I have both Lawgivers,the bloddy one and the regular one. These in fact are the end of my collecting stuff for the reasons I stated on my previous posts. Its such a business now...John M.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** You're talking about the SIDESHOW Lawgiver statue, right?... You're not
> saying you own "the" bleeding Lawgiver from BENEATH are you? ***
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/21/2010 10:54:35 AM Central Standard Time,
> johnmermigas@... writes:
>
>
> > The Lawgiver statue is a collectors item now(I have it).
>
> </HTML>
>

"Harry Potter" had his best opening ever this weekend, an estimated $ 125 million. So it doesn't look good for "Rise of the Apes" to beat it next summer. Even after almost a decade of flicks, interest has not waned (Wane's World! Wane's World!). But congrats to "Harry" and "Rise" star Tom Felton.

.html<.html

Of course they didn't ask him about how he and Tim 'The Hack' Burton destroyed the POTA franchise for a decade.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/60minutes/main7067374..htmltag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Wahlly did however admit that "The Happening" was a bad movie, so he's not totally without conscience.
Now there's talk that two titans of POTA remakedom will battle it out for Best Actor Oscar: James Franco for "127 Hrs." and Wahlly for "The Fighter", which he produced and nurtured over years. Voters like that kind of back story. Oh, you laugh? Wahlly has already had one Oscar nomination. And he made $ 10 million on POTA2001 + profit. So who's reeeeally laughing?


From: jamesa1102
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 6:48 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] Marky Mark was on 60 Minutes last night.




Of course they didn't ask him about how he and Tim 'The Hack' Burton destroyed the POTA franchise for a decade.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/60minutes/main7067374..htmltag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

>
>
> Of course they didn't ask him about how he and Tim 'The Hack' Burton
> destroyed the POTA franchise for a decade.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/60minutes/main7067374..htmlta\
> g=contentMain;cbsCarousel
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/18/60minutes/main7067374..htmlt\
> ag=contentMain;cbsCarousel>
>

Most of the deficiencies in the Burton film (there are several of those deficiencies, for sure, even though I do believe a lot of them are exaggerated beyond belief by some purists) lay at the feet of Fox, who meddled and rushed the film's production, showing their true nature towards the Apes films. This is one reason why I still maintain scepticism about the new film, simply because Fox have a bad history with the Apes franchise, as well as other films under their ownership (sure, they need to be congratulated for producing the first one when no other studio would touch it).

As for Mark Wahlberg, even though his character was lacking in Burton's film, and it painfully was (all the humans were lacking), I tend to find a lot of his other work fairly reasonable. He's not a good actor, but he's not bad, either, and can pull off a good performance now and again.

I really wish the exaggerations about destroying "the POTA franchise for a decade" would sort of cease about the Burton film. I mean, on that basis, you could argue that the arguably poor quality of Battle, the TV series and the cartoons caused twenty-five years of damage. ;)

Still, looking back at the archives of this group, I suspect that I'm just covering old ground and this argument has been had before, many times.


Graham F

PS - Yes, I'm one of those annoying Apes fans who appreciates the Burton film despite its deficiencies. Sure, not up there with the best of the Apes films, but I enjoyed it nevertheless.

Here's a pretty long interview with Tom Felton where he talks about "Rise of the Apes" (twice). Pretty much old ground, though he does say seeing Andy Serkis act as Caesar is "really, really scary", even scarier than Voldemort (the "Potter" villain). And he notes that instead of "Avatar", where the characters enter a CG world, this is bringing the CG ape characters into the real world.

http://www.collider.com/2010/11/22/tom-felton-interview-harry-potter-deathly-hallows-part1-rise-of-the-apes/

http://www.collider.com/2010/11/22/tom-felton-interview-harry-potter-deathly-hallows-part-1-rise-of-the-apes/


From: Jeff K.
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:42 PM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com ; PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] The Rise of Tom Felton




Here's a pretty long interview with Tom Felton where he talks about "Rise of the Apes" (twice). Pretty much old ground, though he does say seeing Andy Serkis act as Caesar is "really, really scary", even scarier than Voldemort (the "Potter" villain). And he notes that instead of "Avatar", where the characters enter a CG world, this is bringing the CG ape characters into the real world.

http://www.collider.com/2010/11/22/tom-felton-interview-harry-potter-deathly-hallows-part1-rise-of-the-apes/

There would be NO work done on that flight!!! LOL... --- On Mon, 11/22/10, PofTAfan@... <PofTAfan@...> wrote: From: PofTAfan@... <PofTAfan@...> Subject: [pota] Stewart To: pota@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 22, 2010, 2:55 PM her's the photo.  enjoy

.html

Reminder from:		pota Yahoo! Group
Title:		Paul Richards was born on this day in 1924
Date:		Tuesday November 23, 2010
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every year.
Notes:		Mendez in Beneath
Yahoo! Greetings:		Send a Yahoo! Greeting
Yahoo! Shopping:		Browse Yahoo! Shopping Gift Guide
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | <.html

.html<.html

Very true. I think anyone who doesn't think that the 2001 film hurt the franchise should answer these questions:

Why was there never a sequel to the film?

Why has there been more merchandising over the last ten years based on the original films than the 2001 remake?

Why has it taken other 10 years for a new POTA film to be made?

Why is the new film totally divorced from the 2001 film and a complete reboot of the franchise?

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:
>
>
>
> I really wish the exaggerations about destroying "the POTA franchise for a decade" would sort of cease about the Burton film. I mean, on that basis, you could argue that the arguably poor quality of Battle, the TV series and the cartoons caused twenty-five years of damage. ;)
>
>
>
>
> Twenty-five years and counting!
>

For me, the mark of a really good movie is one where I remember the story, or specific lines of dialog, or the cinematography, as in creating a world that I would love to visit, all of which apply with the original POTA.

Almost none of this applies to the 2001 fiasco. I don't really remember a single line of dialog, or much of the story, or care about any of the characters, and it is certainly not a world I would care to visit. To be fair, I would say that the makeup for Thade was very good, and the score was memorable, but that's about it.

So many other frustations, also. Why go to the trouble of filming at Lake Powell? Everything is shot so close, the 30 feet of shoreline they do show could have been shot anywhere. What a waste.

Why would a society of apes on an unihabited planet need all of this elaborate armor?

Why can the chimpanzees leap 20 feet in the air? Why do the gorillas speak with a lisp?

On and on. Oh well, we know all of this already.

--Mike

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:
>
>
> Very true. I think anyone who doesn't think that the 2001 film hurt the
> franchise should answer these questions:
>
> Why was there never a sequel to the film?
>
> Why has there been more merchandising over the last ten years based on
> the original films than the 2001 remake?
>
> Why has it taken other 10 years for a new POTA film to be made?
>
> Why is the new film totally divorced from the 2001 film and a complete
> reboot of the franchise?
>

Attachments :

rca9907benhur-60655.jpg
rca9907benhur-60655(1).jpg
planet 67.jpg
planet 67-60655.jpg
mountain men.jpg

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mmuse@... wrote:

>
> For me, the mark of a really good movie is one where I remember the story, or specific lines of dialog, or the cinematography, as in creating a world that I would love to visit, all of which apply with the original POTA.
>
> Almost none of this applies to the 2001 fiasco. I don't really remember a single line of dialog, or much of the story, or care about any of the characters, and it is certainly not a world I would care to visit. To be fair, I would say that the makeup for Thade was very good, and the score was memorable, but that's about it.

Let me start off by saying that I consider the Burton 2001 "re-imagining" flawed and certainly nowhere near the quality of the original. Many of the arguments against Burton's film I agree with, but those arguments still didn't make me not enjoy the film for an entertainment piece. Yes, I was entertained; maybe I should have been more than entertained, like in the original, which made me ponder. Yes, it wasn't heavy with substance and was quite light, but I still enjoyed it. Sure, it could well have been better, but I still enjoyed it. Maybe I'm mad, maybe I have bad taste, maybe I'm a sucker for Burton's stuff (even though his PotA is the least "Burton" of his films, which was a surprise), but I still enjoyed it. It's likely that no amount of arguments are going to stop me from enjoying it, because, for my sins, I just do. I'll even agree with you about the weakness of the film, but I'll still go and watch it again (I can see the DVD over there and it's beckoning me to play it... but I'll resist for now, but one day...). Maybe I'm a masochist, maybe I'm a fool, maybe you'll consider me not a "real fan", but I won't care and will still enjoy Burton's film.

As for not remembering a single line of dialogue, that sort of can be explained away by you not liking the film, for whatever reasons. I liked it and can remember a hell of a lot of it. Maybe my memory is better... or maybe I just fill my head with too much garbage. The latter might explain why today I forgot to lock my car this afternoon (it wasn't stolen, thankfully).

I do admit that I cared zero about any of the human characters (a bad flaw in the film), but I did appreciate a lot of the apes. As characters, Ari, Krull, Attar and Thade were fairly interesting, Ari in particular, who was the most dimensional of the ape characters. Sure, most of those were not a patch on Zira, Cornelius, Zaius, etc, but they kept my interest.

The cinematography wasn't bad, even if not to the same standard as the original film. Most of these arguments are comparing something to something else that was a fantastic film, which is very hard to compete with. I still think the cinematography wasn't terrible, but as you say later, there was waste.

>
> So many other frustations, also. Why go to the trouble of filming at Lake Powell? Everything is shot so close, the 30 feet of shoreline they do show could have been shot anywhere. What a waste.

Generally agreed.

>
> Why would a society of apes on an unihabited planet need all of this elaborate armor?

Please, let's not go here, because I could start picking similar holes in the original film in relation to the apes having excessive weaponry when all they had to face were animalistic humans (referring to the first film, BTW). However, there were sapient humans in the Burton film, where armour can also end up not just protecting you but also intimidating them (the humans in Burton's were a bit more advanced than the original and had primitive weapons), and maybe they just loved sword and sandal movies. ;)

>
> Why can the chimpanzees leap 20 feet in the air? Why do the gorillas speak with a lisp?

Agreed. I do wince when I see the leaping. It was so unnecessary and looked ridiculous.

>
> On and on. Oh well, we know all of this already.

One thing I always remember being a mid-forties Planet of the Apes fan was having to justify the films to sceptical friends who just saw it as a kids film and ridiculous. They usually come out with the usual cliches about it being impossible, that this and that couldn't happen, that it was a B-movie and shot like one (totally untrue, might I add), etc. I tend to shrug my shoulders about a lot of criticism of the Burton film, because it seems to tread similar territory on occasion. Not saying you're doing this, but sometimes the arguments end up causing friendly fire.


Graham F

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

>
>
> Very true. I think anyone who doesn't think that the 2001 film hurt the
> franchise should answer these questions:
>
> Why was there never a sequel to the film?

Because Tim Burton refused to work with Fox again. Most of the actors who were in the film refused to work for a sequel without Tim Burton. That was easy to answer.

>
> Why has there been more merchandising over the last ten years based on
> the original films than the 2001 remake?

Still doesn't mean that the 2001 killed the franchise. In fact, you're arguing against yourself, because it seems people are still buying Apes merchandise.

>
> Why has it taken other 10 years for a new POTA film to be made?

Why did it take about twenty-five years for a remake to appear after Battle?

> Why is the new film totally divorced from the 2001 film and a complete
> reboot of the franchise?

New ideas, etc.


Graham F

All the problems with athe 2001 remake would of been excused or tolorated or forgiven if for one thing.... The story Blew. Thats the real reason and Marky Marks lame acting (though the script gave him nothing to say, and you could barely hear him anyway, (mumbling)) thats the reason why the original Apes films have some lasting power and a certain charm .
Yes Battle was cheap (movies of the early 70s were all problamatic as to finance) but so were all the sequels but the whole zeigest of the time and the seriousness to which it was taken and other factors like music, originality(at the time) and good scripts or atleast above mediocrity gave a reason to go see them.
The remake was rushed and forced and childish and took its audience for 9 year olds. It made tons of money because of the Apes history and the whole excitment surrounding the event.
I pray, and it looks good so far, that these problems have been adressed..Take care John M.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mmuse@ wrote:
> >
> > For me, the mark of a really good movie is one where I remember the story, or specific lines of dialog, or the cinematography, as in creating a world that I would love to visit, all of which apply with the original POTA.
> >
> > Almost none of this applies to the 2001 fiasco. I don't really remember a single line of dialog, or much of the story, or care about any of the characters, and it is certainly not a world I would care to visit. To be fair, I would say that the makeup for Thade was very good, and the score was memorable, but that's about it.
>
> Let me start off by saying that I consider the Burton 2001 "re-imagining" flawed and certainly nowhere near the quality of the original. Many of the arguments against Burton's film I agree with, but those arguments still didn't make me not enjoy the film for an entertainment piece. Yes, I was entertained; maybe I should have been more than entertained, like in the original, which made me ponder. Yes, it wasn't heavy with substance and was quite light, but I still enjoyed it. Sure, it could well have been better, but I still enjoyed it. Maybe I'm mad, maybe I have bad taste, maybe I'm a sucker for Burton's stuff (even though his PotA is the least "Burton" of his films, which was a surprise), but I still enjoyed it. It's likely that no amount of arguments are going to stop me from enjoying it, because, for my sins, I just do. I'll even agree with you about the weakness of the film, but I'll still go and watch it again (I can see the DVD over there and it's beckoning me to play it... but I'll resist for now, but one day...). Maybe I'm a masochist, maybe I'm a fool, maybe you'll consider me not a "real fan", but I won't care and will still enjoy Burton's film.
>
> As for not remembering a single line of dialogue, that sort of can be explained away by you not liking the film, for whatever reasons. I liked it and can remember a hell of a lot of it. Maybe my memory is better... or maybe I just fill my head with too much garbage. The latter might explain why today I forgot to lock my car this afternoon (it wasn't stolen, thankfully).
>
> I do admit that I cared zero about any of the human characters (a bad flaw in the film), but I did appreciate a lot of the apes. As characters, Ari, Krull, Attar and Thade were fairly interesting, Ari in particular, who was the most dimensional of the ape characters. Sure, most of those were not a patch on Zira, Cornelius, Zaius, etc, but they kept my interest.
>
> The cinematography wasn't bad, even if not to the same standard as the original film. Most of these arguments are comparing something to something else that was a fantastic film, which is very hard to compete with. I still think the cinematography wasn't terrible, but as you say later, there was waste.
>
> >
> > So many other frustations, also. Why go to the trouble of filming at Lake Powell? Everything is shot so close, the 30 feet of shoreline they do show could have been shot anywhere. What a waste.
>
> Generally agreed.
>
> >
> > Why would a society of apes on an unihabited planet need all of this elaborate armor?
>
> Please, let's not go here, because I could start picking similar holes in the original film in relation to the apes having excessive weaponry when all they had to face were animalistic humans (referring to the first film, BTW). However, there were sapient humans in the Burton film, where armour can also end up not just protecting you but also intimidating them (the humans in Burton's were a bit more advanced than the original and had primitive weapons), and maybe they just loved sword and sandal movies. ;)
>
> >
> > Why can the chimpanzees leap 20 feet in the air? Why do the gorillas speak with a lisp?
>
> Agreed. I do wince when I see the leaping. It was so unnecessary and looked ridiculous.
>
> >
> > On and on. Oh well, we know all of this already.
>
> One thing I always remember being a mid-forties Planet of the Apes fan was having to justify the films to sceptical friends who just saw it as a kids film and ridiculous. They usually come out with the usual cliches about it being impossible, that this and that couldn't happen, that it was a B-movie and shot like one (totally untrue, might I add), etc. I tend to shrug my shoulders about a lot of criticism of the Burton film, because it seems to tread similar territory on occasion. Not saying you're doing this, but sometimes the arguments end up causing friendly fire.
>
>
> Graham F
>

Don't get me wrong, Graham, I'm not trying to denigrate your enjoyment of the 2001 movie, I'm glad that you and others could enjoy it for what it is.

I think a lot of people would feel that is was just such a wasted opportunity. Instead of taking the original concept of a fairly advanced ape society, 2,000 years in the future, which lives in this fantastic landscape, and seeing what they could build on that, they were like "Hey, we can make this great new ape makeup where the apes can snarl and growl at each other and fight humans. Let's see if we can fit a movie around this concept!"

--Mike

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mmuse@ wrote:
> >
> > For me, the mark of a really good movie is one where I remember the story, or specific lines of dialog, or the cinematography, as in creating a world that I would love to visit, all of which apply with the original POTA.
> >
> > Almost none of this applies to the 2001 fiasco. I don't really remember a single line of dialog, or much of the story, or care about any of the characters, and it is certainly not a world I would care to visit. To be fair, I would say that the makeup for Thade was very good, and the score was memorable, but that's about it.
>
> Let me start off by saying that I consider the Burton 2001 "re-imagining" flawed and certainly nowhere near the quality of the original. Many of the arguments against Burton's film I agree with, but those arguments still didn't make me not enjoy the film for an entertainment piece. Yes, I was entertained; maybe I should have been more than entertained, like in the original, which made me ponder. Yes, it wasn't heavy with substance and was quite light, but I still enjoyed it. Sure, it could well have been better, but I still enjoyed it. Maybe I'm mad, maybe I have bad taste, maybe I'm a sucker for Burton's stuff (even though his PotA is the least "Burton" of his films, which was a surprise), but I still enjoyed it. It's likely that no amount of arguments are going to stop me from enjoying it, because, for my sins, I just do. I'll even agree with you about the weakness of the film, but I'll still go and watch it again (I can see the DVD over there and it's beckoning me to play it... but I'll resist for now, but one day...). Maybe I'm a masochist, maybe I'm a fool, maybe you'll consider me not a "real fan", but I won't care and will still enjoy Burton's film.
>
> As for not remembering a single line of dialogue, that sort of can be explained away by you not liking the film, for whatever reasons. I liked it and can remember a hell of a lot of it. Maybe my memory is better... or maybe I just fill my head with too much garbage. The latter might explain why today I forgot to lock my car this afternoon (it wasn't stolen, thankfully).
>
> I do admit that I cared zero about any of the human characters (a bad flaw in the film), but I did appreciate a lot of the apes. As characters, Ari, Krull, Attar and Thade were fairly interesting, Ari in particular, who was the most dimensional of the ape characters. Sure, most of those were not a patch on Zira, Cornelius, Zaius, etc, but they kept my interest.
>
> The cinematography wasn't bad, even if not to the same standard as the original film. Most of these arguments are comparing something to something else that was a fantastic film, which is very hard to compete with. I still think the cinematography wasn't terrible, but as you say later, there was waste.
>
> >
> > So many other frustations, also. Why go to the trouble of filming at Lake Powell? Everything is shot so close, the 30 feet of shoreline they do show could have been shot anywhere. What a waste.
>
> Generally agreed.
>
> >
> > Why would a society of apes on an unihabited planet need all of this elaborate armor?
>
> Please, let's not go here, because I could start picking similar holes in the original film in relation to the apes having excessive weaponry when all they had to face were animalistic humans (referring to the first film, BTW). However, there were sapient humans in the Burton film, where armour can also end up not just protecting you but also intimidating them (the humans in Burton's were a bit more advanced than the original and had primitive weapons), and maybe they just loved sword and sandal movies. ;)
>
> >
> > Why can the chimpanzees leap 20 feet in the air? Why do the gorillas speak with a lisp?
>
> Agreed. I do wince when I see the leaping. It was so unnecessary and looked ridiculous.
>
> >
> > On and on. Oh well, we know all of this already.
>
> One thing I always remember being a mid-forties Planet of the Apes fan was having to justify the films to sceptical friends who just saw it as a kids film and ridiculous. They usually come out with the usual cliches about it being impossible, that this and that couldn't happen, that it was a B-movie and shot like one (totally untrue, might I add), etc. I tend to shrug my shoulders about a lot of criticism of the Burton film, because it seems to tread similar territory on occasion. Not saying you're doing this, but sometimes the arguments end up causing friendly fire.
>
>
> Graham F
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@...> wrote:

>
> All the problems with athe 2001 remake would of been excused or tolorated or forgiven if for one thing.... The story Blew. Thats the real reason and Marky Marks lame acting (though the script gave him nothing to say, and you could barely hear him anyway, (mumbling)) thats the reason why the original Apes films have some lasting power and a certain charm .

The story wasn't great and nowhere near the original or its superior sequels, but I didn't think it blew as much as claimed. I would agree that the Apes franchise deserved better (the best is always hoped for), but that still doesn't mean, at least to me, that the film itself didn't give me some satisfaction and entertainment. Baby and bathwater comes to mind.

> Yes Battle was cheap (movies of the early 70s were all problamatic as to finance) but so were all the sequels but the whole zeigest of the time and the seriousness to which it was taken and other factors like music, originality(at the time) and good scripts or atleast above mediocrity gave a reason to go see them.

Sorry, but for me Battle wasn't up to much in relation to the Apes franchise. On the whole, I rate Battle worse than Burton's (yes, seriously). Still, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't watch and appreciate Battle, because I do get something from it and consider it worth a watch now and again (in the next week, I plan on watching Battle and look forward to it... sort of).

> The remake was rushed and forced and childish and took its audience for 9 year olds. It made tons of money because of the Apes history and the whole excitment surrounding the event.

I personally think you're exaggerating about the childish nature of it. Sure, it was lacking in substance, but it had some endearing qualities that I appreciated. Then again, maybe I'm childish. ;)

> I pray, and it looks good so far, that these problems have been adressed..Take care John M.

I wouldn't be so sure. Let's hope, though.


Graham F

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@...> wrote:

> Still doesn't mean that the 2001 killed the franchise.

This much is true: Although the comics and novels based on Burton's film were much better than the film itself, in terms of both writing quality and fan reviews, both series were quickly canceled due to low sales. Fox perceived this failure as a sign that no one wanted any more stories based on the Burton film--this according to Dan Abnett, who co-wrote the comics, as well as William Quick, John Whitman and J.E. Bright, who wrote the novels, all of whom were told that Fox had decided to put POTA on hold due to the poor reception of the 2001 film. Quick, whose two Burton tie-in novels were fantastic, was abruptly told not to bother with the third novel, because "Fox thinks Burton's film was poison." Dark Horse, in fact, was prevented from publishing a comic book in which Thade, post-film, traveled to Caesar's Earth and changed time, thereby bridging the classic and Burton films. Abnett and Ian Edginton had intended to do this in order to be able to continue the Dark Horse series on Earth, and in a more fan-accepted manner (since Caesar would have been involved), but Fox told Abnett and co-writer Ian Edginton that it wanted nothing more to do with Burton's film. Mr. Comics was similarly prevented from incorporating the Burton film into Revolution on the Planet of the Apes, a few years later. So I'd say a good argument could be made that Burton's film put the franchise on hold, due to Fox having no faith in its marketability.

I've said from Day 1 I was disappointed in POTA2001 but I didn't hate it. Maybe that's because I'm an admitted Burton fan so I kind of know where he's coming from. I had a lot of hope for this because I felt if anyone could run with it, Burton could. He has a lot of freedom because he's "Burton" and the studios don't really know what he is. I had liked all his previous movies, including "Mars Attacks" because they were unique and daring. POTA2001 was the beginning of his rut , which has continued (with the occasional exception like "Big Fish" and "Sweeney Todd"). It's been an enjoyable rut thanks to the terrific Johnny Depp but it's been a rut. I'd probably put POTA2001 and "Alice in Wonderland" at the bottom of his list of flicks. He just seemed too detached from them. But they're also his most successful (along with "Batman" and "Chocolate Factory") so no wonder he's in a rut.
As for "Rise of the Apes", the pressure is off thanks to Burton. People will be comparing it to Burton's film now, not the original.



From: JohnM conquest-idor
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:20 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] Re: Marky Mark was on 60 Minutes last night.



All the problems with athe 2001 remake would of been excused or tolorated or forgiven if for one thing.... The story Blew. Thats the real reason and Marky Marks lame acting (though the script gave him nothing to say, and you could barely hear him anyway, (mumbling)) thats the reason why the original Apes films have some lasting power and a certain charm .
Yes Battle was cheap (movies of the early 70s were all problamatic as to finance) but so were all the sequels but the whole zeigest of the time and the seriousness to which it was taken and other factors like music, originality(at the time) and good scripts or atleast above mediocrity gave a reason to go see them.
The remake was rushed and forced and childish and took its audience for 9 year olds. It made tons of money because of the Apes history and the whole excitment surrounding the event.
I pray, and it looks good so far, that these problems have been adressed..Take care John M.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mmuse@... wrote:

>
> Don't get me wrong, Graham, I'm not trying to denigrate your enjoyment of the 2001 movie, I'm glad that you and others could enjoy it for what it is.

Hey, no problems; I took no offence. I can understand why some would dislike this film, it's just that I didn't dislike it. Anyway, this is a discussion group, so it'd be boring if there were just one opinion.

>
> I think a lot of people would feel that is was just such a wasted opportunity. Instead of taking the original concept of a fairly advanced ape society, 2,000 years in the future, which lives in this fantastic landscape, and seeing what they could build on that, they were like "Hey, we can make this great new ape makeup where the apes can snarl and growl at each other and fight humans. Let's see if we can fit a movie around this concept!"

It also didn't help that Fox were faffing around. Burton was brought in at the last minute to "fix/break" what was already started. It's no wonder that Burton has since refused to work with Fox... and I can't blame him.

What I would love is a go at doing the Pierre Boulle book. It nearly happened, too.


Graham F

*** When was this? ***



In a message dated 11/23/2010 4:37:21 PM Central Standard Time,
gort65@... writes:

> What I would love is a go at doing the Pierre Boulle book. It nearly
> happened, too.
>

</HTML>

Iam constantly amazed by people who believe that a movie is a failure if
it does not get a sequel - by this logic E.T - Titanic - Close
encounters and so many others are unqualified failures.

KJ

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "rassmguy" <handleyr@...> wrote:

>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@> wrote:
> > Still doesn't mean that the 2001 killed the franchise.
>
> This much is true: Although the comics and novels based on Burton's film were much better than the film itself, in terms of both writing quality and fan reviews, both series were quickly canceled due to low sales. Fox perceived this failure as a sign that no one wanted any more stories based on the Burton film--this according to Dan Abnett, who co-wrote the comics, as well as William Quick, John Whitman and J.E. Bright, who wrote the novels, all of whom were told that Fox had decided to put POTA on hold due to the poor reception of the 2001 film. Quick, whose two Burton tie-in novels were fantastic, was abruptly told not to bother with the third novel, because "Fox thinks Burton's film was poison." Dark Horse, in fact, was prevented from publishing a comic book in which Thade, post-film, traveled to Caesar's Earth and changed time, thereby bridging the classic and Burton films. Abnett and Ian Edginton had intended to do this in order to be able to continue the Dark Horse series on Earth, and in a more fan-accepted manner (since Caesar would have been involved), but Fox told Abnett and co-writer Ian Edginton that it wanted nothing more to do with Burton's film. Mr. Comics was similarly prevented from incorporating the Burton film into Revolution on the Planet of the Apes, a few years later. So I'd say a good argument could be made that Burton's film put the franchise on hold, due to Fox having no faith in its marketability.
>

Thanks for the detailed reply, which does put things into perspective, plus I've learnt something. What effect, though, would Burton's refusal to work with Fox and the main actors refusal to work without Burton have on such a sequel? My feeling is that without them, the sequel wouldn't have happened, and that the comics and novels would have died anyway without that possible sequel. Also, the amount of Sci-fi films and TV series at the time, as well as now, does make it harder for such comics and merchandise to gain sales, etc, compared to before (I'm probably going to be proved wrong on that one). Fox also tends to be control freaks when it comes to their stuff, so how much of that "poison" was more to do with sour relations between Fox and Burton? Also, can the perceived poor quality of Battle and the TV series amongst the general public be blamed for twenty-five years of no sixth film till Burton's turned up?

My problem is that saying that Burton's film killed the franchise is possibly an exaggeration, in that there were possibly other factors, too. Still, your detailed reply does suggest to me that I have a bit to learn and that maybe blame could be laid fully on the Burton film, Burton's fault or not.

I have since January 2001 helped run a major Futurama website, which was a show that Fox decided to run into the ground by its shoddy treatment, with strange changing slots and postponements due to sport and whatnot. This all ended up also affecting the viewing numbers, getting it cancelled. It's only recently that the show got back on the air after some years in hibernation (literally death, as this is a resurrection), all due to high DVD sales and a persistent loyal fanbase. If Fox had had its way, the show would have not come back. I have very little confidence with Fox and its priorities (not to mention the many cease and desists that they sent out to the fan sites during the early years, biting the very hand that fed them), so when they say things were "poisoned", it makes me think twice about the real reasons. Sorry, this has little to do with our discussion, it's just that I'm venting about Fox and its short-sighted nature.

Anyway, I hope I'm not distracting this group with old arguments that have come about before. I have read up a bit of the archives, so did expect some of the replies I've had (all courteous, mind you).


Graham F

Hindsight is 20/20 but I never thought Burton was good for the Apes film and I was very wiery of him from the start. Hes more Fantasy(childlike fantasy at that) not Sci-Fi.
At first I tried to like it and even thought the ending was done on purpose and not some tacked on sudo-fantastic Apes ending which it wasnt. When Zanuck said in interviews that "we are making an action film", I knew this movie was doomed. The Apes films were not action films they were story-telling vehicles and that was their stregnth. Coupled with top composers, cinematographers, but mostly writers who new from the start what they were in to and what they had. John M.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:
>
> I've said from Day 1 I was disappointed in POTA2001 but I didn't hate it. Maybe that's because I'm an admitted Burton fan so I kind of know where he's coming from. I had a lot of hope for this because I felt if anyone could run with it, Burton could. He has a lot of freedom because he's "Burton" and the studios don't really know what he is. I had liked all his previous movies, including "Mars Attacks" because they were unique and daring. POTA2001 was the beginning of his rut , which has continued (with the occasional exception like "Big Fish" and "Sweeney Todd"). It's been an enjoyable rut thanks to the terrific Johnny Depp but it's been a rut. I'd probably put POTA2001 and "Alice in Wonderland" at the bottom of his list of flicks. He just seemed too detached from them. But they're also his most successful (along with "Batman" and "Chocolate Factory") so no wonder he's in a rut.
> As for "Rise of the Apes", the pressure is off thanks to Burton. People will be comparing it to Burton's film now, not the original.
>
>
>

I remember that was my argument when I spoke to some theatre goers at the Zeigfeld and tried to defend what I just saw.
The new film has top notch people making it, even more highly regarded than Burtons team and they were good. If its not on the paper it will not be on the screen as they used to say in Hollywood.
To me this new film could easily tie in both the Burton film and the originals. The genetic angle is easy as that was Burtons premise and during this whole ordeal have NASA(ANSA) send up a ship like what we are hearing in chat rooms and spoilers.
I tried after years to embrace the 2001 Apes but it is what it is. Talking "primitive" humans, apes killing each other are just two problems to me. Also a planet that is never really identified but has horses and crickets. One more thing and I know ill get some slack for it but I do not think Danny Elfman is any good as a film composer. He writes lead sheets and lets all the hard work, writing down score, conducting, arranging and etc. to much more q1ualified music stataticians...
Well enough of the ctiticism, I hope Fox learned from its mistakes and makes a smart movie, one that might just not make alot of money, I hope, because in todays world glitz is more important than intelligence.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** When was this? ***
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/23/2010 4:37:21 PM Central Standard Time,
> gort65@... writes:
>
>
> > What I would love is a go at doing the Pierre Boulle book. It nearly
> > happened, too.
> >
>
> </HTML>
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:

>
> *** When was this? ***
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/23/2010 4:37:21 PM Central Standard Time,
> gort65@... writes:
>
>
> > What I would love is a go at doing the Pierre Boulle book. It nearly
> > happened, too.
> >

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that initially the original film was going to be more in line with the book than it turned out to be. Budgetary constraints, etc, helped change that. I should pick my words more carefully. ;)


Graham F

It was scheduling. They knew the script was a stinker and tried to fix it on the run. I was in regular contact with Linda Harrison at the time and even her kids were working on the script (um, her grown kids who are now producers). Fox pushed the film up a year because they had to clear the way for "Minority Report" with Spielberg and Cruise, plus there was a strike that year so they had to finish early. I don't totally blame Burton but it's obvious now he can't do serious sci-fi. He loves the cheesy stuff too much. His next movie is "Dark Shadows" (yes, that "Dark Shadows") with Depp. "Dark Shadows" fans are probably shaking in their boots but that seems more of a fit.
P.S. How many times did Fox cancel "Family Guy" and it got saved by DVD? Now it's one of their biggest cash cows. In Hollywood, "nobody knows anything".



From: gort65
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:33 PM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] Re: Marky Mark was on 60 Minutes last night.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "rassmguy" <handleyr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@> wrote:
> > Still doesn't mean that the 2001 killed the franchise.
>
> This much is true: Although the comics and novels based on Burton's film were much better than the film itself, in terms of both writing quality and fan reviews, both series were quickly canceled due to low sales. Fox perceived this failure as a sign that no one wanted any more stories based on the Burton film--this according to Dan Abnett, who co-wrote the comics, as well as William Quick, John Whitman and J.E. Bright, who wrote the novels, all of whom were told that Fox had decided to put POTA on hold due to the poor reception of the 2001 film. Quick, whose two Burton tie-in novels were fantastic, was abruptly told not to bother with the third novel, because "Fox thinks Burton's film was poison." Dark Horse, in fact, was prevented from publishing a comic book in which Thade, post-film, traveled to Caesar's Earth and changed time, thereby bridging the classic and Burton films. Abnett and Ian Edginton had intended to do this in order to be able to continue the Dark Horse series on Earth, and in a more fan-accepted manner (since Caesar would have been involved), but Fox told Abnett and co-writer Ian Edginton that it wanted nothing more to do with Burton's film. Mr. Comics was similarly prevented from incorporating the Burton film into Revolution on the Planet of the Apes, a few years later. So I'd say a good argument could be made that Burton's film put the franchise on hold, due to Fox having no faith in its marketability.
>

Thanks for the detailed reply, which does put things into perspective, plus I've learnt something. What effect, though, would Burton's refusal to work with Fox and the main actors refusal to work without Burton have on such a sequel? My feeling is that without them, the sequel wouldn't have happened, and that the comics and novels would have died anyway without that possible sequel. Also, the amount of Sci-fi films and TV series at the time, as well as now, does make it harder for such comics and merchandise to gain sales, etc, compared to before (I'm probably going to be proved wrong on that one). Fox also tends to be control freaks when it comes to their stuff, so how much of that "poison" was more to do with sour relations between Fox and Burton? Also, can the perceived poor quality of Battle and the TV series amongst the general public be blamed for twenty-five years of no sixth film till Burton's turned up?

My problem is that saying that Burton's film killed the franchise is possibly an exaggeration, in that there were possibly other factors, too. Still, your detailed reply does suggest to me that I have a bit to learn and that maybe blame could be laid fully on the Burton film, Burton's fault or not.

I have since January 2001 helped run a major Futurama website, which was a show that Fox decided to run into the ground by its shoddy treatment, with strange changing slots and postponements due to sport and whatnot. This all ended up also affecting the viewing numbers, getting it cancelled. It's only recently that the show got back on the air after some years in hibernation (literally death, as this is a resurrection), all due to high DVD sales and a persistent loyal fanbase. If Fox had had its way, the show would have not come back. I have very little confidence with Fox and its priorities (not to mention the many cease and desists that they sent out to the fan sites during the early years, biting the very hand that fed them), so when they say things were "poisoned", it makes me think twice about the real reasons. Sorry, this has little to do with our discussion, it's just that I'm venting about Fox and its short-sighted nature.

Anyway, I hope I'm not distracting this group with old arguments that have come about before. I have read up a bit of the archives, so did expect some of the replies I've had (all courteous, mind you).

Graham F

*** That's a good point... I suppose everyone is so used to "franchises"
these days that a one-off film is seen as a "failure"... I'm not throwing any
support to pota2001, but I agree with your point: Many huge films never had
a sequel, and truth be known, a lot of them don't need one... ***



In a message dated 11/23/2010 7:32:42 PM Central Standard Time,
pellew@... writes:

> I am constantly amazed by people who believe that a movie is a failure if
> it does not get a sequel - by this logic E.T - Titanic - Close
> encounters and so many others are unqualified failures.

</HTML>

*** In the original PLANET film, though none happened in the film, it was
implied that apes DID kill apes as capital punishment... And this certainly
was a truth in the TV series... I have no idea of what happened in pota2001,
but as far as the classic APES incarnations, killing was allowed if
justifiable... ***



In a message dated 11/23/2010 7:38:12 PM Central Standard Time,
johnmermigas@... writes:

> Talking "primitive" humans, apes killing each other are just two problems
> to me.

</HTML>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:

>
> *** In the original PLANET film, though none happened in the film, it was
> implied that apes DID kill apes as capital punishment... And this certainly
> was a truth in the TV series... I have no idea of what happened in pota2001,
> but as far as the classic APES incarnations, killing was allowed if
> justifiable... ***
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/23/2010 7:38:12 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmermigas@... writes:
>
>
> > Talking "primitive" humans, apes killing each other are just two problems
> > to me.
>
> </HTML>
>

Isn't ape shall not kill ape just another version of "thou shall not kill"? Despite that sentiment, murder, death through battle, executions, etc, still happen. As you say, execution seems permitted in the Apes films, so it's not a universal rule. In Battle, Aldo kills Caesar's child, so it's not as if ape killing ape hasn't been shown before.

In PotA2001, Thade, trying to keep secret the crash site of Leo's vehicle, kills two gorillas who had spotted the entry point. There is also the gorilla fight scene in the final battle where Attar kills Krull in battle. The second one can probably be excused as justifiable in battle; the first one can't be excused, but then Thade needs to be found out.

Thing is, I've always been puzzled by the people who complain about Burton's film having ape killing ape when this has been implied or happened in the original films. As far as I can tell, the ape shall not kill ape is just a way of saying you shouldn't commit murder.


Graham F

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:

>
> It was scheduling. They knew the script was a stinker and tried to fix it on the run.

Heh, even Helena Bonham Carter in some interview a while back claimed that the script was weak. I still think she did well with what little she got, though.

> I was in regular contact with Linda Harrison at the time and even her kids were working on the script (um, her grown kids who are now producers). Fox pushed the film up a year because they had to clear the way for "Minority Report" with Spielberg and Cruise, plus there was a strike that year so they had to finish early. I don't totally blame Burton but it's obvious now he can't do serious sci-fi. He loves the cheesy stuff too much. His next movie is "Dark Shadows" (yes, that "Dark Shadows") with Depp. "Dark Shadows" fans are probably shaking in their boots but that seems more of a fit.

Yeah, despite the fact that I got something out of PotA2001, I'll concede that Burton wasn't the right choice for science fiction and is more fantasy. Still, I don't think Fox helped him and were constantly interfering with what he was trying to do, as well as rushing him. I can't see any director doing a good job under those conditions, fantasy or science fiction based. Now if I had my way, Ridley Scott would have been the choice... and some time. I'm glad, though, that Cameron wasn't given the shot.

> P.S. How many times did Fox cancel "Family Guy" and it got saved by DVD? Now it's one of their biggest cash cows. In Hollywood, "nobody knows anything".

Don't get me started on Firefly, either. Mind you, I always felt that Serenity was a good way to bury the show.


Graham F

.html   <.html

.html   <.html

.html   <.html

I take your point on ET and Close Encounters but what would a sequel to Titanic look like? The survivors have a reunion on the Lusitania? :-)

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <pellew@...> wrote:
>
> Iam constantly amazed by people who believe that a movie is a failure if
> it does not get a sequel - by this logic E.T - Titanic - Close
> encounters and so many others are unqualified failures.
>
> KJ
>

I want to say that anyone who enjoyed the 2001 remake, good for you. That is a matter of taste and I'm glad someone got some enjoyment out of the film.

However, let's be honest about the movie. POTA 2001 was a critical bomb. It is regularly called one of the worst remakes in history: http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm, http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm, http://www.getlisty.com/preview/worst-movie-remakes-of-all-time/ as well as being considered one of Tim Burton's worst films: http://www.listal.com/list/best-worst-tim-burton & http://www.film.com/celebrities/tim-burton/story/tim-burton-top-fivebottom-five/23971158.

As Jeff pointed out the film was meant to revive the POTA franchise. It didn't do that. On that level it was a failure. It has been suggested that FOX was ready to do a sequel but Burton refused to do it and the cast refused to return without Burton. That is just rewriting history. FOX never attempted to make a sequel to the film. If they had the actors would have been contractually obligated to appear in it regardless of who was directing.

Like it or not, the reality is that the Burton remake did do damage to the franchise. That is why it has taken 10 years for another film which it totally unrelated to the 2001 film. Most of the merchandising over the last 10 years, from sideshow collectables figures to Rittenhouse trading cards, has been linked to classic POTA, not 2001. Of the POTA groups on Yahoo, those that are active are more about the classic films and the TV series. Any groups that were dedicated to the 2001 remake have long since been abandoned. The heat and passion that is left in the POTA franchise is due to the classic films not from the Tim Burton remake.

And as classic POTA fans are honest about the problems with the films and how sequels like Battle had a negative impact on the franchise, fans of the 2001 need to do the same.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

>
>
> I want to say that anyone who enjoyed the 2001 remake, good for you.
> That is a matter of taste and I'm glad someone got some enjoyment out of
> the film.

Thanks.

>
> However, let's be honest about the movie. POTA 2001 was a critical bomb.
> It is regularly called one of the worst remakes in history:
> http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm
> <http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm> ,
> http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm
> <http://movies.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/worst-remakes.htm> ,
> http://www.getlisty.com/preview/worst-movie-remakes-of-all-time/
> <http://www.getlisty.com/preview/worst-movie-remakes-of-all-time/> as
> well as being considered one of Tim Burton's worst films:
> http://www.listal.com/list/best-worst-tim-burton
> <http://www.listal.com/list/best-worst-tim-burton> &
> http://www.film.com/celebrities/tim-burton/story/tim-burton-top-fivebott\
> om-five/23971158
> <http://www.film.com/celebrities/tim-burton/story/tim-burton-top-fivebot\
> tom-five/23971158> .

Sure, it was critically attacked. Doesn't mean that some people can't appreciate the film despite this critical onslaught. Saying that, many films have been critically attacked, yet later on are appreciated more (no, I'm not going to compare the film to Citizen Kane, which was initially attacked by critics, so stop laughing ;) ).

One thing I've noticed when googling about this film over the past is the amount of people who say that they hated the film when they initially saw it, yet after a rewatch some years later, have thought it not as bad as they remember and quite watchable. I was sort of like that myself. I didn't hate it when I first watched it, but I didn't care too much for it either (the original was in my mind), but after some rewatches, it grew on me a bit each time. Sure, all anecdotal and stuff, but you do get such comments if you look (you'll get others, too, though).

Mind you, if you want some bigger ammunition, you only have to read up some comments from Burton, who admits that there were big flaws in the film. Helena Bonham Carter and Paul Giamatti have also criticised the script as weak. I think somewhere Wahlberg has a go at the film, but then maybe he's just trying to be with the herd. ;)

Still, my point is that despite the flaws in the film, and there are major ones, I still appreciated it a bit and see some grey when some see just black-and-white. I'm not going to pretend it wasn't a disappointment compared to the past films, it was, but that still doesn't mean that I can't like some of it. If the original set of films hadn't of been made, I wonder how much of this criticism would stick? The original was fantastic, so any film that's going to go against it is going to be in for a hard time, especially from the fans who have invested a hell of a lot of themselves in those past films.

>
> As Jeff pointed out the film was meant to revive the POTA franchise. It
> didn't do that. On that level it was a failure. It has been suggested
> that FOX was ready to do a sequel but Burton refused to do it and the
> cast refused to return without Burton. That is just rewriting history.
> FOX never attempted to make a sequel to the film. If they had the actors
> would have been contractually obligated to appear in it regardless of
> who was directing.

There are always get-out clauses and the like. I wouldn't take the obligations as set in stone; both parties set up their contracts in a way that tries to benefit each other and can be released from them under certain circumstances (the bigger the actor, the more slippery his/her obligations). Also, if you do some googling, you'll see many comments from the actors saying that any sequel would depend on Burton coming back. Wahlberg suggested he'd rather jump out of a window than come back (it'd be a good way to break his contract).

>
> Like it or not, the reality is that the Burton remake did do damage to
> the franchise. That is why it has taken 10 years for another film which
> it totally unrelated to the 2001 film.

Then it can be argued that Battle seems to have caused about twenty-five years of hurt. I just feel that saying that PotA2001 killed the franchise for *ten years* is a bit of an exaggeration. Its failings had some impact, sure, but I feel there were probably other factors, even external ones. Still, yeah, with the critical panning, the other "blockbuster" films at the time, maybe even the change of public mood after 911, all could have led to the diminishing of the franchise, as well as other things.

> Most of the merchandising over
> the last 10 years, from sideshow collectables figures to Rittenhouse
> trading cards, has been linked to classic POTA, not 2001. Of the POTA
> groups on Yahoo, those that are active are more about the classic films
> and the TV series. Any groups that were dedicated to the 2001 remake
> have long since been abandoned. The heat and passion that is left in the
> POTA franchise is due to the classic films not from the Tim Burton
> remake.

Sure, because the classic films were better and more endearing. That doesn't mean that some can't appreciate the Burton film and still regard the classics as better. It's not all black-and-white, there is a subtle grey area.

> And as classic POTA fans are honest about the problems with the films
> and how sequels like Battle had a negative impact on the franchise, fans
> of the 2001 need to do the same.
>

I've already stated that the Burton film was flawed, I've admitted to some of the flaws (many more I can admit to), and I've stated that I way prefer the original to the Burton film (I was brought up on a diet of the original films and series in the early to mid-seventies), so I'm on the original's side of the fence here; I am a classic fan, so to speak. That doesn't mean, though, that I can't have some appreciation for the Burton one, which I do. You can have both, you know; it's not some black-and-white situation where there can be no overlap. If I had to choose between the two films which had to be incinerated, I'd chuck the Burton one in the fire all the time without question. Still, I'd prefer not to have to choose to chuck either of them.

I don't think this is an us versus them sort of thing, a classic fan versus PotA2001 fan, we're all apes fans. As Limbo said, "Can't we all just get along?" ;)


Graham F

It was confirmed in Beneath while the L:awgiver was on fire...

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** In the original PLANET film, though none happened in the film, it was
> implied that apes DID kill apes as capital punishment... And this certainly
> was a truth in the TV series... I have no idea of what happened in pota2001,
> but as far as the classic APES incarnations, killing was allowed if
> justifiable... ***
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/23/2010 7:38:12 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmermigas@... writes:
>
>
> > Talking "primitive" humans, apes killing each other are just two problems
> > to me.
>
> </HTML>
>

.html
<.html

Battle was a disapointment because even as kids and even to my parents it was a childrens picture, as J. Lee Thompson pointed out. Conquest with all the money problems was a cool film and a film of the early seventies as to its story points and even musically with a young Jazz musician doing what I think is the best theme.
All the original Apes films came out so fast that they are considered one big Family of films(Like Lord of the Rings). Even with Battles faults the reconstructed version on Blu-ray makes it a much better story as now it should be called a Mutant story and thats fascinating. How they started and how Mendez said to Alma "what we are from now on will be called beutifull", the Cobalt Bomb and what it meant not to be fired and so forth. To me Battle is now a much better film.
The 2001 film had a long gestation period and the first thing that comes to mind is that they had over 10 years to produce a film and this is what they came up with. Fox obviously does not include Apes fans in their writing. Their must be Ape fans at Fox and they surely must of have lobbied for Apes but what happened? Finnally who the heck picked up Wahlburg for the main human role. It needed a person with fire and passion and these are two traits that he does not posess, atleast then.
The new film has an incredible cast and technical crew from Peter Jacksons studios and if this fails its over--its over.It the Photo-realistic Apes look like the District 9 creatures it will go well. If they look like Avatar it will be comic and a major distraction. Though Avatar was set on a "Comic Book" planet so I understand the look but the Apes better be more the District 9.
Lets all hope for the best, and the writting is where it will pass or fail, and hope a new franchise can happen again. Thanks, John M.

They couldn't even resist "E.T.". There was a sequel novel to it. The only reason there wasn't a sequel movie to "E.T." (and "Close Encounters") is because Spielberg put his foot down. And he made "Close Encounters" because he refused to do a sequel to "Jaws". Back when sequels were still kinda frowned upon. "Empire Strikes Back" (1980) changed that.


From: Alex Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:40 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pota] Re: Marky Mark was on 60 Minutes last night.




I believe there was talk on the Trials following the Titanic sicking as a sequel.
But good thing they didn't go that direction. It would just be milking it for all it was worth.

Titanic remains best as a stand alone film.

Al

There's no comparison between "Battle" and POTA2001. "Battle" came at the end of a long cycle of diminishing returns (mostly budget). If they do 4 sequels to "Rise" that'll be enough for me (unless # 5 really rocks).
They invested a lot of time and money to get POTA2001 "right". They didn't spend $ 100 million to support Burton's artistry. They wanted sequels. "Battle" was the end. POTA2001 was supposed to be the beginning.
I don't know if "Battle" is a better film but it's a better story.



From: JohnM conquest-idor
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:01 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] Battle and 2001 Apes!



Battle was a disapointment because even as kids and even to my parents it was a childrens picture, as J. Lee Thompson pointed out. Conquest with all the money problems was a cool film and a film of the early seventies as to its story points and even musically with a young Jazz musician doing what I think is the best theme.
All the original Apes films came out so fast that they are considered one big Family of films(Like Lord of the Rings). Even with Battles faults the reconstructed version on Blu-ray makes it a much better story as now it should be called a Mutant story and thats fascinating. How they started and how Mendez said to Alma "what we are from now on will be called beutifull", the Cobalt Bomb and what it meant not to be fired and so forth. To me Battle is now a much better film.
The 2001 film had a long gestation period and the first thing that comes to mind is that they had over 10 years to produce a film and this is what they came up with. Fox obviously does not include Apes fans in their writing. Their must be Ape fans at Fox and they surely must of have lobbied for Apes but what happened? Finnally who the heck picked up Wahlburg for the main human role. It needed a person with fire and passion and these are two traits that he does not posess, atleast then.
The new film has an incredible cast and technical crew from Peter Jacksons studios and if this fails its over--its over.It the Photo-realistic Apes look like the District 9 creatures it will go well. If they look like Avatar it will be comic and a major distraction. Though Avatar was set on a "Comic Book" planet so I understand the look but the Apes better be more the District 9.
Lets all hope for the best, and the writting is where it will pass or fail, and hope a new franchise can happen again. Thanks, John M.

*** Huh? What is that supposed to mean:"It was confirmed in Beneath while
the Lawgiver was on fire..." What are you saying? I said in PLANET it was
implied apes kill each other (as capital punishment) and in the TV series they
flat out say it (example: "As I must have poor Galen killed..."). BENEATH's
"Lawgiver scene" doesn't imply apes killing each other, in a way it
contradicts it when Ursus says "Ape shall not kill ape", he'd rather his people die
a torturous death rather than kill them to put them out of their misery...
It'd probably be unjustifiable to shoot them, because they commited no
crime/broke no laws...

In BENEATH, Ursus was willing to have the student protesters shot (killed)
before Zaius intervenes and says "We don't want martyrs, do we?" Later on,
during the Lawgiver illusion scene, that's when Ursus says "Ape shall not
kill ape" because either A) He doesn't want "his" people <Gorillas> killed or
B) He can't fathom breaking the Lawgiver's word and killing them, as they did
no punishable crime... Even though it'd end their suffering, he can't bring
himself to break the commandment of the Lawgiver... Apparently it's better
to let your fellow ape die an agonizing death rather than kill him... (And
yes, I know the "Lawgiver scene" apes were illusions and he really wouldn't
have killed anything.. But the idea of killing the "suffering apes" is
something he wouldn't do.) ***





In a message dated 11/24/2010 12:42:35 PM Central Standard Time,
johnmermigas@... writes:

> It was confirmed in Beneath while the Lawgiver was on fire...
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
> >
> > *** In the original PLANET film, though none happened in the film, it
> was
> > implied that apes DID kill apes as capital punishment... And this
> certainly
> > was a truth in the TV series... I have no idea of what happened in
> pota2001,
> > but as far as the classic APES incarnations, killing was allowed if
> > justifiable... ***

</HTML>

*** The extended cut (or as you call it "the Mutant story") of BATTLE was
out on DVD well before it was released on Blu-Ray... That cut has actually
been around since the seventies when it was fleshed out for TV airings and it
was first released on laser disc in Japan, so it's nothing new... ***



In a message dated 11/24/2010 1:16:01 PM Central Standard Time,
johnmermigas@... writes:

> Even with Battles faults the reconstructed version on Blu-ray makes it a
> much better story as now it should be called a Mutant story and thats
> fascinating. How they started and how Mendez said to Alma "what we are from now
> on will be called beutifull", the Cobalt Bomb and what it meant not to be
> fired and so forth. To me Battle is now a much better film.
>

</HTML>

I don't think POTA 2001 can be connected to the originals in any way. Leo Davidson mentioned "apes were dying" on Earth (or something along those lines), which is not the case of the POTA originals universe.
Plus, most importantly, apes in the original POTA universe just "happen" to be humanoid, and that is regarded as normal in the POTA pre-holocaust human civilization, so here we go.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@...> wrote:
>
> I remember that was my argument when I spoke to some theatre goers at the Zeigfeld and tried to defend what I just saw.
> The new film has top notch people making it, even more highly regarded than Burtons team and they were good. If its not on the paper it will not be on the screen as they used to say in Hollywood.
> To me this new film could easily tie in both the Burton film and the originals. The genetic angle is easy as that was Burtons premise and during this whole ordeal have NASA(ANSA) send up a ship like what we are hearing in chat rooms and spoilers.
> I tried after years to embrace the 2001 Apes but it is what it is. Talking "primitive" humans, apes killing each other are just two problems to me. Also a planet that is never really identified but has horses and crickets. One more thing and I know ill get some slack for it but I do not think Danny Elfman is any good as a film composer. He writes lead sheets and lets all the hard work, writing down score, conducting, arranging and etc. to much more q1ualified music stataticians...
> Well enough of the ctiticism, I hope Fox learned from its mistakes and makes a smart movie, one that might just not make alot of money, I hope, because in todays world glitz is more important than intelligence.
>

Leaping in the POTA 2001 movie was great looking and well done in terms of visuals. We're talking about genetically-engineered mutant humanoid apes, so everything is fine to me.

10 years ago POTA2001 came out. A year later the first "Spiderman" movie came out with Tobey Maguire. Now "Rise of the Apes" is coming out next summer and a year later the reboot of "Spiderman" is due. Time IS circular! But with slight changes. Now, instead of "Spiderman", James Franco is in POTA. What would Einstein make of that? More importantly, what would he make of Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May?

POTA 2001 did some serious business during its theatrical run, did some serious business during its video run, and I'm sure it will be regarded as classic within the next 20 years. That's what I think, despite its flaws.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <pellew@...> wrote:
>
> Iam constantly amazed by people who believe that a movie is a failure if
> it does not get a sequel - by this logic E.T - Titanic - Close
> encounters and so many others are unqualified failures.
>
> KJ
>

After BENEATH, BATTLE is my fave sequel. It looks very Mad Max-ish, sort of postmodern adventure. I just like the fact each original POTA movie is unique in terms of style and vision.

AND the background make-up was damn good and UNNOTICEABLE, so I don't agree with those bashing the pullover masks. They are unnoticeable and good nonetheless. Background make-up in POTA sequels is millions of times better than crappy CGI nowadays.

POTA 2001 was great, I just didn't like the campy humour but... oh well, we can pretend it to be satire.

Tizzy

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@...> wrote:
>
> Battle was a disapointment because even as kids and even to my parents it was a childrens picture, as J. Lee Thompson pointed out. Conquest with all the money problems was a cool film and a film of the early seventies as to its story points and even musically with a young Jazz musician doing what I think is the best theme.
> All the original Apes films came out so fast that they are considered one big Family of films(Like Lord of the Rings). Even with Battles faults the reconstructed version on Blu-ray makes it a much better story as now it should be called a Mutant story and thats fascinating. How they started and how Mendez said to Alma "what we are from now on will be called beutifull", the Cobalt Bomb and what it meant not to be fired and so forth. To me Battle is now a much better film.
> The 2001 film had a long gestation period and the first thing that comes to mind is that they had over 10 years to produce a film and this is what they came up with. Fox obviously does not include Apes fans in their writing. Their must be Ape fans at Fox and they surely must of have lobbied for Apes but what happened? Finnally who the heck picked up Wahlburg for the main human role. It needed a person with fire and passion and these are two traits that he does not posess, atleast then.
> The new film has an incredible cast and technical crew from Peter Jacksons studios and if this fails its over--its over.It the Photo-realistic Apes look like the District 9 creatures it will go well. If they look like Avatar it will be comic and a major distraction. Though Avatar was set on a "Comic Book" planet so I understand the look but the Apes better be more the District 9.
> Lets all hope for the best, and the writting is where it will pass or fail, and hope a new franchise can happen again. Thanks, John M.
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "apecalypsenow" <apecalypsenow@...> wrote:

>
> Leaping in the POTA 2001 movie was great looking and well done in terms of visuals. We're talking about genetically-engineered mutant humanoid apes, so everything is fine to me.
>

This is where I switch sides for a bit. ;) No matter about genetically enhanced, I still think the leaping was way too exaggerated and looked just unnecessarily silly. I think it came from the mistaken viewpoint that chimpanzees are eight times stronger, pound for pound of muscle, than humans. However, the truth is nearer to twice as strong per muscle weight. I believe that the novels afterwards did suggest that their strength had been increased somewhat to battle the indigenous species found on the planet, though. Sometimes less is more.


Graham F

Attachments :

.html

You all have a wonderful Thanksgiving 2010!   Love, Zach

<.html

*** That's funny... Funny to the point of being ludicrous... The masks ARE
noticeable, or for instance was Kim Hunter, who was there and said you could
tell the pullovers "like that" <finger snap> wrong?... If people involved
in the films said they stuck out like sore thumbs, why is it so hard to admit
they could have/should have been better? It's not like you're saying
anything against the films themselves, just admitting that cost cutting measures
were in effect and it showed...

In BATTLE a lot of the "made-up" apes are just a step above masks... I
don't know if was all due to time constraints or if they just did what they did
later on the TV series: Reused appliances and hoped they'd fit okay on the
secondary ("background") apes... Or, they could have done what the TV series
ALIEN NATION did years later: Have a generic piece made up for the extras,
the generic piece being functional but not as well fitting (custom made for
their head shape) as the main actors had...

Anyone who says they're unnoticeable is just kidding themselves... Or they
need visual help... Next thing you know, people will be saying that the
vinyl gorilla outfits in BENEATH are undetectable... ***


In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time,
apecalypsenow@... writes:

> AND the background make-up was damn good and UNNOTICEABLE, so I don't
> agree with those bashing the pullover masks. They are unnoticeable and good
> nonetheless.

</HTML>

Hey everyone,

It time for the holidays, BLAM! Ventures is releasing its fan choice oversized print "Bridge to Ape City" with art by CRITICAL MILLENNIUM artist Dan Dussault. This print is on sale for only $25, limited to only 207 copies, and is available for sale now at blamventures.com/store.


Also, there are limited quantities of the 2009 release prints, dogtags, and trading cards left, so get yours now!

We have new FAST FREE shipping, so take advantage of this offer now!

- Drew Gaska

What were the apes crossed with, fleas? Even if the apes could jump that high, the movement was too slow and awkward. But they couldn't jump like that. It's impossible. I know what you're thinking: what about Spiderman? But listen, bub, he's got radioactive blood.



From: apecalypsenow
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:36 PM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pota] RE: leaping



Leaping in the POTA 2001 movie was great looking and well done in terms of visuals. We're talking about genetically-engineered mutant humanoid apes, so everything is fine to me.

Yea I wasn't serious just pointing out that there are people out there
who qualify success with sequels which to me is often a mistake - Yes
Star Wars broke the rukles but I have found that most sequels
suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

> I believe there was talk on the Trials following the Titanic sicking
> as a sequel.
> But good thing they didn't go that direction. It would just be milking
> it for all it was worth.
> Titanic remains best as a stand alone film.
> Al
>

.html

Reminder from:		pota Yahoo! Group
Title:		Ricardo Montalban was born on this day in 1920
Date:		Thursday November 25, 2010
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every year.
Next reminder:		The next reminder for this event will be sent in 18 minutes.
Notes:		Armando in Escape & Conquest
Yahoo! Greetings:		Send a Yahoo! Greeting
Yahoo! Shopping:		Browse Yahoo! Shopping Gift Guide
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | <.html

.html

Reminder from:		pota Yahoo! Group
Title:		Ricardo Montalban was born on this day in 1920
Date:		Thursday November 25, 2010
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every year.
Notes:		Armando in Escape & Conquest
Yahoo! Greetings:		Send a Yahoo! Greeting
Yahoo! Shopping:		Browse Yahoo! Shopping Gift Guide
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | <.html

Attachments :

Making a Monster.jpg
Making a Monster-60704.jpg

.html

Greetings, group.  Attached is an advertisement for several movie make-up books.  I have several of them, but I am looking for "Making a Monster", which as you can see, has our friend Dr. Zaius on the cover.  The ad is here for you collectors in the group.  If I can find a copy of the book, I'll be sure to scan it and share it with the group.  I have both of Tom Savini's books (the first of which is shown here) as well as the Dick Smith book scanned, if anyone is interested.  All you have to do is ask.  Enjoy!

 

Jeff (RedSpy)

 

<.html

I dont think Battle is a better film, just my opinion on why 2001 Apes reeked, and even though some parts are o.k. , it still reeked Jeff. Lets call a spade a spade...your friend John..

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:
>
> There's no comparison between "Battle" and POTA2001. "Battle" came at the end of a long cycle of diminishing returns (mostly budget). If they do 4 sequels to "Rise" that'll be enough for me (unless # 5 really rocks).
> They invested a lot of time and money to get POTA2001 "right". They didn't spend $ 100 million to support Burton's artistry. They wanted sequels. "Battle" was the end. POTA2001 was supposed to be the beginning.
> I don't know if "Battle" is a better film but it's a better story.
>
>

Whatever you say. Martyrs dont have to die just be abused...Martyre is a witness to something or part of an act thats against society. The death or killing of a martyre is just a lable of the person doing the killing. In other words a martyre is a person and does not have to leed to death unless you go by the new testament meaning. A martyre is a person willing to give his or her life, but doesnt have to in order to be called one. But I bet the Apes films were not trying to make that distinction.
In Beneath the Apes mythos wasnt fully created until around Escape when Cornelious said "man destroys man Apes do not destroy Apes".
Their were alot of slight mistrakes in the Apes films probably because so many other people other than the credited writers involved in the scripts... Personally I would skip the TV series, Dogs and all...

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** Huh? What is that supposed to mean:"It was confirmed in Beneath while
> the Lawgiver was on fire..." What are you saying? I said in PLANET it was
> implied apes kill each other (as capital punishment) and in the TV series they
> flat out say it (example: "As I must have poor Galen killed..."). BENEATH's
> "Lawgiver scene" doesn't imply apes killing each other, in a way it
> contradicts it when Ursus says "Ape shall not kill ape", he'd rather his people die
> a torturous death rather than kill them to put them out of their misery...
> It'd probably be unjustifiable to shoot them, because they commited no
> crime/broke no laws...
>
> In BENEATH, Ursus was willing to have the student protesters shot (killed)
> before Zaius intervenes and says "We don't want martyrs, do we?" Later on,
> during the Lawgiver illusion scene, that's when Ursus says "Ape shall not
> kill ape" because either A) He doesn't want "his" people <Gorillas> killed or
> B) He can't fathom breaking the Lawgiver's word and killing them, as they did
> no punishable crime... Even though it'd end their suffering, he can't bring
> himself to break the commandment of the Lawgiver... Apparently it's better
> to let your fellow ape die an agonizing death rather than kill him... (And
> yes, I know the "Lawgiver scene" apes were illusions and he really wouldn't
> have killed anything.. But the idea of killing the "suffering apes" is
> something he wouldn't do.) ***
>

Thanks , I did not know that(sarcasm).

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** The extended cut (or as you call it "the Mutant story") of BATTLE was
> out on DVD well before it was released on Blu-Ray... That cut has actually
> been around since the seventies when it was fleshed out for TV airings and it
> was first released on laser disc in Japan, so it's nothing new... ***
>
>
>

So they had about 5000 years according to the chronometer in the new apes movie to look like primitive apes than the ones on Earth. I never for a second wanted to have the remake and the originals have anything in common, thats a trait of some of the bookwriters around here. To me they are totally different universes amd people here are taking my ideas or misconceptions way too seriously, they are just movies..

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "apecalypsenow" <apecalypsenow@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think POTA 2001 can be connected to the originals in any way. Leo Davidson mentioned "apes were dying" on Earth (or something along those lines), which is not the case of the POTA originals universe.
> Plus, most importantly, apes in the original POTA universe just "happen" to be humanoid, and that is regarded as normal in the POTA pre-holocaust human civilization, so here we go.
>
>
>

The makeup in Battle wasnt that bad and better than the lame closeups from Beneath. By this time Chambers, Striepyke, Barron and many other of the original artists were gone from the project or made few apperences. I think that a newer breed of trained artist were responsible for the "different look" of the post Conquest Apes..

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** That's funny... Funny to the point of being ludicrous... The masks ARE
> noticeable, or for instance was Kim Hunter, who was there and said you could
> tell the pullovers "like that" <finger snap> wrong?... If people involved
> in the films said they stuck out like sore thumbs, why is it so hard to admit
> they could have/should have been better? It's not like you're saying
> anything against the films themselves, just admitting that cost cutting measures
> were in effect and it showed...
>
> In BATTLE a lot of the "made-up" apes are just a step above masks... I
> don't know if was all due to time constraints or if they just did what they did
> later on the TV series: Reused appliances and hoped they'd fit okay on the
> secondary ("background") apes... Or, they could have done what the TV series
> ALIEN NATION did years later: Have a generic piece made up for the extras,
> the generic piece being functional but not as well fitting (custom made for
> their head shape) as the main actors had...
>
> Anyone who says they're unnoticeable is just kidding themselves... Or they
> need visual help... Next thing you know, people will be saying that the
> vinyl gorilla outfits in BENEATH are undetectable... ***
>
>
> In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> apecalypsenow@... writes:
>
>
> > AND the background make-up was damn good and UNNOTICEABLE, so I don't
> > agree with those bashing the pullover masks. They are unnoticeable and good
> > nonetheless.
>
> </HTML>
>

Apes broke the rules. Star wars changed them..for the worse...Please no fighting!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <pellew@...> wrote:
>
> Yea I wasn't serious just pointing out that there are people out there
> who qualify success with sequels which to me is often a mistake - Yes
> Star Wars broke the rukles but I have found that most sequels
> suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
>
> > I believe there was talk on the Trials following the Titanic sicking
> > as a sequel.
> > But good thing they didn't go that direction. It would just be milking
> > it for all it was worth.
> > Titanic remains best as a stand alone film.
> > Al
> >
>

Class Act, all around...John M.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, pota@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Reminder from: pota Yahoo! Group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/cal
>
> Ricardo Montalban was born on this day in 1920
> Thursday November 25, 2010
> All Day
> (This event repeats every year.)
> (The next reminder for this event will be sent in 18 minutes.)
>
> Notes:
> Armando in Escape & Conquest
>
>
> All Rights Reserved
> Copyright © 2010
> Yahoo! Inc.
> http://www.yahoo.com
>
> Privacy Policy:
> http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us
>
> Terms of Service:
>
>

I got that book at Larry Edmunds in Hollywood back in the eighties..It was one of the first with a full Ape cover..very exciting to me at that time..

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, RedSpy13@... wrote:
>
> Greetings, group. Attached is an advertisement for several movie make-up
> books. I have several of them, but I am looking for "Making a Monster",
> which as you can see, has our friend Dr. Zaius on the cover. The ad is here
> for you collectors in the group. If I can find a copy of the book, I'll be
> sure to scan it and share it with the group. I have both of Tom Savini's
> books (the first of which is shown here) as well as the Dick Smith book
> scanned, if anyone is interested. All you have to do is ask. Enjoy!
>
> Jeff (RedSpy)
>

Dont forget the 25ft hug the two gorilla generals did near the end....

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "gort65" <gort65@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "apecalypsenow" <apecalypsenow@> wrote:
> >
> > Leaping in the POTA 2001 movie was great looking and well done in terms of visuals. We're talking about genetically-engineered mutant humanoid apes, so everything is fine to me.
> >
>
> This is where I switch sides for a bit. ;) No matter about genetically enhanced, I still think the leaping was way too exaggerated and looked just unnecessarily silly. I think it came from the mistaken viewpoint that chimpanzees are eight times stronger, pound for pound of muscle, than humans. However, the truth is nearer to twice as strong per muscle weight. I believe that the novels afterwards did suggest that their strength had been increased somewhat to battle the indigenous species found on the planet, though. Sometimes less is more.
>
>
> Graham F
>

ha there was no fighting here - I gotta remember to put smiley faces on
things
KJ

On 25/11/2010 4:23 PM, JohnM conquest-idor wrote:
> Apes broke the rules. Star wars changed them..for the worse...Please no fighting!
>

Attachments :

HF7Y9824_Planet_of_the_Apes_blu-ray.jpg
HF7Y9824_Planet_of_the_Apes_blu-ray-60715.jpg

Attachments :

apes make up 1984-60716.jpg
apes make up 1984-60716(1).jpg

*** I agree with this, but no matter who was involved, it's lacking
compared to what was before... I know people will disagree with me, but I think a
lot of the TV series make-ups were better than BATTLE's... ***



In a message dated 11/24/2010 11:28:49 PM Central Standard Time,
johnmermigas@... writes:

> The makeup in Battle wasnt that bad and better than the lame closeups
> from Beneath.

</HTML>

*** Whatever you say... Defining what you consider a martyr still doesn't
answer my question... Exactly what does the "Lawgiver on fire" scene in
BENEATH confirm? ***


In a message dated 11/24/2010 11:27:15 PM Central Standard Time,
johnmermigas@... writes:

> Whatever you say. Martyrs dont have to die just be abused...Martyre is a
> witness to something or part of an act thats against society. The death or
> killing of a martyre is just a lable of the person doing the killing. In
> other words a martyre is a person and does not have to leed to death unless
> you go by the new testament meaning. A martyre is a person willing to give
> his or her life, but doesnt have to in order to be called one. But I bet the
> Apes films were not trying to make that distinction.
> In Beneath the Apes mythos wasnt fully created until around Escape when
> Cornelious said "man destroys man Apes do not destroy Apes".
> Their were alot of slight mistrakes in the Apes films probably because
> so many other people other than the credited writers involved in the
> scripts... Personally I would skip the TV series, Dogs and all...
>

.html
<.html

.html<.html

Whatever you want!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** Whatever you say... Defining what you consider a martyr still doesn't
> answer my question... Exactly what does the "Lawgiver on fire" scene in
> BENEATH confirm? ***
>
>
> In a message dated 11/24/2010 11:27:15 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmermigas@... writes:
>
>
> > Whatever you say. Martyrs dont have to die just be abused...Martyre is a
> > witness to something or part of an act thats against society. The death or
> > killing of a martyre is just a lable of the person doing the killing. In
> > other words a martyre is a person and does not have to leed to death unless
> > you go by the new testament meaning. A martyre is a person willing to give
> > his or her life, but doesnt have to in order to be called one. But I bet the
> > Apes films were not trying to make that distinction.
> > In Beneath the Apes mythos wasnt fully created until around Escape when
> > Cornelious said "man destroys man Apes do not destroy Apes".
> > Their were alot of slight mistrakes in the Apes films probably because
> > so many other people other than the credited writers involved in the
> > scripts... Personally I would skip the TV series, Dogs and all...
> >
>

It's BACKGROUND (!!!) and it is UNNOTICEABLE. And actually, everything adds more seventies feel, if you know what I mean.

THe 5 POTA movies are beautiful. Cult movies to the nth degree.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** That's funny... Funny to the point of being ludicrous... The masks ARE
> noticeable, or for instance was Kim Hunter, who was there and said you could
> tell the pullovers "like that" <finger snap> wrong?... If people involved
> in the films said they stuck out like sore thumbs, why is it so hard to admit
> they could have/should have been better? It's not like you're saying
> anything against the films themselves, just admitting that cost cutting measures
> were in effect and it showed...
>
> In BATTLE a lot of the "made-up" apes are just a step above masks... I
> don't know if was all due to time constraints or if they just did what they did
> later on the TV series: Reused appliances and hoped they'd fit okay on the
> secondary ("background") apes... Or, they could have done what the TV series
> ALIEN NATION did years later: Have a generic piece made up for the extras,
> the generic piece being functional but not as well fitting (custom made for
> their head shape) as the main actors had...
>
> Anyone who says they're unnoticeable is just kidding themselves... Or they
> need visual help... Next thing you know, people will be saying that the
> vinyl gorilla outfits in BENEATH are undetectable... ***
>
>
> In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:14:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> apecalypsenow@... writes:
>
>
> > AND the background make-up was damn good and UNNOTICEABLE, so I don't
> > agree with those bashing the pullover masks. They are unnoticeable and good
> > nonetheless.
>
> </HTML>
>

I disagree with you about EVERYTHING (related to make-up), but I still love you as a POTA brother! LOL.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, mlccougar@... wrote:
>
> *** I agree with this, but no matter who was involved, it's lacking
> compared to what was before... I know people will disagree with me, but I think a
> lot of the TV series make-ups were better than BATTLE's... ***
>
>
>

.html<.html

Great points Jeff. Battle was marketed as "The Final Chapter".

Plus can we please dispense with the fiction that FOX was ready to make a sequel but Burton and the cast refused to do it. I've never heard of any attempt by FOX to make a sequel. I don't believe the ever even commissioned a script for it. If any of the cast made comments about not wanting to do a sequel, it was because they know that the first film sucked.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:
>
> There's no comparison between "Battle" and POTA2001. "Battle" came at the end of a long cycle of diminishing returns (mostly budget). If they do 4 sequels to "Rise" that'll be enough for me (unless # 5 really rocks).
> They invested a lot of time and money to get POTA2001 "right". They didn't spend $ 100 million to support Burton's artistry. They wanted sequels. "Battle" was the end. POTA2001 was supposed to be the beginning.
> I don't know if "Battle" is a better film but it's a better story.
>

Happy thanksgiving to you too Dave and everyone else here!

Have a great holiday!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, David Merritt <david.merritt70@...> wrote:
>
> HI BILL,JUST WANTED TO WISH YOU A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. TREKKER DAVE.
>

.html

 

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

And where's Jess?

Has she gotten her

Ape Yayas out and

hung up her Zira

jacket for good?

 

T

 

In a message dated 11/25/2010 9:40:05 A.M. Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Happy thanksgiving to you too Dave and everyone else here!

Have a great holiday!

<.html

Happy Thanksgiving to all here too!

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:39 AM, jamesa1102 <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

Happy thanksgiving to you too Dave and everyone else here!

Have a great holiday!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, David Merritt <david.merritt70@...> wrote:
>
> HI BILL,JUST WANTED TO WISH YOU A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. TREKKER DAVE.
>

--

Bill Hollweg
Have Sword...
Will Slay...
Barbarian in need of Ale...
Check out my Audio Drama Productions-
Bill Hollweg
Lord of Design for BrokenSea Audio
And the other half of "The Brothers of Kaboom... BY FRACKIN' CROM!
www.brokensea.net
The Saga of the Grog and Gryphon @
http://www.brokensea.com and
http://www.westlakefilms.co.uk
Planet of the Apes at
http://www.brokensea.com and
Ulysses-Galactic Guides & Bounty Hunting
http://www.brokensea.com and
CONAN the Audio Book and Audio Drama
http://www.archive.org/details/ConanQueenOftheBlackCoastRobertEHowardFullCastAudio

OTR SwagCast http://brokensea.com/otr/

Attachments :

heston 1967-60733.jpg

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:

>
>
>
> POTA 2001 did some serious business during its theatrical run, did some serious business during its video run, and I'm sure it will be regarded as classic within the next 20 years. That's what I think, despite its flaws.
>
>
>
>
> I have to comment....
>
> No stinking way is anyone seriously going to argue a "classic" status on that film -- EVER!
>

Actually... Nah, best not, there are limits.

Even I wouldn't dare suggest such crazy talk. Still, one has to admire the balls of one who'd claim that sort of thing, just hope they don't get kneed. ;)


Graham F

.html<.html

Attachments :

dsc05689k.jpg
dsc05689k-60736.jpg
dsc05688.jpg
dsc05688-60736.jpg
dsc05633b.jpg

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Bill Hollweg <billhollweg@...> wrote:

Happy Thanksgiving to all here too!

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:39 AM, jamesa1102 <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

Happy thanksgiving to you too Dave and everyone else here!

Have a great holiday!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, David Merritt <david.merritt70@...> wrote:
>
> HI BILL,JUST WANTED TO WISH YOU A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. TREKKER DAVE.
>

--

Bill Hollweg
Have Sword...
Will Slay...
Barbarian in need of Ale...
Check out my Audio Drama Productions-
Bill Hollweg
Lord of Design for BrokenSea Audio
And the other half of "The Brothers of Kaboom... BY FRACKIN' CROM!
www.brokensea.net
The Saga of the Grog and Gryphon @
http://www.brokensea.com and
http://www.westlakefilms.co.uk
Planet of the Apes at
http://www.brokensea.com and
Ulysses-Galactic Guides & Bounty Hunting
http://www.brokensea.com and
CONAN the Audio Book and Audio Drama
http://www.archive.org/details/ConanQueenOftheBlackCoastRobertEHowardFullCastAudio

OTR SwagCast http://brokensea.com/otr/

.html   <.html