New 10,000 B.C. Trailer

[scrimshaw1803]

I recall the first trailer and seeing the scene with the lights going dark across a continent and being amazed. Then I saw the taglines from the creators of Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow and being disappointed.

This is like giving my 4 year old daughter millions of dollars to tell a story. Although I guess she would be targeting the same level of audience intellect that ID4 aimed at.

I guess it does not matter since 2 hours later most people nowadays forget what they even watched in our throwaway consumer society.

[Mic_Ma]

I really like the idea of a prehistoric setting but this just looks incredibly dull and disappointing. Good effects though.

[Artbot]

Hmmm, all references say the pyramids are just 4 or 5 thousand years old. And what are all those mastodons & sabre-tooth tigers doing in the desert? Seems like they're playing pretty loose with the timeline here. But it's Emmerich, so whadaya want? At least they aren't dinosaurs.

[robcat2075]

"Lost in time" it said... does the protagonist do some sort of time travel? Is that the device that gets us there, maybe?

[Breinmeester]

This film has got to be a joke... When is it coming out? April 1st?

[Swizzle]

I bet there's a really good reason there's no speech in these trailers.

[paintbox]

Cool. I like this. Maybe because it doesn't have a plot. Or maybe because there isn't any talking. I dunno.

The FX are pretty good I thought.

[Gallopingelephants]

As someone who worked on this production, l can say that it was an neverending abomination for us, but we are heartened by the mainly positive feedback about the cg.
lm curious to see if it makes lots of money, which if so l will drnk a few beers,hold my hands up and admit defeat in the hope we'll soon see the last of such unstoppable mcdonalds style movie making.

[jewalker]

This movie doesn't claim to be historically accurate. It is just a fun, silly action adventure. But then again I really liked Indepence Day which I thought was a fun, silly action adventure. I must be the level of intellect that they and scrimshaw's 4 year old daughter are targeting.

[bobzilla]

It looks like "300" meets "Walking with Beasts." They REALLY just threw accuracy out the window. And I thought "One Million Years B.C." was inaccurate!

Kind of tired of "epic" movies. Need new trailer music, too. When my friend and I go to the movies, we can mime almost the entire trailer for a trailer we've never seen. Are they all the same for these types of movies?

I guess the anouncer guy on the Geico commercials spoiled it for me ("In a world where we were totally under water...")

[chow-mein]

Is it just my imagination, or do the mammoth stampede sequence looked amazingly similar to PJ's Kong Brontosaurus stampede?

[Hordak]

Another fx movie.

I read an article in 3dWorld where a guy talked about the "invisible" effects and refered to Interview with a vampire, where the girls hair grows out (Can't remember who he was or the excact article) But I miss those kind of effects, where you don't see that they're effects.

It keeps focus on the story... Like you shouldn't be able to tell when an actor is acting( Get it into your head Keanu!)

Now I love Great effects, but they have to have a purpose.
These kind of movies only do the effects to take focus away from bad storytelling.

Worst part is that most of the people bitching about it, will end up paying to see it anyway.
(Renting it on a cloudy sunday or being lured by an atractive woman who wants to see it, cause she wants relate to you.)

[SalvadorRuizJr]

They spoke english at that time? Then again, I don't know if I want to be reading the entire movie.

[Squash&Strech]

it should be a fun summer flick

[Michael5188]

Boy, it does mix a lot of time periods, but I still think it looks like a fun film. I love how everything looks.

[CHRiTTeR]

If they are going to be inaccurate and stuff, thats ok with me, but then pls be smart enough to not name it like its a historical movie about 1 period. :rolleyes:

[colkai]

If they are going to be inaccurate and stuff, thats ok with me, but then pls be smart enough to not name it like its a historical movie about 1 period. :rolleyes:

Ahem...
2001 anyone - can't exactly call that an accurate description of the year now can we folks? :twisted:

[Hordak]

Ahem...
2001 anyone - can't exactly call that an accurate description of the year now can we folks? :twisted:

You'll never be able to with movies set in the future.

There's no documentation of what will happen, but there is of what has happend.

This should be a straight to dvd release.

Hollywood is 98% money and 2% art.... And movies is an art form!

Be critical!

[Pyke]

Looks very similar to Apocolypto....which I really enjoyed.
I loved ID4 and Stargate aswell tho (Day After kinda dropped the ball a little)-so ill be in line. ;)

[playmesumch00ns]

Another fx movie.

I read an article in 3dWorld where a guy talked about the "invisible" effects and refered to Interview with a vampire, where the girls hair grows out (Can't remember who he was or the excact article) But I miss those kind of effects, where you don't see that they're effects.


OK, so let me get this straight. You want to see more invisible effects?


Now I love Great effects, but they have to have a purpose.
These kind of movies only do the effects to take focus away from bad storytelling.

Worst part is that most of the people bitching about it, will end up paying to see it anyway.
(Renting it on a cloudy sunday or being lured by an atractive woman who wants to see it, cause she wants relate to you.)

Hollywood's always made terrible movies. I'd much rather they made terrible effects blockbusters that keep me in beer money than terrible westerns with little or no CG.

[Hordak]

OK, so let me get this straight. You want to see more invisible effects?


No not Invisible effects, but effects that doesn't take focus away from the story. The effects you don't really think about, but are as much a part of the movie like everything else.

When I saw Lord of the rings FOTR the first time and the Balrog appeared I didn't think "WOW! NICE CG!" (Though it is VERY nice) I just thought "GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!"

Same With Gollum, I didn't think about how well made he was, I was just following the story.

When I saw Transformers I kept thinking "WOW THOSE ARE SOME CRAZY FX! BUT WHAT A CRAPPY MOVIE!"

No matter what part of storytelling you like, the story is the most important and the tools to tell it, should help to better visualize that story and not replace parts of it.. Cause then it's a bad story.

[NicolasJordan]

Looks like something interesting for a change.:)

[eyesonlybob]

When I saw Transformers I kept thinking "WOW THOSE ARE SOME CRAZY FX! BUT WHAT A CRAPPY MOVIE!"


WOW, you're officially the first person I have hear complain about Transformers. I personally thought the movie combined great fx and great story. Hell, my family AND girlfriend enjoyed it!

As for 10,000BC, everyone seems to be complaining about the story and accuracy. But everyone here is also interested in cg and I have no doubt that everyone will see it anyway. I'll be there, and surprisingly, so will my gf.

whats wrong with a movie impressing you with cg?

[Pentagramma]

I´m definitely intrigued by this film. I thought ID4 and Stargate were fun films, and this one could be too.

:thumbsup:

[Howitzer]

It's all about makin money. This film will make lots and lots of money.

Want better movies? Don't pay for crappy ones.

[robcat2075]

There are arguments for the pyramids being much older than commonly thought:

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/egypt/giza.html

but not widely accepted:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html

[bigbad]

There are arguments for the pyramids being much older than commonly thought:

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/egypt/giza.html

but not widely accepted:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html

Maybe they where going for the movie title "5000-7000 B.C." but it just sounded stupid.

10 000 B.C. a nice round figure.

Like the movie "300". Maybe they where 339 people.

[dneg]

There's an awful lot of people on this thread condemning this film entirely on the basis of a couple of short trailers.

Like all the shops who were part of the 10,000 BC roller coaster, we found this one to be a hard slog. However, we were all very heartened to see the trailers because, in spite of everything, the movie looks like it's going to be a good laugh. It's not meant to be a grim art-house dissection of paleolithic life (rent Quest For Fire if you want that) it's the essence of a big-budget, high-concept Hollywood movie, made for the purpose of entertaiment.

If you're still holding out for a grim, brutal, art-house film experience, then you'll just have to wait until someone releases a "making the VFX of 10,000 BC" documentary.

In any case, as all those who worked on the show know, the real questions about 10,000 BC are "could mammoths gallop?" and "why is the lithe and slender sabre tooth the size of a Jetta?"

[Pyke]

"why is the lithe and slender sabre tooth the size of a Jetta?"

Or the real question....why NOT? ;)

Effects look amazing! Esspecially the fur on the mamoths, and the camera work (matchmoving stuff). Although after the work you guys did on Cloverfield's matchmoving, this must have been a walk in the park! ;)

[dneg]

Or the real question....why NOT? ;)

Effects look amazing! Esspecially the fur on the mamoths, and the camera work (matchmoving stuff). Although after the work you guys did on Cloverfield's matchmoving, this must have been a walk in the park! ;)

The praise for the mammoths goes to MPC who did all of that work - they do look really quite spectacular.

Dneg's team did the sabre tooth tiger and the terror birds (giant evil meat-eating turkeys at the head of the trailer).

The thing with matchmoving is that you know when you've got it right - it's an absolute yes/no binary kind of thing. When it comes to the recreation of prehistoric beasts you quickly discover that everyone has an opinion as to what it should look like :-)

[switchblade327]

Hollywood's always made terrible movies. I'd much rather they made terrible effects blockbusters that keep me in beer money than terrible westerns with little or no CG.

Totally agreed. I'm sure the ID4 crowd is really excited to see hot, english-speaking white people fight dinosaurs. At least it's a genre of schlock that keeps our kind employed! I just wish if they were going to make such a chronologically confused movie, they'd push it to point where there were no uncertain terms about it.

WOW, you're officially the first person I have hear complain about Transformers. I personally thought the movie combined great fx and great story. Hell, my family AND girlfriend enjoyed it!


Don't read CGtalk (or the internet) much, do you? :P

[beaker]

No not Invisible effects, but effects that doesn't take focus away from the story. The effects you don't really think about, but are as much a part of the movie like everything else.There are 5-10 invisible effects movies released every week. Probably showing at your local art house. Go check them out.

No matter what part of storytelling you like, the story is the most important and the tools to tell it, should help to better visualize that story and not replace parts of it.. Cause then it's a bad story.Sometimes people just want to turn their brain off and have fun.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.