Do We Look Too Deep Into It?

[chunkylover53]

Inspired by the thread where the IWC is supposedly always negative, I must ask, do you think we overanalyze things to the point where its unenjoyable?

Of course, alot of anti-smarks will say that and we should just enjoy the show for what it is, but there are times where I can't help but nitpick a certain thing. Sure, if you point out every nook and cranny about professional wrestling and how scripted it is, it can halt your suspension of disbelief big time, however, I do think our opinons matter in the long run, and can go past being a smark.

Take WCW in its final years for example. The popular opinon was that their programming was so bad that fans either stopped watching it, or turned to WWF, which was on a roll at the time. Even casual fans that I knew at the time thought negative of it. They didn't have to explain in depth why, it was solely from what they saw on their TV set.

Lack of pushes and pushing those who in question do not deserve it can also have a negative effect on its fanbase. Granted, the smarks can see the underlining reason(poor matches, lack of personality), while the casuals can simply be bored of the guy.

Plus, every fanbase of something will have its "smart" fans(Star Trek is notorious for it), so I don't see how wrestling is any different.

The only time I'm ever annoyed by stereotypical smark behavoir is when I'm watching the show, trying to suspend my disbelief, and the person I'm watching it with has to use words like "legit" and talk about backstage stuff and how it would tie in to the onscreen product. The only case I can think of with that happening was when my brother invited me and a few friends over to watch a PPV, but still, stuff like this should be reserved for the net.

In the kayfabe era, conversations like these were unheard of, and wrestling was looked at as pure fun, not that any flaws with the product weren't there, but it certainly wasn't seen in the same respect as it is today.

Thoughts?

[Deleted]

I think we don't look deep enough. We have to go deeper into the kayfaybe

[Greer]

Yes we do.

"At the end of the day" it is just a tv show. We just want it to be good.

[Nikki Heyman]

I think a lot of it is essentially "Monday morning Quarterbacking". Or in our case, Tuesday morning (For RAW).

The IWC doesn't know the entire story of what's going on behind the scenes. We get what is a finished product that is influenced by dozens of factors, which can be anything from a simple inspriation from one wrestler or a heat/issue with another, someone's health, where someone stands with a company, etc.

We get what the final product is, and we then scrutinize it and say "why didn't they do this". Maybe they thought of that, but something/someone else over-rode that.

As someone who's worked in the indies, ideas/matches change 100x between when you walk in the door to when you walk through the curtain. That's why I'm always impressed that WWE manages to pull this off at that level, LIVE, despite nature ("Raw vs. the Volcano") current events (Live SD after 9/11) and sometimes their own technology (I recall RAW falling off the air for about 7 min or so, but that's happened only once in 15+ years of their tv program).

With the advent of the internet, everyone is allowed to have an opinion and be heard. And one of the axioms of that is "If you liked it, you'll tell a friend. If you hated it, you'll tell 10 friends."

This has led me to arguments on other boards when I hear people constantly complain about the shows, week after week, month after month, leading me to ask "IF you hate it so much WHY are you watching?"

The two answers I'll get:

-"Habit". Well, habits can be broken. I don't think wrestling as addicting as smoking, but I wouldn't know.

-"The one week I don't watch, something cool happens." IMO the silliest excuse to watch something you don't like. If the bad outweighs the good, I know I can walk away.

Add to this the people who just read the recaps and say "I didn't watch it but I bet it sucked". I'm not sure I can accept this either. Again, this is my opinion, but if you didn't see it, how do you know it was bad? I've read cards that looked like crap but I stuck around and enjoyed what I saw.

At the end of the day, some people do overdo it. Wrestling is supposed to be fun, and despite what the IWC wants to say, I will continue to have fun.

[thedudebuster]

There's a risk of looking into any form of entertainment "too deeply"

The situation watching the PPV with others described by the OP is not that different than watching a football game with a fantasy football league member, or watching a blockbuster movie with a guy who took a couple film classes at a community college, or watching the Food network with a culinary school drop out.

Given just a little "insight," either genuine or manufactured, coupled with an antagonistic tone, and it ruins an entire avenue of entertainment if you allow it. Ever watch a cop drama with an EMT? Paramedics pick apart shows like "Dexter" because "that's not how we get someone on a gurney!" even when said actions don't really affect the theme or content of the film/show/production at all.

So there are the simple things like knowing so and so is leaving the company can be significant pieces of evidence to tie in with the on screen product, but does it harm the product to attempt to cognitively assess the outcome of a booked match using non kayfabe evidence? Knowing Michaels would lose to UT at WM26 didn't hurt the product at all for me, I was even in Glendale that weekend for the event. I assessed the Streak was too much of a money maker and Michaels had said in a couple interviews he didn't want to be the guy who hangs around too long and he wanted to hang with his kids before they become mysanthopic teenagers. I still marked out the entire match, because this isn't a format that goes on wins and losses, it's performances and visuals.

[Piccolo]

I'm certainly not less entertained because I'm honest about whether I liked something or not. If someone else is, I guess it's up to them to decide what to do about it.

And I'm definitely not less entertained because I know it's scripted. Gosh, it's almost more entertaining that way to me, because instead of getting pissed off that dastardly Miz keeps getting away with the title, I'm thrilled that a talented kid is getting his shot after years of hard work. I can appreciate both good face and good heel work when I'm not literally loving the babyfaces and hating the heels.

There are advantages to both ways of watching, but I'm quite content with mine.

[chunkylover53]

Dec 28, 2010 11:08:13 GMT -5 Nikki Heyman said:

This has led me to arguments on other boards when I hear people constantly complain about the shows, week after week, month after month, leading me to ask "IF you hate it so much WHY are you watching?"

The two answers I'll get:

-"Habit". Well, habits can be broken. I don't think wrestling as addicting as smoking, but I wouldn't know.

-"The one week I don't watch, something cool happens." IMO the silliest excuse to watch something you don't like. If the bad outweighs the good, I know I can walk away.

Add to this the people who just read the recaps and say "I didn't watch it but I bet it sucked". I'm not sure I can accept this either. Again, this is my opinion, but if you didn't see it, how do you know it was bad? I've read cards that looked like crap but I stuck around and enjoyed what I saw.

You make an interesting point, though I think there is some validity to both reasons why people keep watching. The last two years of me watching was out of habit because I've been doing it for so long. It gets into a routine where its tough to fight it at first. And you know what, if you keep watching, you're likely to find something awesome at some point, thats why promoters want you to keep on watching.

Ever since I stopped watching it, there have been some attempts that I tried to get back into it, but I couldn't do it, so I would imagine said poster who only read about it is only trusting his/her judgment.

Its a variety of things that makes you decide wheather the show is worth watching or not.

[MrBRulzOK]

I don't think I care that much. All I are about is if the company is succeeding or not. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. That drives people like me to examine why and think of ideas that might help them improve. A futile effort sure, but it does make for a good hobby.

Wrestling is also interesting to me and I like to think I can get more out of watching it. I like it enough that I'm willing to analyze the aspects of what's going on and how I think it might be successful or not. I never claim that anything I say is fact unless that I say otherwise. I'm just giving my opinion on how I think things should go. Does that mean my ideas would be any more successful? Whose to say?

I think it's just a way of making it interesting enough to keep watching, kind of adds something to each show. It's not like I'm just sitting there with a pen and paper and furiously scribbling away every nitpick I can think of. If I was that annoyed by wrestling than I probably would stop watching it. And hey, maybe someday I will.

But right now I like to analyze it because it's something I enjoy doing. It's a reason why most people analyze anything: because they enjoy doing it. Sure, there are some exceptions to this rule, but I suspect if people truly despised the WWE then they would simple stop watching altogether.

[Brian Suntan]

Dec 28, 2010 11:08:13 GMT -5 Nikki Heyman said:

I think a lot of it is essentially "Monday morning Quarterbacking". Or in our case, Tuesday morning (For RAW).

The IWC doesn't know the entire story of what's going on behind the scenes. We get what is a finished product that is influenced by dozens of factors, which can be anything from a simple inspriation from one wrestler or a heat/issue with another, someone's health, where someone stands with a company, etc.

We get what the final product is, and we then scrutinize it and say "why didn't they do this". Maybe they thought of that, but something/someone else over-rode that.

As someone who's worked in the indies, ideas/matches change 100x between when you walk in the door to when you walk through the curtain. That's why I'm always impressed that WWE manages to pull this off at that level, LIVE, despite nature ("Raw vs. the Volcano") current events (Live SD after 9/11) and sometimes their own technology (I recall RAW falling off the air for about 7 min or so, but that's happened only once in 15+ years of their tv program).

This is an excellent point, and one that should be taken into consideration a lot more.

Generally I just enjoy it for what it is. If I'm entertained great, if not then it's hit FF. The show being dull or my favourites not winning doesn't really affect me in any way.

There are people (who will no doubt appear when Cena beats Punk) who take the whole thing very personally and think that the WWE are burning money every time they don't follow the way they want a storyline to go, but overall this place is pretty good I think. You'll get a range of opinions about anything.

[Djm Doesn't Find You Funny]

No.

Sometimes, stuff is bad and it should be said. Sometimes, stuff is just completely nonsensical and it should be said.

It's not Masterpiece Theater, but guess what, it's not Dora The Explorer, either.

[percymania]

To answer the topic question, yes.

I don't even bother to read topics that are more than three paragraphs because they are usually just rambling rants by someone who spends too much time thinking about a certain aspect of the show. That includes this topic. >_>

[The Ichi]

Some of us do, some of us don't.

Sorry, was that too deep of an answer?

[pink]

Yes. We most certainly do.

If somebody loses a match, they are buried.

Anybody who stands next to CM Punk is hated.

Nobody can enjoy anything anymore.

If Zach Ryder so much as sneezes he deserves a title shot.

Yes, we do.

[chunkylover53]

Dec 28, 2010 13:23:54 GMT -5 percymania said:

To answer the topic question, yes.

I don't even bother to read topics that are more than three paragraphs because they are usually just rambling rants by someone who spends too much time thinking about a certain aspect of the show. That includes this topic. >_>

Well aren't you a bit of a rebel.

[percymania]

Dec 28, 2010 15:44:15 GMT -5 chunkylover53 said:

Dec 28, 2010 13:23:54 GMT -5 percymania said:

To answer the topic question, yes.

I don't even bother to read topics that are more than three paragraphs because they are usually just rambling rants by someone who spends too much time thinking about a certain aspect of the show. That includes this topic. >_>

Well aren't you a bit of a rebel.

I've been guilty of doing the same thing, so no worries bro.

[Deleted]

I only overanalyze a few things to it. I think of a lot of things philosophically, and I think wrestling is a more cerebral industry than it gets credit for, but I don't really look at many wrestlers or angles in that light. There's a few, sure. But that's more of me only doing so because I'm more interested in what happens to them anyway, and just feel like saying what I think anyway.