Talk:10,000 BC (film)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 10,000 BC (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Revising the synopsis
Can anyone write a more respectable synopsis using the Hollywood Reporter and BusinessWire sources? The following are plot details, based on these articles:
- Strait's character is a member of a mammoth-hunting tribe.
- Strait's character must save his "dying tribe" by going through unknown lands.
- Belle's character is the love interest of Strait's character.
- Strait's character leads an army across a desert.
- A lost civilization is uncovered.
- A warlord is in possession of Belle's character.
There seems to be ambiguity about whether Strait's character is on the journey to save his tribe or his love, and how there's a connection between the two, if any at all. --Erik 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Dinosaurs
Any dinosaurs gonna be included —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.99.40 (talk • contribs) 03:40, September 1, 2006 (UTC)
- It's possible. It depends on what reports of the plot mean by "prehistoric predators" besides saber-toothed tigers. --Erik 13:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
BC
Why does this article use BC instead of BCE? This film has nothing to do with "chris*ianity" so why are we using the archaic, offensive, BS term "BC" for this film? I am appalled that people in this day and age still use these terms. I hope they don't really release this film with the "BC" term...anyway...unless someone gives a decent answer I'm re-entering my changes. 142.176.114.191 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because that is the official title of the film. Please don't insert your POV edits into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sir, "BC" itself is POV. How can Wikipedia support chris**anity like this? Before christ? FUCK CHRIST. This is the common era, people. Based on common people, and based on the birth of a mythological creature no one cares about. Oh, and by the way, the OFFICIAL TITLE of this film is really "10,000 BCE"! 142.176.114.191 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the official title is 10,000 BCE, feel free to share a source. All the ones in the articles have called the film 10,000 BC. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- But, sir, BC is not acceptable in today's age. Don't you agree? Using BC is against Wikipedia's policy. 142.176.114.191 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the official title is 10,000 BCE, feel free to share a source. All the ones in the articles have called the film 10,000 BC. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a film title. It's not an actual date reference. Wikipedia's policies have nothing to do with this. It's no reason to alter a film title. They're probably emulating One Million Years B.C. in that regard. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia's policy does seem to allow BC and AD. Why is that? We should do a reform. I hate this "christian" stuff. 142.176.114.191 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a film title. It's not an actual date reference. Wikipedia's policies have nothing to do with this. It's no reason to alter a film title. They're probably emulating One Million Years B.C. in that regard. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do what you want, long as the film title remains unaltered. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The release date has changed again.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=10000bc.htm
March 7th, 2008 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.42.13 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
- Do you know of a source explaining why the film's been delayed? I haven't been able to find any news sources that discuss this postponement. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)