MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
Good point. No one was saying "You know that 2004 CGI adaptation of 1980s comic strip character? Well, we could definitely use a remake..."
This is the REAL Mad Max. Accept no substitutes played by Tom Hardy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMG7j3zReJQ
Lisa wasn't portrayed as an enlightened liberal voice of reason in the early seasons, she was more of the "good kid" and model student, very polite and well-mannered and brainy... in contrast to the "underachieving and proud of it" and smart aleck troublemaker Bart. Except in the VERY EARLY (season 1) stuff, where Lisa was more of a younger female clone of Bart.
Same thing with a lot of the characters like Ned Flanders. Flanders WAS a devout Christian in the early seasons, but he got on Homer's nerves much more for being a "perfect neighbor" with an idealistic picturesque perfect wife and kids, than in the later seasons when Ned was a judgmental, arrogant, bigoted ULTRA fundamentalist protestant blowhard (which didn't even make sense, since the First Church of Springfield isn't some kind of hotbed of fervent evangelical "Hillsong style" protestants)
Hence I'd make sure any writers for a Simpsons revival try to focus on the way the characters are written around season 2-8, and outright ignore ANYTHING post-season 10. In fact, I'd even make sure they outright contradicted the "events" of the later seasons, to convey to the audience that those seasons are now non-canon.
Even the modern seasons ignore the "Principal Tamzarian" stuff and pretend it "never happened", so there's no need to worry about that since its already been declared defacto non-canon.
There's still plenty of good plot developments and storylines that happened in season 9 and 10, like Abu getting married in a Hindu wedding ceremony, Lionel Hultz becoming a real estate agent, Homer's middle name turning out to be "Jay", and a lot of iconic guest stars like Stephen Hawking voicing himself.
IMO, the real "point of no return" was when they killed off Maude Flanders in season 11. The "Behind the Music" episode should really be considered as the series finale.
Watch the first film. When you get the end scene, you'll realize why he's called MAD (as in insane, crazy) Max.
You miss the point. Tom Hardy looked nothing like Mel Gibson, either.
The people cheering on him replacing Mel while hating on Anya replacing Chalize Theron are a tad bit hypocritical.
I liked Dawn in theaters, and I still do, but I was disappointed by the safe, predictable ending, and I still feel that way. IMO its the weakest of the reboot films. It's still way above the trainwrecks Beneath the Planet of the Apes or Battle for the Planet of the Apes, though!
Yes but it didn't take 9 movies to get to Bond's "origin story" or before they could adapt one of the books directly. Even in the MCU, it didn't take 9 movies before they got to the Avengers story. I'm sure they COULD make dozens more Planet of the Apes movies, I just don't think they want to take 9 movies before they get back to the setting of the original novel. If they've "greenlight" 9 movies, fine, they can do a third trilogy AFTER they get back to that setting.
Eh, the original film is set around the year 4000. We're still only around 300 years into the future, so while you COULD drag it out for nine movies, I don't think the audience would stick around for that. I can't think of any film franchise that took nine movies to live up to its original intent.
It really wouldn't be that hard to "bridge the gap" between Kingdom and the original Planet of the Apes story with one more film. The fifth installment can show that the corrupt regime of the Ape Kingdom had dire consequences after what happened in Kingdom. As a result, there's an ape civil war, the monarchy is overthrown, religious clerics who enforced "Ape law" take over and "reformed" things. Over the course of the new movie, an Ape renaissance of sorts occurred over the centuries, to the point where Ape society advances to use modern technology, and the story of Caesar eventually falls into "legend" and becomes a vaguely explained creation myth about how the "first Ape" spoke and created their society and banished the savage human beasts away from civilization. Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans organize Ape society along their familiar roles in the original story (Orangutans become the politicians/religious clerics/government officials, Chimps become the scientists and everyday workers, Gorillas become the military/security officials), end of the film they erect a statue of the "lawgiver" Ape. Post-credits scene, 1000 years later, the Icarus lands... leading directly into the sixth installment: The Planet of the Apes
I hope they get back to the original setting by the sixth movie. If they make three more AFTER that, it should be a brand new trilogy, set thousands of years later in the FAR future, and give us a totally unique new world (I assume they won't go with "earth blows up" ending from Beneath the Planet of the Apes). They really don't want to drag it out for nine movies before they get back to the original Charlton Heston movie setting. I would name the sixth film simply "The Planet of the Apes", and make it a direct adaptation of the original Pierre Boulle novel (astronaut lands in a world run by intelligent talking Apes with modern day technology), only set in the universe of the reboot films. The film between Kingdom and the sixth movie will be able to fill in the gaps between what we just saw and the original novel.
The film itself was definitely 10X better than what I expected to get from the title and premise. I assumed they were going to dumb down the franchise into some idiotic summer action movie where Apes drive tanks, throw grenades, etc., and overthrow the White House while Woody Harrelson does his usual goofball shtick and mugs the screen every time he's on camera playing an army general. Something like this and this:
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.5004793335.7185/pp,504x498-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg
https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/11/The-People-vs-Larry-Flynt-edward-norton-147597_1920_1321.jpg
Boy, did I get it wrong!
I thought Dawn was the weakest of the reboot films. It had some good scenes, good acting, and got where it needed to go storywise, but it played it safe and was boring and predictable. This one was more interesting, particularly the fact they FINALLY created a fully realized global ape society.
>> There was no twist. <<
>> Apparently the mind blowing twist is ... there is no twist. <<
I just saw the film in theaters a few hours ago, and there IS indeed a twist at the end. It's at very last scene, and there is no post-credits "reveal", but a twist at the end of movie like the original 1968 movie.
I won't say what it is, but it was a little different as most POTA twist endings are very bleak and depressing. This one wasn't.
Planet of the Apes (1968) had an now iconic twist at the end. If you don't know how it ends by now, I presume you must be living under a rock, or maybe living with the bomb worshiping mutants at the end of the second movie.
Beneath (1970) had a "well, that was super depressing" twist ending.
Escape (1971) had a "well, that's a downer" twist ending.
Conquest (1972) had an anti-climatic twist ending, because the original ending was deemed too militant.
Rise (2011) had a brilliant mid-credits twist ending that solved the problem of how the heck apes take over the world when humans outnumber then 200 to 1. War (2014) had a subtle twist ending that revealed something very interesting about Maurice.
Planet of the Apes (2001 remake) had a "WTF just happened?" twist ending that made no sense, and the general consensus is that was NOT a good thing.
The only two POTA movies with NO twist at the end were Battle (1973) and Dawn (2014), which IMO was a letdown both times (though Dawn was still an overall good movie, while Battle sucked throughout)
I agree, I avoided seeing the film for a year because of the title. It sounded like a dumbed down remake of Battle for the Planet of the Apes
Humans being extinct would go against the whole point of the franchise.
It seems like the plan is for them to end up back where the original 1968 story "happened" by the end of the second trilogy in the reboot series... in other words, the sixth film would essentially be a remake of Planet of the Apes.
If I were them, I'd go back to the original book for inspiration there... they don't want to just make a soulless "modern" copy of the 1968 film, or a POTA "alternate universe" reimagining, like the 2001 movie. They could keep faithful to the original plot of the book, while still making it set in the universe of the reboot movies.
Don't give away spoilers! I'm seeing it this weekend!
To do that, they'd first have to make a Mad Max 4 with Mel Gibson. It's like how Charlie Sheen was discussing making a "Major League 3" as his comeback but they already made a Major League 3 without his character, and hired Scott Bakula instead.
>>
The Furious Furiosa films don't belong to the series in my mind, and never will.
<<
NAILED IT!
>> Taylor (Charlton Heston) and Zira (Cornelius’ wife) had an affair and the person that steps out of the spacecraft is their son! <<
I believe someone actually pitched that in one of the early 70s movies. The "half human/half ape offspring" twist was vetoed by the studio because it implied bestiality had taken place.