PDA

View Full Version : Kingdom of Heaven



XxKillabytexX
03-15-2007, 01:55 AM
Hey if your intrested in the whole history aspect of Assassins check out the movie Kingdom of Heaven (I think staring Olando Bloom) I has a lot to do with that time period explains all about the holy war and all that.

Also It has the 3 cities that we get to play in in Assassins Jeruslem, Arce and Domascus (I think thats how you spell them)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

yavanna_1986
03-15-2007, 02:06 AM
I watched the movie... about a year ago(?).

It was good. Might watch it again one of these days. ^^

Although I've heard that it wasn't that accurate. >_>

Ebai1990
03-15-2007, 08:54 AM
i dunno how accurate it is... but it is a good war/fighting movie

noobfun
03-15-2007, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by yavanna_1986:
I watched the movie... about a year ago(?).

It was good. Might watch it again one of these days. ^^

Although I've heard that it wasn't that accurate. >_>

good film histories a bit dodgy,

balian was married to sibillas mother,

guy de lusignon and the red haird guy wernt templars though saladin did capture and kill him almost exactly the same way as the film

and saladin didnt let everyone go nicely the the rich were ransomed back the poor were set free and the templars and hobiliar were executed just outside the city gates. balian stayed in the holy land

oo also the battle everyone went to and died balian was at that and got captured but saladin gave him permission to return and remove the royal family from the city to protect them, as only the high priest guy was there to organise the cities defence (he's the one who wants to run away in the film) balian sent word to saladin saying the royal family had left but he was duty bound to stay and help oragines the defenders. saladin gave him permission to do it

still like the film though

SMOOTHRJ1
03-15-2007, 10:52 AM
if i am mistaken plz tell me in the movie the king asked balian to marry his sister so that he would be a descedent of another bloodline... i think he did this because the king and his sister had no marrryed relations and no child but bailion turned th offer down and i cant rember that guiys name but he marryed the kings sister and became king.noobfun since ur the discovery channel correct me if im wrong

noobfun
03-15-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by SMOOTHRJ1:
if i am mistaken plz tell me in the movie the king asked balian to marry his sister so that he would be a descedent of another bloodline... i think he did this because the king and his sister had no marrryed relations and no child but bailion turned th offer down and i cant rember that guiys name but he marryed the kings sister and became king.noobfun since ur the discovery channel correct me if im wrong

lmao discovery channel

sibilla was alreeady married to guy (happily unlike the films portrays)

after the leper king died several appointed regents were put in place until sybilas son came of age, guy de lusignon was made regent then removed for incompetence (sybilas husband who later became king), it was the regent that followed guy (cant remeber his name) that made the truce between jerusalem and saladin mentioned by the film (jerusalem became an open city where worshippers of all faiths were welcome and prayed side by side)

sybilas only son did die unders strange circumstances

sybila bieng the next in line became queen of jerusalem, but the church refused to crown guy king, having already having been removed for incompetence which is why you see sybila crown him in the film but they didnt give an explanation for it

after the film ends balian moved to tyre i think it was with his wife

sybila and guy moved somewhere in the holy land, they poped up again during the third crusade when there was a dispute about who the king of jerusalem should be one half supporting guy king richard supporting someone else

(sorry theres a lack of names and dates cant be bothered to look them up atm)

SMOOTHRJ1
03-15-2007, 11:33 AM
so pretty much wat u and i are saying is the movies was based on lack of research and little twist and turns they put in it

noobfun
03-15-2007, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by SMOOTHRJ1:
so pretty much wat u and i are saying is the movies was based on lack of research and little twist and turns they put in it

its been hollywood ised

hollywood gives every hero a heroin (not thats a woman not the drug, build a love story in so theres a bit of somthing for everyone), prefferably he is from some lowley back ground(from nothing to everything .. the american dream)

its based on true events
not an historical work

so they changed a few facts around to make it what they consider a good story

XxKillabytexX
03-16-2007, 01:33 AM
I was really just talking about the look of the movie cause it has all the cities and it is in the same time period.

I really wasent talking about the historical facts cause its as noobfun said "been hollywood ised" just like most of the other historical movies out there. If not all.

noobfun
03-16-2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
I was really just talking about the look of the movie cause it has all the cities and it is in the same time period.

I really wasent talking about the historical facts cause its as noobfun said "been hollywood ised" just like most of the other historical movies out there. If not all.

theres only jerusalem, ebalin(balians new village) and kirack(the fort of reynard der chatinaue the red haired head case)shown in the film

but the look and feel are close, the time periods a little before the third crusade 1187 when jerusalem fell, and right at the end you see richard the lion heading for the holy land 1189

XxKillabytexX
03-16-2007, 05:32 AM
It shows Domascus and Arch................dosent it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

noobfun
03-16-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
It shows Domascus and Arch................dosent it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

nope they sail from messina in italy, which is the port you might be confusing with acre

he shipwrecks then is lead straight to jerusalem

heads to ebalin has a feel good moment building a well, the land gets green he gets jiggy with sybila

rides to kirack where he charges the saracen cavalry

back to ebalin

off to protect jerusalem

film end

XxKillabytexX
03-17-2007, 02:18 AM
Oh well you get to see Jerusalem anyway plus the army.

Speaking of the army its so bloody hudge is that realistic for that eara or is another Hollywood exaguration?

noobfun
03-17-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
Oh well you get to see Jerusalem anyway plus the army.

Speaking of the army its so bloody hudge is that realistic for that eara or is another Hollywood exaguration?


Saladin, on gaining this great victory, attacked and took a considerable number of the castles, cities, and fortresses of the Christians; after which, returning to his own country, he levied a great army, and, by the advice, it is said, of the earl of Tripolis, who was an enemy to the king entered the territory of Jerusalem, on the Friday after the feast of the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, with eight hundred thousand men or more;


but late in the summer Frederick was drowned, and after that the German force fell apart - only 1,000 of the 30,000 who had left Germany reached Acre late in 1190


Richard took control of the crusading army, now 50,000 strong, and in August began to march down the coast


sources for numbers range wildly ive seen barbarossa's contingent of the third crusade as low at 20,000 and as high as 100,000

so yepp people filling large chunks of the horizon are accurate ... accurate numbers .. we will never know

if you lok a little further back in history the persian empire would often field armies of hundreds of thousands

at the battle of issus darius had assembeled an army that outnumbered alexanders 80,000 troops by a factor of 4 some even say 8

in an effort to destroy the masadonian treat

again at gargamela, alexander already controlled almost all of the persian empire's important cities and in a last stand darius still raised 200,000 infantry and 40,000 cavalry

its only recently we have considered 10,000 an army lol

zoozilla
03-17-2007, 10:24 AM
I've seen the film. I thought it was more than adequate, but unfortunately I don't remember that much about it. Do any of you actually remember all that stuff or do you read a story synopsis?

noobfun
03-17-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by zoozilla:
I've seen the film. I thought it was more than adequate, but unfortunately I don't remember that much about it. Do any of you actually remember all that stuff or do you read a story synopsis?

umm i just put the dvd in the drive and watched it again lol, most of it i could remeber but some of names i had to look up

tailstriker
03-18-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by noobfun:
its only recently we have considered 10,000 an army lol

yea, but my 10,000 marines would so totally own 200,000 infantry.

:P

MDS_Geist
03-18-2007, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
I was really just talking about the look of the movie cause it has all the cities and it is in the same time period.

I really wasent talking about the historical facts cause its as noobfun said "been hollywood ised" just like most of the other historical movies out there. If not all.

The movie lacked historical accuracy on all fronts.

In terms of seeing the locations, you can do that very easily since much is still extant. The Old City of Jerusalem looks very similar to how it looked over a thousand years ago. Parts of Acre still look how they looked and Israel does everything it can to preserve and even restore ancient sites.

noobfun
03-19-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by MDS_Geist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
I was really just talking about the look of the movie cause it has all the cities and it is in the same time period.

I really wasent talking about the historical facts cause its as noobfun said "been hollywood ised" just like most of the other historical movies out there. If not all.

The movie lacked historical accuracy on all fronts.

In terms of seeing the locations, you can do that very easily since much is still extant. The Old City of Jerusalem looks very similar to how it looked over a thousand years ago. Parts of Acre still look how they looked and Israel does everything it can to preserve and even restore ancient sites. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

geist we already pointed out a whole bunch of history tweeks they shoved in and those are just the ones we could be bothered to cover

damascus and acre arnt in the film as said above. so read it all please before posting its a small curtousey that goes a long way

MDS_Geist
03-19-2007, 03:39 PM
Read the thread, they were mentioned. Speaking of reading and courtesy, please note how I didn't mention Damascus yet you seem to think I did.

All the more so since much of ancient Damascus was destroyed in the Arab conquest of the city while much more of Jerusalem and Acre still exist, not the least because Israel is active in trying to preserve, protect and restore ancient sites - something that the Syrians have both less interest and competence in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

noobfun
03-20-2007, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by MDS_Geist:
Read the thread, they were mentioned. Speaking of reading and courtesy, please note how I didn't mention Damascus yet you seem to think I did.

All the more so since much of ancient Damascus was destroyed in the Arab conquest of the city while much more of Jerusalem and Acre still exist, not the least because Israel is active in trying to preserve, protect and restore ancient sites - something that the Syrians have both less interest and competence in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

im sorry geist but talking in an overbearing conceated fashion doesnt make you right, it also doesnt cover the personal race issues you are slipping in to your forum posts, (i was refering to other posts but its starting to appear in here to)

the gerneral story line of baldwin iv death, baldwin v's death under strange circumstances, reynald chatillion's raids breaking the truce, the batle of hattin and the fall of jerusalem are right

its the characters and thier relationships they changed, to make it a feel good movie with a message. one you seem to have missed

MDS_Geist
03-20-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by noobfun:
im sorry geist but talking in an overbearing conceated fashion doesnt make you right, it also doesnt cover the personal race issues you are slipping in to your forum posts, (i was refering to other posts but its starting to appear in here to)

Sorry, I don't have any "personal race issues."

Nor was I writing in an "overbearing conceited [sic] fashion." If you disagree with something that I said, by all means do so. If you can argue, that's fine as well. But simply telling me that you think I am wrong combined with comments about what you think I believe doesn't mean anything.

The movie's message is inconsistent with historical reality. The nature of interactions between the Christians and the Muslims in particular are a fantasy to the point of absurdity. As an historian, I found the movie utterly ridiculous and hardly one that can claim the "historical" part of "historical fiction."

wirelessfetus
03-20-2007, 01:42 PM
I believe Ridley Scott said they changed things from history for two reasons. The obvious being to create a more watchable story in terms of plot line and character arch.

And the 2nd and more substantial reason is he said he wanted to reflect modern christian and muslim relations in the movie rather then be historically accurate.

Although that confuses me because while they did war, Bailan and Baldwin IV's relation with the muslims was one of mutual respect in the film. And Im not really sure how this reflects on modern times. Especially if you look at the United States' relationship to the muslim world.

MDS_Geist
03-20-2007, 04:52 PM
I think I may have seen or read the same interview with Scott where he admitted he forsook any claim to historical accuracy in favor of making a political statement. It doesn't reflect on modern times, but it's a very Hollywood idea of the Middle East and religious relations.