I wasn't going adversarial, at least not against you. I guess I could be considered adversarial against people who write Ensign Horta or Lt Dolphin books. Or Lt Blowhole.

Just because you hate non-canon Trek doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I find much of it intolerable myself, but I do not ridicule people who happen to like it. You act as if anything written without your permission should be outlawed. I despise country music, but I don't insult people who like it.

Look up the phrase "To each his own".

I guess I don't see any problem with expecting people to make sense. Indeed, that might be the LEAST we should expect from each other. And if they don't make sense, then I know right off that something is wrong with them. It can save a lot of time waiting for them to say or do something ridiculous or just crazy about something else.

The first "co-host" on Dennis Miller's radio show would sometimes say something like, "I support controlling deficit spending, having a strong military, etc, etc, and that's why I vote for Democrats." See? Crazy. With that data point in hand, I know to look more closely at everything else they say/do. And the earlier I get that data point, the less time I waste.

And yes, "To each his own." But I'm free to notice if "his own" is ridiculous. I could even have some respect for someone who says they enjoy "Escape From The Planet Of The Apes" and thereafter as escapism or something, as long as they understand that they're ridiculous crap. But "No no, they're good! They make sense! They hold together logically!" Anyone who says/believes that? Crazy.

it's a two way street. Those you ridicule for liking things you don't see you as the crazy one. Much as you seem to believe, Knix, your opinion is no more Universal Fact than Mine, Nex's, MK's or anyone else on this board. As with most issues in this reality, there is no right or wrong. There is only opinion.

"Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream" is an opinion.

"Democrats support a strong military and controlling spending" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes is a fun way to blow some time on a lazy weekend, especially if you're drunk or high" is an opinion.

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes holds together logically and makes sense" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

I'm a hardcore fan of the original Apes films. "Escape" is just the tip of the iceberg as far as crappy logic and continuity goes. Don't get me started. You are right. That issue is not opinion. Hence my statement that MANY issues are only opinion, not ALL.

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes holds together logically and makes sense" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

Actually, it's not at all bad, particularly compared to the fourth and fifth installments of the original sequence, and was very well reviewed by contemporary critics. Sure, time travel is a cornucopia of alarming concepts, but, since its all theoretical, it makes sense within the framework of its narrative.

H.G. Wells, often called the Father of Science fiction, more or less invented the modern concept of Time Travel; his general approach to science fiction was to come up with one outlandish concept, and once you've made that leap of faith, the rest of the narrative would fit logically within the resulting narrative. I don't want to get off topic, but what about "Escape" is more illogical than, say, "The Voyage Home" or "Terminator"?

Really only after it had been "recycled" by various planetary processes. We do the same thing, of course. The main difference is that our "recycling process" includes a lot of solar energy input, which may not be the case for the horta.

Well put; this is what I had in mind, a self-sustaining ecosystem of silicon-based life. Without the energy from the sun, thermal energy from the Planet's Core may have been important in perpetuating the ecosystem. Perhaps this is why the Horta are biologically programmed to die out every once in a while, to give their environment a chance to renew itself through other mineral producing processes.

@jxh13 said:

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes holds together logically and makes sense" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

Actually, it's not at all bad, particularly compared to the fourth and fifth installments of the original sequence, and was very well reviewed by contemporary critics. Sure, time travel is a cornucopia of alarming concepts, but, since its all theoretical, it makes sense within the framework of its narrative.

H.G. Wells, often called the Father of Science fiction, more or less invented the modern concept of Time Travel; his general approach to science fiction was to come up with one outlandish concept, and once you've made that leap of faith, the rest of the narrative would fit logically within the resulting narrative. I don't want to get off topic, but what about "Escape" is more illogical than, say, "The Voyage Home" or "Terminator"?

I first saw "Escape" when I was in 7th grade. I cried myself sick at the ending. I love it and I don't have a problem with the time travel aspect. Knixon does. As for the gaps in logic:

1. Dr.Milo could not possibly have raised and repaired Taylor's ship in the time between movies.

2. Except for firearms, the apes had no technology and believed flight was impossible, so he also couldn't have possibly figured out how to pilot it. Possible ret-con: In the TV series, there were "technological safe-houses" in various places. Milo could have found one.

3. Where did they get the space suits? There were none seen inside the ship in the first film.

4. It was established in the first film that the bulk of the ape civilization had no knowledge of ancient man. In "Escape", Zira and Cornelius know the full history.

3.

@jxh13 said:

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes holds together logically and makes sense" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

Actually, it's not at all bad, particularly compared to the fourth and fifth installments of the original sequence, and was very well reviewed by contemporary critics. Sure, time travel is a cornucopia of alarming concepts, but, since its all theoretical, it makes sense within the framework of its narrative.

H.G. Wells, often called the Father of Science fiction, more or less invented the modern concept of Time Travel; his general approach to science fiction was to come up with one outlandish concept, and once you've made that leap of faith, the rest of the narrative would fit logically within the resulting narrative. I don't want to get off topic, but what about "Escape" is more illogical than, say, "The Voyage Home" or "Terminator"?

The single biggest problem could be that "Escape From" doesn't even follow its own "mythos" or whatever, as established in the first movie, or you could say the first TWO movies since Brent et Cie ("and Company") did the same thing as Taylor et Cie. (i.e., it DOESN'T make sense within the framework of its own narrative.) There is no evidence in either movie that it could ever be possible to go BACKWARD in time back to "present day" Earth (that is, not long after Taylor and Brent originally departed). Even if, as I mentioned earlier, it weren't totally ludicrous for the apes to recover Taylor's ship, figure out how it worked (!!!!), repair it (!!!!!!!!), and get it back into space (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!); doing the same thing as Taylor and Brent did, would mean they would travel FARTHER INTO THE FUTURE. Which would have been pointless anyway, since Earth was reduced to a cinder at the end of "Beneath." (So of course the studio couldn't follow THAT, it meant "no more profitable sequels!")

Aside from that, they also went a few sequels too far. Even beyond the first (two) movie(s), the whole "ooh, mankind of the present/past causes his own destruction in the future, that's so profound and deep!" is college philosophy class or dorm room drunk/stoned navel-gazing crap. (And it wasn't any better for "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica either.) They're just lucky that the mass audience doesn't recognize crappy "sci-fi" when they see it. The best that might be said is, if it gets some people interested in exploring deeper, reading and watching GOOD stuff, which then leads to realizing how bad all of the Apes movies really are, but especially "Escape" and later.

In fact, maybe they'll read the original story, which is far better than any of the movies. And it could be argued that they should have made a movie faithful to the original story, but it wouldn't have had the mass audience appeal.

Oh, and Taylor should have realized he was (back?) on Earth the moment he heard the apes speaking perfect Engrish. In GOOD sci-fi he would have, and then worked from there. (Or if they had landed near/in Europe and the apes spoke perfect French, or Spanish... etc.)

Knix, I agree with most of what you said. When it comes to ranting, you're an artist.

@Jetfire59 said:

@jxh13 said:

"Escape From The Planet Of The Apes holds together logically and makes sense" is not. (Or at least, it's not a SANE opinion.)

Actually, it's not at all bad, particularly compared to the fourth and fifth installments of the original sequence, and was very well reviewed by contemporary critics. Sure, time travel is a cornucopia of alarming concepts, but, since its all theoretical, it makes sense within the framework of its narrative.

H.G. Wells, often called the Father of Science fiction, more or less invented the modern concept of Time Travel; his general approach to science fiction was to come up with one outlandish concept, and once you've made that leap of faith, the rest of the narrative would fit logically within the resulting narrative. I don't want to get off topic, but what about "Escape" is more illogical than, say, "The Voyage Home" or "Terminator"?

I first saw "Escape" when I was in 7th grade. I cried myself sick at the ending. I love it and I don't have a problem with the time travel aspect. Knixon does. As for the gaps in logic:

1. Dr.Milo could not possibly have raised and repaired Taylor's ship in the time between movies.

2. Except for firearms, the apes had no technology and believed flight was impossible, so he also couldn't have possibly figured out how to pilot it. Possible ret-con: In the TV series, there were "technological safe-houses" in various places. Milo could have found one.

3. Where did they get the space suits? There were none seen inside the ship in the first film.

4. It was established in the first film that the bulk of the ape civilization had no knowledge of ancient man. In "Escape", Zira and Cornelius know the full history.

All good points. And time wasn't the main issue with Dr Milo either. Even if he SOMEHOW got the ship out of the ocean/lake, figured out how it worked, repaired damaged components (after he removed the algae, sludge, etc) and all that, how did he get it back into space? It wouldn't have just lifted itself off the ground etc. It was either launched from some kind of rocket, or maybe from a space station... (Although I don't recall any such mentioned in the later movies. And if there were one, it seems likely the ship would have been programmed to return there, not crash on Earth.)

Dr Milo could not have built such a rocket, let alone fueled or launched it. Even if he had decades, let alone months or whatever.

Or even if you want to claim that the ship could somehow lift itself off and get into space without help, it would still have to be refueled first. It would have been silly for it to carry enough fuel for a "return trip" since they expected to stay wherever they ended up, and if they returned it would be some 4,000 years after their departure.

I'll agree with one thing that was said - Pierre Boulle's original novel was pretty good, and more satirical than the films. I read it in 7th grade, and thought at the time it was better than the films. As for the rest ...

The original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" didn't much care about the technical aspects of the rocket; no fuel source is mentioned, no need for a rocket or other launch platform is mentioned, so any observations about such things are brought by viewers. I see no reason why the ship couldn't have a self-renewing fuel source, and have engines powerful enough to leave the atmosphere without boosters. Heston specifically mentions the automatics, so the ship was expected to pilot itself. The ship doesn't need to be repaired, just drained. Draining the lake to access the ship could have been as easy as diverting a river and waiting a week. Diversion dams have existed on Earth since at least 2600 B.C., so the Apes had more than enough engineering technology to achieve a dry lake bed. The Space Suits could have been recovered from the humans who stole them from Heston and cie; certainly one was available in the ship, from Stewart, and possibly spares. As far as Time Travel, if I remember correctly, the script postulated that shock waves from the planet's destruction created a time warp. Sure, it sounds far-fetched, but since nobody understands how a time warp might work, who is to say it isn't plausible? Zira and Cornelius don't know "the whole story," they simply accept the clues Heston gives them at the end of the first film and suggest that humanity will cause it's own downfall, and apes will inherit the Earth.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I think it's a bit much to argue that all Milo had to do was lift the ship out of water and let it drain. And how was he supposed to derive and understand time dilation etc and how to operate everything just from the ship and its instruments, without Dr Hasslein - or Hawking - to explain it, and then some?

Taylor (Heston) and the others weren't wearing the kind of space suits in the ship - including helmets etc - that Cornelius and Zira and Milo were when they landed on "Earth of the past." And it would have been rather silly to wear heavy space suits in the stasis chambers anyway. They were more like "jump suits."

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/planetoftheapes/images/8/84/ANSAcrew8.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130204205405

https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Escape_from_the_Planey_of_the_Apes_2.jpg

The obvious purpose of the previously-unknown space suits was to conceal that they were apes until a dramatic reveal. Which doesn't mean it makes sense, more the opposite.

Why would the apes have worn them either? It makes no more sense than for Taylor and the others. I'm not sure it makes sense either for the space suits made for humans - and typically made for a SPECIFIC human - to fit three "random" apes. It's not like they could be easily altered, especially not by apes.

And what evidence do you have that Dr Milo had the staff to divert rivers etc? Or that Dr Zaius et al would have allowed it?

"The whole story" changed too, out of necessity: the studio couldn't make more sequels once Earth was reduced to a cinder, unless they unleashed a kind of deus ex machina. Which is what they did. But that doesn't make it good. Only profitable.

I refuse to be so credulous. Especially when there are so many other issues, such as Taylor somehow not realizing that he MUST be back on Earth, when the apes were speaking perfect English.

There are a lot of potential problems with the story, as there are with many science fiction stories of the day. Boulle's novel, as I recall, was set in the far future, and the ship was much more advanced; his ape civilization was more technologically advanced, too. Early drafts of the screenplay, by Rod Serling, retained the advanced ape city, which was eventually deemed to costly to produce, so a more primitive culture was established. But the seeds of smarter monkeys and more advanced ships were with the franchise.

I think it's a bit much to argue that all Milo had to do was lift the ship out of water and let it drain. And how was he supposed to derive and understand time dilation etc and how to operate everything just from the ship and its instruments, without Dr Hasslein - or Hawking - to explain it, and then some?

Probably. But there was no obvious damage to Taylor's ship in PotA, and the controls do have an automatic setting. Chimps are curious. I think the idea was that Milo had spoken to Brent before his lobotomy, and determined the ship's location and capabilities. I honestly don't know if that was mentioned in the film or some ancillary material, but that's the idea I have in my head.

Taylor (Heston) and the others weren't wearing the kind of space suits in the ship

Yeah, good call. That hadn't occurred to me. As you say, the suits were done for visual effect, for the reveal. Perhaps they were stowed on board the ship. But, yeah.

And what evidence do you have that Dr Milo had the staff to divert rivers etc? Or that Dr Zaius et al would have allowed it?

None. Again, this is 100% from my ancient memory, but after MIlo learned about the ship from Brent, he took a staff of 15 or 18 to locate and raise the vessel, without Dr Zaius' awareness (Dr Z was busy with Jams Gregory hunting down Jeff Corey and the other humans in "Beneath.") I should watch the film again, or at least consult the screenplay, before I cite that as an absolute, but, somehow, that is in my head.

"The whole story" changed too, out of necessity: the studio couldn't make more sequels once Earth was reduced to a cinder, unless they unleashed a kind of deus ex machina. Which is what they did. But that doesn't make it good. Only profitable.

Of course this is true; different creative people were involved in the various projects, and 'continuity' was a word they didn't pay much attention to. Creating narrative twists to keep the franchise viable was a studio demand. The 4th and 5th films are pretty dismal. But I thought "Escape" worked well within the narrative construct; I found it worthwhile, and entertaining enough to spend all this time defending it. I appreciate your position; I've had many similar incidents reading and watching science fiction.