Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 28, 2019 15:08:58 GMT
Hello guys,
If you believe that Cornelius, Zira and CAESAR altered the past in 1973 and created a better Planet of the Apes (as seen in BATTLE), then these are my very detailed and well-thought POTA timelines based on the revisable timeline concept:
So in what year do you think Battle for the Planet of Apes takes place?
The year I pinpointed in my Timeline 2. Because Battle for the Planet of the Apes never happened in the original timeline where POTA and BENEATH occurred.
So in what year do you think Battle for the Planet of Apes takes place?
The year I pinpointed in my Timeline 2. Because Battle for the Planet of the Apes never happened in the original timeline where POTA and BENEATH occurred.
So if I'm reading your timeline correctly, your date is 2010 A.D.?
I asked because there seems to be no clear answer. The original script spells out 2004 A.D., while the Goatley timeline says 2001 A.D.. Finally, the Planet of the Apes Wiki says:
The year in which Battle is set has been the subject of some debate. While Planet and Beneath both gave definite (if contradictory) years, and Escape was set in 1973, Conquest was clearly set in 1991. Battle, however, was much more vague. The characters who reappeared from the previous film hadn't aged much; the outline for the story that became the movie was set in 2000; Mendez says there has been 12 years of peace. The Blu-ray set's timeline says that this film takes place in 2004. On the other hand, Mandemus claims the Ape City armory has been his home for twenty-seven years, implying that the Ape settlement has been there that long. To allow for this claim, Rich Handley's Planet of the Apes Timeline places the movie's events in 2020.
The year I pinpointed in my Timeline 2. Because Battle for the Planet of the Apes never happened in the original timeline where POTA and BENEATH occurred.
So if I'm reading your timeline correctly, your date is 2010 A.D.?
I asked because there seems to be no clear answer. The original script spells out 2004 A.D., while the Goatley timeline says 2001 A.D.. Finally, the Planet of the Apes Wiki says:
The year in which Battle is set has been the subject of some debate. While Planet and Beneath both gave definite (if contradictory) years, and Escape was set in 1973, Conquest was clearly set in 1991. Battle, however, was much more vague. The characters who reappeared from the previous film hadn't aged much; the outline for the story that became the movie was set in 2000; Mendez says there has been 12 years of peace. The Blu-ray set's timeline says that this film takes place in 2004. On the other hand, Mandemus claims the Ape City armory has been his home for twenty-seven years, implying that the Ape settlement has been there that long. To allow for this claim, Rich Handley's Planet of the Apes Timeline places the movie's events in 2020.
12 years of peace since the end of the war, not the events of CONQUEST which came before (1992).
The war occurred in 1993 AD.
2010 AD: The World War III "officially" ends, leaving in North-America ravaged soils and few thousand of survivors behind (Apes and Humans).
2022 AD: BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES.
Actually, Conquest was set in 1991.
You're telling me that the Kolp of Battle was thirty years older than he was in Conquest. Sorry, but I don't buy it. First of all, he didn't look that much older.
Second, living in the radioactive ruins like he did, would almost certainly shorten his life expectancy.
Finally, if thirty years had passed from Conquest to Battle, I would expect Caesar to have grandchildren. The first duty of a king is to start making heirs to the throne. Cornelius II being only twelve years old lends support to an early 2000s date for Battle.
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on May 1, 2019 8:48:31 GMT
Sorry: 1991, indeed. I got confused. It's carefully written on my timeline/website anyway.
About aging, there are no fixed "parameters". I'm 41, but I look 30 (seriously!).
Second, living in the radioactive ruins like he did, would almost certainly shorten his life expectancy.
Well, we're talking about a fictional universe where radiations make you mutate rather than die, turning humans into the Gesalt Mind Beings (after millennia). So no, the scenario is pretty much consistent with the "rules" established in the specific POTA universe we're talking about. The Blackmen will turn into the GMB after centuries/millennia, even if the past has been altered by the time traveling Humanoid Apes.
Finally, if thirty years had passed from Conquest to Battle, I would expect Caesar to have grandchildren. The first duty of a king is to start making heirs to the throne. Cornelius II being only twelve years old lends support to an early 2000s date for Battle.
That's not scientific, even. Caesar was busy creating Ape City: the structure; the buildings; the costumes; establishing the hierarchy and the "dynamics" among creatures. He was conceiving a NEW SOCIETY out of nothing. If you add the fact that they were STRUGGLING to survive in the first (several) years after the war, well, you can guess they only started to build Ape City very late.
This is my scenario. I love it. I'm glad I can share it with you and other Apesters.
Well, we're talking about a fictional universe where radiations make you mutate rather than die, turning humans into the Gesalt Mind Beings (after millennia). So no, the scenario is pretty much consistent with the "rules" established in the specific POTA universe we're talking about. The Blackmen will turn into the GMB after centuries/millennia, even if the past has been altered by the time traveling Humanoid Apes.
Yes, it was established that after millennia of breeding the survivors became mutants. However Kolp and those of his generation were born before the bombs fell, and can be realistically expected to experience the same radiation health effects as anyone else:
There have been studies that kept track of large numbers of people who were exposed to radiation, including atomic bomb survivors and radiation industry workers. These studies show that radiation exposure increases the chance of getting cancer, and the risk increases as the dose increases: the higher the dose, the greater the risk.
How high was Kolp's dose? In Battle there is this dialogue:
VIRGIL: We are at best brave and at worst mad to be here. This background radiation alone will give us three hundred roentgens an hour.
CAESAR: Meaning?
VIRGIL: That if we're not out of here within two hours, we shall become... inmates.
In 1957, the occupational limit was lowered to a maximum of 5,000 millirems per year.
According to studies made after the atomic bomb explosions in 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, half of the people died whose entire bodies were exposed to 450,000 millirems of radiation from the atomic bomb. All persons died whose bodies were exposed to 600,000 millirems of radiation.
If Battle takes place in the early 2000s, then Kolp was lucky to alive. But I think it's safe to say he would have died from cancer before he lived another twenty or so years.
Caesar was busy creating Ape City: the structure; the buildings; the costumes; establishing the hierarchy and the "dynamics" among creatures. He was conceiving a NEW SOCIETY out of nothing. If you add the fact that they were STRUGGLING to survive in the first (several) years after the war, well, you can guess they only started to build Ape City very late.
FYI, the novelization for Battle states the Ape City was founded nine years prior to the events of the film. I think nine years is plenty of time to construct the city we see in the movie. So I find the Goatley timeline, which sets Battle in 2001, a more plausible scenario.
Caesar was busy creating Ape City: the structure; the buildings; the costumes; establishing the hierarchy and the "dynamics" among creatures. He was conceiving a NEW SOCIETY out of nothing. If you add the fact that they were STRUGGLING to survive in the first (several) years after the war, well, you can guess they only started to build Ape City very late.
FYI, the novelization for Battle states the Ape City was founded nine years prior to the events of the film. I think nine years is plenty of time to construct the city we see in the movie. So I find the Goatley timeline, which sets Battle in 2001, a more plausible scenario.
This is my scenario. I love it. I'm glad I can share it with you and other Apesters.
Thank you for sharing!
1- I guess that, in the original timeline, the Gesalt Mind Beings sprouted from genetic experimentation, underground researches run in need to overcome health problems coming from the past nuclear war. So maybe the "Blackmen" existed in the original timeline too, given the fact the nuclear war occurred in the late 20th century as in the altered timeline --- as evidenced by Cornelius' archeological site.
My guess is that the "Blackmen" are humans more resistant and relisilent to radiation, thanks to a good genetic make-up.
2- Nine years, well, less or more... but I think they were struggling to survive in the decade(s) following the nuclear war (which ravaged the entire world), so I bet they started to build Ape City very late.
The central point of my double-crossed timelines is that Cornelius, Zira, Milo and Milo Jr/Salomon/Caesar altered the past and created a better Planet of The Apes where humans and Humanoid Apes coexist peacefully. This way, the saga has a purpose and Taylor's sacrifice is not vain at all. Said that, Taylor and Brent are still out of there... and they will land on a new Planet of the Apes in the future to come.
Not gonna lie, I have no idea what that means because I haven’t seen the old sequels in a long time, but I have a question for you fans of the original movies: what do you think of this new trilogy?
Not gonna lie, I have no idea what that means because I haven’t seen the old sequels in a long time, but I have a question for you fans of the original movies: what do you think of this new trilogy?
I dug it. Each movie just got better than the last. And Andy Serkis' performance as Ceasar was great.
I have found and truly believe that there is nothing so bad it cannot be made better with a story.
Not gonna lie, I have no idea what that means because I haven’t seen the old sequels in a long time, but I have a question for you fans of the original movies: what do you think of this new trilogy?
I love the new trilogy. Plain and simple.
Well, so just go reading my website when you're finished rewatching the big 5 classics.
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on May 27, 2019 20:08:38 GMT
Can't place Beneath on the same timeline as Planet. Taylor clearly states he was knowingly on a one way mission:-
"In less than an hour we'll finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy. Six months in deep space. By our time, that is. According to Dr. Hasslein's theory of time in a vehicle traveling nearly the speed of light, the Earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we've aged hardly at all. It may be so. This much is probably true. The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone."
This has 0% continuity with Brent's "rescue mission".
Can't place Beneath on the same timeline as Planet. Taylor clearly states he was knowingly on a one way mission:-
"In less than an hour we'll finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy. Six months in deep space. By our time, that is. According to Dr. Hasslein's theory of time in a vehicle traveling nearly the speed of light, the Earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we've aged hardly at all. It may be so. This much is probably true. The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone."
This has 0% continuity with Brent's "rescue mission".
Not at all. As stated/retconned in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes", Taylor's ship VISUALLY "disappeared" ("disintegrated") from reality when it entered into the Hasslein Curve, proving there was some new kind of space-time warp out there. That's why they launched Brent's ship as rescue in the very first place. So it wasn't about the Hasslein's "Theory of Time" anymore, but something more complex and effective to explore. And as stated in "Escape", Brent's ship "disintegrated" the same.
Can't place Beneath on the same timeline as Planet. Taylor clearly states he was knowingly on a one way mission:-
"In less than an hour we'll finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy. Six months in deep space. By our time, that is. According to Dr. Hasslein's theory of time in a vehicle traveling nearly the speed of light, the Earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we've aged hardly at all. It may be so. This much is probably true. The men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone."
This has 0% continuity with Brent's "rescue mission".
Not at all. As stated/retconned in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes", Taylor's ship VISUALLY "disappeared" ("disintegrated") from reality when it entered into the Hasslein Curve, proving there was some new kind of space-time warp out there. That's why they launched Brent's ship as rescue in the very first place. So it wasn't about the Hasslein's "Theory of Time" anymore, but something more complex and effective to explore. And as stated in "Escape", Brent's ship "disintegrated" the same.
mmm... the only thing I recall from Escape is that it said both ships disintegrated? Anything further is just idle speculation unless you can give something concrete from the movie which actually goes beyond that in which case I'll stand corrected.
Even in Beneath Brent says they were following Taylor's last known trajectory and speculated they'd travelled hundreds of years into future. Which again doesn't make much sense in terms of a "rescue" mission - a) they knew they'd probably land up hundreds of years in future. b) if they were aware Taylor's ship had disintegrated, they went to rescue them by doing exactly the same thing and also being disintegrated. 😂
Not at all. As stated/retconned in "Escape from the Planet of the Apes", Taylor's ship VISUALLY "disappeared" ("disintegrated") from reality when it entered into the Hasslein Curve, proving there was some new kind of space-time warp out there. That's why they launched Brent's ship as rescue in the very first place. So it wasn't about the Hasslein's "Theory of Time" anymore, but something more complex and effective to explore. And as stated in "Escape", Brent's ship "disintegrated" the same.
mmm... the only thing I recall from Escape is that it said both ships disintegrated? Anything further is just idle speculation unless you can give something concrete from the movie which actually goes beyond that in which case I'll stand corrected.
Even in Beneath Brent says they were following Taylor's last known trajectory and speculated they'd travelled hundreds of years into future. Which again doesn't make much sense in terms of a "rescue" mission - a) they knew they'd probably land up hundreds of years in future. b) if they were aware Taylor's ship had disintegrated, they went to rescue them by doing exactly the same thing and also being disintegrated. 😂
"Idle speculation", well, speculation is never "idle", it means that you use your brain. LOL.
Sorry, but BENEATH and ESCAPE are 100% canon, unlike the 1974's TV series (which is a different continuity). So we must take in account the fact that they "retconned" some concepts. Nothing too dramatical, buddy.
Brent's speculation in the aftermath has NOTHING to do with the original rescue mission. He was just guessing on what had TRULY happened.
Taylor's ship disappeared, so the rescue mission followed its trajectory. The guys in ESCAPE were just talking with approximative terms, being not too detailed. They talked about "DISINTEGRATION" only after Brent had been launched many months before. At the time Brent was launched, they had sensed that there was a warp out there and they were in for an exploration. So the "Disintegration" concept was a kind of official cover-up, or just one of the many theories floating among them.
mmm... the only thing I recall from Escape is that it said both ships disintegrated? Anything further is just idle speculation unless you can give something concrete from the movie which actually goes beyond that in which case I'll stand corrected.
Even in Beneath Brent says they were following Taylor's last known trajectory and speculated they'd travelled hundreds of years into future. Which again doesn't make much sense in terms of a "rescue" mission - a) they knew they'd probably land up hundreds of years in future. b) if they were aware Taylor's ship had disintegrated, they went to rescue them by doing exactly the same thing and also being disintegrated. 😂
"Idle speculation", well, speculation is never "idle", it means that you use your brain. LOL.
Sorry, but BENEATH and ESCAPE are 100% canon, unlike the 1974's TV series (which is a different continuity). So we must take in account the fact that they "retconned" some concepts. Nothing too dramatical, buddy.
Brent's speculation in the aftermath has NOTHING to do with the original rescue mission. He was just guessing on what had TRULY happened.
Taylor's ship disappeared, so the rescue mission followed its trajectory. The guys in ESCAPE were just talking with approximative terms, being not too detailed. They talked about "DISINTEGRATION" only after Brent had been launched many months before. At the time Brent was launched, they had sensed that there was a warp out there and they were in for an exploration. So the "Disintegration" concept was a kind of official cover-up, or just one of the many theories floating among them.
Well, have you read my work? Do you like it?
First of all I'm a bit surprised by your reaction to my use of "idle speculation". Seems like you took that as some kind of slur but that wasn't the intention - it's just a fairly common phrase for speculation where you're going pretty far out on a limb.
e.g. in your first reply you said that the mentioned "disintegration" proved there was "some new kind of space-time warp out there. That's why they launched Brent's ship as rescue in the very first place."
Which I thought was interesting, that maybe I'd missed something there, and that the rescue mission did have some sensible basis.
However in your post above you're saying that "the "Disintegration" concept was a kind of official cover-up". Which is it? Because if Taylor's ship didn't disintegrate, we can only assume that it disappeared off at near the speed of light, as expected per Taylor's comments, and into the future as expected. There would be no plausible reason for a rescue mission...
I don't know what you meant by sorry they're 100% canon comment. Never claimed otherwise. All the films are canon, even if they don't link up due to the contradictory historys given. But that's where the fun of speculating alternative timelines comes from in the first place.
"Idle speculation", well, speculation is never "idle", it means that you use your brain. LOL.
Sorry, but BENEATH and ESCAPE are 100% canon, unlike the 1974's TV series (which is a different continuity). So we must take in account the fact that they "retconned" some concepts. Nothing too dramatical, buddy.
Brent's speculation in the aftermath has NOTHING to do with the original rescue mission. He was just guessing on what had TRULY happened.
Taylor's ship disappeared, so the rescue mission followed its trajectory. The guys in ESCAPE were just talking with approximative terms, being not too detailed. They talked about "DISINTEGRATION" only after Brent had been launched many months before. At the time Brent was launched, they had sensed that there was a warp out there and they were in for an exploration. So the "Disintegration" concept was a kind of official cover-up, or just one of the many theories floating among them.
Well, have you read my work? Do you like it?
First of all I'm a bit surprised by your reaction to my use of "idle speculation". Seems like you took that as some kind of slur but that wasn't the intention - it's just a fairly common phrase for speculation where you're going pretty far out on a limb.
e.g. in your first reply you said that the mentioned "disintegration" proved there was "some new kind of space-time warp out there. That's why they launched Brent's ship as rescue in the very first place."
Which I thought was interesting, that maybe I'd missed something there, and that the rescue mission did have some sensible basis.
However in your post above you're saying that "the "Disintegration" concept was a kind of official cover-up". Which is it? Because if Taylor's ship didn't disintegrate, we can only assume that it disappeared off at near the speed of light, as expected per Taylor's comments, and into the future as expected. There would be no plausible reason for a rescue mission...
I don't know what you meant by sorry they're 100% canon comment. Never claimed otherwise. All the films are canon, even if they don't link up due to the contradictory historys given. But that's where the fun of speculating alternative timelines comes from in the first place.
Hello Midi,
I'm Italian, not English. Frankly, I misinterpreted the term "idle". That's pure language barrier! Sorry.
Well, if memory serves me well... was it the President of the USA or Otto Hasslein to talk about "disintegration"? That's why I was talking about "cover-up". I don't remember it very well, because many and many years passed by since I wrote my timelines or watched ESCAPE. I will check it out.
Maybe Taylor thought they were travelling at the speed of light in the "normal space", but that was a "deception" of the surroundings, since they had fallen into a Time Warp and weren't too distant from planet Earth/The Planet of the Apes...?
Since in ESCAPE they talked about the two ships "disintegrating" into Earth's orbit (and we can interpret it as being the space near Earth, thus not so literally), we could theorize that they launched Brent's ship because Taylor's ship (ICARUS) "slipped" into the Time Warp when it was located very close to Earth, and they (ANSA) weren't expecting this at all.
Yeah, it's fun to speculate about it. Said that, I mean the POTA timeline as a "rewrittable" one and not like a set of two timelines created by Cornelius & Zira I'm telling you that because the term "alternate" is generally used to design parallel universes.