Slasher Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 WWE has worked hard to clean up their image post-Benoit (to mixed results). Benoit is a babyface for a large part of his WWE run. They need to make clear when airing Benoit footage that they aren't celebrating or glorifying him, and that any compliments of his character that were part of worked storyline aren't a reflection of how the company feels about him. The issue is bigger than short-sighted wrestling fans who just want to see shows in full. Then they are better off putting their heads back in the sand and pretending that they never employed the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. Perhaps. I just put faith in wrestling fans' intelligence that we know the difference between deifying the guy and simply putting on a match or two from a show they want to spotlight for obviously different reasons than that it had Chris Benoit on it. I can't imagine, for the life of me, seeing a real wrestling fan (which a person watching the WWE Network would have to be) thinking "Hey they are showing Benoit. OMG! They love the guy again... I must never support them ever again!" or whatever your concern is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 It's more of a business decision to not have outraged parents (those who pay for WWE footage but whose children watch it) upset that their children are watching his matches while the announcers talk about how great he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Wrestling fans are wrestling fans, and those watching the network will remain wrestling fans as long as you provide them with enough content. This issue is solely about the risk of generating incredible backlash for potentially highlighting someone who killed his family. WM20 was a a milestone event and incredibly fun. That doesn't mean there's any place for featuring that aspect of it in any fashion anytime soon. Its one thing to include in a list of results or title histories. Its another to air it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Not to derail the current topic of conversation, but do we know of any journalists (wrestling or otherwise) who will be in Las Vegas to cover the WWE's announcement next week, and is it known if there will be some kind of live stream of the event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 As for Benoit I'm going to guess that's for convenience in terms of requiring less editing work more than anything else. Late reply relative to all the others, but I'm not sure the news presented means less editing done to Benoit matches. I'm certain the last few home video editing jobs with Benoit involved (MITB Anthology, RAW 20 Anniversary) are designed to condition fans and present the new norm, in preparation for the network. I'm guessing the need to present the disclaimer is done for network-related reasons. People who buy the DVD/Blu-ray sets know what they're getting thanks to listings/content releases, but it's different with the network, even an online one. Right now, the editing done is the strongest/most noticeable since mid-2007. No Benoit entrances, no commentary surrounding him, etc. Far cry from even things like that Nitro set where his full entrance is shown for the big Flair return to Greenville in Sept. 98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 If they are editing him like that, that should satisfy those outraged parents' concerns, seeing how marginalized Benoit would be in the footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Any word if matches with blood will be in color or in black and white, like they did a few years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I'm still confused as to what such a disclaimer would look like, and I find it hard to imagine it wouldn't be pretty jarring to see before every show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 In some ways they made their own bed on it though. How? This frustrates me on WWE's behalf. There is no way they can handle this that people don't criticize. This thread is proof of that.The best way to handle it is to do nothing at all. WWE created their own problem here. I could seriously come up with warnings for everyone. There are lots of bad people in wrestling, but Benoit is the only one who murdered his son. This frustrates me on WWE's behalf. There is no way they can handle this that people don't criticize. This thread is proof of that. Do you really not see the problem? Are there really going to be critics if the WWE just put up the matches and ran them as if it's business as usual? El-P made a good point. They have other unsavory characters they will most likely show footage of. Should they bring attention to each and every one of their misdeed, grave or minor? Yes, there are going to be critics if they go about business as usual. "I guess they don't care anymore", "Look at them profiting from a murderer", etc. Benoit's offenses are far worse than anyone else's in wrestling. Comparing murdering your son to the other scummy things people in wrestling have done is downplaying the severity of what he did. WWE should not be airing New Jack, Scott Hall, Jimmy Snuka or Verne Gagne matches without warnings then either. Think of the kids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. Eddie Guerrero dropped dead of heart failure linked to steroid abuse and drug abuse. Should we put disclaimers that WWE does not support drug use? I mean for chrissakes. If parents are letting kids watch wrestling, what with all the inherent problems associated, well they are not going to worry too much about a murderer who has been consciously marginalized on their footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? You're missing the point. Neither Verne, Hall nor New Jack's things created a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media about the crime and the alleged culpability of the wrestling business. The disclaimer isn't for wrestling fans or kids or rational people. It's to protect the company in case some news media wants to run a story about WWE glorifying a murderer on their network, or in case some kid hurts another kid in the playground and the parents want to sue WWE because he learned the crossface from watching Benoit on the network. Stupid shit like that. That is what it's for, covering their asses legally. It's not a moral warning just because someone in the wrestling business did something horrible. There's a context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? You're missing the point. Neither Verne, Hall nor New Jack's things created a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media about the crime and the alleged culpability of the wrestling business. The disclaimer isn't for wrestling fans or kids or rational people. It's to protect the company in case some news media wants to run a story about WWE glorifying a murderer on their network, or in case some kid hurts another kid in the playground and the parents want to sue WWE because he learned the crossface from watching Benoit on the network. Stupid shit like that. That is what it's for, covering their asses legally. It's not a moral warning just because someone in the wrestling business did something horrible. There's a context. Wow. That's actually a good reason that I hadn't thought of. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually, Verne was a 90 year old senile man who killed somebody in a nursing home. The nature of the death AND age of the victim absolutely matters. I don't know the Hall and New Jack details but pretty sure they didn't kill their own children. As for the disclaimers on Benoit... it doesn't matter. those who still enjoy Benoit matches for whatever warped reasons can choose to watch them. Those who choose to not watch them can fast forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually, Verne was a 90 year old senile man who killed somebody in a nursing home. The nature of the death AND age of the victim absolutely matters. I don't know the Hall and New Jack details but pretty sure they didn't kill their own children. As for the disclaimers on Benoit... it doesn't matter. those who still enjoy Benoit matches for whatever warped reasons can choose to watch them. Those who choose to not watch them can fast forward. Don't worry. I'm definitely a guy who hasn't watched a single Benoit match in years. I have no interest anymore in his stuff, and I was one of his biggest supporters when he was alive and not so... kill-y. I had thought that the advisory brought needless attention to the situation, but Redman made the good point that it is just as much a legal protection as anything. Good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah, that is where I am at with Benoit matches. I still include them on my comps because some people want to watch them. We include Benoit on the yearbooks because Loss and I look at those as historical compilations. However, there are too many better wrestlers out there for me to invest time in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? It either turned out New Jack had never killed anyone or that his stories were exaggerated. I forget which. Even then the kayfabe version was that they were all ruled justifiable homicides. Hall killed a man in self defense. Gagne is a sick elderly man with Alzheimer's who attacked a fellow patient at a nursing home. Yeah, I think Snuka killed Nancy Argentino, but officially he's never even been charged. Benoit garroted his wife, strangled his son and/or broke his neck with his pro wrestling finishing hold, and then tortured himself to death in a house filled with drugs and the case became a high profile media circus in the age of the 24 hour news cycle. It's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I am not naive. Benoit is a monster, period. I was just trying to help rzombie out with his point. Edit: I hope you note I am not even gonna try to bring in the alzheimers equivalent brain thing because I refuse to validate that excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wow, I didn't know that Verne, Hall and New Jack killed their kids! Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? Gagne is a sick elderly man with Alzheimer's who attacked a fellow patient at a nursing home. Benoit was deemed to have the brain of an 85 year old Alzheimer's patient with advanced dementia... I don't think killing an adult is any better or worse than killing a kid. Murder is murder. Once you start saying killing someone due to ____ is better than killing someone due to _____ you lead down a slippery slope as shown in this thread. The best way to move on is to move on. WWE will never erase Benoit and making special notices in front of every show he is on doesn't help or change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually, that is not true at all. Even out penal system has different punishments and different codes for killing people. 1st degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter. crimes of passion, etc. "Once you start saying killing someone due to _SELF DEFENSE_ is better than _KILLING A DEFENSELESS CHILD_ you lead down a slippery slope as shown in this thread" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually, that is not true at all. Even out penal system has different punishments and different codes for killing people. 1st degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter. crimes of passion, etc. "Once you start saying killing someone due to _SELF DEFENSE_ is better than _KILLING A DEFENSELESS CHILD_ you lead down a slippery slope as shown in this thread" Not defending Benoit but murder is still murder. Doesn't change it. Everything should be done to avoid it and I don't think there is a good solution.I know someone who did it out of self defense and he doesn't feel any better about it. I understand that WWE is trying to save their own butts but when an uninformed media person gets bored, this could go on and on. We've already cited multiple examples of it. It's one carny working another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts