 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 27, 2007 - 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeff Bond
(Member)
|
"1. Why did the ship turn around and go home? Did something alter the trajectory, causing it to circle back? And if they did expect to return, they should have known upon landing that they were on Earth. See below for more on this."
A lot of the Apes "inconsistencies" you just have to put down to conventions of filmmaking and sci fi at the time. The idea of time and space being circular, that if you traveled far enough in space and time you would arrive at your starting point, is an idea that occurs in everything from Superman comics to The Twilight Zone.
Similarly, both the appearance of the apes and the fact that they speak English are derived from the technology and filmmaking conventions of the time--many sci fi movies and TV shows simply depict "aliens" as speaking English. In fact the original concept for Planet of the Apes had Taylor gradually learning the ape language but the sequences were cut, leading to a belated reference to the fact that the apes speak English in the later films.
The gorilla suit in "Escape" is appalling and no doubt a pure budget decision--plus the fact that you cannot put a live gorilla on a movie soundstage and film it, particularly not with the limited resources this production had.
3. Did they bring along the female Stewart just to use her as breeding stock?
Yes. Remember Taylor's speech in the ape zoo: "Did I tell you about Stewart? She was to be the new Eve...with our hot and eager help of course."
Bottom line: they're only movies, and movies of the time at that. What's impressive is what the first four movies achieve in terms of an epic timeline, even with the inconsistencies--it's not only ambitious but daring as a racial/sociological allegory, and this is how these films are best viewed despite their sci fi trappings. Go back and look at The Twilight Zone or pretty much any sci fi production of the period and you'll see the same kinds of inconsistencies...but I also think you won't find many film series as interesting and entertaining in this genre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 27, 2007 - 2:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
This is what William wrote in the other APES thread at the non-film music forum, and I'll paste it in here to keep everything on-topic:
----------
Since I feel like picking nits, let's look at Thor's criticisms of Film 1 in the thread he alluded to (the sequels don't count, because the metaphors are all in the original, and the follow-ups are just 'fun among the apes' as Chucky said, and frankly not very good.).
* As previously mentioned, one must really question the integrity of the spaceships that seem to crash all over the place.
The spaceships are 'Maguffins' as Hitchcock called them. They don't matter. They're just dramatic devices to make the thing possible. This is an allegory about how we see ourselves in the universe with respect to other species and tribes, not some potboiler. (Anyhow, I'm surprised spaceships don't crash more often, frankly, in the real world!)
* Note how the sound of Charlton Heston's exaggerated laugh is out of synch with the careful smile that is visually shown during the "planting-of-the-flag" scene.
Oh dear: the laugh is given an echo and used as a poetic sneer at humanity and its madnesses as Taylor sees them. That's how it's meant to be.
* What's up with the blue-flashing lightning effects? Is that supposed to indicate a ruined atmosphere?
Gee, I dunno: what IS up with the blue flashing lights?
* What are the scarecrows for?
How can you ask this? They warn humans from the forbidden zone away from 'civilization' and vice versa. It's about boundaries and obvious.
1. Why do the Apes speak English? (In ESCAPE, we are told that "that is the language that has been taught us for generations" and that's about it).
The question is not why they speak it, rather why do the astronauts not find it strange that they speak it? Dramatically it's a clue to the ending.
* A major problem with the entire franchise is how the apes look! I'll get back to this later.
Mere prosthetics. 'caught in the maguffins again. They look more imaginative than the endless parade of assorted 'walnut-heads' that grace 'Star Trek' movies, which IS a sign of limited imagination on the part of the props/make-up dept.. I've never understood the obsession with those tedious nut-dome guys.
2. Why are the apes so incredibly harsh to the humans if they are unaware of how humans treated them in the past?
BECAUSE it's a parallel OF how we treat animals. That's the message. Are you learning Klingon in your spare time, perchance? And if we MUST play this game, the elders will have instilled fear into the apes over generations as do most fundamentalist groups.
3. Why do the apes not question their own past prior to "The Lawgiver" 1200 years ago?
They probably do. But it wouldn't help the film's premise much, would it? We are meant to look at the apes and ask ourselves why WE take authority for granted. The apes are WE ourselves once-removed. You know this. Is more needed?
4. And related to the above, where are the reversed bible quotes culled from? The Lawgiver?
The whole film is based on reversals. Who else?
* Pretty amazing that Heston suddenly has shaving foam at his disposal towards the end of the film.
Ridic! Have you never shaved using a woggle-brush and old-fashioned SOAP? It looks the same! (I'm sure those civilised apes had remarkable shampoo solutions at bath-time.) The whole point of the scene is to contrast with the apes and show he thinks it 'civilised' to lose the hair they prize so much.
5. Cornelius says that his findings suggest a more advanced society the longer into the past he got. The film intends to say that that ancient society belonged to the humans. But weren't the apes already well-developed and "advanced" in the early 2000's or whenever armageddon kicked in?
They needed time to evolve. There is no inconsistency here.
You have to realise that this was six years ago, Thor WAS ill at the time etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 27, 2007 - 2:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
And my response:
The spaceships are 'Maguffins' as Hitchcock called them. They don't matter. They're just dramatic devices to make the thing possible. This is an allegory about how we see ourselves in the universe with respect to other species and tribes, not some potboiler. (Anyhow, I'm surprised spaceships don't crash more often, frankly, in the real world!)
I was referring not only to Heston's ship, but also the spaceship of the socalled rescue mission and the one that Cornelius and Zira return in (which, to be fair, is meant to be Taylor's original ship, retrieved from the water).
Oh dear: the laugh is given an echo and used as a poetic sneer at humanity and its madnesses as Taylor sees them. That's how it's meant to be.
Maybe, but it's still a technical flaw.
How can you ask this? They warn humans from the forbidden zone away from 'civilization' and vice versa. It's about boundaries and obvious.
I guess that kinda makes sense.
BECAUSE it's a parallel OF how we treat animals. That's the message.
Except that we do not treat apes that bad - at least not in society as a whole.
They probably do. But it wouldn't help the film's premise much, would it?
Irrelevant. It's still an open narrative question that should have been adressed.
Ridic! Have you never shaved using a woggle-brush and old-fashioned SOAP? It looks the same! (I'm sure those civilised apes had remarkable shampoo solutions at bath-time.)
OK. Thanks for the explanation, although I have no idea what a "woggle-brush" is.
They needed time to evolve. There is no inconsistency here.
It is if you look at the conflicting timelines that they operate within.
You have to realise that this was six years ago, Thor WAS ill at the time etc..
He, he...yeah, but I believe my INTELLECTUAL faculties were up and running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But is the new a prequel, or a reboot? And if it is a prequel, is it a prequel to the original films or the Tim Burton remake? 
If it is a reboot, it does not have to be consistent with any of the other films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the official reading or your interpretation?
You see if it's a reboot, it can basically do what it wants...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
