Talk:Beneath the Planet of the Apes

Accidental activation of the Doomsday Bomb?
In the trivia section it says that in the original script Taylor's activation of the bomb was deliberate, but in the final movie version it is accidental. I saw this movie not long after it came out, and many times since and it always appeared deliberate to me. Does anyone here recall it looking accidental? To my eyes it always looked like Taylor made a dash for the activation button, was shot, but still managed to push down the plunger. Rob Banzai 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion; it looks deliberate. In one of the documentaries included on one of the DVDs, Charlton Heston says that destroying the world was his idea so that there could be no sequels.  This didn't work as intended, but at least he didn't have to be in them.  (He didn't want to be in the Beneath sequel which is why he doesn't have much screen time.) Val42 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the novelization and the Gold Key Comic adaptation it's much more obviously accidental; after Brent is shot, Taylor dashes to the bomb. He's shot and bodily falls on the control panel. It always looked to me like he reached up to the panel, perhaps to keep from falling, perhaps for help from Zaius, and just happened to clutch the red button. CFLeon 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch the film again. He was mortally wounded.  He had reached out to Zaius pleading "Help me!"  Zaius' reply was to curse him -- Brent is killed -- Taylor says "You bloody bastard!" and dies... and falls with his outstreached hand landing on the detonation plunger.  A dead man can do nothing.  Since he was dead when it happened, that would make the action an accident. Also, in both the novelization and the Marvel comics adaptation, his action was deliberate.-- Jason Palpatine 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looked deliberate to me. Reading this came as a complete surprise. I came here to make a note on it and found there are already others dubious about the claim it was supposed to have been an accident, judging from the scene on film. To Jason: Just because someone's strength fails and he falls does not mean he is dead. Real death, unlike most movie deaths, is not instantaneous or before one hits the ground. The fact that his hand catches and holds the red button pulling it down shows that he was not dead. There would usually have been no grip in a dead man's hand to catch and hold the button; it is completely flaccid. A "death grip" develops when one dies with one's hand wrapped around something and rigor mortis sets in some hours later. The exception, cadaveric spasm, is a rare nervous reaction where a grip continues from the moment of death. But that type of grip indicates one was alive at the time of grasping. Although we see Taylor's hand clenched in pain just before he falls, a grip on the button as depicted would have had to have been initiated by releasing that grip and then grasping the button on the elevated console, else his closed fingers would have just bounced away. After depressing the button, we see his hand relax as one would expect in death or the knowledge that he had accomplished his purpose. That is not a cadaveric spasm, which lasts through rigor mortis. Conclusion: The fall was aimed as best as a dying man can to set off the bomb and rid the universe of the apes who had overrun the world and no script margin notes will convince me otherwise. 74.138.50.148 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) PaCkMaN
 * I don't think it's clear whether it's deliberate or not, and IMHO, it's all the better for being left ambiguous. My own interpretation is that it was deliberate. I'm going by Taylor's frame of mind after Nova is killed - "we should let them all die ... it's time it was finished" - as much as anything.  I think he means to do it.  But, as I said, that's just my interpretation.  In the meantime, I've removed this whole bullet from the Trivia section.  Can whoever put it in there please cite the source of this story if/when they decide to put it back? I've just watched the Behind the Planet of the Apes documentary, and it's not in the version that I have. --Chilly Penguin 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very much deliberate I'd say. When arguing with Zaius before, he says "It's Doomsday! The end of the world." He knows he's lethally wounded and asks "Help me!" - for what else? When his hand comes to the trigger, he holds on to it and pushes down - clearly to be seen. Anyway, as an article should not be biased and this is a point of discussion, the text should be changed in such a way as not to suggest either way, so that any viewer can found out for her/himself. Zac67 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Needed clean-up
Removed all references as inadequate. References were not published sources that state clearly the information cited. Also novelizations can not substantiate information on a film. The best reference was notes from the sound track but was not properly added or formatted. Here is the code to use for that;

To use this code hit "Edit" copy code then fill out with proper information and add under references.--Amadscientist 10:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot
I re-added the plot tag. Good articles of films don't need a long plot, see Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Tenebrae (film). Annie D 11:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the plot summary, as requested. Expect objections. &mdash; Val42 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you deleted the trivia as well. I'm not familiar with the film so I was reluctant to work on the article, but I'll try to help out integrating it. Annie D 01:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are editors that don't think that trivia belongs in encyclopedic articles. Two weeks after such a section gets tagged as trivia, it gets deleted.  I've seen this happen on dozens of articles that I'm watching.  I figured that since I was going to be removing that tag too, I'd just take care of their concerns as well. &mdash; Val42 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As Social Commentry
Shouldn`t a paragraph put it into the context of the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war which was raging at the time?Andycjp (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. This was a generic Cold War movie as relevant in the 1950s as the 1960s or 1970s or even early 1980s.


 * If you want useless unprovable social commentary, you could add a section on how this film may have led to the popular rise of terrorism.... But it would be wrong. Terrorism is clear in the early 1900s and before (Guy Fawkes). In fact this film may owe everything to early terrorist except the specifics of an atomic device. I can see this movie done with thousands of tons of stored TNT/ammo instead like the 1 Kiloton Black Tom event. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-Brent.JPG
Image:BtPotA-Brent.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-mutantsandtheirgod.JPG
Image:BtPotA-mutantsandtheirgod.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BtPotA-theend.JPG
Image:BtPotA-theend.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuity error: 3955 or 3978?
The existence of a continuity error between the first and second films is not as complicated as it may look. Consider this:

(1) In the first film, you clearly have a chronometer displaying the date, November 25, 3978.

(2) In the second film, the year 3955 comes from Brent himself, by word of mouth.

The problem with Brent's year is that we don't know at which point during his voyage did he read that year on his chronometer. Once more, he doesn't have a month and day to go with the year.

Which leads to only one possible conclusion: Brent read his chronometer while his crew and his ship were still traveling through time, even as they approached Earth.

Though he may have seen the year 3955 on his chronometer, 23 years had passed before his ship disengaged itself from time warp. Despite his word of mouth in the second film, we still have Taylor's undisputed actual reading on his chronometer, displayed in the first film. The year in both films is, without question, 3978. I imagine the events of the second film take place in December, 3978 or sometime in early-3979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At the beginig of the movie Brent said he took the reading "right before reentry", this whould mean that this reading was taken at a time where the relativistic effects had not enough influence to cause a time difference of 23 years since they could not have survieved the acceleration that whould have been necessary to stop on the surface of the planet. (this is just an estimate but i am sure a calculation of the facts would have the same result) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.109.143 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been pointed out elsewhere that Zira only knew of the 3955 date despite the only spaceship she had access to would have been Taylor's not Brent's and so would have known the year was 3978. In Battle for the Planet of the Apes the year is given as 3950 rather then 3955 or 3978.  It is a clear continuity problem.--2606:A000:7D44:100:A5DB:8383:D5F4:C04C (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no ... no. There is a different timeline after the three Apes return to Earth's past with "Escape ..." - "Battle" and "Conquest" have a different history, because as Eric Braedon stated in "Escape," there are different avenues/tributaries in time, and by switching babies with the wild chimpanzee, the "Aldo" of the Ape's history is no longer the Ape that first talked and led them to rebellion - now, that Ape is Caesar (who appears much sooner than the 500 year history that apes were pets of human beings before Aldo first spoke) and the sequence of events is circa 2000, and history was changed such that there was no detonation of the Alpha/Omega bomb, and Apes and Man lived together in a peaceful, if somewhat gamey, society. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * All this is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.192.50 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced Material on first story proposals for Beneath the Planet of the Apes
On August 9, 2011‎ User:24.35.199.246 added a large amount of text to the Production section, with no sources given. It appears to be an extensive interview with Beneath associate producer and co-story writer Mort Abrahams, who also worked on the original film. It looks to me like it's for real - nothing in it strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about the Planet of the Apes series history, and I have read a good deal on it over the years. But this had details I had not seen before, so I cannot personally vouch for it. It is, however, very interesting, as they had no concept of making a sequel to the first film until after its release, and it seemed impossible.

This contributor has made very few edits. Never communicated in an edit summary or on a talk page. His text was not tagged. It was not moved to the talk page. It was abruptly deleted within minutes, as if it were vandalism. He only managed one comment, in the wrong place - the text of the article. He wrote I was trying to give you all the backstory, but I guess that's just too much to ask for. This too was immediately deleted.

I only found this by looking back in the article's history. Having started a debate on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, I have decided to take more moderate action here. I have tried to save this from the dustbin of the history archives by copying and pasting it into the talk page, with a few minor edits, using the collapsing template because it's so large. Perhaps someone can track down where it came from. If nothing else, it makes for a good read if you're interested in a detailed account of how this film was developed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CFC;" | First story proposals for Beneath the Planet of the Apes
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |

First story proposals for a Planet of the Apes sequel
With Planet of the Apes breaking box-office records across the country, producer Arthur P. Jacobs and associate producer Mort Abrahams met with studio chief Richard D. Zanuck in Zanuck's office. Abrahams recalls: "'Planet' had been doing extremely well and we were talking, patting ourselves on the back, and giving Dick credit for putting his neck on the line and so forth. Arthur, Stan Hough [an executive production manager at Fox, later producer on the 'Apes TV series] and I left Dick's office and walked downstairs. As we were walking across the lot, Stan said, 'Why don't you do a sequel?' And I said, 'You've got to be kidding-how?' He said, 'You think about it.' Later, I got a flash of an idea and went into Arthur's office and said, 'Listen, I got this crazy idea about how to do a sequel...'" Hough's suggestion unleashed a flood of possible follow-ups, notably from Rod Serling and Pierre Boulle, yet coming up with a viable script for the sequel as shocking as that of the first movie proved extremely difficult.

Rod Serling Treatments
Rod Serling, original screen writer on the first movie, devised the first idea for a sequel. Taylor and Nova take off to the dark, unexplored part of the planet. Eventually, they would discover the remnants of human city, some weapons, and an old airplane which he uses to fight off the apes - half the film would concern Taylor's battle with the apes who follow him. When the apes have him cornered, all hope looks lost, but a second spacecraft containing (human) astronauts from the past arrives and stops them. Taylor has the opportunity to return to his own time, but chooses a woman astronaut from the ship’s crew as his mate and decides to stay to stay behind in order to rebuild humanity on the planet of the apes.

In April 1968 Abrahams wrote to Serling saying that he thought the treatment was missing the original's visual shock, as well as a shocking climax like the first film. He felt that the sequel should begin with an equivalent of the Statue of Liberty scene and build the story around it. Serling supplied two alternative concepts over the next month. In the first concept, Taylor and Nova discover another spaceship intact and travel either forward or backwards in time to a new, bizarre but unrelated adventure, which would open up "a whole raft of possibilities". The second concept also had Taylor finding a spacecraft, eluding the apes for most of the film and taking off with a handful of intelligent humans. Together, they discover another civilized planet and land, unaware that it is also populated by apes (an idea drawn from Boulle's original novel). Both of Serling's scenarios were rejected.

Interviewed by Marvel Comics in 1974, Serling described a simpler sequence of events concerning his suggestions for the movie: "Arthur offered it to me from London and I remember spending $200 on a phone conversation about what we'd do with it. We literally got into the hydrogen bomb and the resurgence of civilization over the apes and we very much plugged the concept of the ape's desperate fear of the humans. Because the humans repeated what they'd done before which, essentially, was to wreck the earth. As it turned out, I couldn't do the script when Arthur wanted it done. I was on another assignment. So I didn't have the remotest connection with the approach Jacobs eventually went with."

Planet of the Men
Next, Pierre Boulle was asked for a treatment and script. The result was Planet of the Men (English-language copy dated 22 July 1968). It picks up immediately where the original left off and follows Taylor and Nova (and their son, Sirius) as they encounter the primitive humans beyond the Forbidden Zone and re-educate them over the course of many years. In the Ape City, chimp protesters eventually force Zaius to free Zira and Cornelius, but the more aggressive elements of ape society, led by Zaius and the gorilla Field Marshall Urus, eventually gain the upper hand and prosecute a war against the resurgent humans. Led by Taylor and Sirius, the humans utterly defeat the apes in the war, and Sirius leads the more impetuous younger humans against the ape city, eventually killing most and reducing the rest to their primitive states. Taylor is killed by a young human while trying to help Zira. The script ends in a circus where the nearly inarticulate Dr. Zaius is nothing more than a trained ape.

Boulle later reflected on his only experience of writing specifically for the screen: "After the success of the original film, Arthur Jacobs requested that I do a sequel for him. They accepted the treatment that I worked on, but they made so many changes that very few of my ideas were left. It was completely different from what they finally used on the screen. I used the end of the first film as my starting point. Taylor realized that man still existed but had regressed to a primitive and savage existence. He decides to attempt to retrain and educate them to bring them back to a normal life. He teaches them the use of language. The apes consider this a great danger and a terrible war begins. Many of the subhumans contest Taylor's leadership because he wants to make peace, and in the end they win out and destroy all of the apes whom they greatly outnumber. I relate this very badly because I have forgotten it." Boulle found the experience much less enjoyable than writing a novel, saying: "It was an interesting and amusing experience for me, nothing more. It's not the same. When I was writing I was thinking in visual terms, picturing the actors, Charlton Heston, and the others. I played the game, but my film was never made, and I don't even want to publish it, and it never will be." In fact, at least one crucial element from 'Planet of the Men' found its way into Beneath - General Ursus (presumably based on Field Marshall Urus) does lead a war of extermination against the humans, a war with disastrous results.

As Jacobs later recalled: "We didn't plan any sequel in the first one, but it became so successful that Fox said you must do a sequel, if you can come up with one. First I went to Pierre Boulle to write the screenplay. He said he didn't know how one makes one, then when I showed him a print of the first one, he was just absolutely ecstatic. He DID write a treatment for a sequel, titled 'Planet of Men', but it wasn't cinematic. Then, I went to Paul Dehn and Mort Abrahams in London, and spent about two weeks, walking and walking, trying to figure out where to go from the Statue of Liberty."

The Dark Side of the Earth
Another sequel proposal was entitled The Dark Side of the Earth. The author and date is unknown, but the same title was used by Rod Serling for a television play about the 1956 anti-communist revolt in Hungary, and the similarities to Serling's earlier Apes sequel outline (which also used the phrase 'dark side of the earth', though not as the title), suggest that the proposal could have been written by someone familiar with Serling’s earlier work, or by Serling himself. One of Abraham's objections to Serling's original story was that it lacked a shock ending, and The Dark Side of the Earth provides a shock ending to a story similar to Serling’s, so it could be his attempt to modify it to Abrahams' liking. However, the proposal does not appear to have been written on Serling's typewriter, and it shares elements of both Serling’s and Boulle’s concepts.

In the story outline, Taylor and Nova find the remains of a twentieth century town inhabited by thinking, talking humans. They join the humans and enjoy their pastoral, carefree lifestyle until another U.S. spaceship crashes, with one astronaut surviving. In time, the second astronaut, like Sirius in Planet of the Men, leads the humans on an attack against the apes just as the hawkish apes led by Zaius plan to exterminate the humans. As in Boulle’s screenplay, the humans take over and the apes revert to a primitive pre-articulate state. But Taylor is not killed in this story. Rather, remembering a bomb he found in the humans’ arsenal and disgusted by the carnage, prejudice, and hatred he has witnessed, Taylor decides to destroy everything so that God can try it all over again. He crashes the ship into the city, igniting a nuclear holocaust which leaves nothing except the reproductive imagery of a flower and a bee.

Planet of the Apes Revisited
Following the rejection of these proposals, Mort Abrahams reconsidered his preconditions for the sequel: "Finally, having thought about it for several weeks, I abandoned the idea of trying to top the Statue of Liberty shot. I told Arthur, 'Look, let's not do a film for the final shot, which we're trying to do in topping the first picture's fantastic experience. Let's just do a picture, but we have to make it visually more exciting by involving ourselves with either mechanical or film effects.' So, we started with that premise. Then, I got the idea of going beyond apes to a race of mutant humans who could create reality out of their own mental images - earthquakes, rock falls and all that sort of thing - which gave us the opportunity for visual effects on the screen. We worked backwards, building the story around the visual gimmicks." In the fall of 1968, while working in England producing The Chairman, Abrahams met with poet-turned-screenwriter Paul Dehn, who had co-written Goldfinger, one of the most popular James Bond films. After some discussion, Dehn agreed to write a treatment. "Having read his poetry," Abrahams said, "I wondered if he would be interested. His imagery indicated such a fertile imagination that I thought his would not be the standard screenwriter's approach."

Dehn submitted his story treatment, which was developed from Abrahams’ concept, on 13 September 1968. Planet of the Apes Revisited, again, began with the final moments of the first film. This time, Taylor and Nova ride into the Forbidden Zone, where they see various visual deterrents including arid deserts, snow drifts and banks of thick fog. They travel down an elevator and encounter a race of mutated humans who survived the nuclear war in the buried New York City. They metamorphosized into telepathic beings who worship the atomic bomb as a god, and while the mutant government (though not the wider community) are aware of occasional intrusions by primitive humans, gorilla hunters and chimp explorers, they choose to live in pacific isolation. Meanwhile, General Ursus, a Hitler-like gorilla, tells an ape assembly that they have killed or captured all the humans. But the ape population is growing and the captured humans require feeding, so they need to expand their frontiers. The mutants convince Taylor to spy on their behalf, for the sake of peace. He and Nova return to the Ape City, to the home of Zira and Cornelius, where he reveals that Nova is pregnant. Ursus' scouts enter the Forbidden Zone and discover the tops of New York’s tallest skyscrapers. Believing there is a ready-made city waiting for them, the gorillas soon discover that the city must be inhabited, and therefore begin to prepare an invasion. During this time, Nova gives birth to a son, Sirius, who is cared for by Zira, and Taylor meets secretly with some chimpanzee and younger orangutan students. While making their way back to the mutants, Nova is shot dead by a gorilla guard, but Taylor tells the mutants about Ursus' plans. As Taylor watches from above ground, the gorilla army marches past a pathetic anti-war demonstration, with the intent of claiming the Forbidden Zone as their own. A visual deterrent of an army of men with primitive apes pulling their war machines is disrupted by Zaius. In response, the mutants send their bomb to the surface. Taylor convinces Zaius that it must not be touched, but Ursus shoots Zaius and Taylor flees. He rendezvous’ with the chimpanzee students, who have taken over Ape City in the gorillas’ absence. They manage to capture Ursus as his gorilla soldiers break the supports of the missile, making it point downwards. The rocket fires, destroying the mutant city and the gorilla army. Taylor and his chimpanzee allies return to Ape City where Ursus is imprisoned and the humans are freed, with a new era dawning between man and ape. Dehn's treatment climaxes with an optimistic ending set 54 years after the explosion, where a group of children are being taught about that final war. The teacher is a chimpanzee and the children are human. The treatment goes on to cut to the Forbidden Zone where a group of horribly mutated apes emerge from a tunnel and, symbolically, shoot a dove - an ominous ending after all! Paul Dehn explained: "...exciting ideas did come out of the second one as a result of the Statue of Liberty, which instantly suggested that New York was underground and that there could be relics of human civilization down there, and that gave me the idea for the mutants, people who had become radiated." "We were looking for a setting that would be at once recognizable to the audience and yet take on a different form," added Abrahams. "Now, we had already destroyed New York in the first one, so we had to decide if we wanted to do shots of New York with buildings on their sides. We decided to go underground instead, and keep the whole atmosphere underground in contrast to the first picture which was all above ground. I don't know where the specific idea of the subway came in, but it all came about due to our desire to create a very visual picture. The first film depended upon the unusual story and the unusual characters. Presumably, most of the audience for the second picture would have seen the first; therefore you couldn't do scenes like the sudden disclosure of apes on horseback and expect the same reaction. We were looking for unusual visuals, not the repetition of anything in picture one."
 * }

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704124106/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com:80/articles/1999/08_Feb---The_Great_Apes_Score_Debate.asp to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1999/08_Feb---The_Great_Apes_Score_Debate.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625005140/http://filmscoremonthly.com:80/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/70/Beneath-the-Planet-of-the-Apes to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/70/Beneath-the-Planet-of-the-Apes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)