Talk:10,000 BC (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Broken English[edit]

There is really awkward English in the introduction of the article: "The film is loosely based on Indian epic Ramayana, where king Lord Ram's wife is stolen by Lankan King Ravana and Ram pursues her while aligning with local tribes on his way to southern parts of India. The story of movie is much similar to the Indian epic, even the last neanderthals in form of monkey God Hanuman finds mention in the epic. Similarly in the movie lead character enforces alignments with local tribes of Sub-Sahara and arabian peninsula on his way from Urals to Egypt." 86.155.42.133 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it all - it was WP:OR that was just shoehorned into the lead. If someone can find WP:RS, then it would fit better into a sub-section under "Development." There is certainly room to discuss Emmerich's inspiration for some of the ideas in this film [1]. Emperor (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just like Stargate![edit]

This is just like Stargate, another film he made. Similarities: 1. Primitive people (cave-men here, the people of Abydos in Stargate). 2. A cruel false god from an advanced society (Almighty here, Ra in Stargate). 3. People forced to build pyramids in a desert land. 4. The false god being one of the last of their kind.

It seems like he is trying to "re-imagine" Stargate, so Stargate should be listed in the influnces section! Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Special Features section of the DVD credits the work of credits Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods ( which is duly mentioned in the Influences section. Stargate was influenced by Eric von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods. Hancock proposes a 'lost' civilisation that was still human, just more advanced, while Stargate proposes extra-terrestial influences following Von Daniken. I think the influence isn't so much Stargate, but Emmerich's penchant for alternative or pseudo-histories. Paul Roberton (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The plot and general theme seems very similar too. And according the commentary, Ra (the false god in stargate) was, for most of filming, going to be human. It should at least be mentioned. Note: I haven't seen this movie, though I have seen Stargate. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations for use[edit]

Cliff Curtis in the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Citation now implemented. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page from 10,000 B.C. (film) to 10,000 BC (film) per the discussion below. Whether the film's typography or our MOS takes precedence doesn't come into play here, as the two appear to agree with each other. Dekimasuよ! 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


The official site clearly identifies the film as 10,000 BC. This takes precedence over any other naming conventions that may be invoked. I request a move back to the title without any periods in "BC". —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems like a fair enough move to me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Actually, no, it doesn't take precedence. Lots of companies jazz up their product with funny typography, and we ignore this unless, like iPod, people actually use the funny spelling. I see no reason movies should be different. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So until we determine what people will use in a widespread manner, we should go with how the studio formats the title. Dating conventions certainly don't apply here -- they didn't apply to One Million Years B.C., which should be 1,000,000 B.C., but it isn't. As far as I can tell, Google hits so far show either 10,000 BC or 10000 BC, with very few having the punctuation. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless there's evidence that English-speaking consensus follows the funny typography, we should follow our guidelines on this matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the point of throwing in Strongly? You already presented your logic. And what are the guidelines to title this film? Feel free to link to them. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking at WP:DATE#Years, decades, and centuries, there does not seem to be any punctuation used in the examples of ### BC or ### BCE. Sure doesn't seem like funny typography that the studio jazzed up if Wikipedia doesn't use punctuation. Is there another guideline that supports your strong recommendation? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Since there is no longer a U.S. in the MOS I see no reason for keeping B.C. in this name as Anno Domini and the BC pages point out "BC or B.C." --PBS 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, per naming conventions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of accuracy should be mentioned.[edit]

I wrote "The historical accuracy of the film is dubious to say the least, with highly developed stone architecture and irrigation systems appearing in the trailer."

I may be a newbie in Wikipedia, but I am not in world history. I consider, that in a film presented as happening in the real earth in an historical date, which has the name of that date, it is important for the people to know it they can expect a film with high or low historical accuracy.

If I wrote something wrong due to my lack of English, I apologize and the next user could improve my spelling. But I don't see the reason why "Erik" deleted the modificacion, and I have "undone" it and opened here a discussion. I hope this is the right way to do things.

MoredanKantose (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ahhh... didn't see this entry, "it is important for the people to know it they can expect a film with high or low historical accuracy" - true, but wikipedia is NOT a place for original research, you'll need to cite a reputable source that the film presents technology too advanced for the time-period.
I happen to agree with you, the pyramids are thousands of years younger, though newgrange in ireland is probably round about the same age. This does not change the fact that I do not have any published material discussing the technological and architectural achievements of that period.
BananaFiend (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, MoredanKantose, thanks for initiating discussion here. BananaFiend is right; it would be original research to make a personal observation about the historical accuracy (or lack thereof) of the film. To appropriately deconstruct the film's historical background, we'd need to use published material directly commenting on the film. Don't worry, though -- it's very much likely that we will have such published material available when the film is released. The films Apocalypto and 300 have been analyzed for inaccuracies by historians, and I think it's likely that 10,000 BC will, too. So if you don't mind having some patience and seeking eyes for such published materials, we can include such information in the article. :) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am starting to understand... so, if the wikipedia says that there are no large buildings in 10.000 BC, and the trailer shows large buildings, it is still "original research" to conclude that the film lacks of historical accuracy in at least one aspect (having large buldings). I have to wait until someone publishes the sentence "10.000 BC lacks of historical accuracy due, for example, to the large buildings".
Ehm... ok, you are the experts... if you say it is so, then it is so.
MoredanKantose (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's not easy to grasp. Try to think of it this way -- fictional works will almost never be as historically accurate as the actual events or elements of it. There will always be something to point out. However, we can't personally synthesize information from watching a film and reading a history book; we'd be conducting our own critical analysis. We're not authoritative figures for that. As editors, we usually retrieve others' work and try to present it as fairly as possible in the Wikipedia article. I would not worry too much, though. Films like this, Apocalypto, and 300 definitely draw scholars' attention. They're the ones that can critically analyze the historical elements for their accuracy, and we'll implement their results. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"I have to wait until someone publishes the sentence "10.000 BC lacks of historical accuracy due, for example, to the large buildings"." - I know that was meant in a slightly sarcastic manner, but it's absolutely true, depending on the person saying it, if they are an expert then it lends some credence. Again, we can say it here, but who are we? Simple editors :)
OK, I've done some digging into this, and I'm about to add the original quote back in with a citation that is considered good enough for another area of wikipedia (ah, such rich irony!) BananaFiend (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Considering this film portrays what seems to be the great pyramids in Egypt (built around 2000 BCE, not 10,000 BCE), and its claims of finding a "lost civilization" (maybe the aliens who built the pyramids lol), I'd say this movie will be more fictional than a combination of 300 and Lord of the Rings. Intranetusa (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one for editing, but I'll feed the fire with this article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23486307/. If someone is so interested, here is a link that speaks directly on the animals in this movie.--216.101.11.66 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that's a great resource to use! Definitely should be included in the article since it's secondary sourcing that pertains directly to the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This conversation is absurd. To characterize the observation that this film is historically inaccurate as "original research" only shows how dumbed-down we as a society have become. The historical inaccuracy of this movie is obvious and blatant to anyone who didn't sleep-walk through high school. Egyptian pyramids in 10,000 BC? The notion of "original research" should entail some degree of critical analysis or compilation, but not extend to the mere reporting of plainly observable facts (otherwise it is hard to see what is not "original research"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.113.238 (talkcontribs) 08:33, March 8, 2008
You need to understand that the way Wikipedia works is that we don't have provide our own commentary on any topic. We only report what others have said about the topic. I understand that it is "obvious" to you, but the way we write about any topic is to provide verifiable coverage from reliable sources. Not only can we say that it's inaccurate, we can explain why, with these secondary sources. It has nothing to do with the dumbing-down of society and everything to do with how to report information in this encyclopedia. In any case, I've seen the headlines, and there is abundant information about the film being defined as a prehistoric fantasy film. There's even some resources like the MSNBC link above to explain the background of some of the film's elements, like the prehistoric creatures. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! You say "Egyptian pyramids" but there is no information regarding who they say built the pyramids, and there is talk of other pyramids around the world that predate the egyptians. A high school education will not have sufficient DEPTH (considering the number of subjects to cover) to be authoritative on a historical subject. Let's leave this issue to historians with reliable sources if they find this film worth talking about. BananaFiend (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of accuracy 2[edit]

I am astonished that this is even being discussed. This movie is a fictional work, containing elements of science fiction and fantasy. As such, historical accuracy (if any) would be coincidental at best. Only the most deluded people could possibly imply any suggestion of historical accuracy to a work that features people alongside species that have been extinct since the late Pliocene, for goodness sake. Seriously, a lack of historical accuracy is implied, and there is no need to mention it in the article unless in reference to actual claims of historical accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

whoa! Is your only objection to the species coexistence? From the advertisements, I can only see the use of mammoths which existed up to 4,500 years ago, a sabre-tooth (a group of species, not all felines) of which 3 are listed as being extant at that period (there are a few for which I can find no data) Smilodon, Homotherium and perhaps Meagantereon (some confusion in wikipedia over this, the sabre-tooth entry says 9,000 years, it's entry says 900,000)and there's what looks to be a large bird of prey - I'm not sure really on this one, but the larger ratites (including the elephant bird) had representatives until relatively recently (AD). The ruins at jericho are only 2000 years short of being old enough. I was not aware that there were buildings that old (I presumed newgrange et al. were about the oldest at 6000 years or so) nor was I aware until relatively recently that some of the larger predators became extinct such a short time ago - I don't think this is a ridiculous discussion at all, perhaps you would consider discussing this further rather than simply deleting? BananaFiend (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... come to think of it, I might add the supporting evidence for the species co-existence to the section as well (that is, if we re-add it). If you have better information though, I'll leave it out obviously. BananaFiend (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Phorusrhacids (terror-birds) some of whom looked more like the bird in the ad than the ratites, "only becoming extinct shortly before the arrival of man in North America" (form the article on wikipedia, this piece of information is sourced). Unless you know of some information not in the ads and not in the description of the film on wikipedia? BananaFiend (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Last note until a reply (or tomorrow ;), I agree that this is a misleading film, but subtly enough that it requires an explanation as to why it is misleading BananaFiend (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is your only objection to the species coexistence?
I used that as an example, and in any case you are missing my point completely. I was trying to say any "historical accuracy" in any entertainment film like this is utterly irrelevant. There is no need to mention whether or not the film is historically accurate because it is patently obvious that the film is simply a fantasy story, much like One Million Years B.C. was (which this film presumably is intended to pay homage to). The only time where it might be considered relevant to discuss the film's historical accuracy is if a specific claim to such an accuracy had been made by the filmmakers. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Scjessey. It's a fictional work, so it wouldn't be appropriate for us the "simple" editors to personally analyze everything historically wrong with the work, whether it's prehistoric or 18th century or contemporary. Look at 300 (film)#Historical accuracy for what I mentioned about citing historians that directly comment on the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh... I see your point that this is entertainment. I still disagree that this is fantasy or science fiction, but I agree with Erik - perhaps we should leave fact-finding and comparison with reality to experts who might not in the end find it worth bothering. That would lead to a section quite like the one in 300. It's simply not as ridiculous as 1,000,000 b.c or films that put people with dinosaurs though - perhaps I bridled a little at your suggestion that I was discussing something of use only to creationists :) BananaFiend (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am astonished that you are astonished, Scjessey... children will see this film (and still know about wikipedia), people who are ignorant about history will see this film. The film has a date as name, so I would say that the implicit pretension is of historicity (although of course the productors will never say it), not of lack of it... it is 10,000 BC, not 10,000 Before the Magical Aura or 4,000 After The Bomb. And for implied, the wikipedia forces us to say, for example in an article about Gandalf the Gray, that the article is about a fictional character. I can understand that you, from a cultivated point of view, state that it is obvious that the film is ficional, but it is not for a lot of people. So, I am ready to accept Erik's criticism (let us wait and find a scholar saying the obvious), but I do not understand yours... when a scholar publishes a critic about the lack of historical accurancy, I think we can quote it here. PS: Is there somebody who can make a final decisition about the matter? PS2: Is the name of this section in the discussion accurate? MoredanKantose (talk)
I think that while we all may not agree on how audiences will perceive 10,000 BC through a historical lens, we can agree that we should cite scholars who specifically analyze the film. MoredanKantose, I don't think we need a final decision, as we seem to have established general consensus on citing scholars' inevitable criticisms. In addition, the section heading for this discussion seems fine. Formatting and specific titling isn't a large concern for the talk page; just enough to make sure the discussions can be followed with ease. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Emmerich has indeed acknowledged the film is realistic to a point, but there is also a "fantastic element".[1] Do with that what you will. Alientraveller (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case we reach a consensus on this, I will begin to list some of the more obvious flaws with history that I noticed. Before I begin, the main 2 fantasy aspects are the Old Mother Character, and the subtle references to the God and his priests being from space (which would fix some of the other problems listed!).

Horse domestication - not till 2000-3000 bc, i believe, the saber-tooth tiger was twice the size of the largest specimen found, the killer-birds (forgot the actual names) were twice to three times the size of real life (and on the wrong continent), the use of mammoths in the desert, bow/arrow technology, sails, boats in general, building of the pyramids about 7500 years too early, the use of rope/pulleys/etc in the building of the pyramid, obvious metal smelting to create the cap of the pyramid and metal weapons before the bronze age, locks for the handcuffs, accurate map of Europe on the desk before cartography, other papers on the desk before writing and papyrus existed, possible silk production, use of the description 'Hunter' representing the constellation Orion many millenia before the Sumerians named and catalogued the constellations. Feel free to criticize this or add to it - obviously if the psuedo-Egyptian lords were from space it would solve the problem of technology out of place. Due to the lack of civilization around the building site, this explanation gains more credibility as I think about it. psy1123eu@yahoo.com 3-7-08
Regarding the villain who fancied himself a deity, I thought it was subtly suggested that he was from Atlantis, rather than an alien. At one point in the movie someone mentions that the gods arrived when their homeland was swallowed by the sea. Later, in the villain's palace, the lead female character sees a map with a large island (approximately the size of Ireland) near where Madeira is. And at the end, we get a glimpse of the villain's face, which shows that he is human. An Atlantian would still be a fantasy element, of course. -Eisnel (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The geography was a big problem, unless someone can solve it. They start off in high mountains, go straight to a jungle, then to a steppe-like terrain, then gradually to a sand desert. They follow a river downstream (based on the direction the ships were headed before the sails kicked in) to the site of the Pyramids. Ignoring milage, the only path I can think of would be from mountains in Turkey through Jordan/Syria area, towards the Nile... but the direction of the river doesnt make sense. And the mammoths still dont make sense in Africa.... ahh crap its just a fantasy!!! psy1123eu@yahoo.com 3-7-08

Three words MAMOTHS BUILDING PYRAMIDS. This is pure sci-fi.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think anyone was arguing that it was realistic, the original discussion is: "Is it useful to point out to people who may not otherwise know that this is fantasy, that while there are elements based on historical fact, it is almost certainly mostly false". I think that the only conclusion that is sensible is that we wait until someone with a reliable historical background chooses to say it, otherwise the answer is "no, it's not useful" because no-one feels it's fooling anybody (perhaps because of the mammoths building pyramids ;) BananaFiend (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But don't some primitive North American people believe that cave men shared the Earth with dinosaurs?86.138.14.83 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So far in Wikipedia, almost universally in movies and television series dealing with history or pre-history, for the benefit of the reader wanting to look behind the movie for information, detailed analysis outlining the presence or absence of historical fact in the fictional work is provided. See Elizabeth The Golden Age as an example. There is entirely no reason why this movie should be any exception.

A minor point, but the "use of the description 'Hunter' representing the constellation Orion many millenia before the Sumerians named and catalogued the constellations" may not necessarily be anachronistic. There is evidence from European cave paintings (at Chauvet IIRC, but I may not and I've temporarily mislaid the pdf print-out of the paper) that the constellation now called Taurus was identified with a bull several tens of thousands of years ago - one or more bull paintings include a representation of the Pleiades above the shoulder, and of the Hyades on the face sufficiently accurate that the latter can be correlated with actual stellar proper motions between then and now. Since Orion is an even more obvious asterism than Taurus, it is not unreasonable to assume that it too may have assumed its 'hunter' identity before the Sumerian systemisation of the constellations. [NB: the preceding unsigned para "So far . . . any exception" is not by me - really must get round to opening an account soon!]87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to avoid doing original research, while still pointing out the historical accuracies, by writing things like: "The movie depicts a pyramid being built 10000 years ago. There is no evidence that pyramids existed that long ago (cite suitable reference on early history of man (it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference saying that the first known building is XYZ))." In this way no original research is made. Existing data is only formatted in a convenient way for the reader. (Offtopic: I think it's sad that wikipedia is slowly turning into a bureaucracy. It wasn't the rules that made wikipedia what it is, it wasn't the meticulous references either. What made wikipedia what is is solely its knowledgeable editors (just my 2 cents).)--Avl (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No that's still OR since your putting two facts together Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that list at the bottom simply made me cringe. Unarguably, the writers of this film were NOT under the impression that the Giza pyramids were built 12,000 years ago by refugees from Atlantis using mammoths, and the fanciful anachronism was DELIBERATE. To point this out in the article as if it's some kind of glaring mistake is missing the point, to put it mildly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.59.92 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... if you weren't there to historically record what was and wasn't 3,000+ years ago, how can you say when and what was extinct and when and what was built? It's all just guess work, there is no science behind it. There is no historical evidence for men using nets back then, the same there's no historical evidence that anything was extinct back then to hunt. Just because we didn't find evidence doesn't mean it simply doesn't exist.

The newfound idea that dinosaurs had feathers comes from a drawn conclusion that a single bone from a raptor species had 4 depressions in it that looked like a place where feathers might have grown. A supposition is not a truth, just a guess. Colonel Marksman (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"The end credits appear to be written in Verdana font, which wasn't created until the late 20th century."

It's obvious the film is not meant to be 100% historically accurate, but how is the bit about the font in which the ending credits are written in even relevant to a "Historical Inaccuracies" section? Spartan198 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the inaccuracies section should stay. As crazy as it may seem, there are people out there who are gullable enough to believe that the pyramids were built Flinstones-style with mammoths, even though to you or I it is obviously false. As to my knowledge, mammoths were never even tamed by early man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If people are so gullible, why hasn't there ever been any historical accuracy arguments over films like the Conan movies, Lord of the Rings, Red Sonja, or the Clash of the Titans films (none of which have Historical Accuracy sections on their pages here)? Hell, with the extensive background that Robert E. Howard wrote for it, one could argue that the supposed existence of the Hyborian Age in earth's archeological past is much more convincing than 10,000 BC is. I feel you're underestimating the intelligence and ability of the typical viewer to distinguish between the real world and fantasy, 24.36.130.109. And nowhere in this movie is there made any claims of it being historically accurate. Spartan198 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Influences[edit]

The images I included illustrate a stylistic correlation between the two movies in terms of costumes and sets. They are not "purely decorative", but convey information that cannot otherwise be conveyed. See Wikipedia:NFC#Images, item 4 for the rationale behind this.

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, there are zero direct comparisons between 10,000 BC and the multiple caveman films listed in that article. Where is the correlation? Additionally, even if I am missing something, the content is rather sparse to warrant the significance of non-free images. Remember that there are numerous images and videos of this film online, so there needs to be a pretty specific usage of a non-free image here beyond a passing reference. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)



If you have ever read Graham Hancock's book "Fingerprints of the Gods" you will notice a huge influence on the movie. He believes the Pryamids were built in 10,000bc, Not the date that has been accepted by modern scholars. This theory ties in deeply with his belief that those early people were survivors of Atlantis and lived through "Noah's Flood" which covered the globe and has been cited in stories much older than the story of Noah. SP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.40.138 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned this. I found the following quote on the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Hancock_and_Bauvalpage: "In 2008, the film 10,000 BC became the first motion picture to represent the theories of Hancock and others about the Giza Plateau, showing in one clip, the supposed original Sphinx with a lions head, a possibility considered by Hancock. Nevertheless, Hancock himself is known to have helped the director in the making of the film. Before the film, the theory was presented on earlier documentary films about the origin of the Sphinx." - It wasn't sourced though. 74.61.22.248 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation dump[edit]

Some headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Language[edit]

What were the languages used in this film, other than English. I counted three, but I'm not sure if they are different languages and which languages they were. The towel-headed slave traders on horseback, was that reconstructed Akkadian/Sumerian or something (definitely not Arabic or Hebrew); the language of the pyramid-builders, I guess that would be reconstructed Ancient Egyptian? Finally, the language of Nakudu's tribe slash lingua franca of the alliance of tribes, which I have no idea. I couldn't find any information on Google about this myself. --Taktser 04:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some amateur training and experience with Proto-Indo-European and various Afro-Asiatic, among a few other ancient languages. I notices an assortment of what really do seem to be constructed languages: The Atlantean colonists' tongue (Proto-Indo-European? Or some Proto-Altaic?) and 3 or so Bantu-sounding languages among the "vaguely ancient West African peoples". All I could recognize of the PIE roots was the n- negation suffix. You'd think I'd be be able to recognize the pronouns or verbal conjugation, but to no avail. It even appeared some times (based on captioning) that the langauge had a a non-PIE, non-Altaic verbal conjugation, possibly involving subject-object endings. While this might remind the learned of Egyptian, I have my doubts it was some take on Egyptian... yet the presence of perhaps "gutteral" consonants might bespeak otherwise. The African languages sounded Bantu, though I don't know enough of the common synonymns to pick our particular words or roots.

I think they hired a conlanger. It's weird no one here has heard anything of it. This ties in with my comments about the movie's many accuracies. These languages bespeak to me of references to historic and prehistoric realities. Note the connection between the Kurgon theory for PIE and Atlantean fiction connecting them with IE's and Egypt. My guess is that it was PIE.

Epigraphist (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody find anything on this, get me involved, I'm interested. See my Talk page.

Epigraphist (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The languages were invented by dialect coach Brendan Gunn, see: http://www.movies.ie/movies/features/Interview__10000_BC babbage (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also tsonga language, tsonga is one of official languages in south Africa...........Charles Baloyi also knowm as Bobo played it Boiliwa (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative synopsis[edit]

Anyone considering alternative synopsis? Like this one:

The movie depicts a touching love story between a young Siberian hunter and his Finno-Ugric girlfriend. Born and raised in a prehistoric hunter-gather tribe, D'Leh lived a troubled youth where the very livelihood of his tribe was threatened by the declining population of mammoths. The ancient Siberians, whose vicious exploration of nature resulted in considerable deterioration of the environment, must look to alternative means of livelihood.

It was at this very moment that the Semitic people of the South, who recently mastered the art of horse riding, smelting and sailing, invaded Siberia and enslaved D'Leh's fellow tribesmen, including his girlfriend, a Finno-Ugric orphan adopted by the tribe. Brave D'Leh decided to follow the invaders, and rescue his beloved from the hands of the enemy. With blessing from the village seeress, D'Leh embarked on this perilous journey with his mentor Tic'Tic, his colleague Ka'Ren, and a young boy Baku, whose mother was killed during the attack.

The Siberians went through the bamboo jungles of China, where they fought off terror birds of South America. Unfortunately, Tic'Tic was injured while both Ka'Ren and Baku were captured by the Semites. D'Leh miraculously carried Tic'Tic all the way from China to East Africa, where he made a dangerous encounter with yet another American predator, the smilodon. This time, he rescued the great cat, and earned its friendship.

Their stay in East Africa was not futile. D'Leh made friends with the aboriginal Africans, found the trails left by his long lost father, and tasted a vegetable that eventually was lost to the Old World for millennia -- chili peppers! Having summoned an army made up by the aboriginals, D'Leh chased the Semites to the bank of Nile river. He traversed the desert and arrive at Lower Egypt, ruled by an Atlantean tyrant who posed as a Jewish god.

The truth was finally revealed. The Atlantean Jewish god, having lost the other two associates of the holy trinity, became mad and started building a bunch of pyramids, complete with golden Eyes of Providence, 3000 years before they should have existed. Employing Dravidian monks as his loyal servants and Semitic horse riders as his soldiers, he sought to enslave all people on earth... except the Sino-tibetans. He lived in luxury, having built a Hebrew tabernacle around himself. His intricate knowledge of Noah's Ark gave the tabernacle a rather innovative ship-like appearance from a different angle. Moreover, he was able to keep the mammoths alive in the hot climate, and in turn the mammoths agreed to provide much of the labor he needed.

But the tyranny was not going to last. For D'Leh had already infiltrated his ranks, and agitated the mammoths into a stampede. The slaves rebelled, and the Semitic army was no match for the combined force of white and black Americans... I mean, white and black people. In desperation, the Atlantean Jewish god threatened D'Leh with the life of his girlfriend. But D'Leh was having none of it, with almost superhuman strength, he hurled his spear nearly 300 meters and pierced the body of the Atlantean Jewish god with amazing accuracy. The reign of terror was coming to an end.

Unfortunately, the Finno-Ugric girlfriend was mortally wounded by a jealous Semite who sought to claim the white girl for himself (who wouldn't?). But despair not, for the village seeress, sensing her old age and imminent death, sent her spirit all the way to Egypt, and resurrected the girl, hence creating the Egyptian faith in bodily resurrection. The merry couple was now finally ready to go home with their fellow tribesmen. Nor need they worry about the vicious Semites or the superstitious Dravidians, for the Semites lost their advanced knowledge as quickly as they gained them, only to be picked up by other peoples thousands of years later, while the Dravidians retreated to the Indian Subcontinent, where they helped founding Hinduism with the Indo-Iranians.

As a gesture of appreciation, the aboriginal Africans gave D'Leh seeds of black beans and fava beans, and taught him the art of agriculture. D'Leh returned to Siberia with his new wife. Winter was finally coming to an end, likely the result of global warming. D'Leh and his wife planted the beans along the lakeshore, where it flourished despite the difference in climate. In the mean time, the tribe will have to survive on salted mammoth meat... 70.48.226.62 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, now I see the movie from another point of view. Meursault2004 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah, nice, but do we really need to make something nationalistic out of this cool movie? as much as there are resemblances to people and places of the modern world, I think it makes more sense to leave things undescribed and open to the mind, and i believe that is also what the director/writer intended... Spettro9 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Global warming in 10,000 BC? What, pray tell, is causing it? Methane gas from mammoth farts? Spartan198 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Dude, lighten up, it's a joke. 136.142.243.17 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

pun concerning the protagonist's name[edit]

Probably some of you coule be interested in the following issue: the german director Roland Emmerich named his protagonist D'Leh - an anagram of the german word "Held" which means "hero" in english. Regards Johannes --87.175.169.62 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Evolet = T(h)e love. Talking about NOR. Meursault2004 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Does the plot need a cleanup? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but first you need to stop reverting everyone else's contributions. You don't own this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.51.147 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting edits that don't belong in the article and I can't "own" the article, per here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hist. accuracy[edit]

Now, this is half OR, and half the fact that are god king here, as it stats in that "cast section" says he's atlanteean... take a guess where my point leads.--Jakezing (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mixed to negative reviews?[edit]

Thats what it says in the reception section, 9% out of 83 films? That is no way near negative to mixed, on the majority of wiki articles thats just plain negative. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Average shot duration[edit]

I noticed that the average shot duration is only about one second. Oddly, I have not found this in references yet.--Patrick (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to flesh out the article, so I don't know anything about this. Maybe the citations higher up on the talk page mention something? I'll see if there are any more citations that are available through my Google Alerts. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Geez, one shot per second? Madness. --DearPrudence (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy?[edit]

I agree that that section was very poorly written, and plagiarized, and I am not actually in favour of its wholesale inclusion, but it was not "original research". While it's not a good or reliable source, the exact same statement can be found here. And, indeed, the film's pseudo-historical basis is worth noting somewhere in the article. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely; feel free to re-add the information with the link attached. With no sourcing before, it seemed like original research. There are also some citations further up on the talk page that could be explored to talk about the historical premise of the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that the Historical Accuracy section is poorly done. I am an undergraduate-research college student of history and prehistory and I found that compared to such works as the original 10 000 BC with dinosaurs and such 19th century fantasy, this film to be be rather accurate in its depiction of the prehistoric eras. The accuracies outweight the inaccuracies. The horse thing I agree with. However, it is the height of ignorance, so to speak, to believe that any homo sapiens (or indeed any anthropod after homo habilis) lacked stone knives fashioned from obsidian or like material. What a crock of nonsense this is! When the iron-using Spanish Empire met with the stone-using Nahuatl Empire, they actually switched iron blades for obsidian ones for shaving on account of obsidian blades dulling slower and being sharper. And the matter isn't that they couldn't have been built but that they weren't.

What of the general nature of their mastadon hunting? Or the inclusion of ice-age era animals such as the moa and the sabertooth? Or the general accuracy of metropolis and village layouts and pyramid scaffolding? What of the general depictions of shamanism and stone-technology? I think that American society has used this film as a true scapegoat of their own gross ignorance of ancient lifestyles and enviroments by just declaring the whole thing to be "inaccurate" like some professor's 2-year-old.

While any and all fantasy elements can be appreciated as part of a human stylistic choice, this film had many accuracies which go unnoticed and insulted.

See my comments on language above.

"Worst article section ever." - The Comic Book Guy

Epigraphist (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A real divisive aspect of this movie, indeed. At least put views from both sides in there with some citations. Until then, I think it deserves the OR tag. - Jombage (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning this section, but it's been without sources for too long. Either it needs sources soon or it needs to be removed. Jombage (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Influences 2[edit]

The plot in this movie reminds me of Stargate. Does anyone knows any other proof besides the fact that Emmerich directed both movies? Meursault2004 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went to see the movie tonight and you couldnt be more right. If you omit the last 10 minutes of the movie and have the 'godish' character escape through some sort of off scene escape route instead of being killed you basically have the egyptian rebellion discussed in the stargate movie. The film was a complete rip off of that story arc , but still exciting, and it was emrichs idea so good for him. but this is wikipedia not a film critique. The influences though are entrenched in this movie Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently I've added the reference to Stargate. John Hyams (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Location?[edit]

Are we sure about the location being central Eurasia? I seem to recall at one point in the movie them saying they were going to follow the North Star to the place where the pyramids were being built. I was under the impression that the movie takes place in the high mountains of Africa, then traveled through the Congo then into modern day Sudan. Of course, this is my opinion and perspective based on what they said in the movie and the types of terrain and climates they moved through. Anyone care to discuss? Do we have anything that states for sure it took place in central Eurasia? JJ4sad6 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this too, and must admit it makes sense, but the appearance of D'Leh's tribe is not African, nor were Mammoths ever in Africa. What I'd assumed is that they'd overshot Egypt to the east and would therefore be approaching Giza from the south, which also explains the direction the river was flowing. Why they would have chosen this odd route is beyond me. I think it's a case of cramming too many elements into too short of a story. Eclipse1024 (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the starting point being in Africa, namely the Ethiopian highlands, is so much more consistent with the geography they travelled through. It would fit almost exactly and probably be the most historically accurate part of the entire movie. D'leh's tribe, appearing Eurasian would simply be the ancestors of the Amhara and Tigrinya who are Semitic, relatively light skinned and live in Ethiopia today. Some research: I just found out the article on the Tigray-Tigrinya people disagrees with me here and gives 2000 BC as when they may have arrived in Ethiopia. A more promising theory though. National Geographic's Genographic project traces people bearing the M1 haplogroup to have returned to East Africa (one of the arrows lead straight into Ethiopia) after migrating out to the Saudi Arabian peninsula. They would be there in the right time frame, but I have absolutely no idea if they would look Eurasian. Assuming that they were is much easier for me than considering Siberian hunters coming to Sudan then traveling back up the Nile to approach Giza from the South. Mammoths in the Ethiopian highlands would be much harder to explain, but this is a movie with Saber tooth tigers and carnivorous giant birds anyway.68.105.141.114 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I must agree. It seems odd to state here that the D'Leh's tribe is from the Andes. I would say that they would be located probably somewhere in the Caucus mountains. However, their journey seems to have led them in the Upper Nile, which means they would have traversed the Arabian Peninsula and crossed the Red Sea. Just a thought. Bootkinero (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to stargate[edit]

I have just deleted a reference to Stargate, because it said that Stargate 1994, was based on a book that came out in 1995. The statement was not verified, but if anyone can find this information it should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klutch3342 (talkcontribs) 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews vs. Reception[edit]

I grow weary of reviewers. I think so-called critics should stop bothering to tell people what to think, and let box-office sales figures do the talking instead. Many a movie, such as this one, ends up in the Rotten Tomatoes dumpster, yet does very well financially - often exceeding expectations. Yes, we all know Emmerich is a tool, yes we all know this movie is dripping with historical inaccuracies. So what? It's got a cave man fighting a mammoth. The kid in me thinks that just kicks ass and I'm glad I spent the $7.50. People need to stop nit-picking and over analyzing these things and just learn to enjoy it for what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.45.24 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Box offices sales have never been a gage of quality. People pay before they watch a film, but they know if the film is good only after watching it. And for the record, a lot of movies were commercial failure and became cult movies after (Apocalypse Now, Citizen Kane...), on the other hand, a lot of successful films are totally forgotten, nowadays. People don't need to stop nit-picking and stuff, People just need to stay entitled to their opinion, whatever the box office says. Moloeoloe) 18:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
It is useful to give information on both. Critics often dislike the big-budget blockbusters - but they may still be popular (or not). Though I disagree about the "people pay before they watch a film" comment, as word of mouth from those who have gone before will have an important effect. -- Beardo (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Under plot, at the end of the second paragraph it says "The slave lord tells D'Leh that if he cannot have her, then he cant fuck her. D'Leh kills him in revenge and fucks his daughter hard.". I haven't watched the movie but I'm sure the main character does not "fuck" his daughter. Could someone change this to the correct ending please. If it is the right ending then please put something more appropriate instead of "fuck"

InedibleSubstance (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting it now, because I'm pretty sure that that doesn't happen. If someone can prove me wrong, then revert it. The text before that edit says: " "The slave lord tells D'Leh that if he cannot have her, then no one will. D'Leh kills him in revenge." Viet|Pham (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HELOO[edit]

Hi, I just did a major expansion to the plot of the article, and was just wondering how you guys think of it. Trust me its right, event by event, so just comment here or on my page to what you think, and how I can improve it, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The plot section is too long and needs editing down. -- Beardo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I cut it by 41% by word count. Let me know if it's excessive...Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie involving people of colour[edit]

I saw this movie and found it great that so many people of mixed race or of diverse origins were involved in the movie. That's quite impressive.Domsta333 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to annoy a lot of people though. Many people seem far more interested in the 'historical innaccuracies' of Africans, Finnics & Europeans mixing in a fictional film.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Well could be because they relaize people of diffrent rcaes would not have been mixing like that and have most likely viewed each other as diffrent henc enemies,and would have prefered the movie to have at least had that bit of accuracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.110.116 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The map on the desk[edit]

As some mentioned before about the map on the desk. Not only was the map accurate of some nearby places. It was basically a modern map but had a weird island in the mediteranian. It was accurate of all of Africa, Europe, and it even showed South America in there. I just watched it tonight and I paused it on Blu Ray and looked. Most of the map was covered so it didn't show north america, but I think that's some intentional Atlantis reference. Also the sphinx was theorized by archeologists to originally have been a huge lion and the movie shows that. I was expecting this movie to be a prequel to the movie stargate until the pharoah's death then it turned out to just be some atlantis thing. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All we can do is speculate. Unfortunately, we can't speculate here on Wikipedia. We are supposed to use talk pages to discuss improvement of articles through reliable sources. It would be better to start this kind of discussion at IMDb or a similar place. Erik (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Award winning soundtrack?[edit]

I don't know much about the film, but apparently Thomas Wanker won an award for making the soundtrack? Robo37 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Terror Birds?[edit]

This is a very unscientific term and simply a nickname popularized by Walking with Beasts, much similarly to how Jurassic Park popularized the term "raptor" for Dromaeosaurids. Shouldn't they be called Phorusrhacids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "Terror Birds" is the general name termed by paleontologists for all the species of predatory 'giant' flightless birds, one such genus of which is Phorusarchids - there were many others.

Cultural Inaccuracies?[edit]

I find it annoying how people are only pointing out cultural inaccuracies. The movie is meant to present an advanced civilization far earlier than we know them to exist. Instead, point out the numerous paleontological inaccuracies, which are a much more important thing for the viewers to know are inaccurate. Smilodon is depicted as the size of a large bear and living in Africa, while woolly mammoths are much too big with herds dominated by a "lead bull" (like elephants, I think it is most likely that mammoth herds had a matriarchal social structure). And finally, Phorusrhacids living somewhere in the Old World, when they are only known from North and South America, and surviving up until 10,000 BC, when in reality they went extinct more than a million years before that. If you're going to focus on inaccuracies, focus on those. There is no fossil evidence that contradicts such advanced societies in that time, but the inaccuracies I listed above do contradict evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 10,000 BC (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Adam Smith (March 2008). "The Beastmaster". Empire. p. 80.