"Rise of the Apes" - Planet of the Apes prequel

[fulci fan]

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/james-franco-goes-ape

Mother f*ck. F*cking WETA are doing C.G. apes. Cartoon apes?!?!?! Why can't they use Rick Baker? What was wrong with the makeup in the Re-make of planet of the apes? What is going on with movies?

[bassman]

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=15876&highlight=ceasar

I agree though. F*ck CGI apes, f*ck a "prequel"(it can't be a prequel if the original series is a complete circle!!!!), and f*ck this reboot.

[fulci fan]

You know, I do searches but they never work for me. Oh well. They will delete it if they need to. :annoyed:

[darth los]

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=15876&highlight=ceasar

I agree though. F*ck CGI apes, f*ck a "prequel"(it can't be a prequel if the original series is a complete circle!!!!), and f*ck this reboot.


Well, it would be interesting to see what transpired in our society between the 3 and 4th films. (15-20 year gap?) Or between the 4th and 5th films for that matter.

It sounds alot like that's what they'll be covering.

:cool:

[fulci fan]

Well, it would be interesting to see what transpired in our society between the 3 and 4th films. (15-20 year gap?) Or between the 4th and 5th films for that matter.

It sounds alot like that's what they'll be covering.

:cool:

It does not matter if the story is cool or not. The fact that the apes will be CG ruins the movie completely. :|

[Trin]

Yes, use real trained apes or not at all.

Thus leading the director to create an army of trained apes during filming, which upon losing their jobs after filming ends riot throughout Hollywood, and thus sets the stage for a real life Planet of the Apes.

It's self-fulfilling. Great advice fulci.

[AcesandEights]

It does not matter if the story is cool or not. The fact that the apes will be CG ruins the movie completely. :|

They. Nuked. The. Fridge.

[fulci fan]

Yes, use real trained apes or not at all.

Thus leading the director to create an army of trained apes during filming, which upon losing their jobs after filming ends riot throughout Hollywood, and thus sets the stage for a real life Planet of the Apes.

It's self-fulfilling. Great advice fulci.

Trained apes? You think that the only two options to have realistic apes in a movie are CG apes and real trained apes? or were you joking? ;)

[bassman]

They should revive Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter in zombie form. Then call it Planet of the Living Dead Apes. The subtext could be hollywood's obsession with running franchises into the ground and having nothing original. Maybe then I would care. :confused::dead:

[Trin]

Trained apes? You think that the only two options to have realistic apes in a movie are CG apes and real trained apes? or were you joking? ;)It was the joking one. :P


They should revive Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter in zombie form. Then call it Planet of the Living Dead Apes. The subtext could be hollywood's obsession with running franchises into the ground and having nothing original. Maybe then I would care. :confused::dead:I'd watch that. And it's relevant. And if GAR did it he could poke at the industry. It's genius.

[blind2d]

Yeah... the only cool ape imo is a living dead one. Case in point, the "Clint Eastwood" music video.

[Eyebiter]

Back in 2006 Mr. Comics made a six issue limited series called 'Revolution on the Planet of the Apes'. While it's not considered to be cannon, it does provide one vision of the events immediately following Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

Only downside is they didn't stay consistent with the time line of the original POTA movies. Instead they tried to move events forward into the 21st century, adding modern technology and events into the story line. While not entirely successful it presents some interesting ideas.

Unfortunately due to poor sales the sequel miniseries 'Empire on the Planet of the Apes' was canceled.

Flash preview of issue 3
http://www.mrcomics.ca/freestory.htm

[bassman]

That comic looks badass. Can't say I'm a big fan of the Apes having technology, though. I know it's closer to Boulle's original novel, but I just prefer my apes slightly on the primitive side of things.

Eyebiter.....judging by your signature you're obviously a fan. I'm curious as to what order you rank the five theatrical films?

[JDFP]

Tim Burton's re-make sucked. In fact, does Tim Burton actually do films anymore that aren't re-makes?

I have zero interest in seeing this. CGI apes? Seriously? No thanks.

This is a slap to the face of Charlton Heston, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for slapping Charlton Heston. That would end badly.

j.p.

[bassman]

Tim Burton's re-make sucked. In fact, does Tim Burton actually do films anymore that aren't re-makes?

His last original work was Corpse Bride. Before that, the last original was Edward Scissorhands in 1990.:stunned:

I do get tired of his remakes and "i'm a gothic artist" style....but i'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt because of Big Fish. I absolutely love that film. And strangely it's his least "Tim Burton" film...




This is a slap to the face of Charlton Heston, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for slapping Charlton Heston. That would end badly.


How is it a slap to Heston? Heston was involved with the original and (against his will) in the first sequel, Beneath. I would shoot more for a slap in the face to Roddy McDowell seeing as how this is a remake of Conquest/Battle. McDowell and Kim Hunter are the true stars of the entire series, imo.

As much as I love Heston...I could see the original POTA working just fine with another actor. Heston deserves some high fives for taking a chance with the project, but I don't think the series owes him anything.

[darth los]

^^^^

Sue me, but the acting from that era is very cheesy and unconvincing, so ya, why couldn't someone else do the role?

Now joe pilato, that would be interesting. I'd like to see him deliver the damn dirty ape line. :hyper:

:cool:

[JDFP]

How is it a slap to Heston? Heston was involved with the original and (against his will) in the first sequel, Beneath. I would shoot more for a slap in the face to Roddy McDowell seeing as how this is a remake of Conquest/Battle. McDowell and Kim Hunter are the true stars of the entire series, imo.

As much as I love Heston...I could see the original POTA working just fine with another actor. Heston deserves some high fives for taking a chance with the project, but I don't think the series owes him anything.

I consider it the same way I considered Will Smith taking the place of Heston in "I Am Legend" as opposed to "The Omega Man". Of course, "The Omega Man" was itself a re-make of Vincent Price from "The Last Man on Earth" (and all three films based on "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson). I just don't like anyone re-doing a role that Heston did. I think he was one of the finest actors and seeing people attempting to re-do Heston just irks me...

You're right though, Roddy McDowell was fantastic. I still say that none will ever top the great Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowell), Vampire Killer, from "Fright Night". He was perfect in that role... of course, they are re-making "Fright Night" too (sigh). What's next, "Caligula"? :stunned:

:cool:

j.p.

EDIT: Wait, that was Malcom McDowell in "Caligula" -- but you get the point anyway... some things just shouldn't be re-made. There's no point. It's like trying to re-do Hitchcock. Why bother? You're only setting yourself up for failure.

[darth los]

What's next, "Caligula"? :stunned:

:cool:

j.p.

Something sick like that or A clockwork orange would be awesome. Although, you know they're gonna make it pg-13, if at all, in order to make the most money out of it. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[Trin]

The whole Heston/Apes discussion is interesting. Does Apes owe Heston for anything? I have to say my opinion is a bit torn. On the one hand, the movie has attained a remarkable cult status and it's hard to imagine it doing so without the performance of Heston as the anchor. On the other hand, Heston probably owes more to Apes than it owes him. Could it have been done by another actor and still held up as well? Maybe. Probably. But could it have been done by another actor and completely flopped? Most assuredly.

[darth los]

But could it have been done by another actor and completely flopped? Most assuredly.


You meant like Beneath for the Planet of the apes did? It was essentially the same film but with a different lead.

:cool:

[bassman]

There's one thing for sure about Heston and POTA - he was right for trying to stay away from Beneath. Good call on his part. Too bad they talked him into it. Maybe if he had stayed away completely they would have had to come up with a better storyline.

[darth los]

There's one thing for sure about Heston and POTA - he was right for trying to stay away from Beneath. Good call on his part. Too bad they talked him into it. Maybe if he had stayed away completely they would have had to come up with a better storyline.

That's puzzling.

At that point in his career he was already an established star. If he turned down the role because it was "beneath" (pun intended) his standards then why stoop to a cameo in a crappy film?


One word: NOVA

http://media.photobucket.com/image/nova%20planet%20of%20the%20apes/Richard_Bastard/heroes/caroline_munro_color.jpg


http://media.photobucket.com/image/nova%20planet%20of%20the%20apes/baroness01/toyblogs/Toyblog2/nova.jpg

Shit, if got to be around that for hours a day i might have done it too. ! :hyper:

If the pics aren't showing, try these links:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/nova%20planet%20of%20the%20apes/baroness01/toyblogs/Toyblog2/nova.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/nova%20planet%20of%20the%20apes/Richard_Bastard/heroes/caroline_munro_color.jpg

Although, speaking of old time hotties, she doesn't hold a Candle to Marilyn Eastman.

:cool:

[Trin]

So are you guys like Home Page of the Apes forum regulars too?

[darth los]

So are you guys like Home Page of the Apes forum regulars too?


We have very eclectic tastes my friend. ;)

:cool:

[bassman]

So are you guys like Home Page of the Apes forum regulars too?

Nope....just a fan of the films. That's about the extent of it. I'll watch the made-for-tv movies when they come on marathons, but I don't have any of the collectible figures or anything. I do have a shirt...that's about it.

It's just a fan-friggin-tastic series of sci fi gold. One of the best sci fi series of all time. And as everyone knows, there are also things lying beneath the surface that make it that much more important.

[darth los]

Nope....just a fan of the films. That's about the extent of it. I'll watch the made-for-tv movies when they come on marathons, but I don't have any of the collectible figures or anything. I do have a shirt...that's about it.

It's just a fan-friggin-tastic series of sci fi gold. One of the best sci fi series of all time. And as everyone knows, there are also things lying beneath the surface that make it that much more important.


Many films from back in the day did. Gar's films included.

Sadly it's a lost art in today's adhd world. :(

:cool:

[Trin]

I'd love to have the whole series on DVD so I could watch in order without confusion and all that. Then I'd get my ape on for sure. I've seen them all but they're a blur at this point.

[Danny]

in response to just about every post previous -

1: they shouldnt use cgi unless there going to be huge in scale. i didnt care for the burton remake but that apes looked great and thats probably cheaper and quicker than all the motion capture and model building and texturing you would need to do compared to "dress actors like apes".

2: charlten heston was a bad actor, the man did one thing on screen and one only: monologue angrily, and nothing else and the franchise does not need him to continue and certainly not another "actor" like him.

3: Whilst the cgi is off putting im glad this franchise isnt dead.

[Eyebiter]

Hunter posted the 'Planet of the Men' sequel script written by Pierre Boulle on his website. It's second to last one under 'The Movies' category.

http://pota.goatley.com/scripts.html




Bassman to answer your earlier question, my list would be

Beneath
Planet
Escape
Battle
Conquest

Why Beneath the Planet of the Apes?

The astronaut rescue mission gone wrong. Brent and Nova witnessing General Ursus and the Gorilla war rally. Their flight and discovery of the remains of New York City and it's twisted inhabitants. And invasion of the Forbidden Zone by the Ape Army.

Yes it's cheesy to have Brent replace Taylor. Given that Heston had a very limited schedule the writers did what they could to include him in the film.

Planet would be my second favorite due to exploring an alien and hostile planet during the first half hour. Long before the shock of the cornfield scene, the movie draws the viewer in.

Escape is an interesting portal into the world of America in the early 1970's.

Battle could have been epic, had the filmmakers been given a decent budget. Alas with every ape film after the first the budget was reduced, even as they made the 20th Century Fox studio more and more money.

Of all the films find Conquest to be the most difficult to watch. Still amazed someone at the studio decided to green light such a violent controversial picture. Haven't seen the directors cut yet, supposed to be even more violent.

[bassman]

Beneath first and Conquest last? There's something wrong with you, man.:p

And yes....the extended cut is much more violent than the theatrical. Rather than the whole close up of Ceasar's "now we must put down our weapons" dialogue, you've got the original ending where they brutally kill all the humans. Real dark stuff.

Aside from a rushed/chopped up script and bad production values, I think the reason I dislike Beneath so much is the supernatural plotline. The mind reading, optical illusions, and "true self" storyline has me rolling my eyes everytime. True....this is a series about time travel and talking apes, but I can believe that more than some hokey religious cult with telekenetic powers from radiation.

1, 3, 4, and 5 are all grounded in a much more believable environment, imo.

[JDFP]

2: charlten heston was a bad actor, the man did one thing on screen and one only: monologue angrily, and nothing else and the franchise does not need him to continue and certainly not another "actor" like him.

3: Whilst the cgi is off putting im glad this franchise isnt dead.

2. Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Chuck Heston was a fantastic actor that did some of the best films that were made over about a 25 year period of time or so ("The Ten Commandments" and "Ben Hur" to name only two of the best of the many great films he did). I think the man also had one of the finest acting voices ever as well, just an incredible voice. He was one of the last of the great American "hero" actors, guys like John Wayne (and Heston's work in the Civil Rights movement and the protection of Constitutional rights for Americans were also noteworthy in his real-life as opposed to acting). You're right about one thing though, we won't have another actor like Heston because they aren't made like that anymore -- actors these days just can't compare to the actors/actresses from 30+ years ago for the most part (Kate Hepburn would have ripped someone like Angelina Jolie apart).

3. I agree. It's a great series, and while I have some tremendous reservations about seeing any fake-looking CGI things running around on-screen (won't be seeing it if this is what's presented in any trailers) -- if the plotline is interesting and they can do a good story I'll probably check it out. The original is fantastic and most of the films in the series are pretty damn good too. It's a well-done sci-fi series.

j.p.

[mista_mo]

Uggh, Planet of the Apes sequel? When are they gonna smarten up and make "Planet of the grapes"?

[darth los]

And yes....the extended cut is much more violent than the theatrical. Rather than the whole close up of Ceasar's "now we must put down our weapons" dialogue, you've got the original ending where they brutally kill all the humans. Real dark stuff.


Even McDonald?

I always found it wierd that in Battle he wasn't there, only a relative of his. :confused:

Ceasar even drops his name.

:cool:

[bassman]

Even McDonald?


McDonald is the only human left in the end.

Rather than Ceasar telling the apes to stand down, they beat Breck's head in with their rifles.

[shootemindehead]

Just finished watching Burton's remake. But, I really shouldn't have bothered. I'd never seen it before all the way through though. It's not a patch on the original. Even the makeup is somewhat subpar. Eyeliner and lipstick on the females? WTF? Helena B. Carter's chimp looks utterly ridiculous compared to Kim Hunter's from the original. But the gorrila makeup is great, as is the 60's version.

The ape acting too is awful. Roth hams it up to the point of stupidity.

Really though, compared to the original, this film was pretty terrible. Dreadful idea.

[darth los]

McDonald is the only human left in the end.



Yes i know.

But my question was why wasn't he in the next installment? There's no explanation as to what happened to him.

So perhaps your more violent director's cut included killing him as well. But i see that's not the case.

:cool:

[Eyebiter]

The new working title is Planet Of The Apes: Rise Of The Apes.

"Described as an origin story, Planet of the Apes: Rise of the Apes is set in present day San Francisco and deals with the aftermath of man's experiments with genetic engineering that lead to the development of intelligence in apes and the onset of a war for supremacy."


Sounds like they are trying to reboot the POTA franchise again.

[bassman]

Yes i know.

But my question was why wasn't he in the next installment? There's no explanation as to what happened to him.


Sorry....I missed this until now. I could be mistaken, but Macdonald is in both films/edits. Just played by two different actors.

Anyway....this reboot idea sounds horrible. CGI apes, "Rise of the Apes"? The only chance this thing has is if a good director is at the helm. The only two origin stories to have worked(imo) are Casino Royale and Batman Begins. Two out of hundreds isn't a good indication...

I also read today that Don Cheadle is attached. I love Don Cheadle. Run Don, RUN AWAY!!!

[Eyebiter]

Mr. MacDonald was Governor Breck's assistant in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. According to canon this character died sometime after the events in the film.

In Battle for the Planet of the Apes it's actually supposed to be MacDonald's younger brother.

(This is how the change in actors is explained. The real reason was the actor from the 4th film was unable to return for Battle).

[bassman]

Ceasar is being played by....King Kong (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=22859)? Well he's got experience, I guess...

[Eyebiter]

Beware the Beast Man... xmgs36b1BuU

[darth los]

Sorry....I missed this until now. I could be mistaken, but Macdonald is in both films/edits. Just played by two different actors.

Anyway....this reboot idea sounds horrible. CGI apes, "Rise of the Apes"? The only chance this thing has is if a good director is at the helm. The only two origin stories to have worked(imo) are Casino Royale and Batman Begins. Two out of hundreds isn't a good indication...

I also read today that Don Cheadle is attached. I love Don Cheadle. Run Don, RUN AWAY!!!


Mr. MacDonald was Governor Breck's assistant in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. According to canon this character died sometime after the events in the film.

In Battle for the Planet of the Apes it's actually supposed to be MacDonald's younger brother.

(This is how the change in actors is explained. The real reason was the actor from the 4th film was unable to return for Battle).


Exactly.

I can clearly remember Ceasar and McDonald in a hut Having a conversation about his brother.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

Ceasar is being played by....King Kong (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=22859)? Well he's got experience, I guess...

What I wanna know is: Who's that girl further down the page?

http://www.joblo.com/images_arrownews/Freida-Pinto-ArenaMag-01.jpg

Ah..Intertube search sez Freida Pinto.

So now I gotta rent Slumdog Millionaire...

But Andy Serkis....He's gonna make the Ape film that much better.

[bassman]

Yeah, she's the Slumdog girl. I'm not a fan of that picture, though. It doesn't do her justice.

As for Serkis....I would rather he play the ape in costume. I know he'll do just fine with the motion capture, but i'm still not sold on the cgi apes. Kong worked because he was massive. But that same thing applied to a human-sized ape that walks among us? I dunno. If Smiegel or Gollum or whatever that guy was called is any indication....it's not convincing.

[AcesandEights]

What I wanna know is: Who's that girl further down the page?

http://www.joblo.com/images_arrownews/Freida-Pinto-ArenaMag-01.jpg



Ooooh, hello hourglass!

[darth los]

Yes the hourglass figure is very mezmerizing.

My ex had one of those and I still can't get her off my mind.

:cool:

[bassman]

Beware the beast Motion capture, for it is the Devil's pawn.

http://www.kinogallery.com/kino/kjinogallery.com_Rise-of-the-Apes_shot_3.jpg

[ProfessorChaos]

i'm guessing this is a pic from the set, huh? looks like the octomom, harry osborne, and king kong.

[AcesandEights]

i'm guessing this is a pic from the set, huh? looks like the octomom, harry osborne, and king kong.

That chick looks a lot better than that octomom train wreck, to me :)

Just sayin'.

[JDFP]

You mean they are going to do the apes as pure CGI and not as costumes/makeup?

Ewww....

Just lost my interest completely.

I'm burned out on CGI, just completely burned out.

j.p.

[Legion2213]

There are lots of reasons to slam the last remake, but damn. Those apes looked good...and it's part of why I originally wanted to see it.

To CGI them in this next one is just silly, they know that costumes and make up can give us wonderfull apes. I won't bother with this one (and I quite enjoy dodgy remakes, so they really are commiting epic fail when they turn me off). :D

[Eyebiter]

new Rise of the Apes pics

http://io9.com/5625138/rise-of-the-apes-primates-run-wild-through-san-francisco

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/08/500x_apestop.jpg

[bassman]

I just hope they can make these CG apes look realistic. Otherwise it's just a waste. The great thing about the originals is that the apes were right there in front of your eyes. If these CG apes look like too much CG, it's going to take the audience out of the story.

Hopefully they're as good as, if not better, than Kong...

[bassman]

For some odd reason, Fox has posted a sort of 'teaser of the teaser' for WETA's work on the apes. And I must say - i'm impressed.

KHR2TywDnMo

Also, according the official site (http://www.apeswillrise.com/)the title is not just "Rise of the Apes", but is actually "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Nice to see that classic "logo"....

[Kaos]

Yeah, I saw that. It looks mighty good to me too. Hope is now rekindled, and I may verge into fanboy evangelism if I am not careful.

[slickwilly13]

Beware the beast Motion capture, for it is the Devil's pawn.

http://www.kinogallery.com/kino/kjinogallery.com_Rise-of-the-Apes_shot_3.jpg

I cannot believe I missed this. No way in hell that is octomom. That chick is way hotter than that fugly octomom. That is just some hot chick I would do, some dude, and the hideous retarded frogman.

I watched the teaser earlier, I hope this movie is better than the last Apes movie.

[bassman]

That is just some hot chick I would do, some dude, and the hideous retarded frogman.


:lol: Hey now...you've got to give Andy Serkis some respect. The guy is a brilliant physical actor. That must be the reason he was chosen for Ceasar.


I watched the teaser earlier, I hope this movie is better than the last Apes movie.

It can only get better, right? Maybe not....but my interest is rising. Especially after that short video relieved my fears of crap CGI...

[Neil]

Trailer over at AICN...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49273

[Danny]

okay. im pretty hyped for it now.

[Neil]

HD trailer - http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/apeswillrise/

[bassman]

I've got say.....i've completely turned around on this. The more I see of it, the more excited I get. The CGI isn't really a worry at this point.

BTW, if it hasn't been mentioned - during an "on air" interview with Weta yesterday, they revealed that the apes don't speak in this film.

[Danny]

showed it to a guy i know and he goes "but the apes where from another planet the astronauts were on, how are they on earth to begin with?". For a minute i was dumbfounded before i broke down the 1 pop culture reference more prevalent than 'luke i am your father' or the platoon guy yelling on his knees.

[BillyRay]

showed it to a guy i know and he goes "but the apes where from another planet the astronauts were on, how are they on earth to begin with?". For a minute i was dumbfounded before i broke down the 1 pop culture reference more prevalent than 'luke i am your father' or the platoon guy yelling on his knees.

"You Maniac! You spoiled the whole picture! Damn You! damn you all to Hell!!!!"

[Eyebiter]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes trailer

8MtqRd9tKLw

http://www.apeswillrise.com/

[Neil]

Heston was involved with the original and (against his will) in the first sequel, Beneath.

How was he involved against his will? Contractual agreement or something!?

[MoonSylver]

How was he involved against his will? Contractual agreement or something!?

Naw, he was captured by apes dude! Didn't you watch the movie?!? :rockbrow: :lol:

(Actually...)

Spoilers of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" to follow:


In 1969, the studio heads at Twentieth Century-Fox wanted Heston to return as the starring role in Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Heston didn't want to commit to a sequel, but agreed to make a brief appearance so long as his character was killed off early in the film. After several script drafts, it was decided that the Taylor character would function as a framing sequence for the second film. He appeared briefly in the beginning of the movie, where he falls into the Mutant trap, and returns towards the end of the film for the movie's climax. Heston donated his agreed-upon guild-minimum fee from Beneath the Planet of the Apes to his son Fraser’s school. The original storyline for Taylor was later adapted for the character of John Brent.

"I felt a certain obligation to Richard Zanuck about the film. The first one had such an enormous success, both critically and commercially, and of course I was grateful for the part and the material rewards it brought me and so forth. They spoke to me, as soon as the overwhelming success of the film became evident, about a sequel, and I said, "You know, there is no sequel. There’s only the one story. You can have another picture about further adventures among the monkeys, and it can be an exciting film, but creatively there is no film." Now that comment is in no way intended, as I said to Zanuck, as a criticism of them for making it. A picture that grosses $22 million, and has the potential to be spun off into one or more sequels, obviously you have a responsibility to your stockholders, and indeed all the other movie makers on your lot who will be making films with the profits from that to make others. I think it's fruitless to compare and say which of the... successive films is the better. It's clear that, in terms of the story, the first one is all there is. Nevertheless, I felt a responsibility to Zanuck, and I said I'd be happy to do it as a friendly contribution."

Planet of the Apes Wiki - Charlton Heston (http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Charlton_Heston)

[Kaos]

showed it to a guy i know and he goes "but the apes where from another planet the astronauts were on, how are they on earth to begin with?". For a minute i was dumbfounded before i broke down the 1 pop culture reference more prevalent than 'luke i am your father' or the platoon guy yelling on his knees.

In the original novel, ...the apes were on another planet. The astronaut returns to Earth to find that whatever happened on the alien ape planet happened on Earth as well.

I love what Rod Serling did to make the script different from the novel. He makes M. Night look like an amateur.

The ending of Burton's apes was heavily influenced by the novel, but was ultimately a failure at trying to one up Serling.

[bassman]

"Rise" Trailer Two:

T3tidwW1gGM

[Neil]

Looks interesting... They're still not quite there with the CGI though are they... Guess another 5-10yrs maybe until photo realistic?

[bassman]

Looks interesting... They're still not quite there with the CGI though are they... Guess another 5-10yrs maybe until photo realistic?

There are also a couple months left until release. Often with these CGI-heavy movies they're working on it right up until release. Green Lantern is recent proof of that. The CGI in GL's trailers improved with each trailer release.

[bassman]

International Trailer. Shorter, but more emotional.

Rwp58drJh2A

[Neil]

+ve review!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50671

[AcesandEights]

+ve review!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50671

I was about to say I've been seeing the same, even saw "We Go Ape for Rise of the Planet of the Apes" or some such line on the cover of a paper when I was getting my coffee this morning....though I think it was the Daily News :shifty:

[bassman]

It’s not just Caesar who is executed well here, but a whole range of apes all with their own unique personality. There’s the old Alpha Male who gives Caesar hell at first and is forced into subservience as Caesar finds his calling, the caged muscle (a tortured, pissed off gorilla which is very much a throwback to the roles of the different primates in the original series), an intelligent circus orangutan that can sign and connects with Caesar on a level the other apes can’t and a mean, half-blind scarred-up old veteran of the lab testing scene.

Glad to see they're keeping the "class system" of the apes.


Fans of the original will get a few nods, some careful and some eye-rolling (did we really need to have both “It’s a Madhouse! A Madhouse!” and “Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!” repeated for us?), but if you’ve never seen an Apes movie this one will play just fine.

No way. That's just....ugh. You're supposed to use minor quote references. Not the one's listed on every "Best movie quote" list.:dead:




I'm sure it won't be able to live up to Conquest, but i'm looking forward to this one.

BTW.....it's currently sitting wit a 86% on rotten tomatoes. Wow...

[Danny]

man, everything i see looks fucking great but i cannot shake that this is going to be like 90 minutes of set up and exposition and 30 minutes of chaos at the end with a truncated finale. This series deserves more than that. I have no doubt its going to be one of the better revamps but still, i know i cant be the only one getting this vibe from the trailers.

[Eyebiter]

Went and saw Rise of the Apes this morning. Story was decent, computer generated special effects looked excellent. Will wait to discuss the plot and other spoiler materials until the UK members get a chance to see the film next week.

[Mr. Clean]

I didn't think it looked all that bad.

Screw it...If none of ya'll will watch it then I will :D

[rongravy]

We will probably see it today. I was wanting The Change Up, because of my unhealthy infatuation with Jason Bateman since even the Silver Spoon/It's Your Move days, but I'm sure I'm going to be outvoted by the rest of my family.
It does look good, so I doubt I'll be disappointed.
Damned, dirty apes!!!

[Kaos]

Saw it this afternoon. Great flick. Opened a way to do a full on remake of the original. Nice.

[kidgloves]

Oh man. What a superb movie.
I don't know what the plans are for the franchise but if they continue making movies like this we are in for a treat. CGI has gotten to the stage now where it looks real to me. Loved all the nods to Planet as well.
Great movie.

[JDFP]

Had a chance to see it earlier today. Overall I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5. It was slightly better than I thought it would be.

Positives: It didn't completely suck but I wouldn't watch it again. John Lithgow is always entertaining to watch but unfortunately only had a very minor role. It was an interesting take on the whole thing and the storyline was somewhat reasonable believable as a "could happen" situation.

Negatives: Terrible CGI (like most films that rely heavily on it) that just didn't seem realistic to me at all and is a step back from models/make-up/etc. if you ask me. There were a few moments of apes running that looked just absolutely terrible to me and not realistic in the least bit. Also, a few plot points seemed quite contrived and nonsensical to me. But, it is a film about apes taking over the world so you get what you expect.

I'd call Tim Burton's version slightly better just for the make-up and futuristic feel to it but not by much. Of course, none of them will compare to the original.

j.p.

[kidgloves]

Had a chance to see it earlier today. Overall I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5. It was slightly better than I thought it would be.

Positives: It didn't completely suck but I wouldn't watch it again. John Lithgow is always entertaining to watch but unfortunately only had a very minor role. It was an interesting take on the whole thing and the storyline was somewhat reasonable believable as a "could happen" situation.

Negatives: Terrible CGI (like most films that rely heavily on it) that just didn't seem realistic to me at all and is a step back from models/make-up/etc. if you ask me. There were a few moments of apes running that looked just absolutely terrible to me and not realistic in the least bit. Also, a few plot points seemed quite contrived and nonsensical to me. But, it is a film about apes taking over the world so you get what you expect.

I'd call Tim Burton's version slightly better just for the make-up and futuristic feel to it but not by much. Of course, none of them will compare to the original.

j.p.

Amazing isn't it? How people can have such different opinions.
Im gonna predict that this thread will get quite heated in the near future. :elol:

[Tom Price]

Dearest Felon#311 you got some bad info regarding your 14 April post (where is the asshat smiley?) speaking of regarding
why do not the "unspoken rules" of spoilering apply to you?

Anyone else revealing what you did in your August 5th post would have had the whole forum pulled over their ears down to their tits
effectively smothering them (this means EDIT YOUR POST).

EDIT YOUR POST UNCLE

[bassman]

Would the troll like to point out what the spoiler was? Everything looks kosher to me. :)

Enjoy what i'm sure will be a very limited stay at HPotD...

[kidgloves]

Would the troll like to point out what the spoiler was? Everything looks kosher to me. :)

Enjoy what i'm sure will be a very limited stay at HPotD...

Who is this dick?
Another bitter and angry drunk?

[Purge]

After seeing the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, I might just give it a chance tonight.

[Tom Price]

Felon#311
You gave away 4 parts of the movie in your first cut and paste August 5th quote.

Enjoy my short stay?

I got my notifications for you,...yea old hall monitor who rolls around looking to report people.

Say you don't do it and be proved a bold liar.
I will post screenshot of you reporting posts to the forum police from the active users what are they doing/reading sub-forum.
FINK.RAT.SQUEALER
Once again edit the first paragraph of your cut and paste AUG. 5th
That is all governor.

[fulci fan]

Rise the CGI apes. The world is doomed. :(

[Mr. Clean]

http://www.monkey-pictures.net/canthearyou.jpg

[bassman]

Felon#311
You gave away 4 parts of the movie in your first cut and paste August 5th quote.

I haven't seen the movie. Kinda hard to knowingly give out spoilers to something you haven't seen. If something I said was accidentally spoiled, it was already spoiled in the advertising or reviews that were previously linked.

And if for some reason you did "catch me" making a report, it was most likely a very rude person such as yourself. The kind that only want to stir up trouble rather than participate in a friendly manner. That's also what I meant by 'enjoy your short stay'. Keep up your trolling and the mods are sure to give you the proper treatment.

[MikePizzoff]

FINK.RAT.SQUEALER

Well, when you show up and act like a f***ing dick from the get-go, what do you expect?

[Andy]

Dearest Felon#311 you got some bad info regarding your 14 April post (where is the asshat smiley?) speaking of regarding
why do not the "unspoken rules" of spoilering apply to you?

Anyone else revealing what you did in your August 5th post would have had the whole forum pulled over their ears down to their tits
effectively smothering them (this means EDIT YOUR POST).

EDIT YOUR POST UNCLE

http://www.attractionmarketingonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pinging-content.jpg



Can we get this back on topic please or am i closing the thread too?

[clanglee]

Huzzah for Andy!!

[bassman]

Huzzah for Andy!!

Indeed! :)




As for 'Rise' - I'm genuinely shocked at how good this movie has been received. It's almost at 90% on the general audience rotten tomatoes score. It also earned the number one spot at the box office over the weekend. I NEVER thought it would be that good. And for all the complaining about the CGI, that's now being praised? Some even calling it the best motion capture work to date. Would those of you that have seen it agree? Out of the few negative things i'm reading, the worst seems to be that the characterization of the humans could have used some work.

I figured the movie would do okay but as a fan of the original series i'm thrilled that it's doing this great. Hopefully the inevitable sequel will be better than Beneath.:dead:

[Danny]

saw it, loved it, was totally right about 80% drama 20% action at the end, loved the references to the mars mission heston is one going missing and as usual serkis does amazing mocap acting.

My only complaint is it leaves you wanting way more and the soundtrack was the most vanilla, dull, uninspired soundtrack i havent seen in a long time. no theme, no melody to anything, just the same "dududududududu" "something tense is occuring" crap ad nauseum.
doesnt stop it being a great flick but fuck this needed some john williams to make it pop.

-- -------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------



Negatives: Terrible CGI (like most films that rely heavily on it) that just didn't seem realistic to me at all and is a step back from models/make-up/etc. if you ask me.

okay, i must ask, if this is what you call bad CGI what unknown super secret CGi have you seen that makes this look bad your holding out on the rest of the world?!?

[Mr. Clean]

okay, i must ask, if this is what you call bad CGI what unknown super secret CGi have you seen that makes this look bad your holding out on the rest of the world?!?

Ignore him...That must have been the PBR talking (LOL @ JDFP) :p

[JDFP]

Ignore him...That must have been the PBR talking (LOL @ JDFP) :p

I'll have you know I prefer Milwaukee's Best, good sir. The Beast truly cannot be beat. PBR works in a pinch though!

I didn't completely slam the film or say I hated it. In fact, I gave several positives in my post and stated the story was actually interesting and the film was better than I expected (which wasn't much, I grant you though). The film didn't suck but I'm not going to scream to the rooftops that it's a great film, I didn't think it was and paled to the original and I even prefer Tim Burton's version just for the make-up and artistic expression in it. I just have a very difficult time with CGI personally. I don't care for it and almost every film I see which relies on CGI or has a great amount of CGI in it is ruined for me. It just looks fake to me. I can see through most of it and it detracts from my experience in enjoying a film. Then again, I prefer a good independent film or foreign film any day of the week over a Hollywood film. It doesn't make me pretentious, I can have a hell of a good time with some Hollywood blockbusters just like anyone else and don't refuse to watch them. In my case it's just a personal preference.

The original with the great Charlton Heston was a much more philosophical film in nature focusing on the nature of humanity and questions as to whether humanity would ultimately destroy itself through war or not. The last scene and scream from Charlton Heston: "G-d damn you, G-d damn all of you!" is absolutely haunting and one of the most powerful closing shots to any film I've EVER seen just for the sheer weight of it. The first time I saw the film I couldn't help but think: "Wow!" although there are subtle hints up to the closing shot to make you believe he is, indeed, on earth. It's a punch to the gut. A type of philosophical punch to the gut in a way only Serling and a handful of other talented writers can present and filmed beautifully. Likewise, the very nature of humanity as actually being the masters of our own doom and destruction is just depressing as hell but a warning sign for us all.

I don't feel this new film broke any new philosophical ground or that it was really aiming to do so much as opposed to give a philosophically-lite re-has of the original for a more contemporary perspective through pharmacology equaling "better" living and then giving us a great deal of eye candy with things blowing up and "ohhh, excitement!" as opposed to a ten minute dialogue on the nature of human existence like near the end of the original that would have put most people under 30 asleep today. "Rise" did what it did well and again I'll say it's not necessarily a bad film, because it does do what it does well. But, again, it's just not my cup of coffee -- or case of enjoyable piss-take American beer. :D:p

j.p.

[Mr. Clean]

I'll have you know I prefer Milwaukee's Best, good sir. The Beast truly cannot be beat. PBR works in a pinch though!

The possiblity of you being in a pinch has not been eliminated just yet good buddy. :p

[Purge]

Saw it last night. Not outstanding, but worht a watch. Andy Serkis was excellent as Caesar.

[bassman]

As if there were ever any question after the great reviews and opening weekend....they're already thinking about the sequel (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/and-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-sequel-talk-begins).

Director Rupert Wyatt:

"The ideas I’ve had are all sorts of things, ranging from Full Metal Jacket with apes… you could start this story again eight years from where we left off, the next generation of apes, those that have come from our protagonists, perhaps going in to a conflict with humans and showing real fear, in the same way as going into war for young soldiers in this day and age, telling their story. Or how apes are taking over cities, and being moved into human environments and having to interact with them and deal with things that are part of our culture and understand and evolve through them. Spies that are in the employ of the apes, working against humans and humans maybe existing underground, because that’s a way they can avoid the virus, coming up above ground wearing gas masks, and maybe that’s what dehumanises them."

...Say wha? :confused:

-- -------- Post added 11-Aug-2011 at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was 09-Aug-2011 at 01:32 PM ----------

Silly, out of place quote references aside.....GREAT reboot. Although not a remake of the same film, this pisses all over Tim Burton's film.

The CGI was great compared to most. It's really starting to become "realistic". Hell...this looks miles ahead of Cameron's Avatar characters, which were praised as life-like.

I'm really impressed with Rise. The blu ray will fit nicely next to my box set of the original series. I can't wait to see whats done with the sequel. Just please - Lay off the forced references.

8/10

[Neil]

I saw it last night.

I thought it did a good job! It wasn't a ground breaking film, but certainly brought a good story to the screen, was well filmed, and the CGI TBH was very impressive - I forgot I was watching CGI apes most of the time! Let's put it that way!

Looking forward to the next one :)

8/10.

Worse part for me was the daft "damn dirty ape" line! Stupid!

[bassman]

Worse part for me was the daft "damn dirty ape" line! Stupid!

Yeah, I literally cringed on that one. The "madhouse" line was pretty bad as well, but the "dirty ape" takes the cake as the most forced and out of place reference.

For fans of the original series, there were also a bunch of non-dialogue references. I'll put some of them in spoiler tags for those that haven't seen it.

The Harry Potter kid's name was Dodge Landon, the same as the two astronauts with Taylor(Heston) in the original film. The guy at the lab was named Jacobs, a reference to Arthur P. Jacobs who produced and started the Apes series. Heston was seen on a TV screen. The orangutan's name was Maurice, the same as the actor who played Dr. Zeus. The car driven by Franco appears to be the same car the nice scientists drive in Escape to help Cornelious and Zira escape. Caesar's mother's name is Bright Eyes, the same name given to Taylor in the original. Of course the hints at the mars team being lost is a hint at the original.

I actually found it strange that there were so many references to the original film considering this is more of a remake of the fourth film in the series...

[Andy]

Im a little late on this one but me and my girlfriend just went to see this tonight, got to say im suprised, its actually a pretty decent movie. I hated the other planet of the apes movie from about 10 years ago now i guess? but this one was great, will definately recommend anyone to see this.

[Danny]

rewatched this and you can sum it up easily: it leaves you wanting more of it.

[bassman]

rewatched this and you can sum it up easily: it leaves you wanting more of it.

Which is great for any potential franchise. It's nice to see this idea successfully carry over into a new generation.

I saw this (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/revisiting-original-planet-apes-franchise-advance-rise-planet-apes) interesting article earlier today. As many times as i've seen the original series, I never knew they gave specific months with the dates. :rockbrow:

[Andy]

rewatched this and you can sum it up easily: it leaves you wanting more of it.

I Really really agree, like neil i forgot i was watching CGI apes, i got really wrapped up in the story and enjoyed it on a level i almost never do with modern movies, to be honest i went into the cinema with quite low expectations, i knew it was getting good reviews and everything but after seeing the 2001 planet of the apes and still scarred from romeros cinematic outings, i was going in with low hopes and i have to say i was very pleasantly surprised. There is still hope for modern day film making i guess.

[Neil]

^^

Yep, it had quite a few problems, but overall I thought it did a pretty solid job as a modern day scifi flick. If they can do a sequel of the same quality or better!? Fab!

[Andy]

I Think it did really well and this is coming from someone who usually cringes at modern movies and thinks a great night in is in front of the horror channel on sky, home of some of the corniest, zero budget old school horror movies ever, which is what i love.

Anyway, rise of the planet of the apes was fantastic, i really felt for ceaser at times and was genuinely happy at the ending, i got wrapped up in it that much. Talking about it with my girlfriend tonight and shes never seen the old planet of the apes movies, only the 2001 trash.. so i immediately bought this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Apes-Collection-Disc-Box/dp/B00005NOMI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314217352&sr=8-1) :D

I Sense a marathon coming on this weekend!

[Tricky]

I really enjoyed it too, I loved ceaser for the first half, then as he starts resenting people first when realising he was kind of a pet, and then after his mistreatment at the monkey sanctuary, I found him very sinister and wasn't sure if he was going to become a full on bad guy, then at the end he was great again when he got what he wanted and it turned out he wasnt on an anti-human vengeance murder spree after all but just wanted to lead his fellow apes to freedom. However most of his fellow apes weren't so human friendly, and I guess thats where the story will head if they decide to make a sequel...

[bassman]

Apparently the theatrical ending wasn't the original ending shot. While i've got no problems with the ending we saw, this ending is much more in the style of the original films....

Fox's president of post production recently revealed:


"The original ending had Franco’s character being shot to death by armed humans who have chased the apes into the forest. The ape horde descends on the people and tears them to pieces, a reversal of the opening scene where Bright Eyes is captured in the jungle.

The ending we wound up getting was shot just a month prior to the release of the film, which is incredible considering the amount of CG work that needed to be completed in such a short time frame.


Hopefully this option will be available in an alternate cut on blu ray. I would like to see how it plays out...

[Neil]

Apparently the theatrical ending wasn't the original ending shot. While i've got no problems with the ending we saw, this ending is much more in the style of the original films....

Fox's president of post production recently revealed:


"The original ending had Franco’s character being shot to death by armed humans who have chased the apes into the forest. The ape horde descends on the people and tears them to pieces, a reversal of the opening scene where Bright Eyes is captured in the jungle.

The ending we wound up getting was shot just a month prior to the release of the film, which is incredible considering the amount of CG work that needed to be completed in such a short time frame.


Hopefully this option will be available in an alternate cut on blu ray. I would like to see how it plays out...

Would be cool to see that!

[rongravy]

Saw it, loved it. Want more.

[JDFP]

No Charlton Heston = no thanks from me.

Hey, I know it's a bullshit response. But there was a time that Hollywood was comprised of REAL men like Heston, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne, men who were not afraid to be real men. This era has passed us by unfortunately, now we have what in return?

I'm a tremendous fan of the Strauss-Howe generational theory, for me films in this era cannot and will not compare to what has come before us. Especially remakes of the classics.

j.p.

[Neil]

No Charlton Heston = no thanks from me.

Hey, I know it's a bullshit response. But there was a time that Hollywood was comprised of REAL men like Heston, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne, men who were not afraid to be real men. This era has passed us by unfortunately, now we have what in return?

I'm a tremendous fan of the Strauss-Howe generational theory, for me films in this era cannot and will not compare to what has come before us. Especially remakes of the classics.

j.p.The Heston version is a classic!

But the new one has its +ves too! There is an alternative ending for it I've heard that I'd like to see! I believe it was filmed!

[Danny]

there was a time that Hollywood was comprised of REAL men like Heston, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne, men who were not afraid to be real men.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/200px-Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg

[bassman]

No Charlton Heston = no thanks from me.

Hey, I know it's a bullshit response.

Very much so. :p



Andy Serkis has already signed on for the sequel (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/andy-serkis-first-to-sign-up-for-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-sequel-02). Great news, imo. As strange as it sounds for a CG character, he really brought the story to life. Can't wait to see where they go from here.

[Neil]

Very much so. :p



Andy Serkis has already signed on for the sequel (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/andy-serkis-first-to-sign-up-for-the-rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-sequel-02). Great news, imo. As strange as it sounds for a CG character, he really brought the story to life. Can't wait to see where they go from here.

Yep, will it be a character based drama, or all out war leading towards the annihilation of the humans!?

[EvilNed]

Hey, I know it's a bullshit response. But there was a time that Hollywood was comprised of REAL men like Heston, Burt Lancaster, John Wayne, men who were not afraid to be real men. This era has passed us by unfortunately, now we have what in return?


What the hell is a "real" man? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Just saw it. Loved it. I was a big Planet of the Apes fan as a kid. I had all five of the films and watched them on a regular basis. Tim Burton's remake was a bit of a letdown, but this one is almost the opposite of that. A letup!

[ProfessorChaos]

just buzzing through to say that i saw this and was pretty impressed. so much that i rewatched it with my girlfriend two nights after my initial viewing and then recommended it to my brothers during christmas dinner.

[Danny]

What the hell is a "real" man? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


according to urban dictionary:

"Real Men" is a phrase which literally means "Douche Bags Like Me" (or singular - "A Douche Bag Like Me") and is generally used by men who do not realize they are douche bags. With connections to 70's homo eroticism involving moustaches, "strong" men who show only anger and no other emotion and hide behind firearms and a myriad of other insecure in denial trump cards. A bastion of defence for insecure men who feel the need to impress that there are 'real' men and others who are inferior to them. As though this knowledge tangentially associates them with being a 'real' man.

[krisvds]

Yep, will it be a character based drama, or all out war leading towards the annihilation of the humans!?

I'm hoping for the second. Though I guess there wont be that much of humanity left at the beginning of the next one. Didn't the ending of the first one suggest mass contamination? Ape - ocalypse!

[bassman]

Yeah, the credit sequence suggests that the virus was carried and spread throughout the world thanks to the douchebag neighbor that was also a pilot.

[Andy]

Ive read somewhere it centers around a war between the apes and the surviving humans.

[bassman]

Ive read somewhere it centers around a war between the apes and the surviving humans.

So it will basically be a continuing remake of Conquest? Two films based on my favorite film of the original franchise? I'll take it! :)

[Danny]

So it will basically be a continuing remake of Conquest? Two films based on my favorite film of the original franchise? I'll take it! :)

was rise even considered a remake? I thought it was just another film in the series in a very confusing timeline. I mean they specifically mention on the radio that hestons spaceship has disappeared in orbit so its definitely considered in the timeline at some point.

[bassman]

was rise even considered a remake? I thought it was just another film in the series in a very confusing timeline. I mean they specifically mention on the radio that hestons spaceship has disappeared in orbit so its definitely considered in the timeline at some point.

Well...yes and no. While not described as a straight-forward remake, Rise still has many of the main story elements found in Conquest. Caesar starting out as the only smart ape, the apes are all incarcerated, Caesar becomes angry, teaches and frees his kind, they attack, etc, etc.

Not exactly the same, but the writers have said that Conquest was their starting point when they began writing the new film. As a huge fan of Conquest, I can definitely see many of the same elements between the two.

[EvilNed]

To me, Rise is a pretty clear remake. There are many differences, of course, but it's the same plot, isn't it? Apart from the fact that Conquest was set "in the future" whereas Rise was probably meant to take place in present day. Conquest also had all of the cats and dogs dead and the apes replacing them as household pets, rather than the alzheimer catalyst.

[wayzim]

To me, Rise is a pretty clear remake. There are many differences, of course, but it's the same plot, isn't it? Apart from the fact that Conquest was set "in the future" whereas Rise was probably meant to take place in present day. Conquest also had all of the cats and dogs dead and the apes replacing them as household pets, rather than the alzheimer catalyst.

One of my biggest problems with Rise was the affect of the virus on humans - Captain Tripps?

Could be wrong, but that's what seemed to be implied, when the answer is the plague begins to induce a sort of brain atrophy ( perhaps killing some people through hemoraging ) which ultimately causes humanity to devolve, thus allowing the super primates to win

There was a very old SF story called Odd John ( this I'll source when I get the chance, maybe 1940's )which had a smart ape and a drug which made humans dumb, which all the POTA films and book reminds me of.

All in All, Rise was a good movie which could've been worlds better, but ended up an OK popcorn film.

Wayne Z

[bassman]

Could be wrong, but that's what seemed to be implied, when the answer is the plague begins to induce a sort of brain atrophy ( perhaps killing some people through hemoraging ) which ultimately causes humanity to devolve, thus allowing the super primates to win


It was never stated that humans devolve like they did in the original series. In the new film it's implied that the virus just kills the human species. Although it's a very small amount of people, it's definitely suggested that the 113 strand simply kills humans.


As for the deleted ending I mentioned earlier in the thread - It's absent from the blu ray/dvd release. Bummer....

[wayzim]

It was never stated that humans devolve like they did in the original series. In the new film it's implied that the virus just kills the human species. Although it's a very small amount of people, it's definitely suggested that the 113 strand simply kills humans.


As for the deleted ending I mentioned earlier in the thread - It's absent from the blu ray/dvd release. Bummer....

I didn't mean to imply that the movie script suggested anything but a pure killing virus. The rest was just a mental rewrite which I often do when a plot point annoys me ( like in Alien3, where I corrected the bad idea of killing Newt and Hicks, simply by having Ripley's hyberchamber isolated and ejected alone. That way she would've had a real reason to survive, saving the ship while still following the otherwise intact storyline )

I don't believe in a 'No Win' scenario.

Oh, and I discovered that 'Odd John. ' (1935, by Olaf Staplton ) was NOT the story I was thinking of, so back to the research grind.

Wayne Z

[Tricia Martin]

Arg! CG Apes blow! This trend of remakes and going nuts with CG creatures is getting tiresome. It seems like most everyone is trying to make a dollar nowadays...almost no one seems to care about quality or originality anymore.

Does anyone else keep getting logged out? It happens all the time with me here! I was logged in, reading through this thread, went to reply and got logged out...

[bassman]

Arg! CG Apes blow! This trend of remakes and going nuts with CG creatures is getting tiresome. It seems like most everyone is trying to make a dollar nowadays...almost no one seems to care about quality or originality anymore.

Have you seen this movie? The general opinion seems to be that the CG apes are well above average. Many saying that they totally forget it's CG as the story progresses. Myself included.

As a huge fan of the original series, I at first thought the CG apes were doomed to fail. After having seen the film several times, I admit that it works really well. Mainly because the apes are actually performed by humans rather than created solely by a computer.

In the end, this is a great way to reboot the series. Burton's attempt failed, but this works on many different levels.

[fulci fan]

I can't believe people can suspend their disbelief with those apes on the screen. I saw clips on talk shows and stuff and I must say, the apes look terrible. CGI is a cancer and it will never stop growing. Makeup will only be reserved for zombie and slasher movies down the road, and will be completely eliminated from main stream films.

[wayzim]

I can't believe people can suspend their disbelief with those apes on the screen. I saw clips on talk shows and stuff and I must say, the apes look terrible. CGI is a cancer and it will never stop growing. Makeup will only be reserved for zombie and slasher movies down the road, and will be completely eliminated from main stream films.

As much as folks could do so with stop motion or prothetics or animatronics, though I'm still no huge fan of CGI/Motion Capture driven films. Caesar was no Gollum, but it did well enough to carry the story along.

Of course the older techniques will never vanish, and in fact folks will do as Stan Winston did, use all available assets in concert with one another.

Wayne Z

[EvilNed]

As far as CGI goes, it was pretty damn good. But you could still tell it was CGI, of course.

[Neil]

As far as CGI goes, it was pretty damn good. But you could still tell it was CGI, of course.

Sometimes it was nigh on perfect though. Bit like Gollum in LOTR. Every now and then, your brain stopped complaining and accepted what it was seeing as genuine!

[JDFP]

Arg! CG Apes blow! This trend of remakes and going nuts with CG creatures is getting tiresome. It seems like most everyone is trying to make a dollar nowadays...almost no one seems to care about quality or originality anymore.




I can't believe people can suspend their disbelief with those apes on the screen. I saw clips on talk shows and stuff and I must say, the apes look terrible. CGI is a cancer and it will never stop growing. Makeup will only be reserved for zombie and slasher movies down the road, and will be completely eliminated from main stream films.



Thank you, thank you....

It's good to know I'm not the only person who feels the way I do about CGI or just the overall fakeness of it all. Then again, big budget blow-em'-up things just don't do much for me anyway - I prefer a good independent film that focuses on characters as opposed to anything else. I'm in a minority - but at least I'm not alone.

Overall, I'd still rank "Rise" as 2.5/5. It wasn't a terrible film - but it wasn't anything special to write home about. As remakes go though, it was probably a bit better than average for remakes - but that's not saying a whole heck of a lot though as most remakes are pure crap (RZ's excellent "Halloween" - here we go again! - not withstanding).

CGI is just pure crap in my opinion.

j.p.

[bassman]

Oh puh-lease. CGI is just like any other filmmaking tool. It takes time and experimentation to make it better. Just like make up, stop motion, and miniatures, it's only getting better.....just as those other tools took many years to improve.


Complaining about CGI these days is just pissing into the wind. I admit that as a huge apes fan I hated the idea of this film using CG apes when I first heard it, but it's past time to get over it and hope for the best rather than bitch about something that's never going to change. Rise is an obvious step in the right direction.

[Neil]

Oh puh-lease. CGI is just like any other filmmaking tool. It takes time and experimentation to make it better. Just like make up, stop motion, and miniatures, it's only getting better.....just as those other tools took many years to improve.

Complaining about CGI these days is just pissing into the wind. I admit that as a huge apes fan I hated the idea of this film using CG apes when I first heard it, but it's past time to get over it and hope for the best rather than bitch about something that's never going to change. Rise is an obvious step the right direction.

I hear what you're saying but CGI is a little different. It's an easy tool to use, but a hard one to get 100% right.

Also, unless it's 100%, IMHO your brain is just screaming, fake! fake! fake! It knows at times that what it's seeing is a total trick. A total non-reality. Models can be different as you brain knows it's an illusion, but knows it's still reality at least.

Am I suggesting we shouldn't use CGI? Of course not. Am I suggestion the future isn't CGI? Again, nope... But unless it's absolutely perfect, there is the danger of your brain ringing louder alarm bells than possibly using other methods...

[bassman]

Also, unless it's 100%, IMHO your brain is just screaming, fake! fake! fake! It knows at times that what it's seeing is a total trick. A total non-reality. Models can be different as you brain knows it's an illusion, but knows it's still reality at least.

Fair enough, but the fact still stands that it's constantly being improved. One of the biggest leaps with CG characters has been the incorporation of living actors to give it a real performance. Just looking at Gollum in LOTR, to Avatar, and now with Rise, it's vastly improved in only a few years.

Top-notch effects with stop motion, miniatures, and make up weren't the beginning. Without the bad stop motion in King Kong, we wouldn't have the stellar work of Henry Selick or Nick Park. Without the poorer makeup effects throughout the early years and up to Dick Smith, we wouldn't have the genious works from Tom Savini and Rick Baker. Although you're right that they were "real", they were still poor in their beginning stages. The audience immidiately saying "that looks awful", but that's because it's always a work in progress. People don't immediatly shut down the original King Kong as a horrible film because it's stop motion work was poor.

While some shots in Rise left a bit to be desired, most of them were impeccable. A definite improvement over recent motion capture creations.

[Neil]

While some shots in Rise left a bit to be desired, most of them were impeccable. A definite improvement over recent motion capture creations.
Definately! At times it certainly got close enough to that '100%' for my brain to accept what I was seeing as genuine!

[SymphonicX]

. It's an easy tool to use

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Neil]

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

LOL! OK... It's a "easier" tool to use?

[SymphonicX]

LOL! OK... It's a "easier" tool to use?

cheaper...that's all I'd attribute to it...!

Let's take an example of a big practical set....Titanic...? Took two years to build....take the same scenes, but do them as CGI...(this is just an guess) - first phase modelling, texturing, lighting, animating, motion tracking, compositing, extra composite effects (smoke, explosions, gunfire whatever), motion track those, render = 30 days per frame in a big render farm....it'd take about two years.

you'd also probably have about the same amount of set designers as you would CGI artists...

Personally I think it's basically exactly the same....just easier in the sense people don't have to move about physically as much, but I bet the workload is still a 12 hour day, every day of the week, for two years. Just a guess - but rendering and completing big CGI scenes can take months upon months - with some designers sitting around and working on like 2 frames of video for the whole project for months...then having Ridley Scott or James Cameron come in, and change the fuckin lot in one go....

nightmare either way if you ask me!

but after only being on C4D for a few months (and giving it up to move onto SGO Mistika Stereo 3D tools) I can safely say that's a program that I will never, ever master. Those out there who can create such amazingly realistic scenes from nothing have my utmost respect as designers....its a shame it's considered a cop out because those guys are truly talented and clever people who'd bamboozle the lot of us just talking about alpha mattes and keyframes. I can operate C4D - but if you want me to design you an environment like what we see in Tron Legacy, I'd fall right the fuck over with lack of talent.

[Tricky]

I guess with CGI they don't end up with a huge hanger full of props and bits of film set to dispose of after the cameras stop rolling as well, I imagine that was a bit of a headache in the past and a huge waste of physical resources, especially in films that flopped seen as fans wouldnt be climbing over each other to buy up all that stuff!

[AcesandEights]

I guess with CGI they don't end up with a huge hanger full of props and bits of film set to dispose of after the cameras stop rolling as well, I imagine that was a bit of a headache in the past and a huge waste of physical resources, especially in films that flopped seen as fans wouldnt be climbing over each other to buy up all that stuff!

That's right...CGI is "green", all the more reason for the reactionaries to hate it :p

[Danny]

i think the cgi raging is hands down the most gauche, needlessly lauded 'fault' with films. ten years ago when the phantom menace was out and it was all green screen? yeah, then i get it.
this aint that. this was serkis in a rig acting out something that would have a cgi overlay over the rig, can anyone here whip up a realistic looking ape suit with full facial articulation with such minute ticks as Caesar had in this?

no, of course you can't. nobody can, thats why it was made.

cgi is a tool, its as good as the person using it, getting full on child not getting his sweets devastated over the fact that its used- regardless of even seeing the final content or not is asinine.

its not the turn of the century anymore, getting mad about cgi? do you still get mad about starbucks and reality tv as well? :rolleyes:

[krisvds]

Yeah. It's more about performance, direction and story than anything else. In the right hands CGI is a great tool. Fincher's Zodiac uses it so sparingly that most people didn't even notice it. Plus: it was used on recreating architecture thus making it less noticeable than the dreaded 'dead eye' syndrome on living breathing characters. As far as those are concerned Rise was a damn fine film, especially thanks to Serkis.
Also without CGI the LOTR trilogy wouldn't have been possible and those films contain scenes that rival anything Harryhausen ever achieved in the same genre. Shelob's lair and the Mines of Moria spring to mind. Never mind the CGI was noticeable, those scenes, that troll and that spider had 'soul.' Same with Gollum.

On the other hand; nothing is as irritating as CGI done bad. It seems to pop up in the most atrocious films made by hacks whose audiences are more into explosions than anything else. I hate it especially when it's being used in horrorfilms. It's one of the greatest flaws in GAR's recent undead films. I hated the CGI-gore.

[fulci fan]

Fact- The effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey blow away any CGI fx today.
Fact- CGI isn't real. So it will never look as real as practical effects.
Fact- CGI has not improved since the first Jurassic Park

To me, this is more convincing than an ape made of 1's and 0's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QknTtipwLiQ&context=C352e86aADOEgsToPDskIJeaXDvqt0qWxIJ-QOr0Vf

[wayzim]

Fact- The effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey blow away any CGI fx today.
Fact- CGI isn't real. So it will never look as real as practical effects.
Fact- CGI has not improved since the first Jurassic Park

To me, this is more convincing than an ape made of 1's and 0's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QknTtipwLiQ&context=C352e86aADOEgsToPDskIJeaXDvqt0qWxIJ-QOr0Vf

The truth is FXs will always be as good as the time they were born in, so the stop animation in the original King Kong was great (Sorry, Bass ) and you can see the technique improve all through Willis O'Brian's ape trilogy ( Kong, Son of Kong, Mighty Joe Young )
With the latter, the emotional range in Joe's face was pretty wide, but there was that pesky scale problem in which our favorite ape kept changing size throughout the picture.

In Ray Harryhausen's best film, Jason and the Argonauts (though his model work was more intricate in later films )the interaction between the creatures and the actors produced some scenes where you couldn't tell where the stop motion ended and the live acting began( especially one where Patrick Troughton as the blind Seer had his cloak snatched away by a Harpy ) Ray did it again in Valley of Gwangi when the little kid gets grabbed off a mule by a Pteradactyl.
(as an aside, I did get to meet my hero, Mr. Harryhausen, shortly before he died, an amazingly cool and very giving guy. )

Jurassic Park, many of the dinos suffered from too much detailing which resulted in a hyper realism, but the watering hole scenes about midway through was freakin incredible ( I thought it was right out of a wildlife documentary )

As to the Ape question, with the exception of some quick cut animatronics ( like baby gorilla in the movie ' Buddy ' ) or some of the same with elaborate makeup and ape suits ( Greystoke, but only in the jungle scenes )fantasy ape rarely holds up against real ape. At this point it either can't be done, or there's that problem as with Jurassic Park where excess throws you out of the moment.

Rise also had that slight glitch, which didn't spoil the film for me. If I wanted that kind of reality, I'd be watching Nature not Fantasy.

Wayne Z

[bassman]

When did opinion become fact and why didn't anyone tell me?!?

:lol:

[fulci fan]

You seriously think CGI looks better than makeup effects? :rockbrow:
This looks way more convincing than what nerdy CG artists could ever dream of doing.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/402877_10151132854620022_603765021_22315430_161923 6041_n.jpg

[krisvds]

That pic looks like it had the photoshop treatment. Anyone?

[fulci fan]

Photoshop? No. Kazuhiro Tsuji does not need photoshop.......
Nice try ;)

[bassman]

That pic looks like it had the photoshop treatment. Anyone?

Yeah....I actually thought it was straight CGI. :lol:

[fulci fan]

It is a silicone bust

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/384157_10151132854505022_603765021_22315429_741360 999_n.jpg

[Andy]

And this is somehow less realistic to you?

http://0.tqn.com/d/movies/1/0/U/m/X/rise-apes-caesar5.jpg

Im not a fan of CGI when its done badly at all but when its done well, you gotta admit it.

[fulci fan]

Are you insane? You think that cartoon looks good? Takes me out of the movie. I can tell right away what is CGI and what is real. Maybe it is bc I have been doing makeup effects since I was 11. To me, the picture above looks embarrassing. CG can't be done well imo. It is just as shitty as stop motion.

[wayzim]

Are you insane? You think that cartoon looks good? Takes me out of the movie. I can tell right away what is CGI and what is real. Maybe it is bc I have been doing makeup effects since I was 11. To me, the picture above looks embarrassing. CG can't be done well imo. It is just as shitty as stop motion.

Which is an entirely different area of effects, so rein it in kiddo.
Stop Animation filled in some gaps, in it's time, where practical couldn't have worked as well, or was too cost prohibitive, and it was never meant to substitute for Real Life.

Top Notch Animatronics can get pretty close, oftimes through misdistraction, and some of the tethered walking creatures are really cool, but too often there is still a hesitation in response which negates the perfect illusion you're claiming.

Makeup is great, but if a human is trying to substitute for another species, even a primate, you have to really kill on the posture and movement. Of course we also have this great thing called Suspension of Disbelief.

Oh, and one of the greatest makeup artists, this fella named - Lon Chaney?(the senior, of course. ) did more with grease paint and simple facial contortions in any age, than the most elaborate prosthetics, so just back down on the superiority, son.

Wayne Z
"I'm getting too old for this shit. " and "Hey Kids! Get off My lawn! "

[fulci fan]

I don't see what point you are trying to make. Do you work on movies or are you just a fan? Have you ever worked on fx for movies?

-- -------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Better than the most elaborate prosthetics? He was a god but his makeups were surpassed. I can tell you are an idiot based on that one comment. Don't talk about shit you don't know about......son

[wayzim]

I don't see what point you are trying to make. Do you work on movies or are you just a fan? Have you ever worked on fx for movies?

-- -------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Better than the most elaborate prosthetics? He was a god but his makeups were surpassed. I can tell you are an idiot based on that one comment. Don't talk about shit you don't know about......son

How to answer this question to best address the issue, not the flamer.

I'm 50 plus years old, and yes I have an Art School education (mainly in illustration ) and over the years have occasionally drawn a paycheck for my work. As for my love of film, for almost as long as I've been alive, while I am a fan (which isn't an insult )I've been one immersed in all aspects of the craft (from cinematography to scripting, matwork and makeup and music composition ) and I'm not afraid of new technology nor scornful of the older techniques either.
Again, if you look to people like Peter Jackson or Spielberg, or FXs experts like Stan Winston (we'll miss him )they all have/had great regard for those who came before, and respect as well.

The idiocy comes from the lack of understanding ( or so it seems )that often simplicity can achieve the same ends as elaboration. only because it's not the details that matter but the naturalness of the relationship between the subject and it's environment. In Jurassic Park, for example, I mention the lake scene only because it allowed the animals to truly be animals, and when the one hadrosaur turns its head to look back -Whoa.

I had a similiar attitude( which was damn stupid and arrogant )when I was younger, ridiculing painted movie backdrops, both sky and cityscapes, until one day I actually bothered to take a good long look at real life. On many days, the horizon can appear quite flat and artifical. That was a wakeup call for me about presumption.

As for my comments about Lon Chaney, I stand by it, for the basic reason that if he'd had the available material we have today, the man of a thousand faces would happily use them, just like Jack Pierce would with the current prosthetics. The fact that they didn't, makes the end product all that more amazing.

Oh, and Michael Crichton had an interesting notion in the novel Jurassic Park about those who build upon Previous Technology, Biotechnology or even, in this instance, Movie Special Effects. The certain arrogance of some, they miss a huge chunk of the history, both the people and the building of a process - in which the current trends will someday be as antiquated as folks seem to think the older techniques are.

But still, the most innovative minds in the film business mix and match the best from all generations.
That's what progress is.

Wayne Z

[Neil]

Don't talk about shit you don't know about......son
Easy tiger! We're all on the same side here!

[EvilNed]

I really only dislike CGI when it takes the place of more realistic looking special effects, such as in the newer Star Wars films and in some parts of the LOTR trilogy. CGI has it's place and I see no problem with the apes in the new film really. I know they were special effects, but they were good and I can't really think of something that could realistically replace them. I rewatched Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes after seeing this one, and while the make-up is EXCELLENT they don't really look like modern day apes. Why? Because humans simply look physically different than apes. And that works in Tim Burton's film, because these apes have had some time to evolve, stand up straight and build a society. But it would look kinda weird in the newer one, where they're really just supposed to be modern day apes. You can't do that with make-up and suits and not make it look weird.

Also, on a different note, when I rewatched Tim Burton's version I realized what absolute shit it was. It's so bad. What were they thinking? Honestly. It's horrible.

[bassman]

Also, on a different note, when I rewatched Tim Burton's version I realized what absolute shit it was. It's so bad. What were they thinking? Honestly. It's horrible.

I also rewatched Burton's film recently. If you get the chance, listen to his commentary track. Particularly the last fifteen minutes or so. He tries to explain the ending to the movie, but it's really sad because you can tell he has NO IDEA what the ending means. He stumbles over his own words and basically mumbles the entire time saying it makes perfect sense to him, yet he never explains it. It's funny but really kinda sad....

[bassman]

Matt Reeves(Cloverfield, Let Me In) has signed on to replace Rupert Wyatt as the director of "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". Although his remake of Let The Right One In is a touchy subject with genre fans, I think he seems like a good replacement.

[Neil]

I have zero interest in seeing this. CGI apes? Seriously? No thanks.
I was very impressed with the CGI. It was getting to the stage where sometimes I forgot I was watching CGI...