|
Post by Piccolo on Feb 1, 2014 19:12:35 GMT -5
What is the weakness in the interpretation? I'm interested to hear your thoughts. (As for whether it makes Ziggler sympathetic or unsympathetic if he was being pressured in the storyline to lose matches in order to keep his job, that would be up to the individual. I wouldn't pretend to guess at whether we would be supposed to empathize with his situation or not.) Faces in wrestling aren't meant to be passive victims. Nor are they supposed to give anything less than 100% in the ring. Even when they face impossible odds, or a forced to fight on a side they oppose, or against a friend, they do it. Its classic booking. To have Dolph say "The Authority" wants me to tank matches flies in the face of that. Worse, it makes the guy who beat him appear undeserving of his victory. As Vince said, though, there are no heels or faces anymore. So there are just people... and people sometimes don't do everything perfectly. Sometimes they do get successfully held down, sometimes they do what they have to in order to get by. It's not like Dolph is the major face of the company; he's a midcard guy. It may be that he IS trying to put food on his table and hates what he's forced to do, but he doesn't feel like he can fight it alone. It's bleak and corporate vs individual and whatnot... I wouldn't say that it's meant to be a victorious moment where we all feel good about how he's overcome the odds. He hasn't overcome the odds. Re: the last sentence, do you feel like every wrestling match you've ever seen has ended on the note that the victor won cleanly with no interference, shenanigans, injury to their opponent, etc? Because I don't feel that way, so it doesn't bother me to have a potentially tainted ending to a match for storyline reasons. If someone said something like this in a real-life sport, it would be a problem for me, but it really wouldn't be here.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Feb 1, 2014 19:14:07 GMT -5
I was listening to Dean Ambrose on Colt Cobana's podcast, and he was talking about a type of fan (and type wrestler on the indies) that annoyed him, the over-cynical, smarky, thinks-they-know-everything-about-wrestling, "Cena can't work" kind of fan. Those fans killed the fun of wrestling on the indies for him. He hadn't grown up with the internet, so he had a much more earnest and sincere perspective of wrestling. I liked Ambrose even more than I did before after hearing that. So if he was describing the "IWC fan", then yes, I'd say that "anti-IWC fans," including myself, would generally not like that kind of promo at all. We'd rather hear the Dolph Ziggler character talk, as Dolph Ziggler, about something within the fictional wrestling universe. Instead of throwing out little winks to that group of fans Dean Ambrose talked about, that thrive on that cynicism and think that Ziggler is "one of them", the group that sees itself as understanding wrestling better than anyone else. To be honest, Ambrose came off like a huge tool in that interview. Much more than Punk ever has, which says a lot. It just depends on what side of the fence you're on, I suppose. Punk and Ziggler come across as much bigger tools to me. Whereas I really appreciate the way Ambrose goes about his business.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Feb 1, 2014 19:24:59 GMT -5
Its a weak interpretation that doesn't help Ziggler in any way, shape, or form. If we're supposed to feel sympathy for him in storyline, implying he's tanking his matches is a terrible way to do it. I don't think we're supposed to digest it as part of the kayfabe narrative. This was a promo designed to rally the smarts who know that he's been misused and to play upon that emotion. It's like there's two different kayfabes going on at once. There's the onscreen narrative for casuals who just take things as they are. And then there's things like this targeted at the fans who look at wrestling a little deeper and more deconstructive. The argument is that Dolph's implied tanking of matches is what keeps the promo from breaking kayfabe. My point is that if you are supposed to accept that statement as part of the storyline, it makes Dolph look awful. It doesn't help his character at all. He's trying to keep something in kayfabe that really isn't meant to be in kayfabe, and the excuse he is using to put it there paints even a worse picture of him. Its a terrible way to make him sympathetic.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Feb 1, 2014 19:37:04 GMT -5
Faces in wrestling aren't meant to be passive victims. Nor are they supposed to give anything less than 100% in the ring. Even when they face impossible odds, or a forced to fight on a side they oppose, or against a friend, they do it. Its classic booking. To have Dolph say "The Authority" wants me to tank matches flies in the face of that. Worse, it makes the guy who beat him appear undeserving of his victory. As Vince said, though, there are no heels or faces anymore. So there are just people... and people sometimes don't do everything perfectly. Sometimes they do get successfully held down, sometimes they do what they have to in order to get by. It's not like Dolph is the major face of the company; he's a midcard guy. It may be that he IS trying to put food on his table and hates what he's forced to do, but he doesn't feel like he can fight it alone. It's bleak and corporate vs individual and whatnot... I wouldn't say that it's meant to be a victorious moment where we all feel good about how he's overcome the odds. He hasn't overcome the odds. Re: the last sentence, do you feel like every wrestling match you've ever seen has ended on the note that the victor won cleanly with no interference, shenanigans, injury to their opponent, etc? Because I don't feel that way, so it doesn't bother me to have a potentially tainted ending to a match for storyline reasons. If someone said something like this in a real-life sport, it would be a problem for me, but it really wouldn't be here. I've presented my points in a reply to someone else. Again, trying to rationalize Dolph's kayfabe breaking comment about being told to do less than his best by saying he's being forced to take a dive fails. And obviously I've seen matches that have ended with shenanigans for the sake of a storyline. Its a facetious question to ask. But nowhere in the build up to the match have we seen it implied at all that anything happened except Antonio beat Dolph clean. To say afterwards "I lose because I'm told to lose" makes him look bad. And the argument that its ok because this is not a real-life sport doesn't wash either: because in the WWE Universe, what they are doing is a real life sport.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Feb 1, 2014 19:49:35 GMT -5
As Vince said, though, there are no heels or faces anymore. So there are just people... and people sometimes don't do everything perfectly. Sometimes they do get successfully held down, sometimes they do what they have to in order to get by. It's not like Dolph is the major face of the company; he's a midcard guy. It may be that he IS trying to put food on his table and hates what he's forced to do, but he doesn't feel like he can fight it alone. It's bleak and corporate vs individual and whatnot... I wouldn't say that it's meant to be a victorious moment where we all feel good about how he's overcome the odds. He hasn't overcome the odds. Re: the last sentence, do you feel like every wrestling match you've ever seen has ended on the note that the victor won cleanly with no interference, shenanigans, injury to their opponent, etc? Because I don't feel that way, so it doesn't bother me to have a potentially tainted ending to a match for storyline reasons. If someone said something like this in a real-life sport, it would be a problem for me, but it really wouldn't be here. I've presented my points in a reply to someone else. Again, trying to rationalize Dolph's kayfabe breaking comment about being told to do less than his best by saying he's being forced to take a dive fails. And obviously I've seen matches that have ended with shenanigans for the sake of a storyline. Its a facetious question to ask. But nowhere in the build up to the match have we seen it implied at all that anything happened except Antonio beat Dolph clean. To say afterwards "I lose because I'm told to lose" makes him look bad. And the argument that its ok because this is not a real-life sport doesn't wash either: because in the WWE Universe, what they are doing is a real life sport. Oh, so your point is that you don't want to believe his promo could be taken as within kayfabe? That's an entirely different argument, then, and one I can't really have with you, because it's just about your preferences. As for the second paragraph, if you acknowledge that sometimes clean endings don't happen within a story, then the argument that his comment can't be interpreted this way because it would imply that the match's outcome was not 100% legit is invalid. Of course a match can have an ending that isn't totally clean, so why should a storyline like this be beyond the pale of what WWE would do?
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Feb 1, 2014 19:56:03 GMT -5
I've presented my points in a reply to someone else. Again, trying to rationalize Dolph's kayfabe breaking comment about being told to do less than his best by saying he's being forced to take a dive fails. And obviously I've seen matches that have ended with shenanigans for the sake of a storyline. Its a facetious question to ask. But nowhere in the build up to the match have we seen it implied at all that anything happened except Antonio beat Dolph clean. To say afterwards "I lose because I'm told to lose" makes him look bad. And the argument that its ok because this is not a real-life sport doesn't wash either: because in the WWE Universe, what they are doing is a real life sport. Oh, so your point is that you don't want to believe his promo could be taken as within kayfabe? That's an entirely different argument, then, and one I can't really have with you, because it's just about your preferences. As for the second paragraph, if you acknowledge that sometimes clean endings don't happen within a story, then the argument that his comment can't be interpreted this way because it would imply that the match's outcome was not 100% legit is invalid. Of course a match can have an ending that isn't totally clean, so why should a storyline like this be beyond the pale of what WWE would do? Oy. The argument is invalid because he is meant to be a face, and someone you can sympathize with. I have said over and over that the excuse fails because it makes him look worse than just admitting in the storyline than he lost.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Feb 1, 2014 20:05:22 GMT -5
Oh, so your point is that you don't want to believe his promo could be taken as within kayfabe? That's an entirely different argument, then, and one I can't really have with you, because it's just about your preferences. As for the second paragraph, if you acknowledge that sometimes clean endings don't happen within a story, then the argument that his comment can't be interpreted this way because it would imply that the match's outcome was not 100% legit is invalid. Of course a match can have an ending that isn't totally clean, so why should a storyline like this be beyond the pale of what WWE would do? Oy. The argument is invalid because he is meant to be a face, and someone you can sympathize with. I have said over and over that the excuse fails because it makes him look worse than just admitting in the storyline than he lost. Nevertheless, it's a potential interpretation of the instruction that he's received to be "less good." It's possible that he's being told to be less good on the mic, or less good in some other area, but there are only a few areas of expertise for a wrestler, so the possibility that he's being told to be less good in the ring certainly exists. And juxtaposed with his comments about how he's been a winner all his life, it seems likely that the instruction to be less good involves losing matches he believes he could win if he were allowed to go all out. Again, it's not really about whether you personally find it sympathetic. It's about what he's saying, and what it implies in the storyline if it's intended to be kayfabe or at least vague enough to be taken as kayfabe. I get that, were you writing, you wouldn't have done it this way. But that doesn't mean it's not potentially what he means in a kayfabe sense.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Feb 1, 2014 20:11:52 GMT -5
I always have to max up the volume on .com's shitty stuttery player, so when Dolph started screaming, the sudden loudness basically made me deaf.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Feb 1, 2014 21:26:17 GMT -5
I didn't take it as "tanking matches in kayfabe", I took the whole thing as a whole. I'm weird, I know, but I watched it three times and looked at it like a client during a session. Frustration? Sure, that's obvious, but I saw so much "everybody is getting in my head" and "I've always been the best and so..." but with the last part actually coming out (in inflection) as "but now".
Real emotion in there, and I loved it, but if I'm "analyzing" the character, my first thought is, "It was always easy for him, and now it's hard and he's close to losing his shit and that's dangerous". Like a guy who is a total stud in baseball all the way up to the majors. When he gets there, his swing is picture perfect, and he even has some success. He can run, he can field, he can do everything artistically and athletically, but he's not a star, he's not hitting .350 and hitting homers left and right like he has at every level. He's hitting .280, he's respected, he has some pop and is seen as a damn fine ball player. But everywhere else he went, he was Babe Ruth, and the fact that now he isn't, it destroys him and drives him crazy.
I know there's real frustration for him because he DOES deserve better. However, I took this promo as, "let me show you how my character feels instead of you writing it for me".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2014 23:13:45 GMT -5
So is anti-IWCers some new non-existent hive-mind group? Can people not just like or dislike something based on their own preferences without having it tied in to some fabricated idea of what an internet wrestling fan likes? I didn't like the promo. Too much screaming, nonsensical, and it's either blatantly at odds with kayfabe reality given that he just lost despite supposedly outdoing everyone or it's going into worked shoot territory which I don't like. It's the same people who are fans of Orton, bash Bryan, and defend the WWE at all costs. They are also the people who laughed at DX's lame jokes in 2008, and literally get mad at crowds if they cheer more for Bryan than Batista. One of the guys who did not like the promo had 11 posts about how the Royal Rumble crowd "ruined the PPV" for him and other WWE "loyalists". I mean WTH is that? There are people on here who actually think paying fans should act a certain way But why are they wrong for thinking that way? Maybe someone legitimately likes Orton, or dislikes Daniel Bryan, or likes the product WWE offers. Why should their opinion be less valid than people who hate Orton, love Bryan, and dislikes WWE? What's the point of trivializing their opinions by grouping them into some supposed "Anti-IWC" collective? That seems like a means to stifle discussion rather than encourage it. I do enjoy the irony of your second paragraph, by the way. You wonder how someone could possibly not like the crowd booing a product they enjoy, and at the same time cannot believe that people think fans should act a certain way. You are literally doing the exact same thing he did, except it's him not acting the way you think he should act. Just because some people don't like the same wrestlers you do doesn't mean there is some group out there dedicated to not liking the things you like. And even if there is such a group, how does it matter? Enjoy what you enjoy, and other people can enjoy what they enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Feb 1, 2014 23:39:09 GMT -5
What's the point of trivializing their opinions by grouping them into some supposed "Anti-IWC" collective? That seems like a means to stifle discussion rather than encourage it. It'd be great if this small taste of the ad hominems that the "IWC" receives on a daily basis wakes the self-hating smarks up to how ugly it is. I agree with you completely; dismissing opinions based on the fact that someone is an "IWC darling" or that the person you're talking to is a "smark" (while doggedly ignoring that no one's a mark anymore), complaining about how dumb the smarks are or how they're ruining the show... none of that is conducive to good discussion. And as we've found here, it's just as stifling when it flows in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by Germansuplex on Feb 3, 2014 9:55:34 GMT -5
Man, that promo was terrible, forced, and annoying. I actually respect Ziggles less than before now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 9:57:52 GMT -5
The irony of it all is that his promo (which I don't think broke kayfabe unless you REALLY read into it) about how he feels he's not appreciated for his talents both in the ring and on the mic didn't even make it to youtube or TV.
|
|