Talk:Beneath the Planet of the Apes

message: In the trivia section it says that in the original script Taylor's activation of the bomb was deliberate, but in the final movie version it is accidental. I saw this movie not long after it came out, and many times since and it always appeared deliberate to me. Does anyone here recall it looking accidental? To my eyes it always looked like Taylor made a dash for the activation button, was shot, but still managed to push down the plunger. Rob Banzai 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same opinion; it looks deliberate.  In one of the documentaries included on one of the DVDs, Charlton Heston says that destroying the world was his idea so that there could be no sequels.  This didn't work as intended, but at least he didn't have to be in them.  (He didn't want to be in the Beneath sequel which is why he doesn't have much screen time.) Val42 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the novelization and the Gold Key Comic adaptation it's much more obviously accidental; after Brent is shot, Taylor dashes to the bomb. He's shot and bodily falls on the control panel. It always looked to me like he reached up to the panel, perhaps to keep from falling, perhaps for help from Zaius, and just happened to clutch the red button. CFLeon 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch the film again.  He was mortally wounded.  He had reached out to Zaius pleading "Help me!"  Zaius' reply was to curse him -- Brent is killed -- Taylor says "You bloody bastard!" and dies... and falls with his outstreached hand landing on the detonation plunger.  A dead man can do nothing.  Since he was dead when it happened, that would make the action an accident. Also, in both the novelization and the Marvel comics adaptation, his action was deliberate.-- Jason Palpatine 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked deliberate to me. Reading this came as a complete surprise. I came here to make a note on it and found there are already others dubious about the claim it was supposed to have been an accident, judging from the scene on film. To Jason: Just because someone's strength fails and he falls does not mean he is dead. Real death, unlike most movie deaths, is not instantaneous or before one hits the ground. The fact that his hand catches and holds the red button pulling it down shows that he was not dead. There would usually have been no grip in a dead man's hand to catch and hold the button; it is completely flaccid. A "death grip" develops when one dies with one's hand wrapped around something and rigor mortis sets in some hours later. The exception, cadaveric spasm, is a rare nervous reaction where a grip continues from the moment of death. But that type of grip indicates one was alive at the time of grasping. Although we see Taylor's hand clenched in pain just before he falls, a grip on the button as depicted would have had to have been initiated by releasing that grip and then grasping the button on the elevated console, else his closed fingers would have just bounced away. After depressing the button, we see his hand relax as one would expect in death or the knowledge that he had accomplished his purpose. That is not a cadaveric spasm, which lasts through rigor mortis. Conclusion: The fall was aimed as best as a dying man can to set off the bomb and rid the universe of the apes who had overrun the world and no script margin notes will convince me otherwise. 74.138.50.148 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's clear whether it's deliberate or not, and IMHO, it's all the better for being left ambiguous. My own interpretation is that it was deliberate.  I'm going by Taylor's frame of mind after Nova is killed - "we should let them all die ... it's time it was finished" - as much as anything.  I think he means to do it.  But, as I said, that's just my interpretation.  In the meantime, I've removed this whole bullet from the Trivia section.  Can whoever put it in there please cite the source of this story if/when they decide to put it back? I've just watched the Behind the Planet of the Apes documentary, and it's not in the version that I have. --Chilly Penguin 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very much deliberate I'd say. When arguing with Zaius before, he says "It's Doomsday! The end of the world." He knows he's lethally wounded and asks "Help me!" - for what else? When his hand comes to the trigger, he holds on to it and pushes down - clearly to be seen. Anyway, as an article should not be biased and this is a point of discussion, the text should be changed in such a way as not to suggest either way, so that any viewer can found out for her/himself. Zac67 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidental activation of the Doomsday Bomb?

message: Removed all references as inadequate. References were not published sources that state clearly the information cited. Also novelizations can not substantiate information on a film. The best reference was notes from the sound track but was not properly added or formatted. Here is the code to use for that;
To use this code hit "Edit" copy code then fill out with proper information and add under references.--Amadscientist 10:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed clean-up

message: I re-added the plot tag. Good articles of films don't need a long plot, see Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Tenebrae (film). Annie D 11:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened the plot summary, as requested. Expect objections. — Val42 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, you deleted the trivia as well. I'm not familiar with the film so I was reluctant to work on the article, but I'll try to help out integrating it. Annie D 01:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are editors that don't think that trivia belongs in encyclopedic articles.  Two weeks after such a section gets tagged as trivia, it gets deleted.  I've seen this happen on dozens of articles that I'm watching.  I figured that since I was going to be removing that tag too, I'd just take care of their concerns as well. — Val42 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: :Image:BtPotA-Brent.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-Brent.JPG

message: :Image:BtPotA-mutantsandtheirgod.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-mutantsandtheirgod.JPG

message: :Image:BtPotA-theend.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-theend.JPG

message: The existence of a continuity error between the first and second films is not as complicated as it may look.  Consider this:
(1) In the first film, you clearly have a chronometer displaying the date,  November 25, 3978.
(2) In the second film, the year 3955 comes from Brent himself, by word of mouth.
The problem with Brent's year is that we don't know at which point during his voyage did he read that year on his chronometer.  Once more, he doesn't have a month and day to go with the year.
Which leads to only one possible conclusion:  Brent read his chronometer while his crew and his ship were still traveling through time, even as they approached Earth.
Though he may have seen the year 3955 on his chronometer, 23 years had passed before his ship disengaged itself from time warp.  Despite his word of mouth in the second film, we still have Taylor's undisputed actual reading on his chronometer, displayed in the first film.  The year in both films is, without question, 3978. I imagine the events of the second film take place in December, 3978 or sometime in early-3979.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been pointed out elsewhere that Zira only knew of the 3955 date despite the only spaceship she had access to would have been Taylor's not Brent's and so would have known the year was 3978.  In Battle for the Planet of the Apes the year is given as 3950 rather then 3955 or 3978.  It is a clear continuity problem.--2606:A000:7D44:100:A5DB:8383:D5F4:C04C (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no ... no.  There is a different timeline after the three Apes return to Earth's past with "Escape ..." - "Battle" and "Conquest" have a different history, because as Eric Braedon stated in "Escape," there are different avenues/tributaries in time, and by switching babies with the wild chimpanzee, the "Aldo" of the Ape's history is no longer the Ape that first talked and led them to rebellion - now, that Ape is Caesar (who appears much sooner than the 500 year history that apes were pets of human beings before Aldo first spoke) and the sequence of events is circa 2000, and history was changed such that there was no detonation of the Alpha/Omega bomb, and Apes and Man lived together in a peaceful, if somewhat gamey, society. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

text: All this is very important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.192.50 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity error:  3955 or 3978?

message: On August 9, 2011‎ User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original film.  It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.
This contributor has made very few edits.  Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article.  He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.
I only found this by looking back in the article's history. Having started a debate on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Deletion of worthwhile content, I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save this from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material on first story proposals for ''Beneath the Planet of the Apes'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704124106/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com:80/articles/1999/08_Feb---The_Great_Apes_Score_Debate.asp to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1999/08_Feb---The_Great_Apes_Score_Debate.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625005140/http://filmscoremonthly.com:80/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/70/Beneath-the-Planet-of-the-Apes to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/70/Beneath-the-Planet-of-the-Apes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified