Are you a Jim Cornette or Paul Heyman guy
Jan 9, 2015 16:54:46 GMT -5
________ has left the building likes this
Post by chazraps on Jan 9, 2015 16:54:46 GMT -5
But in terms of creative surely it's more of a creative challenge to produce wrestling shows or TV shows in general where you don't rely weekly on car-chases or explosions or (in ECW's case) weapons. It might be unfair to call the hardcore element all that ECW did but they were certainly heavily reliant on it and whether it worked or didn't is surely irrelevant to the fact that surely a reliance on it is makes it an easier burden on creativity vs a promotion that solely relies on traditional wrestling storytelling techniques to promote itself.
You can think Cornette is wrong in everything he's said and everything he's booked but in terms of judging creativity - booking beats barbed wire, at least when the gimmicks are used excessively and using them excessively was pretty much ECW's MO.
It's like a romance drama. I might think it's a piece of crap and it holds no interest for me at all but I can at least recognise that its formulation was more of an artistic and creative challenge than some crap with Bruce Willis where random stuff happens in between gunfights and car chase. I might find the car chases more entertaining than a long 2 hour, dialogue heavy drama but I'd like to think I'd recognise at least the creative merit of one vs the comparatively over-reliance on cheap tactics of the other.
But ECW didn't rely on it, that's the thing. It wasn't week-to-week "WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT TOMMY DREAMER GETS PUT THROUGH!" You had alternative storylines that wouldn't be in either federation like the Raven-Sandman feud that brought in Sandman's family, Sabu refusing to fight Taz as a favor to Heyman, Douglas-Scorpio feuding over whether there's honor in the TV title, etc. These are traditional wrestling storylines at their foundation that just catered to a more adult audience, not in an explocit nature, but in the nuance of the characters' motivations. Putting barb-wire in the logo is a kin to putting a mr. yuck sticker on an effective cleaning agent beneath the sink: it signifies what the product is and its effectiveness but makes it clear that it's not for children.
Again, you're basing your understanding on ECW on hearsay and without spending any real time watching the product. You don't seem to get the product or its context in 1996's pop culture landscape. You have no basis to dispute creative merit, especially in your catch-all descriptions of two entire genres of films whose creations vary wildly.