10,000 B.C. - Too Many Problems to Name
March 6th, 2008
By Erik Helin
I enjoy a good piece of fiction as much as the next guy. That fiction can be historical, ahistorical, erotic, science fiction, or whatever else you can think of. But, when ahistorical fiction is framed in a historical context, I begin to have issues.
10,000 B.C., the new Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) vehicle, is plagued with absurdity, starting and ending with its name.
Surprisingly, Emmerich is German, which is weird, because many of his films wage pro-Americanism on the global screen. The date in the title is 10,000 BC. BC, or Before Christ, is a term developed to denote the years of the Christian Era. It was adopted in Western Europe in the 8th Century CE. CE? Oh, right. CE is the “Common Era,” a politically correct term that is preferably used in our Common Era. See, using B.C. and A.D. is considered offensive to those that don’t follow Christianity (which happens to be billions of people worldwide). Using B.C. is presumptuous and downright wrong (I will concede that 10,000 BCE isn’t catchy, however).
In 10,000 BCE there weren’t cities and civilizations like in the movie. In fact, agriculture was just being attempted for the first time. Most of the world’s population lived in small, nomadic hunting tribes following their food. They weren’t building pyramids just yet.
The worst part of all is the fact that they’re speaking English in the movie. The English language probably didn’t develop until around 10,500 years later. I know this seems nitpicky, but let’s be realistic. At least make up a language or get creative like in Apocalypto. What’s even worse about this is the fact that the main characters (who are from California and New York, respectively) speak with a British accent! I think it’s funny that in America we see any dialect not American as a foreign language. It could be aliens, animals, or prehistoric man; as long as they have a British accent they must be foreign.
This movie is obviously supposed to be taken with a grain of salt (and a gun to the head). But let not shit ourselves. If anyone sees this movie and believes any of it, including the fact that dinosaurs were around in 10,000 BCE, we’ve got bigger problems on our hands. And the sad truth is, the lowest common denominator that sees this movie, may find some truth in it.
You’re all sick.
Comments & Discussion
Wait, so the English Language was invented in 5000 CE.
Well, when modern English developed is actually up to some debate, but some historians link its roots to Germanic invasions in Eastern England around the 4th-5th Century CE. The earliest roots to a European language (or mother language) is thought to exist in Indo-European tribes at around 7,000 BCE. But this would have been the most basic forms of what we see as European languages today. To read up more on languages check out Bill Bryson’s The Mother Tongue, it’s a really cool book.
And yes, the 15,000 years later was a typo. Should’ve been 10,500. Thanks for pointing it out.
I was just wondering if you would clarify what you meant by, “Using B.C. is presumptuous and downright wrong…”
It’s presumptuous because it presumes that everyone follows Christ. Personally, I’m not that offended by it, but I know there are a lot of people, mainly atheists, who are.
Ummm. They didn’t make up a language for Apocalypto. It was about Mayans so they used the mayan language. Considering we have no idea what language was spoken in 10000 BCE (if any) using English was fine. You shouldn’t make up some language.
Now there are some real problems though, but most of these are actually answered by the film, because the whole point of the film is that these people are all facing what seems to be the lost advanced civilazation known modernly as Atlantis. Or some kind of story like that. So essentially, this is just another Atlantis story.
it is actually dubbed…I was thinking that the sound was off when I saw it…but it’s not…their mouths move and sound comes out…but the english doesn’t match up with the movement of their lips
So I wonder what day it is today, maybe Sixthday, Sixthmonth 21, 2008 CE? Or if you don’t have something up your ass, it’s Saturday, June 21, 2008 AD.
Just for the record, I’m an atheist and I’m not even slightly bothered by the fact that this movie is called “10,000 B.C.” I am opposed to the use of “B.C.” and “A.D.” in academic contexts, but this is a Hollywood blockbuster; if they called it “10,000 B.C.E.”, most of the audience wouldn’t even know what they were talking about.
I think there are a lot of things much more worth getting upset about than the title of this movie. I recently saw a state representative quoted as saying he would vote against a Muslim group using a civic center because they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. THAT’s religious oppression. The title of this movie is trivial.
Mr. Helin, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
PS> WTF are you like 16?
Thanks Alex for the comment on B.C. vs. B.C.E. Also, thanks to JC. And to Henlin, the “dinosaurs” in the movie are clearly not dinosaurs nor are they implied to be. They may have evolved from dinosaurs just like alligators or crocodiles have, which by the way Mr. Henlin, in case you didn’t know, still exist today. As for the language…What language do you expect a movie to be spoken in that was set 12,008 years ago? Should it be in Hindi? Chinese? Japanese? A made up language that has no historical precedence? or English because that is the language of the intended audience? More people will be more apt to watch this film because they can do just that, “watch” not read the movie! Next time you right a review do some research or at least finish high school!
I totally loved watching 10,000 BC I wished they didn’t cut out all the scenes!