its pretty good. its a little historically inaccurate in some details, and grossly in others (its supposed to be about the mayans but aesthetically they look like aztecs, tbf there was alot of cultural overlap between the two but in this movie they use alot of specifically aztec symbolism and terminology, like calling themselves 'People of the Banner of the Blazing Sun'
also the spaniards show up at the end which is kinda stupid since the mayans declined and largely abandoned their cities a century or so before the spanish even arrived
reading the production the film mel was split between depicting either maya or aztecs and wasnt sure so im guessing they kinda compromised and mixed the two. its also never really clearly stated who they are in the film.
the human sacrifice scene is pretty accurate however and extremely kino
>this movie isn't historically accurate, therefore it is LE BAD!
I don't care how accurate, or inaccurate the depiction of a certain civilization or civilizations is as long as the movie is interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
i never said once that the movie is bad only that it is inaccurate in a few areas
it also does not really accurately portray how human sacrifice was viewed and carried out in mesoamerica, or how prevalent it was.
first of all almost every culture in mesoamerica at that time practiced human sacrifice, including small jungle tribes like the protagonists. the idea that they would have been shocked by it isnt really the case. the aztecs and mayans often threatened to torture and humiliate their opponents if they did not accept human sacrifice, they had to be 'willing' for it to work.
in the village raid early in the movie you see mayan warriors dragging women off to rape them; this might have happened realistically in the chaos of war but you see the officers encouraging it which was not what would happen; the aztec military was very strict about rape as it was believed sexual activities would defile a sacrifice. warriors that committed rape during a flower war (their name for a war intended to gather human sacrifices, since they would sprinkle flowers over their victims before killing them) were executed without sacrifice, which was considered particularly shameful to the mesoamericans.
at least they werent rapists (during unholy wars to acquire souls for hungry gods) so i guess thats something. they were also one of the few per-colombian native cultures that produced alcohol, but it was heavily regulated and only allowed for priests, elders and kings to consume. they were an orderly people i will grant them that.
I didn't mean you were saying it was bad. Nick Hodges is the cartoon guy I posted. He has a weird hate boner for Mel Gibson movies because of muh historical accuracy. It could also be because Mel Gibson has a tendency of being in movies that shit on the English (which Nick is).
thats not really a good reason to hate mel gibson, really apocalypto is one of the more historically accurate depictions of mesoamerican culture. the inaccuracies are mostly minor details about distinctions between two similar and overlapping cultures. is he one of the retards who said mayans didnt practice human sacrifice? because they did, almost as much as mayans
I didn't mean you were saying it was bad. Nick Hodges is the cartoon guy I posted. He has a weird hate boner for Mel Gibson movies because of muh historical accuracy. It could also be because Mel Gibson has a tendency of being in movies that shit on the English (which Nick is).
Thar gay wanted Cleopatra to be black until everyone with a 6th grade understanding of history told him she would have been Greek, and Egyptians weren't even black anyways. He also showed that meme graphic about how Christianity halted scientific development in the West, when it was probably more the destruction of Rome, and influx of Germanic barbarians rather than, what gods the masses worshipped.
Anyone can read a wiki article and point out problems in a fictional movie made to tell a story in like an hour and a half. But I would expect a self professed historian to have a better understanding.
its pretty good. its a little historically inaccurate in some details, and grossly in others (its supposed to be about the mayans but aesthetically they look like aztecs, tbf there was alot of cultural overlap between the two but in this movie they use alot of specifically aztec symbolism and terminology, like calling themselves 'People of the Banner of the Blazing Sun'
also the spaniards show up at the end which is kinda stupid since the mayans declined and largely abandoned their cities a century or so before the spanish even arrived
reading the production the film mel was split between depicting either maya or aztecs and wasnt sure so im guessing they kinda compromised and mixed the two. its also never really clearly stated who they are in the film.
the human sacrifice scene is pretty accurate however and extremely kino
Braveheart is historically inaccurate too. William Wallace was a noble, not a peasant, and the Scots didn't wear tartan kilts during this time period-but it's still kino.
I was kind of bored and I can see why it was criticized Pre-Columbian Mexico cities were way bigger, beautiful and more vibrant and not as savage as they are portrayed in this film.
even the Europeans were amazed at their beautiful cities.
>I had no interest in American history
pseud as fuck
Lol wasn’t trying to be an asshole, I was very into Greek/Roman/Egypt history for many years. If anything this movie made me dig into that history and learned how fucked things were when Euros clashed with these violent Indians. Brutal.
pre-colombian culture is fascinating to study just because its the closest we will ever get to studying actual aliens until the greys show up. a people completely cut off from the rest of the world, with no cultural or technological trade. the main reason that europeans, the middle east and asia advanced was because of the constant trade and war between them all, which caused many ideas to transmit across that land. even africa, isolated by the sahara, was culturally and technologically influenced by the muslims and europeans. without the asians invented blackpowder and primitive fire-arm weapons like fire-lances, the europeans would not have innovated upon those designs and invented modern rifles and automatic weapons.
the americans were very advanced in some areas and cultures, such as the irrigation systems of the aztecs, but their religion was like something from the bronze age. even most pagans in the old world at some point realized that the old rites of human sacrifice were horrendous and found ways to justify abandoning them, like the titanomachy of greek myth, which demonized these old gods and introduced new ones. and these ideas likely came from cultural interaction between different peoples, who criticized the religious customs of each other until their religions became more theologically sound and practical.
the americans did not have this, there were not enough advanced cultures in the americans and the lack of horses put a severe dampening on the transmission of information. so it just never happened that somebody said to the aztecs 'your religion is fucking insane dude, what are you even doing?' like the israelites said to the canaanites upon stumbling into a moloch ritual. aztecs are like what a stone age civilization would have evolved into had it been left alone until the iron age. it makes you realize how many complex factors went into the success of the west, and how much we owe to things as humble as the horse
>so I put this off for a few years. Was very surprised by it.
I did the same thing, but only because I was confusing it with Apocalypse Now, and I hate whiny modern war themed movies. Was blown away when I finally caught this on tv while scrolling through channels. I was like, "wow. this is nothing like I thought it was."
>torrent Apocalypto back in the day >read reports of it being artistic, violent, non-english, etc >watch entire movie thinking it's not supposed to have subtitles and that makes you appreciate the visuals, music, etc >discussing it with a friend and say I liked it but would have been good if you could understand what they were saying >he was wondering wtf I was talking about and eventually dawned on me there was supposed to be subtitles
in hindsight it was obvious but for some reason I stuck with it
>What am I in for?
A movie
Apocalypto
peak Mel kino
Kino
Some guy trying to outrun his destiny
its pretty good. its a little historically inaccurate in some details, and grossly in others (its supposed to be about the mayans but aesthetically they look like aztecs, tbf there was alot of cultural overlap between the two but in this movie they use alot of specifically aztec symbolism and terminology, like calling themselves 'People of the Banner of the Blazing Sun'
also the spaniards show up at the end which is kinda stupid since the mayans declined and largely abandoned their cities a century or so before the spanish even arrived
reading the production the film mel was split between depicting either maya or aztecs and wasnt sure so im guessing they kinda compromised and mixed the two. its also never really clearly stated who they are in the film.
the human sacrifice scene is pretty accurate however and extremely kino
>this movie isn't historically accurate, therefore it is LE BAD!
I don't care how accurate, or inaccurate the depiction of a certain civilization or civilizations is as long as the movie is interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
>Makes his cartoon waifu cleopatra black
NOT HISTORICSLLY ACCURATE
"History buff" really is one of the least likeable personality types.
i never said once that the movie is bad only that it is inaccurate in a few areas
it also does not really accurately portray how human sacrifice was viewed and carried out in mesoamerica, or how prevalent it was.
first of all almost every culture in mesoamerica at that time practiced human sacrifice, including small jungle tribes like the protagonists. the idea that they would have been shocked by it isnt really the case. the aztecs and mayans often threatened to torture and humiliate their opponents if they did not accept human sacrifice, they had to be 'willing' for it to work.
in the village raid early in the movie you see mayan warriors dragging women off to rape them; this might have happened realistically in the chaos of war but you see the officers encouraging it which was not what would happen; the aztec military was very strict about rape as it was believed sexual activities would defile a sacrifice. warriors that committed rape during a flower war (their name for a war intended to gather human sacrifices, since they would sprinkle flowers over their victims before killing them) were executed without sacrifice, which was considered particularly shameful to the mesoamericans.
What a rich and vibrant culture. No wonder they never invented the wheel.
at least they werent rapists (during unholy wars to acquire souls for hungry gods) so i guess thats something. they were also one of the few per-colombian native cultures that produced alcohol, but it was heavily regulated and only allowed for priests, elders and kings to consume. they were an orderly people i will grant them that.
thats not really a good reason to hate mel gibson, really apocalypto is one of the more historically accurate depictions of mesoamerican culture. the inaccuracies are mostly minor details about distinctions between two similar and overlapping cultures. is he one of the retards who said mayans didnt practice human sacrifice? because they did, almost as much as mayans
I didn't mean you were saying it was bad. Nick Hodges is the cartoon guy I posted. He has a weird hate boner for Mel Gibson movies because of muh historical accuracy. It could also be because Mel Gibson has a tendency of being in movies that shit on the English (which Nick is).
Thar gay wanted Cleopatra to be black until everyone with a 6th grade understanding of history told him she would have been Greek, and Egyptians weren't even black anyways. He also showed that meme graphic about how Christianity halted scientific development in the West, when it was probably more the destruction of Rome, and influx of Germanic barbarians rather than, what gods the masses worshipped.
Anyone can read a wiki article and point out problems in a fictional movie made to tell a story in like an hour and a half. But I would expect a self professed historian to have a better understanding.
Braveheart is historically inaccurate too. William Wallace was a noble, not a peasant, and the Scots didn't wear tartan kilts during this time period-but it's still kino.
>le run thru the jungle with camera up ur ass flick
I was kind of bored and I can see why it was criticized Pre-Columbian Mexico cities were way bigger, beautiful and more vibrant and not as savage as they are portrayed in this film.
even the Europeans were amazed at their beautiful cities.
the cities were in decline due to disease and infighting. Did you miss that part of the movie?
Raoul Trujillo played the main antagonist in this. He's a great actor. He would later play Sarah Gadon's father in the film Octavio is Dead.
Don't watch it with subtitles
Unpozzed kino.
kino
Good movie.
absolute high caliber kino, and one of the best chase scenes ever filmed
>What am I in for?
You're in for kino.
90 or so mins of gibson running through the forest with minimum wage mexicans painted in mayan paint. then a wack as fuck final shot
Great movie by own of the greatest directors. I had no interest in American history so I put this off for a few years. Was very surprised by it.
>no interest in american history
extremely pleb taste.
Lol wasn’t trying to be an asshole, I was very into Greek/Roman/Egypt history for many years. If anything this movie made me dig into that history and learned how fucked things were when Euros clashed with these violent Indians. Brutal.
pre-colombian culture is fascinating to study just because its the closest we will ever get to studying actual aliens until the greys show up. a people completely cut off from the rest of the world, with no cultural or technological trade. the main reason that europeans, the middle east and asia advanced was because of the constant trade and war between them all, which caused many ideas to transmit across that land. even africa, isolated by the sahara, was culturally and technologically influenced by the muslims and europeans. without the asians invented blackpowder and primitive fire-arm weapons like fire-lances, the europeans would not have innovated upon those designs and invented modern rifles and automatic weapons.
the americans were very advanced in some areas and cultures, such as the irrigation systems of the aztecs, but their religion was like something from the bronze age. even most pagans in the old world at some point realized that the old rites of human sacrifice were horrendous and found ways to justify abandoning them, like the titanomachy of greek myth, which demonized these old gods and introduced new ones. and these ideas likely came from cultural interaction between different peoples, who criticized the religious customs of each other until their religions became more theologically sound and practical.
the americans did not have this, there were not enough advanced cultures in the americans and the lack of horses put a severe dampening on the transmission of information. so it just never happened that somebody said to the aztecs 'your religion is fucking insane dude, what are you even doing?' like the israelites said to the canaanites upon stumbling into a moloch ritual. aztecs are like what a stone age civilization would have evolved into had it been left alone until the iron age. it makes you realize how many complex factors went into the success of the west, and how much we owe to things as humble as the horse
nice wall of text plebbit gayron. go fuck yourself.
you are extra double gay
You’re absolutely right and it is fascinating to study. I wish I had gotten more into it when I was younger but the classical was my go to.
i appreciated the post, anon. thank you.
rare good post, nice when you see someone here who actually knows something about something
>I had no interest in American history
pseud as fuck
>so I put this off for a few years. Was very surprised by it.
I did the same thing, but only because I was confusing it with Apocalypse Now, and I hate whiny modern war themed movies. Was blown away when I finally caught this on tv while scrolling through channels. I was like, "wow. this is nothing like I thought it was."
don't remember anything from this apart from the sacrifice ritual scene
>torrent Apocalypto back in the day
>read reports of it being artistic, violent, non-english, etc
>watch entire movie thinking it's not supposed to have subtitles and that makes you appreciate the visuals, music, etc
>discussing it with a friend and say I liked it but would have been good if you could understand what they were saying
>he was wondering wtf I was talking about and eventually dawned on me there was supposed to be subtitles
in hindsight it was obvious but for some reason I stuck with it
A great movie.
>Almost.
God, this was a great movie. I should go watch it again.