Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Maybe Free Will and Self-Expression Through Creativity are Good Things


Gordberg
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Casey said:

2019/First half of 2020: "Why are the EVPs putting over everyone and their mother? They need to win some matches!"

Back half of 2020/Beginning of 2021: "Not, not like that!"

Eeeeeeeeeeexactly.

Fucking pick one, people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't necessarily contradictory thoughts depending on the preferences of the person expressing them. Ordering something at a restaurant doesn't mean you're required to be satisfied by it. Wanting more Arrested Development after its initial run doesn't mean I want to watch any old garbage they serve up.

Not that I subscribe those shallow strawman thoughts anyway. The EVPs should clearly be winning as often as possible, especially now that they have the straps. If they're supposed to be these big stars and the establishing bedrocks of this new promotion, I prefer to see them presented as strong as possible for the time being rather than treading water and pretending they're not clearly more important than the inaugural tag champs SCU.

And outside of a couple weeks towards the end of 2019, the EVPs largely been presented as strong. And even then, they were shrewd enough to book the beginning of 2020 as a way of addressing that misstep by making an issue of it on TV and putting the Elite over strong. Of course if people want to relitigate takes from a year+ ago to score points, that's their business. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Technico Support said:

It's already been said, but nowhere did I say "the EVPs don't put themselves over."  I said the EVPs don't book the promotion strictly for their own enjoyment (except for Cody and his Star Trek cosplay, let's take shots at HHH, I dress fancy and have a big truck bullshit).  And preemptively dismissing an an argument out of hand with no real counterpoint doesn't make you right.  There is absolutely something to be said for Omega and the Bucks not putting the belts on themselves for the first year.  They recognized that Jericho and Moxley would be better initial champions while establishing Omega, for example, and that the Omega/Page partnership for the tag belts would help build a new star in Page.  You could speak to that if you like instead of saying "oh they wait a whole year haha that's nothing!"  It was definitely something.

This is fair.  I took it an extra step from "they don't book for their own enjoyment" to "they don't book to put themselves over". It's fair that I did not address your argument as I was putting words in your mouth that you didn't say. I would argue that they bring a lot of people into the promotion and onto television because they like them personally and that's the key argument for putting their jollies in front of quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Casey said:

2019/First half of 2020: "Why are the EVPs putting over everyone and their mother? They need to win some matches!"

Back half of 2020/Beginning of 2021: "Not, not like that!"

WWE fans constantly clamor for new stars. WWE straps a rocket to Jinder Mahal and makes him WWE Champion. Why were they still complaining? Because you can do the right thing the wrong way and be worse off.

The EVPs are a combined (and we are going to call the Bucks a singular entity for this) 103-31-2. When were they on job duty again? Let's look at who they put over. 

Cody by far has the best record putting over MJF, Darby and Brodie Lee and making them bigger stars in the process. I don't think we can argue those. He also helped Eddie Kingston get on the show on a fulltime basis. Cody for all the guff I give him for being the John Cena Champion of AEW makes stars despite the star trek shirts and driving trucks at a low rate of speed.

Omega put over Moxley who was arguable already a bigger star than Omega in the United States but still did indeed put him over. We could argue he helped Hangman get over by teaming with him but I'm not sure we can point to Kenny as the driving force for that over Page's own contribution. Omega would go on to get his win back on Moxley which helped put him back over in this whole Callis angle. Most I remember people complaining about Omega "not winning" was when he went 50/50 with then complete unknown Allen Angels. 

Bucks famously lost to Private Party and it still gets brought up but they never did anything with Private Party afterwards. They lost to Page and Omega on PPV but they didn't pay off the storyline. And they did a job to The Best Friends that was famous for Page interfering to help FTR win in the end of the gauntlet and starting The Bucks' aborted heel turn.

Look, I'm not saying the EVPs shouldn't be featured on the show. That would be stupid. I'm also not saying that they shouldn't be champions right now. I'm saying that its wild to me that someone would be patting them on the back for being unselfish when they are featured and are the champions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MrKothoga said:

Well, the point of the story is that Joey has no business of getting that shot, but Darby wanted it anyway because, like you said, he elevated that garbage era and is flabbergasted why Janela hasn’t. That’s a simple story. The champion knows his “buddy” is better than his record shows. He’s the first one to challenge despite a bad record (obviously leaving Cody’s open challenge aside).

And all this feeds into Taz lamenting about nepotism several times (while Hobbs and his 10-10 record doesn’t exactly scream legitimate challenger anyways). Ricky Starks should be the one challenging for the title, yes, and Taz will probably cry about a lack of respect once again after the champion simply handpicked a “buddy” of his for the next title defense.

Twitter and YouTube make that part of the story from Darby’s and Janela’s side clear – and herein lies a problem with AEW, because they probably won’t do a good job of telling you on Dynamite why Janela isn’t a random nonsensical choice of a challenger.

Yes. Austin and Colten Gunn are a prime example of the problems of having a win-loss record but no clear idea of what you really wanna be doing with all your wrestlers.

Yeah... but shouldn't Taz not be 100% right about the nepotism since he's the bad guy? Like if Darby wanted to give the shot to overlooked talent like Scorpio Sky or Sammy Guevara or an unknown like Danny Limelight, it would make some sense. Janela has had lots of chances at the big leagues and failed each time.

The Hobbs record is a hold over from his time doing jobs on Dark (he was 0-8 at one point) which is why I brought up the idea of not keeping track of the unsigned talents' records until they get signed a long while ago. Hobbs also has the benefit of being 280 lbs and being awesome. 

And lest we forget, Janela sucks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goodear said:

This is fair.  I took it an extra step from "they don't book for their own enjoyment" to "they don't book to put themselves over". It's fair that I did not address your argument as I was putting words in your mouth that you didn't say. I would argue that they bring a lot of people into the promotion and onto television because they like them personally and that's the key argument for putting their jollies in front of quality.

 

Not counting someone like Riho, who absolutely deserved it, were any of the EVPs friends booked into any kind of bigtime spot and/or for any length of time?

I'm thinking about Cutler, Cardona, Nakazawa, the 48 members of the Nightmare Family.  Are any of them really taking away a scary amount of TV time in their minimal spots that a more talented indy worker should have?  Should AEW put Chris Dickinson in the Dungeon Master spot?   Would we be better served with Hoodfoot Mo Atlas in Nakazawa's minimal role?

The only time I can think of where a friend/family of the EVPs was brought in where it served no purpose at all and wasted our time was The Nightmare Collective.

 

Edited by Technico Support
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, El Gran Gordi said:

I'd also very much like to continue my grand unified theory of how to have a bit more fun watching AEW but I feel like joining the discussion should take priority.

My basic concept, which I knew going in was going to make some people a little angry, is this: 

Joy and delight are more fun than anger and outrage.

I understand that I may be wrong about that and it goes without saying that everyone is free to disagree. 

That doesn't make me angry at all. I agree completely. But that's like saying getting through cold weather next to a roaring fire with a good book and a cup of hot cholate is preferable to freezing to death buck nude in the wilderness. It's so clear what all of us reasonable people would find preferable that it almost goes without saying. I think all of use would rather be joyful than angry. 

I would also posit that this isn't an entertainment property that makes me feel angry. If I'm failing to express my thoughts in way that others feel is insufficiently joyful, I'd hate for those thoughts to be misinterpreted as anger. 

I have a few thoughts on the article you shared. It being fifteen+ years old, I won't hold you too firmly to any opinion or prognostication. 😉 But I do intend to tackle some of the examples you used, and tie in the way I view a couple contemporary figures in AEW. 

With due respect, I think there may be some bias in your categorization of what's in service of art and what's in service of business. While Brian Kendrick clearly loves wrestling, one could characterize his choice to leave WWE for the first time as a calculation that generating value elsewhere would be better for him in the long-run than treading water on the weekend C-shows in WWE (nowadays people have taken to describing this as "betting on yourself," very much a business decision). Eddie Guerrero's service on the indies may also read as a guy who's happy to help where he can with indie talent, but is just putting in reps while he waits to get called back to the show. And I think your characterization of Chris Benoit is way off, as he's a guy who never sacrificed his style to any large degree and remained a consistent producer of great matches till the end. I never saw him a guy who would "tone it down" or sacrifice his craft in any material way. Much of Benoit and Guerrero's best work to my eye took place in WWE later in their careers.

To your credit, you did say a few times you were guessing. I just present alternative explanations. In actuality, I see the interests of art and business mixing constantly, and in ways that make it difficult to simply laud things we enjoy as being in service of art and dismiss things we don't enjoy (or enjoy less) as being cynically in service of business. 

Your willingness to reach for what were the "obvious examples" of wrestling artistry in 2005 WWE does call to attention the other side of that equation: What of the people who weren't "obvious examples" of the dichotomy you're trying to present? What of Triple H? He's easy to pigeonhole cynically as a political animal and an ambitious businessperson. And he's every bit of that. But he also spent 2005 paying off Evolution, having personal dream matches with Ric Flair and putting in masterful work trying to establish Batista as a franchise player going forward. Am I to take it that he took less artistic pride in that work than Bryan Danielson had in his own? Does he not love professional wrestling because he chooses to work in service of a certain system that runs counter to the tastes of a certain sect of wrestling fans? Because I don't see it that way, and I doubt you would either. I don't think he loves wrestling less because he doesn't choose to go the Spanky route and doesn't have the clout someone like Benoit once had with a subsection of fans. And I choose not to see him as someone whose artistic and business goals are misaligned, as you've presented latter-day Benoit and Guerrero. I see someone pursing what he sees the best of both. 

To why Benoit and Eddie wouldn't "just quit," I think the benefit of fifteen more years of wisdom and experience makes that evident. The goals of a life and a career can change, and it's really not our place to judge. For two guys who got to make the greatest amount of money sharing their creative space with peers they respected and who respected them in turn, who are we to say they were sacrificing their art? I don't think any less of Cesaro as an artist between the ropes for deciding WWE is the optimal place for him to pursue his personal, professional, and artistic goals. And if were to modernize this conversation, I see Cesaro as being a fairly appropriate analogue for the view you take of Benoit and Guerrero in your writing.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who just hang in this for the money or prioritize it. But my overall sense of the distinctions you were making fifteen years ago is between art you like and art you don't like. And that's perfectly okay.  But I'm personally not keen to extrapolate from that and pass easy judgement that some people don't prioritize their art.

Looking at today's AEW, I think our image of these people is focused too much on the art and not enough on the business. I don't think Cody keeps track of the houses on every building he's worked since shortly after leaving WWE because he thinks of himself primarily as an artist. The Young Bucks don't hawk t-shirt so successfully because they've prioritized their art above their financial security. Forgive me for saying so, but I think more people meet the categorization of businesspeople and artist and find a way to prioritize both than your worldview and categorization allowed for in 2005. 

Just my $0.02.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goodear said:

Yeah... but shouldn't Taz not be 100% right about the nepotism since he's the bad guy? Like if Darby wanted to give the shot to overlooked talent like Scorpio Sky or Sammy Guevara or an unknown like Danny Limelight, it would make some sense. Janela has had lots of chances at the big leagues and failed each time.

The Hobbs record is a hold over from his time doing jobs on Dark (he was 0-8 at one point) which is why I brought up the idea of not keeping track of the unsigned talents' records until they get signed a long while ago. Hobbs also has the benefit of being 280 lbs and being awesome. 

And lest we forget, Janela sucks.

Like it or not but AEW clearly doesn't care that much about what faces or heels are supposed to be like and you can be 100% right and still be a bad guy. The new eco-friedly Daniel Bryan was right and a fantastic heel. Every evil foreigner criticizing racial prejudices was and is right. So, either way, I see no problem in Taz being right. And Darby doesn't think Janela is overlooked, Darby things he's better than what he's shown so far. That's a difference.

And I won't argue that Hobbs brings more to the table than Janela who maybe has some kind of unknown backstage role which justifies his spot. I really don't wanna defend Joey Janela. And clearly Hobbs first weeks as unsigned talent falsify his "true" record and Dark in it's current form is a detriment to the win-loss records.

Coming back to the greater theme of this thread, I really like things like Taz beeing right despite being a bad guy in theory. Most of the time AEW feels more like people coming together playing characters they wan't to play, even if that makes their stories chaotic and muddled at times. FTR vs. Young Bucks is a great example of things not really coming together from a storytelling view for me. WWE drove me away because you feel that people are playing a role someone else imposed upon them (even though some people are fantastic in their roles). I don't have that feeling with AEW (even though some people suck with their characters).

And it's really not all milk and honey. Darby just deciding Janela is his next challenger feels like something the character would do. Meanwhile, Darby standing next to Sting in awe like a young boy and leaving without saying a word because Sting has said everything that needs to be said feels like a written role without getting the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AxB said:

If I'd known there was going to be an essay writing contest, I'd have taken notes...

The tl;dr was because you asked for one last time. Save yourself the eyestrain go watch Phantom Thread. You might like it!

Edited by Andy in Kansas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andy in Kansas said:

 

Looking at today's AEW, I think our image of these people is focused too much on the art and not enough on the business. I don't think Cody keeps track of the houses on every building he's worked since shortly after leaving WWE because he thinks of himself primarily as an artist. The Young Bucks don't hawk t-shirt so successfully because they've prioritized their art above their financial security. Forgive me for saying so, but I think more people meet the categorization of businesspeople and artist and find a way to prioritize both than your worldview and categorization allowed for in 2005. 

 

This pat reminds me of musicians that I know who play music that they love while at the same time understand that CD and Tshirt sales put food on the table. Art and commerce is rarely and either or

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never seen the first two prequels in full and never will, I sensed they were bad and people proved it to me in clips and essays.

Anyway I think AEW should quietly drop the faulty rankings system and fix the women division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See right, the thing is, the DVDVR started as a fun alternative to the humourless, po-faced over analytical kind of wrestling non-enjoyment that you'd get a TOA and that. There's a reason why the first thing in DVDVR #1 was talking about how brilliant the Anticristo interview was.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Technico Support said:

 

Not counting someone like Riho, who absolutely deserved it, were any of the EVPs friends booked into any kind of bigtime spot and/or for any length of time?

I'm thinking about Cutler, Cardona, Nakazawa, the 48 members of the Nightmare Family.  Are any of them really taking away a scary amount of TV time in their minimal spots that a more talented indy worker should have?  Should AEW put Chris Dickinson in the Dungeon Master spot?   Would we be better served with Hoodfoot Mo Atlas in Nakazawa's minimal role?

The only time I can think of where a friend/family of the EVPs was brought in where it served no purpose at all and wasted our time was The Nightmare Collective.

 

Matt Cardona was pretty much a total waste.   I'd argue Jake Hager is a bit of a waste as well, but that just might be my own distaste.

 

I think AEW's women's division is pretty decent now- just look at the US side of their tournament.  No dead weight in there.

 

 

Edited by alstein
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AxB said:

See right, the thing is, the DVDVR started as a fun alternative to the humourless, po-faced over analytical kind of wrestling non-enjoyment that you'd get a TOA and that. There's a reason why the first thing in DVDVR #1 was talking about how brilliant the Anticristo interview was.

Shhhhhhhhhhh! You're not supposed to tell people that!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AxB said:

See right, the thing is, the DVDVR started as a fun alternative to the humourless, po-faced over analytical kind of wrestling non-enjoyment that you'd get a TOA and that.

I'll go tell all the people in Raw threads in late 2013 and early 2014 that their joyless complaining about and non-enjoyment of Daniel Bryan's booking is against the spirit of the board. I know it seemed like approved behaviour because they were the majority. But they need to be scolded. 

Also, scolding people is apparently now fun. Weird how that happened, but here we are.

Edited by John from Cincinnati
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Technico Support said:

 

Not counting someone like Riho, who absolutely deserved it, were any of the EVPs friends booked into any kind of bigtime spot and/or for any length of time?

I'm thinking about Cutler, Cardona, Nakazawa, the 48 members of the Nightmare Family.  Are any of them really taking away a scary amount of TV time in their minimal spots that a more talented indy worker should have?  Should AEW put Chris Dickinson in the Dungeon Master spot?   Would we be better served with Hoodfoot Mo Atlas in Nakazawa's minimal role?

The only time I can think of where a friend/family of the EVPs was brought in where it served no purpose at all and wasted our time was The Nightmare Collective.

 

Cardona got his spot because people knew who he is so I wouldn't add him here. It was odd to throw him into the Dark Order angle so the friends of Cody could win a 8 man.

The Chaos Project could be replaced with TH2 who also aren't getting pushed. Cutler is okay honestly but could have been left in retirement and most people wouldn't have noticed. He's a body you could replace with a rookie like Lee Johnson who could develop in a slow roll sort of way. Nakasawa is a really niche act with the baby oil and jockstrap claw. You could have used Colt Cabana in a similar roll if you were bound and determined to have a comedy wrestler.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Goodear said:

Cardona got his spot because people knew who he is so I wouldn't add him here. It was odd to throw him into the Dark Order angle so the friends of Cody could win a 8 man.

The Chaos Project could be replaced with TH2 who also aren't getting pushed. Cutler is okay honestly but could have been left in retirement and most people wouldn't have noticed. He's a body you could replace with a rookie like Lee Johnson who could develop in a slow roll sort of way. Nakasawa is a really niche act with the baby oil and jockstrap claw. You could have used Colt Cabana in a similar roll if you were bound and determined to have a comedy wrestler.

Right, but that was exactly my point.  Every spot a "Friend of the EVPs" has been put in has been a very minor one that wouldn't have really made  a difference for somebody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2021 at 2:49 PM, Jimbo_Tsuruta said:

 I'd prefer if AEW had refs that weren't just mannequins and if they just had a two-man booth (with guest spots from MJF/Kingston occasionally) but those are my only real gripes.

Those are good gripes! That's totally valid criticism, particularly if (as it clearly is here) it's intended constructively. Those ar two ways that AEW could improve without changing what they are as a promotion, two ways for AEW to be the best AEW it can be.

And, yeah, long may AEW continue!

On 2/8/2021 at 3:58 AM, Goodear said:

1) ...despite it clearly not being in bad faith...

2) This is where your logic sort of falls apart. Because you can make this same argument for every wrestling promotion in history and it would be just as valid. You're pissing away a lot of joy by wishing GLOW wasn't about girls wrestling basic matches with super fun larger than life gimmicks. The fun in WCW is in seeing who is going to be in the nWo this week. The fun in current day WWE is in seeing people from the past come back once a year to wreck the current crop of non stars. If you don't enjoy those things, are you demanding that they be something they are not?

 

3) Most comparing AEW to WWE are people who want to make the point that AEW is so much better than WWE so shut up.

 

You make a lot of points, and I'd like to respond to all of them but I am short on time. So, I have picked three. 

1) I appreciate that. We don't often see eye to eye but we both generally make the effort to listen to actually hear what the other is saying, I think, which is a good thing. That generally seems to be the case on these boards, which is why I come here more than any other wrestling site.

2) That's not where my logic falls apart. That's the strength of my argument. 

GLOW is a superb example. There are things to like about GLOW, and there are things to dislike. There are good takes to have about GLOW and there are bad takes.

If someone's take on GLOW was "GLOW is OK but they'd be better if they took themselves less seriously, if the wrestlers had easily-identifiable gimmicks to set them apart from each other, and if it was brighter and more colourful" then that is obviously an insane take. But that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is, "GLOW would be better if it was more of an Americanized GAEA. The matches need to be 15 minute plus,and harrowing in their stiffness and intensity." I'd argue that is an equally bad take. I love GAEA. I'd love an English-language GAEA-style promotion. Stiffness and intensity are good! But... that ain't what GLOW is. GLOW is never, ever going to be that. Arguing that, week after week, on some hypothetical GLOW thread, is just pissing into the wind. 

3) I honestly wonder where this opinion, which you have voiced more than once, comes from. I have never read anyone on here telling you to shut up. People asked HustlerofCulture to shut up, and for good reason. Maybe I've been missing it? Maybe you hear it a lot elsewhere? I do sometimes see people asking you to have better takes. I sometimes do so myself. Maybe it's psychologically easier to hear "have better takes" as "shut up?" For what it's worth, I think lot - maybe most -of your takes are, in fact, really good. Well thought out and well presented, and they seem to be received as such here as well.

On 2/8/2021 at 4:10 AM, Godfrey said:

In regards to the sports centric talk, they said that not us. They abandoned the win-loss records when they found out how hard it is to book that way, which is fine but they talked my into the arena with a whole bunch of promises they didn't keep and now I'm told that's on me? No, sir.

Only time to respond properly to one point, and I've chosen this one.

It's absolutely not on you, or whomever, if you believed that AEW was going to go that route. It's not on you if you felt let down that they went in a different direction. They did, more or less, break a promise there.

I'd argue, however, that it is on whomever if their opinion of AEW is still based around that broken promise over a year into their run. As I said, it's probably time to consider retiring that particular take.

Let's use Seinfeld as an example this time. The original premise of Seinfeld was that it was about life as a stand up  comedian. The show would start with Seinfeld doing a bit from his act, then you'd see what happened in his life that gave him the idea for that bit. People were always asking Seinfeld where he got his ideas, this show was going to answer those questions.

But, it quickly went in another direction. 

So, if we are on a hypothetical Seinfeld board, and a guy is going on every week about how "The Chinese Restaurant" or "The Parking Garage" are not about stand up at all... is that a good take?  Again, I'd argue that our hypothetical guy (or another hypothetical guy who keeps yelling about how Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer need to learn a lesson and hug it out at the end of every episode and why can't they understand that is how sitcoms work) are just pissing into the wind... those are bad takes, right? Those hypothetical guys are, I feel, missing out on the joy of some great TV comedy in favour of nursing a grudge.

I am in no way trying to argue that Seinfeld or AEW can't be criticized. I'm trying to argue that some criticism is interesting, amusing, valid, constructive, conversation-generating, or whatever, and other criticism is lazy, counterproductive and/or just pissing into the wind.

And, again, most of the takes here on DVDVR are the former. Pissing into the wind type takes are relatively rare, here.

 

On 2/8/2021 at 6:35 AM, Kev said:

 ...the AEW discussion on here is usually fairly balanced.

 ...I think AEW has largely succeeded, but there’s still a lot of room to build, the bar should obviously be higher than “well at least it’s not WWE”.

Can confirm! Even the bad takes here are not that bad, and usually they are backed u by some well-written arguments as well. It's great that there are diverse opinions here, and there are plenty of areas where AEW can grow and be more than "more than WWE"

On 2/9/2021 at 5:14 AM, Technico Support said:

I don't want to just make a list of why I like AEW and have every line item be "the opposite of what WWE is doing."

Agree. It's worth pointing out from time to time that AEW is way better than WWE in so many ways, but it can't be the be-all and end-all of our discussion if we want that discussion to be interesting.

On 2/9/2021 at 6:18 AM, Craig H said:

 

My one other complaint isn't so much of a complaint, but a concern. I sometimes worry that with the length of world title runs in this company that we won't get that short, cool run with Kingston as champ, we may get to Kenny vs Page too late, and although I appreciate and love the long term booking, it does let you have a clearer look into the crystal ball and see that Kenny or Moxley might be the only world champions this whole year. I don't want to see titles quickly changing hands, but I also want over acts to get involved in bigger storylines and challenge for the title. It's a delicate balancing act and so far it's been good.

 

This is a good and nuanced take. There are upsides and downsides to so many booking decisions and it is all a precarious balancing act. Giving us more of one thing means giving us less of something else in most cases. Longer reigns are good, but by definition longer reigns means fewer champions. I like this kind of take, personally, way more than I like takes that only consider one side of the argument.

On 2/9/2021 at 6:39 AM, RunningFromAmerica said:

 

, AEW is fundamentally an act of co-creation - yes, that mean the wrestlers - but it also means the fans and the viewers at home.

Couldn't agree more. It's what I feel pro wrestling should be, at its best.

I hate - I despise -corporatized LCD over-standardization in all aspects of life and I particularly despise it in pro wrestling (which I think should be one of the remaining bastions of the wild and free). I'll have more to say on this later, most likely. But yes absolutely that right there is so much of why I love AEW.

 

On 2/9/2021 at 5:20 PM, Kev said:

As a general rule, I think if something hasn’t happened on Dynamite they should explain it as though the audience doesn’t know about it. The good thing is these are really easy fixes, e.g. Instead of a slightly insider reference on their history, Excalibur says “Darby requested this match due to his old rivalry/friendship with Janela, check out this weeks BTE for more on their history.”

 

Generally I disagree with "AEW owes it to me to explain everything on Dynamite" coming from people who don't have time or can't be bothered to watch Dark and BTE and so on. I certainly don't always have time to watch every minute of everything, but busy grandpas like me are not AEW's main target audience. 

I think it's absolutely fair for them to ask their fans to watch their YouTube shows in order to stay fully informed. I think it's mostly a good business decision. Creates a sense of being "in" on their thing if hardcore fans know more than casuals. I thin they are right to play to the hardcore base in preference to trying to court the casuals (though they try to do at least some of both on any given show). 

That being said,Excalibur says “Darby requested this match due to his old rivalry/friendship with Janela, check out this weeks BTE for more on their history” is a good, easy, constructive fix that they should consider implementing.

 

On 2/9/2021 at 5:32 PM, zendragon said:

 AEW has done a good job of avoiding that by giving us something different every week 

 

Can confirm. I don't get takes that ask for AEW to be more same-old same-old. (those are also relatively rare here on DVDVR but they do exist here and elsewhere). 

For me,those takes are like the hypothetical person complaining that the Seinfeld gang never hug it out. They might think that they are trying to make the "product" better, but in fact they are just trying to turn something interesting into something they are more comfortable with or more like what they are used to. 

On 2/9/2021 at 10:56 PM, Technico Support said:

... preemptively dismissing an an argument out of hand with no real counterpoint doesn't make you right.  

So very, very true! In fact, it's usually a sign that the person doing so is in fact quite wrong.

On 2/10/2021 at 12:02 AM, Casey said:

2019/First half of 2020: "Why are the EVPs putting over everyone and their mother? They need to win some matches!"

Back half of 2020/Beginning of 2021: "Not, not like that!"

😄

So true. 

It's impossible to please everyone and the target keeps moving anyway. that's why it's best just to be true to yourself.

Gotta go! I'll try to get to the rest later.

Edited by El Gran Gordi
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordi, I like you and respect your opinion, but I think you're way off on this. If this were a Seinfeld board more than it already is and we were discussing the shows as they happen, and Seinfeld was pitched to us as a show about stand up and it was a show about stand up for the first season but then wasn't in the second season, people would have a right to ask where the stand up was. And then it might come back in season 3 if enough people made noise, and if it doesn't and it continues to be the only talking point then sure, make a statement about it. Accepting a disappointing situation just because it's what's presented to you doesn't work for me. I'm happy to adapt with the presentation as it happens while still holding them to some standards, that's the beauty of being able to watch something critically and still be a fan. The difference is I'm not invalidating your opinion because I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the show works. We don't see eye to eye on this so let's both enjoy the show on our own levels and leave it at that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's possible that, in terms of everyone enjoying things their own way, to some people the most pleasure they get might be from nitpicking and talking stuff down.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Godfrey said:

Gordi, I like you and respect your opinion, but I think you're way off on this. If this were a Seinfeld board more than it already is and we were discussing the shows as they happen, and Seinfeld was pitched to us as a show about stand up and it was a show about stand up for the first season but then wasn't in the second season, people would have a right to ask where the stand up was. And then it might come back in season 3 if enough people made noise, and if it doesn't and it continues to be the only talking point then sure, make a statement about it. Accepting a disappointing situation just because it's what's presented to you doesn't work for me. I'm happy to adapt with the presentation as it happens while still holding them to some standards, that's the beauty of being able to watch something critically and still be a fan. The difference is I'm not invalidating your opinion because I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the show works. We don't see eye to eye on this so let's both enjoy the show on our own levels and leave it at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...