Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

marrklarr

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

marrklarr's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Is this not the key to everything? You don't have to be an economic determinist to think so. Take the boom and bust cycles of the last 30 or so years and overlay the nation's economic data. It syncs up pretty neatly. The Hulkamania Era happens just as the Go-Go '80s business boom picks up steam and peters around the time of the early '90s recession. Wrestling comes alive again just as the mid-to-late '90s tech era bubble economy hits its stride and falls off a cliff in the early '00s when the bubble bursts. In the years since, the business has been alternately losing ground and treading water; just like the American middle and working classes, which make up wrestling's target audience. Seems reductive to chalk it all up the economy, but the economic factor is undeniably present.
  2. marrklarr

    Current WWE

    I love me some Bray Wyatt, but I don't ever want to see him deliver knife-edge chops to a guy wearing a Kevlar vest again.
  3. marrklarr

    Current WWE

    How much of this Batista push has to do with the fact that he has a couple of movies coming out this year? I don't think either are WWE productions, but still... I think the company's non-stop shilling (Hogan plugging the Network felt a lot like those commercials where the Fonz pimps reverse mortgages) is at least as big a problem as its booking. Especially when the shilling drives the booking.
  4. Shame he went pro before having a chance to win gold at the cunt Olympics.
  5. If you can get someone to pay you for it. If Tony Atlas pays broads to kick him and stomp on him, anything is possible.
  6. Speaking of tight perms I wonder if this topic is so contentious because it almost feels like a return to kayfabe. Nobody thinks we should go back to pretending the Easter Bunny is real. For me, suspending disbelieft is just acknowledging that what I am watching is some kind of representation of reality. It's not real, but it resembles real athletic competition and real conflict and real human drama. At least enough for me to sit down and enjoy watching it. If I were to draw you a stick figure, it could represent a human being, and we all could accept this even though a real human being is much more complex than that. We accept that the stick figure is like a person and forget that it's just five lines and a circle. We do the same thing when we watch wrestling. Does this make any sense?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Returning to the discussion of suspending disbelief, I think it's important to point out that suspending disbelief is not the same as belief. When you suspend your disbelief you do not then believe what you're watching is real. You are simply allowing yourself to buy into what you are seeing; not as real competition, but as something more than grown men in spandex running around like idiots pretending to beat each other up. Same goes with any other art form: when you watch a film, you never believe that what you are seeing is real, but it has to be something more to you than people standing in front of a camera playing make-believe.
  10. I get what you're saying, but I also think that suspending disbelief doesn't mean that we really believe that what we're seeing is geniune; it just means that it's convincing enough that we can be drawn into the action without the awareness that it is staged being front and center in our mind. Yeah, it is totally illogical for Flair to go to the top rope, if you think about it. Fortunately, in most Flair matches you are so entertained and engrossed that you don't think about it. In bad matches, the unreality of everything is inescable.
  11. Just goes to show you how slippery these words and concepts are. It feels like the more we talk about it, the more we sink into the quicksand. It sure is fun though. Discussions like this are enjoyable in themselves even if nothing ever gets resolved. I've really liked reading everybody's opinions on this topic. I wish I had something intelligent to contribute, but the smartest thing I can say is keep talking, everyone. This is fun reading.
  12. This is meant to be a companion to the thread 'What is good wrestling?' I think it helps to answer the question of what makes wrestling good by coming at it from the other end and asking what makes wrestling bad. The short answer is LOTS of things. But here's an intereting thing to consider: What makes good wrestling -- whatever that might be -- turn into bad wrestling? If you like workrate-y wrestling, at what point does the action become all style and no substance? If you like sound, technical wrestling, at what point does it devolve into Dory-levels of fatal boredom? If you like story-driven wrestling with good psychology, logical ringwork, compelling characters, and well-crafted narratives, what makes these things go wrong?
  13. One question on this topic: is it possible to distinguish between the terms that originated within the business (among the wrestlers and promoters, etc.) and those that were coined by outsiders who have analysed the matches? A term like "heat," of course, has been around forever and started within the business. But what about "shine?" Or "control?" Or "hope spot?" Are these insider or outsider terms? When the defenititve lexicon of wrestling terms is written, I think it would be helpful to include this sort of background information.
×
×
  • Create New...