MovieChat Forums > Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Discussion > Im confused is this a Sequel to Planet o...

Im confused is this a Sequel to Planet of the Apes or a Prequel


Okay I admit I haven't watched this in full in years but the humans in this seem more advanced than the ones in POTA 1968. They also wear more modern clothing in Battle for the POTA.

So is this after Beneath the Planet of the Apes? and Escape but Caesar is the one they talk about in Planet Of The Apes (Original, 1968) film.

So even though Battle for the POTA has an uplifting and positive ending, it's not really because it all ends up with the humans being slaves later on in time where POTA is set??

Can you see why I’m confused?

Help please.

reply

I never saw it that way. Virgil said that time was like a highway with an infinite number of lanes, each one leading to a different potential future. With Cornelius and Zira going back in time and producing Caesar, the apes and the humans were able to change lanes and avoid that future.







"I hear no voice. The dead cannot speak."

reply

[deleted]

Caesar's existance had no effect until after the apes had been turned into slaves, so Cornelius and Zira arriving in the past wouldn't have prevented the primitive apes' predicament.

reply

It was also a self fulfilling prophecy but from the very start.

If Taylors ship hadn't of gotten lost, then Zira and Cornelius wouldn't have gone back in time in it and given birth to their son who could talk. Also them going back was the reason humans got all freaked out about apes.

On the one hand they were afraid of them taking over and on the other they realised the potential that Apes had to be servants and slaves. Maybe they thought they could control it? Or were just thought that we were too superior, for Apes to really be able to take over. Humans probably wouldn't have done that if they never met the intelligent Apes from Space. They didn't know those Apes were actually from future Earth, to them they were just from another planet.

Having Caeser there as a child of theirs was what turned the tables on the humans In Battle. He was able to lead the Apes out of their oppression. Without him maybe that would not have happened either. His advanced DNA changed everything but it was a paradox and self fulfilling.

Just like in the newer movies, where humans created these intelligent apes that could stand up to the humans abusing them and keeping them in cages.

reply

The original reason for the slavery was the result of the cat and dog plague that may or may not have been brought to Earth by the "Ape-O-Nauts".

The Government was still wary of Cornelius and Zira's prophecy, but the slavery took place anyway. Money talks.

reply

The original reason for the slavery was the result of the cat and dog plague that may or may not have been brought to Earth by the "Ape-O-Nauts".


The dialogue in the film states that it was brought back by an astronaut.

reply

I seem to remember that it was Brent's ship which Cornelius, Zira, and Milo found (and somehow made operable again in a very short time), as Taylor's ship was underwater, but yes, it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.






"I hear no voice. The dead cannot speak."

reply

Brent's ship was fried to a crisp; in 1973 the authorities announced that it had been Taylor's ship that had returned (although it seemed like a miniature version).

reply

I think they cut it in half. But then maybe it was just the re-entry capsule. ;-)

reply

Conceivably, but I doubt it would make for as long or interesting a series of movies.








"I hear no voice. The dead cannot speak."

reply

The screenwriter would disagree with you:

http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/dehn5.jpg

reply

There were indeed things that were cut from the screenplays for one reason or another. My explanation is based on the story presented in the finished films.

Your post reminds me of a magazine interview with Charlton Heston. He said the ending of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" was his idea, borrowed from the ending of "The Bridge on the River Kwai." Heston didn't like sequels and hoped it would prevent others, but in his own words he just made it harder on the next screenwriter.







"I hear no voice. The dead cannot speak."

reply

There were indeed things that were cut from the screenplays for one reason or another. My explanation is based on the story presented in the finished films.


Except the scene discussed was not cut from the finished film. And while Virgil says that it is possible to change the future it is never stated that the future was changed. In fact some the dialogue would indicate the opposite:

Caesar says to Aldo:
I went looking for my past but found our future.


Lisa says of Caesar:
He still thinks he can change the future.

reply

That article doesn't disprove my original theory though. In fact it does go as far as to agree with it. Like how they say in the final scene where the statue cries. This shows a pessimistic view of the future. The future that Taylor crash lands in POTA. I see this story as cyclical not linear.

reply

That article doesn't disprove my original theory though. In fact it does go as far as to agree with it.


I agree. It supports what you posted.

reply

Oh I was mistaken, I thought you were saying to me the screen writer would disagree. You were trying to say he would agree about the loop theory.

Thanks mate.

reply

You're welcome. :-)

reply

Although made after Planet and Beneath, Battle takes place almost 2,000 years prior to the events of those films.

These graphics should help you figure it all out:

http://www.loveinfographics.com/wp-content/uploads/entertainment/2011/12/planet-of-the-apes-timeline-of-events-entertainment-infographic.jpg

http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2011/08/02/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-20110802032456251-3500127_640w.jpg

reply

According to Cornelius in Escape... the first speaking ape was Aldo. Ceasar's appearance altered history because he was more sympathetic, and he was influenced by the new ape that said "no," Lisa.

This post has not been deleted.

reply

Depends which version of Conquest you watch. In the original, Lisa never speaks.

reply

[deleted]

The orangutans were manipulative with historical information, so inaccuracies in the scrolls would make sense.

reply

Well said. One thing that is sometimes is ignored, is that overtime history can get distorted. Sure the Orangutans may have purposely changed things. But when ancient scrolls are written and then copied over and over again for centuries there could have been unintended distortions as well. Either way, what it comes down to is that nothing that Cornelius & Zira said about the apes history in Escape can be considered totally accurate.

reply

According to Cornelius in Escape


True, Cornelius did say that. But the audience never sees it. It is hearsay at best. Sort of like Obi-Wan telling Luke that Vader killed his father.

Cornelius wasn't even relating events that he witnessed himself but quoting the Sacred Scrolls which were shown to unreliable in the first film. So the events that Cornelius and Zira talked about in Escape cannot be considered to be totally accurate.

reply

According to Cornelius in Escape... the first speaking ape was Aldo. Ceasar's appearance altered history because he was more sympathetic, and he was influenced by the new ape that said "no," Lisa.


True. At the time writer Paul Dehn scripted ESCAPE, he meant each and every word of it. Later on when he wrote CONQUEST, he contradicted himself and made his own inconsistent new storyline. The only way for the whole storyline to make sense is that Caesar's arrival and participation now altered the speed and precise details of the events as they had previously unfolded. (Also makes for a more interesting film narrative as the series progresses).

The Scrolls were not necessarily shown to be unreliable in the first film. Just because Zira mused "well... maybe they're not", this does not mean they were definitely were not worth their parchment; it was just a thought from Zira.

Cornelius' speech in ESCAPE was intended by its screenwriter, Paul Dehn, to be taken as accurate. We know this because Dehn said that there was nothing within the finished film that he would change. He had ample opportunity to delete such a "meaningless" speech if its author really thought it wasn't to be literal.

reply

It's a prequel. It takes place thousands of years before Planet and Beneath.

reply



reply