Teh_Showtime Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It might be good to know that Randy Orton is smaller than John Cena. But other than that, very valid argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It might be good to know that Randy Orton is smaller than John Cena. But other than that, very valid argument. I don't think they are small guys. But they aren't certainly huge. It just shows you that the size matters less and less over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It's never been about being big per se in the WWF/E. It's about being tall and having a good physique. Bobby Lashley didn't get fast tracked to the top because of his amateur credentials. Chris Masters didn't get on the main roster a good 2-3 years too soon because he was a great talker. Remember a few years ago when Orton had his shoulder injury and was on Raw with Vince and Vince made a crack about Orton looking small? Or the infamous Triple H insult of Masters? It's always been about height and physique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Remember a few years ago when Orton had his shoulder injury and was on Raw with Vince and Vince made a crack about Orton looking small? Or the infamous Triple H insult of Masters? It's always been about height and physique. This. I seriously have no idea what amp is talking about I suppose it's "easier" to get a smaller guy over because of the advent of technology or whatever, but the biggest stars in the industry are still roughly the same size and height. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Hilariously stupid: WWE sent a demand to a website that called them a wrestling company to change their wording. TVWeek.com had a headline that ran "'Drew Carey inducted into pro wrestling Hall of Fame." According to the site, they received an email from WWE publicist Kellie Baldyga, ordering them to change the headline because "We are no longer a wrestling company but rather a global entertainment company with a movie studio, international licensing deals, publisher of three magazines, consumer good distributor and more." The publicist further said "No, we don't do wrestling events. They're entertainments. And we don't call them wrestlers. They're superstars and divas." TVWeek refused the request and removed the article rather than change the headline. Source: http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/headlines/Do_Not_Call_WWE_A_Wrestling_Company_-_Details.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 "No, we don't do wrestling events. They're entertainments." Coming soon: EntertainmentMania 27! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20LEgend Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Pathetic Vince, can't wait to see TNA capitalise on this. TNA: America's largest Wrestling Promotion ! Bryan Danielson, get yourself out of there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningHamster Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What are they going to do? Sue TV Week for defamation for saying that the WWE is a wrestling company? Ridiculous, not just for the obvious reasons but also to think they can tell a publication how to write their headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Pathetic Vince, can't wait to see TNA capitalise on this. TNA: America's largest Wrestling Promotion ! Bryan Danielson, get yourself out of there! And yet, Total Nonstop Action devotes less time to matches than the company who calls their shows "entertainments". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juggaloninjalee Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 TNA really should claim they are the largest wrestling company in America. Hyping themselves up that way kinda how WCW always said they were where the big boys played is something that could help. I really wish I worked for TNA and had the ability to take over head booking position. There are so many things I would do. Less angles/more wrestling... Make all titles mean something. Either way I think it is dumb that WWE goes and tells people they aren't a wrestling company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeel1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Coming soon: EntertainmentMania 27! The premier event of the year for World Entertainment Entertainment~! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The premier event of the year for World Entertainment Entertainment~! It's World Sports Entertainment. Get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsolv Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm not sure that "entertainments" is a word... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLLK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm not sure that "entertainments" is a word... It is not. Entertainment is always a singular noun, if grammar class taught me correctly. Collective noun, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The premier event of the year for World Entertainment Entertainment~! or, WEE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhd1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I don't think I'd be tempted to go to an Entertainments, myself - surely they can think up a better word than that! Incidentally, can someone explain to me why they don't want to be a wrestling company? I'm not kidding, I really want to know (without the sarcasm, preferably!) - I'm guessing there is a reason behind the choice but I'm at a loss as to what that reason might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisen-verse Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I don't think I'd be tempted to go to an Entertainments, myself - surely they can think up a better word than that! Incidentally, can someone explain to me why they don't want to be a wrestling company? I'm not kidding, I really want to know (without the sarcasm, preferably!) - I'm guessing there is a reason behind the choice but I'm at a loss as to what that reason might be. The only thing I can think of is that there's still a stigma placed upon professional wrestling in the U.S. While things have changed quite a bit, I think the attitude era, while great for wrestling fans, ultimately made them look rather foolish from a mainstream perspective. To transition into being known as an entertainment company, they hope to transition into more of a fixture of the mainstream public. When they say 'you're just rasslers' they can come back and tout how they're more of an entertainment company than the 'rassling' people grew up to laugh at. It's more marketable to be an entertainment company. Also, there's more room for a longer tenure as well I would guess. Just my thought. Cheers. E-V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I don't think I'd be tempted to go to an Entertainments, myself - surely they can think up a better word than that! Incidentally, can someone explain to me why they don't want to be a wrestling company? I'm not kidding, I really want to know (without the sarcasm, preferably!) - I'm guessing there is a reason behind the choice but I'm at a loss as to what that reason might be. There's definitely a negative stigma attached to wrestling in the entertainment industry. Jericho mentions it in his book as being the "red headed stepchild" when compared to movies, tv, music, sports et al. It's just... looked down upon. Sure, we fans dig it and respect it, but to outsiders it's an altogether silly affair. That stigma transfers over into business. From what I'm given to understand, advertising sells for much cheaper during RAW than other shows in similar timeslots with similar ratings, because it's understood that wrestling fans aren't smart enough or rich enough to buy certain products. The violent aspects of wrestling also cause trouble with more family-friendly groups, such as Mattel, who give them major money for licensing. I can see how pushing the "it's okay kids, we're fake" aspect could appease a lot of high-powered, wealthy people. It's chucklesome how WWE deny deny deny, but I can see the method to the madness, even if I don't agree with it. EDIT: Have you ever denied you were a wrestling fan in conversation? Or at least downplayed how much you're into it. I know I have. WWE is the same, insecure deal in many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 or, WEE! That makes me think of going down a slide. So...I approve, is what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I don't think I'd be tempted to go to an Entertainments, myself - surely they can think up a better word than that! Incidentally, can someone explain to me why they don't want to be a wrestling company? I'm not kidding, I really want to know (without the sarcasm, preferably!) - I'm guessing there is a reason behind the choice but I'm at a loss as to what that reason might be. From a pop culture standpoint, Pro Wrestling has a bad reputation attached to it...of being for the poor, the dumb, the slightly white trash..even with the years of proven crossover appeal...as if the only people who watch it are dorks and hicks. A lot of members of the mainstream media still see wrestling as if it's close to roller derby and drag racing. And the WWE wants to be regarded as more of alive-action event, like you're attending a Las Vegas show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhd1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ah, that makes sense. Thanks Self & E-V! EDIT: And Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The only thing I can think of is that there's still a stigma placed upon professional wrestling in the U.S. While things have changed quite a bit, I think the attitude era, while great for wrestling fans, ultimately made them look rather foolish from a mainstream perspective. How so? Seriously...the stigma attached to wrestling was around for ages befroe the Attitude Era. If anything, that was the first time where wrestling was seen as 'cool' and more specifically it was seen as cool for people that weren't kids or parents of kids. The only reason mainstream media *might* take wrestling seriously is because quite a few names from that era have crossed over into mainstream projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I still remember the Raw when Cole welcome us to "the hottest action/adventure show on television." It's one thing to present your wrestling product as 'entertainment' or 'sports entertainment' and all that jazz, and I can understand wanting to change the perception of what it is you do. But to outright deny you're a wrestling company entirely? That's something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The only thing I can think of is that there's still a stigma placed upon professional wrestling in the U.S. While things have changed quite a bit, I think the attitude era, while great for wrestling fans, ultimately made them look rather foolish from a mainstream perspective. To transition into being known as an entertainment company, they can they hope to transition into more of a fixture of the mainstream public. When they say 'you're just rasslers' they can come back and tout how they're move of an entertainment company than the 'rassling' people grew up to laugh at. It's more marketable to be an entertainment company. Also, there's more room for a longer tenure as well I would guess. Just my thought. Cheers. E-V While this is all true, I believe the real reason for World Wrestling Entertainment trying to claim they are not a wrestling company and their workers not wrestlers is simple: by calling their workers 'superstars' or 'performers' or whatever instead of 'wrestlers', their employees have a lot less rights than if they were achknowledged athletes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I still remember the Raw when Cole welcome us to "the hottest action/adventure show on television." It's one thing to present your wrestling product as 'entertainment' or 'sports entertainment' and all that jazz, and I can understand wanting to change the perception of what it is you do. But to outright deny you're a wrestling company entirely? That's something else. What they do puts them so far beyond what any other wrestling promotion in the US does, why bother putting themselves in the same category? Wrestling fans know it's wrestling. They are just doing this to change the perspctive of people outside their fanbase. To change the minds of those people - if it's possible - it's worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.