Rameses II is the evil ruler taking seti's place

That's a really shallow analysis. Rameses's portrayal was never outright evil, some of his motivations for his actions was wanting to do what he thought was best for Egypt. He was misguided, stubborn, and proud, a flawed human being that was driven to do horrific evil (refering to wanting to order the deaths of Hebrew sons again and chasing down the freed slaves to kill them) by his emotions but not completely irredeemable. He ultimately made the wrong choice, but his complexity is one of the things that makes this movie so good

.Zeeva (talk) 21:21, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't help but feel sorry for Rames in the end. He still lived in the shadow of his father, even after the man had perished. He was determined, above all else, to not be the weak link, but that determination caused him to become what he had wished to avoid. Even when it was going badly, he was thinking the same thing as Moses: Why can't we go back to being friends???? The moment Ramses asked that question was the end of the last piece of positive dialogue to take place between the two men. To his credit, Ramses was concerned about the wellbeing of his son from a personal perspective, instead of historical legacy. I would say that in the end, Ramses was his own worst enemy. In the song "Thus Saith The Lord" (I think that's the title), he opened said that he didn't care how high the cost went, that he wasn't going to let the Hebrews go. Also, he brought the Tenth Plague down on himself, and ironically prophesied that there would be a "great cry in all of Egypt, such as never has been, nor ever will be again". To put it (perhaps too) simply, Ramses had no one to blame but himself in the end.DiseaseMaster7 (talk) 21:23, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.