What's new

Burton Refuses To Explain Apes Ending (1 Viewer)

Brian Bunn

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
258
I am leaning to siding with those that say many of you are looking for answers that just are not there. I think the filmmakers were so concerned with getting the costumes and the masks and the look of the film just right that they never even noticed they had no story! They just pieced it together the best they could as they went along, and when it came time to shoot an ending...the winged it!

Yeah, an exaggeration but that was my thinking of the film as I watched it and after thinking about it for a few minutes afterwards. Then I just decided that it was a very poor film and went about my business.
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,504
Ok, so Thade uses a pod to go back in time and change Earth.

So the apes let him out of the ship?

He didn't drown in the water?

The pod didn't break when it crashed?

He made history go EXACTLY like it did on Earth?

He knew where Earth was?

The story took place on some alien planet. It took place in the future. It took place in our "universe" and not some alternate version. That said, the film DOES NOT make sense. Please explain a way that it does.
 

Chris Maynard

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 1998
Messages
667
Like I said earlier, I am going to watch the movie again for the first time in two months.

There are certain things we must assume ( and I am taking this from memory)

1) The first pod was repaired.

2) The apes freed themselves which is revealed in the ship's records.

3) There is always a way around water.

4) There are certain elements of time travel/warp that deal with phase shifting. The insert card even eludes to this.

I guess if this movie was designed after a video game you might be more accepting?
 

Thom B

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 11, 1999
Messages
213
Personally I like Burton's description of the ending being a big f*** y**. There's a million different potential explanations that could apply, the interesting thing is the discussion generated. IMO, if you need everything spelled out for you, your imagination is in need of a workout.

**//possible spoilers//**

Much more disappointing was his use of Deus Ex Machina to get out of the battle sequence. No imagination there unfortunately.

The sudden conversion of the apes was also more of a stretch than I was willing to buy into. I was waiting for the decapitation of our noble hero as he reached out and picked up what the apes believed to be the second coming of their progenitor. Think of a 800 lb gorilla reaching out towards the recently returned (insert religious founder of your choice here) in front of a large group of zealous, military trained, worshipers. Do you think they'd all just stand around watching?

Of all the weakneses throughout this...er...um...movie, the ending is hardly the most aggravating. Imo, of course.

T
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
It didnt make any sense.

He didnt explain it because it cant be explained - and any answer he gives about conformity is just bullshit.

It was ambiguous for the sake of being ambiguous.

Im sorry but I have to say this -Tim Burton is a very ordinary director and calling this movie a disaster is a HUGE understatment.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
There's a million different potential explanations that could apply, the interesting thing is the discussion generated. IMO, if you need everything spelled out for you, your imagination is in need of a workout.
I completely disagree. There is nothing at all interesting about the discussion nor any of the potential explanations. Why? Because there is nothing there that illuminates, no subtext, no meaning of any kind in any of them. All these post hoc explanations serve to do is pave over some rather deep plotholes concerning nothing more than how Thade got from Point A to Point B.

Which is nearly as boring and empty an exercise as watching the movie itself.
 

Chris Maynard

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 1998
Messages
667
Im sorry but I have to say this -Tim Burton is a very ordinary director and calling this movie a disaster is a HUGE understatment.
Well....
Since it cost just over $100 million to make and grossed well over $230 million world-wide (over $178,000,000 domestic) I would say it was not a HUGE disaster. In fact I could live with those profit margins. Wait, it is now just hitting video shelves so we can now expect another 50 to 100 million there.
With disasters like this who needs success?
Wait...now you will claim that it is not a success just because it made money? Well then, opinion on film is just that, opinion so unless you have data to back up what you are saying then all you have is an opinion. ;)
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
Chris,

Just about anything I (or anyone else states)is a opinion. (People really need to get off of this- not everything someone says unless accompanied by IMHO should be taken as a FACT- if someone says the Simpsons sucks, or Citizen Kane is a better movie than Gone With The Wind, its their "opinion" not a "fact").

And money has nothing to do with my statement.

I consider Memento, Requiem For A Dream, Drugstore Cowboy to be a quantum leap above POTA or Indepedence Day - and in my view they are more successful because they are a more fullfilling/rewarding experience.

You knew what I meant.

Ok, Im a snob, but even I like the occasional eye candy but I think we've really hit a low new recently(and if you think Im being hard on POTA, find my comments on The Grinch).

I think its a disaster because its a horrible movie.Its just another Tim Burton movie that looks great with no story, no character,horrible dialogue,no involvement, etc- looks great and nothing else.After 8 years of development, this is the final product? IMHO!!!! its a disaster of a movie and about as rewarding as a kick to the nuts, which would probally be less painful than sitting through this movie again.
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
Chris, I understand, but I always view ANYTHING and EVERYTHING people say as their opinion unless accompanied with some sort of "fact"(as in making a statement based on something thats been read/heard/looked up/etc(which even then doesnt always make it so): "Planet of the Apes grossed over $230million worldwide,So and so didnt do his own stunts for such and such a movie,George Lucas isnt going to film Episodes 7,8,9 and so on)
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
Call it a pet peeve if you will but I find it very irritating to see opinions written as fact.
Written as fact:
"The movie sucked."
As Opinion:
"I thought the movie lacked a plausible plot."
Actually, you've got that backward. That someone thought a movie lacked a plausible plot is, indeed, a fact, whereas "the movie sucked" is pretty clearly an opinion, if not a terribly detailed or persuasive expression thereof.
In my experience, prefacing an opinion with "I thought that..." or "IMHO..." just tends to weaken the statement, implying that the writer doesn't have confidence in the opinion and feels the need to qualify it. I'm reasonably confident(*) that most posters here can tell a statement of objective fact ("A man suffered an epileptic fit during Armageddon") from one of subjective opinion ("Armageddon's editing was gawd-awful") from context.
(*) See? Not terribly confident! :)
 

Ron Eastman

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 10, 2000
Messages
415
I understand where Jon and Al are coming from in their opinions of the film. This film doesn't carry the powerful social messages about racial equality and the threat of nuclear holocaust which simply don't apply as strongly today. Since you can't remake the socio-political atmosphere of 1968, Tim Burton made an action homage to the original.
But there is a message that Jon and Al are missing: Don't genetically engineer monkeys to fly spacecraft. A commentary on genetic engineering applies much better to the present time. :)
For the record, I thought this film was a fine way to kill 2 hours but doesn't hold a candle to the original.
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
Ron,

I wasnt even looking for a message, that isnt necessary-just dont insult my intelligence.

I actually walked out of the theater angry after seeing this movie.That has only happened twice before-True Lies(which made me embarrassed to be sitting in the theater watching such shit
 

Coressel

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 1999
Messages
699
Can someone explain exactly why all films have to be "explained" today? Are audiences unable to think for themselves anymore?
 

Chris Maynard

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 1998
Messages
667
Jon - A well stated argument indeed.
That being said I was quite entertained through the movies you mentioned. Am I easy to entertain? Probably so. I am lacking intelligence? Some may say that! ;)
Some movies are brimming with insightful plots and deep meanings that make you think for days and even weeks afterwards. Some are far more shallow and carry much of their meaning (or lack of) right on the surface.
I treat these films differently in my mind. I find virtues in each and enjoy both types for different reasons.
I feel fortunate that I enjoy more movies than most.
That being said, Animal thoroughly disappointed me.
 

Mikah Cerucco

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 27, 1998
Messages
2,457
Can someone explain exactly why all films have to be "explained" today? Are audiences unable to think for themselves anymore?
No film has to be explained. People who want a movie explained are people who want to know what the movie is about, and don't know. I see nothing wrong with that.

If I create something called (for instance) E=MC^2 and put it out, some people might say "it is about a scientific formula" and leave it at that. Some people might like to know what the formula means. I don't think the people who "just accept" it have any leg up on those who want to understand it.

There will also be some people who understand what E=MC^2 means. If someone wants to understand and they don't, why not ask those that do? It doesn't inherently exhibit an inability to think. It can just as easily exhibit an ability to efficiently learn. That's why people write books -- so others can learn from them.

I don't think anybody has enough information to comment on someone else's thinking ability simply because they ask a question about something they don't know. Food for thought.
 

Jacob_St

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 15, 2000
Messages
259
This movie wasn't that bad but it was kind of dumb and parts of it were thrown in just to advance the plot. From the commentary it's pretty evident that Burtons feels this film is more intellectual and not just plain popcorn.

If you want the ending explained just look at the postcard insert inside the DVD sleeve.
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,504
It wasn't well written, it wasn't well acted, it had a horrible ending, the makeup was good, some special effects were OK, and the film overall was not worth my money. I might sound arrogant to say so, but those are facts.

The film was not a total crap movie until the ending. The ending didn't make sense and that ruined it. If I see a movie, I will let some conventions slide by, but I will not let it slide by if there is no explanation for it.

I don't need the film spelled out for me. I saw the film, I understood what happened, but it didn't make sense. Should I be shunned for trying to find out what it meant by asking other people? No. I know of a way the ending can make sense (the is an alternate universe) but that ending is just stupid and cheesy and a total cop out.

Face it. Like someone said, it was meant to be ambiguous. Thats all. It was never made to make sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
350,747
Messages
4,929,174
Members
142,904
Latest member
RMJ
Recent bookmarks
0
Top