Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:13, 9 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planet of the Apes (2001 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Planet of the Apes (2001 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Film: American GA‑class

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction GA‑class Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geocaching GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geocaching, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GeocachingWikipedia:WikiProject GeocachingTemplate:WikiProject GeocachingGeocaching articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Love triangle

The plot summary describes a "love triangle" between Wahlberg, Warren, and Bonham-Carter's characters, I think that is more speculation than something actually addressed in the movie. Similarly towards the end it says Estella Warren's character "loves" Wahlberg but I think that is also more speculation. It has been awhile since I've seen the movie so I could be wrong, but from what I remember there was at most just some subtle implication at attraction between Wahlberg and Warren and Wahlberg and Bonham-Carter, but not so strong as to call it a "love triangle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.34.169 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse mystery

The film never addresses the existence of horses on an alien world. The space station carrying such animals seems unlikely, especially enough to form a viable breeding pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.32.194 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Is it significant at all that in the original film, Charlton Heston (human) utters the line, "Take your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!", and in the 2001 remake, Michael Clarke Duncan (Ape) says, "Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty human!"?92.20.25.100 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

Ending of the movie making.

I'm deleting the attempts to explain away the ending of the film-- valiant effort, but it's pure speculation, trying to make sense out of nonsense. Noclevername 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realise this makes Thade the 'Missing Lincoln'.

Yes, I'll leave now. Please stop glaring at me. HalfShadow 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't nonsense, it has a very specific meaning. if you read the novel you'd know that. don't assume that just because you can't comprehend something, that it has no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.167.253 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This won't do the article much good, but the ending is not just "nonsene". One way to explain it would be by saying that the electro-magnetic storm does only transport things into the future, not the past (the year display is really nonsense to begin with, after all, how would a machine not made for time travel "sense" the year, anyhow?). Thade could have been freed (by a human, obviously, as the door is controlled by a human hand print) and gotten control over the planet back, maybe even earth (but not even a statue on earth would necessarily mean that Thade himself has been there, only the culture he founded obviously went there). Another possibility could be that Thade also went into the electro-magnetic storm and it just so happened to bring him back a few years before Wahlberg. Stranger things have happened in successfull sci-fi epics before, such as sound in space. See? The possibilities are endless to patently show that the ending is *NOT* "pure nonsense".

I know it's only really speculation and not really constructive article discussion, but I just won't let it be said that the ending would be "nonsense". But in a way, this post *COULD* help the article, by keeping people from writing into the article that the ending would be pure "nonsense" (now, you may say that Wikipedia would be all about "verifiable sources", but many people write actual nonsense in many WP articles even if they don't have any sources for it as long as only enough people believe in it beforehand). In any case, I'd've much rather seen a sequel to Burton's version than the new one in order to see what Thade had done to get his own monument as "savior of the planet". 93.232.176.151 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible error

"Lt. Colonel Alexander, at the beginning of the movie, clearly calls the super intelligent ape "Seamus" (pronounced "shay-mus," or "shame us"). This shows the corruption in ape society from the beginning (the crash of the Oberon) to modern (Thade's era) times. This is also shown with the name 'Calima' (the apes' name for the forbidden zone), later revealed to originate from a badly corroded sign on the Oberon: CAution, LIve aniMAls."

Is this really correct? Wasn't this chimp called CMOS and pronounced CMOS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.214.111 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shaltst not worship general deaTh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.227.77 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment about "Shame Us" is entirely wrong. The name is "Semos," which is an anagram of "Moses," since Semos led his people to freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.21.91 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jackson's version

Just a note: Peter Jackson's autobiography co-written by Brian Sibley has good details on his take on POTA, which would have been a sequel depicting the apes in the Renaissance. Ultimately Fox turned him down as he was more interested in King Kong and LOTR. Alientraveller (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but I don't have that book. Wildroot (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear language, with good flow and article structure.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, covers many aspects of the film's production, development, reception, etc, nice work.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article indeed appears written with a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? Talk page history and dialogue seems fine, and looking back a couple months I see some minor IP edit issues in the edit history to keep an eye on in the future, but nothing major.

6. Images?: Only one image used - movie poster - fair use rationale on image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending criticism

I suggest that you either integrate the ending criticisms into the previous paragraph or include examples of critics who criticised that aspect of the film. You do a good job of documenting that it was an issue by quoting two actors and the director, but I think you need to flesh out the opinions they're responding to first. Recognizance (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any mention of the fact that the ending does derive in part from the Pierre Boulle original. In his novel, the protagonist returns to Earth, many centuries after he left it (time dilation, you know) and finds apes in positions of authority, and we also realize that the characters in the framing story are apes. WHPratt (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith?

No mention of the ~~legal~~ media kerfuffle between this production and Kevin Smith regarding Ape-Lincoln? 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story about the issue, from way back^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith discussing the issue (NSFW, YouTube) ^[2] 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all wrong

I'm not quite sure how to completely fix it, so I'll just note it here

The entire plot summary is wrong, and it looks like it was written by a middleschool-aged child at best. The plot is totally out of order and meshes scenes that were completely seperate in the film. Needs a rewrite badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.121.165 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ari decides to buy Leo and a female slave named Daena (Estella Warren) to have them work as servants in the house of her father, Senator Sandar (Charlton Heston) , her brother General Thade (Tim Roth), a Chimpanzee eager to rule the world, and Limbo (Paul Giamatti), an Orangutan.

Okay, first, her father, Senator Sandar is not the character played by Heston. Thade is not her brother, but is the son of Heston's actual character. Thade and Limbo do not live in Senator Sandar's household. Even other parts of the article show this stuff is wrong.76.226.128.97 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the characters looks like it was written by a child. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.101.109 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CALIMA May be a link to the the islamic idea of KALIMAH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.121.59 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Memorial?

Apparently, this was a big enough deal for someone to revert, but I'll argue for it here: I changed the language surrounding the "Lincoln" Memorial to make it less deterministic based on the fact that while the edifice _looks_ like the Lincoln Memorial, it clearly isn't, nor can it be since Lincoln isn't the person memorialized nor does it appear humans have ever had a parallel timeline in which Lincoln was the person/being memorialized. Unless Thade has been renamed "Lincoln," it just isn't the Lincoln Memorial. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source backs up what you're stating, which is your personal opinion. Until you can find a reputable primary source that agrees with your theory, the wording should stay unchanged. As stated in MOS:PLOT :"Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CBkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FEntertainment%2Fstory%3Fid%3D103149%26page%3D1&rct=j&q=kevin+smith+tim+burton+lincoln&ei=s65iS7uMBsugkQWG2eDpBg&usg=AFQjCNG86iRfgpfkBf4_zseMYf4z0KDOWQ

[2] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 23:37, 8 February 2016 edit Ommnomnomgulp (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,188 edits →‎Lincoln Memorial?: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:13, 9 February 2016 edit undo SonOfThornhill (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,209 edits →‎Lincoln Memorial? Next edit →
Line 90:		Line 90:

	Apparently, this was a big enough deal for someone to revert, but I'll argue for it here: I changed the language surrounding the "Lincoln" Memorial to make it less deterministic based on the fact that while the edifice _looks_ like the Lincoln Memorial, it clearly isn't, nor can it be since Lincoln isn't the person memorialized nor does it appear humans have ever had a parallel timeline in which Lincoln was the person/being memorialized. Unless Thade has been renamed "Lincoln," it just isn't the Lincoln Memorial. [[User:Ommnomnomgulp\|Ommnomnomgulp]] ([[User talk:Ommnomnomgulp\|talk]]) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)		Apparently, this was a big enough deal for someone to revert, but I'll argue for it here: I changed the language surrounding the "Lincoln" Memorial to make it less deterministic based on the fact that while the edifice _looks_ like the Lincoln Memorial, it clearly isn't, nor can it be since Lincoln isn't the person memorialized nor does it appear humans have ever had a parallel timeline in which Lincoln was the person/being memorialized. Unless Thade has been renamed "Lincoln," it just isn't the Lincoln Memorial. [[User:Ommnomnomgulp\|Ommnomnomgulp]] ([[User talk:Ommnomnomgulp\|talk]]) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

			:Neither source backs up what you're stating, which is your personal opinion. Until you can find a reputable primary source that agrees with your theory, the wording should stay unchanged. As stated in [[MOS:PLOT]] :"Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". [[User:SonOfThornhill\|SonOfThornhill]] ([[User talk:SonOfThornhill\|talk]]) 14:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)