Jump to content

Gritty or glitzy? Which do you prefer and why?


Snitsky's back acne

Recommended Posts

Inspired by discussions in another thread - how do you prefer your wrestling being presented? Raw and gritty or glitzy and slick?

 

I used to enjoy going to see 1PW at The Granby because the place was a shithole and it was cool to me to see wrestling taking place in such a shabby envitonment.
Part of the appeal of the original ECW to me was the raw, grittiness it had - the TV was low-budget and some of the places they ran looked like utter shitholes. I liked Wrestling Society X for that reason too.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the massive productions as well - the incredibly displays put on by Japan, Mexico, WrestleMania etc are sights to see but, I dunno I think I'm more of a 'put a lightbulb over the ring and smell the damp on the walls' kinda guy at heart. It's why I love Lucha Underground. It has slick production values and the vignettes are state of the art but the arena looks gritty and some backstage skits look like scenes from Hostel or something. 

 

Any good examples of complete scuzzy wrestling - or alternatively amazingly brilliant glitzy wrestling?

 

Which do you prefer - gritty or glitzy?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I was thinking about this earlier. I much preferred the gritty wrestling style when I was younger. In fact, I still prefer it on the smaller shows.

 

WWE is different though. I want all the colours, glitz and glamour and extravagance in the world. I wish they turned the notch up a bit. More so after watching the Wrestling isn't Wrestling video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Definitely prefer a bit of glamour. It's what puts me off modern TNA and the likes of ROH - it looks so inferior.

 

Of course, WWE can do a better job with certain elements, but for the most part WWE's production is top notch.

 

It's also why NJPW is a great watch, their big shows feature some great ideas, production-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trashy for me would be best, utter sleaze trying hard to be glamour and glitz but that's pretty much the definition of WWE isn't it? It's just a shame that the sleazy parts are becoming harder and harder to find.

 

Gritty can fuck off, i see too much of that in real life and i don't want to escape into even more of it. Video games and comics etc have been taking that route far too much in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I like the third "G", which is "Good". Both gritty and glitzy can work perfectly as well as each other if executed well. If the content isn't there it doesn't matter how it's produced. Abrams' 1990 output was slick and well produced, but it doesn't matter as it was fucking dire. Abrams' 1992 production was haphazard, under-produced, and from real shitty looking places, but it doesn't matter as it was fucking dire. So yeah, both are fine to me as long as it works, I have no preference, it's just garnish for the meat of the dish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Wrestling is like strip clubs - it should never be glitzy or swank. It should always look like you might catch hepatitis at any moment.

 

if you're happy sitting through production and venues like this then more power to you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

 

Wrestling is like strip clubs - it should never be glitzy or swank. It should always look like you might catch hepatitis at any moment.

 

if you're happy sitting through production and venues like this then more power to you.

 

 

Let's hear it for the Jews!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I like the third "G", which is "Good". Both gritty and glitzy can work perfectly as well as each other if executed well. If the content isn't there it doesn't matter how it's produced. Abrams' 1990 output was slick and well produced, but it doesn't matter as it was fucking dire. Abrams' 1992 production was haphazard, under-produced, and from real shitty looking places, but it doesn't matter as it was fucking dire. So yeah, both are fine to me as long as it works, I have no preference, it's just garnish for the meat of the dish.

 

 

That's the rub isn't it - I just want consistency in what I'm watching so that the aesthetic matches the vibe of what they;re delivering me. If the vibe is smoky backroom seedy wrestling, that's what I want it to look like. If it's bigtime pomp and pageantry then that's what I want to see.

 

The thing is though, the latter is really fucking hard to do convincingly on a shoestring budget. And even if you have the budget, it's really hard to do in front of a relatively small crowd. That leaves the former as by far the better option for everyone other than WWE playing the game.

 

There's nothing worse than small local shows where they just play dress up and mimic WWE. You have to acknowledge your setting and station and work with it otherwise it is just jarring and feels false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Was ECW really that gritty anyway? The graphics and packages looked fine, it didn't look as good as WWF or WCW, but they were super glitzy so anything looked gritty compared. It's not as if ECW was produced like USWA or SMW or something which had a far grittier and less produced look. ECW was like that music video gritty, where they've used glitz to get grit. Kind of like fake grit. Heyman even brags in his book about Buffone doing graphics to compete with what the NFL were doing. That doesn't say "Gritty" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...