In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the apes?

[SiddFinch1]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Since the apes will want to either kill me..hunt me down..or enslave me...I would say humans

 

[Gary Mitchell]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Definitely humans. Especially if some of them look like Nova.

 

[Lucky]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

I'll go with the side that doesn't want to enslave me.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Taylor went through an unusual arc.
1) He started off being disillusioned with humanity. "There must be something out there better than man!"
2) He found someone who agreed with him-- the apes.
3) Now being hoist on his own loincloth, he inadvertently reversed himself by trying to defend humanity's cause. Hypocrisy, or just a reality check?
In any event, he took the position that man was still equal or superior to the apes.
4) He discovered he was wrong. He ended the first movie disillusioned with humanity again.
5) The second movie... well, the ending tells us that he was equally disillusioned with everyone. If we didn't know that already.

(Which is kind of amusing considering the number of illusions in the movie. )

Taylor's decision in Beneath was the only sensible answer if one considers the arc of the 5 original films and the TV series. In the films, Taylor realizes there's no rational negotiation with the Mendez mutants or the Apes--both were willing to imprison and/or kill innocent parties (i.e. Taylor, Brent and Nova) to continue an inherently destructive way of life.

There's a chance for a reset by the time Cornelius and Zira bring Caesar into the world, but for all of the hope suggested in the Lawgiver epilogue in Battle for the Planet of the Apes, if you count the TV series as part of the continuity, once again, the apes rule and consider man a destructive slave class. On the human side, there was an episode ("The Liberator") revealing a town of humans who disrespected apes, with its leader planning to use a mined gas to poison the ape population.

If we assume there were other humans equally able to fight / plot against the apes, the world goes right back to conditions that ultimately (and literally) forced Taylor's hand, thus there is not a favorable side. The only difference are numbers and resources, but both are hostile, clannish and destructive.

 

[Silvercrest]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

I'm not sure "sensible" is the word.

And even if it is, Taylor wasn't in a sensible mood; he was in "I have nothing left to lose, so screw you!" mood. He didn't have to do what he did. Up until about one minute prior, he was trying to prevent the exact same thing.

 

[the G-man]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

It depends on the version, but in the original, the humans had Charleton Heston on their side, meaning that they had the NRA on their side. And no one wins against the NRA.

 

[Gaith]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Whichever side is better for human females.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

I'm not sure "sensible" is the word.

And even if it is, Taylor wasn't in a sensible mood; he was in "I have nothing left to lose, so screw you!" mood. He didn't have to do what he did. Up until about one minute prior, he was trying to prevent the exact same thing.

He was hanging on a thread of hope up to a point; after Nova's death, Brent had to convince him to keep going. I say his decision was sensible, because every time he thinks there is hope for anything positive, some sort of disaster and/or major failure of character happens--at the expense of anything good.

With the mutants taking him captive--probably torturing him in the same way they treated Brent, once again humans prove they were as worthless as he believed early in the 1st film (with more reasons that did not exist in his 20th century). Then, the apes continued on their path of being greedy, xenophobic, power hungry beasts utterly disinterested in peace with anything unlike themselves, hence he--along with his companions--all meeting their end at the hands of apes.

You might say his decision to launch the missile was not sensible, but I think he finally understood that nothing good was ever meant to spring from either side. They were poisoned species from inception, and operating on hope cost him what little he had (in that world), so why allow it continue?

 

[Silvercrest]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Well, one could suggest that it wasn't his call to make. But that implies a moral/theological high horse that I don't intend to climb onto. I'm just sayin'.

 

[Marsden]

Re: In Planet of the Apes,who would you support more, humans or the ap

Well, I really dislike shaving, the Apes don't do that right?

I'd vote for Caesar, but if Koba is in charge I'm leaving.