|
Post by sarmat on Jun 22, 2008 6:00:59 GMT 3
True, but fewer people saw this Chinese TV series. It's much easier to watch just a 2 hours movie rather than watch 30 parts series unless you a big fan of Genghis and secondly u simply can't get a copy of these series if you live in the US for example.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 22, 2008 13:49:22 GMT 3
That's so true
|
|
|
Post by sharshuvuu on Jun 29, 2008 8:25:28 GMT 3
Just saw the movie this afternoon; I liked the basic idea and thought it had a lot of good points but was bothered by the various misrepresentations--incorrect bow draw (how did the Kazaks let them get away with that?), those too-curvy swords, and esp. the entire bee-ess episode about slavery in the Tangut kingdom and rescue by heroic, self-sacrificing wife. So I was wondering if there was any place on line where informed people discussed. That led me to this forum, which I had not known about.
This is just what I was looking for. More soon.
Sharshuvuu
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 29, 2008 9:08:57 GMT 3
The last battle was the biggest disappointment seriously, but for once Chingghis Khaan isn't a bad guy. In fact, Mongols were represented as a civilisation, not as barbarians. However - I still don't like how they borrowed biblical references and shoved it into the movie.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 10:32:20 GMT 3
Which references exactly do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 29, 2008 14:01:56 GMT 3
The slave thing in the Tanguts for starters - with the fictional "Mongol who wanted to destroy Tangut Kingdom" sign, and the 2 guys bringing the corpse of their Khan to Chingghis - ending up with their deaths.
|
|
|
Post by sharshuvuu on Jun 30, 2008 1:15:20 GMT 3
OK, I am back.
First thing, where do you guys come from? I had no idea that there was a forum of this sort. I see notices of members from Australia & Turkey; is there a breakdown of how many from each country?
What I noticed that I didn't like: the curve on the swords was too circular for the steppes; the wrong bow draw and wrong placement of the arrow on the bow (two aspects of the same thing); the hoked-up Tangut episode; the fictionalized final battle. I agree with the comments about omitting important historical figures from the screenplay, but I am willing to cut a little slack here; if you put every important thing in the history (or most of the time from a novel if the movie is based on one) it gets cluttered and confusing. Still, Tughrul should have been included at least as a minor figure in the move; certainly he was more than minor in history.
The relations between Temujin and Jamukha I thought were well handled: genuine strong bonding trumped by the fact that each was a dominant figure; neither could put up with being even the highest-ranking subordinate. I suppose that most people, reading that Jamukha refused forgiveness, wonder if that is not a propagandistic device to make Temudjin look good in the face of the fact of having his blood brother killed. The movie, I thought, developed the relationship in such a way as to make the historical account plausible--and then chickened out at the end.
A few others: given the references in the historical sources to the yurts/gers being moved about on huge carts, I doubt that the fold-up variety had been invented yet in the 12th-13th centuries. Whoever did invent it was an anonymous genius, but I doubt that he had appeared on the scene yet.
The pluses are substantial: a number of historical details and realia were handled well--the bows looked good even if the actors were not taught how to shoot them right, &c. But the great virtue, as others have said on this thread, was presenting Chinggis Khan as a real and sympathetic human figure, not the evil tyrant popular Western (and even worse, Russian) depicts. (Of course, that old John Wayne movie portrayed him sympathetically too, but it's just too silly to be of any real benefit.)
Worst of the movie is clearly the latter part, consisting of the wholly fictitious Tangut episode and the historically buggered-up battle. Targutai was killed in battle in 1200; Jamukha was killed some eight years later, and he was not the powerful Khan depicted in the movie at that time. His fortunes had declined to the point where he was the leader of a bandit gang. Some of his followers handed him over to Temudjin, who did indeed have them put to death for betraying their leader. Subu'atai is probably correct in seeing the influence of the Biblical account of the death of Saul in the way the movie portrayed it, but Temudjin and David seemed to have the same attitude toward this sort of situation--if his subordinates betray and enemy leader, will they not do the same to me if we find ourselves in similar misfortune? Anyhow, the end of the movie was sadly unhistorical. This history does not need to be rewritten into fiction; as it stands it's one of the grandest tales history has to give us.
Sharshuvuu
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 30, 2008 4:12:42 GMT 3
True, it was fictional, but you're right - it showed that Chingghis was not a barbarian, so it's a good watch for what it's worth. Btw I'm living in Australia - but I'm not Australian
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 30, 2008 6:45:27 GMT 3
I thought Subutai meant by Bible the "Secret history." Otherwise, I don't really see any Biblical connection here. In fact Jamuqa was twice in Temujin's hands and the first time Temujin indeed just let him go. The second time he indeed was betrayed and it was the time when he refused to live. What I particuarly didn't like is that Tanguts spoke perfect Mandarin Chinese in the movie, I think it was very stupid. The most shocking news however is that the director is going to shoot the 2d and the 3d part of the movie. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 30, 2008 6:56:36 GMT 3
LOL no - reference to judaism actually, which I didn't like, they should have portrayed a more Mongol feel to the movie - remove that slave bullsh*t and that sign, and at least found a way to make the two similar events (Betrayal of Saul, Betrayal of Khans) different.
Heh well it was quite successful, I'm curious to see what the Russian director would bullsh*t when it comes to the invasion of Russia. Then again, if he just STICKS to Chingghis' life, then we have no worries. ;D
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 30, 2008 9:50:13 GMT 3
I didn't see the Bible connection either. But I agree they didn't do a good job of portraying Mongolia in those days. And that whole part where he is held prisoner by the Tanguts was silly and boring. I don't think they were making a Bible comment though. I think that was put in to justify the later destruction of Xi Xia. They're giving Temujin a reason to hate the Tanguts because they know later they'll have to show him destroying them.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 30, 2008 17:00:54 GMT 3
i'm surprized no one mentioned those silly masks of that tribe (Merkits?) yet...
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 30, 2008 18:48:30 GMT 3
hehe yeah the Merkits just looked silly. I guess they were trying to make them more Siberian than Mongolian, but even Siberian tribes don't look that silly.
They also gave Hoelun such a minor role you'd think she played no part at all in Temujin's success.
|
|
|
Post by nanman on Jun 30, 2008 20:51:32 GMT 3
What I particuarly didn't like is that Tanguts spoke perfect Mandarin Chinese in the movie, I think it was very stupid. Agree especially from a historical perspective. What would have been the most appropriate substitution? would you had prefer it if it was dubbed into a Qiangnic or Tibetan dialect? Although that could also stoke up controversy.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 30, 2008 22:05:53 GMT 3
Yes, I would prefer that. Otherwise what is the point at all of making the movie in "authentic languages." Tanguts didn't speak Chinese between each other that is for sure.
|
|