Talk:Planet of the Apes

Animal Farm

Planet of the Apes = Animal Farm with apes.

Just granpa (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Eddie Murphy, it’s The Wizard of Oz. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Source? Let me google ... found a video, not posting it here ... in an episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee Murphy compared the story structure and (spoiler warning for 52 year old film) and notes that they were home the whole time. Interesting comment but I think it would be undue to mention it in an encyclopedia article. Also there are only seven stories. -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits and reorganization

As I explained above two years ago and again on my talk page last month, the recent mass of edits is not an improvement. It chops up the prose and puts the probably unnecessary media lists in the middle of actual article content. There was also considerable oversectioning and other pointless changes. The editor has claimed that their preferred style is the way all other media articles are, but this is obviously not the case looking at Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Trek (film series), James Bond in film, or Superman in film. This is a featured article, and it shouldn't be changed so considerably without a compelling reason. If this continues administrator action will be necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Months later I’ve reverted another mass of edits of this kind yet again. This is getting tiresome.—Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And again. The same issues as before - the edits chop up the prose and put the media lists, which are probably shouldn't even be in the article, in the middle of the prose. It also made some unnecessary changes to the section headers and titles. This is simply not an improvement to the Featured Article version of this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: your reverts of recent edits that were completed in seeking to provide order to this messy article, do not begin to explain why those edits were not "compelling" enough to be valid. No admin action is needed, when edits are made that you disagree with or don't like. Please explain why you believe the page's current form is the best option. It has little to no order, and has a lot in common with fan-pages. Please be collaborative and detail why you believe this article shouldn't be changed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent organization - where is the consensus?

Is it possible to revert back this article to a previous version before all the re-organizing of tables, that wan't discussed anywhere that I can see? For instance this one?

This article got a strong going at WP:FAC somewhat recently and I cannot see a consensus anywhere regarding the random moving around of tables (recently, made by an IP editor) that caused the current placement of two large, unsourced tables, that should be used as "synthesis" after the discussion of all the films, and are now placed before any explanation of the movies. The article looks a right mess so close to WP:TFA, with gigantic cast tables breaking the prose flow before reaching the cultural impact section at the end. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC) @Cuchullain: Ping as an interested party. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now reverted to the consensus achieved at FAC by moving all the tables to the end of the article again, but a closer look might be needed. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To all concerned article watchers: I have boldly reverted the structure of the article back to this FAC version, after a series of IP editors made a sucession of edits to the article in January, without any consensus, that put the article prose completely out of chronological order. For instance, the 2001 remake before the 1974 television series. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and thank you RetiredDuke for your work restoring the FA version. Unfortunately this article periodically experiences some editors (and possible sockpuppets) who come along and move things around, insert unsourced tables, and make other changes that are just not improvements. You can see above that this has been an ongoing problem. I went through and made some additional edits that restored the FA version, including placing sections back where they were and removing the weird bullet points in the theme section, etc. Hopefully that settles things for a while.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt work Cuchullain. It's an excellent article and I remember its FAC nomination very well, so the radical structure reorganization was easy to spot. Glad it has been quickly fixed. RetiredDuke (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This keeps happening. I've reverted it once again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Page needs protection

Hi, can someone request that this and other POTA pages be places under protection. There is an IP editor who keeps changing character names, based on what I do not know. I would do it myself but don't really know how. Thanks! SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they have stopped now, but in the future you can request for page protection at WP:RPP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This person has stopped before but came back. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Longest Running Science Fiction Franchise

Third paragraph of the lead claims that PotA is "the longest-running science-fiction film series in history" which just isn't true, unless it involves an obscure qualifier that discounts Godzilla (which predates the first movie by 14 years) at the very least. The sentence has a citation, but the linked article is just a listicle of the Apes movies with no source for the claim, or for the other claim in the same line about the franchise grossing $2 billion. 144.121.150.162 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just saw it and it is a questionable claim. Probably should be eliminated. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Box Office Performance

The Budget column doesn't seem to add up, does it? I get at most (given the premature addition for Kingdom) $692M versus the $852M in the table. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)