What Dumbo’s Cast Thinks About Animals Being Used In Entertainment

What Dumbo’s Cast Thinks About Animals Being Used In Entertainment

Looking back on the original Dumbo, it’s not exactly a film with a big message. After all, it only clocks in at a little over an hour long, and basically just about the misadventures of a baby elephant with big ears and his mouse friend. The same cannot be said about Tim Burton’s new live-action adaptation, however, and I recently had the chance to ask the film’s cast about one of the blockbuster’s key themes: the treatment of animals in entertainment.

Earlier this month I participated in the domestic press day for Dumbo in Los Angeles, and having the opportunity to sit down with Colin Farrell, Eva Green, and Danny DeVito, one subject that I brought up in every interview was one of the movie’s key messages. Each of them had a different perspective on the question, but also expressed a certain pride in how it comes across in Dumbo.

If the opportunities aren’t obvious, you might just not be familiar with the plot of the new film. Set in the wake of World War I, and primarily following a low-rent circus, Dumbo not only features all of the trauma of watching the titular elephant get forcibly separated from his mother, but also has a frank discussion about the exploitation of animals in entertainment. And not only is this something important to the plot of the film, but it’s also worth noting that the production itself made significant use of CGI animals instead of real ones (including for the creation of its eponymous character).

Not every animal in Dumbo is digitally added, as Colin Farrell’s character rides some very real horses in the movie. Interestingly, though, this led to some further consideration of their use in the movie by the actor, who definitely took the message of the movie to heart:

I've often questioned the use of horses and stuff, because at least a human being says, 'Yes, I want to be there,' and is getting paid for their services. Whereas a horse has no choice... I'd always be very adamant to make sure the horses, certainly anywhere close to me, aren’t mistreated in any way. And, and across the board, by in large, the horses have always, as far as I could see, have been treated wonderfully. But this film does make statements on the cruelty of the circus at that particular time, especially in relation to animals.

Playing aerialist Colette Marchant in the movie, who winds up performing an act with Dumbo, Eva Green had a lot of opportunity to do some non-animal acting in the film, and it seems that it wasn’t something that made the experience any more of a challenge. Even though working with a big green stuffed animal instead of a real creature meant using her imagination a bit more during production, being a part of a story like Dumbo and getting across its messaging was a point of pride for the actress. Green said,

We didn't have real elephants in, in this movie. We had wonderful CGI people who created some magic. I'm super proud to be in a Disney movie that promotes animal free circuses. Animals are not meant to live in captivity.

Dumbo, which also stars Michael Keaton, Alan Arkin, Nico Parker, and Finley Hobbins, arrives in theaters this Friday – and stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for more from my interviews with the actors and filmmakers!

Read More

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies

Following 2017’s Logan Lucky, Katie Holmes is headed back to the big screen for STX Films’ upcoming movie Brahms: The Boy II. The actress plays the mother of a boy who befriends a doll he calls Brahms after moving into a creepy mansion. She’s no stranger to horror film work, but ahead of the release of this project, Katie Holmes admitted she gets scared filming scary movies.

In particular, Brahms: The Boy II was frightening at times. It was not because of the script or its creepy mansion setting, but because of the fact a doll plays a prominent role in the horror flick.

This was pretty terrifying to make when we were working with the doll. It was a lot. I was scared. I love dolls; I have a conflict because I have so many, growing up with a lot of baby dolls I never thought of a doll being creepy and now I have to rethink everything.

Brahms: The Boy II isn’t Katie Holmes’ first horror project by a long shot. She’s been in movies like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, and Disturbing Behavior. However, some of these aren’t even straight horror flicks and it’s been a while since she dipped into the horror well.

She said she took on this role because it was a mom character and her child and how it “was such a universal fear for every parent” to want to protect their kid from danger and badness.

While filming the role, however, she said she got a little bit jumpy when asking whether or not she believes in supernatural forces. She said:

Well, when we were making this there were a couple of times I would be in my bed and start to fall asleep and like my pillow would fall, but I was like [creeped out].

When asked during the CinemaCon 2019 panel which horror movies influenced her most over the years, the actress cited a lot of classic films like The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, Halloween, and Scream. So although she said it’s “hard” for her “to watch them,” she has at least seen some of the big horror movie moments of the past several decades.

Brahms: The Boy II is a sequel to the 2016 film The Boy, also produced by STX, which started its feature length career with another horror film, The Gift. This new iteration will return to the Heelshire Mansion to tell a brand new story. You’ll be able to see it for yourself on July 26, 2019 – the same week as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.

In the meantime, Katie Holmes better start preparing herself for the premiere now given the rough time she seems to have with scary moments, although, as long as no one hands her a doll at the premiere I assume she'll be fine.

Read More

Unused Avengers: Endgame Photo Gives Pepper And Tony An Epic Moment

Unused Avengers: Endgame Photo Gives Pepper And Tony An Epic Moment

Spoilers ahead for Avengers: Endgame

Avengers: Endgame debuted in theaters over a month ago, and has amassed a giant sum of money in the process. The Russo Brothers crafted a complicated narrative that was built on the previous 21 movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Plenty of major payoffs were included, especially in the epic final battle sequence in the ruins of the Avengers facility.

The final battle allowed Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts to become a bonafide superhero, taking on the mantle of Rescue after suiting up in armor that Tony custom made for her. It was an epic moment, and she even personally blasted Thanos alongside Wasp and Shuri. And now an unused promotional image has surfaced, which puts Rescue and Iron Man together. Check it out below.

I'm not crying, you're crying. Pepper Potts and Tony Stark are one of the true love stories of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which made the ending of Endgame all the more tragic. Gwyneth Paltrow's character encouraged her husband's superheroic ventures throughout the blockbuster, and was left mourning after the battle against Thanos was finally won.

This image comes to us from Marvel Studios artist Liz Georgoff, who stepped into Rescue's armor for a promo shot. Gwyneth Paltrow was presumably only on set for a limited time, so she wasn't going to be available for images that might have never seen the light of day. Georgoff has been involved in the MCU since Iron Man 3, so this moment must have been an exciting one.

Marvel fans had been waiting for Pepper to suit up as Rescue since the Marvel Cinematic Universe's inception. She's become the heroic superhero a few times throughout her tenure on the page, so it seemed like only a matter of time before Rescue finally took flight. But the wait ultimately lasted a decade, as she didn't get the iconic blue armor until Endgame arrived in theaters.

Those eagle-eyed fans might have seen this coming during Avengers: Endgame, as Morgan Stark made her debut wearing the helmet Tony created for her mother. And while Pepper stayed out of the Time Heist sequence, she joined the battlefield alongside most of the MCU's characters after Hulk snapped everyone back to life.

Related: Gwyneth Paltrow May Have Revealed A Big Avengers Spoiler

Rescue and Iron Man never met on the battlefield in an embrace like the above image, but they had some seriously epic shots together during Avengers: Endgame's epic last battle. They fought Thanos' forces back to back, and Pepper Potts used the suit's abilities in a variety of ways throughout that epic sequence.

Pepper was still in the Rescue armor when Tony managed to swipe the Infinity Stones from Thanos, and snap the Mad Titan and his forces out of existence. Iron Man saved the entire galaxy in that moment, and sacrificed his life for the one chance to defeat Thanos once and for all. Her armored hand was over his heart as the light on the Iron Man suit went out, signaling that Tony's body had succumbed to the radiation and trauma of the stones.

Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts has the distinction of being one of the very first characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. She was a love interest and business associate of Tony's in the original Iron Man, and moviegoers were able to watch as their relationship developed over the years. Although after starring in the Iron Man trilogy and the first Avengers movie, Paltrow started stepping back from her signature Marvel role.

That eventually changed as we got deeper into Phase Three, with Gwyneth Paltrow returning for some cameos in the final installments of the current slate of films. Pepper made a brief role in Spider-Man: Homecoming, revealing that she and Tony had patched things up and were back together following an unseen breakup prior to Captain America: Civil War.

Pepper also had a brief scene in Avengers: Infinity War, shown jogging with Tony in Central Park before Doctor Strange appeared to whisk of the hero to the Sanctum Sanctorum. It was unclear if Ms. Potts had survived Thanos' snap, until character posters for Endgame confirmed she had made it out without being dusted.

Her role was eventually expanded in Avengers: Endgame, first popping up at the Avengers facility when Captain Marvel towed The Benatar (complete with Tony and Nebula) to Earth. And when the time jump happened, it was revealed that the couple got married and had a daughter named Morgan.

It should be interesting to see how the legacy of Pepper Potts continues on through Phase Four, and if there's any possibility for Gwyneth Paltrow to return to her role in the future. The 46 year-old actress has stated that she'd be open to more small roles in the future if the studio needed it. And although Tony Stark's fate is sealed, the fandom will no doubt be curious to how she and Morgan are getting on in the wake of his death.

It's currently unclear if the Iron Man franchise would continue. While Steve Rogers passed on the mantle of Captain America to Sam Wilson in Avengers: Endgame, no one has take on the role of Iron Man. Spider-Man: Far From Home looks like it'll address that issue, as Peter Parker is rocking the Iron Spider suit during its first trailer.

Morgan also seems like a prime candidate to be the next Iron Man, especially if there's another time jump that can move her aging process forward. If Morgan ever ends up returning to the MCU, it would be logical that her mother might as well. But as of now, there's no telling what Marvel Studios is planning for the shared universe beyond Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Regardless, fans will be happy to have seen Tony and Pepper get their happy ending. They were extremely lucky in the wake of Thanos' snap, and lived a happy life in their lake house with their daughter. And while that makes Tony's death all the more tragic, Pepper seemed to understand that her husband needed to do the right thing in hopes of bringing back the dusted denizens of the galaxy.

You can watch Rescue's long awaited MCU debut in Avengers: Endgame, in theaters now. Be sure to check out our 2019 release list to plan our next trip to the movies.

Read More

Disneyland Reveals How To Book Your Reservation For Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge

Disneyland Reveals How To Book Your Reservation For Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge

Update: Just before noon pacific time, less than two hours after reservations were made available., Disneyland announced via Twitter that they were gone. Now the only way to guarantee yourself access to Galaxy's Edge in the first three weeks is to make a reservation at a Disneyland Resort hotel.

Original Story: After years of waiting, we're now less than a one month away from one of the most anticipated entertainment events in the world. It's not a movie release. It's not the end of Game of Thrones. It's the opening of Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge. For anybody who has ever dreamed of traveling to the galaxy far, far away, that day is almost here.

However, to get into Galaxy's Edge during the first three weeks it's open, you'll need a special reservation specifically for the new land. Those reservations can begin to be made at 10:00 AM pacific time on May 2. Here's what you need to do:

To Make A Reservation

The first thing you'll need is an account on the Disneyland website, so if you don't have one of those, go get signed up now. It's completely free and if you're going to Disneyland anyway, there's no reason not to have one, it makes a lot of things very easy.

Next you need to go to the Disneyland Reservation Page for Galaxy's Edge. The link can be found here. Starting at 10:00 AM this page will act as the virtual waiting room for making a reservation and will walk you through booking one once it's your turn. A single reservation is good for up to six total people.

Of course, there is also a second option for booking a reservation. If you book a stay at a Disneyland Resort hotel during the period of May 31-June 23, you'll automatically be given a reservation for Galaxy's Edge during one day of your stay. No other steps are necessary. Simply be sure that everybody who will be going to Galaxy's Edge is listed as a guest on the hotel reservation.

However, be aware that if the hotel reservation is canceled, the Galaxy's Edge reservation will be as well.

Once You Have A Reservation

Making a Galaxy's Edge reservation is free, but, of course, visiting Disneyland is not. That means that on the day of your reservation every member of your party over the age of three will require a valid theme park admission.

In addition, every member of the party 18-years-old or older, as well as the person making the reservation, regardless of their age, we'll require photo ID in order to enter the land.

The other thing to be aware of is that no modification of the reservation time can be made once it's done. There's also no remedy for replacing a reservation if it goes unused, so before you book it, make sure the date and time works for you. You also won't be able to modify the names on the reservation.

Disneyland has not confirmed exactly how long you'll be able to spend in Galaxy's Edge with your reservation but guests who have received reservation times already by booking hotel rooms are reporting being given a four hour window. Depending on exactly how many people are being let into the land, that should be enough time to get a ride on Millennium Falcon: Smuggler's Run, and maybe even grab a drink at Oga's Cantina.

After June 23, reservations for the land will no longer be required. The word is that Disneyland is working on a digital notification system, not entirely unlike getting a buzzer in a restaurant, where you'll be able to request a visit to the new land, and the Disneyland app will notify when there is space for you to enter.

Disneyland has never done anything quite like this before but then again in the parks 64 year history, nothing quite like this has happened. Galaxy's Edge is the largest single land expansion in the history of the park and its using one of the most popular IPs in the history of pop culture.

A nearly identical version of Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge is set to open at Walt Disney World August 29 at Disney's Hollywood Studios. No reservation period has been announced for that opening, which makes me think the true purpose of the Disneyland reservation requirement is to act as a soft opening for the new land.

I can't help but wonder if fewer people will be let into Galaxy's Edge during this reservation period than the land can technically hold. It would be a great way to put the space, the attractions, and the cast members, through their paces and learn to deal with any unforeseen problems that might appear with smaller crowds.

If true, this would make the first three weeks of Galaxy's Edge actually the best time to visit as it might be less crowded, not more crowded, than the space will be once the reservation period ends.

Since Galaxy's Edge at Walt Disney World is essentially identical, any problems found at Disneyland can be fixed before they ahppen, and thus the reservation period wouldn't be necessary.

The other thing that the reservation period adds is piece of mind. If all you want is to be one of the first to visit Batuu, knowing that you'll be able to, that you won't have to stand in an insane line, because there will be no stand by line, is probably a very nice feeling.

Of course, that still leaves the question of how easy getting reservations will be. The land will certainly accommodate hundreds if not thousands of people, and that many people, in four hour blocks, when the park will be open for 16 hours a day, over three weeks of time, will certainly allow for a lot of people to book reservations. Though exactly how many people will be trying is impossible to know.

Before the reservation system was announced, estimates were that as many as 200,000 people might show up on opening day, but even that number of people should be able to get a reservation without issue. You might not be able to get the exact day and time you want, but it seems likely getting a reservation at all shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Of course, if demand is truly excessive, we could see all three weeks of time fill up quite quickly.

Read More

Mckenna Grace Had A Scary Set Experience Making Annabelle Comes Home

Mckenna Grace Had A Scary Set Experience Making Annabelle Comes Home

For audience members sitting in a darkened theater, the right horror film can truly scare you and have you squirming in your seat, watching the screen through your fingers. But does that scariness extend to the making of the film itself? It seems it can, and did for Annabelle Comes Home star Mckenna Grace, who had a scary set experience making the Conjuring Universe film, as she explained:

I’ve done about three scared scenes so far, and I haven’t been too scared in those, but I do have a scary story. On one of the first days, I came and looked at the house that they built, on set. We were doing our rehearsal and my nose was pouring blood, all of a sudden. The lights were off because they had to re-set something, and I was like, “There’s blood!” And then, as soon as I stepped outside to go to the restroom to get a tissue, it stopped. It was creepy. But then we had the set blessing, so everything is good now.

Well, that’s disconcerting. The 12-year-old actress who plays the Warren’s daughter Judy in the film hasn’t been frightened by the actual scary scenes she’s filmed, where she is required to act scared, but she still experienced a creepy moment on set. As she told reporters during a set visit attended by CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg while on the set of the Warren home, which is filled with haunted objects, her nose started bleeding profusely.

She seemingly didn’t even know it was her blood at first because the lights were off. Then as she left to get a tissue and got outside of the set’s radius of supernatural effect, the bleeding stopped. A coincidence perhaps, but one that could definitely freak someone out, especially a young actress on one of her first days on a big horror film.

Also, I imagine that hearing Mckenna Grace, a child actor, scream out “There’s blood!” provided a different kind of fright for those on the set within earshot and must have given a few people mild heart attacks. Fortunately, they had the set blessing and there was no more blood. There were still some weird occurrences though. Elaborating on some of her other Annabelle Comes Home filming experiences, Mckenna Grace said:

Yes! There was this statue thing. It had its eyes closed, but to me, it looked like they were open. I was like, “Oh, that’s fun!” It was creepy. And then, one day, our trailer lights were just out, at the end of the day. None of the other trailer lights were off. There were two trailers, and the other one wasn’t off. It was so weird. They wouldn’t turn on and off, so they had to go re-set stuff. After they re-set it, they were like, “Everything is perfect. Why isn’t it turning on?” It just wouldn’t turn on. It took them 15 minutes to figure it out. It was crazy!

It’s fascinating how everyday occurrences can take on a poltergeist-like, supernatural quality when they happen in the right context. That was the case here, where the actual stuff that is supposed to be scary in the film is just cool, but it creates an environment where what in most other contexts would be a frustrating technical malfunction, here becomes something quite strange.

It even sounds like a scene out of a horror movie where the hey keep trying to flick the trailer lights on and they won’t come on, but when they do, you get a killer jump scare with a creepy doll or something. Fortunately, these were just weird occurrences and Mckenna Grace seems to have taken them all in stride. I suppose we should expect nothing less from the actress who played young Carol Danvers in Captain Marvel.

Annabelle Comes Home sees the Warrens bringing the possessed Annabelle doll into their home and locking it in the artifacts room where it can hopefully do no more harm. But that move proves to be like lighting a match near barrels of gunpowder, as Annabelle awakens the room's evil spirits, which then go after the Warren's daughter Judy and her friends. The trailer for Annabelle Comes Home debuted recently and it really is a homecoming, with the return of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga.

Annabelle Comes Home to the Warren’s and theaters on June 28. Check out our 2019 release schedule to see this and all the other movies you can look forward to this year, and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all the latest movie news.

Read More

Is Bo Peep The Villain In Toy Story 4?

Is Bo Peep The Villain In Toy Story 4?

Warning: This article contains SPOILERS for a few past Pixar films along with the opening scene of Toy Story 4.

Toy Story 4 is just under three months away, and recently Pixar hasn’t been shy about pulling back the curtain a bit on what to expect from the long-awaited comeback of Andy’s gang of childhood toys. The upcoming animated sequel will also mark the return of Bo Peep, a shiny porcelain sheep-herder who was a loving confidant to Woody up until the studio decidedly cut her out of 2010’s Toy Story 3 – or perhaps just forgot to pencil her in?

Now, Bo Peep seems to be getting her redemption story in Toy Story 4, as the character has traded her bonnet and pink dress for a badass (but still feminine) take on her character. This includes her wearing pantaloons, a pink bow and using her crook as a powerful weapon instead of a mere accessory as she shows Woody around her new way of life, which seems to be between an antique store and lively carnival. She certainly has a prominent presence in the marketing for Toy Story 4 thus far, and now there's been speculation that this is because she is being developed into the next Toy Story villain.

But could Bo Peep really be the crook (pun intended) that Woody, Buzz and the gang will ultimately face in Toy Story 4? I certainly think there's a good case for it! Time to break this theory down.

Bo Peep is introduced in the first Toy Story film as a porcelain doll who is part of a lamp belonging to Andy’s sister, Molly. This already makes her a bit of an outsider to the other toys, but she is often used as a “damsel in distress” to Woody’s adventures during play time. The pair share an undeniable connection with one another, as she’s often thought of as Woody’s love interest. But then, something happens between Toy Story 2 and 3 that makes Bo Peep disappear from the cast of characters in the animated franchise.

Perhaps she is given away? That seems to be the way Toy Story 4 will fill in the gaps in the beginning of the film (which was recently shown at CinemaCon). The story will be set up by showing Woody and Bo Peep’s final exchange before they reunite in the upcoming movie, which includes her telling Woody that she’s okay with being given away and her asking him to come with her. He doesn’t, as his loyalty stays with Andy, though Toy Story 3 famously ends with the now-college-aged lad giving his childhood toys away to a toddler named Bonnie, who they belong to in the new movie.

Toy Story 4 will see Woody getting separated by Bonnie when he runs after her new craft project, Forky, who is having an existential crisis about his purpose. As Woody tries to rescue Forky and bring him back to Bonnie, they will come across Bo Peep. She will introduce Woody to her new lifestyle as someone who has taken control of her narrative as a toy, who roams freely without the need of one child and seems to help other forgotten toys find a home without an “Andy” to call their own. She seems to tempt Woody to adopt this life as well and the movie seems to center on a decision for him to either stay with her or again remain loyal to his kid.

Bo Peep has already been rejected before by Woody, so what if she’s not willing to take no for an answer this time? What starts off as her giving him the illusion of choice by using persuading words like “sometimes change can be good” and “kids lose their toys everyday” (which she utters in the trailer) is actually entrapment. Her story arc could easily become an origin story of the next Toy Story villain. As the other toys go out to save Woody, maybe they end up needing to confront and rescue Bo Peep. It would be the ultimate showdown if the last installment of Toy Story revolved around Woody and the gang face off with a character they love and once called a friend from the past.

The Toy Story franchise is certainly no stranger to pulling the old friend-turned-foe switcheroo. In the second film, Stinky Pete was painted as a new friend to Woody before he tried to force him and Jessie to be shipped off to a toy museum in Japan. This formula was used again in the third movie when the once welcoming Lotso tried to keep the toys from going home in order to keep them safe in the confines of the preschool, where they wouldn't be given away or replaced. Based on this track record, when toys face abandonment, something seriously cracks, and we know Bo Peep has received this treatment already.

Pixar has used this plotline in two other of their recent releases too! In Coco, Ernesto de la Cruz is introduced as Miguel’s hero, but winds up being the film’s villain, and in Incredibles 2 Evelyn is set up to be on the heroes' side before being revealed as the movie’s main baddie as well. Would Pixar dare use this familiar formula for its third release in a row? I think it’s certainly a possibility!

The villain that seems to be set up in Toy Story 4, a doll named Gabby Gabby, just doesn’t seem to hold as much emotional weight to the toys as Bo Peep would as a villain. Plus, her tragic backstory has already been revealed. She’s a vintage doll that was manufactured with a broken voice box and she has some creepy ventriloquist dummies who do her bidding. This story certainly has the makings of a sinister evil plot - such as attempting to steal away Woody’s working one so she can be finally loved by a child perhaps?

But it’s actually more predictable than Bo Peep’s potential as a villain because we don’t know yet what happened to her between Toy Story 2 and today. That’s 20 years of backstory we may learn and could play a bigger role in the story, then what’s being revealed by Pixar. Even if I’m right, Toy Story 4 could still be a really interesting and unique addition to the franchise, and there could still be a ton we don’t know about where it goes.

We of course won’t know for sure until Toy Story 4 hits theaters on June 21. What do you think? Do you think this theory will play out in any way in the upcoming sequel. Feel free to tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

Read More

Disney Needs To Make A New Planet Of The Apes Remake, On One Condition

Disney Needs To Make A New Planet Of The Apes Remake, On One Condition

With all the excitement surrounding Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar of late, it’s easy to forget that Disney’s collection of franchises recently got bigger thanks to the purchase of 21st Century Fox. Among the studio’s new acquisitions is the Planet of the Apes film series, and during CinemaCon last month, it was one of the Fox franchises that Disney indicated would continue on post-regime change, although there doesn’t appear to be anything in active development right now.

It’s been over 50 years since the first Planet of the Apes movie was released, and thanks to the reboot trilogy than ran from 2011 to 2017, the franchise has had new life breathed into it. I’m game for Disney delivering a new Planet of the Apes movie and would especially be interested in a remake of the original, but on one condition: it needs to be set in the same continuity as the reboot movies.

Most of you are probably saying right now that we’ve been down this remake road before, and it did not go well. That’s true. In 2001, after over a decade in development hell, Fox finally released a Planet of the Apes remake, which Tim Burton directed and starred folks like Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter and Paul Giamatti. It ended on quite the cliffhanger, and it was abundantly clear that just like the original did, Fox intended for this new Planet of the Apes to spawn sequels.

This Planet of the Apes proved to be a financial success, making over $362 million off a $100 million budget, but it was met with mixed-negative critical reception. Tim Burton declared he’d rather “jump out a window” then work on a sequel, and Fox eventually just shut down plans to continue this iteration of the franchise, paving the way for what would become Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Disney is certainly within its rights to press the reset button start on the entire Planet of the Apes franchise again, but that would be a mistake. The mythology crafted by Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and War for the Planet of the Apes is too rich to toss aside, and it actually makes a more direct Planet of the Apes remake sound a lot more interesting than starting from scratch.

Fox was wise to move away from the traditional Apes canon and instead use the most recent Planet of the Apes trilogy to look back on how Earth’s apes became super-intelligent and how humanity was almost wiped out and how the survivors started losing their intelligence. It was an interesting and more ‘realistic’ look at how an ape uprising would occur.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, and Caesar’s story has ended, we’re free to jump forward several centuries to see how ape society has evolved since Caesar led his followers to their promised land. Naturally it’ll look a lot like what was shown in the original Planet of the Apes movie, but naturally there’s also room to take some creative liberties in order to stand out from what’s come before.

If you’re not interested in retreading original Planet of the Apes territory, that’s fine, because Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and War for the Planet of the Apes work perfectly fine on their own. There’s never a guarantee that origin stories do well, but both critically and commercially, these movies all succeeded, and I’d argue that this Apes trilogy is one of the best movie trilogies of all time.

Of course, there’s also the possibility that Disney would rather have the next Planet of the Apes movie have closer ties to War for the Planet of the Apes, perhaps by following Caesar’s son, Cornelius, as an adult. That would be fine, but in terms in terms of setting and aesthetics, we’ve gotten three movies worth of apes running around on a ‘normal’ Earth. Wouldn’t it be more interesting to instead see how they’re descendants are doing in a civilization that somewhat resembles what humans once lived in?

Think about it: we’re arguably more invested in the apes than ever now that we know their background. We watched over three movies as they rose from common animals to simians with human-level intelligence, and now humans are on their way to becoming as primitive as the apes once were. Now that their ‘origin story’ is out of the way, we can finally move forward and see how the fruits of Caesar’s labor led to the apes flourishing on this new Earth centuries later.

Naturally this paves the way for the original Planet of the Apes story to unfold, albeit with some adjustments to ensure it fits within this reboot continuity properly, such as the newest Cornelius (i.e. the one that Roddy Mcdowell played) being a direct descendant of Caesar. And naturally if Disney delivers a Planet of the Apes remake, that doesn’t have to mark the end of this iteration of the franchise. With all the money that Disney paid for Fox, you can be sure the company’s not going to bring Planet of the Apes back to the big screen for a one-and-done tale.

The key difference, though, for any sequels to follow Disney’s Planet of the Apes remake is that outside of George Taylor coming to the future (Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a news report of the Icarus leaving Earth, and a later newspaper headline reveals the ship was lost), time travel would be incorporated. In the original Planet of the Apes film series, Zira and Cornelius were transported in time to the contemporary United States, and their son, Caesar, ended up the catalyst for the future his parents came from. It was a cyclical timeline!

That doesn’t need to happen in this version of the franchise. The apes became smart through exposure to a viral-based drug, so there’s no reason to go back to this period. Instead, we can focus on more on fleshing out this strange society even more so than the original Planet of the Apes movies did. Rather than eventually nuke the world, which is what happened in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, we can explore a different kind of aftermath from George Taylor’s presence, one that perhaps leads to human and ape relations improving and, over time, Earth returning to something more familiar.

Since Fox will now only be making five to six movies per year under the Disney banner, it remains to be seen when the studio will decide to tackle Planet of the Apes. Whenever that time comes, the studio would be better served piggybacking on what Fox delivered earlier this decade and presenting a Planet of the Apes remake through that lens as opposed to beginning completely anew.

Let us know what you’d like to see next from the Planet of the Apes franchise in the comments below. Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for any updates on what Disney has in store for the Planet of the Apes, and for now, you can learn what movies are hitting theaters later this year in our 2019 release schedule.

Read More