Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 3:46:22 GMT -5
What is your reason for choosing cognitive dissonance as virtue? Please just answer me straight forward, because I'm tired of your condescending attitude. I may come off as a know it all to you, but that doesn't justify everyone's belief that I deem myself superior. I ask for I DO NOT KNOW. I am ACTUALLY asking the forum members out of respect. I was arrogant about my writing. I'm sorry. So will you please explain your belief based in lack of knowledge? I'm not calling you dumb. We both know that is a fallacy, but you admitted you don't study the history to the extent I do, & I don't have the qualification to decipher the entire history & theories of wrestling, so how are you? If I'm missing something, please tell me. When you rattle on about old guys nobody cares about and use that as a "qualification" for why your opinion counts most, it comes off as superior. And I'm all for coming off as superior, but the whole "wrestling is high art" gimmick doesn't work for me, brother. Wrestling isn't high art, never has been, never will be, and no amount of obsessing over it will make it so. Reading books about Ed "Strangler" Lewis, or rewatching clips of Stone Cold Steve Austin making Vince McMahon wet his pants, or playing with a John Cena brawlin' buddy is all the same thing... It's time spent on a genre that is basically trash TV. That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to love it, or pursue it as a career, or whatever. Jim Ross is a guy who has devoted most of his adult life to it, and he has no problem calling it what it is. It's by far my main hobby and has been for most of the last 23 years, I spend many hours a week and thousands of pounds a year on it, and I have no problem enjoying it for what it is. Basically, you're only going to find happiness when you accept wrestling for what it is, rather than fighting this crusade trying to convince people it's something it's not. Because people aren't buying it. You're allowed to acknowledge wrestling for what it is and still enjoy it. The things that you say wrestling is, it can be those things to you, but you will never convince other people that it is those things. To most people, it's just "musclebound guys pretend to fight" or "that thing that sucks unless Daniel Bryan wins the title every night". Honestly anything can qualify as art...I can dab my wang in finger paints and rub it all over a canvas......ART
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 10, 2014 3:49:04 GMT -5
So then why do we still call them wrestling matches or bother having pinfalls or championships? I'm sincerely asking, because it can't exist without recognizing that base criteria to a certain capacity. Even if it's the crust so deeply covered by the plantlife of the modern theatrical elements, the idea of suspending disbelief/creating the illusion that it's reality is still where the roots lie. I actually see a great opportunity to be had in our awareness of it's illusions. We could take our participation to the level of being movie extras with speaking parts. Where we completely commit to the idea that what we're watching is 100% real. It would be amazing. Don't you just love insomnia? I've barely blinked since 11:30PM yesterday. Thats an easy one: they are props for the stories. Its all about entertainment and anything that contributes to the stories is a necessary part of the package. I do believe the best stories achieve that level of fan participation you mention and those moments are a big reason why we (or at least me) watch. A few examples of this happening include Punk's pipebomb promo and win at MITB 2011, the current Shield vs the Wyatts feud, and the current Daniel Bryan storyline that has so obviously evoked strong reactions from a large portion of the audience and the WFigs members. So you're telling me that anytime wrestlers try to make the match believable, it's pointless? Seriously... I wish insomnia was a woman. So I could seduce her Bam! BOOM! STRAIGHT to the moon! Karma to whoever points out the reference first!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 3:59:51 GMT -5
The dynamic behind why wrestling is successful despite the observers knowing its a work is what makes wrestling so special. Every individual fan of wrestling has their own reason as to why it entertains them but it is strange that something that portrays itself as a legitimate sport but is knowingly just an act can captivate so many and that's why people who don't "get" wrestling look down on it so much...they just don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Mar 10, 2014 4:03:22 GMT -5
Thats an easy one: they are props for the stories. Its all about entertainment and anything that contributes to the stories is a necessary part of the package. I do believe the best stories achieve that level of fan participation you mention and those moments are a big reason why we (or at least me) watch. A few examples of this happening include Punk's pipebomb promo and win at MITB 2011, the current Shield vs the Wyatts feud, and the current Daniel Bryan storyline that has so obviously evoked strong reactions from a large portion of the audience and the WFigs members. So you're telling me that anytime wrestlers try to make the match believable, it's pointless? Seriously... I wish insomnia was a woman. So I could seduce her Bam! BOOM! STRAIGHT to the moon! Karma to whoever points out the reference first! Sort of. A good match is the payoff to a good story and should be as believable as possible. But the current definition of a good match does not include believability as much as it did in the 70s. Is it believable when a 6'6" muscle bound guy just stands there and lets Rey Mysterio use him like a playground jungle gym? Is it believable when John Cena gets the crap beat out of him for 15 minutes only to suddenly pop up for the 5 moves of doom and the win? Is it believable when Del Rio puts the arm bar on somebody and they survive the hold for minutes when we all know a real arm bar can snap an arm in seconds? No. None of that and a lot of other stuff that goes on in the ring during a match is believable. Again, it goes back to the real point of the product - to entertain us. A match between Bruno Sammartino and Superstar Billy Graham was more believable than any match we get today, but it would receive a rousing chorus of "boring" chants if it took place today. The suspension of belief in the reality of pro wrestling competition is extended to include the actual moves in matches. Also - the Honeymooners.
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Mar 10, 2014 4:06:01 GMT -5
Thats an easy one: they are props for the stories. Its all about entertainment and anything that contributes to the stories is a necessary part of the package. I do believe the best stories achieve that level of fan participation you mention and those moments are a big reason why we (or at least me) watch. A few examples of this happening include Punk's pipebomb promo and win at MITB 2011, the current Shield vs the Wyatts feud, and the current Daniel Bryan storyline that has so obviously evoked strong reactions from a large portion of the audience and the WFigs members. So you're telling me that anytime wrestlers try to make the match believable, it's pointless? Seriously... I wish insomnia was a woman. So I could seduce her Bam! BOOM! STRAIGHT to the moon! Karma to whoever points out the reference first! We suspend disbelief to accept that what we're witnessing is "real" because we must. To not do so would cause our own acceptance of what we're witnessing to fall flat. They're still called 'wrestling matches' because of it's historical comparisons, and because, regardless of the amount of 'show' -- there is still physical altercations involved. In more simple terms -- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Championships, as mentioned, are a way to further the story. What is a man who does his job, but does it with nothing to achieve? We all have aspirations; we all have a desire to be the best, or at least, better than we are. The belts are simply a physical manifestation of that desire. However, the TRUTH inside the lie, is that they're nothing more than props. They're props to show the outside world "This is who the best is. You may not like him most, but until someone better comes along. Here is the representation of our competition's greatest performer." -- the same as any other sport. Every sport, every competition, and every show based on them, has a champion. Why? Because #1 that gives the competitors something to strive for; #2 it gives the fans (us) something to want for our favorites; and to deny those we dislike the most. There can be elegance in the simplicity of what we watch in WWE. And there is. It is poetry in it's most ancient form. It is art. But as a filmmaker, I will make this point after years of working in Entertainment: there is a great divide between making art -- and selling it. And today, the art has been hidden away, in an effort to SELL to a class that doesn't want complexity (mostly children). The fundamental necessities are still there, and will always be (namely good vs. evil) -- but until the purchasing power demands a shift in the delivery of the product, we will never see a more involved, and yes, evolved, take on the product at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 10, 2014 4:20:39 GMT -5
So you're telling me that anytime wrestlers try to make the match believable, it's pointless? Seriously... I wish insomnia was a woman. So I could seduce her Bam! BOOM! STRAIGHT to the moon! Karma to whoever points out the reference first! Sort of. A good match is the payoff to a good story and should be as believable as possible. But the current definition of a good match does not include believability as much as it did in the 70s. Is it believable when a 6'6" muscle bound guy just stands there and lets Rey Mysterio use him like a playground jungle gym? Is it believable when John Cena gets the crap beat out of him for 15 minutes only to suddenly pop up for the 5 moves of doom and the win? Is it believable when Del Rio puts the arm bar on somebody and they survive the hold for minutes when we all know a real arm bar can snap an arm in seconds? No. None of that and a lot of other stuff that goes on in the ring during a match is believable. Again, it goes back to the real point of the product - to entertain us. A match between Bruno Sammartino and Superstar Billy Graham was more believable than any match we get today, but it would receive a rousing chorus of "boring" chants if it took place today. The suspension of belief in the reality of pro wrestling competition is extended to include the actual moves in matches. Also - the Honeymooners. This is why I recognize Wrestling's deepest roots as part of Greek Mythology. Modern Professional Wrestling creates a mythology for an otherwise Godless age. This is one of the things I've been trying to get all of you to mention & establish in the diologue. The balance between believability from the root concept & the basic adaptations caused by our altered perspective. This is why I am able to admire in-ring thespians like the Undertaker, even though Lou Thesz thought it was ridiculous. A distinction between "sub-genres" similar to the various "isms" of paint based art. I could buy you a beer, if I didn't drop my credit card down the toilet in the pub's bathroom. Great post!
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Mar 10, 2014 4:25:23 GMT -5
Honestly anything can qualify as art...I can dab my wang in finger paints and rub it all over a canvas......ART I call it Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Mar 10, 2014 4:31:06 GMT -5
Sort of. A good match is the payoff to a good story and should be as believable as possible. But the current definition of a good match does not include believability as much as it did in the 70s. Is it believable when a 6'6" muscle bound guy just stands there and lets Rey Mysterio use him like a playground jungle gym? Is it believable when John Cena gets the crap beat out of him for 15 minutes only to suddenly pop up for the 5 moves of doom and the win? Is it believable when Del Rio puts the arm bar on somebody and they survive the hold for minutes when we all know a real arm bar can snap an arm in seconds? No. None of that and a lot of other stuff that goes on in the ring during a match is believable. Again, it goes back to the real point of the product - to entertain us. A match between Bruno Sammartino and Superstar Billy Graham was more believable than any match we get today, but it would receive a rousing chorus of "boring" chants if it took place today. The suspension of belief in the reality of pro wrestling competition is extended to include the actual moves in matches. Also - the Honeymooners. This is why I recognize Wrestling's deepest roots as part of Greek Mythology. Modern Professional Wrestling creates a mythology for an otherwise Godless age. This is one of the things I've been trying to get all of you to mention & establish in the diologue. The balance between believability from the root concept & the basic adaptations caused by our altered perspective. This is why I am able to admire in-ring thespians like the Undertaker, even though Lou Thesz thought it was ridiculous. A distinction between "sub-genres" similar to the various "isms" of paint based art. I could buy you a beer, if I didn't drop my credit card down the toilet in the pub's bathroom. Great post! Pro wrestling as modern day mythology is very apt description. Hulk Hogan became a modern day Hercules (not to be confused with the modern day Hercules who was just a mid-card wrestler). Daniel Bryan is a modern day Prometheus. And so on... I'd love to share a beer except due to medical reasons I can't drink alcohol. Make it a ginger ale and I'm in
|
|