Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

[rahulrulezz]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

This will be yet another cr@ppy film from a highly overrated filmmaker. SLB only really made two good films - and both of them happened to be his first 2 films (Khamoshi and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam). After that, he just rehashed the same formula across all his other films. No imagination, no plot, just put some expansive costumes and create some lavish sets and create some slick promos. That's all.

 

Highly overrated filmmaker with a monotonous pattern of filmmaking.

Exactly!! He made Bajirao a devdas. When I was watching the movie, I was like, What the efffing eff!! 

 

I am surprizdd no Marathas slapped Bhansali for making a grave warrior like BajiRao into a comedic Devdas. My blood boiled while watching that movie. 

[zen]

1 minute ago, rahulrulezz said:

Exactly!! He made Bajirao a devdas. When I was watching the movie, I was like, What the efffing eff!! 

 

I am surprizdd no Marathas slapped Bhansali for making a grave warrior like BajiRao into a comedic Devdas. My blood boiled while watching that movie. 

Wasn’t the movie titled “Bajirao Mastani” highlighting the love story angle? 

 

Someone can can make a film on the love story of Gandhiji and Kasturba w/o diving much in to Gandhiji’s quest for independence 

[rahulrulezz]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

Wasn’t the movie titled “Bajirao Mastani” highlighting the love story angle? 

 

Someone can can make a film on the love story of Gandhiji and Kasturba w/o diving much in to Gandhiji’s quest for independence 

Yes do that but don't distort the history. Bhansali not just distorted the history but murdurered the character of BajiRao.The movie showed BajiRao was a aashiq drunk warrior who became a phsycho and lost cause after meeting Mastani. 

 

 

 

If you watch last hour of the movie, it was like Tera Naam Part 2. 

 

 

I have never been so pissed after watching a movie. 

 

 

[zen]

16 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Yes do that but don't distort the history. Bhansali not just distorted the history but murdurered the character of BajiRao.The movie showed BajiRao was a aashiq drunk warrior who became a phsycho and lost cause after meeting Mastani. 

 

 

 

If you watch last hour of the movie, it was like Tera Naam Part 2. 

 

 

I have never been so pissed after watching a movie. 

 

 

Indian filmmakers in general are not that great when it comes to making history based films

 

No matter what the subject is, most will stick with the classic masala formula. A film on Bhagat Singh will have the character do a song and dance routine. Mahabharata would have Arjun and Draupadi dancing in rain singing something like “Dhak Dhak Karne Laga”

 

Historical films should be made like Gandhi, Passion of the Christ, etc. 

 

Based on how historical movies are made in Ind, this one too would be a masala film but SLB’s treatment will make it look better esp from the visual appeal, back ground score, etc. PoV

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by zen

[rahulrulezz]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

Indian filmmakers in general are not that great when it comes to making history based films

 

No matter what the subject is, most will stick with the classic masala formula. A film on Bhagat Singh will have the character do a song and dance routine. Mahabharata would have Arjun and Draupadi dancing in rain singing something like “Dhak Dhak Karne Laga”

 

Historical films should be made like Gandhi, Passion of the Christ, etc. 

 

Based on how historical movies are made in Ind, this one too would be a masala film but SLB’s treatment will make it look better esp from the visual appeal, back ground score, etc. PoV

 

 

Yes. I liked Jodha Akbar for its visuals and cinematography but even Jodha Akbar was half cr@p

 

the scene from Jodha Akbar, which really pisses me off and I am surprised most Indians find it ok is, the starting of the movie where they are showing 2nd battle of Panipat. They made Hemu (the other king against Akbars army) look like a clown. Hair all over the place and weird facial expressions. 

Hemu was a brave warrior not a clown!!!

[Texan]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

Indian filmmakers in general are not that great when it comes to making history based films

 

No matter what the subject is, most will stick with the classic masala formula. A film on Bhagat Singh will have the character do a song and dance routine  

 

Mahabharata would have Arjun and Draupadi dancing in rain singing something like “Dhak Dhak Karne Laga” 

 

Historical films should be made like Gandhi, Passion of the Christ, etc. 

 

This is one would be a masala type film but SLB’s treatment will make it look better esp from the visually appealing PoV

 

 

The Bhagat Singh film (The Legend of Bhagat Singh) even though included song and dance, at least didn't show Bhagat Singh as some kind of hopeless romantic and stayed pretty true to history. This shows that core "masala" movies can be made without showing historical figures as Devdas like romantics. Of course filmmakers like SLB won't venture into making such movies because they only know to cash in on moviegoers who like extravagant outfits and sets and no story or plot or adherenece to history. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

 

Agreed about Panipat 3. I personally feel that  Vishwas Rao(I hope I got the name right) was super cocky and over confident about this war. He fought and won small battles in south and thought Panipat was going to be same. Plus there was too much family politics between the women in the Maratha family which is why Vishwas Rao got the commander role in Panipat even though Raghunath Rao deserved it. Regardless, as you suggested, taking 100,000 pilgrims in  battlefield was just stupid. 

+1

 

3 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

I am suprirsed people don't know a main event from Panipat3.  In an earlier battle in delhi before Panipat 3, Marathas got Muslim POWs but didn't kill them. Vishwas Rao stupidly gave those same bloody POW to take care of pilgrims and women in the camp. It wasn't actually Abdali soldiers who raped and killed pilgrims and Maratha women, it was those Muslims POWs who did that when they heard first time about Abdali chances of winning. If he had killed those muSlim POWs like the invaders, Holkar and his infantry wouldn't have to retreat from the war to save the pilgrims and women

Yep. As i said, if there was a top 10 list on 'if you fight a war this way, even Ethiopia will win against USA', Panipat III would rank highly in that list. Just about everything that could be done wrong, was done wrong. 

 

3 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

 

 

About your thoughts on Battle of Khanwa, I am surprised you don't think that was a historic event. Why I feel that was an important event. 

 

1.That was first time Mughals came to India. If Rana had defeated them, imagine no Aurangzeb, No Akbar etc etc

 

2. Babur army was already tired cuz of first battle of Panipat, plus Delhi heat etc etc, They were at all time low, best chance to defeat them

 

3. That was the first and only time all Rajputs were one unit. Okay ignore Raja Silhadi(I hope I got the name right, this bastard defected at last second and switched sides). Only once in the history of Rajputana

 

4. Rajputs had higher number of soldiers, were fresh, and were more closer to their kingdom

 

5. They lost close to 100,000 soldiers and Rajputs were never the same. 

 

6 Babur created the tower of heads for the first time in india, and literally shook all the kings to Not fight against Babur

 

7 Rana IMO was probably the strongest and the smartest Rajput leader ever. Rajputs were never the same. 

 

8) if Rajputs had won, i personally feel India would have been totally different 

 

9) your points about strong muSlim presence in Punjab reason, Babur defeated the sultanate and local Muslim kings in less than 1 day. There was no way Rana would be worried of them if he had won the battle. 

So these are my points why I feel Battle of Khanwa was one of the most historic war for india. Hope my points changed your view

 

 

The reason i don't rate Khanwa so highly, because I don't think winning Khanwa would've changed anything for the Rajputs beyond the lifetime of Rana Sanga. 
I will draw a parallel - Mihir Bhoj. True,he wasn't a 'rajput' - he was a Pratihara- but Pratiharas are ancestors to the Rajputs. In anycase, Mihir Bhoj crushed the Pals and crushed Junayd. What happened ? He ruled as 'samrat' for another 20-25 years, then died and it was back to the old BS of 'divide his empire between his sons, some sons not listening to the paramount overlord and everything falling apart within 30 years'. 

So, i see Khanwa was ultimately inconsequential to India. had the Rajputs won, they most likely would've done what all Rajputs/Pratiharas did before them - sit back, enjoy the glory and glorify their own name as Paramavallabha or such epithets. I highly doubt Sanga would've moved against the Afghan noblemen in India (the ones who still formed the bedrock of Delhi Sultanate, Sher Shah's empire and were extremely relevant in North Indian affairs until the zenith of Akbar's time). 

 

Sure, it would've changed Indian history a lot, as in there would be no Mughal empire, but it most likely would've meant another Turki/Afghan overlord rising, just as they rose before and after Khanwa. It wouldn't have made overall existential difference to Islamization of Indian subcontinent, which i feel would be required, for me to rate Khanwa higher than say Tarain or the battle of Laghman. 

 

3 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

Also, talking by Saraighat, I know you

have a slight bias because you are from Bengal and I totally understand that. But let's face it, it was mostly a Naval battle and almost a gurella war. It wasn't a big battle and was a limited war ranging over a decade ending at Saraighat. Also, Aurangzeb sent Ram SINGH, and we all know Aurengzeb was biased against Ram Singh because of Shivajis episode. Regardless, it was a good victory and I am not doubting Ahoms kingdoms credibility. Atleast they stood up and fought. 

 

Bhai mere, when Saraighat happened, it was mostly Bengali soldiers that died. But i rate Saraighati highly, because in history of Indian warfare, a significantly weaker side hasn't beaten a massively stronger side, purely from tactical brilliance, before it. Atleast, not on record. Mughals were superior to the Ahoms in every which way - more troops, better armour, better supply train, more cash. 

Ram Singh was meticulous in his logistics preparation and he still lost, because of tactical brilliance of Borpukhan. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

Yes. I liked Jodha Akbar for its visuals and cinematography but even Jodha Akbar was half cr@p

 

the scene from Jodha Akbar, which really pisses me off and I am surprised most Indians find it ok is, the starting of the movie where they are showing 2nd battle of Panipat. They made Hemu (the other king against Akbars army) look like a clown. Hair all over the place and weird facial expressions. 

Hemu was a brave warrior not a clown!!!

 

You mean Hemu wasn't an angry kid ( Joffrey Baratheon reference from GoT), who literally got angry and contorted his face at sight of his enemy, as if a bunch of elephants just stomped in his rice field and ate all his rice ? You don't say. (Yeah, that was the most ridiculous part of the movie. Where Hemu says 'akraman' and sounds like he is hunting pests in his ranch).

[Gollum]

Nice posts. @Muloghonto @rahulrulezz. We should have a separate thread on history in ICF Chit Chat where all posts about ancient and medieval India can be discussed. 

[rahulrulezz]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

+1

 

Yep. As i said, if there was a top 10 list on 'if you fight a war this way, even Ethiopia will win against USA', Panipat III would rank highly in that list. Just about everything that could be done wrong, was done wrong. 

 

The reason i don't rate Khanwa so highly, because I don't think winning Khanwa would've changed anything for the Rajputs beyond the lifetime of Rana Sanga. 
I will draw a parallel - Mihir Bhoj. True,he wasn't a 'rajput' - he was a Pratihara- but Pratiharas are ancestors to the Rajputs. In anycase, Mihir Bhoj crushed the Pals and crushed Junayd. What happened ? He ruled as 'samrat' for another 20-25 years, then died and it was back to the old BS of 'divide his empire between his sons, some sons not listening to the paramount overlord and everything falling apart within 30 years'. 

So, i see Khanwa was ultimately inconsequential to India. had the Rajputs won, they most likely would've done what all Rajputs/Pratiharas did before them - sit back, enjoy the glory and glorify their own name as Paramavallabha or such epithets. I highly doubt Sanga would've moved against the Afghan noblemen in India (the ones who still formed the bedrock of Delhi Sultanate, Sher Shah's empire and were extremely relevant in North Indian affairs until the zenith of Akbar's time). 

 

Sure, it would've changed Indian history a lot, as in there would be no Mughal empire, but it most likely would've meant another Turki/Afghan overlord rising, just as they rose before and after Khanwa. It wouldn't have made overall existential difference to Islamization of Indian subcontinent, which i feel would be required, for me to rate Khanwa higher than say Tarain or the battle of Laghman. 

 

Bhai mere, when Saraighat happened, it was mostly Bengali soldiers that died. But i rate Saraighati highly, because in history of Indian warfare, a significantly weaker side hasn't beaten a massively stronger side, purely from tactical brilliance, before it. Atleast, not on record. Mughals were superior to the Ahoms in every which way - more troops, better armour, better supply train, more cash. 

Ram Singh was meticulous in his logistics preparation and he still lost, because of tactical brilliance of Borpukhan. 

1 Agreed about Panipat 3

 

2 I am surprised you underestimate the future of Rajputs. How can you say Rajputs would have fought again among themselves. Rajputs never ever went outside their territory from the Sultanate days. Rajputana flag over Delhi for the first time would have lead to so much difference in their ranks. Plus, it was the first time in history Rajputs were together. 

 

Regardless, these are 'what if' 'maybe' statements. You are right in your own way about the future of Rajputana and I am right in my own way. I feel Indian history would have been different. But I am really happy to hear your views on Khanwa. you always bring something interesting on the table even if I might not agree with your views. 

 

PS I was reading BaburNama and this toochia Babur was a bastard of the highest order. The way he motivated his soldiers purely on the religious lines in Battle of Khanwa was crazy. It was only after this battle, the future Mughals started using the same religious ideology to motivate their soldiers. They didn't give a crap about Hindu soldiers and commanders. 

 

 

3 Agreeed about most of the stuff other than the fact that Aurengzeb didn't like Ram SINGH at all after Shivajis episode. Which is why he wasn't provided enough resources for Saraighat. We all know what Aurengzeb did to him and his first son in the later years. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by rahulrulezz

[zen]

10 hours ago, Texan said:

The Bhagat Singh film (The Legend of Bhagat Singh) even though included song and dance, at least didn't show Bhagat Singh as some kind of hopeless romantic and stayed pretty true to history. This shows that core "masala" movies can be made without showing historical figures as Devdas like romantics. Of course filmmakers like SLB won't venture into making such movies because they only know to cash in on moviegoers who like extravagant outfits and sets and no story or plot or adherenece to history. 

As mentioned in the post that you quoted, the title "Bajarao Mastani" highlights the fact that it covered the love angle. While Bhagat Singh covered his fight against British or whatever (can't recall now) so not an apples to apples comparison  

[zen]

11 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

Yes. I liked Jodha Akbar for its visuals and cinematography but even Jodha Akbar was half cr@p

 

the scene from Jodha Akbar, which really pisses me off and I am surprised most Indians find it ok is, the starting of the movie where they are showing 2nd battle of Panipat. They made Hemu (the other king against Akbars army) look like a clown. Hair all over the place and weird facial expressions. 

Hemu was a brave warrior not a clown!!!

Ashoka was weird too which is why I avoid most "history" based Indian films .... I only watch those which are rated highly on production values, visual appeal, background score, good acting, etc.  .... Historical Indian movies are more like Braveheart 

 

As mentioned, the benchmark for historical films, imo, are Gandhi, Passion of Christ, etc. I would love to see an Indian film on such subjects made in such a way

Edited October 11, 2017 by zen

[sandeep]

Banjo whether Padmavati will be a good movie or not.   @Muloghonto and @rahulrulezz made this thread an enjoyable read.   Thanks boys.

[maniac]

4 hours ago, zen said:

Ashoka was weird too which is why I avoid most "history" based Indian films .... I only watch those which are rated highly on production values, visual appeal, background score, good acting, etc.  .... Historical Indian movies are more like Braveheart 

 

As mentioned, the benchmark for historical films, imo, are Gandhi, Passion of Christ, etc. I would love to see an Indian film on such subjects made in such a way

Ashoka was a joke it wasn't even a historical film...it was a total fiction

 

Passion of the Christ wasn't a "historical" film  it's the same as saying Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana was historical series..they were well made Mythological films/series

 

 The Ajay Devgan Bhagat Singh was very good...my favorite Biographical/Historical film made in India.

Edited October 11, 2017 by maniac

[zen]

37 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ashoka was a joke it wasn't even a historical film...it was a total fiction

 

Passion of the Christ wasn't a "historical" film  it's the same as saying Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana was historical series..they were well made Mythological films/series

 

 The Ajay Devgan Bhagat Singh was very good...my favorite Biographical/Historical film made in India.

I am clubbing them together under "historical"  .... Mythology for many can be history for many so it depends up on perspective on these kind of topics  

 

 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

1 Agreed about Panipat 3

 

2 I am surprised you underestimate the future of Rajputs. How can you say Rajputs would have fought again among themselves. Rajputs never ever went outside their territory from the Sultanate days. Rajputana flag over Delhi for the first time would have lead to so much difference in their ranks. Plus, it was the first time in history Rajputs were together. 

Well because the entire history of Rajputs is one of them fighting each other and fracturing, i simply do not see how or why they'd have held together after Sanga. They'd have gone the same way as they did after Nagabhatta or Mihir Bhoj- fracture. 
I am highly doubtful that they'd have gone on to Delhi, because in typical Rajput fashion, once 'Rajputana was safe', they'd go back their squabbling. But as you say, its speculative and we won't know for sure. I am also not sure, even if the Rajputs were united, they'd be able to prevent the rise of the next muslim overlord in North India. Only difference would be, he'd either be Afghan or Turk, not Mughal. 

 

Quote

Regardless, these are 'what if' 'maybe' statements. You are right in your own way about the future of Rajputana and I am right in my own way. I feel Indian history would have been different. But I am really happy to hear your views on Khanwa. you always bring something interesting on the table even if I might not agree with your views. 

 

PS I was reading BaburNama and this toochia Babur was a bastard of the highest order. The way he motivated his soldiers purely on the religious lines in Battle of Khanwa was crazy. It was only after this battle, the future Mughals started using the same religious ideology to motivate their soldiers. They didn't give a crap about Hindu soldiers and commanders. 

 

 

3 Agreeed about most of the stuff other than the fact that Aurengzeb didn't like Ram SINGH at all after Shivajis episode. Which is why he wasn't provided enough resources for Saraighat. We all know what Aurengzeb did to him and his first son in the later years. 

It was Babur, who came up with the idea of 'Ghazwa-e-Hindh'. Because Babur was desperate. You see, Babur didn't come to India because he wanted to conquer India. He came to India, because he was about to be killed by the Uzbeks and Safavids,already having lost to the extremely powerful Uzbek warlord Mohammed Shaybani. Shaybani is the guy who evicted Babur from his ancestral homeland in Ferghana, upon which, Babur fled to Kabul. To show, how powerful Shaybani was and how utterly helpless Babur was, when he conquered Samarkand from Babur, he gave Babur only two options : death or exile, contingent ONLY upon Babur agreeing to the marriage of his sister, Khanzada Begum, with Shaybani. 

He carved out a kingdom in Kabul and for a time being, was protected by the Safavid-Uzbek strife, with them both occupied with each other. He tried to capture Ferghana again, after Shaybani died, with help of Shah Ismail of Persia (the first Safavid monarch) but ultimately failed and it caused enough friction between him and Shah Ismael (due to failed joint expedition), that he fled to India. 

Hence Babur comes across as so extreme in terms of motivating his soldiers - he had nowhere else to go. Only Timur, who also used religion and called himself ' sword of Islam', relied on the frenzied power of religion, to motivate his troops as much. 

 

Lastly, Ram Singh had way, way more supplies than Borpukhan. True, Aurangzeb made life hard for Ram Singh, but he most definitely didnt lose because of standard supply issues. He was better supplied than Borpukhan and he was an extremely meticulous planner. But Borpukhan was brilliant during Saraighati and thats why he won. 

IIRC, Saraighati was studied in Indian army & navy, as a case-study of how to win despite being inferior in every which way to your opponent...dont know if they still do it.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Muloghonto

[surajmal]

Didn't realize this until someone pointed out a potential reason for jauhar by rajput women - necrophilia by jihadis. Amazing how these shits are still into the same feckery. I guess you can only go so low as human beings...

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Didn't realize this until someone pointed out a potential reason for jauhar by rajput women - necrophilia by jihadis. Amazing how these shits are still into the same feckery. I guess you can only go so low as human beings...

I thought that was common knowledge ?? In either case, i don't think necrophilia was the cause of Jauhar, since if the women didn't kill themselves, they'd end up as sex slaves, not dead and corpse rape. 

In anycase, i see Jauhar as a coward's way out. Its a lot easier to kill oneself than live with dishonour to avenge the injustices. Death is easy. Surviving is hard. And instead of living to fight another day, most Rajputs took the easy way out. 

 

[Muloghonto]

PS: Mods, would you guys mind moving all the history-related posts to the history thread ? good to have it all in one place.

 

[surajmal]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I thought that was common knowledge ?? In either case, i don't think necrophilia was the cause of Jauhar, since if the women didn't kill themselves, they'd end up as sex slaves, not dead and corpse rape. 

In anycase, i see Jauhar as a coward's way out. Its a lot easier to kill oneself than live with dishonour to avenge the injustices. Death is easy. Surviving is hard. And instead of living to fight another day, most Rajputs took the easy way out. 

 

Sorry, it should read, one of the reasons.

And its not really common knowledge. When people try to bracket desert cultists, its often headlined by " the sword" or "suicide bomb" - portrays a very clean, sanitary image. Puts them on the same level as samurai/Japanese (sepukku/kamikazi). Whereas former are so much "worse" and unacceptable. They have literally scraped the bottom of the barrel of human existence.  

What I'm saying is we need more descriptors to describe the desert cultists.