Dave Meltzer stuff

[flyonthewall2983]

You would think, but Jim Ross is apparently pro gay marriage, believes Henry Louis Gates was a victim of racism and watches Bill Maher.

He also mentioned something on Twitter about liking the Will Ferrell GWB HBO special.

[NintendoLogic]

I liked the global warming promo he cut in the middle of this week's Observer. Particularly amusing was the fact that in came in connection with an item about Jim Ross, who strikes me as a likely climate change denier.

I don't know about global warming denial, but having lived through a major nuclear disaster I can tell you I will never take activists at their word ever again.

 

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

[Childs]

Damnit Loss, if I can't make unfounded assumptions about good ol' J.R., who can I make unfounded assumptions about?

[NintendoLogic]

Damnit Loss, if I can't make unfounded assumptions about good ol' J.R., who can I make unfounded assumptions about?

HHH is always a safe choice.

[Loss]

Damnit Loss, if I can't make unfounded assumptions about good ol' J.R., who can I make unfounded assumptions about?

I was about to say HHH! Shawn Michaels, Kevin Nash and Eric Bischoff are also good choices.

[ohtani's jacket]

I liked the global warming promo he cut in the middle of this week's Observer. Particularly amusing was the fact that in came in connection with an item about Jim Ross, who strikes me as a likely climate change denier.

I don't know about global warming denial, but having lived through a major nuclear disaster I can tell you I will never take activists at their word ever again.

 

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

 

I was referring to climate change deniers and the implication that climate change denial is somehow wrong.

[pantherwagner]

English is not my first language, actually not even the second, so maybe that's why I find it funny when Dave says that the PPV business is going to be CANNIBALIZED by the WWF/UFC networks.

[S.L.L.]

Damnit Loss, if I can't make unfounded assumptions about good ol' J.R., who can I make unfounded assumptions about?

I was about to say HHH! Shawn Michaels, Kevin Nash and Eric Bischoff are also good choices.

 

Don't forget the Vinces McMahon and Russo. Always a safe bet.

[Loss]

I dropped Dave a line about the latest Babinsack column. Why is this guy still allowed a platform?

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I dropped Dave a line about the latest Babinsack column. Why is this guy still allowed a platform?

I forgot to post about that article. "Intelligent" viewers don't like pro-wrestling because they think it's fake. I mean, there are a ton of people who I talk to about wrestling who say that they were fans as children until they learned that it's fake, so "What's the point of watching?" Granted, good TV and mega superstars will draw in more viewers, but it'll never be respected by the masses because wrestling is known by virtually everyone that it's worked. There is no way to get around that fact. Besides, wrestling was drawing its best ratings when it was trash TV. Viewership would only marginally increase by appealing to educated viewers whereas it'd risk alienating many hardcores, many of whom tuned out when the blood, curse words, and misogyny minimized.

[BrickHithouse]

I hear that all the time. Still haven't heard a good explanation why the same principle does not apply to scripted TV shows, movies, or other shit involving actors and scripts.

[Loss]

Because actors don't try to keep kayfabe when they're not on television. It's not that wrestling is worked, it's that it's dishonest.

[jdw]

Wrestling presents itself as Sport, or at least did for almost all of its history. People have Real Sports to watch and follow, and wrestling stands out in contrast to it: Fake Sport. So it's naturally going to get a negative from a lot of people who just don't watch it because if they wanted to watch sports, they'll rather Real Sports.

 

We as wrestling fans don't get that. But take a step back: the most common thing all of us have heard from non-wrestling fans is...

 

"It's fake."

 

Well, no shit. But also... well... that is them explaining why they don't like it. It's the #1 reason, overwhelmingly, why people dismiss it.

 

In contrast, when we had a discussion about Dexter at lunch today, no one brought up, "It's a fake show about a fake serial killer." That's just no relevant to why people like or don't like the show.

 

That Avengers has "fake fights" isn't relevant. It's not presenting itself as a Fighting Movie. It's an action movie, and folks accept it on that level.

 

Wrestling, on the other hand, presents itself as "fighting". Not in an MMA or Boxing standpoint anymore, and of course in a way that we hardcore fans accept the fake fakiness of. But to non-fans... it's being pimping as Fights when it's really Fake Fights. Non-fans can't get past it.

[BrickHithouse]

Is that it? Both explanations totally make sense, but I don't totally buy either one.

 

One of my co-workers collects doll HEADS, is obsessed with autopsy photos, and may or may not have murdered her husband. And I'm the one that takes all the shit because I'm into that fake wrestling stuff. I will admit to being hyper-over-sensitive on the subject.

 

Is anyone still buying that the NFL is legit?

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I hear that all the time. Still haven't heard a good explanation why the same principle does not apply to scripted TV shows, movies, or other shit involving actors and scripts.

If I find the person to be too intellectually deficient to understand why pro-wrestling is really a tough, athletic exhibition and hence writing it off as "fake" makes no sense, I usually troll them by pointing out that fiction is fake. There is a predetermined ending that you have to find by being a spectator - watching in wrestling's case and reading in fiction's case.

 

Because actors don't try to keep kayfabe when they're not on television. It's not that wrestling is worked, it's that it's dishonest.

Well, I pointed one fact to a coworker when she said that WWE presents itself as real. I told her that "WWE hasn't presented itself as a real sport since 1988, and it's contentious in some ways to claim that it presented itself as real since 1983. WWE has never claimed to be real. Everyone else claims that they do."

[JerryvonKramer]

I've got a blanket "I won't talk wresting with non-fans" rule. I try not to mention I'm a fan. I try to avoid conversations about it. If it so-happens that wrestling is brought up independently of me, I'll bite my lip and keep quiet.

 

My mum and dad sometimes actively go out of their way to bug me: "You still watch that shit?" "Nuts you are" etc., but I don't react.

 

I'll admit that I'm a totally closeted fan, but my view is that that's the only way to be.

 

All of that said, I'm thinking of putting my signed Ted DiBiase picture up in my office. The prospect of questions from colleagues and students is the only thing stopping me right now. Quizzical looks I can take, it's the questions and ensuing conversation I wouldn't be able to handle.

[Loss]

Well, I pointed one fact to a coworker when she said that WWE presents itself as real. I told her that "WWE hasn't presented itself as a real sport since 1988, and it's contentious in some ways to claim that it presented itself as real since 1983. WWE has never claimed to be real. Everyone else claims that they do."

Even that's not entirely true. They still want wrestlers living their gimmicks in public to a degree. They got rid of Serena because she was drinking publicly all the time while in the Straight Edge Society. Guys in a main event program against each other don't typically travel together. Wrestling is more open than it was at one time, but it's still not 100% open. And they use the word "entertainment", not the word "fake". Every sport is a form of entertainment, so to a casual observer, that distinction doesn't really mean much.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Wrestling presents itself as Sport, or at least did for almost all of its history. People have Real Sports to watch and follow, and wrestling stands out in contrast to it: Fake Sport. So it's naturally going to get a negative from a lot of people who just don't watch it because if they wanted to watch sports, they'll rather Real Sports.

 

We as wrestling fans don't get that. But take a step back: the most common thing all of us have heard from non-wrestling fans is...

 

"It's fake."

 

Well, no shit. But also... well... that is them explaining why they don't like it. It's the #1 reason, overwhelmingly, why people dismiss it.

 

In contrast, when we had a discussion about Dexter at lunch today, no one brought up, "It's a fake show about a fake serial killer." That's just no relevant to why people like or don't like the show.

 

That Avengers has "fake fights" isn't relevant. It's not presenting itself as a Fighting Movie. It's an action movie, and folks accept it on that level.

 

Wrestling, on the other hand, presents itself as "fighting". Not in an MMA or Boxing standpoint anymore, and of course in a way that we hardcore fans accept the fake fakiness of. But to non-fans... it's being pimping as Fights when it's really Fake Fights. Non-fans can't get past it.

Well, I'll use some of my philosophy training on this. Suppose we have a parallel universe where there is Dexter as it exists on Earth, and we have another TV show that is actually about a real serial killer, doing real crimes, which is edited such that there is less predictability (because it's real), random variation of blood (because it's real and because a real serial killer wouldn't have artificial cliffhangers like Dexter has), and there is no chance that this real serial killer can get busted because the government allows for it to happen. Would Dexter suddenly be seen as fake like pro-wrestling, just as the real serial killer would be seen real as MMA or boxing? Would Dexter lose popularity as a result of being "fake" whilst still keeping a strong enough core audience who claim that Dexter, though not real, is an art form whereas the real stuff is crude and in violation of our most basic sensibilities (like MMA used to be seen as)?

 

You're hinting at something big, namely that pro-wrestling, by marketing itself as sport, has been in a losing place categorically. If presented as film, it would have more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. But doing that would risk losing all the hardcores who love to suspend disbelief whilst still keeping the stigma of being a work.

 

 

On an aside, I think a lot of the public see pro-wrestling as more brutal than they used to after Benoit's rampage. But I think the public still sees WWE wrestlers as all being very cooperative, fake fighting on a soft trampoline, and where they're just trying to sucker a dumb, hick public.

[Loss]

The last part is the key part. Wrestlers have historically tried to convince people that what they are doing is actually real. That doesn't happen in film. That's the difference -- the deceit.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Well, I pointed one fact to a coworker when she said that WWE presents itself as real. I told her that "WWE hasn't presented itself as a real sport since 1988, and it's contentious in some ways to claim that it presented itself as real since 1983. WWE has never claimed to be real. Everyone else claims that they do."

Even that's not entirely true. They still want wrestlers living their gimmicks in public to a degree. They got rid of Serena because she was drinking publicly all the time while in the Straight Edge Society. Guys in a main event program against each other don't typically travel together. Wrestling is more open than it was at one time, but it's still not 100% open. And they use the word "entertainment", not the word "fake". Every sport is a form of entertainment, so to a casual observer, that distinction doesn't really mean much.

 

Your last sentence is interesting because that is a point few seem to understand, actually. People don't think of real sports as "entertainment" even though it is tautologically. That's why I have no issue trolling non-fans. I just say that I'm genuinely entertained by pro-wrestling, respect them for being the hardest working people in show business who give fans and charity the time of day (unlike Hollywood types), and that almost every pro-wrestling show has at least a handful of moments where it feels like you're watching an intense basketball game, whether it be Daniel Bryan's death-defying moves, a tense moment in an angle, or just some ***1/2 match.

[BrickHithouse]

All of that said, I'm thinking of putting my signed Ted DiBiase picture up in my office. The prospect of questions from colleagues and students is the only thing stopping me right now. Quizzical looks I can take, it's the questions and ensuing conversation I wouldn't be able to handle.

Here's a quote from one of my college professors. Her quote was about a decorative piece I made that I was convinced was shit, but her quote applies to the above as well:

 

"It's you. Own it. If these other people can't handle it, fuck them"

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't fear judgement. I don't care what other people think of me, I just can't be doing with THAT conversation.

 

It's quite strange: it's suddenly socially acceptable to be a geek these days, you can come out and say you like video games and read DC comics and it's almost cool (note "almost" ). The other person doesn't come out and say "you know video games are just shit don't you?" Some people talk about being a Trekkie or a big Doctor Who fan almost as a badge of honour now, and no one gives them shit for it.

 

But for some reason wrestling is an area where people think it's alright to just come out and voice their ill-informed opinion and shit all over it at the first opportunity.

 

I find it really really annoying.

[NintendoLogic]

I can't read the Babinsack piece. Can someone summarize it?

 

Anyway, I think wrestling's biggest problem from a perception standpoint isn't so much that it presents itself as real when it's really fake as the view that the target demographics are children and rednecks. Well, I guess the real/fake thing kind of plays into that because a lot of people figure those are the only two groups dumb enough to think it's real.

[Robert S]

The last part is the key part. Wrestlers have historically tried to convince people that what they are doing is actually real. That doesn't happen in film. That's the difference -- the deceit.

At least for some people in the action movie genre their success highly depended on the appearance (or their reputation) that they are for real. This definitely includes people like Bruce Lee, Mr. T or Chuck Norris. I mean even people like Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone at their high point were so consistently doing the same roles over and over that by doing that they were giving the appearance that they are John McClane or Rocky Balboa / John Rambo.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

The last part is the key part. Wrestlers have historically tried to convince people that what they are doing is actually real. That doesn't happen in film. That's the difference -- the deceit.

At least for some people in the action movie genre their success highly depended on the appearance (or their reputation) that they are for real. This definitely includes people like Bruce Lee, Mr. T or Chuck Norris. I mean even people like Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone at their high point were so consistently doing the same roles over and over that by doing that they were giving the appearance that they are John McClane or Rocky Balboa / John Rambo.

 

And nowadays, that wouldn't pass because there would be a demand for them to get in MMA to prove themselves imo. The 80's was a different time.