.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 8:13:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Maybe I'm wrong then Rory (and I really will never know because I did not see Planet first, upon release), but it really does seem there were a lot of gaps that were left in order to be filled in.

What you refer to as "gaps" are in fact "ambiguities" in the original, such as, how did the apes evolve so far in just two thousand years?   Or, what became of the moon?  Sometimes in fiction such as PLANET it's better to just leave some things open for wondering about.  When you try to explain them you run the risk of the whole contrivance falling apart into silly camp, which is something I think happened with the sequels, and a thing that Patrick seems to be rather blind about.  He comes up with these "scenarios" that he gives all kinds of scientific weight to, but it's all just as silly as if it were an episode of "Batman."

-- Rory
<.html<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Haristas@a... wrote:

> I'm so glad you wrote the above comments, Patrick. I once called

you a "disrespector" of the original film and now I know how very
right I am. You have no respect for the fact that the original came
first without any thought of there being a sequel. And as for "Like
it or not, the 1st film will never be considered a separate entity,"
you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

-- What is disrespectful about it? Some of us consider the original
as part of a series of films and there is nothing wrong or
disrespectful in having that opinion.

Fox obviously don't see the original as just a stand alone movie as
they always seem (with the odd exception) to release all the movies
as a set or box set. Most movie guides don't see it as a seperate
entity, they always mention the sequels. Is it disrespectful to Dr.
No that they made other James Bond movies?

As for saying he has no idea what he is talking about for not
considering Planet as a separate entity, that is disrespectful.

This is starting to resemble the old what IS and what ISN'T allowed
to be called Planet of the Apes 'discussion' we had a while ago.
Will where are you? ;-)

Neil

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:

> At the time, other than Andy Hardy, how many sequels had there

actually BEEN?

-- Plaenty.

Neil

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:36 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:
> At the time, other than Andy Hardy, how many sequels had there
actually BEEN?

-- Plenty.

Neil

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:29 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question?

In a message dated 1/4/06 8:13:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Maybe I'm wrong then Rory (and I really will never know because I did not see Planet first, upon release), but it really does seem there were a lot of gaps that were left in order to be filled in.

What you refer to as "gaps" are in fact "ambiguities" in the original, such as, how did the apes evolve so far in just two thousand years?   Or, what became of the moon?  Sometimes in fiction such as PLANET it's better to just leave some things open for wondering about.  When you try to explain them you run the risk of the whole contrivance falling apart into silly camp, which is something I think happened with the sequels, and a thing that Patrick seems to be rather blind about.  He comes up with these "scenarios" that he gives all kinds of scientific weight to, but it's all just as silly as if it were an episode of "Batman."

-- Rory

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , "Neil" <nfoster@h...> wrote:

> Plaenty.

-- Of course I meant to type 'plenty' I must have had Planet on the
brain! What I actually should have asked was - do you mean proper
sequels or movie series?

Neil

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:38 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Neil" <nfoster@h...> wrote:
> Plaenty.

-- Of course I meant to type 'plenty' I must have had Planet on the
brain! What I actually should have asked was - do you mean proper
sequels or movie series?

Neil

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Haristas@a... wrote:

> He comes up with these "scenarios" that he gives all kinds of

scientific weight to, but it's all just as silly as if it were an
episode of "Batman."

-- And just as silly as a movie about future inhabitants of Earth
being talking apes with mute humans and time travelling astronauts! ;-)

Neil

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 8:46:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

-- And just as silly as a movie about future inhabitants of Earth
being talking apes with mute humans and time travelling astronauts! ;-)

Neil

Which is exactly why so much in the original film is left unanswered, as it should be.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:49 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question?

In a message dated 1/4/06 8:46:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

-- And just as silly as a movie about future inhabitants of Earth
being talking apes with mute humans and time travelling astronauts! ;-)

Neil

Which is exactly why so much in the original film is left unanswered, as it should be.

-- Rory

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Haristas@a... wrote:

> Here's a list of just some of the film series that existed before

the APES series:

> FRANKENSTEIN

-- And what a right little disrespectful bugger I must be because as
much as I love the original Frankenstien I also love all those sequels
as well, especially Bride which was (in my opinion) even better than
the original (though the rest weren't but I still luv em)

Neil

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Whitty, Michael
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:38 AM
To: 'PotaDG@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: Reviewlution on the Planet of the Apes - THE COVER!

Well, I'm going to divide my review into manageable chunks!

 

So FIRST - the COVER.....

 

I like it.

 

Actually, I love it!

 

It makes me wonder about the way the apes look in Planet of the Apes.  Why is it that I think the CLASSIC apes' look absolutely SHITS all over Burton's apes (am I right or wrong?)?

 

If there was Computer Animation in 1967, would we have seen Gorillas In The Mist with suits on?  Would the look have been closer to Boulle's apes (and hey - what did THEY look like?)?

 

Would we have had the suits and the glyphs (both of which I believe are very much a part of POTA)?

 

As a (selfish) POTA fan, I would have preferred to see recognisable classic POTA apes.  As a comic publisher trying to return a profit, I'm not so sure.  I think the gorilla in the middle of the page looks very much like King Kong.  Not sure if this is intended but if so, I think it is a wise choice (maybe would have been even better had Jackson's KK been as big as it was predicted to be).  I mentionad the LOOK of classic POTA apes to Ty early on and he replied that he intends to have the apes portrayed by many different artists in many different ways (the theory is that you simply CAN'T please all of the people all of the time anyway).  This makes sense to me.  Hovever, but I am extremely prejudiced in the way I want to see POTA apes (with exception - see my review later of the "back story").  I would seriously like to know if that's just me or if it's all POTA fans in this group.....feedback?

 

In summary, I think this cover WILL bring in new fans and we die-hards will have the actual logo to grab OUR attentiion!

 

 

<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 8:52:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:
> Here's a list of just some of the film series that existed before
the APES series:

> FRANKENSTEIN

-- And what a right little disrespectful bugger I must be because as
much as I love the original Frankenstien I also love all those sequels
as well, especially Bride which was (in my opinion) even better than
the original (though the rest weren't but I still luv em)

Neil

I share your opinion, and I love the FRANKENSTEIN film series, every one of them (except maybe HOUSE OF DRACULA, which is pretty bad), but the FRANKENSTEIN film series has an advantage over the APES series that makes it easy to appreciate each film separately -- it's a singular timeline.  APES unfortunately is burdened with something more.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Haristas@a... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/3/06 11:02:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > The 1968 film HAD this so-called 'right' when it was the only

one, but that changed when they chose to make a sequel. When they
made sequels -- with the same production company, the same actors
(Roddy WOULD have made "BENEATH" if he hadn't been directing a film
at the time) playing the same roles, etc etc -- they expanded
the 'universe' of "PLANET OF THE APES" so that it would
include "BENEATH"... then "ESCAPE"... etc.

> >
> > Some people -- Rory included -- remember seeing "PLANET" in its

original theatrical run, and have been disappointed with each
subsequent sequel, because they don't think any of the sequels stack
up to the original.

> >
> > Others, myself included, remember seeing "PLANET" when it debuted

on TV, after two other APES films had been made, so that -- as a kid,
watching for the first time -- I was only aware that it was a SERIES
of films. Whatever special feeling those "PLANET"-only viewers had, I
never had that luxury. It was ALWAYS a 5-film saga to me, and though
I know that the 1st film was the most original of the bunch, I can
appreciate the sequels -- lower budgets (etc) notwithstanding -- for
being wonderful in their own right.

> >
> > The 1st movie doesn't have 'rights' -- but those who see these

movies have every right to be "PLANET"-purists or POTA-SAGA-
inclusives... whatever floats their boat. But there ain't a soul
alive who doesn't know that the character Chuck played in the 1st
film blows the entire world up in the sequel. Like it or not, the 1st
film will never be considered a separate entity.

>
> I'm so glad you wrote the above comments, Patrick. I once called

you a "disrespector" of the original film and now I know how very
right I am. You have no respect for the fact that the original came
first without any thought of there being a sequel. And as for "Like
it or not, the 1st film will never be considered a separate entity,"
you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

*** Rory, I'm sick of this bullshit notion of yours that I'm
a "disrespector" of "PLANET OF THE APES" just because I happen to
love the sequels. I've always admitted that the 1st film is the best
of 'em. It's rare that ANY sequel to any great film matches -- let
alone surpasses -- the film that's being sequelized. I think
that "ALIENS" is probably the only movie sequel I've seen that
surpasses the original, "ALIEN", and I know there are those who
disagree about that, considering Ridley Scott's film superior to
Cameron's sequel. It's all a matter of opinion, and that's THAT.

And, YES, Rory, I do know what I'm talking about, regarding the FACT
that the 1st APES film will NEVER be considered a separate entity;
the fact is -- whether you like it or not, and I know you hate it --
that the movie "BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES" is a very well-known
film, and a much liked film by too many people, despite its flaws.
And its ending was a much of a "wow" moment as the Statue of Liberty
ending of the 1st one. Taylor DESTROYS THE PLANET EARTH. My GOD,
Rory, just think of all the pop-culture references to the APES films
that include not only Heston-on-the-POTA, but also references to
stuff found ONLY in "BENEATH"... from FUTURAMA to MAD-TV to the
movie "STRANGE BREW", where Doug McKenzie -- in their goofy post-
Apocalypse home movie at the beginning of the film -- portrays "a
fleshy-headed mutant from the Forbidden Zone"... "Nuclear radiation
has made me an enemy of society!" To most people -- people who AREN'T
huge POTA fans like us here at the DG -- Ursus and the Mutants with
their Bomb are as much a part of "PLANET OF THE APES" as the stuff
that's found ONLY in the original.

I love the 1st film and always have and always will. I
don't "disrespect" it in any way. I don't recognize that any work of
art possesses "rights" -- Rights are things that only PEOPLE can
have. You, Rory, have the right to ignore/hate/disregard all the
sequels to "PLANET", just as I have the right to consider 'em all
part of a saga. Just as somebody else has the right to include the
Marvel stories, etc etc. "Rights" are possessed by PEOPLE. Not
by "things".

You say: "You have no respect for the fact that the original came
first without any thought of there being a sequel." You're confusing
the use of the word "respect" here -- you mean "preference", as in, I
have no PREFERENCE for "PLANET" existing without "BENEATH" and the
other sequels. I fully ACKNOWLEDGE that when they made "PLANET" they
had no anticipation of making a 2nd film. They hoped to break even...
make a profit... be successful. They didn't know it would be SO
popular and profitable for Fox when they made it that it took 'em by
surprise when it DID go through the roof. It was the SUCCESS
of "PLANET" that led 'em to make first one sequel... then another and
another, a whole NEST of them! Sometimes I wonder if you would've
preferred that "PLANET" be LESS successful financially, so as to have
PREVENTED them from considering making any sequels. Then you could
enjoy living in a "PLANET"-only la-la land, free of the 'indignities'
you've suffered from watching sequels you can never appreciate as
much as the original. Jeez, if you'd had your way all of us who like -
- or LOVE -- the sequels would be deprived of them. You "disrespect"
the efforts of those SAME producers and actors and filmmakers who
gave us BOTH the original and its sequels, just because they went on
to make those sequels. I suppose Kim Hunter "disrespected" the 1st
film when she agreed to portray Zira in "BENEATH" and "ESCAPE"! If
she were alive today, would you spit in her face for having offended
your sensibilities in having acted in 'inferior' sequels? With all
the venom you occasionally spew at me, it wouldn't surprise me if you
WOULD!

If they had only made the 1st one, I'd have been happy with that. But
they made 4 more. And you writhe in agony because of that, like Brent
when Mr. Negro closes his eyes. Boo hoo! Get the fuck over it! Nobody
says you have to like "BENEATH" and the others. But they EXIST, and
I'm glad they do. I've gotten over the fact that Lucas made crappy
prequels to "STAR WARS" -- why the fuck can't you pluck this bug
outta your ass about PLANET's sequels??? All your bitchin' and
moanin' ain't gonna make 'em go away.

Patrick

P.S. Believe it or not, Rory, I "respect" your right to dislike all
the sequels... the TV show... the cartoon... Marvel's stuff... etc
etc etc. Why the fuck can't you "respect" MY right to think more
fondly of the sequels than YOU do? I don't consider them BETTER than
the 1st film, but in their own right -- taking into account their
limitations, due to budget, etc -- they are all good films, and
worthy of having titles including those four words "... PLANET OF THE
APES". I'm not all that wowed by the cartoon, mind you, and some of
the Marvel stories got too silly for me (the Gorilloids, the King
Arthur stuff of "Kingdom on an Island of the Apes", etc), and I
really REALLY didn't like Burton's film. But to each their own.

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:09 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question

In a message dated 1/4/06 8:52:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:
> Here's a list of just some of the film series that existed before
the APES series:

> FRANKENSTEIN

-- And what a right little disrespectful bugger I must be because as
much as I love the original Frankenstien I also love all those sequels
as well, especially Bride which was (in my opinion) even better than
the original (though the rest weren't but I still luv em)

Neil

I share your opinion, and I love the FRANKENSTEIN film series, every one of them (except maybe HOUSE OF DRACULA, which is pretty bad), but the FRANKENSTEIN film series has an advantage over the APES series that makes it easy to appreciate each film separately -- it's a singular timeline.  APES unfortunately is burdened with something more.

-- Rory

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> all the people at my work who I allowed to read BEWARE THE BEAST pt

1 and 2

-- Speaking of the Beast why don't we, after the daily uploading of
Within has finished, upload a page a day of Beware the Beast (with the
extra pages?) ;-)

Neil

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:43:58 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

All the analysing we do of POTA in these groups is interesting but it has taken away the magic for me, which is sad.

 

I had that problem, even before studying film.

I'd be thinking how I'd do a shot differently, or

wondering, How'd they do that? etc . . .

But it does make when I do get into

a movie all the more special, since

it doesn't happen very often.

 

 

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:30 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: ...say you want a REVOLUTION...we-eel you kno-o-ow...........we ...

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> all the people at my work who I allowed to read BEWARE THE BEAST pt
1 and 2

-- Speaking of the Beast why don't we, after the daily uploading of
Within has finished, upload a page a day of Beware the Beast (with the
extra pages?) ;-)

Neil

Attachments :

.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:51:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Where I am at now, though, brings me less joy!  I was so happy when I just believed it was all a big circle.  Now it's like I have met God and he's just an old drunken fool who had nothing better to do than create a universe!  ;)

 

And what's wrong with the Universe may I ask?

Just ponder Jupiter for a minute.  It's so massive

that everything in the solar system except the

sun itself could be swallowed by it.  It's a huge

ball of Hydrogen.  with so much gravity it becomes

liquid metallic hydrogen.  Imagine that.  A huge

ocean of liquid metallic hydrogen.  And no land

at all.   And a giant storm hundreds of years old.

with lightning striking all around.  How cool is that?

You're just jaded.  And I for one would like to think

of God as someone I could have a beer with. 

His son turns water into wine.  How cool is that?

 

 

 

 

<.html

.html.html Patrick, you are a "disrespector" of PLANET, of it's right to stand alone as a singular work of film art.  You admit this yourself, that the film has no rights.  If you're going to deny something a right, then is that not a form of disrespect?  I have to ask, Why won't you give PLANET the right to stand alone as a work of art, independent of its cinematic sequels?  Why?  What skin is it off your nose?

You are aware, are you not, that no less an authority than the Library of Congress recognizes PLANET as a singular entity, a singular work of cinema.  They put it on their National Registry of important American films, and they've deposited an archival print of it into their vaults to preserve it for future generations.  What they did not do, simply because they were inducting PLANET, was include any of its sequels, nor is there any serious film scholar in the world that would insist that they do so.

Now, just what is it that they don't know that you, Patrick, so emphatically do about PLANET not having a right to be a singular work?

I can't wait: Patrick vs. The Library of Congress.

-- Rory<.html<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:52:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Like it or not, the 1st film will never be
considered a separate entity.

<.html

 .html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 10:09:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:52:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Like it or not, the 1st film will never be
considered a separate entity.

Never say never.
It was!  It was over two years
before there was a sequel.


T, what the hell are you doing?!!!  Don't quote Patrick's words as being my own!  Good God, it's a worse fate than having a sequel like BENEATH!

-- Rory<.html <.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , LordTZer0@A... wrote:

> Never say never.
> It was! It was over two years
> before there was a sequel.

-- Well obviously then it had to be considered as something in its own
right but now after all the sequels I am convinced that most people
consider it a part of a series of movies. The best, the original yes
but still part of a series.

Neil

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 10:44:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

-- Well obviously then it had to be considered as something in its own
right but now after all the sequels I am convinced that most people
consider it a part of a series of movies. The best, the original yes
but still part of a series.

Neil

If most people think so, and I don't agree with that, but let's say they do.  Is the opinion of most people the one that is right?

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:51 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: A question

In a message dated 1/4/06 10:44:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

-- Well obviously then it had to be considered as something in its own
right but now after all the sequels I am convinced that most people
consider it a part of a series of movies. The best, the original yes
but still part of a series.

Neil

If most people think so, and I don't agree with that, but let's say they do.  Is the opinion of most people the one that is right?

-- Rory

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Haristas@a... wrote:

>
> Patrick, you are a "disrespector" of PLANET, of it's right to stand

alone as a singular work of film art. You admit this yourself, that
the film has no rights. If you're going to deny something a right,
then is that not a form of disrespect? I have to ask, Why won't you
give PLANET the right to stand alone as a work of art, independent of
its cinematic sequels? Why? What skin is it off your nose?

>
> You are aware, are you not, that no less an authority than the

Library of Congress recognizes PLANET as a singular entity, a
singular work of cinema. They put it on their National Registry of
important American films, and they've deposited an archival print of
it into their vaults to preserve it for future generations. What
they did not do, simply because they were inducting PLANET, was
include any of its sequels, nor is there any serious film scholar in
the world that would insist that they do so.

>
> Now, just what is it that they don't know that you, Patrick, so

emphatically do about PLANET not having a right to be a singular work?

>
> I can't wait: Patrick vs. The Library of Congress.
>
> -- Rory

*** What a load of horseshit! Sorry 'bout the expletive, folks, but
this takes the cake!

Did the Library of Congress make an artistic declaration that none of
the other APES films would EVER deserve a place on their National
Registry, ever ever EVER??? Like all of us, they recognize
that "PLANET" was a magnificent film -- the one that started the Apes
phenomenon -- and they honored it because YES, it WAS a great movie.
Were they saying that it has "rights" to be considered a stand-alone
movie? Nope.

THINGS do NOT have "rights". To suggest that they DO is to embue them
with HUMAN characteristics, and nowhere in the Constitution or the
Declaration of Independence (or any other document that carries legal
weight) does it suggest otherwise. The Declaration of Independence
asserts that PEOPLE have -- among other rights -- the SPECIFIC rights
to Life, to Liberty, and to the Pursuit of Happiness.

THINGS cannot "live" or experience "liberty" or "pursue happiness"
because they don't have CONSCIOUSNESS.

PEOPLE, on the other hand, DO have consciousness and, hence, the
rights to perpetuate their consciousness -- by remaining ALIVE
(hence, the 1st of those rights, to "Life").

I have rights... you have rights... every human being on the planet
has rights. Unless they FORFEIT those rights, by INFRINGING upon the
rights of others. If somebody commits a murder -- depriving another
person of their life, their RIGHT to be alive -- then the murderer
has forfeited his/her right to Liberty (and can be incarcerated,
after a fair trial finds him/her guilty), and has forfeited his/her
right to Life (and can be executed, as punishment for the crime).

People have rights. THINGS do not have rights. The Library of
Congress was HONORING those movies by putting them on that list. They
weren't recognizing that those movies had "rights" that prompted them
to deposit archival prints in a vault. They didn't wake up one day
and say, "Geez! I just realized! "PLANET OF THE APES" has the
inalienable right to be treated specially, above and beyond "PORKIES"
and "FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH" and "BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS"...
It's rights have been infringed, and we have a legal, a moral, and a
constitutional duty to put an archival print in a vault, blah blah
smegging blahhhhhh..."

If "PLANET OF THE APES" had a "right" to be a stand-alone piece of
filmic art, then it would have been ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
20th Century Fox to make ANY of the sequels. The fact that "BENEATH
THE PLANET OF THE APES" was made PROVES that the original film did
NOT have the "right" to stand-alone. The "rights" in question that
surround these works of art are COPYRIGHTS. That's what that CIRCLE
with the letter "C" inside it means in the Credits sequences of a
movie, or on the "copyright" page of a book, where it gives the
Title, Author, ISBN number, date-of-publication, etc etc. And the
OWNERS of those RIGHTS TO COPY belong to PEOPLE (or, to a company
comprised of people, such as when Dino de Laurentiis BOUGHT the
rights to make a remake of "KING KONG" back in the mid-1970s).

Remember "GONE WITH THE WIND"? It started as a novel. Then a famous
movie version was made. Then, decades later, a sequel
titled "SCARLETT" was written (by somebody else, Margaret Mitchell
having long since died) and published. That sequel novel was able to
be published because the publishers had the LEGAL RIGHT to publish
it, even though the author of the source novel wasn't around to
disapprove. A film version of "SCARLETT" was made, too. Also a legal
thing to do. No "rights" were violated.

The author of "CATCHER IN THE RYE" has REFUSED any and all offers to
BUY or ACQUIRE the rights to make a film version of his novel.
The "right" in question belongs to the AUTHOR, and not to the book.
The book didn't claim it had any "rights" -- the AUTHOR alone can do
that, and HAS done that, in this instance.

When an artist writes a book or a song or makes a movie which STEALS
from another -- like when the theme song of the movie "GHOSTBUSTERS"
ripped off Huey Lewis' song "I Want a New Drug" -- then a "right" has
indeed been violated, and Huey Lewis SUED them for ripping off his
song.

There are fan-produced film versions of famous COPYRIGHTED materials,
such as several "BATMAN" fan films that've made the rounds of
conventions. As long as the people who make those fan films don't
charge money they can get away with making and showing those films.
If they charge money, then the owners of the copyrights (Warner
Bros., in the case of "Batman") have the right to take them to court
in order to claim monetary damages.

Those types of rights -- COPY rights -- are the ONLY "rights"
associated with works of art, Rory. And those rights belong to PEOPLE
and/or the company in which people are stockholders. They don't
belong to the work of art in question.

Jeezus H. Christ! Don't you GET it? "PLANET OF THE APES", the 1968
film, is not a person. It doesn't have "feelings". It isn't a
conscious entity. It has no "rights". No right to not be sequelized,
or adapted into a comic book (Marvel) or "re-imagined" (Burton's
film). Things don't have rights. PEOPLE have rights. You get ahold of
that and hang onto it, or you might as well be dead!

Patrick

.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Melinda G Kettler
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:20 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Revolution Comic

I went into my local comic store yesterday to ask if they had copies of the new comic.  The guy looked at me like he had no idea what I was talking about.  He looked in his computer and said they didn't have it.  Oh well.... I was really surprised.  It is the only comic store I know about in my area. 

 

Melinda

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:

>
> Hey I think we have a new member....Rory, his fave movie is BENEATH!
>
> Are you there Tom?
>
> Michael
>
>Ah, there it is greetings my fellow human slaves from Pittsburgh,Pa.
> Nice to meet some ape fans I can't get over it.

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tshaf37
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:20 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: Welcome to the POTADG

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:
>
> Hey I think we have a new member....Rory, his fave movie is BENEATH!
> 
> Are you there Tom?
> 
> Michael
>
>Ah, there it is greetings my fellow human slaves from Pittsburgh,Pa.
> Nice to meet some ape fans I can't get over it.

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I'm an Aussie, so at 10 years of age the whole statue of
liberty thing meant shit to me

 

In America we say, didn't mean shit to me.

Does the toilet flush the other way too?

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I'm an Aussie, so at 10 years of age the whole statue of
liberty thing meant shit to me

 

Or is it like people who say I could care less,

rather than I couldn't care less?

 

<.html

.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tshaf37@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:26 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] (no subject)

Greetings my fellow ape fans. It took me forever to find a POTA group but I guess better late then never, so I'm sorry if I'm not doing this right. I'm to introduce myself. My name is Tom I live in Pittsburgh, Pa. I have been a fan since I was 5 in 1973 when I was blown away by the movie. Who knew the right stuff could go so wrong? My favorite is Beneath the planet of the apes, I like Brent better for some reason? I look forward to some deep talks.

 

Thanks

Tom Schaffer

Pittsburgh

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: TShaf37@... [TShaf37@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Michael.Whitty@...
Subject: Re: Welcome to PotaDG

I got Battle from e-bay (for Christmas from daughter) and was shocked at the quality to be honest. It's fantastic. I got the cartoon series from Hunter Goatley for free last September he was sending them out and they were excellent as well. Some of the story is the cartoon series are great, but on the other hand some are real bombs. UNCLASSIFIED

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:26 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] A question

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I'm an Aussie, so at 10 years of age the whole statue of
liberty thing meant shit to me

 

In America we say, didn't mean shit to me.

Does the toilet flush the other way too?

 

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:27 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] A question

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I'm an Aussie, so at 10 years of age the whole statue of
liberty thing meant shit to me

 

Or is it like people who say I could care less, rather than I couldn't care less?

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:17:03 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Here's a list of just some of the film series that existed before the APES series:

 

Yes, but POTA was the first Space Opera where only the first scene was in space.

 

 

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , LordTZer0@A... wrote:

>
>
> In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> Michael.Whitty@d... writes:
>
> I'm an Aussie, so at 10 years of age the whole statue of
> liberty thing meant shit to me
>
>
>
> I can remember wanting to be an astronaught as a kid at 6 and I even

had a halloween costome I ran around in all the time. I remember my
Mother telling me Planet of the apes was going to come and I had to
take a bath first. I had no idea what it was about
execeptforAstronaughts
in it. I can remember being so blown away when the hunt began and was
captivated to the very end. Who knew the right stuff could go so wrong?

>

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/06 11:05:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Jeezus H. Christ! Don't you GET it? "PLANET OF THE APES", the 1968
film, is not a person. It doesn't have "feelings". It isn't a
conscious entity. It has no "rights".

Wrong.<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:55:56 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I think you mean to say the original never intended the sequels it GOT.

Not true... I gotta go along with Rory on this one, the first film was NOT intended to have sequels or be the start of a franchise of any kind... All those involved in the production will tell you that...<.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of mlccougar@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:02 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] A question?

In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:55:56 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

I think you mean to say the original never intended the sequels it GOT.

Not true... I gotta go along with Rory on this one, the first film was NOT intended to have sequels or be the start of a franchise of any kind... All those involved in the production will tell you that...

<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:01:15 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Heston's attitude came from not wanting to be just remembered as "the guy from Planet of the Apes" don't you think.

Bullsh*t... His credentials were solid enough that he wouldn't ever be remembered just as the "Planet of the Apes guy"... "Ben Hur", "The Warlord", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", "Will Penny", and the list goes on and on... Not just films from before Apes (or released roughly at the same time), but well after Apes too... I'd say it was safe to say that thought didn't enter his mind, unless you can prove otherwise?

 

Surely it wasn't "sequels will cheapen the film" or he would have never done BENEATH!

But that is his thought on it, and he is on record several places as saying it (either directly or indirectly!)... He only did BENEATH as a favor to Zanuck who greenlighted the masterpiece PLANET anyway...

 

Planet left everyone wanting more, and I just do not think that was an accident.

Not planned to be that way though... I'm sure there are tons of films that leave audiences wanting more, but tey don't always get it...

 

At the time, other than Andy Hardy, how many sequels had there actually BEEN?


Laurel and Hardy films, Ma and Pa Kettle films, Abbott and Costello films, and weren't there James Bond films and Godzilla films that were sequels around that time too?<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:17:02 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Here's a list of just some of the film series that existed before the APES series:

And a much better and lengthy list than what I came up with to just name a few... Good job...<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:05:51 PM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

They didn't wake up one day and say, "Geez! I just realized! "PLANET OF THE APES" has the inalienable right to be treated specially, above and beyond "PORKIES" and "FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH" and "BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS"...

Oh but they did... Otherwise it wouldn't be in there right now...

<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:08:45 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Round them up boys!



Can't round them up, but watch your copy of BEHIND for some of this stuff...<.html <.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of mlccougar@...
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:41 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] A question?

In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:08:45 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Round them up boys!

Can't round them up, but watch your copy of BEHIND for some of this stuff...

<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:44:28 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

OK

Especially pay attention to Mort Abrahams...<.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:33:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

Is it disrespectful to Dr. No that they made other James Bond movies?

 

I don't think that analogy works.

James Bond was a series of books.

There was only one POTA book from the start.

Did you know that in an early script Dr. No was

going to be a monkey?  I was that trivia on the

Spike TV 8 Days of 007.  There's a POTA connection. 

Though it would have been tough to take seriously.

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 7:52:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

especially Bride which was (in my opinion) even better than
the original

I like BOF better too except the little people.

That was silly.  But the music is better.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 9:39:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

T, what the hell are you doing?!!!  Don't quote Patrick's words as being my own!  Good God, it's a worse fate than having a sequel like BENEATH!

 

I find it easier than going back to fish them out of the original email.

This sometimes gets me in trouble.  People feel misquoted.  I'll

try in future when I'm being lazy to at least take the "So&so writes"

off of them when it's from a previous quote.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 9:44:32 P.M. Central Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

The best, the original yes
but still part of a series.

 

I look at it the other way around.

The series is a part of it. 

Sort of like adding rooms

onto the main house.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:01:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:

Yes!

 

Most people

 

I think if democracy has a flaw that has to be it.

Most people are idiots.  Most people thought

the world was flat.  Most people thought it was

a geocentric universe.  Most people are usually

WRONG.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:59:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

It has no "rights".

It has copyrights.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:30:38 P.M. Central Standard Time, tshaf37@... writes:

I like Brent better for some reason?

 

Have you ever read the "Be Like Brent" paper?

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:11:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

Planet left everyone wanting more, and I just do not think that was an accident.

Not planned to be that way though... I'm sure there are tons of films that leave audiences wanting more, but tey don't always get it...

 

It was an accident.  Don't think so?  You should read his book.

I could look it up, and type it out, but again . . . L A Z Y

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:39:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

"Geez! I just realized! "PLANET OF THE APES" has the inalienable right to be treated specially, above and beyond "BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS"...

 

Yes, but it should be attached to 

Beneath The Valley Of The Ultra-Vixens.

As a double-feature!   I buy That for a dollar! 

 

 

<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 12:39:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:05:51 PM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

They didn't wake up one day and say, "Geez! I just realized! "PLANET OF THE APES" has the inalienable right to be treated specially, above and beyond "PORKIES" and "FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH" and "BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS"...

Oh but they did... Otherwise it wouldn't be in there right now...


Rights are privileges or protections that are granted.  Just as people enjoy certain rights so do other things, though it all relates back to man.  We grant animals certain rights, not to be abused or killed without warrant, and we also grant rights to things, property for instance, and art.  Is not art more often than not protected by copyrights?

Patrick simply doesn't believe PLANET should be granted certain rights.  I don't think most would agree.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 4:02:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

In a message dated 1/4/2006 10:59:59 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

It has no "rights".

It has copyrights.


T, will you please stop putting Patrick's words into my mouth!

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/2006 2:57:49 AM Central Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

I look at it the other way around.The series is a part of it. Sort of like adding rooms
onto the main house.

That's a good way to put it...<.html <.html

.html <.html

.html <.html

.html<.html

Why do you want to throw Tom out there like that? That's something I
would do. Hehehe. Oh, yeah. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Planet the only
movie that counts. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Lost my childhood. Blah Blah
Blah. No magic in my life anymore. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Don't you
disrespect me. Blah Blah Blah. I have a right to babble. Blah Blah
Blah. Didn't say you didn't have the right. Blah Blah Blah. Your
opinion is just wrong. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Stupid Hippy Doo
Doo Head.

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "tshaf37" <tshaf37@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Whitty, Michael"
<Michael.Whitty@d...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey I think we have a new member....Rory, his fave movie is
BENEATH!
> >
> > Are you there Tom?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >Ah, there it is greetings my fellow human slaves from Pittsburgh,Pa.
> > Nice to meet some ape fans I can't get over it.
>

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 2:56:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, DrZaiusDavis@... writes:

Why do you want to throw Tom out there like that? That's something I
would do.  Hehehe.  Oh, yeah. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Planet the only
movie that counts. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Lost my childhood. Blah Blah
Blah. No magic in my life anymore. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Don't you
disrespect me. Blah Blah Blah. I have a right to babble. Blah Blah
Blah. Didn't say you didn't have the right. Blah Blah Blah. Your
opinion is just wrong. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Stupid Hippy Doo
Doo Head.

Who's this clown?  At least he's funnier than Patrick.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 9:57:56 A.M. Central Standard Time, tshaf37@... writes:

Have you ever read the "Be Like Brent" paper?

 

Someone wrote a very interesting comparison

that, whereas Taylor rushed headlong into things,

Brent snuck around and assessed the situation

before going in.  And he's able to escape without

much help, and without endangering his savior.

 

 

 

~~~ "Be like Brent, my friend.  Be like Brent." ~~~~

                            In the voice of Bruce Lee

 

 

<.html

Attachments :

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 10:04:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, tshaf37@... writes:

Heston said, it was the worst acting job of his career. He wasn't motivated to do the film in anyway.

 

Kim confided to me that it was not one of her favorite pictures. 

Here's an excerpt from her book . . .

 

<.html

.html <.html

Attachments :

.html
-- <.html

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the PotaDG
group.

File : /Within the Planet of the Apes/WPOTA 64.gif
Uploaded by : munkeyman63au <nfoster@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PotaDG/files/Within%20the%20Planet%20of%20the%20Apes/WPOTA%2064.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

munkeyman63au <nfoster@...>

Attachments :

.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 3:26:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Brilliant!  

What's she reading?

 

By her book and find out.  But seriously . . .

I'm not sure if it's the title, but on the back cover it says

African Genesis. 

<.html

Wow what a great way to look at the series.

Red.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:24:36 -0500, <mlccougar@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 1/5/2006 2:57:49 AM Central Standard Time,
> LordTZer0@... writes:
>
>>
>> I look at it the other way around.The series is a part of it. Sort of
>> like
>> adding rooms
>> onto the main house.
>>
>
> That's a good way to put it...



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

You will have to forgive me, but I feel that POTA made Charlton Heston
known to many who would otherwise have little or no idea who he was. I was
never a fan of his work prior to POTA. Never much liked him as an actor.
But, I thouroughly enjoyed him in POTA. Never liked him much as a person
outside of film. I have many issues with his personal crusade to promote
the NRA. I have many issues with guns in general. So, I have a really hard
time taking him serious when he states that POTA "Was the worst acting job
of his career." Unless he was talking about Beneath the POTA, in which
case I have a hard time taking him seriously there as well. Just my
humble opinion.

RedAce^

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:39:23 -0500, <tshaf37@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:12:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> mlccougar@... writes:
> Surely it wasn't "sequels will cheapen the film" or he would have never
> done
> BENEATH!
>
>
> But that is his thought on it, and he is on record several places as
> saying
> it (either directly or indirectly!)... He only did BENEATH as a favor to
> Zanuck
> who greenlighted the masterpiece PLANET anyway...
> If you read the book Planet of the apes revisited Heston said, it was the
> worst acting job of his career. He wasn't motivated to do the film in
> anyway. He
> only did it as a favor and even donated his salary to his sons' school.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

.html

 

I collect coincidences, so I just had to share these parallels.

 

Often Kim Hunter's name is mangled.  The first time it's

mentioned in the liner notes for Fox Classics soundtrack

for POTA/Escape they call her Kevin Hunter.  Somewhere

else, maybe one of Heston's books, she's credited, under

a photo if I recall correctly as Kim Stanley.  Kevin Hunter

is just some guy who hasn't done much. 

 

Kim Stanley however was on of the greatest stage

actresses of all time.  Here are some things they

have in common.

 

Though they are 3 years apart both Kim Hunter & Kim

Stanley were  inspired to go into acting at the age of 15/16

after seeing Katherine Hepburn. Kim saw her in the movie

"Stage Door", and Stanley saw her in San Antonio in the

Broadway production of the play "The Philadelphia Story". 

 

Both of them began acting in California at the Pasadena

Playhouse.  Both of them had changes in their accents.  

Stanley had to lose her Texas Twang to find work on

Broadway, and Kim picked up a Limey Lilt after spending

six months in Britain making A Matter Of Life And Death. 

 

Both studied under Strasberg and Kazan at the Actors Studio

and both of them did Tennessee Williams plays. Kim was

Stella in A Streetcar Named Desire on Broadway and later

the film version.  Stanley played Big Mama for the PBS

production of Cat On A Hot Tin Roof. 

 

They also appeared together in Jose Ferrer's 1952 Broadway

production of The Case for which Stanley won an award. 

And worked both in early television Playhouse 90's and

later in Night Gallery written by POTA author Rod Serling. 

And though he didn't write the theme song, POTA

composer Jerry Goldsmith provided the music for

some of the episodes. Get on that one, Kevin Bacon!

 

 

 

 

 

<.html

Attachments :

---

Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars . Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 4:48:22 P.M. Central Standard Time, wasitchu@... writes:

Wow what a great way to look at the series.

 

I think it's the only way to look at it.

The "Main House" was built first to

stand alone, with no thought of future

additions.

 

If you step back, and look at the new

house you may not even notice the

additional rooms are "add ons". It

appears as one big mansion.  But

on closer inspection you can see

by the writing that each one was

an afterthought.  When looked at 

closely, the seams show.  

 

But the Main House was originally

built complete, in and of itself, with

no thought to any further expansion.

 

 

<.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , LordTZer0@A... wrote:

> I think it's the only way to look at it.
> The "Main House" was built first to
> stand alone, with no thought of future
> additions.
>
> If you step back, and look at the new
> house you may not even notice the
> additional rooms are "add ons". It
> appears as one big mansion. But
> on closer inspection you can see
> by the writing that each one was
> an afterthought. When looked at
> closely, the seams show.
>
>
> But the Main House was originally
> built complete, in and of itself, with
> no thought to any further expansion.

-- That is very, very good T!

Neil

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 4:59:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, wasitchu@... writes:

So, I have a really hard  time taking him serious when he states that POTA "Was the worst acting job of his career." Unless he was talking about Beneath the POTA, in which case I have a hard time taking him seriously there as well. 

 

He was talking about Beneath.  But you're right!

I have to disagree with him.  If you've seen him

doing Sherlock Holmes or Cardinal Richelieu

you know what I'm talking about.  He should

have stuck to roles like Moses or Michelangelo.

I'm all for actors stretching, like Kirk Douglas

playing Vincent Van Gogh.  But sometimes

they stretch so far they snap, like John

Wayne playing a Swede.  "Ya, yust yinyur beer."

 

 

<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 3:39:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

In a message dated 1/5/2006 10:04:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, tshaf37@... writes:

Heston said, it was the worst acting job of his career. He wasn't motivated to do the film in anyway.

Kim confided to me that it was not one of her favorite pictures. 


I remember reading somewhere that she considered BENEATH pure melodrama.  There was no part there that was developed.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 6:03:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

And worked both in early television Playhouse 90's and
later in Night Gallery written by POTA author Rod Serling. 
And though he didn't write the theme song, POTA
composer Jerry Goldsmith provided the music for
some of the episodes. Get on that one, Kevin Bacon!

Jerry Goldsmith didn't write any music for the TV series "Night Gallery."

-- Rory<.html <.html

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , Ralph <wasitchu@o...> wrote:

>You will have to forgive me, but I feel that POTA made Charlton Heston

known to many who would otherwise have little or no idea who he was. I
was never a fan of his work prior to POTA.

-- Exactly the same here, it was only after I saw him in Planet of the
Apes that I started taking notice of his other movies.

Neil

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com , LordTZer0@A... wrote:

> Somewhere else, maybe one of Heston's books, she's credited, under

a photo if I recall correctly as Kim Stanley.

-- That's right, I have that book somewhere.

Neil

Hey good people I don't have access to my DVDs at the moment so I was
just hoping someone could help me out.
In the TV show were the gorillas a Police force? Is it even mentioned
at all what they are? I'm pretty sure that they were not referred to
as an Army.
If anyone could let me know it would be much appreciated.

Neil

.html <.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/06 7:45:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

In the TV show were the gorillas a Police force?

It seemed that way to me.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html <.html

.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 6:21:37 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

I remember reading somewhere that she considered BENEATH pure melodrama.  There was no part there that was developed.

 

Aside from the mutants

there are only two new characters,

Brent (guy on rescue mission)

And Ursus (power mad general)

What's to develop?

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 6:25:25 P.M. Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Jerry Goldsmith didn't write any music for the TV series "Night Gallery."

-- Rory

 

What?  Did I say that?

I meant Twilight Zone.

 

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 1/5/2006 7:20:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

I meant Twilight Zone.

 

Speaking of that.  I think that was a big infulence on the

POTA soundtrack.  I think in his Twilight Zone stuff he was

trying to associate it with the theme written by Marius Constant.

And when he was doing another Rod Serling story he went

back to that.  That atonal Stavinsky style is part of it.

But they do seem more related than just that.

 

 

<.html

.html Such a happy crowd! Elaine<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/2006 4:59:33 PM Central Standard Time, wasitchu@... writes:

So, I have a really hard time taking him serious when he states that POTA "Was the worst acting job of his career." Unless he was talking about Beneath the POTA

He WAS talking about BENEATH...

<.html <.html

mlccougar@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/5/2006 4:59:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> wasitchu@... writes:
>
>> So, I have a really hard time taking him serious when he states that
>> POTA "Was the worst acting job of his career." Unless he was talking
>> about Beneath the POTA
>
>
>
> He WAS talking about BENEATH...

Thank you for clarifying that.

RedAce

.html.html Okay, so now it's time for me to reveal what was the point I'm trying to make in asking if PLANET has a right to stand alone as a singular piece of cinematic art.  I'll try to keep this short.

I think the general consensus here is that PLANET does have that right.  It wasn't made with any sequels in mind.  Its story concerns Taylor and what he discovers on the planet of the apes, and that the end of the film is the conclusion to that story.  This is actually quite obvious and only those so devoted to the entire series (the so-called APES Saga) that they just can't separate the movies themselves would argue that PLANET doesn't have the right to be appreciated as a singular motion picture.

Certainly the Library of Congress thought this way when they put PLANET on the National Film Registry back in 2001 for being "culturally, historically or esthetically significant."  They did not put the "Planet of the Apes Saga" on the registry, just the original film.

So what is the point I'm trying to make?  Of course it has to do with timelines.  Yes, here we go 'round again!

If the original film has a "right" to stand alone -- and you're going to allow it to -- then the timeline of the APES series has to number two.  There has to be an original timeline and then an alternate one.  If the original film is indeed "the original," which of course it is, but in a larger meaning that it is the origin of the APES film series story, the point or source from which a thing -- in this case a film series -- begins its existence, then there has to be two timelines.  The existence of the story in PLANET cannot depend on the events of a sequel that comes much later.

What I'm saying is that the fictional story within PLANET is PLANET.  These films are their stories and the stories may be fictional but the movies aren't .  They're real things in our world, therefore the existence of PLANET cannot depend on the existence of its sequels.  It's simply an unacceptable artistic paradox.   

If you're going to contend that the APES series is a closed timeline loop, then you not only deny PLANET of its right to be a singular work of art, but you also deny it the essence of what it is -- an original.

All right, let's hear the arguments pro or con.

-- Rory<.html<.html

.html.html In a message dated 1/5/2006 6:45:24 PM Central Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:

In the TV show were the gorillas a Police force? Is it even mentioned
at all what they are? I'm pretty sure that they were not referred to
as an Army.

Yes, in the TV series the gorillas were a police force... And, to set it right, Urko was NOT a general... He was Chief of Security...

There is only one place that may make it seem as though the gorillas were military, and that is in the episode "The Legacy" when Galen see's a squad heading in their direction, he whispers "Soldiers"...

<.html <.html

I believe they were a police force. Remember he was "Chief of Security
Urko" but they really don't spell it out at any point.

--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Neil" <nfoster@h...> wrote:
>
> Hey good people I don't have access to my DVDs at the moment so I
was
> just hoping someone could help me out.
> In the TV show were the gorillas a Police force? Is it even
mentioned
> at all what they are? I'm pretty sure that they were not referred to
> as an Army.
> If anyone could let me know it would be much appreciated.
>
> Neil
>