I can already see the LS shining in the distance... Oh the horror!Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus
~Fluvius
Printable View
I can already see the LS shining in the distance... Oh the horror!Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus
~Fluvius
Or more... orcs, gnomes, trolls fighting against Roman legions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus
And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:
Say, how does Apocalypto rank?
At least its white people fighting white people so you have less baggage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great
Well it was made by Mel Gibson, so it goes down like the Braveheart probably. But maybe a historian specialized in Mayan history could tell more about the accuracy of the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great
dude, that is so not cool
and,
Caesar saying: THIS IS ROME!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
BTW: There was a link to a movie about Cullodáin (sp?), but I dont have it anymore. Do you guys know about its progress?
My guess on Caesar is they will depict Caesar as a man of the people, and Pompey and the Senate as dictators and Caesar starts a civil war to free the people.
the 1746 battle? or just shares a similar name?Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
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.