Originally posted by: shruti.nil
it depends on how you look at it actually
who's argument you belive in
if you think Mahadev's argument was right,then it was right
but if you think Parvatis argument right you will find her right
they actually had both the sides of the argument as to why Vinayak should have/should not have been beheaded
some people think Mahadev was valid,while some people think Parvaits argument was valid
Both of them had good arguments, but in the real story, Mahadev was a lot more intransigent than what was shown here. Vinayak never had any idea that he was dealing w/ his father, since his mom never told him who his father is. Mahadev did find out that he was dealing w/ his son, but made it an ego war w/ Parvati.
However, showing Vinayak as itching for a fight and then being the first to hurl is club was downright defamation. The two of them did confront, and neither tried to reason w/ the other. Here, they showed everybody trying to reason w/ him, whereas in the real story, while he did do that to Brahma, truth is that the ganas tried to forcibly remove him from his position.
Another thing - when Vinayak was beheaded (the Shiva Purana account is that he was beheaded from behind by Shiva while he was busy battling Vishnu - this one is also there in the ACK) - the devas & ganas burst into celebrations & dancing. That made Parvati mad, and she asked Durga & Mahakali to wreck vengeance on them. Here, they showed everybody shocked @ Vinayak's beheading, which was total bunk!
I actually agree w/ Mahadev's POV. Granted that Parvati wanted her privacy, but remember - she wanted to bathe alone w/ her attendants - Jaya, Vijaya & so on. So it's understandable that her husband would feel hurt @ being so shafted. But she never tried to explain to Mahadev why she needed her privacy - she just wanted someone who'd obey her even if it meant disobeying Mahadev - and got this result.