- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What makes Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut so much superior to the theatrical release
Posted on 5/23/20 at 1:02 pm to Jay Are
Posted on 5/23/20 at 1:02 pm to Jay Are
quote:
Is it just better than the original or is it actually good
First 2/3 or so is amazing
Only issue is having to end on a big battle but it does not make it bad. Just not amazing.
1
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:02 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Who in real life was actually very pious and kind. They really did him dirty in this film just to stick it to organized religion.
Exactly. Just a ham fisted way to slam Christianity.
Christianity-bad
Islam- enlightened
Balien- the exception that proves the rule that Christians are bad
I assume Scott was trying to show both Saladin and Balien has reasonable and moderate voices in a world of two extremes, but I think he missed the mark. I’d have rather he just portray the various historical characters with their due complexities in a complex world.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only issue is having to end on a big battle but it does not make it bad. Just not amazing.
The battle of Hattin was barely shown, i guess to cut costs. Too bad bc I wanted to see it.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:04 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
And that’s disappointing. I want to understand what the Crusader Kingdom was like, I’m much less interested in watching a movie that explores modern life, through the prism of the Crusades.
I think the movie does a great job with the setting. I’m fascinated with this era and I loved that aspect. Some of the characters and themes are a little trite but overall it’s def worth watching if you enjoy that time period of history. I don’t know of any other movie that delivers in that regard like this one. The big budget showed.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:23 pm to biglego
yeah i think this movie did a great job showing the area/time, but not in a purely historical fashion
when the Christians are shown arriving in the desert to do battle is a great, awe-inspiring scene
when the Christians are shown arriving in the desert to do battle is a great, awe-inspiring scene
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
One of my favorite scenes of any movie! The physical presence of all those armed men in the desert was felt. The heat, noise, sun glinting off armor...the armies felt like they had real weight. Not a clean mass of CGI.
I would love a big budget continuation of the story as it set up the third crusade but I won’t hold my breath. We’ll get a dozen more WWII movies first.
I would love a big budget continuation of the story as it set up the third crusade but I won’t hold my breath. We’ll get a dozen more WWII movies first.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 2:35 pm to biglego
quote:
assume Scott was trying to show both Saladin and Balien has reasonable and moderate voices in a world of two extremes, but I think he missed the mark. I’d have rather he just portray the various historical characters with their due complexities in a complex world.
Isn't Scott pretty well known for his, let's say, dislike for organized religion. It's amazing that a guy who so doesn't care for religion gets to make both a crusades epic and the abomination that was the re-telling of Moses and Exodus.
Only in Hollywood I guess.
I'm sorry, but if there was a subject and aspect I really didn't like or outright despised, I don't think I'd want to dedicate months and years of my life to depicting said subject in a major motion picture. But hey, that's just me.
This post was edited on 5/23/20 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 5/23/20 at 3:01 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
Does the different cut really make a mediocre film into a great one?
100%
I’ve only ever seen the Regular one once, and thought meh.
Someone told me about the DC, so I tried it again and was like, YEP, that kicked arse.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 3:18 pm to Jack Ruby
Im not sure i've seen the DC or not. What else is in it that wasnt in the theatrical release?
Posted on 5/23/20 at 9:17 pm to biglego
quote:
Exactly. Just a ham fisted way to slam Christianity.
Christianity-bad
Islam- enlightened
Balien- the exception that proves the rule that Christians are bad
I assume Scott was trying to show both Saladin and Balien has reasonable and moderate voices in a world of two extremes, but I think he missed the mark. I’d have rather he just portray the various historical characters with their due complexities in a complex world.
I think Saladin was well respected by Europeans of the time period and after so I dont fault him for that. But yes he did add a lot of modern sensiblities i think but most movies do that.
I havent watched the directors cut even though i bought the bluray. Maybe tomorrow.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 9:23 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
I'm sorry, but if there was a subject and aspect I really didn't like or outright despised, I don't think I'd want to dedicate months and years of my life to depicting said subject in a major motion picture. But hey, that's just me.
Unless you want to influence the way culture views said subject matter....
Posted on 5/23/20 at 10:33 pm to Jack Ruby
Thank you so much for this thread. I had no idea of this and am watching now with great enjoyment.
Posted on 5/23/20 at 10:56 pm to stateofplay
Saladin was respected as a chivalrous warrior king, but it’s easy to go overboard in portraying him as a humanist peacenik.
I’m probably nitpicking. I really do like the movie.
I’m probably nitpicking. I really do like the movie.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 9:41 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Unless you want to influence the way culture views said subject matter....
Which is why films like Kingdom of Heaven can be dangerous to a certain extent. While the story is engaging and the set pieces are well-staged, the film's historical accuracy is unquestionably shite. It's a common misconception from people who are ignorant of history that the Crusaders were greedy, money-hungry mercenaries who only pretended to be in the Holy Land for pious/religious reason. While there were exceptions as there are in every case, the vast majority of Crusaders were indeed there for pious/religious reasons.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 10:18 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Which is why films like Kingdom of Heaven can be dangerous to a certain extent. While the story is engaging and the set pieces are well-staged, the film's historical accuracy is unquestionably shite.
this is very, VERY hyperbolic
you're talking about a movie where the main character goes from blacksmith to military strategist/warrior in the blink of an eye
this movie may confirm biased beliefs of people who agree with the mythology you're criticizing, but a perfectly accurate movie wouldn't have changed their beliefs most likely. i doubt this movie severely influenced people who weren't already on board with Scott's vision of the conflict.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you're talking about a movie where the main character goes from blacksmith to military strategist/warrior in the blink of an eye
That's not the part of the film I'm talking about and you know it. Those kind of swift rises happen all the time in fiction and most people recognize that part of the story to be fictitious.
quote:
this movie may confirm biased beliefs of people who agree with the mythology you're criticizing, but a perfectly accurate movie wouldn't have changed their beliefs most likely. i doubt this movie severely influenced people who weren't already on board with Scott's vision of the conflict.
A lot of people's biased beliefs aren't set in stone, however. There are plenty of people out there who are open to the truth who are just too lazy to read a book to find the truth. Film is a medium to open up these past events to new generations and get them interested in finding the truth. If you challenge long-held and ignorant beliefs, chances are more than one person will become curious and seek an informed opinion from a scholarly source.
It also doesn't help that the events portrayed in the film still cast a long shadow on that part of the world in the present day. I would prefer historical accuracy to biased revisionism, but that's just me.
This post was edited on 5/24/20 at 10:36 am
Posted on 5/24/20 at 10:37 am to RollTide1987
quote:
money-hungry mercenaries
They say something similar about the Virginia colonists.
The critics just reveal their own biases. In the case of the crusades, they can’t imagine deeply held religious beliefs Therefore they can’t exist.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 10:40 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
What makes Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut so much superior to the theatrical release
it actually makes sense
Posted on 5/24/20 at 10:41 am to biglego
quote:
Saladin was respected as a chivalrous warrior king, but it’s easy to go overboard in portraying him as a humanist peacenik.
Saladin was very much a noble and chivalrous king. He was widely respected by his Christian adversaries.
That having been Saladin loved him some war. The movie focuses, obviously, on his conflict with the Crusaders but most of the fighting Saladin did was against his fellow Muslims. He carved out a fairly large kingdom for himself and most of it was done with the sword.
It was a different era and one that modern audiences would have a hard time relating too honestly. Even the kindest noble spent most of his time either at war, planning to go to war, or recovering from the last campaign.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 11:43 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Who in real life was actually very pious and kind. They really did him dirty in this film just to stick it to organized religion.
You know this how? You were there? Your priest told you? Some of you crack me up when Christianity is portrayed different than the false image it tries to throw onto people and ignore the corruption and disgusting things they have done in history.
Christianity of the Crusades was utterly disgusting. Trying to whitewash that is just pathetic. There were definitely crusaders that did it out of a pious reason in their mind, even if false, but actual historical accounts pint them as non-pious money grabbers. The only HIStorical accounts that don’t come from the church or its supporters.
This post was edited on 5/24/20 at 11:50 am
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News