Jump to content

Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.55.203.50 (talk) at 03:58, 6 August 2008 (→‎Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Vandalism on this page

I am removing the George Noory reference. I think this is vandalism. See the page for the user who added it, where there are many other incidents of this type. Anyway, it's a POV and doesn't belong. --Slowmover, 27-Jan-2006.

Additionally, I have removed the following text from the article:

"==Horrible Discovery from scifi.com==

According to SciFiWire at scifi.com, a remake is in the works.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=41031&type=0

Nothing more needs to be said."

Nervousbreakdance 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate text from newly created The Day The Earth Stood Still, now a redirect:

Classic US science fiction film released in 1951 starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Billy Gray, and others. Directed by Robert Wise who later directed some of the Star Trek movies. One of the first science fiction films to present the concept that aliens might not be destructive. Filmed in black & white with minimal, but effective special effects. Some of the spaceship scenes were recycled in other movies and television, notably the Twilight Zone.

The movie featured a tall robot, "Gort", who could destroy objects with a powerful heat-ray. Gort was one of many such robots who patrol the galaxy, maintaining the peace.

This movie has become a cult film, partly because of the high quality for such an early science fiction film, and partly for its unusual message of peace.

First use of Theremin?

"The score was written by Bernard Herrmann and is notable for including the first use of a theremin in movie background music."

Wasn't Herrmann's score for TDTESS inspired by Miklós Rózsa's use of the theremin in "Spellbound" & "Lost Weekend" (both 1945)? Yrs, &c. Lech 66.222.176.48

You appear to have caught an error in the article. I will attempt to correct it. Please reply if possible. --Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

250 million miles

Klaatu says he has travelled 250 million miles for 5 months to reach earth. That works out to an average of 19 miles/sec, which would cause him to coast inwards to the Sun from approximately the orbit of Jupiter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity. However, where is 250 million miles from Earth? --209.221.206.206 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I surmise that Klaatu flew in a transfer orbit from Mars or Venus (which in 1951 were thought to be within limits for being habitable). That could be 250 million miles. However, the craft seems to have inertial damping that should have allowed a much faster trip, say, a couple of weeks at most, and even that is more than it would take delegates to arrive at the conference Klaatu wanted.
I hope this movie is never remade. It is just too effective to be duplicated without the greatest effort and willingness to spend months in post-production and repeated re-touches to make sure a remake is as effective. The 1951 shots of space and stars just hammer it home. GBC 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will sit down to watch just a few minutes of it, and wind up watching the whole thing. It's just gorgeous and perfect as it is. I like when Frances Bavier's character says "I wouldn't be too sure about that...they come from right here on Earth. And you know who I mean...." The obvious implication is that she's talking about the Soviets, but the fact that it's left ambiguous makes the whole story a timeless fable. What a film! Alan Canon 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote Page?

there doesn't seem to be one for such an important film, with such great quotes, especially the final monologue --voodoom 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Conroy

The actor Frank Conroy linked in this page is not the same Frank Conroy who directed the Writer's Workshop at the University of Iowa and wrote "Stop Time."

Remake

As per this page http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/02/21/the-day-the-earth-stood-still-being-remade-for-2008/ they'll be remaking TDTESS in 2008 Klaatuprime

Arlington cemetary

"...Klaatu learns with dismay that all those buried there were killed in wars." Of course, this isn't true (ex-servicemen who died postwar are buried there too), but is that what Billy tells Klaatu? Clarityfiend 05:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Commentary Cites

Despite the fact that much information is taken from the Wise/Meyer commentary track for the DVD release of the film, I see someone has put in several "incites." Why? How more specific can you get? It was on the commentary track, it has thus been "published." Does the editor who asked for the incites want a time-listing, or a sworn statement from Meyer. . . what? Sir Rhosis 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) Remake

I hope The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 Remake) at IMDb is completed and released. Taking that as a given, I propose when appropriate to split the new film off as a seperate article.

For now, let us choose article names for the classic and future films such that a consistent naming scheme is used to easily locate both films. One possiblity is:

  1. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film) - old page moved here.
  2. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film) - new page created here.
  3. The Day the Earth Stood Still - becomes disambiguation page after old page move.

Please consider adding other proposals. Conrad T. Pino 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - Proposed article names revised per Clarityfiend 4 September 2007 comment below by Conrad T. Pino 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be split until the remake is actually filming and thus being made. It could easily fall apart. Alientraveller 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standard film naming convention is: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film), etc. Clarityfiend 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I updated the above proposal accordingly. Conrad T. Pino 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a mention of the 08 remake. I am currently drawing a complete blank on names of films that are remakes of others, except for Phantom of the Opera, the page for which is about 1/4 comprised of a list of remakes. I feel certain that if I had found separate pages for original and remake, I would have found evidence that referencing each on the page of the other is standard Wiki practice. If you can find compelling and comprehensive evidence that this is not so, feel free to alter the format of the reference to what is appropriate. Anarchangel (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greenburger's usage, a See Also section, is both more discrete than an intro sentence, as befits an unreleased film, and gives information that doesn't fit elsewhere a place. I had in mind a See Also section rather than a Remake section, but it slipped my mind. See Also sections are good places for editors who don't have a paragraph's worth of information to put single sentences that are relevant to the article that subsequent editors can elaborate upon, and if they don't see one already up, they may hesitate to start a See Also section. I am going to restore his work, feel free to discuss Anarchangel (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remake infobox film

Please keep the remake infobox within the article body. Comment out if needed but please do not delete. – Conrad T. Pino 10:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dtest sndtrk.jpg

Image:Dtest sndtrk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Day the Earth Stood Still 1951.jpg

Image:Day the Earth Stood Still 1951.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 Jan '08 EDIT
Intro Nuclear war already mentioned, there is no evidence given in the article for a 2nd coming allegory
Critical Reaction None of the film elements spoken of were originated by this film. The 1930s serial Flash Gordon has all of them; less importantly, but of note, the elements were dealt with in a less than precise manner, eg, Gort was somewhat misrepresented as one of a 'race of killer robots'.
Religious allegory Clarification, expanded potential allegories, moved opening sentence to closing.
Production: Citation of the crowd matte shot would be nice but as it is plausible and not suspect it is not required, imo. It would be nice to have citation tags to encourage the addition of citations, but that is implicit in every sentence of every Wiki page. Furthermore it gives the undeserved impression that the fact is somewhat suspect, whereas in fact matte shots and their modern equivalents are synonymous with filmaking, and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this means of creating the crowd was not used
Re: Original research tags, both of the same date.
1.Widely accepted means of storytelling in film. Tag removed. Whether it is true or not that low and high angles have that effect, for a director to use those shots most probably would mean they intended that effect, that it is an inference not a fact has been clarified. Really, I suspect the real problem was a PoV reaction to 'warlike people of Earth' which was itself PoV, possibly unintentional, and has therefore been reworked; for OR tags to have been added in the pursuit of a PoV bias is inexcusable, especially when one considers the ease with which the initial PoV problem was resolved.
2. Tag removed. Matte work is more subtle than alien 'lasers'.
References Single reference (before I added the ref of the scheduled '08 remake) does not seem to be unusual for an old film. Of two Humphrey Bogart films I checked, the less famous 'The Maltese Falcon' has no references at all, whereas 'Casablanca' has 6. What should be at issue is the quality of references, not the quantity, as pages of more well known films would tend to be edited more. Removed tag. Doubtless interest in this subject will be heightened when the remake comes out and more references will be made, in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the short story

Why does the article not describe the difference between the endings of the movie and the short story? "Not to spoil anything" is a childs way of preventing the reader from understanding the meanings the author was trying to convay. I'm not going to change the entry as there may be some actual reason for not revealing the ending - and that I don't know it - but it should be considered. If the Harry Potter book 7 ending was put onto it's relative page mear hours after it was released, why hasn't the ending for the short story of The Day the Earth Stood Still been put into the article, or the short story have its own article? Both stories have had their own impacts on the world relativley.

Thanks, --Garfunkle20 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that recent change. I've restored the ending. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Because the 1951 film instead of remake is the more noteworthy film and the page contain a link to the remake anyway, The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film) should be moved to The Day the Earth Stood Still.--Darknus823 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"More noteworty" is a subjective call, and once the 2008 film comes out it will probably be more widely known than the 1951 version. One problem was that a number of people were adding information about the 2008 film to this (1951) article. Macduff (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...Once the 2008 film comes out it will probably be more widely known than the 1951 version" is supposition, I would imagine, based on recentism. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. If and when the 2008 movie equals or eclipses the original, the titles can be changed to reflect that. — AjaxSmack 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCF doesn't make any provision for "primary use"; rather, it suggests that we automatically disambiguate films with the same title. Perhaps this is something that needs to be looked at, though. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more subjective to apply recentism if editors sought to make the remake the primary topic and disambiguated the 1951 film. In addition, I'm not sure why WP:FUTURE is being cited for discussion in reaching consensus about this; it applies to the content of articles. We need to use common sense here; the remake will certainly receive a fair amount of press. The disambiguation page is the most objective call. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...The remake will certainly receive a fair amount of press." Yes it will and the articles can be disambiguated when that is reflected in general usage (Wikipedia is not Wikinews). WP:FUTURE holds that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Imparting notability on an unreleased movie based on future events is exactly that.
WP:NCF might "suggest" automatically disambiguating films of the same name, the text only reads, "When disambiguating films of the same name..." If there were three or more movies named The Day the Earth Stood Still, I would definitely support the current status where The Day the Earth Stood Still is a disambiguation page. However, with only two movies of this title, one not yet released, a hatnote will do just fine. This reduces the overall number of clicks to reach the desired article. (To put this another way, to reach the 2008 film, one must click twice under either scenario; with hatnotes one only needs one click to reach the 1951 film.) — AjaxSmack 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How terrible that one must click twice to find the desired article! (Those poor fingers.) Of course, your proposal only benefits those who are looking for one of these articles. I don't really follow your reading of WP:NFF; it appears (to me) to apply equally, whether there are two films with the same title, or 22. While I'm sympathetic to this requested move, I ultimately feel that maintaining the status quo is the best option. PC78 (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In December, 2007, this article was moved from "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to "The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film)". There is also an article called "The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)". I think that is fair and equitable. Moving this article back to "The Day the Earth Stood Still" so that it can again be re-moved to "The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film)" at another point in the future makes absolutely no sense, and I can't think of any reason to have one (or other) of the films be the "default" article. Macduff (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still&oldid=230127246"