First of all, let me start by thanking you for posting a rebuttal. I appreciate that you took the time, I really do. You got a few jabs in (and I might very well deserve those jabs), but I'll try my hardest to take the high road in this post. That's not a shot at you, but you have acted a bit standoffish from your very first post in this thread (and the other thread, concerning Anderson).
You also have to understand that I have a nine-year-old son, so I can be very patient when dealing with "childish logic" (not that your logic is/was childish, just that I can be extremely patient when I want/need to be). I also don't let my nine-year-old walk all over me. When he's trying to get away with something, I let him know I'm not going to put up with it. Now that all these formalities are out of the way, on to your post:
Your mother must be so proud....
first and foremost i compared it to a booking stand point, if you look at Devons/Pope it has been booked to last, the feud has been progressing in small pieces instead of the crash course booking that we have seen in feuds such as anderson/bully ray.
Okay, you're right. I agreed with you earlier (if you remember), that TNA shouldn't be so "quick-fire" with their booking style. I also agreed with you when I said that the Anderson/Ray feud
did seem to be thrown together hastily, right before the HardCORE Justice PPV. It's not like this is the first time TNA has thrown a feud together this quickly, and it probably won't be the last time either.
The point I tried to make earlier, is that I think TNA has a real opportunity to do something cool with the Anderson/Ray feud (especially after what happened to Mr. Anderson on the last episode of Impact). My feeling is that this feud
could progress into something really cool, and last Thursday's Impact furthered the story of their feud. There's no way that the Anderson/Ray feud is over yet, because Anderson will definitely be looking to exact his revenge on Bully Ray (and Immortal) when he returns to Impact.
I think it's too early to judge the Anderson/Ray feud, because it's not over yet. TNA has the opportunity to make Anderson/Ray an awesome feud...whether or not TNA takes this opportunity (and turns it into something "special") remains to be seen. IMHO, I believe that the "seeds" were planted on Impact this past Thursday, and the Anderson/Ray feud will eventually become a LOT more entertaining than the Devon/Pope feud. Before you get upset with me for saying that -- please understand that this is just my opinion of a hypothetical situation (I'm speculating that Anderson/Ray will be more entertaining, I have no way of knowing until I see it unfold on television).
Is this a fact? No, it's not. It's just an opinion,
my opinion. We'll have to wait and see what TNA does with the Anderson/Ray feud before either one of us can actually decide what we think about it. I know you have a different opinion on this, all I ask is that you please respect my opinion (and not call me an "idiot" for thinking this way).
and if you werent so ignorant you would actually understand the process of real wrestling, do you know what real wrestling is?, of course not becuase your just a casual fan.
When did I ever claim to be anything
but a fan of Pro Wrestling? I freely admit that I have absolutely ZERO experience in the Pro Wrestling business. I've never held
any job with
any wrestling federation, the closest I've ever got to being in "the business" was performing wrestling holds/moves with my friends. I don't mean a "real wrestling match" or anything, I just mean that I have slapped a full-nelson on a buddy before (for example). Obviously I'm just an opinionated long-time fan, and that's all.
Do I think I could "make it" as a booker, or any other occupation in the wrestling business? Not in the least. I have zero experience in this field, the only knowledge I have of the business is the years of watching wrestling on TV, what I've read online, seen on DVDs/web-videos/interviews, etc. So yes, your use of the word "ignorant" is definitely appropriate in this context. You also have to understand that almost everyone in the wrestling business that "made it" must have started off as "an opinionated fan" (just like you & I). You would have to be interested enough in Pro-Wrestling to pursue a career in that field. I'm not saying that I could become an outstanding employee of a wrestling company overnight, but I believe I could learn -- if given the opportunity. I probably won't ever pursue a job/career in the wrestling business, so don't worry about that. I'm just saying that I
think I could give it a fair shake, if I chose to pursue a job in an indie-federation or something. Hell, most of the posters on these forums could do the exact same thing (that includes you,
Deexter Jorgan)...I definitely don't think I'm "
special" in that way, I'm just saying that I look at
most of the posters here as peers/equals.
However, I don't agree with your opinion that I don't know what "real wrestling is"...just because I disagree, doesn't make it so. You could be right, maybe I don't know what "real wrestling is". I definitely don't know all of the "ins & outs" of the wrestling business, but I feel that I understand the basics of what makes a wrestling show entertaining to watch. Also, I never claimed to know anything more than the basics of wrestling. Maybe you're right, maybe I really don't know a damn thing...but I know more than a "casual fan" would.
Your use of the term "casual fan", I don't necessarily agree with either (when directed at me). I think of a "casual fan" as someone who only watches once in a while, or maybe someone who just reads spoilers online. I think the correct term for someone like me is a "wrestling nerd" (LOL!). I just enjoy watching the product, and I thought it was perfectly acceptable to post my personal opinions in these forums about what I do/don't like about TNA, WWE, or any other promotion. I thought that was perfectly acceptable, but you seem to think that every time I disagree with you that it's some sort of personal attack. No one is attacking you personally, it's just that someone may have a different opinion than you. Opinions are not facts, they're just opinions.
I look at these forums as a fun way for us to talk about our opinions of the business. There will obviously be many differences of opinion on these forums, because not everyone thinks the same way. IMHO, we should be respectful if we choose to voice our opinions here...and if we disagree with someone on the forums, we should be respectful when doing so. Again, this is NOT a fact, or a WZ rule or anything. ...it's just
my opinion.
It wasn't a rant dick you were trying to show me up, I proved on numerous ocassions that Russo's booking is frustrating and no one in this thread who is attempting to defend TNA has yet to establish the fact why you think TNA is in the right by turning its midcard division into a niche division.
Okay, this is true. I
was trying to show you up. To be fair though, you were trying to show me up first (along with trying to "show up" other posters). I know this logic is childish (in its own right), but I was just trying to give you a taste of your own medicine. It doesn't feel too good when you're talked down to, does it? If you'd like to be treated with respect when you post, you should respect others and their posts. If you want to be treated like a jerk, then you can keep posting like you know better than everyone else. Not everyone is going to put up with you acting that way, however. Someone will definitely speak right back to you in a disrespectful manner if you choose to disrespect them first.
Like I said in an earlier post, you are
definitely not the first person to voice their disapproval of TNA's booking style, and you definitely won't be the last. I agree with you; IMHO TNA should stick to a more linear form of booking. TNA would probably be easier to watch if the wrestlers stayed heel or face for a longer period of time...instead of the type of booking they've been doing; trying to constantly "shock" the viewer with all the heel-turns/face-turns/swerves.
Lance storm has stated this and Vince concurs on the fact that title belts are championships, no one likes to use the word belt, a belt is what is used to hold up your pants and a prop in terms of entertainment value is just that, no one wants to compete for a prop, they want to compete to show that they can carry the company and be the damn best!, now if you dont think that then why the hell do you even watch wrestling?.
I think you might have taken what I said earlier about Wrestling Titles being "props" and just heard what you wanted to hear (read what you wanted to read). First & foremost, a wrestling show (whether watched in person, or on television) provides a certain level of "entertainment" to the viewer/fan. The WWE acknowledges this fact, since the "E" in "WWE" stands for entertainment, and they call their product "Sports Entertainment" - instead of "Professional Wrestling". We all know Pro Wrestling is just an "act", with the outcomes being scripted...right?
What you call the "Championship Belts" doesn't really matter here. Yes, a "belt" is something that holds up your pants...but Championship Belts in Wrestling, MMA, Boxing, etc are all still "belts" at the end of the day. They are designed to be worn around the Champion's waist...right?
I definitely agree that these "Championships" should go to the wrestlers that most deserve to hold them. The Pro Wrestler who holds a Championship for their company should be a hard-worker, and someone who takes pride in their work. All I was trying to say earlier is that the decision of who holds these Championships (in Pro Wrestling) is decided behind the scenes. What we see on TV (when a Championship changes hands in Pro Wrestling) was planned out by the head booker, and the finish of the match was told to the wrestlers before they were sent to the ring to "compete" for the Championship.
This "competition" for the Championship(s) that you speak of aren't "real" competitions. They're staged fights, that are meant to entertain the fans. The fans are the ones that give the Wrestling Company their money, so the Championship matches are obviously the most important matches on the Wrestling card. Of course we (as fans) want to see a convincing "competition", but we all know it isn't a "real" fight. The match's ending was cooked up backstage before the match took place, like I talked about earlier. At the end of the day, the Championship Belt will be held by whichever wrestler is the biggest draw (a wrestler who is over with the crowd). Wrestlers become big draws by exciting the fans - either by pissing them off (if they're a heel), or making them cheer for them (if they're a face).
At the end of the day, a wrestling Championship Belt is just a trophy (prop) given to a wrestler because they earned it. The wrestler who holds a championship has to work hard to be given the opportunity to hold it, but it still wasn't won in the spirit of "competition" in the wrestling ring. It was given to the wrestler because the company feels that the wrestler will be able to make the company money (by holding the belt).
Take a guy like Kurt Angle for example: he was recently "given" the TNA World Title because TNA believes it's good for business. Did Angle work hard to get that title? You're damn right he did. Angle strives to have the best match on the card, every night he wrestles. TNA feels they can trust him to hold their World Title, because he will make the company money. They wouldn't put their World Title on a guy like Abyss right now, because they know that the fans would shit all over that idea. Seriously, we (the IWC) would absolutely HATE to see Abyss with that belt right now. They could still give Abyss the title if they wanted to, because the belt isn't a "real" championship. All wrestling titles are props, for a television show about "fake" wrestling competitions. I'm not saying those guys aren't "real" athletes...because they are. Just that the competitions are pre-determined, or they're fighting a "fixed" fight.
I get annoyed by idiots like you claiming that you can provide facts but have yet to state anything that is factworthy, you have done nothing to back up your claims which IMO sound like someone who would rather kiss Russo's arse then admit there is a problem with TNA in general in terms of booking, Im not a WWE mark because i stress that there are also problems in the WWE also but atleast they are attempting to rectify it and work on booking more long term storylines that both the casual and avid wrestling fan can sink their teeth into.
What?? I've admitted that I think there are flaws in Russo's booking several times in this thread. Go back and read some of my older posts, if you don't believe me. I'm definitely not kissing "Russo's arse", either. I simply stated that he has been known (in the past) to help push "new stars". That was the entire main point of my last post in this thread.
As far as I understand things, Russo did push for Jeff Jarrett to feud with Stone Cold in the WWF for example. Stone Cold didn't want to feud with Jarrett, because he didn't feel he was a big enough star. Stone Cold was right, look what happened with Jarrett. He was Russo's golden-boy for a while, but never drew a dime as a main-eventer (at least not compared to the likes of Stone Cold, The Rock, etc).
My point is that Russo wanted to give Jarrett a chance to succeed (or fail, as he did). Russo also did the same thing with Booker T in WCW, and that turned out pretty well.
A wrestler is not an actor, I've studied acting, I've worked as both wrestler and actor and would never insist that both are one in the same, a prop is used by an actor to enhance their environment were in wrestling a title is an achievement, anyone who wins won is the best in their division whether it be Midcard, World or even tag team, I would never consider an award for a performance a damn prop would I? so your point is moot.
Wrestlers are given "lines" to deliver during promos, and stuff...right? Aren't actors also given lines? Why do some wrestlers take acting lessons, and learn how to deliver a "perfect" promo? I also don't think that wrestling dialogue & an actor's dialogue are exactly the same...but, just for fun -- we should ask Mickey Rourke, an actor who played a wrestler in a movie (and did a pretty good job of it). Maybe we could ask Hogan, The Rock, Big Show or Stone Cold - they've all acted in movies & on TV.
Both actors & wrestlers have to deliver dialogue...and do it convincingly enough to make the audience believe what they're saying is "real". That, my friend, is a FACT.
It's idiots like you that make sure that idiots like Russo stay in this business, you attempt to justify bad booking from someone who sees this business as nothing, the guy has no idea what wrestling is, or what a title means to those competing for it, you just echo his bullshit and attempt to justify it by making a comparison to an industry that has nothing to do with wrestling only that it is another form of entertainment, you want to get into a debate about the comparison than actually show me some similarities between the two genres of entertainment because so far Vince attempting to incorperate wrestlers into the acting genre isnt working, and incorperating an actor who cant wrestle into wrestling storylines wont work either, why do you think david arquette being wcw champion pissed people off?, because he couldnt wrestle and the fact that he won that title belt didnt help matters at all for a bad wrestling company which inevitably died.
First, I'm not trying to justify Russo's "bad booking". I'm merely trying to understand it, and enjoy it. If someone seems confused as to what's going on, I'll try to explain it to them (just like I explained what I think is happening with the Anderson/Bully Ray feud).
Second, there are plenty of similarities between the "two genres of entertainment" (the two genres being wrestling, and other TV shows/movies). Similarity one: they're both broadcasted on television. Similarity two: actors & wrestlers are both given lines of dialogue to say on television. Similarity three: people watch these shows because they're entertaining.
Third, Vince has attempted to incorporate wrestlers into movies and TV. I disagree when you say that it "isn't working". My strongest example? Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Dwayne has had more success in the "acting genre" than any wrestler before him, and maybe any wrestler after him. Is Dwayne's career just a fluke? It's possible, since Hogan tried, Austin tried, Big Show tried, Kane tried, Cena tried, DiBiase Jr. tried, Piper tried, HHH tried, etc...
Just because
most of the wrestlers aren't going to be as big as The Rock doesn't mean that it "isn't working". We have proof that it has worked, with The Rock. Hogan has probably had the second most success in the acting field, he made a lot of movies in the early 1990s and even had that "Thunder in Paradise" TV show.
You're right when you say that Vince McMahon has tried to incorporate wrestlers into the acting genre. But I believe you're wrong when you say that it "isn't working". All of those crappy WWE straight-to-DVD releases ("The Chaperone", "See No Evil", "The Marine", etc) still made money. I don't think the WWE would keep trying to bridge that gap if they weren't confident they could make a profit in doing so.
Bullshit, Give me proof vince said this otherwise your making all this up to make yourself sound intelligent which my friend your failing to do.
This is your response to when I said that all wrestling bookers think of the Wrestling Championship Belts as "props", including Vince McMahon.
You're right, I was "making all this up". I assumed that Mr. McMahon treats his belts as "props", because he gives them to a wrestler for "being over". The wrestlers aren't going to the ring to have a "real" fight for the belt (like they do in a MMA ring, for example).
I explained this earlier in this post...I will just say that the belt is essentially a "prop", because the fight in which it is won is "fictional". Like I already said, the wrestlers aren't going out there for a "real fight", they're going out there to put on an entertaining match...not a real fight, like MMA fighters would have. These wrestlers finish this "fight" the way they were told to finish it. They don't really compete for anything, unless you count backstage politicking & working hard in the ring.
[/SIZE][/B]Actually not so much, actually a champion is decided by the head booker, not the writer, not you, not a share holder, its decided by the main booker in the company guys like Vince, haymen (with ecw), Jerry Jarett, Jim Cornette to name a few, a champ is not defined in a board room.
Okay, now you're just splitting hairs. You understood what I meant, the champion is decided by someone behind the scenes. Sorry I didn't word it perfectly for you, I'll work harder on pleasing you next time.
Who filtered Russo?, Vince Mcmahon, do i have to mention David Arquette in WCW again?
Yes, you're correct. Now you're repeating a fact you heard on a WWE DVD ("The Rise and Fall of WCW"). I know because I've seen the same DVD.
I remember seeing an interview (on the internet) with Vince Russo about putting the title on David Arquette. Russo said that he came up with the original idea, but presented it to several other people. He said that everyone else thought it was a good idea as well, and that everyone who originally agreed with him immediately backpedaled once the fans became rabid (when Arquette actually won the title).
I don't know if this is a fact or not, as this is just something Russo said. He could be lying, just to cover his ass. I don't know for sure, but either way it was a mistake to put the WCW title on Arquette. I think even Russo would admit that now, but I don't know for sure (I'd like to think that he would, at the very least).
Yeah I'm the jackass, the guy who actually gives reason and facts, your the guy whose attempting to make me seem like an idiot to put yourself over as a good poster, but your so full of yourself that you ignored the facts that have been put infront of you, Vince made the Attitude era and everyone who contributed to it helped, no one made styles, no one made any of the guys you just stated above and the fact that you infere that a wrestling championship is a prop means you no nothing about the business, nothing about its legacy and nothing about the people that helped build it, so you can call me all the names you want but until you actually start stating facts you will always be an ignorant little man.
Dude, get off your high-horse. I gave plenty of facts too, you just chose to ignore them. The only reason I think of myself as "a good poster" is because I try to be respectful of everyone -- unless they disrespect me, or another poster. Then the gloves come off.
Yes, Vince McMahon "made" the Attitude Era. But he also had Russo & Ferrara whispering in his ear. Ultimately, it was up to Vince. But Russo was there, providing creative input as well.
You're also right, when you say that a wrestler pretty much has to "make" themself. A character mainly gets over because of the wrestler (or actor) who portrays the character. The bookers/writers help a bit too though, by putting these characters in positions where they'll look strong, or weak (whichever is necessary to further the character's development). The booking does matter, although not as much as the wrestler's work in the ring and ability to convince the fans that they are main event material.
Btw - I never said that Vince Russo "made" Stone Cold, or The Rock, or anyone else I mentioned. I just said that he provided them with storylines that helped to propel them to the top of the card (the main event).
Jesus Christ, this has to be my longest post to date. Now, if you should choose to respond to this post, Deexter Jorgan -- please make note that I was respectful to you and your opinions in this post. I would appreciate the same level of respect if you choose to respond.
