I wound up watching the trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I didn’t really mean to do so. For I had no real interest in the film. But a site I clicked onto started playing it automatically. So I had a gander.Sorry to anyone involved and to those that liked it, but my reaction: Is this a joke? (And not the funny kind.)
I think it’s a good example of when a prequel doesn’t need to be told. If you’re not aware, the movie tells HOW the planet became dominated and ruled and, well, completely run by apes. The answer given, of course, is some sort of scientific experiment gone horribly awry producing an army of hyper-intelligent and hyper-active big monkeys attacking us.
No thanks. I much preferred the mystery of the situation. It’s much more horrifying and compelling to have the reasons unknown. And that explanation just seems too easy. Okay, no, I hadn’t thought of it myself. But that’s because I don’t think there’s any reason to need to know how it happened.
I mean, really, does this movie end with the apes destroying the Statue of Liberty and leave us with a shot of her head angled on the shore?
Just my opinion, of course...
Posts
7 comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've SEEN all of the Planet of the Apes movies, including the new one, and...don't they SHOW it in the old series? (And talk about it in the Tim Burton film?)
Admittedly, I'm only marginally interested in this series to begin with... it's something others in my family enjoyed ever so much more than me. I barely remember them since it seems a little more than silly to me from the start.
Given that, I can't have seen them all... but then again, I did see a documentary on it when the Burton film came out. They pretty much explained that they just kept thinking up new ways to stretch the series out. Such as Beneath the Planet of the Apes - which (as I recall) deals with mutants underground. It's this "milk it as much as we can" mentality that really gets my goat. I always think that sequels/prequels need to be fully warranted, not squeezed out for the sake of more.
SO, if they do in fact present this same scenario as the origin of the story that astronauts finally make it back home to a (ahem) planet of the apes, then I object to it THERE, too. I don't recall it being in the original, but given my vague interest, I could be wrong.
For the record, I did see the Burton version. I neither disliked nor liked it especially. S'ok. But I will say that the ending seemed overly forced. Gee, how can we replicate the power of the original's end without copying it exactly? It fell entirely flat to me.
Oh well... that's why there's chocolate and vanilla. [I prefer vanilla.]
By the way, the reason (if not already clear) that I object to an explanation of how it became "the planet of the apes" is that it undermines the impact and bewonderment of the 'reveal' of the first film (assuming this simple and wacky reason is not included in it, and again, if it is, I'm 'not a fan.')
Actually I heard that the movie was MEANT to be stand-alone but it was so popular that there was DEMAND for a sequel--and so they tried (won't spoil it here) to prevent there EVER being a third film....
...and then they had to meet the demand for a third film, so they had to find the ONE loophole in the scenario, and before you knew it there were FIVE films....
And the Burton ending is actually closer to the ending of the original Pierre Boulle novel. Not exactly, but closer than the Heston ending.
And by the way, I prefer vanilla too.
Well Jeepers!
I'm obviously out of the loop when it comes to much of this series. I didn't know it came from a book. Bravo to Burton, then, for that extra nod to it.
And thanks, as always, Anon, for the extra info. I do recall that it had been a success and the fans wanted more. But as it ultimately played out, it got stretched.
I suppose it's just that I've never had any real interest in the story. That being said, I do hope this new film satisfies fans of the series beyond their expectation.
I'll stop talking about it now by showing my favorite incarnation of it (which explains a lot): Dr. Zaius!
You're welcome!
I read the book and it's basically a cross between the fourth part of Gulliver's Travels (the part with the Houyhnhnms--am I spelling that right?--and the Yahoos), and The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. Pierre Boulle in fact looked down on it, preferring to be remembered for The Bridge on the River Kwai.
Post a Comment