Talk:Kingdom of Heaven (film)/Archive 1

SALAH EL DIN WON THE BATTLE

with all my resect this move is nothing but science fiction of whoever wrote it, it shows Salah el Din's army as a weak one, and consist of only muslims, while this army actually consisted of muslims and christains, and this army that in the end of the movie gave up to this who call himself ballin, is not true at all, Salah el Din, didn't want to enter the city to kill or to destroy it but wanted to enter it to protect those people who have been savagly killed by who called themselves : "the soldiers of GOD" this movie is totally inaccurate historicaly, i seriously wonder why people don't understand muslims, coz u keep looking at them as weak and blood thirst while Muslims guided the world in its way either through science or math and even medically, but who am i talking to?? u r people who do't want to hear history but to fiction itwith ur hollywood movies and some millions in cinemas.... there is an egyptian movie that descriped everything happened historically 100% accurate more than this scifi u r trying to adertise. stop fictionning, and start documenting right.

Well, we didn't write the movie, this is Wikipedia. Also I seriously doubt that any movie is 100% historically accurate about any period, especially not this one, whether it was made in Egypt or America. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Saladin did not surrender to Balian in the film or history. Balian in fact surrended the city to Saladin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.143.254 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

"I found this confusing too because now IMDB also refers to Sid's character as 'Imad'-juliansgirl7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliansgirl7 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(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".

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.

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)

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)

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)

Saladin

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

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.--◀Puck^talk▶ 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.--◀Puck^talk▶ 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)

The article is unclear about when the Knights Templar etc. were executed: It was not in the context of the siege of Jerusalem, but earlier, to be precise: after the battle of Hattin. (cf. the German publication by Peter Thorau, Die Kreuzzüge, Munich 2004, pps. 92f.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.91.127 (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To TOM above: It's a FACT?? And your assertion makes it so, right? Jeez. Go to the wikipedia page on him if you would like to learn the truth. There are also several contemporary histories that deal with him at length. The negative image the filmakers chose to portray comes from an account written by his chief rival, containing claims and events found in no other writings and wholly dismissed today by historians. Who knows what his real character or motivation was like? The only "facts" are that he was present at the siege; offered himself as a hostage; organized the collection effort as regards ransom money; and then went to Tyre with Balian.

As has been pointed out as nauseum, the film is an historical disaster, and while it has some good scenes, some fine acting (Bloom notwithstanding), etc., is prety clealy designed to be a "Muslim good/Christian bad" vehicle, and the depiction of Heraclius was designed to fit into that mold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.90.86 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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.--◀Puck^talk▶ 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)

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)

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 would say the entire article is filled with an absurd amount of nonsense on ALL levels. It states in the introduction that this film is 'a heavily fictionalised portrayal', and then under critical response we have paragraph after paragraph citing historians' opinions about it being fictional-- gee, you think? Is it intended to be a fictional film? It is? Okay, let's start with that. Now what's it about? How was it conceived? Who does the cast consist of? What is the home media specifications? What did major film reviewers say about it? Ad nauseam. It's not difficult to write a descriptive article-- it's difficult writing it when the article reads like a prescription telling you how to think of it, and then, considering the nature of Wikipedia, it turns into a debate forum. An example is below; the commenter speaks about Orlando Bloom being a bad actor-- what does that have to do with the film itself? That's prescription, that's not description. Ychennay's comment is much more descriptively based-- he asks for the particulars of the director cuts' DVD, not a review of it's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2011 (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

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)

The article clearly states that his performance was despised in the U.S. but it also point out that he received a best european actor award. Personnaly, I think he did quite well. Not as well as in LOTR but he didn't disappoint meMitch1981 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the film's dramatic issues is what it means to "be good". Bloom is put in situations where he has to make major moral decisions, yet we do not see much in the way of inner struggle. It is, in my view, a flat, uninvolving performance, devoid of any sense we're seeing a real human being with real problems. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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).

"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)

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)

ACCURACY OF THE "ACCURACY" SECTION IS Sinful

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)

Its is pretty naive to believe that one side (let this be christian or muslim) would not be biased regarding the crusades, or worst that one side is biased and the other one is not, when this is a classic example of history being written with two different points of view.

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

Historical accuracy note

In the final scene of the film, Balian tells the crusaders to "Go east to where the men speak Italian," however, in 1189, the year of King Richard's Crusade, Italian was still hundreds of years away from standardization as a language, and the Tuscan dialect it would be based on was not spoken in any region along the crusade route. --NEMT 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but by extension, Balian wouldn't be able to give instructions in modern English either. It's probably not good cinematic sense to have him say "Go east to where the men speak [some medieval Latinate dialect that the audience has never heard of]". Adam Bishop 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The sequence doesn't make much sense anyway - as anyone going to the holy land likely already knew it was far past what is now Italy. The region wouldn't even have been identifiable by which language its residents spoke; and such advice would be both esoteric and useless. A response like "Go east past the Alps" would've been much more realistic and suitable. --NEMT 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its called a joke NEMT... even the writter and director when refering to that line have stated that they were surprised so many people took it as a real direction to Jerusalem and that it was nothing but a joke.

This film is not historically accurate. That doesn't concern me. It is a work of fiction, not a documentary. However it does represent Christianity and the Crusaders in a negative light, and shows the Moslems as enlightened and more civilised. This is wrong. Do not forget that the Crusaders were not invading Moslem land, they were trying to free Christian land from recent Moslem occupation. And we all know that Christianity, for all its faults, is a more compassionate and less violent religion than Islam. Finally, who can seriously argue that Moslems are more progressive and civilised than Christians?124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is not for general commentary about the film; see WP:TALK. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Second that... Nor is the talk page reserved for off-topic opinions. Dinkytown talk 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The story of this film is a falsification of history. Period. Mazarin07 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Phillips

The link takes you to Phillips the actor instead of the Phillips the scholar.

Fixed Seaphoto^Talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Death of Baldwin V in Director’s Cut

In the article it says His death is depicted as an act of euthanasia by his mother, using poison. To my understanding, this is not correct. Sibylla clearly uses acid, which she drips in the boy’s ear. (Because he is a leper, he does not feel pain at this moment.) It would also be illogical to use poison and pour it in the ear rather than put it in a drink. --172.158.227.206 10:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent for putting poison in an ear - see Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' and the play within the play —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hamlet seems to be a strong influence on Kingdom of Heaven. You know the clown scene in Hamlet, where Hamlet holds up his friend?'s skull, and they joke, well isn't that pretty similar to the very opening of Kingdom of Heaven? Additionally, Hamlet has a strong influence on the writer, William Monahan, so it's likely the play as well as other Shakespeare works maybe, have played their part. Well worth a discussion methinks.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The main point is that this author took a bit form here, another bit from there, and wrote the script with a strong desire to comply with current political correctness requirements. The result is terrible, I see nothing valuable here. Mazarin07 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Sources

Setton, Kenneth Meyer (Ed.) (1955-1962) A History of the Crusades. Two volumes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Second edition (1969-1989) Six volumes. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Prawer, Joshua (1972) The Crusaders’ kingdom: European colonialism in the Middle Ages. New York: Praeger. New edition (2001) London: Phoenix.

Ellenblum, Ronnie (2007) Crusader Castles and Modern Histories. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

--Groucho (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved this from the article to the talk page. I think you might be confused as to the difference between the two. Alientraveller (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiberias

Has anyone noticed that the Patriach of Jerusalem does invite Tiberias by his title "Count of Tiberias" so the name Tiberias was only a abreviation of his full title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.143.254 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did the English Seargant (Kevin McKidd) drown during Bailian's voyage?

Did Kevin McKidd's character perish in the storm when Bailian set out from Messina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.18.240 (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was wondering that myself, he seems to just disappear from the movie without any explanation. Bertaut (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Historical Accuracy Section has a false claim

The following quote is wrong and unfounded:

During one scene in the movie, shortly before Hattin, three soldiers referred to as "Templars" attack Balian; however, they clearly wear the white surcoats with black crosses of Teutonic Knights, rather than the white and red of the Knights Templar. The Teutonic Knights were not a military order until 1198.

The claim where it says that knights in White surcoats and Black crosses is false, as if I remember rightly, which I'm sure I do, the knights who attacked Balian had Black surcoats and a White cross, clearly Hospitallers, rather than the non existent Teutons that the sentence claims appear in the movie. I'll find a picture and a source for it later, but it's not like the statements source is useful unless we're going into the Teutonic Order in depth. <_<
Imperator ^Talk 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No you dont remember correctly, the knights are dressed in white tunics with a black cross (similar to those of the Teutonic Order), NOT hospitallers or templars colours. Sneaking Viper (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with "Critical Response" Section

I have a bunch. Whoever wrote them up seems to have just thrown words onto the article without any real subject in mind. It goes on and on about how some critics have said "THIS IS SUPER BAD FOR CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM RELATIONS" without any explanation at all of HOW it would affect them. A mention is made of one critic stating it is "Osama Bin Laden's version of the Crusades".

Perhaps the critic did not realize that it was the Christians who were the aggressors in the Crusades?

Any bias I see in this film is so minimal as to be not even worth mentioning; -Of all the major Muslim and Christian characters, I can name two Muslim characters who are portrayed as good and chivalrous (Salah ad-Din, Siddig's character) and one who is neutral (the one who complained about Salah ad-Din's strategy). I can only name three Christian characters who are portrayed as wicked and evil (Guy de Lusignon, Reynald de Chatillon, the priest in France), one who is a coward, and the rest are in the same tone of goodness, virtue, and chivalry.

Considering that the Muslim characters I mentioned are pretty much the ONLY major Muslim characters, I think it's being pretty fair in portraying two of them as good men, and one of them as an average man. Especially considering that the number of good and neutral Christians portrayed include: the German and the African from Godfrey's party (Almaric and Firuz?), Godfrey himself, Balian, Sibylla, Baldwin IV, Tiberias, the Knight Hospitallar, and Kevin McKidd's character. Clearly this is more from the point of view of the Christians than the Muslims, so there would be more Christian characters.

Judging from this, I can see absolutely no evidence from the movie or its tone to imply that it is in any way "dangerous" to Arab/Western relations, or the sort of portrayal of Christians that Osama Bin Laden would agree with. Do these reviewers remember the scenes with Nasir (Siddig's character) and Balian, sparing each others lives and honorably speaking with one another? Baldwin IV and Salah ad-Din conversing with one another with immense respect? Salah ad-Din standing up a fallen cross inside a temple in Jerusalem? All of the scenes in Ibelin, in which Muslims and Christians are working and living together to bring water to the land?

Clearly Muslims are given no cause for offense as, as usual, Christians and specifically churchmen, are depicted as the villains of the piece. As for who was the aggressor it might be pointed out that Palestine was Christian for two centuries before Mohammed's armies took it for Islam. And the legend of Muslim tolerance is exactly that, a legend. The fact is a Muslim leader actually leveled the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Christians were later allowed to rebuild but existing on sufferance that may be withdrawn at any instant is NOT tolerance.216.120.218.143 (talk)Roxana —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

I think this 'criticism' section needs a MAJOR re-vamping, with critics' opinions being clearly stated as opinions, and not taken as the overall tone of the entire section, and some solid proof of WHERE and HOW these accusations make this film some sort of anti-Christian propaganda. It's just bullshit, and it's bad for you. TM George Carlin 65.87.105.8 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Syrian actor

Shouldn't there be receptions in Arab world, especcially in Syria? Because, a Syrian actor, Ghassan Massoud, appears there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you all pretty much missing the point?

I saw Kingdom of Heaven for the first time yesterday (BD), and was generally impressed (though "I fought for two days with an arrow in my testicle" will not go down as one of the all-time great movie lines). The question of historical accuracy didn't seem important, because the film was obviously created, not to be historically correct, but To Make A Point. Multiple points, in fact. One of these is a discussion of what it means to be good and do good, as well as how one is to make the "right" decision when there is no obvious right or wrong. The other is that all the sides are fighting over something that simply isn't important -- at least, to anyone with a modicum of common sense and good will. Kingdom of Heaven is ultimately a condemnation of "organized religion" and the people who use "God wills it!" as an excuse for atrocities. (None of this is subtle; it's almost thrown in the audience's face, and really should be discussed in the article.) Of course, such films rarely have any effect on the thinking of the people who most need to see them. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack

There also is used the Track "The Crow descends" composed by Graeme Revell from the Crow Soundtrack, when Balian is attacked by 3 (?) black fashioned Soldiers. Could be mentioned in the article.--ClaptonDennis (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it can be included, but unless you can find a good quality, verifiable source for that fact it is likely to be challenged and removed as original research. I'm a bit of a soundtrack buff myself and have run into this type of thing before when exploring the connections between composers and the various films they have scored. Happy editing! Seaphoto^Talk 06:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below section was tagged for needing additional references since 2008. I have removed unsourced statements from the article. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate sourcing. Doniago (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy (pre-removal of unsourced material)

==Historical accuracy== Orlando Bloom's character, Balian of Ibelin, was a close ally of Raymond; however, he was a mature gentleman, just a year or two younger than Raymond, and one of the most important nobles in the kingdom, not a French blacksmith. His father Barisan (which was originally his own name, modified into French as 'Balian') founded the Ibelin family in the east, and probably came from Italy. Balian and Sibylla were indeed united in the defense of Jerusalem; however, no romantic relationship existed between the two. Balian married Sibylla's stepmother Maria Comnena, Dowager Queen of Jerusalem and Lady of Nablus. The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre (the so-called Chronicle of Ernoul) claimed that Sibylla had been infatuated with Balian's older brother Baldwin of Ibelin, a widower over twice her age, but this is doubtful; instead, it seems that Raymond of Tripoli attempted a coup to marry her off to him to strengthen the position of his faction; however, this legend seems to have been behind the film's creation of a romance between Sibylla and a member of the Ibelin family. William of Tyre discovers Baldwin IV's leprosy; his accounts form the historical basis for much of the film. The events of the siege of Jerusalem are based on the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, a favorable account partly written by Ernoul, one of Balian's officers, and other contemporary documents. Saladin did besiege Jerusalem for almost a month, and was able to knock down a portion of the wall. In the film, Balian knighted everyone who could carry a sword, but historical accounts say he only knighted some burgesses. The exact number varies in different accounts, but it is probably less than one hundred in a city which had tens of thousands of male inhabitants and refugees. Balian personally negotiated the surrender of the city with Saladin, after threatening to destroy every building and kill the 3000–5000 Muslim inhabitants of the city. Saladin allowed Balian and his family to leave in peace, along with everyone else who could arrange to pay a ransom. King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, who reigned from 1174 to 1185, was a leper, and his sister Sibylla did marry Guy of Lusignan. Also, Baldwin IV had a falling out with Guy before his death, and so Guy did not succeed Baldwin IV immediately. Baldwin crowned Sibylla's son from her previous marriage to William of Montferrat, five-year-old Baldwin V co-king in his own lifetime, in 1183. The little boy reigned as sole king for one year, dying in 1186 at nine years of age. After her son's death, Sibylla and Guy (to whom she was devoted) garrisoned the city, and she claimed the throne. The coronation scene in the movie was, in real life, more of a shock: Sibylla had been forced to promise to divorce Guy before becoming queen, with the assurance that she would be permitted to pick her own consort. After being crowned by Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem (who is unnamed in the movie), she chose to crown Guy as her consort. Raymond III of Tripoli, the film's Tiberias, was not present, but was in Nablus attempting a coup, with Balian of Ibelin, to raise her half-sister (Balian's stepdaughter), princess Isabella of Jerusalem, to the throne; however, Isabella's husband, Humphrey IV of Toron, refusing to precipitate a civil war, swore allegiance to Guy. Raymond of Tripoli was a cousin of Amalric I of Jerusalem, and one of the Kingdom's most powerful nobles, as well as sometime regent. He had a claim to the throne himself, but, being childless, instead tried to advance his allies the Ibelin family. He was often in conflict with Guy and Raynald, who had risen to their positions by marrying wealthy heiresses and through the king's favor. Guy and Raynald did harass Saladin's caravans, and the claim that Raynald captured Saladin's sister is based on the account given in the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre. This claim is not supported by any other accounts, and is generally believed to be false. In actuality, after Raynald's attack on one caravan, Saladin made sure that the next one, in which his sister was traveling, was properly guarded: the lady came to no harm. The discord between the rival factions in the kingdom gave Saladin the opportunity to pursue his long-term goal of conquering it. The kingdom's army was defeated at the Battle of Hattin, partly due to the conflict between Guy and Raymond. As already stated, the battle itself is not shown in the movie, but its aftermath is depicted. The Muslims captured Guy and Raynald, and according to al-Safadi in al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, executed Raynald after he drank from the goblet offered to Guy, as the sultan had once made a promise never to give anything to Raynald. Guy was imprisoned, but later freed. He attempted to retain the kingship even after the deaths of Sibylla and their daughters during his siege of Acre in 1190, but lost in an election to Conrad of Montferrat in 1192. Richard I of England, his only supporter, sold him the lordship of Cyprus, where he died c. 1194. There was a Haute Cour, a "high court", a sort of medieval parliament, in which Jeremy Irons' character Tiberias is seen arguing with Guy for or against war, in front of Baldwin IV as the final judge. The movie alludes to the Battle of Montgisard in 1177, in which 16-year-old Baldwin IV defeated Saladin, with Saladin narrowly escaping. The Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar were the most enthusiastic about fighting Saladin and the Muslims. They were monastic military orders, committed to celibacy. Neither Guy nor Raynald was a Templar, as the movie implies by costuming them both in Templar surcoats: they were secular nobles with wives and families, simply supported by the Templars. The "uneasy truce" referred to in the closing scene refers to the Treaty of Ramla, negotiated, with Balian's help, at the end of the Third Crusade. The Third Crusade is alluded to at the end of the movie, when Richard I of England visits Balian in France. Balian, of course, was not from France and did not return there with Sibylla; she and her two daughters died of fever in camp during the siege of Acre. Conrad of Montferrat had denied her and Guy entry to the remaining stronghold of Tyre, and thus Guy was attempting to take another city for himself. Balian's relations with Richard were far from amicable, because he supported Conrad against Richard's vassal Guy. He and his wife Maria arranged her daughter Isabella's forcible divorce from Humphrey of Toron so she could marry Conrad. Ambroise, who wrote a poetic account of the crusade, called Balian "more false than a goblin" and said he "should be hunted with dogs". The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi wrote that Balian was a member of a "council of consummate iniquity", and described him as cruel, fickle, and faithless, and accused him of taking bribes from Conrad. The young Balian of the movie thus did not exist in reality. The historical Balian had descendants by Maria Comnena. Thanks to their close relationship to Sibylla's half-sister and successor, Maria's daughter Queen Isabella (not shown in the movie), the Ibelins became the most powerful noble family in the rump Kingdom of Jerusalem as well as in Cyprus in the thirteenth century. Most notably, Maria and Balian's son John, the Lord of Beirut, was a dominant force in the politics of Outremer for the first third of the thirteenth century. Near the end of the film and after Saladin has entered the city; he is seen watching as a crescent ornament is being raised on top of a building presumably a mosque. This is an anachronism as at that time mosques did not bear any kind of symbols on the minarets. The crescent was introduced many centuries later with the Turkish Ottoman Empire. An episode of The History Channel's series History vs. Hollywood analyzed the historical accuracy of the film. This program and a Movie Real (a series by A&E Network) episode about Kingdom of Heaven were both included on the DVD version of the movie.

Knights Templar

It's obvious how the knights templar were actually negotiators and helpers to other people to finding a simple journey or destination, as well with secrets, other than the film showing them as men of killing innocent blood. The real Templars, although, most of them were more like the Hospitallers in the film, helping Balian of Ibelin and keeping the kingdom and secrets of the world safe.--74.34.86.120 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that the film was a work of fiction based loosely upon historic events. As such, depictions of any ancient order of knights may or may not be "historically accurate", indeed, the history is mixed, depending on which side of the conflict is recording events. Either way, it's a work of fiction and Hollywood is infamous for screwing up history.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy paraded on a donkey

The film shows Saladin executing Raynald for drinking water without permission but sparing Guy because "Kings do not kill Kings". That tallies with the story as known. Before the Siege of Jerusalem Guy is shown being paraded in front of the laughing Muslim army, facing backwards on a donkey, in his underpants. Does this have any known basis in the records?Paulturtle (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any records mention anything like that...he was just imprisoned in Damascus until 1188. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Thought so. Perhaps not very plausible either, as senior officials in most eras like to preserve the dignity due to rank, even if the man who holds it is a fool. But who knows.Paulturtle (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Plgiarism row

This movie was the subject of a well-publicised plagiarism row and I'm surprised to see no mention of it. Don't get me wrong, I have no axe to grind here, but I was just listening to a talk by historian James Reston Jr, who claims his history of the crusades is the true source of the story and it's clear that it was quite well covered in the press and should be mentioned - if it legally can be (there was no actual legal suit) - briefly.

Here's one link

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-04-28-kingdom-plagiarized_x.htm?csp=34

I don't have the skills to put it in myself.

THe source for all this is,

History and Movies: An Historian Writes a Screenplay - a talk on the LIbrary of Congress YouTube channel.

http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5216

82.6.141.117 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting...I've never actually heard that before. I would note, however, that Reston is not an historian, and there is nothing in his book that isn't derived from better histories of the crusades. The sources for this movie are the same as Reston's sources, more likely. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

citations for use

• Irvine, Lindesay (October 6, 2005). "Interview: Sir Ridley Scott". The Guardian.