Bam Neeley
Dennis Stamp
Foxy Stoat Seeks Pig!
Posts: 4,048
|
Post by Bam Neeley on Sept 20, 2011 6:38:45 GMT -5
That's just stupid. Changing the logical finish to a story to illogical one because someone put the logical result online(probably by guessing anyway).
Let's all post "CM Punk loses" spoilers to dirtsheets and that way he'll always win because WWE changes the plans if we guess right and doesn't care if we were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Sept 20, 2011 11:44:33 GMT -5
thesunbeast you are basically saying that no critique of anything is valid because there is no such thing as objective measures of quality.
Which I would say is completely wrong.
There is a difference between liking something and saying it is of good quality. Citizen Kane is an objectively better film than Transformers, regardless of anyone's personal preference. Kelly routinely messes up the execution of nearly everything she does. If you're going to tell me that the way she runs the ropes is not objectively bad, that's pretty ridiculous. There are objective measures for almost anything that allow us to determine the quality of craftsmanship. That doesn't mean that everyone will or should base their personal preferences strictly off of the craftsmanship, but it's ignorant to say that there is no such thing as objectivity at all. Judging art is about combining subjective AND objective analysis, anyone who makes a critique about something based purely on subjective taste alone isn't giving a quality critique, they're just telling you what they like.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 20, 2011 13:18:46 GMT -5
I have never heard of that site, and until a legitimate source reports something similar I'm labeling this newz.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Sept 20, 2011 15:06:45 GMT -5
thesunbeast you are basically saying that no critique of anything is valid because there is no such thing as objective measures of quality. Which I would say is completely wrong. There is a difference between liking something and saying it is of good quality. Citizen Kane is an objectively better film than Transformers, regardless of anyone's personal preference. Kelly routinely messes up the execution of nearly everything she does. If you're going to tell me that the way she runs the ropes is not objectively bad, that's pretty ridiculous. There are objective measures for almost anything that allow us to determine the quality of craftsmanship. That doesn't mean that everyone will or should base their personal preferences strictly off of the craftsmanship, but it's ignorant to say that there is no such thing as objectivity at all. Judging art is about combining subjective AND objective analysis, anyone who makes a critique about something based purely on subjective taste alone isn't giving a quality critique, they're just telling you what they like. With all due respect, I think your analysis of what I'm saying is completely wrong. I don't know where you get off saying that I'm preaching that there is no objectivity in pro wrestling (or arts like that), this is as different from my actual views as can be. As a student of philosophy for over 7 years now, the biggest part of my philosophical beliefs is the power of objectivity. I am not an "objectivist", but I believe that catering to objectivity is the best way to figure out the things in life that can be figured out, and I believe that a whole lot of things in life can be figured out, hence, my strong adherence to objectivity. As a skilled artist myself, with skill in almost every major avenue of physical visual fine art, I realize the importance of psychology in all of it aswel, and the differences between subjectivity and objectivity. I'm busy right now, but later, I'll comeback and detail a post. Before, I said I could make a very lengthy post about how subjective certain things really are that give the appearance of objectivity, and I'm going to back up every single thing I say with logic (drawing conclusions from premises that follow) rationale, reason, and objectivity. Now look: I'm not, in any way, saying that you CANNOT criticize an entertainer with objective arguments. My claim, is that you, ARE NOT criticizing an entertainer with any objective arguments, my claim is that you were using only subjective arguments to attempt to validate your objective claims. I'm criticizing the arguments that your giving, your statements. Objectivity and subjectivity are all about the statements, even if the subject matter is the same, but could have drastically different implications, like moving a decimal point over a few. Meditate on this for now: "Chocolate cookies are better than vanilla cookies". This is a valid subjective statement, but an invalid objective statement. Constructively in objective reality, the subjectivity of that statement rules over the objectivity of it, due to it's subjective validity and objective invalidity. "I like chocolate cookies better than vanilla cookies". This is a valid objective statement but an invalid subjective statement. It's objectivity rules over it's subjectivity due to it's objective validity and subjective invalidity. I love talking about these types of things (because I believe they solve problems) and so I'll be back later when I have time. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Sept 22, 2011 22:48:10 GMT -5
That's all well and good. And the argument I'm making is not "chocolate cookies are better than vanilla cookies" it's "these vanilla cookies are poorly made". Kelly fails on the craftsmanship level of wrestling, on her execution. She fails on the basic fundamentals, simple things like running the ropes. She fails to execute her moves to any sort of standard of quality the vast majority of the time. If Kelly were making the cookies, she'd be burning them or putting in the wrong ingredients.
She's not a bad wrestler because she's not wrestling the same style as, say, Beth. She's a bad wrestler because she can't even do her own style well.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Sept 22, 2011 23:01:17 GMT -5
I don't get the assertion that match quality should be determined without taking the finish or the winner/loser into account. Those are really big parts of the story. That can diminish a match, not because of fantasy booking, but because they are components of the story that matter, and need to be done as well and as thoughtfully as the other parts.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 22, 2011 23:14:59 GMT -5
I don't get the assertion that match quality should be determined without taking the finish or the winner/loser into account. Those are really big parts of the story. That can diminish a match, not because of fantasy booking, but because they are components of the story that matter, and need to be done as well and as thoughtfully as the other parts. If a match is only good because the person you wanted to win does, why bother watch at all.
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Sept 22, 2011 23:23:53 GMT -5
That's not what she said, though. And she has a point. The result/ending of a match can certainly bring it down, just like a bad ending can bring a movie/book/game/show/etc. plot down.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 22, 2011 23:43:41 GMT -5
That was the impression I got, and apologize for misinterpreting her comments as such.
And while a bad ending can sour the enjoyment of the whole (I personally really liked the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit until the ending reveal) the context surrounding it has to be considered, as well.
In my Who Censored Roger Rabbit example, the culprit came out of left field, but in the match, after the superplex, Beth was constantly holding her neck in pain and had trouble standing, making her loss one that wasn't very surprising to see how it happened.
At face value, "Kelly Kelly pinned Beth Phoenix when she reversed a powerbomb into a sunset flip" is very... bleh, but seeing how it all played out, an ending like that made sense.
|
|
|
Post by e1987p on Sept 23, 2011 6:02:44 GMT -5
That was the impression I got, and apologize for misinterpreting her comments as such. And while a bad ending can sour the enjoyment of the whole (I personally really liked the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit until the ending reveal) the context surrounding it has to be considered, as well. In my Who Censored Roger Rabbit example, the culprit came out of left field, but in the match, after the superplex, Beth was constantly holding her neck in pain and had trouble standing, making her loss one that wasn't very surprising to see how it happened. At face value, "Kelly Kelly pinned Beth Phoenix when she reversed a powerbomb into a sunset flip" is very... bleh, but seeing how it all played out, an ending like that made sense. And what was the logic to lose at Raw again after NoC.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 23, 2011 11:32:25 GMT -5
Make Beth and Nattie go insane?
That one was a total headscratcher.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Sept 23, 2011 13:03:30 GMT -5
And what was the logic to lose at Raw again after NoC. That Beth and Nattie are so determined so much beat the snot out of what they perceive as inferior that they make mistakes that coast themselves the match.
|
|
|
Post by YeahYeahYeahYeahYeah on Sept 23, 2011 13:08:53 GMT -5
And what was the logic to lose at Raw again after NoC. That Beth and Nattie are so determined so much beat the snot out of what they perceive as inferior that they make mistakes that coast themselves the match. But Kelly is an inferior, no matter how much WWE wants us to believe otherwise, kayfabe or not. I don't think even the Kelly fans buy that she can beat Beth over and over and over and over. EDIT: I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way for this angle to perhaps be saved is for Beth and Nattie to just have a complete beat-down on Kelly, maybe with the help of Eve (since WWE is dropping hints that they might turn her heel).
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Sept 23, 2011 14:13:00 GMT -5
I still think Eve should have been the second Diva Of Doom from the beginning.
She's working as well as a face as Michelle McCool was in 2008. At least if she was in the DoD, she could (in theory) make use of her Brazilian Jiu Jitsu talents.
Plus this way there'd one more experienced wrestling paired up with an not as experienced one. We all saw how much better Layla got after being paired up with Michelle McCool for a year, if they did that again, they could really help the division as a whole.
|
|