AEW TV - 4/24 - 4/30/2024 - Who's House? Gunn's House!

[Zakk_Sabbath]

42 minutes ago, Coletti said:

." In my mind, actively being a part of the presentation is basically our duty and role as fans

Well said - and while I agree with you in context 110%, I think there are a contingent of fans who also subscribe to this theory, but in the polar opposite way:

They believe their duty is not to be a constructive part of the show, as you've described, but moreso to be deconstructive (in both the figurative and literal sense); the wink and nod stuff like "please don't die," "please be careful," "this is awesome," "fight forever," or the dirt fucking worst "please retire." Or the shit heads with "gimmicks" who want to get over online so they can start a pod or whatever. It all goes back to what you said before: "I might have bought a ticket to be here, but I still know it's a work!'

I certainly wish more people were in line with your and my way of thinking, but by the same token, I've kind of accepted it as part and parcel of wrestling advancing to a place where cards are full of guys my age and younger who grew up watching ECW, shooty Kliq angles, Montreal, the classic Russo-isms, Punk signing his WWE deal in the ring at ROH, etc. To them, fucking with the fourth wall is a feature, not a bug. I mean, look at how popular the Young Bucks were, even way pre-AEW - even the most rabid fans of theirs I think would have to agree that stuff helped them get to where they are just as much as all the crazy matches. So I get the appeal of wanting to be "in" on the act in that same fourth-wall breaking kind of way - it's the "worked shoot promo" of fan behavior. I just - similarly - don't fucking like it.

We should be part of the show, but not part of the show - a seasoning rather than an ingredient.

Edited April 29 by Zakk_Sabbath

[SovietShooter]

I remember a long time ago I read something where they were talking about SNL, and how everybody always says "It was so much better back when 'X' was on the show" or similar thoughts.  They then compared SNL to Mad Magazine, in that the 'golden age' for it will be when you first discover it, and get into it, and that as time goes on, it won't ever seem as good as it was when you viewed it for the first time.

I think that really does apply to pro wrestling too. 

To a lot of folks my age, nothing will ever be better than Hogan vs Savage, or Dusty vs Flair, or whatever their memories are from the 80s boom.  To folks in their 30s or whatever age, it'll be the Monday Night Wars, and the NWO, DX, Stuff like that. 

So, to folks that are in their 20s now, when they look back on wrestling from their childhood, it is stuff like Super Cena, and "going 1-on-1 with the Undertaker playa".  WWE was the only 'major league' in town, and for the 5-10yr olds that discovered wrestling in the '00s, that stuff is the good shit from their childhood. 

When you mix that in with how media consumption changes more and more the younger the demographic is, well no wonder people go to wrestling shows and don't boo or cheer.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

9 minutes ago, SovietShooter said:

So, to folks that are in their 20s now, when they look back on wrestling from their childhood, it is stuff like Super Cena, and "going 1-on-1 with the Undertaker playa".  WWE was the only 'major league' in town, and for the 5-10yr olds that discovered wrestling in the '00s, that stuff is the good shit from their childhood. 

That's an excellent point too, and one that I wish I saw before I made my last post - like, look at your point about how many people fondly remember Teddy as SD GM. The period you're describing is what I always refer to as the "Muppet Show" period of WWE: a good 90% of the show, was just about running the show. GMs, Commissioners, CEOs, EVPs, guest "hosts" - who they want on top, who they don't, who's good for "the brand," the Board votes "no confidence!", Trump buys Raw, draft after draft after draft - there is legitimately a generation of people out there who really think the matches, titles, angles and all the other devices used - are only there in support of a larger story about whoever is in charge.

Edited April 29 by Zakk_Sabbath

[Coletti]

It's a lot like when somebody is involved with a local music or art scene for a while, moves on, and basically acts like the scene must be dead - meanwhile lots of other artists have stepped up and into the limelight, just that some folks won't ever care about them and can only focus on what was.

Personally, I'm happy to keep up with what's going on now. I'm just recently getting back into hardcore punk as well, learning about all the new bands. It's truly enthralling!

[Craig H]

Finally got around to watching Rampage. The Street Fight showed why I disliked Jericho vs Hook so much. 

[Technico Support]

I forgot to mention Chuck wearing the "Dustin & Greg Forever" shirt was a wonderfully heartbreaking Easter egg.

[Iron Moose]

2 hours ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

Well said - and while I agree with you in context 110%, I think there are a contingent of fans who also subscribe to this theory, but in the polar opposite way:

They believe their duty is not to be a constructive part of the show, as you've described, but moreso to be deconstructive (in both the figurative and literal sense); the wink and nod stuff like "please don't die," "please be careful," "this is awesome," "fight forever," or the dirt fucking worst "please retire." Or the shit heads with "gimmicks" who want to get over online so they can start a pod or whatever. It all goes back to what you said before: "I might have bought a ticket to be here, but I still know it's a work!'

I certainly wish more people were in line with your and my way of thinking, but by the same token, I've kind of accepted it as part and parcel of wrestling advancing to a place where cards are full of guys my age and younger who grew up watching ECW, shooty Kliq angles, Montreal, the classic Russo-isms, Punk signing his WWE deal in the ring at ROH, etc. To them, fucking with the fourth wall is a feature, not a bug. I mean, look at how popular the Young Bucks were, even way pre-AEW - even the most rabid fans of theirs I think would have to agree that stuff helped them get to where they are just as much as all the crazy matches. So I get the appeal of wanting to be "in" on the act in that same fourth-wall breaking kind of way - it's the "worked shoot promo" of fan behavior. I just - similarly - don't fucking like it.

We should be part of the show, but not part of the show - a seasoning rather than an ingredient.

this is in no way intended to be a gotcha! comment, but I think it's important to make allowances for the crowd steering alignments over the intent of the writers.

That there's a distinction between rejecting the story while engaging with it (Io/Bianca in PR; refusing to accept Becky as a heel, leading to The Man era), versus disregarding the story (the MEAT chants for Miro/Hobbs when their respective alignments were ... unclear at the time?), but I'm not sure where or how clear that border is...

[odessasteps]

I think there's also a fine line between "the audience playing their part" and "trying to hijack a show/make themselves part of the show."

Things like the past post-Mania crowds, the regulars at TNA and NXT are prob examples where it's not good (to me). 

Things where the metatext or fourth wall are already broken, like Chikara, are prob in a gray area, where people (including me at the time) played along with Things like the Slo Mo Spots and "PG swearing". 

[SovietShooter]

2 hours ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

there is legitimately a generation of people out there who really think the matches, titles, angles and all the other devices used - are only there in support of a larger story about whoever is in charge.

Which is where I think some of the "What is the backstory?" criticisms levied at AEW have their roots. People cannot wrap their heads around the idea that wrestling is supposed to be a sporting contest, and quite often fights, games, and matches just happen because they are on the schedule, and there isn't a backstory. Ohio State vs Michigan has a backstory. Ohio State vs Rutgers doesn't. Both games are played.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

1 hour ago, Iron Moose said:

this is in no way intended to be a gotcha! comment, but I think it's important to make allowances for the crowd steering alignments over the intent of the writers.

That there's a distinction between rejecting the story while engaging with it (Io/Bianca in PR; refusing to accept Becky as a heel, leading to The Man era), versus disregarding the story (the MEAT chants for Miro/Hobbs when their respective alignments were ... unclear at the time?), but I'm not sure where or how clear that border is...

Very true, no argument from me. I guess if I had to really think about it, the line for me personally is when it's not just disregarding the story, but disregarding the work in the ring - particularly some of the tongue in cheek stuff I listed (please don't die, please be careful) during pivotal highspots. (On second look, I kinda don't hate Fight Forever or This is Awesome quite as much because at least they're positive, plus one has 'fight' in it, so points there).

It's one thing to reject a booker's intent (especially in those examples, where said booker is Vince and hes out of touch and all the other baggage, even pre-ousting) but it's another to be almost working against the wrestler's intent in a way, insofar as that intent is to make you think "kill that motherfucker!"

Now, if you want to say that the wrestlers' intent has now shifted from generating genuine emotion into "get the big pop/5 stars/trending worldwide/etc." then that's another conversation entirely - but to me, it's one which goes back to what someone else mentioned some pages back about the "figure skatification." Because it's not a TOTAL disregard, they're in fact acknowledging the high risk of the spot, and one could argue they're appreciating it accordingly in that case... And I mean, honestly, imagine if maybe that's the next evolution of wrestling and things go full circle back to sport? 30 years from now you'll have Excalibur and two other now- old timers holding up an 8 after the finish going "It went a little long for me, and I have to drop another point for the botched topé, but this was otherwise great." Idk, whatever makes people feel better about whatever they're watching instead of feeling the need to actively work against it! But I must stress: by "work against it" I'm talking about EXACTLY what @odessastepsis talking about above, not like, people chanting YES for Danielson because it's clearly his time or Becky or whoever else.

Edited April 30 by Zakk_Sabbath

[Zakk_Sabbath]

3 minutes ago, SovietShooter said:

Which is where I think some of the "What is the backstory?" criticisms levied at AEW have their roots. People cannot wrap their heads around the idea that wrestling is supposed to be a sporting contest, and quite often fights, games, and matches just happen because they are on the schedule, and there isn't a backstory. Ohio State vs Michigan has a backstory. Ohio State vs Rutgers doesn't. Both games are played.

Completely different scenario, but I use this EXACT example (though different teams) with my girlfriend when she asked/asks me why I'd "waste time" watching Dark/Elevation/now Rampage

[Curt McGirt]

6 hours ago, Coletti said:

It's a lot like when somebody is involved with a local music or art scene for a while, moves on, and basically acts like the scene must be dead - meanwhile lots of other artists have stepped up and into the limelight, just that some folks won't ever care about them and can only focus on what was.

Personally, I'm happy to keep up with what's going on now. I'm just recently getting back into hardcore punk as well, learning about all the new bands. It's truly enthralling!

I got so many feelings about going to a hardcore punk show last night for the first time in quite awhile, after a lot of people moved and I had to break away from others. Something I realized really was that not everybody else went away -- I went away. And it's great seeing everyone again, and being just a people watcher instead of the guy with the guitar trying to keep it together and play while I'm sweating straight vodka. 

If it helps, Maximumrocknroll still has new reviews on their website, btw! And keep up with the Sorry State Records newsletter that they put on their page every week. Or just ask me. I keep a firm index finger right on the prostate of hardcore. 

Edited April 30 by Curt McGirt

[Go2Sleep]

Max Caster's rap was super cringey this week. Good to see the GYV got to keep all their original stuff.

The Parking Lot Brawl was good stuff. Quick and violent. Rosa/Deonna was good too, and it's nice to see a women's feud that isn't about a title. Those two should have a good hardcore type of match at some point.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

14 hours ago, Coletti said:

Personally, I'm happy to keep up with what's going on now. I'm just recently getting back into hardcore punk as well, learning about all the new bands. It's truly enthralling!

 

8 hours ago, Curt McGirt said:

got so many feelings about going to a hardcore punk show last night for the first time in quite awhile, after a lot of people moved and I had to break away from others. Something I realized really was that not everybody else went away -- I went away. And it's great seeing everyone again, and being just a people watcher instead of the guy with the guitar trying to keep it together and play while I'm sweating straight vodka. 

Off topic, but these posts make me super happy. Me and a few buddies just went to the Hatebreed anniversary show the other week, and had an awesome time - I'm one of those people who's "good with faces" so it was kind of crazy to look around the room and realize man, I've probably been to hundreds of shows with some of these people, and never interacted once, yet somehow I'm glad to see them after 15 years. Like a HS reunion of total strangers or something lol

[zendragon]

16 hours ago, Coletti said:

What bums me out is the audience's unwillingness, much of the time, to "play their part." In my mind, actively being a part of the presentation is basically our duty and role as fans - the folks onscreen play their parts of good guys, bad guys, authority figures, etc., and we should play ours and add to the overall performance. Granted, this usually applies WAY more to live crowds, but I'll be damned if I haven't been at indy shows and yelled out about the heels cheating and the ref doing a bad job and the faces triumphing - it's SO much more enjoyable that way. 

I kinda feel this is coming back in vogue, both with people going out of the way to yell and boo the heels and even with people I see posting online as if it was real

[HarryArchieGus]

20 hours ago, SovietShooter said:

I remember a long time ago I read something where they were talking about SNL, and how everybody always says "It was so much better back when 'X' was on the show" or similar thoughts.  They then compared SNL to Mad Magazine, in that the 'golden age' for it will be when you first discover it, and get into it, and that as time goes on, it won't ever seem as good as it was when you viewed it for the first time.

I think that really does apply to pro wrestling too. 

To a lot of folks my age, nothing will ever be better than Hogan vs Savage, or Dusty vs Flair, or whatever their memories are from the 80s boom.  To folks in their 30s or whatever age, it'll be the Monday Night Wars, and the NWO, DX, Stuff like that. 

So, to folks that are in their 20s now, when they look back on wrestling from their childhood, it is stuff like Super Cena, and "going 1-on-1 with the Undertaker playa".  WWE was the only 'major league' in town, and for the 5-10yr olds that discovered wrestling in the '00s, that stuff is the good shit from their childhood. 

When you mix that in with how media consumption changes more and more the younger the demographic is, well no wonder people go to wrestling shows and don't boo or cheer.

It’s a good comparison. Not to split hairs, but SNL’s decline in quality is more accurately based on overtly commercial interests exceeding artistic concerns. There was an A&E biography in the late 90s that nicely showed how the show was written/developed over the years. In the first couple decades the creativity flowed in a far more spontaneous setting. In the late 90s a bunch of suits were deciding what’s funny. This method continues to this day. All that said, your point rings true. On the subject of wrestling, the Irish Whip alone makes the Nostalgia crew’s inability to move forward and ‘back in my day’ argument feel like a big ol’ yawn.

Edited April 30 by HarryArchieGus

[EVA]

16 hours ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

That's an excellent point too, and one that I wish I saw before I made my last post - like, look at your point about how many people fondly remember Teddy as SD GM. The period you're describing is what I always refer to as the "Muppet Show" period of WWE: a good 90% of the show, was just about running the show. GMs, Commissioners, CEOs, EVPs, guest "hosts" - who they want on top, who they don't, who's good for "the brand," the Board votes "no confidence!", Trump buys Raw, draft after draft after draft - there is legitimately a generation of people out there who really think the matches, titles, angles and all the other devices used - are only there in support of a larger story about whoever is in charge.

The way you’re describing this makes me think about how bands who’ve been on the record-tour-record-tour grind for long enough inevitably make a record about being on tour that is almost completely impenetrable and unrelatable to your average person. Always a reliable sign that the band probably needs to take a break.

It actually makes total sense that by the 00’s Vince would be so far up his own ass that he’s making a show about making his show.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

2 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

Not to split hairs, but SNL’s decline in quality is more accurately based on overtly commercial interests exceeding artistic concerns. T

Live from Riyadh, it's Saturday afternoon...

[Just Dave]

4 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

It’s a good comparison. Not to split hairs, but SNL’s decline in quality is more accurately based on overtly commercial interests exceeding artistic concerns. There was an A&E biography in the late 90s that nicely showed how the show was written/developed over the years. In the first couple decades the creativity flowed in a far more spontaneous setting. In the late 90s a bunch of suits were deciding what’s funny. This method continues to this day. All that said, your point rings true. On the subject of wrestling, the Irish Whip alone makes the Nostalgia crew’s inability to move forward and ‘back in my day’ argument’ feel like a big ol’ yawn.

I'll submit that we live in a reality that is much less ripe for parody than 20-30 years ago. I mean, how can you possibly "parody" someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert? It's not possible to make them seem dumber or more insane. 

I do like the approach someone mentioned above, and I said it a few weeks ago; AEW is a wrestling show. It's okay to have wrestling matches on your wrestling show. Not every encounter needs to be preceded by 30 minute lore dumps...

[Technico Support]

17 minutes ago, Just Dave said:

Not every encounter needs to be preceded by 30 minute lore dumps...

Not every single match needs a story.  Any time I hear someone edging toward the argument that they do, all I can think of is:

 

[HarryArchieGus]

I saw the AEW 'TV' live experience on Saturday, and to no surprise it wasn't nearly as fun as watching with no commercials, the international version, and in the morning with breakfast. 

I hope somebody out there is compiling the Best of Don Callis? He is so effective as a heel while also being incredibly funny. Don's admiration of Trent's win this week was my number 1 highlight. His chewing out of Fletcher and Ospreay wasn't far behind.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

Not every single match needs a story.  Any time I hear someone edging toward the argument that they do, all I can think of is:

 

So the argument you're essentially making is "I had a bad vacation once, therefore all vacations are bad, and we should never take them". Everything has the risk to be bad, and the way around that isn't just to abandon doing it altogether.

Deep down, we all need a reason to care about something. For some, the wrestling itself is enough. Someone earlier referenced watching football for the sake of watching football because they love football that much. That's great! Some people can sit there and watch a 2-8 team play a 3-9 team and be perfectly happy, and that's great for them. Others are going to need something more; maybe a race for the division title, maybe they don't check in until the playoffs, maybe it's just the Super Bowl that they start watching, whatever. But to say that only one method of enjoying football is valid? Ehhhh. Kinda shitty, don't you think?

And I think that's what the folks who are asking for more story are asking for. If the primary thing thrown out there is "and here's a great match!" or "here's a five star classic", then ehhhhh. 2-8 vs 3-9 football games could be great games too, but if there's nothing really on the line aside from draft position (which you have to be bought into those teams to care about), a lot of folks just aren't going to care, and that's the reality of life. But if it's "this person hates that person and they want to beat the living heck out of each other", or "this person can make more money by beating the heck out of this person", now we're getting somewhere. For those folks, that carries a lot farther than "this is a tape trader's dream match!"

That has more to do with having actual emotional investment in the people watching. Whenever I see someone make that point - and I'm just speaking from my own experience because it's why I don't watch as much of the show as I used to - I read "I want to care, but I haven't been given anything to care about". Those viewers are either going to find something or they aren't, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to give them more of a hook than how high of a rating people give it on Cagematch, or how many stars Dave Meltzer tossed out.

Edited April 30 by Stefanie Sparkleface

[zendragon]

I don't need 20 minute monologues or people fighting over shampoo and I don't mind an occasional guest star but I do feel that if I'm watching a show every week its "I want to see what happens next". I'm trying to step into a world for two hours. Same if I watching a drama or a sitcom, its "what's the gang up to this week". I just like a bit of world building, and I feel that AEW has been slipping a bit in this.

Also I hate the "This is Awesome" chant... totally breaking the fourth wall. I do feel this would be helped by more performers actively working as heels.

21 hours ago, Iron Moose said:

this is in no way intended to be a gotcha! comment, but I think it's important to make allowances for the crowd steering alignments over the intent of the writers.

That there's a distinction between rejecting the story while engaging with it (Io/Bianca in PR; refusing to accept Becky as a heel, leading to The Man era), versus disregarding the story (the MEAT chants for Miro/Hobbs when their respective alignments were ... unclear at the time?), but I'm not sure where or how clear that border is...

 there respective alignments where MEATY MEN SLAPPIN MEAT! 

[Hail Sabin]

3 hours ago, Technico Support said:

Not every single match needs a story.  Any time I hear someone edging toward the argument that they do, all I can think of is:

 

The greatest thing about WWE Crush Hour is they run Edge's Japanese Shampoo commercial. 

[odessasteps]

In theory, the story for any match should "winning means more money" or "winning gets me closer to a title match."