Jump to content


Click to shop at Sensi Seed Company
Photo
- - - - -

How Accurate Was Apocalypto?




  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Asmo

Asmo

    Slo motion rider

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35,771 posts
  • LocationThe pulsing cavern

Posted August 02 2017 - 03:44 AM

I don't think no historical movie has to be 100 percent accurate. It just needs to be generally accurate. Because for many people Apocalypto will be their only info about the Maya.

I put more focus on the human sacrifice part. From what I've read the movie didn't reflect human sacrifice as it was known to have been practiced by the Maya. The movie's human sacrifice scenes are actually more reflective of how it was done among the Aztec.


Well, the best historical movies are for a large part regarded as such because the makers strived to make it as accurate as possible

#22 autophobe2e

autophobe2e

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,769 posts

Posted August 02 2017 - 05:39 PM

The movie does some really incredible things when it comes to accurately depicting the Maya collapse and the Aztec empire just before the arrival of the conquistadors. The only problem is that those two historical periods are many hundreds of years apart.

 

Apparently no-one mentioned this to Gibson....

 

The whole film chops and changes different bits- the customs of the Aztecs with the art and architecture of the mayans, and even though it seems to depict Mayan stuff more prevalently, it ends with the arrival of the conquistadors in 1521! that's 600 years after the Maya collapse! We are historically closer to the arrival of the conquistadors than the Mayans were.

 

It's the equivalent of having a film set during the first gulf war, where all the participants are English and welsh archers from the battle of Agincourt, and then arguing that the film might be a bit unrealistic because they aren't wearing the right sort of belts.

 

Really good film though.


Edited by autophobe2e, August 02 2017 - 05:47 PM.

Ua2h5.jpg


#23 autophobe2e

autophobe2e

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,769 posts

Posted August 02 2017 - 06:11 PM

I agree with most of the comments in this thread about it not really mattering if a film is entertaining, providing it is enjoyable and "feels" good. but at the same time in many cases, I think studios lack the balls to give us proper historical movies because they are worried about audience reactions.

 

Vikings? well, audiences expect to see them wearing random studded leather off-cuts stitched together in daft ways, particularly on their wrists, like a heavy metal album cover. So we give them what they want, even if anyone who knows anything about the period knows how daft that is....

 

People expect medieval combat to be conducted by men who immediately break out of formation and fight each other one-on-one, even though this makes more sense...

 

People expect to see everyone in medieval times covered in shit the whole time, even though there's never been a time when people thought that was a hot look, so that's what we give them...

 

People expect the scottish to wear kilts...

 

People expect castles to have random braziers full of mysterious burning substances that burn in the middle of the day....

 

The list goes on and on and on. Our view of many aspects of the past is a complete fabrication based on fantasy movies and books, and directors know this. It'd be really cool if they weren't so afraid of what would happen if they don't conform to those expectations and actually gave audiences something that actually was authentic rather than just feeling authentic. Medieval combat is brutal but it's brutal in ways that are totally different from how it has been depicted on screen, a director with balls could provide a spectacle that genuinely has never been seen before if he wasn't worried about audience expectation. I'm sure the same is true of many other periods too.

 

Complaining about historical inaccuracies seems pedantic and what have you, but really it's just a way of saying "we're seriously missing out on so much awesome shit!"

 

For example; in certain medieval periods if your husband cheated on you, you'd go to a local magistrate who would settle your legal dispute through judicial duel. to the death. To even things up, your husband would have to stand in a hole  up to his waist. He would swing at your legs with a club while you try and stove his head in with a rock in a sling.

 

5kojkh.jpg

 

But you'll never see that in a Hollywood film, because audiences expect that medieval women were either demure and submissive or were warrior women who did exactly what the men did with no difference at all in combat role. We're seriously missing out.


Edited by autophobe2e, August 02 2017 - 06:15 PM.

  • NoxiousGas likes this

Ua2h5.jpg


#24 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,018 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted August 02 2017 - 08:47 PM

I could take down any male warrior and his horse too. ;)

It's a historic fact.

Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!


#25 Asmo

Asmo

    Slo motion rider

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 35,771 posts
  • LocationThe pulsing cavern

Posted August 03 2017 - 05:38 AM

With witchraft I reckon?

#26 Ajay0

Ajay0

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted August 03 2017 - 10:59 AM

Films Mel Gibson directed are not exactly renowned for its historical accuracy. His film Braveheart itself was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times, in 2009.

 

 I myself watching the film found it odd that Gibson, who acted the part of William Wallace, was suave and clean-shaven as a Scot military leader in stark contrast to all the other Scots with abundant facial hair. Historical pictures of William Wallace also depicted him as bearded.


Edited by Ajay0, August 03 2017 - 11:17 AM.

When the robot mind is mastered, undisciplined thinking ceases and is replaced by awareness. Awareness can know love. You can only experience the new when you are aware, when you are without thought. -- Barry Long
 
Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. -- Eckhart Tolle


#27 BlackBillBlake

BlackBillBlake

    Hip Forums Supporter

  •  Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,013 posts

Posted August 03 2017 - 11:41 AM

^ He probably was unconvincing as Wallace, and I didn't really like the movie, but it wasn't quite so dire as his attempt at 'Hamlet' which is about the worst film of a Shakespeare play I've ever seen.


'Delicacy and dignity are taught by the heart and not by the dancing master' - Dostoevsky.


#28 autophobe2e

autophobe2e

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,769 posts

Posted August 08 2017 - 08:20 AM

Films Mel Gibson directed are not exactly renowned for its historical accuracy. His film Braveheart itself was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times, in 2009.

 

 I myself watching the film found it odd that Gibson, who acted the part of William Wallace, was suave and clean-shaven as a Scot military leader in stark contrast to all the other Scots with abundant facial hair. Historical pictures of William Wallace also depicted him as bearded.

 

His facial hair was the least of his worries, that movie is totally laughable, as is The Patriot (although that at least has nice costumes)

 

One of the more baffling decisions made was the one to include the battle of Stirling bridge but not include....Stirling Bridge.

 

The story goes that the director was setting up the battle shots one day and an old Scottish guy was wandering by:

 

"What are you filming here?"

 

"It's the Battle of Stirling Bridge."

 

"You're missing a bridge."

 

"Yeah, we tried shooting it that way, but the bridge just got in the way."

 

"Aye.....that's what the English found, too"


  • BlackBillBlake likes this

Ua2h5.jpg


#29 Ajay0

Ajay0

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted August 26 2017 - 03:00 AM

 
 
Well, it seems  the Scots, Irish and English are at each other's throats these days !
 
Existence is impersonal, but we personalize it with our emotions, likes and dislikes, subjective ideas and creates thereby conflict and chaos. All identities are made up of imagination and it is just a construction of thought. 
 
 
Man-made ideas like Irish and English and Scotch are entirely fictitious without any independent nature or substance of its own. But they can create a lot of chaos and destruction. That which is false and mere mental creations is bound to be destructive in the long run due to its inherent superficiality. This may be nature's way of prodding man to find that which is true and substantial.

When the robot mind is mastered, undisciplined thinking ceases and is replaced by awareness. Awareness can know love. You can only experience the new when you are aware, when you are without thought. -- Barry Long
 
Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. -- Eckhart Tolle


#30 BlackBillBlake

BlackBillBlake

    Hip Forums Supporter

  •  Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,013 posts

Posted August 26 2017 - 07:37 AM

 

 
 
Well, it seems  the Scots, Irish and English are at each other's throats these days !
 
 

Fortunately not anything like in the days of Wallace. Mainly, the 'British' identity tends to trump the others nowadays. Talk of Scottish independence will come to nothing it seems. The problems in NI with the peace process will probably get ironed out in time. Offa's Dyke - a defensive wall built by Offa, king of Mercia in the 8th century to keep out marauding welsh is now a pleasant country walk.  The internal conflicts are mainly between the have's and have nots. More worrying is the rejection of the EU.


'Delicacy and dignity are taught by the heart and not by the dancing master' - Dostoevsky.





Click to shop at In Harmony Herbs and Spice