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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:19 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] Escape or Return?

when you say you saw "Return",

Wasn't one of those compilation movies made from slapped together TV episodes called Return?

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:47 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] DVDs

In a message dated 1/4/02 8:18:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, MTotsky@... writes:

. Perhaps the TV series would be the right thing to start with.

Matt

NO!!!!!!   Always start with the original.   You should probably stop exposing him to anything APES right now, then when he's around seven or eight, put PLANET on and say, "Son, I'd like you to watch this movie with me."  And don't let him see the damn Fox cover with the Statue on it!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

>>

>>

----- Original Message -----
From: <CheeseGOTAS@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [pota] DVDs


> In a message dated 1/4/02 7:48:41 PM Central Standard Time,
Haristas@...
> writes:
>
> << And don't let him see the damn Fox cover with the Statue on it!
>
> -- Rory >>
>
> Yeah, what moron decided to put that on the cover?!
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MTotsky@... [MTotsky@...]
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2002 14:26

>From: "mystic4ever" <mystic4ever@...>
>Subject: Megos
>I've spent some of my Christmas holidays sorting my rec room and

>Dan

> In a message dated 1/3/02 1:36:01 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@a...
> writes:
>
> << Anyway, what's the consensus here? BENEATH: A mess. Yes or No?
>>
>
> I really have no problems with it. Infact, my favorite scene in any Apes
> movie is in Beneath - The Flaming Lawgiver. It gives me goosebumps everytime
> I see it. The only real problem I have with it is the ending. I'm not
> saying it was bad, it's just the way the threw it to the public which sucked.
> They could've done so much more with it.
>
> -Joe

> In a message dated 1/5/02 9:51:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > And this is another reason why BENEATH is--despite its flaws--a
> > terrific and profound film.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I have to agree with you very much there. In fact, I would say that
> BENEATH's biggest flaw is that director Post didn't come to realize that Nova
> was the central, tragic figure in the film. Her character could have carried
> the film's emotional weight. It's her actions (returning to Ape City,
> finding Brent and taking him there), though passive and unknowing (hence
> innocent), that are the catalyst for all that follows, and she moves through
> the film as a mute witness to the tragedy unfolding, and it is her death the
> dooms the planet to its final destruction. I wish that the film's composer,
> Leonard Rosenman, had recognized this undeveloped aspect of the film and had
> made up for it by giving Nova her own 'theme,' which should have been first
> heard when Brent sees her riding over the crest of the hill. This theme
> could have been reprised at key moments during the rest of the film and
> further developed to provived the emotional center that the film sorely
> lacks. After her death, when the action spirals out of control to the
> ulimate apocalypse, 'Nova's theme' could have become a dirge to accompany the
> end of the film. Perhaps Goldsmith, a much better film composer, would have
> provived this.
>
> Oh well, it's ancient history now. One of the reasons, I think, that the
> final of BENEATH displeases so many viewers is that it really isn't given the
> amount of build-up it needs. It all plays as too rushed. The reason for
> this, of course, is that Post didn't have the budget he needed and wasn't
> completely in creative control of the production. Mort Abrahams interfered a
> lot and he and Post didn't get along. Ursus, for instance, should have had a
> much better death scene, rather than just a stunt man wearing a mask taking a
> tumble. It would have taken much for BENEATH to be a much better film.
>
> -- Rory

>
> Just a quick clarifier - when you say you saw "Return", do you

> which is the movie where 3 apes come to earth in the 70's or do you

> cartoon series (which is Return)?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 6 January 2002 6:52
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [pota] Re: Escape or Return?
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick clarifier - when you say you saw "Return", do you mean

> > which is the movie where 3 apes come to earth in the 70's or do you

> > cartoon series (which is Return)?
>
> Thanks, Michael, for your kind welcome and the opportunity to clear
> up my mistake...
>

>
> In my opinion ESCAPE was a great movie to follow BENEATH. Less "deep",

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Elliott [chrisben@...]
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2002 15:58
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [pota] Intro
>
>
> Hello everyone
>
> Since Kim introduced herself, I thought it might be time for me as well.
> Although I've been lurking on the list for quite a while. I'm Christopher,
> and it goes without saying I'm a big fan of the series in
> whatever its form.
> Yes, I even liked the cartoon and watched it religiously Saturday
> Morning :)
>
> However, I've not come across any discussion regarding the comic books.
> Anyone remember the 29 issues of the magazine put out by Marvel
> in the 70s?
> Their adaptations of the movies into comics were pretty good, except for
> Battle which made absolutely no sense. And the "Terror" series was always
> very good. But anyone remember those "Future History Chronicles" series?
> Truly odd. All those apes and mutants running around on huge city
> ships was
> certainly original :)
>
> Anyway, I'll return to lurking now!
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.


> --- In pota@y..., CheeseGOTAS@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/3/02 1:36:01 PM Central Standard Time,
Haristas@a...
> > writes:
> >
> > << Anyway, what's the consensus here? BENEATH: A mess. Yes or No?
> >>
> >
> > I really have no problems with it. Infact, my favorite scene in any
Apes
> > movie is in Beneath - The Flaming Lawgiver. It gives me goosebumps
everytime
> > I see it. The only real problem I have with it is the ending. I'm not
> > saying it was bad, it's just the way the threw it to the public which
sucked.
> > They could've done so much more with it.
> >
> > -Joe
>
> I think what makes the ending of BENEATH truly profound is the human,
> personal reason behind it. This "racial apocalypse" (as Eric Greene
> terms it) happens for a number of reasons:
> 1. The US government in the late 20th/early 21st century decided to
> build a "doomsday bomb"--the "Alpha Omega" bomb--which is capable of
> destroying the entire planet.
> 2. A society of religious fanatics decided to actually worship the
> damn thing, seeing their purpose in life as being "Keepers of the
> Divine Bomb", as Mendez XXVI says: "...our only reason for
> survival..." (or something like that).
> 3. Ursus' gorilla war machine decides to invade the Forbidden Zone--an
> act that could/should be construed by any simian "true believer" to be
> itself an act of sacrilege, since the Lawgiver himself had declared
> the Forbidden Zone off-limits. What 'scriptural' justification does
> Ursus have for declaring this taboo'ed area to now be "the once-
> Forbidden Zone"?
>
> However... the REAL reason that the planet of the apes is destroyed is
> due to the fact that Colonel George Taylor--a man who couldn't find
> love on Earth in the 20th century ["I feel lonely..."] and so had "no
> regrets" about leaving that century--WAS able to find love 18 ship-
> time months & 20 centuries of earth-time later on this "upside-down"
> world of talking apes and 'noble savage' humans: he found Nova. "Do
> you love me, I wonder? CAN you love... I wonder." Taylor actually
> falls in love with Nova--and she is 'uplifted' back to fully human
> status, her love for him giving her the ability to do a thing that no
> other native-born human had done for perhaps 800 years or more: she
> SPOKE, "Taylor!"
> Just one word, the name of the man who had saved her from a cage in
> Ape City when he COULD have left her there to rot ("She comes along
> too..." LUCIUS: "Zira doesn't want your female!" TAYLOR: "I WANT
> HER!") ZAIUS: "I see you brought along the female of your species; I
> didn't realize that Man could be monogamous." TAYLOR: "On THIS planet,
> it's easy."
> In other words, back on Earth, in the late 20th century, it was NOT
> easy for Taylor to have a monogamous relationship with a woman. Would
> Taylor have been someone who "despised people" (as Landon says) if he
> were to have had the benefit/blessing of a loving relationship? I
> doubt it; it is primarily his utter loneliness that turns him into a
> misanthrope in the first place.
> But he was able to find love--perhaps for the first time in his life--
> on what he thought was an alien planet, with a woman whose life prior
> to encountering him had to have been one of fear, hunger, and pain.
> Nova was able to know something other than the tooth-and-claw life of
> a wild animal because of her encounter with Taylor. Taylor and Nova
> found each other and--had things gone differently--they might have
> gone off and founded a colony somewhere (perhaps in a jungle beyond
> the Forbidden Zone, and out of the range of simian gunfire), like a
> new Adam and Eve (as Ulysse Merou wished to do with HIS Nova, in
> Boulle's novel).
> But... one of Ursus' gorilla soldiers happens upon Taylor, Nova &
> Brent... and gets off a burst of automatic rifle fire before he is
> pummelled by the astronauts--and Nova is killed.
> TAYLOR: "I should let them ALL die! The gorillas, every damn--! Look
> what it comes to! It's time it was finished. Finished!"
> BRENT: "Taylor... come on! The Bomb!"
> TAYLOR: "Yeah... why not?"
> What does Taylor have to look forward to? The only love of his life is
> now dead, a 'civilian casualty' in this insane race war. He goes
> through the motions of helping Brent to prevent the either purposeful
> or unintentional detonation of the Alpha Omega bomb... but his heart
> isn't really in it. After Ursus shoots him, and after he pleads for
> help from Zaius ("You ask me to help YOU? Man is EVIL! Capable of
> nothing but destruction!") only to be rebuffed, he PURPOSELY reaches
> out his right hand and pulls down on the trigger of the Bomb.
> Compare this moment with the intentions of the diplomat/terrorist in
> the Clooney/Kidman flick "THE PEACEMAKER"--that of detonating a
> "backpack-atom bomb" near the UN building in New York as PERSONAL
> REVENGE for the death of his beloved daughter.
> Taylor sacrifices the entire planet (including--he must think--Zira,
> Cornelius and Lucius, who befriended him) in retaliation for the
> senseless murder of the one human being he had found to love and be
> loved by.
> I'm not condoning such an act of mass murder, mind you. But I can see
> how a tortured soul (such as Taylor's) could get to the point where
> the loss of a beloved life (Nova) has made his OWN life seem not worth
> living... and any/all other life similarly worthless to him.
> When Taylor blows up the world, it is a HORRIBLE thing... but, too, it
> IS, sadly, an all-too-HUMAN thing. Taylor became the thing he most
> hated about the human race.
>
> And this is another reason why BENEATH is--despite its flaws--a
> terrific and profound film.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>

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

From: iap64@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 10:46 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] DVDs

In a message dated 1/4/02 5:08:13 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Another DVD you might want to pick up or look for as a rental at Blockbuster, Kim, is the "Behind the Planet of the Apes" Special Edition disc.  There's two hours of Roddy just answering questions about APES.

-- Rory

Thanks for the tip Rory.  I've already seen that DVD out already.  I've got it on tape from when it aired on A&E, but I'm definately going to buy it next chance I get.  

Kim

"Live your life as you see fit. That's not selfish. Selfish is to demand that others live their lives as you see fit." -Anthony DeMello


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

mystic4ever wrote:

Here's a pic I took at another Planet Hollywood, this one in Las Vegas.  This original POTA gorilla soldier costume picture was taken in November 1995. Dan  

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken & Heather Taylor" <kentaylor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: [pota] Re: Mego Commercials


> Yeah, Matt,
> I have that tape also but there's a problem with the sound on the APE ads.
Like
> the spool was loose when they were being transferred from film to video.
Is yours
> the same? The ads are a riot. I love that "I smell an astronaut" line.
Plus it's
> fun to see they've used prototypes in some of the ads that feature
different
> costumes to the finished product. In one, I think they use a Tarzan or
Action
> Jackson as the the 'Astronaut' or 'Burke'.
> Best,
> KEN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Elliott [chrisben@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2002 15:58
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [pota] Intro
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone
> >
> > Since Kim introduced herself, I thought it might be time for
> me as well.
> > Although I've been lurking on the list for quite a while. I'm
> Christopher,
> > and it goes without saying I'm a big fan of the series in
> > whatever its form.
> > Yes, I even liked the cartoon and watched it religiously Saturday
> > Morning :)
> >
> > However, I've not come across any discussion regarding the comic books.
> > Anyone remember the 29 issues of the magazine put out by Marvel
> > in the 70s?
> > Their adaptations of the movies into comics were pretty good, except for
> > Battle which made absolutely no sense. And the "Terror" series
> was always
> > very good. But anyone remember those "Future History Chronicles" series?
> > Truly odd. All those apes and mutants running around on huge city
> > ships was
> > certainly original :)
> >
> > Anyway, I'll return to lurking now!
> >
> > Christopher

  MTotsky@... wrote:

<<Welcome to the group. When you get a chance, send a link to that fanfic. I would like to check it out.
Matt>>

Hi Matt, I belong to another group, very small, called Friends_and_Fugitives.  It's just for POTA tv series fans.  The owner/moderator has a web site of the same name at http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~pdownes/potatv/potatv.html" which has a very few fan fic listings under "trivia and links".  The site is a really good one for pota tv series fans.

> Whew, well put Patrick. Although I think Escape is a better made film, I still like
> Beneath for the nostalgia value. I remember being so impressed when I was kid with
> a lot of the visuals. I'm not a huge fan of Conquest and it's the film I've
> probably watched the least of the 5. Although I like the story, I don't think it
> was well executed. Mainly for budget restrictions and the compromises made to get a
> PG rating.
> Best,
> KEN

> In a message dated 1/5/02 5:48:43 PM Central Standard Time,
> veetus@e... writes:
>
> << Also got the 2 disc "Dune" miniseries for $12. >>
>
> Speaking of Dune... I just watched the newer one they showed on Sci-Fi a few
> nights ago. That movie is damn long, but very good. Too bad I have to take
> it back to the movie store tomorrow.
>
> -Joe

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:01 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.

In a message dated 1/6/02 9:50:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

I can't wait to read the responses to my posting!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 1-06-2002

Well, I don't know what to make of your ideas.  You obviously love coming up with this stuff, but you have pointed out an inconsistency in the series I've never thought about before: OF COURSE!  The baby chimp born in Armando's circus was a female!  How could they have switched the babies and covered up the fact that the female was now a male?  Amando says that the baby's birth was registered, and it would have been registered as a female.  Could Amando have doctored away all traces of that?  I assume there were public records?  I think Kolp and Hoskyns would have discovered something.  I think it's rather hard to mistake a female baby chimp for a male, and vice versa.  I don't think the genitalia of chimps is hard to confuse, but I must confess no experience in that area.  How stupid would Armando and his people have been to make that mistake?  Why didn't Dehn just make the primitive baby chimp a male?  Hey, maybe Armando should have just dressed Milo up as a girl his whole life to hide his true identity, then Roddy could have played the last two movies as an ape in drag!  That would have been a great acting challenge for McDowall -- a chimpanzee unsure of its sexual identity, screwed up by this strange Latino circus owner, who was himself an unmarried middle-aged man with no visible female friends.  What really went on between Armando and his chimp?  Oh, if only Arthur Jacobs had let the gay screenwriter Paul Dehn really go with these APES sequels -- what movies we might have had?!!

How's that for a response, Patrick?

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 7:00 AM
Subject: [pota] Re: DVDs


> --- In pota@y..., CheeseGOTAS@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/5/02 5:48:43 PM Central Standard Time,
> > veetus@e... writes:
> >
> > << Also got the 2 disc "Dune" miniseries for $12. >>
> >
> > Speaking of Dune... I just watched the newer one they showed on Sci-Fi a
few
> > nights ago. That movie is damn long, but very good. Too bad I have to
take
> > it back to the movie store tomorrow.
> >
> > -Joe
>
> I liked the newer version of "Dune", and was glad that they included
> the tidbit that Paul Atreides was also (due to the Bene Gesserit
> breeding program) a maternal grandson of Baron Harkonnen--especially
> the way the miniseries version has Paul 'spring' that little nugget on
> Feyd Rautha during their fight, using it as a weapon to get Feyd to
> lose his poise long enough to kill him.
> But... I think I still prefer David Lynch's version, more for its
> 'look', and its 'style'. The story is almost Shakespearian in that it
> involves feuding aristocratic families in a decadent Empire. The Lynch
> version made the Atreides palace look, architecturally, more
> 'aristocratic'/'noble'. William Hurt is a great actor, but Jurgen
> Prochnow projected more of the 'air' of a cultured, proud, nobleman
> whose line goes back centuries.
> I like both versions, but the Lynch one--despite its flaws as a movie-
> -tips the scales, I think.
> And the 'gom-jabbar' scene in the Lynch film is a hundred times better
> than the newer one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  MTotsky@... wrote:

<<Welcome to the group. When you get a chance, send a link to that fanfic. I would like to check it out.
Matt>>

Hi Matt, I belong to another group, very small, called Friends_and_Fugitives.  It's just for POTA tv series fans.  The owner/moderator has a web site of the same name at http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~pdownes/potatv/potatv.html" which has a very few fan fic listings under "trivia and links".  The site is a really good one for pota tv series fans.

See you, Kassidy

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

---

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2002 2:29
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [pota] Re: Escape or Return?
>
>
> No problem, Michael. When I was growing up, my family didn't do
> movies. Occasionally, I went with my friend. I saw very few movies
> as a kid and if it weren't for the relatively recent popularity of
> home video, I would be culturally illiterate! I've been to the
> theater to see maybe 15 movies in my lifetime. Naturally, POTA 2001
> was the most recent.
>
> The name is Helen -- No final e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I have raised this before, but I do believe "Terror" was unfinished and I
> have always wanted to know how (if?) it (and any other spin off stories)

> planned to conclude - were more stories penned/drafted/completed? Issue

> actually advertises "Next Month", so something must have at least been
> planned.

>
> If you go through the archives, Chris, you'll see we only recently

> the different Countries' availabilities of Apes comics. Ken Taylor even

> one from Argentina (or Poland?) that is based on the TV Series that I do

> believe was covered in any other counrty.

> Hi Helen
>
> Most of us "die-hards" here were bitterly disappointed in POTA 2001.
>
> What did you think?
>
> Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "sand_hill_school" <sand_hill_school@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: [pota] Re: Did you like it?


> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Hi Helen
> >
> > Most of us "die-hards" here were bitterly disappointed in POTA 2001.
> >
> > What did you think?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> I typed a 500-word essay about this, but decided that isn't what you
> wanted. So, here goes..
>
> As a trinket for POTA "die-hards" -- like a action figure or a
> costume -- I would suppose it should be a treat of sorts. What I
> can't understand is.... Why is everyone trying to fit it into the
> POTA timeline? It doesn't fit. These aren't the same Apes. They
> are genetically altered and presumably (although this can be fixed)
> on the wrong planet.
>
> Their social structure is entirely different and the two diverging
> species of apes if introduced wouldn't be able to interrelate. As
> parallel universes, I see that the two could eventually find each
> other. As a co-mingled group, it is as if a third set of ruling
> entities has been introduced.
>
> Ape city was very gothic and will appeal to the new generation
> Apers. The acting was, of course, more 90's style (2K being
> undefined) and more "up-to-date", the quaintness of the
> original was replaced with "visual believability". All
> things being
> equal, I suppose it suits the times. Older movies relied on having a
> good story. Newer movies use visuals to capture the audience. (Not
> that the old POTA wasn't visual!)
>
> Oh well, a longer than intended excerpt from the original...
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "sand_hill_school" <sand_hill_school@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: [pota] Re: Did you like it?


> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Hi Helen
> >
> > Most of us "die-hards" here were bitterly disappointed in POTA 2001.
> >
> > What did you think?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> I typed a 500-word essay about this, but decided that isn't what you
> wanted. So, here goes..
>
> As a trinket for POTA "die-hards" -- like a action figure or a
> costume -- I would suppose it should be a treat of sorts. What I
> can't understand is.... Why is everyone trying to fit it into the
> POTA timeline? It doesn't fit. These aren't the same Apes. They
> are genetically altered and presumably (although this can be fixed)
> on the wrong planet.
>
> Their social structure is entirely different and the two diverging
> species of apes if introduced wouldn't be able to interrelate. As
> parallel universes, I see that the two could eventually find each
> other. As a co-mingled group, it is as if a third set of ruling
> entities has been introduced.
>
> Ape city was very gothic and will appeal to the new generation
> Apers. The acting was, of course, more 90's style (2K being
> undefined) and more "up-to-date", the quaintness of the
> original was replaced with "visual believability". All
> things being
> equal, I suppose it suits the times. Older movies relied on having a
> good story. Newer movies use visuals to capture the audience. (Not
> that the old POTA wasn't visual!)
>
> Oh well, a longer than intended excerpt from the original...
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> This is a direct link to download the trainer for the PC Game. I just tr=
>ied it out and it works real well. It gives you invulnerability and and li=
>ke 1-2 hit knockouts when punching the apes.

>http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/dl..htmlurl=3Dhttp://208.155.69.245/files/my=

Haristas@... wrote:

 Click here: eBay item 1402346247 (Ends Jan-08-02 20:58:13 PST ) - ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES*SCIFI*RARE

This is another cool poster from Australia.  We only had this style in a rare 30X40 poster and in print ads.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:51 PM

Subject: [pota] So there!

Well, I've gone and looked at BENEATH and am shocked I've never noticed before -- or noticed but then forgot about -- but the Cornelius costume that David Watson wears in BENEATH isn't the one that Roddy McDowall wears in PLANET.  This just has me wondering, why was it necessary to create a cheaper version for BENEATH when you had the original(s) around?  Or were the originals all destroyed?  And yes, I guess this very same "BENEATH" tunic could have been passed from one sequel to the next and on to the TV show -- poor thing!  But all this does is just make me wonder where in the world is McDowall's original costume(s) from PLANET.  That's the prize.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

> OK
>
> How do you explain the calendear year in which the apes took over having
> passed already?
>
> Michael
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haristas@a... [Haristas@a...]
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2002 4:01
> To: pota@y...
> Subject: Re: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/6/02 9:50:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
>
> I can't wait to read the responses to my posting!
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 1-06-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, I don't know what to make of your ideas. You obviously love coming up
> with this stuff, but you have pointed out an inconsistency in the series
> I've never thought about before: OF COURSE! The baby chimp born in
> Armando's circus was a female! How could they have switched the babies and
> covered up the fact that the female was now a male? Amando says that the
> baby's birth was registered, and it would have been registered as a female.
> Could Amando have doctored away all traces of that? I assume there were
> public records? I think Kolp and Hoskyns would have discovered something.
> I think it's rather hard to mistake a female baby chimp for a male, and vice
> versa. I don't think the genitalia of chimps is hard to confuse, but I must
> confess no experience in that area. How stupid would Armando and his people
> have been to make that mistake? Why didn't Dehn just make the primitive
> baby chimp a male? Hey, maybe Armando should have just dress
>
> How's that for a response, Patrick?
>
> -- Rory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

> Good stuff, Patrick. But I never got the idea Armando was planning on Caesar taking over the world. In my chronology for "Ape Chronicles" Armando used the name Caesar ironically because he "hates those who try to alter destiny, which is the unalterable will of God". By calling him Caesar he's giving the bird to those whose fear destroyed his friends Cornelius and Zira.
> The Heloise thing could've happened as you say but I don't think people necesssarily could differentiate male from female. Maybe Armando establishes that Heloise dies and he received an orphaned male chimp. I tend to go for the easier answer. Big constructions strain credibility even further.
> The bit about Aldo in "Conquest" I think is a sly comment on Cornelius' "history" in "Escape". Aldo was the first ape to say "No" but is silenced. Later they used the name Aldo in "Battle" as the first ape said "no" TO. (the novelization of "Conquest", written after "Battle" was released, inserts the gorilla Aldo as Caesar's friend and ally).
>
> - - - - Jeff
>
>

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Haristas@a...
> To: pota@y...
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/6/02 9:50:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
>
> I can't wait to read the responses to my posting!
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 1-06-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, I don't know what to make of your ideas. You obviously love coming up with this stuff, but you have pointed out an inconsistency in the series I've never thought about before: OF COURSE! The baby chimp born in Armando's circus was a female! How could they have switched the babies and covered up the fact that the female was now a male? Amando says that the baby's birth was registered, and it would have been registered as a female. Could Amando have doctored away all traces of that? I assume there were public records? I think Kolp and Hoskyns would have discovered something. I think it's rather hard to mistake a female baby chimp for a male, and vice versa. I don't think the genitalia of chimps is hard to confuse, but I must confess no experience in that area. How stupid would Armando and his people have been to make that mistake? Why didn't Dehn just make the primitive baby chimp a male? Hey, maybe Armando should have just dressed Milo up as a girl his whole life to hide his true identity, then Roddy could have played the last two movies as an ape in drag! That would have been a great acting challenge for McDowall -- a chimpanzee unsure of its sexual identity, screwed up by this strange Latino circus owner, who was himself an unmarried middle-aged man with no visible female friends. What really went on between Armando and his chimp? Oh, if only Arthur Jacobs had let the gay screenwriter Paul Dehn really go with these APES sequels -- what movies we might have had?!!
>
> How's that for a response, Patrick?
>
> -- Rory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

> In a message dated 1/8/02 10:22:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> veetus@e... writes:
>
>
> > Good luck, it would be tough to trace a costume back to Roddy on the
> > original. The vinyl is easy to see in the movies because it looks
> > different. It's shinier and settles more on the chest because it's not as
> > stiff as the leather. Point blank, it's more comfortable and obviously
> > Roddy prefered it. I've currently got Roddy #1 on loan and compared it to
> > the DVDs. It's all Roddy wears in "Escape", "Battle" and TV. I guess David
> > Watson "discovered" it for "Beneath" then perhaps it became "Cornelius' "
> > and when they decided to put a pocket in for "Escape" they labeled it
> > "Roddy #1". But try and pinpoint a leather one to Roddy. There are a lot
> > out there that casually call any costume a "Roddy". This is. So...there
> > there.
> >
> > - - - Jeff
> >
> > P.S.: Few have a 20th Century Fox label instead of a Western Costume label
> > either.
>
> Obviously, Jeff, you seem to think this item is a big deal. Well, I'm happy
> for you, but personally I just don't get it. What's the big deal? So this
> was worn by McDowall in ESCAPE through the TV show, and by Watson in BENEATH,
> but it's not like any of those movies are the classic that the original is.
> I don't know, it must be a La, La Land thing. Bob Burns seems to think it's
> a big deal that he has a pair of Glenn Strange Frankenstein boots, but
> please. . . get the costume Karloff wore in the original and I might be
> impressed. I'm just not that impressed with this "Roddy #1". I like the
> look of the leather original. "The vinyl is easy to see in the movies
> because it looks different." Jeff, the vinyl is easy to see -- because it
> looks CHEAP!!! It's a cheap knockoff of the original costume and it doesn't
> even have the glyphs! Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, it doesn't move
> me. And knowing that this article started its life in BENEATH just
> reenforces for me that in POTAdom you have the original movie, then you have
> the sequel, BENEATH, and then all ITS sequels and the TV show -- all of them
> CHEAP knockoffs of the original. I guess we better not say any more because
> this is one of these 'fan' things that I just can't relate to and for some
> reason it really bugs me. I look down my nose at anything from the sequels
> -- in fact, I often hold my nose! I can't help it, it's a question of taste.
>
> -- Rory

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.


> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Good stuff, Patrick. But I never got the idea Armando was planning on
Caesar taking over the world. In my chronology for "Ape Chronicles" Armando
used the name Caesar ironically because he "hates those who try to alter
destiny, which is the unalterable will of God". By calling him Caesar he's
giving the bird to those whose fear destroyed his friends Cornelius and
Zira.
> > The Heloise thing could've happened as you say but I don't think people
necesssarily could differentiate male from female. Maybe Armando establishes
that Heloise dies and he received an orphaned male chimp. I tend to go for
the easier answer. Big constructions strain credibility even further.
> > The bit about Aldo in "Conquest" I think is a sly comment on
Cornelius' "history" in "Escape". Aldo was the first ape to say "No" but is
silenced. Later they used the name Aldo in "Battle" as the first ape said
"no" TO. (the novelization of "Conquest", written after "Battle" was
released, inserts the gorilla Aldo as Caesar's friend and ally).
> >
> > - - - - Jeff
> >
> >
>
> Remember when Armando says to Zira & Cornelius, "And, if it IS God's
> will that Man be dominated then, oh dear friends, please let him be
> dominated by such as you."?
> It seems to me that Armando evinces a definite belief in the idea that
> the Future IS set in stone, unalterable, "God's will" etc. Since the
> "Ape-onauts" came from that predestined Future (Armando, a good
> Catholic since he has a St. Francis of Assisi medalion, would be a
> believer in the Catholic doctrine of Predestination--the notion that
> the Future is unalterable, that only God truly knows who will be saved
> or damned, etc.), then Armando would want that unavoidable ape-
> domination to be more benevolent than malevolent--in other words, with
> the pacifistic types in charge (Zira & Cornelius) the human race will
> be better off than they would trying to forge their own destiny
> AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD. This (to me, INSANE) outlook is not
> unprecedented: the folks who wrote the later books of the Old
> Testament interpreted their own history in a similar vein--Israelite
> "sin" had provoked God's just anger, and so He empowered foreign,
> pagan empires to conquer and subjugate His chosen-yet-sinning people.
> It was considered (in retrospect) a SIN for the last king of Judah--
> Zedekiah--to rebel against the overlordship of the Babylonian emperor
> Nebuchadnezzar.
> As I've indicated, I think this whole outlook is--as Col. Potter used
> to say on TV's M.A.S.H.--"horse-hockey"! I believe in the good ol'
> American values & virtues of SELF-government (both individually and
> collectively) as opposed to subjugation to ANYONE (and that includes
> any so-called "god" who claims that we are His property--I'm not
> anybody's slave, dammit!). But Armando is the type who would willingly
> be the slave of his idea of "god", accepting whatever 'just'
> punishment his "god" doles out to him--and to everybody else.
> Remember when Caesar--full of piss & vinegar and the violent urge to
> "punish his persecutors"--rants at the end of CONQUEST, saying that
> "there'll be NO PLACE FOR HUMANS EXCEPT TO SERVE OUR ENDS" (my
> emphasis)? He--at this moment in his diatribe--seems willing (even
> eager) to persecute future generations of humanity (who, being the
> descendants of those who enslaved the apes, are not morally culpable
> for their ancestors' wrongdoings). But then... (and this is the reason
> that I--for one--am GLAD that the ending of CONQUEST had this 'tacked-
> on' to it) ...Lisa, seeing that the chimp she's grown to feel
> affection for is becoming 'Hitlerian', utters those crucial syllables,
> "N-n-no! N-n-n-..."
> It is this moment that brings Caesar back to what he SHOULD be (that
> is, what I think Armando meant him to be); he then continues but on
> another tack, "But now... now we will put down our weapons... DESTINY
> is the WILL OF GOD, and if it IS Man's destiny to be dominated, then
> it is GOD'S WILL that he be dominated with compassion... and
> understanding. So... cast out your vengeance!" (etc.)
> Caesar, here, is practically parroting Armando's comments to Zira &
> Cornelius in ESCAPE. This is why I think that Armando discussed the
> Future with Caesar (whom he named for SOME reason--I've stated what I
> think that reason is), and its implications for the well-being of the
> human race; humanity would have to endure this supposedly unavoidable
> future, dominated by apes. But what kind of apes? Vengeful ones? Or
> apes with a firm yet tempered hand? In BATTLE, Caesar laments that
> Armando died before he could have told him whether or not it was right
> or wrong to kill that which is evil, so that Good would prevail.
> MacDonald (the one in BATTLE) responds, "Well, history shows--" and is
> interrupted by Caesar: "That is MAN'S HISTORY. Not Ape history..." and
> so on (I'm not quoting verbatim, here; this is just from memory mind
> you).
> At the end of BATTLE, Caesar seems to have abandoned his plans to
> maintain a benevolent simian control over the fate of humanity,
> setting MacDonald and the other humans free to live "as equals" (as
> MacD says). "We have a destiny too..."
> Caesar: "The HUMAN way is Death, and violence."
> Virgil: "Aldo wasn't human... was he?"
>
> In regards to the gender problem, frankly I think Armando would have
> had to deal with it in some way. He mentions (both in ESCAPE and in
> CONQUEST) that the baby born to Heloise is "the first chimpanzee ever
> to be born in a circus" (going on & on about how that is like being
> the first baby born on the Moon, etc.). In other words, that chimp
> baby would be FAMOUS. And if the Press had reported this "first", then
> chances are they'd have reported the name of this chimp--Salome--which
> is a female's name. Someone who KNEW about that, who then later goes
> to see Armando's circus and sees that the famous baby chimp has grown
> up to be a boy ape... well, don't YOU think that it just MIGHT get to
> be suspicious?
> Anyway, for the sake of my on-going novel project, I wanted to come up
> with a way to explain HOW Armando goes about 'explaining' this
> supposed mistake. Remember, it was Lewis Dixon who had delivered Baby
> Salome--and he later on became a publicly known friend of the
> surviving Ape-onauts. I think that Kolp & Hoskyns--once they had to
> investigate Armando and his allegedly "talking ape"--may very well
> have put 2 and 2 together...
>
> Regarding Aldo, yeah, John Jakes' novelization makes the CONQUEST
> "Aldo" to be a gorilla--but in the actual movie (as filmed), the ape
> in that demonstration scene is NOT a gorilla... it's a CHIMP. The
> "canon" I'm working with for my novel is ONLY what ended up on film.
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Haristas@a...
> > To: pota@y...
> > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: [pota] Re: Me ego's squashed! I feel lonely.
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/6/02 9:50:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't wait to read the responses to my posting!
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 1-06-2002
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I don't know what to make of your ideas. You obviously love
coming up with this stuff, but you have pointed out an inconsistency in the
series I've never thought about before: OF COURSE! The baby chimp born in
Armando's circus was a female! How could they have switched the babies and
covered up the fact that the female was now a male? Amando says that the
baby's birth was registered, and it would have been registered as a female.
Could Amando have doctored away all traces of that? I assume there were
public records? I think Kolp and Hoskyns would have discovered something.
I think it's rather hard to mistake a female baby chimp for a male, and vice
versa. I don't think the genitalia of chimps is hard to confuse, but I must
confess no experience in that area. How stupid would Armando and his people
have been to make that mistake? Why didn't Dehn just make the primitive
baby chimp a male? Hey, maybe Armando should have just dressed Milo up as a
girl his whole life to hide his true identity, then Roddy could have played
the last two movies as an ape in drag! That would have been a great acting
challenge for McDowall -- a chimpanzee unsure of its sexual identity,
screwed up by this strange Latino circus owner, who was himself an unmarried
middle-aged man with no visible female friends. What really went on between
Armando and his chimp? Oh, if only Arthur Jacobs had let the gay
screenwriter Paul Dehn really go with these APES sequels -- what movies we
might have had?!!
> >
> > How's that for a response, Patrick?
> >
> > -- Rory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:56 PM

Subject: Re: [pota] So there!

In a message dated 1/8/02 10:22:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  Good luck, it would be tough to trace a costume back to Roddy on the original. The vinyl is easy to see in the movies because it looks different. It's shinier and settles more on the chest because it's not as stiff as the leather. Point blank, it's more comfortable and obviously Roddy prefered it. I've currently got Roddy #1 on loan and compared it to the DVDs. It's all Roddy wears in "Escape", "Battle" and TV. I guess David Watson "discovered" it for "Beneath" then perhaps it became "Cornelius' " and when they decided to put a pocket in for "Escape" they labeled it "Roddy #1". But try and pinpoint a leather one to Roddy. There are a lot out there that casually call any costume a "Roddy". This is. So...there there.

                                                            - - - Jeff

P.S.: Few have a 20th Century Fox label instead of a Western Costume label either.

Obviously, Jeff, you seem to think this item is a big deal.  Well, I'm happy for you, but personally I just don't get it.  What's the big deal?  So this was worn by McDowall in ESCAPE through the TV show, and by Watson in BENEATH, but it's not like any of those movies are the classic that the original is.  I don't know, it must be a La, La Land thing.  Bob Burns seems to think it's a big deal that he has a pair of Glenn Strange Frankenstein boots, but please. . . get the costume Karloff wore in the original and I might be impressed.  I'm just not that impressed with this "Roddy #1".  I like the look of the leather original.  "The vinyl is easy to see in the movies because it looks different."  Jeff, the vinyl is easy to see -- because it looks CHEAP!!!  It's a cheap knockoff of the original costume and it doesn't even have the glyphs!  Am I supposed to be impressed?  Sorry, it doesn't move me.  And knowing that this article started its life in BENEATH just reenforces for me that in POTAdom you have the original movie, then you have the sequel, BENEATH, and then all ITS sequels and the TV show -- all of them CHEAP knockoffs of the original.  I guess we better not say any more because this is one of these 'fan' things that I just can't relate to and for some reason it really bugs me.  I look down my nose at anything from the sequels -- in fact, I often hold my nose!  I can't help it, it's a question of taste.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2002 13:09
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [pota] Re: Did you like it?
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Hi Helen
> >
> > Most of us "die-hards" here were bitterly disappointed in POTA 2001.
> >
> > What did you think?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> I typed a 500-word essay about this, but decided that isn't what you
> wanted. So, here goes..
>
> As a trinket for POTA "die-hards" -- like a action figure or a
> costume -- I would suppose it should be a treat of sorts. What I
> can't understand is.... Why is everyone trying to fit it into the
> POTA timeline? It doesn't fit. These aren't the same Apes. They
> are genetically altered and presumably (although this can be fixed)
> on the wrong planet.
>
> Their social structure is entirely different and the two diverging
> species of apes if introduced wouldn't be able to interrelate. As
> parallel universes, I see that the two could eventually find each
> other. As a co-mingled group, it is as if a third set of ruling
> entities has been introduced.
>
> Ape city was very gothic and will appeal to the new generation
> Apers. The acting was, of course, more 90's style (2K being
> undefined) and more "up-to-date", the quaintness of the
> original was replaced with "visual believability". All
> things being
> equal, I suppose it suits the times. Older movies relied on having a
> good story. Newer movies use visuals to capture the audience. (Not
> that the old POTA wasn't visual!)
>
> Oh well, a longer than intended excerpt from the original...
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> You limeys are all afraid of guns anyway!
> So I don't think any of you are likely to take on a gorilla with a

  In a message dated 1/9/02 1:50:16 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you feel there is only the original and that's fine. The big deal is there are others who have great memories of the sequels and the TV show and Roddy was a big part of those memories.

I LOVED THEM ALL!  Don't care what you or anyone else thinks, don't care if you call them corny, meaningless, substandard, crap....I LOVED THEM ALL! including the tv series!  (and some of the the stuff on that show was laughable.)  Surely within this group we don't need to defend ourselves just for liking the *>&@( movies (and series), do we?