History Buffs Apocalypto

This. The review does seem to get unnecessarily hung up on a few details (for example, the smallpox thing - the disease spread quickly through trade, and not just European contact; by the time Mayans encountered the Spanish, it had reached them). But in general, the movie is incredibly confused about who, when, and what it's trying to portray, even though a lot of the promotion about the production stressed the accuracy Mel was going for. And it gets away with it because most people don't know or care enough about Mesoamerican history to care. If Mel made a movie showing Julius Caesar coming in and defeating the Persians at Thermopylae, everyone would be pissed, but a movie that mixes several different American civilizations, time periods, and seems to be passing a weird moral message about its subjects, but was still made under the impression that it was incredibly accurate, gets a pass.

It's not an accurate or historical movie at all, and it's not autistic to point that out. That episode got a little cringey at points, but it's not wrong.

Well i thought he'd never release another video... pretty bold after begging for money via patreon.
Also I gave up on him after he started to suck off Vikings after they invited him, purposely overlooking it's obvious flaws in historical accuracy.

>But in general, the movie is incredibly confused about who, when, and what it's trying to portray,
I disagree, like I said in my other post, it was clear to me this was a mythological movie.
It was not historical accuracy the movie strived for, but some sense of authenticity.

Compare it to Enemy at the Gate, which did gave me the false illusion of "historicalness". I consider Apocalypto in the same sense of Inglorious Basterds: mythology.

>Fantastical historical fiction, with no basis in historical fact, complete with cultural embellishments for better story telling and scenery.

vs

>Drama surrounding a meticulously recorded historical battle that changed some minor details such as the name of the involved regiment and the personalities of some of the involved men, and added the little respectful singsong at the finale.

Shaking my head to be quite honest with you my family.

>I consider Apocalypto in the same sense of Inglorious Basterds: mythology.
At least IB had the sense to choose a time and place it was supposed to be set during. I get what you're saying, and I agree that the movie was supposed to be mythological (I think Mel was trying to make a movie about the spread of Christianity to the New World as a metaphor for civilization), but that doesn't really excuse the movie's inaccuracies (to me, at least).

If he wanted to make a movie about the downfall of a certain civilization, he should have chosen one and stuck with it. I'm old enough to have remembered the media hype for the movie, and it was all centered around how accurate Mel was trying to make the movie, since he was hiring Mayan actors and filming in Yucatec. But in the end, he ended up creating a movie that shows a weird mishmash of Mesoamerican cultures and presents them as a general representation (despite clearly linking this depiction to one of them) existing in a way that's weirdly independent of time. In the end, it comes off kind of weird. It's a mythological movie that pretends to be rooted in historical/cultural accuracy. It probably would have been better if Mel would have just made the movie more conventionally and been more clear about his intentions; either way, the movie isn't accurate at all, but at least it wouldn't have pretended to be.

this, but Zulu felattes the eternal anglo and even has a scene of the fucking Africans cheering on their new British over lords, but that all ok.

I kind of cringed when he implied it was historically inaccurate because Mel is "racist against indians" or whatever, while he also makes the point that his movies about the Scottish and American Revolution are both also inaccurate.

It's about the death of the western civ

If he was going for that, that is fine, but he mixed up too many things and honestly when I first saw it I thought it was meant to be a historically accurate film. I think many would too and would cite his use of the Yucatec Mayan language throughout the film as a film trying to be authentic, i.e historically accurate.Thanks to this, you have others being too lazy to do any research and use the film as a basis for their stuff set in the Precolumbian Maya world. It's like the viking horned helmets meme coming from the 19th century. Only this is worst since most don't even know much about the Maya to be begin with except the whole 2012 thing so people are just going to copy this for reference.

I'd also like to add that while the video is largely correct it has a few things it got wrong.

>atzec

This is the guy who made a movie about Jesus, mind you. He used time period accurate language and told a story of a virgin-birthed messiah who can forgive your sins and send you to heaven. To Mel, History and Mythology might as well be one and the same.

The movie officially takes place in 1551, so the reviewer's rant on time travel is just a waste of time and a hilarious display of immaturity.

The big question is: Could a city like the one Apocalypto depicts have existed in 1551? Is it impossible or just unlikely? If the latter, then I don't see a problem. If the former, then it's a matter of a huge creative license to depict the Maya at their height while also depicting the two very important things that caused their downfall all within a 2 hour something movie.

>dat autism rage about smallpox
It's safe to assume the Spanish had reached other regions by that time and the illness got to that particular place before they first arrived there 2 days later. Jesus Christ.

>NO SHE CAN'T HAVE SMALL POX!!!!!!!!

What an autistic retard, Gibson wanted to give out that some of the Spanish had already visited/landed, just because we see ships approaching at the end it doesn't mean those were the first ones

> Could a city like the one Apocalypto depicts have existed in 1551?
no way, mayan cities were abandoned by that date and the people went back to the jungle

Two minutes in and he's talking about pig noises. It's pretty autistic.

He's right about everything though. I like the movie personally as a sort of adventure thing with some cool costumes, but it really should open with a disclaimer that everything in it is bullshit. It's apparently supposed to be set around the Mayan collapse around 800 AD, and the city looks like Tikal or a similar city around that time, and then the fucking Spanish arrive out of nowhere. Why not just have a Mexican cartel show up too while they're at it? And for some reason the main characters are hunter-gatherers instead of farmers and they're being hunted down sacrificed, when Mayans only sacrificed elite war captives. The whole thing's just retarded. It's not just a few inaccuracies here and there, it's the entire setting and plot being completely wrong.

Don't give me that 'fantasy' bullshit, that excuse might work for The Road to El Dorado, but not here. Some kid speaking in tongues doesn't change the fact that the whole movie presents itself as a caricature of Mayan civilization. It's clearly supposed to be a historical setting and it gets everything wrong.

There were still Mayan cities, but nothing like what was in the movie. That was clearly a Classic city from around 600-800 AD.

Literally who cares about any of this

Historical accuracy has literally no bearing on the quality of a work of fiction

b-but the unwashed masses learn history from the m-movies, dude, everything needs to be accurate

Braveheart and patriot might be more historically accurate movies but they vastly inferior films. Apocalypto is his finest work as director.

You posted this on /tv/ too. Advertising your Youtube channel is against the rules.

Shit, i watched the video earlier and never thought it was autistic at all, does this make me autistic?

1551 in the Yucatan? By that time they were at war with the Spaniards or conquered by them by then, waves of disease had already struck. The style of the city looks like a mix of several regional variants of the late classic period (c.600-900) mixed with the early postlcassic (c.900-1200) one of the north ( yucatan) mixed with preclassic cities like El Mirador, and even includes a mural distorted from San Bartolo which dates to 100 BC. So no a city would never look like the one in the film in any time period.

Maya cities in 1551 were not abandoned, but they were mostly subjugated in the Yucatan under Spanish rule. Some independent kingdoms in the south peten continued. At this time you would have seen early colonial towns being formed, and christian churches in pre existing Maya towns.

The problem is the film conflates two periods which don't have anything to do with the other. The fall of the late classic kingdoms and the conquest period of yucatan by the conquistadors. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's like mixing the fall of the western roman empire with the fall of the byzantine empire.

The Patriot wasn't directed by Mel Gibson

There are no records of Smallpox being in America before Europeans
So you are saying that you're fine with Conquistador showing up 600 years before they existed?

Why not give the Maya indians guns while we are at it.

But if the movie is set in 900 AD then there can't be any Spanish to introduce Smallpox, because in 900 AD the Spanish were busy being ruled by Muslims.

>implying the entire ending isnt supposed to be a gotcha with their entire world about to come crashing down around them because the Europeans have arrived

I'm pretty confident the movie is in the post-classical Maya period.

Someone would have mentioned to Mel Gibson how stupid the other way would be.
Mel Gibson isn't a genius, but he's smart enough to know that 900 != 1511.

The movie is clearly set in the 1510's-1540's.

The dumbfuck youtuber seems to think big cities = 800's-900's.

The movie is much more likely set in say 1528, than 902. Even with the qualities that allude to the fall of the classical Maya, it simply doesn't make sense to have time-traveling spaniards.
Mel Gibson fucking up some minor historical facts and how post-classical Mayan society looked is much much much more likely than him fucking up a 600 year difference and having no one tell him.

Is this autist too deluded to see that?

I think the acting was very good. Its a worthy movie.

Late postclassic cities in the yucatan weren't that size though. So 800 feels more appropriate especially since the buildings are copies from those of that period. To put it in context imagine seeing roman empire architecture and then being told lol this is actually supposed to be 1400s

Oh so "big classical mayan cities and time traveling spaniards" is more likely than "the biggest post-classic mayan city and historically accurate conquistadors with smallpox"?

The biggest post-classical mayan city got close to what is shown in the movie.

Also, the Byzantine architecture of 1400 was WAYYYY more different to the classical Roman Empire's architecture than the classical Mayan architecture was to the post-classical Mayan architecture.

You are making a pathetic analogy.

Which is more likely? A fuck up on how big the Mayan city was, or time-traveling conquistadores.

Shitty dragonglass would have broke when hitting the collar bone.

2/10

Speaking of Apocalypto, is there any movies that does the story of the Mayans better (or the Inca's or Aztecs)

Or any books?

To all the people saying that it would be like comparing 600years in europe, is that really a fair comparison? I mean these cultures weren't evolving at the same rate, they looked very much the same unlike in europe.

Probably money reasons. Maybe the studio was afraid of angering Mexican Aztecaboos. Maybe Maya speakers were easier to find than nautl

>There are no records of Smallpox being in America before Europeans
When did I say that there was? The movie is supposed to take place when Spanish ships landed in the Yucatan and encountered Mayan kingdoms. That happened in 1517. The first Spanish contact in the New World happened in 1492; that's almost 30 years for a prolific deceased to spread among population that had contact with each other.

The video seems to be asserting the point that smallpox wouldn't have been encountered by people without direct Spanish contact, and that's just false. After 1492, the disease spread like wildfire through the Americas due to extensive trade networks and existing cultural contacts; by the time any Europeans got the North America, most populations had already been devastated. There had also been a few Spanish captives (caught in 1511) in Yucatan prior to Cordoba's arrival.

Of all the valid criticisms he lodged about the movie, showing people will smallpox almost 30 years after Columbus is not one them. It's pretty much what happened.

>is that really a fair comparison
Yes

>I mean these cultures weren't evolving at the same rate, they looked very much the same
No, they didn't. There are clear stylistic differences between different periods of Mesoamerican civilizations (it's why the history of the region is divided into different periods in the first place). And the politics in the region also went through changes at sometimes pretty rapid rates. A pretty good example from the video is that the Aztec didn't even exist during the Classic Maya era. In general, political power was built around being able to seize territories and expand, which meant frequent shifts in power and political control over the whole region.

Granted, these are things most people aren't familiar with, which is why Mel was able to make the movie the way he did without anyone in the public calling him on it. I think he was probably trying to go for a depiction that most people would recognize, and he pretty much nailed it (Mayans and Aztecs being mixed, pyramids and jade everywhere, etc.), but that doesn't mean it's accurate in any way except popular misconceptions.

No it's more likely Mel either fucked up or didnt care. He probably figured it was good enough. He was right in thinking that it would be passable since most people don't know much about the Maya.

>"We wanted to set up the Mayan world, but we were not trying to do a documentary. Visually, we wanted to go for what would have the most impact.

>However, while many of the architectural details of Maya cities are correct,[8] they are blended from different locations and eras,

>While Apocalypto is set during the terminal post-classic period of Maya civilization, the central pyramid of the film comes from the classic period, which ended in A.D. 900

>Gibson ... was trying to depict opulence, wealth, consumption of resources."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto#Set_design

The movie itself says it's set around 1511 and this retards goes on and assumes it's set in the 900s because some of the buildings are not historically accurate. And then has this nonsense about time travelling Spaniards. All he had to do was do some research on the movie.

>!=

Hang yourself from the neck until dead.

If they wanted the most visual impact in 1511, showing opulence, wealth, consumption of resources, the Aztecs were the way to go tbqh.

>tfw we will never see tenochtitlan in all its glory in a big budget film.

But if the movie is supposed to take place in 1517 then there is a lot of cultural and architectural errors

but his entire point is that this movie is based in 900AD. the Spanish haven't arrived.

It was cool but the setting was kind of retarded.

It would have been cooler if it took place in aztec empire

There could have also been a sequel where cortex invades

>cortex

The crash bandicoot reboot we all wanted

>collar bone

>Yes

No it is not

But it is FAR more likely that he fucked up the style a size of the cities than that he fucked up and put in time-traveling conquistadors.

Fuck off

Okay well History Buffs is still autistically wrong. Even youtube commenters point it out.

Okay? Which is more likely, architectural errors or fucking time-traveling spaniards?

>architectural errors or fucking time-traveling spaniards?
If set in the fall of classical maya period (during the 900th) then time-traveling Spaniards

if set when the Spanis did find America then massive architectural errors

But the official website for the movie says 1520's...

They didn't choose Aztecs because of the lack of Aztec language speakers. A lot more Mayan speakers are around.

Find a citation saying where it is set.

The wikipedia page and official movie website say THE 1500's.
>According to the DVD commentary track by Mel Gibson and Farhad Safinia, the ending of the film was meant to depict the first contact between the Spaniards and Mayas that took place in 1502 during the fourth voyage of Christopher Columbus.[58]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto

Find me a source claiming otherwise.

Then we have a clear case of massive architectural and cultural errors
>because of the lack of Aztec language speakers
You got 1,5 million people speaking Nahuatl.

My bedtime detector is off the charts!

>Then we have a clear case of massive architectural and cultural errors

Which is MUCH MORE likely than time-traveling spaniards.

Mel Gibson isn't known for historical accuracy. Then again, very few people in the world think that the Spaniards arrived in 900ad.

And there lies the problem, he has events that happened in 900AD happen in 1500AD.

I don't think it particularly is. Mesoamerican civilization was a full "cycle" behind the West, the Maya existed at the time of the Romans but they "belonged" in the Bronze Age. 600 years after /our/ bronze age collapse, we were just beginning to crawl out of the Greek Dark Ages.

I think the Mayans are often seen as good guy Aztecs due to some dubious midcentury archaeology

That type of foolishness existed well into the post classical period, especially in Guatemala. The temple is wrong and the city is too big but aside from that it's spot on.

>The temple is wrong and the city is too big but aside from that it's spot on.
That's still to massive errors, to massive in fact.

This. the Maya are supposed to be the "American Greeks" who had refined mathematics and astrology and lived in beautiful and orderly cities. It comes as a shock to many to learn they may ave been aesthetic as fuck but they also LOVED sacrificing people to the dark gods.

Personally I liked them even more after I found out.

No, those are trivial inaccuracies. The size of the city is distorted, it seems vast because this is the first time many of our characters have seen it. The sacrifices take place on a temple because that's aesthetically better than having them take place in a dark chamber.

>they may ave been aesthetic as fuck but they also LOVED sacrificing people to the dark gods
Not really because as mentioned before that's more of an Aztec thing.
>, those are trivial inaccuracies
Yeah as trivial as having Germany invade France with Tiger tanks in a world war 2 movie

>Yeah as trivial as having Germany invade France with Tiger tanks in a world war 2 movie

I'm glad we finally agree.

>Not really because as mentioned before that's more of an Aztec thing.

The Maya practised mass human sacrifice, and the movie was about the Maya. Go make one about the Aztecs and try to out-sacrifice Mel.

But it's not trivial to have Tiger Tanks in the invasion of France
>The Maya practised mass human sacrifice
Human sacrifice but not mass

But in a movie it absolutely IS trivial. Tiger tanks look better, and are iconic "nazi tanks". That trumps factualism.

I prefer accuracy in films and to a 21st century viewer invading France with Tiger tanks IS a fairly noticeable thing, but in 500 years it would be incredibly trivial to viewers.

Clearly I should have said
>Tiger tanks in the Hundred Days Offensive
to drive the point home further

>History Buffs

>"Mayan" is a sexier name to advertize than "Atzec" is?
>Atzec

In all seriousness the word "Aztec" is sexier.

But iirc it had something to do with the way the Mayans were seen as more sophisticated by Mel.

>It's a jew says Mel Gibson's movies suck episode

how to immediately recognize when an author is not a reliable critic and is putting his emotions ahead of his work.

Kind of funny because in the movie Patton, they use the M48 (Ironically called Patton in this situation) as German tanks. They obviously did that because they had better access to those tanks than rare early WW2 German tanks. I'm sure it bothered the fuck out of people with that kind of tank knowledge but not so much for everyone else.

movies are made for entertainment, people who sperg out over inaccuracies that the movie makers did on purpose to make a better movie are fucking retards.

Uh... wow, are you serious? Like, just because they're brown they weren't as advanced i mean... wow. The maya advanced WAY faster than the dumb Neanderthals in Europe, they literally went to the moon and back and crashed there entire civilization and population. Good job being 1000 years behind snow niggers!

Exploitation of the Mayans. I am embarrassed for them.

What do you mean by foolishness?

>get to be in a big budget wide release movie where you are the stars and your language is the only thing spoken throughout
>get to show the power and splendor of your ancestors civlization, even contrive some elements by combining different periods so you can show off the biggest cities and so on
>get to wear traditional authentic clothes to show off the culture also
>get to be portrayed as masters of knowing the heavenly bodies by the priest giving the nod, implying that they knew there would be a solar eclipse
>even get to show the beginning of smallpox epidemic and a contrived famine which almost implies that the sacrifices are because of that desperation so they almost get away with an excuse for the sacrifices themselves
>embarassed for them
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion at all.

I mean political shifts and wars that don't change the culture or technology much isn't really relevant though, right? Plus hasn't it been proven in this thread many times over that the postclassic Mayans were influenced heavily by the aztec and even adapted the heart-removal as their primary form of sacrifice and so on?

ehhh idk breh looks ok to me
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaculeu

>get to wear traditional authentic clothes to show off the culture also
Those aren't accurate user, I've researched this myself extensively and can provide good books on the subject of accurate Maya clothing.

> Not really because as mentioned before that's more of an Aztec thing.

mayan were greatly influenced by Aztec in the postclassical period

heart removal
> During the Postclassic period (c. 900–1524) the most common form of human sacrifice was heart extraction, influenced by the method used by the Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico;[1] this usually took place in the courtyard of a temple, or upon the summit of the pyramid-temple.[6]

mass graves
> A Postclassic mass burial in Champotón in Campeche, Mexico, included skeletons bearing evidence of violent blows to the sternum that have been interpreted as evidence of heart sacrifice.[21]

read through the post-classical sections
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture

see here

Postclassic saw a lot of Toltec influence in the region, this is when you saw Mexicanized Maya groups from the Gulf coast invade local Maya kingdoms. It's why much of Guatemalas Maya kingdoms in the postclassic had strong Nahua elements like the K'iche, Cakchiquel, Tzutujil. This was also when you saw Nahua migrations into the Maya territory such as the Pipil and much further south the Nicarao in Nicaragua.