Gibson Sticks Himself In His Apocalypto Trailer

[Duke Togo]

I have no idea what this film is about, but that's just flat out strange. Funny as hell, but strange.

You can find the trailer here.

[Mr March]

I'll try an explanation of what this film is.

Optimistically, I'd say Apocalypto is...

A film which examines one possible explanation for the fall of the Mayan culture, contrasting this ancient civilization with our modern societies. Looking at these people, the choices they made and they way they lived makes us realize we are not all that different from those wrongly labelled "barbaric" empires of our history.

Pessimistically, I'd say Apocalypto is...

Another right wing allegorical film designed to create fear among the fearful in turbulent times so that we would beleive modern society (the U.S. more pointedly) is rapidly spiraling toward certain doom because of change - the perceived abandonment of morals, tradition, religion, et cetera.

Oh yeah, cool trailer

Edited December 22, 2005 by Mr March

[Graham]

Not a fan of Mel Gibson anymore, he's just gotten too weird recently.

I certainly can make a few suggetsions as to where he can stick himself.

Graham

[glane21]

i just wish he'd gone ahead and done that 4th Mad Max film before he's as old as Harrison ford will be in any 4th Indiana Jones film.

Edited December 22, 2005 by glane21

[Metal_Massacre_79]

Looks like he's trying out for a part as Osama bin Laden.

[Duke Togo]

i just wish he'd gone ahead and done that 4th Mad Max film before he's as old as Harrison ford will be in any 4th Indiana Jones film.

354352[/snapback]

"Max 4: Fury Road" was to be filmed sometime in the past few years in North Africa, but it was called off due to worries over terrorism.

[fernarias]

I thought he looked like Saddam Hussein.

[Duke Togo]

I thought he looked like Saddam Hussein.

354418[/snapback]

I think that was the look he was going for.

[Blaine23]

Riggs has truly lost his damn mind.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I wish he had done that mad max sequel. Didn't he say something about him being too fat to be max in an interview a long time ago?

When he said that, an image popped into my head of him being a fat, donut-eating Main Force Patrol cop again, (in the style of the first movie) and the twist is that they turned it into an action comedy with a black guy as his partner. The world would once again be back to what it was from the first movie and max would have the benefits of futuristic cyborg body parts (remember his injured leg from the movies?) and the future would not be so chaotic. (more like escape from new york. The gangs would only have control of certain areas but they would be managable)

The story would be that it was discovered that all the good guys were really living underground and that it was kept secret from the rest of the human race so that they could then later bring about a utopian world after the destruction of the old one. (the underground society think of themselves as like the people who escaped the flood in biblical times hoping the destruction would have wiped out all the violent people) All the technology since then advanced to a certain level and some of the cities are strangely much more advanced than the rest of the earth. (ie like Appleseed) Unfortunately it would all go wrong when gangs had taken control of the cities, stolen this tech and the scientists, and once again there would be need for road warriors to fight against them helping to protect the good people and for survival to outrun and outdrive them to get to safe areas. There wouldn't be a military to protect the innocnet (only a police force) because this idealistic peace-loving socitiety thought they wouldn't need to fight in any more wars ever again, assuming that all the violent and chaotic people were wiped out from the earth, and that the remaining scavengers had starved to death. Ahhh.. too bad. Those kinds of movies aren't made anymore. (set with a lone character similar to a cowboy in a western or a samurai who roams the earth for truth, holding no Politically Correct ideas or ideals and who just fights using his skill and being atached to no single person, except the things he uses to survive to protect himself, in a world where innocent people get beaten over because they are weak and easy prey so thier chances of staying alive and able to fight back are slimmer. ...oh and the stunts are all done without CG effects)

Edited December 23, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Duke Togo]

Riggs has truly lost his damn mind.

354463[/snapback]

I think after all of the uproar over The Passion (which, after seeing the movie [which wasn't very good], I found to be totally unfounded), I think its his way of moving past all of the craziness around that movie; poking a little fun at himself while having fun doing it. From everything I've heard he's a known praticaly joker, this seems to be his way of saying, "Hey, its just the same old me".

[Mr March]

Riggs has truly lost his damn mind.

354463[/snapback]

I think after all of the uproar over The Passion (which, after seeing the movie [which wasn't very good], I found to be totally unfounded), I think its his way of moving past all of the craziness around that movie; poking a little fun at himself while having fun doing it. From everything I've heard he's a known praticaly joker, this seems to be his way of saying, "Hey, its just the same old me".

354521[/snapback]

I hope you don't mind me going off on a bit of a tangent, but I just have to comment on a subject you touched with your last post.

So much contraversy surrounds film releases now, it's turning into just another marketting scam to draw more crowds. Then people who disagree with the greatness of said contraversial film obviously have some ulterior motive. Perhaps the contraversial masterpiece these people so vehemently support just happens to (gasp) suck?

The Passion of the Christ was a big steeming pile of pants

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a big steeming pile of pants

For my opinion, I've been accused of everything from a right wing, fundamentalist supporter of despotism and widening class gaps to a hateful atheist pagan, who's leftist mind is so bereft of morals I'm not qualified to criticize the multi-faceted genius of Gibson's film...this coming from people ignorant of film and who haven't been to a theatre in decades.

It never occurs to people that they are simply supporting poor film and buying into contraversy that really doesn't exist. No political agendas, no ideological machinations, no ulterior motives...the film just sucks.

[Cmdr. Grant]

Mel Gibson is a much better filmmaker when he just directs versus acting and directing.

Personally I think each and every movie he has acted in since Braveheart is just his way of trying to recapture the Braveheart magic. But this isn't much different from Al Pacino going over the top again and again since it won him an Oscar in Scent Of A Woman. ( Hooooo Ahhhhh) I think nothing curses these actors more than actually winning an Oscar.

I generally don't mind Gibson's religious/political views since they don't change his storytelling. Now it might influence which story he ends up telling, but I'll give him credit for knowing how to show compelling drama and artistic flair in his movies. And honestly, if you listen to Spike Lee rant, hes way way more over the top and Anti Semetic than Gibson will ever be. But unlike Lee, Gibson can't hide behind being black to shield his racist oddball views.

Gibson just committed the unforgivable Hollywood sin of pissing off one of the Holy Trinity Of Marketed Martyrdom ( homosexuals, African Americans and Jews) If he pissed on rich white men, old people, the disabled or marginalized Asian Americans, then he would be a non story.

354348[/snapback]

Heh. I agree with you that Spike Lee is a racist hypocrite. On the other hand I'm black and haven't been offended by anything Gibson has put out yet. What are you referring to in that last part of your post. People will cry bloody murder over a film that involves any ethnic or religios group whether the story is right (most of the) or wrong. Hell even if the flick doesn't invole some hot topic someone's gonna bitch. Back when SW Episode I came out some cheezballs accused G. Lucas of offending blacks and taking a stab at the chinese becuause Jar Jar's (Forgive me for mentioning the name) speach pattern and the Trade Federation was some sinister metaphor for the chinese. Oh yeah the Trade Fed guys seemed to talk with chinese accented english too! Pure B.S. They weren't mad at the fact that he pissed the new movie away but they found plenty of time to devine some strange racial and political B.S. out of a sci-fi movie geared largely towards kids.

[Zor Primus]

Riggs has truly lost his damn mind.

354463[/snapback]

I think after all of the uproar over The Passion (which, after seeing the movie [which wasn't very good], I found to be totally unfounded), I think its his way of moving past all of the craziness around that movie; poking a little fun at himself while having fun doing it. From everything I've heard he's a known praticaly joker, this seems to be his way of saying, "Hey, its just the same old me".

354521[/snapback]

Ya know I don't really see what the whole deal was with Passion. I saw it...with the exception of the more then usually graphic nature of the whipping of Jesus by the Romans there was nothing there we havent seen before. Was it the whole blame it on the Jews thing that got people upset? Meh...religon.

So this movie is about the fall of the Mayan Empire? Should be at least something to watch and talk about from an anthropological point of view. Wonder how ethnocentric he is gonna go with this.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Zor Primus

[Gabe Q]

Next is probably M Night Shamalyan. The Village bombed critically and financially. If his Lady In The Water film sinks too, then he'll probably have to resort to making a movie about gay knights where the secret twist at the end is they are brothers.

354605[/snapback]

It's funny cuz it's true.

[Sundown]

It never occurs to people that they are simply supporting poor film and buying into contraversy that really doesn't exist.  No political agendas, no ideological machinations, no ulterior motives...the film just sucks.

354600[/snapback]

Even though I thought it one of the more artistic and authentic portrayals of the events leading up to Jesus's crucifixion, I guess I can undestand how someone looking for a film to entertain or compel them, or whatever it is films are supposed to do might find it lacking. Especially since the movie is somewhat predictable, and is constrained by Gibson's faithfulness (no pun intended) to the source material. And it's not like there were any surprises in store-- Jesus wasn't going to start shooting lasers out of His eyes at some point in the movie.

So yeah, it worked for me, but I'm curious what makes it so unqualifiably poor to other folks. Could the subject matter even be done in a manner that would be considered undeniably good filmmaking, while remaining nearly verse-for-verse faithful to the Gospels, which obviously weren't originally written as screenplays? And could it ever work in the original language? Or maybe Gibson's enterprise simply couldn't succeed for some audiences.

Anyway, I thought the anti-Semitism controversy silly, and I'm pretty undecided about the film's violence. The whipping scene constituted only some 10 minutes of the film, and I'm not sure its length added much beyond the stir it created, at least for me. I know that left the most lasting impression for some folks though.

[Duke Togo]

So yeah, it worked for me, but I'm curious what makes it so unqualifiably poor to other folks.  Could the subject matter even be done in a manner that would be considered undeniably good filmmaking, while remaining nearly verse-for-verse faithful to the Gospels, which obviously weren't originally written as screenplays?  And could it ever work in the original language?  Or maybe Gibson's enterprise simply couldn't succeed for some audiences.

354758[/snapback]

Maybe because it was hokey, poorly directed, and violent to the point of being flat out absurd. And please, lets not get into the whole "faithful to the Gospels" thing. The only thing it was faithful to was the movie Gibson wanted to make out of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is all outside the point of this thread. I don't hold Gibson down to one film he directed, and I thought the picture posted above was a good example that Gibson is the same old jokester he has always been. That, and it gave me a godo laugh.

If this is going to become some discussion on The Passion, I'd prefer this thread be locked. There picture is up for all to see, no need for further comment if its to be off topic (or lead to a discussion that may turn very uncomfortable).

[Sundown]

I have to admit that I have no idea how to spot bad directing, at least not well enough to spot it in the Passion. The only clear instance I can point out of obviously bad direction is in the Star Wars prequels. At any rate, it certainly doesn't follow the film conventions of say, Braveheart.

Is that Gibson's real beard? And I still can't figure out what people coated what appears to be plaster has anything to do with Mayans. I'm more confused about that than seeing Saddam Wallace in the trailer.

[EXO]

That picture is hilarious. Kinda anachronistic. I happen to like Mel Gibson and his movies. Not all of them, but enough to be a fan. Beside he's freakin' Martin Riggs man. And anyone that makes movies that goes against the grain of Hollywood and whose pictures' subject matter seems to interest the director is too far and few inbetween. I think his name may hurt his movies somewhat for validity, but I hope he keeps making them. And there's nothing like a little insanity to make a good movie... not Tom Cruise amount of insanity, but just that little sprinkle of dementia that Gibson has.

[Mr March]

^

Its no doubt in my mind that groups are angling films to push one agenda or another, but for the actors, I figure its a good low risk way back into the A list.

Ang Lee was reeling from the Hulk. It didn't generate the big dollars like Spiderman or Batman.

Heath Ledger has made a series of bombs. Knights Tale, Four Feathers, some weird religious movie.

They make a movie about gay cowboys and they both will probably get Oscar nominations. This is going to get Ledger some better roles and give Ang Lee some cred back as a bankable director.

At least for the actors and directors, the controversial stuff gets them back to the front of the line.

Next is probably M Night Shamalyan. The Village bombed critically and financially. If his Lady In The Water film sinks too, then he'll probably have to resort to making a movie about gay knights where the secret twist at the end is they are brothers.

354605[/snapback]

A bit cynical, but mostly accurate. Basically, you have to keep in mind that Hollywood is both an artistic industry and an investment industry. Directors and Producers make films for several reasons, not all of which are complimentary. Actors sometimes choose projects for mutually exclusive reasons as well. Why is is some of the more talented Directors/Actors will accept projects that are terrible on their face? Because visibility counts for much more than most of us think and not all kinds of movie viewers go to see all kinds of film.

A director/actor known for critically acclaimed film often doesn't want to be known as just that. Some do, but most don't. The artsy films they make are intelligent, compelling, and generate respective profits. However, to become a popular culture legend, to be known like the names "Spielberg" or "De Niro" is known, a director/actor will often choose high profile, big box office projects simply to raise their profile...and correspondingly, their opportunities.

Should the big projects fail, smaller, more dramatic and provocative filmmaking is often a return to form for many...and a return to respectability. But the visibility will still remain, good or bad.

[Mr March]

It never occurs to people that they are simply supporting poor film and buying into contraversy that really doesn't exist.  No political agendas, no ideological machinations, no ulterior motives...the film just sucks.

354600[/snapback]

Even though I thought it one of the more artistic and authentic portrayals of the events leading up to Jesus's crucifixion, I guess I can undestand how someone looking for a film to entertain or compel them, or whatever it is films are supposed to do might find it lacking. Especially since the movie is somewhat predictable, and is constrained by Gibson's faithfulness (no pun intended) to the source material. And it's not like there were any surprises in store-- Jesus wasn't going to start shooting lasers out of His eyes at some point in the movie.

So yeah, it worked for me, but I'm curious what makes it so unqualifiably poor to other folks. Could the subject matter even be done in a manner that would be considered undeniably good filmmaking, while remaining nearly verse-for-verse faithful to the Gospels, which obviously weren't originally written as screenplays? And could it ever work in the original language? Or maybe Gibson's enterprise simply couldn't succeed for some audiences.

Anyway, I thought the anti-Semitism controversy silly, and I'm pretty undecided about the film's violence. The whipping scene constituted only some 10 minutes of the film, and I'm not sure its length added much beyond the stir it created, at least for me. I know that left the most lasting impression for some folks though.

354758[/snapback]

You have to keep in mind this is just my personal opinion on the two films above. My like or dislike of the films is really just secondary to the point I was trying to make. I definitely don't have any ill will towards the people who like 9/11 or The Passion, just those people who label me based on my criticism. Very important distinction.

I don't want to dwell too much on this tangent (if I'm derailing anything, please let me know Duke), but I am a firm believer that ANYTHING can be SUCCESSFULLY filmed. Skeptics say this can't be filmed or this isn't possible are simply admitting their own lack of imagination. I've heard detractors say the Naked Lunch could never be filmed or Lord of the Rings was impossible, and every decade of film history that passess proves them wrong again and again. The story of the Passion of the Christ is absolutely filmable...like anything else. In my opinion, Gibson's film was lacking. It had nothing to do with the violence (I've seen worse), being a non-beleiver (I have enjoyed religious/secular films of all kinds), or any other scapegoat people use as a crutch to dismiss criticism of a film they take so very seriously.

If we aren't going too off topic, I'll post a more in-depth critique of why I disliked The Passion if you're interested. But rest assured, I've seen more film than most and I watch ALL film for ALL reasons, including entertainment, enlightenment, education, experience, and humility.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Mr March

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I always thought it was mainly the violence that was the controversy. That is people were wondering: "Was it so necessary to be that graphic about it?" Kind of like the violence in Saving Private Ryan. Whichever groups are powerful at the time, who get easily offended by something, usually are the ones helping to create the controversy, and that leads to more publicity which leads to people wanting to pay the money to see the movies just to see how bad they are and what the controversy is about, thus contributing to feeding the beast they so hate.

Mel Gibson knows what he is doing.

When I watch Braveheart I don't care how historically accurate the thing is, I just want to see some guys beating each other silly and some exciting action. This is what I believe a majority go to see movies for. And this is who is aimed at: the masses. I think the simpsons episode with a hollywoodised version of history sums it up perfectly where they just throw out all logic and take whatever freedom they can to tell an interesting story. After coming out of POTC I thought of it more as a horror movie with the emphasis on just the torture bits.

Edited December 24, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

If we aren't going too off topic, I'll post a more in-depth critique of why I disliked The Passion if you're interested.  But rest assured, I've seen more film than most and I watch ALL film for ALL reasons, including entertainment, enlightenment, education, experience, and humility.

354786[/snapback]

Definitely would be, if the Duke's okay with it. Otherwise, I'd like to hear your thoughts about it over PM or in a separate thread, or an existing old thread if we've got one.

[bsu legato]

Not to derail this thread (and its already bordering on "religion"), Passion of the Christ isn't really a story in any normal sense. Its basically a guy getting destroyed for 2 hours. If it had been about some dude named Jesus Gonzalez getting curb stomped in some Mexican bar, it wouldn't be worth the film its printed on. The difference being that TPoTC (not to be the Johnny Depp-centric PoTC) just happens to be about the cornerstone of a bunch of people's faith. But for non-believers like myself & Mr March, it really does little for us, aside from perhaps some technical appreciation. Never before has flogging been filmed so realistically!

[EXO]

Not to derail this thread (and its already bordering on "religion"), Passion of the Christ isn't really a story in any normal sense. Its basically a guy getting destroyed for 2 hours. If it had been about some dude named Jesus Gonzalez getting curb stomped in some Mexican bar, it wouldn't be worth the film its printed on. The difference being that TPoTC (not to be the Johnny Depp-centric PoTC) just happens to be about the cornerstone of a bunch of people's faith. But for non-believers like myself & Mr March, it really does little for us, aside from perhaps some technical appreciation. Never before has flogging been filmed so realistically!

355022[/snapback]

I disagree. Even if you're not religious, crusifixion and flogging is still a historical fact. Just because its about the cornerstone of someone's faith is the reason people discount it as a film, especially the way the church took it as somekind of religious piece and made people, even children see it as something that they had to see. I wasn't a big fan, but it's still just a movie with some artistic merit. And because it caused such a sensation, earned so much money and was made by Gibson, people are so quick to criticize it as trash (or hail it as something that's more than what it is.) Luckily for him, the negative reaction worked as much for the film as the positive. What I would do to sell out my religion for as much money...

Hardly no one else is making contemporary movies with more interesting settings, movies are so bland and so much the same these days. I welcome a little change now and again. I know that the new movie wont be a serious movie about a day in a life of a Mayan... it'll have a dramatic storyline that's probably typically Hollywood. At least we won't see two other projects like it, competing to be released earlier than the other.

[Seven]

A bit cynical, but mostly accurate.  Basically, you have to keep in mind that Hollywood is both an artistic industry and an investment industry.  Directors and Producers make films for several reasons, not all of which are complimentary.  Actors sometimes choose projects for mutually exclusive reasons as well.  Why is is some of the more talented Directors/Actors will accept projects that are terrible on their face?  Because visibility counts for much more than most of us think and not all kinds of movie viewers go to see all kinds of film.

A director/actor known for critically acclaimed film often doesn't want to be known as just that.  Some do, but most don't.  The artsy films they make are intelligent, compelling, and generate respective profits.  However, to become a popular culture legend, to be known like the names "Spielberg" or "De Niro" is known, a director/actor will often choose high profile, big box office projects simply to raise their profile...and correspondingly, their opportunities.

Should the big projects fail, smaller, more dramatic and provocative filmmaking is often a return to form for many...and a return to respectability.  But the visibility will still remain, good or bad.

354785[/snapback]

I agree for the most part about everything you just said. What the heck is up with Nicolas Cage?! It's like he's the antithesis of everything you just said since he just picks crap summer movies one after another and never seems to care about the damage it does. It's hard to believe the guy is related to Francis Ford Coppola.

[Duke Togo]

It's hard to believe the guy is related to Francis Ford Coppola.

355164[/snapback]

Its been 26 years since his last great work, Apocalypse Now. Sure, he had success with Godfather Part III and Dracula, but he hasn't been able to dupilcate the real success and power that he had in from the early 70's to early 80's.

[Twoducks]

Never had a reason to see the Passion. I’ve known the story since I was a kid and there are a lot of documentaries and other movies about the subject, so no interest there. And if you add that the great majority of the commentaries about the film are about it’s violence or the Jew thing then that means there isn’t anything new or groundbreaking in the movie worth seeing.

Wonder how much historical accuracy he’ll go after in this one. The lead doesn’t look very Mayan so well have to wait to see how ethnically correct the rest of the cast is.

[Wes]

So anyone planing on seeing this tomorrow? Anybody already seen it?

[Roy Focker]

Nope not really.

[bsu legato]

Sugar tits!*

* I have nothing to actually add to this topic, but I've been looking for a place to use that line since Gibson's DUI.

[cube]

just saw the film...

SPOILERS!

Apparently the jews killed the mayans

whoda thunkit?

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

I'll try an explanation of what this film is.

Optimistically, I'd say Apocalypto is...

A film which examines one possible explanation for the fall of the Mayan culture, contrasting this ancient civilization with our modern societies. Looking at these people, the choices they made and they way they lived makes us realize we are not all that different from those wrongly labelled "barbaric" empires of our history.

Pessimistically, I'd say Apocalypto is...

Another right wing allegorical film designed to create fear among the fearful in turbulent times so that we would beleive modern society (the U.S. more pointedly) is rapidly spiraling toward certain doom because of change - the perceived abandonment of morals, tradition, religion, et cetera.

Oh yeah, cool trailer

Mr March, you rule.

[Poonman]

the end of the teaser trailer said "Summer 2006" haha I wonder why it wasn't released then... hmm

but think of the guy what you will the man's a genius because every mexican person and their cousin's cousin is going to see it. lots of them take pride in their aztec/inca heritage or whatever so the guy tapped into a market of millions and millions of people.

[Macross73]

the end of the teaser trailer said "Summer 2006" haha I wonder why it wasn't released then... hmm

but think of the guy what you will the man's a genius because every mexican person and their cousin's cousin is going to see it. lots of them take pride in their aztec/inca heritage or whatever so the guy tapped into a market of millions and millions of people.

Yep

edit: I heard from one Radio review thats its extremly graphic , bloody and that theres subtitles.

I'll check it out Saturday

Edited December 8, 2006 by Macross73