Friday, March 07, 2008

10,000 BLECH

10,000 B.C. comes out today. I refuse to see it in theaters, although Brian is considering it. Apart from my distain from Roland Emmerich, who gave us such memorable flops as Independance Day, GINO (Godzilla in Name Only), and The Day After Tomorrow, this new epic adventure looks like a mish-mash of paleontological, historical, and archaeological inaccuracy. These are exactly the kinds of movies I hate, because they butcher paleontological accuracy when it would be so easy to do it right.

I saw a preview for the film at Jurassic Park on Wednesday, and here's what I learned:

1) Saber-tooth tigers are bigger than lions. In fact, saber-tooth cats were smaller than tigers. And rather than being built like tigers, their anatomy brings to mind bobcats and lynxes.

2) Mammoths helped build the pyramids. Excuse me while I throw up.

3) Phorusrhacids (terror birds) were eating people. In reality, they went extinct about two million years ago, loooong before we were hunting mammoths.

4) Big Persian-style sailboats had been invented 12,000 years ago.

5) Cavemen had dreadlocks and spoke modern English.

6) Mammoths...helped...build...the pyramids.

10,000 B.C. is the snake to my mongoose. Or the mongoose to my snake...either way, it's bad.

10 comments:

Cameron McCormick said...

1) Saber-tooth tigers are bigger than lions. In fact, saber-tooth cats were smaller than tigers.

See:

Christiansen, Per and Harris, John M. 2005. Body Size of Smilodon (Mammalia: Felidae). Journal of Morphology, 266:369–384

S. fatalis was around the size of Siberian tigers (160-280 kg). The average S. populator could have rivaled record sized Siberian tigers (the largest cats) at 220-360 kg, the authors suggest that some large males could have greatly exceeded 400 kg. To be fair though, the American lion Panthera atrox apparently got even larger...

I'll watch this movie on TV in a few months to laugh my way through.

Zach Miller said...

Ha! I didn't know they got so big! thanks, Cameron. I'll have to snag that people from somebody.

BusaFan said...

Hmm... let's look at Godzilla! Talk about your scientific inaccuracies! Quite simply an impossible creature! Oh wait it's fantasy?

Consider for a second though... Maybe the movie was made to be fantasy! Maybe historical accuracy wasn't high on the thrill 'o meter? Maybe we all want to see terror birds chase people around! Maybe that's what will sell the movie? Maybe we all want to see mammoths build the pyramids, instead egyptian slaves? Perhaps!??

That said, I probably won't see this movie. Even on DVD.

"Either way, it's bad!" Made me laugh. Hehe, kudos sir!

Brian said...

Yeah, Smilodon got pretty big, but definitely not as big as in the film. I think they super-sized the mammoths too, and don't get me started on the terror birds...

I haven't seen it yet but will probably catch it at a matinée tomorrow and blog how terrible it is. I can't be worse than JP III, right?

Mike S said...

Remember the singular driving force and truth in movie making... "exploitation rules, sacrifice everything and anything for the storyline and ultimately the box office . . . money rules at the expense of all else ".

Let us not forget that "Jurassic Park " also took all sorts of unrealistic and unreasonable liberties with dinosaur anatomy, that paleontologists subsequently have had to devote time and effort to "undo"...

So paleo based movies are a double edged sword:

Raised perception and notoriety of paleontology in the public eye GOOD

Twisting scientific fact to boost the titillation factor BAD

SOLUTION... temporarily decouple yourself from analytical judgement and science based background, and enjoy the fantasy, just as the shallow, vapid, visual excrement it represents, and was meant to be!

Nathan said...

What, you say mammoths weren't equal partners in construction of the pyramids? Where, pray tell, would they have had opportunity to ski in Egypt if they hadn't secured rights to those slopes in advance?

Alkalynic said...

You know, I'll accept that Godzilla '98 and The Day After Tomorrow weren't that successful of releases (I've only seen the former, and I enjoyed it as a romp), but Independence Day is in the top 50 list of all time domestic box office grosses (ranked #34 when adjusted for inflation).

Christopher said...

Is it really suposed to be Egypt and the Pyramids? I havent seen it yet, but it looks cool.

And to be honest I dont really care that its historically inaccurate. Was Conan historically accurate? No. Has there ever been a historically accurate Hollywood movie ever ever? Hell no! It is just a movie.

By the by, In case you dont check old subjects I commented on your Nyctosaurus. There are a few things that need to be altered for "Maximum Accuracy Effect(tm)"

Alkalynic said...

I'm more concerned about the charge that this movie is, in fact, boring.

Mambo-Bob said...

Let us not forget that "Jurassic Park " also took all sorts of unrealistic and unreasonable liberties with dinosaur anatomy, that paleontologists subsequently have had to devote time and effort to "undo"...

True...but in some ways, we can say that Jurassic Park instigated a lot of research to prove or disprove the possibilities of cloning dinosaurs!!! Plus, JP was just a really well-made movie.

Scientific or historical inaccuracies in films can be "forgiven" if the film is made very well...at least in my opinion anyway. If it's good enough to suspend my disbelief, then all is well, I suppose.

But 10,000 BC just looks awful...though my friends and I may just go and see it just for laughs!