ohtani's jacket Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Then what does it mean? That you can only enjoy something that isn't real if you subconsciously set aside the fact that it isn't real? Because I reject that notion. It means when I read Tomb of Dracula, I don't get hung up on the fact that vampires aren't real. I enjoy Tomb of Dracula for the artwork and the story not because it makes me believe that vampires are real. If you don't care that wrestling's a work then you've already suspended your disbelief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JazeUSA Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Bad wrestling is Scott Putski! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 It's not the main way I process and enjoy wrestling which i think is a more pertinent issue. I find it hard to believe Matt, since more than anyone else I know, you are someone who is into narrative. I've read your Buddy Rose match reviews, you are endlessly amused and thrilled at little things. I don't think you and I watch wrestling so differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Believe it or not I actually think you and Johnny Sorrow have a hell of a lot more in common in the way you watch wrestling than either of you might think. I might explain this another time, but this thread is getting derailed enough. We should get back on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Ultimately I do think this is down to semantics and perspective on some level, but I also think there's a mild disconnect too. Also, I still think the real money is in Johnny and I reviewing Tanahashi matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Fuck Tanahashi. If Bugs and Daffy aren't real to you then you stink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'd much prefer to do anything else in the entire world than continue this discussion with you know who. That's kind of what I expected. Daffy Jerry: "You can't enjoy a match without suspending disbelief, having an emotional connection with the wrestlers, and working up a good bit of empathy for them." bugs jdw: "Okay, Doc... here's a match that's cool, with a specific section that I dig as much as carrots. Tell me what I think about it when I watch it." Daffy Jerry: "Shot the Duck! Shot the Duck!!!" Bugs could be a total dick in those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Does it make sense to me? No? Then it's bad wrestling. I know that's a cut and dry pair of statements, but that's what it comes down to for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 The whole stupid argument here is fucking new levels of stupid. Just awful. Just change the name of the thread to "What Is Bad Wrestling Internet Dick Waving?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrklarr Posted February 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Emotion without suspending disbelief I do not buy. This seems undeniable and irrefutable to me. You can appreciate art on a technical level, but if you want to feel something, you have to buy into the reality of what you are seeing. Even if you know it isn't real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrklarr Posted February 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Jushin Liger liked to do surfboards in his matches. In February of 1994, he challenged IWGP champ Shinya Hashimoto in the main event of a show at Budokan Hall. Juniors vs heavies matches were a rarity, and this was a special main event with the new champion (Hashimoto beat Tenryu a week prior) facing the established king of the juniors division. Liger went for the surfboard and managed to get Hashimoto up, but it was brief and wasn't really fully applied. He struggled to keep him there. My reaction wasn't really that I was upset Liger couldn't apply the hold because I wanted him to beat Hashimoto. It was more, "Wow, that's a really clever way to reinforce the size difference between these two and further emphasize the unique nature of this match". I popped for it because it was a fresh take on a signature spot that fit the match really well. So there wasn't really suspension of disbelief in that case. I was just popping for good work because I like good work. Does that make sense? I'm not arguing that I never suspend disbelief. I'm just saying I don't do it every single time I watch wrestling. This is an interesting point. You had an emotional reaction because you were impressed by a technical element of the storytelling of a match. This definitely proves that you can be moved by things that go beyond the story itself. But I would ask what is it that makes you CARE about someone's ability to tell the story of a wrestling match in a new and innovative way? I guess what I am arguing is that if you don't, at some point, buy into the fake reality of wrestling, then you're just watching a couple of weirdos flopping around in a ring. It's meaningless. You might as well be sitting in front of a dryer watching the clothes go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Fuck Tanahashi. If Bugs and Daffy aren't real to you then you stink. 1.) You should have gone with something like, Look guy, if you can't unclench your ass long enough to enjoy something, I can'ts dos nothing for ya. 2.) I will admit to being able to suspend most things for Duck Amuck or The Great Piggy Bank Robbery. Less so for What's Opera, Doc. 3.) I think, again, that this is really a discussion where some people are taking a very dogmatic and narrow view of a term, which frankly, taken so narrowly (be it correctly or not) has next to no actual conversational value, and others are explaining something personal that tangentially relates to it in some very legitimate ways and not so much in others. Instead of pushing off to talk about what that second group is discussing, the first is sort of pedantically clinging on to what they feel is accurate instead of trying to explore what the second group is actually feeling, which does, in some distinct ways differ from how the first group feels, even if, perhaps, the term (used literally instead of conventionally) doesn't explain it well due to its narrow nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Who are in the two groups Matt? I can't tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 You're with OJ, I'm with John, which honestly makes for a weird tag match. Maarrrrrkkkk (and I'm sorry, I actually don't know who you are despite your 60 posts and very noticeable avatar) seems to at least be trying to parse the argument (which I think is actually a separation of the act of creation from the creation itself more than anything else) while Charles is kind of just past the other side of the line. Johnny, as always, is the cosmic jester of chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Loss, it is one of the most common spots in a wrestling match. Irish whip to the ropes... Ricky Morton drops, Stan Lane leaps over and bounces off the rope, Ricky Morton leapfrog, when Lane bounces off the rope, Morton catches him with an arm drag or head scissors. If you put: side headlock -> back into the ropes to send the guy across -> shoulderblock -> (guy who just go shoulderblocked rolls himself 90 degrees to be perpendicular) bounce off the ropes in there before Stan Lane leaps over and bounces off the rope, you have the most basic transition in wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Crackers Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Then what does it mean? That you can only enjoy something that isn't real if you subconsciously set aside the fact that it isn't real? Because I reject that notion. It means when I read Tomb of Dracula, I don't get hung up on the fact that vampires aren't real. I enjoy Tomb of Dracula for the artwork and the story not because it makes me believe that vampires are real. If you don't care that wrestling's a work then you've already suspended your disbelief. This. 1000 times this. If you enjoy Star Wars then you are suspending your disbelief when watching Star Wars because rather than getting hung up on the plausibility of aliens, space travel, the force, etc you accept that those things exist in the world of Star Wars. If you weren't suspending your disbelief you would spend the entire movie complaining that those story elements were unrealistic and it would prevent you from enjoying it. I may know that many things in pro wrestling could not happen in the real world but if I can enjoy wrestling without thinking about that constantly then I have suspended by disbelief. It means I've pushed those issues aside to enjoy what I'm watching. There appears to be a major misunderstanding about what this phrase means. It is not about "believing" anything is real. It's about not letting the unreality distract you from or ruin your enjoyment of something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Who is being dogmatic and narrow Matt? "Suspension of disbelief" has a specific meaning; you and John seem to want to say "well that doesn't matter because we want to say we don't have it". Seems to me that you do and won't admit it. That's all it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm not keen on arguing this further, but I can appreciate the way that Marv Wolfman writes an issue of Tomb of Dracula and how he deals with the challenge of surmounting the unrealistic elements from a craft perspective without letting the inherent plausibility of them move me one way or the other. I can admit that those elements exist. The way I interact with the text when it comes to these is by examining how the author deals with them. It's never about me suspending them necessarily but instead about taking at look at how he attempts to get the general audience to suspend them and admiring that (even on an emotional level) or not. Admit that I can at least do this and we'll be cool. It's the huge majority of how I watch wrestling. It's less of how I watch Veronica Mars, but there's still maybe half of that there. It's a lot less of how I read New Warriors due to childhood nostalgia and other things but it's still there to an extent. I think the more interesting argument right now is not "is this possible?" but "how do we look at things differently?" with exact pedantic definitions and established terms not necessarily as important. In general I find organization useful and fruitful. Here we're pulling an outside term in, one that, as it is narrowly defined, isn't very useful for most of this discussion, except for the few people who seem to say that they can't watch wrestling if the punches are really crappy. Though even then, when I see a spot that's illogical or makes no sense or what not, it's not about "taking me out of the match," it's about me recognizing bad/disorganized/irresponsible storytelling, which isn't a suspension of disbelief so much as me thinking that the person is a bad storyteller. With other people, they admit that bad execution reminds them it's all two guys in tights rolling around or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 It's not about plausibility, it's about something much more basic and fundamental. What when he writes words on a page about one character talking to another, you can imagine -- even if momentarilty -- that one person is engaging another in conversation. If that never happens in your mind and the words just remain inert on the page, you aren't actually reading. That process, in fact, has to take place. This line on the wiki entry for this puts it well: According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is an essential ingredient for any kind of storytelling. With any film, the viewer has to ignore the reality that they are viewing a two-dimensional moving image on a screen and temporarily accept it as reality in order to be entertained. It's much much more basic than "plausibility". You can't really accuse people of being dogmatic when they are simply pointing out what a phrase means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 And I'm saying that I don't ignore the fact I'm watching two guys putting together a match with each other. I relate to the creative decisions, not to the story itself. I am seeing a moving image on a screen, the sum of a creative endeavor. I think I'm willing to take my understanding of the concept to the exact point that it serves any point in a conversation. If you break it down to "You're just looking at pixels!" then it's not a practical concept. If you're looking at it as "can you believe in this as a reality?" then it's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way?I ask this because the answer for me is clearly no. Sometimes, I watch in an analytical way, looking for smart work, nice execution, etc. In that mode, I'd probably appreciate the cleverness of the Liger spot Loss mentioned. But I don't know that it would excite me per se. This is probably my most common setting when reviewing footage for the '80s project.Other times, I watch with a greater hope of being sucked into the drama of a match. This might be because I'm watching a show live, unsure of where it's going to take me. It might be because I'm watching in a more communal setting, like the '80s lucha podcasts. It might simply be my mood on a given night.I'm just wondering if that dichotomy also exists for Matt, Parv, Loss, etc. or if the mode is more consistent for some of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Absolutely not. I watch in all the ways you mentioned, and probably get the most enjoyment out of wrestling when I just sit down and watch and get sucked into a match/promo/angle or whatever. I think it's hard for some people to get sucked into the drama of a match that happened 20 or 30 years ago, but it still happens for me (thankfully). If I find myself watching with an overly analytical eye (I say "overly" because -- like the whole suspension of disbelief argument -- we all watch with an analytical eye in one way or another, even if we don't admit it or realize it) too often I end up taking a break from wrestling. Because really, it's professional wrestling. If I analyze it too much, I realize how absurd it is and wonder why I bother watching so much of it. Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm not keen on arguing this further, but I can appreciate the way that Marv Wolfman writes an issue of Tomb of Dracula and how he deals with the challenge of surmounting the unrealistic elements from a craft perspective without letting the inherent plausibility of them move me one way or the other. This is because you've suspended your disbelief. A willingness to suspend disbelief doesn't mean that you stop believing you're reading a comic book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 At this stage I think I'm going to dig in and be stubborn because I think it's a pointless concept when taken this far to its extreme while it's a very useful concept when inched back somewhat. I'll respond to Childs later though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Tangential question based on this discussion: Do you always watch wrestling the same way? It depends on the wrestling, or in some cases my mood or how tired I am. I think what people are trying to describe is that feeling you get when you're so engrossed in a match that you start pulling for a guy to win even though you may know the result or have seen the match before. It's hard to describe what causes that feeling, but I think that's where the divide between suspension of disbelief is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.