----- Original Message -----
From: "cgenro" <cgenro@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:31 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Story between Planet and Beneath


> I think if Heston had died it would have been just as successful. If
> they wanted Heston to die when would it have happened?? after the
> discovery of the Statue of liberty??
>
> Also by Heston not dying I think it made Beneath all the more
> interesting. Sure they could have gone off in another direction but
> it was great in my opinion to see him still alive near the end of
> the film.
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > The point is made that the apes "are too dumb to hold our
> illusions" after
> > Zauis doesn't buy the burning Lawgiver. If not, it would've been a
> pretty
> > boring ending. ("There's nothing here, Ursus. Let's go home.").
> > I've been reading Pendreigh's great "Legend of POTA" book. It
> mentions that
> > everybody but Michael Wilson wanted Heston to die at the end
> of "Planet".
> > Jacobs, Abrahams, everybody. But Wilson fought it, saying it would
> diminish
> > the ending. If Heston had died:
> > a) would it be possible the film wouldn't have been as successful?
> > b) they would've had much more freedom in "Beneath" storywise
> > Etc. - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > To: <pota@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:13 AM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Story between Planet and Beneath
> >
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., "Anthony B. McElveen" <abmac@i...> wrote:
> > > > You're assuming that the mountain was a mirage and that the
> > > land was
> > > > actually flat. I believe both images were projected to hide an
> > > entrance
> > > > to the underground passageways.
> > > >
> > > > While we're on the subject I'd like to say that the mutants
> could
> > > easily
> > > > have eliminated the entire ape army if they'd used their mental
> > > powers
> > > > to hide an existing cliff and lure the apes over it instead of
> > > > projecting impossible illusions in a physically safe area.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I was bothered by the huge rolling boulder in Planet
> until I
> > > saw
> > > > Beneath. Although I've never heard anyone mention it and it
> > > almost
> > > > certainly isn't true, I deduced that someone involved in Planet
> > > already
> > > > had the idea of psychic mutants who protected their city with
> > > annoying,
> > > > but non-lethal, illusions and wanted to lay a little groundwork
> > > for
> > > > their eventual appearance. I no longer believe that, but I
> think
> > > it's
> > > > possible that Dehn was also bothered by the self-starting rock
> > > and
> > > > wanted to "unflub" a mistake made by his predecessors.
> > > >
> > > > ABMAC
> > >
> > > *** Heyyyy!!! A word I coined is now in use! "Unflub" lives!
> > > Incidentally, you have a good point about the Mutants' rather
> > > unimaginative use of their illusion-casting power. Why didn't
> they
> > > make the Apes think that the Queensboro Plaza subway tunnels
> > > were caved in? If Ursus' army doesn't know there are tunnels
> > > there leading to the "city of the dead", then Mendez & Co. are
> safe
> > > and sound. Or... why not fool the gorillas into thinking they see
> > > other apes, instead of fleshy-headed mutants? All sorts of
> > > possibilities...
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "cgenro" <cgenro@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:35 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] what came after Battle...


> does anyone have any idea what occured after Battle?? what caused
> the humans do de-evolve and become savages? With Ceaser being a kind
> leader who was tolerant to humans what happened that caused the Apes
> to hate the humans again?
>
> sorry for all the questions. I`ve just seen the movies for the first
> time last week and I thought they were great!! :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., "its_a_mad_house" <bernmanufo@y...> wrote:
> These figures certainly are um....interesting. Have you seen them
> for sales here in the states and if so at what store? Thanks,
> Bernard--- In pota@y..., "Jeff & Susan Stringer" <stringe@b...>
> wrote:
> > These are unlicensed figures. Probably from Mexico. You should
> see their
> > STAR WARS knockoffs. Scary.
> > Gristle P.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mystic4ever" <mystic4ever@s...>
> > To: <pota@y...>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:19 PM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] New Ape Toys: SPACE OF THE APES!
> >
> >
> > Has anyone else out there seen these? I saw the display for the
> first time
> > today for these SPACE OF THE APES figures. Apparently they were
> released in
> > May. Kind of hokey, but if you loved the Burton movie like I
did,
> you'll
> > probably like them! Odd packaging since the blister card has
> modified pics
> > of the classic characters, but the actual figures are all POTA
2001
> > inspired. There are six that I've seen. I've attached scans of
> two of the
> > "gorillas". The others are a male & female human where the
female
> resembles
> > Daena and the male is an astronaut who doesn't look much like
> Wahlberg;
> > another gorilla with gold colouring and there's a female warrior
> gorilla.
> >
> > Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] BATTLE DVD


> I got my copy in the mail the other day. Al, you're the swingingest
> monkey in this yahoo zoo... I can't thank you enough for this free
> nugget of joy.
>
> Now if I can only find a way to get it to play on my DVD player! For
> some reason, my DVD machine keeps ejecting it, saying it's "non-
> playable". Argh! It does, however, play on the DVD-rom drive of the PC
> in the computer cluster where I'm typing this (I don't have a DVD-rom
> drive on my home computer, an ancient Mac LC-II... yeah, yeah, I know
> I gotta upgrade one-a-these-days to something less outdated!). I don't
> have much experience with DVD-roms, and it took me a while to figure
> out how to get the PC to play it--not to mention how to get the sound
> to play along with the visuals. But it DOES work on the PC DVD-rom
> drive player thingy. Any suggestions as to how I might fool my home
> DVD player (the one hooked up to my TV) into playing it?
>
> One of the things that makes this "extended BATTLE" version
> particularly favored over the "normal" version is the parallelism
> between Kolp-and-Alma and Caesar-and-Lisa. The way this "extended"
> version plays, the contrast is noticably evident. Kolp and Caesar are
> both leaders of their respective peoples, and both have relationships
> with women... but Kolp's female companion, Alma, is not the type who
> "second-guesses" her man--she would have blindly followed through with
> Kolp's final wish: to detonate the Alpha Omega bomb... and it's only
> the intervention of Mendez which prevents that from happening.
> Caesar's wife Lisa, on the other hand, never just knits away and says
> "Yes, dear" to her husband; Lisa questions Caesar's decisions--which
> affect not only her and her family, but the entire community. Caesar
> tries to justify his assumptions about Kolp's people by saying that
> they're "malformed" (talk about a "surface" judgment!), and Lisa
> counters that with a comparison to "the freaks in [Armando's] circus".
> Caesar seems hell-bent on seeing ALL the humans in the Forbidden City
> as "mutant... and they're MAD...", yet if not for the humane, rational
> Mendez, Caesar's victory over Kolp would have been short-lived, and
> the "planet of the apes" would have been annihilated NOT in 3955 but
> in 2018 (or whenever BATTLE takes place... I think it's 2018, myself).
> BATTLE is far far better WITH this extra footage... so why the hell
> did Fox edit it out? It's not like the movie was "running long", since
> the playing time is less than an hour and a half (if I'm not
> mistaken), and a good chunk of that is mere flash-back to ESCAPE and
> CONQUEST in the "Lawgiver prologue" scene.
>
> If you ever do figure out a way to do the cartoons (either on a 2-disc
> or 3-disc set), I think you'll find that there are those of us out
> here who wouldn't mind plunking down a $20 bill for it, to off-set the
> inconvenience it obviously costs you (the 3-hour burning time). But
> even if you ultimately decide that you can't accomplish the task...
> hey, Al, your gift of the BATTLE DVD alone makes you "A-number-one" in
> my book. Hell, if I ever do manage to finish my magnum opus (which
> I've given the title "Destiny of the Planet of the Apes"--I mentioned
> it many months ago in one of my first postings, but haven't mentioned
> any time recently), be forewarned that you shall receive a
> complimentary copy of it, just as my "thank you" for this marvelous
> gift. Mind you, this won't be any time soon, since the Project is
> nowhere near to being completed--but IF it's ever done and published,
> there'll be a copy with your name on the inside front cover.
>
> Thanks again and again and again (ad infinitum), you "model for us
> all... a gorilla to remember..."
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-16-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> That's the rub. It's open to speculation. Did apes and humans
live in
> peace, as the Lawgiver suggests, or did it go full circle to the
first
> movie, as Caesar's statue sheds a tear? Etc. -
- Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cgenro" <cgenro@y...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:35 AM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] what came after Battle...
>
>
> > does anyone have any idea what occured after Battle?? what caused
> > the humans do de-evolve and become savages? With Ceaser being a
kind
> > leader who was tolerant to humans what happened that caused the
Apes
> > to hate the humans again?
> >
> > sorry for all the questions. I`ve just seen the movies for the
first
> > time last week and I thought they were great!! :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA, politics, propaganda, etc.


> *** Note: this is in answer to the following Melkor post.
>
> Let me ask you this, Melkie: if the KKK and/or a bunch of neo-Nazis
> were to bankroll a film glorifying Hitler/genocide/racism, etc., and
> if this group were to offer YOU (or your favorite Hollywood actor) a
> major role in the production... would YOU opt to do the film, and
> forevermore have your name associated with antisemitic, racist, pro-
> Nazi propaganda? Would that be "professionalism" on an actor's part,
> to "do the job" regardless of the content of the film? Frankly, if
> Heston were offered a role in a movie which GLORIFIED the mass-murder
> of blacks or jews or gays or ANY particular group, I would conclude
> that he HAD "sold out" (IF, that is, he had tried to make it clear
> that although he disagreed with Mass-murder as a concept he was intent
> on being "professional" and took on the role regardless).
>
> I remember wondering what Christians and Jews thought about John
> Travolta playing an angel in "Michael"; there are those who believe in
> the existence of angels (and all the other trappings of "Bible
> literalism"), and might they not be offended at the idea of a
> Scientologist portraying a Being that Scientologists don't even
> believe in? Did Travolta--in doing that role--promote, in a way, the
> "Believers' agenda" (if I may call it that), going against
> Scientology's beliefs? If the TV show "Touched By An Angel" can be
> seen (rightly, I think) to be promoting the belief in God/angels/
> salvation & damnation/etc. (hell, just read Cal Thomas' editorial
> columns... he fawns over that show), then why not the movie "Michael"?
> Can you see a "Bible-believing Christian" actor agreeing to take on
> the role of a non-divine, entirely-HUMAN Jesus... with flaws that none
> of the gospel-authors cared to depict? Wouldn't such an actor think
> himself to be committing a blasphemy by portraying his own Lord and
> personal Savior as, say, a demented rabble-rouser... even if that's
> what the script he'd been offered calls for?
>
> You say that you "doubt that anyone thought much about Heston's
> political views back in 1967"--but my point was that HESTON HIMSELF
> would have thought about the ramifications of endorsing a political
> "statement" that he vehemently disagreed with. I don't care HOW big
> the paycheck is--I don't see a person of integrity signing his/her
> name to a project with which he/she has serious differences, a "crisis
> of conscience" so to speak. When Alec Guinness brilliantly portrayed
> Adolf Hitler as a hate-mongering megalomaniac in "Hitler: The Last Ten
> Days" [a movie I can't recommend enough--it's fantastic], it should
> not have been a difficult moral/ethical choice: he played Hitler the
> way he was; yet, had the script been written as a propaganda piece
> portraying Hitler NOT as he really was but, rather, as a wonderful,
> caring, misunderstood genius... then I cannot see Guinness agreeing to
> play the role.
>
> Look what happened to Leni Riefenstahl [I may have misspelled her
> name], in the wake of her masterfully-produced "documentary"/
> propaganda piece "Triumph of the Will". No one denies that she was a
> supremely talented filmmaker--that's not the point. It was her
> willingness to lend her talents to the glorification of Hitlerism that
> in effect "black-balled" her from doing any serious work later on,
> since nobody wanted to be associated with ANYBODY who could "sign on"
> to such a project.
> Similarly, if Heston had vociferously disagreed with the political
> messages incorporated into "PLANET OF THE APES", then his conscience
> would have motivated him to disassociate himself from it (hey, just
> because Zanuck couldn't see the "politics" in POTA doesn't mean that
> Heston was blind to it). So, then, IF Heston agreed to do the role,
> portraying a character that was undoubtedly different from himself yet
> IN FURTHERANCE OF A "POLITICAL AGENDA" inherent in the totality of the
> film, it must have been either due to agreeing with the film's
> politics (an ethically defensible move), or IN SPITE OF DISAGREEING
> with those politics--which I think is less defensible, ethically
> speaking, for the reasons stated above.
>
> I was NOT saying that Heston--by portraying Taylor, who "goes around
> mocking the American flag" etc.--was "selling out", as you mistakenly
> keep inferring. I don't believe that the total film "POTA" endorses
> the mocking of the American flag, just because the main character does
> this. Taylor is the protagonist--but he is NOT a "hero". In a way,
> he's sort of an "anti-hero" whose actions are NOT necessarily
> laudable. Taylor mocks the American flag, probably because America--
> when he left it, in 1972--did not represent to him the "land of the
> free" where Liberty and Equality are cherished and furthered by the
> "powers that be", whereas Landon plants that little flag--probably
> because he cherishes the Ideals of Americanism, loving his country not
> necessarily for what it had been in 1972 but for what America SHOULD
> be all about. America was founded by men who had long-term goals for
> their posterity, trying to create a country which would move closer
> and closer towards Perfection ("in order to form a more perfect
> Union"), a condition they knew that THEY themselves would not live to
> see... yet, perhaps, their descendants WOULD, one day. Landon plants
> the flag, I suspect, because he cherishes the Ideals of Americanism,
> "the American way" which, sadly, our own government (in 1968-to-1972)
> seemed to be working AGAINST (this WAS during the time of the Nixon
> administration, after all... with its escalation of the Vietnam War--
> after Nixon had promised to bring about its end--and its race riots,
> the Kent State massacre, the Watergate "dirty tricks" shenanigans, etc
> etc.). "PLANET OF THE APES" did not endorse the mocking of the flag--
> it merely depicted a "harsh embittered man" (as Heston described his
> character) as the protagonist in a story which satirized some of the
> more blatant follies of the human race in general, and of American
> society in particular. We aren't meant to cheer Taylor's laughing at
> Landon planting the flag--quite the opposite, I think. Yet IF the
> script had been different, and if it HAD called for the audience to
> respond favorably to Taylor's "anti-American" mocking of Landon and
> his flag... then I seriously doubt if Heston would have agreed to do
> such a picture. Heston was savvy enough to know that the character he
> played was NOT a hero, NOT somebody the audience should deem heroic--
> hell, neither are most of the protagonists of Shakespeare's tragedies,
> but those characters are the meatiest roles an actor could ever hope
> to play.
> In my previous posting I wrote: "I trust, Melkor, that you can see the
> difference between this sort of implication and the one you thought I
> had put forward." Evidently, my trust was misplaced, since you still
> haven't understood what I was talking about. I hope this posting helps
> clear up for you the point I was trying to make, rather than the point
> you mistakingly thought I was trying to make.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-16-2002
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > Acting in roles that are different than you and have different views is
considered professionalism, not "selling out". I doubt that anyone thought
much about Heston's political views back in 1967 while he was doing POTA,
including Heston himself.
> >
> > Taylor is clearly different then Heston and saying that this is Heston
"selling out" is insulting to the whole acting profession. Taylor goes
around mocking the American flag, criticizing conservatives, and hoping for
a liberal utopia. Heston does not do any of these things. By implying that
Heston must have the same views as Taylor because otherwise Heston probably
would have turned down the POTA role you are insulting both Heston's
political views and his professionalism. If you don't mean to imply this
than don't.
> >
> > Maybe actors are "selling out" whenever they happen to play characters
with different views than their own...and maybe Australia will be renamed
"New America" and have all its cities renamed to American cities too.
Anything goes in the Patrick universe.
> >
> >
> > >> Sorry Patrick but your implying that actors are the same as the
> > >roles they are
> > >> performing because professional actors like Heston don't play
> > >roles that are
> > >> different from them reminded me about one of your earlier
> > >Greatest Hits. But
> > >> maybe Heston really does let out a big hearty laugh to mock
> > >the patriotic
> > >> schmoes who put up American flags like Taylor does. And
> > >maybe Heston wants the
> > >> same liberal utopia Taylor wants in his POTA monologue.
> > >Maybe actors never
> > >> play characters who are different than them...and maybe
> > >Australia will
> > >> "pole-shift" over to a different hemisphere. Anything can
> > >happen in the
> > >> Patrick universe.
> > >
> > >*** I don't think that that was what I was implying (i.e. that Heston
> > >the Actor wouldn't play a Character who was different than him).
> > >What I was suggesting was that Heston could have refused to
> > >do the role based on a philosophical disagreement with the
> > >politics of the film, had he had any personal reasons to do so.
> > >For example, the movie "The Contender" (with Joan Allen, Jeff
> > >Bridges, and Gary Oldman) has a decidedly "left-wing" slant to it
> > >that a die-hard "right-wing" actor (such as Heston [?] or Bruce
> > >Willis, etc.) might not have wanted to associate himself with.
> > >Heston was not hard up for acting jobs back in 1968, so IF he
> > >didn't like Serling and Wilson's script (and the
> > >philosophical/political slant of it), he could have told Arthur
> > >Jacobs, "Sorry, Artie... but this isn't the kind of project I see
myself
> > >supporting--try Kirk Douglas, maybe..." (or something like that). I
> > >could easily see a "left-winger" turning down ANY role in the 3rd
> > >Rambo movie, or "Invasion U.S.A." (etc.), or any other role that
> > >was "Rah rah rah" with a blatant Right-Wing agenda; similarly, I
> > >could see a "right-winger" turning down any role in a movie with
> > >a Left-Wing agenda, just for the sake of being "true" to his/her
> > >own principles. Heston, who COULD have turned down PLANET
> > >OF THE APES due to a disagreement over its politics, decided to
> > >do the film--which means that either he AGREED with its politics,
> > >or he did it despite disagreeing with its politics... "selling-out" his
> > >Conscience in order to get paid for the job.
> > >I trust, Melkor, that you can see the difference between this sort
> > >of implication and the one you thought I had put forward.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Maxwell" <alan@...>
To: "PotA" <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Talking of busts...


> This appeared in the new Previews magazine. As generic Apes
> characters, these are really nice pieces. Can't say that they're that
> brilliant as far as likenesses go, however.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Story between Planet and Beneath


> *** I think it was appropriate not only for Taylor to survive the
> ending of PLANET, but also to be the one to detonate the Bomb at the
> end of BENEATH. At the end of PLANET, Taylor literally calls upon God
> to damn the human race to hell because they "blew it up", nuked the
> Earth into the Stone Age. It's bad enough that Mankind has lost its
> civilization in the most violent (self-inflicted) manner possible, and
> has been reduced to a state of timid savagery... but must God, too,
> heap onto ALL Mankind the eternal punishment of Damnation? Heston has
> talked about how Fox convinced the MPAA that the "goddamn you all to
> hell" line was NOT just profanity (which would've subjected the film
> to a higher rating), but was a case of the character LITERALLY calling
> upon God to damn the human race.
> And then, at the end of BENEATH, Taylor--evidently not satisfied that
> the human race has suffered enough--consigns not only Humanity but ALL
> LIFE ON PLANET EARTH to Death, with the triggering of the Bomb. Now
> that all life is gone, all humans dead... now Taylor's God can go
> about punishing the souls of all the remaining humans (including Nova)
> in Hell for all eternity.
> Heston may have felt that Taylor was "most like him" of any role he'd
> played... but THIS aspect of the character is something that I find
> quite disturbing. I can support the decision Truman made to annihilate
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki--since by doing so he prevented a prolonged
> invasion which would have killed far more people on both sides of the
> conflict; but when Taylor detonates the Bomb which is capable of
> destroying ALL LIFE on the planet, burning it to a cinder (as he says
> to Brent), I think that Taylor was just the type of person to commit
> such an act, given his hatred of Humanity (the Statue scene). I think
> that Heston, perhaps, would admit that THIS aspect of Taylor's
> personality is something which he does NOT share (yeesh, at least I
> HOPE he doesn't).
>
> Patrick
>
> --- In pota@y..., "cgenro" <cgenro@y...> wrote:
> > I think if Heston had died it would have been just as successful. If
> > they wanted Heston to die when would it have happened?? after the
> > discovery of the Statue of liberty??
> >
> > Also by Heston not dying I think it made Beneath all the more
> > interesting. Sure they could have gone off in another direction but
> > it was great in my opinion to see him still alive near the end of
> > the film.
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > The point is made that the apes "are too dumb to hold our
> > illusions" after
> > > Zauis doesn't buy the burning Lawgiver. If not, it would've been a
> > pretty
> > > boring ending. ("There's nothing here, Ursus. Let's go home.").
> > > I've been reading Pendreigh's great "Legend of POTA" book. It
> > mentions that
> > > everybody but Michael Wilson wanted Heston to die at the end
> > of "Planet".
> > > Jacobs, Abrahams, everybody. But Wilson fought it, saying it would
> > diminish
> > > the ending. If Heston had died:
> > > a) would it be possible the film wouldn't have been as successful?
> > > b) they would've had much more freedom in "Beneath" storywise
> > > Etc. - - - Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > > To: <pota@y...>
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:13 AM
> > > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Story between Planet and Beneath
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In pota@y..., "Anthony B. McElveen" <abmac@i...> wrote:
> > > > > You're assuming that the mountain was a mirage and that the
> > > > land was
> > > > > actually flat. I believe both images were projected to hide an
> > > > entrance
> > > > > to the underground passageways.
> > > > >
> > > > > While we're on the subject I'd like to say that the mutants
> > could
> > > > easily
> > > > > have eliminated the entire ape army if they'd used their mental
> > > > powers
> > > > > to hide an existing cliff and lure the apes over it instead of
> > > > > projecting impossible illusions in a physically safe area.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I was bothered by the huge rolling boulder in Planet
> > until I
> > > > saw
> > > > > Beneath. Although I've never heard anyone mention it and it
> > > > almost
> > > > > certainly isn't true, I deduced that someone involved in Planet
> > > > already
> > > > > had the idea of psychic mutants who protected their city with
> > > > annoying,
> > > > > but non-lethal, illusions and wanted to lay a little groundwork
> > > > for
> > > > > their eventual appearance. I no longer believe that, but I
> > think
> > > > it's
> > > > > possible that Dehn was also bothered by the self-starting rock
> > > > and
> > > > > wanted to "unflub" a mistake made by his predecessors.
> > > > >
> > > > > ABMAC
> > > >
> > > > *** Heyyyy!!! A word I coined is now in use! "Unflub" lives!
> > > > Incidentally, you have a good point about the Mutants' rather
> > > > unimaginative use of their illusion-casting power. Why didn't
> > they
> > > > make the Apes think that the Queensboro Plaza subway tunnels
> > > > were caved in? If Ursus' army doesn't know there are tunnels
> > > > there leading to the "city of the dead", then Mendez & Co. are
> > safe
> > > > and sound. Or... why not fool the gorillas into thinking they see
> > > > other apes, instead of fleshy-headed mutants? All sorts of
> > > > possibilities...
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Handley" <handleyr@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1102


> >From: "Calima 5021" <calima5021com@...>
> >Subject: Last attempt
> >I'm making one last attempt at this two disc toon set.
> >Made a few adjustments, and hopefuly this will work.
> >I'll let you guys know in the morning what happened. Hopefuly my computer
> >won't explode! :o) Let's pray to the Lawgiver this works.
> >Pray your asses off. :o) annnnnd...GO!
>
> Al, you're a great guy just for even offering and attempting to do this --
> if it doesn't work out, don't sweat it. Thanks for your generosity,
either
> way!
>
> >P.S. OH AND, HAPPY DAD DAY EVERYONE! :o)
>
> Thanks, and I second that notion for all my fellow dads. :) I'm happily
> sitting back doing nothing today, and I'm about to go see Scooby-Doo with
> my five-year-old daughter to celebrate. Plus, my wife got me the Harry
> Potter DVD (I admit it, I loved the film), and I'll probably watch it with
> her later tonight, after which we'll recreate the event that caused me to
> be a dad in the first place. LOL!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:23 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] BATTLE DVD


> I got my copy in the mail the other day. Al, you're the swingingest
> monkey in this yahoo zoo... I can't thank you enough for this free
> nugget of joy.
>
> Now if I can only find a way to get it to play on my DVD player! For
> some reason, my DVD machine keeps ejecting it, saying it's "non-
> playable". Argh! It does, however, play on the DVD-rom drive of the PC
> in the computer cluster where I'm typing this (I don't have a DVD-rom
> drive on my home computer, an ancient Mac LC-II... yeah, yeah, I know
> I gotta upgrade one-a-these-days to something less outdated!). I don't
> have much experience with DVD-roms, and it took me a while to figure
> out how to get the PC to play it--not to mention how to get the sound
> to play along with the visuals. But it DOES work on the PC DVD-rom
> drive player thingy. Any suggestions as to how I might fool my home
> DVD player (the one hooked up to my TV) into playing it?
>
> One of the things that makes this "extended BATTLE" version
> particularly favored over the "normal" version is the parallelism
> between Kolp-and-Alma and Caesar-and-Lisa. The way this "extended"
> version plays, the contrast is noticably evident. Kolp and Caesar are
> both leaders of their respective peoples, and both have relationships
> with women... but Kolp's female companion, Alma, is not the type who
> "second-guesses" her man--she would have blindly followed through with
> Kolp's final wish: to detonate the Alpha Omega bomb... and it's only
> the intervention of Mendez which prevents that from happening.
> Caesar's wife Lisa, on the other hand, never just knits away and says
> "Yes, dear" to her husband; Lisa questions Caesar's decisions--which
> affect not only her and her family, but the entire community. Caesar
> tries to justify his assumptions about Kolp's people by saying that
> they're "malformed" (talk about a "surface" judgment!), and Lisa
> counters that with a comparison to "the freaks in [Armando's] circus".
> Caesar seems hell-bent on seeing ALL the humans in the Forbidden City
> as "mutant... and they're MAD...", yet if not for the humane, rational
> Mendez, Caesar's victory over Kolp would have been short-lived, and
> the "planet of the apes" would have been annihilated NOT in 3955 but
> in 2018 (or whenever BATTLE takes place... I think it's 2018, myself).
> BATTLE is far far better WITH this extra footage... so why the hell
> did Fox edit it out? It's not like the movie was "running long", since
> the playing time is less than an hour and a half (if I'm not
> mistaken), and a good chunk of that is mere flash-back to ESCAPE and
> CONQUEST in the "Lawgiver prologue" scene.
>
> If you ever do figure out a way to do the cartoons (either on a 2-disc
> or 3-disc set), I think you'll find that there are those of us out
> here who wouldn't mind plunking down a $20 bill for it, to off-set the
> inconvenience it obviously costs you (the 3-hour burning time). But
> even if you ultimately decide that you can't accomplish the task...
> hey, Al, your gift of the BATTLE DVD alone makes you "A-number-one" in
> my book. Hell, if I ever do manage to finish my magnum opus (which
> I've given the title "Destiny of the Planet of the Apes"--I mentioned
> it many months ago in one of my first postings, but haven't mentioned
> any time recently), be forewarned that you shall receive a
> complimentary copy of it, just as my "thank you" for this marvelous
> gift. Mind you, this won't be any time soon, since the Project is
> nowhere near to being completed--but IF it's ever done and published,
> there'll be a copy with your name on the inside front cover.
>
> Thanks again and again and again (ad infinitum), you "model for us
> all... a gorilla to remember..."
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-16-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:45 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] OT: "THE BOURNE IDENTITY" and "SCOOBY DOO"


> I went to see both "The Bourne Identity" and "Scooby Doo" yesterday,
> and I have to say I had a good time.
>
> BOURNE is terrific, a great non-Bond/Flint/"I Spy"/"Austin Powers" spy
> flick. As fun as the Bond films can be, they tend to get "over the
> top", whereas this Ludlum-based story has more of a "real world" feel
> to it (note: NOT the MTV "real world"!!!).
> I hope that this is the beginning of a franchise; Matt Damon does a
> great job (I haven't read the book it's based on, but judging just
> from the movie, other Bourne stories are more than welcome),
> convincing kicking ass in the fight scenes. I'm still not exactly sure
> how his character loses his recent memory (could it be a "Memento"-
> like form of amnesia?), but regardless, it was a good set-up: his
> "second nature" training as an assassin kicks in reflexively, even
> though he somehow can't remember that he was/is an assassin. Maybe the
> book better explains the memory loss bit, but no matter. The movie was
> great.
>
> SCOOBY DOO was about what I expected it to be: an okay film version of
> source material which I had no vested interest in seeing "done right"
> (like "Planet of the Apes" for instance). I was disappointed in
> Burton's flick... but "Scooby Doo" I found to be entertaining--
> especially when they made fun of the established concepts (portraying
> Scrappy Doo as the unwelcome "5th wheel" fans always thought him to
> be, for instance). The CGI work--though obviously "fakey"--did what it
> needed to do: bring to "life" an anthropomorphic dog who can actually
> talk! The casting was good (I didn't hate Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred,
> by God!)... and absolutely INSPIRED in the case of Matthew Lillard as
> Shaggy. He was perfect!
> The flick was geared more for a kids' audience, but there were just
> enough double entendres in it to amuse a 30-something guy like me. And
> I have to admit that Velma sure fills out that sweater...
>
> So... "THE BOURNE IDENTITY": 2 opposable thumbs UP! And "SCOOBY DOO":
> 2 opposable thumbs UP... if you're in the mood for this sorta thing. I
> was, so... yeah!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Maxwell" <alan@...>
To: "PotA" <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 9:11 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Talking of busts...


> This appeared in the new Previews magazine. As generic Apes
> characters, these are really nice pieces. Can't say that they're that
> brilliant as far as likenesses go, however.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> From what I understand, they cut out the "Battle" scenes to make
it more
> hopeful and ambiguous. It wasn't really a time issue (time as in
running
> time, not time travel). By the way, Fox has agreed to film more
scenes for
> the "X-Men" movie during "X-Men2" to be put on a special ed. DVD,
so they
> are still big on added scenes. Maybe we will get deleted scenes in
the next
> batch of "Apes" DVDs. I still say Fox's DVD program is the best
around.
> tc. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:23 AM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] BATTLE DVD
>
>
> > I got my copy in the mail the other day. Al, you're the
swingingest
> > monkey in this yahoo zoo... I can't thank you enough for this
free
> > nugget of joy.
> >
> > Now if I can only find a way to get it to play on my DVD player!
For
> > some reason, my DVD machine keeps ejecting it, saying it's "non-
> > playable". Argh! It does, however, play on the DVD-rom drive of
the PC
> > in the computer cluster where I'm typing this (I don't have a
DVD-rom
> > drive on my home computer, an ancient Mac LC-II... yeah, yeah, I
know
> > I gotta upgrade one-a-these-days to something less outdated!). I
don't
> > have much experience with DVD-roms, and it took me a while to
figure
> > out how to get the PC to play it--not to mention how to get the
sound
> > to play along with the visuals. But it DOES work on the PC DVD-
rom
> > drive player thingy. Any suggestions as to how I might fool my
home
> > DVD player (the one hooked up to my TV) into playing it?
> >
> > One of the things that makes this "extended BATTLE" version
> > particularly favored over the "normal" version is the parallelism
> > between Kolp-and-Alma and Caesar-and-Lisa. The way
this "extended"
> > version plays, the contrast is noticably evident. Kolp and
Caesar are
> > both leaders of their respective peoples, and both have
relationships
> > with women... but Kolp's female companion, Alma, is not the type
who
> > "second-guesses" her man--she would have blindly followed
through with
> > Kolp's final wish: to detonate the Alpha Omega bomb... and it's
only
> > the intervention of Mendez which prevents that from happening.
> > Caesar's wife Lisa, on the other hand, never just knits away and
says
> > "Yes, dear" to her husband; Lisa questions Caesar's decisions--
which
> > affect not only her and her family, but the entire community.
Caesar
> > tries to justify his assumptions about Kolp's people by saying
that
> > they're "malformed" (talk about a "surface" judgment!), and Lisa
> > counters that with a comparison to "the freaks in [Armando's]
circus".
> > Caesar seems hell-bent on seeing ALL the humans in the Forbidden
City
> > as "mutant... and they're MAD...", yet if not for the humane,
rational
> > Mendez, Caesar's victory over Kolp would have been short-lived,
and
> > the "planet of the apes" would have been annihilated NOT in 3955
but
> > in 2018 (or whenever BATTLE takes place... I think it's 2018,
myself).
> > BATTLE is far far better WITH this extra footage... so why the
hell
> > did Fox edit it out? It's not like the movie was "running long",
since
> > the playing time is less than an hour and a half (if I'm not
> > mistaken), and a good chunk of that is mere flash-back to ESCAPE
and
> > CONQUEST in the "Lawgiver prologue" scene.
> >
> > If you ever do figure out a way to do the cartoons (either on a
2-disc
> > or 3-disc set), I think you'll find that there are those of us
out
> > here who wouldn't mind plunking down a $20 bill for it, to off-
set the
> > inconvenience it obviously costs you (the 3-hour burning time).
But
> > even if you ultimately decide that you can't accomplish the
task...
> > hey, Al, your gift of the BATTLE DVD alone makes you "A-number-
one" in
> > my book. Hell, if I ever do manage to finish my magnum opus
(which
> > I've given the title "Destiny of the Planet of the Apes"--I
mentioned
> > it many months ago in one of my first postings, but haven't
mentioned
> > any time recently), be forewarned that you shall receive a
> > complimentary copy of it, just as my "thank you" for this
marvelous
> > gift. Mind you, this won't be any time soon, since the Project is
> > nowhere near to being completed--but IF it's ever done and
published,
> > there'll be a copy with your name on the inside front cover.
> >
> > Thanks again and again and again (ad infinitum), you "model for
us
> > all... a gorilla to remember..."
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-16-2002
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff & Susan Stringer [stringe@...]
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2002 2:50
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Talking of busts...
>
>
> These have far better likenesses then the ones available from
> www.apemania.com, in my opinion.
> Gristle P.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Maxwell" <alan@...>
> To: "PotA" <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:11 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Talking of busts...
>
>
> > This appeared in the new Previews magazine. As generic Apes
> > characters, these are really nice pieces. Can't say that they're that
> > brilliant as far as likenesses go, however.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>From: <veetus@...>
>Yes, Happy Father's Day, everyone. With consideration for those who grow
>up without fathers (like Caesar). Is "Harry Potter" as good as they say?
>Haven't gotten around to it, I just can't get excited about a Chris Columbus
>movie, though he was in line to do POTA at one point. Etc. - - - Jeff

>From: <veetus@...>
>Yeah, what's up with that? How come Velma is sexier than the bombshell,
>what's her name. Daphne? Velma is supposed to be the brain, not the body.
>But Shaggy is sexier than he was in the cartoon. For the record, I'm one of
>the few people in the world who liked the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Handley" <handleyr@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1104


> >From: <veetus@...>
> >Yes, Happy Father's Day, everyone. With consideration for those who grow
> >up without fathers (like Caesar). Is "Harry Potter" as good as they say?
> >Haven't gotten around to it, I just can't get excited about a Chris
Columbus
> >movie, though he was in line to do POTA at one point. Etc. - - - Jeff
>
> Oh, definitely -- one of the best films of last year, in my opinion. I
> predict it'll become another "Wizard of Oz" in years to come.
>
> >From: <veetus@...>
> >Yeah, what's up with that? How come Velma is sexier than the bombshell,
> >what's her name. Daphne? Velma is supposed to be the brain, not the body.
> >But Shaggy is sexier than he was in the cartoon. For the record, I'm one
of
> >the few people in the world who liked the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie.
>
> Me, too! I still don't understand why it was so disliked. As for
> Scooby-Doo -- damn funny film, and Shaggy was dead-on. I cringed when I
> heard Matthew Lillard was playing him, but I was wrong -- the man is
> perfect in the part. And Velma is hot, yes -- but in a smoldering, hidden
> sense, which works well in the movie. Cardellini nailed the role.
Freddie
> Prinze Jr., on the other hand... eh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Stan rolled his eyes and stopped paying attention as

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

From: Alan Maxwell

Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 4:47 AM

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Mexico in the TV series

 

"Eileen Rankin" <emr1623@...> wrote:

>Did the humans and apes exist elsewhere outside of the US?
>  When this topic was brought up, my immediate thought was
>what if the story took place in, say, Hong Kong?  Would we
>get something like those old martial arts movies with the
>bad voice overs?  Now that would be cool!!!  LOL

So you've not seen "Time of the Apes" then...?

Alan

Nope, I didn't come up with that word. Logozo, in the potafanfiction yahoo group, used it and I liked it. He said he saw someone on a message board somewhere use it and that's where he got it. Anyway, wherever it came from, I think it's cute. :o)

ThyPentacle

  LordTZer0@... wrote:

>
> Heston has said he liked the role because of the character arc, a
>misanthrope who winds up defending mankind. And to this day he says he's

>proud of the movie. In fact I just read in the Pendreigh book that Heston
>felt Taylor was more like him than any other character he's played. So
>perhaps there's more to it than surface considerations.
> - - - Jeff

>> This is addressed to everyone involved in this debate:
>>
>> You're assuming that Heston's views differ from Taylor's. When,
>> specifically, do Taylor's actions go against Heston's views?
>>
>> Taylor doesn't mock patriotism, he mocks misplaced patriotism. He
>> doesn't criticize conservatives, he criticizes censorship and
>> oppression. He isn't looking for a liberal utopia, he's looking for a
>> place where reason prevails. Reason is not the exclusive domain of
>> liberals.

>>
>> He doesn't want a gun because it's his right, he wants one because he
>> can't count on the chimps to kill other apes for his protection.
>>
>> What would Taylor have done differently if he'd had Heston's views?

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Heston has said he liked the role because of the character
arc, a
> >misanthrope who winds up defending mankind. And to this day he
says he's
>
> Heston could be a misanthrope in real life but that is pretty
common for
> conservatives.
>
>
> >proud of the movie. In fact I just read in the Pendreigh book
that Heston
> >felt Taylor was more like him than any other character he's
played. So
> >perhaps there's more to it than surface considerations.
> > - - - Jeff
>
> I'm not surprised Heston is proud of his role in POTA. That was
the most
> famous role of Heston's whole career and he did a great job in
it. IMO it
> would have been REALLY dumb for Heston to turn down the role as
has been
> suggested here. But the heros in the five POTA movies are
consistently
> liberals and George Taylor is no exception.
>
>
>
> >> This is addressed to everyone involved in this debate:
> >>
> >> You're assuming that Heston's views differ from Taylor's. When,
> >> specifically, do Taylor's actions go against Heston's views?
> >>
> >> Taylor doesn't mock patriotism, he mocks misplaced patriotism.
He
> >> doesn't criticize conservatives, he criticizes censorship and
> >> oppression. He isn't looking for a liberal utopia, he's looking
for a
> >> place where reason prevails. Reason is not the exclusive domain
of
> >> liberals.
>
> At the movie's opening Taylor echoes exactly two of the main
criticisms
> liberals made of conservatives in 1967. He does it twice later
elsewhere, not
> counting his dealings with Dr. Zaius and the other apes. I'll
explain this in
> detail below but the key to understanding POTA is to always
remember that the
> movie was made in 1967 and not in 2002. And apes are the main
tool of satire
> in the first movie so Taylor's and Landon's opinions are easier to
miss than
> Dr. Zaius, Zira, and Cornelius.
>
> >>
> >> He doesn't want a gun because it's his right, he wants one
because he
> >> can't count on the chimps to kill other apes for his protection.
> >>
> >> What would Taylor have done differently if he'd had Heston's
views?
>
>
> The POTA movies were written during the liberalism of the 1960's
and early
> 1970's by liberal writers like Mike Wilson (blacklisted by
Hollywood for
> "unamerican activities") and Paul Dehn. To understand the satire
in POTA
> keep in mind that the anti-conservatism in the POTA movies is about
> conservatism as it was perceived in 1967 -- not in 2002. Of
course you can
> just watch POTA as entertainment if you don't want to be bothered
by all the
> satirical messages. But it is common for sci-fi to have satire,
and POTA
> reaches the same satirical level as Gulliver's Travels and Animal
Farm.
>
> The heros in the POTA movies are ALWAYS liberals. The villians in
the POTA
> movies are always conservatives. This is true of all five of the
original
> POTA movies (except only for the BENEATH mutants), but I'll just
focus on the
> first movie here. The liberals are Zira, Cornelius, Lucius, and
Taylor. The
> conservatives are Dr. Zaius, the other orangutans, the gorilla
commander, and
> the "golden boy" patriotic flag planting Landon. Landon is not
portrayed as a
> villian, just a misguided soul whom the writers later have
lobotomized.
>
> Since the apes are the main tools of satire, not much time is
spent on Taylor
> and Landon's views. But we are still given enough clues to know
that
> Taylor is a liberal, and therefore one of the "good guys" in the
movie.
> Taylor criticizes not just the orangutans -- he also criticizes
human
> conservatives several times in the movie, including his opening
monologue
> and his constant mocking of Landon.
>
> "The men who sent me on this mission are long since dead and
buried. The
> few who are reading me know are a different breed, and I hope a
better one."
>
> Here Taylor expresses his hope that the world has improved from
the one which
> he escaped from. But what exactly, are the changes Taylor hopes
for? Taylor
> tells us a little bit later...
>
> "Does man...still make war against his brother? And keep his
neighbors
> children starving?"
>
> Taylor's criticism of conservatives here are EXACTLY the same two
issues that
> liberals were most concerned about in 1967 when the movie was
made. The
> steadily escalating Vietnam War and LBJ's Great Society war on
poverty. The
> conservatives of that time labeled these liberal sentiments of
Taylor
> "pacifism" and "redistribution of wealth". It may not seem fair
today to
> associate pacifist sentiments with liberalism and war with
conservatives -- but
> that is precisely how things were perceived in 1967 at the height
of the
> Vietnam War.
>
> Later on the patriotic Landon plants his American flag in the
desert. Landon
> is proud of what he thinks is an impressive American achievement,
i.e. "the big
> one". Neither Taylor nor Landon know that the USA no longer
exists. Not only
> does Taylor laugh at Landon, he lets out a big hearty mocking
laugh. Heston
> clearly wouldn't do that, Heston would more likely do what Landon
did and put
> the American flag up. That laugh is so long it is over-the-top.
But I don't
> think that was Heston's fault, I think that the script
specifically called for
> it. Taylor is mocking flag-waving, patriotism, and what was
thought of as
> American imperialism. Later Taylor continues to mock "golden boy"
Landon so
> much that Landon finally tells his superior to "get off my back".
>
> Of course after Sept 11 2002 liberals like to display American
flags and are
> every bit as patriotic as conservatives are. But in 1967 things
were very
> different than 2002. Both the flag and patriotism was then
perceived by
> liberals as something exploited and hijacked by conservatives to
justify war.
> That is why flaq-waving was then held in low rebute by liberals
who liked to do
> unpatriotic things (remember "Hanoi Jane") just to piss off
conservatives.
>
> The final occasion where the movie criticizes human conservatives
through
> Taylor is at the end. "You bloody maniacs you blew it up!" A
viewer in 2002
> may not think it is fair to blame conservatives for the nuclear
war, but in
> 1967 there was a very real fear among liberals that conservative
policies could
> eventally lead to a nuclear war. So much so that in the 1964
election LBJ
> exploited these liberal fears with TV commercials showing mushroom
clouds and a
> little girl suggesting there would be nuclear war if the
conservative
> Goldwater won the election.
>
> Questions?
>
>
>

>Let me ask you this, Melkie: if the KKK and/or a bunch of neo-Nazis

>Similarly, if Heston had vociferously disagreed with the political
>messages incorporated into "PLANET OF THE APES", then his conscience

>I was NOT saying that Heston--by portraying Taylor, who "goes around
>mocking the American flag" etc.--was "selling out", as you mistakenly
>keep inferring. I don't believe that the total film "POTA" endorses
>the mocking of the American flag, just because the main character does
>this. Taylor is the protagonist--but he is NOT a "hero". In a way,
>he's sort of an "anti-hero" whose actions are NOT necessarily
>laudable.

>We aren't meant to cheer Taylor's laughing at
>Landon planting the flag--quite the opposite, I think.

>Yet IF the
>script had been different, and if it HAD called for the audience to
>respond favorably to Taylor's "anti-American" mocking of Landon and
>his flag... then I seriously doubt if Heston would have agreed to do
>such a picture. Heston was savvy enough to know that the character he
>played was NOT a hero, NOT somebody the audience should deem heroic--
>hell, neither are most of the protagonists of Shakespeare's tragedies,

>What about Moses?

>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T

> ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship

> rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,

> blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been

> and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same

> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size,

> because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said

> really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I

> doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its

> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could

> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear

> is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown

> emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and

> doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was

> to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the

> sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship

> the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's

> say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or

> series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape

> functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has

> ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it

> so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I

> could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the

> Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother

> around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far

> all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I

> remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he

> though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the

> they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller

> referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those

> it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be

> (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-

> it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to

> had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be

> escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return

> mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
>

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >What about Moses?
>
> What about Moses?
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
previously
> considered.
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the
> Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be
> covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency
> device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced
(well,
> if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed
> (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is
> Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior was
> replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they completely
> different too?
>
> Michael

> I really think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit here.
> They messed up on so many of the big details I don't think they
> really worried about continuity of such small details as how many
> chairs were in the ship or what the controls looked like.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
> previously
> > considered.
> >
> > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> > mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the
> > Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be
> > covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an

> > device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced
> (well,
> > if they can raise a ship...).
> >
> > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but

> > anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed
> > (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is
> > Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior was
> > replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they completely
> > different too?
> >
> > Michael
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

>
>Isn't Moses Heston's most famous role?
>
>--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
>> >What about Moses?
>>
>> What about Moses?
>

--- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand (I give the filmakers little credit - I
> can't believe they were so sloppy!).
>
> I am not saying the filmakers woould have been planning for this,
> just that nothing discounts the possibility or makes it too
> unbelievable. That's what I'm looking for.
>
> Michael
>
> --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > I really think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit
here.
> > They messed up on so many of the big details I don't think they
> > really worried about continuity of such small details as how
many
> > chairs were in the ship or what the controls looked like.
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
> > previously
> > > considered.
> > >
> > > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> > > mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as
the
> > > Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be
> > > covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an
> emergency
> > > device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced
> > (well,
> > > if they can raise a ship...).
> > >
> > > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but
> has
> > > anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed
> > > (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it
is
> > > Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior was
> > > replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they
completely
> > > different too?
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ ------------------
---
> ~-->
> > Free $5 Love Reading
> > Risk Free!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
---
> -~->
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >
> >Isn't Moses Heston's most famous role?
> >
> >--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >> >What about Moses?
> >>
> >> What about Moses?
> >
>
> I read somewhere that POTA was supposed to be Heston's most famous
> role (maybe Heston himself said so?). But I guess it is a
subjective
> thing. The 10 Commandments was certainly a memorable movie too
and I
> don't doubt that a lot of people think of that one first.
>
>
>

> Sorry, guess I did misunderstand. But remember this, at the time
> these films were made there was no such thing as home video. The
> filmmakers probably never thought the films would have such
> longevity or that people would one day be able to have them in

> homes going over them frame by frame.
> Since Escape was released 3 years after Planet, they probably
> thought the ships looked close enough alike and no one would notice
> the changes they made.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I think you misunderstand (I give the filmakers little credit - I
> > can't believe they were so sloppy!).
> >
> > I am not saying the filmakers woould have been planning for this,
> > just that nothing discounts the possibility or makes it too
> > unbelievable. That's what I'm looking for.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > I really think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit
> here.
> > > They messed up on so many of the big details I don't think they
> > > really worried about continuity of such small details as how
> many
> > > chairs were in the ship or what the controls looked like.
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > > T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
> > > previously
> > > > considered.
> > > >
> > > > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> > > > mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as
> the
> > > > Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be
> > > > covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an
> > emergency
> > > > device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced
> > > (well,
> > > > if they can raise a ship...).
> > > >
> > > > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here,

> > has
> > > > anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was

> > > > (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that

> is
> > > > Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior

> > > > replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they
> completely
> > > > different too?
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ -----------------

> ---
> > ~-->
> > > Free $5 Love Reading
> > > Risk Free!
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------

> ---
> > -~->
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

>From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
>Reply-To: pota@yahoogroups.com
>To: pota@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Moses
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:46:29 -0700
>

> In a message dated 6/17/2002 8:12:21 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
>
> > The reason I don't like Patrick's creation of a mother ship

> > Earth is because there is just no disputing in my mind that all
> > references to "Earth" were to the planet earth.
>
> I'm with you here Michael. It's a given that all references

> our planet Earth...
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1104


> Jeff,
>
> Harry Potter is a great film! I have read all the books and I love those
too. I was nervous when they named Columbus to direct, but he did a perfect
job. It's well worth a look (as well as a read).
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <CheeseGOTAS@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1104


> In a message dated 6/17/02 10:08:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
MTotsky@...
> writes:
>
> << It's well worth a look (as well as a read).
>
> Matt >>
>
> I agree with you on the reading part... but the movie bored me to death.
I
> saw it twice, to make sure I didn't miss anything (how could you? It was
> exactly like the book) but the movie didn't get any better. It was too
long,
> and it was too much like the book. The special effects were kind of
cheesey
> too. When movies are made from books, I expect some things to be
different,
> as with Planet of the Apes, heh. But, Harry Potter was too much like the
> book for my tastes, and that just made it too long.
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Anti-conservatism in POTA revisited (long)


> >
> > Heston has said he liked the role because of the character arc, a
> >misanthrope who winds up defending mankind. And to this day he says he's
>
> Heston could be a misanthrope in real life but that is pretty common for
> conservatives.
>
>
> >proud of the movie. In fact I just read in the Pendreigh book that Heston
> >felt Taylor was more like him than any other character he's played. So
> >perhaps there's more to it than surface considerations.
> > - - - Jeff
>
> I'm not surprised Heston is proud of his role in POTA. That was the most
> famous role of Heston's whole career and he did a great job in it. IMO it
> would have been REALLY dumb for Heston to turn down the role as has been
> suggested here. But the heros in the five POTA movies are consistently
> liberals and George Taylor is no exception.
>
>
>
> >> This is addressed to everyone involved in this debate:
> >>
> >> You're assuming that Heston's views differ from Taylor's. When,
> >> specifically, do Taylor's actions go against Heston's views?
> >>
> >> Taylor doesn't mock patriotism, he mocks misplaced patriotism. He
> >> doesn't criticize conservatives, he criticizes censorship and
> >> oppression. He isn't looking for a liberal utopia, he's looking for a
> >> place where reason prevails. Reason is not the exclusive domain of
> >> liberals.
>
> At the movie's opening Taylor echoes exactly two of the main criticisms
> liberals made of conservatives in 1967. He does it twice later elsewhere,
not
> counting his dealings with Dr. Zaius and the other apes. I'll explain
this in
> detail below but the key to understanding POTA is to always remember that
the
> movie was made in 1967 and not in 2002. And apes are the main tool of
satire
> in the first movie so Taylor's and Landon's opinions are easier to miss
than
> Dr. Zaius, Zira, and Cornelius.
>
> >>
> >> He doesn't want a gun because it's his right, he wants one because he
> >> can't count on the chimps to kill other apes for his protection.
> >>
> >> What would Taylor have done differently if he'd had Heston's views?
>
>
> The POTA movies were written during the liberalism of the 1960's and early
> 1970's by liberal writers like Mike Wilson (blacklisted by Hollywood for
> "unamerican activities") and Paul Dehn. To understand the satire in POTA
> keep in mind that the anti-conservatism in the POTA movies is about
> conservatism as it was perceived in 1967 -- not in 2002. Of course you
can
> just watch POTA as entertainment if you don't want to be bothered by all
the
> satirical messages. But it is common for sci-fi to have satire, and POTA
> reaches the same satirical level as Gulliver's Travels and Animal Farm.
>
> The heros in the POTA movies are ALWAYS liberals. The villians in the
POTA
> movies are always conservatives. This is true of all five of the
original
> POTA movies (except only for the BENEATH mutants), but I'll just focus on
the
> first movie here. The liberals are Zira, Cornelius, Lucius, and Taylor.
The
> conservatives are Dr. Zaius, the other orangutans, the gorilla commander,
and
> the "golden boy" patriotic flag planting Landon. Landon is not portrayed
as a
> villian, just a misguided soul whom the writers later have lobotomized.
>
> Since the apes are the main tools of satire, not much time is spent on
Taylor
> and Landon's views. But we are still given enough clues to know that
> Taylor is a liberal, and therefore one of the "good guys" in the movie.
> Taylor criticizes not just the orangutans -- he also criticizes human
> conservatives several times in the movie, including his opening monologue
> and his constant mocking of Landon.
>
> "The men who sent me on this mission are long since dead and buried.
The
> few who are reading me know are a different breed, and I hope a better
one."
>
> Here Taylor expresses his hope that the world has improved from the one
which
> he escaped from. But what exactly, are the changes Taylor hopes for?
Taylor
> tells us a little bit later...
>
> "Does man...still make war against his brother? And keep his neighbors
> children starving?"
>
> Taylor's criticism of conservatives here are EXACTLY the same two issues
that
> liberals were most concerned about in 1967 when the movie was made. The
> steadily escalating Vietnam War and LBJ's Great Society war on poverty.
The
> conservatives of that time labeled these liberal sentiments of Taylor
> "pacifism" and "redistribution of wealth". It may not seem fair today to
> associate pacifist sentiments with liberalism and war with
conservatives -- but
> that is precisely how things were perceived in 1967 at the height of the
> Vietnam War.
>
> Later on the patriotic Landon plants his American flag in the desert.
Landon
> is proud of what he thinks is an impressive American achievement, i.e.
"the big
> one". Neither Taylor nor Landon know that the USA no longer exists. Not
only
> does Taylor laugh at Landon, he lets out a big hearty mocking laugh.
Heston
> clearly wouldn't do that, Heston would more likely do what Landon did and
put
> the American flag up. That laugh is so long it is over-the-top. But I
don't
> think that was Heston's fault, I think that the script specifically called
for
> it. Taylor is mocking flag-waving, patriotism, and what was thought of as
> American imperialism. Later Taylor continues to mock "golden boy" Landon
so
> much that Landon finally tells his superior to "get off my back".
>
> Of course after Sept 11 2002 liberals like to display American flags and
are
> every bit as patriotic as conservatives are. But in 1967 things were very
> different than 2002. Both the flag and patriotism was then perceived by
> liberals as something exploited and hijacked by conservatives to justify
war.
> That is why flaq-waving was then held in low rebute by liberals who liked
to do
> unpatriotic things (remember "Hanoi Jane") just to piss off conservatives.
>
> The final occasion where the movie criticizes human conservatives through
> Taylor is at the end. "You bloody maniacs you blew it up!" A viewer in
2002
> may not think it is fair to blame conservatives for the nuclear war, but
in
> 1967 there was a very real fear among liberals that conservative policies
could
> eventally lead to a nuclear war. So much so that in the 1964 election LBJ
> exploited these liberal fears with TV commercials showing mushroom clouds
and a
> little girl suggesting there would be nuclear war if the conservative
> Goldwater won the election.
>
> Questions?
>
>
>

> I reckon I should see "Potter" just for the cultural

> just add in my usual entertainment industry wisdom that Columbus is

> out of "Potter #3" as director, so he can take a break. But the

> machine rolls on as they look for a new director to continue the

> "Potter" a year for 7 years (those kids will make more money before

> graduate from high school than we will in our lives!).
> - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MTotsky@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 7:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1104
>
>
> > Jeff,
> >
> > Harry Potter is a great film! I have read all the books and I

> too. I was nervous when they named Columbus to direct, but he did a

> job. It's well worth a look (as well as a read).
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Anti-conservatism in POTA revisited (long)
(OT)


> >What about Moses?
>
> What about Moses?
>
>
>

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship

We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).

I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design, etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before, it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...

I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)?  I suppose you could also say the interior was replaced?  But what about the controls etc?  Are they completely different too?

I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth" flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.

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

From: veetus@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:23 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship

  I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd mention if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry, sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".

  I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give the removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship and it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put that in the new DVDs! Etc.                                                    - - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship

We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).

I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design, etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before, it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...

I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)?  I suppose you could also say the interior was replaced?  But what about the controls etc?  Are they completely different too?

I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth" flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 7:46 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Moses


> >
> >Isn't Moses Heston's most famous role?
> >
> >--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >> >What about Moses?
> >>
> >> What about Moses?
> >
>
> I read somewhere that POTA was supposed to be Heston's most famous
> role (maybe Heston himself said so?). But I guess it is a subjective
> thing. The 10 Commandments was certainly a memorable movie too and I
> don't doubt that a lot of people think of that one first.
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <CheeseGOTAS@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1104


> In a message dated 6/17/02 11:58:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
> veetus@... writes:
>
> << How does it compare with "Lord of the Rings" or "Dune" (the
miniseries)
> which some also felt were too long and too anal about the books?
Etc. - -
> Jeff >>
>
> Lord of the Rings I didn't like as much as everyone else. I enjoyed it
> though, because the part I wanted out most (Tom Bombadil, what the hell)
> wasn't there. And since the Tom Bombadil part took up a lot of story, it
was
> good that that crud was gone. I actually stopped watching the Dune
> miniseries halfway through, because it was getting to long for me. I
rented
> it on video, because I had missed it on Sci-Fi, and I just couldn't sit
> through all of it. The next day, I watched the original movie with my
> friend. And, I heard (here I believe) 'they' are making movies off of the
> other Dune books. Is that true at all?
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Well, the newer generations don't seem to know "The 10

> "Ben Hur" as well as they do sci-fi stuff like POTA. Maybe that

> post-"Gladiator". Who knows? Maybe one day Mr. Heston's most famous

> will be the cameo in "Wayne's World 2". Etc. - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 7:46 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Moses
>
>
> > >
> > >Isn't Moses Heston's most famous role?
> > >
> > >--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > >> >What about Moses?
> > >>
> > >> What about Moses?
> > >
> >
> > I read somewhere that POTA was supposed to be Heston's most famous
> > role (maybe Heston himself said so?). But I guess it is a

> > thing. The 10 Commandments was certainly a memorable movie too

> > don't doubt that a lot of people think of that one first.
> >
> >
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "Calima 5021" <calima5021com@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Last attempt


>
> I'm making one last attempt at this two disc toon set.
> Made a few adjustments, and hopefuly this will work.
> I'll let you guys know in the morning what happened. Hopefuly my computer
> won't explode! :o)
>
> Let's pray to the Lawgiver this works.
> Pray your asses off. :o)
>
> annnnnd...GO!
>
> Best.
> Al
>
> P.S. OH AND, HAPPY DAD DAY EVERYONE! :o)
>
>
>
> _____

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Well, the newer generations don't seem to know "The 10
Commandments" or
> "Ben Hur" as well as they do sci-fi stuff like POTA. Maybe that
will change
> post-"Gladiator". Who knows? Maybe one day Mr. Heston's most
famous role
> will be the cameo in "Wayne's World 2". Etc. - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Melkor" <melkor@m...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 7:46 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Moses
>
>
> > >
> > >Isn't Moses Heston's most famous role?
> > >
> > >--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > >> >What about Moses?
> > >>
> > >> What about Moses?
> > >
> >
> > I read somewhere that POTA was supposed to be Heston's most
famous
> > role (maybe Heston himself said so?). But I guess it is a
subjective
> > thing. The 10 Commandments was certainly a memorable movie too
and I
> > don't doubt that a lot of people think of that one first.
> >
> >
> >

--- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Agreed, and until recently I did not notice the differences either
> because it was not that important, but noe that it has been
pointed
> out it irritates the crap out of me.
>
> Michael
>
> --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > Sorry, guess I did misunderstand. But remember this, at the time
> > these films were made there was no such thing as home video. The
> > filmmakers probably never thought the films would have such
> > longevity or that people would one day be able to have them in
> their
> > homes going over them frame by frame.
> > Since Escape was released 3 years after Planet, they probably
> > thought the ships looked close enough alike and no one would
notice
> > the changes they made.
> >
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > I think you misunderstand (I give the filmakers little credit -
I
> > > can't believe they were so sloppy!).
> > >
> > > I am not saying the filmakers woould have been planning for
this,
> > > just that nothing discounts the possibility or makes it too
> > > unbelievable. That's what I'm looking for.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > > I really think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit
> > here.
> > > > They messed up on so many of the big details I don't think
they
> > > > really worried about continuity of such small details as how
> > many
> > > > chairs were in the ship or what the controls looked like.
> > > >
> > > > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > > > T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
> > > > previously
> > > > > considered.
> > > > >
> > > > > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities.
T
> > > > > mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same
as
> > the
> > > > > Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could
be
> > > > > covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an
> > > emergency
> > > > > device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
replaced
> > > > (well,
> > > > > if they can raise a ship...).
> > > > >
> > > > > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here,
> but
> > > has
> > > > > anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was
> removed
> > > > > (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe
that
> it
> > is
> > > > > Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior
> was
> > > > > replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they
> > completely
> > > > > different too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------ --------------
---
> -
> > ---
> > > ~-->
> > > > Free $5 Love Reading
> > > > Risk Free!
> > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
---
> -
> > ---
> > > -~->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ ------------------
---
> ~-->
> > Free $5 Love Reading
> > Risk Free!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
---
> -~->
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: The Hatch


> I know what you mean the Taylor's dogtags really irritate me. I bet
> everyone has one mistake that really bugs them.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Agreed, and until recently I did not notice the differences either
> > because it was not that important, but noe that it has been
> pointed
> > out it irritates the crap out of me.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > Sorry, guess I did misunderstand. But remember this, at the time
> > > these films were made there was no such thing as home video. The
> > > filmmakers probably never thought the films would have such
> > > longevity or that people would one day be able to have them in
> > their
> > > homes going over them frame by frame.
> > > Since Escape was released 3 years after Planet, they probably
> > > thought the ships looked close enough alike and no one would
> notice
> > > the changes they made.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > > I think you misunderstand (I give the filmakers little credit -
> I
> > > > can't believe they were so sloppy!).
> > > >
> > > > I am not saying the filmakers woould have been planning for
> this,
> > > > just that nothing discounts the possibility or makes it too
> > > > unbelievable. That's what I'm looking for.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > --- "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > > > I really think you're giving the filmmakers too much credit
> > > here.
> > > > > They messed up on so many of the big details I don't think
> they
> > > > > really worried about continuity of such small details as how
> > > many
> > > > > chairs were in the ship or what the controls looked like.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > > > > T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not
> > > > > previously
> > > > > > considered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities.
> T
> > > > > > mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same
> as
> > > the
> > > > > > Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could
> be
> > > > > > covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an
> > > > emergency
> > > > > > device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced
> > > > > (well,
> > > > > > if they can raise a ship...).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here,
> > but
> > > > has
> > > > > > anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was
> > removed
> > > > > > (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe
> that
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior
> > was
> > > > > > replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they
> > > completely
> > > > > > different too?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------ --------------
> ---
> > -
> > > ---
> > > > ~-->
> > > > > Free $5 Love Reading
> > > > > Risk Free!
> > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > -
> > > ---
> > > > -~->
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ ------------------
> ---
> > ~-->
> > > Free $5 Love Reading
> > > Risk Free!
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > -~->
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like
they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd mention
if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why
yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In
those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They
could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give the
removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're
talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship and
it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put
that in the new DVDs!
- - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: mlccougar@...
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship



We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned the
ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the
rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the
blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered
and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).

I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify
their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch
was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an
escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...

I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has anyone
ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes it
so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I suppose you
could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the controls etc?
Are they completely different too?

I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as
that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel
that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
"main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
"escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could
be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----
From: mlccougar@...
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship



We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because
the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas
the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).

I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify
their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch
was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an
escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...

I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
suppose you could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
controls etc? Are they completely different too?

I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as
that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel
that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
"main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
"escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could
be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff & Susan Stringer" <stringe@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


> That's NOTHING. Look closely at the Klingon Bird Of Prey bridge layout
in
> STAR TREK III, then look at the SAME ship's bridge layout in STAR TREK IV.
> But as for the difference between the PLANET ship interior, and the ESCAPE
> ship interior, here it is: It's Taylor's ship. Cornelius said so. That
parts
> were salved from Brent's ship is an agreeable theory. Secondly, it looks
> different because of the film's budget and time constraints. No
mothership,
> no lifeboats. If you can't sleep at night because the dashboards don't
> match, seek professional help. ;)
> I would love to see the ESCAPE ship interior shots. I had no idea there
> ever WAS such a scene. Were our ape friends in their helmets, or out? It
> would indeed be anti-clamactic to see them revealed twice.
> Gristle P. aka, "Jeff", also. ;)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <veetus@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like
> they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd
mention
> if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why
> yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
> sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
> I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In
> those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They
> could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give
the
> removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're
> talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship
and
> it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put
> that in the new DVDs!
> - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
the
> ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the
> rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas
the
> blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
recovered
> and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
> it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
> been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
justify
> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
hatch
> was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
> ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
> from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
> the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
> in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as
an
> escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
anyone
> ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes
it
> so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I suppose
you
> could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the controls
etc?
> Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
as
> that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
novel
> that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
> they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
> to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It
could
> be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
> return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff & Susan Stringer" <stringe@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


>
> If Fox goes to the trouble of digging up unused scenes (and maybe
Thompson's
> cut of "Conquest"?) they'd want to hype it for all it's worth.
>
> I would pay serious money to hear Caesar's original, unedited speech...!
> :)
> Gristle P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
> the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because
> the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
whereas
> the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
> recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship
as
> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
> it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
> been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
justify
> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
hatch
> was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
> ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
> from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
> the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
> in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as
an
> escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
> makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> suppose you could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> controls etc? Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
as
> that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
novel
> that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
> they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
> to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It
could
> be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
> return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Same here, from what I know about the original version of Conquest, it seems to me that it would be a great idea to release it again without the "Hollywood happier ending" edits in there to ruin it.

ThyPentacle

  Jeff & Susan Stringer <stringe@...> wrote:

If Fox goes to the trouble of digging up unused scenes (and maybe Thompson's
cut of "Conquest"?) they'd want to hype it for all it's worth.

  I would pay serious money to hear Caesar's original, unedited speech...!
:)
Gristle P.






    ----- Original Message -----
    From: mlccougar@...
    To: pota@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
    Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship



    We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because
the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas
the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).

    I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify
their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch
was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an
escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...

    I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)?  I
suppose you could also say the interior was replaced?  But what about the
controls etc?  Are they completely different too?

    I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as
that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel
that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
"main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
"escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could
be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.

You'll also find rare inside shots of those ships here:

http://www.cloudster.com/

ThyPentacle

  veetus@... wrote:

   There's a photo of the interior of the "Escape" ship in one of the recent
books (I think POTA Revisited"). They had the helmets on but said things
like, "The fools did it! They destroyed the world!" I think they are still
concealed as apes until the reveal on the beach.
Also, the "Legend of the POTA" book has some cool shots of the Nova
pregnancy scene. Come on, Fox! Show that stuff. I'll be your best friend.
Etc. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff & Susan Stringer" <stringe@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


>   That's NOTHING. Look closely at the Klingon Bird Of Prey bridge layout
in
> STAR TREK III, then look at the SAME ship's bridge layout in STAR TREK IV.
> But as for the difference between the PLANET ship interior, and the ESCAPE
> ship interior, here it is: It's Taylor's ship. Cornelius said so. That
parts
> were salved from Brent's ship is an agreeable theory. Secondly, it looks
> different because of the film's budget and time constraints. No
mothership,
> no lifeboats. If you can't sleep at night because the dashboards don't
> match, seek professional help. ;)
>   I would love to see the ESCAPE ship interior shots. I had no idea there
> ever WAS such a scene. Were our ape friends in their helmets, or out? It
> would indeed be anti-clamactic to see them revealed twice.
> Gristle P. aka, "Jeff", also. ;)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <veetus@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>   I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like
> they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd
mention
> if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why
> yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
> sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
>   I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In
> those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They
> could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give
the
> removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're
> talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship
and
> it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put
> that in the new DVDs!
>      - - - Jeff
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: mlccougar@...
>   To: pota@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
>   Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
>   We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
the
> ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the
> rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas
the
> blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
recovered
> and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
>   I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
> it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
> been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
justify
> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
hatch
> was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
> ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
> from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
> the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
> in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as
an
> escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
>   I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
anyone
> ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes
it
> so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)?  I suppose
you
> could also say the interior was replaced?  But what about the controls
etc?
> Are they completely different too?
>
>   I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
as
> that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
novel
> that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
> they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
> to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It
could
> be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff & Susan Stringer [stringe@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2002 6:41
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> That's NOTHING. Look closely at the Klingon Bird Of Prey bridge
> layout in
> STAR TREK III, then look at the SAME ship's bridge layout in STAR TREK IV.
> But as for the difference between the PLANET ship interior, and the ESCAPE
> ship interior, here it is: It's Taylor's ship. Cornelius said so.
> That parts
> were salved from Brent's ship is an agreeable theory. Secondly, it looks
> different because of the film's budget and time constraints. No
> mothership,
> no lifeboats. If you can't sleep at night because the dashboards don't
> match, seek professional help. ;)
> I would love to see the ESCAPE ship interior shots. I had no idea there
> ever WAS such a scene. Were our ape friends in their helmets, or out? It
> would indeed be anti-clamactic to see them revealed twice.
> Gristle P. aka, "Jeff", also. ;)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <veetus@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like
> they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think
> he'd mention
> if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why
> yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
> sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
> I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In
> those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They
> could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut
> to give the
> removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're
> talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside
> the ship and
> it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put
> that in the new DVDs!
> - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> mentioned the
> ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the
> rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
> whereas the
> blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have
> been recovered
> and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as
> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
> it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
> been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that
> could justify
> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the
> blown hatch
> was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
> ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
> from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
> the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
> in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is
> meant as an
> escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but
> has anyone
> ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because
> it makes it
> so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> suppose you
> could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> controls etc?
> Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said
> as far as
> that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read
> the novel
> that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
> they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
> to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main
> ship. It could
> be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
> return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-----Original Message-----
From: LordTZer0@... [LordTZer0@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2002 7:56
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship

Thanks Pentaclese,
For the Icarus Capsule Interiors
These are great, but does anyone
have that pic of them from behind
sitting in their suits w/ helmets on?
Or was it from the side?  Can't recall.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


> There's a photo of the interior of the "Escape" ship in one of the
recent
> books (I think POTA Revisited"). They had the helmets on but said things
> like, "The fools did it! They destroyed the world!" I think they are still
> concealed as apes until the reveal on the beach.
> Also, the "Legend of the POTA" book has some cool shots of the Nova
> pregnancy scene. Come on, Fox! Show that stuff. I'll be your best friend.
> Etc. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff & Susan Stringer" <stringe@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> > That's NOTHING. Look closely at the Klingon Bird Of Prey bridge layout
> in
> > STAR TREK III, then look at the SAME ship's bridge layout in STAR TREK
IV.
> > But as for the difference between the PLANET ship interior, and the
ESCAPE
> > ship interior, here it is: It's Taylor's ship. Cornelius said so. That
> parts
> > were salved from Brent's ship is an agreeable theory. Secondly, it looks
> > different because of the film's budget and time constraints. No
> mothership,
> > no lifeboats. If you can't sleep at night because the dashboards don't
> > match, seek professional help. ;)
> > I would love to see the ESCAPE ship interior shots. I had no idea
there
> > ever WAS such a scene. Were our ape friends in their helmets, or out? It
> > would indeed be anti-clamactic to see them revealed twice.
> > Gristle P. aka, "Jeff", also. ;)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <veetus@...>
> > To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
> >
> >
> > I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act
like
> > they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd
> mention
> > if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is".
"Why
> > yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
> > sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
> > I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In
> > those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They
> > could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give
> the
> > removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're
> > talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship
> and
> > it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put
> > that in the new DVDs!
> > - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mlccougar@...
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
> >
> >
> >
> > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
> the
> > ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because
the
> > rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas
> the
> > blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
> recovered
> > and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
> >
> > I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship
as
> > Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> > etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said
before,
> > it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I
have
> > been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its
not
> > possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
> justify
> > their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> > ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
> hatch
> > was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> > replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that
sinking
> > ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious
just
> > from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part
of
> > the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> > thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller
one
> > in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as
> an
> > escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in
danger...
> >
> > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone
> > ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
makes
> it
> > so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I suppose
> you
> > could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the controls
> etc?
> > Are they completely different too?
> >
> > I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> > flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
> as
> > that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again,
I
> > don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what
he
> > said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
> novel
> > that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller
ships
> > they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> > that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> > "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> > "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't
get
> > to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It
> could
> > be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
> > return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I'll dig up the photo from the Marvel 70s Mags and scan it - there
must be
> more photos I have not already seen.
>
> I am not stupid, I realise why they filmed a different ship and I
know it is
> supposed to be the same ship, but I am looking for a reasonable,
believable
> way to explain how this can happen. although I know there is
probably no
> smaller ship(/s) inside Taylor's, it is not totally unbelievable
to say that
> there was. What is unbelievable is what is written/implied: that
a totally
> workable ship was raised and flown with very little time to do
so. And yes
> that bothers me.
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff & Susan Stringer [stringe@b...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2002 6:41
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
> >
> >
> > That's NOTHING. Look closely at the Klingon Bird Of Prey bridge
> > layout in
> > STAR TREK III, then look at the SAME ship's bridge layout in
STAR TREK IV.
> > But as for the difference between the PLANET ship interior, and
the ESCAPE
> > ship interior, here it is: It's Taylor's ship. Cornelius said so.
> > That parts
> > were salved from Brent's ship is an agreeable theory. Secondly,
it looks
> > different because of the film's budget and time constraints. No
> > mothership,
> > no lifeboats. If you can't sleep at night because the dashboards
don't
> > match, seek professional help. ;)
> > I would love to see the ESCAPE ship interior shots. I had no
idea there
> > ever WAS such a scene. Were our ape friends in their helmets, or
out? It
> > would indeed be anti-clamactic to see them revealed twice.
> > Gristle P. aka, "Jeff", also. ;)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <veetus@e...>
> > To: <pota@y...>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
> >
> >
> > I really don't think that holds water, because the 3
astronauts act like
> > they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think
> > he'd mention
> > if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it
is". "Why
> > yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm
sorry,
> > sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
> > I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't
match. In
> > those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films.
They
> > could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut
> > to give the
> > removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know
what we're
> > talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside
> > the ship and
> > it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh
please put
> > that in the new DVDs!
> > - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mlccougar@a...
> > To: pota@y...
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
> >
> >
> >
> > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> > mentioned the
> > ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship
because the
> > rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
> > whereas the
> > blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have
> > been recovered
> > and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
> >
> > I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the
same ship as
> > Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size,
design,
> > etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been
said before,
> > it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time.
However, I have
> > been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that
say its not
> > possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that
> > could justify
> > their position. As to what was just said here:...because the
rear of the
> > ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the
> > blown hatch
> > was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered
and
> > replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that
that sinking
> > ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's
obvious just
> > from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there...
The part of
> > the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not
the whole
> > thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the
smaller one
> > in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is
> > meant as an
> > escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in
danger...
> >
> > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but
> > has anyone
> > ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because
> > it makes it
> > so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> > suppose you
> > could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> > controls etc?
> > Are they completely different too?
> >
> > I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother
ship "Earth"
> > flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said
> > as far as
> > that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now,
again, I
> > don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some
of what he
> > said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read
> > the novel
> > that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had
smaller ships
> > they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending"
of those
> > that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may
not be the
> > "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-
nauts
> > "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we
don't get
> > to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main
> > ship. It could
> > be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship
that could
> > return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films
beginning.
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "thypentacle" <thypentacle@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship


>
> Same here, from what I know about the original version of Conquest, it
seems to me that it would be a great idea to release it again without the
"Hollywood happier ending" edits in there to ruin it.
> ThyPentacle
>
> Jeff & Susan Stringer <stringe@...> wrote:
> If Fox goes to the trouble of digging up unused scenes (and maybe
Thompson's
> cut of "Conquest"?) they'd want to hype it for all it's worth.
>
> I would pay serious money to hear Caesar's original, unedited speech...!
> :)
> Gristle P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned
> the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because
> the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
whereas
> the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
> recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship
as
> Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design,
> etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before,
> it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have
> been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not
> possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
justify
> their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the
> ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
hatch
> was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking
> ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just
> from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of
> the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole
> thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one
> in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as
an
> escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
> makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> suppose you could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> controls etc? Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth"
> flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
as
> that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
novel
> that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships
> they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the
> "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts
> "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get
> to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It
could
> be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could
> return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------