Talk:Planet of the Apes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"Reboot" dispute

I've requested a third opinion for a dispute over whether we should say Rise of the Planet of the Apes was conceived of by the writers as a "reboot or prequel of the original Planet of the Apes", per this source or whether it can only be called a "reboot". Additionally, User:Gothicfilm has added this quote, which I don't find beneficial.
Previous discussion can be found on my talk page here. To summarize my position, I felt the former version best follows the cited source. Gothicfilm would like to change the wording to say the film "was conceived as a reboot of the original series". In my opinion, saying unequivocally that the film was "conceived as a reboot" misrepresents the source, since roughly 1/4 of the interview is Jaffa and Silver talking about various possible conceptions of how the film is related to the original, and they're specifically non-committal about it being a "reboot".
In addition, Gothicfilm has added a quote from the interview[1] where Jaffa says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot". Again, I don't feel this is necessary or representative of the entire discussion, in which both Jaffa and Silver discuss several other possible interpretations, any of which could be quoted just as easily. In my opinion, just leaving it as "reboot or prequel," without the quote, adequately covers the writers' discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 02:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, by the time Cuchullain put in his third opinion request, this dispute was strictly between:

In 2006, screenwriters Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver developed a concept for a new Planet of the Apes film inspired by news articles on apes raised as humans, which they successfully pitched to 20th Century Fox. Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot or prequel to the original Planet, (though Jaffa said "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot"), and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels.

and

In 2006, screenwriters Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver developed a concept for a new Planet of the Apes film inspired by news articles on apes raised as humans, which they successfully pitched to 20th Century Fox. Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot or prequel to the original Planet, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels.

the only difference being the inclusion of

(though Jaffa said "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot").

I am troubled by him filing a request and posting here implying I am now trying to do anything more than that. And the interview he favors as a source does not leave the reader with the impression there was a perfect balance between prequel and reboot. They all agree it is a reimagining, (which means reboot), and the top-billed writer says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." Why Cuchullain is so determined to continue this debate and make it sound like the interview left it with a perfect balance between the two terms is beyond me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So you no longer want to remove the term "prequel"? Fine, the 3O volunteer can help resolve the disputed added line. I consider it a bad move; at best it's unnecessary and redundant with the phrase "reboot or sequel"; at worst it makes an implication that's not an accurate representation of the source. Again, we could create entirely different implications by cherry-picking other lines from the same source (like the previous line). It's also just bad writing as it disrupts the flow of the sentence and paragraph.--Cúchullain t/c 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I was trying not to be verbose. The wording can be changed, but the point remains: the source does not leave the reader with the impression there was a perfect balance between prequel and reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I have read the discussion here and on user talk page. Sources are present for both prequel and reboot and there is no official declaration, so excluding one over the other is not justified. I am unfit to comment on whether there is a perfect balance or not between those two words but the proposed statement by Cúchullain satisfy me as a reader. The quote, IMHO, should not be added to the article. Regards. AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

.

Thanks so much for your help, AmritasyaPutra.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This was a response to your less-than-neutral posting at WP:3O where you made it sound like I was arguing to delete prequel. AmritasyaPutra says "excluding one over the other is not justified", which is not what this dispute was about. Everything that follows is affected by that. AmritasyaPutra then says "I am unfit to comment on whether there is a perfect balance or not between those two words", but goes ahead and posits an opinion anyway, affected by the idea of your primary argument that brought him/her here. This shows why you're supposed to post neutral, accurate notices. This opinion from one person should not be used to justify removing the text that was the actual topic of the dispute. Being an administrator, you should have recognized this yourself. Once I pointed this out above you should have reposted your request to accurately reflect what was happening here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're unhappy, but the 3O request was as neutral as I could make it, and was based on your edits and comments in our (extremely long) discussion on the topic).--Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You should have worded it based on where the dispute was at that time. And I could have easily made it more neutral. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps you should have just been clearer in the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
At that time I was saying I wanted to add in that quote. That was perfectly clear. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
At no point did you say, "Ok, I no longer want to excise the term 'prequel'", and in fact you just endorsed doing exactly that. So... Either way, the 3O volunteer weighed in on your idea to add a quote as well. Time to let it go.--Cúchullain t/c 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The endorsement was days later, after you refused to accept my compromise - that was all I was trying to do at that time. Which should be readily apparent to anyone who reads that part of the discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, ok.--Cúchullain t/c 00:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on the citation given in the article I would change the line to "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reinvention or reboot of the franchise, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." since that is indicated in the cited interview. [personally I could live with either reinvention or reboot if both aren't desired] . But I see no need for prequel to be mentioned at all in any context. Prequel is mentioned by the interviewer but not by the writers, and it seems to me we should be paraphrasing what the writers are saying. And further in the article there is talk about the idea of redoing the "original" as a sequel to this and how this film's Caesar is different than the Caesar from the original series which is also pretty definitive that it is not a prequel to that series or the Wahlberg film (and that would also be my WP:OR assessment from seeing the original franchise and these films).AbramTerger (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
That was indeed my original point - since the film was clearly a reboot once it got a green light, there's no need to open the prequel issue in this franchise article. It's a small detail that is unneeded here. Jaffa's first response on the topic is We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention". Then later he says I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot. So this idea the writers were calling it a prequel anywhere near as much as a reboot is not accurate. But if it's brought up, it needs to be indicated that this interview left it more of a reboot than a prequel. However I would more prefer the wording AbramTerger suggests above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
One additional comment, the current wording the article ("conceived the film as a reboot or prequel to the original" comes across in the article as they could not decide (since the concepts are either/or) the film was going to be and there is no sense in the article to me that this is implied. To me "reinvention or reboot" is not either/or concepts but synonyms for the same concept and as mentioned earlier, the words used in the article. AbramTerger (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd object to using "reinvention", since (1) it doesn't really mean anything, and (2) Jaffas says that's what he had called it until it was pointed out Tim Burton said the same thing about his movie. The interview does mention the term "prequel". And moreover, right after Jaffa says "reboot" ("I guess", "if I had to pick", "it's hard to say", etc.), Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and he says he sees Planet as standing separate as something that could happen after these events, and he specifically hopes they would not remake it (so basically, the new film is its prequel). Both writers explicitly agree with him, and Jaffa elaborates at length on Planet as a possible future of Rise. Additionally, I disagree that "prequel or reboot" implies an "either/or" proposition (especially if "reinvention or reboot" does not imply "either/or"). They developed an idea, but aren't sure quite how to describe it (clearly). Plenty of other sources about the movie and its development call it a "prequel",[2][3][4][5][6] this one just happens to speak specifically to how it was conceived. I really don't understand the aversion to the term "prequel".--Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Prequel and reboot are not mathematical terms; something can be both at the same time. By definition, a prequel is set prior to the events of the original installment, while a reboot revisits some elements of earlier installments but changes them. The new series revisits some of the "rise of the apes" ground covered by the original series (even if not in the first film of that series). bd2412 T 18:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It is rare for a Prequel to be the same as a reboot as a reboot suggests that they are reinventing the franchise (ie a new storyline unconnected to the original) and prequel suggests that it is takes place in the same story but at an earlier time in the series. [[[The Godfather Part II]] is sequel and prequel with events that take place before the first film and some taking place after it. Star Trek is that rare film that is a prequel, a sequel to, and reboot of the original film series] "RotPotA" is NOT set "prior to the events of the original installments". Officially in the original film series, George Taylor took off in 1972 in a ship semi-officially called "Liberty 1". In 1973, Caesar is born to apes from the future. In 1983 a disease killed the cats and dogs and in 1991 the apes revolted. "RotPotA" takes place in 2011 and none of those things had happened in this film. There is a George Taylor mentioned, but he blasts off in a ship called "Icarus" in 2011, so it is not the same Taylor or the same ship. Since it is not taking place earlier within the original franchise series, it is not a prequel and the writers don't call it a prequel, they specifically mention reinvention and reboot. Yes, Burton used reinvention and that film was a reinvention, that does not preclude this film being a reinvention also. [Burton's "PotA" is not as much a "reboot" since it went nowhere and is a standalone film, but was meant to be a reboot.] I don't see anyone having an "aversion" to the term prequel, I (and I presume others) want the statements to be be factual and match what is stated in the article. The writers explicitly indicate that it is a different Caesar as well. Where do you think "RotPotA" suggests that Caesar was born from parents from the future and the events take place before 1972? That would be required to be a prequel to the original series.AbramTerger (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rise has no continuity with the original series. There are numerous inconsistencies in its fictional universe. Reboot (fiction) has a precise meaning, and that is it. Far more sources called Rise a reboot than a prequel. But Cúchullain claims this is about the writers' intentions, so lets focus on that. When first asked, Rick Jaffa says:

"Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot."

So he goes from reinvention to reboot without saying anything about prequel. That's really it right there. He is clear about its being a reinvention/reboot. Reinvention was a term coined for the 2001 film for some reason that really means the same thing. (Prequel also has a precise meaning - it is in the fictional universe of the original.) After that they engage in a conversation, asking the interviewer what he would call it. The first thing he says is From where I sit, it stands apart from the movies that are already out there. (That means reboot.) They then discuss various possibilities. Jaffa has already answered what he thinks it is: Reinvention/reboot. He remains polite with the interviewer and they speculate, etc. What he does not do is say he answered the question, can we move on? That would be bad form and rude.

Cúchullain says Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and he says he sees Planet as standing separate as something that could happen after these events, and he specifically hopes they would not remake it (so basically, the new film is its prequel). That does not make it a prequel. That would make it a series reboot. Particularly since the premise of Rise is closest to the fourth film, Conquest, but has plenty of inconsistencies with its fictional universe, as it does with the first film. The fact a reboot or remake has allusions to the original does not make it a prequel. They're just allusions. The 2001 film had several of them, but no one claims it's in the same universe.

If we're going to represent what the writer's intentions were, not the interviewer's, we should go by the full Jaffa quote I gave above. It is a good summation of how he saw the film. "Prequel" only came up because of questions from the interviewer, but Jaffa never disavowed that first response calling it reinvention/reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A movie being both a reboot and a prequel may be rare, but so are blockbuster movies about talking apes. At least outside of this franchise. Regardless of your interpretation, or mine, or what happened in the original sequels, or prequels, or whatever you want to call them, the cited source and plenty of others discuss Rise as a potential prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film. Rise itself references Planet and we've got the writers themselves talking about the picture in those terms. As such, there's no simply reason to avoid the word. This article (which I haven't tried to include as I don't know if this is worth article space here) sums up it up pretty well: the movie is several things at the same time, and we don't need to obfuscate that fact.
I'm going back to editing the article now. I'll check the talk page again tomorrow.--Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That article speculates about it being "Sort of" a prequel and "Sort of" a remake. Not quite encyclopedic. But then even it concludes with It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again. That means reboot. It gives no "Sort of" on that one. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we all live with "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot of the franchise and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." since there seems to be objections to their use of "reinvention" and they never mention "prequel".AbramTerger (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would endorse that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd object to removing the well-cited term "prequel" and stating with uncitable unequivocality that "Jaffa and Silver conceived of the film as a reboot", as I did when Gothicfilm first suggested it above, and for the same reasons.--Cúchullain t/c 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It might be considered a "prequel" to the 2001 film. As for the "reboot" versus "reinvention" issue, if there's a difference between those terms I'd like to know what it is. bd2412 T 22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have seen no source call Rise a prequel to the 2001 film. Reboot (fiction) is an encyclopedic term with a full article. Reinvention is not and has no article. But "reboot" and "reinvention" mean the same thing in this context. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The cited article does not call the film a prequel. How about having more of what the article indicates: Jaffe indicated that "it's a reinvention" and if he had to pick between calling it a prequel or a reboot he would say it is a reboot: "It's a different story of who Caesar is, and how he came to be. So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it. We are hopefully rebooting it." He went on to say that "we tried really hard to create a story that would stand on its own and yet also pay homage and honor the movies that came before us." [When the articles seem to talk about prequels it is about "sort of" prequel to the original film, ignoring the sequels and ignoring the beginning of the original film. It is not a prequel to the film series if you ignore what is established in 80% of the films in it and the setup of what is established the the other film].AbramTerger (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The cited article and various others I've linked to[7][8][9][10][11][12] do indeed discuss the article in terms of being a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes (often alongside it being a "reboot"). There's no getting around that fact.--Cúchullain t/c 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Originally you said this was about what the writers intended for the film as seen in that one interview. Now you're changing to this WP article should say they intended it as a prequel (or a reboot) even though, as AbramTerger pointed out, they never called it a prequel, because some other sources called it a prequel? (And even though far more sources called Rise a reboot than a prequel.) You cannot make it sound like the writers said something they did not because other sources (who did not interview them) used that term. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The source does discuss the film as conceived as a possible prequel to Planet, among other things. I'm merely pointing out this position is hardly unusual, regardless of your personal interpretation of the word.--Cúchullain t/c 00:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The sources that use the term prequel are articles written by people that are not involved the films. The quotes from the actual writer and producers trump whatever they say. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I don't see where anyone is citing those sources in the article. If you want to add additional comments from those sources, that is separate question to what wording is used for that section based on the article cited. I sense enough of a consensus to be WP:BRD and change the article to accurately reflect what is stated in the article. That segment is discussing what the writers say and if someone believes it misrepresents what the citation says, I see not reason to argue about it. If you want to add other comments with other sources, you are always welcome to edit as long as you represent what the citation indicates.AbramTerger (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the given source does prominently include the writers talking about the script in terms of being a prequel. The other sources just prove that this isn't a particularly outrageous thing to say, no matter a few Wikipedia editors' personal definition of the term. "Reboot or prequel" is an accurate representation of the entirety of the source, and several editors have agreed, including one weighing in for dispute resolution. Selecting quotes that suit our position while ignoring others that don't is cherry-picking. It misrepresents the source, it's redundant considering that "reboot" is already mentioned, it's far too much coverage of something of trivial significance, and it has the additional effect of disrupting the flow of the writing. The exact same approach was already rejected through dispute resolution. Clearly we're getting nowhere. We can either move on and return to improving the article, or we can go to the next level of dispute resolution.--Cúchullain t/c 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The writers do not speak of it as a sequel. They mention what I had in there which seemed acceptable to 3 of the 4 people discussing it making it a consensus. The goal of WP:BRD is for the editors not to revert, but to edit what it is there to get to a consensus. What in the statements I put in did you feel was inaccurate based on the cited material? I can't quote the entire article (that is the reason we cite it), I must select representative statements to summarize what is in the article.@SonOfThornhill:@Gothicfilm: can you both live with the statement I had in as representing Jaffe's remarks in the cited interview: Jaffe indicated that "it's a reinvention" and if he had to pick between calling it a prequel or a reboot he would say it is a reboot: "It's a different story of who Caesar is, and how he came to be. So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it. We are hopefully rebooting it." He went on to say that "we tried really hard to create a story that would stand on its own and yet also pay homage and honor the movies that came before us."? If so lets put it in an move on to other things. If not, lets decide on some compromises @Cuchullain: how would you edit the proposal to "cherry pick" less? what quotes would you use?. I have removed the inaccurate material that does not represent the cited material.AbramTerger (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, now you've removed the sentence on how the film came about and explaining how it's connected to the other series. Wonderful.
For the last time, the writers do indeed discuss the film in terms of being a potential prequel to Planet. To repeat myself yet again, right after Jaffa says "reboot" ("I guess", "if I had to pick", "it's hard to say", etc.), Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and the interviewer says he sees Planet as standing separate as something that could happen after the events of Rise (ie, that Rise is its prequel). He further specifically says hopes they would not do anything else with the original Planet (ie, the "rebooting" shouldn't extend to that part of the narrative). Both writers explicitly agree with this take. Jaffa then goes on to discuss the possibility of Rise leading up to the original Planet: "...it could lead to apes taking over the planet and, perhaps, getting Colonel Taylor on that beach in thirty-nine hundred years"; "...it does explain how the apes took over [in Planet], but this is a different Caesar we're looking at". He then says, "So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it" and " it's kind of tough to put a specific word to it". Once gain, stating that the movie was unequivocally conceived as a "reboot", or implying the same through cherry-picked quotes, mischaracterizes the source.
We do not need to add quotes here. Simply telling people the writers "conceived the film as a reboot or prequel" already says it all without us disrupting the flow of the paragraph, and without the risk of us skewing things.--Cúchullain t/c 17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I already answered this above. Since you are acting as if these points weren't made, I'll repeat them:

Rise has no continuity with the original series. There are numerous inconsistencies in its fictional universe. Reboot (fiction) has a precise meaning, and that is it. Far more sources called Rise a reboot than a prequel. But Cúchullain claims this is about the writers' intentions, so lets focus on that. When first asked, Rick Jaffa says:

"Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot."

So he goes from reinvention to reboot without saying anything about prequel. That's really it right there. He is clear about its being a reinvention/reboot. Reinvention was a term coined for the 2001 film for some reason that really means the same thing. (Prequel also has a precise meaning - it is in the fictional universe of the original.) After that they engage in a conversation, asking the interviewer what he would call it. The first thing he says is From where I sit, it stands apart from the movies that are already out there. (That means reboot.) They then discuss various possibilities. Jaffa has already answered what he thinks it is: Reinvention/reboot. He remains polite with the interviewer and they speculate, etc. What he does not do is say he answered the question, can we move on? That would be bad form and rude.

Cúchullain says Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and he says he sees Planet as standing separate as something that could happen after these events, and he specifically hopes they would not remake it (so basically, the new film is its prequel). That does not make it a prequel. That would make it a series reboot. Particularly since the premise of Rise is closest to the fourth film, Conquest, but has plenty of inconsistencies with its fictional universe, as it does with the first film. The fact a reboot or remake has allusions to the original does not make it a prequel. They're just allusions. The 2001 film had several of them, but no one claims it's in the same universe.

If we're going to represent what the writer's intentions were, not the interviewer's, we should go by the full Jaffa quote I gave above. It is a good summation of how he saw the film. "Prequel" only came up because of questions from the interviewer, but Jaffa never disavowed that first response calling it reinvention/reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I will offer one suggestion in the hopes of not excising important information due to this dispute over the word "prequel". We could use the source to say "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reworking ["reinventing", if you like] the story of the chimpanzee Caesar.[13]" This tells us key information about how the series was conceived, but tells us nothing of its relationship to the other films, which may be a significant omission. For that we can use this source, the only one I've found that gets into this rather esoteric debate directly and in detail: "The film's complex connections to previous entries in the series caused confusion as to its exact relationship; critic Devin Feraci writes that it is at once a reboot of the series, a loose remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and a potential prequel to the original Planet of the Apes." We could even throw in there that "Most sources called it a 'reboot'..." if you could find a source that speaks to such a consensus among writers on the topic.--Cúchullain t/c 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see you willing to compromise now that you've lost Consensus, after refusing until now to bend one inch. I don't see any need for saying it's a potential prequel to the original Planet of the Apes - because it isn't. It is not consistent with its fictional universe. And far more sources call Rise a reboot than a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I haven't lost consensus, you've just worn me down to the point that I'm not willing to continue this silly debate about an extremely minor point any more. At any rate, your feelings about the term "prequel" are clear, but even you can't argue the term doesn't appear in that source. I guess your decision is whether it's better to remove the term "reboot", which everyone agrees is at least part of the film's identity and is useful for readers to know, or consent to adding what else the sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Three are firmly against your position. And I have nothing against the term prequel. But it is out of place to mention every term the film could "Sort of" be put in. I recently argued against calling another film a reboot. But here it is most appropriate. I'm all for calling Rise a series reboot. Or at least a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The original version is supported by me, the article's primary contributor; by univolved content editor BD2412, and by the discussion resolution representative. I'm sure the others are even less inclined than I am to continue this draining debate with you. Please answer my question about my suggestion. For the interview portion, I don't see how the wording could be objectionable.--Cúchullain t/c 19:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I have twice posted five paragraphs on how it is objectionable. But you just ignore that, repeating your points as if no one ever disputed them. The writers never call it a prequel. The correct encyclopedic term for Rise is Reboot (fiction). - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What? You haven't responded to the suggestion at all, you've just added more comments about what the word "prequel" means to you. What do you object to about the wording "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reworking ["reinventing", if you like] the story of the chimpanzee Caesar[14]"?--Cúchullain t/c 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a diff for the "original version" to which you refer? I would agree that this could be considered a prequel to the 2001 film, but as an origin story I agree with the contention that it conflicts with existing origin story material in the original series. Of course, if there are sources that describe it as a prequel to the original film, we can note the comments of those sources, but placed in the context of the comments made by the authors themselves. bd2412 T 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep wanting to call it a prequel to the 2001 film? No source I've seen says that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, the original wording is what I added here. The sentence in question is "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot or prequel to the original Planet, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." Gothicfilm et al then tried to remove the word "prequel" (which makes it sound like the writers were unambiguously going for a reboot, though that's not borne out by the source) and then tried to insert quotes from the interview about reboots. This already went through WP:3O, where the volunteer favored the original wording over removing "prequel" or adding a quote.[15] Now, Abram Terger has deleted the entire passage.[16] I made this suggestion regarding possible ways forward, as I'm at my wits end on this.--Cúchullain t/c 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't like "rework". I'd rather go with "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot of the original Planet of the Apes series, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels" which would be most accurate. You could then mention the new Caesar, as "Rise" is closest to the fourth film, and they do talk about that. "They reinvented the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character in the fourth film Conquest, but gave him a new background history." I believe AbramTerger and SonOfThornhill will agree to that. There's no reason to mention other "Sort of" possibilities like prequel. The writers never actually called it a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
"Reboot" by itself isn't going to work any better than the last thirty times you suggested it. We can go with a different word that doesn't have such a specific meaning. How about, "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of Conquest, and hoped it would launch new series of sequels." This leaves out the reboot/prequel/whatever identification for now; if necessary we can return to that at some point, using a less over-parseable source, in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no controversy that it's a reboot. The controversy is you want to add in "Sort of" possibilities. "If I had to pick, I would say reboot" is a definitive statement Jaffa never disavowed. Reboot (fiction) is an encyclopedic term with a full article people can click on. That's what belongs in the article. "Sort of"(s) don't belong in a franchise article that's supposed to succinctly sum up what it is. We've got three people who agree with that. You've got one who only commented once on including a quote - now a moot point, as the discussion has changed much since then, and another who hasn't made a real opinion either way, and has twice suggested it's a prequel to the 2001 film, which no source backs up. Your determination to put "prequel" in is inexplicable. The writers never called it that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, we're not using that source to say the writers unambiguously conceived of the film as a reboot, because that's a total mischaracterization of the source and there's further no consensus for it. If you want it to say "reboot" based on that source, we have give the full picture, sorry about it. However, we can go forward with the compromise wording that avoids the problematic terms. Is that acceptable?--Cúchullain t/c 03:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't have to give a full picture with "Sort of"(s) on what's supposed to be a brief description of the film. You do not WP:OWN this article, and you do not have consensus. "Reboot" is an accurate characterization of how the writers conceived it. The prequel question was brought up by the interviewer two years after they conceived it. And I wouldn't say it's "unambiguously" a reboot, just that it's a reboot. Very little is completely unambiguous, and people know that. There's no reason to deny readers Reboot (fiction), which is an encyclopedic term with a full article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree - I see no difference between the meaning of "rework", "reinvention", or "reboot" in the context of a film taking a new approach to a previously established series. If some sources have described it as a prequel, perhaps we could say, "Some sources described it as a prequel" with appropriate references, although I am frankly confused as to what, in the history of this franchise, it would be a prequel to. bd2412 T 04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That's because it isn't a prequel to anything. It started its own new fictional universe. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, the issue with using "reboot", by itself, is that it implies it's clear cut the writers intended this to be a reboot. However, in the actual source, when that comes up they're totally non-committal, and in fact they spend a full quarter of the interview discussing various possible conceptions. Most importantly, they spend a good bit of time discussing the film as a prequel leading up to the events of the Charlton Heston film (this is also borne out in the film itself; it's the "Rise" of the ape planet we saw in the Heston film, and Heston's space mission appears). This is why the original wording gave the broader "[the writers] conceived of the film as a reboot or prequel".
However, Gothic film and company are so averse to saying "prequel" that that won't work without further dispute resolution (we've already been there once, and I don't have to patience to do it again). To avoid implying that they saw it as a cut-and-dry "reboot", my suggestion is to go with alternative wording that doesn't have such a specific meaning as "reboot", which they're ambivalent about.--Cúchullain t/c 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The only reason the interview spent time on discussing various possible conceptions was because the interviewer brought that up and clearly wanted to spend time on it. Rick Jaffa was happy with:
Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot."
"Rise" refers to events in that film itself - the Conquest - not the 1968 film. As AbramTerger wrote well above:
Officially in the original film series, George Taylor took off in 1972 in a ship semi-officially called "Liberty 1". In 1973, Caesar is born to apes from the future. In 1983 a disease killed the cats and dogs and in 1991 the apes revolted. "RotPotA" takes place in 2011 and none of those things had happened in this film. There is a George Taylor mentioned, but he blasts off in a ship called "Icarus" in 2011, so it is not the same Taylor or the same ship. Since it is not taking place earlier within the original franchise series, it is not a prequel and the writers don't call it a prequel, they specifically mention reinvention and reboot.
Rise has a similar premise to Conquest, Dawn has a similar premise to Battle, but it seems the third reboot film will be a direct follow-up to Dawn. The new series may eventually do a film with a similar premise to the 1968 film, but it would be within its own fictional universe. because its fictional universe is incompatible with the 1968 original. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This source by a reliable author gives a pretty good explanation of all the different ways the film relates to previous entries in the series. It would be a very nice source to add here and to the film's article, but I would expect to see this same level of intransigence against such an addition, and I don't have the energy for that. Cúchullain t/c
Again, that article speculates about it being "Sort of" a prequel and "Sort of" a remake. Not quite encyclopedic. But then even it concludes with It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again. That means reboot. It gives no "Sort of" on that one. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to communicate what the author says. This is definitely encyclopedic, and reliably sourced, much more so than some of the trivia that's in the article now. We can return to the topic later.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
What that article really does is bring up and then dismiss the "Sort of"s. As such, its points could be added to the Rise article if carefully worded, and as long as it comes to the same conclusion: It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again - the definition of reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a good summary of the types of things very many other sources say about how the movie connects to previous entries. It would be worth a line here, and probably more at Rise. Again, it wouldn't be hard to represent what he says (assuming folks can avoid reading their personal interpretations into it). However, I'm not going to pursue this at present.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to discuss what other sources say you need to cite other sources. This debate was what the screenwriters were saying. And the larger paraphrasing I listed with the comment about the original film had the writer's thoughts on "connecting" to the original film. The article indicates to me that they were trying to created a different starting point than the original film series to get to a similar future that the the original film had portrayed. But (for reasons I do not understand) you did not like Jaffa's comments.AbramTerger (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with what Jaffa's comments, just with the reductive interpretation of them by some editors. Here, however, we were discussing a different source, this. It would add some great info to the article, but I'm not going forward with it because I have no patience for another pedantic debate right now.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep rehashing the arguments. Let's discuss what people want as wording. @SonOfThornhill:,@Gothicfilm:,@Cuchullain:,@BD2412: How about:Jaffe indicated that "it's a reinvention" and if he had to pick between calling it a prequel or a reboot he would say it is a reboot: "It's a different story of who Caesar is, and how he came to be. So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it. We are hopefully rebooting it." He went on to say that they wanted "to approach this in a very realistic way. Meaning, what's going on in our world today, that if the right dominoes were to line up, touch each other, it could lead to apes taking over the planet and, perhaps, getting Colonel Taylor on that beach in thirty-nine hundred years." That is the most I see as a "sort-of prequel" statements. Or please, edit the statement and propose something else. AbramTerger (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to insert a bunch of quotes saying the same thing. What do you think of the compromise wording that gets around it altogether: "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of Conquest, and hoped it would launch new series of sequels."--Cúchullain t/c 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No we don't need the quotes. I was trying to address your issues with the "sort-of prequel aspect". I could live with: "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to reboot the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of Conquest, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." I think "restart" is a poor choice, since neither author uses the term in the cited article. Jaffa explicitly uses the term "reboot" twice: (eg "I would say reboot." and more importantly: "We are hopefully rebooting it." which is part of what you are paraphrasing). Paraphrasing is best is when it uses the words from the citation instead of putting proverbial words into their proverbial mouths.AbramTerger (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that 'restart' is a poor choice. The correct term is 'Reboot' and that should remain. This issue was settled years ago when RISE came out. The only reason that it is even being discussed now is because one editor, based on personal opinion only, is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Leave the article as is. We don't need to change it to make one person happy. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I want to follow what the source says source than reading my own personal interpretation into it. And the article currently says nothing at all. Is that what you want? Should it just be restored to how it was before any real encyclopedic information had been added, because it was so perfect it couldn't possibly be improved?--Cúchullain t/c 17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not the issue here. No one is proposing that. At least that version was accurate. This is supposed to be an article on the whole franchise. Cúchullain keeps wanting to make it sound like the writers were non-committal. I don't see that. They simply went with where the interviewer wanted to go. Rick Jaffa was happy with reinvention and reboot. He never disavowed that. Cúchullain's demand that the word reboot not be included is going against the source, and the writer's quote which he delivered before the interviewer muddied the issue. Jaffa and Silver didn't want to argue with him about it, so they went along. But they never called Rise a prequel. The article should not go off on tangents about "Sort of"(s) regarding this one film. I would endorse AbramTerger's wording in bold three paragraphs above, and I believe SonOfThornhill would as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine. I'm done. I have no more energy for trying to work with you, you can have your way. I'm going back to working on the article now; you can go back to whatever it is you do.--Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, you've been the one with the my way or the highway additude on an issue the was resolved years ago. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL, "resolved years ago"? I guess that explains why the articles have been in such a wonderful state.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ship

Regarding this, the restored material really doesn't seem encyclopedic, at least not for an article on the entire franchise. The only source seems to be a pop culture blog, which at most would be reliable for the authors' own opinions, not for establishing the historical or social importance of this particular fictional object. And it doesn't verify all the material attributed to it anyway. And either way it seems to receive serious WP:UNDUEWEIGHT for an item that's so minor. Greene and Russo et al barely even mention Taylor's ship even though they discuss all sorts of other things in considerable detail. Barring an upswing in consensus, we'd best remove the material or move it elsewhere (and if it's kept it needs to be rewritten with much better sources).--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Earlier consensus was for keeping it. That one particular book does not discuss it at length is not important. The section is small and near the bottom. It regards several films and the TV show, so it belongs here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. At the time of the only discussion, the article in general was in a very poor state. That's not the case anymore, but this section is still poor. The material is out of place in the current article, and the (pretty weak) source doesn't verify all of that information - including that it was featured in several films or the TV show. It will never hold up in GA and FA reviews, which is what I ultimately hope for.--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't need a source for a plot detail which is readily apparent in four of the films and the TV show. The section could use improvement. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You absolutely do need sources to determine whether material is noteworthy enough to include in a particular article and is given its WP:DUEWEIGHT. Being called one of the "top 75 spaceships in movies"[17] by a blog doesn't cut it, especially when we have so many high quality sources available.--Cúchullain t/c 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The point of the section is shared elements in the films/TV series. Taylor's ship is one of those elements. It appears in 3 films and the first episode of the TV show. No argument that the section could use improvement but it shouldn't be eliminated. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's the only thing in that section, and it's poorly sourced trivia. It doesn't even follow the source accurately. It may be an interesting footnote for another article, but it adds nothing to an encyclopedic coverage of the Planet of the Apes franchise.--Cúchullain t/c 14:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion. I don't agree with it. It is an important part of the franchise, in that it is what initiates the plots of the 3 films and TV series it is featured in. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded and updated that section. I still believe, if we want the section on "Shared plot elements" we need more than one element. I did not keep any references to the model kits since none that I saw looked to be licensed, so would not be considered WP:RS.AbramTerger (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone take some initiative to actually work on the article. However, this is still very weak tea. This trivial topic is now receiving totally undue weight in an article that covers the entire franchise, and is out of place enough that it feels like WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. How do you propose to resolve that? I see no other GA or FA quality article on a media franchise that has a section on "shared plot elements"; in fact policy advises us against dwelling on plot at the expense of other important material.--Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. As I stated, I have no problem removing the "shared plot elements" section with the single item on Taylor ship. I expanded it to try to update the information and try and make it more "franchise relevant" if the consensus is to keep it, but my vote would be for removal of all that material if there are no other "shared plot elements" in the franchise.AbramTerger (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The Shared plot elements section had two entries - Taylor's spacecraft and Forbidden Zone - until Cúchullain removed one of them. Now he uses the argument the other should be removed because it's alone, failing to mention it's only alone because he made it that way. An argument could be advanced for keeping and improving both, but if only one is kept than of course you don't keep it under a Shared plot elements header. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The single other entry was even worse than this one, as it was totally uncited. In any case, the material is still trivial indiscriminate info and receives undue weight being here. Have you seen such a section in other quality articles on media series?--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@SonOfThornhill: It has been a long time since I have seen "Beneath". I know they used the original ship plot as "Brent's ship", but was it also used as Taylor's ship in that film as well or only as Brent's ship? In "Escape" it was not only the prop, but was also supposed to be Taylor's ship rebuilt. In the TV series it was only the prop. If Taylor's ship is not in "Beneath", then I think there is even less argument for the inclusion of this section. The only "shared plot elements" would be the Taylor's ship in "PotA" and in "Escape". It is about the shared plot, not the shared prop...AbramTerger (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You're the one that added the source. I've found a link to it. Looking at it, I'm not sure a toy model magazine would be a reliable source for this. Either way, the article clearly indicates it was the prop that was used again as the ship flown by Brent, the second astronaut. Taylor's ship doesn't appear as such. The magazine also says the prop reappears again in Escape (as Taylor's original ship) and the TV show (as the new astronauts' ship), but I don't think that's accurate, it looks totally different. The article contains some other errors (for instance saying Pierre Boulle's novel came out in 1958) that don't do much for its credibility.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed that section. If it only ties the first and 3rd it is not really shared too much as a plot element in the franchise.AbramTerger (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Thanks, Abram. Perhaps some of the prop info can be incorporated in a more direct way in the "Production" sections of Planet and Beneath.--Cúchullain t/c 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. If it is incorporated, I agree that perhaps a stronger reference should be found, especially if you think that the source may have used unreliable information [I don't think the magazine is unreliable, but the author is not an expert on those films and may have used hearsay and anecdotal information...]AbramTerger (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes Wikia link

In response to this, I don't see the problem with this link. I referred to it as I expanded this article, and it seems to easily pass multiple different parts of WP:EL. It fulfills the WP:ELYES element that it presents "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article..." and well as the WP:ELMAYBE element of sites that "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The only elements of WP:ELNO I see it coming against are the fact are 11 (it's a fansite) and maybe 12; it's an open wiki, but it's stable and has a substantial number of contributors. At any rate, I don't see these as mandates against linking what seems to be a useful site. Star Wars and Star Trek, among others, link to comparable Wikia sites, and to be honest I found this one much more useful than those in that it includes background material and sources that could be incorporated here. Depending on what others feel, I'd like to restore the link.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We went through a long process over this months ago, as you can see at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel). I would be for restoring it, as I was before. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see that there'd be a difference between including the link at the novel's article, and including it here at a comprehensive article on the series. Again, I've found it to be a useful, mainly accurate website on this topic that wouldn't be a suitable source, a good case for WP:ELYES. We'll see what others think.--Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, could you explain the problem with the the Wikia link? As I said above, it seems to pass WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE and is similar to what's done on other sites.--Cúchullain t/c 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no indication it would meet ELYES, particularly if it meets ELMAYBE - checking a couple of articles, I'm not seeing consistent neutrality, and accuracy is questionable given that they cite both us and other user-generated sites. It also fails ELNO, as it has very few active contributors (particularly as compared to the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis), and ELNEVER, as it violates copyright and well exceeds fair use in its incorporation of non-free materials. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't catch the copyright issues with the site.--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planet_of_the_Apes/Archive_2&oldid=811625363"