Why do people hate the sequels? - Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Discussion

[–] ames0826 17 years ago

Becausr the sequels didn't involve Charlton Heston in a loincloth.

reply

From an artistic viewpoint, the story had been told in the first movie. Any furthur sequels would have been adventures among the apes.

That's why the sequels are not so well liked.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

The sequels are awesome, but they do have inconsistencies involving the time of World War 3 - "Beneath", "Conquest", and "Battle" having it occur in the 20th century while "Escape" recounts how it happened around 2500 (which would fit with the first movie, since the year was left ambiguous and the sacred scrolls were written around 2700). And it's focusing how jungle-born apes were able to speak (perfectly at that) a couple of decades later.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

"Escape" recounts how it happened around 2500 (which would fit with the first movie, since the year was left ambiguous and the sacred scrolls were written around 2700).

It does not fit the first film. In Planet, the artifacts that Cornelius found in the cave from human civilization are from 2,000 years earlier not from 1,500 year earlier.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arkayenether 10 years ago

Probably because the further you get into the series, the less things make sense, the more plot holes open up, the more paradoxes happen, and the lazier the writing gets. Don't get me wrong, I'm a gigantic fan of the series, but I'll be the first one to admit you've gotta turn your brain off a few times

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

To answer the OP question, I have no idea. I think this series was continually interesting and thought-provoking. Sure, sometimes there are continuity issues, but basically they're good entertainment.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

The only negative aspect is the studio cheaping out more and more with each sequel.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

The only negative aspect is the studio cheaping out more and more with each sequel.

I have never bought into the notion that the budgets affect the enjoyment, and I maintain that the sequels were fine. The sequels all have good stories and characters. Money would not have made any difference; look at today's 100 Million Dollar SFX Monsters that do not possess one tenth of the power of the APES sequels. Considering the following:

BENEATH -- looks more expensive than PLANET, with all the SFX.

ESCAPE -- this story did NOT require a ton of cash and effects; it's a wonderful and charming tale of visitors in a strange world. Only a couple of chimps necessary to the story. (ESCAPE is often considered the next best film after the original).

CONQUEST -- Century City always looked like a futuristic city to me. The story occurs in the Ape Management Complex, as the apes first stage their revolt.

BATTLE -- the story concerns a village of survivors trying to adapt in a deserted wasteland, and they wage a battle (not an all-out World War) with the surviving mutants.

I grew up loving the APES sequels, and I never even heard all the protests about the lower budgets until around 1998 when the BEHIND THE POTA documentary chronicled this declining monetary process, and ever since then people have always been commenting "too bad the budgets were not higher"! .

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

I have an interview with Kim Hunter in Starlog magazine and she told how they had to cut corners due to very limited shooting schedules with the sequels.
On Beneath the limitations are obvious with the pullover masks shown prominently in the bleachers.
On Battle, I did think it was odd how the underground ruins were all inside a building. MacDonald is trying to get his bearings and pointing around like he was on a street corner. They were actually inside a waterworks building. The above-ground section looked cool, but the interior resembled disused hallways.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I have an interview with Kim Hunter in Starlog magazine and she told how they had to cut corners due to very limited shooting schedules with the sequels.

Of course they did. I'm not denying they DID in fact have to cut the budgets. I'm saying the films don't SUFFER from them, did not require money to make them quality stories with good charcaters, and that I never even heard other fans going on and on about the budget cuts until the BEHIND THE POTA 1998 doc talked about it.

On Beneath the limitations are obvious with the pullover masks shown prominently in the bleachers.

This could have been avoided by better strategic filming, and not going out of the way in deliberately showing the masks in close-ups. For any full front views of the apes, those actors could and should have been wearing facial appliances. There are plenty of pullover masks also in the revered PLANET OF THE APES, but not as much attention is called to them in the filming technique.

But forgetting the pullover masks, BENEATH had the great mutant makeups, and the underground city, subway, bomb, and cathedral... plus all those confrontations with the mutants' images in the Forbidden Zone. I'm saying that BENEATH at least appears like they made it more elaborate, spent more on it, even though they did not.

On Battle, I did think it was odd how the underground ruins were all inside a building. MacDonald is trying to get his bearings and pointing around like he was on a street corner. They were actually inside a waterworks building. The above-ground section looked cool, but the interior resembled disused hallways.

But that's just my point -- what else WOULD they be living in, if this had been as actual real-life event? They would be taking refuge in some old building or underground sewage system, or wherever. I mean, what kind of mutant setting would you propose they should have lived in? Surely not a palace or some kind of castle!

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

You're absolutely right about the masks - there were plenty of pullovers used on the original movie, but they weren't prominently displayed.
As far as Battle, of course the survivors would take refuge inside structures, but what I was trying to point out was that the movie had such a small budget, they couldn't afford film sets for the underground ruins. The trio were supposed to be traveling down submerged streets similar to Beneath, but they were clearly inside a building. And the mutants' refuge didn't particularly look as though it had suffered through a nuclear holocaust. They weren't filmed in soundstages. They were in an actual building where all they could do was throw the furniture around. They didn't look like ruins.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

As far as Battle, of course the survivors would take refuge inside structures, but what I was trying to point out was that the movie had such a small budget, they couldn't afford film sets for the underground ruins. The trio were supposed to be traveling down submerged streets similar to Beneath, but they were clearly inside a building. And the mutants' refuge didn't particularly look as though it had suffered through a nuclear holocaust. They weren't filmed in soundstages. They were in an actual building where all they could do was throw the furniture around. They didn't look like ruins.

I always thought of it as some still-salvageable underground shelter or plant. I never thought of it as the city itself actually being underground, since there was so much city devastation shown above ground. There were some pretty good "melted effects" above when the trio were investigating, so they had money for that. I figured that MacDonald still could sense the general direction of where the Archives Section was, even underground.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

Yes, the section above looked great. But we have MacDonald gesturing around them "This is...was...Eleventh Avenue...". They were supposed to have been underground (they entered what was probably a subway entrance) outside the buildings. But they were all-too-obviously inside the building they had payed to film inside of, rather than constructing expensive sets as the devastated city streets.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I just never saw it that way, which is why I guess it always worked for me and I never looked back. As far as I'm concerned, they're underground all right, but it's not the actual streets. I'm familiar with all of MacDonald's lines ("corner of Brent and Ackerman") but it's always read to me as though they are underneath the streets which once were above. Like they're sort of walking in the sewage system or something.

But still, even looking at it from your perspective -- do you think people would have liked this movie any better, had these sets looked more like the underground of BENEATH? I don't think this was much of a factor at all. In the end, a good script and solid defined characters trumps special effects every time. That's why the APES sequels are so memorable and re-viewable, while today's multi-million dollar CGI blockbusters are forgettable.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

Don't get me wrong - it'll always be my favorite movie series. It's just a shame the studio cheaped out on the sequels. Actually, I always thought Conquest should've been the last movie and Battle (the setting and the characters - as well as the actors) would've been perfect as the TV series.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I still don't see how "cheapness" supposedly affects the quality or enjoyment of the sequels.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

Well, it didn't affect anything when I was a kid - I'm just fan-fictionalizing.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 10 years ago

I still don't see how "cheapness" supposedly affects the quality or enjoyment of the sequels.

Because it looks shoddy and gives the appearance that the ones making the thing, at least on the budgetary level, didn't really care. Now, that's not to say that because it might look cheap that one can't enjoy something or find something profound, for one must look beyond appearances and make allowances, but when one sees how the Apes franchise was treated, it sticks out like a sore thumb at times.

Now, personally, I let it go to some extent and enjoy the real meat and vegetables of the story, but occasionally one finds a bit of gristle in the meat, and the vegetables a bit overdone, which can jar one's palate. I mean, I can pretend that what I'm eating is well prepared food, but my tongue can occasionally send messages that I'm deceiving myself.

Still, I way prefer the lack of gloss and the cheap effects over something that has all the gloss and expensive effects but has nothing to say, no endearing or interesting characters, just all flash and little else. I mean, the cheap effects can be taken with a dose of suspension of disbelief and overcome to some extent, but a bad story is still bad no matter what money you throw at it.

Still, let's not pretend that the films would have at least looked better if more money had been allowed for things like the masks (despite editing and directing oversights). The original idea of Planet was to set it like the book, with a modern look. But due to budgetary constraints, they totally shelved that idea. Now, they may well have done great with that change, for Planet still tells the essence of the story in the novel even if different, but budgetary decisions impacted on the story to tell. I'm glad that they managed to succeed, but money did make narrative changes. I suppose the lack of money can force one to try harder on the story front, which undoubtedly happened with Apes (inconsistencies aside).

BTW, just to make it clear, I enjoy and appreciate all the Apes films, no matter how "shoddy" some can look at times. As you have pointed out, the stories are well told and the characters are interesting and endearing, and they have a real point to make. Still, that doesn't mean that I don't feel that they could have been treated better.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

Because it looks shoddy and gives the appearance that the ones making the thing, at least on the budgetary level, didn't really care.

Sorry, I just don't see that at all - and I've seen these films for what seems like a hundred times. At the very most I would say that the sequels do not look any more shoddy than the original PLANET did. There were plenty of apes in pullover masks even in PLANET, and there wasn't all that much in terms of extensive sets, either. But because it was the original, I think we give it more of a free pass.
(Yes, it's true that the camera focused too often on pullover masks in some close shots from BENEATH, but this to me is more a flaw in the shooting, not the budget).

Do you feel that BENEATH - with the Forbidden Zone effects, underground city, mutant makeups, General Ursus Helmet, etc.. really looks "less expensive than PLANET"?

Now, that's not to say that because it might look cheap that one can't enjoy something or find something profound, for one must look beyond appearances and make allowances, but when one sees how the Apes franchise was treated, it sticks out like a sore thumb at times.

Like I said, I believe the 1998 documentary is what planted that seed in people's minds about "declining quality due to budgets".

Still, I way prefer the lack of gloss and the cheap effects over something that has all the gloss and expensive effects but has nothing to say, no endearing or interesting characters, just all flash and little else. I mean, the cheap effects can be taken with a dose of suspension of disbelief and overcome to some extent, but a bad story is still bad no matter what money you throw at it.

Agreed.

Still, let's not pretend that the films would have at least looked better if more money had been allowed for things like the masks (despite editing and directing oversights).

I am not 'pretending' anything, I am being honest and telling it as I see it. So can we please take every sequel one by one here? There is a simple story in ESCAPE, so that did not need more money, right? And there are only three chimps and their makeups are very good, would you agree?

And would a bigger budget have made CONQUEST any different? Maybe you could have more actors with facial makeups, but at least seeing a lot of extra apes in cheaper pullover masks keep those apes looking more "primitive". Shouldn't Caesar stand out as more superior-looking?

BATTLE -- sorry, I never agreed that the ape makeups looked poor there. And most of them seem to be made up, not just pullover masks. I also don't have any problem with the old "school bus" charge, because the mutants had to use whatever vehicles they had which still were operational. A big budget may have meant they could build a new space ship to fight the apes -- but would that fit?

The original idea of Planet was to set it like the book, with a modern look. But due to budgetary constraints, they totally shelved that idea. Now, they may well have done great with that change, for Planet still tells the essence of the story in the novel even if different, but budgetary decisions impacted on the story to tell. I'm glad that they managed to succeed, but money did make narrative changes. I suppose the lack of money can force one to try harder on the story front, which undoubtedly happened with Apes (inconsistencies aside).

Yes, and with PLANET everyone forgives its cheapness. Because it's the first (what? No modern cities and airplanes???).

BTW, just to make it clear, I enjoy and appreciate all the Apes films, no matter how "shoddy" some can look at times. As you have pointed out, the stories are well told and the characters are interesting and endearing, and they have a real point to make. Still, that doesn't mean that I don't feel that they could have been treated better.

I understand. And believe me, I am not the type of fan who cannot be objective in criticizing the very films he loves; I just never felt there were any glaring budgetary concerns that blatantly hurt the sequels. I never even considered it until that 1998 documentary constantly drove that point home. And now, everyone who's seen that documentary has their excuse to say: "Ha! Look how cheap these films were!" -- but I never spotted it when I always watched the films.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 10 years ago

Sorry, I just don't see that at all - and I've seen these films for what seems like a hundred times. At the very most I would say that the sequels do not look any more shoddy than the original PLANET did. There were plenty of apes in pullover masks even in PLANET, and there wasn't all that much in terms of extensive sets, either. But because it was the original, I think we give it more of a free pass.

It's not just the actual budget as such, it's also the feel of the films. Planet, yes, was the first and can be given some leeway for that, but it never really felt cheap. It's not just pullover masks and other necessary props, it's the increasing need for short cuts that ends up lessening the feel of the films.

In Battle, you and I might be able to rationalise the school bus, but it still comes off as tacky (comical, even). Heck, they even use the same tree exploding in Battle several times (maybe it's something to do with perfect circles or something ;) ). Now sure, these can be seen as minor things, and ultimately they are, but they do add up and take a bit of the gloss off.

Do you feel that BENEATH - with the Forbidden Zone effects, underground city, mutant makeups, General Ursus Helmet, etc.. really looks "less expensive than PLANET"?

To be fair, I don't really consider Beneath as part of the argument (bar the masks scene). My problem is mostly with Conquest and Battle, and a bit with Escape. As you mention elsewhere, Escape's story didn't really need that much of a budget, but it could have spent better on the gorilla in a cage that strangles Milo, and that looping "Mama" at the end also betrays a certain cheapness.

Like I said, I believe the 1998 documentary is what planted that seed in people's minds about "declining quality due to budgets".

Maybe, but the evidence is also captured on film. Even as a child in the seventies (particularly going towards my teenage years), I noticed that the latter films didn't look as impressive as the first two. That's not to say I didn't enjoy them or appreciate their stories (I loved Blake's 7 and all that... still do), but I did feel that the look of the latter ones was like watching a TV film. Note that I use the term "look"; one can look beyond appearance.

I am not 'pretending' anything, I am being honest and telling it as I see it.

Apologies. I was also including myself in all that. It was meant generally not particularly. Still, I should have been more careful.

There is a simple story in ESCAPE, so that did not need more money, right? And there are only three chimps and their makeups are very good, would you agree?

Yes, generally agreed. However, the gorilla was awful and that looping at the end didn't help (that is the last thing you see, which also doesn't help). Also, Zira's make-up wasn't as thorough as the first two.

And would a bigger budget have made CONQUEST any different? Maybe you could have more actors with facial makeups, but at least seeing a lot of extra apes in cheaper pullover masks keep those apes looking more "primitive". Shouldn't Caesar stand out as more superior-looking?

Interesting argument about the need to make Caesar stand out. Mind you, wouldn't that have alerted those who were on the lookout for this strange offspring? Still, interesting point.

I suppose a bigger budget would have allowed for a more impressive showdown between apes and authority. The amount of police/army standing in the way is a bit small. No helicopters or other things that would have been used for surveillance. It all seemed a bit limited and small scale. Yeah, this is just one battle among many to come, but it still all looked constrained. Oh, that Towering Inferno fire at the end wasn't exactly a good effect.

BATTLE -- sorry, I never agreed that the ape makeups looked poor there. And most of them seem to be made up, not just pullover masks. I also don't have any problem with the old "school bus" charge, because the mutants had to use whatever vehicles they had which still were operational. A big budget may have meant they could build a new space ship to fight the apes -- but would that fit?

The scale of the fight wasn't exactly impressive. Naturally, old vehicles would need to be used, but they again do seem to distract in their raggedness and limited number for what's meant to be an army. I can agree with your reasoning (use it myself), but it's a bit comical. The circular exploding tree is another oddity.

All in all, these are quite small on what constitutes negative for me, but I still can see why they get prominent billing in complaints about the films. As I said, I enjoy these films, warts and all, but I also can see why they're seen as a bit cheap looking. Is it fair to concentrate on the cheap look? No. But should it not be commented on? Yes, it should be. It might even cause one to find them more endearing.

I just never felt there were any glaring budgetary concerns that blatantly hurt the sequels.

I suppose, in essence, that I agree with you on this point. I wouldn't damn the films for the budgetary issues, but they do occasionally stick out.

And now, everyone who's seen that documentary has their excuse to say: "Ha! Look how cheap these films were!" -- but I never spotted it when I always watched the films.

Maybe you didn't want to believe? ;) But, yeah, I'd get annoyed with those who'd dismiss the films as cheap instead of looking beyond that. Cheap they may be, but they're a great bargain.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

It's not just the actual budget as such, it's also the feel of the films. Planet, yes, was the first and can be given some leeway for that, but it never really felt cheap. It's not just pullover masks and other necessary props, it's the increasing need for short cuts that ends up lessening the feel of the films.

"Short cuts" is the perfect phrase to further illustrate what I've been saying. No, I never got the feeling that the sequels used "short cuts". Not until I was later informed of such short cuts.

In Battle, you and I might be able to rationalise the school bus, but it still comes off as tacky (comical, even).

I can agree that it comes off as unintentionally comical in using the school bus (my ex-wife used to roll her eyes and call it "The School Bus Movie"). But at the same time, I find it strangely odd and desperate for the mutant army ... and kind of ironic.

As you mention elsewhere, Escape's story didn't really need that much of a budget, but it could have spent better on the gorilla in a cage that strangles Milo, and that looping "Mama" at the end also betrays a certain cheapness.

I was waiting for you to point out the poor gorilla suit . But here again, that's what they had to work with back then - and furthermore, I also think the idea is to make this other gorilla look extremely more primitive and less intelligent than our three principal chimps.

As for the "Mama" looping at the end - I don't see how else they were to do this at that time, but I agree it's distracting and obvious. Still, I'll dare say, it gives me quite a chill at the end of the movie, so it works as what it's supposed to do.

Maybe, but the evidence is also captured on film. Even as a child in the seventies (particularly going towards my teenage years), I noticed that the latter films didn't look as impressive as the first two.

The evidence is on film, sure, but I didn't ever consider it had anything to do with decreasing budgets until the '98 documentary drilled it in repeatedly.

I did feel that the look of the latter ones was like watching a TV film. Note that I use the term "look"; one can look beyond appearance.

I saw CONQUEST and BATTLE in first-run at the theater in all their WideScreen glory, and they did not feel like any TV Movie at the time. CONQUEST certainly felt like a "big spectacle" to me... BATTLE much less so, but I put that down to the "family friendly" nature of that film, and not its budget. You can still watch a very expensive new film of 2014 that's a family friendly soap opera, and it may have the vibe of a TV Movie.

Also, Zira's make-up wasn't as thorough as the first two.

I do feel that Cornelius looked better in ESCAPE than he did in PLANET.

Interesting argument about the need to make Caesar stand out. Mind you, wouldn't that have alerted those who were on the lookout for this strange offspring?

I guess the idea is that apes look pretty much alike to humans.

I suppose a bigger budget would have allowed for a more impressive showdown between apes and authority. The amount of police/army standing in the way is a bit small. No helicopters or other things that would have been used for surveillance. It all seemed a bit limited and small scale. Yeah, this is just one battle among many to come, but it still all looked constrained.

You said my answer for me - yes, this was one riot out of what's to come. It's not the world takeover, or anything.

Oh, that Towering Inferno fire at the end wasn't exactly a good effect.

Are we now just trying to find anything we can? I thought it was fine as a distant background effect.

The scale of the fight [BATTLE] wasn't exactly impressive.

Again, not a World War. Just a fight between these two relatively small ape/mutant communities.

Maybe you didn't want to believe? ;)

You don't know me well enough, but as I said earlier, I can always be objective about the films I love. (I love THE OMEGA MAN, but I can find nagging problems within it all day).

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 10 years ago

I don't think we're really that different as such, despite my "shoddy" words. I was really responding to, "I still don't see how 'cheapness' supposedly affects the quality or enjoyment of the sequels." Thing is, I do think it has an effect, even if one that's not terminal, one that can be let go, one that's smaller than it appears to be, but one that's still there nonetheless. I just feel that the executives at Fox, the ones who decided the budget, didn't do their bit in the production of Apes, skimming money here and there, despite the success that Planet gave them. I still feel that those concerned with the creative and production sides of Apes did a great job despite the monetary constraints. Still, I have far less of an issue with your stance than I'd have with someone who said that the sequels were rubbish because of the budgetary constraint's effect on the films.

reply

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

I was never affected by the budget as a kid. It is only when you look with older eyes that criticism comes in I think.

Planet had the biggest budget and you can see where it was spent.

Beneath had around half of Planet, but you have to remember that they already had the clothing, city, spaceship and a lot of the apes make up, so it didn't look cheaper.

Escape....where did they spend the money? I mean did they really need to spend 2.5 million dollars on what we see?

Conquest...considering it had a smaller budget (1.7 million dollars) it did a good job and, to me at least, still stands up today.

Battle...agree with the above ground ruins. They looked pretty good to me. I think your explanation works, but others are right when saying it comes across that they are actually on streets when MacDonald is explaining where archives is. As such it comes across as poor effects or cheapness.

Overall though, at the time they were released, nobody complained about them having reduced budgets or said budgets affecting the overall movies.

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

reply

[–] millsey72 (9579) 2 years ago

What plot holes are you referring to? I haven't been able to find them. And I seen every Apes movie multiple times

reply

[–] dollvalley 9 years ago

My personal reply to the first post, might explain others too.

I first saw the first original movie a long time ago and it shocked me, the ending was the best thing I ever saw.
Only much later did I see the sequels. This was in the 90s and they were all still unrestored, so they didn't look that good. I was also much younger, and enjoyed them less and less. I then watched them on DVD like 5 years ago, and I think I remember liking them a bit more (the sequels), but clearly not enough because when I saw the sequels for the third time only, the last weeks, on BluRay, I still had no idea what happened in the movie (ok, except the ending of Beneath), and that Battle was Conquest and had absolutely no idea what Battle looked like.
So this time around I loved Beneath, I loved Escape, so much that I almost like it more than the others, but only because it's different, as it's the only one set in a realistic "our time" earth. Then I watched Conquest and was amazed at how much I liked it, then I watched Battle and I can say Battle is the one I like the least, but I still think it's good.

So I watched them three times over a period of maybe 20 years, and my appreciation of them grew a lot every time I watched them.

The first movie is the only one that stands apart from the others because it's different, someone explained it very well. It stands on its own, it's a thought-provoking movie that leaves your mind free to wander at what happened and question the human race and everything.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9579) 2 years ago

Good thing for these boards because after seeing the original, I couldn't understand how the apes transported the Statue of Liberty to their home planet. But after reading the comments, it became understood that they were on Earth the whole time. I wonder how many people were also confused with the ending before the age of the internet

reply

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

because critics tell them to. most people can't think for themselves

reply

[–] PeterBlues 8 years ago

perhaps people had it up to here with angry apes, the second movie which just became silly with the actor doing a "charlton heston light" performance while heston still in the movie and them actually meeting later acting out between each other, then i heard in the documentary that each movie got less of a budget to work with. there is one actor in this that has starred in a few amazing twilight zone radio dramas, i saw his name in the opening credits and thought i'd be able to spot him by his voice, but didn't, from what i know he's the only actor in the twilight zone radio dramas who has also appeared in the original tv series. notice the hand of the woman on the phone, and one scene in this reminded of asterix, sometimes feel like the audience this aims for are hostile apes.

drawn to you like a zombie,
cant help the spell you got on me,
like a slug crawling on your skin,
like lice creeping in your hair, a pebble in your shoe,
a bit stuck between your teeth,
i survive by your heat,
rotted brain created you so many times youre part of me,
if you leave like a zombie i'd decompose six ft deep.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

H. M. Wynant (who starred on the show's episode "The Howling Man") voiced the radio drama "The Trade-Ins".
He played Kolp's associate Hoskyns on this movie.

reply

[–] WatchingYouReadThis 8 years ago

I'm roughly 12 minutes to finishing 'Conquest'. About 40 minutes ago I was severely loosing interest, and the past 20 minutes ago I started looking to see how others thought of this.

The first film and 'Escape' are the only ones that seem to actually give a damn. The 2nd one would be exactly how a common person may of initially perceived the first film to be going by title alone- a dull silly scifi film that thinks scifi is just weirding out for the sake of weird, substance takes a backseat. 'Escape' provided a solid scenario for "what if aliens or future people were to meet us?". At first great curiousity, to then fear, which you could say fear will be the fall of man. Doesn't want to understand what it doesn't know, to even such a degree that a person would wish to do harm to another person. 'Conquest'.... ... ... Someone got payed to write this? I imagine throwing the pitch to a major studio- "Someone and their species are treated terribly.... So uh.... I dunno.... Rebel? Yeah, the apes in chains. Throw in a couple of guns.... Do I get payed now?"

Even for something "so bad it's good", there has to be some originality to pique interest. Plan 9 gave us aliens controlling the undead.

I like films with people who actually care. People with a great idea and enthusiasm, churning out either a quality classic or a "so bad it's good". 'Conquer' feels exactly what it is- a cheap attempt at cashing in on the enjoyment of the very first film. If they're going to rush something out, regardless of quality, at least have fun with it. Have like a ape motorcycle gang in a post apocalyptic future fighting off mutated dogs and cats from the grave.

I think there is 10 minutes left, I don't know, turned it off

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

"Beneath" suffered due to Heston's reluctance to be involved.
You're not wrong about this film's budget, but that was the fault of the studio, not the creative people.
This was showing how the ape civilization of the first film got started. I always liked it.

reply