Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From this older thread, you can read about people's opinions about the decline in Planet of the Apes sequels since the original came out: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
There was a franchise revival framed to set up the original movie, instead of rebooting it (despite the poor attempt in 2001). That speaks volumes about the 1968 film's longevity and significance in movies and culture. The original movie is in the same category as James Bond and Godzilla and any other active franchises from 50 years ago.
Oh okay, I remember when Rise of the Planet of the Apes came out, some people reacted like it wasn't necessary and there must be some real fan boys of the original wanting to beat a dead horse.
Same here Zee. I saw it in a cinema as a 15 year old kid, and was thrilled by the story. The ending was totally unexpected, and shocked me. I assumed they were on a different planet to earth.
In the BOOK, it WAS a different planet. The ending of the movie however, is a pure written by Rod Serling "Twilight Zone" twist-type ending.
VERY effective, and a much better ending for a movie, than the book was.
On the DVD special features, they talk about how the author was angered by the movie's ending and hated it.
However, the whole felt like it was building towards this ending, cause most of the last half of the movie, is Dr. Zaius trying to keep Taylor from finding out the truth, and from telling other humans and apes what the truth is. Dr. Zaius need to cover things up, is what drives the last half the story.
So if the book does not have this ending, then what is the last half of the book about then, or what happens?
Actually, I got rave reviews from my teacher when I did the Taylor's opening words for my first monologue......but it was more because I picked something that wasn't the traditional or standard monologue. As it is, those are the parts I like playing, such the aerobraking (H. Floyd) explanation from "2010".
Monologue wise, that section of "...but...one more thing. If anybody's listening, that is. Nothing scientific. It's .... purely personal. Seen from out here, everything seems different. Time bends. Space is ... boundless. It squashes a man's ego. I feel lonely. That's about it. Tell me, though..Does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who has sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother, keep his neighbor's children starving?"
When I did that section, to produce the soul crushing similar to what Heston did looking out the window, I pictured abandoned animals to generate that hurt in me.
NOW, I don't think there are movies that I use at all for monologues. I think 2010 was the latest one I did. So that might be part of it, sadly, that the dialogues of yesterday aren't appreciated and the audience goes for the ones of today. There is so much detail in what they said. It may be that for today, action and special effects have replaced words that inspire thoughts, considerations of other possibilities.
Reading the "goofs" on IMDB, it seems that people want all the information right up front and don't think about other situations. Once upon a time for the movie "You Only Lived Twice", people said it was a goof that Bond, who had a first in oriental languages, needed Tiger to translate some Japanese writing for him. It is, however, a spy movie and there are reasons why Bond would want Tiger to translate including to see whether or not he could trust Tiger.
Hard to believe that a movie from the past may be too much for people appreciate today, but perhaps it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony
.......So if the book does not have this ending, then what is the last half of the book about then, or what happens?
As I recall for it has been decades since I read the book......
Spoiler
In the book, the technology of the apes was much greater than the movie. They had aircraft, they had a space launching capability. "Taylor" (or whoever he was in the book) had become an suffraged member of ape society and was helping them. One of the scientists from his expedition had lost his mind and was now living contently with the lowly humans so Taylor was content to leave him there.
For reasons I can't recall, Taylor and his woman, had to escape from the planet. Perhaps his suffrage was about to expire due to other feelings against him. The apes friendly to him substituted them for the lowly humans to be used in a space probe experiment (not to be recovered alive, probably). Once launched, they were able to rendezvous with their interstellar space craft still in orbit.
They returned to Earth, now Taylor, "Nova", and a child. They land and are shocked to find, in a 20th century technology culture, that the world is now populated by Apes. They run back to their spacecraft and escape to the stars, looking for another planet.
This is all revealed in a log book that is recovered by the crew of a solar sail boat that we are introduced to at the beginning of the book. At the end of the book it is revealed....that the solar sail boat is also crewed by apes (chimps).
As I recall for I must have read the book in the late 70s or early 80s.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 05-07-2018 at 02:36 AM..
In the BOOK, it WAS a different planet. The ending of the movie however, is a pure written by Rod Serling "Twilight Zone" twist-type ending.
VERY effective, and a much better ending for a movie, than the book was.
Yup. Keep in mind a very important point in regard to this: The book wasn't actually very good. At all. The movie is far, far superior in every way.
I was the world's biggest Planet of the Apes nerd as a kid. The only thing that really bugged me about the movies, even as a kid: They never really became Planet of the Apes. In every movie it was always Small Village of the Apes.
This was one of the things that the TV show and cartoon actually tried to fix.
I just saw it again recently, and I thought it was fantastic, and one of the best sci-fi films ever made in my opinion.
However, it's not as well regarded as a classic by today's moviegoers it seems. Other sci-fi classics, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, Alien, Blade Runner, and The Thing remake, are all well regarded by today's audience but it seems Planet of the Apes got lost in the shuffle, or is regarded in a lower league for some reason.
What do you think?
It is considered a classic, by the same terms as the others you mentioned and pretty much by the same person. I'd be surprised if anyone who thought 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, Alien, Blade Runner, and The Thing remake were classics didn't also have Planet of the Apes on their list.
I was looking at some clips a few weeks ago and marveling how much expression Roddy McDowall gets out of those clumsy prosthetics.
Yup. Keep in mind a very important point in regard to this: The book wasn't actually very good. At all. The movie is far, far superior in every way.
I was the world's biggest Planet of the Apes nerd as a kid. The only thing that really bugged me about the movies, even as a kid: They never really became Planet of the Apes. In every movie it was always Small Village of the Apes.
This was one of the things that the TV show and cartoon actually tried to fix.
What bugged me about the movies?
Not too much except that even then, the audience was ready to take things on face value and not consider alternatives.
For example, the difference of the clocks between the 1st and 2nd movies in the spacecraft. Continunity error the proclaim. Is a malfunction, however, possible? Brent and Skipper, after all, DID CRASH! That does rather indicate that their ship was not in perfect operating order.
Or in the 3rd movie where the Icarus was shown on the TV as one of the 2 spaceships. Well, that's okay, but given everything, how do we know that there wasn't other spacecraft? Blue NASA after all since the 1st movie came out in 1968 and by then, we had had DynaSoar and MOL.
What I loved best about the 4th movie was the security procedures. Where Kolb (?) gets the circus keeper to sign a sworn statement and then subjects him to torture. That even in their rather police state world, certain procedures must be followed before surer more brutal methods can be applied.
Sigh, I guess it goes both ways. Both from what the audience misses and how much detail they put into the flick about the way that world works.
..you can read about people's opinions about the decline in Planet of the Apes sequels since the original came out..
I agree w/the current consensus in this thread.. original Planet of the Apes is a confirmed classic. One of the most iconic endings in movie history..
I think the sequels, & the modern revival has hurt the original's reputation tho. It's been kind of lost in all the subsequent special effects, terrible scripts, etc.. that the original was a great stand-alone story & warning..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
