| Baahubali | Official Updates & Discussion Thread #24 | - Page 107

Originally posted by: -ISakuraS-

DId they have that paragraph in Telugu (the whole bit - pothum Kanna nee seiyum thiruttu)?

I completely understand!😆

Originally posted by: MeenuCrazyPanda

RK means RAmya Krishna garu

SR means Satyaraj garu😃

and yeah.. when all the above mentioned people are in the set, you can hear SSR shouting SILENCE IN THE SET PLEASE very often😆

Originally posted by: ArYa.Kmkv

Prabhas's voice modulation in BB2 was exceptional! So masculine, so deep, he was perfect!

I loved it the most in the bridge scene, then when he cuts the Senatipathi's head, his final minutes as Amarendra, it was really melancholic.

His voice and his tone was different as Mahindra. I loved it as well!

Originally posted by: ArYa.Kmkv

Neither can I accept it. And Devasena who was punished for 25 years. What wrong did she do to deserve such a severe chastisement? 😭

Originally posted by: ArYa.Kmkv

Nope
Some expressions of Amarendra were cut in the Tamil version, thats all 😳

But that paragraph, I remember having seen it in the theater here (Tamil version, foreign country - Maybe that's the reason 😕 ).

Originally posted by: -ISakuraS-

@bold - I know that's like the whole point of the story.. I mean Amarendra dying n Mahendra born @ same time or how Mahendra carries forward legacy of Baahubali but I don't know.. I can't get myself to consider Mahendra = rebirth of Amarendra..

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

I agree about Sivagami and Katappa. They are such characters that despite what they did, we can't hate them completely because they did genuinely love Bahu throughout his life. Sivagami lost her senses for the last year of Bahu's life, and Katappa though he didn't lose his senses, he killed the one person who loved him the most in Mahishmati, all in the name of 'dharma' which really wasn't dharma at all.

In the Mahabharata, Lord Krishna explains to Bhishma that there is no one definition for dharma. It changes with every situation, and thus it is wrong to make a vow that binds one's hands. In fact, keeping one's vow in cases where an innocent person is being persecuted, such as Draupadi's humiliation in the dyut sabha, or Bhishma kidnapping the three Kasi princesses on the command of his mother, is wrong, and thus Bhishma was killed in the manner he was.

Likewise, Katappa may have been bound in a vow of servitude to the throne of Mahishmati, but he should have broken his vow rather than killing Bahubali simply because it was a "royal order". I really loved the bond between him and Bahu throughout the second movie, but that one act of his made me really disappointed in and angry at his character.

Still, I cannot hate him or Sivagami, because while they had bad qualities, they also had an incredible amount of love to give. Sadly, they lost sight of themselves in the end, though I suppose they both redeemed themselves somewhat, Sivagami by saving Mahendra at the cost of her own life, and Katappa by helping Mahendra kill Bhalla.

Originally posted by: -ISakuraS-

Okay..

can't wait to see that😳

u know what ? I thought I saw that paragraph too - FDFS out of India as well! but I couldn't recall properly pa.. so I thought maybe I was just confused..

Originally posted by: natashu

man that's so cool!!

Originally posted by: ArYa.Kmkv

I agree Janaki.
Except for the "dharma" part. Kattapa was ready to die in lieu and place of Baahubali.
But Sivagami had firmly told him that if he couldnt finish off Baahu, she would with her own hands. That is why Kattapa agreed to kill Baahubali. Because he didn't want her to make that sin. So its the love/respect he had for Sivagami and Baahubali that made him take this decision.
If only he could tell Amarendra about this instead of killing him... 😭