Mike_J: I didn’t mean to put down Chambers’ makeup at all, just saying that the approach was not to create realistic-looking apes. And the film is better for it.
There’s a few ways to look at the makeup issue. One is the ‘evolution’ aspect that the apes have mutated to be more human-looking. The other is to acknowledge that ‘Planet of the Apes’ is a satire, after all – “The apes are us.” There are moments in this dark film that are actually funny, and to my ears, Goldsmith’s music has an ironic humor to it that underscores this.
Even with lines like, “Human see, human do,” “Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others,” and so on… PotA managed to somehow avoid being goofy, hold you spellbound, and still wave the satire right in our faces. I don’t find any of that extra dimension in the new films – they took a much more simple and direct action Sci-Fi approach. And for me, that’s a major element of the franchise missing. If you take PotA as a serious ‘this could really happen’ film, well then it’s pretty silly. But that’s not the way to approach the original film cycle at all, IMHO.
RoryR: I had no idea that the Freeborn head was used in Trog, but as soon as I read what you wrote, I conjured up the image in my mind and, yeah! Trog DID look an awful lot like Moonwatcher, didn’t he? Hah!
It does and plenty of them, but the book is very dated now.
I'm only interested in the 1960-'70s era; and the value guides mean nothing to me. I'd just like a one-volume reference of all the Apes stuff from the five films and TV show. Thanks for the tip!
Until 1974, there really wasn't much APES "stuff"; a tie-in paperback of the Boulle book, a Project 3 soundtrack of Goldsmith's score, a Topps 44-card set for the original film, a Bell Records LP of the BENEATH score, a BENEATH novelization paperback, and that was about it unless you knew how to get original posters, lobby cards and stills.
Did you (or anyone else reading this) have a PotA door poster in your teenage domicile? I'd have loved one back in my geeky sci-fi days--which are long-since gone, of course
Did you (or anyone else reading this) have a PotA door poster in your teenage domicile? I'd have loved one back in my geeky sci-fi days--which are long-since gone, of course
The first time I saw the Apes franchise on the big screen, was a double bill, Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes at the Odeon, St. Albans.
The first time I saw the Apes franchise on the big screen, was a double bill, Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes at the Odeon, St. Albans.
My first cinematic encounter with the PotA franchise was at the same cinema John (and what a great cinema it was) but in my case it was Planet and Escape as a double bill.
At the time I had no idea that Beneath existed let alone that Escape was the 3rd movie rather than (as I assumed) the 2nd. Oddly, you can watch those movies together and they work perfectly together, almost as if the events of Beneath are totally irrelevant (which for the most part they are apart from the little thing about the Earth being blow to pieces!).
Anecdotally, I always remember the very first time that the Apes movies were shown on terrestrial TV here in the UK, ITV got thhe running order mixed up and screened Battle before Conquest. It's a fair mistake I suppose, considering most conquests come at the end of a battle but even so!!
In retrospect, PLANET should have had the budget so that no one playing an ape was wearing those awful over-the-head masks. But they did what they did, still it's terrible those masks weren't kept into the deep background as they were supposed to be. During that chase scene through Ape Town, they actually zoom in on the stuntmen wearing just those masks -- awful. But, you know, as a kid, I don't recall noticing it, so maybe it didn't matter -- then anyway.
In retrospect, PLANET should have had the budget so that no one playing an ape was wearing those awful over-the-head masks. But they did what they did, still it's terrible those masks weren't kept into the deep background as they were supposed to be. During that chase scene through Ape Town, they actually zoom in on the stuntmen wearing just those masks -- awful. But, you know, as a kid, I don't recall noticing it, so maybe it didn't matter -- then anyway.
I agree, the over-the-head masks are really obvious now but when I first saw PLanes at age 12, I am sure I never noticed it - I was so in awe of the movie the first time I saw it, my jaw was in the floor throughout the film.
The worst culprit for the non-prosthetic ape masks though is Conquest, where they seem very very obvious right from the start.
The worst culprit for the non-prosthetic ape masks though is Conquest, where they seem very very obvious right from the start.
I've come to the conclusion that there's a huge flaw in the original APES series, one that kind of ruins the last three films (ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE) -- for me at least. If you know anything about the development of the first film, you know that John Chambers based his makeup design on the idea that these were advanced apes, well on their way to a human form. Now, the flaw with ESCAPE is that from the moment the three "future" apes removed their spacesuit helmets, they're just accepted as being chimpanzees, apes as we know them today, but obviously they don't appear anything like "normal" chimpanzees, so ESCAPE is immediately absurd! CONQUEST continues this absurdity, with no mention at all that the apes are advanced in any way, but just regular apes snatched out of the jungle. In retrospect, it's hugely ridiculous. Fox needed to modify the makeup, ironically back to the early makeup designs of Chambers that more closely resembled the real thing, which was deemed "too ugly" by the very "unsure this will appeal to audiences" producers and studio executives. BATTLE, which anyway you cut it is a substandard entry in the series, is absurd because it asks us to accept that in two thousand years the apes never change their clothing styles. Do we still clothe ourselves like the people of ancient Greece and Rome?
(I just saw I mentioned this issue a couple months ago. Oh well.)
There’s a few ways to look at the makeup issue. One is the ‘evolution’ aspect that the apes have mutated to be more human-looking. The other is to acknowledge that ‘Planet of the Apes’ is a satire, after all – “The apes are us.” There are moments in this dark film that are actually funny, and to my ears, Goldsmith’s music has an ironic humor to it that underscores this .
In the recent book on the making of the franchise "Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legend," co-written by Jeff Bond, PLANET's co-screenwriter (the primary writer of the finished film), Michael Wilson, is quoted from a studio memo saying plainly "my screenplay is a comedy" (Page 54).
Even with lines like, “Human see, human do,” “Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others,” and so on… PotA managed to somehow avoid being goofy, hold you spellbound, and still wave the satire right in our faces. I don’t find any of that extra dimension in the new films – they took a much more simple and direct action Sci-Fi approach. And for me, that’s a major element of the franchise missing.
I agree, and it's one of the reasons why already I find viewing DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES yet again (I've seen it three times) a boring prospect. I don't hate the new movies, or even dislike them, but an element of satiric wit is sorely missing. I hope the makers of them, now working on the script for the next one, realize that too and are correcting it, but I have little faith in the sophistication of modern screenwriting. There are just no Michael Wilsons around anymore.
I think the Chambers 'look' was central to maintaining the 'ape' standard whose familiarity was the very essense of audience draw. To have tampered with that specific 'parameter' would have rocked the boat. Who actually thought about the precise 'consequences' of cause and effect back then?
I think the man apes from 2001 were great. That they don't match up to the POTA 'look' in the eyes of some confirms the above POV.
Even with lines like, “Human see, human do,” “Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others,” and so on… PotA managed to somehow avoid being goofy, hold you spellbound, and still wave the satire right in our faces. I don’t find any of that extra dimension in the new films – they took a much more simple and direct action Sci-Fi approach. And for me, that’s a major element of the franchise missing.
Which is true of most reboots and remakes. They gut the soul out of the originals and turn them into mindless expositions.
Even with lines like, “Human see, human do,” “Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others,” and so on… PotA managed to somehow avoid being goofy, hold you spellbound, and still wave the satire right in our faces. I don’t find any of that extra dimension in the new films – they took a much more simple and direct action Sci-Fi approach. And for me, that’s a major element of the franchise missing.
Which is true of most reboots and remakes. They gut the soul out of the originals and turn them into mindless expositions.
I see - it's the "lost in translation" problem. I think what is supposed to have been "gained in translation" is the story of Caesar - the law giver himself. I mean, isn't that what it's all about? And another thing is the digital performance art, which is behind the wonderment of it all. Does it help or hinder this new series? The newness of the technology and all is using the Apes franchise as a test-bed, which to the POTA purist would seem to be beside the point.
In the recent book on the making of the franchise "Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legend," co-written by Jeff Bond, PLANET's co-screenwriter (the primary writer of the finished film), Michael Wilson, is quoted from a studio memo saying plainly "my screenplay is a comedy" (Page 54).
Unfortunately, the "Evolution" book abbreviates the quote from Wilson's memo. When Wilson refers to "comedy" it's more specifically of the "black-comedy" type. The full sentence out of Wilson's memo reads: "In the classic sense of the term, my screenplay is a comedy—just as 'Gulliver’s Travels,' 'A Connecticut Yankee' and 'Animal Farm' are comedies."
Perhaps most get this right-off (my apologies, no talking down intended here) but in our present culture, "comedy" has become a mono-synonymous description of "ha-ha" films and TV, not of the sophistication of Wilson's comedy-concept of PLANET OF THE APES.
Unfortunately, the "Evolution" book abbreviates the quote from Wilson's memo. When Wilson refers to "comedy" it's more specifically of the "black-comedy" type. The full sentence out of Wilson's memo reads: "In the classic sense of the term, my screenplay is a comedy—just as 'Gulliver’s Travels,' 'A Connecticut Yankee' and 'Animal Farm' are comedies."
Perhaps most get this right-off (my apologies, no talking down intended here) but in our present culture, "comedy" has become a mono-synonymous description of "ha-ha" films and TV, not of the sophistication of Wilson's comedy-concept of PLANET OF THE APES.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Wilson meant "it's a comedy" as if it was IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD OF APES. Somewhere on YouTube, and I don't have the time to search for it right now, is an APES fan-created video that includes a clip of a video interview with PLANET director Franklin J. Schaffner where he says PLANET OF THE APES isn't Science Fiction at all, but "Swiftian Satire." Anyone who knows what that means knows that it is correct when looking at the original movie. As Science Fiction it's implausible nonsense, but it's not supposed to be "serious" Science Fiction. The problem with the concept as it developed into a series of films is that the absurdities just piled up, the budgets shrunk, the entire thing became "campy," ending as a literal cartoon (two, if you included the Burton debacle). The new movies have tried to make the implausible much less so (I actually think RISE was very clever), but in the process they've neglected what the concept is really all about, a critique of humanity and how humanity, at least the less sophisticated members of it, sees itself.
Unfortunately, the "Evolution" book abbreviates the quote from Wilson's memo. When Wilson refers to "comedy" it's more specifically of the "black-comedy" type. The full sentence out of Wilson's memo reads: "In the classic sense of the term, my screenplay is a comedy—just as 'Gulliver’s Travels,' 'A Connecticut Yankee' and 'Animal Farm' are comedies."
Perhaps most get this right-off (my apologies, no talking down intended here) but in our present culture, "comedy" has become a mono-synonymous description of "ha-ha" films and TV, not of the sophistication of Wilson's comedy-concept of PLANET OF THE APES.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Wilson meant "it's a comedy" as if it was IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD OF APES. Somewhere on YouTube, and I don't have the time to search for it right now, is an APES fan-created video that includes a clip of a video interview with PLANET director Franklin J. Schaffner where he says PLANET OF THE APES isn't Science Fiction at all, but "Swiftian Satire." Anyone who knows what that means knows that it is correct when looking at the original movie. As Science Fiction it's implausible nonsense, but it's not supposed to be "serious" Science Fiction. The problem with the concept as it developed into a series of films is that the absurdities just piled up, the budgets shrunk, the entire thing became "campy," ending as a literal cartoon (two, if you included the Burton debacle). The new movies have tried to make the implausible much less so (I actually think RISE was very clever), but in the process they've neglected what the concept is really all about, a critique of humanity and how humanity, at least the less sophisticated members of it, sees itself.
I couldn't agree with you more. I do worry our culture has been focus-grouped to death! When discussing the film's cynical "black-comedy" tone, I have had people look at me quizzically...
Unfortunately, the "Evolution" book abbreviates the quote from Wilson's memo. When Wilson refers to "comedy" it's more specifically of the "black-comedy" type. The full sentence out of Wilson's memo reads: "In the classic sense of the term, my screenplay is a comedy—just as 'Gulliver’s Travels,' 'A Connecticut Yankee' and 'Animal Farm' are comedies."
Perhaps most get this right-off (my apologies, no talking down intended here) but in our present culture, "comedy" has become a mono-synonymous description of "ha-ha" films and TV, not of the sophistication of Wilson's comedy-concept of PLANET OF THE APES.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Wilson meant "it's a comedy" as if it was IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD OF APES. Somewhere on YouTube, and I don't have the time to search for it right now, is an APES fan-created video that includes a clip of a video interview with PLANET director Franklin J. Schaffner where he says PLANET OF THE APES isn't Science Fiction at all, but "Swiftian Satire." Anyone who knows what that means knows that it is correct when looking at the original movie. As Science Fiction it's implausible nonsense, but it's not supposed to be "serious" Science Fiction. The problem with the concept as it developed into a series of films is that the absurdities just piled up, the budgets shrunk, the entire thing became "campy," ending as a literal cartoon (two, if you included the Burton debacle). The new movies have tried to make the implausible much less so (I actually think RISE was very clever), but in the process they've neglected what the concept is really all about, a critique of humanity and how humanity, at least the less sophisticated members of it, sees itself.
I couldn't agree with you more. I do worry our culture has been focus-grouped to death! When discussing the film's cynical "black-comedy" tone, I have had people look at me quizzically...
I really dislike it when someone tries to pigeonhole a complex film into a single category like "satire". Ape's is a lot more than satire and to say as such really diminishes the film and it's script. It works on so many levels which is what good films are all about.
It can please a whole range of people and you can take from it what you like. Some will watch Ape's and see only an escapist sci fi/fantasy film. Others will see underneath the surface with it's social and political messages. Same reason why I absolutely HATED it when Lucas came out so many years later and said Star Wars was made for kids.
I really dislike it when someone tries to pigeonhole a complex film into a single category like "satire". Ape's is a lot more than satire and to say as such really diminishes the film and it's script. It works on so many levels which is what good films are all about.
It can please a whole range of people and you can take from it what you like. Some will watch Ape's and see only an escapist sci fi/fantasy film. Others will see underneath the surface with it's social and political messages. Same reason why I absolutely HATED it when Lucas came out so many years later and said Star Wars was made for kids.
I'm not trying to pigeonhole PLANET OF THE APES into "satire" only, just discussing what motivated the interest of Michael Wilson, Schaffner and Heston. Arthur P. Jacobs envisioned and sold the film as a mass-audience entertainment--a movie for everyone, and that's what it turned out to be. In fact, it's my personal belief that one of the reasons the first PLANET OF THE APES film has stood the test of time is that it's simply great entertainment (if that's all you're after) and if you chose to look at it very close, there's more there than just mere entertainment.
I'd just like a one-volume reference of all the Apes stuff from the five films and TV show. Thanks for the tip!
