Greggulator Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Re-reading all the recent Monthly Omnibus and Promotion Specific threads has led me to a horrifying conclusion. I call it the Henry O. Godwin's Law. The longer Pro-Wrestling discussion goes on, the probability of it mirroring modern Political Discussion approaches 1. I think the wrestling sub-culture has been way ahead of that curve for a long time. There were WCW people and WWE people during (and before) the Monday Night Wars. And also ECW people. There was certainly a crossover, since anyone obsessive enough to come on message boards to talk about this crap is OBSESSED. But I definitely had my rooting interests (ECW first, the great WCW talent second). We're the first group to do HOT TAKES. I was talking abut this stuff on a 2400 baud when I was a freshman in high school. Any sort of the instant criticism for things like Mad Men and Breaking Bad and the like is a fairly recent trend. But rasslin' fans? We were ripping on matches and the like the first time AOL donated us nominal minutes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggulator Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I may be the strongest proponent of "I discount any and all rumors" on here. But, yes, there probably are backstage shenanigans and the like that impact stuffing instead of potatoes. I've already criticized the Observer and the NEWZ~ sites enough. (The Observer's a trade publication. I am a journalist who largely makes his bones in trade publications about the energy industry. I even worked for one about hearing aides at one point in time. It's a completely different beast, obviously, But I think I know a good one and a bad one and you can see where I stand.) But, yeah, I don't discredit anyone from believing what they want to believe. But I do think everyone should have some degree of skepticism. I also hate when this comes into criticism. That's essentially what we are. We're critics who watch matches and storylines unfold. We too often use news and speculation to form our opinions on the actual product. No critics alive in music or film or TV ever take the backstage politics into consideration when reviewing work. I've never read one thing Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael that even touched on the jockeying that goes on when making film. I could be wrong. But those two are excellent film critics. If I'm analyzing an entertainment product, that's who I'm going to try and ape as a critic. Wrestling has such a niche audience that we don't have an Ebert or Kael. There are a handful of people who somehow ended up with some visibility from criticism (Brandon Stroud, Scott Keith) but they're far from being the definitive gatekeepers. (And I like Brandon. Keith, not at all.) Here is an example of how news interferes with criticism. Let's talk about Cesaro. The thinking is he was punished for making comments about Cena and Orton and lost to Dolph 2-0 as a result. Does that take away at all from that match being of a really good quality? And Dolph beat Cesaro very impressively. The next night on Raw, he beat Kane -- kayfabe positioned as one of the hardest men to ever beat -- in a really competitive match. So Dolph beat Cesaro to gain credibility, and then beat a monster to gain more credibility as Cena's right-hand-man headed into Survivor Series. If you cloud yourself away from the NEWZ~, this is a really solid build job of a character. It's leading somewhere. It's a good sub-plot slowly emerging within the greater narrative of Team Cena vs. The Authority. If you believe the NEWZ~, then you might not see that narrative since we all love Cesaro and wish he had a better spot and it's not fair, etc. The very nature of the Observer and its ilk is to rely on gossip, very often from the most disgruntled sources, those out of power. One thought is that Meltzer's sources are mostly all done and gone and he hears what he hears from who knows who. I think we'd all agree that he's best when doing either statistical analyses or historical pieces (though I still don't think those are ever structured very well; it's like learning another language. Once you get used to them, they're informative and worthwhile). Again, though, there's probably some truth in most things he reports, just by the nature of this stuff. wrestling is carny and amazing and like nothing else, both on screen and off. that's part of why we follow it. We also bring years of watching, our own expectations, and years of basically feeling like we've been victimized by the company. We are a subculture of a subculture and I think there is a not entirely unfair mentality of the company that produces this thing, that when done how we like it, is one of our favorite things in the world. We see how they rewrite history in the Monday Night War show, or hear stories about how they go out of their way to hire people who know nothing about wrestling. There are all the attempts to brand themselves to reach anyone but us. A lot of times, when things we do like happen, it's because they slip under the radar. Like the end of days ECW show or the work that had been done on the website over the last couple of years. And that makes business sense. the hardcores will always be there. You can extrapolate it out further, but I do think there's a victim's mentality for wrestling fans in 2014 (and you can trace it back to the 80s pretty easily). And it's something worth thinking about more. I'd probably write more but I have to run now. Another thing that us hardcore fans/critics should think about is that we're not the intended audience most of the time. So, should we look at what's presented to us from the perspective of who this is supposed to entertain? If you think of things that way, Cena Overcoming The Odds becomes a lot more palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technico Support Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Why watch something you're not the intended audience for, though? That seems like a sure route to misery. I don't watch Teletubbies and then bitch online about its lack of a complex plot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Conn Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The WWE booking feels very stagnate to me right now because of the lack of direct competition. I still watch Raw almost every Monday night but nothing feels urgent it doesnt feel cutting edge to me anymore. That doesnt mean that it isnt compelling to a 13 year old right now. Thank god for Youtube so I can watch Indies like Beyond Wrestling and DGUSA/Evolve and international stuff like New Japan and NOAH. Products that I enjoy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJ Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Another thing that us hardcore fans/critics should think about is that we're not the intended audience most of the time. So, should we look at what's presented to us from the perspective of who this is supposed to entertain? If you think of things that way, Cena Overcoming The Odds becomes a lot more palatable. Yes, except its seems like the times when we're most excited tends to coincide with pumped live crowds and bumps in the ratings. And on the other end, when we're whining about a storyline or direction, indifferent live crowds and declining ratings tend to follow. The argument would make sense if Cena was setting records and we were complaining about it. But it seems like more often than not, WWE stubbornly follows a path that no one is interested in. And yes, you can argue the intended audience is kids and the kids are going home happy, cept kids are not all that difficult to please. You spend a few days hyping (no pun intended) Mojo Rawley to a five-year old and they'll want his action figure and think he should be champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I can appreciate characters or storylines that aren't necessarily intended for me: My enjoyment of the Bayley character (along with her work) comes to mind. That's a character for young girls. The trick is that the character/storyline needs to be well-executed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playa Shunna Ver 3.0 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I enjoy Bayley for entirely different reasons than a young girl would. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 OK, but my point is that there are things that aren't intended for me as the target audience that I can still enjoy. Take John Cena, who I still enjoy in the ring. I think the complaints about him and his overcoming the odds are not that they happen in and of themselves. Most complaints are about the execution of these stories. Cena overcoming Wade Barrett and Nexus, for example, was criticized because they cut short the Midnight Rider aspect of the storyline, which made things fresh for how Cena would try to overcome Barrett. Cena overcoming the Wyatts was criticized because Cena never really felt threatened; he never even strongly hinted that he might go to new depths to beat Bray. There was no sense that he had to really struggle personally to overcome anything. He didn't even seem all that conflicted by kids turning on his values to follow Bray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Conn Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I enjoy Bayley for entirely different reasons than a young girl would.There's some young girls out there that enjoy Bayley for that reason. They might not know it yet but they do. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick B. Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It's annoying that they repeatedly drag out the "Cena is tempted to turn heel" angle every few months when it's been made abundantly clear that it'll NEVER EVER EVER happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre013 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 WWE third quarter call tomorrow. Subscriber number predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It was at 700K at Q2, right? I'll predict a domestic net loss of 50K, and ~200K foreign subscribers to bring it up to 850K. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenbat Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I think the rumors can be very reliable when there are guys like Jericho, Cornette and a huge group of former writers spilling beans and corroborating stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromatagon Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 TV writers all talk to each other and talk mad shit, so you can probably trust those dudes when they actively try to warn anyone against taking the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre013 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It was at 700K at Q2, right? I'll predict a domestic net loss of 50K, and ~200K foreign subscribers to bring it up to 850K. That's about right...vince yelling at some Wall Street analyst is fun. I listened once and he was belligerent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It was at 700K at Q2, right? I'll predict a domestic net loss of 50K, and ~200K foreign subscribers to bring it up to 850K. I wonder how they'll count subscribers for Canada since you can only access it through Rogers Communications. Maybe Rogers will just give them the straight sub numbers to pass on, but I wouldn't be shocked if they instead just use the number of Rogers subscribers overall that have the potential to access the network or something that fudges the sub numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Since we're wading through rumblingz and whether or not they are the devil, let's talk about the first time you were like 'holy shit backstage politics is a thing and I am fascinated!' For me it was the nWo, as lame as that is. I hadn't watched in a long while and a buddy called me and was like TURN ON NITRO HOGAN IS BAD. I saw him and Razor and Diesel and was like 'this makes no sense dogs and cats are living together' and then had the Kliq explained to me and I would lose my shit every time one of them flashed the Kliq sign on camera on either show. THEY ARE SENDING EACH OTHER MESSAGES. I knooow, right? All of a sudden you gave a shit that these guys rode around town together. I didn't watch WCW much at the time. My deal was always knowing that Shawn and Bret hated each other IN REAL LIFE, which meant there was a real life reality and parallel universe where guys get irish whipped. And then I watched ECW and listened to wrestlers talk shit about their former employers and my mind was blown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For me it was Shawn vs. Bret, the Montreal Screwjob and then watching (and recording) Wrestling With Shadows when it aired on A&E not long after. Also, the Mankind interviews where he talked about his real and past life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafkonia Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Arguments about backstage mechanics via 3rd and 16th hand stories, rumors, and Meltzer gypsy palm reading IS PRO WRESTLING CROSS THE LIIIIIIINE also instead of white knight can we say 'dunn justice warrior' Wasn't "Dunn Justice Warrior" Abyss's indie gimmick? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAct Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I watched the bit on the Performance Center. So cool to see someone that I work with on a weekly basis look better than everyone else there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scraylo187 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Since we're wading through rumblingz and whether or not they are the devil, let's talk about the first time you were like 'holy shit backstage politics is a thing and I am fascinated!' For me it was the nWo, as lame as that is. I hadn't watched in a long while and a buddy called me and was like TURN ON NITRO HOGAN IS BAD. I saw him and Razor and Diesel and was like 'this makes no sense dogs and cats are living together' and then had the Kliq explained to me and I would lose my shit every time one of them flashed the Kliq sign on camera on either show. THEY ARE SENDING EACH OTHER MESSAGES. I knooow, right? All of a sudden you gave a shit that these guys rode around town together. I didn't watch WCW much at the time. My deal was always knowing that Shawn and Bret hated each other IN REAL LIFE, which meant there was a real life reality and parallel universe where guys get irish whipped. And then I watched ECW and listened to wrestlers talk shit about their former employers and my mind was blown. I didn't know much WCW either, other than Nick, the kid that lived in the apartments nearby that my parents didn't like me hanging around, loving it and always yelling WOOO before he'd chop us. That was when I was like 12. But when Pillman showed up in WWF and mentioned that Steve had shaved his blonde locks I remembered Nick always talking about the Hollywood Blondes and I was like WHAT IS HAPPENING ANYMORE. I felt like Captain America. "I understood that reference!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fresh Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I watched the bit on the Performance Center. So cool to see someone that I work with on a weekly basis look better than everyone else there. You work with Dusty Rhodes on a weekly basis? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I know there were RUMORZ that the ever allusive THEY didnt want to push Dolph as a Main Event player because the thought was he was too prone to concussions but its been 18 months since he last got concussed so maybe THEY are pushing him to the top spot again. Dolph also had a rep of forgetting spots in matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool arrow Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 PWInsider is reporting that Steen's new name is Kevin Owens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mco543 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised if Steen helped come up with it, in any event he's probably pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts