Plot problems - Planet of the Apes (1968)

[Tabitha]

I just watched the original Planet of the Apes this afternoon - it is the first time for some ten years that I have seen it, and I noticed some glaring inconsistencies and other problems that I don't understand.

First of all, nuclear apocalypse or not, is it not unreasonable that in a mere two millenia apes could evolve to that point? Or do I just have to shrug my shoulders and say "It's a SF movie, it doesn't have to make sense."?
I thought perhaps if the clock was set a little further into the future - maybe a factor of ten higher, it might be sligthly more believable.

The Statue of Liberty we see at the end - are we to imagine that this is the actual site it stood on all those centuries ago? If so, where are all the other buildings? Wouldn't some of them be at least as sturdy as the 18th century statue? I guess it works if we are to perhaps believe that it drifted somehow.

Why are the humans mute? There is a brief discussion of it between Zira and Cornelius, but it doesn't really go into much detail.

The original book (Monkey Planet, teehee) was set in France, the movie was set in the eastern US, where did all those monkey's come from? I would understand if the story was set in a continent known for it's simians, but it seems a little inconsistent.

Answers on a postcard - or, alternatively, post them here

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tabitha
is it not unreasonable that in a mere two millenia apes could evolve to that point? Or do I just have to shrug my shoulders and say "It's a SF movie, it doesn't have to make sense."?
I thought perhaps if the clock was set a little further into the future - maybe a factor of ten higher, it might be sligthly more believable.

In 'Escape from the Planet of the Apes', Cornelius and Zira flee back through time to 20th Century Los Angeles. Zira is pregnant with baby Milo -- I always thought all the intelligent apes were descended from him.

I realise that its a temporal paradox -- a loop -- how could they be descended from him when he came from the future.

But, now I just re-read some reviews on that film and the baby gets shot anyway.

It is explained in 'Escape from Planet of the Apes' by Cornelius how Apes came to be in major cities in America, but its not such a good explanation. He explains that a plague wiped out cats and dogs so humanity starting taking in Apes as pets. Eventually these Apes (after much training to service humanity) got more and more intelligent and began to display the traits that would eventually lead them to become like Cornelius himself.

The original book (Monkey Planet, teehee) was set in France, the movie was set in the eastern US, where did all those monkey's come from? I would understand if the story was set in a continent known for it's simians, but it seems a little inconsistent.

The book, which I haven't read, but have read about, is a different matter entirely. It doesn't have the story of Apes going back in time, but Apes as pets would still be plausible.

I thought that the book wasn't set on Earth at all, I think it is a space mission to some distant solar system and the planet is never named. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why are the humans mute? There is a brief discussion of it between Zira and Cornelius, but it doesn't really go into much detail.

Are they mute? Or do they just not know how to speak? They have been kept as slaves with no education. The apes think the humans aren't intelligent, but we know different.

I guess that they really should have some language, even if it isn't the same as the apes speak (English?).

As for the Statue of Liberty: Maybe the bomb just missed it?

 

[Tabitha]

I suppose I should point out that I have not watched any of the sequels to the original - although I do plan to, nor have I read the book. I saw the series only sporadically - and that was many years ago. So my opinions are based only on the original film and some hearsay I have picked up along the way.

The book, which I haven't read, but have read about, is a different matter entirely. It doesn't have the story of Apes going back in time, but Apes as pets would still be plausible.

I thought that the book wasn't set on Earth at all, I think it is a space mission to some distant solar system and the planet is never named. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, the reason I knew it was originally a french book is that I had read that, in the book, Taylor (or whatever he is called in the novel) does not find the Statue of Liberty, but the Eiffel Tower. So that would suggest the story is still on Earth.

Are they mute? Or do they just not know how to speak? They have been kept as slaves with no education. The apes think the humans aren't intelligent, but we know different.

Hmmm, never really thought about it that way - does being mute imply a lack of intelligence? Babies don't know how to speak, yet they still make quite a lot of noise! I think the implication in the original film is that the mute-ness is supposed to be like a by-product of a trauma. That is the only real explanation I can infer. These humans are obviously intelligent (how intelligent might be a good question), they can't have all chosen not to speak en masse, can they?

Apes as pets - that goes some way at least to explaining my question of how they came to be there, but I think the evolution bit will just have to go unanswered!
On the topic of the Apes speaking english. I found it very strange that Taylor believed for a long time that he was on another planet. Surely these 'aliens' speaking English, or any human language, would have clued him in pretty durn quickly. Following on from that - you would think that Astronauts would be familiar with the pattern of the stars as viewed from earth!!!!

 

[Dave]

I may have to read the book sometime. I haven't yet (and you can pick up the translation fairly cheaply) because I find that translations and adaptations are usually poorly written.

 

[Dave]

I have just been re-watching the series and feel the need to correct myself: The humans ARE completely mute. Nova does learn some language from Taylor and Brent, but is still unable to speak.

Zira says that humans have something missing in their brains, which is no doubt the reason for the exploratory surgery. That the surviving humans would have all passed on such a mutation is unlikely. Given 'survival of the fittest' and the fact that speech is so important to our communication, I think it wouldn't happen without some better way to communicate such as in the worshipers of the ΩA.

I also think the worshipers of the ΩA would be unlikely to all have the same hideous facial disfigurement, and yet be Okay in every other respect, unless they all are descendents of one single man or one couple. Clearly that is not so since they come from different racial groups.

On the same subject where do they get those masks, or their food supply, or their supply of candles. Can they create these things at will? I doubt it, their psychic powers seemed to be limited to the powers of suggestion. They created nothing physical, nothing that was really there.

If the concrete and steel Statue of Liberty had survived, why had the seashore eroded to cliffs? Why did the underground buildings in New York have not erode to dust? What powered those machines and why did it still work?

Plenty of plot holes, too many, but still great films!

 

[j d worthington]

The problem with Planet of the Apes is it is an allegory, yet is presented in very realistic terms. (I'd say this is the one of the problems most people have with The Prisoner, as well, which was done at about the same time, incidentally. They both attempt to straddle the divide between an essentially realistic popular medium and very thought-provoking allegory, and sometimes that wobbles.) The "two millennia", I'd say, is quite deliberate, as it was made in the closing years of the second millennia C.E.; so I I think there's an obvious parallel there, especially given the films constant quotation of the apes' Sacred Scrolls.

As an allegory, the humans being mute plays several roles: it plays into the obvious reversal of roles highlighting how brutish we really are; it is a play on the "silent majority" which was so bruited about in America in those years, etc.

The statue of liberty, incidentally, is not an eighteenth, but late nineteenth-century statue (she was given to us by France in 1886). Nonetheless, the point is well taken; realistically, she'd be less likely to survive than some of the other buildings, and certainly less so than the surrounding topographcal features... which would be unlikely to appear quite that way to begin with, barring an extreme geological event. However, again, allegorically it is vastly important for her to not only have survived, but survived in the damaged state she's in... where the torch (or light) of liberty is nothing but a skeletal framework; where she's tilted and staring out into a waste rather than the gateway to the New World, etc. And (aside from masking the actual location and therefore providing the "shock" of the ending) the cliffs serve also the purpose of barriers metaphorically ... barriers to enlightenment (remember, Zaius has the cave destroyed to bury the truth) and fortifications to protect blind prejudice and orthodoxy.

In the same way, they decided that Zira's (Kim Hunter's) eyes should not be covered by contacts... she's the only one of the apes with her natural color eyes... and this was a film made out where sandstorms were rather common, so think of all those poor actors with contacts! This was to emphasize her warmth and humor, her "humanity"... which is actually more in evidence than that of perhaps anyone else (including the humans -- with the possible exception of Nova) in the film.

So, no, I don't think it should be shrugged off as "it's an sf film", therefore the logical holes, but rather, it shouldn't be seen as a realistically imagined film, but the political, social, and religious allegorical satire it was intended to be ... just as the novel was. Recall that the original version of the script was written by Rod Serling, too -- and Serling was very much one who used his writings to get across his concerns about his society and where it was headed, even at the expense of logic within the plot. It's the passion of the thing that carries it past these flaws at times, but most of them are there to make a point, rather than simple oversights.

 

[Dave]

I did get quite a lot of the allegorical satire, but I did wonder why they made it "two millennia" in the future rather than four millennia and solve some of those problems (which I believe is what Tim Burton did in his re-imagining.) I see a deliberate reason for that now, thanks.

 

[Kostmayer]

But, now I just re-read some reviews on that film and the baby gets shot anyway.

If I remember rightly, Ricardo Montolbans character switched the baby with a regular baby ape. The baby grew up and let a revolution of sorts in the next film.

 

[Dave]

If I remember rightly, Ricardo Montolbans character switched the baby with a regular baby ape. The baby grew up and let a revolution of sorts in the next film.

Yep, I just watched that again today, and that is what is meant to have happened. It is kind of left open, but heavily insinuated with the young chimp speaking "Mama" in the last scene.
I'll watch the final two films in the next week!

 

[littlemissattitude]

So, no, I don't think it should be shrugged off as "it's an sf film", therefore the logical holes, but rather, it shouldn't be seen as a realistically imagined film, but the political, social, and religious allegorical satire it was intended to be ... just as the novel was. Recall that the original version of the script was written by Rod Serling, too -- and Serling was very much one who used his writings to get across his concerns about his society and where it was headed, even at the expense of logic within the plot. It's the passion of the thing that carries it past these flaws at times, but most of them are there to make a point, rather than simple oversights.

And, of course, there is also the aspect of the film that is a meditation on race relations, if you pay attention to the hierarchy among the gorillas, chimps, and orangs. Very appropriate to the time the film was made.

This is still one of my favorite films, problems and all. I also saw it the other day again, when it was shown on, of all places, the History Channel.

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, the race relations aspect of it was definitely there, and brought out much more strongly in Conquest, as I recall... though even there, they reined it in considerably, as they shot a lot of footage that isn't in the film as released... all choreographed to match the Watts riots, from what I understand, which they were forced to cut in order to avoid an R (or was it still M at that point? I forget) rating.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Yes, the race relations aspect of it was definitely there, and brought out much more strongly in Conquest, as I recall... though even there, they reined it in considerably, as they shot a lot of footage that isn't in the film as released... all choreographed to match the Watts riots, from what I understand, which they were forced to cut in order to avoid an R (or was it still M at that point? I forget) rating.

It would have been R. M (meaning "Mature Audiences")= PG (which then split into PG and PG-13); R has always been R. Same with G. And NC-17 used to be X. I've not got much use for the ratings system, to be honest, but I liked the original set of ratings rather than what it has morphed into.

 

[Urien]

Gosh... are you all blind. THE APES WERE HUMANS IN MONKEY SUITS. MONKEY SUITS I TELL YA.

 

[Foxbat]

The original book (Monkey Planet, teehee) was set in France, the movie was set in the eastern US, where did all those monkey's come from? I would understand if the story was set in a continent known for it's simians, but it seems a little inconsistent.

As far as I can recall, a plague wiped out all the cats and dogs. Apes replaced these in the household initially as pets and then later as servants. This (I feel) explains their existance on continents where they do not originate naturally.

 

[Lith]

Following on from that - you would think that Astronauts would be familiar with the pattern of the stars as viewed from earth!!!!

A very good point. I suppose he was never in a position to observe them properly?

His lack of amazement at speaking the same language is dubious, but it's so much of a movie convention that it's not surprising.

The Statue of Liberty must have washed up on shore somewhere. But to think that that thin copper thing could have lived in that marine environment for two thousand years is a little silly (especially given that it's the only thing to have survived so long). And the cliffs- well, it looks more like California than New York, but I suppose there could have been some geological shift, even though the east coast is more stable than the west coast. And it's amazing how many alien planets look like California, isn't it?

I suppose the muteness and dumbness of the humans is a parallel to slavery, when black people were uneducated and were basically encouraged to believe themselves dumb. Only here it's taken to an extreme.

It really is more of an allegory than anything else, and not a subtle one. Allegory can be difficult to do well, and needs to function both as a story and a set of symbols, and unfortunately the symbols tend to override the story. However compared to the new one, it's high art.

 

[Kostmayer]

Can't remember wether or not the starts were visible at night. I doubt the positions would have changed that much in 2000 years.

Why wasn't there a moon? Could never figure that bit out.

 

[Dave]

The Statue of Liberty must have washed up on shore somewhere. But to think that that thin copper thing could have lived in that marine environment for two thousand years is a little silly (especially given that it's the only thing to have survived so long). And the cliffs- well, it looks more like California than New York, but I suppose there could have been some geological shift, even though the east coast is more stable than the west coast. And it's amazing how many alien planets look like California, isn't it?

Having re-watched all the five films, it's clear that much of the underground rail system and some city buildings did survive the war. Celluloid film in metal cans even survived for 600 years which is quite astonishing too! It was the cliffs that were the main problem for me. And the park where the filming was done was once owned by the studio, so it is the set for numerous old Westerns too.

I suppose the muteness and dumbness of the humans is a parallel to slavery, when black people were uneducated and were basically encouraged to believe themselves dumb. Only here it's taken to an extreme.

After 'Battle for Planet of the Apes' it appears that the future was re-written: The humans speak, join in the ape council, the human children are educated, and the statue is of Caeser rather than of Proteus.

It really is more of an allegory than anything else, and not a subtle one. Allegory can be difficult to do well, and needs to function both as a story and a set of symbols, and unfortunately the symbols tend to override the story. However compared to the new one, it's high art.

I agree, Tim Burton's version shouldn't have been made.

 

[Milk]

I agree, Tim Burton's version shouldn't have been made.

Tim Burton's remake makes me wonder: will "The Day After" be remade except, without the nuclear war? Something to this effect:

Something about Genetic's Scientists doing some unethical research.. a few lines about Global Warming..a serial killer.. blah blah.. some detectives.. a wacky police partner... a father out to save his son...an evil developer.. bingo. "The Day After" a remake on ABC.

 

[j d worthington]

Tim Burton's remake makes me wonder: will "The Day After" be remade except, without the nuclear war? Something to this effect:

Something about Genetic's Scientists doing some unethical research.. a few lines about Global Warming..a serial killer.. blah blah.. some detectives.. a wacky police partner... a father out to save his son...an evil developer.. bingo. "The Day After" a remake on ABC.

Okay... *cocks pistol, aims at Milk* You're giving them ideas. You really shouldn't ought to do that.....

 

[ScifiGuy]

I just watched the original Planet of the Apes this afternoon - it is the first time for some ten years that I have seen it, and I noticed some glaring inconsistencies and other problems that I don't understand.

First of all, nuclear apocalypse or not, is it not unreasonable that in a mere two millenia apes could evolve to that point? Or do I just have to shrug my shoulders and say "It's a SF movie, it doesn't have to make sense."?
I thought perhaps if the clock was set a little further into the future - maybe a factor of ten higher, it might be sligthly more believable.

The Statue of Liberty we see at the end - are we to imagine that this is the actual site it stood on all those centuries ago? If so, where are all the other buildings? Wouldn't some of them be at least as sturdy as the 18th century statue? I guess it works if we are to perhaps believe that it drifted somehow.

Why are the humans mute? There is a brief discussion of it between Zira and Cornelius, but it doesn't really go into much detail.

The original book (Monkey Planet, teehee) was set in France, the movie was set in the eastern US, where did all those monkey's come from? I would understand if the story was set in a continent known for it's simians, but it seems a little inconsistent.

Answers on a postcard - or, alternatively, post them here

They explain it all later. Sure, it's unbelievably stupid, but it's an explanation nonetheless. Basically, a hundred years or so in the future, humans domesticate apes and use them as pets, and, noticing their capacity for intelligence, gradually begin using them for manual labor, until eventually, apes become a new slave class. Then, Zira and Cornelius, who have traveled back in time (long story) have a son, who learns to speak. Then, when apes are enslaved, he leads a revolution. This is similar to the explanation in the book, but the book pulls it off better by leaving out the time travel stuff, instead having the apes become intelligent from contact with humans, while humans developed cerebral laziness as a result of having everything managed for them.

The statue of liberty thing didn't really make sense, I'll give you that.

The humans are mute because they have been enslaved and treated as animals for millennia, only given enough education to serve the apes. In the Tim Burton version (don't watch it) the humans can speak, although it is implied that the ape society is at an earlier stage of development than the original.

Both the book and the movie rely on the idea that apes would become slaves in the near future, which would allow them to infiltrate human society and phase them out. It only makes sense that man would want a large workforce, and would therefore breed apes out of endangerment and export them around the world.