MovieChat Forums > Planet of the Apes (1968) Discussion > How did New York become a desert?

How did New York become a desert?


What the subject says. I can see the landscape changing over the course of a few hundred thousand years, but in only 2,000 years? What happened to change the landscape so fast?

reply

Taylor guessed a storm of meteors.
The desert was there on Battle. I think the implication is that the nukes caused it.

reply

Yeah, that part got to me. Geologically, a region looks roughly the same in 3,000 years really. Even the climate is not that different.

If anything, New York, due to its easterly location, will be more subtropical and wet in the future, rather than dry. It will look more like Miami than Phoenix.

Life is like a beautiful melody, only the lyrics are messed up.

reply

Also global warming?

reply

Hello? Nuclear warfare.

reply

Well, obviously...
I would suggest maybe Taylor was partly right and an asteroid (or parts thereof) could've contributed, but the landscape was already as it is on Battle, which was fairly early in the 21st century.

reply

Forget the APES sequels. They're all dated 1970's "B" movies. The sequel filmmakers just went with the idea that it was a nuclear holocaust that changed the topography and climate, but that idea is now very quaint and dated. Nuclear war alone wouldn't do it. The great thing about the original movie, which wasn't made with any thought of there being a sequel, was that it's ambiguous about how anything in the film came to be. It left it up to your imagination. Taylor at the end just assumes it was man that "blew it up," but how could he know for sure? I go with the "storm of meteors" theory that Taylor mentions near the end. Also, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid? If so, that would devastate the surface of the earth with a meteor storm of debris, though that would most probably leave little life left. More than a little suspension of disbelief is required, but then so is all the stuff about fast evolving apes.

reply

Forget the APES sequels.


No thanks. I enjoy them, and they're not dated because I consider the last three as occurring in an alternate 20th -early 21st Century. Since they won't be the same ones we experienced, they don't date.

The sequel filmmakers just went with the idea that it was a nuclear holocaust that changed the topography and climate, but that idea is now very quaint and dated. Nuclear war alone wouldn't do it.


The sequels did not just talk of a nuclear war alone doing it; it went on to explain the plague and the apes being pets when the dogs and cats died off...


reply

Also from time to time the Earth 's techtonic plates violently get re-arranged. That would account for drastic change in topography (statue of liberty sitting next to a cliff) and possibly the climate.

reply

Also, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid?
Impossible. Likely there's "no moon" because it's in the New Moon phase(as in, it's on the other side of the planet during the night).

Quien es mas macho?

Benedict Cumberbatch

O

Ricardo Montalban


reply

The astronauts mentioned a strange "luminosity", yet no moon. So possibly something had happened to the moon.
And a "new moon" doesn't mean it's on the other side of the planet - it's simply the opposite of a full moon; during a full moon, from our view, the entire surface is lit up by the sun, but during a new moon, the side facing away from us (the so-called dark side) is fully lit by the sun.

reply

That's not what makes the New Moon phase. It's simply the opposite of the Full Moon. New Moon is when the far side is completely lit and thus the near side is the current dark side.

reply

haristas writes: "Taylor at the end just assumes it was man that "blew it up," but how could he know for sure?"

First, Taylor has a low opinion of human nature, base upon contemporary human civilization, specifically the Vietnam War which was in full swing when this film was made; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the Cold War (Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis). This point is figurative.

Second, the ape scriptures tells us how violent man is. Zaius tells us that people made a desert of the Forbidden Zone. This is why Zaius dreaded the appearance of Taylor so much -- humankind = killers. This point is literal.

No meteors!


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

My contention is simply that an all out nuclear holocaust -- and what I mean is if every ballistic nuclear missile was fired and exploded all over the world -- would not be enough to change the climate and topography of the North American continent in a mere two thousand years as seen in the original 1968 film. The destruction of the moon by an asteroid strike and a resulting meteor bombardment of the world's surface would more probably do it, but I doubt much higher life forms, such as apes, humans and horses, would survive such a catastrophe. Plant and ocean life would be pretty stressed too! On the other hand, a nuclear holocaust that leaves apes, humans and horses (and other life forms) still alive, but changes the northeast of the US into the southwestern US desert, is rather hard to believe too. As a kid back in the sixties, I was able to suspend my disbelief, but now as a fifty-five year old, it's a bit of a strain. The filmmakers of these new movies should try to come up with a more plausible scenario. I wonder if they will?

reply

Are you kidding?

Even a volcano erupting on the other side of the world can have noticeable affects on climate. I dont know how you can come to the conclusion that every nuke in the world wouldnt have that affect on the climate/topography. Its simply ludicrous.

reply

What's ludicrous is a nuclear holocaust creating the type of topography we see in the original movie where it's supposed to be the American northeast. It was shot in northern Arizona in the US southwest where the topography of that land took millions of years of erosion to create. PLANET OF THE APES is set a mere two thousand years in the future.

No, I'm not kidding. Get educated.

reply

haristas writes: "What's ludicrous is a nuclear holocaust creating the type of topography we see..."

You may be thinking too literally.

The point is humans destroyed their civilization and altered the environment.

It's not history -- it's a movie, a work of art.


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

Yes, I am thinking, literally. I wish more people would do the same.

reply


haristas writes: "Yes, I am thinking, literally."

Wait a minute!

I don't think that's a good idea. A film is a work of art, and art often has significance beyond the literal.

I hate to be obvious, but I guess this has to be said: the desert represents desolation. In the film, we find out that it represents the lost civilization beneath it. The exact scientific details don't matter as much as what the desert represents.


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

The destruction of the moon by an asteroid strike
The Moon could not be destroyed by an asteroid strike. The nuclear war makes as much sense as that.

Quien es mas macho?

Benedict Cumberbatch

O

Ricardo Montalban


reply

It was nuked by humans. This is why the forbidden zone was closed off to apes. The human overseers that lived underground still had old day weapons and no ape wanted part of it for the sake of their civilization. Like Zaus predicted, man is dangerous because of technology and in the end a human nuked the world yet again.

reply

The apes don't know about the mutants. The reason for the Forbidden Zone is to prevent any apes from discovering the ruins of NYC. If it were known that man once had their own civilization, it would invalidate what was written in the sacred scrolls.

reply

That's true. But the apes knew of the technology didn't they? Perhaps the first apes did. All this reminds me of Catholicism and the suppression of ancient astronaut theories and technology.

reply

Yes. The manipulation of public knowledge. Every government today practices it to a certain extent.

reply

>>>Also, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid?

"Space:1999"

reply

How old is the planet Earth? It can't be much more than 1000 years old. Columbus discovered America about 500 years ago

reply

You're kidding, right? 1,000 years old? Human beings are a lot older than 1,000 years old.

My real name is Jeff

reply

1000 years is a very long time. What human do you know thats older than 1000 years?

reply

Now I know that you are at least 9 years old!

reply

I'm older than that

reply

Are you sure that you didn't reach out of the womb to make that mill722002 account? Rumor is that your first words were: "Millsey want posty!"

reply

Damm, I forgot about that account

reply

It doesn't matter what we know NOW about how nuclear war would change the landscape or not change the landscape. In the movie, it is literally true that Taylor knew immediately when he saw what he saw at the end that humans had destroyed the landscape (and human civilization) through nuclear war. The Forbidden Zone was off limits primarily because it was radioactive, not to keep apes from discoving that humans had a more advanced civilization earlier. That's why the Zone covered a wide area - which the movie makes clear. It covered an area much larger than the area where the object Taylor saw at the end was located.

Dr. Zadius' statements to Taylor about what happened to humans in the past strongly suggest that the area bacame a desert through nuclear war - and/or other catastrophic events caused by humans that degraded the environment.

My real name is Jeff

reply

Your point well-taken, but as we saw on Beneath, the ruins of New York's skyscrapers peaked out of the desert.

reply

[deleted]

What the subject says. I can see the landscape changing over the course of a few hundred thousand years, but in only 2,000 years? What happened to change the landscape so fast?


Realistically, the issue is less that New York became a desert and more that Taylor comes across the Statue of Liberty's ruins in any event. The film is obviously shot in the American Southwest—no other landscape on earth features those exact types of rock formations, and they are iconographically identified with that region regardless. Thus they would have been nowhere near New York.

But there is no greater American icon than the Statue of Liberty, and the fatalism suggested by its fall is symbolically powerful. Therefore, what we have is a classic case of artistic imperatives trumping realism, in terms of locations as well as landscapes. Given that we are talking about a film featuring talking-and-walking apes, those artistic licenses are acceptable.

From the perspective of location and region, running into the ruins of the iconic "Hollywood" sign would have been a little more plausible, but that usage would have seemed more like an in-joke, and it would not have fit the film's serious-straight tone, sober mood, and sophisticated themes.

Realistically, how does an astronaut like Taylor prove to be a crack shot with a semiautomatic rifle, picking off a gorilla at far range and from a low, upward angle with barely any time to aim, just turning and firing accurately? That act also represents dramatic license, although one that constitutes a very commonplace movie convention (one that evidently informs pro-gun advocates who believe that if we were all carrying guns like in movies, we would instantly and cleanly kill any mass shooter that we come across, thus resolving the matter).

Even if Taylor possessed a military background and happened to be an elite marksman, he at least would have needed to duck down behind a ridge and spend several seconds aiming in order to nail that gorilla from such a long distance.

But it is a movie ...

reply

The film is obviously shot in the American Southwest—no other landscape on earth features those exact types of rock formations, and they are iconographically identified with that region regardless. Thus they would have been nowhere near New York.


Except the film takes place 2,000 years in the future after a nuclear war has destroyed most of the planet. Or did you miss that part?

reply

His entire post just flew right over your head, huh JamesA-1102?

reply

No the point of the movie flew right over his head.

reply

Uh, no. Joekiddlouischama seems to have a perfect grasp of it, actually.

reply

No he doesn't.

reply

What a compelling reply. That must have taken you a long time to come up with.

Bye.

reply

Probably about the same amount of time it took you to come up with yours.

DLTDHYITA

reply

I can fully suspend disbelief to accept that - in 2000 years time after a nuclear devastation - New York could turn into what it looked like in POTA (a Southwestern desert appearance). It does not matter how many "millions" of years it took to create the (real) landscape in the first place; what matters is what a nuclear war did for the purposes in the film. Maybe whatever super-bomb(s) was utilized had a result the likes of which present day science would not realize. It's a movie, and you have to go with it.

reply

Don't forget the possibility of earthquakes!
Who knows what damage hundreds of nukes going off would do to the planet. Certainly not those sci-fi writers back in the paranoid 60's where every day people expected the world to end at any moment.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

reply



reply

Certainly not those sci-fi writers back in the paranoid 60's where every day people expected the world to end at any moment.


I was not alive during the 1960s, but I do not believe that "every day people expected the world to end at any moment." There was a general fear of nuclear war (one that kept the US and USSR from ever engaging in a direct shooting war), and that nuclear anxiety naturally became acute during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. But outside of that two-week passage, most people were not looking at their watches every day wondering when the world would end.

That said, I do understand your point.

reply

I was not alive during the 1960s,


Well thank you for coming here and explaining to those of us that actually lived in the 60s what things were like back then.

reply

Except the film takes place 2,000 years in the future after a nuclear war has destroyed most of the planet. Or did you miss that part?


Yes, I know that film takes place two millenniums into the future. Planet of the Apes never explicitly states that a nuclear war took place, although one can certainly and reasonably make that inference. But a nuclear war would have destroyed the human race, not necessarily "most of the planet" itself. And even if nuclear bombs had turned the landscapes around New York into a desolate wasteland, that wasteland would not have reasonably resembled the majestic American Southwest, with its its beautiful, haunting, and idiosyncratic rock formations that developed over thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Instead, we would be talking a blackened, radioactive dystopia (or its aftermath), not an iconic landscape that looks like it came out of a John Ford Western. (Yes, I know that the filmmakers did not shoot Planet of the Apes in Ford's favorite locale, Monument Valley, but the rock formations are relatively similar and the basic region is the same.)

Obviously, Planet of the Apes 'fudges' the difference, and given that it is a science-fiction film about walking and talking apes, that 'fudging' is acceptable. In this context, iconic and iconographic values trump realism. But since realism was the subject of the thread, the idea that this landscape—which is icongraphically idiosyncratic and indelibly identifiable with the American Southwest—would be near New York is unrealistic, even preposterous. A nuclear holocaust may well have turned New York into a desert of sorts, but not this kind of desert—the kind, as I said, that is reminiscent of a classic Western.

Realistically, the astronauts in this scenario might have also wondered if they were not back on planet Earth very quickly. They would have recognized—especially given that they are Americans—that the landscapes, however eerie and almost moon-like in places, were reminiscent of their own country's Southwest. Taylor would have also thought that he might be back on planet Earth when he found the 'evolved' apes not just speaking, but speaking English, of all languages. What are the chances that in some faraway galaxy the inhabitants are speaking English? The fact that the atmosphere is full of oxygen and they could all breathe the air with no difficulty whatsoever would also have been a giveaway.

But all these dramatic licenses are acceptable because the genre is "science fiction," not "science" itself. The goal is just to use science extremely loosely and casually to create an entertaining commentary on human society. If one were to miss that motivation and aesthetic context and scrutinize Planet of the Apes more severely on a scientific basis, the film would fall apart constantly.

reply

You're sooo smart. Thank you for explaining to those of us who've enjoyed this film how stupid and foolish we are for doing so. As well as how careless the filmmakers were for not using CGI to create a realistic alien landscape when they made this film back in the '60s.

reply

When I first saw this movie, I thought at the beginning they landed back on Earth because of the reasons you state regarding apes speaking the language and an atmosphere full of oxygen. However after seeing the end, I was wondering how the apes stole the Statue of Liberty on Earth and put in on their beaches in this faraway land. Thankfully these chat boards helped me understand the finish better

reply

That's true. Planets operate in vast time cycles so even 2-3 thousand years would not change the terrain or climate that much. Some unnatural element must have contributed to the change like a nuke war or massive bombardment of meteors as Taylor surmised about.

reply

Maybe a close call with a comet, or simply global warming?

reply

Its a plot hole

reply

We worry about their habitat and we sa e them. I thi know we have to think about WHWT OTHET THINGSNSHOULD WE PAY ATRNEUON TO.

reply