The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[BHK1978]

You really chose a bad post to quote. I really don't see how that helps you. You keep forgetting that when i say "It's wrong", it's a matter of speach. People never seem to understand my ironies, regularly forget the fact that english isn't even my 1st language and then start an argument with me when i wasn't even attacking them in the first place. I'm actually one of the few people who agrees with you. An opinion is an opinion. We don't need to back it up because it is what it is. And educated remar, and observation, or a point being made in an argument (or an argument itself), that's different. But backing up the fact we like/hate something? That's outrageous. So i'm with you on that one. Unfortunately, a lot of people here want people to back up everything they say, when there's no need of that.

 

 

As for the 3h Raw's, it will be something gradual, so we will have to wait and see. Buuuut from what i've seen from RAW 1001, they didn't start in the best way. And TOUT? Really? I'm willing to start a pool to bet on how long before that becomes another failure for them. I mean...TOUT? Jesus Christ. And even if it doesn't, finacially, we are already bored by it since they began showing it on RAW. That can't end up well.

 

Last thing I will say on this:

 

Well yeah you got me, I just do not get your irony. Though there is nothing that could even be remotely thought of as irony in that post I quoted as it you seem to be stating your true feeling, but that must be because there is this whole language barrier thing.

 

I will say that I agree with you about TOUT, I find it to be very annoying that they keep showing those stupid segments. I also hope it ends up being a failure for Vince. After all every time he tries to do anything other than wrestling he usually fails at it.

[djthefunkchris]

Ah... What the heck, I'm just going to say what I think about Tout. Not like I'm known for holding back anyways.

 

I think the Tout thing is better then anything else they've done in the past that I can think of, that brings fan opinions to the show. I actually like seeing the touts, at least so far, as they seem to be picking out people evenly (Some agree with Punk, some don't, etc.). Seems to be even, and as long as they do it that way, I'm in favor of them. When it seems they start choosing only one side to show, then I probably won't like them as much.

 

I see I'm alone in this, so don't worry, I'm not going to try to convince anyone else to like them, but in all honesty... I think you guys are getting old and just can't except new things.

[djthefunkchris]

Last thing I will say on this:

 

Well yeah you got me, I just do not get your irony. Though there is nothing that could even be remotely thought of as irony in that post I quoted as it you seem to be stating your true feeling, but that must be because there is this whole language barrier thing.

 

I will say that I agree with you about TOUT, I find it to be very annoying that they keep showing those stupid segments. I also hope it ends up being a failure for Vince. After all every time he tries to do anything other than wrestling he usually fails at it.

 

I've jumped on him a couple of times before realizing who I was quoting, and yes, I do believe their is a language "thing" there. I believe he uses the wrong words sometimes, and it takes a different view then what he is trying to say.. and he forgets that smileys can help quite a bit in bringing out his true mood or feeling in the conversation... For irony for example, you could say something like "Your totally wrong, he sucks!" The smiley sticking his tongue out at you at the end of the statement lets you know I'm just being playful with you, rather then just saying "Your totally wrong, he sucks!" Stating it that way, when you mean it the first way... although the words are exactly the same, it brings a totally different "feel" to the conversation, and I am going to look like I'm attacking rather then playing.

[Makhai]

Thank you so much for this

 

I never unerstood how going back to what the business has been based on for decades is a new era

 

This is inaccurate. They were doing provocative things, for that era. Sherri Martel was clubbed in the face with a mirror, Macho Man was an abusive husband, The Iron Shiek and Sgt. Slaughter feud etc. etc. This was pre-internet, and before the violence and the sex became as easy to find as coke in Kerry Von Erich's locker.

 

Remember when Heavy Metal became a "cult classic" because you could see boobies and the in-between parts were tollerable? No. Well they're movies you'd buy and they'd have a boob or two, and your order it for those couple of scenes because it wasn't as embarrassing to sell to the movie clerk who would judge you from behind the counter. Even the legit porn movies back then had plots, and you had walk into a store and face the shame of renting/buying porn. It was a scary world of repression, and sore testicles; be happy we missed it.

 

Point of that little asside was, the WWE was larger than life at that time. It was in the Attitude era as it caught the pre-internet wave and rode it for all it was worth. Now, because Vince has built a product that is radioactive to networks(Eddie's death, Chris Beniot, underhanded anti-NWA tactics) they're literally the biggest rated weekly show in history, and nobody wants them. So they bent over and took it from NBC. I'm sure creative is just as interested in going to something closer to NC-17, but they didn't sign that T.V. contract.

 

WITH ALL OF THAT SAID! PG isn't what's killing WWE. Go back and watch some of those old Val Venis storylines, or the Kane-Lita baby thing, or the Mae Young-hand thing. It was all horrible. The only thing that was good about it was what was happening at the top of the card, and all of that stuff was just Austin cussing and Mick Foley's Icarus routine, which can easily conform to a PG-13 rating today(Total Recall has full frontal nudity and it got a PG-13). This is a moot discussion.

[djthefunkchris]

I'm missing something, because I didn't see a place in your post (Makhai) where you found something inaccurate. Nothing I don't agree with in your post, outside of the first sentence.

[Makhai]

I'm missing something, because I didn't see a place in your post (Makhai) where you found something inaccurate. Nothing I don't agree with in your post, outside of the first sentence.

 

Because even during the most sanitized of sanitized eras (the early 80s) it was never this sanitized in the context of what was going on in the world around it. The 80s eras worked because the climate was tolerant of it. The 2002-2012 era doesn't because the mainstream is into darker, edger content.

[djthefunkchris]

Because even during the most sanitized of sanitized eras (the early 80s) it was never this sanitized in the context of what was going on in the world around it. The 80s eras worked because the climate was tolerant of it. The 2002-2012 era doesn't because the mainstream is into darker, edger content.

 

Except he was quoting my point: "You could name the 1950's to 1970's the same thing"

 

Which had nothing to do with the 80's. I think that's where I missed what you were saying.

 

EDIT: Outside of the Attitude Era, they have been mostly PG throughout, to include quite a bit of the 80's as well. For example, wasn't alot of blood. They weren't cursing, etc. Plus, the fact that in the 80's you couldn't have anything but PG TV unless it was on late night.

[Makhai]

Except he was quoting my point: "You could name the 1950's to 1970's the same thing"

 

Which had nothing to do with the 80's. I think that's where I missed what you were saying.

 

EDIT: Outside of the Attitude Era, they have been mostly PG throughout, to include quite a bit of the 80's as well. For example, wasn't alot of blood. They weren't cursing, etc. Plus, the fact that in the 80's you couldn't have anything but PG TV unless it was on late night.

This is where I'm disagreeing with you. The context is wrong. A PG today wasn't even close to a PG in the 1950s, when if you showed bare ankle you were a whore.

 

So they were never "PG" in the 1950s they were much closer to R in that era. The 80s was the most sanitized, because we were still knee deep in the arena rock era of Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll. But at least that was the wrestling on after Saturday Morning cartoons era. So, it made sense.

[djthefunkchris]

[/b]

This is where I'm disagreeing with you. The context is wrong. A PG today wasn't even close to a PG in the 1950s, when if you showed bare ankle you were a whore.

 

So they were never "PG" in the 1950s they were much closer to R in that era. The 80s was the most sanitized, because we were still knee deep in the arena rock era of Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll. But at least that was the wrestling on after Saturday Morning cartoons era. So, it made sense.

 

You'd have to show me an example of WWF at that time emphasizing on Sex or Drugs... Rock and Wrestling was the connection, but drugs and such... It was the "Take your vitamins and go to school" era if anything.

 

I know wrestlers were hard on drugs during that time, but it wasn't even remotely highlighted in any of the shows I remember seeing... Remember, we are strictly talking about WWF/WWWF shows.

 

I suppose Piper unloading in Piper's pit a few times could be sort of violent, if that's what you mean by that they weren't PG during that time frame?

 

EDIT: Are you getting the 50's confused with the 20's to 40's by chance?

[Teh_Showtime]

 

So they were never "PG" in the 1950s they were much closer to R in that era. The 80s was the most sanitized, because we were still knee deep in the arena rock era of Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll. But at least that was the wrestling on after Saturday Morning cartoons era. So, it made sense.

 

Are you honestly saying that the 1980s were more edgy than today?

 

The edgiest thing WWE did during the Hogan era was probably Slaughter's heel gimmick

[djthefunkchris]

Are you honestly saying that the 1980s were more edgy than today?

 

The edgiest thing WWE did during the Hogan era was probably Slaughter's heel gimmick

 

I don't think that's what he's saying, because he didn't say that really.

 

The only thing I can think of is that he is comparing ratings today as opposed to then.... I don't think he's comparing the product. I know it's hard to remember sometimes, but PG13 actually come out in the 80's (1984). I think he is just getting years mixed up a bit.

[Makhai]

Are you honestly saying that the 1980s were more edgy than today?

 

The edgiest thing WWE did during the Hogan era was probably Slaughter's heel gimmick

 

No. I'm refuting your point that the current "PG" is the same as it was in every other era besides the attitude era. Which it isn't from a social impact prospective. This era is entirely shoehorned in by a network that wants nothing to do with wrestling, but can't go without the ratings it brings either.

[djthefunkchris]

No. I'm refuting your point that the current "PG" is the same as it was in every other era besides the attitude era. Which it isn't from a social impact prospective. This era is entirely shoehorned in by a network that wants nothing to do with wrestling, but can't go without the ratings it brings either.

 

If I'm getting you right, you're saying it's different because this time it was the networks doing, and not the promotions?

[Teh_Showtime]

Seems to me he's just stating that wrestling is taboo in the mainstream now, which it has been for probably a decade in all honesty.

[Makhai]

If I'm getting you right, you're saying it's different because this time it was the networks doing, and not the promotions?

 

Sorta, I'm saying wrestling throughout history is like any other media. It's meant to speak to and reflect society... Turn on the T.V. tell me the world is actively yearning for "PG"... All I see is a family of sluts on E!, a tribe of morons immune to underwear on MTV, and people running around with camcorders in the dark looking for dead serial killers and Sasquatch.

 

That's why this era sucks. Not the rating or the product. It's how they see themselves versus how the world WANTS to see them. Creative success comes when these things meet and failure comes when they don't. That's over simplifacation, but, that's my point here.

[djthefunkchris]

Sorta, I'm saying wrestling throughout history is like any other media. It's meant to speak to and reflect society... Turn on the T.V. tell me the world is actively yearning for "PG"... All I see is a family of sluts on E!, a tribe of morons immune to underwear on MTV, and people running around with camcorders in the dark looking for dead serial killers and Sasquatch.

 

That's why this era sucks. Not the rating or the product. It's how they see themselves versus how the world WANTS to see them. Creative success comes when these things meet and failure comes when they don't. That's over simplifacation, but, that's my point here.

 

In that context, taking it as face value, I can agree with you here, as I think I'm finally seeing your point.

 

We were debating two different things all along, which is what I suspected. I'm just saying their product now is very similar to most all years outside of the Attitude Era. Your conflict with this, is that "now" is not really the time for them to be 'forced' into such an era, basically, and so they are different on that level.

[Makhai]

In that context, taking it as face value, I can agree with you here, as I think I'm finally seeing your point.

 

We were debating two different things all along, which is what I suspected. I'm just saying their product now is very similar to most all years outside of the Attitude Era. Your conflict with this, is that "now" is not really the time for them to be 'forced' into such an era, basically, and so they are different on that level.

 

Correct, but I'd still argue those products where "edgier" in their eras when you consider what the world was ready for at those times in history, which is why they could succeed where this is failing.

[JackKnifed72]

...It was a scary world of repression, and sore testicles; be happy we missed it...

 

 

I don't have anything much to add, I just wanted to quote this, cause it made me lol

 

 

Seriously though, I agree with your point

 

...Roddy Piper calling Rocky Johnson 'Boy'

 

...Jake Roberts slapping Miss Elizabeth

 

Seems quaint now, after the 'Attitude Era' most people wouldn't even raise an eyebrow over something like that, but this was really edgy stuff compared to the social norms of the mid to late 1980's

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaDxp_NV34s

[eayragt]

Are you honestly saying that the 1980s were more edgy than today?

 

The edgiest thing WWE did during the Hogan era was probably Slaughter's heel gimmick

 

I think the point is do the same thing now,as in the 80's, the 80's would always be considered edgier, just due to what was considered edgy then compared to now.

[djthefunkchris]

I don't have anything much to add, I just wanted to quote this, cause it made me lol

 

 

Seriously though, I agree with your point

 

...Roddy Piper calling Rocky Johnson 'Boy'

 

...Jake Roberts slapping Miss Elizabeth

 

Seems quaint now, after the 'Attitude Era' most people wouldn't even raise an eyebrow over something like that, but this was really edgy stuff compared to the social norms of the mid to late 1980's

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaDxp_NV34s

 

This took place Dec 3, 1991. We were talking 1980's I believe... early 80's at that. Don't forget you're using a guy that helped start the "Attitude Era", as it was Austin's feud with him that kicked off the ever popular "You sit there, and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere... Talk about your Psalms, talk about your John 3:16 ... Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!"

[djthefunkchris]

I think the point is do the same thing now,as in the 80's, the 80's would always be considered edgier, just due to what was considered edgy then compared to now.

 

/nod, I think that's exactly the point. My only problem with it is that it only applies to wrestling... and you really have to talk solely around the time of the first Wrestlemania build (and on) to really find anything "edgy" for that time in wrestling. I would probably have to say that Lawler was edgier down in Memphis, but WWF was definitely going for "BIGGER" things during that time (obviously). I'd say the whole Rock and Wrestling connection is what made it cool, and of course Hogan's popularity. I think I would use the term "cool" more then edgy though... because it was cool to watch it back then.

[cappyboy]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Makhai" data-cite="Makhai" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> because the mainstream is into darker, edger content.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Darker maybe. But I don't think you can even really do edgy anymore. In order for something to be edgy, there has to be a line that it either crosses or dances dangerously close to. Where's that line in modern culture? Any trashy vamp who can seduce a producer well enough and has connections can get a reality show. Pop stars flounce through music videos like pole dancers. Sex references can be thrown about in prime time at any hour. Violence shows regularly on the nightly news without advisory warnings. I can't remember the last advisory warning about viewer discretion being advised I saw before anything on TV. It's been fifteen some years since Sheryl Crow declared "these are the days when anything goes" in Every Day Is A Winding Road. Every day in 2012 we prove she didn't know the half of it when she sang that. What line can possibly be skirted when everything goes?</p>

[Jaysin]

Family Guy and South Park have advisery warnings before every episode

[brashleyholland]

<p>So Brock Lesnar has apparently beat somebody up and gone AWOL. LOL.</p><p> </p><p>

<a href="http://ht.ly/cMrVs" rel="external nofollow">http://ht.ly/cMrVs</a></p>

[Teh_Showtime]

<p>Why the hell would The Ryback f*** with Lesnar?</p><p> </p><p>

Edit: Also Im calling fake anyways</p>