The other day I went to the movies to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes. And I'm wondering why the director and the whole production group decided to keep the articles in the title? Why didn't they go with just The Apes Planet Rise. Or it sounds bad? And it's not just the articles. It's the "ofs" in the title that made me think too. I'm asking this because most of today's movies are entitled with simple names to catch the eyes of the audience. What can you say about that? Or am I wrong thinking this way?
All your thoughts and opinions will be appreciated.
Sequels/Prequels are very often gven some such titles as '(The) Return/Vengeance/Son/etc of X' . If they had just used 'The Ape(s) Planet', reference to the Original version would have been lost.
The Original ‘Planet of the Apes’ was followed by ‘Beneath the Planet of the Apes’, ‘Escape from the Planet of the Apes’, ‘Conquest of the Planet of the Apes' and ‘Battle for the Planet of the Apes’.
Last edited by 5jj; 15-Aug-2011 at 19:54. Reason: typo
The original film was "Planet of the Apes", not "Ape Planet" so they're simply retaining the structure of the original to continue with the run of films.
There's also the fact that "the rise of" or "the fall of" are common phrases to do with many things, political, geographical etc.
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Thank you for your response. Now I get it.