Originally posted by: bikerider
Sorry for quoting you,
But who expects authenticity from a commercial movie
also the movie had such a big disclaimer that it actually shows the pathetic situation where people do not take movie as "just a movie" , if it depicts history then its documentary and not movie
On subject of history, we do expect movie to be correct on facts. You cannot have it both ways...show historical characters and then say well its a commercial movie so we can spin things. Hippo won't allow that.
Originally posted by: blue-ice.
Excuse me...but if the misogyny and Jauhar shown in Padmavat are being defended because its based on history and SLB showed it how it was at that time then why can't people expect atleast a somewhat close depiction of what Khiilji was?
Exactly my point. meetha meetha hup hup..karwa karwa thu thu.
Originally posted by: bikerider
Because jauhar and misogyny are not just attached to Padmavathi it was practiced commonly those days and its a common knowledge. And anaywas about depiction of what Khiilji was ...
How do you know which one depicts real khiilji! Wikipideia or SLB 😆 or right or left wing journalists 😆
I have made sure I quote Indian historians and that too Hindus mostly so that no one can accuse me of using Muslims to go after farce of SLB. Everyone who has a IQ of 20 or above agrees that SLB has manipulated and distorted history. lol. ok at least historians i quoted.
And we are primarily talking about looks, hiding of his great contribution, propping up the other side and all that. No one is doubting that he was a conqueror and killed people in doing that in his quest to rule the world.
Originally posted by: pallavi25
I could not control my laughter when that song/dance Khalibali started ...🤣
whatever menacing Khilji effect he had established before that was completely destroyed by that clownish dance 😆
after that song he just seemed like a joker/ fool
When one has bad intentions and filth in mind that one ends up making such mistakes. lol
People like Ranveer are pawns in this bigger game of politics through movies. i dont blame him much. It is Bhanisali that I am after and not going to spare.
Originally posted by: fivestars
Omg he look so handsome i mean the real one .but how come he looks so saintly..?? I mean no ounce of cruelty in his face ...how its possible for a person who was one of the most brutal humans to have been ever born on earth look so saintly ? Gosh !
May be SLB wanted to show khilji as a cruel person cos of his misdeeds..hence showed ranveer in that avtar ..though he fits well but in some parts he lost the grip ,which is negligible !
This is a question that is bothering humans for ages. I am more worried about leaders/individuals who order killings in this age and time. In past there are so many who have killed others for conquering land and to become ruler. Today I cannot understand what was the need...what was the need for British to rule India? What was the need for Soviets to invade Afghanistan? Gulf wars? On individual level what is need for extremism and terrorism? We can debate that on DM. Those who have time. lol
Here on BW forum issue is Sanjay Leela Bhainsali and I am not going to spare him.
Half of your posts go over my head...if you have time then let me know who is Khal.
Originally posted by: here4reviews
Those saying if you want to watch history watch a documentary and not a commercial movie, please go and watch Neerja to see how even commercial films can be made while retaining history and not commercializing it for the larger audience. All it takes is a good WRITER and DIRECTOR and Padmaavat had neither of them.
Well said
Originally posted by: U_R_MY_BITCH
Well this fecking movie started with a freaking disclaimer that the movie is a fecking FICTIONAL TAKE on the poem Padmavat and has nothing to do with the fecking REAL PEOPLE AND REPRESENTATION OF THEIR CULTURE.
Anyways it is Hippocrisy , that you of all people accusing SLB of having interior religious political motive, when this thread is screaming" HOW DID SLB TRIED TO SHOW MAN BORN IN ISLAM AS PURE EVIL AND HINDU RAJPUTS AS GOOD".
abay bewaqoof ahmaq insaan.
go sort yourself out first. I too can call you hypocrite..
when there is no answer left u resort to this. lol. don't waste my time with this rubbish again.
Originally posted by: here4reviews
How is the disclaimer a valid argument in this topic? The whole country knows that the makers were forced to put the disclaimer and change the name to Padmaavat on CBFC's behest. The censor board time and again said that the makers were not ready with the disclaimer and that's why they were not issuing a censor certificate.
And does one really believe that they put disclaimers in Bollywood films with good intentions? No, they just want to be safe and in the case of this film, it is the censor board who wanted to play safe hence asked for the disclaimer. The makers pretty much were passing off their film as history when it was called Padmavati.
And now even if this whole excuse of the film being a fictional account is given for the portrayal of Khilji, why isn't Jauhar being seen with the same lens? Why are people getting touchy with the criticism regarding the practice? It's a fictional movie right, it's perfectly okay to criticize the Jauhar sequence and call is misogynistic for the way it has been portrayed in the film because both Khilji and Jauhar existed in real life anyways.
Brilliant..i hope everyone had same common sense.
Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.
1 - No, I stand on the facts.
2 - The landmass which we now call India did exist, right? let's stop being obtuse, and people who inhabited that region were ethnically, culturally and linguistically different from Khilji, he certainly would never have identified with that population group.
3. You hate SLB so much that you rather defend a mass murderer and a rapist? Great priorities! 🤡
1. Your facts are worth trash as far as I am concerned. lol. I have presented my argument of SLB being a bigot based on my own research which includes Indian (Hindu and Muslim) historians.
2. As if others identified with each other ethnically, culturally and linguistically. anyway this point is irrelevant to my overall take.
3. Great spin lol. I think I have made clear what my issue is.
Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.
How exactly is SLB a bigot? He portrayed Khilji much more nicer than he actually was, and what history was distorted? the movie is based on a fictional poem written by a Muslim, people have been writing fictional stories of real life kings and queens since time immemorial, SLB made a film on one and now he's bigoted?😆
The real issue you have is you being uncomfortable with the fact that Khilji, a mass murderer and a rapist, was a Muslim, and you being a Muslim, are not comfortable with the fact that someone made a film where he looks bad, so you're trying to find ways to defend him. 😆
Main pakra gaya ...main pakra gaya. lol. Magar bollywood is making movies showing Muslims as bad since many years now..pata nahi main wahan itna shor nahi karta. lol.
You are partially correct in thinking what you are thinking. Agar yeh Kublai Khan chitor ko attack kar raha hota to main itni research nahi karta. but then again agar yeh chitor nahi baghdad hota toh tum bhi itne nahi uchaltay. so lets not get personal. question still remains..why did SLB lie...it does not matter who is asking..even many Hindus here are asking the same question.
Everyone,
In conclusion, of course there is this element that we are discussing this because this involves Hindu and Muslims and almost everyone involved belong to one or the other. So we should not resort to doubting motivation of people as it is defeated defense. Answer should be from facts and logic.
There are however people like RTH and myself who are debating this based on facts presented by historians. And based on those facts, I think reasonable people have come to the conclusion that SLB distorted and spun history where he showed an otherwise normal looking person as jungli and other side as epitome of niceness. So once we established that he did this then obviously my question arises. Why? What was his motivation? How can someone do this? What is going on his mind?
Here I present my assessment. And this part is NOT FACT.
My assessment is that he lied because he is probably did not take the defeats of Rajputs and others well and then through his movie he is trying to redeem one side under the cover of this poem by applying haar ke jeetne waale ko bazigar theory. lol. He used this to turn an otherwise typical conqueror who I agree must have killed many into a demon like jungli. There WAS NO NEED FOR THAT. This could have been a simple movie based on historical facts. If I were a Rajput (and btw Rajput cast is in Muslims also) or Hindu I would be extremely offended by this movie. I don't like fake favors. But I guess I am asking too much.
Edited by hippopotamus - 7 years ago
1