Talk:Kingdom of Heaven (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

The "threat" was repudiated by Ridley Scott in an Economist magazine quote.

Poooohieee: what a stinker! I just finished watching it. If you have ever opened a history book, or if you have any notion of how warfare is and was conducted, or if you like movies that don't cram a shipwreck into 10 seconds of time then you can't see this. Ouch what a piece of pooh. Seminumerical 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hospitaller and Humphrey

Hopefully someone who was paying more attention than me, or watched the credits, can help out here...a lot of characters seem to have been unnamed. David Thewlis' character is labelled "Hospitaller" on IMDB and even the official website, and some other sites seemed to think that was his actual name. Well, he's obviously "a Hospitaller", but I don't remember anyone saying his name. Also, there is a "Humphrey" listed on IMDB but I don't remember seeing one (and I guess I was a little hasty in linking him to Humphrey IV when I added the cast list here, it could just be a random person named Humphrey, especially since there is no Isabella in the movie). Also, Alexander Siddig's character seems to be similarly unnamed...IMDB used to say "Imad" so I assumed al-Isfahani, but now it says Nasir, and I don't think he is ever named in the movie. Maybe all this was cut out for the theatre version? I've heard there is a much longer cut. Can anyone help? Adam Bishop 15:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

According to interviews, there's at least 80 minutes worth of footage that was cut out. As far as Thewlis' character, the only name listed in the script is "Hospitaller". nmw 23:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Humphrey IV in real life was certainly no hospitaller, a warrior knight. Rather, the real Humphrey IV was the local soft gay boy. Sources state he avoided quarrel etc, and rather obviously he later was Richard Lionheart's boyfriend. Apparently there someone confused two characters of the movie. Who played the movie "Humphrey" and what sort of character he was in the movie? - 62.78.105.225

Well, the Hospitaller character is not Humphrey. Humphrey apparently isn't in the movie at all, at least in the theatre version. This business about Humphrey being gay is completely off-topic here - take it to his article, or Richard's article if you insist on mentioning it there as well. Adam Bishop 16:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Humphrey of Toron has one line, I think - he's standing next to Reynaud at Kerak - but he isn't identified by name on screen. His role has been much reduced in the theatrical cut. In the earlier draft of the script, he (and Isabella) did appear more, and he was depicted being murdered by Guy! Silverwhistle 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Siddig

Regarding Alexander Siddig's character, his website [1] has some scans of making-of materials. One page says: 'Another character invented for the story's purposes is the young Muslim knight Imad... While Imad is fictional, his name (and to some extent his character) is an homage to the eloquent Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din...'

Nasir (the name given for Siddig's character at IMDB) is also the same given for Syriana as of 2005-05-08. I don't recall whether or not his character was ever mentioned by name in the movie, but he definitely had a one-word name listed in the credits. I wish I could remember what it was.

(VERY MILD SPOILER) Since the identity of his character is uncertain when first introduced, it's possible that 'Nasir' is an alias. --.c 17:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Even though it seems as if the name is never mentioned in the film, Nasir is the name of Alexander Siddig's character in the credits. I had thought that his name was Rashid, as when he is telling Saladin to attack the Christopher Gate, and the other fellow suggest that the wall is stronger, he taps his own head and says, "It is weaker. Rashid has seen it."- Chris Logan

Rashid was the guy next to him. Im not sure if he spoke in 3th person like he was some kind of boxer though "Rashid will get you on the 4th, fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee".

[edit] Ed Norton as Baldwin IV

Does anyone know why Ed Norton is uncredited for his performance as Baldwin? He was really good--one of the best things about the movie, IMO--and I was surprised when I saw on IMDb that he's not credited. nmw 16:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

he sayd "i dont want to be credited" and Scott replied "ok" and continued to read his newspaper. It supposedly was because Norton wanted to make people go "oh, it was Edward Norton!" when they saw his name on the credits, it helped a lot that his character was always wearing a mask, so in a way... he just wanted to make it look like if he was really wearing a mask.

Yes, I am also quite surprised to find out it was Ed Norton behind the mask! Plus, he IS now credited on IMDb. (just a random fact: in the film credits of Shakespeare in Love Rupert Everett is never credited as "Kit Marlowe") ewok37 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "uncredited" - he's in the full cast-list at the end if you wait to the end of the film - just not in the opening-title credits. Silverwhistle 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Back when Hannibal was released, whatever the outcome of wether they liked it or not, most critics added with surprise to pretty much all reviews that the disfigurate millionaire Verger was in fact an "uncredited" gary oldman. Oldman being an A-lister like his co-stars, wanted to be on the posters, yet he was denied of the privilege, so he asked to be removed from the credits, to be later placed again for video and some other theatrical releases. The result of Oldman's decision turned out to be an unexpected pleasant surprise, a surprise that once again was repeated with Kingdom of Heaven. As Norton was unnanimously praised for his acting, part of that praise went to the humble choice of remaining completely annonimous as an actor, giving the appearance that it was not Norton the one acting, but rather the character he was playing, king Baldwin IV himself.

[edit] Marriage of Sibylla and Guy

The movie doesn't show the wedding of the Sibylla and Guy. It shows their coronation. Am I wrong? I wanted to be completely sure before I made any alterations.

Yeah, you're right. Sibylla says something like "the man who has been my husband." Adam Bishop 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
She says she married him at 15. Seaphoto 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Which in reality, was before she married her first husband...! She was about 16 or 17 when she married William of Montferrat, 20 or 21 when she married Guy. Silverwhistle 22:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
She says she had Baldwin when she was 15, not that she married Guy then. Adam Bishop 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, she was at least 17 at the time. Her year of birth is somewhere between 1158 and 1160; Baldwin V was born in 1177. Silverwhistle 10:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait... at the breakfast scene where Sibylla and Balian and Guy were all seated, when Guy rises he says something to the effect that "no one will be upset that he leaves the table, least of all his wife," the then camera goes to Sibylla. So the movie shows that they were married at the start of the movie. Then there is a scene where Baldwin is atempting to have his sister's marrage annuled as she is his legitimate successor. Currently the page gives the impression Sibylla was single at the start of the movie. It clearly showed she was married, albiet unhappily. It is a minor thing, but should be corrected. Drachenfyre

Is it better now? Adam Bishop 04:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

They better be married in the movie... historically it had happened in 1180. That makes one historical error less. As for unhappily, well, why does she crown him when she succeeds to the throne then? yeah, that's one more monahan flub. --Svartalf 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identity of Hospitaller

It seems fairly clear that, whoever David Thewlis's character may be, he is not the Grand Master of the Hospitallers. When heading off to Hattin, he says that he is going because his order is going. So perhaps the reference to him possibly being Roger of Moulins should be removed? john k 23:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would still be true even if he was the Grand Master, wouldn't it? Adam Bishop 00:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily - the Orders would often refuse to participate in missions they didn't believe in. One of them wouldn't go on Amalric's expedition against Egypt in 1169, as I recall. But that's actually history I suppose. Dramatically, the film gives no indication that he is a leader of the Hospitallers, and that scene seems to indicate that he is not - that he is following the decision taken by his order. john k 02:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that's true. What about other unnamed characters? The Patriarch is obviously Heraclius even though he is never referred to as such...should that be removed too? I guess in this case, there is only one Patriarch, so it's easier to make an identification. What about Godfrey, should he be linked to Barisan even though they are really not the same character at all? Adam Bishop 03:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the Hospitaller has no name was on purpose, probably a Ridley Scott idea, as the character of the Hospitaller is as misterious as Blade Runners' Gaff (whose purpose in the film as a whole is very ambiguous, as he is supposed to be just another Blade Runner). Until i saw the credits, i havent noticed that his name was just "the hospitaller". Never forget that even though there are a lot of historical accuracies as much as historical unaccuracies (id say theres a 50/50 ratio), this is just a movie, the character of the Hospitaller is there to give depht to the movie, as his character seems to be a complex one ("all death is certain" sounds very criptic).
On the extended version commentary, Scott refers to the Hospitaller character as an allegory for God. Seaphoto 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tiberias

Here, someone seems to change edits so that the person here stays as "Tiberias". does it mean the first name, the christened name?

Somewhere I saw a version that the guy was "Count of Tiberias"...

Does anyone know precisely??

I can think that it is the use of peerage lordship as the name, such as queen victoria's father signed himself as "Kent and Strathearn", without using his first name (Edward) nor any other surname. Tiberias certainly was the name of a town in the Palestine described in the movie, thus a relevant name of peerage lordship. Thus, "count of Tiberias" is a possibility. (btw, the character in real world was, among his other titles, actually "Prince of Tiberias, jure uxoris" or "lord of Tiberias, jure uxoris")

On the other hand, I can think that a movie-writer has decided to create some remnant of Hellenistic past, and thus, first name "Tiberias" therefore used as boys' name in the Palestine of the movie. (latin: tiberius, greek: tiberios, invented palastinic hellenistic: tiberias) This could be a deliberate attempt to signal that the guy was REALLY a native, not a crusader or grandson of crusaders, but a native with a thousand-year family tree in Palestine.

Is there any other alternative explanation?

And, which explanation feels most probable?

Any clues from the movie's material?

Yes, Raynald refers to him as "Tiberias" in their first scene together, and he is called that throughout the movie. It's not the same problem as "Hospitaller" and the other unnamed characters, since he is actually addressed with that name. I don't think he's meant to be Hellenistic...you're making this much more complicated than it is :) The writer knew that he was lord of Tiberias, and that the Battle of Hattin took place there, and changed his name to avoid confusion with Raynald. Adam Bishop 23:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I repeat my question, since it did not get answered in the text above: Was Tiberias a first name or a surname (/equivalent of surname) in the movie? Any clues in the movie and its text mateial to give answer to this question? 62.78.104.45 09:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I repeat my answer...Raynald calls him "Tiberias." There's no reason to suggest that is his surname (Tiberias does not call Raynald "Chatillon", for example - although Raynald for some inexplicable reason declares "I am Raynald of Chatillon!" at one point). There's no mention of him being Count of Tripoli or Prince of Tiberias - those entities do not exist in the movie. Tiberias is introduced as Marshall of Jerusalem, and he appears as sort of the Sheriff of the Wild West frontier town of Jerusalem. Adam Bishop 19:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a line in the dialogue (I think spoken by Guy, when he accuses him of knowing more than he should about Saladin's intentions) which refers to him as "Count of Tiberias". I have an earlier draft of the script in which it's also mentioned that his first name is Raymond, but this wasn't used in shooting. Silverwhistle 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This answer was more helpful. Thanks. So, Tiberias apparently is the first name. This is interesting. Either the scripter did not think that Tiberias is an unusual first name for a christian (/latin/ french) boy, or there is an interesting allusion to presumably Hellenistic era. 62.78.104.199 09:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think if you see the movie you'll realize that you are overestimating the intellect of the intended audience :) Adam Bishop 14:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably in some earlier draft of the play he's referred to as Count, or Prince, or whatever, of Tiberias. So they call him "Tiberias" just as they would refer to Balian, Lord of Ebelin, as "Ebelin". Not a surname exactly, because at that time people of Western European culture didn't really have surnames, strictly speaking. If you were the "So-and-so of Ducksburg" you were referred to by your peers as "Ducksburg". Tom129.93.17.135 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In the film, he is actually referred to as "the Count of Tiberias" - I think it's the scene in which Guy says, "The Count of Tiberias knows more than a Christian should about Saladin's intentions", or words to that effect. Already posted this on 20 March last year. Silverwhistle 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Since it's not said in full clarity, the character holds a similar role in the movie (Marshal of Jerusalem, confidante to Baldwin, rival to Guy de Lusignan) as, in history, did Raymond III, count of Tripoli, Lord of Tiberias. Tiberias is a town in Galilee, Israel, and was indeed named in honour of Emperor Tiberius. Since Tripoli plays no part in the movie, that has been omitted altogether, and since Raymond is a bit too much like Reynald (at least to English speakers), he's referred to by a non-ambiguous title... BTW, he's not a lawkeeper, he's a military commander, though in the middle ages the two functions overlapped largely. and yes sir Bishop, this film IS made for your garden variety American audience... although I strongly suspect the author of being a yahoo himself. --Svartalf 18:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin

On the game Civilization IV, Saladin looks a lot like KOH saladin. Could this be worthy of an "influence" part here?

[edit] The Siege of Jerusalem

In the Historical accuracy section the statement "Balian knighted everyone who could carry a sword" is incorrect. According to Stanley Lane-Poole's Saladin: All-Powerful Sultan and the Uniter of Islam, page 225, "since there were but two knights in the place... he knighted thirty burghers." In the same paragraph he says there were 60,000 men in the city. I'll give it a few days to see if anyone has anything to add, then I'll probably make the change myself if no one else does.--◀Pucktalk▶ 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true - but specific numbers change depending on the source. Our Siege of Jerusalem article says there were two knights left and Balian knighty sixty more burghers, not thirty, and I remember, when I wrote that, that there were other numbers given too (and other numbers for the number of men in the city and the number of total refugees). But yeah, he probably didn't knight "everyone." Adam Bishop 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to have a go at clarifying it. Hope I don't make too big a mess.--◀Pucktalk▶ 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Should we perhaps mention somewhere that the ending of the siege in the film was completely different to what actually happened?

In the film it was basically: "Well played chaps. You lost but you're free to go." Whereas what actually happened was that everyone in Jerusalem had to pay a ransom to be set free (ten dinars per man, five per woman). Balian tried to negotiate a lump sum to cover thousands of poor who couldn't afford to pay for themselves. Unfortunately the money raised wasn't enough, so in the end many thousands of people ended up in captivity as slaves, or worse. --nemeng Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:04:14 +1000 (UTC)

This is already mentioned on the page. Silverwhistle 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, found it:
Saladin allowed Balian and his family to leave in peace, along with everyone who could arrange a ransom, but many of the poorer inhabitants who could not pay were sold into slavery.
That's pretty low key. Suggest perhaps we change it to...
Saladin allowed Balian and his family to leave in peace, along with everyone else who could arrange a ransom, but thousands of poorer inhabitants who could not pay were sold into slavery.
(Ammendments in bold) --nemeng Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:15:23 +1000 UTC


Patriarch Heraclius, despite the attempts made on this page to defend him, was abominably greedy. Arranging the ransom for poor people should have been largely the job of the church, but (just as in the film) Heraclius was more interested in leaving with his loot. Some of Saladin's officers were so disgusted by this that they themselves chipped in to ransom a good portion of the poor. That's a fact. Tom129.93.17.135 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category:Historically inaccurate films

Losbolos (Talk | contribs) added Category:Historically inaccurate films. Out of curiosity I went to look at Category:Historically accurate films and discovered it doesn't exist. Is that an oversite or a reflection of reality? I should probably sleep now.--◀Pucktalk▶ 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that theres hardly a "historically ACCURATE film", as even films that are supposed to be 100% accurate take huge liberties (for example, in Der Untergang, the director took the liberty of "making up" some of the scenes, such as when Magda Goebbels begged Hitler to flee out of Berlin, well, historians are not sure if that ever happened). There are movies that are somewhat accurate to history.
The category is absurd. Any movie based on history is going to have some inaccuracies, making the category utterly useless. john k 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur - the very nature of the medium makes absolute accuracy nearly impossible to achieve. Read the goofs section of nearly any entry in the IMDB for movies dealing with a historic period for many, many examples. Seaphoto 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
But some make much more of an effort than others. And in this case, the real story is so much more interesting than the fictional inventions. I watched the film (TC and DC) hoping to see more about the characters who've fascinated me for a quarter of a century; by the end, I regarded the film as a botched opportunity. Silverwhistle 22:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

what does sibylla say to balian before they make love.

Sibylla: I’m not here with you because I’m… I’m bored or wicked. I’m here because, because in the east between one person and another, there is only light

Who said that this has to be historically accurate? Films are made for entertainment and money. Leave history to the historians. Also there is no proof that those facts of yours are right too. Films today need to be believable, not historically accurate. Films like Gladiator or KOH has to be swallowed by Joe Public so everything has to be tweaked to be likeable, good sounding, good looking to satisfy the watcher. So he feels fulfiled and in good mood before and after. Historical accuracy means little to nothing for the box office. --IEEE 02:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief Outline of Plot

I removed the following line:

"It is not specified whether they are simply riding off together, or whether she is leading him after Richard."

When watching the film, note they are heading in the same direction that Godfrey of Ibelin and his Knights do at the beginning of the film - toward the Village,presumably coming from the direction of Italy. Remember too, when Bailian says Sibillya must decide not to be queen for him to be with her. It is clear they will not be returning to the Holy Land. Seaphoto 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they're going along the road after Richard, as he went after Godfrey earlier. In the DC commentary, Scott says it was left open in case of a sequel. Silverwhistle 22:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I just listened to the commentary on the DC, and did not pick up on that. Scott talks about buying a lot of the DVD's so he can make a sequel, and the writer says he has a handle on Richard, but they say nothing about Bailian or Sibillya. Bloom does say he would love to go back to do a sequel,however, so you may be right. If based on history, Sibillya's story would not end happily at any rate. Seaphoto 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"If based on history" is perhaps an over-optimistic hope where Scott and Monahan are concerned... Be afraid. :-( Silverwhistle 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About criticism and DC

Not all reviews particulary attacked the movie for being perhaps too short, some of them attacked the film for either resembling to Lord of the Rings (wich was at the height of its popularity back then), for its portrayal of Muslims (the movie came at a sensitive time, War of Iraq was in peak and Muslims were depicted as a whole as mysogenist terrorists) and for its resemblance to Gladiator (in both cinematography and story, although the DC makes clear that both movies are different, at least in story).

The problem many of us had with it was that it seriously distorted the real story and characters, which are far more interesting and exciting... The DC adds a few more egregious inaccuracies. Silverwhistle 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that everytime the director's cut is mentioned in this article, it's praised as being one of the greatest films of all time? One person even said it was on par with Lawrence of Arabia. Even if there was a link to a reviewer saying that, this film is pretty much forgotten.--Freepablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is filled with an absurd level of bias in favor of the film. I came here just for some background info on the film after seeing it one night on HBO, not an article written by some fanboy of the film. A more neutral article is needed here.-24.186.220.44 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it a bit, but it is a bloated lump of crap, basically. Perhaps we should start again from scratch. Adam Bishop 00:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i have noticed the DC bias, the DC is in fact a better movie than the theatrical cut, but both movies still have the same problems still (Orlando Bloom, historical innacuracies, similarity with Gladiator, etc). The article, at this point, looks like written by a fan of the movie. Wich is also very interesting in another way, if we consider that the movie bombed both critically and in the box office. Myself, i liked the movie and had no problem with the historical innacuracies, but Bloom is just too much of a bad actor to endure for 2 and a half hours (and more than 3 hours for the DC), wich is the main reasson why i thought it was good, but not that good.
Do we really need all those details about the Director's Cut? I'm talking about specific details on the contents of each DVD disc... takes up a whole lot of room and I don't really see what it brings to the table, it could probably just be summarized in a paragraph or two. Ychennay 00:38 20 January 2007 EST

[edit] Did anyone else despise Orlando Bloom's performance?

I used to think he was a fine actor, and he doesn't seem pompous or conceited, but man, what a bad character body. -Augustulus

I've despised that since the Lord of the Rings, and the only reason it looks half decent in Pirates of the Caribbeans is that it's facing depp with too much eye liner, so it would make anything look good in comparison. --Svartalf 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be that vile. But I think he's more pretty than actually a good storyteller. Augustulus 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ave Regina caelorum

I was amazed on reading this fact in the "see also" section. I had to grab the soundtrack and listen to it again and sure enough the first stanza of this song clearly audible. The music in this film is much more engaging and accurate to the time period, as well as more emotional, than Gladiator. Knight45 16:59 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes (that was one of my edits!) - sadly, they didn't use much in-period music: there's Raimon de Miraval's Chansoneta farai vencut (recorded by Ensemble Convivencia) near the end, when he's looking at the budding tree, and (in the Director's Cut) a snippet of Guiot de Dijon's Chanterai por mon corage (as recorded by Estampie) in the flashback to Godfrey and Balian's mother, but there are lots more Crusade songs they could have used. I've added links to the lyrics of these songs in the section (now re-titled to reflect the fact it's soundtrack-related). Silverwhistle 10:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siddig's character's name

Quick note to everyone: Alexander Siddig's character is named Imad, and is based on Saladin's biographer. Wiki-newbie 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He was originally, in the early shooting script and the companion book, but in the finished film, he is called Nasir. However, this is an epithet (The Victorious, a title also used by Saladin), and since one of the subplots turns on the character hiding his identity, it is difficult to be sure which is to be taken as the character-name. Perhaps both names should be noted for him. It is also possible that Scott and Monahan changed the character's name, since, as portrayed, he bears little resemblance to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, who was Saladin's secretary, and much older. Silverwhistle 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh the Fancruft

i like Kingdom of Heaven, but until the movie gets some recognition (such as time, or a wide array of websites giving a serious praise), the article cannot stay as it is right now, too much unsourced info for an article that tries to defend the movie.

I don't think the article should be trying to defend the movie. It should be giving information, and illustrating some of the debates about it, & c. Silverwhistle 10:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Theres much dubiously sourced info, a bias to praise the movie. The article is not bad, it just needs some heavy editing.

[edit] Heraclius

The article says that Heraclius was unnamed in the film, however, just before he walks off to meet Saladin, Balian says, "You've taught me a lot about religion, Heraclius." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.119.175 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Religious Accuracy" section

Seeing as how this is probably the section of the article most fraught with POV peril, could some sources be cited for the assertions made here? Generally speaking it seems to be accurate to me (a well-educated layman), but none of the information is currently verifiable. I think that care needs to be taken when establishing what the prevailing theology of the time was (which might not necessarily comport with prevailing contemporary theology). AFAIK, even theologians and historians today have difficulty pining down exactly what Catholics thought 900 years ago; the level of confidence with which statements are made here seems to exceed their epistemological basis. In any case, sources are needed. 67.181.215.47 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Improved now, thanks to editing from an anon. 67.181.215.47 10:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Depictions

I think it might be good to add a section devoted strictly to flaws in the character portrayals in the film. The Historical Accuracy section is very long and if we exported some of that info into a new category, it would clean things up a bit. I made a write-up pertaining to character depictions in the film, but the Historical Accuracy section is long enough as it is. Any thoughts? JamesMcCloud129 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion of fictional and film representations in the biographical articles on the real characters, if users look them up under their own names. Silverwhistle 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ACCURACY OF THE "ACCURACY" SECTION IS PROBLEMATIC

The "historical accuracy" section is itself guilty of conveying some inaccurate impressions! It says that Patriarch (Archbishop of Jersualem) Heraclius is "innacurately portrayed as a coward" and tells us Yes, Saladin did allow Balian to leave and the Crusader population to ransom themselves, but lots of 'em who couldn't pay up were sold into slavery. Not false exactly, but misleading. It would normally be the job of the richer sections of the Crusader population, and especially their Church, to raise the ransom for the poorer folk. But it's a fact that Heraclius and others were stingy on that point, and were more interested in leaving with their loot than using it to redeem the poor. Many of Saladin's officers (and I'm not making this up) were so disgusted by the stinginess of rich churchmen like Heraclius that they contributed their own money to redeem many of the poor folk!

I think also that readers would be interested in knowing that the film was QUITE accurate in the matter of the negotiations between Balian and Saladin after the battle of Hattim: Saladin agreed to let Balian go free, and gave him safe passage to Jerusalem, in return for a promise to retire from the conflict, but when Balian reached Jerusalem the Crusader inhabitants begged him to command the defense, which he did, apologizing to Saladin but with the excuse that his duty to his people took precedence over his promise to Saladin. Saladin understood and freed him from his promise. Then after the surrender, he not only gave Balian and his wife Maria Comnena safe conduct to Tyre, he provided them with an armed escort. -- Nobody should try to deny that Saladin was every bit the class act he's portrayed in the film as being. Tom 129.93.17.135 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read some good-quality modern academic scholarship on this, such as Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Patriarch Eraclius”, in B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer & R. C. Smail (ed.), Outremer: Studies in the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 177-204, Peter W. Edbury, “Propaganda and Faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem: The Background to Hattin”, in Maya Shatzmiller (ed.), Christians and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria (Leiden, 1993), pp. 173-89, and Peter W. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Woodbridge, 1997). It's also important to recognise the agenda of the primary sources: Saladin's secretary, Imad al-Din, and his army qadi, Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad, were as biased to their side as the Frankish writers were to theirs. Balian had not been taken prisoner at Hattin, but had fled to Tyre. His negotiations with Saladin had been to cross the lines to get to Jerusalem in September, when it was realised the city was under threat. Balian had Maria Komnene and their children sent to Tripoli, not Tyre, before the siege, again thanks to his negotiations with Saladin. Balian and Eraclius offered to remain as hostages because (despite a collection, which included a large sum from the Hospitallers - part of Henry II's crusade fund), they could not ransom the whole Frankish population, but Saladin refused to accept their offer of themselves. It wasn't the stinginess of the Franks that made 'al-Adil (and Saladin himself) ransom some captives, but the simple fact that it was regarded as a virtuous act in their ethical code. Balian rejoined his wife and children in Tripoli, while the Patriarch and Sibylla took their refugee column to Antioch. Silverwhistle 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate entry for soundtrack

I think a separate article for the soundtrack would be good... the article is pretty long already and there is enough content and information IMO about the soundtrack to warrant its own article. What do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ychennay (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Have an article about the album, but keep a brief description in this article. Don't need a track listing.-BiancaOfHell 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I created a new article on the soundtrack, basically just cut and pasted most of the stuff there, and added a brief, very brief summary of the film score in the cinematography section. -Ychennay
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Talk%7EKingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29_9156.html"