Talk:Battle for the Planet of the Apes

The Film Does NOT Take Place in Central City--Please Stop Changing This

Central City is never mentioned in any of the films or their novel or comic adaptations. Central City is the apes' city from the TV series, and was never mentioned before that series aired. San Diego has been named as the site of Ape Management (in, as stated, revolution on the Planet of the Apes), and Breck is, in fact, the governor of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rassmguy (talk • contribs)

Deleted Scenes

I was not aware of the additional footage of the movie (I have the 2001 DVD set from the UK) and after I watched the movie I read the article here on it and was baffled by reading the plot, seeing as there is nothing about the bomb and Mèndez "taking over". I think there should be a note in the plot section about the sections that were added later. Also if someone has more info about the first time this footage (bootleg extended version of the movie) was made available to the public (bootleg) they should add it. Even though it is clear this extended version is the definitive one, it wasn't for years it appears, so the additional scenes should be pointed out in the plot section, in the interest of having the article correct. Also, the running time on the article: there is only one. Since the original version is still available to buy, and the only one available in the UK at least, the two running times should be shown. Dollvalley (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First and last movie in series

• In the last movie it tells how 600 years after the 21st century APes/Man coexist. (27th century}
• In the first movie it tells how in 3978 Apes hunt man. There is a 1200 years gap (39th century}

Suprised there isn't a sixth Planet of the Apes movie to explain how man devolved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.45 (talk • contribs)

A sixth movie will make sense only if it was chronologically before the first one, before the timeline alteration. But, there's quite a good chance that there are two timelines, if what Zira says is true : in the first one, apes learn to speak by themselves (or through some kind of disease, as in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and in the same time human being lose their ability to speak, the first of them being Aldo, who will say no (according to Zira in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes"). In the second timeline, starting with the coming of Zira, Cornelius and Milo from the future, it’s Caesar who is the first ape to speak. It is unclear however, how the other apes learn how. In that timeline, it is possible that, further in the future, men will lose their speech, but, it seems very unlikely, men and apes still living together (see next section about the statue of Caesar crying). Now, Zira can be wrong, but Aldo dies and, many years later, is still not recognized as the first ape to say no. If there's only one timeline, you should have a gorillas' revolution a bit later which will alters the ancient writing, changing "Aldo" for "Caesar". It's seem really strange and counter-productive for the wise guys, the knowledge being exclusively shared between orangutans and chimpanzees.Sultan Rahi (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Crying Caesar

In the second movie they all die and the freaking planet is blown up, so maybe that`s why Caesar cries, as he is subsequently the sole survivor, by going back in time. And maybe that`s why "The Lawgiver" says "Only the dead know about the future" 95.115.198.129 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Me95.115.198.129 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, pota wiki confirmed that the timeline was altered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.204.253 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The pota wiki doesn't confirm anything. It takes a mostly neutral stand on the issue.

Actually Caesar's parents are the sole survivors of the destruction of the Earth. In any case they died not long after their escape. Caesar was born in the 20th century. The article seems right to me now - indicating that the statue of Caesar is crying because his plan for apes and humans to life in peace ultimately fails. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't fail. It said humans and ape kids were sitting TOGETHER in...maybe a school. And somebod was telling them a stoy. Thats no fail. Maybe its all that hes been through.KF5LLG (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Paul Dehn, the screen writer, the point of the tear on the statue was to tell the audience that Caesar's good intentions ultimately failed.

Well, it may fail, but, the timeline being altered, it will not be like the first time anyway. Sultan Rahi (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeframe

There has always been debate on what year this film takes place. Mandemus says the lived in the Ape City armory for 27 years and Mendez says there has been 12 years of peace. These two statements are not contradictory. There could have been a war lasting 15 years before the final nuclear exchange. The later date makes more sense because it gives the apes longer to develop speech and a society. (And Virgil's statement about Mandemus does not refer to when they were slaves, that is a fabrication.) Many credible sources like Rich Handley's timeline book list the later date. In the end the article should reflect what is stated in the film and that it is at least 27 years after Conquest. 65.163.160.177 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The years actually given in the film are in the Plot section. The Mandemus quote is ambiguous and makes no reference to any event from Conquest. The article now says Battle takes place "at least twelve years" after the revolution in the previous film. That is indisputable, even if you believe it was 27 years later, though that is rather unlikely as Kolp does not appear anywhere near that much older. All this is already covered in the Timeframe section. IP hoppers have been WP:edit warring over this for a year and a half. The page has been protected because of this. I suggest you give it a rest. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gothicfilm. Kolp doesn't look 30 years older and the issue is covered in the Timeframe section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Mendez quotes which is the basis for the "at least 12 years" statement in the plot section is far more ambiguous. It also makes no reference to any event from "Conquest". He says there has been 12 years of peace. But we don't know how many years of war preceded those 12 years of peace. Mandemus is said to have a 'mind like a razor' and his statement is very straightforward. He's lived in the Ape City armory for 27 years. Since there was no Ape City yet in "Conquest", it has to be a minimum of 27 years after that film. Also, how old one or two people think Kolp looks is irrelevant and entirely subjective. It could be argued that he does look much older. He is much heavier than he was in "Conquest" and his dark beard has gone grey. There are some who don't think that Armando look 20 years older in "Conquest". So how old a character looks should not be a factor. 65.163.160.177 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The article doens't endorse either 12 years or 27 years. It stays neutral on the issue and the dispute is discussed in the Timeframe section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeframe section

I really don't think that "weasel words" is a fair description. However another note on the section is more accurate: "This section is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts." Rereading the section and it does read like something from a discussion board. Does anyone have any suggestions to improve the section? Mine would be to remove the bit about Kolp. While I agree he doesn't look 30 years older, it is a very subjective statement. I would also suggest deleting the part about Virgil since his statement can be interpreted several ways. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is original research and speculation. We may be able to write something similar based on published works.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for improving it if good sources can be found, but as you can see in the earlier discussion above, that section was put in to stop longterm edit warring from IPs. If the points of contention are removed, like Kolp, it may lead to the undesired result of more edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The only published work on the subject seems to be the Timeline book which places the film in the year 2020. The real problem is that the Kolp and Virgil statements are both highly subjective. they should be deleted. If that leads to edit warring, then the section or the entire article can be placed under protection. My suggestion would be to just state the facts, so to speak, and leave all speculation out of the section. The re-edit would be as follows: "The year 2670 A.D. is shown at the beginning of the film during the framing segment. The rest of the film is told in flashback and no exact date is directly stated. Using the date of the previous film Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, which was set in 1991, as a reference point; there are two lines of dialogue that offer a clue. Mendez says that there has been 12 years of peace which would place the film somewhere around or after the year 2003. However, at the end of Battle Mandemus says he's lived in the Ape City armory for 27 years, which would place the film in the year 2018 or later. Several reference materials, such as the Sacred Scrolls website and Rich Handley's Timelines of the Planet of the Apes use the later date but others cite the earlier date." SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That can still be called vague and subjective, and it seems to favor 27 years, which several other elements beyond Kolp do not (like the age of Caesar's son). I would just leave the section alone for now if that is all the RS we have. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Green talks quite a bit about the ending and interpretations of it. We can rewrite the material based on that. If reliable sources haven't discussed the issue of the timeframe, neither should we (even if there's edit warring, it can be removed pretty easily). I'll try to work something up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Who's Green? Maybe the timeframe issue should be deleted if there are no reliable sources that comment on it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric Greene, author of Planet of the Apes as American Myth, one of the most important works on the series. I guess it's not cited here yet but it's cited elsewhere. I agree if there aren't sources for this stuff it should be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Never read his book myself. I have read others on the series and they don't seem to address the issue. Handley's Timeline book doesn't discuss the issue either. It just puts Battle 30 years after Conquest. But I don't know if it is considered a credible source. The alternative is to just mention the two lines of dialogue in the film and leave it at that or to delete the entire section. I would also recommend revising the statement in the plot section, "at least twelve years after he led the revolution in the previous film". That seems to set off some of the IPs. I've had to revert changes several times. Maybe it should be something more neutral such as just 'years after' or 'several years after'. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this. When we had that version around two years ago IPs repeatedly came in with their idea of how many years it should be. Nothing invites this more than having just 'years after'. The best compromise is "at least twelve years after he led the revolution in the previous film", as that is true no matter how many years later one may believe it is. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

However it is phrased, some IPs are going to try to change it to suit their personal POV on the issue. If necessary the article can be protected. Our goal should be to make the article as objective and neutral as possible on the subject. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So can we come to a consensus on whether to revise or delete the Timeframe section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's just remove it. I don't see any sources that devote much if any space to this issue. If there's edit warring we can handle it as it comes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But before we do, I think we need to address the revising the statement in the plot section which seems to be the source of the problem. Currently, it reads "this sequel follows the ape leader, Caesar (Roddy McDowall), at least twelve years after he led the revolution in the previous film, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes". I propose changing it to this, "this sequel follows the ape leader, Caesar (Roddy McDowall), at least twelve years after a global nuclear war has destroyed civilization". Since the issue for most seems to the numbers of years between the film, this will avoid that and it reflects Mendez's statement which no one can disagree with. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just, "some time after a global nuclear war..." The years aren't particularly important to the film.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The phase "some time" is a little wishy washy for me. I think it would lead to more edit wars. But how about, "this sequel follows the ape leader, Caesar (Roddy McDowall), years after a global nuclear war has destroyed civilization". SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just using "years later" does not look good and at best causes the reader to wonder why it only says that. You don't see many WP articles using that vague term. It invites others to fill in the obvious blank. I would vote for "at least twelve years after a global nuclear war has destroyed civilization". It is the best proposed version, and it is as specific as the facts from the film allow. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A vague term is appropriate when the movie is vague on the subject itself. "At least twelve years" runs into original research based on one stray line of dialog.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

...one stray line of dialog? That line was clearly scripted and put in the film with deliberation. A point in the plot section is not OR when it is from the film itself. "At least twelve years" is the only specific timeframe one can take away from that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The same thing can be said about Mandemus' line about living in Ape City for 27 years. That line was also clearly scripted and also put in the film with deliberation. The problem is that both lines are rather vague and don't reference a particular event. Mendez says that there has been '12 years of peace' but is he referring to the nuclear war or internal strife that took place after it or something else. We don't know because the events between the two movies are never defined in any detailed way. So while the current phrasing is vague, it is in line with what is presented in the film.SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The 27 year figure since "Conquest" is the figure best supported by the dialog in the film. The armory exists or 27 years, Mandemus was Virgil's teacher when Virgil was a boy, the global rebellion of the apes, and eventual nuclear war has to have taken some time. The 12 year figure simply doesn't account for enough time for the rebellion, the war, the teaching of Virgil, and the 27 years of Mandemus living in the armory. However the 27 years Mandemus lived in the armory is the only timeline that could have accounted for all that. Even assuming the nuclear war happened, and ended immediately after "Conquest", plus the 12 years of peace spoken of by Mendez that still leaves the 27 years Mandemus lived in the armory, and the teaching of Virgil unaccounted for.

98.164.64.58 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

While you make very good points, the current wording was a compromise to prevent edit warring that had occurred when a specific number of years was cited in the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Domestic box office

The article read: Battle for the Planet of the Apes grossed a domestic total of $8.8 million, making it the lowest-grossing film in the series. However, the film went on to earn an estimated $4 million in North American theatrical rentals in 1973.

This is nonsensical. The Domestic box office gross is what a film makes in its own country (in this case, the United States and Canada). "Theatrical rentals" is simply the film studio's share of that gross, and not a separate amount (the rest of the gross is kept by the theaters that show the film). As per WP:MOSFILM, it is enough to simply show the box office gross by itself. But the way it was written made it look as if the film made $8.8 million at the box office PLUS an additional $4 million in theatrical rentals - which is not the case. 82.4.173.133 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)