NationStates Jolt Archive

Kingdom of Heaven.

Quite a controversial film to release in this day and age. Though I definately believe that a film about the crusades in todays world order was not only needed but inevitable. But the real question is, will this film help to fan the flames of Muslim-Christian conflict? Or will it in fact do the opposite and throw more fuel onto the fire?

Discussions over the historical accuracy of the film from any crusader buffs out there will also be appreciated.

(ps. I just saw the film so I apoligize if this topic was already debated on the release day)

i don't really think this will affect it much. aside from being an amazingly good movie.

I haven't seen it. I just wanted to mention that "fan the flames" means "Spreading the fire". So you basically said "further spread the disparity between the cultures" or "blow it up".

I think that it might be fueling the fire. The Crusades, 2 of which where serious. The 3rd Crusade lead from England, and the 4th which the germans lead. And I memory serves though I have only seen the previews of Kingdom of Heaven that its the 3rd crusades. The Crusades they wanted to bring Christianity to the Holy Land.

Some could look at what Bush is doing and bringing a modern crusade to the middle east. Only this time we have superior numbers and weapons. But during the 12th century the Perian Empire took 200,000 men into the Holy Land and handed the Crusaders their asses multiple times.

It might bring more awareness to the matter. Or it might have everyone look at things in a totaly and bad light.

Considering that the movie represented the sarazenes and especially Saladdin as the religiously tolerant and the Christian forces - at least the Templars - as war-mongers and intolerant to the point of fanatism, I don't think the movie will have any negative influence. If any at all.

I saw the movie a few days ago, it was nice to look at but the story is not very likely nor historically accurate. Little more than a big show and nice pictures...

Considering that the movie represented the sarazenes and especially Saladdin as the religiously tolerant and the Christian forces - at least the Templars - as war-mongers and intolerant to the point of fanatism, I don't think the movie will have any negative influence. If any at all.

I saw the movie a few days ago, it was nice to look at but the story is not very likely nor historically accurate. Little more than a big show and nice pictures...

Sort of like Gladiator, then?

Sort of like Gladiator, then?

Or Troy, or Alexander.

The movie is set in the time when the crusaders had established a fragile peace in the holy land, before Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem. It shows very clearly that the crusaders were no heros, that at that time they were for the most part the scum of Europe trying to get to Jerusalem to get rich by plundering Arab cities. They are represented as being brutal and merciless, uncivilised and barbaric.
The religious aspects of the crusades from trhe background, there is but two priest in the movie and one of them dies within the first few minutes. The story itself is more about politics, principles and ideas, all of them a bit to enlightened and American to seem authentic.

The historical accuracy of the story of a blacksmith in France who can't only read and write in Latin, but also knows how to handle geomantic instruments makes his way to Jerusalem, more or less single-handedly trying to defend the city and impressing kings on both sides (not to speak about the princess) with his political strategies, is a tiny bit far fetched.

Or Troy, or Alexander.

You took the words right out of my mouth... Or my brain. Whichever you'd feel more comfortable touching.

<.<

You took the words right out of my mouth... Or my brain. Whichever you'd feel more comfortable touching.

<.<

I wouldn't mind touching either. ;)

I wouldn't mind touching either. ;)

Well, I would. See, I don't know where your hands have been (...), nor do I want my brain being squeezed. There's valuable information in there!

The movie wasn't that good... and Orlando Bloom was kinda wimpy in the role. It also held far less religeous undertones than I expected, leading into a much less interesting movie.

The First Crusade was pretty serious too, as it was the only one to achieve it's intended goals, i.e. taking Jerusalem (and burning the Jews alive in the Synagouge while doing so. On purpose, no less). I have not seen the movie yet, but from my Crusades class at KU (go Jayhawks!), the sources pretty much agree that there was a tenuous peace in the Holy Land between the First Crusade and the Third, and that Sal al-Din was a very compassionate and tolerant ruler. Highly educated, too. And yes, there is still bad blood about the crusades. I guess when entire populations of Muslims are annhiliated (Antioch, Jerusalem, Triploi), it would be difficult to forgive and forget.
But hey, Hollywood is Hollywood, and by adding in some fake stuff, we can be entertained and not know any better.

It was a shitty movie and I don't know what was so controversial about it.

well worth watchin :sniper:

The movie wasn't that good... and Orlando Bloom was kinda wimpy in the role. It also held far less religeous undertones than I expected, leading into a much less interesting movie.

Orlando Bloom was wimpy? I am shocked. Truly shocked.

Orlando Bloom was wimpy? I am shocked. Truly shocked.

Nobody is more shocked than I am. The man is such a beefcake... I never would've imagined!

Nobody is more shocked than I am. The man is such a beefcake... I never would've imagined!

Did they have him fire a bow? That's my real question. The poor man is going to be Legolas forever.

Did they have him fire a bow? That's my real question. The poor man is going to be Legolas forever.

I have no idea, man. I haven't seen it yet, and I probably never will :p.

Did they have him fire a bow? That's my real question. The poor man is going to be Legolas forever.

This time the gave him a big sword... it sometimes looked a bit bigger than he did...

They killed off the coolest character in the beginning. You know that Irish-looking guy who cracked that soldier's neck with two axes? He kicked ass. He even took an arrow to the neck and still fought on. I would've rather seen him kick ass for two hours than Prison Pussy Bloom.

They killed off the coolest character in the beginning. You know that Irish-looking guy who cracked that soldier's neck with two axes? He kicked ass. He even took an arrow to the neck and still fought on. I would've rather seen him kick ass for two hours than Prison Pussy Bloom.

They did that in Troy too. They killed Sabretooth Ajax and his great maul o' doom, they killed the rapetastic Hector, but Paris the bitch got to live. I figured if they weren't going to be literal with the movie and do it correctly, they could have at least killed Paris off, but noooooooooooooooo....

They killed off the coolest character in the beginning. You know that Irish-looking guy who cracked that soldier's neck with two axes? He kicked ass. He even took an arrow to the neck and still fought on. I would've rather seen him kick ass for two hours than Prison Pussy Bloom.
He wasn't Irish, he was Germanic. ;)

Overall, a good movie if you don't go to it looking for historical accuracy. The fact that he mastered the sword almost overnight disapointed me, but at least thh battles were simi-realistic. And they didn't assume that everyone used longswords.

A freind of mine gets a magizine from the company that made most of the weapons (Windlass Steelcrafts), and together we recongized almost all of the weapons that they used that wern't specially made for the charactors. Though we are still trying to find out who made the samshirs...

Sestria[/B]"]He wasn't Irish, he was Germanic. ;)

Germanic, Irish... doesn't matter... he RULED. :D

I think that it might be fueling the fire. The Crusades, 2 of which where serious. The 3rd Crusade lead from England, and the 4th which the germans lead. And I memory serves though I have only seen the previews of Kingdom of Heaven that its the 3rd crusades. The Crusades they wanted to bring Christianity to the Holy Land.

Some could look at what Bush is doing and bringing a modern crusade to the middle east. Only this time we have superior numbers and weapons. But during the 12th century the Perian Empire took 200,000 men into the Holy Land and handed the Crusaders their asses multiple times.

It might bring more awareness to the matter. Or it might have everyone look at things in a totaly and bad light.

Errm, you know that before Islam literally sprouted out of thin air because of one man, most of the Middle East was Christian or Jewish right?

Errm, you know that before Islam literally sprouted out of thin air because of one man, most of the Middle East was Christian or Jewish right?

Oh sure, because we all know that the Middle-Eastern civilizations had no religions of their own prior to Islam :rolleyes:.

Oh sure, because we all know that the Middle-Eastern civilizations had no religions of their own prior to Islam :rolleyes:.

Well the Arabian Peninsula at the time was mostly animistic/polytheistic with Jewish communities here and there, IIRC. But Christianity had been present for a few hundred years already in this region, so the idea that the Crusades' purpose was to spread christianity to the holy land is wrong.

Well, by that logic, Christianity also sprouted out of thin air because of one man.
Before that gets argued, let us remember that both Islam and Christianity were 'updates' to the Abrahamic tradition, and both had important followers that carried on the religion after the death of Jesus and Muhammed.

A really contorversial film that Hollywood wouldn't do right now is Dune. I know Sci-Fi did it (gay), but imagine another REAL movie version...
Desert people, devout, fighting the invaders that want to control the substance that the galaxy can't live without.....

Sound familiar?

the film represents the arabs as good guys and templars as assholes, and also the main dude gets scrude over by his fellow cristians at the start. The film, if you aresmart ebough to se it shows that good and evil is not devided into peoples and armyes. BUt in this century the arabs were the one that were advanced, the christans burned people who did science.
By the way Saladin was not a arab but a kurd os so i think