|
Post by arrogantmodel on Dec 1, 2017 0:20:03 GMT -5
Lawler is right about everything he said in that clip. Not sure where the disagreement or loss of respect comes in. I don't know Lawler personally so I don't know his beliefs, but he was a heel cutting a heel promo in a time when you could get away with saying certain things for heel heat. He said a heel can't act that way now because everyone is offended by everything, and again, he's right. This is a scripted show where the commentators tell you it's fake, the audience knows it's fake, and they have a 30 year history of not exactly being high brow television, but now suddenly people are holding them to some high moral ground, and it makes no sense to me. If you're sensitive about social issues, then being a fan of pro wrestling to begin with is questionable. There's enough examples of racism (overt or subtle), sexism, etc, etc) to fill a football stadium. It's fake. It's telling a story. Granted, the WWE and good storytelling haven't gone together in a long time, but there are ways to use controversial things to the benefit of a story. Back then, twenty years ago, it was an acceptable way to get heel heat. Today, it isn't. You can say that's a good thing due to society progressing, or a bad thing for how sensitive everyone is, but it's reality. The poster above mentioned Shawn and the Canadian flag. If I'm remembering correctly, Shawn actually rubbed his crotch with the flag and dry humped it at Survivor Series 1997. There is a list a mile long of things that happened twenty years ago that wouldn't fly today. Some with good reason. Didn't Bret tell Shawn to do that stuff with the flag?
|
|
|
Post by freeze Austin on Dec 1, 2017 0:22:03 GMT -5
They also couldn't have a pornstar character that portrays himself as having had sex with married women because it would likely offend a different portion of the audience. Or a character that claims he pimps out women on his "Ho Train." Or a character that pretends she's having a miscarriage. Or a character that is mentally handicapped and constantly ridiculed and taken advantage of.
Truth is most people, regardless of what their views might be, love political correctness when it deals with an issue they care about, and hate it when the issue has nothing to do with them or involves something in society that they don't like and want to rail against.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,948
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 1, 2017 0:25:14 GMT -5
Lawler is right about everything he said in that clip. Not sure where the disagreement or loss of respect comes in. I don't know Lawler personally so I don't know his beliefs, but he was a heel cutting a heel promo in a time when you could get away with saying certain things for heel heat. He said a heel can't act that way now because everyone is offended by everything, and again, he's right. This is a scripted show where the commentators tell you it's fake, the audience knows it's fake, and they have a 30 year history of not exactly being high brow television, but now suddenly people are holding them to some high moral ground, and it makes no sense to me. If you're sensitive about social issues, then being a fan of pro wrestling to begin with is questionable. There's enough examples of racism (overt or subtle), sexism, etc, etc) to fill a football stadium. It's fake. It's telling a story. Granted, the WWE and good storytelling haven't gone together in a long time, but there are ways to use controversial things to the benefit of a story. Back then, twenty years ago, it was an acceptable way to get heel heat. Today, it isn't. You can say that's a good thing due to society progressing, or a bad thing for how sensitive everyone is, but it's reality. The poster above mentioned Shawn and the Canadian flag. If I'm remembering correctly, Shawn actually rubbed his crotch with the flag and dry humped it at Survivor Series 1997. There is a list a mile long of things that happened twenty years ago that wouldn't fly today. Some with good reason. The Canadian flag would still fly today. We’re not that uppity about our flag. We’re proud of it and all but it’s nothing like the kids in the US, at all.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Dec 1, 2017 1:28:45 GMT -5
There's plenty of ways to be an ultra effective heel without having to stoop to racism, sexism or any form of bigotry. And honestly, I wouldn't even mind having heels using slightly uncouth if I could trust that they get all of that tenfold when they feud is over. But even this year, we got Jinder Mahal making racist remarks towards Nakamura and trying to push that onto the fans, only for Jinder to beat Shinsuke every single time. So, I really don't have time for wrestling to explore bigotry if they can't even get the easy part right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 1:35:39 GMT -5
Most of the crap being lumped in with slurs here are just disallowed because of the pg rating not because they are "offensive" lol
|
|
|
Post by Cvslfc123 on Dec 1, 2017 5:55:17 GMT -5
I don't see the problem, all he was doing was calling Goldust a cigarette.
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Dec 1, 2017 6:01:26 GMT -5
I don't see the problem, all he was doing was calling Goldust a cigarette. Or a bundle of sticks.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Dec 1, 2017 6:11:30 GMT -5
I rewatched the screwjob the other day and the amount of signs calling HBK a fag in the arena was crazy. The camera was literally skipping around picking them out to show them off.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Dec 1, 2017 8:08:08 GMT -5
I get what he's trying to say, I think he just worded it poorly. I honestly don't think King is sticking up for the idea of calling some dude on the street a f*****. I think he's just saying there was a point in time, as recently as 20 years ago, where pretty much anything and everything was fair game to try and get heel heat. Now alot of people don't see that as a character getting heel heat, they see it as a real person saying real things. Look at the Jinder/Nakamura thing, that entire segment was set up to show that Jinder was a hypocritical, sleazy, racist piece of shit but people completely lost their minds over it (ignoring the fact that the segment itself sucked, I'm just talking the content).
I'm of the belief that damn near anything should be fair game in the entertainment business when handled correctly, but I'm also of the belief that WWE lacks the subtlety to pull stuff like that off. However, there are companies I would have faith in doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 1, 2017 8:18:17 GMT -5
Jerry is and always has been a fantastic performer, but this is easily one of his worst promos ever.
Like I said in the Jinder thread, heels should be entertaining and fun. Having them say ugly real life, bigoted things takes me, and I probably imagine many other wrestling fans, out of the experience. You can get heel heat from the audience without making them feel uncomfortable. And in 2017, this interview holds up even less.
Personally, regarding the fact society is progressing, and how characters can't get heel heat this way anymore, is that good or bad? I think it's wonderful. Because it shows people are becoming more tolerant, and are less accepting of homophobic attitudes that shouldn't have been embraced in the first place. That's far, far more important at the end of the day than a wrestling performer trying to get audiences to dislike them.
Maybe wrestling isn't the best industry to follow if you want to hold it up to a moral standard. But my preferred solution is for the wrestling business to keep changing for the better, instead of it being stuck in a dated era where promos like this would be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 1, 2017 8:20:02 GMT -5
Exactly. Using slurs with no nuance is just lowest common denominator trash and I think is a major reason why wrestling has a reputation of essentially being the red headed step child of entertainment that makes way less money from tv rights fees than they should. They been doing it for years tho.. Especially in the southern territories.. 'They've been doing it for years' is an atrocious justification for anything. America was burning witches at the stake for hundreds of years. The UK was castrating and imprisoning gays for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Dec 1, 2017 8:20:09 GMT -5
This thread again!
|
|
The Blue Nova
Don Corleone
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,395
|
Post by The Blue Nova on Dec 1, 2017 8:35:09 GMT -5
They been doing it for years tho.. Especially in the southern territories.. 'They've been doing it for years' is an atrocious justification for anything. America was burning witches at the stake for hundreds of years. The UK was castrating and imprisoning gays for centuries. That is a little different.. since it was acting and a script.. no different then watching a movie. so those 2 are completey different things
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Dec 1, 2017 8:39:02 GMT -5
I get what he's trying to say, I think he just worded it poorly. I honestly don't think King is sticking up for the idea of calling some dude on the street a f*****. I think he's just saying there was a point in time, as recently as 20 years ago, where pretty much anything and everything was fair game to try and get heel heat. Now alot of people don't see that as a character getting heel heat, they see it as a real person saying real things. Look at the Jinder/Nakamura thing, that entire segment was set up to show that Jinder was a hypocritical, sleazy, racist piece of shit but people completely lost their minds over it (ignoring the fact that the segment itself sucked, I'm just talking the content). I'm of the belief that damn near anything should be fair game in the entertainment business when handled correctly, but I'm also of the belief that WWE lacks the subtlety to pull stuff like that off. However, there are companies I would have faith in doing that.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 1, 2017 9:35:08 GMT -5
So people are bringing up the Jinder/Nakamura storyline showing he's a hypocritical, sleazy, racist POS and hey, you know what, that'd be a fine example of a storyline working...
Except the racist won the match.
In most mainstream movies, at least in this day and age, if someone is shown as discriminatory in any way, that person usually loses. Whether it's historical documentaries or biopics or any form of fiction, that person loses and is shown that the view they have is wrong. I mean, there ARE problems with this depending on the writer, the director, the actors etc but that seems to be the intention.
In wrestling, however...Jinder won the feud. The racist proved himself right compared to the person he was being racist towards. It doesn't matter if his character was built that way...he still won. In one of their matches, he practically won CLEAN.
Like, if it wasn't for this example, people would be talking about HHH/Booker T and people are probably tired of hearing about that one because it was well over a decade ago...so it's handy that WWE tried it again AND FAILED.
Even with the Lawler example, there was a really long time where Goldust's character was heel for the style he had and the way he was acting...hence all that stuff that came about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 9:43:30 GMT -5
They also couldn't have a pornstar character that portrays himself as having had sex with married women because it would likely offend a different portion of the audience. Or a character that claims he pimps out women on his "Ho Train." Or a character that pretends she's having a miscarriage. Or a character that is mentally handicapped and constantly ridiculed and taken advantage of. Truth is most people, regardless of what their views might be, love political correctness when it deals with an issue they care about, and hate it when the issue has nothing to do with them or involves something in society that they don't like and want to rail against. This.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Dec 1, 2017 9:46:27 GMT -5
So people are bringing up the Jinder/Nakamura storyline showing he's a hypocritical, sleazy, racist POS and hey, you know what, that'd be a fine example of a storyline working... Except the racist won the match. In most mainstream movies, at least in this day and age, if someone is shown as discriminatory in any way, that person usually loses. Whether it's historical documentaries or biopics or any form of fiction, that person loses and is shown that the view they have is wrong. I mean, there ARE problems with this depending on the writer, the director, the actors etc but that seems to be the intention. In wrestling, however...Jinder won the feud. The racist proved himself right compared to the person he was being racist towards. It doesn't matter if his character was built that way...he still won. In one of their matches, he practically won CLEAN. 1. People were outraged before the match occurred. They were mad that race was used to make a bad guy look like a piece of shit. That newspaper article (don't remember which paper) was before the match happened. It was against the promo, not against the outcome of the match. I don't think anyone here, or elsewhere, is disputing that Nakamura should have won that match from a story perspective. 2. I blatantly said at the end of my post that WWE doesn't execute those angles well. It was merely an example of people getting mad at a bad guy being a bad guy ie a morally reprehensible person. I was discussing the promo itself, which WWE had to apologize for because people reacted like that was a real person stating his real opinion not a person playing a character on tv, not the match that followed. Maybe you weren't talking to me, but you did use my exact verbiage so I assumed the post was directed my way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 9:53:22 GMT -5
So people are bringing up the Jinder/Nakamura storyline showing he's a hypocritical, sleazy, racist POS and hey, you know what, that'd be a fine example of a storyline working... Except the racist won the match. In most mainstream movies, at least in this day and age, if someone is shown as discriminatory in any way, that person usually loses. Whether it's historical documentaries or biopics or any form of fiction, that person loses and is shown that the view they have is wrong. I mean, there ARE problems with this depending on the writer, the director, the actors etc but that seems to be the intention. In wrestling, however...Jinder won the feud. The racist proved himself right compared to the person he was being racist towards. It doesn't matter if his character was built that way...he still won. In one of their matches, he practically won CLEAN. 1. People were outraged before the match occurred. They were mad that race was used to make a bad guy look like a piece of shit. That newspaper article (don't remember which paper) was before the match happened. It was against the promo, not against the outcome of the match. I don't think anyone here, or elsewhere, is disputing that Nakamura should have won that match from a story perspective. 2. I blatantly said at the end of my post that WWE doesn't execute those angles well. It was merely an example of people getting mad at a bad guy being a bad guy ie a morally reprehensible person. I was discussing the promo itself, which WWE had to apologize for because people reacted like that was a real person stating his real opinion not a person playing a character on tv, not the match that followed. Maybe you weren't talking to me, but you did use my exact verbiage so I assumed the post was directed my way. 20 years ago, if Tiger Ali Singh said something similar to Taka Michinoku, the media wouldn't have blown up like it did with Jinder/Nakamura. Anyways, I say we stop talking about this. As seen in the Hogan and Warrior threads of the past, all this talk will devolve into a debate about political correctness and IIRC politics is banned from discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 1, 2017 10:04:21 GMT -5
1. People were outraged before the match occurred. They were mad that race was used to make a bad guy look like a piece of shit. That newspaper article (don't remember which paper) was before the match happened. It was against the promo, not against the outcome of the match. I don't think anyone here, or elsewhere, is disputing that Nakamura should have won that match from a story perspective. There was two real reasons for that. A. Because it was really unnecessary and went against the character they were building for Jinder and just making him a heel because, and I'm just throwing out speculation, they were just saying things that they either couldn't say themselves or wanted to say to get a reaction. Because that's all it did, get a reaction. H B. Because this company doesn't have a history of paying off stuff like that the way they should. HHH saying "You people" should have lead to Booker T destroying HHH so hard that he warps back to Terra Rysing and wondering when his slot on WCW Saturday Night is. Except he didn't. No, people were reacting like it was an unnecessary thing to do on a wrestling show in 2017, and my first point justified the reaction because, again, it was only there to get people to boo. It wasn't there to move the story along or even to have people hate Jinder since by that point, most people had fled from the show anyway. I wasn't necessarily addressing you, others have tried to go the same way, just used the same verbiage because it made sense to the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 10:18:25 GMT -5
'They've been doing it for years' is an atrocious justification for anything. America was burning witches at the stake for hundreds of years. The UK was castrating and imprisoning gays for centuries. That is a little different.. since it was acting and a script.. no different then watching a movie. so those 2 are completey different things Movie standards change, too. Entertainment changes to reflect societal changes.
|
|