# 10,000 BC (or "The Most Historically/Scientifically Inaccurate Movie EVAR")



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

If you know how analytical I am, you may know what to expect from this. 

So, I watched this movie because I was interested to see what it was like, despite the incredibly low IMDB score. To be honest, the movie itself wasn't nearly as bad as the IMDB score would make it out to be. But it also wasn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.

HOWEVER, this movie is probably the most historically and scientifically inaccurate movie I've ever seen. A lot of the inaccuracies would have been avoided by common sense. Tribes from the age 10,000 years ago were nomadic and didn't settle in a single area like in the movie. And, if they had, they certainly wouldn't settle on the top of a friggin' mountain to freeze themselves to death. In the movie, what we can only assume are the Egyptians come and are riding on horses, but horses weren't domesticated for carrying people until around 5000-6000 BC. They are also using swords, probably made of copper, but the copper age and advent of metal swords didn't start until around 4000-5000 BC either. The "Egyptians" are forcing people to build the pyramids, but the pyramids didn't start to be built until around 2600 BC. The Egyptians ride in advanced extravagent boats of the kind that weren't around until about 11,000 years after the movie takes place and even simple trade ships didn't come around until 1200 BC, Egyptians having had papyrus ships before that (since about 4000 BC). The only boats that would have been in existence at 10,000 BC would have been canoes and rafts. The characters are on what seems to be a very short journey, but they are travelling through terrain in Europe (the mountains), Asia (the bamboo forest which strangely has creatures that had lived in South America), and Africa. For some reason, the tribe of the main characters can't speak the language of the Africans, but all the African tribes speak the same language (in reality, they all spoke different languages) and can understand the Egyptians. 

At the end of the movie, the Africans give the main characters corn, but there was no corn in Europe, Africa, Asia, or Australia until after Colombus discovered the America's almost 12,000 years later (corn being native to North and South America). Or the red hot peppers that they are eating in Africa. There are no such peppers native to Africa. Those originate from South America.

For one thing, mastodons were never domesticated - nor hunted in the ridiculous fashion in the movie. They also didn't exist in North Africa or Mesopotamia at that time.

And I could keep going on. Obviously it's fiction, but they might has well have created a fictional "other world" rather than putting it in a horrifically scientifically inaccurate hodge-podge (of doom).


----------



## Apex1rg7x (May 18, 2008)

Im not sure i wanna ask how it is you know all this stuff. But yeah i really liked the movie, i didnt really care to get into how "accurate" it was. On the other hand i do give you props for being able to point out all of those inaccurate areas in the movie.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

As I figured. 

Like you, E, whilst I could probably still enjoy the movies, those inaccuracies would likely drive me bonkers, too. I'm not surprised at all.


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

Apex1rg7x said:


> Im not sure i wanna ask how it is you know all this stuff. But yeah i really liked the movie, i didnt really care to get into how "accurate" it was. On the other hand i do give you props for being able to point out all of those inaccurate areas in the movie.



When I was in high school, one of my friends always called me "a walking encyclopedia of useless information." 

Most of the stuff I wrote, I wrote from memory and, after I had written about 80% of that stuff, I looked up some more on google and wrote a few other things that I thought related to what I was talking about.



The Dark Wolf said:


> As I figured.
> 
> Like you, E, whilst I could probably still enjoy the movies, those inaccuracies would likely drive me bonkers, too. I'm not surprised at all.



As a creative writing major in college, I wrote a lot of unrealistic stories and screenplays, but suspension of disbelief can only be taken so far. 

I saw "The Core" on my plane trip to the US and that is definitely the most scientically inaccurate movie ever made (while "10,000 BC" is the most historically inaccurate). I hate that movie with a passion.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Apart from seeing Keira Knightley's tidangs, the core was pretty much shit.


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Apart from seeing Keira Knightley's tidangs, the core was pretty much shit.



I didn't even remember she was IN that movie. 

All I remember was that it was pure shit, full of nonsense. I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science, because it's way beyond that into gobbledy-gook ravings of a madman anti-logic.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> gobbledy-gook ravings of a madman anti-logic.



Our next hit song.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Our next hit song.



 Song titles flying out of nowhere all day long.


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (May 19, 2008)

Naren said:


> I didn't even remember she was IN that movie.


probably because she's not


The Core (2003)


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 19, 2008)

I've never actually walked out on a movie before until I saw this. Not only because of how inaccurate it was, but also because I felt it just plain sucked. I'm really picky about movies for some reason. I don't know why.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

Wow, you're tactful. 

Hole, Core... same diff. 

The Hole (2001)


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Wow, you're tactful.
> 
> Hole, Core... same diff.
> 
> The Hole (2001)



i've never even seen either of those movies....i googled looking for pics and nothing came up, so i looked on imdb. tact has nothing to do with it. i'm not having this argument, however, because we've already had an argument a few months ago, about the avatar changing thing, if you recall.


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 19, 2008)

I work at a movie place part time and have had to go through loads of movies. It's really sculpted my movie tastes. I know what I said really came off as being negative, but I really didn't know any other way to put it.  Sorry, I wasn't trying to just post something negative towards the thread. I just thought I'd throw in my experience.


----------



## Toshiro (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Wow, you're tactful.
> 
> Hole, Core... same diff.
> 
> The Hole (2001)



Dude, Bob, no one is going to mistake those movies based on the plots.  I could see it if we're talking Deep Impact/Armageddon, but The Core is a silly Scifi movie, and The Hole is a teen horror movie.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Wow, you're tactful.
> 
> Hole, Core... same diff.
> 
> The Hole (2001)



I actually liked The Hole. And it has absolutely nothing to do with science. 

The Hole is a movie about teens that get stuck in a hole (because of something one of them does) and has a kind of suspense, horror, and drama atmosphere to it. The Core is a very very over-the-top hollywood movie about a team of scientists who have to go to the center of the Earth and use a nuclear bomb to restart the core.  

I would rate The Hole an 8/10.

I would rate The Core a 1/10.

And The Core wins an award for most scientific inaccurate movie ever made.


----------



## DelfinoPie (May 19, 2008)

Naren said:


> The Core is a very very over-the-top hollywood movie about a team of scientists who have to go to the center of the Earth and use a nuclear bomb to restart the core.
> 
> I would rate The Hole an 8/10.
> 
> ...



Yeah my Mom has a tendency of buying bad films (My Big Fat Greek Wedding, White Chicks, and of course The Core). So I sat through The Core thinking at the end that it was possibly the stupidest 'serious' film I've ever seen.

I've never seen 10,000 BC but by the sounds of your first post if they changed the place and race names to fictious ones, and a title to go hand in hand with that (possibly the name of the protagonist or the setting) then it sounds like it would've been more successful as a full out fantasy movie rather than an inaccurate portrayal of an actual time period 

I remember seeing this and wanting to see it, then I completely forgot it even existed until you posted about it!


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (May 19, 2008)

Naren said:


> I actually liked The Hole. And it has absolutely nothing to do with science.
> 
> The Hole is a movie about teens that get stuck in a hole (because of something one of them does) and has a kind of suspense, horror, and drama atmosphere to it. The Core is a very very over-the-top hollywood movie about a team of scientists who have to go to the center of the Earth and use a nuclear bomb to restart the core.
> 
> ...


watch out, he'll give you the horse's ass avatar for pointing that out.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

The core sucked.

I don't think I saw The Hole. I just remember Keira's tits. 

And I'd never give Naren that avatar. He's my former singer/guitarist. Call me biased.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> The core sucked.
> 
> I don't think I saw The Hole. I just remember Keira's tits.



So, like, your girlfriend rented The Hole and you only watched the one scene she was nude in?  I do remember that part of the movie... vaguely...  It's been like 5 years since I saw it. 

I wish I couldn't remember The Core. You have to wonder why Hollywood makes movies like this and why people go to watch them. They make money off of them for some reason...

My geology teacher when I was in college at UT told me that he likes to go to films like The Core with a class of his advanced geology students to pick out all the inaccuracies and he said that movie was so fargone that he just tossed out his notebook.  And I saw the movie before that and I thought the same thing and I'm not even a geology whiz or anything.



The Dark Wolf said:


> And I'd never give Naren that avatar. He's my former singer/guitarist. Call me biased.



 Not that I'd care if you gave it to me.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

Well, if you want it _that_ bad... 


As for Keira/Tits/Hole... shit, I think I just saw it on the net one day, actually. (I probably was looking for it. ) And the little availability heuristic jumped in, since I'd only seen The Core once (once is enough. Ugh), and I connected the two.

But THANKFULLY I've been resoundingly corrected!  Ok, so, that's my brain. Move along, people. Nothing more to see.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Well, if you want it _that_ bad...
> 
> 
> As for Keira/Tits/Hole... shit, I think I just saw it on the net one day, actually. (I probably was looking for it. ) And the little availability heuristic jumped in, since I'd only seen The Core once (once is enough. Ugh), and I connected the two.
> ...



I think The Hole was Keira's first movie (or at least her first famous movie) and it's probably the only movie she gets naked in. Kinda like how Katie Holmes was naked in The Gift... Her character in that movie was a real bitch.  Actually Keira's character too.

I wouldn't have rented The Core. I had to watch it on a plane and I kept switching between the English language audio and the Japanese language audio because it was so bad... 

Anyway, not many people have even mentioned 10,000 BC in this thread.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

Yeah, that's true. Didn't even notice.


----------



## Xaios (May 19, 2008)

The Hole came out in 2001. Interesting that when they were shooting it (probably in 2000), Keira Knightley would have only been 15.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 20, 2008)

Xaios said:


> The Hole came out in 2001. Interesting that when they were shooting it (probably in 2000), Keira Knightley would have only been 15.



I think I may make this a Blockbuster night.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2008)

Yeah, wikipedia confirms, she was only 15. I wonder if they played the "It's Art!" card.


----------



## Naren (May 24, 2008)

Xaios said:


> Yeah, wikipedia confirms, she was only 15. I wonder if they played the "It's Art!" card.



In the US that would have been illegal (illegal in Japan too), but "The Hole" is a British film, so it must be legal over there (since it's not porno).

She looks young, but not "15 young." More like 17 or so. I assumed she was 18 and they had done her up to look younger, but she was 15, huh...? Wow.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 24, 2008)

I must rent this movie


----------



## zimbloth (May 24, 2008)

Dude Naren, with all due respect: lighten up. Who watches a mindless popcorn action flick expecting historical accuracy? 

It's one thing if this was Braveheart or Schindler's List, but _this_ shitty movie? I agree with your points, but I just don't know why you're so riled up over this.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 24, 2008)

1. I doubt he's actually "riled up." 

2. It's something fun to bitch/talk about on a forum, maybe?


----------



## Naren (May 24, 2008)

zimbloth said:


> Dude Naren, with all due respect: lighten up. Who watches a mindless popcorn action flick expecting historical accuracy?
> 
> It's one thing if this was Braveheart or Schindler's List, but _this_ shitty movie? I agree with your points, but I just don't know why you're so riled up over this.



I'm not "riled up."  Do you think I was sitting there boiling over with rage and irritation when I posted? I was just surprised at just how way off this movie was and, after the movie, I was thinking how ridiculous the "historical content" of the movie was.

It's a movie supposedly taking place in 10,000 BC (hence the title) when some of the things in the movie didn't even come out until 11,000 years later.

I just found it funny and, like TDW said, it's something to bitch about on a forum, much like a lot of the stuff on here. Maybe you didn't find it funny, weird, or amusing, but I did.


----------



## zimbloth (May 24, 2008)

No dude, I like you and agree with your views actually. I thought this movie was ridiculous too. It just seems like you take things a little too seriously sometimes. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong (it is the internet, it happens all the time), but I rarely see you being light-hearted or just laughing things off, it's always ultra serious/analytical. Which is cool, but it just amused me to see such a well thought-out rant about such an obviously dumb movie. 

Wouldn't you be amused if I posted a rant about the thousands of absurdities/inaccuracies in Independence Day? (like the notion that Jeff Goldblum's 1995 macbook could interface with the alien mothership and somehow upload a virus, as if they had compatible operating systems/networks )


----------



## Zepp88 (May 24, 2008)

I call Naren "textbook"  he just analyzes the hell out of shit   

But as he says "It's mah nature!"

I still haven't seen this movie, is it really any good, despite the inaccuracies?


----------



## Naren (May 24, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I still haven't seen this movie, is it really any good, despite the inaccuracies?



Not really.



zimbloth said:


> No dude, I like you and agree with your views actually. I thought this movie was ridiculous too. It just seems like you take things a little too seriously sometimes. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong (it is the internet, it happens all the time), but I rarely see you being light-hearted or just laughing things off, it's always ultra serious/analytical. Which is cool, but it just amused me to see such a well thought-out rant about such an obviously dumb movie.
> 
> Wouldn't you be amused if I posted a rant about the thousands of absurdities/inaccuracies in Independence Day? (like the notion that Jeff Goldblum's 1995 macbook could interface with the alien mothership and somehow upload a virus, as if they had compatible operating systems/networks )



I'm a pretty analytical person, but my sense of humor usually doesn't come across on the internet. Sometimes people think I'm being serious when I'm not. I have a pretty dry sense of humor. I am very analytical, but I'm not usually very serious (unless we're talking about something that I think is really serious - this movie not falling into that category).

You could do that about Independence Day, except that it's a sci-fi movie, which requires more suspension of disbelief than a pseudo-historical movie (if you can call it that). 

It seemed to me almost like they were "Wow. This is so epic! It probably was really like this way back when."


----------



## MF_Kitten (May 24, 2008)

i liked The Core... inaccuracies aside, it was entertaining 

if i were to re-make that movie, i would have removed the "omg, restart teh core of teh erf wiv a nuke!" part, and made it even more fucked up... and i would point out the fact that it´s fucked up too, like they find a whole new world down there, and they have no idea how the fuck that´s possible, since it´s scientifically impossible etc... like a really fucked up mystery 

i would make it a little more like "Journey to the centre of the earth" or whatever it was called, but without the whole tribespeople-thing... i would make it alot more mystical 

i´m studying tv directing/tv producing type stuff next year, can´t wait... i could direct an animation about this!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 24, 2008)

no green boxes? oh god!! you spoiled it! whaaaaaaa!!!


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Watched it last night. I liked it.  A little slow and not much on the plot side, but I dig movies like this anyway.


----------



## Chris (Jun 30, 2008)

Naren said:


> I saw "The Core" on my plane trip to the US and that is definitely the most scientically inaccurate movie ever made (while "10,000 BC" is the most historically inaccurate). I hate that movie with a passion.



That's crazy talk, The Core was awesome, who the fuck cares if it was "scientifically inaccurate"? It was fun to watch and entertaining, and Aarok Eckhart is cool in everything he's in because he has that Mike Rowe-esque likeability to him.

I don't get people who watch every movie with a Siskel & Ebert style of overanalysis that completely takes all of the fun out of watching the film. Why not just stick to documentaries if you can't be entertained by anything less than 100% accurate historical re-enactments and scientifically spot-on storylines? 

I mean, Tombstone is historically inaccurate as well but that doesn't stop it from being 10/10 on the fuckingawesomeometer. The ark of the covenant didn't melt nazi-faces either but Raiders is still 10/10 as well. Did you not like those because they weren't believable?


----------



## noodles (Jun 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> and Aaron Eckhart is cool in everything he's in because he has that Mike Rowe-esque likeability to him.



I thought he _was_ Mike Rowe when I first saw him in "Thank You for Smoking".



> I mean, Tombstone is historically inaccurate as well but that doesn't stop it from being 10/10 on the fuckingawesomeometer. The ark of the covenant didn't melt nazi-faces either but Raiders is still 10/10 as well. Did you not like those because they weren't believable?



False, both those movies were an 11/10.


----------



## Naren (Jun 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> That's crazy talk, The Core was awesome, who the fuck cares if it was "scientifically inaccurate"? It was fun to watch and entertaining, and Aarok Eckhart is cool in everything he's in because he has that Mike Rowe-esque likeability to him.
> 
> I don't get people who watch every movie with a Siskel & Ebert style of overanalysis that completely takes all of the fun out of watching the film. Why not just stick to documentaries if you can't be entertained by anything less than 100% accurate historical re-enactments and scientifically spot-on storylines?



Obviously you didn't read what I said in this thread.

There are movies where you suspend disbelief and there are movies where you just throw belief out the window. And then there are movies like The Core that pretend to be giving you a science lesson when everything in the entire movie is wrong. If they were gonna make up all that nonsense, they might have well just thrown all the pseudo-science out and been like "Hey, we got this 400 gigaton assletonium nuclear thermo-detonator that we're gonna use to restart the Earth's core" and they're not throwing up the pretense of actually having any science in the movie. When you base an entire movie around science and that science is not complete science-fiction but it's not correct science either, you just get a confused misbalanced pile of shit.

I guess if the movie was awesome, I could forgive any scientific, historic, or cultural fallacies - no matter how big. But when the movie just sucks so much, the inaccuracies just add to the suffering.



Chris said:


> I mean, Tombstone is historically inaccurate as well but that doesn't stop it from being 10/10 on the fuckingawesomeometer. The ark of the covenant didn't melt nazi-faces either but Raiders is still 10/10 as well. Did you not like those because they weren't believable?



True, but Tombstone and Raiders kicked ass and were just totally awesome movies, but The Core sucked so much ass that there is no rating low enough for that movie. And, if I rated the accuracy level of those four movies, it'd be: Tombstone: 85/100, Raiders: 70/100, The Core: 15/100, 10,000 BC: 2/100

If I was ragging on a good movie for being scientifically or historically inaccurate, I'd be all like "You're right, Chris! I shouldn't be bitching about these little things!" but the Core and 10,000 BC were both horrible movies and I was venting my irritation in the thread.


----------



## neon_black88 (Jul 1, 2008)

Yeah it's a terrible movie. I agree with pretty much everything you said. And it doesn't really have anything to do with only liking movies that are accurate, but you have been into that.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jul 1, 2008)

Though I will continue to enjoy movies even if I notice a few, or many inaccuracies, it ends up just kinda making me laugh on the inside thinking something like "those stupid idiots ". I could tell it was inaccurate just from the comercials. I used to be a big dino+prehistory buff when I was a child.


----------



## Chris (Jul 1, 2008)

Naren said:


> Obviously you didn't read what I said in this thread.



Sure I did. You said that your overanalytical movie snobbery prevents you from enjoying the majority of films that normal people find entertaining, and then you blamed the writers and directors for your inability to simply be entertained by an art form. 



> True, but Tombstone and Raiders kicked ass and were just totally awesome movies, but The Core sucked so much ass that there is no rating low enough for that movie. And, if I rated the accuracy level of those four movies, it'd be: Tombstone: 85/100, Raiders: 70/100, The Core: 15/100, 10,000 BC: 2/100



The fact that you rate Tombstone 85/100 and not 999,999/100 further shows that your taste in movies sucks sir. I can see now why you don't like the Core. You have terrible taste in films.


----------



## noodles (Jul 1, 2008)

Tombstone is The Greatest Western of All Time&#8482;.


----------



## Apex1rg7x (Jul 1, 2008)

noodles said:


> Tombstone is The Greatest Western of All Time.


----------



## Naren (Jul 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Sure I did. You said that your overanalytical movie snobbery prevents you from enjoying the majority of films that normal people find entertaining, and then you blamed the writers and directors for your inability to simply be entertained by an art form.



No, you didn't. I doubt you read anything I said, as demonstrated by the second part of your post.  

In terms of art, I consider films like "The Core" or "Manos: The Hands Of Fate" to be like children's doodles and films like "The Godfather," "The Fountain," "Indiana Jones," "Star Wars," "Tombstone," and so on to be artistic masterpieces. Then there are masterpieces that very few people know about. But, since this is opinionated, there can be a lot of discussion over what is good and what is not.

So, no, I cannot appreciate films like "The Core" or 10,000 BC because in my opinion, they are basically garbage.



Chris said:


> The fact that you rate Tombstone 85/100 and not 999,999/100 further shows that your taste in movies sucks sir. I can see now why you don't like the Core. You have terrible taste in films.



I never said what I rated Tombstone. I'd give it a 99/100 because it's the best Western movie ever made.

I also never said what I rated Raiders. I would give it a 99.5/100 because I've seen it at least 40 times now and it's my favorite of the Indiana Jones movies, all of which would get scores over 95/100 (Temple of Doom being my least favorite. I haven't seen Crystal Skull yet).

I'm sorry you don't like my taste in films, sir.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 2, 2008)

FTR, I disliked 'The Core', too. (Or should I say... not so much disliked it, but I thought it was kind of stupid. Dig Eckhart, though. He was great in 'Thank You For Smoking.') But, I loved Tombstone.

However! I think the best western movie ever is 'Unforgiven.' More realistic, and gritty. Tombstone is more like a comic version, whereas Unforgiven, with its themes of cowardice, bravery, weakness of humanity, redemption, and ultimately failure, is so resonant and powerful. Just a fantastic movie.


These are, of course, my humble opinions. I would say I'm a mildly snobbish when it comes to movies, but not so much so that I can't enjoy campy films that are just fun.


----------



## Naren (Jul 2, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> However! I think the best western movie ever is 'Unforgiven.' More realistic, and gritty. Tombstone is more like a comic version, whereas Unforgiven, with its themes of cowardice, bravery, weakness of humanity, redemption, and ultimately failure, is so resonant and powerful. Just a fantastic movie.



I agree that "Unforgiven" is a great movie, but I preferred "Tombstone." I love Clint Eastwood and pretty much all the movies he's been in that I've seen. That last scene in "Unforgiven" was just totally kickass.

And, yeah, it was definitely a much more realistic take on the Western in how it didn't glorify what they were doing. But I thought Tombstone was a more enjoyable movie.

Thaz my opinion on the subject.


----------



## noodles (Jul 2, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> However! I think the best western movie ever is 'Unforgiven.' More realistic, and gritty. Tombstone is more like a comic version, whereas Unforgiven, with its themes of cowardice, bravery, weakness of humanity, redemption, and ultimately failure, is so resonant and powerful. Just a fantastic movie.



The difference is Tombstone never dragged, while Unforgiven did. It was longer than it needed to be, and their were parts that put me to sleep. However, the ending was completely badass.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 2, 2008)

I don't see it that way, but I enjoyed both movies tremendously.

I actually really, really liked 'Cold Mountain', too. I guess that's not a "pure" Western type movie, but it decidedly has that vibe.


----------



## noodles (Jul 2, 2008)

Eh, it could have moved quicker. I like my westerns with lots of action, and The Unforgiven really makes you wait for it. As opposed to Tombstone, which just beats you over the head with one good fight after another.


----------



## Naren (Jul 2, 2008)

noodles said:


> Eh, it could have moved quicker. I like my westerns with lots of action, and The Unforgiven really makes you wait for it. As opposed to Tombstone, which just beats you over the head with one good fight after another.



That pretty summarizes my opinions on Tombstone and Unforgiven, as well.  I enjoyed both, but I felt Tombstone was a lot better. I could watch Tombstone over and over again.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2008)

Naren said:


> No, you didn't. I doubt you read anything I said, as demonstrated by the second part of your post.



I did. I stand by my statment. Your constant expectations of a Scorcese classic every time you watch _anything_ makes it so that you can't enjoy most movies. To Kill a Mockingbird is a great book, but I also enjoyed Harry fuckin' Potter, just because I went into the books expecting to be entertained, and I was, rather than gauging them against timeless classics.



> I'm sorry you don't like my taste in films, sir.



Doesn't bother me, you're the one that didn't like The Core.


----------



## Naren (Jul 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> I did. I stand by my statment. Your constant expectations of a Scorcese classic every time you watch _anything_ makes it so that you can't enjoy most movies. To Kill a Mockingbird is a great book, but I also enjoyed Harry fuckin' Potter, just because I went into the books expecting to be entertained, and I was, rather than gauging them against timeless classics.



I enjoyed most of the Harry Potter movies as well. 

Looking at my DVD collection, I have Hot Shots Part Deux, Mafia!, National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon I, Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, SLC Punk, and a bunch of other movies that most people wouldn't consider timeless classics, but I think they're all awesome films (Monty Python and Loaded Weapon are, of course, comedy classics, though). 

The reason I don't like The Core is not because it's scientifically inaccurate. To me, that's just the icing on the cake. I would never make fun of someone for liking that movie, even though I think it's a pile of garbage, because I feel kind of like that'd be the pot calling the kettle black. I used to be in a horror and cult cinema fan club in college and I have a real weak spot for horror movies (especially 80's horror movies). In that period alone, I've probably seen more horrible low budget horror movies than other people have rented films in their lifetime. It's a kind of weird thing...

Anyway, disregarding the historical inaccuracy of 10,000 BC, I thought it was incredibly boring.  It's not like I was sitting there, thinking "This fucking movie! Egyptians didn't have boats like that in that time period." It's more something I just happened to notice. And, by the end of the movie, I had noticed so many things that I was very amused and thought other people might be amused as well... Some were and some weren't.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Jul 2, 2008)

For what it's worth, I've felt the same way before. Transformers was the biggest pile of **** ever created, but all my friends loved it and said I was expecting too much  Sometimes movies are just _bad_, regardless of anything else.

Another example was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Even with a healthy dosage of disbelief that movie was so incredibly ****tarded that I wanted to cry. I understand that it's a technical marvel (the whole movie was green-screened: only the actors were real) but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's just plain ****.

In any event, it's a matter of taste. Some people watch movies for plot, others just want to be diverted for a couple of hours. It's the diversity of the medium, I guess.

* HammerAndSickle really ****ing hated Transformers.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Jul 2, 2008)

HammerAndSickle said:


> In any event, it's a matter of taste. Some people watch movies for plot, others just want to be diverted for a couple of hours. It's the diversity of the medium, I guess.



Very true, although I think when I'm picking a film to watch it really depends on how I feel. If I'm feeling quite awake and really up for something that makes me think, or am consciously making the choice to watch something with an awesome plot/acting etc...then I'll pick something thats usually universally considered awesome (i.e. Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, Space Balls...) 

If I just want to be entertained then I'll throw anything on.

However, I've found two films that (for me) fit into both categories...one is "Blood Diamond" and the other is Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" (my favourite film ever).


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (Jul 2, 2008)

HammerAndSickle said:


> For what it's worth, I've felt the same way before. Transformers was the biggest pile of **** ever created, but all my friends loved it and said I was expecting too much  Sometimes movies are just _bad_, regardless of anything else.
> 
> Another example was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Even with a healthy dosage of disbelief that movie was so incredibly ****tarded that I wanted to cry. I understand that it's a technical marvel (the whole movie was green-screened: only the actors were real) but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's just plain ****.
> 
> ...



you know you're allowed to say "fuck" here, right?


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Jul 2, 2008)

Yeah, and I have said it in the past. I think I posted that right after I posted on another forum with censoring so I just automatically do it


----------



## noodles (Jul 2, 2008)

*FUCK*

We're not some Nazi forum.


----------



## Desecrated (Jul 2, 2008)

noodles said:


> *FUCK*



Say it slowly...


----------



## TimSE (Jul 2, 2008)

the best thing about that film was the way they made dreds look awesome

EDIT: FUCKing awesome that is


----------



## Apex1rg7x (Jul 3, 2008)

I agree 10,000 BC wasn't what i was expecting it to be going into it. It looked so fucking epic in the trailers that i thought it was gonna be the best movie ever. Well i was wrong and it wasn't that good. But i was entertained and interested the whole time and to me thats the most important part of watching a movie. Who cares if a movie isnt scientically accurate? You dont watch movies to keep your science knowledge up to par. That takes the fun and pleasure away from enjoying the film your watching. Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Jul 3, 2008)

I didn't read the whole thread now, but here are my 2 cents on the topic:

A movie doesn't have to be historically correct, but it should be MORE OR LESS accurate.
You aren't watching a WWII movie and then the Germans show up with laser guns, neither.
What these guys show in this movie is just nothing other then fucking respectless!
WTF? Mannaks on pyramids? And then the king of the Egyptians is an ugly ass fucker with down-syndrome?
They would've turned in their graves if they would see this.

Non the less - the special fx look awesome. Same as in the Day after Tomorrow. Shitty movie, bad ass fx..


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 3, 2008)

noodles said:


> Eh, it could have moved quicker. I like my westerns with lots of action, and The Unforgiven really makes you wait for it. As opposed to Tombstone, which just beats you over the head with one good fight after another.



3:10 To Yuma had a lot of action, but almost a bit of an Unforgiven feel to the climatic build-up for the end. Sort of like the best of both Tombstone and Unforgiven.


----------



## Apex1rg7x (Jul 3, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> 3:10 To Yuma had a lot of action, but almost a bit of an Unforgiven feel to the climatic build-up for the end. Sort of like the best of both Tombstone and Unforgiven.



I just watched 3:10 To Yuma last night for the first time and thought it was very good. I see what you mean by the Unforgiven feel to it though.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 3, 2008)

Christian Bale is just fantastic.

'Harsh Times' is one of my favoritest movies ever.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Jul 7, 2008)

it's a movie, it's supposed to be entertaining not educational. It's not the first movie to be inaccurate, in fact try and find on that IS. Just seems like you could have analyzed something of more importance than some crappy action movie.


----------



## Heavy Ed (Jul 7, 2008)

can't believe this movie generated this much feedback. I think I'll have to waste 2 hours and watch this turd!


----------



## jaxadam (Jul 7, 2008)

Just watched 10,000 BC last night. I thought it sucked.


----------



## Shawn (Jul 10, 2008)

I didn't really care for this movie either.


----------

