Planet of the Apes (The TV show, not the new movie)

[darkshadow0001]

I've been watching this show that I have on DVD and been wondering, does anyone know why this show was cancelled? According to the set it only had 14 episodes, and ended in December, 1974. I realize that the demize of any show is due to poor ratings, or could it be due to the fact of the idea of Apes in rule of humans every week? There were some episodes I could see that may not have been liked by the masses back then but I think the show was really good. It's a shame it didn't last. I hope this new movie will be a good come-back for the apes, while the Tim Burton movie kind of was bad, I did like the ending. Made up for the entire movie

 

[bigdaddy]

I haven't seen the TV show in many many many years, and even then it was only pieces of episodes. However don't the humans in the TV show talk? In the movies they don't and that kind of bothers me.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes, the humans talked and wore clothes on the tv show. They were more like oppressed serfs than mindless beasts . . . which, yeah, kind of defeated the point.

 

[Christopher]

I've been watching this show that I have on DVD and been wondering, does anyone know why this show was cancelled? According to the set it only had 14 episodes, and ended in December, 1974. I realize that the demize of any show is due to poor ratings, or could it be due to the fact of the idea of Apes in rule of humans every week? There were some episodes I could see that may not have been liked by the masses back then but I think the show was really good.

Don't overthink it. You already answered the question; it was ratings, pure and simple. TV is a business; they wouldn't cancel a profitable show because of some abstract philosophical issue. Ergo, the show must not have been profitable.

True, there have been instances where the premise of a show was so controversial that the network was unwilling to keep it around -- for instance, the animated sitcom God, the Devil, and Bob was pulled off NBC after 2 or 3 weeks because it got the religious right up in arms and the network was afraid of a boycott. But the premise of PotA is so fanciful and remote that nobody would've been seriously upset by it. Heck, that's why the films were effective -- because they could disguise their biting social commentary in a fantasy framework and thus get away with more than they could otherwise. People would complain too much if screenwriter Rod Serling had directly criticized, say, the Christian church, but if he instead portrayed a hidebound religious establishment in a fanciful alien setting, those same people wouldn't see it as being about them, so the subversive ideas could slip in under the radar.

So no, there's no chance that the premise of the show was a factor in its cancellation. It was scheduled opposite two very successful sitcoms, Sanford and Son and Chico and the Man, and it simply lost the competition for its time slot.


As for the humans talking, it's a change that was obviously necessary in a weekly series, so that they wouldn't have to use expensive makeup on every single speaking guest star and would have more story possibilities for interaction with human characters than they could if they went with the mute humans of the movies. It's almost always the case that a TV series based on a movie alters elements of the premise and is thus a distinct continuity. However, it might be possible to rationalize the series as taking place sometime between the end of the fifth movie (in which speech-capable humans still coexist with apes) and the start of the first. This is borne out by references in the show putting it over a millennium in the future, while the original movie is two millennia in the future.

 

[Greg Cox]

Indeed, the humans in the tv show are closer to the ones in the prequel movie, BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES, than the mute savages in the original movie. I think it was generally accepted in APES fandom that the earlier talking human gradually devolved into Nova and her crew--at least in the original timeline.

And while I can certainly see the advantages to having guest-stars who can talk instead of grunt, it does somewhat undermine the elemental simplicity of the original high concept: apes = people, humans = animals.

I doubt that's why the show failed, though. THE NIGHT STALKER also ran on Fridays that year and it got canceled, too. Guess it was just a bad season for genre shows on Friday night!

 

[darkshadow0001]

I remember seeing another TV show about Apes but I think it was a spoof of Planet of the Apes. Do you guys remember any show that used real apes (I think they were mainly chimpanzees), they had them dressed and talked and acted like humans. I remember seeing it a long time ago, but I can never remember the name. Then again, it could of been only a one time thing. I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[scotpens]

^^ Would that have been Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp? It was actually a spoof of spy shows, with an all-chimpanzee cast.

 

[darkshadow0001]

^^ Would that have been Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp? It was actually a spoof of spy shows, with an all-chimpanzee cast.

That would be it Sorry for this misconception... like I said, I was a kid the last time I saw it I do hope though, as far as Planet of the Apes, that this new prequel will work out for the franchise. Even though the TV show is 40 years old, it is better to watch then a lot of what we have now. I'm going to have to find Youtube clips of Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp now Thanks

 

[the G-man]

There were some episodes I could see that may not have been liked by the masses back then...

At least at the movies, the "masses" loved PotA. That's why they made two TV series (both live action and cartoon). In fact, the popularity of PotA is part of the reason that Fox greenlit "Star Wars." Chewbacca was enough like an ape for them that they figured (in typical Hollywood fashion) that Lucas' movie might appeal to PotA fans.

No, as others have noted. It was ratings. The show was on opposite "Sanford and Son," which was close to (if not the) number show on TV at the time.

Speaking of the cartoon and censorship, Doug Wildey (Jonny Quest) was one of the series' artists. I once read an interview with him where he described his travails under the new anti-violence rules with working on the show.

According to Wildey, they prohibited the artists from showing Apes using any weapons that kids might be able to get ahold of imitate the apes' actions with. Frustrated with veto after veto, Wildey finally said "okay how about Howitzer cannons?" The censors thought for a moment, said "yeah, we guess a kid couldn't get a hold of a Howitzer...."

So, after that, Wildey had the apes firing off giant motherfucking Howitzer cannons, all as a way to placate anti-violence groups.

 

[Mistral]

The show had moments but was sadly lacking in acting ability. Plus, the writers dodged the issue of Mankind's civilization leaving traces all over North America to be found, while allowing bits and pieces to creep into scripts as plot devices. It had no framework of consistency, though. The 3 leads were probably the only redeeming factor...

 

[SchwEnt]

According to Wildey, they prohibited the artists from showing Apes using any weapons that kids might be able to get ahold of imitate the apes' actions with. Frustrated with veto after veto, Wildey finally said "okay how about Howitzer cannons?" The censors thought for a moment, said "yeah, we guess a kid couldn't get a hold of a Howitzer...."

Ha! I was a very serious PoTA fan as a kid (and still am).
I had all the toys and assorted merchandise.
I distinctly remember a toy that was some sort of gorilla riot stick. Not kidding... some kind of club the militant gorillas waved around when they got in a frenzy hunting humans. You can even see it hanging like a nightstick on some gorilla soldiers.

And they marketed a plastic kid version, presumably so kids could go around whacking their fellow kid humans before hauling them away in nets.

So how about that?

 

[bigdaddy]

So when does the live action show take place? I thought it took place a few years after the first movie, but that wouldn't make sense if the planet blows up at the end of the second movie.

So the show takes place fore the first movie, the humans talk, and then become dumb rather quickly and stop talking for the first movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The show didn't do well in the ratings, and it was difficult to produce. There was a lot of "streamlining" ala corner-cutting on the makeup process for all but one or two of the principals, because it was so complicated and time-consuming.

Oddly enough, at the time they were actually rumored to be using rewritten Rawhide scripts. Don't know what the basis of that story was, or why...

 

[Christopher]

So when does the live action show take place? I thought it took place a few years after the first movie, but that wouldn't make sense if the planet blows up at the end of the second movie.

The TV series took place in the year 3085. The original movie was set in 3978.

So the show takes place fore the first movie, the humans talk, and then become dumb rather quickly and stop talking for the first movie?

Well, yes, realistically, 893 years is "rather quickly" for an evolutionary change to occur; but this is the same universe that postulated, in the fourth movie, that the chimps, gorillas, and orangutans we know somehow mutated into their more humanoid forms within the 20 years since the third movie and had universally acquired the power of speech by the fifth movie, some 30 years later.

The fifth movie has a frame sequence showing verbal humans and apes coexisting in the year 2670. This puts the TV series more than twice as close to that era as it is to the era of the original film. If one accepts the conceits of the films' universe, it fits in rather logically; the harmonious ape/human coexistence seen in the fifth film's frame has broken down by the time of the series 415 years later, and humanity's lot continues to erode until you get to the degenerated state of affairs in the original film, 893 years further along.

At least, that's how it fits in the time-loop model. If you interpret the fifth film's ending as an altered future that avoids the mistakes of the original film's future, then the world of the TV series could still be interpreted as a continuation from the fifth film's ending, and the alternate timeline could account for the differences.

 

[darkshadow0001]

So when does the live action show take place? I thought it took place a few years after the first movie, but that wouldn't make sense if the planet blows up at the end of the second movie.

The TV series took place in the year 3085. The original movie was set in 3978.

So the show takes place fore the first movie, the humans talk, and then become dumb rather quickly and stop talking for the first movie?

Well, yes, realistically, 893 years is "rather quickly" for an evolutionary change to occur; but this is the same universe that postulated, in the fourth movie, that the chimps, gorillas, and orangutans we know somehow mutated into their more humanoid forms within the 20 years since the third movie and had universally acquired the power of speech by the fifth movie, some 30 years later.

The fifth movie has a frame sequence showing verbal humans and apes coexisting in the year 2670. This puts the TV series more than twice as close to that era as it is to the era of the original film. If one accepts the conceits of the films' universe, it fits in rather logically; the harmonious ape/human coexistence seen in the fifth film's frame has broken down by the time of the series 415 years later, and humanity's lot continues to erode until you get to the degenerated state of affairs in the original film, 893 years further along.

The "Fifth movie". Are you talking about "Battle for the Planet of the Apes?"

What always got me about the TV series is how Galen and Zeus discussed how they've encountered humans in the past who considered themselves to be "astronauts." Obviously Zeus couldn't of been talking about Taylor, since that occured later according to the dates in the movie. So obviously they must of been talking about someone else, but it was never really mentioned who.

 

[darkshadow0001]

I haven't seen the TV show in many many many years, and even then it was only pieces of episodes. However don't the humans in the TV show talk? In the movies they don't and that kind of bothers me.

I think it was just a way to show that the Apes were smarter then humans, and was probably of some aftermath of the nuclear war.

 

[Christopher]

The "Fifth movie". Are you talking about "Battle for the Planet of the Apes?"

Yeah, that was the fifth one, I believe. PotA, Beneath the, Escape From the, Conquest of the, and Battle for the.

What always got me about the TV series is how Galen and Zeus discussed how they've encountered humans in the past who considered themselves to be "astronauts." Obviously Zeus couldn't of been talking about Taylor, since that occured later according to the dates in the movie. So obviously they must of been talking about someone else, but it was never really mentioned who.

Well, keep in mind that what I was offering was just a way to rationalize things if you're so inclined; naturally, as with virtually every TV adaptation, the makers weren't really trying to be in the same continuity as the films, but were changing things as it suited them. So the "astronauts" references were probably meant to suggest that this was kinda sorta after the original movie (as evidenced by the Dr. Zaius character being included), even though it doesn't really add up if you're nitpicky about continuity. But then, the movies don't fit together at all if you're nitpicky about continuity. Each one was intended to be the last, and so each sequel had to retcon things to justify its existence. They don't really fit together well at all, not unless you gloss over the contradictions.

 

[Kirkman1987]

On a related note, Anyone seen the unrated version of Conquest that came out a year or so ago? I just watched it last night, and In it's darker vision, a much better movie.

 

[Mistral]

On a related note, Anyone seen the unrated version of Conquest that came out a year or so ago? I just watched it last night, and In it's darker vision, a much better movie.

Yes. Due to racial tensions, Caesar's speech was heavily altered for the theater release, a move that upset Roddy McDowall and the director. They felt it was a timely moment addressing real world concerns but the nervous studio made them tone it down.

 

[Kirkman1987]

On a related note, Anyone seen the unrated version of Conquest that came out a year or so ago? I just watched it last night, and In it's darker vision, a much better movie.

Yes. Due to racial tensions, Caesar's speech was heavily altered for the theater release, a move that upset Roddy McDowall and the director. They felt it was a timely moment addressing real world concerns but the nervous studio made them tone it down.

The Theatrical ending has bothered me for years. Not only does it wuss out, but it's so cheaply put together (they did no reshoots, just manipulated existing footage and added a voiceover).

The added violence was appreciated too. Conquest is a violent story, and calls for a darker edge.

I hope that remake turns out well, as this one is my favorite apes film after the original. (Beneath is very close however.)