The 4 sequels were pretty crappy, you have to admit
-
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.
-
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 09:45 AM)
Even the first movie was not necessary. Only necessary things are food, water, shelter
However, while the original movie certainly stands on its own, the sequels are entertaining in their own right. I like the idea (in ESCAPE) of now seeing the reverse society in the eyes of Cornelius and Zira, after what Taylor went through. And I enjoy the ideas in CONQUEST and BATTLE of Caesar now taking charge and trying to see if he can avoid the world which could become PLANET OF THE APES. There was a lot more behind this series than is given credit for, and themes such as racial tensions are explored.
Money does not necessarily make quality (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is an example of a classic horror movie made on a shoestring budget). The general framework writing in these films was quite good (aside from some inconsistency errors). I don't think they would have been much better, and I think this is a series that tops most other long-running franchises. -
SuperDevilDoctor — 11 years ago(July 07, 2014 03:38 AM)
PLANET OF THE APES (1968) -
9/10
BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES -
5/10
ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES -
4/10
CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES -
4/10
BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES -
3/10
PLANET OF THE APES (2001) -
4/10
RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES -
7/10
DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES -
???
"Send her to the snakes!" -
HelloCarol509 — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 12:16 PM)
I'd actually say Escape is probably the best sequel though still not a patch on the original. It really tried to do something different from the first two and turned the concept on it's head. Beneath is enjoyable for it's flat out weirdness in a lot of parts and the nihilistic ending but it falls a bit short because it tries a bit too hard in the first half to be the same movie as the first.
An increasingly big problem with all the sequels is that the budget gets lower with each film but this is never more evident than in Conquest and especially Battle. At least Conquest has a solid script to elevate it, Battle just feels like a glorified movie of the week. -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 02:01 PM)
BENEATH looks more expensive than PLANET, even though it wasn't (an underground city, Forbidden Zone effects, and Veiny-faced mutants).
ESCAPE did not require a big budget to tell its simple story, and it emerges as the best of the sequels anyway.
CONQUEST pulls off the look of a futuristic city, and its appeal mainly rests on the shoulders of McDowall, who gives a fine performance.
BATTLE has the Earth devastated, and few survivors so what budget is required?
Money does not make quality ESCAPE is considered the best of the sequels, and it's also rather ordinary in its budget. The film 12 ANGRY MEN is considered a classic, and it occurs all in one simple jury room. -
HelloCarol509 — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 07:58 PM)
It's not a big problem with the first two sequels which work around their budget constraints in creative ways.
You don't have to tell me budget is not equal to quality but the final two flicks lack any real sense of scale in comparison to the first two which is fine for a movie like Escape that's trying to tell a smaller story but Conquest and Battle are both trying to tell stories that should be massive but both feel incredibly small. The dystopian society of Conquest never feels fully realized and the Battle of the Planet of the Apes feels more like a skirmish.
IMDb's best discussion board:
http://www.imdb.com/board/25826452/board -
JoeKarlosi — 11 years ago(July 20, 2014 04:22 AM)
You don't have to tell me budget is not equal to quality but the final two flicks lack any real sense of scale in comparison to the first two which is fine for a movie like Escape that's trying to tell a smaller story but Conquest and Battle are both trying to tell stories that should be massive but both feel incredibly small. The dystopian society of Conquest never feels fully realized and the Battle of the Planet of the Apes feels more like a skirmish.
Well, CONQUEST is about an Ape Training Center where an intelligent chimpanzee stages a huge riot which is only the tip of the iceberg for what is to follow. BATTLE is a localized fight between a small Ape community and a small human community.
I don't think you needed more scale for those two films to be effective. In the case of BATTLE, I like the heart and message of it, and the characters I personally never felt the need for endless explosions and gunfire instead of story and emotion.
I think that if there had been a film in between CONQUEST and BATTLE, perhaps that one would require a huge budget. But take a look at something like Tim Burton's 2001 Reboot it had a huge budget and is the worst of all 8 Apes films completely empty.