Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 17:20:33 GMT -5
fame is a funny thing. I was just talking with someone about this the other day and it's strange to me that people expect more out of the entertainer/entertainee relationship than they do out of any other occupation. Normal occupational transaction. Pay money - get service. Entertainment industry transaction. Pay money - get entertainment (but also, the entertainers free time is forfeit and every waking second of their personal life is subject to the whim of whether or not their fans are within visual range). If I pay a plumber to snake my drain, I don't expect anything more than him to snake my drain. If people pay for a ticket to a movie or a show, for some reason just seeing that show/movie isn't enough? They're also obligated to do their job, for free, in their down time? Personally, I don't think any entertainer owes me or their fans anything more than to entertain them for the allotted time period I paid for. Beyond that - their time is their time and not owed to anyone who paid $20 for a t-shirt. They don't have to like me personally and I don't have to like them personally (within reason - obviously if they're like child murders or something that changes things) all they have to do is entertain me when I pay for it. I completely understand what you are saying and I personally would hate being famous and always having fans bother me. It would really press my patience with people, which I already have very little. But they always say, fame has a price, and the price is your privacy. It may not always be fair, but it's part of the territory. At least in nowadays, your main concern is getting through the airport unnoticed and not fighting 27 people at a bar because they question your toughness and you have to defend the business. But then again, maybe Punk would have preferred those times. The main point of it all, is I just don't get why Punk was bothered by the fact that he wasn't "the guy" in the WWE. He said in the Cabana podcast, he was the Champion, but never "the top guy" and felt he deserved the chance. I know many may not agree with the WWE's corporate philosophies, but they are what they are. The top guy in the WWE isn't simply the best wrestler/performer, they represent the company. There are their main PR representative. They have to do a lot of charity work, PR, public appearances and at all times they are representing the company. All things Punk hated doing, just wanted to be a wrestler and wanted to enjoy he free time rather than work. Just watching Cena on Total Divas, people say he's always playing a character and being politically correct, that's because it's his job. He is on 100% of the time. A lot of people can't do that, hell most people can't do that. Punk certainly couldn't do that, because he's not that guy, it's not in his personality. He wears his emotions on his sleeves. The thing is Punk is a pretty smart guy and you would think he would realize this. I guess when it boils down to it, I was wrong about the bitter point, but I just see a lot of double standards with Punk and yes they bother me. The most recent one being his UFC stint. He had a problem with "part timers" taking his spot in WWE, but doesn't have a problem taking the spot on a UFC PPV of a much more deserving fighter. I get it, the game is making money and in a business sense what UFC and Punk are doing makes a lot of sense. But so did the Rock main eventing Wrestlemania. I get the "price of fame" thing, but I also think its something that's very very ridiculous and shouldn't be part of the territory. To me, "fame" is that a lot of people love what you do. That's it. At some point that meant you can't lead a normal life (partially due to the watering down of 'fame' in general - but that's a whole other discussion) but I don't agree with that, so I'll generally side with someone famous who says, "I don't want to give up my personal/private life for doing what I enjoy." But regarding Punk wanting to be "the guy." Yeah, I know what you mean. He wanted to be "the guy" but in a company that didn't exist. Part of me thinks he really believed he could change things from the inside out, but became disillusioned. He wanted to be WWE's The Guy on CM Punk's terms, which - hey, I can respect the vibe, but I can also see the futility of the endeavor because no matter who they put out there as "the Guy" in WWE, Vince will actually be "THE GUY" until he dies or retires. Regarding his UFC stuff. Yeah, Punk has leveraged his success in wrestling into all kinds of other stuff. Specifically the UFC though? I can see where you're coming from, but there is a more nuanced answer that I can appreciate. It's semantics, but to me, it makes sense: if CM Punk main events his first UFC fight - it definitely feels more hypocritical based on what he said about the Rock. CM Punk (if I recall correctly) had a gripe with him main eventing WM. If the Rock were just on the card or at least putting more young guys over - I can imagine Punk would be less incensed. It wasn't that Rock was there, but how he was used that seemed to bother him.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,112
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jun 30, 2016 18:58:36 GMT -5
I completely understand what you are saying and I personally would hate being famous and always having fans bother me. It would really press my patience with people, which I already have very little. But they always say, fame has a price, and the price is your privacy. It may not always be fair, but it's part of the territory. At least in nowadays, your main concern is getting through the airport unnoticed and not fighting 27 people at a bar because they question your toughness and you have to defend the business. But then again, maybe Punk would have preferred those times. The main point of it all, is I just don't get why Punk was bothered by the fact that he wasn't "the guy" in the WWE. He said in the Cabana podcast, he was the Champion, but never "the top guy" and felt he deserved the chance. I know many may not agree with the WWE's corporate philosophies, but they are what they are. The top guy in the WWE isn't simply the best wrestler/performer, they represent the company. There are their main PR representative. They have to do a lot of charity work, PR, public appearances and at all times they are representing the company. All things Punk hated doing, just wanted to be a wrestler and wanted to enjoy he free time rather than work. Just watching Cena on Total Divas, people say he's always playing a character and being politically correct, that's because it's his job. He is on 100% of the time. A lot of people can't do that, hell most people can't do that. Punk certainly couldn't do that, because he's not that guy, it's not in his personality. He wears his emotions on his sleeves. The thing is Punk is a pretty smart guy and you would think he would realize this. I guess when it boils down to it, I was wrong about the bitter point, but I just see a lot of double standards with Punk and yes they bother me. The most recent one being his UFC stint. He had a problem with "part timers" taking his spot in WWE, but doesn't have a problem taking the spot on a UFC PPV of a much more deserving fighter. I get it, the game is making money and in a business sense what UFC and Punk are doing makes a lot of sense. But so did the Rock main eventing Wrestlemania. I get the "price of fame" thing, but I also think its something that's very very ridiculous and shouldn't be part of the territory. To me, "fame" is that a lot of people love what you do. That's it. At some point that meant you can't lead a normal life (partially due to the watering down of 'fame' in general - but that's a whole other discussion) but I don't agree with that, so I'll generally side with someone famous who says, "I don't want to give up my personal/private life for doing what I enjoy." But regarding Punk wanting to be "the guy." Yeah, I know what you mean. He wanted to be "the guy" but in a company that didn't exist. Part of me thinks he really believed he could change things from the inside out, but became disillusioned. He wanted to be WWE's The Guy on CM Punk's terms, which - hey, I can respect the vibe, but I can also see the futility of the endeavor because no matter who they put out there as "the Guy" in WWE, Vince will actually be "THE GUY" until he dies or retires. Regarding his UFC stuff. Yeah, Punk has leveraged his success in wrestling into all kinds of other stuff. Specifically the UFC though? I can see where you're coming from, but there is a more nuanced answer that I can appreciate. It's semantics, but to me, it makes sense: if CM Punk main events his first UFC fight - it definitely feels more hypocritical based on what he said about the Rock. CM Punk (if I recall correctly) had a gripe with him main eventing WM. If the Rock were just on the card or at least putting more young guys over - I can imagine Punk would be less incensed. It wasn't that Rock was there, but how he was used that seemed to bother him. I don't think too many companies would let him be "The Guy" on "CM Punk Terms". Mostly because no company could POSSIBLY enforce those terms. They'd basically have to hire private security to keep people away from him.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jun 30, 2016 19:17:38 GMT -5
While dude never comes across as sunshine and rainbows, I'm puzzled at how he sounds bitter here. He was asked about why he left etc, and he answered. And it sounds like they did lowball him money wise and such. Someone has every right to go: "Yeah, they tried to kinda screw me over in multiple ways, so I'm sorta done with them."
Certainly WWE has done that to talent many times in the past. Their whole independent contractor deal is set up to benefit the company way more than their talent. Further, what exactly did the the guy say that was untrue? They do pay their own travel, their own food, their own health insurance etc. That's just fact.
One can say that he doesn't seem like the most happy go luck/cheerful dude; but don't see where he's bitter in this instance.
Now if you said he seemed a bit hypocritical about his views on part timers taking wrestling spots while he got to walk into UFC without even an amateur fight to his name; that's an argument, but it doesn't have much to do with any bitterness, particularly in this interview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 20:20:12 GMT -5
I saw the interview on YouTube, and have no idea what the point of this thread is. He was asked questions, he answered them (his story never changed from the initial podcast with Colt), and that was that.
People on this forum getting thrills out of bashing Punk or wanting him to get his ass kicked just illustrates to me why Vince McMahon does whatever he wants with his product. Core fans are loyal to a fault.
Bret was bitter because he felt he was lied to about Montreal, because he lost his brother, etc, etc. You can disagree with him, but that's how he feels. Same with Punk. I'm not sure why people have to jump to WWE's defense given their shady past (and present). Maybe the talent has legit gripes.
|
|
|
Post by edgestar on Jun 30, 2016 20:36:58 GMT -5
He may have a more bitter outlook on things, compared to others, but, I wouldn't want someone to be reckless and hurt him, to take him down a few pegs. Fans don't always deserve rude treatment (there is a time and place for fan interaction), but, he also doesn't deserve harm, just for how he is.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jun 30, 2016 23:27:40 GMT -5
You know how you become a super successful sports radio personality? By being able to stir up shit. It's why First Take is the most popular show on ESPN despite the fact that Smith and Bayless tend to be rather disliked. Colin Cowherd is a professional shit-stirrer and he's very good at it, and that gets people talking and bitching about what he says, which translates to people listenig to him and higher ratings. He tried that schtick with Punk, and Punk only slightly bit on it, probably because if you're used to dealing with people like VInce McMahon, a Colin Cowherd is no real challenge. Punk generally remained on script, which was probably what Dana White wanted since their relationship with WWE isn't bad right now.
That said, people have to realize that if even a person's friends say their is an asshole, then they're probably an asshole. An asshole can work up to being friendly on occasion, and assholes can have perfectly legit grievances with their employers and fans. But if a company wants a Hogan or Cena type guy on top, the guy who will take an hour to sign impromptu autographs at an airport, they're probably not going to settle for an asshole no matter how much better he is than those guys or how much better the fans respond to him. UFC is probably a much better fit for him, because while WWE wants to force another Hogan onto the world to create a new boom, Dana White seems to follow the Eric Bischoff school and doesn't really care about pissing off anyone except the sponsors. So as long as Punk looks good and wins, he has a decent chance to move up.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Jul 1, 2016 8:02:31 GMT -5
Because they're still putting him through an incredibly petty lawsuit because THEY nearly killed him.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jul 1, 2016 9:08:06 GMT -5
I still don't understand why people act so butt-hurt over Punk wanting his privacy. I mean, if I put myself in his shoes I don't think I'd enjoy being bothered for autographs from people stalking my landing gate at an airport when I just want to get some Zs either. but yeah, "Punk's an asshole because he won't cater to my every whim"
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 1, 2016 12:01:20 GMT -5
I'm also not grasping the argument that Punk couldn't be "top dog" because he's not willing to put himself out as much as Cena does. Is there some history of Hogan, Austin, Savage, or Rock keeping the insane autograph/charity/etc. schedule that Cena does? Is it realistic to expect any champion to keep that schedule? And does it make sense to demand it when Cena's time on top has not correlated with great success for WWE (not saying that's Cena's fault, necessarily)? Just seems odd to me.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jul 1, 2016 13:32:20 GMT -5
Because they're still putting him through an incredibly petty lawsuit because THEY nearly killed him. Or maybe he exaggerated the story about the WWE doctors, which is the whole reason for the lawsuit in the first place?
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jul 1, 2016 14:05:00 GMT -5
Meanwhile, over on the Brock "I don't give a **** about what the fans" think" thread... much drooling and slobbering over an "admirable" man who has been given everything he wants at the expense of nearly everyone else. It's uncanny.
CMPunkHeadshake,gif
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Jul 1, 2016 14:09:01 GMT -5
Because the general public doesn't give a shit about his personal life and he may not legally be able to talk about the lawsuit. I'd also argue that the general treatment the roster receives is a major part of his dream being killed. He gets the world title, move a lot of merchandise, is one of the most popular guys they had at that time and he gets none of the treatment that someone at that level would get. Man made over 20 million dollars in his WWE tenture. f*** him and his dream. Wasn't aware that just because someone is rich they have to be completely happy with their life and anything else they have wanted or hoped for, even if it's since childhood, they should just suck up and accept that they don't have. Robin Williams was rich. Look how happy that made him. Another point- people are worth what the industry will pay for people in that position. Does anybody tell Hollywood actresses to shut up and be happy that they're rich, even though they're underpaid compared to male actors? Of course not, because while they are still paid far, FAR more than most people will ever earn in their lifetime, they are often underpaid relative to the industry worth. Punk, for a time, was more popular than Cena, moving more merch than Cena, and generally regarded as the best performer they had, yet never made close to what Cena or other guys like Lesnar, Taker, HHH, made. Is he rich and overpaid compared to 99% of the population? Yes. Is he underpaid compared to his industry peers? Yes. They're not mutually exclusive. I've said it before and will say it again. Punk is a very abrasive guy with a very high opinion of himself and a very high level of self belief. Abrasiveness is one thing that rubs a lot of people the wrong way, people generally prefer someone who is polite and useless/incorrect over someone who is rude but right- and Punk is the epitome of "rude but right"- people have the right to privacy regardless of whether or not they're famous, Punk WAS for a time the best and most popular guy in WWE, so regardless of the money or title runs he did deserve to main event Mania but never did, and he got fired on his wedding day which is almost certainly a screw-you, after months of serious ill health due to alleged medical negligence. He has every right to be hurt about that. Other people might dislike him because his confidence often becomes arrogance, which is fair enough. But I don't actually believe his ego has ever caused him to make a claim about himself or his own ability that is untrue. He's never said he's always been the top guy in WWE, he never said he's gonna walk into UFC and kill everybody. He has incredible confidence and belief that he can prove people wrong, yes, but I've not seen him make many wild claims, I'm happy to be proven wrong if he has though. Some people just seem to dislike anybody who believes in themselves. Punk's 'bitter' (in the sense that not 100% forgiving WWE when they're STILL SUING HIM is bitter) because while often a jerk, he's also often right, but is judged for the former rather than the latter.
|
|
Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
Eternally Confused
Posts: 13,481
|
Post by Malcolm on Jul 1, 2016 15:47:31 GMT -5
Meanwhile, over on the Brock "I don't give a **** about what the fans" think" thread... much drooling and slobbering over an "admirable" man who has been given everything he wants at the expense of nearly everyone else. It's uncanny. CMPunkHeadshake,gif Just for the record, I don't like Brock Lesnar either.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jul 1, 2016 17:29:43 GMT -5
At the end of the day, CM Punk is what he is and what most every person is: A complex, complicated human being. There is no one side to him that completely defines him and every person who has interaction with him will come away with at least a slightly different interpretation of him if not completely different from one another. Way it is with anyone. For example, some of you think I'm an okay guy, some think I can be a complete d-bag, some thing I'm not all there, etc. Same in regular life; one person who meets me for five minutes may walk away thinking I'm the goofiest, happiest person in the city. Another may walk away thinking I'm a miserable ass.
What is the "why" of this, at least in context of Punk? Life. Life, mostly. So many factors to look at, and still no way to see them all. We know that his early years and family life were not ideal. He has trust issues regarding close relationships thanks in part to what his brother did, not to mention his sister's issues and so on and so on. He's from an area already well-known for hardening people. The thing he wanted to do most, he kinda sorta wasn't good at. In that, I refer to the consensus that Punk isn't naturally athletic and has to go the extra mile or two to pull off what others in the business can do sleepwalking. Pushes through the years mostly on his own, with very few people in positions of power handing him sweet spots without effort. Went through some jacked up stuff health-wise once he was "on top" and saw his spot going to part-timers. Had crazies sleeping in front of his house at times, and constantly busting his balls online. Goes into something else, has to start all over and his natural nonathleticism isn't helping, as we've heard he's struggling to make it. And to top it off, while in the middle of this, one of the those part-timers from WWE just showed up and got a sweet gig as a UFC part-timer just by saying he wanted to do it.
That's the basic gist of what we know about Punk. That's a very, very few things that have shaped his state of mind, and affects him on a daily basis, and it's just the visible tip of the iceberg as far as what has molded his psyche. Every day something happens that shapes us differently than we were the day before.
None of this is to excuse him being bitter or being an asshole. It is simply to understand it. Some things stick with us, some moments, that we can't let go.
|
|
|
Post by Hot Noodle Truck on Jul 1, 2016 18:02:02 GMT -5
I used to sort of resent Punk for some reason but as more time has passed since his WWE departure, the more I see it from his side. The company wronged him in a lot of ways and he gave them a lot of shit back but by this point, wrestling fans need to just accept the fact that he's done and probably never coming back. Let the man live his life after the years he spent putting on a show for us.
I give Punk a hell of a lot of credit for even attempting MMA at this point in his life and career, especially with all his injuries over the years. Win or lose, he'll be able to say that he did it and the giant sack with a $ on it will certainly help soothe the pain if he does lose.
And I guess to answer the question in the title, he definitely has more than a few reasons to be bitter, if he is. The lawsuit, the infection and incompetence in treatment, the wedding day firing, random fans crowding his home and whatnot. I didn't listen to the interview though, so I'm not sure what his tone was.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 1, 2016 18:10:03 GMT -5
Meanwhile, over on the Brock "I don't give a **** about what the fans" think" thread... much drooling and slobbering over an "admirable" man who has been given everything he wants at the expense of nearly everyone else. It's uncanny. CMPunkHeadshake,gif Is it really the same people criticising Punk that are defending Brock though?
|
|
canal
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by canal on Jul 1, 2016 18:46:52 GMT -5
I've always heard wrestling fans are loyal. One only needs to look at the story of CM Punk and see that it's not always true. As soon as someone gets booked as a lame duck who's peaked, a lot of fans turn on them. And they can't handle the cognitive dissonance that comes with it, because surely the WWE machine can't manipulate them to feel that way. So they make it about the wrestler, about how they're a douche or they're actually not that talented or pointing out misleading stats to say they got their fair shake and didn't get over or get the job done. It's such a racket.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 1, 2016 19:40:20 GMT -5
I've always heard wrestling fans are loyal. One only needs to look at the story of CM Punk and see that it's not always true. As soon as someone gets booked as a lame duck who's peaked, a lot of fans turn on them. And they can't handle the cognitive dissonance that comes with it, because surely the WWE machine can't manipulate them to feel that way. So they make it about the wrestler, about how they're a douche or they're actually not that talented or pointing out misleading stats to say they got their fair shake and didn't get over or get the job done. It's such a racket. Oh there's always been a 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude in the fanbase, look at how people turned on Warrior, then Bret, then Austin, Rock, Lesnar, Punk and others once they left wrestling. Sometimes it feels like people in the fanbase believe wrestlers somehow owe it to Vince to let themselves be worked like greyhounds, kept out there until they're too injured to keep going then tossed into a dumpster, where they should stay without complaint no matter how many legitimate reasons they have to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 19:53:39 GMT -5
I've always heard wrestling fans are loyal. One only needs to look at the story of CM Punk and see that it's not always true. As soon as someone gets booked as a lame duck who's peaked, a lot of fans turn on them. And they can't handle the cognitive dissonance that comes with it, because surely the WWE machine can't manipulate them to feel that way. So they make it about the wrestler, about how they're a douche or they're actually not that talented or pointing out misleading stats to say they got their fair shake and didn't get over or get the job done. It's such a racket. Wrestling fans are loyal but they're loyal to wrestling. I guarantee there's a healthy pile of fans who were all aboard with CM Punk when he was an active wrestler, he was "one of us," he said things to Vince McMahon we were dying for him to hear to his face on national television, he denounced part-timers, did all the right things by us during his tenure, but the moment he left and gave the impression that he doesn't need wrestling anymore you see the backlash. It's the same thing as Jericho, he left wrestling, didn't seem interested in coming back, you can tell the difference in attitude when he's around versus when he isn't. I know when I was younger I was the same way, I wanted my wrestlers to live and die by wrestling whether it was good for them or not. People don't have to like CM Punk, it doesn't really matter to me but when people reach the point where they're dissecting exactly why a person is a scumbag it starts to reach a point of excess that I don't particularly care for. The act of actively despising someone when his/her antics are pretty easy to avoid, just a strange passtime to me.
|
|
canal
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by canal on Jul 1, 2016 19:55:38 GMT -5
I've always heard wrestling fans are loyal. One only needs to look at the story of CM Punk and see that it's not always true. As soon as someone gets booked as a lame duck who's peaked, a lot of fans turn on them. And they can't handle the cognitive dissonance that comes with it, because surely the WWE machine can't manipulate them to feel that way. So they make it about the wrestler, about how they're a douche or they're actually not that talented or pointing out misleading stats to say they got their fair shake and didn't get over or get the job done. It's such a racket. Oh there's always been a 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude in the fanbase, look at how people turned on Warrior, then Bret, then Austin, Rock, Lesnar, Punk and others once they left wrestling. Sometimes it feels like people in the fanbase believe wrestlers somehow owe it to Vince to let themselves be worked like greyhounds, kept out there until they're too injured to keep going then tossed into a dumpster, where they should stay without complaint no matter how many legitimate reasons they have to do so. Or someone like Dolph Ziggler, who is one of those good little soldiers getting worked to death and tossed aside. Last time he actually got pushed, people couldn't love him enough. Then he gets booked like shit and all of a sudden he just sucks ass and he always sucked ass.
|
|