Talk:Planet of the Apes (1968 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk: Planet of the Apes (1968 film)/RfC archive

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2006). "Planet of the Apes". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 91–108. ISBN 0275983951.

Malicious Editing?[edit]

On the side panel Micheal Jackson is listed as having appeared in the film--truth or malicious editing? (unsigned)

Good question, but what does it matter? If he wasn't in the movie, that's unfortunate because he gets credit for what someone else did... but if he was, all that means is that he participated in a classic film.
HELLO! He's not in the movie. It matters because it's misinformation and this is an encylcopedia. It's also malicious because it's patently RACIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the pop singer/writer from The Jackson 5, he was born in August, 1958, making him 8 or 9 years old at the time of filming. CFLeon (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's perfectly possible that there was a 'Michael Jackson' in the movie. It is a fairly common name until the celebrity took it over. CFLeon (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the 4th paragraph, the claim of "gaining $2.00 at the international box office" also seems questionable. (unsigned)

Editing Kudos[edit]

Alternate Universe?[edit]

I wonder if the five movie story arc consistently occurs in the same universe, or whether the first film indeed does occur on an alternate Earth, with a space agency called ANSA (note the astronauts uniforms), human FTL travel in the late sixties/early seventies, and different New York shoreline geography (as Taylor finds the ruined Statue of Liberty adjacent to a rock formation that must have taken far longer to form than a mere two millenia?)

User Calibanu 16.01, 25 October 2006

No, this movie really meant something. In the sixties and seventies, when the movie was made, millions, perhaps billions, of lives were threatened by nuclear arms. The US and USSR aimed nukes at each other and the strategy was that both sides knew if they launched anything, the opposite would destroy them. This movie illustrates that humans put themselves in danger because they fight against each other over retrospectively trivial things.Making meaningless speculation about this planet being coincidentally similar to Earth, but a couple thousand years ahead, is meaningless and all it does is destroy the effect of the movie.
  • Of course the later retcon was that they used those nukes to fight the apes. (unsigned)

Lengthy Section[edit]

Does anybody think that the "Cultural Impact" section is too long?—Ultor_Solis (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the previous section. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) made it impossible for Americans, and probably Soviets, to live their lives the way they were meant to be lived. This movie was full of cultural impact, and belittling it contributes to cynical views of modern America which say that nothing is serious, it's about is entertainment. Actually, I think it was a poor job, because this movie was very significant, not to the culture of the time, but because it illustrates the future and emphasizes what will happen if our culture continues to desteriorate as it did in the 60's and 70's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.53.115 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sci-Fi continius loop[edit]

All five movies are Sci-Fi Loop: the space ship goes forward into a rip in space time. When the second space-ship also goes forward these two events culminate in the nuclear explosion of planet earth. The orginial space ship with three apes aboard manage to leave earth just as the nuclear explosion propels the ship even further backward in time. The two surviving apes father the leader of the ape revolution which leads to the battle of the apes and the seperation of apes above and humans become two species-the mutes above and the mutants below-until the first space ship crash's on earth..and the process begins all over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.163 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See the "Alternate Universe?" section above. We don't know if the arrival of the spaceship from the future is part of a time loop or if it forked off another timeline. (See Back to the Future for information on forked timelines.) Without some in-universe reference or something from one of the creative people behind the series of movies (properly referenced), we can't say on Wikipedia. Val42 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is not entirely true. At the end of the last film, "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" we are given more than assurance that the time line was changed by showing the Lawgiver telling stories to both ape and human children. Although this may appear somewhat ambiguous the following television series did actually take up the subject as humans did retain speech and some form of acceptance in society and the astronauts that land are different people. So there are ways to speculate in a neutral and encyclopedic manner about it.--Amadscientist 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Battle [movie #5] shows confirmation of continual looped timeline of future creating past. The mentioned scene at the end of the lawgiver talking about apes & humans living in harmony shows that they tried that way; the tears of the statue imply that it didn't work. Also remember that humans de-evolved. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"De-evolved". There's no such word: we would use "devolved". Actually, a more accurate term used in Biology is "regressed". CFLeon (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept the dates given by the movies then they happen in at least two perhaps three different timelines.

  • Planet of the Apes: 3978
  • Beneath the Planet of the Apes: 3955 or some 23 years earlier.
  • Escape from the Planet of the Apes: confirms Beneath's 3955 and is set in 1973.
  • Conquest of the Planet of the Apes: set 20 years later then Escape put it in the 1990s
  • Battle for the Planet of the Apes: set at least 12 years from Conquest and gives Beneath's date as 3950.

So have have 3978, 3955, and 3950 timelines and only two of those (3955 and 3950) do we know resulted in the Earth being blown up. It is more a time spiral rather then a time loop.--2606:A000:7D44:100:A5DB:8383:D5F4:C04C (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Earth does not get "blown up" at the end of Beneath (although Zira's account in Escape indicates that at least she got that impression). The Alpha-Omega bomb was a cobalt bomb- nowhere near the power needed to DESTROY the planet. Rather, if it worked as intended (and the narrator at the end of Beneath indicates that it did), it 'fried' (sterilized) the biosphere. Earth continues to orbit the sun as a planet, it is just 'lifeless'. (I won't go into how biologically unlikely THAT is in this post.) CFLeon (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guns[edit]

Are those rifles they are using at the end real, or are they just made up? PolarisSLBM 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it looked like the rifles were made-up, but not in a Sci-Fi way. If you think about it, the government knew about the faults of humanity, and guns are considered a fault. All they do is kill stuff. So, although I think they were made-up, they were not dissimilar to the modern guns of the time.
The prop guns used for this movie were designed to be similer yet different from a modern rifle.--Amadscientist 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From IMDB: "The rifles used by the apes are remodeled American M1 semi-automatic carbines, primarily used during World War II." CFLeon (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Edit[edit]

It says: "They flee to the Forbidden Zone, where Cornelius (an archeologist) had, a year earlier, discovered a cave with artifacts of human technology." Should this be tweaked to reflect that at this point in the film it is merely known to be advanced, not necessarily human? KomradeDave 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nova[edit]

I've created a page for Nova, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_%28Planet_of_the_Apes%29 but I'm having a hard time linking articles to it and getting it on the Nova disambiguation page. Anyone able to help? Callum J. Stewart 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

The last scene relates to a Family Guy episode where Mayor Adam West talks about the Statue of Liberty being destroyed when Peter gets it's foot. Can anybody put that in? (unsigned)

Living Mannequin?[edit]

When Taylor is running through the Human museum, he hides behind one of the "mannequins" while being chased. There's a close shot of the figure, and I could have sworn I saw its eye twitch! Was this intentional? Any trivia out there regarding the man who played this part? The opaque contact lenses he was wearing would be really uncomfortable in the late 60s level of technology, I would think!

?? That was a dummy.--Amadscientist 10:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it was Jeff Burton standing there. In the Making of... special, he mentions how difficult it was to just stand there without moving because they ended doing several takes.CFLeon (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge stuffed[edit]

There is simply no suggestion in the film that dodge was stuffed because of his skin color. That was written into the novelization I believe but I do not recall it being mentioned in the movie.--Amadscientist 11:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no novelization. The original novel was released as a tie-in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.87.237 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, there was no novelization of the first (1968) movie; the closest was a brief version in The Monster Times and the comic (and, of course, P.B.'s original). However, the incident IS mentioned in the novelization of the 3rd movie, Escape from the Planet of the Apes. During the congressional hearings, both Cornelius and Zira say Dodge (they of course never knew his name) was unusual because they had never seen a black human before (this results in a black congressman getting angry). Also, if you check both movies (1st & 2nd), all of the extras playing the humans are Caucasian. CFLeon (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should mention that there were several black extras in ape make-up, including Bobby Porter, who played the ape kid in the museum (and later played Cornelius the Younger in Battle).

Project Film Style guide line fixes[edit]

To bring this article up to standards per wikipedia Project Film style guide lines I have begun making changes to the article.

I have rewritten the lead in section removing information about the plot. I added several actor names. I discuss notable references from the production like writing the script as well as awards and being the first film franchise, and most important made it at least two paragraphs long.

I have also completely removed the References in pop culture section as this is not note worthy. If it is to be included at all it needs to be written into well worded prose. Or moved to a new page. Discuss if this upsets anyone. New section will be added soon. I apologise in advance if this upsets any editors but this article is very "listy".

Still needed to be done;

Add production section.

Remove trivia section by incorporating information into the body of the article. (much of it can go into the new production section)

Remove laundry lists by writing as prose. A good two thirds of this article is just lists. Tsk Tsk. Not encyclopedic (That's part joke-part serious)

Add referenced sources. This article is the only article I have seen on Wikipedia with absolutely NO references. What's up with that?--Amadscientist 10:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I'm going to add back the thing that Boulle said he wished he'd thought of serling's ending, so don't ban me.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Planet of the Apes Ship.jpg[edit]

Image:Planet of the Apes Ship.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

worthless link[edit]

the entry in external links

The Hasslein Curve--A Timeline of the Planet of the Apes -- A massive timeline of all events from the films, TV series, cartoons, novels, comics and other tales.

is completely without merit, an attempt at self promotion, and unfinished. Please remove this as it seems this link is added for purely selfish reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thagor32 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It actually used to be good, someone originally linked it when it had the timeline posted and accessible to all. I went back a few months ago to look something up because I couldn't remember the site name, only to discover the author decided to make it into a book for publication, hence the page holder with ad. I don't think it was intentional on the author's part to deceive or merely promote his book, just circumstance (would it be his responsibility to notify wikipedia of the change to his site, or the person who linked it in the first place if not him?), but do believe it should be removed until the site has something of value again. Fitzmon (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single picture in this article. WTF?[edit]

Come on! There need to be screenshots or other photos to illustrate this article. I notice above that an image was removed a while ago because of the usual copyright/permissions shit. When will Wikipedia learn? Just use the picture for fucks sake. If someone later complains then remove it but don't do the job of the evil big business copyright-holder's for them. Or if Wikipedia is really that scared of all this legal shit then host your servers in a country which has sensible copyright laws rather than the USA.--217.203.157.138 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wiki, we prefer an absolutely free article to a really good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.131.109 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

Long lists of largely trivial references in pop culture are not encouraged on Wiki. This one was huge and really trivial. It is enough to state that the film is heavily referenced - we do not and should not attempt an exhaustive list of examples.

I have trimmed the section considerably.

People may feel that one or too really notable examples (to illustrate the sort of refs that are often made) might be useful - if so feel free to reinstate a couple.

I believe the list as it existed was swamping the article and distorting the focus of the text. Who really cares if one more relatively obscure TV show makes yet another gag along the lines of "get your damned paws off me..."?

The film is one of the most quoted and influential of all time - this article is about the film - not about a million and one computer games, TV episodes and sraight to video movies that make references to it.

That's just my opinion, of course - but it would appear to be in line with Wiki policy on Popular Culture references.

See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles Daisyabigael (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Scripts[edit]

The original scripts for this series of films make very interesting reading, I don't know if anything from these would be thought interesting enough to be incorporated into any of the articles on the Apes movies, but they can be read at 'Hunter's Planet of the Apes Archive' Apes Script Archive 81.111.127.132 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the original series. Not a prequel.[edit]

Director Rupert Wyatt commented on the originality of the plot: "This is part of the mythology and it should be seen as that. It's not a continuation of the other films; it's an original story. It does satisfy the people who enjoy those films. The point of this film is to achieve that and to bring that fan base into this film exactly like Batman [Begins]." "Collider Visits The Set of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; Plus Video Blog". Collider.com. Lussier, Germain. (April 14, 2011). Retrieved 2011-06-14.

One might argue it's a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, but it's become clear it's very different. This is a reboot of the series. Gothicfilm (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes is not a science fiction film[edit]

This film has some elements of science fiction but the film is mostly a fantasy film. The film attempts to explain the plot from a standpoint of science fiction but it does not, the story is fantasy. It's like saying Harry Potter or Star Wars is science fiction, in the case of Star Wars, it has elements of science fiction, but the film is primarily based on a fantasy story. It is clear that the plot of Planet of the Apes is fantasy and not science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.138.15 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An overwhelming number of reliable sources identify this film as science fiction. For identifying a film's genre, we refer to such secondary sources for verifiability. A search engine test shows a much greater consensus for the film being in the science fiction genre than in fantasy. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unnamed contributor needs to read up on the definitions of genres. It is commonly accepted that stories based (however fantastically) on scientific explanations (no matter how implausible) are deemed SF. Where there is no attempt at a scientific rational, or magic or supernatural forces prevail - that is Fantasy. It becomes difficult where the two genres merge (as they often do) and there certainly is some justification for seeing Fantasy elements in Star Wars (eg "The Force"). However, you would still need a source to back up a claim that Star Wars is Fantasy and not SF - you cannot relabel what is the common prevailing opinion in all sources just on the basis of your own opinion - that is Original Research and is specifically banned on Wiki.

Planet of the Apes entirely relies on SF explanations! There is no Fantasy element whatsoever, no matter how far fetched you think the stories are. It is all about evolution, space/time travel and so on - core SF tropes. Please leave the genre alone as it will be reverted every time! Daisyabigael (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artefacts/Artifacts[edit]

Whilst noting that WP has a ruling on UK/US English - the spelling "artefacts" appears as an accepted alternative in US dictionaries online. The editing of this spelling was pointless and petty. I'm not going to chanbge it again, because it is fine as is - but it was fine before too!!! Daisyabigael (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a third opinion, I think "artifact" is the more commonly seen of the two spellings. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "artefact" is accepted as an alternative in US dictionaries, which means that it would be the second choice.
The change from "artefact" to "artifact" is to follow the Manual of Style rules. It is possible to argue that the rule is pointless and any edits to follow it are pointless; I'll concede that point. But the only petty thing involved in this argument is one editor reverting a change supported by the rules and creating a discussion to whine about it. Spidey104 19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilson's Participation[edit]

I was disappointed to find no mention of Michael Wilson in the story of how the film got made. His role is interesting because he had been blacklisted during the McCarthy era. In film's story, with the suppression of the planet's history, was often seen as a metaphor for the McCarthy era, as was the final dramatic shot of the statue of Liberty. It seems to me he should get more mention. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

concept art[edit]

Should some concept art also be included in the article in the production section to make it more informative? I saw some of it in the 'Behind the Planet of the Apes' documentary but was unable to find many that became scenes in the film. Does anyone know where the concept art collection can be found so we may pick the most significant images to be placed in the article? Taeyebaar (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes: the Franchise[edit]

A "son" of Cornelius and Zira is mentioned in the beginning of the article on the first movie. I believe they had no children, in fact weren't even married yet; the young person who was with them was referred to as Zira's nephew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.149.160 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Lucius is mentioned as Zira's nephew. (Now, this has been a common term to use for an illegitimate child in our world, but Lucius seems to be too old to be a natural child of Zira (perhaps he had been adopted). Of course, in the later movies, Zira and Cornelius have a son- Milo, which becomes Ceasar. (The novelization of Beneath has Zira mention indirectly that she is pregannt.) CFLeon (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Skipper"[edit]

Taylor is refered to several times by both Landon and Dodge as "Skipper". The deletion of the reference is unnecessary and the reason for it is innaccurate. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their objections are probably over the previous text making it sound like it was his common name, which it isn't for most of the film. I didn't really like that in the plot section myself. It would be better to simply mention that Taylor is the ship's captain or commander - perhaps give his proper rank - without a throw-away casual quote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked the term 'skipper' either. It sounds like Gilligan's Island. The problem is that Taylor is never addressed by rank (nor given a rank in the film). Nor is it ever directly said he is in command. That is inferred by the other astronauts calling him 'skipper'. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant I didn't like how "Skipper" was put in as a throw-away casual quote. At this point it could be left out, or added in a more encyclopedic manner. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the 3rd movie (Escape from the Planet of the Apes), the military refers to "Colonel Taylor and his crew". I've never noticed, do Heston or the others (including Brent) have any sort of rank insignia on their uniforms? CFLeon (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Pictures![edit]

Are all these pictures in the article REALLY necessary? They appear throughout the whole thing and are extremely distracting. I we should take out all but one or two of them. –Nahald (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. They could all be deleted as far as I'm concerned. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Location photos like these have their interest for some readers, but don't belong in the Plot section. I created a Gallery section and moved all but one there. One is now in the Filming section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Mission?[edit]

I've always wondered what Taylor's & crew's INTENDED mission was (Taylor's "new Eve" comment, indicating a colonization intent, is just him being sarcastic- you don't sent ONE female & 3 males to colonize ANYTHING!). Remember, Brent's ship was sent to see what had happened to the first one. The best that I can come up with is a test of an FTL drive, and the navigation system went bad, which explains how they get on an Earth-return trajectory. CFLeon (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor states in his opening monologue that it was a trip to another star so it was more than a test of the FTL drive. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart?[edit]

Can anyone find a credit for who played Stewart? CFLeon (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at IMDB: Dianne Stanley CFLeon (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an acting role and is uncredited, so we do not include it. And BTW, your link goes to another person with the same name. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

What? No "Spaceballs" references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.225.255 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean why were there no Spaceballs references in this film? Or no references in Spaceballs to this film? If the first, take a look at when the movies were made. Spaceballs didn't come out until almost 2 decades later. The POTA reference they are referring to is when Lonestarr and Barf destroy Mega-Maid and the scene on the beach where apes ride up to the head and lower arm and hand sticking out of the ground, and they see people climbing out of the wreck. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1968 or 1967?[edit]

I've watched this movie on VHS and on the back of the cover the copyright year for this film says 1967, not 1968.

Just saying. Joe Eggett (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film was produced in 67 but not released until 68. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People and References from the original that appear in the 2001 remake, and other references from the original[edit]

Not sure this would need to be in the article here, but thought it is worth at least noting in the talk page.

Cameos - Charlton Heston appears (uncredited) as Zaius (a reference to the character of Doctor Zaius), the chimp General's father. - Linda Harrison as a woman in the cart. I do not remember which woman in that scene specifically, would have to watch the remake again to see.

Lines - Michael Clarke Duncan's character utters a version of Taylor's originally famous line "Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!", adjusted to "... damn dirty human!" - Charlton Heston's character Zaius, on his death bed, utters one of Taylor's famous lines, "Damn them! Damn them all to hell!"

There is also a POTA/Zaius reference in the movie "Josie and the Pussycats" (don't judge, it was late, and I was tired and bored).

32.212.102.239 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)&oldid=1217228523"