Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/)
-   General WWE (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/)
-   -   Billy & Chuck (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/659466-billy-chuck.html)

JamesCurtis24 01-20-2013 12:42 AM

Billy & Chuck
 
What did you guys think of their tag team in early 2000?

I may be one of the few, but I actually really loved these guys as a tag team. At the time, I was younger so I'm not sure I totally understood the whole gay thing.... but regardless looking back I just think they were an awesome unique tag team.

What do you guys think?


ratman 01-20-2013 12:42 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
They were a good tag team, i liked them and Rico was pretty damn funny too

King Bebe 01-20-2013 01:51 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
They were awesome until they admitted they faked it on the wedding.

iSmackUdown 01-20-2013 02:36 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
early 2000? i think this was early 2002-2003, after wwf got the wcw stars

also, they were fucking gay lol. it was funny seeing them though, i didnt mind

KeepinItReal 01-20-2013 03:09 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
I enjoyed it, but it really was offensive and shouldn't be tolerated. Its right up there with Eugene Dinsmore's mentally challenged gimmick as something really offensive WWE shouldn't have done. WWE does a lot of things that are "offensive" but really just harmless, but gays and the mentally challenged are actually made fun of everyday in hurtful ways, particularly by children (and adults with the maturity of children who insult ppl/things as "gay" or "fag" in these forums). WWE, by showing those gimmmicks, ACTUALLY increased the chance of middle schoolers the next day saying offensive and hurtful things. So, yeah, it was just offensive.

And I know both Eugene and Billy & Chuck were good guys, but that doesn't change the fact that it was silly shock value about controversial kinds of ppl. If there was a gimmick and there was just an irrelevant detail as to their being gay, it would be one thing. But to make their entire gimmick homosexuality? Even if they're good guys that's still objectifying gays and asking the audience to see them as "the gay wrestlers," rather than wrestlers who happen to be gay. Acting like homosexuality dominates every action and mannerism of a gay person is inherently offensive.

JamesCurtis24 01-20-2013 03:15 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
I mean to say early 2000's** lol

What was up with the wedding being pulled anyways? I read on their wiki that the wedding was actually supposed to happen, and WWE was actually apparently working with gay alliances on the story line to make it appeal to people.

I'm glad to see a few of you enjoyed it, I'm sure some people will get all homophobic but I thought it was great stuff.

Billy Gunn even said in an interview that he would have taken that story line however far they wanted to take it, which is also cool I think. I think ironically there was certainly a chemistry between Billy and Chuck.

And how's this for a match ahaha



BROCK LESNAR jobbing too BILLY AND CHUCK!

JamesCurtis24 01-20-2013 03:17 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepinItReal (Post 12845538)
I enjoyed it, but it really was offensive and shouldn't be tolerated. Its right up there with Eugene Dinsmore's mentally challenged gimmick as something really offensive WWE shouldn't have done. WWE does a lot of things that are "offensive" but really just harmless, but gays and the mentally challenged are actually made fun of everyday in hurtful ways, particularly by children (and adults with the maturity of children who insult ppl/things as "gay" or "fag" in these forums). WWE, by showing those gimmmicks, ACTUALLY increased the chance of middle schoolers the next day saying offensive and hurtful things. So, yeah, it was just offensive.

And I know both Eugene and Billy & Chuck were good guys, but that doesn't change the fact that it was silly shock value about controversial kinds of ppl. If there was a gimmick and there was just an irrelevant detail as to their being gay, it would be one thing. But to make their entire gimmick homosexuality? Even if they're good guys that's still objectifying gays and asking the audience to see them as "the gay wrestlers," rather than wrestlers who happen to be gay. Acting like homosexuality dominates every action and mannerism of a gay person is inherently offensive.

What are you rambling about? Lol. The Gay Alliance not only promoted Billy and Chuck, they consulted WWE on the story line. Nobody was being made fun of.

NiKKi_SEGA 01-20-2013 03:26 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCurtis24 (Post 12845658)
What are you rambling about? Lol. The Gay Alliance not only promoted Billy and Chuck, they consulted WWE on the story line. Nobody was being made fun of.

I was making fun of it.

KeepinItReal 01-20-2013 03:27 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesCurtis24 (Post 12845658)
What are you rambling about? Lol. The Gay Alliance not only promoted Billy and Chuck, they consulted WWE on the story line. Nobody was being made fun of.

Was it not comic relief based on stereotypes? Were they not reduced to JUST gay ppl, with no other significant character traits? I say the same about Scotty Goldman's Jewish gimmick, Eugene's mentally challenged gimmick, Cryme Tyme's CRYME TYME gimmick, and Eddie Guerrero's "lie, cheat, and steal" catchphrase. Good guys with stereotypes is still the perpetuation of stereotypes. And GLAAD isn't the moral authority on gays and lesbians, we can use our own brains to judge this.

ellthom 01-20-2013 04:58 AM

Re: Billy & Chuck
 
The downfall of Billy Gunn is all I am saying, alot of people liked them but I hated them with a passion :(


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2