.html

the apes have a wonderful nervous, hoping walk.  The best little hopper is Kim Hunter, as an ape lady doctor; she somehow manages to give a better performance in this makeup than she has ever given on the screen before."

Amen!  Why she didn't win a second Academy Award I will never know.<.html

Dang Rory!
I forgot about this one.
And I thought Pat was long winded.
At least its about film, something I can
sink my teeth into.and not theoretical physics.
I like physics. String some old Professor
Julius Sumner Miller shows together and I'm happy
as a calm physics fans. Perhaps Pat should do videos instead.
hmmmm...?

.html

The other show did not star Wally Cox.  I don't remember his name but I do remember the name of the show, I even remember the melody of its theme, MR. TERRIFIC!

By golly you're right!  If I'd've bet I would have lost.  It was Steven Strimpell.<.html

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:36 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] 60's Japanimation OT

There was one show I loved, I can't remember the name of it, but the battleship Yamato is raised from the bottom of the ocean and turned into a spaceship.

Now that sounds cool, Sleestack.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

No, I didn't tell you that.You were probably on drugs.
Fox HQ sent me tapes of the 5 re-edited TV movies which were actually pretty
poor quality AND poorly spliced together.
I asked about the availability of the cartoon and was told that although
they still owned the rights, it was unlikely that they would release them.
This was way before the POTO 2001 release.
KEN

----- Original Message -----
From: <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Request it be released...


> Agreed.
>
> Nobody ever thought they'd release the TV Series (and on DVD!!).
>
> There are good clean copies of the Toons - Ken Taylor, didn't you
> tell me Fox HE in the US sent you some when you worked on the Aus
> release of the videos?
>
> Michael
>
> --- mlccougar@... wrote:
> > In a message dated 9/19/02 5:07:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
> apefan23@...
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > Could we ever convince "them" to put out the cartoon series on
> DVD? every
> > > copy i've seen of them are almost unwatchable (because of picture
> > > quality.....)
> >
> > I have written several letters to Fox on this subject, and I've yet
> to get
> > any type of reply from them... Actually, I included that request as
> an
> > "after- thought" to the main reason I wrote them, that being to
> request a
> > "5-STAR" version of Planet, and a "Directors cut" of Conquest (and
> with the
> > death of J. Lee, this probably won't become a reality, unless they
> worked on
> > something with him before his passing... That, or if they'd release
> the
> > original cut they showed to the test audiences... I'd guess they'd
> have that
> > cut in their vaults somewhere...)
> >
> > Anyway, if you want to convince "them," all ya can do is write
> them... It's
> > probably falling upon deaf ears for the most part, but it's about
> all you can
> > do...
> >
> > Michael Dunn, Exec. VP. Mktg. & Sales
> > 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment Inc.
> > 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 25th floor
> > Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010
> >
> > Fox Home Entertainment
> > P.O. Box 900
> > Beverly Hills, CA 90213
> >
> > Fox Consumer Video
> > P.O. Box 7849
> > Torrance, CA 90504
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc

Someone sent me the old "Quark" TV show

A couple of rejects I recall was It's About Time.  That was about a time machine.  And One with Wally Cox as Stanley Beemish, who when he takes a pill becomes a super hero.  Remember those if you can!  Don't expect them in syndication though.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Rory,

I enjoyed this post last year and I enjoy it now. I always wished that you had followed this up like you promised. Get on the ball!

Matt

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:01 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Kael's POTA Review.

Here's a post I've pulled from the archive for Kassidy.  I think this is the best review the original movie ever got, and it's a pretty back-handed review, but I agree with it.  Just so you people new to the group know I don't think the original is perfect.

-- Rory

I think Jeff Krueger said here that the late Pauline Kael, once the influencial film critic at The New Yorker Magazine, thought PLANET OF THE APES the best Science Fiction film ever.  Well, I don't know about that, but she did like it and her positive review, so I've read, surprised everyone and helped make POTA a hit.  Here it is from the February 17th, 1968 New Yorker, including the review's title:

"Apes Must Be Remembered, Charlie"

"'Planet of the Apes' is a very entertaining movie, and you'd better go see it quickly, before your friends take the edge off it by telling you all about it.  They will, because it has the ingenious kind of plotting people love to talk about.  If it were a great picture, it wouldn't need this kind of protection; it's just good enough to be worth the rush.

"Adapted from a novel by Pierre Boulle, 'Planet of the Apes' most closely resembles George Pal's 1960 version of H.G. Wells' 1895 novel 'The Time Machine.' It's also a little like 'Forbidden Planet,' the 1956 science-fiction adaptation of 'The Tempest,' though it's perhaps more cleverly sustained than either of those movies.  At times, it has the primitive force of old 'King Kong.'  It isn't a difficult or subtle movie; you can just sit back and enjoy it.  That should place the genre closely enough, without spoiling the theme or the plot.  The writing, by Michael Wilson and Rod Serling, though occasionally bright, is often fancy-ironic in the old school of poetic disillusion.  Even more often, it is crude.  But the construction is really extraordinary.  What seem to be weaknesses or holes in the idea turn out to be perfectly consistent, andsequences that work only at a simple level of parody while you're watching them turn out to be really funny when the total structure is revealed.  You're too busy for much disbelief anyway; the timing of each action or revelation is right on the button.  The audience is rushed along with the hero, who keeps going as fact as possible to avoid being castrated or lobotomized.

  The picture is an enormous, many-layered black joke on the hero and the audience, and part of the joke is the use of Charlton Heston as the hero.  I don't think the movie could have been so forceful or so funny with anyone else.  Physically, Heston, with his perfect, lean-hipped, powerful body, is a god-like hero; built for strength, he's an archetype of what makes Americans win.  He doesn't play a nice guy; he's harsh and hostile, self-centered and hot-tempered.  Yet we don't hate him, because he's so magnetically strong; he represents American power -- the physical attraction and admiration one feels toward the beauty of strength as well as the moral revulsion one feels toward the ugliness of violence.  And he has the profile of an eagle.  Franklin J. Schaffner, who directed 'Planet of the Apes,' uses the Heston of the preposterous but enjoyable 'The Naked Jungle' -- the man who is so absurdly a movie-star myth.  He is the perfect American Adam to work off some American guilt feelings or self-hatered on, and this is part of what makes this new violent fantasy so successful as comedy.

"'Planet of the Apes' is one of the best science-fiction fantasies ever to come out of Hollywood.  That doesn't mean it's art.  It is not conceived in terms of vision or mystery or beauty. Science-fiction fantasy is a peculiar genre; it doesn't  seem to result in much literary art, either.  This movie is efficient and craftsmanlike;  it's conceived and carried out for maximum popular appeal, though with a cautionary message, and with some attempts to score little points against various forms of establishment thinking.  These swifties are not Swift, and the movie's posture of superiority is somewhat embarrassing.  Brechtian pedagogy doesn't work in Brecht, and it doesn't work here, either.

  At best, this is a slick commercial picture, with it's elements carefully engineered -- pretty girl (who unfortunately doesn't seem to have had acting training), comic reliefs, thrills, chases -- but when expensive Hollywood engineering works, as it rarely does anymore, the results can be impressive.  Schaffner has thought out the action in terms of the wide screen, and he uses space and  distance dramatically.  Leon Shamroy's excellent color photography helps to make the vast exteriors (shot in Utah and Arizona) an integral part of the meaning.  The editing, though, is somewhat distracting; several times there is a cut and then a view of what we have already seen from a different angle or from much higher up.  The effect is both static (we don't seem to be getting anywhere) and overemphatic (we are conscious of being told to look at the same thing another way).

  The makeup (there is said to be a million dollars' worth) and the costuming of the actors playing the apes are rather witty, and the apes have a wonderful nervous, hoping walk.  The best little hopper is Kim Hunter, as an ape lady doctor; she somehow manages to give a better performance in this makeup than she has ever given on the screen before."





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

That's what Adam Rifkin's POTA was going to be, a sequel to the original,
ignoring the real sequels. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc


> It could have taken up after Battle.
>
> There could have been unrest in the ape community with a secret
> organisation of Aldo worshippers (this could also explain how history
> is re-wriotten by these apes to have Aldo the hero, much like the
> Nazis attempted to re-write history books).
>
> This can be compounded by the landing of astronauts - 1 can die
> (obligatory), 2 can be "good" and 1 can go nuts and lead a militant
> anti-ape group that tries to exterminate the apes and re-take
> civilization.
>
> There is a lot to play with.
>
> I still think the next ape movie should be a better version of
> Beneath - ie another, different sequel to the original. It can pay
> homage to Boulle's original script and could be properly planned (god
> forbid).
>
> Michael
>
> --- mlccougar@... wrote:
> > In a message dated 9/19/02 11:25:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
> valwp@...
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > So, I don't know if this has been discussed before (probably),
> but
> > > WAS there anywhere left to go with POTA by the time it became a
> tv
> > > series?
> > >
> >
> > They coulda delved deeper into the Apes culture itself for a
> start... It also
> > coulda showed more of the de-evolution of humanity (had they had
> them mutes
> > to begin with though, then this option would be moot...)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:16 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] 30th Scroll, 1st Verse

My best piece of writing for this group.  How true it turned out to be!



Beware the new film POTA, for it is the devil's spawn.
Alone among Fox's films for 2001, it exists solely to
sell happy meals, action figures, posters or whatever.
Yea, Zanuck would sell his brother to make a buck.
Let it not breed a new raft of sequels,
for they will make a desert of my multiplex and yours.
Shun it, for it is merely the harbinger of the
Special Collector's Edition DVD to come.

~~ Haristas, Lawgiver ~~







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Rory wrote:

<<Hey, why was it that Pete and Virdon never mentioned Zira and Cornelius? Could it be they were from the original timeline?>>

Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as Taylor did. Maybe because it was easier for them to put two and two together, having already heard about Zira and Cornelius.

Matt

I guess the deciding factor would be how well the TV show did on DVD (and
it would have to be a monster). No one's released the "Star Trek" cartoons
on DVD. But as it was recently said, Fox has made a killing putting Tv shows
on DVD so you never know. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken and Heather Taylor" <ktaylor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Request it be released...


> No, I didn't tell you that.You were probably on drugs.
> Fox HQ sent me tapes of the 5 re-edited TV movies which were actually
pretty
> poor quality AND poorly spliced together.
> I asked about the availability of the cartoon and was told that although
> they still owned the rights, it was unlikely that they would release them.
> This was way before the POTO 2001 release.
> KEN
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <whitty@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Request it be released...
>
>
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Nobody ever thought they'd release the TV Series (and on DVD!!).
> >
> > There are good clean copies of the Toons - Ken Taylor, didn't you
> > tell me Fox HE in the US sent you some when you worked on the Aus
> > release of the videos?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --- mlccougar@... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 9/19/02 5:07:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > apefan23@...
> > > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Could we ever convince "them" to put out the cartoon series on
> > DVD? every
> > > > copy i've seen of them are almost unwatchable (because of picture
> > > > quality.....)
> > >
> > > I have written several letters to Fox on this subject, and I've yet
> > to get
> > > any type of reply from them... Actually, I included that request as
> > an
> > > "after- thought" to the main reason I wrote them, that being to
> > request a
> > > "5-STAR" version of Planet, and a "Directors cut" of Conquest (and
> > with the
> > > death of J. Lee, this probably won't become a reality, unless they
> > worked on
> > > something with him before his passing... That, or if they'd release
> > the
> > > original cut they showed to the test audiences... I'd guess they'd
> > have that
> > > cut in their vaults somewhere...)
> > >
> > > Anyway, if you want to convince "them," all ya can do is write
> > them... It's
> > > probably falling upon deaf ears for the most part, but it's about
> > all you can
> > > do...
> > >
> > > Michael Dunn, Exec. VP. Mktg. & Sales
> > > 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment Inc.
> > > 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 25th floor
> > > Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010
> > >
> > > Fox Home Entertainment
> > > P.O. Box 900
> > > Beverly Hills, CA 90213
> > >
> > > Fox Consumer Video
> > > P.O. Box 7849
> > > Torrance, CA 90504
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

Yeah, what did Burke say? "Those are talking apes with guns. Boy, that
ruins my day". - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc


> Rory wrote:
>
> <<Hey, why was it that Pete and Virdon never mentioned Zira and Cornelius?
Could it be they were from the original timeline?>>
>
> Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the
circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They
definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as
Taylor did. Maybe because it was easier for them to put two and two
together, having already heard about Zira and Cornelius.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Land of the Giants was the coolest show ever!!! until I grew up and watched
it again!! Effects were fun but...sheesh!

In a message dated 9/19/02 10:16:50 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< When I was a kid, I was completely hooked on the Six Million Dollar Man,
so

> much so, that I made my mother get me a leisure suit, because that's what
> Steve Austin wore. A few years ago, I happened to catch a re-run on the
> Sci-Fi Channel. Blechhh - I had lousy taste as a kid! :) >>

Brilliant!!!!!


In a message dated 9/20/02 2:48:37 AM, Haristas@... writes:

<< Beware the new film POTA, for it is the devil's spawn.
Alone among Fox's films for 2001, it exists solely to
sell happy meals, action figures, posters or whatever.
Yea, Zanuck would sell his brother to make a buck.
Let it not breed a new raft of sequels,
for they will make a desert of my multiplex and yours.
Shun it, for it is merely the harbinger of the
Special Collector's Edition DVD to come.

~~ Haristas, Lawgiver ~~ >>

As Robin Williams said in his HBO show as Chuck Heston...

"Guns don't kill people......Apes with guns kill people!"

No! Wait!! it was a comment on ME being too busy.....!!!Please scan and send!
Please!!|???

In a message dated 9/19/02 10:47:12 PM, veetus@... writes:

<< There's a picture of him in "Space Academy" in the "Starlog" that did an
interview with Kim Hunter. I'd scan it for you, but that would be one too
many e-mails, sir, and I have to get on with my life. Etc. - - - Jeff >>

.html

That's what Adam Rifkin's POTA was going to be, a sequel to the original,
ignoring the real sequels. - - - Jeff

Sounds like pie in the sky to me Jeff.
Especially now that most of the cast has pass on.
Chuck probably can't remember lines.
I guess you could do it with a new cast, but where would it go?

<.html

.html

Land of the Giants was the coolest show ever!!! until I grew up and watched
it again!! Effects were fun but...sheesh!

Much like the Time Tunnel.
Though I still watch Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea sometimes.  Do they ever run Lost in Space?  If not they should.  It's got a kind of Batman quality.  And the Green Honet too, if only for Bruce Lee.

<.html

Attachments :

.htmlClick here: eBay item 1768766972 (Ends Sep-24-02 19:22:57 PDT ) - Planet of the Apes Tuscany Plaster Statues

I've never seen these before, but Oh!  Do they put the ugh in ugly!
<.html

>
> I forgot that Ron Harper was in that. He replaced the actor who played the
> father, only Harper was the uncle. But that was when the show started really
> going down hill. How Harper could think that was better than POTA shows why
> Ron Harper would be in "Land of the Lost."
>

I had completely missed that was Ron Harper on Land of the Lost.

By the way some one said Severn Darden is dead? The only other thing I saw
him on was a 1984 Cheers episode where he played Diane's college professor.
I wonder if he did much else?

I would like to see a more comprehensive list of POTA actors stuff like the
following. Most people know other things Chuck, Roddy, and Ricardo were in
but the others are more of a mystery.


Ron Harper:
Land of the Lost

James Naughton:
Ally McBeal (guest)

Maurice Evans:
Bewitched (recurring quest)

Linda Harrison:
Cocoon

Severn Darden:
Cheers (guest)

Claude Akins:
BJ and the Bear

France Nuyen
Star Trek (guest)

Mark Lenard
Star Trek (recurring guest) - That makes three POTA actors also in Star Trek!

Don Murray:
?? Has he done anything else?

Natalie Trundy
??

Paul Stevens
??


And how about a 2nd list for when at least two POTA actors appeared on
the same thing? I liked when Roddy and John Huston reunited and
played Sam and Gandalf for the animated Return of the King.

>
> I wouldn't put BATTLE in the category of truly bad, turkey movies like PLAN 9
> FROM OUTER SPACE or ROBOT MONSTER or the movie mentioned above. BATTLE
> belongs in a stratum just above that, along with movies like RACE WITH THE
> DEVIL and BEN and DAMNATION ALLEY and cheap misfires like that.
>
> -- Rory
>

Hey first you dis my favorite TV show then you dis my favorite movie!!!

As good as PLANET was, POTA wouldn't be nearly as great without the sequels
and TV series. Basically I love everything from 1976 or earlier, and
1973 and 1974 were great years for the franchise, probably the peak years.

.htmlIn a message dated 9/20/02 5:00:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melkor@... writes:

Hey first you dis my favorite TV show then you dis my favorite movie!!!

As good as PLANET was, POTA wouldn't be nearly as great without the sequels
and TV series.  Basically I love everything from 1976 or earlier, and
1973 and 1974 were great years for the franchise, probably the peak years.

Get used to it, buddy.  I live to dis!  And I was there when there were NO sequels and PLANET OF THE APES was hip, it was cool, it was groovy, it was the IN picture of the year, 1968!!!  And if it wasn't for that, pal, there wouldn't have been any sequels!   Don't you tell me about POTA!

Now, did you just post something about wanting to know other APES actor's credits?  Well, there's this great site called THE INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE.  In the left hand corner of every page you can type in an actor's name or a movie title and get all the info you'll probably want.  Just go to:  www.imdb.com

-- Rory<.html

>
> > By the time CBS started airing this show on Friday nights in September 1974,
> > the PLANET OF THE APES had really been milked to death. What had been such
> > a unique, intriguing and fun science fiction concept in 1968 when the
> > original film starring Charlton Heston was released, had by the fourth film
> > sequel in 1973 been intellectually emasculated down to barely interesting
> > kiddie fare. Any possible allegorical or satirical take on apes talking had
> > been explored and there was really no place left to go. The producer,

Not true. The satires in BATTLE and CONQUEST were as good as PLANET was.

> > Arthur P. Jacobs, wisely called it quits. But then, in September 1973, the
> > original film was shown for the first time on network TV and had a sixty
> > share of that night's audience. APES was suddenly "hot" again, but the fact
> > remained that there were already five films. The resulting TV series ended
> > up being a rather ill-conceived "Fugitive" formula show that only played
> > lip service to the concept's allegorical possibilities by reminding its
> > audience in every episode of the stupidity of prejudice. This got rather
> > trite fast.

Not for me. I liked the TV series because the satire went FURTHER than the
movie series ever did and explored things that the movie series never did. The
TV series kept the same anti-conservative theme of the movie series but it
wasn't merely a rehash, it *expanded* on the satire. The TV series used the
interesting formula of having the audience identify with the permanent
underclass of society (think South Africa, central America, or a million other
real contemporary and historical places). That was something the movie series
never did. In BATTLE the humans were still the former masters and they knew
it. In PLANET the humans were mute and were more like animals than a societal
underclass. The TV series did a very good job of showing that attitudes
"...the apes are so much smarter than we are, how could things be any
different?" are a key part of why a lower caste/class remains so.

Both the sequels and the TV series kept the same general anti-conservative
satire as the first movie but *greatly* expanded on it. The POTA franchise
neatly coincided (1967-1976) with the popularity of liberalism and it
may not be a coincidence that the franchise died out when the popularity
of conservatism increased in the late 1970's. Then BattleStar Galactica came
out during the same time (late 1970's) when conservatives were seriously
concerned about a Soviet "bolt out of the blue" sneak attack on Western Europe
like the Cylon sneak attack in the Galactica pilot. I remember some scary
statistics reported at the time about how the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO by
2-1 in men and 3-1 in tanks, etc. But I'm not comparing Galactica to POTA of
course!

Don't leave out how Australia changes hemispheres and how the Roswell Aliens
must have created Mandemous and the District of Canberra.

>
> Tell 'em about the mothership Patrick!
>
> Michael
>
>
> --- "Richard Cisak Jr." <rcisak@...> wrote:
> > Oh, no, what did I start?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Haristas@...
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Mighty Patrick
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 9/19/02 10:00:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rcisak@... writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > What I could never understand from RETURN is how three apes
> from a civilization that hadn't yet managed to use internal
> combustion engines figured out how to run a spacecraft. And I'm
> pretty sure that after sitting in the bottom of a lake, none of the
> electronics would have worked.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, but you're not supposed to think about that. HOWEVER,
> I'm sure the mighty PATRICK MICHAEL TILTON has thought about it, and
> if we're very, very lucky he will give us his musings on this
> subject. Stay tuned.

> Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as Taylor did.

But much more bent out of shape than Mark Walberg was, who seemed like he
couldn't care less.

.htmlIn a message dated 9/20/02 5:58:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melkor@... writes:

Both the sequels and the TV series kept the same general anti-conservative
satire as the first movie but *greatly* expanded on it.  The POTA franchise
neatly coincided (1967-1976) with the popularity of liberalism and it
may not be a coincidence that the franchise died out when the popularity
of conservatism increased in the late 1970's. 

Well, for a period (1967-1976) when, as you say, liberalism was popular, I seem to remember this guy named Richard Nixon got elected President twice, and by a landslide the second time.  The APES franchise died out simply because Fox spent less and less money on it and its audience shrank.  You say that the height of POTA's popularity was 1973-74.  That's not really true.  In 1968, the original film grossed $15 million.  In 1973, BATTLE grossed $4 million.  What had been a novel film attraction for all audiences in '68 had by '73 become primarily of interest only to kids, teenagers and die-hard fans.  The reason the TV show got made was GREED.  The big ratings that the movies got on their first network showings made everyone think most people wanted more adventures on the planet of the apes, but the TV show was nearly alway like number 48 in the ratings rankings.  Fox lost so much money on the show that that's why the coupled episodes together to make those ridiculously titled TV "movies."

These are just the facts.  I have no trouble facing them.  Believe me I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.  Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago and was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again.  I'm learning to forgive its faults, and I've said before in this group that the TV show is what it is.  It's not fair to compair it to the original movie, but even as a TV show the APES series used a tired "Fugitive" formula that doomed it.  It really gets boring fast to see our heroes at the end of every episode go running off into the woods, or over the hill, or down the beach to their next adventure which is going to be just like the last one -- somebody has got a problem and before the hour is up our heroes will solve it to go running off again to the next installment.  For me it's BORING!

Hey, if you think it's great, more power to you.  The POTA TV show should have all the devoted fans it can get, and that goes for all the other things APES.

If you want to start this liberalism vs. conservatism thing in regards to POTA that's okay.  Ever notice that in the original film even though the movie is supposed to be anti-conservatism, that's Dr. Zaius who gets his way at the end?

-- Rory <.html

.html

Now, did you just post something about wanting to know other APES actor's credits?  Well, there's this great site called THE INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE.  In the left hand corner of every page you can type in an actor's name or a movie title and get all the info you'll probably want.  Just go to:  www.imdb.com

<.html

>
> > Hey first you dis my favorite TV show then you dis my favorite movie!!!
> >
> > As good as PLANET was, POTA wouldn't be nearly as great without the sequels
> >
> > and TV series. Basically I love everything from 1976 or earlier, and
> > 1973 and 1974 were great years for the franchise, probably the peak years.
> >
>
> Get used to it, buddy. I live to dis! And I was there when there were NO
> sequels and PLANET OF THE APES was hip, it was cool, it was groovy, it was
> the IN picture of the year, 1968!!! And if it wasn't for that, pal, there
> wouldn't have been any sequels! Don't you tell me about POTA!

Am I going to have bring up all the dumb things in PLANET again?!!

> Now, did you just post something about wanting to know other APES actor's
> credits? Well, there's this great site called THE INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE.
> In the left hand corner of every page you can type in an actor's name or a
> movie title and get all the info you'll probably want. Just go to:
> www.imdb.com
>
> -- Rory

Yeah but I'm lazy. Seriously it would be cool if there was a list somewhere
with just POTA actor/actresses other stuff. If I find a list (not copyrighted)
I will put it on the web. And I probably will look some things up in
www.imdb.com now that you reminded me about it.

.htmlIn a message dated 9/20/02 6:39:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ktaylor@... writes:

Also try allmovie.com, it too has a pretty good cross referencing search option.

Well, this is what they have to say about my beloved original film and I don't much like it.  Camp indeed!

Originally intended as a project for Blake Edwards, the film version of Pierre Boule's semisatiric sci-fi novel came to the screen in 1968 under the directorial guidance of Franklin J. Schaffner. Charlton Heston is George Taylor, one of several astronauts on a long, long space mission whose spaceship crash-lands on a remote planet, seemingly devoid of intelligent life. Soon the astronaut learns that this planet is ruled by a race of talking, thinking, reasoning apes who hold court over a complex, multilayered civilization. In this topsy-turvy society, the human beings are grunting, inarticulate primates, penned-up like animals. When ape leader Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans ) discovers that the captive Taylor has the power of speech, he reacts in horror and insists that the astronaut be killed. But sympathetic ape scientists Cornelius (Roddy McDowell) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter ) risk their lives to protect Taylor — and to discover the secret of their planet's history that Dr. Zaius and his minions guard so jealously. In the end, it is Taylor who stumbles on the truth about the Planet of the Apes: "Damn you! Damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!" Scripted by Rod Serling and Michael Wilson (a former blacklistee who previously adapted another Pierre Boule novel, Bridge on the River Kwai), Planet of the Apes has gone on to be an all-time sci-fi (and/or camp) classic. It won a special Academy Award for John Chambers's convincing (and, from all accounts, excruciatingly uncomfortable) simian makeup. It spawned four successful sequels, as well as two TV series, one live-action and one animated. — Hal Erickson

Mike Wilson and Rod Serling's script plays heavily (and sometimes simple-mindedly) on the conflicts between faith and science, while the paradoxically inverted relationship of man to apes allows the filmmakers to drive home some rather pointed attacks on racist behavior and intolerant attitudes on our planet. Charlton Heston 's performance is not particularly subtle, but, between contorted grimaces and hollered epithets, he does create sympathy for his lost and angry character. The most compelling performance is by Roddy McDowell, who must spend the entire movie hidden in an ape costume. Director Franklin J. Schaffner (Patton , Papillon), along with his set designers, art directors, and makeup artists, creates an intriguing alternative world, with rabbit-warren-like habitations and cold, clinical ape masters. Planet of the Apes has an undeniable camp appeal — several lines of dialogue are both intentionally and unintentionally hilarious, gender roles are badly dated, and the ape costumes have not aged well — but the final scene holds up as a stirring and evocative moment of self-realization. John Chambers won an honorary Oscar for his innovative makeup. — Dan Jardine



<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/20/02 6:46:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melkor@... writes:

Am I going to have bring up all the dumb things in PLANET again?!!

I've already done that in this group.  There's not a flub in PLANET that you could tell me of that I don't already know.  I'm the greatest fan of the original that there is, and I'm not braggin'!<.html

In a message dated 9/20/02 12:05:00 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< I've never seen these before, but Oh! Do they put the ugh in ugly! >>

They're up to 500 bucks...reserve not met!

In a message dated 9/20/02 6:25:23 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago and
was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again. >>

i did too..the main thing that bothered me was realizing that there were only
like 12 mutants attacking....1 bus.. a few cars and a motorcycle...i remember
it seemed like a much larger army years ago...the scenes with Caeser, Lisa
and cornelius are actually pretty good......and virgil's cool......just too
many silly humans......

.htmlIn a message dated 9/20/02 8:01:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, apefan23@... writes:

<<  Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago and
was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again. >>

i did too..the main thing that bothered me was realizing that there were only
like 12 mutants attacking....1 bus.. a few cars and a motorcycle...i remember
it seemed like a much larger army years ago...the scenes with Caeser, Lisa
and cornelius are actually pretty good......and virgil's cool......just too
many silly humans......

I find Virgil very annoying, but who cares?  Anyway, I remember when I first saw BATTLE in the theatre in '73 I came out thinking this was the best APES film since the first, but when I went back the next night to see it for a second time, I didn't think it was as good, and yeah, too many humans.  Between '73 and '74 I saw BATTLE six times in the theatre.  How many times did you see it, apefan23?  (I forget your name, sorry)

-- Rory<.html

In a message dated 9/20/02 8:07:42 PM, Haristas@... writes:

<< I find Virgil very annoying, but who cares? Anyway, I remember when I
first
saw BATTLE in the theatre in '73 I came out thinking this was the best APES
film since the first, but when I went back the next night to see it for a
second time, I didn't think it was as good, and yeah, too many humans.
Between '73 and '74 I saw BATTLE six times in the theatre. How many times
did you see it, apefan23? (I forget your name, sorry)

i think I only saw it once in the theatre or actually at the "Go Ape "
marathon at a drive-in! (a great night!) But have seen it many times since
then...as soon as movies were available on video i got them!!!!
Tim

>>

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:49 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc

That's what Adam Rifkin's POTA was going to be, a sequel to the original,
ignoring the real sequels. - - - Jeff

Sounds like pie in the sky to me Jeff.
Especially now that most of the cast has pass on.
Chuck probably can't remember lines.
I guess you could do it with a new cast, but where would it go?

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

The next great Mark Wahlberg reimagination is coming. Jonathan Demme's
remake of the Cary Grant classic "Charade" (now called , damn, what's it
called? It's a forgettable title) starring Wahlberg is out Oct. 25th. This
is his last shot at being a movie star. Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc


> > Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the
circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They
definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as
Taylor did.
>
>
> But much more bent out of shape than Mark Walberg was, who seemed like he
> couldn't care less.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:23 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] PLANET satire vs. TV series and sequels

In a message dated 9/20/02 5:58:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melkor@... writes:

Both the sequels and the TV series kept the same general anti-conservative
satire as the first movie but *greatly* expanded on it.  The POTA franchise
neatly coincided (1967-1976) with the popularity of liberalism and it
may not be a coincidence that the franchise died out when the popularity
of conservatism increased in the late 1970's. 

Well, for a period (1967-1976) when, as you say, liberalism was popular, I seem to remember this guy named Richard Nixon got elected President twice, and by a landslide the second time.  The APES franchise died out simply because Fox spent less and less money on it and its audience shrank.  You say that the height of POTA's popularity was 1973-74.  That's not really true.  In 1968, the original film grossed $15 million.  In 1973, BATTLE grossed $4 million.  What had been a novel film attraction for all audiences in '68 had by '73 become primarily of interest only to kids, teenagers and die-hard fans.  The reason the TV show got made was GREED.  The big ratings that the movies got on their first network showings made everyone think most people wanted more adventures on the planet of the apes, but the TV show was nearly alway like number 48 in the ratings rankings.  Fox lost so much money on the show that that's why the coupled episodes together to make those ridiculously titled TV "movies."

These are just the facts.  I have no trouble facing them.  Believe me I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.  Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago and was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again.  I'm learning to forgive its faults, and I've said before in this group that the TV show is what it is.  It's not fair to compair it to the original movie, but even as a TV show the APES series used a tired "Fugitive" formula that doomed it.  It really gets boring fast to see our heroes at the end of every episode go running off into the woods, or over the hill, or down the beach to their next adventure which is going to be just like the last one -- somebody has got a problem and before the hour is up our heroes will solve it to go running off again to the next installment.  For me it's BORING!

Hey, if you think it's great, more power to you.  The POTA TV show should have all the devoted fans it can get, and that goes for all the other things APES.

If you want to start this liberalism vs. conservatism thing in regards to POTA that's okay.  Ever notice that in the original film even though the movie is supposed to be anti-conservatism, that's Dr. Zaius who gets his way at the end?

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

<.html

"Ape Chronicles" did an issue length list of the credits for actors and
others from the first film only. But it's on this "paper" stuff, not a
screen. I'm not sure how to use it. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Cinema le Bad


> >
> > > Hey first you dis my favorite TV show then you dis my favorite
movie!!!
> > >
> > > As good as PLANET was, POTA wouldn't be nearly as great without the
sequels
> > >
> > > and TV series. Basically I love everything from 1976 or earlier, and
> > > 1973 and 1974 were great years for the franchise, probably the peak
years.
> > >
> >
> > Get used to it, buddy. I live to dis! And I was there when there were
NO
> > sequels and PLANET OF THE APES was hip, it was cool, it was groovy, it
was
> > the IN picture of the year, 1968!!! And if it wasn't for that, pal,
there
> > wouldn't have been any sequels! Don't you tell me about POTA!
>
> Am I going to have bring up all the dumb things in PLANET again?!!
>
>
> > Now, did you just post something about wanting to know other APES
actor's
> > credits? Well, there's this great site called THE INTERNET MOVIE
DATABASE.
> > In the left hand corner of every page you can type in an actor's name or
a
> > movie title and get all the info you'll probably want. Just go to:
> > www.imdb.com
> >
> > -- Rory
>
> Yeah but I'm lazy. Seriously it would be cool if there was a list
somewhere
> with just POTA actor/actresses other stuff. If I find a list (not
copyrighted)
> I will put it on the web. And I probably will look some things up in
> www.imdb.com now that you reminded me about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

>
> > P.S. Does my "postulating" get too "wacky"? At least T is kind enough to say that my "wackiness" is "well-thought-out". Thanks for that, T... and I'm sorry that the loss of Kim (sad for us all) represented a somewhat more personal loss for you.
>
> Thanks Patrick. And thank you for the nice words about Kim. She should have had a much bigger career. But then she would have had even less time for her family. And who knows? She might have gotten too big to do POTA. And somehow I don't think Julie Harris or Natalie Wood were up to Zira. Not that they weren't both fine actresses, but Kim was special. The world is an emptier place with her passing. It's amazing sometimes when the right part finds the right person -- like it was made for them. I'd have to say Streetcar, Stairway to Heaven and POTA were the jewels in her crown. Who'd have thought anyone could express so much through all that hair and rubber by just wrinkling her nose?
> Keep up the posts. I'll do my best to get through them. But I hope you'll understand, what with the writing and having to learn Japanese, this old dyslexic brain of mine can only take so much new info at any one time. Don't take it personal if I reach for the delete button half way through. And I'll try and keep the snappy comments to a minimum.

*** I surf the Net at a college computer cluster--and when I want to
"keep" a particular message, I print it out at 50% size (which, for
me, is still readable, but for others might be too small), so that I
can (re-)read it at my leisure.
BTW, are you learning Japanese because you have to, or because you
just want to? Not that it's any of my business, but I'm just curious.
The only Japanese I know are "Domo arigato, Mister Roboto" and the
lyrics to "Teo Torriate" (from Queen's album "A Day At The Races").
Oh, and...
Sayonara.

Patrick

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

> In a message dated 9/18/02 10:33:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Haristas@a... writes:
>
>
> >
> > I think it was a screw-up because Dehn didn't seem to read in Boulle's book where it took generations for the apes to take over. He should have somehow shown that New York City was destroyed in a nuclear war that took place a long time after the astronauts left.
>
> RIGHT ON!

*** Sorry, but I just gotta disagree here. The whole point about
having the Nuke War happen relatively soon after the departure of the
ANSA missions (that is, within a generation), is that Taylor's
misanthropic pessimism regarding human nature had to do with the very
real possibility of there being a "hot" nuclear war as the inevitable
culmination of the "cold" war that was then being duked out in Vietnam
(and elsewhere, covertly). The movie PLANET was meant to be
thematically about the current events of the late 60's/early 70's,
which is why Taylor takes off in his interstellar spacecraft (!) in
January of 1972, rather than in 2500 A.D. (as in Boulle's book).

Besides, it doesn't matter about what Dehn did or did not read in
Boulle's book, because in the 1st movie it is established that our
"breed made a desert of " the Forbidden Zone's former "paradise"
around "700 years" before the time of the 1300-year-old artifacts
Cornelius mentions--in other words, around 2000 years before the date
during which PLANET takes place, in either 3978 or 3955. Dehn's
primary concern was to tell a story featuring the characters Zira and
Cornelius--and the ONLY way he could do so was to send them back in
time... and the budget prevented them from having ESCAPE take place in
any time other than the "present".
So what if Dehn's stories had some rather embarrassing sci-fi
implausibilities in them? They weren't meant to keep anybody awake at
nights other than us "unflubbers" out there who are rabid fans of the
series. The vast majority of viewers care only about the general story
being told. You don't see the "vast majority" of fans of Jackson's
film version of Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Ring" pissing & moaning
about how the "details" aren't as slavishly faithful to the source
novel.

Patrick

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

> In a message dated 9/18/02 10:19:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mlccougar@a... writes:
>
>
> > (Although the new movie is probably the final nail in the coffin as far as the franchise goes, film wise anyway... I'd say the best bet for any "legit" Apes stories, the world of comics or graphic novels holds the best chance...)
>
> I want a graphic novel of Boulle's book. Who's with me?

*** Count me in, but ONLY if the art is well done. When the novel (not
the movie of) LOGAN'S RUN was turned into comic book form, it had the
most wretched art imaginable (I think the no-talent "artist" was named
Barry Blair, somewhat famous for drawing an Elf comic somewhere). And
when Adventure comics put out their POTA stories, I was not at all
pleased with the artwork: no attempt was made to make the apes look
like their respective species (chimps/gorillas/orangs), or to match
the "look" of POTA as seen in the movies & TV show.

My favorite comic book artist is Paul Gulacy. I think his talent would
be perfect for the job. Whether or not he'd ever do it, I guess it
depends on whether or not the writer/adapter's script rubs him the
right way (he tends to work with Doug Moench a lot--and Moench, we all
know, did the writing chores for Marvel's POTA magazine).

Patrick

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

> Why are you learning Japanese, T?
>
> Because, much like Pat's posts, I can't get through the subtitles in anime. I get half way through and they're on to the next one. And I refuse to watch dubbed animes, except the ones on Adult Swim. When I watch them at home, I do it with one finger on the pause button. What? Did you think POTA movies were my only obsession? Hey, if Hollywood isn't interested in my movie there's always Tokyo. Though I would feel a bit like Christopher Ryan's character on Ab Fab having to do my movie as a cartoon. Many Animes are quite good.

*** AKIRA kicks major ass. An episode of SOUTH PARK referenced it
(Cartman's computerized notebook "merges" with him & he grows
colossally humongous, just like Tetsuo), hilariously. GHOST IN THE
SHELL was pretty good, too. I'm not an afficionado, but those 2 flicks
got my attention.

How about an anime adaptation of Boulle's novel? Now THAT might be
something to see...

Patrick

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

> Sid & Marty Krofft's POTA rip-off.
>
> [Unable to display image]

*** If you want to laugh your ass off, go get the 2-DVD set of the
first 2 seasons of "Mr. Show with Bob [Odenkirk] and David [Cross]"
from HBO. In the supplemental stuff on Disk 1, they have a sequence
that parodies the Sid & Marty Krofft show as a freaked-out drug trip.
Take the "Letsgit Highway" to "Druggachusetts"!
I can't wait for the next DVD set (presumably of seasons 3 & 4). God
DAMN those shows are funny!

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Kassidy Rae" <valwp@y...> wrote:

> Chuck was WONDERFUL in Planet, really. I could never imagine (or
> want to) anybody else playing Taylor.
>
> What do you mean I'm not nice? Hey now!
>
> So, I don't know if this has been discussed before (probably), but
> WAS there anywhere left to go with POTA by the time it became a tv
> series?
>
> TRAPPED IN THE GHOST OF POTA'S PAST
> Kassidy

*** I once wrote a lengthy (Me? lengthy?) critique of a poorly-
critical review of the POTA TV DVD release, wherein I talked about the
primary theme of the show: the promotion of constructive science for
the betterment of a world trapped in a "luddite" anti-science frame-
of-mind. In every episode, Virdon & Burke do something for somebody or
some group which betters their lot in life, utilizing their 20th
Century know-how. Yet the Apes view ALL technological advances (even
peaceful, constructive ones) as threatening, since the "death and
destruction" of Nuclear War pointed out the dangers of the use of
science for destructive ends. Virdon & Burke had a hell of a time
dragging the 31st Century people they met kicking and screaming into
the more advanced 20th Century.
Think of the medievalesque regimes around the world today--the Islam-
dominated countries which seek to suppress the decadent effects of
American technology & culture (such as satellite dishes, etc.), and
are noted for their repression of women & minorities. The POTA TV show
is just as relevant today as it was 28 years ago when it first aired.
Was it as good as PLANET (the film)? Well, NO... but hell, that's
asking one hell of a lot! PLANET was absolutely magnificent, and it's
amazing that its sequels were as good as they were. Most sequels are
horrid. Despite their flaws, the films (BENEATH through BATTLE) and
the TV episodes had something to say--and it's a message the world
sure as hell needs to hear. Especially after 9/11/2001.

Patrick

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

> In a message dated 9/19/02 9:54:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rcisak@o... writes:
>
>
> > I don't blame Dehn for not reading Boulle's book, it wasn't all that gr=

eat. And don't forget, a lot of POWs are also pissed at him for Bridge on th=
e River Kwai.

>
> OH, NO!!!! You haven't just posted what you just posted, have you? OK,=

some POWs may have been pissed at "The Bridge Over the River Kwai," that's =
their problem, but "La Planete des singes" "wasn't all that great"?!!!!

>
> You're MAD! Hopelessly MAD!!!!!

*** I think the POW flap is more over the film version of "Bridge"
directed by David Lean. Obviously, the conditions that Allied
prisoners faced in SE Asia were more horrendous than could
realistically be portrayed in a Hollywood movie. The actual text of
Boulle's book references the harsher conditions they faced (remember,
folks, Boulle was THERE during all that mess).
Incidentally, in Boulle's "Bridge", there's a passage where one of the
Japs is referred to as an ape of some kind (I can't recall if it was a
"gorilla" or a "baboon" just now; I'll go look it up), which goes a
long way to connecting the idea that even Boulle's novel of "La
Planète des Singes" had something to do with racism. If he could refer
to a foreigner (a Japanese soldier) as an Ape, then isn't it likely
his Apes in LPDS/"Planet" also represent foreigners to some degree?

Patrick

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

> In a message dated 9/19/02 10:00:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rcisak@o... writes:
>
>
> > What I could never understand from RETURN is how three apes from a civilization that hadn't yet managed to use internal combustion engines figured out how to run a spacecraft. And I'm pretty sure that after sitting in the bottom of a lake, none of the electronics would have worked.
> >
> Of course, but you're not supposed to think about that. HOWEVER, I'm sure the mighty PATRICK MICHAEL TILTON has thought about it, and if we're very, very lucky he will give us his musings on this subject. Stay tuned.

*** Ooooh, Rory, yer such a stinker! Just be thankful I'm not ALL-
mighty or I'd close my eyes like the Mutant "Negro" and use some-a my
Traumatic Hypnosis mojo on yer ass!

But, to be brief (yeah, yeah, laff it up), here's the lowdown on my
take regarding the ESCAPE Milo ship:
1.) The ship Taylor's crew escaped from sank to the bottom of Dead
Lake and stayed sunk.
2.) Milo found a different ANSA ship, as Cornelius testifies, "on our
seaboard"--that is, he found it safely landed somewhere on the shore
of the ocean, probably a few miles farther down the beach from the
site where Taylor finds the Statue of Liberty. Milo did NOT dredge up
any ship from the bottom of a lake (where would he have known to look
for it? and don't apes hate water? etc.). The ship Milo found had a
working computer, since NASA technicians were able to go over it with
"microscopic scrutiny" and find out WHEN it came back from [3955]; the
water damage to the PLANET ship would have rendered it unable to be
launched back into orbit.
3.) The reason it's a different ship than the one on PLANET is because
it has a.) a gull-wing port hatch, rather than a circular escape hatch
next to the nosecone, b.) three parallel seats in the cockpit [as
evidenced by stills of that filmed-yet-edited scene], rather than 4
seats [as seen in PLANET's opening scenes], and c.) the chronometer of
the ship Milo finds records the Earth-Time date as 3955, rather than
3978 [the date Taylor himself sees on the console just prior to his
skedaddling of the sinking ship... which would have rusted during the
"weeks" it sat like the Titanic at the bottom of the lake].
4.) The reason the President (in ESCAPE) refers to the ship Milo found
as "the one commanded by Colonel Taylor", is because the 3 ships in
PLANET, BENEATH and ESCAPE are all shuttlecraft vehicles which
underwent re-entry burns from orbit--and the "mothership" from which
they all descended was--like Capt. Kirk's ENTERPRISE--the primary
vessel commanded by Taylor. All 3 of those shuttlecrafts are "Taylor's
ships".

I've gone into this beforehand--if you read up on all the prior
postings I've done on this site, you'll get more of my "unflubbing"
scenario, which I'm doing for the sake of a mega-POTA novel-in-
progress that I hope one day to finish & publish. Making sense of the
mistakes in the POTA saga is, I feel, a prerequisite for any novel-
writing set in the same POTA universe already shown to us in the 5
movies and the 14 TV episodes. It goes without saying that some of the
nice folks who post messages here vehemently disagree with my
particular scenario... but that's their privilege. Feel free to
disagree with my take on it too, Rich, if you feel you must. To each
their own...

Patrick

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 10:03:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

The POTA TV show
is just as relevant today as it was 28 years ago when it first aired.
Was it as good as PLANET (the film)? Well, NO... but hell, that's
asking one hell of a lot! PLANET was absolutely magnificent, and it's
amazing that its sequels were as good as they were. Most sequels are
horrid. Despite their flaws, the films (BENEATH through BATTLE) and
the TV episodes had something to say--and it's a message the world
sure as hell needs to hear. Especially after 9/11/2001.

Patrick

Well, I pretty much have to agree with that, and I'm sure Jeff Krueger would VERY much agree with it.  He's the greatest, most devoted and always enthusiastic of all the many, many POTA fans out there in the world. (I'm much more just a PLANET fan, as opposed to an oscilating fan.)  Just ask Natalie Trundy, she thinks Jeff's wonderful!!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 10:37:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Ooooh, Rory, yer such a stinker! Just be thankful I'm not ALL-
mighty or I'd close my eyes like the Mutant "Negro" and use some-a my
Traumatic Hypnosis mojo on yer ass!

Oh boy!  Another guy here in this group with an obsession with my ass!  You POTA fans are sure "sensitive" guys!<.html

--- In pota@y..., "Richard Cisak Jr." <rcisak@o...> wrote:

> Didn't he see the first movie? There was never any mention of a mothershi=

p.

*** I took the concept Boulle originated in his novel--a mothership
from which 3 smaller ships detach and land on the planet ("une
chaloupe", or "launch", which is the same thing as a shuttlecraft)--
and used it to explain the discordant "flubs" that were introduced
into the series starting with BENEATH. Had they never made any
sequels, I would never have dreamed of deducing that there was any
orbiting mothership involved... but the mistakes Dehn introduced
required an "unflubbing" in order to make ALL the details make sense
(at least to ME).

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!
I think it's up in his orbiting mothership. And when Brent sees Ursus
ranting about how "all humans are evil" (etc.), he looks up and says,
"I gotta get back... UP THERE... I don't know how or what with, but
I'm not staying here." What IS there "up there" that he wants to get
back to? Empty space? What good would THAT do? I think that Brent
knows there's something "up there" awaiting him... if he can only find
a working ship capable of rocketing his ass skyward.

My explanation of the "U.S.S. EARTH" bit, in brief, goes like this:
1.) Taylor tells Landon to "get out a last signal" [Landon: "What
signal?"] "To EARTH, that we've landed!" Taylor knows that the planet
Earth has aged HUNDREDS OF YEARS during the time they've been gone,
and sending out a radio signal 320 lightyears (from wherever in Orion
he thinks they are to where he thinks planet Earth is) would require
that message to travel for 320 years before anybody back home even
hears his "last signal". So what's the point? Their ship is "in the
soup"--it's sinking!--so why should he bother sending out a little
message that essentially tells Earthlings 320 years later that a
mission sent out THOUSANDS of years earlier finally arrived at its
destination?
2.) Skipper asks Brent if he contacted "Earth", and Brent says, "I
tried to, sir--not a crackle." In other words, his RADIO couldn't make
contact with "Earth". But does it make sense that the "Earth" in
question is the planet Earth? Brent goes on to tell Skipper that he
doesn't know "what planet we're on", and Skipper doesn't know "which
sun" it is shining down on his blind face; in other words, BOTH of
them believe that they're on an alien planet that is NOT our planet
Earth... in which case radio contact with planet Earth would be flatly
impossible (unless you have some sort of Star Trekkian "subspace
radio", which I don't think they have).
3.) So, I've re-interpreted these two lines of dialogue (Taylor's in
PLANET, and Brent & Skipper's in BENEATH) to suggest that their
orbiting mothership is named after their home planet: the U.S.S. EARTH
(a "spaceship Earth"). In both cases, the astronauts who landed on the
surface of the Planet of the Apes--believing it to be an alien planet
in "another solar system"--tried to contact "Earth" via their radios,
when ANY radio signals from a habitable planet lightyears away could
NEVER be in radio contact with their home planet. In both cases, for
the sake of my novel's scenario, I'm re-interpreting the word "Earth"
in these two scenes as the name of the bigger ship to which both of
these smaller shuttlecraft were attached prior to the mysterious
events which result in Taylor's shuttle detaching from it.

Feel free to disagree with my scenario, Rich. I don't insist that
anybody take it as gospel, and I've never implied that it's what the
screenwriters intended to be thought when they wrote their scripts. As
entertaining as they are, though, they are flawed in the details and
the logic, and my scenario is intended to make sense of the details
and make it more logical.

One final thing--a curious coincidence I've mentioned in prior
postings, and which I take particular pleasure in. In the pilot
episode of the TV series, Virdon's ship experiences a "time warp"
which propels it from EARTH-TIME 1980 to 3085 (in the opening credit
sequence). At some point, Virdon tells Jones to activate the
"Automatic Homing Device", which somehow sends them back to Earth. The
day they land, Farrow carries them away before the Apes arrive and
bash in all the machinery in the cockpit... and the next day, when
they see the EARTH-TIME chronometer, it reads 3-21-3085, which is 115
EARTH-TIME days prior to the last date given in the credit sequence
(EARTH-TIME 7-14-3085). In other words, whatever caused their ship to
experience a "time warp" out near Alpha Centauri (which they were
approaching) not only sent them 1,105 years of Earth-Time into the
Future, but ALSO (just afterward) somehow 115 days into the Past,
during the moments it takes for their ship to zip the 4.34 lightyears
from Alpha Centauri to the Sol System (and good ol' planet Earth).

You'll recall that Taylor tells Landon that (he thinks) they are "320
lightyears from Earth on a planet in orbit around a star in the
constellation of Orion". And somehow the EARTH-TIME chronometer on his
ship read 11-25-3978 right before it sank. However, when Brent &
Skipper are just about to do their re-entry burn, Brent takes an
"Earth-Time reading" of "Three-Niner-Five-Five": 3955 A.D., which--of
course--is some 23 years EARLIER than the Earth-Time that Taylor saw
on his clock. A mistake, right? Ahhh, but if you compare the amount of
"retrotemporal" Time which Virdon's ship experiences (115 days) with
the distance in lightyears it goes in order to get back to planet
Earth (4.34) after the activation of their "Automatic Homing Device",
then apply that to the distance Taylor's ship would had to have
travelled in order to get back to planet Earth from their destination
in Orion (320 ly), you'll find that 320 ÷ 4.34 = 73.7327 = 8479.26 ÷
115. In other words, if Taylor's (mother)ship had its "Automatic
Homing Device" activated (obviously by somebody other than Taylor,
Landon, Dodge or Stewart), and if it were in a similar situation as
Virdon's ship, then it too would go backwards through Time a
proportional amount, related to the distance in lightyears. Virdon
goes 4.34 lightyears and 115 "retro-days"; Taylor goes 320 lightyears
and 8479 "retro-days"... and 8479 days is equivalent to 23.215 years.
Subtract 23.215 years from 11-25-3978 and what year do you get? Why,
3955! An amazing coincidence! Somehow, the EARTH-TIME clock on
Taylor's shuttle didn't register this "back-through-Time" jump, and
continued to read 3978 as the year, but the OTHER ships accompanying
it (the two ships seen in BENEATH and ESCAPE, as well as the
"mothership") all do register the "jump" back in Time, reading the
true date of Earth's destruction: 3955.
The President mentions that Taylor's ship was "one of two" that have
been "missing"--but if he means the ships in PLANET and BENEATH, then
what about the DIFFERENT ship from ESCAPE? Its gull-wing port
hatchdoor differentiates it from the other two crashed ships. Since
Virdon & Burke don't know about Zira & Cornelius, they must have left
planet Earth BEFORE the Ape-onauts landed in 1973... which would make
the Virdon mission to Alpha Centauri ONE of the two "missing" ships,
and the Taylor mission to Somewhere in Orion the OTHER of the two,
which is why the shuttlecraft in ESCAPE can be referred to as
"commanded by Col. Taylor".

This is all a re-hashing of stuff I've posted before, but since you're
new (and you DID ask!), here it is. I recommend you read up on my past
postings, where I go into more detail fleshing out this scenario. And,
hey, feel free to disregard it if it doesn't rub you right. If you
have a more sensible scenario to turn Dehn's mistakes into "non-
mistakes", then I for one would be tickled to hear it! But beware...
just DARING to re-interpret the mistaken details of Dehn's sequels
(etc.) will get you bearing the wrath of Rory, Whitty, James90210, and
who knows who else!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 9-21-2002

> In a message dated 9/19/02 11:38:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rcisak@o.=

.. writes:

> Mothership? Mothership? This I gotta hear!
>
> That was the one from Patrick that really sent me over the edge. He sa=

ys there was a Mothership in orbit around the planet all during Taylor's adv=
enture in the first film, and that that's where Brent's ship came down from.=
It's crazy, I tell you.

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

> Here's another one that I've pulled from the archives to show Kassidy that I can give it to Chuck as good as he can. Now of course, poor old Chuck is sick, but this thing I wrote over a year ago wasn't meant to be mean.
>
> -- Rory

*** Rory! How is it that you rant about me being verbose, and this
little gem goes ON and ON and ON...
That's okay, though. I thought it was a terrific overview of Chuck's
career (up through "The Warlord" anyway), as funny as a Joe Bob Briggs
review. So I forgive thee.
As for my so-called verbosity, I have to say that if we were to add up
all the many little times you've complained about it, it'd probably
outweigh (in typewriter characters typed) all of my postings combined!
Nice reviews, hilariously written, Roar "EE!"

Patrick

>
> From April 2001:
>
>
> Poor Chuck has been taking an awful beating here recently and rightly so --
> he puts in his ultra-conservative two cents in all the time about this or
> that, and apparently has the ego to keep it going to his dying day. One of
> the funniest descriptions of him I ever read was when Spy Magazine called him
> "a right-wing, rug-wearing pomposity."
>
> But, I can't help but feel sorry for old 'Charlie Hero,' as Roddy McDowall
> used to call him. It's just so pathetic seeing how completely blind he is to
> what an ass he's made of himself.
>
> Still, he was my favorite movie star when I was a kid. I loved 'ya, man!
> So, I thought I'd talk a little about my favorite 'Charlie Hero' movies, and
> the rest of you APES movie-loving pomposities can reply with your hopefully
> hilarious comments.
>
> DARK CITY (1950) Chuck's first movie and an okay film noir. Chuck thinks he
> looks fat in it. I guess so, but what's really funny for me is here he is in
> his first movie and already Charlton Heston is 'Charlton Heston' -- and
> that's what you're gonna get from now on. What a guy!
>
> THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (1952) In this 'hard-to-watch-cause-it's-so-hokey'
> DeMille extravaganza, Chuck is almost killed in a train wreck, but an
> elephant helps save him and the circus is back on the road. What a guy! The
> interesting thing in this movie is that near the beginning Chuck hugs a baby
> gorilla. Little does Chuck know what's to come!
>
> THE SAVAGE (1952) Chuck plays a white guy raised by Indians. Chuck is a
> wooden Indian in this movie, which is bad, bad, bad, BUT fun at times to
> watch.
>
> THE PRESIDENT'S LADY (1953) Chuck plays 'Old Hickory' Andrew Jackson for the
> first time. The second was in 1958's THE BUCCANEER. Chuck liked playing
> Jackson. Jackson was one of our Presidents, as Chuck often reminds us.
> Jackson liked killing Indians, as Chuck doesn't often remind us. This is an
> okay movie. The President's lady dies and Chuck has to be sad. It required
> that he change his expression a little.
>
> PONY EXPRESS (1953) Ah, now he's vintage Chuck, the Heston we all know and
> love as Buffalo Bill Cody. He kicks butt, kills Indians, and rides off at
> the end with his heart broken 'cause his girl dies. He also wears a silly
> hat, but that's okay because the movie is mostly tongue-in-cheek and very
> watchable. Check it out.
>
> ARROWHEAD (1953) Chuck is back and he's killing more Indians, including a
> very pissed-off Jack Palance as the baddest indian ever. He and Chuck get
> to fight hand to hand. Guess who wins. This movie's not great, but not bad
> either.
>
> THE NAKED JUNGLE (1953) Chuck vs. army ants!! This one is good. Heston is a
> real bastard in it, but I think that's because he's a virgin! Yes, I said
> virgin. Anyway, he becomes a hero after he gets his mail-order bride to "do
> him." What does this have to do with fighting army ants? Watch it and find
> out.
>
> SECRET OF THE INCAS (1954) Chuck is like an Indiana Jones guy in this one,
> only a very smarmy Indiana Jones. Yeah, Chuck's kind of a heel in this one.
> He'll do anything to make a buck, but because this is a fifties' movie they
> can't show you everything. The movie isn't that good, but it's got Chuck in
> it, so I watch it.
>
> THE FAR HORIZONS (1955) The story of the Lewis and Clark expedition is made
> dull in this movie. Fred MacMurray plays Lewis, Chuck is Clark. Chuck gets
> to fight more Indians in this one, and I think he bangs Sacajawea, but
> because this is another fifties' movie and they don't show it. DAMN!!!
>
> THE PRIVATE WAR OF MAJOR BENSON (1955) This is a comedy and it's good, and
> Chuck is good in it. Who would have guessed? Chuck plays this hardass and
> hardheaded army guy who because he screwed up something has to go be the head
> of a boy's military school. Chuck made this while waiting for the TEN
> COMMANDMENTS crew to get set up in Hollywood. Hey, Chuck liked to work. Sal
> Mineo is also in it, POTA fans, but I don't know.... Sal Mineo at a boy's
> military school? There's another movie in here someplace, if you know what I
> mean? But again, this is a fifties' movie.
>
> THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) As I write this, this movie is on tonight. It's
> like on every year. It's another hokey DeMille extravaganza. I think it's
> so bad it's funny. Chuck plays Moses, of course, and he looks very serious
> about it. I think why is because he believes all this stuff. Poor deluded
> Chuck. This movie made him a big star, and I think got the big star 'ego'
> thing going full blast with ol' Chuck. Chuck, Chuck, "You stubborn,
> splendid, adorable fool!" GET OVER YOURSELF!!! So, he stars as Moses, the
> film's a big hit with the repressed people of '50s USA, and Chuck's now the
> biggest thing in Hollywood since Jane Russell's boobs (See a connection
> there? Boobs -- Heston, Heston -- boobs? No? OK,
> forget it.), and what is superstar Chuck's next film. . . . . . . . .
>
> THREE VIOLENT PEOPLE (1956) What the f**k!!! Who the hell remembers this
> movie? Well, I do, though I wasn't born when it came out. It's a western
> about these three violent people, who get violent with each other, and it all
> ends in violence. Chuck plays this ex-Confederate, ex-captain guy who's
> violent and he marries Anne Baxter, who played like his sister or girlfriend
> or something in the last movie "The Ten Commandments," and she's sometimes
> violent, but it mostly just involves slapping Chuck in the face, BUT Chuck's
> got this brother, Tom Tryon, and he's missing an arm because when they were
> kids like Chuck got it cut off, so now this brother is all pissed-off and
> violent. Believe it or not, Jamie Farr and Robert Blake are in it, too.
> They get violent (Robert Blake violent?!!!), and Forrest Tucker is in it,
> too, and he gets violent. In
> fact, they should have callled this "Lots of Violent People." It's no "Wild
> Bunch," but for 1956 I guess it's pretty violent.
>
> TOUCH OF EVIL (1958) More violence. This is one of Chuck's best movies. It
> just recently got restored because the studio, Universal, hated it and cut it
> in a way nobody has liked, except somebody at Universal, I guess. It's a
> pretty famous movie. Chuck plays a Mexican in it. It was a stretch for
> Chuck to play a Mexican, so Chuck decided the best way to do it would be
> without a Mexican accent. What a genius! (Remember before that boob/Heston
> thing I brought up before?) Anyway, Chuck had one really good idea for this
> movie, and that was to have Orson Welles direct. Welles directed the shit
> out of this movie (and then Universal cut it to shit), and Welles looks like
> shit in it -- really bad. If you've never seen this movie, I'd try to see it
> because it's a good movie to see, si?
>
> THE BIG COUNTRY (1958) This is a not so good western movie. It's big, it's
> well-directed by William Wyler, it's got lots of stars in it, but it's not
> that great -- though it has a great score. Chuck's not really the star of
> it, he's just one of them. This is the movie LordTZero saw a while ago where
> Gregory Peck plays this sea captain who travels out west to marry this girl
> and ends up in a big fight with Chuck. They kick the shit out of each other
> for sure, but no one wins. I think that's supposed to be the point of this
> movie, but after the fight there's still like another hour of the movie to
> go, so I guess it had more points to make, but they're lost on me. I
> actually like Berl Ives and Chuck Conners best in this movie. They're this
> father and son who head this White-trash bunch that live in the desert, AND
> in fact, POTA fans, the patch of desert they have their ranch on is the same
> piece of ground in Red Rock Canyon where Ursus' Army marched over in BENEATH.
> For that reason I recommend renting this movie, and for the Peck/Heston
> fight -- it's good. (Years later Chuck would have really liked to kick
> Gregory Peck's ass for starring in THE OMEN when it was Chuck they first
> wanted for it. Chuck turned it down! Like I said, genius!)
>
> THE BUCCANEER (1958) This movie isn't good, in fact it's pretty bad and not
> one of my favorites, but I bring it up (Ha! Bring it up! Get it? Up
> Chuck.) because it's the second movie where Chuck played Andrew Jackson.
> He's an old "Old Hickery" in this movie, and sowears a big, white wig and
> lots of makeup. In fact, he kind of looks dead in this movie. Let's move on
> because the next
> one is really good....
>
> BEN-HUR (1959) Alright!!! YEEEE HAAAA!!!!! as Alex would say. This is
> prime Chuck here -- the movie he got his Oscar for. The movie he likes best.
> Chuck's favorite movie. I'm sure you've seen it, but did you know that the
> writer Gore Vidal worked uncredited on the script, and that Gore Vidal is
> gay, and that he sort of made the relationship between Judah Ben-Hur and
> Messala kind of 'suggestive'? Well, when Judah and Messala, who were boyhood
> friends, first see each other again as adults in this movie, it's looks like
> they're REALLY glad to see one another -- Heston has tears in his eyes --,
> and the first thing they do is grab their spears and 'chuck' 'em. I don't
> know about you, but it seems kind of gay to me. Later, when Judah refuses to
> do what Messala wants, Messala gets so pissed-off at Judah, he has him thrown
> in chains and forced to row a boat with a lot of other, mostly naked guys.
> Is that gay, or what? BUT don't tell Chuck this! Heston goes absolutely
> ape-shit when it's even brought up! Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.... So Ben-Hur was
> gay -- there's nothing wrong with that. He still wins the chariot race.
> And, Chuck.... you're so handsome when you win the race, all sweaty and
> everything. Hey!!! What the hell am I saying?
>
> WRECK OF THE MARY DEARE (1959) This movie is okay. Chuck's just the co-star
> next to Gary Cooper. There's a wreck of a ship in it, the Mary Deare, hence
> the title. I haven't seen it in years and don't remember much of it. Let's
> move on....
>
> EL CID (1961) Oh, boy! Chuck's back in armour in this one, fighting the
> Moors to save Spain. He fights, he kill's Sophia Loren's dad, he fights, he
> marries Sophia Loren, he fights, they have kids (and must have been doing
> "it" sometime between those fights), he fights... you get the picture. It
> goes on like this three hours! I think this is the movie that put the pond
> in ponderous. Chuck's such a goody, goody superhero in it that I think he's
> kind of a stiff, in fact at the end he IS a stiff. I'm not kidding, he's a
> dead guy at the end of this movie -- he's still fighting! And he's dead!
> Check it out!
>
> THE PIGEON THAT TOOK ROME (1962) I only mention this one so you'll belive me
> when I say that Chuck once made a movie called "The Pigeon That Took Rome."
> Otherwise, you can forget about this picture -- nearly everyone else on the
> planet has. Why should we be special?
>
> DIAMOND HEAD (1962) This is a movie set in Hawaii where Chuck is this
> pineapple baron who's a bigot and when his sister, the lovely Yvette Mimieux,
> one of those Swinging Chicks of the Sixties(YEEEE HAAAA!), decides she's
> going to marry a full-blooded Hawaiian native, played by the lovely James
> Darren, Chuck starts shitting bricks. Chuck is a real bastard in this movie,
> and a hypocrite. All the time he's been screwing an Hawaiian chick, played
> by the lovely France Nuyen (Remember her in BATTLE?). He even gets her
> pregnant. She dies giving birth and Chuck won't have anything to do with the
> kid. His character here makes Taylor look like a nice guy. Chuck's such a
> bastard in this one they should have called the movie "Diamond DickHead,"
> but they didn't.
>
> 55 DAYS AT PEKING (1962) Chuck in China during the 1900 Boxer Rebellion. He
> stiffly plays a stiff-necked U.S. Marine who helps British ambassador, David
> Niven, fight off Chinese guys out to kill all the foreigners they can find.
> This ponderous movie goes on fornearly three hours, but seems to last more
> like 55 days, hence the title. If you try to watch it, it might help if you
> squint your eyes and pretend the Chinese are apes.
>
> THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD (1965) NOT the greatest movie ever made. This
> story about the life and death of somebody named Jesus Christ is so full of
> cameos by nearly every 'star' in Hollywood at the time that it's nearly
> impossible to take its story seriously. Chuck plays John the Baptist. He's
> real hairy and wears like a bear skin or something. He sort of looks like a
> caveman. He also loses his head. Chuck gets his head cut off, but you don't
> see it. Roddy McDowall is also in this movie, and Sal Mineo, but then if I
> could name everyone who was anyone back then -- they were probably in it.
> The only reason for we POTA fans to look at this movie, besides Chuck and
> Roddy and Sal, is that it was shot in Glen Canyon before it was flooded to
> make Lake Powell -- where Chuck would crash his spaceship in another movie.
> In fact, the sets for this film are still supposed to be at the bottom of the
> lake. Perhaps Chuck's bearsuit he wears in this one is down there, too.
>
> THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY (1965) This film is about how Michelangelo and Pope
> Julius II didn't get along, but how the Sistine Chapel got painted anyway.
> It's dull (like watching paint dry! HA! HA!), but nicely photographed by
> Leon Shamroy, who would photograph this other Chuck movie called PLANET OF
> THE somethings. This is also the movie that Chuck likes to remind us he
> played a genius in. He reminds us and he reminds us. What
> he DOESN'T remind us is that Michelangelo was GAY! He was GAAAAAYYYY! Hear
> me, Chuck? Chuck don't like to be reminded of that.
>
> MAJOR DUNDEE (1965) This is another Chuck Western, directed by Sam
> Peckinpah, and co-starring Richard Harris and James Coburn. I like this film
> even though it's a mess that was butched in editing by its studio (Columbia
> this time.) and has a very annoying score, but Chuck is SOOOO Chuck in this
> film you gotta love it. They shot it in Mexico and Chuck tells the story that
> during filming he waited in the front room of a cathouse while Peckinpah
> banged some teenage prositute. Can you imagine banging a teenage postitute
> while Chuck waits for you outside? It would kind of take the fun out of it
> for me. I can't watch this movie without thinking about that.
>
> THE WAR LORD (1965) Hey!!! HEADS UP POTA FANS! If you've never seen this
> film, or never even heard of it, well, Where the hell have you been? It's
> directed by this guy named Franklin J. Schaffner, stars Chuck, co-stars
> Maurice Evans, and even has Woodrow "Maximus" Parfrey in it. Chuck plays
> this Norman knight back in the 11th Century who has a Moe Howard haircut and
> has to defend this piece of ground along the coast of what's now Belgium
> against bad-ass, pissed off Viking dudes. Chuck fights the Vikings on his
> horse, off his horse, with swords, arrows and anything else he can get his
> hands on, and at at one point he even does this wearing nothing but a diaper.
> He also doesn't get along with his brother too well, and is frustrated
> sexually so he takes a virgin from the village to his bed and pisses just
> about everyone in the village off. But Richard Boone plays his bodyguard (or
> was he his nanny?) and if anybody messes with Chuck, Boone hits them over the
> head with a club. I know it sounds silly, but this movie is actually kind of
> cool, although it, too, was butched in the editing by its studio (Universal
> again, those bastards!). Definately check it out.
>
> I think I continued this in another e-mail, but I haven't found it, and I
> don't know if I'm going to bother looking anymore. Anyway, you new guys, and
> Kassidy, know I can make fun of Chuck.
>
> -- Rory

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 11:56:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Rory! How is it that you rant about me being verbose, and this
little gem goes ON and ON and ON...
That's okay, though. I thought it was a terrific overview of Chuck's
career (up through "The Warlord" anyway), as funny as a Joe Bob Briggs
review. So I forgive thee.
As for my so-called verbosity, I have to say that if we were to add up
all the many little times you've complained about it, it'd probably
outweigh (in typewriter characters typed) all of my postings combined!
Nice reviews, hilariously written, Roar "EE!"

Patrick

Well, maybe now you and other get that "Ragin' Rory" is my schtick!<.html

Rory,

When are you going to do a follow up to this?

Matt

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 12:19:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MTotsky@... writes:

When are you going to do a follow up to this?

Matt

All right, I'll do it tomorrow.<.html

One of the books I've read in the past year is "FROM THE ASHES OF
ANGELS: The Forbidden Legacy of a Fallen Race" by Andrew Collins. It's
basically an overview of the mythic literatures of the Near East
concerning the "Nephilim" or "giants" from Genesis, chapter 6. It's a
great book (though, like all books on the subject, one to be taken
with a pinch of NaCl), and--after delving into the evidence for the
existence of a supposed culture older than Egypt & Sumeria, he writes:

Why, then, cannot we simply accept that we are not the first advanced
race to have inhabited this planet? The answer is clear. To do so,
with our current understanding of life on earth, would frighten us to
death.
We fear that one day we, too, may fall.
One of the best-remembered cult movies of the 1960s is PLANET OF THE
APES. Everyone who has seen this film remembers it almost exclusively
for one chilling scene at the end. The hero, a marooned astronaut
played by Charlton Heston, rides along a beach and sees before him the
reason why apes and not human beings rule on this hostile planet.
Exposed above the sands is the sunken head and raised arm of the
Statue of Liberty. He realizes he is on earth many hundreds of years
beyond his own time, and that, before the apes took control of the
world, human beings had raised a mighty civilization that had crumbled
to dust long ago--its history and achievements having been almost
entirely erased from the memory of the planet. The shock factor of
this film lies in the realization that it gives an apocalyptic vision
of our own possible future. [page 361-362]

Guys like Andrew Collins (and other researchers, such as Graham
Hancock--author of "FOOTPRINTS OF THE GODS"--and Rand Flem-Ath, author
of "WHEN THE SKY FELL") remind me of Cornelius, that maverick
scientist who has to buck the trend (and the accusations of "heresy")
of his own culture when his professionalism in regards to Archaology
points him in the direction of postulating the existence of a superior
antecedent culture (ours) which "official history" says shouldn't
exist at all. This particular book, "FROM THE ASHES...", is a good
read, regardless of whether or not he's really onto something, so I
recommend it.
Also, he goes into a lot of detail concerning the troglodyte dwellings
in Cappodocia which--you'll recall--Bill Creber said were the
inspiration for the design of the Ape City in PLANET.

Patrick

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

> One of the books I've read in the past year is "FROM THE ASHES OF ANGELS: The Forbidden Legacy of a Fallen Race" by Andrew Collins. It's basically an overview of the mythic literatures of the Near East concerning the "Nephilim" or "giants" from Genesis, chapter 6. It's a great book (though, like all books on the subject, one to be taken with a pinch of NaCl), and--after delving into the evidence for the existence of a supposed culture older than Egypt & Sumeria, he writes:
>
> Why, then, cannot we simply accept that we are not the first advanced race to have inhabited this planet? The answer is clear. To do so, with our current understanding of life on earth, would frighten us to death.
> We fear that one day we, too, may fall. One of the best-remembered cult movies of the 1960s is PLANET OF THE APES. Everyone who has seen this film remembers it almost exclusively for one chilling scene at the end. The hero, a marooned astronaut played by Charlton Heston, rides along a beach and sees before him the reason why apes and not human beings rule on this hostile planet. Exposed above the sands is the sunken head and raised arm of the Statue of Liberty. He realizes he is on earth many hundreds of years beyond his own time, and that, before the apes took control of the world, human beings had raised a mighty civilization that had crumbled to dust long ago--its history and achievements having been almost entirely erased from the memory of the planet. The shock factor of this film lies in the realization that it gives an apocalyptic vision of our own possible future. [page 361-362]
>
> Guys like Andrew Collins (and other researchers, such as Graham Hancock--author of "FOOTPRINTS OF THE GODS"--and Rand Flem-Ath, author of "WHEN THE SKY FELL") remind me of Cornelius, that maverick scientist who has to buck the trend (and the accusations of "heresy") of his own culture when his professionalism in regards to Archaology points him in the direction of postulating the existence of a superior antecedent culture (ours) which "official history" says shouldn't exist at all. This particular book, "FROM THE ASHES...", is a good read, regardless of whether or not he's really onto something, so I recommend it. Also, he goes into a lot of detail concerning the troglodyte dwellings in Cappadocia which--you'll recall--Bill Creber said were the inspiration for the design of the Ape City in PLANET.
>
> Patrick

*** I was just surfin' some sites about those Cappadocian troglodyte
dwellings in Turkey, and came across this webpage:
http://www.turkishodyssey.com/places/anatolia/ana2.htm#Kaymakli
Check out the pic of "Uchisar Fortress, Cappadocia"--it bears a
resemblance to the "Ape City" look. I wish I could find one big site
that just had tons and tons of pictures of these places, but every
site I click onto seems to just have one or two. Rats!

Also, one of the many underground cities built there is called
"Kaymakli". For some reason this struck me as a strange coincidence,
since one of the villages in the POTA TV series--in "The Gladiator"--
is called "Kaymak", where Prefect Barlow instituted his "games". I
wonder if the writer of that episode got the name "Kaymak" from this
place in Cappadocia, with its similar architecture?

While I'm on the topic, does anybody happen to know which book Bill
Creber saw which showed the pictures of the troglodyte cities that
inspired him to make Ape City look the way it does? The book is
mentioned in "BEHIND THE POTA", but I don't think the book's title was
ever given.

Bye, till tomorrow's tide...

Patrick

>
> In a message dated 9/20/02 5:58:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> melkor@... writes:
>
> > Both the sequels and the TV series kept the same general anti-conservative
> > satire as the first movie but *greatly* expanded on it. The POTA franchise
> > neatly coincided (1967-1976) with the popularity of liberalism and it
> > may not be a coincidence that the franchise died out when the popularity
> > of conservatism increased in the late 1970's.
>
> Well, for a period (1967-1976) when, as you say, liberalism was popular, I
> seem to remember this guy named Richard Nixon got elected President twice,
> and by a landslide the second time.

Well I wasn't old enough to follow the 1968 elections but consider how awful
the alternative was in 1972: George McGovern. I liked Nixon BTW. It's normal
for political cycles to swing back and forth in popularity from conservatism to
liberalism and for each cycle of popularity to choke on it's own extremism.
The apes series lagged behind the curve of liberalism's popularity, which I
would say started with Kennedy's election in 1960 and continued through the
early 1970's. Jimmy Carter was the final blow.

> The APES franchise died out simply
> because Fox spent less and less money on it and its audience shrank. You say
> that the height of POTA's popularity was 1973-74. That's not really true.
> In 1968, the original film grossed $15 million. In 1973, BATTLE grossed $4
> million. What had been a novel film attraction for all audiences in '68 had
> by '73 become primarily of interest only to kids, teenagers and die-hard
> fans.

BATTLE and the first TV series were much more than mere kiddie fare. The TV
series added its own unique contributions to the anti-conservative themes of
POTA well beyond what the movie series did. It's depiction of a conservative
caste ridden society with a permanent underclass was very realistic and
historically that type of society was and is a very common one. At the time
the series was made there were still two countries, Rhodesia and South Africa,
with very similiar regimes: an elected government of a minority race ruling
over a larger race of people. I bet the South African government banned the TV
series. The society depicted in POTA was a combination of medieval serfdom and
the contemporary white minority regimes in Africa but with characteristics of
many historical and contemporary societies. The villians in the series were
not just conservative individuals like Zaius and Urko, the villians were
conservative ideas held by regular folks.

The cartoon series was in many ways kiddie fare with its giant spiders,
flying reptiles, and king kong ape. But I loved the cartoon series too.
It had a good story arc and was basically a "reimagining" of the first two
movies but a much better story than POTA 2001 was.

> The reason the TV show got made was GREED.

If you mean the overall purpose was to make a profit, then the reason that
PLANET was made was also greed.

> The big ratings that the
> movies got on their first network showings made everyone think most people
> wanted more adventures on the planet of the apes,

And they DID! You would have preferred that no POTA sequels or TV series were
ever made but most POTA fans would disagree with you on that. In fact many
(most probably) fans still want another apes movie even though POTA 2001 was
awful. I would like to see another apes movie too but only one that goes in a
different direction than Burton's crap.

> but the TV show was nearly
> alway like number 48 in the ratings rankings. Fox lost so much money on the
> show that that's why the coupled episodes together to make those ridiculously
> titled TV "movies."
> These are just the facts. I have no trouble facing them. Believe me I wish
> it were otherwise, but it's not. Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago and
> was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again. I'm learning to forgive
> its faults, and I've said before in this group that the TV show is what it
> is. It's not fair to compair it to the original movie, but even as a TV show
> the APES series used a tired "Fugitive" formula that doomed it. It really
> gets boring fast to see our heroes at the end of every episode go running off
> into the woods, or over the hill, or down the beach to their next adventure
> which is going to be just like the last one -- somebody has got a problem and
> before the hour is up our heroes will solve it to go running off again to the
> next installment. For me it's BORING!

All we got to see of the TV series was one half of one season. I can't think
of any other TV series which was as good as POTA in the first half of it's
first season. Even Babylon 5 wasn't nearly as good in its first season.

I think we saw the beginnings of a very interesting story arc in POTA
with "The Legacy". That episode established that many cities had a hidden
cache of post 20th century technology and gave the astronauts a mission to
go and locate them. I also think that Galen's parents were intended to be
recurring characters and his father's position on the High Council could
have led to some interesting episodes.

> Hey, if you think it's great, more power to you. The POTA TV show should
> have all the devoted fans it can get, and that goes for all the other things
> APES.
>
> If you want to start this liberalism vs. conservatism thing in regards to
> POTA that's okay. Ever notice that in the original film even though the
> movie is supposed to be anti-conservatism, that's Dr. Zaius who gets his way
> at the end?
>
> -- Rory

Star Trek was the series that depicted 1960's liberal optimism. POTA was the
series the depicted 1960's liberal pessimism, at least until the final
scenes of BATTLE switched to Trek style liberal optimism. Then the TV
series switched back to the traditional pessimism but with the astronauts
adding a bit of optimism. The series formula went way beyond "The Fugitive".
The astronaut's mission, even if they didn't realize it, was to change society
and not just to elude capture. If the series had been allowed to run its
full course I think the final episode would have had a change in the ape
regime.

.html

BTW, are you learning Japanese because you have to, or because you
just want to? Not that it's any of my business, but I'm just curious.

Both actually.  Oh, I want to, but there's some 'have to' involved.  All degree plans must have at least two years of some foreign language.  I've taken just about all of them with the exception of Russian, though I have cassettes for that.  I took a semester of German, mainly because since I'd had three of them in high school, the most of any one language for me, and I though it would be easiest.  I'm terrible at languages.  Good at phraseology, but bad at grammar and not so hot with vocab.  Anyway it was boring.  So I switched to the one language I was actually interested in learning, Japanese.  It's not any easier, but at least it's fun.

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:15 AM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Chuck Amok

Here's another one that I've pulled from the archives to show Kassidy that I can give it to Chuck as good as he can.  Now of course, poor old Chuck is sick, but this thing I wrote over a year ago wasn't meant to be mean.

-- Rory

From April 2001:


Poor Chuck has been taking an awful beating here recently and rightly so -- he puts in his ultra-conservative two cents in all the time about this or that, and apparently has the ego to keep it going to his dying day.  One of the funniest descriptions of him I ever read was when Spy Magazine called him "a right-wing, rug-wearing pomposity."

But, I can't help but feel sorry for old 'Charlie Hero,' as Roddy McDowall used to call him.  It's just so pathetic seeing how completely blind he is to what an ass he's made of himself.

Still, he was my favorite movie star when I was a kid.  I loved 'ya, man!   So, I thought I'd talk a little about my favorite 'Charlie Hero' movies, and the rest of you APES movie-loving pomposities can reply with your hopefully hilarious comments.

DARK CITY (1950)  Chuck's first movie and an okay film noir.  Chuck thinks he looks fat in it.  I guess so, but what's really funny for me is here he is in his first movie and already Charlton Heston is 'Charlton Heston' -- and that's what you're gonna get from now on.  What a guy!

THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (1952) In this 'hard-to-watch-cause-it's-so-hokey' DeMille extravaganza, Chuck is almost killed in a train wreck, but an elephant helps save him and the circus is back on the road.  What a guy!  The interesting thing in this movie is that near the beginning Chuck hugs a baby gorilla. Little does Chuck know what's to come!

THE SAVAGE (1952)  Chuck plays a white guy raised by Indians.  Chuck is a wooden Indian in this movie, which is bad, bad, bad, BUT fun at times to watch.

THE PRESIDENT'S LADY (1953)  Chuck plays 'Old Hickory' Andrew Jackson for the first time.  The second was in 1958's THE BUCCANEER.  Chuck liked playing Jackson.  Jackson was one of our Presidents, as Chuck often reminds us.  Jackson liked killing Indians, as Chuck doesn't often remind us.  This is an okay movie.  The President's lady dies and Chuck has to be sad.  It required that he change his expression a little.

PONY EXPRESS (1953) Ah, now he's vintage Chuck, the Heston we all know and love as Buffalo Bill Cody.  He kicks butt, kills Indians, and rides off at the end with his heart broken 'cause his girl dies.  He also wears a silly hat, but that's okay because the movie is mostly tongue-in-cheek and very watchable.  Check it out.

ARROWHEAD (1953)  Chuck is back and he's killing more Indians, including a very pissed-off Jack Palance as the baddest indian ever.     He and Chuck get to fight hand to hand.  Guess who wins.  This movie's not great, but not bad either.

THE NAKED JUNGLE (1953)  Chuck vs. army ants!!  This one is good. Heston is a real bastard in it, but I think that's because he's a virgin!  Yes, I said virgin.  Anyway, he becomes a hero after he gets his mail-order bride to "do him."  What does this have to do with fighting army ants?  Watch it and find out.

SECRET OF THE INCAS (1954)  Chuck is like an Indiana Jones guy in this one, only a very smarmy Indiana Jones.  Yeah, Chuck's kind of a heel in this one.  He'll do anything to make a buck, but because this is a fifties' movie they can't show you everything.  The movie isn't that good, but it's got Chuck in it, so I watch it.

THE FAR HORIZONS (1955)  The story of the Lewis and Clark expedition is made dull in this movie.  Fred MacMurray plays Lewis, Chuck is Clark.  Chuck gets to fight more Indians in this one, and I think he bangs Sacajawea, but because this is another fifties' movie and they don't show it.  DAMN!!!

THE PRIVATE WAR OF MAJOR BENSON (1955) This is a comedy and it's good, and Chuck is good in it.  Who would have guessed?  Chuck plays this hardass and hardheaded army guy who because he screwed up something has to go be the head of a boy's military school.  Chuck made this while waiting for the TEN COMMANDMENTS crew to get set up in Hollywood.  Hey, Chuck liked to work.  Sal Mineo is also in it, POTA fans, but I don't know.... Sal Mineo at a boy's military school?  There's another movie in here someplace, if you know what I mean?  But again, this is a fifties' movie.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)  As I write this, this movie is on tonight.  It's like on every year.  It's another hokey DeMille extravaganza.  I think it's so bad it's funny.  Chuck plays Moses, of course, and he looks very serious about it.  I think why is because he believes all this stuff.  Poor deluded Chuck.  This movie made him a big star, and I think got the big star 'ego' thing going full blast with ol' Chuck.  Chuck, Chuck,  "You stubborn, splendid, adorable fool!"  GET OVER YOURSELF!!!  So, he stars as Moses, the film's a big hit with the repressed people of '50s USA, and Chuck's now the biggest thing in Hollywood since Jane Russell's boobs (See a connection there?  Boobs -- Heston, Heston -- boobs?  No?  OK,
forget it.), and what is superstar Chuck's next film. . . . . . . . .

THREE VIOLENT PEOPLE (1956)  What the f**k!!!  Who the hell remembers this movie?  Well, I do, though I wasn't born when it came out.  It's a western about these three violent people, who get violent with each other, and it all ends in violence.  Chuck plays this ex-Confederate, ex-captain guy who's violent and he marries Anne Baxter, who played like his sister or girlfriend or something in the last movie "The Ten Commandments," and she's sometimes
violent, but it mostly just involves slapping Chuck in the face, BUT Chuck's got this brother, Tom Tryon, and he's missing an arm because when they were kids like Chuck got it cut off, so now this brother is all pissed-off and violent.  Believe it or not, Jamie Farr and Robert Blake are in it, too.  They get violent (Robert Blake violent?!!!), and Forrest Tucker is in it, too, and he gets violent.  In
fact, they should have callled this "Lots of Violent People."   It's no "Wild Bunch," but for 1956 I guess it's pretty violent.

TOUCH OF EVIL (1958)  More violence.  This is one of Chuck's best movies.  It just recently got restored because the studio, Universal, hated it and cut it in a way nobody has liked, except somebody at Universal, I guess.  It's a pretty famous movie.  Chuck plays a Mexican in it.  It was a stretch for Chuck to play a Mexican, so Chuck decided the best way to do it would be
without a Mexican accent.  What a genius! (Remember before that boob/Heston thing I brought up before?)  Anyway, Chuck had one really good idea for this movie, and that was to have Orson Welles direct.  Welles directed the shit out of this movie (and then Universal cut it to shit), and Welles looks like shit in it -- really bad.  If you've never seen this movie, I'd try to see it because it's a good movie to see, si?

THE BIG COUNTRY (1958)  This is a not so good western movie.  It's big, it's well-directed by William Wyler, it's got lots of stars in it, but it's not that great -- though it has a great score.  Chuck's not really the star of it, he's just one of them.  This is the movie LordTZero saw a while ago where Gregory Peck plays this sea captain who travels out west to marry this girl and ends up in a big fight with Chuck.  They kick the shit out of each other for sure, but no one wins.  I think that's supposed to be the point of this movie, but after the fight there's still like another hour of the movie to
go, so I guess it had more points to make, but they're lost on me.  I
actually like Berl Ives and Chuck Conners best in this movie.  They're this father and son who head this White-trash bunch that live in the desert, AND in fact, POTA fans, the patch of desert they have their ranch on is the same piece of ground in Red Rock Canyon where Ursus' Army marched over in BENEATH.  For that reason I recommend renting this movie, and for the Peck/Heston fight -- it's good.  (Years later Chuck would have really liked to kick Gregory Peck's ass for starring in THE OMEN when it was Chuck they first wanted for it.  Chuck turned it down!  Like I said, genius!)

THE BUCCANEER (1958) This movie isn't good, in fact it's pretty bad and not one of my favorites, but I bring it up (Ha!  Bring it up!  Get it?  Up Chuck.) because it's the second movie where Chuck played Andrew Jackson.  He's an old "Old Hickery" in this movie, and sowears a big, white wig and lots of makeup.  In fact, he kind of looks dead in this movie.  Let's move on because the next
one is really good....

BEN-HUR (1959)  Alright!!!  YEEEE HAAAA!!!!! as Alex would say.  This is prime Chuck here -- the movie he got his Oscar for.  The movie he likes best.  Chuck's favorite movie.  I'm sure you've seen it, but did you know that the writer Gore Vidal worked uncredited on the script, and that Gore Vidal is gay, and that he sort of made the relationship between  Judah Ben-Hur and Messala kind of 'suggestive'?  Well, when Judah and Messala, who were boyhood friends, first see each other again as adults in this movie, it's looks like they're REALLY glad to see one another -- Heston has tears in his eyes --, and the first thing they do is grab their spears and 'chuck' 'em. I don't know about you, but it seems kind of gay to me.  Later, when Judah refuses to do what Messala wants, Messala gets so pissed-off at Judah, he has him thrown in chains and forced to row a boat with a lot of other, mostly naked guys.  Is that gay, or what?  BUT don'...... And, Chuck.... you're so handsome when you win the race, all sweaty and everything.  Hey!!!  What the hell am I saying?

WRECK OF THE MARY DEARE (1959)  This movie is okay.  Chuck's just the co-star next to Gary Cooper.  There's a wreck of a ship in it, the Mary Deare, hence the title.  I haven't seen it in years and don't remember much of it.  Let's move on....

EL CID (1961)  Oh, boy!  Chuck's back in armour in this one, fighting the Moors to save Spain.  He fights, he kill's Sophia Loren's dad, he fights, he marries Sophia Loren, he fights, they have kids (and must have been doing "it" sometime between those fights), he fights... you get the picture.  It goes on like this three hours!  I think this is the movie that put the pond in ponderous.  Chuck's such a goody, goody superhero in it that I think he's kind of a stiff, in fact at the end he IS a stiff.  I'm not kidding, he's a dead guy at the end of this movie -- he's still fighting!  And he's dead!   Check it out!

THE PIGEON THAT TOOK ROME (1962)  I only mention this one so you'll belive me when I say that Chuck once made a movie called "The Pigeon That Took Rome."  Otherwise, you can forget about this picture -- nearly everyone else on the planet has.  Why should we be special?

DIAMOND HEAD (1962)  This is a movie set in Hawaii where Chuck is this pineapple baron who's a bigot and when his sister, the lovely Yvette Mimieux, one of those Swinging Chicks of the Sixties(YEEEE HAAAA!), decides she's going to marry a full-blooded Hawaiian native, played by the lovely James Darren, Chuck starts shitting bricks.  Chuck is a real bastard in this movie, and a hypocrite.  All the time he's been screwing an Hawaiian chick, played by the lovely France Nuyen (Remember her in BATTLE?).  He even gets her pregnant.  She dies giving birth and Chuck won't have anything to do with the kid.   His character here makes Taylor look like a nice guy.  Chuck's such a bastard in this one they should have called the movie "Diamond DickHead,"  but they didn't.

55 DAYS AT PEKING (1962)  Chuck in China during the 1900 Boxer Rebellion.  He stiffly plays a stiff-necked U.S. Marine who helps British ambassador, David Niven, fight off Chinese guys out to kill all the foreigners they can find. This ponderous movie goes on fornearly three hours, but seems to last more like 55 days, hence the title.  If you try to watch it, it might help if you squint your eyes and pretend the Chinese are apes.

THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD (1965)  NOT the greatest movie ever made.  This story about the life and death of somebody named Jesus Christ is so full of cameos by nearly every 'star' in Hollywood at the time that it's nearly impossible to take its story seriously. Chuck plays John the Baptist.  He's real hairy and wears like a bear skin or something.  He sort of looks like a caveman.  He also loses his head.  Chuck gets his head cut off, but you don't see it.  Roddy McDowall is also in this movie, and Sal Mineo, but then if I could name everyone who was anyone back then -- they were probably in it.  The only reason for we POTA fans to look at this movie, besides Chuck and Roddy and Sal, is that it was shot in Glen Canyon before it was flooded to make Lake Powell -- where Chuck would crash his spaceship in another movie.  In fact, the sets for this film are still supposed to be at the bottom of the lake.  Perhaps Chuck's bearsuit he we.
THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY (1965) This film is about how Michelangelo and Pope Julius II didn't get along, but how the Sistine Chapel got painted anyway.  It's dull (like watching paint dry!  HA! HA!), but nicely photographed by Leon Shamroy, who would photograph this other Chuck movie called PLANET OF THE somethings.  This is also the movie that Chuck likes to remind us he played a genius in. He reminds us and he reminds us.  What
he DOESN'T remind us is that Michelangelo was GAY!  He was GAAAAAYYYY!   Hear me, Chuck?   Chuck don't like to be reminded of that.

MAJOR DUNDEE (1965)  This is another Chuck Western, directed by Sam Peckinpah, and co-starring Richard Harris and James Coburn. I like this film even though it's a mess that was butched in editing by its studio (Columbia this time.) and has a very annoying score, but Chuck is SOOOO Chuck in this film you gotta love it. They shot it in Mexico and Chuck tells the story that during filming he waited in the front room of a cathouse while Peckinpah banged some teenage prositute.  Can you imagine banging a teenage postitute while Chuck waits for you outside?  It would kind of take the fun out of it for me.  I can't watch this movie without thinking about that.

THE WAR LORD (1965)  Hey!!!  HEADS UP POTA FANS!  If you've never seen this film, or never even heard of it, well, Where the hell have you been?  It's directed by this guy named Franklin J. Schaffner, stars Chuck, co-stars Maurice Evans, and even has Woodrow "Maximus" Parfrey in it.  Chuck plays this Norman knight back in the 11th Century who has a Moe Howard haircut and has to defend this piece of ground along the coast of what's now Belgium against bad-ass, pissed off Viking dudes.  Chuck fights the Vikings on his horse, off his horse, with swords, arrows and anything else he can get his hands on, and at at one point he even does this wearing nothing but a diaper.  He also doesn't get along with his brother too well, and is frustrated sexually so he takes a virgin from the village to his bed and pisses just about everyone in the village off.  But Richard Boone plays his bodyguard (or was he his nanny?) and if anybody messes with Chuck, Boone ...
I think I continued this in another e-mail, but I haven't found it, and I don't know if I'm going to bother looking anymore.  Anyway, you new guys, and Kassidy, know I can make fun of Chuck.

-- Rory






 



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 5:09:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rcisak@... writes:

How could you leave out The Omega Man and Soylent Green? :)

I think Heston might have made more westerns than John Wayne, but he's always gonna be remembered as Moses.  And all of those WWII movies that got made in the 50's and 60's, but I don't remember him being in any.


John Wayne has got Heston beat on westerns by a long mile, pilgrim.  Heston regrets he didn't make more westerns, and he hasn't done that many WWII films either.<.html

.html

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

From: Melkor

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc

> Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as Taylor did.


But much more bent out of shape than Mark Walberg was, who seemed like he
couldn't care less.

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 12:33:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

This particular book, "FROM THE ASHES...", is a good
read, regardless of whether or not he's really onto something, so I
recommend it.
Also, he goes into a lot of detail concerning the troglodyte dwellings
in Cappodocia which--you'll recall--Bill Creber said were the
inspiration for the design of the Ape City in PLANET.

Patrick

I'll have to look into that one.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 12:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!

I believe that in PLANET when you hear all the noise before the water rushes into the cabin that you're also hearing the ass-end of the spaceship break off and sink.

-- Rory <.html

Attachments :

.htmlYeah, somewhat Ape City-ish, and I have no idea what book it was Bill Creber looked at, Patrick

-- RorEE


<.html

Jacobs was planning to use those same Turkish dwellings that inspired Ape
City as the home of the Fremen in his movie of "Dune". In his archives
there's a magazine article about them and some correspondence in the "Dune"
files. That would have been cool for them to appear in a Jacobs movie.
Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: POTA, Cappodocia's Troglodyte cities, &
Kaymak


> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > One of the books I've read in the past year is "FROM THE ASHES OF
ANGELS: The Forbidden Legacy of a Fallen Race" by Andrew Collins. It's
basically an overview of the mythic literatures of the Near East concerning
the "Nephilim" or "giants" from Genesis, chapter 6. It's a great book
(though, like all books on the subject, one to be taken with a pinch of
NaCl), and--after delving into the evidence for the existence of a supposed
culture older than Egypt & Sumeria, he writes:
> >
> > Why, then, cannot we simply accept that we are not the first advanced
race to have inhabited this planet? The answer is clear. To do so, with our
current understanding of life on earth, would frighten us to death.
> > We fear that one day we, too, may fall. One of the best-remembered cult
movies of the 1960s is PLANET OF THE APES. Everyone who has seen this film
remembers it almost exclusively for one chilling scene at the end. The hero,
a marooned astronaut played by Charlton Heston, rides along a beach and sees
before him the reason why apes and not human beings rule on this hostile
planet. Exposed above the sands is the sunken head and raised arm of the
Statue of Liberty. He realizes he is on earth many hundreds of years beyond
his own time, and that, before the apes took control of the world, human
beings had raised a mighty civilization that had crumbled to dust long
ago--its history and achievements having been almost entirely erased from
the memory of the planet. The shock factor of this film lies in the
realization that it gives an apocalyptic vision of our own possible future.
[page 361-362]
> >
> > Guys like Andrew Collins (and other researchers, such as Graham
Hancock--author of "FOOTPRINTS OF THE GODS"--and Rand Flem-Ath, author of
"WHEN THE SKY FELL") remind me of Cornelius, that maverick scientist who has
to buck the trend (and the accusations of "heresy") of his own culture when
his professionalism in regards to Archaology points him in the direction of
postulating the existence of a superior antecedent culture (ours) which
"official history" says shouldn't exist at all. This particular book, "FROM
THE ASHES...", is a good read, regardless of whether or not he's really onto
something, so I recommend it. Also, he goes into a lot of detail concerning
the troglodyte dwellings in Cappadocia which--you'll recall--Bill Creber
said were the inspiration for the design of the Ape City in PLANET.
> >
> > Patrick
>
> *** I was just surfin' some sites about those Cappadocian troglodyte
> dwellings in Turkey, and came across this webpage:
> http://www.turkishodyssey.com/places/anatolia/ana2.htm#Kaymakli
> Check out the pic of "Uchisar Fortress, Cappadocia"--it bears a
> resemblance to the "Ape City" look. I wish I could find one big site
> that just had tons and tons of pictures of these places, but every
> site I click onto seems to just have one or two. Rats!
>
> Also, one of the many underground cities built there is called
> "Kaymakli". For some reason this struck me as a strange coincidence,
> since one of the villages in the POTA TV series--in "The Gladiator"--
> is called "Kaymak", where Prefect Barlow instituted his "games". I
> wonder if the writer of that episode got the name "Kaymak" from this
> place in Cappadocia, with its similar architecture?
>
> While I'm on the topic, does anybody happen to know which book Bill
> Creber saw which showed the pictures of the troglodyte cities that
> inspired him to make Ape City look the way it does? The book is
> mentioned in "BEHIND THE POTA", but I don't think the book's title was
> ever given.
>
> Bye, till tomorrow's tide...
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlI went to the movies today and saw THE FOUR FEATHERS.  It was terrible, don't bother with it, but I also saw the new STAR TREK trailer and it has the main title music from POTA 2001 in it.  Now here's a Paramount movie that will have a brand new Jerry Goldsmith score using music from a FOX film that was a remake of a movie with a Jerry Goldsmith score.  Hollywood is screwy.

-- Rory<.html

.html

 

<.html

Well put about the cycles of liberalism and conservatism. The first film
was a risk, so it can't be totally written off as greed; the TV series can.
I agree that the show could have gotten better if it'd stayed on. Booth
Colman told me that they were aware of the problems and were going to fix
them (Bill Blake swears they were considering handing it off to Gene
Roddenberry). You folks at home can play along: how great would the
reputations of beloved series be (MASH, Star Trek, whatever) had they only
lasted 14 episodes? I mean besides the fact they wouldn't have enough
episodes to be syndicated and would have been buried in vaults. Most shows
seem to hit their stride toward the end of the first season, do well in the
2nd and 3rd, then coast the last few years (except the amazing "Simpsons",
of course). - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] PLANET satire vs. TV series and sequels


> >
> > In a message dated 9/20/02 5:58:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > melkor@... writes:
> >
> > > Both the sequels and the TV series kept the same general
anti-conservative
> > > satire as the first movie but *greatly* expanded on it. The POTA
franchise
> > > neatly coincided (1967-1976) with the popularity of liberalism and it
> > > may not be a coincidence that the franchise died out when the
popularity
> > > of conservatism increased in the late 1970's.
> >
> > Well, for a period (1967-1976) when, as you say, liberalism was popular,
I
> > seem to remember this guy named Richard Nixon got elected President
twice,
> > and by a landslide the second time.
>
> Well I wasn't old enough to follow the 1968 elections but consider how
awful
> the alternative was in 1972: George McGovern. I liked Nixon BTW. It's
normal
> for political cycles to swing back and forth in popularity from
conservatism to
> liberalism and for each cycle of popularity to choke on it's own
extremism.
> The apes series lagged behind the curve of liberalism's popularity, which
I
> would say started with Kennedy's election in 1960 and continued through
the
> early 1970's. Jimmy Carter was the final blow.
>
>
> > The APES franchise died out simply
> > because Fox spent less and less money on it and its audience shrank.
You say
> > that the height of POTA's popularity was 1973-74. That's not really
true.
> > In 1968, the original film grossed $15 million. In 1973, BATTLE grossed
$4
> > million. What had been a novel film attraction for all audiences in '68
had
> > by '73 become primarily of interest only to kids, teenagers and die-hard
> > fans.
>
> BATTLE and the first TV series were much more than mere kiddie fare. The
TV
> series added its own unique contributions to the anti-conservative themes
of
> POTA well beyond what the movie series did. It's depiction of a
conservative
> caste ridden society with a permanent underclass was very realistic and
> historically that type of society was and is a very common one. At the
time
> the series was made there were still two countries, Rhodesia and South
Africa,
> with very similiar regimes: an elected government of a minority race
ruling
> over a larger race of people. I bet the South African government banned
the TV
> series. The society depicted in POTA was a combination of medieval
serfdom and
> the contemporary white minority regimes in Africa but with characteristics
of
> many historical and contemporary societies. The villians in the series
were
> not just conservative individuals like Zaius and Urko, the villians were
> conservative ideas held by regular folks.
>
> The cartoon series was in many ways kiddie fare with its giant spiders,
> flying reptiles, and king kong ape. But I loved the cartoon series too.
> It had a good story arc and was basically a "reimagining" of the first two
> movies but a much better story than POTA 2001 was.
>
>
> > The reason the TV show got made was GREED.
>
> If you mean the overall purpose was to make a profit, then the reason that
> PLANET was made was also greed.
>
>
> > The big ratings that the
> > movies got on their first network showings made everyone think most
people
> > wanted more adventures on the planet of the apes,
>
> And they DID! You would have preferred that no POTA sequels or TV series
were
> ever made but most POTA fans would disagree with you on that. In fact
many
> (most probably) fans still want another apes movie even though POTA 2001
was
> awful. I would like to see another apes movie too but only one that goes
in a
> different direction than Burton's crap.
>
>
> > but the TV show was nearly
> > alway like number 48 in the ratings rankings. Fox lost so much money on
the
> > show that that's why the coupled episodes together to make those
ridiculously
> > titled TV "movies."
> > These are just the facts. I have no trouble facing them. Believe me I
wish
> > it were otherwise, but it's not. Now I watched BATTLE not too long ago
and
> > was surprised by how much I enjoyed seeing it again. I'm learning to
forgive
> > its faults, and I've said before in this group that the TV show is what
it
> > is. It's not fair to compair it to the original movie, but even as a TV
show
> > the APES series used a tired "Fugitive" formula that doomed it. It
really
> > gets boring fast to see our heroes at the end of every episode go
running off
> > into the woods, or over the hill, or down the beach to their next
adventure
> > which is going to be just like the last one -- somebody has got a
problem and
> > before the hour is up our heroes will solve it to go running off again
to the
> > next installment. For me it's BORING!
>
> All we got to see of the TV series was one half of one season. I can't
think
> of any other TV series which was as good as POTA in the first half of it's
> first season. Even Babylon 5 wasn't nearly as good in its first season.
>
> I think we saw the beginnings of a very interesting story arc in POTA
> with "The Legacy". That episode established that many cities had a hidden
> cache of post 20th century technology and gave the astronauts a mission to
> go and locate them. I also think that Galen's parents were intended to be
> recurring characters and his father's position on the High Council could
> have led to some interesting episodes.
>
>
> > Hey, if you think it's great, more power to you. The POTA TV show
should
> > have all the devoted fans it can get, and that goes for all the other
things
> > APES.
> >
> > If you want to start this liberalism vs. conservatism thing in regards
to
> > POTA that's okay. Ever notice that in the original film even though the
> > movie is supposed to be anti-conservatism, that's Dr. Zaius who gets his
way
> > at the end?
> >
> > -- Rory
>
> Star Trek was the series that depicted 1960's liberal optimism. POTA was
the
> series the depicted 1960's liberal pessimism, at least until the final
> scenes of BATTLE switched to Trek style liberal optimism. Then the TV
> series switched back to the traditional pessimism but with the astronauts
> adding a bit of optimism. The series formula went way beyond "The
Fugitive".
> The astronaut's mission, even if they didn't realize it, was to change
society
> and not just to elude capture. If the series had been allowed to run its
> full course I think the final episode would have had a change in the ape
> regime.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: Richard Cisak Jr.

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc

I think George Clooney would have been so much better than Marky Mark

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

From: Melkor

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] tv series, Rory dear, Logan's Run, etc

> Yes I agree that Burke and Virdon were from the original timeline - the circular one! Perhaps they did mention Zira and Cornelius - offscreen. They definately did not seem as bent out of shape about being on the POTA as Taylor did.


But much more bent out of shape than Mark Walberg was, who seemed like he
couldn't care less.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:54 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] POTA "chaloupes"...

In a message dated 9/21/02 12:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!

I believe that in PLANET when you hear all the noise before the water rushes into the cabin that you're also hearing the ass-end of the spaceship break off and sink.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Ken and Heather Taylor

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:28 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Natalie Jacobs

I caught part of some Marilyn murder conspiracy documentary last night and there was a brief interview Natalie Trundy ( although they referred to her Mrs Natalie Jacobs ) who was talking about Arthur getting 'the call' while they were at the Hollywood Bowl. They also interview Jacob's assistant at the time who's name I don't recall but he apparently didn't like Marilyn much at all.

By the way, Natalie looked kind of scary.

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

If these are the originals, then they are rare.

There have been a lot of "fakes" recently though.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apefan23@... [apefan23@...]
> Sent: Saturday, 21 September 2002 9:52
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Check out eBay item 1768766972 (Ends
> Sep-24-02 19:22:57 PDT ) - Planet of the
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/20/02 12:05:00 PM, Haristas@... writes:
>
> << I've never seen these before, but Oh! Do they put the ugh in ugly! >>
>
> They're up to 500 bucks...reserve not met!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 6:28:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ktaylor@... writes:

I caught part of some Marilyn murder conspiracy documentary last night and there was a brief interview Natalie Trundy ( although they referred to her Mrs Natalie Jacobs ) who was talking about Arthur getting 'the call' while they were at the Hollywood Bowl. They also interview Jacob's assistant at the time who's name I don't recall but he apparently didn't like Marilyn much at all.

By the way, Natalie looked kind of scary.

Yes, I saw that same show some years ago.  Marilyn Monroe was a mess.  A MESS!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 6:31:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  Well put about the cycles of liberalism and conservatism. The first film
was a risk, so it can't be totally written off as greed; the TV series can.
I agree that the show could have gotten better if it'd stayed on. Booth
Colman told me that they were aware of the problems and were going to fix
them (Bill Blake swears they were considering handing it off to Gene
Roddenberry). You folks at home can play along: how great would the
reputations of beloved series be (MASH, Star Trek, whatever) had they only
lasted 14 episodes? I mean besides the fact they wouldn't have enough
episodes to be syndicated and would have been buried in vaults. Most shows
seem to hit their stride toward the end of the first season, do well in the
2nd and 3rd, then coast the last few years (except the amazing "Simpsons",
of course). - - - Jeff

Believe it or not, but back then when I heard the TV show was going to be cancelled I wrote to CBS begging them not to.  I even included a picture of Evans' Dr. Zaius with a tear running down his eye.  I remember I also wrote a script that reflected what I thought the series should be like.  I wished I'd saved it, but it involved Pete and Virdon getting captured and being put on trial much as Taylor was in PLANET.  What I basically wanted from the TV show was to just see something like PLANET every week.

-- Rory<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Natalie Jacobs

In a message dated 9/21/02 6:28:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ktaylor@... writes:

I caught part of some Marilyn murder conspiracy documentary last night and there was a brief interview Natalie Trundy ( although they referred to her Mrs Natalie Jacobs ) who was talking about Arthur getting 'the call' while they were at the Hollywood Bowl. They also interview Jacob's assistant at the time who's name I don't recall but he apparently didn't like Marilyn much at all.

By the way, Natalie looked kind of scary.

Yes, I saw that same show some years ago.  Marilyn Monroe was a mess.  A MESS!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 6:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  But Brent's ship looked the same (so did Virdon and Burke's, come to think of it!). Where did the ass-end of his go? Etc. - - - Jeff

Who's ass-end?  Brent's?  It was shown all broken up.  As for Virdon and Burke's, well, that's the TV show.  Let's not go there.  Really, Jeff, I thought YOU'd know better than that!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 6:38:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

What was the name of that documentary, Ken? - - Jeff

My name is Rory.  I've decided to try and answer your question, O Greatest POTA Fan of Them All.

I think it might be "Intimate Portrait: Marilyn Monroe" (1996), or it might be "Marilyn Monroe: Beyond the Legend" (1987).  Now the later was narrated by Richard Widmark.  Was what you saw, Ken, narrated by Richard Widmark?  There's also a documentary called "Marilyn Monroe: Life After Death" (1994).

Also, Natalie Trundy's real name is Natalie Trundy Jacobs Lopez.

-- Rory
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 7:07:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  They filmed that in '99. Natalie wanted me there for moral support but I wasn't moral enough. So it wasn't "some years ago". Your memory is a mess. A MESS! - - - - Jeff

1999 is some years ago, O Greatest One.  Are you on the rag today, O Mightiest of the Apes Fans?<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 9:20:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

So what if Dehn's stories had some rather embarrassing sci-fi
implausibilities in them? 

That's what I think.  I agree with you very much there, Patrick.  You're right on.  So what?!!!  To which I would add, Who cares?!!
Just watch the movies and SHUT UP!  I don't watch the old Tarzan movies and wonder how he and Jane can run around in the jungle nearly naked and not have one scratch, bruise, or bug bite on their skin.  Do I?!!!  Of course not, and niether should you!  Just suspend your disbelief and go with the fantasy.  And remember, Don't dream it, BEEEEEEEE IT!

Thank you.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 10:03:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

The POTA TV show is just as relevant today as it was 28 years ago when it first aired. Was it as good as PLANET (the film)? Well, NO... but hell, that's
asking one hell of a lot! PLANET was absolutely magnificent, and it's
amazing that its sequels were as good as they were. Most sequels are
horrid. Despite their flaws, the films (BENEATH through BATTLE) and
the TV episodes had something to say--and it's a message the world
sure as hell needs to hear. Especially after 9/11/2001.

Patrick

Again, I'll have to completely agree with you there, Patrick.  APES LIVES!  And of course the original film is truly absolutely magnificent.  It's one of those magnificents movies they now put on DVD that Rory loves (or: How I watched a film 300 times in seven days and twenty-five minutes).  Dare I saw that it's also a modern classic?  Would you agree with me there, Patrick?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 10:48:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Incidentally, in Boulle's "Bridge", there's a passage where one of the
Japs is referred to as an ape of some kind (I can't recall if it was a
"gorilla" or a "baboon" just now; I'll go look it up), which goes a
long way to connecting the idea that even Boulle's novel of "La
Planète des Singes" had something to do with racism. If he could refer
to a foreigner (a Japanese soldier) as an Ape, then isn't it likely
his Apes in LPDS/"Planet" also represent foreigners to some degree?

Patrick

I've noticed this before too, Patrick.  I think it may also have something to do with the culture of the apes in PLANET seeming vaguely oriental.  What do you think, Patrick?  I hope you'll agree with me that the apes in PLANET do seem "oriental" in their attutudes and postures.  Did you know that Frank Schaffner was born and lived the first five years of his life in Japan?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 11:56:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Rory! How is it that you rant about me being verbose, and this
little gem goes ON and ON and ON...
That's okay, though. I thought it was a terrific overview of Chuck's
career (up through "The Warlord" anyway), as funny as a Joe Bob Briggs
review. So I forgive thee.
As for my so-called verbosity, I have to say that if we were to add up
all the many little times you've complained about it, it'd probably
outweigh (in typewriter characters typed) all of my postings combined!
Nice reviews, hilariously written, Roar "EE!"

Patrick

Thank you very much, Patrick.  I hope to entertain you more in the future.  But only one future, of course.

-- Rory<.html

Attachments :

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 12:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** I took the concept Boulle originated in his novel--a mothership
from which 3 smaller ships detach and land on the planet ("une
chaloupe", or "launch", which is the same thing as a shuttlecraft)--
and used it to explain the discordant "flubs" that were introduced
into the series starting with BENEATH. Had they never made any
sequels, I would never have dreamed of deducing that there was any
orbiting mothership involved... but the mistakes Dehn introduced
required an "unflubbing" in order to make ALL the details make sense
(at least to ME).

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!
I think it's up in his orbiting mothership. And when Brent sees Ursus
ranting about how "all humans are evil" (etc.), he looks up and says,
"I gotta get back... UP THERE... I don't know how or what with, but
I'm not staying here." What IS there "up there" that he wants to get
back to? Empty space? What good would THAT do? I think that Brent
knows there's something "up there" awaiting him... if he can only find
a working ship capable of rocketing his ass skyward.

My explanation of the "U.S.S. EARTH" bit, in brief, goes like this:
1.) Taylor tells Landon to "get out a last signal" [Landon: "What
signal?"] "To EARTH, that we've landed!" Taylor knows that the planet
Earth has aged HUNDREDS OF YEARS during the time they've been gone,
and sending out a radio signal 320 lightyears (from wherever in Orion
he thinks they are to where he thinks planet Earth is) would require
that message to travel for 320 years before anybody back home even
hears his "last signal". So what's the point? Their ship is "in the
soup"--it's sinking!--so why should he bother sending out a little
message that essentially tells Earthlings 320 years later that a
mission sent out THOUSANDS of years earlier finally arrived at its
destination?
2.) Skipper asks Brent if he contacted "Earth", and Brent says, "I
tried to, sir--not a crackle." In other words, his RADIO couldn't make
contact with "Earth". But does it make sense that the "Earth" in
question is the planet Earth? Brent goes on to tell Skipper that he
doesn't know "what planet we're on", and Skipper doesn't know "which
sun" it is shining down on his blind face; in other words, BOTH of
them believe that they're on an alien planet that is NOT our planet
Earth... in which case radio contact with planet Earth would be flatly
impossible (unless you have some sort of Star Trekkian "subspace
radio", which I don't think they have).
3.) So, I've re-interpreted these two lines of dialogue (Taylor's in
PLANET, and Brent & Skipper's in BENEATH) to suggest that their
orbiting mothership is named after their home planet: the U.S.S. EARTH
(a "spaceship Earth"). In both cases, the astronauts who landed on the
surface of the Planet of the Apes--believing it to be an alien planet
in "another solar system"--tried to contact "Earth" via their radios,
when ANY radio signals from a habitable planet lightyears away could
NEVER be in radio contact with their home planet. In both cases, for
the sake of my novel's scenario, I'm re-interpreting the word "Earth"
in these two scenes as the name of the bigger ship to which both of
these smaller shuttlecraft were attached prior to the mysterious
events which result in Taylor's shuttle detaching from it.

Feel free to disagree with my scenario, Rich. I don't insist that
anybody take it as gospel, and I've never implied that it's what the
screenwriters intended to be thought when they wrote their scripts. As
entertaining as they are, though, they are flawed in the details and
the logic, and my scenario is intended to make sense of the details
and make it more logical.

One final thing--a curious coincidence I've mentioned in prior
postings, and which I take particular pleasure in. In the pilot
episode of the TV series, Virdon's ship experiences a "time warp"
which propels it from EARTH-TIME 1980 to 3085 (in the opening credit
sequence). At some point, Virdon tells Jones to activate the
"Automatic Homing Device", which somehow sends them back to Earth. The
day they land, Farrow carries them away before the Apes arrive and
bash in all the machinery in the cockpit... and the next day, when
they see the EARTH-TIME chronometer, it reads 3-21-3085, which is 115
EARTH-TIME days prior to the last date given in the credit sequence
(EARTH-TIME 7-14-3085). In other words, whatever caused their ship to
experience a "time warp" out near Alpha Centauri (which they were
approaching) not only sent them 1,105 years of Earth-Time into the
Future, but ALSO (just afterward) somehow 115 days into the Past,
during the moments it takes for their ship to zip the 4.34 lightyears
from Alpha Centauri to the Sol System (and good ol' planet Earth).

                           "OK, we're here to stay."

Unless I can get a hold of the mothership and tell them to get down here and collect our asses!"

You'll recall that Taylor tells Landon that (he thinks) they are "320
lightyears from Earth on a planet in orbit around a star in the
constellation of Orion". And somehow the EARTH-TIME chronometer on his
ship read 11-25-3978 right before it sank. However, when Brent &
Skipper are just about to do their re-entry burn, Brent takes an
"Earth-Time reading" of "Three-Niner-Five-Five": 3955 A.D., which--of
course--is some 23 years EARLIER than the Earth-Time that Taylor saw
on his clock. A mistake, right? Ahhh, but if you compare the amount of
"retrotemporal" Time which Virdon's ship experiences (115 days) with
the distance in lightyears it goes in order to get back to planet
Earth (4.34) after the activation of their "Automatic Homing Device",
then apply that to the distance Taylor's ship would had to have
travelled in order to get back to planet Earth from their destination
in Orion (320 ly), you'll find that 320 ÷ 4.34 = 73.7327 = 8479.26 ÷
115. In other words, if Taylor's (mother)ship had its "Automatic
Homing Device" activated (obviously by somebody other than Taylor,
Landon, Dodge or Stewart), and if it were in a similar situation as
Virdon's ship, then it too would go backwards through Time a
proportional amount, related to the distance in lightyears. Virdon
goes 4.34 lightyears and 115 "retro-days"; Taylor goes 320 lightyears
and 8479 "retro-days"... and 8479 days is equivalent to 23.215 years.
Subtract 23.215 years from 11-25-3978 and what year do you get? Why,
3955! An amazing coincidence! Somehow, the EARTH-TIME clock on
Taylor's shuttle didn't register this "back-through-Time" jump, and
continued to read 3978 as the year, but the OTHER ships accompanying
it (the two ships seen in BENEATH and ESCAPE, as well as the
"mothership") all do register the "jump" back in Time, reading the
true date of Earth's destruction: 3955.
The President mentions that Taylor's ship was "one of two" that have
been "missing"--but if he means the ships in PLANET and BENEATH, then
what about the DIFFERENT ship from ESCAPE? Its gull-wing port
hatchdoor differentiates it from the other two crashed ships. Since
Virdon & Burke don't know about Zira & Cornelius, they must have left
planet Earth BEFORE the Ape-onauts landed in 1973... which would make
the Virdon mission to Alpha Centauri ONE of the two "missing" ships,
and the Taylor mission to Somewhere in Orion the OTHER of the two,
which is why the shuttlecraft in ESCAPE can be referred to as
"commanded by Col. Taylor".

This is all a re-hashing of stuff I've posted before, but since you're
new (and you DID ask!), here it is. I recommend you read up on my past
postings, where I go into more detail fleshing out this scenario. And,
hey, feel free to disregard it if it doesn't rub you right. If you
have a more sensible scenario to turn Dehn's mistakes into "non-
mistakes", then I for one would be tickled to hear it! But beware...
just DARING to re-interpret the mistaken details of Dehn's sequels
(etc.) will get you bearing the wrath of Rory, Whitty, James90210, and
who knows who else!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 9-21-2002

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"My baby sleeps so peacefully after I read him one of Patrick's posts." <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 4:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melkor@... writes:

The big ratings that the
movies got on their first network showings made everyone think most people
wanted more adventures on the planet of the apes.

And they DID! 

No they DIDN'T!!!   Yes, they DID!   No they DIDN'T!  Yes, they DID!
No they DIDN'T!!!   Yes, they DID!   Yes, they DID!   No they DIDN'T!
OK, doc, have it your way.  No they didn't.

-- Rory<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Natalie Jacobs

In a message dated 9/21/02 6:38:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

What was the name of that documentary, Ken? - - Jeff

My name is Rory.  I've decided to try and answer your question, O Greatest POTA Fan of Them All.

I think it might be "Intimate Portrait: Marilyn Monroe" (1996), or it might be "Marilyn Monroe: Beyond the Legend" (1987).  Now the later was narrated by Richard Widmark.  Was what you saw, Ken, narrated by Richard Widmark?  There's also a documentary called "Marilyn Monroe: Life After Death" (1994).

Also, Natalie Trundy's real name is Natalie Trundy Jacobs Lopez.

-- Rory


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:08 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] POTA "chaloupes"...

In a message dated 9/21/02 6:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  But Brent's ship looked the same (so did Virdon and Burke's, come to think of it!). Where did the ass-end of his go? Etc. - - - Jeff

Who's ass-end?  Brent's?  It was shown all broken up.  As for Virdon and Burke's, well, that's the TV show.  Let's not go there.  Really, Jeff, I thought YOU'd know better than that!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 8:04:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  If you go by the whole "saga", the Icarus didn't have an ass-end. But you're right, if you just take "Planet" by itself it could have been much bigger. But it wouldn't need to be because of the mothership! And... - - - Jeff

What are you talking about, O Ayatollah of POTAollah?  Can't you see that's there's more to the "Icarus" in BENEATH than seen in PLANET, ESCAPE and the TV Show.  Please tell me, O Lord of the Apes' Fans, that you pulling my leg?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 8:30:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

It was filmed in 1999, dear, so it's neither of those. She's no longer married to Lopez, so doesn't go by that name. Her full name is Natalie Trundy Albina Stephanie Lisa Jacobs. - - - Jeff

I hear and obey, O Mighty, Mighty Master APES Fan Lord O Mighty!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/21/02 5:36:09 PM Central Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

 But Brent's ship looked the same (so did Virdon and Burke's, come to think of it!). Where did the ass-end of his go? Etc. - - - Jeff

It looks like it was "burned up" before crashing...

<.html

.html

I think George Clooney would have been so much better than Marky Mark

Yeah, lots of people on this group, including me, as well a reviewers, such as Roger Ebert, felt Clooney would have given the role more weight.  But, apparently, Fox felt Clooney was too old and that Wahlberg would have more of a draw with the young ladies.
<.html

.html

I believe that in PLANET when you hear all the noise before the water rushes into the cabin that you're also hearing the ass-end of the spaceship break off and sink.

I'd have to dissagree Rory.  That happened to the Titanic, remember.  And when it does the other end falls into the water.  And that didn't happen to the spaceship.<.html

Most showsseem to hit their stride toward the end of the first season, do
well in the2nd and 3rd, then coast the last few years

It's strange. I think they put shows with a lot of make-up or effects on
Friday night. Like Dark Angel, which just got canceled. I know the shows
are expensive to make, but everyone goes out on Friday nights. I guess they
must figure that anyone who like those type of shows can't get dates or
something narrow-minded like that. Only UPN has had the foresight to put the
Trek show on in the middle of the week.

.html

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

From: patrickmichaeltilton

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:41 AM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA "chaloupes"...

--- In pota@y..., "Richard Cisak Jr." <rcisak@o...> wrote:
> Didn't he see the first movie? There was never any mention of a mothershi=
p.

*** I took the concept Boulle originated in his novel--a mothership
from which 3 smaller ships detach and land on the planet ("une
chaloupe", or "launch", which is the same thing as a shuttlecraft)--
and used it to explain the discordant "flubs" that were introduced
into the series starting with BENEATH. Had they never made any
sequels, I would never have dreamed of deducing that there was any
orbiting mothership involved... but the mistakes Dehn introduced
required an "unflubbing" in order to make ALL the details make sense
(at least to ME).

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!
I think it's up in his orbiting mothership. And when Brent sees Ursus
ranting about how "all humans are evil" (etc.), he looks up and says,
"I gotta get back... UP THERE... I don't know how or what with, but
I'm not staying here." What IS there "up there" that he wants to get
back to? Empty space? What good would THAT do? I think that Brent
knows there's something "up there" awaiting him... if he can only find
a working ship capable of rocketing his ass skyward.

My explanation of the "U.S.S. EARTH" bit, in brief, goes like this:
1.) Taylor tells Landon to "get out a last signal" [Landon: "What
signal?"] "To EARTH, that we've landed!" Taylor knows that the planet
Earth has aged HUNDREDS OF YEARS during the time they've been gone,
and sending out a radio signal 320 lightyears (from wherever in Orion
he thinks they are to where he thinks planet Earth is) would require
that message to travel for 320 years before anybody back home even
hears his "last signal". So what's the point? Their ship is "in the
soup"--it's sinking!--so why should he bother sending out a little
message that essentially tells Earthlings 320 years later that a
mission sent out THOUSANDS of years earlier finally arrived at its
destination?
2.) Skipper asks Brent if he contacted "Earth", and Brent says, "I
tried to, sir--not a crackle." In other words, his RADIO couldn't make
contact with "Earth". But does it make sense that the "Earth" in
question is the planet Earth? Brent goes on to tell Skipper that he
doesn't know "what planet we're on", and Skipper doesn't know "which
sun" it is shining down on his blind face; in other words, BOTH of
them believe that they're on an alien planet that is NOT our planet
Earth... in which case radio contact with planet Earth would be flatly
impossible (unless you have some sort of Star Trekkian "subspace
radio", which I don't think they have).
3.) So, I've re-interpreted these two lines of dialogue (Taylor's in
PLANET, and Brent & Skipper's in BENEATH) to suggest that their
orbiting mothership is named after their home planet: the U.S.S. EARTH
(a "spaceship Earth"). In both cases, the astronauts who landed on the
surface of the Planet of the Apes--believing it to be an alien planet
in "another solar system"--tried to contact "Earth" via their radios,
when ANY radio signals from a habitable planet lightyears away could
NEVER be in radio contact with their home planet. In both cases, for
the sake of my novel's scenario, I'm re-interpreting the word "Earth"
in these two scenes as the name of the bigger ship to which both of
these smaller shuttlecraft were attached prior to the mysterious
events which result in Taylor's shuttle detaching from it.

Feel free to disagree with my scenario, Rich. I don't insist that
anybody take it as gospel, and I've never implied that it's what the
screenwriters intended to be thought when they wrote their scripts. As
entertaining as they are, though, they are flawed in the details and
the logic, and my scenario is intended to make sense of the details
and make it more logical.

One final thing--a curious coincidence I've mentioned in prior
postings, and which I take particular pleasure in. In the pilot
episode of the TV series, Virdon's ship experiences a "time warp"
which propels it from EARTH-TIME 1980 to 3085 (in the opening credit
sequence). At some point, Virdon tells Jones to activate the
"Automatic Homing Device", which somehow sends them back to Earth. The
day they land, Farrow carries them away before the Apes arrive and
bash in all the machinery in the cockpit... and the next day, when
they see the EARTH-TIME chronometer, it reads 3-21-3085, which is 115
EARTH-TIME days prior to the last date given in the credit sequence
(EARTH-TIME 7-14-3085). In other words, whatever caused their ship to
experience a "time warp" out near Alpha Centauri (which they were
approaching) not only sent them 1,105 years of Earth-Time into the
Future, but ALSO (just afterward) somehow 115 days into the Past,
during the moments it takes for their ship to zip the 4.34 lightyears
from Alpha Centauri to the Sol System (and good ol' planet Earth).

You'll recall that Taylor tells Landon that (he thinks) they are "320
lightyears from Earth on a planet in orbit around a star in the
constellation of Orion". And somehow the EARTH-TIME chronometer on his
ship read 11-25-3978 right before it sank. However, when Brent &
Skipper are just about to do their re-entry burn, Brent takes an
"Earth-Time reading" of "Three-Niner-Five-Five": 3955 A.D., which--of
course--is some 23 years EARLIER than the Earth-Time that Taylor saw
on his clock. A mistake, right? Ahhh, but if you compare the amount of
"retrotemporal" Time which Virdon's ship experiences (115 days) with
the distance in lightyears it goes in order to get back to planet
Earth (4.34) after the activation of their "Automatic Homing Device",
then apply that to the distance Taylor's ship would had to have
travelled in order to get back to planet Earth from their destination
in Orion (320 ly), you'll find that 320 ÷ 4.34 = 73.7327 = 8479.26 ÷
115. In other words, if Taylor's (mother)ship had its "Automatic
Homing Device" activated (obviously by somebody other than Taylor,
Landon, Dodge or Stewart), and if it were in a similar situation as
Virdon's ship, then it too would go backwards through Time a
proportional amount, related to the distance in lightyears. Virdon
goes 4.34 lightyears and 115 "retro-days"; Taylor goes 320 lightyears
and 8479 "retro-days"... and 8479 days is equivalent to 23.215 years.
Subtract 23.215 years from 11-25-3978 and what year do you get? Why,
3955! An amazing coincidence! Somehow, the EARTH-TIME clock on
Taylor's shuttle didn't register this "back-through-Time" jump, and
continued to read 3978 as the year, but the OTHER ships accompanying
it (the two ships seen in BENEATH and ESCAPE, as well as the
"mothership") all do register the "jump" back in Time, reading the
true date of Earth's destruction: 3955.
The President mentions that Taylor's ship was "one of two" that have
been "missing"--but if he means the ships in PLANET and BENEATH, then
what about the DIFFERENT ship from ESCAPE? Its gull-wing port
hatchdoor differentiates it from the other two crashed ships. Since
Virdon & Burke don't know about Zira & Cornelius, they must have left
planet Earth BEFORE the Ape-onauts landed in 1973... which would make
the Virdon mission to Alpha Centauri ONE of the two "missing" ships,
and the Taylor mission to Somewhere in Orion the OTHER of the two,
which is why the shuttlecraft in ESCAPE can be referred to as
"commanded by Col. Taylor".

This is all a re-hashing of stuff I've posted before, but since you're
new (and you DID ask!), here it is. I recommend you read up on my past
postings, where I go into more detail fleshing out this scenario. And,
hey, feel free to disregard it if it doesn't rub you right. If you
have a more sensible scenario to turn Dehn's mistakes into "non-
mistakes", then I for one would be tickled to hear it! But beware...
just DARING to re-interpret the mistaken details of Dehn's sequels
(etc.) will get you bearing the wrath of Rory, Whitty, James90210, and
who knows who else!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 9-21-2002

>   In a message dated 9/19/02 11:38:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rcisak@o.=
.. writes:

>     Mothership? Mothership?  This I gotta hear!
>
>   That was the one from Patrick that really sent me over the edge.  He sa=
ys there was a Mothership in orbit around the planet all during Taylor's adv=
enture in the first film, and that that's where Brent's ship came down from.=
  It's crazy, I tell you.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:40 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Bashing Boulle?!!!!

In a message dated 9/21/02 10:48:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Incidentally, in Boulle's "Bridge", there's a passage where one of the
Japs is referred to as an ape of some kind (I can't recall if it was a
"gorilla" or a "baboon" just now; I'll go look it up), which goes a
long way to connecting the idea that even Boulle's novel of "La
Planète des Singes" had something to do with racism. If he could refer
to a foreigner (a Japanese soldier) as an Ape, then isn't it likely
his Apes in LPDS/"Planet" also represent foreigners to some degree?

Patrick

I've noticed this before too, Patrick.  I think it may also have something to do with the culture of the apes in PLANET seeming vaguely oriental.  What do you think, Patrick?  I hope you'll agree with me that the apes in PLANET do seem "oriental" in their attutudes and postures.  Did you know that Frank Schaffner was born and lived the first five years of his life in Japan?

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 9/22/02 12:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Only UPN has had the foresight to put the
Trek show on in the middle of the week.

And I tape it and watch it on the weekend.<.html

Attachments :

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:54 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] POTA "chaloupes"...

In a message dated 9/21/02 12:36:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** I took the concept Boulle originated in his novel--a mothership
from which 3 smaller ships detach and land on the planet ("une
chaloupe", or "launch", which is the same thing as a shuttlecraft)--
and used it to explain the discordant "flubs" that were introduced
into the series starting with BENEATH. Had they never made any
sequels, I would never have dreamed of deducing that there was any
orbiting mothership involved... but the mistakes Dehn introduced
required an "unflubbing" in order to make ALL the details make sense
(at least to ME).

However... if there ISN'T any bigger ship up in orbit during PLANET,
one must wonder how 4 astronauts could survive for 6 months (prior to
going into their "deep sleep") in the cramped quarters seen in the
opening scenes. Just how big is the ship we see in PLANET? The ship in
BENEATH shows what it probably looks like (i.e. the part that's
underwater in the "sinking ship" scene)--and there's not enough room,
dammit! Where's the bathroom? the kitchen? Where's all that "cargo"
Taylor mentions to Nova (remember when he refers to Stewart as "the
most precious cargo we brought along"? Well... his ship brought cargo
along on the voyage: WHERE THE F*CK COULD IT BE?!
I think it's up in his orbiting mothership. And when Brent sees Ursus
ranting about how "all humans are evil" (etc.), he looks up and says,
"I gotta get back... UP THERE... I don't know how or what with, but
I'm not staying here." What IS there "up there" that he wants to get
back to? Empty space? What good would THAT do? I think that Brent
knows there's something "up there" awaiting him... if he can only find
a working ship capable of rocketing his ass skyward.

My explanation of the "U.S.S. EARTH" bit, in brief, goes like this:
1.) Taylor tells Landon to "get out a last signal" [Landon: "What
signal?"] "To EARTH, that we've landed!" Taylor knows that the planet
Earth has aged HUNDREDS OF YEARS during the time they've been gone,
and sending out a radio signal 320 lightyears (from wherever in Orion
he thinks they are to where he thinks planet Earth is) would require
that message to travel for 320 years before anybody back home even
hears his "last signal". So what's the point? Their ship is "in the
soup"--it's sinking!--so why should he bother sending out a little
message that essentially tells Earthlings 320 years later that a
mission sent out THOUSANDS of years earlier finally arrived at its
destination?
2.) Skipper asks Brent if he contacted "Earth", and Brent says, "I
tried to, sir--not a crackle." In other words, his RADIO couldn't make
contact with "Earth". But does it make sense that the "Earth" in
question is the planet Earth? Brent goes on to tell Skipper that he
doesn't know "what planet we're on", and Skipper doesn't know "which
sun" it is shining down on his blind face; in other words, BOTH of
them believe that they're on an alien planet that is NOT our planet
Earth... in which case radio contact with planet Earth would be flatly
impossible (unless you have some sort of Star Trekkian "subspace
radio", which I don't think they have).
3.) So, I've re-interpreted these two lines of dialogue (Taylor's in
PLANET, and Brent & Skipper's in BENEATH) to suggest that their
orbiting mothership is named after their home planet: the U.S.S. EARTH
(a "spaceship Earth"). In both cases, the astronauts who landed on the
surface of the Planet of the Apes--believing it to be an alien planet
in "another solar system"--tried to contact "Earth" via their radios,
when ANY radio signals from a habitable planet lightyears away could
NEVER be in radio contact with their home planet. In both cases, for
the sake of my novel's scenario, I'm re-interpreting the word "Earth"
in these two scenes as the name of the bigger ship to which both of
these smaller shuttlecraft were attached prior to the mysterious
events which result in Taylor's shuttle detaching from it.

Feel free to disagree with my scenario, Rich. I don't insist that
anybody take it as gospel, and I've never implied that it's what the
screenwriters intended to be thought when they wrote their scripts. As
entertaining as they are, though, they are flawed in the details and
the logic, and my scenario is intended to make sense of the details
and make it more logical.

One final thing--a curious coincidence I've mentioned in prior
postings, and which I take particular pleasure in. In the pilot
episode of the TV series, Virdon's ship experiences a "time warp"
which propels it from EARTH-TIME 1980 to 3085 (in the opening credit
sequence). At some point, Virdon tells Jones to activate the
"Automatic Homing Device", which somehow sends them back to Earth. The
day they land, Farrow carries them away before the Apes arrive and
bash in all the machinery in the cockpit... and the next day, when
they see the EARTH-TIME chronometer, it reads 3-21-3085, which is 115
EARTH-TIME days prior to the last date given in the credit sequence
(EARTH-TIME 7-14-3085). In other words, whatever caused their ship to
experience a "time warp" out near Alpha Centauri (which they were
approaching) not only sent them 1,105 years of Earth-Time into the
Future, but ALSO (just afterward) somehow 115 days into the Past,
during the moments it takes for their ship to zip the 4.34 lightyears
from Alpha Centauri to the Sol System (and good ol' planet Earth).

                           "OK, we're here to stay."

Unless I can get a hold of the mothership and tell them to get down here and collect our asses!"

You'll recall that Taylor tells Landon that (he thinks) they are "320
lightyears from Earth on a planet in orbit around a star in the
constellation of Orion". And somehow the EARTH-TIME chronometer on his
ship read 11-25-3978 right before it sank. However, when Brent &
Skipper are just about to do their re-entry burn, Brent takes an
"Earth-Time reading" of "Three-Niner-Five-Five": 3955 A.D., which--of
course--is some 23 years EARLIER than the Earth-Time that Taylor saw
on his clock. A mistake, right? Ahhh, but if you compare the amount of
"retrotemporal" Time which Virdon's ship experiences (115 days) with
the distance in lightyears it goes in order to get back to planet
Earth (4.34) after the activation of their "Automatic Homing Device",
then apply that to the distance Taylor's ship would had to have
travelled in order to get back to planet Earth from their destination
in Orion (320 ly), you'll find that 320 ÷ 4.34 = 73.7327 = 8479.26 ÷
115. In other words, if Taylor's (mother)ship had its "Automatic
Homing Device" activated (obviously by somebody other than Taylor,
Landon, Dodge or Stewart), and if it were in a similar situation as
Virdon's ship, then it too would go backwards through Time a
proportional amount, related to the distance in lightyears. Virdon
goes 4.34 lightyears and 115 "retro-days"; Taylor goes 320 lightyears
and 8479 "retro-days"... and 8479 days is equivalent to 23.215 years.
Subtract 23.215 years from 11-25-3978 and what year do you get? Why,
3955! An amazing coincidence! Somehow, the EARTH-TIME clock on
Taylor's shuttle didn't register this "back-through-Time" jump, and
continued to read 3978 as the year, but the OTHER ships accompanying
it (the two ships seen in BENEATH and ESCAPE, as well as the
"mothership") all do register the "jump" back in Time, reading the
true date of Earth's destruction: 3955.
The President mentions that Taylor's ship was "one of two" that have
been "missing"--but if he means the ships in PLANET and BENEATH, then
what about the DIFFERENT ship from ESCAPE? Its gull-wing port
hatchdoor differentiates it from the other two crashed ships. Since
Virdon & Burke don't know about Zira & Cornelius, they must have left
planet Earth BEFORE the Ape-onauts landed in 1973... which would make
the Virdon mission to Alpha Centauri ONE of the two "missing" ships,
and the Taylor mission to Somewhere in Orion the OTHER of the two,
which is why the shuttlecraft in ESCAPE can be referred to as
"commanded by Col. Taylor".

This is all a re-hashing of stuff I've posted before, but since you're
new (and you DID ask!), here it is. I recommend you read up on my past
postings, where I go into more detail fleshing out this scenario. And,
hey, feel free to disregard it if it doesn't rub you right. If you
have a more sensible scenario to turn Dehn's mistakes into "non-
mistakes", then I for one would be tickled to hear it! But beware...
just DARING to re-interpret the mistaken details of Dehn's sequels
(etc.) will get you bearing the wrath of Rory, Whitty, James90210, and
who knows who else!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 9-21-2002

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"My baby sleeps so peacefully after I read him one of Patrick's posts."

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

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:52 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] PLANET satire vs. TV series and sequels

In a message dated 9/22/02 12:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Only UPN has had the foresight to put the
Trek show on in the middle of the week.

And I tape it and watch it on the weekend.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: veetus@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:38 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Natalie Jacobs

  What was the name of that documentary, Ken? - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: Ken and Heather Taylor

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:28 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Natalie Jacobs

I caught part of some Marilyn murder conspiracy documentary last night and there was a brief interview Natalie Trundy ( although they referred to her Mrs Natalie Jacobs ) who was talking about Arthur getting 'the call' while they were at the Hollywood Bowl. They also interview Jacob's assistant at the time who's name I don't recall but he apparently didn't like Marilyn much at all.

By the way, Natalie looked kind of scary.

 

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html