re: What makes Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut so much superior to the theatrical release

quote:

---

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.

---

You’re being tedious.

Right. That’s what I was trying to say. The movie almost portrays him as the Muslim version of the idealistic, pacifist, ever-righteous Balien.

But i keep in mind that this was a movie, not a documentary. Scott wanted to tell a story with a certain perspective. Some things were ham fisted but overall it’s forgivable.

I did grate when Balien’s comrade said something to the effect that he doesn’t blame the Muslims for violence after what the Crusaders did in the sack of Jerusalem. That kind of anachronistic dialogue is...not helpful.

quote:

---

Odd that the historical accuracy of this movie is being slammed while this board openly masturbates to The Patriot.

---

Britain is our greatest and most important ally in the year 2020. Islam remains Christianity's arch-nemesis.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:

---

For the record... the sack of Jerusalem was barbaric even by the standards of the day.

---

Not according to esteemed Crusade historians Deanna Proach and Thomas Madden. The sack of Jerusalem in 1099 was fairly typical of the Middle Ages. The general rule of thumb was if a city surrendered to an army without much fuss, just about everyone would be spared. However, if the city refused to surrender all bets were off. You see many examples throughout history where a besieging force sacked a city that refused to surrender. It also was nowhere near as bad as Muslim historians have stated. They claim the Crusaders slaughtered upwards of 70,000 men, women, and children when they sacked Jerusalem. The more accepted and likely number is closer to 3,000. Still a lot of people...but most definitely not the river of blood it is often made out to be.

The only reason why Saladin ended up sparing everyone in Jerusalem is because Balian threatened to destroy the Muslim holy sites if he attempted to sack the city. If Balian hadn't made that threat, you see the reverse play out. Unlike the Hollywood version of Saladin, the historical Saladin believed Jerusalem to be worth the entire world and he hated Christians with a passion. The man was fully prepared to repeat the slaughter of 1099 but had to relent due to Balian's threat to destroy everything he held dear within the city walls. So instead Saladin enslaved those Christians who couldn't pay a ransom. Balian and the Archbishop of Jerusalem did everything they could to raise enough money to ransom every Christian in the city but thousands ended up going into slavery. That fact is conveniently left out of the film. Instead, we are to assume that Saladin is a merciful, more enlightened figure than the Christians who had occupied the city.

As a result of this thread, I whipped out the blu ray and put the directors Cut roadshow version on...

quote:

---

The editing to get the move into theater really gutted the movie.

---

i actually left the theater telling my friend that it felt like there was another movie that we didn't get to see on screen