Anyone here liked Apocalypto?

Anyone here liked Apocalypto?

Aside from it being a Mall Gobson film and a few historical inaccuracies, I found it very interesting. It was doomed to fail in the box office, but props for them to go ahead and make it despite it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=obdDEv8ItzU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

le based mel

it was bretty good

how the fuck was it historically inaccurate?

Yes I really enjoyed it. I never knew you could use bullants as stitches.

>despite it being a Mel Gibson film

You don't need to bullshit here, OP. We talk in truths

I really liked it. It was an actual exciting film to watch, which is a rarity. Fantastic chase movie. It's been some years since I've rewatched it, I'm gonna rewatch it right now OP.

Anti semitism and racism is banned on redd*t if that's what you're looking for.

I watched thinking I would have hated it but I loved it. It just works. You arre immersed and you care.

Thats a great movie

everyone likes it you fucking idiot

It was set in the Mayan classical period, Mayans did not do human sacrifices a lot, those were the Aztecs, a completely different culture centuries apart and at the end of the movie Jaquar witnessed conquistadors landing, which shouldn't happen for about another 600 years.

>historical inaccuracies

This is a narrative movie, not a documentary. That's why pseudo-intellectual audience is the fucking worst, I mean fuck off with your DeGrasse-tier type of cocksucking about muh space and muh Romans.

>That's why pseudo-intellectual audience is the fucking worst, I mean fuck off with your DeGrasse-tier type of cocksucking about muh space and muh Romans
good post

Just showing one stagnant Maya city doesnt mean it was set in the classical period.

If anything the fact that the city folk did more brutal sacrifices should be evidence of Aztec influence.

But yeah, honestly a lot would be cleared if they just had the bad guys be Aztecs who took Maya prisoners.

It failed because no one wants to sit through over an hour of watching nignogs speaking gibberish unintelligibly and man ass.

Yeah yeah noble savages.
Nice libtard dogma idiot.

I've never seen so many bare asses before

i liked both apocalypto and passion of christ very much and didn't really get any single point of critique. historical inaccuracies were the only thing i could understand in terms of critique, but that's nitpicky at best. All other arguments seemed forced and constructed to target Mel Gibson himself

Why did you think you would hate it?

Welcome to modern film criticism. They don't critique the actually techniques of film making any more because conservatives are too good at that shit and liberals are too awful at it. So the go after the 'political subtext' of the film instead. Every film. Even comic book movies.

That's a pretty huge generalisation.

You are a fucking moron, you know that?

I read that in Post-modern film reviewing there are themes and meanings in many movies. This is what gets me though, postmodern reviewers can interpret the wildest and nonsensical meanings from any movie, EVEN IF THAT WASN'T THE DIRECTOR'S VISION AND PROBABLY NEVER CROSSED HIS MIND.

Morons don't know they're morons, they think they're geniuses.

Awesome movie.

Fuck Jews.

Intent does not equate to significance. Here are the reasons why:
1. One cannot know the full scope of the author's intent because we will never peer into their brain, especially if the author is dead
2. Intent is largely a subjective ideal, and often an author's vision will not match the outcome. Imagine an amateur artist attempting to draw a lifelike picture of a dog and drawing a caricature instead, same idea.
3. Intent can change throughout the production of a work and ideas that were implanted at the beginning could have been abandoned by the end, thereby calling into question what state of intent truly matters
4. The unconscious is nuts and many concepts and ideas the author may not have consciously considered can still surface simply through the nature of their style and execution
5. All works of art are essentially Rorschach tests, and the significance to the viewer is paramount to significance of the author. whereas the author may have brought the work into existence, the viewer allows its continuation in existence.
There are a bunch more, but what I'm trying to tell you is go to school idiot

It wasn't a failure at the box office. It made its budget back 3x and got critical acclaim. This idea that Mel Gibson is persecuted by muh Jews is a neckbeard meme.

>Make a religious porn movie that only rednecks and white trash like
>Get drunk and when a cop pulls you over you express your love for sand niggers
>Beg your Jewish overlords for forgiveness and apologize multiple times, but they show no mercy and kill your career
>Become an even bigger alcoholic in your depression
>Your wife cucks you for a nigger
>You get caught on tape crying about how upset you are that your wife is cucking you for a nigger
>Now trying to appease his masters by making an anti-war movie glamorizing a soldier who refused to kill the enemy, starring a Jewish actor

Is there a bigger cuck in Hollywood than Mel Gibson?

So its true...reddit has finally engulfed Sup Forums to become what is now known as nu/tv/

saying fuck it with the time periods to mash different stories together is what they did with Vikings too.

Just took every interesting viking person they could find and stuck them in one series together regardless of when it all happened.

It makes for better television, this isnt history class.

Yeah, I liked it; impressive and upsetting at the same time. Those timewarping conquistadors at the end spoiled it somewhat, though.

How did Mayan people have control over the sun and the moon like that?

Great movie, thanks based Mel

That's pretty fucking interesting. I got the gist of what I read, but you explained it a lot better. Would you mind expanding how we reached this level of insight? Did the newly expanded minds from drug use allow this higher level of examination?

Sorry to be crude, but if I take a piss. My intent is to empty my bladder. An onlooker would have to be cheeky cunt, to say that I wasn't urinating at all. I was symbolically pissing on neo-nazi Eskimo hookers.

One more thing. When I see an old western. It just seems to me that they honestly just made a movie about cowboys. This is the crutch though, I might bring my own proclivities into my interpretation and we'd be a million miles away from what the Western is or most likely what it isn't.

t. didn't even finish high school

>right wing SJW

every time

>40mil budget + advertising
>120mil box office
Please explain how it's a failure, because it seems far from.

In fact it looks like based Mel made potential box office poison into a hit.

Reminder that Mel Gibson is one of the most financially successful directors of all time.

Could I make movies like mel about religious shit? Theres like a guaranteed 5x the profit and all it takes is visualizing already written shit.

We were gods and shieet

I want a sequel to Apocalypto where Conquistadors wipe out the Mayans

Doesn't that shit air on history channel lmao

didn't mel make a fuckton off the Passion because he funded a lot of the movie himself?

>tribe elders making their infertile companion eat animal balls
>"I'm going to call you 'Almost' "

The bantz were bretty gud

The most unconventional action movie I've ever seen.

Even if it's historically inaccurate (i wouldn't know) the fact that based mel made every actor speak mayan is based as hell.

cheers to mr. gibson

I thought it was pretty alright. My dad said the scope of it was like watching some National Geographic documentary or something, it was so impressive.

Emerald Forest is better

Really made me think
youtube.com/watch?v=obdDEv8ItzU

Use of the word "based" is one of the major red flags that you're near a special ed sperglord here.

Well there's a problem with that since the Mayans didn't exist anymore when the Spanish landed.

It's a great kino. Yeah, you readed right: KINO.

>Budget
>$40,000,000 (estimated)

>Gross
>$120,654,337 (worldwide)

Yep... Not that bad too.

Intense shit.

What did the Native actors receive, beads at the end of the movie? Lol, all that work and cultural ruination and they just return to their mud huts.

lol, savage bastards

One of my favorite movies. Watched it countless times.

The Mayans didn't commit sacrifices like it was going out of fashion like the aztecs did.

Intentio auctoris vs Intentio lectoris vs Intentio operis
There's a huge difference between interpreting an ouvre to find meaning and using it to give it meaning.

I thought it was really corny. Don't understand why it's liked so much here.

It had some really cool looking scenes
What ever happened to him anyway?
Did the jew eat his testicles?

It didn't matter. He'd fulfilled his purpose of being the protagonist to carry the story. Once he reached the end he just leaves with his family. That's it. His job to get back to them was done.

There's a certain overrating for political meme reasons, but it's pretty good.

cop out trash

Do you need to know what happens to John McClain after he drops Hans Griber from the building and gets his wife back? Or what happens to Private Ryan after he visits Arlington to honour his dead WW2 saviours? You don't. They are only ever conduits to complete the story.

>getting triggered by based, one of the best, simplest memes

So does pawn stars, Vikings is just history trying to get some GOT money.

meme le meme le mememe meme
very astute you twat

maybe the worst post on this site

is it causing cancer all around it?

1. The author can make their intent known, and most themes aren't so difficult to explain (at least in film). Example: if Ridley Scott said Alien wasn't a sexual metaphor, then it wasn't, and Freud was right.
2. That's a generalization, and you're assuming most filmmakers/artists are incapable of fully realizing their vision.
3. That is true, but usually the latter change (and the intention it carries) supersedes the former. Otherwise, it is seen as a flaw, as with movies that have extensive reshoots or multiple writers.
4. This is actually spot on, no complaints.
5. The interpretation of the viewer may shape the perception of a work, but that doesn't change the fact that it contradicts the creator's intention. Machiavelli's "The Prince" may be seen as a handbook for political corruption, but that doesn't change the fact that it was written as a satire.

how does he make these movies on such small budgets?

Fucking mindblowing seeing how even a Tarantino flick is like 70 million these days.

Everybody in this thread go watch Embrace of the Serpent.

It was very inaccurate.

>Timeline is off by about 700 years, culture was very different between these periods. One of the murals was even of the Preclassic, painted 1000 years earlier still.
>Clothing and appearance innacurate whether it's set in the Classic (c.800) or Postclassic when the Spaniards came (c.1500)
>Village seen in the beginning had no agriculture, poor housing and no local class structure seemingly. It looked like a hunter gatherer tribe in the Amazon you'd see today.
>Village in the beginning somehow wouldn't know of a city that was a days walk away when the Maya region was well interconnected and populated to the point you couldn't walk 30 km without finding another community.
>Capturing random villagers for sacrifice instead of elites which would be an appropriate offering for their Gods.

This is just what I can say off the top of my head. I recommend you read some books on the subject. That said it was entertaining sort of, but the inaccuracies were too blatant and distracted a bit. If you pretend it's just a pure fantasy film based on a real culture it helps.

Don't forget about the small pox of that mother and child. The Aztecs and the rest of the Yucatan region weren't experiencing famine to the degree that the movie depicted. It was a time of plenty, and certainly didn't hesitate to share with the Spanish in the first contact.

Saw it for the first time new year's day. Bretty Gud.

>few historical inaccuracies

more like complete and utter nonsense

That all really seems trivial except for the first point. If anyone goes to a movie for a history lesson, they are already a lost cause.

It seemed like Gibson learned his lesson after the criticism of Braveheart and didn't use any historical names or characters.

He's a strong male of european descent who wasn't taught to hate himself so naturally he's under budget and ahead of schedule.

>It looked like a hunter gatherer tribe in the Amazon you'd see today.

why, who ruled those areas back then?

>The author can make their intent known
Yes they can, but the work must ultimately stand on it's own. It's like watching a movie that makes no fucking sense, and then when you watch it again with the commentary track the director gives all these crucial details that make an entirely different movie.
If that happens, then the director has failed.
This ties into point 5. Since the Prince can also be read as a handbook _for_ dickhead rulers, and also as a satire _of_ dickhead rulers, than the work has exceeded the author's intent.
It is the viewer's experience which give a work meaning, and the greatest works have some of the broadest and most contradictory interpretations. When Mohammad was fucking lolis and fucking shit up, he probably couldn't have seen how far that specific text would have gone, yet here we are. Same with Lucas. He just wanted to do his own version of Flash Gordon with some Joseph Campbell sprinkled on top. The impact of that film were completely unforeseeable, and all of his pottery was grafted on later.

TL; DR Artist's intent is irrelevant, and the work must always stand alone.

I enjoyed but is like 300. You can like costumes/setting/plot/characters but in the name of the Feathered Serpent, do not take it as an historical movie.

Inaccuracies don't matter because the movie is meant be an analogue of modern society reacting to disaster and the causes of such disasters.

The Yucatan Peninsula where the movie is set, is a completely different place from the Amazons

no cgi no green wall

>Aside from it being a Mall Gobson film
I'm sorry that he hurt your feelings, Shlomo, but he's a good director regardless.

Tarantino probably pays for more well known actors, where Mel tends to cast Literal Whos.

ok, but who ruled the amazon, that's what I 'm asking?

I watched it on magic mushrooms and thought it was amazing. Don't want to watch it in a sober state in case it's not as good as I thought it was.

>(((Mel))) Gibson
>blacklisted by The Jew

Explain.

No clear state, any trace indication of civilization didn't last long enough. They were just an amalgamation of small hunter gatherer tribes mainly

Just small tribes, you might consider Incans but their territory didn't stretch too far into the Amazon, mainly stayed on the west coast

The Maya did, those villages would have had a community leader who likely was under the control or authority of a provincial governor/lord, who himself may have been under the authority of a lord/king. Even villages had their own farmlands, house clusters, where family units lived had gardens and orchards of their own too. They would have been farmers or fishermen more likely than hunters. The more specialized families probably worked ceramics and the women would have their own weaving guilds which they would take to sell at the market (textiles were a high price currency), use for themselves or give as gifts or tribute. There would probably be potters and other specialized jobs. And of course there would be a sorcerer, priest, and orators.

fucking division of labor

The thing is that post-modernists are using that criteria to project their own agendas into works of art regardless of the context that the film was made in and go even beyond death of the author.

Modern third wave tumblr feminists use a concept called "resignification" to retroactively ideologically contaminate pieces of media which now have post-hoc feminist content, or can be used to justify feminism in some way.

The amazon was ruled by several different civilizations at the time of the Spanish arrival. In the Xingu regions you had clustered villages organized in a four direction layout correpsonding the four directions interconnected to the central larger village. Together these clusters had populations in the 10,000-30,000's exceeding the populations of contemporary villages in the area which reach maybe 2,000-3,000. These clustered super villages were a community of their own (you can think of them like districts in a city) and interconnected with other such Amazonian cities via highways and large flat roads. The pottery along the amazon river itself suggests a more sophisticated culture than previously assumed and gives credit to the earliest Spanish accounts of the region which described a thriving set of towns.

Closer to the Atlantic you had the Marajo culture which lived in artificial hilltops to avoid flooding in the rain. They also worked in detailed pottery related to the dead.They also found decorated ceramic triangle pieces fitted for womens pubic area and tied to a string around the body like a thong.

In the north they've found large designs made in the earth similar to the Nazca lines in the Andes. Much of the Amazon terrain is also suggested to have been developed by the people over thousands of years. Agriculture existed here after they invented a black soil that could grow in the otherwise bad soil of the Amazon. You can think of parts of the Amazon like unkept overgrown and wild ancient gardens and orchards.

This. You would be surprised how cheap practical effects actually are.
Of course CGI kikes would like you to believe otherwise, but then ask yourself how trash like even Green Lantern can cost $200+ million despite having literally whos as actors.

This

when you watch the commentary with Mel and Farhad Safinia you can hear them talk about the historical inaccuracies.
for example the spanish ships at the end. they say that they knew it would be inaccurate, but it was more important to create some narrative (as the end came to the village the end is now coming to the mayan supoerpower).
But they also talked a lot about using historically accurate props (traps, costumes, etc.) and how extensive the research was for this.
So yeah, its 50/50 regarding historical accuracy. still a pretty good movie.

Good post. One of the nicest things about art, and this includes films etc (not flicks...) is that it can mean different things to different people. Just because one particular meaning or interpretation wasn't intentional by the creator doesn't mean it is less significant to that person.

Agreed. Oftentimes, the creator really doesn't know what they are creating. Only later, after it is out, and the author is dead can the full depth of analysis reveal all the facets of the work.

>Dou desu ka
It's shit. Try a little less hard and more smart.

He just ripped off the superior older classic

So this is ok but Peter Jackson cutting shit and making some changes to lotr is bad? Fucking contrarians.