Story here.

Talk about personal bias getting in the way. And I really, really wanted to like this movie.

Yes, it's outrageous that a movie accentuates the grotesque and sensational, isn't it?  I don't think that's ever happened before.  How could you possibly do an adventure movie without dwelling chiefly on a culture's engineering and astronomy?

With Hollywood so obsessed with historical and cultural accuracy, I can't even believe a movie like this is being screened.  The movie-going public itself has consistently demanded meticulously accurate anthropology in entertainment; how can this be happening.

For me, this is the last straw.  Never again will I turn to Hollywood for historical accuracy.  The only history lesson Hollywood ever got right is that the Crusades were started by Christian aggression.

Mel Gibson not being historically accurate? Say it ain't so!

(*coughcoughsterlingbridgecough*)

There is actually a considerable body of evidence showing the brutality of life in the Mayan world during their long, slow collapse.

One problem here is the author of the Washington Post review is being a bit dishonest himself. The Mayan civilization reached it's zenith several hundred years before the period in which Apocalypto takes place. At the time of Apocalypto, the Mayans are clinging on to the last vestiges of their once great empire, slogging it out in the Yucatan, with rival Mayan city-states fighting it out on a regular basis. Keep in mind also that this behavior in the Yucatan had been going on for several hundred years, and the brutality is not only more understandable, it's expected. Eventually on the last page of the article, it acknowledges this temporal discrepancy, but then claims that the Spanish alone were responsible for the collapse of the Mayans in the 1500's.

Wrong.

When Mayapan collapsed in 1450 the entire Yucatan was cast into disorder and rival states, as it had been from the 900's-1200's. When the Spanish arrived, the civilization was already long in decline, made up of warring factions, and so on and so forth.

Now, the movie is a Mel Gibson movie, which means this will be a historical fiction. Some details will be amazingly particular, and some obvious details will be flat-out wrong, which is what you get with Hollywood. I also bet that, like Braveheart and the Patriot, this will be a compelling and great movie to sit and watch, and if it compels people to look at who the real Mayans were (as Mel compelled people to look at the real William Wallace) then we are all the much better for it.

In the space of about 3 paragraphs, we get:

We have no evidence...
We have no evidence...
We have no evidence...

So its possilbe it MIGHT have been that way then. Right?

And it IS a movie, after all.

The good thing is, it'll get a TON of people interested in the whole MezoAmerican period, and that's a GOOD thing. Then they can find out for themselves.

Admittedly, alot of people might get the wrong ideas, and NOT look into it - but it'll be their loss.

In researching Native Americans I have realized a couple of things when dealing with contemporary groups;

1. they are hyper-sensitive about how their ancestors in the past, even the distant past, are portrayed.
2. they know about as much about what really happened as archaeologists do, and that's not a hell of a lot.

So for these folks to be coming out saying that Apocalypto is some kind of gross misrepresentation is in fact a misrepresentation in itself.

I can honestly say I'm glad there's a movie with pyramids in it, in which the pyramids are not in Egypt.

SHUT UP ALREADY, ZAHI HAWASS!

I don't particularly like the timing. I just wanted to get my group to Maztica and now I'll probably get accused of ripping Mel Gibson off. Couldn't they have waited another year or so?

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd it IS a movie, after all.

And the REAL Pocahontas didn't have a talking racoon with her either.

Will Gibson's history of being in/making movies that distort the truth of ancient cultures never end?!?!?!

Chuck

Quote from: SosthenesI don't particularly like the timing. I just wanted to get my group to Maztica and now I'll probably get accused of ripping Mel Gibson off. Couldn't they have waited another year or so?

I know how you feel. My project even features the Maya, though it's circa 1200.

The Maya destroyed themselves. They weren't the "noble savage" that certain groups tried in the past to make them out to be.

Now the Aztecs, those guys were destroyed by the white man.

RPGPundit

I'm looking forward to this. A friend of mine has worked on it and says there is a lot of subliminal imagery inserted (dead bodies etc.) Mel Gibson loves his gore.

Just one question: What's with the insane amount of piercing? Was that as common as it's shown or is this the new version of the Braveheart woad?

Quote from: SosthenesJust one question: What's with the insane amount of piercing? Was that as common as it's shown or is this the new version of the Braveheart woad?

Among the Maya specifically I don't know (nor do I think anyone else does) the extent of which piercing was used, but I do know that among native groups in general it was a common practice and was used by the Maya.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Maya destroyed themselves. They weren't the "noble savage" that certain groups tried in the past to make them out to be.

Now the Aztecs, those guys were destroyed by the white man.

RPGPundit

But also still not particularly noble, what with the mass sacrifice and all.