Movie News

New RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Trailer Is An Evolutionary Leap Forward!

Published at: June 2, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST by mrbeaks

 

Beaks here...

Ever since it went into development as CAESAR (with the estimable Scott Frank writing), I was cautiously optimistic about Fox's second attempt in a decade to restart the PLANET OF THE APES franchise. I loved the series growing up, but it's such tricky material. And I had zero faith in the studio's current regime to do it justice. The first trailer was... good. Nothing revelatory (and maybe some goofy line readings from James Franco), but... good. This new trailer? They fucking nailed it.

 

 

In case you missed it, go back and look at the 1.58 mark. That's it. That's PLANET OF THE APES. That's the motherfucking movie I want to see.

Rupert Wyatt's RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES hits theaters on August 5th. Please don't suck.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 2, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Cool!

    by Sappers Forward

  • June 2, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Sexual chocolate

    by Shpadoinkle

  • June 2, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Looks good.

    by TheHumanBeingAndFish

    I'll give it a rental.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Wait, what?

    by Loosejerk

    Norm.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Where in the U.S....

    by brodaniels

    are there that many apes/chimps? At the max it's gotta be like....in the thousands. Unless there's some alternate timeline where gorillas are NOT ENDANGERED, I find it a little odd for there to be this many.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Does look great, but the special effects look a bit...

    by john

    special effecty, if you know what i mean.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    That was fucking awesome.

    by Mike_D

    I'm on board.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST

    WOW!

    by WONKABAR

    Amazing CGI

  • June 2, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Ha.

    by Aaron

    That shit was laughably bad. Looks like it will match terminator 3 for best unintentional comedy. Nice handle shpadoinkle. One of my faves

  • June 2, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Oh, yeah... that works for me.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Sleeper "summer movie" of the summer.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Just CGI and nothing more

    by SmokeFilledTavern

    can't get past the lazy effects.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Is Lithgow still in this?

    by Bass Ackwards

    I don't see a hint of him in the ads.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Project X 2: The Xening

    by Symposium

    Had to be said

  • June 2, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Wasn't looking forward to this until now

    by Michael Bartschi

    This trailer gave me chills. dont suck dont suck dont suck

  • June 2, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Both trailers have looked good

    by Kraven Morehead

    The tone is what is making this and the effects are secondary, which I think look good for cgi of something actually exists as oposed to something i have no comparisson for like a dinosaur. I'm interested to see how the apes survive since I assume they must to eventually enslave all us human-folk and prepare for sequel money.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    The original make-up effects looked exactly like real gorillas!

    by UltraTron

    How dare they have special effects in this!!! Oh.. Wait.. That's right. Now I remember. The original was a bunch of fuckheads with masks on. This looks infinately better and I haven't even seen a single trailer. I just know weta is doing it

  • Anything that doesn't like Avatar/King Kong level CGI is automatically "lazy". It's pretty ridiculous. I mean what the hell do you want? Not every single movie can have massive fucking budgets. This shit could look a LOT worse, especially since it isn't giant robots or aliens or dragons, it's actually living animals we can compare to real life. Cut them some slack, will you?

  • June 2, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    bass ackwards...

    by robert0

    Lithgow can be seen at the 00:28 second mark, opening the box with Franco.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Don't watch this trailer!

    by Kirbymanly

    It gives away the whole damn movie! WTF?!

  • Yup. I can easily see this happening.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    My guess is...

    by robert0

    ...that if Caesar is able to unleash an aerosol version of the chemical that makes the apes smart, it won't take long for him and his counterparts to find some virus at the CDC that affects humans and not apes. So even though the number of apes leading this revolution may be small, they will almost totally wipe out humanity with a virus, and then take over the planet.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Bad CGI?

    by Atomike2

    Do people honestly think this is bad cgi? I do computer animation, and this is not bad cgi. I think that those comments were made by people that really don't know the difference between good and bad cgi. I think that's the only way to interpret those comments.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Demo reel of the CG work... and it looks like WETA did a great job

    by WeylandYutani

    Caesar looks like a credible character based on the abundance of "thinking" shots in this trailer. While there are plenty of examples of poor CGI in films, I think the anti-CG crowd looks at older films through rose coloured glasses... there was a lot of practical effects work that looks dodgy by today's standards. A case in point is the original Planet of the Apes from 68 - great work by John Chambers back in the day, but it is the story that stands the test of time, not the makeup effects. So I hope the story is well told in this film. I like that veteran actors John Lithgow and Brian Cox are in this... but I am not sure about James Franco. I have no doubt that he is a talented actor, but I wonder of he is a bit too "stoner dude" to play a scientist. Sort of the way Keanu Reeves came off as silly playing a surfing FBI agent. But I have hopes that this will be superior Burton's mess of a film. Question: Does anyone know if this is another reboot of the series, or does this tie in with Burton's film?

  • June 2, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    It IS bad CGi

    by Amazing Maurice

    Because your brain can immediately see its fake. And when that happens, you stop giving a shit.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Wow, then you must not have liked any CGI movie ever made

    by Sardonic

  • June 2, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Chimps vs pigs with guns

    by disfigurehead

    Ok I see where we don't have a chance. That gorilla crashing out of the cage reminds me too much of PJ's Kong.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    The thing with CGi

    by Amazing Maurice

    Its superb for creating fantastical worlds. But anytime someone tries to create a CG 'character' in a real world setting, it nearly always looks like shit.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Anyone else on the planet outfit their theater to a level

    by UltraTron

    where the commando score sounds like god's breakfast music?

  • June 2, 2011, 6:52 p.m. CST

    I think the CG looks tremendous

    by Kammich

    Especially considering they've probably got about 6 more weeks of post work to touch it up. Some of the practical appliance work of the past films were strong for their time, but WETA accomplished exactly what they set out to do here: use mo-cap and CG to create proportionately correct chimps with human intellect and emotions. I mean, some of those shots are chilling(like Caesar looking back at Brian Cox through the window). I respect anyone's opinion to say that this is "bad CGI," but I couldn't disagree more.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Maybe saying 'BAD' is a bit harsh, I'll admit

    by Amazing Maurice

    It's fairly accompilshed animation. But it still looks fake as fuck. Its 2011 - I can't believe its been nearly 20 years since the T-Rex first stomped out of its paddock and it STILL looks light-years ahead of every other CG cluster-fuck we've seen since then.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Looks terrible.

    by Shermdawg

    And yes, it's because of the cartoonish cg. Hopefully, if this warrants a sequel, they'll move back to suits for close up shots.....which admittedly wouldn't make sense for this one. But still, it's like they aren't aware what chimpanzees actually look like here. How they react. How they move. And no, the excuse that they have a higher I.Q. shouldn't even apply, because real chimps already share enough human like mannerisms that we've seen. That we've been amazed by. This in comparison looks unintentionally alien in nature. The same problem a LOT of cg animals of the cinema have. It's honestly distracting.

  • June 2, 2011, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Tedious

    by Beezbo

    That's the first word that comes to mind when I see these trailers. Doesn't look like any fun at all.

  • June 2, 2011, 7 p.m. CST

    I think they should combine this with Tarzan franchise.

    by UltraTron

    Call it The Rise of Tarzan: Lord of the Planet of the Apes. All the apes can talk and say- "hail Tarzan! What is your bidding maaster!!" Of they're much smarter than Tarzan who speaks in jibberish and grunts. So it becomes a comedy where the apes are really carrying him the whole time

  • June 2, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    So, chimps become bulletproof or something?

    by denzacar

    That IS the premise of this movie, right?

  • June 2, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST

    But does he speak?

    by GhostofCicero

    And will he sound like Roddy McDowall?

  • June 2, 2011, 7:06 p.m. CST

    This looks pretty good

    by dukeroberts

    Creating Caesar as a CGI construct probably had to happen, however, some of the other chimps and apes could have been portrayed by actual chimps and apes. In some of those scenes where you see them acting like chimps and apes, they could have used real chimps and apes instead of CGI. Now, when it gets to erect walking and talking apes, call in Rick Baker. Say what you will about Tim Burton's movie, but the make-up was fantastic.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Don't you mean an evolutionary leap backwards?

    by Triple_J_72

    ...Because Hollywood keeps rehashing old ideas?

  • June 2, 2011, 7:10 p.m. CST

    You know...?

    by dukeroberts

    It kind of looks like I, Robot. Switch red-flashing robots to angry chimps and...voila! The CGI is fair, but is somewhat distracting as you know they are not real apes. King Kong looked like a real f-ing gorilla.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Not bad CGI, just obvious...

    by john

    and we all know how quickly that stuff dates. Looking forward to this all the same.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Yes, King Kong looked great.

    by Shermdawg

    That dino stampede however, did not.

  • Which makes sense, why show all your cards in the trailer? Possibly some type of human virus vector that went awry, as in 28 days later or I am Legend.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    "You're trying to control things that aren't MEANT to be controlled!"

    by TheHumanBeingAndFish

    Worst line ever?

  • June 2, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST

    No, no, no, not a virus.

    by Shermdawg

    They take over Hollywood and fill the airwaves with Lancelot Link-type productions driving the masses insane.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Looks great!

    by D.Vader

    People complaining about "Bad CGI" should stop watching movies with any kind of special effects. Or better yet, only watch movies with stop-motion effects. Or stop movies with people in ape costumes. Because your brain can tell its not a real ape too.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Franco will ruin this ...

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    I cannot accept he could be a scientist. Intelligent chimps, yes. Intelligent Franco ... Fuck off.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:23 p.m. CST

    even with advanced intelligence will they still fling poo?

    by jupiterjim

  • June 2, 2011, 7:23 p.m. CST

    shermdawg

    by Kammich

    Its funny, with all the evolutionary leaps and bounds of CGI technology and artistry over the last 2 decades, something always remains the same... scenes of people running in front of a green screen always look TERRIBLE. There's just something entirely unnatural about it. "King Kong"s CGI is fucking AMAZING, but that scene stands out to the point that you're like, "hehe its adrien brody on a treadmill." It has to be one of the toughest effects to pull off, granted. Having a bunch of actors running on treadmills and then having to create a background thats in motion and blends in seamlessly with the actor(s) movements... but damn, it almost ALWAYS looks 100% artificial.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:24 p.m. CST

    The Apes don't overthrow Man

    by Hatter76

    The Virus that helps them to rise is not very kind to Humans

  • June 2, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Wan't to see Bad CG Apes???

    by Hatter76

    Look at the Apes in My Fan Film, now thats bad CG http://youtu.be/ic8Zo7EBQGk

  • June 2, 2011, 7:29 p.m. CST

    @shermdawg

    by TallanDagwood

    You, sir have vaulted to the top of this talkback with the Lancelot Link reference. That brought a smile to my face and warmed this old heart of mine with favorite childhood memories. Yes, I do believe that the evolution revolution could bring about an apokolips

  • June 2, 2011, 7:29 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by Amazing Maurice

    You're assuming that people criticising the CG are pre-emptively slamming the movie. Nobody is. The movie could be a shit load of awesomeness. Special effects arn't everything. But after two decades of CGi evolution, Hollywood still doesn't get it. The fact is, most animators these days are young guys standing on the shoulders of giants. Ceasar looks great when he's sitting still, but as soon as he moves his face we're right back in The Mummy Returns.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Kong at 1:39

    by alienindisguise

  • June 2, 2011, 7:33 p.m. CST

    hmm, I'm not too sure about the CG work

    by D o o d

    I can see that everyone on here seems to think it's terrific and it most likely is in some areas. It won't even matter if the film is any good. However, the CG is not ground breaking or earth shatteringly good. It's just good. The fact that I can see the compositing is a bad thing!

  • June 2, 2011, 7:33 p.m. CST

    I know I'm just another broken record...

    by AlienFanatic

    ...but I'm with the guys who hate CGI. I'm not saying it could be done with practical, either, but damn if every SINGLE one of those apes doesn't seem wrong in some way. I mean it's state of the art for what is available today, but the industry has to go much, much, much farther to make me believe that they share the same frame as the real actors. I wonder if the apes themselves were mo-capped from real apes or if they were hand-animated. I'm wondering if Cameron's facial mapping could be used with animals to give at least the face more realism. You could use humans for the eyes and across the ridge of the nose and the apes for many of the other gestures. Idk. Maybe 10 years from now the CGI will be undetectable, but for now this is still just as jarring as stop-motion.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:34 p.m. CST

    How much is shown in the trailer...

    by HansBubi

    I get the feeling that the trailers have covered about an hour of the movie. I think there will be about ten to fifteen minutes more of conflict/fighting material, showing the apes give a good fight. I think the next ten to fifteen minutes will focus on the dramatic outcome of the lead character(s) (ex. James Franco), wrapping up the human drama, which will lead to about five minutes of set up for the sequel. This film is in a difficult marketing position because the early "thinking" shots will appeal to the film crowd (ex. AICN), but they also have to show material from later in the film to appeal to the big-budget action movie crowd. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, the trailers have already "previewed" an hour of the movie.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    The CGI isn't THAT great

    by elsewhere

    Looks like a decent movie. Nothing spectacular.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:41 p.m. CST

    alienfanatic

    by elsewhere

    Agree about the facial mapping. I've yet to see anything yet that tops what Cameron has done.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    too many yets

    by elsewhere

    meh

  • June 2, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST

    curse of the return of the creatures ghost

    by seabiscuits

    looks good, could be a huge hit, if it's good

  • June 2, 2011, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Regarding the Jurassic Park comment

    by HansBubi

    Can someone please explain to me (as someone who doesn't work with computer animation) why Jurassic Park still looks better than most CGI today? I'm tempted to say it's because many of the scenes took place at night, but that's not necessarily true. The dinosaurs were actually introduced during the daytime in bright sunlight, and that is not the only daytime scene with CGI. Another part of me wants to say it's because dinosaur CGI might be easier than the kind of animals/creatures created (to lesser effect) in more recent movies. I don't feel confident saying that though. Someone please explain how a movie in 1993 is still the benchmark.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Fucking YEAH!

    by blackwood

    Yeah. Right on. I'm there.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:48 p.m. CST

    hansbubi

    by Shermdawg

    Because we have no actual reference of a real life dinosaur's movements to compare them too. It set the standard, few have measured up, others have attempted animals we actually do have some form of an idea of how it should be....most have failed.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    @hansbubi

    by TallanDagwood

    I can not answer your question, only camp on to it and ask the same question about how was the great CGI in District 9 pulled off on such a limited budget? Perhaps, it is in usage -as in limited usage, and not relying on so much dark and or grey backgrounds D9 was shot mostly in daylight, and yet the CGI looked fantastic.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Thank you for the responses so far

    by HansBubi

    It's hard to believe Jurassic Park is 18 years old.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    The CGI still looks dodgy

    by aphextwin

    I admire the ambition of WETA, but I instantly was admiring the effects while thinking that it's fake looking at the same time. The texture and movements look still too smooth IMO. The look in the second part of the trailer was more effective with the quick cuts.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Good point...something to think about

    by HansBubi

    The CGI did look great in District 9.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST

    hansbubi

    by Amazing Maurice

    The reason is that many CG techniques were pioneered in Jurrasic Park - the animators were literally making the software up as they went along. Because they didn't see CGi as a be-all-and-end-all solution for sfx, they didn't rely completely on it. For example, when the T-Tex is stomping around attacking the tour cars, the sfx team set off little charges in the puddles of water to make splashes where the T-Rex's feet went. Little touches like that help to ground an effect with a real-world tangibility and make it seem like its really 'there' - it SELLS the effect. If that scene was shot now, they'd CG the splashes, the rain, the tour cars,the backround - the whole goddamn scene! Lazy.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Amazing Maurice, perhaps you misunderstood

    by D.Vader

    "You're assuming that people criticising the CG are pre-emptively slamming the movie." No, not true at all. Though, to be fair, there ARE plenty of Talkbackers who will slam a movie based on its CGI or the CGI in the trailer. But fact of the matter is, an effect is usually ALWAYS a noticeable effect, particularly when it comes to characters and creatures. That's not going to change. So its irksome to see people bitch about perfectly fine CGI, as if stop-motion animation and guys in suits is the apex, as if THAT wasn't noticeable back in the day.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:58 p.m. CST

    I hate to ask for what might be an obvious answer

    by HansBubi

    ...but what are the apes holding in that shot at 1:58? They don't seem to be spears with pointy tips, they don't seem to be man-made weaponry (ex. guns, swords), and the only thing that comes to mind is long tazers, which wouldn't be much good against humans' heavy firepower. I figured that shot would be of the apes holding something that could release some kind of virus or gas to knock out the humans, but it doesn't look like that kind of object.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:58 p.m. CST

    Jurassic Park IS still amazing effects work

    by D.Vader

    I believe part of that is due to our memory of it- those dinosaurs were fucking BELIEVABLE. Part of it also is the way they hid the effects- in darkness, in rain (though the Rex in broad sunlight and the Gallimimus stampede still looks fucking amazing). But we didn't get closeups of those dinosaurs did we? And there are a few moments during closeups of the raptors where it does look a bit CG. Some movements have aged. But there's my explanation for it.

  • June 2, 2011, 8 p.m. CST

    mugato5150 and amazing maurice

    by HansBubi

    Thanks. More good points from you two.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:01 p.m. CST

    NO SUCKAGE IN THAT TRAILER

    by BSB

    Looks damned good. I can't complain about the CGI as it looked like it was mostly done in real-time motion. If they went the slow-mo route I would complain, but this is as good as I expect in a POTA movie. Beats men in suits anyday.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Ridiculous

    by BackwardGalaxy

    Planet of the Apes was never about apes going nuts, special effects, and extravagant battles. I'm just not at all interested in obviously CG creatures running amok. I'm interested in people, the story, and the socio-political commentary. Keep your crap apes run amok story.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Not a Reboot: Conquest Remake!

    by tintab

    This just looks like a multi-million dollar remake of "Conquest" without the deeper civil rights subtext. I understand the desire to try and do something with the Apes concept but as an original fan, I wish they would acknowledge the timeline of the original films. I don't like the genetics experiment angle to Caesar's development. Not only does it seem too fast, I don't understand the motivation for the rebellion. Sure they were caged animals being experimented on. But, in order to be indignant, you have to know and understand there is something better. These apes may be able to perceive their situation better, but it would be real early in their intelligence to jump into full on rebellion. Anyway, I can't see myself going to this. I keep hoping to see what happens after "Battle for" when humans and apes learned to live with one another. I always imagined a story about some other community of apes doing something "inhuman" and the new ape/human alliance having to do something about it.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Jurassic Park...

    by Kevinicus

    The reason must be because you haven't seen it in awhile. Watch it again, it's not that great by today's standards.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    @d.vader -that is an excellent point

    by TallanDagwood

    I think it comes down to audience expectations. When we saw men in suits or stop motion, audiences did not complain because that was what we expected to see. Modern CGI has given the expectation - unrealistically it turns out, of photo-realism.

  • ...

  • June 2, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by Amazing Maurice

    You're right about the mentality of many talkbackers - who just seem to want to shit on every movie, even if its just a teaser poster they've seen. In Harry's recent talback, asimov's review of Super 8 - a movie he hasn't even fucking seen(!) - is hilariously idiosyncratic.

  • Same thing said about Avatar..some of the horse things looked dodgy etc..in context it looked just fine and not distracting I've got confidence though they got this mostly right...there's some impressive shit going on there.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    CGI

    by D Jones

    Man all the cgi critics on this site need to get together and start their own sfx house ,since they are all so good at catching bad cgi in trailers. Man it must be great to have such a discerning eye as to see all the shortcomings of cgi in a two minute trailer, you guys must be like gods or something.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    @quantize

    by TallanDagwood

    I tend to agree with you on the CGI in the trailer shown. I have watched it three times now, and although it is clearly CGI, and while I can find some fault in the design/look of the apes , I think the overall work is at a high level.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:16 p.m. CST

    True that Maurice

    by D.Vader

    Now there's a man who has NO PROBLEM whatsoever slamming a movie without having seen it, yet professes to be an intelligent film-lover. Now I may have preemptive feelings about a movie based on the way it looks (I have huge issues with Zemeckis' "Christmas Carol", not bc of the animation but bc of the idiotic roller-coaster ride additions like a tiny Scrooge surfing on ice), but I wouldn't declare the movie is shit without having seen it. It may *look* like shit, but I wouldn't say it *is* shit.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Jurassic Park

    by Aaron

    Does look fantastic still. Even better than its sequels. I think that it is because there is so much cutting from live action dinos to BRIEF cg, and of course the editing is masterfully done, so that is that.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Yeah

    by CT1

    I think amazing maurice hits it in regards to Jurassic Park and the idea of the team making the software up as they went along.. so much care and effort and energy and TIME were put into like 6 seconds of CGI, I mean it was a PROJECT with TRUE effort devoted to it. It was a team effort and driven towards one goal. Now, you just simply shit it into the computer and the computer vomits out a CGI creature, spend a little time looking at your ugly face in a mirror on your desk trying to "mirror" the facial expressions of emotion in an attempt to convey it into your cinematic excrement creature.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    zastros

    by Amazing Maurice

    I think a lot people are just disappointed and bored that after 20 or so years of CG evolution, computer animation of this kind seems to be no better than in 1993. Its the lasiness in Hollywood that irks me more than anything. I can understand the need to CG a dinosaur because, you know, we don't have fucking dinosaurs anymore. But chimps? All of them? They couldn't get a couple of real chimps? I watched a movie the other day (I can't even remember what it was) but one shot involved a rat walking across the floor. The rat was CG. A fucking RAT! They couldn't even be fucking bothered to go to a pet shop and buy a real fucking rat so they just CG'd it. A fucking RAT!

  • June 2, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    I agree... kind of looks like I Robot...

    by codecrackx15

    ...just sub chimps for the robots. I think this one makes the Mark Wahlberg one look better and raises the originals to cinematic fucking glory. In other words... this looks pretty ho-hum. I mean, come on... we want to skip ahead to when they have already taken over...that is the good stuff.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Its fine to have real animals instead of CGI animals

    by D.Vader

    Especially if its just a rat moving across the frame. But in a movie like this, the difference between a real ape and the CG ape would be jarring- that's why there aren't any real apes in this. These apes are a bit more stylized.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:35 p.m. CST

    putting the APE in Rape

    by strykebr

    I want a rape scene so bad, sorry In all seriousness I had no excitement for @ all for this, but after seeing a new take on the material I am now slightly intrigued.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Where in The Lost World...

    by D.Vader

    Is there a real head on a CG body? I can't think of a single instance?

  • June 2, 2011, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Upon rewatching Jurassic Park fairly recently, I have to say...

    by Sardonic

    the opening dino introduction, with the brachiosaurus, has DEFINITELY aged a bit. It still looks good, but it's getting rough around the edges. Which there's nothing wrong with, because the fucking thing was made in 1993, and it was shot in straight up broad daylight with live-action people walking in front of it. On the other hand, I definitely think the stuff set at night and in the dark kitchen look pretty much flawless. The CGI tyrannosaur is basically perfect; there's no moment when it looks fake for the most part. But, it was in the dark, in the rain, so they definitely had some breathing room. The raptors look great too, but again you start to see the roughness when the scene is bright. Either way the movie still holds up fantastically, and it's still up there with the likes of modern CGI marvels like Avatar and King Kong. Ironically, I still think District 9 has the best CGI creature work ever done. It's literally perfect. I would NEVER have guessed that every prawn face on screen is CGI - I assumed it was practical stuff with CGI touch up on the eyes and mandibles and such. And D9 had a budget of, what, thirty million? Doesn't really make sense.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:38 p.m. CST

    About Jurassic Park

    by AlienFanatic

    I think the reason JP holds up well is that we have no frame of reference for the animals themselves. We know what an ape looks and moves like. We know what a human (think CGI Spider-Man) moves and looks like and is capable of. But we have no idea what a dinosaur should have looked like, so I think we're more forgiving. Also, JP dinos had a much narrower range of motion and (E)motion to work with. These animals were not jumping from rooftop to rooftop. They were essentially running from point A to point B. For animals that needed high action, like the Gallimimus, the animators simply copied ostriches for the exact gait. But when you try to transpose human emotions and actions over a chimpanzee, most of us can't get past how "wrong" it feels. This is where our own brains limit our ability to be fooled. When you're animating things that don't exist in the real world, like dinos and spaceships, we say "Okay, I can accept that." But when you attempt to reproduce reality in the computer, there's something in our brains that brings them to a screeching halt.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:42 p.m. CST

    @quantize re:Avatar

    by AlienFanatic

    When you say, "...in context it looked just fine and not distracting," I can agree to a point. But was there any point during Avatar where you confused the CGI with reality? I was wowed at how they captured facial animation, but at no point was I able to place the humans in the same world as the Na'vi. In fact, everything was so highly colored and vivid, I had a hard time seeing Avatar as much more than a video game come to life. I'm not a harsh Avatar critic, and it did wonders with the technology, but at no time was I fooled. In fact, it's very hard to differentiate the quality of CGI (other than mapping) between Spirits Within and Avatar, as both still don't quite feel real or right. (Again, not bashing either, just pointing out that we accept much less than reality in both films.)

  • June 2, 2011, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Looks like an iRobot remake

    by thommcg

    As regards the CG, well, they're recreating "real" things doing unreal things, bound to look "off".

  • June 2, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    @sardonic

    by TallanDagwood

    D9 truly is amazing. I assumed it must have been practical as well, but the CGI was simply unsurpassed, and on a shoestring budget. My biggest gripe with CGI -outside of just looking bad at times, is the 'greying'. D9 had no greying at all. I also think we as an audience expect more from modern CGI than from older practical effects, and thus are less forgiving.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Chimp numbers

    by CptBlood

    Ok, I wasn't sure so I did a bit of research. There are about 1500 chimps in the US in captivity and about 8 gorillas. From the trailer I didn't see them in numbers greater than about a hundred and only 2 gorillas. The largest research facility in the US houses about 300 Chimps no in all honesty, the number depicted in the trailer is plausable. The problem I have is, assuming the chimp in the movie liberated every chimp and gorilla in the US that would still only be a population of about 2000 which I honestly (especially given the number of gun owners in the US) cant see taking over a large town let alone the world. Assuming that this reboot is going to eventually see the chimps taking over I’m having a hard time coming up with a scenario they could manage it in. In the original films humanity wiped itself out and the apes evolved over thousands or millions of years. This is at least vaguely plausible. 2000 apes managing to wipe out humanity ? unlikely. So my guess would be 1: “the cure” is still in testing, it becomes air born and turns out to be extremely volatile to humans killing us all off. 2: The chimps escape, cause a load of damage, manage to find a sanctuary somewhere, other events ( such as a war ) kill off humanity but the chimps survive. 3: The chimps catch or carry a disease that mutates to their genes but which we have no natural defence to or can’t cure which kills off humanity. I think I could live with any of those scenarios but if it goes down the route of “the chimps rise up and kill us all” I’m laughing my way straight out of the theatre.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Why James Franco? WHY!?!?!

    by Paul B

    Any chance they had at me looking forward to this one they lost by throwing James Franco. He's never found a script he couldn't totally sleepwalk through.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:55 p.m. CST

    @cptblood

    by TallanDagwood

    I think you are mistaken about the number of gorillas in captivity. You may only be looking at mountain gorillas. There are other gorillas in the genus.

  • June 2, 2011, 8:58 p.m. CST

    The apes look sooo bad, and i probably wont see this

    by sunwukong86

    then again, the original apes were people in suits

  • June 2, 2011, 8:59 p.m. CST

    @quantize

    by elsewhere

    You're right about some of the CGI in AVATAR looking dodgy, but at the same time there is some truly extraordinary CGI in that film. Like game changing CGI. Frankly I could find CGI from video games that look pretty damn close to what I'm seeing in this trailer.

  • The money spent is not the most accurate indication. It's about which artists are working on it with what software, and with what type of time frame and.... what kind of creatively sparked fire under their asses.

  • June 2, 2011, 9 p.m. CST

    Brian Cox: Mad Scientist

    by tangcameo

    "Well the Triffid thing didn't go so well but I doubt I'll screw anything up trying to make chimps smarter. What could possibly go wrong?"

  • June 2, 2011, 9:07 p.m. CST

    That's alot of apes...

    by wonderboy2402

    I mean, where did they dig up 100's of male silver-back gorillas?

  • June 2, 2011, 9:08 p.m. CST

    So this movie is about...

    by VMS

    ... Andy Serkis rolling a couple gas canisters down an aisle. That's what makes the apes smarter. It couldn't be pills, or brain surgery. Without gas canisters they'd have no film.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    No one can find video game footage that looks close to this

    by D.Vader

    I dare anyone to try. The "looks like a video game" argument is so trite.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:21 p.m. CST

    No one ever saw an alien prawn

    by TallanDagwood

    But D9 had outstanding CGI

  • June 2, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Why CGI looks dodgy nowadays

    by Zombie Vig

    IMHO, most big budget movies nowadays just rush movies out of the gates. Such short post-production time. I think this movie is one of those rushed out - meet the release date and let's-make-money -because -the audience are dumb consumers-film. When they can't get it out on time, they'll just hire more fx houses to complete the work. And the quality of CGI will be all over the place. Often times, the director are not tech savvy. Just compare the works of Cameron, Fincher, Spielberg and (a big)maybe Bay to all this other guys who are mostly first time fx heavy movie directors. They can work cheap and bend to the producers or studios will.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    'Lazy CG?'

    by nico_laos

    You basement-dwelling virgins fucking slay me. And I suppose your personal portfolio puts this to shame, right?

  • June 2, 2011, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Speaking of King Kong

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    the last one I mean ... Anyway looking back on it, it's a disaster

  • June 2, 2011, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Great ape numbers in captivity

    by TheHumanBeingAndFish

    Here's what I could find about the number of great apes in captivity: according to the Great Ape Project, there are currently about 3,100 great apes in captivity in the US, including 1,280 for use in biomedical research. That includes chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

  • June 2, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Start showing that trailer to Evangelicals now

    by kafka07

    it will change their mind about their so called god and creation.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Fake looking simians

    by 420 Boylston St

    When will they learn that the computer will never trick the human brain. Rick Baker could have done something amazing with make-up but alas the cgi is what they think is cost effective.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Jurassic Park...

    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    rules

  • June 2, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    I agree that the video game analogy is pretty dumb...

    by Sardonic

    You can always tell who does and doesn't play video games, because anyone who does would never compare it to any CGI in movies. Even the best looking games (Killzone 2, Uncharted, Gears of War) still have plenty of noticeable, particularly in the animation department. Even Battlefield 3, which looks like the best looking game yet, still isn't even close to the CGI seen in big budget movies. I'd estimate a minimum of five and a maximum of twelve years before we start seeing that kind of improvement on mainstream gaming consoles (PC's maybe a bit earlier, though the two are getting closer and closer).

  • Or are they all taken down?

  • June 2, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST

    mattman is right on about CG... Also this movie looks hilarious/awesome

    by Andrew Coleman

    Why JP still looks great and worked so well is a mix of great editing, practical effects mixed with CG. Like Mattman said most movies nowadays want to just use CG. Spider-man 2 also used a great blend of practical and CG for Doc Ocks arms. This movie I'm actually looking forward to. They sold me with the scene of cops fighting the apes. I also want to see how exactly the apes take over(if they do they could fail in this first attempt but I don't know).

  • but Cesar manages to escape and goes off like into the jungles at the end, and we see tons of wild chimps getting smarter and shit. It would be a good way curtailing the captivity problem.

  • June 2, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Let go of your cock, ok?

    by corplhicks

    It's good but NOT that good, so calm down. 99% of the intelligent apes are gonna die anyway with Cesar and maybe a female or a few more escaping.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Also, ape revolt in city would never work. Two words: carpet bombing.

    by Pop_aristocrat

  • June 2, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Final minute of that trailer.....

    by grendel69

    kicks ass.

  • to take a flying leap and rid the world of one more pessimististic fuckwad. I'm sorry, I don't typically advocate the use of vagrant or foul language on message boards, as I see them as a waste of time, which I'm certain this is. However, I just want to point out that any of you that complain about special effects, or CGI have completely forgotten your childhood (which you often claim is being raped) or what it's like to be a kid in front of a ginormous screen. The fact of the matter is that if you saw ANY MOVIE released within the last year, that has any special effects in it, your mind would be completely blown. What's that? Oh, you think I'm making the argument that only kids can appreciate it? Well, no, actually, I'm simply stating that there is no such thing as a magic wand, that in order for any type of Green Lantern movie to work (for instance) you NEED CGI, and that you utterly berated Tim Burton's practical effects in his PLANET OF THE APES. All kidding and momentary frustration aside, please understand that there are talented educated people working on these films (and no, I don't have a personal affiliation to any of them). Sometimes, as in WOLVERINE, the CGI comes out less than spectacular, but really, if that's what pisses you off about the movie/trailer/teaser/poster, etc. than you must have really pleasant lives because there are plenty of other massively real concerns that people deal with on a regular basis. So I guess what I'm saying is, if your lives are so perfect that the best thing you can complain about is what you deem to be less than perfect computer effects, then perhaps you should get off your ass, run for office and solve all our countries problems, instead of wasting your time, and others on a movie site. Now, feel free to flame me. I will not be responding.

  • to take a flying leap and rid the world of one more pessimististic fuckwad. I'm sorry, I don't typically advocate the use of vagrant or foul language on message boards, as I see them as a waste of time, which I'm certain this is. However, I just want to point out that any of you that complain about special effects, or CGI have completely forgotten your childhood (which you often claim is being raped) or what it's like to be a kid in front of a ginormous screen. The fact of the matter is that if you saw ANY MOVIE released within the last year, that has any special effects in it, your mind would be completely blown. What's that? Oh, you think I'm making the argument that only kids can appreciate it? Well, no, actually, I'm simply stating that there is no such thing as a magic wand, that in order for any type of Green Lantern movie to work (for instance) you NEED CGI, and that you utterly berated Tim Burton's practical effects in his PLANET OF THE APES. All kidding and momentary frustration aside, please understand that there are talented educated people working on these films (and no, I don't have a personal affiliation to any of them). Sometimes, as in WOLVERINE, the CGI comes out less than spectacular, but really, if that's what pisses you off about the movie/trailer/teaser/poster, etc. than you must have really pleasant lives because there are plenty of other massively real concerns that people deal with on a regular basis. So I guess what I'm saying is, if your lives are so perfect that the best thing you can complain about is what you deem to be less than perfect computer effects, then perhaps you should get off your ass, run for office and solve all our countries problems, instead of wasting your time, and others on a movie site. Now, feel free to flame me. I will not be responding.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Dangit! Sorry for the double post.

    by WindSmak

  • June 2, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    trailer has been pulled.

    by BBSloth

    damn.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    denzacar: BUMp, HAHAHAHA,

    by the Green Gargantua

    OL

  • June 2, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    RE: Jurassic Park

    by slone13

    Mattman is 100% correct. When you combine CG, animatronics and Spielberg, you get a product that still looks amazing nearly 20 years after it was made.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

    by pauduro

    This is BS ahahahahah come onnnnnnn yea the american army can destroy a hole contry and it people with just 20k armey men and they cant control some fuking chimps ahahahahahahahahah and in the original movie its implied that ther was a big war that wiped most of the humans and thats wene the apes evolved and turne into what they are and now.....its a stupid PETA living humans fault ahahahhaaha YEA no thanks

  • June 2, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    THIS LOOKS

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    FUCKING EPIC

  • June 2, 2011, 10:21 p.m. CST

    You cut up his BRAIN, you bloody baboons...!

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    Hell, this actually looks more and more impressive. And Freida Pinto's loveliness is a plus.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:26 p.m. CST

    looks crap

    by theblackvegtable

    Mind you.. I might be bias on this, as the only POTA movie I ever liked was the original.

  • Yes, when he rubs his feet in the sand... it looked fucking amazing.. Your argument though about 'real' is completely flawed...Since we can only go on how we currently perceive the texture and lighting of the real physical world...the brain is still going 'I know there aren't any blue cat people'. And that's because IT IS FANTASY. People forget the psychological aspects of this shit.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Nuke the Fridge

    by k_jim26t

  • June 2, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Photoreal CGI coming soon..

    by Rupee88

    soon being in about 100 or 200 years. You retards really think you will see undetectable CGI of humans or animals in your lifetimes? No way. Not until AI can figure out a way to do it...and then it's probably skynet time.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    I just don't see how this can be successful

    by TheManCalledFlane

    It seems to me like this is going to suffer from two major problems. First, as already seen in this talkback, a wave of moviegoers immediately writing it off by thinking "Looks like a bunch of CGI shit" after seeing the trailer. Second, there's no protagonist. It doesn't matter if it's Caesar or James Franco, the premise of the whole thing just seems really flawed. If the audience is supposed to be pulling for Caesar and his revolution, you're telling human beings to sit back and cheer for a sneaky bastard as he commits genocide. If we're in humanity's corner, we're backing the numerically and technologically superior side to wipe out the underdogs in a fight we know mankind won't win anyway because it's in the damn title. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine this film being a runaway smash hit - or at least successful enough to launch a whole new Planet of the Apes series of films.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    I just hope Franco doesn't give us that smug grin

    by corplhicks

    It's getting old, and annoying. He's used it 100000 time already.

  • They're movies, not fucking special effect show cases. You're completely off base on what films SHOULD be about

  • June 2, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    I still don't buy this as leading to The Planet of the Apes.

    by JuanSanchez

    Do these apes somehow just hide and fuck like rabbits for decades and decades to build up a big enough army? Do they bite humans and turn them into apes like zombies turn humans into zombies? No? Then it doesn't work.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:57 p.m. CST

    wow, that's some BAAAAAAD CG

    by abe

    come on, did they put their 'F' team on this?

  • June 2, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Jurassic Park still has the best looking CG ever IMO.

    by JuanSanchez

  • June 2, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    A movie I didn't know I wanted to see

    by INWOsuxRED

    Very excited about this, but I hope the trailer that sold me didn't tell me the whole story. I hope movies like this and X-men become the norm, where it seems clear they cared about what they wanted to be rather than what everyone wants to see.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:09 p.m. CST

    hmmmm

    by macheesmo3

    The truth of it is, yeah they should've maybe done a bit of a better job on the apes... However, that will not be what determines if it's a good movie or not. The original had guys in masks , yet it's a good movie. Because it was written well, directed well and acted well. If the above three rules are followed then otherwise noticeable FX tend to meld away. Like watching a subtitled movie. If it's enthralling, before you notice it, boom! You don't even see the subtitles anymore! So, though I am sometimes let down by the lack of evolution in CGI (and it's sometimes overuse) , good or bad FX doth not a good movie make!

  • June 2, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    OOOOO OOOOO OOOO AHHHH!!

    by BSB

  • June 2, 2011, 11:15 p.m. CST

    AIN'T NO FAST FIVE, BUT I'M DOWN WITH THIS MONKEY MOVIE

    by BSB

  • June 2, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Pretty divided reactions.

    by MoffatBabies

    I'm surprised. After I watched it I expected geekgasms. I guess it's about half and half. Oh well. See you there on my birthday.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Continuity flaw....

    by Steve Martin

    So at the beginning of the 1968 POTA, Charlton Heston and pals were launched into space in the future, when spaceships that travelled far with crews in suspended animation. (Somebody help me - was this supposed to be the year 2000? 2100?) Now, we know the Ape problem hadn't occurred as of the launch of the Charlton Heston ship. Therefore, if continuity is to be maintained, then the new movie would have to take place in the distant future -- but it appears the plot has drug the accelerated evolution of the apes back to the present day. Just sayin'.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:29 p.m. CST

    Badass URL

    by ironburl

    I haven't gone there, but apeswillrise.com is a badass url. :) Looks like it could possibly be cool.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:31 p.m. CST

    It'll take a turn when the ape pick up GUNS!

    by mistergreen

    That's the end of the movie and you know humanity is in deep shit there.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    I'll skip watching I, Robot w/ Apes

    by natecore

  • June 2, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    CGI as a last resort works wonders.

    by tomandshell

    Spielberg showed this with Jurassic Park. I think Nolan understands this. Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro know the value of practical effects, models, miniatures, makeup, etc. This trailer, however, looks like the filmmakers decided that CGI was going to be the only tool in the toolbox. It is not the solution to every FX challenge, and "all CGI all the time" ultimately turns off the audience.

  • June 2, 2011, 11:59 p.m. CST

    ROTPOTA - AIFCN Indeed

    by Tim Hendon

    I like it, I wanted to like it. Will definitely go to see this, not for the CGI but for the story? Ya know the thing that matters most? We all must agree that the story is always the most important thing- that's the point of a movie- to tell a story. That being said the CGI looked great to me! As real as a sentient ape would look in my imagination. That's some fin cool news indeed!

  • June 3, 2011, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Nolan flipped a semi and my jaw hit the floor.

    by tomandshell

    Michael Bay could do the same as a digital effect and I wouldn't even blink.

  • Hey, this could be worse, much more worse. Thank God Tim Burton is far away from this project!

  • June 3, 2011, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Cortisol - The Imagination Killer

    by Tim Hendon

    Don't stress! It blocks creative thought and imagination. To those having negative responses to that trailer I sincerely recommend some Vitamin D and Fish Oil- you will feel much better about life in general. Caesar is this sympathetic character, builds an army - it's awesome. They will totally be beholden to him, like a God. I can't help but like an underdog! They said he's smarter than a human (like that's so tough these days!) so he probably duplicates the formula or something like that. So how do they take over the planet? Well wasn't there a nuclear war in POTA? Yes... they blew it up! So make a connection between Caesar and a nuclear attack... maybe he does it himself somehow (he could hack in to the WOPR or something) or one of his minions does it, or geez like a million different ways to connect that... it's not tough! The tough part is making it all coherent and yes the trailer looks great, hopefully the other 98% or so is at least as good or better! Only one way to find out for sure... WTFIWWYFP? It looks fin cool! Could be fin lame! OK no prob! It's all good people.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Hey! That's not Planet of the Apes!

    by ObiBen

    That's a sausage out of the shiny CGI/stainless steel/botox acting/by-the-number-no-surprises-plot factory with a "Planet of the Apes" brand tacked on! And they're going with the already tired "mashup" gimmick too: This time, Flowers for Algernon meets Project X!

  • June 3, 2011, 12:18 a.m. CST

    I'd take the spice, instead...

    by PorkChopXpress

    The spice is life.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:19 a.m. CST

    "all CGI all the time" ultimately turns off the audience

    by Tim Hendon

    if it's not an interesting character - like Gollum - I couldn't get enough of him! Aaaaaaaaaaaahh!

  • June 3, 2011, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Earth to Maltz

    by Tim Hendon

    re = Continuity flaw.... Charlton Heston won't be in this either, in case you are looking for more continuity flaws. LOL just kidding, that is a really interesting point, though, Maltz. I did not think of that. Don't remember the year either! I love time travelling stuff.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:24 a.m. CST

    That WAS a great trailer; I hope the movie is good..

    by Zardoz

    It's going to take a LOT of suspension of dis-belief for me to buy a (successful) monkey uprising, but that trailer was a good start.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:25 a.m. CST

    HATERS GONNA HATE

    by TheNotoriousDRB

    You lousy corksuckers... Oh it is a wonder to witness the full fickle nature of the talkbacker. In fact, I would argue that many of the talkbackers here have memories of houseflies or an overt predilection for nostalgic masturbation. Yes, the CGI is fake, as is practical effects. Get over it. Most talkbackers used to suck on everything WETA did, and now, all of a sudden, it's not good enough, and the benchmark is Jurassic Park of all things. Jurassic Park was a good mix of practical effects and CGI. More practical effects than one would seem to want to remember, and as someone said before, the reason it works is because you have no fucking idea what a dinosaur looks like, so for the most part, you accept what is given to you. "But what about District 9?" To the person who said that the Prawns could have been practical effects, they looked so good, you need to stop being a smart ass right now. If you accept Gollum, and YOU KNOW HOW HE WAS MADE, how is it you can't accept Caesar...EVEN THOUGH HE IS CREATED USING ALMOST THE SAME EXACT PROCESS?? You loved Andy Serkis and his Mo-Cap work before, why not now? Sure, there is good and bad CGI, and more often than not, it is tied to budgets and deadlines. But don't sling shit where it need not be slung because you want to be cool and contrary, using words like "dross" and "meh" all the time. No one cares. See the movie, or don't. If you can't get over CGI and its uses, watch Soap Operas or your pretentious collection of Truffaut films. And actually, I'd like to see half you hatin' sons of bitches actually attempt to use your energy to do better with what technology is available. Use that misguided energy to innovate instead of hate. And if you're incapable of that, then just make attempts to be more practical and rational in your thought processes so that I don't have to waste my time telling you how retarded you are.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:27 a.m. CST

    genderblender

    by Tim Hendon

    Franco can deliver those lines. But why would he need a rubber mask?

  • June 3, 2011, 12:31 a.m. CST

    thenotoriousdrb

    by Tim Hendon

    Fin cool! Vengeance served to the haters. I feel it. Righteous! Watching THE TERMINATOR streaming NFLIX right now- this is why Western Civilization will endure.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:43 a.m. CST

    We have guns ...game over

    by DanboJohnJ

    Bit of a loop hole there.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:52 a.m. CST

    "They got the guns but, we got the numbers..."

    by TheNotoriousDRB

    danbojohnj, you act as if you've never heard 5 to 1. No one here gets out alive.

  • We have tasted Lion meat and want more! We will construct breathing apparatuses out of kelp and hunt down your lion pride! Not in a week but just a matter of hours, a day tops. We are tuna! That didn't turn out like you expected now did it? To quote Will Ferrell from the Other Guys movie.

  • June 3, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Wait, what?

    by smackfu

    this is going to be GOOD?! That sure crept up on me...

  • June 3, 2011, 1:10 a.m. CST

    Madeyemongo

    by Zardoz

    Ah, that would do it! So, the drug that the apes use to get smart becomes a weapon against the humans. Very clever! This movie just went WAY up in my expectations...

  • June 3, 2011, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Nice cartoon monkeys.

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    Every single trailer has exactly the same beats. Sound effect at 1:16 is to action trailers what the record scratch is to comedy trailers. The joy of PotA 1968 is the social commentary. The only thing they needed to do to explain how things got that way is to bury the Statue of Liberty in a beach. Elegant. Audiences today would need an entire movie to figure out how Liberty got there. Oh, and the trailer would be all about General Ursus because he "kicks ass".

  • June 3, 2011, 1:19 a.m. CST

    Just doesn't look that good

    by WilliamZabkaRox

    Looks like a mix of Project X meets Congo meets Peter Jackon's King Kong meets Jumangi. Doesn't look that better than the remake and especially doesn't look nearly as entertaining as the original films. The CGI just looks too fake. Like they placed a human face on a monkey. I think I will hold off on the blu ray for this one.

  • June 3, 2011, 1:32 a.m. CST

    More Americans believe in the devil than Darwin - sad fact!

    by batfunk

    I'm amazed Fox would spend millions relaunching the Apes franchise in a country where most people don't even believe in evolution. You'd think they'd be remaking The Ten Commandments! Those damn crazy Americans!

  • It's not just that we've never seen real dinosaurs.

  • they themselves just spent 10 minutes typing up an angry rant in response to their comments.

  • What's your investment?

  • June 3, 2011, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Wow, I typed that up real good.

    by JuanSanchez

  • June 3, 2011, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Still can't get past the title.

    by SoupDragon

    Anyone who thinks that's a passable title for a movie does not deserve my $10.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Jeez, I give up...

    by biscuithead

    ...Hollywood's fucked as long as it keeps cannibalising it's own cinema heritage. Think i'm going to spend the rest of my years watching low-budget indie films. Can't take this any more...

  • June 3, 2011, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Regarding D9 and Jurassic Park

    by Shockvaluecurseycurse

    This has been covered, but hopefully I can shed some light on why they hold up so well...especially District 9. The short answer is...the director and the content. In District 9 you are dealing with a director that completely understand how CG works, how compositing works, and the limitations of it. He used to do it himself. This is also why he was able to do it for so cheap. He shot everything with CG in mind. Most directors don't understand the limitations of CG and rely too heavily on it with the "fix it in post" solution. You are also dealing with aliens, something most of us don't see on a regular basis. As for Jurassic Park, a large part of the reason it holds up as well as it does is because they weren't looking at CG in movies as a point of reference. They only had "reality" to use as a point of reference. It also helps that they were trying to prove that CG could be used as a believable effect in a movie to begin with. They hadn't painted themselves into a corner, so to speak. This is why you occasionally see a couple of guys in their basement that are capable of producing an amazing effect for a short film. You don't need millions of dollars to do this. You just need passion, talent, enough time, a computer, and software. Unfortunately one or more of those ingredients are usually missing..(time, passion, talent, money, good tools etc.) You get myopic when you see something every day. You see how much better the chimp looked than the day before, and how the lighting improved drastically. It becomes hard to step away and truly look at it with fresh eyes. With this film they are 98% there, but it's really the last 2% that matter the most. Because 2% when dealing with real world animals is huge. We know exactly how these things look and move and the closer you get to reality the more you better absolutely nail it or it will look fake. Look up the "uncanny valley" for more information on why this occurs. In conclusion, I completely agree that the effects in this trailer look fake. I also know exactly how hard it is to do what they are attempting to do and am amazed at how close they are getting to achieving it. I think the CG effects industry would do well to take a step back and re-evaluate what is most important. The technology that lets you do amazing things fairly quickly and believably? ...or the final frame in the film. A mixture of CG faces on live apes' bodies would have been a better solution in my worthless opinion.

  • Your post right before that hadn't even shown up yet. I was responding to posts like thenotoriousdrb's HATERS GONNA HATE.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:35 a.m. CST

    You've basically been having an argument by yourself.

    by JuanSanchez

  • June 3, 2011, 2:39 a.m. CST

    2001 also had guys on masks

    by Ditko

    ...and still looks even today more interesting than anything a nerd with a PC can come up with.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Agreed on the title...

    by biscuithead

    ...It's badly worded, demonstrating a complete lack of respect to both the film itself and the audience. Doesn't inspire a huge amount of confidence when brand recognition is placed above all else...

  • June 3, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Hope the CGI is not final

    by DonRivella

    looks fairly awful

  • At least they didn't call it Planet of the Apes: The Rising or Planet of the Apes: Genesis or something.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Why is that on here

    by macheesmo3

    things either look "amazing" or "suck"? Ya know, I would say most movies are pretty much tolerable. A few every year are "great" a few "terrible" (okay more than a few terrible) but rarely do I see a trailer and go " this is either going to be amazing or suck!" Sometimes I wonder if everyone should be required to have their age posted next to their screen name or something.... just for a bit of perspective.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:58 a.m. CST

    This looks really, really good. Hope it delivers

    by HarryBlackPotter

  • June 3, 2011, 2:59 a.m. CST

    can't be any worse than Tiimmmyyy!!!! Burton's car crash!

    by HarryBlackPotter

  • June 3, 2011, 3:32 a.m. CST

    If you have any poo, fling it now.

    by DiamondJoe

    Effects look ok, looks like some decent action there. The plot sounds like a bag of derivative shit. Ah, ye olde "scientific experiment goes wrong", and ye olde "scientist who claims this will save humanity" who thusly does come to grieff. Thy trusted standby of all scriptwriting scoundrells.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:44 a.m. CST

    So do the evolved monkeys go off and mate for a few decades?

    by FrodoFraggins

    I mean, where do they get enough apes to be a real threat?

  • June 3, 2011, 3:47 a.m. CST

    CG monkeys that look completely CG....lol

    by Mel

    anyone who says the CG looks good needs to have their vision checked.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Jurassic Park and Starship Troopers

    by VicenzoV

    2 Excellent visual effects movies. In 18 years. This ain't gonna be no. 3.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Starship Troopers

    by Righteous Brother

    After all these years, those CG bugs still look convincing and terrifying. Also - doesn't the trailer for Rise of the Apes give away virtually the entire film?

  • June 3, 2011, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Apes Will Rise

    by kubricksnutsack

    Well I watched it the first time and thought it looked crap, then watched it again and just turned off that cynical part of my brain and it looked a lot better. The CGI isn't as bad as all that, though it is a shame they could have mixed live action apes with CGI and been a bit more practical with it. However, it certainly looks like a POTA film, unlike that Tim Burton abortion.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:12 a.m. CST

    RISE OF THE DENNYS OF THE APES

    by BSB

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWlTyZLQhQ

  • June 3, 2011, 5:28 a.m. CST

    @d.vader @sardonic

    by elsewhere

    I was half joking about the CG in videogames looking as good as this trailer. What I was basically getting at, is that fans of movies tend to set a higher bar for CG than they do of video games. I think some would agree it's hard to look back after watching AVATAR.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Wow.

    by NixEclips

    Make the monkey look at the camera all "scheming"- like. Genius.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:41 a.m. CST

    macheesmo3

    by WeylandYutani

    Agreed. Nerds can be very binary with their opinions... The Simpsons got it about right with Comic Book Guy: "Worst [insert noun here] EVER!" Sums up a lot of people on this thread.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:43 a.m. CST

    Caesar's internal monologue / voiceover will...

    by Julius Dithers

    Caesar's internal monologue / voiceover will be provided by Sam Worthington and he will be saying his lines from Clash of the Titans.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:57 a.m. CST

    re: Jurassic Park's cgi

    by Rebel Scumb

    I'm just curious how many of you have watched JP recently? I watched it a few months ago, it still holds up pretty well, but I wouldn't say the cgi is seamless, or still the best ever. It holds up pretty well, but the main reason is that the cgi is used very conservatively intermixed with a lot of full scale on set animitronic dinosaurs. I think part of why people consider the cgi in JP so untouchable is they are assuming the dinos are all CGI and counting the puppet parts as evidence. There is actually very little cgi in Jurassic park. There is more CGI in forrest gump then JP actually

  • June 3, 2011, 6:09 a.m. CST

    I imagine there could be more then 100 apes in America

    by JohnWayneWasGay

    For the dumbasses who keep going on about there not being that many apes in america.Did you see more then 50 apes in any of those scenes.If you are going to bring numbers into the equation then the same problem would apply to the original movies.In the trailer we see Ceaser throwing a canister of what I persume is the agent that increases ape I.Q. down a row of caged lab apes.If the next scene Brian Cox orders the apes to be destroyed because "They are infected".That would indicate to me that it is some sort of viral airbourne pathogen.It could be a virus that is deadly to humans.A contingency plan to contain a large viral outbreak in a city like New York could be to use nukes and then we get to "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell!"

  • June 3, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Nobody puts Caesar in a corner!

    by NightArrows

    NOBODY!

  • June 3, 2011, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Kilowog and Hulk is bad CG. But this... awesomeness !

    by Se7en

    The CG here works because I can feel the emotion coming from the apes' eyes. Unlike Kilowog and Tomar-Re which is absolutely lifeless.

  • June 3, 2011, 7:12 a.m. CST

    CGI in Jurassic Park 6 minutes total

    by tradeskilz

    That's nothing even compared to some run of the mill TV show these days.

  • anybody know what's at the 1:58 mark ?

  • June 3, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    mattman

    by NightArrows

    Jackson's Kong could have been perfect. COULD have been. But he's a fucking over-indulger the likes of which haven't been seen since Dom De Luis. Too much fucking fat on that film, and way too much fucking nonsense. Ah well. This apes film really hasn't grabbed me. Franco is an actor I simply can't buy. He's just weird and, I don't know what it is but I don't buy him in much. I'll wait and see, but the idea of the Apes (especially in such small numbers, and you can shove that "super IQ" serum bullshit up your pooper) taking over without a big blunder on our part, and I mean a BIG FUCKING BLUNDER, is preposterous...

  • June 3, 2011, 7:33 a.m. CST

    The prequels in the 70's explained their MASS population of apes

    by FrodoFraggins

    They were everywhere being used as servants. The apes in this prequel just seem to be confined to labs and zoos, like we have today. That's not a very big population. I'll reserve judgement until I see how they deal with it, but I'm dubious based on the trailer.

  • June 3, 2011, 7:34 a.m. CST

    TONY THE FUCKIN TIGER!

    by JethroBodine

    I HATE movies with CG characters. They always look unrealistic and "cartoony". Not a single "ape" in that trailer looks "real". They are COMPLETELY UNbelievable and UNconvincing. I've seen better CG character work in a Frosted Flakes commercial! Take for instance the shot of them taking the infant "ape" out of the box. What about ANYTIHNG in that shot looked credible and real about that "ape", or the depth inside of that box? NOTHING. These "apes" might look just fine, if you are watching them on the screen at a drive in theater during a monsoon or a blizzard, with headlights and your windshield wipers on, but as it stands, CG characters suck and are thoroughly unconvincing. HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP TRYING TO PUSH CG CHARACTERS, 3-D, AND COLIN FARRELL ON US. WE'RE GETTING SICK OF IT!

  • June 3, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    se7en

    by JethroBodine

    I didn't see anything special about the 1.58 mark either.

  • June 3, 2011, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Monkey Shines - now THAT was a GREAT APE movie!!

    by marineboy

    ROTPOTA does looks very promising tho? Please let it be an R-rating :)

  • June 3, 2011, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Get your paws off me you damned dirty American!

    by batfunk

    Sadly, over 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution, preferring to believe snake-oil toting evangelicals. Maybe the film will flop. Maybe they should do a remake of Inherit The Wind instead.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:19 a.m. CST

    @ Maltz

    by Hatter76

    Actually, in the original Ape films, Taylor had launched in the early 1970's, the first Movie had them on a delibrate Mission to travel at the speed of light and colonize another planet, the second movie screwd things up and for some reason, Taylor needed a rescue mission. either way, The Ship Was obviously Far from what existed in real life. but the new Movie is supposed to refrence Taylor and his Ship, but it's supposed to really just be a homage

  • June 3, 2011, 8:39 a.m. CST

    just fuckin shoot the damn monkeys. shoot them!

    by HaterofCrap

    we could blow them up pretty good too... I just can't get in to these ape movies.

  • As California's newest minority group they become the darlings of liberal Democrats who seek their votes. They get the right to vote, own businesses ,marry and hold elected office in short order. Caesar becomes the first openly ape mayor of San Francisco. A few years later he becomes governor, where he turns a blind eye towards the flood of illegal immigrant apes flooding into the state. More apes enter business and politics, securing their place in society. That's how it works with so few apes to start with. These movies have never been about apes taking over the world, but satirical commentary on US. Keep in mind that the original novel was a literary descendent of the works of Jonathan Swift and the first screen adaptation for the 1968 POTA was by Rod Serling, a man who used science fiction and fantasy to comment on the issues of the day.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:44 a.m. CST

    seriously?

    by stevepants

    People are complaining because there wouldn't be that many Apes in one place in the US? Seriously??? It's movie about Apes who TAKE OVER THE WORLD. And that's your gripe?

  • June 3, 2011, 8:47 a.m. CST

    why make an unproven drug in aerosol form?

    by durhay

  • June 3, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    JUST UNLEASH THE NEPALESE RAMBO ON THOSE DAMNED APES!

    by BSB

    LONDON (AFP) – A Nepalese soldier in the British army has been given a top bravery award by Queen Elizabeth II for his heroics in Afghanistan, where he single-handedly saw off more than 30 Taliban fighters. Corporal Dipprasad Pun, 31, said he thought he was going to die and so had nothing to lose in taking on the attackers who overran his checkpoint. He was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (CGC), which is given in recognition of acts of conspicuous gallantry during active operations against the enemy. Pun fired more than 400 rounds, launched 17 grenades and detonated a mine to repel the Taliban assault on his checkpoint near Babaji in Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, last September. Surrounded, the enemy opened fired from all sides and for 15 minutes Pun remained under continuous attack, including from rocket-propelled grenades and AK47 guns. At one point, unable to shoot, he used his machine gun tripod to knock down a militant who was climbing the walls of the compound. Two insurgents were still attacking by the time he ran out of ammunition, but he set off a Claymore mine to repel them. Pun was given his medal in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace in London on Wednesday. The CGC is second only to the Victoria Cross -- the highest honour for bravery in the face of the enemy. "There wasn't any choice but to fight. The Taliban were all around the checkpoint. I was alone," he said. "I had so many of them around me that I thought I was definitely going to die so I thought I'd kill as many of them as I could before they killed me. "After that I thought nobody can kill us now -- when we met the enemy I wasn't scared." Britain's Major General Nicholas Carter, who was commander of allied forces in southern Afghanistan during Pun's deployment, praised his efforts. "The CGC does not get handed out lightly. It was a most remarkable achievement," he said.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Good trailer. Also packed with Hollywood Stereotypes

    by Knobules

    Corporate guy with British accent. Bad man. Check Girl who shows up every 10 minutes and doesnt approve of anything. Check Some gobbly gunk syrum that causes all the problems. check Looks great. Just saying. The people are pretty much Hollywood cardboard cutouts.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:09 a.m. CST

    It needs a scene where Franco and Caesar get high together

    by Stan Gable

    and just lose motivation for the whole project.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST

    juansanchez, we already have apes playing basketball

    by Stan Gable

  • June 3, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    It's called suspension of disbelief.

    by Lobanhaki2

    One thing about the CGI in Jurassic Park is that there were many scenes that people might treat as CGI that weren't, that were practical effects instead. Another thing to take into consideration is that if you walk into a movie looking for the flaws in special effects, you will find them, even in the best work. Nobody can please an audience member who is looking not to be pleased. Third, I'd say this: it's all fake anyways. I don't much worry about it. I go to movies to imagine things, not to find reality. Reality is something we already have an ample supply of, on all sides. We go to movies in order to depart from that, and God help the person who walks into a theatre expecting both reality and entertainment, because they'll find neither one. I'm old enough to remember what the oldest CGI looked like when it first came around. I'm also old enough to have seen movies with the old-fashion optical effects at their peak. I've got news for the many CG haters on this site: optical effects can look chintzy and fake, too. Models can show their smaller scale, as can shots where whater or other substances are pictured. In fact, much of what people call bad CGI in the nineties and in the last decade turns out to be model work! Even at a young age, I could tell when they were doing a creature effect, because of the stop motion jitter. It's monster time! I remember marvelling at the effects of many movies from the eighties, only to come back years later and be appalled at how terrible those effects looked by today's standards. There's a lot of nostalgia among some for the old way things were done, and although those methods are sometimes the better choice, we got to realize the great advantages of CGI, and the leaps of imagination it allows.

  • And that's bullshit. Harryhausen was a genius, the best there was, but guess what? It all still looks like fucking models.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:38 a.m. CST

    1:58

    by bah

    I assume he means the swarm of spear-wielding apes.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Get Your Hands Off Me, You Damn Dirty Computer-Generated Rendering!

    by Shannon Nutt

    As others have noted, there's nothing particularly wrong with the CGI (although some shots look poorer than others), it's just that it's still very OBVIOUS that those are computer-generated apes. I'd still rather see actors in suits. There was a reason those original movies were so successful, and it had little to do with the special effects.

  • June 3, 2011, 9:48 a.m. CST

    If success has little to do with the effects,...

    by bah

    ...and I do agree with that, then who cares how they do the effects?

  • June 3, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    The CGI in Starship Troopers works because....

    by v3d

    It was done by the great Phil Tippet. Tippet started in the old school tradition of stop motion. He helped develop go-motion at ILM and was an early adopter of the then new cgi technology. First and foremost the man was and is an ARTIST. When CG is used by people with a strong background in traditional art and filmmaking, and a discerning eye, it works. For example, you never hear anyone complaining about all the CGI in Zodiac. In fact some people aren't even aware there is any.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    lobanhaki2 - exactly! I posted a comment about

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    "invisible" CGI work in the E.T. BTS of the day. Look at the extensive digital work in Fincher's work. The Winklevi in The Social Network is a relevation in digital replacement. It frees the filmmaker from dealing with travelling mattes, eyelines, and every other obstacle that past directors had when "twinning" actors.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I'm sure there's quite a few weta people on this TB

    by D o o d

    defending their work without sounding like they work there. If you know what I mean! ;o) The apes don't look great in the trailer, end of story!

  • June 3, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    A less technological race,CANNNOT take over...

    by frank

    a more advanced technological race.Human history has proven this point time and time again.The great Stephen Hawkings believes that if little green men from outher space find us,they would ASS RAPE us and there would be nothing we could do...LAZY SCREENWRITERS!

  • June 3, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    "Methinks" should be banned from the English language

    by Nico Toscani

  • This movie is just another self indulgent affair by SFX nurds saying 'ohh look what we can do' instead of interesting thought provoking Sci Fi. Planet of the Apes belongs to the 60s & 70s can't anyone write anything new and original. This is just old material spruced up with 21st century SFX, makes me so angry I could yawnzzzz

  • June 3, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST

    thank you arkhaminmate001,my thoughts exactly!

    by frank

  • June 3, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    CGI Jurassic Park

    by Moshi

    JP still looks good after all these years because it was directed by someone who doesn't care how a shot is achieved. He weighs up the options and chooses the best method. This inevitably means a mixed media approach, animatronic, CGI, matte painting, set, location shoot, etc. A lot of directors will CGI everything because it's in fashion and it provides them the ability to pixel tinker, a very bad habit. Mr Spielberg is the only director I recall complaining about gratuatous use of CGI. He doesn't dislike it, he just correctly points out it's gratuatous use. Weta have by the looks of it done a good job on these apes, but the director doesn't seem share Spielberg's opinions.

  • June 3, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST

    "A less technological race cannot take over a more advanced technological race."

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Don't tell Lucas that. There'll be a lot of dead Ewok to answer for.

  • June 3, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    If the humans know of the serums effect on apes

    by leo54304

  • June 3, 2011, 11:49 a.m. CST

    If the humans know the serums effects on Caesar

    by leo54304

    then wouldn't they have tried it on human subjects as well? And made sure them damn, dirty apes kept their paws off of getting it themselves? Plus amazing how quick the spray affected the apes and made them so smart so quickly. And would the apes be able to overcome their fears of fire, water, heights, noise, strange enviorments, etc?

  • June 3, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    If apes are rioting in your city....

    by leo54304

    Just build a huge pile of bananas, then launch a couple of trident missles on the bastichs when they get the munchies and are gathered en masse. Duh...

  • June 3, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    CGI

    by Chadley BeBay

    Barely ever looks good. Iron Man, Gotham City in the Nolan films...about it. This looks like a cartoon. Defending this is pointless. When I look at the CGI, I see FAKE.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Dumb Shits, I'll just give you the big fat spoiler

    by Hatter76

    The Apes don't overthrow the fucking Humans, and there are not hundreds of Apes, a majority are chimps, They Make a stand, The do make their way across the golden gate bridge, they climbe to the top and go across, Apes do die, but enough manage to make it into a very very large wooded area, that find refuge there, while Man is destroyed byt The Expiremental Alzehimers cure, it spreads to through the Humans like a virus, People flying to other countries spraed it across the globe, it's a differn't take on man destroying himself, but maybe some humans will launch nukes in the process, don't know. But No, the Apes don't manage to take over the planet, they manage to rise up and escape to safety, then inherit the planet. to those who read this, please stop bitching complaining about how Apes like that cannot take over the Planet, I just explaind what happens, Please bitch about anything else

  • June 3, 2011, 12:15 p.m. CST

    can't wait for Plinkett to review this

    by Raskolnikov_was_framed

    it'll be a one sentence review "oh look here come the humans with their planes and helicopters and the apes have.................oh..............yeah............right........Palpatine's behind it all!"

  • June 3, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST

    "CGI barely ever looks good"

    by bah

    Most of the time, you don't notice it. You only notice it when it doesn't look good. Just like traditional effects.

  • June 3, 2011, 12:54 p.m. CST

    How can apes overthrow humanity? That's gay.

    by Nabster

    And the apes and chimps look fake.

  • D9 I get that the aliens are cgi. But it doesn't make sense here. We all know what apes and monkeys look like, so fake cgi ones easily look fake.

  • Come on, honestly, I don't see one. The jumping around scenes don't look great, but prosthetics wouldn't help that. That's a motion thing, and you'd need five hundred fun-covered stuntmen to do the same thing. And no, I don't work for Weta or otherwise have any investment in this movie.

  • June 3, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    @shockvaluecurseycurse

    by Soundblaster

    I don't think your opinion is "worthless". In fact, you succinctly summarized both the problems and potentialities of current CGI usage. Nice post.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    bah - I actually think that a majority of the CGI looks pretty good

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Except for the scene of the chimp (Caesar?) looking out the attic window is pretty "monkeys in the kitchen in Jumanji" looking.

  • June 3, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST

    JP looked amazing...because I was 11

    by tbransonlives

    word

  • June 3, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    The CG debate aside, my problem with this trailer is

    by Kremzeek

    it shows the entire movie. I pretty much knew what was going to happen anyway I suppose, but for those that don't know, did they have to show the entire film in the trailer? This isn't an issue with this movie in particular, really - more a problem with the entire industry. But yeah... why should I go see this now? I already know the main beats of the story so I know how it plays out. There's not much mystery here. So, I'm going to pay $10+ just to see an extended version of the trailer? No thanks. Beaks was right to add a Spoiler tag to this article, but my point he shouldn't have to for a trailer. It's supposed to be a preview of the film, not the whole damn plot. Ugh. I hate to be so negative, but I'll Netflix this. =(

  • June 3, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    I still don't get it.

    by Cobb05

    If there's only one smart ape, how the hell does he turn all the other apes into smart apes? That makes no sense. Also, apes with spears and rocks would never take over the world. I'm not saying the movie is bad. I'm just not sure they're going to explain this, which would suck.

  • June 3, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I agree that that's the worst closeup

    by bah

    But I don't believe prosthetics would be better. In fact, to me it looks exactly like a bad mask.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    bah

    by Chadley BeBay

    I notice it. Thats why I am of the opinion that is rarely looks good.

  • June 3, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    NIGHTMARES!!!

    by bert

    That trailer is the stuff of nightmares, in a 2011 kind of way that jaws was to the 70's. You know its can't really happen, but nature fighting man still freaks you out. I had nightmares about running from the apes all night and falling back with fewer and fewer people behind smaller and smaller defensive lines. This just upgraded from "eh, who cares" to must see movie.

  • It's really one of the lamest screenwriting cliches still out there, and just speaks to how little understanding Hollywood has of science. Some things are meant not to be controlled? Guess we shouldn't bother studying them, then.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    subtlety

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Drama needs conflict, and man struggling against things he cannot control is consistently fertile ground for stories. Cliche? No. Archetype? Yes. CHOPPED.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Big improvement over the first trailer

    by Teddy Artery

    And with WETA's track record, they'll tweak a bit more until the release.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Who cares if the CGI is good? The story SUCKS.

    by FloatingHolmes

    Oh no! The apes are smart! It's the end of the world! What? How many chimps could they possibly have? Hundreds? Not on this earth. But okay, let's say they smarten up 300 chimps. And those smart chimps go wild, throwing wrenches at police cars and jumping onto helicopters. So what? Shoot 'em. "You can't, man. They're too smart for that!" Yeahhh-- no.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Oh (SPOILER): They don't actually...

    by FloatingHolmes

    ...take over the earth? They just hide in the woods and inherit it? So what exactly is at jeopardy in this stupid movie? "Stop those apes!" "Why? Are they trying to take over?" "No, they just want to hide until we kill ourselves!" "Not on my watch! Let's kill those sunzabitches!"

  • June 3, 2011, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Lithgow at :30

    by rapscallion86

    Trinity is going to fuck some apes up!

  • June 3, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    chadley, I think you'd be surprised

    by bah

    I work in CG, and I'm still surprised by what's CG.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    "So what? Shoot 'em.' "You can't, man. They're too smart for that!"

    by Larry Sellers

    Laugh at loud.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    out loud.

    by Larry Sellers

    out loud.

  • June 3, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Costumes had charm, looked cool and real

    by Nabster

    Prosthetics are the only way to go. Cgi will just look fake and dumb. Plus we know what real chimps look and move like, so every flaw will look pull you out and it will look fake. If it's aliens like in D9 then it makes sense. Buttons apes looked fantastic, no need for cgi.

  • They could talk. But they were pretty primitive, and generally pretty stupid. So how come they are now being portrayed as genius monkeys? They should've made a movie after all this happens. Apes taking over the planet is just dumb.

  • June 3, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Dumb?

    by Hatter76

    Many people have stated how the premise of this film is dumb or defies logic. But isn't that what a lot of Movies do? especially Movies that are supposed to be summer blockbusters(LOL) this is a place where people voice there opinions on movies, although it's nice to have a believable movie that makes sense. This isn't much dumber then all the other Smelly stuff that Hollywood Shits out of it's ass.

  • June 3, 2011, 7:28 p.m. CST

    So this time the chimps are not slave, they're evil?

    by chien_sale

    real smart lol

  • June 3, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    bah: it would have been better with prostetics

    by chien_sale

    because you can talk wit real actors, they can emote

  • June 3, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    About Prosthetics

    by Hatter76

    In general I would prefer prosthetics, but these Apes are supposed to be what we have in real life, Except for caesar. Caesar I think could have been Done with Prosthetics, but his body proportions would still bee too noticeably differen't from the other Apes. I do think it would have been nice to have Some Animatronics By Rick Baker

  • Scientific arrogance never ceases to amaze.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    I hope that was sarcastic...

    by Sardonic

  • June 3, 2011, 8:52 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape - no photoreal humans

    by Rupee88

    We aren't going to have photoreal CGI humans because real humans aren't capable of producing them. It doesn't matter how good the technology gets. You still have to have a programmer/artist capable of doing it with the tools. They can do it with a truck but not with a human face and movement that we have a much more discerning eye for. No one has even come close. And I'm talking about a believable human in daylight moving around and talking and doing stuff...not something in the shadows. That won't happen for 100 years or until artificial intelligence basically can do it for us. The apes in this film look good enough for me. Doing a photoreal ape is not that easy either although King Kong was pretty damn good.

  • June 3, 2011, 8:55 p.m. CST

    suspending disbelief

    by Rupee88

    I usually hate this term too, but you've probably got to do with a movie like this. Look at something like the original POTA. They are speaking contemporarly English 2000 years from now...and why are they even speaking english if they are apes? And look at Star Wars...why are they speaking modern day English? This looks like a fun film...it will probably be a stretch that the apes can take over, but this film looks fun.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    lol so many ignorant idiots try and talk about effects here

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    just shut the fuck up. im so bored of you whiney fools who have no clue what it takes to produce 1 minute of CGI.

  • June 3, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    @winona_ryders_pussy_juice

    by Hatter76

    got that right. Even a second of footage can be a nightmare,

  • June 3, 2011, 11:18 p.m. CST

    chien_sale, you really don't think that thing is emoting

    by bah

    That surprises me. Other than the window shot, every shot of its face is chilling to me. Andy Serkis is incredible. I'm sure they could have latexed him up, but I believe that would have given us a human with ape features, rather than the ape with human features that we see here, and which is obviously what they're going for. Never mind that no human actor is speaking with the ape.

  • June 4, 2011, 3:46 a.m. CST

    The most important thing i took from this trailer is...

    by AsimovLives

    ... how amazingly gorgeaus Freida Pinto is! Jesus, is that woman beautiful! And the stuff about the apes going ape shit is nice too! And no, i'm not complaining about the CGI. Yes, one can tell it's CGI, but it's bloody good too. This trailer is a step in the right direction. Let's see how it all turns out.

  • June 4, 2011, 3:50 a.m. CST

    rupee88

    by AsimovLives

    The hardest thing to suspend disbelief in the original Planet Of The apes is not they are talking english, but that it's only 2000 years after the ride of the apes and the fall of men. In the original book, which i urge all of you to read it, the protagonist actually has to learn the language of the apes through observation until they realise there's something special about him. And the ape society he finds is ten of thousands years old, enough to have a believable jump from a pre-history to civilization. And then we learn something even more disturbing about the place of men and apes in the scheme of the universe.

  • June 4, 2011, 3:53 a.m. CST

    ironeagle74, we didn't evolved from apes, WE ARE APES.

    by AsimovLives

    Humans are a race of apes, we belong to a family of the great apes, together with the chimps, the gorillas and the oranguthans. We are all apes, tecnically speaking. We didn't evolved from the apes, we ARE EVOLVED APES. Deal with it.

  • June 4, 2011, 3:56 a.m. CST

    prostectics for close ups and CGI for long shots?

    by AsimovLives

    It would be ideal in an ideal wotrld, but i think the filmamkers wanted to avoid the visual clash that it would eventually arrise from those two techniques. At least this is visually consistent, even if it's still noticable the artifice. Of course, there's always the matter that we might just be seeing the best CGI shots of the movie in this trailer. Even the CGI might not be consistent from scene to scene.

  • June 4, 2011, 4:06 a.m. CST

    "the swarm of spear-wielding apes."

    by buggerbugger

    I think the correct term for a group of apes is a "shit-fling", so it should be "the shit-fling of spear-wielding apes." This does tend to get confusing when describing a shit-fling of shit-flinging apes, however.

  • June 4, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by Rupee88

    ok good points and now you have me curious about the book and will try to download the audiobook somewhere. And yes I agree we are animals and not a great leap from the other apes. We are slightly more intelligent than they are, but only very slightly.

  • June 4, 2011, 9:49 a.m. CST

    umm..

    by dengreg31

    what are you people talking about? Those effects are perfectly fine.. is there nothing you won't complain about?

  • June 4, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    I think the intelligent look in their eyes is darn creepy

    by Xian042

    All you CGI haters can have your little fits. I think this looks creepy and amazing. You can really see thinking and emotion in their eyes. I like it.

  • June 4, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    CGI

    by MandrakeRoot

    JP and Starship Troopers the only good CGI movies?? Give me a break. ST has good FX at best...the bugs are easily discernible as CGI. The CG on Avatar trumps all...sure there are shots where you can tell but given the massive number of FX shots that's inevitable. The fact is though that more often then not the Na'vi look completely real, and they emote as strong as any actor. You really gotta respect what it brought to the table, particularly the virtual camera system which allows you to shoot CGI scenes like live action by showing a rough rendering in real time. It's not just a green screen with added FX later. A great example is the Thanator chase. In King Kong the stampede/chase was terrible as it was clear they were running in front of a screen. With the virtual system they can actually shoot one running like it's a live action environment, which is one of the reasons the chase feels authentic.  In fact I'd say that is the biggest FX breakthrough in a long time as it gives CGI scenes a remarkably realistic and live-action feel. That's part of the reason the movie worked so well.

  • June 4, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    JP

    by MandrakeRoot

    While I do agree the lack of a reference point for dinosaurs helps, it's not the main reason. The fact is we can tell when things look like something that exists in our world, something that we could actually reach out and touch. There have been many T-Rexs in movies since JP, but most don't look nearly as real. I will say though the gallimimus chase and brachiosaurus reveal are clearly CGI and not quite photo-real. I think most people look past that because a lot of the work looks almost perfect. 

  • June 4, 2011, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Heston chewing up the scenery

    by proevad

    "Well, if there's no life here we've got just 72 hours to find it. That's when the groceries run out..." Only reason I like the first film. Won't be seeing this.

  • June 4, 2011, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Tim Burtons Apes looked AMAZING, far better than this shitfest

    by Nabster

    I admit this looks cool in spots. But it will always look fake in the end. Do you want cool fake looking effects. Or badass real looking apes that have charm? Like the ones in Burtons film?

  • ...That worked for the originals and Tim Burton's film because they were more evolved Apes, the same proportions and frame as human beings. these apes are today's apes, you do know chimps are much smaller than people don't you?

  • June 4, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Meh.

    by SunTzu77

    No offense, but this flick looks like utter shit if the trailer is any indication of the final product.

  • June 4, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    The title of the movie still sucks, though.

    by AsimovLives

  • June 4, 2011, 2:35 p.m. CST

    They could use Animatronics for the chimps

    by Nabster

    And they would look awesome and badass. The chimps in Burtons apes were quite small, and they were AMAZING. So of the greatest costumes and prosthetics in cinemas history were present in Burtons Apes. CGI is for kids, while costumes and prosthetics is for adults. This has been said by many of the greatest film-makers of our time.

  • And they wouldn't stop, even kept on snickering and laughing throughout the movie. People keep make monkey noises like "uh, uh, ah, ah," throughout the whole movie. People even started making goat sounds for some reason. It was actually pretty funny. But the audiences have spoken, Apes taking over the planet is just dumb. I'd just kick em in the balls. Or better yet, shootem in the balls. Game over.

  • June 4, 2011, 4 p.m. CST

    nabster must have been jacking off during the previews

    by BurnedNotice_Dude

    That explains the laughter.

  • June 4, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST

    nabster

    by AsimovLives

    Thank goodness we don't have audiences like that in my country.

  • June 4, 2011, 5:31 p.m. CST

    ct1

    by heks

    You said: I don't know whether you have any experience with the professional grade 3D modeling and animation software out there that's used by these digital artists, but I use some of it for work and I can assure you that it's not as 'by-the-numbers' simple and automatic as you seem to be suggesting. For example, here's a virtual library environment I designed for a client for use with a marketing campaign a couple years back: http://tinyurl.com/3efdvp9 You can take a look through that whole set if you like. Those are low-res samples of what I did. The final product was printed at 30" wide at 300 dpi and took 100 hours to render. This was just an environment and I took pains to enter people from painstakingly matched photographs in post, but I can tell you that even getting that was very time consuming and highly detailed work done in an extremely complex piece of software, first with the modeling, then with the material creation, then with the lighting (which is arguably the most important part of achieving photorealism), and finally with the rendering. Everything you see in the image I linked to above is CGI. The only real thing in any of those images is the people. When you get into character modeling and animation it gets significantly more difficult. So, basically, if you have any experience with the field and what's required to achieve a realistic effect you know that pretty much anything that doesn't look like absolute crap (which this movie doesn't) involved a lot of hard work. In fact, even totally crappy looking stuff often involves hard work, but maybe by less experienced or talented people. Take care

  • June 4, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    Thoughts

    by Keith

    1. Isn't this "I, Robot" with apes? 2. For whom are we rooting in this film? It feels like one of those stories where you don't find yourself siding with anybody.

  • June 4, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    ironeagle74

    by Keith

    Homo sapiens and e.g. orangutans evolved from a common ancestor. There was one time I had a discussion about evolution with a theist who had actually bothered to learn the theory that he was attacking, instead of just attacking some soundbite concept where he'd filled in the gaps in his head. The first thing he said to me was...no, wait, he didn't say anything. He didn't exist. I've NEVER met a theist who had read, let alone understood, the theory he was attacking. In every single instance, it's been somebody with incredible intellectual sloth coupled with shocking arrogance.

  • June 4, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Good CG

    by Keith

    One other movie whose CG holds up extremely well is Starship Troopers. Admittedly it's easier when you're modeling fantasy creatures with a chitinous body, BUT the movement and weight on the warrior bugs is bloody fantastic. Phil Tippett's work, I believe.

  • June 4, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Asimovlives that happened in Chicago

    by Nabster

    Don't you live in the US?

  • June 4, 2011, 10:32 p.m. CST

    bah: i'm just saying it's not a real flesh & blood thing

    by chien_sale

    For wider shots it's great, even the look of the ape works, it's creepy and i'm ok with that. But when the time will come to work with the live actors, it's better to have something flesh and blood for the viewers to connect with it, you know, an actor. They could have done a mix of prostetics and CGI like Splice.

  • June 4, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Misleading trailer

    by Fridge

    They showed pretty much the entire third act, where all that action is condensed. There's still two acts of story and character development that come before that. People who go into this expecting an action movie are going to be disappointed until the last 15 minutes.

  • Actors will always look strangely CGI. You will always be aware the actors are looking at something like a tennis ball on a stick. CGI is garbage, it looks fake, no one likes it. They should've made them REAL.

  • June 5, 2011, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Ironically we have...

    by AllThosePowers

    ...Obama in the white house, so isn't this movie racist? Certainly the folks in Compton and Inglewood could take offence as they may feel film has far too many parallels with actual real events, so couldn't they sue Fox for violating something?

  • June 5, 2011, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Not a true CGI human but, close. It will happen sooner than you think

    by In Action Man Reborn Requiem

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4&feature=related

  • June 5, 2011, 8:36 a.m. CST

    JUMANJI BEGINS

    by Subtitles_Off

  • June 5, 2011, 8:53 a.m. CST

    I think you're right, nabster.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Something happens in a viewer's mind when he has to cooperate with the film to suspend disbelief. Peter Jackson's Kong looks like a photo-realistic giant gorilla but never convinced me as much as a flexible puppet covered in fake fur once did. AVATAR and GREEN LANTERN don't "create" convincing worlds. They're cartoons, and my mind sees them as cartoons. This may all be because of how my eyes have been trained. I grew up with actors in make-up and mechanical sharks. Younger people have grown up watching video games and computer effects, training their minds to perceive these things differently. It's what I call the ROGER RABBIT conundrum. I was completely convinced by the interaction between human and animated characters in that film. A lot of that had to do with the care they took with the interactive effects, but, to be honest, I had already bought into "Mr. Limpet" and "Mary Poppin'"s penguins, so it was less about effects and more about the fact that they were working from a premise where the interaction made sense. Duh. But, being forced to watch cartoons that are supposed to register as "just as real" as everything else in the surroundings never works for me. A real actor in make-up, or, even, a well-designed miniature on an actual, physical set, reads "actually standing there" to me, and I can go along with it. A thousand weird shapes pointing their fingers at the sky and projecting green lasers, a stampede of brontosauruses, or an army of s#!t-flinging apes with sparkly eyes? Not so much. They don't have to work as hard to make it appear "realistical-ish-like." So, maybe, I'm not encouraged to work very hard believing in it. (If you think I'm full of s#!t, how would you explain Spielberg's recent comments about strings on the props of flying saucers?)

  • June 5, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Might I be the first to say: allthosepowers,

    by Subtitles_Off

    you win this week's Idiot on the Internet Award. Congrats. That's a tough one to win. Lots of competition.

  • June 5, 2011, 9:10 a.m. CST

    ironeagle74, arrogance of ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Or, is it religious arrogance? (I'll betcha that's what it is. That, or home-schooling.) We all evolved from microscopic organisms in the water. But water still exists, too. You can remain as uneducated as you wish to be. It's all-good. Just don't pretend you're Earth's One Correct Smart Guy. 'Cause that just makes you look silly.

  • June 5, 2011, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Hail, Caesar!

    by frakthetoasters

    I want to see this movie. I think the trailer revealed too much of it though.

  • June 5, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    RAFA NADAL GOTTA BE A MUTANT

    by BSB

    Only explanation for coming back after being down 4-1 in the first set. Holy shit!

  • June 5, 2011, 1:36 p.m. CST

    To the CGI hacks reading:

    by Chief Joseph

    By using all CGI apes instead of real ones w/ occasional CGI assistance, it is YOU PEOPLE who are saying that your CGI is just as good as reality. It is not. Even the '70s films used real chimpanzees for the baby chimps.

  • June 5, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    GINGE_MUPPET...

    by johnnyrandom

    ...read up on Franco. You'll soon realise he's considerably more intelligent than you.

  • June 5, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    T-rex was mostly animatronic. I want my Skeksis back.

    by ZOMBRE

    T-rex in Jurrassic Park was mostly animatronic. Cgi stops movies in their tracks for me. Why cant they make animatonic heads and paste them on actors with CGI? I want my power of the dark crystal dammit.

  • June 5, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    It's funny few have mentioned the baby chimp.

    by Subtitles_Off

    That's the worst of the worst. I still would like for this movie to be good. THE PLANET OF THE APES is my personal STAR WARS. But, there are two directions I wish they'd have gone instead. One is exemplified by a new comic book. Now, I don't recommend the comic except for the terrific beginning. It starts, as the fifth film, BATTLE, the much-maligned-yet-still-superior-to-the-second-movie-in-the-series, ends, with a human kid and a chimp having a tussle, and The Lawgiver (intoned in the film by John Huston, no less) doing some ape-y speechifying, then a splash page shows the entire backdrop --- a retro-advanced, steam-punkish civilization, complete with dirigibles and architecture. That'd be a NICE transition from the classic movie series to a new one (though the book dissolves into a fairly mundane war-on-terrorish plot that I wouldn't advocate, and, still, there are no baboons ((I want baboons --- Baboons are apes, aren't they? Or are they monkeys?))). Two would be straight adaptation of Pierre Boulle's novel. Both would require actors and stunt-men in prosthetics. As awful as the story of Burton's remake was, and Marky Mark's wretched performance, oh, and the horrible pacing, oh, and --- I digress --- you cannot fault the make-up or the movements.

  • June 5, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Not going to bother seeing this piece of shit.

    by Hesiod2k7

    The plot sucks ass. I want to see Pierre Bule's fucking novel on screen, not the remake of the rise of the Planet of the Apes, the 2nd sequel to the 1968 classic. Totally uninterested. Hate on Tim Burton all you want, but he had more imagination that this shit.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Re: Number of Apes

    by Robert

    Well it's my guess, it's not set now, maybe a few years in the future, and going by the trailer it looks like there may be some huge complex built for experimenting on the apes, which may also be bred there, going by the baby ape. Why people think this is less plausible than a virus wiping out pets, so we take to house training apes as servants? This is one of the best movie trailers I've seen for a long time..amazing what just a few tweaks can make from the previous one.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Far fetched?

    by Robert

    To those saying the movie is far fetched? Erm.. this is Planet Of The Apes, not Gorilla's In The Mist.

  • June 6, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Curious George Incites a Riot would've been a better title

    by George Zip

    And the cgi looks pretty good to me. Better than I would've expected. Did you really think Helena Bonham Carter in prosthetics looked better?

  • June 6, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    as usual, TBers bitch & whine

    by Detached

    Beaks is right- it's a great trailer. Deal with it. Or at least move out of your parents' basements.