[Preview] new Parthians

**AqD** · August 21, 2009, 01:15 AM

They both belong to the Iranian group, which include Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Parthians. The Huns who invaded Roman empire are the Turkic people; so are the Mongolians.

**Sir Walter** · August 21, 2009, 02:55 AM

I knew that, but I thought all Iranian people were just as dark as the Turkic people. They all are now, anyway...

**florin80** · August 21, 2009, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by M.P.C.U.

I knew that, but I thought all Iranian people were just as dark as the Turkic people. They all are now, anyway...

Not all, no. There was an article on the Osprey site iirc written by some iranian(iirc) criticizing the 300. And he was also touching on this. The westerners belief that all iranians need to be dark haired people, when in fact certain groups have fair hair apparently.

**Sir Walter** · August 21, 2009, 12:45 PM

300 wasn't meant to be historically accurate, was it? An army who fight in leather pants and a king who has no body hair?

**florin80** · August 21, 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by M.P.C.U.

300 wasn't meant to be historically accurate, was it? An army who fight in leather pants and a king who has no body hair?

No, but these movies do shape the general public` perception. Up to the point where they want to know why the republican romans are not all dressed in read, why the spartans in RTR sometimes flee from a fight or why the parthians aren`t all dark haired. The most frequent reason given for their questions(sometimes criticism) is "it just doesn`t feel right". That "feel" doesn`t come from a man`s stomach or natural instinct(which tells him roman shields should be rectangular). It comes from a lack of proper education, a void filled by the commercially orientated Hollywood movies. And that was one of the points that guy made. He gave an example of a movie who advertised for some iranian extras only for the director(iirc) to make a big fuss of the fact that some of those who came were not dark haired. Being told that they are indeed iranians of this or that ethnic background he said something along the lines: they don`t look like proper iranians and the public knows how proper iranians look like. Looks remarkably similar to the issue you`ve raised, doesn`t it?

**Sir Walter** · August 22, 2009, 04:45 AM

Good point. But the Spartans shouldn't flee often (if at all). 300 got the spirit of Sparta just right, though the ephors were normal people...

**Caligula Caesar** · August 22, 2009, 02:27 PM

BTW, shouldn't the roman legionaries have rectangular shields? I always thought they did, but they don't in RTR

**AqD** · August 22, 2009, 03:06 PM

The rectangular shields only came into existence in imperial Rome, not republic.

**florin80** · August 22, 2009, 03:15 PM

There is of course the possibility that he was actually joking along the lines of my previous post.

**frontier-auxilia** · August 25, 2009, 12:11 AM

damn son these are some awesome skin!!

Although i do think the cats look better with standard iron horse armor, they look bad ass nevertheless.

**AqD** · August 25, 2009, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by frontier-auxilia

damn son these are some awesome skin!!

Although i do think the cats look better with standard iron horse armor, they look bad ass nevertheless.

yeah but standard horse armour as you can see in RTW is in fact the most expensive and heaviest one, used only by the cataphracts of highest ranks in later period. The one in EB looks much better though... but I wasn't capable to making it and now I don't have plan to re-make yet

**Sir Walter** · August 25, 2009, 06:39 AM

Import it? Or use Mamluk armour from Medieval II?

**inquisitor** · August 25, 2009, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by florin80

No, but these movies do shape the general public` perception. Up to the point where they want to know why the republican romans are not all dressed in read, why the spartans in RTR sometimes flee from a fight or why the parthians aren`t all dark haired. The most frequent reason given for their questions(sometimes criticism) is "it just doesn`t feel right". That "feel" doesn`t come from a man`s stomach or natural instinct(which tells him roman shields should be rectangular). It comes from a lack of proper education, a void filled by the commercially orientated Hollywood movies. And that was one of the points that guy made. He gave an example of a movie who advertised for some iranian extras only for the director(iirc) to make a big fuss of the fact that some of those who came were not dark haired. Being told that they are indeed iranians of this or that ethnic background he said something along the lines: they don`t look like proper iranians and the public knows how proper iranians look like. Looks remarkably similar to the issue you`ve raised, doesn`t it?

So true...

And now they gonna fukk up the story of Spartacus,they same images as 300....really original.

Tell me...why are these old movies like spartacus or that old thrace movie(cant recall the name)so much better then the roman timeframe movies nowadays?
Kirk douglas isn´t the believable gladiator ever,but he was a good actor......that remake they made is soooo bad,then you have the last legion....the first time i saw that movie i was like

.Kingdom of crap....still have to see the directors cut...i heard it is good,but the normal version sucks so badly that my gf got jealous.
Gladiator.....hm its ok i guess,but to much hollywood morale in that flick.
And Vin diesel´s Hannibal movie in 2010 is gonna be the same crap we saw over the last 10 years.
Even if they speak the old language for the realism,that movie will stink,i´m sure of it.
The only hope i have is,that diesel is going to use his riddick glasses and onliners when he´s beating up some romans.

These old movies from the 60-70´s doesn´t have the timeframe accuracy,but there storylines are so much better.

I think i going to watch the last legion again,when i start to beat my head against a wall....i gonna ask myself....what in gods name and all the other holy dudes... WAS THE DIRECTOR THINKING...when he made that ...ehm...

Now you gonna laugh.....the best ancient timeframe movie they made is that freaking King arthur flick,directors cut of course.
The saxons looked like real badass germans,and the celts looked like celts.Only arthur and his knights where a little jaja....we all know what they are hahahaha
But that movie rocked somehow.
Lol i´m going to make a poll...who thinks that the last legion director must be stoned to death.Anybody who liked that flick,should get a head examine....yesterday.

The only good piece is HBO Rome,and even that is turning in a soap after a few episodes.
And now we get a naked lucy lawless in a Spartacus show .....300 style....
I dont know what is worse 300 camera style of lucy naked,man xena is about 45 now lol...pls dont show here naked.

I will end this post now....i cant stop trashing these

movies srry

Edit...BTW try the Spartacus minimod salvor made for 77bc.Its a really fun and hard campaign
Edit...again...srry for being off topic

**AqD** · August 25, 2009, 11:10 AM

hmm I think kingdom direct cut is fine. But there is no other movie about classical period, except those for 300, alexander and romans which people have read and watched again and again and again.....

**inquisitor** · August 25, 2009, 11:22 AM

What is different in the director's cut?
Its longer...i know

,but the rest.I can't inmagine that this time the storytelling make any sense

But i will check it out.I know,its gonna be better better then The Last Legion....
I cannot get that crap out of my head....did you see it? I hope you where preserved for that

Even Bruce Cambell movies have more depth and story.(he rocks btw)