Film Ten Thousand BC Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

01:46:38 AM Dec 30th 2012
Am I the only one who's noticed that 99% of the backlash over what's in the film has to do with the title? Seriously, if it had been titled something like "the journey" no one would be saying "that's totally inaccurate, that happened thousands of years later." which are the only arguments ever really made about it. The actual date or location of the events is never stated in film. Why assume that the title is an accurate date and base all of your expectations on that? It's silly. It'd be like complaining that "The Day After Tomorrow" is totally wrong in its portrayal because it takes weeks for things to actually go wrong, instead of it actually happening the day after tomorrow. If you take away the assumption that the title is actually stating when the movie happens, then it's just a semi-realistic fantasy adventure movie like a bajillion others before and since. There's no reason whatsoever to take the title of a movie so dead seriously when it's obviously a colloquialism at best. I mean, if you meet a friend that you haven't seen for ten years and go "Wow, it's been a million years since I saw you!" do they immediately snap back with "No, it's only been ten; no wonder we haven't spoken in a decade, you're clearly a moron with no sense of how time actually functions." No, that doesn't happen because you're using a purposely exaggerated phrase and they realize that. Why does no one see that this is what happened with the title of this film?

Honestly, if anything, it's a stylized glance at the progression of history. Think about it: We start out with the primitive spear-wielding hunter-gatherer tribe living in an ice-age environment, then we move to an agricultural tribe with armor and shields living on an open plain, and then go to a large-scale organized civilization living near a large constant water source; the nomadic horse-riding raiders weave throughout the story since nomadic horse-riding raider type cultures have existed for as long as people knew that horses were a thing and that riding them made it easier to steal stuff from your neighbors.

It's an allegorical work, not a literal one.
03:36:55 PM Aug 29th 2016
I took it immediately as a fantasy film set in Robert E. Howard's "Hyborean Age", and I'm surprised almost nobody else has said so except for one lone soul on the "Wild Mass Guessing" page.

The "Hyborean Age" was estimated by L. Sprague De Camp to be 10,000 BCE, the film dropped a couple references to the sinking of Atlantis ("The Almighty" who ruled the Pyramids was said to have escaped from there), the Hyborean Age was meant to be a sort of dark age following the fall of the (relatively) technologically-advanced Atlantis, set on a Pangean continent peopled with a variety of long-forgotten and lost races scattered about and migrating here and there, some of which still remembered how to forge Atlantean steel or who harbored ancient secrets of alchemy and sorcery, and others who had fallen so far into barbarism that they had devolved into cannibal ape-men, and haunted by strange Lovecraftian gods, weird monsters and ghosts, and long-extinct megafauna.

In the end, I didn't find the anachronism stew or other "inaccuracies" any more disconcerting in 10,000 BC than I would have in Conan the Barbarian or Beastmaster....

Perhaps they'd have gotten more mileage if they'd explicitly said this was a fantasy film, instead of relying on viewers to figure it out on their own? (Viewers claim to dislike being treated like idiots, but seem to have trouble when they aren't....)
Collapse/Expand Topics