Paid Members Carbomb Posted April 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 15, 2011 I dunno about Zuffa, the impression they've given all this time is that they REALLY don't want to touch wrestling with a mile-long bargepole. There are loads of media companies out there who'd jump at the chance to buy a brand with the recognition WWE has, I think. They wouldn't be buying WWE, they'd be buying The Wrestling; there aren't many brands out there these days with such unchallenged status. I reckon Bischoff would buy it if he had the chance - pretty sure he's got the money to do it.  LOL that would be funny if Bischoff bought it and then renamed it WCW.  I know that Zuffa and Dana have disliking towards wrestling, but I figure they would buy it just so they could kill it off slowly themselves, isn't that what they did with Pride?  I never watched much of Pride but I know it was the leader in MMA, then UFC bought it and the rest as they say is history.  Pride fucked themselves by being pretty much controlled by the yakuza/tekiya. That relationship lost them their broadcasting deal, and, I think, put them under investigation, losing them a load of money, making it possible for UFC to buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted April 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 15, 2011 I dunno about Zuffa, the impression they've given all this time is that they REALLY don't want to touch wrestling with a mile-long bargepole. There are loads of media companies out there who'd jump at the chance to buy a brand with the recognition WWE has, I think. They wouldn't be buying WWE, they'd be buying The Wrestling; there aren't many brands out there these days with such unchallenged status. I reckon Bischoff would buy it if he had the chance - pretty sure he's got the money to do it.  LOL that would be funny if Bischoff bought it and then renamed it WCW.  I know that Zuffa and Dana have disliking towards wrestling, but I figure they would buy it just so they could kill it off slowly themselves, isn't that what they did with Pride?  I never watched much of Pride but I know it was the leader in MMA, then UFC bought it and the rest as they say is history.  Pride fucked themselves by being pretty much controlled by the yakuza/tekiya. That relationship lost them their broadcasting deal, and, I think, put them under investigation, losing them a load of money, making it possible for UFC to buy them.  It's also what kept them going so strong for a number of years. However when the relationship became public they lost their deal and everything fell to shit. Originally Zuffa were going to continue running Pride shows in Japan however Japanese Bureaucracy and resistance to Zuffa meant they never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 This might have already been mentioned, but folks...the shark may have been jumped; 'Sports entertainment' is apparently now not acceptable (or, at least, the 'sports' part..we know watch 'action soap opera').  WWE has sent out an information sheet to the people who do their international voice-overs in other countries called "The Language of WWE", the sheet contains a list of "Incorrect Terminology" and a list of "Correct Terminology" Here is the "The Language of WWE" Document:  "World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is a publicly traded entertainment company (NYSE: WWE) that creates and delivers a weekly action soap opera to its passionate fans. WWE has been a recognized leader in entertainment for more than 25 years and has developed into one of the most popular and sophisticated forms of global entertainment today.  As a global entertainment brand, the language that we use when communicating on WWE is critical. Please ensure that you are familiar and employing the below, effective immediately. "  Here's a look at some of the terms: * "Wrestling" or "catch" is banned. Some European countries still use the term "catch" to describe pro wrestling and "catchers" to describe wrestlers. "The Language of WWE" states that the following phrases are incorrect: "Wrestling is broadcast in 145 countries," or "Catch is broadcast in 145 countries." The correct terminology is: "WWE is broadcast in 145 countries."  * "Sports" is incorrect. "Entertainment or Action Soap Opera" is allowed. For example, "WWE is exciting entertainment" or "WWE is an exciting action soap opera" is allowed. In the last example, "action soap opera" is printed in bold, presumably to make sure there's no confusion. * "Catchers" or "wrestlers" are not allowed. Incorrect examples are "Catchers are unique characters" or "Wrestlers are unique characters." The term "WWE Superstars" is allowed.  * "Athletes" or "Sportsmen" are now allowed either. WWE gives the following example to use: "WWE Superstars are entertainers with tremendous athletic prowess." * The term "fight" is not allowed. Matches must be referred to as "match" or "bout."  * "Fighting" is also not allowed but the term "action" is. "The Language of WWE" printout concludes with the following "Key Soundbytes":  * WWE is pure entertainment * WWE is an action soap opera  * WWE Superstars are entertainers with tremendous athletic prowess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Burchill's Buddy Posted April 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 15, 2011 You're a bit late to the party on that one Daz, it's been posted in a few other threads and has it's own thread too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I wondered why I was stood, cake in hand, singing auld lang syne whilst a woman with a pinnie and a hoover looked at me funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 At the risk of sounding like a complete mug, what's debt financing/leveraging? I was wondering the same thing. This sounds like something that could seriously risk WWE's future and I honestly don't think that's a risk he should take. I've actually been looking forward to the day Triple H and Stephanie take over because I have a strong feeling that Triple H would look to put the missing W back!  Here here mate, and to be honest if the rumors are true about the new wwe logo, Im all up for it..the scratched attitude logo is abit outdated now with the p-g era but I guess we'll have to see and the one thing Im hoping HHH does the day he takes over is get rid of that stupid concussion policy that he and 'Taker got fined over  Yeah, that'll solve everything  If you want to watch people wrapping chairs round other peoples heads for no reason go and watch some backyard videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 People give the PG rating a lot of shit, yet for every negative you could mention that is associated with the rating you could probably mention a positive of greater value to a) the product, b) the business and c) the long term future of WWE. Â Personally, as far as its effect on content is concerned, I don't miss anything particularly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 the one thing Im hoping HHH does the day he takes over is get rid of that stupid concussion policy that he and 'Taker got fined over You're a mong and half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 the one thing Im hoping HHH does the day he takes over is get rid of that stupid concussion policy that he and 'Taker got fined over You're a mong and half. Â Fucking too right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted April 18, 2011 Awards Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2011 Only slightly related - I think it was this thread they were discussed in - but I was just having a look on Marvel's Facebook page and the first sentence of their Company Overview is as follows: Â With a library of over 8,000 characters, Marvel Entertainment, LLC is one of the world's most prominent character-based entertainment companies. Â So WWE's not so unique in distancing itself. Marvel Entertainment don't do comics, they do "character-based entertainment". WWE's just doing a similar sort of thing to try and expand itself from its geeky, rednecky corre [sic]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted April 18, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted April 18, 2011 So WWE's not so unique in distancing itself. Marvel Entertainment don't do comics, they do "character-based entertainment". WWE's just doing a similar sort of thing to try and expand itself from its geeky, rednecky corre [sic]. Marvel Comics is a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment. Marvel Entertainment has a large toy company which doesnt just market Marvel's characters and Marvel's characters are usually in some of the highest grossing movies of the year as well. Marvel isnt just a comic book company. Hense the name "MARVEL COMICS" for their comic bookline. If Marvel banned the word "comics" you'd have a point, but they dont. In 2011 Spider-Man is just as big of a movie character as he is a comic book character. Same cant be said for R-Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THELONEGUNMAN Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You just know that all this is the basis for fwa season 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted April 18, 2011 Awards Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2011 So WWE's not so unique in distancing itself. Marvel Entertainment don't do comics, they do "character-based entertainment". WWE's just doing a similar sort of thing to try and expand itself from its geeky, rednecky corre [sic]. Marvel Comics is a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment. Marvel Entertainment has a large toy company which doesnt just market Marvel's characters and Marvel's characters are usually in some of the highest grossing movies of the year as well. Marvel isnt just a comic book company. Hense the name "MARVEL COMICS" for their comic bookline. If Marvel banned the word "comics" you'd have a point, but they dont. In 2011 Spider-Man is just as big of a movie character as he is a comic book character. Same cant be said for R-Truth. Â Didn't know about the subsidiary thing, assumed it was the same sort of deal. I retire from the thread red-faced and ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 In 2011 Spider-Man is just as big of a movie character as he is a comic book character. Same cant be said for R-Truth. I'd say he's bigger in films than he is in comics. All he's done in comics is this shit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 In 2011 Spider-Man is just as big of a movie character as he is a comic book character. Same cant be said for R-Truth. I'd say he's bigger in films than he is in comics. All he's done in comics is this shit: Â Hah! I love that. Batista might as well be saying "Shut the fuck up Hardy you life long midcarder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.