SuperBacon Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 For all your future needs. Whats that Cody? People who edit their posts without explaining which bit have a what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said: Oh in terms of reasonable discussion and all that - absolutely. I rarely directly engage with anyone on Twitter. However in terms of a wider picture and seeing how people are reacting to stuff, reading Twitter/Facebook/Reddit can give a more overall view of how things are being received as a general audience, which I would assume WWE care more about than us on here. Basically the opposite of Tony Khan. And right now, as far as I can tell, the questionable booking and shifts hasn't caused a mass turn against Cody or caused any issues with the business, nor has whatever work The Rock has been putting in. And that'll be all they care about really. The problem is that all those reactions are positive. I've never been big into wrestling Twitter, even when Twitter wasn't 80% bots and adverts, but if you click on trends, all you see generally is the enthusiasm and over-reaction of the moment. And any counter voices in the comments/replies are absolutely worthless because the counter 99% of the time is that someone is a WWE Drone or AEW Supermark. It's worthless from a critical POV. WWE are going to make a load of money. For all the people criticising Kevin Dunn and praising HHH this morning on the trend I clicked on, WWE made record revenues when Kevin Dunn was inducing epilepsy on a weekly basis. Not to drag down all the people who want to turn a blind eye, but WWE made billions after a scandal that should have brought the organisation to it's knees. It's revenues, clicks, likes, shares and subscribes are not evidence of good booking. No-one on Twitter, that I can find as a casual clicker of trends, is going to give the same well-thought out view on the poor booking as @d-d-d-dAz has in the last couple of weeks. As much as he's sometimes hyperbolic in the moment (Sorry Supes), no-one is giving things the thought that @Supremo does. I don't really care too much as I'm not gonna watch, but I'm interested in whether HHH is a good booker because I'm a nosey bastard lifelong wrestling fan, for my shame. Seems to me that they've muddied the waters with Cody/Roman/Rock, Roman isn't the focus he should be, Rock is a reluctant heel, Cody has lost a little bit of the clear momentum he had, Seth Rollins is a waste of space, Jey Uso hardly ever wins, Sami Zayn has gone from the most popular man on the roster to being second preference to Chad Gable and very little else of consequence is happening on 57 hours of Raw and Smackdown. My take would be that HHH is a huge improvement on Vince, that isn't difficult because Vince is useless and none of it matters really because they'll cash in regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, tiger_rick said: The problem is that all those reactions are positive. I've never been big into wrestling Twitter, even when Twitter wasn't 80% bots and adverts, but if you click on trends, all you see generally is the enthusiasm and over-reaction of the moment. And any counter voices in the comments/replies are absolutely worthless because the counter 99% of the time is that someone is a WWE Drone or AEW Supermark. It's worthless from a critical POV. WWE are going to make a load of money. For all the people criticising Kevin Dunn and praising HHH this morning on the trend I clicked on, WWE made record revenues when Kevin Dunn was inducing epilepsy on a weekly basis. Not to drag down all the people who want to turn a blind eye, but WWE made billions after a scandal that should have brought the organisation to it's knees. It's revenues, clicks, likes, shares and subscribes are not evidence of good booking. No-one on Twitter, that I can find as a casual clicker of trends, is going to give the same well-thought out view on the poor booking as @d-d-d-dAz has in the last couple of weeks. As much as he's sometimes hyperbolic in the moment (Sorry Supes), no-one is giving things the thought that @Supremo does. I don't really care too much as I'm not gonna watch, but I'm interested in whether HHH is a good booker because I'm a nosey bastard lifelong wrestling fan, for my shame. Seems to me that they've muddied the waters with Cody/Roman/Rock, Roman isn't the focus he should be, Rock is a reluctant heel, Cody has lost a little bit of the clear momentum he had, Seth Rollins is a waste of space, Jey Uso hardly ever wins, Sami Zayn has gone from the most popular man on the roster to being second preference to Chad Gable and very little else of consequence is happening on 57 hours of Raw and Smackdown. My take would be that HHH is a huge improvement on Vince, that isn't difficult because Vince is useless and none of it matters really because they'll cash in regardless. Completely agree. It's the market leader, which is why more people will watch Akira Tozawa vs LA Knight then Bryan Danielson vs Will Ospreay. WWE can put on any old shite and get record ratings and attendance because it's THE brand (and I am not saying all WWE is shite, but my point is being the most popular isn't always a sign of quality). Also WWE has one of the worst fandoms with the worst takes, as most big fandoms do like Star Wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 25 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said: WWE can put on any old shite and get record ratings and attendance because it's THE brand (and I am not saying all WWE is shite, but my point is being the most popular isn't always a sign of quality). Also WWE has one of the worst fandoms with the worst takes, as most big fandoms do like Star Wars. Doesn't that ignore the fact that there's a general opinion that WWE's product has been better lately? Because the increase in attendance and sales etc lately surely shows that they can't just "put on any old shite" to get record ratings and attendance? Otherwise they would've been doing that year on year for however long? And ALL fandoms have shit takes. There's always going to be people who have absolutely no interest in opposing views and will just defend their favourite stuff to the death. Wrestling. Football. Sci fi. All of it. And yeah @tiger_rick I guess it comes down to what people are watching it for, as you say. I imagine the majority of the audience - who the product is mostly aimed at - aren't going to be sitting down and picking it apart in the way some of us do on here. So there's no right/wrong opinions really in terms of quality or whether it's "good" because good clearly means different things to different people, especially in wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snitsky's back acne Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 7 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said: Doesn't that ignore the fact that there's a general opinion that WWE's product has been better lately? Because the increase in attendance and sales etc lately surely shows that they can't just "put on any old shite" to get record ratings and attendance? Otherwise they would've been doing that year on year for however long? Indeed. Plus I never really get the 'well just because they are the most successful doesn't mean they have the best product' narrative. It kind of does, actually. It may not be your personal favourite but the fact that the majority are consuming it does make it 'the best'. 'Just because McDonalds sells the most burgers doesn't mean they're the best'. - yes, it kind of does. You may prefer another burger joint but more people prefer McDonalds. Now, sure, I get 'habits' and 'established brands' etc. and the fact that some amazing companies do not have the resources that the large corporations do BUT 'the best' is subjective based on individual taste. The only true barometer we have to measure 'the best' is success, because that gauges overall consumption, and in that regard WWE is the best. Apologies, I may have drifted off on a tangent there but it's a concept that interests me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 It's a mental concept but perhaps some people just prefer what WWE offer, and some people just prefer what AEW offer. Like I say, a mental concept, and one which some people just cannot fathom, but it really is that simple isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, Snitsky's back acne said: Indeed. Plus I never really get the 'well just because they are the most successful doesn't mean they have the best product' narrative. It kind of does, actually. It may not be your personal favourite but the fact that the majority are consuming it does make it 'the best'. 'Just because McDonalds sells the most burgers doesn't mean they're the best'. - yes, it kind of does. You may prefer another burger joint but more people prefer McDonalds. Now, sure, I get 'habits' and 'established brands' etc. and the fact that some amazing companies do not have the resources that the large corporations do BUT 'the best' is subjective based on individual taste. The only true barometer we have to measure 'the best' is success, because that gauges overall consumption, and in that regard WWE is the best. Apologies, I may have drifted off on a tangent there but it's a concept that interests me. We've been arguing about this on here since the dawn of the forum. It's nothing new. I'd say, respectfully, you're wrong. Most successful doesn't mean best. Maccies burgers might be the best branded, best known or best promoted but there's no way on the planet they are the best. Wrestling is a creative industry. In any creative industry, music, films, TV, theatre, etc - what is popular isn't always what is good. WWE does appear from all I read and hear to have hugely improved. Fair play to them. However, when everything you read and heard was about how fucking shit they were, how dreadful Dunn was, how out of touch Vince was, who was the most successful wrestling promotion in the world? Who signed mega deals with Fox and USA? Who sold to Peacock for billions? Yep. The "shitty" WWE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 It's why Coldplay and U2 are the best bands in the world because they sell the most init.@DavidB6937 you clearly glossed over the bit where I said not all WWE is shite. And yes, most people recognize it has been better recently. But lots of people thought it was great in the Thunderdome era which was a lot of trash and it was post that when they started selling more tickets than they had been pre pandemic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JLM Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 (edited) James Cameron’s Avatar is the best film ever made. The one which sells the most and makes the most money is the best at winning in the free market under capitalism, but that quite obviously doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the best in terms of quality. If it was all based on merit then stuff like brand recognition wouldn’t be relevant. It’s not necessarily a preference thing either. For stuff like food and tech products there’a measurable stuff like how long a product lasts, nutritional value, technical specifications, the strength and quality of materials used etc. Mass produced cheap and cheerful garbage will outsell higher quality items because the other items might be harder to get hold of, more expensive, less well known etc. “Most people prefer McDonald’s over your favourite burger joint so they’re the best” is a ridiculous oversimplification. If money, availability and time were no object and people were asked to choose their ultimate dream meal, I strongly doubt that all Maccies customers would choose McDonald’s. At the end of a piss up at 4am when the 24 hour maccies is the only thing open, my favourite burger place isn’t an option, that doesn’t mean McDonald’s is better or that I prefer it. It’s cheap, it’s available everywhere, it’s fast, it has a broad/safe menu to appeal to as many people as possible, it’s designed to be as addictive as possible, it’s marketed aggressively towards children etc. etc. I don’t think McDonald’s themselves would claim that their food is the highest quality and better than anywhere else selling burgers. Measuring how popular something is, is the best way to measure how popular something is. That’s about it. To get anything more useful than that there needs to be nuance. There are countless variables and factors underneath that which can’t be swept away because you’ve decided popularity is the only thing worth measuring. Edited March 19 by JLM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 35 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said: It's why Coldplay and U2 are the best bands in the world because they sell the most init. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 53 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said: It's why Coldplay and U2 are the best bands in the world because they sell the most init. There was an old Terry Wogan line about Coldplay that I always use - "the problem with them is, only the public like them". I'm sure the obsession with numbers and ratings and success exists in other media, but never to the extent that it does in wrestling, and I'm convinced it comes from two places - an obsession with the "Monday Night War", and people thinking that wrestling's default state is two rival promotions trying to outdo each other by metrics that largely don't make sense any more, and wrestling fans needing to be seen as "smart". Too many fans still seem absolutely terrified of just admitting that they like wrestling, or that they want to see their favourite wrestler win more matches, because to do so suggests that they're just a mark, and there's nothing worse to be than that - so they have to wrap it all up in arguments that sound business-y and insider instead. You can't just want your favourite wrestler to win, you have to argue about how the creative direction is better if they win, and how if they don't win, it's because someone in the office is holding them down. You can't just say that this promotion, or this style of wrestling, is your favourite, you have to argue that it's the best on some kind of quantifiable business ground - that this company's ratings are better, that this wrestler is a bigger draw, or that this style of wrestling "turns off casual fans", as if the barrier to your enjoyment of a bit of telly should be whether an imaginary other person is enjoying it or not! It's mental when applied to any other form of entertainment - people arguing that I'm A Celebrity is the artistically best thing on TV and everything else on TV should emulate it because more people watch it, or that every album should sound more like The Weeknd. It's ingrained in so many people in wrestling too. I've been to so many seminars where one of the trainers will say something along the lines of, "if you're not here to make money, get out", and that becoming a star and making money out of wrestling should be the only motivation to do it. But some of my favourite people in wrestling are people who have found a weird creative direction and actively turned down opportunities to do something more traditionally lucrative, or just weekend warriors who know exactly what their place is, but still have fun. Very few people would find that choice objectionable in art or music, but in wrestling there's something dirty about not wanting to be the equivalent of McDonalds - and again I think it comes from that place of being terrified of being seen as a "mark". As for WWE, I think they're at a point where their creative direction is better than it had been for years, but that's a really fucking low bar. But they're also in a place similar to around 1997, when there's a lot of energy around the main event scene, but nobody's exactly celebrating the midcard, which from everything I see seems pretty dire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said: Completely agree. It's the market leader, which is why more people will watch Akira Tozawa vs LA Knight then Bryan Danielson vs Will Ospreay. WWE can put on any old shite and get record ratings and attendance because it's THE brand (and I am not saying all WWE is shite, but my point is being the most popular isn't always a sign of quality). Also WWE has one of the worst fandoms with the worst takes, as most big fandoms do like Star Wars. That’d be 90% of the AEW ‘fandom’ then. Singling out a brand is like saying Man United have the worse fans. No, football has the worse fans. Well, second worse obviously wrestling fans take the top spot. Just ahead of football fans, gamers and billionaire shaggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Way too much McDonald's slander last couple of posts. Let's not get crazy now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 18 minutes ago, SuperBacon said: Way too much McDonald's slander last couple of posts. Let's not get crazy now. I’ve never personally sold a burger in my life and I make a better burger than McDonald’s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted March 19 Paid Members Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, Mr_Danger said: I’ve never personally sold a burger in my life and I make a better burger than McDonald’s. If fast food was like wrestling, regardless of which chain/small indy burger joint we professed to like, Ronald McDonald and others would descend on us to point out that until we've done their job for a living, our criticism is invalid. 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.