Film Junk Podcast Episode #330: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
0:00 – Intro
10:20 – Headlines: New Photos from Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises, Alexandre Aja to direct Pet Sematary Remake?, Brett Ratner to Produce the Oscars, Steven Soderbergh is Second Unit Director on The Hunger Games, Die Hard 5 Director Shortlist
31:45 – Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
1:02:10 – Trailer Trash: Tower Heist, The Darkest Hour, The Sitter
1:18:35 – Other Stuff We Watched: Planet of the Apes, Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, Beetlejuice, Hellboy, Jaws, Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment, Heavy TO, Razorback, 24/7: Penguins/Capitals, POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Frank’s 3D TV, Attack the Block, Congo
2:06:15 – Junk Mail: Movie Club Podcast, Joss Whedon, Flea Markets and Douchebag Neighbours, How Jay Handles Criticism, Frank’s Aversion to Jumpy Movies
2:21:20 – This Week’s DVD Releases
2:24:15 – Outro
2:28:00 – Spoiler Discussion: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
» Download the MP3 (87 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Rate us on iTunes!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
| Donate via Paypal: | Recurring Donation $2/Month: |
Comments (75)
I know I’m completely alone on this but I thought Die Hard 4 was awesome. For anyone who didn’t like it because it was Pg-13 check out the unrated version.
Posted by indianamcclain on August 8th, 2011The tension between Reed and Greg was pretty fucking intense. Haha.
Posted by Sean Brown on August 9th, 2011I’m pleasantly surprised by the good sound quality of Jay’s Skype connection.
Posted by RC on August 9th, 2011Jay’s voice is so bad that sounds better via skype.
Posted by kyri on August 9th, 2011Meh. There was no tension.
Posted by Greg on August 9th, 2011You might as well shpark while the griddle’s hot.
Posted by Jason Martynowski on August 9th, 2011@indianamcclain, I personally liked Die Hard 4 as an action movie… but thought it was a poor entry in the series.
Posted by theocean85 on August 9th, 2011I also enjoyed Die Hard 4. However, I will say that it doesn’t hold up on repeat viewings as much as the others do.
Posted by cinekill on August 9th, 2011Greg, no Cap review?
Posted by Brittany on August 9th, 2011I have NO idea what that rape discussion was that Reed brought up… all I know is I’m in.
Posted by Jason Martynowski on August 9th, 2011Is there a setting in iTunes that can filter out Greg’s heavy breathing?
Posted by Sluggo on August 9th, 2011@Brittany: I haven’t had time to see Cap yet. Review will come.
@Sluggo: I couldn’t breathe through my nose, so it was worse than usual. Also…it might have had a lot to do with Frank’s very comfortable furniture. I was relaxed.
Posted by Greg on August 9th, 2011I think it’s safe to say that the reason for the increased number of apes during the third act doesn’t necessarily hinge on the fact that they were exposed to the serums/ viral compound.
It’s quite natural for other animals to follow those that exhibit signs of higher intelligence or stronger survival instincts. Without getting into scientific specifics, I think it’s pretty obvious that some order of establishment exists within the bio-chemistry of animal nature; ie. how wolves travel in pack or how lions have their own pride.
In the case of ROTPOTA, one can argue that those apes were lured by a governing force of intelligent apes, the smartest of whom was Caesar. Monkeys have been shown to repeat what their peers do, so it’s not much of a stretch to believe that they can be coerced into a monkey rebellion within the film.
And I also think the director wisely reserved scenes requiring the monkeys to perform actions a little too advanced for their simian ways to the ones leading the rebellion – Caesar, the gorilla, the orangutan and the original monkey leader in the sanctuary.
Posted by Kamen Liew on August 9th, 2011“Shpark while the griddle’s hot” – I was in tears.
Posted by drexlw on August 9th, 2011Maybe I’m a masochist but I’d love it if Greg and Reed were to do a podcast together where they had to review crap like The Smurfs.
Posted by Nuno on August 9th, 2011I really liked the film and feel they covered a lot of the comments in the podcast quite nicely. I felt the whole violence issue was handled perfectly as it showed the natural tendency for apes to use violence for asserting dominance over the new member (Caesar) and the creative way Caesar found a “primarily non-physical way” of getting control of the group.
The film showed multiple times were Caesar yelled at fellow apes to not kill the humans and I’ll go so far as to predict the future of this story line. The evil lab ape was clearly shown (to me) to be a ape that has no problem killing humans. (even to the level of his design hinting to Roth’s character in Burton’s Ape flick) I predict the next film (or films) will have a power struggle between Caesar and this ape. (remember the evil ape is as intelligent as Caesar, They hinted at this future power struggle in the forest scene with Francos character) I think it plays perfectly in to the mythology of this series as the descendants of Caesar will be the “thinking apes” years later.
I also can’t believe everyone feels the cut-aways about the failed Mars mission are just a nod to the other films – I clearly can see multiple films on destruction / enslavement of mankind, and another film of the astronauts return to earth.
I also don’t understand Reed’s criticism over the demise of man – I like the fact that the film (to me) strongly shows the virus crippling mankind allowing the apes to prosper. Its the perfect mix and much more plausible then one or the other. I think Reed needs to watch the film again as I think they did a great job of showing Caesar finding out about his origin, mother, mistrust of man, and most importantly REED’S MOST LOVED MOVIE IDEA: THE HERO TAKING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE OTHERS AT THEIR OWN PERIL!!! The ease way out for Caesar would be to go with his man father.
Also, Caesar is referred as the family dog (jokingly); another reason Reed should love this film – he likes dogs in movies. Just watch it imagining Caesar as a pet and shut-up already
Posted by rus in chicago on August 9th, 2011“Maybe I’m a masochist but I’d love it if Greg and Reed were to do a podcast together where they had to review crap like The Smurfs.”
I’d do it. Probably quit during the first one though.
Posted by Greg on August 9th, 2011I know it’s a cliche for me to apologize after every podcast I do for babbling like an idiot, but I was really terrible, not even bothering to finish my thoughts. I need me some of that Alzheimer’s drug.
I’m not entirely sure why I didn’t sympathize with Ceasar like most people seem to be doing. I agree there were moments set up for us to like Ceasar, for example, when he intervenes to protect Franco’s dad. Maybe because I knew Ceasar was a CGI character? Wait, I did shed a tear when E.T. was dying, but I think I was empathizing with Elliot’s distress.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 9th, 2011— Scandinavia — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
Scandinavia is a cultural, historical and ethno-linguistic region in northern Europe that includes the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, characterized by their common heritage and language. Modern Norway and Sweden proper[2] are situated on the Scandinavian Peninsula, whereas modern Denmark is situated on the Danish islands and Jutland. In English usage, the term Scandinavia, which refers to a cultural region, is occasionally confused with the Scandinavian Peninsula and is sometimes also taken to include Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Finland.[3] Such usage, however, is considered inaccurate in Scandinavia, where the term Nordic countries instead refers to a broader group comprising both Scandinavia itself as well as countries and territories that are historically associated with the Scandinavian countries, including Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands.
Posted by Kasper on August 9th, 2011Just watched Die Hard with a Vengeance on Neflix Instant. And got to say that god I miss John Mctiernan, and hope that he can make a comeback. Hey, if Walter Hill can still get a big job, he should too.
Posted by Gord on August 9th, 2011Great episode, Reed and Greg were hilarious on this one.
I hope that the Movie Club Podcast keeps going and that we’ll get a Mr. Nobody/Synecdoche, New York episode!
Posted by bard on August 9th, 2011“Film Junk Where Shit Gets Real”
Episode 330: Animal Rape (out in the wild anything goes)
The last five minutes had me rolling on the floor.
Posted by Brittany on August 9th, 2011Just tweeted this to the Film Junk crew. Not sure if this is old news already, but apparently those cat-goggles aren’t helping Hathaway’s stunt double avoid steering the Batpod into $500,000 IMAX cameras:
http://bit.ly/o76eUE
Posted by Julian on August 10th, 2011not enough cheel, he’ll be greatly missed during next weeks episode. outside of that, great episode as always. thanks
Posted by mike v on August 10th, 2011I have to admit that doing the show via Skype was pretty frustrating. Hopefully we don’t have to resort to that in the future.
Posted by Jay C. on August 10th, 2011I just noticed that Armond White gave the Apes movie a really positive review. That means the movie is bad!
Ebert gave the movie a lukewarm review. He does question how Caesar knew how to get to the forest from the ape sanctuary, but I’m guessing Caesar was paying attention when Franco drove him to both places and had a general idea in which direction to go. Or maybe animal instincts were involved.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 10th, 2011Ahhh funny as. Jay: “everything is expensive, I don’t think there’s any tax here”. Aside from the 10% GST.
And no, our salaries aren’t inflated, damnit. Well not as much as we would like.
Wake in Fright…mentioned in Not Quite Hollywood. referred to as a lost classic as it was not available on VHS/DVD until a couple of years ago. Jay will see the story of finding a negative half reasonable in the liner notes of the dvd. Picked it up ex-rental for 5 bucks a few weeks back. Nice work buying it for $40aud Jay. But yes, dvds/music…dang expensive here. Amazon is my friend.
You’d be surprised how many people walk the coat hanger. Not this fella, but many many many people have done it.
Loved ROTPOTA.
Trust you went to a football game Jay. That’s Rugby League of course.
Walk On.
B
Posted by bugsyoz on August 10th, 2011If people like Reed and Roger Ebert had their way, all movies would be like Inception now, where everybody is overly concerned with explaining all the details. But wait, Reed didn’t like Inception…
I haven’t seen Apes, but whatever super serum or genetically enhanced superspider they use to make the monkey smart is obviously pseudo-science, and as such, can be used to explain everything, including heightened sense of forest-finding and replaced vocal chords.
I think if Reed saw Star Trek for the first time today, he would be complaining about the teleporters and tricords.
Posted by Henrik on August 10th, 2011tricorders*
Posted by Henrik on August 10th, 2011I think it was pretty clear how he knew where the forest was as he used the bridge as a guide as to where he was.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW!!!!! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE FILM!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looking past the logic of increased brain power because of the drug the fact that he learned to speak bothered me the most. It’s not because of lack of intelligence “dumb” that apes can’t speak but because they lack the organ that allows us to speak, the vocal cords. So the wonder drug was able to create and evolve a whole new organ for this species in a matter of weeks. That I don’t buy.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
END OF SPOILERS!!!!!!!!
Z
Posted by swarez on August 10th, 2011everything is subjective and film is magical chemistry were sometime odd leaps of faith work and other times they don’t. (Primarily added for dramatic affect)
-What really is the science behind Inception? Don’t know, don’t care.
-How did Ed Norton stay standing after the head shot in Fight Club? Whatever, cue awesome soundtrack!
-What are midi-chlorians? Yeah, that is dumb.
Im just glad I still retain some of the childlike wonder towards movie magic were I don’t hate everything like REED!
Posted by rus in chicago on August 10th, 2011In deference to Greg, my DVD collection (about 1000 discs) is piled all over the place in my theatre-room. Not very much in alphabetical, and just plain chaos. And for one reason or another, I have little desire to clean it up.
Posted by Kurt on August 10th, 2011@Sean
All the apes in Congo were animatronic. And they were gorillas not chimps.
Posted by swarez on August 10th, 2011Thanks for clearing that up. There was some pretty terrible CG lava at the end of the movie though!
Posted by Sean on August 10th, 2011Reed and Greg’s Set It Off vs. Mad Money argument is one of the funniest things ever.
Posted by projectgenesis on August 10th, 2011Everyone had too much stuff going on this Summer, and I was trying to nail down a special guest for this episode. After Cheel gets back from Oz, We’ll set something up. These movies (Zardoz and Flash Gordon) are far too much fun not to get together and talk about them.
I’m aiming for before TIFF starts to get some sort of group together.
ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU.
Posted by Kurt on August 10th, 2011I came online yesterday to download the latest episode of the podcast and I immediately noticed all of the stars that you guys gave Planet of the Apes, so immediately I was intrigued and very interested in seeing this film. I felt like crap yesterday and was basically determined not to go out, but I could not stop thinking about this movie. I was very curious about the movie just based on what I had seen of the trailer already, but when I saw your ratings that really tipped the scales for me.
I dragged myself out of bed and out of the house at one point and went to see the movie and I absolutely loved it.
There were moments and scenes during this movie where I was literally euphoric, because it was so good. When Caesar spoke I actually got a chill because it was so powerful and so well timed.
The movie was smart and entertaining and totally engrossing and I loved it. I would have never expected a movie about monkeys to be so enjoyable. It honestly surpassed everything else I have seen this year and that says a lot, because I’ve made an effort so far this year to see more movies then I have in previous years, at the theater.
Anyway, thank you for recommending an awesome movie.
Posted by Nelson on August 10th, 2011Oh, and Jay, if you are reading this, try the AUSSIE version of Ketchup (any brand), it’s quite radically different than what you are used to.
Posted by Kurt on August 10th, 2011@Rus. It all depends on how the filmmakers approach it. Apes took a very “realistic” take on the science, tried to explain it and it ties to real experiments with battling Alzheimers.
Posted by swarez on August 10th, 2011Inception never explains it’s tech, it just is and we as viewers accept it. Norton was left standing because there was no Brad Pitt, and he was shot in the cheek. And Star Wars fucked itself with that explanation.
Swarez is leading the common sense revolution on the nuts and bolts of suspension of disbelief. KUDOS, sir!
Posted by Kurt on August 10th, 2011right, but you only address a part of my response. a lot of the choices filmmakers make on this very issue is the science/logic vs. dramatic effect. in Apes they rationalized the logic shift vs. the dramatic affect of having Caesar speak. Likewise, in Fight Club (which is a case of not knowing how to end with as much power as what preceded) is not as defendable due to the gun placement and force trauma on human body (see Brandon Lee) It is all subjective, the science in Inception is on the same level as The Cell and everyone hated that film, and kill it for lack of explanation.
Ultimately, what Im saying is the quality of some films, the quality of the presented information, and drawing the audience in, allows films like Apes to get a pass on an issue like this for its dramatic affect in the story. Whereas, films like Phanton Menace and The Cell do not. “Don’t throw the Baby out with the bath water,”
Posted by rus in chicago on August 10th, 2011and the “realistic approach” idea is a rabbit hole we don’t want to go down. you could start talking about a vaccine changing the composition of an offspring, animal testing on full grown apes, the testing happening in liberal San Fran, the closing of the program and systematic killing, the whole make-up/size/function of that ape sanctuary in San Fran, the speed of change in the apes, etc. and so on.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 10th, 2011Loved the movie and totally agree with Frank’s review, pretty much word for word.
I was amazed at how much I liked this movie considering how I had no interest in seeing it as recent as 5 days ago. I definitely did find myself cheering for Caesar, but there was insane old lady next to me clapping every time a human was killed and yelling “kill them” when there was an opportunity for an ape to off a human. That seemed a bit much.
The second ending of this movie reminded me of 12 Monkeys, though not quite as ominous or spooky as what Morse’s character did there.
Rape is everywhere. Love it. Great show gentlemen and Reed.
Posted by KeithTalent on August 10th, 2011@Rus. Regarding The Cell, I don’t think the tech is what made people not like it, I think the overly stylized and surreal take and JLo had more to do with it. It advertised itself as a serial killer thriller but was a surreal mind fuck movie with weird ass images that the audience couldn’t connect to. I for one like The Cell but it has more to do with the images than the actual storyline.
Posted by swarez on August 11th, 2011And you are right, logic usually takes the back seat over dramatic effect but again it’s all about how the filmmakers approach it and how well it flows with the story. With Apes they are trying to emulate apes as realistically as they can, how they act, move and emote but then throw in the talking like the only reason apes can’t speak is because of lack of intelligence and I think the viewer is going to think that as well. For me, because I know why apes can’t speak, it bothered me.
In Inception they explain their stuff with military experiments (as Nolan likes to do)!
Fight Club earns its ending by having set up the dream-esque tone right from the beginning, essentially having a movie that could be set in the brain of somebody. If you didn’t accept that at the beginning, I think you’d tune out way before the ending (I did when I was first saw it – in my defense I was like 13 years old and didn’t know my dick from my thumb).
I can’t wait to see Apes to really delve into the explanations of the science that makes chimps take over the world, to the point of them having established a society that exactly copies human society, with all the same social stereotypes and problems!
Posted by Henrik on August 11th, 2011Scientists are finding out more and more about chimps. It was only recently that they found out that they are meat eaters also, hunt smaller monkeys and tear them to pieces and give out to the pack.
Posted by swarez on August 11th, 2011In Rise, Caesar managed to climb to the top of his group because he used physical violence, which is something apes rarely use on each other. The bald ape used an empty gas can, which he banged around, to make his way to the top. In ape society the one that makes the most racket is usually the one who becomes the leader. It shows that he’s not afraid. I think the filmmakers are quoting a real incident where are smaller and lower ranked ape in nature found a gas can, discovered that it makes a loud noise and became leader of the pack because of it.
ok swarez if you are going to continue to beat this “dead horse” I’ll take a stab!
First, in the movie logic/world presented the filmmakers show the serum causing physical changes to the apes beyond normal evolutionary or therapeutic environments:
a. Cesars mom passes changed genetics on to her unborn son
b. The instant changing of the eyes
c. Apes standing (you can’t discount this in your argument)
So with all those examples of heighten physiological changes, and the fact that apes do have the ability to vocalize, you are going to continue to beat-up the movie’s logic saying there is no way the vocal cords of the apes can utter human type speech!? Now, I will agree, and you have convinced me, that a more guttural, beast like voice would be more appropriate for these scenes. But to discount it all together based on the presented movie logic is not defendable (in my opinion)
On the physical violence issue. The biggest evolutionary hurtle for these primates is cognitive thought and the analysis of different objects and their use as tools. I also think you are forgetting that an ape group, receiving new found mental capabilities, would model some of their behavior after/against their oppressor, i,e., the mean humans. Also I think you have it wrong as the film showed a very mature interesting way Caesar took control of the situation by first releasing the gorilla, therefore, avoiding a full fight with the bald ape and only administering one hit with the can. In my understanding of apes, the earlier violence between the bald ape (dominate male) and Caesar (new male) was in keeping with nature.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 11th, 2011@Rus. You are the one beating off that horse. The last comment wasn’t directed at you.
Posted by swarez on August 11th, 2011Apes standing. They already do that, in nature, it’s common. Plus Caesar grew up among humans and when he took over the pack, the lower ranks emulate him.
Eye color can change without drugs or any outside influence, it’s also fairly common, but the filmmakers needed something to show that the apes were now intelligent. But a whole new organ that needs thousands of years to evolve does not magically appear in a matter of weeks.
Caesar used physical violence and the threat of more of it because he probably knew he couldn’t take down the leader. He was also teaching the leader that he could do more than just bang a empty can, that getting hit with it was something that he didn’t want to go through again. And yes the first altercation was how things usually go down in nature.
“Eye color can change without drugs or any outside influence, it’s also fairly common, but the filmmakers needed something to show that the apes were now intelligent.”
you are adding your logic and ignoring the MOVIES LOGIC – its presented as a physical change caused by the serum. It supports that the serum causes physical change
“But a whole new organ that needs thousands of years to evolve does not magically appear in a matter of weeks.”
This is a false argument as APES DO HAVE VOCAL CORDS you are bending your argument to suit your needs. Your problem is with the control of the cords not creating vocal cords. The movie’s logic shows examples of physical change to the apes. (not to mention, which you conveniently ignore, Caesar was changed IN VITRO, which means he could have even more physical change to his vocal cords – I say this knowing the next film will have all the apes talking, LOL)
I said before that I agree with you that the clear speech Caesar delivered is over done, but to wholly dismiss it based on the MOVIES LOGIC isn’t valid.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 11th, 2011For anyone who would like further reading material concerning apes and humans, I recommend:
“Human – The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique” (2008) by Michael S. Gazzaniga (Referred to in the podcast.)
“Mirroring People – The New Science of How We Connect with Others” (2008) by Marco Iacoboni
“The Monkey in the Mirror – Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human” (2002) by Ian Tattersall
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 11th, 2011What about The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris?
Posted by Sean on August 11th, 2011@Reed
My favorite episode from the TVseries of the planet of the apes was the one that chimps thought that the blood of a human girl was polluted because they tried once to transfer her blood to a chimp and the chimp died.. because they didn’t know about the different types of blood (A,AB,B,O) and then the twist, oh my god.. the revelation of the rhesus factor simply blew my mind away..
I was 10.
Posted by kyri on August 11th, 2011I once read that APES and Monkeys in general are unable to speak, or say words, not because they are not smart enough but because they are not physiologically capable to do it. That is why I thought that the first film basically implied that the Apes EVOLVED after human race was self-destroyed by a Nuclear War..
Posted by kyri on August 11th, 2011/how do you think the first film intended to tell us how it all happened? Was it a drug-virus that evolved the apes or is it just natural selection?.
Funny thing is the fact that Heston went later to present a weird documentary called “forbidden archeology” that was trying to prove that the theory of Evolution is wrong.
Funny stuff.
Also the name “Heston” in Greek literally means “Shit on that Guy” so in the posters of his films they used to change it to “Iston”..
On the way to a job interview today I got to the “shpark while the griddle’s hot” part of the show. There’s nothing like a little Reed nonsense to get rid of some pre-interview jitters. Most excellent!
Posted by Falsk on August 11th, 2011**POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS** **POTENTIAL SPOILERS**
I thought maybe the fact that Cesar was born from an ape who had been given the serum meant it might be more naturally embedded in his DNA and maybe had a more advanced physical effect, on top of advancing his intelligence. Clearly his facial features become more human-like throughout the course of the film and you can see a difference in his body when he stands. This, for me, is good enough to explain the talking.
Posted by Jay C. on August 11th, 2011@Sean: I don’t have that book. I have a bunch of other books on evolution that I haven’t read, yet. I’ve never even finished reading The Origin of Species. It’s so boring.
@kyri: That episode sounds clever. I couldn’t think of anything interesting to say about the TV series on the podcast. I saw several of the episodes when they first aired in the 70s, but none of the plots stuck in my memory. The series fit the “chase genre” that The Fugitive popularized.
Concerning apes talking, I think you’re right about apes not being physiologically capable. I mentioned this on the podcast, but I’ve read that it’s the position of the voice box that accounts for our ability to speak with clarity and duration, and that our upright stature is crucial to the positioning. Swarez mentioned in an earlier comment that apes don’t have vocal cords, but I think they must have some type of vocal cords in order to make shrieking noises.
Concerning how apes became intelligent in the first film, there was no explanation. I don’t see how man destroying himself in a nuclear war would allow apes to evolve and humans to lose their intelligence or ability to speak. The third film supposedly explains how apes became so intelligent, but I think you have to really suspend your disbelief.
@Falsk: Hope your job interview went well.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 11th, 2011Oh, if it wasn’t clear from the podcast, I actually agree with Jay on Caesar’s ability to utter a few words. I have no problem with that.
I have no problem with a virus somehow affecting “intelligence.” (Actually, I’m a bit confused now about how rapidly the virus affects intelligence. I assumed Caesar’s release of the gas in the sanctuary was to increase the intelligence of his army of escapees, but it makes more sense that he did this so that he could create more intelligent apes by mating with the apes exposed to the gas. Then again, maybe Caesar isn’t that smart.
) But it doesn’t make sense how a virus could make physical changes, especially physical changes to make apes more human-like. So in this respect, I disagree with Jay. I would think Caesar might become more “human-like” because he was brought up by humans. Like when he wanted to sit in the passenger seat rather than ride in the back of the vehicle.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 12th, 2011This is a very reasonable explanation indeed Jay, but I doubt that the creators thought about it, and the same with the violent-intelligence scenario, sure intelligence can lead to violence it’s a VERY good theory but you need to put a small line in the film to justify this. The creators on the other hand put a line: “oh, she was pregnant that is why she was aggressive” And if you analyze the meaning of this small line and WHY it was in the film you can understand why this film is not a good film. The creators were DESPERATELY trying to avoid the “hot potatoes” and they were DESPERATELY trying to idealize the monkeys and not present them as evil. To the point that it destroys the film. Monkeys and apes are wild animals, and especially smart apes who will take the rights from the humans. This film just ignores that. Like the people who have them as pets- I don’t like those people- I don’t like this film.
This film in order to work it needed to split the monkeys into 2 groups at the end. The “evil” monkeys who kill humans (in a graphic way preferably) and the “good monkeys” the pacifist apes that try to stop the others.
Instead we had one solid idealized “revolution” filled with small silly “explanations” everywhere to justify the slightest “bad” behavior of those monkeys. Even at the very end. when we have the weird ape killing the “villain” they made that character a caricature that cursed and was ridiculously “evil”. Tell me one reason why the character who dies, couldn’t be Franco? why you need to create an “evil” version of what that character symbolizes?
When the black guy in Terminator 2 dies, he dies, basically because he committed hubris. He was a good family man, a likable character but he commits hubris without knowing it and destroys humanity. If he was an evil caricature T2 wouldn’t be the same movie.
James Franco did basically the same thing but he gets away with it with a silly plot vehicle.
Posted by kyri on August 12th, 2011What is the catharsis in Rise.O.P.O.T.Apes? : The weird looking chimp that we (evil humans) misjudge from his appearance takes permission from Cesar and kills the villain, not by actually killing him or something but by.. not saving him from falling off the cliff.
What is the catharsis in Transformers?
See any similarities?
I know I am stretching it a bit here. But my point is simple, like Reed said, Rise of the planet of the apes is not a very deep film, it’s basically a mindless blockbuster with a little more soul than Transformers 3. But even a dry turd has more soul than Michael Bay. So I don’t know how much that matters.
@ Reed
I would love to give a rewatch on the series to see how it plays today. (I assume the worst) It appears that the episode I was referring is called “The Surgeon”. Do you have it? (no I don’t want you to give it to me I am just curious)
Posted by kyri on August 12th, 2011I have to nerd-out and tell you the name of the Ape with the scars on his face and the white eye is: “Koba.”
Posted by CrowKiller06 on August 12th, 2011“Buck” is the gorilla.
“Caesar” you all know.
“Rocket” is the alpha of the primate sanctuary, until Caesar ousts him.
“Maurice” is the circus Orangutan.
@kyri
I agree that it’s not a very deep film, but I also wouldn’t write off RotPotA as “mindless” or “destroyed” simply because it’s not high drama; the character of Caesar is compelling and sympathetic enough to make the “escape from the ape-torium” part of the story work very well.
Likewise, at least for me, there’s a camp element to the film in its situations and characters, from the neighbor to the overly slimy villain (who embodies the three “B’s” of evil: British, Businessman, and Black) right down to Brian Cox’s sleazy-’70s-porn-producer, getup that’s both entertaining and cleverly self-aware.
Despite that, I don’t understand your RotPotA/Transformers comparison–are you saying that the idea of killing through inaction is inherently bad? If so, I strongly disagree and would argue that it’s not the idea itself that’s bad, rather it’s the way in which it’s presented. We can agree that the way in which it’s presented in RotPotA is not particularly resonant, but Transformers has no bearing on that.
And I’d add that the scene where Caesar shuts his cage, effectively turns his back on Franco, is pretty cathartic.
Posted by Nat Almirall on August 12th, 2011I am saying the exact opposite Nat mate, it’s not inherently bad, it’s retarded. Yes, the “villain” dies because the script-book demands it But he dies with the MOST sterilized way possible in order not to have the monkeys portrayed as villains even to the eyes of the most innocent soul in the movie theater. This is called idealism. The film builds an idealistic black/white world just like transformers and Michael bay does in his movies. Autobots are inherently good and idealized just like the monkeys are in this film. And decepticons are grey-evil caricatures just like the British-black scientist and the harry potter boy. The big Ape that dies at the end basically takes the place of the retarded bumblebee, the closeups into the eyes of the monkeys reminded me the retarded closeups in the eyes of dying Autobots and so on.
A more sophisticated movie, lets say The Dark Knight, blurs the lines between good and evil. Sure Batman is supposed to be the “good protagonist” but nolan presents him pretty much as a rich sociopath. A basket case that wears a mask and tries to solve his personal issues by fighting crime. Criss nolan’s batman one might say is George Bush. Nolan examines the ethical dilemma of how far can a hero go by pushing it “in the name of freedom” before he becomes the villain. Sure, not many people get the allegories or the symbolism in the movie, but the fact is that they are there for those who have the capacity to see them. And they are “polite” they are not aggressive or allover the place like Michael bay uses his patriotic “symbolisms” or this movie with the “animal rights” stuff. The same with Inception or Children of men. Those movies deal with so many themes yet they can still play as simple action movies. This is what great movies do, they can work in many levels.
Rise of the planet of the Apes is a dumped down idealization of monkeys. What confused you into believing that is something more than that is the burden that the original movie and concept brings to the table. The scene that you mention as catharsis, with Ceasar closing the Door to Franco (that is indeed a very effective scene) is exactly in there because some issues just had to be addressed otherwise we wouldn’t have a planet of the apes film. Everything else that could be ignored or changed into a more idealized and softer version they were changed or ignored. For example, humanity is being wiped at the VERY VERY VERY end ONLY because the concept of the original film demands it. Yet they did EVERYTHING that it was humanly possible to present it in the most sterile and soft way possible. Sure the good scientist dies but he was Fat, without a life, a sweaty nobody with no friends or family.
You see what I am talking about?
And this is why I appreciate and respect Criss Nolan and a few other directors so much. He manage to create TRAGEDIES-DRAMAS of massive proportions, things that FUCK you mentally and challenge the moneymaking movie-establishment.
He serves knowledge, ideas and ideals to the masses. And he gets away with it!
What does planet of the Apes gave us? Yet another insidiously misanthropistic, sterilized, dumped down approach on a very heavy concept. It’s the Era that we live in. It’s fucked. \And when the real world is fucked the Arts become idealizations because people feel the need to see something that will take them to a happy place I guess.
Posted by kyri on August 12th, 2011Kyri twists his argument too.
Caesar’s mother was violent because she was PROTECTING HER OFFSPRING not because she was pregnant. She had given birth right before the presentation.
Talking about good apes vs bad apes and the splitting of camps. I have said before, I think this is the direction the series is going to go and there is evidence of it in this film. It also makes sense because the original films having “thinking apes” and “violent apes”. There is no need to put this “splitting of camps” in this film. Its hinted at, its coming with two very “fleshed out” apes, both very smart due to receiving treatment in the lab.
Rise of the Planet of The Apes II
Posted by rus in chicago on August 12th, 2011Caesar vs Koba
“Its on like Donkey Kong!”
And get off the Nolan horse, Batman Begins is the worst offender of everything you talk about. One long string of meaningless, unrealistic platitudes.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 12th, 2011@Kyri
I think Rus may be right in that you’re twisting a few things–for one, you’re overlooking the characters of Franco and Caesar, who have some moral depth (not tremendously deep, but they’re certainly not black and white) and the more bloodthirsty apes that Caesar reprimands for wanting to outright kill the humans–if the apes were as angelic as you say, there wouldn’t have been any need for that scene. Nor the scene where the other apes in the ape-torium try to beat the living crap out of Caesar. Nor the creepy-eyed-chimp. Nor…
And though you concede that there are some good humans–Franco, his wife, his father, and the fat scientist–and acknowledge the effectiveness of the cage-closing scene, I don’t think it’s fair to simply dismiss them by saying “Well, they had to make it that way.” No, they didn’t–but even if one accepts that they did, the scene wouldn’t have worked if the filmmakers hadn’t given the characters enough weight to pull it off.
Or suppose that they are trying to “soften” or “idealize” as much as they can–so what? There’s still a lot of scenes that aren’t “soft” or “idealized,” and they, regardless of whether they “had” to be in there or not, work very well.
You make some interesting points, but it seems to me that you’re criticizing the film on a purely hypothetical basis. Again, it’s not a great film, but it’s a much better film than you’re giving it credit for.
Posted by Nat Almirall on August 12th, 2011@Rus you are probably “right” about Batman Begins but you ignore the fact that at that time Nolan was playing by the rules of their game. He was a NOBODY and behaved, one might say, like a Trojan Horse in order to penetrate the movie industry, sure the first film is not 100% what Prestige, Inception, memento and Dark Knight are but it is a much more “risky” film than PG13.of the planet of the Apes is.
@nat
Posted by kyri on August 12th, 2011I am sure hoping that they will use the same director and let him free to take the franchise where his vision leads him to, I do acknowledge and see the struggle that he put against the studio in order for the film to have those certain qualities that it has. But nevertheless I am judging it “harder” than Thor for example because the Concept of this film had a lot more potentials and philosophical implications that simply were not explored.
Sure is not as horrible as I thought it was going to be but it is still pretty much middle of the road.
@ Everyone…..
I’m not trying to pick a fight, or choose sides here, but, I wonder…
Are we over-analyzing some of the newer films that come out now ? When you look at a Michael Bay film, you either enjoy it for the ridiculousness, or for some reason you enjoy his “style.” But, when you get a film like RotPotA, can’t we appreciate that it’s working on a level more sophisticated than most of the other movies that Hollywood dumps on us ?! Everyone’s taste will be different than everyone else, but, I feel like this was a better accomplished film than most of the mainstream films we get !
Just my opinion.
PS. I forgot to mention that I think we can leave this franchise alone after this movie. No need for another PotA film.
Posted by CrowKiller06 on August 12th, 2011/\/\/\/\/\first, no its a movie website, a place to talk about movies, if people that enjoy movies don’t think and discuss them they will eventually turn into something no one cares about…like poetry
I for one am on board with PotAs, I want more with the same feel of this one. the next can be like 28 Days later were we switch between human and ape camps watching they deal with the new reality!
Posted by rus in chicago on August 12th, 2011gentlemen I throughly enjoyed the review of Planet of the Apes. I too was very surpised by this film since I did’nt expect much from it. Being that Reed is supposedly the Planet of the Apes guru I’m surprised that he didn’t relize that the news reports in the film of the rocket launch is indeed Taylor’s spacraft ‘ICARUS’ that relands on earth in 3978 A.D. I for one had an “Oh Shit” moment when I saw this and thought that it was a brilliant tie in to the original classic. as for Tim Burton’s version of POTA as Jay would say “I was shit!”
Posted by Joe Verra on August 13th, 2011“REED” was hilarious! Most of his comments caused laughter amongst the group and it was very entertaining to listen too. The banter was great! Anytime “Reed” does a guest appearance is fine with me!
Posted by Loren on August 13th, 2011@kyri: I assume The Surgeon is in my DVD complete series set.
@Joe: I didn’t know Taylor’s spacecraft was named Icarus. I thought Taylor’s mission had to do with studying Dr. Hasslein’s theories on time and the speed of light, so I didn’t connect the Mars mission to Taylor’s spacecraft.
@Loren: Thx for the ego boost. In person, I’m not funny.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 13th, 2011@kyri: I watched the episode “The Surgeon.” It was okay. I watched another episode that had Jackie Earle Haley as a child in a major guest starring role. It’s fun recognizing actors underneath the ape make-up.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 20th, 2011@Reed: Marc Singer (V,Beast Master) is in the Apes TV Series As a human.
Posted by John Branch on August 23rd, 2011@John: Yeah, I happened to watch that episode. The DVD producers should have listed the guest star credits on the packaging for us cult actor followers.
Posted by Reed Farrington on August 24th, 2011Okay, just got around to watching Rise and went back for the spoiler discussion, which was great. I basically agree with the guys’ assessments – I wouldn’t give it a 4 but no less than 3. The main problem was that the movie was way too short – and if that’s your main criticism of a movie, than it must do something right.
SOME POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I might be stating the obvious, but I also went back and re-watched the original, and what became apparent was that Rise isn’t really a prequel. I mean, when you put Charlton Heston on TV as a nod/homage it pretty much says it right there. The film is basically what the new Star Trek is for the Star Trek Franchise (maybe that’s why Reed didn’t like it).
First of all, whether you know the twist ending of the original or not, Rise completely undermines it – it takes place on Earth! If you watched this, and then watched the original for the first time, you would already assume it takes place on Earth, and Taylor’s babbling about “crashing on another planet” will seem superfluous.
On top of that, in the original, mankind finds its demise through nuclear war, not a viral plague (the “nuclear holocaust” of modern age, apparently).
So plot-wise, Rise doesn’t really tie in with the original. I found it confusing that the movie had an obvious reference to the spaceship from the 1968 film without actually tying to the 1968 film in anything but basic concept.
There’s an interview with the screenwriters I thought I would share here, it has some interesting tidbits, including the fact that the genesis of the project came form the screenwriters themselves, and not from the studio’s intention of reviving the franchise, which is pretty unusual.
http://www.thestream.tv/4/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-writers-and-producers/
Posted by Lior on August 28th, 2011Leave a Reply