By no means worthy of it's reputation - The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aventer-1 13 years ago

Well, I'm late to the party, but here is one "nit" worth picking: Since Klatu can turn off electricity at will and can micro-manage its effects as in excluding "planes in flight" he could have saved everybody a lot of trouble and just turned off the electricity at any installation constructing atomic weapons. Now there would be no need to destroy the earth, but also no movie. And how about the jail where his zombie body was locked up: did the jails of 1950 have unglazed bared windows and first floor cells with outside walls? Looked more like the calaboose in Dodge City. Good thing his body wasn't lying on the wall with the window! Gort would have burned him up! Want more? Where was the signal corp when the space ship landed? No movies or still photos made? Ditto at the hospital. Even if the government wasn't giving out pictures of Klatu, surely some would have been taken. Sorry, but the original poster is right. It's a great movie from an historical or emotional point of view. But it is full of plot holes. I loved it as a kid, but later viewings did make me wince often at some of the absurdities.

reply

[–] dwarol 13 years ago

"he could have saved everybody a lot of trouble and just turned off the electricity at any installation constructing atomic weapons"

Sure, but could Gort have keep us from constructing new weapons plants? Or secretly diverting electricity? Was Gort planning to hang around to enforce the law?

The movie makes it pretty clear that the goal on this first trip was not to stop humans. It was to deliver a warning so that we might improve our behavior. Shutting down selected power was just to get our attention and let us know they could take more serious action if they wanted.

If Gort had to visit earth again, it was pretty clear that the robot would eliminate humanity from the planet without much thought. There would be no more niceties such as shutting down selected weapons plants. As we learned in the Middle East recently, superior power short of total destruction does not stop the need for constant vigilance (no, I am not advocating total destruction in the Middle East, just stating what happened). Apparently Gort and the "civilized" coalition of planets figured it would be easier to eliminate us outright if it came to it rather than try to constrain us.

reply

[–] janddoris 13 years ago

"The movie makes it pretty clear that the goal on this first trip was not to stop humans. It was to deliver a warning so that we might improve our behavior."

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say.

reply

[–] aventer-1 13 years ago

"The movie makes it pretty clear that the goal on this first trip was not to stop humans. It was to deliver a warning so that we might improve our behavior."

Really? Didn't Klatu say, in effect, that his people didn't care what the Earth people did as long as they just killed each other and could not be a threat to his people? My take on this was his only intent was to neutralise the threat from Earth.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 13 years ago

"The movie makes it pretty clear that the goal on this first trip was not to stop humans. It was to deliver a warning so that we might improve our behavior."

by aventer-1 - Really? Didn't Klatu say, in effect, that his people didn't care what the Earth people did as long as they just killed each other and could not be a threat to his people? My take on this was his only intent was to neutralise the threat from Earth.

I disagree. Klaatu's only delivered a warning that a future threat from Earth WOULD be neutralised. And, in the event that happened, it wouldn't be Klaatu himself doing the neutralising, it would be a GORT.

For the purposes of the movie (and for that matter, in reality even at this time), it was left up in the air whether humans would be capable of improving their behavior. If Klaatus only intent had been to "neutralize the threat from Earth", he would have had to assume that there was no future hope for humans and carried out his neutralisation right then and there based on that assumption.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

Actually, that is incorrect, and aventer-1 was right. Klaatu says not once, but twice, that he (or 'they') don't care how humans behave or treat each other; they are only now 'inserting themselves,' now that humans have finally discovered both atomic power and rocketry. Klaatu explains that humans are capable, or will soon be capable, of extending this destructive capacity beyond the limits of earth, and that is why they are now getting involved.

Klaatu said to Prof. Barnhardt: "So long as you were limited to fighting among yourselves, with your primitive tanks and aircraft, we were unconcerned. But soon one of your nations will apply atomic energy to spaceships. That will create a threat to the peace and security of other planets. That, of course, we cannot tolerate."

And later, in his farewell speech: "It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder."

So no, he is not telling humans they must change their behavior. Not in general. As shown above, it is no concern to them how humans run their planet. It is a concern, however, if humans attempt to extend their belligerent ways to other planets, beyond earth.

I think the answer for aventer-1, when s/he asked why Klaatu didn't just neutralize humans' ability to manufacture these destructive weapons, was when Klaatu commented that he wasn't here to restrict freedoms. Only the freedom of irresponsibility. That, the other planets would not tolerate.

If you listen to that farewell speech in its entirety, Klaatu states his intent. He says that humans have a choice. They can join the federation of planets, and accept Gort-like robots as their planetary 'policemen,' or, continue on their present course and risk annihilation. The present course would be, developing inter-planetary travel (via rocketry) and continuing their warmongering ways, extending those ways beyond earth. Theoretically humans can abandon rocketry, stick with A-bombs dropped from planes, like at Hiroshima, and Klattu et al wouldn't care a lick.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by jsk32870 » Actually, that is incorrect, and aventer-1 was right.

I disagree, and seeing as how the explanation has already been provided for why aventers' suggestion of shutting off specific power, etc, would fail to address the fact that it was the current and future potential behavior of humans that was the main reason for Klaatus' visit, there should be no need to explain it again.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

No, it was behavior + capability. Humans have behaved this way for thousands of years, and they did not care. They only care now, because humans now have the capability of extending their violent behavior beyond earth. Did you read either of the quotes from Klaatu above? It doesn't appear so. Klaatu clearly said he/they don't care how humans behave or treat each other, so long as it doesn't interfere with other nations or planets.

So if capability is part of the equation, it still makes logical sense for them to remove that part of the equation, doesn't it? Yes it does. And really, if 'they' are willing to go as far as completely destroying the earth, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to take the lesser step of just neutralizing the humans' capabilities. Why even bother entrusting them to change? Humans have not shown any desire to shun violence through their entire existence, what makes them think it will change now?

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

It doesn't seem you're aware that you're corroborating what I'm saying. The origin of the "capability" you're referring to, again, has it's basis in human behavior.

Like Klaatu though, the preference of others to try to justify their actions and/or distract from them by talking in circles doesn't interest me, it's the actions themselves (which have their origins in human behavior) that illustrate a person or peoples true character.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

And I'd have to say you (and others on this board) continue to confuse the message of this film with a plot hole in the film.

Because from a "message" perspective - you are 100% right, the message is that humans need to change/improve their behavior or we are headed for certain destruction. That is the message the film-makers were trying to convey.

However, that is not what aventer-1 was talking about, nor am I. We are pointing out a major plot hole in the film. That hole being, Klaatu stated more than once that the other planets would not tolerate humans threatening their planets and civilizations. Now, how can this be achieved? In multiple ways. One way, and the film's 'message', is for humans to change their behavior. (And as I have already stated, that's actually a pretty stupid thing to pin your hopes on, given humans' violent history.) But that is certainly not the only way, as demonstrated by Klaatu suspending electricity wherever and whenever he wanted. The aliens can do that at all missile silos, for example. Or perhaps GORT can cruise the earth and destroy all uranium deposits. There are probably hundreds of methods Klaatu and the other aliens can use to achieve that aim, if they so desired. That is the point we are trying to make. It has nothing to do with the 'message' of human behavior. Perhaps we are being 'too granular' for some but the fact remains, it is a huge plot hole.

In short, the message is clear, but the method they used to deliver the message (this film), doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. In reality there is no Klaatu and there is no GORT, the real threat of total annihilation comes from ourselves and our behavior. And we as humans need to change that behavior or we won't survive. However once they introduced Klaatu, GORT and all of their powers and capabilities, they introduced wrenches and plot holes that result in a less-than-convincing conclusion.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by jsk32870 » And I'd have to say you (and others on this board) continue to confuse the message of this film with a plot hole in the film.

Klaatu never said he had come to Earth to be the people of Earths' babysitter though. I'd say he and GORT would have better things to do than wait around watching for and counter-acting every time humans tried to do something they didn't understand the long term ramifications of, for example, sticking a copper penny in an electrical socket since you're main argument seems to hinge on the usage of electricity.

What's not being confused is why I will never understand some people and their fascination with trying to prove themselves clever by pointing out supposed "plot holes" in movies.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

I think you should go watch the film again. In Klaatu's final speech, he says that the GORT robots' 'function is to patrol the planets, in spaceships like this one, and preserve the peace.' So in essence, to do exactly what you just wrote they would not want to do.

As for this - What's not being confused is why I will never understand some people and their fascination with trying to prove themselves clever by pointing out supposed "plot holes" in movies.

I am no troll. And you can be sure that I have better things to do than 'prove myself clever.' I watch films for their enjoyment and their entertainment value. However, the films have to make sense. If they do not make sense, or plot holes emerge, that detracts from the story in a major way. Or it should, anyway. I, for one, can't just accept plot holes and go merrily along as if they don't matter. It's too distracting to the story that is attempting to be told.

I didn't begin this thread. I stumbled upon it, found that some people made some excellent points about plot holes, and found that they were shouted down and told they were wrong. And I happen to believe they were right.

Overall it's still a pretty good movie, but once you analyze it, these holes emerge. I will never understand why some people can't accept that maybe a film isn't perfect, that perhaps they were a bit sloppy in telling the story and maybe it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, instead of defending the film to the hilt, as if they directed it themselves.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by jsk32870 » ...I didn't begin this thread. I stumbled upon it, found that some people made some excellent points about plot holes, and found that they were shouted down and told they were wrong. And I happen to believe they were right...

We get it. You've voiced your OPINION that you agree that what's been characterized as a plot hole is actually a plot hole. Not everyone has to agree with THAT though.

And, it's obvious you think you're perception of people being "shouted down" is "right" as well. The thing is, your comments are getting to the point of being able to be characterized the same way.

That you felt resorting to mentioning it wasn't you who started this thread would AID your case is an indication that maybe it's your viewpoint that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as as a result, could be viewed as having had the exact opposite effect...since it made no difference at all regarding what was being discussed.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

Umm, right. I only wrote that because you accused me of coming here to show how clever I am....as if that was my intention when I came to view the message boards. It was not. You don't know me, nor what motivates me. I can just as easily say whatever your posts are make no difference as well. Does that make me right, or you right?

This can go on forever, if you hadn't deduced that already. Apparently you have some sort of issue with being told you're wrong. The only advice I have for you is that, well, don't be wrong in the future, then you won't have to worry about it. And oh yeah, maybe watch the film again, only this time, pay attention to those parts that don't fit your narrative or that you willfully choose to ignore.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by jsk32870 » Umm, right. I only wrote that because you accused me of coming here to show how clever I am....as if that was my intention when I came to view the message boards. It was not. You don't know me, nor what motivates me. I can just as easily say whatever your posts are make no difference as well. Does that make me right, or you right?

Umm right. I never said "that's why you came here". It sure becomes apparent that's what some do once they ARE here though, especially those who dwell in minutiae for the purpose of criticizing.

by jsk32870 » This can go on forever, if you hadn't deduced that already. Apparently you have some sort of issue with being told you're wrong.

Right back at ya buddy.

by jsk32870 » The only advice I have for you is that, well, don't be wrong in the future, then you won't have to worry about it. And oh yeah, maybe watch the film again, only this time, pay attention to those parts that don't fit your narrative or that you willfully choose to ignore.

Speaking of ignoring things then, I'll suggest that you follow your own advice and watch the movie again, and this time, pay attention to those parts that don't fit your narrative or that you willfully choose to ignore....seeing as how not doing so last time resulted in you not actually being able to prove me wrong as you've just suggested you did.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

I'll take your bait. Instead of attacking each other on a personal level, how about discussing the actual film, the stated purpose of the boards? Here are some flaws for you to consider:

Several times throughout the film, Klaatu talks the language of freedom, self-determination, and free will. And yet, at the end of the film, Klaatu says to the people assembled that it's their 'choice.' It boils down to either (A) join us, or (B) we will destroy you.

This is free will? If I come to you and say 'do what I say, and if you don't, I will kill you,' how is that a choice, or free will? It's not. Unless you consider being killed a 'viable option.' Rather, it's me imposing my will upon you (or you die). That's it. And that is not 'free will' in any sense of the term.

Furthermore, Klaatu already states that the GORT-like robots patrol the planets to keep the peace. So, why not just install GORT right now and be done with it? If you truly want to be noble and be magnanimous, just come to earth and say "given your violent nature and your new-found capacity to do serious harm to others besides yourselves, we are stepping in for your own good before it's too late. Welcome to the federation of planets." This way you are saving humanity and the rest of life on earth from a terrible fate. But no. Instead, Klaatu is going to give you the 'choice' to act freely, only again, if you choose anything but (A), they will kill you. So there really is no point in going through the exercise of giving humans the option, because you have already stated that you will destroy earth if a threat emerges. Just remove the threat now. It's called "preventive maintenance."

That's like letting a group of children play with loaded handguns. You see the danger, you are aware of the threat, but, you choose to let it happen, instead of stepping in and saying 'nope this is a bad idea, you are too immature and irresponsible to play with that.' Any sensible person would just step in and say 'bad idea.' But not Klaatu. He clearly views humans as 'children,' talking about how he and the others have watched our primitive societies develop from afar. But now he seems to think that after thousands of years, mankind is suddenly going to 'grow up' overnight and change its collective mind and heart. And of course when they don't change, he's going to kill everybody and everything on the planet, because, hey, he warned us! Nice guy. I can't help but think of Einstein's definition of insanity, of doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Klaatu for some asinine reason expects a different result.

Another flaw: Klaatu's ultimatum (for that's what it really is) of "join us or die" assumes that all 150+ nations on earth are capable of acting in concert. The earth is not made up of one people. Rarely, if ever, in the history of mankind have all nations and peoples aligned along the same 'side' of anything. It is preposterous to believe that would now be possible. Think of the logistical nightmare of getting them to agree, and even more importantly, for them to follow through and keep it. Have you ever watched the U.N. General Assembly? And on top of all of that, even if you can get them to agree, all it will take is one nation, or even one group of people like ISIS, which is not even a 'nation,' to go rogue and violate the agreement, and the entire earth is burned to a crisp as a result.

But yet, that is Klaatu's 'solution.' Instead of just removing the threat right now, let's 'tempt fate' and hide behind the false concept of 'free will,' and the unworkable requirement that all humans act as one. Then, when this doomed-to-fail scenario does indeed fail, deal out a terrible punishment to billions of innocent lives. Brilliant.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Your alleged "flaws" have been discussed AT LENGTH on this message board already.

But, rather than repeat the multitudes of responses from various other posters that have already been voiced in opposition to your suppositions (since you don't seem to want to even consider my posts), I'll just suggest that you do a little searching before perpetuating the same kind of petty, ego-driven squabbles Klaatu spoke of in the movie.

reply

[–] joedogboy68 13 years ago

Another thought about this is that free-will is important to Klaatu's society. Sure he could come and impose his will on us - but that would make us slaves. Instead he delivers a warning, and allows us to choose whether we want to pursue a course that endangers us, or one that admits us to a larger galactic community.

There are some theological as well as libertarian ideas present in the choice to warn, rather than to rule.

reply

[–] TVholic 13 years ago

Sure, but could Gort have keep us from constructing new weapons plants? Or secretly diverting electricity?

Even today, with our "primitive" technology, we can pinpoint uranium enrichment sites in Iran and North Korea. You're telling us that with their technology centuries beyond ours, they can't do the same? Hell, if they can pick out tens of thousands of small, moving targets worldwide (airplanes in flight) plus every hospital and other critical sites, they've got to have an incredible sensor and intelligence network. Or how about this? If you don't stop trying to make weapons, your entire country will be deprived of electricity except for the hospitals. Trying to divert enough power from hospitals to build weapons would be barely better than getting blood from a stone.

Was Gort planning to hang around to enforce the law?

Why not? It's a robot. It stood in one spot for days or even weeks doing absolutely nothing while Klaatu traipsed around D.C. Didn't look like it was in a hurry to go anywhere. We couldn't damage him or analyze his composition. There's no reason it couldn't just stand here for centuries, waiting to counter any hostile moves.

Besides which, are we any threat to any other planets? Even if you could still build weapons, you also have to deliver them to the target. It took four days just to get an Apollo mission to the Moon. Months to get to Mars. Almost six years for the Galileo probe to reach Jupiter. And we know all of those lack intelligent life. Tens of thousands of years to reach the next nearest star, which doesn't even have habitable planets, barring some incredible breakthrough in spacecraft propulsion. You're telling me these aliens with their much more advanced spacecraft can't stop a nuclear-tipped missile in all that time?

reply

[–] schuhj 9 years ago

I think you need to try to construct the back story that fits what the film shows rather than pick it apart. What I like about the film is, apart from the principals is the minimalism of the special effects. Rennie and Neal, of course, are real pros. They add so much in just the way they move. By no means a great film, but the director knows what he is doing, as does the cameraman. One thing that stokes me is how WHITE the picture is. DC even then was a southern town with a large black population. Where are they?

reply

[–] kbarada 9 years ago

My personal observations of Washington DC in 1963 when I was there for several weeks following the assassination of JFK, was that the black population lived in an almost totally segregated section of town. I'm sure it was even more segregated when the movie was filmed in the early 1950s.

Looks to me like they just filmed in the white sections of town. Apparently the public (tourist) monument areas were not frequented by black persons back in the day even though the black population in the city was in the majority.

reply

[–] snicewanger 9 years ago

The a few establishment shots filmed in D c but most of the film was shot in LA.

reply

[–] etiennestories 9 years ago

Oh, puh-leeze. Does everything have to be about race? Get over it and get that chip off of your shoulder.

reply

[–] Princerd 12 years ago

Was Gort planning to hang around to enforce the law?

It was made clear that Klaatu was simply an ambassador, but Gort was part of a "police force" given complete authority to destroy all threats to the peace of the various worlds Klaatu represented. He said that none of the members of the unified worlds had the power to withstand the "police force" Gort represented. They had been designed as an ultimate, indestructible authority to preserve peace.

His warning was that Earth would be destroyed by a robot like Gort if they used nuclear power in a way that threatened the peaceful coexistence of the unified worlds. Nuclear capability, coupled with the use of rockets, seemed to be the threshold that Earth had reached that made them subject to the laws Gort enforced.

reply

[–] sigggyfreud 9 years ago

Another "nit": Gort had to walk from the ship all the way to the jail (a goodly distance considering how far the taxi drove) and then back while carrying Klatuu, without being seen!! Or maybe he hailed a cab :}

reply

[–] twofacetoo 8 years ago

It's a sci-fi from the 50s, it does have a lot of plot holes, but to answer the first,
The movie isn't about using force to get your way. That's what bullying, and to a more extreme extent, terrorism is about. That's using violence and threats to make people do as you say even if they don't want to.
Klaatu was about using peace and understanding to convey messages. He was met with violence, and yet still stayed calm and controlled. He is constantly harangued and hunted down yet he never once loses his peaceful outlook. He actually does everything in his power to make people understand that violence and force are not the right answer, ever.
As such it'd be pretty hypocritical to use force to make humanity obey his will. The entire message is that violence gets you nowhere, and you should avoid it.

reply

[–] ch5563 14 years ago

Hi, Poosh- I'm guessing that you're under thirty years of age, or at least under 40. The best way to understand the impact of this movie is to understand the era in which it was released. If you didn't live through that era, I can understand why this movie wouldn't mean as much to you. America was only five years past the end of World War 2 and fighting in Korea at the time so the "red peril" was heavily influencing the political culture of this country. Also, if you've been raised in an era of enlightenment, say from the mid-60's to present day, it is difficult to understand, on the whole, how un-enlightened much of the world was back then. The idea that an alien civilization could come along and tell us "learn to be civil with each other or else..." was a spectacularly novel idea.

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 14 years ago

Opinions vary.

reply

[–] richardrussom 13 years ago

mid 60's to today as the "Age of Enlightenment"? Son, what the hell have you been smoking?

reply

[–] janddoris 13 years ago

I'm under 20, and I think this movie is amazing. People have differing opinions, but I think it's more of a lack of context then the posters age. This was the first TRUE alien movie. I don't really think you can compare it to modern day movies, because you can trace all their roots back to this and Forbidden Planet. This had never been done before. And I still think it was done well.

reply

[–] irvberg2002 9 years ago

ch5563: I lived through that era also, and I know that the threat from mass murderers Stalin, Mao and their ilk was not merely "your petty squabbles" or "your childish jealousies and suspicions," as your mouthpiece Klaatu tells President Truman's representative at Walter Reed. Your kind of useful idiot (if not worse) lived back then as well as in our "era of enlightenment" or moral equivalence.

reply

[–] bjlevine 13 years ago

Not enough CGI explosions or lens flares, huh?

reply

[–] poopfock 13 years ago

Ugh! The lack of lens flare was appalling... And what the hell happened to the color?

reply

[–] speedolitec 13 years ago

And what the hell happened to the color?

!?
Please tell me that was meant as a joke!

reply

[–] TVholic 13 years ago

No, not enough thought put into the script. It's a very superficial story, different from but not much better than the popcorn blockbusters.

reply

[–] Jalea 13 years ago

The special effects were appropriate for its time. Sometimes a truth is presented so simply that people do not get it. There were a number of messages - the violent, selfish nature of mankind, and how this affects governments. Science as the voice of reason (used to advance technology and weapons of destruction but ignored when there is a call for responsible action). Here the world is faced with annihilation but the powers that be are too occupied with their political struggles to come together. This is not a movie about special effects. It is a message about the violent nature of man -- who seems too selfish and blind to recognize that this behavior places man on the precipice of self destruction.

reply

[–] tstraton 13 years ago

This 1951 version beats the total crap outta of the super dud Keanu Reeves stumbled thru. And Will Smith's little brat ruined whatever was left over after that. A 100% bummer!!!

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 13 years ago

by tstraton - And Will Smith's little brat ruined whatever was left over after that.

Agreed. I'd never bothered to research who the kid was, so I didn't even know he was WS's kid until just now, but IMO his character only detracted from this version which was already a pale comparison of the original. Forget the fact that he admired and missed his dad who had been a soldier, if there was EVER a kid who was in such obvious need at such a young age of being sent to military school...

reply

[–] irvberg2002 9 years ago

Jalea, when people tell you that you're naive, believe them. Some "political struggles" are founded on the correct understanding that there are evil people who must be resisted with violence. ISIS is just one example.

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

Yes but I think you are missing the point. The message here was not about preaching against man's violent nature in general. Or that 'good' should not stand up against 'evil.'

Rather it was 'instructing' (again, my interpretation) that mankind has now reached - in 1951 - the ability to utterly destroy itself, and the whole earth with it - and that we humans are dangerously close to that reality. Mankind has always been violent, but mankind never had the destructive capacity it now has, or will soon have. Our entire existence is now under threat.

That is completely different than discussing the justification of violence, war, or a 'just war' against an evil like Stalin, Mao or ISIS.

If you engage in a 'just war' that results in ICBMs going back-and-forth across the planet, blowing it to bits, are you satisfied with yourself those last few seconds before you're obliterated that you did the 'right thing' by engaging in this 'just war?' Lol ok. You are the very person this movie was attempting to reach.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mikeboy0001 13 years ago

I love classic movies, my favorite movie is 2001, but this one ain't special at all
It's not bad either, but it deserves a 6.5 at most
I saw it yesterday, and was very disappointed!!!

reply

[–] WhoToTrust 13 years ago

by dwarol - The movie makes it pretty clear that the goal on this first trip was not to stop humans. It was to deliver a warning so that we might improve our behavior. Shutting down selected power was just to get our attention and let us know they could take more serious action if they wanted.

by joedogboy68 - Another thought about this is that free-will is important to Klaatu's society. Sure he could come and impose his will on us - but that would make us slaves. Instead he delivers a warning, and allows us to choose whether we want to pursue a course that endangers us, or one that admits us to a larger galactic community.

by Jalea - ...Sometimes a truth is presented so simply that people do not get it. There were a number of messages - the violent, selfish nature of mankind, and how this affects governments. Science as the voice of reason (used to advance technology and weapons of destruction but ignored when there is a call for responsible action). Here the world is faced with annihilation but the powers that be are too occupied with their political struggles to come together. This is not a movie about special effects. It is a message about the violent nature of man -- who seems too selfish and blind to recognize that this behavior places man on the precipice of self destruction.

Not much else to say really. Klaatu and GORT were simply here to deliver an FYI, not to apply for the job of babysitters for the people of Earth.

reply

[–] Slaytanic1 13 years ago

'Not much else to say really. Klaatu and GORT were simply here to deliver an FYI, not to apply for the job of babysitters for the people of Earth.'

Absolutely. The only nitpick I have with the film is how poorly the spaceship is guarded, I'm sure more than 2 soldiers would have been stationed around it at any given time. But other than that it still holds up well IMO and it's message still pertinent today. A classic indeed.

reply

[–] Daris9 13 years ago

What a total pooshbag! TDTESS is definitely a Sci-Fi classic!

reply

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 13 years ago

I notice you never bothered to answer anyone's request for a specific example to support your opinion of it's being so overrated.

---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things,"
Of atoms, stars and nebulæ, of entropy and genes;
And whether one can bend space;
And why the spaceship shrinks.
---

reply

[–] wjm6292 12 years ago

60 years later and it still stands as one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made. go watch iron man again kid

reply

[–] leader-7 12 years ago

60 years later and it still stands as one of the greatest anti-war movies ever made. WJM6292: You're right telling him to go watch ironman again!

One of the best films ever. Forget the genre. Listen to the message.

reply

[–] blackwood260 9 years ago

Amen to that.

reply