|
Post by Joe Neglia on May 13, 2018 12:22:11 GMT -5
This is something I dearly miss about CM Punk, and bemoan that there aren't more guys out there like him in this regard. Dude was remarkable at the way most of what he said could make what he said work in kayfabe and in real life at the same time, and remain credible within both.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 13, 2018 12:24:06 GMT -5
And that's fine when it's limited to WWE.com or the Apter rags back in the day. When it's more legitimate outlets like Sports Illustrated or ESPN going along with kayfabe, it's a lot more problematic for a number of reasons. Why is that though? Not trying to be standoff-ish or anything, I'm just not seeing why that would be such an issue. Is it due to the illegitimate nature of wrestling or does it go deeper than that? I just think that just about everyone is in on the joke, so to speak, so what's the harm of these places playing along? Because you're basically acting as free advertisement for WWE. You're promoting their product by essentially becoming a part of it when it's your job as a journalist to at least try to maintain a sense of objectivity. It hurts journalistic integrity and credibility, something that's already a big issue in the journalism world with constant wrangling of conflicts of interest and the dreaded fake news.
|
|
|
Post by Hot Noodle Truck on May 13, 2018 12:55:21 GMT -5
Why is that though? Not trying to be standoff-ish or anything, I'm just not seeing why that would be such an issue. Is it due to the illegitimate nature of wrestling or does it go deeper than that? I just think that just about everyone is in on the joke, so to speak, so what's the harm of these places playing along? Because you're basically acting as free advertisement for WWE. You're promoting their product by essentially becoming a part of it when it's your job as a journalist to at least try to maintain a sense of objectivity. It hurts journalistic integrity and credibility, something that's already a big issue in the journalism world with constant wrangling of conflicts of interest and the dreaded fake news. That is a very good point and one that I definitely didn't consider. Thank you for the feedback, it kinda puts it into a different perspective. Sucks for wrestling in general in that respect but it does exist in it's own little world.
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 46,108
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on May 13, 2018 12:56:16 GMT -5
This is something I dearly miss about CM Punk, and bemoan that there aren't more guys out there like him in this regard. Dude was remarkable at the way most of what he said could make what he said work in kayfabe and in real life at the same time, and remain credible within both. 2000% Punk blended the show and reality like a master and really no one else can do it without it feeling seamless. Maybe Hunter and Bryan come close, but Punk did it more naturally.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on May 13, 2018 13:00:09 GMT -5
This is something I dearly miss about CM Punk, and bemoan that there aren't more guys out there like him in this regard. Dude was remarkable at the way most of what he said could make what he said work in kayfabe and in real life at the same time, and remain credible within both. Yeah, as I always say go back and listen to the PIPEBOMB promo. everything he says has the end point of... "I am the best in the world and I am going to beat John Cena for the title at Money In The Bank." Not... I'm not following teh script! and I'm not going to lay down for you John! I wasn't Smartened up before the match! or... any other terrible Russo-esque bullshit that everyone else has tried. (though Punk did have the terrible this is Phil Brooks talking to Paul Levesque line.)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on May 13, 2018 13:03:34 GMT -5
(though Punk did have the terrible this is Phil Brooks talking to Paul Levesque line.) That's the entire reason I included "most of" in that statement.
|
|
|
Post by David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 on May 13, 2018 13:58:41 GMT -5
This. It's nice to see wrestling presented more as a sport and not just a show. True, kayfabe is long dead, but it's nice to suspend our disbelief whenever possible. It's one of the reasons I preferred Pro Wrestling Illustrated over magazines like Power Slam. It helped me get more invested in the product and the angles.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on May 13, 2018 17:05:47 GMT -5
But that's also the reason that legit news outlets need to play along with kayfabe a bit. If you were to interview an actor in, say, Game of Thrones, you wouldn't ignore "Game of Thrones" in that interview and you would try to ask them to bring non-viewers up to speed about who their character is and what they did on the show. By the same token, if you're interviewing a pro wrestler, it's fair to have the wrestler play up their current storyline and feud for what they're currently doing on TV and why it's something you might want to pay attention to. True, but in that case at least openly talk about it from the perspective of the performer, like, "How do you feel about this current storyline?" or something. A reporter asking Miz what he plans to do when Bryan finally gets his hands on him is about like if one of them asked Chris Hemsworth what he plans to do to stop Thanos. I'm unsure why people want a total death of kayfabe outside of the match itself. No one wants to see Dr death slapping another news reporter but do we need Mark to come out detailing the special effects used for his undertaker character? "See this? It's a trap door in the casket. In the show I'm going to come through and scare somebody! Guess when!" Wrestling isn't the same as the film or tv industry. I know many disagree and think it's still real to me, but the more you tear down and openly and consistently tear down the suspension of disbelief, the less invested i get in a match. That's why missed cues in a match are rarely a good thing. Unlike live theatre, in the Jackie gayda match, you can't have both wrestlers stop and laugh after a botch, smile and try it again. In theatre, you can because we laugh with the actors and watch as they look and wink to us the audience. In tv or film, generally not live fiction so you reshoot. Not botches are like this, some you can work with etc, but my point is, if you truly abandon kayfabe 100%, wrestling will turn into theatre. You know, much smaller crowds, 3 or 4 times a week. Not exactly bad as theatre still makes money, but not good for the WWE who cannot survive as a theatre company. No I'm not saying treat the fans as if they're stupid or say wrestling is totally real and every injury gets the owen hart voice. Using your WWE characters social media account to stay in character should not be surprising however. Using a personal account is different. How can I explain? It's like when Bret appeared on a Saturday morning kids show, he prompted the upcoming match, he didn't say "lol even the belt isn't real gold, it's just to pretend. We know it isn't real gold." or "well Vince and me haven't decided totally on pay yet, but the finish should be tight, opponent is a good worker. But he hates to job so i gotta check with hr first and get that all sorted. He might be in breach of contract especially if he's planning to blade." Ugh. I can imagine everyones just tuned out now. All I'm saying is we know wrestling is scripted and predetermined. Selling it as purely 'fake and only pretend, like for kids' however is a real detriment to the product.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on May 13, 2018 17:09:26 GMT -5
Comparisons of wrestling to movies or television shows never quite work out right. Wrestling is wrestling. One of the reasons I love it are the in-character interviews in the media. In fact this guy explained everything i said. And used much less words. He's the Real Deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 17:18:40 GMT -5
Comparisons of wrestling to movies or television shows never quite work out right. Wrestling is wrestling. One of the reasons I love it are the in-character interviews in the media. I really don't see HOW it's different. There's the live performance aspect which makes it a bit more like a filmed play than a TV show I suppose, but at the end of the day it's as fictional as anything else and I feel like it does nothing but make everyone involved look like a bunch of morons to non-fans to try and pretend otherwise, with really no benefit at all to the masquerade beyond, "Well, that's how it's always been done." Tradition alone isn't a valid reason in my book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 17:29:18 GMT -5
Completely agree. I would love to see more kayfabe WWE coverage in the mainstream media. Kayfabe is literally carny for "fake" So you're essentially asking for more "Fake News"? "Essentially", yup you got me. Haha give me a break.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on May 13, 2018 17:31:38 GMT -5
Comparisons of wrestling to movies or television shows never quite work out right. Wrestling is wrestling. One of the reasons I love it are the in-character interviews in the media. I really don't see HOW it's different. There's the live performance aspect which makes it a bit more like a filmed play than a TV show I suppose, but at the end of the day it's as fictional as anything else and I feel like it does nothing but make everyone involved look like a bunch of morons to non-fans to try and pretend otherwise, with really no benefit at all to the masquerade beyond, "Well, that's how it's always been done." Tradition alone isn't a valid reason in my book. I've seen a lot of people say that wrestling is different and say "Person wouldn't say (X)", but not a lot of explanation of why it's fundamentally different. The points boil down entirely to personal preference of liking in-character interviews, and that's totally fine, but it's not an actual point in a discussion against the comparison to other forms of media, it's just preference.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on May 13, 2018 19:34:50 GMT -5
All I'm saying is we know wrestling is scripted and predetermined. Selling it as purely 'fake and only pretend, like for kids' however is a real detriment to the product. No one is saying present it that way. Game of Thrones is entirely pretend... no one acts like it's real and no one goes off into the well it's for kids cause it's fake! But you don't see John Snow turning to the camera and going... those white walkers are just a bunch of people in CG makeup so I'm not in any real danger. Nor do you see Emilia Clarke on an interview talking about her dragons as if it was real. but as I said if someone is going to act like wrestling is real they have to do it 100% or don't do it at all because 50-50 bullshit makes it look stupid as hell.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on May 13, 2018 19:47:46 GMT -5
All I'm saying is we know wrestling is scripted and predetermined. Selling it as purely 'fake and only pretend, like for kids' however is a real detriment to the product. No one is saying present it that way. Game of Thrones is entirely pretend... no one acts like it's real and no one goes off into the well it's for kids cause it's fake! But you don't see John Snow turning to the camera and going... those white walkers are just a bunch of people in CG makeup so I'm not in any real danger. Nor do you see Emilia Clarke on an interview talking about her dragons as if it was real. but as I said if someone is going to act like wrestling is real they have to do it 100% or don't do it at all because 50-50 bullshit makes it look stupid as hell. Which is the other big logical flaw in that argument; nobody is advocating for the extreme of walking random reporters through the business's inner workings or dismissing "Nah it's all fake lemme tell you how it works". Let a wrestler talk about their stuff like they're performing. Talk about the guy they're working with, talk about the story and what they're doing in that story they like. There's so much middle ground here.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on May 13, 2018 20:56:48 GMT -5
Essentially, _Sports Illustrated_, by reporting kayfabe as though it's real, is engaging in the very malfeasance of which the mainstream and most other news media have been accused. It diminishes its own legitimacy as a news organization (with sports as its focus) and creates the appearance that it is a promotional mouthpiece for WWE. Mind you, it can be argued that SI has _always_ been a promotional mouthpiece for just about every sport's organizing body since its inception.
The funny thing about this particular article is the fact that an enterprise acknowledged by its top promoter as more entertainment than sport for over two decades now is getting coverage alongside sports like baseball and hockey, at a time when supposedly fewer people than ever are watching it. It speaks to a certain desperation on the part of SI.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 13, 2018 20:57:44 GMT -5
Exactly. What I think is perfectly fine for sports reporters in how they cover pro wrestling:
- Recap match results and analyze them from a storytelling and performance aspect. Basically approach it like a critic would though maybe not as high-brow as the average TV or film critic.
- Interview wrestlers as the people they are. Don't be condescending towards them for being people playing a role in the ring, but don't pretend they're their gimmicks, either. They are performers. Approach them as performers. Entertainment reporters will ask Chris Evans about Captain America and what goes into playing him, but they don't act like Chris Evans IS Captain America. Leave the in-character interviews to WWE's own "reporters" or fun guest spots on late night talk shows.
Is it really too much to ask to maintain a sense of objectivity for legitimate reporters? Again, pretending like kayfabe is real is like becoming a part of the product itself. It also undermines any credibility if a legitimate scandal breaks out in WWE because they can't be trusted to give us the whole story if they're already fake reporting on things because of WWE sayso. This is already a big problem with ESPN and how it covers its real sports leagues it's in bed with, because they have to dance the line between legitimate news reporting and corporate partner. Adding to the ethical quandary with an entertainment company pretending to be sports is just really an unnecessary complication.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on May 14, 2018 1:45:58 GMT -5
Comparisons of wrestling to movies or television shows never quite work out right. Wrestling is wrestling. One of the reasons I love it are the in-character interviews in the media. I really don't see HOW it's different. There's the live performance aspect which makes it a bit more like a filmed play than a TV show I suppose, but at the end of the day it's as fictional as anything else and I feel like it does nothing but make everyone involved look like a bunch of morons to non-fans to try and pretend otherwise, with really no benefit at all to the masquerade beyond, "Well, that's how it's always been done." Tradition alone isn't a valid reason in my book. Because part of the sell is the live conflict. When you try to compare it, it doesn't work. In theatre or a live television show they will have act breaks or intermissions. During this time you can go grab something to eat and often meet and discuss with the actors what's going on. They'll let you try on the costume, show they're not really injured, joke with you about what's going to happen next etc. How can you do that in the middle of a wrestling show? "Nah not really bleeding too much, just a gash! He beat me and later on might return! Wait and see!" I really don't understand people who cannot understand why some element of kayfabe is needed. In star wars, you can have the actors playing around before the films release. Darth without his mask, a wacky photo with the puppet Yoda, some comments about the storyline etc. Before WM XIV, you could not have mike Tyson discuss the storyline, take a wacky selfie with Austin saying "see you in wm 14!!". The purtorted 'heat' was part of the storyline at this time. Before, you could, ok. Before the storyline asked us to get invested in the feud ok. After, ok. But not during. Seriously try comparing the debut of Kane to the debut of a new character on a tv show. On a tv show you can have interviews with the actor returning to the company. Wrestling isn't set up that way. You cannot have a montreal screwjob in a tv show. You cannot have undertaker put in a casket and literally disappear for months with no tv interview or discussion before a fake one returning and being confronted by the real one. Don't people see that? In tv yes, discuss the undertaker being written out for a while at the upcoming show royal rumble. Have Mark drop hints after the show in a tv interview that the 'character' might return leading to speculation that the actor might not play him before revealling the big twist double undertaker angle. That works in tv. It does. But it doesn't work in wrestling that way. Yes we 'know' undertaker didn't really die but....we go along with the product even so. Yes there is always an understanding among the fans that it is fake. Let the fans tear the product apart and point out the seams and rips and tears. And, once the angle is over perhaps you can do that with wrestling. But before? During? And tbh even after to a degree, the workers handle it with respect. If the Montreal screwjob is a work, it's the greatest work ever. Exposing it a day or two afterwards would have destroyed not only the mr McMahon character but there would be no notoriety to it at all. Remembered for nothing besides being another angle and the last Bret/Shawn match. But, if it is indeed a work, the maintenance of kayfabe has led to it's legacy. For the product to survive as it does, an element of kayfabe is needed. No similar term exists for t.v. shows, because none is needed. I know shoot interviews exist, and even between monsoon and heenan, the comedy really was larger than life...but that's the point. I can find exposes on the product easily, but let the product itself present itself as real even, to s degree, outside the product. I knew the Hart foundation didn't really own that apartment building. That's fine. Expose that. Don't expose the upcoming title match with mr perfect. That's different. It's like....a magic show, an action show, a circus all rolled into one. As small independents, magicians can expose the whole game, tell you the trick theyll do beforehand without exactly how they do it, circuses can show you the two people who make up the tall man, action movies can film repeated takes stunts on your street with you coming and watching. But to run a wrestling company weekly on a national scale like that? Even beyond the mat doesn't work like that, you had to release it after the fact, not small weekly episodes during. A tv show could. Wrestling cannot.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on May 14, 2018 2:04:58 GMT -5
I’m firmly on the bad side. Honestly, one of the reasons people outside our bubble don’t respect wrestling is because of nonsense like kayfabe interviews.
I go to a film as an escape and to get into another world or another person’s shoes. I go to a play to see different perspectives done in a different medium. Same for television, same for books, same for video games.
Wrestling, like all of those, has a suspension of disbelief aspect. You, I and everyone else knows it’s not real but we go there to believe for a second it is and all the work that goes into that. I’m training right now so I’m learning how things are supposed to look but even when I am watching the same people I train with perform on big stages, there’s still moments where I think “Holy crap, that looked vicious!”. Considering the fact I see most of those people every week, that’s pretty amazing.
I want people to feel the same way, I want people to see the artform for what it is, an opportunity to grab an audience with storytelling and athleticism you can’t see in most other forms of entertainment and expression. But if you’re going to go out there and constantly play a character and try and act likes it’s all real still, when everyone knows it isn’t, it ironically hurts the potential of the business to get to people because all they see is the disintegrated ashes of kayfabe being used as a blanket. They don’t see the work that goes into running a show, booking a match and making sure everything flows the way you and I see it on TV or live.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on May 14, 2018 2:31:42 GMT -5
I really don't see HOW it's different. There's the live performance aspect which makes it a bit more like a filmed play than a TV show I suppose, but at the end of the day it's as fictional as anything else and I feel like it does nothing but make everyone involved look like a bunch of morons to non-fans to try and pretend otherwise, with really no benefit at all to the masquerade beyond, "Well, that's how it's always been done." Tradition alone isn't a valid reason in my book. Because part of the sell is the live conflict. When you try to compare it, it doesn't work. In theatre or a live television show they will have act breaks or intermissions. During this time you can go grab something to eat and often meet and discuss with the actors what's going on. They'll let you try on the costume, show they're not really injured, joke with you about what's going to happen next etc. How can you do that in the middle of a wrestling show? "Nah not really bleeding too much, just a gash! He beat me and later on might return! Wait and see!" I really don't understand people who cannot understand why some element of kayfabe is needed. In star wars, you can have the actors playing around before the films release. Darth without his mask, a wacky photo with the puppet Yoda, some comments about the storyline etc. Before WM XIV, you could not have mike Tyson discuss the storyline, take a wacky selfie with Austin saying "see you in wm 14!!". The purtorted 'heat' was part of the storyline at this time. Before, you could, ok. Before the storyline asked us to get invested in the feud ok. After, ok. But not during. Seriously try comparing the debut of Kane to the debut of a new character on a tv show. On a tv show you can have interviews with the actor returning to the company. Wrestling isn't set up that way. You cannot have a montreal screwjob in a tv show. You cannot have undertaker put in a casket and literally disappear for months with no tv interview or discussion before a fake one returning and being confronted by the real one. Don't people see that? In tv yes, discuss the undertaker being written out for a while at the upcoming show royal rumble. Have Mark drop hints after the show in a tv interview that the 'character' might return leading to speculation that the actor might not play him before revealling the big twist double undertaker angle. That works in tv. It does. But it doesn't work in wrestling that way. Yes we 'know' undertaker didn't really die but....we go along with the product even so. Yes there is always an understanding among the fans that it is fake. Let the fans tear the product apart and point out the seams and rips and tears. And, once the angle is over perhaps you can do that with wrestling. But before? During? And tbh even after to a degree, the workers handle it with respect. If the Montreal screwjob is a work, it's the greatest work ever. Exposing it a day or two afterwards would have destroyed not only the mr McMahon character but there would be no notoriety to it at all. Remembered for nothing besides being another angle and the last Bret/Shawn match. But, if it is indeed a work, the maintenance of kayfabe has led to it's legacy. For the product to survive as it does, an element of kayfabe is needed. No similar term exists for t.v. shows, because none is needed. I know shoot interviews exist, and even between monsoon and heenan, the comedy really was larger than life...but that's the point. I can find exposes on the product easily, but let the product itself present itself as real even, to s degree, outside the product. I knew the Hart foundation didn't really own that apartment building. That's fine. Expose that. Don't expose the upcoming title match with mr perfect. That's different. It's like....a magic show, an action show, a circus all rolled into one. As small independents, magicians can expose the whole game, tell you the trick theyll do beforehand without exactly how they do it, circuses can show you the two people who make up the tall man, action movies can film repeated takes stunts on your street with you coming and watching. But to run a wrestling company weekly on a national scale like that? Even beyond the mat doesn't work like that, you had to release it after the fact, not small weekly episodes during. A tv show could. Wrestling cannot. No but see you're clinging to the most logical extremes of how that would work and acting like the show has to expose itself. It doesn't. But the business already has. We see Darth Vader without his helmet? Well shit, we see pictures of heels doing charity events and meeting sick kids. We see wrestlers hanging out at roadside restaurants together. Wrestlers at conventions. People under their birth names acting in movies. Undertaker doesn't need to do an interview breaking down the entire story that's coming. f***, actual real television doesn't do that. You're arguing a point that isn't held up by anybody right now. You're stringing a lot of weird extremes through the repeated beats of "wrestling works differently because it's different because it's different". Like it would take going through your post with a fine toothed comb to point out all of the things you're saying that aren't correct at all but TV absolutely does a lot of the things you say only wrestling can do, and near as I can tell 90% of those things you can't do boil down to the existence of a plot twist which. Do you watch normal TV?
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on May 14, 2018 2:51:11 GMT -5
Because part of the sell is the live conflict. When you try to compare it, it doesn't work. In theatre or a live television show they will have act breaks or intermissions. During this time you can go grab something to eat and often meet and discuss with the actors what's going on. They'll let you try on the costume, show they're not really injured, joke with you about what's going to happen next etc. How can you do that in the middle of a wrestling show? "Nah not really bleeding too much, just a gash! He beat me and later on might return! Wait and see!" I really don't understand people who cannot understand why some element of kayfabe is needed. In star wars, you can have the actors playing around before the films release. Darth without his mask, a wacky photo with the puppet Yoda, some comments about the storyline etc. Before WM XIV, you could not have mike Tyson discuss the storyline, take a wacky selfie with Austin saying "see you in wm 14!!". The purtorted 'heat' was part of the storyline at this time. Before, you could, ok. Before the storyline asked us to get invested in the feud ok. After, ok. But not during. Seriously try comparing the debut of Kane to the debut of a new character on a tv show. On a tv show you can have interviews with the actor returning to the company. Wrestling isn't set up that way. You cannot have a montreal screwjob in a tv show. You cannot have undertaker put in a casket and literally disappear for months with no tv interview or discussion before a fake one returning and being confronted by the real one. Don't people see that? In tv yes, discuss the undertaker being written out for a while at the upcoming show royal rumble. Have Mark drop hints after the show in a tv interview that the 'character' might return leading to speculation that the actor might not play him before revealling the big twist double undertaker angle. That works in tv. It does. But it doesn't work in wrestling that way. Yes we 'know' undertaker didn't really die but....we go along with the product even so. Yes there is always an understanding among the fans that it is fake. Let the fans tear the product apart and point out the seams and rips and tears. And, once the angle is over perhaps you can do that with wrestling. But before? During? And tbh even after to a degree, the workers handle it with respect. If the Montreal screwjob is a work, it's the greatest work ever. Exposing it a day or two afterwards would have destroyed not only the mr McMahon character but there would be no notoriety to it at all. Remembered for nothing besides being another angle and the last Bret/Shawn match. But, if it is indeed a work, the maintenance of kayfabe has led to it's legacy. For the product to survive as it does, an element of kayfabe is needed. No similar term exists for t.v. shows, because none is needed. I know shoot interviews exist, and even between monsoon and heenan, the comedy really was larger than life...but that's the point. I can find exposes on the product easily, but let the product itself present itself as real even, to s degree, outside the product. I knew the Hart foundation didn't really own that apartment building. That's fine. Expose that. Don't expose the upcoming title match with mr perfect. That's different. It's like....a magic show, an action show, a circus all rolled into one. As small independents, magicians can expose the whole game, tell you the trick theyll do beforehand without exactly how they do it, circuses can show you the two people who make up the tall man, action movies can film repeated takes stunts on your street with you coming and watching. But to run a wrestling company weekly on a national scale like that? Even beyond the mat doesn't work like that, you had to release it after the fact, not small weekly episodes during. A tv show could. Wrestling cannot. No but see you're clinging to the most logical extremes of how that would work and acting like the show has to expose itself. It doesn't. But the business already has. We see Darth Vader without his helmet? Well shit, we see pictures of heels doing charity events and meeting sick kids. We see wrestlers hanging out at roadside restaurants together. Wrestlers at conventions. People under their birth names acting in movies. Undertaker doesn't need to do an interview breaking down the entire story that's coming. f***, actual real television doesn't do that. You're arguing a point that isn't held up by anybody right now. You're stringing a lot of weird extremes through the repeated beats of "wrestling works differently because it's different because it's different". Like it would take going through your post with a fine toothed comb to point out all of the things you're saying that aren't correct at all but TV absolutely does a lot of the things you say only wrestling can do, and near as I can tell 90% of those things you can't do boil down to the existence of a plot twist which. Do you watch normal TV? I gave a specific example of Kanes debut and how it is presented and handled differently in wrestling to a tv show. Heels have always been nice guys outside of the ring. Nasty Boys used to visit kids in the hospital. Being a heel doesn't mean hating sick kids. I liked that, that in story the only thing that would bring everyone together was sick kids or tributes to the troops etc. But earthquake didn't take pictures with Hogan while Hogan was in the hospital. In fact you might as well say the whole "get well soon hulk" aspect was dumb because he wasn't really in the hospital. Absoloutely theatre and live tv comedy shows have intermissions during the show where you come and meet the actors even during great conflicts. People under their birth names in movies? Well that exists in wrestling. I'm not against that. Nobody in tv explains the show before the show? If it seems like i meant he literally goes through move for move then that's a mistake, no, no one in tv goes line for line through the script before the tv show either. Absolutely they allude to happenings and upcoming events for the season. The only timeI remember wrestling doing in the same manner was when Vince was interviewed about the Trish storyline and he said "look it's a storyline, at WM I'll get my comeuppance" that's an exception not the rule. Yes or no, if the .Montreal screwjob is a work, has the "actors" maintaining kayfabe added to it's legacy? Or is it dumb because we all know its a fake feud from the start? I don't understand because you said we saw Darth Vader without a helmet. Before Kane removed his mask, how many times in the years outside of the immediate show was he shown without his mask? How many interviews did Glen do talking about his role on talk shows? You think I'm saying it's like Santa Claus and we all have to pretend TRIPLE H was dropped in his car, or pretend that they're really fighting or pretend that it's really real, when we all know wrestling is fake!!! I guess i cannot explain myself properly. So I'll stop posting these long rants EDIT I see things like this: youtu.be/tvLBNl8c81gMaybe you're right and we don't need kayfabe at all besides the twist of who's going to win
|
|