Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 16:03:40 GMT -5
On the Chyna subject, I know it's a poor comparison since it was purely a character he played, but WWE love the Val Venis gimmick and use him as a major part of Attitude Era promotion and he was a porn star who wrestled and flashed divas who fawned over his massive dibber.
To dislike Chyna for being a real porn star who bounced on massive dibbers seems odd. The Val Venis skits with women going down on him are easier to find than Chyna's porn but they don't have any issue with it. It's a mask for personal issues I think.
|
|
|
Post by Deadman Inc on Feb 4, 2015 16:29:33 GMT -5
I think this topic is worth discussing. In terms of being chosen to be inducted, should appearing in adult films be considered worse than committing serious crimes? Valid question. My wife asked me about this last night when we watched the interview. How she was sure several other divas had some dirty pictures, and why it was a big deal. I explained to her that some of the Divas in the attitude era posed for Playboy and it was a sanctioned deal with WWE. It was also a different time. They were definitely trying to sell sex, and market themselves on being a more edgey/sexy product. Not so much these days. The other difference with Chyna as compared to other divas that have some nude pics floating around, is that it wasn't just one movie. It was several. She made a career of it, and kinda blew that up too...making a scene at adult video awards shows being intoxicated on things. She kind of made a real mess of herself post-WWE. She might have taken steps to clean herself up since then, and I do not think that it should take away from her accomplishments in the ring, but she definitely put a black mark next to her name. HHH's point is pretty valid here. Do they really want to re-associate themselves with her in a big way again? Can they afford whatever criticism or blow back they might get from their sponsors? They don't want to be associated with porn while making a product that is garnered toward an audience that does consist in part of kids. Plus, if memory serves me correctly, weren't some of the videos she did direct parodies of WWE superstars? They obviously weren't WWE made or sanctioned, but that still looks bad on them.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Feb 4, 2015 16:48:13 GMT -5
I think this topic is worth discussing. In terms of being chosen to be inducted, should appearing in adult films be considered worse than committing serious crimes? Valid question. My wife asked me about this last night when we watched the interview. How she was sure several other divas had some dirty pictures, and why it was a big deal. I explained to her that some of the Divas in the attitude era posed for Playboy and it was a sanctioned deal with WWE. It was also a different time. They were definitely trying to sell sex, and market themselves on being a more edgey/sexy product. Not so much these days. The other difference with Chyna as compared to other divas that have some nude pics floating around, is that it wasn't just one movie. It was several. She made a career of it, and kinda blew that up too...making a scene at adult video awards shows being intoxicated on things. She kind of made a real mess of herself post-WWE. She might have taken steps to clean herself up since then, and I do not think that it should take away from her accomplishments in the ring, but she definitely put a black mark next to her name. HHH's point is pretty valid here. Do they really want to re-associate themselves with her in a big way again? Can they afford whatever criticism or blow back they might get from their sponsors? They don't want to be associated with porn while making a product that is garnered toward an audience that does consist in part of kids. Plus, if memory serves me correctly, weren't some of the videos she did direct parodies of WWE superstars? They obviously weren't WWE made or sanctioned, but that still looks bad on them. Triple H and WWE's misgivings about inducting Chyna are valid. I think Triple H should have answered the question differently and not alluded to reasons why she WWE might not induct her. Alluding to her behavior and career after WWE opens WWE up to questions about some of the background of other Hall of Fame inductees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 16:55:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 4, 2015 16:57:45 GMT -5
Chyna is right
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Feb 4, 2015 23:17:30 GMT -5
Something else to consider, probably the closest to Chyna in terms of what they've done post WWE (and in it to, to be fair) is Sunny. WWE took years to work with her because of all her issues and it still bit them in the ass badly and Chyna was worse off than her. WWE is probably going to want to see that the porn, the drugs, the outbursts of social media, the crazed people she was hanging around and everything else that was a part of her fall is long behind her before they take another chance like they did. I don't think they want to end up with another WWE HOF masturbating for people over Skype for a few bucks while blaming WWE for not treating her right on her 13th trip to WWE paid rehab.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Feb 6, 2015 22:29:31 GMT -5
Sunny actually did that? I thought that was an urban legend? Still does it. There is a thread on her and Ashley Massaro getting into a fight in (w)rest with more details but she charges $100 for a few minutes and there are pics and rumors of a video.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthings on Feb 8, 2015 17:54:04 GMT -5
Finally just sat down and started watching this. Fifteen minutes in, this is already so much better than the Vince one.
Vince seemed to clam up on some questions but HHH is brilliantly open - an awesome insight.
|
|