Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Grading & Discussion

[mos6507]

The original movie in the sixties had an astronaut (albeit a deceased one, which was a shame), an ape scientist, and a character that functioned as our eyes into the world of modern humanity. All we got in this one was one passive love interest apiece. That's the result of fifty years march towards gender equality in entertainment. Yikes.

How much gender equality was there in paleolithic times? That's about the level of technology that the apes possess in this film, with a hint to the future in learning how to read and write (by scratching on stone walls, no paper) and then appropriating human guns. They don't have even the most rudimentary medicine, as we saw in the complications from child-birth. So it stands to reason that they NEEDED strong gender roles just to survive. I mean, you're asking too much of apes that are really only one step removed from their wild natural counterparts.

If you're talking about the human side, yeah, it might have been nice to see a human female soldier, but I'm not going to the theater with a notepad to calculate gender-parity.

 

[Pauln6]

The original movie in the sixties had an astronaut (albeit a deceased one, which was a shame), an ape scientist, and a character that functioned as our eyes into the world of modern humanity. All we got in this one was one passive love interest apiece. That's the result of fifty years march towards gender equality in entertainment. Yikes.

How much gender equality was there in paleolithic times? That's about the level of technology that the apes possess in this film, with a hint to the future in learning how to read and write (by scratching on stone walls, no paper) and then appropriating human guns. They don't have even the most rudimentary medicine, as we saw in the complications from child-birth. So it stands to reason that they NEEDED strong gender roles just to survive. I mean, you're asking too much of apes that are really only one step removed from their wild natural counterparts.

If you're talking about the human side, yeah, it might have been nice to see a human female soldier, but I'm not going to the theater with a notepad to calculate gender-parity.

I think for the apes it was more a case that, while apes do have gender roles fuelled by their hormones, socially females are not passive things that sit around waiting to be defended (have you seen the size of female gorillas?). I suppose my point is that the women's roles resembled women in action movies from the seventies, not contemporary ape society. The sexism of the writing had nothing to with a considered opinion on what more intelligent apes would be like a mere 10 years after their intelligence increased.

And I don't go in with a notepad to check gender parity either but you don't have to be a maths genius to spot when movies have a massive imbalance in the speaking roles or when women are pigeon-holed in stereotyped roles.

 

[Tosk]

The gorillas got sidelined in Dawn too. The filmmakers are racists. I mean speciests. Whatever.

 

[wulfio]

Why not use wind?

Because the dam is a plot device in order to force the humans into contact with the apes. If they raised windmills locally, there would be no conflict, hence no story worth telling.

I'd disagree on that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the geography around the Bay area might not be conducive to constructing massive wind turbines. Wind turbines are typically constructed on large flat lands predominately in agricultural areas. Not to mention the technology as it stands today is an extremely inefficient power source that is only being utilized because greedy people are capitalizing on the green movement; yet ironically are contributing to the destruction of the local ecosystems biodiversity.

Second. The resources required to construct fields of windmills doesn't seem to be readily available to a community of people that is about to run out of their fuel source in a couple weeks.

Finally, the Dam already exists, and they just need to turn it on...

 

[Ethros]

I've not seen this yet so I've avoided looking at all the above posts, but I'm seeing it tonight.
Just two quick questions if one kind soul could answer-

1. Is there a post-credits scene out of interest?
2. Is it worth seeing in 3D? I love 3D in certain movies, but a lot of the time it seems to be done just for more dollar. I enjoyed movies like The Wolverine, Iron Man 3, X-Men DOFP etc, but the 3D in those really didn't add much.

Thanks.

 

[Kelso]

No to both questions.

 

[Mr Light]

My biggest complaint? Only one Orangutan! They are by far the coolest looking species. Where are all the others? Doesn't Maurice get a mate????

 

[Gaith]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the geography around the Bay area might not be conducive to constructing massive wind turbines. Wind turbines are typically constructed on large flat lands predominately in agricultural areas.

Since you asked... , there's plenty of wind in many parts of the city, and I'd guess that wind turbines are only relegated to isolated, rural areas because of the eyesore and noise factors. Moreover, there are several wind turbine fields already in the northeast Bay Area, not to mention plenty of areas there that get lots of sun for potential solar panels, and considerable fertile farmlands for food, so again, why one would want to colonize post-collapse SF is utterly beyond moi. (Unless, of course, you just love human skeletons, and want to find the highest densities of such around.)


It seems to me that since 90% of humanity is gone, that there is plenty of Earth to go around, and absolutely no need for a few hundred humans to fight a few hundred apes over one region of California, no matter how historically rich in culture and geography that region may be, and that the most logical thing for the franchise to do would be to jump several centuries ahead, to a time when both populations have grown large enough to really want to target each other for enslavement or genocidal purposes.


Anyhow, who wants to place bets on what the next movie will be called? Breakfast-Time of the Planet of the Apes? 3 Planet 3 Apes? The Planet of the Apes: Alameda Drift? Almost the Planet of the Apes?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It seems to me that since 90% of humanity is gone, that there is plenty of Earth to go around, and absolutely no need for a few hundred humans to fight a few hundred apes over one region of California.

Neither humans nor apes were trying to occupy each other's territory. Neither had the need, desire, or numbers to do so. They were content to each live in their own enclave, without interaction. However, the humans needed to restart a dam that was in ape territory to restore power, which led to both sides meeting. A human asshole was fearful and arrogant and violent and kept causing problems until he got stomped, and an ape asshole was fearful and arrogant and violent and kept causing problems which escalated into a battle (and more) between the two groups.

 

[mos6507]

I'd disagree on that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the geography around the Bay area might not be conducive to constructing massive wind turbines. Wind turbines are typically constructed on large flat lands predominately in agricultural areas. Not to mention the technology as it stands today is an extremely inefficient power source that is only being utilized because greedy people are capitalizing on the green movement; yet ironically are contributing to the destruction of the local ecosystems biodiversity.

Second. The resources required to construct fields of windmills doesn't seem to be readily available to a community of people that is about to run out of their fuel source in a couple weeks.

Finally, the Dam already exists, and they just need to turn it on...

There is a brief exchange where they say there's "no alternative" to hydro. They could have added a few extra lines of exposition to answer these questions. For all we know there is extra footage cut where these holes are filled in. Whether there were alternatives or not, they didn't think they had any. It wouldn't be the first time people made dumb decisions. People make dumb decisions all the time.

The human enclave's weakness tends to be their dependence on the leftover caches from FEMA and the national-guard. They don't appear very self-sufficient at all, and maybe that's part of the statement the film is trying to make, that we have become lazy and incapable of fending for ourselves when the lights go out. This would also explain why they seem to want to stay in the city and not become agrarian. They just want to cling to their urban/techno lifestyle for as long as possible, and it makes a good contrast with the apes living closer to nature.

But anyway, wind is a commonly thought to be a good post-apocalyptic power-source because it can be built with a lot of post-industrial parts (car alternators being what is most often cited). So I think they could have done it. Whether the net power would have matched the hydro plant or not is debatable, but something is better than nothing. So your arguments against wind in our current context are irrelevant.

 

[wulfio]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the geography around the Bay area might not be conducive to constructing massive wind turbines. Wind turbines are typically constructed on large flat lands predominately in agricultural areas.

Since you asked... , there's plenty of wind in many parts of the city, and I'd guess that wind turbines are only relegated to isolated, rural areas because of the eyesore and noise factors. Moreover, there are several wind turbine fields already in the northeast Bay Area, not to mention plenty of areas there that get lots of sun for potential solar panels, and considerable fertile farmlands for food, so again, why one would want to colonize post-collapse SF is utterly beyond moi. (Unless, of course, you just love human skeletons, and want to find the highest densities of such around.)


It seems to me that since 90% of humanity is gone, that there is plenty of Earth to go around, and absolutely no need for a few hundred humans to fight a few hundred apes over one region of California, no matter how historically rich in culture and geography that region may be, and that the most logical thing for the franchise to do would be to jump several centuries ahead, to a time when both populations have grown large enough to really want to target each other for enslavement or genocidal purposes.


Anyhow, who wants to place bets on what the next movie will be called? Breakfast-Time of the Planet of the Apes? 3 Planet 3 Apes? The Planet of the Apes: Alameda Drift? Almost the Planet of the Apes?

Got it. The noise is negligible. Certainly a lot less than that of traffic. But no, you wouldn't build them in the city to support the entire grid. You might use them here and there similar to solar panels to lower energy costs on a building. But the reason they do entire fields is because government are funding the construction, so these companies are just writing their own blank cheques. They end up with massive wind farms, where all the energy can't be used, and they end up reselling the excess energy at a discounted price. However my other points in the argument still stand. Building costs, and inefficiency makes it stupid to take up a project of that magnitude for a community in their circumstance.

I think they will keep the next movie focused on Cesar. I wouldn't be able to guess the title. But I'm certain it will deal with the coming conflict already mentioned at the end of the movie.

Planet of the Apes: High Noon!

 

[mos6507]

the reason they do entire fields is because government are funding the construction, so these companies are just writing their own blank cheques. They end up with massive wind farms, where all the energy can't be used, and they end up reselling the excess energy at a discounted price.

There are many studies that show that the air currents within or immediately above cities is pretty weak due to the buildings creating local turbulence. That's why anyone who sticks a pinwheel right atop their home isn't going to generate much power. This issue would probably also be true in heavily forested areas (as we saw in this film). The best place to have a wind farm would be long flat tracts (like Kansas). That is why wind farms are where they are. So if you want to rail at something, rail against the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[wulfio]

the reason they do entire fields is because government are funding the construction, so these companies are just writing their own blank cheques. They end up with massive wind farms, where all the energy can't be used, and they end up reselling the excess energy at a discounted price.

There are many studies that show that the air currents within or immediately above cities is pretty weak due to the buildings creating local turbulence. That's why anyone who sticks a pinwheel right atop their home isn't going to generate much power. This issue would probably also be true in heavily forested areas (as we saw in this film). The best place to have a wind farm would be long flat tracts (like Kansas). That is why wind farms are where they are. So if you want to rail at something, rail against the laws of thermodynamics.

Why are you saying this to me, I already made that point?

 

[mos6507]

"I already made that point"

No you didn't. You framed the decision of where to place wind-farms in terms of government corruption. I said it had more to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

Also, Gaith's statment: "there's plenty of wind in many parts of the city, and I'd guess that wind turbines are only relegated to isolated, rural areas because of the eyesore and noise factors. " ignores the difference in airflow between city and rural. If they did decide to erect turbines, the only place I could see it making sense within city-limits is right on the coastline where the air-currents are coming right off the ocean.

I kind of knew when you brought "the government"(TM) up the thread would likely veer off into politics and I can see it happening now.

There's a difference between what a post-apocalyptic society might decide to do and the decisionmaking that we do today in our current society. Bringing modern-day politics into the thread only confuses matters.

 

[wulfio]

You must impress yourself on a daily basis. Try reading the thread instead of cherry picking.

You don't want it to veer off in to politics but you're making it veer off in ignorance because you didn't bother to read the whole discussion.

Probably my main gripe with internet forums. It's like posting in anonymity gives people the green light to act like a 15 year old. Do you actually interact like this with people in your day to day life? Everyone just nit picks at a single statement instead of getting proper context so they can appear intelligent, and condescend. Grow up, stop being so presumptuous.

 

[Gaith]

Neither humans nor apes were trying to occupy each other's territory. Neither had the need, desire, or numbers to do so. They were content to each live in their own enclave, without interaction. However, the humans needed to restart a dam that was in ape territory to restore power, which led to both sides meeting.

♫♬ I say occupy, you say draw power from a dam in the other faction's area, tom-ae-to, to-mah-to, let's call the whol-

Also, Gaith's statment: "there's plenty of wind in many parts of the city, and I'd guess that wind turbines are only relegated to isolated, rural areas because of the eyesore and noise factors. " ignores the difference in airflow between city and rural. If they did decide to erect turbines, the only place I could see it making sense within city-limits is right on the coastline where the air-currents are coming right off the ocean.

Um, the entire western half of San Francisco is basically suburbs, with very few buildings over six stories high, and the terrain in that area terrain gradually ascends, so in other words, most of that half of the city is pretty much "right on the coastline where the air-currents are coming right off the ocean." Also, another area that gets an eff-ton of ocean air-current wind pretty much all the time? The Golden Gate Bridge... you know, the same bridge that you'd have to transmit electricity across (nonexistent power lines) if you were sourcing it from a dam in Muir Woods, many miles to the north of said bridge.

... Okay, I've made my point, and will leave said particular point alone from now on.

 

[Pauln6]

The gorillas got sidelined in Dawn too. The filmmakers are racists. I mean speciests. Whatever.

Since the only intelligent gorilla got shot in the last movie presumably the gorillas are too stupid to be allowed equal citizenship?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Neither humans nor apes were trying to occupy each other's territory. Neither had the need, desire, or numbers to do so. They were content to each live in their own enclave, without interaction. However, the humans needed to restart a dam that was in ape territory to restore power, which led to both sides meeting.

♫♬ I say occupy, you say draw power from a dam in the other faction's area, tom-ae-to, to-mah-to, let's call the whol-

No, it's not remotely the same. After the humans learned that the apes were living there, they returned and asked permission to work on the dam, were given it, finished, and were in the process of leaving when one of the apes started the war because he had been mistreated by humans when he was in the lab in the first film. It's like saying the cable guy is invading and occupying your house. You would know this if you had seen the damn movie before criticizing specific plot points that don't even exist.

I've seen lots of people say they don't want to see a film, but you're the only one who will argue relentlessly about alleged plot holes that you're making up in your own mind because you don't even have the foggiest idea what actually happens.

 

[Trekker4747]

Neither humans nor apes were trying to occupy each other's territory. Neither had the need, desire, or numbers to do so. They were content to each live in their own enclave, without interaction. However, the humans needed to restart a dam that was in ape territory to restore power, which led to both sides meeting. A human asshole was fearful and arrogant and violent and kept causing problems until he got stomped, and an ape asshole was fearful and arrogant and violent and kept causing problems which escalated into a battle (and more) between the two groups.

Which I really liked. Though human asshole seemed to be an asshole for being asshole's sake. At least Scar (Kor?) had something of a reason to hate humans and to be kind of an asshole about it. The story with him and Caesar and Caesar's elder son was a really interesting aspect of the movie and like how it was handled and ultimately resolved.

Which also resulted in the "war" between the apes and the humans which, in the end, the apes started the more active aspect of the war.

 

[Tosk]

At least Scar (Kor?) had something of a reason to hate humans and to be kind of an asshole about it.

Koba.