|
Post by Real Folk Bruce on Jul 1, 2010 23:12:50 GMT -5
Oh boy. They better be careful with this. This is asking for a lawsuit. To me, they should like heels in the ring, but outside, put their characters aside. What happens if a little kid comes up for an autograph or picture? They turn him down, he cries, parents sue. That's bound to happen. I think if Bad News Brown/Allen could tell a kid to f*** off and not get sued I'm sure the NXT Invaders could simply turn down a kid without any harm done.
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Jul 1, 2010 23:30:59 GMT -5
WWE employees, including wrestlers, have a strict dress code when on the job, which includes when traveling. Buttoned up shirts and the like. Some are exempt as it doesn't match their character. Undead zombie biker the Undertaker and street-wise marine patriot John Cena are two. I think CM Punk fits this too... Actually this was a big controversy for CM Punk not too long ago. When he won the belt last year he was showing up dressed in character and was reprimanded for it. Punk's reply was something to the effect of, "Well Cena shows up in jean shorts" which was then twisted into him claiming he was on Cena's level and deserved the same treatment. Not too long after this, he dropped his Championship to Taker. Now I'm sure this wasn't the sole reason he dropped the belt, but it definitely did not do him any favors.
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Jul 2, 2010 0:04:18 GMT -5
I think CM Punk fits this too... Actually this was a big controversy for CM Punk not too long ago. When he won the belt last year he was showing up dressed in character and was reprimanded for it. Punk's reply was something to the effect of, "Well Cena shows up in jean shorts" which was then twisted into him claiming he was on Cena's level and deserved the same treatment. Not too long after this, he dropped his Championship to Taker. Now I'm sure this wasn't the sole reason he dropped the belt, but it definitely did not do him any favors. He had the belt. Cena had the belt. That does kinda put them on equal footing......technically speaking of course. I understand that there is more to it and it's a matter of respect/paying dues....but honestly.....Punk in a suit does not fit his gimmick at all.
|
|
|
Post by I *still* ✡ Johnny on Jul 2, 2010 6:07:25 GMT -5
WWE employees, including wrestlers, have a strict dress code when on the job, which includes when traveling. Buttoned up shirts and the like. Some are exempt as it doesn't match their character. Undead zombie biker the Undertaker and street-wise marine patriot John Cena are two. I'm guessing Lawler's exempt as he wears T-shirts every week on Raw. Are jeans allowed? The Miz wears jeans with a waistcoat and a tie every other week on Raw and in public, so I'd say yes.
|
|
|
Post by Raja Lion on Jul 2, 2010 6:37:30 GMT -5
Oh boy. They better be careful with this. This is asking for a lawsuit. To me, they should like heels in the ring, but outside, put their characters aside. What happens if a little kid comes up for an autograph or picture? They turn him down, he cries, parents sue. That's bound to happen. Absolutely ridiculous and overboard assertion. There is no mandate that a person in the public eye has to pose for pictures or sign autographs. Any attempt at a lawsuit would be laughed out of the lawyer's office. Now if the wrestler punched the kid in the face, spit on them, or anything with actual unwanted contact, then thats something else.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jul 2, 2010 8:56:22 GMT -5
How factual is this dress code? Because I'm pretty sure I remember JR saying it didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jul 2, 2010 9:02:20 GMT -5
I was misremembering it, but here's the quote
"I can essentiilly assure you that the "dress code" had zero to do with Punk losing the title. I have heard no rumblings of Punk being in "hot water" whatsoever as he's a top hand whose recent in ring work on the mic and wrestling has been excellent. However, the internet tale makes for a good story." -JR
To me, that implies that the dress code is balogna, but that's just me. And Punk likely dropped the title because they didn't want him to have it during the cult angle.
|
|
Tapout
Hank Scorpio
WWE Creative(TM)
W.W.W.Y.K.I.
Posts: 6,919
|
Post by Tapout on Jul 2, 2010 11:23:24 GMT -5
IT NEVER LEFT. People on this very forum get suckered into believing angles all the time. They just don't want to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Jul 2, 2010 16:06:09 GMT -5
I was misremembering it, but here's the quote "I can essentiilly assure you that the "dress code" had zero to do with Punk losing the title. I have heard no rumblings of Punk being in "hot water" whatsoever as he's a top hand whose recent in ring work on the mic and wrestling has been excellent. However, the internet tale makes for a good story." -JR To me, that implies that the dress code is balogna, but that's just me. And Punk likely dropped the title because they didn't want him to have it during the cult angle. While it's possible that the Punk story may have been exaggerated for the Internet, I have no doubt something happened. JR always downplays Internet rumors as if they're completely out of left field, even if they are rooted in truth. But as far as the dress code being bologna, that's just not true. Have you ever seen what the guys show up to the shows wearing? Doubt they're dressed in slacks and jackets just for the hell of it.
|
|
|
Post by abenja1 on Jul 2, 2010 20:44:29 GMT -5
Oh boy. They better be careful with this. This is asking for a lawsuit. To me, they should like heels in the ring, but outside, put their characters aside. What happens if a little kid comes up for an autograph or picture? They turn him down, he cries, parents sue. That's bound to happen. Absolutely ridiculous and overboard assertion. There is no mandate that a person in the public eye has to pose for pictures or sign autographs. Any attempt at a lawsuit would be laughed out of the lawyer's office. Now if the wrestler punched the kid in the face, spit on them, or anything with actual unwanted contact, then thats something else. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel you are dead wrong. As I said before if the lawyer thinks he can make money he'll take the case. I'm not saying the person would win if they sued. We live in a very litigious society. You look at someone the wrong way, you offended them. Or just as stupid, a person sues Google because she can't discern not to run into incoming traffic. The last thing I want to read is that Michael Tarver was fired for staring down a kid who know has recurring nightmares of Tarver staring through the kid's window. ;D Addendum: Remember that kid who lied about Randy Orton spitting on him. Just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael from Outerspace on Jul 2, 2010 21:36:33 GMT -5
As others have said it never went anywhere. It's just changed with the times.
|
|
|
Post by Raja Lion on Jul 3, 2010 0:24:21 GMT -5
Absolutely ridiculous and overboard assertion. There is no mandate that a person in the public eye has to pose for pictures or sign autographs. Any attempt at a lawsuit would be laughed out of the lawyer's office. Now if the wrestler punched the kid in the face, spit on them, or anything with actual unwanted contact, then thats something else. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel you are dead wrong. As I said before if the lawyer thinks he can make money he'll take the case. I'm not saying the person would win if they sued. We live in a very litigious society. You look at someone the wrong way, you offended them. Or just as stupid, a person sues Google because she can't discern not to run into incoming traffic. The last thing I want to read is that Michael Tarver was fired for staring down a kid who know has recurring nightmares of Tarver staring through the kid's window. ;D Addendum: Remember that kid who lied about Randy Orton spitting on him. Just sayin. Well don't take this the wrong way, but you're so far offbase its borderline retardation. Can you name one instance where a celebrity of any stature was sued for refusing an autograph or a heel for making a face at someone? They're HEELS. BAD GUYS. If keeping kayfabe they're not supposed to do things a face would do. I agree there are millions of frivolous lawsuits that people file, but the ones you are suggesting would never occur as they'd have no legal base. "HHH refused my son's request for an autograph, I want to sue him". Its not a legal requirement for anyone to give an autograph or pose for a picture. If it was, a lot of celebs would be broke at this point. "The Undertaker gave my kid nightmares for weeks!" How is this any different from a scary movie that a kid watches giving them nightmares? You shouldn't of talked to the BAD GUY, kid. That is utterly ridiculous and no lawyer would even bother with it. Theres no legal foundation. Even the most frivolous of lawsuits tend to at least have some sort of foundation thats written into the law to reference. And yea, I remember the kid that Randy Orton SPIT on. As I stated in my first response to your asinine summation, it's a helluva lot different when theres some sort of contact, and referenced spitting/touching etc. Its a lot different than saying no to an autograph or heeling some kid verbally or with a look. Unwarranted contact carries a legal precedent.
|
|
rusty
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 261
|
Post by rusty on Jul 3, 2010 0:31:37 GMT -5
another example is when my good friend cosmo kramer spilled hot coffee on his lap sneaking it into the theatres... Oh wow you know Cosmo too!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 3, 2010 1:02:08 GMT -5
It'll never be in the form it once was; but I really feel like it's evolved.
Raven once said something to the effect of ( paraphrasing here) 'smart fans are the easiest fans to work, because they think they know so much.' I really feel like things of that nature is the new kayfabe. It's different, and it'll never be seen as 'real' again so in that sense kayfabe is gone, but the art of the work I really do think has evolved over the years.
|
|
|
Post by abenja1 on Jul 3, 2010 4:44:36 GMT -5
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel you are dead wrong. As I said before if the lawyer thinks he can make money he'll take the case. I'm not saying the person would win if they sued. We live in a very litigious society. You look at someone the wrong way, you offended them. Or just as stupid, a person sues Google because she can't discern not to run into incoming traffic. The last thing I want to read is that Michael Tarver was fired for staring down a kid who know has recurring nightmares of Tarver staring through the kid's window. ;D Addendum: Remember that kid who lied about Randy Orton spitting on him. Just sayin. Well don't take this the wrong way, but you're so far offbase its borderline retardation. Can you name one instance where a celebrity of any stature was sued for refusing an autograph or a heel for making a face at someone? They're HEELS. BAD GUYS. If keeping kayfabe they're not supposed to do things a face would do. I agree there are millions of frivolous lawsuits that people file, but the ones you are suggesting would never occur as they'd have no legal base. "HHH refused my son's request for an autograph, I want to sue him". Its not a legal requirement for anyone to give an autograph or pose for a picture. If it was, a lot of celebs would be broke at this point. "The Undertaker gave my kid nightmares for weeks!" How is this any different from a scary movie that a kid watches giving them nightmares? You shouldn't of talked to the BAD GUY, kid. That is utterly ridiculous and no lawyer would even bother with it. Theres no legal foundation. Even the most frivolous of lawsuits tend to at least have some sort of foundation thats written into the law to reference. And yea, I remember the kid that Randy Orton SPIT on. As I stated in my first response to your asinine summation, it's a helluva lot different when theres some sort of contact, and referenced spitting/touching etc. Its a lot different than saying no to an autograph or heeling some kid verbally or with a look. Unwarranted contact carries a legal precedent. Well if you READ, and you can do that by reading my comment, I never said it would be a successful suit. I'm just making a point that WWE should keep a tight rope on how they want these guys to be heelish in public. And why Orton allegedlly SPIT on the kid. Here it is from news source directly: "Police Lt. Leonard Campanello said the purported victim alleged that Orton, a third generation professional wrestler and former WWE World Heavyweight champion, reacted angrily to a request for a photo at the Route 1 restaurant around 6:30 p.m." In the end, it was found the kid lied. But WWE doesn't need any more bad publicity at this point from up and coming wrestlers portraying heels in public. Acting like a heel in public by a stare or glare is one thing. But I think personally that telling them not decline autographs and pictures is a little bit too far. And you are wrong. There may not be a lot of lawyers that would take it. But there's always one.
|
|