How many damn dirty apes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I hope you feel better after dropping that big shit. Now why do you go and find a thread about something you are interested in?
I really shouldn’t do this…
Ah, I dunno Son, how many?
Well, it doesn’t look like this new movie owes very much to the original franchise. Besides, intelligent apes are cool, and this movie at least seems to have a plausible explanation for them.
I watched that original PoTA and all the sequels during their original runs. Like Cal, I’m wondering why do we need more? But then, I ask the same thing about many, many of the trailers that I’ve seen of the past few years. Seems like everything is so obviously derivative. In fact, the only thing that motivates me to go to the theater these days is if there seems to be a kernel of novelty in a movie. A rare event indeed. Have filmmakers simply run out of new ideas?
Actually, it’s exactly in line with this thread, and an answer to the question the OP asks. And it looks like some posters agree with me.
Well, I think it’s because apes are the closest animals to us in the animal kingdom. We share a lot of similar physical features, we can see rudiments of a social hierarchy in their behavior, they can communicate through facial expression, and so on.
We know they are real world critters, and we see a lot of ourselves in them. We naturally wonder what is it that makes us (defines us) human.
With an “alien” like E.T., we can explore similar issues, but the “connection” isn’t there, because E.T. is no more “real” to us than a hobbit in Lord of the Rings, or the hunter race in Predator. So the emotional “impact” is lessened.
Yes, and even if they didn’t, I can’t think of a more appropriate thread for one to toss around their own shit.
I agree except to point out that biologically speaking, we are all great apes.
Therefore, the kinship shouldn’t be that remarkable.
Yet it is.
The idea of intelligent apes seems to press a psychic button for a lot of people. I don’t get it myself, but you can see the theme at work in, for example, the DC Universe, which has villains like Gorilla Grodd, Monsieur Mallah, the Ultra-Humanite, and an entire city full of hyper-advanced apes. (TVTropes, naturally, has a page on it.) There’s clearly some currency to the idea, and for all its flaws, Planet of the Apes is the only movie I can think of that takes the idea and runs with it as far as it can. It may be a bad movie, but if this general concept appeals to you, there’s not a lot of alternatives that cover the same territory.
wtf? His post was well thought-out and interesting, and this isn’t even your thread.
Totally disagree. I loved the Planet of the Apes franchise in the '70s, but they certainly don’t hold up well. This is in part due to less-than-stellar acting and writing, but largely down to practical make-up and costume which seem absurdly hokey in retrospect.
I was very excited about the Tim Burton remake, but left the theatre underwhelmed. This was certainly not because I had any problem with the make-up effects, though - the make-up was vastly superior to the make-up in the originals.
After being disappointed by Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes, I was not interested in this reboot at all - not in the slightest! The trailer turned it around, though. First, it’s great that they’re not just retreading something that’s already familiar - this is much more likely to hold my attention. This is helped enormously by the appearance of the apes, which is properly in accord with what intelligent apes would actually look like. Looks spectacular! And putting Weta up front makes good sense, as lots of houses are doing motion capture work, but Weta iis the acknowledged vanguard. If you hear “Weta,” you expect that the models will be perfectly realistic, the performance capture will be as-good-as-live, and the integration will be seamless.
This movie looks like it’ll be 100% of awesome. Zero to Stoked in 1:55.
I’m with you Larry Mudd, the original run doesn’t hold up well (which I find surprising that ANYONE finds this surprising); but I love them.
They don’t make too much sense beyond 1 & 2, but I love post-apocolyptic fiction and this is exactly the kind of stuff I like.
I wasn’t a fan of Burton’s, but this one looks like the movie I wish had been filmed in the original run. A start to finish story, rather than disjointed “Shit, we need another sequel” style.
As to the franchise itself, I don’t think it’s a one note series; it’s simply been managed that way. I’ve always wanted to see more of the world and all that backstory which I think is interesting as hell. The sequels in the original run were not well thought out, they were cashing in.
This new one isn’t a sequel to Burton’s confusion mess; it’s what I hope is the start of a decent series of movies. Where things might be more open world; instead of just Ape City.
Actually i blieve CHimpanzees are the closest to us in the animal kingdom. However, Planet of the Chimps isn’t quite as visceral.
Well, Chimps are apes, so the name works.
They had chimps in Planet of the Apes. They were the scientists (and teachers?); Orangutans were politicians, theologians, lawyers; and the “Gorillas” were the police, army, bodyguard types.
I stand corrected.
That’s any servant, really.
That trailer was :dubious:. The dialogue wasn’t bombastic enough to be so bad it’s good. And armies of apes aren’t scary or threatening, they’re hilarious.
Somebody contact the Coalition to Liberate Itinerant Treedwellers.