Are Fans Today Only Satisfied By Perfection?

[thelonewolf527]

This topic here is something that's been bugging me for the last month or so with how the CM Punk angle has been going and such, as well as other things like Randy Orton. It's one of those things where it seems like the fans are pissed off for one reason or another, and now it's for a reason that shouldn't lead to that many angry people. Now a lot of this is going to reflect my personal opinion, so some of you may not agree with certain things, but at the same time I think a lot of people will understand what I'm saying.

Right now, we have CM Punk vs. Triple H penciled in for Night of Champions. Of course this is too soon to have the match, but given what happened with Nash's health or whatever, I get why they're doing it now. The promos have been entertaining for the last couple of months and the match will probably be good, however so many people are upset with this. They're upset because the angle is going a certain way.

Everyone has their own layout of how an angle or a feud should go, and with the CM Punk storyline, a lot of people are in agreement as to how it could play out. But what's bugging me is that BECAUSE the angle isn't playing out how they want it to, they seem to write it off as being bad. Why is it bad because it's not perfect? The promos have been better, the match quality has improved, hell I think Raw's been a lot more entertaining in the last 2 months than it has been all year. If it's more entertaining, why do people feel the need to complain?

I get why someone would be upset because there was a chance of having something amazing, but as long as that amazing still turns into good, why must one complain? Yeah CM Punk's not WWE Champion, yeah he's not feuding with Cena anymore, yeah the storyline isn't the best ever, but it's not bad either. This isn't the only part of the WWE nowadays that has this happening either. Look at SmackDown with Randy Orton. Randy Orton may not be the best on the mic or in the ring, but you can't deny that the guy's put on dozens of great matches this year against guys like Christian, Punk, and Sheamus. But Christian's not the champion and we're at this so called "status quo," so that automatically means the product sucks to some.

The point I'm trying to get at is that why do so many fans feel the need to bash something just because it isn't perfect? If something's still enjoyable, that means it's good. If one decides to find something unenjoyable just because it was what became of something that was going very well, I find that ridiculous. "They f***ed it up" is a phrase used often in these situations. If having something that's not as good but is still pretty good is considered "f***ed up," then I guess the entire WWE sucks ass and no one should watch it.

Do fans nowadays have some sort of addiction to complaining about the product? It seems that way with the direction that the shows have been going. It gets old listening to posts, radio shows, podcasts, and interviews of regular fans and hosts of these shows doing nothing but bitching about stuff that probably doesn't need to be bitched about. But this is all my opinion here. Does anyone else agree with me? Any other reasonings for this? I'm interested in hearing both sides of the spectrum.

[Rolent Tex]

No sir, I'm not satisfied by Dolph Ziggler either.

[siredger]

Dolph Ziggler's good but he's no Curt Hennig.

[Deleted]

It's all opinion. There are no correct responses to any form of entertainment. There are no definites: Randy Orton has not had great matches on Smackdown, Sheamus hasn't bombed as a face, Daniel Bryan is or isn't charismatic enough. These things are nigh impossible to definitively determine because they are subjective.

I've learned long ago that there is something wrong with the notion that people should be satisfied with a product to a degree that you or I and especially it's producers think they should. This is a worked form of entertainment; since it's not 3000 hits in baseball, a first round knockout of the champ in boxing, a hole in one in golf, one cannot determine the success of a particular match or angle without considering people's opinions of it and its overall effect on buy rates and ratings. So, you can't say: "This match/wrestler/angle/segment is great/terrible/boring/unconvincing" without putting in the conditional "in my opinion". It would be like being upset that James Bond fans don't like the latest James Bond movie.

[trollrogue]

Vickie>>>Dolph

(Because I'm a STAR, I'll avoid the obvious Lawler joke.)

[thelonewolf527]

Sept 3, 2011 22:54:58 GMT -5 @irontyger said:

It's all opinion. There are no correct responses to any form of entertainment. There are no definites: Randy Orton has not had great matches on Smackdown, Sheamus hasn't bombed as a face, Daniel Bryan is or isn't charismatic enough. These things are nigh impossible to definitively determine because they are subjective.

I've learned long ago that there is something wrong with the notion that people should be satisfied with a product to a degree that you or I and especially it's producers think they should. This is a worked form of entertainment; since it's not 3000 hits in baseball, a first round knockout of the champ in boxing, a hole in one in golf, one cannot determine the success of a particular match or angle without considering people's opinions of it and its overall effect on buy rates and ratings. So, you can't say: "This match/wrestler/angle/segment is great/terrible/boring/unconvincing" without putting in the conditional "in my opinion". It would be like being upset that James Bond fans don't like the latest James Bond movie.

These are good points, however what I'm trying to get at is that it seems to me like people won't say "I enjoy this" unless it's perfect. For example if a video game or a movie is rated 9/10, that mean's it's very good. If it's a 7/10, that means it's still good. But are the fans nowadays not enjoying anything below a 9/10, when a 7/10 is still supposed to equal good?

[Citizen Snips Has Left]

I think any discontent over the Punk angle is because for about a month it seemed like it could be at least very big...maybe not Austin 3:16 or nWo huge (admittedly, some posters jumped straight there) but certainly 1997 Hart Foundation or Mega-Powers Exploding big...just a hot, hot storyline. Then it's sort of dropped down to another entertaining angle.

There does seem to be an immediate knee-jerk reaction to things, though. For example, Orton's first win over Christian lead to many a post that wouldn't even give the angle a chance. Granted, it DID turn out to be an insufferable angle but it still took several months to reach that level. Similarly, Punk's arguably subpar promo on Monday inspired similar posts of "It sucks terrible now!"

I think the main problem is both Orton/Christian and Punk easily could have been 9/10 but didn't finish up/lead to there. They started intriguing and then dropped off swiftly.

[MrBRulzOK]

I don't expect perfection, but I do expect something pretty close. As long as the talent can entertain me both inside and the ring out without putting the other guy in danger and can do their job well enough that allows me to suspend my disbelief then I'm fine with them. Honestly that's not asking much.

[johnnybaseball, Mantaur Fan]

I think that sometimes fans should just live in the moment, and not worry where an angle may be headed, or even as much where it has been ... Like in the Orton/Christian feud, maybe it didn't elevate Christian or whatever, but it produced some exciting wrestling matches. Is that enough? For me, it is, because I don't worry about who "deserves" spots and who should be pushed, etc. Heck, I guess it's really about kayfabe. I buy into the product, because it isn't fun for me if I don't. That allows me to suspend disbelief, which I think people have trouble doing. When WWE tells me Alberto Del Rio is a big deal, I believe them! I have guys I like and guys I don't, but because I live in kayfabe, if a guy I like loses I don't look backstage, I take it like a baseball team losing.

So, to answer the question, IMO many fans aren't satisfied by anything today, because they want wrestling to be like it was when they were children, and don't realize that the reason they loved wrestling so much then was because they bought into the product and didn't worry about that other stuff.

One thing this CM Punk angle should remove all questions about is whether WWE are paying attention to the internet. Clearly, they are.

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Everyone wants to play fantasy booker, and by nature, we just complain a lot.

[Bo Rida]

The old Lonely Road Of Faith video stared with:
“If it looks good, you’ll see it;
If it sounds good, you’ll hear it,
If it’s marketed right, you’ll buy it;
But...if its real, you’ll feel it.”

That basically sums it up, the wrestling can be technically sound the story can be fine but it needs that something special to reach that higher level.
People loved Christian winning the title because there was genuine feeling behind it; he’d worked hard for nearly two decades and had finally won a world title just after his best friend had retired.
The half-hearted heel turn had no real feeling behind it so there was no emotional investment.
Although I partially agree with the general sentiment of the OP they really did f*** up on this occasion by throwing away something that the fans really cared about.

Conversely the eras/moments people remember fondly contained a lot of crap but it didn’t matter because of the overall feel. The same applies to music, videogames, film, TV etc.

(Yes I am trying to make a Kid Rock sound profound)

[molson5]

With the internet everyone has the ability to be a critic. I think that does impact our view of not just wrestling, but movies, music, and everything else in entertainment. It's harder to just enjoy something, you have to watch it through a critic's eyes - what could be better, what was good, etc. When most of us started watching wrestling, we just tuned in each week to see what would happen, we didn't apply a magnifying glass and evaluate everything that went down. Same with movies - I remember going to the movies as a kid and just having a good time. Now, everything has to be picked apart and all movie discussion has to revolve around everything that we would have done differently.

[femmejomo]

Sept 3, 2011 22:45:21 GMT -5 siredger said:

Dolph Ziggler's good but he's no Curt Hennig.

/Thread

[Deleted]

Sept 3, 2011 22:45:21 GMT -5 siredger said:

Dolph Ziggler's good but he's no Curt Hennig.

But when Dolph looks in the mirror, does he see Mark Jindrak?

[Perpetual Nirvana]

Sept 4, 2011 18:29:07 GMT -5 molson5 said:

With the internet everyone has the ability to be a critic. I think that does impact our view of not just wrestling, but movies, music, and everything else in entertainment. It's harder to just enjoy something, you have to watch it through a critic's eyes - what could be better, what was good, etc. When most of us started watching wrestling, we just tuned in each week to see what would happen, we didn't apply a magnifying glass and evaluate everything that went down. Same with movies - I remember going to the movies as a kid and just having a good time. Now, everything has to be picked apart and all movie discussion has to revolve around everything that we would have done differently.

I agree that people do overanalyse things. What annoys me though is that people with legit beefs get swept up with the nipicking ones so that any remotely negative comment gets pounced on for being too whiny. That makes it just as hard to enjoy things. There's far to many instances of "Well I didn't have a problem, therefor nobody should" kinda comments. Posting that you didn't like something isn't enough, you have to explain why you didn't like it. Then it's a swift slide into becoming the whiny overanalytical fan.

[Big L]

I agree pretty much

[King Boo]

Sept 5, 2011 7:57:55 GMT -5 Perpetual Nirvana said:

Sept 4, 2011 18:29:07 GMT -5 molson5 said:

With the internet everyone has the ability to be a critic. I think that does impact our view of not just wrestling, but movies, music, and everything else in entertainment. It's harder to just enjoy something, you have to watch it through a critic's eyes - what could be better, what was good, etc. When most of us started watching wrestling, we just tuned in each week to see what would happen, we didn't apply a magnifying glass and evaluate everything that went down. Same with movies - I remember going to the movies as a kid and just having a good time. Now, everything has to be picked apart and all movie discussion has to revolve around everything that we would have done differently.

I agree that people do overanalyse things. What annoys me though is that people with legit beefs get swept up with the nipicking ones so that any remotely negative comment gets pounced on for being too whiny. That makes it just as hard to enjoy things. There's far to many instances of "Well I didn't have a problem, therefor nobody should" kinda comments. Posting that you didn't like something isn't enough, you have to explain why you didn't like it. Then it's a swift slide into becoming the whiny overanalytical fan.

I agree.

"Negativity" isn't not liking something. It's an attitude. It's perfectly possible to have enjoyed something but your reaction to someone who hasn't is more negative than their not liking it in the first place, if they politely explain why and you dismiss them.

For the record, I don't need perfection. I do, however, need logic in how a story plays out, to make it enjoyable.