|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Sept 20, 2013 13:17:40 GMT -5
Quick note about free speech in this case: you don't actually have it. No, the WWE or the arena they're having their show in can't have cops arrest you for a stupid chant, but they can kick you out over it if they so please. You sign up to live under their rules the instant you purchase one of their tickets. Technically, as a private entity, they can make demands of you because you're willingly abiding by their rules by purchasing a ticket. ...I'm not saying they SHOULD do that, but they CAN do it. As for "what?!", I don't think it's fair to compare it to a crowd singing Fandango's theme or chanting "YES!" when Bryan does something great; both of those indicate crowd exuberance, and in the case of Bryan it's a positive response that seems to indicate "we're enjoying the show and how you're performing", not "we want to be heard and will willingly derail the feeling of this segment in order to be heard." "What" has a much more negative connotation; it's an instant "we don't want to hear what you're saying" chant, which can work against big time heels, but it just gets used across the board, seemingly. Yeah, my friend used to work for MSG and always pointed out when he had to eject people that EVERY ticket it clearly stated something along the lines of We reserve the right to eject any one for any reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 13:30:02 GMT -5
I mean, it's Dusty Rhodes. It may sound silly, but most WWE fans aren't used to listening to him talk. "What" chants here were obviously used to humorously ask "Can you enunciate a little more...?"
Us IWC nerds make fun of his speech all the time on here, it's not like other people wouldn't as well.
For the record, the crowd popped for him several times throughout the promo, particularly when he made Stephanie look like the bitch she is. so clearly they were invested in what he was saying one way or another...even if the "What" chants were intended to shut Dusty up, the chant was kind of a fluke.
TL;DR cool your jets.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Sept 20, 2013 13:38:47 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder why WWE keeps putting wrestling in my talking segments. But this wouldn't be a problem so much other than the fact that the format of the talking segment, especially the in-ring promo, has not changed in almost twenty years. If today's WWE is in fact 'the reality era', then why not have talent come out to the ring and talk? But REALLY talk. Keep the aspect of 'cutting promos' to backstage talking segments (which in themselves have really lost the 'cutting a promo' aspect that typifies wrestling interview segments from the 1980s and early 1990s given directly to the camera). Wasn't the power of CM Punk's 2011 pipebomb, or Joey Styles' 2006 on-air resignation, or Paul Heyman's 2001 challenge to Vince McMahon before the Survivor Series precisely because they were spoken as talk, that because they were spoken as talk that they seemed to be real, genuine, heartfelt responses? For the very reason that everyone knows: who has time to think when through speech you convey your anger, your disappointment, your frustration, or your hurt? And as such fans pay attention to what's being said and then react accordingly, be it with cheers or boos, rather than becoming a part of the promo itself with their insistent interrogative injections. Have the talent come out with a bulletpoint format of what needs to be said to have the talent fill in the gaps. And have the talent directly address the camera, either the hard camera or the cameraperson in the ring. Talking... like this... all the time... when trying... to convey... a... point... doesn't flow organically. It's forced. It's scripted. It gives the audience time to think to react with the WHAT chants in the first place. But if you talk how you might talk to your friend, with a back and forth repartee, with thoughts being communicated as they're spoken, that forces the live audience to actually pay attention to the things you're saying rather than having them wait for the pauses. But, let's keep in mind that every wrestling show is somebody's first wrestling show. That's who the talent should ultimately be reaching out to, but not in a condescending or pandering way, as if that person was too stupid to get what's going on. Talking should be like opening a door for someone to pass through. Fans in the know already pass through the door, they have no issues. But you have to bring in, bring up to speed those who can't--because they're new fans, they're young fans, they're fans who have been away from the product for a long time, etc. As such, anyone with microphone time is treated equally. Just because you're Dusty Rhodes or the Undertaker doesn't mean that you can rest on your laurels and cut droning, plodding, stifled, or transparently manufactured promos that you don't relieve believe in. Why is this a problem? Because you're not talking, you're cutting a promo. And let's be honest: much of this has to do with gimmicks as well. What is the gimmick of Dusty Rhodes in 2013? Precisely that he is Dusty Rhodes in 2013. The fact that he's the "American Dream" is irrelevant, if only because when he went out to the ring he was Dusty Rhodes (hell, at the beginning of the promo he called himself Virgil Runnels), but he wasn't the Dream. Perhaps this issue is because today's gimmicks and today's performers are basically one in the same--John Cena is John Cena is John Cena and so forth. Do the guys who go out and basically perform an exaggerated, amped-up version of themselves get the same kind of response? Sure, but as much as the guy who's nervous about being given a fully scripted promo that he isn't emotionally invested in? Eh... Wrestling isn't theatre insofar that wrestlers must adapt to what the audience gives them, be it noise, energy, or interaction. A performance of a Shakespeare soliloquy will be the same despite members of the audience yelling WHAT after the closed peripatetic foot of iambic pentameter. Wrestling cannot afford such a luxury. Which is why I support the continuation of WHAT chants more than a decade after their invention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 7:22:36 GMT -5
The problem with the chant is simply that it serves no purpose. At least "boring" or "this is awesome" chants convey a message. All "what!?" does is ruin promos and bog the show down.
It's like getting into a "nuh-uh, you are" loop with a toddler.
I'm surprised the morons didn't yell it at Lawler as he was having his heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpo Commando on Sept 22, 2013 2:00:57 GMT -5
The only I dislike more than "What" chants are the elitist jackasses who think they are 'above' chanting. When i go to a show, I chant "What." I am not an imbecile and I don't do it to get over. it's fun to chant and if the people at home don't like then that's their problem.
|
|