The W
Views: 100224372
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.07 0810
The 7 - Site Bashing - What a difference a site makes.
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(532 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 254/684
EXP: 1224169
For next: 9708

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4472 days
Last activity: 4382 days
#1 Posted on 27.2.02 0912.25
Reposted on: 27.2.09 0929.04
I've gotta tell you, the editorial direction of a site sure can lead to some disparate sounding Smackdown Spoilers.

And yes, I'm going to discuss a Spoiler or two, so if you don't want to know, stop reading right now.

I'm serious. Go back.

If I hear any whining about my spoiling things, it's your own fault.

Anyway, I went over to the Wrestling Observer site to read Smackdown spoilers there, as they're usually the most reliable source for said spoilers.

They ended the outcome the Hardyz/Duds match with a snide comment about repackaging and refreshing the Hardys. Yet on Slash, BOTH recappers PRAISE the match as entertaining and enjoyable.

The WO spoilers writer said, during the Austin/NWO confrontation that Austin shot Hall with a Johnny B. Badd's style gun. That was ALL that was said.

What does that bring to mind? Confetti, right? It was right about here that I sensed something was up, that the author was too smarky for his own good.

Yet at Slash, I find out that he shot a net gun at Hall. That's a BIG difference from a "Badd Blaster" if you ask me. Both Slash authors offered no REAL complaints about the confrontation -- both were positive.

Regal/Show -- the WO reporter uses the phrase "Sports Entertainment Finish."

I stopped reading the WO report right then and there. And it's a good bet I won't be reading their reports any more. It's amazing how Meltzer's blatant know-it-all cynicism has tainted his readers, not even allowing them to have fun at a TV taping they paid money to attend.

Or is it a case of that? Is it a case of the reporter writing the report the way he thinks Meltzer wants it to be written?

At any rate, what I'm getting at is that WO makes the Smackdown tapings sound like the worst wrestling show since Souled Out, while the Slash reports at least show the tapings had SOME redeeming amounts of enjoyment in them.

I just wish Slash could have spoilers up all the time, because the difference between the two is like night and day. It's good to see some people enjoying what's put in front of them, rather than let everyone on the net know how smarky they are.
Promote this thread!
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 33/5244
EXP: 26046255
For next: 378435

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 38 min.
#2 Posted on 27.2.02 1416.12
Reposted on: 27.2.09 1428.47
"Yet on Slash, BOTH recappers PRAISE the match as entertaining and enjoyable."

As entertaining and enjoyable as the last 8000 times they fought?

"It's good to see some people enjoying what's put in front of them ..."

... no matter what! I think everyone's entitled to their opinions. Some people might go to a Smackdown taping and enjoy the live show. Others might think the WWF stinks right now and the taping was a reflection of that. More positive does not necessarily equal better.
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 259/684
EXP: 1224169
For next: 9708

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4472 days
Last activity: 4382 days
#3 Posted on 27.2.02 1445.21
Reposted on: 27.2.09 1459.04

    Originally posted by JMShapiro
    ... no matter what! I think everyone's entitled to their opinions. Some people might go to a Smackdown taping and enjoy the live show. Others might think the WWF stinks right now and the taping was a reflection of that. More positive does not necessarily equal better.
Very true. Here's a little known fact -- I don't like the current WWF product and I haven't watched it regularly since the Invasion. I've watched ONE full episode of Smackdown since then -- "Vince talks to the Mirror" -- and it was enough to further convince me I don't need to watch. So I'm not saying it's good that these guys LIKED the product. I'm saying it's good that they're able to see it through a different set of eyes rather than be a horse's ass like the last couple of reporters (Mark Coale notwithstanding) have been for Meltzer.

I was trying to make a couple of points, and they seem to have been overlooked:

(1) It's much easier to get through a spoiler report withouht 1500 Scott Keith/PMSing Meltzer-esque jabs and snipes leveled at the product. I just want to know what happened.

The Slash reporters may not have enjoyed everything, but their reports weren't loaded with "X and Y fought. It sucked. A and B fought. It sucked."

(2)Editorial direction. Slash encourages the concept of being a fan first and foremost. Meltzer encourages analyzing EVERYTHING to death to the point where there's no soul and life left in everything and, by proxy, you have to hate it because, by god, it's not the product HE wants to see. The product is NOT FUN when you look at it like this constantly.

(3) Has Meltzer's (and others') blatant know-it-all cynicism has tainted his readers, not even allowing them to have fun at a TV taping they paid money to attend? Is it a case of that? Is it a case of the reporter writing the report the way he thinks Meltzer wants it to be written?

For example: I think saying Austin used Johnny B. Badd's gun is misleading and I think it was done purposefully by the writer.

I hope I'm being a little more clear this time.
aureole
Haggis
Level: 18

Posts: 26/54
EXP: 27155
For next: 2743

Since: 3.1.02
From: Cambs, UK

Since last post: 3884 days
Last activity: 3814 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 27.2.02 1533.17
Reposted on: 27.2.09 1540.43
I think they write spoilers for people who hate wrestling.

Seriously, it's easier to write negative reviews, or at least, easier to prove how dryly witty and erudite you are, rather than, for instance, tell people what happened. Form over content is the bane of wrestling recaps, especially at the Observer.
Elitist
Bauerwurst
Level: 25

Posts: 21/111
EXP: 80026
For next: 9595

Since: 3.1.02
From: USA, USA

Since last post: 4150 days
Last activity: 2494 days
#5 Posted on 27.2.02 1536.10
Reposted on: 27.2.09 1559.01
Bingo. I don't mind hearing people's opinions, provided they tell me what happened on the show at some point.
John Orquiola
Scrapple
Level: 122

Posts: 1/4479
EXP: 20390063
For next: 248009

Since: 28.2.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 123 days
Last activity: 123 days
#6 Posted on 28.2.02 0908.00
Reposted on: 28.2.09 0929.02
Well, gee, I wrote one set of the SmackDown spoilers so let me chime in here.

I didn't enjoy everything about the SmackDown tapings. I generally dislike TV tapings, primarily because of commercial break wait times. I especially dislike attending SmackDown tapings because they are promo and backstage-skit intensive and it's difficult to hear what's happening inside the arena.

That said, I went because I wanted to see the nWo live, something I never dreamed I'd get to do. (Not that I would have ventured to a WCW show years ago as I hated WCW and the nWo then, but the passage of time and a different perspective can have a strange effect on what you hate and what you like.)

Considering that seeing the nWo was the only reason I paid $25 to sit in the bleachers and watch a show I could have seen for free two days later on TV, I was disappointed that the nWo made only one appearance, and I was disappointed in the appearance they made. But am I mad about it? Am I mad about the show? Was it a terrible show?

No.

I agree that if you pay money for something, a hobby you presumably enjoy, you should try to enjoy it. "No matter what?" Well no. There are things I don't like about the WWF, its direction, etc. But my perspective is that I know what I do like and as long as I'm getting to see what I like, I'm happy. I watch the WWF to be entertained and as long as I am, as long as I laugh and cheer and boo and have a good time, then I've got nothing to complain about. More often than not I am entertained. Hell, I write a comedy site about wrestling so I must love to watch it. [cheap plug: www.oursocalledsport.com]

I understand that many people simply are not getting what they want out of the WWF, and that's really too bad for them because the WWF has always delivered something very specific and consistent as a product, and I've almost always liked it. Things could always be better somehow or some way but I watch the WWF because I want to be entertained, not to see them fail (as I watched WCW for), not to get angry that they're not doing what I think they should do, and not to feel superior because I think that I can book better than the WWF's writers can (because I think their job is ridiculously difficult.)

I find that most so-called "smart" fans really, truly, do not understand what they are watching: Oversized, grown men in spandex pretending to fight. Throw all the insider terms around you like, read all the Meltzer, Scherer, Keller, and God forbid Scott Keith you want, but myself, I have a hard time justifying cynical superiority about the wrestling business considering what pro-wrestling is at its core.

As for the spoilers and the subject of editorial content in wrestling websites, speaking only for myself, when I decided to write SmackDown spoilers for CRZ and slash I wanted to do two things: Tell you what happened and throw in a few humorous observations. I did not want to talk down about the product, I didn't want to complain, and I certainly wasn't going to make any blanket statement on the show like some guy did about the nWo/Austin net gun angle on 1wrestling: "IT WAS THAT BAD, DAVE. IT WAS THAT BAD." You know what, buddy? It wasn't. It was weird and awkward, but I was there too and I'll hold off final judgment. Why? Because I haven't seen how it comes off on TV yet and SmackDown is a cooked, highly-edited television show moreso than any other WWF broadcast. SmackDown is less for the live audience than it is for the television audience, which is why I normally choose not to attend SmackDown tapings. I knew what I was getting into when I bought my ticket.

But to each his own.
dskillz
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 191/938
EXP: 1966081
For next: 18616

Since: 2.1.02
From: Houston Texas

Since last post: 3206 days
Last activity: 2911 days
#7 Posted on 28.2.02 1021.53
Reposted on: 28.2.09 1029.01
Getting back to the topic at hand...WO is totally pessimistic on everything WWF related. Even if Dave says he likes something, there is usually a negative remark added to even it out. Dave is a bitter, bitter Smart. Not even a Smark. I amnot saying you have to automatically love what the WWF puts out there, because I don't. I am just saying, go in with an open mind.
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 261/684
EXP: 1224169
For next: 9708

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4472 days
Last activity: 4382 days
#8 Posted on 28.2.02 1025.34
Reposted on: 28.2.09 1029.02
To be fair, Meltzer isn't the "worst" of the WO crowd as far as attitude is concerned. That distinction goes to either Bryan Alvarez or Alex Marvez. I just haven't been able to figure out which, yet.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 362/5403
EXP: 27179165
For next: 673575

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 28.2.02 1103.08
Reposted on: 28.2.09 1129.03
John, you make many good points and provide a good synopsis of why you watch the WWF and continue to enjoy it. I would like to give a slightly different view however:

For me to enjoy watching a show, somehow the balance has to end up with me liking more than I dislike. Sometimes this can be done by one piece of a show being unspeakably awesome, like the in-ring confrontation between Hogan/Rock last week. I left the arena that night feeling like I had seen the best WWF live show since I went to WM13 (another one trick pony). But on balance, the majority of the shows haven't been interesting me as much as they've been disinteresting me. Which I get mad about because I don't enjoy anything as much as I enjoy wrestling when it's good.

Let me make clear also, my lack of enjoyment is not some sort of Meltzer worship, but rather comes from a very "markish" place. I enjoy watching certain people. Others I do not. Not because of backstage garbage or any of that ilk. I have yet to laugh at Chuck and Billy. I have not enjoyed the Undertaker more than 1 out of 20 times the last couple of years. I don't really enjoy watching HHH except on some rare occasions. I complain about Stephanie being on tv not because she's the writer, but because I say "Geez, she is on tv again?!" Conversely, my joys are just as markish as anyone else. And not remotely limited to "smart favorites" I enjoy "What?", I miss Meng, I like The Rock, I enjoy some T&A type matches. But I also love watching Benoit, Tajiri, Storm, etc. Because they are amazing to watch. Chris Benoit is probably one of my five favorite athletes to watch perform over all sports. So when I am unhappy with the WWF, it's not because I have a notepad and I'm tracking the ratio of good transitions in a match, it's because I don't want to sit and watch HHH and Steph trading dumb innuendo about their genitals.

I apologize if it seems like an overreaction to these sorts of posts, but once more I feel like I need to defend myself and others who simply are not enjoying the WWF as much as we would like, but really do WANT to like the WWF. I am the biggest wrestling fan there is. So when I find myself so unhappy and bored that I don't care if I miss a week or two, I don't like where the WWF is going. I don't think anyone WANTS the WWF to fail, except for their rivals and a couple of insane puro-heads. Even Meltzer posted after the Rock/Hogan thing how impressed he was and how that could be the huge turnaround angle they needed. Everyone on the net wants to like wrestling. To those whom are having their standards met for enjoyment by the product week in and week out these days, good for you. But there's no need to generalize or assume closed-mindedness or general geekery on the parts of people who aren't enjoying it as much as you are.

odessasteps
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 204/5065
EXP: 24669448
For next: 380273

Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 101 days
#10 Posted on 28.2.02 1735.51
Reposted on: 28.2.09 1759.02

Well,

1. Glad someone liked my recap. :> That made paying $$ and sitting through a mediocre show (except for Flair and getting to see the developmental talent) worth it.

2. I wrote my SD! report straight because the last time I tried to do something clever, I got lambasted. (For those that don't remember, I tried to be cute and named everyone by one of their old gimmicks. It may be recapped, but I'm not going to go look for it.)

3. I may have pulled off an amazing trifecta with my report, as it posted (as far as I know, without editing) by Meltzer, Scherer and Rick. And it was posted here too, but that would make it more than a trifecta, wouldn't it?

Let me through this question out ... How many people who think Metlzer's web page is too negative also read the print version of the Observer? I do both and I don't see Meltzer as overly negative (except maybe to some of the baffling decisions being made by New Japan).

Qubber
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 157/375
EXP: 496736
For next: 24630

Since: 7.1.02
From: Sheffield, UK

Since last post: 2757 days
Last activity: 2020 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 1.3.02 0630.44
Reposted on: 1.3.09 0659.01
spf2119 has pretty muched summed up my point of view too, so I'll try not to labour the point but there is a general trend on the net to knock anyone who bashes the WWF as "hating wrestling" or being "unwilling to mark out" but why should we have to be happy with what is being put on right now? Yes there is good and bad, but at the same time not once have I seen any of the naysayers say anything like "this is the worst the WWF has ever been", it's just that a lot of us have been watching wrestling for over a decade and there is going to be a certain amount of frustration when you have seen better times than this. There is the greatest talent roster that I have ever seen in the Fed at the moment and when I don't see consistently good shows I might complain about it. This is not because I want the WWF to go the way of WCW, it's because a certain amount of historical perspective allows me to remember that they have entertained me more with less talent on hand.

Also, while some of us may complain about the bad, more often than not you'll find us also praising the good in the "Wrestler X is great" type threads. I watch wrestling because I enjoy it, I just happen to think there's room for improvement in certain areas.

At least at this board there is way more tolerance for someone's point of view, and happily (for the most part) there are not many idiots who feel the need to flame others instead of arguing back logically. I like the fact that a conversation like the one in this thread can happen, it sure wouldn't at some other sites.

Now regarding the spoilers, I don't read spoilers any more because I like to watch the show without someone else's views foisted on me beforehand but when I did read them I was more with Jason's point of view, I'd rather have fact than opinion. I'd rather make my own mind up first then look for others to discuss it with, but thats just personal preference of course.
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 263/684
EXP: 1224169
For next: 9708

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4472 days
Last activity: 4382 days
#12 Posted on 1.3.02 1023.51
Reposted on: 1.3.09 1029.07

    Originally posted by Qubber
    Yes there is good and bad, but at the same time not once have I seen any of the naysayers say anything like "this is the worst the WWF has ever been",
Qubber, just for argument's sake I have to post this:

"Arguably the worst segment in WWF television history aired."

--Ben Miller, 2/28 Smackdown recap, Wrestling Observer website.

I'm just sayin'. :)
Qubber
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 158/375
EXP: 496736
For next: 24630

Since: 7.1.02
From: Sheffield, UK

Since last post: 2757 days
Last activity: 2020 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 2.3.02 0725.15
Reposted on: 2.3.09 0729.02
Hey stop picking on me, I meant the people on this board!
Seriously though, by "we" I mean those of us who complain around here, I hope to God I never come across as bitter and cynical as the WO guys. I like to think I go in and watch a show expecting to be entertained rather than expecting the worst. It's just that when it's not the best show they could do, I may complain about it.
DirkLurker
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 26/84
EXP: 52687
For next: 5664

Since: 2.1.02
From: Syracuse, NY

Since last post: 4474 days
Last activity: 4391 days
#14 Posted on 5.3.02 2053.18
Reposted on: 5.3.09 2059.09
Speaking of Smackdown Spoilers, I'll be going to the April 2nd taping in RockChester, NY, so if Señor CRZ wants a report, post a YaY or NaY!

¡Gracias!

Dirk L.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 466/6018
EXP: 32031569
For next: 435958

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 6.3.02 0047.34
Reposted on: 6.3.09 0059.01
I'm not speaking for CRZ, but I always appreciate an onsite take - especially the dark match stuff. It's an insight I can't get other places... so if you want to post one here, feel free.

I'm sure he would take it for the site if you wrote it up in a narrative as well
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Does anybody like Scott Kieth's reviews?
Next thread: Newsweek screws up! World ends!
Previous thread: Eric S. and 411
(532 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Site Bashing - What a difference a site makes.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.228 seconds.