anti-nuke message.  It was an anti-war message.  They weren't solving our problems for us.  They were just giving us fair warning. On a more personal note, I was a bit peeved when Shostak described the original Gort as "an interstellar Robocop brought along by Klaatu who looks as if he could barely stumble across a busy street."  Part of the *point* of Gort was that he was invulnerable and possessed an impossibly powerful weapon.  It didn't really matter that he was slow moving on foot.  Why would Gort care about chasing down individual humans, when he could wipe out the entire planet without breaking a sweat?  The individual humans were largely unimportant to him.I think it also enhanced his menace.  Sure, his physical limitations were a limitation imposed by the costume and the frail health of the very tall gentleman who wore the suit.  (Suits, actually: one with a zipper in the front, one with a zipper in the back.)  But because he was used so sparingly, and for most of the movie was utterly motionless, the focus was not so much on Gort's menacing power but on the much more interesting story of Klaatu finding his way among the humans.  It was also consistent with the fact that the aliens were not really intending to frighten humans (at least, not until Klaatu was convinced that some kind of demonstration was in order), and that Gort himself really wasn't in the least bit concerned for his own personal safety.  In terms of relative power, humans are like houseflies next to Gort.  Able to annoy, but generally not worth paying attention to.  When Gort goes to retrieve Klaatu's corpse, he completely ignores the humans around him.One other thing: why did Helen become a scientist?  Sure, it's nice seeing a woman in such a role, but part of the appeal of the Helen played by Patricia Neal was that she was an "everywoman".  Well, not all that typical for the day -- she was a working single mom, a war widow whose son never got the chance to know his father.  She's a secretary, and her son is hugely proud of her, remarking that she's a real secretary, not like those secretaries in the White House, who aren't really secretaries at all.  ;-)  She's courting an insurance salesman, who could've been played as a stereotypical jerk but instead has depth -- a basically nice guy who cares about her and her son and who really wants the best for her, but is a bit controlling and jumps to conclusions about Klaatu -- just like the soldiers did the day Klaatu landed and was immediately shot.  By the end of the film, that relationship is clearly not going to work, and she may be falling for Klaatu -- but uncharacteristically for a 1951 sci-fi movie, she isn't just Klaatu's love interest, and he quite clearly is not falling for her, and the relationship is quite platonic.  I've always found that refreshing. Posted by CalliArcale</DIV> Good comments, Calli, as usual. I still am not looking forward to this remake, but of course will have to watch it at some point.I liked the point of the original movie that "if you want to destroy yourselves, knock yourself out. But threaten the rest of the Universe and you will be toasted." This movie seems to have a much different message.The Insurance salesman in the original had another foible you didn't mention. It was "this will make me famous". All too common in today's society.BTW, for those who would like to read the original story that the 1951 movie was loosly based on, here it is:http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/bates.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

crazyeddie · Dec 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, his last paragraph is spot-on -- what makes a movie good has nothing to do with the quality of the science but instead depends on whether or not it engages you emotionally.  To do this, the story itself needs to be believable.  Good, solid science helps enormously with that, but it's not the most important thing.  It needs to make sense in terms of the human condition.  Even a movie that isn't about humans.  It may seem rather species-centric, but the fact is that we understand the universe through the lens of our own behavior, and so therefore a story will only make sense if it is constructed in the same way as that lens.I am not overly worried about the science being implausible, especially with Seth Shostak involved.  But I still worry a great deal that the *story* will be implausible.  Perhaps a reason is given for why the aliens care about the Earth's environment.  Frankly, they seem rather implausible if they're just intergalactic busybodies.  They need more motivation -- and then things start getting a bit rickety, if it takes a long time to explain their motivation.  Shostak even points this out in his article: there's no plausible reason for aliens to intervene in our own self-destruction (assuming, of course, that what we are doing really is self-destructive, and there's no possible hope for us). The best, most powerful stories are much simpler.  In the 1951 movie, the aliens just wanted to make sure we knew what the rules were in interplanetary space before we got ourselves zapped.  And it wasn't exactly an anti-nuke message.  It was an anti-war message.  They weren't solving our problems for us.  They were just giving us fair warning. On a more personal note, I was a bit peeved when Shostak described the original Gort as "an interstellar Robocop brought along by Klaatu who looks as if he could barely stumble across a busy street."  Part of the *point* of Gort was that he was invulnerable and possessed an impossibly powerful weapon.  It didn't really matter that he was slow moving on foot.  Why would Gort care about chasing down individual humans, when he could wipe out the entire planet without breaking a sweat?  The individual humans were largely unimportant to him.I think it also enhanced his menace.  Sure, his physical limitations were a limitation imposed by the costume and the frail health of the very tall gentleman who wore the suit.  (Suits, actually: one with a zipper in the front, one with a zipper in the back.)  But because he was used so sparingly, and for most of the movie was utterly motionless, the focus was not so much on Gort's menacing power but on the much more interesting story of Klaatu finding his way among the humans.  It was also consistent with the fact that the aliens were not really intending to frighten humans (at least, not until Klaatu was convinced that some kind of demonstration was in order), and that Gort himself really wasn't in the least bit concerned for his own personal safety.  In terms of relative power, humans are like houseflies next to Gort.  Able to annoy, but generally not worth paying attention to.  When Gort goes to retrieve Klaatu's corpse, he completely ignores the humans around him.One other thing: why did Helen become a scientist?  Sure, it's nice seeing a woman in such a role, but part of the appeal of the Helen played by Patricia Neal was that she was an "everywoman".  Well, not all that typical for the day -- she was a working single mom, a war widow whose son never got the chance to know his father.  She's a secretary, and her son is hugely proud of her, remarking that she's a real secretary, not like those secretaries in the White House, who aren't really secretaries at all.  ;-)  She's courting an insurance salesman, who could've been played as a stereotypical jerk but instead has depth -- a basically nice guy who cares about her and her son and who really wants the best for her, but is a bit controlling and jumps to conclusions about Klaatu -- just like the soldiers did the day Klaatu landed and was immediately shot.  By the end of the film, that relationship is clearly not going to work, and she may be falling for Klaatu -- but uncharacteristically for a 1951 sci-fi movie, she isn't just Klaatu's love interest, and he quite clearly is not falling for her, and the relationship is quite platonic.  I've always found that refreshing. Posted by CalliArcale</DIV>To be fair, there were implausible aspects of the 1951 original.  For example, what is the likelihood that Gort would have been guarded by only two soldiers, armed with rifles, with the military brass knowing what kind of power he had?  Or that Gort could have made his way from the spaceship through Washington DC to Klaatu, and back again, with absolutely no one noticing?  Those things irritated me (but didn't stop me from enjoying the film). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Dec 9, 2008

They thought they had encased and neutralized Gort, so why put a whole regiment there?As for DC in the early 50's - most cities back then rolled up the sidewalks at 9:00 PM save for the bars, and who was going to believe a bar fly if they said they'd seen a giant walking down the street anyhow? Hell...the stores weren't allowed to open on Sunday's either.It was a whole other world, especially in the South and DC is a southern city at heart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

crazyeddie · Dec 10, 2008

They thought they had encased and neutralized Gort, so why put a whole regiment there?Yeah, I thought of that, but if you were the commander in charge, who had previously witnesses the robot vaporizing the guns of some soldiers with it's laser, would you assume that the robot was rendered harmless?  I certainly wouldn't. As for DC in the early 50's - most cities back then rolled up the sidewalks at 9:00 PM save for the bars, and who was going to believe a bar fly if they said they'd seen a giant walking down the street anyhow? You're forgetting the fact that in this situation, there was a flying saucer from another planet sitting on the Mall.  Don't you think that there would be curious spectators around, or even scientists, at all hours of the day and night?  Or bored news reporters, waiting for something to happen?I'm being nit-picky, I know.  It's still a great film, in spite of these minor flaws in the plot.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 11, 2008

The 1951 "the Day the Earth Stood Still) is on AMC at the top of the hour (8PM EST) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

docm · Dec 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The 1951 "the Day the Earth Stood Still) is on AMC at the top of the hour (8PM EST) Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Neh, I'll just pop in the remastered superbit DVD <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Dec 11, 2008

It's also online, here. Obviously in lower quality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) - trailer & info

docm

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

Carrickagh

Guest

nimbus

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

docm

Guest

jim48

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

docm

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

docm

Guest

nimbus

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page