Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)



The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film)The Day the Earth Stood Still — Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "An exception [to following the standard criteria of determining a primary topic] may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." I believe that this film has educational value especially in the scope of film (as judged in part by its "Legacy" section and prominent Google Scholar Search results), so it should be the primary topic, with the panned and much less reputable remake as a secondary topic. --Erik (talk | contribs) 03:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support The 2008 film was a bit of a flop; the 1951 film was very popular and has its place in pop culture/history. From the 1951 article:
  • "Since the release of the movie, the phrase Klaatu barada nikto has appeared repeatedly in fiction and in popular culture"
  • "... selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as 'culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant' "
  • "Lou Cannon and Colin Powell believed the film inspired Ronald Reagan to discuss uniting against an alien invasion when meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985" (!!!)
  • "Danny Elfman [The Simpsons theme] noted The Day the Earth Stood Still's score inspired his interest in film composing"
--JaGatalk 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Really? Listening to the Simpsons theme, I assumed The Jetsons were the big first inspiration for Mr. Elfman. SBHarris 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Opposse, movie articles use (Year film) when there's 2 different year 'versions' of the same story. This 'movie' shouldn't be an acception. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Comment Actually Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name allows for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when one movie is clearly more significant than the other(s). Taking recentism into consideration, the 1951 film is clearly primary. Could you imagine a world without the Simpsons theme? Surely not! Did Keanu influence US global security discussions? Heavens forbid! --JaGatalk 05:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    The misreading of the old version to infer that any ambiguity between films meant that none of the films could be primary lead to the rewording of that guideline for clarity. The primary topic, if any, gets the base name, film or otherwise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — Google indicates the original is the primary topic, traffic stats are unstable so aren't a basis for making a decision since they reflect recent trends. Betty Logan (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    I disagree that the stats are unstable. They show pageviews consistently favor the 2008 film by at least 2:1 for the past three full years. Station1 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    That stands to reason. When the new film came out the traffic for the 1951 film was boosted to almost 700k, way beyond its natural level i.e. the traffic for both films are not independent. At the beginning of 2008 article traffic was about 20k a month, so roughly 240k a year. It's not a surprise that the drop-off rates for the original mirror that of the remake as the traffic deflates back to its natural level. For instance, in 2008 the traffic for the original was at 700k while the remake stood at 1.4 mil (roughly double). In 2009 the original had a drop-off of 400k while the remake had a drop-off of 600k (a 2:3 ratio). Last year, the original only saw a drop-off of 70k while the remake had a drop-off of 250k (a 2:8 ratio), so as a ratio the drop-off rate for the original is greatly reduced as it approaches its natural level. The fact that the ratio is increasing indicates the original is bottom-lining while the remake isn't. That's why it's important for the stats to stabilise before we make decisions based on them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    It's true that readership of both articles is dropping since 2008, but they are dropping roughly in tandem. To get the drop-off ratio we need to use percentages rather than gross hits, because we're not starting with the same base number. Using your numbers, the drop from 2008-2009 is roughly 57% for the original and 43% for the remake (a 4:3 ratio, not 2:3). From 2009-2010, the drop is roughly 23% for the original and 31% for the remake (a 3:4 ratio, not 2:8). From 2008-2010 combined, the drop is 67% for the original and 60% for the remake (11:10 ratio). Despite the drop-off, the relationship between the two articles is relatively stable. Station1 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is clearly the primary topic, to the point where I'd forgotten the Keanu version existed. Powers T 15:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think you have it the other way around? The Day the Earth Stood Still is a disambiguation page linking to both films. The request is to make the 1951 film the primary topic, which is what you want, I think. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry. Support move. Powers T 01:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, based on educational value reflected in book and scholar search results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The original film is still the best-known film by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Based on taking into account "recentism and educational value". First Light (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the talk archive contains three requested moves from 2008 (August, October, November) that proposed this move, which ended in not moving the article. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, these requested moves preceded the updated guidelines that now mention recentism and educational value. Now that these exist as criteria, I think that editors so far agree that the 1951 film is educationally valuable and that the 2008 film is not. The guidelines won't apply in all cases. For example, at the disambiguation page The Crazies, we have a similar pairing, but neither of these films are educationally valuable. What do you think, based on these guidelines? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The hits for "The Day the Earth Stood Still" on Google books are overwhelmingly about the 1951 movie. Adding "-Keanu" affects the hit count hardly at all. Kauffner (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Article title policy says that it is important to be consistent with the other articles that are similar. Looking at some similar cases, I can see a fairly consistent approach whereby the "famous" film is simply listed under its title and the less successful one is listed as "Title (Year film)". Some examples are Dawn of the Dead (points to 1978 version) vs. Dawn of the Dead (2004 film), Get Carter (points to 1971 version) vs. Get Carter (2000 film), The Italian Job vs The Italian Job (2003 film), The Karate Kid (points to 1984) vs The Karate Kid (2010 film). There are cases where this convention is not followed, such as Planet of the Apes, which is a dab, but in this case, there are seven alternatives to the 1968 film (although in this case I think that the 1968 film should be the primary topic, but that is another discussion). In the case of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", my impression is that the 1951 film is regarded as a classic (in 1995, it was included in the United States National Film Registry due to it being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" - I can't see that happening for the remake). As such, I would think the original is the one most people would be interested in and should be directly accessible via The Day the Earth Stood Still, with a hatnote at the top saying "This is for the 1951 film, for the 2008 film go here, etc" as is the case with The Italian Job 91.125.227.147 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, sadly no, the original film is not the one most readers are interested in. The article for the flaming pile of shinola that is the 2008 film consistently gets twice the traffic[1] of the one for the 1951 film.[2] But I suspect even more readers would pick "celebrity breasts", "dieting", or "hot horny lesbians" if those were options on the DAB page. (I certainly would.) Kauffner (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    Most readers are interested in the original 1951 article, not the 2008 film. The readers in question aren't coming through the dab page, which has received only 13,450 hits this year. In all likelihood, readers are coming from the articles linked to {{Scott Derrickson}}, such as The_Exorcism_of_Emily_Rose, which has been viewed 93,676 times in the last 30 days. These readers aren't looking for The Day the Earth Stood Still at all, they are simply clicking on the very last link on a popular page by the same director. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The original doesn't need the qualifier. Barsoomian (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing of movie[edit]

I remember the line from the robot at the end of the movie, "I am the master." Is this correct? 75.144.13.178 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Location of spacecraft prop[edit]

Apparently the spacecraft used for the movie is located in Hatteras, NC. See this photo Spacecraft from a friend of mine on facebook. Anyone have any idea where we might find verification that this is, in fact, the one used in the film and not a re-creation?—D'Ranged 1 talk 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony[edit]

Early in the movie - one doctor to another:

  • Life expectancy is 130.
  • Well how does he explain that?
  • Says their medicine is that much more advanced. (As he hands the other fellow a CIGARETTE)
  • He was very nice about it but he made me feel like a third class witchdoctor.AMCKen (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that smoking tobacco was harmful to human health. The real question is why it took medicine so long to get on board—approximately 50 years, but who is counting? And the only reason legislators stepped in to prohibit indoor smoking was because non-smokers who worked in smoking establishments (like bars and restaurants) were dropping like flies. But 50 years? Frankly, this is unconscionable. They had the data but they did nothing. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the messenger has something to do with it. The first epidemiological data came from Nazi doctors in the 1930's. So, naturally, good soclialists all smoked as a political statement, figuring that the fascist line was probably wrong.

There was a lot of data accumulated for three decades, but no real "aha" moment among scientists. In 1957 (six years after this film) the public health service officially declared a connection between smoking and lung cancer. The big bombshell that put it over the top, and after which nobody could claim they didn't know about it, was the Surgeon General's report of 1964. [3]. Thus, cigarette smoking acquired a social stigma in the U.S. just about the time men's hats disappeared and hair length started to get longer in boomers. SBHarris 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., many physicians and nurses still smoke! And, in the film industry, the number of actors who smoke onscreen is still high. You say it has acquired a social stigma, but it is hard to see it. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't call percentages of 0.5% - 2% "many." Though percentages of US physicians who are former smokers can range from ~ 10% to ~ 50% depending on age. See Fig. 6 [4] SBHarris 00:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
More than 5% for physicians in the U.S. and closer to 15% for nurses. Outside the U.S. the numbers can go as high as 40%. 0.5-2% appears to be artificially low. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's see your cite. I showed you mine. SBHarris 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, going from memory. But you definitely have me interested in the topic now. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Filming locations[edit]

"The primary actors never traveled to Washington for the making of the film." -- This could be wrong. For one reason.

Prof. Barnhardt's house is located at 1609 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC, several people have found this out, including myself when I searched for the film's locations on Google Street Map a couple of years ago. In one scene Klaatu and Bobby are seen walking towards this (real) house, though filmed from a distance. A few moments later they are peeping through the pane of one of the large doors, but in one of the next shots this is also filmed from inside, close-up of the two actors' faces who are still standing behind the pane i.e. outside, and in the background you can unmistakably discern the features of the buildings across the street, modern concrete buildings that are there even today. Quite possible that the other scenes in Prof. Barnhardt's home/office were also filmed in that very room - it's the same furniture.

The house is real. But if the actors actually were not there and somehow were copied into the scenery, the illusion would be disturbingly perfect and extremely well done.

Maybe some of the actors were sent to Washington for a free weekend and asked to do a couple of scenes while they were there. I'm not so sure though about the scenes with Bobby and Klaatu sightseeing, these might be optical tricks, can't say. Don't have access to the movie right now. This makes me ask though... why should a small and almost insignificant scene at a nondistinctive house be genuine but other scenes near unique public monuments in the same city be fabricated... it should rather be the other way round. Mystery.

There are some other scenes in the film that appear 'real' but might as well have been filmed at the studio backlot - like the house and street were Klaatu stays in, and the area where he jumps out of the car and is shot (nightclub (Keslars?) at the dead end and subway entrance in the foreground). It took me hours to locate Barnhardt's house in the historic districts of Washington D.C., but I wasn't successful at all with the two other spots even after days of combing all streets, intersections and neighborhoods in that part of DC again and again, searching for fitting street patterns and architectural features. The addresses and street signs that you get to see and hear in the movie are fake or deliberately misleading anyway. - Either those buildings have by now been torn down, or - which I presume - those other street scenes were filmed in the studio backlot.

93.131.75.135 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) SF51

Military involvement[edit]

I changed a sentence about the military involvement. Wise says that the 'War Department' (his words) turned down the script and the equipment came from Virginia Army National Guard. This is contradicted by the Fort Meade museum. Someone is wrong. I'd like to discuss this incongruity. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)