Printable View
The trailer is now up:
Kingdom of Heaven
Looks alright lads, and no doubt poor old Neeson will get it, like he always does!
The guy playing saladin looks the part and i like the leper references to Baldwin. As long as the action isn't taken over by soppy love story shite we should be ok ~D
Hmmm, This looks interesting. I had thought this film would be taken over by soppy West/bad, East/good tripe which seems the standard position of the sackcloth wearing purveyors of Medieval History. Maybe, Scott won't totally condemn the one over the other.
Personally, I think the Crusades themselves were ignorant, hate-bearing and ultimately totally useless, while the people of Outremer were those that were productive. Yet, Christians had lived in Outremer since long before the Crusades, so ultimately you can conclude the Crusades to be something generally bad.
~Wiz
I read a bit more into it first mate. Read the history of the crusades by stephen runciman.
The creation of outremer was an amazing feat even though Muslim oppostion was not united. to even reach Jerusalem was amazing but of course the bloodbath that ensued will always be remembered over other acts during the First Crusade.
The last defence of acre was incredible and the last stand of some of the knighly orders as the walls collapsed around them was almost perfectional heroism.
There is so much history behind it it and set up amazing campaigns for me, as a military student to read extensively into. :book:
The First Crusade was a Barbarian invasion as the Christian nations weren't as cultured as the Muslims or the Byzantines in that period.
It's also the most remarkable. A Byzantine Emperor asking for help from the Pope, who in turn wants to free the Holy Lands from the infidel, and Christian kings and nobles seeking prestige and booty from questing for Jaruzalem, concluding with thousends of simple peasants plundering through Europe practically unarmed and getting slaughtered just when they got to the fringes of their destination.
The First Crusade is fascinating. The following crusades were all political, the high point of which was HRE emperor Frederick II Staufer's crusade in 1227. That had nothing to do with any ecclestical goals rather then political powerplay in Italy and the Outremer.
True, but that's also quite revisionist, which is too easy IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Oooh, Orlando Bloom! What a powerhouse of talent and ability! You would think Liam Neeson was enough of a name (and a talent) to carry the film but nooooo, they had to go and hire one-note-overexposed-pretty-boy-Bloom. Something tells me the studio execs were adamant that Scott get Bloom or some other flash in the pan pretty boy. Well at least it's not Keanu Reeves... :wall:
As far as I'm concerned Ridley has been banished to the directorial doghouse for that pile of crap called Gladiator. I do hope Kingdom of Heaven is good but I fear that much like Gladiator (which was CRAP), the trailer promises much more than the film will actually deliver.
What was so bad about Gladiator, Spino? That was a good movie. Is it the historical (i.e. it wasn't) part of it that pissed you off?
BKB can you elaborate on:
Have any websites that offer explicit details?Quote:
The last defence of acre was incredible and the last stand of some of the knighly orders as the walls collapsed around them was almost perfectional heroism.
If they really want a good story they should film the books by Jan Guillo, the swedish writer.
The books are about Arn de Gothia, or as the arabs later called him Al Gothi (i think)
Im not sure if they are translated in to english but if they are read it!
Not only is Arn fighting down in Outremer and is participating in the crusade, he is also a Templar Knight, and once he returns to Sweden, he has to fight the Danish invaders.
Its a really good book, if your intrested in the crusades and scandinavian history.
These are the books they should film... and get rid of Bloom, who wasnt even good as Legolas...
*searching the web*
here yha go; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
Seth, i'm not sure of any websites on the subject but i do know Osprey are bringing out a campaign book of Acre 1291 sometime in the spring or summer but the best book is the third part of stephen runcimans Crusade trilogy. It is such a great read
Trailer looks pretty good: they're wearing chain instead of the usual hollywood full plate armour. The norman-style helmets also gave me a good impression.
I also read the last book in the series of Jan Guillo (the one with the fall of Jerusalem) but I didn't like it too much as the style of the english translation is rather "common" (don't know a better word for it) and the main character is too much a flawless hero. Just my opinion tough.
Jan Guillou's (or how is surname is written) Templar Trilogy is quite good, although there are a few "quirks" I dont like, like that he is a flawless hero (he isn't entirely perfect, I believe there were some minor flaws revealed in the third book) and the main characters has some few "modern views", although the books are so well-written you will overlook it.
The author wanted to show medieval Scandinavia, the Church's role, and women's life in a macho society. And also to "enlighten" the reader on how much of Scandinavian culture was imported from Europe and the Muslim world.
The Muslims are shown in a good light, and Scandinavian bishops in a very bad light.
The author nicely combines imagination with history, and some historical characters make their appearance. Saladin for instance, and Gerard de Ridefort. He is also accurate with equipment and warfare.
As a sidenote, Jan Guillou also wrote a fourth book, a continuation of the series, where he described Birger Jarls life. He did alot in Sweden, like found Stockholm, the capital, and seperating Church and State.
And back to topic (sorry for the topic hijack):
Kingdom of Heaven seems okay for now. But I fear the love story might overshadow the historical part
Well done trailer. Might wanna watch the movie, though something pissed me off, Saladin is a very skinny person, he was a kurd, they were generally of bigger build becuase of the rough environment they lived in, not peeps with skin on bones ~;p
*predicts that obligatory female love intrest will be fought over by a Crusader & a Muslim in true Hollywood style*
~:handball:
Speaking of muslims, now i remember whose acting Saladin, i think Hollywood chose the right person, Ghassan Massoud is a very famous syrian actor he did several historical movies/series like Al Hajjaj and Ze Qar, but still hes a bit skinny ~;p from what i hear from a recent interview Ghassan says the script is impartial and put saladin in a good light, quit contrary to what i thought actually. Makes me more interested in watching the movie.
Faisal,Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Of all the things that can go wrong with this film you're concerned about the build of the actor playing Saladin?!? ~:confused:
I actually think that Orlando isn't that bad of an actor. But as for Gladitor, I think it was ok... as long as you forgot everything you knew about history for a couple of hours. Same for Braveheart, though I think that Mel isn't nearly as good an actor as Russel Crowe.Quote:
Oooh, Orlando Bloom! What a powerhouse of talent and ability! You would think Liam Neeson was enough of a name (and a talent) to carry the film but nooooo, they had to go and hire one-note-overexposed-pretty-boy-Bloom. Something tells me the studio execs were adamant that Scott get Bloom or some other flash in the pan pretty boy. Well at least it's not Keanu Reeves...
I disagree about Bloom, he has the acting range of a defective squirt gun. He is the same person in every role he plays. Barring the costumes and hairstyles you could interchange all the characters he's played and you would not be able to discern the differences in his performances. Bloom is constantly working not because of his acting abilities but because ever since Lord of the Rings hit the theaters it has been proven that his onscreen presence moistens the seats of young teenage girls and and that directly translates into box office numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I definitely agree that Crowe is far superior to Gibson in terms of acting ability. However as far as historical trangressions are concerned Braveheart didn't seem nearly as bad as Gladiator, perhaps because I think it is a superior film to Gladiator. My problems with Gladiator are not simply rooted in its historical inaccuracies. When I watch Gladiator the only thing that I enjoy outside the cinematography and technical achievements is the presence of Russell Crowe, Derek Jacobi, Richard Harris and the 15-20 minutes of carnage that took place in the arenas and colosseum. Beyond those elements I cannot think of Gladiator as anything other than a B flick made on a massive budget. The script is ridiculously shallow and a good chunk of the supporting cast defies all sense of logic and taste. I could have done withouth Joaquin Phoenix and his terrible English accent. Dijmon Honsou sucks, period. That oversized former Mr. Universe/Mr. Olympian German actor who played Maximus' token aryan gladiator buddy would be more convincing if he was cast as a stone wall.
On heroism at the fall of Acre (Akko), I believe that the last of the christians to hold out were one of the fighting orders (Templars, I believe, or Hospitallers) who fought on after the walls of the city had been breached. They holed themselves up in their fortress/convent when everyone else left and refused surrender terms (although I beleive one Muslim source says that they were offered terms but the Muslims then took them back when the knights abused some prisoners). Eventually, their fortress was undermined and collapsed, and all the knights died in the final defense.
these are the least of my concerns, also whats the the kite shield ~:eek: ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I thought the early crusaders had norman shields (waterdrop looking). I think i just saw ghulams with round shield in the trailer they looked pretty good despite the pretty brief glimpse :charge:
I think Norman shields are kite shaped... but not triangle. It's like a curve on top, then a kind of triangle at the bottom.
Hurin you are right about the templars. They held out in the citadal with the wounded hospitillar grandmaster being took away by ship to cyprus screaming to his colleagues that he wanted to return to the fray.
But the templars did agree to surrender but the mamluks that entered the fortress started to abuse the remaining acre population in the citadel so the templars cut ehm down and the final siege began with an intense bombardment and when a breach was made the sultan impatiently threw 2,000 mamluks into the breach, the templars fought until overwhelmed but as the mamluks entered the foundations collapsed killing all within including the majority of the attackers.
Ah, thx Blind King. I knew I had it a bit garbled. I did seem to remember, however, that one of the Arabic chronicles had a slightly different story, that the Christians were the ones who violated the terms. I'll try to find that if I can-- was it perhaps Ibn al-Athir?
~:cheers:
The film looks promising, although information on the plot is scarce - some sites say Bloom is a peasant who becomes a knight and helps the people of Jerusalem fight against the Crusaders who had taken it in 1099. If so, I doubt Pindar will be happy.
PS: Am I the only one here who had a desire to fire up MTW again after viewing the trailer? The shot in the middle of what CA would call "Order foot" advancing through the sand brought back fond memories...
From what I read, Bloom was to play Balian of Ibelin ... who would not be a common man.
Now, I doubt Balian was a common man by the fact that his son was the famous John of Ibelin, who was Lord of Beirut, Nablus and Ibelin.
I hope the director keeps some historical factuality in this movie.
Let's turn to a good source for info...or so I believe...IMDB!!!
IMDB - Kingdom of Heaven info
Plot Outline: "During the Crusades of the 12th Century, Balian of Ibelin (Bloom), a young blacksmith in Jerusalem, rises to protect his people from foreign invaders."
Hmm....another Troy?
If you check the cast listing, you will see a woman named Eva Green plays Sybilla... Didnt she marry Guy de Lusignan? And then make him King of Jerusalem after her son Baldwin V died?
I think that will still be in the movie. The trailer mentioned something about an 'exotic queen' and 'forbidden love' or some such nonsense. I imagine the writer concocted a secret love affair between Balian of Ibelin and Sybilla to spice things up (unless of course, such an affair actually took place which given the reputation of European royalty is entirely possible).Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
A young blacksmith..anyone remember Pirates of the Carribean? Whats it with Hollywood and Blacksmiths...?
Haven't you heard? Hollywood ran out of ideas back in the early 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpyang
If they called him 'Balain of Ibelin' then how can he not be noble? In the twelfth century, only nobles had patronyms (last names) like Ibelin (the Ibellines were a powerful family; I believe they give their name to the Ghibellines, those who supported the emperors as opposed to those who supported the popes [the Guelphs] in Italy).
My point: if the man's name is Balain of Ibelin, he can't be a 'humble blacksmith'.
Moreover, Jerusalem fell to Muslims under Saladin in 1187. If Bloom is really to fight Christians in Jerusalem, then that'll all have to occur before 1187, which was also the date of the Battle of Hattin (which, it seems, the movie WILL show-- we seem to have a shot of Saladin and the Crusaders preparing for Hattin).
I think this is right: the film is the Period leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. Thus, there should be all sorts of Crusader intrigue and the foolishness of Hattin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Does anyone know who the silver faced person is supposed to be? Was there someone in history famous for that kind of makeup?
I *think* that would be Baldwin, the leper king.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
That would explain the mask... ~;)
And a pretty queer looking mask at that. When I first saw the trailer I thought the figure in the mask was a woman! I think the costume designer got a little carried away.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Im glad a film about the crusades is being made but historicla epics have been so hit and miss lately that im abit weary. Observe Alexander *shudders*
I love the crusades history and the bravery of the men involved but despise it for its greed 4th crusade, being a byzantine history fanatic lol the 4th crusade understandably annoys me.
Im more than abit annoyed that Orlando Bloom is in it Hollywoods latest whore to saturate cinema with, seems to be in every movie these days.
I just hope they dont ruin it with massive historical inaccuracy and desperate attempts to outdo gladiator.
Ive heard that alot of muslims are annoyed by this movie already which is also annoying, im sure they arent the biggest fans of the crusades lol but its a massive! part of european history and more than worhty of being told i just hope its not biased or wrecked to please most western audiences hence my annoyance at Orlando Bloom being in it.
If you goto the official website you see Jeremy Irons play Tiberias? Who is Tiberias. It sounds Byzantine.
http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/
And which kingdom in Sybbla queen of?
Wasn't Tiberias a city on the border of the southern most Crusader kingdom. Was the first to fall under siege during Sals big push against the Crusaders.
I just read the cast list from IMDB and it says that Edward Norton is King Baldwin IV which means he's the guy in the mask in the trailer.
That mask isn't queer!! It's awesome. I wish I had a mask like that.
Overall I'm groing weary of these period peaces. We've had like 4 last year and now some more. Will they at least try to space them out a little. I'm getting sick of long battles and crappy dialogue.
From what I've read in reviews from those who have been to the test screening, they made him the illegitimate son of the noble Godfrey of Ibelin, played by Liam Neeson. So he's noble by blood but raised in a peasant background. The historical Balian's father was also named Balian, the film probably changed it to Godfrey to avoid confusion. Godfrey was the father of Balian I. They also seem to have combined the historical Balian with his brother Baldwin, who was involved with Sybilla. Instead the film leaves Baldwin out and gives Balian the romance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Also some of the film reviews are incorrect...Bloom isn't fighting the Christians, he is fighting the Muslims. Just like the historical Balian he survives Hattin to lead the defense of Jerusalem. I think the bit in the trailer where he is saying, "rise a knight" is when he knights all the children of nobles over 13 for the defense of the city. Jerusalem is the final battle in the movie, and it doesn't follow Balian during the Third Crusade when he served Richard the Lionheart.
Aaahhh. Ok, that's not too bad then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longshanks
Are you sure the last part is the siege of Jerusalem? It looked like they were firing all those trebuchets at Acre, not Jerusalem. I thought it might conclude with the siege of Acre on the Third Crusade. Does that mean that all those siege towers and trebuchets are Saladin's? I thought I saw some Christian banners in amongst them; I'll check later on.
Ok, tried to see tonight but the darn trailer is just too small. I can't be sure of the identity either of the city or the besiegers, so it appears the movie may well end with the siege of Jerusalem. But did Saladin have that many trebuchets at the siege?
Darn, I was hoping to see Acre.
Given the amount of resources he had at his disposal by that point methinks he could've had about as many as he felt were necessary...
Balian of Ibelin was in fact one of the most important barons in the kingdom of Jerusalem around the time of Saladin. One of the leaders of the baronial party, he worked against Guy of Lusignan's ascent to the throne. Nevertheless, he supported the new king when it became clear that Saladin was bound to attack the kingdom. The Ibelins were one of the most distinguished noble dynasties in the crusader states, later even claiming the kingship of Cyprus (when most Latin Christian possessions on the mainland were lost).
Sibyl was one of the two daughters of Amalric (NOT Almaric!!!), elder brother of Baldwin IV., who was called the Leper King. She was NOT supposed to impart the throne to her husband, coz Baldwin IV. had a son, also called Baldwin (V.). That son was sickly and died at five, shortly after Baldwin IV.'s demise. The succession had been agreed upon in advance: Should Baldwin V. die without an heir, the count of Tripoli was to take over the regency until a conclave of the pope, the English and French kings and the Holy Roman Emperor were to agree on a suitable candidate. It was seen as likely that the count of Tripoli would be that "suitable candidate", since he was related to the royal house himself.
Sibyl was married to Guy of Lusignan, who seems to have been kind of a womanizer, and who was originally supposed to marry her sister. It seems both girls' mother had a crush on him, too: he seems to have had good looks, but not much brains. So I think Marton Csokas with his rather sinister looks isn't so well cast in his role. The old queen mother was bedding the Patriarch of Jerusalem at the same time, and those guys were closely affiliated with the Grand Master of the Templars. This troupe staged a veritable coup d'état, violating the dead Leper King's will, and crowned Sibyl and Guy queen and king of Jerusalem. The count of Tripoli and Balian of Ibelin tried to stop them, but in the end only the count remained intransigent, while Balian bowed before the king.
If I were to make a movie about the whole affair, it would feature count Raymond of Tripoli prominently, as a tragic hero trying to do what is right, and ending up in a moral dilemma between a dead king's will, his own ambition and the well-being of the kingdom.
Sorry for the long post, but the downfall of the kingdom of Jerusalem is endlessly fascinating to me. One of the most intriguing subject matters medieval history has to offer!
There is a new trailer for Kingdom of Heaven released this week. It is much longer that the previous one that I saw. I'm a bit disappointed at the mass knighting of servants prior to the climactic battle. Seems a bit too Hollywoodish (duh!). :director:
You can find the trailer here: Kingdom of Heaven trailer
The battles look amazing but Saladin crossing into syria before the battle of Hattin with 200,000 men! Where the hell did they get that from! Even if they are talking about his siege of Jerusalem he would have had a maximum of 50,000 men. Those numbers are insane :dizzy2:
Yes, 200,000 is a massive exaggeration. I beleive the best estimate put Saladin's army at about 30,000.
However, medieval chroniclers were prone to exaggeration, especially of the enemy's numbers; there are crusading chronicles that estimate the number of Turks and others at various battles as 60,000, 100,000, even 200,000 and more. What I'm trying to say is that it is not that anachronistic to portray a medieval Christian estimating Saladin's army at 200,000, although surely it would be anachronistic if the movie actually shows Saladin with 200,000 troops.
Maybe Scott(?) had some left over money in his budget and said "What the heck, let's buy another 150,000 men!" Or more likely he thought "Pellinor Fields had 100,000? Let's up the anty make our army with 200,000!" ~:) I think 150,000 of those men must be manning the trebauchets. :laugh4:
I make jokes, but I'm still hoping it is at least an entertaining movie. From this trailer, it at least looks to be that.
I posted the trailer to this over a month ago. Whats this ? ~;)
I thought this was a newer trailer Gawain. The IGN.com story about it was dated April 6. If it is old, then my apologies. :embarassed:
It looks great to me, but i liked gladiator and ive heard that movie torn apart more times than i can remember on these boards.. :embarassed:
No you are correct this is a newer one. However its still the same topic. Hey I cant expect everyone to remember what I posted a month ago. I guess im just an attention seeker ~DQuote:
I thought this was a newer trailer Gawain. The IGN.com story about it was dated April 6. If it is old, then my apologies.
Ditto. I know its terribly unhistorical, but does that make it a bad movie?Quote:
It looks great to me, but i liked gladiator and ive heard that movie torn apart more times than i can remember on these boards..
Crazed Rabbit