Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-18014300-20170103020539

Disclaimer: This review contains spoilers for the movie.

As with many of my friends, I was quite apprehensive about the Assassin’s Creed film, given that in the past, video game movies have always held the reputation of being some of the lowest quality works of cinema. After watching it, I have to admit that I was indeed very disappointed, though it was not as bad as it could have been and therefore decent for a video game movie. My disappointment stems from a variety of issues including poor script, bland or almost non-existent character development, poor presentation, pacing issues, but most relevant to this wiki: plot inconsistencies and contradictions with established lore.

It is for this last failing in the movie that I think this thread I am making now is quite critical to our work. Now I think I should be clear that the majority of these contradictions can be resolved, but only through awkward or patchy explanations. Many of them fall short of being blatant, explicit contradictions but nevertheless are heavily suggestive of the presence of inconsistencies.

Aside from this, I will also be using this post to double as a general movie review after my explanation of the contradictions because there are miscellaneous flaws that don’t exactly contradict the lore.

One last time, the following contains major spoilers for the entire film!

 Discovery Contradictions 

A number of these inconsistencies stem from the fact Assassin’s Creed II: Discovery is also set in the Spanish Inquisition, so much that there are overlaps between Ezio Auditore and Aguilar de Nerha’s activities.

I. Tomás de Torquemada is a Templar in the film; he is not in Discovery

This is perhaps the most straightforward and blatant contradiction with established Assassin’s Creed lore.

Tomás de Torquemada serves as the main antagonist of Assassin’s Creed II: Discovery. Throughout the game, the Inquisition is thought to have been part of the Templars, but each time Ezio assassinates an inquisitor, their last words heavily suggest otherwise. At the end, Ezio discovers that Torquemada is utterly ignorant of the fact that the Templars and Assassins still exist or of their war. The Grand Inquisitor believes that Rodrigo Borgia, who provided the names of the Assassins to be arrested by the Inquisition, is a true Catholic and that the “Assassins” are merely just atheistic heretics.

In the film, after Torquemada acquires an Apple of Eden from Muhammad XII by ransoming the emir’s son, he holds up the Apple in triumph then makes some grand speech about Templar victory and domination, decisively revealing his allegiances. Even if we can try to explain that perhaps he just supports the Templars but wasn’t one himself at that point, in the game, he didn’t even know the Templars exist.

Possible Solutions
 * He joined the Templars after his affairs with Ezio Auditore.
 * This is the current explanation we have on his article, and it doesn’t work because Ezio’s direct confrontation with Torquemada occurs after Christopher Columbus sets sail on his first voyage. In the film, Aguilar’s confrontation with Torquemada when the latter retrieves the Apple of Eden occurs before Christopher Columbus sets sail.
 * Torquemada was deceiving Ezio, keeping his allegiance to the Templars secret.
 * To be exact, Torquemada never explicitly said that he was not a Templar. Ezio concluded this based on his dialogue with Torquemada, who rejected Ezio’s assertion that Rodrigo was also an atheist. Ezio had been commanded by Raphael Sanchez to speak with Torquemada before killing him, to goad him into revealing his connections with the Templars. Because Ezio obviously had to word his exchange carefully, rather than outright say “ARE YOU A TEMPLAR BRO?”, he deduced Torquemada was not a Templar by interpreting his responses and fitting them in with the words of previous targets, who more explicitly denied any knowledge of Templars and Assassins, and not by having the question posed to them but by scoffing at Ezio’s notions they still exist. Ezio’s exact conversation with Torquemada can be found here.
 * Therefore, we might suppose that Ezio’s conclusion was simply wrong: Torquemada was a Templar after all. However, this is still problematic because if Torquemada went through such efforts to hide his affiliation with the Templars from Ezio, why did he openly flaunt it to Aguilar’s group? His subordinates such as Gaspar Martínez and Pedro Ilorente seemed so sincere about their disbelief in the existence of Templars and Assassins, that they never felt peril at being confronted by Ezio. It’s possible that some inquisitors were not part of the Templar conspiracy, but Torquemada was. Even so, even though our conclusion that Torquemada isn’t a Templar comes from Ezio’s own deduction (which could be wrong), it seems quite certain that the game had meant to declare through all these hints that Ezio’s deduction is correct.

'''II. Aguilar de Nerha gives Christopher Columbus an Apple of Eden'''

First of all, why in the world would Aguilar give the Apple of Eden to Christopher Columbus?!?!

Alas, in Discovery it is shown that the Assassins were probably not aware that Christopher is an imperialist at heart who would one day as Governor of the Indies would enslave the indigenous peoples and ruled them through brutality and violence. He is introduced as a friend of the Assassin Luis de Santángel, and I suppose neither he nor Ezio realized how Columbus is a cruel man, a bigot who would care nothing at all for the humanity or lives of the indigenous peoples he will later on encounter? Certainly in real-life, often friends who have known each other for even many years might not realize the deep-seated callousness and psychopathic tendencies that one amongst them may have if placed in a position of political power, especially if they never bothered to discuss ideology. We know from other sources that the Assassins did care greatly for the lives of indigenous peoples, and their support of Columbus was most likely a tragic mistake.

However, even if they trusted Columbus before his journey, it does not make sense why they would trust him enough to give an Apple of Eden to him! He is a random man unaffiliated with the Assassins who has had a history of foolishly walking into Templar traps and being dismissive of Assassin warnings of danger.

The Assassins went to great pains to ensure that these Pieces of Eden were locked away, secure, and not entrusted to any average person.

Now, we might say that Aguilar perhaps did not have the common sense to understand how cautious he must be in choosing the man to pass the Apple to, but what made him think of Columbus?

Did Aguilar have any connection to Columbus previously? If not, did he learn of Columbus’s friendship with the Assassins from Luis de Santángel and Ezio? If he did, then how could Luis and Ezio not have known that Aguilar had an Apple of Eden? If they did, then why would Ezio, who strove to protect the Apple of Eden from falling into the wrong hands, allow Aguilar to pass it over to a random man known for being dismissive of the Assassins?

Possible Solutions
 * Aguilar de Nerha was friends/allies with Christopher Columbus through his own encounters and not through Luis de Santángel. He decided on his own volition (and poor judgment) to entrust the Apple of Eden to Columbus.
 * Ezio Auditore and Luis de Santángel agreed with Aguilar de Nerha’s decision to entrust the Apple of Eden to Christopher Columbus.
 * Not likely for the reasons I have already stated above. Ezio strove to protect the Apple of Eden from falling into the wrong hands and was in a furious quest for the Apple of Eden Rodrigo Borgia held so that it would be safe. Even if he considered Columbus a friend, he wouldn’t have trusted such a task to Columbus, who is not an Assassin himself. Even if Ezio trusted Columbus’s sincerity for safeguarding it, his experiences with Columbus suggested a man who was foolhardy, prone to walking into Templar traps, and dismissive of Assassin advice and plans.
 * Perhaps they thought the best location to hide this Apple was in the Americas, and through whatever analysis, thought it best for Columbus to be the one to transport it there. The plan backfired, Columbus turned out not to be the man to trust, and he would hoard it until his death, somehow hiding it in his own tomb.
 * Luis de Santángel agreed with Aguilar de Nerha to entrust the Apple of Eden with Christopher Columbus without happening to inform Ezio Auditore.

'''III. Emir Muḥammad XII of Granada has an Apple of Eden just lying about in his palace, which Ezio Auditore, who was hunting for the Apple of Eden in Rodrigo Borgia’s possession, either did not know about or did not apparently care about.'''

The Emir of Granada (referred to as King in Discovery & Sultan in the film), Muḥammad XII of Nasrid apparently had an Apple of Eden. It is reasonable to assume that Ezio Auditore, who was so keen on retrieving the Apple of Eden from Rodrigo Borgia’s grasp, viewing that as his main quest, would give much regards to the sudden news that the emir that he saved apparently had another Apple of Eden.

In the game, it is shown that Ezio meets the emir quite last minute, rescuing his life in the midst of the final Battle of Granada, and thus had no prior connection to him. Thus, it is entirely possible that Ezio simply did not know that the emir had an Apple in his possession. However, the other Spanish Assassin, i.e. Aguilar’s group, did know about this, and one might think that Ezio’s group would’ve had some exchange in intel with them considering they were operating in the same area, in the same events?

When Ezio rescues Muḥammad XII from the Templars, should the emir not have handed the Apple over to the Assassins before he was confronted by the Templars for it again later?

Possible Solutions

Much of the way we resolve this possible contradiction depends on the timing of the events between Ezio and Aguilar’s activities, and I now realize that this may in fact be easily resolvable. What made the inconsistency so stark to me at first was because when I first watched the scene, I was so certain that Muḥammad’s confrontation with Torquemada occurred after he had already capitulated to Spain, but this may not be the case.

As of now, I would need to rewatch the film to know if Aguilar’s events occurred before the final Battle of Granada.

Here we should analyze multiple scenarios:
 * The Templar’s capture of the son of Muḥammad XII and the ransom meeting occurs before the final Battle of Granada where Muḥammad XII surrenders. This means that Aguilar managed to recover the Apple of Eden, but Templar reinforcements arrived to take Muḥammad XII hostage once more while Aguilar escaped with the Apple. According to Discovery, the Templars were hoping to keep Muḥammad XII indefinitely detained in his palace to prevent him from surrender, ensuring that the Spanish crown exhausted their finances through a prolonged siege and preventing them from funding Columbus’s voyage. Ezio would go on to infiltrate Alhambra Palace, save Muḥammad XII, and convince him to capitulate in the midst of the last Battle of Granada. By then, Aguilar still had the Apple in his possession, and in the coming weeks, once Luis and Ezio had negotiated with Isabella to finally fund Columbus’s voyage, Aguilar would pass the Apple over to Columbus just as he departed.
 * The ransom meeting occurs during the final Battle of Granada, and Ezio arrives first. Muḥammad XII by this point was already kept hostage by the Templars, and it is suggested he had been for at least some weeks or months without the rest of his forces even knowing. Ezio infiltrates Alhambra just as the final Battle of Granada begins. He makes his way to the throne room where he rescues Muḥammad from the Templars After quickly convincing Muḥammad to abdicate, Ezio agrees to hurry to the city gates to open them and signal Granada’s surrender. For Ezio, it was paramount he achieved this as soon as possible so as to end the battle as quickly as he can and minimize deaths on either side. Because of the haste by which he met Muḥammad than left, it’s possible that Muḥammad did not have the chance to tell him about the Apple of Eden. It’s possible that Muḥammad also did not trust the Assassins and thought that the Templar threat had passed, hence he believed there was no reason to tell Ezio. Even more likely, he was aware that his son was in Templar hands at that point, and he thought he needed to keep the Apple to ransom his son back. More Templars, with Torquemada leading them, then arrive at the Palace just after Ezio left to secure the ransom. They would be attacked by Aguilar and Maria, the former who retrieves the Apple of Eden.
 * The ransom meeting occurs during the final Battle of Granada, and Aguilar arrives first. Muḥammad XII is held hostage, then Torquemada arrives for the ransom, to be attacked by Aguilar and Maria. After the fight, Aguilar escapes with the Apple of Eden, but the Templars retake Muḥammad hostage. Later that night, Ezio arrives and frees Muḥammad, who by then has already lost the Apple of Eden. Note that if both incidents did occur during the same battle, it is more likely that Aguilar arrived first because his scenes are depicted in daytime while Ezio does not enter Granada until it is night.
 * The ransom meeting occurs after the final Battle of Granada. Ezio infiltrates Alhambra Palace and rescues Muḥammad XII, who for the reasons I mentioned earlier, does not reveal the Apple of Eden in his possession to Ezio. These reasons include Ezio’s haste to go and deliver news of the city’s surrender, Muḥammad possibly thinking that the Templar threat had passed, and most likely, Muḥammad knowing his son was in Templar hands and that he needed the Apple to ransom him.
 * This still proves problematic, however, as Ezio stayed in Granada to protect the people from Templar abuses in the immediate aftermath, and up until at least the abdication ceremony of Muḥammad. He would therefore still probably have been present when Templars went to ransom Muḥammad’s son for the Apple of Eden. It is highly unlikely that he would not have had news of that especially since he was actively in touch with both Isabella and Muḥammad and the capture of Muḥammad’s son would’ve been an important issue to discuss. He therefore should’ve known that an Apple of Eden was involved, and the mission would’ve been critical enough for him to participate in.

As of now, we don’t know how to reconcile this overlap between Ezio and Aguilar’s participation in the final Battle of Granada unless any of you remember the exact timeline in the film. I’m sure once we read the novelization or rewatch the film, we would know if this contradiction still exists.

Finally, I would like to add that if the Templars had Muḥammad XII hostage before the ransom meeting, I don’t understand why they couldn’t have merely seized the Apple of Eden themselves without having to capture his son. It did not appear that Muḥammad had really hidden the Apple of Eden, but then perhaps in the scene where we see him retrieve it, he had already taken it out of its hiding place in preparation for giving it to the Templars.

I think that the last scenario is definitely the most problematic, and yet while watching the film I was fairly certain that the ransom scene occurs after the Spanish had taken Granada.

'''IV. Muḥammad XII is left to the whims of the Templars after Ezio had saved him'''

This is a very similar point to the one just above and resolution of this also depends on an accurate understanding of the timeline of events in the film.

When I was watching the film, it was my assumption that the ransom meeting occurs after the surrender of Granada, meaning that Muḥammad XII had been saved from the Templars by Ezio only to immediately be held by their whims once more.

As explained above, if this meeting does occur after Granada’s surrender, it would mean that Ezio, for whatever reason, did not assist Aguilar and his group in the rescue of his son, or in stopping the Templars from taking his Apple of Eden even though Ezio stayed in Granada for at least a couple of months to see through the abdication process.

Possible Solutions
 * This is only a problem if the ransom meeting occurs after Ezio rescued him at the final Battle of Granada. Otherwise, if the meeting does occur before Ezio’s rescue, Ezio could not have intervened since he was still on the road to Granada from Zaragoza up until the night of the final battle.

There is one last contradiction between Discovery and the film that I had thought of, but I believe I have since resolved it.

V. Where was Ezio during Aguilar, Maria, and Benedicto’s execution?

Ezio Auditore at this time was active in Spain specifically for the purpose of rescuing Spanish Assassins that had been captured by the inquisitors and sentenced to death. So where was he when Aguilar’s group were captured and sentenced to be burned at the stake?

I believe I have since found the answer to this question, and so it is not an inconsistency. Ezio entered Spain through Aragon, first saving the Assassins of Barcelona than of Zaragoza. Aguilar and his company were based in Andalusia during this time, which is quite far. Although Ezio himself was traveling to Granada from Zaragoza, we know he did not actually reach Granada until its very last battle. It is highly likely that Aguilar and his group were merely captured and sentenced to execution before Ezio was in the area. Even if he was, he may not have received news of their plight.

 To be continued 

So apparently this analysis of inconsistencies between Assassin’s Creed II: Discovery and the film have already made for a far more extensive post than I had expected. However, I believe that being as comprehensive as possible is necessary here.

I am not sure if there are any inconsistencies that I have neglected to address between those two works, but I am far from done.

There are still other issues between the film and the general lore I have to call attention to which I shall address in Part 2 (and hopefully not a Part 3) of this review. 