PDA

View Full Version : "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Review



Slicker
12-23-2008, 07:46 AM
It really sucked.

jonthejedi
12-23-2008, 08:58 AM
Yeah, the 1951 original just got a whole lot better with age. As if Keanu isn't ultra-monotone most of the time...he reached new heights of boredom this time around. And how can you do a remake/sequel/reinterpretation...and not have Klaatuu, Barada, Nikto. C'mon!

TeeEye7
12-23-2008, 05:42 PM
It really sucked.

Thanks for the heads-up, Slick.

I was mildly curious about the re-make. This is one of my all-time favorite sci-fi films. I couldn't see how it could be improved upon. This was a great "thinking man's" movie, instead of the usual 1950's and 1960's late night "teenagers battling the aliens in the desert" flicks we all had to endure.

I wish Hollywood would leave well enough alone. What's next? Gone with the Wind with Paul Reubens and Paris Hilton?

preacher
12-23-2008, 07:18 PM
Brief and to the point. I agree. It sucked.

The only good thing was they didn't go overboard on GORT. They kept him simple. It would've been easy to opt for the Michael Bay treatment and give him nonsensical gears and servos.

This version seemed slower than the original. Maybe because of Keanu Reeves crappy acting. The original had a mystique to it. Yeah it was slow, but the black and white made it otherworldly somehow. This colorized, computer generated version was gratuitous and pointless.

This was my wife's idea to go see. I'm going to stick with Pixar and Disney. These reimaginings are getting worse and worse.

Slicker
12-23-2008, 07:26 PM
Yeah, Keanu Reeves is quite possibly the worst actor I've seen. He's much like Nicholas Cage in that they can't show emotion in there films.

There really wasn't any action at all and what action there was was over quickly.

El Chuxter
12-23-2008, 08:11 PM
Even J-Con couldn't make me watch this. It looked like a steamy turd.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-24-2008, 12:36 AM
I wish Hollywood would leave well enough alone. What's next? Gone with the Wind with Paul Reubens and Paris Hilton?
Everything Pee-wee does is awesome, so recast the female lead and come back. :p


Yeah, Keanu Reeves is quite possibly the worst actor I've seen. He's much like Nicholas Cage in that they can't show emotion in there films.
I have to disagree. Have you seen The Wicker Man? He was really interested in how it got burned, and it showed.

El Chuxter
12-24-2008, 12:43 AM
"Frankly, my dear Scarlett, I'm a loner, a rebel."

TeeEye7
12-24-2008, 12:58 AM
Everything Pee-wee does is awesome, so recast the female lead and come back. :p

Jenna Jameson, maybe?

Mad Slanted Powers
12-24-2008, 01:51 AM
I haven't seen this or the original, but it looked kind of cool. Based on the previews, I think Keanu's acting seemed to fit the character, at least the whole monotone speaking thing. The reviews seem to agree that it isn't very good, plus it also sounds like it is just another vehicle to push some environmentalist agenda. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it sometime, as well as the original.

jonthejedi
12-24-2008, 05:37 AM
Skip the remake, see Robert Wise's original(B/W). It's available in a nice DVD or Blueray deluxe edition. It's widely considered the best sci-fi movie(besides Howard Hawk's The Thing) to come out of the Cold War era. Michael Rennie knew how to play an alien.

sith_killer_99
12-24-2008, 10:21 AM
And how can you do a remake/sequel/reinterpretation...and not have Klaatuu, Barada, Nikto. C'mon!

Are you freakin' serious? I don't believe you.:eek:

"That's not true...That's impossible!":Pirate:


It's widely considered the best sci-fi movie(besides Howard Hawk's The Thing) to come out of the Cold War era. Michael Rennie knew how to play an alien.

Dude, the Cold War era lasted from the 1950's until the early 1990's. LOL As such Star Wars will always be considered the greatest sci-fi film of that era, ANH, ESB, ROTJ take your pick they all beat out TDTESS and The Thing.

LOL

bigbarada
12-24-2008, 11:31 AM
Dude, the Cold War era lasted from the 1950's until the early 1990's. LOL As such Star Wars will always be considered the greatest sci-fi film of that era, ANH, ESB, ROTJ take your pick they all beat out TDTESS and The Thing.

LOL

Yep, people seem to forget that the Cold War was going strong all through the 70s and 80s and there was no real light at the end of the tunnel until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

Not only was Star Wars a product of the Cold War, but it actually helped redefine the conflict in the 1980s. In a perfect example of life imitating art, Ronald Reagan described the USSR as an "evil empire" which was direct quote out of Star Wars and of course, let's not forget the Strategic Defense Initiative that was nicknamed "The Star Wars Program."

On a side note, I wonder if Lucasfilm has copyrighted "Klaatu barada nikto," thus they weren't allowed to use it when remaking this film.

sith_killer_99
12-24-2008, 02:09 PM
On a side note, I wonder if Lucasfilm has copyrighted "Klaatu barada nikto," thus they weren't allowed to use it when remaking this film.

That's crazy, I don't see how, considering it orginated with TDTESS and has been used in other films since the release of ROTJ..."Army of Darkness" comes to mind. I'm sure it's possible, but that would be really f'd up!:mad:

BTW, I found this on wiki:


2008: The phrase is stated once rather indistinctly at the beginning of the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, more for the benefit of those who know the original than an integral part of the plot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto

bigbarada
12-24-2008, 02:51 PM
My idea was just a theory but it seems consistent with how Lucasfilm works these days.

It's probably just another case of a filmmaker not having enough respect for the source material.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-24-2008, 03:55 PM
My idea was just a theory but it seems consistent with how Lucasfilm works these days.
What? They let pretty much everyone reference Star Wars, from lightsabers on How I Met Your Mother to the entire plot of Fanboys to SW-themed porn in Zack and Miri Make a Porno. If they can do the latter, they can pretty much do anything. :p


Dude, the Cold War era lasted from the 1950's until the early 1990's. LOL As such Star Wars will always be considered the greatest sci-fi film of that era, ANH, ESB, ROTJ take your pick they all beat out TDTESS and The Thing.
For many film scholars, Star Wars isn't science fiction, but more of a fantasy that just happens to take place in space. Lucas himself calls it science fantasy. The distinction between what is or isn't sci-fi is arbitrary and up to the individual, but sci-fi usually has to rely heavily on the dangers of technology and be based at least in part on "real" science. SW does the first part in various ways, from the clones to the Death Star to the primitive Ewoks beating the technologically savvy Empire, but it doesn't adhere to the second (lightspeed, hyperspace, lasers, lightsabers, sound in space, etc.). The overall story structure of SW has more to do with Lord of the Rings than 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance. The case could be made that SW is sci-fi, but the case could also be made that it isn't.

bigbarada
12-24-2008, 04:17 PM
What? They let pretty much everyone reference Star Wars, from lightsabers on How I Met Your Mother to the entire plot of Fanboys to SW-themed porn in Zack and Miri Make a Porno. If they can do the latter, they can pretty much do anything. :p

True, again it was just a theory. At least now I have even more reason to ignore that Zack and Miri Make A Porno movie other than the fact that it just looks stupid.


For many film scholars, Star Wars isn't science fiction, but more of a fantasy that just happens to take place in space. Lucas himself calls it science fantasy. The distinction between what is or isn't sci-fi is arbitrary and up to the individual, but sci-fi usually has to rely heavily on the dangers of technology and be based at least in part on "real" science. SW does the first part in various ways, from the clones to the Death Star to the primitive Ewoks beating the technologically savvy Empire, but it doesn't adhere to the second (lightspeed, hyperspace, lasers, lightsabers, sound in space, etc.). The overall story structure of SW has more to do with Lord of the Rings than 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance. The case could be made that SW is sci-fi, but the case could also be made that it isn't.

I don't think Star Wars should be considered sci-fi at all. It's belongs more in the fantasy genre.

Well, if we can't call Star Wars the greatest sci-fi movie to come out of the Cold War, then we should just stick with calling it the all-time greatest movie to come out of the Cold War, period.

sith_killer_99
12-24-2008, 04:22 PM
Well, if we can't call Star Wars the greatest sci-fi movie to come out of the Cold War, then we should just stick with calling it the all-time greatest movie to come out of the Cold War, period.

How about we just call them (OT) the greatest films ever...EVER!:D

JediTricks
12-24-2008, 04:50 PM
You guys are dippy, Star Wars is sci-fi, not merely fantasy. Why? Because it uses many fictional devices based, however loosely, around scientific concepts. Artificial life forms, lasers, space ships, interstellar travel, trans-cellular amoeba that create an all-encompassing energy field... wait, what?

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-24-2008, 06:19 PM
You guys are dippy, Star Wars is sci-fi, not merely fantasy. Why? Because it uses many fictional devices based, however loosely, around scientific concepts. Artificial life forms, lasers, space ships, interstellar travel, trans-cellular amoeba that create an all-encompassing energy field... wait, what?
As I said, it's up to the individual, I think. I think part of it is that sci-fi needs to rely more completely on technology and the effects of messing with it (like TDTESS, 2001, etc.) whereas SW is essentially the classic hero's tale (or tragic hero in the case of the PT) set to a sci-fi-like background.

I don't even know. My film professor was talking about this, saying that SW and Star Trek aren't "real" sci-fi but 2001 was since Kubrick consulted with real NASA people or whatever then it's closer to what it would look like whereas SW and the like just designed spaceships any old way. He then went on to say that Close Encounters was real sci-fi, but I really don't see how we would know what alien spacecraft would look like. The guy was, however, extremely opinionated and was probably just talking out of his ***. :p I don't agree with his definition of sci-fi, that it all has to be based on real stuff down to the letter, but in my mind sci-fi has to deal more directly and solely with the problems or benefits of technology than SW does.

But, as I said, Lucas himself doesn't classify it as science fiction.

sith_killer_99
12-24-2008, 07:11 PM
My film professor was talking about this, saying that SW and Star Trek aren't "real" sci-fi but 2001 was since Kubrick consulted with real NASA people or whatever then it's closer to what it would look like

BLASPHEMY!!!

Star Trek is the pinnacle of sci-fi! The writers and producers went out of their way to ensure that everything about the shows were based on sound scientific theories and principles!!!:mad:

Mad Slanted Powers
12-24-2008, 08:02 PM
Plus, if you've seen those documentaries about how Star Trek or Star Wars technologies are showing up in real life, then what we have is science fiction, or fantasy, or whatever you want to call it, becoming science fact. In some ways, we are more advanced than what was shown in Star Trek. I also went to that Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination exhibit, and they had displays of a lot of Star Wars inspired technology.

So, it may not be "hard sci-fi", because there are a lot of elements that will probably never come true, or can't ever come true because they go against the laws of physics. However, it certainly should reside in a larger sci-fi/fantasy classification, as it has elements of both. A lot of science starts with fantasy, with people wondering, "wouldn't it be cool if we could do that", and then working towards being able to make it become reality. Going to the moon was once thought impossible.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-26-2008, 06:46 PM
BLASPHEMY!!!

Star Trek is the pinnacle of sci-fi! The writers and producers went out of their way to ensure that everything about the shows were based on sound scientific theories and principles!!!:mad:
Right, okay. I don't know much of anything about Star Trek and it seemed like this guy didn't, either.


Plus, if you've seen those documentaries about how Star Trek or Star Wars technologies are showing up in real life, then what we have is science fiction, or fantasy, or whatever you want to call it, becoming science fact. In some ways, we are more advanced than what was shown in Star Trek. I also went to that Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination exhibit, and they had displays of a lot of Star Wars inspired technology.

So, it may not be "hard sci-fi", because there are a lot of elements that will probably never come true, or can't ever come true because they go against the laws of physics. However, it certainly should reside in a larger sci-fi/fantasy classification, as it has elements of both. A lot of science starts with fantasy, with people wondering, "wouldn't it be cool if we could do that", and then working towards being able to make it become reality. Going to the moon was once thought impossible.
Someone in class mentioned the first part, which the guy kind of brushed off. As I said, he was extremely opinionated, and I don't necessarily agree with his classification here.

People can't even seem to agree on what sci-fi is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction), let alone what works are part of the genre. I'm more inclined to call SW science fantasy or a space opera, but others might call those subgenres of science fiction. I feel that a lot of classifications are too limiting and restrictive, though, and would just prefer to take it for what it is and not try too hard to apply labels to it.

bigbarada
12-26-2008, 07:09 PM
Well, Star Wars was originally intended to be a modernization of Flash Gordon and I don't think Flash Gordon would be classified as sci-fi.

Ignoring everything but the first three films, there is a commentary on technology, but it's very subtle and pushed into the background. Star Wars' message on technology is that, no matter how fantastic and advanced the robot or spaceship is, eventually it becomes as mundane and overlooked as a toaster or a coffee maker.

Look at the Millennium Falcon, it has laser cannons, artificial gravity, full life support, energy shields, is capable of atmospheric flight without wings, and can fly faster than the speed of light. That's an amazing level of technological advancement that we can only dream about right now, but it's regarded in Star Wars as no more than some dirty, old, rust-bucket, pick-up truck.

So, in a way, the lack of commentary on technology is Star Wars' greatest commentary on technology.

mabudonicus
12-27-2008, 08:52 AM
Yeah BigB, same with Lukes landspeeder, a vehicle we would give our eye teeth to drive and Luke had to seel it for nothing since it was a pice of carp.

Personally the distinction you pointed out was one of the MAIN reasons SW resonated SO well (and one of my chief complaints AGAINST the PT). In the OT, all that gadgetry was just there, and things that to us seemed totally spectacular were dealt with almost off-hand in a way. For instance, when the Jawas roll up on the homestead to try and sell the droids. It's not some goofy extended "awe and wonderment" sequence, not by a LONG shot. Sure the Jawas were kinda played for a bit of comedy value, but when they arrive at the ranch they are treated as the shady "businessmen" that they truly are. No one marvels at them, despite how strange they are, eveyone in the film has seen them tons of times and the film treats the viewer as having been part of the universe the whole time.

Too many fantasy/sci-fi films give the almost smug impression that they're "blowing you mind" (Jurassic Park comes to mind here) and at the same time seem far too impressed with their own "universe".

Another thing that Star Wars did real well was keep the jargon down to a dull roar- sure there were SW-specific terms and stuff, but there wasn't anything that sticks out as being just made up and forced on the audience as if it was the coolest thing ever. "droids" would be a good example. There was no annoying simpleton character who had to represent the audience and have the term defined for them, they were just referred to and you knew what it meant. I have always hated the convention in films where characters routinely explain crap that EVERYONE would know if they'd lived a day in the setting, it really helps make things seem cheap and hokey

:beard: Iso&Baws

Wow, a post about Star Wars :D

Mad Slanted Powers
12-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Too many fantasy/sci-fi films give the almost smug impression that they're "blowing you mind" (Jurassic Park comes to mind here) and at the same time seem far too impressed with their own "universe".Kind of like that opening sequence with the Star Destroyer going over head.

bigbarada
12-27-2008, 02:03 PM
Kind of like that opening sequence with the Star Destroyer going over head.

Well, there is a difference between an establishing shot and gratuitous showing off. I don't think that scene was intended to do anything other than establish the balance of power for the film. The "mind blowing" factor was probably just a perk.

There are tiny moments in the OT were the audience is allowed to just slow down and focus on the beauty of the Star Wars universe; but those moments never make you feel like the plot is being put on hold.

I believe the purest theme of the original Star Wars was: Technology won't save us because, in the end, technology just turns into more 'stuff' taking up valuable space. Technology is not the point, people are.

mabudonicus
12-27-2008, 04:02 PM
MSP- Got me gud bich

How long was that sequence exactly?? How many angles did it feature, how many shots, and how long and "instrumental" (pardon the pun) was the stupid music during that opening reveal of the Star Destroyer exactly- were you supposed to sit ther efor 10 minutes revelling in every second of the things existence, like taht AWFUL opening "arrival" bit in Jurassic Park??

No. It was just happening. No rammed-down-your-throat "signifigance"... to the extent that the whole "scene" is over almost before you know what it even means. In the business that is known as (and as previously posted) an "establishing shot". IF the opening bit of Star Wars had gone for 10 minutes, featured several characters saying idiotic lines such as "that's an imperial star destroyer" and "it has more firepower than we can handle- it will capture us for sure" followed by several minutes of tight cuts and stupid swelling music you might have a case

As it is you're just being a goof. You picked ONE piece of ONE sentence of my post and tried to smart me out with it. Typical.
:beard: Iso&Baws
I might just go out in this thread is this clown keeps it up

Mad Slanted Powers
12-27-2008, 04:53 PM
I don't know about Jurassic Park, it's been a while since I've seen it. I can't really think of anything from the Prequels that was quite like that. In terms of people explaining stuff, I can think of a few instances, such as Anakin asking about the midichlorians, and the opening ROTS sequence where Anakin identifies the vulture droids. And of course, there was Captain Obvious, Ric Oliť.

Slicker
12-27-2008, 11:08 PM
This thread is about "The Day the Earth Stood Still" being a pice of carp.

Keep it on topic. :thumbsup:

Mad Slanted Powers
12-27-2008, 11:14 PM
This thread is about "The Day the Earth Stood Still" being a pice of carp.

Keep it on topic. :thumbsup:No, it's just about "The Day The Earth Stood Still." If it is is about it being a pice of carp, then it's not worth talking about and off-topic would be better.

bigbarada
12-28-2008, 01:04 AM
This thread is about "The Day the Earth Stood Still" being a pice of carp.

Keep it on topic. :thumbsup:

I wasn't too happy with the recent remake of War of the Worlds (the one with Tom Cruise), and if this is an even lesser remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, then I'll definitely wait to rent it.

JediTricks
12-28-2008, 09:46 PM
As I said, it's up to the individual, I think. I think part of it is that sci-fi needs to rely more completely on technology and the effects of messing with it (like TDTESS, 2001, etc.) whereas SW is essentially the classic hero's tale (or tragic hero in the case of the PT) set to a sci-fi-like background.

I don't even know. My film professor was talking about this, saying that SW and Star Trek aren't "real" sci-fi but 2001 was since Kubrick consulted with real NASA people or whatever then it's closer to what it would look like whereas SW and the like just designed spaceships any old way. He then went on to say that Close Encounters was real sci-fi, but I really don't see how we would know what alien spacecraft would look like. The guy was, however, extremely opinionated and was probably just talking out of his ***. :p I don't agree with his definition of sci-fi, that it all has to be based on real stuff down to the letter, but in my mind sci-fi has to deal more directly and solely with the problems or benefits of technology than SW does.It's NOT up to the individual, this is a defined term, and SW lives up to that. It may not be high quality in the annals of science fiction, but it definitely qualifies. In fact, if it weren't for SW, we wouldn't be comfortable enough with the concepts of space ships and droids to entertain the notion of treating them as mere fantasy rather than sci-fi, SW's popularity has made them commonplace in the society's lexicon.

Your professor is a goofball. Trek is absolutely sci-fi (I'm sick of typing the whole thing, but I don't mean to separate "sci-fi" from "science fiction"), and in fact Trek is the first major sci-fi to collaborate with NASA and other space scientists. To single it and SW out as not, then give it to Close Encounters, belies the fact that he doesn't believe that a story is sci-fi if the "science" part is only in the setting rather than the goals of the plot. By that argument, The Day the Earth Stood Still could be told with only minor tweaks to make it about other nations instead of other worlds and it would be pretty much the same thing, you could change the setting pretty easily to 500 years ago and it'll tell that story, that doesn't make it a fantasy film.


But, as I said, Lucas himself doesn't classify it as science fiction.Yeah, I really have no interest in taking that guy's word on anything like that, he changes his mind more than his underwear. Last week the saga was Vader's story, this week it's the droids', next week it's Leia's, and in March it'll be the Falcon's. :p



Right, okay. I don't know much of anything about Star Trek and it seemed like this guy didn't, either.What, a professor talking about something he doesn't know much about? Gasp and shock! ;)



People can't even seem to agree on what sci-fi is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction), let alone what works are part of the genre. I'm more inclined to call SW science fantasy or a space opera, but others might call those subgenres of science fiction. I feel that a lot of classifications are too limiting and restrictive, though, and would just prefer to take it for what it is and not try too hard to apply labels to it."science fantasy", science + fantasy, a type of fiction = science fiction. :twisted: Several of those definitions do actually cover SW as well, and the basic similarities between them is fairly solid. Some also are defining "hard" sci-fi, which is a distinctive difference.

Fantasy doesn't try to define itself by what we know, it doesn't look at a giant eyeball living over a volcano as a problem that needs conveying to the audience, it creates a world based around magic and unexplainables. Star Wars, especially the OT, assumes we know or can be quickly explained, all the those things. It has some magic, but the majority of the elements have an understandable foundation for the audience - you don't have flying wingless Banthas or insects that can grant magic powers through their dust.



Well, Star Wars was originally intended to be a modernization of Flash Gordon and I don't think Flash Gordon would be classified as sci-fi. Ooookay, how would Flash Gordon be NOT sci-fi? Large-scale weapons fired from other planets, space travel, life and war on other planets?



Yeah BigB, same with Lukes landspeeder, a vehicle we would give our eye teeth to drive and Luke had to seel it for nothing since it was a pice of carp.

Personally the distinction you pointed out was one of the MAIN reasons SW resonated SO well (and one of my chief complaints AGAINST the PT). In the OT, all that gadgetry was just there, and things that to us seemed totally spectacular were dealt with almost off-hand in a way. For instance, when the Jawas roll up on the homestead to try and sell the droids. It's not some goofy extended "awe and wonderment" sequence, not by a LONG shot. Sure the Jawas were kinda played for a bit of comedy value, but when they arrive at the ranch they are treated as the shady "businessmen" that they truly are. No one marvels at them, despite how strange they are, eveyone in the film has seen them tons of times and the film treats the viewer as having been part of the universe the whole time.

Too many fantasy/sci-fi films give the almost smug impression that they're "blowing you mind" (Jurassic Park comes to mind here) and at the same time seem far too impressed with their own "universe".Exactly, the people in that universe are comfortable with that universe, they exist there, they are familiar with hovering vehicles and alien scavengers and twin suns and blaster pistols and so forth. The Force is a religion to them, they either believe in its power or they think it's hype, but only Luke seems to be totally ignorant of it and that's because he's sequestered from it by his uncle and aunt. It's not "wowee, look at that Bantha!" It's "oh man, another Bantha??? The last one broke my toe!" The new sentient robot doesn't freak Luke out, its plight only elicits sympathy in him. Interstellar travel is meant to blow OUR minds, not Luke's.


Another thing that Star Wars did real well was keep the jargon down to a dull roar- sure there were SW-specific terms and stuff, but there wasn't anything that sticks out as being just made up and forced on the audience as if it was the coolest thing ever. "droids" would be a good example. There was no annoying simpleton character who had to represent the audience and have the term defined for them, they were just referred to and you knew what it meant. I have always hated the convention in films where characters routinely explain crap that EVERYONE would know if they'd lived a day in the setting, it really helps make things seem cheap and hokeyThat was a choice on Lucas' part, he mentioned this in the ANH commentary (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=28846):
My introduction to Kurosawa's films were very powerful because it happened in film school and I knew very little about Japanese history at that point, and when I would get thrown into something like 'Seven Samurai' or 'Yojimbo' or 'Ikiru' or any of the movies, it was like, I had no idea what was going on, but I could follow the human story, but the culture was completely complex and oblique - and I liked that! I liked that feeling of being thrown into an environment, you know, trying to get my bearings, and still be able to tell a story in that environment that made sense, that you weren't so confused that you just couldn't follow it. And in terms of fantasy films and everything, I can't stand it when you sit around and try to explain how a teleporter works or why. You know, it's just not what the movie needs to be about.
I turned that on its ear to attack midichlorians already: http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=28809 :p



This thread is about "The Day the Earth Stood Still" being a pice of carp.

Keep it on topic. :thumbsup:
Just like theater-going audiences this weekend, nobody cares. lol I'm not about to shut down the most salient, thought-producing conversation we've had in 5 years because it's ruining your topic about a movie you reviewed as "really sucked". ;)

mabudonicus
12-29-2008, 01:34 PM
Yeah it's kinda funny that the movie is crummy enough to have somehow retreated from it's own thread

Back to it for just a sec- I saw the film last night, it wasn't AWFUL but it sure wasn't "great" either. Keanus character is named Klaatuu so I guess that's in there somehow, didn't catch the mention of the other names at the beginning. Parts of it really didn't mak much sense to me, the pacing is AWFUL, most of the supporting characters are just flat-out idiotic (the defense staff woman bein the WORST)

It was really hard to tell exactly WHAT the film was trying to say- it could have maybe had some point but events in the film contradicted much of what I thought was the premise of the film as introduced in the first half or so (Like Keanu, it is hard to tell eactly what his "character" is even trying to accomplish, and why he has what seems like almost god-like powers that he hardly uses despite there being LOTS of things he could have resolved with them)

So I guess what I'm saying is Star Wars it ain't :D

:beard: Iso&Baws

If you're a real fan of the original I don't know what impression this version would leave you with...

JEDIpartner
01-05-2009, 11:20 AM
It really sucked.

This is one of my favourite films of all-time and I figured they would ruin it. I wasn't even going to bother. For as dreamy as I think Jon Hamm is, that's not enough to pull me into the cinema to watch this mess. I'll just put the original into my DVD player and watch that again, thank you!

Exhaust Port
01-05-2009, 02:58 PM
I enjoy the original enough that I won't ever feel the need to see the new version. WotW is another personal favorite and I saw the remake of that on cable a year ago. I thought it was better than I expected but missed the point of the first movie. But that's for a different thread I guess.

I see classic Science Fiction as a cautionary tale for humankind told with the help of futuristic science. The underlying thread in sci-fi is the human element remains unchanged. Star Trek is a good example of this. We recognize the human society in each of the versions while each are Utopian thanks to future technology they still deal the same humankind problems. SW on the other hand is a retelling of a kind of classic legend. It doesn't reflect the human condition in anyway. Sure the PT treaded briefly on love but the basic story is good vs. evil, more science fantasy as others have mentioned. Sci-fi takes on ideas of politics, race, war, genoside, etc. where I see SW as a space action movie.

Robert A. Heinlein defined sci-fi as "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method".

This fits Star Trek to a "T". Star Wars throws all that away and is a action story told in space.

I think Rod Serling gave a good definition of the difference between Science Fantasy and Fiction. "Science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

Nothing in Star Wars made the implausible possible, there are plenty of plausibles buried within some of technologies created. Star Trek works very hard at making the implausible possible through future technology. I don't see that with Star Wars.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-05-2009, 04:31 PM
Your professor is a goofball.
I'm agreeing with you here. :D


Yeah, I really have no interest in taking that guy's word on anything like that, he changes his mind more than his underwear. Last week the saga was Vader's story, this week it's the droids', next week it's Leia's, and in March it'll be the Falcon's. :p
Despite the fact that he never said that - where did you see that? As best as I can tell, he sees it as the story of Anakin, and originally it was going to be through the eyes of the droids, isn't that it? The droid angle is kind of still there, even. But how dare I take into account what the creator of these films says. ;)


Several of those definitions do actually cover SW as well, and the basic similarities between them is fairly solid. Some also are defining "hard" sci-fi, which is a distinctive difference.
Right, okay. I think my older arguments here apply more to "hard sci-fi" than just to "sci-fi." Star Wars, then, is clearly not hard science fiction; it simply cannot be with things like lightsabers and sound in space, as well as the fact that the cautionary tale aspect of it is there but not really completely at the forefront. There's the loss of humanity in Anakin echoed in his reliance on machines and in his essentially becoming one, the victory of primitive technology over advanced technology, and so on, but it's still more about the tragic hero arc of Anakin and the hero arc of Luke.


SW on the other hand is a retelling of a kind of classic legend. It doesn't reflect the human condition in anyway. Sure the PT treaded briefly on love but the basic story is good vs. evil, more science fantasy as others have mentioned. Sci-fi takes on ideas of politics, race, war, genoside, etc. where I see SW as a space action movie.
While I agree that it is a sort of retelling of old legends such as the Odyssey - in the exact same way that LOTR or Harry Potter are, which is many some people make the fantasy connection with SW - I disagree with the sort of dismissal of it as just a "space action movie." You mentioned politics, race, war, and genocide - how does Star Wars not deal with those?

The story of Palpatine's rise to Emperor was Lucas's way of showing what can happen when one person gets too much power and everyone else is simply willing to give it to him. Without getting too political here, he's said that it was a reflection of what he saw going on during Vietnam and Nixon, and of course it can be connected to Hitler, Napoleon, and whoever else you like (*cough*). People complained because TPM in particular had too much politics - it's about trade routes, for God's sake! :p

As for race, this is echoed in the fact that the Empire is (in the movies, anyway) solely composed of humans, while the Rebel Alliance has beings of all species working together (when they could make the masks, at least :p ). The Empire was built on the backs of nonhumans such as Mas Amedda and Sly Moore, but they were nowhere to be seen in the Empire later on. The side that cooperates with people of different backgrounds is the one that succeeds.

The fact that you mentioned war is a little mind-boggling - what's the title of this film series again? :D

For genocide, that links back to my race comments. It also obviously is seen in the destruction of the Jedi during and after Order 66, showing the destructive effects of such a genocide.

Back to JT, though - what, exactly, is your definition of science ficton? You said earlier that it's something based around semi-scientific elements. Is that it?

Exhaust Port
01-05-2009, 08:31 PM
I disagree with the sort of dismissal of it as just a "space action movie." You mentioned politics, race, war, and genocide - how does Star Wars not deal with those?

It has those but it isn't about those.


The story of Palpatine's rise to Emperor was Lucas's way of showing what can happen when one person gets too much power and everyone else is simply willing to give it to him. Without getting too political here, he's said that it was a reflection of what he saw going on during Vietnam and Nixon, and of course it can be connected to Hitler, Napoleon, and whoever else you like (*cough*). People complained because TPM in particular had too much politics - it's about trade routes, for God's sake! :p

The PT has a political undertone with the plot line of the emperor but the main plot is that of Anakin and his loves and losses. It's a space opera in a lot of ways. The OT is the story of Luke and finding his way while being a small boy in a big universe. A David vs. Goliath style story. Again, not sci-fi. Having a war in a movie doesn't make it a war movie. GL uses the Empire as the ultimate evil in his good vs. evil story. Just like the Nazi in Indiana Jones. Just because there were Nazis in that movie doesn't make it a political or anti-war movie. They are there to be the bad guys.

Forbidden Planet is an excellent example of "power corrupts" sci-fi movie. That is the single message of the movie. SW has many interesting points that can be made but none are the main objective or learned lesson of any SW movie.


As for race, this is echoed in the fact that the Empire is (in the movies, anyway) solely composed of humans, while the Rebel Alliance has beings of all species working together (when they could make the masks, at least :p ). The Empire was built on the backs of nonhumans such as Mas Amedda and Sly Moore, but they were nowhere to be seen in the Empire later on. The side that cooperates with people of different backgrounds is the one that succeeds.

You can't argue that because there are a multitude of races that the movie is about racism. There is no declaration by the Empire that they are anti-nonhuman nor do the Rebels ever declare that they "wish everyone was treated the same". Heck there are nearly as many non-human characters on the "evil" side as there are on the "good" side when you look at the movies. The only evil humans in the PT are the two Sith and in TPM even one of those is non-human (Darth Maul).

Again, the goal of the Sith wasn't to kill all non-humans, their goal is taking over the universe, human or not.


The fact that you mentioned war is a little mind-boggling - what's the title of this film series again? :D

It isn't about war. The main story of the OT is Luke going from farmer to jedi, he just does it through the context of a war. Heck the only "war" in the first movie is a 10 minute run down a trench to blow up the DS. Good vs. Evil. Not anti-war.


For genocide, that links back to my race comments. It also obviously is seen in the destruction of the Jedi during and after Order 66, showing the destructive effects of such a genocide.

Darth Sidious was eliminating the opposing army, it wasn't genocide. That's like saying WW2 was about Japan eliminating all Americans and not eliminating our military for their conquest of our land, resources, etc.

The book Star Wars: The Magic of Myth is an interesting read as it goes into the many myths that Stars Wars drew from or is similar to. (ie Jason and the Argonauts, etc.). SW can be seen as a modern retelling of these stories in the context of space. So think in a lot of ways SW isn't really what I would call classic Sci-Fi. It does have a Sci-Fi look to it but the story is your basic good vs. evil plot. In a pinch I'd call SW Sci-Fi because calling it Science Fantasy would make it hard for some to grasp. Flash Gordon is very Sci-Fantasy but it's labeled as Science Fiction.

bigbarada
01-05-2009, 09:43 PM
It isn't about war. The main story of the OT is Luke going from farmer to jedi, he just does it through the context of a war. Heck the only "war" in the first movie is a 10 minute run down a trench to blow up the DS. Good vs. Evil. Not anti-war.


Exactly, despite the title, Star Wars isn't about war. It simply uses war as a backdrop to tell a story. Two different things.

There are plenty of non-sci-fi examples of this in film and television. Last year's Atonement would be one (an excellent movie that I highly recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it), the old TV series The Waltons would be another. The later seasons dealt almost exclusively with WW2 and, while there was some social commentary written into the show, it would be inaccurate to say that the entire series was about war.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-06-2009, 01:52 AM
It has those but it isn't about those.
You said that sci-fi "takes on" those things, and I saw Star Wars taking them on. Certainly you will admit that, though they have a central storyline, they aren't only about one person or one thing?


You can't argue that because there are a multitude of races that the movie is about racism. There is no declaration by the Empire that they are anti-nonhuman nor do the Rebels ever declare that they "wish everyone was treated the same". Heck there are nearly as many non-human characters on the "evil" side as there are on the "good" side when you look at the movies. The only evil humans in the PT are the two Sith and in TPM even one of those is non-human (Darth Maul).
Again, it's not that SW is about racism (or prejudice, which might actually be a better word here), it's that SW deals with it, however subtly. Of course the Empire and the Rebellion do not outright state their beliefs on racial harmony, but they are instead clearly shown. In the Empire itself (as seen in the films and disregarding the EU), there are no nonhumans whatsoever. Like I said, Palpatine would use nonhumans (such as Maul and the Separatists) to achieve his goals and then get rid of them when he no longer needed or wanted them. The Rebellion, on the other hand, has humans, Wookiees, Dressellians, Mon Calamari, and Ewoks in the films, and they come out on top. Just because it's not outright stated doesn't mean it's not there.


It isn't about war. The main story of the OT is Luke going from farmer to jedi, he just does it through the context of a war. Heck the only "war" in the first movie is a 10 minute run down a trench to blow up the DS. Good vs. Evil. Not anti-war.

Exactly, despite the title, Star Wars isn't about war. It simply uses war as a backdrop to tell a story. Two different things.
EP mentioned how the main story wasn't about war. But there are still several other stories going on apart from Anakin and Luke, including the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War. What we see in much of these films is how the characters react to the wars and the situations that arise from them. Luke is becoming a Jedi, but he is also, along with Han and Leia, fighting a war against the Empire; many of his actions come out of that. It's the same with Anakin. So just because it's not all about tactics and planning and fighting doesn't mean it's not about war. Without the war, the characters would act differently. It's more than just a background; it informs the characters' (and audiences') mindsets and is often a motivation for their actions. (And not every war story has to be anti-war.)


Darth Sidious was eliminating the opposing army, it wasn't genocide. That's like saying WW2 was about Japan eliminating all Americans and not eliminating our military for their conquest of our land, resources, etc.
Dictionary.com defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Palpatine's actions went above and beyond simple acts of war. And there was no "opposing army," since he controlled both. He killed them because of their beliefs - their beliefs that they were right and that the Sith were wrong, that the light side of the Force was the only correct side, and so on. That has echoes of Hitler or Stalin's actions far more than of what was going on between Japan and the US, or any other simple act of war. Palpatine created the war so it would look like the Jedi were the bad guys and he could destroy them; the Jedi-Sith rivalry went on long before the Clone Wars and wasn't about military superiority. When you attempt to wipe out every member of a particular religion, that's genocide.

Going back to what I said a while back, when you try to pigeonhole something as this or that, it can cause you to overlook the tons of other aspects of it. Star Wars is about a great many things - whether or not it's sci-fi, it deals with war, religion, politics, love, friendship, destiny, race, technology, and many other things, and that's why I love it.

Mad Slanted Powers
01-06-2009, 02:25 AM
Star Wars is about a great many thingsWhen you typed that, did you say it just like Palpatine in ROTJ?

bigbarada
01-06-2009, 02:58 AM
EP mentioned how the main story wasn't about war. But there are still several other stories going on apart from Anakin and Luke, including the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War. What we see in much of these films is how the characters react to the wars and the situations that arise from them. Luke is becoming a Jedi, but he is also, along with Han and Leia, fighting a war against the Empire; many of his actions come out of that. It's the same with Anakin. So just because it's not all about tactics and planning and fighting doesn't mean it's not about war. Without the war, the characters would act differently. It's more than just a background; it informs the characters' (and audiences') mindsets and is often a motivation for their actions. (And not every war story has to be anti-war.)

Unfortunately, the prequels convolute the story and pollute the purity of Star Wars storytelling, so I don't even consider them. In it's purest sense the original Star Wars trilogy was not a series of war movies. It had more in common with classic mythology. You had the hero's journey, rescuing the princess from the enemy fortress, the hero seeking advice from spirits of the deceased, the final showdown between a father and his son, the redemption of an evil man, etc.

The prequels just screw all of that up.

Slicker
01-06-2009, 03:29 AM
Unfortunately, the prequels convolute the story and pollute the purity of Star Wars storytelling, so I don't even consider them. In it's purest sense the original Star Wars trilogy was not a series of war movies. It had more in common with classic mythology. You had the hero's journey, rescuing the princess from the enemy fortress, the hero seeking advice from spirits of the deceased, the final showdown between a father and his son, the redemption of an evil man, etc.

The prequels just screw all of that up.I thought stilla was banned? :confused: ;)

bigbarada
01-06-2009, 01:06 PM
I thought stilladik was banned? :confused: ;)

He was banned again?

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-06-2009, 06:46 PM
When you typed that, did you say it just like Palpatine in ROTJ?
Yeeeeeesssss. :D


Unfortunately, the prequels convolute the story and pollute the purity of Star Wars storytelling, so I don't even consider them. In it's purest sense the original Star Wars trilogy was not a series of war movies. It had more in common with classic mythology. You had the hero's journey, rescuing the princess from the enemy fortress, the hero seeking advice from spirits of the deceased, the final showdown between a father and his son, the redemption of an evil man, etc.

The prequels just screw all of that up.
The prequels have that as well, but more the tragic hero aspect of it. Anakin and Luke go through many similar trials and tribulations, but it's how they react to them that sets them apart.

And I mentioned the OT when I was saying that these movies would not be the same without the wars, so I wasn't only talking about the PT.

bigbarada
01-06-2009, 09:46 PM
And I mentioned the OT when I was saying that these movies would not be the same without the wars, so I wasn't only talking about the PT.

Of course, the wars affected the characters, but that doesn't mean that the story is about the wars. It's a very fine line of distinction, but the difference is still there.