-- Posted by Event Horizon at 8:06 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 I just torrented it; I couldn't wait to go see it... First, I feel that I must say that the original movie [TDTEST - 1951] is my absolute favorite science fiction stories/movies of all time. i will with-hold my reasons why until some actual discussion come up [if any actually does]. On that note, has anyone seen the remake? Thoughts? I've read a lot of reviews that claimed that it wasn't very good, however, I do not think those people actually understand what the movie is about. i'll leave it to you guys to see if any interesting points/opinions come up. -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 8:09 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 Delete it.  Now. If you think Keanu Reeves is a good actor and like seeing a favorite movie of yours take it up the ass from Al Gore, then watch it. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 8:15 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 While I agree that keanu reeves is a bad actor, what, pray you, did you dislike about his acting in the film.   Or did you not see it and are not speaking with any real substance? I do agree though, the shift of theme from peace to ecology bugged me a bit. Though, it is a REmake of the original film. I did wish to see it done as the-original-remastered, but I appreciated the attempt at making it a bit different. The concept of why the aliens came was not all that bad. Did you actually see it? -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 8:34 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 I did see it.   I was unhappy that it seemed that Klaatu's character had been "reversed". In the original, Klatuu wanted to save us but then got angry with us.  In the remake, Klatuu started off pissed off at us but then had a cute kid-induced change of heart.  Other than being a trite movie trope, it's just inane that pissed-off Klatuu would give a shit about the kid being infected with the Gort pieces to begin with.  To him, it's the old "humans are a virus" line.  If humans are a threat to the ecology of the universe, why have a change of heart when one (1) human is in danger.   The reversal of motivation weakens the character, and makes it less realistic, in my mind. The ending really made me upset, too.  There is no way, no matter how powerful the emitter(s), that an EMP blast could destroy all human technology.  In an EMP, diesel engines and shielded electronics are untouched and are operable.  It's a 30-40 year fall back in technology, at least.   The fallback in the movie is one of centuries, and will result in mass starvation and sharp population declines, worldwide.  An unacceptable tradeoff for Klatuu's forced, global shiny green eco-happy time, in my opinion.     I could think of a dozen better ways to stop the Gort pieces from rampaging, and all of them are less destructive and more realistic (for an advanced species such as Klatuu's).   Philosophically, I resented the notion that advanced races would know what's best for us better than we do, and have the right to interfere.  This smacked way too much of the old canard of "white man's burden", the old European colonial belief that it was their responsibility as civilized people to uplift "less civilized" cultures towards some mythic ideal of what's right for them.   Who is Klatuu to say that what's right for his people is right for us?  Just because he wields the bigger stick doesn't mean it's right to use it.  Might does not equal right, no matter how noble the goals. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 9:04 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 Quote: from holysaiyan1 at 11:34 pm on Dec. 20, 2008 I did see it.   OK, good. let's continue then. I was unhappy that it seemed that Klaatu's character had been "reversed". In the original, Klatuu wanted to save us but then got angry with us.  In the remake, Klatuu started off pissed off at us but then had a cute kid-induced change of heart. Well, I think the idea here is that he is indifferent to the human population. who are we when compared to the rest of the species on the planet.   this obviously is only really applicable in this version. The original was based on the fact that we were becoming a technologically advanced society, which is why we were the focus. Here, it was because the earth was one of the few life-sustainable planets in the universe --a concept which I liked quite a bit. We were, in fact, the enemy; hence the irradication.   i did find the switch a bit silly though. he sees someone cry and then changes his mind? though, on the writer's behalf, that idea began with Wu, when he said there was another side to the human race that he couldn't explain. I think the transition followed decently from there, though, I really did dislike how they did it. that point I agree to.   [By the way, what better place to set up that meeting than a McDonalds to emulate the consumerism and apathy of the human race] Other than being a trite movie trope, it's just inane that pissed-off Klatuu would give a shit about the kid being infected with the Gort pieces to begin with.  To him, it's the old "humans are a virus" line.  If humans are a threat to the ecology of the universe, why have a change of heart when one (1) human is in danger. Well, he was stopping the shit anyway so that is kind of on the side of the writer/director. But that is a good point. Through-out the whole movie klatuu was indifferent and acted logically according to what he had to do --or what he judged must be done, then at the end he starts developing feelings? i agree, sappy. That was one of the minuses in my book as well.   The reversal of motivation weakens the character, and makes it less realistic, in my mind. By this do you mean the transition from "destroy humans" to "save humans"?   or something else. i'd like to respond correctly, i'm just not sure what was meant. The ending really made me upset, too.  There is no way, no matter how powerful the emitter(s), that an EMP blast could destroy all human technology.  In an EMP, diesel engines and shielded electronics are untouched and are operable.  It's a 30-40 year fall back in technology, at least. While I'm not going to side with you on the EMP issue --only because it was not noted as an EMP-- I do agree that the ending was wanting.   The speech at the end of the original was what was supposed to be the last push on the precipice that made us evolve.   They made no mention of the race of indestructible GORT's that defend the galaxy from war and violence.   An ending speech would have made the movie so much more, in my opinion. A nice halt from all the action, and a firm reminder that we are puny creatures amidst powers far greater than our own. instead, he just left in his plasma-ball thing and that was it. We are supposed to just take from that that we should be good?   But, the lack of a proper ending didn't kill it for me.   The fallback in the movie is one of centuries, and will result in mass starvation and sharp population declines, worldwide.  An unacceptable tradeoff for Klatuu's forced, global shiny green eco-happy time, in my opinion.   Agreed. It was not properly thought out --as science fiction ought to be, as it's subscribers are typically those who ponder such things after reading/seeing the book/movie. But, that's hollywood for you. Intellectualism falls far below action and "feelings" these days. I could think of a dozen better ways to stop the Gort pieces from rampaging, and all of them are less destructive and more realistic (for an advanced species such as Klatuu's). Like what? Though, for me it wasn't the way he did it. It was the fact that the GORT pieces died at all. Gort is indestructible, but the pieces can die? Must have been a strong blast. I would think either: a) there would be no way to stop them --man, would that have been an ending-- since that was their mission. The aliens made them so that, if activated, they would rid the earth of our shit, no fallback needed. b) They should have been able to stop, or reform into a new, bigger, GORT. This, too, would have made the movie better.   Philosophically, I resented the notion that advanced races would know what's best for us better than we do, and have the right to interfere.   Not best for us, best for the planet Earth. One of the few life sustaining planets in the universe. The idea was that we were at the point of --seemingly-- no return. We would continue to rape the planet as we are until it died. [though, silly concept if you ask me. life found a way in the first place, it'd find it's way again] Maybe they were expecting a Wall-E earth-finale. Or some sort of smog that covered the earth making it uninhabitable.   In any means, it would be simpler for them to just wipe out the destructive creature and all it's gross things, and just let nature get back to normal again. This smacked way too much of the old canard of "white man's burden", the old European colonial belief that it was their responsibility as civilized people to uplift "less civilized" cultures towards some mythic ideal of what's right for them.   Again, they wanted us out, not what was best for us. The ecological transition created some huge problems for the actual story's concept, i agree. In the original, we were becoming a threat [a race of violent creatures slowly becoming advanced enough for space travel is a dangerous thing to have around] and so we were meant to be stopped. In this, though, we were a threat to the Earth. If we destroy the earth, that is one out of a very few group of planets that sustain life that no longer does. I'd say us being dead would be what's best if that were the case. Who is Klatuu to say that what's right for his people is right for us?  Just because he wields the bigger stick doesn't mean it's right to use it.  Might does not equal right, no matter how noble the goals. Ah, i see where you're going with this. But like i said before. They aren't telling us what is best for us, they are protecting the millions of other forms of life that exist --and will/could exist in the future-- hence the ark thing. That's all for now. Too much response yields messy discussions. -- Posted by ckenyon at 10:45 pm on Dec. 26, 2008 ...I need to see these movies. These films are ones that I must see. -- Posted by MotoMojo at 3:59 am on Dec. 27, 2008 Are you sure it's Keanu and not Tom Cruise? As a certified LiveWire Intellectual I am indubitably capable of composing a more verbose post!