MovieMusic.com Message Boards: 10,000 BC

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

10,000 BC (Page 1)

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

Author	Topic: 10,000 BC

Quill Standard Userer	While I'm still not sure if this film will be moderately entertaining or trash...one I thing I do know is that its scope and imagery cries out for David Arnold (or someone of that caliber.) What happened to the Emmerich-Arnold relationship? Kloser is is a piss-pore choice.
posted 03-01-2008 12:04 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	There are many possibilities. Maybe Arnold realized what crap Emmerich puts out. Or, maybe Arnold is busy scoring James Bond. It might be because Kloser has credit for screenwriter. The fact is, Kloser is Emmerich's new music buddy. Arnold has moved up the ladder. But I agree, Arnold can turn out something excellent for any old piece of cheese.
posted 03-01-2008 01:19 PM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	While I plan on seeing this just for some quality laughs (and some quality Camilla Belle), I would have actually bought a David Arnold score for this. After The Day After Tomorrow and AvP, Kloser won't be getting any attention from this score fan.
posted 03-01-2008 01:42 PM PT (US)

Bond1965 Standard Userer	I think Arnold and Emmerich had a falling out on THE PATRIOT. Once Arnold was dumped for John Williams, that was pretty much the end of the working relationship. James
posted 03-01-2008 03:44 PM PT (US)

BackToTheFutureFan Standard Userer	Why in the world would they ruin a good thing like that.
posted 03-01-2008 05:12 PM PT (US)

Lancelot Standard Userer	Oh, you know...somebody leaves the toilet seat up one too many times...
posted 03-01-2008 05:23 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	More like someone left a turd in the toilet without flushing.
posted 03-01-2008 05:48 PM PT (US)

Crono/Kyp Standard Userer	Arnold always does great stuff. His scores for "Stargate," "ID4," and "Godzilla" were all fantastic, action packed emotional scores. After "The Patriot" all of them went their own ways. I heard in an interview with Arnold that there's no bad blood between them and that he'd love to work with them again. but who knows in Hollywood. --Brian
posted 03-01-2008 06:26 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	This is a visionary new film, from the most visionary director of the past 8 years!
posted 03-02-2008 01:01 AM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	The most important historical document that cinema has left us. Thank you Roland.
posted 03-02-2008 12:25 PM PT (US)

BackToTheFutureFan Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by sean: This is a visionary new film, from the most visionary director of the past 8 years! Well, Stargate blew me away, then his work progressively got worse. ID4 was ok, Godzilla...eh, and The Day After Tomorrow was not a good film IMO. I always pull for Roland thought because he is very imaginative.
posted 03-02-2008 01:24 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	Agreed, Stargate is actually AMAZING, but other than that I'm not impressive with Emmerich's output.
posted 03-02-2008 07:52 PM PT (US)

Quill Standard Userer	I'm actually a fan of the over the top drama of the Patriot. I am embarrassed to say that I did not know Arnold was originally attached (and I truly enjoy Williams' score.) I think 10,000BC has the possibility of being an enjoyable piece of cheese. Since my wife is interested, I will let you know how it turns out. Obviously, I have low expectations for the music.
posted 03-03-2008 02:49 PM PT (US)

Horner Standard Userer	I've seen "10.000 BC" yesterday during a press screening and I think it is as bad as all the other Emmerich movies (except "The Patriot"; this one was not that bad). The movie is over the top, the dialogs are cheesy (spoken by Omar Sharif...?), and the logic got thrown over board after the first five seconds of the movie (did you know that the people living 10.000 BC, were speaking english? Unbelievable...). So, the visualls are stunning, the special effects well done, but the rest of the movie is crap and the story is clear from the very beginning on... A disappointment! [Message edited by Horner on 03-04-2008]
posted 03-04-2008 09:23 AM PT (US)

Demetris Christodoulides Standard Userer	And the score is poorly constructed and repetitive Zimmer wanna-be. Stay away.
posted 03-04-2008 10:30 AM PT (US)

Scorro Standard Userer	"10.000 BC" << the 1st time I saw the trailer for this I knew to dramatically lower expectations. When I read that this is from the guy who brought us "The Day After Tomorrow"... that just sealed the deal.
posted 03-04-2008 12:39 PM PT (US)

BackToTheFutureFan Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Horner: I've seen "10.000 BC" yesterday during a press screening and I think it is as bad as all the other Emmerich movies (except "The Patriot"; this one was not that bad). The movie is over the top, the dialogs are cheesy (spoken by Omar Sharif...?), and the logic got thrown over board after the first five seconds of the movie (did you know that the people living 10.000 BC, were speaking english? Unbelievable...). So, the visualls are stunning, the special effects well done, but the rest of the movie is crap and the story is clear from the very beginning on... A disappointment! [Message edited by Horner on 03-04-2008] They didn't speak english and civilization was not that advanced in 10,000 BC. Look at those structures and society. Man was not that advanced. So knowing this just from the trailers, all I expected from this film was a special effects extravaganza.
posted 03-04-2008 02:34 PM PT (US)

Jeron Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Horner: I've seen "10.000 BC" yesterday during a press screening and I think it is as bad as all the other Emmerich movies (except "The Patriot"; this one was not that bad). The movie is over the top, the dialogs are cheesy (spoken by Omar Sharif...?), and the logic got thrown over board after the first five seconds of the movie (did you know that the people living 10.000 BC, were speaking english? Unbelievable...). So, the visualls are stunning, the special effects well done, but the rest of the movie is crap and the story is clear from the very beginning on... A disappointment! Sounds like you went in expecting way too much. After seeing Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla, Tomorrow Never Dies... you should pretty much know what you're in for. I'm looking forward to this movie, all with the exception that David Arnold didn't score it.
posted 03-04-2008 04:46 PM PT (US)

Kris Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by BackToTheFutureFan: They didn't speak english and civilization was not that advanced in 10,000 BC. Look at those structures and society. Man was not that advanced. So knowing this just from the trailers, all I expected from this film was a special effects extravaganza. Same counts for Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, ... they didn't speak English in those days either.
posted 03-05-2008 01:06 AM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Kris: Same counts for Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, ... they didn't speak English in those days either. But I think it's a different story altogether when you have characters speaking English for the benfit of a mainstream audience, thus translating whatever language they might be speaking in, and then - in the same film - have another culture that does speak in a foreign language with subtitles. This crime is committed in 10,000 B.C..
posted 03-05-2008 10:25 AM PT (US)

Jeron Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by nuts_score: But I think it's a different story altogether when you have characters speaking English for the benfit of a mainstream audience, thus translating whatever language they might be speaking in, and then - in the same film - have another culture that does speak in a foreign language with subtitles. *This crime is committed in 10,000 B.C..* Andrew, I think it's an okay practice to have the protagonists speak in the language of the audience. It's all about story telling; none of this is bad. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be hyper-analyzed, it was simply meant to be understood and enjoyed at surface value. I don't want to see a Roland Emmerich movie where a majority of it utilizes subtitles. That's a different movie and a different filmmaker. Again... it's all about expectations.
posted 03-05-2008 10:36 AM PT (US)

scoreguy16 Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Jeron: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by nuts_score: [b]But I think it's a different story altogether when you have characters speaking English for the benfit of a mainstream audience, thus translating whatever language they might be speaking in, and then - in the same film - have another culture that does speak in a foreign language with subtitles. *This crime is committed in 10,000 B.C..*<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Andrew, I think it's an okay practice to have the protagonists speak in the language of the audience. It's all about story telling; none of this is bad. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be hyper-analyzed, it was simply meant to be understood and enjoyed at surface value. I don't want to see a Roland Emmerich movie where a majority of it utilizes subtitles. That's a different movie and a different filmmaker. Again... it's all about expectations.[/B] That's pretty much how I look at it. This movie isn't supposed to be artsy or taken seriously... at least I hope not... I am just judging from the previews though. And for some reason, the previews made me go "Apocalypto 2: A Different Time Period"? I don't know why... And I heard some of the score... Sounds like some what of a rip off of The Island and Blood Diamond, but without a main theme. Which made me go "man I wish Arnold scored this one..." As for what I thought of Emmerich's past films... Stargate was good, ID4 was fun, Godzilla was boring (I don't know how you could make a movie like that and manage to bore the audience, but kudos to them... except Arnold gets different kudos for writing a score that could kick the movie's arse). The Patriot was pretty decent and John Williams was a fairly appropriate choice for it. The Day After Tomorrow... when I saw it in theaters, I was so dissapointed with it. I was like "yes! Another big fun dumb action disaster movie!" when I saw the previews, and then I saw the movie and there was a bunch of idiot smart kids on the screen doing stupid things. "Oh, I cut my leg, I am feeling sick from it, but I am not going to tell anyone! TAHEET!" But when I saw in theaters, it dissapointed me so much that when I saw it again at home, I actually enjoyed it because I could really just rip into it. Plus it looks and sounds pretty nice. As for the score, there's 2 tracks that are alright. The main titles and The Presidents Speech. The rest sounds like unorganized noise to me.
posted 03-05-2008 11:25 AM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	But I'm referring to the fact the main protagonists speak English - which is a-okay by me - and the other fact that the other civilization they stumble upon speaks a different language, complete with subtitles. This choice leads to a gigantic hole in logic, and assumes that the main tribe has always spoken English, and thus this other "mysterious" language exists. Emmerich should have just made both tribes sreak in English, thus embracing the B-grade nature of his movie.
posted 03-05-2008 11:52 AM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	I think Emmerich instead should have focused on Independence Day 2. I still want to know what happened to all those aliens after their spaceships crashed. I mean, there had to have been survivors. The aliens could speak English, too, I would not mind.
posted 03-05-2008 12:08 PM PT (US)

Kirkinson Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by BackToTheFutureFan: They didn't speak english and civilization was not that advanced in 10,000 BC. Look at those structures and society. Man was not that advanced. So knowing this just from the trailers, all I expected from this film was a special effects extravaganza. Moreover, by 10000 B.C. most woolly mammoths had died out and the only surviving members were a couple of isolated island populations, and the only remaining sabre-toothed cats lived in North America, where this movie doesn't seem to take place. The big predatory bird seen in the trailer is even more problematic; if it's a gastornis it was extinct 40 million years prior to the film, and if it's a phorusrhacos it's displaced by 20 million years. It makes me sort of a shamed that I'm such a paleontology geek I'll go see this movie just to watch these animals running around on the screen, despite the voluminous criticisms I'll have for the very same reason. Kirk
posted 03-05-2008 12:25 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Stargate: I think Emmerich instead should have focused on Independence Day 2. I still want to know what happened to all those aliens after their spaceships crashed. I mean, there had to have been survivors. The aliens could speak English, too, I would not mind. LMAO!
posted 03-05-2008 01:19 PM PT (US)

Jeron Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by nuts_score: But I'm referring to the fact the main protagonists speak English - which is a-okay by me - and the other fact that the other civilization they stumble upon speaks a different language, complete with subtitles. This choice leads to a gigantic hole in logic, and assumes that the main tribe has always spoken English, and thus this other "mysterious" language exists. Emmerich should have just made both tribes sreak in English, thus embracing the B-grade nature of his movie. Thinkin' wayyyyyyy too much about this, Andrew. Devote intense thought to something more important. /End
posted 03-05-2008 05:17 PM PT (US)

Scott Standard Userer	Let's be very accurate here. Since modern English did not exist even back then (stay with me here), let's have them all speak Old English (and no, Shakespeare actually wrote in modern English). Oh, yeah, btw, did anyone notice that the moon always presents the same side, I just learned that in Astronohell. Yeah, oh and I understand now why that is, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion, or is it? Did we really land on the moon? Is there a moon? Did 10,000 BC actually exist? Questions, questions, questions... Scott
posted 03-05-2008 06:18 PM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Jeron: Thinkin' wayyyyyyy too much about this, Andrew. Devote intense thought to something more important. /End What's more important than a Roland Emmerich movie and a new score from screenwriter extraordinaire Harold Kloser (with additional music by Thomas Wanker)? Huh?
posted 03-05-2008 09:03 PM PT (US)

scoreguy16 Standard Userer	I thought Wanker got his name on the cover this time... Anyway, the probable reason for the main group of characters speaking English and the other people they're encountering not speaking English, is because the main group needs to be understood by the audience. Most people that see this kind of movie... probably can't read anyway. I am just going to say that flat out. And I am also guessing that the subtitled parts are pointless as well. They may say something along the lines of "Hello there, how are you on this fine day/night sir. Yes I realize we filmed this during a bright day and you can see the sun reflecting off of people and they're all squinting but we tweaked the film to make it look like night, but you can't read this anyway." That's just a guess at some of the dialogue from this "film". So to recap, the main group may not have spoken english back then, but they do now, the other groups, they speak made up languages that make no sense anyway.
posted 03-06-2008 11:52 AM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	I think its halarious that people are actually taking this film seriously enough to make debates about it. Especially one such as this one. I mean come on! Why did'nt anyone say anything about Fred Flinstone speaking english! Because it didn't matter! No where in the trailers is there a hint that this film is an historical bio pic. At no time did I feel like I'm about to watch a Passion of the Christ or Apoclypto which required it historical accuracy. This a Sci-Fi Adventure Film Written by a people known for Sci-Fi Adventure Films. Don't get lost in the translation! Scoreguy16 is right, I beleive the target audience of this film are'nt the type to watch subtitled movies, and the subtitles that we do get are probably there just for a visual appeal and are filled with non-sense that don't reveal anything about the plot, that the speakers are'nt already acting out. As for Harald Kloser, I think he is a very lucky guy, and he is appropriatly taking the opportunities that are putting him the spot lights. Underneath he's essentially a Nobody who has a Somebody as a best friend, allowing him to score big budget block buster films. You can't blame him!
posted 03-06-2008 08:07 PM PT (US)

rkeaveney Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Jeron: I don't want to see a Roland Emmerich movie where a majority of it utilizes subtitles. Because people who see these movies don't read very well to begin with!
posted 03-07-2008 10:11 AM PT (US)

Al Standard Userer	Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto were historically accurate??
posted 03-07-2008 10:22 AM PT (US)

scoreguy16 Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Al: Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto were historically accurate?? They sure were..... they sure were... See, what many people don't realize, is that Jesus saw things with a green filter placed over his lens... his lens that he viewed life with. As for Apocalypto, there absolutely were people that followed other people that made music by going "BAH!!!!" while playing their little drums. It says so in books. But all seriousness and history lessons aside, I think it's important for people not to take things to seriously, especially a movie like this one.
posted 03-07-2008 12:07 PM PT (US)

Justin Standard Userer	HAHAHAH! Classic response Clayton
posted 03-07-2008 02:46 PM PT (US)

Jeron Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by scoreguy16: They sure were..... they sure were... See, what many people don't realize, is that Jesus saw things with a green filter placed over his lens... his lens that he viewed life with. As for Apocalypto, there absolutely were people that followed other people that made music by going "BAH!!!!" while playing their little drums. It says so in books. But all seriousness and history lessons aside, I think it's important for people not to take things to seriously, especially a movie like this one. head explodes But, sure. Yeah. Basically this film is probably no less believable or ridiculous than ID4. So what?
posted 03-07-2008 03:38 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by TimT: At no time did I feel like I'm about to watch a Passion of the Christ or Apoclypto which required it historical accuracy. LMAO!!! That's hilarious.
posted 03-07-2008 05:12 PM PT (US)

TimT Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Al: Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto were historically accurate?? Thats what it was going for, what it achieved I don't know.
posted 03-07-2008 07:11 PM PT (US)

Al Standard Userer	Perhaps even more accurate is that you refer to Mel Gibson as an "it."
posted 03-07-2008 09:40 PM PT (US)

Scorro Standard Userer	An 8% approval rating, 1% more than "The Hottie & the Nottie" http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10000_bc/
posted 03-07-2008 10:09 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB