Mahabharat Episode Discussion Thread #12

First Previous

Page

116

Next Last

Frequent Posters

guenhwyvar

@guenhwyvar

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#181

Originally posted by: Arijit007
i also hope that next part will be better, but hay how is your reaction towerds acting of shaheer.

I think he acted nicely per the script (him and SRJ) ... but I agree with thearcher. There was something lacking ... just don't know what ... though to be honest, I didn't like how the script made him change emotions every 2 minutes.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#182

Originally posted by: -Shani-
If Pandavas losing their children was punishment for their mistakes, didn't Draupadi & Subhadra suffer as well for no fault of theirs?
UpaPs dying could be passed off as the Pandavas being punished for their sins, but didn't Draupadi suffer the loss of her children too as a mother?

It's not like Abhimanyu was only Arjuna's son, he was Subhadra's son too. What mistake had Subhadra committed to suffer this loss?

Why should children be killed for the mistakes committed by their fathers? What crime had the children committed?

I find this kind of "justice" to be completely perplexing...

Not just that, after the war, Arjun still had a surviving son - Babruvahana.

That was not true about Draupadi, Hidimbi, Subhadra.

I don't know whether the sons that the Pandavas had from Devika, Valandhara, Karenamati & Jarasandha's daughter survived or not: if they did, YBNS too were lucky; if not, they too had the rough end of the stick.

For Arjun & Subhadra, the lineage continued via Uttara & Parikshit, but unless the other Pandava sons (not of Draupadi or Hidimbi or Uloopi) survivied, truth is that everybody else's lineage was wiped out.

At one point, one has to draw a line & concede that it wasn't dharam that triumphed, but rather real warfare, which tends to consume the good & the evil, and only discriminates in favor of the powerful

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#183

Originally posted by: -Shani-
If Pandavas losing their children was punishment for their mistakes, didn't Draupadi & Subhadra suffer as well for no fault of theirs?

UpaPs dying could be passed off as the Pandavas being punished for their sins, but didn't Draupadi suffer the loss of her children too as a mother?

It's not like Abhimanyu was only Arjuna's son, he was Subhadra's son too. What mistake had Subhadra committed to suffer this loss?

Why should children be killed for the mistakes committed by their fathers? What crime had the children committed?

I find this kind of "justice" to be completely perplexing...

By that logic lakhs and lakhs of moms lost their children in this war, for absolutely no fault of theirs.

Quote

Justitia

@Justitia

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#184

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

At one point, one has to draw a line & concede that it wasn't dharam that triumphed, but rather real warfare, which tends to consume the good & the evil, and only discriminates in favor of the powerful

Now that you mention it, I completely agree to this...

I don't think dharma really triumphed in the Kurukshetra War as much as Krishna wants us to believe...

If Kurukshetra was truly a dharma yudh, then any and all adharma should've been destroyed - no matter where it was present. How is it that adharma on only one side got destroyed completely?

From now onwards, ⭐️Krishna has no right to tom-tom about the Pandavas using "chhal" to win the Kurukshetra War under the pretext of "adharma ka jawaab adharma se"...

Wouldn't it basically mean that the Pandavas are committing adharma twice over - first with regards to Draupadi, and then cheating so as to win the war?

So, what was the REAL reason behind Krishna wanting a Pandava victory (so badly) in the war?

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#185

Originally posted by: shyam09

I think he acted nicely per the script (him and SRJ) ... but I agree with thearcher. There was something lacking ... just don't know what ... though to be honest, I didn't like how the script made him change emotions every 2 minutes.

I didnt find it comic as someone else said, felt a let down, though

None of Arjun's relationships, except with the other Pandavs, have been well developed ⭐️Bhishm seems more connected to ⭐️Yudhi. There was a sweetness in Bhishm-Arjun interactions even in the epic which was missing here. With ⭐️Drona too, I didnt see the need for all this angst. Arjun has to compare these 2 to all that his family (including wife) suffered and still has to place these 2 ahead. There should have been some build up. As it is, now I am thinking, why are you so upset?

Then the big one with Madhav. Really Krishna looks more like a commander calling a soldier to arms here. They are both doing their parts well, but it is not meshing. In comparison, though Krishna Leela was badly done, I was emotionally exhausted watching the duo.

From a scripting point of view and a technical point of view, I thought it was well done. I liked the idea of an angry and impatient Krishna vocalizing Arjun's thoughts while he is bringing the same out in his expressions. I liked him pointing out that it was about what is dharma and how dharma was being used to subjugate rather than build. I liked him pointing out that his side is plenty grey as well. On a lighter note, did Krishna really use Napunsakta and Moorkhta to talk to Arjun? I do recall that there was embarrassing involved in the initial part of Gita, dont know if these words were actually used

One big positive for me, the classic Gita picture at the end. I know lots of people here did not like it, but it gave me chills

May be they will paint a better picture over the next 3 or 4 days including on why Pandav side should win especially when they also committed adharm. ⭐️Bharat has been good at that sort of connect the dots

Edited by thearcher - 11 years ago

Quote

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#186

Originally posted by: -Shani-

Bold - So, why wait till this long for the war to take place?

All THAT adharma which had occurred against the Pandavas before, could've been accounted for back then itself...

I mean, lakshagrah happened when Yudi was still yuvraj. Why couldn't this dharma v/s adharma battle have taken place back then itself?

If Krishna's "presence" is all that is required in the Pandava camp for them to be victorious, then I'm sure Krishna could've definitely lent a hand to his cousins back then...

Lord waits for the paap ka ghada to fill. Don't we see even to day most sinners live a life of luxury

But than these are matters of faith and can't be proven so it's up to people to draw there own conclusion

If someone wants to call it triumph of the powerful then so be it

I won't indulge on any further discussion on it

Edited by Nandiniraizaada - 11 years ago

Quote

Justitia

@Justitia

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#187

Originally posted by: shyam09
Welcome to the family StarGita.

Now some serious questions:
1. What is the ground made up of?
It looks like sand from every angle. When Arjun drops his bow when he is surrendering to Madhav, some grains of sand fly up into the air. But when the camera has a top shot looking down on Arjun, the ground is wetter and more dirty than sandy.
Bad CGI, basically...

2. I think I understand why Krishna is on the Pandavas side -- they are the ones with the new dharma which overpowers the fact that they have dharma and adharma on their side (or they hold it or something). So exactly what does StarKrishna gain by raking up the "older" adharma of the Pandavas?

Also, if StarKrishna rakes up the "older" adharma of Arjun (which I presume is the same as the remaining Pandavas), then as per ⭐️B, what makes Arjun more qualified than any of his other bros for receiving the Gita gyaan?

And what about a certain individual who called Draupadi a "you-know-what'?
How does StarKrishna rake up the older adharma of the Pandavas but leaves out someone else who ALSO insulted Panchali?

3. Why is StarKrishna so mean?
I get in the Gita that Krishna initially mocks Arjun because of his sudden change in attitude, but was he pissed off as the CVs portray him to be. It's like he woke up on the wrong side of the bed and until the light shines on him, he is pretty mean. Krishna mocking Arjun is one thing, but calling him names, it's simply ridiculous...I'm just surprised StarKrishna didn't call Arjun as "you so-and-so..." (insert expletive)

Ummm...wasn't Arjun supposed to be "Anagha"?

Worst part was StarKrishna "deliberately" confusing Arjun...I'm pretty sure Arjun can get confused on his own without StarKrishna attempting to do it for him...