MovieChat Forums > Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Discussion > A New Theory

A New Theory

posted 15 years ago by kataniamk
27 replies | jump to latest

I just thought of something. If you remember back to the very first POTA Dr. Zaius sealed up the cave that had the doll in it. My theory is that Dr. Zaius or one of his ancestors changed the scrolls. The orangutans changed them to say to say that humans were supposed to enslaved. My theory is the orangutans read both sides Caesar's and Aldo's history and the orangutans sympathized with Aldo and hated humans because they read that humans blew up the planet and where Caesar believed there could be peace amongst both they believed that humans should be enslaved. I know I may not have the names spelled right but this is what I think happened. Please let me know what you think of my theory but please don't flame me. Just let me know if you agree or disagree with my theory. Also remember the orangutans were more violent by nature then the chimps and it is not that much of stretch to assume that they could have done this. Like I said look at how Dr. Zaius destroyed the evidence in that cave.

[–] JamesA1102 15 years ago

Good theory. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[–] savagesteve13 14 years ago

Well its very obvious that the intellectual and religious Orangutans in general are more interested in preserving the status quo rather than exploring new discoveries.
They knew about talking humans, their technological superiority. They also knew the devastation wreaked upon the world by humans, so a calculated decision was made to hide the truth from all apes.

That's the traditional role of the church, to "protect" us from harsh facts.

[–] pdemonte987 13 years ago

Here's my theory.

A second film was never intended, let alone a third, fourth, and fifth.
Everything after the first is garbage. Absolute crap. I like some of the actors, but these movies sure are lame.. and they just couldn't stop making them. Ugh.

I shudder at any attempt to connect the first film to any of the others.

I respect Charleton Heston's decision to destroy the world.. he thought by doing so, he could stop even more horrible sequels... but he wasn't counting on new writers to change the story to their will.. or ignorance.

You MANIACS... YOU kept making crap films... "DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!"

[–] tjlamb-1 13 years ago

Unless....and this is just a fun little theory. Zaius himself, knowing the true content of the scrolls (which included the story of Caesar being the child of Cornelius and Zira who came from the future) changed the story before giving them access to the scrolls when he left them in charge in Beneath so they would be unaware of their own destiny.

[–] TheSolarSailor 13 years ago

Your theory is stupid, pdemonte987. Just saying. One of two crappy films in the series ended up as it did BECAUSE of Heston. If he didn't want to do a sequel, then all he had to do was say no. But instead, he came back and screwed up everything.

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

[–] rohonnag 13 years ago

the movies repeatedly have proposed the theory of ALTERNATE universes

the movies 1-2 is a different universe than movies 3-4-5

it changed when the two apes went back in time!

An Idea is the most resilient parasite - Inception

[–] JamesA1102 13 years ago

Paul Dehn, the screenwriter, said in interviews at the time that it was a circle:
http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/dehn2.jpg
http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/dehn3.jpg

[–] wears-alan 13 years ago

Dehn was over ruled because they wanted a lighter ending, more kid friendly.
What bothers me though is the amount of people who think Conquest and Battle are situated on the east coast. Where are they getting this info from? Are they confusing it with the TV series, or the fact that Escape was set there?
The only information we have (not including Dehns' original script)is that it is North America and the start of the Mendez dynasty. Which leads more towards a New York setting.

[–] JamesA1102 13 years ago

When was Dehn overruled? Dehn came up with the tear on the statue of Caesar at the end of Battle to communicate to the audience that Caesar's efforts had failed.

[–] wears-alan 13 years ago

Read Dehn's original script for "Battle". Caesar dies. Read the draft by the Corringtons. Caesar dies. Both rejected and overruled by the studio. The final script (collaboration between Dehn and the Corringtons) Caesar lives.This is what the studio wanted.
But yes, you are right about the statue crying being Dehn's idea.

[–] JamesA1102 13 years ago

Rejected by the studio??? That's the first I'm hearing that. Can you post links to prove that? The story that I've always heard was that Dehn wrote a treatment, not a script, for Battle that the producer, Arthur Jacobs, felt was too dark; so he asked Dehn to revise it. But Dehn fell ill as was unable to do it. Jacobs hired the Corrington's to revise the treatment, which was accepted, and write the script. The director, J. Lee Thompson, was unhappy with the Corrington's script so they were let go from the project, and since Dehn had by then recovered from his illness, he was brought back to do the final rewrite of the script.

[–] wears-alan 13 years ago

Sorry. Rejected by Jacobs. He had already decided to go into TV with the Apes and wanted the film to appeal more to kids. The source for this was/is the marvel comics circa 1975.

[–] JamesA1102 13 years ago

You should really read the book "Planet of the Apes Revisited" by Joe Russo. It has a far more detailed and researched account of what happened behind the scenes of the films.

[–] wears-alan 13 years ago

Funnily enough I have just got that. Will read immediately.
Thanks!

[–] TheSolarSailor 13 years ago

Paul Dehn, the screenwriter, said in interviews at the time that it was a circle: >>> Back then, time travel was thought of in the sense that there is only one time line and that past alterations change what we know into something different, hence the endless sci-fi stories through the years where a character sets out to restore or fix the alteration so that the original timeline is restored. Paul Dehn wrote this material back in those days when this was the common view. Now, time is viewed differently through the lens of divergent time lines that have split from the original and now run parallel to the original time line, and which is not limited to one but countless alternate time lines. There is NOTHING in the rule book that prevents this new approach from easily applying to the Planet of the Apes films. And with the way Battle For the Planet of the Apes turned out (despite what Dehn's intentions might have been), it is made pretty obvious that this is NOT the same time line that will result in the future as seen in the original two films. It may be similar, what with the house of Mendez and such, but it is NOT the same. Dehn's intentions are not reflected in the final film. Now, if you ignore this film, then time can indeed be a circle if that is what you prefer.

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

[–] JamesA1102 13 years ago

So because Shakespeare wrote Hamlet before there were computers it is OK to revise his work (and intentions) to include them now? Like it or not it was Dehn's intention that it be a time loop and EVERYTHING in the rule book (including copyright laws) prevent that from being revised. And Dehn's intentions were reflected in the final film since he did the final rewrite.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

Caesar was not part of Dr. Zaius' history. How could he be? On the first movie, Zira's not even pregnant yet. Plus you saw humans speaking that were by the Lawgiver's side on BATTLE. If Caesar didnt create equality, then the humans would've submerged into the mute creatures being hunted in 3955. The mutants would still be there though - with the bomb, so who's to say the world still doesn't explode if the apes don't mix it up with them.

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

Except that the end of BATTLE takes place 1,300 years before PLANET. Enough time for human-ape relations to breakdown. Plus, Paul Dehn, the screenwriter, stated the tear on the statue at the end of BATTLE was meant to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts would ultimately fail.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

The SolarSailor wrote>>Paul Dehn, the screenwriter, said in interviews at the time that it was a circle: >>> Back then, time travel was thought of in the sense that there is only one time line and that past alterations change what we know into something different, hence the endless sci-fi stories through the years where a character sets out to restore or fix the alteration so that the original timeline is restored. Paul Dehn wrote this material back in those days when this was the common view. Now, time is viewed differently through the lens of divergent time lines that have split from the original and now run parallel to the original time line, and which is not limited to one but countless alternate time lines. There is NOTHING in the rule book that prevents this new approach from easily applying to the Planet of the Apes films. And with the way Battle For the Planet of the Apes turned out (despite what Dehn's intentions might have been), it is made pretty obvious that this is NOT the same time line that will result in the future as seen in the original two films. It may be similar, what with the house of Mendez and such, but it is NOT the same. Dehn's intentions are not reflected in the final film.

Well said, SolarSailor. As a big APES fan for over 40 years, I have always viewed the series as alternate threads/timelines. Paul Dehn made a lot of errors and inconsistencies -- even within his own stories! So it's always been up to us to make fluid sense out of things. It has been suggested that the writer must have done something "right" since here we fans are still discussing this series over 40 years later -- but if you notice, almost every discussion is about trying to straighten out what Dehn did WRONG! :)

[–] abcnemail 10 years ago

I always viewed Battle as ending purposefully ambiguous to let the audience decide if it becomes the same time line.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I always viewed Battle as ending purposefully ambiguous to let the audience decide if it becomes the same time line.

Paul Dehn put in the statue of Caesar crying a tear at the end. In a quote he expressed his viewpoint that he felt that, in order for the series to work, we need to know that Caesar's good intentions failed.

Whatever Dehn's intentions, the final scene as it comes across onscreen indeed plays as ambiguous. Before I'd ever heard Dehn's take on things, I have always interpreted the crying statue as Caesar fearing that - although the world has now become more peaceful - things may still not go smoothly.

So for me, the series ends on a hopeful note - but with a harsh reminder that the species may never fully get along. It could very well turn out that we get events exactly as originally played out in PLANET and BENEATH ... yet, perhaps not.

Other people have interpreted the crying statue as a tear of joy.

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

When I first seen it (aged 10) I thought he was crying for his son. Don't know why.

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

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

I was a little older, but I thought it was a response to the final spoken line:
Little Girl: Lawgiver, who knows about the future?
Lawgiver: Perhaps only the dead.
Then the statue cries, so that told me good things weren't going to happen, but I had no idea what.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

One thing I never felt by the tear was a sense of joy. It always seemed sad, but more to me like Caesar did not like seeing the ape and human child still fighting. So it meant that he feared there would always be some tension between the species, and it might never be 'perfect harmony'.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

That works. I've considered that several times, and it seems (with lack of specific explanation) to be the most likely scenario.

[–] TheBoz 10 years ago

"Guardian of the faith" "Keeper of the terrible secret"

You really might be on to something. Like 1984, Zaius, like the Lawmaker and his so called sacred scrolls controlled the present so ergo he controlled the past and then he would control the future to say whatever it was the Orangutangs thought the future generations showed know or think is the truth. Not bad at all man.