Raw 10/01/2011 Discussion

[King Pitcos]

Thanks alot you've just ruined wrestlemania, I was only expecting Raw spoilers?

 

Yeah, Shawn is definitely wrestling Sting at WrestleMania, because a lad on the UKFF said so.

Hey, I got it from a reliable source.

[The Dart]

* Speaking of Lawler and crowd reactions, boy did the place go mild when he came out, in fucking Tennessee of all places.

 

Well he will have already been introduced to the crowd before Raw went on the air and they'd seen him in an angle. The second "pop" of the evening is hardly likely to be as big as the first.

[TheBigBoot]

Bit more of an "edge" to the show this week I thought, with Cena's use of the word "ass" and Punk teasing suicide off of the Titantron.

 

Hopefully WWE continues to push the boundary of what they can do under the PG umbrella.

 

Oh, and Alberto Del Rio absolutely radiates "superstar". If this guy is not WWE/World Champion some day then it is an absolute travesty in my opinion.

 

John Cena issued an apology on Twitter for using the word "ass" on RAW, claiming he was fined for the non-PG language. Cena wrote on Twitter.com/JohnCena:

 

"Lots of posts about my language last night on Raw. I do apologize. It was out of line and I was indeed fined. If I have offended anyone it was not my intention."

 

That's pretty poor really considering how the word ass used to be flung around, even in catchphrases, not that long ago. I didn't realise ass was a word that was too bad for PG either actually. I remember as a kid watching Mrs Doubtfire which is a PG and at one point the word "sh*t" is used but maybe film PG ratings are different to TV PG ratings.

 

It was a '12' at the cinema (and PG-13 in the States). I believe the video was released as PG after they cut some of the more offensive language out for the UK audience. You picked an interesting example because that film was pretty controversial at the time though because of the language, here's an article from the Independent (this was the only one I could find but I remember reading about it at the time so it was discussed). I found the parts in bold interesting (and possibly relevant to this discussion in terms of how WWE likes to portray their product):

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/film-...er-1393822.html

 

Film stars lost for words: But why does Mrs Doubtfire have to swear? asks David Lister

 

DAVID LISTER

 

Sunday, 13 February 1994

 

NOW this I wish I'd heard. I refer to the conversation that apparently took place between the British Board of Film Classification and Twentieth Century Fox, the makers of Mrs Doubtfire, the box office hit based on a children's novel.

 

The censors refused the film a U or PG certificate and gave it a 12 instead, which means that it cannot be seen in the cinema by children under 12 even if their parents want them to. The problem, the censors explained to Fox, concerned three lines spoken by Robin Williams, the star. Williams plays a father who dresses as a nanny in order to see his estranged children. He tells his ex-wife's boyfriend, in graphic detail, about her sexual proclivities, which include an aggressive appetite for oral sex. 'She's got a power tool in the bedroom . . . I'm surprised it hasn't broken her teeth.'

 

Fox refused to remove the three lines, even though its advertising campaign invites cinema-goers to 'bring the family'. In a reversal of the usual form, parents besieged the censors' offices with calls complaining that their children weren't allowed to hear sexual innuendo. The censors took the unusual step of issuing an explanatory press release. 'The board,' said the director, James Ferman, 'asked for some of this speech to be removed, in particular references to her use of sex aids, to her fondness for oral sex and to the possibility that she had a sexually transmitted disease.' Mr Ferman acknowledged that the language was not explicit and some of the jokes might not be understood by children. But, he added, the censors had 'learnt from experience that many parents would find such lines unsuitable in a PG film'.

 

Silly old censors, then, making fools of themselves as censors always do. Except that, after seeing the film last week, I think the censors happen to be right and Fox wrong. I accept that the scene in question was quite funny, with the words delivered at a breakneck speed which would have passed over a lot of children's heads anyway. But were they really necessary? There is no such dialogue in Anne Fine's book. And it surely can't have been beyond the wit of Hollywood screenplay writers to have found Robin Williams three alternative and equally amusing lines that would have satisfied the censors.

 

Then again perhaps it was beyond their wit. The assault last year by Michael Medved on Hollywood values has led to a rethink on showing graphic sex and violence in popular films. But there is one pervasive trend it remains unfashionable to question: needless bad language. And not least in children's films.

 

In Mrs Doubtire Robin Williams is fond of calling people he doesn't care for 'bastard'. Again, the word doesn't appear in the book. But this is tame stuff compared with other Hollywood movies made for kids. I have watched with my children one of the most popular videos for the sub-teens called Adventures in Babysitting. This enjoyable fantasy has a teenage girl babysitter taking kids on a trip through New York. But at one point a potential mugger confronts them threatening repeatedly, 'Don't fuck with me'. Why? 'Don't mess with me' would have been just as effective and just as threatening.

 

Apart from Merchant Ivory Edwardiana, British films are if anything worse. This month I was at the London Evening Standard annual British Film Awards where clips were shown from prize-winning films. Nearly all of them included a stream of four-letter words. British directors - who cling to gritty realism and wonder why they get such low audiences - patronisingly assume that no working-class conversation takes place without swearing.

 

I am not squeamish. But I think bad language should be used in films sparingly, so that when it is used it shocks or gives an emotional release. If it is a staple of nearly every screenplay then we lose a whole underground vocabulary. What can a writer fall back on to express anger or pain or despair?

 

Real venom is actually better expressed without swearing. When Rosamund said coldly to her husband, Dr Lydgate, in last week's episode of Middlemarch, 'My, what a mess you've made of things,' his devastation was as clear as the breakdown of the marriage and much more poignantly so than if she had spat out 'asshole'.

 

Why does the film industry find it so necessary to include swearing and innuendo in the most unlikely vehicles? When I asked the head of Twentieth Century Fox in Britain last week, he gave a straight answer. American scriptwriters deliberately inserted at least one F-word or sexually explicit reference as this would automatically get the film a 13 certificate in the United States and 'give it some bite for the hard-bitten youth of America'. Distributors sometimes write this imperative into producers' contracts. This led to the inclusion of a 'f. . . me' from Will Scarlett in the American version of Robin Hood, Prince Of Thieves.

 

But I think the film industry is wrong. Look at the success of old-fashioned romances such as Strictly Ballroom, at the huge Disney revival, at those Merchant Ivory films. Children as much as adults use the cinema for escapism and not as a mirror of the seedier side of street life.

 

Much more important, cinema and television are the two most influential media in the world: they should try to lead, to set standards rather than reflect the dated assumptions of Hollywood screenplay writers. The big studios should think about it from a marketing point of view, if from no other. Parents are uncomfortable watching scenes that include bad language and sexual innuendo with their children. Cut it out and you'll get a bigger family audience. Robin Williams doesn't need to use vibrator jokes to be funny.

[textonly]

While hanging around for NXT last night I caught a bit of the edited "Late Night Raw" they show and they completely cut the segments of Husky getting whipped and Punk on the 'Tron. Very strange, I thought. I could understand it being cut from the earlier editions, but were they really so disturbing for an audience watching at 11pm? Ehh.

[Cobra1000]

While hanging around for NXT last night I caught a bit of the edited "Late Night Raw" they show and they completely cut the segments of Husky getting whipped and Punk on the 'Tron. Very strange, I thought. I could understand it being cut from the earlier editions, but were they really so disturbing for an audience watching at 11pm? Ehh.

 

it could potentially be because of time constraints, but if not yeah its kinda weird...

[The Invisible Boy]

I suppose like other people have said earlier in the thread the Punk thing was a little strange as it did seem as though he was teasing his own suicide, jumping from that height would have obviously either seriously injured someone or killed them and Punk at one point even mentioned himself in the past tense with "I was the Nexus leader" or something along those lines. It did when it happened shock me a little and the whole thing strangely made me have a quick thought of the tragic fatal Owen Hart fall. I suppose Sky saw this being a little too dark for a young audience and thought of people messing around copying Punk, going to a high drop saying they'd jump off and maybe slipping off accidently, I know it's a stupid thing to do but Sky would have to think of all of these things as there are stupid people who might try and copy that thing.

 

I suppose the thing with Husky getting the lashes was because it had a dark feel to it and those people who laugh and say "wrestling's fake" would not be able to say it to that scene as it was clearly obvious he was being lashed properly and his back was beginning to turn red and welt, I'd imagine it's pretty difficult to "fake" that sort of thing. The thing is if these people who say wrestling's "fake" and laugh at it saw that they'd be the first to moan about the violence and how it was sick to see someone really being lashed like that, which may be why Sky decided to edit it out.

 

Saying that though if it was 11pm I don't understand the problem as kids shouldn't really be watching TV at that time anyway. I guess maybe it would be due to it being on a sports channel, if it was on an entertainment channel where there's violence, sex and mentions of drugs, guns and so on fair enough but on a sports channel people wouldn't expect too much violence like that and I guess the lashing went over their boundary. I can't understand it all really.

 

As for The Big Boot's post I never realised Mrs Doubtfire was such a controversial film at the time and that parts were edited out to make the video release a PG, that's something new I learnt today anyway. I never really understood the word "sh*t" being able to be on a PG but saying that I do remember showing my little cousins Back To The Future a few months ago, not having watched it in a long time myself and I was a little taken back when I heard "b*stard" being said in it, I honestly thought PG might have the odd word like bloody in it or something like that which isn't really a swear word but is considered a very minor one sometimes. I guess it is a bit difficult trying to come to a complete agreement on where the line is drawn between what kind of language or events should be shown to children. I think obviously things that aren't violent, sexual or involve foul language but may effect a child's well being, such as seeing someone do something that could threaten injury or death but looks as though it would be fun to try, adults would, or should think obviously doing that could have very bad results, whereas children don't really take those factors in mind and just try copying it. I suppose young kids, maybe about 5 or 6 hitting each other with leather belts like they were doing in the lashing of Husky would possibly be able to seriously injury each other as children are obviously a lot more fragile than grown adults and an impact of a belt like that on the back or on the head of a child if they were messing around and not being careful could cause internal damage. For example I do recall hearing about some kid dying from a stone cold stunner, which I can see if done wrongly could be fatal as it could damage the neck and windpipe but unless you think it through it it doesn't ever sound that serious, especially if you'd been watching Austin do that move week in, week out on TV.

 

But like I said it's strange they've decided to edit it out of a late night edition though, I suppose it may be due to WWE saying they're PG now and the current advance in technology means kids could Sky+ late night episodes of Raw and so on.

[PSF]

They say "Piss Off" in Harry Potter. WWE should man the fuck up. lol

[King Pitcos]

While hanging around for NXT last night I caught a bit of the edited "Late Night Raw" they show and they completely cut the segments of Husky getting whipped and Punk on the 'Tron. Very strange, I thought. I could understand it being cut from the earlier editions, but were they really so disturbing for an audience watching at 11pm? Ehh.

It probably made Raw a better show. The whipping scene was just odd, and the Titantron thing was stupid. From the way Punk was going on afterwards, it was a big gotcha moment like we were meant to think "oh he got me! I thought he was really gonna jump, damn him" or something. But I doubt there was even a single person that had that reaction to it.

[TheBigBoot]

I would imagine it did make Raw better without that stuff.

 

As for The Big Boot's post I never realised Mrs Doubtfire was such a controversial film at the time and that parts were edited out to make the video release a PG, that's something new I learnt today anyway. I never really understood the word "sh*t" being able to be on a PG but saying that I do remember showing my little cousins Back To The Future a few months ago, not having watched it in a long time myself and I was a little taken back when I heard "b*stard" being said in it, I honestly thought PG might have the odd word like bloody in it or something like that which isn't really a swear word but is considered a very minor one sometimes.

 

No problems. That was a long time ago now. It's just the sort of useless information I remember reading about when I was a teenager.

 

I think when I posted the Mrs Doubtfire stuff I said I'd post thoughts on Raw later after I'd watched it. Well it's (much) later now and there's three hours until the Rumble and I've watched it so why not?

 

Watched the past three weeks of Raw yesterday afternoon and I was impressed. I normally catch SmackDown! every week because Friday has been my designated 'wrestling night' since Eurosport started showing NJPW and WWF Raw finally came on Sky Sport around September 1995 (Thursday and Saturday night and Sunday afternoon were always the big going out days for me, anyway) but hadn't seen as much Raw after the (awesome) first episode. Watching them back-to-back I think the booking has improved as of late and you can see how they were building towards tonight. If they can keep it up until Mania (and this is normally when the TV gets really good from the post-Rumble Raw onwards) then we are in for a treat.

 

First a couple of complaints:

 

I thought the Nexus stuff was awful this week. Just weird, uncomfortable crap. Cena was at his going-through-the-motions worst as well.

Completely agree. I'm hating the Nexus/Punk stuff, it's totally uninspired crap. The Punk/suicide/tron segment was abysmal - it's like the shit they were trying around 2002/3 when they were trying too hard to shock. Not only that it made no sense. WWE have went into Cena-default with his promos during this feud too, just not that interested in him.

 

The only thing good about this show was Shawn Michaels and his shit hat turning up.

 

1. Totally agree about Nexus, disagree about Cena. It did indeed seem like something out of 2002-03 WWE or 2000 WCW or even 2003 TNA when people were comparing them to WCW 2000 as in shock for the sake of it but little actual substance. At least here there was a reason for it (getting Slater and Gabriel out of the group) but in general I