Defending Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes

[enyawd72]

I just caught this film again on TV, and while it has some flaws, I find it an incredibly entertaining and well made film, so my question is this...WHY is this so universally hated by classic POTA fans?

I love the original POTA in all it's incarnations, film, TV and animated, and even I can see that Burton's remake was crafted with great care by all parties involved and is actually superior on some levels. Hear me out...

Let's begin with the apes themselves. John Chambers makeup is brilliant without a doubt, but can anyone honestly say Rick Baker's is not equally so? His characters look even more simian and are able to express an amazing amount of emotion through the makeups, far more than the original apes. The performances of the many ape actors aside for HBC are absolutely amazing also. Thade is seriously scary, much more so than any character from the original series, IMO.

Next is the explanation for the apes evolved intelligence. The storyline here is 1000 times better that the ridiculous, "all our pets died so we got ape housekeepers and abused them" story from the original films.

Mark Wahlberg is often criticized for his performance in this film, and I just don't see a problem with it. It's certainly no worse than some of Heston's hamminess and histrionics from the first film. I was also glad to see the humans retain the ability to speak. It just doesn't make sense that they would lose it, especially while the apes gained it. If the humans were all mute, how would the apes have learned to speak English?

It makes much more sense storywise that the apes and humans were equally intelligent, but that the apes came to rule through their superior physical strength and abilities. This idea is introduced by Burton and expanded upon in the new film.

I also found the ending of the Burton film with the return of Pericles very touching and emotionally satisfying. I could have done without the tacked-on twist ending, but overall I feel this is really a good stand-alone film that deserves much more praise than it's given, and is certainly not the stinker people make it out to be.

Is it different than the original? Yes, but that doesn't make it bad.

[Mikey]

I think the title Planet of the Apes ruined it.

It's an example of a film that could have stood on it's own merit but instead it was hung under a remake banner and it p'ed everybody off because it was nothing like the original.

Same thing happened to Wild Wild West

[Werewolf]

Not a great movie by any stretch but not really as bad as it is made out to be either. For me, it's worth it just for Rick Baker's masterful make up effects alone. I'd, personally, take Rick Baker's effects over CGI apes anyday.

[Brazoo]

The makeup was fantastic - but I thought it really dull lacking any suspense or intrigue. The characters and dialog was terrible and I thought the ending they concocted was just there to be weird because it made no sense and had no impact on me.

The original is such a snappy and perfect pulpy fun movie - it works with such simplicity - this one seemed to make up for a lack of new ideas by making the production bigger and bigger.

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed it. That's just my take on what I didn't like.

[Hector]

I agree that the makeup was awesome.

But it was marred by an awful performance from the leading man, Wahlberg (I'll take hammy Heston any day of the week, and then some, lol)...and don't get me wrong, I usually dig Wahlberg's movies...but he was soooo insipid and uninspiring in this one...aside from his perpetual frowning, he showed little else emotion...and that speech he made before the climatic clash of humans vs apes...Jesus...talk about awe uninspiring, lol.

I also hated Paul Giamatti's performance as the obnoxious orangutan...talk about eliminating the intended seriousness of the film.

The fact that Wahlberg solves the entire thing and makes peace between the two species...in about what...about a couple of days time...smells like a very lazy script to me, lol.

Is it an overall horrible movie? No.

But Tim Burton missed the mark on this one.


P.S. The best part was Tim Roth's performance as the crazed chimp General Thade...he stole the spotlight as far as characters were concerned.

[ctc]

>WHY is this so universally hated by classic POTA fans?

I’ve seen a few nerdly films that have been universally hated, and I’m not sure why. I think part of it’s ‘cos we’ve been pandered to for so long our expectations are immense, and we blow a gasket if they’re not met EXACTLY.

For the record, I didn’t like the new film, but I didn’t hate it. I found it really blah and predictable. Specifically:

>His characters look even more simian and are able to express an amazing amount of emotion through the makeups, far more than the original apes.

True, but effects aren’t a big deal for me. “Wow, that looks great!” I think.... then I gotta sit through the rest of the film. In some ways the better effects took away from things for me. They look like apes.... real apes, so they lose some of the distinctness the originals had. Since the CGI “Mighty Joe Young” we’ve seen lots of ape and ape-like monsters.

>Next is the explanation for the apes evolved intelligence. The storyline here is 1000 times better that the ridiculous, "all our pets died so we got ape housekeepers and abused them" story from the original films.

Well.... for me, not real is not real. It doesn’t matter how not real something is. Part of “realing” it up means you lose more uniqueness. I didn’t have a problem with the original ones.... even after the whole “all our cats died” bit ‘cos it seemed to me like the apes weren’t just apes but the product of some sort of uplift. They never explicitly stated this, but you see normal apes AND humanoid ones at the processing center.

>I was also glad to see the humans retain the ability to speak. It just doesn't make sense that they would lose it, especially while the apes gained it. If the humans were all mute, how would the apes have learned to speak English?

I dunno.... this one’s kind of a sticking point for me.... even with the old tv series and cartoon. It’s not a big deal, and I can understand why you’d do it but again it sways stuff towards the typical.

>It makes much more sense storywise that the apes and humans were equally intelligent, but that the apes came to rule through their superior physical strength and abilities.

Maybe, but it’s also possible that humanity would slip backwards really fast; especially if they came from a technologically advanced society. Nowadays it’s estimated that if everything collapsed, the average city would function for about three days. Within weeks half to 80% of the population would starve. Faster, depending on what sort of water supply your city has: power stops flowing in a week or two, shutting down any purifiers. With that much population lost you’d lose a lot of trained medics, construction and repair folks, teachers. I can’t see it taking more than a generation or two without any kind of structured education system for most folks to lose the ability to read. Spoken language would atrophy pretty quickly as well, since you’d have increasingly fewer things to talk about.

....but that’s a hitch to sci-fi in general: you can justify ANYTHING and still have a great story. Question is; do you deal with stuff like this or ignore it?

....as an aside: I’ve always wondered how large the territory claimed by Ape City was. It’s possible that the apes only inhabit a small area of the post apocalypse world. (AND that Logan’s Run, ARK 2, and any other 70's post apocalypse story all take place in the same setting.)

Anyhoo.... my biggest problems came from the story The whole shot at religion that was the original disappeared for the sake of action. Sure, not-Ursus has a crisis of faith, but that’s all laid out in very clear good/bad ways. (Caesar IS evil.) In the original we get more of a debate.... and at the end we find out Zaius isn’t just a bad guy, OR a closed minded zealot; but that his society has a plan, and reasons for it, and you gotta hand it to them: humans are kinda bad. THAT’S what made the original for me, the depth.

That, and the “but he’s so damned ugly!” line. It bothered me that the “hot” ape-chick falls for Marky Mark. Felt like how they tack a romantic subplot on EVERYTHING. I’ve been told that’s closer to the original book, but even so it kinda rubs me wrong. Comparing that to the original, I liked that Zira had to learn Taylor was sentient. (And even then she was still pretty condescending to him.) Again; depth. More circumstance for the characters and audience to deal with. Farther removed from the norm. Plus, we get to see the process happen, as opposed to the new one wherein the “hot” ape-chick believes in human rights because.... well.... because.

Don C.

[BlackKnight]

The Marky Mark Monkey Movie.
I can't believe Depp wasn't in this 1.
... I liked the movie ..., The Script wasn't that bad ....,Walburg really didn't show us any kinda Emotion in this Film ...., but other than The Other Guys, and The Departed , I dunno if He does. I like him as an Actor somewhat...., but he hasn't really stole a Performance, since His 1st Film, where he played that crazy Boyfriend in Fear ...., But that was also the Script ..., Not Walburg.

The "Sexy" Ape falling for Walburg was Stupid ..., but Hollywood Loves romances, and feels as if They can't tell a Movie without 1 ..., Look at all the Endless Super Hero Movies in the Last few Years . Why the Hell does Batman really have to Have a Romance in Every Movie ? .... I don't remember that Crap in Every Comic.

I don't mind the Movie itself ...., and Love the Make-up Artists.

[GlobalObserver]

I really need to watch this film again and re-exam my original opinion from a decade ago.

I didn't hate the film, but I didn't like it much either. It lacked heart. I just didn't care about any of the characters, human or ape. I felt a complete indifference to their plight. The movie looked great, but it was completely soulless.

The original film series and subsequent TV shows had a lot of heart. I actually cared about those characters. I even sympathized with Dr. Zaius to a certain point. He wasn't a bad guy, motivated by personal greed, he simply wanted to protect apekind from a species with a very destructive past. He was scared, his every action was motivated by fear. He was deeply frightened, and he had every right to be.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes restored heart & soul back into the POTA franchise. I cared about those characters and their circumstance as much as I had cared about Cornelius, Zira, & Taylor.

I am so looking forward to the 'Rise' sequel in 2014.

[toys2cool]

i liked it

[enyawd72]

Some excellent points and observations...I'm particularly interested in your comments, GlobalObserver.

I thought the same thing about Burton's film when I first saw it. Walberg's character seemed indifferent as you say, but rewatching it I see a layered performance. He really cares about Pericles. He doesn't take the pod out at the beginning to prove his superiority over a "monkey" as implied. He does it to save the little guy, although he would never admit it to his shipmates.

He's presented as a hero who feigns apathy, but when you look beneath the surface he really does care. The only ape performance I thought was lacking was Bonham-Carter. She didn't seem to "get" what everyone else was doing in the film. She lacked the curiosity of Zira's character.