Talk:Apocalypto/Archive 2

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

TALK PAGE NOT FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION

The talk page is supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the article. It's not supposed to be for banter based on your personal knowledge (which is original research) about the historical inaccuracies of this film. Think of it this way — if your discussions are based on what you've learned instead of a verifiable and reliable source, then what good is it for improving the article, which should have its information cited? In the future, look at the article and recommend (or even implement your own) changes with citation. Don't come to the talk page and find an argument to pick — "No, you're wrong, THIS is what I learned." Any further uncontributive comments will be reverted to discourage further general discussion. This is Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the inaccuracies in a general manner, I hear the crowd at IMDb is real swell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Er, why's his picture here in this article?

I second that question. Tried to remove the saddam picture but cant find it in the article edit page. Can someone just edit it out?

You mean the picture of Gibson's cameo? --Animasage 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
did someone really think that was a photo of Saddam. Oh my people are dumb. chris4682

Citations for possible use

I was hoping to expand the article with production information and such, but I don't know if I'll have time to get around to it. I've compiled a list of citations that could have useful information for inclusion.

--Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a story about it on yahoo news. Pretty good info. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a video featurette that explains the effort that went into creating the Maya civilization. I'd work this citation and the ones above into the article, but I'm a little too occupied with upcoming finals. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 13:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an overview of all the historical problems from an experts viewpoint. (Emperor 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Popul Vuh

The below was from the "trivia" section of the article. The plot seems unlike the Popol Vuh and the interviews with Gibson I've read don't site the Popol Vuh as inspiration, so I'm moving it here to talk pending some confirmation. -- Infrogmation 11:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From Yahoo! Movies: "He said Mayan myths from the Popol Vuh sacred texts formed part of his research for the film, which also drew on input from indigenous groups and Spanish mission texts from the 1700s and Mayan language translators." I'd suggest re-implementing the information in another section instead of Trivia. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to put the information with that citation where you think it would be best in the article. From this, the previous wording seems a bit off. -- Infrogmation
I'm hoping to work on this article with this citation and the ones that I showed above... just in the midst of finals right now. I think a Themes and/or Influences section would be fitting if we draw enough content together for the basis of the film. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

bad link

Link [4] to cnn, regarding Mel comparing pointless human sacrifice in Apocalypto to the US sending innocent boys to die in iraq was a bad link. I'm not saying the link wasn't good at some point in time. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be there. However, until someone puts up a good link, I'm taking down the quotation and the link. Its an understandably controversial statement, and doesn't stand a chance without a solid reference.

classical and beyond periods

I believe the pyramids shown in the movie are from the classical period but the movie actually takes place in the later period, but that is not set in stone. Somebody plz clarify.StridingCloud 19:40, 09 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see the "Accuracy" section above for some discussion as well. The Maya look of the film is constructed of elements from various periods of Mesoamerican history, some almost 2000 years apart. -- Infrogmation 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
yes, the movie takes place *after* the Classical period, which means that the pyramids had already been built...therefore...they had pyramids. (Just like in Egypt in the Roman period still had pyramids.) The more important question is they *style* of the pyramids, which is a hodgepodge.

The Spaniards came to Mexico during the Aztec period...long after the Maya decline. How did the Maya reference to the movie arise? Three ships full of Europeans could not defeat the Aztecs even with gunpowder, horses and steel. The Europeans had to enlist non Aztec natives. I could see why non Aztecs would align with the Europeans against the Aztecs. RDG

There was no Maya decline and there was no "Aztec period in Yucatán". They just moved to other cities and built pyramis in different styles. Postclassical maya were just as maya and just as civilized as their clasic counterparts. Read this article: Mesoamerican chronology.Maunus 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Again, where in the movie does it state Mayan culture or Yucatan? By the time Europeans arrived to Mexico the Mayan's were no longer living in large cities and were dispersed to decentralized villages in the mountains...a decline caused by some external factors and not the European arrival. I know it is just a historical movie with a mixing of time periods but to make an assumption that this was a story of the Mayan's or even the Yucatan is incorrect. Also, I have been reading in some of the posts that the movie depicted the arrival of the Spaniards as a "salvation." My take in that scene was that the arrival of the Spaniards was the true end of their civilization. The protaganist escaped by taking his family deeper into the jungle and away from the Europeans. Today, we find direct ancestors of these people in remote regions of Mexico. RDG

You are wrong. At the tim of the conquest mayas lived in cities like they had always done. The film states that it is maya culture because they speak Maya, they build mayan style pyramids, they have mayan iconography. Its as simple as that: they are mayas.Maunus 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The people in the film speak Yucatec Mayan, which means the story takes place in Yucatan. The Aztects were never in Yucatan. Erudil 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing to accept that because Mel Gibson used a dialect that is found in the Yucatan today then the story must be about the Maya in the Yucatan. He could have used any one of the native languages used today. I question this as should you. Gibson also borrowed scenes from Aztec and Zapotec culture but no one is making that conclusion. Instead they say that Gibson made historical errors. Only when his ideas match your own, as in the case of language used for his screenplay, do you assume that you know time, place and culture. What else do you have to show that the picture was about Mayan's in the Yucatan?

Who are you? Seriously though, you need to put a quotation at the end of your statements dude just tpe these ~ after wnatever you say, that way we at least know who is making these statements. Thanx. ManofRenown87 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

Film Critic Benjamin Urrutia asserts that the main story line is derived from Lord of the Flies: In a tropical jungle, fierce spear-wielding hunters chase our lone hero to offer him as a human acrifice. He is saved when he arrives at the beach just as a navy appears. Jaguar Paw= Ralph. Conquistadores= UK Navy. Caucasians= Adults. Other races= children. Thus the theme is one of patrenalistic racism. Erudil 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with racism, even if Mel Gibson exacerbated the violence. Mesoamerican and Mayan cultures were so bloody that children were scarified, something that even Gibson was reluctant to show. --Cesar Tort 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Straw man or blood libel? Maybe both.

Do you believe that?

The Aztecs NEVER built any pyramids and they put the Mayans as some wild peasant indians in the jungle. Truth is the Mayans built pyramids and was advanced in astronomy..the Aztec just moved there from the north after the pyramids was built and they are related to the polynesians NOT the natives that was here. Most Mexicans with "indio" blood has Mayan not Aztec..the Spanish killed them along with the other natives. --Mari

You are wrong on all accounts. Maunus 10:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, she's wrong. --Cesar Tort 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Specifically, the tribe that was raided in the movie was not "Mayan." They were indigenous peoples that the Mayan culture raided. The Aztec's were fantastic builders, and UN-builders! The Aztec's and the Polynesians have no shared genetic heritage. But you were correct that the Spanish did kill them along with the other natives. --Entropyfails 09:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just thinking of the Pyramids in the Americas..

So you're saying that the Aztecs was also in Peru(pyramid)?? They just found the oldest skull in the Americas and DNA has her as an aborigine(Australia)yet Polynesia is so much closer to California so explain that. [1] --Mari

I think that just goes to show how much of historical science and recording is pure bullshit. We can only go by what we got, but seriously, the only way we could know for sure is if we were there. ManofRenown87 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

history lesson

I had added the following history lesson, which was promptly reverted. I think that a lot of people probably come to the movie with a sort of "Choose your own adventure, mystery of the Maya" knowledge of Mayan history at best, and that the best way to deal with that is to have at least one coherent paragraph about what is known about Mayan history rather than just piecemeal criticism of what's wrong in the film. To put it less dismissively: a lot of perfectly educated people could loosely skim this article and come away thinking: "Of course the film is ahistorical, I already knew that by the time the conquistadores arrived there were no [civilized] Maya left." (Look at this talk page, I think it supports my point.) My initial attempt is below, if someone else wants to use some of it, I won't try again:--201.216.148.101 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Main article: Mesoamerican chronology

The most famous and archaeologically impressive Mayan cities come from the classic period of Mayan history, a period which came to a dramatically abrupt end around 900 AD for reasons which most archaologists believe involved some combination of drought, demographic pressures, and uprisings or other social shifts which decreased the power of the elites interested in monumental constructions. However, there is little doubt that the basic elements of the film - that is, Mayan culture in both urban and rural contexts, and a ritual culture including some human sacrifice - still existed in some form during the late postclassic era depicted in the film. The criticisms and controversy center more around the way in which these elements are depicted. Postclassic mayan cities were less monumental and more artistically homogoneous than depicted here; villages were probably never this isolated or parochial; and the scale of human sacrifice, including raiding expeditions simply in order to obtain sacrificial victims, are not documented in a Mayan context, being more characteristic of neighboring Aztec culture (see Flowery Wars). Also, the overall presentation of the postclassic (as opposed to late classic) Maya as being ripe for collapse has little basis in history, although in the Yucatecan context the politically-dominant city Mayapan (which, though only founded in 1221, is still probably the root of the modern word "Maya") had been sacked "only" 65 years earlier in 1441.

Bee scene

There was one part when the hero threw a bee hive at his enemies and they got stung. I had read somewhere that the Mayan bees did not sting, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. The bees are stingless. "Native stingless bees (Melipona beecheii being the favorite) have been kept by the lowland Maya for thousands of years. The traditional Mayan name for this bee is Xunan kab, literally meaning "royal lady". The bees were once the subject of religious ceremonies and were a symbol of the bee-god Ah Muzen Cab, who is known from the Madrid Codex.

The bees were, and still are, treated as pets. Families would have one or many log-hives hanging in and around their house. Although they are stingless, the bees do bite and can leave welts similar to a mosquito bite. The traditional way to gather bees, still favored amongst the locals, is to find a wild hive; then the branch is cut around the hive to create a portable log, enclosing the colony. This log is then capped on both ends with another piece of wood or pottery and sealed with mud. This clever method keeps the melipine bees from mixing their brood, pollen, and honey in the same comb as the European bees. The brood is kept in the middle of the hive, and the honey is stored in vertical "pots" on the outer edges of the hive. A temporary, replaceable cap at the end of the log allows for easy access to the honey while doing minimal damage to the hive. However, inexperienced handlers can still do irreversible damage to a hive, causing the hive to swarm and abscond from the log. On the other hand, with proper maintenance, hives have been recorded as lasting over 80 years, being passed down through generations. In the archaeological record of Mesoamerica, stone discs have been found which are generally considered to be the caps of long-disintegrated logs which once housed the beehives."-Wikipedia Beekeep 05:30, 26 December 2006

Opening Quote

"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." - Ed Wynn

LittleNicki 07:45, 26 December 2006

Plot section

I've reduced the Plot section a great deal so it is more of a summary. Plot sections should not be a substitute for watching the film, but instead sum it as succinctly as possible. I've tried to keep the major points while trimming the meat (particularly details of the chase scene). If anyone wants to improve the section further, I suggest being concise with your wording. In addition, I will add a couple of screenshots to the section to partially reflect the look of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Overvigilance on "Trivia"?

Both "Lord of the Flies" and "mayan bees" have been removed from trivia. I understand that these do not merit main-article treatment, but what is the trivia section for if not for references such as this? Note that the "LOTF" trivia reference was NOT claiming that the resemblance was intentional, simply that it had fueled controversy (which is both true and notable). As for "mayan bees", I have personally been bitten/stung by honey-producing insects locally known as "mayan bees" in lowland Guatemala, and it is nothing like a familiar beesting. --Homunq 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The eclipse

References to the 'cliche' of the eclipse, which historians say wouldn't have frightened the Maya, should be changed.

In the movie, the priests and royalty at the top of the period show that they are *not* frightened of the eclipse and know full well it will pass. One of the them gives a cynical smile to another, since they know they can fool the masses below.

Moral: Gibson is not being inaccurate. They knew about eclipses, and exploited this knowledge to keep the masses in awe.

Please change the references in the article.

David 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)dso371

From the citation that is used: "Examples: Mayas would not have been awed by an eclipse as they were in the film – they were, in fact, early astronomers." I think that this is in reference to the general populace -- I doubt a reviewer would be referring to the royalty and the priest since they did not react in a surprised way. It seems that the reference is to the people themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the edit at 17:52, 7 Jan 07, I believe my removed reference to the girl's premonition of the eclipse is entirely germane to this discussion. But maybe I'm crazy, and I don't want to start an edit war, so see for yourselves. Editor left explanations for several edits, but I'm not sure which one applies to my content. MatthewBurton 05:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal Dispute

Should a note perhaps be added regarding the legal action being taken against Gibson with regards to accusations of potential (As yet unconfirmed) plagiarism in the film? [2]

Yes it is worth a mention. The whole Sophia Stewart business gets a mention on the relevant pages and that entry also gives other details of people who thought they've been ripped off. How about have a Reception header with "Critical reception", "Historical inaccuracies" and now "Legal issues" or "Plagiarism" for this all under it? (Emperor 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Sounds good to me. Johntex\talk 07:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: Where's Waldo or Wally

Seeing as the DVD hasn't been released yet, and the only sources for this scene come from YouTube, how can we be sure of the accuracy? I mean, I watched both of those videos on YouTube, and I know it would be very easy to add that image myself, upload the video and make it look like it was on the (unreleased) DVD already.

Again, this images come from bootlegged versions of the film. Not official versions, therefore it's possible someone added these Waldo pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.222.183 (talk • contribs) 13:23, January 12, 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it on the grounds that YouTube links are not reliable sources, and due to the fact there can't be official DVDs since Apocalypto is still in theaters. Seems like a bootleg in which these inappropriate scenes are edited in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In many forums, people claim that actually there is a Waldo in the movie. Altough we should wait until it is available on DVD to be sure, it could be said that, at least, there is a rumour talking about a Waldo in the movie. --62.14.248.36 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have put the links back, since
  • The claim is made apparently independently in many forums
  • Being curious, and having rent a DVD of Apocalypto, I validated it myself! It is true, it was exactly like it was shown in the Youtube videos. I will upload the frame if somebody can confirm it doesn't violate any copyright laws.
-- Hirak 99 08:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In Where's Wally? article there is the information that in the film can be seen Wally. Is it truth? Should be included in this atricle? Or it's a false information? 81.36.161.39 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's false information. The "proof" is a YouTube video of the Apocalypto DVD (bootleg since the film is still in theaters), so that would give anyone with film-editing skills free reign to include that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've confirmed that it is true with my rented DVD. The frame is exactly as it is shown in the forums, there is a man with a stick with striped red and white shirt lying among the corpses. He appears for only one frame, just in between the corpses scene and the next scene with the soldiers running through the field. This makes it difficult to spot. -- Hirak 99 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since it isn't something that's obvious from just watching the film, it's original research if our only source for it is you (the youtube video is not a reliable source either. The whole section needs to go as unsourced or poorly sourced trivia; see WP:TRIV.--Cúchullain t/c 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is unfortunate. I agree it is "original research" and should not be mentioned here on the article (even though other than the youtube videos, or myself, or all the other people who have claim it in numerous sites and blogs, a source is the DVD itself, and verifying the claim doesn't take much work, though it probably is not very "obvious"). And in my humble opinion, removing the entire Trivia section without any effort to produce reliable sources, or to transfer them to the main article is also a brilliant job in improving the quality of the article by a quantum leap. I am grateful to you for correcting these gigantic flaws in the article. However, I can't help but feel sorry at the loss of some new readers, since the fact will remain that they will miss out on certain facts (which are, btw, not "obvious")... --Hirak 99 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many things that could be unobvious till someone takes the pains to verify. For example, I find the storyline not at all very obvious in the detailed manner it is portrayed in the Synopsis, after watching the film once. Should I therefore go ahead and erase the synopsis section as it doesn't have any attributable source?? Heck the article is full of claims without source like this: "The waterfall scene was filmed on a real waterfall called Salto de Eyipantla, which is located in San Andres Tuxtla.", Release information, Budget information, etc. I really don't understand where is peoples' problem with adding the single frames in the Trivia, which after all are a very important part of the movie.
Please don't take this personally, I was being bold and trimming some fat per our guideline on trivia sections. Some of that information might have been interesting, but remember this is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of random facts. Unsourced tidbits about easter eggs do nothing for an encyclopedia entry. If some of that information can be sourced and incorporated as prose into other sections, but I have my doubts that anything on the supposed Waldo sighting can really improve the article.--Cúchullain t/c 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please put back the Trivia section. 193.108.73.47 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the trivia section is actually part of a broader change in policy within wikipedia to trim and/or delete all trivia sections - see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for more information and the rationale behind this change in policy - the trivia section in this article should remain deleted. -- Oaxaca dan 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxaca dan, "Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article", "Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it.", "Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again." says WP:TRIV. Please put the facts back. 193.108.73.47 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. -- Oaxaca dan 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed it, and I stand by it. I didn't incorporate the "facts" into the rest of the article because they were not sourced, or were insufficiently sourced. As I said to a user who asked me about it on my talk page, I won't object to some of the material being re-added into the "Production" section (or whatever section is appropriate) IF reliable secondary sources can be found sourcing them. Until that happens, the material should stay out.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Cúchullain, please put the material back. Any primary source that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge should be considered as a reliable source. To avoid edit wars, when in doubt regarding primary sources, instead of removing a challenged material first consider usage of the {{fact}} template wherever applicable to tag challenged materials, and/or to discuss in the talk page with the co-authors to cite secondary sources once they are obtained. 193.108.73.47 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not putting it back in, but as I said, I won't object if someone else sources it and adds it to the production section (not a trivia section). I still don't think it's particularly notable or important, though. Again, I'd prefer a secondary source to the primary in the case of the Waldo trivia, but I doubt those exist. As for including it with a cite needed tag, the material has been contested for so long without anyone sourcing it that it makes more sense to remove it until someone can back it up.--Cúchullain t/c 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a re-addition of the notorious trivia section. None of that material is appropriately sourced, so I was bold and removed it; the section is purposeless after that. If you want to add it back in, source it and incorporate it into an appropriate section. I'm not sure why this has been so much of a problem, none of the "facts" are important or very interesting.--Cúchullain t/c 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The following comment seems inappropriate, given its placement in the article:

"On the other hand, in Maya rituals prisoners of war were in fact killed 'on top of the pyramid […] by having his arms and legs held while a priest cut open his chest with a sacrificial flint knife and tore out his heart as an offering.'"

That would be a perfectly fine thing to say if the previous sentence were something like "The portrayal of human sacrifice in the film has been criticized as inaccurate." But the previous sentence is: "The film has been accused of fueling a stereotype of native Mesoamericans as bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements other than architecture." By offering the human sacrifice description as an "on the other hand" the implication is that civilizations that practiced such human sacrifice were actually "bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements". That's blatantly POV and inappropriate.

I suggest either (A) deleting the offending sentence, (B) moving it to a portion of the article that discusses human sacrifice in particular, or (C) adding a sentence prior to it quoting some specific criticism of the films portrayal of human sacrifice. -- 68.40.37.132 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A sentence prior to it would be fine; there should be something out there that contains criticism. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate inaccuracies

Read on the current Inaccuracies section: "And the Spanish arriving at the end of the movie came a little too soon, as they actually arrived during the reign of the Aztec Empire, which succeeded the Maya."

That sentence had no sense. The Aztecs never conquered or killed off the Mayas. The Mayas where in fact the first Mesoamerican people who encountered the Spaniards on land - around 1510 - and the Spaniards actually knew about the Aztecs from the Mayas.

"The diseased little girl is often regarded as having smallpox. However, smallpox did not arrive in the Americas until the early 16th century with the Spanish Conquistadores. As the disease is not called by a modern name we cannot be sure what the intention was."

As there are Spaniards in the movie, it's sure that the movie doesn't take place before the 16th century. However, you can't guarantee what is the exact year. They are Spaniards, but they have not to be the first Spaniards in the Yucatan, just the first in the lands of the Mayan city-state that is shown in the movie. Spaniards with smallpox can have arrived in other part of the Yucatan and infect the people there, and later these people could extend the sickness to other regions through trade or war. The Southern Ming never visited Europe, but their Black Plague destroyed 1/3 of the European population, and the Incas fell on civil war because an epidemy of smallpox in Mexico extended to South America and killed the emperor and his heir. I suppose that you understand what I'm trying to say. The girl with smallpox it's just another element to support the idea that the end of the Mayan civilization is coming--Menah the Great 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you assume that they in the Yucatan? Others make that jump based on the dialect that the director choose to use. If language in the movie is the only thing that ties where the story takes place to the Yucatan then I would argue that Gibson only used the dialect because it is still a living language used by many of the extras in the cast. I cannot see anything else in the film that cements the idea that this was a movie about the Maya in the Yucatan. RDG

Dude! Gibson said the film is based on the history of the Mayan culture. He researched Mayan history extensively to create the film and he acknolwedges that not everything in the film is completely accurate. Every description released by the film-makers to the media states that the film is set in Mayan culture and history. The architecture in the film is based on numerous periods of actual historical MAYAN architecture and seeing as how Yucatan is where the Mayans originated and the area in which the first Europeans encountered the Mayans, we can assume that the film is supposed to be set in the Yucatan, regardless of whatever inaccuracies my arise in that regard. There, is that good enough for you? You're the only person on earth who is skeptical of the setting of this film, it's like you're just making an argument just so you can argue about something. jeez* ManofRenown87 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox

The diseased little girl is depicted as having smallpox. However, smallpox did not arrive in the Americas until the early 16th century with the Spanish Conquistadores.

Well, the film shows the conquistadores arriving to the shores and Yucatan had some contact with the Aztecs, so it would not be anachronistic unless the conquistadores arrived to Yucatan before than to the Aztec area. --84.20.17.84 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

title

Is there something to the title beyond a reference to Apocalypse? --84.20.17.84 10:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Language

How accurate is the language? I didn't notice any influence of Spanish (not that I understand Maya). Did they take some re-creation effort as in Stargate or did they just take 21st-century Yucatec? Do the foreign actors pronounce genuinely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

'The eclipse' section

In the paragraph that reads: As it is common in movies and fictional media, the eclipse is seen occuring in few seconds, while the moon's shadow stands over the sun for some time, before again leaving quickly. In reality, eclipses take place for several hours, and the observated movementof the moon's shadow is unaltered
there should be a space between the movement and the of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CheeZBastarD (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Should categorise this film as fantasy as well. Perhaps historical fantasy.

I believe this film should be categorised not only as "epic" and "action", but also as "fantasy". Currently it is not categorised as "historical", which I believe it should not be, for the reasons mentioned below.

There are two main reasons Apocalypto should be regarded as fantasy. The first is that the film's setting doesn't correspond to any historical setting. The second is that at least one supernatural occurance is a primary plot point in the film.

Regardless of the historical inaccuracies, "fantasy" is not the opposite of "history." It's fiction.

Setting

Several of the cited sources, mainly the academic ones, point out what would be numerous anachronisms and inaccuracies - many of a major nature that must have been known to the film-makers - if this was to be placed at any particular point or place in our history. Elements of Mayan culture included in the film are taken from a thousand-year-plus spread. A number of elements from other meso-american cultures, such as the Aztecs, are also incorporated, as are a number of generic items of vaguely pre-Columbian meso-american pop-culture stereotypes like "religious human sacrifice on stepped pyramids". Yes, various of these cultures performed human sacrifices, but none of the specific types of victims, specific reasons for the ritual, nor the specific manners of execution correspond to those shown (slave raids for heart-extracting beheading sacrifices to Kukulkan) in the film.

Therefore what we have is a generic meso-american setting, corresponding to generic european medieval settings, or generic ancient asian settings in fiction. Putting some knights dressed in early renaissance germanic full plate on chargers in a castle straight out of Robin Hood and having them fight red-bearded seamen with horned helmets and woad-painted tribesmen from the north is pretty much the equivalent to what we have here. It evokes a generic setting, and can be interesting in it's own right, but to anyone with more than a vague knowledge of the history of Britain/Western Europe it is full of historical inaccuracies and obviously isn't a real place or time. No one in full plate battled vikings. And no Spaniard came across Mayans building new pyramids and cities.

Out of pedantry, didn't the Varengians coincide with the Byzantine cataphracts? Though I read the cataphracts wore full mail:
Equipment and tactics varied, but cataphracts generally wore heavy armor of scale armour, mail, lamellar armour, horn[citation needed], or thick quilted cloth,
rom the 15th century onward mail, lamellar and scale armour seemed to fall out of favour with eastern noble cavalrymen as elaborate and robust plate cuirasses arrived from the west.
--84.20.17.84 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's something called "artistic licence"ResurgamII 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural Occurances

There are three supernatural occurances I noted in the film. Two of these are (relatively) subtle, and could be looked at as merely dramatic events, and without the presence of the third most people would accept them within a non-fantasy film. The first, chronologically, is the ominous wind that heralds the arrival of the refugees during the hunt. Perhaps supernaturally significant, perhaps just a natural co-incidence, possibly just dramatic licence.

The second (the third chronologically) is the moment of connection between Jaguar Paw and Seven before Jaguar Paw's aborted execution. We're not talking some telepathic conversation or anything here, and such "connections" have been thrown into "realistic" films before. So we could let this through without calling the film fantastic as well.

However, the prophesy made by the afflicted girl as the war party passes by her with the slaves is very much another thing. Here is a full, accurate prophesy outlining most of the events that fill the remainder of the film. Day becoming night - the eclipse. The jaguar during the jungle chase. He (Jaguar Paw) is here now. Will bring the [Spaniards]. Last time I looked, smallpox (or any other disease) didn't confer accurate premonitions, even if a fever might bring on babbling or something. This puts the film in the same class as, say, MacBeth, where witchcraft and ghosts are real in the story. It's not swords and sorcery fireball-flinging fantasy, but it's not mundane realistic historical fiction either.

True. But it is just a movie, and even Gibson (while defending his depiction of violence in the film) admits that not everything in the film is accurate. Supernatural occurances are a terribly easy and subtle use of foreshadowing in any storytelling medium. ManofRenown87 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: Fantasy/Historical Fantasy

Given the generic setting and supernatural events, I think it's clear that a little consideration would show this is a fantasy film. I don't know if Gibson has ever straight-out claimed this is meant to be a "historical film" or historically accurate, but what can only be intentional inclusion of setting and prophesy must outweigh any claim of realism in these areas.

Does anyone have a reason to not add a Fantasy or Historical Fantasy tag?

Keramos 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm not sure even historical fantasy is a good term, even though I'm not entirely sure what it means myself. If we're going to consider tags and categories here I'd just point out that Gibson has admitted to inaccuracies in the film while defending other aspects, but it's just a story. The setting is historical while the story is fictional, and in that same fiction certain liberties will always be taken to carry out the telling of the story even if it forsakes some aspect of the setting. I'd suggest looking at something like Ridley Scott's Gladiator. The main character Maximus, has dream sequences when he is being transported by slave traders in which he hears lines recited later in the film, and later after he is stabbed by Commodus in the arena he begins to either hallucinate or have genuine visions of the afterlife with his family and later scenes show him floating across the ground and walking around in a grain field toward his deceased wif and son in his gladiator armor after he's already died (suggesting that he's gone to a concept of heaven). For a person with no faith or religion, such scenes would probably be considered no less fantastical than clairvoyant foresight by a little girl leper in the (also fictional) Apocalypto. But no one jumps to consider Gladiator hostorical fantasy. Just thought I'd point out the fact that fiction doesn't neccissarily mean fantasy. ManofRenown87 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Apocalypto

From the spanish wikipedia, this seems interesting:

Apocalypto (αποκαλύπτω) es la forma de primera persona del presente del verbo griego que significa "revelar", "descubrir",(es decir, "yo revelo"). Este verbo es el mismo del que procede la palabra apocalipsis, la cual en griego significa simplemente "revelación".

Apocalypto (αποκαλύπτω) is the first person form of the present of the greek verbwich means "to reveal", "discover" (meaning "I reveal"). This is the same verb of wich procedes the word apocalypse, wich in greek simply means "revelation".

Too bad the article doesn't cite its sources for this info. Vicco Lizcano 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


Introductory paragraph

I am not sure what the tone of the discussions has been, but I definitely think that the first paragraph should be changed where it says "it depicts one man's experience during the decline of the ancient Mayan civilization". The movie is completely fictional and it is inaccurate to state that is the story of a man during the decadence of the mayan civilization, because it leads the reader to believe that the context of the movie is factual, when it is not. Andy Rosenthal 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

Why does this movie have a "historical inaccuracy" section. Wasn't the movie supposed to be fiction? There are plenty of movies that are inaccurate and biased but, on wikipedia, they dont have an inaccuracy page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.170.48.145 (talk • contribs).

You made a point. Perhaps the film hurts nationalistic sensibilities?
I would suggest to introduce instead a new section: Historical accuracies. See for example the See also section.
―Cesar Tort 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Year

It nowhere says in which year the movie is supposed to be set. I didn't see the movie myself but I heard the plot being about the maya empire collapsing which happened way before the Spaniards came to America, yet the ending seemed to be the Spaniards landing on the beach. So can anyone enlighten me on this, and also put it in the article? --62.251.90.73 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many anachronisms in other films. One of the most famous is in Ben-Hur. But they don’t make the fuss about Charlton Heston’s classic as they do in Apocalypto. —Cesar Tort 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I just asked in what year the movie was supposed to be set. Your comment addresses a totally different issue.--62.251.90.73 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was merely to state that the whole film is anachronistic. I doubt you will find a specific year. —Cesar Tort 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It can only be a year in between 1511-1528·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People! It's a freaking movie! It's just entertainment not a documentary, let it be. ManofRenown87 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

encarta

Can we really use encarta as a reliable source??Kdammers 05:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

right on! Man's cruelty towards man is the important thing with the movie, not detail inacuracies. Holocost museum no withstanding.

Possibly inaccurate quote about mass graves

While browsing related pages, I noticed a discrepancy between the quote in this article, in the Mesoamerican History section:

"Karl Taube, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California Riverside, objects to the huge pit filled with corpses. "We have no evidence of mass graves," he points out."

and the statement in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#In_the_Maya_culture "In 2005 a mass grave of one-to-two-year-old sacrificed children was found in the Maya region of Comalcalco. The sacrifices were apparently performed for consecration purposes when building temples at the Comalcalco acropolis.... There are skulls suggestive of child sacrifice left from the time of the Maya."

74.133.160.12 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)tiltypig, 2007-03-25

To Cúchullain about deletion of facts in Trivia

Cúchullain,

I do not understand your resentment. Let me answer all the questions that you raised in Trivia: Where's Waldo or Wally.

1) All the points in that section have a source, namely the primary source. It is the same source that we use for 99% of any story related material, including the synopsis. As far as I understand, the initial doubts regarding the hidden frames were there because the statement was made here even before the movie was released, and hence the sources were questionable. Now that the DVD has been released those doubts should be cleared. On a second note, it is completely beyond my understanding how you can reject other obviously verifiable but important facts, for example that the movie has no opening credits.

2) A secondary source is not a compulsory requirement. Hence there should be no obligation to produce a secondary source. However, they enhance the quality of the article, so they should be cited whenever they are available.

3) What you find interesting, half the world may not. What you do not find interesting, the rest of the world might. In any case, interesting is a subjective term. Criteria for inclusion of a fact should not be judged by "how interesting the fact is".

4) Allow me to clear a point if it is causing confusion... this article is not about Mesoamerica, nor about North American history. It is regarding a movie. And the facts like the producer putting in hidden frames are in reality very important facts relating to the movie.

5) Please do not keep using the phrase that "I am being bold". To be bold is a phrase to encourage new users to update articles. If you have to come to "being bold" as a justification for removing facts from an article, then probably you should not do it. Remember, at times being boldness is synonymous with utter foolishness. Be bold, but please do not be reckless.

Please read WP:TRIV and WP:ATTR policies. Also please read about WP:BOLD. I am putting the section back. 193.108.73.47 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you feel strongly about this. I still feel that this section and the innane facts in it do not in any way improve the article, but I have no wish to continue this silly dispute. I reiterate that I don't think the facts, particularly the Waldo bit, are important (or very interesting), and I assure you I have read the policies (and guidelines) you refer to. I will ask you, since you are so desperate to have the material kept, to take the additional steps of incorporating it into other sections yourself.--Cúchullain t/c 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Remove and/or integrate the section per this. Trivia sections do nothing but encourage further encyclopedic content like trivia bits straight from IMDb and novice editing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've long since given up on this. However, someone else has removed the Waldo bit, which seemed to be the only reason the anon above insisted on keeping that section. Obviously I think the section ought to be removed, or incorporated if any of the material is actually useful.--Cúchullain t/c 18:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayan sactrifices

I didn't show half the stuff I read about. I read about an orgy of sacrifice: 20,000 people sacrificed in four days. They were also very fond of impaling genitals and torturing people for years on end. For instance, if they captured a king or queen from another place, they would humiliate them for a decade. They would cut off their lips, have their tongues ripped out, they would have no eyes and no ears. Oh, and they would chew their fingers off. The guy would be alive but was just a babbling mass of nerve endings, then they'd roll him up in a ball after nine years of this stuff and roll him down the temple stairs and pulverise him...

This account is really from the aztecs, not from the mayans, that Mel Gibson didnt make a good "research" of the mayans, i think we should write about this, since Mel Gibson is defending his movie with an account of the aztecs. Comments please!! Mexxxicano 05:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mexxxicano (talk • contribs).

No: it was about the Mayas actually. Gibson obtained some of his info from Diego de Landa. Since the publication of The Blood of the Kings in 1986 some scholars have considered the Mayans as bloody as the Aztecs. —Cesar Tort 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


What if...

In part of the criticism section it says this in reference to one scene in the film:

"As agricultural people, they also would not have allowed fields of rotting corpses near their crops."

But what if the field of dead bodies near those crops were indeed the farmers who planted the crops hmm? Anyone think about that? Just asking. ManofRenown87 11:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)