Talk:Planet of the Apes

Recent changes

I've changed or reverted a number of recent changes. I removed a bit of oversectioning above the novel, tweaked a few sentences about War and the theme park ride, and most significantly I reverted a change that for the second time moved the "Cultural impact and legacy" section down below the media lists. The editor claimed that "Cultural Impact goes at the bottom, that's how it is in the article of every other franchise". Firstly, it already is at the bottom of the article content, and only above the media lists (In the peer review, it was questioned whether the media lists were necessary at all). Secondly, despite the claim there's no overwhelming consistency among similar articles such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Trek (film series), James Bond in film, or Superman in film, so it's not like there's some format we are bound to follow beyond any other concerns. Third, it's just not good article presentation. IMO, readers are better served if the article content is not separated out by the huge sections of possibly irrelevant media and cast lists.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Intentionally ambiguous" ???

Reviewing the article after all of the recent changes and the 3rd paragraph of the entry for 'Battle' jumped out at me. First, unlike the entries for the other films (and the two previous paragraphs of the 'Battle' entry) which recap the background of each film, production, box office, etc.; this paragraph delves into interpretation and speculation. What really jumped out was the wording that the ending was "intentionally ambiguous". That is just not true. From the POTA Wiki: "Dehn himself stated that it was to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts would ultimately fail." The source of that is Planet of the Apes Revisited by Joe Russo and Larry Landsman (Page 211). http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_vs_Linear_Timelines#cite_note-2 So while it can be stated that the ending was ambiguous, it is factually incorrect to state that it was intentionally so. Ideally, the entire paragraph should be removed. It is not encyclopedic and out of sync with the other entries in the article. Failing that the word "intentionally" should be removed because it is factually incorrect. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it should stay; it's well cited and Green spends several pages talking about the ending and appears to think it, its ambiguity, and its implications for the whole series are significant. The para also seems like a fair representation of the two main interpretations according to Green. I don't have the books with me now but I don't think that article is an accurate representation of Landsman and Russo. For one thing, Dehn wasn't the primary writer for this movie, and as this article states, the Corringtons did intend the ending to be ambiguous (and more hopeful than Dehn's version). However, we can take out "intentionally" if you wish; clearly, regardless of what any of the creators intended, the ending *is* ambiguous.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the passage in not cited or inaccurate (other than the word 'intentionally'), it just seems out of sync with the other entries. As far as the Russo and Landsman book, I remember seeing a site that had scans from the book that included the page cited. If I can find it, I'll post a link. Plus, Dehn did the final rewrite of the film after the Corrington's were fired from the project so he had the final say on the issue. But you have a point that the ending regardless of intent is ambiguous. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Saw that you deleted the word 'intentionally', thanks. Still looking for the site with the scans of the Russo/Landsman book. When I find it, I'll post the link. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have both books at home so I can check them too when I return next week.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Great. I can't seem to track down the site that has the scans so far, but will keep looking SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

After many days of searching was able to find a link on a message board with the Dehn quote. http://potamediaarchive.com/images/dehn5.jpg I still think the entire paragraph should be deleted. It delves into interpretation which is out of sync with the entries for the other films. But if it is retained, the Dehn quote should be included to give the reader the most and best information possible. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of either removing the material, or adding Dehn's quote. I reread that section of the book, and again, Dehn wasn't the primary writer for the film and in fact wasn't the one who created the ambiguous ending (he just revised the Corrington's ending, and in spite of himself and the producers' wishes, just made it more ambiguous). The current text already gives what the best available source describes as the two chief interpretations, including the one Dehn apparently preferred. Many of the other sections include thematic material when it's relevant to the series as a whole (notably, the first movie's twist nuclear war ending, and the foregrounding of racial themes in the later films). Greene is the major source for this series and he believes that this ending is significant to the series.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dehn did the final rewrite on the screenplay. As the page I linked to stated further up, Dehn rewrote 95% of the film's dialogue and it is clear that the ending was Dehn's concept. Greene was not involved in the making of the film's at all. It is just his opinion. We shouldn't be indulging in opinion but in facts. Dehn is a much better source that Greene in that he was actually there. But I say again, I see no benefit of including the paragraph to begin with. It is completely out of sync with the other entries in the article and engaged in interpretation instead of facts. But if it is being retained Dehn's quote should be included with Greene's interpretation. Something like "Despite screenwriter's Paul Dehn's assertion that 'Caesar's good intentions failed-and the tear is a forecast of Earth's destruction in Beneath', others adhere to another interpretation, the statue cries tears of joy because the species have broken the cycle of oppression, giving the series an optimistic finale". I know that is not perfect but I'm sure we can come up with something better. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Being a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE (the best available one), Greene is indeed the better source in this regard than Dehn, who is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It is also not Greene's interpretation; he's reporting that these are the main two interpretations of the scene, either of which have implications for the series as a whole. His own position seems to be that it's open to interpretation, which regardless of anyone's intentions, it obviously is. Other interpretations are possible, but these are the two that are the most noteworthy according to Greene.

Normally I wouldn't oppose adding a note about Dehn's statements, but I just don't see why we should single him out as an authority for this. He was just one of several parties who had input at different stages. According to both Greene and Landsman & Russo, it was the Corringtons, not Dehn, who created the ending with the Lawgiver and the children. They intended the ending to be ambiguous but hopeful: "the time loop could be used either to suggest an unending cycle of predetermined violence or, as the Corringtons preferred, to give the characters an opportunity to break that cycle through deliberate present-day action" The Corringtons reworked the ending at least once based on feedback from Arthur Jacobs. Dehn's rewrite added the crying statue; apparently he wanted this to indicate that the destructive future was unavoidable, but that's hardly clear in the film, as noted by the sources. If anything, it's even more ambiguous than the rest of the scene. Dehn stated that he also reworked 95% of the dialog, but he altered very little of the plot, and the WGA decided his changes weren't sufficient to give him a screenplay credit, which went to the Corringtons. According to Landsman and Russo, the other filmmakers, including Jacobs, disliked the ending but neither Dehn nor anyone else came up with a better one in time. Then there's the director. According to Greene, who spoke to him, "The scene was intended by Director J. Lee Thompson to be ambiguous". Regardless of what Dehn (or the Corringtons) intended, the director shot it to be ambiguous. So we have a situation where there are multiple rounds of filmmakers who intended different things.

I don't see why we need to get into what the filmmakers (or one of them) intended; what's more important is the end result, and what the sources say about them. IMO, the present text that's been here for three years does that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I'll state that the whole paragraph should be deleted. It veers into interpretation and not facts. Encyclopedias should be about facts, not interpretations. Plus it is odd to give a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE more weight than a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. As far as the WGA, since we don't have a transcript of their deliberations on the subject, we can't comment on why they made the decision that they did. And without a direct quote from Thompson, whatever Greene says in regard to that is simply hearsay. I'm not saying to delete the Greene reference but it is only fair to include the Dehn quote to give readers as many facts as possible. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

:WP:SECONDARYSOURCEs do receive more weight than WP:PRIMARYSOURCES per Wikipedia policy, as primary sources can be easily misused. Here, Greene is the top source for the article subject. There is no problem including interpretation when it's cited to reliable sources that establish it as noteworthy to the topic. In this case, Greene spends many pages talking about the implications of this ending for the film and series, so it's clear he thinks it's noteworthy. And we do not need a direct quote from Thompson to establish his intentions when it's verified by a reliable source (Greene, who talked to him for the book). Again, there's nothing necessarily wrong with including a note about Dehn, but I don't see how we include him but not the Corringtons, Thompson, and potentially Jacobs (not that I'm arguing that we should). Either way, it appears this discussion is not going to resolve the disagreement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

True, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES can be misused but so can a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE, but that is not the case here. Greene is one source. There are many others regarding the Apes films. The Russo/Landsman book is a great source. Plus the purpose of Greene's book is interpretation while the Russo/Landsman book is more a behind the scenes history without any editorializing. What's odd is that there the ending is only barely mentioned in the main article for the film. Maybe the solution is expand the article in the main article to include the Dehn quote and others. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a great idea to expand the Battle article as you suggest. Unfortunately many of these articles are in pretty weak shape.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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)