Talk:Apocalypto/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Plot

Any ideas as to what this movie will be about?

It's about this guy who doesn't want to be sacrificed, so he goes on an adventure. I found that out on wikipedia! Augustulus 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Microsecond Cameo

The article mentions a "microsecond" cameo in the first teaser trailer; but where in the teaser could he be seen? It would be better for the article to be more specific, so that those who wish to see the brief appareance can go look for it. And if it is too brief to be caught with the naked eye, without some kind of frame-by-frame viewing, then that should be noted in the trivia section.

I agree -- it should be in the trivia section. It's not in all versions of the trailer AFAIK, just some. Here's a link to a page where you can see it: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/928000596731

This? Xen0phile 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is at 1:46 in the current trailers. You can't see it while watching -- have to pause.69.252.194.199 01:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Teaser trailer say that teaser trailers are usually under 30 seconds. Isn't this just a trailer? BigBlueFish 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My I suggest to revise the description because I am pretty sure that the Mayans are from Guatemala, not Mexico. Aztecs are from Mexico.

The Mayans are from south eastern Mexico as well as Guatemala and other Central American countries. You must remember that the boundaries of Mexico and Guatemala are only of a political nature and are very recent.
ElDiabloVolador May 15, 2006.

The trailer can be seen at the official website, and going through the last montage frame by frame - you can see Mel Gibson. Augustulus 01:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What nobody seems to notice

Gibson is doing a huge cultural benefit to humanity by making movies in dead languages and rescuing them like arameic, latin and qüiché. You may call him a conservative, but he is definetly not an idiot. Definetly one of the most important film directors ever. Now thanks to him, this languages may live forever for future generations to study.209.124.117.47

Apocalyto was not film in K'ché, wich it is in fact a mayan root language in Guatemala, but Yucateco from the Yucatan peninsula in México, also a mayan language, both well know alive idioms.
Just for your information, the Mayan language is not dead. But yes, I do agree with about Mel Gibson. Although I personally despise his religous beliefs, he is an excellent filmmaker. I hope more directors begin to use ancient languages in historical films, it would add so much more dimension to them.
ElDiabloVolador 5:30, 15 April 2006
I hate his bigotry, and I think his films are cheesy and mindless. But I still love the use of ancient languages - it's fascinating to hear them being spoken. 129.173.96.91 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You're suggesting that Aramaic suddenly isn't dead simply because Mel Gibson made a movie where people (including, inexplicably, Roman soldiers) speak it? Despite the fact that Jews have been praying in Aramaic for twenty-five hundred years? But I suppose that Jews aren't in the purview of Mel Gibson's philanthropy. I should note also that no modern filmmaker has used ancient Greek more illiterately. -Maggie --70.50.79.164 14:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that something needs to be addressed in how ancient languages are used in The Passion, go ahead and contribute to that specific film article with a valid citation. This isn't a forum; it's the talk page for Apocalypto. If there's something in this article that needs to be discussed, share that instead. --Erik 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, is not the language in which Jews prey known as Hebrew? Not all semetic languages are the same.

I share many of his poltics, anyway. But I think that a period film is sort of weird without the actual dead language being spoken ... but of course I'm not advocating for ALL epics to be dead language ones, but it still is cool. Augustulus 01:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is much like the reconstructed Native American language(s) used in The New World, only MUCH more extensive. I applaud any director with the courage to release a movie in ANY non-commercial language. Bravo Mr. Gisbon -- can't wait to see your new film! --Pseudothyrum 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Boycott

there are so many rumours about huge boycotts of this film, has any group or person started one and is it appropriate to mention a possible boycott on the page?

Any boycotts could go into a Controversy section, as long as it's cited... especially why there is a boycott of this film. Feel free to edit in any valid information. --Erik 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pap

This article looks like it's been written word for word by the production company. What rubbish.

The plot outline could be rewritten to be more original, but the background information seems fine to me. Edit as you see fit if you think the article could be improved. --Erik 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do contend that my comments are relevant. Some fascist contends that linking to an article about this movie is not relevant.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apocalypto&oldid=70972155 >.

Hopiakuta 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was in the wrong, but you created five unnecessary sections on this talk page (see your own link) to make one point (which struck me as vandalism), and you did not seem to make that point clear. Do you mind verifying what you were trying to discuss regarding the film article? Your link says that Disney will distribute Apocalypto, which is something the article already states. Also, what is the relevance of "Mouse-schwitz"? --Erik 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


  1. I made a pun on the previous title, & the absurdity of a movie about colonialism [i e. fascism] by someone who,....!!!!
Colonialism and fascism are very different things. 201.45.39.94 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. I quoted this article's primary page, & then compared it to the potential results of the actions of the persons related a-poxalyptically, by comparing a potential slight alteration thereof.
  2. The remainder is referenced to one portion of the the weblinked newspage. I did not completely read the newspage, as it's a news grabbag ass ortment. When I had located that newspage, I had actually been websearching for a completely different newssubject.
  3. Further, fox & disney seem to be similarly epoxy - glued to pox, armageddon, fascism, colony, colonialism, as is this movie.
  4. It does often seem that the majority of this website's participants tend to attack, disparage, insult & delete, prior to careful reading:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apocalypto&oldid=70972155 >.

Being deleted is far worse than being attacked, disparaged, insulted, as being being attacked, disparaged, insulted, are conversation, dialogue.


epoxylypto.

Hopiakuta 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be so hostile. This does not excuse your spam-like creation of four (I previously said five, I was wrong) additional sections when you could have commented in the "Pap" section. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I do not understand your commentary; how do you desire for the film article to be improved? That is what the talk page for. This is not a forum for personal beliefs. --Erik 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What did I see? "hostile"? "spam"? My hostility was a humorous comment on this movie, "pap", et al. Have you even read any of the weblinked article? Have you commented on the relevance to the primary article, & the movie, & your hostile deletion, & your accusations?

Your compatriots' implementation of "hostile" & "spam" are significant influences on why there are several eforts akin to < http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Main_Page >. However, none of them are anywhere near as complete as here.

"spam"? If I'm being paid for these comments, well, okay. I do wonder how much. Whereas I've insulted fox & disney, I wonder whether either one is paying.

Please do read the other article, or @ least the paragraphs that are relevant to my comments, prior to its being deleted from the other website.

Do you need me to copy those paragraphs here? That website does not require registration. Or, well, as soon as I say this, maybe they would begin to.

Much of what I'd said had been found there.

But, commenting on the relationship, the relevance, between two articles, is not relevant, & it's hostile spam, due to my being in no weaklypædia | weaklypaedia clique.


Please, I'm really tired of writing about this, for today, for this moment.

  1. proposal: Please, let's just agree to disagree.

Please, no more accusations, for today??

Hopiakuta 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If that weblink does not operate:

< http://google.com/search?q=%22mouseschwitz%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22mouse+schwitz%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the FOX news article from your initial edit, I see the mention of Mouse-schwitz as quoted here: "It certainly doesn't help that because of the way Disney has treated employees over the years the company is glibly referred to in industry circles as 'Mouse-schwitz,' a very dark twist on 'Auschwitz.'" How is this related to the film Apocalypto? The purpose of the film article is inform about the film itself, not to inform about a writer's comparison between Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks and Disney's so-called Mouse-schwitz. Do you understand why I have been pointing out the lack of relevance between Mouse-schwitz and Apocalypto? This particular talk page is not a forum for extraneous discussion. --Erik 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article contradicts itself when mentioning when the film takes place:

1. In the opening paragraph it says: "set in Central America 600 years ago" 2. Under Plot Outline we read: "Apocalypto is a mythic historical drama set more than 1000 years ago"

Someone familiar with the story and historical setting should fix this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxedesa (talk • contribs) 5 September 2006.

Well, the appearance of the conquistadores at the end should definitively indicate the setting as nearly 500 years ago. However other practices and the types of monuments in use are more akin to the Classic era, ie a little over a thousand years ago. It would be important to note that this film is completely fictional, and as such the film-makers habitually take whatever liberties they think fit with historical chronology.
No-one ought really to expect films such as this to have much historical veracity behind it. One would hope (doubtless in vain) that folks do not come away from the film thinking they've seen a genuine depiction of pre-Columbian Maya culture at work, and they recognise it for a rather conventional mainstream concoction (despite the setting and the novelty of the language). Ah well...--cjllw | TALK 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Prescreen?

What's the difference between a screening and a prescreening? Prescreen just sounds like jargon, but maybe I'm wrong? Theshibboleth 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

May be it is jargon. What do you define as jargon? Anyway, a pre-screening is when a director exhibits a movie before it is finished. When the film is finished, it is simply a screening. Gibson has not finished the movie yet. He claims that he is still editing down the film to get to the final product. The movie is set to open on December 8th. See here: Gibson pre-screens movie in Austin, Texas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getaway (talk • contribs) 08:45, September 25, 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Primitivism?

This sounds like a critique of civilisation, could it be linked with Anarcho-Primitivism which is an anarchist ideology which believes basically that civilisation needs to be destroyed. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6579559693433526430&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en above is a link to a small 20 minute movie on it and also talks about the Mayans and how its civilisation collapsed 222.155.63.73 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say Mel Gibson is an anarcho-primitivist? I really hope not--the primitivists need less crazy people, not more. This seems like OR on your part. Unless you find some reputable source that says the film reflects anarcho-primitivist messages I'd leave it out. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Long Gone

when I seen a clip of it on tv it was talking if these people was long gone..which made me think it was about the Aztecs..but Mayans?? they are still around...matter of fact most Mexicans who assume they have Aztec blood really has Mayan blood. --Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.113 (talk • contribs) 19:23, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

The film just refers to the Mayans who were citizens of that specific civilization long ago. I guess it depends on how you look at the wording. Neanderthals are "long gone" in one sense, and Mayans in another. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Maya peoples are far from gone. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Movies filmed in Maya

A bit of trivia: as far as I know this will be the second non-documentary internationally released film in Maya languages. Maya fans havn't fogotten Chac: Dios de la lluvia from the 1970s. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical note: Maya at time of arrival of Spanish

No, the Maya were not gone at the time of the arrival of the Spanish. While many cities of the central lowlands had been abandoned since the end of the Classic Era, there were still active Maya cities, but it was a time of warfare between small states. See also: Spanish Conquest of Yucatán. -- Infrogmation 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, the depiction of the "Mayan" civilization in this film seems much more in line with the Aztecs at the time. The Maya did exist during the film's setting (and still do, to some extent), but they did not have the thriving temple-city culture depicted in this film at the time the film is set, and many of the practices represented in the film fit more with those associated with the culturally similar but distinct Aztec/Mexica. If anything, the concept of "ravaging" neighboring villages for warriors to sacrifice during a time of percieved turmoil fits in with the last Flowery War of the Aztecs (a few decades earlier). It's also possible the communities seen here are not Aztec or Classic Mayan, but of one of the many related cultures in the area. Given the proximity to the coast, I was sugesting to my wife that this might be part of the early Spanish conacts with the Yucatan, rather than the more obvious assumption that the city is Tenochtitlan. Of course, it is just a movie, and I'm fine with a little historical inaccuracy if it brings greater popular attention to Mesoamerican cultures. Plus, the epic nature of the story allows for stretching of plausability (a chase that lasts several days without rest, a pregnant woman and child waiting with little food or water for days) and the combining of historical events (the conquest, the flowery war and the Classic Maya). - Kevingarcia 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes the maya had flourishing cities and built monumental architecture at the arrival of the spanish. They also practiced human sacrifice and wrote in hieroglyphs at the time of the spanish conquest. The first eyewitness spanish sources (Cortés, del Castillo etc.) clearly state all thisMaunus 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of this movie in depicting the Maya as heavily involved in human sacrifice which was esp used by the Aztecs, not the Maya.

If error, that would be typical Gibson gibberish and blurring histoyr as he did e.g. in Braveheart depicting all normal, country side Scots as hugely filthy and starving (all inaccurate) and in Passion, blurring history again to depict huge flaying of Christ's skin on and on, which has no known documentation (except surely he WAS beaten severely , just not mostly entirely deflayed of his skin which would hae killed hiim before the cross) ... all Gibson gibberish , intened to use massively sadism to make a buck. (anon)

Please sign your talk page comments. There was certainly human sacrifice in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, including by the Maya, and some of it was by rituals of gory theatricality. However I've seen some discussion already disputing the amount at the time and place depicted. The architectural look is a constructed "Maya" look made of elements from different geographic regions sometimes more than 1k years apart. Zhou and Ming dynasty combined, or a Gothic tower on a Doric temple. From Gibson's interviews I've read, his knowledge of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica seems rather shallow and not particularly accurate. I expect a more detailed review of such questions by some Mesoamerica scholar will be published in a form we can link to some time soon. -- Infrogmation 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Asst. Prof. Traci Ardren has published a (rather scathing) assessment of the film in Dec 2006 edition of Archaeology, available online here. Most definitely assessments from professionals in the field such as this should be worked into the article, I'm sure there'll be some more to follow.--cjllw | TALK 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice find! Hope we can work this into the article. Post more as you find them! —Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. However I have to take issue with the statement in the Ardren article "in the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned"! I wonder if the original said something like "Maya cities of the central lowlands" and an editor pruned it into inaccuracy? Certainly in northern Yucatan and highland Guatemala, such cities as Ti'ho, Izamal, Gumarcah, possibly, Tulum, etc, were still occupied when the Conquistadores arrived! -- Infrogmation 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are two more, neither of which are at all complementary:
Some choice quotes:
  • "I hate it. I despise it. I think it's despicable. It's offensive to Maya people. "
  • "...the film presents an inaccurate hodge-podge of architecture. Some of it looked like Tikal Classic Maya, 800 A.D. Some looked Puuc, which is closer to 1000 or 1100 A.D. These are very different regions. It's like the difference between Texas and Delaware. It also looked like they were borrowing from El Mirador, this Pre-Classic metropolis that flourished around the year 0 A.D.[sic] It would be as though somebody did a movie on our American culture and they had Madonna and Marilyn Monroe riding in a car together, or they had a meeting of George Bush, Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington because why not condense a couple hundred or a couple thousand years? We would be appalled."
  • "I think Mel Gibson is the worst thing that's happened to indigenous populations since the arrival of the Spanish. I say that in jest, but what is scary is that people will leave the movie thinking that because the characters were speaking Mayan there is an air of authenticity."
  • "Gibson has taken bits and pieces from various groups and time periods and mixed them together with a large dollop of his own feverish imaginings into a Chinese menu of “one from column A and one from column B,” with no attempt at accuracy."
Bit of a pasting all around in the field, though some message-list postings by Mayanists have been a little more restrained...--cjllw | TALK 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Whew, it's going to be fun writing that Criticism section... —Erik (talk/contrib) @ 01:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedia remembers that we are talking about a MOVIE here and not a documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.75.15.75 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Art or SM Porn

Is it ART for a monkey to make movies to appeal to the public's fascination with sadism and gruesome tortures (as Wm Wallace's being\ hung drawn and quarted in Braveheart)?

Blood & gore in movies have certainly been around before these examples, and analyisis of the genre as a whole is not the purpose of this article, and pronouncing value judgements about the use of such images is outside the scope of Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 11:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism and colonialism

When I heard that "Apocalypto" ends with the arrival of the Spanish, I just about died. I had this verified and am now utterly outraged. I figured Gibson was a racist from "Passion", given his prediliction for "evil" people being darker than "good" ones. Now this movie comes out to show the Mayan culture as disgusting, bloodthirsty and depraved and needing to be "rescued" by the kinder, gentler Spanish. Gag.

-- A wonder it is that you are still writing after your near death experience :) All the PC crap and phoney rightous indignation aside, in almost every single instance when colonial powers went any where (India, Central and South America, Africa, and many parts of the Far East), they had active support of the people they supposedly "enslaved". Many native Americans joined the Spanish in their wars of conquest against Incas and Aztecs, as well as in missions into modern US territories. The British conquered and ruled India with massive military and administrative support of native Indians. The white Rajas of Borneo and Sarawak were almost deified by the people they ruled. All these socieites where based on some sort of super-rigid social structure and often very opressive economic systems. Many lower caste or second class citizens actually ended up being better off under the colonial rule (lack of natural immunity against Eurasian disease in Americas aside) then before. The colonialism ended when there was no economic justification left for it with the growth of international trade in 19th and 20th century, not becuase of some heroic struggle of poorly armed and often badly led insurgent armies. The British never had any problem putting down the Indian mutiny, but once holding India became costly after the WWII, they granted the subcontinent independence. At that point, Indian people were not benefitting from the British rule, nor did the British benefit from holding to a very poor colony. South and Central AMerica gained independence once the people there did not need the court in Madrid to decide where and how to sell their goods.

So yes, presence of the Spaniards in late Classical Maya period is anachronistic, and it may have a grain of Christian (especially Catholic) bias to it, but let's face the facts: dominant native american political structures were opressive enough to make the Spaniards welcome when they arrived. mrjahan

Just a small reminder, this page is intended for discussion on ways to improve this article, and not for the general to-ing and fro-ing of anyone's own personal views on the subject, colonialism, Mr. Gibson, whether the popcorn was overpriced, etc etc. Pls all let's not get into what is irrelevant to the subject at hand.--cjllw | TALK 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Apocalypto'

why he is using the greek verb apocalypto (αποκαλύπτω)? isnt it a bit irrelevant? is he a philhellene? is there a philhellenic trend in the states? (i dunno, im just asking)--213.142.147.108 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

- This isn't a forum. ResurgamII 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Footer

Current discussion: Talk:Apocalypto