What's Happening



collapse/expand topics back to Main/DeadliestWarrior

02:27:37 AM Sep 21st 2012
  • Badass Spaniard: Hernán Cortés, one of the Conquistadors' most remembered commanders, is one of the warriors appearing in season 3, being pitted against Ivan the Terrible.

Badass Spaniard has been renamed to Dashing Hispanic. The trope requires some necessary characteristics, like being a rogue Anti-Hero of wit and charm, kind of like Zorro. There is not enough context to tell if it fits here.
08:16:25 PM Sep 14th 2011

  • Is it just me? But I think I heard some of Metal Gear Solid 3 theme in Zombie vs. Vampire episode. It's on the scene that narrator explain about Vampire and Zombie.
05:12:12 PM Mar 8th 2011
I don't mean to provoke anyone, honestly, but after watching Charlie Brooker recently, I was wondering if there isn't an aspect on Unfortunate Implications in the fact that due to the format of the show, where two sides are presented fighting each other, there's a natural human tendency towards picking sides... which might lead you to cheer on Nazis, to put it quite bluntly. Yay or nay?
10:41:06 AM Mar 9th 2011
I don't really think that hoping one terrorist faction win against another terrorist faction in an entirely-fictional showdown is really unfortunate an implication at all.
03:24:32 PM Mar 9th 2011
edited by Vert
Just because it's fictional doesn't take it away from Unfortunate Implications in anyway. As per the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, I'll await further reasons for why this isn't applicable before making any changes.

And in an unrelated note, I fail to see how Nazis or Vietcongs could possibly be classified as terrorists.
03:29:32 PM Mar 16th 2011
Anyone else would like to provide some reason?
09:05:32 PM Mar 20th 2011
Sure it does. Just because you're hoping that they don't die as much in a fictional fight doesn't mean that you're suddenly supportive of everything that they do or did in real life. Just like cheering for the Taliban doesn't suddenly make you a treason to America or cheering for the I.R.A. doesn't suddenly make you hate the UK.
09:52:04 AM Mar 21st 2011
Oh, this is for the YMMV page? Yeah, just toss it on there.
12:33:52 AM Jul 27th 2010
In "White and White Morality" it's mentioned people complained that it wasn't "good guy vs. good guy" like someone stated in the Aftermath. Why wouldn't it be?
12:45:26 PM Jul 31st 2010
There's currently a lot of drama going on about Israel currently sending the Commandos against people who aren't religious, rather than people who actually attack.

I don't know much about the situation nor can claim to know much, so I'm afraid that's all I can offer.
06:54:36 PM Jul 19th 2010
Okay, so, who is this guy?
09:31:41 PM Jul 22nd 2010
Some troll that insists on saying there are leaders in the Nazi Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong simulation. Apparently interrogating someone and being interrogated makes you a leader. Can we ban him yet? Or...something?
09:21:57 PM Jul 23rd 2010
edited by TerminusEst13
He was doing the same thing with Yakuza vs Mafia and KGB vs CIA. I've tried talking to him several times, but he just remains silent.

02:03:16 PM Jul 24th 2010
The only team that was shown to have some sort of leader (I think) was SWAT and the GSG 9 in their episode. Oh and Al Capone vs. Jesse James, obviously. And probably in the other special forces episodes. This whole thing is stupid anyway and the only reason I keep editing it back to the way it was is because he's so insistent on it being his version.
04:18:17 PM May 1st 2010
edited by INH
Regarding the statement under Armor Is Useless that they never tested Alexander the Great's armor other than the helmet-

You have to remember that each episode is several days of testing edited down to 42 minutes (probably more like 25-30 minutes when you take out the intros, stock footage, discussions, posing with weapons, etc.). The editors are naturally going to pick the most definitive/coolest moments, and like in all shows a lot of stuff gets left out. During the making of the SWAT vs. GSG 9 episode, their kevlar armor was definitely tested (there's a video on Spike.com of one of the SWAT guys shooting a kevlar vest with a shotgun), but in the actual episode they never even mentioned armor.

In this particular episode, there's a quick shot of a ballistics gel torso wearing Alex's breastplate being shot with an arrow (you can see it at around 0:27 in the Aftermath video), so they clearly at least tested the ability of Attila to shoot around his armor. Also, IIRC at one point during the reenactment, an arrow hits Alex in the chest but it just breaks against his breastplate without any effect. That leads me to believe that they did take armor into account for all weapons in the simulation, even if they didn't show all the tests.

Besides, there are lots of times where they don't show a weapon being tested against armor. In Viking vs. Samurai, they never show the naginata, longsword, or spear being tested against the opponent's armor. Should we interpret that to mean that they didn't take armor into account at all for those weapons, even when they clearly did for others? How about in Ninja vs. Spartan, where they never show the ninjato being tested against the spartan's armor/shield?

EDIT: In the Aftermath for Green Beret vs. Spetsnaz, Max says, "armor instantly doubles the number of tests that we have to do" (emphasis added). To me, this implies that their general policy is to do armor tests for all the weapons, if its applicable for that matchup.

While we're on this subject, is there any real evidence that Wallace's armor was the primary reason he won? His chainmail wasn't very useful at all against the Zulu spear. Based on what we saw on the show, I'd argue that the claymore was a much greater factor.
12:04:50 PM Jun 25th 2013
Wallace won because he got one good weapon against one useless weapon for Shaka. The kill difference before the Special Weapons category is calculated is 6. Thank the show (and the producer who also happened to be the Scottish expert) for giving Wallace a better weapon than the spit of poison when they were deciding weapon match ups.
08:36:19 PM Apr 23rd 2010
What do other people think about a seperate Dan Browned (or Did not do the research) article for this show? There are definitely a lot of issues with it, but I could also see people including some opinions that are stretches (So it would have to be edited carefully to make sure everything was more certain)
11:26:48 AM May 5th 2010
I think it'd be useful in providing a neutral point of view, balancing the hefty praise (I like the show! :D) with equally-hefty criticism. Right now, however, the current size of the list is pretty small, and I think some of the more minor niggles can be put in It Just Bugs Me.

If we get a pretty huge list of more egregious stuff, then I think this would definitely be a good idea—but right now, I'm not sure it's needed with the list's current size.
03:51:00 PM Mar 24th 2010
Season #2 officiallly

SWAT vs. GSG-9

Attila the Hun vs. Alexander the Great

Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior

Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang

Persian Immortal vs. Celt

Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior

Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel

Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong


Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu

Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer

Comanche vs. Mongol

Navy Seal vs. Israeli Commando
12:16:34 PM Mar 24th 2010
IMDB and wikipedia, plus a credits screen capture, have the name Drew Skye as the narrator. (although it sure does sound like Wehnam, or however its spelled.) I'm guessing we'll want "Hey! It's that voice" changed, though am making sure in here first.
08:42:29 PM Apr 23rd 2010
edited by Pickly
I went ahead and edited this trope, some no one has commented on it.
12:21:19 PM May 12th 2010
http://twitter.com/geoffdesmoulin/statuses/13284431900 - Seems like Drew Sky is a psuedonym.
back to Main/DeadliestWarrior

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy