"Planet Of The Apes" prequel "Caesar" starts production July 2010

[Procutus]

No, I think the original film is an absolute classic, better written and more imaginative than 95 percent of the science fiction and fantasy films made since.

I agree with you Dennis, the original was simply terrific, one of my all-time favorite films. I really like the idea that this new film is to show how the world that Taylor landed in came into being. I really think it could be a great movie if done correctly.

 

[arch101]

I think a more timely title for this film might be:
"When good Apes go bad"

 

[Gojirob]

I know Caesar's presence prolly disallows this, but it might be an idea to depict the original, non-contaminated timeline, absent Taylor, Cornelius and Zira. A time-loop was formed, but it almost had to have derived from prior existing events before it was locked in by the time-travelers. Whichever came first, chicken or egg, something had to push the 'go' switch for the time-trap that ultimately destroyed the Earth.

It didn't destroy the earth - in fact the point of the story is that earth went on just fine after humans bombed themselves out of the equation. That's one its most powerful points. Humans are just animals like every other creature on this planet and other animals could easily become intelligent and the dominant species, given the right evolutionary opportunity.

I had meant after 'Beneath' and the cobalt bomb.

As to there being no original timeline--a loop or a circle must be drawn or traced.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As to there being no original timeline--a loop or a circle must be drawn or traced.

But again, that's the point: A closed timeloop feeds back on itself. It has no beginning and no end.

Of course there's still some debate as to whether the existing Apes films really *are* a closed loop. To wit: the ending of Battle... which seems to suggest a happy conclusion, at odds with the first film.

Lapis: I thought the cobalt bomb *did* destroy the Earth. That's what the visuals suggested (and the closing narration overtly stated).

 

[Hartzilla2007]

As to there being no original timeline--a loop or a circle must be drawn or traced.

But again, that's the point: A closed timeloop feeds back on itself. It has no beginning and no end.

Of course there's still some debate as to whether the existing Apes films really *are* a closed loop. To wit: the ending of Battle... which seems to suggest a happy conclusion, at odds with the first film.

Lapis: I thought the cobalt bomb *did* destroy the Earth. That's what the visuals suggested (and the closing narration overtly stated).

As well as what Zira said in Escape on what happed after the bomb went off.

 

[Gojirob]

As to there being no original timeline--a loop or a circle must be drawn or traced.

But again, that's the point: A closed timeloop feeds back on itself. It has no beginning and no end.

Of course there's still some debate as to whether the existing Apes films really *are* a closed loop. To wit: the ending of Battle... which seems to suggest a happy conclusion, at odds with the first film.

Lapis: I thought the cobalt bomb *did* destroy the Earth. That's what the visuals suggested (and the closing narration overtly stated).

We'll have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe that there was once a timeline in which Taylor departed, a nuclear war fought over issues more familiar to our world wrecked things and led to the rise of the Apes, perhaps mutated into intelligence (and Human speech, their throats aren't built for it) by fallout. Once Taylor's time-dilation journey was done, the loop began to form. While an editing error, I could cite that the astronauts in 'Beneath' saw the year as 3955, while Taylor's crew saw it as 3978. Cornelius and Zira Escape, the shockwave throwing them back in Taylor's own ship, now a pillar of the loop. Cornelius, who once seemingly knew very little about Ape ancient history, now knows details of the rebellion that started it all, and that there were once intelligent Humans, a point of dispute in POTA. One of these details--the first Rebel--is subverted by his own time trip. The loop is closed. Sadly, any thoughts of the loop being broken are fanon--the director of 'Battle' stated that the tears from Caesar's statue are not ones of joy, but of despair for the doomed future. Obviously, the group of peaceful Humans is either slaughtered or falls into barbarism, and Taylor shows up to start the end and re-start the loop.

As to the bomb, it was definitely supposed to end all life on Earth--at least all life as we know or understand it. As Lapis said, other life may in fact find a way.

 

[Harvey]

Why not both? The new film could easily be a strong, standalone story that doesn't contradict the original continuity.

The original continuity is filled with contradictions, though. There's no way for Taylor to go back in time during the first movie, but that was ret-conned by the second movie. There's very little time for Cornelius and Zira to get to Taylor's capsule between the last time we see them and the end of the world in the second movie, let alone to repair it--remember that this is a culture that doesn't even have airplanes. Yet somehow they manage to repair the craft, launch it, and successfully travel back in time. And when they travel back in time, they arrive in 1973. Which is exactly the same as 1973 except for the rather fantastical spacecraft of Taylor's, which apparently was launched previously to the events of the movie.

Nah, the original played pretty fast and loose with the continuity. No reason this one can't do the same.

 

[Kelso]

Ah, crap. Is no franchise spared from the geekdom obsession with continuity?

 

[Dayton Ward]

I'm with Greg, other than the "We had our fun, and now it's their turn" part. I had my fun back in the day, and I'm up for some more. No links to past continuity required, and I say that as an unapologetic, diehard Apes fan.

And while I'd never throw my hat in the ring for a novelization, if somebody picked up an Apes tie-in license and wanted writers, I'd send a resume and writing sample.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Why not both? The new film could easily be a strong, standalone story that doesn't contradict the original continuity.

The original continuity is filled with contradictions, though. There's no way for Taylor to go back in time during the first movie, but that was ret-conned by the second movie. There's very little time for Cornelius and Zira to get to Taylor's capsule between the last time we see them and the end of the world in the second movie, let alone to repair it--remember that this is a culture that doesn't even have airplanes. Yet somehow they manage to repair the craft, launch it, and successfully travel back in time. And when they travel back in time, they arrive in 1973. Which is exactly the same as 1973 except for the rather fantastical spacecraft of Taylor's, which apparently was launched previously to the events of the movie.

Nah, the original played pretty fast and loose with the continuity. No reason this one can't do the same.

Well, I'm not going to argue with that. In fact, playing fast and loose with the continuity would be a nice nod to the original series; but playing fast and loose with the continuity doesn't mean an entirely separate continuity.

Ah, crap. Is no franchise spared from the geekdom obsession with continuity?

I wish there was more of a geekdom obsession with continuity. Unfortunately, low standards are more in fashion these days.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Tell that to the DC/Marvel crowd. They've been reinventing their continuities for decades, and both have titles for their various major characters which routinely offer up storylines in direct contradiction to one another, and that's before you factor in cartoons, movies, novels, and whatnot. The world's still here.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

remember that this is a culture that doesn't even have airplanes. Yet somehow they manage to repair the craft, launch it, and successfully travel back in time.

The reason they *did* go back in time was because they were 'riding' the shockwave caused by the destruction of Earth.

 

[EEE]

Ah, but it's not about our childhoods. It's about modern kids having their own version of POTA to enjoy.

We had our fun. It's their turn now.

Speak for yourself! I'm not dead yet! *grin*

I think a more timely title for this film might be:
"When good Apes go bad"

You beat me to the crux of the more correct Fox title for it! (Although I would've just went with "When Apes Go Bad")

 

[Gojirob]

Timeline issues aside, I'm struck by the innate stupidity of the Humans of this world.

Man : Let's make unpaid domestic servants out of the apes.

Man 2 : You mean those creatures that by and large have greater bone and muscle density than us, have shown some signs of learning intelligence, and are widely known to fly into supernal rages capable of leaving whole groups of men in pieces on the ground? The ones whom even seasoned trainers tiptoe around?

Man : That's the ones.

Man 2 : DUDE! Awesome idea--and we can poke them with sticks and taunt them.


Two pop culture bits : The aliens in the two 70's MechaGodzilla films were apelike humanoids disguised as regular Humans, said to have been from 'The Third Planet In The Black Hole'.

Also, in Paul Simon's 'American Tune', one line speaks of him dreaming that the Statue Of Liberty is sailing away to sea. I always wondered if that was a POTA ref.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^ Tell that to the DC/Marvel crowd. They've been reinventing their continuities for decades, and both have titles for their various major characters which routinely offer up storylines in direct contradiction to one another, and that's before you factor in cartoons, movies, novels, and whatnot. The world's still here.

That's true enough; and sometimes it even works (and sometimes it's just a necessary function of a storytelling format where characters must not age significantly). But a lot of times it's completely unnecessary and/or detrimental. And sometimes it's horrible, such as in the case of the Ultimate Universe or, worse yet, "Heroes Reborn." That's (one reason) nuTrek was so bad; it was another case of "Heroes Reborn," and it's likely this new Apes movie will be the same. The previous remake was bad, because the producers fell into the trap of Hollywood thinking: "The original was great, so let's change it." Instead of being lazy and mainstream, as with nuApes and nuTrek and so on, they should hire producers and writers with passion and respect for the source material who are able to add to it rather than try to replace it.

 

[EEE]

Instead of being lazy and mainstream, as with nuApes and nuTrek and so on, they should hire producers and writers with passion and respect for the source material who are able to add to it rather than try to replace it.

You should read the original "Planet of the Apes" by Pierre Boulle sometime for an example of changing things (although Boulle was very happy with Rod Serling's ending to the point of stating he wished he had thought of it). We should note that sometimes changing things is forced by budgets and circumstances, etc. And further, that sometimes it actually works (admittedly, not often *grin*).

 

[Greg Cox]

Ah, crap. Is no franchise spared from the geekdom obsession with continuity?

I wish there was more of a geekdom obsession with continuity. Unfortunately, low standards are more in fashion these days.

It's not low standards. It's different standards. Some of us just don't regard a strict adherence to continuity as the standard by which reboots should be judged. What's the point of remaking something if you're just going to do the same old thing?

The old versions are great as they are (well, except maybe BENEATH and BATTLE). But I'm open to new takes and interpretations of the material.

People do it with Shakespeare all the time. Why not POTA?

 

[EEE]

People do it with Shakespeare all the time. Why not POTA?

Because POTA can be watched without a translator. *multiple-meanings grin*

 

[Greg Cox]

Instead of being lazy and mainstream, as with nuApes and nuTrek and so on, they should hire producers and writers with passion and respect for the source material who are able to add to it rather than try to replace it.

When did "mainstream" become a bad thing? It's worth remembering that the original APES (and TREK) were never intended to be cult films appreciated by only a handful of experts and hardcore afficianados. They were broad, popular entertainments aimed at general audiences. TOS was a prime-time show on NBC, for pete's sake. POTA was a huge blockbuster that played in drive-in theaters across the country.

New generations mean new versions of old stories. You update and change things to make them new and fresh again, as well as accessible to modern audiences. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[EEE]

Instead of being lazy and mainstream, as with nuApes and nuTrek and so on, they should hire producers and writers with passion and respect for the source material who are able to add to it rather than try to replace it.

When did "mainstream" become a bad thing?

By it's very definition it implies a lemming mentality. (Needless to say, that I believe that is rarely ever a good thing... oddly enough, you give the impression of being against that).

TOS was a prime-time show on NBC, for pete's sake.

But never "mainstream" at the time.