10,000 Bc

[X-Maniac]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying something that suppose to be entertaining.

I agree... But there is always the demand for Oscar-worthy quality and artistic expression too. For substance as well as flashiness. I think entertainment value is only one part of the package. It's easy to be entertained - any of the You Tube amateur videos will do that. Movies need to deliver on other levels too. People want to see the struggle to make something that matters.

 

[X-Maniac]

We can go through examples and the corresponding numbers, statistics, dempgraphics, competition, etc all day... the list never ends... but that's not the issue here... we also shouldn't be discussing American intelligence based on their tastes in films... but I only brought that up because I think there is something telling about that when you look at the films these days... the point I was making in the first place... its why can't films go back to the seriousness and the sincerity that historical set pieces once were... instead we get completely historically inaccurate films like 300 (although that was Miller's book so I give it a pass), a plethera of cheap horrors... ridiculous spoof films... when is enough enough? Yet people continue to go... when are we going to raise our standards? So speaking for me personally... I am not going to lower my standards to what I assume is an orignal screenplay with a suspect director as of late on what is a completely inaccurate portrayal of the time back then... people might want to dish out the eight bucks for the mamouths and sabertooths... but the CGI is not much better than what you see on Discovery if you ask me... I thought Mel gave us something unique with Apocalypto... it just wasn't executed right... but studios know anyway that films like that won't make jack sh:t at the box office... but frankly... I personally am tired of the CGI fests and the animals alone won't dupe me into buying a ticket for 10,000 BC.

You're quite right that this shouldn't be about American intelligence. I was being a bit mischievous and tongue-in-cheek.

And I agree that CGI is taking over and sometimes overpowering the need for a coherent story with substance and character.

So if this movie were based on a book with the exact same historical inaccuracies, you'd be okay with it?

 

[Movies205]

We can go through examples and the corresponding numbers, statistics, dempgraphics, competition, etc all day... the list never ends... but that's not the issue here... we also shouldn't be discussing American intelligence based on their tastes in films... but I only brought that up because I think there is something telling about that when you look at the films these days... the point I was making in the first place... its why can't films go back to the seriousness and the sincerity that historical set pieces once were... instead we get completely historically inaccurate films like 300 (although that was Miller's book so I give it a pass), a plethera of cheap horrors... ridiculous spoof films... when is enough enough? Yet people continue to go... when are we going to raise our standards? So speaking for me personally... I am not going to lower my standards to what I assume is an orignal screenplay with a suspect director as of late on what is a completely inaccurate portrayal of the time back then... people might want to dish out the eight bucks for the mamouths and sabertooths... but the CGI is not much better than what you see on Discovery if you ask me... I thought Mel gave us something unique with Apocalypto... it just wasn't executed right... but studios know anyway that films like that won't make jack sh:t at the box office... but frankly... I personally am tired of the CGI fests and the animals alone won't dupe me into buying a ticket for 10,000 BC.

First off as a general rule don't bring something up that your not willing to defend. Also what gives you the right to make such a generalization like that? That films today aren't as serious or genuine as older films? That there somehow less intelligent if you will? How do you make an assumption like that? By plucking out one maybe two films from the past? Do you realize how many films are released a year so unless your really willing to go through every single film released in that single year or time period, you really have no basis for that comment other than an assumption based on the limited number of films you have seen.

Also this question of when is enough enough? Is also equally ridiculous for it fails to realize that the studios have been making cheap movies since the beginning of film and it something that'll never change. A popular example of this would be the Universal Monster films of the 30s, sure the first couple were good but they quickly devolved into generic pieces made for a quick buck and when those started failing, the paired them up, and when that started failing they paired them up with comedians like Abbot and Costello. Till finally they buried it, sound familiar? Scary Movie 1-4, Teen Movie, etc. So this idea of raising our standards is quite ludicrous since bad movies have existed since the beginning of film and the only reason people seem to have this fantasy that in the old days Hollywood was churning out tons of great movies is that people lump everything past 15 years ago into one great movie. And while there might be hundreds of a good movies in the past 80 years of film, how many mediocre to bad movies are there to go along with those? Let me give you an idea Mystery Science Theater was able to go 10 years and it'd probably keep going and that's just with cheesy horror films.

So while your reason for not seeing the film is appreciated, your analysis of film history is off.

 

[Movies205]

I agree... But there is always the demand for Oscar-worthy quality and artistic expression too. For substance as well as flashiness. I think entertainment value is only one part of the package. It's easy to be entertained - any of the You Tube amateur videos will do that. Movies need to deliver on other levels too. People want to see the struggle to make something that matters.

There is a place for anything I enjoy the deep films and I've seen many of them but also love "Bad Boys 2" and "Top Gun". I think Jean Luc Goddard got it right with the idea that films don't have to do anything, they simply have to be.

 

[FaT_tONle]

You're quite right that this shouldn't be about American intelligence. I was being a bit mischievous and tongue-in-cheek.

And I agree that CGI is taking over and sometimes overpowering the need for a coherent story with substance and character.

So if this movie were based on a book with the exact same historical inaccuracies, you'd be okay with it?

If this was based on a novel with English speaking characters and massive set pieces that in all likelyhood never actually existed at the time... then so be it... its based off a book. I was unaware of that if that's the case... but I do know civilization only began around what??? 8000-7000 BC? Something like that... no way were people back then capable of those engineering feets as shown in the trailer... and the perfect English just completely killed it for me... something as unique an opportunity as this concept was... I wanted something along the lines of what you see on Discovery made into a full featured length motion picture... again just another example of a studio trying to cash in on a time in history that has barely been touched upon in films... it'll make its money... not from me though.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Well, stylised reworkings of historical periods and events with huge inaccuracies have been happening for ever. Most recently in '300' and Beowulf. And of course One Million Years BC, which sounds almost like the inspiration for this movie, was completely inaccurate. Didn't stop it being a Harryhausen classic of its time though and still great to watch!

What are you on!? Beowulf was based on an old english POEM. How was it inaccurate to events and periods?

300 was told from a point of view. Hardly any of you seem to understand this. 300 had historical inaccuracies? O RLY? You mean like 100 foot elephants, and mutants with hook arms, you mean those things seriously didn't happen? Wow, golly gee, I don't believe it! It's all from Dilios' POV, he's telling things as he remembers them, which of'course is highly stylized and exaggerated.

I want to see this movie for sure, but it's mainly for the creatures, visuals, and effects rather than for prehistoric character drama. Yes, i know that's shallow and I should go away and whip myself, but as long as the story isn't ridiculous, I'm happy to accept the fantasy/inaccuracy element.

I hope you enjoy it, I don't think I'll be seeing this though. Maybe DVD possibly.

But not in all instances. I felt Beowulf suffered from being an over-stylised fantasy retelling;

A fantasy retelling of a made up Anglo-Saxen story?

an attempt to cash in on 300 that failed, largely because Neil Gaiman can't write likable characters.

Beowulf was filmed in early 2005 before 300 was. Beowulf simply took over two years to fully render and computer generate. Seriously, look this stuff up. Beowulf was in production far longer and way before 300 was.

 

[X-Maniac]

If this was based on a novel with English speaking characters and massive set pieces that in all likelyhood never actually existed at the time... then so be it... its based off a book. I was unaware of that if that's the case... but I do know civilization only began around what??? 8000-7000 BC? Something like that... no way were people back then capable of those engineering feets as shown in the trailer... and the perfect English just completely killed it for me... something as unique an opportunity as this concept was... I wanted something along the lines of what you see on Discovery made into a full featured length motion picture... again just another example of a studio trying to cash in on a time in history that has barely been touched upon in films... it'll make its money... not from me though.

I didn't say it WAS based on a book (it's not as far as i am aware), I was making a point about whether you'd accept it more if it did have an original source.

Would 300 be the same movie without the graphic novel source?

 

[Movies205]

What are you on!? Beowulf was based on an old english POEM. How was it inaccurate to events and periods?

300 was told from a point of view. Hardly any of you seem to understand this. 300 had historical inaccuracies? O RLY? You mean like 100 foot elephants, and mutants with hook arms, you mean those things seriously didn't happen? Wow, golly gee, I don't believe it! It's all from Dilios' POV, he's telling things as he remembers them, which of'course is highly stylized and exaggerated.



I hope you enjoy it, I don't think I'll be seeing this though. Maybe DVD possibly.


A fantasy retelling of a made up Anglo-Saxen story?



Beowulf was filmed in early 2005 before 300 was. Beowulf simply took over two years to fully render and computer generate. Seriously, look this stuff up. Beowulf was in production far longer and way before 300 was.

My main man, Mr. Socko always keeps it da real!

 

[X-Maniac]

What are you on!? Beowulf was based on an old english POEM. How was it inaccurate to events and periods?

300 was told from a point of view. Hardly any of you seem to understand this. 300 had historical inaccuracies? O RLY? You mean like 100 foot elephants, and mutants with hook arms, you mean those things seriously didn't happen? Wow, golly gee, I don't believe it! It's all from Dilios' POV, he's telling things as he remembers them, which of'course is highly stylized and exaggerated.



I hope you enjoy it, I don't think I'll be seeing this though. Maybe DVD possibly.


A fantasy retelling of a made up Anglo-Saxen story?



Beowulf was filmed in early 2005 before 300 was. Beowulf simply took over two years to fully render and computer generate. Seriously, look this stuff up. Beowulf was in production far longer and way before 300 was.

Beowulf is a poem written sometime between the 9th and 11th centuries. It depicts events in the late 5th century AD and early 6th century. The majority view of historians is that characters such as King Hrogar and the Scyldings in Beowulf are based on real people in 6th century Scandinavia. Archaeological evidence backs up a lot of what is in the poem.

The movie could have been less stylised and truer to the period depicted in the poem. We didn't need Anthony Hopkins' natural Welsh accent, we didn't need Angelina Jolie in high heels, we didn't need characters motivated almost entirely by lust and sex.

There's a bit more info here on the actual, proper, Beowulf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf

Forget the rubbish in the movie. I saw it in IMAX 3D and the only thing going for it was IMAX 3D on some of the visuals. Otherwise it's a total dog turd.

 

[FaT_tONle]

First off as a general rule don't bring something up that your not willing to defend. Also what gives you the right to make such a generalization like that? That films today aren't as serious or genuine as older films? That there somehow less intelligent if you will? How do you make an assumption like that? By plucking out one maybe two films from the past? Do you realize how many films are released a year so unless your really willing to go through every single film released in that single year or time period, you really have no basis for that comment other than an assumption based on the limited number of films you have seen.

Also this question of when is enough enough? Is also equally ridiculous for it fails to realize that the studios have been making cheap movies since the beginning of film and it something that'll never change. A popular example of this would be the Universal Monster films of the 30s, sure the first couple were good but they quickly devolved into generic pieces made for a quick buck and when those started failing, the paired them up, and when that started failing they paired them up with comedians like Abbot and Costello. Till finally they buried it, sound familiar? Scary Movie 1-4, Teen Movie, etc. So this idea of raising our standards is quite ludicrous since bad movies have existed since the beginning of film and the only reason people seem to have this fantasy that in the old days Hollywood was churning out tons of great movies is that people lump everything past 15 years ago into one great movie. And while there might be hundreds of a good movies in the past 80 years of film, how many mediocre to bad movies are there to go along with those? Let me give you an idea Mystery Science Theater was able to go 10 years and it'd probably keep going and that's just with cheesy horror films.

So while your reason for not seeing the film is appreciated, your analysis of film history is off.

Its probably too broad a generalization... your right it doesn't necessarily relate to intelligence... I just think there is something there... kids just aren't getting their sources of entertainment elsewhere if they are constantly spending the ten bucks a week to go to these kinds of films... perfectly understandable... maybe it means the young adults that are the target age groups for these horror and spoof films have trouble finding other modes of entertainment... maybe we go to the movies every weekend because we don't read enough or spend our time doing something more useful.... I haven't done the studies to prove any of this... that's what I am assuming and inferred in the first place.

But about the fads that have come and gone over the years with these movie genre's... the thing is... spoofs were GOOD back in the days... as were horror films... I mean horror was defined by those films in earlier generations... why did the formula chage? Was it just not working anymore? Why did they feel they needed to reinvent the wheel? Did they just run out of material? I don't have an answer for you... both the genres I brought up specifically have been successful in the past. Maybe the public just got tired of it and the studios are trying to reinvent those genres again... one things for sure... it hasn't worked yet... so why keep trying?

 

[Movies205]

Its probably too broad a generalization... your right it doesn't necessarily relate to intelligence... I just think there is something there... kids just getting their sources of entertainment elsewhere if they are constantly spending the ten bucks a week to go to the films... perfectly understandable... maybe it means the young adults that are the target age groups for these horror and spoof films have trouble finding other modes of entertainment... maybe we go to the movies every weekend because we don't read enough or spend our time doing somehting more useful.... I haven't done the studies to prove any of this... that's what I am assuming and inferred in the first place...

But about the fads that have come and gone over the years with these movie genre's... the thing is... spoofs were GOOD back in the days... as were horror films... I mean horror was defined by those films in earlier generations... why did the formula chage? Was it just not working anymore? Why did the feel they needed to reinvent the wheel? Did they just run out of material? I don't have an answer for you... both the genres I brought up specifically have been successful in the past. Maybe the public just got tired of it and the studios are trying to reinvent those genres again... one things for sure... it hasn't worked yet...

Outside of the fact that crappy slashers have been periodically coming out since the 80s. Again you fail to realize how many ABYSIMALLY BAD HORROR movies have been made since the beginning of film. As for bad spoofs... how about the Police Academy movies. Agains classics are still coming out and what not, you just have to look for them.

 

[Hunter Rider]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=42203

New 10,000 B.C. Trailer Hits!
Source: Yahoo! Movies
February 20, 2008


Yahoo! Movies has your first look at a new action-packed, special effects-filled trailer for Warner Bros. Pictures' 10,000 B.C., coming to theaters on March 7. Directed by Roland Emmerich, the epic adventure stars Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Omar Sharif, Tim Barlow, Marco Khan, Reece Ritchie, Mo Zinal, Mona Hammond, Joel Virgel Vierset, Suri van Sornsen, Joel Fry, Nathanael Baring and Joe Vaz.

You can watch the trailer here!

 

[Rezzo]

HD Trailer 2

480p

720p

1080p

 

[Figs]

So can someone tell me what civilization that is supposed to be in this film??

 

[Mr. Socko]

English speaking Gracile australopithecus hominids with a splash of Homo erectus.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Cavemen with civilizations and speaking english. Boy, the logic train really missed this stop.

 

[Figs]

So in that era, specifically 10,000 BC there were still only just cavemen??

I'm not saying this just because "OH, it's in the movie", but I could have sworn their were some actual civilizations around then that didn't consist of Cro-Magnon Men.

I need to reread my history again. I've forgotten so damn much over the years.

 

[Mogwai]

look at the geico commercials...those cavemen speak perfect, american, english.

 

[StrainedEyes]

So in that era, specifically 10,000 BC there were still only just cavemen??

I'm not saying this just because "OH, it's in the movie", but I could have sworn their were some actual civilizations around then that didn't consist of Cro-Magnon Men.

I need to reread my history again. I've forgotten so damn much over the years.

According to Wikipedia-

c. 10,000 BC — Pottery was first produced in Japan.[1]
c. 9,500 BC — There is evidence of the harvesting, though not necessarily of the cultivating, of wild grasses in Asia Minor about this time. [1][verification needed]
c. 9,300 BC — Figs were apparently cultivated in the Jordan River valley.[2]
c. 9000 BC — Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.


So... If pottery was just invented... I find it hard to believe that there would be this massive civilization with what looks like Aztec monuments and leaders and wars.

This movie is insane. English speaking aside.

 

[Prison Mike]

I think I may see this on DVD. There has to be some smarter movies out there.

 

[X-Maniac]

Cavemen with civilizations and speaking english. Boy, the logic train really missed this stop.

So I guess the English-speaking ancient peoples in 300, Beowulf, King Arthur, Alexander, Gladiator, Robin Hood, Scorpion King and probably countless others had you suffering a stroke or running for the hills?

 

[GhostPoet]

According to Wikipedia-

c. 10,000 BC — Pottery was first produced in Japan.[1]
c. 9,500 BC — There is evidence of the harvesting, though not necessarily of the cultivating, of wild grasses in Asia Minor about this time. [1][verification needed]
c. 9,300 BC — Figs were apparently cultivated in the Jordan River valley.[2]
c. 9000 BC — Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.


So... If pottery was just invented... I find it hard to believe that there would be this massive civilization with what looks like Aztec monuments and leaders and wars.

This movie is insane. English speaking aside.

Actually, there HAVE been ruins found that date back to before the first major civilizations were created. (or believe to have been)

History books are constantly changing as we realize we know so very little about ancient history.
On a side note...I am REALLY excited for this film. =)

 

[Mr. Socko]

So I guess the English-speaking ancient peoples in 300, Beowulf, King Arthur, Alexander, Gladiator, Robin Hood, Scorpion King and probably countless others had you suffering a stroke or running for the hills?

King Arthur, Beowulf, Gladiator, Robin Hood, etc. still take place during a time of well spoken and well understood language that can still be comprehended even today. These films simply 'translate' their language to English for a better understanding. On the other hand, Cavemen were never able to speak any type of language, they simply grunted. Basically, this is along the same lines as a film with a talking dog as dogs can only bark and growl, they have no understandable language. And I don't think anyone takes talking dog flicks seriously.

A film like Star Wars would have been a better example for your argument. And even then, we have absolutely no clue what language people speak in a galaxy far, far away, nor do we know that whatever language they speak couldn't be translated to English. It's quite different going from the language of Proto-Greek to the English language than it is going from cave grunts to English.

 

[dark_b]

i agree.

you cna not compare those 300,robin hood movies to speaking cavemans.

plus lets not forget that the lead girl in this movie looks like a model with afro hair.come on. i know that you need those horny geeks but come OOOOOOOOOON.

 

[GhostPoet]

King Arthur, Beowulf, Gladiator, Robin Hood, etc. still take place during a time of well spoken and well understood language that can still be comprehended even today. These films simply 'translate' their language to English for a better understanding. On the other hand, Cavemen were never able to speak any type of language, they simply grunted. Basically, this is along the same lines as a film with a talking dog as dogs can only bark and growl, they have no understandable language. And I don't think anyone takes talking dog flicks seriously.

A film like Star Wars would have been a better example for your argument. And even then, we have absolutely no clue what language people speak in a galaxy far, far away, nor do we know that whatever language they speak couldn't be translated to English. It's quite different going from the language of Proto-Greek to the English language than it is going from cave grunts to English.

you're only assuming they spoke in grunts. If there have been civilzations found prior to what was originally considered the first...then that seems to indicate the possibility that spoken language may have existed and just faded through time along with most of the remains.