|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 13, 2013 1:28:22 GMT -5
Internet cynicism and personal wish-fulfillment entitlement have invaded all forms of entertainment, from wrestling to music to tv shows and movies, etc. Sure, it existed before the Information Superhighway, but not on this grand scale.
It's part of the reason we've tried our hardest to keep FAN, the site and the board, a little more positive. I don't want a board where it's just bitching and moaning all the time. I want people to talk about the stuff they LIKE.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Sept 13, 2013 4:24:37 GMT -5
I think the true mark of a true fan, in any field, whether it be sports, wrestling, or entertainment, is open and honest criticism. Obviously in a lot of cases, fans go overboard, but in the case of those of us on FAN, I think that it is honest, and for the most part, out of a desire for a better product. When a wrestler or organization is doing a good job, they will get the credit they deserve and a positive response. conversely, if that wrestler or organization is doing a mad job, those same poster will criticize them. Are there individuals that go over the line, in both support and criticism. Yes. However, the vast majority are not like that. FAN is a much fairer and honest place than most sports forums and message boards, and a lot of other wrestling forums.
|
|
|
Post by azrael502 on Sept 13, 2013 11:17:52 GMT -5
bluntly put if everybody got along and agreed with everything the various companies do these boards would be empty
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Sept 13, 2013 13:02:35 GMT -5
My take on the negativity issue is that there probably isn't really as much of it as there is people enjoying wrestling and discussing it, maybe having some criticisms but generally enjoying it, but the negative always seems louder somehow and like it gets more attention. Last year I made a thread when I got a job working for a new Mid-Michigan indie company and I planned on updating it regularly and giving people a little peek at how things are going behind the scenes. I thought it would be good for discussion and people would enjoy it, but I abandoned the idea pretty quickly because I realized that with a new company everything wasn't gonna be awesome right away and some people would just rip the shit out of it and it could give the promotion more attention that it was ready for, because one of the first things I learned is that sometimes a company has to make some mistakes before they start to get it right (and it's the same way with wrestlers and their ring work). Running and promoting a wrestling company is NOT easy, and a lot of fans would be startled to find out how much they really don't know about the business. That said, they know enough to understand that some of it is about playing up strengths and hiding weaknesses, so I think it's pretty tacky to exploit that knowledge and zero in on the negatives for amusement. I'm not talking about a site like Wrestlecrap that only picks on people who can afford to get taken down a peg. I do take exception to those who go after small companies or indie workers where it could actually hurt them and interfere with their ability to grow and get better.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Sept 13, 2013 13:50:57 GMT -5
I think that things like "praising the entire match and saying their only disappointment is who won the match" are the worst part of the negativity, simply because it's not a fair criticism. If you're criticizing a match/storyline, and there's actual problems with how it was done, that's fair enough- it's not so much negative as fair criticism- there is a definite problem with it, you're pointing that out, and explaining why you hated it. If your criticism boils down to "WAAAH THE GUY I LIKE LOST TO THE GUY I HATE WAAAH!", as in "only disappointment is Cena won", then that's not being a critic, that's being a blind mark.
That isn't to say that, if the person you like loses their match, there can't be problems with it independently, but if your only problem is "The guy I like lost to the guy I hate! Waah!", then you are absolutely being negative towards the product for no reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 14:28:23 GMT -5
I think that things like "praising the entire match and saying their only disappointment is who won the match" are the worst part of the negativity, simply because it's not a fair criticism. If you're criticizing a match/storyline, and there's actual problems with how it was done, that's fair enough- it's not so much negative as fair criticism- there is a definite problem with it, you're pointing that out, and explaining why you hated it. If your criticism boils down to "WAAAH THE GUY I LIKE LOST TO THE GUY I HATE WAAAH!", as in "only disappointment is Cena won", then that's not being a critic, that's being a blind mark. That isn't to say that, if the person you like loses their match, there can't be problems with it independently, but if your only problem is "The guy I like lost to the guy I hate! Waah!", then you are absolutely being negative towards the product for no reason. Disagree. It's the same as liking a movie but hating the ending. I think there's a difference between hating an ending out of spite and hating an ending because it doesn't create a circumstance that fleshes out the story better. Case in point: I like John Cena, I hate John Cena at times but I think he's a great wrestler but there are just a lot of instances where a story hinges on Cena losing a match to establish a strong villain and it doesn't happen. But even if it's as you put it, if I think a Cena match is really good but don't like that Cena won it, just because I don't want Cena to be Champion anymore I think that's valid too. I think to make it poor criticism would be THE MATCH SUCKS BECAUSE f*** JOHN CENA. I have more respect for someone who is sick of John Cena but can acknowledge when the guy strikes gold. John Cena.
|
|
|
Post by JTG Fan on Sept 13, 2013 14:30:45 GMT -5
because this
is applicable to your average wrestling fan, only replace 90s with whatever time period they started watching wrestling
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Sept 13, 2013 15:06:50 GMT -5
Disagree. It's the same as liking a movie but hating the ending. I think there's a difference between hating an ending out of spite and hating an ending because it doesn't create a circumstance that fleshes out the story better. Case in point: I like John Cena, I hate John Cena at times but I think he's a great wrestler but there are just a lot of instances where a story hinges on Cena losing a match to establish a strong villain and it doesn't happen. But even if it's as you put it, if I think a Cena match is really good but don't like that Cena won it, just because I don't want Cena to be Champion anymore I think that's valid too. I think to make it poor criticism would be THE MATCH SUCKS BECAUSE f*** JOHN CENA. I have more respect for someone who is sick of John Cena but can acknowledge when the guy strikes gold. John Cena.[/quote] Even then, though, I think that it is basically the same thing- if it's to have Cena lose a match to establish a strong villain, and it doesn't happen- that would be valid. I don't think it's as valid to hate a Cena match solely because you don't want Cena to be Champion anymore- because that IS about the same thing as THE MATCH SUCKS BECAUSE F*** JOHN CENA. If you do think the match is good, then inherently Cena DID prove he deserves to be at the top, and did strike gold- then it does fall to, at best, "I am a blind mark for the other guy", and at worst "I loved this match, but I want to keep my e-cred so I'm going to act like I hate it because F*** John Cena". Either way, it's not valid IMO.
|
|