GUARDLING Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) you were going where i was thinking in the statement following the one in bold. they're allowing the design to box them in and aren't taking the risks for innovation that are required to be in the top echelon of guards. they can't always be simple, elegant, and beautiful in the same old predictable ways. You're right ,BUT this has everything to do with design choice and not if it is all female or a male/female guard. Any of the top shows could have been done with or without a mixed guard. IMO Edited September 6, 2014 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardguy89 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Problem was they didnt just go to all female just to do female themes. There was way more behind that decision back then. Totally agree. And I have no problem with them staying all female - I know it's a major part of their tradition - I just want them to allow the guard program to do more than be an overly feminine representation of whatever the show is. It does limit them alot at this point. Later, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Totally agree. And I have no problem with them staying all female - I know it's a major part of their tradition - I just want them to allow the guard program to do more than be an overly feminine representation of whatever the show is. It does limit them alot at this point. Later, Mike Very true, as I said this IMO this is design choice which they can change. The going back to all female and their tradition ,I believe didn't have much to do with tradition but how things did or didn't work with the males, especially their last year as a co- ed guard. I will let a PR person elaborate IF they choose. lol Agree that they limit themselves at times. Edited September 6, 2014 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 You're right ,BUT this has everything to do with design choice and not if it is all female or a male/female guard. Any of the top shows could have been done with or without a mixed guard. IMO So we're saying the same thing. ;P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 So we're saying the same thing. ;P seems so....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Very true, as I said this IMO this is design choice which they can change. The going back to all female and their tradition ,I believe didn't have much to do with tradition but how things did or didn't work with the males, especially their last year as a co- ed guard. I will let a PR person elaborate IF they choose. lol Agree that they limit themselves at times. I remember reading about this during the 2010 season. The impression I got from a few comments on here was that it didn't have to do with the show design. I think going to all female has been nice, but it's time to let guys back in. Guardguy89 brings up a good point about it boxing them in. Edited September 6, 2014 by Lincoln Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I remember reading about this during the 2010 season. The impression I got from a few comments on here was that it didn't have to do with the show design. I think going to all female has been nice, but it's time to let guys back in. Guardguy89 brings up a good point about it boxing them in. oh Im not disagreeing at all. Maybe current admin. or staff will give it a shot again. Maybe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 oh Im not disagreeing at all. Maybe current admin. or staff will give it a shot again. Maybe! Maybe Phantom should do the opposite of everything they originally intended to do - just like George Costanza did in that one Seinfeld episode. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Maybe Phantom should do the opposite of everything they originally intended to do - just like George Costanza did in that one Seinfeld episode. hey I remember that,lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Lincoln, on 06 Sept 2014 - 7:52 PM, said: Maybe Phantom should do the opposite of everything they originally intended to do - just like George Costanza did in that one Seinfeld episode. If PR ever raised George Costanza and Seinfeld to a canonized level, I know one of their Conductors who would be feeling right at home. Yes, DWW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.