Totally disappointed

CONTEST : IPL 2026 Prediction Game

Page

Next Last

Alyx

@mystic786

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

I had watched the first epi of CAS when it had aired and I'd thought that it was a very promising start to the show but ever since then the CVs have started to ruin the show with one historical distortion after another..

I saw a few epis on Youtube and heard Bindusara claiming that Dharma was his one true love and that she was his favourite 😲😲 now I think that everyone is aware of the fact that Dharma was neglected by Bindusara and was a low ranking wife of his. In fact, Susima's mother was most probably Bindusara's favourite wife because he supported him as his successor no matter what even though Ashoka was clearly the better general / warrior and favoured Susima above the rest of his sons. I also read somewhere that Bindusara in fact disliked Ashoka. But here he seems to be singing praises of Ashoka all the time.

Bindusara's neglect of Dharma is an important fact of Ashoka's life which should not have been altered.

Another thing which I hate is how they've introduced Karuvaki already 😲😲 She never met Ashoka as a teenager and in last night's epi she even claimed to be the Rajkumari of Kalinga 🤪 the CVs have literally lost it... one of the major distortions in the film Ashoka was regarding Karuvaki's status as a princess... there was much anger and debate about it among the historians and the CVs are repeating the same mistake again?? 😕😕 At this stage, if they really wanted to show a love interest then introducing Asandhimitra would've been a better option..

There are many other distortions which I'm not happy about but these two are the major ones.. I'm more disappointed because Contiloe used to really stick to history in their historical dramas for eg Veer Shivaji.. but now it seems like they're only making shows for the sake of TRPs like another production house that we know of...

I read in an article that Ashok Banker had to fill in time gaps with fictional plots in the show because there is not much info available regarding Ashoka's childhood/teenage years so I hope that after the leap there is as less distortion of history as possible because there is a lot more info available on Ashoka's life as an adult. The show has immense potential with its amazing visuals, costumes, sets, actors etc. so it can reach great heights if it sticks more closely to history after the leap.

Sorry for the long post 😆😆 I'm just a big fan of Ashoka and I hope that they don't waste such a great show with mindless distortions..

PS Sid is amazing as Ashoka!!!! ⭐️ I wish he could play the adult Ashoka as well!!!

Edited by mystic786 - 10 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Mandy

@MrDarcyfan

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

I agree on the Dharma and Kaurvaki parts. She was not a Rajkumari but apparently a commoner. In fact they say Asadhimitra was his wife for 30 years in Patli Putra and she was the only one who was high ranking. This whole Kaurvaki thing was even in the movie and it was incorrect. But in the movie they said Kaurvaki was adopted. So in fact she was not born a Princess. I guess that is how they covered up their gross error there. Dont know what they will do here.

I guess showing Dharma living away from Bindusara for 14 years was their way of showing neglect and the angst of Ashoka against his Father. However, according to history, Ashoka was born in the palace, but Dharma and Bindusara did spend some time apart or some such thing. But Ashoka was born a Prince and stayed a Prince. Not the way they have shown it on the show. It's highly distorted and dramatized.

The greatest aspect of the show is the acting and the sets. The actors are fab, especially Sid! He keeps everyone glued. The directing is good too. Overall the production values are high. The weakest aspect of the show is historical inaccuracy and also the unnecessary dragging of certain plots. At the moment I like the pace. But at one point hardly any movement of the plot was happening. I am happy they are not giving too much footage to the Chanakya killers these days and concentrating more on Ashok and his story in Taxshashila!

Edited by MrDarcyfan - 10 years ago

Quote

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

Alyx

@mystic786

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

Karuvaki was not a princess this fact has been confirmed by historians. She was the daughter of a fisherman. Yeah, the movie made a mistake and covered it up but why do Contiloe have to repeat the same mistake again? It's not like ppl will hate Karuvaki if they get to know that she's a fisherman's daughter. You can't change history. What's the point of it? 😕

Ashoka's only wife who was a princess was Asandhimitra, who was his agramahisi or chief consort for the majority of his reign i.e. 30 years from the time of his succession until her death.. So yeah she was Ashoka's highest ranking wife and lived with him in Pataliputra throughout her life..

According to me, there was no point in showing Dharma living away from Bindusara for 14 years. It was a palace intrigue which kept her away from Bindusara (as a figure of speech) and they were unable to have children together earlier due to this. This ended and then she had Ashoka with him but the CVs showed that Dharma had become pregnant when Bindusara left her. 😕 The main point is is that Dharma was not his favourite and was a low ranking wife.. it would've been better if they'd stuck to history. They're showing Bindusara and Dharma as if they're Romeo and Juliet 😆😆 Yeah, Ashoka was born and raised in the palace as a prince.. don't know what the CVs were thinking showing him living in a vann all his life.. 70s ki bollywood movie bana diya show ko 😕

@bold I couldn't agree more! 👍🏼 Yeah, the show has immense potential with it's amazing sets, visuals, actors, costumes etc. if they would just stop with the historical inaccuracies 😡 then it'll definitely reach great heights.

Originally posted by: MrDarcyfan
I agree on the Dharma and Kaurvaki parts. She was not a Rajkumari but apparently a commoner. In fact they say Asadhimitra was his wife for 30 years in Patli Putra and she was the only one who was high ranking. This whole Kaurvaki thing was even in the movie and it was incorrect. But in the movie they said Kaurvaki was adopted. So in fact she was not born a Princess. I guess that is how they covered up their gross error there. Dont know what they will do here.
I guess showing Dharma living away from Bindusara for 14 years was their way of showing neglect and the angst of Ashoka against his Father. However, according to history, Ashoka was born in the palace, but Dharma and Bindusara did spend some time apart or some such thing. But Ashoka was born a Prince and stayed a Prince. Not the way they have shown it on the show. It's highly distorted and dramatized.

The greatest aspect of the show is the acting and the sets. The actors are fab, especially Sid! He keeps everyone glued. The directing is good too. Overall the production values are high. The weakest aspect of the show is historical inaccuracy and also the unnecessary dragging of certain plots. At the moment I like the pace. But at one point hardly any movement of the plot was happening. I am happy they are not giving too much footage to the Chanakya killers these days and concentrating more on Ashok and his story in Taxshashila!

Edited by mystic786 - 10 years ago

Quote

keerthi1234

@keerthi1234

Explorer

Posted: 10 years ago

good post👏. seriously, intelligent and history related posts are rare. good u have come up with this.
exactly my thoughts. dey simply wasted a year wid a false family drama of dharma-bindusar-ashok. there are many bloopers in d show. just to glorify dharma dey have ruined the characters of other queens, where it is written that the chief queen of magadh is a witch and coming to ashok he is not a saint. chanakya's death is one big blunder. royal family killed chanakya?😲 being a history lover I don't like when such shows become like more drama and less history

Quote

Mandy

@MrDarcyfan

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

@ Keerthi1234:

I agree that showing Helena, Sushim, Charumithra and Kalatak as the masterminds behind the killing of Chanakya was a gross error,and they really should have thought better of it. I suppose the final blow came from Siyamak, who by all accounts is a fictional character. Did Ashoka ever have a brother called Siyamak? I think even Justin, Noor and Mir Khorasan are fictional. But they say Khorasan is a historically accurate place. Old Persia I guess? Asia Minor? Not sure. We know they were Zorastrians. Even now the ethnic group Pharsi are Zorastrian and comes from Persia which is what Khorasan is I guess? Not very certain.

Either ways, those characters added a little spice to the story. But showing Helena as evil is again not accurate I think. She was Chandragupta Maurya's second wife and from what I understand he liked her or fell for her and that is why he married her. Same went for her as well. He was a widower, and apparently Bindu's mother was his favorite, and she died due to the famous "poison food" scenario. Did Helena and CM even have kids? I dont know. Considering he died at 42 after he gave up his throne and started to follow Janism? So Justin by all accounts is fiction and there is no way he was older than Bindusara.

I know not a lot is known of everything to do with these historic figures. But surely enough is known to make the story more historically accurate? This is not Game of Thrones, but more like the series "The Tudors" which I think is a historic account of the Tudor kings. A friend of mine was addicted to that series. I heard the show "Chandragupta Maurya" was more historically accurate. Does anyone know how Chanakya actually died? Some citations say it is by retiring to the Jungle just like Chandragupta Maurya did, and some others say he was conspired against by someone called Subandhu. (A minister). I am guessing this is Kallatak? Says he was burned alive through his conspiracy. So I guess that part is correct. But the rest of it is not.

Edited by MrDarcyfan - 10 years ago

Quote

Rishi_

@Rishi_

Inactive

Posted: 10 years ago

We forgot to include two other major distortions:

1. Chanakya's death: this is by far a massive distortion in the story. As per Jain scriptures, Chanakya fasted to death this is a special Jain ritual where one fasts until death.

Another version said Chanakya was killed by Subandhu (hope i got the name right) a person in Bindusar's court out of jealousy.

But in CAS (Crap Always Samrat) the CV's have crossed all limits of nonsense and shamelessness. Chanakya was shown to be brutally murdered by the Raj Parivar and the list of murderers includes a 10 year old child Siyamak!!!😡

Helena Charu Sushim have all become murderers of Chanakya which is totally fake and a mockery of history. But whom am I talking to? these dimwit shameless CV's are not worth boiling your blood.

2. Vilification of Helena: This is another massive distortion in the show. Helena, who was supposedly a kind and good natured queen is a hard-core criminal in this show.

Some dramatization in the show by way of Helena playing politics for throne would have been OK. But here she's a mass murderer who seems to have killed countless innocents and burnt many of them alive!!!!!😲

Killing people, poisoning them, burning them alive this woman does it all!

Seriously I don't know why did I rant so much. As if the stupid CV's are going to care at all🥱

not worth my time.

Quote

Alyx

@mystic786

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

Thanks 😊

Omg I completely forgot about the CVs turning Susima's mother and Bindusara's chief consort into a witch 😡🤢🤢 Honestly, it's just a big insult to the real empress. 🤢 I mean it's okay to show Charumitra with some negative or grey shades and as having some insecurities regarding her son's future as Bindusara's successor but to paint this kind of a picture of her is not at all acceptable. No where has it been written that Charumitra was like this. And they haven't glorified Dharma's character they've instead ruined it. All she does is cry all the time and it's really annoying. 😆 I expected more from her character.

As for the Bindusara-Dharma-Ashoka time-wasting family drama, I would've much more preferred to see Dharma struggle and make her place in the palace on her own like she really did in history and then gain Bindusara's respect.

Chanakya ki death ke baare mein toh jitna kaha jaaye utna kam hai 😡 They killed off a legendary historical figure like him so stupidly that it's almost laughable. 😡

Originally posted by: keerthi1234
good post👏. seriously, intelligent and history related posts are rare. good u have come up with this.exactly my thoughts. dey simply wasted a year wid a false family drama of dharma-bindusar-ashok. there are many bloopers in d show. just to glorify dharma dey have ruined the characters of other queens, where it is written that the chief queen of magadh is a witch and coming to ashok he is not a saint. chanakya's death is one big blunder. royal family killed chanakya?😲 being a history lover I don't like when such shows become like more drama and less history

Edited by mystic786 - 10 years ago

Quote

Alyx

@mystic786

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

@Siyamak Omg I honestly don't know how I control my laughter when I see a little kid like Siyamak plotting and planning against any one 🤣 that little child actor bechaara usse toh kuch samajh bhi nahi aata hoga ke ye sab kya ho raha hai 😆😆

As for Ashoka's brothers, the CVs can take some liberty in this category because it is a know fact that Ashoka had many half-siblings from Bindusara's other wives though his real brother was only Vittasoka, who was also Dharma's son. Of course then, Chandragupta also had other wives apart from Durdhara so it's not like Bindusara was his sole child. He may have had other children as well so the CVs can show a character like Justin, though of course there is no way that Justin was older than Bindusara. 😕

However, I also think that Bindusara did not have any solid competition for the throne from any other son of Chandragupta, if he did have, then it would've definitely been mentioned in history.

I don't know about Mir Khorasan being a real historical figure or not. But Khorasan was definitely an ancient place in what is now Iran.

I think the case with Helena is somewhat like that of Charumitra. The CVs have gone waaay overboard in showing them as negative characters. There should've just been grey shades to their characters. I don't know about CM marrying Helena out of love cause I read somewhere that Seleucus I and him signed some treaties or something and that their marriage was a political one..

@bold I have also read the same things regarding Chanakya's death.

As for The Tudors, King Henry VIII's love life was damn complicated 🤪 Compared to him, Bindusara seems like an angel 😆 That guy was crazy for sure

Originally posted by: MrDarcyfan
@ Keerthi1234:

I agree that showing Helena, Sushim, Charumithra and Kalatak as the masterminds behind the killing of Chanakya was a gross error,and they really should have thought better of it. I suppose the final blow came from Siyamak, who by all accounts is a fictional character. Did Ashoka ever have a brother called Siyamak? I think even Justin, Noor and Mir Khorasan are fictional. But they say Khorasan is a historically accurate place. Old Persia I guess? Asia Minor? Not sure. We know they were Zorastrians. Even now the ethnic group Pharsi are Zorastrian and comes from Persia which is what Khorasan is I guess? Not very certain.

Either ways, those characters added a little spice to the story. But showing Helena as evil is again not accurate I think. She was Chandragupta Maurya's second wife and from what I understand he liked her or fell for her and that is why he married her. Same went for her as well. He was a widower, and apparently Bindu's mother was his favorite, and she died due to the famous "poison food" scenario. Did Helena and CM even have kids? I dont know. Considering he died at 42 after he gave up his throne and started to follow Janism? So Justin by all accounts is fiction and there is no way he was older than Bindusara.

I know not a lot is known of everything to do with these historic figures. But surely enough is known to make the story more historically accurate? This is not Game of Thrones, but more like the series "The Tudors" which I think is a historic account of the Tudor kings. A friend of mine was addicted to that series. I heard the show "Chandragupta Maurya" was more historically accurate. Does anyone know how Chanakya actually died? Some citations say it is by retiring to the Jungle just like Chandragupta Maurya did, and some others say he was conspired against by someone called Subandhu. (A minister). I am guessing this is Kallatak? Says he was burned alive through his conspiracy. So I guess that part is correct. But the rest of it is not.

Quote

Alyx

@mystic786

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

Omg I didn't know she does stuff like this in the show 😲😲 They've turned Helena into Prince Vlad it seems 🤣

I agree with all the points you mentioned and I've discussed them here in the thread as well.. Can't believe they turned Chankaya's death into a joke 😡 As for Helena, as I've mentioned here before, her case is like that of Charumitra.. the CVs have gone waaay overboard by depicting them as black characters... there should've just been grey shades to their personalities...

Originally posted by: Rishi_
We forgot to include two other major distortions:
1. Chanakya's death: this is by far a massive distortion in the story. As per Jain scriptures, Chanakya fasted to death this is a special Jain ritual where one fasts until death.
Another version said Chanakya was killed by Subandhu (hope i got the name right) a person in Bindusar's court out of jealousy.

But in CAS (Crap Always Samrat) the CV's have crossed all limits of nonsense and shamelessness. Chanakya was shown to be brutally murdered by the Raj Parivar and the list of murderers includes a 10 year old child Siyamak!!!😡
Helena Charu Sushim have all become murderers of Chanakya which is totally fake and a mockery of history. But whom am I talking to? these dimwit shameless CV's are not worth boiling your blood.

2. Vilification of Helena: This is another massive distortion in the show. Helena, who was supposedly a kind and good natured queen is a hard-core criminal in this show.

Some dramatization in the show by way of Helena playing politics for throne would have been OK. But here she's a mass murderer who seems to have killed countless innocents and burnt many of them alive!!!!!😲
Killing people, poisoning them, burning them alive this woman does it all!

Seriously I don't know why did I rant so much. As if the stupid CV's are going to care at all🥱
not worth my time.

Edited by mystic786 - 10 years ago

Quote

Nirmita srivastava

@nirmita

Navigator

Posted: 10 years ago

#10

Thank god that Cv are not showing space traveller visiting Ashoka and handing him guns to kill Keechak .🤣 🤣this statement is only meant to lower your BP and stress . sorry if i hurt anyone's feeling.🤗

Quote

1 2 3

Totally disappointed

Related Topics

Explore Topics