Dwarkadheesh - Bhagwaan Shree Krishna

   

the real picture??

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 3

Page 1
Page   of 3
Page 2 Page 3

camella

IF-Dazzler

camella

PRCís observer (Pratha)

Joined: 07 December 2006

Posts: 2594

Posted: 16 August 2011 at 10:08am | IP Logged
Ok.. i'm sorry..but i've been waiting patiently to see whether the sagars wud stop diluting and modifying facts..but it just doesnt seem to happen...WHEN are we going to get the real story???...the whole thing about showing lord krishna as a human being and his relationships is fine..but that does not allow the makers to twist and modify the storyConfused..first they did it by showing devaki releasing her sons BEFORE the kurukshetra war, when in reality it comes just after the kurukshetra war, then they show satrajit like a common villain out of some film, and the whole story of how the gem got 'stolen' was also modified...satrajits brother turned out to be a greater villain !! according to the real story satrajit himself gave the gem to his brother when he went hunting so tht it would protect him from danger..however a lion killed satrajits brother and krishna was blamed. Today was definitely the last straw when they showed the widow serving as a 'witness' against krishna!! demons in black gowns with halloween makeup?? the lord shown 'frowning' in adverse situations??Angry sagars really need to wake up and understand that their serial is being watched by many and that displaying wrong facts can create a wrong base or understanding about mythology for many who have no idea abt lord krishna's story...i truly feel bad for vishal and other actors because they're doing their best...but their efforts are kinda being wasted by the makers with these 'modified' stories..this is only my opinion and i seriously believe the sagars are capable enough to do much better than this..i sincerely hope they start making the right decisionsOuch

The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:

radash-Swetha-vik rocksmnx12varaaliRoark..RamKiJanaki..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "the real picture??" in Dwarkadheesh - Bhagwaan Shree Krishna forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 16 August 2011 at 11:51pm | IP Logged
I agree w/ a lot of what you say, so decided to post my comments on last night's episode here.  Didn't mean to get into a big bhashan, but there's sooo much in my mind that I end up doing it anyway, so here it is.
 
Devaki getting her children back now didn't bother me - it seems logical that once she witnessed miracles - not Kritavarma's son, but Guru Sandipan's son - that she'd want hers back as well, and that she's more likely to have wanted it when she was still young enough to have more children, rather than towards the end of her life when she would have had so many grandchildren to cuddle as babies.  Also, in the texts, the order in which they appeared was more according to Parikshit's/Janamejaya's curiousity, rather than any actual chronological order.  The only chronological order that can be assigned are things like Pradhyumna's return to Krishna would have had to have happened b4 the Pandava Rajasuya yagna, things of that sort.  Otherwise, I don't think one can definitively say that this incident happened towards the end of her life, particularly when in that story, she actually breast-fed those babies b4 releasing them.
 
I found it somewhat amusing how they've smuggled these fictitious characters like Amod, Raman, Ramiya into the story.  But the thing I didn't like is that in this fictional construct, Balarama is portrayed as being more interested in protecting Krishna than seeing justice done. Ermm Even in the original Raman episode, I didn't like how Balarama was portrayed as refusing to listen to Raman's pleas @ all.  In reality, Balarama, like Lakshman, did have a fiery temper, but he was not unreasonable, and nor was he unjust.  The real Balarama, had he actually been king, and had he been in such a situation, would have given Raman a fair chance to vindicate himself.
 
The end result of that ugly twist was that everytime Krishna meets Ramiya, he's filled w/ guilt, and nobody can fault Ramiya w/ what she says to Krishna - whether it's refusing to let him help her w/ the water, refusing to accept his gifts, etc.  Till now, I haven't gotten the point of depicting Krishna as guilt ridden.  Somehow, they're trying to show that Krishna being accused by Satrajit was a moral consequence of Raman being accused by Balarama.  And last night, she didn't bear false witness against him, so the way the story has been spun, despite the total assassination of Satrajit's character, it's hard to blame him in these circumstances when he has a witness backing up what he suspects.  And Ramiya was right about Balarama - having refused to listen to Raman, Balarama looked more like a family b4 people when he refused to do anything against Krishna w/o evidence - evidence he hadn't insisted on for Raman's case.  It's only b'cos Krishna insisted that all citizens must have trust in the government that Balarama's reputation seemed saved.
 
Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Sagars are trying a Ramayanification (never thought I'd come up w/, much less use that word) of Krishna's history?  In the Krittivas version of the Ramayan, Rama exiled Sita just b'cos a dhobi suspected her: here, Krishna is leaving just b'cos Satrajit suspects him.  In the original, when Prasenjit was found dead, Satrajit suspected Krishna, but never confronted him on it, but Krishna, in a similar spirit, decided to get to the bottom of that.
 
My biggest problem w/ the story is that while it's well known even in the serial that Krishna knew about his incarnation, Balarama, who is a part of the same incarnation, doesn't seem to show it.  Last night, when Krishna was leaving, neither Balarama nor Revathy nor Rukmini should have been bothered, but the tears they showed in their eyes, and Balarama asking Krishna what if you can't get the gem?  After Krishna has retrieved their dead brothers, how can someone, particularly Balarama, doubt that Krishna would be successful?  He has so many divine resources @ his disposal - aside from the fact that his chariot can fly, he has Garuda, and Vishnu's divine weapons, can invoke Hanuman if he wishes, and so many other things.  But Rukmini is really a let down - all she does is cry, and express concern whenever Krishna does anything.  In reality, she had a very happy life & marriage - only miserable times was when Pradhyumna was stolen from her, and @ the end, when the entire race was massacred and she got briefly widowed.  Of all women, apart from Sita, she's the one who should be the least worried about apshakuns.
 
Krishna was right in pointing to Balarama that Raman did the wrong thing by killing himself, but if the point of the story here is that Raman should have done what Krishna is doing, I think it fails.  First of all, Raman didn't have anywhere near the resources Krishna had to vindicate himself, although one could argue that had he approached a rishi, he might have found out who stole it and tried to implicate him.  But had those rishis been tied up by monsters like in last night's episode, Raman would have been out of luck.  I do hope that after Krishna is vindicated, he finds out who actually framed Raman and produces him to Ramiya, so that she can stop hating Krishna (really, her real anger should be towards Balarama - Krishna did try to give her a hearing, but Balarama stopped him) and be @ peace w/ the turn of things.
 
The sages & the monsters story seems inserted - these monsters looked like some of the ones Hanuman encountered when he was out to save Rama & Lakshman from Ahiravan & Mahiravan. LOL  But again, one thing I like about this serial - they show Krishna using weapons other than his discus.  It did look strange @ first when Krishna went into the ashram w/ his bow when his purpose was to ask the rishis for directions.  But looks like the bow was put into good use Clap  (Don't look @ me like that - I love astras & shastras, so love everytime Rama or Krishna get to use them LOL  And the discus in this serial is the best I've ever seen!!! Cool)
 
Another thing - aside from Krishna frowning in adverse situations, I don't like how he takes oaths.  In fact, I doubt that he ever took an oath, except maybe in case of Narakasura, where he vowed to kill him for snatching Aditi's earrings.  W/ Shrutadeva, he merely promised to forgive Sishupala 100 times, but again, never swore it.  Here, he's taken one now to prove his innocence, and earlier, he took one for Kritavarma's wife.  Krishna was never that impetuous!  Even in Kurukshetra, where people think he had sworn not to fight - no!  He told Arjun that he wasn't going to fight for either side, but it was not in the form of a vow or anything.  So had Krishna decided @ any point of time to fight, he'd not have been breaking any promise, just changing his mind.  But he's made 2 vows already.
 
The last thing I didn't get - I know that a lot of things changed for Jambavan b/w Treta & Dwapar Yugas.  But in Treta Yuga, Jambavan was based in Kishkindha, where he was an advisor to Sugriva, and later presumably Angad.  So how does he now live in a cave north of Dwarka?  Kishkindha is in Karnataka, where Vijayanagar/Hampi was, so how is that anywhere near?  I'm not sure the CVs are wrong either in this case, since Prasenjit couldn't have gone far, but if anybody knows how Jambavan came so far north, I'd sure like to hear it.
 
P.S. Where is everybody?  The forum is so empty after the long weekend in India has ended Confused

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

-Swetha-vik rocksmnx12Roark..RamKiJanaki..

camella

IF-Dazzler

camella

PRCís observer (Pratha)

Joined: 07 December 2006

Posts: 2594

Posted: 17 August 2011 at 6:42am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Vrish_

I agree w/ a lot of what you say, so decided to post my comments on last night's episode here.  Didn't mean to get into a big bhashan, but there's sooo much in my mind that I end up doing it anyway, so here it is.- not at all...definitely worth all the time spent reading itSmile
 
Devaki getting her children back now didn't bother me - it seems logical that once she witnessed miracles - not Kritavarma's son, but Guru Sandipan's son - that she'd want hers back as well, and that she's more likely to have wanted it when she was still young enough to have more children, rather than towards the end of her life when she would have had so many grandchildren to cuddle as babies.  Also, in the texts, the order in which they appeared was more according to Parikshit's/Janamejaya's curiousity, rather than any actual chronological order.  The only chronological order that can be assigned are things like Pradhyumna's return to Krishna would have had to have happened b4 the Pandava Rajasuya yagna, things of that sort.  Otherwise, I don't think one can definitively say that this incident happened towards the end of her life, particularly when in that story, she actually breast-fed those babies b4 releasing them.
 
I found it somewhat amusing how they've smuggled these fictitious characters like Amod, Raman, Ramiya into the story.  But the thing I didn't like is that in this fictional construct, Balarama is portrayed as being more interested in protecting Krishna than seeing justice done. Ermm Even in the original Raman episode, I didn't like how Balarama was portrayed as refusing to listen to Raman's pleas @ all.  In reality, Balarama, like Lakshman, did have a fiery temper, but he was not unreasonable, and nor was he unjust.  The real Balarama, had he actually been king, and had he been in such a situation, would have given Raman a fair chance to vindicate himself.- SO TRUE..completely echoed my feelings here..Ouch
 
The end result of that ugly twist was that everytime Krishna meets Ramiya, he's filled w/ guilt, and nobody can fault Ramiya w/ what she says to Krishna - whether it's refusing to let him help her w/ the water, refusing to accept his gifts, etc.  Till now, I haven't gotten the point of depicting Krishna as guilt ridden.  Somehow, they're trying to show that Krishna being accused by Satrajit was a moral consequence of Raman being accused by Balarama.  And last night, she didn't bear false witness against him, so the way the story has been spun, despite the total assassination of Satrajit's character, it's hard to blame him in these circumstances when he has a witness backing up what he suspects.  And Ramiya was right about Balarama - having refused to listen to Raman, Balarama looked more like a family b4 people when he refused to do anything against Krishna w/o evidence - evidence he hadn't insisted on for Raman's case.  It's only b'cos Krishna insisted that all citizens must have trust in the government that Balarama's reputation seemed saved.
 
Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Sagars are trying a Ramayanification (never thought I'd come up w/, much less use that word) of Krishna's history?  In the Krittivas version of the Ramayan, Rama exiled Sita just b'cos a dhobi suspected her: here, Krishna is leaving just b'cos Satrajit suspects him.  In the original, when Prasenjit was found dead, Satrajit suspected Krishna, but never confronted him on it, but Krishna, in a similar spirit, decided to get to the bottom of that.- LOL ramayanification..lovely parallel thoughLOL..never thought of it tht waySmile
 
My biggest problem w/ the story is that while it's well known even in the serial that Krishna knew about his incarnation, Balarama, who is a part of the same incarnation, doesn't seem to show it.  Last night, when Krishna was leaving, neither Balarama nor Revathy nor Rukmini should have been bothered, but the tears they showed in their eyes, and Balarama asking Krishna what if you can't get the gem?  After Krishna has retrieved their dead brothers, how can someone, particularly Balarama, doubt that Krishna would be successful?  He has so many divine resources @ his disposal - aside from the fact that his chariot can fly, he has Garuda, and Vishnu's divine weapons, can invoke Hanuman if he wishes, and so many other things.  But Rukmini is really a let down - all she does is cry, and express concern whenever Krishna does anything.  In reality, she had a very happy life & marriage - only miserable times was when Pradhyumna was stolen from her, and @ the end, when the entire race was massacred and she got briefly widowed.  Of all women, apart from Sita, she's the one who should be the least worried about apshakuns.
 
Krishna was right in pointing to Balarama that Raman did the wrong thing by killing himself, but if the point of the story here is that Raman should have done what Krishna is doing, I think it fails.  First of all, Raman didn't have anywhere near the resources Krishna had to vindicate himself, although one could argue that had he approached a rishi, he might have found out who stole it and tried to implicate him.  But had those rishis been tied up by monsters like in last night's episode, Raman would have been out of luck.  I do hope that after Krishna is vindicated, he finds out who actually framed Raman and produces him to Ramiya, so that she can stop hating Krishna (really, her real anger should be towards Balarama - Krishna did try to give her a hearing, but Balarama stopped him) and be @ peace w/ the turn of things.
 
The sages & the monsters story seems inserted - these monsters looked like some of the ones Hanuman encountered when he was out to save Rama & Lakshman from Ahiravan & Mahiravan. LOL  But again, one thing I like about this serial - they show Krishna using weapons other than his discus.  It did look strange @ first when Krishna went into the ashram w/ his bow when his purpose was to ask the rishis for directions.  But looks like the bow was put into good use Clap  (Don't look @ me like that - I love astras & shastras, so love everytime Rama or Krishna get to use them LOL  And the discus in this serial is the best I've ever seen!!! Cool)
 
Another thing - aside from Krishna frowning in adverse situations, I don't like how he takes oaths.  In fact, I doubt that he ever took an oath, except maybe in case of Narakasura, where he vowed to kill him for snatching Aditi's earrings.  W/ Shrutadeva, he merely promised to forgive Sishupala 100 times, but again, never swore it.  Here, he's taken one now to prove his innocence, and earlier, he took one for Kritavarma's wife.  Krishna was never that impetuous!  Even in Kurukshetra, where people think he had sworn not to fight - no!  He told Arjun that he wasn't going to fight for either side, but it was not in the form of a vow or anything.  So had Krishna decided @ any point of time to fight, he'd not have been breaking any promise, just changing his mind.  But he's made 2 vows already.- YES...he even keeps scolding the kshatriya clan for taking impulsive oaths a lot of times..
 
The last thing I didn't get - I know that a lot of things changed for Jambavan b/w Treta & Dwapar Yugas.  But in Treta Yuga, Jambavan was based in Kishkindha, where he was an advisor to Sugriva, and later presumably Angad.  So how does he now live in a cave north of Dwarka?  Kishkindha is in Karnataka, where Vijayanagar/Hampi was, so how is that anywhere near?  I'm not sure the CVs are wrong either in this case, since Prasenjit couldn't have gone far, but if anybody knows how Jambavan came so far north, I'd sure like to hear it.
 
P.S. Where is everybody?  The forum is so empty after the long weekend in India has ended Confused- i know!!! either ppl are losing interest in the story or either they're busy..or too bored to discuss...Confused
 

My replies in red..Smile..lovely points vrish..really..some keen observations too..

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

-Swetha-Roark.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 18 August 2011 at 11:58pm | IP Logged

One more thing I kept forgetting to mention in that big bhashan of mine above, but which keeps bugging me and is a major beef - is a tendency of all of Krishna's enemies - Rukmi, Satrajit, or whoever else - to keep taunting him over his stealing of butter.

For Pete's sake, get over it!!!  First of all, Krishna's stealing butter, while well known throughout Gokul & Vrindavan, was not something that followed him later.  When Rukmi confronted Krishna, he did insult him, but not w/ that reference, and in case of Satrajit, didn't even happen.  To show Krishna's enemies as being petulant to the extent of what he did as a kid is way beyond annoying!!!  Lose that taunt already!!!

And while discussing the real picture, this latest promo that introduces Jambavati & Satyabhama while showcasing Imagine TV's Janmasthmi celebrations.  I think I'm now forgetting what I knew about Krishna's teachings - did he ever teach us to love him by loving each other?  I've tried to recall all of Krishna's encounters w/ various figures - Arjun, Sudama, Narada, et al, and I just can't recall such an event.  And the way they showed it was hilarious - celebrating that love by each of his wives feeding him.  Almost seems to hint that the best way for us to love each other is to marry each other ROFLLOL

Another thing I'd like to see - lose the flute, and usher in the Panchajanya!!!

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

-Swetha-vik rocksmnx12Roark_charu_

Debipriya

Senior Member

Debipriya

Joined: 03 March 2010

Posts: 922

Posted: 19 August 2011 at 12:40am | IP Logged
WRT the 'Janmashtami' Promo- "sabhi manushyo se prem karo"- sort of dialogue:- Actually I think it should have been Loving all the animate and Inamimate things, i.e.- Loving the Whole Creation... The mistake is on the part of the scriptwriters... I guess there is no Spiritual person (adviser) in the unit of DBSK who will correct these mistakes... Really sad...

The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:

skarriramsaiAmor.vik rocksmnx12LeadNitrateRoark.Vrish.

mnx12

Viewbie

mnx12

Joined: 02 August 2010

Posts: 15940

Posted: 19 August 2011 at 2:03am | IP Logged
This Janmashtami promo looks funny with Krishna & his 3 wives, it gives altogether very different messageLOL

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

skarriramsailaapRoark

camella

IF-Dazzler

camella

PRCís observer (Pratha)

Joined: 07 December 2006

Posts: 2594

Posted: 19 August 2011 at 7:24am | IP Logged
PROMO???? which one??ad 3 wives?? has satyabhama already been shown??Confused

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 19 August 2011 at 7:36am | IP Logged
^^^ This promo

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

vik rocks

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.