I imagine "the kids" today don't even know what Planet of the Apes is. Most never watch films made pre-2000, never mind one from 1968
You might be pleasantly surprised

I imagine "the kids" today don't even know what Planet of the Apes is. Most never watch films made pre-2000, never mind one from 1968
Anyone who's seen The Simpsons knows what Planet of the Apes is.I guess they want to make a blatent connection to the franchise, but any fan of that would probably know about this anyway, and I imagine "the kids" today don't even know what Planet of the Apes is. Most never watch films made pre-2000, never mind one from 1968
"It sounds clunky" is a good enough reason. I guess at first they went for the title which had less of a connection but sounded better, then changed their minds.Dennis said:There was no good reason to forego the publicity value of the "Planet Of The Apes" title - it's basic marketing, and a studio executive would need to come up with a lot better reason than "we don't need it/people will figure it out" to justify not using it.
"It sounds clunky" is a good enough reason.
Why does everything have to be a fucking trilogy...maybe a couple of sequels for a modern day trilogy.
have to agree with Dennis on this issue. it would be a mistake not to utilize the built in marketing and recognition of the 'Apes' name. if people hear about 'Rise of the Apes' they'll be like, 'oh whats that?' they hear 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' and they might be a fan of the old movies or maybe even the Burton film and decide to see 'Rise'.Anyone who's seen The Simpsons knows what Planet of the Apes is.I guess they want to make a blatent connection to the franchise, but any fan of that would probably know about this anyway, and I imagine "the kids" today don't even know what Planet of the Apes is. Most never watch films made pre-2000, never mind one from 1968
"It sounds clunky" is a good enough reason. I guess at first they went for the title which had less of a connection but sounded better, then changed their minds.Dennis said:There was no good reason to forego the publicity value of the "Planet Of The Apes" title - it's basic marketing, and a studio executive would need to come up with a lot better reason than "we don't need it/people will figure it out" to justify not using it.
Why does everything have to be a fucking trilogy...maybe a couple of sequels for a modern day trilogy.
Can WETA make Transformers?I really think Weta is one of the best SFX/CGI houses out there and can even at times beat ILM.
Can WETA make Transformers?I really think Weta is one of the best SFX/CGI houses out there and can even at times beat ILM.![]()
Anyone who's seen The Simpsons knows what Planet of the Apes is.
I was wondering that myself the first time I saw the movie.I still haven't worked out why Helena Bonham-Carter looked more attractive in ape makeup than in real life.
^wow, really? You guys have gone ape shit crazy...I thought she was still pretty attractive as the queen in the kings speech or in a dirty way as Marla Singer in Fight Club.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.