Watch the new trailer, and you won't have to watch the movie! Cool, huh?
Good to know that code written for Return of the King is still getting work.
Full Version: 10,000 B.C.
The trailer played before Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was so bad, I didn't think any trailer could top it.
I guessed wrong. And it's the same movie!
I guessed wrong. And it's the same movie!
Prehistoric adventure movie with a no-name cast, directed by a veteran of The Patriot? I wanna see how this film compares to Apocalypto.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jan 8 2008, 12:06 AM) 
Prehistoric adventure movie with a no-name cast, directed by a veteran of The Patriot?
Camilla Belle has a name. And a face. Oh my, does she have a face! Those blue contacts make her look like a refugee from Dune.
It's OK with me...
Nathaniel wrote:
: Camilla Belle has a name.
Camilla who?
I just checked her page at the IMDB, and hmmm, apparently she played one of the two title characters in The Ballad of Jack and Rose. (Note: she was not Jack.) But of the films she's done that I HAVE seen, I don't recall who any of her characters were -- and this is despite the fact that the IMDB page includes both her picture and the names of the characters she played in those films. (One of the films on her list, incidentally, was called The Patriot, but it is not the aforementioned The Patriot.)
: Camilla Belle has a name.
Camilla who?
I just checked her page at the IMDB, and hmmm, apparently she played one of the two title characters in The Ballad of Jack and Rose. (Note: she was not Jack.) But of the films she's done that I HAVE seen, I don't recall who any of her characters were -- and this is despite the fact that the IMDB page includes both her picture and the names of the characters she played in those films. (One of the films on her list, incidentally, was called The Patriot, but it is not the aforementioned The Patriot.)
Ahh, 10,000 B.C., when Egyptian Aztec Vikings roamed the earth. Good times, good times.
What gets me is the opening sentence: "Before everything we know/ lies a legend/ never told." How does that even begin to make sense? When I read the second chunk of text, I was sure I'd already misremembered the first bit, but no. Is it implying that the legend itself was written, popularized, and forgotten "before everything that we know" -- such an awkward phrase in the first place -- and that therefore the legend itself is about pre-pre-history? And why is it lying in present tense? I know events in a piece of narrative are always referred to in the present tense, but we're not talking about events in the narrative, we're talking about the narrative itself, unless the movie is actually the story of the discovery of the story, which actually might be more interesting than the story itself. Maybe the moviemakers operate on the premise that all temporal moments are concurrent and that therefore the legend lying occupies its own sort of present? And why is this legend lying anyway? It's apparently not under anything, which might prevent it from standing up straight; it's just before. I mean, if you're going to use a spatial metaphor-- lying-- to illustrate something that clearly has no spatial dimensions, your qualifying phrase has to be metaphorically spatial, too, not temporal, right? And once this movie comes out, does this trailer become inaccurate? Because it will definitely have been told. Unless the movie doesn't actually tell it, and this is all a big fakeout. Which again, would probably be more interesting than the actual film they're advertising.
Proof positive that even trailer monkeys need English majors.
What gets me is the opening sentence: "Before everything we know/ lies a legend/ never told." How does that even begin to make sense? When I read the second chunk of text, I was sure I'd already misremembered the first bit, but no. Is it implying that the legend itself was written, popularized, and forgotten "before everything that we know" -- such an awkward phrase in the first place -- and that therefore the legend itself is about pre-pre-history? And why is it lying in present tense? I know events in a piece of narrative are always referred to in the present tense, but we're not talking about events in the narrative, we're talking about the narrative itself, unless the movie is actually the story of the discovery of the story, which actually might be more interesting than the story itself. Maybe the moviemakers operate on the premise that all temporal moments are concurrent and that therefore the legend lying occupies its own sort of present? And why is this legend lying anyway? It's apparently not under anything, which might prevent it from standing up straight; it's just before. I mean, if you're going to use a spatial metaphor-- lying-- to illustrate something that clearly has no spatial dimensions, your qualifying phrase has to be metaphorically spatial, too, not temporal, right? And once this movie comes out, does this trailer become inaccurate? Because it will definitely have been told. Unless the movie doesn't actually tell it, and this is all a big fakeout. Which again, would probably be more interesting than the actual film they're advertising.
Proof positive that even trailer monkeys need English majors.
I nominate N.K. Carter's post for one of the Top Ten A&F Posts of 2008.
It's early in the year, but that post may indeed have some staying power.
The post itself may be more interesting than the film...
The post itself may be more interesting than the film...
QUOTE (Darryl A. Armstrong @ Jan 8 2008, 01:34 PM)
The post itself may be more interesting than the film...
I disagree.
I mean --
Apocalypto with horned ramming elephants?!??
DOES IT GET ANY BETTER?!??!??!?
QUOTE (Jeffrey Overstreet @ Jan 8 2008, 08:55 AM)
I nominate N.K. Carter's post for one of the Top Ten A&F Posts of 2008.
Have we done a list for 2007? Maybe someone should get on that. Alan?
QUOTE
DOES IT GET ANY BETTER?!??!??!?
Stef, that little parade of emoticons you've unleashed is SO MUCH MORE CREATIVE than that trailer.
Trailers of the Day: The Happening and 10,000 B.C.
Then there’s the new trailer for 10,000 B.C., which I couldn’t find on YouTube among the 10,000 postings of the original -- so here it is on Yahoo. In my opinion, this is the version that should have been released first. It has none of the wooden dialogue and acting featured in the first trailer, and really, really, really exploits the quality of the special effects. I know there are a ton of people in the target demo who already think this movie looks awesome, however this is the sort of cut that could have been instrumental in garnering interest from a more cynical, more picky mainstream audience. I’ve seen the original trailer a bunch of times in the theater, and each time it’s laughed at and verbally dismissed. If that trailer had been released after this one, it’s true it would still have been mocked, but perhaps less so.
Christopher Campbell, Spout Blog, February 20
Then there’s the new trailer for 10,000 B.C., which I couldn’t find on YouTube among the 10,000 postings of the original -- so here it is on Yahoo. In my opinion, this is the version that should have been released first. It has none of the wooden dialogue and acting featured in the first trailer, and really, really, really exploits the quality of the special effects. I know there are a ton of people in the target demo who already think this movie looks awesome, however this is the sort of cut that could have been instrumental in garnering interest from a more cynical, more picky mainstream audience. I’ve seen the original trailer a bunch of times in the theater, and each time it’s laughed at and verbally dismissed. If that trailer had been released after this one, it’s true it would still have been mocked, but perhaps less so.
Christopher Campbell, Spout Blog, February 20
Does anyone have a favorite caveman epic they'd like to share? I'd have to go with Quest for Fire, although Hammer studios offered some of the choicest cheese in the genre:
One Million Years B.C. (Raquel Welch in a fur bikini + Ray Harryhausen dinosaurs = cinematic excellence)
When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (no Harryhausen dinos, but a surprisingly solid story line)
Creatures the World Forgot (no dinos at all, but Don Chaffey knows how to stage a prehistoric dance number)
One Million Years B.C. (Raquel Welch in a fur bikini + Ray Harryhausen dinosaurs = cinematic excellence)
When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (no Harryhausen dinos, but a surprisingly solid story line)
Creatures the World Forgot (no dinos at all, but Don Chaffey knows how to stage a prehistoric dance number)
Saw it last night. Just checked RT. Not enough reviews for an official rating yet, but all the posted reviews are "splats" so far.
I was pleasantly surprised by the first half of the movie, which while derivative, had some entertaining stretches. I'm not sure what happened during the second half. I got tired. The movie seemed boring. Which came first, the "tired" chicken or the "boring" egg? I don't know.
I was pleasantly surprised by the first half of the movie, which while derivative, had some entertaining stretches. I'm not sure what happened during the second half. I got tired. The movie seemed boring. Which came first, the "tired" chicken or the "boring" egg? I don't know.
Still working on my review, and of course I probably shouldn't comment on the film ITSELF until opening day, but I think it's safe to say that the audience laughed in a few places that weren't supposed to be funny (and to be honest, I didn't think the laughter was deserved most of the time; more often than not, I wondered why those people found it so amusing), and I heard someone snoring across the aisle from me about half-way through the film.
Oh, and the preview screening was held in North Vancouver, across the river from Vancouver itself. I can't recall there EVER being a time when the only preview screening for a film was in North Vancouver. (I hear it is showing at UBC tonight, too, but [a] night-before-release-date screenings don't count and [b] I have never had to go to UBC, which might be even MORE distant from my current home geographically, to preview a movie either.) What the remoteness of these screenings says about the studio's efforts to promote this movie, I leave for the reader to decide.
Oh, and the preview screening was held in North Vancouver, across the river from Vancouver itself. I can't recall there EVER being a time when the only preview screening for a film was in North Vancouver. (I hear it is showing at UBC tonight, too, but [a] night-before-release-date screenings don't count and [b] I have never had to go to UBC, which might be even MORE distant from my current home geographically, to preview a movie either.) What the remoteness of these screenings says about the studio's efforts to promote this movie, I leave for the reader to decide.
Excerpts from the seven reviews currently at RT:
"More in the vein of Stargate than Day After, Emmerich's epic is a formulaic mishmash of a movie"
"cross between Land of the Pharaohs and the greatest hits of Joseph Campbell"
"This crackpot combination of Pathfinder and Apocalypto [is] a brainless exercise in prehistoric goofiness "
--I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above. It's derivative, but like Peter, I didn't find it unintentionally funny most of the time when the audience laughed. There were a couple of moments toward the end, however, when I laughed but others did not.
Who has time to do that?
Not yet.
"More in the vein of Stargate than Day After, Emmerich's epic is a formulaic mishmash of a movie"
"cross between Land of the Pharaohs and the greatest hits of Joseph Campbell"
"This crackpot combination of Pathfinder and Apocalypto [is] a brainless exercise in prehistoric goofiness "
--I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above. It's derivative, but like Peter, I didn't find it unintentionally funny most of the time when the audience laughed. There were a couple of moments toward the end, however, when I laughed but others did not.
QUOTE
Still working on my review
Who has time to do that?
Not yet.
So is it as sucky as the trailer seemed?
Christian wrote:
: I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above.
Interesting -- which one? I mention Stargate (and The Patriot) as antecedents among Emmerich's own films, and Apocalypto because of the obvious hunter-gatherer-enslaved-by-urban-religion-with-pyramid,-and-somewhere-in-there-a-prophecy-is-told elements. (And partly, though I do not say so explicitly, because Emmerich and Gibson have worked together before, on The Patriot, and so maybe there is some give-and-take there.)
stef wrote:
: So is it as sucky as the trailer seemed?
Which trailer? The one with dialogue sucked. The one with special effects didn't.
The real puzzle, as the folks at Spout pointed out, is why the one with special effects was released SECOND.
For an analogy, I turn to Disney's Dinosaur. The trailer that ran before Toy Story 2 wasn't really a trailer -- it was the first five minutes of Dinosaur, plain and simple. And it was beautiful. Gorgeous. Breathtaking. Dinosaurs fighting over an egg, a pterodactyl swooping over beautiful scenery. It looked like it was shaping up to be the dinosaur equivalent of The Bear. And then... the second trailer came out. And the animals were TALKING. And their dialogue was STUPID. (I can't remember if "buffet table of love" was in the trailer, but it was certainly in the movie.) Suddenly it was no longer The Bear with dinosaurs; it was now just The Land Before Time with way-too-expensive special effects. But the first trailer had me so curious about the film, I still had to see it. And so I did.
10,000 B.C. went in the OTHER direction, releasing a trailer with stupid dialogue FIRST, and only THEN releasing a trailer that had no dialogue and emphasized the decent special effects. (Which is not to say that ALL the special effects in the actual film are decent.) So instead of beginning with an intriguing premise and then having second thoughts, we now begin from a position of mocking doubt and only belatedly think that maybe some bits will be kind of cool.
: I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above.
Interesting -- which one? I mention Stargate (and The Patriot) as antecedents among Emmerich's own films, and Apocalypto because of the obvious hunter-gatherer-enslaved-by-urban-religion-with-pyramid,-and-somewhere-in-there-a-prophecy-is-told elements. (And partly, though I do not say so explicitly, because Emmerich and Gibson have worked together before, on The Patriot, and so maybe there is some give-and-take there.)
stef wrote:
: So is it as sucky as the trailer seemed?
Which trailer? The one with dialogue sucked. The one with special effects didn't.
The real puzzle, as the folks at Spout pointed out, is why the one with special effects was released SECOND.
For an analogy, I turn to Disney's Dinosaur. The trailer that ran before Toy Story 2 wasn't really a trailer -- it was the first five minutes of Dinosaur, plain and simple. And it was beautiful. Gorgeous. Breathtaking. Dinosaurs fighting over an egg, a pterodactyl swooping over beautiful scenery. It looked like it was shaping up to be the dinosaur equivalent of The Bear. And then... the second trailer came out. And the animals were TALKING. And their dialogue was STUPID. (I can't remember if "buffet table of love" was in the trailer, but it was certainly in the movie.) Suddenly it was no longer The Bear with dinosaurs; it was now just The Land Before Time with way-too-expensive special effects. But the first trailer had me so curious about the film, I still had to see it. And so I did.
10,000 B.C. went in the OTHER direction, releasing a trailer with stupid dialogue FIRST, and only THEN releasing a trailer that had no dialogue and emphasized the decent special effects. (Which is not to say that ALL the special effects in the actual film are decent.) So instead of beginning with an intriguing premise and then having second thoughts, we now begin from a position of mocking doubt and only belatedly think that maybe some bits will be kind of cool.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 6 2008, 11:35 PM)
Christian wrote:
: I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above.
Interesting -- which one? I mention Stargate (and The Patriot) as antecedents among Emmerich's own films, and Apocalypto because of the obvious hunter-gatherer-enslaved-by-urban-religion-with-pyramid,-and-somewhere-in-there-a-prophecy-is-told elements. (And partly, though I do not say so explicitly, because Emmerich and Gibson have worked together before, on The Patriot, and so maybe there is some give-and-take there.)
: I share those because I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen -- but included only one of the films mentioned above.
Interesting -- which one? I mention Stargate (and The Patriot) as antecedents among Emmerich's own films, and Apocalypto because of the obvious hunter-gatherer-enslaved-by-urban-religion-with-pyramid,-and-somewhere-in-there-a-prophecy-is-told elements. (And partly, though I do not say so explicitly, because Emmerich and Gibson have worked together before, on The Patriot, and so maybe there is some give-and-take there.)
Yes, it was Apocalypto, one of my all-time favorite films.
I don't know. Reading the reviews this morning, I don't see any mention of a break between the first and second halves of this movie, so I'm thinking I just got drowsy or something and may have blamed that on the movie. There are some favorable reviews out there, in the mode of "guilty pleasure" or "dumb fun," but most of the reviews are entirely dismissive. I think the movie deserves better than that, but not too much more.
Peter: From your review:
"This results in unintentional humor, as the film keeps interrupting the action and cutting to close-ups of Old Mother's boggled eyes, hundreds of miles away."
I enjoyed reading that. When I walked out of the screening, the press people -- if they manage to remember that I'm on their list -- will look at me, hoping for a comment about the movie. I'm not sure I'm obliged to give one, and it always feels awkward to have to say something immediately after the credits begin to roll, but in this case, I felt compelled to share the one overriding thought I had as the movie ended.
"I feel sorry for Old Mother," I told them. "She really took a beating!"
It was a figurative beating, of course, but all those scenes of her trembling and muttering had a cumulatively humorous effect.
Poor, poor Old Mother.
"This results in unintentional humor, as the film keeps interrupting the action and cutting to close-ups of Old Mother's boggled eyes, hundreds of miles away."
I enjoyed reading that. When I walked out of the screening, the press people -- if they manage to remember that I'm on their list -- will look at me, hoping for a comment about the movie. I'm not sure I'm obliged to give one, and it always feels awkward to have to say something immediately after the credits begin to roll, but in this case, I felt compelled to share the one overriding thought I had as the movie ended.
"I feel sorry for Old Mother," I told them. "She really took a beating!"
It was a figurative beating, of course, but all those scenes of her trembling and muttering had a cumulatively humorous effect.
Poor, poor Old Mother.
From the previews, I don't see how anyone can possibly take this movie seriously. Can it be any sillier than this debate?
That is a silly debate. That battle was staged in 2001, and we all know who won.
QUOTE (Christian @ Mar 6 2008, 03:13 PM)
I, too, wrote down in my notes that the film felt like a mix of other films I'd seen
Okay... here's a mashup of the ones from my own notes that actually made it into my review...
The scenario is one that’s pretty familiar, and one that we saw not all that long ago in Apocalypto...
Enter the “Four-legged Demons,” villains that are pretty familiar, villains that we saw not at all that long ago in Pathfinder...
The hero of the story is also pretty familiar, of the type that we know from Scripture and that we’ve seen not so long ago in The Matrix...
When his gal pal gets hauled off by the Demons, he starts a long trek not unlike the one we saw a while back in Quest For Fire...
Along the way, he has an Androcles-like encounter with a saber-toothed tiger...
a staggering trek to lead an army across a desert waste that has “never been crossed before”—sort of like the assault on Acqaba in Lawrence of Arabia...
The film then climaxes with a Moses-like D’leh delivering an inspirational Declaration-of-Independence-style speech before leading a slave revolt against a Stargate-like Egyptian-ish god-man...
It’s all sort of reminiscent of Spartacus, isn’t it?
...and who could possibly ignore a film with both Return of the King-ish battle mammoths and Jurassic Park-ish dino-raptors?
the principal villains seem designed to remind us of either Alec Guinness’s Fagin, the Shroud of Turin’s Jesus, or Osama Bin Laden—or all three...
Sure, every “new” recipe merely amounts to recombining familiar ingredients. But caille en sarcophage still doesn’t taste quite like anything else, does it?
Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Granted, I get more obscure as I go... But so does the film.
Christian wrote:
: . . . most of the reviews are entirely dismissive. I think the movie deserves better than that, but not too much more.
Yeah, I've had the same reaction.
Greg Wright wrote:
: Enter the “Four-legged Demons,” villains that are pretty familiar, villains that we saw not at all that long ago in Pathfinder...
See, I'd actually FORGOTTEN all about Pathfinder, until people started mentioning it in connection with this film ... that's just how memorable it is ...
: Along the way, he has an Androcles-like encounter with a saber-toothed tiger...
Oooo, yes, I considered making that connection in my own review, too, but, well, I didn't; other things took over.
: a staggering trek to lead an army across a desert waste that has “never been crossed before”—sort of like the assault on Acqaba in Lawrence of Arabia...
You know, now that you mention it, I DO remember thinking that there was a Lawrence-like bit in the film where someone asks why the tribes there have not yet rebelled against the villains, and D'Leh (or someone) says maybe no one has inspired them to do it yet ... kind of like how Peter O'Toole crosses the desert and then inspires Anthony Quinn to join his cause (and without Quinn's fighters, they could not have taken Aqaba).
: The film then climaxes with a Moses-like D’leh delivering an inspirational Declaration-of-Independence-style speech before leading a slave revolt against a Stargate-like Egyptian-ish god-man...
The motivational-speech-before-the-battle is seen in So Many Movies that I wouldn't pin it on Independence Day alone (assuming that's the movie you meant). To have a strong parallel to that film, it would have to be hilariously jingoistic or something. What I'M wondering is if we've ever seen a motivational-speech-before-the-battle scene in which the hero had to pause after every half-sentence in order to let his translator tell the troops what he's saying.
: ...and who could possibly ignore a film with both Return of the King-ish battle mammoths and Jurassic Park-ish dino-raptors?
Those "dino-raptors" looked more like giant ostriches to me. Though I guess one of the theories advanced by the Jurassic Park movies is that the velociraptors are the ancestors of modern birds.
: Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Eh?
: . . . most of the reviews are entirely dismissive. I think the movie deserves better than that, but not too much more.
Yeah, I've had the same reaction.
Greg Wright wrote:
: Enter the “Four-legged Demons,” villains that are pretty familiar, villains that we saw not at all that long ago in Pathfinder...
See, I'd actually FORGOTTEN all about Pathfinder, until people started mentioning it in connection with this film ... that's just how memorable it is ...
: Along the way, he has an Androcles-like encounter with a saber-toothed tiger...
Oooo, yes, I considered making that connection in my own review, too, but, well, I didn't; other things took over.
: a staggering trek to lead an army across a desert waste that has “never been crossed before”—sort of like the assault on Acqaba in Lawrence of Arabia...
You know, now that you mention it, I DO remember thinking that there was a Lawrence-like bit in the film where someone asks why the tribes there have not yet rebelled against the villains, and D'Leh (or someone) says maybe no one has inspired them to do it yet ... kind of like how Peter O'Toole crosses the desert and then inspires Anthony Quinn to join his cause (and without Quinn's fighters, they could not have taken Aqaba).
: The film then climaxes with a Moses-like D’leh delivering an inspirational Declaration-of-Independence-style speech before leading a slave revolt against a Stargate-like Egyptian-ish god-man...
The motivational-speech-before-the-battle is seen in So Many Movies that I wouldn't pin it on Independence Day alone (assuming that's the movie you meant). To have a strong parallel to that film, it would have to be hilariously jingoistic or something. What I'M wondering is if we've ever seen a motivational-speech-before-the-battle scene in which the hero had to pause after every half-sentence in order to let his translator tell the troops what he's saying.
: ...and who could possibly ignore a film with both Return of the King-ish battle mammoths and Jurassic Park-ish dino-raptors?
Those "dino-raptors" looked more like giant ostriches to me. Though I guess one of the theories advanced by the Jurassic Park movies is that the velociraptors are the ancestors of modern birds.
: Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Eh?
$12.5 million yesterday. That's pretty great, although the box-office gurus are suggesting that word of mouth will hold down weekend grosses. I don't know.
Anyway, did anyone comment in thier reviews on the ethnic aspect of the villains? I avoided this in my review, but it DID occur to me, as soon as the marauders appeared, that they had giant noses, while the heroes were more traditionally European or whatever -- the leading lady has lovely blue eyes (a plot element) and a lovely, petite nose, for example.
Jeff Wells links to one review mentioning this.
Anyway, did anyone comment in thier reviews on the ethnic aspect of the villains? I avoided this in my review, but it DID occur to me, as soon as the marauders appeared, that they had giant noses, while the heroes were more traditionally European or whatever -- the leading lady has lovely blue eyes (a plot element) and a lovely, petite nose, for example.
Jeff Wells links to one review mentioning this.
Christian wrote:
: Anyway, did anyone comment in thier reviews on the ethnic aspect of the villain?
I commented on the ethnic hodgepodge of the hero's tribe but not the villains; the main reason I didn't is because I couldn't figure out who one of the actors was on that side. (Don't know his name, the IMDb didn't have a picture.) I have heard since then that the two main villains were both Iranian, or something like that.
In other news ...
In my review, I already mentioned the fact that sabre-toothed tigers lived in the Americas -- and went extinct around the time this film is set, if not a few thousand years earlier -- whereas this film features entire tribes that appear to be African.
What OTHER oddities are there?
Well, for starters, I'm not sure I buy the eye make-up worn by Evolet, no matter HOW striking her blue eyes are (even to the hunter-gatherers with whom she lives).
The earliest cities -- Jericho or maybe Damascus -- date to between 8,000 and 10,000 B.C.
The first pyramids, built in Egypt or Mesopotamia or even possibly Greece, date to the 2,000s or 3,000s B.C.
The domestication of horses in the Eurasian steppes (around Ukraine) might date to the 4,000s B.C. and really picked up around 2,500 B.C.; prior to that, horses were hunted for meat (indeed, the indigenous American horse was hunted to extinction at some point prior to the arrival of the Europeans, who brought horses of their own but primarily for transportation purposes).
The woolly mammoth "ranged from Spain to North America" but died out around the end of the Ice Age c. 9,600 B.C., though "A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 6000 BCE, and the small mammoths of Wrangel Island became extinct only around 2000 BCE".
Metalworking "predates history", and "The end of the beginning of metalworking occurs sometime around 6000 BCE when copper smelting became common in the Middle East." So the villains' use of swords and gold-plated ornaments might not be so out-there.
Of course, they can always claim that the villains brought this stuff from outer space, or Atlantis, or wherever.
: Anyway, did anyone comment in thier reviews on the ethnic aspect of the villain?
I commented on the ethnic hodgepodge of the hero's tribe but not the villains; the main reason I didn't is because I couldn't figure out who one of the actors was on that side. (Don't know his name, the IMDb didn't have a picture.) I have heard since then that the two main villains were both Iranian, or something like that.
In other news ...
In my review, I already mentioned the fact that sabre-toothed tigers lived in the Americas -- and went extinct around the time this film is set, if not a few thousand years earlier -- whereas this film features entire tribes that appear to be African.
What OTHER oddities are there?
Well, for starters, I'm not sure I buy the eye make-up worn by Evolet, no matter HOW striking her blue eyes are (even to the hunter-gatherers with whom she lives).
The earliest cities -- Jericho or maybe Damascus -- date to between 8,000 and 10,000 B.C.
The first pyramids, built in Egypt or Mesopotamia or even possibly Greece, date to the 2,000s or 3,000s B.C.
The domestication of horses in the Eurasian steppes (around Ukraine) might date to the 4,000s B.C. and really picked up around 2,500 B.C.; prior to that, horses were hunted for meat (indeed, the indigenous American horse was hunted to extinction at some point prior to the arrival of the Europeans, who brought horses of their own but primarily for transportation purposes).
The woolly mammoth "ranged from Spain to North America" but died out around the end of the Ice Age c. 9,600 B.C., though "A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 6000 BCE, and the small mammoths of Wrangel Island became extinct only around 2000 BCE".
Metalworking "predates history", and "The end of the beginning of metalworking occurs sometime around 6000 BCE when copper smelting became common in the Middle East." So the villains' use of swords and gold-plated ornaments might not be so out-there.
Of course, they can always claim that the villains brought this stuff from outer space, or Atlantis, or wherever.
QUOTE (Christian @ Mar 8 2008, 02:48 PM)
Anyway, did anyone comment in thier reviews on the ethnic aspect of the villain?
The full extent of the comment I included in my review:
It also doesn’t help that ... the script insists on trotting out the blue-eyed-stranger-girl cliché, and that the principal villains seem designed to remind us of either Alec Guinness’s Fagin, the Shroud of Turin’s Jesus, or Osama Bin Laden—or all three. It’s generically anti-Semitic, after a visual fashion. Mel Gibson would be proud, I guess.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 8 2008, 01:58 PM)
I wouldn't pin it on Independence Day alone (assuming that's the movie you meant). To have a strong parallel to that film, it would have to be hilariously jingoistic or something.
Well, I thought it was. He literally starts off with "We the people..." and there ya go. Of course, that comes from the Constitution, but the scene invokes a declaration of independence, and then there's Independence Day... The real touchstone reference there, though, might have been that one Star Trek episode...
QUOTE
Those "dino-raptors" looked more like giant ostriches to me.
Very much so. The initial glimpses, though, were staged and shot just like the initial velociraptor scenes in JP.
QUOTE
: Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Eh?
Eh?
Gotcha! It's the snowball scene from Elf when buddy tosses the Long Bomb at the last of the rogue snowballers. Exactly like the long spear chuck scene in 10KBC. Even the timing of the throw. I nearly fell out of my seat.
Greg Wright wrote:
: The real touchstone reference there, though, might have been that one Star Trek episode...
Ha!
: Gotcha! It's the snowball scene from Elf when buddy tosses the Long Bomb at the last of the rogue snowballers. Exactly like the long spear chuck scene in 10KBC. Even the timing of the throw. I nearly fell out of my seat.
Ah. Me, I was reminded of a certain climactic sword-throwing scene in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.
: The real touchstone reference there, though, might have been that one Star Trek episode...
Ha!
: Gotcha! It's the snowball scene from Elf when buddy tosses the Long Bomb at the last of the rogue snowballers. Exactly like the long spear chuck scene in 10KBC. Even the timing of the throw. I nearly fell out of my seat.
Ah. Me, I was reminded of a certain climactic sword-throwing scene in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 8 2008, 11:35 PM)
Ah. Me, I was reminded of a certain climactic sword-throwing scene in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.
The precedents for the send-up in Elf are many, and that is one of them. But once Buddy the Elf claims a motif, is has become unredeemable as serious fare...
QUOTE (Christian @ Mar 8 2008, 03:48 PM)
$12.5 million yesterday. That's pretty great, although the box-office gurus are suggesting that word of mouth will hold down weekend grosses. I don't know.
The estimated gross went up after Saturday, but as the linked article shows, most stories about the weekend box-office continue to portray 10,000 B.C.'s haul as disappointing. Why? Because it's nowhere near the first-weekend take of 300.
I have real problems with this kind of reporting, assuming it reflects "real world" expectations (in the world of Hollywood, which is notably unreal). 300 is a hugely influential film that others will be imitating for years, but to assume that the films that follow and in some way emulate 300 will match its outsized first-week grosses is a giant leap. 300 is not the rule; it is the exception to the rule. Why would anyone assume they could recapture it? Are box-office analysts the only ones putting this idea forward, or was the studio honestly expecting a $70 million opening weekend. If so, they're fools.
I'm not even sure how one can make the claim that 10,000 B.C. has anything in common with 300, apart from the numerical title, the studio, and the release date. The success of 300 was a huge surprise to people, right? Drawing comparisons between that film and other ancient-civilization movies, or between that film and other comic-book movies, seems warranted; but 10,000 B.C. doesn't have either the ancient-civilization setting or the comic-book stylings.
The Chicago Reader posts a few more anachronisms.
I just received an interesting e-mail about this film. It's worth noting in light of the drumbeat from film bloggers who continue to express astonishment that anyone would still pay to see this movie (I'm thinking of Jeff Wells, but I'm sure I've read the same line elsewhere):
I agree with the author of this review that this film is somewhat "forgettable". However, let's not forget to mention just how refreshing it is to have a movie (such as this one) you can safely take your entire family to. ... I was amazed there was NO profanity, NO nudity, NO sex and the violence was extremely tame by today's standards. We left the theatre with that "the good guy wins" feeling and no shame of exposing our children to anything immoral.
Thanks for your movie reviews. We rely upon them frequently to help us make good choices.
[Pats back, takes bow.]
Flattery aside, the reader makes a point. Heck, even I had overlooked the family-friendly angle for this film. No, it's not ideal for real young viewers. It's PG-13. But the reader's correct: No profanity. That shouldn't be overlooked. And of course, no sex, which is, understandably IMHO, a make-or-break with so many parents when it comes to taking kids to certain films.
I'm sure someone will pick the e-mail apart, but I thought it was worth sharing. The next time someone writes about how they can't believe this movie has made $90 million, or whatever (still a bit of a disappointment in terms of domestic box-office gross, although nowhere near the megabomb some of these writers seem to salivating for), you can think of this e-mail.
I agree with the author of this review that this film is somewhat "forgettable". However, let's not forget to mention just how refreshing it is to have a movie (such as this one) you can safely take your entire family to. ... I was amazed there was NO profanity, NO nudity, NO sex and the violence was extremely tame by today's standards. We left the theatre with that "the good guy wins" feeling and no shame of exposing our children to anything immoral.
Thanks for your movie reviews. We rely upon them frequently to help us make good choices.
[Pats back, takes bow.]
Flattery aside, the reader makes a point. Heck, even I had overlooked the family-friendly angle for this film. No, it's not ideal for real young viewers. It's PG-13. But the reader's correct: No profanity. That shouldn't be overlooked. And of course, no sex, which is, understandably IMHO, a make-or-break with so many parents when it comes to taking kids to certain films.
I'm sure someone will pick the e-mail apart, but I thought it was worth sharing. The next time someone writes about how they can't believe this movie has made $90 million, or whatever (still a bit of a disappointment in terms of domestic box-office gross, although nowhere near the megabomb some of these writers seem to salivating for), you can think of this e-mail.
QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 1 2008, 03:59 PM)
. I was amazed there was NO profanity, NO nudity, NO sex and the violence was extremely tame by today's standards. We left the theatre with that "the good guy wins" feeling and no shame of exposing our children to anything immoral. And of course, no sex, which is, understandably IMHO, a make-or-break with so many parents when it comes to taking kids to certain films.
This dovetails nicely with the same filmmaker's "Stargate"--big budget actioner, with light profanity, a hero who asks the girl to keep her clothes on, and mild (cartoonish, even) violence.
Movieguide ain't fooled. They still gave it a "Caution."
Christian wrote:
: . . . this movie has made $90 million, or whatever (still a bit of a disappointment in terms of domestic box-office gross, although nowhere near the megabomb some of these writers seem to salivating for) . . .
Just for the record: The first movie to make over $100 million overseas this year was Jumper, and the first movie to make over $100 million in North America was Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!, but the first movie to make over $200 million worldwide is 10,000 B.C..
: . . . this movie has made $90 million, or whatever (still a bit of a disappointment in terms of domestic box-office gross, although nowhere near the megabomb some of these writers seem to salivating for) . . .
Just for the record: The first movie to make over $100 million overseas this year was Jumper, and the first movie to make over $100 million in North America was Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!, but the first movie to make over $200 million worldwide is 10,000 B.C..
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Mar 8 2008, 11:58 AM)
Christian wrote:
: . . . most of the reviews are entirely dismissive. I think the movie deserves better than that, but not too much more.
Yeah, I've had the same reaction.
Greg Wright wrote:
: Enter the “Four-legged Demons,” villains that are pretty familiar, villains that we saw not at all that long ago in Pathfinder...
See, I'd actually FORGOTTEN all about Pathfinder, until people started mentioning it in connection with this film ... that's just how memorable it is ...
: Along the way, he has an Androcles-like encounter with a saber-toothed tiger...
Oooo, yes, I considered making that connection in my own review, too, but, well, I didn't; other things took over.
: a staggering trek to lead an army across a desert waste that has “never been crossed before”—sort of like the assault on Acqaba in Lawrence of Arabia...
You know, now that you mention it, I DO remember thinking that there was a Lawrence-like bit in the film where someone asks why the tribes there have not yet rebelled against the villains, and D'Leh (or someone) says maybe no one has inspired them to do it yet ... kind of like how Peter O'Toole crosses the desert and then inspires Anthony Quinn to join his cause (and without Quinn's fighters, they could not have taken Aqaba).
: The film then climaxes with a Moses-like D’leh delivering an inspirational Declaration-of-Independence-style speech before leading a slave revolt against a Stargate-like Egyptian-ish god-man...
The motivational-speech-before-the-battle is seen in So Many Movies that I wouldn't pin it on Independence Day alone (assuming that's the movie you meant). To have a strong parallel to that film, it would have to be hilariously jingoistic or something. What I'M wondering is if we've ever seen a motivational-speech-before-the-battle scene in which the hero had to pause after every half-sentence in order to let his translator tell the troops what he's saying.
: ...and who could possibly ignore a film with both Return of the King-ish battle mammoths and Jurassic Park-ish dino-raptors?
Those "dino-raptors" looked more like giant ostriches to me. Though I guess one of the theories advanced by the Jurassic Park movies is that the velociraptors are the ancestors of modern birds.
: Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Eh?
: . . . most of the reviews are entirely dismissive. I think the movie deserves better than that, but not too much more.
Yeah, I've had the same reaction.
Greg Wright wrote:
: Enter the “Four-legged Demons,” villains that are pretty familiar, villains that we saw not at all that long ago in Pathfinder...
See, I'd actually FORGOTTEN all about Pathfinder, until people started mentioning it in connection with this film ... that's just how memorable it is ...
: Along the way, he has an Androcles-like encounter with a saber-toothed tiger...
Oooo, yes, I considered making that connection in my own review, too, but, well, I didn't; other things took over.
: a staggering trek to lead an army across a desert waste that has “never been crossed before”—sort of like the assault on Acqaba in Lawrence of Arabia...
You know, now that you mention it, I DO remember thinking that there was a Lawrence-like bit in the film where someone asks why the tribes there have not yet rebelled against the villains, and D'Leh (or someone) says maybe no one has inspired them to do it yet ... kind of like how Peter O'Toole crosses the desert and then inspires Anthony Quinn to join his cause (and without Quinn's fighters, they could not have taken Aqaba).
: The film then climaxes with a Moses-like D’leh delivering an inspirational Declaration-of-Independence-style speech before leading a slave revolt against a Stargate-like Egyptian-ish god-man...
The motivational-speech-before-the-battle is seen in So Many Movies that I wouldn't pin it on Independence Day alone (assuming that's the movie you meant). To have a strong parallel to that film, it would have to be hilariously jingoistic or something. What I'M wondering is if we've ever seen a motivational-speech-before-the-battle scene in which the hero had to pause after every half-sentence in order to let his translator tell the troops what he's saying.
: ...and who could possibly ignore a film with both Return of the King-ish battle mammoths and Jurassic Park-ish dino-raptors?
Those "dino-raptors" looked more like giant ostriches to me. Though I guess one of the theories advanced by the Jurassic Park movies is that the velociraptors are the ancestors of modern birds.
: Still, if you’re like me, you’ll probably be wincing by the time that D’leh gets his chance to pay homage to Buddy the Elf.
Eh?
Just saw this tonight and decided to look over this thread. I loved Greg's notes, and their comparisons to other films. I'd like to add one.
The topography of 10K B.C. draws many comparisons to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. I don't think there have been has many different climate zones (frozen wilderness leads to tropical jungle leads to Egyptian deserts) so closely accessible by foot, since David Markus and Lt. Saavik explored the Genesis planet.
I will admit, this is one goofy movie that entertains in a Mystery Science Theatre 3K kind of way.
edit: Administrators... any chance of adding "Roland Emerich's" in front of the 10,000 B.C. of this thread's title? It might make it easier to find, rather than searching 11 pages of the film forum. Not that I think there's going to be a rush of new comments.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.