IWC=Oscar voters

[deadtaker]

With the Oscars on last night it got me thinking about how the movies that get nominated for Best Picture and other major categories are similar to how the internet wrestling community judge what is good and bad in wrestling and how it correlates to popularity and especially money.

The IWC judge wrestlers based on there actual in ring ability who speaks the best, who does what right, and tend to be on the side of people who tend to be not so popular and who comes from the indie circuit. People like CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, and Antonio Cesaro get good marks while people like John Cena gets ridiculed. It is similar to the oscars, as one of my friends stated, the movies I liked never get nominated. The IWC are like the movie critics who judge and analyze everything in the ring but doesn't necessarily go with the mass audience that follow those things

The Avengers made over a Billion dollars but was only nominated in one category. It was an entertaining movie but was exactly a great movie in terms of acting, story, or anything else of the sort. It appealed to the mass public but not the people who are there to give it awards. Its like the John Cena of the movie world. Cheesey, not great storytelling, but won't get any points with the people who look for that stuff.

Sometimes you get movies just like wrestlers that please the mass public and the critics. The Undertaker, Stone Cold, The Rock, Ric Flair, Shawn Micheals all achieve rave reviews from the mass wrestling iewership and the IWC. Just like movies like Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump make huge sums of money and won awards from people who look into those this.

Its the Mark Madden A+ type thing where they achieved everything. Entertaining, deep, well spoken, and draw money. You can appreciate all the finer points you want but thats not what sells.

 

[dakikko049]

In some respects this is true. It is true with the video game world as well. Many "nerdier" people laugh at and put down stuff like Call of Duty and Halo, whilst piling praise on lesser known games that make a fraction of the money CoD makes. At the end of the day, it's hard to argue with success. People aren't stupid. The only reason they buy things, play things or watch things, is because they think they're entertaining.

The only thing is pretty much everybody I spoke to found the Avengers entertaining, whether they were adults, teens or little kids. This is something that can't be said about Cena. I would say most people would ridicule Cena. The people who dont watch wrestling at all would probably think Cena is a joke, whereas I'm sure most people here think that these other guys, like Punk and Bryan, could do a far better job at entertaining these non wrestling fans. It's hard to compare just how well superstars can draw when so much relies on the booking. Over the past few years, by putting Cena in almost every main event, the WWE tell us that he is the most important guy here. Cena draws more than every CURRENT WWE star because he is the only one given a chance.

I'd rather look at the eras. The PG era gets ratings far lower than those seen over a decade ago, and it gets pooped on by the majority of us "critics". The attitude era on the other hand, is seen by most of us as a top quality era, rated highly by all. Not only that, it also drew huge ratings and popularity.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

What you have to understand about the Oscars is that it's not a "People's Choice" awards ceremony or a popularity contest (for the most part). The Motion Picture Academy is voting based on their own criteria. These are not just the average person but industry professionals. This means, that they see movies different than you and I. So while a movie might appeal to the masses for entertainment value (see Avengers as you mentioned), from a technical standpoint, artistic standpoint and whatever else the professionals judge it by, it's not the "best" movie.

In other words, the Oscars aren't telling us what movies are the most popular (we can see that by the box office numbers) and most popular doesn't always equal "best." They're telling us what movies the Academy thinks are the best.

As for how it relates to WWE, the "best" guys aren't always the most popular and the most popular guys aren't always the "best."

 

[dtroppe]

=
=The only thing is pretty much everybody I spoke to found the Avengers entertaining, whether they were adults, teens or little kids. This is something that can't be said about Cena. I would say most people would ridicule Cena. The people who dont watch wrestling at all would probably think Cena is a joke, whereas I'm sure most people here think that these other guys, like Punk and Bryan, could do a far better job at entertaining these non wrestling fans. It's hard to compare just how well superstars can draw when so much relies on the booking. Over the past few years, by putting Cena in almost every main event, the WWE tell us that he is the most important guy here. Cena draws more than every CURRENT WWE star because he is the only one given a chance.

Are you crazy? Not everyone liked the Avengers! It was cartoony and corny. But I disagree with your whole point. Cena is at the top cause he is a star. Punk and Brian can't draw. If a non wrestling fan saw Punk- they wouldnt even know he was a wrestler. He is crap on the mic and look like a noodle. Tell stone cold and the Rock that no one is given a chance. Those two had lousy gimmicks and were stars from the minute they did their own thing. Guys that have it shine through the bullshit and politics because they are just too good. Era means nothing. Stone cold became a huge success before the attitude era kicked into high swing. So did the rock.

 

[deadtaker]

Booking and chance is similar to how movies have marketing and backing(money). A movie like Avengers will be given more money, more marketing, and a better chnce to succeed even though its cartoony and corny. People call Cena the same thing but he still draws, not all people will like him.

Movies and Wrestling are fake and succeed based on how they are presented. Either booking, backing, style, look. Big, bodybuilder, strong is the gold equivalent to special effects, fast paced, and action in movies. Not all movies with the backing work like John Carter just like not all wrestlers with the look and size work out like Great Khali.

Best in the IWC doesn't always equate to best in drawing. Hulk Hogan drew more than Ric Flair but nodoby would say he is better. John Cena draws more than CM Punk but IWC would prefer Punk. HHH drew better than Kurt Angle but Angle was the better in ring guy. Other guys like Benoit, Guerrero, Jericho, Bret Hart, Daniel Byran all have to prove themself over and over again while a guy who looks the part like Big Show, Brock Lesner, Yokozuna, Goldberg get pushed quick because they look better.

They look like the big budget blockbuster who will carry the show/load and draw the money. While the smaller guys will be the smart intelligent and guys you appreciate once you start looking more deeply into it and appreciate all the other little/subtle stuff. Like the oscars movies like Silver Lining Playing, Argo, and Lincoln are all good movies if you look for the smart, deeper things that just bangs, cheesey lines, and cartoony gimmicks

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The only difference is that the oscar voters typically understand movie making. Anyone who thinks Cena is anything short of "great" is a moron. Not subjectively, not just my opinion. When Meltzer, Alvarez, Race, Funk, Flair, RVD, Punk, and Samoa Joe say the guy is damn good...he's damn good. Whether it's cool to say so or not it is.

The IWC is collectively narcissistic. They don't know as much as they think and putting them on the same level as Oscar voters is insane. At the end of the day, a pro wrestler's job is to get over. If you're over, you're good. A push doesn't get you over, you get you over. Then you get pushed more. A "technical" (which how the fuck 99.99% of IWC people know what good technique is without ever being trained is beyond me) match in front of a crowd that hates technical wrestling is a bad match. You play to your audience, not your virgin wannabe hipster fans.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Are you crazy? Not everyone liked the Avengers! It was cartoony and corny. But I disagree with your whole point. Cena is at the top cause he is a star. Punk and Brian can't draw. If a non wrestling fan saw Punk- they wouldnt even know he was a wrestler. He is crap on the mic and look like a noodle. Tell stone cold and the Rock that no one is given a chance. Those two had lousy gimmicks and were stars from the minute they did their own thing. Guys that have it shine through the bullshit and politics because they are just too good. Era means nothing. Stone cold became a huge success before the attitude era kicked into high swing. So did the rock.

Stone Cold, yes, but PULEASE with the Rock bullshit. He never paid his dues toiling in the indies. he was brought in and given what Vince thought was a golden gimmick, it failed, then he was allowed to do this thing and be brashed and was pushed. Like I said, ultimately, you get you over, not the push. But Rock pretty much started his career in the WWE. Don't act like he had this huge struggle.