All hails to the Baahubali galore!!!!! - Page 2

Originally posted by: Luna99NB

This could've been a good show... But it turned out to be a utter crap.

To be honest, I never liked Bahubali series and now I think it has been the worst thing that could happen to Indian TV.

Lol, last day I was watching a mythological series...and Lord Shiva's entry was not with a shiva stottra as I expected... But for some f*cking reason they played that Bahubali shiva theme instead which made me and my family go ROFLMAO as the same BGM had been used earlier for Rocky's Hip Hop tandav in Naagin 2

Also Paurava Rashtra seemed to resemble a Chola Kingdom more than anything in the intro sequences.

Oh, nowadays it seems like Famous princes lived as common men in forest and villages instead of the Royal Palaces unlike the real history.

Still I'm liking this show since it has good actors and ROFLMAO drama

Originally posted by: Shaina_b

Which mythological series was that??

Originally posted by: SweetRogue

The 'lost' prince who grows up as a common man is a very overused concept. I don't understand why they have to use it in almost every historical. Can't a man born and brought up in a palace grow up to be a great king?

Originally posted by: arshi_asya

A little bit clearance to all those who think I am comparing the entire Paurava storyline to Baahubali.

I am only comparing some scenes in the weekend precap as below-

1. Anusuya escaping from Shivdutt- Shivagamini escaping from Bhalladev's army- Anusuya here is pregnant & Shivagamini was injured.

2. Anusuya giving birth in the well & lifting the child with her hands above water- Again shivagamini raising Baahubali Jr. to save him from drowning.

3. The waterfall scene where Anusuya looses her child- Same as Mahishmati waterfall scene.

4. No father to protect the wife & the child- Same as baahubali.

Is it only me who saw all these scenes quite similar to Baahubali.

True that a lost prince is not a new storyline but it is only after Baahubali that the princes are lost from the waterfall in such manner.

In Mahabharat, Karna was left in the river & that too in a basket not from a waterfall.

Porus's birth could be shown in many ways. Besides, there is no where written that Porus was lost immediately after his birth & grew up amongst tribal people.

While Baahubali was inspired from some real stories twisted with Cinematic liberty & effects, Porus isn't a fictional person.

I have already said that no offence but taking too much creative liberty isn't good either that too in a show based on real history. No birth history or story of Porus is known but that does not mean that his birth should be shown in such cliched manner. For that particular scene, I compared characters with that of Baahubali.

Some more facts-

1. Which north Indian river has the waterfall or even had the waterfall in the first place. I have found no historical records of that.

2. Indo-Persian Trade from the North-west frontier used to take place through land. Chenab is tributary of Indus river emerging from Himalayas & draining at Arabian Sea. There is no common river route from Persia to India. All the rulers then came through land route. Even Alexander discovered Indian land through Horses. Only to invade the kingdom in rainy season, he used the river boats.

3. Ships are used in sea not in rivers. And Paurava Rajya didn't have any sea port.

Historians have seen the show & they have dismissed a lot of things from it. Most of us don't watch historical shows for entertainment. We watch it for minute historical accuracy & facts.

PS- I am really into history & it immensely pains me to see TV makers playing with iconic history characters so pathetically. A little bit of research in history wouldn't do much damage. At least the fundamentals should be adhered to.

Originally posted by: -RisingPhoenix-

^Hello Luna!😛