MovieChat Forums > Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) Discussion > How this movie could have been WAY bette...

How this movie could have been WAY better


Okay so I am a history major, and I was really annoyed at this movie because of this:

The Hassansins:
1.Hassan ruled Alamut in the early 12th Century. The Shi'ite accepted Ismail at their imam. (That's why they were called Ismailis.) The Ismailis did incorporate elements of gnosticism (hence the "we can see visions derp" in the film.) These were holy warriors though, and they were under the command of Hassan i Sabbah, NOT any king of Persia. The way they were portrayed in the film did not support this fact. Instead, they were portrayed as mildly effective assassins.

2. "The Holy City of Alamut": okay so basically the most confusing and problematic part in the whole movie is that because the Hassansins did not exist up until some 300-400ish years after the supposed era in this film, the people of Alamut at the time of the Persian invasion (in the film) were Zaydi-Shi'a.
Okay so who ACTUALLY invaded Alamut? The ISMAILIS, under Hasan i Sabbah, that's who. And who were these Ismailis? THE HASHSHASHINS - like 300-400 years LATER THAN THIS FILM DEPICTS. But the Hassansins, according to this film, apparently did a time warp and ended up in a time where the Zaidiyyah were still strong and powerful. Okay, so the Ismailis did not invade Alamut, the Persians did (according to this film.) If anyone doesn't know where Alamut was located, it was located in Iran <-- modern day PERSIA. So let's get this straight, Persia invaded Persia, during the height of the Zaidiyyah at Alamut, and they used a highly skilled, deadly, super top secret, (yet easily describable if asked about) killing force that was at the service of the Persian kings?

Facepalm.

You know what they should have done?
If they really wanted to incorporate the Hashshashin Ismailis into this film, they could have done a number of things differently.

1. No matter what, you can not escape religion. The moment you have a character saying "This is a Holy city," or "The Gods did [enter what the Gods did here]," you are going to have to incorporate aspects of religion.

2. Don't call them the Hassansins, or refer to them as "assassins". By all means, have a super awesome killing force, give them a more solid background... more than a one-line explanation from Dastan. Develop the characters, so the audience can understand how they function/ operate.

3. Please, pick. a. damn. era.
600 AD = time of Islamic conquest
1100 AD = Islam is already established

reply

Hmm...And for further preservation of historical accuracy, please do tell: how well did the film factually portray the time-traveling Dagger? Was the underground chamber containing the gods' Sands of Time in the correct location? Did they happen to get the era right during which the gods attempted to wipe out the world with a giant sandstorm?

I would love to know that the movie at least gave me a proper history lesson regarding all this.

reply

Well, you can have fiction within a period piece. I just think that the film did not have a strong foundation because of inconsistencies, and not making a clear distinction between fiction and history.

reply

True, this film would be considered poorly done if in fact it was a "fictional period piece". But I don't think this is the case. As I see it, there's a spectrum between fictional period piece and fantasy. This film leans way more on the fantasy side. Now, consider by comparison the Indiana Jones series. These films lie somewhere in the middle. They present us the real world, with a real historical/anthropological backdrop, and then infer that the supernatural is real. Indy, like us, assumes the world is the way we experience it and even doubts the supernatural, but as his adventures come to show him, things like magic & otherwordly powers do exist. Now those films may be more worthy of factual scrutiny as I hear they twist a lot things (particularly in Temple of Doom in regards to the hindu culture). Now also consider more closer examples of the "fictional period piece" such as Robin Hood or Cameron's Titanic. The main characters and their specific story are either legend or pure fiction created by the filmmakers, yet everything in their world occurs according to reality or historical fact. There are no supernatural elements.

In PoP, supernatural powers exist and none of the characters question or doubt this. It is fantasy. The mystical is automatically accepted, and therefore, we the audience are expected to accept it. Furthermore, we are then expected to accept any other contradictions to the real world (i.e, historical/cultural inaccuracies), so long as the movie (story) does not contradict itself (which would simply be poor storytelling). Not to mention, this is based on a video game, so I think the filmmakers assumed most would know this before going in and not take the movie's elements too seriously.


Personally, I felt this film needed work on its cheesy dialogue, its campy/cliched romance and its overdependence on CGI. If it was going for camp (the good kind) it kinda dropped the ball on that. But the story itself was solid, engaging and fun, in spite of its "factual" inaccuracies.

Just my opinion.

reply

Hassan-e Sabbah wasn't a holy warrior, neither were the Hashishins. Sabbah was a Persian who despised the Arabs and Turks. He and his men fought for his country in a time Persia was overrun by the filth of Islam.

Inventing things doesn't make them true son.

reply

Had Hrithik Roshan (a leading Indian Bollywood actor, aka Greek God) agreed to do the Jake's role (yes he was approached for it before Jake but he turned it down). His acting, charisma, physique, looks, would have been perfectly suited for the lead role. It was a great opportunity for him to move to Hollywood, don't know why he turned it down.

reply

Too much to read, sorry..... I just wish there was more action!

reply