The 4 sequels were pretty crappy, you have to admit
-
bond_98 — 12 years ago(October 07, 2013 12:32 PM)
"Escape From The Planet of the Apes" is on Par or just below it with the original. It has its Cheesy Moments. But it really shows the strength of Cornelius and Zira Relationship. But Really i Enjoy most of the Films. Most of them are Better than the Tim Burton Remake. If i had to Rank them it would be.
Planet of the Apes
Escape from the Planet of the Apes
Conquest of The Planet of the Apes
Battle of the Planet of the Apes
Beneath The Planet of the Apes -
fleischwolf — 12 years ago(November 08, 2013 04:01 AM)
It also doesn't make a lick of sense, since:
a) The apes who in the first film where baffled by Taylors paper plane now somehow managed to retrieve taylors rocketship, repair it and take off in it??? And also travel back in time???
b) Cornelius' tale about Aldo, the first ape who said "no" to humans is nonsense! In the first film apes never knew that humans once where able to speak and where the dominant species!!! -
Fletcherj119 — 12 years ago(March 13, 2014 02:12 PM)
I never thought the sequels were "crappy". Yes, they could've been better if Fox had invested more money in them, but Fox was still recovering from a near financial collapse they had experienced in the 60s.
None of the sequels are as good as the original (they rarely are), but I was enthralled with the first two sequels that aired a couple of months after the first one on CBS in '74 (I missed Conquest and didnt think Battle was quite as epic). -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(June 18, 2014 01:25 PM)
No, I won't "admit" anything - because I don't agree that the sequels were bad. I think all the sequels are underrated, and these days as good as the first film is I actually prefer watching the sequels. Whenever I have a "Go Ape!" marathon watching all five movies, I can't wait until PLANET ends and we get to the sequels. I do feel PLANET is technically the best, but it's just more played out for me than the other four.
-
Dinosaw — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 07:10 AM)
I agree, but I gotta say that
Beneath
was the worst offender. It spat on the original film. At least
Escape
didn't try to mimic the original film and, whilst far from great, it was mildly entertaining thanks to its 'fish-out-of-water' plot. I do concur that they are rather dated and 70s-ish in nature (the damn sideburns!). The first one is just timeless.
Life is like a beautiful melody, only the lyrics are messed up. -
wallacesawyer — 11 years ago(June 22, 2014 07:01 PM)
I certainly will not admit, because honestly BENEATH might be my personal favorite. And the other three sequels/prequels are also quite enjoyable.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/ -
srb-3 — 11 years ago(June 24, 2014 07:58 AM)
'The 4 sequels were pretty crappy, you have to admit'
I love them but yeah. The sequels were after thoughts. Fox wanted sequels and a franchise. What Fox wants they get and got.
Fox went all out on POTA. A true S-F classic. On the other hand, Fox kept on cutting the budget with every sequel.
While Paul Dehn is a very fine writer there are plot holes in these things. I blame Fox more than him though. The creative people did the best they could with what they got. -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 03:10 AM)
Everyone keeps mentioning the cuts in budget as having any bearing on the quality of the sequels. I don't believe it for a second, and never have.
BENEATH looks more expensive than PLANET.
ESCAPE was a simple story set on 20th Century Earth which did not require any dazzling effects or budget, and it is often considered the best of the sequels.
CONQUEST is good due to the fantastic performance by Roddy McDowall. The city looks very futuristic, even today.
BATTLE is perhaps the best case of a low budget affecting things, but we still have a very touching story with a lot of heart.
So Special Effects and Huge Budgets do not make a good film. How many times these days do we see big budget sci-fi bonanzas that cost over 100 million dollars to make but yet are empty and forgettable? I don't think people ever thought about these reducing Apes budgets until the BEHIND THE POTA documentary started making them aware of it. The documentary put an overstated importance on the budget reductions, and ever since then fans have been reciting it. -
srb-3 — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 10:06 AM)
'Everyone keeps mentioning the cuts in budget as having any bearing on the quality of the sequels. I don't believe it for a second, and never have.'
Too bad. It's true.
'BENEATH looks more expensive than PLANET.'
It's not. Also Beneath was a very trouble production.
'ESCAPE was a simple story set on 20th Century Earth which did not require any dazzling effects or budget, and it is often considered the best of the sequels.'
Yes but also has huge plot hole. The gorilla that kills a doctor is jusr a typical ape suit.
'CONQUEST is good due to the fantastic performance by Roddy McDowall. The city looks very futuristic, even today.'
Yes but look at the ape army. The makeup for those are simply ape masks. It's why the fights are a night so it's harder to notice that.
'BATTLE is perhaps the best case of a low budget affecting things, but we still have a very touching story with a lot of heart.'
True.
'So Special Effects and Huge Budgets do not make a good film. How many times these days do we see big budget sci-fi bonanzas that cost over 100 million dollars to make but yet are empty and forgettable?'
All the time.
' I don't think people ever thought about these reducing Apes budgets until the BEHIND THE POTA documentary started making them aware of it. The documentary put an overstated importance on the budget reductions, and ever since then fans have been reciting it.'
You don't think Fox was aware they lowered the budgets with every movie? -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 02:15 PM)
'BENEATH looks more expensive than PLANET.'
It's not. Also Beneath was a very trouble production.
I know all about the history of BENEATH. What I said was, regardless of the troubles that plagued BENEATH, the movie still managed to
LOOK
more expensive, even though we know it wasn't. There were more sets, mutant makeups, a spiffy helmet for Ursus, and special effects in the Forbidden Zone - it gave the impression that it
looked
like it cost more, so I think they pulled that off. There are pullover ape masks obvious too often, but I think that was a matter of poor cinematography choices; the inferior apes should never have been used in closeups.
The gorilla that kills a doctor is jusr a typical ape suit.
So if the budget had provided a better-looking ape suit for that one gorilla, then ESCAPE would have been ten times better? I don't think so I think Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter make that film the very good sequel it is. modest budget or not. I also think that gorilla was meant to look way more primitive than Zira and Cornelius.
'CONQUEST is good due to the fantastic performance by Roddy McDowall. The city looks very futuristic, even today.'
Yes but look at the ape army. The makeup for those are simply ape masks. It's why the fights are a night so it's harder to notice that.
I don't think that's why the fights were at night I mean, we also saw the pullover masks plenty of times too in broad daylight, right? But would the film have been any better if ALL the apes had been made up instead of using masks? Does this really make or break the film? Actually, I think it's important to have those apes looking inferior to Caesar because Caesar is supposed to be intelligent and advanced.
You don't think Fox was aware they lowered the budgets with every movie?
Of course, but that's not what I said. I was talking about the fans I grew up for years watching and liking all the Apes sequels and never once thought: "Wow, these things needed bigger budgets to be good". This was something I only first heard driven home strongly in the 1998 BEHIND THE POTA documentary. Ever since then, fans run with that in their POTA disussions. -
srb-3 — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 02:25 PM)
'I know all about the history of BENEATH. What I said was, regardless of the troubles that plagued BENEATH, the movie still managed to LOOK more expensive, even though we know it wasn't. There were more sets, mutant makeups, a spiffy helmet for Ursus, and special effects in the Forbidden Zone - it gave the impression that it looked like it cost more, so I think they pulled that off.'
Sure, but Beneath it self is still a mess.
' There are pullover ape masks obvious too often, but I think that was a matter of poor cinematography choices; the inferior apes should never have been used in closeups.'
Yet they were.
'So if the budget had provided a better-looking ape suit for that one gorilla, then ESCAPE would have been ten times better? I don't think so I think Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter make that film the very good sequel it is. modest budget or not. I also think that gorilla was meant to look way more primitive than Zira and Cornelius'
The gorilla costume just doesn't work. Makes it look cheap and silly which is not the idea.
'I don't think that's why the fights were at night I mean, we also saw the pullover masks plenty of times too in broad daylight, right?'
Not as much.
'But would the film have been any better if ALL the apes had been made up instead of using masks? Does this really make or break the film?'
Makes it better. Every bit helps.
' Actually, I think it's important to have those apes looking inferior to Caesar because Caesar is supposed to be intelligent and advanced. '
No. Caesar already is intelligent and advanced.
'Of course, but that's not what I said. I was talking about the fans I grew up for years watching and liking all the Apes sequels and never once thought: "Wow, these things needed bigger budgets to be good". This was something I only first heard driven home strongly in the 1998 BEHIND THE POTA documentary. Ever since then, fans run with that in their POTA disussions.'
Good for them it's a valid point. The bottom line is this: the OP is more or less right: the sequels are pretty crappy entertaining as they are, they could have been much better if Fox truly cared. No, Fox just wanted sequels so they could have a franchise, that is all. -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 03:03 PM)
Sorry you have such a problem with the four sequels. As for me, I enjoy all of them to the fullest and I feel they're great science fiction entertainment.
So no, I don't agree with you or the OP that the sequels are "crappy". -
-
srb-3 — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 08:03 AM)
Yes, the sequels are very entertaining and yes I like them a lot but they are unnecessary as POTA says it all. Fox wanted a franchise. OK they got one. The sequels were after thoughts. They could have and should have been much better if Fox truly cared about quality and spent money on them and given creative people more time to work on scripts.