Talk:The Lawgiver (Planet of the Apes)

"There is no evidence that Caesar changed the future."

Caesar's own presence changed the timeline. Compare the account given by Cornelius ("two centuries"... "three more centuries") in Escape with the way the story played out over the next two films. Several hundred years of gradual change turned into a single generation, with radical changes. Zephyrad (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Ceasar's presence alone changed the future. There is not one line of dialogue in the films that directly supports that conclusion. Cornelius' account in never witnessed by the audience and thus, thera are many other explainations for it.

I wasn't saying that he was 100% responsible for things changing. His parents traveling into the past set off a chain of events, and the timeline changed. Zaius never spoke about any "ape savior" as the Lawgiver did; to him, the Lawgiver was that figure. (Who didn't shun humans, as he did his first time around.) And it didn't take "centuries" for the apes to grow to revolt; it happened in a generation or two, after Cornelius and Zira (and Dr. Milo) landed in 1973. I think you're missing the influence that event had, on subsequent events. Zephyrad (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you're making the assumption that Cornelius & Zira traveling into the past automatically created a new or alternate timeline. There is not one line of dialogue in the films which directly supports that conclusion. You're taking the discrepencies and extropolating that an alternate timeline is the only explaination. Second, you can't say for sure that it took "centuries" it is never shown on screen it is only refered to by a character who did not witness the events either. Thus, there can be many explainations for the difference. The historical record could have been distorted over the centuries, it could have been purposely changed (not an unreasonable assumption given that the ruling apes are hiding their history in the first film), Cornelius could have misinterpeted the timeline when reading the acient records or Cornelius could have been lying to his human interrogators so he, Zira and their unborn child would seem to be less of a threat. These are all possible explainations, an alternate timeline is not the only one. Third, the same could be true why Zaius never spoke of any "ape savior". And just because Zaius never spoke of one does not mean he wasn't aware of one existing in their history. Just as a priest may only speak of Jesus Christ on a given day it does not mean that he is unaware of the existance of Moses. Fourth, the Lawgiver's writings could have been distorted too. In Battle he does speak of "evil men who betrayed God's trust". Therefore, it is possible that his teachings could have been distorted over centuries to highlight anything anti-human while burying anything that called for tolerance (something that many current religions do). Finally, you're ignoring Paul Dehn's comments on the subject particularly "The whole thing has become a very logical development in the form of a circle. I have a complete chronology of the time circle mapped out, and when I start a new script, I check every supposition I make against the chart to see if it is correct to use it". I suggest you consult 'The Planet of the Apes Chronicles' by Paul Woods (pg. 109) about this as well as 'Planet of the Apes Revisted' by Joe Russo (pg. 211) in regard to the end of Battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.75.51 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think one factor that would have kept Cornelius from lying would be... his wife Zira. She was all in favor of dropping the pretense and going with the truth, right from the beginning. Once Cornelius started being upfront with what he knew, I "saw no evidence" of his reverting to deception and coverup. Are you saying that the "secret scrolls, which told the truth about our history" were a second set of lies? Why wouldn't a priest speak of Moses on a Sunday? He would not see Moses and Jesus in conflict, as you seem to suggest he might. Are you sure Dehn was the "final authority" on the Apes timeline? Was he following the studio's directives, in keeping to a single, circular timeline? Or could his circle have begun with Caesar being born in the years after Taylor's departure, thus changed from how events initially would have occurred? The circle might have been to help him keep his own stories in sync, not necessarily to pronounce the only way things could possibly be, ever. You appear to be following that path. (If the studio decided on something different, as they did when Heston thought he'd killed the chance of any more sequels, which do you suppose would prevail?) Everything I have read on the topic, from Marvel's Planet of the Apes magazine articles (written in consultation with 20th Century-Fox, and why should they be in conflict? The studio could easily have sanctioned Marvel if they started to tell a "distorted" or "changed" story) to other media articles (which I wish I had handy) to pages online follow the idea that the Apes timeline changed, with Caesar being born in the "present". I do not have the benefit of the two books you mentioned. Are you saying they are now to be taken as the only, final authority on the subject, despite what they, also, don't say about it? Zephyrad (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Cornelius was definately lying, I just threw that out as one many possible explainations for the discrepencies. An alternate timeline is one but there are still many others. Nor am I suggesting that a priest sees Moses and Jesus in conflict, just that a because priest may not mention Moses on a particular Sunday it doesn't mean that Moses doesn't exist in the theological canon. Or of a President only refers to Lincoln is a speech it doesn't mean that Washington doesn't still exist as a historical figure. So just because Zaius only refers to the Lawgiver and not to Caesar, it doesn't mean that Caesar still didn't exist as in the apes theological canon or as a historical figure. As far as Marvel is concerned the only article they ever published on the subject was the timeline written by Jim Whitemore in which he postulated a circular timeline. And since Paul Dehn wrote, or co-wrote, all of the sequels; he is a pretty good authority on the subject. Do you have quotes from anyone as involved with the films as Dehn that refutes him? Finally, all serious POTA fans that I know have read both "The Planet of the Apes Chonicles" and "Planet of the Apes Revisited". Russo's book in particular is considered the bible by fans in regard to the making of the films. I'm not saying that an alternate timeline is not possible, just that the available evidence doesn't lead to that conclusion to exclusion of all other possible explainations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.75.51 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)