Talk:Battle for the Planet of the Apes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The Film Does NOT Take Place in Central City--Please Stop Changing This[edit]

Central City is never mentioned in any of the films or their novel or comic adaptations. Central City is the apes' city from the TV series, and was never mentioned before that series aired. San Diego has been named as the site of Ape Management (in, as stated, revolution on the Planet of the Apes), and Breck is, in fact, the governor of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rassmguy (talkcontribs)

Deleted Scenes[edit]

I was not aware of the additional footage of the movie (I have the 2001 DVD set from the UK) and after I watched the movie I read the article here on it and was baffled by reading the plot, seeing as there is nothing about the bomb and Mèndez "taking over". I think there should be a note in the plot section about the sections that were added later. Also if someone has more info about the first time this footage (bootleg extended version of the movie) was made available to the public (bootleg) they should add it. Even though it is clear this extended version is the definitive one, it wasn't for years it appears, so the additional scenes should be pointed out in the plot section, in the interest of having the article correct. Also, the running time on the article: there is only one. Since the original version is still available to buy, and the only one available in the UK at least, the two running times should be shown. Dollvalley (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First and last movie in series[edit]

  • In the last movie it tells how 600 years after the 21st century APes/Man coexist. (27th century}
  • In the first movie it tells how in 3978 Apes hunt man. There is a 1200 years gap (39th century}

Suprised there isn't a sixth Planet of the Apes movie to explain how man devolved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.45 (talkcontribs)

A sixth movie will make sense only if it was chronologically before the first one, before the timeline alteration. But, there's quite a good chance that there are two timelines, if what Zira says is true : in the first one, apes learn to speak by themselves (or through some kind of disease, as in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and in the same time human being lose their ability to speak, the first of them being Aldo, who will say no (according to Zira in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes"). In the second timeline, starting with the coming of Zira, Cornelius and Milo from the future, it’s Caesar who is the first ape to speak. It is unclear however, how the other apes learn how. In that timeline, it is possible that, further in the future, men will lose their speech, but, it seems very unlikely, men and apes still living together (see next section about the statue of Caesar crying). Now, Zira can be wrong, but Aldo dies and, many years later, is still not recognized as the first ape to say no. If there's only one timeline, you should have a gorillas' revolution a bit later which will alters the ancient writing, changing "Aldo" for "Caesar". It's seem really strange and counter-productive for the wise guys, the knowledge being exclusively shared between orangutans and chimpanzees.Sultan Rahi (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Crying Caesar[edit]

In the second movie they all die and the freaking planet is blown up, so maybe that`s why Caesar cries, as he is subsequently the sole survivor, by going back in time. And maybe that`s why "The Lawgiver" says "Only the dead know about the future" 95.115.198.129 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Me95.115.198.129 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, pota wiki confirmed that the timeline was altered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.204.253 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The pota wiki doesn't confirm anything. It takes a mostly neutral stand on the issue.

Actually Caesar's parents are the sole survivors of the destruction of the Earth. In any case they died not long after their escape. Caesar was born in the 20th century. The article seems right to me now - indicating that the statue of Caesar is crying because his plan for apes and humans to life in peace ultimately fails. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't fail. It said humans and ape kids were sitting TOGETHER in...maybe a school. And somebod was telling them a stoy. Thats no fail. Maybe its all that hes been through.KF5LLG (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Paul Dehn, the screen writer, the point of the tear on the statue was to tell the audience that Caesar's good intentions ultimately failed.

Well, it may fail, but, the timeline being altered, it will not be like the first time anyway. Sultan Rahi (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeframe[edit]

There has always been debate on what year this film takes place. Mandemus says the lived in the Ape City armory for 27 years and Mendez says there has been 12 years of peace. These two statements are not contradictory. There could have been a war lasting 15 years before the final nuclear exchange. The later date makes more sense because it gives the apes longer to develop speech and a society. (And Virgil's statement about Mandemus does not refer to when they were slaves, that is a fabrication.) Many credible sources like Rich Handley's timeline book list the later date. In the end the article should reflect what is stated in the film and that it is at least 27 years after Conquest. 65.163.160.177 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The years actually given in the film are in the Plot section. The Mandemus quote is ambiguous and makes no reference to any event from Conquest. The article now says Battle takes place "at least twelve years" after the revolution in the previous film. That is indisputable, even if you believe it was 27 years later, though that is rather unlikely as Kolp does not appear anywhere near that much older. All this is already covered in the Timeframe section. IP hoppers have been WP:edit warring over this for a year and a half. The page has been protected because of this. I suggest you give it a rest. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gothicfilm. Kolp doesn't look 30 years older and the issue is covered in the Timeframe section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Mendez quotes which is the basis for the "at least 12 years" statement in the plot section is far more ambiguous. It also makes no reference to any event from "Conquest". He says there has been 12 years of peace. But we don't know how many years of war preceded those 12 years of peace. Mandemus is said to have a 'mind like a razor' and his statement is very straightforward. He's lived in the Ape City armory for 27 years. Since there was no Ape City yet in "Conquest", it has to be a minimum of 27 years after that film. Also, how old one or two people think Kolp looks is irrelevant and entirely subjective. It could be argued that he does look much older. He is much heavier than he was in "Conquest" and his dark beard has gone grey. There are some who don't think that Armando look 20 years older in "Conquest". So how old a character looks should not be a factor. 65.163.160.177 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The article doens't endorse either 12 years or 27 years. It stays neutral on the issue and the dispute is discussed in the Timeframe section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)