Talk:Apocalypto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Name of the Movie

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

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

Many words in modern Yucatec Maya are borrowed from other languages, especially from Spanish. Spanish, like English, borrows many religious terms from Greek. So yes, Apocalypto can feasibly be a Maya word. Whether it actually is, I don't know. Bubbha (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is or it isn't, it's unlikely to be a Mayan word in contemporary use during the period depicted in the film.Fizzackerly (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality / Misleading aspect

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

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

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

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

You are absolutely right, Daily Rubbings.

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

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

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

—Cesar Tort 07:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.140.230 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, the criticism section still needs work/cleanup. I realised the POV tag that was there before had been removed. The same issues Aeryck89/Dailyrubbings brought to light has not been resolved. Thus, tag readded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResurgamII (talk • contribs)

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

Come on then. Note: also, research if Gibsons are in any relation with Quislings. 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.140.230 (talk • contribs)

I have restored this paragraph, originally posted in Revision as of 20:52, 15 February 2007:

Mexican reporter Juan E. Pardinas disagrees: "The bad news is that this historical interpretation bears some resemblances with reality […]. Mel Gibson’s characters are more similar to the Mayas of the Bonampak’s murals than the ones that appear in the Mexican school textbooks". (Translation from the original in Spanish: La mala noticia es que esta interpretación histórica tiene alguna dosis de realidad […]. Los personajes de Mel Gibson se parecen más a los mayas de los murales de Bonampak que a los que aparecen en los libros de la SEP” —Reforma, “Nacionalismo de piel delgada” , 4 February 2007.)

I hope this time it will not be removed. The article is already biased against the film and the Spanish conquest. This paragraph balances it a bit.

—Cesar Tort 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Francisco Espinosa (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this (something tells me it's not), but I'd just like to point out the cultural relativists' hipocrisy in condemning movies like these as culturally biased. Anyone who's even a bit instructed on world cultures and civilisations knows EVERYTHING is culturally biased; it's an unavoidable consequence of an individual trying to depict objectively a reality to whom he belongs and, therefore, appreciates under a particular subjective light. I'd love to see these same people criticise a film or book on Mediaeval Europe for depicting soldiers and villagers as brutal and ignorant, which they actually were to the same degree most Native Americans (or even Japanese or Korean townsfolk). It's utterly ridiculous to suppose a common (and probably illiterate) villager of the last years of the Mayan civilisation was more instructed on Mayan science or philosophy than a Scottish butcher was fluent in Aquinas's philosophy. We must accept the fact that, in an age of still primitive technological advances, constant conflict and strife, and authoritarian and theocratic regimes (conditions which accurately applie to prehispanic settlements in the 15th century the same it does to European Feudal states in, say, the 9th century), life was generally harsh, violent, and quite different from what the modern Western World would define as "civilised". To deny this realities on the basis of political correctness, and thus implying that brutality, injustice, and organised violence existed nowhere but in Europe and was, in turn, spread throughout the otherwise peace-loving utopian societies of the rest of the world like a virulent disease, leads nowhere but to a comfortable dumbing down of cultural conscience, which, I firmly believe, sounds a lot more like pitiful condescendence rather than respect for these cultures.

Francisco Espinosa (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Francisco Espinosa

Misinterpretation of Will Durant Quote

Someone re-added the quote without justifying their actions in talk. Since it in no way contributes to the plot, I'm going to be deleting it from the plot section. Feel free to justify it's placement or make a section specifically for the quote. it doesn't belong where it has been placed, and please don't just be obstinate and revert, you need to warrant your actions as I have mine.

Thank you for your point of view, this is not an article about Will Durant or about your subjective view of its usage, it is about the film where the quote is used as the opening and that is the only reason why it is included in this article. Your opinion about its usage is your opinion, if the estate of Mr Durant has any issues that it has voiced in the media or there are any other published conflicts about its use in the film then that material is worthy of inclusion. Please read WP:V Mighty Antar (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dedication

The film's dedication appears part way through the end credits (and in that sense is pretty well hidden) as something along the lines of 'dedicated to the memory of Abel'. I forget the exact wording.

Anyone know the origins of that dedication? Is it just a Gibsonism given his well known strong Christian zeal along with the film's violent themes and the impending doom of the Mayans implied at the end of the film. Or is it a dedication to a more contemporary 'Abel' who's identity is obvious even without a surname?Fizzackerly (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The film is dedicated to Abel Woolrich, the beloved Mexican character actor. In the commentary Mel Gibson explains that the terminally ill actor asked permission to be in the film. He portrays the laughing man (see cast list in the article), a grotesque elderly villager who is dying (apparently from famine/disease) and begs for something from the sacrificial captives(food? Mercy?). The Holcane warrior Middle Eye taunts him and admonishes him to "die like a man" (English translation). According to the wikipedia article for the actor and to Mel Gibson in the commentary, the actor died before completion of the filming.Riwo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

aztec or maya

article said decline of maya empire. or is it not more logic than it be the aztec empire and the conquistador show at the end is Cortes. another argument is: the collapse of the maya city state civilisation was not cause by conquistador: the shock of civilisation with westener was never involve like a hypothesis for the fall of maya.

in conclusion, 2 option was possible: it have a mistake in the article or the historical exactitude of movie is defiscient and the article is accurate. if someone could answer this question, it will be really appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.155.46 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A: the second of those two options is closest to the mark. It's a fictional film, not history. As some of the article notes, the film's creators have taken numerous liberties with actual historical knowledge in building their story. The iconography, architecture, and perhaps most famously the language used are taken from Maya, not Aztec/Nahua, culture— albeit somewhat mixed up from different time periods/regions. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards

I am new to the process of editing wikipedia, but I wanted to raise the issue of how the Academy Award nominations/wins are presented in this article. In many Wiki articles, the awards are identified with the # of the awards, (for this film, it would be the 79th Academy Awards - http://www.oscars.org/79academyawards/nomswins.html) and often listed with bullets. See an example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Diamond_(film). By just stating the year the award was won or nominated (2007), as this article does, it confuses whether that is the year it received the award (2007) with the year for which it was nominated (2006).Ginwiki (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I changed a minor portion of the plot to accurately describe how Cut Rock was killed. The article stated that Jaguar Paw killed Cut Rock with his own knife, but actually he kills him with the broken arrow. There is a shot that shows him break off the front part of the arrow and as Cut Rock bends down to slash his throat, Jaguar Paw shoves the arrow into his throat. After Zero Wolf runs out to his dying son, there is a shot that clearly shows the broken shaft sticking out of Cut Rock's throat while Zero Wolf is now holding the knife he took from his dead son's hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginwiki (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Ginwiki (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest clarifying as well the assertion made, to whit "Zero Wolf takes the villagers to a ball field. The captives are released in pairs and forced to run the length of the field to win their freedom." There is no indication that the captives are meant to "win their freedom." The high priest tells Zero Wolf to "dispose of them" and Zero Wolf posts his son at the end of the field to intercept any who are not killed during their run. Synopsis is very misleading and should be reworded. Ebbixx (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'Eclipse'

Why is this section allowed to remain here? Who the hell is Edgar Martin del Campo? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated a broken link

Didn't write any note with the update I just made, the reference link "44" led to a page no longer there. I replaced it with a working link. Link was only used twice in the Representation of the Maya section. NoFlyingCars (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Waldo

Waldo's cameo is not mentioned in this page, and I when I edited the article to include it, it was deleteted. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.49.234 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"a healthy second son" ?

Was the gender of the second child actually shown? I just watched the movie and didn't notice that at all, but maybe I missed something. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The baby had a penis. - kollision (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The clown has no penis. Lenerd (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Love has a penis.

Unverified claim/original research

I deleted the following sentence in the section on the arrival of the Spaniards which cites no source: "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."

Without a source, it sounds like original research. Also, the claim seems irrelevant to the discussion because it refers to "smaller" Maya cities, whereas the city depicted in the movie was certainly not a small one. 94.222.117.176 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this info which confirms that the unsourced claim is unfounded: "The Mayan capital, INCLUDING ANY GREAT TEMPLE OF THE SORT IN THE FILM, had mysteriously disappeared 700 years before the Spanish arrived." (emphasis added, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570108-3,00.html#ixzz0aeQ0mxSk)94.222.117.176 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Amphitheater changed to Ballcourt

In the plot summary the space where they set the blue warriors free to shoot at them is called an Amphitheater. I know it is very picky but there were no Amphitheaters in Meso-America. This term is more appropriate for ancient Greek, Roman or Alexandrian style theaters. I know it may not look much like it (apologies to production designer) but in the commentary the director and script writer specifically reference a Ball court as the influence for this space. I really just wanted to be able to link to the ball court article to spread the Ball court love. If I have done any of this incorrectly or out of order I am sorry. A little new to Wikipedia.Riwo (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article states, "Anthropologist Traci Ardren criticized the presence of the Spanish expedition in the last five minutes of the story, claiming that 'the Spaniards arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned.' " Yet, according to the Wikipedia article "Spanish conquest of Yucatán," "Montejo returned in 1531 with a force that conquered the Maya port city of Campeche."

I'm going to delete the quoted sentence from this article. If someone can resolve this conflict, please restore this. But we shouldn't let false information remain in the encyclopedia, even if it's from a scholar.

75.73.169.252 (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. "[T]he ending of the film was meant to depict the first contact between the Spaniards and Mayas that took place in 1502." 1502 was before 1531, when, apparently, there was at least one Maya city still around.

75.73.169.252 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction

The article states, "Traci Ardren wrote that the Spanish arrivals were Christian missionaries." But Christopher Columbus was not a missionary. Someone else can delete it if they want, along with the other false statements in this article.

75.73.169.252 (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement is not that the Spanish arrivals were Christian missionaries, or that the Spanish arrivals in the movie were led by Columbus, or that Columbus was a Christian missionary. The statement is that Traci Arden wrote that the Spanish arrivals depicted in the film were Christian missionaries. The statement that Traci Arden wrote such a thing, is backed up by a cited reference, which I have checked and confirmed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, Columbus didn't make it to Mexico or Guatemala. From this map it looks like he only got as far west as Honduras. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall

Does anybody notice that when the captives are being taken to the Mayan city they cross the waterfall from the same location as when the main character is escaping from the Mayan city.

86.15.185.134 (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tintin Controversy

The section regarding the alleged plagiarism of Hergé's work is either poorly written or heavily biased in the film maker's favour. The fact that this scene does occur in a Tintin comic is not a rumour, it is indeed a verifiable fact. While I'm certain that Gibson's lunacy is advanced enough to make him blatantly deny printed fact as a rumour, the relevant fact here is that the section needs improvement. 82.32.160.97 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Ardren, Traci (2009). "Twenty-First-Century Reinventions of Alexander, Xerxes and Jaguar Paw: A Critique of Apocalypto and Popular Media Depictions of the Past". Archaeological Review from Cambridge. 24 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Coulardeau, Jacques (2008). "God's death and subsequent resurrection from Faust to Apocalypto". In Bray, Suzanne; Gavin, Adrienne E.; Merchant, Peter (eds.). Re-Embroidering the Robe: Faith, Myth and Literary Creation since 1850. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84718-608-9.
• Kolodny, Annette (2008). "Tropic Trappings in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto and Joseph Nicolar's The Life and Traditions of the Red Man". American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 32 (1). UCLA American Indian Studies Center: 21–34. ISSN 0161-6463.
• Maxwell, Judith M. (2007). "Apocalypto: Then and Now". Anthropology News. 48 (5): 38. doi:10.1525/an.2007.48.5.38. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• McSweeney, Terence (2009). "Apocalypto Now: A New Millennial Pax Americana in Crisis?". In Hart, Kylo-Patrick R.; Holba, Annette M. (eds.). Media and the Apocalypse. Peter Lang Publishing. pp. 167–188. ISBN 978-1-4331-0419-0.
• Restall, Matthew; Solari, Amara (2011). "Apocalypto: The Millennium Comes to the Maya". 2012 and the End of the World. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 91–112. ISBN 978-1-4422-0609-0.
• Xiuhtecutli, Nexahualcoyotl (2007). "Gibson's Apocalypto as an Act Against the Maya". Anthropology News. 48 (6): 29–30. doi:10.1525/an.2007.48.6.29. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Yelle, Robert A. (2011). "The Ends of Sacrifice: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto as a Christian Apology for Colonialism" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. 23 (1). University of Toronto Press: 82–89. doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.1.82. ISSN 1703-289X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • the last cite (by Robert A Yelle) is only available to students of University of Toronto, (or by payment ?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.41.242 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

title

Article needs to explain the ugly made-up word used as the title of the film. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Why Apocalypto and not Apocalypse? Mazarin07 (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is right there in the article, and has been since before this section was added:

Gibson has defined the title as "a new beginning or an unveiling – a revelation"; he says "Everything has a beginning and an end, and all civilizations have operated like that". The Greek word (ἀποκαλύπτω, apokaluptō) is in fact a verb meaning "I uncover", "disclose", or "reveal". Gibson has also said a theme of the film is the exploration of primal fears. 87.244.69.26 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

criticism?

http://www3.uni-bonn.de/maya-dismembered-their-enemies

perhaps the critics spoke early? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

An inconsistency (." or ".)

Which one should be used in this article?--Adûnâi (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Tamil

Tamili yaravathu translate pannunga please!!! This is my Request. Murugan Sanganthiradu (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apocalypto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611220458/http://video.movies.go.com/apocalypto/ to http://video.movies.go.com/apocalypto/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102063514/http://www.globalheritagefund.org/apocalypto.html to http://www.globalheritagefund.org/apocalypto.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVXRP5MP?url=http://www.tapirs.org/news/interviews/apocalypto-interview.html to http://www.tapirs.org/news/interviews/apocalypto-interview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908235719/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2006-09-25T031220Z_01_N24227883_RTRUKOC_0_US-GIBSON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211234607/http://idyllist.idyllspress.com/2007/02/10/robert-duvall-on-apocalypto/ to http://idyllist.idyllspress.com/2007/02/10/robert-duvall-on-apocalypto/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Transliteration

What about the transliteration of the original names of the characters? Can someone please add it? הראש (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@הראש: that's an interesting idea, but I'm not finding any sources listing the Yucatec Maya names. Do you think a free online translation would work? (Example "Jaguar Paw" = "pata báalam", "Seven" = "Ukp'éel", "Flint Sky" = "ka'anal le pedernal", etc.) Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

please re-read TP guidelines

This is not a forum. Stay on-topic, discuss Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article. WP:FORUM

Ok T-doo tman (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)