The Language of WWE

WWE, TNA, and all U.S./Canada based graps talk
User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:36 pm

DONT GET IT TWISTED!

Quentin Moody
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:23 pm

The Language of WWE

Post by Quentin Moody » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:32 pm

I've never seen this ad, this is so cringe inducing.

User avatar
BoxingRobes
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:02 pm

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by BoxingRobes » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:48 am

Brandon Howard wrote:
Rich Kraetsch wrote:Have you ever seen the WWE on Hulu ad? I don't recall the EXACT wording but it's essentially "I'm not a wrestling fan, I'm a WWE fan."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzltiVDVb5M

:shock:
I was working for Walmart and I was missing RAW each week...should I quit my job?

Image

User avatar
miles
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:11 am

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by miles » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:56 am

"...it’s just another case among many where you’re punished rather than rewarded for investing your time to be a fan."

-Brandon Howard

This sums up why I have such a hard time watching WWE. I cannot imagine someone watching RAW and turning the show off because Cole talked about the past of one of the wrestlers. It would be like the NHL refusing to acknowledge that a players was in the KHL. I know wrestling is not a sport and is probably closer to performance art.

User avatar
Brandon Howard
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Brandon Howard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:34 am

Their concern is obviously that acknowledging the past of Bryan in ROH or Monty Brown in TNA is going to result in you checking out those promotions thus making them more relevant and possibly building them up as competitors.

I understand the intent but I think a happy medium could be struck to avoid intelligence-insulting denial and ignoring elephants in the room. The Balor documentary is a great example.

Maybe an argument could be made that WWE is now so far and irreversibly ahead of the game that mentioning any other promotion really is like mentioning a minor hockey league during an NHL game.

It seems ignoring non-WWE history (or at least that of promotions still active whose video libraries they don't yet own) is an unquestioned practice that's a part of the tradition of working the audience.

You used to be able to get away with stuff like fictional title tournaments in South America so I think decision makers think they should AT LEAST be able to get away with ignoring other promotions.

Can anyone who watches UFC more regularly than me say if UFC gives Bellator the same non grata treatment?

User avatar
Rob McCarron
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:21 am
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Rob McCarron » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:57 am

UFC mentions Bellator. For example, they mentioned Eddie Alvarez' history with the promotion when he first came in. They mention previous title reigns, etc, of guys.
Shake Them Ropes
iTunes | Stitcher | Twitter |YouTube

User avatar
br26
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:53 am
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by br26 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:04 am

WWE has mentioned ROH in a few of their documentaries where it's relevant. The Shield doc mentions Rollins in ROH, same with Daniel Bryan's doc (I THINK) and definately CM Punk's. I think for Ambrose they even mentioned CZW.

I think their current rule now is to mention every place EXCEPT TNA, because TNA is a national televised product. Once they finally get dropped, I think then it's good. This is newer, but I expect them to drop ROH mentions pretty soon since they got a national TV deal and it's very obvious NXT is in direct competition with ROH.

User avatar
Padje
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Padje » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:08 am

Rich Kraetsch wrote:
Have you ever seen the WWE on Hulu ad? I don't recall the EXACT wording but it's essentially "I'm not a wrestling fan, I'm a WWE fan."
That is one of the most upsetting things I have seen.

"wrestling is for weirdos and perverts! Not for me! Now tattoo Triple H's face over my own face thanx"

User avatar
Jove
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:53 am
Location: In a chemical world, in a chemical world...

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Jove » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:28 pm

Oy vey.


Don't get it twisted. I'm not a music fan; I'm a Sony Music entertainment fan.

Don't get it twisted. I'm not a collective bargaining agreement fan; I'm an International Workers of the World fan.

Don't get it twisted. I'm not a baseball fan; I'm a Mexican Pacific League fan.

Don't get it twisted. I'm not a fascism fan; I'm a Mussolini fan.



Don't get it twisted. I'm not a kayfabe-breaking fan; I'm a VOW fan.

User avatar
Leo C
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:09 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Contact:

Re: The Language of WWE

Post by Leo C » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:15 am

Great article, a good read. Also agree that most of this language limitations are completely useless. And I love how internet trolls redirects to the F4W boards.

Post Reply