Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?

[orangeban]

They only compare weapons, never tactics, terrain or the intented enemies of the warriors weapons.

I have seen them compare tactics and weapons on every episode ive seen.

Now, I say that the IRA vs Taliban episode was in poor taste for a few reasons. Firstly because according to the show the IRA (Irish Republican Army, a group of terrorists trying to make Northern Ireland part of the Republic of Ireland) are "freedom fighters" fighting for "the freedom of Ireland". The show is incredibly sympathetic to them (but not to the Taliban of course) despite the fact that the IRA were terrorists, who killed innocents.

In fairness the IRA never did anything to america so why should they be treated the same as the taliban(who have done things to americans) by americans.

I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.[/qoute]

You obviously have none of the facts if thats what you think.

Alright, time to answer some objections it seems.

Objection 1) Well, what episodes have you seen? Because I have seen ninja's do one on one fights to the death with gladiators, individual pirates fight on land, the Vietcong fight in a straight up typical battle and a Roman Centurion fight on his own. As far as I've seen, they care little for tactics.

Objection 2) Does that give me an excuse, as British, the right to not care about the Vietcong, the Norway killer guy and the genocide of the Hutus by the Tutsis and treat them and the disasters they were involved in an insensitive and tactless manner?

Objection 3) Well, what are the facts then, because as far as I see it, the IRA *are* terrorists (they waged a campaign of terror in order to get what they want) against a democratic country in which the common man had decided not to agree with what the IRA stood for (read: not oppressed, not the common person's fighter).

 

[minimacker]

I hate it, because it's idiotic.

They seem to go for heavy stereotypes (And I mean HEAVY stereotypes). I remember an episode of Samurai VS Viking. They didn't give the Viking a bow and not even a Langseax/Sword/Handaxe & Shield.

But they got one thing right!
They did give him a spear. Two of them, in fact.
And then they make the actor/expert throw them. Both of them.

Then he get shot a couple of times, pulls an arrow out (How did it pierce through the maile to the point where it gets firmly attached to his breast?) off his chest and dies.

They essentially made him a drunk berserk midget. Cool story bro.

 

[Frankster]

The show isn't very accurate as far as results go, and it's incredibly biased towards America. Have you seen America lose a face-off a single time? No, because this is 'Mericuhhh!!!!!!

The FBI should have lost, and the CIA should have lost. Everybody knows tasers don't work for shit against moving targets behind cover, it's just bullshit. And on the latter episode, the way they won was pure shit, the KGB had much better gadgets.

I've seen American units lose loads of times. SWAT vs GSG9 (I think that was the matchup), Special FOrces vs Spetsznas etc

Special forces/spetnaz is the only one they lost (doublechecked after having mistakenly thought spetnaz lost it, which im about cos their rep is the best the show ever got) so no need for "etc".

 

[Zap Happy]

'Who would win in a fight out of...'

Exactly. You have to have the right mindset to enjoy the show. You have to see it as if it's you and your buddies sitting around and debating about why Master Chief would/wouldn't beat up the Terminator. If you're the kind of person who can't take a silly concept like that and have fun wit it, the show's not for you.

Also, about the IRA vs. Taliban episode: the host didn't scream "HARDCORE!" at actual video of people dying. It was a test of the nail bomb using foam dummies. It's still a little trashy, but nothing worse than Manswers or 1000 Ways to Die.

 

[orangeban]

'Who would win in a fight out of...'

Exactly. You have to have the right mindset to enjoy the show. You have to see it as if it's you and your buddies sitting around and debating about why Master Chief would/wouldn't beat up the Terminator. If you're the kind of person who can't take a silly concept like that and have fun wit it, the show's not for you.

Also, about the IRA vs. Taliban episode: the host didn't scream "HARDCORE!" at actual video of people dying. It was a test of the nail bomb using foam dummies. It's still a little trashy, but nothing worse than Manswers or 1000 Ways to Die.

Fine, I can't quite remember exactly what he said. But they did watch a video of a IRA attack and they did go something along the lines of, "WOW!"

 

[Undead Dragon King]

If you don't like the show, don't watch it. I enjoy it, it's like Soul Calibur (transcending history and the world), only more enjoyable to watch and listen to.

Theres a big difference between not liking it and not being entertained by it . I don't like the show but I'm highly entertained by it... only for the wrong reasons. I'm one of those sad people who like to watch things he hates just to rant about it....

That and its always fun to see pigs and things getting shot, blown up and cut in half by an assortment of weaponry. Its just the logic and the history* they come up with that is god awful. However thats what is fun to rant about, specially with a friend.

*its basically Hollywood history... Which I wouldn't complain about if this show wasn't trying to sell its self off as historically accurate.

I can understand that, but the OP sounded like he hated the show with a passion. No enjoyment at all, not even the 'love to hate' variety you described. It really just sounded like he wanted to piss in people's coffee if they liked/enjoyed the show. That's what I remarked about.

 

[orangeban]

If you don't like the show, don't watch it. I enjoy it, it's like Soul Calibur (transcending history and the world), only more enjoyable to watch and listen to.

Theres a big difference between not liking it and not being entertained by it . I don't like the show but I'm highly entertained by it... only for the wrong reasons. I'm one of those sad people who like to watch things he hates just to rant about it....

That and its always fun to see pigs and things getting shot, blown up and cut in half by an assortment of weaponry. Its just the logic and the history* they come up with that is god awful. However thats what is fun to rant about, specially with a friend.

*its basically Hollywood history... Which I wouldn't complain about if this show wasn't trying to sell its self off as historically accurate.

I can understand that, but the OP sounded like he hated the show with a passion. No enjoyment at all, not even the 'love to hate' variety you described. It really just sounded like he wanted to piss in people's coffee if they liked/enjoyed the show. That's what I remarked about.

Hmm, I watch it because it makes me annoyed. Much like Sovvolf I guess.

 

[mrwoo6]

They only compare weapons, never tactics, terrain or the intented enemies of the warriors weapons.

I have seen them compare tactics and weapons on every episode ive seen.

Now, I say that the IRA vs Taliban episode was in poor taste for a few reasons. Firstly because according to the show the IRA (Irish Republican Army, a group of terrorists trying to make Northern Ireland part of the Republic of Ireland) are "freedom fighters" fighting for "the freedom of Ireland". The show is incredibly sympathetic to them (but not to the Taliban of course) despite the fact that the IRA were terrorists, who killed innocents.

In fairness the IRA never did anything to america so why should they be treated the same as the taliban(who have done things to americans) by americans.

I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.[/qoute]

You obviously have none of the facts if thats what you think.

Alright, time to answer some objections it seems.

Objection 3) Well, what are the facts then, because as far as I see it, the IRA *are* terrorists (they waged a campaign of terror in order to get what they want) against a democratic country in which the common man had decided not to agree with what the IRA stood for (read: not oppressed, not the common person's fighter).

I really don't think you know how deep this goes.

what IRA? there's been more than one. at what time period? because the Irish or the "common" man was most certainly oppressed when the British invaded, and that spawned the IRA, the IRA came from the common man, whom defiantly could not beat the British army without terrorist methods.

the British did invade and take over Ireland, these guys din't just blow shit up for shits and giggles.

 

[orangeban]

They only compare weapons, never tactics, terrain or the intented enemies of the warriors weapons.

I have seen them compare tactics and weapons on every episode ive seen.

Now, I say that the IRA vs Taliban episode was in poor taste for a few reasons. Firstly because according to the show the IRA (Irish Republican Army, a group of terrorists trying to make Northern Ireland part of the Republic of Ireland) are "freedom fighters" fighting for "the freedom of Ireland". The show is incredibly sympathetic to them (but not to the Taliban of course) despite the fact that the IRA were terrorists, who killed innocents.

In fairness the IRA never did anything to america so why should they be treated the same as the taliban(who have done things to americans) by americans.

I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.[/qoute]

You obviously have none of the facts if thats what you think.

Alright, time to answer some objections it seems.

Objection 3) Well, what are the facts then, because as far as I see it, the IRA *are* terrorists (they waged a campaign of terror in order to get what they want) against a democratic country in which the common man had decided not to agree with what the IRA stood for (read: not oppressed, not the common person's fighter).

I really don't think you know how deep this goes.

what IRA? there's been more than one. at what time period? because the Irish or the "common" man was most certainly oppressed when the British invaded, and that spawned the IRA, the IRA came from the common man, whom defiantly could not beat the British army without terrorist methods.

the British did invade and take over Ireland, these guys din't just blow shit up for shits and giggles.

Very well, the modern, today IRA. The same IRA that this show was talking about. The IRA that uses nailbombs and stuff. I wasn't aware that there were several IRAs, but when I mentioned them, I meant the most recent (who are fighting for Northern Ireland to join the republic, and less specifically Catholicism.

 

[mrwoo6]

They only compare weapons, never tactics, terrain or the intented enemies of the warriors weapons.

I have seen them compare tactics and weapons on every episode ive seen.

Now, I say that the IRA vs Taliban episode was in poor taste for a few reasons. Firstly because according to the show the IRA (Irish Republican Army, a group of terrorists trying to make Northern Ireland part of the Republic of Ireland) are "freedom fighters" fighting for "the freedom of Ireland". The show is incredibly sympathetic to them (but not to the Taliban of course) despite the fact that the IRA were terrorists, who killed innocents.

In fairness the IRA never did anything to america so why should they be treated the same as the taliban(who have done things to americans) by americans.

I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.[/qoute]


You obviously have none of the facts if thats what you think.

Alright, time to answer some objections it seems.

Objection 3) Well, what are the facts then, because as far as I see it, the IRA *are* terrorists (they waged a campaign of terror in order to get what they want) against a democratic country in which the common man had decided not to agree with what the IRA stood for (read: not oppressed, not the common person's fighter).

I really don't think you know how deep this goes.

what IRA? there's been more than one. at what time period? because the Irish or the "common" man was most certainly oppressed when the British invaded, and that spawned the IRA, the IRA came from the common man, whom defiantly could not beat the British army without terrorist methods.

the British did invade and take over Ireland, these guys din't just blow shit up for shits and giggles.

Very well, the modern, today IRA. The same IRA that this show was talking about. The IRA that uses nailbombs and stuff. I wasn't aware that there were several IRAs, but when I mentioned them, I meant the most recent (who are fighting for Northern Ireland to join the republic, and less specifically Catholicism.

Despite disagreeing with you about them not being freedom fighters, the shows episode was completely bias, not very good, cheap and tasteless.


The "current" IRA, call themselves the "Real IRA" and most defiantly ARE mere terrorists. The IRA the show talks about has long been disbanded. The troubles gets far to complected and personal, and as a northern Irish fellow myself, I recommend not trying to rap your head around the whole thing, its all very complected.

 

[Zap Happy]

'Who would win in a fight out of...'

Exactly. You have to have the right mindset to enjoy the show. You have to see it as if it's you and your buddies sitting around and debating about why Master Chief would/wouldn't beat up the Terminator. If you're the kind of person who can't take a silly concept like that and have fun wit it, the show's not for you.

Also, about the IRA vs. Taliban episode: the host didn't scream "HARDCORE!" at actual video of people dying. It was a test of the nail bomb using foam dummies. It's still a little trashy, but nothing worse than Manswers or 1000 Ways to Die.

Fine, I can't quite remember exactly what he said. But they did watch a video of a IRA attack and they did go something along the lines of, "WOW!"

There were reenactments of attacks, obviously. Usually the hosts don't react to those though. There were certainly no real videos of real people dying, however. Also, if I remember, most of the victims in the reenactments were dressed as British soldiers or officials, just as the the victims in the Taliban reenactments were American Green Berets (recycled from the Green Beret episode, none the less). I'm not trying to argue that the episode wasn't somewhat trashy, but I think you're overreacting, especially considering Spike's other programs.

 

[babinro]

This show is cheesy and entertaining. They are very good at what they do. This should should not be compared against something like Mythbusters where they 'try' to take a scientific approach to answering the question.

This is all about putting weapons to fun and strange tests with as much entertainment value as possible.

 

[The Heik]

*snip*

Is it crap? Hell yes. This is a Spike show we're talking about after all. They don't take any consideration of strategy and individual training, making it so each vs. is a straight up fight rather than testing form each fighter's perspective, automatically putting certain fighters at advantages or disadvantages. As a result the show's results have the same accuracy as a mole trying to play darts. The only reason why I watch it is because it's the only show where I can see the effects of all those crazy weapons, which is DW's only redeeming feature.

Is it bad taste? I wouldn't really go that far, as with the IRA example most of the throwing around of the "freedom fighter" term is done by the IRA side, so it's only a single person's perspective rather than the show as a whole.

 

[Rhymenoceros]

No, it's not perfect, but it's still fun to watch. Also, Faramir narrates it.

Woah woah woah woah! Faramir narrates it?!? I must see this show!

 

[orangeban]

'Who would win in a fight out of...'

Exactly. You have to have the right mindset to enjoy the show. You have to see it as if it's you and your buddies sitting around and debating about why Master Chief would/wouldn't beat up the Terminator. If you're the kind of person who can't take a silly concept like that and have fun wit it, the show's not for you.

Also, about the IRA vs. Taliban episode: the host didn't scream "HARDCORE!" at actual video of people dying. It was a test of the nail bomb using foam dummies. It's still a little trashy, but nothing worse than Manswers or 1000 Ways to Die.

Fine, I can't quite remember exactly what he said. But they did watch a video of a IRA attack and they did go something along the lines of, "WOW!"

There were reenactments of attacks, obviously. Usually the hosts don't react to those though. There were certainly no real videos of real people dying, however. Also, if I remember, most of the victims in the reenactments were dressed as British soldiers or officials, just the the victims in the Taliban reenactments were American Green Berets (recycled from the Green Beret episode, none the less). I'm not trying to argue that the episode wasn't somewhat trashy, but I think you're overreacting, especially considering Spike's other programs.

Now, I can't be arsed to watch through the whole episode again to see this moment, but it wasn't the usual full screen, coloured video which is heavily dramatised. This was the hosts stooped over a computer screen, watching a black and white video (which you can see clearly) of an explosion, while the Irish expert looks vaguely smug (in their typical, "my team's so badass" way all the experts are smug) maybe it was a recreation, but why would it be in black and white?

 

[Cavouku]

It's getting better. Still not perfect by any means, and the common complaints about sketchy history and the ever-present butted vs riveted chainmail are still valid, but I think they're improving, if nothing else.

Maybe they'll get it by the fifth season, and they can find the sweet spot between the people who like historically more accurate things, and the people who like to watch gel torsos get turned into mashed potatoes. I welcome the day, but I'll be patient.

 

[Arsen]

I do personally agree that the show indeed is bad in terms of providing us with a realistic sense of...anything factual in terms of warfare. Vlad Tepes defeating Sun Tzu? Bullshit. Absolute, 100% bullshit.

It's done for nothing other than entertainment and I see it purely as that. It's always a weapon against weapon scenario where computers calculating fictitious results are called into play. Do I enjoy it on some level? Yes. I'll admit to watching it for the fun of it...but the fact that, *goes to look up his name*, David Wenham, the guy who narrated 300 AND this very show...narrates it...says something. It's done for nothing other than the "image" of the two combatants fighting over necessarily being in depth about it.

Some of the results are laughable at times.

 

[Apollo45]

The premise of the show is not the same as the value you gain from the show. What I like about it (and my other friends who occasionally watch it) is seeing various period hardware and fighting styles and learning about their effectiveness. The mock-combat and the "winner" are immaterial.

It's very similar to Iron Chef in that regard, a show all of us very much enjoy.

What he said. The show isn't about the science - they get some stuff right, but they get other stuff wrong, and although they do take some tactics in to account it's often less than should be and even then less accurate.

That said, the show is about pitting two (or, in the case of gunpowder, ten) warriors against each other, head to head, and see how it turns out. In that sense, it is accurate. In the end though, it's about the entertainment and the fight at the conclusion, not the pseudo-science that goes in to their tests. That's the fallacy with their "advantage/disadvantage" ratings; advantages work in different situations, and often the 'head-to-head' nature of weapon testing is flawed in itself, since some of the weapons they put up against each other are completely different from their opponent's.

The computer program, on the other hand, seems surprisingly accurate as far as kills with whichever weapon goes; it seems like the computer, at least, knows what it's doing, even if the "experts" don't.

Slightly off topic, as far as the Ninja vs Spartan, the Spartan definitely should have won that one. That's the premise of the show; if a Spartan ran across a Ninja in the woods and they started fighting, no preparation, the Spartan would come out on top due to the all-consuming power of that shield. All the Spartan would have to do is sit back and wait, and when the Ninja closes in for an attack it's a simple matter of blocking with the shield and stabbing with the spear (or sword, if the spear has been lost). Ninja is done for. Compound that with the fact that the Ninja is unarmored and the Spartan is and that makes all the difference in a one-on-one battle. Remember, Spartans were trained as warriors from birth. Ninja, in their basic form, were first farmers and civilians, then resistance fighters against the Samurai. That makes a huge difference as well.

If they were to try and take in to account every single strategy an enemy would use, more often than not there wouldn't end up being a battle at all. The Ninja, as has been said, would attack while the Spartan was unarmored, sleeping or whatever, and the Spartan would travel with a group and not have to worry about being attacked in the night because they would set up a watch. Similar cases go for almost every match up they have, which is why tactics need to be limited.

 

[orangeban]

The premise of the show is not the same as the value you gain from the show. What I like about it (and my other friends who occasionally watch it) is seeing various period hardware and fighting styles and learning about their effectiveness. The mock-combat and the "winner" are immaterial.

It's very similar to Iron Chef in that regard, a show all of us very much enjoy.

What he said. The show isn't about the science - they get some stuff right, but they get other stuff wrong, and although they do take some tactics in to account it's often less than should be and even then less accurate.

That said, the show is about pitting two (or, in the case of gunpowder, ten) warriors against each other, head to head, and see how it turns out. In that sense, it is accurate. In the end though, it's about the entertainment and the fight at the conclusion, not the pseudo-science that goes in to their tests. That's the fallacy with their "advantage/disadvantage" ratings; advantages work in different situations, and often the 'head-to-head' nature of weapon testing is flawed in itself, since some of the weapons they put up against each other are completely different from their opponent's.

The computer program, on the other hand, seems surprisingly accurate as far as kills with whichever weapon goes; it seems like the computer, at least, knows what it's doing, even if the "experts" don't.

Slightly off topic, as far as the Ninja vs Spartan, the Spartan definitely should have won that one. That's the premise of the show; if a Spartan ran across a Ninja in the woods and they started fighting, no preparation, the Spartan would come out on top due to the all-consuming power of that shield. All the Spartan would have to do is sit back and wait, and when the Ninja closes in for an attack it's a simple matter of blocking with the shield and stabbing with the spear (or sword, if the spear has been lost). Ninja is done for. Compound that with the fact that the Ninja is unarmored and the Spartan is and that makes all the difference in a one-on-one battle. Remember, Spartans were trained as warriors from birth. Ninja, in their basic form, were first farmers and civilians, then resistance fighters against the Samurai. That makes a huge difference as well.

If they were to try and take in to account every single strategy an enemy would use, more often than not there wouldn't end up being a battle at all. The Ninja, as has been said, would attack while the Spartan was unarmored, sleeping or whatever, and the Spartan would travel with a group and not have to worry about being attacked in the night because they would set up a watch. Similar cases go for almost every match up they have, which is why tactics need to be limited.

Alright, so you've justified the lack of tactics, but what about this example, where they prove just how full of shit the show is. It was Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace, and one of Shaka's weapons was spitting poison, which was designed to blind your foe, therefore making it incredibly easy to kill them. Do the showmakers take this into account? No, of course not, the spit (which would of turned the tide of battle in a one on one fight) was dismissed and earned 0 kills in the end battle because it couldn't kill enemies. That one made me angry, and not in the same way the show normally does, which is a way that makes me laugh at how stupid the show is, but in a way that finally cemented the show as crap.

 

[BoredDragon]

I don't get offended very easily so I don't really think it's in poor taste. However, the show is pretty crap until it gets to the choreographed fight between the two factions/people at the end.