Dawn of The Planet of The Apes
LudwigVonDrake
Posts: 12,836
Forum Member
✭✭
Trailer now out. Due for release in the UK July 17 '14.
http://youtu.be/h_9-3Fj3ZdI
A growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors of the devastating virus unleashed a decade earlier. They reach a fragile peace, but it proves short-lived, as both sides are brought to the brink of a war that will determine who will emerge as Earth's dominant species.
http://youtu.be/h_9-3Fj3ZdI
0
Comments
Does anyone think that origins stories tend to kill the mystery of the originals? Part of the interest in the original PotA was that how the apes became the dominate species and the humans animalistic, and we didn't exactly know how it came about (other than nuclear war being a factor in the original film). Part of me feels that even though these films can be interesting, you do lose something. Don't get me wrong, the blame for this isn't on Rise and Dawn, for it goes back to Escape, Conquest and Battle for the PotA. Still, starting from the start means that the mystery isn't there.
Agree entirely.
A PotA film means Chuck Heston, Roddy Mcdowall, Maurice Evans etc etc
Anchoring it too much to the films own past would be a good way of doing that. We don't know what direction Fox are taking this franchise yet (and presumably they'll want a good run of Ape films). Perhaps in this iteration the apes are overthrown.
They'd already had an origin story in the original movies. Two in fact.
Essentially Rise of of the POTA was a remake of Conquest. Given that it's seen in hindsight as one of the better sequels despite a mixed reaction at the time I think it was probably the correct rout to go down.
I would've just skipped ahead to a new POTA movie set after mans downfall rather than milking the unexpected hit they had with the concept of an origin movie.
(Caesar, not Franco)
I know, and I said in my post that Rise and Dawn couldn't be blamed for that, for it was done in the original set of films, but I still feel that starting from the beginning sort of loses some of the mystery that was such an impact in the first film of 1968. I do enjoy Escape (my second favourite of all the films), Conquest and, to a very lesser degree, Battle, but I do feel that some of the mystique was also lost by going down that route, even if many of the fans wanted more. That's not to say that that perceived loss kills the films for me, which as I said, I enjoyed despite my issue with them, but I do wonder if being given more can also mean having something else taken away. Still, we're there now, spoilt mystery or not, and I'm fine to go along with the ride (especially seeing that I have all the five original films, the TV series, the Burton film and Rise on DVDs, as well as the Pierre Boulle novel and a few of the films' novelisations, and begs the point that I'm happy to spoil myself and should share some of the blame for the issue I raise ).
Rise was a reboot rather than a remake. The story in Rise doesn't fit the original films other than share the same theme. Still, maybe I'm appearing to be a bit too picky with the remake/reboot label, in that Rise shares a similar theme as Conquest even if it doesn't fit the story.
Hmm... yeah, I sort of agree there. Like it or not, it's the "end game" that's probably being most anticipated.
World War Z, Godzilla, now this. Seems gloomy, world-in-chaos fantasy blockbusters are quite the thing. But what does it say about us, etc?
i quite like the fact they've done that