I started posting at this place because I heard it was good. It seemed like there some smart people here, and to tell you the truth there are. There are a lot of good posts here, good arguements.
But it's all weighed down by the negativity.
You know, it's one thing watching internet smarks who are all about facts and ratings cry about how Triple H is ruining everything backstage, when none of them know ANY of the facts aside from what wrestling newsboards, WRESTLING F'N NEWSBOARDS, tell them. You don't know if any of that is true, and neither do I. That's one example of negativity, but that is the kind of stuff you are always going to have no matter what.
But then there are the people who obviously don't like wrestling at all. I'm talking about people who say wrestling sucks now, and the future of it sucks, and wrestling is never going to be good. These are the people who say the GM angle already failed before it started. Maybe it will fail, but these people aren't even giving it a chance.
But these same people who don't like wrestling now and supposedly know it won't get better, still keep watching every week and still make threads breaking down every little detail of the show and find all the negativity, when they don't think it can even get better in the future. So if you think it's going to suck anyway, seriously, this is my question. Why do you watch?
People are going to take this to heart, I know, but I am just asking a question I don't know the answer to. I just want to hear some reasons why they still watch a show they hate and according to them will not get better because the WWF is destined to fail with every major angle. Why do you watch?
Even to the fans here who still think wrestling is entertaining, why do you watch?
I watch because it's still fun to watch. It's still entertainment, and it's a hell of a lot better than what's on the tube right now, but the product has been going downhill for quite some time. I just want it to get better, I don't care how they do it.
"Young lady, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson
I rarely watch it at all anymore, though I do watch it if I happen to be in the right place at the right time.
I watch for two reasons these days:
Because A) There are performers who still entertain me. I still enjoy to watch Booker T, The Rock, RVD, and all of them despite the total shitswamp they're in. Sometimes, WWE will also stumble onto writing an entertaining segment or two.
And B) The complete self-destruction of WWE is entertaining to watch. HHH's ascention to power has been very interesting to follow and it's amazing how this guy has attained so much leverage despite his lack of tangibility as an asset to WWE. They brought in Vince Russo, then didn't. They bring in ERIC BISCHOFF of all people. They brought in the nWo. It's been pretty obvious since they started doing this that none of them would do them any good. Soon, they'll bring in Goldberg and they'll be out of tricks (unless they can get Bret Hart out of his hospital bed)
None of these things are helping at all and the root of all their problems (bad writing, due to Stephanie and possibly HHH) isn't getting solved. They're trying to solve the problem by not solving the problem. That's funny.
They can't have it both ways and their struggle to do so has resulted in some funny consequences. I don't think it's because they don't learn, but because they don't want to learn. The numbers speak for themselves, but Vince isn't listening.
It's not that I'm "negative" or that I'm wishing failure upon them, it's that I KNOW they'll fail. And I'm usually right. I miss the days when I could get excited for a wrestler and the matches that I want to see, but everything just ends up getting ruined in the end, so why should I care? I only watch to see, not if, but HOW they'll mess up these days. That's why I watch these days, unfortunately.
About every 4 weeks one of these threads comes up. I'm not going to rehash the arguments... I'll just counter one point.
Don't assume that people are pre-judging the GM angle based out of ignorance. If this were a novel idea - something we had never seen before - then having an opinion on it would be ignorant. The fact is, we've been down this road before.
Imagine for a second the following scenario... You sit down to eat dinner in a five star restaurant - one with a chef with a reputation for greatness. This is your first time eating there... and you wait in hushed expectation for your dinner. After a few cocktails, your food arrives - but something is odd. It looks like a steaming pile of shit. Now, since you are new here, and you don't want to offend the chef - you give it a chance. Oops - you just ate shit.
You're pretty jaded now... but someone talks you into going back to that restaurant. Now, you are faced with that plate of shit again. Sure, it's garnished a little different - maybe there is a side dish of Ham this time - but you are pretty sure it's that same pile of shit.
Now - do you give it a chance - or do you trust your instincts? Maybe the shit will taste different this time - but it probably won't. It's still a steaming plate of shit no matter how you slice it.
Past reputation is not what is important, you need to be able to identify shit when you see it.
To tell you the truth that's a good analogy, but what if it's a different meal this time? Last time you had steak, this time it's swordfish. The steak might have sucked, but the swordfish could turn out to be great. I know it isn't like this for everybody, but I like to see how it plays out before I judge it.
Let's take the analogy one step further. Lately your standards for the restaurant was lower so you go in expecting shit and you usually get shit, but once in a while you have a piece of licorice inside of the shit. Or in another scenario, what if the silverware is so fancy sometimes you don't realize you're eating shit until there's a brown milk ad-esque stripe running down your lips. Or what if ALEX WRIGHT WAS THE WAITER AT THIS RESTAURANT!?!!?!
The MCG needs sleep, but vengeance was good enough for me to ignore the bischoff/steffie mcjuggs factor.......for now.
Well, I have to give you credit for being consistently positive, and hell-- I hope you're right. I'm just not convinced that you are.
The Bischoff vs. Stephanie RAW vs. SmackDown! thing might turn out to be interesting-- but why would it be more interesting than Flair vs. McMahon, co-owners of the company? Compared to Flair and Vince, who the hell are Bischoff and Stephanie?
(edited by ekedolphin on 22.7.02 1316) “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
One possible difference may be the reduction of Vince on our TVs. He was a great foil for Austin, etc, etc, but geez, I'm always DYING for the guy to just go away. That has been true at times for the other MacMahons, but I think we'll see a lot less of Stephanie after the initial period of the "GM Era" than we've been seeing of her dad, freeing up more time for the wrestlers. That in and of itself is a godsend.
WyldeWolf1 The Man of 1,007 holds, making him 3 holds better than Chris Jericho!
Rad T, the answer is in your question. Almost all your posts are smark bashing ones like this so the reason you stay around is probably the same reason everyone here still watches the WWe.(unless your a troll.)
Also when you keep starting threads complaining about negativity it is bound to cause people to try and justify their complaints. Which just results in a lot more negativity than was there in the first place.
If you stop inciting the negativity i think you will find this board is a balanced and pleasant place.
Well, actually I think the GM thing could lead to a unique angle if done right. It could lead to an honest-to-goodness battle of the brands. The problem with Ric Flair vs. Vince McMahon was that it really wasn't Ric Flair vs. Vince McMahon. They, for most of the period they ran the angle, were really on the same side, running the same angle we've seen before (evil owner vs. face wrestler).
Now Invasion in theory could be similar, but that was mishandled for many reasons, but bottomline is in the end of the day ECW/WCW was not equal to WWE, making it all too one-sided. However, if the battle becomes WWE Raw vs. WWE Smackdown, there is no reason to think one would be thought of in higher terms than the other. But they do need to put this on the slow burner. They need to build the brand uniqueness, once they've decided how they want to redistribute the wrestlers. Then they will have to create a reason for fans to care about a RAW vs. Smackdown feud. I think this will take some time. (so if Vince & Co. are planning this as a quick fix scheme, it probably will fail).
I can understand why some wouldn't exactly have faith that the WWE could pull such an angle off after the whole Invasion thing. But then again, this whole scenerio is a complete guess on my part, I don't know that's where they are going with it yet. Using the analogy, I'm not sure if it's shit yet. I'm going to have to look at it and smell if first, not assume. I'm not 100% sure we've been down this road before. To do so, I must assume where the angle is going. I think you have to let the angle take a step or two down a path before you can say you know for sure where it is heading.
Also, using the analogy, if after going to a restaurant that has twice served you shit, are you going to keep going to the restaurant thinking it's going to change? Or are you going to eventually assume that the restaurant always serves shit, and apparently there are people who DO go enjoy the shit, and maybe this restaurant's not for you, and stop going? Myself, if I ate shit once, I would never go back. But's that just me I suppose.
CRZ stopped going to the restaurant. I respect that a lot more than someone who moans and groans about the restaurant, but keeps coming back every single week.