This is a prime example of why I hate pretentious film buffs. - Planet of the Apes (1968) Discussion

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FilmKoala 9 years ago

Sorry. I knew the twist going in and it didn't affect my viewing experience though.

reply

It's even more ignorant when that happens with a new movie.
When the 2001 movie came out, I waited for the DVD release and in the meantime refused to view any reviews on TV or in print to avoid spoilage. I had heard that there was a twist ending. Since I own the original novel, as soon as Davidson launched the small ship near the end, I saw exactly what was coming. But that was my own deduction; no one spoiled it for me.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

It actually bothered me the entire time watching this film so I couldn't have an honest opinion on whether or not I saw the twist coming.

Oh, the humanity... 😭 Don't focus on the twist, focus on the story.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

I did but as it was my first time watching, I kept an eye out on any possible hints that people now knowing the twist wouldn't have experienced.

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

I did but as it was my first time watching, I kept an eye out on any possible hints that people now knowing the twist wouldn't have experienced.

When I first saw this movie, I was so young that I didn't really understand the "twist," or at least, it didn't really seem to sink at the time. I'm not even sure if it's even a true "twist," since the cave scene and Zaius' reading of the scrolls kind of lead into Taylor's discovery at the end.

If it's any consolation, someone spoiled Return of the Jedi for me just a day after it was released.

reply

[–] wears-alan 9 years ago

If it's any consolation, someone spoiled Return of the Jedi for me just a day after it was released

How?

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

I was at work and told one of the security guards that I was going to see ROTJ, which he seen the previous day. He told me that Luke and Leia were siblings, that Yoda died, the Emperor died, Darth Vader died - pretty much right off the bat.

reply

[–] wears-alan 9 years ago

what a bastard!

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

reply

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

the twist is the best part

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

The "twist" is an important part, but hardly the whole of the film. There is more to this film than just him being on Earth all along, that man was the cause of his own downfall. What it means to be human, intolerance and prejudice, cruelty and various other issues brought up by the film shouldn't just be overshadowed by the final reveal.

reply

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

I've had a lot of twists ruined for me, usually by friends.

The end of Mice and Men was told to me by a friend in high school.

The ending to Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was given away by a friend in college (that one actually pissed me off).

Sometimes on separate message boards I get the ending spoiled for a totally different movie, which is annoying and shouldn't happen.

The moral of the story is you can't rely on other people to be thoughtful. The only time I ever spoiled a twist for someone was when I saw a kid reading Harry Potter and the order of the Phoenix. At the time I really hated this guy's guts, so I saw my opportunity and strolled on up to him, whispering out the corner of my mouth Sirius dies.

The look of surprise and anger on his face is something Ill never forget to this day.

~ That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras.

reply

[–] MooseNugget 9 years ago

The film did come out in 1968. There should be time you could talk about something and not have people bug you about spoilers. And like the others said the twist ending isn't the only entertaining thing about the movie.

I'll like to add it would be hard to not have the ending of this movie spoiled for you. I'd seen a lot of spoofs of the ending. It's very famous.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

The film did come out in 1968. There should be time you could talk about something and not have people bug you about spoilers.

Yeah, there does seem to be a self-entitled element out there who unreasonably demand that others stop what they're doing so that they can, usually half-heartedly, catch up from way behind. If it were a five-year-old film, then I could understand the grievance to a sympathetic degree, but a forty-seven-year-old film...

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

Rosemary's Baby - The husband is a satanist along with the neighbours and wants to turn their baby into a devil child.

Soylent Green - Soylent Green is people.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf - The son of George and Martha doesn't exist.

Friday the 13th - Jason Voorhies' Mother is the killer.

Psycho - Norman Bates is the killer and is posing as his dead mother.

Les Diaboliques - The husband is alive after all and is attempting to get revenge on his wife.

Citizen Kane - Rosebud is Kane's childhood sled.

You can't tell me you've seen all these and are not upset that I spoiled them. They've been out for decades.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

Rosemary's Baby - The husband is a satanist along with the neighbours and wants to turn their baby into a devil child.

Soylent Green - Soylent Green is people.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf - The son of George and Martha doesn't exist.

Friday the 13th - Jason Voorhies' Mother is the killer.

Psycho - Norman Bates is the killer and is posing as his dead mother.

Les Diaboliques - The husband is alive after all and is attempting to get revenge on his wife.

Citizen Kane - Rosebud is Kane's childhood sled.

You can't tell me you've seen all these and are not upset that I spoiled them. They've been out for decades.

[Spoiler tags added to SamoanJoes' quote above by savagebiscuits, to cover up the deliberate spoilers.]

Yes, I've seen them all.

I also notice that you're now acting like a spoilt jerk in deliberately spoiling films, not just for me (not that you have in my case), but also for others. Nowhere have I deliberately tried to spoil a film to upset others. Think about that and your own actions of self-entitlement.

Still, that doesn't mean that I get all upset when an old film, that I have had plenty of time to watch, gets spoiled. It's my issue and not the fault of those who reasonably want to discuss the merits and story of a film they've seen, and that's been out for decades. There are more important things in life than getting all wound up because someone has reasonably talked about an old film that you happen not to have watched.

BTW, if you're going to make a similar point, use the spoiler tags like I have done in quoting you. There are plenty of people out there who haven't seen those films and won't appreciate you deliberately spoiling them. My issue is people getting too upset about spoilers for old films, not one that's meant to mean that one should deliberately set out to spoil them.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

First off, I just wanted you to read them that's why I didn't put the spoiler tags over them.

Secondly, I spoiled films that are all over 35 years old, so according to you, if it's not a film that's around 5 years old, it's fair game, so why complain when I spoiled it above?

There are more important things in life than getting all wound up because someone has reasonably talked about an old film that you happen not to have watched.

Sure there are more important things but... I'm on IMDb. It's a movie site. If I decide to get "all wound up" about politics, I'll go to a site that talks politics.

It's my issue and not the fault of those who reasonably want to discuss the merits and story of a film they've seen, and that's been out for decades.

Again, if it's been out for decades who cares if I am acting like (in your words) a "spoiled jerk" by putting spoilers to movies that have been out for decades. It's a jerk move to spoil a film at all regardless of release date. And, no, it's not the fault of someone who is, say, 14 or 15, who has not seen many movies and decides to start watching a lot of the classics. They're young. I wouldn't expect them to watch hundreds of classics at such a young age.

My issue is people getting too upset about spoilers for old films

Aren't there more important things to worry about?

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

First off, I just wanted you to read them that's why I didn't put the spoiler tags over them.

I know why you did it, you petulant child, but your wheeze also caused some collateral damage. Then again, your self-entitlement issues don't really extend to others.

Secondly, I spoiled films that are all over 35 years old, so according to you, if it's not a film that's around 5 years old, it's fair game, so why complain when I spoiled it above?

I didn't say to deliberately spoil the films as an attempt to prove some childish point, though. You were acting like a dick in your attempt to show an example. My issue is that if you're on some film site or talking about old films, then it's quite reasonable to expect some spoilers. It's not alright to wantonly spoil for the sake of it, like you did, hypocrite.

Aren't there more important things to worry about?

You're the one blabbing like a child, so you answer me.

Anyway, enough, whinge to someone else. Just remember, if you're going to spoil and you think it might cause an issue, use spoiler tags.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

You said yourself that it's not a big deal if a movie is spoiled if it's been out a while. I don't understand how you defend someone deliberately spoiling the ending of a movie as long as it's a few decades old, and then when I do it to prove a point, you get upset and say that I'm deliberately spoiling movies that are a few decades old.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

Your "prove a point" just exposed your hypocrisy and self-entitlement issues. It's not me being inconsistent, it's me pointing out your own inconsistency and lack of principle. You came here crying about an old film being spoiled, how you despise those that do so, then you proceed, in order to "win" some argument, to spoil other films for others. It just shows how little you believe your own words and how little one should take you seriously.

With that said, I won't be taking you seriously from now on, so will move on. Bye.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

Your "prove a point" just exposed your hypocrisy

Of course it's hypocritical! You finally get it!

You said:

If it were a five-year-old film, then I could understand the grievance to a sympathetic degree, but a forty-seven-year-old film...

So I replied to YOUR post by putting up spoilers (which after you read, I put spoiler tags over) to films that were over three decades old and your response was:

I also notice that you're now acting like a spoilt jerk in deliberately spoiling films

That right there should tell you that it's wrong NO MATTER HOW OLD A FILM IS, to spoil an ending for anyone who hasn't seen it. I never went on the IMDb pages for those films and just spoiled it. It was a response to you on this specific thread. Notice how I didn't even once mention the twist to Planet of the Apes in my original post? It's because I didn't want to spoil it for every one else.

And don't talk to me about self-entitlement! You made the rules by saying it's not okay to spoil the film if it's within five years old, but it's okay to ruin a film for anything over that. Who are you to make that decision for me?

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

I said:

Your "prove a point" just exposed your hypocrisy

(Emphasis added.)

You bleated:

Of course it's hypocritical! You finally get it!

I know, that's why I'm pulling you up on it, hypocrite. Naturally, you won't be finally getting it. Your kind never does.

That right there should tell you that it's wrong NO MATTER HOW OLD A FILM IS, to spoil an ending for anyone who hasn't seen it.

My issue isn't with someone, in context of the discussion, spoiling an old film that's part of the subject at hand. That's reasonable on a film board that's discussing the said film. My issue with you is the wanton spoiling of films that are not in the context of what's being discussed and your blatant hypocrisy. It's your reason for spoiling them that I'm calling to order.

Your post was a deliberate (I keep on saying that word for a reason) attempt to spoil for the sake of it and for your own self-gratification. It's got nothing to do with talking about films, just you showing off for the sake of it, much like what you whinged about in your first post. While anyone mentioning the ending of this film with Taylor on this board would be doing so because they would have expected people who frequent this board to have watched this film, which is quite reasonable seeing it's been out for coming up to fifty years. If you're scared about spoilers on the IMDb PotA board, then don't turn up till you've actually watched the film. Why should the rest of us not openly talk about this film because you can't be arsed to watch it?

Now, when I said that I would be sympathetic to the grievance of spoiling if the film had been five-years-old (note the words I use, I don't say it's good to spoil five-year-old films), I'm meaning in the context that one would be frequenting the board that the film is being discussed. I don't mean littering the board with spoilers of other five-year-old films. If I were in need to do that, I'd use spoiler tags or give a warning.

See, even if I don't have too much sympathy for the drama queens who scream about spoilers for films over five-years-old, I do try to not spoil without warning. Still, if someone else transgresses that practice, it's not the end of the world that you're making it out to be. Your OP came off as some hissy fit from a five-year-old that was about something very trivial, hence why I used the "Oh, the humanity..." line. It's possible to not feel too much sympathy for something, but still tread carefully so as to not provoke for the sake of it.

What's also galling is that you "despise" others who spoil films, even old ones, yet in this discussion, I don't see you despising yourself or being in any way contrite. In fact, you seem pleased with yourself. Kudos. So, yeah, the calling of you as a hypocrite is apt. Actually, the word pretentious (such a trite word on IMDb; sorry about that) could well be applied to you.

Well, as I said before, I should wrap this up from my end. I know, I said that before, but I really should try this time. I mean, I don't want James to start listing other oldish films and causing the OP to explode and go postal. ;)

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

It's got nothing to do with talking about films, just you showing off for the sake of it, much like what you whinged about in your first post.

I haven't seen all those films that I spoiled so what am I showing off about?

Why should the rest of us not openly talk about this film because you can't be arsed to watch it?

First, I'm not just talking about IMDb threads. I'm talking general discussions with people. Secondly, I can't be arsed to watch it? Do you really think I possess a magic wand that allows me to get all films I want at my disposal? No, there are films that are impossible for me to find, but I've been spoiled with twists by my very own friends.

I don't have too much sympathy for the drama queens who scream about spoilers for films over five-years-old, I do try to not spoil without warning.

Again, all my spoilers were directed toward you, and you only. I didn't put a spoiler tag because I knew you wouldn't hover over it to see what it said. Again, I have censored it since my point TO YOU, was conveyed.

it's not the end of the world that you're making it out to be.

Which sentence would possibly make you feel that way? And you also say it's "so trivial". If it's so trivial, why would you care if I spoiled those films for you then?

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Just an FYI guys, here is the trailer to the sequel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMuEnNxX1E8

The final shot of the first film is included in the first 20 seconds. The producers and studio spoiled the ending less than 2 years later.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

You Maniacs! You spoiled it! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago



reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

You forgot a few:

Patton - The Allies defeat the Nazis.

All the President's Men - Nixon Resigns.

Apollo 13 - The crew makes it safely back to Earth.

Recount - The Supreme Court stops the recount and declares George W. Bush the winner.

Zero Dark Thirty - They kill Osama bin Laden.

Any James Bond movie - 007 saves the world, kills the bad guy and gets the girl.



reply

[–] wears-alan 9 years ago

Titanic - The ship sinks.

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

LOL 

reply

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

'Any James Bond movie - 007 saves the world, kills the bad guy and gets the girl.'

Actually in Skyfall the villain wanted to kill M and die himself which actually.......

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

And Close Encounters had an alien ship land.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Spoilers! :-)

reply

[–] wears-alan 9 years ago

Death of a Salesman - he dies.

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

reply

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

12 years as a slave.

I wonder if he was a slave for 12 years!

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] avortac4 (3417) 11 days ago

The Usual Suspects - Kevin's character is making up anything he sees, mostly from the bulletin board behind the cop, and he is the main boss, has no disability, and escapes scott free.

Fight Club - Tyler Durden is just a hallucination/psychosis/split persona 'created' by Narrator. They both live in the same body.

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - Darth Vader is Luke's Vather. I mean, Father. (If the name doesn't already spoil it..)

In the Line of Duty IV - The other cop is corrupt, and is the villain behind the whole scheme and kidnapping of the nice guy's mom.

The Sixth Sense - Bruce's character is a ghost himself, his body died a long time ago.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles - Del's wife is dead and Del himself is homeless.

Fletch - Stanwyck is actually planning to kill Fletch and burn his body, (same bone structure) so he can fake his own death this way and escape to Rio.

If you have friggin' DECADES to watch a movie, it's your OWN fault for not doing your homework and WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE before going to some movie board and then whining that someone spoiled it for you. You can't expect others to bend to YOUR will an circumstances, logically, people would WANT to at some point discuss a movie FREELY, without some pretentious snob trying to restrict their freedom based on a ludicrous point about eternity of non-spoiling.

I can understand spoiler warnings for a month or so, but a decade or more - you are INSANE if you expect people to just FOREVER hold their thoughts in... they HAVE to come out sooner or later.

I wouldn't go to a new movie's line and do what Homer Simpson did (not that that reveal spoils the movie AT ALL, since you can fully enjoy the movie regardless of that knowledge), but if some high-horse elitist expects me to shut up about some movie after 10 years of its release, they can freely choose to NOT come to movie boards to read posts about the movie.

In other words, OP and anyone like the OP can just !@%#* off and stay out

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

Says the guy whose username is "KirkCameronsFailedCareer".

reply

[–] georgijeg1 9 years ago

The apes speaking English and being able to read Latin letters kind of gave it away

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (19664510) 9 years ago

This is a prime example of why I hate pretentious film buffs.

Then you're a needlessly melodramatic twat who requires a copious dose of medication.

I don't read or respond to private messages. Sorry.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

You think I need medication because I hate when people spoil a movie for me, and you somehow think I'm the one that's being melodramatic? I even refrained from name calling, too.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (19664510) 9 years ago

You think I need medication because I hate when people spoil a movie for me,

No. That's not what I said. You're melodramatic because you're using the word "hate" to describe film buffs.

I don't read or respond to private messages. Sorry.

reply

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

And yet you think I need medication for that, so you're being melodramatic as well.

If I used "dislike" instead, would that please you?

reply