Blood - Cool Effect or Unnecessary in WWE?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by PSachkovsky, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. There is kind of a debate this time around about wrestlers bleeding on camera in WWE. For one thing it does make matches more realistic, because they are not superhumans who cant bleed. On the other hand it tends to look like a murder scene in the ring rather than a regular match.

    For example, last year the assault on HHH from Nash, the lack of blood made the segment weak and unrealistc, there is no way for someone to take a beating like that and not have one drop of blood on him. If HHH were to bleed the segement would have sold better.


    What do you guys think?
     
  2. Cool effect in extreme matches, when Lesnar,HHH,HBK, the undertaker ,Orton,Rock are involved ..
    However is unnecessary in a Monday night raw like Primo and epico vs PTP
     
  3. In occasional (really rare) matches and segments it's a good addition.
     
  4. Cool in the right place i.e in BIG matches or Cell/Cage matches.
    Cool if done by accident i.e Brock being beaten up by HHH (who pissed himself...literally.

    Not Cool if done in pointless matches.
     
  5. It's usually an added effect, though I think almost necessary in some cases. I think it's best used in small samples here and there, though. Too much of it desensitizes the whole thing and makes it have almost no effect at all.
     
  6. I like it but I fucking hate WWE when they show replays of an event that contains blood, and they put the fucking black and white filter on it. Give over will you, you complete and utter cnuts. It's a bit of blood, everyone has it!
     
  7. If its not over used its a great way to add drama to match.
     
  8. I think it's pointless considering it's scripted anyways. :pity:
     
  9. :mad2:

    So I'm guessing blood in TV shows and movies are pointless as well? Because you know those are scripted too..
     
  10. Mostly unnecessary, It's OK in certain matches and I expect blood in HHH/Lesnar at Mania as it's No DQ.
     
  11. Well if someone gets shot, or stabbed not really. But I doubt the WWE is going to let the wrestlers carry either of those around with them.
     
  12. Depends how serious the storyline is. Example HHH/Lesnar is personal and Brock being the badass he is, there should be blood.

    As for The Rock Vs. John Cena, I don't see a reason why there should be blood.
     
  13. It was real cool with Brock did it to Cena. It looked like a real punch too.
     
  14. It was cool in the big matches.

    Everyone remembers HBK, HHH or Flair with a crimson mask..
    Also, HHH vs Taker had some blood, but those weren't bladed wounds, but real ones. So that made it extra cool.

    Too bad they quit doing it for health issues and PG TV.
     
  15. I think at this point it's rarely needed anymore, but on those certains occasions that it is, it can really make those segments/matches come out looking like a million bucks. Look at Lesnar/Triple H for example. Although it was a legit cut to the head, the bloody brawl made both guys look badass, and I don't think it would have had nearly the same effect if Lesnar had not been bloodied (too bad that was the only thing so far I've liked between the two lately).
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted