He refers to Cú Chulainn/Cuchulainn - not Culloden ;) - and this.
Printable View
He refers to Cú Chulainn/Cuchulainn - not Culloden ;) - and this.
Apocalypto is bad even for Mel Gibson. It's just a sort of Mayincatec mishmash of anachronisms and stereotypes. I can go into more detail if you want, but for now I'm going to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
they want to potray Caesar as a Super, Badass-Hero-Politician.
Populares, actually, Marius did that
I can read it the Caesar book My its good a good book
This is ROMA!!!
Julius Caesar knows that the corrupt senators must be erradicated and only he has the power and will to do it, because he is the greatest general in history. It will be a hard task however, apart from the corrupt senators, Roma is sorrounded by enemies.
The Gauls at France, savage creatures that seek to enslave the free peoples of Rome, it will be necesary a brave man to lead the Roman Legion (never defeated in battle) against those demons. However there are other peoples in the far north, Germans, even the Gauls fear them, for they are incredible powerful men, natural looters with no feelings, they seek a perfect race. They redefined the word "barbarian"
I already see something like this in that "awesome" movie.
More info would be nice yes. I intend to watch it someday but I'm not familiar with Meso American history :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
That sounds like an epic Caesar kick.Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.M
yeah, that was kick*** as a film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lvcretivs
but yeah, that was conusing :embarassed:
If even the inspiration for a movie can't be taken very seriously, then there's little hope for the film itself.Quote:
Iggulden’s books are bestsellers, but it’s worth noting that they take substantial liberties with the historical source material.
Read more: 300 Producers Developing Caesar Trilogy | /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/17/...#ixzz0oo7gxeIz
OK, I’m not an expert, but I have a respectable knowledge of American history, and this is just what I noticed was wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*
First, the time period. While the arrival of the Spanish at the end shows that this would be in the early 16th century in the Late Post-Classical Mayan period, almost everything else in this movie, from the architecture to the costumes to the problems the Mayans are dealing with, indicates it would take place sometime in the 8th century in the Late Classical Mayan period. The only thing consistent with the Post-Classical setting is the fact that there was human sacrifice, which became was not nearly as prevalent in the Classical period. By the 16th century the Mayans had reorganized themselves into a less centralized and urban and more militaristic and mercantilist civilization, quite different from the urban, cosmopolitan Classical period.
That ridiculous Chekov’s tapir trap. That’s just retarded. I’ve never heard of anything like that being used anywhere. At least, not for hunting.
However, the accuracy of the hunting is moot, because the Mayans were without exception agriculturalists. There would have been no hunting and gathering.
The people’s total ignorance of the city. These people live a week’s march away from a major city and they’ve no idea it exists? The Maya were an urban civilization. You couldn’t get more than 10 miles away from a population center of decent size.
The slave/sacrificial victim raid. The Mayans didn’t carry out slave/sacrificial victim raids, they took them during war.
The sacrifices. The Mayans didn’t carry out group sacrifices, and they didn’t do it by bending a dude backwards over a pillar and cutting his heart out. Both were Aztec practices. The Mayans were more into nonfatal bloodletting, and when they did sacrifice people, they were usually prisoners of war or members of the enemy nobility.
The use of slaves. The Mayans did not use nearly as many slaves as are shown in the movie. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans employed free professionals to build their temples and civic structures.
The architecture. While above I said that the architecture is consistent with the Classical period, that’s a 600 year time span, during which it evolved quite a lot, and all the different styles are thrown together without regard to their respective time periods. Some of the art isn’t even from the Classical period, but from the Post-Classical period. On top of that, you also have art from different regions being thrown together. What we ended up is about as realistic as the architecture in The Emperor’s New Groove.
Finally, the Mayans’ attitude toward violence. Mayan society is portrayed as one of crazy sadists, lining up and cheering to watch people get ripped apart. NOBODY IS LIKE THAT. The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.
If I’ve gotten anything wrong please correct me. I probably missed or forgot something.
Finally, I think this movie’s racist. I know you’ll groan and roll your eyes, and I’ve already gotten in trouble over this and I don’t want to be “that guy” who yells racism about everything, but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me. Again, that’s just the message I got, and I might be reading too much into it again.
Its a movie, movies are for entertainment.
So yeah your reading too much into it.
Well this is a movie review thread and as such contains people's personal subjective opinions so I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.
Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...
Games are for entertainment, so the EB team is reading too much into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
Apocalpyto is a wannabe historical movie, and as I read Badass Buddha's comment, I guess it failed at this.
Depends, Historical accuracy doesn't add to your entertainment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
Well I watched Apocalypto lately and the white people are just seconds in a small boat coming to the beach. Hardly a big part of the movie. Hardly anything to call it racist. Unaccuracies doesn't equal racism...Quote:
Well this is a movie review thread and as such contains people's personal subjective opinions so I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.
Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...
At least Star Trek tried to avoid it by having a multiracial cast, even if they did have relatively minor roles.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Watch the end again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR8I1nicYWoQuote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
It's symbolic. The savage Mayans are about to kill the hero, when they are struck dumb by the arrival of the cross carrying Spanish and leave him alone. The screen even centers on the cross at the end. The message is that the savage, decadent heathens need to be saved from themselves.
It does, while something which wants to be historical yet fails to be just ruins it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
So Apocalypto took an interesting Mayan scenario (the collapse of the classic mayan civilisation), sexed it up with some Aztec-style sacrifice (although it would've been cooler if they were sacrificed to bears that shot laser beams out of their eyes), and threw in the Spanish as a nasty twist at the end (an anachronistic mismatch for the classical Mayan city shown in the first part of the film).
Not sure where the racism is, its certainly as dumbed down as most supposedly historical epics about western europeans. Gladiator has Marcus Aurelius toying with Republicanism (personified by a character called Gracchus lol), Braveheart has lowlanders in kilts and frenchmen like Edouard, De Bruce and Bailliol speaking english.
My other quibble is the one about "why was Jaguar Paw ignorant of the city?". He was certainly amazed by the city but thats how any peasant/villager/tribesman might feel coming to any city: eg an Arcadian peasant coming to Athens. Why can't J-P just be a hunter from the sticks who lives on his little patch and never left the local area? His tribe may have been on the fringe of the Mayan cultural zone, and he may not be Mayan at all. its only a minor quibble, the film sinks under the weight of its own contempt for history.
I think the arrival of the Spaniards simply foreshadows suffering for everyone, the hunters and the hunted.
There is a school of thought that says "the Spanish were less cruel than the Aztecs" and I am a believer in that. They were awful harsh conquerors but the Aztecs were an horrifically cruel regime and the majorty of mesoAmericans could not wait to throw them down and trample them. They gladly joined forces with the Spanish to do it. Hatred of the Aztes was certainly not limited to western europeans.
Lucky for the Aztecs they didn't control as much land as the Inca did. The Aztecs controlled by force, but could do so for such a long time because of such little area they had to do it in. Of course, the area was more densely populated than those that were under Cuzco control. But the Aztecs were constantly at war. Its end was inevitable. As for Apocalypto...meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I would not call it racism if the camera had not focused directly on the cross in the last shot. That, coupled with Mel Gibson's beliefs, suggest to me the "saving them from themselves" interpretation.
Was Seven Samurai accurate? I have the most passing smidgen of Japanese history and it seems a plausible taste of the fate of peasants and ronin in pre-Tokugawa Japan.
Fair enough, if you see it you see it. I didn't, but I don't associate the cross borne by the conquistadores with saving people. I guess an extremist like Gibson might intend that, he's kooky enough, so I certainly recognise your position has merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
I see the way J-P runs as his survival instinct, whereas the warriors seem to move toward the oncoming threat. Both the hunter and the hunted have come up against something deadlier than themselves: we know it but they don't, yet.
They may have all had Norman ancestors but by that period they would have at least been able to speak english (or gaelic). Regarding the kilts, considering they didn't appear until around the 16th century, the main problem is that they were there at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
So you now link religion to races? The fact that it are non Mayans bringing the cross is what makes it racism to you, that very thought is racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
Racism is failed term anyways.
It's Mel Gibson, it has to be racist. :clown:
That trope is old as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Just look at this.
The latest example is probably Avatar. They were aliens, I know, but obviously they were completely based on American Indians. The chief sounded like he should be in a western film.
I recently saw How to Tame Your Dragon. Boy did they get that wrong.
1. Vikings with Scottish accents? At least some of the kids sounded like they were from Minnesota.
2. Horns on the helmets. I mean duh.
3. Dragon saddles were clearly La Tene. Also breast-cup/helmets possibly Wagnerian.
I'm not linking Christianity to a race. In US American English, racism is a catch-all term for both racial and ethnic prejudice. While racism is a failsome term, I can't think of another word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
Always good to meet another Troper. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadwalader
You should realize that the only reason why Corezt was not slaughtered a few hours after his conflicts with the Aztecs started was the hatred every other civilization in the Region had for the Aztecs and their Human Sacrifices right? Even in the Cortez account it is clear that he was able to win only because of how hated the Aztecs were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
The "natives" are all white to, if you could show Captain Kirk reffering to white supremacy, or Spok discussing how superior some Human Races are to others you would have a much stronger case. Except for the original there are important non white characters, and even in the original it really takes a witch hunter to see rascism where there is none. The episodes range from encountering Gods, to a planet where the Roman Empire never fell.Quote:
Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.
Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...
You are on much firmer ground with the Last Samurai, and I would like to take your word for it on Dances with Wolves, but common you consider Captain Kirk a rascist figure?
We're not talking about the Aztecs. If Gibson wants to present the Aztecs as a violent, bloodthirsty society, I'd have nothing to say, because they were, sacrificing people in the tens of thousands, but the Maya only practiced human sacrifice on a scale similar to the Celts and Carthaginians.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
To be fair, this is very doubtful. Modern historians think it might've been Roman propaganda.Quote:
and Carthaginians.
I don't think it wanted to be historical at all, since.. dragons, come on. But Macilrille is the pro in the viking stuffs, we should wait his observations, if he has time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
That's true, I kinda lumped Star Trek in there for being similar in genre where its more of a ethnocentric view. In fact I think its more about ethnocentrism than anything like explicit racism now that I think about it. Its more about how Western Style culture and values is always the answer to problems. Sometimes it embodies itself into some sort of afformentioned 'White Savior' thing while other times like in Star Trek, a idealized Western Society cruises around space fixing everyone's problems. Granted that its not necessarily negative or offensive, its just somewhat arrogant. :-pQuote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
In fact most films like these just come off appearing a little arrogant in depicting the presence of westerners. If they were in fact explicitly racist well people would be up in arms.
I do likes the Star Trek though. Not really a TOS fan, just a TNG era minus Voyager fan.
And where is the DS9?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I'd say there is at least as much evidence for as there is against. EB makes reference to the child sacrifice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
TNG Era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
Hax very few modern historians dismiss the Carthaginian Child Sacrifices, they are actually confirmed by archaeology with the ancient literary sources. The few modern historians who do tend to either have a moralist agenda against what they percieve as pro-Roman bias (Terry Jones), or a nationalist agenda, but most accept the findings of archaeology and historical text. That doesn't paint nearly as bleak a picture as you think, Human Sacrifice doesn't automatically mean the massive large scale hate producing sacrifices of the Aztecs.
Agreed. Unfortunately I never managed to sit through Apoc, I know people who have, but I will take your word for it, especially since it is Mel Gibson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
I would say Start Trek's (original anyway) references are blatant enough to just be amusing (i.e. making Clingons (sp) the Soviet Union, and the Federation the West).Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I also agree with you on more then I originally thought, I just initially noticed you putting Start Trek together with the Last Samurai.
Interestingly enough, while Westerners going into/joining other cultures is celebrated Hollywood ironically seems to have turned on Western Societies. Rome is usually depicted as extremely cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, evil, greedy and all other imperial vices without any real virtues. This could also just be a continuation of the Roman Vices tradition.
Of course, no credit is given to the Germanic peoples, the other (equal) half of Western civilization....Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
Polybius mentions Romans making human sacrifices IIRC, at the start of the first Punic war they bury some tourists (is it 2 Greeks and 2 Celts?) in the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I thought the Greeks mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice too?
Ahh, missed the era word, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
IMHO, The Romans were not all shocked by the sacraficing of children, at least not at that point in their own history. It was more shocking that they were sacraficing their own children, and their firstborns on top of that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Nothing unfortunate about that.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
The crowning example is The Omega Glory episode with the Khoms and Yangs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
It was Livy and Plutarch that wrote during three occassions in the second and third centuries BC a Greek man and woman and a Celtic man and woman would be buried alive in the forum. I don't remember why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Diodorus Siculus mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice in the third book of his Bibliotheca historica, as did the aformentioned Plutarch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
If I remember correctly, the Romans were not bothered so much by the infanticide as they were that it was being done for religious reasons, rather than practical economic reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?
I read about this quite a lont time ago, but if I remember right, all triumphal processions ended with the execution of the enemy general/leader or if he wasn't alive already then they killed a doll shaping him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Edit: Well not all, but a lot.
Thank you BB for your sharper recollection. Wiki mentions the couples being killed after Cannae (my dim memory recalls some reference to the Sibylline books) , and the sacrifice was repeated in 113 BC before an invasion of Gaul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
So many wonderful (possibly fictional) episodes in Classical history. Hannibal has to be made, and it has to be made right.
Because Hollywood thinks that the best villians are white people that have turned evil and use some random minority as their pawns against the hero white person and their minority side kick :-p. I jest of course, I think the racism discussion has pretty much run its course.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
I agree, and about Rome's relationship to Human Sacrifice what appaled them wasn't that the Carthaginians were sacrificing first borns (Roman Law gives no priority to first born males), it was that it was done on a regular basis, and with the state being responsible instead of a last minute and last chance panick attack by what Rome saw as unwashed masses type, so for it to be ordered by a magistrate on a regular basis was what horrified Romans, and Greeks, not first born males being the victims.
The Romans made an absolute ban on Human Sacrifice surprisingly late in Republican History, and when it surprisingly gave amnesty. The Gladiator games could be considered the real Roman Human Sacrifices, but Gladiators didn't always die, and as Gladiator games became more and more common they lost their religious function and just became a disgusting display of brutality done on a massive scale. I know the ideology behind Gladiator games was taking the scum of society, making them face each other in virtuous combat in order to inspire virtue in others and giving them a chance of proving themselves/winning their freedom once they prove themself, but something tells me that was just an elaborate way to justify brutality, Romans did afterall have theatres and plenty of plays (still read and played out today).
I don't know, I would gladly watch mass murderers and pedophiles fight to death against eachother.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
That's really interesting. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
Well decide, man! If "western people" (what ever that might be in a historical context) do that, the sentence "NOBODY IS LIKE THAT" is wrong. I think this cruelty can be found in every civilisation,more or less institutionalised. Otherwise this sounds like a very romantic view of "non-western" societies.Quote:
Finally, the Mayans’ attitude toward violence. Mayan society is portrayed as one of crazy sadists, lining up and cheering to watch people get ripped apart. NOBODY IS LIKE THAT. The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.
@Carties infanticide: Can't find a source but I read that some of the childrens skeletons finds might be from already dead children...? Anyone knows about that?
I find that "no" hard to believe. Even societies where hunting was a privilege of the noble class (such as early modern Germany) had their share of illegal hunting going on. Not to mention gathering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
Agreed. Probably also part of what caused their downfall.Quote:
The people’s total ignorance of the city. These people live a week’s march away from a major city and they’ve no idea it exists? The Maya were an urban civilization. You couldn’t get more than 10 miles away from a population center of decent size.
Typical Western self-centered attitude. You should perhaps visit some places in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East - they're no different in that respect.Quote:
The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.
[emphasis mine]Quote:
but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me.
Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.
Vercingetorix was murdered in his jail, not strangulated at the end of Caesar's triumph, as HBO Rome seems to imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
If the film was being made by Western Muslims or Eastern Christians, then yes. If not, then perhaps not quite racist, but certainly offensive. -MQuote:
Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.
That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apazlinemjo
Your welcome, and technically speaking the official date of that law was 97 BC, although Human Sacrifice was extremely rare before that, and limited to mob responses to disasters like Arusio and Cannae. The Romans could understand the presence of Human Sacrifice, they could not understand it being done by the state with the force of law behind it and without an unwashed masses element.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
The evidence seems pretty solid to me, there is more then one later source testifying about it, and those later sources are almost completely trusted on things they are farther away from, and there is archaeological evidence. Terry Jones doesn't explicitly say the Human Sacrifices was a lie, but he very highly implies it by stating that education is biased in favor of Rome, and warning the audience not to confuse Rome's propaganda and lies for history, and he does use that moralizing line on every enemy of Rome he goes over. The Roman Triumph didn't always involve killing the enemy leader, but it did involve showing that he was dead, Mithradates was beheaded despite his death and his body being far away from Rome. It didn't actually matter if an enemy leader was around at the Triumph unless he was a capable and dangerous man who the Romans wanted dead anyway. Tha Gladiator Games are simply revolting though, and the worst thing about the Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.
I agree completely. You run into a problem when you start applying modern moral standards to the ancients. Many civilizations committed acts that today would be considered horrible attrocities. You have to remove yourself from the modern mindset and try to see things the way they did. It helps that it's more interesting that way too. -MQuote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
OK, when I said "nobody" I was being hyperbolic. You'llQuote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
always(I must stop with the blanket statements) USUALLY be able to find people who love watching others get ripped apart, but they're unhealthy. Also, I failed to distinguish between the Mayans depicted in the movie watching helpless captives get cut open for the lulz, and Romans watching people fight in a sporting event. So, sorry. What I meant was that whilenobodyfew people in real life enjoy watching captives cut up, the only people I can think of who enjoyed watching people brutally fight each other to the death for sport were the Romans. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
While I'm sure there was some hunting and gathering, it was not on a significant source of food. Again, I was being hyperbolic. Sorry. I'll stop doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
I hold no illusions about other cultural groups, it's just that the Romans are the only civilization I know of that practiced gladiatorial combat to the death in the numbers they did. Also, don't hate on my civilization. The West is no different than any other society that has yet to have another kick down its door and force the realization that there are other of equal or greater power out there (not that that attitude is OK).Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
I would consider any equivalent portrayal as racist. For example, if there was a movie made about the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, I would consider it racist if the Romans/Byzantines were depicted as barbaric savages with the violence ceasing as the Turks arrived bearing the star and crescent.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Something I failed to mention that I think is pretty important is that at the beginning of Apocalypto, Will Durant's quote "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" is shown. I think this is crucial to message of the movie, and I was dumb to forget about it. Sorry.
Yeah, that is a fair theme of the movie... but like everyone else I was surprised that it was about the Mayans and not hte Aztecs. Afterall the Yucatan civilizations suffered a major collapse after famine while the Aztecs suffered defeat at the hands of their vassals for kinda being big jerks.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
I think what Gibson tried to do was to portray a civilization that had become (not started off as) decadent and fallen to vices like human sacrifice etc.. Which is actually an interesting project, and could hae become a thinly veiled "mirror" to our own society, with its current stages of decadence. Of course, being Mel Gibson, he didn't lethistorical accuracyany actual history get in the way of his storytelling, so he just re-labeled the Aztecs as Mayans etc..
With that in mind, the moie becomes somewhat easier to watch.
That said, there's a lot of bull about Native Americans of all kinds out there. Usually bad and cliché-laden storytelling (your average early Western) or just ass-pull "research" combined with stupid esoteric attitudes (like oh so many productions, even Star Trek). This situation though could be made less miserable if these (American Indian) people took the initiative themselves, instead of having other people portray them either as "magical minority" or as savages.
I agree that we can't judge ancient civilizations by modern standards, but in the case of the Romans the stated ideals of their Gladiator Games really do sound suspiciously like an excuse, especially since there are plenty of cases where that excuse couldn't possibly apply, and even if it was their genuine feeling it is still the least appealing aspect of a civilization with the cultural, political, and military accomplishments of Rome. That said I'm not a moralist, and I know the gladiator death toll was much lower than what Hollywood thinks, a Gladiator was way too expensive to train to have one gone per game.
Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?
This whole gladiatorial business looks like an excuse for debauched fun, not unlike the chariot races (or in our times, Formula 1 and all that crap). Apparently every society in history needs its dark side.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
The real problem arises when these things become excessive, like the cult that surrounds certain sports or popular "arts".
Well I've never seen "Avatar". Though I heard everyone say it was Disney's "Pocahontas" IN SPACE!!, so I can imagine how it is. I've always detested Disney, as well as simple morality stories. Not a great incentive to watch that film...Quote:
Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?
Dances in wolves in space.
"Dances With Wolves with Smurfs" I believe.
If we're talking future histories, here's one:
1984.
Boy that film was just soooo wrong.
I mean, as if we live in a world dominated by a handful of powerblocs (run by souless aparatchiks) enslaved to insane hypocritical ideologies that crush individuality as a matter of course.
Wut? Oh wait...
Yeah but the book is cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I heard a movie based on Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" was planned. I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:
Heared. I heared that if I had space I would so sig that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klearchos
As much as I'd be a fan of seeing a historical depiction of Thermopylae, I think 300 has already so eblazoned itself on people's minds that most people would view another version of it as a ripoff of 300. -MQuote:
Originally Posted by Klearchos
So you want 300 to be the defacto view of Thermopylae? :-p
This looks really cool: click.
It was kinda meh as a drama and I have no idea how accurate it is TBH.:-\
Anything that cost a few thousand and eventually makes millions is worth it, no matter how inaccurate. Cash = success.
There doesn't appear to be a simple horse or arrow in the trailer that isn't being used by the Romans.
A scene with actual steppe tactics would be so impressive that it would have to be featured in the trailer.
Not the point of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Actually I thought it was cool that he made the film basically by himself.
Obviously. :-p - don't you remember that passage from Herodotus about how Xerxes was an 8-foot tall bald hermaphrodite?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
From what I saw in the preview and read from reviews, the Divine Weapon is extremely inaccurate. The movie talks about a war between Ming-China and Korea. I'm pretty sure that is bogus since Korea and the Ming were on very good terms (Korea was a tributary of the Ming), and the Ming sent troops to Korea to helpQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
them fight off two Japanese invasions.
And ironically, I think the movie also has Koreans wearing the Ming-Chinese clothing (Ming era hanfu), and the Ming-Chinese themselves wearing Manchurian Qing era clothing.
Fire arrow rocket launchers and their cart-launching systems were invented during the Song Dynasty and also used during the Ming. The Koreans didn't invent them and used them against the Ming in any battles because they were allies. The Koreans did independently create gunpowder (due to a ban on exporting gunpowder) and created the hwacha, which is basically a larger version of Chinese fire arrows/launcher.
Unusually Accurate (for movies):
Tora Tora Tora, Rome miniseries, Alexander (I loved the phalangites)
Somewhat Accurate:
Kingdom of Heaven, Lawerence of Arabia, The 300 Spartans (I'm disappointed they still left out the other 7000+ Greek hoplites)
Not Accurate:
Troy, Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Dances With Wolves, Red Cliff, Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth, Braveheart, Apocalypto, The Patriot (The last 3 are Mel Gibson's, cuz he fails)
Batshit insanely not accurate:
300, 10,000 B.C.
Saying Curse of the Golden Flower is inaccurate is like saying that RAN or Hamlet is inaccurate. It is but that's not the point since the film is supposed to just be loosely based on actual events. :-\
I find 10,000 BC can be quite enjoyable if I watch it through the same eyes as I would read a Robert E. Howard story with. I would of course prefer it were an attempt to portray life in the paleolithic, but I don' think the world will ever be that nerdy.
I'd even put 300 a small bit above 10.000 bc(yes I write that way) still both below anythign that can be called accurate. apart from this silly panoply and some ideals you could claim it's the way he tells it with all due exagerations.(I cought a fish that was THIS big...) whereas 10.000 is absolutely absurd in quite about every way, I would not have been supprised if those stargate egyptians woulde used lasers. the ending somewhat supprised me, as it was even more cheesy than I would've imagined. it's one thing if soldiers use a perverted mix peleponesian and classical equipment and old men exxagerate the number of foes. putting egyptian pyramids, horse archers, mammoth hunters, Terror birds, funny ships, spice craving blue eyes in one movie and calling it 10.000 bc is something different. true it was fun to complain about it with my pals(don't get me wrong, it did not work with 300, that only ispired questions like:" did they really fight bare chested?" or "arrent elephans smaller?"). in general iwould'e preffered having it called " the first hero" or "the mammoth hunter" not because these names sound better(they don't) but because they don't include the claim to be at least semi historical. i mean "300" that sounds like brainless buchering already "10.000 bc" sounds like: hear the story that HAS HAPPEND 12000 years ago.
I loved Hero, but CotGF made me absolutely hate Zhang Yimo. That movie was ridiculously cheesy to an extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky