Koba starts out sympathetically, but grows progressively more crazed as the film goes on. But he isn't as multidimensio
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Planet of the Apes
phillipsdan83 — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 10:36 AM)
Koba starts out sympathetically, but grows progressively more crazed as the film goes on. But he isn't as multidimensional as Zaius and Hasslein, who are both conflicted by their actions while Koba is motivated by sheer hate, and later lust for power. But he does have understandable reasons to hate humans and fear the worst from them. He doesn't go beyond the pale until he murders Ash.
-
savagebiscuits — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 10:45 AM)
Sure, I tend to agree. My point was that he wasn't as complex as both Zaius and Hasslein. Koba's character progression was fairly linear and predictable, particularly compared to many (not all) of the "villains" of the past PotA films.
-
phillipsdan83 — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 11:54 AM)
And in turn I agree that Zaius and Hasslein ate more multi dimensional characters. Zaius means it when he says in the original "what I do, I do with no pleasure", and Hasslein wrestles with the morality of his actions. Koba never does
-
LukeLovesFilm28 — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 11:29 AM)
Hey, I like Escape From The Planet of the Apes. But, I definitely prefer what Fox is doing with these new Andy Serkis prequels / sequels. I can't wait to see what they come up with next to lead up to this masterpiece.
-
Dark_Phoenix89 — 11 years ago(February 04, 2015 01:36 PM)
I would not say crappy; some were more flawed than others, but I think all the sequels were really entertaining and fun to watch. Beneath, Conquest and Escape would probably be my most watched sequels in the series, and I go back and forth a lot with Battle (I liked it for the most part, although some parts were a little less than good).
"Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear." -
flapdoodle64 — 10 years ago(April 16, 2015 08:19 AM)
Original is best, but I find most of the sequels worth watching. 'Escape From' is actually the weakest IMO, because there is a lot of filler with the Apes socializing, going to prize fights, etc. The ending is good, plot wise, but when the
dead baby ape is thrown into the water and he floats like balsa wood that is a pretty bad moment and pretty inexcusable unless the whole crew was drunk that day.
People like to bag on 'Conquest' and 'Battle For..' but those films are mostly good except for being low budget. 'Conquest' has the fake electrocution scene which is ridiculous if you know anything about the way electrocution kills someonein real life, it's extremely gory. But otherwise, a good film. 'Battle For' is actually fairly creative in that you can see the how the apes traveling back in time actually messed up the timeline.
http://flapdoodlefiles.blogspot.com/ -
JoeKarlosi — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 07:04 PM)
'Battle For' is actually fairly creative in that you can see the how the apes traveling back in time actually messed up the timeline
I agree, flapdoodle64. When the chimps arrived back in 1973 and we then had CONQUEST and BATTLE, the timeline changed. I think that's essentially what makes the last three sequels so interesting, and why the series as a whole is captivating. Caesar's birth changes events from the way everything transpired the first time around (as in Cornelius' ESCAPE testimony). The epilogue at the close of BATTLE leaves us at a stalemate, not sure if the events of PLANET will indeed transpire as we saw originally or not. -
flapdoodle64 — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 02:02 PM)
The epilogue at the close of BATTLE leaves us at a stalemate, not sure if the events of PLANET will indeed transpire as we saw originally or not.
Yeah, exactly.
A lot of people bag on the sequels because they get progressively lower in budget with each film.
But at the time, most scifi was even lower budget, produced for drive-in theaters and then re-sold to cheap independent UHF TV stations. There had been a slew of decent quality scifi's 1950-56, but then mostly schlock until 1968, with POTA and 2001:ASO. Until Star Wars, most 1970's scifi was apocalptic/dystopian stuff shot on the cheap.
Also, a lot of 1970's scifi is just plain nonesensical, such as Zardoz and Omega Man. Even Logan's Run is pretty illogical.
Context is important.
http://flapdoodlefiles.blogspot.com/ -
Manton29 — 10 years ago(April 30, 2015 07:38 PM)
With the original, you have nice ideas, a very cool twist, a big star, retrospective kitch-factor lines, and old school sci fi kicks, but it gets pretty hammy and theatrical (not to mention overtly theme/message oriented) after we go under ground, and in terms of real drama and solid characters, I'll take the 3rd and 4th films any day.
Having said that, I was unable to endure more than 15 mins of Battle, and don't even want to try Beneath after reading about it and seeing clips - I confess, I'll never be a hard core apes fan.
I think one of the strengths of Escape and Conquest is the fact that with less strain on the budget due to sets, they could concentrate more on the characters, relationships and drama and for me these always come first.
For what it's worth, I was also unable to endure more than 15 mins of the 2001 reboot, but I liked the two new films a lot, with a preference for Rise, due to better human a characters and somehow a more moving story to me.
That's my two cents.
Manton
If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat. -
sommert-507-32566 — 10 years ago(May 14, 2015 01:29 PM)
The first film was by far the best and the only one that can qualify as 'timeless'. I enjoyed each of the sequels partially because I'm old enough to have grown up watching them on TV before they were dated. But each is good in its own way. That each suffered from increasingly smaller budgets didn't help.
So yes, growing up during the time period does help. If you can take it in that context, then you can appreciate them more. -
JoeKarlosi — 10 years ago(May 17, 2015 01:59 PM)
I've never bought into that "the low budget ruined the sequels" thing. ESCAPE is the best sequel, and its story is simple and requires no gazillion-dollar budget to make it so good; just fine acting and strong characters, and good writing. Acting/writing/characterization trumps dollar$ every time.
The same may be said of CONQUEST, which boasts a fantastic and heartfelt performance by Roddy McDowall. Dollars does not automatically translate into "great movies". Burton's 2001 disaster and 90% of today's overblown CGI-fests prove that. -
srb-3 — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 09:07 AM)
ESCAPE may be the best as the story proper is solid but it has huge plot holes. If the script to BENEATH was better, ESCAPE would have been better.
Yes In understand that Dr. Milo is this genius chimp but that still does not answer:
How did the chimps recover Taylor's sunk spaceship?
After somehow recovering the sunk spacecraft how did the chimp get that to be fully operational?
How did they lift off in time before earth's destruction? -
JamesA1102 — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 07:28 AM)
Who cares? These are very minor points that are not at the core of the plot of the film. No need to bore the audience with a long detailed explanation for what his merely a plot device to get Cornelius & Zira to the 20th century.
-
savagebiscuits — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 09:25 AM)
They are not minor they are major plot holes.
How major they are depends on what you expect from allegorical science fiction. You seem to want something literal, something grounded, which isn't itself wrong, just not what PotA was meant to be about.
What was more important for PotA was the telling of a story, putting forwards observations about society and where it was heading, showing what prejudice, inhumanity, cruelty and the like can do to our human spirit, etc. It wasn't the science that was important in PotA (how can it be, do you really think it's going to happen like presented in the films?), nor was it the thing that most people fixate about, what was important was the characters, the settings they were in, the messages and warnings that were given, while the science was merely dressing for those narrative issues.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out such issues, they can be fun and informative if not raised to obsession, just don't throw out the baby with the bath water while you're at it. The issues are there, worth mentioning, but hardly damage the intent of the film for those not too fixated and obsessed with having to have everything fit together neatly.
So, unless you're some mechanistic type who needs everything in perfect order and whose world will fall apart if not, the so-called plot holes are minor and not really worth fussing over. Enjoy the film for what it is, not what you think it is. -
srb-3 — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 12:30 PM)
Allegorical Science fiction. That means the science is key to the story. When the science is flawed or the story is not consistent with it's own logic and both is the case here, then you have real issues here.
As I have said previously, the story proper is fine. Very fine in fact.
The real problem here is that Fox was thinking POTA franchise and Heston did his best to stop that, him feeling that the original POTA said everything that needed to be said. Beneath the POTA with the shown ending is the end of not only the story but the franchise.
Escape the POTA glosses over that because those plot hole are real plot holes. Stop denying that. Just accept that this movie, while very entertaining is pretty flawed as it and Beneath were just not thought trough.