Paco
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,145
|
Post by Paco on Mar 19, 2010 6:12:44 GMT -5
I don't care how over someone is, if they're not entertaining then I don't want to see them. Being over is the most important thing for the company but not for me, the fan. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but doesn't that statement contradict itself? Doesn't "being over" mean the wrestler IS important to the fan, as you put it? If the fan doesn't wanna see someone, by definition, they can't be over...can they? My head hurts.
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Mar 19, 2010 15:31:04 GMT -5
I don't care how over someone is, if they're not entertaining then I don't want to see them. Being over is the most important thing for the company but not for me, the fan. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but doesn't that statement contradict itself? Doesn't "being over" mean the wrestler IS important to the fan, as you put it? If the fan doesn't wanna see someone, by definition, they can't be over...can they? My head hurts. But a wrestler may be over to a majority of the fans, just not to me.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Mar 19, 2010 15:39:17 GMT -5
Being over should mean the most, but it doesn't. WWE's shown time and time again, from refusing to turn Cena heel or scale him back in 2005 and 2006 to the current push of McIntyre, that if they want to push somebody they don't give a damn what the audience thinks of it. I completely agree. On the opposite side of the coin, there have been guys like Christian in 2005 and RVD in 2001/2002 who were ridiculously over, yet were never given the ball at their peak.
|
|