Kingdom of Heaven
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16776
Printed Date: 28-May-2024 at 23:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Kingdom of Heaven
Posted By: rider
Subject: Kingdom of Heaven
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 14:02
|
A pretty good movie by screenplay and effects I think it was, but I would rather like to hear what do you think of the historical side? I totally disliked the use of Templars as some idiotic all-for-war soldiers that can only say: "God wills it!"... it was terrible, plus making Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chatillion Templars... aaarghhh. I very much however liked the figure of Tiberias although history knows no such person (with that name) although there was a certain Lord of Tiberias, Raymond III... The battles were good, only again I wonder why they had the Hospitaller wonder around in every possible place. I am pretty sure that he wasn't of high status so he should have orders... and was he a Hospitaller knight (which would give more freedom) or becoming a knight soon... wierd indeed. And as there were always only a few knights, why would they have one roam around Europe? |
Replies:
Posted By: Hyarmendacil
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 09:27
|
Well, the thing I mind the most is the twisting of the Balian of Ibelin personage itself--by the time of the movie he was already a powerful mature knight, not a lowly blacksmith's son. But of course, in modern cinema everything can be forgiven as long as the actor is Orlando Bloom. I can't help pitying him for the ugly effects that this typecasting might have on his future career. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 12:03
|
Well, Balian was never the son of a blacksmith (as far as I know)...
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 20:02
|
It sucked. The story sucked, the history sucked and Orlando sucked.
So, I said it...  ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 20:15
And I was going to say it too... The seige of Jerusalaam was pathetic. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 20:19
|
But please, give us some reasons. Both of you.
------------- |
Posted By: Lepidodendron
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 20:31
| The glorious "in our hearts, we all are knights"-scene during the siege of Jerusalem, in the good ol' Hollywood way, was a bit over the top. |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 21:39
|
If you want to learn history, don't go to Hollywood. More often you'll get misinformation or outright lies.
------------- Opium is the religion of the masses. From each according to his need, to each according to his ability. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 22:04
|
The movie could have been really crazy if they incorporated more battle gory battle scenes.. Thats the problem with these war movies. MOST people arent going to see the movie expecting something historically correct, more they are going to see the knights an Muslims duke it out. With a good story line of course. It was a good movie, but it needed some fine tuning. Same with Troy an definately with Alexander !!! |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 22:59
|
I have to disagree about most people not expecting this movie to be
historically accurate. The vast majority of people with not enough
motivation to actually study what happened go to see this movie and
come out thinking it is a more or less accurate event in history. The
vast bulk of the viewing public doesn't have the eye for scrutiny that
a proper historian has, look at how people reacted after seeing
Braveheart.
------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 03:15
The whole movie was pathetic ... but we know we live in the time of the dicatorship of politically correct ... |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 03:28
Perhaps this is why he misspelled the city? ------------- |
Posted By: SOKON MEJIA
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 04:06
|
WELL THE OTHER MOVIE OF RIDLI
SCOT (GLADIATOR) WAS HISTORICAL INCORECT
TOO SOO ! |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 04:57
|
Yeah, But Gladiator was a good story, and that made up a lot. And Joaquin Phoenix of course. He makes up for a lot.... -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 08:06
Why are you writing in Caps Lock? This is not especially polite. Please refrain from doing so from now on. ------------- |
Posted By: Lepidodendron
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 11:20
| Yes, Gladiator, with the Roman army setting up their tents right in the middle of a forest. And of course Arthur. But that one was worse, because the makers claimed it to be historically accurate. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 12:41
|
Well,history always gets sucked in favor of visual effects in Hollywood.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: SOKON MEJIA
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 17:53
|
The roman emperor Komodus did not died on the arena ! HE did not kill his father ! Maximus was not a real person .but i agree that the film was good! About the kingdom of heaven its almost like a fairy tale the poor blacksmith and his story And one thing about the ansient histori movies they alaways present the riders with streches ( dont know if this is the right word where the rider put his feet ) although the avars bring this thing to europe and why its bad to write with big words i dont understand |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 12:41
|
Well, writing in Caps Lock would imply that you are yelling out loud. I don't understand, Kingdom of Heaven can't use stirrups (the word that you searched for) because Avars brought them to Europe??? ------------- |
Posted By: SOKON MEJIA
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:03
| I talk about the movies before christ like Alexander Gladiator and TROY |
Posted By: SOKON MEJIA
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:05
| sORRY FOR THE MISTAKE GLADIATOR IS NOT IN THIS CATEGORY |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 13:09
I definitely agree with you here. The vast, vast majority of the people who watched Braveheart thought that it was just about 100% accuracy (while it really was, at best, 50% accurate). The same goes with Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator. ------------- 
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 15:36
|
Sokon Mejia, I told you not to write in Caps Lock. Check your posts for it.
------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 18:05
|
The one scene I liked from the movie is the charge of a body of knights against a group of Muslim cav. The camera pans out into an aerial view, we see the knights in wedge formation approaching the muslims in a crescent formation; at this point, and at the signal of the leader (Orlando/Balian?) a group of the knights detaches to the left, forms its own wedge and heads for the muslim extreme right. I think it portrays correctly the battle tactics of the era.
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:05
|
Oh, never thought of that that way. Good remark. ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 00:42
Ahh but two points that should be considered:
1. those that accually care if it is at all accurate will further investagate = creating intrest in history or perhaps just in a subject they knew little about. If they believe a movie to be accurate people like us correct them.
2. Movies are entertainment and it's a package deal that sells with accuracy being low on the list of priorities far behind story line , effects , big name actors etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 09:09
-------------
|
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 14:05
|
the movie "alexander" was the worst, the movie focuses on alexander's gay relation with Hephaestion rather than his succesful military career. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 15:32
|
Siege Tower, lucky for me, I got the Director's Cut, which cut that whole homosexual sex scene out. Actually, Alexander was not as bad as compared to Braveheart historically. -------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 15:34
|
BTW, many people have also said that KoH's (Kingdom of Heaven's) Director's Cut is more precise historically... is it true? I missed my chance to buy that with a week and got the ordinary one.
------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 16:31
|
Hhmmm, Kingdom of Heaven. One of the things that iritated me the most about this movie is that the director could have made the movie far more historically accurate and still produced an entertaining movie. Some of the inaccuracies were pointless (such as casting Guy and Reynald as Templar Knights) and served no purpose. If Scott had produced the movie with a fair and balanced depiction of the good and bad of each side of the conflict the movie would have been much better recieved by the public. Portraying the Knights Templar as evil was uncalled for as well. I don't understand why he portrayed Guy of Lusignan as a villian either. According to sources I've read, Guy was actually considered a weak man, easily influenced by others. He certainly made some poor decisions and contributed greatly to the defeat at Hattin but I don't think that makes him the evil villian he is made out to be in the movie.
I've watched both versions. The only real piece of historical accuracy that the director's cut adds is that Baldwin V is added to the story. He is shown being crowned King of Jerusalem in between the death of Baldwin IV and crowning of Guy. The directors cut does add more length to the movie. Most of the added material seems to be at the beggining of the movie.
|
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 12:20
Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 14:37
|
Problem is, in most movies the 3D crowds and effects either are woefully exagerated or look horrible. And the anction itself is rather...meh, bland. The main hero chops war veterans left and right with his sword, after having recieved only a handfull of lessons and fake blood flies everywhere. Except on clothes and armor, which remain unusually clean.
'Alexander' and 'Gladiator' weren't as bad as 'Kingdom of Heaven' and especially 'Troy'. There was supposedly a Hannibal movie in the works with Vin Diesel starring the general. Any news on that one? ------------- Unity makes Strenght |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 14:40
Vin Diesel as Hannibal?! He would take the entire Roman army by himself! |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 15:11
Hannibal the Conquerer is expected to release in 2008. -------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 16:24
|
Well, I know something that will ANNIHILATE history. That is '300'.
Perhaps someone will really think that Greeks (or Persians) used
rhinoceros in battle? ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:29
|
No offense for some of you guys, but I think Kingdom of Heaven is a lot better than Alexander, which I consider it as the worst movie that I have ever seen.
Kingdom of Heaven is a good movie, but it has many misinfo... but what can you expect? The producers make movie to get some profit. They could not care less if they got some facts wrong. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 20:51
I agree, Kingdom of Heaven was much better.
Well, I can excuse the 300 because it was based completely off of a comic book, not history. But, still, I wish they would have made it much more historical. Why does Hollywood have to pervert history for its own means, the actual history is usually better than their stupid plot anyways (see the completely idiotic romance between William Wallace and French Princess in Braveherat). -------------
|
Posted By: milns
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 14:19
|
Scene with christian host coming from desert with that golden cross was superb, and knights charging was ok also, but story about blacksmith a.k.a. the savior of Jerusalem was totaly unacceptible!
But the "best of the best" is Alexander. Especially I "liked" macedonian phalanx in jungle. The batlle advisors or director must have been a complete idiots to film that battle in jungle. Damn I was pissed off when I saw that! And the whole thing of Alexander the Gay.... 
------------- Un beidzot liecas un sašķīst viss kristīgo bars - Nav pārspējams šodien tiem zemgaļu niknums un kaujas spars! |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 14:36
|
As a medieval war movie it was a good one, with excellent costumes ( armors etc ) with impressive battle scenes. It was maybe not the most accurate film with the subject of crusades ( and especially the personalities of the film, their real life and actions ) but we cant condemnt for these reason the movie, and can anyone tell me which "historian" movie has historic accuracy ( in braveheart the battle of sterling took place in open field lol ). From these movies the spectators want to see some action and they dont want most of them historical accuracy. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL MEMBERS OF A.E. FORUM .------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 04:52
|
Personally I liked all the recent epic movies (Troy, King Arthur, Gladiator, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven; actually I own a copy of each). Any movie set in the ancient or medieval world usually earns my appreciation because they are so rare. I certainly dislike things about them but overall they are enjoyable to watch. Regarding Kingdom of Heaven I disliked how the Templars were portrayed, how Guy was portrayed, how quickly Balian becomes a legendary knight, and as delusional as I am I had hoped to see a glimpse of Constantinople on the road to Jerusalem or even the mention of the byzantine empire. Perhaps someday. One of the major positives of Kingdom of Heaven was the musical score, added a great deal to the movie. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 12:16
|
I can agree with you here. The music was just magnificent. You can't not enjoy it.. And Patriot is too a great movie (although not medieval and not historical). ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 15:26
|
I am not too high on the Patriot. I think it was a pretty bad movie, personally, especially with its insulting portrayal of the British. Yes, the British killed rebellious civilians, but many rebellious civilians in the South killed Loyalist civilians also. Its lack to show that both sides committed atrocities in the South made it hard for me to watch.
-------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 15:51
|
I enjoyed it as a movie, not for the historical values. The battles were good, I think...
------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 16:26
|
Well, as a movie, it had very great battles.
-------------
|
Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 01:15
|
The Kingdom of Heaven had good production values, but was lacking in historical value, and as usual Hollywood discounted the historical to make it more dramatic.
Also of interest is how it was decided to make the Islamics the good guys and the Christians the bad guys, when history clearly shows that both were very brutal at times, and at other times were rather humane. It would have been better to show both in a more accurate light, but then the movie industry is not known for accuracy when it comes to history.
Case in point is at the beginning of the movie Gladiator they used the Zulu war chants from the 1964 epic Zulu, when the Germanic tribes were about to attack the Roman legions. Don't think the Roman legions ever engaged the Zulu's in any kind of combat since there was a good 3,000 miles separating the two.
But that is what you call creative license!
 |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 10:14
Indeed? What exactly are you talking of? The words uttered by the Germanic peoples in the beginning of the battle (where the men yelled something and threw the head) or what? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 12:47
..its not when the big hairy chap holds up the head and speaks, i believe it is just before then when chanting is heard coming from the forest and before the Roman army actually see the tribal warriors...
..i seem to recall reading that 'Zulu' is one of Ridley Scott's favourite movies and the vocal excerpt was placed in as a cheeky tribute? ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 12:56
|
Oh, never have I noticed that one. I'll hear it more carefully when I watch it the next time. The battle is quite good actually. I like the view when arrows are seen from the place the Emperor is at. That is quite a good view. Another good one is when the Roman infantry marches and forms a testudo-like wall and shields themselves from enemy arrows.. ------------- |
Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 18:18
|
Personally I liked Gladiator, Alexander, Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven,
Patriot, Michael Collins... In fact, I've enjoyed nearly every
historical film I've ever watched. Which is perhaps why I am such a
history geek!
------------- "Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing" Victor Hugo |
Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 18:39
| Exactly. Prior to the Germanic warriors coming out of the forest, there is about a minute or so of the Zulu chanting from the 1964 movie Zulu, which for me was quite amusing and showed how Hollywood is brazen enough to re-use anything because of the short-term memories of so many, and of course for the younger crowd that never bothers watching anything that wasn't released after they were born. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 01:06
|
I liked the movie. I read all the extra stuff about what was history what wasn't. And it inspired me to read more about one of the characters.
Not to equate it whatsoever-but-remember Gone with the Wind had the burning of Atlanta in the wrong place. ------------- |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 05:24
|
Zulú warrior cry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI Gladiator, germanic warrior cry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAuvz2dz64 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAuvz2dz64 Both great scenes and movies ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 12:59
..you know, that scene in Zule still, after countless viewings, makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up!!..especially the banging of spears on the shields....great film Zulu, in my top three.....
...Kingdom of Heaven by contrast was a huge personal disappointment..i was looking forward to watching it for almost 3 years!!!....Ridley Scott is still a great director and some scenes, even in his poor films are far better than some other films as whole....i think it has already been mentioned about the Crusading army, led by the 'true cross' coming out of the dust to confront Saladin's forces....now that is a great, great scene..if one was to truly imagine what a crusading army looked like, then i think Ridley has captured that picture perfectly....
..it still puzzles me why it was felt to add the 'story' of Balian' in such a film, surely, the relationship between Saladin and the 'leper king' would have carried the film more adequately, both these characters stole the film completely..Saladin was magnificent, just how i had always imagined the man to be..i did not care one iota about Bloom's chracter, not the queen, none of the others really, but the leper king and Saladin were fantastic.....
...i still believe that the 'ultimate Crusade' film has yet to be made...personally, i would like to see a historical epic about Saladin and the relationship with Richard I....there would be no need to include fantasy, the story that is known is plenty enough to warrant a quality film, and for once, a history film that does not need to be subject to historical scrutiny.....come on Mr Scott, have another crack at the genre...!!!!  ------------- |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 01:23
|
Nice movie, but nice FAKE movie, fairytales with no historical backgrounds most.Besides Hattin There is this scene, Guy leads his troops, they dont show see of Galilea , just how soldiers were exhausted, and how Muslims waited in hill.Irony is crusaders were running towars lake or sea of Galile, they were 8 miles away and could see it, but Saladin was fresh and rested, crusaders tired, and Guy was a mental moron, to start with.Not, like his predecesors. Siege of Jerusalem is realistic for those days.It did portray Muslims as human.During first crusades 1099 when crusaders took Jerusalem, they killed around 20 000-30 000 Muslims in city and area around.Saladin, was humble and gentle person, unlike some might think. Alexander was a rubbish i barely saw it.Soooooooo, boring Troy was better movie, but it could have been better.I mean one-dimensional character of Brad Pitt, and thats it for Troy I wish there were some more historical movies in making.Im curious which movie, they will shoot next. ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 01:25
|
I think, movie that has potential of a real epic is Wienna
1683.With rich Germans and Austrians i wonder, why they didnt make this
Holywood version.I mean they did remake of Godzila, and all other
remakes.Single loss of life and butchering, untill world war 1
started.I dont know of any other calamity, that was so brutal ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 16:32
I know, I would love to see the Battle of Vienna in 1683 in a movie. Brave Polish hussars charging into the Turkish lines. Man, I can just see it now. I would go see it, but I wonder how it would be received by the Average Joe whom might not care about the battle. -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 17:13
..I am an average Joe!! and i would like to see such a film!!!! i am a complete sucker for such heroic depictions!!!... i even got all weepy when Faramir led his cavalry charge against the orc's in LOTR-The Return of the King!!!!!!.....  .....------------- |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 19:16
|
Well, its stupidity not bravery. Kara Mustafa Pasha was forewarned by Bosniaks, who had knowledge about crusaders strenght not to attack.And he was told he would fail, by us.And what did he do.He attacked Thats why his head is still in Wienna ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 20:04
Well, maybe it was stupidity. But it was not in the end a suicide charge led by Jan III Sobieski (unlike Farimir's crazy charge into a massive array of orc archers, Act of Oblivion the Average Joe  ). I am just surprised that Holywood has not taken the heroism of the act by Jan III Sobieski. I mean, think of the glory, the Polish hussars (in a strange sort of way, a parallell to the Riders of Rohan) so heavily equipped, even with wings, charging into the Turkish lines and slaughtering them. I mean, come on, there have been movies made on many other subjects in history, why not the Great Turkish War. Heck, while we are at it, why not a movie about the Hussites? I cannot think of another so unique revolution in history. I mean, there is fifteen years of material for Holywood to make a movie on it. I just hope Mel Gibson does not get his hands on either of these historical events. I can just imagine the movie he would make.-------------
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 01:32
Emperor Barbarossa, I have 2 news for you - a good one and a bad one.
A good news - There is a Polish buissnesmen, who wants to invest over 40mln $ and make a movie about the battle of Vienna 1683. AFAIK it should be done soon - until the end of 2009.
A bad news - this buissnessmen wants to engage Mel Gibson (as a Jan III Sobieski)
 . I only don't know if Gibson has already agreed. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 08:33
Damnit! Why would they pick Mel to be Jan III Sobieski? Did Sobieski really hate the Jews that much? I mean, I think Sean Connery would do a much better Sobieski than Mel, but that is just my opinion.-------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 10:14
|
Ooh. Yep, Sean would do a thousand times better job... Although Mel is too a fine actor... Patriot is just a magnificent movie...
------------- |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 04:45
|
If Mel Gibson's able to direct the plot, I'm sure the Turks would somehow be substituted by English along the line
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 09:49
Yes, and somehow, there will be some Scots in kilts fighting on the front lines. -------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 11:34
|
Stop it. This topic is terrible mislead and I ask you to begin another one to talk of future medieval movies... The main thing is that the Turks aren't replaced with samurai... then everything is okay. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 13:51
Sorry, rider. We sort of got way off topic here. -------------
|
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 02:32
|
question: the songs played in this movie and other historical movies...that seem church like , i think they are Latin and tend to be lead by a choir in movies like Elizabeth I and kingdom of heaven , what type of genre of music is that? i think its fascinating and would love to hear more of it. as well in the movie...i thought that the 12th century was very vividly brought to life despite the historical inaccuracies , does any 1 know if that was the attire that the leper king wore , as in the mask and all? as well the 'fictional' character of Tiberias isn't actually fictional , Tiberias was a territory incorporated at some time into the county of tripoli ( presumably by marriage or conquest ) and the character depicted in the movie was modeled after Raymond III count of tripoli :) ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 04:35
|
Sure, but they sort of juggled the roles around. The little speech of warning Balian makes befor the Christian army moves out to Hattin was in fact made by Raymond of Tripolis.
Tiberias happened to be a castle he owned, which was at the time besieged by Saladin, with Raymond's wife trapped inside it. Despite this Raymond advised against the relieving the castle as it would be to dangerous. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 05:12
|
I have yet to watch KoH - despite owning the DVD. It held so much promise when I first saw the promo - but now, considering the bastardization of the characters, I think I may boycott it still for a while yet. I was especially disappointed in the "Balian" character - the original Balian would have been much better! Think I shall go watch Rex Harrison as Saladin - much more entertaining!!
(And being an Aussie - the only good Mel Gibson movies are: Gallipoli, Mad Max 1-3, and the first Lethal Weapon - all the rest are rubbish) ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 07:31
That is called Soundtrack... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 15:38
You should try the Special Extended Editon - Director's Cut. It's far more historically acurate. It features the character of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_V_of_Jerusalem - Baldwin V the son of princess Sibylla by her first husband http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Montferrat%2C_count_of_Jaffa_and_Ascalon - William of Montferrat . The boy was crowned co-king in 1182 and succeeded Baldwin IV after his death. In the movie he is discovered to have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy - leprosy , like his uncle and was poisoned by his mother.
|
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 21:57
|
Oh goody - something else to look forward to!
Funny - a contigency plan was already thought of prior to Baldwin V succeeding (as a minor) as King of Jerusalem. How convenient that Baldwin V should oblige everyone by dying young.
Whether or not it was poison, leprosy or just plain old illness will never be accurately ascertained. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: Zheng-ru
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 00:43
Sorry, I got here a little late. I have read a couple of books on the Crusades and I saw Kingdom of Heaven, I liked it very much. So first, I have read of many instanced where the Templars (and other knights) did act irrationally, consider the Battle of Hattin, for example. Next, I like the movie very much, excellent acting, I do not care much for details in historical accuracy (it is often impossible in movies), but this movie correctly portrayed the environment at that time, including the relationship between Muslims and Christians, and how some wanted to undermine the peace, and others wanted to maintain peace. - Zheng-ru ------------- "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting." - Sun-tzu |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 11:38
True, but they should try at least ....
|
Posted By: Zheng-ru
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 16:45
|
True. They did try though. ------------- "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting." - Sun-tzu |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 13:57
| Kingdom of Heaven? I don't yhink so.... For example: the battle of Montgisard is the battle of "Salleh", Barisan of Ibelin - Godfrey of Ibelin, and Raymond de Tripoli - Tiberias. ???? Why? I don't get it.... |
Posted By: Zheng-ru
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2007 at 18:24
|
I am not sure... why not call the director?
I have reason to believe that you have more than 0 posts. ------------- "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting." - Sun-tzu |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 18:30
|
if you get the DvD of kingdom of heaven , even a theatrical version , it should have a subtitle of sorts called the enginer's guide it gives in the entire true history of the period , and mentions some of the ' creations of Hollywood ' i recall it does state that it was in fact Balian's brother Baldwin who was the alleged former lover of Sybilla ( prior to her marriage to guy ). i think a lot more effort has been put in the movie to make it historically accurate , they can never be 100 % but i think KoH comes close in that no other movie was made about any other time period..that was as historically accurate for instance if we measure how historically accurate brave heart was and how historically accurate 300 was to KoH , don't you agree KoH was More accurate? ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 18:33
|
Okay well personally i loved the movie , i thought it painted a very romantic picture of that time period which was just the aim of the movie , i mean if we look at the movie..as if it was a historical fiction book which got made into a movie , I'm sure then it would have received better review , and again lets not forget..it was more accurate historically than a lot of other history movies , id say 80% historically correct? just wondering..in regards to Baldwin dieing young...being poisoned..or being leprous like his uncle..is there any evidence for this? , even if it was just rumours circulating at the time then that would suffice , personally..i think its fine for directors to speculate stuff like that..it doesn't make it any less historically accurate..or does it? oh in the commentary of the film Ridley Scott does say that he wanted to paint a romantic picture rather than the real hardcore truth , infact one of the main inspirations they used..were the paintings of the crusade at the louvre..about the crusades :) ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 23:18
|
It's a entertainment-purposed movie. Enough said. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 01:52
|
I hated the political undertones present in the movie. Whatever Ridley Scott's perception on the war in Iraq, or his views on religion, he should have kept it out of the movie.
He made the templars the evil characters (not true), he made all muslims wise and the victims (terribly one-sided) and the heroes on the Christian side were the ones showing secular characteristics. Another thing, Saladin didn't just let the inhabitants of Jerusalem go. He ransomed them. Many of the inhabitants weren't capable of paying the ransom and were taken into slavery. It also doesn't show that it was the church during that time, that gave its money to the poorer citizens in an attempt to ransom as many as possible.
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 22:29
Yes, I noticed that while watching the film as well. Making the Templars the bad guys.  ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 23:31
"...Each man should pay ten pieces of gold for his liberty, and two women or ten children should be reckoned as one man; whilist of the poor, who possessed not even a gold coin, seven thousand should be set free for the sum of thirty thousand besants, to be paid out of King Henry's treasure, the remnant of which was still hoarded in the house of the Hospitallers. Forty days were allowed for the ransoming; after that, all that remained became slaves. The articles of capitulation were signed of Friday the 2nd of October, the Feast of St. Leger. By a strange coincidence, it was the 27th of Rejeb, the anniversary of the blessed Leylat el-Miraj, when the prophet of Islam dreamed his wonderful dream, and visited in his sleep the Holy City which his followers had now recovered after ninety years of Christian occupation.
Balian returned to the city and announced the terms. They were accepted, with gratitutde and lamentation. The people groaned and wept, and would not be comforted; they kissed the hly walls which they might never see again, and bowing their faces on the ground before the Sepulchre, watered the sacred spot with their tears. To leave Jerusalem was to tear the hourts out of them. But there was not help for it; the Moslem flag flew overhead, the keys were in Saracens; hands, and in fory days the city must be delivered up. Never did Saladin show himself greater than during this memorable surrender. His guards, commanded by responsible emirs, kept order in every street, and prevented violence and insult, insomuch as that no ill-usage of the Christans was ever heard of. Every exit was in his hands, and a trusty lords was set over David's gate to receive the ransoms as each citizen came forth.
The began a strangely pathetic scene. First Balian brought te thirty thousand gold besants, and the seven thousand poor who were ransomed by the King of England's treasure were allowed t shamble out. There followed burgher after burgher, money in hand, with their families and sometimes with poor dependents who could not ransom themselves. Saracen soldiers and merchants thronged the city and bought the goods of the departing citizens, so that each might raise the price of freedom. Kukbury ransomed a thousand Armenians of Edessa, and sent them to their homes; and others were not less benevolent. There was cheating and deceit, of course, and some of the Moslem emirs falsely claimed lost servants and took their ransoms privately, whilist other s smuggled Franks out of the city in Saracen dress, and sucked them dry as soon as they were clear of the gaurd. The Patriarch, who had neither morals nor conscience, carried off the treasures of the churches, gold chalices and monstrances, and even the gold plate of the Holy Sepulchre, besides a vast hoard of his own, which had been better spent on ransoming the poor who still remained. When the Saracen emirs urged Saladin not to let the old rascal make off with his plunder, he replied, "No, I will not break faith with him," and the Patriarch got off like the rest for his ten besants. It was left for the Mohammedan King to teach the Christian priest the meaning of charity.
For forty days the melancholy procession trooped forth from the gate of David, and the term of grace expired. yet there still remaned thousands of poor people whom the niggardly burthers and religious houses had left to slavery. Then el-Adil came to his brother and said: "Sire, I have helped you by God's grace to conquer the land and this city, I therefore pray you give mea thousands slaves from the poor people within." to Saladin's question, what he would dowtih them, he answered he would do as pleased himself. Then the Sultan gave him the shousand slaves, and
el-Adil set the mall free as an offering to God. Then came the Patriarch and Balian, and begged likewise, and Saladin gave them another thousand slaves, and they were set fre. Then said Saladin to this officers: "My brother had made his alms, and the Patriarch and Balian have made theirs: now I would fain make mine." And he ordered his gaurds to proclaim throughout the streets of Jersualem that all the old people who could not pay were free to go forth. And they came forth from the postern of St. Lazarus, and their going lasted from the rising of the sun until night fell. "Such was the charity which Saladin did, of poor people without number."(footnote 1)
"Then I shall tell you," says the Squire of Balian, "of the greaqt courtesy which Saladin showed to the wives and daughters of knights, who had fled to Jerusalem when their lords were killed or made prisoners in battle. When these ladies were ransomed and had come forth form Jersualem, they assmebled and went before Saladin crying mercy. When Saladin saw them he asked who they were and what they sought. And it was told him that they were the dames and damsels of kinghts who had been taken or killed in battle. Then he asked what they wished, and they answered for God's sake have pity on them; for the husbands of some were in prison, and of others were dead, and they had lost their lands, and in the name of god let him counsel and help them. When Saladin saw them weeping, he had great compassion for them, and wept himself for pity. And he bade the ladies whose husbands were alive to tell him where they were captives, and as soon as he could go to the prisons he would set them free. (And all were releaed wherever they were found.) After that he commanded that to the dames and damsels whose lords were daead there should be handsomely distributed from his own treasure, to some more and others less, according to their estate. And he gave them so much that they gave praise to God and pblished abroad the kindness and honour which Saladin had done to them."
Thus did the Saracens show mercy to the fallen city. One recalls the savage conquest by the first Crusaders in 1099, when Godfrey and Tancred rode through the streets chocked with the dead and dying, when defenceless Moslemes were tortured, burn, and shot down in cold blood on the towers and roof of the Temple, when the blood of wnton massacre defiled the honour of Christendom and stained the scene where once the gospel of love and mercy had been preached. "Blessed are the mercifu, for they shall obtain mercy" was a forgotten beatittude when the Christains made shambles of the Holy City. Fortunate were the merciless, for their obtained mercy at the hands of the Moslem Sultan.
"The greatset attribute of heaven is Mercy; And't is the crown of justice, and the glory, Where it may kill with right, to save withy pity."
If the taking of Jersualem were the only fact known about Saladin, it were enoguh to prove him the most chivlarous and great-hearted conquerror of his own, and perhaps of any, age.
footnote 1: This is the report of the Christian chronichler Ernoul, who was probably present(227-8). It is worth noting that, on the same authority, when the por refugees whom Saladin relaeased came to Tripolis, its Christian count shut the gates in their faces, and even sent out his troops to rob the burhers of the possessions which the Moslems had religiously respected. (Ib., 234) It is not to be understood, however, that Saladin freed all the poor; there was undoubltdly a large residue of young slaves, perhaps 15,000: so says Imad-ed-din, who himself received his share of women and children. Abu-Shama, 89.
This vow had been made after the first delibarations broke thought where Saladin offered to pay, and help supply the city, and give until the following pentecost to fortify it. If sufficient help came by then they would stand and fight for the city, and if not then they should peacefully give it up. Once this had been refused, Balian deleivered his speech, which is seen in the movie as well altough modified.
It is as follows: "O Sultan, " he said, "know that we soldiers in this city are in the midst of God knows how many people, who are slackening the fight i the hope of thy grace, believing that thou wilt grant it them as thou hast granted it to the other cities - for they abhor death and desire life. But for ourselves, when we see that death must needs be, by God we will slaughter our sons and our women, we will burn our wealth and our possessions, and leave you neither sequin no stiver to loot, nor a man or a woman to enslave; and when we have finished that, we will demolish the Rock and the Mosqe el-Aksa, and the other holy places, we will saly the Moslem slaves who are in our hands - there are 5000 such, - and slaughter every best and mount we have; and then we will sally out in a body to you, and will fight you for our lives; not a man of us will fall before he has slain his likes; thus shall we die glourisly or conquer like gentlemen."
P. 224 - 229
Source:
Lane-Poole, Stanley. "Saladin All-Powerfull Sultan and the Uniter of Islam" Cooper Square Press, first edtion 1898, reprint 2002.
------------- |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 06:34
|
personal historical preference seems to influence opinion here
the middle ages are not my favourite, so i thought the movie was terrible
i prefer the ancients, and loved 300 and Gladiator
i was shocked that Ridley Scott could make such a poor film
and Orlando Bloom was only good for elves ------------- 
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 07:03
Well, Middle Ages are my favorite, and I also preferred Gladiator and even 300 over Kingdom of Heaven or King Arthur. All of them are historically crap, but at least Gladiator had a good story and better acting, and 300 had stunning special effects. Kindom of Heaven and King Arthur had nothing at all. So I don't think your preference was necessarily due to your historical interest.
Don't much like Orlando either. It is not like he can convincingly convey emotion or anything. Which is fine for an elf, but no very much for humans. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 08:16
|
I like historical
movies. The movie is in the past, everybody is in period costume so I am halfway
to the eternal halls of sublime bliss. However, the story opens, the characters
look good, but instead of getting on with the story that you know should be
there, they get bogged down in soggy and unnecessary emotional scenes. I feel
like screaming at the screen “Get over it and get on with the action! Do
something and stop wasting my time! ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 08:29
|
There is more to history than big battle scenes too, you know.
All I am asking for is a well told story. In general, this is quite as possible without enormous battles in great detail as well as forced love stories that do not belong in it. Both have a tendency to ruin it. That is what made Gladiator such great entertainment. The spectacular battles and difficult love were integral parts of the story, rather than stuff forced in 'because the people expect it'.
Kingdom of Heaven and King Arthur (and also for instance Troy) are precisely the opposite. The huge battles and soppy loveinterest are given too much prominence, while the story is lost as unimportant under the special effects and standard Hollywood oneliners. Story is everything, it makes or breaks the movie. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 08:30
|
name some good medieval movies someone! i can't think
i can't actually remember much specifically about Kingdom, just the feeling that it was 'wasting my time'
lol @ sublime bliss -------------
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 09:07
|
Braveheart was ok as a movie, although historically it was obviously way out there, and in spite of having Mel in it. Ok, even Mel can have his moments.
Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner does not even pretend to be historical but is quite entertaining, and has Alan Rickman as the most geniously evil Sherriff of Nottingham ever. He alone is worth it.
The Name of the Rose is a brilliant movie of Umberto Eco's book, in spite of not having battles in it of any kind.
 The 13th Warrior is quite good. Entertaining, and a fairly good result in the correct displaying of Early Medieval Scandinavian society and world.
Then there is a TV series, Robin of Sherwood from '84-'86 which was very good, with Michael Pread and Jason Flemyng as incarnations of Robin.
Dragonheart, with Dennis Quaid and David Thewlis was really amusing, if not the highlight of filmmaking
. Especially the dragon with the voice of Sean Connery. Sean Connery also played Robin Hood in Robin and Marian, a movie about an old Robin returning to England after a lifetime of fighting in Richards wars, only to find Marian in a convent. Sounds tardy, but it is really not.
Flesh & Blood, of Paul Verhoeven with Rutger Hauer is apparently quite good, although I have not seen it myself. Very realistic depiction of medieval war, or so I heard.
And then there are the Joan of Arc movies. One dates from 1928 and, or so I've heard, is absolutely genious. Must see that one day, if I can find it. And there is The Messenger, The story of Joan of Arc by Luc Besson, with Mila Jovovich as Joan, John Malkovich as the Dauphin, Dustin Hoffman as Jesus and every single French actor you have ever seen play the bad guy with accent in a bad action flick as the French nobility. It is gold. Haven't laughed that much in years! Truely ridiculous, yet immense fun. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 09:35
|
Gladiator was good. The "name of the Rose" was great movie. I'm not talking about battle scenes in a movie, but those where where a gripping story develops and you relate to it like you have stepped inside the screen. Another great movie was the "Four Feathers" about Kitchener fighting the Madhi Army, the original production not the later one. Medieval movies? How about "Black Adder?" Rowan Atkitson is comic genius who makes us laugh, yet I thought his TV portrayals of the kings the Middle Ages was well done and accurate in a wicked way! ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 09:39
|
Yeah, Blackadder was genious. One day, when I have money, I will buy me the DVDbox... -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 15:00
I think you mean the silent movie by the Danish director Dreyer. Very special. Not least because everyone was expecting a period costume drama, and Dreyer went ahead and made someting like a mix of a trial documentary and an expressionist film, concentratingon faces and internal action. Good medieval movies I've seen: "Alexander Nevsky" (1938) and "Ivan the Terrible" I and II (1945, 1958); Eisenstein "Andrey Rublyov" (1969); Tarkovsky "The Lion in Winter" (1968) "The Seventh Seal" (1957); Bergman "Hrafninn flygur" I and II (1984) [Korpen flyger, When the Raven Flies], Hrafn Gunnlaugson "Destiny" [Al-Massir] (1997); Youssef Chahine, about Averroes "A Man for All Seasons" (1966) "The Return of Martin Guerre" (1982) [La Retour de Martin Guerre] "The Decameron" (1970), "Canterbury Tales" (1971); Pasolini "Le moine et la sorcičre" [The Monk and the Sorceress] (1987) And here's a useful list of Medieval-theme films: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medfilms.html  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 16:19
|
now the Seventh Seal i have seen. brilliant, the Swedish language makes it so morbid i shall look for the Joan and 'Name of the Rose' ones -------------
|
