MovieChat Forums > Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) Discussion > Should've been called 'Exposition of the...

Should've been called 'Exposition of the Planet of the Apes'

posted 10 years ago by theb1927
23 replies | jump to latest

I'm doing a bit of a Planet of the Apes retrospective out of the monumental hype I've got going for "Dawn" this July. UP until this week, I'd only seen "Rise" and the horrific Tim Burton remake. (yuck) I found the 1968 film to be a pretty engrossing and thought provoking piece of sci-fi, even if I knew the twist ending going in. I also liked "Beneath" quite a bit, and had they dropped the far-fetched telekinesis stuff it would've been the perfect piece of Cold War Commentary. I appreciate both films' mix of adventure with unapologetic post-apocalyptic bleakness; the perfect tone in my opinion.

Then I just finished this one... HUGE step down for me. I hate fish out of water stories anyway, so I went in fearing this would be the "Voyage Home" of Apes movies. Turns out it was more of a Terminator 3 type deal. Literally half the dialogue in this was Zira and Cornelius explaining the franchise's backstory, and the humans reciting info we could already infer easily enough. It was like the writers wanted to sound smart and philosophical to distract viewers from major plot threads just being completely skimmed over (how they fixed Taylor's ship, humans reacting to their apocalyptic future being foretold?).

I'd have liked this a lot more if it had been a two-sided story; Zira and Cornelius deciding whether to repeat the "ape revolution" cycle, and the American government reflecting on how to avoid being taken over. As is, the gun-heavy climax seemed too far removed from the first two-thirds of apes-in-dresses gags.

What could've been the most philosophically stimulating entry in the series ended up as constant exposition surrounded by comedic fish-out-of-water fluff.

And yet this is one of the more liked Apes sequels, I've been told. Anyone else feel the way I do?

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

I was 11 when I first saw it (CBS aired the five movies a few weeks apart starting in December 1973 - they were the World Television Premieres).
I loved the movie and took it at face value. But now I wish it started with Milo repairing the ship, then sending for Cornelius and Zira for the launch.

[–] wears-alan 10 years ago

Well Fletcherj119, you have seen the stills of the original planned opening for the movie, and the mock up of how it would have gone. Budget dictated what we got though.

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

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

Yah, I know. But I'll never be satisfied. Even if each movie had been made into a mini-series, I'd still be commenting that they could've expanded on this subplot, or that... (I guess I'm an over-zealous fan).

[–] JamesA1102 10 years ago

CBS aired the five movies a few weeks apart starting in December 1973 - they were the World Television Premieres

This is just not the truth. CBS aired the first three in the fall of '73. Conquest didn't air until a year later in November of '74 and Battle until January '75. You can see the original TV Guide ads with the dates that each film premiered here: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/TVAds.htm.

But now I wish it started with Milo repairing the ship, then sending for Cornelius and Zira for the launch.

How would that in anyway have enhanced the story they were telling?

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

You're probably right about the fall of '73, but did the TV series really begin before the showings of the last two movies? I was always sure all five movies came first. Conquest could've been shown in Nov '74 and Battle in '75, but are you sure those weren't repeated showings? My memory must be extremely warped if the TV series did come first.
Not showing the actual launch of the ship on Escape probably didn't matter too much the first time I saw the movie, but I guess I got spoiled by The Lord of the Rings trilogy where they were later released with all kinds of additional footage. I look at that and thought "Damn - I wish they'd done that with Planet of the Apes".

[–] JamesA1102 10 years ago

You're probably right about the fall of '73, but did the TV series really begin before the showings of the last two movies?

Yes the TV series started in September '74 before Conquest and Battle were shown. Go back to the page I linked to: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/TVAds.htm. Those are the actual TV ads from the time showing the dates the films and TV episodes first aired.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

That's f&cked up. I always thought the series followed all five movies... Oh. Well..

[–] JamesA1102 10 years ago

Memory is a tricky thing :-)

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

The kid next door recorded Battle on his audio cassette player the first time it was on. It had huge chunks of it edited out. I still remember which parts (ironically it contained the two Alpha and Omega scenes not seen in theaters).
I used to borrow the kid's player to listen to it because I didn't own one until Sep '76. I recorded all five movies (eventually). It was odd how they were shown. One station would air the first three, and another would show the last two. It was as though they weren't available all in one package (at least during the '70s).

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

SPOILERS

I'm seeing these movies for the first time......after watching 'Beneath' I was damn curious how they could make a sequel.

Obviously they had to take some liberties with the story (fixing Taylor's ship to avoid the war and somehow stumbling back in time 2,000 years)......but it was a necessary, fresh direction for the series and it's simple entertainment - no more, no less.

Horrible editing on the final shot which is very regrettable, but I liked it.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

The used the same technique in one scene on the first movie, but it was less blatant (when the ship was rocking up and down in the water - the POV from the interior was showing the water running down the viewport - and up also as the film was forwarded and reversed in succession).

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

Yes, I know that rewinding and playing back the tape was a pretty common technique back then, especially for lower budget films - not sure if it's still a technique used today.

The most regrettable part is that it's the final scene - it's the big ending of the film. A very important shot and it's about as blatant as it gets. Is what it is; it was a small budget film.

Anyways, I didn't have time to put 'Conquest' in today, but 'Escape' definitely succeeded in making me anticipate what is to come in the next film.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

They may have had trouble getting the little chimp to make the proper movements. Today anything can be corrected with CG.

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

I think they employed the technique so that the mouth properly mouthed "mama" - instead of having an obvious dub where the lips weren't moving.

Really not even as big of a deal as I'm making it. Just was my initial reaction just after seeing the movie for the first time. I guess that's what you get with a spoiled modern-day movie watcher. We're used to state-of-the-art effects and too savvy to those kinds of camera tricks.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

True, and you have to remember that back in the 70s if we saw something peculiar, we weren't able to rewind and take another look.

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

In addition, I believe this was the only sequel Jerry Goldsmith did the music for and it probably deserves its own thread - I love the 1970s funk music they got going on in this one.

The first scenes of the film - no matter how ridiculous you may think the idea is - I love the first scenes. It's a fantastic dramatic reveal and it's weird and it builds a ton of momentum. The music is a huge part of it. It managed to pull me in from the beginning. It sets up this very new and fresh direction in the series very well.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

I never thought it was ridiculous - although oddly the first time I saw the movie (the first time it aired) I could swear that the General had to badger the three apes to remove their helmets. Memory flub?
Yes, cool score by the great Gerry Goldsmith. Twilight Zone episodes, the Twilight Zone movie, tons of other movies. This was the last sequel to use all original music. The last two had an original score the first half of the film, then it was all repeated through the rest. And Conquest ends with a Gerry Goldsmith piece from the first movie (the astronauts running up toward the scarecrows).

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

They may have had trouble getting the little chimp to make the proper movements. Today anything can be corrected with CG.

Or ruined by CGI. I'm just thankful they did not have the capabilities back then to "CG-cartoon" the entire film.

[–] Fletcherj119 10 years ago

It would've been cumbersome to have attempted CG with those damned punch cards!

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

Or ruined by CGI. I'm just thankful they did not have the capabilities back then to "CG-cartoon" the entire film.

I think 'Rise' and particularly 'Dawn' have proven you wrong.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I think 'Rise' and particularly 'Dawn' have proven you wrong.

Not really. At least the baby chimp in ESCAPE was a real chimp... not an obvious cartoon, like the artificial baby apes in RISE and DAWN.

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

Not really. At least the baby chimp in ESCAPE was a real chimp... not an obvious cartoon, like the artificial baby apes in RISE and DAWN.

....who cares if it was a real chimp? I really like 'Escape' but it doesn't mean anything. Digital effects have come a very long way. The apes do not look like cartoons at all, especially in 'Dawn'.

[–] dollvalley 10 years ago

I always did think that final scene was so cheap it ruined the ending. So blatant and obvious.