Planet Of The Apes, 1968-1974: a 'good' franchise?

OMG. I was thinking of that too! So glad you posted that!! B

 

Actually, the line is : "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn, dirty ape"

 

Correct, "Beneath" is the one without Roddy... When "Beneath" was being made, McDowall was off making another film, so they proceeded without him... David Watson is the guy they got to replace him as Cornelius... I remember as a kid, knowing it wasn't Roddy right away, and it's weird that on some online things I've read, people say they couldn't tell the difference! One thing that stood out for me all the time was that David Watson was too tall

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything darker in the unrated version compared with the theatrical cut... The movie is the same up until the revolt starts, and then after that, the only big difference is some of the music is different and there's more deaths of cops and apes, with more blood splattering/flying around. Caesar's speech is the same too, except it doesn't have the cop-out/B.S. ending tacked on...

"Conquest" and "Escape" flip-flop back and forth for me, tying for the third best.

 

Love this series of films, always have, always will...

Rank them as:

"Planet"
"Beneath"
"Conquest/Escape" tied for third, as they flip-flop back and forth as to which I like better.
"Battle"

"Battle" could have been better had it had a higher budget/better production values... And I like Claude Akins as the "bad guy" in some of his many TV guest spots he did throughout the years, but for me, he didn't cut it as an ape. In the film, Aldo almost comes across as a bumbling buffoon, granted one with some dangerous ideas, but he didn't come across as a real threat...And the character of Virgil can come across as pretty smug a lot of the time. And it's too bad they turned Caesar into a kinder, almost patriarchal figure, instead of keeping him as the angry revolutionary he was in "Conquest"... The novelization of "Battle" is better than the film.

The original "Planet" is a stone-cold classic and I'm so glad they changed it from the book as much as they did... Boulle's novel is a good concept for a film, but the film blows the book out of the water and into the next hemisphere. Also, check out the newly released book "The Making of Planet of the Apes" by J.W. Rinzler. It's costly at $60.00, but I'd imagine it could be found cheaper if you scour Amazon, etc.

 

In truth, Cornelius' role was "secondary" in the movie. So I guess people didn't pay attention to him.

I don't agree at all, sorry. Aldo had a great influence on the Apes and he came across as a genuine "danger", a possible "bad" leader.

Novelizations are always "better" than the movies because they expand the stories and make you "feel" the characters' thoughts.

 

True enough...

I sort of said it when I said that (to me) Claude Akins didn't cut it as an ape, but what I was meaning is that, to me, the way Claude portrayed Aldo had him seeming more like a fool than a very dangerous threat (IMO, I know others will feel differently). I know the Aldo character is supposed to be everything you said in your reply, and you are right, but I'm just troubled by his portrayal. Had Claude had better direction, or better yet, had they had a different actor portraying him he easily could have been all you said and more... Have you ever heard the POWER book and record's adaption of "Battle"? I would have preferred to see Also portrayed more in that light, with a more "threatening" tone to him. Hope this makes sense to you?

 

Yeah, it makes sense. I know where you come from. But I also just think that the actor and the screenplayer had that "vision" about the character and they just went along with it.
Maybe he (Aldo) was not supposed to be scary or evil, but a more "subtle" threat (and honestly, he felt like that) --- less the stereotypical "in your face" approach of the modern villains.
Are all bad leaders a bit "foolish"? I find fools to be pretty dangerous.
I think the Battle Aldo was very effective within the dynamics of the movie.

Have you read my POTA timeline?

 

Not yet, but I will.

 

Gotta go along with you on this question/statement...

 

Yeah, sadly...

 

Thank you, brainy smurf.

 

This is true. I think it was as early as "Beneath" when they actually ran out of costumes for some of the cast?

 

One of the boxed sets comes with a documentary narrated by Roddy McDowell. He points out in some crowd scene that many of the actors are simply wearing masks. Probably the war speech by the General in the amphitheater.

 

I watched the sequels, but because they were chronologically jumbled and I probably watched them out of sequence anyway, they were far too complicated for this pre-teen. The original was about all I could process!

 

This Simpsons clip deserves a mention as well:

 

Saw the first one back when it first came out, I was like 10. I had no idea what to expect, I remember the first shot of the ape on the horse, I was stunned. A movie-going experience I will never forget, and yes the same deal with 2001.

I've seen it many times since and different things impress me. The scene when Taylor is brought to Zaius's office is very well written, on of my favorite scenes.

Saw Beneath when it came out and was kind of disappointed, an OK film. Then I saw the next one and that was enough for me.

The '68 original is iconic and a really great film that still holds up.

 

Taylor scene where he discovers his lobotomised crew member, the horror!!!!

 

Yup, the Ursus speech... I like when Roddy says the pull-over masks were "a cost cutting measure that proved to be a little too obvious" (Or words to that effect. I'd have to dig out the documentary for the exact quote.)

 

Funny enough, they don't seem masks at all and the Apes look actually "scary" in that shot.

 

At least Taylor had Nova.

 

Poor Brent...

 

Statue Of Liberty scene. Looked awesome on the BIG screen in 1968.

 

Speaking of, the Ursus’ speech in Beneath is awesome. A highlight of the series for me.

 

Ditto. I liked them as a kid, but saw the original, Beneath, and Escape again a couple of years ago and thought the latter two were too cheap and cheesy to be particularly enjoyable. Maybe if treated as satire?