Gail Kim Shoot Interview about WWE (and TNA)

[Celgress]

Oct 13, 2011 14:48:05 GMT -5 rocket said:

I gotta give her credit for admitting that it was unprofessional to eliminate herself like that in her final WWE appearance. Then again, can you blame her after all she went through?

Her accounts just makes it even more depressing to watch the women in WWE, as it wasn't depressing already.

I agree with you on all counts. Gail's shoot interview really opened my eyes towards the Divas Division, in a sad way.

[FailedGimmick]

Hopefully this opens some eyes in the good way as a result.

[BigWill]

Oct 14, 2011 4:35:00 GMT -5 Dr. Bunsen Honeydew said:

I take what Gail Kim said with a grain of salt. The woman has enough reason to lie her ass off about some things.

She's already gone, and doesn't seem to want anything more to do with the WWE. What reason does she have to lie her ass off?

[Perpetual Nirvana]

Oct 14, 2011 13:02:16 GMT -5 FailedGimmick said:

Hopefully this opens some eyes in the good way as a result.

I very much doubt it. They have absolutely no reason to change anything.

[Celgress]

Oct 14, 2011 12:27:24 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

This interview was very telling, I'm glad that Gail Kim finally let the world know that Kelly Kelly is being held back in the ring and by Gail's own admission the girls in the back were excited that KK was awarded the Title for carrying the division on her back.

Yeah, not being allowed to use basic moves like kicks & being told to generally "girlie up" their matches, is what I meant by 'in a sad way' in my earlier post.

[PKO]

I'm pretty sure HOT WEE WEE is joking...either that or CodyRhodesDiva is back..

[Cyno]

She is carrying it in the sense that she's the only face diva that really gets a strong reaction these days. I'm not about to call her the best female wrestler since Fabulous Moolah or anything, but people actually care about her.

I think it says less about how wonderful Kelly Kelly is (I personally don't like her very much) and more about the sad state of women's wrestling in the mainstream. Though controversies about pay aside, at least IW features its women in things that designed to be more than a pissbreak.

You can tell WWE was planning some interesting things with Kharma, at least. And the fans really bought into her as someone who could transcend the blase status of most of the divas. But obviously, other plans had to be made.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2011 13:08:02 GMT -5 Celgress said:

Oct 14, 2011 12:27:24 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

This interview was very telling, I'm glad that Gail Kim finally let the world know that Kelly Kelly is being held back in the ring and by Gail's own admission the girls in the back were excited that KK was awarded the Title for carrying the division on her back.

Yeah, not being allowed to use basic moves like kicks & being told to generally "girlie up" their matches, is what I meant by 'in a sad way' in my earlier post.

Gail's claim of kicks being banned in Divas matches is strange. If it's true, the Divas blatantly ignore that rule.

She also said that Kharma was going to feud with Beth, yet when Kharma was on TV, they were building up something with her and Kelly while Beth was doing nothing and mostly appearing on Superstars.

[Celgress]

Oct 14, 2011 13:12:25 GMT -5 PKO said:

I'm pretty sure HOT WEE WEE is joking...either that or CodyRhodesDiva is back..

I know I didn't mean K2 per se, rather the Divas Division as a whole

[thecrocksays]

The funny thing is Kelly has become less over since they have attempted to make her look more credible. Fans seemed to like her as the cute Barbie, but even they know she's a joke as the "fighting champion."

Still, I expect her to continue to get pushed, and if she sticks around for another five years, they will probably consider her the best diva they ever had, just based on longevity, which is rare for their females.

[FailedGimmick]

Oct 14, 2011 13:06:31 GMT -5 Perpetual Nirvana said:

Oct 14, 2011 13:02:16 GMT -5 FailedGimmick said:

Hopefully this opens some eyes in the good way as a result.

I very much doubt it. They have absolutely no reason to change anything.

Education is the first step to change. If some of these issues were brought up in a shareholder meeting...

[crimsonwolf]

Oct 13, 2011 22:43:13 GMT -5 Savage Gambino said:

Oct 13, 2011 22:09:39 GMT -5 crimsonwolf said:

Even Gail doesn't want to be associated with that nerd.

I think the implication is that she was about to quit, and held off because she was given the spot as AmDrag's girlfriend. Which makes sense, because I remember her being pretty much an afterthought up until then.

I know. Just making a Michael Cole joke there.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2011 12:17:35 GMT -5 thecrocksays said:

I was going to say Lillian, but then remembered that HHH called her a horseface the last time she showed up on Raw. Real classy treatment of their longest serving female talent.

Did HHH call her that, or did Paul Levesque call her that? Important distinction. Having an angle wherein you are insulted is hardly earth shattering disrespect in the pro wrestling industry.

[Deleted]

There's no kidding here, WWE is a sexist organization, plain and simple. If WWE cared about women wrestling they'd look at TNA and see that it can contribute to the overall quality of the product without dragging down the rest of the show. They have too many superfluous and poorly-executed segments focusing on main eventers who are mediocre actors delivering hackneyed lines. Spending an extra five to ten minutes on women's wrestling to make it serious and respectable wouldn't subtract from what they currently have at all.

[thecrocksays]

Oct 14, 2011 15:55:55 GMT -5 @meanstreetposse said:

Oct 14, 2011 12:17:35 GMT -5 thecrocksays said:

I was going to say Lillian, but then remembered that HHH called her a horseface the last time she showed up on Raw. Real classy treatment of their longest serving female talent.

Did HHH call her that, or did Paul Levesque call her that? Important distinction. Having an angle wherein you are insulted is hardly earth shattering disrespect in the pro wrestling industry.

From what I heard, Lillian did a guest spot as announcer on Raw when most of the roster was stuck overseas for some reason. She was doing them a favor and was not involved in any storylines. HHH made a joke about her being a horse, and Jerry Lawler, another piece of garbage in real life, did some neighing on his headset.

This is a woman that was no longer in the company and helped them out in a pinch. They repaid her by making fun of her looks. Typical WWE treatment of their female talent. Doesn't make it right, though.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2011 16:00:47 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

Spending an extra five to ten minutes on women's wrestling to make it serious and respectable wouldn't subtract from what they currently have at all.

There is a very real possibility that, given the WWE's target demographic, having their talent focus on wrestling instead of "being girly" would be to their detriment.

[crimsonwolf]

Oct 14, 2011 15:55:55 GMT -5 @meanstreetposse said:

Oct 14, 2011 12:17:35 GMT -5 thecrocksays said:

I was going to say Lillian, but then remembered that HHH called her a horseface the last time she showed up on Raw. Real classy treatment of their longest serving female talent.

Did HHH call her that, or did Paul Levesque call her that? Important distinction. Having an angle wherein you are insulted is hardly earth shattering disrespect in the pro wrestling industry.

Based on how Foley got pissed off over it, I think it was Paul Levesque. "Horse face" was suppose to be come type of in joke backstage.

[BigWill]

Oct 14, 2011 16:07:34 GMT -5 @meanstreetposse said:

Oct 14, 2011 16:00:47 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

Spending an extra five to ten minutes on women's wrestling to make it serious and respectable wouldn't subtract from what they currently have at all.

There is a very real possibility that, given the WWE's target demographic, having their talent focus on wrestling instead of "being girly" would be to their detriment.

Yes, because the divas are such a big draw "being girly" right now, the WWE shouldn't do anything risky that could possibly be a detriment to that.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2011 16:07:34 GMT -5 @meanstreetposse said:

Oct 14, 2011 16:00:47 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

Spending an extra five to ten minutes on women's wrestling to make it serious and respectable wouldn't subtract from what they currently have at all.

There is a very real possibility that, given the WWE's target demographic, having their talent focus on wrestling instead of "being girly" would be to their detriment.

How so? Their divas' division is already at rock bottom right now. How could going for a "feminine empowerment" thing possibly fail? Make women's wrestling more popular with women?

[AztecaDragon]

Oct 14, 2011 16:52:26 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

How so? Their divas' division is already at rock bottom right now. How could going for a "feminine empowerment" thing possibly fail? Make women's wrestling more popular with women?

Because the WWE don't care if women spend any money on their product.

They'll tout the amount who already do as a statistic, but I always found it more reminiscent to dangling red meat in front of wild dogs to get more of them into a cage. ("IF we can convince guys that enough, but not TOO MANY, women watch this show, maybe we can get more GUYS!~")

From what I've seen the idea behind this nice logical holdover from the times of yore is if you're pandering to a certain type of male (which is generally assumed to be 18-34 years old and ALWAYS White), showing women in any sort of capacity that could even vaguely be thought of as "equally important to anything the men do" is going to turn said demographic off.

The implication being the company considers you, the consumer, to be as sexist and backwards as they are.

"And why shouldn't we?" these companies say, "we're making money anyway! If there was just a DEMAND for our product to not be a mess, we'd gladly oblige!"

All the while the company with its tons of money has the privilege to pick and choose which opinions to consider, most of which will be their own people who think along those lines anyway, even if they consider any. They're still making money after all, so why change?

Now, one could say they'd have more money, influence and pop culture buzz if they tried not to be that stupid and backwards, but sometimes the people who have these high-up marketing jobs where making that point would matter are only in the market of keeping their jobs, so the profoundly stupid echo chamber goes on.


...or your question was just rhetorical.