I've never understood this mentality of making excuses. The WWE is an entertainment product. If you're not entertained, and it's not an issue of differing tastes, you shouldn't blame yourself for it and give the WWE an easy pass, you should blame them. The WWE tells us WrestleMania is going to be the biggest show of the year, hypes it up to the heavens, and then can't deliver it...and they're not the bad guy, you are, because you believed into the hype? The one to be scolded is the one that can't deliver it's own hype.
As always, look at this argument out of context but with the same rules and you'll see that that's the real issue. A politician says "I'm going to do X, Y, and Z". You vote for them. They then don't do it. Don't you say that they suck because they didn't do what they said? You don't say "well, it's my fault for getting my expectations up, taking their word within reason, and assuming they would do it". The WWE, like any other company, requires people trusting their viewpoint and their sales pitches because if they go back on that, they lose their credibility. How many times has TNA said something along the lines of "a major world champion is coming to TNA!" and built it up as someone huge, but then they pull this trump card of "by major world champion, we mean one-time world tag team champion for WWE" or something? It's happened enough that whenever TNA does try to hype something along those lines, you've got the blind "yaaaay!" crowd and then the people that say "yeah but the last time, ___ happened".
The fact of the matter is, you have two choices. A) You expect WrestleMania to deliver because it's supposed to be the one show of the year you can count on being above the rest, no ifs, ands, or buts. You then run the risk of being disappointed if they can't do what they claimed they were going to be able to. B) You don't expect much from WrestleMania, in which case, why are you even a wrestling fan? If you can't expect them to give you something awesome for their #1 most important show of the year, then you clearly don't have even remotely close the same expectations for everything else, and if you expect less than good all the time, why bother?
As for the "you can't please everyone" posts, if you really want to pinpoint every little argument out there, then yes, you could make the case, but then you're just looking for the problems. The divas match, for example. Did some people complain about it seemingly not being on the card? Yes. Did most? No. Cena/Batista have lots of detractors, and it's a 50/50 case, so OF COURSE you're going to get people pissed at both outcomes. Jesus, guys, think about football. You think if the Eagles and the Patriots are against each other, there's an outcome where everyone goes home happy? Fuck no! Someone is going to be disappointed one way or the other, and that person/people might make up the vocal minority or the majority, who knows. You guys want to bitch and complain all the time about people bitching and complaining about never being happy, yet whenever there's an issue that most people agree on, you immediately go straight for the people that disagree and blow it out of proportion as "omg nobody is ever happy".
From my perspective, WrestleMania had an ENORMOUS amount of potential, and it didn't tap into it as much as it should have, and it's for 3 primary reasons: 1) Time. If they would've give the Hart match less time, it wouldn't have come off as badly and it would've given more time for the other matches so they wouldn't have had to end so quickly right when they were picking up steam. The same for the divas match. You cannot possibly argue that that was incredibly important, especially seeing as how we saw the exact same match two days earlier on Smackdown, with the only real difference being that Kelly was the blonde being pinned by Vickie's botched frog splash, not Beth as the blonde being pinned by Vickie's botched frog splash. Eliminate that and you have more time for the others. 2) Personally, I feel not having Jim Ross greatly diminished the atmosphere. Cole, Striker, and Lawler just don't have the energy and ability to pump you up like Ross does. 3) the Money in the Bank match didn't have many spots and most of the few they had were botched by Kofi, so if you added more action to that and pulled it off, it would've given a shot of adrenaline to the somewhat bland crowd, which is another atmosphere/mood issue.
Now, because I had high hopes for WrestleMania, and I wasn't as satisfied as I had hoped, it's suddenly my fault for thinking we'd get something on par with SummerSlam 2009 or better? While I believe if you have unreasonable expectations, you're setting yourself up for disappointment, I don't believe taking things at face value is ever in that category. If you went into WrestleMania XXVI expecting every single match to be a Match of the Year candidate, you're a fucking idiot and yes, you are going to be upset, because that's not going to happen. But if you did like I did, and expected it to be the best ppv of the year with only 2 or 3 hiccup matches that could potentially suck and the rest being on a range from average to "damn, that was a good match", but all consistently being able to be rated as "ok, I'm satisfied", and you just make excuses for the WWE, then you might as well blame yourself for doing that in everything else in life, whether it's a movie that wasn't as good as the trailer looked, some food that didn't taste as good as it smelled, so on and so forth.
