Major Miscommunications With RAW

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

FWIW, I picked up on it instantly.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I personally didn't ignore your point. (I'm the one that took it one step further and said that you should be ready to lambast the WWE for making insensitive comments in the arena where Droz was crippled.) I just still don't see how "accountability" is part of this debate.

 

To me, Vince admitting that he was to blame & them making a death reference last night are two different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You disagree. I doubt that either of us will change their minds, so it's a moot point. If they kept on lowering wrestlers using cheap acrobat-esque tricks, I'd be offended. But not by anything they said or did last night.

[Guest combat_rock]

Ok, so now no wrestler ever should make refrence to "killing" his opponent any time the WWE is in KC? That's just stupid. If I was a writer I still would have had Kane say something to that effect even though I'd know that Owen died there.

[AndrewTS 0]

So you not only have no problem with that, but you also have no problem with a character WWE is portraying as a face making murder threats?

[NYU 0]

Rudo, I understand what you're thinking, but I think there's a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to making comparisons between situations.

 

Take the incidents for what they're worth. Kane is a terribly grieving father, vowing punishment for the person that unintentionally killed his yet-to-be-born baby. Owen Hart was someone that fell off of the top of that arena five years earlier in a flying stunt that went horrifically wrong.

 

Besides the mentions of death in both incidents, there are absolutely no connections between the two of them. They are both parallel incidents, and it seems somewhat ridiculous that people are desperately trying to cling onto something that isn't there.

 

Vince McMahon might not have picked up on the idea that Kane was threatening to kill his child's killer in the same arena Owen Hart plummeted to his death - but why would he? The situations are not similiar, and what it sounds like you're proposing is a complete ban on the word "death" whenever WWE steps into Kansas City, from 1999 to the end of time.

 

The mistake people are making here is that they are starting to get grossly unrealistic on the basis of sensitivity. If WWE had Gene Snitsky descending from the rafters last night in a Blue Blazer costume, screaming that the deaths of Kane's baby and Owen Hart were both not his fault - THAT would be horrifically offensive. Agreed. THAT would be something to complain about, no doubt. But to keep arguing over the idea that a distraught father vowed revenge on his son's murder - keep in mind now, threatening to "kill him" is only a figure of speech - is terribly offensive when someone died in that arena five years ago just seems way too extreme in the realm of political correctness and sensitivity.

[Slayer 0]

If WWE had Gene Snitsky descending from the rafters last night in a Blue Blazer costume, screaming that the deaths of Kane and Owen Hart were both not his fault - THAT would be horrifically offensive.

This mental picture made bust out laughing in the middle of work

 

NY Untouchable is soooo my 82nd favorite TSM poster

[Enigma 0]

...What he said.

[Exslade ZX 0]

(a)was a main topic of the night and there was no thought of "hey, Owen died here... maybe this could be tasteless", in other words, that there wasn't anyone there to say what really should have been said and

BUT...(and this is neither helping, nor hurting the 'WWE's case'...the angle as a whole is 'tasteless', but it's still "all in good fun in ways". I mean, whereever Gene first hit Kane with the chair and 'killed the baby' didn't go into a frenzy, because 'hey, some other chicks in this town have lost babies before'.

 

And also, when that happened, everyone didn't go 'OMG a reference to Owen!'...and why, just because they weren't in that arena? IF you're going to be...'offended' by that I guess...then you should always feel offended by that, and anytime someone ever in the WWE says kill...it automatically reverts back to Owen. That's not the case though, so why is it any different when you're in KC? Just because that's where it happened...?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

NL5:

 

To me, Vince admitting that he was to blame & them making a death reference last night are two different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

So you don't think there is a responsibility to Owen, his family, or just general morality, to take his death in consideration when writing storylines in that building. Well, they didn't even consider it the night that he died, so shit, I guess it *is* too much to ask for them to think about it 5 years later. There is a connection between the two, and it is very much relevant. If someones (high profile) death that you admitted responsibility for doesn't make you think of the consequences of your programming, than what will?

 

Combat:

 

Ok, so now no wrestler ever should make refrence to "killing" his opponent any time the WWE is in KC? That's just stupid. If I was a writer I still would have had Kane say something to that effect even though I'd know that Owen died there.

 

Why should death be involved in the WWE, period? The WWE supposedly doesn't do murder angles, yet they clearly go against their own rules. But for some reason that's ok. For some reason they keep getting away with murder. Why? I have my thoughts on why, but I'd like to know why the people who continually shrug this stuff off, shrug it off. So far I've heard "Life goes on"...

 

"There's no murder. There's no attempted murder. There's no shotgun blasts. There's no Uzis used. You don't see any guts hanging out. Nobody's brains are blown out. There's no rape, there's no robbery. You're going to see blood, but only when used properly. Because after a while, like anything else, that can get to be gratuitous. We're sensitive to what we do and when we do it. So how bad are we? Compared to everything else, we're Sunday school." - Vince Mcmahon

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Besides the mentions of death in both incidents, there are absolutely no connections between the two of them. They are both parallel incidents, and it seems somewhat ridiculous that people are desperately trying to cling onto something that isn't there.

 

Death is a touchy subject, so is rape, yet the WWEs flagrant use of both is disregarded both by the media and by the majority of their fans. This is about accountability, this is about the WWE being responsible for what they write. Owen Hart died 5 years ago in that building and there appears to be NO RESPECT AT ALL for that, as they -in that building- continued to treat Death as a storyline, as a tool.

 

Vince McMahon might not have picked up on the idea that Kane was threatening to kill his child's killer in the same arena Owen Hart plummeted to his death - but why would he? The situations are not similiar, and what it sounds like you're proposing is a complete ban on the word "death" whenever WWE steps into Kansas City, from 1999 to the end of time.

 

Why would he? HE ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWENS DEATH. How in gods name could he enter that arena and NOT think about Owen? How could anyone on that roster? It was the first thing that came to my mind when they said "Kempler Arena, Kansas City" and I didn't know him or have any attachment to his death or was involved in a lengthy lawsuit or had to give up 18 million in liability.

 

The mistake people are making here is that they are starting to get grossly unrealistic on the basis of sensitivity. If WWE had Gene Snitsky descending from the rafters last night in a Blue Blazer costume, screaming that the deaths of Kane's baby and Owen Hart were both not his fault - THAT would be horrifically offensive.

 

I said *in this thread* that I wasn't outraged over it. I brought up the bigger issue that you have thus far completely ignored and perhaps misinterpreted.

 

Agreed. THAT would be something to complain about, no doubt. But to keep arguing over the idea that a distraught father vowed revenge on his son's murder - keep in mind now, threatening to "kill him" is only a figure of speech - is terribly offensive when someone died in that arena five years ago just seems way too extreme in the realm of political correctness and sensitivity.

 

Yeah, Death and Murder really should be treated like anything else. Especially such a tiny, insignificant, death like Owens. It's really just spilled milk in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest Loss]

Rudo is discussing the incident and the responsibilities WWE has to tow the line. Great One is attacking him for being too negative instead of responding with counterpoints. nxlwhatevernumbersarehere seems to be the only person who totally disagrees with Rudo that isn't trying to engage him in a flame war. Please knock it off.

[Guest GreatOne]

Rudo is discussing the incident and the responsibilities WWE has to tow the line. Great One is attacking him for being too negative instead of responding with counterpoints.

Whether he's negative or not I could give a flying fuck, I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to have a three-page topic on this issue, considering that outside of us on the board not a lot of people really give a shit about it or not. It's not like there's gonna be a big mass boycott cause of this.

 

Hell if I wanted to turn up the heat who's to say there weren't idiot assholes in the building who started chanting BORING when Owen was laying there dead? Does it make Vince an asshole cause he's catering to them more than us? Morally perhaps but financially no cause they're the ones buying WWE stuff (tix, merchandise, etc) at a higher ratio than us.

 

And might I ask the most simple question, who's getting hurt here? Martha Hart maybe but she doesn't watch anymore. A few in the back might have had their widdle feewings hurt but hell, miscarriages happen everyday and no one seems to touch on THAT issue, just hundreds of pages on the retardedness of the angle.

 

Are we just TRYING to recreate the whole PTC/Vince war or what here?

[nl5xsk1 0]

NL5:

 

To me, Vince admitting that he was to blame & them making a death reference last night are two different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

So you don't think there is a responsibility to Owen, his family, or just general morality, to take his death in consideration when writing storylines in that building.  Well, they didn't even consider it the night that he died, so shit, I guess it *is* too much to ask for them to think about it 5 years later.  There is a connection between the two, and it is very much relevant.  If someones (high profile) death that you admitted responsibility for doesn't make you think of the consequences of your programming, than what will?

No, I really don't they have any responsibility to not say certain things, just because of where they are. It's more offensive to me that there is an entire storyline based on a miscarriage than about a fluke death, regardless of the city that they're in.

 

And, what do you mean, "the consequences of your programming"? Are these consequences just viewers being offended? Like I said above, it's more offensive that they repeatedly use a miscarriage as part of a storyline than anything else. Anything up to "I'll leave you as dead as Owen" or "I'll kill you faster than a fall from the roof" pales in comparison to the miscarriage crap.

 

(BTW, You won't ever see me make excuses about running the rest of the show that night, that was inexcusable.)

 

EDIT: Loss, I'd started this, and then got too busy at work to finish posting it, so started it before you're 'knock it off' request. Feel free to delete as desired, no offense will be taken

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Forgetting the Owen remark for one minute, I find it more offensive that they're making a babyface out of a rapist. Heck, they haven't even mention that tiny fact, that Kane raped Lita, since the angle began.

[Guest Loss]

Whether he's negative or not I could give a flying fuck, I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to have a three-page topic on this issue, considering that outside of us on the board not a lot of people really give a shit about it or not. It's not like there's gonna be a big mass boycott cause of this.

This is the WWE folder. Nothing is going to affect the world at large that is discussed in here. That's the nature of what is being discussed. Rudo did not suggest that a boycott was going to take place. He merely suggested that the company should have a moral obligation to tread lightly here. I get the impression you hate wrestling, since you keep harping on how stupid and meaningless it is.

 

Hell if I wanted to turn up the heat who's to say there weren't idiot assholes in the building who started chanting BORING when Owen was laying there dead? Does it make Vince an asshole cause he's catering to them more than us? Morally perhaps but financially no cause they're the ones buying WWE stuff (tix, merchandise, etc) at a higher ratio than us.

 

And yeah, pandering to those types has done him wonders the past three years, hasn't it? Here's some news that many WWE fanboys seem unwilling to accept -- the boom is over. The company is only making money because Linda McMahon is a financial wizard. It's not because they're doing anything right from a booking standpoint. The question isn't whether or not Vince is an "asshole", the question is whether or not Vince has a sense of obligation to show respect.

 

Then again, I guess he's not concerned with showing respect for Owen unless he's using TV time to push for his remembrance as everyone's favorite RAW moment on the 10th anniversary, just so Vince will look like that much more of a humanitarian.

 

Whether it's "relevant" or not, it's certainly reflective of how out of touch Vince is with real life when he thinks that he can book himself as a good guy and become one automatically.

 

And might I ask the most simple question, who's getting hurt here? Martha Hart maybe but she doesn't watch anymore. A few in the back might have had their widdle feewings hurt but hell, miscarriages happen everyday and no one seems to touch on THAT issue, just hundreds of pages on the retardedness of the angle.

 

Actually, Dave Meltzer wrote a lengthy criticism of the miscarriage angle in this past week's Observer, pointing out that those who have been through it would rather not relive it for entertainment purposes. So, whether or not it has been mentioned here, it has been mentioned.

 

The guys in the back whose "widdle feewings" you are patronizing actually knew Owen. They thought it was distasteful. I personally don't see the big deal as much, but the company should be smart enough to remember where they are and choose their words carefully. As Rudo said, they're a publicly traded multi-media company with an international presence. They should be beyond such simple mistakes.

 

Are we just TRYING to recreate the whole PTC/Vince war or what here?

 

I'm personally not. But I'm not standing in Vince's corner cheering everything he says either, for fear that not doing so makes me a non-fan.

[AndrewTS 0]

Forgetting the Owen remark for one minute, I find it more offensive that they're making a babyface out of a rapist. Heck, they haven't even mention that tiny fact, that Kane raped Lita, since the angle began.

Believe me, I haven't forgotten.

 

Why the fuck should we feel sorry for Kane again? Lita yes, if you can manage to keep a straight face about this bullshit for a moment. However, kayfabe-wise, I'd say Kane's character could fuck off, since I'd have no sympathy for him whatsover.

 

There is no *intentional* entertainment to be found in this entire mess.

 

I'm expecting Lita to be revealed as the mastermind behind the "job" Gene was sent out to do...because women normally have guys stage a miscarriage that would incite their psychopath husband to go after the accomplice, and the accomplice would be just dandy with that as long as the pay was decent. It's not like women have any real attachment to their unborn children, regardless of who the father was or the circumstances surrounding it...

 

For those who think that WWE wouldn't have a woman use a miscarriage to manipulate a guy--well, they've already run an angle like that before with PMS/D'Lo.

[Guest Loss]

EDIT: Loss, I'd started this, and then got too busy at work to finish posting it, so started it before you're 'knock it off' request. Feel free to delete as desired, no offense will be taken

The topic has for the most part been productive and a good discussion, and you haven't said anything offensive. I have no reason to touch your posts.

[Guest GreatOne]

This is the WWE folder. Nothing is going to affect the world at large that is discussed in here. That's the nature of what is being discussed. Rudo did not suggest that a boycott was going to take place. He merely suggested that the company should have a moral obligation to tread lightly here. I get the impression you hate wrestling, since you keep harping on how stupid and meaningless it is.

No I don't--and have been a fan for years thank you (you should know that based on the Flair argument we just had a few days ago), but I know where WWE is in the grand scheme of things.

 

That said, what the hell's the grand objective here? Just to blow off steam? Hell don't even watch period if you're disgusted with what's going on, it's less taxing. You argue about this like it's another Bush/Kerry argument, and it CLEARLY couldn't be any further from it because it's, you know, ENTERTAINMENT, not real life.

 

And yeah, pandering to those types has done him wonders the past three years, hasn't it? Here's some news that many WWE fanboys seem unwilling to accept -- the boom is over. The company is only making money because Linda McMahon is a financial wizard. It's not because they're doing anything right from a booking standpoint. The question isn't whether or not Vince is an "asshole", the question is whether or not Vince has a sense of obligation to show respect.

 

The boom's over, when did that happen? Back to being serious, they still have to look at their fanbase, and I wasn't even talking about from a booking standpoint.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It's all very well to say that we shouldn't take this stuff seriously, but that's a big reason that nothing draws. If nobody took Austin v Rock at WM X-7 seriously, it wouldn't have done anywhere near the numbers it did. Comedy and other stuff you shouldn't take seriously is fine for the midcard, but it absolutely is not fine for angles that are meant to draw and/or meant to build people up.

[Guest GreatOne]

And Kane/Snitsky should be meant to draw?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

And Kane/Snitsky should be meant to draw?

I never said it was meant to draw, but it's clearly meant to build Snitsky up so it at least means something when Kane obliterates him. It also appears to be designed to turn Kane face. Both of these objectives are a little hard to accomplish if nobody takes the angle seriously, and they aren't.

[Guest GreatOne]

Not really it just gives them more or less something to do and SOMEWHAT build Snitsky up without totally burying Kane again.

 

I don't know if I'm really ready for Kane to go back to being a face, I wasn't really aware that his turning face wasn't more "a pity face turn" or "wow he can take all these crap angles and jobs and still bounce back' thing.

[benoit4hor 0]

I don't even know if I believe the story that anyone was upset at all backstage. It sounds like because it was at that arena they wanted to somehow work a Owen related story into it. In fact usually any story that starts out with something like "The word around the lockeroom is" or "The original plan was to"

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Wait, I thought Kane was stalking Lita, and just wanted her to consent to sex, hence the "yes, Kane, I'll do it" while standing over the downed Matt Hardy.

 

Now, that isn't exactly love-making, it's more "giving in" than "rape". Rape in and of itself is an incredibly traumatizing thing, and Lita didn't seem like that after the incident happened. She might have been quiet or whatever, but not for long.

 

Basically, she gave in to having sex to save her boyfriend, and they did it. It wasn't the true definition of rape at all. There was consent, it just wasn't attained in the best of manners.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Now, that isn't exactly love-making, it's more "giving in" than "rape". Rape in and of itself is an incredibly traumatizing thing, and Lita didn't seem like that after the incident happened. She might have been quiet or whatever, but not for long.

 

Basically, she gave in to having sex to save her boyfriend, and they did it. It wasn't the true definition of rape at all. There was consent, it just wasn't attained in the best of manners.

It was rape, pure and simple. Lita did not give her free and willing consent; she only gave consent under duress. That is rape. Go look it up.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

I try to be somewhat nice to the WWE and i'm wrong. Damn them.

[Guest Quik]

My God, I just figured out where the angle is heading.

 

Matt Hardy sent Gene Snitsky to kill the baby. Matt returns, turns heel, Kane goes face, and we get a shitty blowoff at Wrestlemania.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

I got a sick feeling Snitsky will go over Kane at the ppv for if no other reason, to fool the smarks. Maybe Lita will turn then, but I have a feeling we'll see Snitsky for quite a while.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I just hope they do some follow up to the "doing a job" comment. It had to have been Matt or Lita who paid him to do it. They'll probably just ignore it and move on though, with Snitsky losing the PPV match and falling back into oblivion.

[AndrewTS 0]

My God, I just figured out where the angle is heading.

 

Matt Hardy sent Gene Snitsky to kill the baby. Matt returns, turns heel, Kane goes face, and we get a shitty blowoff at Wrestlemania.

My suspects, in this order:

 

1. Shane

2. Lita

3. Matt