10,000 B.c.

[Acid_crash]

It twas a'k movie, rate 6 o 10... no purchase dis 1.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

This would actually make a good spin-off TV show, like the Stargate shows.

One of the people in my RPG group had an amusing take on the movie. The way he viewed it was as a prequal to the Stargate series. He just figured the secret item that was hidden was a Stargate. The gods are Goa'uld of course.

 

[Klaus]

I liked it as much as I liked Stargate. 8 out of 10.

 

[BryonD]

How much you want to bet that if they make a sequel, they'll call it 10,001 BC, even though that's counting the wrong way, to avoid "confusing the market"?

I understand that keeping it simple sells better than being accurate.



Sorry, couldn't resist. Nothing to see here... Move along

 

[doubleplusgood]

Too many things in this movie bothered me. Mammoths were not used to build the pyramids. Peppers in Africa? They were brought from South America by the Spaniards. And where did the prehistoric metrosexual get waxed pecs, shaped eyebrows, and such perfect teeth?

 

[Mark Chance]

Too many things in this movie bothered me. Mammoths were not used to build the pyramids. Peppers in Africa? They were brought from South America by the Spaniards. And where did the prehistoric metrosexual get waxed pecs, shaped eyebrows, and such perfect teeth?

Those weren't the Pyramids. They were just pyramids. Complaining about historical inaccuracies in fantasy movie about prehistoric peoples banding together to fight the remnants of Atlantis is a project that seems as if it would have no end.

Want to bash historical inaccuracies? Go check out Antoine Fuqua's dreadful King Arthur. That movie was billed as being historically accurate, but it's historical accuracy is to fact as bananas are to lungfish.

 

[Thanee]

Want to bash historical inaccuracies? Go check out Antoine Fuqua's dreadful King Arthur. That movie was billed as being historically accurate, but it's historical accuracy is to fact as bananas are to lungfish.

That movie was said to be based on historical facts, TBH, not historically accurate. That would be a rather laughable claim for sure.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hand of Evil]

10,000 BC rating a 6 maybe a 7 - the best thing about it for me were the 'terror birds' I like to think of them as axe beaks. I will say that I went to this movie already disliking it. This was mostly due to it's name and the way it was promoted, this is a fantasy movie, it should have been promoted that way.

 

[Klaus]

Those weren't the Pyramids. They were just pyramids. Complaining about historical inaccuracies in fantasy movie about prehistoric peoples banding together to fight the remnants of Atlantis is a project that seems as if it would have no end.

Want to bash historical inaccuracies? Go check out Antoine Fuqua's dreadful King Arthur. That movie was billed as being historically accurate, but it's historical accuracy is to fact as bananas are to lungfish.

Those *were* the Pyramids, according to the geological evidence of vertical erosion marks found on the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx, dating them to 10,000 BC. Of course, egyptologists deny that theory.

This movie is as historical as Stargate. And as enjoyable as that one.

 

[Thanee]

I liked Stargate a lot better, tho.

Bye
Thanee