Talk:Apocalypto

Use of 'actually' implying comething contrary

• Sorry if this seems niggling; it is rather small.

The article states, "(the Spanish conquest of Yucatan actually started in 1519)". I infer the word 'actually' to mean, in this context, that the movie or article stated a different time period. Yet I don't think the movie or the article did so. I didn't want to edit the page and take out the word 'actually', as I may be missing something.

Nice article, btw.

Mflan 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi,

Those words between the parenthesis don't actually belong in the plot summary, but rather the whatever critique section of the film exists. Go ahead and remove/move it.ResurgamII 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

Citations for pending Gibson Apocalypto lawsuit:

• http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1981833,00.html
• http://www.totalfilm.com/movie_news/apocalypto_in_legal_bloodbath
• http://www.dose.ca/movies/story.html?id=cbee4acf-a49c-4422-bb76-a603df6b8d21 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjboffoli (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.

Hi ResurgamII, Cjboffoli: it should be possible to work this out in a reasonable fashion. Unless a posting to a talkpg is itself potentially defamatory or a personal attack, there should be no cause to delete it.

Cjboffoli, if you haven't done so already pls familarise yourself with the key wikipedia policies/guidelines on editing, in particular Biographies of Living Persons, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research Verifiability and Reliable Sources. It doesn't matter how secure you think your own personal knowledge of a situation is, without independent verifiable sources it doesn't belong here, all the more so when the statements could be regarded as defamatory to someone. And wikipedia cannot present what amounts to allegation (given the apparent status here), as fact. You say that 'truth is strong defense against libel', but wikipedia should not be put in a situation in the first place where it is making accusatory statements that require, even if only hypothetically, such a defense.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJLL Wright,

Those links contain info regarding a lawsuit by a Mexican director named Juan Catlett against Mel Gibson for supposedly borrowing concepts from Catlett's Return to Aztlan. A mention of this lawsuit from early 2007 is already mentioned in the article (trivia section) so there wasn't much of a need. I asked for references from Cjboffoli to the following below, not the Catlett controversy.

What Cjboffoli has been trying to insert to this article and Farhad Safinia's is a libelous charge of plagiarism presented as fact regarding this mysterious screenwriter named John Fletcher from this edit:

The genesis of Apocalypto was a screenplay entitled "Sacrifice" penned by screenwriter John Fletcher which was circulated around Hollywood in 2003-04. The script caught the eye of production assistant Farhad Safinia who had no previous writing credits. Safinia liked the script and felt he could adapt the property sufficiently to avoid crediting the original writer. He pitched the script to Gibson's Icon Films and represented it as his own. Despite having registered the screenplay with the US Copyright office and the Writer's Guild, Fletcher had little recourse to pursue damages. Safinia had altered at least 10% of the screenplay and a court battle (especially if unsuccessful) could have proved costly and career-ending.

So the script Gibson and Safinia supposedly infringed upon is this shady screenplay named "Sacrifice". However, Cjboffoli has failed to provide references or other cited/published sources. Seems quite bogus to me, I'm sorry to say. ResurgamII 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. And until Cjboffoli provides verifiable sources there's no way it's going to be mentioned in this or the Safinia article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Columbus

Hey everyone, Mel Gibson and Farhad Sarfinia said in the commentary of Apocalypto that the old conquistador was supposed to be Columbus on his fourth journey. I added a few sentences about it, but they seem to have been deleted. Please put them back. 24.91.121.27 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's supposed to be Columbus, that'd be another fictive embellishment, since Columbus never came within cooee of the Maya region. At best he navigated from the mid-Honduran coastline southwards on the 4th voyage, nowhere near the region where Maya settlements of that time were located. In any case, there's no identification in the film itself, a better reference would be needed to support.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The historical accuracy doesn't enter into it, I'm afraid. Mel Gibson is not a documentarian. Is the commentary not a good reference? Have you heard it?Augustulus 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

plot summary = spoilers?

who decided this? if that's the case, whats the point of the spoilers tag? i say it should be included in the article. a plot summary can be found on the back of a DVD cover, or a movie trailer. a plot summary that spans the ENTIRE movie should be considered a spoiler. --DMW 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WP:SPOILER. The consensus that has developed is to the effect that any encyclopedic discussion of a film's plot will include material some readers might consider spoilers. An encyclopedic discussion of plot clearly differs from the back of a DVD cover or a trailer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully disagree. This is not anything close to an encyclopedic discussion. This is clearly a spoiler, and poorly written, It tells everything. It reveals everything (and, off the record, one should say, it tells everything in a clumsy english). --213.146.217.172 06:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Plans for article revamption

Hi,

Are any of you guys interested a project for this article? We could fix the "historical inaccuracies and historicity section" and discuss any changes/views before making major edits. Likewise in other sections and areas (grammar etc) too. I really want to improve this article. It would be nice to get it to "good article" status. Comments here please.

If there are several willing, I'll see what I can do. Thanks. ResurgamII 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Just a regular Wiki reader wishing to input his five cents. I think the "inaccuracies" section sounds more like a debate than an actual encyclopedia article, with arguments pro and against going back and forth. "It's good - no it's not - it is so" and so on. I understand the idea of trying to be neutral, but I suggest trying a more coherent text - IMHO, that would be one of the main actions if the idea is to turn this into a "good article". Just cannot volunteer to write anything, since I am far from being an expert. Hope this helps!

Mayan Language

Was the mayan lanuage used in apacolypto the actual mayan language? 69.141.189.196 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was an actual Mayan language more specifically it was the Yucatec Maya language.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The conquistadors and missionaries

Where did those conquistadors and missionaries at the end come from? Were they from the British Empire or wasn't that around at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.69 (talk) 12:51, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Conquistadors came from Spain. Please keep in mind this isn't a forum or general discussion about the film without intent in improving the article. ResurgamII 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I was just curious because the article doesn't mention where they came from. Thank you.

Eclipse

In the litany of idiocy that is the world's worst encyclopedia I have read a lot of bilge. Despite that I struggle to comprehend the lack of rational thought that produced a sentence like this:

The solar eclipse is portrayed as occurring in few seconds, with the moon moving rapidly to obstruct the sun, then remaining motionless for some time, before moving away quickly. In reality, while totality may be brief, eclipses take place over several hours, with the moon moving at a constant pace throughout. However, it would be unrealistic to expect a film with a two hour length to represent a complete eclipse in real time. In the film, the eclipse is followed by a full moon...

While neutrality is without doubt more important than the facts it may be useful to occasionally ignore the perspective of someone lacking a basic understanding of time, science and film-making.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroteboat2 (talk • contribs) 21:54, July 22, 2007 (UTC)

The Name of the Movie

I watched an interview with Gibson, where he claimed the word "apocalypto" was a Mayan word of some given meaning. I do not recall the exact definition he claimed, aside from finding it ridiculously unlikely that it had such a similar meaning in Mayan to the Greek word, from which we get "apocalypse".

But, anyway, it needs to be noted here. --Kaz 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality / Misleading aspect

This is regarded to the 'Historical Inaccuracy' section, and it has placed the viewer to think negatively towards the actions undertaken in the film, to depict its version of Mayan culture. The section on the third paragraph, seems to have the subtle intention of downplaying any significance or credibility of Apocalypto, however if going on to the link, the blog itself consists a large amount of the text pointing out Gibson's personal flaws, including his anti-Semitism in the attempt to relate it to a completely different subject.

In connection with this part of the quote "since there is absolutely no evidence that the Maya practiced human sacrifice on a massive scale" the interpretation and meaning is misleading, as to the actual site itself, it is a link, and to that page, there is no direct use of these words or culmination of meanings that could have been summarised from the writing.

Various pieces of the second paragraph also places false realisations, as "it was more typical" and "equivalent of the Aztec god... did not demand human sacrifice", where inclinations are made, which will forward the verifiability of the movie's contents. There is also the transition from this subject in this sentence that instills the thought in reader's minds, to a positive piece of retrieved information by a member of the Mayan ethnic group. This style of writing directs it to be read to have an incomplete and manipulated idea, thus tarnishing a fair and neutral aspect of this article.

All that has been said of me has been done through the assumptions in the current article, I do not in any way dispute the overall quality of historical inaccuracies with the rest of the section, but for the sleight-of implied writing in the mentioned sections. Daily Rubbings 08:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeryck89 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 June 2007(UTC)

You are absolutely right, Daily Rubbings.

The tragedy is that American Indians have been idealized. I suggest to take a look at two articles I have contributed to edit: Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures and Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Contrary to popular belief, the Mayans were even crueler than the Aztecs. The bloody Aztecs at least didn’t torture a person for years. Mayanist Diego de Landa wrote about how widespread sadism was among the Mayas.

The other problem I see with this article is a sort of cultural relativism. It is a fad to expose human rights violations in the West, but it’s a kind of taboo to expose even more heinous violations in non-Western cultures. Some contributors to this article unconsciously promote this bias.

If you or anyone else wants to go beyond the lies of the Maya idealization to edit this article in a truly NPOV way, I would recommend to read closely this flaming debate

File:Evolution of psychogenic modes.pngCesar Tort 07:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

...Diego de Landa was a Machiavellist... His purpose was to invent and write down all sorts of grotesque things to justify the gold-greed driven Spanish invaders. Genocidal. "Lie, cheat and deceive." - that's Machiavellism. De Landa first destroyed Mayan scripts and evidence of their culture like some criminal, then he invented grossly overemphasized horror tails to replace them... Like Inquisition of Christian churches on the old continent (Romans were making real Christian priests confess to all sorts of grotesque accusations just so they could dispose of them and install Roman false Christians (for Christ's sake - Roman Catholicism is a hegemony - it's just what arrested and murdered Jesus Christ, and for centuries after exactly that persecuted those who sympathized Christ); you (referring to the author of the previous text) yourself are a Christian - why would you then defend Rome).

As for Mel Gibson... he really disappoints me... He... proves himself to be a bad person with what the did (those movies)... Apocalypto is purely fictional horror movie with a sole purpose of alibiing Roman Catholicism. Why? I mean - why would Mel do that? Isn't he Christian too? Things are known - Rome persecuted Christians, and Roman Catholicism is based on Inquisition of Christian churches to put people back under the yoke of Rome - it is now what it was in ancient times - centralized hegemony. And also - I mean - 'Gibson' - isn't that Scandinavian surname? Scandinavians had rich magnificent unique culture and tradition, yet Rome came on them and crushed his (Gibson's) ancestors too... Mel Gibson disappoints me as a person... I don't know what's wrong with him... 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the criticism section still needs work/cleanup. I realised the POV tag that was there before had been removed. The same issues Aeryck89/Dailyrubbings brought to light has not been resolved. Thus, tag readded.

I'm still planning to rewrite the section sometime in the future (if I can get started on it soon). ResurgamII 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on then. Note: also, research if Gibsons are in any relation with Quislings. 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

First of all the whole movie is showing the mayan civilazation, he made a 2 major 1)during the sacrafice it showed that the people around the temple were screaming in celebration, when actually no civilization(aztec or mayan)ever celebrated like that during sacrafices, they were always quite and respectful so as to not insult the gods. 2) later it shows that the conquistadores arrive on the beach it is showing the prime of the mayan civilization, when in fact by that time the mayan empire had been reduced to a mere village. in fact it was the AZTEC civilazation that was in its prime. I just thought that i would post it here first to see if anybody would agree with me --Im Rick James Bitch.... NOT 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)