Film Score Monthly
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2001 - 12:01 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

Well, do the French have a linguistic distinction between ape and monkey?

 Posted:   Mar 21, 2001 - 12:12 AM   
 By:   Chris Kinsinger   (Member)

Gunnar, that "Darling Pet Monkey" ad is from a 1964 issue of Photoplay magazine. Back in the 1960's the ad was always running in magazines, along with the "LIVE Sea Horses" and "Ant Farm" ads. When I was a kid, I sent for an ant farm, and when I received it, the ants were all dead.

I always wondered about the monkeys and sea horses...

 Posted:   Mar 21, 2001 - 8:11 AM   
 By:   H. Rocco   (Member)

I do wonder why more people are unaware of Pierre Boulle's own sequel, PLANET OF THE SEA MONKEYS. It was widely panned at the time as being overly derivative of his prior novel, but I think the photographic opportunities for this one would be spectacular. (Possibly Boulle's publisher ran into trouble with the Sea Monkey manufacturers Stateside.)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 2:11 AM   
 By:   Gunnar   (Member)

Chris, I'm glad to hear that the ad is that old. But still, it's quite a disturbing thought. Especially if we keep in mind your experience with the ant farm.

Marian: In French, a monkey (Affe) is a singe; an ape (Menschenaffe) is an anthropoide (with two dots on the 'i'). So, they actually make a difference and the whole problem is merely based on the work of a sloppy translator.

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 6:24 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

But if the original title uses "singe", the translation is correct, isn't it?

Besides, I should have mentioned: While there are Affe for monkey and Menschenaffe for ape in German, a Menschenaffe does also belong to the Affen. Don't know how it's in English, but in German it wouldn't be wrong to call an ape "monkey". Just a little unspecific.

NP: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Requiem (Vienna Philharmonic, Herbert von Karajan)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   Beatty   (Member)

Apparently, Delhi is experiencing Battle for the Planet of the Rhesus Monkeys

------------------" TARGET=_blank> np: See it live! (Mostly!)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 7:52 AM   
 By:   Gunnar   (Member)

Heck yes, of course you are right, Marian. So, who else is to blame then? The author himself, or perhaps the book's editor? But I always thought that in English, 'ape' and 'monkey' are more strongly separated than 'Affe' und 'Menschenaffe' in German. Any feedback from native English tongues?

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 1:28 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

Yeah, any feedback? It's an English message board, and here are two native German-speakers discussing the linguistic difference between "ape" and "monkey"...">

NP: Railroad Tycoon II (Audio Tracks)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 1:36 AM   
 By:   Gunnar   (Member)

Marian: Man muß halt alles selber machen...

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 2:25 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)


NP: Elfman (Danny Batman) (or was it the other way round?)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 3:26 AM   
 By:   Beatty   (Member)

Ape and monkey are not equivalent terms. The main difference is, as stated above, that apes do not have tails and monkeys do. They are both examples of simians. All simians are primates. Of course, the latin nomenclature is less subject to confusion.

------------------" TARGET=_blank> np: See it live! (Mostly!)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 3:33 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

Yeah, but do monkeys include apes (like in German), or are the two terms mutually exclusive?

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 3:35 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

Re Chris picture above, I'd be sceptical of any shop that names itself "ANIMAL FARM". At least, I wouldn't trust their pigs.">

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 5:21 AM   
 By:   Beatty   (Member)

Monkeys do not include apes. No monkeys are apes. No apes are monkeys.

------------------" TARGET=_blank> np: See it live! (Mostly!)

 Posted:   Mar 23, 2001 - 7:44 AM   
 By:   Marian Schedenig   (Member)

Thanks, that clears it up.

NP: Anton Bruckner: Symphony #6 (Münchner Philharmoniker, Sergiu Celibidache)

 Posted:   Mar 22, 2001 - 10:12 PM   
 By:   Beatty   (Member)

By the way, htere is a lot of monkey action going on at" TARGET=_blank>my desk.

------------------" TARGET=_blank> np: See it live! (Mostly!)

 Posted:   Mar 27, 2001 - 4:23 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Hmmm, where are all the rebuttals and explanations from the APE connaiseurs?

I was convinced that all the aforementioned questions jotted down by an APE amateur like myself (who have only seen the films twice) would spur more explanatory rebuttals like the one Marian provided above.

Come on now. Rocco?

Or could it be that I'm possibly right on-target with every question and that you are unwilling to provide any attempts on sound explanations?">

 Posted:   Mar 27, 2001 - 4:31 AM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

Thor, there are no sound explanations for any of the Apes inconsistencies, other than the outside circumstances that caused sequels to be made without there ever having been anticipated in the first place. For instance, the presence of Brent on a rescue mission that makes no sense for Taylor only makes sense when we learn that they had to invent a new 20th century astronaut character for "Beneath" when Charlton Heston refused to do more than a cameo. Likewise, no commenting on the Apes speaking English was a deliberate decision on the part of the filmmakers after a meeting between Heston, Schaffner, and Zanuck who figured the audience would just accept it readily and that to dwell on it would tip off the ending too prematurely. It's easy to look at the production history of the Apes movies and realize why the inconsistencies happened, but explaining them in a story context like the Marvel Comics No-Prizes just isn't going to work no matter how hard one tries.

 Posted:   Mar 27, 2001 - 6:01 AM   
 By:   H. Rocco   (Member)

Thor, your basic observations of the inconsistencies are correct. The reason I haven't chimed in before is because point-for-point, I can't really argue. A few years ago, I watched all the films back-to-back with an interested friend, and we noticed the same things.

We began to wonder if, perhaps, each individual picture is SUPPOSED to be inconsistent. The sequels were written by the great Paul Dehn, who certainly knew what he was doing from a craftsman's point of view. Even the first inconsistency, changing BENEATH's time-frame from 3978 to 3955, throws a wrench into the works. And, I rather think, a deliberate one.

One of Dehn's running themes throughout the sequels (alas, he did not fully script the dismal fifth film) was the mutability of time, the idea that the future can be changed. The whole concept of time travel is so dodgy anyway, the possible permutations are endless.

One could argue, persuasively I think, that EACH of the films operates in a SEPARATE time frame. But I will have to think about this some more. (One thought: certainly when Cornelius is discussing Aldo, the first ape to say "no," and when Dehn puts Aldo in CONQUEST, but gives Caesar all the action, I have no doubt he was up to something very specific. Again, I'll think some more.)

 Posted:   Aug 28, 2001 - 4:59 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

What are some inconsistencies in the latest Burton film (if you disregard the ending)?

And I'm still waiting for someone to try an explanation of some of the intial queries...

You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.