RavishingRickRudo

I think this past season of Angel, which IMO is awesome, has a sort of novelty feel to it. The finale of season 4 started to really set it up where it strays pretty far from the original concept of the show. There characters are different and are experiencing different things: Gunn especially, Angel slightly, Fred a bit, Lorne not entirely, and Cordy is gone. That may be were the feelings of "difference" arise. I would say this season has been "brighter", in terms of physical tones and thematic ones.

It's not just about unreasonable, it's about unnecessary. Are mic skills unnecessary in professional wrestling? Yes. And it's been proven because SOME people can succeed; if it were necessary, they wouldn't have. Your analogy doesn't work because companies and circumstances differ. I am talking about one company. I am sure there are circumstances where a college degree is necessary, and circumstances where they are not. The wrestling equivalent of that wouldn't be mic skills, however. It would be wrestling training. It would be easier for the WWE to justify the necessity for proper training than for promos.

By Canadian standards, there are 3 criteria to assess the appropriateness of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification: 1. Is the standard rationally connected to the performance of the job? 2. Was the standard established in an houst belief that it was necessary to accomplish the purpose identified in stage one. 3. Is the standard reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose? Now, given the fact that wrestlers have gotten over i) without being english (Tajiri, for example), ii)without being a great promo (Warrior), iii)by in-ring work (where the majority of their product is shown), it would be hard for the WWE to justify it necessary for a wrestler to speak english as-long-as he is able to communicate with their partners in the ring effectively.

From what I hear, Hunter didn't want to drop the title because "he wasn't feeling like it". I doubt Goldberg had anything to do with it because they started to feud MONTHS after Mania and they postponed the feud FOR NASH.

Then that is systematic discrimination. The policy of pushing promo guys and not having managers - which is preference rather than necessitity - allow it to happen. It is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the 2 reasons I listed above. And I agree with you, they aren't racist in hiring because they *do* hire minorities, HOWEVER, the proportion of "whites" on-screen, in comparison to i) the wrestlers they have and ii)society, looks to be 2:1, maybe 3:1, and 'backstage' looks to be 100:1. There is a problem there, especially in regards to management. Their storylines and characters, however, are racist. Thus making them racist.

The voices sounded the same on the tapes as they did on tv.

Mike, your heel point is dismissed automatically because THE HEEL WON. The Booker feud could have easily been done without the racist bait. It just takes a little thought. Affirmative Action, which is essentially what part of this discussion is about, isn't about how many are in the actual market, it's about how many are in society as a whole. Perhaps there are few "black" wrestlers out there because they haven't been displayed prominently in the past. This goes for any minority group out there. In terms of hiring and discrimination, I don't think the WWE could justify "promos" as an essential skill, as there are (a)Managers and (b)Successful wrestlers who have not been great promos and have gotten over on wrestling. In a predominantly physical medium, language isn't an issue. What they prefer isn't an issue in this regard if it prohibits the use/hiring of a racial group. And I should also mention the WWE's punishment of its wrestlers who use racial slurs has been non-existant. 2 cases in particular, Big Show and Brian Lawler.

I'd recommend Astro Boy (old one) because it is deceptively dark (a man who creates a robot in the image of his dead son and then sells him to a carnival), but you have to get past the bad voice acting (astro), repetitive music, and storylines that go by so fast you have to have ADD to keep up.

And we don't know what all went into it. Maybe Booker's reactions at house shows weren't good enough to put him over. Mayeb his back problems were getting bad at that point. There are reasons for everything. There is a reason for giving the message "black people aren't as good as white people"? I mean, a reason other than "the WWE is racist". You can't justify that. They made their bed and they should have laid in it. They didn't, so they suffer the consequences of doing a race angle, and not only a race angle, but one with an outcome like that. There are few less relevant stats than that. As I mentioned before, it was less a statement and more of a wondering; however it still applies. The WWE has a very high proportion of "white" wrestlers, one that is disproportionate to the American population ("whites" make up, what, less than 50% of the population?). This could be reflective of the amount of minority wrestlers or it could be reflective of institutional discrimination - as I've mentioned before, and in that quote, the WWE management is almost all white (from what I see, it is all white) - or it could be both. So the WWE doesn't have the "proper proportion" of blacks as society as a whole. Does ANY sport have a "proper" racial breakdown? Yes, I know wrestling isn't a sport. I didn't say "blacks", I said "different races". The WWE's amount of Mexican workers - especially compared to the amount out there in both general and wrestling populace - is heavily undersized. And wrestling isn't a sport, and wrestling has a different system of recruitment. Wrestling is a business where you can be brought in merely on "look" and you can be rejected merely on "look".

I was watching "Making the Band 2" yesterday - something that I don't normally watch, I should note *cough* - and two of the band members got in a fight (3 fights actually) and it was pure MMA! Fight 1: Guy #1 shoots in for a takedown, Guy 2 sprawls and starts pounding at the guys ribs, Guy #1 turns and gives back, Guy 2 slaps on a Fedor-esque rear naked choke. Then in fight 3, they were fighting in the hall, and Guy #1 had double overhooks on Guy 2, then transferred into a front facelock/guillotine. Great stuff. I was marking out like crazy.

I think it's becoming pretty appropriate

Enterprise lost me at the opening theme song. Which sucked because I'm a Bacula fan. And I think SLIDERS had a really good premiere. And I think all the Treks had bad ones.

Pfft. I've been writing exams and posting here at the same time, this is nothing RRR: Suber Geneous.

"The Train Job", which was the episode Fox first aired, has probably become my least favourite episode now, after watching it for the 5th time. All of the stuff I mentioned in my 2nd last thread applies - they didn't do NEARLY as good a job at establishing the characters, themes, universe like they did in Serenity. All the exposition gets annoying after a while.

That's not spinning at all. That's analyzing. Of course it is. Flair doesn't say anything bad unless someone says something bad about him, and if that doesn't happen, then its out of character. He only says Hunter is the best because of HHH's position. He hates the internet but, much like Austin and Foley, doesn't go on it, so it's ok. It's not because he's spineless or insane, he's just playing the game. Meanwhile, if that Dastardly Hulk Hogan said something similar, it's because he's selfish and always looking to cash in.

Oh, I forgot to mention, they found "another" Data, who managed to survive but lacks the programming that Data had - so its like a dumb data. Hmm, I probably should have mentioned that...

Yeah, and I think that line is fucking hilarious.

Picard was over on the bad guys' ship, Data "jumped" over (as in, through space from Enterprise), so he could save the good captain and (I believe) give him a transporter thingie which was only for 1. So basically Data died when the ship exploded/imploded/whatever. Not a very good explanation, but the short of it is "Data died saving Picard".

And Meltzer justifying and spinning Flairs quotes is fucking hilarious. "Flair is super high on both of them, as he's told people in the past he thinks Michaels is much better than Bret Hart (Flair has never forgotten the stuff Hart used to write about him in the mid-90s in the Calgary Sun)." "He also said HHH is the best wrestler right now. Well, he does have to say that" "Flair said he had no confidence in the opinion of internet fans but really doesn't know what they say because he can't turn a computer on. You'd be surprised at how many of the old-guard wrestlers don't ever look at the internet, like Steve Austin and Mick Foley, and it probably keeps them a lot more sane. " "The only person Flair really knocked was Foley (he's getting back at Foley in his book for Foley knocking him in his first book according to those close to the situation)" "Flair, who very rarely would say anything negatively about Hogan, was a little more critical saying, "That certainly isn't right, but that's Hogan." "

I don't know if you are answering my question or making a statement. I agree with the "best wrestler I've ever seen", I don't agree that you should limit Flair to just North America and having a qualifier be "being THE star" in regards to "the best". It's ridiculous. "Who's better than Shawn Michaels... In North America... and was THE star of a large promotion for am extended period of time" You _do_ see my point here, right? The field kinda narrows conveniently.

BAH, I get Ribado and Busmalas mixed up all the time. It's been a while since I watched oZ, the last season didn't really do anything for me. Grissom is from CSI, I crossed em over. They basically changed him from a happy-go-lucky but eccentric with a strong heart kinda guy to a much more colder character. Needless to say, it was a shock seeing the first episode. The problem (if you can call it that) I have is that I don't think I have ever seen a show from its premiere and stayed with it - I usually have to ease into watching a show and get "hooked" almost at random. I think the only one is Angel. Firefly doesn't count because I tried to watch it when it aired but nothin happened - "Serenity" is a crucial episode, and they never showed it.

I love watching those episodes though. It's the same way with CSI, you see them blatently doing character exposition and trying to fill so much in and get across the message of the show that, in retrospect, seem fucking hilarious because its so obvious. Plus, usually the characters are totally different in the premiere than they are, say, 3 years down the road, so it's fun seeing Grissom be all bubbly, or Busmalas (sp?) taking with God.

I found that Simpsons Season 1 had a pretty even Homer/Bart ratio. Bart may have edged out, but its not like it was in say Season 3 or 4, where you had the Bart Eps. and the Homer Gems. I don't think it was enough to justify the position that it was Bart-centric. I hate Season 1 - I hate the voices, the animation, the themes and messages, the characters - but I'll take those any day of the week over the past 5 years of the show.

*rim shot*

oZ had a pretty good premiere as well, if not for the simple fact that they built up this one character who you think will be the lead only to kill him off at the end of the show. Great mission statement there.