cody1984

This user has not updated recently.

1365 35158 13 58
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

cody1984's forum posts

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By cody1984

@PikminMania said:

It does prove that more than 5 of the fights are faked.

It proves the weapons might not have been accurate for the fight and that the writer of the article was pissed the fight happened not much else.

@PikminMania said:

Except for the fact that the IRA people using slingshots doesn't make sense. Or a mafia man having an ice pick has normal equipment.

Dude I already answered this question several times.

@PikminMania said:

I don't think it is stupid logic,, just super powers. Dodging bullets means you are a bullet timer, that is all the explanation you should need.

I stated several times that I was talking about characters without superpowers.

@PikminMania said:

lso you seem to be thinking that those military guys have amazing shots,

Well you do have to qualify with the weapon you are issued several times in the military and if you have a combat MOS in the Army you go out to the range constantly to keep you proficient in the weapon you are using. Since I was specifically talking about Special Forces which you have to be a good shot to even get to the initial training then yes they (Special Forces members) tend to be great shots since if they weren't they wouldn't ever qualify to be in Special Forces in the first place.

@PikminMania said:

yet an Israeli paratrooper said to me that the US army is honestly pretty bad nowadays

This is pure BS. Their is no way for me or anyone else on here to know for sure if you actually have a friend that is an Israeli paratrooper. I'm going to be nice here and not continue to comment what I really think of about this part of your reply and your explanations for it.

@PikminMania said:

Really if you took 10 average US soldiers and put them up against 10 middle eastern (pick any country) the Middle Easterns would win.

I stated special forces trained several times before. Also when I was stationed in Iraq we did see some of the Iraqi Army at the firing range some were good shots some where terrible but since your not talking about a military to military comparison but just middle easterners in general I find the comment laughable since you can have 10 average US soldiers who have experience with firearms vs 10 civilians who never fired a gun in their entire life and you think those people who never fired a gun before will be automatically better shots? That is failed logic at its finest.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#2  Edited By cody1984

@PikminMania said:

http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/deadliest-warrior-my-arse/ And even if a couple of fights were faked that still means that they fake fights.

I did read that article before when you posted about checking online about the deadliest warrior being faked. The majority of the complaints though are about the IRA vs. Taliban fight though with the author obviously being pissed that such a fight was even created in the first place. I get while he is mad and I understand why but it doesn't prove the entire show is utterly faked.

@PikminMania said:

I didn't really mean faked, what I meant was, stupid. Many of the weapons used are just ridiculous. Like of course the Mafia guy always has a freaking ice pick with him.

Or the US Special Forces guys using entrenching tools when almost everyone in the US military carries a knife on them for practical purposes outside of combat. Which is a more practical weapon to use and Special Operation Forces tend to carry knives made for combat like A Ka-Bar on them as an example? I get the complaints but at the end of the day the show just focuses on how deadly the weapons are how well they are used by the people performing the tests.

@PikminMania said:

They completely mess with the comparisons. For example, in the Musketeer vs Ming Warrior fight, they were testing swords but completely messed it up. For a comparison, you should only change one variable. AKA, the sword. But in the tests, they changed the kind of target, the number of targets, and the final analysis. It is impossible to get any kind of accurate analysis with that many variable changes.

I do agree with you about this.

@PikminMania said:

You will never get an even remotely close answer if you just follow the fight by their weapons. You need personality and more to get a solid outcome.

Isn't that just a problem though overall with combat simulations? Since you can't predict exactly what will happen in warfare?

@PikminMania said:

Now for the Death Battle argument:
The first thing you need to do is compare H2H skills. If not you'll get a fight like this, Bruce Lee vs a mentally handicapped midget with a 12 inch knife. That doesn't seem like a fair fight, right? But don't worry, according to you as long as they have weapons the fight is pretty accurate. Who needs to compare morals, personality, or fighting skills.

My problem with the H2H argument when it comes to comics is that comic books uses rather stupid logic. With a guy with no superpowers unarmed easily being able to take on a company of Special Forces soldiers who armed to the teeth trying to kill the character and beating them easily. Even Bruce Lee is on record for stating martial arts don't beat firearms. So that is the reason why I come down on people using H2H as reason why a character should win a fight especially if their opponent (or worse yet opponents) is using military weaponry and is highly skilled and the guy they are saying is going to win is unarmed without using any of their weaponry and doesn't have superpowers. Only in comics do you hear this argument because it makes no sense. I can ignore a lot of things about comics that don’t make much sense but that is just too much.

@PikminMania said:

The sword vs Spawn thing made perfect sense. The only way to kill a Spawn is by decapitating him with a holy weapon, Kratos did not do that.

Weren't these weapons made by Gods thus making them Holy though? Or does Holy only extend to the Judeo Christian God? I really don't care if Spawn should win the fight or not I'm just pointing out it goes back to the argument of "can a light saber kill superman" which will always have people arguing over the matter since the characters don't exist in the same universe.

@PikminMania said:

That is why they mainly use the most common feats that have been displayed throughout their entire career.

Problem here is some characters are really written inconsistently over the years making this harder to do.

@PikminMania said:

Non super-powered characters would be even worse for DW. You would have Batman lose every fight since the fights themselves aren't judged by the character, only some of their weapons.

In the case of those that don't use lethal force and don't have powers than yeah they should since the show is all about how deadly a particular individual or group is with certain weapons. It would be fair in the sense it does remove a lot of idiotic comic book logic about H2H being superior to military weaponry and would show who are the actual deadliest nonpowered street level characters are.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#3  Edited By cody1984

@RazzaTazz: Silver Surfer has the ability to absorb the energy of others and has shown that can suck his opponent’s energy away entirely and also knows the weakness of foes and can admit things like different forms radiation to take opponents down. So Surfer can simultaneously absorb Superman's power while admitting Kryptonite energy putting Superman down without much of a fight. He took down the Hulk easily while letting the Hulk pound on him without being harmed at all. Silver Surfer also threatened to do the same to gladiator as well.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#4  Edited By cody1984

@JediXMan said:

@cody1984 said:

Rogue can essentially drain him of his powers and giving herself the same power set and take him down.

Professor X could probably take him down with telepathy.

No to both. Rogue is not touching Superman. Most of his body is covered, and he is a lot faster than she is. Even just touching him won't do the trick. She would have to hold him for a long time, and he's not just going to stand there while she drains him. I believe J'onn put mental blocks in Superman's head, giving him resistance to telepathy.

That depends just touching her can cause her to drain some of his power away. So Superman hitting her anywhere where he skin is exposed is a threat to him. Not only that but if Superman just grabs her their is the potential for her to touch him draining his power away. So unless were talking about Superman speed blitzing constantly (which he doesn't even do very often) to kill his opponents (how often does Superman really kill others?) then Rogue has the potential to put him down.

Professor X might or might not be able to take him down if that is the case.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#5  Edited By cody1984

Rogue can essentially drain him of his powers and giving herself the same power set and take him down.

Dr. Doom and Reed Richards have taken down much bigger threats then Superman before.

Scarlet Witch could take him down with her reality altering abilities.

Beta Ray Bill could beat him.

Quite a few Heralds of Galactus can beat him.

Professor X could probably take him down with telepathy.

Loki most likely could take him down.

Hela most likely could take him down.

Enchantress could most likely take him down.

There are actually quite a few characters that could defeat superman without to much difficulty in marvel.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#6  Edited By cody1984

@PikminMania said:

@cody1984:

  1. Almost all of the "experts" on Deadliest Warrior are all fakes.
  2. A lot of the weapons they use are faked.
  3. They don't test weapons out correctly.
  4. Their results to the fights are completely useless.

Now Death battle:

  1. Has real fans and experts on the characters, they never have made a cheap fight.
  2. Their results make sense and are actually in-character for what each combatant would do in a fight.
  3. They actually do compare the weapons but use the most common feats by everyone to determine the win.

All in all, DW is faked tremendously and wrong all the time. DB proves a character can win with logic, feats, and personality.

Heck, even the science used in Death Battle makes more sense than DW.

As far as Deadliest Warrior goes

1. The experts I've seen with most complaints about them were the IRA vs. Taliban match and the William Wallace fight.

2. Besides a few being inaccurate I'd like a source since last time I checked I saw complaints about the AR-15 and RPG which is again from the Taliban vs. IRA fight and not much else so if they are using a ton of fake weapons I'd like to see a source indicating this.

3. What do you have in mind exactly?

4. Its useful to see which side has better weaponry but other things that I've already mentioned like chances of dying from disease, tactics, terrain, weather, etc. then yeah its not an accurate way to say if the fight is a 100% accurate but again it shows how lethal the weaponry is used for the test and tests the users of those weapons ability to use them to give an idea of who is more deadly in single or group combat ignoring outside factors (which I've already talked about in depth) so the show is not horrible for what it is.

As far as Death Battle goes

1. Real fans of the characters can argue about retarded things that shouldn't even matter in a fight like how skilled is someone in H2H which really shouldn't even matter if were having a fight between two characters like Nick Fury vs. The Punisher since it would be a gunfight. Also the fight you used to in which they have Spawn winning is suspect since they didn't believe that Krakow's weapons wouldn't put Spawn down and their answer as to why his weapons wouldn't work is extremely questionable.

2. The results are questionable since in the Spawn fight we have the classic "can light saber kill superman" type argument which leaves the decision if a weapon is lethal or not to a character questionable.

3. Feats are also suspect since characters can be written as extremely campy or dumb in one series and another series going on at the same time be written as extremely effective against others.

So I don't see how Death Battle is more accurate here. I'd say its more useful for measuring characters with superpowers that are quite extreme but for non super powered characters I don't see how it would be more accurate then Deadliest Warrior.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#7  Edited By cody1984

@CATPANEXE said:

Also I stated most sex scenes in American media are actually just sex and nothing more. I'm not sure you understood the rest of what I wrote either and are inserting a conversation from elsewhere.

My response was mostly due to hearing similiar comments a lot from others online. I should've been clear about that and do apologize for the confusion on that matter but I see similiar statements tossed around a lot online and I've personally seen entertainment were its the exact opposite and can be just as bad. As far as the U.S. entertainment industry showing sex just to show it I'm not seeing that at least from entertainment I've seen but then again I don't know what of genres you like so maybe you are picking up on it more then I do. From what I've personally seen it entertainment in the United States tends to not show it much at all. Sometimes its shown just to be shown but that is not common from the entertainment I've seen.

@CATPANEXE said:

I'm lost on this. American writers shy away from passion because that's the nature of our society and the confines they work within, included to the mentality of their audience which is that America is sexual repressed, dysfunctional, and confused on the whole hence our strong overall strive towards violence and disconnection.

Okay were going off topic and that is my fault but do you have any actual scientific research you can link to back up this claim?

@CATPANEXE said:

American entertainment appeals as such. While works specifically catering to relationship based stories will pursue sensuality, most showings that are in a general audiences work are just sex, cheaply laid out and usually to appeal to same disconnected sex that most Americans can competently handle, worsened by an increasingly emotional and mentally damaged society.

Yeah, I definitely want to see some evidence to back this up. The reason why I'm asking is because you are making several claims one that society is becoming more and more dysfunctional and two that entertainment is reflecting that and possibly even making it worse. No offense but when I've asked for evidence from others when talking about lack of sex in American entertainment who made similar claims before they were unable to provide a credible source besides an occasional opinion piece. The reason why I ask is because criminal statistics have gown down since the 80's and have stabilized in the United States for years now. When it comes to measuring if someone is mentally ill in society are the numbers increasing due to people actually having problems that we haven't picked up on since previously we didn't consider certain symptoms unhealthy? Or are some people just being measured with something wrong with them due to other reasons when in reality they are able to function fine in society? If American society is becoming more emotionally and mentally damaged is this due to the break down of the nuclear family with both parents having to work to meet ends meet causing them more stress? If society is getting worse is it due to children generally being left alone more to themselves and not having as much interaction with their parents possibly leading to lack of development of social skills? Is it due to the fact more people communicate on the internet then actually socializing in person with others? Does the amount of sex and sensuality shown in entertainment actually have a profound effect at all on society?

@CATPANEXE said:

It's more a matter of it's present and the going rate, therefore it is and while it would be nice to see some sort of openness and expansion, American value is not only a far cry from being there, it's actually currently in reverse of any Age of Aquarius, hence our consumer needs in reflection, and all this equally applicable and standing for comic books.

Source?

I do apologize if I'm coming off as rude or aggressive but I do tend to follow government and politics as closely as I can and when people make blank statements like..

I wasn't even pointing out an opinion in the first place but a researched and documented fact

without backing them up then I tend to ask for the source of this information. If you stated IMO I probably wouldn't have responded since that is your own view but stating it as fact it would be nice to see information backing up the claim.

Anyway I apologize to the OP and others on here since my post was extremely off topic and If get a response or questioned by others on here I'll take it to PMs.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#8  Edited By cody1984

@CATPANEXE said:

It makes sense, though it's been noted many many times that in American entertainment writers more often than not clamp up when it comes to sex, or better sensuality being defined. It happens, but things like action, violence, comedy and family values more so and writers are more reluctant to get deep into that. Sex is usually related when it is just as the word you used. Quick, and usually not really shown, and pretty meaningless as opposed again to anything true and sensual. I don't recall the details of why or am too tired to remember, but it's sort of an ever present tick with the industry as a whole.

To be fair though if you look at entertainment from other countries particularly Europe you see f****** just for the sake of showing it. I do agree that when it comes to entertainment in the United States the U.S. tends to be all for showing violence and seems to worry to much about showing sex and because of that hardly have it entertainment which can be annoying but other countries will tune down violence when it should actually be shown and show sex just to show it which can be just as annoying.

Anyway getting back on topic I'd say it depends on the characters. Like Iron Man and She Hulk hoping in bed together after a major fight is believable. Now if you have a team up between the Punisher and Dagger than its not. It really depends on the characters and even the reason why they teamed up and what happened to them during the team up.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#9  Edited By cody1984

@CoolnTwisted2k20 said:

@cody1984 said:

@CoolnTwisted2k20 said:

Also the whole Batman vs Punisher on the topic of scaring the shit out of people I think they're both equally scary.

http://agent0x7.tripod.com/dkfear.html

^

Scaring gods> Scaring two bit mobsters and slavers

Although, Punisher's methods due somewhat disturb one when you think about it.

Batman scaring a God is pure PIS fanboyism.

Anyway getting back on topic let’s say Marvel acquired the rights to Batman. That doesn't mean they acquired the rights to Gotham, the Joker, Alfred, etc. Essentially all you would have is Batman and you would have to do a new origin story as well unless Marvel paid for the rest of the Batman Mythos intellectual property. So Batman wouldn't be the Batman you all would know but an entirely new character and to be blunt why would marvel want Batman? It’s a legitimate question. Marvel already has a ton of characters and teams that do well and trying to shoehorn Batman in would be a major challenge and he wouldn't have the same status in the marvel universe as he does in DC since Marvel would have to downgrade too many of their top characters to give him that status. So unless Warner Bros get tired of having DC comics around and decides to sell them to Marvel/Disney it’s not going to happen.

Well Marvel would probably want Batman because they're tired of their shitty rendition of him (Moon Knight).

Moon Knight is a rip off of Batman you won't get an argument out of me there, but Moon Knight also doesn't work to well in the marvel universe either. He's very much like Batman and the character just doesn't have any real niche that he can fill. Which would be the same problem Batman would have if he's became part of the Marvel universe. Since what he does being a fear inspiring hero doesn't work well in comparison to characters that are much more violent then Batman like the Punisher and Batman is not going to be taking over leading the Avengers from Captain America nor will Wayne Enterprise produce better tech then Tony Stark can so Batman would be pretty screwed for finding a role in marvel comics.

Avatar image for cody1984
cody1984

1365

Forum Posts

35158

Wiki Points

58

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 2

#10  Edited By cody1984

@CoolnTwisted2k20 said:

Also the whole Batman vs Punisher on the topic of scaring the shit out of people I think they're both equally scary.

http://agent0x7.tripod.com/dkfear.html

^

Scaring gods> Scaring two bit mobsters and slavers

Although, Punisher's methods due somewhat disturb one when you think about it.

Batman scaring a God is pure PIS fanboyism.

Anyway getting back on topic let’s say Marvel acquired the rights to Batman. That doesn't mean they acquired the rights to Gotham, the Joker, Alfred, etc. Essentially all you would have is Batman and you would have to do a new origin story as well unless Marvel paid for the rest of the Batman Mythos intellectual property. So Batman wouldn't be the Batman you all would know but an entirely new character and to be blunt why would marvel want Batman? It’s a legitimate question. Marvel already has a ton of characters and teams that do well and trying to shoehorn Batman in would be a major challenge and he wouldn't have the same status in the marvel universe as he does in DC since Marvel would have to downgrade too many of their top characters to give him that status. So unless Warner Bros get tired of having DC comics around and decides to sell them to Marvel/Disney it’s not going to happen.