Men and women have for the most part been forbidden from facing each other in the ring together. WWE has allowed women to occasionally attack male wrestlers, but only when the circumstances are in their favor. Other than that, male wrestlers are the dominant representatives of pro-wrestling while sxism and anything intergender is controversial in sports, especially in Pro-Wrestling. Men have always been more popular and iconic than women. If WWE allows a woman to get hit by a man, there'd be so much controversy. Why? Because a man hitting a woman is something that is widely forbidden period. If WWE allows that, their company is screwed. However, as long as WWE allows women to stay in their own division, women's wrestling won't change for the best.
I believe that female wrestlers ought to have matches with other male wrestlers. Let's face it - the Diva's division sucks. At one point, it flourished but not consistently. Many divas are there just for show, fired, retired, or otherwise. Few divas like Beth Phoenix, Chyna and Lita are the most dominant athletes in the WWE.
Nevertheless, it seems people feel that women cannot be at the same competitive level as men. It's just not fair for women as men are biologically stronger or is it? I'm not going into the specifics, but let's assume for now that men are biologically stronger than women. This shouldn't prevent thin women from competing against bigger and stronger male wrestlers if they have the skills to compensate for lack of strength. The bigger they are, that harder they fall. This is true for anyone regardless if they are male or female.
Do i expect someone like Lita to defeat the Undertaker? No but i also don't expect a superstar like Rey Mysterio to do it either. This is because the Undertaker is so dangerous, he ought to not be reckoned with by anyone. Chyna on the other hand is a different story all together. She's attacked him and other dominant male wrestlers in the past. She's built like a man and she's dangerous. People object because it means that a woman has to compromise her femininity in the name of masculinity. This is completely false. I find Chyna to be a very attractive women as she is a model on the side. It doesn't mean i think any less of her as a person if she decides to show off her body in a bra and panties match. I'll support her for who she is period. Many divas don't have the same level of competition and drive as Chyna has. If a diva wants to be respected for more than her appearance, she has to work very hard for it. She has to stand out from the rest. This is why they typically don't get that much success.
By keeping women safe from men as a sign of respect, you are actually disrespecting women. By constantly saving divas from male opponents, your teaching that women are too weak to fight for themselves. Do you really believe someone as built and as tough as Chyna can't handle a punch to the face? If she went up against a bigger and tougher opponent, do you think she'd care? Women deserve a chance to be recognized for their talent and competitive spirit. This is something they won't get as long as male wrestlers are the faces of the WWE. For these reasons, women and men ought to be booked against each other for longer than Beth Phoenix briefly went against the Great Khali in the Royal Rumble. How many of you want to see Chyna and Undertaker fight each other? Looking at their records, i certainly do.
Being a fan to the average person means simply supporting an artist by buying their content. It means cheering and shouting "I love (fill in the blank)!" However i challenge this definition.
To me, being a loyal fan isn't about how much of the artist's content you own. Too many people already do that. It's only until their favorite artist does something horrible that they stop supporting their art. In reality, they were never fans to begin with. Loyal fans understand that their favorite artist makes mistakes, accept them, and continue to be supportive. This kind of love goes beyond cheering at concerts or at your home movie theater.
What is a true fan? Someone who does anything and everything to strengthen a bond with the artist he or she passionately supports. Die hard fans will invest in VIP passes, show tickets, merchandise, etc. even though it hurts. They will study every inch of their beloved artist's life because they are inspired.
I encourage people to go beyond the typical scope of what fandom looks like and into a much deeper relationship with their favorite artist.
To me, being a loyal fan isn't about how much of the artist's content you own. Too many people already do that. It's only until their favorite artist does something horrible that they stop supporting their art. In reality, they were never fans to begin with. Loyal fans understand that their favorite artist makes mistakes, accept them, and continue to be supportive. This kind of love goes beyond cheering at concerts or at your home movie theater.
What is a true fan? Someone who does anything and everything to strengthen a bond with the artist he or she passionately supports. Die hard fans will invest in VIP passes, show tickets, merchandise, etc. even though it hurts. They will study every inch of their beloved artist's life because they are inspired.
I encourage people to go beyond the typical scope of what fandom looks like and into a much deeper relationship with their favorite artist.
Most modern day slasher films have failed to inspire creativity and original plots. Because of the same rehashed ideas, the genre is dying. Many horror directors are unnecessarily remaking classic films and butchering them. The results are poor quality and cheap imitations of successful films.
I don't think Hollywood cares if films are scary anymore, as long as people buy it. This is wrong on so many levels and i will explain why by giving a few examples of failed tactics:
* Jump scares - This is where you see a sudden appearance of a killer and you jump out of your seat. The problem with jump scares is that it's too repetitive. I see the terrified main character or characters sneak around to see if someone is lurking in the shadows only to find that a prank was pulled.
* Too much gore - The early pioneers of gory horror films were successful but now it's become the norm. When it's all gore and no plot, it's not scary - it's disgusting. Too much gore becomes cheesy rather than terrifying.
* No plot or character development - All the characters are the same kinds of people. Either they are helpless teens or cops who lack common sense. There's nothing special about any of the main characters.
* Cliche slasher villains - Many of them behave the same way. They almost always seem to slowly walk towards their victims and remain completely silent. They all seem to be rip offs of each other. Nothing truly stands out from them other than their appearance.
Now it's not to say that all modern films are terrible. There are exceptions as some modern horror films were successful despite negative criticism. How can slasher films improve?
* Innovate jump scares - Great jump scares spark curiosity then gradually build up tension, fear, and finally the climax. A fine example of a thrilling jump scare is featured in "The Strangers" when a strange woman knocks on Kristen's door. Notice that the director does not rush the jump scare. Instead, the director tries to make everything as natural as possible. There's no track playing in the background other than the music Kristen plays within the film. The blending of Kristen's slow paces followed by the sudden movements of her attackers, camera work, and short segments of music make the jump scares successful.
* Choose a scary setting - Why are films like "The Strangers" and the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" enticing to me? Because of the setting. The setting chosen makes you feel alone in the middle of the dark with no one to help you. It does not have to be in an abandoned warehouse for it to be scary, it can be in a simple neighborhood. The key is creating a frightening atmosphere within the mind of the viewer.
* Develop the killer - While fans of horror classics may love the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, i thought it was garbage. Mainly because Leatherface's character was very undeveloped compared to the remakes. The original Leatherface's appearance wasn't at all terrifying. He looked much like a ragdoll than a killer. The remakes dramatically changed him. The film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" gave him a dark and twisted backstory. It revealed the tormented child-like and tormented human soul under a grotesque mask. Leatherface's appearance is also more intimidating as his size and behavior reflects that of a mentally disturbed adult. We also see him develop into an inhumane killer taking on the mask of human skin and wielding a chainsaw. While the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre are gory, they still have character development.
* Develop plot twists - Making very successful plot twists to reach the film's climax are difficult, but rewarding. This is where the plot takes a quite different direction than the audience expected. Symbolism, the triumph of evil, unresolved conflict, tragic fall of heroes, or disturbing concluding thoughts can all intensify plot twists. A few examples of slasher films with disturbing endings are films such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, My Bloody Valentine (1981), and Halloween 4.
* Entertain the audience - Having the main characters slip and fall while running away from their attackers gets boring. A film becomes terrifying when the protagonists have used their skills against the villain to ultimately no avail. Having a diverse set of characters such as highly trained policemen, scientists, and average high school students can greatly shock the audience once you know how to use them.
* Induce terror - Horror does not need a violent and brutal killer to be terrifying. There are many different aspects (some mysterious) that create terror in an audience. There was nothing terrifying about Leatherface brutally murdering his victims. What made him terrifying was his apprehension of them at the commands of his family. It was also the environment that made him all the more scary.
* Recreate the genre - Rather than choose a violent killer, be creative. Mix in the plot:
aliens, supernatural spirits, mummies, goblins, and so forth. Films like "Black Christmas" were successful partially because of the different theme other than the norm (via Christmas).
My hope is that one day, horror movie directors will make slashers more entertaining by appealing to various audiences. If they are willing to co-operate with what fans want, the horror genre will be taken more seriously. Interested in the movies i mentioned? Click on the link below and get a chance to legally see an unlimited supply of horror films for a one-time fair price.
http://f6123bu8vzpv2k8h2ue358nm4s.hop.clickbank.net/
I don't think Hollywood cares if films are scary anymore, as long as people buy it. This is wrong on so many levels and i will explain why by giving a few examples of failed tactics:
* Jump scares - This is where you see a sudden appearance of a killer and you jump out of your seat. The problem with jump scares is that it's too repetitive. I see the terrified main character or characters sneak around to see if someone is lurking in the shadows only to find that a prank was pulled.
* Too much gore - The early pioneers of gory horror films were successful but now it's become the norm. When it's all gore and no plot, it's not scary - it's disgusting. Too much gore becomes cheesy rather than terrifying.
* No plot or character development - All the characters are the same kinds of people. Either they are helpless teens or cops who lack common sense. There's nothing special about any of the main characters.
* Cliche slasher villains - Many of them behave the same way. They almost always seem to slowly walk towards their victims and remain completely silent. They all seem to be rip offs of each other. Nothing truly stands out from them other than their appearance.
Now it's not to say that all modern films are terrible. There are exceptions as some modern horror films were successful despite negative criticism. How can slasher films improve?
* Innovate jump scares - Great jump scares spark curiosity then gradually build up tension, fear, and finally the climax. A fine example of a thrilling jump scare is featured in "The Strangers" when a strange woman knocks on Kristen's door. Notice that the director does not rush the jump scare. Instead, the director tries to make everything as natural as possible. There's no track playing in the background other than the music Kristen plays within the film. The blending of Kristen's slow paces followed by the sudden movements of her attackers, camera work, and short segments of music make the jump scares successful.
* Choose a scary setting - Why are films like "The Strangers" and the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" enticing to me? Because of the setting. The setting chosen makes you feel alone in the middle of the dark with no one to help you. It does not have to be in an abandoned warehouse for it to be scary, it can be in a simple neighborhood. The key is creating a frightening atmosphere within the mind of the viewer.
* Develop the killer - While fans of horror classics may love the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, i thought it was garbage. Mainly because Leatherface's character was very undeveloped compared to the remakes. The original Leatherface's appearance wasn't at all terrifying. He looked much like a ragdoll than a killer. The remakes dramatically changed him. The film "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" gave him a dark and twisted backstory. It revealed the tormented child-like and tormented human soul under a grotesque mask. Leatherface's appearance is also more intimidating as his size and behavior reflects that of a mentally disturbed adult. We also see him develop into an inhumane killer taking on the mask of human skin and wielding a chainsaw. While the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre are gory, they still have character development.
* Develop plot twists - Making very successful plot twists to reach the film's climax are difficult, but rewarding. This is where the plot takes a quite different direction than the audience expected. Symbolism, the triumph of evil, unresolved conflict, tragic fall of heroes, or disturbing concluding thoughts can all intensify plot twists. A few examples of slasher films with disturbing endings are films such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, My Bloody Valentine (1981), and Halloween 4.
* Entertain the audience - Having the main characters slip and fall while running away from their attackers gets boring. A film becomes terrifying when the protagonists have used their skills against the villain to ultimately no avail. Having a diverse set of characters such as highly trained policemen, scientists, and average high school students can greatly shock the audience once you know how to use them.
* Induce terror - Horror does not need a violent and brutal killer to be terrifying. There are many different aspects (some mysterious) that create terror in an audience. There was nothing terrifying about Leatherface brutally murdering his victims. What made him terrifying was his apprehension of them at the commands of his family. It was also the environment that made him all the more scary.
* Recreate the genre - Rather than choose a violent killer, be creative. Mix in the plot:
aliens, supernatural spirits, mummies, goblins, and so forth. Films like "Black Christmas" were successful partially because of the different theme other than the norm (via Christmas).
My hope is that one day, horror movie directors will make slashers more entertaining by appealing to various audiences. If they are willing to co-operate with what fans want, the horror genre will be taken more seriously. Interested in the movies i mentioned? Click on the link below and get a chance to legally see an unlimited supply of horror films for a one-time fair price.
http://f6123bu8vzpv2k8h2ue358nm4s.hop.clickbank.net/
The Charismatic Enigma Jeff Hardy fails miserably at playing heel for one reason - He can't get the fans to hate him. No matter what he says or does, the fans will always love him. Jeff Hardy will almost always be successful as a charismatic face. Nevertheless Jeff Hardy isn't that bad of a heel as i originally thought and as we shall see shortly.
When Hulk Hogan threw away the old TNA world heavyweight championship belt and introduced the new Immortal championship belt in Jeff's image, a revolution began. Since then Jeff Hardy was the most dominant champion and the leader of a new era in TNA. Jeff Hardy showed that he wouldn't let anyone, not even the TNA president, stand in his way of reigning over the roster.
Despite all the heel characteristics Jeff displays, fans cannot erase Jeff's face character. It was so ingrained in his career that it backfired on him. No matter how many angles he tried using, he could not land a devastating blow to his own reputation. As a result, his heel character wasn't as successful.
Jeff Hardy essentially dug his own grave as the face we all know and love. Eventually, it seems Jeff gave into his loyal fans and gave up his heel role. Jeff Hardy's legacy endures as TNA's Immortal and World Heavyweight Champion, regardless of whether he is heel or face.
Tags
character,
character.,
Charismatic Enigma,
entertainment,
face,
fans,
heel,
Jeff Hardy,
Pro-wrestling,
promo,
reputations,
titles,
TNA,
Undertaker,
WWE