Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 3

[FLIK]

I don't get the righteous indignation about things like the fart gimmick. Wrestling has always been full of stupid stuff.

The thing that's offensive about stuff like that to me is that there's no good reason for it. No one in their right mind could really look at that idea and think "yes, that will get Nattie over" or "that will make us money" or "that will entertain the fans" or "we can build a good feud around that".

 

You just can't market a fuckin fart. Not only will it not make them money but it hurts Nattie's ability to make money for herself & the company. Other then as a way to humiliate the talent (male/female/good/bad it doesn't matter) and or just to amuse Vince & the other writers, there's zero point to it.

[Tim Evans]

You just can't market a fuckin fart. Not only will it not make them money but it hurts Nattie's ability to make money for herself & the company. Other then as a way to humiliate the talent (male/female/good/bad it doesn't matter) and or just to amuse Vince & the other writers, there's zero point to it.

How much money does South Park make off of Terrance and Phillip? Isn't that basically marketing a fart.

 

This farting gimmick kinda reminds me of Goldust's electrocution. That became popular when Howard Stern found it and played the twitch every day on his show. I think Goldust even appeared on the show.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion but I think some of the complaints are exaggerated and I also think a lot of that is the result of monopoly/wrestling being live every week and shooting multiple shows with no-squash matches.

That's the thing, though. Why not have squash matches? Why do David Otunga and Heath Slater need control segments when they're up against Sheamus? And for that matter, why does everybody need to have a match every week? I don't see the point of paying to see Randy Orton vs. Cody Rhodes on PPV when they've already had three matches on Smackdown beforehand and will have three more afterward.

[FLIK]

How much money does South Park make off of Terrance and Phillip? Isn't that basically marketing a fart.

Haven't watched South Park the past couple seasons but I used to be a big fan and I recall T & P being some of the most boring, uniteresting characters on the entire show and their stand alone ep as one of the worst in the history of the series and not just because of the April Fools debut of it.

[Loss]

"You just can't market a fuckin fart" is my new favorite quote.

[Cox]

Maybe WWE thinks they can market pink and black "WHO FARTED?" t-shirts for Nattie?

[NintendoLogic]

Or maybe they want to create the next Hornswoggle by having a sentient fart cloud be Nattie's companion like in that one Ren & Stimpy episode and interfere in her matches.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion but I think some of the complaints are exaggerated and I also think a lot of that is the result of monopoly/wrestling being live every week and shooting multiple shows with no-squash matches.

That's the thing, though. Why not have squash matches? Why do David Otunga and Heath Slater need control segments when they're up against Sheamus? And for that matter, why does everybody need to have a match every week? I don't see the point of paying to see Randy Orton vs. Cody Rhodes on PPV when they've already had three matches on Smackdown beforehand and will have three more afterward.

 

Blame TV ratings becoming the be all end all metric during the MNW era. As that metric becomes less important (and I believe it will) perhaps things will revert to old form but I have my doubts.

[Sean Liska]

WWE's success still depends on having TV, and USA's success with original programming is putting the pressure on them to stay at a certain level considering their difficulties with ad dollars, so they're always going to be worried about ratings. It's a different world than the days of syndicated weekend programming.

[sek69]

I wouldn't stop watching entirely over the far gimmick, it just comes across as mean and petty. Not to mention completely unnecessary, even if she had some kind of transgression that usually justifies such childish behavior in wrestling. Why have all that good wrestling on TV, only to leave a bad taste in people's mouths with such silly bullshit?

[Dylan Waco]

WWE's success still depends on having TV, and USA's success with original programming is putting the pressure on them to stay at a certain level considering their difficulties with ad dollars, so they're always going to be worried about ratings. It's a different world than the days of syndicated weekend programming.

I agree with this. For now. But as the net changes media more and more I think tv ratings will end meaning less and less.

[NintendoLogic]

Austin didn't wrestle on TV very often in 1998 and 1999. It didn't seem to hurt ratings too much.

[Phil Schneider]

Jason Mann had me on his show to talk about WarGames 94. Pretty fun show and a cool concept for a podcast.

 

http://www.fairtoflair.com/post/1878862547...e-of-mediocrity

Dylan is really turning into the Paul F. Tompkins of wrestling podcasts. Fun show. Tomk reviewed this match in one of my favorite things he ever wrote.

 

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2010/10/c...-war-games.html

[jdw]

Austin didn't wrestle on TV very often in 1998 and 1999. It didn't seem to hurt ratings too much.

21 times in 1998, which is a pretty decent number given (i) no matches in January, and (ii) no matches after 12/7. In fact, just one match until 3/2 and just one match after 11/16. 18 matches in between those two dates.

 

19 times in 1999. Just once in Feb, and was done in the first week of November due to the injury. Not a massive impact of SmackDown on that number as it only was just starting when he went out.

 

I would be surprised if any "anchor" wrestler in the WWF had wrestled on TV 20 times in a year prior to 1998. That's setting aside stuff that aired on MSG/Spectrum/NESN/Z Channel, and just counting stuff like the syndication, USA Network, SNME and The Main Event. Doubt Shawn worked that much on TV in 1996, Nash in 1995, Shawn or Bret in 1997, Bret in 1993-94, Hogan in 1991, Warrior in 1990, Hogan in 1989, Savage in 1988, Hogan in 1984-88, etc.

 

I think we could say Austin was there at the change.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

Jason Mann had me on his show to talk about WarGames 94. Pretty fun show and a cool concept for a podcast.

 

http://www.fairtoflair.com/post/1878862547...e-of-mediocrity

Dylan is really turning into the Paul F. Tompkins of wrestling podcasts. Fun show. Tomk reviewed this match in one of my favorite things he ever wrote.

 

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2010/10/c...-war-games.html

 

If you've got a gimmick work it.

 

Also I pretty much love everything tomk writes even when I disagree with it. But that is definitely in the upper tier of things he's written.

[NintendoLogic]

Austin didn't wrestle on TV very often in 1998 and 1999. It didn't seem to hurt ratings too much.

21 times in 1998, which is a pretty decent number given (i) no matches in January, and (ii) no matches after 12/7. In fact, just one match until 3/2 and just one match after 11/16. 18 matches in between those two dates.

 

19 times in 1999. Just once in Feb, and was done in the first week of November due to the injury. Not a massive impact of SmackDown on that number as it only was just starting when he went out.

 

I would be surprised if any "anchor" wrestler in the WWF had wrestled on TV 20 times in a year prior to 1998. That's setting aside stuff that aired on MSG/Spectrum/NESN/Z Channel, and just counting stuff like the syndication, USA Network, SNME and The Main Event. Doubt Shawn worked that much on TV in 1996, Nash in 1995, Shawn or Bret in 1997, Bret in 1993-94, Hogan in 1991, Warrior in 1990, Hogan in 1989, Savage in 1988, Hogan in 1984-88, etc.

 

I think we could say Austin was there at the change.

 

John

 

I had him at 19 matches in 1998 and 17 in 1999. Regardless, that's 40 TV matches combined over two years. I guarantee you Cena had more than that in 2011 alone.

[Gregor]

The Austin TV matches comments led me to look up The Rock in 2000. The man had a match on 94 TV shows that year and had multiple matches on a few of them. I can't even fathom that.

[Victator]

In his defense, he did not look ripped. He looked like a dude who got fat suddenly.

 

He looked like a naturally small dude taking steroids. Compare 1997 Shawn to 2011 Shawn and you can see the difference. Piper had the same bloated look after he started with the WWF and Vince thought he was too small to be a wrestler. Just because someone's not ripped doesn't mean they aren't on something. I will grant in this case, some of it does likely come from all the drinking and recreational drug use he was doing at the time as well.

 

It's also funny how Hunter opened his induction speech with a string of jokes on the subject of how small Shawn is now. My favorite was him mentioning they had to close the garage doors in the building because it was windy outside and Shawn might blow off the stage.

 

I think he looked more roided up in the later Rockers days than 93/94.

[Victator]

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're growing out of wrestling don't pretend it's because it suddenly sucks. It has always been incredibly hit or miss.

And I guess what I'm saying is there's a big difference between watching Stone Cold Steve Austin when you're 16-years-old and then watching John Cena when you're 30.

 

EDIT: I guess I'm not growing out of wrestling as a whole though, because I can still enjoy CMLL or NJPW for modern wrestling. I even thought SMASH was decent enough. I liked Kana quite a bit. I guess I just want different things from my shows. WWE does not provide me with what I am seeking and neither does ROH. But I can go back and watch shit that is new to me from the 70's or 80's & still be thoroughly entertained.

 

If you can't see that the biggest difference is about 14 years of growing up then I don't know what to tell you.

 

And nothing to do with a huge gap in the talent/charisma of Austin and Cena?

[Tim Evans]

Austin didn't wrestle on TV very often in 1998 and 1999. It didn't seem to hurt ratings too much.

21 times in 1998, which is a pretty decent number given (i) no matches in January, and (ii) no matches after 12/7. In fact, just one match until 3/2 and just one match after 11/16. 18 matches in between those two dates.

 

19 times in 1999. Just once in Feb, and was done in the first week of November due to the injury. Not a massive impact of SmackDown on that number as it only was just starting when he went out.

 

I would be surprised if any "anchor" wrestler in the WWF had wrestled on TV 20 times in a year prior to 1998. That's setting aside stuff that aired on MSG/Spectrum/NESN/Z Channel, and just counting stuff like the syndication, USA Network, SNME and The Main Event. Doubt Shawn worked that much on TV in 1996, Nash in 1995, Shawn or Bret in 1997, Bret in 1993-94, Hogan in 1991, Warrior in 1990, Hogan in 1989, Savage in 1988, Hogan in 1984-88, etc.

 

I think we could say Austin was there at the change.

 

John

 

I had him at 19 matches in 1998 and 17 in 1999. Regardless, that's 40 TV matches combined over two years. I guarantee you Cena had more than that in 2011 alone.

 

 

Cena had 33 matches on Raw in 2011. Most of them were tag matches or 6 man tags. He didn't wrestle on tv most of January, November or May.

[kjh]

Austin didn't wrestle on TV very often in 1998 and 1999. It didn't seem to hurt ratings too much.

21 times in 1998, which is a pretty decent number given (i) no matches in January, and (ii) no matches after 12/7. In fact, just one match until 3/2 and just one match after 11/16. 18 matches in between those two dates.

 

19 times in 1999. Just once in Feb, and was done in the first week of November due to the injury. Not a massive impact of SmackDown on that number as it only was just starting when he went out.

 

I would be surprised if any "anchor" wrestler in the WWF had wrestled on TV 20 times in a year prior to 1998. That's setting aside stuff that aired on MSG/Spectrum/NESN/Z Channel, and just counting stuff like the syndication, USA Network, SNME and The Main Event. Doubt Shawn worked that much on TV in 1996, Nash in 1995, Shawn or Bret in 1997, Bret in 1993-94, Hogan in 1991, Warrior in 1990, Hogan in 1989, Savage in 1988, Hogan in 1984-88, etc.

 

I think we could say Austin was there at the change.

The change came earlier, Shawn had 21 matches in 1996 despite not wresting on TV after Survivor Series. The pace picked up due to the Monday Night Wars, as from July to November, Shawn was wrestling on Raw twice a month.

[cm funk]

I don't get the righteous indignation about things like the fart gimmick. Wrestling has always been full of stupid stuff. If you're not watching RAW and Smackdown on DVR and fast forwarding through like 60-70% of it then you're doing it wrong. Smackdown has 2-3 legit good TV matches every week so I just skip to the matches, watch them, and then will occasionally stop fast forwarding through the other stuff if something looks interesting.

It bothers people because it's a second gen member of the Hart family, who worked and trained for years to be a serious female wrestler. If they gave the gimmick to one of the untrained models it would still be dumb, but nobody would really care.

 

LOL so it's ok to demean women who are shitty wrestlers, just not ones that are good wrestlers?

 

No, that's not at all the point I was trying to make

 

I don't think the gimmick is particularly demeaning or offensive to women in general. It's stupid and pointless, but tons of men get stuck with stupid and pointless gimmicks and I don't think that the male sex is demeaned by it.

 

I think it's offensive because it's a waste of a good female talent when there are so few of them in the company. If you have to have a farting gimmick give it to any one of the girls with no training who were hired because they're telegenic.

 

It's offensive to me, as a wrestling fan, because it's stupid and pointless and a waste of talent. I don't care if they have a dozen farting divas if they don't have anything better to do. Nattie has more to offer. Is that clear enough?

[Victator]

Watching the build up for Wrestlemania 1 on Tuesday Night Titans. If that were booked today, Mr.T would of beaten up Piper, Orndorff and

Orton by himself.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I don't get the righteous indignation about things like the fart gimmick. Wrestling has always been full of stupid stuff. If you're not watching RAW and Smackdown on DVR and fast forwarding through like 60-70% of it then you're doing it wrong. Smackdown has 2-3 legit good TV matches every week so I just skip to the matches, watch them, and then will occasionally stop fast forwarding through the other stuff if something looks interesting.

It bothers people because it's a second gen member of the Hart family, who worked and trained for years to be a serious female wrestler. If they gave the gimmick to one of the untrained models it would still be dumb, but nobody would really care.

 

LOL so it's ok to demean women who are shitty wrestlers, just not ones that are good wrestlers?

 

No, that's not at all the point I was trying to make

 

I don't think the gimmick is particularly demeaning or offensive to women in general. It's stupid and pointless, but tons of men get stuck with stupid and pointless gimmicks and I don't think that the male sex is demeaned by it.

 

I think it's offensive because it's a waste of a good female talent when there are so few of them in the company. If you have to have a farting gimmick give it to any one of the girls with no training who were hired because they're telegenic.

 

It's offensive to me, as a wrestling fan, because it's stupid and pointless and a waste of talent. I don't care if they have a dozen farting divas if they don't have anything better to do. Nattie has more to offer. Is that clear enough?

 

The fact that it's a Hart Family member who has the gimmick surely is the reason some folks hate it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr70qzN2mR8

 

(Shameless plug)

[rovert]

TMZ.com reported tonight that Kia Stevens (Kharma/Awesome Kong) has admitted she made up the story of giving birth to a baby boy on New Year's Eve.

 

Stevens said she was pregnant, but lost the baby, and lied to friends because she was afraid of telling the truth because so many people knew she was pregnant from television. News of this had started to get out in the past week, although it had not been reported elsewhere, which likely explains her coming forward.

 

She said she would like to start a foundation for women who have had similar problems.

A fragile person living a life in the public eye.