TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > A Writer's Perspective
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Something That Is Lacking in Wrestling Today
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Something That Is Lacking in Wrestling Today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Message
HBKDX97 View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Winner of Ticket War VI

Joined: 11/November/2010
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 11155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote HBKDX97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/October/2013 at 15:37
Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

From 1984-1988, in the NWA it was Hardcore, simple as that. It had the Four Horsemen vs Dusty Rhodes, a long feud which consisted of kayfabe broken limbs, bloody faces, burnt faces, torn muscles, many, many beatdowns, piledrivers, fist fights, top superstars being benched because of the beatdowns and kayfabe injuries and so on and so on.
 

You can't take four years from a genre that had been developed for nearly 60 years, point to it and say "this is how it was supposed to be". I will concede that this was a time of increase for such violence, but it's not representative of what wrestling was developed for and what it was "supposed to be". 

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

and before all them you had the likes of Killer Kowalski - all of this a good 13 or so years before the Attitude Era and a good 10 or so years from ECW and Killer Kowalski's era maybe thirty years before the Attitude Era.

I'm pretty sure Killer Kowalski's most hardcore thing would be elbow dropping someone off of the top turnbuckle out of the ring. He wasn't throwing people onto thumbtacks and shooting them the bird.


Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

In my opinion, the wrestling business was never designed to be a "PG Kiddie Friendly" business; it was never designed to be "family friendly" either; it just so happened that throughout the history of the business kids, mothers, fathers and grandparents went to watch. 

The whole babyface model was designed to promote family friendly values and be the "face" of the world/society they lived in. They were supposed to fight the bad guys, be a hero to the kids, and basically be the moral epicenter for whomever was watching. It's like saying you don't think Superman was designed to be kid friendly because at some point Superman did something mature.

Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Online
Points: 9823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/October/2013 at 16:52
Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Of course my absolute definition of a violent match was just to mention barbed wire, that's of course why I mentioned Killer Kowalski's era as an example. I mean, every match of his was a barbed wire match, wasn't it? One match? No? Wrestling back in the Golden era was viewed much the same as Boxing and Boxing never was, never has been and more than likely never will be promoted as a "kiddie friendly" business, and the thing is neither was pro-wrestling.


You don't remember the 80's very well do you? I don't remember the 70's or 60's at all, but I know whole families would gather around the TV to watch Ali up to Tyson in a boxing match. That seemed to fade away in the 90's.

Wrestling today isn't marketed as "kiddie friendly" but rather "family friendly". WWE is wants the kids because, like with tobacco, if you get them hooked early, you've got them for life. -There's an analogy for you eh? But at the same time they need to keep the parents entertained as well or the kids will have a hard time getting their parents to go to live events. No more mention of "kiddie friendly" that's false. It's family friendly. It's the difference between Dora the Explorer and Shrek.

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Didn't I mention, "around the time of Hulkamania"? But even so, a snake hanging from someone's arm is not anywhere near as gruesome as someone being kayfabe opened up by a chain being thrust into their head, or a splinter from a chair, or someone's arm being broken because someone's hit it with a baseball bat, or their leg being broken because someone's continually landed on it from the top rope.

That's your opinion. I don't remember any other scene in pro-wrestling making kids in the audience cry (well, aside from Miz winning the WWE Championship). And unlike all the spots you're talking about where everything is rigged, Savage actually took those huge fangs injected into his arm, and that bloody mess he was in was not glamorized, or played up, because it was real and they tried to shift focus away because it was a legit injury, and not some shitty blade job. Sorry but nothing this side of Taker/Mankind Hell in a Cell was more hardcore than Savage taking multiple bites from a king cobra in his arm.

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

TV back in the Golden Era didn't have X-rated, PG, TV14 etc ratings attached to whatever they wanted to show, in fact TV Parental Guides such as TV-Y, TV-14, etc only came into existence over in the US in 1997

The rating system didn't come around until '97, but prior to that if it was too much it was just yanked from tv altogether, and that system they worked with before served as the guidelines for what was PG.

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Lastly, enough with making it personal because it has nothing to do with personal tastes, it's all to do with what the Wrestling Business has put out over the years within various promotions, and violence has always been a key factor because, whatever the genre, that's what contact sports is.

How did I make it personal? By mentioning a story my mom told me about what things were like back in the 50's? Give me a break.

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

In relation to the topic of this thread, I think the fundamental point that Willy mentions is the crux of it all, which was to say that the WWE promote themselves to be a kiddie friendly product, but still keep matches such as HIAC, Elimination Chamber and so on on their cards. It's like getting Rambo inside a cage and saying "go do your worst, but you can't use your gun, knife and whatever else he would use to annihilate his adversary - the two don't gel because HIAC matches, Elimination Chamber matches and so on demand more than what the WWE Product is willing to give.


That's not an accurate analogy though. Taker vs HHH was not a watered down HiaC, and it was PG. But like Austin has said multiple times, if you like Rock with a steel chair vs Mick Foley, then you're probably more of a sadist than a wrestling fan. At the end of the day 'rasslin' was about the sport of amateur wrestling with the no holds barred philosophy of having hooks added into the available moveset. It was passed off as a legit sport for years until people started pulling back the curtain. There characterizations, storylines and everything else were just a way to make it a little more interesting than other 'sports'. That's how sports entertainment came to be.

Hardcore is just a sadistic little offshoot. And obviously fans of hardcore have gotten a lot more perverted over the years if they think that HHH vs Taker HiaC is watered down kiddie friendly garbage that has no place being called a REAL HiaC.


Edited by Rico Len - 08/October/2013 at 16:55
Back to Top
IDIOTdella View Drop Down
Unprettier God
Unprettier God
Avatar

Joined: 20/October/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 2256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDIOTdella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 13:08
Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Of course my absolute definition of a violent match was just to mention barbed wire, that's of course why I mentioned Killer Kowalski's era as an example. I mean, every match of his was a barbed wire match, wasn't it? One match? No? Wrestling back in the Golden era was viewed much the same as Boxing and Boxing never was, never has been and more than likely never will be promoted as a "kiddie friendly" business, and the thing is neither was pro-wrestling.

You don't remember the 80's very well do you? I don't remember the 70's or 60's at all, but I know whole families would gather around the TV to watch Ali up to Tyson in a boxing match. That seemed to fade away in the 90's.

Do you mean the 80s in general, or the 80s in pro-wrestling? I’d address the rest of it but I have no idea how it relates the point I raised at all.

Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

Wrestling today isn't marketed as "kiddie friendly" but rather "family friendly". WWE is wants the kids because, like with tobacco, if you get them hooked early, you've got them for life. -There's an analogy for you eh? But at the same time they need to keep the parents entertained as well or the kids will have a hard time getting their parents to go to live events. No more mention of "kiddie friendly" that's false. It's family friendly. It's the difference between Dora the Explorer and Shrek
You do exactly what the WWE do, you say it’s aimed to be a “family friendly” Product and then go on to deliver an analogy all about the kids and getting them hooked early, which basically agrees with what I’ve been saying about the product, only you get so lost in your own smart ass remarks that you can’t see it.

A family friendly product is something that gives you something for the entire family to enjoy, but what the WWE do is aim it at the kids, so the product is promoted from that angle – that’s why you might get a HIAC match but it’s not “Hell in a Cell”, it’s just a cage that’s been put around the ring, because nothing that happens inside that cage today even comes close to being seen to be “Hell”. Do you now understand me when I say it’s not about personal tastes it’s about what the match demands and how the WWE cannot supply what that match demands because it’ a product that promotes itself primarily as being “kiddie friendly”

I think it’s also a reason why there’s a lot of adults who hark on about the Attitude Era and wanting it to return, not only because they may, rightly or wrongly, believe it to be a fantastic era, but also because it was an era that gave them something to enjoy about pro-wrestling, something they’re not getting today


Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Didn't I mention, "around the time of Hulkamania"? But even so, a snake hanging from someone's arm is not anywhere near as gruesome as someone being kayfabe opened up by a chain being thrust into their head, or a splinter from a chair, or someone's arm being broken because someone's hit it with a baseball bat, or their leg being broken because someone's continually landed on it from the top rope.

That's your opinion. I don't remember any other scene in pro-wrestling making kids in the audience cry (well, aside from Miz winning the WWE Championship).

Survivor Series 1991, Hulk Hogan is beaten by The Undertaker with a Tombstone Piledriver. Hulk Hogan selling the paralysing effects a piledriver is supposed to have caused the kids in the crowd to cry.


Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

And unlike all the spots you're talking about where everything is rigged, Savage actually took those huge fangs injected into his arm, and that bloody mess he was in was not glamorized, or played up, because it was real and they tried to shift focus away because it was a legit injury, and not some shitty blade job. Sorry but nothing this side of Taker/Mankind Hell in a Cell was more hardcore than Savage taking multiple bites from a king cobra in his arm.

This is nothing more than a smart mark response that’s attempting to make a snake hanging off someone’s arm appear more gruesome than the visuals of someone having their arm broken by someone hitting it with a baseball bat or their leg broken because someone’s repeatedly landing on it from off the top rope and so on.

 

Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

TV back in the Golden Era didn't have X-rated, PG, TV14 etc ratings attached to whatever they wanted to show, in fact TV Parental Guides such as TV-Y, TV-14, etc only came into existence over in the US in 1997

The rating system didn't come around until '97, but prior to that if it was too much it was just yanked from tv altogether, and that system they worked with before served as the guidelines for what was PG.

Again you prove my point. So why wasn’t the NWA with their bloodletting, barbed wire matches, the baseball bat incidents, burnt faces, the many, many beat-downs and so on and so on weren’t yanked from the air? If America’s viewing stipulations worked the same way as how Britain would censor its “mature” content, then it was because the transmissions of the NWA were above or on a watershed of 9pm, or whatever time the censors deemed was an appropriate time for such things to be shown.

 

Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

Lastly, enough with making it personal because it has nothing to do with personal tastes, it's all to do with what the Wrestling Business has put out over the years within various promotions, and violence has always been a key factor because, whatever the genre, that's what contact sports is.

How did I make it personal? By mentioning a story my mom told me about what things were like back in the 50's? Give me a break.

You’re making it personal by making statements like the only reason someone would want to see a HIAC match is because they thrive on the bloodletting, the chair shots and other forms of extreme violence. What you’re neglecting to take into consideration is that when a match stipulation is called Hell in a Cell, inside that cage you’re expecting to see something resembling Hell, your worst nightmare, you’re not expecting to see a regular NO DQ Wrestling Match that’s just got a cage around the ring, something that’s nothing like your worst nightmare.

 

Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

That's not an accurate analogy though. Taker vs HHH was not a watered down HiaC, and it was PG. But like Austin has said multiple times, if you like Rock with a steel chair vs Mick Foley, then you're probably more of a sadist than a wrestling fan. At the end of the day 'rasslin' was about the sport of amateur wrestling with the no holds barred philosophy of having hooks added into the available moveset. It was passed off as a legit sport for years until people started pulling back the curtain. There characterizations, storylines and everything else were just a way to make it a little more interesting than other 'sports'. That's how sports entertainment came to be.


Hardcore is just a sadistic little offshoot. And obviously fans of hardcore have gotten a lot more perverted over the years if they think that HHH vs Taker HiaC is watered down kiddie friendly garbage that has no place being called a REAL HiaC.

The Taker vs Triple H HIAC match is an anomaly in the WWE “kiddie friendly” Product and you know it, Rico. It was a match that was shrouded in a whole lot of history dating back almost for two decades, where not only the match stipulation itself demanded more than what the WWE would have liked to have delivered but the characters involved also demanded more from it as well. So, why is that match so highly regarded by all ages? I think it’s because it delivered on all aspects; the storytelling, the history, the match stipulation and the characters. All in all, all this match does is strengthen all the points I’ve raised so far in this debate

Hardcore matches where little or no wrestling is involved I think are the sadistic offshoots of pro-wrestling, which is how I view ECW, TLC matches, The Butcher and so on, but that’s not to say that Hardcore Matches don’t have a place in pro-wrestling, because, for me, that’s like saying violence doesn’t belong in films. You can have violence in a straight up romantic comedy film if the placement and the reasons for it are justified – that’s why you get stipulations like Hell in a Cell in pro-wrestling, it’s justifying the violence, and the storylines sell the placement of such a match and the reason why such a match is occurring. To deliver all that and then not on what the stipulation demands, that’s the real bone of contention here – and I’m surprised that you haven’t grasped that.





Edited by IDIOTdella - 09/October/2013 at 13:21
Back to Top
Raven View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Mr. 200,000!

Joined: 03/September/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 16042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raven Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 13:14
To you point about breaking legs because people are landing on it from the top rope, which is I assume one of your examples of good violence, so to speak, Mark Henry has done that multiple times in the PG era, so it still happens. It can't happen regularly because writing guys off for a couple of months all the time is a pain in the ass.
Back to Top
IDIOTdella View Drop Down
Unprettier God
Unprettier God
Avatar

Joined: 20/October/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 2256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDIOTdella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 13:16
Missed the point completely, Raven
Back to Top
Raven View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Mr. 200,000!

Joined: 03/September/2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 16042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Raven Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 13:27
Oh, ok then. Thanks for explaining.
Back to Top
Collywog3:16 View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 13/December/2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3620
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Collywog3:16 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 13:45
While we are on the subject of hardcore wrestling, there is one interview in particular that really stuck out in my mind. Even though it maybe be Kayfabe, there was some truth behind what this particular individual said. The man was none other then 'Hardcore Legend' himself, Mick Foley. On a episode of Raw in I believe April of 2004, Foley had a special interview segment with a WWE.com reporter about his up coming match with then Intercontinental Champion, Randy Orton at the Backlash PPV.

Foley is quoted for saying something along the lines of this phrase: "When people think of hardcore, they admittedly think of *mentioning various weaponry* (tables, ladders, chairs, thumb tacks.) To me however, to define the word hardcore, I never think of tables, it was never about the thumb tacks or wrapping the arm in barred wire, no. The definition of hardcore meant how much pain I was willing to put my body through ridiculous amounts of pain to entertain the fans. It meant that I loved the fans that much to do that to my body!..." 

I have a feeling that I am terribly off on the wording of that quote. but Foley basically said  that it was never about the the 2x4 wrapped in barred wire or flaming tables and C-4 explosives, it was all about entertaining the fans and how much love he had for pleasing the crowd.

What I took out of that message was that maybe as wrestling fans we ask too much of the performers competing in the ring to damn near kill themselves and spill their guts out onto the floor.  I am exaggerating of course, but in all seriousness, yes it is pretty cool to see some nifty spots of guys jumping off of ladders and what not occasionally, but I don't want it to occur in every single match. I mean, I can enjoy footage from the original ECW in moderation, but again, there is only so many times you can do that without your fan base becoming accustom to it and expecting it in every single, thus spoiling them in a over the top manner. In a way, whilst ECW defined what we view as hardcore wrestling in modern wrestling today, they also kind of ruined the perception of what hardcore wrestling truly is or/and what it should be.



"AUSTIN 3:16 SAYS I JUST WHIPPED YOUR ASS AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!"
Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Online
Points: 9823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 15:48
I have to head to Stanford for a week Della or I would respond more thoroughly, but suffice it to say you should re-read what I originally wrote. You only got half of the family friendly comment, the child,s part. I don't have time to even read the rest anymore this morning. Maybe later though.
Back to Top
HBKDX97 View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Winner of Ticket War VI

Joined: 11/November/2010
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 11155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HBKDX97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 16:10
I fo actually think that having a real snake really bite you in the arm is much more gruesome than someone pretending to hit you in the arm with a foam baseball bat and pretend to break your arm. That's not even a smark statement. Holding your arm and screaming "he broke my arm" is not gruesome.

Della is grasping at straws, clearly. By her claim she doesn't watch the WWE enough to know anything about Damien Sandow, but she knows 100% that WWE can't put on a good HIAC match. Does anyone else not laugh with me at that? TLC 2012 with Seth Rollins falling off of a ladder through two tables is "kiddie" stuff?

Originally posted by IDIOTdella IDIOTdella wrote:

The Taker vs Triple H HIAC match is an anomaly in the WWE “kiddie friendly” Product and you know it, Rico. It was a match that was shrouded in a whole lot of history dating back almost for two decades, where not only the match stipulation itself demanded more than what the WWE would have liked to have delivered but the characters involved also demanded more from it as well. So, why is that match so highly regarded by all ages? I think it’s because it delivered on all aspects; the storytelling, the history, the match stipulation and the characters. All in all, all this match does is strengthen all the points I’ve raised so far in this debate.


Which is a HUGE lie, because your main points have been defending hardcore and violent bumps/spots in a match. But even in your listing of why the match delivered, you named storytelling, the hostory, the match stipulation, and the characters. None of which remotely mean "hardcore spots". You can have all of these things without slicing your head open 4 times or falling onto thumbtacks. You basically took his arguments and said "Yes that's what I meant. I'm right, you're wrong.

Will wait an actual response. I also ask other people wait to post, so she can't avoid answering these altogether.
Back to Top
IDIOTdella View Drop Down
Unprettier God
Unprettier God
Avatar

Joined: 20/October/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 2256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDIOTdella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/October/2013 at 17:07
Originally posted by Raven Raven wrote:

To you point about breaking legs because people are landing on it from the top rope, which is I assume one of your examples of good violence, so to speak, Mark Henry has done that multiple times in the PG era, so it still happens. It can't happen regularly because writing guys off for a couple of months all the time is a pain in the ass.
Okay, I’ll explain why this missed the point. First off though, for me, in real life, there is no “good” violence, not even ‘so to speak’, there’s justified and unjustified violence, like, someone killing someone in defence of their own life (justified) and premeditated murder (unjustified)

It missed the point because you took one example from a whole host of examples and made the suggestion that just because Mark Henry did one of those examples a lot of the time the WWE was not a kiddie friendly product – it also missed the point because that wasn’t why I gave those examples in the first place

 

Originally posted by Collywog3:16 Collywog3:16 wrote:

While we are on the subject of hardcore wrestling, there is one interview in particular that really stuck out in my mind. Even though it maybe be Kayfabe, there was some truth behind what this particular individual said. The man was none other then 'Hardcore Legend' himself, Mick Foley. On a episode of Raw in I believe April of 2004, Foley had a special interview segment with a WWE.com reporter about his up coming match with then Intercontinental Champion, Randy Orton at the Backlash PPV.

Foley is quoted for saying something along the lines of this phrase: "When people think of hardcore, they admittedly think of *mentioning various weaponry* (tables, ladders, chairs, thumb tacks.) To me however, to define the word hardcore, I never think of tables, it was never about the thumb tacks or wrapping the arm in barred wire, no. The definition of hardcore meant how much pain I was willing to put my body through ridiculous amounts of pain to entertain the fans. It meant that I loved the fans that much to do that to my body!..." 

I have a feeling that I am terribly off on the wording of that quote. but Foley basically said  that it was never about the the 2x4 wrapped in barred wire or flaming tables and C-4 explosives, it was all about entertaining the fans and how much love he had for pleasing the crowd.

What I took out of that message was that maybe as wrestling fans we ask too much of the performers competing in the ring to damn near kill themselves and spill their guts out onto the floor.  I am exaggerating of course, but in all seriousness, yes it is pretty cool to see some nifty spots of guys jumping off of ladders and what not occasionally, but I don't want it to occur in every single match. I mean, I can enjoy footage from the original ECW in moderation, but again, there is only so many times you can do that without your fan base becoming accustom to it and expecting it in every single, thus spoiling them in a over the top manner. In a way, whilst ECW defined what we view as hardcore wrestling in modern wrestling today, they also kind of ruined the perception of what hardcore wrestling truly is or/and what it should be.

Kayfabe or not, in my opinion, there’s hardly any truth in it. Mick Foley didn’t do it “for the fans” he did it “to get a reaction from the fans”. Were the fans demanding Jimmy Snuka dive off the top of the cage at Madison Square Gardens before he was standing on the top of it? No, but the reaction he got was a good one. Mick Foley, as he likes to tell you, was in that crowd that night and he was one of the ones reacting to it.

Did the fans demand Mick Foley do whatever it was that was his first stunt? No, but he did it anyway because if it was big enough and shocking enough he knew it would get a reaction from the fans. Did the fans demand Mick Foley throw himself off the top of the cage at King of the Ring 1998, or to fall through the top of it? No, but he knew if it was big enough and shocking enough he would get a reaction from the fans. The funny thing is, even the stipulation didn’t warrant him throwing himself off the top of the cage or falling through the top of it.

To be honest, it annoys me when someone like Mick Foley places the blame for his broken down body on fans demanding those stunts from him, when the simple fact is, it was the expectations he placed on himself to produce something bigger, better and more shocking things the next time out, and why? Because he knew it would get a reaction from the fans. In other words, if the stunts he did were solely because with each match the fans demanded something bigger, better and more dangerous from him, then how is it that the Rock ‘n’ Sock Connection got as over as they did? If the fans were demanding more from Mick Foley, bigger and more dangerous things from him then by all rights the Rock ‘n’ Sock Connection should have bombed, but it didn’t, not by a long shot.

Certain stipulations of matches do warrant certain expectations, such as TLC matches, Hell in a Cell matches, I QUIT matches, Last Man Standing matches, 3 Stages of Hell matches, and so on and for those expectations not to be delivered is like going to see a horror movie without any horror in it. It’s not wrong to expect something, especially when the stipulation itself warrants that expectation, but for people to then translate those expectations into being demanding, then for me, there’s something seriously wrong with that.




Edited by IDIOTdella - 09/October/2013 at 17:08
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.066 seconds.