Bahubali 2 : Baseless? - Page 5

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

I think bottomline is different people look for different things in life. If a person is saying something, it's just his view of life shaped by the path he has walked in life and the view he can see now... We can never really make anyone see through anybody else's eyes, that is for sure :) No one's right, no one's wrong.. we can only have respect for each other's views.

Originally posted by: shrock

Ps note: I loved both the part saw first again and second on first day. Prabhas huge fan even before baahubali series.

Firstly Amarendra being to be king shouldn't have hidden his identity for love. Devsena is also princess. That is unacceptable by a king to hide his identity for any reason that to from a person of his own status.

(Yes i agree and clear myself that many will think before coronation he was on a tour of his kingdom to understand better) But that doesn't means he should have hidden his identity. I think its Acceptable in movie only.

Devsena decision to reject marriage proposal was right decision. Her decision to die in war rather than to be prisioner was right. Her decision to come with baahubali was selfish for her own love interest and not as princess for her people. She came with baahubali as not his captive but as his to be wife. The thing was that personal matter was discussed in courtroom. Sivagami was authority she acted like one. Baahubali and devsena were thier for self reason. Baahubali accepted this fact and he chose devsena and he accepted the punishment.

Secondly what baahubali did by cutting the throat in courtroom can never be accepted. King is supposed to act judicious. The judicial system is system formed by experience. People imitate the crown. This spread wrong message. For example i recall movie 'gangajal' where people started imitating by saying aaj tejpur ko is gangajal se pavitra kar denge.

i would like to keep my points , As a viewer & as a gal i enjoyed alot that scene where he beheads that leecher , seeing from Amarendra's POV , when he entered the court he saw His Devasena with Handcuffs ,but he didnt react ,he composed himself, when Bhalla asked Sethupathi to explain , Amarendra easily understood that sethupathi was lying , we can understand this by Amarendra's Dlg to Bhalla " Truth wont come out so easily ", even then Amarendra didnt cross his line , but after knowing the whole scenario from Devasena he Beheaded him ,Verdict on the Spot.

Thirdly king doesn't have to see that he full fills his own swear. He is their for welfare of people. If i recall the first part baahubali was chosen as king because he looked for welfare of people by saving innocents Shields.

I Agree , King should think about the welfare of people first , but if he moves away from promise made to Devasena , Doesn't it pass a wrong msg to people of Maahishmathi by him? so he stood by the side of Dharma opposing Rajamatha.

When Sivagami delivers an ultimatum to Amarendra that he must either chose the throne or Devasena, he chooses Devasena. Then he has to give throne. Which is judicious decision taken by Sivagami for welfare of people because their king become selfish so it cannot be said views overpower thinking of sivgamini. So it can't be said that baahubali stood by what is right.

My point is that baahubali and devsena did not choose what is right or wrong they chose thier own happiness when they are person who are looked upon. They are supposed to act like one.

Bhallaladev got everything. That is not true. King is king only when he has people to rule and follow him. He was dictator. Bhallaladev never became king in true since he said sab kuch hoke bhi kuch nahi. His rule was dark age.

So True 😆😆😆 somewhere i felt pity for him

Sivgamini decision to kill baahubali was for welfare of people. First my view was that she should have investigated matter before taking decision. But bhallaladev was king and when king himself is witness their is not much to investigate. So her decision was again for kingdom can't be said she acted or misused her power. She was right. Thing is that as katapa said that Sivagami you missed to see conspiracy.
My favourite scene was when katapaa killed baahubali. When he throw that sword back to baahubali and the way he dies like king. That scene shows character of both katapa and baahubali. Katapa did let his king died like king though he was the one who killed him.

The plot of baahubali is full of angles deep it gives lot to think and learn. Whichever angle tou think you are right it gives you scope to go deeper and deeper very rare to find such movie.