Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-5415330-20170420110400/@comment-18014300-20170420113056

Hey Druaron, thank you for the informative post, and your English is fine! :)

So first of all, have you read these other two threads: Assassin's Creed film Inconsistencies: Part I and Assassin's Creed film Inconsistences: Part II? Because in these two threads we touched upon some of the things that you just brought up. You can also read our article on the Granada War and see if that clears up any confusion. I will try to answer some of your questions here anyways.

So the novelization actually states that the first events of the film takes place in the final months of 1491. Since we also noticed that it does not make sense for all the memories in the film to be set in 1492 because the formal surrender was on January 2, we mostly have just assumed that the film "rounded up" the date to 1492 (if it's not a failure in research).

I wasn't aware that Muhammad XII's children were given over as ransom for him sometime in the war. I knew he was in Spanish custody several times at first. From my own research, he actually became their ally until the very end when he revolted. Since his own capture took place ten years before, I think it's still entirely possible that later, when he rebelled, then the Templars tried to kidnap Ahmed, perhaps shortly after he was returned?

Ah, I think I entirely forgot to bring up how auto-da-fé weren't actually bonfires as is the common myth in my threads in the link above. I did also think that it was weird for the Catholic monarchs to be present at them. I think my reconciliation that was in the head while I was watching the movie ws that, "well, historical records can be wrong about details like that, maybe it was an exception".

I thought Isabella was wearing a mask. I couldn't tell clearly.

Did Muhammad XII and his son really just disappear? I remember I was so confused after the movie over what happened to them, but I wasn't sure if they really vanished or if I just forgot what happened to them.

I didn't necessarily get the impression from the film Torquemada absolutely held more power than the Catholic Monarchs, just that he had a lot of leeway and influence though I did find it odd that he could flaunt his Templar allegiance so openly.

I was definitely disappointed when I first learned in Project Legacy that Isabella was assassinated by the Assassins anyways in the end. I know that in the series, she was never a Templar, just misguided by blind faith, and it was a brand of blind faith more akin to just being over-pious than being radical extremist. I won't necessarily say she was closer to the Assassin cause though. She was far too religious since the Assassin's Creed teaches skepticism and agnosticism. Ultimately, she would never have been a person party to either factions, and I think the series portrayed this accurately with how she could be swerved left and right by the secret counsel of both sides. Her ultimate assassination by the Assassins really was a surprise to me though, and I wasn't sure of that decision; I thought it was a bold leap on the developers' part because it wasn't a necessary plot, but they went with it for whatever reason.

I appreciate that you paid so much attention to the film's relation with Discovery and Project Legacy by the way.