# The Planet of the Apes: Holes in the Plot



## Tom Terrific (Feb 10, 2022)

From 1968 and through almost 50 years later, there was an iconic sci-fi franchise created under the auspices of 20th Century Fox. I have not read the Pierre Boulle's novel, _La Planète des singe_s, which this whole Apes film/TV thing is about. Is this a good book to read to make sense of the entire Apes franchise that followed for a half a century later or more?

My favorite actor in the whole franchise is Roddy McDowall. I have not seen any Apes media material following The _Return of the Planet of the Apes _animations by _DePatie_–_Freleng_/20th Century Fox originally aired on NBC Saturday mornings 1975-1976.

I, in my 57 years as a humanoid on Earth, have seen all five original Apes films from 1968-1973, five of 13 episodes of the short-lived 1974 television series and five of 13 episodes of the 1975 animated series.

In the original 1968 Charlton Heston film, there seems to be many questions in my mind regarding the whole Apes saga. The plot is complicated indeed. 

1. Why did Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) and Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) proclaim that manned flight was not possible when Taylor (Charlton Heston) demonstrated a paper airplane? Why did they, far off in Earth's future, have no knowledge of aircraft? When the apes took over the world, did they dispose of the records of most human knowledge, history and technology that preexisted the ape takeover about 1,500 years earlier on? Interestingly, the apes lived in Ape City which looked like a medieval setting with horses, crude buildings, no electric lights, no automobiles and certainly no aircraft or spaceships. Telephones, TV sets and computers seem to have gone the way of cavemen.  By contrast, the 1975 animation shows the future apes with military vehicles, howitzers, modern buildings, radios and even an airplane they somehow managed to acquire. How technologically advanced were the future intelligent apes in Pierre's book? Did the apes acquire this technology from humans when they took the planet over?

2. How did humans get to be a dumb, and for the most part, speechless species in the ape world of the future? Nova could be barely be trained to utter a few words.

3. What is the true story behind the Underground People?


All APES fans, please chime in on your take on the whole Apes affair.


----------



## Dave (Feb 10, 2022)

I think I did read an English adaptation of the original book. It's a very long time ago and the memory goes. The planet in the book was not Earth, or at least, it was not identified as Earth. They made the planet into Earth in the first film. The Statue of Liberty scene was thought up quite late into the film's development, but you would know that as a fan. Interviews about it are available on the internet anyway. It might be an all-time great film scene, but all of the plot problems that you identify follow on from that decision. You say that you have never seen the more modern films. Really! They are on TV quite frequently. Anyhow, they are mostly a rehash of parts of the earlier films and the plot problems become even more unlikely within those. 

I agree that Roddy McDowell makes the films. He was great playing those kind of roles in films, much like Andy Serkis is today.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 10, 2022)

Forgive me if I'm talking rubbish. I'm quite accomplished at that.

I have only ever seen the original film, and possibly one of the later ones on the TV, of which I don't really remember the details.

However the idea of denying the possibility of flight, and the absence of telephones etc. seems to me to conform to a fairly common post apocalyptical trope, where technology is shunned; being considered to be the reason, or at least the mechanism by which the apocalypse came about.

I remember a short story, by John Wyndham I think, where a boy rolls a round object across the farm yard until his grandfather screams and stops him, taking the object away before others see him. The grandfather is executed (I think) for committing the worst sin imaginable in their society; inventing a wheel..


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 10, 2022)

In the 5th original film, _The Battle for the Planet of the Apes_, 1973, Ceasar (McDowell) becomes the new leader of the simians once the humans are subdued in the last man-ape battle for world control. He wisely understands that weapons, guns and ammunition, are to be retained for the future progeny of the intelligent ape civilization in the making. He did not want to carry other human inventions into the ape future as cars, telephones, computers, jet planes and such. He no doubt thought any technology derived from man should be limited and the history of the world before the ape takeover should be forgotten by future generations of simians and remaining humans alike. The intelligent apes created a new religion of the Sacred Scrolls based upon an ape god creator to construct their origins on the basis of religion. They fabricated this biblical account of their existence to hopefully forever suppress the knowledge of the world's past under human dominion. Ceasar may have gotten this notion from the man-made religion he had experienced while fostered since babyhood by the human circus owner (Ricardo Montalbán). Simply, Ceasar did not want his newly-created ape civilization to ever know about the past human civilization that was actually the forerunner of the apes' intelligent earthly civilization. Too much technology had been the ruin of man. A lesson Caesar wisely had learned at the time of the apocalypse. The Apes franchise seems to me to have some Orwellian undertones. Ape government was quite totalitarian. The peaceful chimpanzees were the most kind and understanding of the simians, however.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 10, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> From 1968 and through almost 50 years later, there was an iconic sci-fi franchise created under the auspices of 20th Century Fox. I have not read the Pierre Boulle's novel, _La Planète des singe_s, which this whole Apes film/TV thing is about. Is this a good book to read to make sense of the entire Apes franchise that followed for a half a century later or more?



Having read the book, I would answer your question with a probable no. As Dave says the film was based on the book and did not follow it. Although, elements of the book that the original planet of the apes did not use, were used in the Burton remake, so you may want to read the book to find these.

The book is very much political satire or allegory in a way that the original movie does not really take you. There are many similarities, with regards to the plot, but I'll not make major spoilers in case you do want to read it. 



Tom Terrific said:


> 1. Why did Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) and Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) proclaim that manned flight was not possible when Taylor (Charlton Heston) demonstrated a paper airplane?



There's a big difference between a paper airplane and manned flight. They would have easily observed birds flying about, no? But then see ans, below:




Tom Terrific said:


> Why did they, far off in Earth's future, have no knowledge of aircraft? When the apes took over the world, did they dispose of the records of most human knowledge, history and technology that preexisted the ape takeover about 1,500 years earlier on? Interestingly, the apes lived in Ape City which looked like a medieval setting with horses, crude buildings, no electric lights, no automobiles and certainly no aircraft or spaceships. Telephones, TV sets and computers seem to have gone the way of cavemen.  By contrast, the 1975 animation shows the future apes with military vehicles, howitzers, modern buildings, radios and even an airplane they somehow managed to acquire. How technologically advanced were the future intelligent apes in Pierre's book? Did the apes acquire this technology from humans when they took the planet over?



This is just from memory but my understanding _of the films_ is that those in charge of ape civilisation were so horrified by the aggression of humans that after they 'won' they decided to not go down the path that humans went because that led to utter destruction. Therefore they avoided anything human, like their technology.

The society had castes based on species, as I am sure you know! - which kinda used some very old stereotypes i.e. gorillas being aggressive violent apes (chimpanzees have been observed being much more aggressive, I believe, not counting the lovely bonobos!).

Gorillas were the military caste, brutish and strong, orangutans were conservative religious and political caste, and chimpanzees were 'liberal scientists'.   Society was effectively controlled by the orangutans and gorillas, both who kept the smaller chimpanzees in check.

I believe the lead orangutan tells Taylor that he is fully aware of the dig site and all that it entails about the previous human civilisation, but he and rest of the leadership of the society deliberately suppresses the findings and knowledge because of the above.

I think in the book, the apes did take over all stuff from the humans and carry on from there - they, in fact, have a space program where they send up humans to test their rockets (in a role-reversal of some of the US experiments in the early 1960s.)




Tom Terrific said:


> 2. How did humans get to be a dumb, and for the most part, speechless species in the ape world of the future? Nova could be barely be trained to utter a few words.



Again I think the film hints that its some sort of psychological impact of the intense destruction wrought be humans on themselves/apes that has scarred humanity forever. In the book it is 'cerebral laziness' (whatever that means.)

I personally don't buy any of those ideas, but both need some sort of mechanism for making the apes talk and 'civilised' and the humans dumb and 'animal' to make their plots/themes work.




Tom Terrific said:


> 3. What is the true story behind the Underground People?



Isn't it explained in the film? (There are no underground people in the book, btw)


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 10, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> From 1968 and through almost 50 years later, there was an iconic sci-fi franchise created under the auspices of 20th Century Fox. I have not read the Pierre Boulle's novel, _La Planète des singe_s, which this whole Apes film/TV thing is about. Is this a good book to read to make sense of the entire Apes franchise that followed for a half a century later or more?
> 
> My favorite actor in the whole franchise is Roddy McDowall. I have not seen any Apes media material following The _Return of the Planet of the Apes _animations by _DePatie_–_Freleng_/20th Century Fox originally aired on NBC Saturday mornings 1975-1976.
> 
> ...



You might want to check out the novels

*The Conspiracy of the Planet of the Apes *by Andrew Gaska 

*The Death of the Planet of the Apes*  by Andrew Gaska

The anthology  *Planet of the Apes Tales from the Forbidden   *


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 11, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Having read the book, I would answer your question with a probable no. As Dave says the film was based on the book and did not follow it. Although, elements of the book that the original planet of the apes did not use, were used in the Burton remake, so you may want to read the book to find these.
> 
> The book is very much political satire or allegory in a way that the original movie does not really take you. There are many similarities, with regards to the plot, but I'll not make major spoilers in case you do want to read it.
> 
> ...


The second film, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, 1970, James Franciscus, reveals humanoids who occupied the apocalyptical ruins of New York City. I believe they were mutants from the fallout of the atomic weapon. How they got the power of physical control by thought and creating lifelike but false illusions with their minds, I don't know.  Accounts of underground and/or city ruins-dwelling humanoids also carried over into the final 1973 film, 1974 TV series as well as the 1975 animation series.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 11, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> The second film, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, 1970, James Franciscus, reveals humanoids who occupied the apocalyptical ruins of New York City. I believe they were mutants from the fallout of the atomic weapon. How they got the power of physical control by thought and creating lifelike but false illusions with their minds, I don't know.  Accounts of underground and/or city ruins-dwelling humanoids also carried over into the final 1973 film, 1974 TV series as well as the 1975 animation series.


It was a common trope coming over from the golden age of Sci Fi (say the 1950s to late 1960s) that 'atomics' and increased radiation would cause mutations in humans that would lead to them developing psychic abilities, such as telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance etc... thus why these underground humans have the powers that they do in the films. 

(for example, 1967 - Spiderman first appears, is bitten by radioactive spider, gains powers. Similar-ish reasoning - Radioactivity gives you powers! )


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 11, 2022)

a trope, atomic themes were perhaps a *trend* of sorts in the sci-fi biz during the height of the space craze and the Cold War era


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 11, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> The second film, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, 1970, James Franciscus, reveals humanoids who occupied the apocalyptical ruins of New York City. I believe they were mutants from the fallout of the atomic weapon. How they got the power of physical control by thought and creating lifelike but false illusions with their minds, I don't know.  Accounts of underground and/or city ruins-dwelling humanoids also carried over into the final 1973 film, 1974 TV series as well as the 1975 animation series.



The first  film had a budget of 7 million dollars .  *Beneath the Planet go the Apes* had smaller budget at  3 million dollars  and it shows in some the scenes. In some of the crowd scene you see some of the extras wearing what is very obviously rubber ape masks.


Tom Terrific said:


> a trope, atomic themes were perhaps a *trend* of sorts in the sci-fi biz during the height of the space craze and the Cold War era



* I was a Teenage Caveman, The Day the World  Ended , Godzilla , World without End  , Terror From the Year 5000, The World the Flesh and the Devil ,* *On the Beach, * *Dr Strangelove * and *Fail Safe. 

*The mutant church service where they were worshiping the Alpha and Omega Bomb . Hilarious and chilling at the same time.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 11, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> a trope, atomic themes were perhaps a *trend* of sorts in the sci-fi biz during the height of the space craze and the Cold War era


No perhaps about it. I grew up in the 1970s and remember all the various strands about all these things, like: nuclear weapons, atomic power, radiation, psychic powers etc... at the time. 

The 70s in SF was a transition period between bright progressive futures of the earlier Golden Era, to darker, more dystopian and pessimistic worlds. Of which _Planet of the Apes _certainly fits!


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 11, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> No perhaps about it. I grew up in the 1970s and remember all the various strands about all these things, like: nuclear weapons, atomic power, radiation, psychic powers etc... at the time.
> 
> The 70s in SF was a transition period between bright progressive futures of the earlier Golden Era, to darker, more dystopian and pessimistic worlds. Of which _Planet of the Apes _certainly fits!



Along with such films like ,* The Forbin Project* ,* Silent Running *,*TXH 1138, Soylent Green ,The Omega Man,* *Zardoz ,* *A Clockwork Orange , A Boy and His Dog *and*  The Love War*


----------



## Dave (Feb 11, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Zardoz


No one knows what that that was all about


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 11, 2022)

Dave said:


> No one knows what that that was all about



One among the Eternals helped bring about the development of Zed and his people as a means of destroying   the Tabernacle which was  machine that created the eternals wearingly  unending eternal life.  Deep down, the Eternal wanted die but ththoey figure out  a way to destpyr the Tabernacle. When Zed accomplished  his goal and fretted the Eternals , he found , that couldn't go back to his old life  the experiences that he had among them and the truth that he leaned  , had changed him .

That's my take on it. This is far better film then  is given credit for.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 11, 2022)

Dave said:


> No one knows what that that was all about


It was about a sexy Sean Connery in skimpy cloth speedos with bandoliers, obviously:




I jest, I actually quite like the movie, maybe not great but interesting!

EDIT: Great boots on the left hand side!


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 12, 2022)

Ouch! Rough Bond.

Re Humans and speech, if a human does not hear speech before 7 or so years old, he or she will NEVER learn speech language, according to the (once) widely accepted Language Acquisition Device Theory by Chomsky. So, once the parents are wiped out, and no one above 1 is left alive, the ability to speak language is also wiped out.
Scary, huh?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 12, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> Ouch! Rough Bond.
> 
> Re Humans and speech, if a human does not hear speech before 7 or so years old, he or she will NEVER learn speech language, according to the widely accepted Language Acquisition Device Theory by Chomsky. So, once the parents are wiped out, and no one above 1 is left alive, the ability to speak language is also wiped out.
> Scary, huh?



There is a theory that only one gene change led to the acquisition of language, a sort of massive beneficial mutation. (no idea if that is true, but the genetic evidence is interesting...) So one could contemplate a world where a virus 'edited' out this gene and rendered subsequent human descendants unable to communicate.


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 12, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> There is a theory that only one gene change led to the acquisition of language, a sort of massive beneficial mutation. (no idea if that is true, but the genetic evidence is interesting...) So one could contemplate a world where a virus 'edited' out this gene and rendered subsequent human descendants unable to communicate.


Yup. Dumb Humans is the _least_ difficult to believe part of Planet of the Apes...lol.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 12, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> Ouch! Rough Bond.
> 
> Re Humans and speech, if a human does not hear speech before 7 or so years old, he or she will NEVER learn speech language, according to the (once) widely accepted Language Acquisition Device Theory by Chomsky. So, once the parents are wiped out, and no one above 1 is left alive, the ability to speak language is also wiped out.
> Scary, huh?


The future intelligent apes, upon taking control of man, then must have just taken the human young from their speaking mothers at a very early age to keep them primitive dumb, and pretty much speechless. Of course, the subsequent generation of human mothers, once made dumb by ape captivity, would not be able to instill speech into their children. Human dumbness in ape captivity would just become a family tradition to be passed onward. Human masters once kept human slaves from books and other stuff of learning to keep them stupid and therefore submissive and servile. The black slaves in America still had a certain degree of speech. Knowledge is power and authority. The scientific chimps (Zira, Cornelius, Milo) thought it was NATURAL for humans to be speechless, and therefore dumb, however. What a surprise when (Charlton Heston) Taylor spoke, "Get your paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" Nova could be trained like a parrot to utter a word or two.

How the non-human apes themselves evolved, both vocally and cerebrally, to talk is another mystery to the plot.

Scientifically speaking, man is a GREAT APE himself, although a smooth-skinned one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 12, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> The future intelligent apes, upon taking control of man, then must have just taken the human young from their speaking mothers at a very early age to keep them primitive dumb, and pretty much speechless. Of course, the subsequent generation of human mothers, once made dumb by ape captivity, would not be able to instill speech into their children. Human dumbness in ape captivity would just become a family tradition to be passed onward. Human masters once kept human slaves from books and other stuff of learning to keep them stupid and therefore submissive and servile. The black slaves in America still had a certain degree of speech. Knowledge is power and authority. The scientific chimps (Zira, Cornelius, Milo) thought it was NATURAL for humans to be speechless, and therefore dumb, however. What a surprise when (Charlton Heston) Taylor spoke, "Get your paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" Nova could be trained like a parrot to utter a word or two.
> 
> How the non-human apes themselves evolved, both vocally and cerebrally, to talk is another mystery to the plot.
> 
> Scientifically speaking, man is a GREAT APE himself, although a smooth-skinned one.



They might been better off to have ended the series with just the first two films.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 12, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> They might been better off to have ended the series with just the first two films.


Then the Planet Earth would have been gone for good.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 12, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> They might been better off to have ended the series with just the first two films.




Yes. The idea of Cornelius and Zira (offscreen) somehow managing to 'repair' and launch Taylor's spacecraft, before being hurtled back in time by the destruction of the Earth was ridiculous. 

The original movie was great, and the premise that most humans have reverted to a primitive state following a nuclear war, whilst the apes have evolved to be the dominant species was not beyond the realms of possibility. The second movie started to stretch the imagination , and perhaps should have been where the movies concluded. But when your films are returning 4,5 or 6 times their budget at the box office then commercially they were going to continue. Perhaps the only surprise is that they stopped making them whilst they were still popular and profitable.

Interestingly the budgets for each of the movies got lower and lower, despite their success. And from what I remember this was borne out with the quality of the costumes, make up and special effects. But the (after the first 2) movies were less about the believability of the science and more a social commentary on society's issues of the day.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 12, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> No perhaps about it. I grew up in the 1970s and remember all the various strands about all these things, like: nuclear weapons, atomic power, radiation, psychic powers etc... at the time.
> 
> The 70s in SF was a transition period between bright progressive futures of the earlier Golden Era, to darker, more dystopian and pessimistic worlds. Of which _Planet of the Apes _certainly fits!



Tbh I think that most science fiction movies have been less about exploration and adventure, and more about the dangers of alien invasion and (from the 1950s-on) the mis-use of (usually atomic) technology. Most of the 'positive' sci fi movies have come from more modern times with the likes of Close Encounters, ET and Cocoon. 

I suppose one of the earlier 'golden' era movies was 'When Worlds Collide' with Humanity's escape to a wonderful alien world.

This is seen with all the 'irradiated monster' movies of the time. Probably the greatest and most significant of these came in 1951 with 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' where Humans were given the ultimatum of behaving or being destroyed.


----------



## AllanR (Feb 12, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> proclaim that manned flight was not possible when Taylor (Charlton Heston) demonstrated a paper airplane?



The paper airplane was a cheap device. We've had paper airplanes (called paper darts) for two thousand years before we had manned flight. If someone threw a paper airplane around Charlemagne I don't think he would have thought that meant manned flight was possible.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 12, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes. The idea of Cornelius and Zira (offscreen) somehow managing to 'repair' and launch Taylor's spacecraft, before being hurtled back in time by the destruction of the Earth was ridiculous.
> 
> The original movie was great, and the premise that most humans have reverted to a primitive state following a nuclear war, whilst the apes have evolved to be the dominant species was not beyond the realms of possibility. The second movie started to stretch the imagination , and perhaps should have been where the movies concluded. But when your films are returning 4,5 or 6 times their budget at the box office then commercially they were going to continue. Perhaps the only surprise is that they stopped making them whilst they were still popular and profitable.
> 
> Interestingly the budgets for each of the movies got lower and lower, despite their success. And from what I remember this was borne out with the quality of the costumes, make up and special effects. But the (after the first 2) movies were less about the believability of the science and more a social commentary on society's issues of the day.


The American spacecraft drowned in the lake. The three apes, Milo, Zira and Cornelius somehow recovered the ship from the bottom of the lake and got her operational again. Wouldn't the computer and all the on board electronics have been destroyed by water? Oh, but wait, there was a second spaceship that crashed on land that the character of James Franciscus arrived in for "Apes" film number two. Could they have salvaged parts from both ships to make one good ship? They had to do this before the character of Heston detonated the "bomb god". They had to learn how to navigate the ship. Did the ship even have enough fuel on board to be hurtled back through time? Does NASA keep operation and repair manuals for spaceships on board the craft?


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 12, 2022)

The American spacecraft Taylor touched down in drowned in the lake in film number one. The three apes, Milo, Zira and Cornelius somehow recovered the ship from the bottom of the lake and got her operational again. Wouldn't the computer and all the on board electronics have been destroyed by water? The ship sprang a hull leak at the time of abandon-ship and the escape hatch was left open. The ship was not "programmed" for a water landing. I don't think the second ship in the second film was even able to manage dry-soil landings to boot. These films infer NASA's "incompetence". Oh, but wait, there was a second spaceship that crashed on land that the character of James Franciscus arrived in for "Apes" film number two. Could they have salvaged parts from both ships to make one good ship? They had to do this before the character of Heston detonated the "bomb god". They had to learn how to navigate the ship. Did the ship even have enough fuel on board to be hurtled back through time? Does NASA keep operation and repair manuals for spaceships on board the craft?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 13, 2022)

Flight has long been possible; controlled flight was the real issue. If you can use a bow and arrow, a catapult or a gun or cannon, you know that you that you can make an object 'fly'.  Controlling that flight was the main issue, and people tended to look to the birds to try to emulate the techology to fly.

It does surprise me to some extent that someone wasn't able to develop a form of hand-glider. After all, we have had kites for more than 2000 years, and the technological step between them isn't that great. I suppose the biggest issue is that any miscalculation or mistakes usually meant serious injury or death to the trialist. Still, with relatively simple technology I'm surprised it took to the mid 19th century to invent a handglider.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes. The idea of Cornelius and Zira (offscreen) somehow managing to 'repair' and launch Taylor's spacecraft, before being hurtled back in time by the destruction of the Earth was ridiculous.
> 
> The original movie was great, and the premise that most humans have reverted to a primitive state following a nuclear war, whilst the apes have evolved to be the dominant species was not beyond the realms of possibility. The second movie started to stretch the imagination , and perhaps should have been where the movies concluded. But when your films are returning 4,5 or 6 times their budget at the box office then commercially they were going to continue. Perhaps the only surprise is that they stopped making them whilst they were still popular and profitable.
> 
> Interestingly the budgets for each of the movies got lower and lower, despite their success. And from what I remember this was borne out with the quality of the costumes, make up and special effects. But the (after the first 2) movies were less about the believability of the science and more a social commentary on society's issues of the day.



Though I respect  the ending  of the second film , I never liked it , way   way too downbeat and bleak . If it were up to me , the second film would have had a far different ending and would have take the series in whole new direction.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 13, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Though I respect  the ending  of the second film , I never liked it , way   way too downbeat and bleak . If it were up to me , the second film would have had a far different ending and would have take the series in whole new direction.


Even as a kid I wasn't convinced a small golden rocket could wipe out all life on Earth. (It was the 70s we knew all about nuclear war at the time, given that it was a possibility at the time.)


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 13, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Even as a kid I wasn't convinced a small golden rocket could wipe out all life on Earth. (It was the 70s we knew all about nuclear war at the time, given that it was a possibility at the time.)


Hollywood to some extent made the* Apes *franchise rather far-fetched.  Who here regards the whole Planet of the Apes saga, or any parts of it, as truly SERIOUS works of science fiction? 

Could anything portrayed in* Apes *possibly come true someday?


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Even as a kid I wasn't convinced a small golden rocket could wipe out all life on Earth. (It was the 70s we knew all about nuclear war at the time, given that it was a possibility at the time.)



There was something about the  casing that made it so deadly . What's  never made sense to me  was how the mutants got hold of such a device in the frost place given  they  didn't venture out of their city .


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> Hollywood to some extent made the* Apes *franchise rather far-fetched.  Who here regards the whole Planet of the Apes saga, or any parts of it, as truly SERIOUS works of science fiction?
> 
> Could anything portrayed in* Apes *possibly come true someday?


Baring supermassive leaps and  bound in genetic entering,  Not possible.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 13, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Baring supermassive leaps and  bound in genetic entering,  Not possible.


It's possible that the human species MIGHT be supplanted by *some other intelligent life form* as ruler of Earth someday.


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> It's possible that the human species MIGHT be supplanted by *some other intelligent life form* as ruler of Earth someday.


Can't find the Simpsons' Insect Overlord clip, so if you could just close your eyes for a moment....

there you go.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> It's possible that the human species MIGHT be supplanted by *some other intelligent life form* as ruler of Earth someday.



There was  speculative documentary a few years back   called *The future is Wild .* After mankind* .* Octopuses would would evolve and become land dwellers and eventually would become the  ruling intelligence of Planet Earth.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> Can't find the Simpsons' Insect Overlord clip, so if you could just close your eyes for a moment....
> 
> there you go.



I vaguely remember a science fiction story about man put in suspended animation was revived millions of years later  by saint sentient Cockroach like creatures.


----------



## Dave (Feb 13, 2022)

I'm not sure that *Planet of the Cockroaches* or *Planet of the Octopi* would have put as many bums on cinema seats?


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> There was  speculative documentary a few years back   called *The future is Wild .* After mankind* .* Octopuses would would evolve and become land dwellers and eventually would become the  ruling intelligence of Planet Earth.


I wonder will the Dolphins be their social scientist folk?


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

Dave said:


> I'm not sure that *Planet of the Cockroaches* or *Planet of the Octopi* would have put as many bums on cinema seats?


I'd say *Planet of the Octopus *might work, although singular.
But *Planet of the Dolphinari* would definitely work!


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 13, 2022)

Well there's probably a couple of billion years of habitable life on the planet. Given the vastness of time, just as has likely happened several times before, a cataclysmic event will occur, and when the Earth eventually recovers another species will be the dominant lifeform on the planet. Humans have currently managed around 6 million years, the last dominant species (the dinosaurs) lasted 20-30 times as long.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Dave said:


> I'm not sure that *Planet of the Cockroaches* or *Planet of the Octopi* would have put as many bums on cinema seats?



Unless they made it a war story,  Cockroaches  vs Octopi . In the end only one will rule the planet!


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Well there's probably a couple of billion years of habitable life on the planet. Given the vastness of time, just as has likely happened several times before, a cataclysmic event will occur, and when the Earth eventually recovers another species will be the dominant lifeform on the planet. Humans have currently managed around 6 million years, the last dominant species (the dinosaurs) lasted 20-30 times as long.


Yeah but the Dinos were more tough-skinned...


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Unless they made it a war story,  Cockroaches  vs Octopi . In the end only one will rule the planet!


Administered by the Dolphinari?


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> I wonder will the Dolphins be their social scientist folk?



Dolphins posses a very large brain , brought about the same size as a Humans.   


There was another speculative documentary also done a few back in which one group of apes went to the seas  over time , 
became Merfolk.


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 13, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> It's possible that the human species MIGHT be supplanted by *some other intelligent life form* as ruler of Earth someday.


Wait, is this a pre-marketing exercise from Alien invaders? Soften us up to the idea?

(I'd like to submit my admin experience CV, if you have an email address..?)


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> Yeah but the Dinos were more tough-skinned...


Dromeosaur


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> Wait, is this a pre-marketing exercise from Alien invaders? Soften us up to the idea?
> 
> (I'd like to submit my admin experience CV, if you have an email address..?)


Those aliens apparently read *The High Crusade *by Paul Anderson and learned from their mistakes.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 13, 2022)

Apart from the repair of the spacecraft and the time travel at the beginning of the third movie, I don't think there was much presented that wasn't unrealistic.

At the end of the day, the original was a terrific sci-fi movie. As a child, even given the title, it was one of film's memorable moments the first time you saw gorillas on horseback rounding up the primitive humans. And even for those who suspected that this was the future of Earth, the final scene is still one of the greatest in cinematic history.

Charlton Heston did these kind of dystopian movies so well, and the make up, special effects and acting are all entirely believable.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Feb 13, 2022)

I suppose it's entirely possible that there was an intelligent species living on the planet prior to the dinosaurs, and that given the fact it would be hundreds - if not billions - of years since it existed, that all traces have been completely wiped out.

I wonder what evidence there will be of human existence on this planet in ,say, 400 million years' time?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 13, 2022)

Stuart Suffel said:


> I'd say *Planet of the Octopus *might work, although singular.
> But *Planet of the Dolphinari* would definitely work!


There was a BBC program years ago (I think inspired by a book) that speculated what life on Earth could be in 50 million years or so. The hypothesised that some squid creatures become land dwellers and took to the trees and became 8 limbed "monkeys". Also I remember the last species of mammal was something that a species of giant spider farmed for food.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> I suppose it's entirely possible that there was an intelligent species living on the planet prior to the dinosaurs, and that given the fact it would be hundreds - if not billions - of years since it existed, that all traces have been completely wiped out.
> 
> I wonder what evidence there will be of human existence on this planet in ,say, 400 million years' time?



For all we know , an intelligent specie could have arisen  before the Permian/triassic event of 255 million yers ago.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> There was a BBC program years ago (I think inspired by a book) that speculated what life on Earth could be in 50 million years or so. The hypothesised that some squid creatures become land dwellers and took to the trees and became 8 limbed "monkeys". Also I remember the last species of mammal was something that a species of giant spider farmed for food.



Yes, that's  the documentary  I  saw abut the future evolution. . At one point in their evolution I think Octopi were called  Swampus because they had evolved so that they could exist  in the Swamps. This was before they took to the trees, which they did to escape  a  Giant  land dwelling predatory octopi.  

At one point Tortoises became giant dinosaur like   herbivores grazing on the land.  

The lLast Anthropoid species on the planet went extinct because of some flightless predatory Terror bird like predator. 

The small mammal had big eyes and looked like a mouse. The Spider put out seeds to attract theses  mouselike mammals .


----------



## Dave (Feb 13, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> I don't think there was much presented that wasn't unrealistic.


Well, it isn't quite how evolution works. If I understood the plot correctly then it was some kind of evolution more akin to the Jean-Bapteste Lamarck concept of evolution, rather than evolution by natural selection. IIRC there was a plague that killed off all the cats and dogs on Earth. People then began bringing apes into their homes as pets. Just being in the presence of intelligent humans caused these apes to become more intelligent also. 

But maybe we are meant to believe that it was not purely evolution at all. Caesar the chimpanzee was taken back in time, and then every other ape (including the orangutans and the gorillas!!!) are all descended from him??? How does that work exactly?


BAYLOR said:


> one group of apes went to the seas over time became Merfolk.


The third problem is this concept of "over time" because if it were purely evolution by natural selection then the chronometer reading inside Taylor's spaceship only showed a date of 25 November 3978, which is quite an unreasonably short period of time, IMHO


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 13, 2022)

Dave said:


> Well, it isn't quite how evolution works. If I understood the plot correctly then it was some kind of evolution more akin to the Jean-Bapteste Lamarck concept of evolution, rather than evolution by natural selection. IIRC there was a plague that killed off all the cats and dogs on Earth. People then began bringing apes into their homes as pets. Just being in the presence of intelligent humans caused these apes to become more intelligent also.
> 
> But maybe we are meant to believe that it was not purely evolution at all. Caesar the chimpanzee was taken back in time, and then every other ape (including the orangutans and the gorillas!!!) are all descended from him??? How does that work exactly?
> 
> The third problem is this concept of "over time" because if it were purely evolution by natural selection then the chronometer reading inside Taylor's spaceship only showed a date of 25 November 3978, which is quite an unreasonably short period of time, IMHO



The biggest problem was the ending of the second film and its seeming finality. Charlton Heston  didn't want to do sequels which played a role in the ending of the second film . The problem was , the film made money and the studio wanted another film which was a bit of problem .  What  Arthur Jacobs and his team had  to do was  stretch things and come with the story like of taking Cornelius and Zira  back to the present day .  The problem is , they never explained  how they got Taylor ships or how Dr Milo ( played by Sal Mineo) salvaged and got the ship working .  Andrew Gaska's novel *Conspiracy of the Planet of Apes *provides an interesting  plausible story answer as to how they got the ship.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 14, 2022)

paranoid marvin said:


> Well there's probably a couple of billion years of habitable life on the planet. Given the vastness of time, just as has likely happened several times before, a cataclysmic event will occur, and when the Earth eventually recovers another species will be the dominant lifeform on the planet. Humans have currently managed around 6 million years, the last dominant species (the dinosaurs) lasted 20-30 times as long.


And what is the scientific definition of a HUMAN anyway? Were humans the same biologically speaking, or even intellectually speaking, as they were 6 million years ago? The word HUMAN itself is not enumerated in the American Constitution. Often man-made codes of law use terms like PERSON, PARTY and PEOPLE. Would our man-made law recognize intelligent (if not talking) living beings as PEOPLE, PERSONS or PARTY, other than humans? In theory, might a talking gorilla or an intelligent alien from outer space have the same rights, protections, responsibilities and penalties as a human in our courts of law?


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Feb 14, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> Could anything portrayed in* Apes *possibly come true someday?


Humans depend on superior brain power to remain above the fray as evidenced by on our wide spread dependence on advanced technology. Recent events have shown that the brain and mind are not immune to a negative impact from a widespread, easily transmissible pathogen. If we end up unable to properly operate our technology because of permanently impaired thinking, our position above other animals on this planet could be severely impacted. If the human version of "talking" proves to be a fragile advancement and not something on automatic pilot, the decline could be that much quicker, leaving clueless humans running around pockets of abandoned machinery. If things did turn out that way, would books be enough to get back on track again, or would they become good sources of dependable fire starter material.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 14, 2022)

Robert Zwilling said:


> Humans depend on superior brain power to remain above the fray as evidenced by on our wide spread dependence on advanced technology. Recent events have shown that the brain and mind are not immune to a negative impact from a widespread, easily transmissible pathogen. If we end up unable to properly operate our technology because of permanently impaired thinking, our position above other animals on this planet could be severely impacted. If the human version of "talking" proves to be a fragile advancement and not something on automatic pilot, the decline could be that much quicker, leaving clueless humans running around pockets of abandoned machinery. If things did turn out that way, would books be enough to get back on track again, or would they become good sources of dependable fire starter material.


Maybe our best hope then is to have some superior ET intelligence come to earth to save us maybe. I think human intelligence is diminishing already. People these days seem dumber the way they talk. Even plain English doesn't seem to be understood well by many young people and a few older people with Southern accents. Not too long ago, I asked a young punk working at the automatic car wash if air drying the car was included in the price of the wash and he didn't know what I meant. Some of those joints actually charge extra money to dry the automobile with those big blow guns at the end of the drive-thru tunnel. Our present day business culture is nickel and dime the consumer every which way. Over the telephone, I asked a woman (with a southern drawl) renting out an apartment three years ago if the unit had windows in it and she didn't know what I meant. Did she think I was talking about MS Windows Internet? Jesus! Not a single window was visible in any of the pictures of the unit online and it made me wonder if she was renting out dungeons.  Baby boomers and the two generations before them seem the smartest of all the people I've ever known over my lifetime. Human intelligence starts to slip with the Xers. Some "naked apes" these days seem gorilla stupid.

The technology age has made the English language confusing. Too many common words like MOUSE and WINDOWS have taken on special meanings. I say COMPUTER MOUSE or MICROSOFT WINDOWS for clarification.


----------



## Dave (Feb 14, 2022)




----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 14, 2022)

Ive found another one and it a big  really big and deep  hole .... AAAAAAHHHHHHH !

_Baylor hits bottom with a loud thud _

" Help Ive fallen down a plot hole and can't get out , would somebody please send down a rope?! "


----------



## farntfar (Feb 14, 2022)

Woodle wordle woodle wordle woodle wordle.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 14, 2022)

Here is Roddy McDowall getting the whole ape makeup in 1968.







Trivia question:

How many actors got *full ape makeup *for:

1. each of the original five 20th Century Fox films?

2. each episode of the 1974 TV series?

3. each episode of the 1975 Saturday morning animated series? Oh, the answer is simple: *zero*. No makeup artists needed for cartoon characters.


I understand many ape actors not filmed up close just wore simple expressionless Halloween masks. You can hear voices calling from some of them at a distance and it's no wonder the mouths don't move.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 14, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> Here is Roddy McDowall getting the whole ape makeup in 1968.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can clearly see it in the second film in the crowd scene  when Gnberal Urko is giving this speech. With edited and better cara work thye might have been able to get around the . The biggest disservice the studio did the films was thye kept citing the budget , when thye should have been going bigger and better. One way they could salvaged the movie series was  o change the ending of the second film and continue the story in that future time frame.


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 15, 2022)

I was in the army. I know how nasty that camo face paint was. Hot, sweaty itchy and greasy. The ape face makeover was reputed to be nasty to wear for any length of time.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 18, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Yes, that's  the documentary  I  saw abut the future evolution. . At one point in their evolution I think Octopi were called  Swampus because they had evolved so that they could exist  in the Swamps. This was before they took to the trees, which they did to escape  a  Giant  land dwelling predatory octopi.
> 
> At one point Tortoises became giant dinosaur like   herbivores grazing on the land.
> 
> ...



Hey @BAYLOR, I stumbled across this Youtube video that referenced this earlier series!:





Just thought to put it your way!


----------



## Tom Terrific (Feb 20, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Hey @BAYLOR, I stumbled across this Youtube video that referenced this earlier series!:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A future world without warm-blooded cuddly mammals? My soul may someday be reincarnated as a flying fish?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 20, 2022)

Tom Terrific said:


> A future world without warm-blooded cuddly mammals? My soul may someday be reincarnated as a flying fish?


Intelligent beings that have evolved from insects, say,  may regard mammals as disgustingly hairy sweaty meatbags!


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 20, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Intelligent beings that have evolved from insects, say,  may regard mammals as disgustingly hairy sweaty meatbags!



Yes , we mammals would be so beneath them .


----------



## Tom Terrific (Mar 2, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> Intelligent beings that have evolved from insects, say,  may regard mammals as disgustingly hairy sweaty meatbags!


Not all mammals sweat. Mammals are more prone to body odors than other animals save for fish.


----------



## KGeo777 (Mar 3, 2022)

The first movie is not consistent with the rest.
In Escape, Cornelius knows all about talking humans--that they had cats and dogs--while in the 1968 film, it is a mystery to him (although Dr. Zaius knows).
Also the gorillas are closer to the book in the first--they run the society.  They provide the needed infrastructure and the orangutans and chimps are not so important. And they make the gorillas dumber in the sequels.

James Cameron had a project--he wanted to do a sequel which would incorporate CGI recreation of Charlton Heston--this was 25 years ago.


----------

