Over the last couple of days, I’ve been seeing ads on TV for a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the apes. Frankly, I don’t see how this movie can possibly be any good. The Planet of the Apes franchise was always horribly cheesy, and modern CGI monkeys aren’t going to change that.
Yet another sign that Hollywood has totally run out of ideas.
I saw the preview for this when i went to the movies a couple of weeks ago.
And no, i don’t think there’s any chance that it won’t suck.
Actually, the trailers I saw led me to believe that it may be pretty cool.
But then again, trailers have often deceived me.
Also, it’s a Hollywood movie, so that’s another reason why it might not be great.
On second thought, I guess I now agree with y’all. This movie will suck. :mad:
Aren’t most of the movies we see in America “Hollywood movies?” Unless you’re watching a bunch of foreign films and even in that case, there are good ones and bad ones.
As for this movie, I’m hopeful, as I grew up watching the Planet of the Apes films on television.
Question: I saw the trailer for this and it jumps from one smart ape using the gas/serum/whatever to smartify a bunch of apes in a lab to the streets running wild with intelligent ape armies.
Where do all the extra apes come from? I haven’t seen any of the originals since the 70’s or so on Saturday afternoon television so I don’t know if this was covered. sure was a head-scratcher when seeing the trailer though.
Africa has plenty of spare apes. As does the Marine Corps. 
No way this movie won’t suck like a Hoover.
A quick Google says that there’s less than 300k chimpanzees in the world and those are the most numerous of the great apes (discounting humans if you want to go there).
This is gonna have to be Planet of the Apes, Monkeys and some Prosimians if they want to make a dent 
They aren’t showing the scene where the first ape jumps into a fountain and thus multiplies to an army of intelligent apes.
Only if he’s fed after midnite.
Who sets off the nukes that bury the Statue of Liberty up to her eyeballs?
It was us! All the time, it was…we finally really did it! You Maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!
“Hollywood” in this context usually means a certain major-studio approach to big-budget films, not necessarily the Hollywood area. Not all American films are made by the major studios and not even all of those are “Hollywood.”
It looks like it has decent production value, good f/x, good actors, etc…
The biggest problem I have with it is I already know the story. And for those who don’t, well, the trailer just told it to you. Expirement with apes, uh-oh now they’re smart, look out they’re taking over, the end. I don’t know if I could sit still for 2 hours watching that unfold or if I’d want to.
The ones I’ve been seeing are for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Was the original version named Conquest?
I think this will be a lovely way to spend a Saturday afternoon at the dollar theater in a few months. I anticipate it’ll be absolutely cheesy, and not worth more than the admission price.
There is actually only one physical film studio with a real backlot in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles (Paramount), and most major production facilities and studio offices are located north and west of Hollywood in Century City, Studio City, Culver City, Burbank, et cetera. Many “studios” actually own little or no real estate used in film production, preferring instead to lease filming facilities and performing location shooting.
Colloquially, “Hollywood” refers to the system of production companies, distributors, special effects houses, and talent agencies that collectively contribute all of the elements that allow a script to be filmed and screened. The system, however, is and has been in dramatic flux since the collapse of the “Old Studio System” and the Big Five, which themselves a consolidated version of the “independent” production companies that set up shop in California to avoid control by Edison’s Motion Picture Patents Company. New upstart studios producing “independent” film have grown into large production houses offering mainstream fair before being merged with existing studios, while the big houses have often established boutique studios to produce the kind of “independent” films that their big stars negotiate as part of an agreement to appear in a certain number of vacuous blockbuster projects. The point is, there is really no such thing as an “independent film” industry, as even small budget films have to access the same distribution system (although for marketing purposes they are often distributed via cinema chains that brand themselves as “art houses” like Landmark and Laemmle), and most genuinely independent films never see the light of day outside of film festivals.
As for the question of the o.p.: any Planet of the Apes film without Charlton Heston in a starring role is going to suck. In fact, even the original Planet of the Apes was pretty flawed, replacing the allegory of the novel with the incomprehensible plot Rod Serling-inspired plot twist in the film. How the spacecraft came to come back around and crash on a post-apocalyptic Earth is never suitably explained (and the explanation offered in the beginning of Beneath the Planet of the Apes is pure crap.
Stranger
In the original films, IIRC some kind of virus killed off dogs and cats like crazy, at which point breeding trainable primates became all the rage.
I’d like to have seen the marketing committee meeting that jumped from 8lb felines to 500lb primates that can rip your arm off without a thought.
In the scope of the PotA pentology from the 70’s, in movie 3 (Return from the Planet of the Apes), super-intelligent apes (chimps) come to the present day from Earth’s far future in a ship recovered from human astronauts of our era. At first welcomed, they soon become hunted and are killed - but leave behind a newborn baby chimp in the car of circus man and friend of monkeys Ricardo Montalban. The baby is named Ceaser.
In the next movie, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, all the dogs and cats of the world have been wiped out by the aforementioned plague and humankind has taken to training apes as semi-intelligent servants. Seeing this injustice, Ceasar rises and leads a revolt of the apes against their human masters.
Apparently the new movie is more of a “reboot” than a true remake. There are no time-traveling chimps, and the trailers seem to reveal that a host of monkeys are exposed to some kind of intelligence-enhancing drug by the protoype Ceaser. Then they revolt and await the arrival of Charleton Heston.
I think it looks pretty good. I’m glad they’re reimagining the story instead of a straight up remake of a classic but fairly cheesy movie.
Well, I think the one female astronaut who didn’t make it through the original voyage in the first POTA might’ve been the navigator which would explain why, after 2,000 light years, they never left the neighborhood.
That being said, the how and why apes took over Earth as the dominant species is really, at best, of secondary importance. The novel and first POTA movie were supposed to be Swiftian satires that reflected human society through a warped fun house mirror. That was something lacking in most of subsequent POTA films (including, it appears, the upcoming one).
It doesn’t seem to look like it, but does this film have any connection to the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes remake? I thought that one had some chimps being trained at the start before the thousand-year time jump, implying they were descendants of that program. But then he returned to see Ape Lincoln. Is this set in the place he returned to somehow (to explain that ending), or is it just an unconnected ape movie?