Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WWE Network... It's Here


goodhelmet

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Robert S said:

What makes the Piper blackface thing so baffling is that it was not a one time thing. He did an interview in blackface a couple of weeks before Wrestlemania on Superstars:

If it happened once you could have blamed Piper, as it happened twice you have to blame the company.

Well, at least Andre and, I think, Patterson decided to rib Piper for Mania and changed the paint so it wouldn't come off right away, so Piper was stuck looking like that for several days afterward. Or so the story goes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone shared a clip of the ham-fisted way they edited out Brian Pillman (as Yellow Dog) calling Johnny B. Badd "Johnny B GAY" by adding fake technical difficulties, and if that's the way things are going to be edited going forward the internet outrage will be amazingly hilarious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sek69 said:

Someone shared a clip of the ham-fisted way they edited out Brian Pillman (as Yellow Dog) calling Johnny B. Badd "Johnny B GAY" by adding fake technical difficulties, and if that's the way things are going to be edited going forward the internet outrage will be amazingly hilarious. 

That might predate Peacock. I've seen posts from years ago referring to "technical difficulties" on the WWE Network during the Johnny Be Gay promo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I get their stance on shit like that, as it pertains to race relations & what not. That's not OK and it's justifiable to me. It's always kind of been a black cloud hanging over pro-wrestling.

How are they going to approach violence and sexuality though? Like I imagine The Katt taking off her top will be censored but what about all the thong upskirt shots from ECW or Godfather's women? What about bloody matches or extreme matches with barbed wire & what not? What about man on woman violence, especially in older content? Dark Journey eating the DDT from a blind Jake Roberts with the crowd losing their minds is a good moment in history but, does it hold up now or is it too much?

It's going to be interesting in that regard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WingedEagle said:

For those that have signed up for the ad-supported Peacock, how prevalent are the ads?

Aside from Fastlane (which had no ads live except for the ones WWE had already built in), I've only watched The Broken Skull Sessions with Randy Orton so far. Other than the show not really being formatted for ad breaks, it was fine. Maybe 5-6 ads, about 30-60 seconds each - not bad at all.

Edit: Same for the Saved by the Bell and Punky Brewster revivals, except there are obviously going to be less ads in a 24-minute episode than there would be in a two-hour Broken Skull Sessions, and those shows are formatted specifically to take ad breaks into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Royal Rumble 2000 on today and Bubba Ray taking a chairshot to the head, Triple H bleeding all over the place, and the Bikini Contest/Mae Young segment aired pretty much untouched from what they were on the WWE Network, so I really do think a lot of people are unnecessarily sounding the alarm because of the two instances of editing so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's a good sign.

Peacock Premium Plus, or whatever they call the ad-free version, is the same price as the Network was before, or 25% off if you use the 4-month promo code ("PEACOCKMANIA"). And if you are a cable subscriber, you probably already have access to the Premium tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the censored stuff isn't as much of a concern as the slowwwwwwwwwwwwww trickle of the vault stuff.  Is every single RAW and Smackdown even up on Peacock yet?  The old stuff is the only reason I ever bothered with the Network to begin with so I feel like I shouldn't even bother with this until the apparent August deadline which to be honest, I'm extremely skeptical of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been skipping the Piper/Brown match for decades. I didn't even like the match when I was a kid and gladly watched Skinner squash matches. 

Still, I'm torn on the precedent this sets. I do think it's a slippery slope when it comes to deeming what is and isn't acceptable for consumption, especially in an era where it seems like some people are looking to find fault in almost anything.

But, I agree with those who are saying that the Network then and now (and maybe forever?) wasn't intended to be a permanent historical archive. Hell, content leaves other streaming platforms every month. In that sense, we got spoiled that relatively little content left the network over seven years. Moreover, NBC shelled out the bucks for the rights to the content, so it's their call on how they want to handle it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 2:15 AM, PhilTLL said:

And if you are a cable subscriber, you probably already have access to the Premium tier.

Cable subscribers get the $5 plan with ads for free. I think it's an extra $5 if you want to upgrade to the one without ads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, C.S. said:

Cable subscribers get the $5 plan with ads for free. I think it's an extra $5 if you want to upgrade to the one without ads.

Yeah for some reason the middle tier is called premium and there's not a catchy name for the actual premium tier other than "ad-free".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...