Koba was fairly one-dimensional, standard fare and a bit cliched. Not a terrible villain and I did find some interest in him, but he's hardly of the calibre and complexity that was present in Doctor Zaius and Doctor Otto Hasslein's characterisations.
Dawn is a reasonable film, but I just felt it a bit emasculated compared to most of the original series, and that was also reflected in the stock villain.

I must disagree with savagebiscuits about the lack of real villains in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. It has one: Koba. He increasingly lets hatred, distrust, and lust for power get the better of him. It's his actions that sour the relationship between ape and man to the point of no return.

Taking into consideration the time period they were made, the filmatic limitations of the times as compared with today, the sequence of how and when each was produced and released and the general merits individually and overall I have to say it's one of the finest movie series (when it comes to sequels and as a whole) in film.
The original is such a brave, ground-breaking movie it will forever remain THE classic of the franchise (modern-day remakes and reboots included)"Beneath" is too-much-a-rethread, but has its moments "Escape" in its (SO clever) simplicity, focus on character, sentiment and success-in-execution stands out big-time in its own way "Conquest" as both a thrill and a triumph is so thoroughly satisfying and well ahead of its day while "Battle" admittedly (undoubtedly due to a terribly low budget and weak premise) is a bit of a lame ending to the original series
BUT add them all together and you get something really special!! Sequels-writer Paul Dehn methinks deserves credit for this most of all.

I just wanted to clarify that I placed DAWN second in terms of being objective in a "cinematic" sense; if I were going to list my "personal favorites", both RISE and DAWN would fall below the original five Apes movies.
Hmm fair enough. Maybe we can bridge the gap on that type of appreciation.

I quite liked this, but wouldn't put it as my second choice, more like fourth or fifth (competing with Beneath), with Rise just behind it.
I just wanted to clarify that I placed DAWN second in terms of being objective in a "cinematic" sense; if I were going to list my "personal favorites", both RISE and DAWN would fall below the original five Apes movies.

I think you'll find the social commentary thing REALLY is pounded home in DAWN. I hope you may see it soon I've seen it twice, and on a purely objective level I must say it's probably technically the second best Apes movie after the 1968 film.
Well, I saw it on Saturday, so will respond to this. Yes, there was a bit more social commentary in this film than in Rise, but I still don't think it compares to the social commentary in the original film and its sequels. Heck, I still think it's only just better with the social commentary than Burton's film, and that was watered down a lot (Dawn is still a lot better than Burton's film, though). So, no, I still think that the later films seem to be emasculated to some degree and don't want to rock the boat too much when it comes to politics and social commentary, etc. What's said is safe Hollywood fare, rather than the pushing the envelope politics of the original films, which starkly made their points with passion.
However, saying all that, I did quite enjoy Dawn for what it was. It suffers from the usual issue in the later films (including Burton's) that the human characters are a bit underwritten and bland (although I didn't mind Franco's and Lithgow's in Rise or Clarke's in Dawn, but the rest). The villains tend to be one-dimensional; no Zaiuses or Hassleins here. The ending of Dawn
is a bit well, underwhelming compared to the original films' knife in the guts endings
(spoiler tags just to make sure). There's a end of credits moment that'll make you groan (
sounds of what appears to be Koba coming back for thirds
). But, even with those, I did find the story engaging, the ape characters fleshed out, it had some good emotional moments (maybe not to Rise's level, but it was there), and I suppose the CGI work looked great (I'm not that fussed about that kind of thing, though, even if I do think that it was the correct route to take for showing primitive apes). Mind you, it lacked the satire of the originals. So, despite caveats, I quite liked this, but wouldn't put it as my second choice, more like fourth or fifth (competing with Beneath), with Rise just behind it.

DAWN
Maybe it'll dawn on me.

they tell far surpass even the latest films (well, Rise, for I haven't yet seen Dawn so maybe I'm mistaken there). For me, Rise raises some commentary, but it seems fairly safe and non-threatening, less radical and more watered down, less insightful than the past films of the '70s. In some ways, I don't see too much difference between Rise and Burton's flawed film, at least on the social commentary level.
I think you'll find the social commentary thing REALLY is pounded home in DAWN. I hope you may see it soon I've seen it twice, and on a purely objective level I must say it's probably technically the second best Apes movie after the 1968 film.
Still, I actually feel more for the originals and believe them to speak of the ills of society in a better and stronger way.
DAWN

These new reboot films have so far been more clever and intelligent than the '70s sequels, but I have to wonder if that will last.
I can't say I agree with this at all. Sure, there are some silly things that go on in the sequels to the original film, things that I'd normally rail against, but I do think that the story, social commentary and general points that they tell far surpass even the latest films (well, Rise, for I haven't yet seen Dawn so maybe I'm mistaken there). For me, Rise raises some commentary, but it seems fairly safe and non-threatening, less radical and more watered down, less insightful than the past films of the '70s. In some ways, I don't see too much difference between Rise and Burton's flawed film, at least on the social commentary level.
However, I generally liked Rise, I think in some ways it's an improvement and has used the technology in a way that has allowed primitive apes to look like apes rather than men in masks, removing an incongruity that took some out of the story (not me). Still, I actually feel more for the originals and believe them to speak of the ills of society in a better and stronger way.

There is all kinds of bloodshed, killing, and torture, in BENEATH, ESCAPE and CONQUEST that is not "silly kid fare". You know what I'm talking about. Only BATTLE could be accused of being "child friendly", and yet I still think it's got much to offer and is underrated. You and I apparently were only born two years apart, but I loved the sequels. I feel you lost out by not enjoying them. It's one thing to have been born too late, but you've got no such excuse.

Since I first saw it in April 1968, when I was just eight, PLANET OF THE APES has been my favorite movie. I remember the two years afterward when there was no sequel as a wonderful time where one's imagination was wonderfully free to speculate on all the mysteries of the movie. Then the sequels came about and tried to answer many of those questions. I was never completely satisfied or even happy with what was proposed by the sequels. It all seemed slapdash and ultimately silly. The original movie had its reputation tarnished by its sequels. In the end, other than make more money for 20th Century Fox, that's been the lasting legacy of the '70s APES sequels (and the two TV series), they turned an intriguing concept and made it silly kid fare. The ultimate result of that, the disaster know as the 2001 "re-imagining" directed by Tim Burton. These new reboot films have so far been more clever and intelligent than the '70s sequels, but I have to wonder if that will last.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

Neither do I. And I don't see how Beneath is a "mess". They had to retread some of the story on the original because they had to introduce the premise to a new character, that was the only flaw I can see.

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".

'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.

'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.

'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?

Battle was the only one I thought was noticable, budget-wise. It looked about equal with the TV series.