10,000 Bc

[Lord Blackbolt]

I don't see the big deal. I just assumed they're talking english, but they're talking their own Caveman language. The movie is just translating it for us

 

[terry78]

It's a more serious Flintstones. That's all.

 

[X-Maniac]

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.

So you think prehistoric people simply grunted? That they had no proper means of communication through various vocalisations? Even today's apes do more than grunt.

But then again you didn't realise the historical nature of Beowulf, so you obviously imagined Angelina Jolie in high heels was just fine. Jeez, Mr Socko. Talk about showing your ignorance.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Dude... they are speaking FLUENT ENGLISH... lets get real here... Socko is right.

 

[FaT_tONle]

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.

Exactly... that too... made me vomit... these people looked like they lived in ancient Rome for pete's sake... this director just plain sucks... even after watching Ind. Day... you realize that the movie had no real substance... it was just so damn cool... but really this guy is all entertainment and no substance and I am tired of getting that from big budget films...

 

[Mr. Socko]

It's a more serious Flintstones. That's all.

Pretty much, that's the best way to put it.

So you think prehistoric people simply grunted? That they had no proper means of communication through various vocalisations? Even today's apes do more than grunt.

It's called a simple generalization, my friend. Were you expecting me to go into an in-depth analysis on the vocal patterns and language spoken by Cavemen and such and such?

But then again you didn't realise the historical nature of Beowulf, so you obviously imagined Angelina Jolie in high heels was just fine. Jeez, Mr Socko. Talk about showing your ignorance.

Sugarbumps, the only historical attribute from Beowulf is the time period it takes place in, which in turn effects how it is presented. The rest is a fictional story involving fictional characters, you know this. On the rest, I'm not sure what you mean about Jolie in high heels(?)

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Grunts FTW!

 

[DieSmiling]

The assumption that prehistoric people grunted and had no language is ridiculous. How exactly do you know this?

At the end of the day it's a movie... What's the big deal?

 

[FaT_tONle]

You know what they should do....show the clip in Deep Impact of an asteroid hitting Earth... then explain how 99% of humans were wiped out as well as all the technological records since the asteroid impact was only predicted several hours before the impact occurred just to explain why humans couldn't prepare to survive... then rename the damn thing 10,000 AD... and replace the mamouths with giant insects or some ****...

 

[Octoberist]

i'm shocked that there's no hype or early reviews for this flick.

 

[StrainedEyes]

i'm shocked that there's no hype or early reviews for this flick.

Perhaps because it looks like tripe?

 

[Octoberist]

that must be it!

i'm only seeing it because of batman and hulk!

 

[X-Maniac]

It's called a simple generalization, my friend. Were you expecting me to go into an in-depth analysis on the vocal patterns and language spoken by Cavemen and such and such?

Unless you were around 10,000 years ago, you wouldn't be capable of an analysis of 'cavemen' language. Even your use of the word 'cavemen' has a dated ignorance to it!

Sugarbumps, the only historical attribute from Beowulf is the time period it takes place in, which in turn effects how it is presented. The rest is a fictional story involving fictional characters, you know this. On the rest, I'm not sure what you mean about Jolie in high heels(?)

Flattered though I am to be someone's 'sugarbumps', you are wrong about Beowulf, as I explained above. Several characters in the poem are believed to have actually existed, therefore the poem has strong historical basis. The movie could have had a stronger historical basis.

As for Jolie in high heels, maybe you didn't see the movie? Jolie plays Grendel's mother, a water-demon living in a cave. The demon looks exactly like Angelina Jolie, with a long pigtail of hair that behaves like a tentacle and she has stiletto heels growing from her feet. It was a ridiculously over-stylised representation. The whole movie was ridiculous. Unless you've seen it you won't know what I mean. Aside from the final dragon sequence, it was rubbish.

I can imagine Americans were less shocked and offended because they simply don't have the same affinity with the mythology/history of this period as Europeans like myself. American movies about Robin Hood and King Arthur or other European subjects are usually as dumb and offensive.

But back to the topic. I guess we had two options with 10,000 BC. The writers/filmmakers could create a prehistoric language and have subtitles. There is then the risk of the language being criticised as inaccurate or silly or ridiculous because we don't know what language they had. (We still don't know how ancient Egyptian was spoken). Or they 'stylise' it and present it in a modern language as though perhaps the movie is translating for us. It's probably the easier option than the risk of creating a fake prehistoric language.

You're being far too literal and overly anal about it. One Million Years BC didn't use English but it did use dinosaurs, and that was a classic of its time.

And I just checked - Beowulf was a flop. The $150m movie made $82m in the USA, and a total of $195m including international. It got what it deserved.

How 10,000 BC will do, I have no idea. I don't even know how the story is being marketed - what element of it is being described as sheer fantasy? Is it purporting to be historical? Or is it purporting to be a '300'-type stylised fantasy epic based only loosely on history?

 

[StrainedEyes]

Flattered though I am to be someone's 'sugarbumps', you are wrong about Beowulf, as I explained above. Several characters in the poem are believed to have actually existed, therefore the poem has strong historical basis. The movie could have had a stronger historical basis.
?

I don't really care about anything else you're saying. But I have to point out that I f***ing hated Beowulf. It butchered the poem.

There's also a difference between a fictitious poem about monsters and dragons, and a movie claiming to be based in historic fact.


Also, you can claim all you want that we don't know cavemen couldn't talk. But you also have no proof that they could.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't really care about anything else you're saying. But I have to point out that I f***ing hated Beowulf. It butchered the poem.

There's also a difference between a fictitious poem about monsters and dragons, and a movie claiming to be based in historic fact.


Also, you can claim all you want that we don't know cavemen couldn't talk. But you also have no proof that they could.

You miss the point. Beowulf is a poem containing real characters from a real period in Scandinavian history, although the events in the poem are fantasy.

Does 10,000BC claim to be based in historical fact? Or is it just a fantasy adventure?

And 'cavemen' must have had language and communication in order to advance from living in trees to a people who worked together to form communities. There is no way a load of grunting numbskulls would manage to do that. They painted on cave walls, they made clothes and jewellery and pottery, they formed relationships, they worked together to find food, so obviously they had ways of communicating their ideas and needs. Unless you're suggesting they're telepathic, they must have used a spoken language.

 

[StrainedEyes]

It doesn't really matter because this movie is ridiculous. Why are so hell bent on defending what looks to be a generic action movie, involving kidnapping in one man who must save everyone, set in a slightly too advanced world of cave people?

 

[X-Maniac]

It doesn't really matter because this movie is ridiculous. Why are so hell bent on defending what looks to be a generic action movie, involving kidnapping in one man who must save everyone, set in a slightly too advanced world of cave people?

I'm not 'defending' it, but it doesn't seem any more ridiculous than 300 (goat-headed musician anyone?). It's probably a stylised fantasy adventure, not a historical documentary on the Discovery channel. If it's marketed as accurate history, then it's worth attacking. But how is it marketed?

I think you are overreacting.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Unless you were around 10,000 years ago, you wouldn't be capable of an analysis of 'cavemen' language. Even your use of the word 'cavemen' has a dated ignorance to it!

I've referred to these hominids by what they appear to be on the previous page, cavemen is just easier to type.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=202024&page=11#267

Flattered though I am to be someone's 'sugarbumps',

:heart:

you are wrong about Beowulf, as I explained above. Several characters in the poem are believed to have actually existed, therefore the poem has strong historical basis. The movie could have had a stronger historical basis.

Thanks for the correction, and I agree here.

And I just checked - Beowulf was a flop. The $150m movie made $82m in the USA, and a total of $195m including international. It got what it deserved.

How 10,000 BC will do, I have no idea. I don't even know how the story is being marketed - what element of it is being described as sheer fantasy? Is it purporting to be historical? Or is it purporting to be a '300'-type stylised fantasy epic based only loosely on history?

I think this movie will make about as much as Viva Rock Vegas.

 

[X-Maniac]

I will defintely go to see this, as I love prehistoric stuff and epic scale movies. It reminds me of Apocalypto (which I didn't see), except there is no bigoted Mel Gibson involved!

 

[SuGarRush]

I'll be going to see this, as I ALSO love epic scaled movies, and this reminds me of Apocalypto, except it doesn't have the incredibly talented Mel Gibson at the helm

 

[Stotch]

I will defintely go to see this, as I love prehistoric stuff and epic scale movies. It reminds me of Apocalypto (which I didn't see), except there is no bigoted Mel Gibson involved!

I'll be going to see this, as I ALSO love epic scaled movies, and this reminds me of Apocalypto, except it doesn't have the incredibly talented Mel Gibson at the helm

I'll be seeing this, as I TOO love epic scaled stuff. But this kinda reminds me of Apocalypto(Dunno if anyone has mentioned this), only this looks better since it has dinosaurs.

 

[X-Maniac]

I'll be seeing this, as I TOO love epic scaled stuff. But this kinda reminds me of Apocalypto(Dunno if anyone has mentioned this), only this looks better since it has dinosaurs.

There are no dinosaurs.

In the trailer, we see mammoths, a sabretooth tiger and what looks like a giant flightless bird (this sort of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastornis

 

[X-Maniac]

I'll be going to see this, as I ALSO love epic scaled movies, and this reminds me of Apocalypto, except it doesn't have the incredibly talented Mel Gibson at the helm

We don't need Gibson and his bitter agendas. He'd have the mammoths stamping all over Jews and gays and he'd rewrite history so the cradle of civilisation wasn't the Middle East. Passion of the Christ was bad enough for making the Romans into the good guys.

 

[Stotch]

There are no dinosaurs.

In the trailer, we see mammoths, a sabretooth tiger and what looks like a giant flightless bird (this sort of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastornis

We don't have any sabretooths and mammoths nowadays, so I still consider them to be dinosaurs, or at least animals from that era

 

[X-Maniac]

We don't have any sabretooths and mammoths nowadays, so I still consider them to be dinosaurs, or at least animals from that era

Then you're very naughty. Dinosaurs are reptiles, a specific group.

The general phrase is prehistoric animals. That includes dinosaurs and everything else!