Kindom of Heaven Directors cut has a case for being the GOAT movie

[Nick Young]

Just saw the Kingdom of Heaven Directors cut. It's way better than Gladiator. Honestly it has a case for being the GOAT movie, and the GOAT historical epic. I highly recommend this director's cut.

[NumberSix]

Terrible ending. The wrong side wins.

[Nick Young]

That is what happened in real life.

[greymatter]

The only good thing that can be said about the movie was that it had Eva Green in it.

[greymatter]

Terrible ending. The wrong side wins.

Guess it's pointless to uh.....point out the fact that the real "savages" were the Christians?


What distinguished Richard from his brothers and his peers was his addiction to battle. It is said that only one man ever unhorsed him in a joust, and that was William the Marshal, who is buried in the Temple Church, London. It seems certain, discounting the myth-making of the chroniclers, that Richard was a frightening and ruthless opponent. When a ransom was not paid on the due day, he had 30,000 Muslim captives slaughtered in full sight of Saladin's army. Even the Arab chroniclers close to Saladin – who were often more objective than the Christian chroniclers – describe him as a brave and terrifying warrior with no equal among the kings of the known world. Philippe of France fled more than once as soon as he heard that Richard was approaching.

As opposed to Saladin electing not to slaughter the Christians in Jerusalem when he conquered it.

[outbreak]

Has a case for the most historically inaccurate film of all time

[Nick Young]

Has a case for the most historically inaccurate film of all time
It definitely doesn't. There are several films I can name off the top of my head that are atleast two times more historically inaccurate.

It's an entertainment film. Liberties are taken for the sake of drama and entertainment. Shakespeare did the exact same thing in his history plays.


If you want historical accuracy, read a book or listen to historian lectures.

Do not watch a dramatic film if you are hoping to find historic accuracy:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[Patrick Chewing]

Guess it's pointless to uh.....point out the fact that the real "savages" were the Christians?



As opposed to Saladin electing not to slaughter the Christians in Jerusalem when he conquered it.

Oh lord help us. Another fool.

Why do you think the Crusades happened in the first place?? Muslims were killing Christians and Jews alike as they slowly made their way West building mosques over burned down churches.

Saladin's goal was to have a caliphate. The Muslims have been trying at this caliphate thing for centuries now.

[Patrick Chewing]

The best scene of that movie is when "Jerusalem has come" to save the day.

[Nick Young]

It's just an elite movie that was underappreciated in its time

[greymatter]

Oh lord help us. Another fool.

Happens every time you enter a thread. Maybe you should just stop.



Why do you think the Crusades happened in the first place?? Muslims were killing Christians and Jews alike as they slowly made their way West building mosques over burned down churches.

Saladin's goal was to have a caliphate. The Muslims have been trying at this caliphate thing for centuries now.

And yoyo's are cheaper in China. So what.

Nothing you say changes the fact that Saladin didn't have a hard-on for butchery like King Richard. I don't care a lick for dead Christians or Muslims, just so long as neither one of those silly cults affects my way of life.

In any case, it's a huge pity that the Ummayads failed to keep control of Spain. If they had, then the garbage that were the Spanish Roman Catholic colonialists might never have wound up killing off nearly the entire indigenous population of Cuba and we wouldn't have to put up with your idiocy today.

[Nick Young]

Happens every time you enter a thread. Maybe you should just stop.



And yoyo's are cheaper in China. So what.

Nothing you say changes the fact that Saladin didn't have a hard-on for butchery like King Richard. I don't care a lick for dead Christians or Muslims, just so long as neither one of those silly cults affects my way of life.

In any case, it's a huge pity that the Ummayads failed to keep control of Spain. If they had, then the garbage that were the Spanish Roman Catholic colonialists might never have wound up killing off nearly the entire indigenous population of Cuba and we wouldn't have to put up with your idiocy today.
Do you like slavery and sharia law? If you do, I understand why you would be upset that the Ummayads failed to keep Spain.

[outbreak]

Oh lord help us. Another fool.

Why do you think the Crusades happened in the first place?? Muslims were killing Christians and Jews alike as they slowly made their way West building mosques over burned down churches.

Saladin's goal was to have a caliphate. The Muslims have been trying at this caliphate thing for centuries now.
You realise the Christan crusaders killed a bunch of jews too? So many that the pope had to act to stop it happening due to the backlash.

I think both sides in the centuries since have put out press trying to make themselves better. Saladin wasn't trying to take over europe either, they were trying to take sites that were holy to them which just happened to be sites that are also holy to the christans. The christians who were in danger were the byzantines not the groups further in europe.

Both sides did horrible things by today's standards but it's hard to judge with our world view.

[greymatter]

Do you like slavery and sharia law? If you do, I understand why you would be upset that the Ummayads failed to keep Spain.

I see both the Christians and Muslims of that era as being garbage, but with the Muslims being less so (vice versa for today).

My suggestion that Spain would have been better off under Muslim rule was based on the historical premise that Muslims were less likely to slaughter conquered people on a whim. Cuban indigenies would almost certainly have survived in far larger numbers in that alternate history.

Do try to keep up.

[Nick Young]

I see both the Christians and Muslims of that era as being garbage, but with the Muslims being less so (vice versa for today).

My suggestion that Spain would have been better off under Muslim rule was based on the historical premise that Muslims were less likely to slaughter a conquered people on a whim. Cuban indigenies would almost certainly have survived in far larger numbers in that alternate history.

Do try to keep up.
Yes. Instead of slaughter, they would force them in to a life of slavery.
Or slaughter them en mass, as many Muslims were inclined to do. Muslims have been slaughtering people in mass from the very beginning of the religion. Have you never heard of the Banu Qurayza? Or any of the other tribes that Mohammad and the first muslims slaughtered?

I don't think you know anything about Muslim history. They aren't all like Saladin.

Your entire "alternate history" argument is idiotic and based on a logical fallacy.


Don't say "do try to keep up" ever again. You aren't Dr. Who, fool. :facepalm

[outbreak]

lol at nick young bringing up slavery in a time when christians kept slaves too :facepalm

The crusades had more to do with territory and holy sites than stopping some supposed barbaric force. Both forces were barbaric by todays standards.

[Nick Young]

lol at nick young bringing up slavery in a time when christians kept slaves too :facepalm

The crusades had more to do with territory and holy sites than stopping some supposed barbaric force. Both forces were barbaric by todays standards.
Slavery was actually banned in Europe at the time.

The Muslims in Spain were the only practitioners of slavery in Europe during the time period you're talking about.

Why are you whining about historical inaccuracy in a Hollywood movie when you don't even know history yourself?

What a bone head.

[Patrick Chewing]

You realise the Christan crusaders killed a bunch of jews too? So many that the pope had to act to stop it happening due to the backlash.

I think both sides in the centuries since have put out press trying to make themselves better. Saladin wasn't trying to take over europe either, they were trying to take sites that were holy to them which just happened to be sites that are also holy to the christans. The christians who were in danger were the byzantines not the groups further in europe.

Both sides did horrible things by today's standards but it's hard to judge with our world view.


I'm sure both sides killed a ton of innocents, but this myth that's out there that the Christians were the "bad guys" is such bullshit. I remember leaving the theater after watching this movie and my good friend was saying that he didn't know Christians were this evil, and I immediately corrected him. Guys like Guy de Lusignan exist everywhere, but the sole reason for "The Crusade" was to help those Christians that were being slaughtered. Slaughtered by Muslims.

People need to know the truth.

[outbreak]

I'm sure both sides killed a ton of innocents, but this myth that's out there that the Christians were the "bad guys" is such bullshit. I remember leaving the theater after watching this movie and my good friend was saying that he didn't know Christians were this evil, and I immediately corrected him. Guys like Guy de Lusignan exist everywhere, but the sole reason for "The Crusade" was to help those Christians that were being slaughtered. Slaughtered by Muslims.

People need to know the truth.

My main point is it's not as simple as one side being some evil force. Christians slaughtered mulsims in that region at time, muslims slaughtered christians at times. It was back and forth. For a large portion of history it was the christians who were played up as being a holy righteous army now it's swinging too far to the muslims being portrayed like that by some. Like most conflicts both sides had their reasons for fighting and it's hard to look at atrocities committed that long ago from our view point and fairly judge either sides bad events

[BasedTom]

It gets a bad reputation due to the theatrical release.



It is amusing how 900 years later you have people, some even in this thread, attempting to smear the legacy and character of men like Godfrey of Bouillon (who denied himself the title of King, for Christ had wore a crown of thorns). These same people tend to be the subscribers to the same 'pop history' myth of the Dark Ages believing that suddenly after Rome all technological advances came to a halt. Until of course one day in the 1470s when advanced formations and seafaring came into existence out of nowhere, as well as science and morality. :rolleyes:

Worst still, is when people try to put these Crusaders and Saracens of old on the same miserable level as the rabble of barbarians and hired thugs contending over the region today.

[greymatter]

Yes. Instead of slaughter, they would force them in to a life of slavery.

Or slaughter them en mass, as many Muslims were inclined to do. Muslims have been slaughtering people in mass from the very beginning of the religion. Have you never heard of the Banu Qurayza? Or any of the other tribes that Mohammad and the first muslims slaughtered?

That had more to do with tribal warfare than anything else. If they weren't Muslims, they'd have still been at each others' throats.




I don't think you know anything about Muslim history. They aren't all like Saladin.

I never claimed they were. I was very specific in comparing only Richard and Saladin.



Your entire "alternate history" argument is idiotic and based on a logical fallacy.

Try not to use words you fail to understand. You're simply too dim-witted to make effective use of them.



Don't say "do try to keep up" ever again. You aren't Dr. Who, fool. :facepalm

That expression is far older than whatever TV show imbeciles like yourself like to watch.

[outbreak]

It gets a bad reputation due to the theatrical release.



It is amusing how 900 years later you have people, some even in this thread, attempting to smear the legacy and character of men like Godfrey of Bouillon (who denied himself the title of King, for Christ had wore a crown of thorns). These same people tend to be the subscribers to the same 'pop history' myth of the Dark Ages believing that suddenly after Rome all technological advances came to a halt. Until of course one day in the 1470s when advanced formations and seafaring came into existence out of nowhere, as well as science and morality. :rolleyes:

Worst still, is when people try to put these Crusaders and Saracens of old on the same miserable level as the rabble of barbarians and hired thugs contending over the region today.

The dark ages are getting a lot of love lately, to the point that that term is finally becoming obsolete too.

The problem with history is too many people get in to it with an current day agenda to push and so slant their findings/interpretations in that way.

[greymatter]

Slavery was actually banned in Europe at the time.

You know you could take a few minutes to actually look some of this stuff up before pulling shit out of your ass?

France: 1794
Poland: 1347
Sweden: 1335
Ragusa (city in Croatia): 1416
Spain: 1542



The Muslims in Spain were the only practitioners of slavery in Europe during the time period you're talking about.

Why are you whining about historical inaccuracy in a Hollywood movie when you don't even know history yourself?

What a bone head.

Please just STFU already and do the world a favor by getting a vasectomy.

[outbreak]

You know you could take a few minutes to actually look some of this stuff up before pulling shit out of your ass?

France: 1794
Poland: 1347
Sweden: 1335
Ragusa (city in Croatia): 1416
Spain: 1542



Please just STFU already and do the world a favor by getting a vasectomy.
He probably means the church making it illegal to enslave christians which I believed happened around this time. Although serfdom and indebted servitude in some cases was just slavery under a different name and marketing spin. Also this is ignoring byzatine which was a big reason for the crusades and as far as I've heard they were known as prolific users of slaves. But nick young is an idiot, i've had him on ignore a while now. Slavery was never isolated to just "evil" empires in the past

[Nick Young]

That had more to do with tribal warfare than anything else. If they weren't Muslims, they'd have still been at each others' throats.

Yes there is always a different excuse for why Muslims slaughter people.

Why did the Ottomans slaughter the Armenians? Why did the Muslim terrorists in Paris slaughter over one hundred people last year?

If a group of Muslims kills people, there is always an excuse that some dumbass out there will use to justify it.

[Nick Young]

He probably means the church making it illegal to enslave christians which I believed happened around this time. Although serfdom and indebted servitude in some cases was just slavery under a different name and marketing spin. Also this is ignoring byzatine which was a big reason for the crusades and as far as I've heard they were known as prolific users of slaves. But nick young is an idiot, i've had him on ignore a while now. Slavery was never isolated to just "evil" empires in the past
Good job putting words in to my mouth that I never said or implied, dumbass:facepalm

[Nick Young]

You know you could take a few minutes to actually look some of this stuff up before pulling shit out of your ass?

France: 1794
Poland: 1347
Sweden: 1335
Ragusa (city in Croatia): 1416
Spain: 1542



Please just STFU already and do the world a favor by getting a vasectomy.
Slavery was banned in Christian Europe until the Arab and Berber slavers traded black Africans to Portugese explorers.

Then Christians started using the excuse that black people weren't real people so it was ok to enslave them.


But before this, yes, slavery was indeed outlawed across all of Christian Europe. During the time period Kingdom of Heaven was set, slavery was outlawed in Europe.


Do try to keep up, scrub.

[greymatter]

Slavery was banned in Christian Europe until the Arab and Berber slavers traded black Africans to Portugese explorers.

Then Christians started using the excuse that black people weren't real people so it was ok to enslave them.


But before this, yes, slavery was indeed outlawed across all of Christian Europe. During the time period Kingdom of Heaven was set, slavery was outlawed in Europe.


Do try to keep up, scrub.

Still clinging to your made up bullshit? So when demonstrably proven false, you choose to double-down on your bullshit?

To call you a retard at this point would be an insult to retards.

[Nick Young]

Still clinging to your made up bullshit? So when demonstrably proven false, you choose to double-down on your bullshit?

To call you a retard at this point would be an insult to retards.
Avoid logical fallacy. There is no need to resort to personal attacks and attempts of character assassination. Learn history.

Do try to keep up.:cheers:

[FillJackson]

Have you seen many movies?

[outbreak]

Have you seen many movies?
He's only allowed to see what the doctors deem safe for the patients.

[pauk]

Go greymatter! :oldlol: :applause:

[Nick Young]

Have you seen many movies?
yes, have you seen the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven?

[LexiKhan]

Pretty good historical fiction movie, but I'm usually a sucker for these type of movies. I even liked Troy, the Alexander the Great movie and the marco polo series, although those are all considered mediocre.

And nobody was at "fault" or "evil" in the crusades, it was just another chapter of a mutually provoked conflict, one that still rages on today.

[Lebron23]

yes, have you seen the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven?


Thank you for starting this thread Nick. I enjoyed the movie. Saladin, King Baldwin, and Hospitaler were my favorite characters.

[JohnnySic]

Great movie but Orlando Bloom brings it down. Stupid Hollywood always casting a "bankable" star.