I'll be anxiously awaiting it. uhhhuh
Not holding my breath though.

.html

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

From: veetus@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:49 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] "Apes 2" Buh bye?

  I just got this off www.comingsoon.net . Zanuck said Fox is in no hurry to do a sequel and don't want to exhaust the franchise. "The idea is to space it out now. The studio doesn't think that a sequel has to be made immediately. They made a lot of money off the picture, but the theory, at least what they're telling me, is that every 3 years or more (they'll make one)". This is the same studio that just greenlighted a sequel to "Daredevil" almost a year before the first one hits. Though Fox has taken this years approach before (the "Alien" flicks, I hear they're now planning "Independence Day 2" 6 years later) this smacks of a brush off. Etc.                                  - - - Jeff

 

 

 

 

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] What is Planet of the Apes????

Anyway, I think my answer to what  is POTA is probably best summarised by my recent response to an on-line 20th C Fox Competition asking me to say in 25 words or less why I deserve to win the prize.  I responded:

BECAUSE I LOVE PLANET OF THE APES SO MUCH THAT I JUST KEEP BUYING THE CRAP YOU GUYS CHURN OUT, EVEN THAT AWFUL BURTON MOVIE.

Hey!  Did you win?  What was the prize?


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlHas anyone (who contacted) them received a response from Dark Horse yet?

I emailed them and got an initial response from their "automated answerer" because apparently they thought what I asked fit into the F.A.Q... But, I resent it to them to get a reply from a "real person," but as of right now, I haven't received any reply. (They did say it may take a few days to get a response due to the large amount of emails they receive.)

If anyone has received any sort of reply, what was it? Positive, negative, or nuetral?<.html

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2002 8:01:16 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > *** I only "dismiss" what others say if the details given in the POTA saga contradict what someone says in particular.
>
> A lot of what you say has absolutely no mention (or possibility of actuality) in as you (Fox, and some others) call it "the saga." Nowhere do those movies ever mention The Roswell Incident, a Mothership "Earth", Whitty's homeland becoming "New America" and being colonized 500 years from now, or many of the other home made "details" created by you. Now those "facts" of your's contradict everything that is said in the films. If there are any "details" that should be dismissed, its those mentioned above.

*** Review what you just said about "a lot of what [I] say": "home
made "details" created by" me. Well, duh! Of COURSE the "details"
you've laundry-listed above are "created" by me! I never said that the
scenario I've concocted was what Serling & Wilson & Dehn & the
Corringtons (etc.) had in mind! The 1st film had one story in mind;
then Dehn came along and wrote BENEATH, sloppily getting details wrong
(i.e. the dates: 3955 vs. PLANET's 3978, etc.) and misunderstanding a
critical plot detail from PLANET: that Taylor's mission was one of
colonization of an alien planet 320 LY away reached after an
interstellar voyage which would take 18 months of Ship-Time
(corresponding to some 2000 years of Earth-Time)--Dehn "re-imagined"
this scenario of PLANET as, instead, Taylor's ship somehow becoming
"lost in space", so that Brent & Skipper were sent out in the same
direction in order to try and find him. Dehn's scenario is NOT what is
presented in PLANET, and on the face of it is just one huge flub.
From that point on, the rest of the "saga" elaborates on that "flub".
The purpose of MY scenario was/is to force-fit the details of Dehn's
scenario back into the scenario presented in PLANET, so that specific
lines of dialogue presented in BENEATH (etc.) can make sense in a
manner Dehn hadn't intended (due to his misunderstanding--or his
misrepresentation--of the plot of PLANET).
So, then, rather than have Brent & Skipper sent out from the planet
"Earth" after Taylor's ship (in the same direction he'd been heading,
called "Taylor's trajectory")--which wouldn't make much sense, since
IF Taylor had truly disappeared, the exact same fate would befall ANY
ship sent out in its wake--my scenario re-interprets these details
given by Dehn so that Brent & Skipper are sent out NOT from planet
"Earth" but from a "mothership" that BOTH Taylor's AND Brent's ships
were attached during the interstellar voyage from planet Earth to the
"unnamed planet in orbit around a star in the constellation Orion"; in
my scenario, Brent's ship is able to land quite near to Taylor's
splashdown site ONLY because "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-ENTRY
trajectory, from an orbital position down to a landing coordinate.
Frankly, the notion that a second spaceship, sent out after another
"lost" ship, could not only manage to end up anywhere NEAR the same
planet but also MIRACULOUSLY find its way down to the same spot ON
that planet's surface is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. The ONLY way that
ANY ship--let alone Brent's ship--could manage to land on the same
continent and near the same location ON that continent, is if the
first ship's RE-ENTRY trajectory was KNOWN by the navigators on the
second ship; given that Brent's ship lands WEEKS after Taylor's ship
lands in Dead Lake, it's impossible for him to so precisely land his
ship in the same area--yet he accomplishes this.
Think about how our space shuttles are able to land back on Earth on
SPECIFIC runways (eg. at Houston, or--if the weather's bad--at
alternate landing sites) by following a specific RE-ENTRY path down
from their orbital position. This maneuver requires doing a "burn",
firing the engines in a specific direction, which sends the once-
circling ship onto a downward curve into the atmosphere, a curve which
puts it in the RIGHT place (and not thousands of miles away). In order
for Brent to LAND his ship in approximately the SAME place where
Taylor's ship had landed, he would have had to know EXACTLY where
those planetary coordinates were, his own orbital position and rate-
of-speed, the amount of thrust to apply to his own re-entry burn, etc.
That is the ONLY way that Brent could even HOPE to land anywhere NEAR
where Taylor's ship went down... and that requires that he know
details of Taylor's "trajectory" WHEN TAYLOR'S SHIP MADE THE MANEUVER
IN THE FIRST PLACE. And how COULD Brent know any of this if he flew in
from outer space WEEKS later? He couldn't know ANY of it... unless,
perhaps, OTHERS who were privy to that information could somehow
"feed" that information into his ship's navigational computer.
And, mind you, you ALSO have to somehow account for that THIRD ship
(the 3-seater with the "gull-wing" port hatch, from ESCAPE), which is
ALSO referred to as "Taylor's", yet cannot be the same ship from
PLANET (a 4-seater with no "gull-wing" door, etc.). The only way that
this 3rd ship, too, can land near the other two ships (but, this time,
"on [the] seaboard") so that Milo can find it--still intact--and fly
it up into orbit, is if IT TOO HAD BEEN FLOWN DOWN BY ASTRONAUTS WHO
HAD THE EXACT RE-ENTRY DATA OF TAYLOR'S SHUTTLE/SHIP.

Far from having no "possibility of actuality", the details of my
scenario MAKE SENSE out of the flight dynamics of the various ships
which all land back on Earth in roughly the SAME area. So far, it is
the ONLY scenario out there which DOES make sense of this. Without
throwing away any lines of dialogue from ANY of the Saga's films, I've
been able to RE-INTERPRET those details within a scenario which is
intended to make sense AND to not contradict what's given in the Saga.
You don't have to like it or "accept it" as Canon, and I'm not the
type of person who'd ever insist that you MUST do so. Feel free to
interpret the POTA Saga any which way you prefer--it doesn't matter to
me. But if you're going to accuse me of inferring that Serling & Dehn
(etc.) intended for there to be a "New America" founded by American
Scientists on the pole-shifted continent of Australia (etc. etc.),
then you should have your head examined. I NEVER said that MY scenario
is what the previous POTA writers had in mind when THEY wrote THEIR
stories. It is the presence of specific sloppy mistakes on THEIR part
that prompted me to devise an over-arching plot which could "unflub"
those flubs. Of necessity, this involves RE-INTERPRETATION of the
"facts" in a way which makes sense (to me, if not to you).

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 7-03-2002

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2002 8:20:54 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > *** I'd like to know how YOU know what the writers' intentions were with such certitude. Can you, like the Mutants, read peoples' minds, too?
>
> This is one of the most hypocritical statements to EVER hit this message board. This from the man who supposedly knows what every nuance of every line ever mentioned in any Apes movie "really" meant.

*** What a crock! And, what a way to avoid answering the question.
I've never claimed an ability to know with such certainty what the
intentions of the POTA writers were, as your posting does. I've stated
repeatedly that MY plot/scenario is NOT necessarily what the previous
POTA writers intended but, rather, was developed in order to make the
mutually contradictory plots (Serling & Wilson's versus Dehn's versus
the TV show's, etc.) mesh in such a way that ALL of those previously
produced live-action POTA films/episodes DO make "sense". PLANET has
an EARTH-TIME reading of 11-25-3978 (just before the ship sinks);
BENEATH, written by Dehn, SHOULD have taken place in an "Earth-Time"
of either late December of 3978 or early January of 3979... but Dehn
didn't pay close enough attention to the specific details given in the
flick his script was a sequel to, and his "flub" is only ONE of MANY
he made. Your statement about "every nuance of every line" goes to MY
RE-INTERPRETATION of the "canonical" details of the Saga, and NOT to
the "original intent" of the writers of those details.
Ain't nothing "hypocritical" about my position AT ALL.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2002 9:53:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> > He only referred to it once as "Dead Lake." As you see by the attached it wasn't a lake at all. Technically is was a bay. So Cornelius' terminology is not that exact.
> >
>
> This isn't what Patrick said. He said that Cornelius "consistently" refers to it as a lake, so it must be. We who dare to even think otherwise are always wrong, always. I'm sure you'll be getting an essay on where you're attachment is wrong too.

*** Mlccougar is right in that I said that Cornelius "consistently"
refers to Taylor's landing site as a lake. And if he calls it "Dead
Lake" by NAME only once... well, once is enough. He never calls it
"Dead Sea" or "Dead Bay".
As for whether or not it's actually a "lake" or a "bay", that depends
on what's not shown on the Map. The ENTIRE body of water is not shown
because the edge of the Map cuts off, and the water of that "lake"
extends beyond the upper right corner of the Map. In order for it to
be a "bay" it should empty into a larger body of water by a wide
margin, as does Hudson Bay into the Arctic Ocean. But "Dead Lake"
empties into the "Sea" (i.e. the Ocean) by RIVER, a river which is
joined by the river which runs through Ape City. Evidently, other
rivers or streams empty into "Dead Lake", and Dead Lake empties into
the Sea via the river which, as Cornelius says, empties into a Sea
some miles from here... that's where we'll find the Diggings."

Patrick

Mr Cougar

I have not yet attempted to contact them, but I will be interested to
hear how you progress.

Michael

--- mlccougar@... wrote:

> Has anyone (who contacted) them received a response from Dark Horse

yet?

>
> I emailed them and got an initial response from their "automated

answerer"

> because apparently they thought what I asked fit into the F.A.Q...

But, I

> resent it to them to get a reply from a "real person," but as of

right now, I

> haven't received any reply. (They did say it may take a few days to

get a

> response due to the large amount of emails they receive.)
>
> If anyone has received any sort of reply, what was it? Positive,

negative, or

> nuetral?
>

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> This is a fiction. Total conservative propaganda. Liberals don't
> want more government. They don't want government encouraging people
> to marry or subsidizing religious schools. All Liberals want is that
> the government look out for the welfare of all the people. Not just
> rich CEOs but for everyone regardless of age, race, religion or sex.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > Conservatives see THEMSELVES as people who advocate LESS GOVERNMENT, as opposed to their ideological opposites--the "liberals"--who want MORE government intruding where it is not constitutionally sanctioned to do so. So-called "liberals" view conservatives NOT as people advocating "less government" but, rather, as those who seek to perpetuate the "status quo".

*** Conservatives view the "rival" position as "liberal propaganda".
Both sides have been at each other's ideological throats for
centuries, and that's why I "waste" my votes nowadays on the
Libertarian candidates, who tend to be fiscally conservative and
socially liberal. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat--as far as
I'm concerned, BOTH of the two main political parties routinely ignore
the Constitution in favor of their own ideological views. If they
cared more for the Constitution, they'd never have endorsed the
Federal Reserve Act and unconstitutionally changed U.S. money from
gold & silver COIN into worthless PAPER. If they cared NOW, they'd
restore our monetary system to its constitutional status, and the Fed
would be revoked. But the people who actually run things in America
don't give a damn about the Constitution--not when it inconveniences
their ability to bilk the rest of us.
Ohhhh, I could rant for hours about this, so I'll leave it at that.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> The term consistantly suggests that he said it more than once.

*** "The terrain around that LAKE is poisonous..." [Cornelius, to
Taylor, at the rendezvous location after Lucius & Zira smuggle Taylor
out of Ape City].
Doesn't this qualify as "more than once"?

Patrick

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/30/2002 9:53:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> > JamesA1102@a... writes:

> > > He only referred to it once as "Dead Lake." As you see by the
> attached it wasn't a lake at all. Technically is was a bay. So Cornelius' terminology is not that exact.

> > This isn't what Patrick said. He said that
> Cornelius "consistently" refers to it as a lake, so it must be. We who dare to even think otherwise are always wrong, always. I'm sure you'll be getting an essay on where you're attachment is wrong too.

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> This is why the circular timeline theory is derided so much. Thanks
> to Marvel's ridiculous timeline and those that have adopted it.
> There are more holes in that theory than in the Titanic.
> First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be anywhere in
> the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is New York.
> While I can buy a cross country Ape migration, the thought of the
> mutants doing the same with the bomb in tow is ludicrous. Also, the
> ape settlement in the films is consistently refered to as "Ape City"
> while the one in the TV series is consistently called "Central
> City". Also, in the course of the TV series Virdon & Burke travel
> from the San Francisco/Oakland area to Paradise Cove north of LA.
> Why is it they never came upon the ruins of Breck's city? How come
> there is never any large desert or place called the "Forbbiden City"
> encoutered in their travels?
>

*** Breck's city could only be somewhere on a coastline of the U.S.,
since the Ape shipments come from overseas and dock at harbors (as
Armando tells Caesar). That rules out any location which is land-
locked. As for the "events of Battle", I don't recall ANY detail which
"firmly establishes" that Breck's city was New York. The only
"Ackerman" street or avenue in NYC is ONE BLOCK LONG on Staten Island,
and there is no "Breck" avenue/street crossing it.
As for the TV episodes, yeah, we know that Virdon & Burke & Galen have
adventures in the ruins of San Francisco & Oakland, and that they are
in the Paradise Cove area north of LA, but as to HOW they get to those
various locations, we are never given explicit details--they just
arrive there in time to have their adventures.
Urko's wall map (which has no place names on it) has a number of
SKULLS on it, which I should think refer to places that are "deadly"--
as radioactive, nuked locations WOULD be, don't you think?
Perhaps Virdon & Gang's travels never led them on a direct path from
San Francisco ("The Trap") down to Paradise Cove, so that they never
had the opportunity to see the ruins of Breck's city.

Patrick

>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > *** You're forgetting the previous debate over the location of Breck's unnamed city and Caesar's tree-house "Ape City" relative to the location of the "Ape City" from PLANET and BENEATH. There are those who insist that Caesar's people live in the SAME territory that is later occupied by Cornelius & Zira, etc.: the "New York/New Jersey" area.
> > I have a different view. In my scenario, Breck's city is on the West Coast, a "futuristic" arcology set up about halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Eventually, this initial simian society develops into the one we see in the TV series, which is undeniably set in the mid-California area (San Francisco and Oakland are the settings for the episodes "The Trap" and "The Legacy", respectively). In my scenario, AFTER the time of Virdon and Burke, there is a migration of at least a good chunk of this simian civilization from the California region to the old New York region, where they INTRODUCED civilization where it had not existed since the Nuclear War some 1100 years earlier; the reason that the now-NY-based Apes have an Army is because they had to fight wars against the savage bands of "carnivorou gorillas" who dwelt in that area. Although "Ape shall not kill ape", when a band of perhaps cannibalistic savage apes are trying to munch on you, self defense is an exception to that "most sacred law".
> >
> > So, then, at the same time that the nicey-nice Lawgiver from
> BATTLE is telling the tale of Caesar to his congregation--in California-- there are tribes of carnivorous gorillas dwelling thousands of miles away in the area that was once New York/New Jersey. In my scenario, at any rate.
> >
> > Patrick

--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:

> By the way, no number is "astronomically high":
>
> I think you must be astronomically high. Answer me this. If the universe has always existed. And the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. Then why isn't it further apart then it is now? It's been doing it forever! And it's had all the time in the world. Please keep your answer down to three pages, and no complicated math.

*** I suggest that you read Eric Lerner's book, "THE BIG BANG NEVER
HAPPENED". He lays out the "plasma cosmology" theory's evidence much
better than I ever could: it's a good read.

Just to point out a few salient details, however...
1.) Big Bang advocates state that not only is matter within the
Universe expanding outward, but that the very fabric of SpaceTime
itself ALSO is expanding--and there is no way to "prove" that this is
so. It is merely part of the BB theory, a part which too many people
assume to be true.
2.) "It's been doing it forever!" you say, referring to the Inflation
of the Universe. I assume you mean "for about 13 Billion years" and
NOT "forever". IF, as Plasma Cosmologists claim, there are large-scale
structures in the Universe that HAD to have needed some 200 Billion
years in order to form (eg. the "Great Wall" of Galaxies), then how in
the bejeezus could ONLY 13 Billion years of Time since the BB account
for it? The BB theory was concocted BEFORE the discovery of the "Great
Wall" of Galaxies, and in order to "keep" the BB theory, its
proponents had to come up with an explanation for that large-scale
structure that didn't require scrapping their cherished BB paradigm...
so they postulated "ripples" and asymmetries in the primordial
explosion which somehow "resulted" in there being these large-scale
structures. I think it's fishy and desperate, and I prefer the Plasma
Cosmology explanation--not that these rivals are necessarily RIGHT,
mind you; just that they make more sense out of the observable data,
as far as I can judge.
The BB theory is sort of a "sacred cow", with so many tenured profs
having backed it for so long that to just "throw it out" for the sake
of a theory which better fits the facts is extraordinarily difficult
to do. Not for the sake of Science, but for the human failing of not
wanting to admit that they're wrong... and HAVE been wrong, just
because the BB theory seemed to work so well for so long BEFORE the
inconvenient data called it into question.
Read Lerner's book--even if you don't agree with its conclusions,
you'll have seen the whole subject from a different viewpoint. Draw
your own conclusions then, T.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Alan Maxwell" <alan@a...> wrote:

> <mlccougar@a...> wrote:
> > True... And I know you're not the one who brought this subject up, so I'm not meaning this too sound as if I'm saying you left anything out, but don't forget, they also used a Latin word / name URSUS. At least I believe it's Latin in origin, if not, well, I stand corrected.
>
> And let's not forget old Ulysses!
>
> Alan

*** "Honorius", "Julius", "Lucius" and "Maximus" are also from Latin.
"Ursus" means "bear" (as in Ursa Major, the "Great Bear", which in
Greek is "arktos"--hence the "arctic" polar zone, which is directly
under that circumpolar constellation).

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> By the fact that "Ape City", not Central City, is located next to
> the Forbidden City/Zone which is inhabited by mutants, led by
> Mendez, who possess the Alpha-Omega bomb.

*** The "Ape City" in BATTLE is a comprised of tree-forts, built in a
forest. The "Ape City" in PLANET & BENEATH is like the troglodyte city
in Cappodocia (where POTA's production designer, Bill Creber, got the
idea), carved into solid rock. Clearly, we're talking about two
entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that the
"city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City"; Brent
refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but that
doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he saw a road
sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then there
can also be more than one "Ape City".
Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with its
orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map for a
minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the RIGHT side
is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it (so
that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the NORTH")? If,
as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards the
NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the Forbidden
Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what Zaius
worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other words,
you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable areas:
the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new" Ape
City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.

Patrick

>
>
> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
> > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> >
> >
> > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be anywhere
> in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is New
> York.
> >
> > Where and when is this established?

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> In Boulle's book it's Ulysse, not UlysseS. I don't know if that's a significant difference or if he can still be compared with the wanderer from "The Odyssey". Etc. - - - Jeff

*** The name "Ulysse Merou" was written by a Frenchman. "Ulysse" is
the French way of writing the Latin name "Ulysses", just as "Jean" is
the Frog version of "Giovanni"/"Johann"/"John"/etc.
It's kind of mysterious how the Roman authors (Ovid, Virgil, etc.)
changed the Greek name "Odysseus" into "Ulysses". I think that if you
write the Greek name in capital letters (too bad I can't type Greek
letters on this site), the capital "D" in Greek looks like a capital
"L" (an upside-down "V") without the bottom dash connecting the two
uprights. So, a clumsy Roman might have seen Greek "ODYSSEUS" as
"OLYSSEUS". Since there might have been a variant initial vowel in
some no longer extant manuscripts of Homer ("OUDYSSEUS": the "ou"
diphthong being rather common), this might account for how the initial
"O" ("omicron") of ODYSSEUS was changed to Latin "U", since Latin
authors--transliterating Greek words--tended to change the "OU" Greek
diphthong into the single Latin letter "U".

I took two years of Greek language in college, but I never did ask my
teacher about this. I wonder what she'd think of my Odysseus > Ulysses
hypothesis?

Patrick

>
> And let's not forget old Ulysses!
>
>
> An interesting choice that.
> Wasn't it Ulysses who was always trying to get home?
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

It's been doing it forever!" you say, referring to the Inflation of the
Universe. I assume you mean "for about 13 Billion years" and NOT "forever".

Don't make me give you the ASS-U-ME speech again. It's getting a bit
hackneyed. No, all I meant was you said that the Universe has been around
forever. Since the around forever theory and BB theory are mutually
exclusive. Then all you can assume it that I was yanking your chain. You're
very good with the theories there Patrick. Now you need to work on your
sense of humor. I recommend Tim Allen's book, I'm Not Really Here, and the
Jokelopedia.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> Landon says, "We can't get back. It's still just a theory". If some experiment had proven Hasslein's theory, even if it wasn't to Landon's satisfaction, I don't think he would've said that. Besides, Landon is supposed to be the optimist. Etc. - - - Jeff

*** Landon actually says, "IF we can't get back, it's still JUST a
theory." The "if" matters. It suggests that he still is an "optimist",
and thinks that MAYBE the MIGHT be able to get back... and if they
could, and if only some 18 + 18 months of "Ship-Time" had elapsed, and
planet Earth was only 3 years older (i.e. 1975--rather than 3978, over
2000 years older), then that would prove that Hasslein was wrong about
Time Dilation effects.

Patrick

>
> > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > I don't like your (implied) tone here.
> > >
> > > Who knows what they did for the first 6 months?
> > >
> > > And to suggest that they had to be doing what is logical for them to
> > > do is to ignore the fact that there is a whole lot of stuff going on
> > > in the story that makes no sense.
> > >
> > > C'mon yourself Patrick. If they had proven Hasslein's theory, why
> > > don't they ever refer to the fact that they had proven it?
> >
> > *** Taylor: "It's a FACT, Landon; buy it--you'll sleep better."
> > I ask you: on what grounds does Taylor have to declare the "theory" to
> > be "a fact"? There must be SOME experimental evidence which at least
> > does not contradict the theory. I think that this line implies that
> > the theory had been tested, to Taylor's satisfaction if not to
> > Landon's. If Taylor were aware of any experimental data which flatly
> > disproved the theory, he would not be able to be sure of it being
> > anywhere near "a fact". Maybe whatever experiments were done didn't
> > DISPROVE the theory; this would not "prove" the theory to be true--
> > merely that SO FAR the evidence had not ruled it out. To give an
> > example from the "theory" of Evolution: there are all sorts of ways in
> > which the theory could be "proven" false; for instance, if HUMAN
> > remains were to be found in a stratum of pre-Mesozoic rock, then one
> > could not claim anymore that humans ONLY existed after the Age of
> > Dinosaurs. Aside from some clumsy hoaxes, there isn't a shred of
> > evidence placing humans and dinosaurs in the same layer of sedimentary
> > rock; if there was even ONE piece of evidence showing this,
> > evolutionists would have to re-evaluate their ideas regarding their
> > dating methods, etc. So far, the evidence supports the "theory" of
> > Evolution; serious scientists still admit that it is "just" a theory
> > (as Landon says of Hasslein's theory), but it is a theory which is
> > USEFUL because it makes sense of the FACTS, which SO FAR do not
> > contradict the theory.
> > Maybe there were, say, SEVEN specific "tests" of the Hasslein
> > Hypothesis which the ANSA astronauts were given in order to verify
> > that their ship was zipping along as Hasslein predicted it would.
> > Perhaps they only did TWO of the seven tests, finding that those two
> > tests matched the anticipated results so perfectly that any further
> > testing was deemed unnecessary. Landon could STILL argue, later on,
> > that MAYBE the 3rd, or the 5th, or the 6th of the seven tests WOULD
> > have come up differently, thus invalidating the Hasslein Hypothesis.
> > But as far as Taylor was concerned, ENOUGH TESTING HAD BEEN DONE to
> > "prove" the Hasslein Hypothesis to his satisfaction, thus giving him
> > the grounds to refer to it as "a fact". In other words, Taylor knows
> > that Landon is just being stubborn because he doesn't WANT to believe
> > that Hasslein's "theory" is actually a "fact", because with Stewart
> > dead (etc.) he now has NO HOPE of ever begetting children, who could
> > carry on his name, or his memory...
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > > Again I conclude there is little point in conversation with you
> > > because your beliefs are unshakeable.
> > >
> > > Whether you believe it or not, your scenarios are impaired, just like
> everybody else's, and your "logic" has some very presumptuous foundations.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > *** ...and there is nothing in the story that suggests that they did
> > > not. And, c'mon! Answer me this: what the hell ELSE did they have to
> > > do during that 6 month period between Liftoff and Hibernation? Don't
> > > you think that they would have had as one of their priorities the
> > > TESTING of "Hasslein's hypothesis"? Christ Almighty! but the success
> > > or failure of that very theory is at the HEART of their mission. I
> > > should think that the most responsible thing for them to do--at the
> > > earliest possible & convenient time--is to do just such a test of
> > > Hasslein's theory, just in case what Hasslein THOUGHT would probably
> > > happen (in accordance with what he'd theorized would happen) was
> > > drastically DIFFERENT from what the astronauts could perceive to be
> > > happening... merely by looking out the damn front window!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

But when he was forced to deal with Taylor, an actual talking man, I
think Zaius did soften a slight bit from the Lawgiver's bigotry at the
very end.

*** "Man is EVIL, CAPABLE OF NOTHING BUT DESTRUCTION!" Doesn't sound
even a "slight bit" softened from his pro-extermination position in
PLANET.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> I was just kidding. While we're on the topic I was just kidding about James' ideas for an "Ape" team up. My humor font isn't working. But if they had named the baby Frank instead of Milo that would've been cool..."Momma! Momma!" But I'm not part of the topic police. Etc. - - - Jeff

*** One of the gorilla waiters in CONQUEST was named "Frank"; he
developed an aversion to lighting those non-lethal futuristic
cigarettes...

Patrick

Attachments :

First the word consistantly infers more than once. Second look at the attach and where Taylor's finger is pointing to indicate where his ship landed. That is a bay that empties out into the sea, specifically Long Island sound.

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> *** Mlccougar is right in that I said that Cornelius "consistently"
> refers to Taylor's landing site as a lake. And if he calls it "Dead
> Lake" by NAME only once... well, once is enough. He never calls it
> "Dead Sea" or "Dead Bay".
> As for whether or not it's actually a "lake" or a "bay", that depends
> on what's not shown on the Map. The ENTIRE body of water is not shown
> because the edge of the Map cuts off, and the water of that "lake"
> extends beyond the upper right corner of the Map. In order for it to
> be a "bay" it should empty into a larger body of water by a wide
> margin, as does Hudson Bay into the Arctic Ocean. But "Dead Lake"
> empties into the "Sea" (i.e. the Ocean) by RIVER, a river which is
> joined by the river which runs through Ape City. Evidently, other
> rivers or streams empty into "Dead Lake", and Dead Lake empties into
> the Sea via the river which, as Cornelius says, empties into a Sea
> some miles from here... that's where we'll find the Diggings."
>
> Patrick

Well there is no Breck or Ackerman streets that cross each other in
any west coast cities either. And you know as well as I do that
Ackerman wasn't indented to represent a real street but as a salute
to Forest Ackerman. The details that establish it was New York was
at the end of the film the mutants are led by Mendez and posess the
Alpha-Omega bomb. This shows that Dehn and the Corrington's
intention was that this was the same city shown in Beneath, New York.


--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> *** Breck's city could only be somewhere on a coastline of the

U.S.,

> since the Ape shipments come from overseas and dock at harbors (as
> Armando tells Caesar). That rules out any location which is land-
> locked. As for the "events of Battle", I don't recall ANY detail

which

> "firmly establishes" that Breck's city was New York. The only
> "Ackerman" street or avenue in NYC is ONE BLOCK LONG on Staten

Island,

> and there is no "Breck" avenue/street crossing it.

--- In pota@y..., JamesA1102@a... wrote:

> First the word "consistently" infers more than once. Second look at

the attach and where Taylor's finger is pointing to indicate where his
ship landed. That is a bay that empties out into the sea, specifically
Long Island sound.

*** So you think. But nobody knows what's "off the map", since we
never get to see a different map which might have shown what's off to
the "right" and "above". You seem to think that that peninsula between
the lake and the sea is Long Island, when the topography of this part
of the world is drastically different. Compare an aerial photo of the
Statue of Liberty with the scene at the end of PLANET: does the Statue
get hurled over to the shore of Long Island? does an immense
geological surge propel an upthrust of the land to the Statue's
"right"? How DOES the area change from what we know it to be Now
(prior to any nuclear catastrophe) to what it will fictionally become
AFTER a Nuke war?
So much changes from what we know the area to be, that I don't think
it's safe to assume that "Dead Lake" is "connected" to Long Island
Sound.

Patrick

> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

wrote:

> > *** Mlccougar is right in that I said that Cornelius

"consistently" refers to Taylor's landing site as a lake. And if he
calls it "Dead Lake" by NAME only once... well, once is enough. He
never calls it "Dead Sea" or "Dead Bay".

> > As for whether or not it's actually a "lake" or a "bay", that

depends on what's not shown on the Map. The ENTIRE body of water is
not shown because the edge of the Map cuts off, and the water of that
"lake" extends beyond the upper right corner of the Map. In order for
it to be a "bay" it should empty into a larger body of water by a wide
margin, as does Hudson Bay into the Arctic Ocean. But "Dead Lake"
empties into the "Sea" (i.e. the Ocean) by RIVER, a river which is
joined by the river which runs through Ape City. Evidently, other
rivers or streams empty into "Dead Lake", and Dead Lake empties
into the Sea via the river which, as Cornelius says, empties into a
Sea some miles from here... that's where we'll find the Diggings."

>
> > Patrick

Does London look like it did 2000 years ago? Does Rome or any other
city in the world look like it did 2000 years ago? No. So your first
arguement is specious.
And where is the "Forbidden City" on the west coast. How come it is
never mentioned or seen in the TV series? The simian settlement
there is clearly called "Central City".
Since your interpetation of Cornelius' map is all wrong (Zaius does
refer to the Forbidden Zone twice as 'our eastern desert' in Planet)
the rest of your arguement doesn't hold water.


--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:

> Clearly, we're talking about two
> entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that the
> "city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City"; Brent
> refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but

that

> doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he saw a

road

> sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
> If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then

there

> can also be more than one "Ape City".
> Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with its
> orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map

for a

> minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the RIGHT

side

> is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it

(so

> that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the NORTH")?

If,

> as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards the
> NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the

Forbidden

> Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what Zaius
> worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other

words,

> you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable

areas:

> the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new" Ape
> City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
> Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be

anywhere

> > in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is

New

> > York.
> > >
> > > Where and when is this established?

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:

> *** So you think. But nobody knows what's "off the map", since we
> never get to see a different map which might have shown what's off

to

> the "right" and "above".

I never said that. Don't out words in my mouth.

>You seem to think that that peninsula between
> the lake and the sea is Long Island, when the topography of this

part

> of the world is drastically different.

Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact that
the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the maps made
by the early explorers of America. They are not completely accurate
either.

>Compare an aerial photo of the
> Statue of Liberty with the scene at the end of PLANET: does the

Statue

> get hurled over to the shore of Long Island? does an immense
> geological surge propel an upthrust of the land to the Statue's
> "right"?

Who said Taylor was on Long Island? He was riding up the coast,
towards the north.

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> Well there is no Breck or Ackerman streets that cross each other in
> any west coast cities either. And you know as well as I do that
> Ackerman wasn't indented to represent a real street but as a salute
> to Forest Ackerman. The details that establish it was New York was
> at the end of the film the mutants are led by Mendez and possess the
> Alpha-Omega bomb. This shows that Dehn and the Corrington's
> intention was that this was the same city shown in Beneath, New

York.

*** That's your proof? That both in BATTLE and BENEATH there is a
group of Mutants led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega bomb?
How many years separate the two stories? 3955 minus 2018 would make
1,937 years. During those two millennia, who's to say that the Mendez
community from BATTLE stayed put and never left? We do know that at
SOME point the Bomb was moved from its place in the "Ape Management"
area (where Kolp's HQ was in BATTLE) to St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Whether or not this "move" was merely across town or (as my scenario
has it) across country, there are NO facts given in BATTLE (or
CONQUEST, for that matter) to indicate otherwise.
I previously compared this idea of a "move" of the Mendez group (with
their Bomb) to the theories published by Graham Hancock (and others)
regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Hancock, in "The Sign and the
Seal", concludes that the Lost Ark is probably in a church at Axum,
Ethiopia (as Ethiopians claim, in their extra-Biblical holy book
"Kebra Nagast"), having been taken out of the Temple of Solomon in
Jerusalem and transported down the Nile; Hancock believes that the Ark
was kept for a while on the island of Elephantine (in the Nile), at a
Jewish temple/synagogue built to the same dimensions as Solomon's
temple--whether this is true or not, nobody knows... it's just a
possibility.
There are some who think that the Knights Templar (who built churches
in Ethiopia, probably in the 13th century) "stole" the Ark, and had it
brought to Scotland, where the Sinclairs had built a "Solomonic
Temple" (to those dimensions) called Rosslyn Chapel. I've actually
been to Rosslyn Chapel, and can attest to the fact that there is a
great deal of interest in the site due to such speculation (there's a
shop there where they sell a number of books dealing with this
esoteric subject).
If the Ark of the Covenant (provided it ever truly existed) could have
been removed from its intended place (Solomon's Temple) by priests
devoted to the "cult" of Jehovah--and, remember, the Ark was
previously kept (before Solomon built the Temple) in the Tabernacle,
the big tent that Moses had from the time the Ark was built by the
Israelites just after the Exodus, so the Ark never had only one
"keeping place"--then so, too, could the Bomb God/Idol of the Mendez
group have been removed from the "Ape Management" site of Breck's old
city and brought to some other location, perhaps through underground
tunnels carved out by the U.S. military in the last decades before the
Nuke War. The Bomb wasn't there during CONQUEST (as far as we know),
so it must have been brought TO that city at some point. When? Before
or after the Nuke War?
This would be all "cut and dried" if the filmmakers had indicated that
CONQUEST took place in "NEW YORK CITY Region, 2670" instead of "NORTH
AMERICA, 2670" (or, in CONQUEST, "NORTH AMERICA, 1991"). The ambiguity
of that "North America" bit leaves it open to speculation as to where
exactly IN North America those adventures take place.
As for the "Ackerman" and "Breck" streets/avenues, yeah, of course
"Ackerman" ("Department 4SJ"!) was intended as a tribute to the
publisher of "FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND", but that's beside the
point. Since there already is an "Ackerman" street in NYC, on Staten
Island, only a single block long with no "Breck" avenue intersecting
it, then NYC is ruled out as the city in CONQUEST and BATTLE; maybe,
you might argue, there could be ANOTHER "Ackerman" street/avenue in
some nearby suburb of NYC... but then that leaves us with the notion
that the "Governor" would run things from a suburb, rather than from
the Big Apple nearby. I don't buy it. The city run by Breck is--from
the perspective of the 1972 audience--a "futuristic" city in the
"future" year of 1991. It is a city that didn't yet exist in the time
ESCAPE takes place--it was a city that had yet to be built, with its
underground cylindrical tunnels, its futuristic-looking "Ape
Management" complex, etc. It isn't shown to be a "retro-fitted" city
(like Los Angeles in "BLADERUNNER"), where futuristic pyramid-shaped
buildings are constructed above the "old" city, rather than by tearing
down the old buildings and constructing entirely new ones. Breck's
city was meant (I think) to portray a dystopian possibility of what
America would come to be; if they had intended it to actually BE the
city of New York, then wouldn't it have been easier to film it there?
Imagine shots of Armando taking Caesar through Times Square, to hand
out leaflets for his antiquated circus. A matte-painting could have
been done of an "Ape Management" building set against the backdrop of
familiar skyscrapers, to give the 1972 audience the idea of what WILL
be built in the coming years leading up to 1991. The fact that there
are absolutely NO familiar NYC landmarks at all in CONQUEST (or
BATTLE, for that matter) leads me to conclude that it ISN'T New York.
You, of course, are free to believe otherwise; but I have yet to see
any proof. Are there NY tags on the license plates of the Bus and
Jeeps that Kolp's army drives over to Caesar's "Ape City" with?
One other thing: throughout CONQUEST and BATTLE there are various
designations of places in the city (such as "the southeast plaza",
etc.), yet nobody ever makes any reference to a placename that can be
connected with New York City, such as "Times Square", "Greenwich
Village", the Bronx, etc. If there were just ONE, then I'd have a hell
of a time explaining that one away as NOT being in New York. When
Breck is ordering re-inforcements to help the line of gun-toting
soldiers on whom Caesar's ape army is advancing, he uses generic terms
like "perimeter" and "Command Post". Had he mentioned sending cops in
riot gear from a specific precinct, that would come in handy to
pinpoint it not only IN New York but at a specific area in the city.
Unfortunately (or, for me, fortunately), none of this is ever done in
CONQUEST or BATTLE.

Patrick

-- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > *** Breck's city could only be somewhere on a coastline of the
> U.S., since the Ape shipments come from overseas and dock at harbors

(as Armando tells Caesar). That rules out any location which is land-
locked. As for the "events of Battle", I don't recall ANY detail which
"firmly establishes" that Breck's city was New York. The only
"Ackerman" street or avenue in NYC is ONE BLOCK LONG on Staten Island,
and there is no "Breck" avenue/street crossing it.

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

> Does London look like it did 2000 years ago?

[*** No... but if BATTLE takes place in the exact same "Ape City" as
in PLANET, then you have to account for the "stone city" aspect of it.
I don't see any of that in BATTLE, not even the "raw materials" with
which to carve out such a city. Caesar's people built tree-forts in a
big cluster out in some forest, and named it "Ape City". Nearly 2,000
years later there's a place also called "Ape City" (actually, only by
Brent, and NOT by any apes, as far as I can recall) where there are NO
tree-forts, and where the Apes have carved out dwellings into solid
rock.]

Does Rome or any other city in the world look like it did 2000 years
ago? No. So your first arguement is specious.

> And where is the "Forbidden City" on the west coast?

[*** In my scenario, it's built as an overlying "arcology" on the site
of the small towns of San Simeon and Cambria, between San Francisco
and Los Angeles.]

> How come it is never mentioned or seen in the TV series?

[*** Why would it be? If Virdon, Burke & Galen had never travelled
directly between San Fran and LA, they never would have run into it.
So what if no other character mentions it--why should they? Look at
the "skulls" on Urko's wall map, and you'll see that there are plenty
of places where there could be a "Forbidden" City/Zone/place.]

> The simian settlement there is clearly called "Central City".

[*** I never said that the tree-fort village of Caesar's in BATTLE was
the same place later seen in the TV show and named "Central City". In
my scenario, Caesar's "Ape City" and Urko's "Central City" are two
different places, both in California yet hundreds of miles apart.]

> Since your interpretation of Cornelius' map is all wrong (Zaius does
> refer to the Forbidden Zone twice as 'our eastern desert' in Planet)
> the rest of your arguement doesn't hold water.

[*** Zaius calls it "our eastern desert", yes... which implies
(perhaps) that there is also a "western desert" not visible on the map
Cornelius shows Taylor. And BOTH of those deserts could be "north" of
Ape City; if there were a mountain range separating the two deserts,
then it would be logical for him to differentiate between the two--he
could call them the "Northwest" and "Northeast" deserts... or he could
just call them the "Western" and "Eastern" deserts, since the "north"
part would be unnecessary. Zaius never says that the desert in
question is "towards the East"; he calls it "our eastern desert", and
there's a difference.]

And, James, why don't you address the below-quoted bit from BATTLE,
where Kolp's scout says that Ape City is "to the North"? According to
your interpretation of Cornelius' map, Kolp's city would have to be
SOUTH of Ape City, "below" it--but the ape-inhabited area of
Cornelius' map has an OCEAN "below" it (in the "southern" direction as
you read the Map; whereas I would say that it is due EAST of Ape
City). How do you fit in what Kolp's scout says? C'mon, gimme an
answer!

Patrick

>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > Clearly, we're talking about two
> > entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that the
> > "city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City"; Brent
> > refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but
> that
> > doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he saw a
> road
> > sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
> > If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then
> there
> > can also be more than one "Ape City".
> > Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with its
> > orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map
> for a
> > minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the RIGHT
> side
> > is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it
> (so
> > that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the NORTH")?
> If,
> > as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards the
> > NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the
> Forbidden
> > Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what Zaius
> > worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other
> words,
> > you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable
> areas:
> > the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new" Ape
> > City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
> > Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be
> anywhere
> > > in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is
> New
> > > York.
> > > >
> > > > Where and when is this established?

> >You seem to think that that peninsula between the lake and the sea

is Long Island, when the topography of this part of the world is
drastically different.

>
> Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact that
> the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the maps made
> by the early explorers of America. They are not completely accurate
> either.

*** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of the
terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been explored"
to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was extensive
enough.

> >Compare an aerial photo of the Statue of Liberty with the scene at

the end of PLANET: does the Statue get hurled over to the shore of
Long Island? does an immense geological surge propel an upthrust of
the land to the Statue's "right"?

>
> Who said Taylor was on Long Island? He was riding up the coast,
> towards the north.

*** Up WHAT coast? The last time Zaius & Cornelius saw Taylor (in
PLANET), Taylor was heading "towards the north" along a stretch of
beach which extended to the RIGHT on Cornelius' map. There was a cliff
to his left and an ocean to his right--the same "sea" that Cornelius
colored blue along the bottom of his map. Cornelius tells Brent that
this "last place" they saw Taylor was "between the Lake and the Sea",
which puts it on that peninsula "below" the Dead Lake body of water
and "above" the Sea. You yourself said (just above) that this area is
Long Island, with "Dead Lake" being a "bay" emptying into Long Island
sound. I never said that Taylor was actually ON Long Island--I posed a
question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?

Patrick

I wonder why some here have little trouble believing that in two
thousand years the earth has changed form so severely while the
statue shows comparatively little damage? I believe that it is more
likely that the statue has moved or been moved. It could well have
been dismantled (yes, even by present day humans) and rebuilt
somewhere else. Or the statue we see could be one of several
replicas. (Isn't there a similar statue -- smaller -- in France?)
While it certainly catches us off guard to see the Statue of Liberty,
it is difficult for me to believe that the statue remains relatively
untouched by time and exists in pretty much the same spot, while the
land forms change and the poles shift and the rest of the buildings
around have been shaken by a nuclear disaster.

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:
--I posed a

> question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
>
> Patrick

Lemme ask you a question.
How did the Romans spell Vinnie Vide Vici if they used V to mean U?
I've always wondered that.

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:

>*** That's your proof? That both in BATTLE and BENEATH there is a
> group of Mutants led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega

bomb?

It's a logical deduction based on the evidence available in the five
films and it's still more than you've stated to support you
position.

> How many years separate the two stories? 3955 minus 2018 would

make

> 1,937 years. During those two millennia, who's to say that the

Mendez

> community from BATTLE stayed put and never left?

Well state some evidence from the films that proves that they moved.

> We do know that at
> SOME point the Bomb was moved from its place in the "Ape

Management"

> area (where Kolp's HQ was in BATTLE) to St. Patrick's Cathedral.
> Whether or not this "move" was merely across town or (as my

scenario

> has it) across country, there are NO facts given in BATTLE (or
> CONQUEST, for that matter) to indicate otherwise.

A move across town is more believable than a move across the
country. Or did the Roswell aliens help them move it? Or maybe they
used their mind powers to hitch a ride on mothership earth?

> I previously compared this idea of a "move" of the Mendez group

(with

> their Bomb) to the theories published by Graham Hancock (and

others)

> regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Hancock, in "The Sign and the
> Seal", concludes that the Lost Ark is probably in a church at

Axum,

> Ethiopia (as Ethiopians claim, in their extra-Biblical holy book
> "Kebra Nagast"), having been taken out of the Temple of Solomon in
> Jerusalem and transported down the Nile; Hancock believes that the

Ark

> was kept for a while on the island of Elephantine (in the Nile),

at a

> Jewish temple/synagogue built to the same dimensions as Solomon's
> temple--whether this is true or not, nobody knows... it's just a
> possibility.
> There are some who think that the Knights Templar (who built

churches

> in Ethiopia, probably in the 13th century) "stole" the Ark, and

had it

> brought to Scotland, where the Sinclairs had built a "Solomonic
> Temple" (to those dimensions) called Rosslyn Chapel. I've actually
> been to Rosslyn Chapel, and can attest to the fact that there is a
> great deal of interest in the site due to such speculation

(there's a

> shop there where they sell a number of books dealing with this
> esoteric subject).
> If the Ark of the Covenant (provided it ever truly existed) could

have

> been removed from its intended place (Solomon's Temple) by priests
> devoted to the "cult" of Jehovah--and, remember, the Ark was
> previously kept (before Solomon built the Temple) in the

Tabernacle,

> the big tent that Moses had from the time the Ark was built by the
> Israelites just after the Exodus, so the Ark never had only one
> "keeping place"--

We're talking about POTA not Raider of the Lost Ark. Stay focused
Patrick.


then so, too, could the Bomb God/Idol of the Mendez

> group have been removed from the "Ape Management" site of Breck's

old

> city and brought to some other location, perhaps through

underground

> tunnels carved out by the U.S. military in the last decades before

the

> Nuke War. The Bomb wasn't there during CONQUEST (as far as we

know),

> so it must have been brought TO that city at some point. When?

Before

> or after the Nuke War?

OK cite your evidence from the films that support this.

> This would be all "cut and dried" if the filmmakers had indicated

that

> CONQUEST took place in "NEW YORK CITY Region, 2670" instead

of "NORTH

> AMERICA, 2670" (or, in CONQUEST, "NORTH AMERICA, 1991"). The

ambiguity

> of that "North America" bit leaves it open to speculation as to

where

> exactly IN North America those adventures take place.

I'll give you that in Conquest they wanted to keep their options
open for future films. But by the end of Battle it's pretty clear
we're seeing the same ape and mutant settlements as in Beneath.

> As for the "Ackerman" and "Breck" streets/avenues, yeah, of course
> "Ackerman" ("Department 4SJ"!) was intended as a tribute to the
> publisher of "FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND", but that's beside the
> point. Since there already is an "Ackerman" street in NYC, on

Staten

> Island, only a single block long with no "Breck" avenue

intersecting

> it, then NYC is ruled out as the city in CONQUEST and BATTLE;

By that arguement on city in the US was the city featured in those
two films. No Breck and Ackerman intersect in any city in the
country. I've looked this up on streets and trips.
You know that filmmakers often use fictional street and place names
in films. By your logic Friends doesn't take place in NYC cause the
street they live on isn't a real NYC street. Die Hard didn't take
place in LA cause there's no Nacatomi Plaza there. This is the POTA
universe not the real world. You do know the difference don't you.

> it was a city that had yet to be built, with its
> underground cylindrical tunnels,

Didn't they have undergroud cylimdrical tunnels in Beneath too.
HHMMM!

> if they had intended it to actually BE the
> city of New York, then wouldn't it have been easier to film it

there?

> Imagine shots of Armando taking Caesar through Times Square, to

hand

> out leaflets for his antiquated circus.

First they were trying to present a city of the future not present
day. Plus a location shoot in NYC would of been much more expensive
than film right next door in Century City.

> The fact that there
> are absolutely NO familiar NYC landmarks at all in CONQUEST (or
> BATTLE, for that matter) leads me to conclude that it ISN'T New

York.

There are no familar landmarks to any city shown in either films.
The evidence is based on the events of the story. Present evidence
from the stories that lead you to conclude its elsewhere.

> You, of course, are free to believe otherwise; but I have yet to

see

> any proof. Are there NY tags on the license plates of the Bus and
> Jeeps that Kolp's army drives over to Caesar's "Ape City" with?
> One other thing: throughout CONQUEST and BATTLE there are various
> designations of places in the city (such as "the southeast plaza",
> etc.), yet nobody ever makes any reference to a placename that can

be

> connected with New York City, such as "Times Square", "Greenwich
> Village", the Bronx, etc. If there were just ONE, then I'd have a

hell

> of a time explaining that one away as NOT being in New York.

They are totally generic names that could exist in any city. Are
there any that is specific to any other city?

Attachments :

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:

> > Does London look like it did 2000 years ago?
> [*** No... but if BATTLE takes place in the exact same "Ape City" as
> in PLANET, then you have to account for the "stone city" aspect of it.
> I don't see any of that in BATTLE, not even the "raw materials" with
> which to carve out such a city. Caesar's people built tree-forts in a
> big cluster out in some forest, and named it "Ape City". Nearly 2,000
> years later there's a place also called "Ape City" (actually, only by
> Brent, and NOT by any apes, as far as I can recall) where there are NO
> tree-forts, and where the Apes have carved out dwellings into solid
> rock.]
>
> Does Rome or any other city in the world look like it did 2000 years
> ago? No. So your first arguement is specious.

It's 2000 years, if the mutant can walk across country with the Alpha-Omega bomb in that time; surely the Ape could develop enough to move up from tree forts to the city seen in Planet.

>
> > And where is the "Forbidden City" on the west coast?
>
> [*** In my scenario, it's built as an overlying "arcology" on the site
> of the small towns of San Simeon and Cambria, between San Francisco
> and Los Angeles.]

No one give a rats ass about your scenario. For a smart guy I have thought you would of figured that out by now. Either state evidence from the films to support your arguement or concede the point.

>
> > How come it is never mentioned or seen in the TV series?
>
> [*** Why would it be? If Virdon, Burke & Galen had never travelled
> directly between San Fran and LA, they never would have run into it.
> So what if no other character mentions it--why should they?

Virdon & Burke are looking for other humans that might posses technology. Surely they grilled Galen about the area. If there were someplace called the Forbidden City; don't you think they'd seek it out.

> Look at
> the "skulls" on Urko's wall map, and you'll see that there are plenty
> of places where there could be a "Forbidden" City/Zone/place.]

Those skulls are to the east and south no where near California.

> > The simian settlement there is clearly called "Central City".
>
> [*** I never said that the tree-fort village of Caesar's in BATTLE was
> the same place later seen in the TV show and named "Central City". In
> my scenario, Caesar's "Ape City" and Urko's "Central City" are two
> different places, both in California yet hundreds of miles apart.]

Then how come Ape City is not on Urko's map?

>
> > Since your interpretation of Cornelius' map is all wrong (Zaius does
> > refer to the Forbidden Zone twice as 'our eastern desert' in Planet)
> > the rest of your arguement doesn't hold water.
>
> [*** Zaius calls it "our eastern desert", yes... which implies
> (perhaps) that there is also a "western desert" not visible on the map

It implies no such thing.

> Cornelius shows Taylor. And BOTH of those deserts could be "north" of
> Ape City; if there were a mountain range separating the two deserts,
> then it would be logical for him to differentiate between the two--he
> could call them the "Northwest" and "Northeast" deserts... or he could
> just call them the "Western" and "Eastern" deserts, since the "north"
> part would be unnecessary. Zaius never says that the desert in
> question is "towards the East"; he calls it "our eastern desert", and
> there's a difference.]

No way you're just making stuff up to prove your point. Or as a good lawyer would say "Assuming facts not in evidence". And LordT told you about assuming.

>
> And, James, why don't you address the below-quoted bit from BATTLE,
> where Kolp's scout says that Ape City is "to the North"? According to
> your interpretation of Cornelius' map, Kolp's city would have to be
> SOUTH of Ape City, "below" it--but the ape-inhabited area of
> Cornelius' map has an OCEAN "below" it (in the "southern" direction as
> you read the Map; whereas I would say that it is due EAST of Ape
> City). How do you fit in what Kolp's scout says? C'mon, gimme an
> answer!
>

Kolps scout never says that Ape City is to the north. He never specifies that when he comes back to report. He does state that Caeser, Virgil and McDonald headed north when the left the Forbidden City. As shown on the attached, this would of been the quickest route back to the greenbelt.

Hmmmm....I always thought Liberty was blown from her spot and landed there.

Makes less sense when you consider the appropriate nuclear explosion would
have shattered her into tiny pieces.

You know, an advantage of living in Australia is that none of these
geographical challenges really hit home!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 23:53
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] (unknown)
>
>
> I wonder why some here have little trouble believing that in two
> thousand years the earth has changed form so severely while the
> statue shows comparatively little damage? I believe that it is more
> likely that the statue has moved or been moved. It could well have
> been dismantled (yes, even by present day humans) and rebuilt
> somewhere else. Or the statue we see could be one of several
> replicas. (Isn't there a similar statue -- smaller -- in France?)
> While it certainly catches us off guard to see the Statue of Liberty,
> it is difficult for me to believe that the statue remains relatively
> untouched by time and exists in pretty much the same spot, while the
> land forms change and the poles shift and the rest of the buildings
> around have been shaken by a nuclear disaster.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> --I posed a
> > question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> > PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> > surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> > next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But Nautius Maximus was a Roman!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 17:57
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Milo
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Alan Maxwell" <alan@a...> wrote:
> > <mlccougar@a...> wrote:
> > > True... And I know you're not the one who brought this
> subject up, so I'm not meaning this too sound as if I'm saying
> you left anything out, but don't forget, they also used a Latin
> word / name URSUS. At least I believe it's Latin in origin, if
> not, well, I stand corrected.
> >
> > And let's not forget old Ulysses!
> >
> > Alan
>
> *** "Honorius", "Julius", "Lucius" and "Maximus" are also from Latin.
> "Ursus" means "bear" (as in Ursa Major, the "Great Bear", which in
> Greek is "arktos"--hence the "arctic" polar zone, which is directly
> under that circumpolar constellation).
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You should email her and let us all know the results.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 18:23
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Ulysse(s)
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > In Boulle's book it's Ulysse, not UlysseS. I don't know if
> that's a significant difference or if he can still be compared
> with the wanderer from "The Odyssey". Etc.
> - - - Jeff
>
> *** The name "Ulysse Merou" was written by a Frenchman. "Ulysse" is
> the French way of writing the Latin name "Ulysses", just as "Jean" is
> the Frog version of "Giovanni"/"Johann"/"John"/etc.
> It's kind of mysterious how the Roman authors (Ovid, Virgil, etc.)
> changed the Greek name "Odysseus" into "Ulysses". I think that if you
> write the Greek name in capital letters (too bad I can't type Greek
> letters on this site), the capital "D" in Greek looks like a capital
> "L" (an upside-down "V") without the bottom dash connecting the two
> uprights. So, a clumsy Roman might have seen Greek "ODYSSEUS" as
> "OLYSSEUS". Since there might have been a variant initial vowel in
> some no longer extant manuscripts of Homer ("OUDYSSEUS": the "ou"
> diphthong being rather common), this might account for how the initial
> "O" ("omicron") of ODYSSEUS was changed to Latin "U", since Latin
> authors--transliterating Greek words--tended to change the "OU" Greek
> diphthong into the single Latin letter "U".
>
> I took two years of Greek language in college, but I never did ask my
> teacher about this. I wonder what she'd think of my Odysseus > Ulysses
> hypothesis?
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > And let's not forget old Ulysses!
> >
> >
> > An interesting choice that.
> > Wasn't it Ulysses who was always trying to get home?
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The mothership beamed it there as a reminder to Taylor that what he needs is
a radio, or a really big flare, to get a message to them, because (unlike
most good motherships) the inhabitants don't keep in touch with their away
mission crew and there is a lot of red tape to get through before they send
a rescue mission.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 22:49
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] (unknown)
>
>
>
> > >You seem to think that that peninsula between the lake and the sea
> is Long Island, when the topography of this part of the world is
> drastically different.
> >
> > Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact that
> > the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the maps made
> > by the early explorers of America. They are not completely accurate
> > either.
>
> *** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of the
> terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been explored"
> to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was extensive
> enough.
>
> > >Compare an aerial photo of the Statue of Liberty with the scene at
> the end of PLANET: does the Statue get hurled over to the shore of
> Long Island? does an immense geological surge propel an upthrust of
> the land to the Statue's "right"?
> >
> > Who said Taylor was on Long Island? He was riding up the coast,
> > towards the north.
>
> *** Up WHAT coast? The last time Zaius & Cornelius saw Taylor (in
> PLANET), Taylor was heading "towards the north" along a stretch of
> beach which extended to the RIGHT on Cornelius' map. There was a cliff
> to his left and an ocean to his right--the same "sea" that Cornelius
> colored blue along the bottom of his map. Cornelius tells Brent that
> this "last place" they saw Taylor was "between the Lake and the Sea",
> which puts it on that peninsula "below" the Dead Lake body of water
> and "above" the Sea. You yourself said (just above) that this area is
> Long Island, with "Dead Lake" being a "bay" emptying into Long Island
> sound. I never said that Taylor was actually ON Long Island--I posed a
> question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Attachments :

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:

>
> > >You seem to think that that peninsula between the lake and the sea
> is Long Island, when the topography of this part of the world is
> drastically different.

It's not drastically different its very similar. See attached.

> >
> > Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact that
> > the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the maps made
> > by the early explorers of America. They are not completely accurate
> > either.
>
> *** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of the
> terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been explored"
> to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was extensive
> enough.

How do you know that? Can you read Cornelius' mind through the movie screen. He says he can draw map but since we never see him do so; how do we know he's any good at it.

> *** Up WHAT coast? The last time Zaius & Cornelius saw Taylor (in
> PLANET), Taylor was heading "towards the north" along a stretch of
> beach which extended to the RIGHT on Cornelius' map. There was a cliff
> to his left and an ocean to his right--the same "sea" that Cornelius
> colored blue along the bottom of his map. Cornelius tells Brent that
> this "last place" they saw Taylor was "between the Lake and the Sea",
> which puts it on that peninsula "below" the Dead Lake body of water
> and "above" the Sea. You yourself said (just above) that this area is
> Long Island, with "Dead Lake" being a "bay" emptying into Long Island
> sound. I never said that Taylor was actually ON Long Island--I posed a
> question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
>
> Patrick

Again you're neglecting 2,000 year of topagraphical shifts plus the initial effects of the nuclear blast. You keep saying the Forbidden Zone is in the North but other than a vague line in Beneath refering not to the relation of the Forbidden Zone to Ape City but the last place Cornelius saw Taylor.(And the way the scene is constructed he was pointing to a position on the map at the time); you never state any facts from the films to prove your point.
Feel free to use the attached map, and even turn it sideways if you want and show us all where you think everything is and what area from now it's supposed to represent.
I bet you won't cause none of your theories hold any water.

I'm sure Patrick will come up with a theory about the Roswell aliens
coming down to restore it.

--- In pota@y..., "sand_hill_school" <sand_hill_school@y...> wrote:
> I wonder why some here have little trouble believing that in two
> thousand years the earth has changed form so severely while the
> statue shows comparatively little damage? I believe that it is
more
> likely that the statue has moved or been moved. It could well
have
> been dismantled (yes, even by present day humans) and rebuilt
> somewhere else. Or the statue we see could be one of several
> replicas. (Isn't there a similar statue -- smaller -- in
France?)
> While it certainly catches us off guard to see the Statue of
Liberty,
> it is difficult for me to believe that the statue remains
relatively
> untouched by time and exists in pretty much the same spot, while
the
> land forms change and the poles shift and the rest of the
buildings
> around have been shaken by a nuclear disaster.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"
<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> --I posed a
> > question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> > PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small
island
> > surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff
right
> > next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
> >
> > Patrick

Just invent a mothership James, and have it consistently alter the terrain
and stun people with a "Flub Face" ray gun that makes them utter silly
lines.

C'mon James, c'mon.

You know, there's a great little ditty to promote Aussie cricket named
"C'mon Aussie C'mon". Maybe the poles are already shifting. I mean, c'mon.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 22:37
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues

C'mon, gimme an
answer!

Patrick

>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > Clearly, we're talking about two
> > entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that the
> > "city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City"; Brent
> > refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but
> that
> > doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he saw a
> road
> > sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
> > If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then
> there
> > can also be more than one "Ape City".
> > Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with its
> > orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map
> for a
> > minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the RIGHT
> side
> > is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it
> (so
> > that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the NORTH")?
> If,
> > as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards the
> > NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the
> Forbidden
> > Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what Zaius
> > worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other
> words,
> > you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable
> areas:
> > the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new" Ape
> > City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
> > Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be
> anywhere
> > > in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is
> New
> > > York.
> > > >
> > > > Where and when is this established?

Vp yovrs, mvthafvka.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LordTZer0@... [LordTZer0@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 4 July 2002 6:21
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Ulysse(s)
>
>
>
> Lemme ask you a question.
> How did the Romans spell Vinnie Vide Vici if they used V to mean U?
> I've always wondered that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How about a mothership built by the Roswell aliens that give free
cross country trip to mutant with nuclear weapons.

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Just invent a mothership James, and have it consistently alter the
terrain
> and stun people with a "Flub Face" ray gun that makes them utter
silly
> lines.
>
> C'mon James, c'mon.
>
> You know, there's a great little ditty to promote Aussie cricket
named
> "C'mon Aussie C'mon". Maybe the poles are already shifting. I
mean, c'mon.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 22:37
> To: pota@y...
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues
>
> C'mon, gimme an
> answer!
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"
<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Clearly, we're talking about two
> > > entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that
the
> > > "city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City";
Brent
> > > refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but
> > that
> > > doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he
saw a
> > road
> > > sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
> > > If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then
> > there
> > > can also be more than one "Ape City".
> > > Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with
its
> > > orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map
> > for a
> > > minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the
RIGHT
> > side
> > > is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it
> > (so
> > > that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the
NORTH")?
> > If,
> > > as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards
the
> > > NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the
> > Forbidden
> > > Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what
Zaius
> > > worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other
> > words,
> > > you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable
> > areas:
> > > the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new"
Ape
> > > City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
> > > Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard
Time,
> > > > > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be
> > anywhere
> > > > in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is
> > New
> > > > York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where and when is this established?
>
>
>
>
>

We need a "V" somewhere.....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 4 July 2002 7:58
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: C'mon.
>
>
> How about a mothership built by the Roswell aliens that give free
> cross country trip to mutant with nuclear weapons.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Just invent a mothership James, and have it consistently alter the
> terrain
> > and stun people with a "Flub Face" ray gun that makes them utter
> silly
> > lines.
> >
> > C'mon James, c'mon.
> >
> > You know, there's a great little ditty to promote Aussie cricket
> named
> > "C'mon Aussie C'mon". Maybe the poles are already shifting. I
> mean, c'mon.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 22:37
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues
> >
> > C'mon, gimme an
> > answer!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"
> <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Clearly, we're talking about two
> > > > entirely different "Ape Cities" here--and that's assuming that
> the
> > > > "city of the Apes" in PLANET actually IS named "Ape City";
> Brent
> > > > refers to it as "Ape City" (to the Mutants and to Taylor), but
> > > that
> > > > doesn't mean that he heard any ape call it that, or that he
> saw a
> > > road
> > > > sign saying "Ape City: 5 miles"...
> > > > If there can be more than one "Portland" or "Springfield", then
> > > there
> > > > can also be more than one "Ape City".
> > > > Also, remember how Kolp's scout says that Caesar's city (with
> its
> > > > orchards, etc.) is "to the NORTH"? Well, look at Cornelius' map
> > > for a
> > > > minute; IF, as you interpret it, the Forbidden Zone on the
> RIGHT
> > > side
> > > > is also EAST of Ape city, then how could it also be SOUTH of it
> > > (so
> > > > that the Mutant could tell Kolp that Ape City was "to the
> NORTH")?
> > > If,
> > > > as I interpret Cornelius' map, the Forbidden Zone is "towards
> the
> > > > NORTH" of Ape City (turned 90 degrees), then "north" of the
> > > Forbidden
> > > > Zone would be further to the RIGHT off the Map (perhaps what
> Zaius
> > > > worries about, a "jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone"). In other
> > > words,
> > > > you would have a "Forbidden Zone" in between two inhabitable
> > > areas:
> > > > the "old" Ape City NORTH of it (the BATTLE one), and the "new"
> Ape
> > > > City SOUTH of it (the PLANET/BENEATH one).
> > > > Or... the BATTLE site is on the California coast, as I prefer.
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > > > In a message dated 6/30/2002 1:31:30 PM Central Standard
> Time,
> > > > > > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, while Breck's city is unidentified and could be
> > > anywhere
> > > > > in the US, the events of Battle firmly establish that city is
> > > New
> > > > > York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where and when is this established?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is really quite simple. The Roswell Aliens beamed the Statue of Liberty
aboard the Mothership. When they were over the California coast they
decided they didn't like it so they chunked the statue overboard. The
resulting impact was so great that it caused the continent of Antarctica
to "pole-shift" over to the Arctic Ocean, shoving other continents out
of its way in the process. Then scientists from Afganistan colonized
Antarctica and renamed it "New Afganistan".

>'m sure Patrick will come up with a theory about the Roswell aliens
>coming down to restore it.
>
>
>--- In pota@y..., "sand_hill_school" <sand_hill_school@y...> wrote:
>> I wonder why some here have little trouble believing that in two
>> thousand years the earth has changed form so severely while the
>> statue shows comparatively little damage? I believe that it is
>more
>> likely that the statue has moved or been moved. It could well
>have
>> been dismantled (yes, even by present day humans) and rebuilt
>> somewhere else. Or the statue we see could be one of several
>> replicas. (Isn't there a similar statue -- smaller -- in
>France?)
>> While it certainly catches us off guard to see the Statue of
>Liberty,
>> it is difficult for me to believe that the statue remains
>relatively
>> untouched by time and exists in pretty much the same spot, while
>the
>> land forms change and the poles shift and the rest of the
>buildings
>> around have been shaken by a nuclear disaster.

You're forgetting one thing. If it's a circular timeline then it has no
bearing on what streets we have. It doesn't take place in our timeline. It
might as well be set in Middle Earth. Those who believe in a circular
timeline can make up any thing they want; it doesn't reflect on us.
The Forrest J. Ackerman reference went over my head. Thanks for pointing
it out.
It's been established that an intrepid archaelogist named Jones found the
Ark of the Covenant and it now resides in a U.S. government warehouse. I
forget where I read that. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 5:14 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Breck's city: in California? in New York?


> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > Well there is no Breck or Ackerman streets that cross each other in
> > any west coast cities either. And you know as well as I do that
> > Ackerman wasn't indented to represent a real street but as a salute
> > to Forest Ackerman. The details that establish it was New York was
> > at the end of the film the mutants are led by Mendez and possess the
> > Alpha-Omega bomb. This shows that Dehn and the Corrington's
> > intention was that this was the same city shown in Beneath, New
> York.
>
> *** That's your proof? That both in BATTLE and BENEATH there is a
> group of Mutants led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega bomb?
> How many years separate the two stories? 3955 minus 2018 would make
> 1,937 years. During those two millennia, who's to say that the Mendez
> community from BATTLE stayed put and never left? We do know that at
> SOME point the Bomb was moved from its place in the "Ape Management"
> area (where Kolp's HQ was in BATTLE) to St. Patrick's Cathedral.
> Whether or not this "move" was merely across town or (as my scenario
> has it) across country, there are NO facts given in BATTLE (or
> CONQUEST, for that matter) to indicate otherwise.
> I previously compared this idea of a "move" of the Mendez group (with
> their Bomb) to the theories published by Graham Hancock (and others)
> regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Hancock, in "The Sign and the
> Seal", concludes that the Lost Ark is probably in a church at Axum,
> Ethiopia (as Ethiopians claim, in their extra-Biblical holy book
> "Kebra Nagast"), having been taken out of the Temple of Solomon in
> Jerusalem and transported down the Nile; Hancock believes that the Ark
> was kept for a while on the island of Elephantine (in the Nile), at a
> Jewish temple/synagogue built to the same dimensions as Solomon's
> temple--whether this is true or not, nobody knows... it's just a
> possibility.
> There are some who think that the Knights Templar (who built churches
> in Ethiopia, probably in the 13th century) "stole" the Ark, and had it
> brought to Scotland, where the Sinclairs had built a "Solomonic
> Temple" (to those dimensions) called Rosslyn Chapel. I've actually
> been to Rosslyn Chapel, and can attest to the fact that there is a
> great deal of interest in the site due to such speculation (there's a
> shop there where they sell a number of books dealing with this
> esoteric subject).
> If the Ark of the Covenant (provided it ever truly existed) could have
> been removed from its intended place (Solomon's Temple) by priests
> devoted to the "cult" of Jehovah--and, remember, the Ark was
> previously kept (before Solomon built the Temple) in the Tabernacle,
> the big tent that Moses had from the time the Ark was built by the
> Israelites just after the Exodus, so the Ark never had only one
> "keeping place"--then so, too, could the Bomb God/Idol of the Mendez
> group have been removed from the "Ape Management" site of Breck's old
> city and brought to some other location, perhaps through underground
> tunnels carved out by the U.S. military in the last decades before the
> Nuke War. The Bomb wasn't there during CONQUEST (as far as we know),
> so it must have been brought TO that city at some point. When? Before
> or after the Nuke War?
> This would be all "cut and dried" if the filmmakers had indicated that
> CONQUEST took place in "NEW YORK CITY Region, 2670" instead of "NORTH
> AMERICA, 2670" (or, in CONQUEST, "NORTH AMERICA, 1991"). The ambiguity
> of that "North America" bit leaves it open to speculation as to where
> exactly IN North America those adventures take place.
> As for the "Ackerman" and "Breck" streets/avenues, yeah, of course
> "Ackerman" ("Department 4SJ"!) was intended as a tribute to the
> publisher of "FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND", but that's beside the
> point. Since there already is an "Ackerman" street in NYC, on Staten
> Island, only a single block long with no "Breck" avenue intersecting
> it, then NYC is ruled out as the city in CONQUEST and BATTLE; maybe,
> you might argue, there could be ANOTHER "Ackerman" street/avenue in
> some nearby suburb of NYC... but then that leaves us with the notion
> that the "Governor" would run things from a suburb, rather than from
> the Big Apple nearby. I don't buy it. The city run by Breck is--from
> the perspective of the 1972 audience--a "futuristic" city in the
> "future" year of 1991. It is a city that didn't yet exist in the time
> ESCAPE takes place--it was a city that had yet to be built, with its
> underground cylindrical tunnels, its futuristic-looking "Ape
> Management" complex, etc. It isn't shown to be a "retro-fitted" city
> (like Los Angeles in "BLADERUNNER"), where futuristic pyramid-shaped
> buildings are constructed above the "old" city, rather than by tearing
> down the old buildings and constructing entirely new ones. Breck's
> city was meant (I think) to portray a dystopian possibility of what
> America would come to be; if they had intended it to actually BE the
> city of New York, then wouldn't it have been easier to film it there?
> Imagine shots of Armando taking Caesar through Times Square, to hand
> out leaflets for his antiquated circus. A matte-painting could have
> been done of an "Ape Management" building set against the backdrop of
> familiar skyscrapers, to give the 1972 audience the idea of what WILL
> be built in the coming years leading up to 1991. The fact that there
> are absolutely NO familiar NYC landmarks at all in CONQUEST (or
> BATTLE, for that matter) leads me to conclude that it ISN'T New York.
> You, of course, are free to believe otherwise; but I have yet to see
> any proof. Are there NY tags on the license plates of the Bus and
> Jeeps that Kolp's army drives over to Caesar's "Ape City" with?
> One other thing: throughout CONQUEST and BATTLE there are various
> designations of places in the city (such as "the southeast plaza",
> etc.), yet nobody ever makes any reference to a placename that can be
> connected with New York City, such as "Times Square", "Greenwich
> Village", the Bronx, etc. If there were just ONE, then I'd have a hell
> of a time explaining that one away as NOT being in New York. When
> Breck is ordering re-inforcements to help the line of gun-toting
> soldiers on whom Caesar's ape army is advancing, he uses generic terms
> like "perimeter" and "Command Post". Had he mentioned sending cops in
> riot gear from a specific precinct, that would come in handy to
> pinpoint it not only IN New York but at a specific area in the city.
> Unfortunately (or, for me, fortunately), none of this is ever done in
> CONQUEST or BATTLE.
>
> Patrick
>
> -- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > *** Breck's city could only be somewhere on a coastline of the
> > U.S., since the Ape shipments come from overseas and dock at harbors
> (as Armando tells Caesar). That rules out any location which is land-
> locked. As for the "events of Battle", I don't recall ANY detail which
> "firmly establishes" that Breck's city was New York. The only
> "Ackerman" street or avenue in NYC is ONE BLOCK LONG on Staten Island,
> and there is no "Breck" avenue/street crossing it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think the nondescript(ness?) of Breck's city is intentional. They don't
want to be pinned down. Like the ambiguous ending of "Battle" they leave the
viewer room to speculate (and they learned to stop painting themselves into
corners).Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 5:14 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Breck's city: in California? in New York?


> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > Well there is no Breck or Ackerman streets that cross each other in
> > any west coast cities either. And you know as well as I do that
> > Ackerman wasn't indented to represent a real street but as a salute
> > to Forest Ackerman. The details that establish it was New York was
> > at the end of the film the mutants are led by Mendez and possess the
> > Alpha-Omega bomb. This shows that Dehn and the Corrington's
> > intention was that this was the same city shown in Beneath, New
> York.
>
> *** That's your proof? That both in BATTLE and BENEATH there is a
> group of Mutants led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega bomb?
> How many years separate the two stories? 3955 minus 2018 would make
> 1,937 years. During those two millennia, who's to say that the Mendez
> community from BATTLE stayed put and never left? We do know that at
> SOME point the Bomb was moved from its place in the "Ape Management"
> area (where Kolp's HQ was in BATTLE) to St. Patrick's Cathedral.
> Whether or not this "move" was merely across town or (as my scenario
> has it) across country, there are NO facts given in BATTLE (or
> CONQUEST, for that matter) to indicate otherwise.
> I previously compared this idea of a "move" of the Mendez group (with
> their Bomb) to the theories published by Graham Hancock (and others)
> regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Hancock, in "The Sign and the
> Seal", concludes that the Lost Ark is probably in a church at Axum,
> Ethiopia (as Ethiopians claim, in their extra-Biblical holy book
> "Kebra Nagast"), having been taken out of the Temple of Solomon in
> Jerusalem and transported down the Nile; Hancock believes that the Ark
> was kept for a while on the island of Elephantine (in the Nile), at a
> Jewish temple/synagogue built to the same dimensions as Solomon's
> temple--whether this is true or not, nobody knows... it's just a
> possibility.
> There are some who think that the Knights Templar (who built churches
> in Ethiopia, probably in the 13th century) "stole" the Ark, and had it
> brought to Scotland, where the Sinclairs had built a "Solomonic
> Temple" (to those dimensions) called Rosslyn Chapel. I've actually
> been to Rosslyn Chapel, and can attest to the fact that there is a
> great deal of interest in the site due to such speculation (there's a
> shop there where they sell a number of books dealing with this
> esoteric subject).
> If the Ark of the Covenant (provided it ever truly existed) could have
> been removed from its intended place (Solomon's Temple) by priests
> devoted to the "cult" of Jehovah--and, remember, the Ark was
> previously kept (before Solomon built the Temple) in the Tabernacle,
> the big tent that Moses had from the time the Ark was built by the
> Israelites just after the Exodus, so the Ark never had only one
> "keeping place"--then so, too, could the Bomb God/Idol of the Mendez
> group have been removed from the "Ape Management" site of Breck's old
> city and brought to some other location, perhaps through underground
> tunnels carved out by the U.S. military in the last decades before the
> Nuke War. The Bomb wasn't there during CONQUEST (as far as we know),
> so it must have been brought TO that city at some point. When? Before
> or after the Nuke War?
> This would be all "cut and dried" if the filmmakers had indicated that
> CONQUEST took place in "NEW YORK CITY Region, 2670" instead of "NORTH
> AMERICA, 2670" (or, in CONQUEST, "NORTH AMERICA, 1991"). The ambiguity
> of that "North America" bit leaves it open to speculation as to where
> exactly IN North America those adventures take place.
> As for the "Ackerman" and "Breck" streets/avenues, yeah, of course
> "Ackerman" ("Department 4SJ"!) was intended as a tribute to the
> publisher of "FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND", but that's beside the
> point. Since there already is an "Ackerman" street in NYC, on Staten
> Island, only a single block long with no "Breck" avenue intersecting
> it, then NYC is ruled out as the city in CONQUEST and BATTLE; maybe,
> you might argue, there could be ANOTHER "Ackerman" street/avenue in
> some nearby suburb of NYC... but then that leaves us with the notion
> that the "Governor" would run things from a suburb, rather than from
> the Big Apple nearby. I don't buy it. The city run by Breck is--from
> the perspective of the 1972 audience--a "futuristic" city in the
> "future" year of 1991. It is a city that didn't yet exist in the time
> ESCAPE takes place--it was a city that had yet to be built, with its
> underground cylindrical tunnels, its futuristic-looking "Ape
> Management" complex, etc. It isn't shown to be a "retro-fitted" city
> (like Los Angeles in "BLADERUNNER"), where futuristic pyramid-shaped
> buildings are constructed above the "old" city, rather than by tearing
> down the old buildings and constructing entirely new ones. Breck's
> city was meant (I think) to portray a dystopian possibility of what
> America would come to be; if they had intended it to actually BE the
> city of New York, then wouldn't it have been easier to film it there?
> Imagine shots of Armando taking Caesar through Times Square, to hand
> out leaflets for his antiquated circus. A matte-painting could have
> been done of an "Ape Management" building set against the backdrop of
> familiar skyscrapers, to give the 1972 audience the idea of what WILL
> be built in the coming years leading up to 1991. The fact that there
> are absolutely NO familiar NYC landmarks at all in CONQUEST (or
> BATTLE, for that matter) leads me to conclude that it ISN'T New York.
> You, of course, are free to believe otherwise; but I have yet to see
> any proof. Are there NY tags on the license plates of the Bus and
> Jeeps that Kolp's army drives over to Caesar's "Ape City" with?
> One other thing: throughout CONQUEST and BATTLE there are various
> designations of places in the city (such as "the southeast plaza",
> etc.), yet nobody ever makes any reference to a placename that can be
> connected with New York City, such as "Times Square", "Greenwich
> Village", the Bronx, etc. If there were just ONE, then I'd have a hell
> of a time explaining that one away as NOT being in New York. When
> Breck is ordering re-inforcements to help the line of gun-toting
> soldiers on whom Caesar's ape army is advancing, he uses generic terms
> like "perimeter" and "Command Post". Had he mentioned sending cops in
> riot gear from a specific precinct, that would come in handy to
> pinpoint it not only IN New York but at a specific area in the city.
> Unfortunately (or, for me, fortunately), none of this is ever done in
> CONQUEST or BATTLE.
>
> Patrick
>
> -- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > *** Breck's city could only be somewhere on a coastline of the
> > U.S., since the Ape shipments come from overseas and dock at harbors
> (as Armando tells Caesar). That rules out any location which is land-
> locked. As for the "events of Battle", I don't recall ANY detail which
> "firmly establishes" that Breck's city was New York. The only
> "Ackerman" street or avenue in NYC is ONE BLOCK LONG on Staten Island,
> and there is no "Breck" avenue/street crossing it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 3:11:09 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** The "Ape City" in BATTLE is a comprised of tree-forts, built in a
forest. The "Ape City" in PLANET & BENEATH is like the troglodyte city
in Cappodocia (where POTA's production designer, Bill Creber, got the
idea), carved into solid rock.

Where is it ever mentioned the Ape's city in Planet & Beneath is "carved into solid rock?" I'm not specifically asking you Patrick, this is an open question to the group.

I always thought the Ape's city was more or less supposed to be made of an adobe type substance.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 6:25:54 AM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Well, there is no Breck or Ackerman streets that cross each other in
any west coast cities either.

As far as both of you arguing about the existence, or nonexistence of these two streets, that's pointless. You have to remember that streets are renamed on occasion, to honor a famous person, etc.. I'm sure Breck, being the higher up he is, would have no trouble getting a street named after himself.

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 6:32:51 AM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

And where is the "Forbidden City" on the west coast. How come it is
never mentioned or seen in the TV series? The simian settlement
there is clearly called "Central City."

While it's NOT mentioned in any of the episodes themselves, in the novel "Journey into Terror," it does mention the ruined city being in the forbidden zone. So, if like me, you consider the novelizations "canon," it is in there.<.html

Sure they do. You're turned into New America. Sorry, couldn't resist.
- - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Whitty" <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:37 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Liberty


> Hmmmm....I always thought Liberty was blown from her spot and landed
there.
>
> Makes less sense when you consider the appropriate nuclear explosion would
> have shattered her into tiny pieces.
>
> You know, an advantage of living in Australia is that none of these
> geographical challenges really hit home!
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2002 23:53
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] (unknown)
> >
> >
> > I wonder why some here have little trouble believing that in two
> > thousand years the earth has changed form so severely while the
> > statue shows comparatively little damage? I believe that it is more
> > likely that the statue has moved or been moved. It could well have
> > been dismantled (yes, even by present day humans) and rebuilt
> > somewhere else. Or the statue we see could be one of several
> > replicas. (Isn't there a similar statue -- smaller -- in France?)
> > While it certainly catches us off guard to see the Statue of Liberty,
> > it is difficult for me to believe that the statue remains relatively
> > untouched by time and exists in pretty much the same spot, while the
> > land forms change and the poles shift and the rest of the buildings
> > around have been shaken by a nuclear disaster.
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > wrote:
> > --I posed a
> > > question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> > > PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> > > surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> > > next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

In the TV series, the re-occurring human house has several patches where
the "adobe" has come off and the lathing is exposed.

ABMAC

On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 08:01 PM, mlccougar@... wrote:

> Where is it ever mentioned the Ape's city in Planet & Beneath is
> "carved into solid rock?" I'm not specifically asking you Patrick, this
> is an open question to the group.
>
> I always thought the Ape's city was more or less supposed to be made of
> an adobe type substance.

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 7:50:04 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of the
terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been explored"
to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was extensive
enough.

Zaius says "Our eastern desert has never been explored." He never says the entire Forbidden Zone itself was never explored.<.html

Excellent points. This is not real life just fiction.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> You're forgetting one thing. If it's a circular timeline then it
has no
> bearing on what streets we have. It doesn't take place in our
timeline. It
> might as well be set in Middle Earth. Those who believe in a
circular
> timeline can make up any thing they want; it doesn't reflect on us.
> The Forrest J. Ackerman reference went over my head. Thanks for
pointing
> it out.
> It's been established that an intrepid archaelogist named Jones
found the
> Ark of the Covenant and it now resides in a U.S. government
warehouse. I
> forget where I read that. Etc. - - Jeff

Another excellent point.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> I think the nondescript(ness?) of Breck's city is intentional.
They don't
> want to be pinned down. Like the ambiguous ending of "Battle" they
leave the
> viewer room to speculate (and they learned to stop painting
themselves into
> corners).Etc. - - - Jeff

That's exactly my point. This is the POTA universe and not the real
world. We can't assume that every there is exactly like it is here.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> As far as both of you arguing about the existence, or nonexistence
of these
> two streets, that's pointless. You have to remember that streets
are renamed
> on occasion, to honor a famous person, etc.. I'm sure Breck, being
the higher
> up he is, would have no trouble getting a street named after
himself.

None of the novelizations are canon. Only what's on the screen is
canon.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/3/2002 6:32:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> > And where is the "Forbidden City" on the west coast. How come it
is
> > never mentioned or seen in the TV series? The simian settlement
> > there is clearly called "Central City."
>
> While it's NOT mentioned in any of the episodes themselves, in the
novel
> "Journey into Terror," it does mention the ruined city being in
the forbidden
> zone. So, if like me, you consider the novelizations "canon," it
is in there.

What's your point other than semantics?

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/3/2002 7:50:04 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > *** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of
the
> > terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been
explored"
> > to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was
extensive
> > enough.
>
> Zaius says "Our eastern desert has never been explored." He never
says the
> entire Forbidden Zone itself was never explored.

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 8:56:52 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

None of the novelizations are canon. Only what's on the screen is
canon.

In my personal opinion, they ARE. The only one that wouldn't be is "The Tyrant" in the "Lord of the Apes" novelization, because it is SO different than what the aired episode was. As for the others, I don't see why you'd dismiss them.

(And yes, I know, in the "Lord of the Apes" novelization of "The Gladiators," the prefect isn't named Barlow, but the details of the story are the same, so to me, it "counts.)

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 7/3/2002 8:58:50 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

What's your point other than semantics?

If you're asking me, my "point" is that there may have been regions of the Forbidden Zone explored, just not deep into it. Therefore, the Apes may have some knowledge of what exists or doesn't exist there, at least on the outer edges.

<.html

A few points after witnessing the current debate...

1) I'm not aware of any official source that says "this is canon and this
is not," but even if I'm mistaken about that, canon doesn't matter -- it's
all fiction anyway, so it's a moot point. Those who would tell others what
they can or can't include in their interpretation of Planet of the Apes are
taking themselves (and a hobby that's supposed to be fun) too seriously.
If I think the only stories that matter are the fourth episode of the TV
series, "Conquest," the cartoons, the even-numbered Marvel issues, the
Apeslayer comic strip, and the Toys 'R Us minicomic, then that's my right
(no matter how ridiculous such a model might admittedly be).

2) It is possible to debate someone without insulting them or implying
their theories are without merit, and we're all friends here. There are a
few people here who seem like they might have forgetten that lately.

3) "Should of" is not a term. :)

4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem -- in
the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than four
alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Rich

I'm not dismissing them. Some are better written than the actual
films and episodes. But none were written by the original writers.
They are all adaptions; therefore not canon. In the novelization of
Escape, Cornelius states that he identified the New York City area
as Ape City and the Forbidden Zone. I've never used this in my posts
about the map because it's just not canon.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/3/2002 8:56:52 PM Central Standard Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> >
> > None of the novelizations are canon. Only what's on the screen
is
> >
>
> In my personal opinion, they ARE. The only one that wouldn't be
is "The
> Tyrant" in the "Lord of the Apes" novelization, because it is SO
different
> than what the aired episode was. As for the others, I don't see
why you'd
> dismiss them.
>
> (And yes, I know, in the "Lord of the Apes" novelization of "The
Gladiators,"
> the prefect isn't named Barlow, but the details of the story are
the same, so
> to me, it "counts.)

Please everyone knows you can only take the odd numbered Marvels
seriously.

--- In pota@y..., Rich Handley <handleyr@o...> wrote:
> A few points after witnessing the current debate...
>
> 1) I'm not aware of any official source that says "this is canon
and this
> is not," but even if I'm mistaken about that, canon doesn't
matter -- it's
> all fiction anyway, so it's a moot point. Those who would tell
others what
> they can or can't include in their interpretation of Planet of the
Apes are
> taking themselves (and a hobby that's supposed to be fun) too
seriously.
> If I think the only stories that matter are the fourth episode of
the TV
> series, "Conquest," the cartoons, the even-numbered Marvel issues,
the
> Apeslayer comic strip, and the Toys 'R Us minicomic, then that's
my right
> (no matter how ridiculous such a model might admittedly be).
>
> 2) It is possible to debate someone without insulting them or
implying
> their theories are without merit, and we're all friends here.
There are a
> few people here who seem like they might have forgetten that
lately.
>
> 3) "Should of" is not a term. :)
>
> 4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might
seem -- in
> the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less
than four
> alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
>
> Discuss amongst yourselves...
>
> Rich

Also, you should of skipped your third point. We already have
Patrick to correct our grammer.

--- In pota@y..., Rich Handley <handleyr@o...> wrote:
> A few points after witnessing the current debate...
>
> 1) I'm not aware of any official source that says "this is canon
and this
> is not," but even if I'm mistaken about that, canon doesn't
matter -- it's
> all fiction anyway, so it's a moot point. Those who would tell
others what
> they can or can't include in their interpretation of Planet of the
Apes are
> taking themselves (and a hobby that's supposed to be fun) too
seriously.
> If I think the only stories that matter are the fourth episode of
the TV
> series, "Conquest," the cartoons, the even-numbered Marvel issues,
the
> Apeslayer comic strip, and the Toys 'R Us minicomic, then that's
my right
> (no matter how ridiculous such a model might admittedly be).
>
> 2) It is possible to debate someone without insulting them or
implying
> their theories are without merit, and we're all friends here.
There are a
> few people here who seem like they might have forgetten that
lately.
>
> 3) "Should of" is not a term. :)
>
> 4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might
seem -- in
> the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less
than four
> alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
>
> Discuss amongst yourselves...
>
> Rich

>I move across town is more believable than a move across the
>country

I am envisioning a scenario where the mutants, who are dropping like flies from
having to walk a few miles in BATTLE and can barely tolerate sunlight, walk the
entire distance from California to New York. A couple hundred of them are
lugging the Alpha-Omega bomb on their backs the whole way. A few miles away
the apes are making the same journey too, and -- in an unbelievable coincidence
-- the apes are both starting and ending their cross-country trek at virtually
the same two geographical locations as the mutants.

>We're talking about POTA not Raider of the Lost Ark. Stay focused
>Patrick.

You're asking a lot from Patrick.

>Federal Reserve Act and unconstitutionally changed U.S. money from
>gold & silver COIN into worthless PAPER. If they cared NOW, they'd
>restore our monetary system to its constitutional status, and the Fed
>would be revoked. But the people who actually run things in America
>don't give a damn about the Constitution--not when it inconveniences
>their ability to bilk the rest of us.
>Ohhhh, I could rant for hours about this, so I'll leave it at that.
>
>Patrick

Or you could go to a different internet group where they care about such things
and rant for hours in that group. And then perhaps somebody would explain to
you why the gold standard is considered to have been obsolete and discredited
for a long time now.

Hey, I didn't say it wasn't real life. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Breck's city: in California? in New York?


> Excellent points. This is not real life just fiction.
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > You're forgetting one thing. If it's a circular timeline then it
> has no
> > bearing on what streets we have. It doesn't take place in our
> timeline. It
> > might as well be set in Middle Earth. Those who believe in a
> circular
> > timeline can make up any thing they want; it doesn't reflect on us.
> > The Forrest J. Ackerman reference went over my head. Thanks for
> pointing
> > it out.
> > It's been established that an intrepid archaelogist named Jones
> found the
> > Ark of the Covenant and it now resides in a U.S. government
> warehouse. I
> > forget where I read that. Etc. - - Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry I guess I mistook your meaning.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Hey, I didn't say it wasn't real life. Stop putting words in my
mouth.
> Etc. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Breck's city: in California? in
New York?
>
>
> > Excellent points. This is not real life just fiction.
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > You're forgetting one thing. If it's a circular timeline
then it
> > has no
> > > bearing on what streets we have. It doesn't take place in our
> > timeline. It
> > > might as well be set in Middle Earth. Those who believe in a
> > circular
> > > timeline can make up any thing they want; it doesn't reflect
on us.
> > > The Forrest J. Ackerman reference went over my head. Thanks
for
> > pointing
> > > it out.
> > > It's been established that an intrepid archaelogist named
Jones
> > found the
> > > Ark of the Covenant and it now resides in a U.S. government
> > warehouse. I
> > > forget where I read that. Etc. - - Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >

That makes sense. I vote that Rich's e-mails be considered canon in this
group. All in favor? Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Handley" <handleyr@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1142


> A few points after witnessing the current debate...
>
> 1) I'm not aware of any official source that says "this is canon and this
> is not," but even if I'm mistaken about that, canon doesn't matter -- it's
> all fiction anyway, so it's a moot point. Those who would tell others
what
> they can or can't include in their interpretation of Planet of the Apes
are
> taking themselves (and a hobby that's supposed to be fun) too seriously.
> If I think the only stories that matter are the fourth episode of the TV
> series, "Conquest," the cartoons, the even-numbered Marvel issues, the
> Apeslayer comic strip, and the Toys 'R Us minicomic, then that's my right
> (no matter how ridiculous such a model might admittedly be).
>
> 2) It is possible to debate someone without insulting them or implying
> their theories are without merit, and we're all friends here. There are a
> few people here who seem like they might have forgetten that lately.
>
> 3) "Should of" is not a term. :)
>
> 4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem --
in
> the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than
four
> alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
>
> Discuss amongst yourselves...
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

According to www.lindaharrison.com , Linda will be spending July 4rth at
Chuck Heston's home, watching POTA. Oh, to be a gun on the wall for that!
The sister website, www.planetoftheapesonline.com says Zanuck is still
working on POTA2. So, no worries, mate. Etc. - - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] (unknown)


> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > > >You seem to think that that peninsula between the lake and the sea
> > is Long Island, when the topography of this part of the world is
> > drastically different.
>
> It's not drastically different its very similar. See attached.
>
> > >
> > > Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact that
> > > the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the maps made
> > > by the early explorers of America. They are not completely accurate
> > > either.
> >
> > *** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of the
> > terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been explored"
> > to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was extensive
> > enough.
>
> How do you know that? Can you read Cornelius' mind through the movie
screen. He says he can draw map but since we never see him do so; how do we
know he's any good at it.
>
> > *** Up WHAT coast? The last time Zaius & Cornelius saw Taylor (in
> > PLANET), Taylor was heading "towards the north" along a stretch of
> > beach which extended to the RIGHT on Cornelius' map. There was a cliff
> > to his left and an ocean to his right--the same "sea" that Cornelius
> > colored blue along the bottom of his map. Cornelius tells Brent that
> > this "last place" they saw Taylor was "between the Lake and the Sea",
> > which puts it on that peninsula "below" the Dead Lake body of water
> > and "above" the Sea. You yourself said (just above) that this area is
> > Long Island, with "Dead Lake" being a "bay" emptying into Long Island
> > sound. I never said that Taylor was actually ON Long Island--I posed a
> > question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty in
> > PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small island
> > surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff right
> > next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
> Again you're neglecting 2,000 year of topagraphical shifts plus the
initial effects of the nuclear blast. You keep saying the Forbidden Zone is
in the North but other than a vague line in Beneath refering not to the
relation of the Forbidden Zone to Ape City but the last place Cornelius saw
Taylor.(And the way the scene is constructed he was pointing to a position
on the map at the time); you never state any facts from the films to prove
your point.
> Feel free to use the attached map, and even turn it sideways if you want
and show us all where you think everything is and what area from now it's
supposed to represent.
> I bet you won't cause none of your theories hold any water.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bet Chuck tries to get her tanked up on tequilla and hits on her.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> According to www.lindaharrison.com , Linda will be spending
July 4rth at
> Chuck Heston's home, watching POTA. Oh, to be a gun on the wall
for that!
> The sister website, www.planetoftheapesonline.com says Zanuck is
still
> working on POTA2. So, no worries, mate. Etc. - - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JamesA1102@a...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:47 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] (unknown)
>
>
> > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"
<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >You seem to think that that peninsula between the lake and
the sea
> > > is Long Island, when the topography of this part of the world
is
> > > drastically different.
> >
> > It's not drastically different its very similar. See attached.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yes after a nuclear war, 2000 years of erosion plus the fact
that
> > > > the apes knowledge of the terrain was limited. Look at the
maps made
> > > > by the early explorers of America. They are not completely
accurate
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > *** Cornelius was the only ape with any firsthand knowledge of
the
> > > terrain, since Zaius said the Forbidden Zone "has never been
explored"
> > > to Taylor. Cornelius DID explore it, and his knowledge was
extensive
> > > enough.
> >
> > How do you know that? Can you read Cornelius' mind through the
movie
> screen. He says he can draw map but since we never see him do so;
how do we
> know he's any good at it.
> >
> > > *** Up WHAT coast? The last time Zaius & Cornelius saw Taylor
(in
> > > PLANET), Taylor was heading "towards the north" along a
stretch of
> > > beach which extended to the RIGHT on Cornelius' map. There was
a cliff
> > > to his left and an ocean to his right--the same "sea" that
Cornelius
> > > colored blue along the bottom of his map. Cornelius tells
Brent that
> > > this "last place" they saw Taylor was "between the Lake and
the Sea",
> > > which puts it on that peninsula "below" the Dead Lake body of
water
> > > and "above" the Sea. You yourself said (just above) that this
area is
> > > Long Island, with "Dead Lake" being a "bay" emptying into Long
Island
> > > sound. I never said that Taylor was actually ON Long Island--I
posed a
> > > question, regarding how the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty
in
> > > PLANET looks nothing like how it does now. It's on a small
island
> > > surrounded by lots of water--how does it come to have a cliff
right
> > > next to it? How does it get buried up to its waist?
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> >
> > Again you're neglecting 2,000 year of topagraphical shifts plus
the
> initial effects of the nuclear blast. You keep saying the
Forbidden Zone is
> in the North but other than a vague line in Beneath refering not
to the
> relation of the Forbidden Zone to Ape City but the last place
Cornelius saw
> Taylor.(And the way the scene is constructed he was pointing to a
position
> on the map at the time); you never state any facts from the films
to prove
> your point.
> > Feel free to use the attached map, and even turn it sideways if
you want
> and show us all where you think everything is and what area from
now it's
> supposed to represent.
> > I bet you won't cause none of your theories hold any water.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >

Attachments :

anybody know which movie (or from the tv series, maybe) this came from?

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kassidy Rae [valwp@...]
Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 7:29
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] picture?

anybody know which movie (or from the tv series, maybe) this came from?

Kassidy

---

.html In a message dated 7/1/02 9:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

I read today that Franklin Schaffner was offered "The Godfather" and turned it down because he felt it glamorized the mafia. I wonder if it would've been a big hit if he'd directed it? It probably made more money than all his films combined. Etc.             - - Jeff

You know a film I often wish Schaffner had directed is "The Omen."  Charlton Heston turned that one down, but how great it would have been if Schaffner had directed, Heston starred, McDowall played the photographer, Kim Hunter the Bille Whitelaw part, and Maurice Evans the Leo McKern role.  It sure would make me like that movie more, plus Goldsmith would have won his Oscar, as he should have, for scoring a Schaffner film.

I also sometimes wonder what it would have been like if Heston had played Patton.

-- Rory

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

.html <.html

.html <.html

.html

The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?

Yeah, I didn't think it was either, though sources say . . . yes.<.html

Was the female actually played by Natalie Trundy (not that it means
it couldn't have still been Lisa played by someone else, but it could
be a cue).

Michael

--- LordTZer0@... wrote:

>
> > The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?
>
> Yeah, I didn't think it was either, though sources say . . . yes.
>

>From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
>Please everyone knows you can only take the odd numbered Marvels
>seriously.

LOL!

>RE: "should of"
>Also, you should of skipped your third point. We already have
>Patrick to correct our grammer.

I know, and my apologies for that -- I was just teasing. :)

>From: <veetus@...>
>That makes sense. I vote that Rich's e-mails be considered canon in this
>group. All in favor? Etc. - - - Jeff

I should of seen that coming. :)

Hi, anyone that collects pota comcis and going to the san diego
comic con? I am hoping to get some of the older apes stuff while i
am there. Hooe to meet up with some of you there! Thanks, Ron

I was always under the impression that it wasn't.

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?
>
> I say it wasn't, but I want the opinions of others.
>
> Michael

Natalie Trundy told me that was her, though it could've been another
character. what does the script say? Etc. - - -
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Listen Here Mate.....


> Was the female actually played by Natalie Trundy (not that it means
> it couldn't have still been Lisa played by someone else, but it could
> be a cue).
>
> Michael
>
> --- LordTZer0@... wrote:
> >
> > > The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?
> >
> > Yeah, I didn't think it was either, though sources say . . . yes.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh dear, I mean Urko. Sorry.

I think it looks like Urko and the background looks very TV Series.

Michael

--- Kassidy Rae <valwp@...> wrote:

>
>
> re: the picture I sent the group, I don't know where it came

from. Someone sent it to me, and they don't know - I asked. There's
an "Aldo" in the tv series? Now I'm confused. Nothing new under the
sun, I guess.

> me again
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------

>
>4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem -- in
>the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than four
>alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
>
>Rich

I know of the "Ape Nation" comic and "Battle of Two Worlds" from the
Power Records cd I sent you. I would guess that the other two are
from the Marvel comic stories?

-Tom

This is probably a good sign. Maybe Zanuck is getting a clue that he knows
POTA 2001 sucked, and if he blows it a second time it will sink the franchise.
Probably the worst thing they could do is rush out a sequel that is similiar
to the first film.

Regarding the Alien franchise that was definitely screwed up. The first
movie was good. The second movie was great. They had at least one good
script for the third movie but it wasn't used. Instead they came out
with a lousy third and fourth movie. Now if they make a fifth movie I don't
know if I will bother seeing it.

My theory is that it takes 2 bad movies in a row to sink a franchise. "Alien"
is sunk. POTA has one shot left.

-Tom

> I went to the source of the Zanuck item, the Sci-Fi Channel's website, and he

also says ," They don't want the franchise to just burn out and be finished
again for another 20 years". Oh, it's not finished already? Tell that to the
sellers of "Ape" merch. He also says Fox still has Wahlberg's commitment to a
sequel, but doesn't know their plans on that score. You're supposed to be the
optimist, Zanuck. Look on the bright side. If this is the best they've got, in 3
years you'll be running this "Planet". Etc. - - - Jeff

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: veetus@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:49 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] "Apes 2" Buh bye?
>
> I just got this off www.comingsoon.net . Zanuck said Fox is in no hurry to

do a sequel and don't want to exhaust the franchise. "The idea is to space it
out now. The studio doesn't think that a sequel has to be made immediately. They
made a lot of money off the picture, but the theory, at least what they're
telling me, is that every 3 years or more (they'll make one)". This is the same
studio that just greenlighted a sequel to "Daredevil" almost a year before the
first one hits. Though Fox has taken this years approach before (the "Alien"
flicks, I hear they're now planning "Independence Day 2" 6 years later) this
smacks of a brush off. Etc. - - - Jeff

"Alien" 3 and 4 were killed by the same thing as POTA2001, studio
pressure. The first 2 were under the radar but the last 2 were big
franchises and second guessed to death. Ironically, even though it was so
long between installments, when they decided to do them they were still
rushed. Just as POTA2001 took 10 years in development and when they decided
to do it they still rushed it. Maybe, like you say, this is better where
it's not a priority. But "Alien" is not dead. "Alien vs. Predator" is on the
boards. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] "Apes 2" Buh bye? (partly OT)


>
> This is probably a good sign. Maybe Zanuck is getting a clue that he knows
> POTA 2001 sucked, and if he blows it a second time it will sink the
franchise.
> Probably the worst thing they could do is rush out a sequel that is
similiar
> to the first film.
>
> Regarding the Alien franchise that was definitely screwed up. The first
> movie was good. The second movie was great. They had at least one good
> script for the third movie but it wasn't used. Instead they came out
> with a lousy third and fourth movie. Now if they make a fifth movie I
don't
> know if I will bother seeing it.
>
> My theory is that it takes 2 bad movies in a row to sink a franchise.
"Alien"
> is sunk. POTA has one shot left.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> > I went to the source of the Zanuck item, the Sci-Fi Channel's website,
and he
> also says ," They don't want the franchise to just burn out and be
finished
> again for another 20 years". Oh, it's not finished already? Tell that to
the
> sellers of "Ape" merch. He also says Fox still has Wahlberg's commitment
to a
> sequel, but doesn't know their plans on that score. You're supposed to be
the
> optimist, Zanuck. Look on the bright side. If this is the best they've
got, in 3
> years you'll be running this "Planet". Etc. - - - Jeff
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: veetus@...
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:49 PM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] "Apes 2" Buh bye?
> >
> > I just got this off www.comingsoon.net . Zanuck said Fox is in no
hurry to
> do a sequel and don't want to exhaust the franchise. "The idea is to space
it
> out now. The studio doesn't think that a sequel has to be made
immediately. They
> made a lot of money off the picture, but the theory, at least what they're
> telling me, is that every 3 years or more (they'll make one)". This is the
same
> studio that just greenlighted a sequel to "Daredevil" almost a year before
the
> first one hits. Though Fox has taken this years approach before (the
"Alien"
> flicks, I hear they're now planning "Independence Day 2" 6 years later)
this
> smacks of a brush off. Etc. - - - Jeff
>
>

There's also the "Ape City" miniseries, an invasion of folks from the
past. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1142


>
> >
> >4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem --
in
> >the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than
four
> >alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
> >
> >Rich
>
>
> I know of the "Ape Nation" comic and "Battle of Two Worlds" from the
> Power Records cd I sent you. I would guess that the other two are
> from the Marvel comic stories?
>
> -Tom
>
>

>Maybe the name was changed so the authorities
>wouldn't get wise about a chimp being named after one of the ape-o-nauts.
>Etc. - - Jeff

That probably explains the name change from Milo to Caesar but it wouldn't have
mattered. When Breck and Kolp were interrogating Armando they didn't seem to
know that his ape's name was "Caesar"; otherwise they might have caught him
earlier. But he only got caught because he got into a cage of orangutans
probably not knowing there are no orangutans from Africa.

You make a good point. I'm sure they just didn't want to confuse the
audience by giving him two names in film. But it just turns into a
big flub.

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> >Maybe the name was changed so the authorities
> >wouldn't get wise about a chimp being named after one of the ape-
o-nauts.
> >Etc. - - Jeff
>
> That probably explains the name change from Milo to Caesar but it
wouldn't have
> mattered. When Breck and Kolp were interrogating Armando they
didn't seem to
> know that his ape's name was "Caesar"; otherwise they might have
caught him
> earlier. But he only got caught because he got into a cage of
orangutans
> probably not knowing there are no orangutans from Africa.
>
>
>

.html  

The first 2 were under the radar but the last 2 were big
franchises and second guessed to death.

Sometimes they don't second guess enough!  Like when they did the 3 monkeys in the original, and someone asked . . . Whadday think?  Too much?
Hell yeas, it's too much.  If you have to ask if it's too much it's too much!  Like all the POTA reference in POTAY2K1!  Keep your stinking reference jokes to yourself!  YOU DAMNED DIRTY HUMAN!

<.html

"Kassidy Rae" <valwp@...> wrote:

> Fox won't stop until POTA is a dried out husk.

Hmmm. Mission accomplished then, surely?

Alan

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

> You know, an advantage of living in Australia is that none of these
> geographical challenges really hit home!

I agree with you on that one - I used to think I'd seen all the
contradictions and "flubs" and heard it all discussed to death, until
I joined this group. I never knew there were so many issues with the
geographical settings!

Alan

"james611102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

> Excellent points. This is not real life just fiction.

It is? Damn it, that'll be why I got strange looks in my local pet
store today when I asked where I could buy a chimpanzee slave.

Alan

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

> The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?
>
> I say it wasn't, but I want the opinions of others.

I've always assumed it was Lisa, but I guess there is no solid proof
(unless it names her in the script, which I haven't read). The fact
that it looked like the same character as the rest of the film and was
played by the same actress was enough for me.

Alan

There's no real flubs with the geographical settings. The issues are
purely manufactured.

--- In pota@y..., "Alan Maxwell" <alan@a...> wrote:
> I agree with you on that one - I used to think I'd seen all the
> contradictions and "flubs" and heard it all discussed to death,
until
> I joined this group. I never knew there were so many issues with
the
> geographical settings!
>
> Alan

Maybe it was Caeser's intern?

--- In pota@y..., "Alan Maxwell" <alan@a...> wrote:
> I've always assumed it was Lisa, but I guess there is no solid
proof
> (unless it names her in the script, which I haven't read). The fact
> that it looked like the same character as the rest of the film and
was
> played by the same actress was enough for me.
>
> Alan

>From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
>>4) The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem -- in
>>the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than four
>>alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
>I know of the "Ape Nation" comic and "Battle of Two Worlds" from the
>Power Records cd I sent you.

Yep -- those are the second and fourth alien invasions. :)

>I would guess that the other two are from the Marvel comic stories?

Yep -- the first probably occurs in the mid-1980s (according to evidence in
Marvel #20) but it doesn't seem to have been widely known to the general
populace since the government intervened and made a deal with the aliens to
get their technology. The second, as you mentioned, was "Ape Nation,"
circa 2150. The third, some time in the late 22nd or early 23rd century
(at least, so I estimate), was in the "Apeslayer" strip from the British
POTA comics, and the fourth, as you mentioned, was "Battle of Two Worlds"
in 3085. No wonder the topography of the Earth in 3955 doesn't match ours
now -- it's been invaded by aliens four times! :)

>From: <veetus@...>
>There's also the "Ape City" miniseries, an invasion of folks from the past.

And that too!

.htmlIn a message dated 7/5/2002 8:33:36 PM Central Standard Time, handleyr@... writes:

The idea of aliens in POTA is not as far-fetched as it might seem -- in
the course of the licensed POTA universe, there have been no less than four
alien invasions of Earth, believe it or not.
I know of the "Ape Nation" comic and "Battle of Two Worlds" from the
Power Records cd I sent you.  

I don't know if I'd really consider the invaders from "Battle of Two Worlds" to be "aliens." They are humans from the planet's past, but not "spacey" so to speak. They are alien as in they are not of the POTA's times, (just as Urko refers to Burke and Virdon "alien humans.) <.html

.htmlWhile it's probably futile to write and request a "5 Star" version of Planet, and the director's cut of Conquest, I am going to anyway, just so they know these are in demand titles, at least by some in this group.

I had, but lost, the address from when we were all writing in to request the tv series on dvd. Can anyone in here provide and address to send letters to @ Fox?<.html

Michael Dunn, Exec. V.P.-Mktg. & Sls.
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, inc.
2121 Avenue Of The Stars 25th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> While it's probably futile to write and request a "5 Star" version
of Planet,
> and the director's cut of Conquest, I am going to anyway, just so
they know
> these are in demand titles, at least by some in this group.
>
> I had, but lost, the address from when we were all writing in to
request the
> tv series on dvd. Can anyone in here provide and address to send
letters to @
> Fox?

.html
Thank you for providing an address. I sent my "request" letter to them today, and I'd hope at least a few of you out there will be writing as well.

Michael Dunn, Exec. V.P.-Mktg. & Sls.
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, inc.
2121 Avenue Of The Stars 25th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010



--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

While it's probably futile to write and request a "5 Star" version of Planet,  and the director's cut of Conquest, I am going to anyway, just so they know  these are in demand titles, at least by some in this group.

I had, but lost, the address from when we were all writing in to request the  tv series on dvd. Can anyone in here provide and address to send letters to @  Fox?

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kassidy Rae [valwp@...]
Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 7:29
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] picture?

anybody know which movie (or from the tv series, maybe) this came from?

Kassidy

<.html

OK then

Did "Lisa" appear in Conquest?

If yes - WHEN? Was it the same actor as Caesar's mate?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitty@... [whitty@...]
> Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 9:44
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Listen Here Mate.....
>
>
> Was the female actually played by Natalie Trundy (not that it means
> it couldn't have still been Lisa played by someone else, but it could
> be a cue).
>
> Michael
>
> --- LordTZer0@... wrote:
> >
> > > The chimp Caesar mated with in Conquest....was that Lisa?
> >
> > Yeah, I didn't think it was either, though sources say . . . yes.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK then
Did "Lisa" appear in Conquest?
If yes - WHEN? Was it the same actor as Caesar's mate?

Whadda ya? NUTS!

Of course! Natalie Trundy played Lisa in both films.
And you call yourself a POTA fan?
This must be some kinda joke!