Yeah, retcon is the best description.
First look at Caesar from Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Thread starter Kelso
- Start date
Yeah, it's a retcon...of sorts. The original POTA timeline worked itself out as a perfect time loop - there couldn't be a "prime," precipitating incident which created the timeline; the past and future were entirely dependent upon one another.
I was cautiously optimistic about this film before seeing the two trailers I've found on YouTube, but now I have to say I'm pretty excited about it. It looks like it has a good story supported by a solid cast and it doesn't any qualms about separating it from the original series of films (which is fine with me).
Also, I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that Andy Serkis is playing Caesar.
Also, I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that Andy Serkis is playing Caesar.
Forget continuity issues, there just aren't enough orangutans in these trailers...
Although seriously this looks like it could be pretty good, and I'm by no means a fan of the Caesar movies.
More to the point, this is clearly a film meant to take place in our future - and according to the original Planet of the Apes films we were sending men out of our own solar system as early as the 1970s.
In other news, sky is believed to remain blue, experts say.
Although seriously this looks like it could be pretty good, and I'm by no means a fan of the Caesar movies.
More to the point, this is clearly a film meant to take place in our future - and according to the original Planet of the Apes films we were sending men out of our own solar system as early as the 1970s.
Andy Serkis to play CGI character.Also, I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that Andy Serkis is playing Caesar.
In other news, sky is believed to remain blue, experts say.
Expo67
Captain
I definately like the 1968 movie. Not only was it an excellent science fiction adventure, it was also a serious social commentary/allegory on the times that it was released in. The late Sixties(especially 1968 as far as events were concerned)was definately a turning point for the entire world.
I can certainly relate to the character of Taylor, let alone empathize with his views on the state of humanity. While I do have extraordinary faith in the individual man(i.e. Christ, Ceasar,
Michelangelo, and other individuals), I, too, have very little expectations for Mankind as a species.
Loosely translated, group Man is nothing more than just a bunch of blithering idiots.
As far as the sequels are concerned, I totally concur with the late Charlton Heston when asked for his views on the sequels. The story had been told as far as the first film was concerned. Any furthur adventures would have been among the goddamn dirty apes. That turned out to be true in the end.
Artistically speaking, 20th Century Fox should have ended it with the first movie.
God knows we did not need Tim Burton's piece of shit remake. That cinematic abomination should never have happened.
What in the hell was Richard Zanuck and Tim Burton thinking?
Simple, they were not. They suffered from cranial rectitus when even considering to do that godawful remake.
I can certainly relate to the character of Taylor, let alone empathize with his views on the state of humanity. While I do have extraordinary faith in the individual man(i.e. Christ, Ceasar,
Michelangelo, and other individuals), I, too, have very little expectations for Mankind as a species.
Loosely translated, group Man is nothing more than just a bunch of blithering idiots.
As far as the sequels are concerned, I totally concur with the late Charlton Heston when asked for his views on the sequels. The story had been told as far as the first film was concerned. Any furthur adventures would have been among the goddamn dirty apes. That turned out to be true in the end.
Artistically speaking, 20th Century Fox should have ended it with the first movie.
God knows we did not need Tim Burton's piece of shit remake. That cinematic abomination should never have happened.
What in the hell was Richard Zanuck and Tim Burton thinking?
Simple, they were not. They suffered from cranial rectitus when even considering to do that godawful remake.
It looks pretty awesome.
Here's another example of remaking a mediocre movie with the real possibility of improving it (True Grit being the extant example we were discussing in another topic). The original Planet Of The Apes was a remarkable film, but by the time they made Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes the thought behind the storytelling and the budgets were really flagging.
To be an improvement on Conquest, Rise doesn't even need to be great - just above average.
Weirdly enough, I'm going to second both of these statements.
The sequels to a film with such a definitive ending were unnecessary, the remake was bad, and this film could easily be an example of a remake that improves on its original as said original, one of the aforesaid unnecessary sequels, is nothing special.
Now, if they were to make a trilogy of these ending up more-or-less where the original POTA took place they'd need to rethink the narrative approach quite a bit. The cat's been out of the bag for nearly fifty years (SPOILER ALERT: It's Earth!) and Burton's "reimagining" (the movie for which that neologism was coined) simply drove home the foolishness of trying to ring a change on that original "surprise ending" (we all had it figured out before Taylor, right?).
Question to those who really really really hate Burton's remake: is it because of the ending? I personally thought the film itself was fine, except for the mind-bender ending that made no sense. I'm wondering if it's the same as me and Spielberg's "AI" - I went from thinking it one of the best movies of all time to being heart-droppingly disappointed and dropping it into the worst category based upon its ending.
Alex
Alex
I think it's a frantic movie that makes no real impression - I mean, is there an actual scene in there anywhere, as distinct from sequences in which trivial conversation and much leaping occur? Maybe the moment between Thade and Daddy Heston, and that ain't much.
The makeup is incredible, though - Baker, maybe the world's biggest fan of Chambers' original work, improved the believability of the apes to an extraordinary degree. The design, using the actual lips of the actors to directly animate the apes' mouths, was a real innovation.
The makeup is incredible, though - Baker, maybe the world's biggest fan of Chambers' original work, improved the believability of the apes to an extraordinary degree. The design, using the actual lips of the actors to directly animate the apes' mouths, was a real innovation.
It was. And the soundtrack wasn't that bad. I'm still pretty fond of the opening title.
The actual film is eminently forgettable, though. I'd say the same about AI.
The makeup was the only saving grace.
The actors and their ape movements was a chance for them to flex those acting classes they took.
Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Roth really got into their characters.
The actors and their ape movements was a chance for them to flex those acting classes they took.
Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Roth really got into their characters.
Making the female apes purty was stupid, and not something Baker really liked.
I'm sensing that you didn't really like the Tim Burton movie.
The main reason I hated Burton's remake (among other things) was the fact the humans could talk. To me it just ruined almost every interesting point about the original.
It was no longer a world where the humans were the beasts/animals, and Taylor was an anomaly considered an abomination by the conservative rulers.
The main character was now just another unremarkable human, and the fact the humans could talk meant the apes were only ruling by force, and not by the intellectual dominance that created a very clear divide between the apes and the humans, and it took the sense and purpose right out of it, for me at least.
I had no problem with the ending, but it was so predictable that you could see it coming a mile off.
There's nothing campy about that; it's a perfectly plausible premise.
The humans didn't just talk - they wore make-up, used hair dye, and even crimped their hair to look really sexy. It was an episode of the Twilight Zone that had nothing to do with the original, which I saw again just the other day.
The original was an Animal Farm style social commentary that is just as relevant today. The re-imagining was a schlocky visual romp that is just as irrelevant today.
The fact that they felt the need to make the female apes and 'savage' human women glossy and sexy is probably the loudest comment that the remake had to say. Modern western society has become so obsessed with looking good that we have to project that obsession onto our movie screens. Whether Burton was intentionally taking a swipe at the Hollywood machine's narrow-mindedness, I can't say.
