The Thread Killer

I don't know if ROH really could be on par with NXT, now that I have seen both products recently. I think the talent level in NXT is significantly higher, and I find the booking in ROH to be really flat, uninspired and unimaginative, in my opinion as a fan. I don't want to sound like your typical online fan/keyboard warrior, but based on things I have seen people write here on PWO, I think some of the members here could come up with better storylines and matchmaking than what ROH is doing right now. I just find their writing to be uninteresting.

It doesn't really work as marketing, though, when a company explicitly calls it out as a successful strategy for (ugh) #brand management. I agree it's one of those things you don't really talk about, at least in public. There were a million times when I was trying to pitch a company on a major gift that I'd point out all the upsides to them in terms of their public image. (I don't believe I ever used the term brand management then, those weren't popular buzzwords when I worked in that area.) But you are correct, it probably isn't something a company should talk about, it should remain unspoken. I personally have always been of the opinion that if a corporation is going to make a financial contribution or help with publicity for a charitable cause, they can promote themselves however they like and say whatever they want - within the bounds of good taste. But you are right, tact dictates you probably don't want to actually mention the reason you're doing something is for brand management, not altruism. Then again, although Stephanie McMahon is highly educated and obviously book smart, she has done quite a few things that lead me to think she lacks basic common sense. Her comments after 9/11 spring to mind as an example.

What's the big deal? Speaking as somebody with a background in charitable fund development myself, I have zero problem with that quote. Philanthropy is marketing, and everbody knows that. Charities aren't stupid, they know that corporations donate money and get behind campaigns for tax breaks, for good publicity, and maybe as a distant third (depending on the corporation in question) to do something good or for personal reasons. (Like an owner or board member affected by the cause, etc.) I have never worked with a charity that had a problem publicizing a company or brand once they had agreed to take a charitable donation. I have worked for charities who turned down money from companies that they did not want to be identified with. In my experience, individuals tend to give money for purely altrusitic reasons. Corporations, not so much...they want something in return for their money, and if it is marketing, so be it. It's a win-win. Keller picks odd things to get offended by. Of all things WWE does or has done to get his shorts in a twist over, this hardly seems to be it.

Now that is a totally appropriate time to dress up. Of course, now I have to inform Jerry McDevitt about this, so you and your favorite hooker can expect a cease and desist letter, ASAP. Also, "hooker" was the name of the Lou Thesz biography...and as such, has too much of an old school rasslin sound to it, back when sex was held in small, smoke filled rooms. Please refer to her as your "sex entertainer."

Yes. As Joan Rivers. Dave, the Candian version has the online features, or will eventually, depending on who your provider (or your friend's). Right now, online access is available for Rogers, Eastlink and Optik. Will be available for the others eventually. http://www.wwe.com/canada Hey, is this Marty...as in MartyEWR my old buddy from WAAAYYY back? Sadly, my friend (and myself) are on with Bell ExpressVu. I have been enjoying the free preview myself (which ends this Sunday, one week before Mania) but without the On Demand Library there is no way I am ponying up the dough for this Network. I really like NXT, but I am not paying money every month to basically see NXT, and a bunch of old episodes of Nitro.

Not to mention the drug tests.

I was reading this news byte here: http://411mania.com/wrestling/daniel-bryan-talks-wrestlemania-31-the-ic-title-more/ Specifically: Looks like DB is trying to find the positives in his current situation and make the best out of it - the whole chicken salad out of chicken shit deal, I guess. Could be he is just being a good company guy and giving positive interviews, but if I had to guess I'd bet he is sincere about making the most out of his midcard status. If he really feels this way, I hope he does come out of WM31 with the Intercontinental title. Although - I admire his ambitions to elevate that championship, even if he does win it, I doubt the way that belt is booked will change. The only hope he has there is if Lesnar re-signs with WWE and keeps the WWE World Title. I read recently that if Lesnar re-signs, he might keep the big belt, which will remain as a "special attraction" and the Intercontinental and US titles will be elevated in importance and defended more. If that really is the case, then I guess DB is just the guy to put that title on. Probably wishful thinking on my part, though.

This needed to be spun into it's own thread? I was being facetious. The other half of the argument where I supported the costumed fans being moved or ejected for production reasons is still in the Current WWE thread and I'm not going to bother schlepping all those posts over here - it's not exactly worth the effort. Suffice it to say I thought that the costumed fans being moved was justified, and we'll leave it at that.

Just found out I'll be seeing the show after all. I have a friend who just got the WWE Network (albeit the crappy Canadian version without the On Demand features) and he also has a massive plasma screen and surround sound that takes up his entire family room wall. He's hosting a Wrestlemania party, so I am going to go. Because hey - I get to see friends I haven't seen in ages, plus there will be food and drink and I get to see the show for free. So I cast my vote for "Low enthusiasm - This card looks like shit, still going to watch."

No. I barely tried at all, yet managed to hit the mark dead on. It was uncanny, really. I actually managed to impress even myself. Like I said in my original post, it's a production thing. I know it sounds goofy (almost as goofy as dressing up like a wrestler to go to a live event) but they have this hardcore mentality of wanting the viewer at home focusing on the ring or wherever else the camera goes, at the expense of all else. I went to a RAW at the Skydome back in 98 with a guy who was studying Radio/TV production at the time and I remember him telling me it's like that at a lot of live television broadcasts, sporting or otherwise. I'm not sure if this is true, but he said he heard of some production people asking fans sitting in sightlines at live events to remove hats with the Nike symbol, or cover it up with electrical tape - and turn a t-shirt with a particular logo inside out. I don't know if that is because it was supposedly distracting, or because they weren't being paid by Nike as a sponsor, or they had a competing sponsor who didn't want their competitor's logo on the live TV broadcast, or what. Point is, they have some weird rules when it comes to what they'll allow to show up on camera, for legal, sponsorship or production reasons. I don't know that it means they're trying to kill the fun - they may have had other valid reasons. Or at least, reasons they thought were valid.

Any time I think of the possibilty of the Briscoes going to WWE, I always think of this promo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzOZBtyP8Y I really like the Briscoes, but I don't think they have a hope in hell of suceeding in WWE, sadly.

I agree...that's what I'm saying. I really think that anything any fan does in sight of the camera that production thinks might distract the viewer is going to get removed...fans in costumes, clowns, whatever.

Except, there's a difference between walking out onto the street dressed like that vs. some kind of comic convention or live wrestling event. Those two scenarios are not exactly the same as "going out in public" and doing mundane things like shopping at the supermarket, buying coffee, etc. while fully dressed as Dr. Who or Sting. Even if it's not for you (and it's not for me either, truth be told), surely you can still see the distinction? I see the distinction, yes. But I also feel there is a difference between a fan convention and a live event. At a convention you're going to be around a ton of people in costume, at an event, probably not so much.

The other thing is merchandise. I don't know if it's true, but I read that if you have a hot selling T-shirt you can make more from that than your actual contract. Bryan will move a lot more merchandise with WWE than he would anywhere else, that's for sure.

I dressed as 1992 Shawn Michaels at a Halloween party and got laid after. Then I sold the costume on eBay for 400 dollars. It was awesome. That's totally different. That's wearing a costume to a costume party. Being a grown adult and dressing up like a wrestler when you are going to a live event, especially when you know the event is going to be televised, is basically just trying to bring attention to yourself - it's the equivilent of standing on your chair and screaming "hey everybody, look at me!" In other words, quite lame, in my opinion. Rumor has it that it was Kevin Dunn who ordered the costumed fans removed. From everything I have heard/read about Kevin Dunn, he is a jerk and I have little to no use for his decisions and opinions on pro wrestling. However, in his capacity as a television producer, he made the right decision in this case. When you are broadcasting a live event, you remove anything from the shot that is distracting the viewer from focusing on the action at hand. What those costumed fans were doing was the same as somebody walking up behing a reporter who is doing a live remote, and making faces at the camera, or jumping up and down. They were taking away from the shot, so they were stopped from doing so. Dunn wanted people at home watching the ring, not trying to figure who the guys in the outfits were, what they were doing there, and if they were part of the show. So you wouldn't object if they were seated further back? From a television production standpoint, no I would not. From a "damn that's goofy" standpoint, I'd still think it's goofy. Look...I understand that some people love to dress up and act goofy. This is why people go to the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Conventions, and Nickelback concerts. What I don't like is fans who go places and act in a manner that is clearly meant to distract away from the event at hand, or at the very least draw attention to themselves. I don't like fans who do things to try and "get themselves over" especially when it is at the expense of the product. In this particular case, you could make an argument that these fans weren't doing any particular harm - and there may be some merit to that argument. I freely admit I just don't get this whole dressing up thing. I get fandom, I get hardcore obsessive fandom. (Hell, that's why we are all here.) Look, I am a huge Doctor Who fan. I have every single episode of the show from it's entire 50 year history - including some of the non-canon audio adventures. I have a poster. I have a t-shirt. I have action figures. But I don't dress up like one of the Doctors and go out in public dressed like that - which I could, because a couple of them were quite stylish dressers. To me, that crosses the line between super-fandom and "hey look at me, I have issues." But that's just my opinion, so if you don't agree, you don't agree.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read No it isn't. You found it witty and yet at the same time intelligent, and you're a better person for having read it.

The problem is, a lot of the guys who get into the business do so with the specific dream of making it to WWE. Even those guys who end up making a living on the indies or in Japan/Mexico might not feel they really "made it" unless they work Wrestlemania. I think of the interviews Kurt Angle has given where he talks about meeting fans who think he quit wrestling after leaving WWE. I wonder if a lot of those guys are not as worried about the job satisfaction as they are the fame and wide exposure that comes with WWE. I have no doubt that Bryan would have better matches and deal with way less political nonsense if he was working a combination of ROH/NJPW, but you have to wonder if he would consider that not really making it. I think for a lot of these guys it's WWE or bust, sadly.

Bit of a buzzkill there mate. You might actually kill this thread. Never happen.

I dressed as 1992 Shawn Michaels at a Halloween party and got laid after. Then I sold the costume on eBay for 400 dollars. It was awesome. That's totally different. That's wearing a costume to a costume party. Being a grown adult and dressing up like a wrestler when you are going to a live event, especially when you know the event is going to be televised, is basically just trying to bring attention to yourself - it's the equivilent of standing on your chair and screaming "hey everybody, look at me!" In other words, quite lame, in my opinion. Rumor has it that it was Kevin Dunn who ordered the costumed fans removed. From everything I have heard/read about Kevin Dunn, he is a jerk and I have little to no use for his decisions and opinions on pro wrestling. However, in his capacity as a television producer, he made the right decision in this case. When you are broadcasting a live event, you remove anything from the shot that is distracting the viewer from focusing on the action at hand. What those costumed fans were doing was the same as somebody walking up behing a reporter who is doing a live remote, and making faces at the camera, or jumping up and down. They were taking away from the shot, so they were stopped from doing so. Dunn wanted people at home watching the ring, not trying to figure who the guys in the outfits were, what they were doing there, and if they were part of the show.

I feel if you're a grown person who feels the need to dress up like Sting, Goldust, or any other wrestler when you go to a live event, not only should you be barred from entering the arena, you should also be legally prohibited from reproducing. Having said that, it's a safe bet that guys who dress up like wrestlers are unlikely to ever have any form of sexual contact with a consenting female that doesn't involve money changing hands first, so perhaps the no reproduction law would be overkill.

Late to the party on this point, but I want to agree that Silas Young is all kinds of awesome. His injury couldn't have come at a worse time, since Steen gave him the rub on the way out. I am hoping ROH plans to push him to the moon when he returns. ProWrestling.net is reporting that WWE has signed Jimmy Jacobs to work in a behind the scenes capacity in NXT "soon", and that Joe will actually be going to WWE sooner rather than later. I would guess most ROH fans would view this as bad news, although Jimmy Jacobs being a loss is debatable. I never got his appeal, honestly. I don't think anybody expected Joe to stick around long term, but if this is to be believed, he'll be heading to WWE as early as the end of the month.

As I mentioned in the TNA thread, Spike has confirmed that they are having very preliminary conversations with ROH. Interesting. One of the things Viacom did for TNA was hire talents like Sting, who Panda Energy could not afford, yes? If ROH signed a deal with Spike, I wonder if Viacom would help them build the roster? Or would Viacom want to buy the whole deal from Sinclair? Would Sinclair be willing to have some sort of co-ownership deal with Viacom?

So it has been officially confirmed by Spike themselves that Ring Of Honor is in (very) preliminary talks with Spike TV. I find this interesting, but not because I care if ROH ends up on Spike. What I find interesting is that Spike are having talks with ANY pro wrestling company at ANY level. It shows that they are at least willing to consider the idea of being in the pro wrestling business again. TNA can no longer claim the reason they left Spike is only because Spike had NO interest in being in the wrestling business. The fact they are talking and admitted it proves that Spike are willing to at least talk to a pro wrestling compnay about doing business - as long as it's not TNA, who they were more than happy to get rid of, despite of the fact that TNA was bringing them high ratings (relatively speaking, for Spike TV.) Does this lend any credence to the theory that one of the main reasons Spike dumped TNA is because of their reluctance to get rid of Russo, and then lying about the fact they did?

He isn't related to Stan Hansen, according to Hansen. JR asked him on his podcast and Hansen denied it.

So The Washington Post picked up this story today, and have added to the pile, talking about how DeMott also covered up sexual harassment. This doesn't seem to be blowing over like I thought it might...at least yet.