Talk:10,000 BC (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10,000 BC (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): New Zealand cinema task force

Archives

August 2006 to March 2007

Contents 1 Just like Stargate! 2 Citations for use 3 Requested move 4 Lack of accuracy should be mentioned. 4.1 Lack of accuracy 2 5 Influences 6 Citation dump 7 Language 8 Alternative synopsis 9 pun concerning the protagonist's name 10 Cleanup 11 Hist. accuracy 12 Mixed to negative reviews? 13 Average shot duration 14 Historical inaccuracy? 15 Influences 2

[edit] Just like Stargate!

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)

[edit] Citations for use

• Shawn Adler. "Emmerich Heads Back In Time For ‘10000 B.C.’", MTV, 2007-06-29. 

Cliff Curtis in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation now implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is Warner Bros. Spearing 10,000 B.C. Months Before It Opens? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Lack of accuracy should be mentioned.

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 (talk • contrib) - 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 (talk • contrib) - 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 (talk • contrib) - 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contrib) - 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)

[edit] Lack of accuracy 2

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 (talk • contrib) - 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 (talk • contrib) - 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)

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)

[edit] Influences

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 (talk • contrib) - 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation dump

• How I told Brad Pitt to mind his language
• WonderCon Video Interview: Roland Emmerich on 10,000 B.C. and 2012!
• ‘10,000 B.C.’ busts a spring on anthropological alarm clock
• Stunning Star Reveals Freezing Ordeal On Set Of Caveman Epic
• Miniatures master cuts dramatic backdrops down to size for '10,000 BC'
• Director Finds Independence On '10,000 BC'
• Getting It Strait About Steve: The 10,000 BC Steve Strait Interview
• Interview : Camilla Belle & Steven Strait
• Prehistoric movies frozen in time
• Action man
• '10,000 BC' invades Europe

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

• 10,000 BC: To Furtility and Beyond
• 10,000 B.C. Part Fantasy, Fact
• 10,000 B.C. Shares Stargate Vibe
• 10,000 Stars Got Shaggy

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language

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)

[edit] Alternative synopsis

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 make 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 was going to be lost to the old world for thousands of years -- 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 excited the mammoths enough to create 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)

[edit] pun concerning the protagonist's name

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)

[edit] Cleanup

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)

[edit] Hist. accuracy

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)

[edit] Mixed to negative reviews?

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)

[edit] Average shot duration

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 (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, one shot per second? Madness. --DearPrudence (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical inaccuracy?

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 (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influences 2

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)