Thread: Ratings Thread
View Single Post
Old 05-03-2019, 10:19 AM   #585
#1-norm-fan
Resident drug enabler
 
#1-norm-fan's Avatar
 
Posts: 45,473
#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)#1-norm-fan makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dastardly One View Post
The excuse they like is that fans shit on whomever they want them to cheer for to be cool. Not understanding that it's their poor execution that leads to the less-than-desired reaction.
That excuse is so bizarre. There are plenty of good, successful shows, movie franchises, book series, etc. where the writers succeed in captivating the audience. This “blame the fans” idea really only exists (at least to this level) in WWE. So are they saying there’s some gene specific to wrestling fans post 2001 that makes them hate anything WWE wants them to like? Or are they admitting to breeding that reaction in their fan base (which would be their fault)?

These are rhetorical questions obviously, as the real answer is that’s an excuse a 5 year old would come up with to shake responsibility. They had a TV show on the network dedicated to telling fans why they’re wrong for thinking the product has become shit. How insecure can you get. Lol
#1-norm-fan is offline   Reply With Quote