Coming in 2011 the Planet of the Apes prequel nobody was begging for.

Count me in for one who generally found the Burton one entertaining. Sure, it had flaws, wasn't as thought provoking as the original, didn't really push boundaries, and the human characters seemed to have no soul, but it did keep me interested in an entertainment sort of way. I wouldn't consider it great, but it was alright in its own right.



Generally, I'd agree, but I think this film poses problems if this route was taken. If the Burton thing had one thing going for it, it was the ape make-up and acting (the human acting was another thing, though). However, it could be argued that the human proportions of the apes in the films (arm and leg length, body proportions, etc) could be explained by accelerated evolution, so that the proportions would end up nearer to the humans over the years (yeah, I know, suspension of disbelief neeRAB to come in a bit ;) ). However, seeing that the prequel is going to be at the time of the apes first gaining intelligence and rebelling against humanity, then those apes would have to be proportionally like current apes, so CGI would probably be needed to portray that.
 
I understand what you are saying but I don't think the average person cares that much about the apes being proportionally like current apes. The majority wouldn't have even given it much thought.

I mentioned how similar to Conquest it will be. I'm wondering if they'll stick with the premise that apes had become servants/slaves or it they'll go along a line that they are research apes getting mistreated and they stand up for themselves and kill their abusive handlers and scientists.
One very key element is going to be guns. If they were lab apes then the chances of them being able to use a gun is small. If they are servents they can use a series of montage shots of apes secretly learning how to handle and use firearms ready for the uprising.
I'm really hoping that they allow the apes to use guns as it's such an iconic image. An ape usually a gorilla holding a rifle or machine gun above his head. I would hate for that to be lost should they try and make it just men with guns over coming animals/primates in a similar way to something like "Aliens." They're not armed but if they get hold of you then you are dead.
 
Still haven't got round to seeing the 2001 film yet, altough I do have it on dvd. I've watched all of the orginal movies and the TV series and really liked them. I've heard that the 2001 film was pants but I'll still go and see the prequel because I like the premise.
 
If you read the thread, you'd see that you're not alone. ;) Yeah, it wasn't as bad as many claim, but it could have been a lot better. It's still got rewatch value for me, despite the flaws.
 
I bought the boxset over xmas and watched the lot,i found Conquest to be one of the better sequels,not sure a prequel to the tim burton one would be wise though,i think id rather see a continuation from the end of the remake.


NO ALDO NO! lol
 
If you go watch it with an open mind the 2001 film is a good film. It was one of those films that couldn't win. It was always going to be condemned as not as good as the original.

I alway try and go in and watch a film with the view the previous one(s) don't exist. I'm one of a few people on these forums that seem to thing the Elm Street remake is ok. I think it stanRAB up as an ok to good film in it's own right if the other ones didn't exist. Yes it could be better but it's not a really bad film.

I think the Burton film stanRAB up on it's own as a film had the other ones not existed. IMO there was enough there to do a sequel if they wanted too.
 
This could actually be a good film, and restart the franchise. As somebody said, ditch the "actors in suits" for top quality puppetry / CGI. Utilise the entire family of Apes, and have them scaled in their relative sizes to one another, Chimps, Gorillas, Orang-Utans, Baboons, Gibbons etc
 
Although I did say that CGI might be a more suited thing for this prequel, I do recognise that real actors bring more life to the characters. Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Roth added something to the roles in the Burton film that CGI can't. Even with Avatar, I always just felt that the characters were a bit hollow, which wasn't something I thought about Burton's ape remake (the irony was that the humans were the ones who seemed to lack substance). Still, due to the proportionality differences in this prequel, I think that CGI is the likely way to go with this.
 
It was the characterisation of the apes that was the attraction of the films back in the 70's when I saw them. As you say the humans lacked substance and were hard to make a connection with.
I think it was hard not to like Cornelius (Roddy McDowell) who you sensed was a gentle man (sic) and a man with principles. You warmed to Kim Hunter as Zira. I was so upset when tehy got killed in Escape. When the baby got shot (so we believed) I remember someone in the audience shouted out "You bastard" at the screen. I think everyone was pulling for them to escape and get away.
In the Burton film Tim Roth managed to act through all the prosthetics and come over as a very nasty dangerous ape that you didn't cross.
I think it would be a shame if they go down the CGI route and you lose the performances because your brain keeps telling you that it's CGI and not real.

I'm still not convined the proportional thing is going to be that bug an issue. It will come down to who they cast and how they move.
They don't have to go down the route of men walking upright with ape faetures. They could instead go for performances like the ones in Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the apes. Lots of hunched over and moving like apes using their arms as well as theior legs to walk and maneuver. If they were to do that half the job is done and our knowledge of apes will fill in the rest because it will look real.
 
I agree with you on two points- Conquest is my favourite of the PotA movies simply because it's political leanings are very interesting and well placed within the larger plot. It certainly bears more repeated viewings than the original PotA.
A Tim Burton sequel would be excellent as I loved the ending to the 2001 version though according to wikipedia Rise of the Apes is a prequel to that.
Just to note that Kevin Smith has apologised for accusing Tim Burton of 'stealing' his comic book ending and I believe that the plot to Tim Burton's version is not dissimilar to Pierre Boulle's original book :~)
 
@ cunningham1471

To be honest, I can see the advantages of both ways. I wouldn't argue hard against using actors and, as mentioned above, can see the advantages of using actors instead of CGI. I just feel that maybe there's more of an argument to use CGI in this one. I'd prefer a way to have real actors (good ones) and proportionality. ;)

In the end, the film won't succeed or fail due to the look of the apes (unless they look terrible), but due to the writing, direction and the acting (CGI or otherwise).
 
Funnily enough, a few hours ago I bought the five original films boxset and also the two disc version of Burton's re-imagining on Amazon. Yeah, bunch of bananas.
 
Back
Top