MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion > Great for its time, but the 2008 version...

Great for its time, but the 2008 version is superior

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8733)
79 replies | jump to latest

I watched this version and the 2008 remake back-to-back and was curious to determine which one was better. I'll have to go with the 2008 version because this 1951 version is too dated. Although Michael Rennie as Klaatu is arguably superior to Keanu Reeves, I like the fish-out-of-water approach Reeves took, sort of Spock-like. Basically, the 2008 version took everything about this version and made it better: color, drama, f/x, Gort, the biblical typology and the spectacular apocalyptic climax.

That said, this '51 version was great for its time and is definitely worth catching or owning. It has a nice eerie 50's sci-fi score.

Although some parts are just lame and boring, I found it interesting to see how the USA was back in 1950, the way people dressed and talked, etc. Other than that, though, the 2008 version is leagues superior in every conceivable way. Unless you're thoroughly tainted by nostalgia, it's the simple truth. Maybe YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

The reason the 2008 version sucks (IMO) is because of the illogical and flat out absurd ending.

[–] Acerz (186) 4 years ago

This is my fav star wars movie

[–] Wuchak (8733) 4 years ago

The alien Klaatu gains important insights on humanity via Mr. Wu, the professor and Helen & Jacob, which compels him to sacrifice himself to save humanity by stopping the death swarm. While there was a great price with much earthly devastation, the human race is saved and has another chance.

Sounds logical to me. What's so absurd? It is science-fiction, after all.

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

The fact Mr Klaatu-Keanu has basically condemned little Jaden Smith and surrogate mom to die of starvation/disease, or being raped and murdered Lol.

Along with most of humanity. Not to mention all of the ecological disasters he would have caused.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 4 years ago

Everything wasn't destroyed, so there'd be plenty of food available, not to mention government and the corresponding police and other services. Humans would naturally group together and safeguard one another from thugs & raiders. So it was in no way a certainty that they'd die of starvation/disease or be raped/murdered.

Actually it was a fresh start for the Earth.

Would you prefer that Klaatu allowed the death swarm to run its course and the mother & boy had zero chance of a new life because they'd be dead?

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

You realize without electricity that there would be no way to transport food, the entire world economy would crumble, society would enter a new dark age. Sure some people would band together, but it would be reverting back to the Middle Ages, except worse due to massive famine and access to large amounts of weaponry. We would go back to a feudal society with bands of warlords traversing the land and raping/pillaging whatever they find.

Not to mention all of the ecological disasters with nuclear meltdowns due to no one maintaining the power plants. It would literally be hell on earth.

What I would have preferred is the filmmakers making an ending that actually made sense. I would honestly rather be dead than have to live in such an apocalyptic world where I face starvation, disease, or being murdered. The death swarm would have been a mercy killing, lol.

That’s why the ending is hilariously bad, they play it off like it’s some sweet ending, but We are talking about billions dying off slowly and painfully. Good guy Keanu and his genocidal ways. Possibly one of the dumbest movie endings of all time.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 4 years ago

Enough government and infrastructure survived that a country like the USA would make a fairly quick rebound.

Your view boils down to gross pessimism: "We survived and the human race has another chance but -- F*** it -- let's all DIIIIIEEEEEEEEE."

the ending is hilariously bad, they play it off like it’s some sweet ending, but We are talking about billions dying off slowly and painfully. Good guy Keanu and his genocidal ways. Possibly one of the dumbest movie endings of all time.

It was a bitter sweet ending: Many died due to the human race's folly, but many more will live and have a second chance due to Klaatu's change of heart and self-sacrifice. There was nothing "dumb" about it.

Your wording shows that you're going to stubbornly stick to your guns so what's the use of dialoguing further? Hate the ending all you want.

Have a good one.

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

Nah, my view boils down to reality. Tell me, where would anyone get their food once there’s no electricity to extract petroleum out of the ground? There’s also no way to preserve food without refrigeration, and most people don’t know how to cure or preserve it, let alone canning. People would have to go back to subsistence farming, which means one bad seasonal crop and millions will die from famine. Also say goodbye to most modern medicine; and hello to dying from easily preventable infectious diseases. Because there’s no easy way to manufacture and distribute things like vaccines and antibiotics without electricity. Not to mention the break down of rule of law as cities become engulfed in pure chaos with looting/mass rape and murder.

I mean seriously, by any conservative estimate, at least 90% of the population will die off without electricity, with particularly high morbidity for children and old people. Jaden Smith is as good as toast, gee thanks good-guy Keanu-Klaatu. Like I said, one of the dumbest endings of all time.

Anyway, I’m not trying to be stubborn, I’m just going by what would factually and logically occur, which tells me the filmmakers didn’t really think the ending through at all. Which is why the 1951 version remains leagues superior.

[–] strntz (12231) 4 years ago

Anyway, I’m not trying to be stubborn, I’m just going by what would factually and logically occur, which tells me the filmmakers didn’t really think the ending through at all.

That is the most likely answer, although next in line is that the filmmakers loved the ending even knowing how humanity would suffer (and they would, your logic is unassailable). Environmentalists have wet dreams thinking about the Earth returning to pre-human existence, even if humanity suffers greatly. Maybe they can't remove humans completely, but humans existing like the Dark Ages is good enough.

Which is why the 1951 version remains leagues superior.

Which is why 1951 not only ages well, but is still relevant. Klaatu's message was perfect: "we don't give a flying **** at a rolling donut what you guys do, just don't take it into space" (paraphrased). In the 1950s, we didn't have spaceflight yet but we did have nukes, which was the first component of exporting mass violence into space.

The second component is space flight, and now we have probes leaving the galaxy, landers touching down on other planets, and maybe a Mars landing with humans in the next 10 years, so Klaatu's message is still relevant.

As stupid as 2008's ending is, 1951's is brilliant.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 4 years ago

Which is why the 1951 version remains leagues superior.

I saw 'em back-to-back with zero bias, brah. They're both good, but the 2008 is all-around superior. It took what was good about the B&W film and made a better motion picture.

But if you prefer the old one that's great; more power to ya!

[–] strntz (12231) 4 years ago

It was a bitter sweet ending: Many died due to the human race's folly, but many more will live and have a second chance due to Klaatu's change of heart and self-sacrifice.

Not sure who would get the sweet... 95% of humanity would not only die, but die horribly. Those who survived would live in packs like animals. Klaatu's plan of total the total destruction of humanity would have been preferable.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 4 years ago

More gross pessimism. How do you know exactly 95% of humanity would die and die horribly? Answer: You don't; you're just making unsubstantiated guesses based on your negative outlook. Isn't this what health "experts" did with COVID 19 and were proven wrong time and again? Not only were they wrong, they were outrageously wrong.

As explained to WuchakTheBitch: At the end of the movie it was a fresh start for the Earth. Would you prefer that Klaatu allowed the death swarm to run its course and the mother & boy and others had zero chance of a new life because they'd be dead?

Also, what about the likelihood of the alien agents with their advanced technologies helping humankind in the aftermath? Since the aliens were now fully known to people of the Earth, these agents would naturally assist humanity in their new start, one way or another, even if it was more indirectly than directly. This blows your 95% death stat.

[–] strntz (12231) 4 years ago

How do you know exactly 95% of humanity would die and die horribly? Answer: You don't..

Answer: I do know. Sit down, close your eyes, and imagine Klaatue's plan being implemented today. Now imagine your house going dark - forever. No electricity ever again. Your car won't run, hospitals would be useless, no communication, any food left in the pipeline can't be delivered, your water department can no longer provide water, and if you have a well, that won't work either. Any supermarkets with food and water would be ransacked in short order an emptied. No more food production in anywhere near the level it would take to sustain life on Earth. Without fossil fuels and power, no more medicines, no more farming, no more police, fire protection, doctors, work, play, etc. Billions would die of starvation and lack of potable water within two months - those at least that weren't outright killed for any food or water they might have possessed.

At the end of the movie it was a fresh start for the Earth. Would you prefer that Klaatu allowed the death swarm to run its course and the mother & boy and others had zero chance of a new life because they'd be dead?

Yes. A quick death is far preferable than a drawn out painful one.

Also, what about the likelihood of the alien agents with their advanced technologies helping humankind in the aftermath?

Thanks, you just pointed out another stupid plot screw-up. I made the same point you just did in another thread some time ago.

Instead of the aliens destroying all means for humanity to exist, why didn't they instead offer humanity clean technology that would prevent contamination of the Earth, something that wasn't any of their f***ing business anyway.