"Rise Of The Planet Of the Apes" or "What Hath Science Wrought?!"

[Seil]

Monkeys. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8D2NIGEJW8) Science hath wrought monkeys.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone try to reboot this franchise before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1lZ3un-kcg)? hell, the only draw of that one was Estella Warren (http://www.absolutecelebrities.com/pic/Warren_JS88131781.html). Do we really need more movies about monkeys?

...Obvious question, that.

EDIT Story Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3tidwW1gGM)

[Magus]

This is the most unintentionally hilarious trailer I've seen in a long time. I could barely contain myself at the movie I saw this at (I think it was X-Men: Origins). It seriously needed Stephen Colbert going "MONKEYS, MONKEYS, MONKEYS!" over top of it to make it absolutely gut-busting.

This is basically the movie that nobody wanted to be made, nobody wanted to see. No one opined for years over the lack of a prequel to Planet of the Apes explaining the apes' origin. Absolutely nobody asked daily for an indepth explanation of how it happened, nor did they conceive that it occurring was as absolutely ridiculous and improbable as this movie is setting it up to be.

Like seriously, we all figured the apes mutated due to the nuclear war that destroyed human civilization, which was why they were able to overpower and enslave the humans. See in a contest where apes and humans have the same intelligence, apes will win, IF humans don't have assault rifles, helicopters, bazookas, tanks, missiles, etc. and are reduced to fighting with clubs, etc. This makes sense in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

However, this movies scenario is the improbable one that a thousand mutated intelligent apes can overpower the entirety of the United States military starting out with spears, just because. If the implication is that Caesar is smarter than humans, well, even so, they're not going to win unless they can get a hold of military grade weaponry, and then they're not going to win unless they can somehow fight their way through thousands upon thousands of human soldiers to gain access to a nuclear facility and I dunno, start World War III and then survive it. All this and James Franco too, what a farce.

[Aerozord]

am I the only one upset that instead of Apes evolving to fill the evolutionary void created by human self destruction we have the cliche'd "science is evil, see what stupid scientists did, this is what happens when you play god"

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Wait. How do we know this isn't some elaborate parody?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

How the fuck do we get taken over by monkeys.
Like they couldn't even steal our weapons becase they lack the hands and the body structure to properly use all our stuff which is designed for humans.
This is fucking stupid.
ANd how do they take over the entire world? There is a lot of world, how do they travel around it? How do they get form place to place.
I'm pretty sure the people writing this sat arond and thought- what is the worst way we can do this.

[Magus]

am I the only one upset that instead of Apes evolving to fill the evolutionary void created by human self destruction we have the cliche'd "science is evil, see what stupid scientists did, this is what happens when you play god"

This was precisely my point, they just bullshit up an implausible prequel to make money rather than go with the obvious, natural back story we all gleaned from just watching the original film, let alone its horrible sequels (up to and including this film).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To 7shot:James Franco and Brian Cox were in the trailer as well as some other actors I recognise but can't name. Also it has wikipedia and imdb pages and everything.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

... an implausible prequel...

As opposed to the totally plausible films before it?

Edit: I now await Smarty's inevitable response.

Double Edit:
To 7shot:James Franco and Brian Cox were in the trailer as well as some other actors I recognise but can't name. Also it has wikipedia and imdb pages and everything.

Don't they seem like just the kind of people that would want to fuck with everyone?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

? I mean planet of the apes was pretty stupid but its not on the level of a few intelligent monkeys taking over a modern function non-apocalyptic world stupid.

[Magus]

As opposed to the totally plausible films before it?

Edit: I now await Smarty's inevitable response.

The only good one was the original, as stated...well, I kind of liked Beneath the Planet of the Apes just for the part where the ape leader that is hunting the humans down to enslave them sees the old circus advertising poster with an ape doing a dance or something for a bunch of humans and the main charcterngoing "LOL THAT'S RIGHT BITCH YOUR ANCESTORS WERE OUR SLAVES THAT WE USED IN EMBARRASSING AND GROTESQUE PANTOMIMES FOR OUR OWN AMUSEMENT, SUCK ON THAT".

Forget how that one ended but it wasn't with a nuclear bomb going off and killing everybody (that was the second one, Return to the Planet of the Apes). That was seriously the most WTF ending since it effectively ended the series...but they fixed that by having Cornelius and whats-her-name going back in time to pre-Planet of the Apes Los Angeles.

That particular one MIGHT be dumber than this one. Maybe.

EDIT: WTF happened to the sequel to the other reboot where the guy goes back in time to regular modern day, crash lands in the Lincoln Monument...except it's the Caesar monument and it's still populated by MONKEYS MONKEYS MONKEYS!!! who treat him like an alien being. It was confusing but hilarious (my theory is he actually went forward in time and for some reason the architecture was exactly the same as human America).

[Seil]

We're all going to see the flick, though.

[Magus]

"We" being you and your buddies or "we" being us here on NPF because I won't be seeing this thing unless it's like at the drive-in and something else good is playing, or it's on HBO or something.

[Marc v4.0]

This is at least as plausible as the reasoning the original Planet series gave us for why Apes took over. They didn't leave it to use to 'assume' what happened, they evetually told us it was all do to a plague that wipes out all the worlds regular pets, so people start adopting apes as pets and soon they are being used as forced labor. We selectivly breed for smarter and smarter apes, but that isn't how it happens because Super-Intelligent Apes from the future travel back in time to create Ceaser.

I don't see how any of THAT bullshit I just explained is better then what this movie presents, nor am I seeing the connection where this is just going to be terrible or anything. Bunch of damn cynics, can't even have a little summer movie fun with Apes Gone Wild.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't remember the movie explaining it. It just kind of assumed we nuked ourselves.
And the reason its stupid is that it is a laughable threat. It's like making a movie about say our toasters coming alive and trying to kill us but still being toasters and requiring mains to operate. It could be alright if played seriously but there is no indication this is anything but super serious. The threat is inherentely comical and unless the movie recognises this it will just fail.

[Premmy]

EDIT: WTF happened to the sequel to the other reboot where the guy goes back in time to regular modern day, crash lands in the Lincoln Monument...except it's the Caesar monument and it's still populated by MONKEYS MONKEYS MONKEYS!!! who treat him like an alien being. It was confusing but hilarious (my theory is he actually went forward in time and for some reason the architecture was exactly the same as human America).

That was actually the big reveal of what planet he was on in the book. They didn't have the statue of liberty moment in it, and then some apes were all "Pshh, like that could happen" at the end.

[Krylo]

Like they couldn't even steal our weapons becase they lack the hands and the body structure to properly use all our stuff which is designed for humans.


Honestly, my suspension of disbelief could ignore this, but not the fact that in the trailer they didn't even try to get weapons and just aped it up all over.

[Sithdarth]

Yeah seriously this new movie if anything is on par with what has come before it. First we have escape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes) and and then we have Conquest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes) Now Conquest has nominally the same storyline with the exception that the monkeys are slaves and revolt under the direction of an ape from the future. The basic parts about them winning against a much superior force with significantly inferior weapons still applies. I think what we have here is a classic case of nostalgia. The original planet of the apes movie series especially towards the end weren't really any worse. Also, whose to say that the response to super intelligent apes taking over a city and killing a bunch of humans wasn't a nuclear one? Thereby triggering the apocalypse the apes need. I could definitely see an ape rebellion straining some international relations.

[Krylo]

Also, whose to say that the response to super intelligent apes taking over a city and killing a bunch of humans wasn't a nuclear one? Thereby triggering the apocalypse the apes need. I could definitely see an ape rebellion straining some international relations.

Everything we know about military strategy vis a vis nukes since Hiroshima?

Dropping nukes in your own country would always be the last possible option, and nuking another country over something like that and inviting nuclear retaliation as opposed to just offering military aid would be... dumbtarded, I think would be the word.

[Lumenskir]

Bunch of damn cynics, can't even have a little summer movie fun with Apes Gone Wild.
I would personally love to see Apes Gone Wild. This, however, is aiming for Super Serious Deep Blue Sea Monkey.

[Osterbaum]

I'll go see it. That is all I have to say.

[Sithdarth]

Everything we know about military strategy vis a vis nukes since Hiroshima?

Dropping nukes in your own country would always be the last possible option, and nuking another country over something like that and inviting nuclear retaliation as opposed to just offering military aid would be... dumbtarded, I think would be the word.


Since when has Hollywood ever been beholden to actual logic? I could see it as a movie plot specifically because it fits the Hollywood logic that nuclear weapons can fix any and all disasters.

[PyrosNine]

I just want to say that when I watched the trailer while in the theater for Harry Potter and Transformers, my eyes were rolling about as fast as Oster's avatar are going to the point I was afraid they were going to roll straight out of my eyes and go 50 mph down the freeway.

OMG A GORILLA HAS JUMPED ONTO OUR HELICOPTER, WHAT DO WE DO?

[Osterbaum]

I can't say I'm all that fond of the trailer, but I'm going to give this movie the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out to be crap after I've seen it I wont mind admitting that.

e: PAY NO MIND TO THE AVATAR, I'M NOT ROLLING MY EYES ...yet

[Magus]

Oh, I wasn't saying the original sequels/prequels are any better than this one, they aren't really...except that they were made decades ago so the cheesiness and horrible plotting is somewhat more forgivable.

As for the apes' true origins, I only go by the original movie. The sequels had time paradoxical time loop reasons for the apes' origin, yes. That is no reason to see another terrible origin story.

That was actually the big reveal of what planet he was on in the book. They didn't have the statue of liberty moment in it, and then some apes were all "Pshh, like that could happen" at the end.

There was a book? And the reboot was actually closer to the actual plot?

You're like...rewriting my entire schema of reality I had formed in my head.

I would personally love to see Apes Gone Wild. This, however, is aiming for Super Serious Deep Blue Sea Monkey.

If they just wanted to make an Apes Gone Wild movie, they should have just made Congo 2: Revenge of Congo 1, where they capture some of the killer gorillas, bring them to America, breed them, and they escape. It can end with the gorillas getting killed off instead of conquering the world.

However, Deep Blue Sea Monkeys would have some promise. The idea of Sea Monkeys was always interesting and if they had been actual tiny merpeople instead of blind shrimp it would have been awesome. I see a kids' movie in the making.

[Osterbaum]

Didn't you know? Hollywood doesn't make movies out of original ideas.

[Magus]

Oh, I now. That's why that Smurfs live-action movie exists with the CGI Smurfs.

What I can't figure out for the life of me is why it's set in modern-day New York and yet has Gargamel running around in his wizard's robes. It's the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

But I digress.

[Sithdarth]

Oh, I wasn't saying the original sequels/prequels are any better than this one, they aren't really...except that they were made decades ago so the cheesiness and horrible plotting is somewhat more forgivable.


This is patently absurd. Good writing in motion picture like style has been going on for literally 100s of years (see Shakespeare). Also, movies themselves, including Scifi movies, had long since moved out of the experimental phase. If I'm remembering my film history right this is about the time we got things like Blade Runner, Tron (both of which were slightly after the remakes so this is kind of a weak point), and 2001 a Space Odyssey (which released at the same time as the original Planet of the Apes). Clearly around this time period good writing even by today's standards was possible. In fact this rant has actually rather depressed me. Here we are 3 decades later and Hollywood is pulling the exact same crap on us in terms of sequels/prequels in terms of cheesiness and horrible plotting. It really drives home the point that the only thing that's changed in movies is how pretty they are to look at. Well mainstream movies. I still hold out hope that the good indie films are of a general better quality and will continue to progress more than just visually.

[phil_]

Where'd the lab get the funding to have thousands of apes? No lab has that kind of money to waste on thousands of apes.

[Sithdarth]

You'd be surprised how much money a government lab (is it a government lab) can have to waste on things. There was a DOD project that was meant to create basically a fission hand grenade. They were using some isotope that I forget (I think it stated with a C) and there was this really out there theory about how to get a chain reaction going. I think the idea was that it would be big and probably induce radiation poisoning but not so big and not so much radiation that the person throwing it couldn't duck behind a wall and be safe. It became really obvious relatively early that it wasn't going to work but the scientists managed to keep the project alive for decades I believe. In the process getting lots of government money. Also, see the Regan (I believe it was Regan) era Star Wars program.

[Lumenskir]

Here we are 3 decades later and Hollywood is pulling the exact same crap on us in terms of sequels/prequels in terms of cheesiness and horrible plotting.
Well, I don't mean to depress you even further, but the same thing's been going on for far longer...like, forever, in every artistic medium, ever. You just didn't have to live through all of the crap from back then.
You'd be surprised how much money a government lab (is it a government lab) can have to waste on things.
I think it's a private lab, since the one guy in the trailer says that they'll be able to make a lot of money after they perfect the technology to make sharks monkeys smarter.

[Aerozord]

Where'd the lab get the funding to have thousands of apes? No lab has that kind of money to waste on thousands of apes.

I think you are missing the bigger issue, how are thousands of apes going to beat billions of humans. With numbers like that you can give the gorilla a machine gun and the humans rocks, the gorilla will run out of ammo and be overwhelmed long before even 1% of those humans are dead.

Also, intellegent doesn't equal victor. Even if these apes have an IQ where the lowest is in 200, they have no infrastructure to make use of it. Even then there are limits. One human is not going to beat 100 tigers no matter how smart he is.

[Marc v4.0]

The don't have any human infrastructure.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the movie ended with this just being 'only the begining'. We are all assuming that the Apes are going to win the very first conflict in the movie, right out, when It would make more sense if they lost enough that Ceaser ordered a retreat. Go into hiding, taking stolen samples of the chemical with him and infect even more wild Apes. Pose as harmless, bide your time, strengthen your population, strike quickly in the dark hours of the night.

You know.

Gorilla Warfare

:3:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Still ain't going to do shit without weapons. You could get all the apes int he world and make them super smart, you're still fucked.

[Marc v4.0]

Apes don't really need weapons to kill humans, especially in their sleep.

I mean, lets just ignore the fact that they have the strength to rip our arms out of socket, I guess? I don't really know why you would think they would need a gun to kill an unarmed, and/or sleeping human. Working off the specific context I provided.

[Magus]

If this were an underground guerilla (lol) movement it would make sense, but the trailer clearly shows them fighting SWAT teams and attacking hapless passersby with spears or their bare hands, which within the span of a two hour movie where they have to introduce the lead scientist character, Caesar, the ape project, the corporate/government bureaucrats, the compound that increases ape intelligence, etc., I am assuming these scenes are the climax of the film.

If they were smart about it they would have had a longer plotline where the private company maximizes on the intelligent apes, sells them as personal slaves for humans to use, literally millions of them are created and sold and are used in all walks of life, people become dependent on them for labor or even military applications (such as sending a bunch of apes in to fight Al Qaeda to save human lives), etc., they are able to get access to weapons and forge secret conspiracies and so on leading to the eventual overcoming of the human race (ala I, Robot, Terminator, etc.)

If the movie ends with like, Caesar and the other escaped apes disappearing underground or something to emerge later, then that is probably sort of what they are going for, I guess.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Apes don't really need weapons to kill humans, especially in their sleep.

I mean, lets just ignore the fact that they have the strength to rip our arms out of socket, I guess? I don't really know why you would think they would need a gun to kill an unarmed, and/or sleeping human. Working off the specific context I provided.

But where did the apes come from? Either they are attacking isolated farm houses and will kill maybe a few humans or they attacking cities where A) somebodies always awake and b) we would notice them coming before we go to bed. Apes can't move that fast in 8 hours of sleep they can only go in 10s of kilometer. Ho do we not see the army of apes coming.
And the military doesn't completely sleep, everybody is awake.
Even then individual breaking into houses and smashing people in the head will take ages.

The tailban doesn't come and murder us in our sleep for a reason. Cause it doesn't make sense.

Sure the apes could kill a vfew dudes before we realise what's going on but as soon as we know there is a wr on we'll just shoot them all.

[Aerozord]

The don't have any human infrastructure.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the movie ended with this just being 'only the begining'. We are all assuming that the Apes are going to win the very first conflict in the movie, right out, when It would make more sense if they lost enough that Ceaser ordered a retreat. Go into hiding, taking stolen samples of the chemical with him and infect even more wild Apes. Pose as harmless, bide your time, strengthen your population, strike quickly in the dark hours of the night.

you forget how humans work, if we learned gorillas pose a legitimate threat to use we will commit genocide and slaughter them all. Humans are the top of the food chain not because we are smarter, but because we killed anything that could compete with us or threaten us.

They also aren't physically superior to humans in all regards. Humans are more agile and have ALOT more stamina. When using long range one-hit kill weapons like guns, being able to keep your distance is more important.

As for increasing population. You know how humans typically have one child that takes a long gestation and several years to reach maturity? Thats not a human thing, thats an ape thing. It would take decades to reach millions.

[phil_]

I think you are missing the bigger issue, how are thousands of apes going to beat billions of humans?See, that's like saying, "How is this sedan going to outrun a guided missile?" in response to, "This car has no wheels."

[Marc v4.0]

lawl, top of the food chain.

Yeah, just never mind, I'll just wait and see how it plays out in the movie and judge it from there.

[Magus]

Okay, so they created a misleading trailer that makes their movie look stupider than it is. Therefore it is our fault for thinking it is stupid. I got it.

[Aerozord]

See, that's like saying, "How is this sedan going to outrun a guided missile?" in response to, "This car has no wheels."

more like the other way around. Even if the apes did have weapons and armor that made human military worthless, and enslaved all of humanity, look at the logistics of that. Thats what, a few dozen apes per country?

Do you think one gorilla, could subjugate multiple cities?

[Marc v4.0]

I would say the fact that you aren't entertaining the idea, as well as the discussion line, that the trailer could be misleading and it isn't actually as dumb as they chose to present it(intentionally or not) is certainly your own fault.

It is a plausible train of thought that the trailer is leaning towards something that isn't entirely the truth as a form of misdirection. It happens very often, and for lots of reasons.


EDIT: I thought it an interesting line of reasoning to explore, too. The movie doesn't have to be the complete showcase for the entire rise and fall or the Ape world, it appears to mostly showcase HOW the Apes got so smart and what motivated Caesar. All the combat and Ape Fithts the trailers show could merely be them breaking out and wrecking havoc on their escape, or as a carefully planned form of distraction. It could BE a failed push, but that doesn't mean they all have to die right there, some could escape and begin the slow process of breeding their new genetic intelligence into existing ape populations, and then WE go on ahead and ruin our own shit and evolution takes over. There is a lot you can assume either way based on the trailer, and while it appears that it is stupidly suggesting that a lab full of apes really does take over the world on it's own, It could be just poor construction of the trailer and I would rather assume they were being smarter about it in the final product.


Rememebr, regular people aren't going to put as much thought in to the trailer as a gaggle of critically intellectual forum nerds are.

[Aerozord]

I would say the fact that you aren't entertaining the idea, as well as the discussion line, that the trailer could be misleading and it isn't actually as dumb as they chose to present it(intentionally or not) is certainly your own fault.

It is a plausible train of thought that the trailer is leaning towards something that isn't entirely the truth as a form of misdirection. It happens very often, and for lots of reasons.

depends on what part is misleading. If it is, humans create intelligent primates I will still hate it because "scientists create X, thus X overthrows humanity" has got to be the most over used sci-fi plot unless you count "an alien did it"

[PhoenixFlame]

Do you think one gorilla, could subjugate multiple cities?

He can with enough plot armor.

Seriously, the reboot made me pull my hair out when Jason Bourne (Okay, maybe not him, but the same actor), alleged military spaceman badass is completely unable to aim a laser pistol. He gets two at various points in the story and he always gets his ass kicked in the most embarassing manners (Like having some monkey do a wuxia kung-fu jump onto his chest and randomly flail their ham-hands on his sternum), and is completely unable to shoot anything.

Also, overuse of the wilheim scream. I'm sure this was done tounge-in-cheek.

[Archbio]

There was a book? And the reboot was actually closer to the actual plot?

Didn't Tim Burton admit that the final twist to the remake makes no specific sense and wasn't meant to, being essentially a random sequel hook?

I guess the ending to the Tim Burton remake does have a similar shape than the novel's ending (except the landing doesn't occur at the Champs-Élysées or something like that,) especially in comparison with the Charlton Heston movie, but the novel provides a very clear explanation for its twist in comparison.

The time travel is predictable and predicted by the characters (a by-product of the method of space travel on long distances) and the planet he lands on at the end is most definetly Earth.* It's implied that what happened on the alien planet (and is described previously) that the narrator just left happened on Earth while he was in transit. That fact that he finds things about Paris surprisingly similar to the way he left it (though not down to specific landmarks that I recall,) which is a rough equivalent to the Lincoln Memorial effect, is explainable by the previously observed fact that the apes on the other planet haven't been very innovative in the thousands of years since their take over.

---

Speaking of take-over, the issue that SMBP raises, that apes shouldn't be able to take over a fully functioning space-age society, is kind of moot in the novel, which posits wacky things about the nature of sapience. Apes were able to take over not because they became super-smart, but rather because humans became more ape-like (rather tame apes, anyway) as the apes became more human-like.

*As opposed to going through TIME HOLES.

[Marc v4.0]

I will still hate it because "scientists create X, thus X overthrows humanity" has got to be the most over used sci-fi plot unless you count "an alien did it"

See the past comment about Hollywood and hating anything original.

If it ain't broke!

[Fifthfiend]

So this is the prequel to the Markie Mark Apes movie, right?

I mean, yeah, that's a movie that needed to be revisited.

[Aerozord]

ok this is completely off topic but this keeps irritating me to no end

HUMANS ARE APES!!!

[Marc v4.0]

ok this is completely off topic but this keeps irritating me to no end

HUMANS ARE APES!!!

Great Apes, actually

[Professor Smarmiarty]

ok this is completely off topic but this keeps irritating me to no end

HUMANS ARE APES!!!

I think I would have noticed if we were all apes. I would be screaming, what are all these apes doing in my cities!

[Aerozord]

I would probably be more interested if they made this movie a satire and renamed it "Apes on a Planet"

[Magus]

So this is the prequel to the Markie Mark Apes movie, right?

I mean, yeah, that's a movie that needed to be revisited.

Oh, thank God, Phoenix said it was Matt Damon and I was like, "Wait a second...was it?! I thought it was Marky Mark but was it Matt Damon?! NOOOO"

Marky Mark Wahlberg being in it reestablishes my faith in humanity (er, sort of, in a negative manner that also sort of positive).

Humans are apes

True but a different species, more intelligent, more "sentient" if there are degrees to sentience. Technically speaking the apes in the movies would be some other more advanced species as well (well, assuming they evolved that way, here in this movie it seems to be they are just mutants? I guess they would become a new species automatically, presuming they can reproduce), not apes, but it would be difficult to capture that idea in the title, nor do I think whoever came up with this particular movie is going to bother going into the logistics of the taxonomy of what the "human-intelligent apes" are called.

I would say the fact that you aren't entertaining the idea, as well as the discussion line, that the trailer could be misleading and it isn't actually as dumb as they chose to present it(intentionally or not) is certainly your own fault.

It is a plausible train of thought that the trailer is leaning towards something that isn't entirely the truth as a form of misdirection. It happens very often, and for lots of reasons.


EDIT: I thought it an interesting line of reasoning to explore, too. The movie doesn't have to be the complete showcase for the entire rise and fall or the Ape world, it appears to mostly showcase HOW the Apes got so smart and what motivated Caesar. All the combat and Ape Fithts the trailers show could merely be them breaking out and wrecking havoc on their escape, or as a carefully planned form of distraction. It could BE a failed push, but that doesn't mean they all have to die right there, some could escape and begin the slow process of breeding their new genetic intelligence into existing ape populations, and then WE go on ahead and ruin our own shit and evolution takes over. There is a lot you can assume either way based on the trailer, and while it appears that it is stupidly suggesting that a lab full of apes really does take over the world on it's own, It could be just poor construction of the trailer and I would rather assume they were being smarter about it in the final product.


Rememebr, regular people aren't going to put as much thought in to the trailer as a gaggle of critically intellectual forum nerds are.

Fine, you would rather assume they are being smarter in the actual film, I would rather assume they aren't, just 'cause I am falling back on my initial impression of a Planet of the Apes prequel being unnecessary and stupid in and of itself, anyway, regardless of how "smart" they go about it. Agree to disagree.

[phil_]

more like the other way around. Even if the apes did have weapons and armor that made human military worthless, and enslaved all of humanity, look at the logistics of that. Thats what, a few dozen apes per country?

Do you think one gorilla, could subjugate multiple cities?Two pilgrims came across a wide, deep river. They found that the bridge had been washed away in a storm. The two looked about for some way to float across. Just as the sun began to set, one pilgrim calls to the other, "I've found a way." The other pilgrim hurries over, to find his fellow considering a large, flat rock. "This rock could get us over, but it's only big enough for one of us. How will we both cross before night falls?"

You're the guy who found the rock.

[Lumenskir]

So this is the prequel to the Markie Mark Apes movie, right?

I mean, yeah, that's a movie that needed to be revisited.
No, that movie said that the apes took over when Mark's space station crashed and the trained apes organized against the humans and ??? and that led to apes being the dominant species. This appears to be a reboot.
It could be just poor construction of the trailer and I would rather assume they were being smarter about it in the final product.
You're going to be one of those people that turn a blind eye to the inevitably uniform critical panning, aren't you?

[Sithdarth]

What's with all this "The apes have to fight every human" thing? To start with most humans aren't really going to fight. I mean most of America can't even walk 200 yards according to main stream media. Beyond that all the apes really have to do is turn into terrorists. They'd actually be much more effective than traditional terrorists. Put up a good fight in one city then disappear and stage "attacks" on other areas. All in the name of destabilizing the relationships between the people and their government. Combine the threat of a popular revolution wresting control of the nuclear arms of the US from a predictable set of people with the inevitable economic fallout as people both riot and horde in response to super smart apes and you have a recipe for strained international relations. Maybe not enough for a straight jump to a nuclear war but enough to eventually lead there under the right circumstances. Heck even if it doesn't come to nukes once China and the US start fighting for real with conventional weapons it's gonna be pretty bad.

[Magus]

I like how everyone in this topic has come up with far better plots for this film off the top of their heads whereas whoever wrote the actual thing was undoubtedly paid thousands of dollards to do so and spent days working out the basic plot which appears to be for all intents and purposes based on the evidence provided thus far and the precedence for films in this series and of this type, to be pretty dumb.

[Marc v4.0]

You're going to be one of those people that turn a blind eye to the inevitably uniform critical panning, aren't you?

No, but I might be one of those people who enjoys the movie because it was A) Actually good and you are all just haters or B) You were all right and it is just really damn hilarious.

I don't put much stock in critics or their opinions, because if I did I would have missed some very good movies that they all said sucked because they are paid to be critical, and if they love it I can assume they were paid to say THAT as well. I take even less stock in regular-people reviews because everyone has something to say about everything and I am not really interested in judging the movie off of a review by someone I don't know at all.

I'm actually a little insulted, I never said it wasn't fair to have your own opinion about it being good or bad, Just that it wasn't fair to dismiss each other over the difference

[Magus]

Well the Ain't It Cool News guy is well-known to be paid to give positive reviews but most of the major newspapers' journalists are usually of higher integrity, especially Roger Ebert. I disagree with Ebert sometimes because he'll sometimes get up on a moral high horse about movies and rate them badly because of that, but he does state that outright and he does it very rarely (and arguably The Human Centipede or Funny Games are without any artistic merit because they are moral black holes, I just don't think it's a good argument).

Like even Armond White whose reviews have made zero sense thus far (the man absolutely loved mindless movies like G.I. Joe, Transformers 1 and 2, while hating on films like The Dark Knight or what have you, and wrote big long philosophical reviews for these summer popcorn movies using all the "movie reviewer" shop talk and French and foreign film references and stuff, and then blew everybody's mind by hating the shit out of Transformers 3 for some reason despite it being demonstrably slightly better than the other two), I don't think he was paid to give those movies good reviews, I think he is just batshit insane.

[Marc v4.0]

That isn't a very sound case as to why I should take these people seriously, especially Roger Ebert. I'm not sure how he can actually watch the movies from so far up his own ass.

[Lumenskir]

Heh, I thought you'd go for the "I don't listen to reviews because I wanna make up my own mind, man!" but I never expected "They're all in the pocket of the studios, man!"
You were all right and it is just really damn hilarious.
I feel like if that turns out to be the case the best thing you should do is wait till it comes out on DVD or whatever and watch it drunk with some friends at home while making fun of it, otherwise you're paying $10 to laugh uproariously at a movie that an entire theater full of people who also paid $10 might want to actually watch in normal conditions.

[Magus]

I'm just saying they weren't paid to give a movie a good or bad review. They are paid to be critical (or "nitpicky" which is probably how you mean that term) but how can you fault somebody for doing what you want them to do? If you don't like critics, that is fine. Sometimes they are too nitpicky and high brow, especially about summer movies. BUT they do usually differentiate between "good" summer movies and "bad" summer movies fairly well. And Ebert is probably the more down to earth one, again, Armond White is the most insane one, and there are some hipster type reviewers out there I simply cannot stand.

[Marc v4.0]

Heh, I thought you'd go for the "I don't listen to reviews because I wanna make up my own mind, man!" but I never expected "They're all in the pocket of the studios, man!"

I feel like if that turns out to be the case the best thing you should do is wait till it comes out on DVD or whatever and watch it drunk with some friends at home while making fun of it, otherwise you're paying $10 to laugh uproariously at a movie that an entire theater full of people who also paid $10 might want to actually watch in normal conditions.

It is both, actually. I don't see anything wrong with that, either

Uhm...ok..well I don't laugh 'uproariously' at things in a theater unless it is something a lot of other people are doing cause it is just dickish. I guess thanks again for assuming I am going to do something dickish in the normal course of my day?



Edit: Egbert strikes me as actually rather out of touch with a lot of things, one of them being my own tastes and views. It is the big reason i don't listen to reviews in general, because I can't really judge how their tastes line up with mine, unless I am a regular reader of their reviews, and almost always, as a rule, for peer-reviews cause you can't really even follow them enough to build a sense of how they line up with you.

[Aerozord]

Heh, I thought you'd go for the "I don't listen to reviews because I wanna make up my own mind, man!" but I never expected "They're all in the pocket of the studios, man!"

I feel like if that turns out to be the case the best thing you should do is wait till it comes out on DVD or whatever and watch it drunk with some friends at home while making fun of it, otherwise you're paying $10 to laugh uproariously at a movie that an entire theater full of people who also paid $10 might want to actually watch in normal conditions.

sad thing is I just realized this would be Mystery Science Theater gold

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I wish people would pay me to say stuff is shit. I'd be a billionaire

[Lumenskir]

I guess thanks again for assuming I am going to do something dickish in the normal course of my day?
So, I'm supposed to assume the best of people who post on NPF!?

[Marc v4.0]

So, I'm supposed to assume the best of people who post on NPF!?

.....

You win this round, Inspector.

[Magus]

For you see, we are all dicks, in our own way.

Especially Lumenskir. What a dick.

[Archbio]

I'm not sure how he can actually watch the movies from so far up his own ass.

I'll avoid commenting on your general drift (though it's silly and wrong) and say that the answer to this is simple: Roger Ebert doesn't necessarily watch the movies he reviews.

I've caught a few examples where this man, paid to watch movies, exhibits catastrophic viewing comprehension failure about basic facts of a movie.

[Magus]

He just blames that on the movie not being able to get it across to him effectively, usually. Man has all the angles covered!

[Marc v4.0]

I'll avoid commenting on your general drift

Ok

(though it's silly and wrong)

and the ball is dropped!

[Magus]

You forgot about us all being dicks. We can't help it. I sincerely apologize for us all (despite the inherent ridiculousness of your views), we are hypocritical jerkwads mostly (but not about your views on films because they are clearly wrong forever).

[Marc v4.0]

It really is my fault.

I mean, clearly Political, Video Game, Art, TV and Fashion critics have all been proven to be mostly bought and paid for across the boards, but the Precious and Esteemed Movie Critic is the lone, golden Sentinal of Honestly and Truth.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

How do you explain indepedent and arthouse films pretty universally getting higher critical scores than blockbusters who would be the ones with the money to bribe people?
Like if this movie gets poor reviews you can't blame it on corrupt critics because this would be the kind of production that can buy good reviews.

[Marc v4.0]

I can't, just never mind. I am obviously just shithouse crazy.

[Lumenskir]

I mean, clearly Political, Video Game, Art, TV and Fashion critics have all been proven to be mostly bought and paid for across the boards
What TV - I mean...
I am obviously just shithouse crazy.
Whew, saved me some time.
How do you explain indepedent and arthouse films pretty universally getting higher critical scores than blockbusters who would be the ones with the money to bribe people?
I've been warning people about the dangers of Big Indie for quite a while.

[Marc v4.0]

They exist.


I'm really not seeing where the idea is silly and wrong and absurd for whatever you want to throw at it. Big-name game titles get universally panned when they turn out to be shit-sticks, but we all KNOW that the game companies pay reviewers off or threaten to blacklist them or other dirty, underhanded bullshit. Explain to me why not trusting a movie critic for the exact same reason is such a damn lunacy.

[Lumenskir]

They exist
TV critics? Of course they exist, I love reading television criticism and have like three bookmarks of critics I like.

"Across the board" corrupt TV critics? You'd have to be shithouse crazy just to believe such an endeavor was even worth it.

[Marc v4.0]

I admit, that was a poor choice, but I was just sort of throwing that shit out there. I should have gone with something else.

[Lumenskir]

Big-name game titles get universally panned when they turn out to be shit-sticks, but we all KNOW that the game companies pay reviewers off or threaten to blacklist them or other dirty, underhanded bullshit. Explain to me why not trusting a movie critic for the exact same reason is such a damn lunacy.
Leaving aside the whole "Of course we all KNOW this MUST be true" logic, you're comparing two different things.

Videogame reviewers need to get the videogames early in order to write reviews at all, or else they have to wait until it gets released then spend the tens of hours playing it and then write a review which means they'd be left behind all of their competitors who got the game weeks/months earlier from the publisher and could publish before the actual release. A possible incentive is present, but not absolute.

There have been plenty of movies that the studios don't screen for critics. Usually the critic just goes to a midnight showing and can put in a review a few hours afterward, and then it appears in Friday's paper/online update before anyone has actually had a chance to see it. Being in the pocket of the studio would mean they have a meaningless advantage, since both reviews would essentially be available before anyone else had a chance to go and see the movie on a Friday night.

Paying off TV critics would be even more pointless but for other/longer reasons.

[Marc v4.0]

Don't pretend for a second that the evidence of game companies paying off reviewers has somehow vanished or isn't valid. We all know it because it has been proved to happen.

I didn't mean to besmirch the good and gentle name of the noble Film Critic. It isn't even really a thing that keeps me up at night or plays a calculatable role in my choice to not listen to reviews. It is just a suspicion I have over them, I would still avoid listening to them for the other reasons I stated.

[Fifthfiend]

Great Apes, actually

Pffft, yeah

according to them

[Marc v4.0]

Pffft, yeah

according to them

Get the fuck on Fiendcraft and show me your broken damn door already!

[PhoenixFlame]

Oh, right. It was Marky Mark, not Matt Damon. Ah well, in my defense they look kinda similar when they're running around with paranoid looks and laser pistols, I guess?

Still, I'm pretty sure the fact that we have an organized military and Apes don't, that it would be fairly hard to take over.

[Fifthfiend]

Get the fuck on Fiendcraft and show me your broken damn door already!

I had very some very important and unavoidable getting high as fuck on my schedule for last night.

[Loyal]

Don't pretend for a second that the evidence of game companies paying off reviewers has somehow vanished or isn't valid. We all know it because it has been proved to happen.Did he? I don't see him addressing that at all. All I see him saying is that there's little incentive to buy off a Movie critic when compared to the incentives of buying off a game critic.

I didn't mean to besmirch the good and gentle name of the noble Film Critic. It isn't even really a thing that keeps me up at night or plays a calculatable role in my choice to not listen to reviews. It is just a suspicion I have over them, I would still avoid listening to them for the other reasons I stated.In which case, one wonders why you would bring up this unsubstantiated speculation against the film critics in the first place.

Also, it is nice to see that you are alive again, PF.

[Marc v4.0]

You couldn't avoid getting high because you scheduled it as very important.

Gotcha



In which case, one wonders why you would bring up this unsubstantiated speculation against the film critics in the first place.

Clearly I hate myself

[Fifthfiend]

You couldn't avoid getting high because you scheduled it as very important.

This is pretty much the straighforward intended meaning of my post.

[Marc v4.0]

Well, get on now then, I want to play OWB some more...

[PhoenixFlame]

Also, it is nice to see that you are alive again, PF.

Dying was somewhat unpleasant, but luckily the apes didn't get me, because then I'd probably be enslaved too.

You know, by the power of plotanium!

[Fifthfiend]

Well, get on now then, I want to play OWB some more...

I'm at work!

EDIT: I'll be back home in about an hour-ish though!

[Aerozord]

It really is my fault.

I mean, clearly Political, Video Game, Art, TV and Fashion critics have all been proven to be mostly bought and paid for across the boards, but the Precious and Esteemed Movie Critic is the lone, golden Sentinal of Honestly and Truth.

not all though, I remember EGM bashing a game on the same page as an ad for it. I'm talking like 3.0 scores here

[Lumenskir]

Ok, in the newest trailer I saw, they explicitly say that the drug is being tested on animals so that it can be used to cure Alzheimer's.

If Samuel L. Jackson does not give a rousing speech to the assembled survivors of the movie only to be cut off in the middle by a gorilla ripping him in half, every viewer who paid to watch it should be allowed to get a refund.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Ok, in the newest trailer I saw, they explicitly say that the drug is being tested on animals so that it can be used to cure Alzheimer's.

If Samuel L. Jackson does not give a rousing speech to the assembled survivors of the movie only to be cut off in the middle by a gorilla ripping him in half, every viewer who paid to watch it should be allowed to get a refund.

Maybe an alliance between sharks and apes could be the plausible takeover?

[Arhra]

Oh, right. It was Marky Mark, not Matt Damon. Ah well, in my defense they look kinda similar when they're running around with paranoid looks and laser pistols, I guess?

Still, I'm pretty sure the fact that we have an organized military and Apes don't, that it would be fairly hard to take over.

The best thing about him in that film is he is quite possibly the least charismatic hero I have ever seen.

His big speech at the crashed spaceship to the gathered hyuuuuuumans was basically "Go away! Apes will kill us all!" except I am inserting a degree of emotional intensity that was not present when he said it.

The Planet of the Apes remake is also the film that teaches us gorillas are black people and no matter how intelligent an ape might seem, in the end it's still just a damn, dirty ape.

[Magus]

I saw a longer trailer for this, the John Lithgow "my cute little pet super ape, oh no it has hurt someone it must be caged" shenanigans makes it look even stupider than what I thought was originally going on. There's apparently at least 40 minutes of this movie dedicated to just getting Caesar into the damn cage he wants to break out of, which is then replete with his impetus for rebelling being pretty much simply that the humans at this facility are all like "damn dirty apes! So stupid! Fuck you, apes!"

[Red Fighter 1073]

Okay so I apparently just found out that the main Indian girl from Slumdog Millionaire, Freida Pinto (http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1920&bih=858&q=freida%20pinto&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=322l2711l0l2936l12l12l0l5l5l0l207l1089l0.6. 1l7l0&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi), is in this movie...

I might actually be a bit tempted to see this movie now.

[Bard The 5th LW]

When I firts saw the trailer I thought it was some sorta DC movie and that the primate being showcased was Gorilla Grodd.

[Aerozord]

When I firts saw the trailer I thought it was some sorta DC movie and that the primate being showcased was Gorilla Grodd.

this I would see

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guys an ape just broke into my office and was like "Time to die stupid human". I just smashed its face in with my chair. It was oddly satisfying

[Magus]

When I firts saw the trailer I thought it was some sorta DC movie and that the primate being showcased was Gorilla Grodd.

Well, crap, I'd see that, too. As long as it ended with Lex Luthor shooting him and going "turn all the apes intelligent and have them attack the humans with pointy sticks? THAT was your master plan?"

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Holy shit, guys! Do y'all know what it feels like to be totally wrong?! Cause we were way off base.

This was one of the best movies of the year. Andy Serkis gave the performance of his life and he deserves recognition for it.

[Marc v4.0]

Told ya so

[Magus]

I cannot for the life of me understand why critics are fellating this film. Serkis must be pretty damn impressive.

Told ya so

Returning to an earlier side shoot of this topic: "Those damn, dirty critics and their...approval of this film I liked."

EDIT: To clarify, it is more that they fellated this film while lambasting Cowboys & Aliens, despite my inability to determine why one is utterly ridiculous and the other is Oscar material.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I cannot for the life of me understand why critics are fellating this film. Serkis must be pretty damn impressive.

It's not just that! The plot is very intelligent and there are moments that will bring tears to your eyes.

[Magus]

It's not just that! The plot is very intelligent and there are moments that will bring tears to your eyes.

Worst. Ad campaign. EVER.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Hey, it ain't like I'm getting paid or anything. Free press is free press.

[Magus]

Hey, it ain't like I'm getting paid or anything. Free press is free press.

I meant the commercials failed to get it across as intelligent or moving.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I meant the commercials failed to get it across as intelligent or moving.

I think that stems from the belief that people aren't gonna want to go to the monkey movie to cry multiple times.

[Osterbaum]

haha, crybaby

e: Here's what MovieBob thought of it. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/3821-Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes) Although apparently he's biased towards anything with monkeys in it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Anything moviebob thinks is good is by definition shit. Opinion formed based on trailers only: validated.

[CABAL49]

Just saw it. Go see it. It was awesome.

[Osterbaum]

Anything moviebob thinks is good is by definition shit. Opinion formed based on trailers only: validated.
Flawless logic.

[Overcast]

Those trailers were crap. The image I went into that movie with was not even close to what I ended up seeing. Honestly a completely misleading ad campaign, but the movie is worth watching I'll say. Because despite what the trailers showed us, the uprising is not as contrived as it might seem.

[Seil]

So guys, guys. You judged and discussed the movie based around a few previews and immediately hated it, talking about (at length) how much of a dissapointment this was to the Apes series. A bunch of were upset, and then people go and see the movie and they come back saying "It's not that bad."

What do we learn from this? Not to judge a movie by its trailers? Isn't that what everyone on the forum does a lot?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

What do we learn from this?

Hollywood can't make a goddamn trailer for shit because they entirely misinterpret what it is an audience wants from movies.

[Aerozord]

What do we learn from this? Not to judge a movie by its trailers?

but, thats the point of a trailer

[CABAL49]

What do we learn from this?

That people on this forum can't admit that they were wrong.

[Kim]

What do we learn from this? Not to judge a movie by its trailers? Isn't that what everyone on the forum does a lot?

It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and we almost always take critical reception into account as well, and in this case critical reception was positive. An exception does not suddenly mean that we should assume the best of every movie just because. It just means there are exceptions, which is why we listen to critics in the first place.

Your irritating as fuck smug condescension is ill-founded, is what I'm saying.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Irony. This is called irony.

[Kim]

Irony. This is called irony.

Nope.

[Red Fighter 1073]

Your irritating as fuck smug condescension is ill-founded, is what I'm saying.

Calm down buddy.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Nope.

It could be seen as a form of dramatic irony at the least.

[Marc v4.0]

My smug satisfaction, however, is well-founded seeing as I was already condescended all over for saying we should do something as idiotic as giving the movie a chance cause the trailer might have just been shit.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/smiley_smug.gif

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Nope.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's more hypocritical seeing you complain about smug superiority.

[Kim]

It could be seen as a form of dramatic irony at the least.

Dramatic irony is the worst irony.

Have you seen the examples Wikipedia lists for dramatic irony?

Terrible.

[Kim]

Oh, I'm sorry. It's more hypocritical seeing you complain about smug superiority.

Now class, what did we learn about misusing "irony"?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Dramatic irony is the worst irony.

Have you seen the examples Wikipedia lists for dramatic irony?

Terrible.

Well obviously technically it doesn't apply because there's no character/audience relationship, but statements are being made in this situation with the stater lacking part of the perspective that the "Audience" has.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

@NonCon: I'll admit, that was pretty funny.

[Fenris]

Okay, kids, stop with the trolling each other. Talk 'bout monkeys.

[CABAL49]

Speaking of which, when are they finally going to give Andy Serkis every award?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What he does is pretty radically different to most other acting. It hard to compare really.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Serkis just has such a great understanding of movement that I'm willing to watch this movie again just to watch how he expresses himself.

[CABAL49]

I just figured out what Moviebob said about a reference to LOTR. When Ceaser attacks the guy harassing John Lithgow he bites his finger, like Andy Serkis' other character Gollum does.

[Bard The 5th LW]

I just got back from watching this movie and it was actually pretty good. It explained a lot of things that the trailers didn't, subverted other expectations, and it managed to have an ending different than what I was expecting despite the foregone conclusion. I also appreciated how they managed to switch the perspective enough so that we didn't have to watch the apes maul people too often. Probably shouldn't have brought my little brother to it though.

Overall I actually don't have many complaints about it.

[Seil]

Speaking of which, when are they finally going to give Andy Serkis every award?

He was pretty rad in video games, too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Di2VsdGwlw&feature=related&t=2m04s) I think all that's left is music and art, and then... everything.

EDIT Just art, then. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG2FzHjzJj8)

[Archbio]

I'm still predicting I'm going to find it to bad or terrible when I eventually watch it, based on it being another Planet of the Apes movie.

[CABAL49]

I'm still predicting I'm going to find it to bad or terrible when I eventually watch it, based on it being another Planet of the Apes movie.

Under that logic, X-Men: First Class was terrible. And those be fightin' words.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Under that logic, X-Men: First Class was terrible. And those be fightin' words.

It probably not terrible. Was bad though!

[phil_]

To clarify, it is more that they fellated this film while lambasting Cowboys & Aliens, despite my inability to determine why one is utterly ridiculous and the other is Oscar material.Just saw it, so I can answer this.

One is a movie about a mysterious cowboy riding into town and saving it from aliens. The other is about a repressed group equal if not superior in spirit to their oppressors rising up via trashing a financial district full of suits and beating up the police to claim their dignity.

It kinda hits close to home, you know? That society is such that the entire theater was cheering for the apes.

We wanna be those apes.