|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Feb 18, 2013 18:38:39 GMT -5
This is going to be somewhat of a rant here, but it's something that's been annoying me for a long time.
It seems like as I grow older and start to see patterns by doing things repeatedly, there are certain things in the world of wrestling fans that have been getting on my nerves. One of these things is the excuses people have for disliking something because they don't want to just state their own opinion.
There are plenty of things that people are going to like and plenty of things that people are going to dislike. However, more and more I'm seeing people hiding their opinions by instead stating reasons for why something isn't good. Want some of examples of this:
"They said it was once in a lifetime"
This is nothing more than a dumb reason to claim Rock vs Cena II shouldn't happen when in fact you just don't want to see the match again, not that it shouldn't happen because they promoted it as once in a lifetime.
"Push new stars"
I HATE this argument. I remember when Del Rio and Sheamus were feuding and people were angry that WWE wasn't giving Daniel Bryan another title reign, citing that WWE needs to push new talent. Well Del Rio and Sheamus were newer talent and were getting pushes, but no that doesn't count to some. This is just one of many examples of this, but "push new stars" to me boils down to "I like this specific person and he happens to be a newer guy so I hope he gets pushed."
These are just two examples off the top of my head, but I'm getting tired of all the excuses some fans are starting to make about not liking the product and it's getting tougher for me to boost my enjoyment of the shows by going online because instead of logical debate, I'm seeing more and more excuses. I still watch Raw, SD, and ME every week as well as all of the pay-per-views so I always hope that certain things could keep me busy afterwards, but it's getting tougher and tougher nowadays.
/Rant
I just wanted to get that off my chest because it's been bothering me for a long time and I know that WrestleMania season's going to be hectic here as well since it's not what people want to see and there will probably be just as many excuses as to why.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Feb 18, 2013 18:41:57 GMT -5
I think WWE DOES need to push new stars. But they're going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to present everyone as a potential World Champion and destroying the midcard in the process, they should be building a strong roster from top to bottom. That's why I hate seeing Titus O'Neil job to Khali or Ryder jobbing to Cesaro when they could easily have a solid program with EACH OTHER instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Feb 18, 2013 18:42:50 GMT -5
what you say is somewhat true but when you break it down it is perfectly acceptable to not want to see the mania main event be the same thing 2 years in a row. the hbk/hhh/taker 4 year run did produce some amazing matches but i would much rather have had 2 different big names on the streak.
same with this cena v rock again and maybe hhh and brock again.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Feb 18, 2013 18:43:08 GMT -5
I think WWE DOES need to push new stars. But they're going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to present everyone as a potential World Champion, they should be building a strong roster from top to bottom. That's why I hate seeing Titus O'Neil job to Khali or Ryder jobbing to Cesaro when they could easily have a solid program with EACH OTHER instead. But that's not my point. There are people who use "Push New Stars" as an excuse to be mad at the company for not putting the World Title on someone they like, when there could be someone else who is also relatively new getting a push, but that doesn't count because that guy sucks in their mind. what you say is somewhat true but when you break it down it is perfectly acceptable to not want to see the mania main event be the same thing 2 years in a row. the hbk/hhh/taker 4 year run did produce some amazing matches but i would much rather have had 2 different big names on the streak. same with this cena v rock again and maybe hhh and brock again. See it's ok if people say "I don't want to see this match again" because that's a legitimate reasoning. It's when people start coming up with lame reasons like "THEY SAID ONCE IN A LIFETIME" as a reason for why the match shouldn't happen is what angers me. |
|
|
|
Post by Mc Mc Mannequin on Feb 18, 2013 18:43:51 GMT -5
"Push new stars" is something that is constantly said even when new stars are being pushed. What they really mean when they say it is "push new stars that I want pushing".
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Feb 18, 2013 18:47:28 GMT -5
I think WWE DOES need to push new stars. But they're going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to present everyone as a potential World Champion, they should be building a strong roster from top to bottom. That's why I hate seeing Titus O'Neil job to Khali or Ryder jobbing to Cesaro when they could easily have a solid program with EACH OTHER instead. But that's not my point. There are people who use "Push New Stars" as an excuse to be mad at the company for not putting the World Title on someone they like, when there could be someone else who is also relatively new getting a push, but that doesn't count because that guy sucks in their mind. So are you mad that people are using the phrase "push new stars", or are you mad that people want the WWE to push people that they like? |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Feb 18, 2013 19:01:10 GMT -5
But that's not my point. There are people who use "Push New Stars" as an excuse to be mad at the company for not putting the World Title on someone they like, when there could be someone else who is also relatively new getting a push, but that doesn't count because that guy sucks in their mind. So are you mad that people are using the phrase "push new stars", or are you mad that people want the WWE to push people that they like? I don't like how some people use "Push New Stars" as a reasoning behind pushing someone they like, versus "Push X." As stated earlier in the Sheamus example, getting mad that Daniel Bryan wasn't champion because they need to make new stars is a ridiculous argument because the guy who beat him WAS an attempt to push a new talent. So it's not that they wanted to see new stars being pushed, they wanted to see someone they like get pushed and "Push new stars" is an excuse to not provide the opinion of "I like X" |
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Feb 18, 2013 19:04:46 GMT -5
So are you mad that people are using the phrase "push new stars", or are you mad that people want the WWE to push people that they like? I don't like how some people use "Push New Stars" as a reasoning behind pushing someone they like, versus "Push X." As stated earlier in the Sheamus example, getting mad that Daniel Bryan wasn't champion because they need to make new stars is a ridiculous argument because the guy who beat him WAS an attempt to push a new talent. So it's not that they wanted to see new stars being pushed, they wanted to see someone they like get pushed and "Push new stars" is an excuse to not provide the opinion of "I like X" That's true, but you know what they really mean by it, so I don't see the point in getting worked up in how they phrase it. |
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Feb 18, 2013 19:07:07 GMT -5
Sheamus was already a "star" before then. He was just yo-yo'd down to the point where the WHC was a good option for him. He had already been WWE champion twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Feb 18, 2013 19:09:12 GMT -5
The "ONCE IN A LIFETIME" thing isn't really an excuse. It may not bother you but it bothers others. Just because you disagree with someone's reasoning for disliking something doesn't just invalidate that reason.
I agree with your point about the "PUSH NEW STARS" deal. It's the same reason why people insist that this year's WM is gonna do badly. From a pure business perspective, it's a fairly smart card. But, because they personally don't want to watch the show and feel that it's "predictable", they have to validate their opinion as fact by making claims like that. You don't like the Rock's promos? Well, he simply must be a bad promo cutter. There's no possible way that he has a specific promo style and it just doesn't appeal to you. Never mind the fact that he can get the crowd to chant whatever the hell he wants. Nope, he must suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Scrotum on Feb 18, 2013 19:23:57 GMT -5
So are you mad that people are using the phrase "push new stars", or are you mad that people want the WWE to push people that they like? I don't like how some people use "Push New Stars" as a reasoning behind pushing someone they like, versus "Push X." As stated earlier in the Sheamus example, getting mad that Daniel Bryan wasn't champion because they need to make new stars is a ridiculous argument because the guy who beat him WAS an attempt to push a new talent. So it's not that they wanted to see new stars being pushed, they wanted to see someone they like get pushed and "Push new stars" is an excuse to not provide the opinion of "I like X" |
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Feb 18, 2013 19:25:04 GMT -5
I don't like how some people use "Push New Stars" as a reasoning behind pushing someone they like, versus "Push X." As stated earlier in the Sheamus example, getting mad that Daniel Bryan wasn't champion because they need to make new stars is a ridiculous argument because the guy who beat him WAS an attempt to push a new talent. So it's not that they wanted to see new stars being pushed, they wanted to see someone they like get pushed and "Push new stars" is an excuse to not provide the opinion of "I like X" That also describes John Cena, except he probably shared the soda with Samoa Joe. |
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by khali on Feb 18, 2013 19:35:24 GMT -5
The "ONCE IN A LIFETIME" thing isn't really an excuse. It may not bother you but it bothers others. Just because you disagree with someone's reasoning for disliking something doesn't just invalidate that reason. I agree with your point about the "PUSH NEW STARS" deal. It's the same reason why people insist that this year's WM is gonna do badly. From a pure business perspective, it's a fairly smart card. But, because they personally don't want to watch the show and feel that it's "predictable", they have to validate their opinion as fact by making claims like that. You don't like the Rock's promos? Well, he simply must be a bad promo cutter. There's no possible way that he has a specific promo style and it just doesn't appeal to you. Never mind the fact that he can get the crowd to chant whatever the hell he wants. Nope, he must suck. I do agree with you as far as people so adamant this Mania will do poorly. Yes, I completely understand if the card is of no interest to you personally. But with the amount of star power involved, it seems bound to be successful. Predictable does not equal poor business. |
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Feb 18, 2013 19:38:32 GMT -5
"Push New Stars" = "Push People I Like"
|
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 18, 2013 19:42:02 GMT -5
People actually upset with Once in a lifetime is comical, did anyone honestly think they would only run a money match like that once?
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Feb 18, 2013 19:54:33 GMT -5
OK, I have to ask.
Has there been anybody that outright said that they don't want Rock/Cena II SPECIFICALLY because of the "Once in a Lifetime" thing?
What I've seen is people mocking WWE for blatantly going back on a majorly hyped selling point of the match. Which, you know, is deserved. I would think most people understand WHY WWE is doing it, they're just mocking them for the obvious contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Feb 18, 2013 20:04:05 GMT -5
I'm of two different opinions of the push new stars argument: I actually hate the straw argument of "push new stars = push people I like" because it's basically saying we should be happy when the office pushes somebody like Garrett Bischoff or Bo Dallas. It just reeks of "like who WE want you to like" with "we" being the WWE Brass.
However, the argument can be misused. For example, when it was used in the wake of the May 3rd Smackdown (Randy defeating Christian for the World Heavyweight Championship), and people were criticizing WWE for not being willing to pass the torch. I mean, I still feel Christian deserved a much better reign, but as someone who debuted when Randy Orton was still in high school, "new blood" probably isn't the term I'd use to describe him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 20:05:24 GMT -5
I don't like how some people use "Push New Stars" as a reasoning behind pushing someone they like, versus "Push X." As stated earlier in the Sheamus example, getting mad that Daniel Bryan wasn't champion because they need to make new stars is a ridiculous argument because the guy who beat him WAS an attempt to push a new talent. So it's not that they wanted to see new stars being pushed, they wanted to see someone they like get pushed and "Push new stars" is an excuse to not provide the opinion of "I like X" That's true, but you know what they really mean by it, so I don't see the point in getting worked up in how they phrase it. I can't speak for this dude, but I personally see it as people doing anything they can to avoid saying "I would just rather see wrestler x than wrestler y". They instead try to make it seem as if they are being objective in their reasoning. It ties in to the whole "wrestling is serious business" vibe that certain threads have. They don't prefer wrestler x just because they like him, but because it would be "good for business" and all that crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Feb 18, 2013 20:05:55 GMT -5
However, the argument can be misused. For example, when it was used in the wake of the May 3rd Smackdown (Randy defeating Christian for the World Heavyweight Championship), and people were criticizing WWE for not being willing to pass the torch. I mean, I still feel Christian deserved a much better reign, but as someone who debuted when Randy Orton was still in high school, "new blood" probably isn't the term I'd use to describe him. I get what people are trying to imply here. Even though Christian's actual age was higher than Orton's, Orton had been a main eventer for much longer. Christian was "new blood" in the sense that he was a new face in the main event scene. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Feb 18, 2013 22:46:31 GMT -5
I wish this thread could be a stickied one.
|
|
