How did New York become a desert?
What the subject says. I can see the landscape changing over the course of a few hundred thousand years, but in only 2,000 years? What happened to change the landscape so fast?
shareWhat the subject says. I can see the landscape changing over the course of a few hundred thousand years, but in only 2,000 years? What happened to change the landscape so fast?
shareTaylor guessed a storm of meteors.
The desert was there on Battle. I think the implication is that the nukes caused it.
Yeah, that part got to me. Geologically, a region looks roughly the same in 3,000 years really. Even the climate is not that different.
If anything, New York, due to its easterly location, will be more subtropical and wet in the future, rather than dry. It will look more like Miami than Phoenix.
Life is like a beautiful melody, only the lyrics are messed up.
Also global warming?
shareHello? Nuclear warfare.
shareWell, obviously...
I would suggest maybe Taylor was partly right and an asteroid (or parts thereof) could've contributed, but the landscape was already as it is on Battle, which was fairly early in the 21st century.
Forget the APES sequels. They're all dated 1970's "B" movies. The sequel filmmakers just went with the idea that it was a nuclear holocaust that changed the topography and climate, but that idea is now very quaint and dated. Nuclear war alone wouldn't do it. The great thing about the original movie, which wasn't made with any thought of there being a sequel, was that it's ambiguous about how anything in the film came to be. It left it up to your imagination. Taylor at the end just assumes it was man that "blew it up," but how could he know for sure? I go with the "storm of meteors" theory that Taylor mentions near the end. Also, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid? If so, that would devastate the surface of the earth with a meteor storm of debris, though that would most probably leave little life left. More than a little suspension of disbelief is required, but then so is all the stuff about fast evolving apes.
shareForget the APES sequels.
The sequel filmmakers just went with the idea that it was a nuclear holocaust that changed the topography and climate, but that idea is now very quaint and dated. Nuclear war alone wouldn't do it.
Also from time to time the Earth 's techtonic plates violently get re-arranged. That would account for drastic change in topography (statue of liberty sitting next to a cliff) and possibly the climate.
shareAlso, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid?Impossible. Likely there's "no moon" because it's in the New Moon phase(as in, it's on the other side of the planet during the night).
The astronauts mentioned a strange "luminosity", yet no moon. So possibly something had happened to the moon.
And a "new moon" doesn't mean it's on the other side of the planet - it's simply the opposite of a full moon; during a full moon, from our view, the entire surface is lit up by the sun, but during a new moon, the side facing away from us (the so-called dark side) is fully lit by the sun.
That's not what makes the New Moon phase. It's simply the opposite of the Full Moon. New Moon is when the far side is completely lit and thus the near side is the current dark side.
shareharistas writes: "Taylor at the end just assumes it was man that "blew it up," but how could he know for sure?"
First, Taylor has a low opinion of human nature, base upon contemporary human civilization, specifically the Vietnam War which was in full swing when this film was made; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the Cold War (Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis). This point is figurative.
Second, the ape scriptures tells us how violent man is. Zaius tells us that people made a desert of the Forbidden Zone. This is why Zaius dreaded the appearance of Taylor so much -- humankind = killers. This point is literal.
No meteors!
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
My contention is simply that an all out nuclear holocaust -- and what I mean is if every ballistic nuclear missile was fired and exploded all over the world -- would not be enough to change the climate and topography of the North American continent in a mere two thousand years as seen in the original 1968 film. The destruction of the moon by an asteroid strike and a resulting meteor bombardment of the world's surface would more probably do it, but I doubt much higher life forms, such as apes, humans and horses, would survive such a catastrophe. Plant and ocean life would be pretty stressed too! On the other hand, a nuclear holocaust that leaves apes, humans and horses (and other life forms) still alive, but changes the northeast of the US into the southwestern US desert, is rather hard to believe too. As a kid back in the sixties, I was able to suspend my disbelief, but now as a fifty-five year old, it's a bit of a strain. The filmmakers of these new movies should try to come up with a more plausible scenario. I wonder if they will?
shareAre you kidding?
Even a volcano erupting on the other side of the world can have noticeable affects on climate. I dont know how you can come to the conclusion that every nuke in the world wouldnt have that affect on the climate/topography. Its simply ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is a nuclear holocaust creating the type of topography we see in the original movie where it's supposed to be the American northeast. It was shot in northern Arizona in the US southwest where the topography of that land took millions of years of erosion to create. PLANET OF THE APES is set a mere two thousand years in the future.
No, I'm not kidding. Get educated.
haristas writes: "What's ludicrous is a nuclear holocaust creating the type of topography we see..."
You may be thinking too literally.
The point is humans destroyed their civilization and altered the environment.
It's not history -- it's a movie, a work of art.
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
Yes, I am thinking, literally. I wish more people would do the same.
share
haristas writes: "Yes, I am thinking, literally."
Wait a minute!
I don't think that's a good idea. A film is a work of art, and art often has significance beyond the literal.
I hate to be obvious, but I guess this has to be said: the desert represents desolation. In the film, we find out that it represents the lost civilization beneath it. The exact scientific details don't matter as much as what the desert represents.
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
I bet you’re fun at parties.
shareThe destruction of the moon by an asteroid strikeThe Moon could not be destroyed by an asteroid strike. The nuclear war makes as much sense as that.
It was nuked by humans. This is why the forbidden zone was closed off to apes. The human overseers that lived underground still had old day weapons and no ape wanted part of it for the sake of their civilization. Like Zaus predicted, man is dangerous because of technology and in the end a human nuked the world yet again.
shareThe apes don't know about the mutants. The reason for the Forbidden Zone is to prevent any apes from discovering the ruins of NYC. If it were known that man once had their own civilization, it would invalidate what was written in the sacred scrolls.
shareThat's true. But the apes knew of the technology didn't they? Perhaps the first apes did. All this reminds me of Catholicism and the suppression of ancient astronaut theories and technology.
shareYes. The manipulation of public knowledge. Every government today practices it to a certain extent.
share>>>Also, in the original it's mentioned there's no moon. So what happened to the moon? Was it hit and knocked out of orbit by a huge asteroid?
"Space:1999"
How old is the planet Earth? It can't be much more than 1000 years old. Columbus discovered America about 500 years ago
shareIt doesn't matter what we know NOW about how nuclear war would change the landscape or not change the landscape. In the movie, it is literally true that Taylor knew immediately when he saw what he saw at the end that humans had destroyed the landscape (and human civilization) through nuclear war. The Forbidden Zone was off limits primarily because it was radioactive, not to keep apes from discoving that humans had a more advanced civilization earlier. That's why the Zone covered a wide area - which the movie makes clear. It covered an area much larger than the area where the object Taylor saw at the end was located.
Dr. Zadius' statements to Taylor about what happened to humans in the past strongly suggest that the area bacame a desert through nuclear war - and/or other catastrophic events caused by humans that degraded the environment.
My real name is Jeff
Your point well-taken, but as we saw on Beneath, the ruins of New York's skyscrapers peaked out of the desert.
share[deleted]
What the subject says. I can see the landscape changing over the course of a few hundred thousand years, but in only 2,000 years? What happened to change the landscape so fast?
The film is obviously shot in the American Southwest—no other landscape on earth features those exact types of rock formations, and they are iconographically identified with that region regardless. Thus they would have been nowhere near New York.
His entire post just flew right over your head, huh JamesA-1102?
shareNo the point of the movie flew right over his head.
shareUh, no. Joekiddlouischama seems to have a perfect grasp of it, actually.
shareNo he doesn't.
shareWhat a compelling reply. That must have taken you a long time to come up with.
Bye.
Probably about the same amount of time it took you to come up with yours.
DLTDHYITA
I can fully suspend disbelief to accept that - in 2000 years time after a nuclear devastation - New York could turn into what it looked like in POTA (a Southwestern desert appearance). It does not matter how many "millions" of years it took to create the (real) landscape in the first place; what matters is what a nuclear war did for the purposes in the film. Maybe whatever super-bomb(s) was utilized had a result the likes of which present day science would not realize. It's a movie, and you have to go with it.
shareDon't forget the possibility of earthquakes!
Who knows what damage hundreds of nukes going off would do to the planet. Certainly not those sci-fi writers back in the paranoid 60's where every day people expected the world to end at any moment.
If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!
shareCertainly not those sci-fi writers back in the paranoid 60's where every day people expected the world to end at any moment.
I was not alive during the 1960s,
Except the film takes place 2,000 years in the future after a nuclear war has destroyed most of the planet. Or did you miss that part?
You're sooo smart. Thank you for explaining to those of us who've enjoyed this film how stupid and foolish we are for doing so. As well as how careless the filmmakers were for not using CGI to create a realistic alien landscape when they made this film back in the '60s.
shareWhen I first saw this movie, I thought at the beginning they landed back on Earth because of the reasons you state regarding apes speaking the language and an atmosphere full of oxygen. However after seeing the end, I was wondering how the apes stole the Statue of Liberty on Earth and put in on their beaches in this faraway land. Thankfully these chat boards helped me understand the finish better
shareThat's true. Planets operate in vast time cycles so even 2-3 thousand years would not change the terrain or climate that much. Some unnatural element must have contributed to the change like a nuke war or massive bombardment of meteors as Taylor surmised about.
shareMaybe a close call with a comet, or simply global warming?
shareIts a plot hole
shareWe worry about their habitat and we sa e them. I thi know we have to think about WHWT OTHET THINGSNSHOULD WE PAY ATRNEUON TO.
share