|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Dec 29, 2008 7:12:22 GMT -5
i don't think we're debating anything here other than whether wrestling is an art form or a business. in my opinion wrestling is about emotion, not money, hence why i don't give a rat's ass how much money someone can make, but if you're the kind of person who thinks ability to make money means talent in your chosen field, then you'll disagree.
that's my take on this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 29, 2008 8:04:49 GMT -5
Because he's not even close, and he never will be. He gets a contract one day, becomes a main-eventer, and boom, your argument becomes null and void. And WWE has interest in him, otherwise they wouldn't have offered him a contract TWICE already. Wrong. Try reading everything I've said and not cherry picking one line. I've said all along that I think he could get over in WWE. I just don't think he'll ever be *the* guy. Just because WWE has interest in him doesn't mean they think he's the next Austin. I'll go out on a limb and say even if Danielson does sign a WWE contract, he will NEVER wrestle in a pay per view main event. Even if he does that still doesn't make him the guy. CM Punk flirted with main events for a few months, but he wasn't the top guy, nor was he even close. And Punk at least has a marketable gimmick and look. Danielson has neither. "Best wrestler in the world" as a gimmick wont work in a company that doesn't even let you use the world "wrestler" I've said if Danielson goes to WWE and somehow becomes the top guy, then I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. But I don't think I'll have to worry about that.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Dec 29, 2008 9:02:28 GMT -5
Thats the only purpose to what they are doing. They are entertainers and their number one goal is to get people to pay to see them perform. By this logic Leonardo DiCaprio is the best actor of all time
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 29, 2008 9:09:47 GMT -5
Thats the only purpose to what they are doing. They are entertainers and their number one goal is to get people to pay to see them perform. By this logic Leonardo DiCaprio is the best actor of all time If he's drawn the most money adjusted for inflation then I'd be inclined to agree he's at least the best draw. However I think the movie business and wrestling business are different things. An actor doesn't sell a movie by himself any more than a wrestler sells a show by himself. Is Jake the Snake one of the greatest draws of all time just because he was on a bunch of cards with Hogan? When people break down the numbers of how much DiCaprio has made or how much Eddie Murphy has made they simply add up how much movies they've been in have made. However I very rarely go see a movie because of the actor. I go because the movie looks interesting. In wrestling you are playing one single character over an extended period of time. Your goal is to make people care enough about your character that they will pay to see your character. Thats not the same thing as movies and in which case its an apples to oranges comparision.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2008 9:13:43 GMT -5
Well, was the Ring Master marketable? I know it's now a famous line that Austin says, but back in 1996, he asked, "What about a t-shirt for Stone Cold?" Nobody thought that the Stone Cold Steve Austin in early to mid 1996 would draw any money. But, again, there's another example of what I was saying. He grabbed the bull by the horns and started riding it. The Rock. Al Snow also said a lot of these examples, and talked about how everyone is given an opportunity to get over, and here's a good example. After The Rock failed as a babyface, he was pushed to the back of the Nation, and the Nation was supposed to feature D'lo Brown. But, Rock kept pushing and pushing, he picked Pat Patterson's brain, and he kept doing little things to stand out. Bret Hart. He didn't have much flash, but he got himself over. Anybody, like, it doesn't matter who it is. There will be politics, there will be bullexcretory matter, but at the end of the day, it's all about what you do in the ring. And I feel Danielson is someone who will get himself over. Scotty Goldman, why hasn't he been on television? This hasn't been confirmed or anything, but I truely feel he was taken off tv to be put back on again in a better position. Why? Because he got himself over. He had 3 squash matches, and managed to get himself over. That takes talent, but talented people have talent. You know what I'm saying. And sorry to double post, put what would be the point of the WWE taking someone who gets over with the fans off the air? Isn't the whole point of the show to entertain people and sell merchandise? I find it highly unlikely that he was pulled because he wasnt suppost to get over. Did they tell him before "Hey Scotty, we don't think you're worth a damn, so just go out there and make everyone else look good. We don't care one bit about you. Don't snork this up." I know people like to think the WWE is evil and all, but it's a HUGE company with tons of moving parts. And I doubt the main focus is to bury guys, no matter what us internet rats like to think. I'm guessing so he's not remembered as that job guy. I feel once they have something right for him, with so many people debuting, they'll put him back on tv and put him in a better position then just jobbing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2008 9:15:00 GMT -5
i don't think we're debating anything here other than whether wrestling is an art form or a business. in my opinion wrestling is about emotion, not money, hence why i don't give a rat's ass how much money someone can make, but if you're the kind of person who thinks ability to make money means talent in your chosen field, then you'll disagree. that's my take on this whole thing. It's impossible to debate that, because they're one in the same. The art of pro wrestling is to create emotion, which in turn makes money.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,300
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 29, 2008 10:10:24 GMT -5
I don't get how people are finding it so hard to understand that Danielson's "Best in the World" title is:
A. His gimmick B. Partaining to his wrestling ability inside a ring and nothing else
No shit he's not the biggest draw, I think he'd be the first person to admit that.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 29, 2008 10:19:34 GMT -5
Thats the only purpose to what they are doing. They are entertainers and their number one goal is to get people to pay to see them perform. By this logic Leonardo DiCaprio is the best actor of all time Can you name any other actor whose mere presence in a movie has made people watch the very same movie 10-15 times? DiCaprio isn't the "best" actor in the world, not even close, but there was a time [and there still may be] when DiCaprio could have starred a movie with no story, just consisting in 90 minutes of him being on-screen doing random stuff, and rhat movie could have drawn people. Same goes for Hogan's matches being Wrestling 101 stuff, with a action/posedown ratio of 1:1. With a simple gesture, Hogan, Austin and Rock could get twice the reaction some other guys could get by putting on a technical clinic. I still don't see the point in arguing the "drawing power" logic. Wrestling, like any other entertainment form, is based on Success. And success is made on how much money and fans you bring in. When/if Danielson will be in WWE, we'll see. But until now he's not the "Best wrestler in the world" as much as HonkyTonk Man was a platinum artist, or Mark Henry is World's Strongest Man. All that debate is based on A GIMMICKY CLAIM that has no proof in reality. Not now, not in 10 years, no matter what Danielson will amount to. Maybe, when he'll had headlined some WrestleManias, the argument will have sense. Until then, it's just AmDrag fans (and himself?) buying into the Indy hype.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 29, 2008 11:05:53 GMT -5
i don't think we're debating anything here other than whether wrestling is an art form or a business. in my opinion wrestling is about emotion, not money, hence why i don't give a rat's ass how much money someone can make, but if you're the kind of person who thinks ability to make money means talent in your chosen field, then you'll disagree. that's my take on this whole thing. While I tend to lean towards the "art form" side, there certainly is something to be said for making money in the business. Again, I may not be a fan of some of the pop music acts of today (my students are all obsessed with the Jonas Brothers, for example, while I feel like "Well, the songs are meh, but at least they can play instruments"), but does that automatically mean that all pop acts are completely talentless, devoid of any good feature that could bring them fame? Maybe in a couple of cases, sure, but not in the majority. Like I said before, I don't think John Cena's all that great, but I certainly won't knock a guy who certainly has improved over time (from what I've heard, at least), and who's capable of getting crowds of 20,000+ into a match. Hogan was much the same way. They may not be the absolute best or most multi-faceted storytellers in the world, but the story they DO tell in the ring just so happens to be the one that draws the most. I can respect that. But, like I said, I just lean more towards the "art form" side of things. So while I can respect wrestlers, actors, musicians, etc. who draw a lot and make a ton of money, I know full well that doesn't make them the best, just the most successful. Orson Welles was dirt poor and flat broke in the middle of his life, but the magnificent bastard still made Citizen Kane and A Touch of Evil, two movies that shook the foundation of what a film was, despite not being huge box office hits. That doesn't make Steven Spielberg automatically superior to him, even though Spielberg's a fine director AND a box office draw. And good call, Ichiman. You summed it up pretty well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2008 13:07:20 GMT -5
He gets a contract one day, becomes a main-eventer, and boom, your argument becomes null and void. And WWE has interest in him, otherwise they wouldn't have offered him a contract TWICE already. Wrong. Try reading everything I've said and not cherry picking one line. Excuse me, but that's a pretty big line that you wrote. You said he never can and never will... well, what if he does? I mean, it's 50-50 he does or he doesn't We don't know what his plans are, we don't know how much WWe has courted him, we don't know how longer he wants to be a wrestler. Why don't, instead of grasping at what we don't know, we wait? Cabana got signed, Punk got signed, Nigel and Claudio where both looked at and almost signed, so why is Dragon such a hard thing to even consider? The whole "He'll never make it" stated by people in this thread flies in the face of the last couple of years.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 29, 2008 13:10:41 GMT -5
Matt Hardy has a marketable look I mean back in the Hardyz days sure, but as much as I like the guy he looks just as bland as anyone else for the most part. To me, John Cena has a bland, unmarketable look. Jean Shorts and wristbands? That's an easily copyable look
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 29, 2008 13:16:51 GMT -5
Wrong. Try reading everything I've said and not cherry picking one line. Excuse me, but that's a pretty big line that you wrote. You said he never can and never will... well, what if he does? I mean, it's 50-50 he does or he doesn't We don't know what his plans are, we don't know how much WWe has courted him, we don't know how longer he wants to be a wrestler. Why don't, instead of grasping at what we don't know, we wait? Cabana got signed, Punk got signed, Nigel and Claudio where both looked at and almost signed, so why is Dragon such a hard thing to even consider? The whole "He'll never make it" stated by people in this thread flies in the face of the last couple of years. You're cherry picked again. I've said countless times he could sign and could even get over. When I say "he never will" I'm talking about becoming the number one guy in wrestling. I stand by that. Bryan Danielson will never be a John Cena, Brock Lesnar, Triple H, Rock, Austin, HBK, Hogan figure. I think Benoit is his absolute ceiling, and there's nothing wrong with that. However for him to even make it to the level of a Benoit is a bit of a reach IMO.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 29, 2008 13:19:27 GMT -5
Same goes for Hogan's matches being Wrestling 101 stuff, with a action/posedown ratio of 1:1. Like RVD's matches
|
|
4TheGlory
Vegeta
The Fun One At Parties
Posts: 9,749
|
Post by 4TheGlory on Dec 29, 2008 13:29:07 GMT -5
He'll be just fine
|
|
|
Post by B'Cup x on Dec 29, 2008 13:45:32 GMT -5
I love the idea of Danielson coming on here, seeing us go seven pages of bitching about something that doesnt matter, and laughing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 20:45:23 GMT -5
Here's something interesting about how some people view Danielson in WWE, from Good Ol' JR's Q&A section on his website www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa:Q. Hi Mr. Ross, Who is the free agent that you would love to see in the WWE? Who is the one wrestler that never made it to the WWE that you would have loved to see wrestling for the WWE? A. Bryan Danielson comes to mind of the guys that are still young and healthy enough to contribute immediately. He goes on to list more people, but this seems to pretty clear on what his opinions are of Danielson.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Jan 8, 2009 3:17:57 GMT -5
Or all of this is about the whole gimmick thing, and as such the whole blurb was in kayfabe. In which case this discussion is moot.
If it was the truth? Then this discussion is moot.
"Best" is subjective, period. No set in stone criteria determines or defines any of this.
All I can say is he entertains me, and I like the WWE product.
|
|