AEW All Out 2024 - September 7th

[Chris B]

5 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

To be fair, he didn't say that AEW should be 'child-friendly', just that he wouldn't take his son to a show. 

Which was in the context of the sentence before that one.

[RedTwoster]

4 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Which was in the context of the sentence before that one.

There's still a difference between that and 'child-friendly', though. Lots of kids went to WWE shows during the Attitude Era and during the early 2000s. There's a difference between something being outright 'child-friendly', and of a level where you may be comfortable taking your kid there - in full acceptance of the fact the show isn't necessarily laid out with kids in mind. AEW goes beyond that during their PPV shows in a way they probably don't need to, that may or may not be to their detriment. I'm not saying that's the right approach or the wrong approach, but it's definitely one that limits their audience.  

[Hannibal Scorch]

4 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

There's still a difference between that and 'child-friendly', though. Lots of kids went to WWE shows during the Attitude Era and during the early 2000s. There's a difference between something being outright 'child-friendly', and of a level where you may be comfortable taking your kid there

You remember they often had the woman on the roster expose their breasts right during that period, as well as Hell in the Cell, street fights and the like? But it's America where they take children to see R rated films without flinching but swear words are a big deal. 

[LaGoosh]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

You remember they often had the woman on the roster expose their breasts right during that period, as well as Hell in the Cell, street fights and the like? But it's America where they take children to see R rated films without flinching but swear words are a big deal. 

I remember watching TV in America once. They had one of the Saw films on at 11am. Someone was being absolutely mangled in a brutal bloody way but when the victim swore it was bleeped out. Bonkers.

[Hannibal Scorch]

Just now, LaGoosh said:

I remember watching TV in America once. They had one of the Saw films on at 11am. Someone was being absolutely mangled in a brutal bloody way but when the victim swore it was bleeped out. Bonkers.

I love a good TV censorship. We used to do it a fair bit here in the 80's/90's but it is definitely more of a US thing to this day. https://www.ranker.com/list/funniest-tv-edits-of-movie-lines/julian-hoffman

[Devon Malcolm]

19 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

There's still a difference between that and 'child-friendly', though. Lots of kids went to WWE shows during the Attitude Era and during the early 2000s. There's a difference between something being outright 'child-friendly', and of a level where you may be comfortable taking your kid there - in full acceptance of the fact the show isn't necessarily laid out with kids in mind. AEW goes beyond that during their PPV shows in a way they probably don't need to, that may or may not be to their detriment. I'm not saying that's the right approach or the wrong approach, but it's definitely one that limits their audience.  

You keep saying this but have you ever considered that Tony Khan isn't arsed? It's an irrelevant point to make about the biggest e-fed ever created.

[RedTwoster]

12 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

You remember they often had the woman on the roster expose their breasts right during that period, as well as Hell in the Cell, street fights and the like? But it's America where they take children to see R rated films without flinching but swear words are a big deal. 

Oh absolutely - although they toned things down quite a bit in the early 2000s. And that is a fair point; although a lot of the big spots in WWE during that era came across almost stunt like - as if they were safer than they actually were. Take Foley going through the Cell, for example. 

I also think culture has shifted somewhat (thankfully) since the Attitude Era, and you can get away with less than you once did without feeling ultra-niche. AEW does a lot of alienating things, which is a real shame as they do a lot of really good things too. 

1 minute ago, Devon Malcolm said:

You keep saying this but have you ever considered that Tony Khan isn't arsed? It's an irrelevant point to make about the biggest e-fed ever created.

Oh you're totally right. He probably doesn't care; and to be fair on him, I look at AEW from a perspective that revolves around myself too. When the promotion started, it was the first wrestling show ever I watched with my wife - a non-fan. We watched Dynamite weekly, and did so right up until the first Forbidden Door, which is what lost her. I think they had the balance right during that first while - great storytelling, brilliant wrestling, some violence - but not so much in the way of gore - it all worked in context (eg. the Cody/Brodie Lee dog collar match*); and while you would get the odd cameo from 'outside' (eg. Jeff Cobb and Hikuleo) it wasn't to the point it became confusing - the primary focus was on the core cast of characters.

That said, I think their booking has been much better this year - and I think they're one utter bastard of an editor away from a period of sustained success, and larger live audiences. Whether Khan cares enough to find one is another thing, and you're right in implying that he probably does not. 

 

 

*Yes, I know Jericho faced Nick Gage - that kind of thing was a rarity though, and probably a bad idea anyway; even if it did make sense in the context of the storyline. 

[Duke]

Not for nothing, and not withstanding the various good points on both sides of this but one of the best ways to get kids (at least the kind of kids who might have pocket money) interested in something is to make inappropriate for them. 

I do think part of the problem isn't actually this match, but that AEW has a few too many characters who go to the ultraviolence well too often. Derby just got put in a body bag and was going to be set on fire because he set someone else on fire and gave him an unprotected chair shot, the point about the plastic bag angle being on the same show as this is very valid point (also that kind of angle should really be on TV with more eyeballs) and the more you use the stuff the less helpful it is.

But all of that detracts from the more significant point...

Is Mercedes, mone for mone, the worst signing AEW have ever made? I heard a lot of talk that the crowd was tired seeing her after the Osprey match, which is why they didn't care, but certainly around me that wasn't true, it's not that we were tired, it's that we had no interest in either of them, and this seems to have been replicated here. When the heel turn was a possible resolution it was one thing, but she's turned now and still rubbish. She's what, the fourth or fifth most interesting women on the roster? Lower if you count Renee, who isn't even a wrestler. It feels like she needs a proper meaty feud to get stuck into, but her match with Willow was one and done, and she's the only one I can see that working with.

 

[Infinity Land]

27 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

And that is a fair point; although a lot of the big spots in WWE during that era came across almost stunt like - as if they were safer than they actually were. Take Foley going through the Cell, for example.

Foley off the cage and through the cage felt nothing like a stunt. Its the one thing that has mainly been learned from. As almost all big falls have the crash mats, cardboard boxes, or a mass of people playing catch. Its why moments like when Adam Copeland or Cody Rhodes jump from the top of the cage still make people cringe as you can't cheat gravity.

[DavidB6937]

12 minutes ago, Duke said:

It feels like she needs a proper meaty feud to get stuck into, but her match with Willow was one and done, and she's the only one I can see that working with.

 

It'll take something really special to do it now. That's what she needed when she joined. Make an impact straight away. Show what you're capable of. That the other company should've treated you better and that you were worth investing in. I just don't see what she can possibly throw out now that'll change things that much.

[RedTwoster]

19 minutes ago, Infinity Land said:

Foley off the cage and through the cage felt nothing like a stunt. Its the one thing that has mainly been learned from. As almost all big falls have the crash mats, cardboard boxes, or a mass of people playing catch. Its why moments like when Adam Copeland or Cody Rhodes jump from the top of the cage still make people cringe as you can't cheat gravity.

I think you misunderstood me. It was obviously insane, and extremely dangerous - but how many of the viewing audience actually realised that at the time? That’s what I mean. How many parents or non-fans have seen that very clip and uttered the dreaded words of ‘it’s so fake!’?

It looks like it could be a carefully controlled stunt - whereas a needle in the mouth and extreme gore does not. Plus there’s a better understanding these days of how wrestling works.

Edited September 9 by RedTwoster

[Duke]

13 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

It'll take something really special to do it now. That's what she needed when she joined. Make an impact straight away. Show what you're capable of. That the other company should've treated you better and that you were worth investing in. I just don't see what she can possibly throw out now that'll change things that much.

I think, given the right opponent, she's still salvageable in a Britt vs Thunder Rosa kind of way, but I have no idea who the right opponent would even be at this point, as they've already run through some of their better options and hit her rubbish finisher on most of them.

 

[digforvictory]

I don't really remember anyone thinking the Foley bumps off and through the cell "looked fake".

Surely the reason they instantly became infamous and talked about, even by people not into wrestling, was because of how obviously insane and dangerous they were?

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What do you think I meant by that? Because that wasn't me defending unprotected chair shots, they are still stupid. But if you are going to do something stupid at least try to protect yourself (which has just given me flashbacks to little teenage me).

It's a Pavlovian response I have whenever anybody says 'gimmicked chair' - like it being a 'gimmicked chair' actually makes even a blind bit of difference when it is swung full force, unprotected, at someone's head. 

[RedTwoster]

20 minutes ago, digforvictory said:

 

I don't really remember anyone thinking the Foley bumps off and through the cell "looked fake".

 

Again, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there’s a difference between this and the extreme spots in AEW in that unless you were massively immersed in how wrestling works, the level of risk and what Foley was actually doing to himself wasn’t obvious. ‘There was a trick involved, or something to cushion the blow’ - there’s no way this was what it appeared to be. It was easy for a large number of people to ignore the risk simply because they didn’t understand it and we - as a collective - didn’t understand it in the way we do now.

‘You know they’re not really hurting themselves, right?’, ‘you do know the blood is fake, don’t you’ etc…I’m obviously not saying any of these things are true, just that this mindset was far more common than it is now. Then you had the ‘don’t try this at home’ promos, saying the wrestlers were ‘trained professionals’ - again, implying a degree of safety to proceedings. Anyway - this is veering off topic a little, but hopefully that clarifies what I meant. Ultimately, my point is that extreme violence is likely more off-putting now than it was then, as more people know that there often is no gimmick involved. A needle in the mouth or skewers in the head are exactly what they appear to be.

Edited September 9 by RedTwoster