Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Right off the bat i should say that when it was announced that the origin story of planet of the apes was going to be made, i was less than enthusiastic to say the least.

Then it arrived, and blew me right away. Andy Serkis' portryal of Caeser was in a word, brilliant.

Now with the expected announcement of a followup to Rise, i find myself thinking..with expectations raised, if this film is maybe doomed before it begins.

My concerns chiefly is, well i can't think of another motion capture working actor that is on Serkis' level. And clearly to move the story along, that will be required.

Or will they do u think set the time-line several years after the rampage on the golden gate bridge, and bring in Rick Baker to do makeup and FX on actors?

The thing im looking most forward to i think is the circumstances of the different species of Simians evolving into the roles as seen in the original. ( Chimps are the lib scientists, Gorillas are military, Orangutans are theolical scholars and the like).

Post your thoughts.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

I'm betting on more of Andy Serkis, and I for one would enjoy that.I usually don't want to see more CGI, but in this case the effects in Rise were stunning, and I'd love to see more.

I think that a good story (and one I've heard they're considering) would be a full on war between the intelligent Apes and the remaining humans. I'd also like to see the Apes developing their new society. In the original Pierre Boulle novel, one of the things I loved was how Ape society was really a crude imitation of human society, doomed to fail because Apes had no creativity. I'd like to see the films go in that direction as well.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Since they have shown Caesar to evolve, I don't think it's necessary for Caesar to be CGI anymore, I like the idea of Rick Baker coming in.

Other apes have been shown to be slow in evolving compared to Caesar, so the whole lot can be shown in CGI, it wouldn't bother me much as long as they do it well like in the first movie.

As for the storyline, considering the title I believe it could be right where it ended or maybe a decade or 2 later. Surviving humans battling it out with the apes, but like monkeypunch said it would be nice to see the Apes doomed & flawed unlike humans.

They'll squeeze every penny off this that they can.

__________________

I was the same when I heard of the reboot/remake. I was also the same when I was knocked sideways with how good it ended up being.

I can't see there being a progression from CGI back to practical makeup yet though, if ever tbh.
The origins of the current story, as you know from watching the current movie, is that the apes are evolving on a genetic level due to a disease created by humans. The evolution though, is mental, not physical.

And with Andy Serkis being back as Cesar, it'll more than likely be along the lines of him teaching his smart group of apes to talk and build and teach them various strategies and problem solving, so they can overthrow the humans who are fighting to stop them.

It'll take a few thousand years, maybe even a few million, to get to the point of apes being human-like, standing upright like men, walking like a human etc.
This'll be through the smart apes breeding over the period of a squillion years.


So my bet?... Two stories going on in Dawn...

1: A big war. Humans fighting the smart apes with Cesar on the frontline.
Humans don't want to lose what they have: Control of the planet.
Which is why I can see Cesar being a Teacher and a Military General in the apes' forces.
I reckon Koba will return as his right-hand-ape though, seeing as Koba is simply a smart yet brutally animalistic character.

2: The disease that is making apes smarter and killing off humans: Humans will have to find a reversal to stop the apes' progressing and also to save themselves from dying off.
In the original stories remember, humans that were still alive (the survivors) were mute and had intelligence only a touch higher than standard apes.
Rise has already shown the disease spreading, Dawn will probably show the beginning routes of the progressive downfall of man.


One thing though...


... I'm well looking forward to it.

__________________

I must have missed something in the film, cos I can't recall the virus at the end affecting the apes in anyway. I think I need to rewatch this.

I don't understand the appeal of this movie...

Rise was amazing. Dawn will be even more amazing.

Some people don't understand the appeal of a fart either, whether it's from a mystical unicorn or not.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

^I logged in just to +rep you, sir.

Also, yes. Bring on more Apes.

Comparing this film to a fart seems fair.

Love the ideas on here. I hope Dawn lives up to Rise because Rupert Wyatt has a promising career if so.

I was floored by how good Rise of the Planet of the Apes was. I was not expecting such a good movie, and I have really high hopes for this one. So far away!

This talking about the men behind the FX really does spoil the enjoyment of the movie- it was the same with King KONG.
Such personailities should not be promoted to overshadow ones perception of these fantastical creatures, it is like showing how the trick is done, and spoiling the imaginations free reign.
Anyone behind these FX should be treated with a wage they deserve and thats that.
Why spoil the magic?

What is the difference between Serkis' performance as Cornelius, and Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in your opinion?

Heh, Cornelius. Your memories of the originals are mingling with the remake.

One was meant to be a Monkey spoiled by references to Serkis being behind it.
The other a strange human, in quite a strange movie played in a ok , no complaints sort of way, by Brad Pitt

And my points on spoiling the magic, do not count in the instance of showing you how stop motion dinosaurs were created by Ray Harryhausen for instance.
Because they were made with human hands, and the fascination I get of wanting to see how, does not actually Spoil the magic of watching them in the fantasy movies they were used , but being reminded that every expression, movement and dramatic reaction of Cornelius or King Kong is Andy Serkis does , spoil the magic.

I think his point is that there's "magic" being spoiled either way; Serkis is not an ape, and Pitt isn't really an old man. So why is it okay to "spoil" one by honoring it and not the other? It's a good question.

Even leaving the question aside, though, I don't see how it spoils anything to hand out these awards. We all know they're effects, and we don't have to watch the how-to if we don't want to. Heck, even handing out awards for acting sort of "spoils" the performances, by that logic.

That's like asking why actors have their names on the posters or in the credits...


... Bale is the Batman character. Does it take away from the believablity of the Batman character?

Brad Pitt is the Achilles character. Again, does it stop the audience from watching the character on the screen?

Arnuhld Svartzuhneygger is Duh Derminaider... and so on...

-Andy Serkis is an actor that has played Golum, King Kong and Caesar.
Just because he's in a funny looking wetsuit with white golfballs stuck all over it... doesn't mean he should be removed from the credits or not have the same respect given to him for his work.

Again you jump to false conclusions.

Batman is man in a cape and mask
Achilles was a man.
King Kong is an oversized Ape.
Golum is meant to be a a golum , not Andy Sirkis!
Believability in cinema is crucial, as in acting.
To destroy your films believability by destroying the audiences perception of your characters, is just plain dumb.

What is the point at reaching the seeming zenith of affective SFX for the reason of wanting to blow away the audiences minds, with great SFX creations in movies.
Then destroying all the affectiveness of your creations, by constantly harping on about Andy Serkis being the creations ? to the point all they think of is him?

I WOULD CREDIT HIM
BUT BY A MYSTERIOUS ACRONYM
like they do most movie jobs.

I certainly wouldn't keep making endless special edition tv slots or dvd slots,
that constantly point to him to be identified with the SFX CREATURES.