Please you're making a specious and intellectually dishonest argument. The average viewer is not going to question what is stated by several different characters. They are going to accept the plot element that is being communicated by the screenwriter through his characters, including Hasslein, who you keep conveniently leaving out. Totally dishonest.
they are not communicating it. they do not have the knowledge or requisite information of what your claiming. the statement by Caesar is a philosophical statement. the chairman is a statement of what he believes to be true at the time - not with the knowledge of it as a certainty. You are retconning the statements to support your theory.
I don't have to prove it. The films and the characters speak for themselves. The problem is that you can't quote one line of dialogue that directly supports your personal pet theory so you're pursuing a BS argument.
They do not speak themselves. they are subject to interpretation.
several statements from the screenwriter and backed up by both events in the film including dialogue spoken by several characters.
keep repeating yourself.
So this is your new BS argument? Pathetic.
You have said several times that the copyrighted material of the owner was paramount over the interpretations of others. That no one had the right determine meaning over that person. Well apparently your screenwriter is an other because he does not own the rights to it. Fox does. So based on your theory, it is their right to make a determination of the meaning of the ending. Sorry your own theory bites you in the butt. And what that proves is ownership and authorial intent is only one factor in determining meaning.
And you still haven't provided me within the knowledge of the story how all those characters know it is a causal loop - 4th time.
that still doesn't change the narrative of the film. What is nonsense is you claiming that it does.
You keep making self serving statements. The point which either you either ignore or do not understand is the meaning of the film and the characters changes by the person viewing it.
Yes it does. The Nazis thought they could change the meaning of a work of art by changing it's name. You support them, I don't.
You are total a!! No one is changing the name of the Apes movies or the dialogue in the movie. That is direct intervention into someones art. Its interpretation is what is allowed. And yes, at times, interpretation of art and literature can be perverse such as the Nazis.
Your view - allows slavery and a completely rigid approach to the law - Virtually any change in society would not be adjusted to because the founders intended it for a 18th century society.
And before you use the fan boy remark, you might want to educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentNew Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art."[1] The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing -- the text is the primary source of meaning,
http://www.idiotsguides.com/arts-and-entertainment/fiction/literary-theory-what-is-authorial-intention/What do the author’s intentions have to do with that novel you’re reading? And how important is knowing the author’s intentions to understanding their work? Literary theory offers several responses to this question.
Is Jane Austen’s own interpretation of her novels, which were written in the early 1800s, really what counts when you read those books now? Is F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original opinion about Gatsby the final word for your own interpretation? For many critics, the author’s personal intention doesn’t matter at all—either because every literary work has a life of its own or because authors themselves can’t understand their work completely. Other critics, however, insist that what the author had in mind is essential to a correct interpretation. Some critics even suggest that reading fictional works gives you access to an author’s consciousness.
The Work Has a Life of Its Own
Most literary theory is based on the idea that a literary text takes on a life of its own once it’s written. According to this view, any novel—like any poem or movie—stands complete by itself, and your interpretation should be based on what the work itself says. As a reader, your job is to appreciate and understand what’s on the page, not to guess at what might have been in the author’s mind.
Ernest Hemingway probably had this view in mind when he wrote that “books should be judged by those who read them—not explained by the writer.” In fact, asking writers (Hemingway included) to explain their works is notoriously challenging. You either get no useful information at all: “I don’t know, what do you think it means?” or you get personal explanations that leave you with more questions.
According New Criticism, which arose in the first half of the twentieth century, an author’s only real intention is to create a work of art for you to interpret—not to send a message. One of the New Critics, Cleanth Brooks, argued that “the relevant part of the author’s intention is what he actually got into his work.” And two other New Critics, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, wrote an entire essay on “the intentional fallacy,” explaining how wrong it is to consider the author’s own opinion as the last word on a literary work’s meaning. They said that authors are usually not around to answer your questions, and even if they are, their opinions are just that—opinions.
The New Critics emphasized that reading literature is not a matter of simply deciphering a message. “Meaning” means having an experience, and that experience is based on the text itself—the tightly constructed work of literary art in front of you. Every literary work, for these critics, has its own artistic intentions. It isn’t the author’s intention that matters, it’s the intention of the work itself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/intentional-fallacyIntentional fallacy, term used in 20th-century literary criticism to describe the problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming the intent or purpose of the artist who created it.
Introduced by W.K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley in The Verbal Icon (1954), the approach was a reaction to the popular belief that to know what the author intended—what he had in mind at the time of writing—was to know the correct interpretation of the work. Although a seductive topic for conjecture and frequently a valid appraisal of a work of art, the intentional fallacy forces the literary critic to assume the role of cultural historian or that of a psychologist who must define the growth of a particular artist’s vision in terms of his mental and physical state at the time of his creative act.
I guess TS Elliot, Ernest Hemingway, and the vast others that believe what I believe are fanboys?
Just because some others also missed the point doesn't make them or you right. It just means they missed the point. And it is utter hypocrisy that you're now quoting the Corringtons when above you disparaged relying "extra-movie material such a statement from the screen writer". Again you dishonestly try to have it both ways. As well as ignoring that the Corringtons were fired and replaced by Dehn who had the final word.
That is YOUR opinion. Not only are you ignorant as to literary theory but a complete fascist as to differing opinion. You disregard the opinions of others include people who worked on the film in favor a single theory that has no proof for a single person. Its pretty ironic you bring up Hitler because you clearly are a fundamentalist where there is no room for any other opinion other than the authors. It defeats the point of art.
And as far as the Corringtons, you miss the point AGAIN. The point is other people clearly believe an alterative theory include those who participated in the creation of the film. You dismiss them because its convenient for you because it doesnt support your dogmatic vision to this movie.
reply
share
JamesA-1102
8 years ago
they are not communicating it. they do not have the knowledge or requisite information of what your claiming. the statement by Caesar is a philosophical statement. the chairman is a statement of what he believes to be true at the time - not with the knowledge of it as a certainty. You are retconning the statements to support your theory.
It is not my theory, it the story the author was telling. I'm not retconning anything either. I'm taking the statements at their face value and accepting what the screenwriter is telling the audience. Again you leave Hasslein because his statements don't support your argument. Can you show anything from the films that directly say to the audience that these statements should be disregarded and completely ignored.
They do not speak themselves. they are subject to interpretation.
Yes they do not speak for themselves. They speak for the writer and communicating the story he is telling the audience. And they are not subject to either interpretation or revisionism.
You have said several times that the copyrighted material of the owner was paramount over the interpretations of others. That no one had the right determine meaning over that person. Well apparently your screenwriter is an other because he does not own the rights to it. Fox does. So based on your theory, it is their right to make a determination of the meaning of the ending. Sorry your own theory bites you in the butt. And what that proves is ownership and authorial intent is only one factor in determining meaning.
More specious BS because you don't have any evidence from the films that prove your pet theory.
And you still haven't provided me within the knowledge of the story how all those characters know it is a causal loop - 4th time.
Again I don't have to prove it. It is a bogus and intellectually dishonest argument on your part. Can you show anything from the films that directly say to the audience that these statements should be disregarded and completely ignored?
You keep making self serving statements. The point which either you either ignore or do not understand is the meaning of the film and the characters changes by the person viewing it.
But that doesn't include narrative revisionism. And I as said in an earlier post, someone may watch 'Dr. Strangelove' and think it is advocating nuclear war. That doesn't make their interpretation right, it just means that they missed the point.
You are total a!! No one is changing the name of the Apes movies or the dialogue in the movie. That is direct intervention into someones art. Its interpretation is what is allowed. And yes, at times, interpretation of art and literature can be perverse such as the Nazis.
Yes they changed the name to revise its history and the narrative of the painting. Interpretation is one thing, revisionism is another. The Nazis were revisionists. Since you're indulging in revisionism, you agree with them.
Your view - allows slavery and a completely rigid approach to the law - Virtually any change in society would not be adjusted to because the founders intended it for a 18th century society.
Total non sequitur. We are discussing works of fiction, not laws. As far as you're big 'cut and paste', (and I'll save room by not copying it over) nothing there says that anyone has the right to change the narrative arc of an author's work.
That is YOUR opinion. Not only are you ignorant as to literary theory but a complete fascist as to differing opinion. You disregard the opinions of others include people who worked on the film in favor a single theory that has no proof for a single person. Its pretty ironic you bring up Hitler because you clearly are a fundamentalist where there is no room for any other opinion other than the authors. It defeats the point of art.
Literary theory never says that anyone has the right to change an author's or writer's story. Interpretation is one thing, revisionism is something completely different.
And as far as the Corringtons, you miss the point AGAIN. The point is other people clearly believe an alterative theory include those who participated in the creation of the film. You dismiss them because its convenient for you because it doesn't support your dogmatic vision to this movie.
Utter hypocrisy, you want to dismiss Dehn who wrote Escape and Conquest and the final draft of Battle. Yet you want to raise up the Corringtons who wrote one draft of one film and then were fired to be rewritten by Dehn. I don't dismiss them. I put them in the proper perspective. You're the one that is dismissing Dehn.
reply
share
EinsteinRosenBridge
8 years ago
It is not my theory, it the story the author was telling.
And as I have proved, that means relatively nothing.
I'm taking the statements at their face value and accepting what the screenwriter is telling the audience.
They are not face value because the characters do not have the knowledge within the story to demonstrate the so called points. It violates the rules of internal consistency. You have receive assistance from the screenwriter externally to get meaning. That should not be necessary.
Again you leave Hasslein because his statements don't support your argument. Can you show anything from the films that directly say to the audience that these statements should be disregarded and completely ignored.
Hasslein believes it might be recurring circle. He also believes that he change the future by altering it which he and Caesar does. If he truly believes its a recurring circle that cant be changed he would have given up.
Again I don't have to prove it. It is a bogus and intellectually dishonest argument on your part. Can you show anything from the films that directly say to the audience that these statements should be disregarded and completely ignored?
You are the intellectual dishonest one. I am not disregarding the statements. It just doesn't mean what you think they mean. You are just using them in that way to try to prove a theory.
Please answer this question - at the time he wrote Escape, he wrote an origin story about apes that was quite different from what happens in Battle. It changes in Battle. As you stated, he had know idea if their would be other films. So how can statements and dialogue in Escape prove a circular theory when the storyline was not even started or completed for the next two films? Even discussing this shows the folly of using the writers intention as the source of meaning. By you going back to the earlier films to prove a storyline that was created in the 5th film, it is the definition of retconning. Obviously, the statements of the Milo, Hasslein, and the chairman did not mean what you claim they mean now.
Yes they changed the name to revise its history and the narrative of the painting.
The beautiful thing about allowing for individualized assessments and meaning is that no can change a personal interpretation except if you are forcing it down someones throat like you are.
total non sequitur. We are discussing works of fiction, not laws. As far as you're big 'cut and paste', (and I'll save room by not copying it over) nothing there says that anyone has the right to change the narrative arc of an author's work.
we are talking about the meaning of the written word. Your philosophy is that no has the right to change the meaning of another's work. That approach would confine us to limited approach to the law or art and take away virtually any form of inspiration from anything. Congratulations on being the thought police.
Literary theory never says that anyone has the right to change an author's or writer's story. Interpretation is one thing, revisionism is something completely different.
By definition, revisionism is a different interpretation of events. No one is changing the writer's story. No one is altering the words, dialogue, or characters. They are just placing a different meaning as what they understand.
And as the long cut and paste was intended for you to understand is that is an appropriate approach to art and that you are engaging a fallacious thinking.
"The Intentional Fallacy" that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art."Is Jane Austen’s own interpretation of her novels, which were written in the early 1800s, really what counts when you read those books now? Is F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original opinion about Gatsby the final word for your own interpretation? For many critics, the author’s personal intention doesn’t matter at all—either because every literary work has a life of its own or because authors themselves can’t understand their work completely. Is Paul Dehn's own interpretation of his screenplay which was written over 30 years ago, really what counts when you read his screenplay or watch the movie now? No.
Is Paul Dehns original opinion about a Causality loop the final word for your own interpretation? No.
Most literary theory is based on the idea that a literary text takes on a life of its own once it’s written. According to this view, any novel—like any poem or movie—stands complete by itself, and your interpretation should be based on what the work itself says. As a reader, your job is to appreciate and understand what’s on the page, not to guess at what might have been in the author’s mind. Thus you are wrong about using the Dehn's opinion as gospel. Its not the bible.
Ernest Hemingway probably had this view in mind when he wrote that “books should be judged by those who read them—not explained by the writerPaul Dehn's explanation is not relevant. I will go with Ernest Hemingway's thinking as a way of interpreting meaning in art - not you.
According New Criticism, which arose in the first half of the twentieth century, an author’s only real intention is to create a work of art for you to interpret—not to send a message.This is what I have been trying to tell you over these messages. Once you create a piece of art, it is open to the public and it can take on different meanings - only one of which might be the authors intent.
reply
share
JamesA-1102
8 years ago
And as I have proved, that means relatively nothing.
You've proved nothing.
They are not face value because the characters do not have the knowledge within the story to demonstrate the so called points. It violates the rules of internal consistency. You have receive assistance from the screenwriter externally to get meaning. That should not be necessary.
You've misusing and distorting the term "internal consistency". Is there anything in the films that directly tells the audience that what these characters say should be ignored and disregarded. The statements by the screenwriter on his story only confirms what his characters established by their dialogue.
Hasslein believes it might be recurring circle. He also believes that he change the future by altering it which he and Caesar does. If he truly believes its a recurring circle that cant be changed he would have given up.
Exactly! Hasslein believes that C&Z will create the future they come from unless he does something to stop it. That the reason for his changing lanes theory. He has to believe that it is possible which leads to the dramatic conflict in the second half of the film. At the end though, we find out that Hasslein failed to change lanes.
You are the intellectual dishonest one. I am not disregarding the statements. It just doesn't mean what you think they mean.
Yes you are. Stop lying. You want to disregard lines spoken by Dr. Milo, Hasslein, the Chairman, the Lawgiver, Caesar, etc. using your BS "internal consistency" argument because they don't fit with your personal pet theory.
You are just using them in that way to try to prove a theory.
Not a theory but elements of the story being told by the writer, which are also backed up by the statement of the writer.
Please answer this question - at the time he wrote Escape, he wrote an origin story about apes that was quite different from what happens in Battle. It changes in Battle.
How was is different? They origin story dealt with events in Conquest, not Battle.
As you stated, he had know idea if their would be other films. So how can statements and dialogue in Escape prove a circular theory when the storyline was not even started or completed for the next two films?
No the storyline was started in Escape. You are really grasping a straws here. Just shows that you can't prove your personal pet theory so you have to resort to these intellectually dishonest backflips in logic.
Even discussing this shows the folly of using the writers intention as the source of meaning.
No, discussing it shows the folly of fanboys who arrogantly think that their personal pet theories are somehow superior to the stated intent of the writer about his story.
By you going back to the earlier films to prove a storyline that was created in the 5th film, it is the definition of retconning. Obviously, the statements of the Milo, Hasslein, and the chairman did not mean what you claim they mean now.
Wow you are really getting desperate. The storyline was created in Escape, as you know. The statement of those characters at face value confirm the story being told.
The beautiful thing about allowing for individualized assessments and meaning is that no can change a personal interpretation except if you are forcing it down someones throat like you are.
You seem to be very confused about the difference between interpretation and revisionism. Let's use the first film Planet as an example. Some could see it and think it was a satire on race and class in our society, others could think it was post apocalyptic morality tale and others that is was just a simple action-adventure story. That is interpretation. But if someone claims it was all just a dream that Taylor had in hibernation or that he was really on a parallel earth or that Cornelius & Lucius were secretly gay, that is revisionism. The time circle was the story Dehn was telling, denying it is revisionism.
we are talking about the meaning of the written word. Your philosophy is that no has the right to change the meaning of another's work. That approach would confine us to limited approach to the law or art and take away virtually any form of inspiration from anything. Congratulations on being the thought police.
I'm talking about a movie, not the constitution. Two very different things. You're dishonest effort to divert and distort has been noted.
By definition, revisionism is a different interpretation of events. No one is changing the writer's story. No one is altering the words, dialogue, or characters. They are just placing a different meaning as what they understand.
Wow you're even lying about the meaning of revisionism. Revising is the act of altering, not interpreting but altering and changing. And you are changing the writer's story. Stop lying about it.
Is Paul Dehn's own interpretation of his screenplay which was written over 30 years ago, really what counts when you read his screenplay or watch the movie now? No.
Is Paul Dehns original opinion about a Causality loop the final word for your own interpretation? No.
More fanboy BS to justify revisionism. No one has the legal or moral right to change someone else's copyrighted work.
Thus you are wrong about using the Dehn's opinion as gospel. Its not the bible.
Yes it is in regards to his own work.
Paul Dehn's explanation is not relevant. I will go with Ernest Hemingway's thinking as a way of interpreting meaning in art - not you.
More intellectual dishonesty to justify fanboy revisionism. Hemingway does not say it is ok to revise the narrative arc of someone else's work. You're just distorting the meaning of what he said because you've got nothing else. Dehn's statements are relevant because they confirm the story he was telling.
So I guess you're no longer quoting the Corringtons. At least you've sparred us that hypocrisy this time around.
This is what I have been trying to tell you over these messages. Once you create a piece of art, it is open to the public and it can take on different meanings - only one of which might be the authors intent.
Total BS. You're really shoveling it now. You are dishonestly trying to justify revisionism by conflating it with interpretation which is totally different.
You've come up with so many logical and intellectual contortions it is hard to keep track of them all. You can't quote a single line of dialogue from the films that directly supports you're personal pet theory and dishonestly try to deny lines that disprove it. You quote statements from two screenwriters who were fired after writing one draft of the screenplay for one film while trying to disregard the statements of the man who wrote the sequels including the final draft of the final film. You've been denying and distorting anything that disputes your personal pet theory. Pathetic!
reply
share
EinsteinRosenBridge
8 years ago
you've misusing and distorting the term "internal consistency". Is there anything in the films that directly tells the audience that what these characters say should be ignored and disregarded. The statements by the screenwriter on his story only confirms what his characters established by their dialogue.
LOL. You have no idea what the term means. Look it up. Characters cannot speak beyond their knowledge base. Again, and for the 5th time, each of these characters do not have a founded knowledge of the future so to say those statements suggest a causal loop is inconsistent. No one is ignoring the statements. They are not attributing your unreasonable interpretation of them to support a desired theory.
At the end though, we find out that Hasslein failed to change lanes
Completely untrue. What part of the movie directly shows the apes taking over the humans and the humans devolving? Nothing. The last is to the contrary.
Yes you are. Stop lying. You want to disregard lines spoken by Dr. Milo, Hasslein, the Chairman, the Lawgiver, Caesar, etc. using your BS "internal consistency" argument because they don't fit with your personal pet theory.
Sorry man, I am not ignoring them. Lawgivers statement about the humans abusing god's gift is a statement of the remaining humans that Caesar's defeated. the Chairman was a statement of what he believed might take place in the future. It was not a statement of certainty of the future. the reason being he did not know. Nor did the writer know because he had known that there were going to be 2 more movies.
No the storyline was started in Escape. You are really grasping a straws here.
No. Another lie. As you said before, they did know the movies were going to continue so it could not have "started" in escape. The storyline in escape was about dogs and cats and Aldo. Unless you can prove the writer intended those lines to be complete lies, those lines in that movie cannot connect with the evolving story of Conquest and Battle.
No, discussing it shows the folly of fanboys who arrogantly think that their personal pet theories are somehow superior to the stated intent of the writer about his story.
I guess Academia are all fanboys. If they can re-interpret the meaning behind Shakespeare and Austin, I think I can interpret for myself a better and more logical meaning behind a two bit writer.
You seem to be very confused about the difference between interpretation and revisionism. Let's use the first film Planet as an example. Some could see it and think it was a satire on race and class in our society, others could think it was post apocalyptic morality tale and others that is was just a simple action-adventure story. That is interpretation. But if someone claims it was all just a dream that Taylor had in hibernation or that he was really on a parallel earth or that Cornelius & Lucius were secretly gay, that is revisionism. The time circle was the story Dehn was telling, denying it is revisionism.
Sorry wrong. For instance, revisionism is history is defined as,
"the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, of the orthodox views about a historical event, of the evidence of the event, and of the motivations and decisions of the participant people."
And their cannot be revisionism in art when each person determines their meaning. There is no one meaning.
Yes it is in regards to his own work.
there you go. thanks bible thumper. Practice the Gosbel of Dehn! All others are heretics. You belong in the Church in the middle ages.
Hemingway does not say it is ok to revise the narrative arc of someone else's work.
Apparently you cannot read. "books should be judged by those who read them—not explained by the writer"
I am the reader. Your friend Dehn is the writer. I judge meaning and understanding through my eyes - not his. And it is not only Hemingway - it is all of Academia.
Total BS. You're really shoveling it now. You are dishonestly trying to justify revisionism by conflating it with interpretation which is totally different.
Apparently all of Academia is wrong as well - except for the guardian of the Apes Movies. I mean who do you think you are telling other people what they should think or interpret because of your ill conceived knowledge of a movie? You should open your mind.
reply
share
JamesA-1102
8 years ago
LOL. You have no idea what the term means. Look it up. Characters cannot speak beyond their knowledge base. Again, and for the 5th time, each of these characters do not have a founded knowledge of the future so to say those statements suggest a causal loop is inconsistent. No one is ignoring the statements. They are not attributing your unreasonable interpretation of them to support a desired theory.
Again it is not a desired theory, it the stated intent of the writer. You're just lying about what the term means to prove your point because you have no real evidence. Characters speak the lines written by the writer to communicate the story to the audience. Can you point to anything presented in the films that say that what any of those characters said should be ignored or disregarded?
Completely untrue. What part of the movie directly shows the apes taking over the humans and the humans devolving? Nothing. The last is to the contrary.
More distortion. Hasslein's goal it to kill the baby in order to 'change lanes'. At the end of the film it is revealed that he failed.
Sorry man, I am not ignoring them. Lawgivers statement about the humans abusing god's gift is a statement of the remaining humans that Caesar's defeated. the Chairman was a statement of what he believed might take place in the future. It was not a statement of certainty of the future. the reason being he did not know. Nor did the writer know because he had known that there were going to be 2 more movies.
Yes you are ignoring them. Just more intellectual dishonesty.
I guess Academia are all fanboys. If they can re-interpret the meaning behind Shakespeare and Austin,
Interpreting or re-interpreting the meaning is not the same thing as revising the narrative which is what you are doing.
I think I can interpret for myself a better and more logical meaning behind a two bit writer.
You just exposed your fanboy arrogance. It reminds me of something I read in an interview with, I think, Ronald Moore, "Science Fiction fans are both the best and worst kinds of fans. They are the best because of their passion, devotion and loyalty. They are the worst because they assume an attitude of ownership that they are just not entitled to". And for the record, Paul Dehn wasn't a two bit writer. He was an Academy Award screenwriter who wrote or co-wrote such classics as 'Goldfinger', 'The Spy who came in from the Cold' and 'Murder on the Orient Express'. How many classic films have you written? How many Oscars have you won for screenwriting?
Sorry wrong. For instance, revisionism is history is defined as,
"the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, of the orthodox views about a historical event, of the evidence of the event, and of the motivations and decisions of the participant people."
And their cannot be revisionism in art when each person determines their meaning. There is no one meaning.
More obfuscation and dishonestly. Meaning is not the same as changing the narrative of a film to fit a personal pet theory, that is revisionism.
there you go. thanks bible thumper. Practice the Gosbel of Dehn! All others are heretics. You belong in the Church in the middle ages.
Guilty. I respect the work of the writer and the stated intent of HIS story.
Apparently you cannot read. "books should be judged by those who read them—not explained by the writer"
I am the reader. Your friend Dehn is the writer. I judge meaning and understanding through my eyes - not his. And it is not only Hemingway - it is all of Academia.
Again you're dishonestly conflating interpreting that meaning versus revising the narrative. Since you ignored it the first time (not surprising since it blows your argument to pieces), I'll explain it again using Planet as an example. Some could see it and think it was a satire on race and class in our society, others could think it was post apocalyptic morality tale and others that is was just a simple action-adventure story. That is interpretation. But if someone claims it was all just a dream that Taylor had in hibernation or that he was really on a parallel earth or that Cornelius & Lucius were secretly gay, that is revisionism.
Apparently all of Academia is wrong as well - except for the guardian of the Apes Movies. I mean who do you think you are telling other people what they should think or interpret because of your ill conceived knowledge of a movie? You should open your mind.
So now you're the spokesperson for all Academia? No one I know in Academia had informed me. And no one I know in Academia would dishonestly conflate interpreting the meaning with revising the narrative as you are doing. Those I know in Academia rely on evidence and facts, not with logical fallacies, distortions or the intellectually dishonest arguments that you have indulged in.
Face it, your personal pet theory is just not supported in the films. There is no dialogue that directly supports it and the statements of the writer dispute it. Rather than admit that your theory is not supported like an adult, you've been spinning wildly trying to discredit the evidence in the films that dispute you, conflating interpretation with revisionism and trying to disparage an Academy Award winning screenwriter. It is all rather sad and pathetic.
Finally I'll re-post this from the POTA wiki:
The majority of Planet of the Apes fans — both casual and devoted — consider the movie series to be a continuous loop, and that the contradictions are due either to mistaken or misleading statements of history. Other fans believe that the alterations are only minor, and lead to the same ultimate conclusion. The scenes deleted from the original cut of Battle — showing the beginning of a mutant Alpha-Omega Bomb cult — support this hypothesis, and their restoration to the 2006 DVD reissue strengthens the argument for a circular timeline.
This has been the structure followed by almost all timelines constructed to demonstrate the course of Apes events, including the first such timeline in Marvel Comics 1970s Planet of the Apes Magazine, Rich Handley's Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology, the Fox 30th Anniversary Apes website which was included on the DVD-ROM of the Battle DVD and those appearing on websites such as Empire Online and IGN. http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_vs_Linear_TimelinesI'll also post this like to a quote from the book 'Planet of the Apes Revisited' by Joe Russo. Russo is probably the greatest expert alive on the original films. Take from it what you will.
http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/russo1.jpg
reply
share
EinsteinRosenBridge
8 years ago
Again it is not a desired theory, it the stated intent of the writer. You're just lying about what the term means to prove your point because you have no real evidence. Characters speak the lines written by the writer to communicate the story to the audience. Can you point to anything presented in the films that say that what any of those characters said should be ignored or disregarded?
Why do you keep repeating yourself? Character speak lines based on their own knowledge. A person in Kansas cannot speak about life in New York or Mars because they have not been there. It destroys the suspension of disbelief. Again - 6th time - tell me within the confines of the storyline, not the intention of the writer that they have knowledge it is a causality loop?
Again - not disregarded or ignored. You assign meaning where it cannot be there.
More distortion. Hasslein's goal it to kill the baby in order to 'change lanes'. At the end of the film it is revealed that he failed
Again - no evidence to that. Think about it like a trial. What piece of verifiable evidence can prove the Apes do not live in peace with Humans? None.
You just exposed your fanboy arrogance. It reminds me of something I read in an interview with, I think, Ronald Moore, "Science Fiction fans are both the best and worst kinds of fans. They are the best because of their passion, devotion and loyalty. They are the worst because they assume an attitude of ownership that they are just not entitled to"
Not fanboy arrogance. Literary theory. T.S. Elliot. Ernest Hemingway and others. And I am guessing, Ron Moore probably said that when he was killed for the bad BSG season finale.
Again you're dishonestly conflating interpreting that meaning versus revising the narrative
Listen man - No one is changing the narrative. The interpretation of the same events you and I watch denote an altered timeline as opposed to a circular. And as I said, revisionism is interpretation of events. Such as understanding that the events that take place were an altered timeline.
So now you're the spokesperson for all Academia? No one I know in Academia had informed me. And no one I know in Academia would dishonestly conflate interpreting the meaning with revising the narrative as you are doing. Those I know in Academia rely on evidence and facts, not with logical fallacies, distortions or the intellectually dishonest arguments that you have indulged in.
How am I revising the narrative? And as to academia, the meaning of Hamlet today as piece of feminism as opposed to Freudian relationship is accepted but my view of alternative timeline is not? That is, Hamlet has a subconscious desire to sleep with his mother is a legitimate academic interpretation but seeing two timelines is not? Your a fool.
The majority of Planet of the Apes fans — both casual and devoted — consider the movie series to be a continuous loop, and that the contradictions are due either to mistaken or misleading statements of history. Other fans believe that the alterations are only minor,
Please verify this fact. Who wrote this? Did they take a poll? Did they collect data?
And while the happier ending, with Caesar freeing the humans and declaring a commitment to peaceful coexistence, seems more straightforwardly optimistic than Dehn’s, the film still has a flourish of ambiguity at the end that suggests two different readings. And I think it’s probably that last thing that makes the final version of Battle most valuable. After a story that gives the apes their own fall from grace and still suggests the possibility of reconciliation between peoples who have wronged each other, the very ending (with a few ominous words from The Lawgiver, a fleeting shot of an ape child and human child fighting, and a statue of Caesar that appears to be weeping) asks whether human nature could allow any such peace to last. It doesn’t just let fans debate the mechanics of time travel and nerdy continuity minutia. It also makes each audience member personally consider their own belief in the human capacity for peace and answer the question, “Why do you think Caesar weeps?”
https://www.sportsalcohol.com/hail-caesar-battle-planet-apes/
reply
share
JamesA-1102
8 years ago
I'm not going to respond point by point. That has proved to be a useless exercise. You're too stuck in you're fanboy bubble. You can't make an honest argument that proves your personal pet theory so you obfuscate and indulge in logical fallacies. You can't present any direct evidence from the films that supports you so you instead you've been spinning like crazy trying to discredit the actual evidence presented in the films that dispute and the statements from the writer that do the same. You dishonestly conflate interpretation with revisionism and pretend that somehow all academia agrees with you when they don't so you distort their actual meaning of what they said. It's like watching a petulant teenager who still refuses to accept that Santa isn't real. In the end it is just sad and pathetic.
reply
share
EinsteinRosenBridge
8 years ago
I am not the one that goes around the boards scouring for people's opinions to "correct" them based on the statement of a writer nor not allow room for other people's opinions who are not asking for your opinion. That is what is pathetic.
reply
share
talona
8 years ago
From the "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" message boards from a few years ago...
James A:
They can't go into the past again because events only happen once. Anything else is doubletalk.
Soodinum replied Jul 20, 2014
After they went into the past the first time, everything was already happening for the second time with them inserted into it.
James A:
There is no second time. Events only happen once. Today occurs one time, it will not happen again.
Paul Dehn:
I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of 'Apes 1', so that the wheel had come full circle.
Apes Wiki defining a circular timeline:
...the looping, unchanging series of events that a Circular timeline represents.
"Unchanging"
There is much to commend the Fixed Time Theory of time; yet once you introduce time travel to the mix, it becomes unworkable. What makes this worse is that most of those who promote it fall prey to one of its most seductive errors. They imagine this to be part of its strengths, when it is in actuality its most telling weakness. It is the matter of the Uncaused Cause.
An event whose occurrence is dependent upon its own occurrence cannot occur. That's just simple. If taken as a Fixed Time Theory story, 12 Monkeys must be taken as saying that the Fixed Time Theory is wrong, because this is absurd. That's all it tells us--that, or that if the Fixed Time Theory is true, time travel must be impossible, because otherwise anomalies like this could occur. If we have an original cause that has been erased, lost to reality as something that happened and then "unhappened", which does not now exist in any real sense, the replacement cause can maintain the loop without a problem. However, the loop must have had an original cause, or it could never have come into existence. That's the problem with most fixed time stories. They don't work under the Fixed Time Theory. The only story that works under that theory is this one: time travel proves to be impossible.
Let's review.
The fact that there's even a discussion about changing events... changing being the key word... means that it cannot be circular or a loop. In a circle (by definition a circle has no beginning or end and repeats itself), or a circular timeline, the events should only happen once. If we've been discussing a different series of events such as:
First it was Aldo leading the rebellion then it became Caesar, or
It originally took centuries for apes to speak and rise up (and the definition of century in every dictionary is 100 YEARS not simply a hundred of something. That's the 3rd or 4th definition listed, meaning NOT the common one. Silly to suggest Cornelius meant a hundred days or weeks. Obviously he meant years... and so did Paul Dehn.) then with Caesar it took less than a decade, or
Many other events that have been discussed, no need to repeat all of them. AND they aren't all hearsay that can be attributed to the misreading or misinterpretation of the sacred scrolls. We have discussed actual events like what we see in "Battle".
If any event was different then that suggests an alternate timeline. And even if that timeline that we see and you try to explain with "the screenwriter's intent" or "that's the filled in backstory" which becomes a circle, then that circle in itself is an alternate circle!
You cannot have an uncaused cause. Something must have caused mankind's demise BEFORE C and Z went back in time. They couldn't have always been a part of the timeline. It had to happen for the first time without them travelling back in the time ship.
As James A once said, "They can't go into the past again because events only happen once."
How can events only happen once in a circular timeline? If each day only happens one time then that's... um... linear? As in a linear alternate timeline.
I believe the great, infallible Paul Dehn meant (and it's shown on the circle graphic we've all seen provided by James A) that he was going for a perfect circle, "come full circle" he says, meaning here we go again, time repeating itself. Taylor lands, C and Z go back, war, humans dumb, Taylor lands again, repeat.
T'isnt. Can't happen that way. I see what he was going for but it's an alternate timeline and events have been changed. Even if the circle now is in place (which it isn't), it's an alternate circle.
You know, like James A said, "today only happens one time." Only once? Doesn't sound like a repeating circle to me.
reply
share
JamesA-1102
8 years ago
There is much to commend the Fixed Time Theory of time; yet once you introduce time travel to the mix, it becomes unworkable.
How does it become unworkable, just because you don't like it?
An event whose occurrence is dependent upon its own occurrence cannot occur. That's just simple.
You don't know that, it's fictional universe and has its own rules.
The fact that there's even a discussion about changing events... changing being the key word... means that it cannot be circular or a loop.
Some discuss if the earth is flat. So just the act of discussing something doesn't make it true.
If we've been discussing a different series of events such as:
First it was Aldo leading the rebellion then it became Caesar, or
Never stated by C&Z. All they said was that Aldo was the first to say 'no' and nothing more about him. Anything else is just a fanboy theory.
It originally took centuries for apes to speak and rise up (and the definition of century in every dictionary is 100 YEARS not simply a hundred of something. That's the 3rd or 4th definition listed, meaning NOT the common one. Silly to suggest Cornelius meant a hundred days or weeks. Obviously he meant years... and so did Paul Dehn.) then with Caesar it took less than a decade, or
Many other events that have been discussed, no need to repeat all of them. AND they aren't all hearsay that can be attributed to the misreading or misinterpretation of the sacred scrolls. We have discussed actual events like what we see in "Battle".
Yes they are hearsay if they are never seen on screen by the audience. Nor were they witnessed by the characters who related them and come from a source that was shown to be inaccurate in the very first film.
Additionally the timeframe was inconsistent with what was shown in the first 2 films which established that human civilization was destroyed in the 20th century, not the 25th. As well as Cornelius' earlier statement in Escape that apes spoke English for nearly 2,000 years.
If any event was different then that suggests an alternate timeline. And even if that timeline that we see and you try to explain with "the screenwriter's intent" or "that's the filled in backstory" which becomes a circle, then that circle in itself is an alternate circle!
You can't say an event was different when it was never seen on screen.
You cannot have an uncaused cause. Something must have caused mankind's demise BEFORE C and Z went back in time. They couldn't have always been a part of the timeline. It had to happen for the first time without them travelling back in the time ship.
Again that is just an opinion. Fictional universes have their own rules. The concept of a time loop had been used over and over again in science fiction from the Twilight Zone to Star Trek to Doctor Who and the first Terminator movie.
As James A once said, "They can't go into the past again because events only happen once."
How can events only happen once in a circular timeline? If each day only happens one time then that's... um... linear? As in a linear alternate timeline.
Because events do only happen once. Some people get confused by the terminology. Just because it the term used it time circle or time loop doesn't mean it repeats. I've always preferred the term pre-destination paradox that's more accurate.
I believe the great, infallible Paul Dehn meant (and it's shown on the circle graphic we've all seen provided by James A) that he was going for a perfect circle, "come full circle" he says, meaning here we go again, time repeating itself. Taylor lands, C and Z go back, war, humans dumb, Taylor lands again, repeat.
T'isnt. Can't happen that way. I see what he was going for but it's an alternate timeline and events have been changed. Even if the circle now is in place (which it isn't), it's an alternate circle.
Just twisting what Dehn said to fit you're personal pet theory. He is perfectly clear about what he meant in multiple interviews and other statements. So let's be honest about what the man said about his own story.
You know, like James A said, "today only happens one time." Only once? Doesn't sound like a repeating circle to me.
Again, never claimed it was a repeating circle and neither did Dehn. Just playing semantics games with that.
reply
share