Have the CV's completely lost their marbles??

Originally posted by: Meself

I simply can't believe it! What is up with the CV's of Contiloe? why are they adamant on re-writing history as per their liking? Firstly they vilified Helen, created a brother for Bindusara, made Charumitra an eccentric voodo practitioner, brought in Noor form Lord-knows-where and now this? They are making Amatya Rakhasa a certified villain?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Amatya Rakshasha had tried to murder Chandragupta for he had murdered Dhananand. But Chanakya and his disciple Jeevsiddhi made him see the bigger picture. Rakshasa originally born as Kartikeya was staunch patriot and worked for the cause of Magadha. Of course he was enraged at the murder of his King Dhananand but eventually let the grudge go for he devoted his life to Magadha. He was the Mahamatya or the prime minister at the court of Chandragupta and also gave his services to Bindusara. He never held a personal grudge against Chanakya and respected his intellect!

So answer me Contiloe why the hell are you destroying the image of these great men? BLOODY WHY?

Looks like I'll have to wave my good bye soon if this level of distortions are up!

Originally posted by: pams309

Agree 100% with you! I feel exactly the same.

PLease CVs DONT SPOIL history by including so much false melodrama. If we want to watch melodrama, we have thousands n thousands of those saas bahu type serials in other channels.

Please stick to the REAL history...otherwise, dont attempt to produce these kind of serials.

Originally posted by: Ekstase

Your title made me laugh, maybe a wrong reaction, sorry 😆 Indeed, after yesterday's precap, it was clear that they intended to make Amatya Rakshas negative - I was wondering were the indignant protests were.

Ummm...you have me at loss of words here!😛 But nonetheless you understand what I feel...the moment Helen pulled out her card I knew even Rakshas would be butchered at the hands of creatives or rather destructives!!

In Chandragupta Maurya I got the feeling that Rakshas wasn't a bad guy, per se, rather someone devoted to Magadha and the royal family and Chanakya and Chandragupta had been a threat to both (in his eyes) so he stood opposite them. Though, he was a clever man and understood situations and turns rather well, so it's obvious that he adjusted to the new Emperor and the new royal family. And Chanakya respected him a lot- all this I also gather from your post.

Amatya Rakshas was loyal to the throne of Magadha and had deeply devoted himself for the cause of this empire. The only reason why he had wanted to murder Chandragupta was murder of Dhananand. But Chanakya himself went to meet him and made him understand that his intellect should be used for benefit of Magadha. And Rakshas agreed for he was true patriot. Both Chanakya and Chandragupta respected and valued him, So there is no scene for a personal or professional grudge!

As they have portrayed so far, Rakshas has a personal vendetta against Chanakya because of some kind of betrayal. Which, to be honest, is hard to believe considering how much Chanakya respected that man, why would he betray him? Do we know what happened to Rakshas during Bindusara's reign? How and when he died?

Chanakya was the one who asked Chandragupta to appoint Rakshas at the post of Mahamatya, which is prime minister. He was the one who made the court members at Chandragpta's court bow down before him. Rakshas too respected Chanakya and remained loyal to the cause of Magadha. He, as I have said before, was a silent beneficiary of the kingdom during Bindusara's reign!

Anyway, they shouldn't have made him evil- I would have liked it more if he's been one of those ministers who favored Ashoka over Sushim (like a strict teacher who came to like Ashoka or something). But then again, they've made basically everyone around Bindusara evil - am just waiting to see the wicked side of his fourth wife, as well I don't like this portrayal of white and black- it's only done to emphasize the greatness of the good characters, anyway. Sure, few can be either completely good or bad, but everyone? Why not make them grey? Show good sides and bad sides? Make us understand their reasons for certain actions aside from sheer selfishness? Grey characters are so much more interesting, so much more human because they are not perfect, they don't always act according to what is morally correct- who does it, anyway. But I don't expect that much from a daily show, it's probably too much to ask for. So, we just take it as it is and hope for the best. Maybe they will redeem some of the evil characters...

I am sincerely doubting everyone now! Why do they have to play with black and white? There are ample shades if grey. And history stands testimony to the fact. Asoka is one such example, Chanakya being the other one. Asoka is great with all his demonic and angelic way intact. i really can't understand how can a person be out-to-out good or out-to-out evil?

The show fits better into the historical fiction category, more precisely alternate history, I guess.

Historical fictions strictly follow 50-50 rule. 50% history and the rest fiction. This doesn't even qualify for that genre!

Originally posted by: Ekstase

Thanks for the clarification about Rakshas - so, there are no proofs whatsoever that he might have harbored any ill-feeling for Chanakya. He was loyal to Magadha and served under Chandragupta and then Bindusara.

Great minds are considered great because they let bygones be bygones. They don't hold personal grudge against any person. What Chanankya did was more for Magadha than his own personal vendetta. Similarly Rakshas too devoted himself for Magadha and not some royal dynasty as the soil was more important than the person ruling it!

Totally agree with that- there are many shades of grey, why put them into black and white drawers? It's kind of boring. And honestly, I doubt that they will show Ashoka's demonic side - they will just make his opponents the most evil guys ever to justify their murders because otherwise they couldn't fit Ashoka into this idealistic hero category. But reality is that Ashoka was far from an idealistically good human being - he had faults, he made mistakes, terrible decisions and committed blood-baths. But that's exactly what makes him so interesting for me- it's love-hate for me in that case 😛 Though, I rather like the portrayal of Ashoka by Siddhart, right now, so...

Asoka is far from the idealistic version of hero that Contiloe so love. I mean what "idealistic" man would kill his brothers, cheat on his lady-love, engage in a blood bath and burn alive his second wife?? Tell me with all this does Asoka really fit the bill for an idealistic hero? Siddharth is probably the only thing that keeps me going on this series!

Hm, then just put the show into alternate history? It's really as if the cvs have written a fanfiction and made that into their show 😆 I enjoy fanfictions, I write them myself (changing the course of things is very interesting) - but they shouldn't have labelled it a 'history show', to begin with, that was rather misleading 😒

I so want a strict law-suit filed against Contiloe for the same! Can't people see that they are destroying our history!!