Prabhas as Ram? lol - Page 2

Originally posted by: Anjalika01

Huh?

If Ram was 39 when he killed Ravan then he would have been 25 when he married Seeta (14 years prior).

That didn't really sound right to me either. I haven't actually read Ramayana and don't know the facts--only know whatever I know from TV shows.. and the swayamvar scenes never had Ram and Sita looking like teenagers... ever.

Originally posted by: Mo0nLighting

That didn't really sound right to me either. I haven't actually read Ramayana and don't know the facts--only know whatever I know from TV shows.. and the swayamvar scenes never had Ram and Sita looking like teenagers... ever.

Yes they were both adults, child marriage was literally not a thing at all in India back then...

I also haven't read Ramayan but according to family member who have, Ram was 25 and Seeta was 18 at the time of their marriage, and that makes perfect sense as he was said to be39 when he killed Ravan 14 years later.

So yeah, both were definitely adults, as shown in all TV shows and movies...

Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda, Chapter20, Verse 2:

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga20/bala_20_prose.htm

(Dasaratha to Visvamitra)

'uuna sodasha me raamo raajiiva lochanah |

na yuddha yogyataam asya pashyaami saha raaxasaih ||' 1-20-2

'less than sixteen years of age is my lotus-eyed Rama, and I see no warring aptitude to him with the demons.'

Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Chapter 33, Verse 17:

(Sita to Hanuman)

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/sundara/sarga33/sundara_33_prose.htm

"samaa dvaadasha tatra aham raaghavasya niveshane || 5-33-17

bhunjaanaa maanushaan bhogaan sarva kaama samriddhinii |"

"I stayed in Rama's house there for twelve years, enjoying the worldly pleasures belonging to human kind and fulfilling all my desires."

Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Chapter 47, Verse 10:

(Sita-Ravana debate)

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga47/aranya_47_prose.htm

'mama bhartaa mahaatejaa vayasaa panca vimshakah || 3-47-10b

astaa dasha hi varhsaani mama janmani ganyate |'

"My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth.

________________________

If Ram/Sita were 25/18 at the time of their exile, and she'd stayed in Ayodhya for 12 years, Sita was 6 and Ram was 13 at the time of the swayamvara.

Yes, child marriage was a thing those days.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm

88. To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age). Proper age means puberty

89. (But) the maiden, though marriageable, should rather stop in (the father's) house until death, than that he should ever give her to a man destitute of good qualities.

90. Three years let a damsel wait, though she be marriageable; but after that time let her choose for herself a bridegroom (of) equal (caste and rank). 3 years after puberty, if daddy hasn't found a groom, she could choose for herself.

91. If, being not given in marriage, she herself seeks a husband, she incurs no guilt, nor (does) he whom she weds.

92. A maiden who choses for herself, shall not take with her any ornaments, given by her father or her mother, or her brothers; if she carries them away, it will be theft.

93. But he who takes (to wife) a marriageable damsel, shall not pay any nuptial fee to her father; for the (latter) will lose his dominion over her in consequence of his preventing (the legitimate result of the appearance of) her enemies.

94. A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

If Ram/Sita were 25/18 at the time of their exile, and she'd stayed in Ayodhya for 12 years, Sita was 6 and Ram was 13 at the time of the swayamvara.

Yes, child marriage was a thing those days.

Sita was a 6 year old child when all the kings and princes got together in the court to showcase their strength and win her? I'm not well-versed in religious texts but this sounds really odd .... perhaps there are different versions of Ramayan? Or perhaps those numbers are symbolic and not meant to signify age as we measure it today? I don't know... that number makes very little sense to me and I'm just guessing that there might be a catch to it.

Whatever the case, it's obviously not plausible to have a 6 year old playing Sita here or a 15 year old playing Ram.😆

Ppl wrote him off before baahubali too saying what too old, his face is too puffy, his dialogue delivery is weak etc

But he pulled it off

he seems to pull it off somehow or the other despite ppl having their doubts

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda, Chapter20, Verse 2:

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga20/bala_20_prose.htm

(Dasaratha to Visvamitra)

'uuna sodasha me raamo raajiiva lochanah |

na yuddha yogyataam asya pashyaami saha raaxasaih ||' 1-20-2

'less than sixteen years of age is my lotus-eyed Rama, and I see no warring aptitude to him with the demons.'

Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Chapter 33, Verse 17:

(Sita to Hanuman)

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/sundara/sarga33/sundara_33_prose.htm

"samaa dvaadasha tatra aham raaghavasya niveshane || 5-33-17

bhunjaanaa maanushaan bhogaan sarva kaama samriddhinii |"

"I stayed in Rama's house there for twelve years, enjoying the worldly pleasures belonging to human kind and fulfilling all my desires."

Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Chapter 47, Verse 10:

(Sita-Ravana debate)

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga47/aranya_47_prose.htm

'mama bhartaa mahaatejaa vayasaa panca vimshakah || 3-47-10b

astaa dasha hi varhsaani mama janmani ganyate |'

"My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth.

________________________

If Ram/Sita were 25/18 at the time of their exile, and she'd stayed in Ayodhya for 12 years, Sita was 6 and Ram was 13 at the time of the swayamvara.

Yes, child marriage was a thing those days.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm

88. To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age). Proper age means puberty

89. (But) the maiden, though marriageable, should rather stop in (the father's) house until death, than that he should ever give her to a man destitute of good qualities.

90. Three years let a damsel wait, though she be marriageable; but after that time let her choose for herself a bridegroom (of) equal (caste and rank). 3 years after puberty, if daddy hasn't found a groom, she could choose for herself.

91. If, being not given in marriage, she herself seeks a husband, she incurs no guilt, nor (does) he whom she weds.

92. A maiden who choses for herself, shall not take with her any ornaments, given by her father or her mother, or her brothers; if she carries them away, it will be theft.

93. But he who takes (to wife) a marriageable damsel, shall not pay any nuptial fee to her father; for the (latter) will lose his dominion over her in consequence of his preventing (the legitimate result of the appearance of) her enemies.

94. A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

Wow....

Just one question

If they stayed in palace for 12 years, they would have been parents before exile....How can they not have kids in 12 years?....from what I know, the duty of crown Prince is to produce an heir and a spare.....It doesn't make sense

Originally posted by: Mo0nLighting

Sita was a 6 year old child when all the kings and princes got together in the court to showcase their strength and win her? I'm not well-versed in religious texts but this sounds really odd .... perhaps there are different versions of Ramayan? Or perhaps those numbers are symbolic and not meant to signify age as we measure it today? I don't know... that number makes very little sense to me and I'm just guessing that there might be a catch to it.

Whatever the case, it's obviously not plausible to have a 6 year old playing Sita here or a 15 year old playing Ram.😆

Royal marriages were mostly political. Showing off strength was mostly for Janaka.

Calculation of years could well be different. Even then, Manusmriti says girls were married off before puberty or within 3 years after. At the oldest, Sita would've been 16-17ish. So anywhere from 6 to 17.

I don't remember there being an extensive physical description of Sita at swayamavara as there was for Panchali, who was described as a fully grown woman extraordinarily accomplished. If there was, peeps, please post.

Originally posted by: FruitToasty

Wow....

Just one question

If they stayed in palace for 12 years, they would have been parents before exile....How can they not have kids in 12 years?....from what I know, the duty of crown Prince is to produce an heir and a spare.....It doesn't make sense

This is one of the reasons I believe they were children when they were married. Then, consummation would also be done according to stars after puberty was achieved. Plus, herbs for contraception were available even those days.

Ram had 3 brothers. No hurry for an heir, I suppose.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

This is one of the reasons I believe they were children when they were married. Then, consummation would also be done according to stars after puberty was achieved. Plus, herbs for contraception were available even those days.

Ram had 3 brothers. No hurry for an heir, I suppose.

They wouldn't wait 12 years for a child, it doesn't make sense for them to be married for 12 years before exile and not have kids....I mean people pressurize couple to have kids within 5 years now....Ram was crown Prince...he had to provide an Heir.....Wasn't Ram in school or something?...If I am not wrong...he had completed his school and was training with a Guru that's how he won her Swayamwar....He was old enough to complete his primary training and win a Swayamwar....that "12 years" thing doesn't make sense

Sita was not a child when married.

Ancient times norms especially for privileged or royal families were that Boys should have completed their education and girls should have attained puberty and some years after that, to ensure she is healthy to bear children.

That means that Sita was atleast 13 - 16 and Rama 17-24 at the time of marriage.

However if a 40 year old Amir Khan can be a 20 year engineering student, then I don't see why Prabhas age makes a difference.

Historic accuracy is the last thing expected in a Bollywood movie.

In any case the posters show a pre-historic look for Rama. Not the polished chocolate boys we are used to watching in TVSerials.

I would wait for the final product before making a judgement

And the fact that Rajamouli always looks for his charachter to shine not the star.

Hrithik will look Hrithik on screen not Ram.

And he is looking at all India market, that includes south too. Hritihik will not get him a penny there But Prabhas raked in numbers in the north. Coupled with the director who will get him Maharashtra box office openings due to his last success with Tanhaji.

.the director and Prabhas will get him the mega opening across country that Hrithik cannot.

After the opening it's up-to Rajamouli to make it a block buster.

Ranveer would be really bad choice for Ram.. He cannot pull it off.