Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)

	Planet of the Apes (2001 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema / Arizona Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance). inactive .GeocachingWikipedia:WikiProject GeocachingTemplate:WikiProject GeocachingGeocaching articles

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The plot summary describes a "love triangle" between Wahlberg, Warren, and Bonham-Carter's characters, I think that is more speculation than something actually addressed in the movie. Similarly towards the end it says Estella Warren's character "loves" Wahlberg but I think that is also more speculation. It has been awhile since I've seen the movie so I could be wrong, but from what I remember there was at most just some subtle implication at attraction between Wahlberg and Warren and Wahlberg and Bonham-Carter, but not so strong as to call it a "love triangle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.34.169 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film never addresses the existence of horses on an alien world. The space station carrying such animals seems unlikely, especially enough to form a viable breeding pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.32.194 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Since the end of the movie shows that, like in the original movie series, the main character never left Earth, it is not an "alien" world. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it significant at all that in the original film, Charlton Heston (human) utters the line, "Take your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!", and in the 2001 remake, Michael Clarke Duncan (Ape) says, "Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty human!"?92.20.25.100 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

Charlton Heston's character Zaius also utters a famous line from his character in the original movie series, after Taylor's discovery that he is in fact still on Earth. "Damn them. Damn them all to hell!" Seems noteworthy to me. Also, Heston's character in the remake of the movie is named Zaius, the same name as one of the primary ape characters in the original movie. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the attempts to explain away the ending of the film-- valiant effort, but it's pure speculation, trying to make sense out of nonsense. Noclevername 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realise this makes Thade the 'Missing Lincoln'.

Yes, I'll leave now. Please stop glaring at me. HalfShadow 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't nonsense, it has a very specific meaning. if you read the novel you'd know that. don't assume that just because you can't comprehend something, that it has no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.167.253 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This won't do the article much good, but the ending is not just "nonsene". One way to explain it would be by saying that the electro-magnetic storm does only transport things into the future, not the past (the year display is really nonsense to begin with, after all, how would a machine not made for time travel "sense" the year, anyhow?). Thade could have been freed (by a human, obviously, as the door is controlled by a human hand print) and gotten control over the planet back, maybe even earth (but not even a statue on earth would necessarily mean that Thade himself has been there, only the culture he founded obviously went there). Another possibility could be that Thade also went into the electro-magnetic storm and it just so happened to bring him back a few years before Wahlberg. Stranger things have happened in successfull sci-fi epics before, such as sound in space. See? The possibilities are endless to patently show that the ending is *NOT* "pure nonsense".

I know it's only really speculation and not really constructive article discussion, but I just won't let it be said that the ending would be "nonsense". But in a way, this post *COULD* help the article, by keeping people from writing into the article that the ending would be pure "nonsense" (now, you may say that Wikipedia would be all about "verifiable sources", but many people write actual nonsense in many WP articles even if they don't have any sources for it as long as only enough people believe in it beforehand). In any case, I'd've much rather seen a sequel to Burton's version than the new one in order to see what Thade had done to get his own monument as "savior of the planet". 93.232.176.151 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lt. Colonel Alexander, at the beginning of the movie, clearly calls the super intelligent ape "Seamus" (pronounced "shay-mus," or "shame us"). This shows the corruption in ape society from the beginning (the crash of the Oberon) to modern (Thade's era) times. This is also shown with the name 'Calima' (the apes' name for the forbidden zone), later revealed to originate from a badly corroded sign on the Oberon: CAution, LIve aniMAls."

Is this really correct? Wasn't this chimp called CMOS and pronounced CMOS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.214.111 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shaltst not worship general deaTh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.227.77 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment about "Shame Us" is entirely wrong. The name is "Semos," which is an anagram of "Moses," since Semos led his people to freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.21.91 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Peter Jackson's autobiography co-written by Brian Sibley has good details on his take on POTA, which would have been a sequel depicting the apes in the Renaissance. Ultimately Fox turned him down as he was more interested in King Kong and LOTR. Alientraveller (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but I don't have that book. Wildroot (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for

1. Well written?: Written in clear language, with good flow and article structure.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, covers many aspects of the film's production, development, reception, etc, nice work.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article indeed appears written with a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? Talk page history and dialogue seems fine, and looking back a couple months I see some minor IP edit issues in the edit history to keep an eye on in the future, but nothing major.

6. Images?: Only one image used - movie poster - fair use rationale on image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you either integrate the ending criticisms into the previous paragraph or include examples of critics who criticised that aspect of the film. You do a good job of documenting that it was an issue by quoting two actors and the director, but I think you need to flesh out the opinions they're responding to first. Recognizance (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any mention of the fact that the ending does derive in part from the Pierre Boulle original. In his novel, the protagonist returns to Earth, many centuries after he left it (time dilation, you know) and finds apes in positions of authority, and we also realize that the characters in the framing story are apes. WHPratt (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be following along with the timeline in the original series, where apes from what was first the future are sent back through the time wormhole into their past, and are then shown around to "our" present time society, and have a baby who later becomes Ceasar (if I am remembering correctly). 32.212.102.239 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the legal media kerfuffle between this production and Kevin Smith regarding Ape-Lincoln? 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story about the issue, from way back^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith discussing the issue (NSFW, YouTube) ^[2] 60.240.41.159 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to completely fix it, so I'll just note it here

The entire plot summary is wrong, and it looks like it was written by a middleschool-aged child at best. The plot is totally out of order and meshes scenes that were completely seperate in the film. Needs a rewrite badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.121.165 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ari decides to buy Leo and a female slave named Daena (Estella Warren) to have them work as servants in the house of her father, Senator Sandar (Charlton Heston) , her brother General Thade (Tim Roth), a Chimpanzee eager to rule the world, and Limbo (Paul Giamatti), an Orangutan.

Okay, first, her father, Senator Sandar is not the character played by Heston. Thade is not her brother, but is the son of Heston's actual character. Thade and Limbo do not live in Senator Sandar's household. Even other parts of the article show this stuff is wrong.76.226.128.97 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the characters looks like it was written by a child. Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.101.109 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CALIMA May be a link to the the islamic idea of KALIMAH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.121.59 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this was a big enough deal for someone to revert, but I'll argue for it here: I changed the language surrounding the "Lincoln" Memorial to make it less deterministic based on the fact that while the edifice _looks_ like the Lincoln Memorial, it clearly isn't, nor can it be since Lincoln isn't the person memorialized nor does it appear humans have ever had a parallel timeline in which Lincoln was the person/being memorialized. Unless Thade has been renamed "Lincoln," it just isn't the Lincoln Memorial. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source backs up what you're stating, which is your personal opinion. Until you can find a reputable primary source that agrees with your theory, the wording should stay unchanged. As stated in

MOS:PLOT :"Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hunh? There "source" is the movie. The "person" being memorialized is NOT Lincoln, therefore the edifice can't be the Lincoln Memorial. It's pretty authoritative since it's from the movie, itself. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not right, then the entire sentence needs to be changed in the article since the article makes it clear that Lincoln isn't the person memorialized. Also, the additions I made don't change the truth value of the sentence, whatsoever. "Appears to be" does nothing to change whether it is or isn't the Lincoln memorial. The Lincoln Memorial _always_ "appears to be" the Lincoln Memorial. Please don't revert my bold and "obvious" changes until others have weighed in on this. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First stop edit warring and don't make a change unilaterally until either have a reputable primary source that backs you up or you can get a consensus of editors to support making a change. So far all you've offered is your own personal opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takes two to war, buddy, and I've offered changes to act as a compromise. I'll leave it for awhlie, but unless I see otherwise, my changes are valid as based on the movie and logical extensions of the English language. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are your opinion. They are not supported by any sources nor do you have a consensus of editors to make these changes. The proper procedure is to discuss the issue on the Talk page before making a change not the other way around. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording to not affect any truth the scene might have had in the in-universe past. I think those should be sufficient. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing that they're "opinion" when I've actually used the most authoritative source--the film itself--it point out that the person memorialized in the memorial is not Lincoln, but Thade. In the first link you provide, the appropriate quote is, "Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) seemingly returns to Earth and crash-lands at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. When he ventures beneath the portico of the familiar monument, however, he discovers a statue not of Honest Abe, but of evil chimp-tator General Thade." The adverb "seemingly" (which is the same word I used in my initial edit, BTW), covers the seemingly-earth and everything thereupon. In the second, Smith is discussing how an EARLIER draft of their movie included a change from Lincoln to Thade, but "Burton Scoffs at Smith's Claims," and, indeed, does not agree that he stole the scene at all. Indeed, the sources you provided support my changes, not argue against them. Thank you for providing those authoritative sources--I appreciate it.

That being written, my molehill changes for clarity of "appearing to be" (since, again, even the Lincoln Memorial appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, thus not changing the truth value of the sentence at all) and the other changes you nixed in a 3RR didn't even change anything about the article, so I'm confused as why you would even do that. I can only assume taking out the word "actually" was just a blind RR (making 3 on your part) because you didn't even bother to realize that I had changed language to further clarify what was going on.

Are you ready to pare down your mountain back into the molehill or do you still have some sort of beef that goes against the very sources you, yourself, provided? My changes, again, that never changed the actual truth value of the original sentences were:

Leo ends up crashing in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on Earth. He looks up at the Memorial, and sees it is actually a monument in honor of General Thade.

Again, it isn't my "opinion" that "appears to be" doesn't change the truth value of "Lincoln Memorial" and "actually" didn't do anything at all other than clarify the sentence (unless you believe it isn't actually a monument in honor of Thade?).

So.. we done here? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are done because you've done nothing but offer your personal opinion without the support from any reliable source. Nor is there a

WP:BRD the wording should remain unchanged until there is a consensus or a reliable source can be found. FYI Here is a copy of the film's script. You might want to review: http://www.horrorlair.com/HorrorWorld/apeland/POA_new.html SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Things like the "Lincoln Memorial" would be placed in so that everyone knows that the building will in fact appear to be the Lincoln Memorial, which is what my changes suggested. In fact, my changes don't change the truth value of the sentence at all--the Lincoln Memorial will ALWAYS "appear to be" the Lincoln Memorial. The second change I made didn't change anything at all, so I'm changing that since you don't seem to have any dispute with it at all. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I've cited is the film's script which doesn't support your opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've pointed out why the script doesn't gel with your determination. Why would you bother to paste two links in this discussion section if you don't want them to support your case? I'm not sure there is any type of good faith here if all you're going to do is revert everything that has nothing to do with opinion and claim you're reverting things based on opinion. Indeed, the sources you posted initially used the same wording that I did "seemingly." As such, you should have agreed with the initial change. This is really going into Bizzaro territory at this point. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring this to dispute resolution since I'd like to move on from this. Even postings things to your page didn't work [1], so I'll do it this way, I suppose. I'm still not sure how "appears to be" and "actually" are terribly damaging. The page isn't static and should be allowed to be changed if editors feel that it can be modified without harming the overall truth value of the article. There's no one "final" edit to any article and attempts to police any article so strongly seem to violate the very idea behind Wikipedia. I'll accept whatever the discussions lead to here, however, as I think I've at least made my point here regardless. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously did a 4th revert [2] on something you're not even disputing? Look, I can't ask your permission every single time I change a page that you police. You've never even argued against the "now" vs. "actually" change, which, like the other change, doesn't alter the truth value of the sentence in the very least. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to achieve a consensus to make this or any other change. If as you say it "doesn't alter the truth value of the sentence in the very least" then there no reason not to leave the current wording as it is. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it makes the ambiguity of the situation more _clear_. It's an improvement. The first attempt I made used the _same_ language as the sources you posted and, as such, shouldn't have been a problem. As such, it's a perfect compromise--it makes things more clear, agrees with your sources, AND doesn't affect the truth value of the sentence. Also, what I changed _wasn't_ what you've argued for this whole time. You've never once tried to argue the difference between "now" and "actually," as such, I don't need consensus for that change since there's no disagreement over it. I think there may be an "ownership" issue here as you've stated on the dispute page that an "editor, who has never contributed to the page in question, parachuted in and began to make substantial changes to the meaning of a long standing passage." There's no "seniority bonus" on Wikipedia when it comes to making edits. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement at all and changes the meaning of the statement, which you know. It is again based solely on your opinion and has no source to support. Current wording reflects the film's script "where lincoln always sat now sits thade". SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not based on "opinion," so please stop using that word. There's an ambiguity in the film that's made by the fact that the person memorialized in the memorial is NOT Lincoln. You've never tried to dispute that. The sources you provided use the same language I did and thus should be acceptable to you (then you claimed you didn't want to use those later, for whatever reason). Again, the script also has that Leo "fought" with the apes, which he never did in the film at all, thus making the script you offered up to be unreliable. Put another way--it may have been the film's script before, but obviously wasn't the certain script of the movie that was actually filmed. The support is the _film_ as presented to the audience, which is what the plot is supposed to outline. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion. Saying over and over again that it is not won't change that. As the script states "follow Leo: Up the steps of the "LINCOLN MEMORIAL'" and "where lincoln always sat now sits thade". You have yet to show a single source that supports your personal opinion nor have you gotten a consensus of editors to agree with you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Facepalm>. Ok, so we're going to write in to the plot that Leo fights off the apes as best he can, too? Burton's interpretation is the one that made it to the screen and is, indeed, the movie, and he denied that he took Smith's idea (according the the source you did/didn't cite), leaving the question to have an ambiguous answer. This is what I'm trying to convey with the subtle changes that don't actually change the truth value of the statement. If it WAS Lincoln's memorial, then "appears to be" works since Lincoln's memorial always appears to be Lincoln's memorial. I'll let you have the last word here between us two, anyhow, since you seem to like it that way. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight. I never cited Kevin Smith as a source. You did that. Yet you have failed to cite a single source that supports your opinion nor have you gotten a consensus of editors to agree with you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying your account got hacked and that you didn't drop these sources and refer to them? [3] Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who views the history of the page can see those links were here from your first post on the issue. [4] SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. They were already in place for whatever reason ans I just assumed they came from you. My apologies. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop deleting my communications with you on your talk page as you did, once again, here [5]. You seem to have a really bad habit of throwing out "policy" and then ignoring what the policy actually states. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the removed text was here [6]. (Original removal here [7]). Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your pattern of

WP:HOUNDING on my talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no "pattern" since nothing was repeated. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, posting a friendly warning about 3RR (then 4R) doesn't match the definition of: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I didn't "join" any discussion on any other page--I just posted to yours and yours, only. It's good to read the policies you're actually citing. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to reopen what appears to have been a rather intense discussion previously between Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs) and SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs). As it stands now, the latter user reverted a recent change I made in reference to the Lincoln Memorial issue. Let me see if I can clarify why I think this wording isn't desirable.

The two wordings that I'm bringing to dispute are the following:

1. "He looks up to see the Lincoln Memorial is now a monument in honor of General Thade."
2. "He looks up to see that what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade."

Wording #1 implies that what was once the Lincoln Memorial has turned into a monument in honor of General Thade. At worst this sounds like Leo saw the Lincoln Memorial, and then it changed into a monument for General Thade. However, I think this isn't what was intended. Instead, the intended meaning is based on some assumptions about the nature of how the alternate reality came about—i.e., a replaced timeline instead of an alternate universe. I'm pretty sure that it's not possible to determine which was meant in the movie.

Wording #2 presents the scene from the viewer's perspective. Leo's computer shows him approaching Washington, D.C. He loses control of his craft and crash lands, skimming across what appears to be the reflecting pool, and coming to a halt on what appears to be the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He looks up and sees that instead of a statue of Lincoln, there's a statue of General Thade, along with text mentioning General Thade's name. The wording in #2 makes this clear: all the clues lead the viewer to expect the Lincoln Memorial, but instead it turns out to be a monument for General Thade.

SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs) suggested in his comment upon reversion of my edit that wording #1 was agreed on by the community. I'm in no way committed to wording #2—in fact, I can think of a number of other ways to phrase something clearer than #1—but I'm surprised that more people weren't opposed to wording #1.

So I'm asking for this issue to be reopened. I'm assuming there's more depth of discussion somewhere besides that between Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs) and SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs), which seems to have been more a war of personalities than discussion about what the two sentences imply to readers. —Firespeaker (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I attempted, to the best of my abilities, to explain the rhetorical and poetic implications of my changes whereas SonOfThornhill seemed to argue that the _exact_ interpretation, as he understood it from the script, was of importance (even though I proved the script was not accurately reflected in the movie in the very same scene). It really was more an issue of how we interpret language and meaning than a "war of personalities" per se. I gave up simply because there's no way to reconcile implicit and explicit meaning as SonOfThornhill seems prefer in his interpretation of language and what it's used for. Also, it was my belief that SonOfThornhill, through sheer force of will--possibility related to a sense of direct "ultimate responsibility" or "ownership" of this page--would simply outlast me in any prolonged disagreement over the ways in which we interpret meaning in language and in visual media (as is often the case in subjective interpretations such as the one we're faced with here). I believe I made my case succinctly and concisely, but without a common framework from which to work with SonofThornhill (which includes some bizarre interpretations of guidelines such as WikiHounding, etc.), I decided that the horse would never drink from the stream I led him to. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than engage in personal attacks against editors that disagree with your opinion of the scene, can anyone show any info from a reliable primary source that your personal interpretation of the scene is valid and the article should be changed to reflect it? If not, let's not waste any more time on this. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much sums up the difference between the two schools of thoughts here. The use of "primary sources" (not inclusive of the film, apparently) vs. conceptualizations of representation, hermenutics, and the vagaries of interpretation as encountered by the audience. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you're admitting that you have no sources that back up your interpretation of the scene. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs), as far as I know, I didn't engage in any personal attacks against editors that disagree with my opinion. I'm also not suggesting an edit that matches my personal opinion of the scene—I'm suggesting an edit [rather, any edit] that brings the wording away from a particular interpretation and instead in line with the facts of the scene that are visible in the movie. Your wording (#1) is, in contrast, very strongly in line with a particular opinion about what you felt was implied by the scene, instead of simply representing how the scene played out. I'm not sure I follow Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs)'s line of argumentation, but it seems to be something similar to what I'm saying. As for sources, I could just as easily ask for a source that backs up your interpretation, SonOfThornhill. And again, I'll ask for your source on the community-agreed-on wording. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously some difference of interpretation going on here. I think we need some informal moderation to help us arrive at a wording that we can all be happy with. I'll file a request in just a minute and provide you two with the information about it. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guys, here's the request for dispute resolution. This probably should've been requested last year, instead of one party feeling overpowered and backing down simply due to the appearance of less commitment to the issue. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the scene you linked to titled, "Ape on Earth". Leo is seen returning to the solar system, flying to earth, passing over Washington and crashing on the steps of the memorial. That is what happens in the film. Is there a primary source that disputes that? SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the part that I take issue with—and in fact, the wording I suggested covers this as well. The issue is with whether it's at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial or not. This is an issue of semantics and potentially philosophy, which is going to make it difficult to work out on our own. Let's see if the dispute resolution people can make sense of this discussion, and we can take it from there. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scene in question happens to be available currently on youtube, if needed for the discussion. —Firespeaker (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs) says "The other wordings suggest that it is somehow an alternate earth or Washington DC. That is no where evident in the film or script." I assume this means that there's no evidence that it's an alternate Earth/DC, and not evidence of it being Earth or Washington, D.C. to start with, as the readout on Leo's screen gives evidence to these facts. In this case, the evidence that it's not the primary timeline/universe/reality's Earth is the very fact that it's a memorial to General Thade and not to Abraham Lincoln. But I believe I must be misunderstanding this argument somehow. I really hope the dispute resolution people can figure out our various perspectives at the same time and come up with a compromise. —Firespeaker (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume this means that there's no evidence that it's an alternate Earth/DC". Yes that is exactly what it means. There is no evidence of this in the film. Also, "the evidence that it's not the primary timeline/universe/reality's Earth". Again, no evidence of this in the film. That is purely interpretation/opinion. Can you produce a reliable primary source that supports this interpretation? SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I might get what you're saying now. Are you saying that the movie doesn't show any other reality/timeline/universe for Leo, so there's no way to be sure that the memorial to General Thade is unexpected, or to be sure that Leo would expect it to be a memorial to Abraham Lincoln instead? —Firespeaker (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, going over the scene in question:

-the pod's computer identifies the planet as Earth. Whether it was malfunctioning, wrong, or whatever is not for us to say. The movie does not tell us that it is not Earth. Thus, we must write of it as if it is Earth. Whether it is an alternate timeline or whatever -- doesn't say, so we can't either. That the planet happens to resemble Earth does not matter -- but the computer identification explicitly says "Earth."

-the aircraft controller identifies as ZDC. I could imagine arguing in good faith that it is OR to conclude that this is the ZDC, but it's less effort to accept that it is indeed intended to be that ZDC.

Also note that the computer screen shows "Washington, DC" for a second. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can only say that it is Earth. We cannot comment on whether it is a parallel, alternate, replaced, or invaded Earth. We can say that it is DC, though again we cannot say of what nature. There is nothing explicitly identifying the Thade Memorial as the Lincoln Memorial, so it could be original research to say that it is/was/could've been the Lincoln Memorial or some parallel of it while it is as obvious as the sky is blue that that's what the viewer was expected to identify it as. This is probably the only time I've seen

WP:COMMONSENSE

clash. Both perspectives are valid. From this, I think synthesis of the two perspectives would be the best approach.

How about: "He looks up to what he expects is the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument in honor of General Thade"...? That works under all possible interpretations presented here. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday when I made the edit I would've been pretty happy with this wording, but now I'm doubting my intuition that Leo would have necessarily expected the Lincoln Memorial to be there (seems like common sense...). Perhaps all we can say is that the viewers are meant to expect the Lincoln Memorial (or is this original research?). This is hard now :( —Firespeaker (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that wording #2 above doesn't make mention of anyone's expectations—it only remarks on similarities of the monument to the Lincoln Memorial beyond who's depicted and acknowledged on it. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was starting to understand SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs)'s objection's to wording #2, but I no longer do. I suppose we should wait for him to weigh in on this and explain why none of these options make sense. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wording is fine with me. It reflects what happens in the film without any editorializing. Thanks Ian! SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see Firespeaker's point about potential OR issues with "he expects," though (at least from my perspective) it requires less assumption than writing about what the viewer might assume (my dad, brother, and I broadly called the ending shortly after the pod took off). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised SoT doesn't object to Ian's version when there's no way to clearly know what he's "expecting" to see. For all we know, he's too dazed to know anything from the crash or his recent experiences. I think that his expectation could be inferred, however, and as such, I have no general problems with it; but the original #2 from Firespeaker seems more "accurate" in the sense that we don't need first-person knowledge of the character. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What's wrong with #2? It seems to have less room for sticklers to get upset about it in the future than what's being suggested here. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording #2 infers that is somehow an alternate earth or Washington DC which is not supported by anything presented in the film. It is solely an interpretation/opinion at best, a fan theory at worst. Once again as MOS PLOT it states - "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". And as I have asked many times, are there any primary sources that support this interpretation? However I will propose this wording which is fairly neutral "He looks up to see the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade." SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "infer" that in any way. It allows for all of the alternatives presented here. It allows for "is earth with a changed monument" and "may be different earth with different monument" and every variation in between. In either case, it's no less "opinion" (there's that word, again) than "expects" (which is actually inference). Also, "the Lincoln Memorial" in your proposal has the existence problem, once again. Firstly, it simply _can't_ be the "Lincoln Memorial" since Thade is memorialized there (can we at least agree that this isn't "opinion"--Thade IS memorialized there). Secondly, we simply don't know whether it was the actual Lincoln Memorial that has been changed to Thade Memorial (or whatever) or if it's an original ape creation. It may have been, at one time, known as the Lincoln Memorial or it may never have been called the Lincoln Memorial and only appears to be it to the audience's unsuspecting eye. Proposal #2 takes care of all of those realities since it isn't deterministic in the before (it doesn't state what the memorial was) only that it "appears to be" something the audience could recognize, and is now certainly a memorial to Thade. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, SoT, I think you're confusing your strong belief that the Earth the protagonist lands upon is OUR Earth with the possibility of ambiguity in the film which would allow for the possibility of it being a different Earth, albeit one that's really similar to our own. Neither idea is supported in the film--it's ambiguous. There are no super-intelligent apes on our planet who have taken over Washington DC and still, for whatever reason, continued to call it "Washington," when that person would mean nothing to them, so it's not _necessarily_ OUR Earth, no matter how many ways we try to slice this pie. The language proposed by myself and Firespeaker account for this ambiguity _without_ pressing for determinism in any way. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the Earth in the film is supposed to be our Earth or a different one is not explicitly stated in the film (the only thing explicitly stated is that it is Earth, whatever that means), so we should not say whether it is one way or the other. Trying to convince other people whether it is or is not our Earth is not going to resolve this and
  does not belong here even if it's under the guise of choosign the correct wording. This issue is not going to be resolved by us sticking to as few options as possible either but must go in the form of give-and-take. How about: "He looks up to what is apparently the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument in honor of General Thade"...? Alternatively: "He looks toward what should be the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument in honor of General Thade" Those are more concise than 2. The "otherwise" in 2 gives a subtle leaning toward the implication that it is something other than our Earth (which, we can no more exclude than attempt to make canon). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While I like the idea of the two, "what is apparently the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument in honor of General Thade" suffers in that "what is apparently the Lincoln Memorial" contradicts the end of the sentence, stating it isn't. I'm not sure if there's a technical term of this type of contradiction. The second option is somewhat better although in this form it becomes heavily passive, which might be ok given that we're dealing with ambiguities, here. I disagree that #2 "leans" (the Lincoln Memorial _always_ "appears" to be the Lincoln Memorial, thus making it a truth-neutral statement), but I'm willing to move on in order to get to a conclusion, here. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do actually somewhat concur. With "otherwise," it might appear to lean, but taking out "otherwise" would make #2 truth-neutral: "He looks up to see that what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with 2 sans "otherwise," but "apparently" contradicts the last part as much as "appears to be." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the linguist might be able to help. "...what appears to be...," I don't think is the equivalent to "...is apparently the..." in this case. The latter, in fact, doesn't seem to make for a correct sentence whereas the former does. But, admittedly, I am more familiar with English in the representative sense than in its pure syntactical form. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. A simple glance at Google scholar and Google books for the phrase "is apparently the" will demonstrate dead common usage of the phrase in otherwise respectable publications. This older example, while leaning toward certainty, nonetheless demonstrates that the syntax is acceptable. This older example could be read in its archaic certainty or its modern ambiguity. These modern examples demonstrate its current use for ambiguity. I'm fine with either because they are close enough by all reasonable standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just FYI, I wasn't trying to "pull credentials out" (sheepskinning). I've never said anything about myself nor did I self-aggrandize. I was merely saying "there's someone who is involved with some expertise that might help us in this area, so I'd appreciate his input in this matter." I'm glad you're of that ken, as well, and I appreciate your input. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases "...what should be..." is I believe the sort of thing that SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs) has been objecting to (though I still don't understand his side of it). I agree with Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs) about the phrase "...what is apparently..."—it seems to be contradicted by the fact that it isn't in fact the Lincoln Memorial. So what you guys are suggesting currently is #2 without "otherwise", like this: "He looks up to see that what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade." Because "what appears to be" comes after "he looks up to see", it makes it sound like the new information (the fact that General Thade is depicted) is what is creating the appearance of the Lincoln Memorial, when in fact it's the other way around. Hmm. How about offsetting some of it into the previous sentence, something like "Leo crashes in Washington, D.C. on Earth in his own time, exiting his pod on the steps of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. He looks up to see what is instead a monument in honor of General Thade." or perhaps the last sentence could be something more like "He looks up to see a monument in honor of General Thade instead of a monument in honor of President Lincoln." Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here though. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo is on Earth and in Washington DC. That is what is presented in the film. There is no ambiguity about it. He is not on an alternate earth. That is opinion and interpretation. Anything that suggests that is unacceptable and in violation of

MOS:PLOT. That said, I'm OK with Ian's proposed wording: ""He looks toward what should be the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument in honor of General Thade". SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to chip in, I'd say the formulation "appears to be" seems most apt. "Should be" seems strange to me (why should it be?), and I don't think "appears to be" contradicts the second part any more than "from distance, a stick insect appears to be just another part of the tree from distance, get closer, however, and..." is contradictory. Daduzi ^talk 12:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know it isn't helpful, and I apologize, but it really should be "and Leo crashes into a dumb cliffhanger ending that should have never been approved because it doesn't make any sense in any way. Burton sucks." </end_rant> Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daduzi (talk · contribs) and their reasoning. (And pending a sequel, Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs) too :-P) "Should be" doesn't seem to make sense here. SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs), I don't understand the insistence on the impossibility of it being an alternate Earth, or how by even suggesting it as a possibility we could somehow be in violation of any Wikipedia policy. Also, I would hardly call my understanding of the movie (or lack thereof) a "fanboy theory". To the contrary, I'd like to find a wording that allows for as many interpretations as possible, since I find that the scene lends itself to ambiguity. If there is evidence for some specific interpretation (implied by SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs)'s assertions, though it's not clear to me what's being asserted exactly), I'd like the evidence explained to me. —Firespeaker (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been missing up until just now that [part of] the core of the matter is the fact that we can't know it's a parallel Earth / alternate reality / whatever. I got that it wasn't clear what exactly it was, but I was thinking more along the lines of it having to be one of those. Okay, so it's not necessarily. Let's say it is just Earth. Let's go with that. In that case (but not the others), the "should be" wording is okay, but then what's wrong with the "appears to be" wording? I think the "appears to be" wording covers all possibilities, including the one where it's just Earth, our timeline, whatever, but with apes and a General Thade monument—and the ones where it's a parallel timeline. Right? It just clarifies what the movie presents, and doesn't go with either particular interpretation (or set of interpretations). —Firespeaker (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a message board were different theories and interpretations are discussed and debated. Once again I'll quote

MOS:PLOT. The other wording are not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the original wording, but if we must change, I think "He looks up at what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument of General Thade." It certainly does "appear to be" the Lincoln Memorial, and that's the entire point (such as it is) of the reference.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think SoT's contention is that there's no room for ambiguity in the Earth as presented. To him, it IS our Earth, and anything else is "opinion" or "fanboy theory" (I think the latter was directed at least at me, which is odd given I hate this damned film). He seems to want a "primary source" that offers "proof" that the Earth depicted is _our_ Earth. I'm not sure how the film proves that it's _our_ Earth, either. Either way, wordings like "appears to be" doesn't change the truth value of anything since the Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, which is true of our Earth, for certain. However, SoT is _fine_ with "expects," which is odd since we can't know what Leo is expecting. So, I guess in all fairness, I'd like to understand how a "primary source" "proves" that the Earth is, indeed, our Earth, and that Leo "expects" anything, when, for all the audience knows, he's zonked out of his mind from the crash and thinks he's an ape, too. He's presented the script in the past, but the script is obviously not the final product on the screen, since the very next lines indicate that Leo is also manhandled, when he actually is not in the film.

There is no ambiguity. Just saying there is over and over again doesn't make it so. This is the twisted logic of unless a story or film explicitly rules something out, then it is possible. It's like saying that Leo is not really a male, he's transgender transitioning and because we don't see genitals during the film, it leaves the door open for that to be possible. The film is very clear that Leo is back on earth and in DC. That is what is presented in the film. There is no ambiguity about it. Anything else it personal interpretation and opinion which violates [MOS:PLOT]. And the only primary source that I have asked for is one that supports the interpretation that it is an alternate earth and so far none has been provided. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how you're not failing the same test. Just saying over and over again that it's the same Earth doesn't make it so, either. The continual application of double standards is extremely infuriating, I must say. Why is "expects" ok with you? It must be at least ok to ask for the same standard of proof you're claiming. Or, is that the twisted logic of "so as long as SoT's convinced, it is so?" Where's the "primary source" that proves your "opinion" isn't just "opinion?" Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, SoT has also contended that there's a "consensus" that the current wording is the correct wording, when, in reality, the only person to have even challenged it in the past seems to be myself. If so, that's a 1-1 vote and doesn't indicate a consensus. However, it seems that Ian's attempt to find a compromise notwithstanding, the actual consensus here seems to be the "appears to be" wording makes it work best, even if the Earth depicted is our actual Earth. If that's the case, SoT should be satisfied with a consensus of this sort (or in a formal vote) since he's brought this up several times in the past. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a majority vote. It is when all editors agree. So far there is no agreement so there is no consensus. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we don't know what the character "expects". We do know what the monument is, and appears to be. We can say that it is, or appears to be, the Lincoln Memorial because it's a very famous building and the film includes it, and not some other building, because the audience knows what it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording change that you made is good. I hope it resolves the issue. Thanks. However I think there is a problem with the sentence before which says, "Leo crashes in Washington, D.C. on Earth in his own time." I don't think that the phrase 'in his own time' is an accurate depiction of what is in the film. The film starts in 2029, that is Leo's own time. At the end when Leo travels back in time, the chronometer is only show running back as far as around the 2160s. Thus, the phrase 'in his own time' should be deleted. Anyone object? SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the "in his own time" bit too. The best way to handle this is probably just as you propose—just delete "in his own time". (Even though the police cars and stuff look like they're from the early naughts</interpretation>) —Firespeaker (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we agree about something. LOL SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what wording is Cuchullain (talk · contribs) proposing? —Firespeaker (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs), could I ask you to summarise succinctly what's wrong with the "appears to be" reading? You seem to be saying that it adds interpretation, but my understanding is that it increases ambiguity, which in fact removes interpretation. Could you say a little more about your understanding? And we all get the policies, you can stop citing them. They aren't an excuse for not sharing a good explanation of your reasoning. —Firespeaker (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording 'appears to be' infers that it is an alternate earth or Washington DC. That is not what is presented in the film and inaccurate. There is no ambiguity as to where Leo has landed. Saying there is ambiguity IS an interpretation and a violation of MOS: PLOT. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does "appears to be" imply that it's an alternate Earth? Also, I don't see how saying that one wording gives ambiguity is a violation of any policy. I'm still not getting it :( Could you clarify these two issues? —Firespeaker (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs) isn't talking about Cuchullain (talk · contribs)'s wording "change" of "He looks up at what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial only to find a monument of General Thade" (though I'm still confused about this), ... What do people think of "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade"? It's very close to the current wording / wording #1, but doesn't seem to imply anything about timelines. And it's also a little jarring in terms of truth value or whatever, but I'd argue that that fact actually makes it closer to the scene, which is similarly jarring (and for similar reasons) if the "surprise" isn't anticipated by the viewer. —Firespeaker (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" wording. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current version (not the one that started the debate a year ago and recently) of "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade," is, I think functionally equivalent of the "actually a monument" version you just proposed? The "the Lincoln Memorial" _does_ have the problem with truth value, to be sure, but the contextual conclusion of the sentence evens it out some. Of course, the new sentence before it is a whole 'nother ball of wax...yay. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "in his own time" per the above" as it seemed to be uncontroversial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like Cuchullain (talk · contribs) went and edited it. Moving targets during a debate, wonderful... Yeah, there's a truth value problem with this wording, as you point out. I think it's made marginally better by the counterfactual "actually" version I proposed above (a compromise version that SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs) accepted!). I'll repeat it here for the sake of clarity: "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade". —Firespeaker (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "consensus" has a somewhat variable definition around here (as does "proof" and "opinion"). That being written, I think your proposal is more accurate and support. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ommnomnomgulp, User:SonOfThornhill: This issue has been opened for moderated discussion. I'm not sure if anyone else is welcome to contribute or not. User:Robert McClenon, could you clarify this for the benefit of others who have become involved? —Firespeaker (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are welcome to take part in the discussion at

DRN. If another editor comments, their name will be added to the list of participants. It will help if discussion takes place there and not here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would normally remove "gunning ... army" from the page, but there seem to be some pretty strong-minded guardians of this particular page, and I don't want to get into an edit war. It's also possible that I missed something in the movie, and I welcome demonstrations of this. —Firespeaker (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no object to this in the 5+ weeks that it's been open, I've gone ahead and made the change. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When is mention made in the movie (or script?) of the planet being called Ashlar? I realise this name is part of the franchise, but was it mentioned in this particular film? —Firespeaker (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is necessary to mention that this movie lacked the key features Burton's other movies are best known for: goth and creepiness. These sources may be used to expand the article with the info: [15], [16], [17]. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"TRAINERS need to get the chimps early, because after the age of 8 or so, the animals are too strong to be used safely in showbiz. But chimps can live to be 60 years old. And it costs $10,000 a year to feed and care for a chimp. There’s an overpopulation of captive chimps and a dearth of sanctuaries for the primates. According to PETA, too many former screen stars end up in squalor in subpar retirement spots. They point to Chubbs, who played a cadet trainee in Tim Burton’s 2001 film “Planet of the Apes” and ended up living amid garbage, maggots and feces at a roadside attraction in Amarillo, Texas." -- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-aug-27-et-brief27-story.html --TRS (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]