|
Post by SeVeN: #TheBadGuy. on Jan 8, 2013 1:10:51 GMT -5
I always gauge how well a promo or match goes by my wife's reaction (she has been putting up with me being a wrestling fan for 5 years now and is in know way even a casual fan). So tonight with her half assing watching RAW with me, at the promo point she was glued to the TV hanging on every word. Laughing and even getting goose bumps. So I think they hit home pretty good. She was in Punks corner afterward. Same exact thing happened with me except, its been 10 years for me. She sided with the rock.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 8, 2013 1:12:12 GMT -5
Again, just because they cheer does not make the promo good. Take away the crowd and just listen to what he says. It's not good. You seemingly only think it's good because the fans are there to cheer him on. He could just go out there and say "Punk is poopy" 30 times in a row and nothing else and they'd cheer and chant it. That does not mean it was a good promo, it means the fans have been conditioned to accept Rock's terrible promo or anyone else's childish humor. The fans cheered when AJ and Dolph got covered in crap. That does not mean it was a good segment. The crowd is not always right. The content does not matter as long as it did its job. The entire point of professional wrestling is to get the live crowd to react, and judging by the way people here are acting, it did that in spades. Content does matter. You see why we get people like Cena, Rock and Sheamus making terrible, juvenile jokes? Because people laugh and the WWE thinks that is a winning formula. We sit here and complain about how terrible their (Cena, Sheamus) humor is but cheer it when Rock comes along so the WWE is going to think that the top faces should continue to act that way. If we don't laugh or accept it then it'll change. But as long as people laugh, they are going to keep giving us crap humor that we have to suffer through.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jan 8, 2013 1:16:00 GMT -5
I can't wait for the day when CM Punk threatens to shove something up a man's anus while the Rock talks about dealing with his alcoholic dad!
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 8, 2013 1:16:44 GMT -5
Punk won that exchange easily IMO. Rock's material was childish and dumb, essentially validating what Punk said Rock would predictably do.
Cookiepuss? Give me a break. This is the best WWE can give the Rock?
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 8, 2013 1:16:59 GMT -5
I can't wait for the day when CM Punk threatens to shove something up a man's anus while the Rock talks about dealing with his alcoholic dad! Butt Chugging is so 2012 though.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 8, 2013 1:18:41 GMT -5
Anyone else that would have said the same promo would have been torn to shreds. I know you say you rise above and give passes to the lame humor of Cena but if he had cut that promo, you would not have the same feelings as you do since the Rock cut it. John Laurinaitis is terrible promo guy according to this forum. But look at the way the crowd reacted. They booed him when he said stuff, they weren't silent at all, they reacted when he talked. I guess that makes him a pretty damn good promo guy. Who said it wasn't a good segment? Look around this forum. If I can't say something is bad because it's "not my kind of humor" when can I say something is bad? You base it on what they say. Something great can get no crowd reaction at all, that does not mean it was bad. If you like toilet humor then of course you are going to think those kind of promos are funny, entertaining and great but that does not mean I have to like it or enjoy it because you think so. The "if anyone else had done this..." defense is an absolutely terrible line of reasoning. Of course no one else would have pulled this promo off. The Rock's charisma and ability to entertain are integral to why his style of promos work, not just because of what he says. If anyone else tried Punk's promo, they'd probably get torn apart too, because that's a style of speaking completely unique to Punk. You can feel free to hate any promo all you want, but something is only truly "bad" when it completely fails to achieve what it sets out to do - which is to entertain. Judging by the people entertained tonight, it didn't fail at all. Which doesn't make the promo bad at all. Similarly, considering that professional wrestling IS entertainment, if something can't entertain a crowd how in the world could you consider it great? If it can't engage people, then it failed at what it set out to do. And really, what this forum thinks is hardly relevant - that extends to Laurinaitis, this promo, the Cena/Ziggler/AJ segment last week, or whatever. You're placing way too much importance on whatever the FAN consensus is. The bad promo was the one in Portland, where Cena absolutely owned Rock hard enough to turn a good portion of Boston against him the very next week.
|
|
|
Post by Brooklynpunk97 on Jan 8, 2013 1:26:28 GMT -5
I loved it. Im also very glad Heyman was not present. He really is not needed at this point.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 8, 2013 1:31:22 GMT -5
This is the actual Cookiepuss by the way (Rock/WWE didn't make up the name, it's an actual thing):
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 8, 2013 1:31:34 GMT -5
Anyone else that would have said the same promo would have been torn to shreds. I know you say you rise above and give passes to the lame humor of Cena but if he had cut that promo, you would not have the same feelings as you do since the Rock cut it. John Laurinaitis is terrible promo guy according to this forum. But look at the way the crowd reacted. They booed him when he said stuff, they weren't silent at all, they reacted when he talked. I guess that makes him a pretty damn good promo guy. Who said it wasn't a good segment? Look around this forum. If I can't say something is bad because it's "not my kind of humor" when can I say something is bad? You base it on what they say. Something great can get no crowd reaction at all, that does not mean it was bad. If you like toilet humor then of course you are going to think those kind of promos are funny, entertaining and great but that does not mean I have to like it or enjoy it because you think so. The "if anyone else had done this..." defense is an absolutely terrible line of reasoning. Of course no one else would have pulled this promo off. The Rock's charisma and ability to entertain are integral to why his style of promos work, not just because of what he says. If anyone else tried Punk's promo, they'd probably get torn apart too, because that's a style of speaking completely unique to Punk. You can feel free to hate any promo all you want, but something is only truly "bad" when it completely fails to achieve what it sets out to do - which is to entertain. Judging by the people entertained tonight, it didn't fail at all. Which doesn't make the promo bad at all. Similarly, considering that professional wrestling IS entertainment, if something can't entertain a crowd how in the world could you consider it great? If it can't engage people, then it failed at what it set out to do. And really, what this forum thinks is hardly important if we're in the minority - that extends to Laurinaitis, this promo, or whatever. You're really placing far too much importance on what the FAN consensus is. The bad promo was the one in Portland, where Cena absolutely owned Rock hard enough to turn a good portion of Boston against him the very next week. So what you are saying is Rock can take crap promos and make them good. So that just means Rock is cutting a crap promo but with skill. Rock's promo did fail to entertain me. So I guess I can call it bad. You are basing your opinion off of, what, 10,000 people in the building compared to the millions watching at home. I certainly cannot go around and find out if every single one of them thought what the Rock said or if the crap falling on AJ and Dolph was funny. However, I can come on a forum where there are some of those millions and see what they say. I could also check Twitter and Tumblr or wherever else. So I don't know who is in the minority or who is not. The 10,000 people in the arena could be but we only get to hear their reaction each week. They don't have cameras placed around the world to capture everyone's reactions. I can say a movie was bad even if it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Just because others liked it does not mean I can't call it bad. What kind of logic is that, that I must go along with what the "majority" thinks is good? I'm not even saying you can't like what you like, I'm just saying you can't base it off of what the crowd thinks. Just because they think it's good does not mean it is.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 8, 2013 1:33:54 GMT -5
The "if anyone else had done this..." defense is an absolutely terrible line of reasoning. Of course no one else would have pulled this promo off. The Rock's charisma and ability to entertain are integral to why his style of promos work, not just because of what he says. If anyone else tried Punk's promo, they'd probably get torn apart too, because that's a style of speaking completely unique to Punk. You can feel free to hate any promo all you want, but something is only truly "bad" when it completely fails to achieve what it sets out to do - which is to entertain. Judging by the people entertained tonight, it didn't fail at all. Which doesn't make the promo bad at all. Similarly, considering that professional wrestling IS entertainment, if something can't entertain a crowd how in the world could you consider it great? If it can't engage people, then it failed at what it set out to do. And really, what this forum thinks is hardly important if we're in the minority - that extends to Laurinaitis, this promo, or whatever. You're really placing far too much importance on what the FAN consensus is. The bad promo was the one in Portland, where Cena absolutely owned Rock hard enough to turn a good portion of Boston against him the very next week. So what you are saying is Rock can take crap promos and make them good. So that just means Rock is cutting a crap promo but with skill. Rock's promo did fail to entertain me. So I guess I can call it bad. You are basing your opinion off of, what, 10,000 people in the building compared to the millions watching at home. I certainly cannot go around and find out if every single one of them thought what the Rock said or if the crap falling on AJ and Dolph was funny. However, I can come on a forum where there are some of those millions and see what they say. I could also check Twitter and Tumblr or wherever else. So I don't know who is in the minority or who is not. The 10,000 people in the arena could be but we only get to hear their reaction each week. They don't have cameras placed around the world to capture everyone's reactions. I can say a movie was bad even if it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Just because others liked it does not mean I can't call it bad. What kind of logic is that, that I must go along with what the "majority" thinks is good? You could say you didn't like the promo, but you can't say it failed if it's over with the majority of the crowd and the viewing audience. Just like you can say you didn't like a movie, but you can't say it wasn't successful if it was a box-office hit. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jan 8, 2013 1:34:11 GMT -5
I can say a movie was bad even if it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Just because others liked it does not mean I can't call it bad. What kind of logic is that, that I must go along with what the "majority" thinks is good? Saying 'the movie was bad' is a presupposition of objective and observable fact. Saying 'I thought the movie was bad' is an assertion of subjective evaluation. Often people conflate the second with the first, as it seems you are regarding the quality and fan perception of the Rock and CM Punk's promo abilities.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 8, 2013 1:38:09 GMT -5
So what you are saying is Rock can take crap promos and make them good. So that just means Rock is cutting a crap promo but with skill. Rock's promo did fail to entertain me. So I guess I can call it bad. You are basing your opinion off of, what, 10,000 people in the building compared to the millions watching at home. I certainly cannot go around and find out if every single one of them thought what the Rock said or if the crap falling on AJ and Dolph was funny. However, I can come on a forum where there are some of those millions and see what they say. I could also check Twitter and Tumblr or wherever else. So I don't know who is in the minority or who is not. The 10,000 people in the arena could be but we only get to hear their reaction each week. They don't have cameras placed around the world to capture everyone's reactions. I can say a movie was bad even if it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Just because others liked it does not mean I can't call it bad. What kind of logic is that, that I must go along with what the "majority" thinks is good? You could say you didn't like the promo, but you can't say it failed if it's over with the majority of the crowd and the viewing audience. Just like you can say you didn't like a movie, but you can't say it wasn't successful if it was a box-office hit. Simple. I never said the promo failed because the people did eat it up but that does not mean it's good. I'm just saying I thought it sucked. Yes, the movie could be hugely successful but that doesn't mean it was good either. People do like bad things.
|
|
DIIV
ALF
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by DIIV on Jan 8, 2013 1:41:00 GMT -5
Loved it. Great exchanges on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 8, 2013 1:44:20 GMT -5
I can say a movie was bad even if it made hundreds of millions of dollars. Just because others liked it does not mean I can't call it bad. What kind of logic is that, that I must go along with what the "majority" thinks is good? Saying 'the movie was bad' is a presupposition of objective and observable fact. Saying 'I thought the movie was bad' is an assertion of subjective evaluation. Often people conflate the second with the first, as it seems you are regarding the quality and fan perception of the Rock and CM Punk's promo abilities. I don't see why I need to add "I thought or think" to my sentences because it should be given. If I didn't think it I wouldn't be saying it. Just because a lot of people think something is good does not mean that I have to think it's good too. I can think it's bad. Is someone wrong for liking Rock's promos? No. Am I wrong for not liking them? No.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 8, 2013 1:47:13 GMT -5
So what you are saying is Rock can take crap promos and make them good. So that just means Rock is cutting a crap promo but with skill. No, what I'm saying is that whether or not a promo is crap depends on the guy giving it. Rock's promo was good because he made it so. Just as Punk's promo was good because he made it so. But the promo clearly achieved what it set out to do, so it wasn't bad at all. I get that it didn't work for you, and you're entitled to think what you want about it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all. That doesn't mean it was "bad". The same would be true if I said that I didn't like CM Punk's promo. I may not have enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't enjoyable. The 10,000 people in the building entertained by The Rock's promo are a much better indicator than the 10-20 people who might post on this thread. WWE often gets its indications on where their audiences might be leaning based on the crowd reaction, so it's actually very important. Who said you had to "go along" with anything? Seriously, go back and find the post where I did. I've made it clear that you're free to hate the promo all you want, but that there's a very clear difference between "I don't like this" and "this didn't work at all". And the comparisons between pro wrestling and movies is deeply flawed for many reasons. In this particular case, the audience watching a movie isn't an actual part of the show. They watch independent of the action. A live promo is a lot different than watching a movie. But Rock's promos are cut for the benefit of the crowd, and WWE often pays attention to what the audience (or rather, the demographics in the audience) does as an indicator of how it should proceed in the future. You can't write that off.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jan 8, 2013 1:54:50 GMT -5
Saying 'the movie was bad' is a presupposition of objective and observable fact. Saying 'I thought the movie was bad' is an assertion of subjective evaluation. Often people conflate the second with the first, as it seems you are regarding the quality and fan perception of the Rock and CM Punk's promo abilities. I don't see why I need to add "I thought or think" to my sentences because it should be given. If I didn't think it I wouldn't be saying it. Just because a lot of people think something is good does not mean that I have to think it's good too. I can think it's bad. Is someone wrong for liking Rock's promos? No. Am I wrong for not liking them? No. Well, the given must be given as such. In this sense, the phrase 'to say that "I think the movie is bad" is an example of a subjective evaluation' is, in fact, an an observable and objective presupposition because the given, 'I think', is made explicit and has present within the construction of the phrase. The phrase within the phrase does not purport to be objective and, as such, the meta-phrase which encapsulates the subjective evaluations accords to being an objective and observable presupposition because all parts of the phrase upon which presupposition hinges, namely that of 'I think', are inherent to the phrase's construction. As such, at least how I read it, I find that the semantics of your argument as you have presented them according to your logic do not actually adhere to the logic you have provided, irrespective of the subjective interpretation and evaluation of the quality and fan perception of either the Rock or CM Punk's promo abilities, as stated already previously. Two different things, in short. EDIT: Plus, and as much as the poster above me has identified elsewhere regarding your conversation with that person, you charge me of saying things ("Is someone wrong for liking Rock's promos? No. Am I wrong for not liking them? No.") when, in fact, I did not.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 8, 2013 1:56:29 GMT -5
Rock's promo also wasn't helped by Michael Cole's fake laughter.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 8, 2013 2:00:13 GMT -5
So what you are saying is Rock can take crap promos and make them good. So that just means Rock is cutting a crap promo but with skill. No, what I'm saying is that whether or not a promo is crap depends on the guy giving it. Rock's promo was good because he made it so. Just as Punk's promo was good because he made it so. But the promo clearly achieved what it set out to do, so it wasn't bad at all. I get that it didn't work for you, and you're entitled to think what you want about it, but that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all. That doesn't mean it was "bad". The same would be true if I said that I didn't like CM Punk's promo. I may not have enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't enjoyable. The 10,000 people in the building entertained by The Rock's promo are a much better indicator than the 10-20 people who might post on this thread. WWE often gets its indications on where their audiences might be leaning based on the crowd reaction, so it's actually very important. Who said you had to "go along" with anything? Seriously, go back and find the post where I did. I've made it clear that you're free to hate the promo all you want, but that there's a very clear difference between "I don't like this" and "this didn't work at all". And the comparisons between pro wrestling and movies is deeply flawed for many reasons. In this particular case, the audience watching a movie isn't an actual part of the show. They watch independent of the action. A live promo is a lot different than watching a movie. But Rock's promos are cut for the benefit of the crowd, and WWE often pays attention to what the audience (or rather, the demographics in the audience) does as an indicator of how it should proceed in the future. You can't write that off. I gotcha. What is said is not important but the way it's said is. Yes, the promo did its job. It got the people excited. I just don't think that's good enough to declare it a good promo in my eyes. WWE is very selective about crowd reaction. Sometimes they just don't agree with the way a crowd reacts and they either still push what they want or take it away even if it goes against the crowd reaction. You were saying or heavily implying that I can't think it's bad even if I do because the crowd is always right.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Jan 8, 2013 2:33:52 GMT -5
They already need to extend this feud just so the IWC can lose it minds over its love of all things Punk, If he drops the title to Rock at RR I think the web may crash let alone this place.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Jan 8, 2013 2:42:09 GMT -5
Saying 'the movie was bad' is a presupposition of objective and observable fact. Saying 'I thought the movie was bad' is an assertion of subjective evaluation. Often people conflate the second with the first, as it seems you are regarding the quality and fan perception of the Rock and CM Punk's promo abilities. I don't see why I need to add "I thought or think" to my sentences because it should be given. If I didn't think it I wouldn't be saying it. Just because a lot of people think something is good does not mean that I have to think it's good too. I can think it's bad. Is someone wrong for liking Rock's promos? No. Am I wrong for not liking them? No. Not enough people these days can say "whilst I can see the appeal to the masses, it's not for me so I didn't enjoy it as many others would". I never got that something had to be good, bad or nothing. It can never be good but it's not for me. Just something I've observed.
|
|