Instead of the present scientists being concerned about the destruction of the earth in 2,000 years, maybe they should question how the apes rose to begin with. How would aborting a chimp now help in 2000 years? Doesn't it makes more sense to look at your present and near future to prevent the apes from achieving dominance to begin with?
shareI was thinking the exact thing. Dr. Haslein didnt pay attention to the Cornelius's story about the dogs and cats dying and taking apes as pets. If you were to believe Cornelius, the baby ape had nothing to do with that. In fact, it appears to play out as the baby ape became a modifying influence on the rise of the apes that were independent of Cornelius and Zira's actions.
Ed Zactly! Thank you! I posited this question on Facebook and no one agreed with me. Still a good movie. My 2nd favorite of the originals
shareThanks. Fun movie. I always had a problem with Zira and Cornelius knowing the history of the human downfall and how they took apes as pets when in the first movie they thought humans couldn't talk and they tried cornelius for heresy for suggesting even something close to that idea. Did Zeus know more then he let on? Did he show them these sacred scrolls after taylor left?
I think so. Zira and Cornelius were scholars and "professionals" in the ape community. Zeus was somewhat sympathetic to them as well as witnessed in Beneath. They may indeed have been privy to the information in the scrolls or maybe the scrolls themselves. I know, I know, it's only a movie but I like analyzing stuff like this. Don't even get me started on Terminator! LOL
shareDid Zeus know more then he let on? Did he show them these sacred scrolls after taylor left?
If you were to believe Cornelius, the baby ape had nothing to do with that.
I think Hasslein was taking things one step at a time. First eliminate the possibility of an intelligent ape population, then deal with the story of how apes rose in the first place.
Had Hasslein survived, possibly he would've lobbied against the taking in of apes as pets/slaves following the dog and cat plague.
How would aborting a chimp now help in 2000 years? Doesn't it makes more sense to look at your present and near future to prevent the apes from achieving dominance to begin with?
Well Hasslein must have believed in the closed timelike curve where the zira and cornelius came back in time to effect their own future.
If he had believed that their were different pathways and time lines, he may have thought the fact they traveled back in time changed their future- which it did.
The problem I have with the zaius and allowing Cornelius see the sacred scrolls is
1) Zaius was pretty insistent that taylor was an anomaly and was worried about other anomalys. It seemed pretty clear that Zaius knew that man existed before ape and that they destroyed themselves but I dont think he knew it was earth and the very details of the apes taking over
2) Cornelius seemed to be very proud of the story as if it was part of his heritage. "But then, on an historic day, which is commemorated by my species and fully documented in the sacred scrolls, there came Aldo. He did not grunt. He articulated. He spoke a word which had been spoken to him time without number by humans. He said 'No.' So that's how it all started."
Where was this information in the first movie? They even tried him for Heresy for the very facts he claims everyone celebrates...
3)At the end of the planet of the apes, it looked cornelius and zira were in a lot of trouble. Werent they arrested again? Why the change of heart by Zaius?
Obviously there was no holiday celebrated by the apes in the first movie in regards to the apes having previously been slaves. Possibly there was in the beginning, but eventually the holiday was turned into a different meaning by the orangutans in an attempt to hide the fact that humans once ruled the Earth; by Cornelius' time they had succeeded.
As far as Cornelius and Zira's heresy trial - my theory is that Zaius had let them off the hook in return for them keeping the cave and Taylor's true origins a secret. When they proved their loyalty, Zaius rose the two of them into the upper echelon of their scientific community; allowing Cornelius access to the secret scrolls.
Well Hasslein must have believed in the closed timelike curve where the zira and cornelius came back in time to effect their own future.
If he had believed that their were different pathways and time lines, he may have thought the fact they traveled back in time changed their future- which it did.
The problem I have with the zaius and allowing Cornelius see the sacred scrolls is
1) Zaius was pretty insistent that taylor was an anomaly and was worried about other anomalys. It seemed pretty clear that Zaius knew that man existed before ape and that they destroyed themselves but I dont think he knew it was earth and the very details of the apes taking over
2) Cornelius seemed to be very proud of the story as if it was part of his heritage. "But then, on an historic day, which is commemorated by my species and fully documented in the sacred scrolls, there came Aldo. He did not grunt. He articulated. He spoke a word which had been spoken to him time without number by humans. He said 'No.' So that's how it all started."
Where was this information in the first movie? They even tried him for Heresy for the very facts he claims everyone celebrates...
3)At the end of the planet of the apes, it looked cornelius and zira were in a lot of trouble. Werent they arrested again? Why the change of heart by Zaius?
I think Dr. Hasslein was way ahead of his time. He was theorizing about Hollywood sequel timelines. These are very difficult to deal with. See "Star Trek" or the new "Terminator". (On second thought, don't see the new "Terminator")
It's hard to make perfect sense of things since the writers had no idea there would be a sequel, let alone four sequels!
If you look at the timeline from the bluray:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/planetoftheapes/images/4/43/Bluray_timeline.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110201231752
This shows the alternate timeline compared to the original... which is erased once Cornelius, Zira and Milo (oh, tragic Milo!) travel back in time.
Hasslein was simply assessing the threat posed by talking, intelligent apes and he saw the best course of action: kill them. He understood alternate timelines and all that and "better safe than sorry" I suppose.
I like to think Zaius knew about this past but that wouldn't make sense if the new timeline was created after the first movie. But who knows? Was it a Hasslein Curve? Some new time theory founded by the good doctor? Like Zaius knew they would go back in time and change things? He does seem to know that Taylor will find something riding down the beach. Does Zaius know it's Earth? He could have been keeping the secret of how the apes rose all along.
Hey look, it makes more sense than the Tim Burton "Apes" timeline. What a horror show that was.
It would seem that Zaius knew about the remains of Lady Liberty, and the way it was singed would make Taylor aware that man had destroyed his own world as opposed to a storm of meteors, as Taylor had conjectured.
shareNot sure that Zaius specifically knew about the Statue. Just that man had destroyed it's civilization by being too warlike.
share"Don't look for it, Taylor...you might not like what you find".
And "What will he find out there, Doctor?" - "His destiny".
Since Zaius knew Taylor planned on following the shoreline, that always told me that he knew what was out there as well as the significance of it.
Zaius probably knew there was evidence of the former human civilization in the Forbidden Zone (which was probably why it was forbidden) but not specifically the statue.
And why would Zaius thinkthat the statue would have an significance to Taylor. At that point Zaius thought Taylor was a mutant from a jungle beyond the Forbidden Zone or he believed Taylor's story that he was from another planet.
I've always believed Zaius knew about the ancient ruins, including the statue. The orangutans were the keepers of the terrible secrets and apes had to have stumbled across these things in the past. An ancient statue with a human face is something the apes would certainly want to keep out of sight, hence declaring the whole area forbidden.
The expedition Cornelius took part of when discovering the cave had exceeded the orangutan's permission; probably traveling farther than they wanted him to - another clue that they knew about the statue.
I've always believed Zaius knew about the ancient ruins, including the statue.
The orangutans were the keepers of the terrible secrets and apes had to have stumbled across these things in the past. An ancient statue with a human face is something the apes would certainly want to keep out of sight, hence declaring the whole area forbidden.
The expedition Cornelius took part of when discovering the cave had exceeded the orangutan's permission; probably traveling farther than they wanted him to - another clue that they knew about the statue.
This shows the alternate timeline compared to the original... which is erased once Cornelius, Zira and Milo (oh, tragic Milo!) travel back in time.
The whole thing has become a very logical development in the form of a circle. I have a complete chronology of the time circle mapped out, and when I start a new script, I check every supposition I make against the chart to see if it is correct to use it...While I was out there [in California], Arthur Jacobs said he thought this would be the last so I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of Apes One, so that the wheel had come full circle and one could stop there quite happily, I think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes#Continuity
Hasslein was simply assessing the threat posed by talking, intelligent apes and he saw the best course of action: kill them. He understood alternate timelines and all that and "better safe than sorry" I suppose.
I like to think Zaius knew about this past but that wouldn't make sense if the new timeline was created after the first movie. But who knows? Was it a Hasslein Curve? Some new time theory founded by the good doctor? Like Zaius knew they would go back in time and change things? He does seem to know that Taylor will find something riding down the beach. Does Zaius know it's Earth? He could have been keeping the secret of how the apes rose all along.
The only problem with the "full circle" theory is that it doesn't explain what happened after "Battle". Humans could still talk and they were friends with the apes. We see human and ape children learning together.
Sometime after that humans lost the power of speech and became like cavemen again when Taylor and crew arrive? And all of that history is no longer taught to the apes and humans?
I know it doesn't have to be a happy ending after the last movie but it's not a perfect circle. Plus the bluray timeline is from 20th Century Fox. It says "alternate" timeline. It's amazing that it fits together as closely as it does considering.
The only problem with the "full circle" theory is that it doesn't explain what happened after "Battle". Humans could still talk and they were friends with the apes. We see human and ape children learning together.
Sometime after that humans lost the power of speech and became like cavemen again when Taylor and crew arrive? And all of that history is no longer taught to the apes and humans?
I know it doesn't have to be a happy ending after the last movie but it's not a perfect circle.
Plus the bluray timeline is from 20th Century Fox. It says "alternate" timeline.
It's amazing that it fits together as closely as it does considering.
Sometime after that humans lost the power of speech and became like cavemen again when Taylor and crew arrive? And all of that history is no longer taught to the apes and humans?
Yup.
Nope. That is total speculation on your part.
It is easily can be interpreted that Caesars influence on the apes and interruption of the original history i.e. Aldo saying no to a human changed the course of history. Clearly the lawgiver's teachings were different from the original sacred scrolls
"Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death. "
vs.
"In the beginning, God created beast and man, so that both might live in friendship and share dominion over a world at peace"
And I think most movie viewers don't give a damn what the screenwriter intends. Movies are meant for personalized interpretations.
Like, for instance, arguing commemorating is different from celebrating when the point was that the claim that every ape was aware of their origin story with humans when an earlier movie clearly demonstrated they did not.
No it is based on dialogue in the films and by the statements of the screenwriter.
You're the one who is speculating now. There is no evidence that there was an "original history". Can you quote a single line of dialogue that directly states that in the films? Can you quote a single line that directly states that C&Z created a new timeline? As far as the Aldo saying no to a human, that was never seen on screen by the audience. It is hearsay and about as reliable as Obi-wan saying that Vader murdered Luke's father.
You conveniently left out the next part of that quote: "But in the fullness of time, evil men betrayed God's trust and, in disobedience to His holy word, waged bloody wars...not only against their own kind, but against the apes, whom they reduced to slavery."
Commemorating is different from celebrating whether you admit it or not. And the point is your speculation (or interpretation) of a scene that is vague and ignores the earlier dialogue from Cornelius, "As an archaeologist, I had access to history scrolls which were kept secret from the masses", because it doesn't fit your interpretation.
What dialogue suggests that it is a closed loop?
From Virgil
"You remember the old motorways?
I believe that Time is like an endless motorway with an infinite number of lanes - all leading from the past into the future . But not into the same future . A driver
in Lane A may crash, while a driver in Lane B survives. It follows that a driver , by changing lanes , c an change his future . If you leave this room now , you may be shot dead. If you leave it a minute later , you may survive. It's a blind choice , but you can change lanes."
From Hasslein
He explains to a television news presenter his theories of time, and his belief that changing the future may be possible. He analogizes time to be a highway with an infinite number of lanes, all going from the past to the future; by changing lanes, one can change destiny.
"But suppose you decide to walk out of the building at 8:16. By your
action, you 'jump' like a phonograph needle from Groove 'A' to Groove 'B'.
The bus has already passed. And you will be alive.
Every single one of your actions creates a minor disturbance in the
time-continuum, which enables you to alter your future and that of others.
There are, or course, bigger actions which create wider disturbances like an assassination, for example, or a war.
Mr. Cronkite, I do not find it hard to believe that, in the dark and
turbulent corridors of Outer Space, the impact of some distant planetary
or even galactic disaster jumped the Apes from their present into ours."
No one needs a line a dialogue saying, gee whiz this is altered timeline. It obvious from the circumstances. I do not see the actual snow falling in order to know snow fell last night if my front yard was clear the night before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Planet_of_the_Apes
The theory, known as "many-worlds interpretation," was first advanced in 1957 as "relative state formation" by Hugh Everett, and was popularised in the 1960s and 70s by Bryce Seligman DeWitt who applied its lasting name. Hasslein mentions neither real-life scientist in the film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universe
So you believe even though each of those characters suggest it is possible that alternate timelines exist and time can be changed in two different movies written by screenwriters, they were just wrong and leading the audience astray.
To suggest this is a closed timeline, you would then have to explain that somehow the lawgiver and Caesar were forgotten in the next thousand years and that Aldo who was killed and his reputation ruined by him killing another ape was revived.
And you have to believe that some other event (not seen in any of the movies) happened to cause a direct rip between human and apes and also forced the humans to devolve to the point they cannot speak. There is zero evidence of this.
In order for you have to believe your theory - you have to believe the sacred scrolls are not true
- although we really see Aldo and he is militant and a general and hates humans and wants to corral humans - just like how humans were the first film. It is pretty clear that without Caesar -Aldo would have followed the same vein as the first movie.
But it can't be the same Aldo. The Aldo C&Z spoke about would have lived in the 26th century, not 500 years earlier.
[quote]In Conquest there is an Aldo - his role is clearly changed once Caesar arrives.
Not left out - not necessary.
The point is that in the original time line - they believed humans were less than the apes - not equal to them. As the earlier statement says about the harbinger of death. No way the sacred scroll have both passages. Humans are the harbinger of death and they were created to be equal to apes. Thus - two different timelines with two different attitudes and two different scrolls.
As far interpretations, your trying to defend a position that was cobbled together by different screenwriters over 5 years.
Movies are made to be interpreted.
Granted this is not Stanley Kubrick - but movies take on meanings over the decades due to a number of factors only one of which is the intentions of the author.
I dont ignore it. It is not relevant.
From Escape:
Milo: And Earth will be destroyed, just as we saw it.
Chairman of the President's Committee of Inquiry: Nonetheless, the Commission is sympathetic to Dr. Hasslein's conviction that the progeny of these apes, could, in centuries to come, prove an increasing threat to the human race and conceivably end by dominating it.
From Battle:
Lawgiver: Then God, in His wrath, sent the world a savior, miraculously born of two apes who had descended on Earth from Earth's own future.
Caesar: I went looking for my past and I found our future.
Lisa: I'm not going to tell Caesar. He still thinks he can change the future.
Neither of which directly states that C&Z created an alternate timeline, just that it is possible to change the future. And both assume that history is already on course to Planet and Beneath and needs to be changed
They did in the Star Trek reboot movie. There is a whole scene discussing it. That's what filmmakers do. If something is a part of the story, they include it in the dialogue. As far as what is evident, I'll quote from the POTA wiki on the subject:
In both cases the characters believe that C&Z started a series of events that will lead to the future seen in Planet & Beneath.
The Lawgiver was not forgotten. And it is 2 thousand years. Plenty of time for historical records to be misinterpreted and distorted.
What is shown in Planet and Beneath are the evidence.
In Planet it was shown the scrolls were as Zira put it, 'not worth their parchment'.
No movies are meant to tell a story.
LMAO - this is your proof? A quote about what they saw, a statement from the chairman who "could" dominate the earth, metaphysical ramblings from C and his wife is your proof?
Arguing positions such as - Its a different Aldo? How could it be a different Aldo? This is when Humans took Apes as pets. This is when they rebelled. Ridiculous.
As opposed to the two intellectuals (Hasslein and Virgil) who knew more about time than every other character who clearly believe that the past could be changed.
Yes. And yes since they say it can be changed, it stands to reason, changes such someone going back to the future, or killing an ape that wants to kill humans changed time.
You actually want a statement that says - "We are in alternate timeline now!" Movies don't have to spoon feed viewers.
Star Trek needed to explain the reboot and tons of canon. JJ Abrams is not he most subtle director or strong on plot. Lots of movies don't explain every aspect and let the viewer interpret or figure it out.
No. actually not. I guess its pointless to debate with you because you just ignore the actual dialogue. "an infinite number of lanes - all leading from the past into the future . But not into the same future . A driver
in Lane A may crash, while a driver in Lane B survives. It follows that a driver , by changing lanes , can change his future .
Different future. Different future. So I guess they are complete fools. In the movie, there is no reference to predestination or inability to change their fate despite whatever action we take.
-Total speculation on your part
Not at all. Those movies show no explanation as to the devolution of the human beings and their subsequent treatment. If anything, it is suggested that human beings destroyed themselves in a nuclear war in the 20th century and Apes rose afterward.
yes. In reference to biblical aspects where it does not acknowledge any scientific validity. this is completely different where Cornelius is referencing actual events.
Your mixing and matching quotes to defend your argument.
Seriously? You might want to ask every film school in the world where they offer courses in movie analysis and interpretation.
I think all this arguing back and forth is missing one important point:
Where do Virdon and Burke fit into all of this?
Where do Virdon and Burke fit into all of this?
And ask yourself this, Cornelius said that it took two centuries to go from pets to slaves. So how come it Conquest it only took 8 years? It couldn't have been the influence of Caesar since he was off with Armando in the circus.
Again all they say that it is possible to change the future. It is never said that they succeeded in doing so. Nor do they ever say that C&Z changed the past.
Exactly. And what is shown in those two films are inconsistent with the history told by C&Z in Escape but totally consistent with how events played out in Conquest and Battle.
One - I would think the movie makers wanted to Caesar to return with Armando and they could not do that without a shorter period of time. Just a guess. Escape was kind of a cliffhanger as well it makes a good movie to see a revolution.
Secondly - Does this not support the theory that time table of events were changed by C and Z by going back in time? To me, it appears that a plague of dogs and cats occurred years later which resulted in apes as pets.
Here - C and Z brought it with them now so the events are sped up.
The ending tends to imply it.
Yes I know about the tear.
The ending is a bit like the terminator movies and TV shows where there are changes to the timeline where they are able delay judgment day but they really cant stop it.
The movie could have easily forwarded the future where we can see clear indications that the Humans would be subjugated and devolve and it all repeats itself. It did not.
I would not say completely inconsistent. There was a plague of dogs and cats; apes were taken as pets; they were slaves; they did rebel.
There are two many holes to view it as a closed loop.
It does not imply that C&Z created a new timeline.
The timeframe was inconsistent with what was established in the first two films so it can't be 100% trusted.
If you remove the tear, your argument fails.
The last scene indicates that humans and apes were working together and treating each other well. You have to base your theory on a screenwriter comment in order to get the meaning which is ridiculous for a movie viewer. I mean think of it...A person comes out of the theatre and says oh, the ending indicates the apes and human were friends but the statue might imply some foreboding ahead. And here comes you where you say, no,no,no...What caesar did was meaningless and there is a whole bunch of stuff that comes afterward that you don't see that undue everything you saw in the last film. Nevermind all that jazz they talked about changing the future in the two films...Its actually the opposite. It all happened the exact same way and will be an infinite causal loop. Was there a movie during that period of time that even took that theory and used it...I know Heinlein was out there with some of this stuff.
Yes the timeframe. Not to the events. The events are consistent. If you heard abraham lincoln was killed in fords theatre by john wilkes booth and then watch that happen and the only thing that was incorrect was the year - you would not discount it. You say record keeping for dates were unreliable but events were reliable
Your theory reduces these movies to mere footnotes to Human Ape history that would be swept aside to the real events according to you - the real subjugation of humans and their devolution in a 1000 years to come.
I am sure you have sent this link before but despite your attempt to make me believe it is clear that it is a circular timeline - it appears there is a great divide on this. I have inadvertently walked into this argument own my own and my friends opinions independent other peoples opinion. Other screenwriters (which i cannot say that I was aware of because i have not devoted that much time to know this stuff) seem to believe in the 2 linear timelines. [This] difference," they state, "is due to alterations of that historical track which we have seen worked out in previous films...these changes in ape history are due primarily to the influence of Caesar on apes and humans."
Similarly, in interviews conducted for the End of an Epic: The Final Battle documentary featurette (found on the 2008 Battle for the Planet of the Apes Blu-Ray edition), several commentators (including co-screenwriter Joyce Hooper Corrington) stated that the main thrust of the film's plot was that it was possible to alter the timeline and create a more hopeful future through Caesar's actions in Battle. However, though Paul Dehn's closing shot of a statue of Caesar shedding a tear has been interpreted by some fans as a tear of joy at the good-natured human/ape integration that his legacy has brought about, Dehn himself stated that it was to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts would ultimately fail,[3] an idea strongly disapproved of by the Corringtons.
I would suggest holding your dogmatic belief based on a single screenwriter's opinion vs. several others that have concluded differently is completely intolerant.
That's like saying "if you remove the fossil record, the theory of evolution fails". The thing is you can't just remove one piece that doesn't fit with your pet theory. You have to look at the whole.
And what does any of that have to do with proving that C&Z created a new timeline by traveling to the past? I'm not sure if you are genuinely confused and conflating the two issues or if you're just trying to change the argument because you can't prove that they did.
So then you admit that the history Cornelius related is not 100% accurate. Thus that history cannot be used at proof that C&Z created an altered timeline.
This "main premise" of the Corringtons' story only makes sense if Caesar's revolution on its own will still ultimately lead to the events of Planet and Beneath, or else Caesar is completely mistaken in deciding he must take action to alter a course of history that has already been negated, in which case the film is dramatically pointless.
The answer to number 1 is no. There is no evidence of that. There is not one line of dialogue that directly supports that theory. Furthermore if it were not no, it would make question 2 totally irrelevant
No. It shows the shallowness of your argument. Your theory is predicated on a single moment of debateable meaning. You havent looked at it as a whole. The overall theme of the movie was to effort to change the past.
The point is the movie has a a meaningless narrative structure. Its a pointless exercise and what they displayed is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome.
Not at all. As I said before - the dates may be inaccurate but not the facts.
The characters in the movie are not all knowing. There is no way Caesar can know whether it will work or not. the movie goers don't know either and they are probably the only persons that have any sense of whether these actions will change the future. This is incorrect.
Yes, Caesar's actions might have altered the time line which may or may not result in Planet and Beneath...but the mere fact he began the revolution does not negate any other possibilities.
This is not back to the future. there is no doc brown. sorry. And the closest we have to him who suggests there are alternative histories is Hasslein who suggests that there different timelines - you completely ignore.
No the theme of the movie is an effort to change the future. And it is not just a single moment it is part of a greater whole. It is just another brick in a wall that includes what was established in Planet & Beneath, several lines of dialogue across the films and the comments of the writer about his story. You just want to exclude it because it doesn't fit with your personal theory
So if the dates are inaccurate then the scrolls are not proof that there was an original history that was altered by C&Z.
No Hasslein suggests that it is possible to change the future. He never says that the past was changed by C&Z. In fact his whole motivation is that he believes C&Z's arrival will result in the future that they came from and he tries to prevent it. But in the end his efforts fail.
Additionally - if you put some much stock in the screenwriter then why did they write the Cornelius and Zira lines about the origins of the rise of apes? If they are all wrong, what was the purpose of it? This was an opportunity to confirm your theory of a perfect circle by providing dialogue that supports that position and they did not. They could have said the scrolls talk off a Caesar who led a revolution etc... The writer did not.
Further, they follow the description in the next movie to a tee...plague on dogs and cats, apes as pets, turned into slaves, Aldo being a revolutionary....Pretty strange for a fact that never happened.
Also, Zira believed them too. Does she state there were Cat and Dog bonfires? She clearly believes them. She could have said, the scrolls say that there were cat and dog bonfires but she does not.
Your argument is predicated on the fact that dialogue is completely fictitious even though we witness the very events take place in the next movie. And your only position is that because the dates were wrong - they must be wrong. Instead of the logical assumption they sped the dates up because the movie wanted the same actors and characters in the next film. they well couldnt put caesar or mcdonald in a movie two hundred years later.
You can say what you want but there are no lines of dialogue nor could there be to prove a singular time line. It would be impossible because the characters do not possess the requisite knowledge to know the whole history.
And by your belief - the theme of the movie is pointless and futile. It cant be changed because it is a circle. So basically in the last three movies we see everyone chasing their tales. real compelling.
Again - you do not discount a historical piece of evidence because the dates are wrong. You verify the facts. the facts happened. As the wiki stated, it can be easily be read as inaccurate scribe as to chronology. For all we know, they were using a different calendar system.
Your talking in circles. Hasslein says it possible to change the future. He either believed the C and Z changed the timelines for the Humans course of history and his attempts are to correct it or that it is unfolding as it was and he is making changes to make it. Either way - he believes that it can be changed by events. Events that are Caesars removal of Aldo power and his revolution.
I think pretty much all of this discussion about the screenwriter and certain dialogue is null and void. Anything written for the sequels was done to set up this other timeline and make everything "fit" as best they could.
Using 'Conquest' or 'Escape' to reference the Sacred Scrolls or what happened to Cornelius and Zira's heresy trial is all made up after the fact. Like all of a sudden there being an Isla Sorna just so there could be a Jurassic Park sequel. It's not proof of any timeline one way or the other. Not canon. It's retconning.
There's no dialogue in the original to dispute this (I don't think): mankind wiped itself out with nuclear weapons. There was no war with the apes, they rose up to fill the void. That's also what sends man back to his caveman like state. (Something missing after 'Battle' and still needing a better explanation than, "yup".)
All of the talk about an astronaut bringing a plague back, wiping out dogs and cats, apes as pets, etc is all created to make sequels.
I agree there may be an argument for a circular timeline... IF you leave out the original movie. Parts 2 through 5 could fit together since there was a master plan for those movies. That's a big IF. And why leave out the original movie? That's the best one!
I appreciate the effort by Dehn and others but this is why time travel stories are so problematic.
I think pretty much all of this discussion about the screenwriter and certain dialogue is null and void. Anything written for the sequels was done to set up this other timeline and make everything "fit" as best they could.
There's no dialogue in the original to dispute this (I don't think): mankind wiped itself out with nuclear weapons. There was no war with the apes, they rose up to fill the void. That's also what sends man back to his caveman like state. (Something missing after 'Battle' and still needing a better explanation than, "yup".)
I agree there may be an argument for a circular timeline... IF you leave out the original movie. Parts 2 through 5 could fit together since there was a master plan for those movies. That's a big IF. And why leave out the original movie? That's the best one!
I appreciate the effort by Dehn and others but this is why time travel stories are so problematic.
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what the screenwriter said since he was talking about the sequels... written after the fact. You like to quote back what other people write, you should try reading more closely.
You act as if I'm personally attacking you and your theory. I even said it's possible that it IS a time circle. But if it is that's pure supposition and filling in details that aren't there. Sure you can think of your own back story as to how the world ended for the first movie but that is your own back story. It doesn't make it true.
Unless Paul Dehn says it is. Because whatever he says must be true and must make sense.
Silly details are annoying aren't they? Those pesky details. And here I am thinking details are actually important. Just pay attention to the ones that prove your point and call all the other ones "silly".
Yup.
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what the screenwriter said since he was talking about the sequels... written after the fact. You like to quote back what other people write, you should try reading more closely.
You act as if I'm personally attacking you and your theory.
I even said it's possible that it IS a time circle. But if it is that's pure supposition and filling in details that aren't there. Sure you can think of your own back story as to how the world ended for the first movie but that is your own back story. It doesn't make it true.
Silly details are annoying aren't they? Those pesky details. And here I am thinking details are actually important. Just pay attention to the ones that prove your point and call all the other ones "silly".
It is supposition. You're using arguments from the sequels and a completely different screenwriter to fill in the history of the first movie. Did Rod Serling and Michael Wilson say a plague wiped out cats and dogs, etc? You're so big on the intent of the screenwriter being gospel.
I don't know if anyone posted this already or not:
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_vs_Linear_Timelines
but it just muddies the water even more! My head hurts.
Some believe circular, some alternate. The screenwriters of "Battle" were going for an alternate timeline so if we go by Dehn's stated intent why not by the Corrington's when they wrote their story?
My wife can't believe I'm still arguing about this. As far as I'm concerned this is all midichlorianized. Coming up with an explanation after the fact to explain things in a previous movie that no one thought would need to be explained. ie "Maybe C and Z were the aforementioned astronauts that brought the virus with them?!" But there was no mention of a virus in the first movie!
Dehn did a good job but screenplays are so fluid and changing the vision doesn't always come through. Limitations and demands are put on them. Heston wanted to blow up the world, not the writer. Milo was killed off because Sal Mineo hated the makeup. The ending of "Conquest" had Cornelius calling for human extermination but audiences balked. Who can say that there was an unfiltered intent realized by the screenwriter?
I feel this discussion is a causal loop. I'll stick to "Back to the Future".
It is supposition. You're using arguments from the sequels and a completely different screenwriter to fill in the history of the first movie. Did Rod Serling and Michael Wilson say a plague wiped out cats and dogs, etc? You're so big on the intent of the screenwriter being gospel.
I don't know if anyone posted this already or not:
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_vs_Linear_Timelines
but it just muddies the water even more! My head hurts.
Some believe circular, some alternate. The screenwriters of "Battle" were going for an alternate timeline so if we go by Dehn's stated intent why not by the Corrington's when they wrote their story?
My wife can't believe I'm still arguing about this. As far as I'm concerned this is all midichlorianized. Coming up with an explanation after the fact to explain things in a previous movie that no one thought would need to be explained. ie "Maybe C and Z were the aforementioned astronauts that brought the virus with them?!" But there was no mention of a virus in the first movie!
Dehn did a good job but screenplays are so fluid and changing the vision doesn't always come through. Limitations and demands are put on them. Heston wanted to blow up the world, not the writer. Milo was killed off because Sal Mineo hated the makeup. The ending of "Conquest" had Cornelius calling for human extermination but audiences balked. Who can say that there was an unfiltered intent realized by the screenwriter?
Just an aside - an astronaut could've brought the virus to Earth originally - but maybe Cornelius and Zira beat them to it - they could've been immune carriers of the plague passed down from generation to generation.
shareJust an aside - an astronaut could've brought the virus to Earth originally - but maybe Cornelius and Zira beat them to it - they could've been immune carriers of the plague passed down from generation to generation.
The original movie might not mention the downfall of man, but it does say that Zaius is keeper of the terrible secret. The secret that man was once the dominant species. It is fair to 'theorize' that Zaius possibly knew the circumstances behind that downfall. Now seeing as a sequel was asked for, and then further sequels beyond that is it not fair for the screenwriter to flesh that out?
The greatest trick the Devil played was convincing people he didn't exist.....