what an awful awful awful movie
end communication
I could have told you that just by looking at the title!
Still good to know there's not a gem hidden behind the moronic name.
EDIT: The Critic that works for NPR said that the movie was an epic fantasy tale that allows the main character to leave the time period of 10,000 BC and move freely across the world in search of his beloved... Or something like that.
Where does the movie take place? Because last time I checked Mammoths didn't build Pyramids and Terror Birds have been extinct since South America collided with North America.
Yeah, the movie looks like utter horse shit to me. I have several friends who are trying to convince me into seeing it with them, and I refuse.
Anyway, archeology and the studies of historic civilization is a little pet hobby of mine, especially when it comes to ocean archeology, which is a fairly new method and is receiving a lot of undue criticisms.
Elemental Elf, I will say that there is a lot of ongoing debate right now as to what we are coming to understand (versus what we currently accept) as the origins and histories of civilization. What about how science and oceanic archeology seems to point now that the Indians actually had what we would recognize as civilizations long before what is currently accepted as the first civilizations? There's Dwarka (Dvarka?) for instance, which has been rebuilt several times in ancient India's past as the ocean levels have risen (due to inundations after the last ice age interglacial), as well as the seemingly insignificant Palk Strait (between India mainland and Sri Lanka), which recent ruins have been discovered on, even though that strip of the globe has been under water for far longer than what we currently accept in archaeological standards as our earth's "dry period." More ruins have been found underwater off the coast of Japan, in the Sea of Japan between Kitakyushu (on the Kyushu island of Japan) and Pusan in South Korea. All these ruins that have been found have been pyramidic in nature, simply because that was the most structurally sound way of building large structures at this time period, but these particular areas of water haven't been dry for somewhere between 8,000 - 14,000 years (the exact dates vary depending on whose inundation maps you're currently studying). So, it's certainly not inconceivable that pyramids existed during this time, just somewhat unlikely that they existed in such an extravagant manner.
As to how it relates to the movie, I'm not sure that it matters. ;) I'm just ranting off-topic because I'm nit-picking.
Cheers!
Quote from: IshmaylElemental Elf, I will say that there is a lot of ongoing debate right now as to what we are coming to understand (versus what we currently accept) as the origins and histories of civilization. What about how science and oceanic archeology seems to point now that the Indians actually had what we would recognize as civilizations long before what is currently accepted as the first civilizations? There's Dwarka (Dvarka?) for instance, which has been rebuilt several times in ancient India's past as the ocean levels have risen (due to inundations after the last ice age interglacial), as well as the seemingly insignificant Palk Strait (between India mainland and Sri Lanka), which recent ruins have been discovered on, even though that strip of the globe has been under water for far longer than what we currently accept in archaeological standards as our earth's "dry period." More ruins have been found underwater off the coast of Japan, in the Sea of Japan between Kitakyushu (on the Kyushu island of Japan) and Pusan in South Korea. All these ruins that have been found have been pyramidic in nature, simply because that was the most structurally sound way of building large structures at this time period, but these particular areas of water haven't been dry for somewhere between 8,000 - 14,000 years (the exact dates vary depending on whose inundation maps you're currently studying). So, it's certainly not inconceivable that pyramids existed during this time, just somewhat unlikely that they existed in such an extravagant manner.
I saw a program about the Kitakyushu-Pusan 'Pyramids.' I'm unsure if they're real or not. The show presented a lot of information both for and against. I'm inclined to believe Humans have been a lot smarter and a lot more organized for a much longer time than we give ourselves credit for. And its not like these underwater buildings were built right on the Ice Age coastline, these places could have been quite a ways inland and have been flooded by rising sea level (the way much of Florida will be gone if the Ice Caps melt). Since Civilization was, most likely, a new construction the loss of the entire civilized area could very well have spelled doom for the entire Civilization and all memory of it. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the survivors (if there were any) told stories that eventually culminated in the various Flood stories and Atlantis.
This movie was basically Apocalypto plus more suck. I shall elaborate.
The "adventure" occurs in no discernible time or place. Ethnographically, it's a nightmare: it seemed as long as you had a dark face (no matter the pigmentation or structure) and could manage the most vaguely intimidating pose, then you were in. But unsettlingly enough, the two leads are Caucasian, and seeing as they're supposedly figures of grand prophecy the whole thing smacked (however inadvertantly) of Manifest Destiny. "Oh, proud ghost face, lead us piteous black wretches out of savagery and sin!"
No-one said anything interesting in the movie. There was nothing even remotely approaching "dialogue". They all spoke in that high-born, no contractions manner that savage peoples are supposed to love so much ('cos, you know, only civilised people get lazy with language), and every word was supposed to be filled with sombre gravitas or maudlin portents. Practically no-one smiled! How are you supposed to empathise with the destruction of a people when they're all a bunch of perpetual sourpusses?
The director didn't know how to sell the action. Maybe it was just that all the horrible dialogue had sapped away the will to even focus my eyes, but I refuse to give him that much credit. The camera was too close or too far, or didn't linger on the action. People died too easily, or absurdly slowly (the same character is supposedly brutalised by a giant bird but only suffers a a bit of a gash on the side, and later on stupidly leaves an enemy alive - all he did was whack him on the head - so the bugger could stab him in the back).
The romance was utterly inane. There was no substance, as though we were supposed to accept out of hand that the two leads were desperately in love, even though they don't bother to show it in their faces or their voices (heck, at least Anakin and Padme tried).
Everything was predictable. The comic relief was atrocious. Inevitably, I started rooting for the bad guy (as one often does in a shitty movie). The "prophecy" was a half-formed MacGuffin. They used that nauseating low-frame-rate-slow-mo that stopped being effective... I dunno, before anyone ever used it. The narrator only told you what you were seeing on screen. All the really cool characters had bugger all to say, or had pittance for screen time.
And perhaps worst of all, the "hero", when called upon to give a stirring speech, managed only a paltry "we will free our people!" (oh rly? n0 wayz!) or some lame-ass joke that wasn't even half way funny. Nevertheless, unfailingly, any dark skinned warrior who chanced upon him would in short order be singing his praises as their soon-to-be saviour. No proof was needed. Just a cursory "he speaks with the sharp tooth or whatever we call those bigass tigers" and they were all over that.
I kept hoping the movie was miraculously going to turn into Stargate. No, seriously. A huge glyph-laden ring would rise out of the unfolding pyramid, and arcs of celestial force would coruscate around it. Then the Jafa would rock out with their kickass laser-sticks and butcher everyone in sight.
No luck.
EDIT: to say nothing of inconsistencies, goofs and crap that was historically inaccurate the way Caligula was "a little kooky". Horrible.
it's funny, the way films of such mind-numbing idiocy have such amounts of money spent on them.
I haven't actually seen 10,000 BC, but your description reminds me somewhat of Troy, a film that made me feel personally insulted that people would assume that I, as a member of the film-viewing public, would actually be prepared to pay money to watch it.
Aside from all the other flaws, historical (or mythological) inaccuracy is one of the biggest things that can immediately turn me off a film.
For example, that that piece of Hollywoodized drivel, King Arthur, that came out a few years back? It had me screaming at the screen. King Arthur is the Once and Future King of England, right? England. My country of birth/residence. So, he's English, right? Must be, he's one of the greatest and most enduring figures of our folklore. Right?
According to Hollywood he was Roman. F*ck the Romans! The Romans sucked!
Thinking about it, the only exception to the "historical inaccuracy = hate" rule was 300, which was a) so visually appealing that I kind of semi-forgave it, and b) SO historically inaccurate that I kind of thought "well, anyone who believes it was really like this, is stupid enough to never know better"
PS. Sorry for this semi-derailment, but I just wanted to join in with the bad-movie-rants :P
QuoteApocalypto plus more suck
That is a lot of suck! :o
Quote from: KindlingFor example, that that piece of Hollywoodized drivel, King Arthur, that came out a few years back? It had me screaming at the screen. King Arthur is the Once and Future King of England, right? England. My country of birth/residence. So, he's English, right? Must be, he's one of the greatest and most enduring figures of our folklore. Right?
According to Hollywood he was Roman. F*ck the Romans! The Romans sucked!
... Actually a lot of scientists believe that King Arthur and his deeds were fully or partially based off a Roman Soldier. You may find it offensive since you're English but its not like Hollywood just came up with the idea.
Quote from: sparkletwistQuoteApocalypto plus more suck
Thing is, though, I liked Apocalypto despite its suck. Sure, it was nothing more than a mindless, glorified chase movie populated by an inane dichotomy of noble and barbaric savages, and it really didn't have much of a damned point. But it had some great imagery (and cinematography), they actually went some length to establish identities before the empire came along and killed them off, and the violence was in your face and messy.
10'000 B.C. tried all those things (okay, no, they didn't even try), and failed. Uber failed.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf... Actually a lot of scientists believe that King Arthur and his deeds were fully or partially based off a Roman Soldier. You may find it offensive since you're English but its not like Hollywood just came up with the idea.
We'll split the difference and call him Romano-British. He can't possibly be
English because the historical people we think he's based on fought
against the Anglo-Saxons.
Quote from: Fascist AlmondI kept hoping the movie was miraculously going to turn into Stargate. No, seriously. A huge glyph-laden ring would rise out of the unfolding pyramid, and arcs of celestial force would coruscate around it. Then the Jafa would rock out with their kickass laser-sticks and butcher everyone in sight.
You win. :)
Is it good to go see even for laughing at it's stupidity? Or not worth even that?
Uh, I guess if you go in there expecting crap then it might be salvaged as a mock-fest. But I was expecting spectacle, so there was little room in me for anything but disappointment.
Quote from: Holy Carp!Quote from: Elemental_Elf... Actually a lot of scientists believe that King Arthur and his deeds were fully or partially based off a Roman Soldier. You may find it offensive since you're English but its not like Hollywood just came up with the idea.
We'll split the difference and call him Romano-British. He can't possibly be English because the historical people we think he's based on fought against the Anglo-Saxons.
Yes. Wasn't he part of the culture left over once the romans left and the tribal leaders and other important British figures were left thinking 'So, uhm. What do we do now?'
QuoteSure, it was nothing more than a mindless, glorified chase movie populated by an inane dichotomy of noble and barbaric savages, and it really didn't have much of a damned point.
That's pretty much what I took away from it, too. :)
Interesting that you liked it regardless though, I know there are movies like that for me too... :D
"Wow, that movie sucked. I liked it, though!" :P
I try to salvage whatever I can from a movie. Sometimes it doesn't work...
Quote from: Elemental_Elf... Actually a lot of scientists believe that King Arthur and his deeds were fully or partially based off a Roman Soldier. You may find it offensive since you're English but its not like Hollywood just came up with the idea.
Whether or not there was any historical "fact" behind the myth of King Arthur doesn't concern me... I know him as the purely legendary Once and Future King :P
Well actually it semi-does concern me, or at least interest me, as I read an extremely interesting book called Warriors of the Wasteland, the name of who's author currently escapes me, which talks about the mythic traditions which the Arthur tales were an extension of. But that's still a history of myths, not a history of an actual real-life man.
The book, by the way, saw the Arthur tales as an extension and somewhat Christianised version of certain Celtic myths which in turn were descended from the spiritual/mystic traditions of the neolithic inhabitants of the British isles (and possibly Eurasia in general)
As for Apocalypto, I loved it, but that was just from a purely visual standpoint.
I saw 10,000 BC on Monday. While it had some ridiculousness in it, I went in expecting a semi-fantasy over-the-top epic and that's pretty much what I got. So I wasn't too disappointed. I think the big goal of the movie was to make giant prehistoric monsters look good on screen. If so, it succeeded.
I think that Hollywood has gotten TOO good at hyping crap. So instead of glancing at some ads and saying, "Oh, that looks like crap. But entertaining crap, so I might go see it when I feel like blowing some cash" we say, "Hm...do you suppose that's any good?"
I find it helps to believe that most movies you see ARE crap, because they are. So for example I expected "The Mummy" to be trite, silly crap and in fact found it was trite silly entertaining crap. By contrast I was told that "Mummy II" was really fun and enjoyable, and I'd absolutely love it by a friend of mine. Turned out to be worse crap than the first one--typical "that was funny the first time so we'll do it again" stuff that they did with the Indiana Jones films.
Quote from: Tybalttypical "that was funny the first time so we'll do it again" stuff that they did with the Indiana Jones films.
Blasphemy!!! Last Crusade is the best of the bunch!! My words are LAW
Quote from: TybaltI was told that "Mummy II" was really fun and enjoyable, and I'd absolutely love it by a friend of mine. Turned out to be worse crap than the first one
For me, the Kid ruined the whole flick.