146 replies to this topic

[johnnypt]

Yup.

Original ending had the apes offing everyone in Caesar's city. In light of Watts riots and others, film was recut with Roddy McDowall dubbing a speech for compassion. ("We who are not human, can be humane.") You can kind of hear the timbre change - he is not speaking through makeup. (funny enough, another anecdote from 'Escape from the Planet of the Apes' - McDowall and Hunter were overdubbing and couldn't get it to sound right until they put on the mouth prosthetics!)

And, it took me years to figure this out - it's not necessarily that the apes win all over. But, they destabilize the world enough that mankind starts shooting off nukes - either to suppress the apes or to take advantage of their enemies during the ape riots. Some apes flee the cities before the bombing starts.

It is funny now listening to that speech knowing all the background info, and it does sound like Roddy was in a hall way or something, just a total different sound and all the cuts to his zoomed in eyes.

Had they stopped with Conquest, it's a pretty simple "Apes win, man are slaves". When you throw Battle into the picture, it definitely lends itself more to an evolution (though not the way Col. Taylor thought). The TV series wouldn't have made sense without Battle (it DOES have umpteen chronological problems on its own).

[monk]

well it also seems like, from that trailer, they are definitely not going with the time travel bit...so is this a stand alone re-imagination?

[PaulMc]

well it also seems like, from that trailer, they are definitely not going with the time travel bit...so is this a stand alone re-imagination?

I don't know. Maybe it all depends on the box office (gee, where have we heard that before?)

Yeah, something will be missing without some time travel. The loop created by Cornelius & Zira coming back and giving birth to Caesar gave it a causality angle this new series apparently won't have.

I think they almost need to make a sequel. Once the apes are in control (at the end of the movie,) then what? I imagine there will be a desire to see where the apes take the world. Hopefully, it won't devolve into "apes==humans why-can't-we-all-get-along" too quickly.

[Almuric]

It doesn't look bad, the apes seem convincing, at least.

Yet I can't help but think, couldn't someone, you know, shoot them, or something? A whiff of grapeshot would probably stop the Great Ape Rebellion dead in its tracks.

[Tex]

...couldn't someone, you know, shoot them, or something? A whiff of grapeshot would probably stop the Great Ape Rebellion dead in its tracks.

Shhhhh!

Tex
(stop thinking logically! This is Whorellywood!)

Edited by Tex, 15 April 2011 - 04:17 AM.

[monk]

It doesn't look bad, the apes seem convincing, at least.

Yet I can't help but think, couldn't someone, you know, shoot them, or something? A whiff of grapeshot would probably stop the Great Ape Rebellion dead in its tracks.

or a couple of Abrams. or the new heat ray they have.

these are way more convincing than say, those apes in Greystoke. Still, I cried when they shot that old ape out of the tree.

Edited by monk, 15 April 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Ironhand]

It doesn't look bad, the apes seem convincing, at least.

Yet I can't help but think, couldn't someone, you know, shoot them, or something? A whiff of grapeshot would probably stop the Great Ape Rebellion dead in its tracks.

Decades ago, long before the first Planet of the Apes movie, I read a SF story which incidentally answers your question. In this story, humans were using intelligent chimps as surrogate soldiers in their wars. These apes were trained to use weapons; they even flew fighter jets. The story follows the adventures of a chimp fighter pilot, and his girlfriend, a chimp combat nurse, as he decides to strike out for freedom against the Masters, who send him to fight other chimps for whom he has no ill will; the Masters who themselves have forgotten how to fight.

Edited by Ironhand, 15 April 2011 - 08:26 AM.

[daniel]

wow. i had no idea this film was made. is this in any way based on the original novel by pierre bole'?

i must admit that being a gorilla fan since my earliest childhood, i found planet of the apes to be slightly offensive in it's description of the species.
it's a significant novel, in terms of the genre's history but way wrong gorila-wise.

[johnnypt]

wow. i had no idea this film was made. is this in any way based on the original novel by pierre bole'?

Apart from the general idea of apes taking over, no. In fact, this is seemingly even less similar to it than the original series.

[amster]

It doesn't look bad, the apes seem convincing, at least.

Yet I can't help but think, couldn't someone, you know, shoot them, or something? A whiff of grapeshot would probably stop the Great Ape Rebellion dead in its tracks.

Decades ago, long before the first Planet of the Apes movie, I read a SF story which incidentally answers your question. In this story, humans were using intelligent chimps as surrogate soldiers in their wars. These apes were trained to use weapons; they even flew fighter jets. The story follows the adventures of a chimp fighter pilot, and his girlfriend, a chimp combat nurse, as he decides to strike out for freedom against the Masters, who send him to fight other chimps for whom he has no ill will; the Masters who themselves have forgotten how to fight.

In "Conquest" (and in the original novel, if my memory is correct), Apes had become fully domesticated to the extent that virtually every household had one, and these domesticated apes had evolved significantly beyond what normal apes are capable of (in the film they speeded the process up by attributing it to a virus that also happened to kill all the cats and dogs). Caesar also had telepathic abilities that enable him to broadcast instructions to Apes all over the world. The rebellion shown onscreen was being repeated in every major city. Imagine if every household dog and cat simultaneously got smart and tried to kill their masters. Mass chaos. In the novel the "rebellion" was much slower and took place gradually over a long period of time. The apes, fully intergrated into every aspect of civilization, started bullying their human masters and asserting themselves. I remember the novel had an account of an ape servant kicking his master out of her own house, and she had no recourse. In the novel, humans are potrayed as pretty weak. They basically just rolled over and let the apes have it.

[amster]

wow. i had no idea this film was made. is this in any way based on the original novel by pierre bole'?

i must admit that being a gorilla fan since my earliest childhood, i found planet of the apes to be slightly offensive in it's description of the species.
it's a significant novel, in terms of the genre's history but way wrong gorila-wise.

In the original series the species were meant to be metaphores for different pillars of civilization. The chimps were scientists, intellectuals, and liberals. The orangutans were politicians are religious leaders. The gorillas represented the military industrial complex.

[daniel]

wow. i had no idea this film was made. is this in any way based on the original novel by pierre bole'?

i must admit that being a gorilla fan since my earliest childhood, i found planet of the apes to be slightly offensive in it's description of the species.
it's a significant novel, in terms of the genre's history but way wrong gorila-wise.

In the original series the species were meant to be metaphores for different pillars of civilization. The chimps were scientists, intellectuals, and liberals. The orangutans were politicians are religious leaders. The gorillas represented the military industrial complex.

... which is'nt a flattering comparison to the gorilas, since "military and industrial complex" as a concept has certain negative associations, if you recall dweight eisenhower's adress on the subject, and so on.

even without that connotation, the gorilas are portrayed as something which they are not: goons. i don't mind them as keepers of the peace, but not the way they are in the film.

sorry folks.

[monk]

M'gawa, Daniel.


sorry, lol, I couldn't resist.

Also interesting to note that Chimpanzees have a history of war, or at least, fighting battles.

[amster]

wow. i had no idea this film was made. is this in any way based on the original novel by pierre bole'?

i must admit that being a gorilla fan since my earliest childhood, i found planet of the apes to be slightly offensive in it's description of the species.
it's a significant novel, in terms of the genre's history but way wrong gorila-wise.

In the original series the species were meant to be metaphores for different pillars of civilization. The chimps were scientists, intellectuals, and liberals. The orangutans were politicians are religious leaders. The gorillas represented the military industrial complex.

... which is'nt a flattering comparison to the gorilas, since "military and industrial complex" as a concept has certain negative associations, if you recall dweight eisenhower's adress on the subject, and so on.

even without that connotation, the gorilas are portrayed as something which they are not: goons. i don't mind them as keepers of the peace, but not the way they are in the film.

sorry folks.

I get what you're saying, but IMO the orangutans (particularly Dr. Zaius) were portrayed in an even more negative light. I would also note that as a boy General Ursus/Urko/Aldo were always my favorite action figures.

[Almuric]

Hopefully the movie shows us how Caesar organizes the revolt. Because the trailer (which, thankfully, doesn't seem to be spoiling the whole movie) seems to imply a handful of smart apes escape and take over the planet. Mind you, even the old series skipped over a few steps. Conquest ends with the uprising, Battle takes place years after, with an unexplained nuclear war. Did humans fire off nukes to stop the apes, or did some apes get a hold of the arsenals?

Also, it's actually chimps who are more violent and agressive, rather than gorillas. Which is sadly fitting for a species so closely related to humans.

[daniel]

there was a scene in the trailer that showed a gorila jumping at a helicopter. now, i can certainly relate to the concept of a gorila jumping at biplanes in the 30's but given that planet of the apes is absent the good services of a carl denham , i thought to myself:" now that production company will have some explaining to do".

[Almuric]

Man's aircraft are helpless against the power of Ape Fu!

[amster]

Hopefully the movie shows us how Caesar organizes the revolt. Because the trailer (which, thankfully, doesn't seem to be spoiling the whole movie) seems to imply a handful of smart apes escape and take over the planet. Mind you, even the old series skipped over a few steps. Conquest ends with the uprising, Battle takes place years after, with an unexplained nuclear war. Did humans fire off nukes to stop the apes, or did some apes get a hold of the arsenals?

According to the official synopsis, it takes place in modern times, not some near future sociey where domesticated apes are commonplace, so at least in that respect it differs from the old canon. But I'm thinking that they're mirroring the plot to Conquest in that Caesar is the only intellegent ape at the onset, and he's able to telepathically communicate with every ape around the world. A handful of intellegent apes taking down civilization seems highly implausable, but every ape in the entire world rebelling simultaneously seems much more problematic.

Another interesting tidbit: Caesar isn't the only character from the previous series returning. Dodge is also in this film. Could it be that Rise takes place in the same universe as the original series? In Battle, it was purposely left ambiguous whether Caesar successfully altered the course of events to prevent the world's destruction in Beneath. If he did, then that would mean that his parents never returned to the past, which would mean the events in Conquest never happened, at least not exactly like they took place in that film. But that still leaves open the "chicken or the egg question". If Cornelius and Zira never returned to the past, how did the ape rising happen in the first place? The only satisfactory answer is that the ape rising was inevitable, and Cornelius and Zira's return did not significantly alter the course of events, only hastened them by a few decades. So the Caesar in this film is not the same Caesar as in Conquest. It was the Rise of "a" Caesar that was inevitable.

Is anybody following me?

Also, it's actually chimps who are more violent and agressive, rather than gorillas. Which is sadly fitting for a species so closely related to humans.

Yes, for more than century gorillas have been given an unfair rep, due mainly on fear and ignorance on the part of humans when they were first discovered, and later by negative and inaccurate portrayals in films and in pulp fiction stories by writers like...oh....well, never mind.

Edited by amsterdamaged, 16 April 2011 - 01:21 AM.

[johnnypt]

Is anybody following me?

Yep. It's just the inherent time traveling confusion that is the Apes series. Once you get to "Brent was sent on a mission to rescue Taylor...but how did they know there was a problem 2000 years in the future?", you have to suspend some logic and just allow them to take you where they're going. One thing I'm not clear on: Is the new film even acknowledging the Tim Burton film or just starting over completely fresh?

[monk]

Another interesting tidbit: Caesar isn't the only character from the previous series returning. Dodge is also in this film. Could it be that Rise takes place in the same universe as the original series? In Battle, it was purposely left ambiguous whether Caesar successfully altered the course of events to prevent the world's destruction in Beneath. If he did, then that would mean that his parents never returned to the past, which would mean the events in Conquest never happened, at least not exactly like they took place in that film. But that still leaves open the "chicken or the egg question". If Cornelius and Zira never returned to the past, how did the ape rising happen in the first place? The only satisfactory answer is that the ape rising was inevitable, and Cornelius and Zira's return did not significantly alter the course of events, only hastened them by a few decades. So the Caesar in this film is not the same Caesar as in Conquest. It was the Rise of "a" Caesar that was inevitable.

actually i think it was some other ape who was credited with the start of the ape revolution, in the first movie ceasar is definitely not mentioned as the founder of ape society. it's some other name.