Talk:The Day the Earth Stood Still

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 the first Star Trek movie. 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brion VIBBER (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 January 2003 (UTC)

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—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.176.48 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowmover (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh, the irony... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.133.84 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect "250 million miles" was chosen because it would seem a fairly comprehensible number to the average movie-goer. The idea that Klaatu might be from our solar system is absurd; he would doubtless be from another star system, hundreds of trillions of miles away. Newton (in The Man Who Fell to Earth) is from Mars, though the author (Walter Tevis) never explicitly says so. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.20.187 (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's been fixed, after comparing pictures. But there are many actors and actresses who appear without credit in this movie, quite a few more than the ones now listed. They have speaking parts, such as the telephone operator talking to Helen Benson (Patricia Neal) at about 1:32. I know I've seen her before, but I don't know her name. It's almost as if all these actors thought this would be a good project to join, credit be damned. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric

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—Preceding undated comment added at 23:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay then, but they might as well remake "Citizen Kane" or "2001: A Space Odyssey." Why?! Alan Canon 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Just the fact that there were wars with that many soldiers is enough.

-G—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The standard film naming convention is: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film), etc. Clarityfiend 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated the above proposal accordingly. Conrad T. Pino 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

See Also / Remake Link

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)
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)

Fair use rationale for File:Dtest sndtrk.jpg

File: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)

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

File: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)

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)

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)

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

Is it truely accurate to say the relationship between Gnut/Gort and Klaatu is "much different"? In the short story it's made clear at the end that Gnut's the master. "Master" is not explicitly stated as such at the end of the film, but it is stated that the Gort enforcers have been given absolute power over the various alien races to prevent violence. Doesn't that make them de facto masters? I'd remove the comment myself but worry I'm missing something key here. -singe@ix.netcom.com 3:35, 30 September 2008 (PST)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.232 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gort's race is given absolute power over one specific area. Masters have control over everything. Notice that Klaatu gives orders to Gort several times in the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move August 2008

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)

"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)

Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"...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)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

• Oppose if the new film stars Keanu Reeves, it'll be what non-afficianados will consider the film. 70.55.203.50 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Inclusion of Biblical References by the Screenwriter

Early this year, I undertook to attempt to preserve fascinating speculations on which parts of TDtESS were religious allegory by making it as clear as possible that they were speculation, without undermining the possibility that they were truly intended by the film's contributor/s. At the time, there was no indication whatsoever that -any- of this speculation had any basis whatsoever. By Wiki standards, I left a bloody edit of an entire section of Original Research undone. Since then, fortunately, time has proven my decision to be merciful, correct; the quote from the screenwriter Edmund North indicating that he did include allegory has surfaced, so that at least can be included, with the verified examples of making Klaatu comparable to Christ. All speculation will be overtly marked as such.

• In a 1995 interview, producer Julian Blaustein explained that the "studio censors" : V..., who in Feb also removed my Jan qualifications of the speculations as such, declaring them variously "ridiculous" and "deliberate equivocation added by a confused person" replaced Joseph I. Breen, the name of the studio censor; there seems no good reason to remove a useful fact like his name and replace it with a generic title. Protecting the innocent? The guilty? The reason given was something very much like, "It reads more smoothly", with which reason I do not agree. The full name has been replaced.
• alien who comes to Earth to warn its leaders not to take their conflicts into space or : the war proscribed was not limited to war in space.
• Klaatu's friend Helen plays the part of Mary by questioning what is happening. : Took this out, because I don't really know even which Mary it might be referring to, Mary's mother or Magdalene, let alone which questionings, and which happenings. Please elucidate it before restoring it.
• If any other of these elements are indeed verifiable / when they are verified, of course they may be moved from the speculative section.
• Because I added the fact that Klaatu's resurrection had not originally been written as temporary to the comparison of his revival and Jesus' resurrection, it seems to me to also be good procedure to add these citations : "Julian Blaustein, Robert Wise, Patricia Neal, Billy Gray. (1995). Making the Earth Stand Still [LaserDisc; DVD]. Fox Video; Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. Retrieved on 2007-07-22." and "Shermer, Michael (2001). The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. Oxford University Press, 74-75. ISBN 0195143264." This is dependent on the event that they reference the script change. Unfortunately, as I do not have access to these, I don't know whether either or both cover the rewrite specifically. Anarchangel (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement to the effect of "Jesus's body having been removed from the tomb by an angel" would be more plausible with a citation. Though an angel does figure prominently in the retelling of the resurrection story, it's far from immediately obvious to someone with a cursory acquaintance with Christian scripture that the angel was the agent of the vacating of Jesus's tomb.Rickythesk8r (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film) → The Day the Earth Stood Still — There only other use is the remake which makes the dab page completely unnecessary — 71.106.172.173 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nom 71.106.172.173 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose A disambiguation page is clearly necessary to disambiguate between the two films with the same title. --DAJF (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• That would already be disambiguated if the article was moved. 71.106.172.173 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name (regardless of the likely difference in quality of the two films). Why are we going through this again? It's only been a few months since the last time. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because there are only two uses of the name and it is superfluous to have a dab page.71.106.172.173 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF and comments in the previous move request. Nothing has changed since then, so I'm not going to repeat myself. PC78 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Move

I'm proposing that this article be moved to the main article, due to it being far more significant to cinematic history. There are many examples where merely being a modern remake doesn't matter - just because it's in theaters and the original film is not does not mean that there is a significant level of notability on one side to prevent it from having the main article. It would not be surprising if the remake fell into obscurity while the original remained significant - this happens fairly often. We should have the original film at the main title, and IF there's established notability, we can move it back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. We've already had two such requests recently. With the remake opening soon, nothing has changed in favor of the move. This has nothing to do with the relative cinematic merits of each film. Frankly, I expect the remake to suck. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it'll suck I bet. However, as I said, nothing has changed - we don't know how notable it will be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM states if two films share the same title, disambiguate with (YEAR film). Perhaps The Day the Earth Stood Still could redirect to this classic, with a hatnote linking to the remake. Alientraveller (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I disagree that we should always disambig like that, I like the idea of redirecting it here. That would be acceptable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the redirect, it's simply against the current practice found elsewhere in Wikipedia. bogdan (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per Manual of Style. bogdan (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The MOS is huge. Link it. I cannot believe a disambiguation page is needed for two articles. Alientraveller (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Oppose Let's see how the 2008 film fares before making a commitment either way. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OR?

The following section appears to be OR ("speculations upon..."); if it isn't, adding the source would be a good move. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Speculations upon which elements were added by the screenwriter to make Klaatu's character Christlike, or occurrences included in the story which are comparable to the Bible story of Christ:

• He adopts the name John Carpenter. New Testament accounts sometimes call Jesus the "carpenter's [Joseph's] son".
• Klaatu declares the position of his people before the powers of the world; although Jesus most commonly spoke before crowds of the common people, his character was also tested in confrontations with the powerful.
• Klaatu lecturing Professor Barnhardt (played by Jewish actor Sam Jaffe with Einstein's hairdo) on his own area of expertise, on his own blackboard, is a parallel to the young Jesus lecturing the rabbis in the temple.
• Klaatu escapes the government, believing the company and knowledge of the common people to be more valuable to his mission than that of the established order. Jesus repeatedly took it upon himself to point out the value of the poor, pariahs, and outcasts, which even his followers questioned, and considered that his work with them was his most valuable.
• Klaatu gives Helen the famous phrase to be repeated to Gort in the event of Klaatu's death, and this soon transpires; Jesus actions at the Last Supper are repeated by his followers after his death, and he warns that his death will soon come both at the Last Supper, and at night in the Garden of Gethsemane, just before the apprehension by the Roman soldiers that leads to his death.
• Klaatu's death at the hands of soldiers echoes the death of Jesus; just as Jesus' crucifixion was carried out by soldiers, so is Klaatu's killing.
• Gort removes the body of Klaatu from a locked jail cell; Jesus' body is removed from a sealed tomb by an angel.
• Klaatu revives from death to give his ultimate message regarding his purpose to the people of Earth and then ascends into space; Jesus revives from death to give his ultimate message regarding his purpose to his mother, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, and a few others, and then ascends into Heaven."

Unless the material is defamatory and MUST be removed pronto, the way to deal with material you "suspect" might be OR, is to tag it as {cite needed} and let it collect cites. Or do a google yourself to see if your suspicions are true that specific connections with Christian mythology are OR and no cites are available (which would be wrong, since there are lots of them: [1]). You did it the easy and destructive way, and not the wiki way. SBHarris 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The easy way would have been to do nothing; the destructive way would have been to just remove it, instead of preserving it on the discussion page. As for what is and isn't the wiki way, in my experience, moving stuff to the discussion page in a situation like this is pretty standard. If you can find a citation that is more in line with WP:RELIABLE than the one you gave (which frankly looks like a user's description of something he or she just uploaded onto some website), feel free to summarize what it says. And speaking of the wiki way, I'm going to assume good faith and try to convince myself you didn't mean your reply to sound as aggressive as it came out. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What you did is not "pretty standard." But why listen to me? I've been here a year longer than you and have 3 times your edits, but I'll just figure you know what the wiki-way is better than anybody, and can't be taught (at least, not by me). I see you've learned the acronyms, at least. Actually, once upon a time I would have been more aggressive about removal of good content, but since then, I've seen the light and learned that it's just not worth it to fight about it. So, do whatever you like. Have a nice day. SBHarris 05:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Looks like removing it has had the expected effect, which is that today somebody else (not me!) has redone it all, and added it all back, as OR (although most of this is pretty obvious). More edit warring in the future, I predict. And somebody's going to be very disappointed with their first experience with Wikipedia. SBHarris 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing what Markus did for ages. It works out for the best, I've tagged stuff that sat for months with no action being taken. It's best to take it to talk. I'll have a look at the main article later when I have more time. Alastairward (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here guys. This is my first experience with trying to add something to Wikipedia. In doing so, I quoted fairly heavily from the film and the Bible, either as direct quotes or generally. I am not a religious zealot, just trying to take a scholarly approach to the themes. I would also point out that there already are plenty of quotes by the makers suggesting that they intended this to be allegorical. So, what's your point in acting like shock jocks? Isn't the supposed intention of this website to add to knowledge in the public domain? What's your problem? I think critical analysis of themes pervades this website and all I am trying to do is provide some analysis. I am thinking about doing Willy Wonka next (everlasting gobstoppers; chocolate factory as heaven; Willy Wonka as God; etc.; very basic really; a film professor in college thought my points were more than valid even though there was less support from my research on the makers' intentions -- not so here). I suppose you would censor well-settled analysis concerning C.S. Lewis and the Narnia series. This is nuttiness. Be mature in your approach. I like South Park, as well. South Park doesn't criticize analysis, but encourages it. That's all we are doing here. Religious viewpoints are irrelevant to the point that this movie is nothing but a modern adaptation of the New Testament, probably written purposely to gain new audiences. Think about it this way, if you are an Atheist, wouldn't you want to discourage people blindly watching this film? In any case, your censorship is abhorrent to the basic principles of enlightened thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptplawyer (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cptplawyer, I'll refer you then to the related WP policies, no original research and no synthesis. What you did when you added your analysis was to link two sources (the christian bible and the film) and try to link them yourself through your own logic. To be suitable for inclusion in a wikipedia article, material should be properly sourced from reliable sources. This does not mean the sources you're trying to link, but the sources that you've used to prove the link exists. If you cited academic material making the same claims you did, then that's fine. Doing so by yourself, not so much. Alastairward (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is a "reliable source" for literary analysis? How about an article from SKEPTIC magazine, which had a GORT pieta on the cover for that month, in discussing the Christian allegories in this film? That would be nice, since I wrote that article. Or how about http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/cyborg.htm SBHarris 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pray tell? We can't tell much without seeing what's being said and cited, why not put this content into the article and we'll go from there. Alastairward (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I already had the content IN the article (see above) and it was removed. I'm not spending my time fighting to keep content in articles. Been there, done that. It's worth the time to note how dysfunctional Wikipedia is in this regard, but I personally have better things to do in the very many other science articles I edit. If you want to be the resistive force that keeps *this* particular article from improving, be my guest. I will not play your game. SBHarris 03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion has now entered emotional arguments about what Wikipedia is or isn't (or more precisely what it is and shouldn't be). Read up on the appropriate wiki policies, if you don't like them, it really isn't my problem. Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

motivations

Though Blaustein and North might have wanted TDtESS to promote the United Nations, Zanuck (a liberal Republican) apparently did not. (This is mentioned in the supplemental material on the "white cover" DVD of a few years back.) In Klaatu's little lecture he says "How you govern your own planet is of no concern". Though the threat to destroy Earth if we don't get rid of nuclear weapons (or is it if we bring such weapons into space? -- this isn't clear) might imply the need for a strong central authority, it is not directly stated. Indeed, the thrust of Klaatu's point throughout the film is that human beings are irresponsible children who need to grow up -- which requires only introspection and good sense, not world government.

I understand Wikipedia's desire for all content to be verifiable, but when you call a list of objective facts "original research", you are (in my opinion) being unreasonable. The idea that Klaatu is a Christ figure is more or less obvious, whether or not Edmund North ever said this was his intent. Once noted, the parallels (again, whether or not intended) automatically fall out. I see no reason to object to a list of such parallels being part of the article. It is no more "original research" than timing the film with a stopwatch to see exactly how long it runs, or noting that Snow White's "mutton chop" sleeves are blue with a red insert. For example, to state that Michael Rennie was an unfamiliar actor is an obvious fact. To state that he was selected to play Klaatu for that reason requires a reference.

I'm bothered by the way my addition pointing out that Klaatu steals the clothes of a Major Carpenter has been ammended to actually explain this. How about some respect for the intelligence of the reader? But I'll leave it as it is. (I once worked with an Evangelical who liked TDtESS very much. When I pointed out the Christ parallel, and gave Major Carpenter's clothes as an example, he just didn't get it. So much for thoughtful Bible study.)

Another point not covered is the thematic similarity to "2001" (which, by the way, Clarke did not write the screenplay for -- he wrote the novelization). Bowman "dies" (at least symbolically) and is reborn as a savior of humanity. Kubrick originally intended for the "Star Child" to remove the threat of the orbiting warheads by detonating them. He deleted this, because it would have been too much like the ending of "Dr. Strangelove", but it remains in the novel, if I recall correctly.

Joseph Breen was a censor for the industry, not just at Fox. As the studios produced something like 200 films a year (probably more, even in 1950), it's unlikely he would have been the sole person evaluating them. His lackeys would no doubt have been taking an initial look. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's added without a cite, it can be challenged and removed. You mention a cite further up (DVD material) why not at least use that? Alastairward (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 27–42. ISBN 0275983951.
• Husarik, Stephen (2010). "Suspended Motion in the Title Scene from The Day the Earth Stood Still". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J (ed.). Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 164–176. ISBN 0786444800.
• Skoble, Aeon J. (2007). "Technology and Ethics in The Day the Earth Stood Still". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 91–102. ISBN 0813124727.
• Weaver, Tom (2004). "The Day the Earth Stood Still: Interview with Robert Wise". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 50–59. ISBN 0879109947.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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"

--JaGa^talk 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! --JaGa^talk 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)
• Comment. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#The Day the Earth Stood Still might be of interest to anyone commenting here. Station1 (talk) 21:02, 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[2] of the one for the 1951 film.[3] 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

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)

No, but it is in story it's based on, "Farewell to the Master". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Location of spacecraft prop

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

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. [4]. 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 [5] 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

"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

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)

Distance Travelled

250,000,000 miles in 5 months? About 70,000 miles per hour. 250 million is about as far APART as Mars and Earth get (nearest 34 million). Venus is about 24-162 million. Jupiter - 365-601 million. 198.53.137.96 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Time element in The Day The Earth Stood Still

I just watched the movie. The power outage was from 12:00 PM to 12:30 PM; exactly 30 minutes, not an hour as previously indicated in the plot synopsis. Ken roser (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on The Day the Earth Stood Still. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122102933/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/cheers100.pdf?docID=202 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/cheers100.pdf?docID=202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412123007/http://www.robothalloffame.org/06inductees/gort.html to http://www.robothalloffame.org/06inductees/gort.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211071945/http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/sequel_1.htm to http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/sequel_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on The Day the Earth Stood Still. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807121703/http://www.laffoleyarchive.com/laffoley_writings/disco_volante_ovni.html to http://www.laffoleyarchive.com/laffoley_writings/disco_volante_ovni.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)