.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Alexander Ruiz

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 9:50 PM

Subject: [pota] STAR WARS DVD

You think Alex left because we were mean to him?  No!  I narced on him to Fox for being the shameless bootlegger that he was!  The Feds now got him locked up in Miami.

Hey gang.

Just got out of prison and have a court date for Nov. 20th, but hey all is well.

Just letting "my friends" on the group know that Star Wars Episode 1 DVD really rocks. My God "SEMOS" I've spent all day watching this. TONS of DOCs and TONS of fun on this DVD. Pretty much this thing will be just like the DVD of POTA 2001 in November according to the desciption on the POTA DVD.

Man, this Star Wars DVD has every t.v. spot from Access to Entertainment Tonight on it, not the spots themselves but rather the footage used for those spots in it's complete raw footage. INCREDIBLE!

 

I also picked up the Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD, the dealer had them imported from HONG KONG and was selling them. Oh well, off to prison I go again. But honestly, the quality is superb! And will hold me off until Lucas officially releases them in 2006 or something. Pretty much I'm in Star Wars Heaven right now.

 

Have a good weekend gang, and Rory, why don't you just admit it.

You miss me. :o)

 

Best.

Al

 

<.html

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:

> The only problem with it was the limited animation, AND when the stories
> started involving flying serpents and snow apes.

Damn it, mentioning flying serpents and snow apes just makes me want to see
it even more!

Alan,
who also thought telepathic brains in jars were a great addition to PotA

"Rich Handley" <rhandley@...> wrote:

> On another note, I finally got around to reading "The Human War" today

from

> Dark Horse. It was... well... average. Very little happened in it, and
> the title doesn't seem all that vitally descriptive. I **much** preferred
> the stories from Marvel and Malibu. I also thought the Dark Horse Extra
> three-parter and the mini-comic were equally boring.

There, I even changed the subject so cougar can ignore it!

I too thought that The Human War and the DHE strip were distinctly average.
I read the movie adaptation last night and couldn't believe how much was
missing from it. I suspect that if I'd read it before I'd seen the movie I
probably wouldn't have known what the hell was happening.

As for the ongoing series, I read the first issue last night. Seems to me
that it's also retreading the same ground, but from the ending it appears
that it's leaning towards the "ongoing stories featuring three fugitives
exploring their world" kind of adventures. I can't think why, but that idea
seems strangely appealing...

Alan

I thought ALL the sequels were afterthoughts and coincidences, but I am not
sure.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Maxwell [alan@...]
> Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2001 3:57
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [pota] film pacing
>
>
> Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:
> > Of course none of this makes sense because weren't Cornelius and Zira at
> the
> > end of PLANET supposed to be tried for heresy? And there were only
> engaged
> > in PLANET, but married and living together in BENEATH. And in the same
> > amount of time eleven gorilla scouts get themselves captured by the
> mutants
> > in the Forbidden Zone.
>
> It's feasible that these events took place pretty quickly, although
> unlikely. But in the end, it's probably more correct to say that it simply
> doesn't fit. What the hell, it's still great!
>
> While we're on the subject, does anyone know if Zira's throwaway
> line about
> their child in Beneath was perhaps deliberately planting a seed for a
> sequel? Or was it just coincidence?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/13/01 11:06:54 PM Central Daylight Time, Kay53531@... writes:

No address was Givin, Mikes email would not go through thats why I used the group to send him my message! So Relax no harm done.Bryan

Well, Whitty's address always shows up on the postings, so I don't know  how you can say it wouldn't go thru. I mean all you have to do is type it in the address box when you write him an email. I know the few emails I sent him always went thru. And by the way, I never said any harm was done, so you can relax as well.

<.html

.html In a message dated 10/12/01 7:51:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

They had no plans for another film when they made BENEATH.  I guess that's why they blew-up the world at the end, eh?

If all he says is true, we have Heston to thank for that bright idea...I would have liked to see at least one more film actually "on" the Planet of the Apes, rather than our Earth, or Earth leading up to the Planet.....

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

I agree, but I wonder if this is because we have seen the original....ie
would we have thought Leo got on the planet too quickly without having
viewed the original first?

Thankfully I can't nswer this.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MTotsky@... [MTotsky@...]

You know, that whole sequence of Taylor, Landon and Dodge tracking across
the desert is one of my favorite parts of the film. It really does make be
feel anticipation every time I see it. POTA 2001 could have benefited from
some similiar method of story telling.

Matt

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 9:24:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 I watched "Star Wars" on VHS tonight. It's, well, "Star Wars". I'll watch the other 2 the next couple of nights leading up to the day when mere mortals like myself can get the DVD and not the weekend before like certain gods.

                                                                   - - - Jeff

P.S.: POTA rocks. "Star Wars" is just a wannabe.



Yeah, I was really going to give it to Alex for bring up these damn "Star Wars" movies, but then I thought, "Oh, why bother?!  He's a very silly man, and now a POTA traitor!"

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 9:26:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, alan@... writes:

> The only problem with it was the limited animation, AND when the stories
> started involving flying serpents and snow apes.

Damn it, mentioning flying serpents and snow apes just makes me want to see
it even more!

Alan,
who also thought telepathic brains in jars were a great addition to PotA

They stole that from "Star Trek," who stole it from something else!

-- Rory<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken & Heather Taylor [kentaylor@...]
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2001 7:44
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] Digest Number 733

I believe that the view master reels are based on the pilot episode.
Also, I know a collector who had salesman samples of the viewmaster reels for "Beneath" which were never released for some reason. Interestingly, there were four reels instead of the regular three. A pretty rare piece for both APES and Viewmaster collectors alike.
Best,
KEN

Haristas@... wrote:

In a message dated 10/13/01 1:59:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rhandley@... writes:
 
 

Quick question -- are the POTA View Master reels an original story, or just
adaptations of an episode/move?  Thanks!

Rich
 
 

As I recall just an adaptation of the TV show.  Which episode, I can't recall.  I have the reels, but don't have a View Master to look at it anymore.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

.html Well that's got to be an 'Alex Hissy Fit' record. What was that? About three days without a peep? Now that's restraint!
I guess I could use some right about now.

Alexander Ruiz wrote:

You think Alex left because we were mean to him?  No!  I narced on him to Fox for being the shameless bootlegger that he was!  The Feds now got him locked up in Miami.

Hey gang.Just got out of prison and have a court date for Nov. 20th, but hey all is well.Just letting "my friends" on the group know that Star Wars Episode 1 DVD really rocks. My God "SEMOS" I've spent all day watching this. TONS of DOCs and TONS of fun on this DVD. Pretty much this thing will be just like the DVD of POTA 2001 in November according to the desciption on the POTA DVD.Man, this Star Wars DVD has every t.v. spot from Access to Entertainment Tonight on it, not the spots themselves but rather the footage used for those spots in it's complete raw footage. INCREDIBLE! I also picked up the Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD, the dealer had them imported from HONG KONG and was selling them. Oh well, off to prison I go again. But honestly, the quality is superb! And will hold me off until Lucas officially releases them in 2006 or something. Pretty much I'm in Star Wars Heaven right now. Have a good weekend gang, and Rory, why don't you just admit it.You miss me. :o) Best.Al 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

Yes, it's wrong. You are to ship all unwanted Thades to Rory until he begs
for mercy. Or as Pierre Boulle would say, "Merci!".

- - -
- Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] Merchandise


> Around here (Detroit) they have the 12" Attars and the Thade w/ Horse on
> clearance at Target for $5.00. I bought all of the Thades that they had
(10),
> kept one, and returned the rest to Toys R Us (where they haven't been
marked
> down yet) for $24.00 apiece in store credit. Is this wrong?
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay53531@... [Kay53531@...]
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2001 10:02
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] Planet apes tv dvds

Hi Michael,Just recieved your money today safe and sound! Now we just have to get them Nov 20th I will send them out the same week.Take care Bryan

<.html

Hey, that's MY trick!!!!!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MTotsky@... [MTotsky@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2001 12:38
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [pota] Merchandise
>
>
> Around here (Detroit) they have the 12" Attars and the Thade w/ Horse on
> clearance at Target for $5.00. I bought all of the Thades that
> they had (10),
> kept one, and returned the rest to Toys R Us (where they haven't
> been marked
> down yet) for $24.00 apiece in store credit. Is this wrong?
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 9:44:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mlccougar@... writes:

No address was Givin, Mikes email would not go through thats why I used the group to send him my message! So Relax no harm done.Bryan

Well, Whitty's address always shows up on the postings, so I don't know  how you can say it wouldn't go thru. I mean all you have to do is type it in the address box when you write him an email. I know the few emails I sent him always went thru. And by the way, I never said any harm was done, so you can relax as well.


Okay, let's let this drop right now.  I know from personal experience that Bryan has very sensitive feelings.  Be nice, Cougar.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlHere's a topic I've been meaning to mention in the group. . . .

I was IMing with another member here about a week ago and all was going fine until he said to me, "What I really like about APES is how it's Taylor's ship that kicks it all off to begin with."  (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)

I said, "What are you talking about?"   And he said how he really thought it was cool that it was Taylor's ship landing in 1973 that starts the whole thing into motion.  It seems this certain APES fan has a childhood misconception that Taylor's ship coming back to earth in '73 with the apes in it is what started the planet of the apes timeline.

I tried to explain to him that this is wrong and that it makes no logical sense, but it's what he's thought since he was a kid, so he likes it that way.

I was wondering if anyone else in the group thinks like this?

Here's why it makes no sense.  Pretend you're Taylor's spaceship.  What are the events in your life in the sequence that they happen?

First, you take off from Earth in 1972 with Taylor and his crew, then traveling at near-light speed you somehow come back and crashland on Earth, then you sink into the lake, then you're salvaged by Dr. Milo, repaired, and you again blast off into orbit with the apes aboard, then you get hit with a shockwave, you go back in time, and you crashland again on Earth off the California coast in 1973.

Now, as far as the planet of the apes is concerned, the spaceship crashlands on the planet before it goes back in time to crashland on Earth in '73 with the apes on board.  Therefore, there is an original timeline of events that led to a planet of the apes that DID NOT involve Zira and Cornelius returning to Earth's past and giving birth to Milo (or Caesar).

This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this in the group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or forgotten any previous discussion.

There's a 2000 year history of Earth that led to the world of 3978 that Taylor arrives in that has never been told except by Cornelius, briefly, in ESCAPE -- and this guy in the group told me he thinks Cornelius was making it up or lying!!!!

Okay, so what do you others think?

-- Rory


.



<.html

.html
-----Original Message-----
From: mlccougar@... [mlccougar@...]
Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2001 11:18
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] film pacing


In a message dated 10/12/01 7:51:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

They had no plans for another film when they made BENEATH.  I guess that's why they blew-up the world at the end, eh?

If all he says is true, we have Heston to thank for that bright idea...I would have liked to see at least one more film actually "on" the Planet of the Apes, rather than our Earth, or Earth leading up to the Planet.....

From:    whitty@... (Michael Whitty)
Reply-to: pota@yahoogroups.com
To:    pota@yahoogroups.com

Agreed.

That's why I thought a re-imagining could have been great - if it was done properly.
Well, you know, if they had done it properly, it wouldn't have had to have that "reimagination" bullsh*t stuck on it. It could have been an actual sequel, and not the thing they ended up with. But they in their infinite wisdom, went down the wrong road, big time. They made a movie that may have been called POTA, but certainly isn't. Truth be known, I was dead set against any type of "reimagination" or "rethinking" from the time it was still in Oliver Stones hands. He wanted to basically do Terminator of the Apes...which would have been as bad, if not worse than the new thing. I knew when I started reading things like that idea, that we'd never have another Apes movie, which is too bad. How I wish they had done a real sequel set on the Planet of the Apes though...It looks like the only way we'll ever get one is if one of us makes it.
Mr Cougar, don't you think it would be great for a re-imagining where it could have stayed on the planet, maybe this would be more suited to a Special Edition.  What do you think?  It would allow for Boulle's sequel to be used.  Oh I know I'm dreaming but.....
Well, as just stated above, yes, I think a sequel set on the Apes world of Planet and Beneath would have been excellent. Then it'd be a sequel, and not "reimagined" bullsh*t. I really can't say I know much about the Boulle script, but I'm sure that'd be a place to start...
Michael


<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 8:02 AM

Subject: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes

Here's a topic I've been meaning to mention in the group. . . .

I was IMing with another member here about a week ago and all was going fine until he said to me, "What I really like about APES is how it's Taylor's ship that kicks it all off to begin with."  (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)

I said, "What are you talking about?"   And he said how he really thought it was cool that it was Taylor's ship landing in 1973 that starts the whole thing into motion.  It seems this certain APES fan has a childhood misconception that Taylor's ship coming back to earth in '73 with the apes in it is what started the planet of the apes timeline.

I tried to explain to him that this is wrong and that it makes no logical sense, but it's what he's thought since he was a kid, so he likes it that way.

I was wondering if anyone else in the group thinks like this?

Here's why it makes no sense.  Pretend you're Taylor's spaceship.  What are the events in your life in the sequence that they happen?

First, you take off from Earth in 1972 with Taylor and his crew, then traveling at near-light speed you somehow come back and crashland on Earth, then you sink into the lake, then you're salvaged by Dr. Milo, repaired, and you again blast off into orbit with the apes aboard, then you get hit with a shockwave, you go back in time, and you crashland again on Earth off the California coast in 1973.

Now, as far as the planet of the apes is concerned, the spaceship crashlands on the planet before it goes back in time to crashland on Earth in '73 with the apes on board.  Therefore, there is an original timeline of events that led to a planet of the apes that DID NOT involve Zira and Cornelius returning to Earth's past and giving birth to Milo (or Caesar).

This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this in the group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or forgotten any previous discussion.

There's a 2000 year history of Earth that led to the world of 3978 that Taylor arrives in that has never been told except by Cornelius, briefly, in ESCAPE -- and this guy in the group told me he thinks Cornelius was making it up or lying!!!!

Okay, so what do you others think?

-- Rory


.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:27 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] Another Sequel om the Planet of the Apes

-----Original Message-----
From: mlccougar@... [mailto:mlccougar@...]
Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2001 11:18
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] film pacing


In a message dated 10/12/01 7:51:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

They had no plans for another film when they made BENEATH.  I guess that's why they blew-up the world at the end, eh?

If all he says is true, we have Heston to thank for that bright idea...I would have liked to see at least one more film actually "on" the Planet of the Apes, rather than our Earth, or Earth leading up to the Planet.....

From:    whitty@... (Michael Whitty)
Reply-to: pota@yahoogroups.com
To:    pota@yahoogroups.com

Agreed.

That's why I thought a re-imagining could have been great - if it was done properly.
Well, you know, if they had done it properly, it wouldn't have had to have that "reimagination" bullsh*t stuck on it. It could have been an actual sequel, and not the thing they ended up with. But they in their infinite wisdom, went down the wrong road, big time. They made a movie that may have been called POTA, but certainly isn't. Truth be known, I was dead set against any type of "reimagination" or "rethinking" from the time it was still in Oliver Stones hands. He wanted to basically do Terminator of the Apes...which would have been as bad, if not worse than the new thing. I knew when I started reading things like that idea, that we'd never have another Apes movie, which is too bad. How I wish they had done a real sequel set on the Planet of the Apes though...It looks like the only way we'll ever get one is if one of us makes it.
Mr Cougar, don't you think it would be great for a re-imagining where it could have stayed on the planet, maybe this would be more suited to a Special Edition.  What do you think?  It would allow for Boulle's sequel to be used.  Oh I know I'm dreaming but.....
Well, as just stated above, yes, I think a sequel set on the Apes world of Planet and Beneath would have been excellent. Then it'd be a sequel, and not "reimagined" bullsh*t. I really can't say I know much about the Boulle script, but I'm sure that'd be a place to start...
Michae

l




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 11:42:59 AM Central Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

And many people felt the originals had been done enough - - 5 movies, 2 shows, etc.
                                                             -

Well, I don't think the originals were done enough. There has to be some cool untold story there.....

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 11:39:05 AM Central Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 I agree. Back in '93 I did a chronology that separates things into 2 separate timelines. "Escape" starts the 2nd. I don't agree that time is circular and everything happens the same way twice. That's what Virgil means by "changing lanes" (though Caesar's statue crying at the end leaves it ambiguous whether that's true or not. I find it hard to believe the apes had the same costumes from the time of "Battle" to 3950 - - something. In my 2nd timeline, they go from "Escape" to the cartoon series. Ooops! I sound like a jackass. Gotta go!                                        - - - - Jeff

I'm with you too, I'd say there were 2 timelines. I wrote mine out here in the postings a few months back, and at the time, you said it was a lot like your's so I guess we think alike there. I did however, not include the Return series, or any of the Marvel (original) stories, because I don't think they are canon.

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 12:39:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 I agree. Back in '93 I did a chronology that separates things into 2 separate timelines. "Escape" starts the 2nd. I don't agree that time is circular and everything happens the same way twice. That's what Virgil means by "changing lanes" (though Caesar's statue crying at the end leaves it ambiguous whether that's true or not. I find it hard to believe the apes had the same costumes from the time of "Battle" to 3950 - - something. In my 2nd timeline, they go from "Escape" to the cartoon series. Ooops! I sound like a jackass. Gotta go!                                        - - - - Jeff

You sound like a jackass?  I don't get it, you always sound this way.

heheheheh

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 12:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 ^The basic thing was that "everybody" wanted to see the latest technology - - new makeup, FX, etc. It wouldn't have fit with the originals. And many people felt the originals had been done enough - - 5 movies, 2 shows, etc. And Timmy is a top director. He can't be expected to do a sequel to an old movie series. He's a good boy.

                                                             - - - Tim Burton's Mom



I agree it had to be a 're-invention' of sorts -- the John Chambers makeup still works in the original, but it's dated.  It's just that they needed a really intelligent script, a TRULY sophisticated approach that would appeal to not just the kids but also a mentality higher than a certain ex-member of this group.

Well, I guess that was too hard.  Better to spend all your efforts on a makeup designed that's too rushed, and getting everyone to move like real apes, and. . . . Oh, PHOOEY!!!

-- Rory<.html

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:

> This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this in

the

> group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or
> forgotten any previous discussion.

In movies involving time travel, NOTHING is ever "simple to understand"!
Planet of the Apes is no exception - if Taylor's ship had never left, the
apes wouldn't have come back from the future and started it all off. But if
they hadn't done that, there would have been no planet of apes for them to
have come from or for Taylor to land on. And so on...

Alan

.htmlHi michael, yes I have a dvd player.and the amount you sent will enough.thanks Bryan<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 2:45:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, alan@... writes:

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:
> This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this in
the
> group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or
> forgotten any previous discussion.

In movies involving time travel, NOTHING is ever "simple to understand"!
Planet of the Apes is no exception - if Taylor's ship had never left, the
apes wouldn't have come back from the future and started it all off. But if
they hadn't done that, there would have been no planet of apes for them to
have come from or for Taylor to land on. And so on...

Alan

Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on the Planet of the Apes, how did it get started?  His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer that.  It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . . grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape, taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the apes return to 1973 and Caesar survives that original timeline is whipped out!

Please tell me you understand this.

-- Rory<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 11:16 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] Another Sequel om the Planet of the Apes

In a message dated 10/14/01 12:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 ^The basic thing was that "everybody" wanted to see the latest technology - - new makeup, FX, etc. It wouldn't have fit with the originals. And many people felt the originals had been done enough - - 5 movies, 2 shows, etc. And Timmy is a top director. He can't be expected to do a sequel to an old movie series. He's a good boy.

                                                             - - - Tim Burton's Mom

I agree it had to be a 're-invention' of sorts -- the John Chambers makeup still works in the original, but it's dated.  It's just that they needed a really intelligent script, a TRULY sophisticated approach that would appeal to not just the kids but also a mentality higher than a certain ex-member of this group.

Well, I guess that was too hard.  Better to spend all your efforts on a makeup designed that's too rushed, and getting everyone to move like real apes, and. . . . Oh, PHOOEY!!!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

I think Cornelius and Zira's arrival just hurried things up. Perhaps the
apes would have been in slavery a lot longer before rebellion if not for
Caesar. How many centuries were the Africans slaves? But still, a separate
timeline.

- -
- - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Maxwell" <alan@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes


> Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:
> > This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this
in
> the
> > group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or
> > forgotten any previous discussion.
>
> In movies involving time travel, NOTHING is ever "simple to understand"!
> Planet of the Apes is no exception - if Taylor's ship had never left, the
> apes wouldn't have come back from the future and started it all off. But
if
> they hadn't done that, there would have been no planet of apes for them to
> have come from or for Taylor to land on. And so on...
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

<< here's a 2000 year history of Earth that led to the world of 3978 that
Taylor arrives in that has never been told except by Cornelius, briefly, in
ESCAPE -- and this guy in the group told me he thinks Cornelius was making
it
up or lying!!!! >>

That's a crock. I think this guy is making stuff up. How would both
Cornelius and Zira have their stories straight? As far as the timeline
goes...I can see it from the view of the past. The ship takes of and
disappears to who know where...returns with apes in it and kicks off the
whole story which ends again with the Apes landing back on Earth again like
an Ouroborus. But as you said there is the original time line that didn't
require Zira to give birth to Caesar at all, so . . . In any case, what I
find interesting is that as along as you watch them in order it doesn't
matter one jot which one you start with or which you end with. That's pretty
cool. There should be a theater somewhere, perhaps in the great Zaius
Museum, where they run continuously. All we need is a building, and we can
all rotate items from our various collections to keep it fresh. I know I
would visit it on a regular basis wherever it was, but perhaps Denver would
be best so no one has to travel too far.

<< if Taylor's ship had never left, the
apes wouldn't have come back from the future and started it all off. But if
they hadn't done that, there would have been no planet of apes for them to
have come from or for Taylor to land on. And so on... >>

I don't wish so sound superior Alan, but Wrong! Remember, in the original
time line it wasn't Caesar or Lisa who said no, but Aldo. The Apes would
have taken over regardless. See, that time travel stuff is even more
complicated than you thought.

<< Answer that. It IS very simple -- the first
time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time to
be their own great, great, great. . . grandparents. It simply got started
the way Cornelius describes in Escape, taking hundreds of years and "Aldo"
being the first ape to talk. >>

Oh wow, I just answered that one too. I bet everone else did as well. Now
porr Alan will think were ganging up on him. Sorry 'bout that Al.

<< No excuse. They didn't make Rick Baker write the script too. In the
interview with Linda Harrison in "Femme Fatale" she said her son even did
some touch ups on the script. Ultimately there was no vision in the script.
Everybody just bowed their heads to Burton. >>

Yeah, whether you're going to write a script as one man's vision or by
consensus, they should run it by this group first. Any holes would be
pointed out to them PDQ. It might spoil the surprises for us, but the rest
of the worlds movie going public would certainly benefit. And if it's good
enough, were all going to go see it multiple times whether we know the story
or not.

.html In a message dated 10/14/01 12:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 ^The basic thing was that "everybody" wanted to see the latest technology - - new makeup, FX, etc. It wouldn't have fit with the originals. And many people felt the originals had been done enough - - 5 movies, 2 shows, etc. And Timmy is a top director. He can't be expected to do a sequel to an old movie series. He's a good boy.

                                                             - - - Tim Burton's Mom



I agree it had to be a 're-invention' of sorts -- the John Chambers makeup still works in the original, but it's dated.  It's just that they needed a really intelligent script, a TRULY sophisticated approach that would appeal to not just the kids but also a mentality higher than a certain ex-member of this group.

Well, I guess that was too hard.  Better to spend all your efforts on a makeup designed that's too rushed, and getting everyone to move like real apes, and. . . . Oh, PHOOEY!!!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay53531@... [Kay53531@...]
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2001 4:38
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] Planet apes tv dvds

Hi michael, yes I have a dvd player.and the amount you sent will enough.thanks Bryan

<.html

A bit like the 007 fan club having input about the DVD releases - and look
at how superbly they came out.

But Fox, I believe, would not do anything like this in the near future.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LordTZer0@... [LordTZer0@...]

Yeah, whether you're going to write a script as one man's vision or by
consensus, they should run it by this group first. Any holes would be
pointed out to them PDQ. It might spoil the surprises for us, but the rest
of the worlds movie going public would certainly benefit. And if
it's good enough, were all going to go see it multiple times whether we know
the story or not.

"Pretend you're Taylor's spaceship"

What, long, hard and full of seamen? No wait, that's a submarine.

Taylor's spaceship hey? What's my motivation?

I wonder if Zira and Cornelius passed Passed Taylor and his crew on
there respective journeys? Milo could have mooned them had they not all
been asleep.

The only problem is if you start with "Battle" it gives away what happened
in the last 2 (unless you come in late).

-
- - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <LordTZer0@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes


> << here's a 2000 year history of Earth that led to the world of 3978 that
> Taylor arrives in that has never been told except by Cornelius, briefly,
in
> ESCAPE -- and this guy in the group told me he thinks Cornelius was
making
> it
> up or lying!!!! >>
>
> That's a crock. I think this guy is making stuff up. How would both
> Cornelius and Zira have their stories straight? As far as the timeline
> goes...I can see it from the view of the past. The ship takes of and
> disappears to who know where...returns with apes in it and kicks off the
> whole story which ends again with the Apes landing back on Earth again
like
> an Ouroborus. But as you said there is the original time line that didn't
> require Zira to give birth to Caesar at all, so . . . In any case, what I
> find interesting is that as along as you watch them in order it doesn't
> matter one jot which one you start with or which you end with. That's
pretty
> cool. There should be a theater somewhere, perhaps in the great Zaius
> Museum, where they run continuously. All we need is a building, and we
can
> all rotate items from our various collections to keep it fresh. I know I
> would visit it on a regular basis wherever it was, but perhaps Denver
would
> be best so no one has to travel too far.
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:
> This seems very simple to understand, and I think we've discussed this in
the
> group before, but I wonder what others here think who may have missed or
> forgotten any previous discussion.

In movies involving time travel, NOTHING is ever "simple to understand"!
Planet of the Apes is no exception - if Taylor's ship had never left, the
apes wouldn't have come back from the future and started it all off. But if
they hadn't done that, there would have been no planet of apes for them to
have come from or for Taylor to land on. And so on...

Alan

Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on the Planet of the Apes, how did it get started?  His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer that.  It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . . grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape, taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the apes return to 1973 and Caesar survives that original timeline is whipped out! < Shouldn't that be "wiped out"?? While I know what you meant ( I think), I had to say it, since you have been know to be picky about spelling / grammer , "ALOT" being one of your peeves...That said, I'm here to back you up on your timeline posting.....

Please tell me you understand this.

-- Rory

Rory,

I get what you are saying. And I agree with you, there are two timelines involved here. I felt that way for a long time, and  I even posted my timeline theories in here several months ago. While I'm not sure if you agree with me here or not, it may be able to show how there are 2 Apes timelines (even though they are my theories, and not your's.) And while you may think I'm crazy for even having the tv series included, I did at the time, and it is still a part of my Apes timeline. Here's what I posted:

Here it goes:Start in "our time".Then we have the plague as mentioned in
Escape (Cornelius never said all dog and cats were killed by it,he does say
the plague "was contained",but man was without pets,so they turned to
primates.But I think that the very rich,etc... could have afforded the
remaining dogs/cats,so some could have survived,thus explaining the dogs in
the tv series).Ok then,man starts domesticating primates which leads to the
eventual enslavement of them (again described by Cornelius in Escape).That
all is up to the 500 years of slavery,which of course leads up to the
original revolt started by the original Aldo's saying of "NO".This would all
be in the 2500's (So you see that explains the pic of New York in the 1st
episode,taken in 2503.The revolt hadn't happened yet,so one can assume the
nuclear war hadn't happened yet either at that time.)So then we have the
revolt and the nuclear war sometime in the 2500's.By this time the apes are
well on their way to becoming what they will be,masters of the planet.All the
genetic engineering will have been kicking in.By this time as far as their
becoming evolved is concerned,the seeds have been planted.So ok then,cut to
the end of the war and the revolting....as apes intelligence is on the
rise,humanity is slipping downward.I think this is because of the "cerebral
laziness" described in the original novel.The apes begin to domesticate the
humans which leads to the enslavement of them (the tv series).They use the
humans as slaves,but kill any rebel humans or any "thinking" humans,so a lot
of the remaining human intelligence is wiped out this way too.Eventually the
remaining humans are totally taken over by the cerebral laziness and return
to a wild state which of course is what they are when Taylor arrives.So we
are at the time of Beneath and  the ape/human war which leads to the
destruction of the Earth and the arrival of Zira&Cornelius,(and Milo) in our
time.They of course are the parents of Caesar who leads the 2nd revolt.

So because it is a different time line now,then things will be different.ALL
the dogs and cats are killed by the plague,and the apes genetic engineering
can be quicker in kicking in which of course leads to a much shorter time for
this 2nd revolt to happen,which it does.Then the Caesar revolt happens as
does the story of Battle,which leads to who knows what.....

So you can tell I think that the Caesar revolt is not the one that leads up
to the time of Zira & Cornelius,only the original one started by the original
Aldo can lay claim to that. (And by the way who knows if the original Aldo
is/was a gorilla? In the original book,the first talking ape on that planet
was a chimp.So the Aldo mentioned by Cornelius could have been too. Just
because of the name,don't assume he was a gorilla.) And as you can tell,I
think the tv series ties into leading up to the time of Zira & Cornelius.I
never think about the crying statue at the end of Battle,meaning I don't
think if it means peace between the species or eventual destruction.....

I hope this is of some help to you in supporting your theory, because I am with you in saying that yes, there are 2 timelines. The ORIGINAL, and the second being the "new one" created by the Caesar revolution.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 5:53:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, whitty@... writes:

A bit like the 007 fan club having input about the DVD releases - and look
at how superbly they came out.

But Fox, I believe, would not do anything like this in the near future.

Michael

Those 007 DVDs are excellent -- except that his royal anus Sean Connery won't contribute.  Imagine all that he could say on a commentary track.  What a waste that it's all beneath him somehow.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 6:09:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kentaylor@... writes:

"Pretend you're Taylor's spaceship"

What, long, hard and full of seamen? No wait, that's a submarine.

Taylor's spaceship hey? What's my motivation?

I wonder if Zira and Cornelius passed Passed Taylor and his crew on
there respective journeys? Milo could have mooned them had they not all
been asleep.

Hey, the Beatles did that bit in "Yellow Submarine" first.

Long, hard and full of seamen.  That was Rock Hudson in "Ice Station Zebra."

-- Rory<.html

In a message dated 10/14/01 8:57:07 AM, veetus@... writes:

<< Did they really believe you bought 9 of them at full price? >>

I returned them individually at different times at different stores.

Worked like a charm.

Matt

In a message dated 10/14/01 9:15:40 AM, Haristas@... writes:

<< Actually, I think there's something bogus about this story. You'd need a
receipt from an original purchase to return all those figures for credit. If
not, then Toys-R-Us is stupid. >>

No you don't need a receipt. It's their gift policy I guess. As long as they
have the items in stock they will give you credit. That's why I didn't try
the same things with the regular 12" Attar figure. Toys R Us only carried the
talking version.

Matt

In a message dated 10/14/01 11:03:50 AM, Haristas@... writes:

<< was IMing with another member here about a week ago and all was going
fine
until he said to me, "What I really like about APES is how it's Taylor's ship
that kicks it all off to begin with." (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)

I said, "What are you talking about?" And he said how he really thought it
was cool that it was Taylor's ship landing in 1973 that starts the whole
thing into motion. It seems this certain APES fan has a childhood
misconception that Taylor's ship coming back to earth in '73 with the apes in
it is what started the planet of the apes timeline.

I tried to explain to him that this is wrong and that it makes no logical
sense, but it's what he's thought since he was a kid, so he likes it that
way. >>

Don't beat around the bush Rory, who is this dickhead?

Matt

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 10:24:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlccougar@... writes:

I hope this is of some help to you in supporting your theory, because I am with you in saying that yes, there are 2 timelines. The ORIGINAL, and the second being the "new one" created by the Caesar revolution.

Yes, that was very good there, Mike, and long!   Thanks for correcting my spelling.  It was a typo (if I'm spelling that correctly).

If I remember correctly, in PLANET Dr. Zaius says that the Scared Scrolls were written 1200 years ago.  That would come to around the year 2778 A.D.   Now, BATTLE opens in the year 2670 A.D. and there's the Lawgiver (maybe Dr. Zaius meant 1300 years ago), either about to or already having written the scared scrolls, only they don't seem so secret because he's reading them to children, some of whom are humans.  From what Dr. Zaius quotes in PLANET,  I don't think the Lawgiver wrote the scrolls with humans as equals ("And Proteus brought the upright creature into the garden, and the children did make sport of him").  So there you can see how events were changed from what had originally happened to how Caesar helped change the future by trying to live with humans as equals at the end of BATTLE.

Well, this is giving me a headache so I'm just going to let it go -- for now.

-- Rory<.html

In a message dated 10/14/01 2:45:39 PM, alan@...
writes:

<< if Taylor's ship had never left, the apes wouldn't have come back from the
future and started it all off. But if they hadn't done that, there would have
been no planet of apes for them to have come from or for Taylor to land on. >>

Makes sense to me.

Matt

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 10:57:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

I said, "What are you talking about?"   And he said how he really thought it
was cool that it was Taylor's ship landing in 1973 that starts the whole
thing into motion.  It seems this certain APES fan has a childhood
misconception that Taylor's ship coming back to earth in '73 with the apes in
it is what started the planet of the apes timeline.

I tried to explain to him that this is wrong and that it makes no logical
sense, but it's what he's thought since he was a kid, so he likes it that
way. >>

Don't beat around the bush Rory, who is this dickhead?

Matt

Oh, I forget now.  I'm too tired to think.  Goodnight folks.  It's 11 PM and I got to get up tomorrow for another exciting week at work.

-- Rory<.html

In a message dated 10/14/01 2:56:29 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< Wow! You don't get it either! When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
the
Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>

When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.

<< His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard! Answer
that. >>

Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.

<<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and
Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
grandparents. It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape,
taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk. When the
apes return to 1973 and Caesar
survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>

Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in ESCAPE
was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
"Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century of
Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
have changed the details enough.

Matt

<< Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. >>


It's all fully documented in the sacred scrolls. Since he'd figured it out
already why not allow him to read everything. He is a scholar after all.

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 10:02:29 PM Central Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

Well, this is giving me a headache so I'm just going to let it go -- for now.

Don't " let it go--for now"...We gotta keep this thing going to show them the light!!! Okay, that's an overstatement, but it's one of the best topics in here in quite awhile...So I hope others add their commentary to it.<.html

.htmlYes,everything is just swell! Bryan<.html

Well, I guess you worked for it a little bit.

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] Merchandise


>
> In a message dated 10/14/01 8:57:07 AM, veetus@... writes:
>
> << Did they really believe you bought 9 of them at full price? >>
>
> I returned them individually at different times at different stores.
>
> Worked like a charm.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think I know who the culprit is!

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes


>
> In a message dated 10/14/01 2:56:29 PM, Haristas@... writes:
>
> << Wow! You don't get it either! When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
> the
> Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>
>
> When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.
>
> << His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard! Answer
> that. >>
>
> Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.
>
> <<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira
and
> Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
> grandparents. It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in
Escape,
> taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk. When the
> apes return to 1973 and Caesar
> survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>
>
> Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
> even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in
ESCAPE
> was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
> "Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century
of
> Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
> have changed the details enough.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] Re:The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes (A little help for Rory)

In a message dated 10/14/01 10:02:29 PM Central Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

Well, this is giving me a headache so I'm just going to let it go -- for now.

Don't " let it go--for now"...We gotta keep this thing going to show them the light!!! Okay, that's an overstatement, but it's one of the best topics in here in quite awhile...So I hope others add their commentary to it.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

<< What I want to know is: where does everything end? If you get into a
rocket and launch into space and keep going, will you go on infinitely? >>

Yes, until you hit the side of the jar the giant scientist has us in.

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 2:12:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 What I want to know is: where does everything end? If you get into a rocket and launch into space and keep going, will you go on infinitely? And if not, where does it end? And what's after that? THAT'S what makes my head hurt.

                                                                        - - - - Jeff



Space is infinate.  I remember my father telling me that while we watched man landing on the moon in July 1969.  I had a very hard time excepting that something could have no end, and I remember actually crying in front of him because I just couldn't accept that space didn't end, that time had no end.

I like the concept of alpha and omega, the beginning and the end;  that existence is an endless circle.

I like to think that Taylor's spaceship ended up back on Earth because at light speed it ran up against a warp in space that just sling-shot it back around to earth.

Why am I talking about this?   I don't know.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/14/01 11:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

<< Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
the
Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>

When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.

<< His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer
that. >>

Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.

<<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and
Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape,
taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the
apes return to 1973 and Caesar
survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>

Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in ESCAPE
was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
"Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century of
Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
have changed the details enough.

Matt

Man, this is getting exasperating!    Okay, let's try breaking this down.   Matt, just answer this question for now:

Do you agree that when Taylor's spaceship crashlands in 3978 (or 3955 if you prefer) it hasn't yet returned to earth in 1973?

You see, I contend -- because it is a fact!!! -- that the event of the spaceship arriving on earth in 1973 is in the future from the event of it arriving on earth in 3978!

Therefore, since the ship hasn't yet returned to earth when it arrives on earth in 3978, and it arrives to find a planet of apes, THEN, of course, the planet of the apes developed WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time and the birth there of Caesar.  All that happens in ESCAPE is in the future from the event of Taylor arriving on earth in 3978 in PLANET!

After the events of ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE, if you were to go forward again to 3978, Taylor would arrive on a different planet of the apes, one with a history different than the one he arrives on in PLANET.

This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that don't get this.  This is amazing!

-- Rory<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 4:39 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes

In a message dated 10/14/01 11:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

<< Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
the
Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>

When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.

<< His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer
that. >>

Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.

<<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and
Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape,
taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the
apes return to 1973 and Caesar
survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>

Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in ESCAPE
was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
"Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century of
Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
have changed the details enough.

Matt

Man, this is getting exasperating!    Okay, let's try breaking this down.   Matt, just answer this question for now:

Do you agree that when Taylor's spaceship crashlands in 3978 (or 3955 if you prefer) it hasn't yet returned to earth in 1973?

You see, I contend -- because it is a fact!!! -- that the event of the spaceship arriving on earth in 1973 is in the future from the event of it arriving on earth in 3978!

Therefore, since the ship hasn't yet returned to earth when it arrives on earth in 3978, and it arrives to find a planet of apes, THEN, of course, the planet of the apes developed WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time and the birth there of Caesar.  All that happens in ESCAPE is in the future from the event of Taylor arriving on earth in 3978 in PLANET!

After the events of ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE, if you were to go forward again to 3978, Taylor would arrive on a different planet of the apes, one with a history different than the one he arrives on in PLANET.

This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that don't get this.  This is amazing!

-- Rory
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

<< Don't say that Hollywood is rushing, but...there's already two sequels
to "Lord of the Rings". "Harry Potter 2" starts filming the day #1 hits
theatres. >>

There's a reason for that. Films with youthful stars still have to appear
young when no appreciable amount of time has passed in the storyline between
the sequels. The only way to do that is to shoot them back to back. As for
Apes, as we saw with McDowall, since the actors are under the makeup's
there's no rush. They have plenty of time to sit back and count the money
and see if the project will be worth the risk.

.htmlI guess nobody else noticed that Kim Hunter was on "The Education of Max Bickford" with Richard Dreyfuss that night on CBS at 8 PM.

I watched it.  Kim looked good.  I noticed that she had to wear gloves, though, and she needed help walking.  She does seem frail, but she was very good in her acting.

Getting old sucks.

-- Rory<.html

Actually I did catch a couple of her scenes. She has a lot of what look like
liver spots on her hands and arms, that accounts for the gloves. She is
using a cane now to walk. She had a nasty fall a while back. She'd only
been out of the hospital for a couple few weeks when she was in Memphis, and
was still a bit unsteady. All very understandable since her 79th birthday is
next month. Nice to see her still working.

In a message dated 10/15/01 12:06:25 PM, veetus@... writes:

<< Don't say that Hollywood is rushing, but...there's already two sequels to
"Lord of the Rings". "Harry Potter 2" starts filming the day #1 hits
theatres. They've just announced "Spiderman 2" even though #1 won't arrive
until next summer. And of course there will be an Episode 3 of "Star Wars".
Yet, where's the announcement of "Apes 2" (if there's going to be one)?
Something to think about. >>

Well all of these films already have established stories from which to do a
script. LOTR has the two books, Harry Potter has had 3 sequels with 3 more on
the way. Spiderman has nearly 40 years of stories to draw upon and I'm sure
Lucas knows basically what Star Wars Episode III is going to be about. POTA
can go in any direction since it's not an adaptation.

Matt

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2001 21:39
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes

In a message dated 10/14/01 11:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

<< Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
the
Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>

When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.

<< His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer
that. >>

Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.

<<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and
Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape,
taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the
apes return to 1973 and Caesar
survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>

Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in ESCAPE
was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
"Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century of
Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
have changed the details enough.

Matt

Man, this is getting exasperating!    Okay, let's try breaking this down.   Matt, just answer this question for now:

Do you agree that when Taylor's spaceship crashlands in 3978 (or 3955 if you prefer) it hasn't yet returned to earth in 1973?

You see, I contend -- because it is a fact!!! -- that the event of the spaceship arriving on earth in 1973 is in the future from the event of it arriving on earth in 3978!

Therefore, since the ship hasn't yet returned to earth when it arrives on earth in 3978, and it arrives to find a planet of apes, THEN, of course, the planet of the apes developed WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time and the birth there of Caesar.  All that happens in ESCAPE is in the future from the event of Taylor arriving on earth in 3978 in PLANET!

After the events of ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE, if you were to go forward again to 3978, Taylor would arrive on a different planet of the apes, one with a history different than the one he arrives on in PLANET.

This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that don't get this.  This is amazing!

-- Rory
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

.html Then it's just as well the Ape-o-nauts arrived AFTER Taylor and his crew took off and not BEFORE.

Haristas@... wrote:

In a message dated 10/14/01 11:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:
 
 

<< Wow!  You don't get it either!   When Taylor's ship first crashlands on
the
Planet of the Apes, how did it get started? >>

When Cornelius and Zira arrived in 1973.

<< His ship hasn't yet returned to the past with the apes aboard!  Answer
that. >>

Yes it did. It landed on Earth in 1973.

<<It IS very simple -- the first time around the apes arose WITHOUT Zira and
Cornelius going back in time to be their own great, great, great. . .
grandparents.  It simply got started the way Cornelius describes in Escape,
taking hundreds of years and "Aldo" being the first ape to talk.  When the
apes return to 1973 and Caesar
survives that original timeline is whipped out! >>

Since when did Cornelius become such an expert on Apes history. He didn't
even know the truth until Taylor arrived. Perhaps the story he told in ESCAPE
was confused or a bill of goods that Dr. Zaius told him. Perhaps the whole
"Aldo" story changed over the course of 2000 years. Century after century of
Apes culture retelling the story and altering it to suit their needs could
have changed the details enough.

Matt
 
 

Man, this is getting exasperating!    Okay, let's try breaking this down.   Matt, just answer this question for now:

Do you agree that when Taylor's spaceship crashlands in 3978 (or 3955 if you prefer) it hasn't yet returned to earth in 1973?

You see, I contend -- because it is a fact!!! -- that the event of the spaceship arriving on earth in 1973 is in the future from the event of it arriving on earth in 3978!

Therefore, since the ship hasn't yet returned to earth when it arrives on earth in 3978, and it arrives to find a planet of apes, THEN, of course, the planet of the apes developed WITHOUT Zira and Cornelius going back in time and the birth there of Caesar.  All that happens in ESCAPE is in the future from the event of Taylor arriving on earth in 3978 in PLANET!

After the events of ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE, if you were to go forward again to 3978, Taylor would arrive on a different planet of the apes, one with a history different than the one he arrives on in PLANET.

This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that don't get this.  This is amazing!

-- Rory
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:

> Man, this is getting exasperating! Okay, let's try breaking this down.
> Matt, just answer this question for now:
>
> Do you agree that when Taylor's spaceship crashlands in 3978 (or 3955 if

you

> prefer) it hasn't yet returned to earth in 1973?

As I said previously, nothing is simple where time travel is involved. I am
not trying to offer a definitive answer to the nature of time within movies
(I don't think there is one) - but I don't understand what the problem is
with people having different interpretations of how it works. For me, one of
the good things about a really thought provoking film is that two people can
interpret it so differently.

If, for example, I was to continue taking the stance of Rory's friend:

Yes, I agree that Taylor's ship has not left the Planet of the Apes yet. But
it has already arrived back, in 1973. Looking at it in a linear fashion, it
arrives back with the apes on board long before it ever sets off from the
future. The different interpretations arise depending on which viewpoint you
take - from the ship's point of view, Rory's makes perfect sense. From the
point of view of linear time, looking from start to finish, the ship will
arrive in 1973 with apes on board long before the Planet of the Apes ever
arises.

Yes, I also agree that it is possible that the timeline was changed as a
result of the return of Taylor's craft. But I do not accept that this is the
definitive answer. The evidence is not totally conclusive and I don't think
it's right that anyone should try to force one single interpretation of the
films onto anyone else.

These films are thought-provoking enough that many different people can have
many different ideas about them - what's the point in trying to force
everyone to accept one interpretation as "correct" just because you see it
that way. To each his own - as long as we all still enjoy them, that's the
important thing.

> This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that

don't

> get this. This is amazing!

Come on Rory, you can do better than that. Your arguments are well-thought
out, you've provided information to back them up, and they've thankfully got
some enjoyable debate going. But comments like the above (and previously
"Wow! You don't get it either!" and "Please tell me you understand this")
don't do your case any favours.

Phew, I think that's all I've got to say at the moment!

Alan

I gotta agree with Matt. It was comments about me "not getting it" that got
my back up with......what was that guy's name again? I got it all right, I
just didn't ACCEPT it.

I think Rory is just shit-stirring again (is that a phrase that is
understood by all).

There are a variety of answers that depend on one's stance, and they are all
good.

Michael

PS Hey, where are all the ladies in this group?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Maxwell [alan@...]

This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that don't
get this. This is amazing!
Come on Rory, you can do better than that. Your arguments are well-thought
out, you've provided information to back them up, and they've thankfully got
some enjoyable debate going. But comments like the above (and previously
"Wow! You don't get it either!" and "Please tell me you understand
this")don't do your case any favours.

Phew, I think that's all I've got to say at the moment!

Alan

"Michael Whitty" <whitty@...> wrote:

> PS Hey, where are all the ladies in this group?

They left - because they just didn't get it!

(insert smiley here)

Alan

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 6:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, alan@... writes:

If, for example, I was to continue taking the stance of Rory's friend:

Yes, I agree that Taylor's ship has not left the Planet of the Apes yet. But
it has already arrived back, in 1973.

Looking at it in a linear fashion, it

arrives back with the apes on board long before it ever sets off from the
future. The different interpretations arise depending on which viewpoint you
take - from the ship's point of view, Rory's makes perfect sense. From the
point of view of linear time, looking from start to finish, the ship will
arrive in 1973 with apes on board long before the Planet of the Apes ever
arises.

HOW?!!!!    Please tell me HOW, Alan?   I'm begging you!

Yes, I also agree that it is possible that the timeline was changed as a
result of the return of Taylor's craft. But I do not accept that this is the
definitive answer. The evidence is not totally conclusive and I don't think
it's right that anyone should try to force one single interpretation of the
films onto anyone else.

These films are thought-provoking enough that many different people can have
many different ideas about them - what's the point in trying to force
everyone to accept one interpretation as "correct" just because you see it
that way. To each his own - as long as we all still enjoy them, that's the
important thing.

HOLY HASSLEIN CURVE, BATMAN!!!!

There is a "correct" interpretation and it is what I've been saying it is.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that when Taylor arrives on earth in the year 3978 that 2000 years in the past his ship returned to earth in 1973.  It's IMPOSSIBLE because IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.   Taylor has never left his ship, it's been in space for eighteen months!

I challenge any of you who insist that the planet of the apes that Charlton Heston lands on has in it's past, 2000 years before, the event of his ship returning with the three chimps to PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE?

Of couse, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.  A physical body, such as your body or a spaceship, has only a singular physical timeline that it exists in and that moves forward in just one direction.   It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for Taylor's ship to arrive on earth in 3978 having already returned in 1973.  IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!!!  If you are going to argue that it is, then I want to hear a SCIENTIFIC EXPLINATION for how that's possible.  But I know that no one can -- BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!  If you're going to say that it is, then I think you're talking fantasy, NOT science fiction.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here, I know this is a little hard to accept if you've believed otherwise for years, but this is the way it is.  I'm sorry if this shatters anyone's interpretation of "Planet of the Apes," but the first and second movies exist in one timeline, and the last three in another -- AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS!  The beginning of ESCAPE wipes out the timeline of events that led to the world Taylor landed on 3978.  Yes, the events of ESCAPE are still going to lead to a planet of the apes, BUT NOT THE SAME ONE SEEN IN "PLANET."

This is the ONLY CORRECT "interpretation" of the events of the APES film series, because it's NOT an "interpretation," it's simply the self-evident way that time travel works -- if it were pysically possible in the first place!  To argue anything else is simply not to know what the hell you're talking about, and if that offends anyone else here, then I guess you'll just have to consider yourself offended.  I know I can't "force" this on anyone, so we're just going to have to let it lie, but, man, am I disappointed with some of the minds in this group.  You guys need to read more science fiction involving time travel.  I recommend Stephen Baxter's "The Time Ships."  I think it'll really open some minds here.


And by the way, ALL the depictions of time travel in PLANET and ESCAPE are in actuality quite pysically IMPOSSIBLE, so this really is silly.

End of discussion.

-- Rory
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 6:25:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, whitty@... writes:

I gotta agree with Matt.  It was comments about me "not getting it" that got
my back up with......what was that guy's name again?  I got it all right, I
just didn't ACCEPT it.

WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT IT?!!!   Would someone please tell me why, AND MAKE SENSE, pleeeeeeaaaase!

-- Rory<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2001 10:02
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] Don't you get it?

In a message dated 10/15/01 6:25:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, whitty@... writes:

I gotta agree with Matt.  It was comments about me "not getting it" that got
my back up with......what was that guy's name again?  I got it all right, I
just didn't ACCEPT it.

WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT IT?!!!   Would someone please tell me why, AND MAKE SENSE, pleeeeeeaaaase!

-- Rory
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

.html <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 8:35:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, whitty@... writes:

Taylor's ship leaves Earth.

Then arrives back on Earth with apes in it.

We go through the events of Escape, Conquest and Battle.

Then Planet starts again.

How did the ship get there if it never left?  It DID leave, BEFORE it came back with the ape-o-nauts.  But the ship that arrived with ape-o-nauts is on the planet TOO, so there are 2 ships now and they are the same one.  Mabe that's how Milo could fly the ship, it was intact the whole time as it is the one they have already previously arrived in.

So how were Milo, Zira and Cornelius born if they died 2000 years ago?

Rory, none of it makes sense and you can't be scientific about time travel.  I know what you are saying and I accept it (I was saying I did not accept what Alex was saying).  I do not think that intelligence determines the acceptance or rejection of what you say.  You can be intelligent but stubborn (or ignorant) or just refuse to accept something on EMOTIONAL grounds too (ie we are human).  

Sorry if this frustrates you and I hope you don't head for the forbidden zone over it.

Michael



Okay, I've cooled down a little.  So, what you are saying, Michael, is that you prefer to believe that the planet of the apes timeline is cyclical, and that it just keeps going around and around, that history happens the same way, exactly the same way, over and over, and that it's a loop, a time loop, and that you can't "escape" it.  Is that what you are saying?  Because if you are saying that. . . . IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

But. . . this has become pointless.  For me, it's as if I'm talking to a brick wall.  I think some of you guys just want to believe the events in APES happen they way you think they happen because that's the way you've thought about it since you were kids, and that's the way you like it, AND THAT'S THAT.  Okay, fine.  Believe me, when I was younger I used to think this same way, too;  that the APES films were a cycle, but I've since read others works of science fistion that have convinced me that if you were to go back in time -- IF IT WERE POSSIBLE -- and you changed something, that event would in turn change all future events.  It's called something like "universal causality," I think.

Well, I may have more to say about this in the future, but right now I need to give it a rest.

-- Rory<.html

.html

Oh, okay.

And like I said. The Image of Semos covers that as well.

 

Best.

 

Al

 

 

lawford42@... wrote:

 

So I'm going to defer to the knowledge of the professionals in this case. Pluto is a planet.

 

 

<.html

Uhhh...yeah. Sure. That it's. I loooooove the new film.

(What was the name of that character Jon Lovitz played on SNL)?


Chris L.


On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:17:34 EDT CheeseGOTAS@... writes:

> What, you get so excited over it that it makes you blow chunks?
>
> Anyway, I'm excited over Apes 2001 DVD release. If it didn't have
> anything extra, like the deleted scenes, I'd have to say the TV series,

but

> the extras were included. Although, it still is a close call...
>
> -Joe


> In a message dated 10/8/01 3:01:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> lawford42@... writes:

>> And I believe I've already (barf) made my feeling known (puke)
>> about the new film (blows chunks) so I'm not going to get into that
>> discussion again. ;-)

____

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:24:26 EDT LordTZer0@... writes:

> I know a lot of you don't like the new film and I also wish it was

better,

> and wish there was more to like about it. But I can say the same about

the

> original. I'm with Kim Hunter on the Hear No Evil gag. It should never

have

> been shot, because they'd used it . . and they did.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying they should have never even
filmed the new version?

> When John Ford was asked if they should shoot a close up of Walter
> Pigeon under the tree in How Green is my Valley, he said, "Hell no! If

we

> shoot it they'll use it!" Backstory is on AMC tonight for the Roddy

fans.

> But that gag detracts from the seriousness of the scene.

And I haven't seen that film in about 16 years- you'll have to fill me in
on the backstory (sorry, couldn't resist).

> Someday I may re-edit my own versions of both films. Granted, the
> original will leave a lot more to work with.

Granted. Agreed. Goes without saying. Hallelujah. Amen brother. Etc, etc,
etc.

> Maybe they'll get it right in a sequel.

Cornelius' comment to Zira's "If it's true, they'll have to accept it!"
comes to mind here:

Brief laughter and "No they won't".


Chris L.
____

.html

  I'd like to see the cartoons on DVD and would do my part but I think that's kind of a stretch. They haven't even bothered to put "Star Trek" cartoons out and that's a bigger audience. The indicator will be how well the TV show does.

 

                                                                         - - - - Jeff

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Lawless

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 1:17 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] Letters to Fox on Return cartoon!

Has anyone had any luck with this as of yet, responses from Fox or otherwise? If they're willing to release the TV series, getting them to put out the animated series wouldn't be too much of a stretch. I'd even be willing to write up a form letter and e-mail it to the group for everyone to cut and paste. Maybe we (the list, that is) could send it to them the same day, hopefully making some kind of impression. We could also cross-post the letter to all the sites and see if they could generate some additional e-mails.

 

What does everyone think?

 

 

Chris L.

  

 

In a message dated 8/31/01 4:44:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
LordTZer0@... writes:

I have been sent this e-mail address from Fox Broadcasting:

foxmovies@...

Now, I haven't sent anything yet, and I don't know if this is the studio or
the home video division.

BUT. . . it's worth a try.  Let the e-mail requests commence.

-- Rory

 

 

 

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:16:03 EDT Haristas@... writes:

 

Yeah what's the address for letters to Fox.  
I'd like to write.

<.html

Attachments :

.html

  "Cast Away" was written by the same guy who wrote the new "Apes" (well, before he was rewritten). I've been saying for months that the movie is a full 2 hours but it seems like 90 minutes. And it seems so tight. Where does the time go?

 

                                                                           - - - Jeff

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Lawless

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:44 PM

Subject: [pota] film pacing

This is something I wanted to comment on but never got around to. The story of the new film seems so rushed, so forced, so over before it even starts. And the strange thing is, the original has a slightly shorter running time, but that story takes place over the course of a couple of months (at least). Rory is right- writing good narrative films (especially ones that take place over a period of time) is slowly becoming a lost art. I can't think of a recent film that even attempted to do this save for Cast Away, and that even used that (somewhat annoying) "two months later" device. Actually, "Ghost World" (now in theatres) comes to mind now that I think about it- that story takes place over an entire summer and it doesn't feel at all rushed. Before that, you'd have to go back to John Sayles "Lone Star" from 1996. Even though the story only takes place over the course of a week or so, the pacing is absolutely amazing. 

 

 

Chris L.

 

 

 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:06:30 EDT Haristas@... writes:

Boy, do I know how your husband feels.  I really think Hollywood has lost the
art of doing good narrative film.  Everything seems just aimed at the lowest
common denominator.  Everybody at Fox is probably slapping each other on the back over the 'success' of the new PLANET OF THE APES, and that's fine I
guess since just making money off crap seems to be more and more what the
Hollywood studios are all about.

-- Rory

 

 

In a message dated 8/2/01 4:41:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
boiledkelp@... writes:

I'm actually quite sad that we won't have a revival of something good to see
in theatres for a few years to come; that is, we won't have a really,
really
a$$-kicking POTA series. Not that all the sequels to the original were
kick-ass. Well, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll make the second new POTA
with driven characters and heart wrenching/pounding plot developement.
It's either that or it's like my husband commented:
"You know, I haven't seen a fantastic - I mean really fantastic - movie in
five or six years!"
They don't all have to be "fantastic", unless of course, they claim to be.
In that event, then they damn well better be!

All we really need is good story, good writing, good acting. Is that really
so diffiult to find in hollywood? It seems the answer is for the most part
yes.
The 2 movies I enjoyed most last year were both foreign. Not a hint of
tinsel on them.

jvb

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

 

<.html

<< Then it's just as well the Ape-o-nauts arrived AFTER Taylor and his crew
took off and not BEFORE. >>


Yeah, supose they came back around the same time. Then there'd be two of the
same ship in the same place? Sounds like an episode of Red Dwarf.

In a message dated 10/15/01 8:02:16 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS PHYSICALLY
POSSIBLE?

Of couse, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. >>

Rory,

You do know that time travel is not physically possible?

Matt

In a message dated 10/15/01 8:02:16 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< If you are going to argue that it is, then I want to hear a SCIENTIFIC
EXPLINATION>>

Hey Screaming Rory,

Did you mean explanation?

Matt

<< I am not trying to offer a definitive answer to the nature of time within
movies
(I don't think there is one) - >>

Don't get me started on the new movie. I still think the ships dropped out
of the time stream by weight. Which makes little sense since things are
weightless in space. So read that as mass. The Oberon having the greatest
mass was in the time stream the least, which is why in arrived on the planet
thousands of years ahead of the pods. Since the mass of the pods was
identical, then only the negligible difference in the mass between Leo and
Pericles dropped Leo out of the time stream a couple, few days ahead. Even
though Taylor and Brent had the same type of ship, Brent wouldn't have been
launch until Taylor was considered lost. Which would account for the few
weeks/months of lag time.

In a message dated 10/15/01 7:41:16 AM, Haristas@... writes:

<< This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that
don't
get this. This is amazing! >>

Rory,

Oh, I get what you're saying now. You are totally making sense. This is very
disturbing for me because the one thing that really turned me on to POTA when
I was a kid was the whole notion of the circular time line. But now that you
had to go and explain the hell out of it, you ruined it for me. I no longer
enjoy POTA anymore. I am going to get rid of all my comics, figures, cards,
DVDs, VHSs, posters, etc.

Matt (ex-Ape fan)

In a message dated 10/15/01 8:04:47 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< WHY DON'T YOU ACCEPT IT?!!! Would someone please tell me why, AND MAKE
SENSE, pleeeeeeaaaase! >>

Stop screaming!

Matt

In a message dated 10/15/01 6:25:03 PM, whitty@... writes:

<< I gotta agree with Matt. >>

Thanks Michael,

Now seriously, Rory's heated arguments make a ton of sense, but what I am
saying is that the idea of a SINGLE CIRCULAR TIME LINE works for me. I enjoy
the films better that way when I don't overthink them.

Back when I saw the POTA films for the first time on TV in the early 70s, I
was about 6 years old. I remember being blown away by each and every one of
them. The mutants in BENEATH were the first time I had ever been scared
shitless by something on TV. And when I saw the ending of CONQUEST, I was
equally blown away because I found the concept of the circular time line to
be extremely clever. This was a level of storytelling that I had never seen
yet at the time. Of course up to that point the most clever things I had ever
seen were Sesame Street and Mary Poppins, but that's besides the point. All I
am saying is that this is the way I saw it first and the way I continue to
see it to this day. It works for me. It makes the films more enjoyable. If it
makes it more enjoyable for you to look at it scientifically, then more power
to you. Just stop arguing about things being physically possible, because at
this point time travel, talking apes, telepathic mutants, etc are physically
impossible so that fact alone blows your whole argument.

Matt (aka Rory's Friend)

In a message dated 10/15/01 8:34:59 PM, whitty@... writes:

<< Taylor's ship leaves Earth.


Then arrives back on Earth with apes in it.


We go through the events of Escape, Conquest and Battle.


Then Planet starts again.


How did the ship get there if it never left? It DID leave, BEFORE it came

back with the ape-o-nauts. But the ship that arrived with ape-o-nauts is on

the planet TOO, so there are 2 ships now and they are the same one. Mabe

that's how Milo could fly the ship, it was intact the whole time as it is

the one they have already previously arrived in.


So how were Milo, Zira and Cornelius born if they died 2000 years ago?


Rory, none of it makes sense and you can't be scientific about time travel.

I know what you are saying and I accept it (I was saying I did not accept

what Alex was saying). I do not think that intelligence determines the

acceptance or rejection of what you say. You can be intelligent but

stubborn (or ignorant) or just refuse to accept something on EMOTIONAL

grounds too (ie we are human).


Sorry if this frustrates you and I hope you don't head for the forbidden

zone over it. >>

What he said.

Matt

PS It was me who started this whole thing, not Alex.

<< And by the way, ALL the depictions of time travel in PLANET and ESCAPE are
in actuality quite pysically IMPOSSIBLE >>

Traveling forward in time is relatively easy compared to traveling back. Go
into stasis, travel towards the sun ant speeds approaching the speed of light
and there you are. But back is a different story. The literary device of
Earth's destruction jumping them back is as good as any. But, if you talk to
the Quantum physics guys, they'll tell you if you did, you may be back in
time, but you'd be in a parallel universe. So, there's no way there could be
any Grandfather Paradoxes or anything. The players may look the same but
it's a whole new ball game. Even if you didn't change anything. Just being
there to observe it changes it. There's no avoiding it.

<< I'm with Kim Hunter on the Hear No Evil gag. It should never
have

> been shot, because they'd used it . . and they did.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying they should have never even
filmed the new version? >>

No, I'm saying the original had problems as well. And one of them was the 3
monkeys gag. If you'd like that explained further reread it.

.htmlI saw the show and was surprised she is still acting! I did not see her name in the end credits.I video taped it and rewound the tape looking for her name and did not see it.I wonder why? Bryan<.html

All of this time travel talk is making me dizzy. Since when did Rory
become the 'New' Alex? (joke).
I really enjoy time travel movies and TV ( except for maybe The Time
Tunnel...is it just me or does that show feel like it runs for two hours
each episode?) and apologies for getting off topic, but did anyone else
ever wonder why, if Doc Brown was so smart he didn't think to retrieve
the DeLorean he had hid in the mine for future Marty to discover in 1955
when Marty returned to 1885 from 1955 in the same DeLorean that he
uncovered in the mine 70 years later in BTF3?. The movie could have
been over in like 20 minutes!
Best,
KEN

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 10:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

Rory,

You do know that time travel is not physically possible?

Matt

The only way to travel in time is forward (for lack of a better term), the way we perceive it.  Because time, I believe, is coupled with the deterioration of matter.  You can go forward in time as Taylor did with the earth, by travel out into space at an extreme rate of speed, but a physical body such as ourselves can only go so fast in a ship, and it's not anywhere near the speed of light.  So, for Taylor to comeback to earth 2000 years later, and be aged himself just eighteen months, it would take suspended animation -- as seen in the film -- and that ship being out there a very long time, a lot longer than the eighteen months mentioned by Landon.

That is the only physically possible form of time travel.  Going back in time is impossible.  Unless there's something about the physical universe we don't yet know.

So, PLANET's time travel is possible, but the film gets it's speed and flight times wrong.  ESCAPE on the other hand is a cool solution to the problem of how you make a sequel to BENEATH, but it's science is a lot less credible than the original.

Alright, enough already.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 10:49:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

<< If you are going to argue that it is, then I want to hear a SCIENTIFIC
EXPLINATION>>

Hey Screaming Rory,

Did you mean explanation?

Matt

YES!!!   Whatever the spelling. . . . Have you got anything else to say?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 10:54:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

<< This is so simple to understand that I'm really puzzled by those that
don't
get this.  This is amazing! >>

Rory,

Oh, I get what you're saying now. You are totally making sense. This is very
disturbing for me because the one thing that really turned me on to POTA when
I was a kid was the whole notion of the circular time line. But now that you
had to go and explain the hell out of it, you ruined it for me. I no longer
enjoy POTA anymore. I am going to get rid of all my comics, figures, cards,
DVDs, VHSs, posters, etc.

Matt (ex-Ape fan)

LOL!  Okay.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 11:05:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

. If it
makes it more enjoyable for you to look at it scientifically, then more power
to you. Just stop arguing about things being physically possible, because at
this point time travel, talking apes, telepathic mutants, etc are physically
impossible so that fact alone blows your whole argument.

Matt (aka Rory's Friend)

It's just that the SINGLE CIRCULAR TIME LINE thing really bugs the hell out of me.  But, you're right, it's pointless.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 11:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

In a message dated 10/15/01 8:34:59 PM, whitty@... writes:

<< Taylor's ship leaves Earth.


Then arrives back on Earth with apes in it.


We go through the events of Escape, Conquest and Battle.

I hate to keep this going, but I can't help myself.  

It should be:

1. Taylor's ship leaves Earth.

2. Taylor's ship crashlands on Earth.

3. Taylor's ship sinks, is repaired, blasts off from Earth, with apes in       it.

4. Taylor's ship, with apes in it, arrives back on Earth.


Between 1. and 2. does not come 4.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/15/01 11:16:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

<< And by the way, ALL the depictions of time travel in PLANET and ESCAPE are
in actuality quite pysically IMPOSSIBLE >>

Traveling forward in time is relatively easy compared to traveling back.  Go
into stasis, travel towards the sun ant speeds approaching the speed of light
and there you are.  But back is a different story.  The literary device of
Earth's destruction jumping them back is as good as any.  But, if you talk to
the Quantum physics guys, they'll tell you if you did, you may be back in
time, but you'd be in a parallel universe.  So, there's no way there could be
any Grandfather Paradoxes or anything.  The players may look the same but
it's a whole new ball game.  Even if you didn't change anything.  Just being
there to observe it changes it.  There's no avoiding it.

Exactly, T!   This is all I'm really trying to say:  The apes going back in time to 1973 would change what comes later, and Zira and Cornelius can't be there own ancesters because they had to born out of a world that had already become a planet of the apes.

D'oooooh!!!

I can't think about this anymore!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/16/01 12:55:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Haristas@... writes:

Exactly, T!   This is all I'm really trying to say:  The apes going back in time to 1973 would change what comes later, and Zira and Cornelius can't be there own ancesters because they had to born out of a world that had already become a planet of the apes.

I know, I know. . . THEIR, not THERE!<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Lawless

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:40 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] film pacing

Are you talking about "Cast Away" or "POTA"?

 

 

Chris L.

 

 

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:31:51 -0700 <veetus@...> writes:

  "Cast Away" was written by the same guy who wrote the new "Apes" (well, before he was rewritten). I've been saying for months that the movie is a full 2 hours but it seems like 90 minutes. And it seems so tight. Where does the time go?

 

                                                                           - - - Jeff

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Lawless

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:44 PM

Subject: [pota] film pacing

This is something I wanted to comment on but never got around to. The story of the new film seems so rushed, so forced, so over before it even starts. And the strange thing is, the original has a slightly shorter running time, but that story takes place over the course of a couple of months (at least). Rory is right- writing good narrative films (especially ones that take place over a period of time) is slowly becoming a lost art. I can't think of a recent film that even attempted to do this save for Cast Away, and that even used that (somewhat annoying) "two months later" device. Actually, "Ghost World" (now in theatres) comes to mind now that I think about it- that story takes place over an entire summer and it doesn't feel at all rushed. Before that, you'd have to go back to John Sayles "Lone Star" from 1996. Even though the story only takes place over the course of a week or so, the pacing is absolutely amazing. 

 

 

Chris L.

 

 

 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:06:30 EDT Haristas@... writes:

Boy, do I know how your husband feels.  I really think Hollywood has lost the
art of doing good narrative film.  Everything seems just aimed at the lowest
common denominator.  Everybody at Fox is probably slapping each other on the back over the 'success' of the new PLANET OF THE APES, and that's fine I
guess since just making money off crap seems to be more and more what the
Hollywood studios are all about.

-- Rory

 

 

In a message dated 8/2/01 4:41:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
boiledkelp@... writes:

I'm actually quite sad that we won't have a revival of something good to see
in theatres for a few years to come; that is, we won't have a really,
really
a$$-kicking POTA series. Not that all the sequels to the original were
kick-ass. Well, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll make the second new POTA
with driven characters and heart wrenching/pounding plot developement.
It's either that or it's like my husband commented:
"You know, I haven't seen a fantastic - I mean really fantastic - movie in
five or six years!"
They don't all have to be "fantastic", unless of course, they claim to be.
In that event, then they damn well better be!

All we really need is good story, good writing, good acting. Is that really
so diffiult to find in hollywood? It seems the answer is for the most part
yes.
The 2 movies I enjoyed most last year were both foreign. Not a hint of
tinsel on them.

jvb

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Whitty

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 5:27 PM

Subject: [pota] Not Possible

Nor is it possible to travel in time or for apes to talk.

 

So as you said Rory, none of it makes sense.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [mailto:Haristas@...]




And by the way, ALL the depictions of time travel in PLANET and ESCAPE are in actuality quite pysically IMPOSSIBLE, so this really is silly.

End of discussion.

-- Rory





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

They also arrived in reverse of when they departed (Pericles left first,
then Leo, then the ship). Maybe the inertia of the storm got stronger as
more time passed. Recommend any books on the subject, Rory?

- - -
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <LordTZer0@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes


> << I am not trying to offer a definitive answer to the nature of time
within
> movies
> (I don't think there is one) - >>
>
> Don't get me started on the new movie. I still think the ships dropped
out
> of the time stream by weight. Which makes little sense since things are
> weightless in space. So read that as mass. The Oberon having the
greatest
> mass was in the time stream the least, which is why in arrived on the
planet
> thousands of years ahead of the pods. Since the mass of the pods was
> identical, then only the negligible difference in the mass between Leo and
> Pericles dropped Leo out of the time stream a couple, few days ahead.
Even
> though Taylor and Brent had the same type of ship, Brent wouldn't have
been
> launch until Taylor was considered lost. Which would account for the few
> weeks/months of lag time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thus two timelines, like Rory said. Thankfully we don't have to worry
about this stuff in the TV show, which is what everybody will be watching
next.

----- Original Message -----
From: <LordTZer0@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes


> << And by the way, ALL the depictions of time travel in PLANET and ESCAPE
are
> in actuality quite pysically IMPOSSIBLE >>
>
> Traveling forward in time is relatively easy compared to traveling back.
Go
> into stasis, travel towards the sun ant speeds approaching the speed of
light
> and there you are. But back is a different story. The literary device of
> Earth's destruction jumping them back is as good as any. But, if you talk
to
> the Quantum physics guys, they'll tell you if you did, you may be back in
> time, but you'd be in a parallel universe. So, there's no way there could
be
> any Grandfather Paradoxes or anything. The players may look the same but
> it's a whole new ball game. Even if you didn't change anything. Just
being
> there to observe it changes it. There's no avoiding it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:35 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] The ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes

In a message dated 10/15/01 10:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

Rory,

You do know that time travel is not physically possible?

Matt

The only way to travel in time is forward (for lack of a better term), the way we perceive it.  Because time, I believe, is coupled with the deterioration of matter.  You can go forward in time as Taylor did with the earth, by travel out into space at an extreme rate of speed, but a physical body such as ourselves can only go so fast in a ship, and it's not anywhere near the speed of light.  So, for Taylor to comeback to earth 2000 years later, and be aged himself just eighteen months, it would take suspended animation -- as seen in the film -- and that ship being out there a very long time, a lot longer than the eighteen months mentioned by Landon.

That is the only physically possible form of time travel.  Going back in time is impossible.  Unless there's something about the physical universe we don't yet know.

So, PLANET's time travel is possible, but the film gets it's speed and flight times wrong.  ESCAPE on the other hand is a cool solution to the problem of how you make a sequel to BENEATH, but it's science is a lot less credible than the original.

Alright, enough already.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html