Kingdom of Heaven (Ridley Scott's Crusades film)

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 10 Apr 2005, 19:18

Anyone heard about this?

I'm looking forward to it because I enjoyed Gladiator and it was a very good film.

I wonder what itll be like because I don't know much about that period of history, what happened then?

When is out in cinemas?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 10 Apr 2005, 19:31

I just hope they didn't mess around with historical facts about Sallhadin. I read an interview with Ridley Scott where he said that some producers told him he wasn't allowed to portray Sallahdin as a hero as he was made a national hero by Saddam Hussein. Scott said he didn't listen to him and that he was a hero to the whole Muslim world even before Saddam announced him as such. I really hope the historical facts will be portrayed as they were. Of course you can't do it with a 100% correctness as nobody was there and the makers only had books and historians to ask. But with 20 years of research (according to Ridley Scott), it should be cool.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 11 Apr 2005, 16:06

Dont see the new LONNNNGGGG Trailer, its GOBSMACKING!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mrgreen:

But it basically tells you exactly whats going to happen in order!!!!! I was well pissed off, it tells you everything basically from begining to end

but it is amazing, but if you want to keep the film safe from total spoilers try to avoid trailers.

The film is going to be amazing, from the what people have seen so far the battles best Return of the King for scale!!! apparently 240,000 bad guys advancing on the city! and they dont look crappy CGI either, they look amazing from what I have seen.

So in the end avoid all the stuff you can as it will spoil it for you, keep it safe and spoiler free and enjoy what hopefully will be one of the films of the year by a mile! I wathed Black Hawk Down again the other night, its amazing! and wil get Gladiator watched too in preparation for a Scott frenzy

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 11 Apr 2005, 16:32

Blimey if the battles beat ROTK they must be great!

I know what you mean about spoilerific trailers Romero, I'd still like to see a trailer though, is the first one better?

You say the trailer has spoilers, but won't you know what will happen anyway if you know the history of the Crusades etc, without seeing a trailer?

Thats the danger of making a historical film such as this or Troy etc (IMO).

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 11 Apr 2005, 16:58

theyre never going to do it historically accurate, the crasades were in general done by very very bad men

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 11 Apr 2005, 18:19

When I say spoilers I mean its basically a summing up of the whole film, with whole scenes in the trailer!!!!!! its a joke! its ruined the film for me a lot, it shows you everything its one trailer I think should be banned! its that bad.

I have never seen such a trailer before its very long and basically goes from the start of the film to the end, even shows who dies!!!!!!! I was fuming!

dont download ANY trailers at all, basically it looks stunning, but just dont take the chance of ruining the entire films plot

I am gutted. Just see the ones they show in the cinema, they are short and funky and to the point, not MASSIVE PLOT SPOILERS! grrrrr

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 11 Apr 2005, 18:21

Ohh yeah The Crusades were some of the worlds most evil times, all done for Religion dont cha know

another thing Religion has to pay for!

bet the pope didnt have much to do with them violations of human rights and Genocide!

too busy with his own evil doings I guess.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 11 Apr 2005, 21:05

well i know the crusades were started off by religeon, but i can't help feel it had more to do with the general brutality of the people involved that led to the problems.

i mean they travel for absolutely ages to get to their target, when they get there they realise theyre not too sure how exxactly theyre supposed to 'vanquish gods enemies' given the place is so large and there are so many bad guys, so they settle for the next best thing and kill anything they can't rape and burn anything they cant eat or nick. nice one guys, proud to have you as ancestors

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 12 Apr 2005, 07:26

I saw a trailer on TV yesterday (must have been the teaser as it was pretty short), it didnt have any spoilers AFAIK, said Orlando Bloom was in it, showing a few shots from the movie plus a tagline....

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Apr 2005, 12:41

Isn't this the same as Troy where no one really knows? So they're pretty safe in that department.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 12 Apr 2005, 12:59

No one really knows what?

I would say I'm safe seeing the trailer I saw, it wasn't that long.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Apr 2005, 17:18

No One really knows any of the Real History behind it

Tro was 100% bullshit, at least a little of this will be true (very little indeed)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Apr 2005, 19:26

LOL parts of Troy were accurate.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Apr 2005, 21:11

No parts of Troy were accurate at all, as there was no place called Troy in history even, its a fable with no evidence of its excistance at all in any way, and the cast are gods! so was that real too? No the whole film is tales and legends like the Bible.

in other words total bullshit told to feeble minded people who wrote it down

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2005, 09:59

Okay I'll correct myself it's accurate in the sense that it's based on legends that have been handed down for hundreds of years.

What I mean is it's not completely made up like "King Arthur" and for that at least should be commended.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Apr 2005, 10:13

Wasn't King Arthur a legend?

Yes Troy is based on legend(s), Homer's Iliad (sp?) being the main inspiration. There were some things I weren't aware of in there, Achilles and Protroclus (sp?) being lovers for example (I'm sure this is implied at least).
Also archeologists think Troy (if there was such a place) was in Asia Minor (roughly where modern day Turkey is now). I'm sure they've found ruins there.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2005, 17:22

No Troy was made up! there was no Troy, no people called them names, no gods etc... its 100% fiction so its not based on any events in history at all.

Troy never existed ever and noone even knows which continent it was on, just like Atlantis, its just pointless stories thru the ages to pass down.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2005, 21:17

If people want to believes in god(s) that's their business.

grim_tales wrote:Wasn't King Arthur a legend?

Yep but the story concocted for the film had "never" been written or thought about before. It went against every thing written before.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Apr 2005, 16:29

At least King Autur lived in a real place and could have happened in reality

Troy wasnt based in a real plce, with real peple etc.. so for me Aurthur is far more belevable

but hey they are nice stories.

JesterIX · Post by **JesterIX** » 20 Apr 2005, 15:02

Well this is a highly interesting thread, just chock full of punctuation.

Troy is a city that features in Homer's Illiad and was believed to be a reference to a city that controlled the straits between greece and what is now turkey. Such a city certainly did exist, but the inevitable corruption of names renders accurate comparisons difficult at best. There are ruins in that area that add credence to this notion. Its location made it extraordinarily wealthy as it was able to tax much of the passing trade. As far as the storytelling goes Homer's Illiad follows the Greek tradition of heroic literature, something of a lost art. Essentially much of the greek mindset was based around these heroic ideals, in the same way as europeans had chivalry and the nipponese had the code of the samurai (bushido). The Illiad is Homer taking serious poetic license with what are most likely actual events, ie the greeks going to pillage a rather wealthy city. Of course this is packaged in reader friendly form (for the time) and so is written in the heroic style, with a full pantheon of gods, maidens and noble causes. Plus of course a healthy smattering of tragedy. What made the film such a huge pile of Asshattery was not that it deviates from this source material, but quite the opposite. It draws from the same notions of the iliad, but done up in a Hollywood style. In this context it really doesnt make sense as it lakes the 'heroic' overtones that really drive the illiad. Not to mention the fact that is was very badly made and acted in the main, and they failed to do enough language research to pronouce the names they did use correctly.

As for king arthur, the common perception of that tale is mallory's french romantic take on an ancient ancient fable. All the courtly plate clad knights are lifted from much further on in time. King Arthur is simply the british variant of the myth that connects the king and his land. When one is struck down the other suffers. This is represented by the Egyptian god Ra (I think, he is killed by a close friend then dismembered. His wife restores him except his penis which as the symbol of fertility means that he cant restore the land. The equivalent of the dolorous blow). The celts had bran the blessed from the mabinogion, the fisher king, and other cultures add their own tale to the rosta. Mallory and many others (a lot of the time christians) took existing folk tales and repackaged them for what was the popular market of the time. For him high romantic literature. Back to the movie, it was an attempt to tell the story as it may have been, stripped of all the romantic clap trap. In this case Arthur (or Artos as records of the time call him) would have been a warlord bringing men under his banner in an attempt to repel the saxons seeking the replaced the power vacuum created by the collapse of the romans. Quite possibly an ex-roman legionaire or similar as they were part way through their collapse at the time. He fought his major battle at Badun HIll, the site of which can be visited today with a full load of easy access placards and irritating tour guides no doubt.

So no the story of arthur doesnt go against all previous literature, and in one sense is most 'accurate' Read Bernard Cornwell's tales if you want further stories in this vein, or Stephen Lawhead's. And no Romero it is not all 100% bullshit. Virtually all of the myths and legends you hear today are based arond some core truths that have been distorted, added too, re-written in the style of the times and generally played around with.

I imagine the same thing will happen with the crusades in that some core tale will be embroidered into something 'new'. Whether this embroidery is effective or not depends on the quality of the story teller. After anything we create is unavoidably influenced by what we have seen, read, and experienced ourselves, except in the once in a lifetime moments of genius that afflict to few.

I would apologise for such a long post, but I really dont feel like it as the sheer preponderousness of excessive punctution, crappy smilies, and half baked pseudo intellectual ill informed guff spoken in a knowledgeable tone has riled me.

J:IX

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 20 Apr 2005, 15:30

Well, that's one hell of a first post!!!

Welcome to BnB!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Apr 2005, 15:48

Welcome to BnB Jester!

Hope you have a nice time here! That was an excellent post BTW

I read that if the Trojan War "did" happen, it was most likely about the 13th Century BC (the Iliad was written long after that).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Apr 2005, 17:59

Welcome Jester. I'll get to your post later but right now was Romero wrong? :mrgreen:

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Apr 2005, 18:11

Nope its all crap still

them stories are still Bullshit, yes there maybe a few small facts in there somewhere distorted with time, but the final product is total and utter made up bullshit with barley a few facts to rub together so its not as if I am wrong in any way, as theres bugger info to go on anywhere thats not disputed as crap by another expert somewhere, it all tell tales and misinformation.

So in other words in the end it Is not true, as noone can prove much of anything esspecially the main facts so to say.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Apr 2005, 18:47

The thing is Facts are strange things and in theory many films are based on Fatcs of some sort maybe?

take

Dracula 2000 for instacnce, it has some bible FACTS in the film that make it as real as Troy or King authur, and thats the thing many bits and bobs are taken from different countries, places, people and timelines and mixed up to create tales like troy and King Authur for example.
yes in some strange warped way parts may well be true in some form, but in the Big picture of a realistic telling of what happened its 99% crap.