Talk:Planet of the Apes/Archive 1

Duplicate entry, please merge
Planet_of_the_Apes_(franchise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.141.176 (talk • contribs)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the original series. Not a prequel.
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) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Release dates
The release dates in the infobox don't match those in the table in the middle of the article. I have no idea which ones are correct, but I think they should match. DH85868993 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Spacecraft
It may be inappropriate to title a section using a fan given name, "Icarus". Several other names have been given to the spaceship from more official sources. The Topps trading card set named the ship 'Air Force One'. The ANSA film from the Blu-Ray release named it 'Liberty 1'. This name was also used in the book 'Conspiracy of the Planet of the Apes' by Andrew Gaska. I propose that the section be renamed "Spacecraft" or "Taylor's Spacecraft" and the opening line changed to 'The spacecraft that transports Taylor and his fellow was astronauts in Planet of the Apes (1968) was designed by art director William Creber." The Icarus name, as well as the other names mentioned above can be refered to later in the section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That was my first thought too, but as the text immediately states it's fan-named, and then actually used in Rise, I didn't bother changing it. It would be simplest to change the sub-header to "Spacecraft" and leave the text as it is, as the section's point is how "Icarus" was treated over the franchise. The other names you mention could be added, as long as it's clear they weren't used in the films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of the section is shared plot elements between the films that's why I think titling this part with a fan-given name is not appropriate. But I see your point about it being identified as a fan name at the top. Here is an alternate suggestion for the lead: "The spacecraft, generally known as by the fan-given name Icarus, that transports Taylor and his fellow was astronauts in Planet of the Apes (1968) was designed by art director William Creber." SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But I wouldn't say it's generally known by a name that never appeared in the original series. The text currently gives no confusion on that. I wouldn't want to lessen that clarity. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's where I disagree. Naming the section 'Icarus' and leading off with it in the text, gives what is a fan-given name greater emphasis and that will lead to confusion. If the term 'generally known' is a problem, how about 'often called' or 'ofter refered to'? SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Anything like that can be taken to mean "Icarus" was in the films. As it stands now the text is clear the name was known in the fan community (but generally not beyond it, until Rise, as "often referred to" would imply), but was not used in the original series. I said above the sub-header can be changed to "Spacecraft", though I don't believe it needs to be. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Leading off the article with the name "Icarus" can be taken to mean it was in the films. Saying something like "Taylor's spacecraft, sometimes called by the fan-given name 'Icarus'" is much clearer. Frankly, I don't think Icarus belongs in the lead sentence to begin with. I'm trying to compromise to reach a consensus. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Going to change the sub-header to 'Taylor's Spacecraft'. Would like to change the first sentance to, but will wait for concensus to do so. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Character table (humans)
Is this really necessary? There are 28 people listed, and only three of them appear in more than one movie. 99.43.175.19 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

'brief' TV series
I have removed the word brief from the section on the TV series. It is a matter of opinion whether 27 is brief. Many TV series have less episodes than this and are not considered brief. In any case, compared to a film, 27 is not brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.160.184 (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (2001) requested move
2001 POTA is labeled as a remake. This is wrong as it is like the original adapted from the novel. It is then unfair to call it a "remake". It should instead be called "re-adaption". Thank You --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When a novel is adapted into a film a second time it is usually called a remake by most sources. Especially when it has references to the first film, as was certainly the case here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers.
 * The 2001 film was not even close to the novel, but...what references to the first film are there?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

– Clearly, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Planet of the Apes" is something to do with this media franchise. Given that, this franchise article is a perfect broad-concept article for items in the series, which is a more reader-friendly presentation than keeping a dab page at the base name. Cúchullain t/ c 17:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Planet of the Apes (franchise) → Planet of the Apes
 * Planet of the Apes → Planet of the Apes (disambiguation)
 * Oppose The current setup allows easy detection of incorrect incoming links that are simply piped to "Planet of the Apes". The franchise page is basically an article with some (terrible looking) tables, a few paragraphs and not much else. IF the franchise page was a Featured Article, or close to it, then there might be some weight in the arguement to having that as the primary topic.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lugnuts. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:BROADCONCEPT since the current setup is a disambiguation page, and the guidelines state, "The page located at that title should be an article describing [the broad concept], and not a disambiguation page." I don't think we should consider article quality, especially with the material below the fold. The infobox at Planet of the Apes (franchise) can give readers the access they need, though I'm fine with modifying the infobox further to make sure it lists everything with clarity. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lugnuts. And I don't see the need for this slimming down of such page names. Even for novice readers, Planet of the Apes (franchise) is instantly clear what it is in the drop down search window. Why make it ambiguous? What does it cost to have the word franchise there? - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lugnuts and Gothicfilm. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as clear primary topic. Red Slash 02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support per policy. Whether the franchise is the clear primary topic of the page or not is a question independent of the quality of the franchise article. Of course the quality can be improved, but we have never decided the primacy of a topic based on the fact that the page needs work. Since all of the topics of any significance are aspects of the same franchise, and all of those topics are listed on the franchise page, it is much less inconvenient to readers to take them to the franchise page first rather than a disambiguation page. bd2412  T 03:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That could be easily addressed by having Planet of the Apes redirect to Planet of the Apes (franchise). Once that is implemented, it would be most convenient for readers under every scenario, particularly search, to keep the franchise page named for what it is Planet of the Apes (franchise). - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have many comparable franchise articles for which we don't do that - Star Wars, Star Trek, The Fast and the Furious, Final Destination, Pirates of the Caribbean. bd2412  T 04:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen that. And I've long thought it's not what's best for readers. As it stands now, a reader clicking on any of your links above can't be sure what they're going to get. Nothing is more convenient than properly identifying the article. As I said above, even for novice readers, Planet of the Apes (franchise) is instantly clear what it is in the drop down search window. Why make it ambiguous? What does it cost to have the word franchise there? If I didn't already spend too much time on WP I would propose a change, to make it common practice to use (franchise) in franchise article names and redirect the base name to them, unless a DAB page is also needed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is conceptually any different from saying that all names of U.S. presidents are imprecise (because all have namesakes or things named after them), and therefore proposing to move George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan to George Washington (president), Abraham Lincoln (president), and Ronald Reagan (president). bd2412  T 16:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is conceptually different because U.S. presidents are by far the best known people by their name and anyone searching for them would not expect to see an article on them named anything other than their name. Readers searching for Star Wars or Planet of the Apes are more likely looking for the first film than the franchise or a disambiguation page. Yet they could very well be looking for the franchise. So precise identification - which we already have here - is what is best for readers. One is very well known people who stand alone, despite what things may have been later named after them. The other is media elements directly related to each other. Apples and oranges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a question of proof. I would suggest that the more media exists within a franchise, the more likely people will be to think of the franchise as the primary topic of the name. bd2412  T 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at anywhere near the level of your U.S. presidents example. Again, apples and oranges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Small apples and big apples. If we're talking about "the level" of difference, it's a matte of degree. bd2412  T 02:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some page view statistics will be helpful here. In the last 90 days, this franchise article has been viewed 571,006 times. That's more than Planet of the Apes (1968 film), Planet of the Apes (2001 film) and all other articles named just "Planet of the Apes". The only items on the dab page that have this name that aren't part of this franchise are quite obscure in comparison. All entries in the franchise are/will be covered in some detail here, with appropriate links to the articles where more information can be found. The dab page itself had 223,012 views in the same period - that's a lot of readers to be sending to a dead end when we have other options. This is exactly what WP:Broad concept articles and the WP:CONCEPTDAB section of WP:Disambiguation speak to. This is what's done for Star Wars, James Bond, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, etc. - several of which were settled by recent RMs. On another note, I and others are progressively working on expanding this article; hopefully this will settle some of the above concerns that the article is too limited.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Those stats show the franchise page is not suffering any problems due to its current title. And the disambiguation page is not a dead end, though as I said before these issues can be addressed by having Planet of the Apes redirect to Planet of the Apes (franchise). Once that is implemented, it would be most convenient for readers under every scenario, particularly search, to keep the franchise page named for what it is. Planet of the Apes (disambiguation) can be maintained as there are some minor uses of the term outside the franchise which I wouldn't want to see described on the franchise page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly support move, per Cúchullain. Charles Essie (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support per bd2412. This should be done for many reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Battle for the Planet of the Apes box office
I'm concerned with the line that Battle for the Planet of the Apes "went on to earn $4 million in North American theatrical rentals that year". It's cited to a Variety article from 1974, a pretty old source considering we now have final box office numbers from Box Office Mojo and reckonings of the success from the cited books. Are we certain these "theatrical rentals" aren't included in the $8.8 million given by Box Office Mojo? Even if not, this seems like something that should be at the main article, rather than the summary given here. In my opinion, it should be removed here and discussed more fully at the main article.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)