It's a sci-fi with historical references, nothing more. How dumb do you have to be to think this movie was pretending to be even remotely historically accurate?
The discussions in this movie's forum prove some of you belong in 10,000BC, intelligence-wise.
Okay, but see the problem is that if you state your movie takes place in a certain time and place, then you're creating expectations for your audience that the movie has to live up to. Sure, you can call it sci-fi and change some of the details, but you have to explain those changes to the audience. Otherwise they won't understand the movie, or they just won't care because the movie is beyond belief, which is the case of this movie.
Aside from that, the bad acting, bad dialog, and bad accents have nothing to do with historical accuracy. Fix all the historical inaccuracies and it's still a terrible movie.
Okay, but see the problem is that if you state your movie takes place in a certain time and place, then you're creating expectations for your audience that the movie has to live up to. Sure, you can call it sci-fi and change some of the details, but you have to explain those changes to the audience. Otherwise they won't understand the movie, or they just won't care because the movie is beyond belief, which is the case of this movie.
I completely agree with you. When I first watched this movie I had the expectation of watching period piece. It really turned me off the movie because things were not explained. I'm not that nitpicky about the prehistoric creatures they faced because for me I'm not that familiar with when certain things existed, but it drives me crazy that everyone speaks English. The English language was not around then and definitely not in that area. I'd rather read the captions or find out that this group of people somehow time traveled to explain their use of English.
But either way, I didn't care for this movie and I'm not sure they could have done much to change my feelings! Lol
What's with this trend of people online who don't understand that it's a widely accepted narrative form to substitute English for a foreign language that is used for the bulk of a creative work to make things easier on the viewer and is not intended to be a presentation of the characters as actual English speakers? It's one thing to say that you have a preference for subtitles because you think it enhances your experience. That's a perfectly reasonable comment to make. However, it's another thing entirely to think that the lack of subtitles means you're supposed to believe the characters are actually speaking English.
This is like watching a play where plant set pieces are made of cardboard and complaining that it's unrealistic and stupid because one thinks that the theater is trying to make them think that plants are really made of cardboard. It's a stand in for the real thing. That's all.
It just bothers me. I think it would have added to the experience if they'd have spoken an older language, or even a made up language. Apocalypto and Avatar are examples of two movies that didn't use English. Well Avatar used English for its English speaking people and even explained why some of the indigenous folks spoke a little. I do understand that they use English as a way to make the experience easier for the audience and likely everybody making the movie as well.
I assume both of those movies had a larger budget. Either way, I wasn't crazy about 10,000BC. I do watch SciFi movies all the time and I still struggle with this one.
I'm totally OK with cardboard flowers! I'm even OK with talking flowers in a play! ;-)
I don't get people who trash this purely because it isn't historically accurate, it's blatantly a scifi movie, they have aliens in it! If you're gonna criticize it, criticize it for what it is. I see this more as a prequel to Stargate.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
I do wonder what the people crying about historical inaccuracies expected.
If this was accurate (they'd still pointlessly whine) it would be boring and to be honest more inaccurate because we don't know how people lived day to day 12,000 years ago.
It would all be guess work that those desperate to appear to be more intelligent and come across as historical experts would probably agree more because they want to and to fit in with the other pseudo-intellectuals than questioning how they know this.
Any films set during time periods like this or further in the past like one million years bc (bet they don't bitch about historical accuracies in that one) are usually fantasy based so how these supposedly smart people were conned by this film is more laughable than anything they find funny about this film.
I agree, the movie is not meant to be historically accurate, it's simply a fun adventure film with hints of Sci-fi and mythology, it's a modern take on the idea of Raquel Welch in her fir bikini, pleasing to the eye, exciting and fun, but not for one minute historically accurate.
shareYou're wrong. The History Channel and Giorgio Tsoukalos says differently.
shareYea I knew it was not accurate just by looking at the poster for the movie. In it, we see a caveman trying to fend off a dinosaur. Everyone knows cavemen and dinosaurs never lived side by side
share