Rise of The Planet of the Apes (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

I would really prefer a blending of actors and CGI. I almost always do.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thought this actually looked like it could be fun/interesting.


My only question is, where do you go from here? I mean, is the plan to eventually remake the original (again), essentially doing the old series backwards? I'm kinda interested in this movie and yet skeptical of a new franchise.


(Just noticed - for any fans of the original - the Film Forum in NYC is going to be screening a new 35mm print of the original film in July, that should be fun!)

 

[cafink]

It's unclear from the trailer exactly what this movie's relationship is to the previous films. Is this supposed to be a sequel to the Burton film? Or a "reboot" of the franchise?

 

[Radioman970]

Looks like the Caesar heavy film from the original. Apes Revolution sort of thing. Not necessarily tied to the Burton film. Just tied to the same source material.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Why wouldn't you want it to look realistic?"


The more you go down the "realism" route, the more obvious it is that these are humans wearing ape masks. The apes the original were stylish and different, and I think that helped the shock ending. As for Kong, define "better." The original was powerful enough to become a classic. The fact that Kong was done with stop motion animation made him stylish and different, a little mysterious. Personally, I found Jackson's remake, with Kong being just an oversized ape a little disappointing. In both cases, less realism (for me) means a bigger adventure into the unknown.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by cafink

It's unclear from the trailer exactly what this movie's relationship is to the previous films. Is this supposed to be a sequel to the Burton film? Or a "reboot" of the franchise?

I believe it's been described as a prequel reboot of the series, as well as a remake of sorts of Conquest. I very much doubt the film will acknowledge any relation to the Burton film, which is pretty much universally reviled (the posts in this thread notwithstanding) as one of the most pointless remakes ever attempted and a staggering bad film in its own right.

 

[Steve Christou]

I agree Burton's Apes wasn't a very good film but I saw it in the cinema and bought the dvd as soon as it came out, I did enjoy Tim Roth's villainous chimp Thade, and Roth didn't require much make up to look like a villainous ape (ooh). I was watching the Hulk the other day and there was Thade in a face off with the Hulk.


I think this new film looks interesting, I'll wait for the reviews and than decide if it's worth seeing at the cinema. But good or bad it'll be in my collection by the end of the year.




p.s. Roth is one of my favourite actors, superb in Rob Roy.... Thade with a sword [STOP IT STEVE!]

 

[Radioman970]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

"Why wouldn't you want it to look realistic?"


The more you go down the "realism" route, the more obvious it is that these are humans wearing ape masks. The apes the original were stylish and different, and I think that helped the shock ending. As for Kong, define "better." The original was powerful enough to become a classic. The fact that Kong was done with stop motion animation made him stylish and different, a little mysterious. Personally, I found Jackson's remake, with Kong being just an oversized ape a little disappointing. In both cases, less realism (for me) means a bigger adventure into the unknown.

I meant "better" as in better and more modern effects technology, not laying out my own judgment of the film over the original film. Further, the original looks like a stop motion figure, very similar to an animated ape. Jackson's looks like a real ape, not just over-sized but a monsterous size that you soon learn isn't really a monster at all. It's a beauty and beast story, afterall. Beast here is an over-sized ape in all the film versions of this story. Not to say that just because of the more realistic looking giant ape character makes recent film better... Everybody is going to have their favorite when there's a remake for whatever reason. I happen to love both films. And I find Jackson's film a hell of a ride with some of the best visuals in the business to back up the fun updating of the story. Just my reaction. The original is a classic with loads of personal nostalgia since I used to stay up late watching those kinds of films as a kid.


I follow you about "stylish and different". I have tons of favorite films that have exactly the same appeal to me for that reason.

With all this said, I prefer the Jackson version over the original at this time. I also enjoy the 70s version since Baker did a grand job in the suit. And it's highly nostalgic just like the original. Campy, but underrated in spite of, if you ask me.

 

[Radioman970]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

"Why wouldn't you want it to look realistic?"


The more you go down the "realism" route, the more obvious it is that these are humans wearing ape masks. ...

Just wanted to add, I still don't get this.

 

[Radioman970]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate





I believe it's been described as a prequel reboot of the series, as well as a remake of sorts of Conquest. I very much doubt the film will acknowledge any relation to the Burton film, which is pretty much universally reviled (the posts in this thread notwithstanding) as one of the most pointless remakes ever attempted and a staggering bad film in its own right.

If that film is "staggering bad" there are films out there that could put you in the funny farm because of their badness. hee!

 

[RobertR]

Count me as someone who hated the Burton film. He really did miss the point.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I consider myself lucky to basically not remember the Burton film. I'd ask, but - I'm not sure I really want to know

 

[Don Solosan]

"Just wanted to add, I still don't get this."


You simply cannot fit a human form into an orangutan shape. Or a chimpanzee. Gorilla, okay, but the others no. I think the original works better because the apes are stylized, not realistic, so I'm not automatically comparing them to the images of apes I have in my head. They are what they are, not the apes of old Earth. In this way, they lend themselves better to the fantasy and adventure nature of the story, in my opinion.

Some people were taken out of Avatar because so much of the Na'vi culture was based on Native American culture... That's the risk you take comparing something fantastic with something real.

 

[Radioman970]

Oh! Okay. I see. Yeah, I have no problem with that opinion. But me personally, I don' t have a problem with what they did in the Burton film. The orangutans were probably my least favorite of the effects but it didn't deter from my enjoyment of the film too much. I think I was more thrown off by Carter looking like one of the Jackson family (as in Michael, Janet, etc). haha! For the record, I'm real easy to please if my mood is right. I won't get bothered by that sort of thing usually. I recognize Burton's film as a lesser work by him but I can still enjoy what it does right. I definitely expected a lot more.

You're probably a big sci-fi story reader or even a writer yourself...? Just a guess based on your strong opinion on how things looked in these films.

I think these sorts of live-off-the-land natives are going to be very similar in certain areas no matter where they're from. Avatar was a superb film.

I like it when a film or novel can take you beyond the norm. You used the word "fantastic" and that made me think of "Fantastic Planet". If you haven't seen that you should. Really really different.

 

[JoHud]

I don't mind Fox re-imagining Planet of the Apes as long as its good and they don't go over-board with CGI, trying to make every moment into a 3-D experience. Planet of the Apes has many ways that they can be retooled insofar as our intelligence isn't insulted. Glad they're starting from scratch and considering the Burton experiment an unfortunate footnote (though it's not totally bad and had some good ideas).

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein REVIEW ARCHIVES[/b]

Yes, that is actually a very big peeve of mine (though far from the Burton film's core problems). All of the original five Planet of the Apes features were shot on location in large outdoor settings. None of them felt studio-bound. The Burton feature was a large downgrade in that sense, though it likely wouldn't bother anyone who hadn't seen them.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For anyone in the NYC area, I just got the latest Film Forum calendar and the original 1968 film will be screened for one week in July with a brand new 35mm print -- anyone interested in doing a mini-HTF gathering for that?

 

[samneil]

I think this new film looks interesting, I'll wait for the reviews and than decide if it's worth seeing at the cinema. But good or bad it'll be in my collection by the end of the year.

 

[Don Solosan]

I can't imagine committing to buying something I haven't seen, even if I find that it's bad. I don't understand that at all. Are you a huge PoTA fan or something, Sam?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

I can't imagine committing to buying something I haven't seen, even if I find that it's bad. I don't understand that at all. Are you a huge PoTA fan or something, Sam?

I kinda get that - I'll probably always feel obligated to buy whatever Star Trek film they put out, and whatever Bond film.. especially the Bonds, when you have 22 movies from a series, if you're a little nutty like me it would drive me crazier to not have one of them even if I thought it sucked than to have spent $20 on a piece of junk.

 

[todd s]

I know it's early. But, I can't see how the apes take over the human race in this remake. They just don't have the numbers. Unlike the original where the ape population was increased due to dog & cats being gone.