Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 20:38:46 GMT -5
That's the thing, though. In a book or movie or whatever, creator intent isn't relevant to how you can interpret a character or moral. Why should wrestling be any different? And really, I don't see any problems with being a kiss-up or a corporate stooge. Sometimes you do what you have to to get by, and sometimes the arrogant rebels trying to make things please them personally need to be put in their place. As a writer myself, creative intent is how the story is SUPPOSED to be interpreted. People can LIKE the characters any which way they choose, but at the end of the day, the story is what it is and is meant to be taken that way. If you vehemently oppose a character who is supposed to be a hero, in all likelihood that character was simply written poorly. You cannot truly debate it, however, because it is not real. The creator has made the rules and fashioned the particular world as they see fit. They just might suck at it. But it still is the intention. It’s like a little kid who can’t draw. If my nephew hands me a hand-painting from Kindergarten and tells me it’s a fire-truck, and all I see is a blob, it’s still a fire-truck, because that was his intention. It’s just a s***ty fire-truck, that’s all. That all said, thinking Ace is the "good guy" is just wrong, because he has in no way been presented as such, and is not WWE's intention. The dissenters argument should not stray from ‘CM Punk is an unlikeable Face’. That can at least be open to opinion. In no way is Ace relatable -- unless those who relate to him personally abuse their power and are bullies in real life, and justify said behavior as acceptable. And there IS a problem with being a kiss-up and corporate stooge, for the record. Because it lacks integrity. It means you've crushed or hurt people for personal gain. And that's NEVER a morally acceptable and justifiable act no matter what. To say it is would undo the very fabric of basic human decency. An act that steps on the innocent is ALWAYS wrong. Hm, fair enough. Really suppose it'd be more accurate to say that I just think Punk is the greater of two evils in this case. Still, yeah, guess discounting Laurinaitis's flaws is kind of ignoring part of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Jan 18, 2012 20:39:07 GMT -5
I like Punk but I wanted him to eat an ACE CRUSHA just because it would be hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jan 18, 2012 20:47:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I felt that John was justified in his actions. Punk has done nothing but push him.
Hell, even Teddy Long would have turned heel by now on him.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Jan 18, 2012 20:53:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I felt that John was justified in his actions. Punk has done nothing but push him. Hell, even Teddy Long would have turned heel by now on him. Dixie Carter would have turned heel on him by now.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 18, 2012 20:56:54 GMT -5
As a writer myself, creative intent is how the story is SUPPOSED to be interpreted. People can LIKE the characters any which way they choose, but at the end of the day, the story is what it is and is meant to be taken that way. If you vehemently oppose a character who is supposed to be a hero, in all likelihood that character was simply written poorly. You cannot truly debate it, however, because it is not real. The creator has made the rules and fashioned the particular world as they see fit. They just might suck at it. But it still is the intention. It’s like a little kid who can’t draw. If my nephew hands me a hand-painting from Kindergarten and tells me it’s a fire-truck, and all I see is a blob, it’s still a fire-truck, because that was his intention. It’s just a s***ty fire-truck, that’s all. That all said, thinking Ace is the "good guy" is just wrong, because he has in no way been presented as such, and is not WWE's intention. The dissenters argument should not stray from ‘CM Punk is an unlikeable Face’. That can at least be open to opinion. In no way is Ace relatable -- unless those who relate to him personally abuse their power and are bullies in real life, and justify said behavior as acceptable. And there IS a problem with being a kiss-up and corporate stooge, for the record. Because it lacks integrity. It means you've crushed or hurt people for personal gain. And that's NEVER a morally acceptable and justifiable act no matter what. To say it is would undo the very fabric of basic human decency. An act that steps on the innocent is ALWAYS wrong. Hm, fair enough. Really suppose it'd be more accurate to say that I just think Punk is the greater of two evils in this case. Still, yeah, guess discounting Laurinaitis's flaws is kind of ignoring part of the issue. I think the problem with Punk right now more than anything is that he doesn't seem like the victim anymore. He has everything he wants for the most part. He's the man. He's decrying a system he already beat. A true babyface is an underdog. He is unfairly f***ed over and has to claw and fight his way to beat his oppressors. He hasn't really been put into this position in awhile. Right now, he's a 'have' acting like a 'have-not'. I think the character needs to go back to his roots. I'd start with him wanting to give Title shots to undercard dudes like Bret Hart did in 1992. Do something that truly shakes up the company and breaks their antiquated and broken mold of doing things. Don't just tell Ace what he should be doing, FORCE change. Push the limits. Use your position to truly and actually make things better. (Although, I think WWE doesn't want to truly do that. They've painted his character into a corner that way and limited him to being all talk. The end result is everything needs to change. But real-life WWE doesn't want to break their tired formula.)
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Jan 18, 2012 21:26:09 GMT -5
Count me as one of the people who thought (and hoped) it was coming. If not on Punk, than definately Foley.
|
|
|
Post by AztecaDragon on Jan 18, 2012 21:58:11 GMT -5
I actually agree with this being poorly-written, if I hadn't said it 38 times already over the past few months. As a writer myself, creative intent is how the story is SUPPOSED to be interpreted. People can LIKE the characters any which way they choose, but at the end of the day, the story is what it is and is meant to be taken that way. If you vehemently oppose a character who is supposed to be a hero, in all likelihood that character was simply written poorly. You cannot truly debate it, however, because it is not real. The creator has made the rules and fashioned the particular world as they see fit. They just might suck at it. But it still is the intention. It’s like a little kid who can’t draw. If my nephew hands me a hand-painting from Kindergarten and tells me it’s a fire-truck, and all I see is a blob, it’s still a fire-truck, because that was his intention. It’s just a s***ty fire-truck, that’s all. That all said, thinking Ace is the "good guy" is just wrong, because he has in no way been presented as such, and is not WWE's intention. The dissenters argument should not stray from ‘CM Punk is an unlikeable Face’. That can at least be open to opinion. In no way is Ace relatable -- unless those who relate to him personally abuse their power and are bullies in real life, and justify said behavior as acceptable. Goodness. Seriously, I want the emotional investment in this storyline to address this with some nuance, because that's a very interesting mindset. Unfortunately... I find this paragraph extremely interesting, especially in the context of the WWE of what type of behavior was rewarded until recently but again, I slam into this wall of indifference halfway into my thoughts.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 18, 2012 22:50:33 GMT -5
Count me as one of the people who thought (and hoped) it was coming. If not on Punk, than definately Foley. Why Foley?
|
|