Hey, you do you.

Mayanists absolutely hate it for what I consider pretty decent reasons. Some historical inaccuracies would normally be tolerable, but Apocalypto's inaccuracies tend to dehumanize the Maya it depicts. Worse, it was produced less than a decade after an internationally recognized genocide in which modern Maya people were portrayed as bloodthirsty savages by propaganda using similar stereotypes. You can still find the old reviews from academics in various places like [1].

[1] https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/02/apoc...

I don't think it portrays them that way at all. If it did claim to have any bearing on reality it shows good and bad. War and slavery and murder and atrocities by the ruling class down to foot soldiers.

I can watch movies fictional or not about Nazis, as well as Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia and other western interventions and wars -- without thinking that somehow portrays white or European people as bloodthirsty savages. I think it's pretty infantilizing to think a movie like that is "problematic", doesn't surprise me to see this kind of ultra-PC high horsemanship coming from academia but I think their fanciful claims about the risk of hate crimes and neo nazis due this film are a load of unsubstantiated and unscientific claptrap that they're just making up.

The movie uses a modern Mayan language for dialogue, uses Maya actors and depicts a religion still practiced today. Moreover, practitioners of that religion were being actively killed for their practice only a decade prior. The analogy with nazis and europeans seems pretty different to me.

In the interest of having a more interesting discussion though, what would you require beyond the existing content of the film to consider it "problematic" (to use your word)?

> The movie uses a modern Mayan language for dialogue, uses Maya actors and depicts a religion still practiced today.

This was great, part of what made it fun for me was a bit of diversity in this kind of... I guess you could call it an action movie. What point are you trying to make?

> Moreover, practitioners of that religion were being actively killed for their practice only a decade prior.

Okay, still not sure how that relates to the movie.

> The analogy with nazis and europeans seems pretty different to me.

I think it's very apt.

> In the interest of having a more interesting discussion though, what would you require beyond the existing content of the film to consider it "problematic" (to use your word)?

I would require reasonable evidence as opposed to shrill baseless and unfalsifiable handwringing that alleged experts believe lends them gravitas and demand we swallow unquestioningly. I remember the exact same type of hysterics and misinformation peddling around the "video games cause mass shootings".

"Nazis and racists and oppression and terrorists and think of the children," and we're expected to shut off our capacity for rational thought. It's a tiresome and common last refuge of charlatans and grifters. Doesn't cut it for me.

I started the conversation saying 'you do you'. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm expecting anything to be swallowed unquestioningly. I've simply explained why many people do find the movie problematic and even linked academics whose expertise you're free to evaluate on your own.

The follow-up question was simply to gauge what your personal line for content in a film being "problematic" is. From what you've said it sounds like your bar is wherever real world problems can be measured as a result. Fair enough if that's your position, but that's quite a high bar just to say a film is distasteful. Birth of a Nation is the only movie I can think of that might clear it.

Ah sorry no I wasn't referring to you derisively there, but these "experts" and grievance peddlers like in the link you sent. I'm really not swayed in the slightest by "won't somebody please think of the children/nazis/lesbians/whatever" shtick. It's just intellectually lazy.

> The movie uses a modern Mayan language for dialogue, uses Maya actors and depicts a religion still practiced today. Moreover, practitioners of that religion were being actively killed for their practice only a decade prior. The analogy with nazis and europeans seems pretty different to me.

Raiders of the Lost Ark uses a modern European language for dialogue, uses white actors, and depicts a religion still practiced today.

What are the differences you were going for?

Maybe you can refresh my memory? The ark in raiders was a macguffin. The only overtly religious character I remember was the imam. If you mean temple of doom with the Kali cult, that's closer except for one important detail. Other movies are careful to mentally distance depictions by having cults be underground or otherwise abnormal and isolated. Think midsommar, wicker man, etc.

The narrative of apocalypto is literally the mainstream Maya priests kidnapping and torturing people to sacrifice them before the protagonist is saved by the distraction of Spaniards arriving. I would consider the same thing with Christianity swapped a bit distasteful as well, but I can't think of any movies like that. Handmaid's tale would count, but that's a deliberate critique rather than unintentional stereotyping.

The Pit and the Pendulum?

Yes, clearly the Mayas were a peaceful society living a perfect harmony with themselves nature and other tribes, and no regular practices contrary to modern sensibilities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_cult...