cappyboy Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Does anyone actually think about stuff like 'drawing' and 'star quality' while watching the show? Seems like it would suck all the fun out of watching in the first place. I might sit back and think about stuff like that after the fact, but while I'm watching, I just want to be entertained. Ditto. And that's why it's been so hard for me to watch WWE consistently for most of this decade. They don't seem to respect that. They seem to think that because they present themselves as "sports entertainment" rather than "wrestling" that they don't have to worry about things like show pacing or "maintaining the illusion". They make the shows so hard to just get absorbed in and stick with. Even when all the individual segments I see are ones I should have enjoyed, they don't connect in ways I want to wait through the R-Truth interview to get to the Shelton/Jamie Noble match or whatever. I'm always thinking about junk I shouldn't be when I watch WWE This is one of the reasons I tend to prefer TNA and will probably be watching them on January 4. Sure, they are every bit of sports entertainment-y as WWE is. But they do it so much better in my mind. There's so much more variety of action and things connect better. There's no wondering if I really want to slog through watching Beer Money face Kiyoshi & Bashir and Hamada battle Alissa Flash so I can see Desmond Wolfe face off with Matt Morgan in the match I really care about. The tag teams get love they don't in the E. As do the women. There's a better mix of material and a flow to Impact I just don't tend to see on Smackdown. Been years since my schedule would let me watch RAW with any regularity so I won't judge that show. But if WWE would just respect the illusion so I could shut my brain off and just be entertained, maybe I would rectify that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOmniWarrior Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Was it me or was that match between the Hart Dynasty and Jimmy Yang and Slam Master J pretty good? And is it me or is anyone else feeling a Yang and Slam Master J push coming on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Was it me or was that match between the Hart Dynasty and Jimmy Yang and Slam Master J pretty good? And is it me or is anyone else feeling a Yang and Slam Master J push coming on? No, it wasn't just you. That was the only part of Smackdown I saw last night and I enjoyed that match immensely. I've always been a Hart Dynasty fan and the tag team chemistry between Yang and the Slam Master was pretty impressive too. I would hope a Yang/Slam Master push would be coming. That could only be a positive for the tag division on Smackdown. Neither Yang or Slam Master looks like they are anybody the E's going to get into a rush to push solo anytime soon. That makes them just the kind of team that needs to exist more in WWE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0shey Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 you know since its hart dynasty vs dx at xmas edition of sd i wonder if they will have bret screw dx out of the tag titles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Century Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Bah humbug! I don't know what you guys are talking about since I don't have the channel that carries Smackdown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 RAW is very much easier to watch without your smark lenses on. Most wrestling is. i wish i could go back instead, technology has made a me an info craving fool!!! must have spoilers!!! must know the inner werkingzzz!!!!! lol seriously, being surprised by a return or debut is an awesome feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 RAW is very much easier to watch without your smark lenses on. Most wrestling is. If you watch with your heart and not your head, it's always easier to get emotionally invested in the action. Cop out. Given your particular inclination though, I'll give you a pass. The same crap line is used by bad writers and directors to justify their....well, badness. "Watch with your heart", "Don't judge", "It wasn't made for you" (so who was it made for? Lobotomized mongoloids?). Uwe Boll says the same kind of thing. Repeatedly. The same (or similar) was said about Ishtar and Water World and the first Hulk movie (apparently, fans of the character made the movie suck ). But you're a screenwriter so I'm guessing you might be too close to the situation. Keep this in mind though: everything is easier to watch/consume...when you turn your brain off (since it's usually your brain that tells you "Wait, this doesn't make sense!" while air raid sirens go off in your mind). You could do 100 shots of Jaegermeister or Everclear....if you just don't think about it. Anyway, I noticed something while they were setting up for the 'MVP jobs to Sheamus' match. The WWE title belt.....doesn't have a name plate on it. I mean, previously when someone won the title, the very next night on Raw, the new champ came out with his name on the belt...but not this time. It's especially apparent during the tight shot of him in the ring with the belt draped over his left shoulder. The part where the nameplate should be....is blank, a black void, has no plate there at all. Hmmm........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatoneguy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This has been, quite honestly, the worst RAW of 2009. Just....unacceptable WWE. This was terrible. Normally RAW has 2/3 things to help save it from being this bad, but Sheamus/MVP and Cena/Swagger can't make up for this. Just....ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyBrooksFan Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i think Cena was to win at TLC but something happend and since it live they had to go with what happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This has been, quite honestly, the worst RAW of 2009. Just....unacceptable WWE. This was terrible. Normally RAW has 2/3 things to help save it from being this bad, but Sheamus/MVP and Cena/Swagger can't make up for this. Just....ugh. It's obviously your fault for watching Raw with your brain turned on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I just wonder what happened. What the hell happened there. And I'm a guy who often defends WWE and is pretty open-minded about the business, but that was just... erm.. wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i think what shocked me the most wasn't how bad the little People's Court was, but the fac tthat someone in back thought it was good enough to do almost an entire recap on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattitudeV2 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Or How about the Tiger skits was that really necessary really I mean come on the Tiger scandal isn't needed in wrestling just like Rosie vs. The Donald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatoneguy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Or how could we forget our brilliant guest host? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i think what shocked me the most wasn't how bad the little People's Court was, but the fac tthat someone in back thought it was good enough to do almost an entire recap on. and Or How about the Tiger skits was that really necessary really I mean come on the Tiger scandal isn't needed in wrestling just like Rosie vs. The Donald. Vince has always had a thing for lame comedy, so no amount of bad comedy that they put on would shock me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Cop out. Given your particular inclination though, I'll give you a pass. The same crap line is used by bad writers and directors to justify their....well, badness. "Watch with your heart", "Don't judge", "It wasn't made for you" (so who was it made for? Lobotomized mongoloids?). Uwe Boll says the same kind of thing. Repeatedly. The same (or similar) was said about Ishtar and Water World and the first Hulk movie (apparently, fans of the character made the movie suck ). But you're a screenwriter so I'm guessing you might be too close to the situation. Keep this in mind though: everything is easier to watch/consume...when you turn your brain off (since it's usually your brain that tells you "Wait, this doesn't make sense!" while air raid sirens go off in your mind). You could do 100 shots of Jaegermeister or Everclear....if you just don't think about it. This would make sense if he were talking about not being critical at all, but I don't think that's what he's saying here. It's not about being bad, it's about applying arbitrary terms you learned in a computer game or on the internet as if they should have some value. "Is Sheamus a main eventer?" "Was the push rushed?" etc. are questions that aren't about the overall quality of the story, they're about how people who know enough to think they know how a business runs can reverse engineer what should have happened. Does this happen in other media? Do crowds at the multi-plex 1) spoil the plot for themselves beforehand and then 2) use their own knowledge of how Hollywood works to say why the movie was bad? And of course, not bad on its own terms, but bad according to an arbitrary set of rules? Even better, do they watch the first quarter of the story, go "this is stupid," and then go on about how they could come up with a better opening act? There's being critical and there's being a smark, and one is not dependent on the other. On the other hand, evaluating the show as a piece of entertainment, listening to the crowd, and ignoring whatever rumor you read in one of wrestling's many illegitimate news source allows you to look at the show for what it is. As far as the show itself, the Little People's Court was a bad idea a few weeks ago, and it was a bad idea now. I gotta give HBK credit for making it at least bearable with some of his reactions and his prat-fall when he was almost pulled under the ring. And really, thatoneguy, worst Raw of the year? Really? Did you miss Verne Troyer's guest-host bit? Jeremy Pivven and Dr. Ken? I mean yeah, Damon was lame, but you still got two great matches out of the show. Cena vs. Swagger was the best Swagger's looked since he was drafted, and the 6 man tag match was excellent, especially Bourne just looking like he was being turned inside-out. [smark]Cena vs. Swagger should've been the main event, instead of the first hour main event.[/smark] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatoneguy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 The Verne Troyer show was bad. Jeremy Piven was bad. They didn't make me feel like this though. Sure Troyer did on his own, but the show itself had a saving grace or two that made it bearable. Like I said, the saving graces of this show weren't nearly enough. And I completely forgot about the 6 man, because nobody cared, it wasn't hyped at all, and took a huge backseat to stupid nonsense like Tiger and Little People's court. And I'll actually say Cena/Swagger should have main evented, because I'm always pro ending with a match rather than a promo/segment/whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabataged Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 i think Cena was to win at TLC but something happend and since it live they had to go with what happen. I honestly thought that Sheamus was supposed to go through the table outside the ring, and the match ended in a draw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Cop out. Given your particular inclination though, I'll give you a pass. The same crap line is used by bad writers and directors to justify their....well, badness. "Watch with your heart", "Don't judge", "It wasn't made for you" (so who was it made for? Lobotomized mongoloids?). Uwe Boll says the same kind of thing. Repeatedly. The same (or similar) was said about Ishtar and Water World and the first Hulk movie (apparently, fans of the character made the movie suck ). But you're a screenwriter so I'm guessing you might be too close to the situation. Keep this in mind though: everything is easier to watch/consume...when you turn your brain off (since it's usually your brain that tells you "Wait, this doesn't make sense!" while air raid sirens go off in your mind). You could do 100 shots of Jaegermeister or Everclear....if you just don't think about it. I'm not saying it should be impossible for a smark to enjoy WWE. I'm just saying it's more difficult for us to enjoy it because of how our brains work. I'm not giving WWE an excuse for some extremely poor shows recently, I just give them a little more leeway on certain issues, like the Sheamus thing. This would make sense if he were talking about not being critical at all, but I don't think that's what he's saying here. It's not about being bad, it's about applying arbitrary terms you learned in a computer game or on the internet as if they should have some value. "Is Sheamus a main eventer?" "Was the push rushed?" etc. are questions that aren't about the overall quality of the story, they're about how people who know enough to think they know how a business runs can reverse engineer what should have happened. Does this happen in other media? Do crowds at the multi-plex 1) spoil the plot for themselves beforehand and then 2) use their own knowledge of how Hollywood works to say why the movie was bad? And of course, not bad on its own terms, but bad according to an arbitrary set of rules? Even better, do they watch the first quarter of the story, go "this is stupid," and then go on about how they could come up with a better opening act? There's being critical and there's being a smark, and one is not dependent on the other. I actually do that with movies too . I have a degree in Media Production. I've spent 7 years, writing, producing, directing and editing films. So when I go to the cinema, I struggle to watch films like a normal person. I analyse story arcs, character dynamics, mise-en-scene and a hundred other things that probably don't cross normal viewer's minds... at least not on a conscious level. Much like my smarkiness, it's just how my mind works. It's not wrong, but it makes it harder for me to suspend my disbelief and get caught up in the drama. Harder, but not impossible. Not even close to impossible. I watched GI-Joe the other day I found it a perfectly acceptable use of 2-hours... even though in many ways it sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebsplex Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This is one of the reasons I tend to prefer TNA and will probably be watching them on January 4. Sure, they are every bit of sports entertainment-y as WWE is. But they do it so much better in my mind. There's so much more variety of action and things connect better. There's no wondering if I really want to slog through watching Beer Money face Kiyoshi & Bashir and Hamada battle Alissa Flash so I can see Desmond Wolfe face off with Matt Morgan in the match I really care about. The tag teams get love they don't in the E. As do the women. There's a better mix of material and a flow to Impact I just don't tend to see on Smackdown. Been years since my schedule would let me watch RAW with any regularity so I won't judge that show. But if WWE would just respect the illusion so I could shut my brain off and just be entertained, maybe I would rectify that. It's strange as I feel a similar way. Most likely it's down to the fact that I only need to absorb about 2 hours of TNA programming whereas the WWE has around 6 hours a week now including Superstars. The 'flow' of Impact is a little questionable though as some weeks it can be really off... not helped by the splicing of matches and segments that clearly weren't taped on the same night. That sometimes throws me off a bit, like a few weeks ago on Impact they had virtually back-to-back segments involving Borash, yet in the second one JB had undergone a change of clothes... As for tag teams and women, it's not like the WWE doesn't give them any airtime or exposure. Hart Dynasty, Cryme Tyme, Legacy and even the prolonged push of JeriShow have all featured regularly on the shows I've wached decent portions of and I think unifying the Tag Titles has helped somewhat. If anything, I guess the E just lack real gatekeepers to the division, maybe a 'fulltime' team like Team 3D. The divas... eh, they generally don't interest me anymore, even though the quality of 'some' matches seems to have improved a bit. I guess it doesn't help that the WWE's casting produces such a dull mix, not to mention that a few too many have been models/actresses-turned-wrestlers (the latter portion used loosely). Vince has always had a thing for lame comedy, so no amount of bad comedy that they put on would shock me. In fairness, lame comedy in wrestling isn't a Vince-only thing, although he does seem to have this idea that segments involving little people will be hilarious due to their presence alone. That being said, part of me misses the Minis on Smackdown. It's a very small part. Does this happen in other media? Do crowds at the multi-plex 1) spoil the plot for themselves beforehand and then 2) use their own knowledge of how Hollywood works to say why the movie was bad? Yes, certain people do. In fact, I'd dare say that reading some movie forum threads hurt my head more than reading the pro-wrestling threads over at IGN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyBrooksFan Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Mickie James posted the following on her Twitter page: "Just got back from a wonderful dinner w my 2nd fam! Saying farewell 2 a man who hs been a leader & inspiration 2 me since my ecw tryout 00" Who has given me the best advice In countless situations. Whom I could never repay but will always respect and love from the bottom of my Heart. There is but 1 Tommy Dreamer aka dream machine! You've paved the way for many. We all are grateful! I love you. Thank you! Muah!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 The Verne Troyer show was bad. Jeremy Piven was bad. They didn't make me feel like this though. Sure Troyer did on his own, but the show itself had a saving grace or two that made it bearable. Like I said, the saving graces of this show weren't nearly enough. And I completely forgot about the 6 man, because nobody cared, it wasn't hyped at all, and took a huge backseat to stupid nonsense like Tiger and Little People's court. And I'll actually say Cena/Swagger should have main evented, because I'm always pro ending with a match rather than a promo/segment/whatever. Yeah I guess that's why the crowd was so over and Evan Bourne got probably the biggest pops of his career. Your definition of "no one caring" is certainly an interesting one. I actually do that with movies too . I have a degree in Media Production. I've spent 7 years, writing, producing, directing and editing films. So when I go to the cinema, I struggle to watch films like a normal person. I analyse story arcs, character dynamics, mise-en-scene and a hundred other things that probably don't cross normal viewer's minds... at least not on a conscious level. Much like my smarkiness, it's just how my mind works. It's not wrong, but it makes it harder for me to suspend my disbelief and get caught up in the drama. Harder, but not impossible. Not even close to impossible. I watched GI-Joe the other day I found it a perfectly acceptable use of 2-hours... even though in many ways it sucked. Yeah I have to admit I pay a lot more attention to story mechanics and directorial choices than the average movie-goer, but I don't really complain about it the way smarks take issue with every little thing. Also movies aren't a great analogy because they're not episodic the way wrestling is. I don't know many people who watch soaps with the same hyper-critical lens to make sure that the soap stays true to every soap cliche the way wrestling fans demand they see nothing new (and then complain about seeing nothing new). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoNdOn Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I'm actually going to say most people have no idea who he is or why he has the belt. Except for some wrestling fans in Ireland, because I've heard he was pretty good in Irish Whip Wrestling. Indeed he was. He fueded with Drew McIntyre. He was a very good babyface actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 In fairness, lame comedy in wrestling isn't a Vince-only thing, although he does seem to have this idea that segments involving little people will be hilarious due to their presence alone. Yeah one only has to watch Kevin Nash and Mick Foley on TNA every week. Vince has always seemed to have a weird obsession with little people and rednecks/hillbillys. And that is going back to the 1980's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20LEgend Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Dreamer has gone! 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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.