MovieChat Forums > Planet of the Apes (2001) Discussion > The actual intent of the ending (and why...

The actual intent of the ending (and why no one wants to accept it)

posted 13 years ago by D'OH
62 replies | jump to latest

The intent of the ending (which is suggested by the film but not actually explained in any real way) is that Thade uses the Oberon or one of the damaged pods to travel back in time to change the Earth into a planet ruled by apes. The reason this ending isn't accepted by most people who watch the film and why they dream up their own convoluted endings is that it doesn't explain:
1. How earth apes where able to develop into species with an advanced intellect between the time Thade has landed and the time Leo does
2. How a single ape was able to overthrow the human population of earth with a single gun and only the help of modern day earth primates.
3. If the Thade was able bring back enough apes from his own planet to help him overthrow the human population of earth (or at least the united states) how he managed to do this and when exactly it happened in our earth timeline.

With so many gaps in the ending and no full satisfactory explanation there's a lot that is left for the viewer to piece together as to what exactly happened to allow Thade to rule an Earth dominated by apes. I don't believe the film-makers had in mind alternative universes or multiple parallel earths when they came up with the ending and there's certainly no hint of it in the film itself.

I guess the reason there are so many differing theories on the films ending is that when you have an ambiguous and unsatisfactorily explained ending in a film involving time travel people will come up with their own explanations instead to fill in the gaps in logic and commonsense that the writers weren't bothered with.

[–] holagurrl25 13 years ago

I've always thought that was the ending too. But I don't think it really matters to viewers unless someone actually comes out and says, "This is what the ending means."

[–] TheSolarSailor 13 years ago

Well, I like your thoughts on the matter, even if they do require vast assumptions. Of course, what choice do you have since the conclusion was so out of left field and no sequel was ever made to explain it. I think that with a little bit of attention and TLC, the twist could have been made to work, but as it stands it was just a lazy thoughtless twist thrown in for the sake of a twist. This is proven by the fact that even Tim Burton himself has nothing at all to offer on the subject, not even a theory of his own.

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

[–] THE-White-Wolf 11 years ago

Watching this film before Rise of the Planet of the Apes seems to explain a lot of these gaps. Oddly, enough...

[–] TheChamCham 10 years ago

Thank you ! I am going to do that now.

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rushe-place 13 years ago

While I agree that the ending of this movie makes no sense, the most ironic thing about it is that this ending is more or less the same as the ending in the original Pierre Boulle novel. Taylor goes back to Earth with Nova and discovers that his home planet is (somehow) ruled by intelligent apes.

I don't recall any mention of a time warp in the Boulle novel, so I doubt Taylor ended up on the same planet at a different time period. In fact (and this may just be due to poor translation), I think the apes' planet in the novel actually WAS a different planet from Earth, so its ending seems just as nonsensical as Tim Burton's. My guess is that Burton was trying to be true to the novel with his ending, even to the point where he kept the flaws intact.

I would suggest reading William T. Quick's novelization of the 2001 movie. It goes into a lot more depth with the characters than the movie does, it's more emotional, and it avoids the confusing finale by just ending after Leo leaves the apes' planet.

[–] savagebiscuits 13 years ago

This post contains spoilers about the Pierre Boulle novel that inspired all the PotA films, so don't read on if you haven't yet read the novel and intend to.

The ending of the film follows the Boulle book to some degree, although the devil's in the detail. Basically, three astronauts (a scientist, his assistant and a journalist called Ulysse {our protagonist}) travel near light speed to a planet orbiting Betelgeuse (they name it Soror). Although it takes them just over two years to get the planet, due to them getting to speeds approaching the speed of light, time for them slows down, while time outside the ship carries on as normal. So, for them, they travel for two years, while outside 350 years goes by. Going back, Ulysse would also travel 350 years in his two year experience of time within the ship. So, all in all, over 700 years pass between Ulysse leaving and arriving back on Earth. Ulysse and the two others leave in the year 2500, and Ulysse, Nova and their son arrive back around the year 3200.

Now, the issue with Burton's film is that Thade is seemingly the one who managed to go back in time (the "time travel" in the book isn't "typical" time travel, and especially it's not backwards time travel) and change the course of Earth's history. In the book, both Soror and Earth become ape dominated as a natural progression due to humanity's own self-induced downfall (intellectual and physical laziness, using apes to do things that humans used to do, etc), but in Burton's film, it's implied that Thade directly changed Earth's history by his own turning up on Earth and doing something to affect the change. So, we do have a bit of a difference between the book's ending and the film's, in that one is a cynical take that humanity is doomed, while the other depends on individuals' actions (Leo and Thade). Also, in the book, no apes travel in space to Earth to cause any changes before Ulysse arrives back, it's seemingly a universal natural progression. We also have the problem how Thade got to Earth before Leo (backwards time travel, not like the book), how he fixed up a ship, got it to fly, etc, then how he changed Earth's history.

So, although they're kind of similar, they're fairly different in nature. One is saying that humanity dooms itself, allowing apes to progress beyond humanity and taking over from where humans left off, while the other is pushing the assumption that an individual's actions changes the future to doom humanity. You could say that the Burton film individualises the social issues that the book raises.

Sorry for the long, rambling post, but I thought I'd pip in with what I felt were the differences between the endings of the book and Burton's film. Personally, I enjoy the Burton film despite its flaws and occasional nonsensical plot points, but it's not alone in the PotA franchise for such things. Escape, my second favourite of the Apes films, for instance, does have backwards time travel, with apes getting a damaged ship from the bottom of a lake and fixing it, flying it, and landing it, so Thade's feat should be seen in that light. If it's good enough for Escape...

[–] rushe-place 13 years ago

I don't mind the long explanation at all. It's been close to 10 years since I read the Pierre Boulle novel, so I'd forgotten a lot of the details (including the protagonist's name). It was good to have everything clarified, especially the ending.

I have a soft spot for the Tim Burton film as well, partly because it's so over the top and silly and partly because I honestly think it had the potential to be a lot better. Do I think it's a good movie as is? Well, no, but everyone's entitled to have a few guilty pleasures.

[–] TheSolarSailor 13 years ago

Thanks, savagebiscuits, for the detailed explanation of the novel. I have never read it before, but I have seen folks try to excuse what Burton did by saying it was the same as the novel. But there is a huge difference between the two, as like you said, the novel features a natural progression where apes become dominant over a 700 year time span, where as Burton's is merely a trip back to the past by Thade which alters Earth's present and makes no real sense at all thanks to the way it was executed on screen. It's all about context, and I think Burton made a big mistake by deciding to adhere to the novel in this case, when it wasn't in any way supported in the story he chose to tell. From what you say, the novel's depiction of an ape dominated Earth of the future is not dependent on any actions that take place in the story.

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

[–] Arseweb 12 years ago

But Thade doesn't have to have gone back in time. It could be that he went
forward in time, but less far forward than Leo. In just the same way that
Leo went forward in time less than Pericles, in their first trips through
the storm. It's quite a big difference because in both cases, there's been
many many generations between the two arrivals. And it's hard to see how
you could explain the one going into the storm first being thrown forward
in time more. But it seems consistent and logical to me.

As for "how did Thade take over?". Maybe he didn't have to. We've no idea
what the year is or what's happened on earth in the meantime. Maybe there
was a holocaust or natural disaster: no humans left, Thade turns up with
a mate and away you go.

Yes it's a bit of a stretch but no more so than almost all sci-fi.

[–] TheSolarSailor 12 years ago

Nothing you typed makes any sense nor does it in any way dispel the problems that arise with Thade arriving on Earth. Thade would be alone. None of his brethren believed in him by the movie's end, abandoning him to his little prison. Nor are the Oberon pods large enough for him to bring passengers along. Aside from the fact that it is silly for him to be able to fix a pod and travel to Earth, how would one lone ape pull off conquering the world? if he traveled to a point earlier than Leo (obviously, since Thade is the Lincoln Memorial), how did he manage to repopulate the planet with apes, while keeping the human infrastructure of present day intact right down to the exact same technology and city layouts? If he arrived in the present, how did he alone defeat humanity and repopulate human's cities with apes? Intelligent ones at that? It is nonsense. It doesn't work no matter what.

What you just stated is not a bit of a stretch, it is an impossible stretch that relies on throwing all logic out the window. Sorry, but a movie establishes it's own world of how things are, but it's story must still work within it's own parameters already established. This ending does NOT do that. It suddenly leaps into something that makles no sense at all. Being sci-fi is no reason for the story to be lazily told like that. That is a cop out, a cheap excuse for not being clever enough to pull it off.

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

[–] Arseweb 12 years ago

Like I said, Thade wouldn't necessarily have to overthrow the humans
or conquer the world on his own. We don't even know that there were any
humans left on the earth that Thade came to.

We also don't know that he wouldn't have been able to take a passenger
in the pod.

Fixing the pod? Who's to say that they weren't able to extract information
from the crashed ship? As well as enabling them to fix the ship this might
have included stuff about making apes smart. Hell, perhaps they found a
stock of ape-smartifying drugs which Thade took with him.

"Nothing I typed makes any sense" eh? That's a bit strong. I suspect
(given that you raised issues which I had already addressed) that you
didn't read it very thoroughly.

I don't like the ending much myself, because it raises too many questions.
But that doesn't make it illogical. Just because you can't think of a logical
explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one.

[–] gallileo60 12 years ago

I think it is more like a parallel time line thing..Thats not our Earth we see at the end...Also Thade was quite insane by the end, when he was hunkering under the table..It seemed to me his mind just snapped..There is no way he could have gotten a pod going, or done much of anything with hi tech...I thought right from the get go, that that was just another Earth he went to at the end...Eh, who knows, it was very vague..

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

[–] redrose_12839 11 years ago

In the original 1968 movie while exiting the crashed space craft they show the time period to be November 25. 3979 over 2000 years into the future

[–] TheSolarSailor 12 years ago

Thanks Captain Obvious, but that actually doesn't really explain anything at all...like how Thade managed to get a machine to work, or how he alone altered everything yet everything was exactly the same except we had apes instead of humans, etc.

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

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theido 12 years ago

Being called 'Captain Obvious' is nothing compared to 'Douche' and suggestions of face-slapping for name-calling. You seem like the uncivilized one. Stop having a cry over being called 'Captain Obvious' and breath deeply. As for spoonfeeding us are you serious? Thade was no scientist or engineer or astronaut for that matter. He was a bigoted simpleton born into wealth and power. With all his machinations undone and a planet full of apes and humans that now despise him and his family, how do you propose he could achieve this amazing feat of interstellar and time travel and populate Earth with apes? And if you watch the console in Leo's ship, it clearly shows him going BACK in time, not forward. We don't want to be spoonfed, but we do like plausibility. Movies lose their appeal when they end in a way that seems totally unlikely and relies on half-baked, outlandish assumptions. Unless the premise of the movie from the get-go was a surreal, nonsense plot with outlandish events, then you can't just suddenly backflip on an otherwise plausible plot.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theido 12 years ago

'to your 1st point; BLOW ME!'

Showcasing your civilized demeanor again, I see.

'as to the 2nd; I grew up on classic Twilight Zone & require no 'tidy' little endings. It's the Apes multiverse. There are no tidy endings.'

As I already stated, if a movie promotes itself as surreal and altogether bizarre from the very beginning then it is within its rights to conclude with abstraction and peculiarity. The twilight zone fits that bracket perfectly, although even the twilight zone followed its own guidelines to some degree. In my experience, people that don't need endings that offer a plausible or likely ending are not very deep thinkers and tell people on forums to 'blow them'.

Have a nice day :)

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] savagebiscuits 12 years ago

Even though Burton's film did stretch things a bit too far in many respects, it has also got to be said that many of the other Apes films also did similar, particularly the sequels.

Escape has effectively the same issue as Burton's film, in that apes, less technologically advanced than even 1970s mankind, manage to get a spaceship (bigger than a pod) out of deep water, fix it, get it to fly, then somehow travel back in time to 1973, changing timelines (just ignore me, James ;) )and discover that 1970s flared clothing wasn't really up to much, even if grape juice plus seemed to be a hit. Yet despite that stretch (beyond breaking point, it has to be said, even though some people explain in detail how Milo and Co managed to repair the ship while keeping a straight face while explaining), I can still enjoy that film (my second best of the Apes films). Is Escape scientifically and logically consistent? No, it's certainly not. Yet, and understanding this, I can go with it. Mind you, Escape has many other good qualities that allow me to go with it, more so than the Burton film. I suppose that's why the issues didn't stand out as much in Escape while watching it, but do stand out once you really think about it (not that you have to really think about it to see the issues).

I like Burton's film, but logical consistency is a very weak point with it, particularly the ending. However, it'd be inconsistent of me to condemn Burton's film for scientific inconsistency when there are plenty of other examples in PotA films that express similar, if not worse, inconsistencies. The problem with Burton's film was more to do with weak storyline and a lack of well-acted and interesting human characters, the ending just added to the misery. The ending did seem more like something tacked on, just to give a twist for the sake of it than for something thoughtful.

Then again, you do have to let some things go to appreciate a lot of these Apes films; suspension of disbelief, filling in the gaps, etc. However, it can still be fun pondering such inconsistencies and logical flaws.

[–] JamesA1102 12 years ago

Escape has effectively the same issue as Burton's film, in that apes, less technologically advanced than even 1970s mankind, manage to get a spaceship (bigger than a pod) out of deep water, fix it, get it to fly, then somehow travel back in time to 1973, changing timelines (just ignore me, James ;) )

Sorry can't do that.

Just one question. Who ever said the ship sank in deep water?

[–] savagebiscuits 12 years ago

Sorry can't do that.

Heh. Didn't realise you'd demean yourself here, now I know. ;)

Just one question. Who ever said the ship sank in deep water?

Well, you're right, in that I should have used the word "relatively"; it wasn't in the middle of the Pacific seven miles down. Judging from the way it went down and the size of the lake, it did seem deeper than the waterhole that Leo's pod dropped into. Maybe "deeper water" would have been better to use, but even then I suppose you'd want me to get the details of the exact depth in millimetres and still wouldn't be happy. ;)

[–] JamesA1102 12 years ago

Heh. Didn't realise you'd demean yourself here, now I know. ;)

LOL

Well, you're right, in that I should have used the word "relatively"; it wasn't in the middle of the Pacific seven miles down. Judging from the way it went down and the size of the lake, it did seem deeper than the waterhole that Leo's pod dropped into. Maybe "deeper water" would have been better to use, but even then I suppose you'd want me to get the details of the exact depth in millimetres and still wouldn't be happy. ;)

No need for millimeters, inchs is fine. ;-)

[–] theido 12 years ago

'People who waste their time looking for answers that cannot conclusively be answered and never will be are no great thinkers in my estimation.'

I am a movie enthusiast which means I like to critique films and occasionally rip them to shreds. To call it a waste of time is pointless since from my point of view it clearly isn't as I'm sure a massive number of people that frequent these forums would agree. Deep thinkers question everything and ponder long on things that shallow thinkers accept blindly or concoct ridiculous, childish scenarios to explain inconsistency. Deep thinkers have always been considered analytical. Your estimation is measured from a place of ignorance, I'll warrant.

'You either accept the premise or you do not. All you need to know is what the film provided; Thade went back in time and altered history for Marky Mark. That they showed you. That they distributers put on a handy POTA postcard in the dvd box set.'

I have no problem accepting a premise. What I cannot accept is a film that changes its premise towards the end that offers a childish, unlikely scenario that insults and confounds rather than entertains. You can hold tightly and lovingly to your 'handy' POTA postcard all you want. I reject it.

'You want to know what year Thade travelled back, and which button he pushed to turn the machine on and what color socks her was wearing...sorry, Burton didn't provide that.'

Now you're just being silly and using sarcasm to overcompensate for your weak argument.

'Conclusive timelines...how Brent ended up in a world of tech advanced apes...how did Thade learn to fly...I don't ask too many questions But if Marky Marks' chimp could learn how to fly one, so too could the more advanced Thade. Simple as that.'

Yes, its very clear you don't ask many questions given your blind loyalty to this movie and its awful ending. Leo's chimp, aside from being genetically enhanced, was more than likely TRAINED and TAUGHT from birth how to pilot the pods having grown up around technology his whole life.

Yes, simple as that. As in simpleton. As in Thade and his babaric intellect.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theido 12 years ago

'Thade went back in time and altered history.'

My argument isn't that he didn't, my argument is that its stupid and unlikely.

'It was in the movie.'

No it wasn't. It made a vague, ridiculous implication. We never saw Thade achieve this and more importantly it was never explained in the movie itself.

'It was on the card.'

Who cares? Its still dumb!

'If you have another explaination which contradicts that it still has SQUAT to do with the movie & impacts it not in the least.'

Anything I say about the movie has EVERYTHING to do with the movie. Even if I say that all the apes believed that wearing red socks gave them special powers, its still about the movie even if its wrong. And I'm not trying to 'impact the movie' as you put it, in any shape or form. The movie has been made and finished, I can't impact it. I am simply critiqueing it and trying to impact people's opinion of the movie.

'Thade looked like he was doing alright for himself in the pic.'

No he didn't.

'You're just undeestimating his obvious and stated ability.'

No I'm not.

'Back to the drawing board with you and spend your time well.'

I'm extremely happy with how I spend my time, but thanks for your concern just the same.

'And remember; it changes NOTHING lol'

It changes how I feel. For example, after sledging this movie on a forum, I feel more happy "lol".

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theido 12 years ago

'sledgehammering the movie on the imdb changes nothing also.'

I just told you, it changes my mood and makes me happy.

'Glad it gives you a thrill. It doesn';t do a thing for me.'

I'm glad you're glad. Your approval is paramount to me.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theido 12 years ago

Trust me, this was over ages ago. It was getting you to accept it that was so time consuming.

[–] SausagePourVous 12 years ago

Sort of like Inception with monkeys....yes,the ending is a mess,unless the very point would be to cause speculation and debate but it´s not a very interesting one.

I do however believe in alternative universes here,or timetravel,that being the reason Marky Mark ends up on this planet in the first place and Thade does not take over "earth" in 8 days,these are very different timelines,he likely is sucked through a black hole,arriving at the dawn of man,who knows...if he arrived in a developed time,he might´ve gone out for another ride.

And Burton doesn´t suggest earth,we as an audience do it. Cause of cop cars,we think,on what other planet would it be....it is extremely ambigous and quickly wrapped up.Only good thing was Tim Roth.

[–] Wombstar 12 years ago

In the book he lands back on earth, with Apes running the planet, driving cop cars and stuff.

A Tim Burton Fan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Burton just wanted a "what the fck" ending and says so in the commentary. End of story.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] tek87 12 years ago

The ending was intentionally left open for a sequel but FOX cancelled the sequel even though the first movie was a financial success. The director also stated he wanted nothing to do with a sequel so this was really just sloppy work on the part of the director. It makes me sick to my stomach to know that this movies was intended for a sequel but one will never be made.

[–] savagebiscuits 12 years ago

It makes me sick to my stomach to know that this movies was intended for a sequel but one will never be made.

Well, it's a self-contained story that can live without a sequel, so I'm not that bothered about the lack of one. The only part of the story that I think would have been worth exploring was how Thade got out, dealt with the new peace and harmony to everyone on Ashlar, then got to Earth to change things there in time for Leo to go "oops". Leo's story, for me, wasn't really worth continuing, for he got his comeuppance which wrapped things up on that score. I suppose a sequel that dealt with Thade would have piqued my interest, but the story as told was effectively complete (albeit with some holes... some big).

[–] Gus-69 10 years ago

You clearly have no idea that the person who coinceived the ending was the screenwriter, not the director, and the ending bears some resemblance to the book on which it is based.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] moosefeathers 9 years ago

You clearly have no idea that the person who coinceived the ending was the screenwriter, not the director, and the ending bears some resemblance to the book on which it is based.

What book? Pierre Boulle's?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...