Big Flaw - Ice Age (2002) Discussion

[–] ccook-1 21 years ago

Who cares, I know its a flaw and I noticed it myself, but its a family cartoon

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

As a geology student who intends to specialize in glacial and Quaternary (Pleistocene + Holocene) geology, I have to put in my two cents here. I loved this movie. I went to see it with a group of geologists, and we enjoyed ourselves thoroughly, especially during that whole volcano scene. Unless, of course, the movie was supposed to take place in Iceland where there IS an active continental margin underneath an ice sheet....

There have been several ice ages, or advances of continental ice sheets during the past few billion years, during the late Proterozoic, late Ordovician, between the Permian and Carboniferous, and most recently, the Pliocene and Pleistocene, which is the Ice Age that most people are familiar with. There were multiple advances and retreats within the Ice Age. The Holocene is the name which humans have given to the last 10,000 years of earth history since the Pleistocene glaciations.

I am guessing the movie is set in North America (western bias of the filmmakers, and myself?), so I am therefore wondering why there are humans at the start of the last glacial advance (Wisconsin Laurentide advance: 70,000 BP in the Midwest U.S., which is what I'm familiar with) when the earliest (well-supported anyway) arrival of humans in North America is at 12,000 BP, considering the ice sheets (again, Midwestern U.S.) had reached a maximum extent around 20,000 BP and were retreating by 15,000 BP (in Ohio), leaving the upper Midwest completely by 10,000 BP. I am not familiar enough with glaciations in the Southern Hemisphere to correlate them with the earliest fossil evidence of anatomically modern humans in Africa (130,000 BP), nor the fauna that might have co-existed with them. I also do not know about glaciations in the Middle East, where there is a date for anatomically modern humans at 90,000 BP.

Saber tooth cats such as Smilodon and Homotherium did in fact inhabit the Midwestern U.S. until 10,000 BP when they went extinct. Ground sloth were also living at the end of the last ice age, and were extinct by 11,000 BP.

An excellent on-line resource can be found at: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/larson_top.html
There are some great maps!

Yes there are scientific errors in the movie. Animals which are frozen in ice are not going to wake up after a few thousand years and chase acorns, nor is the "exhibit" in the walls of the glacier very accurate (although hilarious). But really...

Regardless of the flaws, this movie is a good start and tons of fun. The fact that someone made a movie about prehistoric creatures other than dinosaurs (should we be expecting "The Silurian" any time soon?), and includes humans as prehistoric creatures, is amazing. I'm sure there is some creationist lobby against this film somewhere. But if this film can be the spark for the flame in some kid who goes on in some aspect of science, it's all good. We need more scientific minds. Especially when dealing with climate change...

I apologize for the length/sheer nerdiness of this post.

reply

[–] deprived_of_oxygen 21 years ago

r u guyz trying to sound like geniuses of some kind? cuz i didnt understand most of the stuff and u sound very... intelligent. u make me feel bad about myself.

"I say no to drugs....
But they won't listen" MARILYN MANSON

reply

[–] nickdove 21 years ago

Oh just enjoy the movie! Forget all the stupid scientific details. Why must you ruin it for everyone? We're NOT talking about the BBC documentary "Walking with Dinosaurs" here, if we were than you would have a good point. But it's called "entertainment", or otherwise known as "make-believe". Guess what? Saber-tooths, mammoths, or any other animal, CAN'T TALK!! So I guess that's another innacuracy with the movie too, huh?

reply

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

nickdove:

I really hate to think that scientific literacy ruins things for everyone. Everyone is free to take what they want from movies, and everyone should understand the differences between real life and make believe. To me, it is just as clear that there are some geological flaws as it is that mammoths do not speak English. And I very much enjoyed this movie. Most of very my favorite movies are glaring scientific impossibilities. Spacecraft cannot fly ".2 past lightspeed," and Indiana Jones is the worst archaeologist ever. My most favoritest movie, Disney's Robin Hood, prominently features talking animals.

I would not have made my initial comment (or signed up to be an IMDB member so I could make a comment!) if the initial poster had not made an error in his scientific statement that saber-tooth tigers lived at the same time as dinosaurs. My purpose in commenting was not to correct the few picky details in the movie. I just couldn't let his statement slide, because there were no large mammals around at the same time as dinosaurs. And I think it's important that people know that.

reply

[–] IHateBlogs 21 years ago

undergroundwoman wrote: I apologize for the length/sheer nerdiness of this post.

Don't! It's the best post in the thread.

reply

[–] joanne-roughley 20 years ago

I think that all you people that are talking science are a little bit sad. The film is excellent. Get over yourselves and get out more!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cherio 18 years ago

Science? Reality?

* Animals can't speak English
* Mammoth wouldn't survive that volcano eruption
* Sloths can not draw on the rocks
* Sloths can not play ball with dodos

.... I am getting depressed thinking how many things in that cartoon were not represented right.

It's so great I can turn Discover channel and watch the TRUTH about animals! How they live and eat each other. How they roar instead of talking.

This cartoon is very misleading especially for kids. If you make a kid watch that cartoon a couple of dozens of time the kid may fail to communicate with animals in future.

reply

[–] iwishiwastaller333 17 years ago

You're kidding right? You're saying that by watching CGI animals that kids will fail to communicate with animals in the future. How?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WeebyWilly 8 years ago

I liked reading your explanation! It was very interesting and informative! Please don't ever get discouraged by scientifically illiterate people complaining about being shown information!

reply

[–] JahWoo 18 years ago

how do you know have you ever met a mammoth or a saber-tooth?....=-p

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

I am certainly not a genius, nor was I trying to sound like one. I'm just a big nerd, and that's basically what I have to do in school everyday. There is no reason for you to feel bad about yourself.

Someone else felt the need to point out what he thought were scientific inaccuracies in the movie, and I wanted to make sure that people understood that saber tooth tigers DID live in the Ice Age, and so did sloths, so the movie is accurate in that respect. Bottom line, forget all the jargon up there. I just wanted to back up my statements in case anyone found fault with the science.

Hope that makes sense.

reply

[–] dawashington 20 years ago

Well to feel better about yourself,try spelling properly for a start!
r u guyz? cuz?
Grow up!!

reply

[–] openapartment 18 years ago

By citing a source for your IMDB post, you run the risk of sounding forced in your intelligence... especially since "primarilly" is misspelled.

I find it unbelievable that Denis Leary, Ray Romano, and John Leguizamo would coexist together. You can't cross comedians. Let's be realistic here...

reply

[–] READCHR 18 years ago

It's a movie, enjoy it for what it its. There is no need to go deep into discussion about every little flaw in the movie because it is intended to be a childrens film.

YOUR ON THE EXPRESS ELEVATOR TO HELL, GOIN DOWN!!

reply

[–] sapphirestone 20 years ago

Just watching the movie on Cinemax this morning and surfed over. I appreciated the movie from a number of angles, particularly awed by the graphic creation process. But fascinating post! Someone gave me an old book some time back called The Last Two Million Years, and it sparked a curiosity about the over all timeline. Checking out your link, thanks. Got any more?

reply

[–] thespark215 20 years ago

alivicwil - Wow, i never knew that! that is kinda interesting. Thanks for giving that info. I think i'll check out the site, my sister is obsessive about Elephants.

reply

[–] Tooshy 19 years ago

I am guessing the movie is set in North America (western bias of the filmmakers, and myself?), so I am therefore wondering why there are humans at the start of the last glacial advance (Wisconsin Laurentide advance: 70,000 BP in the Midwest U.S., which is what I'm familiar with) when the earliest (well-supported anyway) arrival of humans in North America is at 12,000 BP

On the dvd there is an extra cartoon called 'Gone Nutty' in which Scrat causes the continents to seperate which suggests that during the movie they were all one. Also, they pass Stone Henge at one point which is in sunny England.

reply

[–] Tooshy 19 years ago

Oh and another thing. Newsflash for al those "BIG FLAW, ANIMALS CAN'T TALK" folk.

The animals are being potrayed as humans and vice versa.
Diego makes the comment 'you know human's can't talk', which we know we do. As we are seeing the whole film from the animal's point of view we understand them. If it were the other way round we would understand the humans but not the animals.
You catch my drift?

reply

[–] independantyam 19 years ago

Uh, you rock.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mystisunbeam 17 years ago

I'd just like to say that completely separately from enjoying this movie, I enjoyed reading undergroundwoman's original post. Also, it's a sad world where just because a movie is meant to be entertaining, the entertainment value is somehow mutually exclusive from sparking an interest in some topic that was brought up. It is actually possible to enjoy a movie and still hold an interest in the facts behind it and vice versa, to know something about the background of a movie and still be able to enjoy it despite the necessary creative license.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beck_90 21 years ago

COME ON PEOPLE!!! This movie was made solely for entertainment purposes and mainly for a younger audience. It was NOT made to be scientifically accurate; it was made to be FUNNY! And I thought it was HILARIOUS! So give me a break here! Some people enjoy good entertainment and a good laugh. We don't watch movies to learn things... that's why we have documentaries! You want to learn something about the last few ice ages, go watch the Discovery Channel!!!

reply

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I'm getting annoyed. Have any of you actually read what I have written? I REALLY LIKED THIS MOVIE. I LAUGHED MY ARSE OFF WATCHING THIS MOVIE. THAT SQUIRREL WAS HILARIOUS, AND I DON'T CARE IF IT ACTUALLY EXISTED OR NOT. I AM DEFENDING THIS MOVIE'S ATTEMPTS AT RECREATING THE LAST ICE AGE IN AN ENJOYABLE AND MOSTLY ACCURATE MANNER. I am merely suggesting that the initial poster of this thread do some research before he goes around correcting children's movies. I contributed my evidence against his comment, in case anyone really cared. Which I didn't expect them to.

"We don't watch movies to learn things... that's why we have documentaries!"

Do I really need to point out the irony in this comment? Although I was beyond psyched at the Discovery Channel's presentation of "What killed the mega-beasts?" this August, that's just a movie too! You can't expect to learn anything from your TV. Documentaries can supplement our knowledge, and bring history to life, but please don't trust anything you hear/see, because it's biased. What you are watching is through someone else's eye.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickdove 21 years ago

Big boys forum? Where have you been? If you think Jason X is a "big boy" movie than I can't understand why you think Ice Age is a kiddy movie. I was so freakin bored and pissed off at the shear stupidity and ultra-tameness of that movie. And your statement just now also continues to prove how immature and irrational you are. Take some queludes and relax you psycho.

reply

[–] VenomX 21 years ago

I agree that there were some scientific inaccuracies with Ice Age, but then again it is a movie and is open to several inaccuracies. Look at action films, cars explode whenever they crash into something, people jump through glass windows unharmed, etc.

It's all designed to entertain, I personally don't care about things like that and just try to enjoy whatever I'm watching.

Oh yes, and Scrat was hilarious.

You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.

reply

[–] mtrupe 21 years ago

I wouldn't recommend this poorly done movie to any religious families. The creators assume that they are responsible to teach your children about life, and about how human beings are evil and vegans are nice.

reply

[–] TheCrow323 21 years ago

I'm sorry, did I miss something here? Why can't you people just enjoy a kid's movie for what it is, and not bring religion into it? If things as innocent as childrens' movies offend you so much, I think you should just stick to Veggietales.

P.S. ~If the human beings were really portrayed as being 'evil creatures', don't you think they would have killed the mammoth and the sloth?

reply

[–] thespark215 21 years ago

I know this is just a movie so please don't take as anything against it.

1. Undergroundwoman - I think that you were only backing up your statements, and correcting the other guys mistakes. and glad to hear you liked it!

2. it is an entertainment movie, but if you like to point out the faws or mishaps of a movie, sure go ahead , if thats what you like to do.

But can everybody just remember for a min that this movie was made to be funny and enjoyable. enjoy it in any form you like.(or not, your choice)

i thought i was sooo funny, that poor damn squrrel! when it's nut popped into popcorn my boyfriend and i almost fell out of our chairs. that was one excellant cartoon.

oh and if you haven't seen it yet, monsters inc. was also really good!

reply

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

mtrupe:

Children start learning about life the moment they exit their mother's womb. One silly movie is not going to sway their world outlook for the worst.

I do not see how this movie suggests that humans are evil. Sure they kill animals (not on-screen), but how else are they going to eat and keep warm before the advent of agriculture? People are predators too. Did you not notice that regardless of the fact that humans had killed pack/family members of the mammoth and tiger, they still brought the human child back to its family? That to me suggests lessons of love and respect for all the creatures that walk this earth. How can this be a bad movie for religious families when most religions are based on tenets of love and respect?

Do you even know what a vegan is? Vegans are vegetarians who do not eat any animal products, including dairy, eggs, and even honey. I have known several very nice vegans in my life. Many populations in this world do not have meat-based diets. Are you suggesting that they are not nice? Alternative sources of protein are evil?

reply

[–] neo_phile 21 years ago

1. I love this thread and EVERYONE'S posts
2. Keep it going ;)
3. I felt silly not having a third thing to say.

reply

[–] slikvik55 21 years ago

I agree...this film is crap because of the flaws. Monsters Inc was crap too because it stated that monsters come through your wardrobe, and this of course is untrue!

Vic

reply

[–] thespark215 21 years ago

They are cartoons. they are made for entertainment. so you don't like it because it had flaws, well do you realize you are picking apart flaws out of a movie with "TALKING ANIMALS"!!!! geeze you'd think this was a documentary or something! and as for monsters coming out of a closet being untrue.. think about it, you are missing the whole point of the cartoon, because your stuck on that one fact. these are cartoons, not real life stories. take books for example, lots of books are filled with stories to amuse your imagination. that is exactly what most cartoons and movies and tv shows are trying to do. amuse your imagination. so many people are bend outta shape over the fact that this cartoon is not acurate, so what! enjoy the story the film is trying to tell you.

like i've said before, like it or don't like, your choice, but for those of us who liked it we will keep on laughing.

reply

[–] Basketcase131 21 years ago

Just out of interest, what movies exactly DO you watch, if you critisise every film that is unreal in any slight way? Of course Monsters dont come out of the wardrobe, but its an amusing film, and if kids DO believe that monsters come throught the wardrobe, this film may put there minds at rest by portraying them as kind and not nessecarily evil. Just felt like having a rant, so dont go off on a phat one havin a go, just dont be such an idiot. If every film was true to life, what the hell would we have to watch except documentaries????

reply

[–] NIMH87 20 years ago

I believe that he/she was being sarcastic

reply

[–] soninha_r_c 18 years ago

I agree, often times movies, novels, or any sort of narrative are used to recount a moral, lesson or depict some sort of theme. While Ice Age may not have been the most scientifically-accurate movie in the world, let alone Monsters' Inc., I seriously doubt that that was the POINT of the movie! If you can only enjoy a movie/story if it is completely based on fact then I'm sorry to tell you that you will live your life a very disappointed person. We will always live in a world where personal biases, exaggerations, misinformation, omissions, and yes, even scientific theories which are at one point accepted as fact and then later on are rejected in favour of new ones, exist.

On a separate note, I LOVED this movie. I thought it was moving and touching, and I needed a good cry. The themes of love, family, friendship and honour were all prevalent throughout the film ... and these are the types of facts of the human condition that the movie got RIGHT, which in my opinion, should out-weigh any scientific "snafoos."

Finally, I personally think that movies which are inaccurate in some way serve a purpose: they encourage people to research the actual events the movie is based upon, and raise awareness. I like to give people credit, and I like to think that people won't accept a cartoon movie directed towards family-viewing as a source for geological/geographical/scientific facts and theories.

That's my two cents: HAPPY VIEWING! ;)

reply

[–] dmacvicar2000 21 years ago

Yes, there was absolutely a major flaw with film. I left my two kids watching it thinking I was going to get some peace for a few thousands years at least. However it was all over after in little more than an hour - not what I would call an AGE!

My son couldn't believe it was over so fast either. I can't help but feel cheated. Maybe 'Ice short story' was not a snappy enough title. In any case it kept the two of them enthralled for the entire duration, which is good enough for me. :)

Dave.

reply

[–] P42 21 years ago

I wonder... do the above posts fail to see the sarcasm in slikvik55's comment or do I fail to see the sarcasm in theirs?

Anyway... I got nothing to say. Except I love the decision not to let the humans talk.

Follow your euro's:http://www.eurobilltracker.com/index.php?referer=9971

reply

[–] Tooshy 19 years ago

"I agree...this film is crap because of the flaws. Monsters Inc was crap too because it stated that monsters come through your wardrobe, and this of course is untrue! "

Are you for real? Monsters Inc is based on the childhood imagination. Most children that are scared of monsters believe they come from either under the bed or in the cupboard. I cant believe you people hate a movie because it has a few flaws in it or things that dont make omplete sense. where's your imagination gone?

reply

[–] raiden_x 18 years ago

Dude, seriously! He was being sarcastic about the whole "monster in the closet flaw".

"The world is full of Kings & Queens. They'll blind your eyes & steal your dreams. It's Heaven & Hell" - The Raven

reply

[–] zephyr85 21 years ago

i agree with neo_file these are hilarious posts, please keep typing!

reply

[–] pw90 21 years ago

i agree w/everyone else. IT'S just a movie, and a hilarious one at that! I too laughed till i hurt almost all the way through. My favorite part was when they encountered the dodos and fought them over the watermelons. Especially the part where the stack of dodo's were doing their balancing act past the baby and Manny commented about the baby getting to have dinner and a show.

reply

[–] TK_Wilson 21 years ago

I don't care if it was 99.999999999999999999999999% incorrect, it was damn funny and I hope there is a sequel.

reply

[–] zephyr85 21 years ago

well said!

Is it secret? Is it safe?!

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] diazzy 21 years ago

What's the big deal? Will the kids at 5 years old notice that the Ice Age is since 2 millions years ago??? The important thing here is that the movie made them laughed!

reply

[–] moutelik 21 years ago

I don't think Smilodons were Mesozoic creatures... Mesozoic is part of the dinousaur age, smilodons are mammals, and bigger mammals surged only after the end of the dinosaurs.

reply

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

Exactly. You managed to say it much more concisely than I did.... :)

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] undergroundwoman 21 years ago

Ok that's just sad. "Ok Stephen Jay Gould" might have been marginally funny, and least have made more sense. But a made-up "paleontologist" (if I remember correctly anyway...I have thankfully only been forced to sit through one episode of Friends)? The way scientists are portrayed in popular culture is ridiculous.

reply