Jump to content

Talk:Apocalypto/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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)


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)

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)

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)


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:

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 first Spanish landing on the Yucatan occurred in 1511, and succeeding expeditions occurred in 1517, 1519, and during the 1520s. Christopher Columbus died in 1506, so Columbus could not have been the "old conquistador" depicted in the movie. 68.174.27.198 10:32, 3 December 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)

I have heard the commentary, and if Gibson and Sarfinia are trying to say that Columbus was part of one of the Spanish expeditions to the Yucatan, they are dead wrong. He wasn't. 68.174.27.198 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is his film, so he can be as wrong as he wants to be. If it was meant to be Columbus, we should mention it (and still mention that it could not have been Columbus). 213.214.57.217 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Hicham Vanborm
It wasn't Columbus, infact one of the men on the boat had an English cross. I think they made a mistake in the commentary. Also remember, the "Jungle" and the Mayan areas are many miles apart, where he saw the boats was not in a Mayan territory. Never the less, I think you guys are being over critical, I think Titanic had far more incorrectness than many other films, but you don't see people pointing out every single mistake. Infact, this film had FAR LESS incorrectness than many many other hollywood films, 300 is the worst... 300 the film became so historically incorrect that knowledgeable critics just stopped counting errors; the Greeks and Persians threatened to sue WB and the film was almost banned in Greece and completely banned in Iran, some people even burned the later pirate copies released in Iran as a sign of disgust for misrepresentation. The fact is, films upset many people because the film makers keep trying to place fantasy on real life historical events and they are to blame partially, but people also need to be wise and realize its just a movie, and separate all they saw from real historical facts. Until then people will carry on critiscizing. Hollywood needs to make it more clear the movies are in no way representative of real life. Jaguar never existed, none of them did it. One thing is for sure, the way the film started making all those sexual jokes is again something new to this century. They are there to make money, and if some ships coming from Europe made it more exciting and made people talk about it, why not? It is probably incorrect, but film makers have many needs they need to address, 1 is continuation of a movie, e.g. leaving the plot open for a sequel, and also to satisfy the critics. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (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)
One of the words uttered repeatedly in the movie is beyora, which means "now". The Yucatec Maya language has no native r sound; words with this sound are derived from other languages. beyora literally means "this hour", with the ora part borrowed from Spanish hora. In other words, they were speaking a Spanish-derived word before contact with the Spaniards. Hmmm... Bubbha (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I had the feeling there were a couple of words in the movie that sounded pretty Spanish to me (peco for dog?). We should mention that this was the modern version of the language and not the historical one. Though one could argue that we don't do the same for English or French movies portraying the Middle Ages. 213.214.57.217 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Hicham Vanborm

Actually, the mayan language does have an "r", just not the spanish sound of "r". That's one of the most common misconceptions.Schweinsteiger54321 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mayan Script?

Does anyone anywhere know anything about an official or un-official transcription of the Yucatec Mayan dialogue in the movie? It would be a great resource for scholars and amateurs interested in the language. This is probably the only major blockbuster we'll ever get shot entirely in a Native American language of any kind whatsoever.

35.8.218.54 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2009 (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

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.

Hello, Section 5.2.3 needs a citation for this sentence. "However, despite the end of construction at many famous postclassic centers, such as Chichen Itza and Uxmal, they had not been abandoned at the time of the Spanish arrival, and there were still many comparatively smaller Maya cities such as Mayapan, Tiho, Coba, Chetumal, Nito, and Tayasal, also known as Petzen Itza, survived until 1697 before being conquered by the Spaniards." There are also punctuation errors in that paragraph, and the phrasing of the previously quoted sentence is misleading. Thank you.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.87.33 (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse

In the litany of idiocy that is the world's worst encyclopedia[citation needed] 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

Edgar Martin del Campo of SUNY Albany has pointed out that the Maya had an understanding of astronomy and would not have been in awe of an eclipse as they are depicted in the movie.


Today, (early 21st century, most people are aware of eclipses and how they occur, but that doesn't stop MILLIONS around the world doing some very weird stuff when they do.92.3.12.164 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell


Everyone interprets films differently, but my understanding of the eclipse was that the priest knew it was going to happen (since he WAS the one with knowledge of astronomy), and he was using it to give the impression of being caused by his sacrifices. That way it was easier to keep control of the population, who didn't have the benefit of a modern style education system (duh, hello Mr del Campo, they didn't have the Science Channel) and weren't aware of what an eclipse was. So the stance of Mr. Del Campo is pretty much POV isn't it, if not also showing a lack of insight? Gomez2002 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated, the fact that none of the priests or leaders display any surprise to the event and the exchange of glances between some of them point to the fact that this eclipse had been foreseen. Thus, the entire ritual, speech during the eclipse, etc. would be planned by these characters. It is a POV issue, not a controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.65.6 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apocalypto/Archive_1&oldid=1136526002"