.html

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

veetus@... wrote:

   The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the originals

 

++Is there anywhere for us to find these scripts on the net, Jeff?

Kass

---

.html

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

From: veetus@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:35 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

  Not that I know of. He talked about them in "Creative Screenwriting". And Eric Greene did in his book. - - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

veetus@... wrote:

   The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the originals

 

++Is there anywhere for us to find these scripts on the net, Jeff?

Kass

---

---

I don't know ANYBODY who liked Burton's POTA, let alone prefers it to
the 1968 original. It kinda sorta bothers me that this movie is
allowed to exist with the name "PLANET OF THE APES" on it, rather
than something else (like "The Visitor", which it almost was named, I
think--I was recently surfing through the archives here and that
title was mentioned...

The movie promised so much, yet didn't deliver. One example: the
protagonist, Leo Davidson.

His name is very suggestive of a "messiah"-figure. 'Leo', as in "the
Lion of the tribe of Judah", and 'Davidson' = "Son-of-David", another
epithet of Christ.

When he goes after Pericles in his minipod, he winds up going zing
through wormholes--zipping through Time--and lands on a planet where
intelligent, talking humans are somehow considered animals to the
talking apes (who screech animalistically WAY too much, in my
opinion). Does Leo's appearance on the planet follow any sort of
pattern, reminiscent of a "returned Messiah"? Not really... and it
SHOULD, given the inherent symbolism in his name.

The "returned Messiah" motif is again brought to bear when Pericles'
pod descends during the hub-bub of the big-ass battle sequence...
when Attar & pals bow down before the Coming of "Semos" (the "Moses"
anagram).

On the one hand, this scene is one I appreciate in that it causes
Attar to be disillusioned about Religion: his "god" turns out to be
an inconsequential primitive test-chimp, hardly worthy of his (or any
other ape's) worship--one wonders if Jesus' "2nd Coming" might
similarly disillusion expectant Christians, if "He" DOES return...
and doesn't live up to the apocalyptic expectations of Evangelical
types.

But Leo's presence there is just... just a big blank. He doesn't seem
to give a rat's ass about anybody else on the planet--he just wants
to get his ass off it and back home. When I compare/contrast him to
the nobler astronauts of the "POTA" TV series (Virdon & Burke), I
find Leo Davidson lacking; Virdon & Burke were the types who would go
out of their way to help out the downtrodden folks they met on their
fugitive journeys--even returning to a plague-infested village to see
if there was any way they might use their 20th Century know-how to
save the lives of the backward, ignorant humans (and apes!) who live
there. But Leo... the only reason he participates in the battle
against Thade's army is because Thade took the army to him to do
battle--and the wretched humans had flocked to him, hoping that he
would lead them to a victory. You can bet that if Pericles had landed
PRIOR to the day of battle, and if Leo had gotten to Pericles' pod,
then he'd have taken the pod--with or without Pericles in his lap--
and high-tailed it off that rock, leaving the humans hanging, at the
mercy of Thade's forces.

And, does anybody REALLY think that Leo has any interesting
personality traits, like Taylor in the 1968 version? Taylor wasn't
a "hero" in the classical mode (his name has no symbolic meaning,
unless his use of "that old blanket as clothing" is being punned
on: "Taylor"/"tailor"!), but his misanthropic search for "something
better than Man" out in Outer Space--only to find a satirical human-
"aping" society of Apes--made for some ripe drama. There's
NOTHING "deep" about Leo: he's just some pod-pilot for the USAF, with
a knack for disobeying orders--which gets him in trouble, of
course... as well as everybody else. Leo ain't no "seeker": he's not
even "a negative". He's just THERE, going through the motions.

And Ari--as an "animal rights activist"--is nowhere near as
interesting as Zira, whose scientific studies of Man dovetail
perfectly with the very theme of the movie: the Nature of Man
(inherently "Evil", giving battle to everything around him... even
himself? or doomed by circumstances beyond his control--an nuclear
arms race among tribal superpowers?). The prejudices of Zira's
society against Man were understandable: Man had degenerated into an
animalistic state--their speech organs were capable of utterance, but
there had since developed a flaw in the brain, rendering Man mute.
But the prejudices in Ari's society are nonsensical, since THEIR
humans CAN speak. Ari's planet isn't the result of a global
thermonuclear war, so the hatred Thade's kind feels for humans
doesn't have as effective a source as does Zaius' hatred for Man. At
the end of POTA (1968), even Taylor has come to share in Zaius'
hatred of the human race--he calls upon God to "damn... to hell" all
those who somehow are at fault, who "blew it up" with nukes.

What--if anything--is going through Leo's mind when he sees HIS
statue (Thade as 'Ape Lincoln')? Anything profound? Anything that
hits any sort of nerve in the audience? The anti-nuke/war/racism
message of the 1968 film's ending was justifiably effective... but
the ending of the 2001 version merely caused audiences to scratch
their heads and utter, "Huh? What the f***...?"

I, for one, do NOT want Fox to make any sequels (or prequels) to
Burton's botched "re-imagining". Given how different actual recent
history has been from the "near-future" stories in the original
movie's sequels (i.e. no Ape Uprising in 1991, etc.), I don't think
it's likely that any sequel to the 5-film series can be made (unless
audiences are willing to entertain an "alternate universe" story--a
genre that prose fiction has delved into, including Newt Gingrich in
a recently written book about Lee winning the battle of Gettysburg;
but I doubt if that audience exists).

I can see, however, a French film being made which more faithfully
translates the original novel to the screen. After all, the novel was
written in French by a Frenchman, Pierre Boulle, with a French
protagonist (and an ending scene at Orly airport in Paris); why
shouldn't the French make a version of Boulle's book that "de-
Americanizes" the POTA mythos? The 1968 film is HUGELY about America,
in particular--what with the oversized American flag patches on the
ANSA uniforms, the flag Landon plants by the liferaft, the iconic
image of the Statue of Liberty, etc.--but any new POTA film is not
obligated to ALSO be 'America-centric'. How expensive would it be for
an all-French version, given the current make-up know-how, CGI
capabilities, etc.?

I'm not a connoisseur of French film, by any means, but I did prefer
(for the MOST part) the Depardieu version of "CYRANO DE BERGERAC",
which retains the poetry of Rostand's original play--and its sets &
costumes (etc) were GORGEOUS. I'd like to see a similar
professionalism brought to an all-French POTA movie, adapting
Boulle's novel faithfully; they wouldn't have to "dumb it down" for
modern American movie-goers' sensibilities (i.e. Action-for-the-sake-
of-Action). Come to think of it, I'd also like to see French film
adaptations of other Boulle novels. I wonder if the "rights" are too
expensive?

Patrick

P.S. Rory was right... this site was just goin' through a "long
sleep" prior to awakening outta hibernation. Hell, I think I've
even "gone grey", like Landon! Well... not quite.
Welcome, Rod (and whomever else might be new--or returned--to this
site). If you plow through the 26,000+ postings in the archives,
you'll find a whole heap of stuff of mine--much of which involves
MATH, which some monkeys around here don't particularly like... but
YOU might, since you teach it.

P.P.S. Here's a little Monkey-face icon...

{:-(|)

Now... WRITE LIKE APES!

.htmlIn a message dated 6/9/03 10:33:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

I did prefer (for the MOST part) the Depardieu version of "CYRANO DE BERGERAC", which retains the poetry of Rostand's original play--and its sets &
costumes (etc) were GORGEOUS.

Boy, Oh boy, Patrick!   Now you've spilled the beans!

-- Rory<.html

.html

  Chuck probably didn't see it. Oh wait, he was at the premiere. Linda Harrison was at Chuck's for 4rth of July last year and they discussed why people didn't like it and Chuck said they wanted the original situations and characters[Michael Whitty]   AND MAKEUP  . So he knows people didn't like it. Everyone knows. Therein lies Fox's dilemma. - - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:49 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

In a message dated 6/8/2003 8:22:51 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  Except for some people on the group I don't know anyone who liked it. And that includes Natalie Trundy

Kim said she didn't care for it either.
I wonder what Chuckles though of it.
And indeed his own performance.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
CyberOne E-Mail Spam and Virus Protection Service and is believed
to be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no responsibility for content
of messages in transit through our service.
--
Unsolicited commercial bulk messages (SPAM) have been marked with
a {Spam?} tag in a subject line enabling you to filter them out
by font>

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: veetus@... [veetus@...]
Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 11:05 PM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Gore-y details

   I did a search for the Rifkin script on the net and found Chris Gore's review for POTA2001 at filmthreat.com. He didn't like it either: "it feels less like a movie and more like an accurate retelling of the adventures of a bunch of kids playing POTA in their backyard".  "The only thing that anyone here is 're-imagining' are profits". "It's pure agony". - - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: veetus@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:35 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

  Not that I know of. He talked about them in "Creative Screenwriting". And Eric Greene did in his book. - - - Jeff

 

 

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

veetus@... wrote:

   The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the originals

 

++Is there anywhere for us to find these scripts on the net, Jeff?

Kass

---

font>

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2003 12:32 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA2K sequels... Please, No!

I don't know ANYBODY who liked Burton's POTA, let alone prefers it to
the 1968 original. It kinda sorta bothers me that this movie is
allowed to exist with the name "PLANET OF THE APES" on it, rather
than something else (like "The Visitor", which it almost was named, I
think--I was recently surfing through the archives here and that
title was mentioned...

The movie promised so much, yet didn't deliver. One example: the
protagonist, Leo Davidson.

His name is very suggestive of a "messiah"-figure. 'Leo', as in "the
Lion of the tribe of Judah", and 'Davidson' = "Son-of-David", another
epithet of Christ.

When he goes after Pericles in his minipod, he winds up going zing
through wormholes--zipping through Time--and lands on a planet where
intelligent, talking humans are somehow considered animals to the
talking apes (who screech animalistically WAY too much, in my
opinion). Does Leo's appearance on the planet follow any sort of
pattern, reminiscent of a "returned Messiah"? Not really... and it
SHOULD, given the inherent symbolism in his name.

The "returned Messiah" motif is again brought to bear when Pericles'
pod descends during the hub-bub of the big-ass battle sequence...
when Attar & pals bow down before the Coming of "Semos" (the "Moses"
anagram).

On the one hand, this scene is one I appreciate in that it causes
Attar to be disillusioned about Religion: his "god" turns out to be
an inconsequential primitive test-chimp, hardly worthy of his (or any
other ape's) worship--one wonders if Jesus' "2nd Coming" might
similarly disillusion expectant Christians, if "He" DOES return...
and doesn't live up to the apocalyptic expectations of Evangelical
types.

But Leo's presence there is just... just a big blank. He doesn't seem
to give a rat's ass about anybody else on the planet--he just wants
to get his ass off it and back home. When I compare/contrast him to
the nobler astronauts of the "POTA" TV series (Virdon & Burke), I
find Leo Davidson lacking; Virdon & Burke were the types who would go
out of their way to help out the downtrodden folks they met on their
fugitive journeys--even returning to a plague-infested village to see
if there was any way they might use their 20th Century know-how to
save the lives of the backward, ignorant humans (and apes!) who live
there. But Leo... the only reason he participates in the battle
against Thade's army is because Thade took the army to him to do
battle--and the wretched humans had flocked to him, hoping that he
would lead them to a victory. You can bet that if Pericles had landed
PRIOR to the day of battle, and if Leo had gotten to Pericles' pod,
then he'd have taken the pod--with or without Pericles in his lap--
and high-tailed it off that rock, leaving the humans hanging, at the
mercy of Thade's forces.

And, does anybody REALLY think that Leo has any interesting
personality traits, like Taylor in the 1968 version? Taylor wasn't
a "hero" in the classical mode (his name has no symbolic meaning,
unless his use of "that old blanket as clothing" is being punned
on: "Taylor"/"tailor"!), but his misanthropic search for "something
better than Man" out in Outer Space--only to find a satirical human-
"aping" society of Apes--made for some ripe drama. There's
NOTHING "deep" about Leo: he's just some pod-pilot for the USAF, with
a knack for disobeying orders--which gets him in trouble, of
course... as well as everybody else. Leo ain't no "seeker": he's not
even "a negative". He's just THERE, going through the motions.

And Ari--as an "animal rights activist"--is nowhere near as
interesting as Zira, whose scientific studies of Man dovetail
perfectly with the very theme of the movie: the Nature of Man
(inherently "Evil", giving battle to everything around him... even
himself? or doomed by circumstances beyond his control--an nuclear
arms race among tribal superpowers?). The prejudices of Zira's
society against Man were understandable: Man had degenerated into an
animalistic state--their speech organs were capable of utterance, but
there had since developed a flaw in the brain, rendering Man mute.
But the prejudices in Ari's society are nonsensical, since THEIR
humans CAN speak. Ari's planet isn't the result of a global
thermonuclear war, so the hatred Thade's kind feels for humans
doesn't have as effective a source as does Zaius' hatred for Man. At
the end of POTA (1968), even Taylor has come to share in Zaius'
hatred of the human race--he calls upon God to "damn... to hell" all
those who somehow are at fault, who "blew it up" with nukes.

What--if anything--is going through Leo's mind when he sees HIS
statue (Thade as 'Ape Lincoln')? Anything profound? Anything that
hits any sort of nerve in the audience? The anti-nuke/war/racism
message of the 1968 film's ending was justifiably effective... but
the ending of the 2001 version merely caused audiences to scratch
their heads and utter, "Huh? What the f***...?"

I, for one, do NOT want Fox to make any sequels (or prequels) to
Burton's botched "re-imagining". Given how different actual recent
history has been from the "near-future" stories in the original
movie's sequels (i.e. no Ape Uprising in 1991, etc.), I don't think
it's likely that any sequel to the 5-film series can be made (unless
audiences are willing to entertain an "alternate universe" story--a
genre that prose fiction has delved into, including Newt Gingrich in
a recently written book about Lee winning the battle of Gettysburg;
but I doubt if that audience exists).

I can see, however, a French film being made which more faithfully
translates the original novel to the screen. After all, the novel was
written in French by a Frenchman, Pierre Boulle, with a French
protagonist (and an ending scene at Orly airport in Paris); why
shouldn't the French make a version of Boulle's book that "de-
Americanizes" the POTA mythos? The 1968 film is HUGELY about America,
in particular--what with the oversized American flag patches on the
ANSA uniforms, the flag Landon plants by the liferaft, the iconic
image of the Statue of Liberty, etc.--but any new POTA film is not
obligated to ALSO be 'America-centric'. How expensive would it be for
an all-French version, given the current make-up know-how, CGI
capabilities, etc.?

I'm not a connoisseur of French film, by any means, but I did prefer
(for the MOST part) the Depardieu version of "CYRANO DE BERGERAC",
which retains the poetry of Rostand's original play--and its sets &
costumes (etc) were GORGEOUS. I'd like to see a similar
professionalism brought to an all-French POTA movie, adapting
Boulle's novel faithfully; they wouldn't have to "dumb it down" for
modern American movie-goers' sensibilities (i.e. Action-for-the-sake-
of-Action). Come to think of it, I'd also like to see French film
adaptations of other Boulle novels. I wonder if the "rights" are too
expensive?

Patrick

P.S. Rory was right... this site was just goin' through a "long
sleep" prior to awakening outta hibernation. Hell, I think I've
even "gone grey", like Landon! Well... not quite.
Welcome, Rod (and whomever else might be new--or returned--to this
site). If you plow through the 26,000+ postings in the archives,
you'll find a whole heap of stuff of mine--much of which involves
MATH, which some monkeys around here don't particularly like... but
YOU might, since you teach it.

P.P.S. Here's a little Monkey-face icon...

{:-(|)

Now... WRITE LIKE APES!




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
CyberOne E-Mail Spam and Virus Protection Service and is believed
to be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no responsibility for content
of messages in transit through our service.
--
Unsolicited commercial bulk messages (SPAM) have been marked with
a {Spam?} tag in a subject line enabling you to filter them out
by font>

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2003 4:49 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] POTA2K sequels... Please, No!

In a message dated 6/9/03 10:33:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

I did prefer (for the MOST part) the Depardieu version of "CYRANO DE BERGERAC", which retains the poetry of Rostand's original play--and its sets &
costumes (etc) were GORGEOUS.

Boy, Oh boy, Patrick!   Now you've spilled the beans!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
CyberOne E-Mail Spam and Virus Protection Service and is believed
to be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no responsibility for content
of messages in transit through our service.
--
Unsolicited commercial bulk messages (SPAM) have been marked with
a {Spam?} tag in a subject line enabling you to filter them out
by font>

<.html

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:32:05 EDT, you wrote:

>In a message dated 6/8/03 8:58:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>wasitchu@... writes:
>
>
>> By the way, I am
>> professional educator. I teach 7th grade math. I know, you would think
>> my spelling would be better and perhaps my grammer, but hey don't need
>> that to teach math, at least according to NYC. LOL.
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>
>
>NYC? Yeah, figures.
>
>-- Rory

Yeppers, we be the big apple. :-)

Thats ok, I think this has been a very educational experience. :-)

Rod

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 04:41:38 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>
>
>Always remember . . . It's, "I COULDN'T care less.
>If the COULD care less, then logically she cares,
>at least a little bit. If she Could Not care less,
>THEN she Does Not care.
>
>WHO CARES???? It's an e-mail, not a letter to God.
>Kass
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------

Hehehehe, I think that everyone has something to learn from everyone
else. I have learned. :-)

Red

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:12:12 +1000, you wrote:

>Rod,
>
>Teach him some simultaneous equations and tell him to shut up!
>
>Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LordTZer0@... [LordTZer0@...]
> Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 6:47 PM
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> In a message dated 6/8/2003 7:58:27 PM Central Standard Time,
>wasitchu@... writes:
>
>
> My wife is the only one who could care less.
>
>
> This is a Pet Peeve of mine.
> Always remember . . . It's, "I COULDN'T care less.
> If the COULD care less, then logically she cares,
> at least a little bit. If she Could Not care less,
> THEN she Does Not care.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> --

Burton my have a very odd side to him, but you have to admit, it goes
with the territory.

Red

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:32:39 -0700, you wrote:

> I pretty much agree with what you said. Marry me.
> I think it's funny that Burton got Bonham Carter dressed up as an ape and then fell in love with her. And also his previous girlfriend. There's something going on there.
> I don't have a problem with the "Oz" motif either. I'm very open minded about interpretations; I don't understand those who want it to be just like the original, or even the same makeup. But it's not an excuse for a bad script. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kassidy Rae
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
>
>
> There was a pota fan fic group, about 50-60 members who all loved the new movie and didn't talk much about the old one at all. POTA 2001 was released on my birthday and I thought it was a lot of fun but definitely not in the same class as the originals. As I've said before, I'm not a Tim Burton fan and was dismayed when I heard he would be handling it, esp. after anticipating that James Cameron would be at the helm.
>
> When I watched the dvd, I was less impressed. And now? My opinion of it has went up some. I read over the script and thought, really the story wasn't bad. Although I did not like the ending, thought Burton's purposeful make-up gaffes just BAD.
>
> The main fault to me is that although Tim Burton had fun dressing up his apes, making them nimble, giving them that Oz-like appearance (which actually I thought was striking), having them growl, etc, he upped the cheese-factor and lost out on the heart of apes. He never made us care for ANY of the characters, ape or human. There was no Zira here, no Cornelius, no Taylor. Nobody you gave a shit for. Did you care about the ape society? Relate to it at all? Bet you did in the original.
>
> But the reason my opinion has went up some is that it's really easy to dump all over the movies made with megabucks, big special effects, etc., and miss out on what IS there to appreciate. I've said it before, over and over, the music is awesome. The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through the trees (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn stalks?) is exciting. The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of course, the FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on Burton's sexual psyche). I liked the pods, I thought some of the effects were very good. Maybe Burton tried to divert some of the criticism he was bound to receive for re-doing what couldn't be done better by calling it a re-imaging but it failed. However, if you do look at this as just another take on apes I say it was a interesting take on apes.
>
> Why is it this movie always prompts me to make these long involved comments? I think because most of you can't stand it?
>
> Kassidy
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, it was better then that, not much, but a little better.

Rod

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 06:05:02 -0700, you wrote:

> I did a search for the Rifkin script on the net and found Chris Gore's review for POTA2001 at filmthreat.com. He didn't like it either: "it feels less like a movie and more like an accurate retelling of the adventures of a bunch of kids playing POTA in their backyard". "The only thing that anyone here is 're-imagining' are profits". "It's pure agony". - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: veetus@...
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> Not that I know of. He talked about them in "Creative Screenwriting". And Eric Greene did in his book. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kassidy Rae
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
>
>
> veetus@... wrote:
> The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the originals
>
> ++Is there anywhere for us to find these scripts on the net, Jeff?
> Kass
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Woa, I have to admit that was a very insightful POV on POTA 2001. I
cannot disagree with it at all. With the exception of the fact that
many are still out there waiting for that ending to be resolved in
POTA 2001.

Rod.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:31:32 -0000, you wrote:

>I don't know ANYBODY who liked Burton's POTA, let alone prefers it to
>the 1968 original. It kinda sorta bothers me that this movie is
>allowed to exist with the name "PLANET OF THE APES" on it, rather
>than something else (like "The Visitor", which it almost was named, I
>think--I was recently surfing through the archives here and that
>title was mentioned...
>
>The movie promised so much, yet didn't deliver. One example: the
>protagonist, Leo Davidson.
>
>His name is very suggestive of a "messiah"-figure. 'Leo', as in "the
>Lion of the tribe of Judah", and 'Davidson' = "Son-of-David", another
>epithet of Christ.
>
>When he goes after Pericles in his minipod, he winds up going zing
>through wormholes--zipping through Time--and lands on a planet where
>intelligent, talking humans are somehow considered animals to the
>talking apes (who screech animalistically WAY too much, in my
>opinion). Does Leo's appearance on the planet follow any sort of
>pattern, reminiscent of a "returned Messiah"? Not really... and it
>SHOULD, given the inherent symbolism in his name.
>
>The "returned Messiah" motif is again brought to bear when Pericles'
>pod descends during the hub-bub of the big-ass battle sequence...
>when Attar & pals bow down before the Coming of "Semos" (the "Moses"
>anagram).
>
>On the one hand, this scene is one I appreciate in that it causes
>Attar to be disillusioned about Religion: his "god" turns out to be
>an inconsequential primitive test-chimp, hardly worthy of his (or any
>other ape's) worship--one wonders if Jesus' "2nd Coming" might
>similarly disillusion expectant Christians, if "He" DOES return...
>and doesn't live up to the apocalyptic expectations of Evangelical
>types.
>
>But Leo's presence there is just... just a big blank. He doesn't seem
>to give a rat's ass about anybody else on the planet--he just wants
>to get his ass off it and back home. When I compare/contrast him to
>the nobler astronauts of the "POTA" TV series (Virdon & Burke), I
>find Leo Davidson lacking; Virdon & Burke were the types who would go
>out of their way to help out the downtrodden folks they met on their
>fugitive journeys--even returning to a plague-infested village to see
>if there was any way they might use their 20th Century know-how to
>save the lives of the backward, ignorant humans (and apes!) who live
>there. But Leo... the only reason he participates in the battle
>against Thade's army is because Thade took the army to him to do
>battle--and the wretched humans had flocked to him, hoping that he
>would lead them to a victory. You can bet that if Pericles had landed
>PRIOR to the day of battle, and if Leo had gotten to Pericles' pod,
>then he'd have taken the pod--with or without Pericles in his lap--
>and high-tailed it off that rock, leaving the humans hanging, at the
>mercy of Thade's forces.
>
>And, does anybody REALLY think that Leo has any interesting
>personality traits, like Taylor in the 1968 version? Taylor wasn't
>a "hero" in the classical mode (his name has no symbolic meaning,
>unless his use of "that old blanket as clothing" is being punned
>on: "Taylor"/"tailor"!), but his misanthropic search for "something
>better than Man" out in Outer Space--only to find a satirical human-
>"aping" society of Apes--made for some ripe drama. There's
>NOTHING "deep" about Leo: he's just some pod-pilot for the USAF, with
>a knack for disobeying orders--which gets him in trouble, of
>course... as well as everybody else. Leo ain't no "seeker": he's not
>even "a negative". He's just THERE, going through the motions.
>
>And Ari--as an "animal rights activist"--is nowhere near as
>interesting as Zira, whose scientific studies of Man dovetail
>perfectly with the very theme of the movie: the Nature of Man
>(inherently "Evil", giving battle to everything around him... even
>himself? or doomed by circumstances beyond his control--an nuclear
>arms race among tribal superpowers?). The prejudices of Zira's
>society against Man were understandable: Man had degenerated into an
>animalistic state--their speech organs were capable of utterance, but
>there had since developed a flaw in the brain, rendering Man mute.
>But the prejudices in Ari's society are nonsensical, since THEIR
>humans CAN speak. Ari's planet isn't the result of a global
>thermonuclear war, so the hatred Thade's kind feels for humans
>doesn't have as effective a source as does Zaius' hatred for Man. At
>the end of POTA (1968), even Taylor has come to share in Zaius'
>hatred of the human race--he calls upon God to "damn... to hell" all
>those who somehow are at fault, who "blew it up" with nukes.
>
>What--if anything--is going through Leo's mind when he sees HIS
>statue (Thade as 'Ape Lincoln')? Anything profound? Anything that
>hits any sort of nerve in the audience? The anti-nuke/war/racism
>message of the 1968 film's ending was justifiably effective... but
>the ending of the 2001 version merely caused audiences to scratch
>their heads and utter, "Huh? What the f***...?"
>
>I, for one, do NOT want Fox to make any sequels (or prequels) to
>Burton's botched "re-imagining". Given how different actual recent
>history has been from the "near-future" stories in the original
>movie's sequels (i.e. no Ape Uprising in 1991, etc.), I don't think
>it's likely that any sequel to the 5-film series can be made (unless
>audiences are willing to entertain an "alternate universe" story--a
>genre that prose fiction has delved into, including Newt Gingrich in
>a recently written book about Lee winning the battle of Gettysburg;
>but I doubt if that audience exists).
>
>I can see, however, a French film being made which more faithfully
>translates the original novel to the screen. After all, the novel was
>written in French by a Frenchman, Pierre Boulle, with a French
>protagonist (and an ending scene at Orly airport in Paris); why
>shouldn't the French make a version of Boulle's book that "de-
>Americanizes" the POTA mythos? The 1968 film is HUGELY about America,
>in particular--what with the oversized American flag patches on the
>ANSA uniforms, the flag Landon plants by the liferaft, the iconic
>image of the Statue of Liberty, etc.--but any new POTA film is not
>obligated to ALSO be 'America-centric'. How expensive would it be for
>an all-French version, given the current make-up know-how, CGI
>capabilities, etc.?
>
>I'm not a connoisseur of French film, by any means, but I did prefer
>(for the MOST part) the Depardieu version of "CYRANO DE BERGERAC",
>which retains the poetry of Rostand's original play--and its sets &
>costumes (etc) were GORGEOUS. I'd like to see a similar
>professionalism brought to an all-French POTA movie, adapting
>Boulle's novel faithfully; they wouldn't have to "dumb it down" for
>modern American movie-goers' sensibilities (i.e. Action-for-the-sake-
>of-Action). Come to think of it, I'd also like to see French film
>adaptations of other Boulle novels. I wonder if the "rights" are too
>expensive?
>
>Patrick
>
>P.S. Rory was right... this site was just goin' through a "long
>sleep" prior to awakening outta hibernation. Hell, I think I've
>even "gone grey", like Landon! Well... not quite.
>Welcome, Rod (and whomever else might be new--or returned--to this
>site). If you plow through the 26,000+ postings in the archives,
>you'll find a whole heap of stuff of mine--much of which involves
>MATH, which some monkeys around here don't particularly like... but
>YOU might, since you teach it.
>
>P.P.S. Here's a little Monkey-face icon...
>
>{:-(|)
>
>Now... WRITE LIKE APES!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>

Talking about the spaceman line did anyone see Leo carrying Deana?
Both my daughter and I were shocked to see in one of the previews
where Deana had died or was killed.

I agree.

> They might benefit more if they just started from scratch, and did
> another remake of the original staying closer to the Pierre Boule

book

> this time, like they did with Frank Herbert's Dune on the Sci Fi
> channel. I spelled Pierre Boule wrong didn't I.
>
> Rod.
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:03:35 EDT, you wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 6/7/03 7:14:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >veetus@e... writes:
> >
> >
> >> In
> >> short, it doesn't look good, but the upcoming remake of "King

Kong" by the

> >> "Lord of the Rings" director might jumpstart it. - - - Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Fox is waiting for the memory of APES2001 to fade far away. I

would begin to

> >wonder if they'll make another APES in 2006 and after.
> >
> >I think if KING KONG does well some at Fox will start asking "So

what about

> >our ape franchise?"
> >
> >-- Rory

Why not write a book based on the classic? Not to say I can do it
though I am trying. There some writer like Sawyer who want to do it.
Why not. Books are less risky than movies. Shoot maybe a damn good
book can jumpstared the ape franchise.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, <veetus@e...> wrote:
> The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the
originals; actually, a sequel to the original, ignoring "Beneath" and
the others. Peter (Lord of the Rings) Jackson also wanted to do a
continuation back then, and Roddy was in his corner. But from Oliver
Stone on ('93) they started from scratch with new makeup, etc. Just
forget it. They'll never go back to the originals. NEVER! - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Whitty
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 3:34 PM
> Subject: RE: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> But some of the earlier scripts went here didn't they?
>
> I would have thought if the POTA 2001 effort was considered a
failure, they might consider dropping it and going back to classic.
>
> Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veetus@e... [veetus@e...]
> Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 3:58 AM
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> There's no way. People's point of reference now is POTA2001
and if you
> suddenly pick up after "Battle" people will say, "What? Where's
Mark
> Wahlberg?". We are here and it is now. You get hold of that or
you might as
> well be dead. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lazy Red Ace" <wasitchu@e...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> > Now Michael that might work, however, as Jeff has pointed
out, how
> > will the fans feel with no resolution to the cliffhanger of
the 2001
> > movie. Of course, all new characters that pick up where
Battle ended
> > might work. I know I would pay to see it.
> >
> > Rod.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:53:08 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> I'm with those who want to abandon a sequel but a movie
based on
> Boulle's
> > >> Novel...yes please. Or even something taking up after
Battle....get
> back to
> > >> almost the original make-up but use new technologies like
CGI or
> > >> animatronics (as I read somewhere they intended to do for
POTA 2001).
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >
> > >The new makeup was the one thing I did like about POTA2001,
except for
> > >the female chimp freaks. I think a well written story
combined with
> > >the new makeup could revive the franchise.
> > >
> > >I had mixed feelings about the new apes. Although I liked
the new makeup
> > >I hated the Wizard of Oz costumes and I didn't like how they
seemed to
> > >totally abandon the traditional roles of the 3 apes races.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

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

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

.htmlIn a message dated 6/9/2003 6:26:25 AM Central Standard Time, valwp@... writes:

However, if you do look at this as just another take on apes I say it was a interesting take on apes.

I dunno...I think it COULD have been one, if they played it straight.
But Heston and Roth and Giamatti were so over the top, it ruined it.
Not to mention Wahlberg.  He was so underplayed he could have
used a little over-the-top!  I'm still not sure what Duncan was going for.

<.html

---

Probably because they don't want to admit their mistakes. They'd rather
say the POTA2001 stuff didn't sell well because people aren't interested in
POTA then that people didn't want to read more about the story they gave
them. Come to think of it, I don't want to admit my mistakes either! - - -
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "libraryape" <Willowape@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes


> Why not write a book based on the classic? Not to say I can do it
> though I am trying. There some writer like Sawyer who want to do it.
> Why not. Books are less risky than movies. Shoot maybe a damn good
> book can jumpstared the ape franchise.
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the
> originals; actually, a sequel to the original, ignoring "Beneath" and
> the others. Peter (Lord of the Rings) Jackson also wanted to do a
> continuation back then, and Roddy was in his corner. But from Oliver
> Stone on ('93) they started from scratch with new makeup, etc. Just
> forget it. They'll never go back to the originals. NEVER! - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Whitty
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 3:34 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> > But some of the earlier scripts went here didn't they?
> >
> > I would have thought if the POTA 2001 effort was considered a
> failure, they might consider dropping it and going back to classic.
> >
> > Michael
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: veetus@e... [veetus@e...]
> > Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 3:58 AM
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> > There's no way. People's point of reference now is POTA2001
> and if you
> > suddenly pick up after "Battle" people will say, "What? Where's
> Mark
> > Wahlberg?". We are here and it is now. You get hold of that or
> you might as
> > well be dead. - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lazy Red Ace" <wasitchu@e...>
> > To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> > > Now Michael that might work, however, as Jeff has pointed
> out, how
> > > will the fans feel with no resolution to the cliffhanger of
> the 2001
> > > movie. Of course, all new characters that pick up where
> Battle ended
> > > might work. I know I would pay to see it.
> > >
> > > Rod.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:53:08 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm with those who want to abandon a sequel but a movie
> based on
> > Boulle's
> > > >> Novel...yes please. Or even something taking up after
> Battle....get
> > back to
> > > >> almost the original make-up but use new technologies like
> CGI or
> > > >> animatronics (as I read somewhere they intended to do for
> POTA 2001).
> > > >>
> > > >> Michael
> > > >
> > > >The new makeup was the one thing I did like about POTA2001,
> except for
> > > >the female chimp freaks. I think a well written story
> combined with
> > > >the new makeup could revive the franchise.
> > > >
> > > >I had mixed feelings about the new apes. Although I liked
> the new makeup
> > > >I hated the Wizard of Oz costumes and I didn't like how they
> seemed to
> > > >totally abandon the traditional roles of the 3 apes races.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:15 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

I agree, Heston, Roth and Giamatti were over the top.  Walberg needed some life. But I think all of these actors are good.  Their direction was not.

I think Duncan was going for menace, simply put.  On a little more complex level, I think he was going for a fairly simple (at least in emotional terms) and brutal soldier, fiercely loyal both to Thade and to Semos. 

Kass

.

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

---

.html

The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through the trees (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn stalks?) is exciting.  The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of course, the FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on Burton's sexual psyche).

Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just saw a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are applying for a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo.  Apparently it's no problem to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s.  It's called a chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats and sheep.  They were called geeps.  And humans and chimps are more closely related genetically than sheep and goats.  They have no intention of producing this particular chimera, however.  They just want to spark discussion on what is human.  And though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with human genes in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras raised as donors for spare parts.  And anyway, the patent office turned them down, because they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans.  So if half human is enough for an office of the United States government to consider them human, and there truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could marry one -- at least in a civil ceremony.  But what would the kids be like?  Three-quarters-human?  Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the Apes!?!

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: veetus@... [veetus@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:23 PM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

  Probably because they don't want to admit their mistakes. They'd rather
say the POTA2001 stuff didn't sell well because people aren't interested in
POTA then that people didn't want to read more about the story they gave
them. Come to think of it, I don't want to admit my mistakes either! - - -
Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: "libraryape" <Willowape@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes


> Why not write a book based on the classic? Not to say I can do it
> though I am trying. There some writer like Sawyer who want to do it.
> Why not. Books are less risky than movies. Shoot maybe a damn good
> book can jumpstared the ape franchise.
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, <veetus@e...> wrote:
> >    The Adam Rifkin scripts in '89 and '91 were based on the
> originals; actually, a sequel to the original, ignoring "Beneath" and
> the others. Peter (Lord of the Rings) Jackson also wanted to do a
> continuation back then, and Roddy was in his corner. But from Oliver
> Stone on ('93) they started from scratch with new makeup, etc. Just
> forget it. They'll never go back to the originals. NEVER! - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Michael Whitty
> >   To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 3:34 PM
> >   Subject: RE: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> >   But some of the earlier scripts went here didn't they?
> >
> >   I would have thought if the POTA 2001 effort was considered a
> failure, they might consider dropping it and going back to classic.
> >
> >   Michael
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: veetus@e... [veetus@e...]
> >     Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 3:58 AM
> >     To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> >     Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> >       There's no way. People's point of reference now is POTA2001
> and if you
> >     suddenly pick up after "Battle" people will say, "What? Where's
> Mark
> >     Wahlberg?". We are here and it is now. You get hold of that or
> you might as
> >     well be dead. - - - Jeff
> >
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: "Lazy Red Ace" <wasitchu@e...>
> >     To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> >     Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:39 AM
> >     Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
> >
> >
> >     > Now Michael that might work, however, as Jeff has pointed
> out, how
> >     > will the fans feel with no resolution to the cliffhanger of
> the 2001
> >     > movie. Of course, all new characters that pick up where
> Battle ended
> >     > might work. I know I would pay to see it.
> >     >
> >     > Rod.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:53:08 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> >     >
> >     > >>
> >     > >> I'm with those who want to abandon a sequel but a movie
> based on
> >     Boulle's
> >     > >> Novel...yes please.  Or even something taking up after
> Battle....get
> >     back to
> >     > >> almost the original make-up but use new technologies like
> CGI or
> >     > >> animatronics (as I read somewhere they intended to do for
> POTA 2001).
> >     > >>
> >     > >> Michael
> >     > >
> >     > >The new makeup was the one thing I did like about POTA2001,
> except for
> >     > >the female chimp freaks.  I think a well written story
> combined with
> >     > >the new makeup could revive the franchise.
> >     > >
> >     > >I had mixed feelings about the new apes.  Although I liked
> the new makeup
> >     > >I hated the Wizard of Oz costumes and I didn't like how they
> seemed to
> >     > >totally abandon the traditional roles of the 3 apes races.
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >     --
> >     This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
> by
> >     CyberOne E-Mail Spam and Virus Protection Service and is
> believed
> >     to be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no responsibility
> for content
> >     of messages in transit through our service.
> >     --
> >     Unsolicited commercial bulk messages (SPAM) have been marked
> with
> >     a {Spam?} tag in a subject line enabling you to filter them out
> >     by using your mail software's filtering >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
CyberOne E-Mail Spam and Virus Protection Service and is believed
to be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no responsibility for content
of messages in transit through our service.
--
Unsolicited commercial bulk messages (SPAM) have been marked with
a {Spam?} tag in a subject line enabling you to filter them out
by font>

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/10/2003 3:34:29 PM Central Standard Time, Willowape@... writes:

Talking about the spaceman line did anyone see Leo carrying Deana?
Both my daughter and I were shocked to see in one of the previews
where Deana had died or was killed.

No, it's a shame though. 
She could have died along with her performance!

<.html

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through the trees (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn stalks?) is exciting.  The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of course, the FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on Burton's sexual psyche).

Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just saw a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are applying for a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo.  Apparently it's no problem to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s.  It's called a chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats and sheep.  They were called geeps.  And humans and chimps are more closely related genetically than sheep and goats.  They have no intention of producing this particular chimera, however.  They just want to spark discussion on what is human.  And though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with human genes in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras raised as donors for spare parts.  And anyway, the patent office turned them down, because they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans.  So if half human is enough for an office of the United States government to consider them human, and there truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could marry one -- at least in a civil ceremony.  But what would the kids be like?  Three-quarters-human?  Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the Apes!?!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes

The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through the trees (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn stalks?) is exciting.  The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of course, the FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on Burton's sexual psyche).

Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just saw a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are applying for a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo.  Apparently it's no problem to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s.  It's called a chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats and sheep.  They were called geeps.  And humans and chimps are more closely related genetically than sheep and goats.  They have no intention of producing this particular chimera, however.  They just want to spark discussion on what is human.  And though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with human genes in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras raised as donors for spare parts.  And anyway, the patent office turned them down, because they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans.  So if half human is enough for an office of the United States government to consider them human, and there truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could marry one -- at least in a civil ceremony.  But what would the kids be like?  Three-quarters-human?  Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the Apes!?!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

---

.html

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:44 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] To Kass

Jeff, you lovely Goob, send them to me at valwp@....  Hmm, guess I'll have to put a thanks in to you on the home page, huh?

What do you mean, you want money?

Kass

---

.html

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

From: Kassidy Rae

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:44 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] To Kass

Jeff, you lovely Goob, send them to me at valwp@....  Hmm, guess I'll have to put a thanks in to you on the home page, huh?

What do you mean, you want money?

Kass

---

---

.htmlIn a message dated 6/10/2003 11:43:04 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

They cured Parkinson's? Someone tell Michael J. Fox! Interesting post, T. Thanks. - - - Jeff

More or less.  The guy they showed could barley stand.  He couldn't walk.  He couldn't talk. And he was suicidal.  Then they showed the same guy after the treatment.  He walked in to the clinic under his own power.  Answered the doctors questions.  Gave an interview to the doco crew.  He wasn't quite 100%, but close to it, and his improvement more than certainly was.  I could hardly believe that it was the same guy -- and it wasn't because he shaved his mustache.  He's even driving his car again.  This guy was at death's door.  Drugs weren't helping anymore, and a few pig cells with human genes to prevent rejection and his brain started producing dopamine on it's own again. Brilliant!  Obviously this is experimental medicine for only the most extreme cases, but there is hope for Michael J. after all.  Now if they can just make helper monkeys into monkey people!

<.html

Attachments :

---

Yeah. Sorry I missed that Lord Zero. Just recently on the Discovery
channel they had documentary about Oliver. Remember him --- the
humanzee? Most people thought a he was part human because he
walked up right and had other simuliar human attributes. He now lives in
Texas in Sanctuary for retired lab chimpanzees. To see if he really was
a hybrid they took his DNA only to find his chromosome count was 48
of chimpanzee and concluded that he was some kind of mutation.
During the program they brought up some of the very same things your
program did. Scary indeed.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
> > The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through
the trees
> > (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn
stalks?)
> > is exciting. The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of
course, the
> > FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on
Burton's sexual
> > psyche).
>
> Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just
saw
> a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are
applying for
> a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo. Apparently it's no
problem
> to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s. It's called
a
> chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats
and sheep. They
> were called geeps. And humans and chimps are more closely related
genetically
> than sheep and goats. They have no intention of producing this
particular
> chimera, however. They just want to spark discussion on what is
human. And
> though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with
human genes
> in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras
raised as
> donors for spare parts. And anyway, the patent office turned them
down, because
> they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans. So if half human is
enough
> for an office of the United States government to consider them human,
and there
> truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could
marry one
> -- at least in a civil ceremony. But what would the kids be like?
> Three-quarters-human? Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the
Apes!?!

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Kassidy Rae [valwp@...]
Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 4:42 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com; potadg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Gorilla sergeant

Isn't this a tv series figure?

Kass

---

font>

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/11/03 5:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, whitty@... writes:

Yup

Yeah, but I don't think Hasbro knows the difference.  All APES look alike to them.

-- Rory

<.html

---

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

> www.cinescape.com has a review up of the POTA TV show DVDs. - - -

Jeff


*** It's too bad their review is dismissive of it--AND riddled with
enough mistakes to make a POTA junkie (like me & Kass & a lotta
others here) grind his/her teeth.

The reviewer says that the 1st ep ("ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW") references
the 1st movie and then drops it. Wrong. Zaius & Urko's references to
another ship piloted by human "as-tro-nauts" that had landed more
than 10 years earlier is NOT to the Taylor mission. The Taylor
mission landed near New York City circa 3978 (or, 3955, depending on
which chronometer reading you prefer), whereas Virdon's ship (and,
presumably, the one that had landed just over a decade earlier)
landed in what was once (probably northern) California--since Oakland
is just a horse-ride away from Central City, etc--in March of 3085.
Unfortunately, the POTA TV show never had a chance to go beyond 14
episodes, so we never did find out anything more about that
mysterious "other" ship beyond what was shown in the pilot.

The reviewer also thinks it's ridiculous that Virdon & Burke could
have so much expert scientific knowledge (as if ALL their education
was gotten by NASA... and I'm not gonna even get into their non-
NASA "ANSA" uniform patches!)--whereas the whole point of the show
was, among other things, that V&B represent the best of what the
technologically proficient 20th Century had to offer: Science as a
tool for bettering the human condition. Their struggle,
predominantly, is against a worldview (voiced primarily by Zaius)
that condemns ALL higher technology as Evil... because the
human "prehistorical" society from which Virdon's mission came
DESTROYED ITSELF via nuclear weaponry. By adopting a neo-Luddite anti-
technological P.O.V., Zaius (and those "few" he references) has
thrown the baby out with the bathwater, eschewing ALL science because
of the misuse of SOME of it. Oh, Zaius may be in favor of the
occasional medical advance, as long as it is APE-invented, and NOT
the product of Man's "evil" mind. Thus, Virdon & Burke won't get the
credit for curing malaria in Trion. But beyond THAT, this
truly "backward" society is stuck-in-a-rut that it MUST get out of,
for the sake of both Ape and Man... and these Astronauts, having come
out of "heaven" like Gods, are the answer to the problem. Sadly, just
like Jesus was said to be, these pro-Technology "prophets" are
targeted by the forces in charge, with Zaius & Urko representing (in
a way) the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate in their opposition to the
blasphemous pro-Human Galen and his fugitive pals.

The reviewer gives a couple backhanded compliments to the show, but
writes it off as boring, citing episodes dealing with the simian
equivalent of the KKK (etc) as "Yawn". Unfortunately, that particular
episode happens to be probably the best of 'em: "THE DECEPTION". And
it is NOT a "yawn"--it's an exemplar of the TYPE of show that POTA
was attempting to be: an allegorical depiction of Racial Intolerance.
But its greatest virtue--in my opinion--is that the show did its
teaching/preaching against such intolerance in a way that showcased
the SOLUTION to that age-old problem: the peaceable application of
scientific advancement--LEARNING FROM THE ULTIMATE LESSON of the
MISAPPLICATION of science, the NUCLEAR devastation from Man's
unfortunate past.

Was the show "formulaic"? To a degree, yes. So what? So was the
original "STAR TREK". So was virtually EVERY show back then, with the
exception of anthology shows like "TWILIGHT ZONE" and "OUTER LIMITS".
Was the show a "man-on-the-run" type of show (a la "THE FUGITIVE"
and "THE INCREDIBLE HULK")? Well, the premise sort of dictated that--
and this DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER! In order for the trio of
protagonists to have their adventures, it made sense for them to
be "on-the-run", so that the PLANET they're on can more fully be
explored. After all, it IS a "planet" of apes. What did this reviewer
expect it to be about? Would he have preferred it if V&B were kept in
a cage throughout all 14 episodes? Wouldn't THAT have gotten boring?
To "fault" POTA TV for being a "FUGITIVE"-like show is like
faulting "GUNSMOKE" for centering around that one town--when ITS
premise dictated that set-up!

I'll be the first to admit that POTA TV--like all SF adventure shows--
has its share of flaws. It had to conform to the mid-1970s "standards
and practices", so that it couldn't be quite as hard-hitting as the
movie series had been. Just as the "LOGAN'S RUN" TV series couldn't
show Heather Menzies with full-frontal nudity, as the movie version
did with Jenny Agutter when SHE portrayed Jessica, so too the POTA TV
show had to "tone it down" a bit. But to use such comparisons of Film-
to-TV transformations as a club with which to beat the TV version
over the head, that's just a stupid criticism. Given the constraints
that TV producers had no choice but to work with, they did a pretty
good job of it. Not perfect, by any means. But it WAS an entertaining
and thought-provoking show with an important MESSAGE that is as
relevant today as it was lo, those 29 years ago.

It's too bad that they didn't have the chance to hit their stride. It
could've become even better... and better... and better. If somebody
like Harlan Ellison could've been given the opportunity to pen an
episode or two, just imagine how much more credibility the entire
series would have gotten by the Critics!

Patrick

---

I've got some more of these for sale, hope no-one objects to me
plugging them.....but I really need the money!!!!!!!!

Thanks

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&item=2179459044&category=3981&rd=1

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:26:43 EDT, you wrote:

>
>Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just saw
>a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are applying for
>a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo. Apparently it's no problem
>to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s. It's called a
>chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats and sheep. They
>were called geeps. And humans and chimps are more closely related genetically
>than sheep and goats. They have no intention of producing this particular
>chimera, however. They just want to spark discussion on what is human. And
>though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with human genes
>in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras raised as
>donors for spare parts. And anyway, the patent office turned them down, because
>they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans. So if half human is enough
>for an office of the United States government to consider them human, and there
>truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could marry one
>-- at least in a civil ceremony. But what would the kids be like?
>Three-quarters-human? Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the Apes!?!

A half human/ape can marry a human, buy to gays can't get married.
What a world we live in.

Red.

Mistake, who, me never. Must be that other guy. what looks like me.

Red.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:52:34 +1000, you wrote:

>You should be more like me......never make a mistake. Life is much more
>pleasant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veetus@... [veetus@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:23 PM
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] New apes vs. old apes
>
>
> Probably because they don't want to admit their mistakes. They'd rather
> say the POTA2001 stuff didn't sell well because people aren't interested
>in
> POTA then that people didn't want to read more about the story they gave
> them. Come to think of it, I don't want to admit my mistakes either! - - -
> Jeff
>
>

Attachments :

---

---

Today is the 30th anniversary of "Battle". Let's have those "Battle"
memories! - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "libraryape" <Willowape@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:44 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: New apes vs. old apes


> Yeah. Sorry I missed that Lord Zero. Just recently on the Discovery
> channel they had documentary about Oliver. Remember him --- the
> humanzee? Most people thought a he was part human because he
> walked up right and had other simuliar human attributes. He now lives in
> Texas in Sanctuary for retired lab chimpanzees. To see if he really was
> a hybrid they took his DNA only to find his chromosome count was 48
> of chimpanzee and concluded that he was some kind of mutation.
> During the program they brought up some of the very same things your
> program did. Scary indeed.
>
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> >
> > > The hunt scene at the beginning where the apes are flying through
> the trees
> > > (is this a homage to the original 'flight' scene through the corn
> stalks?)
> > > is exciting. The make-up was very interesting (except for yes of
> course, the
> > > FEMALE FREAKS, ugh, which reflects all too uncomfortably on
> Burton's sexual
> > > psyche).
> >
> > Not to stir up the whole inter species controversy yet again, but I just
> saw
> > a PBS show called Bloodlines, where developmental biologists are
> applying for
> > a patent on a half-human/half-chimpanzee embryo. Apparently it's no
> problem
> > to make a composite animal. It's been done since the 80s. It's called
> a
> > chimera (pronounced, kaimera) and was originally done with goats
> and sheep. They
> > were called geeps. And humans and chimps are more closely related
> genetically
> > than sheep and goats. They have no intention of producing this
> particular
> > chimera, however. They just want to spark discussion on what is
> human. And
> > though they have cured Parkinson's disease by inserting pig cells with
> human genes
> > in them into patients brains, they don't want half-human chimeras
> raised as
> > donors for spare parts. And anyway, the patent office turned them
> down, because
> > they aren't allowed to grant patents on humans. So if half human is
> enough
> > for an office of the United States government to consider them human,
> and there
> > truly is a separation of church and state, then I guess you could
> marry one
> > -- at least in a civil ceremony. But what would the kids be like?
> > Three-quarters-human? Could this be, the birth of, The Planet of the
> Apes!?!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/03 11:34:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  Today is the 30th anniversary of "Battle". Let's have those "Battle"
memories! - - - Jeff

I remember that there used to be movie magazines back then that would have a story synopsis of an upcoming movie about a month before it came out.  I read the stories to CONQUEST and BATTLE before I saw them.  I recall think BATTLE didn't seem to have much of a story, but when I first saw it, which wasn't until Wednesday, July 4th 1973, I thought it was really good.  I think it was because I was just so happy to see the apes back in their original costumes and the gorillas riding on horses.  But when I went back to see it again the next night I realized the movie wasn't as good and that parts of it were pretty silly.  I think by the time I saw BATTLE for the fifth time I was so bored with it I could hardly stand to be at the theatre.

And that's about it for my BATTLE memories.   I guess Eric Greene has happier ones.

-- Rory

<.html

"patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...> wrote:

> *** It's too bad their review is dismissive of it--AND riddled with
> enough mistakes to make a POTA junkie (like me & Kass & a lotta
> others here) grind his/her teeth.

I can't say I've read the review, but:

> The reviewer says that the 1st ep ("ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW")

references

> the 1st movie and then drops it. Wrong. Zaius & Urko's references to
> another ship piloted by human "as-tro-nauts" that had landed more
> than 10 years earlier is NOT to the Taylor mission.

We know that now, because we've analysed the intricacies of the
timeline and continuity in depth - but while I accept that this was
probably the case I wonder if maybe it was supposed to be a reference
to that. We know that there are plenty of other gaffs if you try to
reconcile the TV and film series, but I'm not 100% convinced that this
is not just a case of writers being lazy.

> The reviewer also thinks it's ridiculous that Virdon & Burke could
> have so much expert scientific knowledge (as if ALL their education
> was gotten by NASA... and I'm not gonna even get into their non-
> NASA "ANSA" uniform patches!)--whereas the whole point of the show
> was, among other things, that V&B represent the best of what the
> technologically proficient 20th Century had to offer: Science as a
> tool for bettering the human condition.

Again, I haven't read the review, but I do think they have a point
here - farming experts, medicine men, electricians and so on. I enjoy
the TV series as much as anyone but I really think it's stretching
things to suggest that they knew all about ploughs, windmills,
drainage, curing malaria, building batteries, fishing and so on.
Granted some of it was common sense, but it was still a little
far-fetched.

> The reviewer gives a couple backhanded compliments to the show, but
> writes it off as boring, citing episodes dealing with the simian
> equivalent of the KKK (etc) as "Yawn".

This I do disagree with - those dragoons were among the best concepts
the TV series came up with. I really enjoyed that episode. But I guess
"yawn" in this case is the opinion of the reviewer and they're
entitled to it.

> Was the show "formulaic"? To a degree, yes. So what? So was the
> original "STAR TREK". So was virtually EVERY show back then, with

the

> exception of anthology shows like "TWILIGHT ZONE" and "OUTER

LIMITS".

The formulaic nature of the show was its weakest point I think. It was
one of the most formulaic drama series I've ever seen, there is no
disguising that fact. Still great fun though!

And as for the man-on-the-run aspect of it - well, of course, it's a
cliche now. But back then I'd argue it wasn't. Apes wasn't the first
such show, but it did it before a hell of a lot of others of its type.

Alan

.html <.html

.html <.html

Jeff <veetus@...> wrote:

> I know this is "Battle"'s day (and fathers'; Happy Father's Day!)
> but there's a "Beneath" concept I've come up with I want to explore.
> Was Brent gay?

You've made a pretty interesting case there, Jeff. Right enough, he
never seems to look at Nova with any interest at all despite her being
next to naked (is it my imagination or was Nova's costume smaller in
Beneath?) and shows very little emotion at all when she gets killed.
But, when Taylor gets killed it sends him over the edge and into a
murderous rampage. Hmmm.

Or maybe we're reading a bit too much into this!

Alan

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/03 3:15:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

Here's the deal: the first person who can "prove" to my satisfaction that Brent is straight, wins a Kubrick subway set (with Brent and the mutants). I will go on record that I haven't gone back with this concept and looked. I haven't even put in the DVD. Whether the movie, novelization, comics, a quote in one of the "making of" interviews, anything. Save Brent's reputation and you win! Have I cracked the Brent Code? - - - Jeff

I remember way back then when the movie was new that my mother thought James Franciscus "looked" gay.

But was Brent gay?  I don't think so, I just don't think the movie ever gave him the time to get it on with Nova.  Poor Brent never caught a break, but I can't "prove" Brent wasn't gay, but you can't prove he was.

Now LANDON.... That's somebody to wonder about.  Why did Taylor dislike him so much?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/03 6:47:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, alan@... writes:

Or maybe we're reading a bit too much into this!

It's Krueger.  He's still trying to figure himself out.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlPOTA fans may find it interesting to watch WALKING WITH CAVEMEN tonight on The Discovery Channel.  At least with its makeup it should have some APEpeal.

Jeff, what do you think?  Was Homoerectus gay?

-- Rory<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 4:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Brent Code

In a message dated 6/15/03 6:47:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, alan@... writes:

Or maybe we're reading a bit too much into this!

It's Krueger.  He's still trying to figure himself out.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:00 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] "Battle"-scarred

In a message dated 6/15/03 11:34:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

  Today is the 30th anniversary of "Battle". Let's have those "Battle"
memories! - - - Jeff

I remember that there used to be movie magazines back then that would have a story synopsis of an upcoming movie about a month before it came out.  I read the stories to CONQUEST and BATTLE before I saw them.  I recall think BATTLE didn't seem to have much of a story, but when I first saw it, which wasn't until Wednesday, July 4th 1973, I thought it was really good.  I think it was because I was just so happy to see the apes back in their original costumes and the gorillas riding on horses.  But when I went back to see it again the next night I realized the movie wasn't as good and that parts of it were pretty silly.  I think by the time I saw BATTLE for the fifth time I was so bored with it I could hardly stand to be at the theatre.

And that's about it for my BATTLE memories.   I guess Eric Greene has happier ones.

-- Rory



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/2003 2:16:51 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

What's up with the scene where the mutants force Brent to kiss Nova?

He did seem very angry with women.
Perhaps he had a disappointing love life.
But I don't think he was gay.  I don't
know about Taylor though.  Didn't
Heston wear that neckerchief.
That's a hard sell even for Clint Eastwood
to make that look seem macho<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/2003 5:47:45 PM Central Standard Time, alan@... writes:

Or maybe we're reading a bit too much into this!

Maybe you're on to something there.
He did say "Take me to Taylor!"
He didn't say, "To hell with Taylor!
Anymore like you at home?"

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/15/2003 6:59:16 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

POTA fans may find it interesting to watch WALKING WITH CAVEMEN tonight on The Discovery Channel.  At least with its makeup it should have some APEpeal.

Jeff, what do you think?  Was Homoerectus gay?


I'm watching it now.
But I think Brent was Homo-orgaster.
I can't resist a goo anthropology joke.<.html

Clint Eastwood has admitted to having a homosexual experience.

In one of his films he has an interesting line:

"I said I didn't like it....I never said I didn't try it".
--
Michael Whitty

--------- Original Message --------
From: pota@yahoogroups.com
To: "pota@yahoogroups.com" <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Brent Code
Date: 16/06/03 05:14

In a message dated 6/15/2003 2:16:51 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

What's up with the scene where the mutants force Brent to kiss Nova?

He did seem very angry with women.
Perhaps he had a disappointing love life.
But I don't think he was gay.  I don't
know about Taylor though.  Didn't
Heston wear that neckerchief.
That's a hard sell even for Clint Eastwood
to make that look seem macho

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

--
</ font />

Attachments :

.html
Now that is a a nasty image.
And I just saw High Planes Drifter too.


<.html

Attachments :

.html <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/16/2003 4:47:40 AM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Hey…my glyph….my beautiful glyph!!!!!

 

You bloody baboon,  etc, etc.




Now its mine, all mine mooowaaahaaahaa!!!!<.html

.html <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/16/2003 10:59:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, pota@yahoogroups.com writes:

Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:35:53 -0700
   From: <veetus@...>
Subject: "Battle"-scarred

  Today is the 30th anniversary of "Battle". Let's have those "Battle"
memories! - - - Jeff

My memories of seeing "Battle" was in a crowded theatre. When Caesar gave the line" Now- Fight like Apes!" The entire crowd cheered ! One of my favorite movie-going moments.

<.html

Gee, I announce this 1.5 million years ago. Okay, so I didn't put the
handle on the ax. But a least I thought of it or should I say, mentioned it.
Thanks for no thanks. Or should I say, my post are not worth reading.

> POTA fans may find it interesting to watch WALKING WITH

CAVEMEN tonight on

> The Discovery Channel. At least with its makeup it should have some

APEpeal.

>
> Jeff, what do you think? Was Homoerectus gay?
>
> -- Rory

I'm trying to get a hold of you about the poems but your box is full.
Willowape

I owe you an apology. Sorry I let my frustrations out on you.

.htmlIn a message dated 6/20/2003 2:05:00 PM Central Standard Time, Willowape@... writes:

I owe you an apology. Sorry I let my frustrations out on you.

Rory, apologizing?
Prepare for rough weather!
Hell is about to freeze over!

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/20/03 3:04:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Willowape@... writes:

I owe you an apology. Sorry I let my frustrations out on you.

What are we talking about?

-- Rory<.html

.html
--
<.html

Attachments :

.html </ font />
--
<.html

>From: Michael <mailto:whitty@...> Whitty
>Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 9:48 AM
>Subject: POTA TV Series Comic
>
>Hi Ken
>Do you have another copy of the scan you did of that rare
>foreign-language POTA TV Series based comic?
>If so, could you please send me the scan?

[De-lurking]
If anyone can provide me scans of that comic, I can translate it for the
group so that we can all enjoy the story in English...

---

>From: Kassidy Rae <valwp@...>
>Subject: Power records up at the site
>Jeff has finished transcribing the Power records tv stories, 4 of them and
>a considerable amount of work, so you may applaud him if you feel like...
>or don't if you don't. (His head is too big anyway)

I highly recommend these stories to anyone interested -- they're a lot more
fun than you'd think. I also like many of the stories in the two hardcover
annuals.

For those of you who have not yet discovered the Planet of the Apes
Discussion Group, I extend an invitation for you to join.

Simply go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potaDG

and follow instructinons, or email me at:

whitty@...

This offer extends to everyone, regardless of any prior ill-feeling.

Michael

And follow a bunch of stupid rules? Phooey! We'll never join you! - - -
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Whitty, Michael" <whitty@...>
To: <Pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:48 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Invitation


> For those of you who have not yet discovered the Planet of the Apes
> Discussion Group, I extend an invitation for you to join.
>
> Simply go to:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/potaDG
>
> and follow instructinons, or email me at:
>
> whitty@...
>
> This offer extends to everyone, regardless of any prior ill-feeling.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html
--
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2003 2:04:41 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

And follow a bunch of stupid rules? Phooey! We'll never join you! - - -
Jeff

LOL!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO

<.html

I just got back from my local Media Play. I think the subject heading says it
all. You can now get these amazing figures for just $7.50 a pop.

Man, I'm glad I bought these when they were imports!

Matt

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/03 1:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

LOL!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO

ASS!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2003 1:32:24 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

ROTFLMAO

ASS!


It's in there...<.html

.htmlHey guys, if your a Planet Of The Apes (1968) fan (or even if your not)
come check out this group that reviews old and new offbeat movies:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Offbeat_movies/

Only a couple of our members has seen the movie and so there hasn't been enough votes to get the film on our list of favourite movies of all time.

We need your reviews!


<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:06 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Help!

Hey guys, if your a Planet Of The Apes (1968) fan (or even if your not)
come check out this group that reviews old and new offbeat movies:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Offbeat_movies/

Only a couple of our members has seen the movie and so there hasn't been enough votes to get the film on our list of favourite movies of all time.

We need your reviews!




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Hi Everyone,

Thought everyone would like to know that the original Planet of The
Apes is going to be screened in Bryant Park, New York City on July
7th, which is a Monday. The rain date is July 8th. Bryant Park is
located 42 St. and 6th Ave. It will be good to see it on the big-
screen again. The best thing is that it is free. Wish everyone the
best.


Bill Marshall

.html
Ahhh...It's good to be home from "The Other Group".
I think the DG over there stands for dictatorial group.
I try and sling few pearls of wisdom and humor, but
Whitty, like most liberal government orangutans
cuts my posts and calls me an idiot both publicly
and privately and threatens to ban me.  What witty
repartee.  I would retort, but he just cuts them anyway.
This post alone will probably get me banned over there,
even though this is not in a Mike & Jeff controlled group,
but what the hell.  It's worth it just to speak my mind
in the Land of the Free.  I have Escaped From . . .
The Planet of the Fascists!<.html

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:47 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] DG

Ahhh...It's good to be home from "The Other Group".
I think the DG over there stands for dictatorial group.
I try and sling few pearls of wisdom and humor, but
Whitty, like most liberal government orangutans
cuts my posts and calls me an idiot both publicly
and privately and threatens to ban me.  What witty
repartee.  I would retort, but he just cuts them anyway.
This post alone will probably get me banned over there,
even though this is not in a Mike & Jeff controlled group,
but what the hell.  It's worth it just to speak my mind
in the Land of the Free.  I have Escaped From . . .
The Planet of the Fascists!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html
Sorry about that Jeff.
You're quite right.
I meant James.

In any case . . . Has anyone noticed the promos on the 35th Anniversary Ape Marathon are based on old Communist art posters?  Which reminds me of POTA DG.  It claims to be formed for the people, while having only a few in power, who censor everything -- for the good of the people, of course.  Much like a certain simian society that leaps to mind.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/24/03 11:13:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

Unless Rory drank them all. - - - Jeff

I don't drink.

-- Rory<.html

.html

I don't drink.

That's okay Rory -- I''ll drink yours.
I don't alwaus make healthy choices
but I usually respect them.  Where's
the Grape Juice Plus?  Whoowhaaaa!<.html

.html

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

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] DG

In a message dated 6/24/03 11:13:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, veetus@... writes:

Unless Rory drank them all. - - - Jeff

I don't drink.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:14 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] AMC 35th Apes Anniversary Marathon

Sorry about that Jeff.
You're quite right.
I meant James.

In any case . . . Has anyone noticed the promos on the 35th Anniversary Ape Marathon are based on old Communist art posters?  Which reminds me of POTA DG.  It claims to be formed for the people, while having only a few in power, who censor everything -- for the good of the people, of course.  Much like a certain simian society that leaps to mind.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

That's alright, T. I'm sorry about the Lord crack.

That's okay, Jeff.
You won't burn in hell for it.

<.html

.html <.html

.html <.html

.html

3 guesses WHY it has a population?

My guess is that it's so difficult to cross the Iron Curtain.<.html

.html

Yeah, you gotta pity the pathetic.
Sad thing is that a lot of people will leave a group rather than put eeeeediots in their place and personally I'd rather keep the ones that don't like hearing from eeeediots.


It's funny, but you never censor yourself.
I guess you have license to be rude.  The really sad thing is that you have a free hand to call other's idiots, or call them pathetic.  And if they should try to respond, you cut their post, and or, ban them from the group.  Now feel free to do just that.  I'll double post, just to make sure someone besides us reads this.  Because the only eeeediots I'd like put in their place are hypocrites like you.


<.html

.html

(so you can get over it)

You have become the thing you hate.
Get on that one . . . Adolf von Whitty.<.html

.html <.html

.html
I'm glad I double posted.  Seeing as how you pulled this post from the other group -- even though it was exactly the same topic and used the same words as your post.  Here's a riddle for you.  What do Communist dictators, Fascist dictators and Mikael Whitty have in common?  They can only win by controlling what is published in the media.

Yeah, you gotta pity the pathetic.
Sad thing is that a lot of people will leave a group rather than put eeeeediots in their place and personally I'd rather keep the ones that don't like hearing from eeeediots.




It's funny, but you never censor yourself.
I guess you have license to be rude.  The really sad thing is that you have a free hand to call other's idiots, or call them pathetic.  And if they should try to respond, you cut their post, and or, ban them from the group.  Now feel free to do just that.  I'll double post, just to make sure someone besides us reads this.  Because the only eeeediots I'd like put in their place are hypocrites like you.




<.html

.html

I'm being ironic!

ironic, Mike?
or moronic?<.html