Greatest Planet of the Apes Sequel?


C'mon lets face facts, in comparison to the first one the Planet of the Apes sequels are poor films, But this has to be the best of.

Which is your favourite?

reply

beneath the planet of the apes was pretty good.

reply


Are you serious?


'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

Beneath was the worst one, it was the only one i had to force myself through, escape was weird but entertaining, Conquest was just a bit boring for me, Battle had the best story out of the sequels, it just had terribly poor execution


Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey fighting snakes on this Monday thru Friday plane!

reply

I would rather think of the series of films as completing a cycle. Some are better than others, but a fun and worthy of watching. Read the original novel, it's good.

reply

CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, easily...the darkest and most adult-oriented of the sequels.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree Conquest is the Best of the Sequels next would have to be Beneath. Maybe Conquest is the best because of John Jakes he wrote some good histoy books back in the 70's and 80's and is still writting today. Maybe his input in the Story help put this up a little bit above the rest. He wrote the North and South series along with other Historical books back then that are usaly quite good.


Nothing beats the original Planet of the Apes in Book or Movie form.

reply

conquest was the best!! "battle for the planet of the apes" is ranked the worse of the 5 ape movies by most critics!

reply

damn right its the darkest, parents grabbed their kids and went running out of the theater

reply

No doubt Conquest is the best based on the darkness of the script. As I see it, Pota is the best, then Conquest, then Escape, Beneath, and Battle just shouldn't have been made.

I like Conquest because there is one main nemesis who very much like Darth Vader leafs around the sheep to do his bidding. He's intelligent, and he's the one with the plan that backfires due to his own trust in those he believes are slaves to his commands.

Now, why Escape before Beneath? Hasslein! He's just as bad as Breck (or as good) because he's the only one intelligent enough to see the future and attempt to fix the issue before the world altering event can take place.

I felt Beneath fails partly because of Heston's wishes to not be in the movie as much as he should've been. Plus, the enemy while defined seemed very much like the Family from The Omega Man, but in reverse. They were intelligent but still prayed to a deity, the bomb. It made sense in TOM, but not here. They shouldn't have held to primitive notions like a belief system.

reply

Conquest was the best because it had the most apes in it. Escape was the worst because it had the least amount of apes in it

reply

1) Escape
2) Beneath
3) Conquest
4) Battle

...Dan

Check out my web page: http://www.captiongallery.com

reply

Without a doubt, it's Conquest.

reply

1) Escape
2) Battle
3) Beneath
4) Conquest

Conquest was nothing more than a 20 minute short that was stretched beyond its story.

reply

Escape is nothing more than a slapstick version of the first film.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've never really seen any of the films (besides the original) from beginning to end, but any film that features two ape-human hybrids in what was then modern-day LA, who proceed to try out all the gaudy fashion and get smash drunk, is not a film I would consider a worthy successor to the original. >>> That's a pretty simpleton assessment that bends over backwards to ignore the merits of the story. Escape has it's share of lightheartedness, but not at the sacrifice of a good story. Maybe you should be bothered to watch something before offering a stupid comment?

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

ESCAPE
CONQUEST
BATTLE
BENEATH

reply

I'd say "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes".

reply

[deleted]

It's absolutely the best sequel. It is set again on the - approximately - classical planet of apes as we know it from the original of 1969.

reply

[deleted]

IMHO, "Escape" is by far the best of the sequels. It was sort of the "Star Trek IV" of the Apes movies, warm and funny and set in the time of its filming (though ultimately with an unhappy ending, unlike "Star Trek IV"). "Beneath" was marred by the overlong and, in my opinion, pointless bomb-worshipping sequence (complete with the gross-out scene in which the humans remove their masks, which is like something out of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom") and the underground humans' bizarre decision that because they couldn't fool the apes with a bunch of elaborate, scary illusions, they couldn't just hide the entrance to their cave network. Like someone earlier in this thread commented, "Conquest" had a 20-minute plot that was inflated to two hours. "Battle" isn't a bad movie, but by then the series had run out of steam.

reply

Beneath the Planet of the Apes is a film that is crippled by the need of the studio to have Charlton back no matter what. Trying to introduce a new character AND have Charlton in a small role really hurt the film. The new character, Brent, requires too much time to establish in a copy-cat plot to the point that the new ideas about the mutant humans had no time to develop. It's a silly plot when all was said and done. It had potential, but the powers that be squashed said potential with one dumb decision after another.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Well, they maybe should have had James Franciscus play the part of Taylor like you said on another post. Mind you, they had Austin Stoker play the brother of Harry Rhodes MacDonald in "Battle", why do this? Were they afraid that if he played the same character people would suggest that Fox were implying all black people look alike and you can't tell one from another?

reply