Recent articles
Mayan experts have blasted the forthcoming epic disaster movie '2012'.
The film, which stars John Cusack and is directed by Independence Day's Roland Emmerich, uses the backdrop of the Mayan calendar – which is said to have foretold the end of the world on December 22, 2012.
That date is when the calendar runs out, and because it stops on the 13th baktun (a term which was how the civilization measured time, with each baktun lasting 400 years), and with 13 being a sacred number the long running theory is that it spells the beginning of the apocalypse.
And what an apocalypse if Emmerich's version is to be believed. Yahoo! Movies saw a sneak peek of a third of the movie and it's truly spectacular stuff.
However, it seems it's all nonsense.
David Webster, author of The Fall of the Ancient Maya, fumed, "This is just all kinds of mystic nonsense, and of course when 22 December 2012 comes around, no one whipping up all this goofiness will ever have the courtesy to say 'Sorry, we were wrong'.
"There is no evidence the Maya imagined their world would come to an end on this date and since their own society basically fell apart in the 9th century AD, they would have been very poor predictors if they relied on this as a prophecy of doom."
The theory is said to have come from a Mayan monument that had the date of when they believed the world would end inscribed on it but "it's badly destroyed and the event that follows the date can't be read very well right now" – said Yale professor Michael Coe.
Not that Hollywood is the only ones to be suckered by the theory, as the date gets closer expect more TV documentaries, books and websites dedicated to the 'impending apocalypse'.
"This whole uproar about the supposed end of the universe, end of time etc, tells one much more about my fellow Americans than it does about the classic Maya," added Coe.
The debunking of the 2012 myth isn't the only theory used in the film that has been disproved. Emmerich also uses the Earth Crust Displacement theory - which purports that every set number of years the earth crust shifts – as the reason for the disasters that take place in the movie.
However, despite Albert Einstein endorsing the idea put together by Professor Charles Hapgood in the 50s, it has since been disproved by experts.
Not that you would expect Emmerich, or indeed cinema audiences, to lose too much sleep over it all. These kinds of films are meant to entertain, and not be interpreted as a history lesson. As for Mayan experts who will pop along to see for some, an accurate representation of the lost civilization, well, it’s best to 'move along, watch you don't step on any popcorn, there's nothing to see here'.
Do you care that the film's theory has been disproved or should people just sit back and enjoy the spectacle?
'2012' is released on 13th November.
- More on Y! Movies: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus exclusive clip
Robert Pattinson has become Britain's biggest star of late with 'Twilight' a huge hit, and 'New Moon' set to be even bigger.
Comment on this article
Please sign in to add your comments.
User comments
Of course I'm a little dissapointed at the fact that this theory has been disproved, watching a film in which the world ends is scary, because we all know it'll happen, but with a film that predicts the apocalypse not to far away using something that is widely believen (Day After Tomorrow anyone?) is not simply terrifying but also thought provoking... Realistic or not, I look forward to the film and the paranoia that it will undoubtedly bring with it, and I expext a lot more coverage on the film for that reason in the upcoming month. Maybe it's just me speaking as a partial Emmerich fan, but real or not it is still interesting to have a look don't you think?
Posted by: shmrckv on Wed Oct 14 07:38PM | Report abuseWell i beleive that history plays a big part of films. The most famous of history films are titanic and braveheart. At the end of the day films will never be 100% on the history. I mean this film(2012) is a little bit of history. But films are there to entertain people. So it will be long way to go when films will start to use 100% history.
Posted by: branddylan on Thu Oct 15 03:04PM | Report abuseWell i beleive that history plays a big part of films. The most famous of history films are titanic and braveheart. At the end of the day films will never be 100% on the history. I mean this film(2012) is a little bit of history. But films are there to entertain people. So it will be long way to go when films will start to use 100% history.
Posted by: branddylan on Thu Oct 15 03:04PM | Report abuseHere we go again,a movie or a novel is released and the so called experts set out to debunk it. cant these people get a life? think back to dan browns book, the da vinci code,how many tv programmes, populated by scores of talking heads boring vast swathes of the population to near death were there? Some of these bloody knowalls had'nt even read the damn book. why here in edinburgh, one so called writer a mr john gibson -of the edinburgh evening news- beseeched us not to read the book,whilst admitting that he himself had not read it. I noticed that this week there was a programme on the box querying the facts of his latest novel which i have just read,it was very ordinary, not like the da vinci code which i very much enjoyed as a work of FICTION. Having recently seen the trailer for 2012, i will go and watch it and no doubt enjoy it as a work of FICTION just as i enjoyed BEN HUR, ALIEN, THE EXORCIST, GROUNDHOG DAY etc etc as works of FICTION Why cant these pontificating "experts" join a silent order of monks and leave the rest of us to our popcorn and coke and entertaining movies?
Posted by: taylor.jim48 on Fri Oct 23 10:01AM | Report abuseits also mentioned in the nostrodamus lost papers,,,which have now been found of course
Posted by: d.jameslongstreet on Sun Oct 25 01:33AM | Report abuse