Red Turns Green. But does it really?

2521 Views 34 Replies 32 Participants Last post by DualShock, Sep 28, 2012

Punkhead

Discussion Starter · Sep 26, 2012

"Red Turns Green" otherwise means "blood draws". But does it really sell. And does WWE need blood. I think they don't need blood, as long as they produce quality wrestling. But when they don't do good wrestling, like TNA in 2010, the blood doesn't help. TNA had shitty wrestling and brought in way too much blood and it got even worse. So WWE doesn't need blood to be better. All they need is good wrestling. Your thoughts?

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

Issues_Sunshyne

· #2 · Sep 26, 2012

I don't think blood matters in wrestling as much anymore. Wrestlers can bleed all match and it wont have the impact it once had, thus not worth it.

Used correctly, blood really does create major interest in a match however, but it's when blood appears on more than 1 match on a card and neither are hard way, what's the point?

ZigglersHandshake

· #3 · Sep 26, 2012

Very sparingly in a realistic manner is fine, but I generally prefer not to see blood in wrestling. The amount used in 2010 TNA was disgusting.

Patrick Bateman

· #4 · Sep 26, 2012

Blood can be good in matches like Hell in a Cell and stuff like that, but it isn't necessary.

Lm2

· #5 · Sep 26, 2012

it adds realism lets face it you get hit with steel steps or hit with a chair or a blunt object you are going to get cut, the fact is blood makes it real and i think if used right it gives the affect. stupid wwe and no blood.

11rob2k

· #6 · Sep 26, 2012

No matches need blood, but it does sometime help it, Brock vs Cena was a match where the blood made that match great, it helped show just how bad Brock was taking it to Cena, I don't think that match would have stood out as much as it does without Cena bleeding all through the match.

Blood can be great but only if it's used very rarely and we only seen it in 1-2 matches a year,

Timber Timbre

· #7 · Sep 26, 2012

For some weird reason, I thought this thread was about rep points.

WWE could use blood sparingly, but they need to make it a special occation. Limiting it to PPVs could be a logical compromise as you tend to get less kids watching those.

Reactions: 1

Alleluia

· #8 · Sep 26, 2012

I agree. Blood is not necessary.

Certified G

· #9 · Sep 26, 2012

This was said way back in the day when people thought wrestlers got busted open for real, but most people know it doesn't work that way anymore. Wrestling/promotion names draw, not much else really..

HankHill_85

· #10 · Sep 26, 2012

When used at the right moment in the right match, it can greatly enhance the story being told. Would Bret/Austin at WM 13 be considered as iconic as it is if it weren't for that classic image of a bleeding, screaming Austin trapped in the Sharpshooter?

There have been feuds in the past, even in this PG era that I think blood could've been used. Edge/Taker in HIAC and the HHH/Orton match from WM 25 immediately come to mind.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone bleeds, hard way or not in the Punk/Cena HIAC match.

superfestus

· #11 · Sep 26, 2012

All in moderation. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. I remember the bloodfests in ECW and SMW and it was a snnozefest after a few years. Also, the whole Abdulah the Butcher thing with hepatitis makes me kind of sketched out by the idea of blading. But would fake blood work? Would people go for it? I mean, people buy into wrestling and it is fake. Why does the blood have to be real? Can't people suspend disbelief on the fake blood? Tangent, sorry.

HankHill_85

· #12 · Sep 26, 2012

You mean like lending credence to that age-old, wrestling hater theory that it's "just blood capsules" or even ketchup?

rickyboy123

· #13 · Sep 26, 2012

back in the 70s and 80s it probably did, thats the era the phrase comes from, nowadays it clearly doesnt matter to much

BrendenPlayz

· #14 · Sep 27, 2012

I think in matches like HIAC and the Elimination Chamber where it is 'brutal' having no blood kind of tones down the match. I like seeing blood when it is used right like others said before me, using it in a hell in a cell type match or after a guy takes something to the head seems logical to me.

#BadNewsSanta

· #15 · Sep 27, 2012

Blood isn't need, but if it's only showcased one in a while, it brings a match's brutality up. See Lesnar/Cena.

The above post by me is completely 103% objective with no bias whatsoever. The most objective anyone else can be is 100%. I am 103%, which means I am more objective than you. This cannot be refuted. I have used numbers to back up these statements. It is completely truthful and thus if you say otherwise, you are blinded by your own self-delusion. If you think the prior two sentences are wrong, then I'm sorry to say you are still letting your subjective bias cloud your thoughts.

This signature is supported by objective facts. The previous sentence is the whole truth. Thus everything said in this signature is the truth. If you choose to argue with me on any of this, you're simply wasting your time posting your incorrect opinions. If you agree with me, then congratulations! You are correct and one of the objective truth telling people of the world on whatever it is you agree with me about!

Mr. Ziggles

· #16 · Sep 27, 2012

Yes.

People like violence, it's in our DNA.

Ziggler Mark

· #17 · Sep 27, 2012

blood doesnt make the product better. More believable? yes

But to make the product better, they need compelling storylines and actual good matches, not blood.

Punkhead

Discussion Starter · #18 · Sep 27, 2012

superfestus said:
All in moderation. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. I remember the bloodfests in ECW and SMW and it was a snnozefest after a few years. Also, the whole Abdulah the Butcher thing with hepatitis makes me kind of sketched out by the idea of blading. But would fake blood work? Would people go for it? I mean, people buy into wrestling and it is fake. Why does the blood have to be real? Can't people suspend disbelief on the fake blood? Tangent, sorry.

Make wrestling even faker so the haters have something more to pick on? No.

Marv95

· #19 · Sep 27, 2012

Bottom line is when it comes to certain matches like HIAC, Chambers, many No DQ matches, etc. there has to be some sort of blood(hard way or not, and not edited out either) to make the match concept believable otherwise it looks cheap and more fake than it actually does. That's how they drew in previous years before things got too toned down. Same with certain feuds. Brock/HHH lacked blood which is why it didn't live up to expectations. Same with Rock/Cena; yes the match did need some blood based on the personal feud they had. Same for HHH/Orton at Mania, Punk/Jericho and to an extent Taker/HHH. And if Punk/Cena doesn't have blood at HIAC then unless something shocking happens the match isn't worth it.

Mainstream wrestling is based on violence. Always has been. HIAC is supposed to be brutal, one of the most dangerous matches EVER. A "career changer". How am I supposed to take it seriously if someone doesn't get literally busted open?

Boss P

· #20 · Sep 27, 2012

Blood is as much a storytelling tool as anything else in wrestling. It can improve a match/segment and be used to drive home the severity of a situation. It can also be done safety or be done in a way in which an individual isn't forced to self-mutilate (blood packets).

Even though constant blood would be more realistic (these guys don't even block punches to their head), everybody with common sense knows it shouldn't be overused for psychology/creative reasons. With that said, there's no logic based on any science explaining why it should be stopped entirely.

Does wrestling need blood? I don't know. Does wrestling need theme songs, self-indulgent entrances, catchphrases, cinematic video packages chronicling story arcs and feuds, chair shots, table spots, hell in a cell matches, ladder matches, falls count anywhere matches, battle royals and the like? History would say no since none of those existed for most of pro wrestling's existence, and blood predates all those things in this industry. Blood is a natural by-product of violence, and violence is unfortunately coded in the fiber of humanity which would make it a huge disservice in narrative not to include it in any fiction, much less something so based on violence as wrestling.

Of all the things wrestling should do increase the cultural relevance it has, or even maintain the small amount they currently hold, getting rid of blood isn't one of them.

Only use it when the time is right, but use it.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 35 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.