thanks a lot for the updates aunty
not watching it as of now but reading all your updates
hopefully in a few weeks when things get settled i will venture to view it
I did not like chandras father being shown as a drunkard who is after money etc
any man who can shelter an orphaned baby chandra would have to been a selfless guy and such a man hitting his wife or his adopted son for a few pennies looks a bit tough to digest
as per history he was a peackock herdsman - so he must have been a villager rearing peacocks etc and other birds for livelihood and they lived outside pataliputra in a forest area - obviously they were low castes who could not venture into city and lived away from society.
Such a man just adopting a baby lying in his village abandoned and rearing him must be a good man if not great, but here they show him selfish and drunkard and wife beater
Second thing i did not like was nandini behaving so innocent, even today's times kids who are 5-6 understand what is reality and who is acting or lying and in 300 BC etc girls were married off before 10 years old, 10-13 was ideal age of marriage in those times(because life span was short only 25-30 years), so girls were quiet mature than compared to 21st century. May be this was done to say that nandini hated chandra because she did not realize truth of her father and brothers later on and absolve her of any guilt or wrong in serial.
But i was wondering padmanand and his 7 sons are bad fine but chandra killed them all to become an emperor to establish an empire truly not really with an intention to relive magadha of terror(for that matter his own grandson ashoka and sushim were terror personified for magdha inmates in later years). So just creating a just empire was not chandras only objective else he would not conquer other kingdoms after nandas? Were all indian kings bad then? Not really a few were very bad, some ok, some good at all times. So chandra set out to create a powerful maurya empire(like akbar set out to create a powerful mughal empire) using sam dhand and bedh. So on nandini's part its ok as daughter of nanda to hate her family killer. But if she keeps hating how to make her hatred go away, so story writer uses bait of mura in jail by nandas and tortured for many years. In real history mura was never found after she abondoned chandra as baby. So how could nanda torture her?
The other thing i found odd was a nanda begging mura to be his? - come on man that is 300 BC just own her, she will cry and crib does she have any option after that none? Did not kings just take away any woman they liked and keep in their harem without their approval? (even in 16th -17th century) YES
so why is nanda begging to mura for years- because he loves her? a joke in those times love was not as it was in todays times that you will live and die for one woman and wait for her for ages neither was nanda shown as such a good man to believe his pleadings to her.
Edited by myviewprem - 9 years ago
