The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Wrestling, or the World Wrestling Entertainment industry as some of you avid fans would have me refer to it as, is increasing ever more in its popularity. I myself used to be a fan of it for about a year and watched most of the shows and events, but gradually got bored. From the perspective of a person who no longer watches wrestling I see it as greasy, sweaty men in trunks throwing each other around a ring and pretending to get hurt, and if it was merely just that then not so many people would pay to see live events and tune in to watch it 2 or 3 times a week.
I don’t understand myself why I watched it, if I thought that the Rock was really been hit over the head with a sledgehammer by Stone Cold, or not. I now know that everything is choreographed and it is more of a performance than a fight, but do people not realise this? The Americans do have a reputation for been a little more gullible than the British so it is likely that a fair few of them believe everything that it going on within the squared circle is real. The thing that gets me though it seeing fans that look about 30 or 40 cheering along at the top of their lungs to “Beat his head in”. I would overlook this if they had a son or daughter in tow, but they don’t. I watched wrestling avidly for a good year of my life and enjoyed it but I hit 15 and grew out of it. I see it more as a fad than something you watch for the rest of your life. I think people who pay good money to go and see some staged fighting when they are 30 years old is wrong. They can spend a lot less going to a pub and watching the brawl after closing time, and this isn’t fake violence. So if it isn’t the violence the fans crave what is it?
Do people watch it for its engrossing storylines? This is something I doubt very much. As I said before I watched wrestling for about a year and I noticed the storylines are repeated in a 3-month cycle. There is an affair, someone winning a belt unfairly and a mystery person attacking the ‘good guy’. These storylines are re-used time and time again with a different wrestler filling a different role each time. As I that weren’t bad enough, none of them could act to save their lives. They are trained athletes, yes, but none of them went to acting school did they? I don’t directly oppose trying to fit storylines into the programme as it gives motives for fights which is better than all out violence, and gives the audience someone to cheer for and someone to boo. What irritates me is people using their fame as a wrestler to release a low budget film of their own, riding entirely on the success of a cameo role in The Mummy Returns. Yes, if you didn’t realise I am talking about The Rock’s movie, The Scorpion King, which made him even richer despite the fact the storyline was poor and his acting was drastically worse.
So do people watch for the women? I firstly would like to mention that the way women are treated in the organisation is morally wrong. They are young girls pumped full of silicon and steroids and thrown into a mud wrestling pit or topless sun cream contest (Or whatever they have thought up now). Now I am no prude, don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy watching that sort of thing if it had a show of its own right, but it is merely a ratings booster. They draw millions of desperate hormonal males to an arena to watch “live mud wrestling”. They are unlikely to care about the championship match or the hardcore title been on the line, oh no, they just want boobs and collagen filled lips, and who could blame them? The WWF, or WWE as it is now known, uses adolescent (and desperate) males, to their complete and utter advantage. If we look at some of the women on the roster we will find Trish Stratus, very nice looking woman, the plastic surgeons finest hour if you will. She is used as a trophy girl, she makes her living by escorting muscular fellers to the ring and wearing low cut tops, and who could blame her! I cannot imagine her parents are too pleased though. There were some more serious competitors in the old WWF, namely Chyna, but she got a playboy deal (God knows why!) and then left for unknown reasons. So the only women left in the business are trophy girls who parade their ample surgically enhanced bosoms in skin tight tops for a living. I don’t quite understand how this constitutes as making them wrestlers, they are more of showgirls really, which the WWE use to their advantage to boost their ratings and make people tune into Smackdown rather than a re-run of the fast show.
So if we took the storylines and the scantily clad women out of the formula, what is left? Fake violence and stupidly high risked stunts, the latter is the only one that is really appealing. Fake violence is what I expect to see on the likes of Coronation Street or in a pantomime, not in a live show, which tells people “do not copy this at home”. What is not to copy? Are easily influenced kids not to pretend to slap their friend with a car tire? The fake violence, I cannot imagine, is much of a ratings winner, seeing as it is easy to see how fake it is and how laughably ridiculous how a wrestler reacts when the other hits him with a leg drop. So, the high risked stunts are all that are left it seems. Such high risk manoeuvres include the Swanton bomb, as utilised by the Hardy Boys, powerbombing a wrestler through a table/steel cage/stage or throwing another wrestler onto a chair/barbed wire/electric fence with killer bee’s taped to it. These high risk moves get the adrenalin pumping though our veins and get us excited seeing them. But such spectacular occurrences have left some wrestlers maimed or even dead. Such wrestlers as Owen Hart have died to try and make the industry that little bit more exciting.
So whatever WWE has that makes millions of fans tune in each week is beyond me. Perhaps it is the high risk endeavours of superstars, maybe it is to see who the next champions will be or perhaps it is just because they like someone to cheer on. Whatever it is, it certainly works, and for the life of me I cannot figure out what it is.
-Kyz²²-
I don’t understand myself why I watched it, if I thought that the Rock was really been hit over the head with a sledgehammer by Stone Cold, or not. I now know that everything is choreographed and it is more of a performance than a fight, but do people not realise this? The Americans do have a reputation for been a little more gullible than the British so it is likely that a fair few of them believe everything that it going on within the squared circle is real. The thing that gets me though it seeing fans that look about 30 or 40 cheering along at the top of their lungs to “Beat his head in”. I would overlook this if they had a son or daughter in tow, but they don’t. I watched wrestling avidly for a good year of my life and enjoyed it but I hit 15 and grew out of it. I see it more as a fad than something you watch for the rest of your life. I think people who pay good money to go and see some staged fighting when they are 30 years old is wrong. They can spend a lot less going to a pub and watching the brawl after closing time, and this isn’t fake violence. So if it isn’t the violence the fans crave what is it?
Do people watch it for its engrossing storylines? This is something I doubt very much. As I said before I watched wrestling for about a year and I noticed the storylines are repeated in a 3-month cycle. There is an affair, someone winning a belt unfairly and a mystery person attacking the ‘good guy’. These storylines are re-used time and time again with a different wrestler filling a different role each time. As I that weren’t bad enough, none of them could act to save their lives. They are trained athletes, yes, but none of them went to acting school did they? I don’t directly oppose trying to fit storylines into the programme as it gives motives for fights which is better than all out violence, and gives the audience someone to cheer for and someone to boo. What irritates me is people using their fame as a wrestler to release a low budget film of their own, riding entirely on the success of a cameo role in The Mummy Returns. Yes, if you didn’t realise I am talking about The Rock’s movie, The Scorpion King, which made him even richer despite the fact the storyline was poor and his acting was drastically worse.
So do people watch for the women? I firstly would like to mention that the way women are treated in the organisation is morally wrong. They are young girls pumped full of silicon and steroids and thrown into a mud wrestling pit or topless sun cream contest (Or whatever they have thought up now). Now I am no prude, don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy watching that sort of thing if it had a show of its own right, but it is merely a ratings booster. They draw millions of desperate hormonal males to an arena to watch “live mud wrestling”. They are unlikely to care about the championship match or the hardcore title been on the line, oh no, they just want boobs and collagen filled lips, and who could blame them? The WWF, or WWE as it is now known, uses adolescent (and desperate) males, to their complete and utter advantage. If we look at some of the women on the roster we will find Trish Stratus, very nice looking woman, the plastic surgeons finest hour if you will. She is used as a trophy girl, she makes her living by escorting muscular fellers to the ring and wearing low cut tops, and who could blame her! I cannot imagine her parents are too pleased though. There were some more serious competitors in the old WWF, namely Chyna, but she got a playboy deal (God knows why!) and then left for unknown reasons. So the only women left in the business are trophy girls who parade their ample surgically enhanced bosoms in skin tight tops for a living. I don’t quite understand how this constitutes as making them wrestlers, they are more of showgirls really, which the WWE use to their advantage to boost their ratings and make people tune into Smackdown rather than a re-run of the fast show.
So if we took the storylines and the scantily clad women out of the formula, what is left? Fake violence and stupidly high risked stunts, the latter is the only one that is really appealing. Fake violence is what I expect to see on the likes of Coronation Street or in a pantomime, not in a live show, which tells people “do not copy this at home”. What is not to copy? Are easily influenced kids not to pretend to slap their friend with a car tire? The fake violence, I cannot imagine, is much of a ratings winner, seeing as it is easy to see how fake it is and how laughably ridiculous how a wrestler reacts when the other hits him with a leg drop. So, the high risked stunts are all that are left it seems. Such high risk manoeuvres include the Swanton bomb, as utilised by the Hardy Boys, powerbombing a wrestler through a table/steel cage/stage or throwing another wrestler onto a chair/barbed wire/electric fence with killer bee’s taped to it. These high risk moves get the adrenalin pumping though our veins and get us excited seeing them. But such spectacular occurrences have left some wrestlers maimed or even dead. Such wrestlers as Owen Hart have died to try and make the industry that little bit more exciting.
So whatever WWE has that makes millions of fans tune in each week is beyond me. Perhaps it is the high risk endeavours of superstars, maybe it is to see who the next champions will be or perhaps it is just because they like someone to cheer on. Whatever it is, it certainly works, and for the life of me I cannot figure out what it is.
-Kyz²²-
Page:
The level of maturity in here is that of a guinea pig.
The sagacious one wrote:
> I am the alpha and omega: I say when a debate has ended.
>
> *puts fingers in ears and starts to go "la la la la la la la la
> la"*
*also does this*
> I am the alpha and omega: I say when a debate has ended.
>
> *puts fingers in ears and starts to go "la la la la la la la la
> la"*
*also does this*
So after this big debate we have just had I have come to the conclusion that Wrestling is crap!
You lot get angry too easily!
You lot get angry too easily!
I am the alpha and omega: I say when a debate has ended.
*puts fingers in ears and starts to go "la la la la la la la la la"*
*puts fingers in ears and starts to go "la la la la la la la la la"*
Ahh contraversy, my sweet sweet friend.
*nods vigorously*
What LL Cool TT said.
So Mr Sagacious, NOW the debate endeth.
What LL Cool TT said.
So Mr Sagacious, NOW the debate endeth.
And here continueth the debate.
I don't think anyone has a right to dismiss wrestling as pure bulls**t. There's something to wrestling that some people don't see; and most fans cannot understand. Unfortunately, whatever this factor was has disappeared from WWE, but used to be alive and well. It's all about how you look at it. If you see a bloke hitting a 'steel' chair over some other guy's head, then fine. But if you see someone, who has been through everything the other guy has put in his path, hitting who he views as the most evil person in the world, over the head with the last viable weapon for him, then you get a different impression. It's like reading a book: someone could say "The man ran along". However, one could alternatively say "The near-dead hero of this story somehow managed to move that foot in front of the other, pulling him along to his ultimate goal". It's all about how the picture is painted. For those who don't watch regualrly, they are coming in afresh, and so get the first version. The fans, however, have all the background knowledge. They know what's going on, and so they get the second version. It's all about the perspective of the viewer.
I don't think anyone has a right to dismiss wrestling as pure bulls**t. There's something to wrestling that some people don't see; and most fans cannot understand. Unfortunately, whatever this factor was has disappeared from WWE, but used to be alive and well. It's all about how you look at it. If you see a bloke hitting a 'steel' chair over some other guy's head, then fine. But if you see someone, who has been through everything the other guy has put in his path, hitting who he views as the most evil person in the world, over the head with the last viable weapon for him, then you get a different impression. It's like reading a book: someone could say "The man ran along". However, one could alternatively say "The near-dead hero of this story somehow managed to move that foot in front of the other, pulling him along to his ultimate goal". It's all about how the picture is painted. For those who don't watch regualrly, they are coming in afresh, and so get the first version. The fans, however, have all the background knowledge. They know what's going on, and so they get the second version. It's all about the perspective of the viewer.
Wrestling is crap.
Here endeth the debate.
Here endeth the debate.
cjh wrote:
> It's called, 'fun' :) If they enjoy it, let them :).
No! Dont!
Ah, ok then, go on.
> It's called, 'fun' :) If they enjoy it, let them :).
No! Dont!
Ah, ok then, go on.
cjh wrote:
> Kyz22 wrote:
> Anyway, enough from me now and thankyou for sharing your opinion,
> long
> as it may be.
>
> Yeah, it was a bit long wasn't it :).
>
> Although, I think I would agree that there are still some out there
> who believe it is real, although I think it's more of the younger
> viewers ... which is why they show the "don't try this at home
> bit". Basiclly, the wrestlers know how to 'not' hurt each other
> when doing the moves, and when they use items to hit each other with,
> they are not as solid as what they make out to be ..... kids, probablt
> don't know this, so the WWE try and encourage the younger fans not to
> go and get a pole from the garage and smack your mate over the head
> with it, or climb up the stairs to do a splash.
Exactly my views (well they are actually yours but I'll be damned if im not going to steal them from you)
> Kyz22 wrote:
> Anyway, enough from me now and thankyou for sharing your opinion,
> long
> as it may be.
>
> Yeah, it was a bit long wasn't it :).
>
> Although, I think I would agree that there are still some out there
> who believe it is real, although I think it's more of the younger
> viewers ... which is why they show the "don't try this at home
> bit". Basiclly, the wrestlers know how to 'not' hurt each other
> when doing the moves, and when they use items to hit each other with,
> they are not as solid as what they make out to be ..... kids, probablt
> don't know this, so the WWE try and encourage the younger fans not to
> go and get a pole from the garage and smack your mate over the head
> with it, or climb up the stairs to do a splash.
Exactly my views (well they are actually yours but I'll be damned if im not going to steal them from you)
Page: