RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Frankly I dont see how they can justify the date...fine Cloth, Metal weapons, Horses, Pyrimids built by Tibetan overlords?
Then there was the incident with the Chocobos (big meat eating birds - youll know them when you see them).
Easy. It's 10,000 BID, (Before Invoked Devistation) It's a typo.
Yeah... apparently proto-Egyptians also had telescopes... Urgh!
I didn't go to see the movie looking for an accurate period piece (10,000 B.C., I mean how accurate can you REALLY get? I found niggling historical inaccuracies easy to forgive.). I went to see what looked like a really cool movie. I wasn't disappointed. Absolutely loved it. And the Chocobos? Nah, those are Terror Birds! ;)
Quest For Fire it certainly ain't. I'm not expecting an accurate and compelling cave man film but more a Conan-esque sword and sorcery film.
A movie about caveman clans battling each other savagely would indeed be cool and more creatures of the time period would have been cool. Bears were three times the size of grizzly bears today and Dire wolf pack would have been cool oh yeah and a Giant Sloth!
Hey cavemen, sharpen up your sticks
We'll drive that wooly mammoth right off the cliff
Now cavemen, gather round the flames
We'll eat the meat and divide up what remains
Rejoice
Caveman rejoice
Rejoice
Caveman rejoice
Hey cavemen, now that we are a team
We'll attack those other cavemen across the stream
We'll sneak up, ready for a fight
We'll steal their skins and weapons in the dead of night
Rejoice
Caveman rejoice
Rejoice
Dude... you're as bad as those Geiko cretins. We cavemen aren't like that anymore, and the stereotyping doesn't help anyone.
;-D
Once again members of the Paizo community are dismissing the possibility that we 'cavemen' had a viable and coherent culture. For shame!
Hey cavemen, how's that sitcom working out for you? It what? Oh... sorry to hear that.
|
|
Frankly I dont see how they can justify the date...fine Cloth, Metal weapons, Horses, Pyrimids built by Tibetan overlords?
They were Atlanteans. It was said in the movie that some were saying they came from the stars and others were saying that they came from an island that had sunk. Later, a map is shown on a table. I could clearly see a huge island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
As for it being historically accurate: Well, no, not if you're going by orthodox history. But this film was obviously going off of the "speculative history" books by Graham Hancock, Robert Bauvel [sp?] and others. They have names like Fingerprints of the Gods and The Orion Mystery. These books show why the authors believe that the pyramids and sphinx are much older than is generally thought. They also show why they believe that the knowledge to build such things came from an older, more advanced civilization.
So, the movie was historically accurate according to this brand of history. It just wasn't the history that we were taught in school.
Then there was the incident with the Chocobos (big meat eating birds - youll know them when you see them).
As mentioned above, those are called terror birds. They really existed.
Quest For Fire it certainly ain't. I'm not expecting an accurate and compelling cave man film but more a Conan-esque sword and sorcery film.
I was in the boat, too. My wife and I saw it the other night, and it wasn't anywhere near the action film I thought it would be. In fact, I'd probably classify it as much as a drama/thriller as I would an action/adventure film.
That said, it had some good moments, the pseudo-historic tie-ins were a lot of fun, and it was generally enjoyable. It reminded me of the 300, only not quite as good (or as over the top). Certainly not a waste of the $8, even if at times it was a bit cheesy. Okay, a lot cheesy. Heck:
|
well let's see 300 was not accurate, Gladiator was not accurate, Braveheart was not accurate... umm actually when was a movie ever really accurate?
Besides there are some out there that would argue that 10,000 BC was impossible as the universe is only 5,000 years old anyway.
So, based upon that, who is to say it was not accurate? No one alive today was there to say it wasn't :)
Besides, it just looks cool and that is why I go to movies.
|
|
Yeah... apparently proto-Egyptians also had telescopes... Urgh!
Just saw it. The movie rocked. More layers than an ogre. lol
But the telescope was not a telescope. It was a surveying device. The priests used it to measure angles between the stars and compared them to the scars on the girl's hand.
But yeah it looked like a telescope and if you hadn't said that I would have just glanced at it and thought it was too.
Ah, serves me right for not paying attention in science class then... Whatever the device was, I think it is safe to assume that it wasn't invented before the Common Era. However, a previous post mentioned that the movie was about Atlanteans... Knowing that bit of the movie's background--and that the movie wasn't meant to be an accurate portrayal of 10,000 BCE--I can forgive the antagonists' level of advancement.
EDIT: I still am of the viewpoint that the movie wasn't all that great. There were some decent parts, but some parts were incredibly cheesy. Overall, I'd say it was an average film.
I must agree, the chick with blue eyes (which looked to be colored contacts) was pretty good looking.
That would be Camilla Belle. Very cute. But even cuter with those striking blue eyes.
I must agree, the chick with blue eyes (which looked to be colored contacts) was pretty good looking.She needs to lay off the melange, man.
The spice must flow!
