Rise of the Planet of the Apes first look

[CessnaDriver]

Based on what I've seen of the script reviews, this sort of does it. I believe it focuses some on animal experimentation and genetic engineering. It also ties into the original film, the mission Taylor is on is mentioned during a news report.


Also I have read the book. The ending is close to that of Burton's film, except for the city the character lands in. The main plot is basically the same as the movie minus the action and the twist. Actually worth checking out if you can find it.

Read the Pierre Boulle book millions of years ago, seems like it anyways.

I think Serling's input into the screenplay made the first film resonate such that it made the viewer look into a mirror of humanity, it exemplifies the power of good science fiction.
I don't think a direct version of the book could have done that as well, but it's been so long since I read it apes could have evolved intelligence since then. So my memory is very fuzzy on the source material.

 

[TheStig]

Isn't it REALLY, REALLY, REALLY late to not even have your teaser trailer rolled out? You're not talking about August of 2012 are you?

You would think that the studio would be attempting to create a little buzz before the movie opens in 4 months? I've heard of procrastinating, but this seems a little over the top.

Maybe it's a straight to video feature?

I was supposed to be out during the winter of 2011, they pushed it up to August for some reason.

 

[joker-scar]

If so, you'd realize that Tim Burton's movie was actually TRUER to the novel than the original film series ever was.

doesn't matter if the film version based on that novel is lame.


And Rick Baker's 21st century ape makeup was amazing! thumbsup[/QUOTE]
again, great special effects/make-up in a lame movie doesn't mean much

 

[yodakiller1138]

The only scene in Burton's film that even remotely resembled the novel was the ending. Other than that the film is nothing like the book.

Read Rod Sterlings original screenplay draft. Much closer to the novel. The apes had technology and lived in cities. But the filmmakers at the time didn't have the means to portray that, so they made the apes more primitive.

 

[TheCollector]

I was just wondering about the next POTA video the other day. I had no idea they were continuing the last one till now. I might give it a shot.

 

[Apollo]

...and straight to the Wal-mart $5.00 bargain bin!

The movie's been pushed back to August.

 

[Slave1]

Cornelius was able to speak about the Apes real past because he got Zaius to admit the truth in the first film and then when Zaius goes off with Ursus he leaves Zira and Cornelius in charge of "the truth".

Nope. Just cued up the scene in Escape to verify. Cornelius talks about the slavery of the apes until on an historic day one ape said no, and this was commemorated by his species "and fully documented in the sacred scrolls." He doesn't need to come by this info from Dr. Zaius. He's saying this is common knowledge, that his people celebrated this day of rising up.

This directly contradicts the first film where the idea of talking humans would mean the sacred scrolls "wouldn't be worth their parchment."

 

[TheStig]

Nope. Just cued up the scene in Escape to verify. Cornelius talks about the slavery of the apes until on an historic day one ape said no, and this was commemorated by his species "and fully documented in the sacred scrolls." He doesn't need to come by this info from Dr. Zaius. He's saying this is common knowledge, that his people celebrated this day of rising up.

This directly contradicts the first film where the idea of talking humans would mean the sacred scrolls "wouldn't be worth their parchment."

We could go the Wibbly-Wobbly-Timey-Wimey route, by traveling back in time, the apes changed the past, even for them. So their memories were changed with the past.

 

[micdavis]

Nope. Just cued up the scene in Escape to verify. Cornelius talks about the slavery of the apes until on an historic day one ape said no, and this was commemorated by his species "and fully documented in the sacred scrolls." He doesn't need to come by this info from Dr. Zaius. He's saying this is common knowledge, that his people celebrated this day of rising up.

This directly contradicts the first film where the idea of talking humans would mean the sacred scrolls "wouldn't be worth their parchment."

Dr. Zaius did not share all of the sacred scrolls will everyone. He was the keeper of the secrets. He shared them with Zira and Cornelius before he left.

 

[Larry Young]

This directly contradicts the first film ...

Man, you want to kill your productivity for the day, google "planet of the apes timeline" and read the first few hits. There are so many contradictions that are explained by fanwank that it'll curl your hair.

 

[Apollo]

:lol Did that a few months ago and I barely made it out alive! :lol

Man, you want to kill your productivity for the day, google "planet of the apes timeline" and read the first few hits. There are so many contradictions that are explained by fanwank that it'll curl your hair.

 

[Slave1]

Dr. Zaius did not share all of the sacred scrolls will everyone. He was the keeper of the secrets. He shared them with Zira and Cornelius before he left.

Dr. Zaius was Keeper of the Faith (not secrets).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In Escape, it ignores the fact that the apes in charge (i.e Dr. Zaius) kept the truth secret from the general public.

Cornelius basically says in that his people (the general public) celebrated their break from slavery. Suddenly, this wasn't something kept secret as it was in past films.



And yes, there are a lot of contradictions. In Cornelius' speech, he also to says around 200 yrs elapsed between apes becoming common pets after the dogs and cats died off to a plaque, and then in another 200 - 300 yrs they turned the table on their masters. But in Conquest, it only took 8 yrs after the cat and dog plague instead of 400 - 500 yrs.

 

[DarkHelmet]

Question: Have you ever read the original NOVEL that was the inspiration for all of the movies?!? :confused

If so, you'd realize that Tim Burton's movie was actually TRUER to the novel than the original film series ever was.

And Rick Baker's 21st century ape makeup was amazing! thumbsup

I"ll admit that Bakers makeup was the only reason I enjoyed the movie, but how was Burton's movie closer to the novel? You lost me.

 

[Goonie]

Who's playing Troy McClure in this movie?

 

[Larry Young]

Dr. Zaius was Keeper of the Faith (not secrets).

Of course he was. He scuffs out MY NAME IS TAYLOR and guiltily looks around to make sure no one else saw that, or he'd have to have them killed. He railroads Taylor in the kangaroo court; he knows everything. But as Keeper of the Faith, he also keeps the secrets. He's got a big stash of apocrypha he's deathly afraid will be brought into the open.

"Don't look for it, Taylor; you might not like what you find" is the statement of a guy who knows there's a big wrecked statue of a human woman on the bluff at Zuma Beach.

 

[Slave1]

I was speaking of his title.

 

[Larry Young]

Mic wasn't; he didn't capitalize it, after all. Just trying to help you out, since you wrote you weren't sure what he was trying to say.

 

[Slave1]

I gotcha. But I think he meant it as his title because he used that term a couple of times.

But again, the fact that Zaius keeps it all secret is contradicted in the third film when Cornelius says, all that stuff is commemorated by his people and "well documented." Not kept secret but for a select few.

It could very easily have been written in such a way to keep it consistent, but it wasn't.

 

[Larry Young]

It could very easily have been written in such a way to keep it consistent, but it wasn't.

I think that might have been more challenging than you might think. The way films were structured and financed back then, and, indeed, until relatively recently, is that you'd get X for the initial option, and 1/2X for a sequel. Half that for a third sequel, and half that for a fourth, etc, with an equal dropping of total budget all around. So with Paul Dehn, the same writer on all the sequels, you'd think he'd be in a pretty good position to keep it all straight since it all came out of one brain.

And, not taking anything away from the guy -- his first produced screenplay was GOLDFINGER, after all -- but it sure does read like he put in the effort commensurate with his declining paychecks.