AEW All Out 2024 - September 7th

[organizedkaos]

19 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Wait, why should they? AEW can present any kind of wrestling product aimed at any type of audience they want. If they want to present a more violent product aimed at adult fans then they absolutely can. If that means they have a smaller audience than WWE or whatever else than that's their prerogative. Personally I like the idea that different wrestling companies have different products that appeal to different audiences, tastes and demographics.

Exactly. I don't care much to watch family friendly wrestling.  As with every other form of culture there are versions I like and don't like.  The things I like don't need to be enjoyed by all, if anything my tastes run towards the polarising. All I care about is that the people who make the things I like are compensated for it and continue to do it.

If AEW is the second biggest promotion in America great, I get more AEW. This does not subsequently require them to change their product. They're arguably the second biggest promotion in America because they offer an alternative and varation is fun. I like it when there are different things that cater to different tastes.

There's stuff you can take your family to and there's stuff you can't. Turns out some products that cater for an adult audience do quite well. Go check out some of the more popular TV shows and films of the last... however many years since the supreme court overturned the hays code.

If it was doing terribly (and sure you can argue r*tings are down but the deals/PPV buyrates suggest they're doing OK) then sure there's an argument it's worth changing the product as to continue. Obviously within the content there are conversations to be had. I don't want to see needle spots very much ever but within the context of the story being told it worked.

Wrestling fans do have an odd relationship with the concept of wrestling. There's these accepted standards that arguably don't make sense but they're accepted because that's how it was done in a certain era that no longer exists.... Wrestling is s inherantly dangerous and risky (i'd argue it's part of what draws people to it). Now I'm not saying I want shoot headbuts and brain aneurysms, I'm saying the act of wrestling is risky. Probably more risky than sticking a sanitised needle through part of your body where no major veins go. But we accept certain ideas of risks because they exist in a form of wrestling we like. Then we reject other risks because they exist in a form of wrestling we don't like.

It's the same as getting pissed off at no selling staples. Why? The actual human being that is being stapled is able to no sell them. You can say the storytelling is not to your taste but don't act like it's some unrealistic blight on the concept of wrestling. It's literally happening in front of you, in reality. It's no more ridiculous than any other part of wrestling. The only reason you see it as ridiculous is because you have been desensitised to the fact that wrestling is ridiculous*


* And that's why it's bloody great

[LaGoosh]

I think the reaction to the bag choking angle has surprised me a bit. Assuming the same viewers engage with other media with violence in it (HBO shows, horror movies, video games etc. etc.) why exactly is the line of acceptability (for lack of a better term) different for wrestling than it is for other forms of entertainment?

[organizedkaos]

I did find the bag choking "a bit far" actually   Not in the idea it shouldn't be done but the execution wasn't great and if you're going to do something like that you have to nail it.

The problem is it is a thing that would kill someone. If Mox had choked Bryan out a bit and then say cut a promo or done something else I felt it'd have worked as an attack.

Instead they held it and held it, at which point you have to assume Mox is trying to kill Bryan Danielson and no-one is doing anything about it. And then after a while... he stops and wonders off. Whilst the crowd chant "this is murder" and I laughed out loud (at the chant not the asphyxiation).  I don't think comedy reactions was the intention there. I wasn't feeling what the characters were doing and part of that was using the bag rather than say, hard shots or whatnot.

Plus whilst it's an amazing visual it's not a particularly kinetic one. After about 2 minutes of Wheeler crying and Bryan breathing less and less the impact is kinda gone. I dunno, I was thinking during wednesday's arson how clever it was that they were showing little bits of Swerves reactions - because too long on him and he'd probably do something that'd snap you back into "actor is acting" - instead they gave you just enough to be thinking about how hewas feeling.  Saturday's attempted murder started to look like Pac was consoling a drunken tearful friend whilst everyone just kinda stood around awkwardly.

Edited September 9 by organizedkaos
Sinkane - How Sweet Is Your Love (Sam Ruffillo & Kapote Remix Edit)

[JLM]

I will defend the needle spot to the death. It made me genuinely appalled at Hangman.

Also, as a podcaster I listened to mentioned, it’s a spot most of us have taken. Not as extremely as that obviously, but the relatability made it hit me waaay harder than a more dangerous bump through loads of tables. I can obviously imagine it’d be painful to do the table bump, but I know exactly how a needle in the gob feels and how much I still have the lingering fear of it from my childhood.

It’s a matter of taste. Personally I thought it made me react in all the right/wrong ways and it was in sync with the story they were telling. If it’s not for you I can understand that, but things aren’t always for everyone. This is fine. 
 

I wasn’t horrified by the bag spot. I thought Bryan’s gobsmacked reaction to being smacked in the gob by Claudio and Yuta being held back were better visuals than the bag itself though.  

 

Edited September 9 by JLM

[Ironic Indie Lad]

4 minutes ago, JLM said:

It’s a matter of taste. Personally I thought it made me react in all the right/wrong ways and it was in sync with the story they were telling. If it’s not for you I can understand that, but things aren’t always for everyone. This is fine. 

 

This is how I feel about it.

I pick and choose what wrestling to watch and sometimes I am out entirely for months at a time if nothing is appealing. I checked out the spoilers for this show and THE ULTRAVIOLENCE~! definitely isn't something I want to see. I am referring specifically to the suffocation spot and the needle spot here.

But then again Ospreay v Pac is in many ways about the worst type of wrestling I can imagine so that wasn't for me either.

It's only one show though and I will almost definitely watch more AEW in the coming weeks and months.

I've been watching episodes of WWF Superstars from 1995 when I got to bed at night though so what the fuck do I know?

[organizedkaos]

It's fine, I think just need to stop looking at wrestling like it's some one size fits all thing.  People who like certain types of films don't like others, same with music.  Now whilst I'd argue a Hitchock fan could find stuff they'd enjoy in modern horror if they kept an open mind I'm not going to begrudge them not enjoying modern stuff if their tastes tend towards a different era of films. As Sickboy once pointed out, not enjoying something is often a bad thing, it means we get less pleasure from life... But we can't much control what clicks and what doesn't - it is what it is.

 

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

12 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

I think the reaction to the bag choking angle has surprised me a bit. Assuming the same viewers engage with other media with violence in it (HBO shows, horror movies, video games etc. etc.) why exactly is the line of acceptability (for lack of a better term) different for wrestling than it is for other forms of entertainment?

Movies are read and received differently than wrestling by the audience. Always have been. It is the reality, or non reality, that wrestling has created for itself. 

I handed in my PhD thesis last month which looks at how pro wrestling, and Kayfabe, has shaped social realities. It looks at how different realities are interpreted and received within contrasting contexts using examples from professional wrestling to show how we (society) treat very similar things differently based on how they are presented and subsequently understood.

Watching a movie, with the barrier of a screen and the understanding that we are watching actors portray characters that will have done the scene several times with different angles etc, is very different than seeing it live, happening to a human that we know is performing yet also know has the capacity to truly be suffering or in danger. 

It's why violence in wrestling is treated differently than violence in cinema.

Sorry, mild detour down boring academic avenues there but there is a reason why comparing the two - movies and wrestling - is problematic when looking at how violence is interpreted by the viewer. 

[JLM]

31 minutes ago, organizedkaos said:

 

The act of wrestling is risky. Probably more risky than sticking a sanitised needle through part of your body where no major veins go. But we accept certain ideas of risks because they exist in a form of wrestling we like. Then we reject other risks because they exist in a form of wrestling we don't like.

 

This really got me thinking about Elix Skipper walking the cage. Unforgivably reckless and dangerous. Just one of the most stupid and unwise spots I’ve ever seen. The slightest slip or loss of balance or wobble of the cage and he’s paralysed or killed. It could have gone so, so wrong and it’s hard to find any justification or way to condone him doing it or him being allowed to do it. The mad bastard only went and nailed it though didn’t he, and I can’t pretend I didn’t think it was one of the greatest things I’d ever seen in wrestling. Every person commenting on it any time it appears anywhere tends to say the same. 

I don’t think that means “if people react then it’s good to do dangerous shit” but as a wrestling fan I have to admit to myself that the daredevilry of it all has always held some appeal. As LaGoosh says, we’re watching people put their bodies on the line for our entertainment and I guess everyone has to find their own tolerance levels on that. 

Edited September 9 by JLM

[Chili]

9 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Movies are read and received differently than wrestling by the audience. Always have been. It is the reality, or non reality, that wrestling has created for itself. 

I handed in my PhD thesis last month which looks at how pro wrestling, and Kayfabe, has shaped social realities. It looks at how different realities are interpreted and received within contrasting contexts using examples from professional wrestling to show how we (society) treat very similar things differently based on how they are presented and subsequently understood.

Watching a movie, with the barrier of a screen and the understanding that we are watching actors portray characters that will have done the scene several times with different angles etc, is very different than seeing it live, happening to a human that we know is performing yet also know has the capacity to truly be suffering or in danger. 

It's why violence in wrestling is treated differently than violence in cinema.

Sorry, mild detour down boring academic avenues there but there is a reason why comparing the two - movies and wrestling - is problematic when looking at how violence is interpreted by the viewer. 

Would you be ever up for letting that PhD be available for people to read, sounds genuinely really interesting that pal.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

We can talk about dangerous vs not dangerous all we like but the plastic bag was used for one reason by Moxley, and it's because it was 35 years to the day that Funk used it on Flair. There was no storyline reason to use it, there was no overarching goal, it was all about history. Mox fancies himself as the TikTok Terry Funk and Tony is nerdy enough to know when things like that happened. I don't know for sure but there must be a "This day in wrestling history" site out there and I'm sure Tony keeps a firm eye on it. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

Whilst I think having opinions of things you haven't watched and aren't going to watch is pretty silly, everything else you said is even worse. Everything you hear about AEW puts you off? Thats pretty much why I cant take you post serious Legit. AEW has changed, mostly for the better, A lot since Double or Nothing 2019. What you do see on linee is a lot of tribalistic takes on both sides, but if you are only paying real attention to one company, your probably getting a jaded opinion against the other.

Case in point, your issue with some of the things at All Out 2024. Some of the more hardcore WWE fans online have called it disgusting, not wrestling, saw one person say wrestling isn't meant to be this violence. They were (probably) born around the time of Foley being thrown from the top of Hell in the Cells, barbwire bats, people leaping off titantrons, being thrown through glass panels and, of course, unprotected chair shots (at least the chairs they use now days are gimmicked). and that's just what WWE were doing in the late 90's early 00's!  The only reason why WWE even moved away from edgier content was contractually. And they were on the downs for years following. Now I don't proclaim at all that you need that level of violence often in Wrestling at all, in fact spacing it out would make it more impactful. But we had the start of a story and the close of a story at All Out, so both feel justified. 2 weeks ago they had All In which had some blood, but no weapons or violent spots. So if you did follow AEW you would know that these instances aren't weekly nor are they on every PPV. There was purpose and you can absolutely think it went too far, but context is important.     

[Chris B]

What really makes Hangman remarkable to me is that the PPV ended with a guy on his knees, screaming to the heavens in a mixture of disbelief and celebration of his own actions. And it didn't feel hokey or amateurish - it's just suspension of disbelief.

I can't think of any time wrestling has come close to pulling that off, certainly not in recent years. I made this point on Twitter and someone likened it to the Michaels/Flair 'I'm sorry - I love you', but a) Michaels isn't close to the actor that Hangman is and b) that was blurring the performer and character lines, whereas this is entirely character.

It's genuinely amazing that they're this ambitious.

[organizedkaos]

12 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Some of the more hardcore WWE fans online have called it disgusting, not wrestling, saw one person say wrestling isn't meant to be this violence.

Whilst I'm up for having reasoned discussions on here with people who might have issue with such things it is best not to worry about most other corners of online.

As I kinda said before, life got much easier when I realised that people disliking a thing I enjoy doesn't make my opinions lesser it makes their experience lesser. 

If someone can't enjoy the majesty that is the Hangman/Swerve because of their personal taste then I feel a little bit sad for them, I might try and work out our differences but taste is taste and often cannot be change.

If someone can't enjoy the majesty that is Hangman/Swerve because of arbitrary tribal lines within a niche art form or even worse because they listened to too much of professional hatemonger Jim Cornette then I feel a lot sad for them and don't bother engaging because anyone who is using such reference points/motivations is not my people.

[LaGoosh]

3 minutes ago, Chris B said:

What really makes Hangman remarkable to me is that the PPV ended with a guy on his knees, screaming to the heavens in a mixture of disbelief and celebration of his own actions. And it didn't feel hokey or amateurish - it's just suspension of disbelief.

I can't think of any time wrestling has come close to pulling that off, certainly not in recent years. I made this point on Twitter and someone likened it to the Michaels/Flair 'I'm sorry - I love you', but a) Michaels isn't close to the actor that Hangman is and b) that was blurring the performer and character lines, whereas this is entirely character.

It's genuinely amazing that they're this ambitious.

Agreed. I think this Hangman/Swerve match feels entirely original and unique in wrestling from a character/story perspective. I don't think creatively there is anything you could compare it to. Looking over Hangman's AEW career a lot of his stories feel the same way. I'm assuming he has a massive hand in his own creative because it's deep, complex, subtle and long term in a way I don't think we've seen in wrestling before.

Edited September 9 by LaGoosh

[RedTwoster]

1 hour ago, LEGIT said:

The seats should be filled with a mix of people, families included. And I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't take my son to an event with all that crap on it.

I can understand that. I totally accept that there's room for a wrestling show with a more mature tone; but I feel like a lot of the excessive stuff AEW does could be removed from a show without it affecting much of anything. The company has some of the best wrestlers - and wrestling - on the planet, I wouldn't be shocked if the excessive stuff loses more fans than it gains. 

39 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Not quite what I am saying but yeah I think I should probably back out of this argument now as I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the views being expressed on this subject and I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise or vice versa and we'll inevitably go round in circles. 

There's definitely scope to go round in circles with these things but hey, it's a discussion forum - sharing opposing viewpoints is interesting, and hearing why people think what they do. I mean...for me, at least! I personally enjoy reading your posts, and I certainly wouldn't consider any of what you're saying to veer into the territory of being 'an argument' - it's a discussion based around opposing viewpoints, nothing more, nothing less.