Ridley Scott (director of Gladiator, Blackhawk Down and Alien) is beginning work on a crusades film. The film will be set in the 12th Century and apparently, deal with a fellow who becomes a knight and is involed in the defense of Jerusalem. The title is The Kingdom of Heaven.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
It may be, this film will deal with the Crusades from a Muslim perspective.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
It should deal with it from both perspectives I feel to best understand the events.Originally Posted by [b
Still if it is from the Muslim side of things, whats the betting that its Richard The Lionheart against the Muslims and British Medieval Villains again...
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Is Arnold the Terminator who would be Governor still slated for the stairing roll? I've got to admit casting Arnold as a medival knight seems a little silly, we all know about those medival steroids and gym equipment.
Veni, Venti, Gripi
I came, I saw, the food did not agree with me.
Given Ridley's utterly shallow and overrated offerings known as 'Gladiator' and 'Blackhawk Down' this one is sure to suck eggs. Like Gladiator look for 10-15 minutes worth of great action sandwiched by 100 minutes of festering camel droppings.
Oooh, I hope he gets fellow hack Hans Zimmer to provide the score. There's nothing like ripping off Wagner and Holst and getting all the credit.
Someone re-animate David Lean so we can restore some respectability to the Hollywood epic
"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt
Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony
Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)
It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving murderers that they were.
hehe....yeah, I shall say nothing to this...Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,13:31)]It should show things from both sides. I just hope it actually portrays the crusaders as the thieving ers that they were.
just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway?
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam!
Don't ask...Quote[/b] (katar @ Oct. 03 2003,19:46)]just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway?
Hell the Fourth Crusade never even went to the Holy Land the Venetians sacked Constantinople instead
At the time Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and its wealth was legendary... Sadly the military might of Byzantium was waning at the time, so quite simply it was easier and more profitable to sack the Byzantines than to fight the Muslims
Just goes to show how many joined the crusades for personal gain of treasure rather than for noble purposes.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
right.....Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 03 2003,14:00)]Don't ask...Quote[/b] (katar @ Oct. 03 2003,19:46)]just how many times did they clean out Byzantium on the way to the holy land anyway?
Hell the Fourth Crusade never even went to the Holy Land the Venetians sacked Constantinople instead
At the time Constantinople was the greatest city in the world and its wealth was legendary... Sadly the military might of Byzantium was waning at the time, so quite simply it was easier and more profitable to sack the Byzantines than to fight the Muslims
Just goes to show how many joined the crusades for personal gain of treasure rather than for noble purposes.
**don't ask cause I'm not getting into that argument again**
At best I would guess maybe 1 out of every 5 crusaders joined out of a desire to free the Holy Lands from the muslims. The rest joined in order to free everyone on the way from their wealth.
Remember at this time islam was at the pinnacle of learning, prosperity, and tolerance.
I bet it shows the Brits as bad again. Every bloody American film vaguely based around Britain historically (except WW2 - where we are just useless) has Britain/England as the evil ones against the perfect and enlightened Scots/Americans or whoever. I'm annoyed.
I do hope you're kidding about this
No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]I do hope you're kidding about this
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
To complement Jacques excellent reply:Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,20:56)]I do hope you're kidding about this
Most of the ancient texts (Hebrew, Roman and Greek) would have been lost forever if not for the Muslims (and Byzantines to a lesser degree), as they either preserved the originals, or copied them, or they translated them and preserved the translations.
Most of classical knowledge had to be reintroduced from the East to the west. Compared to Muslim medicine, what we had in Europe was crude butchery. In architecture, many concepts were borrowed or copied from the Muslim world. Many of the contemporary European buildings look like a small mud shed (much like W. Wallace's farm in Braveheart) compared to the Muslim palaces, the only possible exception being some of the great cathedrals. While cities of 10,000 people were considered immense (in the 14th century ghent was the 2nd largest city in western Europe after Paris (and only just) with IIRC less then 40,000 unhabitants). At the same time Muslim cities held up to 100,000's of people.
Arguably the reconquest of Muslim territory by the Christians had a devastating effecton the country. This was mosrt notable in Spain. There are various scholars who argue that Spain is almost to this day (and certainly to 1900) suffering from the backlash of the Reconquista (completed in 1492, the majority of it well before that).
IIRC other religions were tolerated, and allowed to worship, (often) protected by decrees of the rulers. In return they had to pay an extra tax though (IIRC). For example, the exodus of Jews from Spain and Portugal (many of them ending up in the Dutch Republic) took place under Catholic rule (Carlos I and Felipe II), and generally after reconquista. Most had come to Spain under the muslim caliphs.
For a small country, we have kicked some really good (naval) butt...
you're completely correct my friend...Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,15:28)]No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]I do hope you're kidding about this
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt. The Heifer (Al-Baqarah)-147
maybe technological devealopment, but tolerence? please, the Muslims were selling Christian slaves like hotcakes and conquering Christian lands that rightfully belonged to the empire.Quote[/b] (-Amon- @ Oct. 03 2003,16:25)]you're completely correct my friend...Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Oct. 03 2003,15:28)]No I'm not. Islamic countries were reknowned throughout the world for their scholars. They made huge advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Being a hub for trade with the far east brought wealth unimaginable to their coffers. Perhaps most importantly was how muslims, christians, and jews lived in peace in the lands ruled by the sultans.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 03 2003,14:56)]I do hope you're kidding about this
Compared to the relative barbarism of feudal serfdom and in the name of God wars, the ME was a far more civilized and desirable place to live in the Medieval time period.
The way I see it, those lands were originally owned by Christendom and were aggresively conquered by the Muslims.
Don't give me bull about how religiously tolerant they were cause it's made up fairytale crap that revisionist historians like to use to make the West look bad.
Give me some modern things that Muslims scholars thought up originally. Things they copied from other peoples (i.e. algebra) do not count.
ok, I'm going to bow out because I have realized I don't have the credentials to continue this conversation, I still disagree with you, I just don't have sufficient book-learnin' to back it up with
Back to the movie
Based on the precedents, I am pretty sure it will suck beyond description.
Well, perhaps Mr Scott feels a little guilty about the portrayel of the Somalians in Blackhawk down, which is why is is focusing on the Musilms this time?
I think Scott is just preoccupied with making money more than his artistic ability these days...this is from a director who produced classics such as Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise...
Ill keep an open mind. I think we need a mainstream film which may show Muslim culture in a favourable light.
hmm..i don't want to continue talking about this subject but i will say a couple of things..
were only muslims selling slaves in medieval??this was doing by all over europe ...and christians continued to sell slaves up to 1800's..
yes,muslims might sell slaves in medieval but they were not alone while doing this...
thanx for your understanding henceforth my friend...
The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt. The Heifer (Al-Baqarah)-147
I know these look pretty unfeasible when you look current situation of Islam, but medieval Islamic society encouraged theological questioning and discussions on the existence of God.
As for agressive conquests, I am sure that such an act should not be too surprising in the time-frame we are talking about. Holy places were a part of Roman Empire; they couldnt hold it so Muslims captured there. So did Germanic tribes agressively captured Rome. Why does it became such a big issue when it is captured by another religion? Muslims were just thinking about building a civic establishment and they needed fertile lands. I doubt the Holy places were captured by Muslims with religious intentions. And if the Holy places were THAT holy, why couldnt Romans protect them against a bunch of unarmored, poorly armed militias?
And revisionist historians were right. As I said, Muslim classical thought made a heavy emphasis on religious tolerance (most Camis had a seperate small sinagog and a small catholic church attached to them) and aside from Mohammedan era, Muslims were quite frequently questioned the existence of God.
If you dont think that Muslim scholars are mere copiers of existing philosophies, that is too sad. Urgently visit this site
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/
and read this
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books
and for a clear superiority of Medieval eastern philosophy over western philosophy:
http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books
Of course as I said Islamic civilisation had its zenith in medieval ages (and throughout Ottoman period, which was more or less a tolerant empire) and declined terribly after that.
When the game ends, peon and king go into the same box.
please don't patronize me, it leads to a very, very ugly exchange of words. There is nothing I dislike more than a sarcastic patronizing opponent in an argument, so cease and desist.
as for the aggressive conflict part, I'm not saying that it was their fault they conquerored that land, I'm just saying the Christian west had the right to take it back and that's what they did. The holy land belonged to the Christian empire, the Muslims conquerored it, and the Christians tried to conquer it back. It's really that simple.
************************************************************
Now here is an article that expresses my viewpoint, and I will expect you to also post an article and we can have fun tearing up each others articles Won't that be fun??
************************************************************
Thomas F. Madden, Medieval Historian
I had no intention to be patronizing and I doubt that other people would find any patronizing words or comments or intentions or slightest intention of patronizing in my post. This is a discussion forum and my only motive for writing was to discuss and/or provide information on a specific subject. I read my post again and still couldnt find any phrases that would create such a reaction; if anybody else has such clues I would readily go back to the entrance hall.
When the game ends, peon and king go into the same box.
Cebei, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was well stated and provided references. I saw no patronizing.
Anyway...
...I believe we were all agreeing how badly this movie is going to suck - oh, and that the English would look like stupid, raping, murdering heathens regardless of which perspective the movie chooses.
This space intentionally left blank
ahhh, the theatrical cynicism here. How can people be against religious war, particularly on a wide screen?
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Frankly, the portrayals of Islam are the views of the educated elite. Unfortunately, we don't know the attitudes of the common Muslim and their views of Christians.
Comparing the West to Islam makes Islam look more tolerant but doesn't necessarily make Islam tolerant. This argument adds perspective but not substance.
We have to consider the texts that are available to us - Christians and Muslims alike have a theoretical base of what their religiion is, but, as you all know, it isn't practised in reality. To bag Christianity is to close one eye and use the other.
Again, how do u define tolerance?
I assure you, tolerance in Islam may have a different context to our UN human rights context.
My view is that they are just as EQUALLY bad as each other.
WHile it is true that Muslims transmitted valuable Latin, Greek, etc texts of the ancient classics to the West, it was Byzantium who transmitted them to Islam. In the 14th and 15th century, Byzantine scholars are directly linked to the Renaissance with their collection of the same texts.
An example. Gemistos Plethon. Manuel Chrysolas.
Retired from games altogether!!
Feudalism TOtal War, non-active member and supporter. Long Live Orthodox Christianity!
I took no offence butQuote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 03 2003,22:14)]Cebei, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was well stated and provided references. I saw no patronizing.
Anyway...
...I believe we were all agreeing how badly this movie is going to suck - oh, and that the English would look like stupid, raping, ing heathens regardless of which perspective the movie chooses.sounded like he was being sarcastic. If you weren't being sarcastic, then I apologize, I merely misunderstood you
Other than that I agree...
Who would play Saladin?
Well, I know of a person who was born in exactly the same village with Saladin and although methods are different, he too was invloved in state affairs. Both are mujahiddins and I suspect, as he is unemployed currently, he would happliy play Saladin in a crusade movie.
The actor
Actually, instead of a crusade movie, I would think of a trilogy of knight orders.
Lord of the Kings 1(stupid name): Teutonic Order
Lord of the Kings2:Hospitallers
LOK3:Templars
If not, perhaps a Dune type strategy game in which Atredies, Harkonnen and Ordos are Teutons, Templars and Hospitallers. Each with different unit stats and units, fighting against each other.
You can do the movie of this utopic thing. But I want Will Smith as Richard Coeur de Lion.
When the game ends, peon and king go into the same box.
ok....that ends it for me
here come the kings in black.....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks