Think technology is aprt of the WWE's undoing?

[Kane Knight]

Disclaimer: For the msot part I blame the lack of solid programming on behalf of the WWE for their failings. It's hard to keep interest in something when the characters are boring and the wrestling is lackluster. However, for a moment, consider the following:

In the last 50 years or so, we've gone from a nation that was impressed when we turned a camera on its side to make George Reeves fly to a nation that nitpicks how realistic the hair on Aslan's mane is. Entertainment, be it music, TV, or movies, is more about slick production

As a more recent example, we went from a culture that marvelled at the effects of Star Wars, where a sock puppet chased the millenium falcon, to a culture that balked about how unconvincing CGI Yoday was in the new Star Wars. In about 25 years.

I think that we, as a culture, are losing our imagination. Do you think this affects how we're viewing wrestling? Do you think people are no longer as capable of suspending disbelief as they once were, to the point that they really don't "buy" wrestling anymore?

Imagination is a key component of making wrestling work. You have to let yourself believe in this shit. Even great wrestling requires your mind to do some work, to believe in it.

Now, I don't absolve poor writing or boring wrestlers, but between the Hulkamania era and the Attitude era, you saw an increase in production value and the "believability" of wrestling. Since then, the production has remained roughly the same, and the workrate has really gone down for the most part. At the same time, we're seeing bigger, better, flashier and shiner objects everywhere else. Does this hurt its pop culture appeal?

[ddpBANG]

I find it funny that TNA tries to be bigger, better, flashier and shinier, but everybody hates them for it.

[Kane Knight]

I find it funny that TNA tries to be bigger, better, flashier and shinier, but everybody hates them for it.

Between piss-poor production, lackluster "entertainment" and low believability, there something in TNA for everyone to hate, imagination or not.

[dablackguy]

I think you my friend may be on to something, but what that is, I am unsure :)

[Innovator]

For the most part back in the 70's, you genuinly hated or loved wrestlers. You hated the heels and loved the faces, there was no like or dislike. Now a days the characters get picked apart so much that you can't love or hate someone, and can't get drawn into the product.

[Kane Knight]

For the most part back in the 70's, you genuinly hated or loved wrestlers. You hated the heels and loved the faces, there was no like or dislike. Now a days the characters get picked apart so much that you can't love or hate someone, and can't get drawn into the product.

That would work if everyone was an internet smark.

[PullMyFinger]

I think everyone is being a little too hard on TNA, but I'd rather have a wrestling program stick to tradition rather than attempt to be "THE NEW FACE OF WRESTLING WE HAVE 6 SIDES WERE CRAZY !!!!!!!!!!!!"

Anyhow, I truly believe that the lack of other wrestling companies is what has created the downfall. People love competition and the people win.

Even during Hulkamania, the NWA was huge in the South...

But as far as I'm concerned, WWE will not get popular again by itself. I don't know how long it'll take...but I seriously hope TNA ditches that whole 6 sides and becomes a legit contender - eventually in 3 yrs moving to Monday nights.

[PullMyFinger]

That would work if everyone was an internet smark.
see: Impact Zone.

[Innovator]

That would work if everyone was an internet smark.For the non smarks, the blame falls on the workers and creative for not being able to get that character to the next level, so they can be loved or hated.

[Kane Knight]

For the non smarks, the blame falls on the workers and creative for not being able to get that character to the next level, so they can be loved or hated.

Do you think that the change in peception over the last 20 years might play a part though?

[Kane Knight]

After all, I did start the thread with this...

Disclaimer: For the msot part I blame the lack of solid programming on behalf of the WWE for their failings. It's hard to keep interest in something when the characters are boring and the wrestling is lackluster. However, for a moment, consider the following:

[Innovator]

No doubt, I mean people today aren't easily impressed with things, and generally are quicker to be cynical. What you said about Yoda is directly related to how people view wrestling. Nowadays the wrestlers can't work an armbar for 15 minutes or have a slow methodical match without people chanting boring, or getting apathy which is the kiss of death.

[Pepsi Man]

You make plenty of points in your initial post, but personally, I don't see high production and technological marvels as having too much of a hand in the current state of the WWE. Sure, you could blame television and the internet for ruining a bunch of "surprises" and "secrets", but outside of that, I don't think it's the technology to blame.

If there weren't so much "shooting" and such going on, I think it would be a lot easier for even the casuals to suspend some disbelief and get into the show. That's just my opinion. Personally, I never really hated ALL the heels or loved all the faces.

When I was younger and my favorite guys would turn heel, I'd sympathize with them and usually agree with the points they made.

But overall, I think the WWE has good enough production that it's not really a matter of technology bypassing the WWE. If it does play a role, it plays a very small role is what I guess I'm trying to say.

[Kane Knight]

If there weren't so much "shooting" and such going on, I think it would be a lot easier for even the casuals to suspend some disbelief and get into the show.

Even though those same casuals are the ones who find things so unconvincing everywhere else?

[Pepsi Man]

Even though those same casuals are the ones who find things so unconvincing everywhere else?
Yes. I'm not saying you're not making a great point, but even still, that's my take on it.

[Corkscrewed]

Splashy effects and eye candy might dull a sense of believability, but a good story will always hook the viewers, regardless of special effects or anything else that's superficial.

Year after year, you get your campy summer blockbusters, but how many of them are acclaimed as legendary classics? Very few. Heck, the only special effects blockbuster to win an Oscar was Lord of the Rings, and even that had the powerful, compelling story to drive it. In that film, the effects were used as tools, not as selling points.

I don't think it's this splashy stuff that has numbed us from buying into it; it's more of lack of effort and logic in the product itself. I remember around June or July, when it was pretty blatant that the writers weren't trying. We all remember dropped storylines, ignored angles, heel turns that never stayed... that kind of stuff insults the audience's intelligence, so why SHOULD we buy into stuff like that when the people producing it don't even buy into it?

That's what takes a company down. The little things that hold the gears together. Not general, superficial "causes" like the internet or technology. Stuff like that is just a convenient scapegoat for people who don't want to take responsibility for their own failings.

[Kane Knight]

Splashy effects and eye candy might dull a sense of believability, but a good story will always hook the viewers, regardless of special effects or anything else that's superficial.

Year after year, you get your campy summer blockbusters, but how many of them are acclaimed as legendary classics? Very few. Heck, the only special effects blockbuster to win an Oscar was Lord of the Rings, and even that had the powerful, compelling story to drive it. In that film, the effects were used as tools, not as selling points.

I don't think it's this splashy stuff that has numbed us from buying into it; it's more of lack of effort and logic in the product itself. I remember around June or July, when it was pretty blatant that the writers weren't trying. We all remember dropped storylines, ignored angles, heel turns that never stayed... that kind of stuff insults the audience's intelligence, so why SHOULD we buy into stuff like that when the people producing it don't even buy into it?

That's what takes a company down. The little things that hold the gears together. Not general, superficial "causes" like the internet or technology. Stuff like that is just a convenient scapegoat for people who don't want to take responsibility for their own failings.

Do you honestly think, however, that the WWE is looking for an Oscar?

Some movie houses produce movies intending to make art. Most produce with the intent of making money. The Oscars will never really reflect the kind of success that the WWE strives for, which is better eflected by box office sales (TV ratings...).

[mitchables]

I think that we, as a culture, are losing our imagination. Do you think this affects how we're viewing wrestling? Do you think people are no longer as capable of suspending disbelief as they once were, to the point that they really don't "buy" wrestling anymore?

Imagination is a key component of making wrestling work. You have to let yourself believe in this shit. Even great wrestling requires your mind to do some work, to believe in it.


The ability to suspend disbelief and the poor writing go hand in hand. It is hard for viewers to continue to suspend disbelief when the company does everything it can in it's power to backpedal previous continuity (ie Kane being able to speak, not having a blind eye, and looking like he was never in a fire). It makes the whole charade seem less believable. :-\

[Destor]

I'd say the problem is the breaking of Kayfabe. Once you call it sports entertainment and in the process cease saying that it's real it makes it harder for some to buy it. I mean come on, they openly say its not real, who's going to believe it after that?

[Kane Knight]

The ability to suspend disbelief and the poor writing go hand in hand. It is hard for viewers to continue to suspend disbelief when the company does everything it can in it's power to backpedal previous continuity (ie Kane being able to speak, not having a blind eye, and looking like he was never in a fire). It makes the whole charade seem less believable. :-\

And the fact that you chose an example that was actually pretty well explained onscreen dooes nothing to hurt your argument.

[mitchables]

And the fact that you chose an example that was actually pretty well explained onscreen dooes nothing to hurt your argument.

Yes, because the "mental scarring" excuse is really validated by all the times they tried to rip Kane's mask off and on an occasion when the Undertaker actually did get it off, in the seconds before Kane covered his face you could see it was visibly blackened to heighten the ol' "burns victim' effect. And it especially explains why Gerry Briscoe nearly vomited when him and Patterson and he took a photo of Kane's face for blackmail purposes.

Yes, the explanation is good if the viewer has an attention span of a flea or has only just started watching wrestling. But for people who have been watching a longer time, it is a huge turn-off watching it. :$

[Kane Knight]

Yes, because the "mental scarring" excuse is really validated by all the times they tried to rip Kane's mask off and on an occasion when the Undertaker actually did get it off, in the seconds before Kane covered his face you could see it was visibly blackened to heighten the ol' "burns victim' effect.

Kind of like how it was when he took it off for the last time.

But let's not think about that.

Now, moving on from that notion, show me one show with no continuity errors. Pat and Jerry vomiting several years before the unmasking of Kane (Aside from arguably being an effort to sell the blackmail) is nothing comapred to continuity errors that happen on TV withina single season of a show.

[Innovator]

I Still Remember...

GTV...

Who pulled up the briefcase?...

[mitchables]

Kind of like how it was when he took it off for the last time.

But let's not think about that.

Now, moving on from that notion, show me one show with no continuity errors. Pat and Jerry vomiting several years before the unmasking of Kane (Aside from arguably being an effort to sell the blackmail) is nothing comapred to continuity errors that happen on TV withina single season of a show.

One show? Futurama.

Done.

Also, if the Pat and Jerry blackmail thing is too long a stretch for them to be expected to maintain continuity, then...

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/k/kane/75.jpg

That ought to do the trick.

It's all in Kane's head. :(

[Kane Knight]

I Still Remember...

GTV...

Who pulled up the briefcase?...

Again, not really the point.

We all know that there are continuity flaws (See above) and that there are a lot of problems with the writing.

Se above for the disclaimer if you're still missing the point. However, the one that was brought up as an example is clearly different (Primarily because the evolution of Kane was over years, rather than a singular event [the briefcase] or dropped angle within a short period of time). Using that to justify believability, using an arc that's taken more years than most shows are on TV, to justify how unbelievable the show is, is rather asinine.

The purpose here, however, was not to blame the WWE's failure on the lack of CGI or whatever. but to ask if it was partially responsible.

[Kane Knight]

One show? Futurama.

Done.

Also, if the Pat and Jerry blackmail thing is too long a stretch for them to be expected to maintain continuity, then...

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/k/kane/75.jpg

That ought to do the trick.

It's all in Kane's head. :(

Futurama? PHAIL'D! :lol:

Silly Mitch.

And thanks for posting a picture that COINCIDED with my argument.

Yeah, you showed me. :rofl:

[Kane Knight]

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/k/kane/75.jpg


OH NOES! HE'S BURNED! :rofl: Sorry...Just too funny, mitch.

[Pepsi Man]

Futurama? PHAIL'D! :lol:

Silly Mitch.

And thanks for posting a picture that COINCIDED with my argument.

Yeah, you showed me. :rofl:
Yeah, but that's the thing. He mentioned a lack of continuity. The fucking WEEK before they started talking about how it was "all in Kane's head", he still looked like that. Made no sense. He may have played into your last statement on the matter, but that statement in itself played into his original point.

[mitchables]

At least Pepsi Man isn't a gibbering moron.

Also, whether or not the show was cancelled has nothing to do with it's lack of continuity errors. :$

[Corkscrewed]

Do you honestly think, however, that the WWE is looking for an Oscar?

Some movie houses produce movies intending to make art. Most produce with the intent of making money. The Oscars will never really reflect the kind of success that the WWE strives for, which is better eflected by box office sales (TV ratings...).

No, but the principle is the same: a good story. And a good story covers all bases. Why was the rise of Batista so successful? Because they built it up, added subtleties in Batista's change, played on HHH's jealous character, took their time in drawing it out, and provided the perfect payoff. In principle, it still relates to having a good story to draw people in. No splashy effects needed in that feud. Heck, they didn't even really need any gimmick matches. It was just great storytelling.

[Destor]

Now, moving on from that notion, show me one show with no continuity errors.
I can show you two separate shows that don't break continuity if you watch them together no less: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seven seasons) & Angel (five seasons.) And Buffy wasn't canceled so :p. And yes, I am a Wheden fanboy. But thats really off topic I suppose.

[Stickman]

I didn't read everything in this thread so I apologize if something along this has been said.

I think KK is right in that all the glitz and glamour has had an effect on the quality of wrestling these days. However, a good storyteller in the ring can keep people hooked and make it believable. I am working my way through the Bret Hart DVD, and after watching a few of his older matches I found myself hooked, even 20ish years after the fact. Sure a lot of things in the older matches would make you shake your head nowadays, but I was really enjoying the Hart Foundation matches. The two I saw so far went to 20 minute time limits and it didn't seem like that. You put on 20 minute tag matches now a days, and you cringe.

I think the biggest problem is the lack of wrestlers who know what they're doing, and who know how to improvise matches. As I believe, right now, most matches are laid out for the wrestlers and they just have to remember the routine.