When I first started watching pro wrestling, I was what they call a mark. Over the years I have in a sense become a "smark". But due to this my enjoyment for sports entertainment has waned from time to time. After getting tired of all the jaded opinions of pro wrestling that is produced in North America, I have decided to try to watch wrestling for what it is...entertainment. It's pretty simple actually. If it entertains me for a couple of hours then I consider it a good show. If not, I watch something else. Is this idea obscene to most or am I just being naive?
i've always watched to be entertained, i mean, if i am not entertained, i simply do not watch the show, or, i make it more entertaining by bitching about it to friends. as a "smark" or whatever the hell you want to call me, this is always what i've done. i critique what i see if i do not enjoy it. if i enjoy it, i spout my pleasure about what i've witnessed.
If you had a two-hour show filled with just very good wrestling matches, it might get a little bit boring. If you had a two-hour show filed with just sports-entertainment segments, where's the wrestling?
I think that ideally, one should mix great wrestling with entertaining segments. The segments should be used to help move feuds along, get a good laugh, or explain why two guys are about to wrestle who've had no recent history with one another.
So, it's my opinion that great wrestling matches aren't enough, that you need to have entertaining non-wrestling segments in between matches to help angles. When a great angle with great wrestling is going on, I'm glued to the television.
“And each and every one of you, when you see me, you will not put your eyes directly on me-- you will look to the ground and you will refer to me as 'Lord Master.'”
Kevin Nash, January 17, 2000
Two-Time, Two-Time Randomly Selected Weiner of the Day, 5/27/02 and 7/3/02
Scooter, I don't believe anyone is actively trying not to be entertained (and just hold the Scott Keith jokes until the end please). I know that when I watch every Monday night or during a PPV my only reason for watching is in the hopes that I will be more entertained doing that than by anything else I could be doing.
However, that said, there are many things I simply don't find entertaining. Not because I'm picking apart backstage dealings or trying to look cool on the net, but because the people and the characters they portray in the way they portray them do nothing to entertain me. HHH has not entertained me in a long time. Not because he might be a political cancer or anything of that ilk, but just simply because he does nothing for me. His interviews were never interesting to me, and now he can't go in the ring to entertain me either. All the political stuff only comes into play for me when discussing what might be stopping the show from being able to show more entertaining things to me.
So even though I am a "smart mark" or whatever you wish to call me, I too only hope to be entertained. Perhaps its just that some people are less easily entertained than others. That would explain the success of Adam Sandler I guess ;)
You never know when you'll meet that special someone... the someone that's mysteriously blind to your flaws. or, you know, stupid enough not to realize that yes, you really are that cynical.
I don't think people don't want to enjoy themselves. In fact, I think most people who watch do enjoy watching the show. However, people are naturally going to be more vocal about what they don't like then about what they do. Why should be talk about what the WWF does well? Is it not the WWF's job/goal/whatever to put on quality television? Why is it newsworthy when the WWF does what they are supposed to? Is it news when garbage men come to collect your trash? No, because that's what you expect of them. Now, if they DON'T come get your garbage, THEN you have something to talk about.
Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
Originally posted by Scooter TrashAfter getting tired of all the jaded opinions of pro wrestling that is produced in North America, I have decided to try to watch wrestling for what it is...entertainment. It's pretty simple actually. If it entertains me for a couple of hours then I consider it a good show. If not, I watch something else. Is this idea obscene to most or am I just being naive?
The question is not whether it's meant to be entertainment or not -- obviously, it is, in any context. The question is simply: what is it that entertains YOU? Everyone will answer that question a little differently.
People who complain about today's wrestling (in an in-ring context, in a backstage antics/skits/storyline context, or both) aren't bitching just for the sake of bitching; they're simply not seeing what _they_ feel is an entertaining product. What you feel is an entertaining product may be a very different animal, and since it's all subjective, neither of you are necessarily wrong.
"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_." -- Frank Zappa
I would like to thank everyone for their different insights on the topic. It would seem that the majority tend to agree that everyone is entertained by different things. And VSP asked a question that was close to something that I have been thinking about since opening this discussion, and that was "What did I find interesting". From this, what I wonder is at what point in the past have people felt was most entertaining time for them? I realize that everyone's answer may be different for different reasons. For me I think it was when the NWO first came on the scene in WCW. I remember wanting to watch Nitro each week to see what was going to happen next. It was different, plus there was some great in ring action going on at that time.
I think I became a bit jaded with the WWE's televised product when Raw stretched to two hours. I'd much rather do without the backstage shenanigans and the 'let's look back at...' video montages and have a tighter program. I like to watch wrestling, plain and simple. If I go "wow!!" or "ouch" or "omigod I never saw THAT coming" then I'm entertained.
I thoroughly enjoyed Austin's run from when he was KotR through to his first big feud with Vince. I was immensely entertained by Shawn Michaels back in his IC days, and while I think he's nice to look at, I lost interest in him once he became World champ. That "boy with a dream" stuff...ugh. Kurt Angle entertains me as well.
What doesn't entertain me? ANYthing having to do with owners and commissioners. Evil owner, good owner, co-owners...yuck. This includes *.*Mcmahon, Bischoff, Flair (in that role), Foley (in that role), Regal (in that role), etc.
I guess the part of WWE's 'history' I look back with the most fondness at is the time when PPVs were only a few times a year, and Vince was merely a RAW announcer. Wow...that was a long time ago, wasn't it? :)
I enjoyed Matt Striker talking about Mickie James' "strong inner thighs" and adductor muscles. I'd like to hear much, much more about this. Maybe a PowerPoint presentation next week.