Amen! I'll drink to that, Joe. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <CheeseGOTAS@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] An apology


> Cocaine is bad.
>
> -Joe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

HHHeerrrrreeeee'ss Roryyyy!!!!!!

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Remember in "The Shining" when Jack Nicholson kept writing "All
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over and over? - - -
Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Haristas@a...
> To: pota@y...
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 1:59 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] An apology
>
>
> All right, James, I apologize.
>
> I'm so sorry you are the way you are. It's too bad you are the
way you are, but as sorry as I am for the way you are, you're still
the way you are, and for that I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry that my
saying I'm sorry isn't going to make you any better than you are,
and for that I'm so very sorry, sorry that for no matter how sorry I
am you, James, are going to be just as worthy of my sorrow tomorrow
as you are today and just as sorry as all the days after that, sorry
as it is possible to be sorry, so very sorry that all my sorrows run
into one long stream of sory this and sorry that, but none equel to
the sorry I feel for you, James, the sorriest of all. For you James
I'm so very sorry. You hear, James? You hear me, James?!! I'm
telling you I'm sorry! I'm telling you I'm so very sorry! I'M
TELLING YOU, JAMES!!! CAN'T YOU HEAR ME TELLING YOU?!!!! I"M
SCREAMING IT FROM THE TOP OF MY LUNGS!!!!! I'M SORRY FOR YOU,
JAMES!!! YOU SEE!!! I!!! ME!!!! SORRY!!!!! VERY, VERY
SORRY!!!! I'M SORRY, JAMES!!!! TELL ME THAT YOU HEAR ME,
JAMES!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T LET ME SUFFER!!!! I'M HERE, YOU
HEAR? SO VERY SORRY!!! SORRY FOR YOU, JAMES!!! YOU AND NO OTHER,
JAMES!!!! I'M ONLY SORRY FOR YOU!!! YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE, JAMES,
THE ONLY ONE, YOU HEAR ME? I WON'T BE SORRY FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT
YOU, JAMES!!! TELL ME THAT YOU FEEL ME FEELING SORRY FOR YOU,
JAMES!!! SAY THE WORDS THAT'LL LET ME KNOW THAT YOU KNOW HOW VERY
SORRY I AM, JAMES!!! SORRY AS I CAN BE!!! SO VERY SORRY FOR YOU,
JAMES!!!! IT IS FOR YOU THAT I AM SORRY, JAMES!!! JAMES, JAMES,
JAMES!!!! I FEEL I'M NOT GETTING THROUGH TO YOU THE DEPTH OF MY
FEELING SORRY FOR YOU!!! LET ME TO YOU HOW VERY SORRY I AM FOR YOU
JAMES!!! YOU ARE SO WORTHY OF MY SORROW! NEVER HAVE I FELT SUCH
SORROW! I'M SO VERY SORRY FOR YOU!!! SO VERY SORRY!!! I'M
EXHAUSTED WITH SORRY, JAMES! I CAN HARDLY TYPE ANY MORE HOW SORRY
THAT IT IS THAT I AM FOR YOU AND ONLY YOU, JAMES!!! OH SO VERY
SORRY, JAMES!!! OH SO SORRY!!! JAMES, I CAN'T GO ON MUCH
LONGER!! MY MIND IS GOING!!! I CAN FEEL IT!!! I CAN FEEL IT!!!
I'M STILL SORRY FOR YOU, JAMES, BUT MY MIND IS GOING!!! I'M
EXHAUSTED AND MY MIND IS GOING!!! I'M AFRAID, JAMES!!! I'M
AFRAID!!! I'M. . . . SO. . . .
SORRY. . . .SO. . . .SORRY.....SoRRy......soRry......so...so....o..
o.. .....
>
> .. ..... . . . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

Attachments :

.htmlIn a message dated 10/26/2002 2:59:52 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

The man speaks the truth!

Did you think I was kidding?  If you search the streets around there you can figure out what my real name is, as well as my family alma mater.  It forms a star with Kimhunter road in the middle.  Hows that for a co-inky-dink?  As Jimmy Darante use to say . . . "I gotta million of 'em!"  Co-ink-a-dink-a-dee a-dink-a-doo...


<.html

Attachments :

.htmlIn a message dated 10/26/2002 3:07:04 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

.. ... .. . . . .no. . . .   not. . . .    same. . ..  ...  o. ...one . . . .word. . .... n. .ame. . . .... not. . ...same... . ...   .      .

Since when in Kimhunter a word.
Picky picky picky . . . Okay!  If you're going to nitpick. 
Here's an intersection here in my neck of the woods,
that is the corner of, you guessed it, Kim and Hunter.
Like I said...I got a million of them.



<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/26/2002 6:40:12 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Is that named after her or just a coincidence?

I have no idea.  I don't see how it could be just a coincidence though.  I wonder how many Kim Hunters there were before 1942 when they changed her name.  Or when they named this street?  Or if it was something else before that.  Who knows?  I'll bet even Patrick can't find out.  Anyone have access to old maps of NJ?

<.html

Where did that one come from, oh Cheesy Goat?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: veetus@... [veetus@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 27 October 2002 11:42
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] An apology
>
>
> Amen! I'll drink to that, Joe. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <CheeseGOTAS@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] An apology
>
>
> > Cocaine is bad.
> >
> > -Joe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In a message dated 10/27/02 3:33:34 AM Central Standard Time,
LordTZer0@... writes:

<< Who knows? I'll bet even Patrick can't find out. Anyone have access
to old maps of NJ? >>

My dad might, he used to live there. I'll ask him later.

-Joe

In a message dated 10/27/02 3:33:34 AM Central Standard Time,
LordTZer0@... writes:

<< Who knows? I'll bet even Patrick can't find out. Anyone have access
to old maps of NJ? >>

What exactly do you want me to ask, though?

-Joe

In a message dated 10/27/02 4:29:42 AM Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:

<< Where did that one come from, oh Cheesy Goat?

Michael >>

Rory was freaking out, being on cocaine and everything, so I just had to get
the point across.

-Joe

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 12:15:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, CheeseGOTAS@... writes:

Rory was freaking out, being on cocaine and everything, so I just had to get
the point across.

-Joe

I was not on cocaine!  Now you apologize!<.html

www.comingsoon.net says Terry Gilliam is shopping around for his next
project. Could Fox please ask him to take a meeting for "Apes 2"? - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 6:00 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Oh please!


> --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> >
> > And Patrick thinks that his ability to make these connection is a
> simple result of genetics and evolution. You may as well say Luck!
> WHAT IS THE GRAIL? WHOM DOES IT SERVE?
>
> *** Who said the result was "simple"? A relatively "simple" algorithm
> can produce indescribably beautiful complexities--just look at a
> graphic representation of the Mandelbrot Set, a fractal image you've
> probably seen on psychedelic posters in the last 10 years or so.
> Humans exist because of luck--the BAD luck of the dinosaurs around 65
> million years ago who were wiped out by the KT impact of a meteor or
> comet in the Yucatan. If not for that BAD luck, our little
> evolutionary ancestors--which were probably no larger than a small
> mouse at the time--would not have been able to compete against such
> dinosaurian predators, and would never have gotten larger (and all
> the other morphological changes which transpired over the aeons,
> leading to the Ape which lived around 10 million years ago from which
> all Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans have all descended.
> Yes, Luck is as much a part of the reason we're all sitting here at
> our techno-wondrous computers, enjoying the benefits of binocular
> vision, relatively large brain-to-body-mass ratios, manipulative
> digits (with opposable thumbs), and minds capable of Reason.
>
> The "Grail"? Not even the writers of the Grail romances could agree
> on what it was. A chalice? A stone? Some think it was Mary
> Magdalene's womb, or the Shroud of Turin before it got to Turin, or
> Christ's hidden Bloodline (the "Desposyne")...
> Whom does it serve? Well, if it IS a chalice full of the Blood of
> Christ, then maybe it serves Count Dracula, who has an appetite for
> blood ("I don't drink... wine.")!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 2:43:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

   www.comingsoon.net says Terry Gilliam is shopping around for his next
project. Could Fox please ask him to take a meeting for "Apes 2"? - - - Jeff

Terry Gilliam and APES?   That spells magic to me!

-- Dick Zanuck<.html

In a message dated 10/27/02 12:17:06 PM Central Standard Time,
Haristas@... writes:

<< I was not on cocaine! Now you apologize! >>

Well, you were on something.

-Joe

Rory is just high on life!

--- In pota@y..., CheeseGOTAS@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/27/02 12:17:06 PM Central Standard Time,
> Haristas@a... writes:
>
> << I was not on cocaine! Now you apologize! >>
>
> Well, you were on something.
>
> -Joe

I'm just wondering if anyone had looked at the Extras at the end of
the Toons tape. I'm wondering if anyone knows where the Roddy & Kim
commentary comes from. I had never seen those before.

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/2002 11:12:22 AM Central Standard Time, CheeseGOTAS@... writes:

What exactly do you want me to ask, though?

Was Kimhunter Rd. named anything before that?
If so when was it change?  If not when was it built?

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/2002 1:43:13 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

www.comingsoon.net says Terry Gilliam is shopping around for his next
project. Could Fox please ask him to take a meeting for "Apes 2"? - - - Jeff

Oh hell yes!

<.html

In a message dated 10/27/02 5:53:05 PM Central Standard Time,
LordTZer0@... writes:

<< Was Kimhunter Rd. named anything before that?
If so when was it change? If not when was it built?

>>

Bah, he knew nothing. I might call my grandpa and ask him, he still lives in
NJ, but... I might not. Heh.

-Joe

What if we get Rory to send you some Cocaine....then will you ask him?

Michael

--- CheeseGOTAS@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/27/02 5:53:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> LordTZer0@... writes:
>
> << Was Kimhunter Rd. named anything before that?
> If so when was it change? If not when was it built?
> >>
>
> Bah, he knew nothing. I might call my grandpa and ask him, he

still lives in

> NJ, but... I might not. Heh.
>
> -Joe
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Sell a Home with Ease!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

can you post a pic of the cover?

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

> Will wonders never cease?
>
> I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a

paperback

> edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published

by

> Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with

his

> helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the

cover,

> from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
> says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE

APES".

>
> It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title

(in

> Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des Singes",
> would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the Apes"

or "The

> Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it should

be

> about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the

like. An APE

> is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are

Chimpanzees,

> Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!
>
> Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion

Press,

> Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition that it
> shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or

otherwise

> disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of

binding or

> cover other than that in which it is published", and "for copyright
> reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."
>
> Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's

consent

> to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market

paperback?

> I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at
> a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken

off-shelf,

> their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the

garbage.

> I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin
> Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated

years, but it

> always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
> book, just because it ain't a hardcover.
>
> Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's book

"Monkey

> Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth

publishers of

> the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the popularity of the
> American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel that "Die Hard"

was

> based on was re-published with the title "Die Hard", which

makes a

> hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do was put a blurb on the
> bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING LASTS

FOREVER" or

> whatever. I would like to see translations of Boulle's books with
> Boulle's original title somewhere on the front cover, even if only

on

> a "crawl" at the bottom.
>
> Patrick

In a message dated 10/27/02 6:24:48 PM Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:

<< What if we get Rory to send you some Cocaine....then will you ask him?

Michael >>

You see, if you did that, I'd end up not remembering what to ask him.

-Joe

What does the commentary say? - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:14 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Toons Extras


> I'm just wondering if anyone had looked at the Extras at the end of
> the Toons tape. I'm wondering if anyone knows where the Roddy & Kim
> commentary comes from. I had never seen those before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mark Wahlberg's remake "The Truth About Charlie" opened to a miserable,
pathetic $2 million for #13 of the weekend. Oh well, at least he can tell
his grandkids he was a movie star at one time. But, hey, one of his movies
opened with a $68 million weekend! Plus, he gets all the chicks. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 6:00 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Oh please!


> --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> >
> > And Patrick thinks that his ability to make these connection is a
> simple result of genetics and evolution. You may as well say Luck!
> WHAT IS THE GRAIL? WHOM DOES IT SERVE?
>
> *** Who said the result was "simple"? A relatively "simple" algorithm
> can produce indescribably beautiful complexities--just look at a
> graphic representation of the Mandelbrot Set, a fractal image you've
> probably seen on psychedelic posters in the last 10 years or so.
> Humans exist because of luck--the BAD luck of the dinosaurs around 65
> million years ago who were wiped out by the KT impact of a meteor or
> comet in the Yucatan. If not for that BAD luck, our little
> evolutionary ancestors--which were probably no larger than a small
> mouse at the time--would not have been able to compete against such
> dinosaurian predators, and would never have gotten larger (and all
> the other morphological changes which transpired over the aeons,
> leading to the Ape which lived around 10 million years ago from which
> all Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans have all descended.
> Yes, Luck is as much a part of the reason we're all sitting here at
> our techno-wondrous computers, enjoying the benefits of binocular
> vision, relatively large brain-to-body-mass ratios, manipulative
> digits (with opposable thumbs), and minds capable of Reason.
>
> The "Grail"? Not even the writers of the Grail romances could agree
> on what it was. A chalice? A stone? Some think it was Mary
> Magdalene's womb, or the Shroud of Turin before it got to Turin, or
> Christ's hidden Bloodline (the "Desposyne")...
> Whom does it serve? Well, if it IS a chalice full of the Blood of
> Christ, then maybe it serves Count Dracula, who has an appetite for
> blood ("I don't drink... wine.")!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one, it's true
much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from science (the Nazis
took their cue for a master race from evolution) and TV shows,
movies...people will find any reason to kill each other. Religion doesn't
kill people, people kill people. There's also people who quietly go about
their religion and find comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any
religion but still manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony
of the world.
The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim Pat our
Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food for thought and
the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about rape in jail - - that
doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails, so obviously they put a stop
to that sort of thing. It's not proper.
Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the New one.
Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly wouldn't allow it
to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:47 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Secret Governments on the Planet of the
Apes


> --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/23/2002 12:01:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> > > *** Our current President, George W. Bush, is a member of
> the "Skull-&-Bones" society, just like his daddy was.
> >
> > Old news Pat. His Skull & Bones nickname is "Temporary" BTW. Sort
> of ominous considering the times we live in. And both he and Bogey
> are related to Princess Di for you trivia buffs. As for Elizabeth's
> divine right to rule. No way. The Windsor's are a bunch of krauts.
> And before that they virtually wiped the Stuart's from the face of
> the earth. So if a pack of murdering bastards have a divine right it
> must come from Satan. Anyway, God is so much more subtle than
> the 'Man on the Cloud with the white beard' ideal. He's not readily
> visible but He's there. You have to look at the Big Picture. Tough
> for a non-theist like yourself Patrick, I know, being so caught up in
> minutia. It's sort of like one of those eye puzzles. You see Him
> someday. Whether in the simplicity of the atom or the clockwork
> complexity of the universe. It reminds me of something Dave Vainian
> of The Damned quoted, "Beauty isn't something you see with your
> eyes. It's something you hunger for with your heart."
>
> *** Looking at the Big Picture... reminds me of what Thomas Paine
> said in "The Age of Reason", about his rejection of the "revealed
> religions" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) in favor of using the
> Scientific Method to rationally discover "god" in the "creation" (he
> waxes eloquent about the Newtonian discoveries regarding the
> mathematical precision of the planetary orbits, and so on). The "god"
> of Deism is NOT the "personal" god of the Bible, who allegedly walked
> around in the Garden of Eden with Adam, and audibly talked to Moses,
> and who "debauched a virgin" (Paine's summary of the Incarnation of
> Christ story); the primary "movers" in the group of Freemasons who
> founded America were Deists, who paid--at most--lip-service to
> Christianity, espousing the ethical teachings of Jesus, yet rejecting
> the supernaturalistic nonsense that encumbers it (Jefferson compared
> the teachings of Jesus versus the non-rational aspects of the New
> Testament as being like a Diamond in a dung-heap!).
>
> It was Paine, in "Common Sense", who ridiculed the idea of
> the "divine right of kings" to rule over a free people--or ANY
> people. I find it telling that all the evangelical Christians who
> claim that America was founded by Christians NEVER quote Thomas Paine
> (or do so in a VERY selective manner). They choose to ignore
> the "Jefferson Bible" which was nothing more than the New Testament
> with ALL THE SUPERNATURAL STUFF cut out of it, as well as much of St.
> Paul's works, which Jefferson thought were NOT representative of
> Jesus' true teachings.
>
> Look at all the "good" that has come from people worshipping a so-
> called "scripture" (be it the Tanakh, the New Testament, the Quran,
> the Book of Mormon, or whatever). Even the Irish--who both
> (Protestant and Catholic) believe in the SAME scripture--can't agree
> on WHICH interpretation is correct... which, ultimately, leads to the
> bloody carnage which STILL is going on over there.
> And those assholes who have just gotten caught for that string of
> sniper attacks in Maryland! The older one, a creep who had converted
> to Islam and changed his last name to "Mohammed", felt justified in
> murdering random people--including an attempt on the life of a school-
> aged child. I hear that he had written a letter expressing sympathies
> with the Al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11. It is THIS bullshit view of the
> world which becomes possible when ideologues (like Muslim "Imams", so-
> called Islamic "holy" men) can spout scripture and fire up the will
> to commit any and all sorts of atrocities... all in the name
> of "god", who will REWARD the bastards with 72 virgins in Paradise,
> and all that stupid fucking nonsense. Well, John Allen Mohammed...
> when you're in prison, awaiting your turn at "Ol' Sparky", you'll get
> to know what it's like to be on the receiving end, when your "virgin"
> asshole gets acquainted with the hardened convicts who can't WAIT to
> make you their new "bitch". It would be oh-so-sweet justice if,
> before you get executed, YOU get to be the "wife" to 72 man-raping
> Lifers in a Federal penitentiary. You and your little bastard
> protege, who will curse your name every time he gets raped in the
> prison shower. It couldn't happen to a more deserving pair of
> worthless, pathetic excuses for human beings.
> "Bismillah!" they'll cry out. "In the name of Allah!" And Allah, who
> DOESN'T EXIST, will remain silent up in "heaven" while you reap the
> rewards of what passes for "righteousness" in a religion of
> fools. "Heaven" is NOT what the scripture-writers said it was. There
> is no "god" up in "heaven"; the word "shamayim" (in the Hebrew) meant
> the SKY, where the birds flew, and God's chariot zipped around (once
> allegedly carrying Ezekiel around, and taking Elijah up into heaven).
> Beyond the atmosphere is the cold empty nothingness of outer space;
> aside from dead moons and uninhabitable planets in this solar system,
> there are no known places where any intelligent beings exist, unless
> they are Extraterrestrials living on inhabitable planets orbiting
> other stars.
> Maybe "god" or "the Gods" of antiquity really DID exist, but were
> actually ETs, as William Bramley hypothesized in his book "The Gods
> of Eden". Bramley's theory is that the "gods" are aliens who have
> sown dissention amongst the peoples of Earth for millennia, fooling
> the gullible, superstitious masses into believing that they owed
> allegiance to the "sky-gods" who exploit them. Bramley thinks these
> ET "Custodial" so-called "gods" have a modus operandi: they take BOTH
> sides in a human conflict, and give each side the
> ability/justification/impetus to wage war on the other. The first
> time I read Bramley's book, I remembered that bit in BENEATH, when
> the "Negro" mutant tells Taylor & Brent: "We are a peaceful people;
> we don't kill our enemies--we get our enemies to kill each other."
> This method is the same one used by Jehovah in the Old Testament, as
> when he "hardened the heart of the Pharaoh" and caused him to oppose
> Moses, rather than give in and free the Israelites--keeping the
> Pharaoh in opposition to Moses kept the conflict going, and led to
> more loss of life, according to the story. Also, in the book of
> Joshua, it is said that "... it was the Lord who hardened their
> hearts, that they would go against Israel in battle, that he might
> destroy them utterly, and that they might find no favor, but that he
> might destroy them..." (Joshua 11:20). In other words, when Joshua
> ben Nun allegedly led the Israelites into "the Promised Land", which
> was already inhabited by the Canaanites, Jehovah (the "Lord") wanted
> the Canaanites to fight against the Israelites, so that He could
> slaughter them all... and IF they were willing to accept the
> Israelites into their land and live peacefully, side-by-side,
> then "the Lord" FORCED THEM into a mind-set of opposition, "hardening
> their hearts". Why? "... that he might DESTROY them"!
> The "God" of the Bible, if there ever was a "historical Jehovah", was
> NOT a virtuous Creator of the universe deserving of human worship and
> obedience--"He" was a monster. Thomas Paine recognized that, saying
> as much in "The Age of Reason". It wasn't easy for me--having
> been "raised Catholic"--to reject my parents' religion as so much
> bullshit... but sometimes you have to step outside of the view that
> was forced on you by your formative influences and see the Universe
> with NEW eyes, guided by Rationality and the Scientific Method.
> The "revealed religions" of the world are laughably, tragically
> deficient as far as Moral Codes go. Paine was a "pain" in his day...
> but he made sense. He saw the Bible (etc.) for what it really was,
> when you "boiled it all down", and he rejected it. At least as a
> guide for moral conduct. As soon as the world of Islam has somebody
> with the guts to step up the the mike and declare Mohammed's
> scripture as a forgery and a divisive, hateful diatribe (which is
> what the "holy" Quran really is), then MAYBE the tinder-box of the
> Middle East can begin making baby-steps towards a rational worldview.
> Yeah, I know it'll never happen--at least not in my lifetime. Like
> MLK, I have a dream...
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It looks like something done for one of the cable channels, but it's
not the stuff that was on AMC.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> What does the commentary say? - - - Jeff
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 9:38:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Mark Wahlberg's remake "The Truth About Charlie" opened to a miserable,
pathetic $2 million for #13 of the weekend. Oh well, at least he can tell
his grandkids he was a movie star at one time. But, hey, one of his movies
opened with a $68 million weekend! Plus, he gets all the chicks. - - - Jeff

All the chicks that are only after him for his big. . . . . wallet!

Hey, Lord High and Mighty, you're supposed to be the optimist here.  Look on the bright side, maybe this will bring Wahlberg's agents back to Fox begging for an Apes 2.

Apes must be remembered, Charlie!

-- Rory<.html

I know I'm going to get bashed by Rory for this but could everyone
remember to put OT in the subject line. Everyone is getting lax of
late.
P.S. And I know that someone will say it's not really off topic
since it has to do with Wallberg. But I don't care to here the
latest update on the Knots Landing Reunion movie either.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Mark Wahlberg's remake "The Truth About Charlie" opened to a
miserable,
> pathetic $2 million for #13 of the weekend. Oh well, at least he
can tell
> his grandkids he was a movie star at one time. But, hey, one of
his movies
> opened with a $68 million weekend! Plus, he gets all the chicks. -
- - Jeff

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:04:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still manage to find God in the cracks.

What?  The butt cracks?

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:04:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts.

Pat let us down this weekend.  I guess he's finally withered under my constant verbal assaults.  I wonder if I should apologize?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:16:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

It looks like something done for one of the cable channels, but it's
not the stuff that was on AMC.

Obviously, it has to be an interview Hunter and McDowall jointly did for a local station (probably an L.A. one) while on the 30th anniversary junket.  I haven't even seen it and I can figure that out.  Boy, are you guys generally clueless!   I'm ashamed of you all!

-- Rory<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Secret Governments on the Planet of the Apes

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:04:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still manage to find God in the cracks.

What?  The butt cracks?



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Just trying to trick you into getting some culture, James. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:24 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Wahlberg gets a "Charlie" horse (OT)


> I know I'm going to get bashed by Rory for this but could everyone
> remember to put OT in the subject line. Everyone is getting lax of
> late.
> P.S. And I know that someone will say it's not really off topic
> since it has to do with Wallberg. But I don't care to here the
> latest update on the Knots Landing Reunion movie either.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Mark Wahlberg's remake "The Truth About Charlie" opened to a
> miserable,
> > pathetic $2 million for #13 of the weekend. Oh well, at least he
> can tell
> > his grandkids he was a movie star at one time. But, hey, one of
> his movies
> > opened with a $68 million weekend! Plus, he gets all the chicks. -
> - - Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:44:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

God didn't find that funny. God loves you, why must you play hard to get? - - - Father Jeff

Oh phooey!<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:40 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Toons Extras

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:16:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

It looks like something done for one of the cable channels, but it's
not the stuff that was on AMC.

Obviously, it has to be an interview Hunter and McDowall jointly did for a local station (probably an L.A. one) while on the 30th anniversary junket.  I haven't even seen it and I can figure that out.  Boy, are you guys generally clueless!   I'm ashamed of you all!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:44:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

I know I'm going to get bashed by Rory for this but could everyone
remember to put OT in the subject line. Everyone is getting lax of
late.

What the F#@*?!!!

P.S. And I know that someone will say it's not really off topic
since it has to do with Wallberg. But I don't care to here the
latest update on the Knots Landing Reunion movie either.

The Lord High and Mighty's weekend showbiz updates are a tradition that predates your arrival in this group by a couple years, James-got-a-Roddy-stuck-up-his-ass!  Don't make me bitch slap you from one end of Ape City to the other!

<.html

No there was some extra stuff at the end of the tape. There was a
promo reel for Beneath with some extra scenes, a trailer for the Go
Ape release in '74 and what looked like wrap arounds for some cable
channels Ape week with Roddy & Kim.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> What's it doing on the cartoon tape? is it about the cartoons?
>
> Roddy: "I didn't do these cartoons but I find them delightful".
> Kim: "It's no 'Beany and Cecil'!"
> Roddy:"Ohhh, you...Say goodnight, Kim."
> Kim: "Goodnight, Kim."

Someone from LA trying to tell a New Yorker about culture. Now that
really is an upside down civilization.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Just trying to trick you into getting some culture, James. - - -
Jeff
>

AAWWW Noe that's the Rory we all know and love. And we're all
rooting for you to beat that cocaine habit. Good Luck. I mean that
alot.;-)

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
>
> What the F#@*?!!!

> The Lord High and Mighty's weekend showbiz updates are a tradition
that
> predates your arrival in this group by a couple years,
> James-got-a-Roddy-stuck-up-his-ass! Don't make me bitch slap you
from one
> end of Ape City to the other!

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/02 10:55:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Someone from LA trying to tell a New Yorker about culture. Now that
really is an upside down civilization.

James, you just better watch out before some Wicked Witch from the east drops another building on your head!<.html

The one last year was enough.

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> James, you just better watch out before some Wicked Witch from the
east drops
> another building on your head!

The flick got a decent review in the Detroit paper....

Matt

.htmlYesterday, Patrick posted on his newly found acquisition, a foreign copy of "Monkey Planet" with Urko on the cover, etc...

Later on, Whitty posted a reply post on the book, and asked a question I have often wondered myself: Why wasn't the MOVIE version of Planet ever novelized? I mean they did all the others, so why not Planet?

I remember when I first seen the Planet book at the school's used book sale, I seen it and after glancing at it, I thought, where's the "Damn dirty ape" line? Why isn't there any "GD you all to hell"? Granted, this was before I actually read the Boulle novel. (I knew nothing about it being the "source material" for the Apes movie at the time I first seen the book...) I was about 9, and I was expecting the book to be the same as the movie...

All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight up facts as to why?<.html

Oh, dude! Next you're going to tell me Mark Wahlberg movies aren't art.
Bullpuckey. Anyway, surf's up! - - - the H2O Kid

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:55 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Wahlberg gets a "Charlie" horse (OT)


> Someone from LA trying to tell a New Yorker about culture. Now that
> really is an upside down civilization.
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Just trying to trick you into getting some culture, James. - - -
> Jeff
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The "Beneath" thing is probably the "mini-movie" , like the one for the
original on the doc special ed. DVD. Does a gorilla say, "The faces!"? Never
heard of Roddy and Kim promoting an "Apes" week. Are you sure it's not the
AMC hosting stuff? - - - Curious in California (Home of the World Series
winners!)

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Toons Extras


> No there was some extra stuff at the end of the tape. There was a
> promo reel for Beneath with some extra scenes, a trailer for the Go
> Ape release in '74 and what looked like wrap arounds for some cable
> channels Ape week with Roddy & Kim.
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > What's it doing on the cartoon tape? is it about the cartoons?
> >
> > Roddy: "I didn't do these cartoons but I find them delightful".
> > Kim: "It's no 'Beany and Cecil'!"
> > Roddy:"Ohhh, you...Say goodnight, Kim."
> > Kim: "Goodnight, Kim."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The reviewer probably wants to get a blurb on the ads. "This one is
nothing but fun. Tim Burton and his team plant their own flag on the new
POTA". - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Wahlberg gets a "Charlie" horse


> The flick got a decent review in the Detroit paper....
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:05 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Why wasn't Planet novelized?

Yesterday, Patrick posted on his newly found acquisition, a foreign copy of "Monkey Planet" with Urko on the cover, etc...

Later on, Whitty posted a reply post on the book, and asked a question I have often wondered myself: Why wasn't the MOVIE version of Planet ever novelized? I mean they did all the others, so why not Planet?

I remember when I first seen the Planet book at the school's used book sale, I seen it and after glancing at it, I thought, where's the "Damn dirty ape" line? Why isn't there any "GD you all to hell"? Granted, this was before I actually read the Boulle novel. (I knew nothing about it being the "source material" for the Apes movie at the time I first seen the book...) I was about 9, and I was expecting the book to be the same as the movie...

All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight up facts as to why?

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/27/2002 11:31:14 PM Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight up facts as to why?

For a start what would you call it?<.html

Yes the Beneath thing ends with the gorilla saying "the faces". The
Roddy & Kim stuff is not AMC. Roddy does refer to it several times
as 'Planet of the Apes week'.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> The "Beneath" thing is probably the "mini-movie" , like the one
for the
> original on the doc special ed. DVD. Does a gorilla say, "The
faces!"? Never
> heard of Roddy and Kim promoting an "Apes" week. Are you sure it's
not the
> AMC hosting stuff? - - - Curious in California (Home of the World
Series
> winners!)

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 1:36:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight up facts as to why?

For a start what would you call it?


Why not "20th Century Fox's Planet of the Apes"?   Hell, that's what those bastards at the rat do.

Disney's Pinocchio, Disney's Treasure Island, Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc., etc.   If Fox sold Planet of the Apes to Disney it would become Disney's Planet of the Apes.  Damn do I hate the rat!  Even the family of the guy who wrote Winnie the Poo is having to go after Disney for something like $200 million the rat's kept all to himself!  I hate the rat!!!

-- Rory, Hater of the Rat!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 1:51:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The reviewer probably wants to get a blurb on the ads. "This one is
nothing but fun. Tim Burton and his team plant their own flag on the new
POTA". - - Jeff

I would have written "Burton and his team take a dump on the Planet of the Apes.  Stay away from this stinking turd of a movie!"

I actually considered seeing the latest Wahlberg inferior remake, but then I came to my senses and went to "Bowling for Columbine." Anybody else seen that one yet?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 6:23:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Yes the Beneath thing ends with the gorilla saying "the faces". The
Roddy & Kim stuff is not AMC. Roddy does refer to it several times
as 'Planet of the Apes week'.

How old do Roddy and Kim look?   If you remember, when Roddy did his AMC intros he looked pretty ill.

-- Rory<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:46 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Wahlberg gets a "Charlie" horse

In a message dated 10/28/02 1:51:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The reviewer probably wants to get a blurb on the ads. "This one is
nothing but fun. Tim Burton and his team plant their own flag on the new
POTA". - - Jeff

I would have written "Burton and his team take a dump on the Planet of the Apes.  Stay away from this stinking turd of a movie!"

I actually considered seeing the latest Wahlberg inferior remake, but then I came to my senses and went to "Bowling for Columbine." Anybody else seen that one yet?

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 10:00:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Rory, I don't think they would have put you on the ad. Didn't see "Columbine" but saw "Roger and Me" when it came out. It shows Heston's house, right? - - Jeff

Yeah, it shows his front gate, then you go up the long driveway to what looks more like a compound than a house.  It's all very modern.  Heston greets Moore in the driveway then takes him to what I think they said was a guest house by the pool.  Heston then sits in a director's chair and behind him is some artwork from "Ben-Hur," and posters from "Khartoum" and "Touch of Evil."  Heston looks old and fat, and he walks funny.  You really feel sorry for him because here he is, nice enough to see this guy and let him come onto the property, but you know what kind of questions he's going to be asked.  Eventually Heston looks like a deer caught in the headlights.  Everyone should go see it.  Poor old Chuck.

-- Rory<.html

They look older but not ill. Roody looks ok.

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> How old do Roddy and Kim look? If you remember, when Roddy did
his AMC
> intros he looked pretty ill.
>
> -- Rory

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 12:31:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight up facts as to why?

I would guess that according to copyright laws the makers of a motion picture based on a novel cannot commission a novelization of the screenplay that would then be marketed as a novel with the same title and characters as the original novel.

Anyway, let me give it a try here:

Chapter One

The sleek, delicate craft pierced the void, a vacuum of inky black but dotted with the brilliant light of billions of stars.  He sat staring out at them as his ship streaked  between the gaseous bodies at nearly the speed of light, the rays from the countless suns bending as he passed through them and providing a kaleidoscope of ever changing colors.  He spoke into the microphone before him.

"And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown."

George Taylor, colonel in the U. S. Airforce, now commanding astronaut of the first interstellar flight to another star, sat alone in the main cabin.  "We're now on automatic in the hands of the computers.  I've tucked my crew in for the long sleep, and I'll be joining them. . . soon," he said as he lit the last of his cigars.  Real Cubans.  They weren't allowed, of course, but he smuggled them aboard anyway.  What were they going to do to him if they found out?  Fire him?  A man's got to have his pleasures.

"In less than an hour I will finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy," he spoke into the microphone as he shook out the match and took a long drag on the cigar stub.  If only he had some brandy.

"Six months in deep space."  He leaned back in his seat and glanced over at the chronometers next to him.  One told the day and date aboard ship.  July 14, 1972.  "By our time that is," he said.

Above the ship time another chronometer indicated what the dat was back on earth.  It read March 23, 2673.

"According to Dr. Hasslein's theories of time in a vehicle traveling at nearly the speed of light, the earth has aged seven hundred years since we left it."  He looked down at his hands and felt his strong chest take in the air of the cabin.  "While we've hardly aged at all."  He smiled to himself, the smug cynical smile he was well know for back on earth.  "Maybe so," he said, rolling the cigar between his fingers.  "This much is probably true. . . ."  He leaned forward in his seat and stared deeply out into the vast universe before him.

"The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and forgotten.  You who are reading me now are a different breed."  He leaned back again and took another puff on the cigar.  "I hope a better one!"

Taylor didn't like humanity very much, in fact he despised his fellow creatures, a personality trait that made it easy for him to leave the planet earth, leave everything and everyone he's ever know. . . . forever.  Well, except for his companions, but then here he was the commander.  That made a difference.

"I leave the twentieth century with no regrets," he said, putting down the cigar and opening a drawer below the command console.  "But one more thing, if anybody's listening that is."  He opened a small kit in the drawer and took out a prepared hypodermic.  He removed the cap from its needle and undid the zipper on the left sleeve of his uniform.  "Nothing scientific, it's purely personal."  He waited to give himself the injection and stared out again through the front viewer of his craft.

"As seen from out here, everything seems different.  Time bends. Space is . . . boundless.  It squashes a man's ego.  I feel lonely."

As he stuck the hypo into his arm, injecting the solution that would quickly begin the process of slowing down his metabolism, he wondered if he really felt lonely, or if he was just allowing himself to?  He couldn't ever remember feeling lonely before.  That would be weak.  That would remind him that he was human like everyone else, and that was something he didn't like to be reminded of.

He removed the needle and zipped up his sleeve, rubbing the ache in his arm away.  The solution stung a little.  He slammed the drawer closer again beneath the console.

"That's about it," he said, suddenly deciding he's could resist a little needling of his own.  He leaned into the mic.  "Tell me though, does man that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars still make war on his brother?  Keep his neighbor's children starving?"  And he put the cigar back in his mouth with a smile.

He glanced back at the chronometer.  Another day clicked by back on earth.  Taylor turned off the mic and made a final visual check of the control settings.  He then got up and walked to the rear of the cabin.  He could already feel the solution affecting him.  Quickly it would render him unconscious.

He stopped at the four glass-enclosed Hibernaculum.  On his right slept the two other males of the crew, Dodge and Landon.  Taylor regarded them with a cool detachment.  Dodge he knew for several years.  A good officer, and one that because of his black skin had fought extra hard to prove himself in that wonderful country they'd left back on earth, the one where all men were created equal, but weren't treated that way.  Anyway, Taylor couldn't have cared less.  Hell, if it was okay with Stewart, it was okay with him.  Landon, now there was a different case.  He didn't like Landon.  Landon had gotten to where he was by qualifications Taylor didn't agree with.  He was one of those overachieving bastards that was so cock sure of themselves, the ones that had never tasted failure.  Maybe  Taylor approved him just to amuse himself watching Landon face the realities of whatever they were going to find out there?  Had to be, he really couldn't stand him.

Then there was Stewart.  The sleeping beauty on his left.  The female of the crew.  Taylor gave her a good look as he put out his cigar.  Stewart, what are you dreaming of? Taylor wondered.  Nothing.  You don't dream in suspended animation.  As beautiful as she was, Taylor thought, at that moment she was just a human popsicle, something he soon would be.  Well, anyway, the next time he saw her she be lovely warm flesh again.  Taylor reminded himself that sometimes it was good to be human.  Sleep well, Stewart.

The solution was beginning to take full affect.  Taylor slid down into the high-tech coffin below Stewart.  Be buckled himself in and pushed the button that brought the glass cover down to seal the chamber.  He'd been through this process before in flight training, so it was all as easy as taking a natural rest.  His eyelids grew heavy and he allowed them to close.  He tried not to think of anything because what was the point?  Soon he wouldn't be able to think, and soon in fact he couldn't.  He was under the control of the computers now, as much a part of the ship as all it's panels, gauges, wires and circuits.  His heart rate was slowed down and his body temperature lowered, and he would remain that way until the computers decided it was to end.

And so he and his fellow astronauts existed in their sleek, delicate craft as it pierced the void.

And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET!  Anybody else want to write the next chapter?

-- Rory          <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/2002 11:31:50 AM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET!  Anybody else want to write the next chapter?

-- Rory          

That REALLY WAS GOOD!!!!! Keep going!!!<.html

Rory

Don't stop! You are doing a great job yourself.

Do you want me to suggest what I believe are typos?

Also, maybe others in the group could send suggestions regarding
slight additions they might make for your consideration and you can
choose to atke or ignore them - is that OK by you?

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2002 4:30
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Why wasn't Planet novelized?


In a message dated 10/28/02 12:31:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mlccougar@... writes:



All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't
the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or
straight up facts as to why?



I would guess that according to copyright laws the makers of a motion
picture based on a novel cannot commission a novelization of the
screenplay that would then be marketed as a novel with the same title
and characters as the original novel.

Anyway, let me give it a try here:

Chapter One

The sleek, delicate craft pierced the void, a vacuum of inky black
but dotted with the brilliant light of billions of stars. He sat
staring out at them as his ship streaked between the gaseous bodies
at nearly the speed of light, the rays from the countless suns
bending as he passed through them and providing a kaleidoscope of
ever changing colors. He spoke into the microphone before him.

"And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown."

George Taylor, colonel in the U. S. Airforce, now commanding
astronaut of the first interstellar flight to another star, sat alone
in the main cabin. "We're now on automatic in the hands of the
computers. I've tucked my crew in for the long sleep, and I'll be
joining them. . . soon," he said as he lit the last of his cigars.
Real Cubans. They weren't allowed, of course, but he smuggled them
aboard anyway. What were they going to do to him if they found out?
Fire him? A man's got to have his pleasures.

"In less than an hour I will finish our sixth month out of Cape
Kennedy," he spoke into the microphone as he shook out the match and
took a long drag on the cigar stub. If only he had some brandy.

"Six months in deep space." He leaned back in his seat and glanced
over at the chronometers next to him. One told the day and date
aboard ship. July 14, 1972. "By our time that is," he said.

Above the ship time another chronometer indicated what the dat was
back on earth. It read March 23, 2673.

"According to Dr. Hasslein's theories of time in a vehicle traveling
at nearly the speed of light, the earth has aged seven hundred years
since we left it." He looked down at his hands and felt his strong
chest take in the air of the cabin. "While we've hardly aged at
all." He smiled to himself, the smug cynical smile he was well know
for back on earth. "Maybe so," he said, rolling the cigar between
his fingers. "This much is probably true. . . ." He leaned forward
in his seat and stared deeply out into the vast universe before him.

"The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and
forgotten. You who are reading me now are a different breed." He
leaned back again and took another puff on the cigar. "I hope a
better one!"

Taylor didn't like humanity very much, in fact he despised his fellow
creatures, a personality trait that made it easy for him to leave the
planet earth, leave everything and everyone he's ever know. . . .
forever. Well, except for his companions, but then here he was the
commander. That made a difference.

"I leave the twentieth century with no regrets," he said, putting
down the cigar and opening a drawer below the command console. "But
one more thing, if anybody's listening that is." He opened a small
kit in the drawer and took out a prepared hypodermic. He removed the
cap from its needle and undid the zipper on the left sleeve of his
uniform. "Nothing scientific, it's purely personal." He waited to
give himself the injection and stared out again through the front
viewer of his craft.

"As seen from out here, everything seems different. Time bends.
Space is . . . boundless. It squashes a man's ego. I feel lonely."

As he stuck the hypo into his arm, injecting the solution that would
quickly begin the process of slowing down his metabolism, he wondered
if he really felt lonely, or if he was just allowing himself to? He
couldn't ever remember feeling lonely before. That would be weak.
That would remind him that he was human like everyone else, and that
was something he didn't like to be reminded of.

He removed the needle and zipped up his sleeve, rubbing the ache in
his arm away. The solution stung a little. He slammed the drawer
closer again beneath the console.

"That's about it," he said, suddenly deciding he's could resist a
little needling of his own. He leaned into the mic. "Tell me
though, does man that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox
who sent me to the stars still make war on his brother? Keep his
neighbor's children starving?" And he put the cigar back in his
mouth with a smile.

He glanced back at the chronometer. Another day clicked by back on
earth. Taylor turned off the mic and made a final visual check of
the control settings. He then got up and walked to the rear of the
cabin. He could already feel the solution affecting him. Quickly it
would render him unconscious.

He stopped at the four glass-enclosed Hibernaculum. On his right
slept the two other males of the crew, Dodge and Landon. Taylor
regarded them with a cool detachment. Dodge he knew for several
years. A good officer, and one that because of his black skin had
fought extra hard to prove himself in that wonderful country they'd
left back on earth, the one where all men were created equal, but
weren't treated that way. Anyway, Taylor couldn't have cared less.
Hell, if it was okay with Stewart, it was okay with him. Landon, now
there was a different case. He didn't like Landon. Landon had
gotten to where he was by qualifications Taylor didn't agree with.
He was one of those overachieving bastards that was so cock sure of
themselves, the ones that had never tasted failure. Maybe Taylor
approved him just to amuse himself watching Landon face the realities
of whatever they were going to find out there? Had to be, he really
couldn't stand h
Then there was Stewart. The sleeping beauty on his left. The female
of the crew. Taylor gave her a good look as he put out his cigar.
Stewart, what are you dreaming of? Taylor wondered. Nothing. You
don't dream in suspended animation. As beautiful as she was, Taylor
thought, at that moment she was just a human popsicle, something he
soon would be. Well, anyway, the next time he saw her she be lovely
warm flesh again. Taylor reminded himself that sometimes it was good
to be human. Sleep well, Stewart.

The solution was beginning to take full affect. Taylor slid down
into the high-tech coffin below Stewart. Be buckled himself in and
pushed the button that brought the glass cover down to seal the
chamber. He'd been through this process before in flight training,
so it was all as easy as taking a natural rest. His eyelids grew
heavy and he allowed them to close. He tried not to think of
anything because what was the point? Soon he wouldn't be able to
think, and soon in fact he couldn't. He was under the control of the
computers now, as much a part of the ship as all it's panels, gauges,
wires and circuits. His heart rate was slowed down and his body
temperature lowered, and he would remain that way until the computers
decided it was to end.

And so he and his fellow astronauts existed in their sleek, delicate
craft as it pierced the void.

And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET! Anybody
else want to write the next chapter?

-- Rory

.html
I zapped a note over to the reference desk of the Englewood Library to see what the deal was with this street.  Here's what I got back.

<<I called the Administrator at Borough Hall and yes it is named after the actress but that is the only thing we could find out. They don't think she lived there. It only has four or five houses on it. It runs East to West from Summit St. to Beverly Road with Dorchester & Stratford Road intersecting between.

Englewood Reference>>

Not much help there as to when it was named, or if it was something else before, but it is named after her.
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/2002 4:07:07 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Rory

Don't stop!  You are doing a great job yourself.

Do you want me to suggest what I believe are typos?

Also, maybe others in the group could send suggestions regarding
slight additions they might make for your consideration and you can
choose to take or ignore them -- is that OK by you?

Michael

As I said earlier, and now Whitty is confirming, you're doing a great job and keep up the good work! I think it'd be best for you to continue writing this story so it is cohesive... Plus "too many cooks" could easily wreck what is so far looking to be a good piece of writing...

As far as what Michael said about "additions," well you might as well add in the scene of Lucius, Zira & the humans stopped by the Hunt Club during their escape from the city... You could add in the part about Nova's pregnancy (Some might say "Why add it, because she wasn't pregnant in Beneath?" To that I'd say who knows what the length of time was between Planet and Beneath... She very well could have been in the very early stages of pregnancy during the Beneath episode...)

You could also create some additional dialog as they trek thru the desert... Maybe even go further and create the discovery of the 1st "mutant" Landon, and his ultimate fate at the hands of Zaius... This of course would be totally up to you...

<.html

I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by the start
of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.

Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the
bushes"....

Michael

--- mlccougar@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/28/2002 4:07:07 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > Don't stop! You are doing a great job yourself.
> >
> > Do you want me to suggest what I believe are typos?
> >
> > Also, maybe others in the group could send suggestions regarding
> > slight additions they might make for your consideration and you

can

> > choose to take or ignore them -- is that OK by you?
> >
> >
>
> As I said earlier, and now Whitty is confirming, you're doing a

great job and

> keep up the good work! I think it'd be best for you to continue

writing this

> story so it is cohesive... Plus "too many cooks" could easily wreck

what is

> so far looking to be a good piece of writing...
>
> As far as what Michael said about "additions," well you might as

well add in

> the scene of Lucius, Zira & the humans stopped by the Hunt Club

during their

> escape from the city... You could add in the part about Nova's

pregnancy

> (Some might say "Why add it, because she wasn't pregnant in

Beneath?" To that

> I'd say who knows what the length of time was between Planet and

Beneath...

> She very well could have been in the very early stages of pregnancy

during

> the Beneath episode...)
>
> You could also create some additional dialog as they trek thru the

desert...

> Maybe even go further and create the discovery of the 1st "mutant"

Landon,

> and his ultimate fate at the hands of Zaius... This of course would

be

> totally up to you...
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by the start
of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.
Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be pregnant in Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...
Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the
bushes"....
And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If this alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how Brent got to him...)

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/2002 6:59:44 PM Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

this alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got down to the Planet's surface anyway...

I'm sure Patrick will have an answer for that too.<.html

In a message dated 10/27/02 9:52:59 PM Central Standard Time,
Haristas@... writes:

<< Don't make me bitch slap you from one
end of Ape City to the other! >>

I'd like to see this. I never had to learn the hard way, ;)

-Joe

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/02 5:07:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Don't stop!  You are doing a great job yourself.

Hey, are you guys crazy?  I haven't got the time to do a novelization of the whole movie, especially if I'm not getting paid for it.  Besides, I'd much rather write a screenplay adaptation of Boulle's book.  Maybe T could give me a hand with that.

Let Patrick pick up where I left off, then we can get an idea of how his writing style is for his "mega-opus."  I'll bet Patrick stops the story cold to write thirty pages on interstellar fight and how the ship works.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/28/2002 8:35:02 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Maybe T could give me a hand with that.

I could try.  But I'm having a bit of trouble getting pages out myself on what is essentially a rewrite.  And that's for a grade.  Japanese is kicking my ass.  Come to think of it, I should do some homework right now!<.html

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

> And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET!
>
> -- Rory

Excellent... An enjoyable read... Didn't want to put it down...

--Helen

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> I hope you intend to return that book to its country of origin

Patrick! Knowing you, you will just cross out "Australia" and
print "New America" in its place! Just kidding.

>
> It is a curiosity regarding the title. I do not recall the source,

but I do recall reading that the difference in title occurred after a
request from Fox that the novel not be confused with the movie (they
are a VERY different story line). Apparently Fox allowed images from
the film and the film name to be referenced (eg the book that
inspired POTA), so long as the novel was not entitled "Planet of the
Apes".

>
> I would have liked to see a novel of PLANET using the film's text,

but I do not believe such a thing was ever created...again, why?

>
> Michael

*** Hmmm... I'd always thought that the Xan Fielding translation came
out both in the British Commonwealth (as "Monkey Planet") and in
America (as "Planet of the Apes") not too long after the publication
of the original French text in 1963. My copy of "Monkey Planet" says:

La Planete des Singes first published in France 1963
This translation published in Great Britain by Martin Secker &
Warburg 1964
Published in Penguin Books 1966
Reprinted 1970, 1975
Copyright [Copyright symbol] Rene Julliard, 1963
Translation copyright [Copyright symbol] Martin Secker & Warburg 1964

My guess is that "Monkey Planet" was the title for the first
publication in Britain of the Xan Fielding translation, as the
hardcover scanned-in by Rory shows... well before Arthur P. Jacobs
acquired the property and began developing it for a film project.
I still think "Monkey Planet" is a lousy translation of "La Planete
des Singes". Why not "The Planet of the Monkeys", if they're going to
use the word "monkeys" instead of "apes"? The "OXFORD American Desk
Dictionary and Thesaurus" translates "monkey" as: 1. any of various
primates, including marmosets, baboons, apes, etc. 2. mischievous
person, esp. a child ("young monkey"). So, I guess, according to a
definition sanctioned by the "Oxford university" dictionary-makers,
the word "monkey" is NOT necessarily a wrong translation of the
French word "singe". In America, the word "monkey" tends to mean the
non-ape simians (i.e. baboons, marmosets, howler monkeys, capuchins,
etc.), hence the re-titling of Xan's translation in America
as "Planet of the Apes". I also think, still, that "The Planet of the
Simians" is perhaps the best possible translation of Boulle's title,
since there is no ambiguity about what "simians" means (Boulle refers
to the intelligent apes as "simius sapiens": "wise/thinking ape"),
and the words "singes" and "Simians" have a "similar" sound (the
initial "si-").

Patrick

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]

> > Will wonders never cease?
> >
> > I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a paperback

edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published by
Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with his
helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the cover,
from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE APES".

> >
> > It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title

(in Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des
Singes", would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the Apes"
or "The Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it should
be about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the like. An
APE is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are Chimpanzees,
Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!

> >
> > Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion

Press, Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition
that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or
otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of
binding or cover other than that in which it is published", and "for
copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."

> > Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's

consent to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market
paperback?

> > I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at

a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken off-shelf,
their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the garbage.

> > I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin

Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated years, but it
always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
book, just because it ain't a hardcover.

> >
> > Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's

book "Monkey Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth
publishers of the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the
popularity of the American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel
that "Die Hard" was based on was re-published with the title "Die
Hard", which makes a hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do was
put a blurb on the bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING
LASTS FOREVER" or whatever. I would like to see translations of
Boulle's books with Boulle's original title somewhere on the front
cover, even if only on a "crawl" at the bottom.

> >
> > Patrick

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

> In a message dated 10/27/2002 1:43:13 PM Central Standard Time,
> veetus@e... writes:
>
> > www.comingsoon.net says Terry Gilliam is shopping around for his

next project. Could Fox please ask him to take a meeting for "Apes
2"? - - -

> > Jeff
> >
>
> Oh hell yes!

*** Yeah, and they can call it "Planet of the Twelve Monkeys"!

By the way, (I'm talkin' to YOU, Rory, and all the rest a-youse who
scoff--SCOFF! I say--at the "circular timeline" theory),
Gilliam's "12 Monkeys" was one example of a time-travel movie which
WAS circular. Bruce went back into the Past a number of times, but
NOT to change it--is WASN'T changeable--but to find out something
which might point to an antidote for the miserable underground
survivors in the Future. Not that he wouldn't TRY to change the Past
(and, hence, his entire existence from his personal past) if the
opportunity presented itself... but the "circle is now complete" (to
quote Darth Vader) when Bruce-as-a-kid witnesses the shooting of
Bruce-as-an-adult-timetraveller... a memory that the Older Bruce
remembered earlier in the film.
Maybe Bruce Willis would make a better astronaut protagonist than
Marky Marky... do ya think?

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Tim" <apefan23@y...> wrote:

> can you post a pic of the cover?

*** Alas, I'd LOVE to, but my new DELL computer is, well, NEW... and
it'll be a while before I can figure out how to do neat stuff like
posting pics, scanning images, etc. I don't know if this'll help, but
the ISBN number is 0 14 00.2401 8 (given on the bottom-right corner
of the back cover), and, yes, that decimal point before the "2" is
part of what's printed there, though for the life of me I'm not sure
exactly why. Maybe some website devoted to POTA collectibles &
merchandise is lurking out there on the Net, and has an image of this
particular printing's front cover out there.
If I ever figure out how to scan-&-post images, Tim (the Enchanter?),
I promise to do so.

Patrick

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

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:
> > Will wonders never cease?
> >
> > I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a
> paperback
> > edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published
> by
> > Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with
> his
> > helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the
> cover,
> > from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
> > says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE
> APES".
> >
> > It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title
> (in
> > Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des

Singes",

> > would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the Apes"
> or "The
> > Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it should
> be
> > about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the
> like. An APE
> > is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are
> Chimpanzees,
> > Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!
> >
> > Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion
> Press,
> > Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition that

it

> > shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or
> otherwise
> > disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of
> binding or
> > cover other than that in which it is published", and "for

copyright

> > reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."
> >
> > Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's
> consent
> > to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market
> paperback?
> > I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at
> > a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken
> off-shelf,
> > their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the
> garbage.
> > I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin
> > Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated
> years, but it
> > always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
> > book, just because it ain't a hardcover.
> >
> > Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's book
> "Monkey
> > Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth
> publishers of
> > the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the popularity of

the

> > American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel that "Die Hard"
> was
> > based on was re-published with the title "Die Hard", which
> makes a
> > hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do was put a blurb on the
> > bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING LASTS
> FOREVER" or
> > whatever. I would like to see translations of Boulle's books with
> > Boulle's original title somewhere on the front cover, even if

only

> on
> > a "crawl" at the bottom.
> >
> > Patrick

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

> Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,

it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

*** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing", saying
(in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end to the
constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and to give
the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
Ape than to the True Man.

There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
world.

*** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".

> The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I

proclaim Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with
much food for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong
about rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our
jails, so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not
proper.

*** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in the
late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it, and it
used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a bunch of
troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience if they
ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded to me as
if those convicts were speaking from experience! The film "American
History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would not want to
experience first-hand.

Patrick

> Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the

New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:47 AM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Secret Governments on the Planet

of the

> Apes
>
>
> > --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 10/23/2002 12:01:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> > >
> > > > *** Our current President, George W. Bush, is a member of
> > the "Skull-&-Bones" society, just like his daddy was.
> > >
> > > Old news Pat. His Skull & Bones nickname is "Temporary" BTW.

Sort

> > of ominous considering the times we live in. And both he and

Bogey

> > are related to Princess Di for you trivia buffs. As for

Elizabeth's

> > divine right to rule. No way. The Windsor's are a bunch of

krauts.

> > And before that they virtually wiped the Stuart's from the face of
> > the earth. So if a pack of murdering bastards have a divine

right it

> > must come from Satan. Anyway, God is so much more subtle than
> > the 'Man on the Cloud with the white beard' ideal. He's not

readily

> > visible but He's there. You have to look at the Big Picture.

Tough

> > for a non-theist like yourself Patrick, I know, being so caught

up in

> > minutia. It's sort of like one of those eye puzzles. You see Him
> > someday. Whether in the simplicity of the atom or the clockwork
> > complexity of the universe. It reminds me of something Dave

Vainian

> > of The Damned quoted, "Beauty isn't something you see with your
> > eyes. It's something you hunger for with your heart."
> >
> > *** Looking at the Big Picture... reminds me of what Thomas Paine
> > said in "The Age of Reason", about his rejection of the "revealed
> > religions" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) in favor of using

the

> > Scientific Method to rationally discover "god" in the "creation"

(he

> > waxes eloquent about the Newtonian discoveries regarding the
> > mathematical precision of the planetary orbits, and so on).

The "god"

> > of Deism is NOT the "personal" god of the Bible, who allegedly

walked

> > around in the Garden of Eden with Adam, and audibly talked to

Moses,

> > and who "debauched a virgin" (Paine's summary of the Incarnation

of

> > Christ story); the primary "movers" in the group of Freemasons who
> > founded America were Deists, who paid--at most--lip-service to
> > Christianity, espousing the ethical teachings of Jesus, yet

rejecting

> > the supernaturalistic nonsense that encumbers it (Jefferson

compared

> > the teachings of Jesus versus the non-rational aspects of the New
> > Testament as being like a Diamond in a dung-heap!).
> >
> > It was Paine, in "Common Sense", who ridiculed the idea of
> > the "divine right of kings" to rule over a free people--or ANY
> > people. I find it telling that all the evangelical Christians who
> > claim that America was founded by Christians NEVER quote Thomas

Paine

> > (or do so in a VERY selective manner). They choose to ignore
> > the "Jefferson Bible" which was nothing more than the New

Testament

> > with ALL THE SUPERNATURAL STUFF cut out of it, as well as much of

St.

> > Paul's works, which Jefferson thought were NOT representative of
> > Jesus' true teachings.
> >
> > Look at all the "good" that has come from people worshipping a so-
> > called "scripture" (be it the Tanakh, the New Testament, the

Quran,

> > the Book of Mormon, or whatever). Even the Irish--who both
> > (Protestant and Catholic) believe in the SAME scripture--can't

agree

> > on WHICH interpretation is correct... which, ultimately, leads to

the

> > bloody carnage which STILL is going on over there.
> > And those assholes who have just gotten caught for that string of
> > sniper attacks in Maryland! The older one, a creep who had

converted

> > to Islam and changed his last name to "Mohammed", felt justified

in

> > murdering random people--including an attempt on the life of a

school-

> > aged child. I hear that he had written a letter expressing

sympathies

> > with the Al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11. It is THIS bullshit view of the
> > world which becomes possible when ideologues (like

Muslim "Imams", so-

> > called Islamic "holy" men) can spout scripture and fire up the

will

> > to commit any and all sorts of atrocities... all in the name
> > of "god", who will REWARD the bastards with 72 virgins in

Paradise,

> > and all that stupid fucking nonsense. Well, John Allen Mohammed...
> > when you're in prison, awaiting your turn at "Ol' Sparky", you'll

get

> > to know what it's like to be on the receiving end, when

your "virgin"

> > asshole gets acquainted with the hardened convicts who can't WAIT

to

> > make you their new "bitch". It would be oh-so-sweet justice if,
> > before you get executed, YOU get to be the "wife" to 72 man-raping
> > Lifers in a Federal penitentiary. You and your little bastard
> > protege, who will curse your name every time he gets raped in the
> > prison shower. It couldn't happen to a more deserving pair of
> > worthless, pathetic excuses for human beings.
> > "Bismillah!" they'll cry out. "In the name of Allah!" And Allah,

who

> > DOESN'T EXIST, will remain silent up in "heaven" while you reap

the

> > rewards of what passes for "righteousness" in a religion of
> > fools. "Heaven" is NOT what the scripture-writers said it was.

There

> > is no "god" up in "heaven"; the word "shamayim" (in the Hebrew)

meant

> > the SKY, where the birds flew, and God's chariot zipped around

(once

> > allegedly carrying Ezekiel around, and taking Elijah up into

heaven).

> > Beyond the atmosphere is the cold empty nothingness of outer

space;

> > aside from dead moons and uninhabitable planets in this solar

system,

> > there are no known places where any intelligent beings exist,

unless

> > they are Extraterrestrials living on inhabitable planets orbiting
> > other stars.
> > Maybe "god" or "the Gods" of antiquity really DID exist, but were
> > actually ETs, as William Bramley hypothesized in his book "The

Gods

> > of Eden". Bramley's theory is that the "gods" are aliens who have
> > sown dissention amongst the peoples of Earth for millennia,

fooling

> > the gullible, superstitious masses into believing that they owed
> > allegiance to the "sky-gods" who exploit them. Bramley thinks

these

> > ET "Custodial" so-called "gods" have a modus operandi: they take

BOTH

> > sides in a human conflict, and give each side the
> > ability/justification/impetus to wage war on the other. The first
> > time I read Bramley's book, I remembered that bit in BENEATH, when
> > the "Negro" mutant tells Taylor & Brent: "We are a peaceful

people;

> > we don't kill our enemies--we get our enemies to kill each other."
> > This method is the same one used by Jehovah in the Old Testament,

as

> > when he "hardened the heart of the Pharaoh" and caused him to

oppose

> > Moses, rather than give in and free the Israelites--keeping the
> > Pharaoh in opposition to Moses kept the conflict going, and led to
> > more loss of life, according to the story. Also, in the book of
> > Joshua, it is said that "... it was the Lord who hardened their
> > hearts, that they would go against Israel in battle, that he might
> > destroy them utterly, and that they might find no favor, but that

he

> > might destroy them..." (Joshua 11:20). In other words, when Joshua
> > ben Nun allegedly led the Israelites into "the Promised Land",

which

> > was already inhabited by the Canaanites, Jehovah (the "Lord")

wanted

> > the Canaanites to fight against the Israelites, so that He could
> > slaughter them all... and IF they were willing to accept the
> > Israelites into their land and live peacefully, side-by-side,
> > then "the Lord" FORCED THEM into a mind-set of

opposition, "hardening

> > their hearts". Why? "... that he might DESTROY them"!
> > The "God" of the Bible, if there ever was a "historical Jehovah",

was

> > NOT a virtuous Creator of the universe deserving of human worship

and

> > obedience--"He" was a monster. Thomas Paine recognized that,

saying

> > as much in "The Age of Reason". It wasn't easy for me--having
> > been "raised Catholic"--to reject my parents' religion as so much
> > bullshit... but sometimes you have to step outside of the view

that

> > was forced on you by your formative influences and see the

Universe

> > with NEW eyes, guided by Rationality and the Scientific Method.
> > The "revealed religions" of the world are laughably, tragically
> > deficient as far as Moral Codes go. Paine was a "pain" in his

day...

> > but he made sense. He saw the Bible (etc.) for what it really was,
> > when you "boiled it all down", and he rejected it. At least as a
> > guide for moral conduct. As soon as the world of Islam has

somebody

> > with the guts to step up the the mike and declare Mohammed's
> > scripture as a forgery and a divisive, hateful diatribe (which is
> > what the "holy" Quran really is), then MAYBE the tinder-box of the
> > Middle East can begin making baby-steps towards a rational

worldview.

> > Yeah, I know it'll never happen--at least not in my lifetime. Like
> > MLK, I have a dream...
> >
> > Patrick

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

> In a message dated 10/28/02 12:31:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> mlccougar@a... writes:
>
>
> > All these years later, I still think about that though, why

wasn't the film written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any"
clues, or straight up facts as to why?

> >
>
> I would guess that according to copyright laws the makers of a

motion picture based on a novel cannot commission a novelization of
the screenplay that would then be marketed as a novel with the same
title and characters as the original novel.

>
> Anyway, let me give it a try here:
>
> Chapter One
>
> The sleek, delicate craft pierced the void, a vacuum of inky black

but dotted with the brilliant light of billions of stars. He sat
staring out at them as his ship streaked between the gaseous bodies
at nearly the speed of light, the rays from the countless suns
bending as he passed through them and providing a kaleidoscope of
ever changing colors. He spoke into the microphone before him.

>
> "And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown."
>
> George Taylor, colonel in the U. S. Airforce, now commanding

astronaut of the first interstellar flight to another star, sat alone
in the main cabin. "We're now on automatic in the hands of the
computers. I've tucked my crew in for the long sleep, and I'll be
joining them. . . soon," he said as he lit the last of his cigars.
Real Cubans. They weren't allowed, of course, but he smuggled them
aboard anyway. What were they going to do to him if they found out?
Fire him? A man's got to have his pleasures.

>
> "In less than an hour I will finish our sixth month out of Cape

Kennedy," he spoke into the microphone as he shook out the match and
took a long drag on the cigar stub. If only he had some brandy.

>
> "Six months in deep space." He leaned back in his seat and glanced

over at the chronometers next to him. One told the day and date
aboard ship. July 14, 1972. "By our time that is," he said.

>
> Above the ship time another chronometer indicated what the dat was

back on earth. It read March 23, 2673.

>
> "According to Dr. Hasslein's theories of time in a vehicle

traveling at nearly the speed of light, the earth has aged seven
hundred years since we left it." He looked down at his hands and
felt his strong chest take in the air of the cabin. "While we've
hardly aged at all." He smiled to himself, the smug cynical smile he
was well know for back on earth. "Maybe so," he said, rolling the
cigar between his fingers. "This much is probably true. . . ." He
leaned forward in his seat and stared deeply out into the vast
universe before him.

>
> "The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and

forgotten. You who are reading me now are a different breed." He
leaned back again and took another puff on the cigar. "I hope a
better one!"

>
> Taylor didn't like humanity very much, in fact he despised his

fellow creatures, a personality trait that made it easy for him to
leave the planet earth, leave everything and everyone he's ever
know. . . . forever. Well, except for his companions, but then here
he was the commander. That made a difference.

>
> "I leave the twentieth century with no regrets," he said, putting

down the cigar and opening a drawer below the command console. "But
one more thing, if anybody's listening that is." He opened a small
kit in the drawer and took out a prepared hypodermic. He removed the
cap from its needle and undid the zipper on the left sleeve of his
uniform. "Nothing scientific, it's purely personal." He waited to
give himself the injection and stared out again through the front
viewer of his craft.

>
> "As seen from out here, everything seems different. Time bends.

Space is . . . boundless. It squashes a man's ego. I feel lonely."

>
> As he stuck the hypo into his arm, injecting the solution that

would quickly begin the process of slowing down his metabolism, he
wondered if he really felt lonely, or if he was just allowing himself
to? He couldn't ever remember feeling lonely before. That would be
weak. That would remind him that he was human like everyone else,
and that was something he didn't like to be reminded of.

>
> He removed the needle and zipped up his sleeve, rubbing the ache in

his arm away. The solution stung a little. He slammed the drawer
closer again beneath the console.

>
> "That's about it," he said, suddenly deciding he's could resist a

little needling of his own. He leaned into the mic. "Tell me
though, does man that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox
who sent me to the stars still make war on his brother? Keep his
neighbor's children starving?" And he put the cigar back in his
mouth with a smile.

>
> He glanced back at the chronometer. Another day clicked by back on

earth. Taylor turned off the mic and made a final visual check of
the control settings. He then got up and walked to the rear of the
cabin. He could already feel the solution affecting him. Quickly it
would render him unconscious.

>
> He stopped at the four glass-enclosed Hibernaculum. On his right

slept the two other males of the crew, Dodge and Landon. Taylor
regarded them with a cool detachment. Dodge he knew for several
years. A good officer, and one that because of his black skin had
fought extra hard to prove himself in that wonderful country they'd
left back on earth, the one where all men were created equal, but
weren't treated that way. Anyway, Taylor couldn't have cared less.
Hell, if it was okay with Stewart, it was okay with him.
Landon, now there was a different case. He didn't like Landon.
Landon had gotten to where he was by qualifications Taylor didn't
agree with. He was one of those overachieving bastards that was so
cock sure of themselves, the ones that had never tasted failure.
Maybe Taylor approved him just to amuse himself watching Landon face
the realities of whatever they were going to find out there? Had to
be, he really couldn't stand him.

>
> Then there was Stewart. The sleeping beauty on his left. The

female of the crew. Taylor gave her a good look as he put out his
cigar. Stewart, what are you dreaming of? Taylor wondered.
Nothing. You don't dream in suspended animation. As beautiful as
she was, Taylor thought, at that moment she was just a human
popsicle, something he soon would be. Well, anyway, the next time he
saw her she be lovely warm flesh again. Taylor reminded himself that
sometimes it was good to be human. Sleep well, Stewart.

>
> The solution was beginning to take full affect. Taylor slid down

into the high-tech coffin below Stewart. Be buckled himself in and
pushed the button that brought the glass cover down to seal the
chamber. He'd been through this process before in flight training,
so it was all as easy as taking a natural rest. His eyelids grew
heavy and he allowed them to close. He tried not to think of
anything because what was the point? Soon he wouldn't be able to
think, and soon in fact he couldn't. He was under the control of the
computers now, as much a part of the ship as all it's panels, gauges,
wires and circuits. His heart rate was slowed down and his body
temperature lowered, and he would remain that way until the computers
decided it was to end.

>
> And so he and his fellow astronauts existed in their sleek,

delicate craft as it pierced the void.

>
> And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET! Anybody

else want to write the next chapter?

>
> -- Rory

*** Rory? The plural of "hibernaculum" is "hibernacula". You bloody
baboooooooon! (Yeah, I know there are only 2 o's in "baboon"!)

Patrick (a.k.a. "Spell-Checker Jones")

P.S. The first novelization of a movie based on a previously-written
book that I can remember was "The Spy Who Loved Me". I wonder what
the very first novelization of a movie based on (etc.) was?
By the way, Rory, you SHOULD have started your "Chapter One" with:
It was the best of Earth-Times, it was the worst of Earth-Times...

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 12:29:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Rory? The plural of "hibernaculum" is "hibernacula". You bloody
baboooooooon! (Yeah, I know there are only 2 o's in "baboon"!)

HibernACULA?!!!!   Isn't that what DrACULA sleeps in when he's not at home?

By the way, Rory, you SHOULD have started your "Chapter One" with:
It was the best of Earth-Times, it was the worst of Earth-Times...

Then I'd have to title the novelization "A Tale of Two Ape Cities."  Or should that be "tail"?

How about:  "Call me Taylor"?  No, then it would have to be called "Ape Dick" and people might get the wrong idea.

-- Rory


<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 10:54:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

My copy of "Monkey Planet" says:

La Planete des Singes first published in France 1963
This translation published in Great Britain by Martin Secker &
Warburg 1964
Published in Penguin Books 1966
Reprinted 1970, 1975
Copyright [Copyright symbol] Rene Julliard, 1963
Translation copyright [Copyright symbol] Martin Secker & Warburg 1964

POTA was published in the U.S. by the Vanguard Press, and the paperback was done by Signet.

My guess is that "Monkey Planet" was the title for the first
publication in Britain of the Xan Fielding translation, as the
hardcover scanned-in by Rory shows... well before Arthur P. Jacobs
acquired the property and began developing it for a film project.

Jacobs bought the film rights when the book was still in galley form.  Don't you have one of the "making of" books?

-- Rory<.html

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

> In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@c... writes:

> > I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by the

start of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.

> Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be pregnant in

Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing
malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...

> > Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the

bushes"....

> And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If this

alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then
why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get
here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got
down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't
neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of
that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how Brent
got to him...)

*** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back, Mlccougarmellencamp!

In my "mothership" scenario, I suggested that the reason that Taylor
doesn't expect to encounter any other ANSA astronauts is for the same
reason he tells Landon that "we're here to stay" earlier in PLANET.
Their ship wasn't "programmed to land in the water", and they were
supposed to wake up while still in space--NOT after splash-landing in
a lake in the middle of a friggin' desert. Taylor (in my scenario)
assumes that something catastrophic happened to his mothership
("U.S.S. Earth"), probably a melt-down in its nuclear power plant or
something like that; and the mothership's computers--in order to
safeguard the lives of the astronauts hibernating on its attached
shuttlecraft--automatically detaches them, so that they can get far
enough away before the mothership goes >BOOM<.
After waking up, Taylor soon realizes that SOMETHING WENT WRONG,
which resulted in their shuttle detaching from a probably destroyed
mothership--which, nonetheless, he TRIES to contact, having
Landon "get out a last signal... to [the mothership] Earth, that
we've landed!"--and their quick emergency landing on this planet
BEFORE THE SHIP'S COMPUTERS HAD TIME TO REVIVE THEM FROM DRUG-INDUCED
HIBERNATION. Taylor has every reason to assume that the reason that
they're on the planet "to stay" is because the astronauts hibernating
on the mothership have been killed by whatever probably destroyed the
ship in the first place--and Brent would be among those probably dead
astronauts, which is why Taylor is surprised to see him in BENEATH.
Taylor didn't have any tracking device on his person, for Brent
to "home in on", now, did he? How COULD Brent end up there in that
same cell at Grand Central Station in the year 3955? he wonders.
If you, Mlccougar, think it's MORE plausible that Brent and Skipper
flew a rather small vehicle (ALL of which is visible in BENEATH)
across hundreds of lightyears, somehow "following Taylor's
trajectory" across MILLIONS and MILLIONS of miles of space... and
miraculously not only ended up back in the Solar System (without
knowing that!), but also back at the planet Earth (without knowing
that either, despite taking an "Earth-Time reading BEFORE re-entry"),
which has continued in its orbit around the Sun during the WEEKS
between Taylor's landing and his own landing... then, hey, if THAT
works better for you, go right on ahead! I think it's ludicrous,
myself. Following "Taylor's trajectory" (as YOU think it means)
across just the Solar System would NOT get you back to Earth, since
the planet MOVES as it orbits the Sun. The Earth orbits the Sun (at a
distance of 1 AU) from 93,000,000 miles away or so, right? That would
be the radius of a near-circle which is 584 Million miles in
circumference (2 x radius x pi). Every single day, the planet goes
1/365.2422 along that big circle. That means that the Earth is
already about 1,600,000 miles away from its location just ONE DAY
LATER. Taylor, after landing in Dead Lake (etc.) and winding up
jailed after he gets his voice back, asks Zira, "It's been WEEKS! Why
didn't you come see me?" You get that? The events of PLANET take
WEEKS--all during which Brent & Skipper have YET to land on Earth.
During those "weeks", the Earth moves along at a rate of about 1.6
Million miles per day, which equals 11.2 Million miles per week.
Multiply that by however number of weeks you think happens between
the landings of Taylor and Brent, and ask yourself HOW THE FUCK Brent
was able to follow Taylor's trajectory through a part of space Taylor
hadn't flown.
Answer: he COULDN'T. It ain't possible. Flying through space is like
shooting skeet. Every second the skeet moves through the air you have
to aim your gun further and further to the side, anticipating the
skeet's location in the FUTURE so that your bullet will intercept it
and shatter it, rather than fly right on by. Similarly, Brent's ship
would have to KNOW that Taylor's ship went SPECIFICALLY to the planet
orbiting 93,000,000 miles away from the star up ahead, and that
during the interim that same planet is now FURTHER ALONG in its
orbit, requiring Brent to utilize more fuel to get his ship across
those extra millions of miles of empty space.
My scenario--which has it that "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-ENTRY
trajectory from orbit, from the mothership occupying the SAME orbit--
makes much more sense. At least to ME. Brent knew he was landing not
only on the same planet Taylor had landed on earlier, but he (or his
ship's computer) knew how many orbits had gone by since then, and
could calculate just when to do a "re-entry burn" in order to land
his ship relatively near the landing site of Taylor's ship. If he
didn't have that necessary info, it'd be a frickin' MIRACLE for him
to land not only on the same continent, but also the same desert/area
ON that continent as Taylor, probably within 10 or 20 miles of the
Lake.
Brent never mentions following any "beacon" to Taylor's ship--that's
one of the things that Burton's flick addressed, where Leo's pod
somehow winds up fairly near to the site where the Oberon crashlanded
(and, similarly, the space-monkey who lands at the end ALSO must
have "homed-in" on Leo's & the Oberon's signals). But Brent did NOT
follow any "homing signal"--he tells Skipper that they "were
following Taylor's TRAJECTORY", which can ONLY refer to an orbit-to-
surface RE-ENTRY path.
Astronautical flight dynamics are on MY side of this argument,
Mlccougar. But, hey, this IS an argument, right? Feel free to counter-
punch with a better explanation. Please try and explain away the
Brent-to-Earth-weeks-later trajectory alterations he would have had
to make. Please! Make better sense of that, if you can. I don't think
you (or anybody else) can, since it goes against all logic, but feel
free to try.

Patrick

> My guess is that "Monkey Planet" was the title for the first
> publication in Britain of the Xan Fielding translation, as the
> hardcover scanned-in by Rory shows... well before Arthur P. Jacobs
> acquired the property and began developing it for a film project.
>
> Jacobs bought the film rights when the book was still in galley

form. Don't you have one of the "making of" books?

>
> -- Rory

*** I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that. Does this mean that the
titling of the Brit edition as "Monkey Planet" was done to distance
it somewhat from the proposed film version? How early on was it that
Jacobs' project went by the title "Planet of the Apes"? Was there
some sort of agreement (Brits & Americans) to present the same text
under different titles specifically in regards to the possible movie
Jacobs was hoping to get made? As I remember, it took years to
convince a studio (Fox) to green-light POTA... so how could this have
affected the naming of the Brit version as "Monkey Planet"?
Just a-wonderin' here, is all.

Patrick

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 1:16:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Does this mean that the titling of the Brit edition as "Monkey Planet" was done to distance it somewhat from the proposed film version?

No, I think it's just that a strict English (meaning British) translation of "La planete des singes" is "Monkey Planet."

-- Rory<.html

Unquestionably - if he had the guidance of someone like Gilliam to pull out
an excellent performance a la 12 Monkeys.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 3:09

> Maybe Bruce Willis would make a better astronaut protagonist than
> Marky Marky... do ya think?
>
> Patrick

That's OK Patrick I'll see if I can dig it up and scan for you (I'm always
saving your ass!!).

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 3:15
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Pierre Boulle's "Monkey Planet"
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Tim" <apefan23@y...> wrote:
> > can you post a pic of the cover?
>
> *** Alas, I'd LOVE to, but my new DELL computer is, well, NEW... and
> it'll be a while before I can figure out how to do neat stuff like
> posting pics, scanning images, etc. I don't know if this'll help, but
> the ISBN number is 0 14 00.2401 8 (given on the bottom-right corner
> of the back cover), and, yes, that decimal point before the "2" is
> part of what's printed there, though for the life of me I'm not sure
> exactly why. Maybe some website devoted to POTA collectibles &
> merchandise is lurking out there on the Net, and has an image of this
> particular printing's front cover out there.
> If I ever figure out how to scan-&-post images, Tim (the Enchanter?),
> I promise to do so.
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"
> <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Will wonders never cease?
> > >
> > > I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a
> > paperback
> > > edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published
> > by
> > > Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with
> > his
> > > helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the
> > cover,
> > > from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
> > > says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE
> > APES".
> > >
> > > It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title
> > (in
> > > Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des
> Singes",
> > > would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the Apes"
> > or "The
> > > Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it should
> > be
> > > about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the
> > like. An APE
> > > is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are
> > Chimpanzees,
> > > Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!
> > >
> > > Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion
> > Press,
> > > Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition that
> it
> > > shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or
> > otherwise
> > > disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of
> > binding or
> > > cover other than that in which it is published", and "for
> copyright
> > > reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."
> > >
> > > Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's
> > consent
> > > to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market
> > paperback?
> > > I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at
> > > a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken
> > off-shelf,
> > > their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the
> > garbage.
> > > I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin
> > > Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated
> > years, but it
> > > always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
> > > book, just because it ain't a hardcover.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's book
> > "Monkey
> > > Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth
> > publishers of
> > > the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the popularity of
> the
> > > American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel that "Die Hard"
> > was
> > > based on was re-published with the title "Die Hard", which
> > makes a
> > > hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do was put a blurb on the
> > > bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING LASTS
> > FOREVER" or
> > > whatever. I would like to see translations of Boulle's books with
> > > Boulle's original title somewhere on the front cover, even if
> only
> > on
> > > a "crawl" at the bottom.
> > >
> > > Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:

> And that's the first chapter of my novelization of PLANET! Anybody

else want

> to write the next chapter?

Chapter 2:

"Dear Diary,

Landed on a strange planet inhabited by talking apes. It turned out to
be Earth! I was a bit surprised, I can tell you."

THE END

<mlccougar@...> wrote:

> All these years later, I still think about that though, why wasn't

the film

> written into a novel? Can anyone here give "any" clues, or straight

up facts

> as to why?

Well, first of all I have no "straight up facts", that's for sure. But
I do have a theory and it's nothing to do with copyrights.

Perhaps Fox just didn't think it was worth the effort. They already
had a novel - why waste time writing a novelisation of the movie when
they could just rerelease the novel and slap a new cover on it
proclaiming it to be "NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE FROM 20TH CENTURY
FOX!" or something like that.

I seem to recall that Logan's Run was another one where there was
never a novelisation of the movie, just a rerelease of the original
novel. Mind you, there wasn't quite such a difference as there was
with the Planet adaptation.

Alan

Who needs a novelization of "Planet" when we have the POTA Funkified web site? I can't wait to see how that one wraps up!

Matt

Yeah, and when he says "Jump on my bones Nova", he means Bones from Star
Trek.

Patrick, again, I don't think I'm alone when I say it is a lot harder to
swallow your "Mothership" scenario than it is to accept these flubs for what
they are and get over it.

How many people have told you this Patrick?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 5:02
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> > whitty@c... writes:
>
> > > I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by the
> start of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.
>
> > Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be pregnant in
> Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing
> malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...
>
> > > Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the
> bushes"....
>
> > And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If this
> alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then
> why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get
> here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got
> down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't
> neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of
> that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how Brent
> got to him...)
>
> *** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
> fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back, Mlccougarmellencamp!
>
> In my "mothership" scenario, I suggested that the reason that Taylor
> doesn't expect to encounter any other ANSA astronauts is for the same
> reason he tells Landon that "we're here to stay" earlier in PLANET.
> Their ship wasn't "programmed to land in the water", and they were
> supposed to wake up while still in space--NOT after splash-landing in
> a lake in the middle of a friggin' desert. Taylor (in my scenario)
> assumes that something catastrophic happened to his mothership
> ("U.S.S. Earth"), probably a melt-down in its nuclear power plant or
> something like that; and the mothership's computers--in order to
> safeguard the lives of the astronauts hibernating on its attached
> shuttlecraft--automatically detaches them, so that they can get far
> enough away before the mothership goes >BOOM<.
> After waking up, Taylor soon realizes that SOMETHING WENT WRONG,
> which resulted in their shuttle detaching from a probably destroyed
> mothership--which, nonetheless, he TRIES to contact, having
> Landon "get out a last signal... to [the mothership] Earth, that
> we've landed!"--and their quick emergency landing on this planet
> BEFORE THE SHIP'S COMPUTERS HAD TIME TO REVIVE THEM FROM DRUG-INDUCED
> HIBERNATION. Taylor has every reason to assume that the reason that
> they're on the planet "to stay" is because the astronauts hibernating
> on the mothership have been killed by whatever probably destroyed the
> ship in the first place--and Brent would be among those probably dead
> astronauts, which is why Taylor is surprised to see him in BENEATH.
> Taylor didn't have any tracking device on his person, for Brent
> to "home in on", now, did he? How COULD Brent end up there in that
> same cell at Grand Central Station in the year 3955? he wonders.
> If you, Mlccougar, think it's MORE plausible that Brent and Skipper
> flew a rather small vehicle (ALL of which is visible in BENEATH)
> across hundreds of lightyears, somehow "following Taylor's
> trajectory" across MILLIONS and MILLIONS of miles of space... and
> miraculously not only ended up back in the Solar System (without
> knowing that!), but also back at the planet Earth (without knowing
> that either, despite taking an "Earth-Time reading BEFORE re-entry"),
> which has continued in its orbit around the Sun during the WEEKS
> between Taylor's landing and his own landing... then, hey, if THAT
> works better for you, go right on ahead! I think it's ludicrous,
> myself. Following "Taylor's trajectory" (as YOU think it means)
> across just the Solar System would NOT get you back to Earth, since
> the planet MOVES as it orbits the Sun. The Earth orbits the Sun (at a
> distance of 1 AU) from 93,000,000 miles away or so, right? That would
> be the radius of a near-circle which is 584 Million miles in
> circumference (2 x radius x pi). Every single day, the planet goes
> 1/365.2422 along that big circle. That means that the Earth is
> already about 1,600,000 miles away from its location just ONE DAY
> LATER. Taylor, after landing in Dead Lake (etc.) and winding up
> jailed after he gets his voice back, asks Zira, "It's been WEEKS! Why
> didn't you come see me?" You get that? The events of PLANET take
> WEEKS--all during which Brent & Skipper have YET to land on Earth.
> During those "weeks", the Earth moves along at a rate of about 1.6
> Million miles per day, which equals 11.2 Million miles per week.
> Multiply that by however number of weeks you think happens between
> the landings of Taylor and Brent, and ask yourself HOW THE FUCK Brent
> was able to follow Taylor's trajectory through a part of space Taylor
> hadn't flown.
> Answer: he COULDN'T. It ain't possible. Flying through space is like
> shooting skeet. Every second the skeet moves through the air you have
> to aim your gun further and further to the side, anticipating the
> skeet's location in the FUTURE so that your bullet will intercept it
> and shatter it, rather than fly right on by. Similarly, Brent's ship
> would have to KNOW that Taylor's ship went SPECIFICALLY to the planet
> orbiting 93,000,000 miles away from the star up ahead, and that
> during the interim that same planet is now FURTHER ALONG in its
> orbit, requiring Brent to utilize more fuel to get his ship across
> those extra millions of miles of empty space.
> My scenario--which has it that "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-ENTRY
> trajectory from orbit, from the mothership occupying the SAME orbit--
> makes much more sense. At least to ME. Brent knew he was landing not
> only on the same planet Taylor had landed on earlier, but he (or his
> ship's computer) knew how many orbits had gone by since then, and
> could calculate just when to do a "re-entry burn" in order to land
> his ship relatively near the landing site of Taylor's ship. If he
> didn't have that necessary info, it'd be a frickin' MIRACLE for him
> to land not only on the same continent, but also the same desert/area
> ON that continent as Taylor, probably within 10 or 20 miles of the
> Lake.
> Brent never mentions following any "beacon" to Taylor's ship--that's
> one of the things that Burton's flick addressed, where Leo's pod
> somehow winds up fairly near to the site where the Oberon crashlanded
> (and, similarly, the space-monkey who lands at the end ALSO must
> have "homed-in" on Leo's & the Oberon's signals). But Brent did NOT
> follow any "homing signal"--he tells Skipper that they "were
> following Taylor's TRAJECTORY", which can ONLY refer to an orbit-to-
> surface RE-ENTRY path.
> Astronautical flight dynamics are on MY side of this argument,
> Mlccougar. But, hey, this IS an argument, right? Feel free to counter-
> punch with a better explanation. Please try and explain away the
> Brent-to-Earth-weeks-later trajectory alterations he would have had
> to make. Please! Make better sense of that, if you can. I don't think
> you (or anybody else) can, since it goes against all logic, but feel
> free to try.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

i've always wondered...what caused Stewart's glass to crack?
the crash? Did she age immediately? or did it crack a long time
before from cabin pressure or something?

tim

> >
> > Then there was Stewart. The sleeping beauty on his left.

The

> female of the crew. Taylor gave her a good look as he put out

his

> cigar. Stewart, what are you dreaming of? Taylor wondered.
> Nothing. You don't dream in suspended animation. As

beautiful as

> she was, Taylor thought, at that moment she was just a human
> popsicle, something he soon would be. Well, anyway, the next

time he

> saw her she be lovely warm flesh again. Taylor reminded

himself that

> sometimes it was good to be human. Sleep well, Stewart.

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 3:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, alan@... writes:

why waste time writing a novelisation

Why do you Brits and Aussies keep spelling novelization with an S?

Why do you spell color colour?

Why favour, and not favor?

Why whilst, and not while?

What's up with that?

-- Rory <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 3:22:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, MTotsky@... writes:

Who needs a novelization of "Planet" when we have the POTA Funkified web site? I can't wait to see how that one wraps up!

Matt

Yeah, when that guy gonna finish?  He been working on that for two years!

Click here: Planet of the Apes... funkified

-- Rory<.html

.htmlClick here: OFFICIAL ROD SERLING USPS STAMP PETITION - Signatures

Sign it! <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 7:13:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, apefan23@... writes:

i've always wondered...what caused Stewart's glass to crack?
the crash? Did she age immediately? or did it crack a long time
before from cabin pressure or something?

tim

She farted.

Seriously though, there's an episode of "The Twilight Zone" called 'The Rip Van Winkle Caper' (1961) where these four thieves steal a million in gold and in order to keep it they go to a cave in death valley and hibernate in these glass coffins for a hundred years.  When they wake up the first thing they discover is that a stalactite fell from the roof of the cave and smashed one of the glass coffins killing the man sleeping inside.  Rod Serling wrote the episode, so he just borrowed it as a shock gimmick for PLANET.  He did the same thing with other elements in the movie.  Patrick can tell you all better.  He loves "The Twilight Zone."

-- Rory <.html

These were the correct spelling until Americans re-wrote the
dictionary.

Michael

-- Haristas@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/29/02 3:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> alan@... writes:
>
>
> > why waste time writing a novelisation
>
> Why do you Brits and Aussies keep spelling novelization with an S?
>
> Why do you spell color colour?
>
> Why favour, and not favor?
>
> Why whilst, and not while?
>
> What's up with that?
>
> -- Rory
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 9:47:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

These were the correct spelling until Americans re-wrote the
dictionary.

Michael

PHOOEY!<.html

I think the book came out in both France and America in '63 (I have the
"Time" magazine that reviews it, I think the week after Kennedy was killed)
and then in the UK in '64 as "Monkey Planet". Jacobs bought the rights
before it was published. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Pierre Boulle's "Monkey Planet"


> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I hope you intend to return that book to its country of origin
> Patrick! Knowing you, you will just cross out "Australia" and
> print "New America" in its place! Just kidding.
> >
> > It is a curiosity regarding the title. I do not recall the source,
> but I do recall reading that the difference in title occurred after a
> request from Fox that the novel not be confused with the movie (they
> are a VERY different story line). Apparently Fox allowed images from
> the film and the film name to be referenced (eg the book that
> inspired POTA), so long as the novel was not entitled "Planet of the
> Apes".
> >
> > I would have liked to see a novel of PLANET using the film's text,
> but I do not believe such a thing was ever created...again, why?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Hmmm... I'd always thought that the Xan Fielding translation came
> out both in the British Commonwealth (as "Monkey Planet") and in
> America (as "Planet of the Apes") not too long after the publication
> of the original French text in 1963. My copy of "Monkey Planet" says:
>
> La Planete des Singes first published in France 1963
> This translation published in Great Britain by Martin Secker &
> Warburg 1964
> Published in Penguin Books 1966
> Reprinted 1970, 1975
> Copyright [Copyright symbol] Rene Julliard, 1963
> Translation copyright [Copyright symbol] Martin Secker & Warburg 1964
>
> My guess is that "Monkey Planet" was the title for the first
> publication in Britain of the Xan Fielding translation, as the
> hardcover scanned-in by Rory shows... well before Arthur P. Jacobs
> acquired the property and began developing it for a film project.
> I still think "Monkey Planet" is a lousy translation of "La Planete
> des Singes". Why not "The Planet of the Monkeys", if they're going to
> use the word "monkeys" instead of "apes"? The "OXFORD American Desk
> Dictionary and Thesaurus" translates "monkey" as: 1. any of various
> primates, including marmosets, baboons, apes, etc. 2. mischievous
> person, esp. a child ("young monkey"). So, I guess, according to a
> definition sanctioned by the "Oxford university" dictionary-makers,
> the word "monkey" is NOT necessarily a wrong translation of the
> French word "singe". In America, the word "monkey" tends to mean the
> non-ape simians (i.e. baboons, marmosets, howler monkeys, capuchins,
> etc.), hence the re-titling of Xan's translation in America
> as "Planet of the Apes". I also think, still, that "The Planet of the
> Simians" is perhaps the best possible translation of Boulle's title,
> since there is no ambiguity about what "simians" means (Boulle refers
> to the intelligent apes as "simius sapiens": "wise/thinking ape"),
> and the words "singes" and "Simians" have a "similar" sound (the
> initial "si-").
>
> Patrick
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
>
> > > Will wonders never cease?
> > >
> > > I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a paperback
> edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published by
> Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with his
> helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the cover,
> from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
> says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE APES".
> > >
> > > It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title
> (in Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des
> Singes", would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the Apes"
> or "The Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it should
> be about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the like. An
> APE is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are Chimpanzees,
> Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!
> > >
> > > Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion
> Press, Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition
> that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or
> otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of
> binding or cover other than that in which it is published", and "for
> copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."
> > > Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's
> consent to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market
> paperback?
> > > I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at
> a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken off-shelf,
> their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the garbage.
> > > I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin
> Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated years, but it
> always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
> book, just because it ain't a hardcover.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's
> book "Monkey Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth
> publishers of the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the
> popularity of the American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel
> that "Die Hard" was based on was re-published with the title "Die
> Hard", which makes a hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do was
> put a blurb on the bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING
> LASTS FOREVER" or whatever. I would like to see translations of
> Boulle's books with Boulle's original title somewhere on the front
> cover, even if only on a "crawl" at the bottom.
> > >
> > > Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue evolution
just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah, I saw "Scare
Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being silly. "American History
X" was a good movie. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Secret Governments on the Planet of the
Apes


> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,
> it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
> science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
> and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
> other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
>
> *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
> priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
> warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
> millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
> himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
> of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
> desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
> with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
> speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
> of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
> of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
> believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
> you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
> Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing", saying
> (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end to the
> constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and to give
> the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
> emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
> Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
> were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
> intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
> misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
> Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
> of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
> Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
> theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
> views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
> Ape than to the True Man.
>
> There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
> comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
> manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
> world.
>
> *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
> people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
> as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
> religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
> the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
> to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
> patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
> SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
> children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
> representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
> Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
> THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
> WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
> to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
> of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".
>
> > The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I
> proclaim Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with
> much food for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong
> about rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our
> jails, so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not
> proper.
>
> *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in the
> late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it, and it
> used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a bunch of
> troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience if they
> ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded to me as
> if those convicts were speaking from experience! The film "American
> History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would not want to
> experience first-hand.
>
> Patrick
>
> > Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the
> New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > To: <pota@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:47 AM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Secret Governments on the Planet
> of the
> > Apes
> >
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 10/23/2002 12:01:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> > > >
> > > > > *** Our current President, George W. Bush, is a member of
> > > the "Skull-&-Bones" society, just like his daddy was.
> > > >
> > > > Old news Pat. His Skull & Bones nickname is "Temporary" BTW.
> Sort
> > > of ominous considering the times we live in. And both he and
> Bogey
> > > are related to Princess Di for you trivia buffs. As for
> Elizabeth's
> > > divine right to rule. No way. The Windsor's are a bunch of
> krauts.
> > > And before that they virtually wiped the Stuart's from the face of
> > > the earth. So if a pack of murdering bastards have a divine
> right it
> > > must come from Satan. Anyway, God is so much more subtle than
> > > the 'Man on the Cloud with the white beard' ideal. He's not
> readily
> > > visible but He's there. You have to look at the Big Picture.
> Tough
> > > for a non-theist like yourself Patrick, I know, being so caught
> up in
> > > minutia. It's sort of like one of those eye puzzles. You see Him
> > > someday. Whether in the simplicity of the atom or the clockwork
> > > complexity of the universe. It reminds me of something Dave
> Vainian
> > > of The Damned quoted, "Beauty isn't something you see with your
> > > eyes. It's something you hunger for with your heart."
> > >
> > > *** Looking at the Big Picture... reminds me of what Thomas Paine
> > > said in "The Age of Reason", about his rejection of the "revealed
> > > religions" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) in favor of using
> the
> > > Scientific Method to rationally discover "god" in the "creation"
> (he
> > > waxes eloquent about the Newtonian discoveries regarding the
> > > mathematical precision of the planetary orbits, and so on).
> The "god"
> > > of Deism is NOT the "personal" god of the Bible, who allegedly
> walked
> > > around in the Garden of Eden with Adam, and audibly talked to
> Moses,
> > > and who "debauched a virgin" (Paine's summary of the Incarnation
> of
> > > Christ story); the primary "movers" in the group of Freemasons who
> > > founded America were Deists, who paid--at most--lip-service to
> > > Christianity, espousing the ethical teachings of Jesus, yet
> rejecting
> > > the supernaturalistic nonsense that encumbers it (Jefferson
> compared
> > > the teachings of Jesus versus the non-rational aspects of the New
> > > Testament as being like a Diamond in a dung-heap!).
> > >
> > > It was Paine, in "Common Sense", who ridiculed the idea of
> > > the "divine right of kings" to rule over a free people--or ANY
> > > people. I find it telling that all the evangelical Christians who
> > > claim that America was founded by Christians NEVER quote Thomas
> Paine
> > > (or do so in a VERY selective manner). They choose to ignore
> > > the "Jefferson Bible" which was nothing more than the New
> Testament
> > > with ALL THE SUPERNATURAL STUFF cut out of it, as well as much of
> St.
> > > Paul's works, which Jefferson thought were NOT representative of
> > > Jesus' true teachings.
> > >
> > > Look at all the "good" that has come from people worshipping a so-
> > > called "scripture" (be it the Tanakh, the New Testament, the
> Quran,
> > > the Book of Mormon, or whatever). Even the Irish--who both
> > > (Protestant and Catholic) believe in the SAME scripture--can't
> agree
> > > on WHICH interpretation is correct... which, ultimately, leads to
> the
> > > bloody carnage which STILL is going on over there.
> > > And those assholes who have just gotten caught for that string of
> > > sniper attacks in Maryland! The older one, a creep who had
> converted
> > > to Islam and changed his last name to "Mohammed", felt justified
> in
> > > murdering random people--including an attempt on the life of a
> school-
> > > aged child. I hear that he had written a letter expressing
> sympathies
> > > with the Al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11. It is THIS bullshit view of the
> > > world which becomes possible when ideologues (like
> Muslim "Imams", so-
> > > called Islamic "holy" men) can spout scripture and fire up the
> will
> > > to commit any and all sorts of atrocities... all in the name
> > > of "god", who will REWARD the bastards with 72 virgins in
> Paradise,
> > > and all that stupid fucking nonsense. Well, John Allen Mohammed...
> > > when you're in prison, awaiting your turn at "Ol' Sparky", you'll
> get
> > > to know what it's like to be on the receiving end, when
> your "virgin"
> > > asshole gets acquainted with the hardened convicts who can't WAIT
> to
> > > make you their new "bitch". It would be oh-so-sweet justice if,
> > > before you get executed, YOU get to be the "wife" to 72 man-raping
> > > Lifers in a Federal penitentiary. You and your little bastard
> > > protege, who will curse your name every time he gets raped in the
> > > prison shower. It couldn't happen to a more deserving pair of
> > > worthless, pathetic excuses for human beings.
> > > "Bismillah!" they'll cry out. "In the name of Allah!" And Allah,
> who
> > > DOESN'T EXIST, will remain silent up in "heaven" while you reap
> the
> > > rewards of what passes for "righteousness" in a religion of
> > > fools. "Heaven" is NOT what the scripture-writers said it was.
> There
> > > is no "god" up in "heaven"; the word "shamayim" (in the Hebrew)
> meant
> > > the SKY, where the birds flew, and God's chariot zipped around
> (once
> > > allegedly carrying Ezekiel around, and taking Elijah up into
> heaven).
> > > Beyond the atmosphere is the cold empty nothingness of outer
> space;
> > > aside from dead moons and uninhabitable planets in this solar
> system,
> > > there are no known places where any intelligent beings exist,
> unless
> > > they are Extraterrestrials living on inhabitable planets orbiting
> > > other stars.
> > > Maybe "god" or "the Gods" of antiquity really DID exist, but were
> > > actually ETs, as William Bramley hypothesized in his book "The
> Gods
> > > of Eden". Bramley's theory is that the "gods" are aliens who have
> > > sown dissention amongst the peoples of Earth for millennia,
> fooling
> > > the gullible, superstitious masses into believing that they owed
> > > allegiance to the "sky-gods" who exploit them. Bramley thinks
> these
> > > ET "Custodial" so-called "gods" have a modus operandi: they take
> BOTH
> > > sides in a human conflict, and give each side the
> > > ability/justification/impetus to wage war on the other. The first
> > > time I read Bramley's book, I remembered that bit in BENEATH, when
> > > the "Negro" mutant tells Taylor & Brent: "We are a peaceful
> people;
> > > we don't kill our enemies--we get our enemies to kill each other."
> > > This method is the same one used by Jehovah in the Old Testament,
> as
> > > when he "hardened the heart of the Pharaoh" and caused him to
> oppose
> > > Moses, rather than give in and free the Israelites--keeping the
> > > Pharaoh in opposition to Moses kept the conflict going, and led to
> > > more loss of life, according to the story. Also, in the book of
> > > Joshua, it is said that "... it was the Lord who hardened their
> > > hearts, that they would go against Israel in battle, that he might
> > > destroy them utterly, and that they might find no favor, but that
> he
> > > might destroy them..." (Joshua 11:20). In other words, when Joshua
> > > ben Nun allegedly led the Israelites into "the Promised Land",
> which
> > > was already inhabited by the Canaanites, Jehovah (the "Lord")
> wanted
> > > the Canaanites to fight against the Israelites, so that He could
> > > slaughter them all... and IF they were willing to accept the
> > > Israelites into their land and live peacefully, side-by-side,
> > > then "the Lord" FORCED THEM into a mind-set of
> opposition, "hardening
> > > their hearts". Why? "... that he might DESTROY them"!
> > > The "God" of the Bible, if there ever was a "historical Jehovah",
> was
> > > NOT a virtuous Creator of the universe deserving of human worship
> and
> > > obedience--"He" was a monster. Thomas Paine recognized that,
> saying
> > > as much in "The Age of Reason". It wasn't easy for me--having
> > > been "raised Catholic"--to reject my parents' religion as so much
> > > bullshit... but sometimes you have to step outside of the view
> that
> > > was forced on you by your formative influences and see the
> Universe
> > > with NEW eyes, guided by Rationality and the Scientific Method.
> > > The "revealed religions" of the world are laughably, tragically
> > > deficient as far as Moral Codes go. Paine was a "pain" in his
> day...
> > > but he made sense. He saw the Bible (etc.) for what it really was,
> > > when you "boiled it all down", and he rejected it. At least as a
> > > guide for moral conduct. As soon as the world of Islam has
> somebody
> > > with the guts to step up the the mike and declare Mohammed's
> > > scripture as a forgery and a divisive, hateful diatribe (which is
> > > what the "holy" Quran really is), then MAYBE the tinder-box of the
> > > Middle East can begin making baby-steps towards a rational
> worldview.
> > > Yeah, I know it'll never happen--at least not in my lifetime. Like
> > > MLK, I have a dream...
> > >
> > > Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:08 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Check out OFFICIAL ROD SERLING USPS STAMP PETITION - Signatures

Click here: OFFICIAL ROD SERLING USPS STAMP PETITION - Signatures

Sign it!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:08 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Check out OFFICIAL ROD SERLING USPS STAMP PETITION - Signatures

Click here: OFFICIAL ROD SERLING USPS STAMP PETITION - Signatures

Sign it!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

The French "La Planète des singes" could just as readily have been
translated 4 ways into English: "Monkey Planet", "Ape
Planet", "POTA" or "Planet of the Monkeys". French does not divide
the primates the way that modern English does (although you can talk
about "les grands singes" (the great apes) to differentiate the
larger ones from "monkeys".

I wonder how long English has been so clear on the monkey/ape
distinction. In Brigid Brophy's "Hackenfeller's Ape" (1950s?), a
character in the novel is 'corrected' for describing the gorilla-
type species as an 'ape' instead of the 'proper' term 'monkey'. Just
the opposite of what is said now. Did Brophy get it wrong in her ape
novel, or has English changed in the last 40 years?

Yours,
Menluth

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

> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I hope you intend to return that book to its country of origin
> Patrick! Knowing you, you will just cross out "Australia" and
> print "New America" in its place! Just kidding.
> >
> > It is a curiosity regarding the title. I do not recall the

source,

> but I do recall reading that the difference in title occurred

after a

> request from Fox that the novel not be confused with the movie

(they

> are a VERY different story line). Apparently Fox allowed images

from

> the film and the film name to be referenced (eg the book that
> inspired POTA), so long as the novel was not entitled "Planet of

the

> Apes".
> >
> > I would have liked to see a novel of PLANET using the film's

text,

> but I do not believe such a thing was ever created...again, why?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Hmmm... I'd always thought that the Xan Fielding translation

came

> out both in the British Commonwealth (as "Monkey Planet") and in
> America (as "Planet of the Apes") not too long after the

publication

> of the original French text in 1963. My copy of "Monkey Planet"

says:

>
> La Planete des Singes first published in France 1963
> This translation published in Great Britain by Martin Secker &
> Warburg 1964
> Published in Penguin Books 1966
> Reprinted 1970, 1975
> Copyright [Copyright symbol] Rene Julliard, 1963
> Translation copyright [Copyright symbol] Martin Secker & Warburg

1964

>
> My guess is that "Monkey Planet" was the title for the first
> publication in Britain of the Xan Fielding translation, as the
> hardcover scanned-in by Rory shows... well before Arthur P. Jacobs
> acquired the property and began developing it for a film project.
> I still think "Monkey Planet" is a lousy translation of "La

Planete

> des Singes". Why not "The Planet of the Monkeys", if they're going

to

> use the word "monkeys" instead of "apes"? The "OXFORD American

Desk

> Dictionary and Thesaurus" translates "monkey" as: 1. any of

various

> primates, including marmosets, baboons, apes, etc. 2. mischievous
> person, esp. a child ("young monkey"). So, I guess, according to a
> definition sanctioned by the "Oxford university" dictionary-

makers,

> the word "monkey" is NOT necessarily a wrong translation of the
> French word "singe". In America, the word "monkey" tends to mean

the

> non-ape simians (i.e. baboons, marmosets, howler monkeys,

capuchins,

> etc.), hence the re-titling of Xan's translation in America
> as "Planet of the Apes". I also think, still, that "The Planet of

the

> Simians" is perhaps the best possible translation of Boulle's

title,

> since there is no ambiguity about what "simians" means (Boulle

refers

> to the intelligent apes as "simius sapiens": "wise/thinking ape"),
> and the words "singes" and "Simians" have a "similar" sound (the
> initial "si-").
>
> Patrick
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
>
> > > Will wonders never cease?
> > >
> > > I just found, in one of the comicbook shops in town, a

paperback

> edition of the book "Monkey Planet" by Pierre Boulle. Published by
> Penguin Books in 1975. On the cover is a picture of Urko with his
> helmet on, his eyes in shadows under his brows. Across the cover,
> from left sloping up to the right, is a red stripe in which it
> says "the book that inspired the TV series PLANET OF THE APES".
> > >
> > > It's always bothered me that Boulle's book was given the title
> (in Britain) "Monkey Planet". Boulle's title, "La Planete des
> Singes", would most accurately be translated "The Planet of the

Apes"

> or "The Planet of the Simians". "Monkey Planet" sounds like it

should

> be about a bunch of howler monkeys & capuchin monkeys & the like.

An

> APE is not a MONKEY. The talking creatures on Soror are

Chimpanzees,

> Gorillas, and Orangutans--APES, not monkeys, dammit!
> > >
> > > Anyway, this edition "was printed in Australia at The Dominion
> Press, Blackburn, Victoria" and "is sold subject to the condition
> that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out,

or

> otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form

of

> binding or cover other than that in which it is published",

and "for

> copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A."
> > > Gee, I hope the guys at "Comic Junction" got the publisher's
> consent to re-sell it to me! All that for a softcover mass-market
> paperback?
> > > I've worked at a "B. Dalton Bookseller" and currently work at
> a "Media Play" store, and when paperback books are taken off-

shelf,

> their covers are stripped off and the bulk is thrown in the

garbage.

> > > I can understand doing that to books churned out by Harlequin
> Romances or to Almanacs or "Tax-Guides" from out-dated years, but

it

> always makes me feel guilty to rip the cover off a perfectly good
> book, just because it ain't a hardcover.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I can FINALLY say that I own a copy of Boulle's
> book "Monkey Planet". I'm surprised that the British commonwealth
> publishers of the book didn't re-name it, to capitalize on the
> popularity of the American title, "Planet of the Apes". The novel
> that "Die Hard" was based on was re-published with the title "Die
> Hard", which makes a hell of a lot of sense; all they had to do

was

> put a blurb on the bottom saying "Originally published as NOTHING
> LASTS FOREVER" or whatever. I would like to see translations of
> Boulle's books with Boulle's original title somewhere on the front
> cover, even if only on a "crawl" at the bottom.
> > >
> > > Patrick