MovieChat Forums > Planet of the Apes (1968) Discussion > This is a prime example of why I hate pr...

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

posted 9 years ago by SamoanJoes
125 replies | jump to latest

I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE when I haven't seen a film and someone spoils the ending for you and say: "oh, it's been out for (x) amount of years so it's your own fault". It's as if they want to show off that they saw the film and you didn't.

I saw this film for the first time today and was bothered that I knew the twist ending because of people who spoiled it for me. If you love the film so much, why not just shut up and allow someone who hasn't seen the film before enjoy it as much as you did?

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.

[–] Synergetic11 9 years ago

The DVD and Bluray menus themselves have a Statue of Liberty buried in the sand design as part of the rotating images that come up. So, straight up, they're already spoiling it for anyone who watches this for the first time.

[–] DryToast 9 years ago

I usually don't mind plot spoilers because I don't think plot is the most important element of a movie, and it's only an inferior movie that depends on the surprise of a plot twist for its primary value. If the movie is any good in the first place, the twist should still be satisfying.

To use the example of a slightly more recent movie, "I'll have what she's having" should still be funny when finally seeing it in context in When Harry Met Sally even after seeing the out-of-context clip a hundred times.

As Dr. Gregory House once said, "If the wonder is gone when the truth is known, there never was any wonder."

Also, you're talking about Planet of the Apes here. This is not just some obscure murder mystery from the 1930s, this is an iconic classic that had a huge impact on the culture of its day (including the young up-and-coming generation) and entered the world's consciousness as few movies do, in a way that makes it impossible to hide from its plot twist over forty years later.

This is like someone being annoyed that he knows about Adam and Eve and the apple before reading Genesis for himself.

I don't know if it's "really wacky," but your French is coming along.

[–] svenrufus 8 years ago

Depending on how you saw the film, the spoiler might have come from the film makers themselves! Check out the cover to some home media launch.

http://fontmeme.com/planets-of-the-apes-font/

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

Yes that was a stupid cover from the 2001 DVD release. Thankfully, they didn't use it for the 2 subsequent DVD releases or the 2008 Blu-Ray release.

[–] jsm-33292 8 years ago

I was annoyed when apprised of the twist too, but sober reasoning calmed my agitation.

I mean reasoning such as this:

(1) A twist ending is ephemeral. You are only surprised once. Since the high quality aspects of a film can be enjoyed repeatedly, any elements that give enjoyment only once don't qualify as high quality. So you're not losing out on much.

(2) I've often felt that knowing a twist ending before I first watch it can be more satisfying than being surprised. That's because my brain can concentrate on the meaning of the ending rather than being distracted by surprise. And the more meaningful the ending is, the less important its 'surprise' element is.

(3) Knowing there's a twist ending to a film, without knowing what the twist actually is, can raise expectations too high. You may well then find the ending anti-climactic.

(4) As mentioned by someone earlier in the thread, plot belongs on the lowest tier of a film's attributes. And surprise belongs on the lowest tier of a plot's attributes. Clarity, credibility, economy, and balance are all more important aspects of a plot than surprise (which is really just decorative frippery).

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

I didn't see Burton's 2001 film in theaters, so I went out of my way to avoid reviews or any kind of spoilers so I could see it unbiased when the disc was released. But I did hear that it had a twist ending.
When I finally watched the movie, as soon as Wahlberg launched the ship toward the end, I knew what was going to happen, having read the original novel.
That movie doesn't bother me as much as it does some people; it's inferior, of course, to the original movie series, but I didn't think it was that bad for what it was.

[–] laplante-co-672-297856 8 years ago

Did you just return from deep space on a mission of your own or what?

This movie has been part of pop culture for over forty years. The ending has been mentioned and spoofed over and over again... even the cover of the DVD has given away the ending for a decade or more that I know of.

Weird...

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

even the cover of the DVD has given away the ending for a decade or more that I know of.

Only one release of the DVD in 2001 had a cover that gave away the ending. All subsequent releases in 2003 (http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/HVcovers/DVD_Planet-1968b.jpg), 2006 (http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/HVcovers/DVD_Planet-1968c.jpg) and 2008 (http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/HVcovers/bluray_planet.jpg) had different covers.

[–] SamoanJoes 8 years ago

All you did was just reiterate my point.

[–] silverr8c 8 years ago

I was a big Sopranos fan and I could not watch the few episodes that ended of the series because I was doing a lot of traveling selling my house in TX and NY and moving to SC. I DVR-ed the last episodes and knew I would not be able to watch it for a few weeks. I spent all that time avoiding reading about it, listening to radio and TV talk shows. It was difficult but I was able to watch the the ending without knowing about Tony's fate.

POTA is almost 50 years old so some people assume everyone has watched the ending, but the problem is that the movie us so old many people were not born when this movie came out, so I do agree with you that it isn't right to spoil the ending to any movie no matter ho old it is.

I want to win the Nobel Peace Prize so bad that I would kill to get it

[–] andyofne-75813 7 years ago

I guess you never read books and then, some time later, watch the movie?

[–] roland-rockerfella 7 years ago

The film was made in 1968 and your only just getting around to seeing it now?. Planet Of The Apes is one of the all time sci-fi classics. I would be amazed if anyone didn't know the story and ending.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

You can pretty much say that for any film that is considered a classic. Saying "what, you've never seen this before?!?!" is just an arrogant comment. No, I haven't seen it and I'm pretty sure I can come up with a lot of stuff you haven't seen that are considered classics that have been out for years.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Very true. But I don't publically complain about hearing about an ending that is now common knowledge for most because I never took the time to watch a classic that was released decades ago.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

What makes you think I didn't "take the time" to watch it? Maybe I was using "my time" watching other classics before eventually coming to this. Maybe the only times this movie was available to me was in full screen or bad quality.

Also, this is a message board for Planet of the Apes. It's not like I belted out my opinion in a crowded mall, publicly like you said. I can't think of a more appropriate place to state my opinion than here.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Any movie that has been out for over a year, let alone over 4 decades, you can't complain about learning the ending or other plot details. It's like complaining that it is common knowledge that Darth Vader is Luke's father. It is just childish to blame others and whine about it.

And this is message board is open to everyone to read or contribute, so it is public.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

I never denied the message boards were public, I said it's the most logical platform to express my opinion.

Any movie that has been out for over a year, let
alone over 4 decades, you can't complain about
learning the ending or other plot details

But don't you see what you're doing? You're setting a timeframe for what you think is appropriate for someone to be spoiled. Someone might think 5 years is okay, some may think 10. How do you set the standards? For all you know I could be some 14 year old kid who just started getting into movies. Do you really expect someone at a young age to watch Citizen Kane before they get spoiled what rosebud is?

Funny how you use the Star Wars reference. I saw Star Wars when I was 8 and had already been spoiled about Luke's father. Is it really my fault that I didn't watch it when I was 7?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

I never denied the message boards were public, I said it's the most logical platform to express my opinion.

Yet when others express their opinion that disagrees with you, you childishly push back.

But don't you see what you're doing? You're setting a timeframe for what you think is appropriate for someone to be spoiled.

No I see what you're doing, blaming everyone else and childishly whining about it.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And yet you're blaming me for not watching the film within your subjective timeframe.
It's weird how everyone complains about being spoiled but then do it themselves. No one gets spoiled and says: "well, I suppose it's my fault. It's been out for years."

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

No you're childishly blaming everyone else for discussing the ending of a film that has been common knowledge and a part of pop culture for over 40 years. Grow up.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

No. As much as I am blaming others, you actually are blaming me as well. You even reiterated it in your response.

common knowledge and a part of pop culture for over 40 years.

I don't publically complain about hearing about an ending that is now common knowledge for most because I never took the time to watch a classic that was released decades ago.

Any movie that has been out for over a year, let alone over 4 decades, you can't complain about learning the ending or other plot details.

Not only are you blaming me for not watching a film that is 40 years old, you are setting the standards for what you deem a sufficient time frame for people to adhere by. It's targeted toward your preference and then say "you can't complain because I set the standards."

Again, stop saying the movie is 40 years old. If someone spoiled the end of the Sixth Sense for someone who was born in 1997, are you really going to say "too bad, you should have seen the movie when you two when it first came out in 1999?" 40 years old or 4 years old makes no difference.

As far as my "childish" behaviour goes, that is only stemming from a poster saying that it's okay to spoil movies that have been out for years. Then when I spoiled movies that were out for years, they got mad. If it wasn't such a big deal, what difference does it make if I intentionally spoil the end of Empire Strikes Back, or an episode of The Simpson intentionally does? "Pop culture", as you say. If they have this "it's been out for years" attitude, what difference does it matter how I spoil it? It's been out for years, it shouldn't matter.

But at the end of the day, is it really difficult to give someone a warning before you spoil so when we talk about it we can all share the shock and awe we both experienced?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

No you're blaming the whole world for discussing the ending of a movie that is over 50 years old. There is an expiration date on spoilers and the one on PORA has long passed: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/03/06/spoiler-statute-of-limitations/. It is a convention that everyone accepts but you want everyone in the world to cater to you. The ending of POTA has been a well known part of pop culture for over 40 years. It has been referenced on TV shows such as the Simpsons, Friends, Cheers and in movies like Austin Powers and Jay & Silent Bob as well as in many documentaries about the '60s, the Statue, 20th Century Fox, etc. It was even featured in the trailer of it's sequel: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/BeneathTrailer.htm/ It is completely unreasonable and childish to expect the entire world to bow to you and not discuss well known plot elements of films released years ago because you have not seen them yet. Just as is childish to continue argue this after almost 2 years when numerous other posters have all disagreed with you.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And numerous people here have also agreed with me.

And you're the one who responded to my message after two years. Did you write your response assuming I wouldn't respond because it was two years old? Are you also putting limitations on IMDb replies?

Also, your post is full of assumption. One example is when you say that it's a convention that EVERYONE accepts. Really? You've polled everyone? Even if you read the comments below on that article, numerous people disagree with the time frames that were mentioned.

Have you ever written a review on IMDb? You are supposed to inform in advance if your review contains spoilers or else they will take it down.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Childish and immature response and dishonest as well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl
A word of advice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

It doesn't change the fact that IMDb requires you to do so. You can tell me to "Let It Go" as much as you want, but just a reminder that you continue to respond to me. It takes two to tango.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Now denying reality. The links prove that IMBd has no issue or policy regarding spoilers. As far as the rest, it's just an 'I know you are but what am I argument'. Childish.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

No, either you're denying reality or are completely blind. Look at the top of all those links you provided. It clearly states:

Warning! This synopsis may contain spoilers
See plot summary for non-spoiler summarized description.

When you write a review there is a section that says regarding spoilers in written reviews:

If you write a spoiler without warning readers, your name will be added to a blacklist and all your future reviews will be discarded automatically and unread. See the guidelines for more information.

It's written twice on that page in fact, and one of them is even in bold red letters to make sure you don't forget. I clicked on your username and see that you haven't written a review yet, so you probably didn't know that. But I know that you have read reviews seeing how you provided the links, so what exactly am I denying?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

So now you're OK with spoilers if you are given advance warning?

Changing your tune from your OP. I guess that is some progress.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

I'm not changing my tune at all. My original post was, as clearly stated, directed for the "it's been out for (x) amount of time, so it's your fault" crowd. Giving someone a warning before spoiling is not the same thing as spoiling because "it's been our for years", so I don't see why that would be relevant for me to write.
Why not also argue that I didn't mention when people spoil films while I'm actually watching them. Or why I didn't mention spoilers for TV shows. Or also why I never mentioned spoiling scores for sporting events. It's not necessary to, that's why.

Either way, although it wasn't in my OP, I did write it a number of posts earlier as a possible caveat:

But at the end of the day, is it really difficult to give someone a warning before you spoil so when we talk about it we can all share the shock and awe we both experienced?

And I only brought up IMDb reviews in response to your mention of that "convention that everyone accepts" to show you that IMDb does not accept it.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Sounds like you are. Or are you saying that you are incapable of learning and changing.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

How can I be incapable of changing when you have been proven wrong multiple times and won't admit it?

You said that IMDb doesn't have a spolier policy and I showed you they do and you didn't acknowledge it. You said that convention is something that EVERYONE accepts when I showed you that IMDb thinks otherwise of their opinion as well as the comments on the bottom of that site and you didn't acknowledge that. Then you even accused me of changing my tune (and are now accusing me of not being capable of changing my tune), even though I showed you the quote of me saying that advance warnings were okay and once again you didn't acknowledge that.

So is it me that's not capable of changing my tune (or changing my tune depending on which of your flip-flopping you want to choose) or you not wanting to accept the truth without providing evidence otherwise? What ever is convenient for you, right?

You can't even be bothered posting on these boards for something that isn't POTA related, so I wouldn't expect you to do some actual research.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

You said that IMDb doesn't have a spolier policy and I showed you they do and you didn't acknowledge it.

You're right. What I should have said is that IMDb doesn't have a policy against spoilers as the links I provided showed.

That doesn't change that your main argument is still ridiculous and unreasonable. You want the whole world to cater to you and not discuss the ending of a movie that has been well known for almost 50 years: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/POTAimages/Cards/1968/Card%2043.jpg. Grow up and get over it.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

I never claimed IMDb has a policy against spoilers. I said:

Have you ever written a review on IMDb? You are
supposed to inform in advance if your review
contains spoilers or else they will take it down.

And why are you showing me that link again? There are many comments on the bottom of that page who agree with me. It's all up for debate and you're stating that arbitrary site as fact. By your logic, you're okay with spoiling
a movie "that's 40 years old" for future generations who are not 40 years old.
"You're 14 and haven't seen this film from the 60's? Well, tough luck, kid, you've had the first 14 years of your life to watch it." What you're saying is ridiculous and unreasonable.

And once again, does it hurt to give a fair warning in advance? You can still talk about it without spoiling for someone who hasn't seen it yet.

And by saying "I want the whole world to cater to me" is quite a strange comment seeing how there is not a single film that has ever been made that has been seen by the majority of the population. POTA has been seen by the minority of the population, so you're expecting the world to be okay with a spoiler with something that a minority has seen. Let me guess, the majority of the world "hasn't taken the time" to see it.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

I never claimed IMDb has a policy against spoilers.

And I never claimed that you did.

Plus that is not a link to Beneath's trailer. It is a jpeg of one of the Topps trading cards that were sold in 1968 to promote the film. It reveals the ending as does many TV series, films, documentaries, etc. But I guess everyone else is wrong and you alone are right. Like I said, childish.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

What does this mean then?:

. What I should have said is that IMDb doesn't have a policy against spoilers as the links I
provided showed.

So if IMDb is asking it's posters to refrain from spoilers from reviews without prior acknowledgement, I'm assuming you not only think IMDb is childish for asking everyone to cater to them, but also wrong because some documentary said so. To each his own.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

What does this mean then?

It means what it says.

As far as IMDb, they have a uniform policy regardless of whether a film is less than a week old like 'Rouge One' or 75 years old like 'Citizen Kane'. That is common for a big website and nothing unusual.

However, IMDb policy is not the point and just a diversion. The point is the rest of the world. Here is the cover of Marvel's POTA magazine from 1975: http://www.mediamercenary.com/POTAimages/Cover7a.jpg and here is the DVD
cover of the documentary 'Behind the Planet of the Apes' produced for the 30th Anniversary http://www.mustangimdb.com/images/jmovies/img_pictures/behind-planet-apes.jpg and the TV spot for the 1974 Go Ape! release of all five films: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/GA.htm. So are you still contending that they are all wrong and that you alone are right?

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

As far as IMDb, they have a uniform policy regardless of whether a film is less than a week old like 'Rouge One' or 75 years old like 'Citizen Kane'. That is common for a big website and nothing unusual.

I know that but the point I was making is that there is a fair warning, especially since IMDb is not putting an arguable year limit for the spoilers. I don't understand why someone can't at least let someone know before spoiling.

Anyway with regards to all those spoilers above, just because they're doing it, it doesn't make it right (although in this case they're spoiling their own movie so that's up to them.)

As I said before there has never been a single movie that the majority of the world has seen so any spoilers that arise are being said by a minority of the population who are spoiling it for the majority. Also they're spoiling it for a younger generation who hasn't been around that long to see it. Who's to say 5 years is a suitable enough time to spoil, some may say 10, some may say 20. They're all arbitrary numbers. Some could even say it's okay to spoil blockbuster films but not indie's because they're harder to find.

To me, an advance warning seems most fair. You can still talk about it if you want and can give the person enough time to leave or not read.

At the end of the day, don't you think the makers of the TV show/movie reserve the right to not have their artform spoiled by a 3rd party?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

So in other words, you are right and everyone else is wrong and they should bow to you and never discuss the well known and iconic ending of a decades old movie classic. Childish!

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

Yeah, yeah, I get it. The movie's old, I'm being selfish and you use that as your "that's all I got argument", but you have yet to refute most of the points I brought up.

1. Why can't you at least give a fair warning before you spoil something?

2. If a movie is old, how is that the fault of someone who is of a younger generation who is too young to see it? By this logic, there is no old film from now until the end of time that is safe from spoiling.

3. What is the difference between "pop culture' spoiling a movie intentionally for the sake of a joke and me spoiling a movie intentionally to prove a point? They're both being spoiled intentionally to get something across. Both are wrong.

4. Don't you think the makers of a movie reserve the right to not have their art form spoiled? If not, why are you setting a time frame for what you think is sufficient spoiler time for their art?

5. How is the website you provided me "fact" that "everybody accepts it" when a) people disagree in the comments section below and b) there are many other sites themselves which could disagree? What makes that convention so "official"? So "universally accepted"?

6. Why is it okay to spoil an old movie when the majority of the World's population hasn't seen it as well? Isn't that the majority "catering to you", as you say?

7. You keep mentioning that the ending is "common knowledge" but how does that go against my point that everyone spoils it? It's actually proving my point that the ending is spoiled because it is common knowledge.

8. If you say I'm childish for asking for prior warning before a spoiler, why aren't you saying the same about IMDb's review policy? (Which again, doesn't throw on some arbitrary year limit for what you can and can't spoil. And let's not forget the spoiler tags on the message boards themselves)

9. You told me not to whine about this in public (including IMDb boards), and yet you have yet to tell me a platform for me to express my opinion. Which one suffices you?

10. Why does it matter that a film is old, when maybe the spoiler is for a film someone hasn't heard of or even has access to?

You have set a time frame for what you think is an appropriate time to spoil. You have made the conclusion that someone who doesn't watch a movie in your time frame is from "not taking the time". You have provided a link to a website for what you think should be used to conclude this argument. You have told me to let it go when I easily could've said the same thing to you. You have told me to not whine about it in public. All I've asked is to not spoil movies and yet all you have done is state your own opinions as fact while expecting me to accept it when you haven't answered my basic questions to refute your points.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

LOL!!! You're so ridiculous, as is your argument. Mature adults understand and accept that if a film is decades old, as well as an iconic classic, the whole world is not going to keep the ending secret; especially when four sequels and a TV series sprang from that very ending. Only spoiled children continue to whine about it after nearly two years. And the filmmakers spoiled the ending on the poster of the sequel: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Beneath.htmand here's The Simpsons spoiling the ending http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Simpsons.htm and Kevin Smith: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Jay&SilentBob.htm. But I guess they are all wrong and you alone are right. Childish!

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

LOL!!! You're so ridiculous, as is your argument.

Wow, three exclamation marks! I'm surprised you didn't put a "1" at the end of that. Which one of my many arguments that you have not refuted are you talking about? You also don't have the capacity to at least tell me why my argument is ridiculous.

the whole world is not going to keep the ending secret

See #6.

Mature adults understand and accept that if a film is decades old, as well as an iconic classic

Funny because in your original response you claimed "Any movie that has been out for over a year, let alone over 4 decades, you can't complain about learning the ending or other plot details." So it really has nothing to do with decades old, does it?

And the filmmakers spoiled the ending on the poster of the sequel:

I already acknowledged in this case it's okay since it was the filmmakers themselves.

Only spoiled children continue to whine about it after nearly two years.

Oh, now I see you're setting a time frame for what you think is an appropriate response time for one of my posts. Anyway, I responded to a poster. It not my fault they replied to me in that time. Your response was also two years after you originally responded to my OP. I can't respond after two years but you can? Got it!

But I guess they are all wrong and you alone are right.

Kevin Smith and The Simpsons classifies as "all"?

You can "LOL" all you want, but that just proves your lack of intelligence. I have went through your post and responded to everything you have said. These are fleshed out responses. I have actually used my cognitive functions. It may hurt you, but you should try it yourself. You don't have the acuity to actually make a marginal attempt to disprove anything I've said except with hearsay and calling me childish. Even after I called you out for not answering my rebuttals (I even numbered them to make it easier for you), you still have not answered them.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

LMAO!!!! Here are a few things you might want to put on your Christmas gift list: https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Vintage-Painting-Ending-Liberty/dp/B013PCNC9U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482500021&sr=8-1&keywords=planet+of+the+apes+statue+of+liberty, https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Statue-Liberty-Figurine-PLANET/dp/B00QPBUHI8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1482500021&sr=8-2&keywords=planet+of+the+apes+statue+of+liberty, https://www.amazon.com/Jonesseller-Womens-Cotton-Liberty-Running/dp/B01HZO88B6/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1482500021&sr=8-8&keywords=planet+of+the+apes+statue+of+liberty. Have a great holiday and a happy new year, hopefully you'll grow up in 2017.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

It's clear from your response that you have not answered the questions because you haven't read or understood anything I have written. I've responded to that multiple times. You use things like "LOL" and "LMAO" without any rebuttal, when those terms are childish themselves and you expect me to grow up. Hopefully in 2017 you'll learn how to do actual thinking.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

No I haven't responded to your attempts at diversion because your whole premise is ridiculous.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And you still haven't been able to elaborate on why it's ridiculous other than "you want the whole world to cater to me", which I have responded to many times. It's an easy thing to respond to valid arguments and just say "your argument is ridiculous. Grow up" without providing any valid arguments yourself to prove why it's ridiculous. Especially when you classify it as "diversion", as if I'm trying to trick you. I'm not sure why the question of "Why can't you let people know in advance before spoiling?" is a problem for you. They're called questions, not diversions.

The fact that you still keep sending me links to POTA related stuff just proves that you have not read my messages because I have said in this case it's okay since it's the filmmakers that spoiled it themselves.

I also find it funny how all of the so called "evidence" you have provided me is POTA related and when I click on your username, you only post on POTA threads. Seems to me you're unable to have an open mind.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

And they say Donald Trump is easy to bait with a tweet. LMAO!!!

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And yet you took the bait to my original message. I guess we're both childish. Welcome to the club.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Another 'I know you are but what am I' posts. Pathetic. Merry Christmas Pee-Wee!

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

Your inability to read is astounding.

What I wrote:

I guess we're both childish

Your response:

Another 'I know you are but what am I' posts.

Let me guess: "get over it". To which you will then respond to this.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

No your childish inability to realize that the whole doesn't have to bow to you and never discuss the iconic ending of a 50 year old classic is astounding.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

You call me childish, refuse to answer my basic questions and classify them as diversion.

Rinse/repeat.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

And yet you keep responding. LMAO!!!

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And so do you especially considering you keep telling me to "get over it". Funny how that works out.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Yeah, but I'm not the one childishly wanting the whole world to bow to me and never discuss an iconic ending of a classic film that 4 sequels & a TV series were built on and has been part of pop culture for nearly half a decade.

Look at the banner of the home page of the official POTA facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1511912952436951/. And here are some articles on the Statue of Liberty in movies: http://scribol.com/pop-culture/film/10-movies-in-which-the-statue-of-liberty-gets-owned/5/, http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-movies-that-feature-the-statue-of-liberty.php and https://www.babble.com/entertainment/lady-liberty-in-film-15-movies-with-the-statue-of-liberty/.

And to quote from these articles:

Arguably the most iconic Statue of Liberty moment in movie history

Arguably Liberty’s most famous movie appearance.

The final scene from the original Planet of the Apes was so shocking it instantly became a pop culture moment often referenced in films and TV.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

1. Telling me how iconic the ending is only further proves my point of how people spoil the ending.

Me: "People keep spoiling the ending to this movie".

You: "What are you talking about? People have been spoiling the ending for over 40 years."

Me: "Exactly."

2. For the fourth time, I already acknowledged that in this case is's okay since it's the people who are responsible for POTA spoiling their own movie. Other films don't do that.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

For the fourth time, I already acknowledged that in this case is's okay since it's the people who are responsible for POTA spoiling their own movie.

So you're admitting that your OP was ridiculous. Well I give your credit for showing some growth.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

Only for this movie, not for all.

Also, the fact that you just realized this now proves you are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

It only applies to POTA? So if George Lucas does an interview does an interview discussing Darth Vader being Luke's father, that doesn't apply? Orson Welles gave many interviews discussing the ending of Citizen Kane (here's one: http://www.wellesnet.com/orson-welles-explains-the-meaning-of-rosebud-in-citizen-kane/), that doesn't apply as well?

As far as your posts, I tune out after the first few lines. I have a limited tolerance for childish BS.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

As far as your posts, I tune out after the first few
lines. I have a limited tolerance for childish BS.

Then you can't complain about what I'm saying because you don't even know what it is I am saying. That explains you not being able to answer my questions.

Where's your growth since you speak so highly of it?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

I don't answer BS diversionary questions especially when they are based on a ridiculous premise that you admitted doesn't apply to this film.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

You admitted you don't read the whole post so how do you know the questions are diversion when you haven't read them? You criticize me for admitting something then criticize me when I don't. You're not even sure what your argument is.

By the way, I enjoy that you're responding to me frequently since the holidays started. Nice of 'Ma 'n 'Pa JamesA to allow their son to use their computer now that he's home from school. I kind of feel bad responding to you because I'm taking so much of your Christmas homework time up. Which pop-up book are you doing a book report on?

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Actually I complimented you for admitting growth. Too bad that you're too much of child to realize it.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

Your only argument: "you're childish"

Thank you. I've noted it.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Good then maybe you'll make an effort to grow up.

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

Good luck on that book report.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Thanks. You've been a great help with it. It's called "Spoiled brats who think the world should never discuss classic icon films that are decades old in case they haven't seen them yet: A study in abnormal psychology".

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

No it's actually called "I saw it and you and most of the World didn't and I'm going to spoil it for future generations who aren't even born yet".

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Great stuff, thanks! Happy New Year! 

[–] SamoanJoes 7 years ago

And a Happy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598822/reference to you!

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 7 years ago

SPOILER -

Not sure if this was mentioned, but on the cover of its later releases (VHS & DVD), it shows Heston kneeling before the Statue of Liberty.

If that isn't dumb . . . .

Typical hype-minded Distributers.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Not sure if this was mentioned, but on the cover of its later releases (VHS & DVD), it shows Heston kneeling before the Statue of Liberty.

It was. However later releases of the DVD and Blu-ray used different images: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/HVCovers.htm.

[–] roland-rockerfella 7 years ago

In my experience people who call others arrogant have more than a touch of arrogance themselves, either that or a giant chip on their shoulder.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Seems like both.