Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?
- Thread starter orangeban
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah OP I think you are over thinking it.
also, ninjas vs spartans. Demanding a rematch. That lasat minute bs about the shield shouldn't matter once your security has been circumvented (chikairi no jutsu)and your generals and lieutenants all just consumed poison.
i may be biased. sorry for the thread hijack.
also, ninjas vs spartans. Demanding a rematch. That lasat minute bs about the shield shouldn't matter once your security has been circumvented (chikairi no jutsu)and your generals and lieutenants all just consumed poison.
i may be biased. sorry for the thread hijack.
they openly fake the testing of the show. seriously, look at the IRA vs Spetsnaz rifle test. they totally fake the show!
this show is an insult to manly science.
this show is an insult to manly science.
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.
It's very similar to Iron Chef in that regard, a show all of us very much enjoy.
I watch deadliest warrior with my dad but we both agree that the results are very inaccurate and the testing they use to come to those results are questionable. But sadly we can't really use it against the show. At the end of the day it's on spike tv where people want to see a fight. If it were on something like the history channel hell yes we would complain.
I find it mindlessly entertaining. I mean, its guys with guns and swords killing each other. Yay! Don't read to much into it. It's Spike, what do you expect?
What this guy said. I generally demand accuracy for such documentary (along with some fucking context), but given the channel... yeah, not watching...aarontg said:
I shrug, label as shit and go watch something more worth my time.
Meh. I agree that it's a pretty stupid show, and to slightly paraphrase Spoony, "Sink or Float is more scientific, because at least they get repeatable results", but I still enjoy it. It's like a televised version of an Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny-type thread on a forum. Sure, the information may be slightly inaccurate and it may not take everything important into account, but it's still a fairly interesting debate about a cool subject.
As for it being in bad taste, well, yeah, I suppose that "hardcore" moment was a little bit off, but it's not as though that one regrettable bit defines the entire show.
As for it being in bad taste, well, yeah, I suppose that "hardcore" moment was a little bit off, but it's not as though that one regrettable bit defines the entire show.
I like the show, but I hate it as well. My main problem is the facts are all wrong. I'll use the William of Normandy vs Joan of Arc to make most of my points.
Firstly their history is wrong. The Saxon army William faced had just fought the Vikings less than a week before fighting the Normans (who are not French, they are Normans). The Normans won by blasting the shield wall with arrows, then using their cav to draw the enemy out of formation. They didn't firstly go into melee because they would have been cut to shreds by the great axes of the Saxon Housecarls. Only after causing the Saxons to break formation did the Norman infantry attack.
The main thing that outright pisses me the hell off is their persistence that butted mail was the armor of choice. When I saw them saying William used butted mail, I instantly knew who was going to win. Butted was NEVER used historically and for good reason. With nothing holding the rings together, they come apart and let you die. REAL battle mail (not modern reenactment stuff not meant to save you from lethal weapons) had a mix of solid and riveted rings which would not come apart when struck. It is very difficult to pierce riveted mail, not even axes can. There is a reason it has been around since between 5 and 600 BC and there is a reason it is used even today (reinforcing kevlar to protect against knives and to protect divers from shark bites). If it was as easy to pierce as DW makes it out to be, someone would have noticed in the 2500 years its been in use.
Firstly their history is wrong. The Saxon army William faced had just fought the Vikings less than a week before fighting the Normans (who are not French, they are Normans). The Normans won by blasting the shield wall with arrows, then using their cav to draw the enemy out of formation. They didn't firstly go into melee because they would have been cut to shreds by the great axes of the Saxon Housecarls. Only after causing the Saxons to break formation did the Norman infantry attack.
The main thing that outright pisses me the hell off is their persistence that butted mail was the armor of choice. When I saw them saying William used butted mail, I instantly knew who was going to win. Butted was NEVER used historically and for good reason. With nothing holding the rings together, they come apart and let you die. REAL battle mail (not modern reenactment stuff not meant to save you from lethal weapons) had a mix of solid and riveted rings which would not come apart when struck. It is very difficult to pierce riveted mail, not even axes can. There is a reason it has been around since between 5 and 600 BC and there is a reason it is used even today (reinforcing kevlar to protect against knives and to protect divers from shark bites). If it was as easy to pierce as DW makes it out to be, someone would have noticed in the 2500 years its been in use.
Yeah, I love Deadliest warrior, but I wouldnt bet money on near all the fights. God knows they are more for fun than fact.Irridium said:
And it should also be said, this is on the same network as 1,000 ways to die and the VGAs.
I've never seen the episodes that you say were in poor taste, so I'll leave that more or less up to you. But it is exceptionally inaccurate for a plethora of reasons. To pick one example in particular: Pirates vs nights. The blunderbuss was determined to be an effective weapon, earning something like 400 kills, when during testing, it had something like 3 or 4 misfires before they even got it to fire for the test. Even assuming it would fire, of the 3 pellets that hit the armor, only one went through, yet they assumed that it always would. How does 1/3 equate to always. And, they never even bothered testing how much force and penetration that single pellet had after it did go through, even though earlier they mentioned that a single pistol ball would be very unlikely to achieve a kill. It was the most pathetic scientific method I've ever seen, and I watch mythbusters. They also completely disregarded the shield, and never tested the blunderbuss against shield and armor.
If that isn't bad enough, that was one of the best episodes out of the first season. I watched the first 8 episodes or so, and by my estimation, they were only right about which warrior was "better" twice, or at most 3 times. and even in those episodes, the number split was still way off.
If that isn't bad enough, that was one of the best episodes out of the first season. I watched the first 8 episodes or so, and by my estimation, they were only right about which warrior was "better" twice, or at most 3 times. and even in those episodes, the number split was still way off.
This bothers me too. I like entertainment, but if you're going to pretend that what you say makes sense and is scientific, it had better hold some water. I like the parts of the show where they will see how many pigs their katana guy can cut through and stuff like that, but then when they start talking/analyzing I just cringe. Maybe it's just that I would love a show that would actually take this seriously. It would obviously still be for fun, because knowing if a ninja could beat a pirate is just not useful that often in daily life, but I would like it so much more if the analyses and speculations would be based on some actual facts and insight. If it's all clearly bullshit it just doesn't work for me.orangeban said:
About the bad taste. Meh. I'm not that easily offended, and I think that if you are (or I am) you should usually take about a hundred good looks at yourself before you start looking at the "offender". Basically I think people shouldn't get offended unless someone is actively trying to offend them. In this case I think the guy wasn't very thrilled about all those people dying, but more about the (to him) beauty of the explosion and the display of technology. I think most people would see that, but think that it is offensive because it could be interpreted differently. I say that it could be, but it should not be. Give the guy (and yourself) the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant the inoffensive thing.
I can somewhat see why you would feel it is bad taste, but on the other hand, this is what the show is about. It is about combat and various ways to kill fellow human beings. The people involved in the show are passionate about this and view it as an art, and as such they can appreciate the beauty when things get executed well. Of course it is tragic to see a real explosion where real people died fairly recently. But I wouldn't really want the people on the show preceding every sentence with "I can only imagine how tragic it must be to lose a loved one to decapitation by katana/bomb explosions/minigun fire" and follow it with a minute of silence for the poor souls that were lost. It's a show for and by people who are enthusiastic about combat. I think everybody who watches the show should be on board with that concept, and just watch the beauty of the weapons etc. without worrying too much about how they can be used to cause tragedy.
I really like the show, but I do agree that they should take in account the tactics and numbers, but to do most of those, they would need a larger time span than just that, but it does teach you a bit about the orginizations, or the different warriors and whatnot. I think the show would do much better if they went into far more detail than a simple 1v1 or 5v5 battle, since there should have been no way that Alexander the Great lost to Ghengis Khan.
