10.000 B.C.

Post Reply New Topic

Who watched the film? What did you think?

I frankly was a bit disappointed. I was looking forward to it.

The posters rocked, the trailer rocked, the film itself...not so much. I'm not even bothering about the historical inaccuracies (as I can differentiate a documentary from a film, which some people seem incapable of doing. ) but I think the plot was sorely lacking. It was way too cliched and there were a bit too many plot holes to forgive.

Haven't seen it yet, but I think that's usually the case with caveman movies. I haven't seen "Quest for Fire" either, but something about caveman times just doesn't translate well into film. The first "Clan of the Cave Bear" book was good, but I heard the movie stunk.

I do still plan on seeing 10,000 though.

My husband and 2 sons when, my 10 years old really enjoyed it - my 14 year old, husband were disappointed, bored...

As I posted in another thread, I gave it a 6/10. It was alright. I can't say I had high hopes going in, so I wasn't disappointed.

Just the historical inaccuracies in the trailer put me off. Yes, it's fiction, but why call it 10,000 BC if it isn't?

My 16 year old brother enjoyed it...mostly because he's more into fight scenes than plot or anything else.

I thought the trailer looked terrible, hah. I'm not above a mindless action flick but I just wasn't digging the effects. Plus, it's a movie with a character named Tick-Tick. Come on...

Plus, Roland Emmerich directed it, so I knew it couldn't be good....

10,000 BC is a Caveman movie? they're off by a few millenia...

I hate the fact there are mastodons in it. The last died 12000 years ago on a remote island/peninsula north of alaska.

I felt exactly the same way on seeing the trailer. It completely put me off. I just don't understand what is so difficult about a bit of historical veracity.
The trouble is that it's not just decoration, it totally changes dynamics. Also the architecture supposedly existing at that epoch... ludicrous. They were only just inventing low but permanent (mud/clay and branch/reed) rectangular single-roomed structures, and perhaps beginning to think about joining them together to create more complex buildings, in 10,000 BC.

Why label the film 10,000 BC? This period never existed.

To tell you the truth, I suspect that fairly advanced building techniques go back farther than we think. Maybe not that far though. The thing is, the world is so large and the materials that would be used will prevent us from ever finding everything.

I dont just mean buildings. Things like boats too.

The oldest known permanent, as opposed to temporary (structures used in pre-agricultural, nomadic existence), buildings are those which go back to about 10,000 BC, and they were very simple and low structures, with, from 9,000 BC onwards, evidence of rooftop paths for passing between "rooms"/units once they had the idea of constructing them against each other rather than separately.

But it is true that other buildings might have existed constructed with perishable materials, of a different nature.

I just tend to think that if the oldest permanent buildings that have been found are so rudimentary/basic/simple, it is unlikely that more sophisticated models existed before. However i would love to hear about any serious proof/evidence of more impressive buildings by/before 9,000 BC.

Best I could do for you. The first doesnt have multi-room houses, as you said, but I would expect that to be uncommon in environments that were not cold and had plenty of space.

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/200 ... y24452.asp


Purportedly the oldest city

http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~klyve/tr ... index.html

This isnt that old, but its purely stone age. There is mention of it being build with the rubble of an older settlement. While the houses were one room dwellings, they were definitely linked. I find it fascinating.

http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/article ... rticle.htm

I'm trying to find one i had before. it was village in south America. I think it was 12000 years back.

http://www.irpedia.com/featured/detail. ... _id=335335

Multi-room too.

And, just for fun, cause I trust it less than Wikipedia...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Britain- ... 7597.shtml

But it doesnt address how they crossed the English Channel.

Thank you. The buildings in Iran were the ones that I knew about, along with something else impressive from around 8,500- 9,000 BC on the border with Turkey. Both of them showing evidence apparently of the earliest worship of deities, represented by bulls horns and "breasts", with tusks/horns buried in them.

Jericho, although stone-walled with multi-roomed, two-storeyed structures etc; the first real city as they say, was only built in ( around) 8,500-8,000 BC. by which time neolithic culture had already been going for 2,000 years.
So nothing like cities or multi-room structures as early as 10,000 BC, just the "brush huts" found in Israel.

This thread is actually turning into something interesting.

It would be cool if some channel such as the History Channel or Discovery aired a documentary on 10000 BC and its inaccuracies.

If you mean Derinkuru and the other underground cities, i knew about that but was thinking it wasnt that old.

I did some more googling.

This indicates that the underground cities may have been started 11,500 years ago.

http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magaz ... urkey.html