I read the book a couple of years ago, but if I recall, I thought the movie was about the destructive nature of man and the dangers of religions fundamentalism while the book was about the dehumanizing nature of being in a cage and how quickly we can devolve into animals under the right conditions and the struggle to remain human in the face of inhumane treatment (the author was a POW).
If only smartphones were around in 1978 to record 10 year old me in grammar school having a deep profound philosophical discussion on this film with my classmates at lunch. This movie had such an impact on my young psyche that 20 years later I spent a weekend in Lake Powell Arizona where the spacecraft crash scene was shot. I'm 100% agaisnt book burning but the 2001 film remake should be incinerated and never mentioned again. Another great video Laura.
That's one I would like to cover as well! I think I keep putting it off because I have read the book and seen the movie multiple times so I keep choosing content I'm less familiar with.
FWIW: I read the original novel MANY years ago. What has been a 'let down' for me is none of the movies I have seen -- the Tim Burton production being the most recent one -- really recreated the novel faithfully. Unfortunately, by now I suppose it would be pointless to make a faithful recreation of the novel. *EDIT→* I read the original novel DECADES AGO, so what I am about to say may be incorrect: In the novel, the original mission of 'Ulysses & Co.' was to go to the Alpha Centauri solar system, which is a little over 4 light years from Earth. At some point that mission was changed to go to Barnard's Star {or some other solar system} approximately 200 light years from Earth. In either case their spaceship accelerates to near the speed of light for much of the journey, which induces _time dilation._ {YES, _time dilation_ is a REAL THING.} By the time Ulysses returns to Earth with his wife and son, several centuries have passed since the time he departed Earth.
29:32 I don’t think so because in the Tim Burton movie betray Dr. Zayas as a chimpanzee instead of a orangutan and the ape planet is portrayed as a different planet than earth.
There is a comic based on Rod Serling's final draft before the rewrite called Planet of the Apes Visionaries. It has more connections to the book, but still has the same twist ending from the first film. It's very hard to get a physical copy so if you're interested get a digital copy.
I remember liking the Franco version for the most part. Talk about art imitating life: The 1968 movie with amazing makeup vs the Wahlberg version 30 plus years later. A lot of good analogies in the original for sure.
I think the 1968 film is the best adaption of a novel that involves major changes. Most of which improve the source material. The new twist, the production design of the apes civilization (clothes/architecture/guns) give it a much more fantastic SF look (and the bonus of Jerry Goldsmith's otherwordly score) that the book did not have, being set in present day. There is also a comic book adaption based on the original first draft screenplay by Rod Serling called "Planet of the Apes Visionaries". And I agree about the female chimps in POTA 2001. The makeup deemphazied their simian qualities to the point where they seemed half-human. And the eyebrows and lipstick just looked ridiculous.
Zira's attraction to Ulysse in the book didn't seem to be thought out very well. A lot of the book seems to play up the irony of the role-reversal, but an ape falling in love with a man? Preposterous! 😊
POTA is one of my favorite books of all time. Also, I always liked how Escape from The Planet Of the Apes is basically the plot of the book, invert the humans for apes.
The only way to really appreciate to really Planet Of The Apes movies (and I'm not talking about the modern ones either) is to read the novel because the themes are very much similar to that of Orwell's Animal Farm. As for the Tim Burton film, whether you like it or not if you appreciate the novel then you'll appreciate film because it stuck to the spirit of the novel.
You might have a point about eoruope being deacdes ahead in anmall rights considering as far back as the 40s and 30s a certain square stached man implemented some laws to treat animals better
I really recommand you watch the latest trilogy. Very good story, great acting and really great moral debate in the latest 2. Sure it has nothing to do with the book or the originall movies in therms of lore but it is a great addition
@Why the Book Wins (Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons are not Monkeys)! 😵Most Primates fall into two categories: Great Apes and Monkeys. There are many differences between the two...But the easiest way to tell if a Primate is a Monkey or a Great Ape is by whether or not they have a TAIL. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons all do not have Tails - Making them Apes! Also, In Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel "La Planète des singes" the main protagonist name was "Ulysse Mérou". Not Taylor! 🤫
about the man being brainwashed I think it's implied in the book that the apes did the same thing to him as in the movie (the scene in the lab with Cornelius)
Wow your are really missing out not wanting to watch the new films. Not sure why you think it has nothing to do with the others, but it does greatly. It's literally filling in the gap of the 68 film. Of how the humans destroyed themselves and how the apes got the ability to take over. Because let's face it the book has nothing to do with the films. It's just the concept in which the movie story was made.
The Tim Burton movie is not connected to the original film. That movie isn't terrible but it isn't good either. Pretty forgettable. If you watch the rest of the films in the original series make sure you watch the unrated version for Conquest. The original ending for that movie is way better than the theatrical cut's ending. Check out the new films. They're so great.
You need to research your source material before before making videos apes aren’t monkeys which you stated numerous times throughout the video terrible
It looks like the word used in the French title can mean either "monkey" or "ape". (But I don't speak French so I could be mistaken.) And apparently the book was originally released in the UK with the title "Monkey Planet", then changed to match the movie once it came out. (The movie's title was taken from the US release of the novel.) I haven't read the book so I don't know what species the non-human characters are. The ones in the movies are definitely apes, though.
I read the book a couple of years ago, but if I recall, I thought the movie was about the destructive nature of man and the dangers of religions fundamentalism while the book was about the dehumanizing nature of being in a cage and how quickly we can devolve into animals under the right conditions and the struggle to remain human in the face of inhumane treatment (the author was a POW).
I can see the POW aspect of it, I hadn't known that about the author! If I read it again, knowing that will give me a new way of seeing things.
If only smartphones were around in 1978 to record 10 year old me in grammar school having a deep profound philosophical discussion on this film with my classmates at lunch. This movie had such an impact on my young psyche that 20 years later I spent a weekend in Lake Powell Arizona where the spacecraft crash scene was shot. I'm 100% agaisnt book burning but the 2001 film remake should be incinerated and never mentioned again. Another great video Laura.
Oh cool! Yeah they had some cool shots filmed there. Definitely a movie that can spur a lot of interesting conversations.
@@WhytheBookWins If you have a few minutes Dr Zaius being interview on Turner Classic Movies is fun. czcams.com/video/4zRmj9GNPM8/video.html
The Dr Zeus song from The Simpsons is based on Rock me Amadeus (Amadeus, Amadeus).
And it's such a catchy tune!
Enjoy your channel. The best comparisons are where both are iconic. I’d love to see you do “To Kill a Mockingbird “.
That's one I would like to cover as well! I think I keep putting it off because I have read the book and seen the movie multiple times so I keep choosing content I'm less familiar with.
Some of the sequels incorporate other elements of the book as well like the 4th shows humans using apes as servants
Can you please do “Carrie” by Stephen King vs the movie that came out in 1976
FWIW: I read the original novel MANY years ago. What has been a 'let down' for me is none of the movies I have seen -- the Tim Burton production being the most recent one -- really recreated the novel faithfully.
Unfortunately, by now I suppose it would be pointless to make a faithful recreation of the novel.
*EDIT→* I read the original novel DECADES AGO, so what I am about to say may be incorrect: In the novel, the original mission of 'Ulysses & Co.' was to go to the Alpha Centauri solar system, which is a little over 4 light years from Earth. At some point that mission was changed to go to Barnard's Star {or some other solar system} approximately 200 light years from Earth. In either case their spaceship accelerates to near the speed of light for much of the journey, which induces _time dilation._ {YES, _time dilation_ is a REAL THING.}
By the time Ulysses returns to Earth with his wife and son, several centuries have passed since the time he departed Earth.
Thanks for commenting! You are right about the details of their travel.
@@WhytheBookWins>>> Thanks. The fact I remember ANY of that stuff after all these years is a minor miracle...🤭
Man, you are awesome finding these! Never knew this was based on a book 😮
So hyped for the new movie coming out!
Yeah I was surprised by this one too! It's thanks to someone's request that I knew about it!
Thank you for another great video! I too have fond memories of watching PoA marathons when I was a kid!
Glad you liked the video 😀
29:32 I don’t think so because in the Tim Burton movie betray Dr. Zayas as a chimpanzee instead of a orangutan and the ape planet is portrayed as a different planet than earth.
I don’t think the Tim Burton movie is meant to be a sequel to the original.
Thanks for another great video! I had no idea this was a book and really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on both book and movie 😊
Thanks! 🤗
There is a comic based on Rod Serling's final draft before the rewrite called Planet of the Apes Visionaries.
It has more connections to the book, but still has the same twist ending from the first film. It's very hard to get a physical copy so if you're interested get a digital copy.
I remember liking the Franco version for the most part. Talk about art imitating life: The 1968 movie with amazing makeup vs the Wahlberg version 30 plus years later. A lot of good analogies in the original for sure.
The new Planet of the Apes series is SO SO SO GOOD!!!
Very enjoyable discussion. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it! 😊
I saw the Tim Burton movie opening day in the theater, and I pretty much agree with your thoughts 💯%
I think the 1968 film is the best adaption of a novel that involves major changes. Most of which improve the source material.
The new twist, the production design of the apes civilization (clothes/architecture/guns) give it a much more fantastic SF look (and the bonus of Jerry Goldsmith's otherwordly score) that the book did not have, being set in present day.
There is also a comic book adaption based on the original first draft screenplay by Rod Serling called "Planet of the Apes Visionaries".
And I agree about the female chimps in POTA 2001. The makeup deemphazied their simian qualities to the point where they seemed half-human. And the eyebrows and lipstick just looked ridiculous.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I'll have to check out that comic book version.
And yeah, the female apes were so weird looking!
I loved the book and the ending is awesome.
Zira's attraction to Ulysse in the book didn't seem to be thought out very well. A lot of the book seems to play up the irony of the role-reversal, but an ape falling in love with a man? Preposterous! 😊
POTA is one of my favorite books of all time. Also, I always liked how Escape from The Planet Of the Apes is basically the plot of the book, invert the humans for apes.
Oh cool! I need to go back and watch all of them!
I heard the Dr.Zaius Simpson's song in my head when I clicked on this video. Cheers!
it's so good 😆
The only way to really appreciate to really Planet Of The Apes movies (and I'm not talking about the modern ones either) is to read the novel because the themes are very much similar to that of Orwell's Animal Farm. As for the Tim Burton film, whether you like it or not if you appreciate the novel then you'll appreciate film because it stuck to the spirit of the novel.
the new trilogy was so damn good! I highly recommend revisting them
You might have a point about eoruope being deacdes ahead in anmall rights considering as far back as the 40s and 30s a certain square stached man implemented some laws to treat animals better
I really recommand you watch the latest trilogy. Very good story, great acting and really great moral debate in the latest 2. Sure it has nothing to do with the book or the originall movies in therms of lore but it is a great addition
I'll have to check them out!
Love your vids.
thanks 🤗
@Why the Book Wins (Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons are not Monkeys)! 😵Most Primates fall into two categories: Great Apes and Monkeys. There are many differences between the two...But the easiest way to tell if a Primate is a Monkey or a Great Ape is by whether or not they have a TAIL. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons all do not have Tails - Making them Apes!
Also, In Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel "La Planète des singes" the main protagonist name was "Ulysse Mérou". Not Taylor! 🤫
Yup, at the start of the video I say that his name was Ulysses in the book but that I would just refer to him as Taylor.
Love this movie series. The book im still lukewarm to. You know there’s a comic adaptation of the Rod Serling original script?
Agreed, I'm pretty lukewarm on the book. And yeah I heard about the comic! That would be cool to own.
about the man being brainwashed I think it's implied in the book that the apes did the same thing to him as in the movie (the scene in the lab with Cornelius)
Oohh, that would make sense. But then it's odd Ulysses in the book didn't make a bigger deal about realizing his friend had the procedure done?
I never knew Planet of the Apes was a book. I heard of the movie though.
Yeah I was surprised when I saw it was based on a book!
im so excited for this no clue it was based on a book i was like what
Yeah this is another surprising one. Hope you liked the video! 🙂
The remake was okay, The original will always be the best one. (Imho). Do you think you may talk about The Secret Garden in the future
Yeah agreed, the original is amazing! And I hadn't really thought of doing that one but I will look into it!
Wow your are really missing out not wanting to watch the new films. Not sure why you think it has nothing to do with the others, but it does greatly. It's literally filling in the gap of the 68 film. Of how the humans destroyed themselves and how the apes got the ability to take over. Because let's face it the book has nothing to do with the films. It's just the concept in which the movie story was made.
The Tim Burton movie is not connected to the original film. That movie isn't terrible but it isn't good either. Pretty forgettable.
If you watch the rest of the films in the original series make sure you watch the unrated version for Conquest. The original ending for that movie is way better than the theatrical cut's ending.
Check out the new films. They're so great.
yeah so many people are raving about the new trilogy! I need to watch them as well as catch up on the old ones again.
the book is bad and the film is a thousand times the book is poorly written it doesn't say anything in any case the film is a thousand times better
Clever fake out at the beginning, fooling the viewer into thinkng you're dismissing the original film rather than the Tim Burton!
Lol I know it's misleading, but I hoped it would keep people watching...
@@WhytheBookWins It worked on me!
OG wasnt about animal rights it’s about racism and slavery
You need to research your source material before before making videos apes aren’t monkeys which you stated numerous times throughout the video terrible
thanks for the feedback!
It looks like the word used in the French title can mean either "monkey" or "ape". (But I don't speak French so I could be mistaken.) And apparently the book was originally released in the UK with the title "Monkey Planet", then changed to match the movie once it came out. (The movie's title was taken from the US release of the novel.)
I haven't read the book so I don't know what species the non-human characters are. The ones in the movies are definitely apes, though.
Refer to them generally as “primates” then? Whatever
La planete des singes (monkey's planet in french there's no word for ape).
You could have been more tactful
YOU need to do your research. The book refers to them as monkeys multiple times. This may not be accurate, but that’s that.