MovieChat Forums > Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Discussion > What if there a been a sixth installment...

What if there a been a sixth installment of the Apes franchise?

posted 10 years ago by ortegatwins
41 replies | jump to latest

If there had been, what direction do you think the series would have gone in? A long time ago I came up with a rough draft for a sixth Apes film that I never got around to finishing that took place where the Lawgiver epilogue left off and revolved around a new cast of Ape and Human characters joining forces to defend Earth from an invasion of evil alien beings. The story concludes with the Apes and the Humans defeating the aliens and then using the aliens spaceship, which they now have possession of, to form a crew of Ape and Human interplanetary explorers. I doubt this would have worked as a movie due to budget reasons but it would have been interesting to see more Apes sequels get made.

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

The Marvel comics did a story called Terror on the Planet of the Apes, set around the time of the Lawgiver, that started off ok, but got a bit silly. There were parts of that would have made a decent 6th installment.

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

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I always enjoyed reading that TERROR storyline by Marvel.

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

I thought it was good except for the hillbilly apes and humans. You can still read it online.

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

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I thought it was good except for the hillbilly apes and humans. You can still read it online.

I still have every issue in plastic protective sleeves. :) I liked the hillbilly apes - wasn't one of them called "Gunpowder Julius" or something? This was an idea that was interesting to me -- what would apes be like in other sections of the world? The movies did not explore these things, but I think it would be fascinating to move beyond just New York or California, and see the whole globe.

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

Yeah, Gunpowder Julius.

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

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

The main reason no more sequels emerged was due to the budget. Battle was the bottom of the barrel budget-wise - another movie would've had two apes doing stand-up in a comedy club with an unseen audience.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

Also I think the studio felt there was no more to say.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

On Behind the Planet of the Apes, they stared that if they went any farther into the future (than Caesar's village on Battle), they wouldn't have had the budget to do it properly. So it was time for a TV series. It had a TV series budget of course, so Central City was poorly presented; just one or two buildings were shown other than the stock footage lifted from the first movie.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

Oy, I'm so tired of the budget buzz word (no offense to you or Fox). Good writing and characters trump budgets - every time.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

The studio did stop making sequels mainly due to the fact that each sequel has less money available than the previous one. Lower budgets can also affect the quality of the actors they're able to hire, as well as the production values.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I know that's what Fox thought... but I don't agree. There are plenty of fine actors that are paid less than someone who commands a huge salary. Quentin Tarantino, for example, uses many fine old actors who are not as popular or high priced as The Rock.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

They may have thought it was time for a TV series.

[–] michaelward15 9 years ago

I don't think a good story will save a movie if its budget isn't sufficient to tell that story properly. Battle does OK on its limited budget, but its budget constraints hurt it, and if the budget had been cut even lower, it might have completely ruined the movie. If budgets didn't matter, you could film every film for a dollar.

[–] michaelward15 9 years ago

I think it would should peace between apes and humans break down and the world of the first movie start to emerge.

[–] coreycitn63 9 years ago

The TV series was the sixth installment.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Could be. But the TV series doesn't carry over any of the storylines or characters from the films.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

At the risk of repeating myself, Battle should've been the basis of the TV series (instead of a movie), having the same actors play the same characters. They were all pretty much television actors anyway.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

True. But if they had done that they would have probably had to pay the original writers for the use of characters they created. Cheaper to go with original characters. I would also guess that CBS may have wanted something closer to the original film.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

I suppose, but I don't see how introducing a dog in the opening scene exactly pays homage to the concepts employed in the original movies.

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

I always find it a bit funny that the first scene in the PotA TV series breaks with the films (well, Escape onwards) in such an obvious way.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

The first time I saw the episode I thought any mystery was taken away by showing the apes first. But then "Jonesy" would've had a larger role and couldn't be paid as an extra.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Well going from the original (1968) film only, while there are no dogs in the film; there is nothing specifically stated that they don't exist.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

That is true. And the "Ape Shall Not Kill Ape" concept which was first alluded to on Beneath didn't seem to apply (Zaius telling Cornelius and Zira "If you're convicted of heresy the most you'll get is two years. But if you persist in pointing guns in my direction, then you'll hang for high treason.").

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

Although I take your point and don't really think that "Ape shall not kill ape" line should canonically apply to the original film, I think it can also be said that the line is merely an extension of the Biblical "Thou shalt not kill"; that apes have themselves risen above being animals and taken on a similar code not to kill each other. Sure, though, like with humans, this doesn't extend to punishments and the like, which itself is conveniently, for those in authority, inconsistent. Maybe this "hypocrisy" was intentional, so as to ape human society and its inconsistencies. No matter what commandments there are, there tends to be certain convenient exceptions to the rule for those who rule.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

I can see where you're coming from, but like most politicians the orangutans must keep the popularity of the public. Once the "Ape Shall Not Kill Ape" thing was established, they wouldn't want to threaten any ape with death.

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

Didn't stop the Judeo-Islamo-Christian churches endorsing death for various transgressions in the past (and even now), despite the demand from their vengeful god not to murder. It's how you justify the exceptions and the condition of the population at large at the time that tends to help sway the debate one way or the other.

Also, the orangutans rule in a despotic way, backed up by the gorillas, so we're not talking about some democracy. Sure, even a dictatorship has to tread carefully now and then, but there's plenty of room for abuse. What tends to bring such forms of governments down (and not just them) is that they misjudge the mood of the population and get complacent. Still, judging from the films, it doesn't seem that anyone in the ape community has picked up on that inconsistency, so we can only assume that the orangutans have had their way on that matter.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Very true. Also, remember the Gorillas are ready to shoot the Chimp protestors for blocking the army. It seems that Ape doesn't kill Ape unless an Ape in some way challenges the state.

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

I watched The Cure, one of the PotA TV episodes (as you'd know), on TV yesterday, where Urko was quite happy to point his gun and threaten to shoot various apes. Councillor Zaius didn't even mention ape not killing ape even when the gun was pointed in his direction. Not one of the films, but somewhat pertinent to the discussion.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

The Lawgiver didn't seem to have any involvement in the apes' culture on the TV series. A key plot point of one of the episodes was that one ape had murdered another.
In the original movie, it was implied that Zaius "looks down his nose" at chimpanzees. Possibly the council in general did. And of course the gorilla puppets would adopt the same attitude. On Beneath, the gorillas were ready to shoot the chimp protesters, but in the desert Ursus refused to mercy-kill their missing eleven gorilla scouts burning in the mutant-induced vision.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

The TV series is it's own universe and not really connected to the films. (Probably didn't want to pay the film writers for using their characters and concepts.) Even if it is considered in the same universe as the films, the TV series takes place on the west coast while the ape community seen in the films is on the east coast so they had their own laws and traditions.

[–] savagebiscuits 9 years ago

Sure, agreed. I just mentioned it due to watching it the previous night, and considering the discussion, thought I'd bring it up. Still, I suppose I should have used "somewhat pertinent" a bit more carefully, but felt it was interesting to note.

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

True. It is also interesting that the Gorillas in Beneath were about to shoot the Chimp protestors. Plus why did the Apes need to maintain an army. Who were they defending against?

I think that the filmmakers were suggesting a hypocrisy within the Ape society. Much like the hypocrisy in ours where FAUX news dittoheads who support monuments to the ten commandments which says 'thou shalt not kill but also support the death penalty and oppose any gun sensible gun regulations.

[–] coreycitn63 9 years ago

The six movie was the television series that took place in the 31 century 900 years prior to Planet. What was never explained was how humans regressed to cavemen? The only explanation is that when the Apes took control they raised humans as cattle with them no access to speech and learning and over the centuries human brains shrunk.

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

According to Zira's research, the only problem with the humans' brain was that the speech centers were atrophied, much like our appendix.
One thing I can speculate is maybe centuries ago the apes performed labotomies on every human captured and sent them back out into the wild, thus over time erasing their spoken language.

[–] wears-alan 9 years ago

The fan theory I like is the one about the virus that killed off the cats and dogs had an effect on all life and made the apes smarter and the humans dumber.in the end.

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

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

I actually forgot about that one.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

If you'd like to see the Alpha-Omega bomb scenes, go here: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Kolp.htm and here: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Mendez.htm.

[–] imbrie-1 8 years ago

Hang on! Zaius is in the TV series so how can it be considered the '6th movie' taking into account the different location and time?

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

You can see how the humans on the TV series were less intelligent than present-day people. If you consider the TV series related to the movies, the year was 3085 - nine centuries prior to Zira's time and place. So there was plenty of time for them to devolve further. But we never did see what state of mind the humans on the east coast were in at that time, either. So the "caveman" similarities could've been indigenous to the eastern US.

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

Who ever said that the TV series should be considered the 6th movie. There is no narrative link to the films at all.