Jump to content

Talk:Apocalypto

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrBeacon (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 22 March 2011 (→‎Another contradiction: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • 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 1433104199.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The baby had a penis. - kollision (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The clown has no penis. Lenerd (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apocalypto&oldid=420204016"