Talk:Apocalypto/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What nobody seems to notice 

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible Boycott

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Colonialism and fascism are very different things. 201.45.39.94 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Pap

message: 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).
: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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Anarcho-Primitivism]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  The Maya peoples are far from gone. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Gone 

message: 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)
thread_title: Movies filmed in Maya

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Historical note: Maya at time of arrival of Spanish

message: 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)
thread_title: Art or SM Porn

message: 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)
thread_title: Racism and colonialism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of 'Apocalypto' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TALK PAGE NOT FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This is an overview of all the historical problems from an experts viewpoint. (Emperor 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for possible use 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, she's wrong. --Cesar Tort 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.
--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)
thread_title:  Do you believe that? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  history lesson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Read WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overvigilance on "Trivia"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The eclipse 

message: 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? 
: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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Johntex\talk 07:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccurate inaccuracies 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Smallpox 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'The eclipse' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should categorise this film as fantasy as well. Perhaps historical fantasy. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Setting

message: 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)
thread_title: Supernatural Occurances

message: 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)
thread_title: Category: Fantasy/Historical Fantasy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apocalypto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title: Historical Inaccuracies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It can only be a year in between 1511-1528·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possibly inaccurate quote about mass graves 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To Cúchullain about deletion of facts in Trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mayan sactrifices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What if... 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Use of 'actually' implying comething contrary 

message: 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).
: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)
replies: text: 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:
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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Allegations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Columbus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  plot summary  = spoilers? 

message: :: 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)
thread_title:  Plans for article revamption 

message: Was the mayan lanuage used in apacolypto the actual mayan language? 69.141.189.196 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was an actual Mayan language more specifically it was the Yucatec Maya language.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Mayan Language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mayan Script?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The conquistadors and missionaries

message: 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
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)
thread_title:  Eclipse