OK---logical question---why isn't this a reality show?
I mean---forget American football; just send guys into the arena in armor with real swords---then TV would have gone the full Roman!

Beyond LARPing---Full contact sword fighting has been added as a related post - related requested by artician on that post.

That's a good question. I've only heard about it through a random conversation I struck up with someone who does it. I didn't actually ask, but I just assumed they used wooden or rubber swords or something. I think the folks that do it around here aren't quite this hardcore. Maybe, though. I'm kind of curious now and want to go see what they do.

A set of plate armour can't be cheap. I had a friend who made chainmail to sell at renaissance fairs and a... uh... smock.. whatever they call it... (jerkin?) of that costs about $1000. That's hand-made though, if it's popular there's probably a Chinese factory churning it out by the ton. Airsoft is a new hobby for me this summer, and I thought I was dumping too much money into gear, but I bet it isn't a fraction of what these guys invest.

They hit each other with steel swords and halberds?
Where have I been all these years?
lol

Pretty common too. There's a paintball field where I go and airsoft/paintball, and about once a month or so they have a big medieval LARP event where people wack on eachother with swords and stuff. I haven't actually seen it and it's a newish thing, but apparently it's getting more popular too.

There's also zombie themed LARPing where they use airsoft guns.

Hmmm. Thought I'd added this comment already but...

If you like this, you might also like this NOVA special...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

I have not agreed that my position is wrong on the performance and capability designs of the F-35 and modern air combat. Please read the rest of my post above.... I'm still saying that dogfights have ended with WW1. I've never said we don't need ANY dog fighting capabilities. I'm saying that it's never the primary design idea of a modern fighter jet. You still have a cannon for back up. Just like soldiers have a side arm and a knife. Just in case you do get caught with your pants down or the main weapon fails at a critical moment.

I have agreed on the waste of money aspect of course. I'll also agree that if test goals are being downsized to accommodate flaws, then that's just terrible. If it's not able to perform to it's design then it's useless.

The F-4 != F-35. I can see why people draw parallels. But that only works if you ignore that absolutely everything on the planes is different, the adversaries are different, and stealth is requirement for survivability. You don't use stealth planes in the way you use an non stealth plane. Have you ever heard of a sniper wearing a ghillie suit run across the open battlefield with a sword or pistol? There were so many tactical mistakes in Vietnam as well. The conditions in which that article talks about are also different. Those planes were flying low and slow for a bombing run. Because they didn't have laser, gps guided bombs, infrared fire and forget air to ground missiles or cruise missiles back in those days. You don't get fog at 40,000 feet. They had to fly that low to get a visual identification of their bombing target. That does not happen anymore either. You scream past at mach 1 above the clouds and the bomb hits where it was programmed to hit. Also the phantoms missiles were unrelaiable. That hasn't been the case since the 80s. And their training was poor. None of that is true these days, and has not been true since the 80s either. That's why every single fighter plane apart from the F-16 (which is made mostly as an export product anyway) has been created to fight at long range primarily. The F-15 which is the main air superiority fighter for the US, is heavy and has a worse maneuverability than any Russian plane. But it's still the most feared plane, with no loses in combat. The article you linked even says that. So it's basically contradicting itself. At the start it says, F-4's lost because they couldn't maneuver, and ends with therefore the US made the F-15 which has worse maneuverability than the Russian planes lol.



Edit: Cracked.com doesn't count as a reputable source for anything, including basic sentences, spelling and punctuation.

Edit2: Here is an article from an actual F-35 pilot that says the F-35 dog fights better than a F-16 since they keep tuning the fly-by-wire parameters. http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

So even if it came to a dogfighting encounter, the F-35 is still the best plane in the US arsenal for dogfighting.

Overpriced? Definitely. But turd? no chance. F-35's would be covering other F-35's. In the unlikely case of someone getting in that close. As soon as an enemy plane (somehow magically gets by all defenses and sensors) pops up behind a fellow pilot, they'd be getting shot down by another F-35.

You might have a valid point with the electronic warfare, but it comes with it's own disadvantages. For example as soon as someone starts jamming, they appear hostile (or atleast "unknown")to even their own friendly forces. So it has to be used appropriately. Jamming also only works at certain ranges, and once you are close enough there are ways to get around it.
Jamming also means that you're broadcasting your own position. It definitely makes things harder for the enemy, but it's not a show stopper.

Continuing the sniper analogy. If for some reason the sniper was alone and not part of a combined force, and someone did sneak up on him with a sword then he might be in trouble. Yet do you see snipers being trained with swords in the military? No, because it's so unlikely to happen. But still they carry a knife just in case. As does the F-35. Missiles that shoot almost backwards and a cannon in case sensors fail.


These 40 year old pieces of shit you are talking about are flying at the limits of physics for human pilots by the way

The F-35 can't maneuver as well as an F-16. But F-16 can't maneuver as well as P-51 from World War 2.

There hasn't been a dog fight since the first world war. Even in WW2 it was about strategy, positioning and team work. It had very little to do with plane performance, expect for when there was a huge gap like the invention of the jet plane.

Air combat for the last 60 years has been about situational awareness first and foremost. And the F-35 has this nailed.

It's like saying that modern soldiers don't have any sword fighting skills. It's completely irrelevant. You wouldn't use a sword against a camouflaged sniper. The F-35 is a camouflaged sniper, hiding in the trees. Who would silly enough to run through an open field with a sword? Or even a pistol? The sniper will have killed you before you even know you are being targeted.


Now the people making the F-35 are probably incompetent in delivering a plane on time and on budget(either that or they are milking it). But the plane once finished, will be a winner.


The other thing is, the F-35's will always be part of a force of other planes in a large scale conflict. If for some reason it does come down to dog fighting - e.g. if there are just tons of cheaper planes going against it (with suicidal pilots) that they simply cannot carry enough missiles, then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by F-15, F-16s , F/A-18s etc.

Yeah, I'm sure being rejected early access to review code has a far bigger impact than cash. It takes time to review a product and get content generated and ready to go, which is why early review code is necessary so you can launch your review as soon as that review embargo ends... as those are the ones that will generate the click revenue, which is probably exceeds whatever studios may pay directly.

Hey, I've been offered review code (never of AAA titles, biggest I got offered was The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing: Final Cut and Sword Coast Legend) on occasion from a PR firm that somehow I got on their list (I do have a blog that is gaming focused, got a very small Twitch channel and YouTube channel that largely focuses on games). I personally only accept ones that I genuinely have an interest in... of course this perhaps clogs judgement all the more. I wanted to like the title... so I may be more forgiving. When I founded and ran Mortyr.net (it's long since been taken over) I admit my preview of the game was clouded a bit, though I've tried to apply lessons learned from that forward. Then again, it's perhaps easier to apply those lessons to myself as I'm too small to matter (and the offers for review code are very few and far between), a big publishing site who's reviews count on the Metacritic analysis, and rely on click through revenue has less room to be apply such lessons and almost needs to ignore impartiality in favor of making sure you keep in the publisher's good graces. A PR firm handing me a review code that doesn't work out well isn't as bad if Game Informer or somebody like that doesn't give it a positive review.

TLDR: Exactly what RedSky and Stormsinger said.

But, at least in the first one, the sword isn't 'magic', it's just stronger and lighter than other swords. If one has no sword skills, the sword does nothing for you.

You know, I read a recent interview with John Oliver where he is very emphatic that his show is "comedy" and that, despite what people want to read into it, he is not making political statements. I think if I had watched this video before reading that interview I would have scoffed (as others here already have). But it's pretty clear to me now that he and his writers know exactly what they are doing.

Basically, this video is the result of John Oliver saying, "You know, when you think about this history of racism in American cinema you can find some pretty fucked up stuff. How can we make a joke out of that?"

It's not designed to be an actual literary critique, it's meant to use the facts to play up a punch line. I'm pretty sure John and his writing crew know that "The Last Samurai" does not refer to Tom Cruise's character (i.e. just because the character is trained how to use the sword and armor does not automatically make him a samurai), but it's easy to see how they can make a joke out of the ambiguity of the title and Americans' tendency for self-centeredness (I'm sure there are people in the U.S. who think the title does indeed refer to Cruise's character).

I actually don't have a problem with actors "playing outside their ethnicity" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). I'm reminded of the recent controversy about the video game Uncharted 4 which has a white actress voice-acting the role of a black South African character. The Creative Director responded to the controversy by pointing out that a white character is voiced by a black actor in the same game, and that the decisions were made based on the choosing the best actor for the role--not on what the actor looked like in real life (read more about the story here).

As CG progresses and digital characters become a norm, I think this is an issue that's only going to get greater in the film industry. In our demand for political correctness will we demand that the actors physically resemble the characters they are portraying onscreen? That seems a bit absurd to me. But so too is the idea of excluding people for consideration from roles based solely on the color of their skin.

Which would be fine if it wasn't so one-sided, or (in lots of cases) just fucking terrible.

I mean, Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys? Even if that a horrible caricature, it would still be just horrible.

Funnily enough, The Last Samurai is probably the least offensive on the list since it's primarily a story ABOUT an outsider learning a new culture (the idea that he would equal one of them with a sword is laughable, but that's a standard narrative trope anyway).

OMFG.

I can't believe I didn't even notice they were speaking English.

Yeah, I'd prefer to hear it in Cantonese (or Mandarin) and read subtitles, but it's made in America for an American network with an audience whose vast majority despises subtitles.

Don't like the theme overall: "This magic sword gives you the power to conquer all!" Nah. But of course I still really want to see it (though not enough to subscribe to Netflix again).