Tweet
Beneath has always been my fave, followed by the original. the rest of the series had lower and lower production value as they went but I still love them
-
-
I like how the movies make a time loop, but does that explain how the TV series fits in with it's more intelligent humans? Maybe it takes place before Taylor arrived and the humans hadn't de-volved so much yet? Or does the time-line repeat but slightly different each time? I give the writers of the day credit for being able creative enough to write a sequel to Beneath, nowadays they would just reboot once they wrote themselves into a corner.Comment
-
First movie is one of my all time favorite movies, period, let alone of the Apes films. My second favorite Apes film is Conquest.Comment
-
I know I'm gonna get roasted for this...but I like the Tim Burton movie best. I still to this day don't get all the hate. The storyline makes more sense, the makeups are far superior and the actors more ape-like, and the ending with the return of Pericles and uniting of the two races is quite touching.
I love the production design and all the details that went into it...and Danny Elfman's score is brilliant. Just as good as Jerry Goldsmith's IMO.
Bring on the torches and pitchforks...Comment
-
^ I didn't hate the Burton film, I just thought it was kind of slow moving until the end.
The one thing I did like about the Burton film was the main antagonist was a chimpanzee - which sets its apart from the old ones.
Also seems more realistic because chimpanzee's are not only the second smartest great ape, but they are also the most violent after yours truly.Comment
-
I too have some love for the Burton version, as I mentioned earlier. If the excellent production hadn't been spoiled by the terrible acting of the lead and his love interest (all the other casting/acting as I recall was stellar!), it might have been near the very top of my list.
Now, I was really blown away by how good the two newest movies were. It's a very different take on the tale, but a very good one. Two minor things bugged me, though:
1. First we have "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", followed by "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". Doesn't the dawn usually happen first and *then* things rise?
2. Why didn't we get even a mention in "Dawn" of what happened to James Franco and Freida Pinta's characters? I know there was a tiny flashback cameo for James Franco in it, but come on. I guess we just assume they're dead?
Other than those incredibly minor quibbles, those films were top notch. I need to watch them again, but I think I recall the second one was even better than the first.
--SKotLast edited by SKotK; Sep 29, '16, 11:18 AM.Look what happens when you aren't allowed to play with "dolls"...
WANTED: partly-unsealed or bubble-damaged carded Romulan + unbroken plant trap from Mission to Gamma VIComment
-
i like the Burton version for what it is, not what it isn't. it's a fun take on a beloved franchise but it will never replace the originals
regarding the TV series, that is the first time I have ever heard that it takes place 900 years before the movies. I always thought it was a TV rebootComment
-
Yep. Virdon and Burke (and Jones, albeit DOA) arrive in the year 3085 AD in the premiere episode of the TV series. Taylor, Dodge, Landon and (also dead) Stewart land in the year 3955 (or 3975, I believe both dates are given) in the original Planet of the Apes.
There was a really neat article in the Marvel Comics PLANET OF THE APES Magazine #11 which puts all 5 movies, the TV series, and the various Marvel original comic series in a timeline. There are some minor parts of the TV series that contradict established movie continuity - there is a dog in the opening scene of the premiere episode, even though it was a plague that wiped out all cats and dogs that led to people keeping apes as first pets, then servants in Conquest. There is a book in that same premiere episode that pictures a futuristic New York City in the 25th or 26th century, even though the movie continuity establishes the downfall of modern human society in the 1990s. So there probably wasn't any conscious effort to tie the TV series into the movie continuity, but it works fairly well.Comment
-
I love the first four original ones. The last one is too much of a glorified TV episode for me, with hardly a budget to speak of. It just looks weak.
To me, the first is truly groundbreaking. It's bold, breaks all conventions for a SciFi movie, by killing off lead characters early on, Taylor is actually pretty antisocial, so not your typical hero. Many shocking moments. Goldsmith's out-of-the-box soundtrack that goes against all previous soundtracks. And, of course, its undeniable social comment.
Burton's was ok, I loved the make-up and the acting. Tim Roth was phenomenal. The lead character is weak, though, and so is the ending. It didn't really work for me.
I like the recent series, which is very strong, even with all the CG. These characters work well, they convince, and I still feel Serkis should have been nominated for an Oscar. I do hope we'll see some more images back that tie it to the original series, like some of the ape costumes. That would bring it full circle..
.
.
"When things are at their darkest, it's a brave man that can kick back and party."Comment
-
Thanks for the info Warlock, I like the TV series as much as some of the movies. I would like to see the apes in the new movies evolve to look more like the apes in the original or Tim Burton movies as they move forward into the future timeline.The TV Series takes place about 900 years before the first movie (and about 900-1000 years after Battle), so yes, it's generally accepted that the humans devolve further so that by the time Taylor lands, they're mute primitives.Comment
-
Okie doke I've seen them all now
Here's my ranking
1.Planet of the Apes
2.Escape
3.Conquest
4.Beneth
5.Battle
Conquest has the most sci-fi look and is best concept of the series.
Battle wasn't all that bad but definitely the weakest of the series.Comment
-
My problems with the original series are numerous, so I'm going to try and justify my opinion. My number one problem with the original series as a whole is I think it's poorly written. Hear me out.
After the first film, everything falls apart IMO and little if anything makes sense. Even if apes evolved to speak, there's no reason that humans would de-evolve into non-speaking mutes. As a social species they would retain at least some form of primitive language even if it was only grunts and groans. Beneath further compounds this by adding super advanced humans into the mix, which makes even less sense. From there it just gets worse. Escape has to be the most ridiculous of the series. We are to believe that a trio of apes with absolutely no knowledge of even the simplest form of engines...not even steam engines, somehow salvage an immense spacecraft from the middle of a lake...again, with no form of excavation of recovery equipment, restore said spacecraft to perfect working condition even though they have no concept of flight or even basic vehicles, and somehow manage to launch it into space with no launch pad, no fuel, etc. and travel back in time? Are you freaking kidding me? Cornelius was positively dumbfounded by A PAPER AIRPLANE in POTA. Two films and the equivalent of a few months later storywise he's flying a spaceship. RIIIIIGHT. Then we come to Conquest. If you can swallow the idiocy of the previous two films, the notion that the entire reason apes evolve is because all the dogs and cats on earth are wiped out is beyond ridiculous. So, your daughter's kitty dies, and rather that get her...oh, I don't know...a ferret? Mommy and daddy bring home a 300 lb. gorilla instead. Then they start making it do yard work. LOL.
Now onto the reasons the Tim Burton film is IMO superior in pretty much every way.
The story is so much better...NASA training and using chimpanzees and other primates to fly dangerous missions actually happened. The notion that they might try to genetically modify their intelligence to a greater degree is completely plausible. Therefore, the evolution of the apes and subsequent plot makes about 1000 times more sense in the Burton film.
The ape characters look and act much more like real apes. John Chambers' makeups were fantastic for their time, but the makeups designed for the Burton film are amazingly realistic. Tim Roth, Michael Clarke Duncan and Paul Giamatti are just incredible to watch. I actually like Mark Wahlberg's reluctant hero in this...much more than Heston's Taylor, who I found extremely unlikable. Lastly, as I said before, the "twist" ending notwithstanding, I really liked the arrival of Pericles aka Semos at the end, and how he leaps into Leo Davidson's arms...reuniting the apes and humans in peace. GREAT ending.Comment
Comment