The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This was a part of my Media Studies assignment and I thought Id post it here as well. Now this is my opinion so dont start jumping at me if you disagree with me.Ok, I may have been slightly too biased but this is how feel-so tell me what you think please..
----------------------------------------
Science fiction genre has been around for quite a long time and has subsequently developed quite a cult following. The situations presented by the films in the genre vary from saving mankind from alien invasion to deadly viruses being uncovered and so on – in most cases they are stories based on imaginary future scientific discoveries or changes in the environment and most commonly life on other planets. Unlike most other film genres, sci-fi does not just feature a set number of conventional plots and storylines – the genre tends to expand all the time and include various storylines called sub-genres. It is no surprise then that two certain films have challenged the conventional view of sci-fi films and developed and explored the genre further.
The original Planet of the Apes that graced the silver screens in 1968 – an adaptation of a 1963 novel by Pierre Boulle – has caught the audience’s attention with its overwhelming alien setting and an impressive plot. The film starts off with three American astronauts looking for alien life before losing control of their airship and landing on the seemingly uninhibited planet. Their crash-landing leaves them without a ship and forces them to wander into the depths of their planet. Only then do they realise that they have travelled through time and are in the year 3978 – little do they know though that the planet is populated by talking apes which have developed many skills and overthrown man as the main source of power. The whole story revolves around Colonel George Taylor (Charlton Heston) who tries to escape from the apes with the help of a kind Dr Zira who is unhappy with the treatment the humans receive on the planet.
The film features an impressive range of characters – from guys who dislike Taylor and those who are willing to give him a chance and help him. The appearance of Taylor causes some of the apes to change sides and rebel against their own kind. Also, “wild” humans inhibit the planet but they are treated as slaves by the apes – one of these humans, Nova, is Taylor’s love interest.
30 years after the release of Planet of the Apes, an American director Tim Burton has decided to pay a tribute to the original film by producing a re-make of it or as Burton called it – “a re-imagining”. Released in 2001, the film was a totally different approach to the story and it featured a significantly different plot from the original. Captain Leo Davidson, an employee on the space station Oberon, loses the signal from a trained monkey that has been sent to investigate the space near the station and decides to follow it. He gets sucked into a “ black hole” which transfers him to an alternate time span and he lands on an alien planet. He gets captured by the apes and taken into a prison, from which he soon manages to escape together with a band of humans living on the planet.
The new version of the film unquestionably looks very impressive – hundreds of specialists have worked hard to make the action look as authentic as possible. The actors had to attend an Ape School where they have been taught how to behave and move when acting on the set, make-up artists spent hours creating individual masks and additional items (such as fake teeth) and CGI experts created lovingly-detailed location backdrops and multiplied human and ape forces using advanced computer software.
The 2001 version of the film also has a very varied set of characters – and you cannot help but feel that they are stronger (both physically and mentally) than the 1968 ones. All characters have much more concrete narrative roles than the original, which unfortunately had some characters that had no real relevance to the story itself. The 2001 version villain, Thade, is a really threatening presence in the film and the sarcastic Limbo provides the needed humorous feel to the story. Tim Burton decided to develop the relationships between the characters further and therefore changed some of the character roles slightly. For example, the humans in the 1968 film do not speak at all, while in the 2001 film all humans speak. This moves the humans to the foreground of the picture and really gives them a “soul” – humans in the 1968 film looked flat and at times seemed out of place. Another contrast between the films lies in the women of the films. Nova (played by Linda Harrison, who interestingly made an appearance in the 2001 film along with Charlton Heston) is a weak person, who relies on Taylor most of the time – her inability to speak does not help us empathise with her as much. Daena on the other hand is a more independent and confident woman - she plays a much more important role than Nova did in the first film.
This contrast also applies to the female apes in both films. Zira was interested in Taylor in both academically and intellectually. She was intrigued by his ability to speak and his extensive knowledge. Ari in the 2001 film find Leo sexually attractive. She comes around as being the expert in the human field (something that cannot be said about Zira – she seemed more surprised at Taylor’s every move than Ari ever was) and is immediately intrigued by Leo. In my view Zira was intrigued by what Taylor COULD DO rather than his personality.
Both directors have made authenticity an important factor when thinking about the films – costumes are suited for the characters and the environments, while make-up is also a highlight of both productions, even though the lack of special effects undermines the authentic feel of the original compared to Burton’s film. The positive factor about both films is that the special effects never appear to be out of place – they become a part of the narrative – in 2001 version because they offer a futuristic feel to the film and the 1968 version because they are simply not advanced enough to stand out.
The dialogue is not too different in the two versions. Both main characters use a lot of clichés, which tend to make their speech appear slightly more unrealistic. The only difference is that Leo often uses more technology-based lexis , but only because the whole film relies on the technological advances of both humans and apes. Taylor uses sign language in the old version when his throat is damaged to communicate with the natives.
As you watch the 2001 version, you become more and more aware of the director’s purposeful intention to point out the technology – as if to highlight the direction the film is going in – involving gadgets and modern tech. It starts very early on in the film when we see literisation on the screen – the name of the space station. We then see a video postcard for Leo and various gadgets like Leo’s compass guiding him to his goal on the planet. While the 1968 film suggests the idea of technology being used (on the spaceship), it never really shows anything off unlike the 2001 film. The perfect example of this is the ending of both versions – Taylor rides a horse while Leo is in a futuristic pod.
Both films portray the reversal of roles on the planet well with the 1968 film showing humans as cave people – making certain exhibits out of them. But again the film totally fails to show any sort of opposition from the humans – it merely suggests that humans are absolutely helpless against the apes. 2001 humans on the other hand decide to fight for their freedom and their fighting styles suggest the high intelligence levels.
When it comes to sound, both movies do not fail to impress. Both use very dramatic and tension-building music which definitely enhances the atmosphere created by the directors. In the 1968 film different crescendos and an unusual use of “ape-sounding” noise creates an impression of the music being very outlandish – just like the setting itself. The score in fact won an Oscar for the “Best original score” in 1969. The 2001 film used a whole orchestra to create a new score which would reflect on the mood and the atmosphere of the movie – again the music changes with the action on the screen to heighten the emotion levels.
Now Planet of the Apes is not just a fantasy story which is created purely for the enjoyment of the audience – both versions have morals and ideas that could cause a social impact. The films deal with the ideas of decency and prejudice – the main characters are first disliked by some apes before being accepted for who they really are. The original film came out in 1968 – the times when certain Martin Luther King was the leader of the non-violent Civil Rights movement. His actions caused a lot of unrest in the USA in the 1960s and the Planet of the Apes could be described as a reaction to what was happening in America at that period of time. It would not be suitable (and would appear risky) to release the movie during the time of the fierce battles of the movements. It was instead released when the times suddenly started to look brighter for USA and partially its purpose was to sway some people’s opinions – to show them in a simplified manner the affects of prejudice, tolerance and rights. Incidentally Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968.
But it would also be wrong to say that the film was produced as a propaganda type educational motion picture – it also reflected on many other events in the USA and in the world in that decade. The first American landed on the moon in the 1960’s so the film appeared to be a relevant reference to that event.
One of the most radical changes of the 2001 Planet of the Apes was its ending. They could appear very similar to the naked eye, but the differences are easily noticeable. In the 1968 film, Taylor runs away with Nova to find a better life away from the apes, but very soon discovers a damaged Statue of Liberty – he finally realises he was on Earth all along and that the planet really has changed – that the apes changed the world and America as he knew it. The ending is very iconic since the sunken Statue of Liberty suggested the loss of equality on Earth. Incidentally the film had four sequels that continued the story of Taylor as he tried to make his way back to his own time. But they were merely cashing-in opportunities on the big license – it totally spoiled the atmosphere of the original and the team should not have been that greedy to bother with more films.
The 2001 version finished with Leo deciding to leave the planet in search for his own home. But instead, he landed on the alternative Earth….populated by apes with General Thade as the legendary leader. The ironic thing is the Utopia/Dystopia issue for Leo. Both humans and apes on the other planet appreciated him but he decided to leave and ultimately ended up in a place he is likely to struggle in. Again the ending leaves space for more sequels.
Sci-fi genre generally makes unfamiliar things appear in a different light so that we can understand everything – uncover the enigma if you like. It also makes familiar things appear more confusing, and totally bewildering us with the story’s true meaning. And one of the questions that is left hanging in the air is….WHAT IF? What if this was really to happen? A job of a director is to make a believable plot seem a little bit TOO believable for our sub-conscience. It makes us wonder what would happen if humans were slaves, of time travel was possible, if apes were to become more powerful with humans. If we even begin to think about the matter, than we know the director has done his job well.
Planet of the Apes 2001 needed to be respectful of the original. It could not just turn the plot on its head and go in a completely different direction – some similarities to the original had to be kept. But the fact that Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of the original was a brilliantly realised effort is undeniable. It corrected the numerous mistakes Franklin Schaffner made with his original and bettered the film. One of the major faults of the 1968 version is the almost lifeless representation of humans – no will to fight, powerless against the apes and the low intelligence. While humans in the 2001 film were in awe of Leo and his bravery, the 1968 humans were simply not bothered because Taylor made no real effort to save anyone. It was a selfish approach by him and the film did not fall into the normal Hollywood sci-fi category – everyone is saved and happy etc. While it may have been revolutionary in its own time it is completely over-shadowed by the brilliance and hard work of Tim Burton and his team and here is hoping the 1968 version gets its place in the history books but doesn’t go any further than that – its been bettered and destroyed by the remake – and despite the hardcore fans arguing with this, Burton’s film simply blew the original into oblivion with its superb mix of action and thought put into it. Fact.
----------------------------------------
Science fiction genre has been around for quite a long time and has subsequently developed quite a cult following. The situations presented by the films in the genre vary from saving mankind from alien invasion to deadly viruses being uncovered and so on – in most cases they are stories based on imaginary future scientific discoveries or changes in the environment and most commonly life on other planets. Unlike most other film genres, sci-fi does not just feature a set number of conventional plots and storylines – the genre tends to expand all the time and include various storylines called sub-genres. It is no surprise then that two certain films have challenged the conventional view of sci-fi films and developed and explored the genre further.
The original Planet of the Apes that graced the silver screens in 1968 – an adaptation of a 1963 novel by Pierre Boulle – has caught the audience’s attention with its overwhelming alien setting and an impressive plot. The film starts off with three American astronauts looking for alien life before losing control of their airship and landing on the seemingly uninhibited planet. Their crash-landing leaves them without a ship and forces them to wander into the depths of their planet. Only then do they realise that they have travelled through time and are in the year 3978 – little do they know though that the planet is populated by talking apes which have developed many skills and overthrown man as the main source of power. The whole story revolves around Colonel George Taylor (Charlton Heston) who tries to escape from the apes with the help of a kind Dr Zira who is unhappy with the treatment the humans receive on the planet.
The film features an impressive range of characters – from guys who dislike Taylor and those who are willing to give him a chance and help him. The appearance of Taylor causes some of the apes to change sides and rebel against their own kind. Also, “wild” humans inhibit the planet but they are treated as slaves by the apes – one of these humans, Nova, is Taylor’s love interest.
30 years after the release of Planet of the Apes, an American director Tim Burton has decided to pay a tribute to the original film by producing a re-make of it or as Burton called it – “a re-imagining”. Released in 2001, the film was a totally different approach to the story and it featured a significantly different plot from the original. Captain Leo Davidson, an employee on the space station Oberon, loses the signal from a trained monkey that has been sent to investigate the space near the station and decides to follow it. He gets sucked into a “ black hole” which transfers him to an alternate time span and he lands on an alien planet. He gets captured by the apes and taken into a prison, from which he soon manages to escape together with a band of humans living on the planet.
The new version of the film unquestionably looks very impressive – hundreds of specialists have worked hard to make the action look as authentic as possible. The actors had to attend an Ape School where they have been taught how to behave and move when acting on the set, make-up artists spent hours creating individual masks and additional items (such as fake teeth) and CGI experts created lovingly-detailed location backdrops and multiplied human and ape forces using advanced computer software.
The 2001 version of the film also has a very varied set of characters – and you cannot help but feel that they are stronger (both physically and mentally) than the 1968 ones. All characters have much more concrete narrative roles than the original, which unfortunately had some characters that had no real relevance to the story itself. The 2001 version villain, Thade, is a really threatening presence in the film and the sarcastic Limbo provides the needed humorous feel to the story. Tim Burton decided to develop the relationships between the characters further and therefore changed some of the character roles slightly. For example, the humans in the 1968 film do not speak at all, while in the 2001 film all humans speak. This moves the humans to the foreground of the picture and really gives them a “soul” – humans in the 1968 film looked flat and at times seemed out of place. Another contrast between the films lies in the women of the films. Nova (played by Linda Harrison, who interestingly made an appearance in the 2001 film along with Charlton Heston) is a weak person, who relies on Taylor most of the time – her inability to speak does not help us empathise with her as much. Daena on the other hand is a more independent and confident woman - she plays a much more important role than Nova did in the first film.
This contrast also applies to the female apes in both films. Zira was interested in Taylor in both academically and intellectually. She was intrigued by his ability to speak and his extensive knowledge. Ari in the 2001 film find Leo sexually attractive. She comes around as being the expert in the human field (something that cannot be said about Zira – she seemed more surprised at Taylor’s every move than Ari ever was) and is immediately intrigued by Leo. In my view Zira was intrigued by what Taylor COULD DO rather than his personality.
Both directors have made authenticity an important factor when thinking about the films – costumes are suited for the characters and the environments, while make-up is also a highlight of both productions, even though the lack of special effects undermines the authentic feel of the original compared to Burton’s film. The positive factor about both films is that the special effects never appear to be out of place – they become a part of the narrative – in 2001 version because they offer a futuristic feel to the film and the 1968 version because they are simply not advanced enough to stand out.
The dialogue is not too different in the two versions. Both main characters use a lot of clichés, which tend to make their speech appear slightly more unrealistic. The only difference is that Leo often uses more technology-based lexis , but only because the whole film relies on the technological advances of both humans and apes. Taylor uses sign language in the old version when his throat is damaged to communicate with the natives.
As you watch the 2001 version, you become more and more aware of the director’s purposeful intention to point out the technology – as if to highlight the direction the film is going in – involving gadgets and modern tech. It starts very early on in the film when we see literisation on the screen – the name of the space station. We then see a video postcard for Leo and various gadgets like Leo’s compass guiding him to his goal on the planet. While the 1968 film suggests the idea of technology being used (on the spaceship), it never really shows anything off unlike the 2001 film. The perfect example of this is the ending of both versions – Taylor rides a horse while Leo is in a futuristic pod.
Both films portray the reversal of roles on the planet well with the 1968 film showing humans as cave people – making certain exhibits out of them. But again the film totally fails to show any sort of opposition from the humans – it merely suggests that humans are absolutely helpless against the apes. 2001 humans on the other hand decide to fight for their freedom and their fighting styles suggest the high intelligence levels.
When it comes to sound, both movies do not fail to impress. Both use very dramatic and tension-building music which definitely enhances the atmosphere created by the directors. In the 1968 film different crescendos and an unusual use of “ape-sounding” noise creates an impression of the music being very outlandish – just like the setting itself. The score in fact won an Oscar for the “Best original score” in 1969. The 2001 film used a whole orchestra to create a new score which would reflect on the mood and the atmosphere of the movie – again the music changes with the action on the screen to heighten the emotion levels.
Now Planet of the Apes is not just a fantasy story which is created purely for the enjoyment of the audience – both versions have morals and ideas that could cause a social impact. The films deal with the ideas of decency and prejudice – the main characters are first disliked by some apes before being accepted for who they really are. The original film came out in 1968 – the times when certain Martin Luther King was the leader of the non-violent Civil Rights movement. His actions caused a lot of unrest in the USA in the 1960s and the Planet of the Apes could be described as a reaction to what was happening in America at that period of time. It would not be suitable (and would appear risky) to release the movie during the time of the fierce battles of the movements. It was instead released when the times suddenly started to look brighter for USA and partially its purpose was to sway some people’s opinions – to show them in a simplified manner the affects of prejudice, tolerance and rights. Incidentally Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968.
But it would also be wrong to say that the film was produced as a propaganda type educational motion picture – it also reflected on many other events in the USA and in the world in that decade. The first American landed on the moon in the 1960’s so the film appeared to be a relevant reference to that event.
One of the most radical changes of the 2001 Planet of the Apes was its ending. They could appear very similar to the naked eye, but the differences are easily noticeable. In the 1968 film, Taylor runs away with Nova to find a better life away from the apes, but very soon discovers a damaged Statue of Liberty – he finally realises he was on Earth all along and that the planet really has changed – that the apes changed the world and America as he knew it. The ending is very iconic since the sunken Statue of Liberty suggested the loss of equality on Earth. Incidentally the film had four sequels that continued the story of Taylor as he tried to make his way back to his own time. But they were merely cashing-in opportunities on the big license – it totally spoiled the atmosphere of the original and the team should not have been that greedy to bother with more films.
The 2001 version finished with Leo deciding to leave the planet in search for his own home. But instead, he landed on the alternative Earth….populated by apes with General Thade as the legendary leader. The ironic thing is the Utopia/Dystopia issue for Leo. Both humans and apes on the other planet appreciated him but he decided to leave and ultimately ended up in a place he is likely to struggle in. Again the ending leaves space for more sequels.
Sci-fi genre generally makes unfamiliar things appear in a different light so that we can understand everything – uncover the enigma if you like. It also makes familiar things appear more confusing, and totally bewildering us with the story’s true meaning. And one of the questions that is left hanging in the air is….WHAT IF? What if this was really to happen? A job of a director is to make a believable plot seem a little bit TOO believable for our sub-conscience. It makes us wonder what would happen if humans were slaves, of time travel was possible, if apes were to become more powerful with humans. If we even begin to think about the matter, than we know the director has done his job well.
Planet of the Apes 2001 needed to be respectful of the original. It could not just turn the plot on its head and go in a completely different direction – some similarities to the original had to be kept. But the fact that Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of the original was a brilliantly realised effort is undeniable. It corrected the numerous mistakes Franklin Schaffner made with his original and bettered the film. One of the major faults of the 1968 version is the almost lifeless representation of humans – no will to fight, powerless against the apes and the low intelligence. While humans in the 2001 film were in awe of Leo and his bravery, the 1968 humans were simply not bothered because Taylor made no real effort to save anyone. It was a selfish approach by him and the film did not fall into the normal Hollywood sci-fi category – everyone is saved and happy etc. While it may have been revolutionary in its own time it is completely over-shadowed by the brilliance and hard work of Tim Burton and his team and here is hoping the 1968 version gets its place in the history books but doesn’t go any further than that – its been bettered and destroyed by the remake – and despite the hardcore fans arguing with this, Burton’s film simply blew the original into oblivion with its superb mix of action and thought put into it. Fact.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
This was a part of my Media Studies assignment and I thought Id post it here as well. Now this is my opinion so dont start jumping at me if you disagree with me.Ok, I may have been slightly too biased but this is how feel-so tell me what you think please..
----------------------------------------
Science fiction genre has been around for quite a long time and has subsequently developed quite a cult following. The situations presented by the films in the genre vary from saving mankind from alien invasion to deadly viruses being uncovered and so on – in most cases they are stories based on imaginary future scientific discoveries or changes in the environment and most commonly life on other planets. Unlike most other film genres, sci-fi does not just feature a set number of conventional plots and storylines – the genre tends to expand all the time and include various storylines called sub-genres. It is no surprise then that two certain films have challenged the conventional view of sci-fi films and developed and explored the genre further.
The original Planet of the Apes that graced the silver screens in 1968 – an adaptation of a 1963 novel by Pierre Boulle – has caught the audience’s attention with its overwhelming alien setting and an impressive plot. The film starts off with three American astronauts looking for alien life before losing control of their airship and landing on the seemingly uninhibited planet. Their crash-landing leaves them without a ship and forces them to wander into the depths of their planet. Only then do they realise that they have travelled through time and are in the year 3978 – little do they know though that the planet is populated by talking apes which have developed many skills and overthrown man as the main source of power. The whole story revolves around Colonel George Taylor (Charlton Heston) who tries to escape from the apes with the help of a kind Dr Zira who is unhappy with the treatment the humans receive on the planet.
The film features an impressive range of characters – from guys who dislike Taylor and those who are willing to give him a chance and help him. The appearance of Taylor causes some of the apes to change sides and rebel against their own kind. Also, “wild” humans inhibit the planet but they are treated as slaves by the apes – one of these humans, Nova, is Taylor’s love interest.
30 years after the release of Planet of the Apes, an American director Tim Burton has decided to pay a tribute to the original film by producing a re-make of it or as Burton called it – “a re-imagining”. Released in 2001, the film was a totally different approach to the story and it featured a significantly different plot from the original. Captain Leo Davidson, an employee on the space station Oberon, loses the signal from a trained monkey that has been sent to investigate the space near the station and decides to follow it. He gets sucked into a “ black hole” which transfers him to an alternate time span and he lands on an alien planet. He gets captured by the apes and taken into a prison, from which he soon manages to escape together with a band of humans living on the planet.
The new version of the film unquestionably looks very impressive – hundreds of specialists have worked hard to make the action look as authentic as possible. The actors had to attend an Ape School where they have been taught how to behave and move when acting on the set, make-up artists spent hours creating individual masks and additional items (such as fake teeth) and CGI experts created lovingly-detailed location backdrops and multiplied human and ape forces using advanced computer software.
The 2001 version of the film also has a very varied set of characters – and you cannot help but feel that they are stronger (both physically and mentally) than the 1968 ones. All characters have much more concrete narrative roles than the original, which unfortunately had some characters that had no real relevance to the story itself. The 2001 version villain, Thade, is a really threatening presence in the film and the sarcastic Limbo provides the needed humorous feel to the story. Tim Burton decided to develop the relationships between the characters further and therefore changed some of the character roles slightly. For example, the humans in the 1968 film do not speak at all, while in the 2001 film all humans speak. This moves the humans to the foreground of the picture and really gives them a “soul” – humans in the 1968 film looked flat and at times seemed out of place. Another contrast between the films lies in the women of the films. Nova (played by Linda Harrison, who interestingly made an appearance in the 2001 film along with Charlton Heston) is a weak person, who relies on Taylor most of the time – her inability to speak does not help us empathise with her as much. Daena on the other hand is a more independent and confident woman - she plays a much more important role than Nova did in the first film.
This contrast also applies to the female apes in both films. Zira was interested in Taylor in both academically and intellectually. She was intrigued by his ability to speak and his extensive knowledge. Ari in the 2001 film find Leo sexually attractive. She comes around as being the expert in the human field (something that cannot be said about Zira – she seemed more surprised at Taylor’s every move than Ari ever was) and is immediately intrigued by Leo. In my view Zira was intrigued by what Taylor COULD DO rather than his personality.
Both directors have made authenticity an important factor when thinking about the films – costumes are suited for the characters and the environments, while make-up is also a highlight of both productions, even though the lack of special effects undermines the authentic feel of the original compared to Burton’s film. The positive factor about both films is that the special effects never appear to be out of place – they become a part of the narrative – in 2001 version because they offer a futuristic feel to the film and the 1968 version because they are simply not advanced enough to stand out.
The dialogue is not too different in the two versions. Both main characters use a lot of clichés, which tend to make their speech appear slightly more unrealistic. The only difference is that Leo often uses more technology-based lexis , but only because the whole film relies on the technological advances of both humans and apes. Taylor uses sign language in the old version when his throat is damaged to communicate with the natives.
As you watch the 2001 version, you become more and more aware of the director’s purposeful intention to point out the technology – as if to highlight the direction the film is going in – involving gadgets and modern tech. It starts very early on in the film when we see literisation on the screen – the name of the space station. We then see a video postcard for Leo and various gadgets like Leo’s compass guiding him to his goal on the planet. While the 1968 film suggests the idea of technology being used (on the spaceship), it never really shows anything off unlike the 2001 film. The perfect example of this is the ending of both versions – Taylor rides a horse while Leo is in a futuristic pod.
Both films portray the reversal of roles on the planet well with the 1968 film showing humans as cave people – making certain exhibits out of them. But again the film totally fails to show any sort of opposition from the humans – it merely suggests that humans are absolutely helpless against the apes. 2001 humans on the other hand decide to fight for their freedom and their fighting styles suggest the high intelligence levels.
When it comes to sound, both movies do not fail to impress. Both use very dramatic and tension-building music which definitely enhances the atmosphere created by the directors. In the 1968 film different crescendos and an unusual use of “ape-sounding” noise creates an impression of the music being very outlandish – just like the setting itself. The score in fact won an Oscar for the “Best original score” in 1969. The 2001 film used a whole orchestra to create a new score which would reflect on the mood and the atmosphere of the movie – again the music changes with the action on the screen to heighten the emotion levels.
Now Planet of the Apes is not just a fantasy story which is created purely for the enjoyment of the audience – both versions have morals and ideas that could cause a social impact. The films deal with the ideas of decency and prejudice – the main characters are first disliked by some apes before being accepted for who they really are. The original film came out in 1968 – the times when certain Martin Luther King was the leader of the non-violent Civil Rights movement. His actions caused a lot of unrest in the USA in the 1960s and the Planet of the Apes could be described as a reaction to what was happening in America at that period of time. It would not be suitable (and would appear risky) to release the movie during the time of the fierce battles of the movements. It was instead released when the times suddenly started to look brighter for USA and partially its purpose was to sway some people’s opinions – to show them in a simplified manner the affects of prejudice, tolerance and rights. Incidentally Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968.
But it would also be wrong to say that the film was produced as a propaganda type educational motion picture – it also reflected on many other events in the USA and in the world in that decade. The first American landed on the moon in the 1960’s so the film appeared to be a relevant reference to that event.
One of the most radical changes of the 2001 Planet of the Apes was its ending. They could appear very similar to the naked eye, but the differences are easily noticeable. In the 1968 film, Taylor runs away with Nova to find a better life away from the apes, but very soon discovers a damaged Statue of Liberty – he finally realises he was on Earth all along and that the planet really has changed – that the apes changed the world and America as he knew it. The ending is very iconic since the sunken Statue of Liberty suggested the loss of equality on Earth. Incidentally the film had four sequels that continued the story of Taylor as he tried to make his way back to his own time. But they were merely cashing-in opportunities on the big license – it totally spoiled the atmosphere of the original and the team should not have been that greedy to bother with more films.
The 2001 version finished with Leo deciding to leave the planet in search for his own home. But instead, he landed on the alternative Earth….populated by apes with General Thade as the legendary leader. The ironic thing is the Utopia/Dystopia issue for Leo. Both humans and apes on the other planet appreciated him but he decided to leave and ultimately ended up in a place he is likely to struggle in. Again the ending leaves space for more sequels.
Sci-fi genre generally makes unfamiliar things appear in a different light so that we can understand everything – uncover the enigma if you like. It also makes familiar things appear more confusing, and totally bewildering us with the story’s true meaning. And one of the questions that is left hanging in the air is….WHAT IF? What if this was really to happen? A job of a director is to make a believable plot seem a little bit TOO believable for our sub-conscience. It makes us wonder what would happen if humans were slaves, of time travel was possible, if apes were to become more powerful with humans. If we even begin to think about the matter, than we know the director has done his job well.
Planet of the Apes 2001 needed to be respectful of the original. It could not just turn the plot on its head and go in a completely different direction – some similarities to the original had to be kept. But the fact that Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of the original was a brilliantly realised effort is undeniable. It corrected the numerous mistakes Franklin Schaffner made with his original and bettered the film. One of the major faults of the 1968 version is the almost lifeless representation of humans – no will to fight, powerless against the apes and the low intelligence. While humans in the 2001 film were in awe of Leo and his bravery, the 1968 humans were simply not bothered because Taylor made no real effort to save anyone. It was a selfish approach by him and the film did not fall into the normal Hollywood sci-fi category – everyone is saved and happy etc. While it may have been revolutionary in its own time it is completely over-shadowed by the brilliance and hard work of Tim Burton and his team and here is hoping the 1968 version gets its place in the history books but doesn’t go any further than that – its been bettered and destroyed by the remake – and despite the hardcore fans arguing with this, Burton’s film simply blew the original into oblivion with its superb mix of action and thought put into it. Fact.
----------------------------------------
Science fiction genre has been around for quite a long time and has subsequently developed quite a cult following. The situations presented by the films in the genre vary from saving mankind from alien invasion to deadly viruses being uncovered and so on – in most cases they are stories based on imaginary future scientific discoveries or changes in the environment and most commonly life on other planets. Unlike most other film genres, sci-fi does not just feature a set number of conventional plots and storylines – the genre tends to expand all the time and include various storylines called sub-genres. It is no surprise then that two certain films have challenged the conventional view of sci-fi films and developed and explored the genre further.
The original Planet of the Apes that graced the silver screens in 1968 – an adaptation of a 1963 novel by Pierre Boulle – has caught the audience’s attention with its overwhelming alien setting and an impressive plot. The film starts off with three American astronauts looking for alien life before losing control of their airship and landing on the seemingly uninhibited planet. Their crash-landing leaves them without a ship and forces them to wander into the depths of their planet. Only then do they realise that they have travelled through time and are in the year 3978 – little do they know though that the planet is populated by talking apes which have developed many skills and overthrown man as the main source of power. The whole story revolves around Colonel George Taylor (Charlton Heston) who tries to escape from the apes with the help of a kind Dr Zira who is unhappy with the treatment the humans receive on the planet.
The film features an impressive range of characters – from guys who dislike Taylor and those who are willing to give him a chance and help him. The appearance of Taylor causes some of the apes to change sides and rebel against their own kind. Also, “wild” humans inhibit the planet but they are treated as slaves by the apes – one of these humans, Nova, is Taylor’s love interest.
30 years after the release of Planet of the Apes, an American director Tim Burton has decided to pay a tribute to the original film by producing a re-make of it or as Burton called it – “a re-imagining”. Released in 2001, the film was a totally different approach to the story and it featured a significantly different plot from the original. Captain Leo Davidson, an employee on the space station Oberon, loses the signal from a trained monkey that has been sent to investigate the space near the station and decides to follow it. He gets sucked into a “ black hole” which transfers him to an alternate time span and he lands on an alien planet. He gets captured by the apes and taken into a prison, from which he soon manages to escape together with a band of humans living on the planet.
The new version of the film unquestionably looks very impressive – hundreds of specialists have worked hard to make the action look as authentic as possible. The actors had to attend an Ape School where they have been taught how to behave and move when acting on the set, make-up artists spent hours creating individual masks and additional items (such as fake teeth) and CGI experts created lovingly-detailed location backdrops and multiplied human and ape forces using advanced computer software.
The 2001 version of the film also has a very varied set of characters – and you cannot help but feel that they are stronger (both physically and mentally) than the 1968 ones. All characters have much more concrete narrative roles than the original, which unfortunately had some characters that had no real relevance to the story itself. The 2001 version villain, Thade, is a really threatening presence in the film and the sarcastic Limbo provides the needed humorous feel to the story. Tim Burton decided to develop the relationships between the characters further and therefore changed some of the character roles slightly. For example, the humans in the 1968 film do not speak at all, while in the 2001 film all humans speak. This moves the humans to the foreground of the picture and really gives them a “soul” – humans in the 1968 film looked flat and at times seemed out of place. Another contrast between the films lies in the women of the films. Nova (played by Linda Harrison, who interestingly made an appearance in the 2001 film along with Charlton Heston) is a weak person, who relies on Taylor most of the time – her inability to speak does not help us empathise with her as much. Daena on the other hand is a more independent and confident woman - she plays a much more important role than Nova did in the first film.
This contrast also applies to the female apes in both films. Zira was interested in Taylor in both academically and intellectually. She was intrigued by his ability to speak and his extensive knowledge. Ari in the 2001 film find Leo sexually attractive. She comes around as being the expert in the human field (something that cannot be said about Zira – she seemed more surprised at Taylor’s every move than Ari ever was) and is immediately intrigued by Leo. In my view Zira was intrigued by what Taylor COULD DO rather than his personality.
Both directors have made authenticity an important factor when thinking about the films – costumes are suited for the characters and the environments, while make-up is also a highlight of both productions, even though the lack of special effects undermines the authentic feel of the original compared to Burton’s film. The positive factor about both films is that the special effects never appear to be out of place – they become a part of the narrative – in 2001 version because they offer a futuristic feel to the film and the 1968 version because they are simply not advanced enough to stand out.
The dialogue is not too different in the two versions. Both main characters use a lot of clichés, which tend to make their speech appear slightly more unrealistic. The only difference is that Leo often uses more technology-based lexis , but only because the whole film relies on the technological advances of both humans and apes. Taylor uses sign language in the old version when his throat is damaged to communicate with the natives.
As you watch the 2001 version, you become more and more aware of the director’s purposeful intention to point out the technology – as if to highlight the direction the film is going in – involving gadgets and modern tech. It starts very early on in the film when we see literisation on the screen – the name of the space station. We then see a video postcard for Leo and various gadgets like Leo’s compass guiding him to his goal on the planet. While the 1968 film suggests the idea of technology being used (on the spaceship), it never really shows anything off unlike the 2001 film. The perfect example of this is the ending of both versions – Taylor rides a horse while Leo is in a futuristic pod.
Both films portray the reversal of roles on the planet well with the 1968 film showing humans as cave people – making certain exhibits out of them. But again the film totally fails to show any sort of opposition from the humans – it merely suggests that humans are absolutely helpless against the apes. 2001 humans on the other hand decide to fight for their freedom and their fighting styles suggest the high intelligence levels.
When it comes to sound, both movies do not fail to impress. Both use very dramatic and tension-building music which definitely enhances the atmosphere created by the directors. In the 1968 film different crescendos and an unusual use of “ape-sounding” noise creates an impression of the music being very outlandish – just like the setting itself. The score in fact won an Oscar for the “Best original score” in 1969. The 2001 film used a whole orchestra to create a new score which would reflect on the mood and the atmosphere of the movie – again the music changes with the action on the screen to heighten the emotion levels.
Now Planet of the Apes is not just a fantasy story which is created purely for the enjoyment of the audience – both versions have morals and ideas that could cause a social impact. The films deal with the ideas of decency and prejudice – the main characters are first disliked by some apes before being accepted for who they really are. The original film came out in 1968 – the times when certain Martin Luther King was the leader of the non-violent Civil Rights movement. His actions caused a lot of unrest in the USA in the 1960s and the Planet of the Apes could be described as a reaction to what was happening in America at that period of time. It would not be suitable (and would appear risky) to release the movie during the time of the fierce battles of the movements. It was instead released when the times suddenly started to look brighter for USA and partially its purpose was to sway some people’s opinions – to show them in a simplified manner the affects of prejudice, tolerance and rights. Incidentally Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968.
But it would also be wrong to say that the film was produced as a propaganda type educational motion picture – it also reflected on many other events in the USA and in the world in that decade. The first American landed on the moon in the 1960’s so the film appeared to be a relevant reference to that event.
One of the most radical changes of the 2001 Planet of the Apes was its ending. They could appear very similar to the naked eye, but the differences are easily noticeable. In the 1968 film, Taylor runs away with Nova to find a better life away from the apes, but very soon discovers a damaged Statue of Liberty – he finally realises he was on Earth all along and that the planet really has changed – that the apes changed the world and America as he knew it. The ending is very iconic since the sunken Statue of Liberty suggested the loss of equality on Earth. Incidentally the film had four sequels that continued the story of Taylor as he tried to make his way back to his own time. But they were merely cashing-in opportunities on the big license – it totally spoiled the atmosphere of the original and the team should not have been that greedy to bother with more films.
The 2001 version finished with Leo deciding to leave the planet in search for his own home. But instead, he landed on the alternative Earth….populated by apes with General Thade as the legendary leader. The ironic thing is the Utopia/Dystopia issue for Leo. Both humans and apes on the other planet appreciated him but he decided to leave and ultimately ended up in a place he is likely to struggle in. Again the ending leaves space for more sequels.
Sci-fi genre generally makes unfamiliar things appear in a different light so that we can understand everything – uncover the enigma if you like. It also makes familiar things appear more confusing, and totally bewildering us with the story’s true meaning. And one of the questions that is left hanging in the air is….WHAT IF? What if this was really to happen? A job of a director is to make a believable plot seem a little bit TOO believable for our sub-conscience. It makes us wonder what would happen if humans were slaves, of time travel was possible, if apes were to become more powerful with humans. If we even begin to think about the matter, than we know the director has done his job well.
Planet of the Apes 2001 needed to be respectful of the original. It could not just turn the plot on its head and go in a completely different direction – some similarities to the original had to be kept. But the fact that Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of the original was a brilliantly realised effort is undeniable. It corrected the numerous mistakes Franklin Schaffner made with his original and bettered the film. One of the major faults of the 1968 version is the almost lifeless representation of humans – no will to fight, powerless against the apes and the low intelligence. While humans in the 2001 film were in awe of Leo and his bravery, the 1968 humans were simply not bothered because Taylor made no real effort to save anyone. It was a selfish approach by him and the film did not fall into the normal Hollywood sci-fi category – everyone is saved and happy etc. While it may have been revolutionary in its own time it is completely over-shadowed by the brilliance and hard work of Tim Burton and his team and here is hoping the 1968 version gets its place in the history books but doesn’t go any further than that – its been bettered and destroyed by the remake – and despite the hardcore fans arguing with this, Burton’s film simply blew the original into oblivion with its superb mix of action and thought put into it. Fact.