Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
-
tar_palantir1 — 18 years ago(March 25, 2008 04:42 PM)
It's actually pretty amazing that the producers put so much detail into making the Ulam look and act like Neanderthals and then, in all of the commentaries, claimed that they were homo sapiens. Pretty weird. It's almost like they got the details accurate by mistake. For example, the actors playing the Ulam had to spend 5 hours in makeup getting on the brow ridges and protruding jaw prosthetics but then they are supposed to be the same (sub?)species as Ika's tribe, who require no prosthetics.
-
moviegeek71 — 17 years ago(April 12, 2008 09:47 PM)
The special features and commentary state that there are only 2 species in the movie, Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.
Naoh and Ika are Homo sapiens (director commentary states that Ika's people are "more evolved"). The other species (Ape-like) are Neanderthal.
If using the shooting locations as a reference; Naoh is from Scotland, Ika is from Kenya, and of course the Neanderthals are from Germany."If I've never seen it before, it's a new release to me."
-
tar_palantir1 — 17 years ago(April 14, 2008 03:50 PM)
Thanks, I remember Ron Perlman saying that Ika's people were more evolved and Jean-Jacques Annaud (in the director's commentary) mentioning that the Ulam were homo sapiens, but the Ulam did exhibit a lot of physical characteristics that are normally associated with Neanderthal, like heavy brow ridges and a protruding face with receding chin (an effect that they achieved with prosthetic upper teeth). The movie is based on an early 20th century book by French author Joseph Henri Honor Boex and it might reflect a common opinion among French anthropologists, at the time, that Neanderthals were ape-men (e.g. the portrayal of the Wagabu).
My only real point is that, if you throw out the names that were applied by Jean-Jacques Annaud in the film, QFF nicely overlays modern anthropological models even if the original author and producers were operating under a different style of classification. In a sense, they accidentally got things very close to the models of modern anthropologists, which I find truly amazing. Even if they were inaccurate in their depiction of the individual species according to the names that they applied to them, the overall portrait is stunningly accurate (at the moment anyway). -
gabrielh-1 — 17 years ago(September 26, 2008 06:06 AM)
"The special features and commentary state that there are only two species of hominids in the movie, Homo-sapiens and Neanderthal. Naoh and Ika are Homo-sapiens; however, the director commentary states that Ika's people are "more evolved". The other species, the Ape-like creatures, are representing Neanderthal man. If using the shooting locations as a reference; Naoh is from Scotland, Ika is from Kenya, and of course the Neanderthals are from Germany."
-
moviemakingmoron — 17 years ago(December 23, 2008 08:36 PM)
Actualy thy were:
Naoh and his homies are Homo Neanderthalsis.
the paint people are Homo Sapiens.
the Monkey people are Homo Erectus.
and the guy who bit naohs B***s, they are also Homo Neanderthalsis -
-
woeyloey — 10 years ago(November 13, 2015 11:58 AM)
the painted people are modern Humans. The protagonists are a more rural variety of modern Humans. The spear-throwing contest participants at the end are also modern Humans.
The Wagaboo and Cannibals might be Neanderthals but it is more realistic to think of them as a fictional predatory Human species (the same vein as Bigfoot, Troglodytes or the Orcs of Mordor) -
snescubes — 10 years ago(January 16, 2016 02:52 PM)
Here's how I interpreted it;
Naoh, Amoukar, and Gah's tribe: Cro-Magnon
Apemen at the beginning: Some sort of Australopithecine-like creature that has remained mostly unchanged, except that they have a thicker fur coat (likely to survive the harsh winter climate).
Red haired cannibals: Neanderthals
Ika and the Ash Tribe: Homo sapiens