|
Post by CM Parish on Oct 16, 2013 7:58:21 GMT -5
If all of you guys shitting on this want to stand there and tell Big Show he's not getting past you then be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by hypnoticgenes on Oct 16, 2013 9:09:51 GMT -5
Let me get this straight.
Miz & R Truth sneak into an arena, jump the rail and attack people = company wide walkout and a vote of "no confidence" in HHH
Cena, Goldust, Rhodes, or Big Show sneak into an arena, jump the rail and attack people = totally fine
|
|
|
Post by Medicinal Thunder Liger on Oct 16, 2013 9:12:56 GMT -5
Let me get this straight. Miz & R Truth sneak into an arena, jump the rail and attack people = company wide walkout and a vote of "no confidence" in HHH Cena, Goldust, Rhodes, or Big Show sneak into an arena, jump the rail and attack people = totally fine big show gets fired-company wide hashtag.
|
|
|
Post by wallabylikeyou on Oct 16, 2013 9:28:21 GMT -5
Considering the whole Armando Estrada situation...no, I don't think they actually do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:18:10 GMT -5
Has any form of entertainment insulted their own audience's intelligence as much as wrestling? The "fake" part of it isn't even an issue anymore since they have come out and admitted it, but now it's ridiculous and unrealistic storylines mixed in with the fights that the WWE goes out of their way to tell you are fake. It just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:44:45 GMT -5
The real problem is that they've went back to this particular well WAY too often for it to have any actual impact. Always with "Cenas" and "Rocks" too.
They seem to have lost any and all understanding of "slow builds" and "sustained angles."
When someone gets "fired," when do you see them again? Three weeks? Two months? No, they're back in a week, if that even.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Oct 16, 2013 13:13:27 GMT -5
He can't afford to pay his mortgage, but he can afford to... - Fly out of pocket to wherever they were this week. I remember Punk saying he had over a million frequent flyer miles from his years of working for WWE that he would never use since all of his flights are paid for by the company anyway. Big Show could be cashing those in now.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 16, 2013 13:49:06 GMT -5
Has any form of entertainment insulted their own audience's intelligence as much as wrestling? The "fake" part of it isn't even an issue anymore since they have come out and admitted it, but now it's ridiculous and unrealistic storylines mixed in with the fights that the WWE goes out of their way to tell you are fake. It just doesn't make sense to me. WWE's problem is that they start at point A in a potential story, but want to get to point C without going through point B -- that being the logical (or as much as is possible) explanation of motivations, ramifications, arcs, etc. WWE would rather just gloss over logic entirely so they can jump straight into the crux of their story. And that is, well, terrible and incorrect storytelling. Great writers (like Vince Gilligan) craft characters and motivations so masterfully that everything makes sense. It's almost seamless. WWE just tells you, out of the blue, that Big Show has no money, without any foreshadowing or hint. It's horrible and hackish. And the sad thing is, wrestling is so uncomplicated, there's no reason why they couldn't do correct builds. I mean, they have before. Go back and watch the turn of Randy Savage on Hogan. It was BRILLIANTLY nuanced. You can see Randy giving Hulk weird looks as early as Summer Slam.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 16, 2013 20:41:46 GMT -5
Has any form of entertainment insulted their own audience's intelligence as much as wrestling? The "fake" part of it isn't even an issue anymore since they have come out and admitted it, but now it's ridiculous and unrealistic storylines mixed in with the fights that the WWE goes out of their way to tell you are fake. It just doesn't make sense to me. WWE's problem is that they start at point A in a potential story, but want to get to point C without going through point B -- that being the logical (or as much as is possible) explanation of motivations, ramifications, arcs, etc. WWE would rather just gloss over logic entirely so they can jump straight into the crux of their story. And that is, well, terrible and incorrect storytelling. Great writers (like Vince Gilligan) craft characters and motivations so masterfully that everything makes sense. It's almost seamless. WWE just tells you, out of the blue, that Big Show has no money, without any foreshadowing or hint. It's horrible and hackish. And the sad thing is, wrestling is so uncomplicated, there's no reason why they couldn't do correct builds. I mean, they have before. Go back and watch the turn of Randy Savage on Hogan. It was BRILLIANTLY nuanced. You can see Randy giving Hulk weird looks as early as Summer Slam. I believe soap opera and reality tv do insult people's intelligence more. And frankly I feel like mentioning Big Show's financial situation before Steph wanted to embarrass him with it and give us a reason Show had to follow orders would have been just as out of the blue with foreshadowing. THe way it was done gives us a reason, to humiliate him. Otherwise things like finances don't come up generally. If it did it would have been obvious it was about to come up for something important. I've never enjoyed having a Chekov's gun waved in my face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 21:05:09 GMT -5
WWE's problem is that they start at point A in a potential story, but want to get to point C without going through point B -- that being the logical (or as much as is possible) explanation of motivations, ramifications, arcs, etc. WWE would rather just gloss over logic entirely so they can jump straight into the crux of their story. And that is, well, terrible and incorrect storytelling. Great writers (like Vince Gilligan) craft characters and motivations so masterfully that everything makes sense. It's almost seamless. WWE just tells you, out of the blue, that Big Show has no money, without any foreshadowing or hint. It's horrible and hackish. And the sad thing is, wrestling is so uncomplicated, there's no reason why they couldn't do correct builds. I mean, they have before. Go back and watch the turn of Randy Savage on Hogan. It was BRILLIANTLY nuanced. You can see Randy giving Hulk weird looks as early as Summer Slam. I believe soap opera and reality tv do insult people's intelligence more. And frankly I feel like mentioning Big Show's financial situation before Steph wanted to embarrass him with it and give us a reason Show had to follow orders would have been just as out of the blue with foreshadowing. THe way it was done gives us a reason, to humiliate him. Otherwise things like finances don't come up generally. If it did it would have been obvious it was about to come up for something important. I've never enjoyed having a Chekov's gun waved in my face. The "Big Show is poor" example is lazy writing at its finest and exactly the type of intelligence insulting logic that the WWE presents routinely. Why did Dustin show up on Raw, despite being fired, complete with Goldust make-up? Did he hire a make-up artist specifically to do his make-up before waltzing into the building (where presumably people would recognize him) and decide to attack WWE employees? Why would Big Show's music play as he ran in, despite being fired? Why would AJ Lee shoot about the females on the reality show, claiming she is a wrestler and the others suck at it, and then start selling for Brie Bella as if she was a wrestler? I mean, I can't wrap my head around anything being done by the company. It lacks logic, it lacks continuity, and yet people here sort of just laugh it off and move on. It would drive me nuts. Say what you want about TNA, but at least they tried to explain Bully Ray's heel turn with vignettes that pieced everything together. The WWE realizes what they are doing it wrong, they do it anyway, and the fans don't care. Hogan/Savage from 1988/89 was used as an example, but practically every storyline they did from 1987-1991 had that type of foreshadowing and subtleness. That seems to be a lost art with the faster paced environment wrestling is in today.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 16, 2013 21:14:42 GMT -5
I believe soap opera and reality tv do insult people's intelligence more. And frankly I feel like mentioning Big Show's financial situation before Steph wanted to embarrass him with it and give us a reason Show had to follow orders would have been just as out of the blue with foreshadowing. THe way it was done gives us a reason, to humiliate him. Otherwise things like finances don't come up generally. If it did it would have been obvious it was about to come up for something important. I've never enjoyed having a Chekov's gun waved in my face. The "Big Show is poor" example is lazy writing at its finest and exactly the type of intelligence insulting logic that the WWE presents routinely. Why did Dustin show up on Raw, despite being fired, complete with Goldust make-up? Did he hire a make-up artist specifically to do his make-up before waltzing into the building (where presumably people would recognize him) and decide to attack WWE employees? Why would Big Show's music play as he ran in, despite being fired? Why would AJ Lee shoot about the females on the reality show, claiming she is a wrestler and the others suck at it, and then start selling for Brie Bella as if she was a wrestler? I mean, I can't wrap my head around anything being done by the company. It lacks logic, it lacks continuity, and yet people here sort of just laugh it off and move on. It would drive me nuts. Say what you want about TNA, but at least they tried to explain Bully Ray's heel turn with vignettes that pieced everything together. The WWE realizes what they are doing it wrong, they do it anyway, and the fans don't care. Hogan/Savage from 1988/89 was used as an example, but practically every storyline they did from 1987-1991 had that type of foreshadowing and subtleness. That seems to be a lost art with the faster paced environment wrestling is in today. WWE wrestlers apply their own face paint. AJ is selling because people hitting you with wrestling moves hurts, whether or not you credit them as a real wrestler. And Big Show's music plays because the backstage guy saw him come by him. Frankly I'd rather they not waste my time explaining things if I can think up a logical answer easily
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 21:41:01 GMT -5
The "Big Show is poor" example is lazy writing at its finest and exactly the type of intelligence insulting logic that the WWE presents routinely. Why did Dustin show up on Raw, despite being fired, complete with Goldust make-up? Did he hire a make-up artist specifically to do his make-up before waltzing into the building (where presumably people would recognize him) and decide to attack WWE employees? Why would Big Show's music play as he ran in, despite being fired? Why would AJ Lee shoot about the females on the reality show, claiming she is a wrestler and the others suck at it, and then start selling for Brie Bella as if she was a wrestler? I mean, I can't wrap my head around anything being done by the company. It lacks logic, it lacks continuity, and yet people here sort of just laugh it off and move on. It would drive me nuts. Say what you want about TNA, but at least they tried to explain Bully Ray's heel turn with vignettes that pieced everything together. The WWE realizes what they are doing it wrong, they do it anyway, and the fans don't care. Hogan/Savage from 1988/89 was used as an example, but practically every storyline they did from 1987-1991 had that type of foreshadowing and subtleness. That seems to be a lost art with the faster paced environment wrestling is in today. WWE wrestlers apply their own face paint. AJ is selling because people hitting you with wrestling moves hurts, whether or not you credit them as a real wrestler. And Big Show's music plays because the backstage guy saw him come by him. Frankly I'd rather they not waste my time explaining things if I can think up a logical answer easily So Goldust applied his own face paint, walked into a building where a company that fired him was having a show, was able to get by arena security/fans/etc unnoticed (despite the aforementioned face paint), and walk right into the ring? So a fired employee can hang around backstage, boss around the sound guy, come to the ring at a snail's pace, and do whatever he wants without security or anyone intervening? Have you ever been fired from a job before? If you walked back in and told the security in your building to let you in while the song of your choosing played in the background, you think security would comply with your wishes? There is nothing logical about that. You could say I am nitpicking or putting too much thought into it, but that's the point, right? If something is not logical, why not question it? Wrestling on its own is ridiculous to begin with. Once lack of continuity, lack of logic, lazy storytelling, etc, is brought into the picture, it's unwatchable. Or at least should be. I remember during a Kevin Nash shoot interview, he mentioned how the nWo, since they didn't work for Turner, had to buy advertising time (i.e. "the following announcement has been paid for by the New World Order). Why would WCW allow nWo vignettes to air on their show, right? He always mentioned how WCW shouldn't sell nWo shirts with other WCW merchandise since the nWo was not working for WCW. This was the brain child of Eric Bischoff, the person everyone thinks isn't a creative mind, and even he put effort into making it look as logical as possible (or as logical as wrestling can be). When Vince McMahon went on the mic during the Attitude Era and said "do you know why I don't fire Austin? Because he makes me richer!", it at least made an attempt to logical explain why Austin was still around. Wrestling doesn't have to be Shakespeare, but at least try to move things along in a logical format with characters and stories evolving organically. Once you start doing things just because, with no care in the world for your audience, it ruins the quality of the story you are trying to tell. Or maybe wrestling fans simply don't take stuff like that seriously. I don't know.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 16, 2013 22:08:20 GMT -5
WWE wrestlers apply their own face paint. AJ is selling because people hitting you with wrestling moves hurts, whether or not you credit them as a real wrestler. And Big Show's music plays because the backstage guy saw him come by him. Frankly I'd rather they not waste my time explaining things if I can think up a logical answer easily So Goldust applied his own face paint, walked into a building where a company that fired him was having a show, was able to get by arena security/fans/etc unnoticed (despite the aforementioned face paint), and walk right into the ring? So a fired employee can hang around backstage, boss around the sound guy, come to the ring at a snail's pace, and do whatever he wants without security or anyone intervening? Have you ever been fired from a job before? If you walked back in and told the security in your building to let you in while the song of your choosing played in the background, you think security would comply with your wishes? There is nothing logical about that. You could say I am nitpicking or putting too much thought into it, but that's the point, right? If something is not logical, why not question it? Wrestling on its own is ridiculous to begin with. Once lack of continuity, lack of logic, lazy storytelling, etc, is brought into the picture, it's unwatchable. Or at least should be. I remember during a Kevin Nash shoot interview, he mentioned how the nWo, since they didn't work for Turner, had to buy advertising time (i.e. "the following announcement has been paid for by the New World Order). Why would WCW allow nWo vignettes to air on their show, right? He always mentioned how WCW shouldn't sell nWo shirts with other WCW merchandise since the nWo was not working for WCW. This was the brain child of Eric Bischoff, the person everyone thinks isn't a creative mind, and even he put effort into making it look as logical as possible (or as logical as wrestling can be). When Vince McMahon went on the mic during the Attitude Era and said "do you know why I don't fire Austin? Because he makes me richer!", it at least made an attempt to logical explain why Austin was still around. Wrestling doesn't have to be Shakespeare, but at least try to move things along in a logical format with characters and stories evolving organically. Once you start doing things just because, with no care in the world for your audience, it ruins the quality of the story you are trying to tell. Or maybe wrestling fans simply don't take stuff like that seriously. I don't know. we live in the time of cosplayers. People do things like buy Rey Mysterio masks. I bet if you applied face paint, like the Ultimate Warrior and walked into a WWE event no one would bug you. As for your examples of logic, Vince actually did fire Austin at least once. Other people re-hired him because he was making them richer. I don't think Show bossed around the sound guy, I think the sound guy saw him and played his music. And as for security, I don't think security in WWE does anything without being specifically ordered to. And also, I've heard plenty of stories of former employees visiting backstage.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 16, 2013 22:14:53 GMT -5
And Big Show's music plays because the backstage guy saw him come by him. Frankly I'd rather they not waste my time explaining things if I can think up a logical answer easily. That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. And that's not even remotely logical. There is no such thing as headcanon in storytelling. If you, personally, have to manufacture a ridiculous explanation for why something is happening, then it means the storyteller is not doing their job right.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 16, 2013 22:19:25 GMT -5
And Big Show's music plays because the backstage guy saw him come by him. Frankly I'd rather they not waste my time explaining things if I can think up a logical answer easily. That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. And that's not even remotely logical. There is no such thing as headcanon in storytelling. If you, personally, have to manufacture a ridiculous explanation for why something is happening, then it means the storyteller is not doing their job right. considering the amount of time WWE spends to say something that could be going to a match or a fight, I still prefer it.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 16, 2013 22:35:08 GMT -5
That's the most absurd thing I've ever read. And that's not even remotely logical. There is no such thing as headcanon in storytelling. If you, personally, have to manufacture a ridiculous explanation for why something is happening, then it means the storyteller is not doing their job right. considering the amount of time WWE spends to say something that could be going to a match or a fight, I still prefer it. It would take just as long and make more sense if they just had Big Show coming out with no theme music, through the crowd. WWE should ask themselves before they present anything: "if this was real, how would it happen?" The best angles are the one's that feel the most organic and real. There's no excuse for things not making sense or being stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Oct 17, 2013 10:43:51 GMT -5
Has any form of entertainment insulted their own audience's intelligence as much as wrestling? The "fake" part of it isn't even an issue anymore since they have come out and admitted it, but now it's ridiculous and unrealistic storylines mixed in with the fights that the WWE goes out of their way to tell you are fake. It just doesn't make sense to me. WWE's problem is that they start at point A in a potential story, but want to get to point C without going through point B -- that being the logical (or as much as is possible) explanation of motivations, ramifications, arcs, etc. WWE would rather just gloss over logic entirely so they can jump straight into the crux of their story. And that is, well, terrible and incorrect storytelling. Great writers (like Vince Gilligan) craft characters and motivations so masterfully that everything makes sense. It's almost seamless. WWE just tells you, out of the blue, that Big Show has no money, without any foreshadowing or hint. It's horrible and hackish. And the sad thing is, wrestling is so uncomplicated, there's no reason why they couldn't do correct builds. I mean, they have before. Go back and watch the turn of Randy Savage on Hogan. It was BRILLIANTLY nuanced. You can see Randy giving Hulk weird looks as early as Summer Slam. The most horrifying thing is that this is one storyline where they had to actively go out of their way to screw up their route to point C. If they wanted Big Show involved in the story, they already had very logical built-in foreshadowing for it. All face wrestlers wanted to help Bryan - but they were afraid for their jobs and couldn't do anything. Except Big Show, because he has an Iron Clad Contract! It was something they established earlier that, if brought up again, would have made that storyline matter. It would have made it so that one storyline had lasting effect on the show, made it so that one storyline they went through had consequences and set precedent for why we should care about stupid stipulations and GM announcements. Most of all, it would have made sense and gotten Big Show involved in the angle in a logical sense that would have made fans go "Ah, that makes sense!" and felt really natural. But they actively went out of their way to go the exact opposite of the logical storyline already built-in for them and make the one guy whose contract was meant to be iron clad into the one most afraid for his job, effectively rendering their previous storyline absolutely pointless. It's almost admirable just how much effort they put into walking away from telling a reasonable story.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by dav on Oct 17, 2013 11:39:07 GMT -5
The thread title makes me think that it could be a crazy Vince story:
*It's six in the morning and recently fired writer for the WWE gets a phone call.*
Writer: Wh-Who is this?
Vince: Where the Hell are you?! You were supposed to be in work by now!
Writer: But you fired me!
Vince: That meant I wanted you to do more hours for less pay!
Writer: ... That doesn't even begin to make...
Vince: I'M VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON DAMNIT!
*Vince hangs up.*
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Oct 17, 2013 15:38:21 GMT -5
WWE's problem is that they start at point A in a potential story, but want to get to point C without going through point B -- that being the logical (or as much as is possible) explanation of motivations, ramifications, arcs, etc. WWE would rather just gloss over logic entirely so they can jump straight into the crux of their story. And that is, well, terrible and incorrect storytelling. Great writers (like Vince Gilligan) craft characters and motivations so masterfully that everything makes sense. It's almost seamless. WWE just tells you, out of the blue, that Big Show has no money, without any foreshadowing or hint. It's horrible and hackish. And the sad thing is, wrestling is so uncomplicated, there's no reason why they couldn't do correct builds. I mean, they have before. Go back and watch the turn of Randy Savage on Hogan. It was BRILLIANTLY nuanced. You can see Randy giving Hulk weird looks as early as Summer Slam. The most horrifying thing is that this is one storyline where they had to actively go out of their way to screw up their route to point C. If they wanted Big Show involved in the story, they already had very logical built-in foreshadowing for it. All face wrestlers wanted to help Bryan - but they were afraid for their jobs and couldn't do anything. Except Big Show, because he has an Iron Clad Contract! It was something they established earlier that, if brought up again, would have made that storyline matter. It would have made it so that one storyline had lasting effect on the show, made it so that one storyline they went through had consequences and set precedent for why we should care about stupid stipulations and GM announcements. Most of all, it would have made sense and gotten Big Show involved in the angle in a logical sense that would have made fans go "Ah, that makes sense!" and felt really natural. But they actively went out of their way to go the exact opposite of the logical storyline already built-in for them and make the one guy whose contract was meant to be iron clad into the one most afraid for his job, effectively rendering their previous storyline absolutely pointless. It's almost admirable just how much effort they put into walking away from telling a reasonable story. you remember how people were complaining that the whole faces doing nothing thing makes them look cowardly? This is worse. In your scenario, everyone gets to stay a coward except for one man. IN WWE's the other guys had to be even braver because "Shit, they're so serious about this they'll even find a way to screw over and maybe fire the guy with the ironclad contract. They'd fire me in a second. But dammit, I just can't watch this any more."
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Oct 17, 2013 15:54:20 GMT -5
The most horrifying thing is that this is one storyline where they had to actively go out of their way to screw up their route to point C. If they wanted Big Show involved in the story, they already had very logical built-in foreshadowing for it. All face wrestlers wanted to help Bryan - but they were afraid for their jobs and couldn't do anything. Except Big Show, because he has an Iron Clad Contract! It was something they established earlier that, if brought up again, would have made that storyline matter. It would have made it so that one storyline had lasting effect on the show, made it so that one storyline they went through had consequences and set precedent for why we should care about stupid stipulations and GM announcements. Most of all, it would have made sense and gotten Big Show involved in the angle in a logical sense that would have made fans go "Ah, that makes sense!" and felt really natural. But they actively went out of their way to go the exact opposite of the logical storyline already built-in for them and make the one guy whose contract was meant to be iron clad into the one most afraid for his job, effectively rendering their previous storyline absolutely pointless. It's almost admirable just how much effort they put into walking away from telling a reasonable story. you remember how people were complaining that the whole faces doing nothing thing makes them look cowardly? This is worse. In your scenario, everyone gets to stay a coward except for one man. IN WWE's the other guys had to be even braver because "Shit, they're so serious about this they'll even find a way to screw over and maybe fire the guy with the ironclad contract. They'd fire me in a second. But dammit, I just can't watch this any more." No, it's nowhere near worse. The WWE did not have them go "they'll find a way to screw over the guy with the ironclad contract" they just waved it away in one commentary line rendering their previous plot absolutely pointless. That makes their plot worse by default, but I'll go beyond that--let's assume that making your storylines absolutely pointless isn't an auto-loss here. In that case, I'm not sure why you think that Show would be all the help Bryan would need. Why would they all need to stay as cowards? The logical development would be for Show to be Bryan's sole ally at first, as none of the others could help. He and Bryan would put up a fight but they were still very much outnumbered. The faces would at that point need to find a way to avoid being fired and still help Bryan. Who says that they would need to stay doing nothing? The scenario you are proposing is one where we change a vital point in the story then have it run the same course as the one the WWE had for no reason. In addition, the WWE didn't make the faces look particularly brave because their actions had absolutely no consequence. They made them look like idiots, really. I mean what happened to them? They were squashed by The Shield later...o...kay? Wow, that's so different from what the faces usually do(being squashed by Del Rio). The WWE presented this scenario: "If they help Bryan, they are fired." The logical storytelling to follow this would be: "They bravely find a way to help Bryan without being fired." What we got was: "They help Bryan, but aren't fired for some reason rendering the entire conflict absolutely pointless." There's no reason to cheer for heroes that face no consequence for their actions. Good storytelling would have them DEAL with those consequences in order to, after a hard fought battle, do what they want to do. Bad storytelling(like we got) has them suddenly deciding not to care about consequences and have the consequences magically disappear. Then it becomes less of "How can he decide between helping a friend and being fired?" and more "Well, why didn't you do it sooner?" which makes them look like idiots.
|
|