Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
Planet of the Apes Question The
The Book VS The Film – and here we're talking about the 1968 film starring Charlton Heston – but why stop there, let's also include the 1970's sequels – especially Escape From the Planet of the Apes. What struck you as most similar between book and film? What was most different? Did the film improve on the story? Did the film's ending alter the meaning of the book? Did the sequel films also draw from this book?
Comments
I've only seen the 1968 film, and that was a long time ago. I can't remember if there was any subtext in the film, or if it was action-adventure all the way. That said, the reveal that the film took place on Earth seemed shocking at the time, so there must have been something in the film.
I mentioned in one of the other starters that we started watching the 2001 remake and abandoned it before too long as it just didn't grab our interest. I'm sure I have seen the 1968 one but like @NeilNjae it was a long time ago and I should re-watch it. I haven't seen any of the recent remakes so can't comment, but it does seem to have turned into a nice little franchise.
The main difference in what I do know / have remembered is that the Big Reveal was that all these events happened on Earth, on which humans had been supplanted by apes. Hence the Statue of Liberty scene showing that they hadn't really travelled anywhere in space, only in time.
Whereas in the book the main message seemed to be that humans were inevitably destined to be replaced by apes, whatever planet you looked at, and the timing was that it was almost mythological that humans were ever important at all.
Interesting. I thought the film-makers wanted a more sympathetic protagonist, so they removed how the apes were just like humans, but wanted to critique the direction of society, so they put it on earth. Wanted to have their cake, and eat it too.
The film is very good. Some of it's sequels are also good - particularly Escape from the Planet of the Apes.
There are some similarities between film and book - Zera, Cornelius, Nova, and Zaius are all characters, for example. But ape society in the movie is much more martial - the gorillas are the warrior caste, the chimps are the scientific caste, and the oranguatans the political/religious caste. Charleton Heston's character is much more stubborn and beligerent. He escapes from captivity (he's not simply released after proving his intelligence) and is chased. The planet of the apes turns out to be a future earth - the apes got their chance to evolve after humans initiated nuclear war, and now exist in a kind of wild-west environment.
In the book, Soros is the planet of the apes - a real other planet, not just earth. Ape society is much more like human society, but more peaceful (except to dumb animals. It's also more modern - the have cars and planes and whatnot. The Apes culture has evolved from human culture on this planet and this wasn't caused by nuclear war. When Ulysse finally gets home, he finds that exactly the same happened at home, light years away. Why? It must be inevitable. It's not an accident of fate - not a result of human hubris. That's the key difference between the two.
Which one is better is open to opinion, Aldiss thought the film ending was an inspired improvement, I think.
I can see the changes made for the film being features of the adaptation: films are about visuals and action, rather than introspection (generally). I agree with Aldiss that making the story be only about Earth makes for a stronger ending.
I can't comment here. I felt I would rather read the back of a cereal box than the book and stopped after trudging half way.