JvK reviews pimped matches from late 90s-10s

[BigBadMick]

Completely agree. Very topical - 27 years since Del Boy first fell through the bar...

 

I've gone on that rant (perhaps not as articulately) about a lack of shared cultural cache to my nephews and nieces. They hate me

[JerryvonKramer]

There is still a shared cultural cache, but it's all stuff from the past ten years. And mostly American.

 

Students' eyes light up if I ever mention Harry Potter, or Game of Thrones. They know Toy Story. Stuff like Frozen. Lord of the Rings. Just not good with anything older. And I do think that's a big big difference between us and them, because we knew the older stuff, from 60s and 70s and 80s. Whereas I'm not sure if the students would even know who Oasis or Blur are and that was 1995.

 

There was a big deal made recently about The Beatles finally going on Spotify. To a certain set of kids, if you aren't on Spotify you aren't anyone. That's the reality.

[ohtani's jacket]

I still say it's wrong. Every generation go through the same thing. Feeling like younger kids don't know anything is just an indicator that we're getting old. I also think the whole argument is dictated by what the TV stations chose to run. Just because the TV stations in NZ ran old episodes of Get Smart when I was a kid, or the Thunderbirds, or M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Flintstones, Batman, or Mork and Mindy, doesn't mean I was really part of the shared cultural cache of the 60s or 70s. When I was a kid, we watched whatever was on TV in re-runs, but we primarily into the *now* the same way kids today are. It was the same in the 90s. If you asked a kid in the 90s who was watching Beverly Hills 90210 or Melrose Place about Peyton Place they wouldn't have a clue. I get what you're saying about technological changes and the decline in television viewing as we knew it, but your grandparents could say the same about radio, and my sister, who's six years younger than me, waxs lyrically about early 00s trends that passed me by. In conclusion, we are old.

[BigBadMick]

Let's see. I was 17 in 1995. Took a big interest in films. Decided to find out a lot more after watching Pulp Fiction and Raging Bull that year. Devoured DeNiro's back catalogue as quickly as video rentals and tv screenings would allow. Bought one of those massive Variety books, with quick reviews on every film ever. Bought biographys on DeNiro, then Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman....got into a real 70s kick.

 

If I was 17 today, I think I could have acquired all this information and watched all the films much more quickly. I'm not sure I'd have the patience, or not become distracted by something else though.

 

I reminds me of something Will said when the Network first arrived - the culture of wanting/hearing folklore about/anticipating something like, say, Great American Bash 89 was gone forever. It's just sitting there waiting for you. When you get around to watching it (or not) is entirely up to you. Something's lost in all that...

 

Christ, I sound old.

[JerryvonKramer]

You know I disagree with you (and jdw) on that. Yes, it's part of it, but the technology and method of delivery is more of it.

 

You are absolutely right on one count: yes, we remember the stuff the TV station chooses to show and the stuff that the culture decides to remember. This is especially true of the 1960s, where they stuff we typically know is only a fraction of the stuff that would have been going on. We don't remember the 60s but a construction of it. I agree with that. But we do remember the 1960s all the same.

 

I am saying that the current generation don't really "remember" anything. That is a change.

 

We're not talking Peyton Place here, we're talking things that are culturally central.

 

I do get what you are saying, and that happens every generation. I'm saying something additional has happened on top of that.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also Mick, I did exactly the same thing when I was 17. Devoured the 1970s films. I have a lot of friends who did that. The current lot don't do it. I'd know, they should be in my class.

[JerryvonKramer]

We should probably stop with this track, it's derailing my review thread (which has already been derailed many times, ha ha).

 

But I am still in contact with an old lecturer of mine. I might ask him about some of this stuff and if he's noticed any tangible change from his perspective in the time since I was a student. If he comes back and says that his sense has always been that students had no clue about stuff from the past, I will concede the argument to OJ and jdw once and for all and accept the fact that it's just me getting old

[ohtani's jacket]

Let's see. I was 17 in 1995. Took a big interest in films. Decided to find out a lot more after watching Pulp Fiction and Raging Bull that year. Devoured DeNiro's back catalogue as quickly as video rentals and tv screenings would allow. Bought one of those massive Variety books, with quick reviews on every film ever. Bought biographys on DeNiro, then Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman....got into a real 70s kick.

 

If I was 17 today, I think I could have acquired all this information and watched all the films much more quickly. I'm not sure I'd have the patience, or not become distracted by something else though.

 

I reminds me of something Will said when the Network first arrived - the culture of wanting/hearing folklore about/anticipating something like, say, Great American Bash 89 was gone forever. It's just sitting there waiting for you. When you get around to watching it (or not) is entirely up to you. Something's lost in all that...

 

Christ, I sound old.

 

You were into that, but how many of your friends were? It's a certain type of personality that's into history and what came before. I'm 36 and the majority of the people I know in the same age range have contemporary interests. They're into modern TV series and modern films whereas I stopped watching new things a decade ago. You can see it as plain as day on this board who follows the modern scene and who doesn't. There's a jumping off point for everyone and a certain type of personality that's a history buff.

 

Also, if you're interested in the past, the internet has been a Godsend. I also have fond memories of the anticipation of buying a tape and everything. but likewise I can remember the massive amount of tapes I didn't buy because I didn't have the money or the currency rate was so bad. 99% of shit back then was unattainable or inaccessible and something you either heard or read about. Sure it was exciting if you managed to find something you always wanted to see, but it was also a pain in the arse. I wouldn't trade the internet for anything.

[Jimmy Redman]

I am definitely an outlier on that 05 match. I want to like Styles, so maybe give me one or two more to look at, and I'll try my best to look past the thick fog of TNA presentation.

 

I can't remember what else you've reviewed of his so apologies if I'm repeating something, but for a snapshot of AJ in TNA I'd say: vs Abyss at Lockdown 2005, vs Joe in August 2005 (their first meeting), vs Bully Ray Last Man Standing in 2011 and vs Chris Daniels Last Man Standing in 2012.

[BigBadMick]

 

Let's see. I was 17 in 1995. Took a big interest in films. Decided to find out a lot more after watching Pulp Fiction and Raging Bull that year. Devoured DeNiro's back catalogue as quickly as video rentals and tv screenings would allow. Bought one of those massive Variety books, with quick reviews on every film ever. Bought biographys on DeNiro, then Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman....got into a real 70s kick.

 

If I was 17 today, I think I could have acquired all this information and watched all the films much more quickly. I'm not sure I'd have the patience, or not become distracted by something else though.

 

I reminds me of something Will said when the Network first arrived - the culture of wanting/hearing folklore about/anticipating something like, say, Great American Bash 89 was gone forever. It's just sitting there waiting for you. When you get around to watching it (or not) is entirely up to you. Something's lost in all that...

 

Christ, I sound old.

 

You were into that, but how many of your friends were? It's a certain type of personality that's into history and what came before. I'm 36 and the majority of the people I know in the same age range have contemporary interests. They're into modern TV series and modern films whereas I stopped watching new things a decade ago. You can see it as plain as day on this board who follows the modern scene and who doesn't. There's a jumping off point for everyone and a certain type of personality that's a history buff.

 

Also, if you're interested in the past, the internet has been a Godsend. I also have fond memories of the anticipation of buying a tape and everything. but likewise I can remember the massive amount of tapes I didn't buy because I didn't have the money or the currency rate was so bad. 99% of shit back then was unattainable or inaccessible and something you either heard or read about. Sure it was exciting if you managed to find something you always wanted to see, but it was also a pain in the arse. I wouldn't trade the internet for anything.

 

Yes, that's true - it was a sole venture into the 70s for me in 1995, OJ. And I have a History degree

 

On the second point - No I wouldn't take away the internet at all. My point was that I've stronger and fonder memories from my tape trading days because of the slower pace of consuming wrestling back then. Sampling bits and pieces from everywhere nowadays can't compete with that.

 

I'm glad I got to experience both worlds. But I wouldn't change things now.

[Loss]

I actually find that too much of wrestling now feels divorced from the times, which is why I sometimes have a tough time with it, even when the action itself is very good. The "cool" promotion features guys with ponytails doing Clique hand signs while Okada does the camera zoom back thing that's like The Rock setting up The People's Elbow. Presentation-wise, they are firmly stuck in the late 90s in so many ways, although their video packages do feel more contemporary.

[BigBadMick]

Any suggestions on updating, Loss?

[GOTNW]

 

However, it is clear to me that they have no basic cutlural knowledge. You'd think growing up in the Internet age means they'd know more, but in fact it means they know less. None of them have seen The Godfather.

This would be unheard of here, maybe you teach a peculiar group of students or British youth is just different.

 

Our generation -- guys now in their 30s and 40s -- are uniquely cine- and pop-literate. We watched old stuff on TV, we watched old movies (again a lot on TV or home video or DVD), we bought old records, we listened to bands from the 60s even though we weren't alive in the 60s. We are the generation of High Fidelity. Of MTV. We make lists of our top 100 films or whatever. We are the post-moderns. Us.

Sorry but this is complete bullshit. This is stuff that is determined by someone's personality, not by how old they are. A bunch of people from your generation have no interest in producing "best of lists" or whatever, they just consumed pop culture in the same braindead manner people do know. You just may think it's superior pop culture.

 

If I watch DiBiase throw a Texas punch and I can recognise he's got that from the Funks, it's tradition. If I watch AJ Styles do an elbow like Misawa and a kick like Kawada, it looks like homage.

AJ Styles doesn't do "Misawa elbows" and "Kawada kicks". He does elbows and kicks. There are guys who do use "Misawa elbows". Kotaro Suzuki, Misawa's trainee, uses the exact same elbow variations Misawa did and guys sell them in a similar manner like they would Misawa's. A lot of guys do elbows and kicks. I really can't remember AJ doing elbow and kick variations that would make me think of Misawa and Kawada like I could with Joe.

[Loss]

Any suggestions on updating, Loss?

 

I wish I knew, because wrestling will probably get really popular again when that can be figured out.

[Bierschwale]

Having in-ring promos on every show has to be the first thing to go in WWE. They can still do contract signings and spontaneous in-ring promos would mean a lot, but there is no way at all for those to evolve. More conversational sit-down interviews. Everybody loved the interview segments from last year's snow day RAW, because they felt much more authentic.

 

WWE also really need to get into the habit of announcing matches on Twitter as early as Friday. Impossible for the current model where Vince doesn't have the script finished until they need to tape Superstars, but having actual hype for matches will be valuable.

 

One presentation method that needs to be used sparingly, but a revival of the really gimmicky hardcore matches like the Holly-Snow match from St. Valentine's Day Massacre that ended up in the Mississippi, or the classic Finlay-Regal parking lot brawl, would probably work out really well, especially if they intentionally let the camerawork and sound get worse, like a seedy indie match that ends up seeming more like a spontaneous fight video uploaded to YouTube. The SC reviewed Jordynne Grace-Heidi Lovelace match is a perfect example of something like that. Crowd brawling has been terribly overdone at times, yes, but take it out of the NBA/NHL arena setting and let things get genuinely chaotic. No wrestling promotion has ever wanted "sterile" to be a defining characteristic.

[JerryvonKramer]

You could say the same for dry 70s crowds and any number of touring wrestlers whose heel work met with crickets. I don't think there's anything particularly special about that in regard to the modern era.

Side point, but I do think this talking point is generally over played. Abby, Sheik and the Funks were all over huge and those "dry 70s crowds" were borderline hysterical. They might have all been exceptional cases, but it's exactly the same crowd.

[MoS]

Sorry for continuing the off-topic train, but I find this analysis of pop-culture seeping through generations very interesting.

 

I am an Indian who will turn 23 at the end of this month. Until I was 7, I actually thought India was the only country that had TV shows; I thought America just made movies. Yeah, I was stupid.

 

The first foreigb TV show I watched was Friends, in 2007 I believe, because it was on TV and had subtitles, so someone not used to the American accent could understand it. I was hooked. Completely. Even now, if you ask me to bame my favourite TV show, I will say Friends without a moment of hesitation.

 

However, that did lead me to wanting to ecplore more foreign shows. Sometime in 2010, when I figured out how torrents worked, I started devouring old shows with a passion. And I would have never been able to do that had it not been for the internet. However, my interest was initially piqued only because I saw Friends on TV while surfing channels. So I do understand Parv's point; if you take India to be 4-5 years behind America in terms of trends, then the practice of watching TV if you had nothing to do was still alive. So, I really think there is no right answer to the debate. Watching TV randomly does help, but ultimately it depends on how you are as a person.

 

Also, my tastes are weird. I love all the classic British shows from the 60s - 80s. Absolutely love Monty Python, Fools and Horses, and really like stuff like Fawlty Towers, the fourth season of Blackadder, Yes Minister, and so on. However, my interest in British shows made since the 90s has been much lower. I do not like....Coupling, was it? And I think The Office is overrated; I actually prefer the American version.

 

It is the opposite with American shows. I really, really tried to enjoy Happy Days and MASH, but they bored the crap out of me. I think Cheers is okay, but not too great, which is weird, given my love for Friends. Same with Cosby Show. In contrast, I like many 90s American shows: Seinfeld; Frasier; Sopranos, etc. Big fan of recent dramas like Breaking Bad and The Wire. I don't really know why. Cultural differences is not a good excuse, because it is not as if the British culture is remarkably like ours. Oddly, most of the mainstream modern comedies I don't like. Modern Family is okay, while The Big Bang Theory and 2.5 Men make me want to kill people.

 

Oddly, and this might come as a huge surprise to Americans, but in India, by popular opinion, Friends beats Seinfeld every day of the week. Almost all urban youngsters love Friends, while most haven't heard of Seinfeld, while those eho have seen it do not like it in general. I guess it is because Friends had a much more easily translatable humour, while Seinfeld was more American.

 

Also, Parv, I watched Godfather when I was 17, and Goodfellas when 18, so I would say your students suck.

 

Wow, really long, really off-topic post. Apologies.

[fxnj]

Only watch wrestling crew checking in

[ohtani's jacket]

 

You could say the same for dry 70s crowds and any number of touring wrestlers whose heel work met with crickets. I don't think there's anything particularly special about that in regard to the modern era.

Side point, but I do think this talking point is generally over played. Abby, Sheik and the Funks were all over huge and those "dry 70s crowds" were borderline hysterical. They might have all been exceptional cases, but it's exactly the same crowd.

Yeah, but dry 70s crowds exist. For every hot crowd you can find there's a drier one to match. I think it depends upon the city and prefecture, which is not something people think about much when it comes to Japanese wrestlling compared with the States. I also think wrestling in Japan became more popular as the 70s progressed so I'm not sure I'd say they're the same crowds.

[jdw]

I still say it's wrong. Every generation go through the same thing. Feeling like younger kids don't know anything is just an indicator that we're getting old. I also think the whole argument is dictated by what the TV stations chose to run. Just because the TV stations in NZ ran old episodes of Get Smart when I was a kid, or the Thunderbirds, or M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Flintstones, Batman, or Mork and Mindy, doesn't mean I was really part of the shared cultural cache of the 60s or 70s. When I was a kid, we watched whatever was on TV in re-runs, but we primarily into the *now* the same way kids today are. It was the same in the 90s. If you asked a kid in the 90s who was watching Beverly Hills 90210 or Melrose Place about Peyton Place they wouldn't have a clue. I get what you're saying about technological changes and the decline in television viewing as we knew it, but your grandparents could say the same about radio, and my sister, who's six years younger than me, waxs lyrically about early 00s trends that passed me by. In conclusion, we are old.

 

Yes, this, of course.

 

Old discussion as well.

[concrete1992]

How many people having this age discussion are under the age of 26?

[MoS]

How many people having this age discussion are under the age of 26?

 

 

I turn 23 on January 29.

[jdw]

How many people having this age discussion are under the age of 26?

 

Not.

[funkdoc]

i'm 30 and i feel like a baby on this forum

 

somehow a discussion on modern cultural relevance doesn't seem that fruitful to me when hardly anyone involved knows what, say, undertale or one punch man is. i love the old man concentration on this board but i guess this is one of the downsides!

[Matt D]

I know what Undertale is but have no idea what One Punch Man is. No idea.