Printable View
Recently, a program that I've watched for years featured a good guy male who attacked a female bad guy authority figure in a very graphic way which led to her receiving a concussion and a broken back. He was not defending himself from her, and he was purely out for revenge.
Is this acceptable?
I'll give storyline details and video of the incident later in the thread, but I'm not holding back any significant information.
Everything is acceptable in arts and entertainment
No it was not acceptable.
Are you fuckers not going to vote on the poll? Come on and help me out here.
Do you believe all violence in entertainment is not acceptable, or do you believe that just man on woman violence isn't acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
omg is that marky markberg?
Boogie Nights, one of the best films of all time
Acceptable, yes. Who the fuck finds a man attacking a woman entertaining is another matter. I'd likely turn over.
Gonna have to watch that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
acceptable!
So there are three main characters in this particular story arc.
1. An authority figure over the other two characters, a 49 year old woman (Villain)
2. The authority figure's entitled albeit hilarious nephew, mid/late-20s male (Villain)
3. The anti-hero who has had an ongoing feud with the two Villains for months (Hero)
The conflict started between the two when the woman hired the Hero to screw someone over, and he turned on her and refused to do it. This caused her to lose some degree of her power as an authority figure. Her nephew took up her cause as essentially her champion, and the nephew and the anti-hero had several fights which went about 2:1 or 3:1 in favor of the nephew because of shady circumstances, and more than one time the female authority figure would surprise the anti-hero and cause him serious injury.
So at the climax, the anti-hero defeats the nephew decisively. At this point, the female authority figure has lost, and a lot of people think that should be the end of the story arc.
If you haven't realized yet, we're talking about a professional wrestling storyline from the past 3-4 months on Impact wrestling, the #2 wrestling show in North America that beats the WWE in almost all foreign markets.
Instead of that being the end of the storyline, however, the anti-hero attacked the female (who is not trained for any of this whatsoever and is basically a fairly fragile gilf) in a particularly violent fashion afterwards after being herded into the ring by a number of other good guys. Do not watch this video if you are sensitive to male on female violence. This is fan footage because some of what happened was taken out for TV:
Here is a better angle of her actually taking the impact:
I want to reiterate that she is not trained for this, and she is not physically prepared for taking this type of punishment to her body, and it showed with a real concussion, a real fractured rib and the fact that she really broke her back in multiple places. None of these injuries are storyline "made up" or whatever.
wat
The general consensus among people who follow professional wrestling is that the writers were stupid to come up with it and she was very stupid to go along with it. People who have been trained to take those types of falls can do so without serious injury the vast majority of the time, but an untrained 49-year-old gilf is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
However, she's not the oldest woman to take a sitout powerbomb through a table (from the same guy actually about 14 years ago), and she's not the woman to take it from the farthest height. Before Mae Young died, she took the same move through a table at about 3x the height.... at the age of 77. However, she was trained to take those falls, and she had no injury whatsoever from it.
If you like stories about awesome people who do incredible things, Mae Young is one of those people. Quick story about that:
Mae Young taking a sitout powerbomb through a table off the stage:
But back on topic, there are a lot of people who were really turned off by what they saw as "male violence against women" in the segment that ended the storyline I was talking about above along the lines of "male on female violence is not acceptable for entertainment," and I was just wondering if I was in the minority in thinking there's nothing wrong with it in the general sense.
people who get upset about storylines in fake wrestling should go buy a horse and live in the mountains and don't bother anyone
I see it as no different than someone who gets upset at storylines in any fiction work. You get into the characters and the writers do something that pisses you off.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Moving on, the most shocking thing in this thread is that you've never seen Boogie Nights. Stop whatever page long paragraph you're posting right now in whatever other thread you're trying to win and go watch it. Really cool movie.
I've seen half of it like three times. Just can't get through it. Not a Paul Thomas Anderson fan. Magnolia was great, but PTA movies require a mindset. Maybe I could try it again. I hated Magnolia the first time but loved it the second. Again, with the wrong mindset, any PTA movie sucks
The typical argument made is the following: The only difference with professional wrestling, and the thing that has made it such a big deal for the "no male violence on women" crowd, is that the attacks aren't purely staged with stuntmen/stuntwomen/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
The natural counter-argument is that these women have autonomy over their bodies (a common feminist talking point), and as long as they aren't coerced into doing these things, then it's all fair game.
To this, the typical reply is something along the lines that they shouldn't be doing it because it perpetuates misogyny, normalizes violence against women or something else that falls into the territory of "we're using the fact that men and women aren't equal as a premise to our argument even though we say we believe men and women are equal."
Anyway I thought this would be a fun way to bring up professional wrestling here in the commune in a stylistic way.
I'm still confused as to why they call it professional wrestling. Hillbilly Theater works better. Instead of Death of a Salesman, it's Undertaking of a Macho Man
WWE entertainment-based style isn't the most popular style in the world despite the fact that it's what most people in the United States know as wrestling. In almost 100% of the rest of the world, professional wrestling is considerably different and has much more of a "real" feel to it. With the WWE, and smaller companies like TNA that are trying to become "WWE lite," you really have a parody of professional wrestling more than actual wrestling.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quick example: If you look back to Pancrase before they allowed strikes with a closed fist, they were essentially a shoot version of professional wrestling. The rope break rules and no strikes with a closed hand are professional wrestling rules. Japanese fighters trying to beat Bas Rutten is the reason they didn't allow strikes with a closed fist earlier, and if you look at the timeline, they started allowing them almost immediately after he retired.
People who like that type of grappling-heavy MMA tend to almost always like the pure/puro style of professional wrestling, aka the "normal" style for the vast majority of the modern world. Fun example with Sakuraba: