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.
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/























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.

Take a look at this promo he had with the Undertaker. Not only does he undergo a deeper and darker make-over, we see a darker side of his character. He becomes reckless, angrier, aggressive, and more disrespectful. He becomes less concerned with titles and more with damaging reputations. He is bent on being ruthless with his opponents. It takes alot of guts to interrupt the Undertaker and even more to challenge him like Jeff Hardy did. I was shocked to see how stronger Jeff Hardy was than his face character when he faced the Undertaker. Despite his heel role being short-lived at WWE, he was given a better chance at TNA.


At TNA, Jeff Hardy first turns heel after he cheated his way into becoming TNA world champion. This shocked the wrestling world as Jeff Hardy joined the heel group "Immortal." While i do admit that Jeff Hardy had very underdeveloped heel mic-skills, i quickly saw his actions spoke louder than his words. His attitude and egotistical actions caused many fans to boo him even for a brief period. Jeff Hardy gradually showed that he was more than capable
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. 

One of the biggest misconceptions is that Pro-Wrestling is "fake" on the same level as fictional films. Pro-Wrestling is indeed very real. How real is it? We will analyze the many theatrical performances of pro-wrestling.

It is commonly thought that Pro-wrestlers follow a carefully written script for everything (matches, promos, and other extreme stunts). The winner of a match is pre-determined. While that might be true, it's not always the case. Take a look at this example of a script involving a match.

Did you notice something? The winner is chosen but there are no specific and pre-determined directions as to HOW that victory is to be achieved. There's simply no time for every wrestler on the roster to get it perfect during practice. They only have around a week before the match starts. What's their last resort? Improvising. If only it was that easy for people to simply follow everything written down on paper and get paid. It doesn't work that way. How are they going to win the match while the crowd watches? WWE says "Figure it out!" Referees and other wrestlers might whisper directions, but they are no substitute for skill. Pro-Wrestlers must have an advanced understanding of the dynamics of signatures moves, the paces of matches, and creativity in performance. It is by this understanding that they can be amazing entertainers loved by millions. Those who know nothing of Pro-Wrestling will be walking out of the company's doors.

Even if wrestlers are creative, it still means that the violence is fake right? Nope. While the goal is to keep each wrestler safe when executing moves, real injuries occur. Pro-Wrestling doesn't have the luxury of the same safety procedures as Hollywood does. Your performing live in front of millions, not behind the scenes of a film set.You can't use stuntmen while everyone's watching. This is where talent comes in. Pro-Wrestlers must execute every signature move almost perfectly. If they don't, an injury to a vital area can be fatal.

Here's a few examples of real life injuries that happened in the history of Pro-Wrestling:

Undertaker vs. Mankind:

One of my favorite matches. It shocked WWE after Undertaker threw Mankind off hell in a cell. According to news reports via Wiki, the Undertaker had a broken foot. Mankind suffered the following injuries:

* A dislocated shoulder

* A concussion

* A dislocated jaw

* A hole in his bottom lip

* Loss of Consciousness

Hulk Hogan chokes Richard Belzer: 

Richard Belzer, a stand-up comedian, was mocking wrestler and calling it fake. Richard Belzer taunted Hulk Hogan into performing a real wrestling move. Hulk Hogan put him in a front-face lock, blocking his windpipe as his arms went limp. Hulk Hogan let him go as the back of Belzer's head hit the stage hard, causing it to bleed.

Owen Hart breaks Stone Cold's neck: 

As Stone Cold faced Owen Hart, he got his neck broken during a finishing move. He suffered temporary paralysis and Owen Hart had to stop the match.

Wrestling moves: 

Punches and kicks do hurt no matter how they are delivered. The moves done in Pro-Wrestling require athleticism and power. They are choreographed but dangerous. That's why many of them are banned from pro-wrestling. There's a good reason why you should never try this at home.

The ankle lock - These are used in combat sports like MMA and submission wrestling. When applied with excessive force, these can tear muscle, tendons, and break bone.

Tombstone Piledriver - This is dangerous because of the compression from the neck to the head. This can cause paralysis as the body weight and force is transferred to the head on impact.

You must remember that the ring-mat is covered with a wooden plank. Though wrestlers are slammed on it, there's not much protection to ensure a soft landing.

Props:

While the use of weapons is limited, the injuries caused are still dangerous.

Chairs - Regardless of what anyone says, chair shots do hurt

Ladders - These can tear a wrestler's face wide open.

Ringbell - Using the back of it can split a wrestler's head open.

Thumbtacks - These are painful as they puncture the skin and must be removed afterwards.

Barbed wire - Real barbed wire is used with a fake one. When it's time for a wrestler to be cut, real barbed wire is used.

Bleeding:


Some claim that fake blood is used, but this isn't necessarily true. Pro-Wrestlers actually do bleed sometimes from impact of blows or from "blading." This is where a pro-wrestler takes a blade out and quickly makes an incision on their forehead. Chair-shots, punches, kicks, and other weapons further open the wound and causing more blood.

In conclusion, many features of pro-wrestling are not fake. This is a misconception that is unfortunately causing a degradation of the pro-wrestling business (as i will explain later). Educate your friends and family of the real dangers of Pro-Wrestling.

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/comment-this-isn-t-fake-seven-serious-real-life-accidentsinjuries-in-wwe-2031084
Ever since the greatest horror film classics, horror has become a disaster. With all of the CGI and other highly advanced technology we should expect people to be terrified. Unfortunately, this isn't the reaction horror movies give us anymore. When i asked several people their thoughts on said horror movie, the responses are typically "It wasn't scary" as if they were supposed to jump. It doesn't make me shake in fear, it just makes me laugh at how absurd the horror genre has got.

Growing up as a kid, i remember watching my first horror film - Child's Play. I was terrified because Chucky was a child's nightmare come to life. The scenes were intense and the fear built up dramatically. I was afraid of the unknown and unexplainable mysticism of the doll. I've also seen movies such as "Nightmare on Elms Street", "Scream", "Exorcist", etc. I was shocked at the intensity and suspense. The villains of the story were original and shocking. The plot was original and progressive. There's character development and thought provoking moments.

Here are several tactics that got old fast:

1) Jump scares - Countless times, i've seen the same predictable killer's face appear on cam after the victim slowly looks out the window. Countless times, i've seen a chick make stupid mistakes as she runs screaming away from a killer. She's all battered and bloody as she trips over a log. When i watch a cliche horror film, i predict the many "made ya look!" moments. It's the same old tactics. Jump scares are not thrilling anymore because so many films have used them. I don't jump anymore, i just zone out.

2) Gore - When i watched "Saw", i wasn't really scared - i was disgusted. Many horror films use gore as a means to scare the audience to thinking it's horrifying when it's not. As i recall, one YouTube user said "If a killer butchered my friend, i'd be angry!" Don't get me wrong, i like gore but when there's no tension building up - it becomes torture porn. The reaction that the creators want to give the audience goes out the window when all they promote is senseless violence.

3) Vamps, killers, ghosts, demons, etc. - After watching "Night of the living dead", zombie films became a joke. What separated that movie from most is that you could see the dehumanized faces of those who were once dead. Not to mention that the tension built up while leaving a bit of mystery on who the zombies are. The earliest film "Dracula" was very disturbing and iconic. After that, vampires became a laughing stock. Demons are also old as we suddenly see them turn violent and levitate. People are just rehashing the same themes. I'm not saying that they should stop producing them, simply to change their approach.

Modern day horror film fans have forgotten what horror was all about. What i've learned from watching many horror films and comparing them is that it's not about the things i've listed. I used to think that if i didn't jump or tremble in fear, the movie wasn't scary. I later realized the problem wasn't the movie, it was my definition of scary. Watching films like "The Babadook" and "The Omen" made me reconsider what real horror is. The art form was intended to implant a disturbing thought into your mind about human nature.

Sadly, people dislike thinking. They don't want to think about character development, plot twists, foreshadowing, etc. They want instant gratification now. They just want to see egotistical and ignorant teens get killed. They want to see the same ideas with the same characteristics. No one's saying we ought to stop producing those types, only that we focus on the structure of the art. 
With MMA fighting in direct competition with pro-wrestling, businesses like the WWE have fallen in popularity. This is due to the "realness" of UFC fighting and the decline of creativity in the pro-wrestling business. I think the UFC is not in any way superior or more advanced to pro-wrestling. There are many misconceptions of how pro-wrestling works and how UFC works in which i will attempt to resolve. I will argue why pro-wrestling is much more entertaining than MMA fighting.

"Pro Wrestling is fake, UFC is real" - Many people believe that everything in the pro wrestling world is fake and that wrestlers do not get hurt. Nothing is further from the Truth. Pro-wrestling is scripted but in no way fake. Pro-wrestlers put their bodies and health on the line for entertainment. They engage in rough-play but injuries are still real. An example of this is when Undertaker throws Mankind of a cell and gives him a dislocated shoulder along with a concussion. Chair shots, submissions, punches, etc. are all painful despite being scripted. Pro-wrestling tries to limit the amount of pain but this isn't always possible.


While the martial arts in UFC are authentic, that's exactly the problem. WWE invented it's own brand of fighting dubbed "Pro-Wrestling" while UFC relies on martial arts, thus misrepresenting it by making it into a sport. In traditional martial arts, people train for survival whereas UFC fighters train for competition. In traditional martial arts, the purpose is to improve your health and well-being. The UFC fighter's goal is to be a dominant champion. A traditional martial artist doesn't have to be a bodybuilder while a UFC fighter is typically muscular. A UFC body-builder has the luxury of substituting techniques for muscular strength in submissions. This cannot be done in the discipline of traditional martial arts. According to UFC rules, there are many things that are forbidden - Head butts, Eye-gouging, biting, hair pulling, groin or elbow strikes, blows to the back of the head or spine, throat
strikes, kicking the kidney with the heel, the list goes on. Indeed, UFC fighters train with martial arts but is it authentic to it's original form when so many attacks are forbidden? Not at all.

According to an article titled "9 Ways Fights are 'Fixed in MMA'", the author explains that experienced fighters are set up with inferior ones. The UFC company doesn't mention the difference between a record of wins and fighting experience. Take undefeated UFC champion Ronda Rousey. She is a very aggressive fighter trained in Judo and attacks to level an opponent. While it seems as if she's won by extraordinary experience, this was only because the women's division was not as developed as the men's. The author suggests that UFC relies on what is called "padding records." The UFC company picks similar fighters in physical characteristics and records, but not in experience. Looking back at Ronda's fights, i can clearly see that these fighters weren't even close to her level. I'm not expert in martial arts, but even from a standard common sense approach - You don't rush in against a very aggressive opponent. A smart martial artist would learn when to keep his or her distance. This is what Ronda's opponents did not do. The company does this to make Ronda popular. How skilled is Ronda Rousey in reality? We don't know yet.


* UFC keeps beef professional, WWE doesn't - I'm pretty sure you've seen UFC challengers keep it professional while somehow trying to entertain us with the intensity. Take a look at this video on how UFC promotes its fights as the fighters stare each other down. Notice how Ronda Rousey flips the bird at Miesha Tates just before she is separated. We all know they're trying to make the fighters look tough so why disguise it with the professionalism? We know the fighters would fight right then and there given the chance, so who are they trying to fool? Nonetheless UFC does not let them do so. With all the conferences and interviews, UFC lacks the anticipation that WWE has.

Now watch this intense promo of a match between pro-wrestlers. There's no one standing behind them to make sure things don't get out of hand. On the contrary, it's the feuds that are promoted by the business to fuel the hype of the crowd. There's almost no rules. It's just pure intensity and creative characters with their own unique voice. It's a mistaken notion that pro-wrestlers just jump around and fight. They must also have great skills on the mic and in dialogue. You will see pro-wrestlers attack each other backstage to show their frustration and dislike for one another. You will see pro-wrestlers make daring claims in a solid and strong aggressive voice. WWE creates an environment where you can feel the competitive recklessness and ferocious hunger of wrestlers to succeed. It's as if the rules in society don't apply in the WWE and that's what makes people anticipate the matches. UFC lacks all of those things period.    

* Pro-Wrestling is strategic like UFC - As i've stated earlier, Pro-wrestling is indeed scripted. You can find an example of a pro-wrestling script in the link below. Notice that the script only mentions who the winner, but it does not say how that victory will be accomplished. This is where the pro-wrestlers creativity and knowledge must kick in to get the job done. Pro-wrestling is thus no easy task. Pro-wrestlers still train like athletes because they are athletes. Some claim that pro-wrestlers have time to practice every choreographed move before the match - they don't. Smackdown for example runs on a weekly basis so the superstars must improvise on the spot. If a pro-wrestler lacks creativity and the ability to entertain, he or she won't be as popular. As a result, they won't appeal to fans or the company.

Pro-wrestling despite relying on a script, still has some form of strategy. Take for example the competition for the WWE title between Jeff Hardy and Triple H. Jeff Hardy is known for being a fly high risk taker who is willing to sacrifice his body for a victory. He's artistically acrobatic, agile, quick, and smart. He knows that Triple H is stronger and more offensive so Jeff Hardy devised a strategy. He put Triple H in a submission, continually tried pinning him, and flipping him over to counter-attack. This has gained Triple H's respect for using your opponent's weaknesses to your advantage.

* Pro-Wrestling is creative, UFC isn't - UFC almost always has the same types of matches. Almost all of the fighters look and fight the same. While it's entertaining to watch two fighters battle in a cage, it gets boring after a while. Some may argue "It's an unfair comparison because this is UFC.." however i beg to differ. This is entertainment. The goal is to please the crowd in the best ways possible. In Sword-fighting competitions for example, fighters are set up to fight in groups and use many other weapons. While UFC might have many MMA techniques, many fighters do not last very long and often do not get to employ all of their moves. It easily turns into a submission or knock out.

As i've stated earlier, Pro-Wrestling isn't just about fighting. It's about theatrical performance, character and storyline development, creativity in gimmicks, fashion, as well as ring maneuvers. It's as if your watching a movie in person. There's a wide variety of matches than the standard ones - Hell in a Cell, Punjabi Prison match, Royal Rumbles, tag team matches, Elimination chamber match, and so on. Each has it's own set of rules thus each pro-wrestler must adapt to the environment.

One would think that realistic fights equal more entertainment but this isn't always true. It's about how the fights are marketed and this is what makes WWE more entertaining than UFC.

* WWE has a more engaging audience than UFC - I've seen UFC audiences seated the whole time many times before. Go to a WWE show and it's like a concert as you hear the crowd roar. You see their reactions of sadness, anger, happiness, excitement, disgust, and so forth. You can see how devoted the fans are to their favorite superstars by the signs they hold up and the clothes they wear. Some pro-wrestling companies may allow fans to engage in some of the action. In the WWE world, the fans have a very close relationship with the superstars. While UFC managers try to please the crowd, the fans are no more than spectators. If their favorite UFC fighter loses, that's the end of it. This does not work in the WWE world. Ideally, the company works for the fans' best interests. If enough fans want something changed, the company will comply with their demands. It is the fans of pro-wrestling that direct the matches and develop story-lines. The fans are apart of the pro-wrestling business.  

In conclusion, if people understood how UFC and WWE rather than promote false myths, we ought to see the clear differences. Once we do, we can decide for ourselves the Truth. When taking many things into consideration, i am convinced WWE surpasses UFC in entertainment value and ought to gain the same amount of popularity as UFC if not more.











http://theweek.com/articles/447375/heres-what-prowrestling-script-looks-like

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/10/06/is_pro_wrestling_fake_and_scripted.html

 

Art and entertainment

- Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Gooyaabi Themes