Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?

Recommended Videos
Apr 24, 2008
3,911
0
0
It's stupid in a multitude of ways.

Still...good though isn't it.

Everytime someone insists that this is an unusually intelligent web-community it makes my toes curl.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Everytime someone insists that this is an unusually intelligent web-community it makes my toes curl.
Welp, when I say that I really just meant that as a website of (mostly) nerds and gamers, people would probably be more aware of what is and isn't historically accurate about this show.
 

Lungo

New member
Feb 9, 2008
47
0
0
The show you are referring to are flawed single minded entertainment for the stupid masses, which one solo goal are to make money....

...

...

Okay, I won't event start going on about it, since, the last 3 drafts I just wrote, I'm sure would give me temp band or something from here...

In shot. That show are shit and should not exists. It are purely crap with wrong assumption and really really bad "test and analyses".... If you even can call what they are doing that...
 

AquaAscension

New member
Sep 29, 2009
313
0
0
orangeban said:
While watching a video of an IRA bombing (which killed civilians) the main host went, "WOW, HARDCORE!"

Thoughts on this? Have I been reasonable?
Yes and no.

While I don't know the rest of your posting history, I imagine that at least once or twice you've played a game (you're at the Escapist afterall). And I'd be willing to put some money down on the fact that you have done something like shoot a person in one of these games you've played. Or perhaps seen a friend playing a game and said something along the lines of "Wow; Hardcore!" If such is the case, then I'm afraid this post smacks a little bit of hypocrisy. You'll probably counter "but that was a video game" or "it wasn't a civilian being shot/maimed/killed" or "it wasn't committed by a terrorist." I think the difference isn't all that different. Deadliest is an entertainment project. Video games are entertainment products. Perhaps the more critical question is "why are we entertained by sensationalized killing".
 

newdarkcloud

New member
Aug 2, 2010
452
0
0
The show is really only good for introducing people to fighters from throughout history to research on their own time and the fight scene at the end.

As for the weapon comparisons, they suck. However, that's great time to play games on my PSP while only slightly paying attention to the show. (I finished many of Theo's requests in P3P while watching Deadlist Warrior.)
 

boyvirgo666

New member
May 12, 2009
371
0
0
orangeban said:
Grouchy Imp said:
You're reading far, far, far too much into it. The show is light entertainment, not factual documentary. Don't take it seriously.
But it pretends to be serious and factual, it acts like it is hard science. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but maybe it should make it clearer that it is light entertainment.
no it really doesnt. a ninja versus a spartan cannot be taken seriously. the biggest issue here is they didnt really show the IRA in a positive light. they showed them in an odd middleground. they didnt even really go into detail on the taliban just describing they were incredibly religious. Oh and the Sadam v pol pot thing...who cares? they are dead. I find it much more depressing that no one cared who pol pot was when he was alive, Just like Idi Amin. its a stupid show that is fun for a little bit of the day. Nothing more.

oh and the hardcore thing was to the explosion not the situation. obviously.
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
orangeban said:
Grouchy Imp said:
You're reading far, far, far too much into it. The show is light entertainment, not factual documentary. Don't take it seriously.
But it pretends to be serious and factual, it acts like it is hard science. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but maybe it should make it clearer that it is light entertainment.
There's the problem. People will think they know history and military strategy because they watched this show. I can see drunken arguments all across America: "Dude, a Spartan would totally kick a Samurai's ass! It's true because they showed it on TV!"

I've never seen the show. I trust there is no mention of tactics, discipline, terrain, morale, communication, supply lines, leadership, or even sheer numbers as possible factors?
 

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
I've seen a few episodes of this show, and it is pretty cool to watch the ballistics gel dummies getting cut up with hand axes and such, but I can't help but criticize the basic idea. My main problem is that "the deadliest warrior," the person most likely to be able to kill you, is largely dependent on who/how many/where you are, not what kind of weapons they use. The ninja vs Spartan one was the one that pissed me off. Ninjas generally weren't ones to run around in all black (they wore blue, actually, but certainly didn't wear their fancy pajamas in the middle of the damn day), and would probably never have engaged a fully armed soldier in direct combat alone. The weapons and tactics they did have were designed to counter the samurai anyway, so it's hard to tell what we are supposed to glean from the ninja's inevitable loss -- weapons that were never designed to work against Spartans didn't work? Tactics ninjas never used failed them? Black pj's don't conceal well in bright sunlight?

Honestly though, I never noticed the tastelessness you mentioned. From what you describe, I agree, but I didn't see any episodes like that.
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
there's quite a lot of iffy science and flamebait to this show. Most of it tried not to be in bad taste but at the end of the day it's always gonna be like that. The reps of the factions always end up fighting like kids about my warrior is better then yours. The funny thing every time the Russian military was on they were the most professional compared to other factions.
 

Turigamot

New member
Feb 13, 2011
187
0
0
Lethos said:
Yeah, I can't watch this show. I'm the type of guy that is incapable of watching shows based on historical events and mythology unless they are factual. You should of seen me when I was watching 'Clash of the Titans' and Hades was repeatedly said to be evil.

You know what that makes you? A pendant.

Know what's great about pedants? Absolutely nothing.
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
I do like learning how different and interesting weapons from different cultures work, but yes the show is absolute crap. Why would a ninja run into straight up battle against a Spartan? Because the writers of the show are idiots.
 

Pedro The Hutt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
980
0
0
orangeban said:
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. You may say why worry, but I say that there is a strange amount of IRA sympathism in America already, and while people are entitled to opinions, I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.
I'm surprised they didn't use Michael Collins' IRA as reference material, y'know, the one that actually wrestled the British oppressors to their knees to get Irish independence back at the start of the 20th century, rather than the terrorists of the 50s and onwards.

But hey, as you say, it's a stupid show, with an even more stupid tie-in video game.
 

Mangod

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2011
829
0
21
Don't know if this has been brought up (too lazy to read the entire thread), but when a show compares a shrapnel grenade to a flashbang, and declares the former the better weapon because "it caused more damage", despite one of them being designed to incapacitate without killing the people it's used against, expecting credibility from their "experts" is a waste of time.
 

FWL_MeRc

New member
Nov 24, 2009
44
0
0
While I strongly disagree with the OP. I see his point.

Sadly one mans "Freedom Fighter" Is another mans "Terrorist". Also the IRA has a surprisingly long history that I would suggest you read more of. Such as near the formation ages (IRB - IRA) etc. The Acts were, of course brutal. But it now means the Republic is free from 800+ years of oppression.

And, as I am skimming over alot here. The IRA and its many different factions, splinter groups whatever you wish to call them today are nothing more than over glorified criminals.

While I never seen this show I am now curious to see this specific ep, if anyone could provide me with where I may be able to view this in Ireland I would appreciate.

Just on a parting note. Yes. The IRA were terrorists to the English. But both sides were guilty of great evils during the conflicts. And while I may have de-railed this slightly I had to throw this in.

And to make it also clear, I do not hold any dispute/hatred toward England. English etc. This is all in the past and its time to move on like a civil society should. So please excuse me if I sound "Pro RA".
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
orangeban said:
I'm inclined to agree with you and even though of starting a thread on this very subject. That being said, I am always finding fault with their tests- namely the "instant kill" focus. ANd to be fair, The newest episode with Joan of Arc and William the Conqueror reviewed the tactics of key battles in each of their careers.


For the most part I am with you- it's crap. The biology the "doctor" cites as why something is fatal is more often than not flat out wrong and they seem to base their opinions on who "wins" a round on what they think is cooler instead of more effective. In combat, you don't always want to kill everyone. For instance, the rounds the US military uses are designed to not be instantly fatal (aside from the obvious). They are designed to cause a significant amount of damage without killing because 1) if you have an injured guy, that automatically takes 2 or 3 extra people out of the fight to tend to him as opposed to just 1 if you straight up them them and 2) it causes more psychological trauma to see their friends torn apart and still breathing.

Though to be fair, the show is called "Deadliest" warrior and not "most effective" or "smartest" warrior.
 

Commissar Sae

New member
Nov 13, 2009
981
0
0
IceStar100 said:
I gave up after Gangus Khan vs Alex the great
They gave it to Khan a hit and run fighter/ Alex was know to ride up frount of his men. His men loved him and after the persion where defeated they loved his too. Alex loved to fight there a story where he one scaled a wall so fast he was the only one up there for a few moments while everyone else tried to catch up.
Granted I haven't watched the episode so I'm not sure what they bring out but Genghis Khan would annihilate Alexander the Great. Sure Alexander was a great leader beloved of his men, but so was the Khan. The mongols carved out the biggest contiguous empire in Human history. They slaughtered all who resisted but actually were pretty lenient towards populations that surrendered.

That said the show is notorious for being poorly researched and making the confrontations between groups as contrived and illogical as possible. Their bias is usually clear and the 5 on 5 matchups are completely retarded when comparing generals. Example: Washington won in the show, despite historically having a fraction of the fighting force Napoleon had. In most warfare, victory is determined by numbers and tactical advantage, not brute force.
 

xXAsherahXx

New member
Apr 8, 2010
1,798
0
0
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.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
TheDooD said:
there's quite a lot of iffy science and flamebait to this show. Most of it tried not to be in bad taste but at the end of the day it's always gonna be like that. The reps of the factions always end up fighting like kids about my warrior is better then yours. The funny thing every time the Russian military was on they were the most professional compared to other factions.
I especially liked the episode where they pitted Spetsznas against Green Berets and teh Spetsznas won. Those two aren't even in the same league, much less the same operational framework.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
xXAsherahXx said:
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
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Its pretty dumb in the way that it only compares weapons and not the people who would use them, yeah, and the 'experts' are very dubious, but just take it as a lighthearted 'Who would win in a fight out of...' sort of thing and its fun enough in its own way.

I mostly just like the choreographed fights and stuff, though I've only seen a few.