Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes did quite well at the boxoffice ($180M) and lot of money internationally back in 2001. So why they did not go on with further sequels?
shareContrary to popular belief, studios do take into consideration the fans' reactions to sequels and remakes, specially if they're overly negative. That's why they decided not to make a sequel, but because it grossed a lot of many, they wanted the franchise to keep going. So they rebooted it.
shareWith the money it made, it's complete and total b.s. to think that Fox gave any consideration whatsoever to the reaction of fans of the original franchise.
If you want to know what happened, look no further than the release date: July 27, 2001. The movie came out, it did big business and then a little over a month later 9-11 happened. The bottom line is that the Planet of the Apes franchise is rife with racial/religious subject matter which would have been taboo in the wake of September 11. They kept trying to push forward with the "Caesar" sequel but it kept hitting delays, and by the time it finally happened this film was a fuzzy memory so they decided to ignore it altogether.
never considered the 9 - 11 reasons, I guess it's a possibility.
Because there is hope for humanity afterall?
Movie Reviews/News to make you laugh!
http://www.youtube.com/wewatchedamovie
In part, due to the fact that Tim Burton will no longer do sequels after the back lash he got for Batman Returns.
shareHowever, a movie with a PRODUCTION budget of 100 million, while making 180 million worldwide is not necessarily a movie making a profit. That figure does not include marketing the movie, which can cost upwards of 50 - 100 million itself. It is most likely that this movie just broke even.
shareYou all make fair points, but I agree w/IMDB_Vits theory that the studio took the audience reaction into account. According to Wikipedia, it did $362 mill globally on a $100 mill budget. That doesn't equal $262 mill of pure profit, as that budget doesn't likely include the marketing budget, and movies only make something like .50 cents on the dollar in a split with the theaters (something like .25 cents internationally). But still, it was profitable.
But audience reaction was mixed at best, merchandise languished on shelves and ended up languishing further still in discount bins for years (Toys 'R Us had the figures collecting dust well into the decade). Factor in that Tim Burton didn't want anything to do w/a sequel (saying he'd rather jump out a window) and I think they decided to just put the kibosh on it.
I don't doubt that the political climate post 9/11 didn't exactly help, but I don't think it was the primary factor.
I'm a fan of Tim Burton's films but it wouldn't have bothered me if someone else had directed the sequel. The originals had different directors and the new ones do too.
Was there a Daena figure ?
Better three hours too soon than a minute too late.- William Shakespeare
Was there a Daena figure?