Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 1:01:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 6, 2020 1:09:55 GMT -5
I agree with this, in that it happened and pretending it didn't happen is just as ignorant. Put a commercial break in there and come back with a disclaimer about the match you're about to see, stating that it features a character that could be considered offensive to modern sensibilities and it does not reflect WWE's current views. Cutting it just draws more attention to it. No, cutting it means people who aren't going out of their way to watch it don't have to be exposed to it. Nobody is hiding Kamala matches from the archives. They're opting not to promote it or profit from it in a current-day broadcast. That's why I suggested airing the match with a disclaimer. So people who would be uncomfortable with that sort of material would have time to change the channel and the company would get its chance to solidify its stance on the matter. Disney+ includes disclaimers over dated and highly offensive material. Warner did the same thing when they released the Looney Tunes on DVD. And I get the concern about profiting from it, but in that event, could you not just donate however much you profited from showing that match to an appropriate charity? I don't know, I guess I'm just a big believer in keeping history visible, warts and all, so we don't repeat the same mistakes, while still being mindful of modern audiences.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Aug 6, 2020 3:30:17 GMT -5
No, cutting it means people who aren't going out of their way to watch it don't have to be exposed to it. Nobody is hiding Kamala matches from the archives. They're opting not to promote it or profit from it in a current-day broadcast. That's why I suggested airing the match with a disclaimer. So people who would be uncomfortable with that sort of material would have time to change the channel and the company would get its chance to solidify its stance on the matter. Disney+ includes disclaimers over dated and highly offensive material. Warner did the same thing when they released the Looney Tunes on DVD. And I get the concern about profiting from it, but in that event, could you not just donate however much you profited from showing that match to an appropriate charity? I don't know, I guess I'm just a big believer in keeping history visible, warts and all, so we don't repeat the same mistakes, while still being mindful of modern audiences. Isn't Kamala a double amputee now? The disclaimer could be spun to say whereas the characterization isn't something that WWE currently agree with, the royalties for showing this match helps the real person behind the performance.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,570
|
Post by cjh on Aug 6, 2020 6:49:34 GMT -5
That's why I suggested airing the match with a disclaimer. So people who would be uncomfortable with that sort of material would have time to change the channel and the company would get its chance to solidify its stance on the matter. Disney+ includes disclaimers over dated and highly offensive material. Warner did the same thing when they released the Looney Tunes on DVD. And I get the concern about profiting from it, but in that event, could you not just donate however much you profited from showing that match to an appropriate charity? I don't know, I guess I'm just a big believer in keeping history visible, warts and all, so we don't repeat the same mistakes, while still being mindful of modern audiences. Isn't Kamala a double amputee now? The disclaimer could be spun to say whereas the characterization isn't something that WWE currently agree with, the royalties for showing this match helps the real person behind the performance. It's not clear if WWE pays royalties for a TV airing. They definitely don't pay anything for WWE Network.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,019
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 6, 2020 7:19:54 GMT -5
I have a feeling this isn't as complicated as people are making it.
It was airing on TV, they had a certain time to fill, if it goes over that they need to cut things. There are more commercials these days so the amount that needs to be cut has risen over the years.
Go through the show, and what would you cut? The only matches people are likely to be actually watching for are Macho v Warrior and Bret V Bulldog, anything else is pretty interchangeable.
So, you need some criteria and for me, stuff that you wouldn't broadcast if it was new in 2020 would be top of my "expendable" list. So, the racist gimmick would be top of the list, plus it's an Undertaker match so there's going to be a lot both before and after the match where you can play with the timing to get it matching the timeslot.
If they needed more time, another match would have been cut, it's just this match is top of the chopping block now.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Aug 6, 2020 8:40:27 GMT -5
I have a feeling this isn't as complicated as people are making it. It was airing on TV, they had a certain time to fill, if it goes over that they need to cut things. There are more commercials these days so the amount that needs to be cut has risen over the years. Go through the show, and what would you cut? The only matches people are likely to be actually watching for are Macho v Warrior and Bret V Bulldog, anything else is pretty interchangeable. So, you need some criteria and for me, stuff that you wouldn't broadcast if it was new in 2020 would be top of my "expendable" list. So, the racist gimmick would be top of the list, plus it's an Undertaker match so there's going to be a lot both before and after the match where you can play with the timing to get it matching the timeslot. If they needed more time, another match would have been cut, it's just this match is top of the chopping block now. Well, UT vs. Kamala was kind of significant just cause it's the frickin' Undertaker. Virgil vs. Nailz was worthless, OTOH, plus you get the added bonus of not acknowledging an Enemy of Vince. Actually it's hard to say as most of the other matches were pushed as important/had memorable moments.
|
|
|
Post by jason1980s on Aug 6, 2020 8:51:13 GMT -5
The match itself was a jip with the DQ though they made up for it with Survivor Series. It was kind of a thrown together feud with no real backstory IMO. Undertaker had been feuding with Berzerker who, even though he was starting to be a loser, probably deserved that spot given the feud. I know the afraid of coffins story came up later but was there ever a backstory to Kamala feuding with Undertaker? Also it wouldn't surprise me if Undertaker had expressed disappointment in the feud at some point in his career. His first few face years really weren't very noteworthy though that was more the fault of his opponents lack of talent. Not Kamala though as he was pretty limited with what he would be able to do.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,570
|
Post by cjh on Aug 6, 2020 9:00:01 GMT -5
I have a feeling this isn't as complicated as people are making it. It was airing on TV, they had a certain time to fill, if it goes over that they need to cut things. There are more commercials these days so the amount that needs to be cut has risen over the years.
Go through the show, and what would you cut? The only matches people are likely to be actually watching for are Macho v Warrior and Bret V Bulldog, anything else is pretty interchangeable. So, you need some criteria and for me, stuff that you wouldn't broadcast if it was new in 2020 would be top of my "expendable" list. So, the racist gimmick would be top of the list, plus it's an Undertaker match so there's going to be a lot both before and after the match where you can play with the timing to get it matching the timeslot. If they needed more time, another match would have been cut, it's just this match is top of the chopping block now. The show was not pressed for time. They added several segments of current WWE wrestlers introducing famous SummerSlam moments to fill the 4-hour slot.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,019
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 6, 2020 9:32:09 GMT -5
I have a feeling this isn't as complicated as people are making it. It was airing on TV, they had a certain time to fill, if it goes over that they need to cut things. There are more commercials these days so the amount that needs to be cut has risen over the years.
Go through the show, and what would you cut? The only matches people are likely to be actually watching for are Macho v Warrior and Bret V Bulldog, anything else is pretty interchangeable. So, you need some criteria and for me, stuff that you wouldn't broadcast if it was new in 2020 would be top of my "expendable" list. So, the racist gimmick would be top of the list, plus it's an Undertaker match so there's going to be a lot both before and after the match where you can play with the timing to get it matching the timeslot. If they needed more time, another match would have been cut, it's just this match is top of the chopping block now. The show was not pressed for time. They added several segments of current WWE wrestlers introducing famous SummerSlam moments to fill the 4-hour slot. Fair enough, didn't know the time slot. Guess it was just the racism then, every company is doing different things dealing with it, especially this year. This is their choice.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Aug 6, 2020 10:13:04 GMT -5
The match itself was a jip with the DQ though they made up for it with Survivor Series. It was kind of a thrown together feud with no real backstory IMO. Undertaker had been feuding with Berzerker who, even though he was starting to be a loser, probably deserved that spot given the feud. I know the afraid of coffins story came up later but was there ever a backstory to Kamala feuding with Undertaker? Also it wouldn't surprise me if Undertaker had expressed disappointment in the feud at some point in his career. His first few face years really weren't very noteworthy though that was more the fault of his opponents lack of talent. Not Kamala though as he was pretty limited with what he would be able to do. Only thing I can think of was Kamala wanted to put Undertaker in a pot and eat him, and yeah...more proof the character just doesn't hold up. And this SS did a LOT of ignoring the spring/summer feuds. Ones not acknowledged/dropped by the PPV: Warrior/Shango The aforementioned UT/Berzerker Savage/Flair (though the latter was involved in the semi-main) Hart vs. HBK Martel vs. Tatanka (which took one more PPV to be brought up again and blown off. They similarly could have had Bossman vs. Nailz here, but I guess they weren't ready to blow off the feud...or was Bossman still selling his injuries?) Sarge vs. Mountie LOD vs. Beverlys Natural Disasters vs. Money Inc. (though they settled that for the time being when the ND won the titles) Bulldog vs. Repo Man Granted we got some better matches with what we got, and avoided some stinkers. (i.e. better Bret vs. Bulldog than Bulldog vs. Repo Man.)
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Aug 6, 2020 10:17:48 GMT -5
If they cut it from the network, that’d be one thing.
Cutting it from a re-airing for a cable TV broadcast? Eh, they’ll live.
Also, outside of the Kamala gimmick itself, wasn’t the match really bad too? So, like...what’s the loss here?
|
|
|
Post by jason1980s on Aug 6, 2020 11:19:51 GMT -5
And this SS did a LOT of ignoring the spring/summer feuds. Ones not acknowledged/dropped by the PPV: Summerslam usually did see random matches rather than feuds on the lower end of the card but this one seemed to have so many matches, as you mentioned, that weren't based on the feuds of the time. It's probably for the best. I think the stadium itself is more famous than the card itself. Nothing really memorable other than the main event and that's more of it being Bulldog's country and Bret putting over how he carried the match, for the last 10-20 years.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,357
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Aug 6, 2020 11:56:35 GMT -5
That's why I suggested airing the match with a disclaimer. So people who would be uncomfortable with that sort of material would have time to change the channel and the company would get its chance to solidify its stance on the matter. Disney+ includes disclaimers over dated and highly offensive material. Warner did the same thing when they released the Looney Tunes on DVD. And I get the concern about profiting from it, but in that event, could you not just donate however much you profited from showing that match to an appropriate charity? I don't know, I guess I'm just a big believer in keeping history visible, warts and all, so we don't repeat the same mistakes, while still being mindful of modern audiences. Isn't Kamala a double amputee now? The disclaimer could be spun to say whereas the characterization isn't something that WWE currently agree with, the royalties for showing this match helps the real person behind the performance. Kamala passed a few years ago IIRC. But yes before he died he lost both legs. EDIT-Appears Jim Harris is still alive. I was sure I heard about him passing 2 years ago.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,948
|
Post by chazraps on Aug 6, 2020 12:37:49 GMT -5
The match itself was a jip with the DQ though Please don't use that term. It derived from "gypsy," a term commonly used as a slur toward the Romani people. Its use reenforces the unfair untrue stereotype that they're all swindlers.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,948
|
Post by chazraps on Aug 6, 2020 12:39:30 GMT -5
No, cutting it means people who aren't going out of their way to watch it don't have to be exposed to it. Nobody is hiding Kamala matches from the archives. They're opting not to promote it or profit from it in a current-day broadcast. That's why I suggested airing the match with a disclaimer. So people who would be uncomfortable with that sort of material would have time to change the channel and the company would get its chance to solidify its stance on the matter. Disney+ includes disclaimers over dated and highly offensive material. Warner did the same thing when they released the Looney Tunes on DVD. And I get the concern about profiting from it, but in that event, could you not just donate however much you profited from showing that match to an appropriate charity? I don't know, I guess I'm just a big believer in keeping history visible, warts and all, so we don't repeat the same mistakes, while still being mindful of modern audiences. But Disney+ is an on-demand service and those Warner releases had to be sought out. This was a modern day broadcast. It's not a historical document, nobody is making it invisible, they're just making the choice not to air something as part of a modern broadcast that would hurt more than it would help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 13:22:16 GMT -5
The Kamala character is interesting in that it was obviously an out of date stereotype even back then,. It was out of date in 1992 yet he was still making appearances as late as 2006. Made worse by the fact that another offensive stereotype character (especially in its early incarnation), Umaga, was being pushed on the active roster at the same time. Wrestling has a long and full history of racial and ethnic stereotypes being played for heat, and Kamala was one of the worst ones, so I understand Fox's decision not to air the match, especially under the current climate. Somebody made the Loony Tunes comparison earlier, which I think is a good one. Some of the problematic episodes still air various places with disclaimers. But the most problematic episodes (like "Bugs Bunny N*ps the N*ps" and the infamous "censored eleven" definitely don't. Kamala is one of the most problematic wrestling gimmicks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 13:26:40 GMT -5
I feel there’s a pretty good reason it’s excluded Maybe it's because people don't want to see a man playing a brain-dead savage embarrass himself in the ring?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 13:44:05 GMT -5
The Kamala character is interesting in that it was obviously an out of date stereotype even back then, but even as a kid I never thought he was representative of all of Uganda etc; but more a cartoon character. I guess I always looked at him more like the opponents in Mike Tyson's Punchout!! where they were clearly broad stereotypes but over the top cartoonishly so as to be absurd. That said, I'm not gonna go: "How dare you cancel Kamala?!" either. I mean you look the dude and you can't exactly defend it either. I'm going to laugh at people who are literally going to say that for two reasons: 1. Kamala was, at the end of the day, an idiot. And a heel. You were meant to boo Kamala for most of his run because he was this over-the-top savage from "deepest, darkest Africa" who apparently wanted to throw the babyface into a giant pot and eat them in the territories, but if you look at the stuff in the 1990s, be it the 1992-93 WWF stuff or his brief time in the Dungeon of Doom, he came off more as a mentally challenged oaf who smacked his stomach and made weird sounds and probably smelled funny than this monstrous presence. As soon as he faced off against anyone worth a damn, he lost. It also made Reverend Slick look like a nitwit for trying to make Kamala integrate into society because Kamala was too stupid to understand anything (the fact the WWF immediately gave up on any Kamala programs after the face turn certainly did not help with my opinion on this). As a result, it's not a positive representation of anything, since he not only played an African savage, but a dumb African savage. Why defend any of that? Even worse was when WWE brought him back a few times in the mid 2000s as a "legend" despite never being more than a geek to either do a job or be the punchline to a lame joke. 2. If you actually cared about the character, you would care about James Harris, and the fact that he's diabetic, lost both his feet, is poor, and that Uncle Elmer tried to appropriate the character in blackface as Kamala II in Japan, but also that he had a history of bullshitting about pay disputes and other nonsense in his book. Basically, you'd see the man behind the facepaint; a guy who worked in the industry for years as a gimmick that did not age well and is a relic of the past, and has largely been forgotten himself.
|
|
|
Post by Muskrat on Aug 6, 2020 13:55:34 GMT -5
I feel there’s a pretty good reason it’s excluded Maybe it's because people don't want to see a man playing a brain-dead savage embarrass himself in the ring? Yeah, that’s pretty much the long and the short of it. I have no issues watching old shit, not gonna turn off a Kamala match because of the gimmick (but might due to match quality) but I would definitely raise an eyebrow if they were highlighting him in 2020.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 14:00:59 GMT -5
I never saw Kamala as a racist gimmick.
Infact, I'd go as far to say that I loved the gimmick.
But I can see why it's seen as racist now. I just saw him as a savage who needed to be handled... I never seen it as a racist thing.
Like, is Umaga a racist gimmick too? I also loved that.
|
|