Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
I saw the the Insta post and was π.
Do the makers hate Krishna?
Seriously, my sympathies are not exactly with Samba at this time, but he seems to have justification for what he does. Also, Jambavati.
Daddy is roaming around with a woman married to someone else, and her word becomes law even in Jambavati's household. To the point that Samba gets no positive attention from Krishna even when he is a mere child. Things escalate, and instead of examining what is going wrong, all blame is heaped on Samba who gets cursed with what is an incurable disease at the time. Any woman in Jambavati's position would've done more than curse.
Why didn't they simply show the actual story? Samba in Krishna texts is a privileged, entitled brat all by himself, not because of Radha. He rapes Lakshmana. Krishna refuses to save him from Kauravas in spite of Jambavati begging. Balram saves Samba. Then, Samba proceeds to sleep with Krishna's wives and gets cursed. Eventually, he mocks the rishis until he gets his entire clan cursed.
(all this is still keeping with the supernatural; I don't believe Swastik will bother looking for rational explanations)
Presented as is, the story would've actually shown why Samba was a villain. Here, in spite of the production house's efforts, Radha and Krishna are coming across as immensely dislikable characters.
Argh. What am I saying? There was no Radha! Swastik's efforts to take Jayadeva's fan fiction and inject her into the entire Krishna story has turned the tale into an Ekta Kapoor soap opera.