7 Minute Preview Of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’

Published 7 years ago by

day earth stood still 7 min 7 Minute Preview Of The Day the Earth Stood Still

On Sunday night, prior to the encore broadcast of the Fringe premiere, Fox debuted this extended 7-minute preview for The Day the Earth Stood Still. This trailer extends and completes some of the scenes shown in the first trailer.

Upon seeing the first theatrical trailer previewed before Hancock in early July, I was very excited. The trailer felt very dark and cryptic, while being realistic as to what would actually happen in that situation.

Unfortunately, this feeling was mostly shot down for me with this new extended preview.

Judge for yourself:


The new scenes, specifically the ones focusing on destruction or the emerging giant spheres (marbles?) do not really work for me. I think these images also hurt the film’s appeal and make it almost “too sci-fi”, if that makes sense. It felt to me a lot like the bad parts of War of the Worlds, another remake of a classic science fiction film.

In earlier posts about this movie here on Screen Rant, Vic made it very clear how he feels about the remake and the “global warming” (oh, sorry, climate change) message of this film. Screen Rant also received a nice little letter from (everybody’s favorite) Fox Studios about another article we posted which commented on a review of the script from Aint It Cool News. That review, if true, makes the movie sound pretty bad.

Seeing this new preview in combination to what I’ve been reading about the story, I am not happy about this remake either. I wish they didn’t use the original name – they do not need to as it has nothing to do with this film. Using the original name will not make this movie sell more, it’s the actors and trailers that make it sell. All this does is tarnish the original name with something that is irrelevent to the original plot and idea.

Clearly, I am not sold yet on this film. What did you think of this extended trailer? Will you see this on the big screen?

The Day the Earth Stood Still opens on December 12, 2008.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I liked the new trailer. In particular the additional footage of the interrogation scene. I’m a fan of the original but I’m going to reserve judgement until December. I was impressed , though, with the whole Sci-Fi feel and look. Let’s hope the rest of the acting is o.k.

  2. The only problem I have is the name. In the original, Klatu was a benevolent alien coming to warn earth about extending their hostilities to other worlds. To show their power, he made all machines (except hospitals and emergency machinery) loose power. In this one, Klatu seems more hostile, taking over humans minds and making them pass out. Instead of warning them, it looks like they are coming to wipe humanity off the face of the planet. I have no problem with this premise but it’s not the DTEST I know and love.

  3. Exactly. So in this version it’s all about wiping out humanity if we don’t stop “harming” the planet? So human life is less important than plants, trees and other animals? It’s more important that earth survives than HUMANITY?

    At least in the original the basis was a concern that we would take our warlike ways out into the universe. Here it’s that we litter?



  4. “So human life is less important than plants, trees and other animals?”

    While I personally agree with that idea, I have to wonder how the story could proceed with it. I don’t see any way of wiping out humanity that doesn’t also wipe out nearly all other life on the planet as well. For that reason alone, this movie doesn’t seem like it could be any good.

  5. “While I personally agree with that idea,”

    To quote the star of this film:


    I guess you don’t have kids.


  6. Hey you can’t park your ball there !!!!!!!!!

  7. “I guess you don’t have kids.”

    Nope, and I don’t want kids. I don’t even like kids.

  8. You loose a few points with me on the “I don’t like kids” flamestrike.
    I’m all for sparing them from this planet, but kids are the best thing about our race.

  9. It sounds like Preachy Crap.
    I will Pass

  10. “You loose a few points with me on the “I don’t like kids” flamestrike”

    Well, it’s not like I’m all that fond of adults either. In any case, I don’t wish anything bad to befall them, I just find them annoying beyond belief and I want them as far away from me as possible.

    “kids are the best thing about our race.”

    Like there’s anything good about our race.

  11. I really enjoyed the extended preview. Unfortunately for me, I think that I’ll always connect a black suit and tie, an interrogation scene, a truck being destroyed, and elevator doors closing on Keanu Reeves with The Matrix. I just can’t help it.

    I loved the original and I agree that if they weren’t going to follow that formula then they should have changed the name of the movie and names. I still want to see it though. I’m hoping that it’ll be good in spite of all that.

  12. It’s sad when people judge a movie based on a few minutes of footage, or express outrage at any attempt at a remake of their favorite movie. The same goes for people who trash books they haven’t bothered to read.

    Old black and white movies with aged special effects are ripe for remake, get over it. Changing and updating details is to be expected.

    This kind of bad mouthing can reduce a film’s prospects before it even has a chance.

    Yes they decided not to have a huge silver flying saucer (how cheesy would that seem in 2008), but they did retain much of the design and feel of Gort.

    I’ll wait until I can actually see the movie then make a fair assessment.

    I like the original, AND welcome another interpretation of the same story.

  13. @Bruce Montreal

    First, this is an opinion site, so we express our opinions (as we appreciate you expressing yours).

    And sorry, I won’t “get over it.” Of course not all remakes are bad ideas, but generally speaking remakes of highly regarded older films are.

    Believe me, if this turns out to be an excellent film and the message does not turn out to be a bunch of climate change inspired drivel, I’ll be the first one to admit I was wrong and eat my words.

    But I’m pretty sure I won’t have to.


  14. It’s nice to be appreciated :) I don’t think climate change is drivel though (although Sarah Palin may disagree) … the government in particular (D and R) has already stuck their head in the sand for a decade on that one. In the fifties the biggest threat to the population was the cold war and nuclear obliteration (hence the timelines of that first movie) … today it is the apathy over climate change and a failure to take preemptive action to protect the only home we have, or will have for the foreseeable future. Millions could die if the climate reaches an unpredictable tipping point. That’s literally playing with fire. However, why aliens would actually care to save a bunch of relative savages from themselves is another story .. maybe it’s more about protecting the climate of one of their favorite holiday destinations.

  15. @Bruce

    I don’t want to get into a debate in which neither side will convince the other, but… :-P

    I find it very amusing how the catchphrase was changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” Back in the 1970′s scientists were predicting another Ice Age, and now it’s the opposite.

    I find the term “Climate Change” hysterically funny, myself – because that’s what the climate DOES… it changes over time.

    Maybe someone can explain how we managed to warm up enough after the last Ice Age without the benefit of SUVs, factories and methane from millions of cows? :-)

    On the other hand of course I think we shouldn’t pollute if it can be avoided. I just hate seeing an alarmist view on this (thank you SO much Al Gore) that will end up having dire economic consequences for the entire planet.

    People propose “solutions” without thinking through to the consequences. Corn for fuel? Awesome! Oh, wait, now corn is displacing other food crops, causing other countries to starve and our food prices to skyrocket? Didn’t think of that…

    And as to oil, do you know how many products are oil based? It’s not just for running our cars folks: Plastics, medicine, cosmetics, clothing, shoes, etc., etc.

    Of COURSE we need to drill. There are no alternatives in the forseeable future for creating this products, even if we run our cars on whatever alternative. So we need to extricate ourselves from depending on governments that hate us.

    I also want to see us develop wind, solar, etc. power, but those things are NOT magic bullets that will wean us off oil in 10 years. Anyone who believes that is being naive and does not have a real-world grasp of the situation.



  16. @Vic

    I totally agree Vic. Why the Dems can’t see this is beyond me. I’m torn though; I believe one candidate is better for the country than the other but I also like my mother’s sweet potato pie and if I don’t vote for a certain “57 state” guy, I may not get anymore of that special sweet potato pie. :-)


    I hear ya, bro, about the judging a movie just by the trailer. I do plan on seeing this movie but like Vic said, it’s just an opinion brought on by the trailer. I have been fooled by trailers before (Battlefield Earth, Avengers, etc…) so we will have to see.

  17. F*&^ the Dems & Repubs…They both aren’t following the publics agendas…they don’t have our best interests at heart they have their special interest groups interests at heart..Line their pockets and get prepared for the high life in their post-political careers…They are trying to line up a good job following their political “careers” and that is all they are interested in..Not you, not me, just themselves…I hope they rot in HE double hockey sticks(LL)…Stinkin bastages…

  18. That’s right Greenknight, and that’s only the tip of the iceburg.

    Reguardless of who “wins” we loose.
    Its a 2 party dictatorship…
    Been that way since 63… When the CIA killed Kennedy. :-(

  19. I believe the Earth is one tough Mother !
    She will be OK .
    We can help along the way of course.

  20. IMHO, I liked this extended trailer. I will also state for the record that I have not seen the original as I find it as painful to sit through those old movies as many in this forum found it sitting through this trailer. Please keep in mind that the following comments are provided as a “devils advocate” only.

    The first “gut reaction” I had to this trailer is that it appears a Darwinian approach is being used, placing humans on equal footing as other animals on the globe. When viewed from the context that we’re nothing more than animals with clothes on, I can see the possible perspective the writer and director used for this film. If you aren’t the fittest, survival isn’t likely.

    Generally, people don’t like being told that they are animals too. Somehow, many find it difficult to accept that possibility when they have a half-million mortgage, 2.3 kids, and two expensive cars parked out front of their garage because their garage is full of stuff. It’s not a point people like to hear, but if an obviously dominant species were to descend upon the planet and see no merit or value in the human race above that of other species, it’s clear to me that an approach like this may be used to correct an imbalance.

    That said, does the film merit the recycling of a historic title? Apparently not from what has been said. Perhaps they simply couldn’t come up with a better name. Is this film too sci-fi as has been proposed above? Only time will tell. I personally take all the sci-fi I can get and choose not to judge while using a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief (as I used in Sunshine).

    There are many people out there with ideas of wiping people off the globe for the sake of the planet. Tom Clancey wrote “Rainbow Six” about a group of people plotting just such a thing. There’s a group of people on the planet that’d like to see the human race dramatically reduced, or even eliminated. Perhaps the writer is of that mind, or has influential friends that are.

    It seems to me that parents would take offense to a movie suggesting that the planet would be better off without their kids treading upon it, after all the work they’ve put into making that happen. I don’t have children so I can’t see that perspective as easily, though I understand it. I think this film stands to be a film that will challenge people to think about possibilities that are uncomfortable to them. I’m just saying that when we have official contact with an alien species all over the globe simultaneously, my gut tells me that we’re not going to be facing E.T. asking to phone home.

  21. I don’t think the fact that the Earth is warming at a rate never seen before (it should be slowly cooling down) is a partisan issue.

    Anyway Vic I’m sure you are right and the entire global Scientific community is wrong. Phew! I mean, what do they know? Do they have a lively blog? No they don’t. They only have this boring site from 2004 claiming empirical evidence :-)


    Group hug.

  22. @bpg131313

    Great post there, bro, despite the fact I disagree with a lot of it. :-P

    We are not “just animals” just because we’re made of the same stuff. Animals don’t ponder their self-existance or appreciate art and beauty.

    Heck the fact that you sat there, gathered your thoughts and added them to this discussion shows that your more than just an animal.



  23. Hey Bruce Montreal,

    This is incredibly OT but,

    That site you linked and any graphs/studies showing exponential increase in recent temperature fluctuations were proven wrong.

    My professor for my masters thesis actually was one of the ones who discovered the flaws in the methodology and there were hearings made to try and force the original creator to reveal his data and method which he tried to keep hidden.

    Look up the “hockey stick debate”

    No more climate change talk from me :)

  24. So much for the Prime Directive.

  25. @Bruce Montreal
    Every group needs funds. The global scientific community is no different.

    This global warming is due to the Sun.
    (That big nuclear reaction in the sky) Scientists have discussed it, it is becoming accepted,,, slowly…

    However there’s still a lot of “groups” that are making “LOTS OF MONEY” by pushing the adgenda that its caused by mankind.

    At the end of the day, its all about the money…

  26. @ Rob Keyes

    Yes you have to go back to 2005 to find arguments against the hockey stick theory. In 2006 the scientist who originally proposed that the climate was heating up faster than at any time in the previous 1000 years came back with more evidence and the scientific community is in broad agreement now that this phenomenon is largely man made .. the government also concludes the same despite resisting it (for ecomonic reasons) for a long time. Once they realized this was real and that not doing anything would cost much more in the long run, that is.

    The evidence that was presented and broadly accepted in 2006 (and ever since) is discussed here:

    Having said that I know that you can never convince some people once their mind is made up .. so I’ll just agree to disagree. However, pressure on politicians is needed as is a non partisan effort to reduce pollution to an extent that the atmosphere has a chance of correcting itself over a few generations.

    Recycling and informed individuals deciding to buy hybrid cars will not be enough, this will need an international and government led effort to agree on and hit targets to reduce harmful emissions.

    Anyway I won’t go back and forth on this any more. It reminds me how people fought tooth and nail once upon a time to decry any evidence that smoking, or even passive smoking was bad for you. All they do is slow down measures to fix the problem, and that’s what is happening again.

    Anyway, back to the original point. I think that substituting nuclear anihilation for environmental disaster is appropriate and timely for the movie.

    Did you know that even the original Robert Wise movie deviated from the short story it was based on .. it that short story Gort was revealed to be the master of Klaatu .. something the movie makers decided wasn’t palatable for US audiences of the time.

    Well I’m going off to watch X-files now .. I just bought seasons 5, 6 and 7 ;-)

  27. @Bruce Montreal,,,you said
    “pressure on politicians is needed as is a non partisan effort to reduce pollution to an extent that the atmosphere has a chance of correcting itself over a few generations”

    The government is the biggest polluter of all. Hell even the Military openly pollutes world wide.
    Changing a few lightbulbs won’t do it.
    More laws only effect the ppl not the companies that own the Governments.
    You can’t change the image on the screen by yelling at it. You have to get to the projector.
    All the ppl are doing is yelling at the screen. (No pun intended Vic). ;-)

  28. You all know that ‘global warming’ and ‘ice age’ are the same thing right?

  29. Yeah there both words to scare people and take advantage.