Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 26, 2012 15:21:51 GMT -5
Its worked violence. With the intent of making things as non painful as possible. They could argue that, but not much else. It's an argument, but a weak one. The effect is still violent. For instance, I know that the people that made The Dark Knight Rises, worked as hard as they could to make sure every actor, extra, and stuntman was as safe as possible during filming, but the effect, on screen, is still spectacularly violent. Yup, my point exactly frankly the counter argument is so idiotic that only the most disturbing/disgusting of films like Cannibal Holocaust (in which real animals are killed on screen *yuck*) would be considered true violent content. Such a 'it has to be real buddy' stance would even give extreme gore movies like Hostel & Saw a pass because they are 'only simulated violence'.While the WWE is by no means anywhere near the atrocious levels of a Saw, it still revolves around guys & girls attempting to beat each other down in one fashion or another. In extreme cases these staged fights can involve weapons, frightening & legit dangerous stunts and even get rather bloody (though rarely now).
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jul 26, 2012 15:27:08 GMT -5
The sad thing is if an actual fan of the product or someone with knowledge took them to task with specific examples, they couldn't refute it.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 15:27:18 GMT -5
Why do people continue to point out on screen characters acting like douchebags in things like this? Because it's mean for the sake of being mean at the expense of someone's physical disability, it adds nothing to the show, it doesn't further a storyline or angle, it doesn't have any payoff, it doesn't make anyone want to buy a ticket, it doesn't increase the ratings during that segment, and it's not even funny in an 'I'm being offensive to make you think critically' sort of way... if there's no point in doing it, WHY DO IT? Not to mention it completely undercuts the value of the Be a Star program that WWE is a part of, since the CEO of the company really can't be a star (fictional character or otherwise). But that's the rub, isn't it? It's all kayfabe, so what does it matter! Unless Vince just wanted to take another pot-shot at Jim Ross because it's so hil-arious. A-HA-HA! #90sMcMahon.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jul 26, 2012 15:29:07 GMT -5
I don't think WWE as non-violent but they are not violent either. When I think of violent content I think of people shooting, stabbing, ripping off body parts and things like that. They are like Power Rangers with it being between two people instead of people against a giant puppet. Anyone with a 1/4 brain knows they are not trying to kill each other (well anymore) and it's just an act between two trained guys/gals where 9/10 the good guy wins, the characters will be back the next week and life goes on (for the most part). That's arguing that it's mildly violent rather than severely violent (most of the examples listed, actually, argue more that it's not gory rather than that it's not violent). WWE is about people hitting each other. It's about Throwing people off vehicles down 20 feet. It's about making 20 steel chairs fall on top of someone you don't like. It's about putting someone in the most painful predicament possible so they'll surrender because they can't endure the pain any longer. It's about beating someone so severely that they can be held down until someone counts to three. It's about beating someone so severely that they can't stand up in ten seconds. It's about violence. Well, yeah. I said quite plainly it was my opinion on what violence is and WWE is not built on violence. Do they have violent moments, yes but to say that WWE is a violent program because a minor plot point (which matches are in WWE) involves someone getting hit than every so called family show in history is filled with violence. Bullies beat people up as a plot on damn near every show made, sports are nothing but violence masquerading as a fun distraction. The violence in WWE is a minor plot point to WWE as it is to most shows and has been for years now. It's a stupid argument to me to say WWE is violent programming when it's no different than hundreds of other shows that no one would think two seconds about unless they are PTC loonies.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 26, 2012 15:29:31 GMT -5
Why do people continue to point out on screen characters acting like douchebags in things like this? Because it's mean for the sake of being mean at the expense of someone's physical disability, it adds nothing to the show, it doesn't further a storyline or angle, it doesn't have any payoff, it doesn't make anyone want to buy a ticket, it doesn't increase the ratings during that segment, and it's not even funny in an 'I'm being offensive to make you think critically' sort of way... if there's no point in doing it, WHY DO IT? Not to mention it completely undercuts the value of the Be a Star program that WWE is a part of, since the CEO of the company really can't be a star (fictional character or otherwise). But that's the rub, isn't it? It's all kayfabe, so what does it matter! Unless Vince just wanted to take another pot-shot at Jim Ross because it's so hil-arious. A-HA-HA! #90sMcMahon. Its still all scripted characters. There's no saying "that doesn't count" because you don't see the point. Plus, history has shown that Vince does s***ty things and it builds up to him getting put out of action for the rest of the year. This has happened numerous times. Its really useless to use unless you have some sort of hidden backstage footage or audio of him doing that to Ross in reality.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jul 26, 2012 15:32:45 GMT -5
That's arguing that it's mildly violent rather than severely violent (most of the examples listed, actually, argue more that it's not gory rather than that it's not violent). WWE is about people hitting each other. It's about Throwing people off vehicles down 20 feet. It's about making 20 steel chairs fall on top of someone you don't like. It's about putting someone in the most painful predicament possible so they'll surrender because they can't endure the pain any longer. It's about beating someone so severely that they can be held down until someone counts to three. It's about beating someone so severely that they can't stand up in ten seconds. It's about violence. Well, yeah. I said quite plainly it was my opinion on what violence is and WWE is not built on violence. Do they have violent moments, yes but to say that WWE is a violent program because a minor plot point (which matches are in WWE) involves someone getting hit than every so called family show in history is filled with violence. Bullies beat people up as a plot on damn near every show made, sports are nothing but violence masquerading as a fun distraction. The violence in WWE is a minor plot point to WWE as it is to most shows and has been for years now. It's a stupid argument to me to say WWE is violent programming when it's no different than hundreds of other shows that no one would think two seconds about unless they are PTC loonies. Matches are not minor plot points, and the segments, that are there to lead to the matches, usually end in some kind of physical altercation too.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 26, 2012 15:34:54 GMT -5
Well, yeah. I said quite plainly it was my opinion on what violence is and WWE is not built on violence. Do they have violent moments, yes but to say that WWE is a violent program because a minor plot point (which matches are in WWE) involves someone getting hit than every so called family show in history is filled with violence. Bullies beat people up as a plot on damn near every show made, sports are nothing but violence masquerading as a fun distraction. The violence in WWE is a minor plot point to WWE as it is to most shows and has been for years now. It's a stupid argument to me to say WWE is violent programming when it's no different than hundreds of other shows that no one would think two seconds about unless they are PTC loonies. Matches are not minor plot points, and the segments, that are there to lead to the matches, usually end in some kind of physical altercation too. True dat, otherwise all those PPVs wouldn't be required as 90% of their content revolves around "minor plot points".
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jul 26, 2012 15:39:13 GMT -5
That's arguing that it's mildly violent rather than severely violent (most of the examples listed, actually, argue more that it's not gory rather than that it's not violent). WWE is about people hitting each other. It's about Throwing people off vehicles down 20 feet. It's about making 20 steel chairs fall on top of someone you don't like. It's about putting someone in the most painful predicament possible so they'll surrender because they can't endure the pain any longer. It's about beating someone so severely that they can be held down until someone counts to three. It's about beating someone so severely that they can't stand up in ten seconds. It's about violence. Well, yeah. I said quite plainly it was my opinion on what violence is and WWE is not built on violence. Do they have violent moments, yes but to say that WWE is a violent program because a minor plot point (which matches are in WWE) involves someone getting hit than every so called family show in history is filled with violence. Bullies beat people up as a plot on damn near every show made, sports are nothing but violence masquerading as a fun distraction. The violence in WWE is a minor plot point to WWE as it is to most shows and has been for years now. It's a stupid argument to me to say WWE is violent programming when it's no different than hundreds of other shows that no one would think two seconds about unless they are PTC loonies. sorry to just cherry-pick a statement out of your post, but in those examples, typically, the violent act(s) is seen as wrong, whereas in WWE(and by extension, all pro wrestling/sports entertainment), violence is seen as not just right, but also the best(and sometimes only) solution to a problem. That's a pretty major difference, IMO
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jul 26, 2012 15:48:39 GMT -5
Well, yeah. I said quite plainly it was my opinion on what violence is and WWE is not built on violence. Do they have violent moments, yes but to say that WWE is a violent program because a minor plot point (which matches are in WWE) involves someone getting hit than every so called family show in history is filled with violence. Bullies beat people up as a plot on damn near every show made, sports are nothing but violence masquerading as a fun distraction. The violence in WWE is a minor plot point to WWE as it is to most shows and has been for years now. It's a stupid argument to me to say WWE is violent programming when it's no different than hundreds of other shows that no one would think two seconds about unless they are PTC loonies. Matches are not minor plot points, and the segments, that are there to lead to the matches, usually end in some kind of physical altercation too. Really, the matches that last all of 3 minutes on a 2 hour show are important? Isn't the major complaint of damn near 99% of people that WWE doesn't focus on what is in the ring? Wasn't, beside Austin not being there, the biggest complaint about RAW 1000 that there was maybe 10 minutes of actual wrestling? The only time matches come close to mattering are the PPVs which have taken a backseat to the TV and are getting cut every year and on top of that there are less and less matches on them now in favor of more segments. Most segments don't end in violence, they end in arguments or pushing and shoving before someone makes a match, that match ends in 5 minutes and they replay the segment all show long. Some do but no where near all. Matches are the monster fight in Power Rangers or the end of Walker: Texas Ranger, that is what people will remember since that is where the fireworks are but it's not what the show is about at all.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,615
|
Post by PKO on Jul 26, 2012 15:53:37 GMT -5
WWE needs an intelligent spokesman who knows the business and can respond to stuff like this. Their recent attempts to defend themselves have been pitiful, and sound like businessmen who know nothing about what the company actually does. Not violent? The entire concept of WWE is based around violence. He could have defended WWE by comparing it to Hollywood films or tv shows, and stated that WWE is escapism from the true violence and brutality of the world. Saying it's not violent makes WWE sound absolutely idiotic. And 40% of the audience is women...so what? How is that evidence that a show isn't violent? Because all women hate everything violent?
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jul 26, 2012 15:54:15 GMT -5
I can't accept that the matches aren't what WWE is all about. The shows are wrestling shows. Everything, no matter how much time it might take up on tvs, revolves around the wrestling, in some capacity.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jul 26, 2012 16:02:38 GMT -5
WWE needs an intelligent spokesman who knows the business and can respond to stuff like this. Their recent attempts to defend themselves have been pitiful, and sound like businessmen who know nothing about what the company actually does. Not violent? The entire concept of WWE is based around violence. He could have defended WWE by comparing it to Hollywood films or tv shows, and stated that WWE is escapism from the true violence and brutality of the world. Saying it's not violent makes WWE sound absolutely idiotic. And 40% of the audience is women...so what? How is that evidence that a show isn't violent? Because all women hate everything violent? That was the main statement that threw me for a loop. What the hell does the fact that women watch the show have anything to do with the topic of violence? It's like their spokesman is still living in the early 1900's.
|
|
|
Post by SassovsHart on Jul 26, 2012 16:03:21 GMT -5
See, I'd actually agree, in a way. While the stories involve violence, compare it to boxing or even MMA. In those, the aim is to beat your opponent until he's too injured to get up. It thrives on violence and pain. In pro wrestling, the aim is to make your opponent look like he's been beat up, while trying to remain as safe as possible. For me, that's an important distinction, and the one that makes me watch wrestling but not the more violent forms of media. I wouldn't say that's the goal of MMA is simply to beat your opponent until they're too injured to get up. In some cases it might be, but that's awfully simplistic. You can try to win by submission. A submission victory can be relatively painless, unless the person is an idiot and decides not to tap out. Or there are people who fight strategic "points" fights where it's clear they're not trying to finish their opponent- using their wrestling to control them for three rounds, for example.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jul 26, 2012 16:05:24 GMT -5
Or there are people who fight strategic "points" fights where it's clear they're not trying to finish their opponent- using their wrestling to control them for three rounds, for example. You mean hugging sessions?
|
|
BHB
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,778
|
Post by BHB on Jul 26, 2012 16:20:40 GMT -5
I love how he mentions the female fanbase:
"Hey, we have women fans, so we must not be violent!"
|
|
|
Post by kayfabulous on Jul 26, 2012 16:23:39 GMT -5
The only way I could see them swinging pro-wrestling as not being violent is that, since kayfabe is dead, everyone knows that it is more along the lines of an acrobatic kind of display as nobody is (purposefully) injured.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Jul 26, 2012 16:24:00 GMT -5
Honestly, Raw isn't that violent because it's about 80% skits at this point.
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Jul 26, 2012 16:28:00 GMT -5
Stupidity abounds on all sides on this. WWE... wrestling, a form of combat, is nonviolent? Geez...
And frankly the social watchdog groups that went after them first are also morons. I have to wonder if they also protest MMA and Boxing, or if WWE is just an easy target. And I'm sure than the majority of the groups that attack wrestling are soccer mom twits who took their kids to see Batman or have them enrolled in karate classes. Sure you canmake the argument that karate, tae kwon do, etc teach discipline and nonviolence, but there are ways to learn those things that don't involve kicking people in the head.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 26, 2012 16:30:40 GMT -5
Maybe just go ahead and title Glee reruns as 'MONDAY NIGHT RAW' and give everyone the next few months off
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 16:38:13 GMT -5
Because it's mean for the sake of being mean at the expense of someone's physical disability, it adds nothing to the show, it doesn't further a storyline or angle, it doesn't have any payoff, it doesn't make anyone want to buy a ticket, it doesn't increase the ratings during that segment, and it's not even funny in an 'I'm being offensive to make you think critically' sort of way... if there's no point in doing it, WHY DO IT? Not to mention it completely undercuts the value of the Be a Star program that WWE is a part of, since the CEO of the company really can't be a star (fictional character or otherwise). But that's the rub, isn't it? It's all kayfabe, so what does it matter! Unless Vince just wanted to take another pot-shot at Jim Ross because it's so hil-arious. A-HA-HA! #90sMcMahon. Its still all scripted characters. There's no saying "that doesn't count" because you don't see the point. Plus, history has shown that Vince does s***ty things and it builds up to him getting put out of action for the rest of the year. This has happened numerous times. Its really useless to use unless you have some sort of hidden backstage footage or audio of him doing that to Ross in reality. See, it's this perspective of "well, it's scripted, therefore it's a fiction, and since it's a fiction it's therefore not real, and since it's not real it's really of no consequence" that I find so baffling. I mean, do people really consume media that uncritically? Because yes, the content of media is often fictional, I get that. But media exist in the real world. Our perceptions of the world shape our media as much as our media shape our perceptions of the world, fictional content or otherwise. Saying that something is fictional or scripted isn't an excuse for whatever that media product is to be critically analyzed. I recognize that Twilight is a fiction, with fictional characters, unbelievable characters who do not exist in the real world (vampires, werewolves). But real people are reading the books, especially a lot of young girls who fall into the same age demographic as the main character. So are criticisms of Twilight about the problematic nature of Bella and Edward's relationship (her utter dependence on him, his stalking her) as being potential models for relationships that impressionable girls who are growing up into adulthood might emulate rendered invalid because 'well, Twilight is scripted, and the characters aren't real'? No. We can't ignore the social, political, economic, gendered, and ableist (in the case of the image of McMahon) contexts in which media are reproduced. When someone creates a media product, he or she is drawing from aspects of culture or society that they cannot escape. And since they cannot escape those contexts, neither can their media product. So in some way, they replicated the conditions of their perceived reality. Likewise, when people consume media, critically or uncritically, they're engaging with a media product from their own specific vantage point (as being culturally and socially determined as the creation of the work of the media product itself) that in terms influences, however which way, their own perception of the world. This is the very real condition of the fictional, the scripted, the mediated that is unavoidable. You can't just ignore these determinants. At best you can reconcile them, but still recognize their problems. The history of wrestling in many ways is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and ableist. Wrestlers performing gimmicks that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and ableist are often reflecting the audience's own racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and ableism. Does that mean everyone who has watched or is watching wrestling necessarily ('necessarily' being the key word here) falls into all of these categories? No. One of them? No. To various degrees? No. But to recognize these qualifications (that almost border on the exceptional) doesn't mean that there is a qualitative, conscious change the content or the political economy behind the production of media or its consumption. So here I feel that you have missed my point when I said "so what does it matter!" The fictional, scripted, constructed aspect of media is not an alibi for criticisms of the form, content, and production of media. It's already been pointed out in this thread that the "40% of our audience is made up of women" stat really substantiates nothing. Does that mean women are inherently anti-violence, because why else would they watch the show if our show was violent? Well, that's a sexist presumption. Does that mean WWE content does not feature violence against women, be it women-on-women violence or men-on-women violence? Well, no, because there's certainly a history of both of those things when it comes to WWE's programming. It's not even a distortion of the facts, it's a complete misapplication of them to tell people that the content of WWE programming, which is predicated on the violence of conflicts and matches in the ring, is not violent. It's intellectually dishonest for Linda and Flinn to be peddling such nonsense. (mind you, it's just as bad coming from Shays' side, when there are so many other things when it comes to WWE's questionable business practices that you could hit Linda with than merely the programming content of WWE) But then, to add, according the history of McMahon receiving his comeuppance (which conveniently ignores all of the questions I asked about the value of that segment with Hornswoggle when the segment could have been done just the same without making fun of Jim Ross' Bell's Palsy), what comeuppance did he receive for his unfunny impression? None. Which, again, returns me to my original argument: what, then, was the point of the segment other than to make fun of someone for no reason? Just because it's on television (as opposed to the strawman 'backstage incident' you suggested, which again ignores my earlier point), just because 'Mr. McMahon' is a gimmicked character (that is both really him and an exaggerated version of him at the same time), just because it was done during one of WWE's many unhumourous 'comedy' skits doesn't preclude the fact that someone can watch that segment and say "well, that's just mean and offensive and serves no point in context of the show so why am I witness to this garbage?" who then likely would change the channel. Which means you've missed my point twice over. But as always with criticism of WWE's problems of content (especially when it comes to problematic representations of gender, race, class, sexuality, and ability), it all gets boiled down to being a work. The only people who are really being worked are Flinn and Linda McMahon. They're working themselves into believing their own message.
|
|