10,000 BC on "Billboard of Doom".

There is a billboard on a Warner office building in Burbank that I have come to call the “Billboard of Doom”. The billboard is in a poor location, in deep shade much of the day. Every movie ever put there has turned out to be a low box-office stinker.

I think it has something to do with the fact that it doesn’t cost them anything, because they own the building, and it helps them fulfill their promotional commitment for outdoor advertising. When the studio realizes a feature is utter crap, they put it there.

So this does not bode well for a film that already looks beyond stupid.

It will probably make millions, though. :rolleyes:

I think it looks good. Everyone complains on the historical inaccuracies but no movie is historically accurate.

Dude, it’s on the billboard. Just you wait and see. :wink:

There’s a significant difference between “contains historical inaccuracies” and “entirely pulled out of someone’s ass.” From what I’ve seen of this film thus far, it falls squarely into the latter category.

It does looki good, though. I’ll probably rent it when it’s released on vid.

Trailer here. I’m leaning toward “bomb”.

Oh, and no way I’m paying to see it in a theater.

An instant Hit. It will be big.

Got a feeling this one has a little bit for everyone.

I think the story will be much better than many suspect, and the Mastadons are painstakingly authentic in scale, representation, and action. I think the same could be said of the Giant Moa and the Sabre Tooth Tiger, from what little we have seenof the trailer.

Unless it has Quetzalcoatl nesting in the Chrysler building I’m going to avoid it.

Yes probably cheese, but definitely big screen cheese, with a sound system to do the Mammoth stampede justice.

:slight_smile:

-rainy

Go to a multiplex, buy a ticket for Persepolis or something that needs the help, and theaterhop.

Did they put I am Legend on that billboard?

True, but there is a difference between the wrong sort of sails on Nelson’s ships, and Wellington strafing Napoleon with jet fighters at Waterloo. The preview I saw made this movie look like the latter.

Whats wrong with that though it makes it more interesting. This isnt a documentary. Its a movie and movies are fiction. It doenst have to follow are history and our fossil record.

Just 10,000? Couldn’t possibly be as good to watch as “One Million Years BC”.

Or like in The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, where Sinbad’s Arabian dhow inexplicably changes into a Napoleonic-era frigate in some long shots. I figure poor Ray Harryhausen musta been light on cash by the final stages of editing, and used whatever stock clips he could get.

It makes my willing suspension of disbelief unwilling. I don’t mind it in a comedy, like Ringo’s Caveman, but for any movie purporting to be serious, it bothers me. Though it might be, like Ed Wood said, “no one will notice.” :slight_smile:

For two major reasons. :stuck_out_tongue:

LOTR was supposed to take place in an ancient version of Earth as well, but no one complained that the fossil record doesn’t support the existence of Orcs. 10,000 B.C. looks like its supposed to be a similar form of fantasy, not even remotely supposed to be based on reality.

Also I would totally watch that movie where Wellington and Napoleon had jet-fighters.

I dunno. I get a “Stargate” sort of vibe from it. It looks fun.

And Camilla Belle looks hot enough!

That vibe is because it’s the same director. His movies are always very, very stupid (Stargate included), but some of them have been very popular.

That movie looks like it would fall into “Nothing on TV, not even reruns of shows I like or something I don’t hate on HGTV or Animal Planet. Well, I guess I could turn this on in the background while I wander in and out of the room or take a nap.” Of course, I’d end up staying on the couch and making fun of it.

It looks like someone caught the trailer for Wild Women of Wongo and decided to make a “serious” movie out of it.