Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
interstellar

The Day The Earth Stood Still. To Be Aired.

Recommended Posts

The original "The Day The Earth Stool Still". Will be aired this coming Thursday December 11th at 8PM Eastern on AMC for those interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stool Still?" Is that the one about global constipation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See? This is why we all download movies. Program information is only about airing in the wrong time zone. Tsk.

 

Any idea when it's aired in the central European time zone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The original "The Day The Earth Stool Still". Will be aired this coming Thursday December 11th at 8PM Eastern on AMC for those interested.

 

Hey, right on, interstellar! Thanks. :) I've set it to record.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a bit of a chuckle out of the preview and that cute little exchange between Kathy Baker and Keanu Reeves (sorry, that's who they are, I'll buy into the liberal fantasy role-playing after I buy a ticket). I couldn't help but wonder how that conversation might go differently on an internet debate forum.

 

Kathy: "What are you doing on our planet?"

Keanu: "Your planet?"

Kathy: "Yeah, what're you doing here?"

Keanu: "Isn't that just like you humans, always assuming! This planet doesn't belong to you! How about SHOWING A LITTLE RESPONSIBILITY AND CLEANING THIS FREAKING PLACE UP!!!!!"

Kathy: "Uh, dude, don't have a cow, I just meant, you know, the planet we grew up on. Nobody's ditching responsibility here. Besides, we've actually been making a lot of progress on global warming, getting people on board with it and getting the science right. So who's doing the assuming now?!"

Keanu: "Oh. Sorry. Uh, keep up the good work." (sulks off looking for another baby civ to drop in on)

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I watched Keanu on David Letterman last night (and I swear the dude looks like he suffers from social phobia, I almost couldn't watch, I could feel the discomfort oozing from the TV set) and he noted that they changed their "warning" to be about global warming rather than warfare.

 

If that's true, then that sucks. Because A) it's not the original message which is too fundamental to the moral component to "update" B) warfare is arguably more relevant than it was in 1951 and with more accessible WMD's C) global warming is too polarized of an issue to be enjoyed by all audiences and D) I'll bet dollars to donuts we get "preached" at and effectively lectured by the movie producers which undermines the more important moral lesson about human nature and critical thinking.

 

Sounds like they're going to ruin it. Too bad, because the special FX look like fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a purely economical standpoint, changing the story line to one of global warming is brilliant. They are going to get all sorts of people all across the web talking about it for free since (as you put it) "global warming is too polarized of an issue."

 

Every time some schmuck comes into a forum talking about the movie and denying AGW, they'll stimulate post after post of rebuttals, all while doing so on the backbone of implicit marketing for the film (in similar ways to our discussions here over Religulous and Expelled, but without the docu/mockumenatary film format).

 

Just another perspective to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they're going to ruin it. Too bad, because the special FX look like fun.

 

they`d be hard pushed to ruin it as badly as the most recent version of "War of the Worlds", that well and Truly Sucked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just another perspective to consider.

 

Certainly true, and "The Day After Tomorrow" enjoyed success, as far as I know. I know I enjoyed it.

 

The only thing that rubs me wrong is art loaded with a cause. I can always see through it, and reject it regardless of how I identify with the message. It's an artistic failure when I notice an author is manipulating me into seeing their utopic idealism, whether or not I share that idealism. Same with film. It's one thing to draw on personal experience and modern current events to enrich authenticity, or to expose moral dilemmas and pitfalls - but once the narration betrays a "point of view", the artistic experience has failed.

 

That said, the movie isn't out yet and they may do a wonderful job of incorporating GW without beating us about the head.

 

they`d be hard pushed to ruin it as badly as the most recent version of "War of the Worlds", that well and Truly Sucked!

 

Ya know...and don't throw fruit at me here...but I kind of liked the new War of the Worlds. Namely because I liked the whole blood fertilizer thing and the initial attack. And I even hate Tom Cruise and managed to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid the buzz on this is that it's no "Day After Tomorrow". The movie is scoring an abysmal 24% in the review aggregator at Rotten Tomatoes. It has a higher score from fans but since it just opened today most of those fan votes will be based on previews and ideological preconceptions.

 

Oh well. I may Netflix it anyway just to see the f/x on Blu-Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I watched the revamped version the other day, and (just my opinion) it's a really, really awful film.

 

The characters are one dimensional, (I couldn't care less if you all died), irritating, and throw away. There's nothing thought provoking, except, maybe that line from John Cleese, but his conclusion is still painfully obvious. The moment Keanu changes his mind, is wishy washy, and just makes you shrug...for God's sake don't watch this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're right, but I still liked it. From a story angle only though.

 

I really enjoyed not having to listen to cheesy one liners while man's existence is being threatened (although the whinny brat took that slot). I liked not seeing some 10 minute climatic battle between "the good guy" and "the bad guy" that defies all sense of physics with the equally cheesy chuckle at the end of the film. You know...where the shrapnel isn't even done hitting the ground but the characters are already fully recovered from the traumatic event and are enjoying a closing chuckle?

 

I guess I liked the movie for what wasn't in it, moreso than I disliked what was in it. That make sense? Probably not...

 

I say watch the movie, but only after getting loaded. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say watch the movie, but only after getting loaded. ;)

 

If you need to get loaded to enjoy something, chances are, it's pretty bad...though that doesn't extend to my music taste ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snail, I have to disagree.

 

Klaatus purpose in the new version was totally different to his purpose in the original. In the original he was here to give us a choice, in the new one he was here as executioner.

 

He wasn't out to save us because from their POV, we weren't worth saving. Something was threatening the existence of life on Earth and they came to remove the threat. That the threat happened to be humans is coincidental.

 

Don't forget that it wasn't about Global Warming, but all the things we do to this planet.

 

Rather than the character of Klaatu being one dimensional, I thought he was well written and played. He wasn't human, he just looked human. From his POV all the might of Earths military meant nothing and was treated that way, beneath notice. He wasn't one dimensional, he was alien.

 

Yes, the attitude gets your back up a bit, it's supposed to. Here we have the only (as far as we know) intelligent life on the planet being exterminated and we don't like it.

 

Look at our claims of intelligence from his perspective. Does an intelligent lifeform pollute the waters until they are undrinkable? Does an intelligent lifeform pollute the air until it is unbreathable? Does an intelligent lifeform pollute the very ground that they build dwellings on, causing sickness in children? To an outsider, would we really look all that intelligent? Or are we just a species with a lot of toys and little thought for the bigger picture or the future?

 

They didn't care if we had ended slavery, or written great works of literature and music. They only cared for our stewardship of the planet, and in that we had been found wanting. Hence they made the decision to save what they could before the planet became sterile. From their POV all our accomplishments become moot if there is nobody left to appreciate them.

 

Frankly, I liked the film. For probably the first in movies an alien was depicted with alien motivations, rather than pseudo human ones. Rather than an alien having to meet the expectations of humans, we had to meet theirs and didn't. Rather than being a danger to them, we were less than an annoyance, little more than a planet wide disease that needed cutting out.

 

Humans have an innate sense of superiority that is totally unfounded and this movie kicked us right where it lives. Rather than being the Lords of Earth that we imagine ourselves to be, we may be living on borrowed time simply because we aren't important enough to worry about at the moment. They didn't send one ship, one man and one robot because that's all they could spare, they only sent one because that's all they needed. Makes humanity look pretty insignificant, doesn't it?

 

I've always liked the perspective that was put on things by the B5 episode "Mind War", the exchange between G'Kar and Catherine at the end;

Catherine Sakai: Ambassador! While I was out there, I saw something. What was it?

G'Kar: [points to a flower with a bug crawling on it] What is this?

Catherine Sakai: An ant.

G'Kar: Ant.

Catherine Sakai: So much gets shipped up from Earth on commercial transports it's hard to keep them out.

G'Kar: Yes, I have just picked it up on the tip of my glove. If I put it down again, and it asks another ant, "what was that?",

[laughs]

G'Kar: how would it explain? There are things in the universe billions of years older than either of our races. They're vast, timeless, and if they're aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants, and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know, we've tried, and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on.

Catherine Sakai: That's it? That's all you know?

G'Kar: Yes, they are a mystery. And I am both terrified and reassured to know that there are still wonders in the universe, that we have not yet explained everything. Whatever they are, Miss Sakai, they walk Sigma 957, and they must walk there alone.

I think these depictions of mans place in the Universe are more likely to be close to the truth we find when we finally get out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know full well the messages it was trying to get across, it was how these messages were executed that I had a problem with. You can have a great idea for a film, doesn't mean the film is going to be any good.

 

I guess saying the characters were one dimensional was too sweeping of a statement...but I certainly didn't care about any of the characters, which is important (well I think it is), and there was just no emphasis on the most important part of the film...why Klaatus changed his mind...'errr ok, we won't wipe you out, as I see your affectionate to the kid, because of his Dad'. I'm sorry...what ? A bit more explanation was needed there, and why that was such a tipping point, I kind of get it, but why was that enough to balance against all the harm we're causing, there should've been a lot more emphasis on that bit, it just didn't conclude properly, when it should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess saying the characters were one dimensional was too sweeping of a statement...but I certainly didn't care about any of the characters, which is important (well I think it is),

Ah, I see. I must say that in that respect I pretty much agree with you.

 

I think the ending was intentionally underdone. Klaatu changed his mind because the Step mother was willing to lay down her life for the boy when there was no blood relationship. She had nothing to gain but was willing to sacrifice herself so that the boy could live a few minutes more.

 

This act of compassion showed that the aliens belief that we were incapable of such acts to be wrong. (It could have been handled with more exposition, but I don't know if that would have added to the story.)

 

Horses for courses I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.