Wrestling Forum banner

PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audience?

1126 Views 16 Replies 11 Participants Last post by  jonoaries
In 2004 there was bloodshed at pretty much every PPV. It got the the point where the crowd weren't reacting half as loudly as they should have been.

In 2005 and 2006 this trend continued. The first two ONS PPV's, in particular, kept the crimson in the spotlight. Fans ate it up to such a degree that in my opinion, it began to lose effect. Chants of 'We Want Fire'! at a WWE PPV were surely a sign that things had gone too far. . .

Have more PG-orientated stipulation matches been rather necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audience?

-

Far be it from me to make a thread pining for 'non-PG' days. That isn't the point of this thread at all. On one hand, I fully back professional wrestling in 2011 as far safer than it was a decade, even five years ago. Certainly it makes more sense that way. I am fully aware that shifting the focus away from violent spots has led the product away from 'easy pop' match booking. Stories are now told. For example, match narrative is far better, in my opinion, than it was in 1998. Let me proclaim loud and clear: I enjoy the PG product. I don't begrudge anybody for making the descision.

Part of my enjoyment was born not of the ACTION of the strike and blood, but of the POSSIBILITY. The build. The tease. Case and point.

I think that its pretty safe to say that is pretty awesome, right? It screams spectacle.

How about this

A bloodied Austin applies a messy as hell sharpshooter. You couldn't see the blood because it was black and white, so I added my own. Exhaustion has set in. These guys have gone 30 minutes. Blood is used to stress the importance. It feels urgent. It feels like a spectacle. Is crimson neccessary? No. Does it heighten, amplify and boost everything up a notch? For me, a resounding yes.

Should the product go back to how it was in the late 90s /early 00s? No. That would be a regression. I enjoy equally the emphasis placed in other areas today. But do I miss the spectacle of seeing that stuff? Absolutely. And that doesn't make me a bad person. Probably. Hopefully.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Quite an interesting question you pose. While I'm sure parents are quite supportive of the lack of blood, fans (myself included) feel it necessary in certain situations in order to convey a message of hate and add an element of realism to the match. Now that we haven't seen purposeful blading onscreen for a couple of years now, it would be great to reintroduce it to the audience, just not nearly as much as in 05 and 06. Bust it out every once in awhile in a big match to add that extra something to the match.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,512 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Absolutely. The rate at which the violence in the product increased over those years was insane, and was in no way sustainable, for the crowd, for the wrestler's health, and for the quality of matches.

The proof will be the next time someone blades. The crowd reaction will be nuts.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Quite an interesting question you pose. While I'm sure parents are quite supportive of the lack of blood, fans (myself included) feel it necessary in certain situations in order to convey a message of hate and add an element of realism to the match. Now that we haven't seen purposeful blading onscreen for a couple of years now, it would be great to reintroduce it to the audience, just not nearly as much as in 05 and 06. Bust it out every once in awhile in a big match to add that extra something to the match.
Because a perfectly straight cut across somebody's forehead in every other match is realistic.:rolleyes:
 

· I'm a Paul Heyman Guy.
Joined
·
775 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Having too much blood in Wrestling is a bad thing anyway.

Look at Ric Flair, he's bleeding every episode of Impact. It just becomes boring, to quote J.R, Wrestlers need to be "busted wide open" at PPV's mainly during a big feud, it just builds more suspense and drama to it all. Doing it all the time just makes it predictable and boring.

But there is also a problem of having no blood at all, which is what the WWE does now. Or at least try to, sometimes Wrestlers just end up bleeding in the match anyway, they went over the top sometimes turning the greyscale mode on.

Blood in Wrestling can be a good thing, but they need to know the limits of too much and none at all.

So yeah, 're-sensitizing the audience', they may have done, and maybe it was a good idea. But now blood is nonexistent, which pretty much sucks.

Blood doesn't have to be in a match to make it suspenseful and dramatic, but it sure can help.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Yeah i think they have purposefully cut down on the blood to make it more of a WOW moment when sombody does bleed. Look at Austins face during his match with bret hart during the new-generation era, that picture is very notable because there wasnt so much blood back then. Since then until 2006 ish blood was pretty much standard in PPV's.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Hell in a Cell, TLC, etc. It would be nice to see a little bit of blood. But that's it. No other night needs to have blood.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Far be it from me to make a thread pining for 'non-PG' days. That isn't the point of this thread at all. On one hand, I fully back professional wrestling in 2011 as far safer than it was a decade, even five years ago. Certainly it makes more sense that way. I am fully aware that shifting the focus away from violent spots has led the product away from 'easy pop' match booking. Stories are now told. For example, match narrative is far better, in my opinion, than it was in 1998. Let me proclaim loud and clear: I enjoy the PG product. I don't begrudge anybody for making the descision.

Part of my enjoyment was born not of the ACTION of the strike and blood, but of the POSSIBILITY. The build. The tease. Case and point.

I think that its pretty safe to say that is pretty awesome, right? It screams spectacle.

How about this

A bloodied Austin applies a messy as hell sharpshooter. You couldn't see the blood because it was black and white, so I added my own. Exhaustion has set in. These guys have gone 30 minutes. Blood is used to stress the importance. It feels urgent. It feels like a spectacle. Is crimson neccessary? No. Does it heighten, amplify and boost everything up a notch? For me, a resounding yes.

Should the product go back to how it was in the late 90s /early 00s? No. That would be a regression. I enjoy equally the emphasis placed in other areas today. But do I miss the spectacle of seeing that stuff? Absolutely. And that doesn't make me a bad person. Probably. Hopefully.
A good point is a fact that blood can be part of every MATCH, most spectacles such as cages and flipping onto a table are more risky and has costs.

Its inetivtable that blood is part of a spectacle alot more than anything else because its, blood. everyone has it and it costs nothing.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
46,378 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

I've said it before. If you don't want to be over the top violent, that's fine. If you don't want to have intentional blood, that's fine.

However, you can't do Hell in a Cell & Extreme Rules PPVs, sell them as the most violent shows ever, and then deliver half assed versions of that. Within your own rules, you can not deliver on it being a mega violent PPV, so why even try? WWE only backed themselves into a corner on that one. Its one or the other man. PICK!!!

Also, I hope to God they've stopped with stopping the match to stitch up a wound. In the ring, on live TV, shit happens every now and then. Don't put your workers in a bad spot where they have to make up for you killing their momentum. And besides, this is a show about a fictional combat sport where men settle their differences, achieve their goals, & work for a living by FIGHTING!!! You can only take the kiddie friendliness so far before you become absurd. Even in goofy kid shows, I've seen characters die after fights! So is it that hard to accept somebody getting a bloody nose during a match? If its an accident, just let the workers keep doing their thing and it'll be fine.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

I agree, I'm also a fan of blood in wrestling, but not to the point where it's stupidly common. I like blood to stand for something, the importance of a match, a bitter rivalry.

I'm going to be a bit disappointed if there isn't blood between Taker and HHH at WM if I'm honest.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

A good point is a fact that blood can be part of every MATCH, most spectacles such as cages and flipping onto a table are more risky and has costs.

Its inetivtable that blood is part of a spectacle alot more than anything else because its, blood. everyone has it and it costs nothing.
I don't really understand your point. Yes, blood could be part of every match. I am merely asking whether this period of PG material is necessary in order to gain those heated reactions again.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

I agree, I'm also a fan of blood in wrestling, but not to the point where it's stupidly common. I like blood to stand for something, the importance of a match, a bitter rivalry.

I'm going to be a bit disappointed if there isn't blood between Taker and HHH at WM if I'm honest.
I very much doubt there will be. I actually think HHH/Undertaker is an example of a match that absolutely does not need blood?. It's not a blood fued. It's simply a battle of respect. HHH believes beating Undertaker is the last thing he needs to do.

Thematically, where is the need for blood here?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

I very much doubt there will be. I actually think HHH/Undertaker is an example of a match that absolutely does not need blood?. It's not a blood fued. It's simply a battle of respect. HHH believes beating Undertaker is the last thing he needs to do.

Thematically, where is the need for blood here?
Then you could say what's the point in a No Hold Barred match? I wouldn't expect blood if it was singles.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

Then you could say what's the point in a No Hold Barred match? I wouldn't expect blood if it was singles.
No Holds Barred matches have been going for years with no blood. 'No Holds Barred' no longer means 'hardcore'. HBK and Chris Jericho had a No Holds Barred match a few years back. The build was based around Jericho punching HBK's wife in the face. There was no blood. This HHH/Undertaker match is born of respect. Not wanting to destroy the other person in the culmination of a blood fued.

Again, there is no need for blood here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,005 Posts
Re: PG-orientated stipulation matches necessary in order to 're-sensitize' the audien

ECW started that shit. Barbed wire, flaming tables etc nobody was doing that shit here and people enjoyed wrestling just fine. But when ECW started damn near killing people every week everyone was forced to match their violence.
Blading in specific was used strategically in WWF and was not allowed in WCW at all (early-mid 90s) but all that changed. I am surprised WWE kept it up as long as they did after ECW closed.
Go back to using the blades strategically and it will mean a lot more to see blood.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top