where does this fit in with the films? - Planet of the Apes (1974) Discussion

[–] laurence01 15 years ago

It doesn't it is a new version. Basically the premise is the same as the first movie, but with new characters. Also in this version the humans can talk.

reply

[–] fredrik-stolt-6121 15 years ago

The talking humans could be explained by the theory of alternative future(s) (a common theme in the world of TV and cinema); meaning, the first two movies is an alternative future, changed by the fact that two apes travel back in time and tells us about the future. This is a theme throuout the five movies, and the fact that Ceasar speed up ape evolution by centuries makes the plot in the first movie nonexistant in the following storyline. Also, Im trying desperatly to fit the latest movie (By Tim Burton) into this ekvation. I havent seen this series, but if the humans can talk, this would somehow fit with the latest movie, in at least some facts...er...

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

The films do speak of changing the future but repeatedly show that those who try (like Dr. Hasslein) ultimately fail do so.

Much of that fan theory is based on C&Z testimony from the secret scrolls in Escape. However, much of that is totally inconsistent with what was established in the first 2 films and those events are never seen by the audience. And since they come from a source that was shown to be dubious in the first film, those events cannot be trusted to be accurate.

Plus while it can be argued that Caesar accelerated the ape revolt due to his presence, there is no way he could have sped up the process of apes going from pet to slaves.

It is also disrespectful to the original to have one of its sequels wipe it from existence. I tend to doubt that was the intention of the filmmakers.

reply

[–] paul1314 15 years ago

The original movie and Beneath Sequel are set in New York (subway , statue etc). While the TV series sees the protagonists travelling, it is set around San Francisco (zoo poster found by Urko of a caged gorilla)

reply

[–] mithrandir16 15 years ago

In one episode of the TV series, an ape mentions that astronauts had similarly landed about 10 years before the events of the show. I took that to be a reference to Charlton Heston's crew in the 1968 movie.

You might make a case that humans in the future New York area are mute and humans in future California are able to speak. I just assume they decided it would be easier to make a show if the humans could speak.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] laurence01 15 years ago

Interesting theory, but it does not tir in completly with things said in the first film. I personaly see it as just an alternative version.

reply

[–] gollumsmeagolrocks 8 years ago

Actually, it matches up pretty well.

So Zaius said, in the first movie, the scrolls were written 1200 years ago. Assuming, since presumably the first movie's date is the only trustable one, that would be in 2678. This would match up perfectly with what Cornelius said that 500 years of enslavement passed before the apes rebelled. So Caesar going back in time somehow accelerated the timeline, and clearly made it so the earth was not destroyed at the end of the second movie.

~NW~

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

The time of the nuclear holocaust on the TV show occurred centuries after the astronauts had left Earth, according to the evidence in the bomb shelter on the pilot episode and the underground ruins on "The Trap".

reply

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

The underground ruins in "The Trap" didn't seem to be centuries after the astronauts has left. Burke was familiar with everything there including the products in the ads on the walls.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

I had always assumed that Burke, like the audience, were being introduced to these products for the first time. He grasped the concepts according to the ads and explained them to Urko. And that explaining that the phone was linked by satellite was an educated guess.

reply

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

That's not how the scene is played. Burke seems totally familiar with the products. Plus nothing else in the subway station seemed at futuristic.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

Did they have satellite phones back in the '70s?

reply

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

Yes. The first Telstar satellite was launched in the 1960s.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

I heard of the Telstar but I never knew what its function was.

reply

[–] ewaf58 8 years ago

First live transatlantic telecasts -

reply

[–] millsey72 (9570) 2 years ago

That scene contradicts the pilot episode when the astronauts see the pics of the book in the cave and it shows NYC in the year 2503 and its all futuristic looking

reply

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

So Zaius said, in the first movie, the scrolls were written 1200 years ago. Assuming, since presumably the first movie's date is the only trustable one, that would be in 2678.

Again simple math: 3978-1200=2778, not 2678.

So Caesar going back in time somehow accelerated the timeline, and clearly made it so the earth was not destroyed at the end of the second movie.

Accept that Caesar had no influence in accelerating apes going from pets to slaves because he was in the circus when that happened. And this goes against what the screenwriter said about the situation: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/images/dehn5.jpg

reply

[–] VampyreMike 14 years ago

I liked your theory until I realized that in the first episode Zaius had said that ten years prior astronauts had come who had died and they spoke of what Allan and Pete spoke of. Which makes me lean towards a different future, one future from the films where it ends in harmony, another where the apes still rule and the tv series comes from, and a third where the world had blown up due to charlton heston and the bomb people from the second film.

reply

[–] memman 13 years ago

Film remakes and tv series are often rethought and thus don't follow identical paths.For example war of the worlds 1953 flying ships v's the 2005 future version with tripods.

reply

[–] adampearce96 13 years ago

My theory is that this is set in 3085 (like it says) and that by the time the movies came around (395something as said in the movies) that humans wouldve lost the ability to talk.

Last Movies Seen
Beverly Hills Cop - 7
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes - 4 1/2
The Dilemma - 4

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

Actually the tripod version was the very first concept, but was too difficult special-effects-wise in 1953. There was an episode of the 1988 TV series that featured a tripod ship that was supposed to be an earlier model that scouted the Earth and crashed during a lightning storm hundreds of years ago.

reply

[–] laurence01 8 years ago

Actually the tripod version was the very first concept, but was too difficult special-effects-wise in 1953. There was an episode of the 1988 TV series that featured a tripod ship that was supposed to be an earlier model that scouted the Earth and crashed during a lightning storm hundreds of years ago.

This makes perfect sense, the Tripods come from the original book.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

I took that to be a reference to Charlton Heston's crew in the 1968 movie.

Can't be. The TV series take place in the year 3085, almost 900 years before Taylor arrives.

reply

[–] tjlamb0518 12 years ago

I heard somewhere that a lot of story elements were taken from a proposed script by Rod Serling after the movie hit. It actually was a kinda sorta reference to the first film and was should've been struck from the script when 4 other movies happened and the TV show went in a different direction. But, of course, it somehow slipped past everyone.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Soodinum 12 years ago

It's set 10 years after the original film. In the first episode Zaius tells Galen and a gorilla that ten years prior, a ship containing humans who called themselves 'astronauts' landed, and tells of the trouble it caused. Galen said he had heard of this, but thought it was just 'stories.'

Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 12 years ago

It's set 10 years after the original film. In the first episode Zaius tells Galen and a gorilla that ten years prior, a ship containing humans who called themselves 'astronauts' landed, and tells of the trouble it caused. Galen said he had heard of this, but thought it was just 'stories.'

You mean it's set nearly a decade after the world's surface was disintegrated in Beneath the Planet of the Apes?

reply

[–] Soodinum 12 years ago

As with any franchise, the Multi-verse rules have to apply. In the universe of the series, it happens 10 years after the first film. So in ONE of the futures branching off from the first film's events, the series happens. Beneath would of course be one of the other futures.

In reality of course, the makers wanted a TV series and the easiest thing was to reference the first film to explain why what was going on has no direct correlation to the film, and pretty much ignoring what came after it.

I was young when all of the above came out and the first time I met it all was in the series (being a bit young to be allowed to see the first film). Took some adjusting when I finally DID get to see the movies, and back then, not many people at primary school bandied about the term Multi-verse.

Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 12 years ago

As with any franchise, the Multi-verse rules have to apply. In the universe of the series, it happens 10 years after the first film.

But have you got any dialogue in the TV series that says that the astronauts who arrived ten years previously were Taylor, Landon and Dodge? If not, then why do you assume that it's ten years after the first film, whatever universe it's in? I do get your point about different universes, as it's a good way to separate the different films and reboots which can't be reconciled with each other (PotA1968 and sequels, PotA2001 and Rise), but unless it's certain that the astronauts that arrived ten years previously were the original's crew, then it's safer and logical to assume that the TV series is set prior to the original film rather than after, particularly as Beneath is the finale. Setting it before the original can work fine (Zaius and Galen don't have to be unique names) and doesn't need the complication that it's in another parallel universe setting.

Even when I was young in the early seventies watching the TV series, I felt that the TV series was set before the original film. In fact, if you watch the opening credits, it even shows that the year is before the first film (yeah, but there are arguments that the clock might have stopped, but I don't buy that).

I don't know, but to say as if certain that the TV series is set ten years after the original film does strike me as a deviation, mistaken or wishful thinking. Sure, explain it as your personal theory, but I wouldn't claim it as fact.

reply

[–] Soodinum 12 years ago

You have a bunch of great points, but I think it's clumsily MEANT to be a reference to the same guys, seeing as that would be enough for both the non-geek fanboi production staff and the general viewing audience that liked the filmic concept and would like a TV series. It's a clumsy cheat of a move, but I think in all reality, that's what it is. It reminds me of that cheating gimmicky line in Antitrust where, after presenting a character that looks as if he is SOOOOO meant to be Bill Gates, the whole issue (over which they could be soundly sued, seeing as Gates' personal wealth exceeds the GPD of my whole country) is dealt with by Robbins' character's reply to a question regarding a comparison of his house and Bill Gates' house with a cheeky, 'Who?'

Back to Apes, if movies and TV series' were lovingly crafted by on-to-it geeky fanbois (instead of being too often being bankrolled by cash-grubbing business people with all the creativity of the cardboard tube inside a roll of toilet tissue), a lot of this crap would either never happen or be deliciously and complicatedly resolvable in the most fascinating ways.

Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.

reply

[–] wears-alan 12 years ago

The TV series is set 900 years before the first movie.

Planet of the Apes 3978
Planet of the Apes TV series 3085
Also the series places the fall of man sometime after the year 2503 A.D, so was a different universe altogether.

You are entitled to my opinion, whether you want it or not!!

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

I think most fans consider the TV series a seperate universe than the films, just at the 2001 remake and Rise are a seperate universe.

However, unlike Rise, 2001 and even the animated series; it is not hard to fit the TV series in with the films. It does take some leaps of logic to do so, but it is possible.

reply

[–] wears-alan 11 years ago

I agree with a few leaps of logic, it is possible to link it to the films.

You are entitled to my opinion, whether you want it or not!!

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

A few leaps through hoops. ;-)

One of the problems with the TV series is that it contradicted itself. In the first episode the astronauts seen a picture of New York 500 years after they were launched, yet all other pictures in the same book are from the 20th century.

In a later episodes when they explore the ruins of old cities, they look like they're from the 20th century. The subway station one becomes trapped in is clearly from the 20th century and he has full knowledge of the products advertised on the wall of the station.

But in another episode they find a device which projects a message that they say is from their future. It leads them to a vault of old computers. But when they find the computers, they are fully familiar with how they operate.

reply

[–] chrishayes737 11 years ago

The T.v series in infact set 893 years before the first movie....in the t.v series the humans talk but the humans in the first movie are mute so 800 years of further evolution the humans become mute & as this t.v series is set after the battle for the planet of the apes the future might have been slightly alted compared to what we get in the first movie .

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

What you say is true but there is still nothing substantive in the TV series that links it with the films.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

Burke didnt have full knowledge of the products seen in the posters; the posters were self-explanatory, he knew he had to exain it to Urko to get him to understand it.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

Yes he did. Go back and watch the episode.

reply

[–] nashspacerocket 10 years ago

i think it's far easier to make a case for the tv timeline than it is for the movie timeline.
the tv series allows 500 years for apes to evolve intelligence enough to be a threat and cause a nuclear catastrophe, and why humans can still talk.
it would also explain why parts of SF are still standing within around 500 years give or take. (why they would still have bart is another question, although you could argue that SF was abandoned in the 21st century after a massive earthquake made the area uninhabitable, and thus was spared the nuclear war) :)

in the movies we have to believe that an 1800 year old nuclear device and it's control circuitry still function.

the movies have such glaring continuity errors i can't believe anybody wants to believe that timeline is more plausible.

A bunch of apes with no knowledge of flight are able to retrieve a rocket from the bottom of a lake, fix it, and fly it back to 1973 (escape from the planet of the apes).
within 18 years (1991) they have taught present day apes to be almost as clever as they are and start a revolt against humans (conquest of the planet of the apes).

the other obvious explanation that nobody mentions is that they had no choice but to go back prior to 3978 since the world was destroyed at that point.

i think mentioning the astronauts from 10 years earlier could be a completely different bunch of people. who's to say later flights didn't land earlier in time it is an unpredictable timewarp after all.

Pointless witty comment here ...

reply

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

Well tbh, you are only really linking it to what Cornelius and Zira say in 'Escape', and not to 'Planet' and 'Beneath'. Those two films support a 20th century or at least early 21st century fall of mankind. This is further supported by the events of 'Conquest'.

Bats, are they really blind or are they taking the piss?

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I like working the TV Show into the film word. In my theory, the TV SERIES occurs in 3085 (I do not buy into the "maybe further, that's when it stopped working" chronometer thing). This year 3085 is OUR timeline, OUR future. It is also the same one which will ultimately lead into PLANET and BENEATH, in the 3900's. At this point in the TV series, humans can still talk and it's just before they are turning into mute animals. (It can be presumed that it was Virdon and Burke's arrival which ultimately caused the apes to dissect humans, but this is not a vital necessity in order to match it with the first two movies). The fact that there are dogs in the TV SERIES is because (presumably) not "all" dogs and cats died with the plague (relating the history, Cornelius only says "hundreds and thousands of them died", not "all" ; thus we may presume some rare ones survived and are sort of endangered species in this timeline*.
*(ESCAPE and CONQUEST will occur the next time around, in another alternate timeline that is not ours, and in that one Armando says of the plague: "they all died, every dog and cat in the world" -- thus, it is better to figure the TV SERIES being in that other timeline of PLANET and BENEATH).

(SIDE NOTE: It is also imperative to presume that Virdon and Burke left Earth in 1975 or so, in our first timeline above, because they could not have left Earth in the same one where Zira and Cornelius arrived in 1973, without already having been well familiar with this World News Phenomenon Of Talking Chimpanzees).

One question about this "East Coast/West Coast" thing. Does it matter, if you're not of the mindset that the entire Ape Planet only consists of one or the other? So the TV SERIES occurs on the West Coast; the Ape City 900 years later is on the East Coast. We have been conditioned to assume that everything occurring on The Planet of the Apes is required to exist only in one community on Earth, but it need not.

So that's it -- our timeline in 2014 now will go on to include 3085 (TV SERIES), and 3955 or 3978 (PLANET and BENEATH)...

... then, Zira and Cornelius go back to an alternate 1973 (not ours - we didn't have apes in '73, and '91, and no space plague in our 1983)... things accelerate, and go to CONQUEST and BATTLE. The whole story pauses in 2670 at the Epilogue of BATTLE, and we are left to wonder if things will lead into the same BENEATH climax as the first time, or whether the events will be preventable.

reply

[–] lavenderspirit2005 7 years ago

The show is definitely set before the events of POTA (first film). It actually does a pretty good job of showing how the humans' got to the totally degenerated state they were in, in the Heston film, by demonstrating how disenfranchised and enslaved they were nearly a full millennium beforehand! It's the progression of their downfall as a species.

***********************************************************

http://divasdamselsandsmudgedmascara.tumblr.com/

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 7 years ago

Yes, although many fans consider the TV series to be its own entity; unrelated to the movie series.

reply

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

The TV series being set on the West Coast centuries away from the events from any of the films, leaves it open. It could be in the same universe as the films or it could be in its own universe.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 7 years ago

The only unlikely aspects are astronauts arriving a decade ago (how many missions were lost?), and the coincidences of the names Galen and especially Zaius as the leader.

reply

[–] lavenderspirit2005 7 years ago

Yes, although many fans consider the TV series to be its own entity; unrelated to the movie series.

Yep, different interpretations out there. I think everything can be tied together pretty well with the films though. When the mention was made of prior astronauts landing on the planet in the series' pilot, there wasn't any hard and fast rule that that was a mention of Taylor and his crew. The writers cleverly left it open so that it could've been any crew of astronauts. Who's to say that periodically, along the way to the events of the '68 film, there weren't other crash-landings from space travelers? The world of POTA and the domination of the humans is established too well for it to be anything other than a prequel...the people Burke and Virdon encounter are half-way there already. It doesn't take much to imagine that there was an ever harsher crackdown on their precarious existence at some point in the timeline, perhaps a mix of experimental brain surgeries and collective trauma that would've eventually damaged their ability for speech (damaged but not entirely destroyed because Nova was able to scream Taylor's name in "Beneath" with prolonged exposure to intelligent humanity and demonstration of speech).

I love this series, the tv show and all of the movies. It's the ultimate in imaginative scifi! 

************************************************************

http://divasdamselsandsmudgedmascara.tumblr.com/

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 7 years ago

There were supposed to be ten more episodes, so I wonder if they were supposed to have found the spaceship belonging to the previously mentioned astronauts from ten years earlier.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9570) 2 years ago

Well duh! It surely can't be set after the events of the original since the planet exploded at the end of Beneath

reply

[–] chrishayes737 11 years ago

I will make this as simple as possible :
1. In the t.v series the Astronuats leave earth 10 years after Taylor .
2. The Astronuats arrive 893 yrs before Taylor .
3. The t.v series follows on from The battle for the planet of the apes movie .
4. The t.v series bridges the gap from Battle for the planet of the apes to the first movie .
5. Galin is a decendant of Ceaser .
6. The humans are not mute because they have another 800yrs of evolution to go mute .

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

1. In the t.v series the Astronuats leave earth 10 years after Taylor .

The TV series never states when the Astronauts were launched, just that they were were thrown in to a time warp while approaching Alpha Centari some time in 1980. Alpha Centari is 4 1/2 light years from Earth so if their ship was traveling at the speed of light or near it, it would take that amount of time to reach the Centari system. Thus, they would have been launched in 1975 or 1975. Taylor's mission was launched in January of 1972.

2. The Astronuats arrive 893 yrs before Taylor.

Agreed.

3. The t.v series follows on from The battle for the planet of the apes movie.

How does it follow from Battle? No story arcs or characters from Battle are continued in the TV series.

4. The t.v series bridges the gap from Battle for the planet of the apes to the first movie.

Again how? The series is totally removed from the film series. The series takes place on the west coast while Planet and Battle take place on the east coast.

5. Galin is a decendant of Ceaser.

Where or when was it ever established that Galen was a descendent of Caesar?

reply

[–] wears-alan 11 years ago

The TV series is set in an alternate universe to the films (see the picture of New York in the old mans book)

You are entitled to my opinion, whether you want it or not!!

reply

[–] chrishayes737 11 years ago

No why would you want that...just go with my theory .

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

So Alan should just suspend all of his critical thinking skills and just agree with you?

reply

[–] wears-alan 11 years ago

I couldn't possibly go with your theory when it less probable than Governor Breck being awarded Animal Rights Man of the Year!

You are entitled to my opinion, whether you want it or not!!

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

reply

[–] chrishayes737 11 years ago

1. The product decription for the dvd says the launch was 1981 so my applogies...they leave earth 9 years after Taylor .
3. The T.V series follows on from Battle for the Planet of the Apes because the T.V series was released in 1974 - Battle for the planet of the Apes was releaseed in 1973 .
4 . West Coast - East Coast don't matter it briges the gap in the time line from talking humans to mute humans .
5. Galin is played by the same actor as Ceaser & Cornilius & has the same mannerism's so based on that he must be a decendant - established or not .

reply

[–] savagebiscuits 11 years ago

3. The T.V series follows on from Battle for the Planet of the Apes because the T.V series was released in 1974 - Battle for the planet of the Apes was releaseed in 1973 .

So on that basis, the Burton film in 2001 and Rise in 2011 should also be considered to be related to Battle? Good luck with that.

4 . West Coast - East Coast don't matter it briges the gap in the time line from talking humans to mute humans .

Seems to me you're conveniently discarding things that don't fit your viewpoint.

5. Galin is played by the same actor as Ceaser & Cornilius & has the same mannerism's so based on that he must be a decendant - established or not .

Well, "established or not" suggests that you haven't established it, so based on whatever you like, your conjecture isn't worth a "must". The same actor playing different characters doesn't in any way suggest that the characters are related. The same actor was used as a matter of convenience and also that the actor was heavily tied to the whole Planet of the Apes franchise. What's established is that you haven't come up with anything concrete to support your position. There are too many incongruities to fit the TV series to the films. Let it go.

Suffice it to say, I also fall in the "it's not related to the original films" group, because there are enough established reasons why that'd be the case.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 11 years ago

1. The product decription for the dvd says the launch was 1981 so my applogies...they leave earth 9 years after Taylor .

A product description written 30 years after the fact by some unknown person is irrelevant. In the series itself is is never stated when they were launched just that their ship hit turbulance while approaching Alpha-Centauri in 1980.

3. The T.V series follows on from Battle for the Planet of the Apes because the T.V series was released in 1974 - Battle for the planet of the Apes was releaseed in 1973 .

So by that logic the cartoon series in 1975 follows from the TV series. Sorry, just doesn't make sense.

4 . West Coast - East Coast don't matter it briges the gap in the time line from talking humans to mute humans .

Yes is does matter. Even if you're unwilling to admit it.

5. Galin is played by the same actor as Ceaser & Cornilius & has the same mannerism's so based on that he must be a decendant - established or not .

First, it's Galen, not Galin. Second, several actors played multiple roles over the course of the films series and TV series. Natalie Trundy played a mutant in Beneath, a human in Escape and an ape in Conquest and Battle. Norman Burton played a gorilla in Planet, a human in Escape and a Chimp in the TV series. Austin Stoker was MacDonald in Battle and voiced one of the astronauts in the animated series. Just because an actor plays different roles within the same franchise it doesn't mean they are related. It has to be estabished.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

I don't see how it could relate to "Battle", Urko's community is on the west coast.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 11 years ago

A TV show was proposed right after the original film was made, hence the participation of Rod Serling. But then a movie sequel ("Beneath") was made instead.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I like working the TV Show into the film word. In my theory, the TV SERIES occurs in 3085 (I do not buy into the "maybe further, that's when it stopped working" chronometer thing). This year 3085 is OUR timeline, OUR future. It is also the same one which will ultimately lead into PLANET and BENEATH, in the 3900's. At this point in the TV series, humans can still talk and it's just before they are turning into mute animals. (It can be presumed that it was Virdon and Burke's arrival which ultimately caused the apes to dissect humans, but this is not a vital necessity in order to match it with the first two movies). The fact that there are dogs in the TV SERIES is because (presumably) not "all" dogs and cats died with the plague (relating the history, Cornelius only says "hundreds and thousands of them died", not "all" ; thus we may presume some rare ones survived and are sort of endangered species in this timeline*.
*(ESCAPE and CONQUEST will occur the next time around, in another alternate timeline that is not ours, and in that one Armando says of the plague: "they all died, every dog and cat in the world" -- thus, it is better to figure the TV SERIES being in that other timeline of PLANET and BENEATH).

(SIDE NOTE: It is also imperative to presume that Virdon and Burke left Earth in 1975 or so, in our first timeline above, because they could not have left Earth in the same one where Zira and Cornelius arrived in 1973, without already having been well familiar with this World News Phenomenon Of Talking Chimpanzees).

One question about this "East Coast/West Coast" thing. Does it matter, if you're not of the mindset that the entire Ape Planet only consists of one or the other? So the TV SERIES occurs on the West Coast; the Ape City 900 years later is on the East Coast. We have been conditioned to assume that everything occurring on The Planet of the Apes is required to exist only in one community on Earth, but it need not.

So that's it -- our timeline in 2014 now will go on to include 3085 (TV SERIES), and 3955 or 3978 (PLANET and BENEATH)...

... then, Zira and Cornelius go back to an alternate 1973 (not ours - we didn't have apes in '73, and '91, and no space plague in our 1983)... things accelerate, and go to CONQUEST and BATTLE. The whole story pauses in 2670 at the Epilogue of BATTLE, and we are left to wonder if things will lead into the same BENEATH climax as the first time, or whether the events will be preventable.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

I agree that the TV series could go along with the first three movies. It's safe to assume that the ape slavery existed throughout the US (probably the world - at least the more developed countries), so it only makes sense that there would be talking ape communities other than the New York area. There may not have been underground human mutants on the west coast, but certainly ape communities.
As for Cornelius and Zira arriving in an alternate 1973, I don't know about that...

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

As for Cornelius and Zira arriving in an alternate 1973, I don't know about that...

For consideration...

If Zira and Cornelius arrived in the same 1973 as we lived -- well, you didn't hear of any talking apes back then, did you? :) Neither did Virdon and Burke ... because if they had, they wouldn't have been so shocked to discover talking apes when they landed. And if the chimps had landed in the same timeline (ours), we would be sitting here in 2014 smack in the midst of the world of BATTLE FOR THE POTA, instead of typing on computers with no apes in sight.

But even if one does not subscribe to the 'alternate' word; it's just a matter of how it's worded. I prefer to think of the circle as "the second time around for 1973". Either way, it cannot be the exact same 1973 as it happened "the first time". According to my theory: We will first experience THE TV SERIES, PLANET, and BENEATH in our future as "the first time around" ... but when Z&C go back to 1973 it will be "the second time around" as we see ESCAPE, CONQUEST, and BATTLE (in newly changed events which did not unfold this way during our previous timeline).

"First and Second Time Around", or "Alternate Timeline"... whichever way it's phrased, one thing is for sure: with all the many flaws and inconsistencies as presented in the movies and TV shows themselves (despite the good and well-meant intention of the writers) it cannot work as one perfect circle which repeats itself again and again. And as an aesthetic way to enjoy the whole film and movie series, it's more fulfilling to consider a scenario which was a complete disaster the first time, but one which may or may not be averted next time. IMO .

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

Well..
One thing works in the favor of Cornelius and Zira landing in an alternate 1973...(even though they recognize their ship as Taylor's)...
That president certainly wasn't Nixon!

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

[quote]Well..
One thing works in the favor of Cornelius and Zira landing in an alternate 1973...(even though they recognize their ship as Taylor's)...

They would still recognize the ship as Taylor's under my theory. Because prior to 1973, all the events still went on schedule like they had the first time (including Taylor's taking off in 1972). It's only once the events of ESCAPE start that the timeline shifts off differently and is altered. (So it's more like starting all over again "the second time", but with some changes occurring). Either way it's worded ("alternate" or "second time 'round"), I propose it still cannot be viewed as the exact same perfect circle again and again. It doesn't work.

With the TV SERIES, Virdon and Burke would have left Earth around 1975 the "first time" it played out. But when we go back around the next time, Zira and Cornelius arrive and alter everything with ESCAPE in 1973 . Then the Virdon and Burke of this go-round would know all this when they leave Earth in 1975 (if they did leave again).

Perhaps the best way in wording my theory is:

"First Time Events 1972 - 3955"

"Second Time (Altered) Events" 1973 - 2670 (ending ambiguously)

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

That's the end of my participation on this thread. These things only go so far on my IPhone until it starts to be inaccessible. I can't see my last post or your newest one.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

That's the end of my participation on this thread. These things only go so far on my IPhone until it starts to be inaccessible. I can't see my last post or your newest one.

You only access the boards from your phone? Do you have a desk computer at home? It's a shame spending so much effort in these theories and then you can't read them.

Just another reason why I refuse to have an Iphone.

reply

[–] srb-3 10 years ago

'where does this fit in with the films?'

Good question. It doesn't fit so well. Here is how it's *supposed* to work: this mission led by Virdon is looking for Taylor, his mission leaves *after* Taylor but gets their *before* Taylor's.

In other words: this tv show is set after POTA movie *but* it was supposed to retcon all the sequels. That got lost somehow.

reply

[–] domester82 10 years ago

I just take the TV series as a separate universe to the original five film series; like the Burton film; and Rise and Dawn. Or much like the mirror universe episodes in Star Trek (evil Spock with a goatee); or the reboot ST film series by JJ Abrams.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 10 years ago

Here is how it's *supposed* to work: this mission led by Virdon is looking for Taylor, his mission leaves *after* Taylor but gets their *before* Taylor's.

Supposed to work? According to whom?

Also, it was never stated in the TV series when Virdon and Burke's mission was launched.

In other words: this tv show is set after POTA movie *but* it was supposed to retcon all the sequels. That got lost somehow.

Supposed to retcon the sequels? Again according to whom? And the TV series is set in the year 3085 while the film is set in the year 3978, 900 years after the TV series.

reply

[–] RedWhacker 10 years ago

And then in 2029 Captain Leo Davidson with manipulation from the future (Dr. Zaius) mucks up the timeline further.

Luckily Zira and Cornelius are aware of this and replace Bright Eyes child with their own Cesar (via some time swapping gadget) this way they attempt to fix the altered time line.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

And then in 2029 Captain Leo Davidson with manipulation from the future (Dr. Zaius) mucks up the timeline further.

The 2001 reboot has nothing to do with the original films.

reply

[–] tjlamb0518 9 years ago

If I recall the opening credits correctly, Burke and Virdon left in 1980 (ish...1980 is when they hit the time warp).

As far as them being a mission "looking for Taylor", that makes no sense. And really, neither does Beneath. As per the first film, the original crew was already 700 years in the future when Taylor made his last recording sucking on his cogar (in a spaceship!) before taking the long nap. So as far as any telemetry/messages Earth was getting from 1972 until 2672 (or you know, would have been receiving if those pesky apes hadn't taken over the world), everrything was okey-dokey with Taylor and the crew. Hence, to the people in ANSA there never was a need for one rescue mission much less two.

I always assumed the reference Zaius made to the astronauts they met 10 years prior to Virdon and Burke was not a reference to the old movies, but the panting of seeds for a future storyline where Birke and Virdon would either find people in THAT crew the apes hadn't found or their ship.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

If I recall the opening credits correctly, Burke and Virdon left in 1980 (ish...1980 is when they hit the time warp).

True. 1980 is when their ship hit the time warp. When they were launched is never stated.

As far as them being a mission "looking for Taylor", that makes no sense.

Agreed. It makes not sense.

So as far as any telemetry/messages Earth was getting from 1972 until 2672 (or you know, would have been receiving if those pesky apes hadn't taken over the world), everrything was okey-dokey with Taylor and the crew.

Not sure about that. It is stated in Escape that the ship was missing in space. So maybe they didn't think that everything was OK and why they sent a rescue mission.

I always assumed the reference Zaius made to the astronauts they met 10 years prior to Virdon and Burke was not a reference to the old movies, but the panting of seeds for a future storyline where Birke and Virdon would either find people in THAT crew the apes hadn't found or their ship.

Make sense.

reply

[–] hardcandy429 9 years ago

It is approx 1000 yrs after Battle for the Planet of the Apes film.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 9 years ago

It is approx 1000 yrs after Battle for the Planet of the Apes film.

I like to think of the TV Series as occurring roughly 1000 years before PLANET OF THE APES, in our own future timeline... however, not after BATTLE (which I think of as occurring in a new timeline begun by Zira and Cornelius' arrival in 1973 with ESCAPE). I see the Epilogue of BATTLE as being the end of all stories, so far as we stand at this point.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

The thing about the TV series is that it takes place on the west coast. So there would invariably be differences in their culture compared with the movies. One example is that the Lawgiver is never mentioned on the TV series.

reply

[–] JamesA1102 9 years ago

Very true. It seems like the producers of the TV show were trying to be a bit open ended. They couldn't use characters or storylines from the films because they would have to pay Serling or Dehn. But they wanted to keep it close enough to the films so those fans would watch the show. So putting it on the West coast and in the year 3085, between Battle and Planet, must have seemed like the best solution.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

I still think using the names 'Galen' and 'Zaius' on the TV show was just an excuse to have the tagline "Based on characters from Planet of the Apes". I suppose the TV show Zaius was based on the movie Zaius, but the movie Galen was a disgruntled veterinarian, not a sympathetic politician's aide.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 9 years ago

Originally, Urko's character was named Ursus. One thing which was thankfully altered, to prevent more confusion.

reply

[–] Fletcherj119 9 years ago

They should've used all original names.

reply