How can one man be so based?

How can one man be so based?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iDHGwWYRlbc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Wow, my dad used to hoard movies which I often dismissed as old timey boring flicks, but pic related reminded me that I have yet to see Scott's DEUSVULTkino.
Is the directors cut good?

I remember one of my history teachers put this movie on during class one day, kinda wish I payed attention.

Can you answer?

>is the director's cut good
do not watch anything but the director's cut.

Directors cut or theatrical.
Theatrical is meh
Director's cut is great, but you'd need like 4 class days to watch it.

Directors cut is a way better movie, I actually didn't like it when I saw it in theaters.

It was probably the theatrical cut, like I said I didn't really pay attention.
But I actually did become interested in watching this movie again recently so if I get a chance to check out the Director's cut I will.

While we're on the topic what's some other crusader kino?

Passion of the Christ?

You do know the crucifixion of Jesus and the Crusades are like a thousand years apart right?

Yes.

> Nothing. Everything.

which film?

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BOARD YOU FUCKING NORMALFAG REEEEEEEEEEE

Kingdom of Heaven

Kino of Heaven

Good movie. HOWEVER:
>dude Saladin was most gracious, most merciful
>didn't sell most of Jerusalem Christians into sex slavery because they were poor and couldn't afford ransom
>wasn't only willing to negotiate when the city defenders threatened to slaughter every Muslim in the city
Hollywood loves to inject agenda into movies, when will someone make an actual morally grey film where the character has done good and bad, as all real historical figures really were? In reality Saladin was merciful, FOR THE TIMES, and still regularly committed atrocities, as did all the Christians. But no, audiences are too stupid to take historical context into account and need to be told who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

>when will someone make an actual morally grey film where the character has done good and bad, as all real historical figures really were?
Probably never.

Turkroach here. Actually Saladin was a rare occurance in moral leadership, we don't have many of those. By all means, most other muslim leaders conquered shit just to conquer shit. Saladin tried to have some sort of equilibrium.

>Turkroach here
I was at a screening of The Promise, true story
one of the year's best

The female lead killed a child . Baby steps.

Saladin was a Kurd. He didn't have the same thirst for blood as the Arabs and Turks.

Yes, however that doesn't mean he was a great person by our standards today. Like I said, he was honorable and merciful for the time, but he was a man of the times and did some fucked up shit. In modern depictions we shouldn't just ignore he did these things to make him sympathetic to modern times, we should tell it like it was, and understand that the past was different and different things were considered acceptable. It's the same thing with the new Birth Of A Nation glossing over the murdering of children that the real rebellion did to make them sympathetic. Or people glossing over that Muhammed was a Pedo. This is how history is rewritten, because in 100 years what most people will know about these people and events will be from what pop culture has said about them.

Bout tree fiddy.

The movie went out of its way to try and smear the Christians but by medieval standards Saladin was actually pretty mild and honorable, so much so that his Muslim contemporaries thought him weak and downplayed his accomplishments for centuries.

Good point. People today are pussies and generally can't comprehend how brutal human history was. Everything has to be filtered through a modern moral lens so the college kids won't feel offended seeing their history hero own slaves and rape them.

It's a dangerous thing really. And when made politically correct, can become a complete lie. Reminds me of that WW1 videogame where blacks are suddenly front and center to cover the racial quota despite making little sense.

>well it was about that time that I noticed this "girl scout" was about eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the paleozoic era

1. Saladin has been portrayed as a positive figure in the west histories for at least 100 years. Mainly because every primary source about him is from the Arabs who portray him as a saint.
And even by western accounts he wasn't that bad, we can't really judge people by our modern standards, he was a 12th century warlord, and by the standards of the time pretty decent.

2. Scott hates Christianity, and has an almost boner for Islam. Although its probably just the typical liberal hate the culture you are apart of and love the underdog mentality.

The Crusades were a response to an unwarranted muslim aggression that would eventually consume a good portion of Europe. When are we going to ditch the narrative that Crusades were evil and bad while ignoring the elephant in the room. The Christians were more than justified in stopping the Muslim aggression. An aggression that is strangely unmentioned in KoH.

I'd love to see a Crusades movie that frames Islamic aggression and imperialism correctly, but good luck getting such a thing financed by a film industry run by progressives at a time where Muslims are the favored protected class.

There is a difference between looking upon someone fondly and ignoring actions taken by them outright, as was the case in Kingdom of Heaven. Even people(most people anyway) who like Stalin won't deny that he did in fact kill millions of people, they will simply try to justify it. Historians don't deny that Saladin did these things, but Hollywood will.

dat greenscreen
It doesn't even look like he's standing on the ground.

Historical revisionism. He wasn't Turkish but he was probably Turkic and Mameluk-state descendant considering how the most dynasties in the Middle East and Persia 8-14th century were Turkic.

It was also Normans who were literally Vikings looking to do what Vikings do.

But yeah, its not like Islam spread through North Africa, Levant, Sicily, and Iberia peacefully. Muhammad was a warlord and the Caliphates state goal was to spread into the Dar al-Harb ("house of war") basically any non-Muslim land. And that Islamic nations were not supposed to make peace with non-Muslims for more than x number of years.

Watched Director's Cut yesterday. Real fucking kino but ironically at the end you're a bit disappointed that it doesn't show what happens next.

Go away turkroach. Go shill Erdogan's ass fucking out of my sight.

Not the same guy, lad

>didn't sell most of Jerusalem Christians into sex slavery because they were poor and couldn't afford ransom
Yet he still allowed those who could afford it to go, which is more than most other people at that time would have done.

But he was a Kurd. The Turkic influence on Persia is irrelevant.

Aside from the foot soldiers (ie non knights) who were put into slavery.
The ransom was ridiculously low and he even ended up waving it for 1000s of people.

Yeah they did such a good job stopping the muslim aggression that they attacked the same people they were supposedly defending and let the muslims take everything 200 years later pretty much unopposed

Good points. I wish movies was like that. Maybe the answer is that when enough people want that and they make their opinion heard, then we will get those movies.

I think that's what Mel Gibson tried to do in Apocalypto. It was basically saying "hey guys these tribal cultures weren't as cute as you'd think". I hope to see more historical pieces from him.

Rome is the gold standard for a historical drama that doesn't have a bullshit modern lense.

The main characters own and trade slaves, make casual references to raping women after battle, and just nonchalantly discuss and carry out deplorable acts in general.

Yet they show still makes them feel relatable and decent rather than total monsters.

Not just Persia and Middle East. Basically about 70% percent of the nations in Asia were ruled by Turkic dynasties. From Seljuks to Shatuo Kingdoms of China. The influence of Turkic elite at the time was considerably big. Not to mention there is no source regarding Saladin being Kurdish pre-15th century.

It's complicated.

The Byzantines weren't really helping with the Crusades. Byzantines had been really shit allies in the whole process, even siding with Muslims against the Crusaders. The Byzantines didn't understand the meaning of "holy war" in the way the Catholics and Muslims did, since they were sort of Roman first and Christian second.

Mix that with the fact that a Byzantine pretender makes a bunch of promises to Crusaders who get indebted to Venetians (Sea Jews) and then doesn't take the throne. Well, what can you do?

Its not like the Crusaders set out to take down Byzantium. Really if the Byzantines had been working with the Crusaders from the start they could have taken Anatolia. But they were too busy trying to play everyone off each other, with the idea that the Empire was eternal and that the Turks would eventually go away like every other Barbarian threat of the past.

I'm not defending the Latin Empire, but I can understand it.

Yes, but did they mention this in the movie? No:
youtube.com/watch?v=iDHGwWYRlbc
He did still enslave 7000 men and 8000 women and children, but the movie makes it out that he let them go no charge, without exception. I'm not arguing that he wasn't merciful, considering what every other leader of the times did, but they ignore historical truths to write a version of Saladin that fits the morals they feel he should have, whereas most of the other events in the film are written similarly to how they actually happened. They portray the crusaders who in reality were mostly faithful Christians, to being almost entirely composed of people who didn't give a shit about god and just killed for bloodlust, except for the basically atheist Balian and Leper King. Meanwhile, all the Muslim characters are shown as good honorable men, except for one adviser. I guess Saladin sitting with a gleeful face as 200 surrendered Templar's are beheaded doesn't fit their narrative. It's the typical "all crusaders weren't actually christian" modern college student narrative of the crusades.

Don't forget about the evil priest during the siege who said they should flee. That priest was actually a good man who saved tons of people in real life. They went as far as to make the Christians comically evil with little factual support. But it fits modern Hollywood narratives.

I liked the movie but these things get to you once you start to actually read up on these time periods.

>most of the other events in the film are written similarly to how they actually happened
No kek. It's a heavily fictionized version of the events.
The general sequence of events is similar but most of the character-level details aren't historically accurate.

Hollywood is way too pussy to portray the actual history and not just the liberal narrative.

Yes and that is where it basically loses any chance of being kino. The only reason anyone even remembers this movie is because it is pretty much the only decently budgeted medieval movie ever made. If the director was interested in telling a morally grey story about the Crusades and tell us something profound about religion and conflict it could actually be amazing. Instead it is basically another "guy's, let's coexist lol peace" movie, only set in the crusades, with a healthy washing of white guilt from the Iraq war.

...

>religion compared to faction
>sides encompass different historical lengths
but it was probably posted as a bait image, more fool me

I wouldn't even consider Ottomans Muslim. It was a Muslim state that was highly influenced by Byzantisism.

>I wouldn't even consider Ottomans muslim
>head of Ottoman state is also the head of Sunni Islam

really makes you think

>going to die soon
>always ride in front of your army because it doesn't matter anymore
>live through every battle
How did he do it?

he was protected by God

The Arabic Islamic conquests (the Caliphates) were purely religiously oriented. As were the Crusades.
To a less extent the Turkic expansion was too.

The Rashidun, Umayyad, and early Abbasid Caliphates were Islam. Islam didn't really exist outside of those states. The religion and the state were inseparable.

Ottomans were pretty much a secular state tbqh. I heard somwhere that Ottoman rulers would have religious advisors which they would ask if their actions are moral according to Sharia Laws. And if those religious advisors said no, Ottoman rulers would execute them.

I wouldn't consider Catholics Christian. It's a Christian Church that was highly influenced by Greek philosophy.

>ottomans were a secular state
>the sultan of the ottomans is literally the caliph of sunni islam

I don't disagree, but does it need to be historically accurate to be a good movie? On one hand it's tricky because normies who don't care to even Google shit probably do believe this is an accurate rendition of the crusades, when it's really not.
On the other hand, if you go into it knowing that it's, at best, a medieval epic inspired by this time period but not meant to portray reality you can enjoy it as a great movie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)

Erdogan styles himself a sultan sent by God to recreate the Caliphate. These Turks can't stop themselves.

>The Arabic Islamic conquests (the Caliphates) were purely religiously oriented
no one, reviewing primary sources or otherwise, would be obliged to believe such a thing, disregarding the fact that it's an Anthropologically dubious claim

how the fuck does this equate to the Ottoman Empire being a secular state you fucking idiot?

>A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.

IN WHAT WAY WAS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE "NEUTRAL IN MATTERS OF RELIGION" WHEN THEIR HEAD OF STATE WAS A LITERAL RELIGIOUS LEADER AND THERE WERE LITERAL CIVIC AND ECONOMIC PENALTIES IMPOSED ON PEOPLE FOR NOT BEING MUSLIM YOU STUPID FUCKING TWAT?

I love how his cape flies as he says everything

>ywn have half his swag

Yes they were ruling a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation.
So?
Sharia law has traditionally existed only for the Muslim community in Islamic states.
When the Muslims swept into many regions the People of the Book were usually allowed to keep their customs, laws and religion, but forced to pay a special tax.

Turkroaches never abandoned the steppe, at their heart they will always be bloodthirsty conquerors.

lol fuck off. Ataturk was a secularist who deliberately dissolved the position of Caliph. The monarchy he overthrew was not.

Nothing
as a city.

Everything
as a symbol.

another turkfag here.this broach actually right.

You mean like how the Byzantines would execute or imprison Bishops who disagreed with them?
I guess the Byzantines weren't Christian.

Or how the French, Spanish and Austrians fought the Papacy, I guess those kingdoms weren't Catholic.

Director's cut is amazing. Totally different film

>Totally different film
What's the big difference between the two versions?

>when will someone make an actual morally grey film where the character has done good and bad, as all real historical figures really were?

This senpai, plebs are running rampant

DEUSVAULT

It takes focus away from Orlando Bloom and turns it into a geniune epic instead of a Hollywood action movie set during the Crusades.

That would spoil the movie.

>VAULT

Poor form

>Ottomans were pretty much a secular state
kek no.mustafa kemal bring secularism and kicked their islamic asses

Hard to say, maybe the pacing, its a much longer film so stuff has time to breathe. More character development of not just Bloom.

I honestly can only say that I really didn't like the movie in the theaters with a big screen, but that I enjoyed watching the 3hr directors cut on my 12 inch laptop.

it's like watching all the Battlefield 1 cutscenes on youtube vs watching Lawrence of Arabia

fuckin turkroaches. ozim, lutfen...

This picture is pretty misleading. The muslims conquered that area over hundreds of years, and were eventually spread so thin they had to inward.

The crusaders in just a few short years were able to pierce straight to the heart of the caliphate and capture (and occupy) some of its most important series.

Jesus, I can't English today.

It's not nearly as misleading as the dominant narrative of Christianity being some barbaric religion who attacked innocent muslims out of the blue. Christendom responded to an aggression. Any reasonable power would've done so.

When people criticize the crusades, they usually refer to the hypocrisy of the church. Not about what happened