War for the Planet of the Apes pre-release thread

[Christopher]

Because I only love the original Planet of the Apes, I suddenly have this insane notion of having just the first Heston film existing alongside this series. I'll have to watch it again to see if there's anything mentioned in it that's contradictory to this series.

The entire portrayal of ape behavior is contradictory. The movie got the behavior of all three ape species completely backward -- chimps as the pacifists when they're actually the most violent great apes (or tied with humans), gorillas as the soldiers when they're actually the gentlest great apes unless provoked, orangs as the social and political leaders when they're the least social great apes. The new movies portray ape behavior much more accurately, thanks to scientific advances in the ensuing decades. Plus there's the fact that, y'know, they actually look like real chimps, gorillas, and orangs instead of humans in ape makeup that only broadly approximates the different species.

Oh, and there's the fact that the cataclysm in the original was nuclear rather than biological.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The entire portrayal of ape behavior is contradictory. The movie got the behavior of all three ape species completely backward -- chimps as the pacifists when they're actually the most violent great apes (or tied with humans), gorillas as the soldiers when they're actually the gentlest great apes unless provoked, orangs as the social and political leaders when they're the least social great apes. The new movies portray ape behavior much more accurately, thanks to scientific advances in the ensuing decades.

Ah, that's good a point and I had forgotten about those sociological mistakes in that film.

Plus there's the fact that, y'know, they actually look like real chimps, gorillas, and orangs instead of humans in ape makeup that only broadly approximates the different species.

That seems like a silly complaint. Like complaining about Klingons without ridges or Cardassians with facial hair. Or aliens made of green bubble-wrap. *shrug*

Oh, and there's the fact that the cataclysm in the original was nuclear rather than biological.

Yeah, I know that but was the actually stated in the original or was that discovered in Beneath?

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, I know that but was the actually stated in the original or was that discovered in Beneath?

Interesting question. Heston assumes mankind "blew it all to hell" and that would have been the obvious intent and implication back in the 1960s, but one can argue that the original movie never actually confirms that civilization was wiped out by a nuclear war. All Zaius has are old myths about Mankind turning their home into a "wasteland" . ....

 

[JD]

The entire portrayal of ape behavior is contradictory. The movie got the behavior of all three ape species completely backward -- chimps as the pacifists when they're actually the most violent great apes (or tied with humans), gorillas as the soldiers when they're actually the gentlest great apes unless provoked, orangs as the social and political leaders when they're the least social great apes. The new movies portray ape behavior much more accurately, thanks to scientific advances in the ensuing decades. Plus there's the fact that, y'know, they actually look like real chimps, gorillas, and orangs instead of humans in ape makeup that only broadly approximates the different species.

Oh, and there's the fact that the cataclysm in the original was nuclear rather than biological.

The behavioral stuff has been the one thing that's bugged me the most in the original movies.
Honestly, I think I'd rather them do a remake of the original rather use the original itself.
It will be interesting to see what they do after this one, because from the way this one has been promoted so far it does seem like this will mostly likely be the end of this part of the story.

 

[Galileo7]

Interesting question. Heston assumes mankind "blew it all to hell" and that would have been the obvious intent and implication back in the 1960s, but one can argue that the original movie never actually confirms that civilization was wiped out by a nuclear war. All Zaius has are old myths about Mankind turning their home into a "wasteland" . ....

In Planet Of The Apes(1968) they also never explained why Taylor never saw the Moon in the sky to know it was Earth immediately upon the ANSA Icarus splashdown. Was the geographic changes from nuclear war or did the Moon crash to the Earth somehow? Asteroid impact?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

It will be interesting to see what they do after this one, because from the way this one has been promoted so far it does seem like this will mostly likely be the end of this part of the story.

I've been thinking the same. Andy Serkis has said on numerous occasions that he's up to doing more if there are stories to tell. There's no reason why Serkis can't just play an entirely different character, be it a Zauis-type or a Cornelius-type or a someone entirely new, set in far flung future.

 

[Christopher]

In Planet Of The Apes(1968) they also never explained why Taylor never saw the Moon in the sky to know it was Earth immediately upon the ANSA Icarus splashdown. Was the geographic changes from nuclear war or did the Moon crash to the Earth somehow? Asteroid impact?

There's no way the Moon could crash to Earth without destroying the planet (heck, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place, congealed out of the debris blown off when the forming Earth was struck by a Mars-sized body), or knocked out of orbit without a similarly profound cataclysm to the Earth. By the same token, there's no way a nuclear war on Earth could have even the slightest physical impact on the Moon a quarter of a million miles away.


There's also the fact that the apes speak English but Taylor still assumes he's on an alien planet. Really, the original PotA is a movie that works better as an allegorical fantasy than as a remotely plausible science fiction narrative. It is largely a Rod Serling script, after all, so it's a lot like an extended Twilight Zone episode.

 

[JD]

Yeah, that would be my thought too. Jump forward to a fully formed ape society years later, possibly just a generation or two, but keep Andy Serkis, and if they wanted maybe a few other ape actors, and have them play their original characters' descendants.
I'm really hoping Cornelia gets more to do this time, Judy Greer is a great actress and she was really underused in Dawn.

 

[Galileo7]

There's no way the Moon could crash to Earth without destroying the planet (heck, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place, congealed out of the debris blown off when the forming Earth was struck by a Mars-sized body), or knocked out of orbit without a similarly profound cataclysm to the Earth. By the same token, there's no way a nuclear war on Earth could have even the slightest physical impact on the Moon a quarter of a million miles away.


There's also the fact that the apes speak English but Taylor still assumes he's on an alien planet. Really, the original PotA is a movie that works better as an allegorical fantasy than as a remotely plausible science fiction narrative. It is largely a Rod Serling script, after all, so it's a lot like an extended Twilight Zone episode.

I know the Moon's origin. I am wondering what scientific or science-fiction reason would explain the absence of the Moon. Where was the Moon? Why did Taylor never see the Moon in the sky during POTA(1968) ? He had to find the Statue of Liberty to figure out it was Earth.
I have to read Pierre Boulle's original Monkey Planet novel [It is a different than the film.] to see if the Moon is mentioned.
I guess the Moon blasted out of Earth's orbit as in Space:1999.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

There's also the fact that the apes speak English but Taylor still assumes he's on an alien planet. Really, the original PotA is a movie that works better as an allegorical fantasy than as a remotely plausible science fiction narrative. It is largely a Rod Serling script, after all, so it's a lot like an extended Twilight Zone episode.

Not only that, but correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read it yet (been meaning to for years), but the original novel is actually set on alien world where the language is different. It seems like Sterling took the basic idea and decided to change it into his own allegory. If he wanted a plausible science-fiction narrative, he could've stuck with the original plot.

Yeah, that would be my thought too. Jump forward to a fully formed ape society years later, possibly just a generation or two, but keep Andy Serkis, and if they wanted maybe a few other ape actors, and have them play their original characters' descendants.
I'm really hoping Cornelia gets more to do this time, Judy Greer is a great actress and she was really underused in Dawn.

Same here! I love Cornelia but she doesn't get nearly enough to do.

 

[JD]

Wow, IGN just posted a big, very in depth post trailer interview with Matt Reeves about what all of the stuff we see in the trailer means. This interview has gotten me even more excited than the trailer did, it really sounds like this has the potential to be an awesome movie. Usually I'd be a bit pessimistic about these kinds of interviews, but after how good Dawn was, I trust Reeves to be able to pull it off.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not only that, but correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read it yet (been meaning to for years), but the original novel is actually set on alien world where the language is different. It seems like Sterling took the basic idea and decided to change it into his own allegory. If he wanted a plausible science-fiction narrative, he could've stuck with the original plot..

The problem is that, in the book, it took the human astronaut months to learn how to speak the ape's language, which would have slowed down the movie considerably. Not sure the film would been improved by a montage in which Zira slowly teaches Taylor to speak Ape over the course of weeks . . ..

Plus, shooting Taylor in the throat, so that he couldn't speak, was a lot more dramatic than a simple language barrier.

 

[Galileo7]

The problem is that, in the book, it took the human astronaut months to learn how to speak the ape's language, which would have slowed down the movie considerably. Not sure the film would been improved by a montage in which Zira slowly teaches Taylor to speak Ape over the course of weeks . . ..

Plus, shooting Taylor in the throat, so that he couldn't speak, was a lot more dramatic than a simple language barrier.

If only Taylor brought a Universal Translator in his backpack from the ANSA Icarus. No need for subtitles.

 

[JD]

IGN has also posted a report on a set visit they did back in January of this year.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Wow, IGN just posted a big, very in depth post trailer interview with Matt Reeves about what all of the stuff we see in the trailer means. This interview has gotten me even more excited than the trailer did, it really sounds like this has the potential to be an awesome movie. Usually I'd be a bit pessimistic about these kinds of interviews, but after how good Dawn was, I trust Reeves to be able to pull it off.

This part especially stood out:

“One of the things that was thrilling for me on Dawn was to see [Karin] interact with Kodi Smit-McPhee. Their few interactions were some of the best scenes in the film, because behaviorally, the way that she reacts to Kodi and the way he related to her was so beautiful. [Co-writer] Mark Bomback and I, when we were setting out to write the new story, we knew we really wanted to tap into that vein because that was one of the really emotional and almost mystical places -- this connection between humans and apes that the films could explore. And this is an even larger part of this story. Amiah Miller, who plays the girl, she's a critical part of the story. She's part of a giant mystery but she's part of the emotional core. In the film, it's not just a war between humans and apes. It's a war within Caesar's heart for his own sense of humanity, for lack of a better term. It's really about him losing empathy. As he's driven to a darker and darker place, the presence of this little girl keeps that flicker of humanity somewhere alive in the back of his heart. And so she's a very, very important part of the story.

This is the essence of why I've loved both Rise and Dawn and I'm thrilled to see they're continuing to focus on this element.

Also, it answers a point I meant to bring up earlier: The presence of a gorilla fighting alongside the human faction. Good to see that this isn't just some toss-away element, but is actually a major issue, one that naturally arose from the situation in Dawn.

One thing that the commentary doesn't mention but I noticed after the second viewing of the trailer: There's an albino (I think chimpanzee, but might be a gorilla) behind Caesar's left shoulder in one of the medium shots halfway through. I hope that's not just a background aesthetic. Maybe it's Steve Zahn's character although Reeves doesn't mention it while discussing the character.

The problem is that, in the book, it took the human astronaut months to learn how to speak the ape's language, which would have slowed down the movie considerably. Not sure the film would been improved by a montage in which Zira slowly teaches Taylor to speak Ape over the course of weeks . . ..

Plus, shooting Taylor in the throat, so that he couldn't speak, was a lot more dramatic than a simple language barrier.

All fair points. That kind of drama works better in a novel than it would in a film (although it would be interesting in a mini-series). I like language barriers but only when it serves the storyline as part of learning what's going on instead of just as a means of preventing proper communication. I don't know how it's utilized in the book, but I'm guessing it's a mix of the two.

IGN has also posted a report on a set visit they did back in January of this year.

On an initial glance, that seems like Andy Serkis covers pretty much the same territory as Reeves does in his commentary.

 

[Greg Cox]

All fair points. That kind of drama works better in a novel than it would in a film (although it would be interesting in a mini-series). I like language barriers but only when it serves the storyline as part of learning what's going on instead of just as a means of preventing proper communication. I don't know how it's utilized in the book, but I'm guessing it's a mix of the two.

In the novel, the language barrier serves the same function as the throat injury in the movie: it makes it harder for the stranded astronaut to convince Zira and other apes that he can actually speak and reason--and not just make incoherent noises like an animal.

Which is more logical, from a scifi standpoint, but less cinematic.

For one thing, you lose the "Damn, dirty apes!" moment . ..

 

[The Nth Doctor]

In the novel, the language barrier serves the same function as the throat injury in the movie: it makes it harder for the stranded astronaut to convince Zira and other apes that he can actually speak and reason--and not just make incoherent noises like an animal.

Which is more logical, from a scifi standpoint, but less cinematic.

For one thing, you lose the "Damn, dirty apes!" moment . ..

...which is certainly more cinematic, especially when shouted by Heston.

 

[JD]

Entertainment Weekly has revealed that the mute girl is Nova. The article says she's supposed to be the same character from the original movie, but given the timeline she can't be the exact same character. I think it's probably just that she's the reboot version of the character.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I think I get what they mean about Nova, since she represents the post-apocalypse population of humans who have lost the ability to speak (and reason?).

 

[Galileo7]

Yeah, I think I get what they mean about Nova, since she represents the post-apocalypse population of humans who have lost the ability to speak (and reason?).

Nova did eventually speak in Beneath, so...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies