Planet of the Apes ending explanation (theory) (Spoiler)
Todd Wojtalewski
far-fetched and confusing. In fact, it may seem like it defies
belief. However, my brother and several of his colleagues discussed
the movie extensively and came up with a scenario that makes sense and
is, actually, very intelligent.
Here is how he explained it:
When Captain Leo first goes through the wormhole, he is following the
trail of his little monkey friend. He crashes on the Ape Planet. The
mother ship, meanwhile, decides it is going to go after him. Thus,
they follow his trail, but they are cast randomly back into the past.
The apes evolve and you get the story.
Now, when Leo leaves the Planet of the Apes he sets a course for Earth
system (since he is no longer following the monkey) and is shot back
into the past several years. Well, back in the present time (when Leo
first entered the wormhole at the beginning of the movie) the ship
sees Leo's trail signature heading towards Earth (although they do not
know where exactly it is going) and so they follow it. Thus, instead
of following him to the Planet of the Apes, they follow him to Earth.
Only this time they are sent back to Earth's past. Apes take over in
a world where only the strongest survive, and time progresses to the
point where Leo crash lands on earth.
Assuming this theory, Leo changed history by going through the
wormhole again, prompting the mother ship to take a different route
than what it had originally taken. Therefore, all that actually
happened on the Planet of the Apes never really occurred.
Of course, the really far-fetched aspect is that ape history turned
out to be so parallel to human history. This, I guess, is poetic
license, interjected for dramatic effect.
I hope this explains it. It sets my mind at ease.
JoeSchwind
It doesn't. An Ape culture could have come about on Earth by any number of
means, but how do you explain a statue of Thade in Washington DC? How does that
character from another planet thousands of years in the future come to Earth
and liberate Apes?
The only explanation that fits is that somehow Tim Burton was fired late in
production and Mel Brooks was hired in his place. At least it didn't end with
Thade singing "Putting On the Ritz"....
Ken Ream
"Todd Wojtalewski" <tjw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd84f0ea.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Now, I know that the ending of the Planet of the Apes seems pretty
> far-fetched and confusing. In fact, it may seem like it defies
> belief. However, my brother and several of his colleagues discussed
> the movie extensively and came up with a scenario that makes sense and
> is, actually, very intelligent.
>
> Here is how he explained it:
>
> When Captain Leo first goes through the wormhole, he is following the
> trail of his little monkey friend. He crashes on the Ape Planet. The
> mother ship, meanwhile, decides it is going to go after him. Thus,
> they follow his trail, but they are cast randomly back into the past.
> The apes evolve and you get the story.
One comment - it seems the arrivals weren't quite random.
It was more like "first in - last out".
I have to stop trying to analyze this movie. See what happens
when they take the all-time techo-babble champ "Star Tek: Voyager"
off the air?
>
> Now, when Leo leaves the Planet of the Apes he sets a course for Earth
> system (since he is no longer following the monkey) and is shot back
> into the past several years. Well, back in the present time (when Leo
> first entered the wormhole at the beginning of the movie) the ship
> sees Leo's trail signature heading towards Earth (although they do not
> know where exactly it is going) and so they follow it. Thus, instead
> of following him to the Planet of the Apes, they follow him to Earth.
> Only this time they are sent back to Earth's past. Apes take over in
> a world where only the strongest survive, and time progresses to the
> point where Leo crash lands on earth.
>
> Assuming this theory, Leo changed history by going through the
> wormhole again, prompting the mother ship to take a different route
> than what it had originally taken. Therefore, all that actually
> happened on the Planet of the Apes never really occurred.
>
> Of course, the really far-fetched aspect is that ape history turned
> out to be so parallel to human history. This, I guess, is poetic
> license, interjected for dramatic effect.
>
> I hope this explains it. It sets my mind at ease.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
effewe
Thade used the submerged ship (somehow he rebuilt it in the same manner as
the original , See Escape from the planet of the apes, goes back in time to
when the US was young, but that's when I get lost.)
"Todd Wojtalewski" <tjw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd84f0ea.01080...@posting.google.com...
Todd Wojtalewski
> OK, I think the other person had it nail down.
>
> Thade used the submerged ship (somehow he rebuilt it in the same manner as
> the original , See Escape from the planet of the apes, goes back in time to
> when the US was young, but that's when I get lost.)
The only problem with that theory is that the cops who surround Leo at
the end are gorillas. General Thade was a chimpanzee. If he fixed
the pod, he would have been the only one travelling back to Earth. So
he would have been the only genetically enhanced ape on primitive
Earth. It would not have been possible for him to take over like
that, let alone genetically engineer orangutans and gorillas to make
them intelligent. In short, there had to be more than one ape going
back.
Also, the reason is is plausible that Thade would exist on Earth is
that he is a direct descendant of CMOS. Feasibly, he would still be a
direct descendant on Earth.
Ken Ream
"Todd Wojtalewski" <tjw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd84f0ea.01080...@posting.google.com...
news:<mfla7.24588$Kd7.14...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
> > OK, I think the other person had it nail down.
> >
> > Thade used the submerged ship (somehow he rebuilt it in the same manner
as
> > the original , See Escape from the planet of the apes, goes back in time
to
> > when the US was young, but that's when I get lost.)
>
> The only problem with that theory is that the cops who surround Leo at
> the end are gorillas. General Thade was a chimpanzee. If he fixed
> the pod, he would have been the only one travelling back to Earth. So
> he would have been the only genetically enhanced ape on primitive
> Earth. It would not have been possible for him to take over like
> that, let alone genetically engineer orangutans and gorillas to make
> them intelligent. In short, there had to be more than one ape going
> back.
Its entirely logical to assume that if there were apes on the ship
that were genetically engineered by humans, that there were also
apes on Earth that were genetically engineered by humans. I didn't
see any indication that all genetic experiments on apes were banished
from the planet and confined to a ship with a mission that needed
the apes but had a whole different mission
> Also, the reason is is plausible that Thade would exist on Earth is
> that he is a direct descendant of CMOS. Feasibly, he would still be a
> direct descendant on Earth.
I agree. Still it would have made more (perfect) sense if they had left out
Thade
and made the statue a tribute to CMOS, "savior of the apes".
Todd Wojtalewski
> that were genetically engineered by humans, that there were also
> apes on Earth that were genetically engineered by humans. I didn't
> see any indication that all genetic experiments on apes were banished
> from the planet and confined to a ship with a mission that needed
> the apes but had a whole different mission
>
It is illogical to assume that an evolved ape (Thade) could walk ten
feet in 2029 without being killed or captured. Even if he did escape
notice, where could he possibly go to oversee the evolution of
genetically engineered apes to the point where they would be able to
conquer an entire world? And even if he found such a place, he would
be long dead before he could ever incite a revolt.
No, the most logical explanation is that he travelled back thousands
of years to where physical superiority would make a difference.
However, genetically engineered apes would not have existed back then,
and it is hard to believe he would have had any impact on primitive
apes of that time.
My explanation still remains to be the most plausible.
Smaug69
> Now, I know that the ending of the Planet of the Apes seems pretty
> far-fetched and confusing. In fact, it may seem like it defies
> belief. However, my brother and several of his colleagues discussed
> the movie extensively and came up with a scenario that makes sense and
> is, actually, very intelligent.
>
> Here is how he explained it:
>
> When Captain Leo first goes through the wormhole, he is following the
> trail of his little monkey friend. He crashes on the Ape Planet. The
> mother ship, meanwhile, decides it is going to go after him. Thus,
> they follow his trail, but they are cast randomly back into the past.
> The apes evolve and you get the story.
>
> Now, when Leo leaves the Planet of the Apes he sets a course for Earth
> system (since he is no longer following the monkey) and is shot back
> into the past several years.
Actually, it was more like several hundred years.
> Well, back in the present time (when Leo
> first entered the wormhole at the beginning of the movie) the ship
> sees Leo's trail signature heading towards Earth
How could they see his trail when he came back to the Earth's solar
system in the Oberon's future?
> (although they do not
> know where exactly it is going) and so they follow it. Thus, instead
> of following him to the Planet of the Apes, they follow him to Earth.
> Only this time they are sent back to Earth's past. Apes take over in
> a world where only the strongest survive, and time progresses to the
> point where Leo crash lands on earth.
>
> Assuming this theory, Leo changed history by going through the
> wormhole again, prompting the mother ship to take a different route
> than what it had originally taken. Therefore, all that actually
> happened on the Planet of the Apes never really occurred.
>
> Of course, the really far-fetched aspect is that ape history turned
> out to be so parallel to human history. This, I guess, is poetic
> license, interjected for dramatic effect.
>
> I hope this explains it. It sets my mind at ease.
Actually, this is just as stupid an explanation as all the others I
have read- if not worse.
First, it completely throws out everything that happened on the ape
planet.(like the shower scene in Dallas)
Second, it ignores the fact that Leo came back to Earth in the
Oberon's future. I doubt the Oberon would have been hanging out around
that space anomaly for over 100 years. And it certainly couldn't have
seen Leo's trail if he wasn't in the same time period.
Third, ape society would not have created an exact duplicate of human
society with our cars, technology and structures.
Fourth, it offers no explanation as to why the General Thade we see in
the statue on Earth looks exactly like the General Thade on POTA.
Smaug69
Smaug69
> "Todd Wojtalewski" <tjw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bd84f0ea.01080...@posting.google.com...
> > "effewe" <eff...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<mfla7.24588$Kd7.14...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
> > > OK, I think the other person had it nail down.
> > >
> > > Thade used the submerged ship (somehow he rebuilt it in the same manner
> as
> > > the original , See Escape from the planet of the apes, goes back in time
> to
> > > when the US was young, but that's when I get lost.)
> >
> > The only problem with that theory is that the cops who surround Leo at
> > the end are gorillas. General Thade was a chimpanzee. If he fixed
> > the pod, he would have been the only one travelling back to Earth. So
> > he would have been the only genetically enhanced ape on primitive
> > Earth. It would not have been possible for him to take over like
> > that, let alone genetically engineer orangutans and gorillas to make
> > them intelligent. In short, there had to be more than one ape going
> > back.
>
> Its entirely logical to assume that if there were apes on the ship
> that were genetically engineered by humans, that there were also
> apes on Earth that were genetically engineered by humans. I didn't
> see any indication that all genetic experiments on apes were banished
> from the planet and confined to a ship with a mission that needed
> the apes but had a whole different mission
Even if there were genetically-engineered apes on Earth it would take
a whole hell of a lot of them to take over the planet. Dominating over
6 billion people would be no small task. It would actually be
impossible without some catastrophic event(like in the original 1968
film) intervening.
> > Also, the reason is is plausible that Thade would exist on Earth is
> > that he is a direct descendant of CMOS. Feasibly, he would still be a
> > direct descendant on Earth.
>
> I agree. Still it would have made more (perfect) sense if they had left out
> Thade
> and made the statue a tribute to CMOS, "savior of the apes".
It would have made a little more sense, but not perfect sense. You
would still have the paradox of two Oberons.
Smaug69
Burr
assumption about the research space ship. Here's how I see
it, comments please:
The timeline went like this:
2029 - start of movie
24xx - L. Davidson lands on ape planet
2130ish - L. Davidson lands back on Earth
(also remember that his mothship crashed on the Ape
planet several hundred years before him. Which means
they exited the electrical storm at different times)
The tone of the film (subtext) is meant to be opposite
from the original w/ C. Heston. In this film, the apes
are the more humane, more enlightened ones, and the humans
are the out of control, destructive species.
The meaning of the ending, was the L. Davidson told the
apes that humans were crueler to each other than they were
to apes, and that they were self destrucive. When he gets
back to earth, he arrives about 100 years after the time he
started from orginally. He believed humans to be the most
evolved. He finds he's mistaken when he returns and finds
that the genetic engineering done to animals had cause them
to evolve past the humans.
In short,,, after 100 years on earth, he found that the monkeys
were ruling the earth. The same progressiono that occured on the
planet of the apes (chimps take over the ship) has happened on earth.
Just my $.02
Lopezo
>of following him to the Planet of the Apes, they follow him to Earth.
>Only this time they are sent back to Earth's past. Apes take over in
>a world where only the strongest survive, and time progresses to the
>point where Leo crash lands on earth.
So they get right back where they came from? And they somehow manage
to take over the world? I guess with your theory they would eventually
have taken over the world anyways. Also, the chimp in the movie was
not that different than the chimps in the world today.
john
>>"effewe" wrote:
>> OK, I think the other person had it nail down.
>> Thade used the submerged ship
> The only problem with that theory is that the cops
> who surround Leo at the end are gorillas...
Time storm. Time storm. Time storm.
Where he lands in time or space is essentially random...
in POTA2. In the book, OTOH...
Ken Ream
"Smaug69" <sma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:aa8ccb68.01080...@posting.google.com...
I missed the 2 Oberons. Where was that?
Guess I couldn't get past the paradox of the horses.
TomRipley
wrote:
The horses aren't a paradox. The "Calima" sign -- Caution Live
Animals -- is all the answer I need for that. It specifically says
"Animals", not "Caution Live Apes" or "Caution Live Chimps". I don't
find it any stretch of the imagination to assume that they were also
experimenting on horses, and had some on the station. Granted, they
wouldn't ever be able to do any type of manual dexterity stuff like
Pericles could, but...
(I mean, c'mon... you buy the time/space warp, you buy the talking
monkeys; why the big hangup on the horses?)
Tom
--
"Family, religion, friendship: these are the three
demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in
business." -- Mr. Burns, "The Simpsons"
Todd Wojtalewski
> have read- if not worse.
>
> First, it completely throws out everything that happened on the ape
> planet.(like the shower scene in Dallas)
>
I do not see how this is an argument against it at all. It is
perfectly logical to assume that when one time travels, one can change
events in such a way that eliminates previous events.
> Second, it ignores the fact that Leo came back to Earth in the
> Oberon's future. I doubt the Oberon would have been hanging out around
> that space anomaly for over 100 years. And it certainly couldn't have
> seen Leo's trail if he wasn't in the same time period.
>
Once again, we are dealing with a time anomoly here. Before the
Oberon even went into the magnetic field, they were receiving
transmissions from themselves thousands of years in the past (the
distress signal Leo eventually discovers). So when they are looking
at the storm, they are seeing different time periods. Therefore, it
is possible that they would also see Leo's trail going through from
another time and follow that, instead of his first one.
> Third, ape society would not have created an exact duplicate of human
> society with our cars, technology and structures.
>
I'll agree with thet wholeheartedly. However, this is not an argument
against my theory. No explanation out there can account for this
unique quirk in the story. Perhaps it was for dramatic effect only.
As you will certainly agree, the likelihood that the sequence of
events following and ape conquest of Earth would eventually lead to
such a parallel timeline is inconceivable.
> Fourth, it offers no explanation as to why the General Thade we see in
> the statue on Earth looks exactly like the General Thade on POTA.
>
Since General Thade is a direct descendant of the original Ape, it is
possible that ape lineage led to an exact genetic copy of Thade.
Really, if we are going to believe that the world turned out the way
it did, with apes instead of humans in a human world, then this point
is really not all that far-fetched.
T. J. Marshall
The person that started this whole thread said that the Oberon saw
Leo's trail signature when he returned from POTA to Earth. The problem
with this explanation is that The Oberon was in 2029 and could not
have possibly seen Leo's ship which was in the 22nd century(around
2130 or so). That is why I brought up the paradox of the two Oberons.
There would have to have been an Oberon in ~2130 for them to have seen
Leo's trail signature and follow it.
Here is the excerpt from the original post
----
Now, when Leo leaves the Planet of the Apes he sets a course for Earth
system (since he is no longer following the monkey) and is shot back
into the past several years. Well, back in the present time (when Leo
first entered the wormhole at the beginning of the movie) the ship
sees Leo's trail signature heading towards Earth (although they do not
know where exactly it is going) and so they follow it. Thus, instead
of following him to the Planet of the Apes, they follow him to Earth.
Only this time they are sent back to Earth's past. Apes take over in
a world where only the strongest survive, and time progresses to the
point where Leo crash lands on earth.
-----
And again, this doesn't tell us how the apes' history exactly mirrored
our own- with the same technology, structures and weapons.
Smaug69
T. J. Marshall
> > have read- if not worse.
> >
> > First, it completely throws out everything that happened on the ape
> > planet.(like the shower scene in Dallas)
> >
>
> I do not see how this is an argument against it at all. It is
> perfectly logical to assume that when one time travels, one can change
> events in such a way that eliminates previous events.
>
> > Second, it ignores the fact that Leo came back to Earth in the
> > Oberon's future. I doubt the Oberon would have been hanging out around
> > that space anomaly for over 100 years. And it certainly couldn't have
> > seen Leo's trail if he wasn't in the same time period.
> >
It brings up the Terminator paradox, though. See below.
> Once again, we are dealing with a time anomoly here. Before the
> Oberon even went into the magnetic field, they were receiving
> transmissions from themselves thousands of years in the past (the
> distress signal Leo eventually discovers). So when they are looking
> at the storm, they are seeing different time periods. Therefore, it
> is possible that they would also see Leo's trail going through from
> another time and follow that, instead of his first one.
Picking up transmissions is one thing, picking up a signature trail is
another thing entirely. The Oberon had already crashed on POTA. If
they had already followed Leo through the time/space anomaly then they
wouldn't have been present to see any trail signature when he came
back through to the 22nd century. This is the Terminator paradox-
shades of that eternal chicken or the egg dilemma.
> > Third, ape society would not have created an exact duplicate of human
> > society with our cars, technology and structures.
> >
>
> I'll agree with thet wholeheartedly. However, this is not an argument
> against my theory. No explanation out there can account for this
> unique quirk in the story.
But these were your exact words:
---
I hope this explains it. It sets my mind at ease.
---
If you cannot explain how the apes' history exactly mirrored our own
then you do not have an explanation. I think we can now safely say
that Burton threw in the ending for the hell of it.
> Perhaps it was for dramatic effect only.
> As you will certainly agree, the likelihood that the sequence of
> events following and ape conquest of Earth would eventually lead to
> such a parallel timeline is inconceivable.
>
> > Fourth, it offers no explanation as to why the General Thade we see in
> > the statue on Earth looks exactly like the General Thade on POTA.
> >
>
> Since General Thade is a direct descendant of the original Ape, it is
> possible that ape lineage led to an exact genetic copy of Thade.
> Really, if we are going to believe that the world turned out the way
> it did, with apes instead of humans in a human world, then this point
> is really not all that far-fetched.
And that genetic copy of Thade happened to also be a general? I think
there are far too many conveniences and coincidences in this film for
there to be any plausible explanation for the ending. Without a
plausible ending the film does not work. Hell, I would have settled
for the book's ending. Talk about a kicker.
Smaug69
FYI, I read this article last week in USA Today: I'm posting it in its
entirety because I think it's relevant to any discussion on POTA's
ending and because I don't know how much longer the article will be
available on USA Today's website.
Pay close attention to the last
paragraph. I got a good laugh out of it when I read it.
----
'Apes' finale too murky for many fans
Moviegoers are returning to Planet of the
Apes for second and third viewings, but many
are still going bananas trying to figure out the
quirky surprise ending. Of 1,544 readers
responding to a USATODAY.com query, 48%
acknowledge they did not get the finale. And
those claiming to understand it give various
explanations of what it means.
The filmmakers aren't surprised. "Not to be coy, but that is for
everyone to try
to figure out," says producer Richard Zanuck, who, along with director
Tim
Burton and writers, came up with the twist finale. "If there is a
sequel to our
film, the puzzle will be filled in."
Burton says his story line ties in to the original 1968 film. "We
decided to keep it true to the spirit overall of the planet mythology.
The structure has a
what-goes-around-comes-around sense. A circular motion."
In Burton's version, young astronaut Leo Davidson (played by Mark
Wahlberg)
leaves his space station, encounters an electrical storm and ends up
on a planet
where apes rule and humans are slaves. After launching a rebellion
against ape
army leader Gen. Thade (Tim Roth), our hero attempts to go home by
flying
through the storm again. He ends up on what appears to be present-day
Earth,
but it, too, is inhabited by the hirsute creatures.
"This was a wonderful, surprise ending that actually pays homage to
the original
book by Pierre Bouelle," says Jon Steinwinder, 41, a musician from
Montclair,
Calif. In Bouelle's 1963 novel, the hero rejoices upon returning home
to Paris at the foot of the Eiffel Tower, only to find himself
surrounded by ape authorities.
Others are less impressed. "It was like a bad episode of Star Trek
with a
spatial anomaly causing all sorts of things but no explanation as to
why," says
Bryan O'Neill, 26, an Indianapolis Web application developer.
Moviegoers' theories fell into two basic categories:
• Earth-based. The entire film takes place on Earth, and viewers are
just
fooled into thinking Wahlberg has traveled through space.
"The irony of the original film was that it was Earth all along," says
Jason
Wong, 25, of Tucson. "Any remake or re-imagination (as Burton has
called it)
would have to follow this convention. Note the existence of horses,"
he says.
Wong believes that Wahlberg travels back in time and crashes onto
Earth. The
space station, after having experienced the same storm, also crashes
onto
Earth, but arrives thousands of years before Wahlberg. Aboard the
station are
genetically engineered monkeys, which become Earth's dominant species
before humans evolve. By the time of Wahlberg's crash landing, they
are
well-established rulers. The final scene suggests Thade travels
forward in time
to pursue Wahlberg, but arrives early and becomes a dignitary before
Wahlberg
shows up.
Reece Richards, 15, of Beaver Falls, Pa., points to another clue that
the
mysterious planet really is Earth: "The video recording on the space
station said the planet was uninhabited, yet capable of sustaining
human life. This fits the evolutionist view of pre-human life on
Earth."
• Space-based. The other view is that the story takes place mostly on
a planet
similar to Earth, either in a galaxy far, far away or within our solar
system, but in an alternate dimension.
The Apes planet "has several moons and stars around it, so it clearly
can't be
Earth," says Rob Havlovick, 26, of Falls Church, Va. He thinks apes
traveling
through space and time left their planet and took over Earth in the
late 20th
century or much earlier. But he points out one flaw in his own theory:
A pool of
water is seen in the final scenes that appear to be Earth; apes are
supposed to
fear water, so why wouldn't they get rid of it?
Proponents of the multiplanet theory are split as to whether the story
takes
place in the future, past or present. "The storm throws Davidson into
the 26th
century," says Mike Ferenchick, 30, of West Reading, Pa. "The ship's
captain
says they can't get any radio signals anymore. This leads me to
believe the
Earth had already been taken over by monkeys by the time the ship
crashed on
the apes' planet."
Michael Dukes, 19, a student from Toronto, Ohio, is among those who
think
more than time and space are involved. Leo, he says, "landed on a
parallel
universe in another dimension. The historical events that happened on
Earth
also happened on this ape Earth."
But most moviegoers agree that Thade somehow leads the apes to rule
the
Earth in our dimension. So how does he get there?
Scott Reed, 35, a software company account executive from Wilsonville,
Ore.,
thinks Thade hijacked one of the astronaut's space pods. He points out
that
Wahlberg and his pet chimp, Pericles, had Alpha and Delta pods. "Logic
tells
me that there should be a Bravo and Charlie pod around somewhere," he
says.
But Christopher Gallagher, 34, a technical writer from Greensboro,
N.C.,
doesn't think it's that complicated. It was a space pod, for sure, he
says, but
"Gen. Thade orchestrated the removal of the (crashed) space pod with
the help
of the humans."
So what does it all mean?
Elizabeth Holst of West Lake Village, Calif., has a high-minded
interpretation.
"The history of the world repeats itself in cycles of dominance and
intolerance," she says. "We must realize that leaders tend to be
deified, and myths can become our basic credo."
Or, says Robert Emerson, 28, of Boise: "The ending showed that time is
not a
singular line from point A to point B but instead a multifaceted web
of chance
and possibilities."
Perhaps 35-year-old Dee Thorne, an insurance account analyst from
Indian
Orchard, Mass., has the most plausible explanation: "I don't think the
filmmakers even knew what this ending meant. It was just a way for
them to
make a sequel."
Director Burton would seem to disagree, though he won't give away any
specifics. "It may not seem to have logic, but it does," he says.
"It's meant to make you use both sides of your brain at the same
time."
By César G. Soriano, USA TODAY
Contributing: Susan Wloszczyna
trike
T. J. Marshall <tmar...@wcsr.com> wrote
>
> If you cannot explain how the apes' history exactly mirrored our own
> then you do not have an explanation. I think we can now safely say
> that Burton threw in the ending for the hell of it.
I think he did, too. But the parallel universe idea works fine as an
explanation.
--
Doug
--
Moviedogs v3.0: your favorite dogs in your favorite films:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Spike, Tiggy & Panda's Pug-A-Rama:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Lewis Mammel
> Fourth, it offers no explanation as to why the General Thade we see in
> the statue on Earth looks exactly like the General Thade on POTA.
More to the point, how is it that he looks exactly like Abraham Lincoln?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Noel Gomez
the Apes were still used for experiments until Thade liberated them...
ie. Liberated the Slaves(apes) and they fought and conquered the
humans.
Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3B70B947...@worldnet.att.net>...
Smaug69
> T. J. Marshall <tmar...@wcsr.com> wrote
> >
> > If you cannot explain how the apes' history exactly mirrored our own
> > then you do not have an explanation. I think we can now safely say
> > that Burton threw in the ending for the hell of it.
>
> I think he did, too. But the parallel universe idea works fine as an
> explanation.
Not really.
Smaug69
trike
Yes, it does.
Todd Wojtalewski
> I think they did follow him back to Earth, got there beofre him and
> the Apes were still used for experiments until Thade liberated them...
> ie. Liberated the Slaves(apes) and they fought and conquered the
> humans.
>
Ok, you believe the "Hollywood" theory where the bad guy always comes
back for a second show after he has been knocked down. Maybe the
concept is so popular because it does not require any thought on the
part of the audience.
(The previous paragraph was intended to be sarcastic).
I have already explained why that idea is not feasible, so I will no
go into it further. However, Hollywood does not always subscribe to
the common sense theory, so we may be surprised.
trike
Apes can't talk or effectively use tools, either, so the notion that they
can take over a planet without harming the infrastructure isn't much of a
leap.
"Common sense" doesn't apply to this flick.
C. Bond
news:0HBc7.96937$dd1.12...@typhoon.neo.rr.com:
> Apes can't talk or effectively use tools, either, so the
You're quite mistaken. Apes can't talk, but they
can, and do, use tools. Effectively.
> "Common sense" doesn't apply to this flick.
You're right there. The parallel universe theory
doesn't hold with the "I caused all this cause
they came looking for me" explanation, and the
apes certainly couldn't have followed him back to
earth -- they had no spaceship.
The end was gratuitous, an attempt to echo the
statue of liberty end in the original.
--
<?php
$username = "bondc";
$domain = "indiana.edu";
print ($user . '@' . $domain);
?>
C. Bond
> Apes can't talk or effectively use tools, either, so the
You're quite mistaken. Apes can't talk, but they
can, and do, use tools. Effectively.
> "Common sense" doesn't apply to this flick.
trike
C. Bond <bo...@nospamkiva.net> wrote in message
news:Xns910281C4215...@206.97.64.40...
> "trike" <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in
> news:0HBc7.96937$dd1.12...@typhoon.neo.rr.com:
>
> > Apes can't talk or effectively use tools, either, so the
>
> You're quite mistaken. Apes can't talk, but they
> can, and do, use tools. Effectively.
I meant human-like tools, which would be required to build the stuff seen in
the film. They're okay when it comes to sticks and rocks, but they can't
manipulate anything more complicated. Apes aren't going to be inventing
vice grips any time soon.
M Holmes
: You're right there. The parallel universe theory
: doesn't hold with the "I caused all this cause
: they came looking for me" explanation
Good point.
: and the
: apes certainly couldn't have followed him back to
: earth -- they had no spaceship.
They did have his original damaged lander, and Thade knew where it was.
Since that point was clearly made, but not otherwise used, in the film,
I'd hazard that this was intended to explain the ending.
Of course it doesn't work in that it clearly couldn't hold enough apes
to start a breeding population on a past Earth.
: The end was gratuitous, an attempt to echo the
: statue of liberty end in the original.
Agreed, and ironically it messed up an acceptable attempt at producing
another apes episode.
Going with Boulle's original ending would have been far more acceptable,
and just as easy to do.
FoFP
dave blacker
Just saw the movie last night, and call me cynical if you like, but I
can't help thinking the explanation for the ending's a much simpler
one:
The film-makers decided: "look, we've got to have an ending that's a
real twist,
and if it somehow involves a famous statue, so much the better,
because that'll give us at lot of free publicity by way of the
original movie, by clearly echoing that movie's ending."
They knew that only a statue so famous it had 'iconic' status would
do, so Abe Lincoln's is about the only candidate left.
Frankly, I think they wrote and shot the scene without any great
thought of how plausible it was, with the attitude of: "the average
movie-goer won't care whether it makes much sense, as long as it comes
as a surprise and looks good - and the people who really care about
these things will have long earnest discussions about how that
plot-line could work...and getting people talking is always good for
publicity."
As I say, I'm probably just very cynical...
The Artist Formerly Known as Theodoric
"dave blacker" <dbl4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a1f8a4.01090...@posting.google.com...
And, you're probably right.
Todd Wojtalewski
> > thought of how plausible it was, with the attitude of: "the average
> > movie-goer won't care whether it makes much sense, as long as it comes
> > as a surprise and looks good - and the people who really care about
> > these things will have long earnest discussions about how that
> > plot-line could work...and getting people talking is always good for
> > publicity."
> >
> > As I say, I'm probably just very cynical...
>
> And, you're probably right.
Except that the director claimed there was a plausible explanation for
the ending and that, if a sequel was to be done, then it would be
revealed.