Jump to content

Talk:One Million Years B.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trivialities

[edit]

“The film uses two live creatures an Iguana and a Tarantula”. If the warthog hunted in the beginning isn’t real, it’s the best stop-motion I’ve ever seen. (Obviously the dead warthog is a model.) There’s also a grashopper or simila being eaten by the tarantula. … In fact, there seems to be a goat, too. I think I’ll just suggest this ought to say that it uses a mixture of real creatures and stop-motion. :-) -Ahruman 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing, that the cave-women were wearing make-up & had their hair done up. Not to mention that the humans & dinosaurs were co-existing. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's even more amazing is Raquel's gold bikini bottom she's wearing under her fuzzy britches - seen when she falls flat on her back. Who knew cavemen had such modesty or were subject to the Hays Code. Fanx (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Loana who wins the cavewoman fight with Nupondi, finally pinning her with a giant tusk/claw. However Loana does not kill Nupondi with a rock despite the rest of the tribe urging her too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.3.241 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an Allosaurus, or a Ceratosaurus?

[edit]

The plot says that two Allosaurs attack a sauropod, one is killed in the ensuing fight, and one survives. Next, it says that a Ceratosaurus enters the fray, and kills the Allosaurus, which would logically leave only the Ceratosaurus standing. The rest of the wording says that it is an Allosaurus (not a Ceratosaurus) that is seen throughout the rest of the film. Is this a movie glitch, or has someone just screwed up entering the plot? —67.236.172.221 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anachronisms

[edit]

One Million B.C. (1940) and the remake/homage One Million Years B.C. (1966) have both been criticised for the anachronism for having both dinosaurs and Cro-magnon type humanoids together Alley-Oop style in year 1,000,000 BCE. However, aren't both films recognized as "what-if' fantasies rather than docudramas? Naaman Brown (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, both films are recognised as 'schlock-horror, z-grade pap'. It wouldn't have made much difference if the volcano spewed out radioactive spiders and Plan 9 spaceships - this film is mostly notable for the Raquel Welch poster - everything else is filler. Fanx (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

symbolic volcano?

[edit]

It is suggested that the volcanic eruption at the climax may be symbolic. Of what, exactly? Tsuguya (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language

[edit]

The infobox says "language = English". I don't quite remember the movie, but are you sure "language = none" wouldn't be more correct? Or it features narration of some kind? Hellerick (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No narration, as I can recall. "although she had only three lines in the film". This sounds strange, as I agree with your point. There aren't any "lines" in this film. The people talk "cave man". Only seem to have names for each person, name for spear, and a couple of other words. :-) --31.45.79.44 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching it now on tv - there is some English narration at least at the beginning of the film, setting the scene of it being a film about two brothers, sons of the tribe leader. 137.222.248.111 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source

[edit]

A YouTube clip not posted by a rightsholder is used to source a claim about stock footage - are there better sources for this claim? --Lexein (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time

[edit]

A recent edit in the lead paragraph replaced "loosely" with "inaccurately". Well, if we're talking about facts, loosely is a rather wry understatement (British humor?), given the date error of ~65x in one direction, and ~5x in the other direction. But because it's a fantasy film, inaccurately can't really apply, so we can just call the time period "fictional." So I did. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brontosaurus

[edit]

So the sauropod in the movie is suppose to be a Brontosaurus (even though it was a synonym at the time). So the Diana and Ray Harryhausen foundation posted a picture of the sauropod model from the movie (because it's the anniversary) and they said it's a brontosaur. https://www.facebook.com/125012827632564/photos/a.125115524288961.23598.125012827632564/795994263867747/?type=3 --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One Million Years B.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on One Million Years B.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Million_Years_B.C.&oldid=1203787677"