Messages

But in today's world, modern POTA is more critically acclaimed (and, by some metrics, also more profitable) than modern Star Wars.

True. POTA is one of the few franchises that improved its batting average in recent years. One important factor is that they take their time with these movies. They're not rushing them out like Disney did with Star Wars and Marvel. There was a three year gap between each entry in the Caesar trilogy, and by time Kingdom comes out it will have been almost seven years since War for the Planet of the Apes. It's a textbook case of quality over quantity and other studios could learn from it.

A part me wishes they'd quit while they're ahead and not push their luck by making more. But I'm cautiously optimistic about Kingdom. I've enjoyed all the other recent POTA movies, and I'm willing to give this one a chance. As a franchise, POTA is certainly in a much healthier condition right now than Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, The Terminator or Alien are.

What exactly is modern POTA's canon? The original Heston film seems to be a factor in it. But do the other POTA films fit into the canon as well?

Good question. I saw a lot of discussion about this back in 2011, and the consensus, fuelled by comments from the filmmakers, seemed to point towards the new movies being a hard reboot that takes place in a separate universe from the old films. However, the movies themselves don't make that clear, and there is evidence to suggest that all the POTA films are connected (except for Burton's 2001 movie).

Some say the new films are a reinterpretation of Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel and have nothing to do with the earlier movies. This is patently untrue, since in Boulle's novel the titular Planet of the Apes is not Earth but a separate planet named Soror. The twist about the ape world being Earth originated in the 1968 movie. The new films reference other things from the old movies that weren't in Boulle's novel, such as the spaceship Icarus getting namedropped in Rise of the Planet of the Apes...

...and the Alpha-Omega military faction in War of the Planet of the Apes foreshadowing the mutant cult in Beneath the Planet of the Apes.

The dates given for the Icarus mission in Rise do not match those from the 1968 movie, but I just chalk that up to the films being made so far apart. Continuity issues such as this arise in every long-running franchise, and I don't see such minor disparities as proof the old and new movies can't be connected. It's possible that future POTA movies might present concrete evidence to separate them. For example, if they end up remaking the 1968 movie, which some fans believe they're building up to. Until that happens, I regard the recent movies as prequels to the earlier series.

But what about the contradictions between Rise and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes? Don't they depict different versions of the same events? Yes, but Conquest takes place in an alternate timeline created after Cornelius and Zira went back in time in Escape from the Planet of the Apes. Cornelius and Zira knew of Caesar, the ape who led the simian uprising, from their history books. Their own son Milo later adopts the name Caesar and leads the uprising himself. Cornelius and Zira travel back in time from the future Planet of the Apes and initiate a sequence of events that leads to the creation of the Planet of the Apes.

This causal loop illustrates the bootstrap paradox. I once read an interview with James Cameron in which he addressed this problem with regards to the parentage of John Connor in The Terminator movies. He said that logically John's father could not have originally been Kyle Reese. In order for Kyle to travel back in time and meet Sarah, it was necessary for John to already exist, since it was John who sent Kyle back in time in the first place. If John hadn't been born, Kyle wouldn't have gone back in time and met Sarah, but if Kyle hadn't gone back in time and met Sarah then John wouldn't have been born. Unless John's father was originally someone other than Kyle. When Kyle went back in time, he changed history and created the causal loop.

The same logic applies to the POTA timeline. Events had to have happened differently the first time. My theory is that the current series of films, beginning with Rise, depicts the original sequence of events that leads to the 1968 movie and its sequel, Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Originally the ape uprising occurred in the early 21st century and was triggered by the Simian Flu pandemic. This set in motion a sequence of events culminating in the destruction of Earth by the Alpha-Omega bomb in Beneath the Planet of the Apes.

Cornelius and Zira escape by travelling back in time and arriving on Earth almost half a century before the original ape rebellion occurred, thereby setting in motion a new chain of events. If Escape takes place in the 1970s, then Conquest must take place in the 1980s or 1990s, since Milo has grown to adulthood in the interim. The fear and paranoia inadvertently stoked by Cornelius and Zira when they disclosed the truth about humanity's future subjugation accelerates events and causes the ape rebellion to happen roughly two decades earlier than it was originally meant to. Milo adopts the guise of Caesar, but he is not the original Caesar. The timeline featuring the original Caesar is now averted, and instead of Earth being destroyed we see a more peaceful future where apes and humans coexist harmoniously, as depicted at the end of Battle for the Planet of the Apes.

At least that's my theory. But I could be wrong. The new films might be a hard reboot, and perhaps they're building up to a full on remake of the '68 movie. Some locations in the trailer for Kingdom certainly evoke the Forbidden Zone beach from the Heston film.

To be honest, POTA has never been one of my favourite franchises. It never resonated with me on the personal level that Doctor Who, Star Wars or Star Trek did. But I still like the POTA films and I'm glad to see the series succeeding where so many other franchises are failing.

Here's the trailer for Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024), which will be the tenth theatrically-released film in the POTA franchise.

Between this and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, 2024 is shaping up to be a big year for simian sci-fi movies. It's a shame Nintendo couldn't have released a Donkey Kong film in the same year.

I still haven't seen the first Annabelle movie. I'll watch it if it's on TV, but it doesn't sound like it's worth paying to see. I did enjoy the sequels though. Neither of them is a great film, but they're both entertaining.

What it boils down to is there's simply too much STUFF to sort through. Any quality entries in the series are probably undermined by three atrocious entries. There's no way for the cream to rise to the top.

Sadly many film and TV franchises have gone the same route. Most of us on this site are old enough to remember when there were no bad Star Wars or Terminator movies. Now the number of bad entries in those franchises outweigh the good. All because the greedy studios didn't know when to quit while they were ahead.

I'd like to think Halloween IV would've been something completely new. In light of the Satanic panic of the Eighties, I'll suggest that Carpenter's own Prince Of Darkness could've been originally intended for some future Halloween franchise entry. That might be totally wrong tho.

Some sort of alien invasion taking place on Halloween night might've been interesting too. Between stuff like Close Encounters, ET, Starman and probably other stuff I'm forgetting, I think an alien-related Halloween film was probably inevitable.

I'm sure you're right about the sci-fi angle creeping into future entries. Carpenter had already dabbled in sci-fi horror with The Thing – which I consider to be his magnum opus – and he made quite a few sci-fi films after SOTW. He referenced two scary sci-fi movies in the original Halloween in the form of the films the kids were watching: The Thing from Another World (1951) and Forbidden Planet (1956). The first two Halloweens were psycho killer slasher movies, and the third a supernatural witchcraft movie, so it would've made sense to go in a sci-fi or cosmic horror direction with the fourth. That would've kept things fresh.

And I agree that Prince of Darkness is the post-SOTW Carpenter film that would've fit best with the Halloween franchise. SOTW and POD are the two Carpenter movies most heavily influenced by Nigel Kneale's writing. POD borrows heavily from Quatermass and the Pit and The Stone Tape (1972), and Carpenter even used the pseudonym 'Martin Quatermass' for his writing credit (Kneale was reportedly not amused by that). I doubt Kneale would've collaborated with Carpenter again, given his dissatisfaction with SOTW, but I can imagine Carpenter producing a Kneale-esque concept for Halloween IV. Something involving otherworldly horror. Perhaps an alien menace that's laid dormant for centuries before being unearthed on Halloween night, or else a straightforward alien invasion movie taking place in a small town on October 31st.

Maybe In the Mouth of Madness (1994) could've been adapted for the Halloween franchise as well. That was Carpenter's most Lovecraftian movie and it contains shades of SOTW: following a mysterious death, a man and woman journey to a small town to investigate a wealthy recluse who is secretly plotting to use an entertainment medium (TV/novels) to plunge the world into chaos. Have the story take place in late October and bingo, you've got a Halloween movie.

I suppose the Cult of the Thorn plot in Halloween VI is the closest the franchise came to venturing beyond the usual Michael Myers formula after SOTW. But even then, Myers took centre stage. I don't know if the Cult of the Thorn would have been a strong enough concept on its own to carry a movie without Myers. They might've come across as a less interesting version of Conal Cochran. One of his lines in SOTW foreshadows the cult's astrological fixation:

'In the end, we don't decide these things, you know; the planets do. They're in alignment, and it's time again.'

An extraterrestrial/cosmic threat would've been more interesting.

While we're on the subject, could The Fog (1980) have been adapted for the Halloween franchise? That's one of my favourite Carpenter movies (largely owing to it being coastal/oceanic horror), and I wouldn't really want to change it. But hypothetically, what if The Fog was Halloween II? What if instead of April 21st the town of Antonio Bay celebrated its centennial on Halloween? The streets could've been festooned with Halloween decorations, and the strange occurrences that happen on the preceding night could've been attributed to Mischief Night/Devil's Night shenanigans. The ghosts knocking on the doors of their victims' houses could've been mistaken for trick-or-treaters.

Now I'm imagining an alternate universe where the Halloween franchise looks like this:

•   Halloween (1978)
•   Halloween II: The Fog (1980)
•   Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
•   Halloween IV: Prince of Darkness (1987)
•   Halloween V: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
•   Halloween VI: H20/The Return of Michael Myers (1998)

Last night I watched Season of the Witch again. A few random observations.

I like how the opening titles continue the jack-o'-lantern motif of the previous two Halloween movies. Only here it's an animated pumpkin on a computer screen, which evokes the tagline on the teaser poster: 'Witchcraft enters the computer age.'

The theme of witchcraft meeting computer technology isn't all that prominent in the finished film. Perhaps it was more central to Nigel Kneale's original script. If the film were to be remade, I imagine the contrast between ancient pagan magic and modern technology would be more heavily emphasised. It's still present in the original movie in the form of the TV signal used to trigger the Silver Shamrock masks, but if they made it now the signal would likely be distributed via the internet and/or mobile phones.

There's one particular extra that always distracts me during the scene where Challis is phoning his wife after the murder at the hospital. It's the fireman on the left.

I don't know why, but the last few times I've watched the film I always find my attention drawn to this character more than to Challis. Maybe it's the way he's standing there listening in on Challis's conversation, but there's something off about him.

I'm curious about the weird cartoon showing on the TV in the bar. Turns out it's a 3-minute film called The Cigarette and the Weed (1981). It was written and directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also directed the 1978 The Lord of the Rings movie. It doesn't seem to have ever been released commercially and the only footage available online is the brief clip seen in Season of the Witch.

It's my favourite Joel Schumacher movie, and I rank it alongside Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark as the greatest modern day vampire film. I love both of those movies. Interestingly, they both came out in 1987, both have terrific soundtracks, and both feature sons of Exorcist star Jason Miller in prominent roles: Jason Patric in The Lost Boys and Joshua John Miller in Near Dark.

That family has some impressive horror movie credentials.

I never noticed this before, but Joshua John Miller is also in Season of the Witch. I can't say I recognised him, as he looks younger here, but I spotted his name on the credits. He plays Challis's son.

So that's another classic horror movie to add to the Miller family's filmography. Miller's dad in SOTW is played by Tom Atkins, who two years earlier had appeared alongside his real life father, Jason Miller, in William Peter Blatty's The Ninth Configuration (1980).

I can't help wondering what the Halloween franchise might've been like if Season of the Witch had been a hit and they'd continued with the anthology concept. Would Halloween IV have been a sequel to Season of the Witch, or would they have come up with a completely new concept? I still think the idea of a Halloween-themed movie coming out every year, or every other year, all under the same banner but each with its own unique plot, has potential.

I'm sure someone somewhere must have sold licensed Silver Shamrock masks, because if they haven't it's a missed merchandising opportunity. The scariest mask by far though is the one shown in the poster, which doesn't actually appear in the finished film. I don't know if it's supposed to represent the spirit of Halloween, a Celtic demon or the true form of Conal Cochran, but the image of it leering predatorily down over the children from the orange and black sky is very disturbing.

On a similar note, for me the most disconcerting shot in the entire film is this one.

The ominous orange sky giving way to an expanse of darkness that portends the evil to come. Chilling stuff.

Season of the Witch is definitely a flawed film. The script, despite some quotable lines, isn't great, and I can understand why Kneale had his name removed from the credits. There are a lot of things in the plot that don't make sense when you stop and question them. However, I score it high for ambience and creativity, and the soundtrack is terrific. It's an underrated seasonal classic.

COUNT DRACULA (1977)

The BBC's 1977 adaptation of Dracula is one I'd never gotten around to watching until now. The main thing that distinguishes it from other Dracula films is its accuracy to the source material, with most critics agreeing it's the most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. Having now seen it, I concur with that assessment.

The TV movie does change a few things from the book. Dracula doesn't start off looking like an old man and then de-age like he does in the novel, nor does he bear his literary counterpart's facial hair or the scar inflicted when Jonathan Harker strikes him with a shovel. Mina and Lucy are portrayed as sisters, Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris are amalgamated into a single character, and during the denouement it is Van Helsing who kills Dracula.

Aside from these changes, the TV movie follows the book very closely. This is its greatest strength, but also leads to some pacing issues in the second half. A problem I have with every version of the Dracula story, including the original novel, is that I feel the plot loses steam after vampire Lucy is killed. This criticism also applies to the '77 Count Dracula, though in fairness to the BBC all of its pacing issues stem directly from Stoker's narrative blueprint. To their credit, the makers of the TV movie still manage to keep things interesting and omit the Victorian sentimentality that all too often pollutes Stoker's prose.

The limited use of music and special effects lends the film a more realistic feel than many other Dracula movies, and Louis Jourdan's performance as the title character is suitably restrained. For me the definitive cinematic Van Helsing will always be Peter Cushing, but Frank Finlay's interpretation is probably the closest I've seen a screen version get to Stoker's original. He and Jack Shepherd, who portrays Renfield, are both excellent. And I've always liked Judi Bowker, who's probably best known to international audiences for her roles as Saint Clare of Assisi in Franco Zeffirelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972) and as Andromeda in Ray Harryhausen Clash of the Titans (1981). Here she makes for a winsome and delicately beautiful Mina Harker.

The use of trippy filter effects can feel dated in places, and some viewers might find the mix of 16mm film stock and videotape jarring (for many years it was standard practice on British TV to mix the two). Anyone looking for an FX-heavy action packed take on Dracula will be disappointed by the deliberate pacing. However, fans of the novel or viewers inclined towards a more grounded and literary take on the familiar story will find much to enjoy. I thought the scenes with Dracula's brides were particularly chilling in this version. Gore is used sparingly, but is all the more effective because of it.

Is it the best Dracula film? I don't think so. But it is the most faithful screen adaptation of Stoker's novel, and I recommend it to anyone who likes the book. I've read that it influenced the 1979 Dracula movie starring Frank Langella and Laurence Olivier, but I haven't seen that yet so I can't comment on the similarities.

Here's the 1977 Count Dracula for anyone who fancies watching it before Halloween.

The Daredevil comics had a number of celebrity guests over the years too, including Johnny Carson, Uri Geller and... Lois Lane? From Daredevil Vol 1 #353 (June 1996).

This issue was written by Karl Kesel, who also penned numerous issues of the Superman and Superboy comics.

[Carpenter]

I've just been re-reading The Haunted Mask in anticipation of Halloween, and I'd completely forgotten about this scene. Does it remind anyone of anything?

Glancing across the street, Carly Beth saw the old Carpenter mansion looming over its dark, weed-choked lawn. Everyone said the ramshackle old house was haunted by people who had been murdered inside it a hundred years ago.

Once, Carly Beth had heard frightened howls coming from the old mansion. When she was Noah's age, Steve and Chuck and some other kids had dared each other to go up to the house and knock on the door. Carly Beth had run home instead. She never did find out if the other kids were brave enough to do it.

Now Carly Beth felt a chill of fear as she hurried past the old house. She knew this neighbourhood really well. She had lived in it all her life. But tonight it looked different to her.

Was it just the wet glow left by the rain?

No. It was a heavy feeling in the air. A heavier darkness. The eerie orange glow of grinning pumpkins in the windows. The silent cries of ghouls and monsters waiting to float free on their night to celebrate. Hallowe'en.

Was Stine intentionally referencing this scene with Dr Loomis?

FLASHBACK 1998

Wizard Magazine article on "Superman Lives".

Akiva Goldsman was working on the script? I know he worked on a cancelled Batman vs. Superman movie, but I don't remember hearing his name connected with Superman Lives before. And this was 1998, after the studio had seen the negative response to his Batman & Robin script.

1½ out of 5 seems a bit harsh for Superman III. All the criticisms mentioned are fair, but it has its merits too. The special effects and production values are high quality, Reeve and O'Toole have natural chemistry and both deliver good performances, the synthetic kryptonite storyline – adapted from the red kryptonite plot in 'The Splitting of Superboy' (Adventure Comics V1 #255, December 1958) – is compelling, and the set pieces involving the chemical factory fire and junk yard fight are well staged. I'd give it 2½ out of 5.

Blocked in my country (US). But I'm pretty sure I remember the episode. I think it guest stars a character called "Norman Baines", at least one sequence takes place in the original location of the Bates Motel from the original Psycho and some other callbacks. I think the episode's score even quotes from Psycho's score. I'm guessing someone from the production wanted to capitalize on the fact that Psycho II had so recently been released at the time. I remember this being a fun episode, tbh. But it's been years (decades?) since I last saw it.

Yep, that's the one. There's a very similar episode of Murder, She Wrote titled 'Incident in Lot 7' which is also a pastiche of Psycho and was filmed on the original set. At one point there's a shot-for-shot recreation of Arbogast's death scene on the staircase. It's a treat for Hitchcock fans.