Paid Members LaGoosh Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, BomberPat said: another thing you hardly ever heard on WWE shows after around the mid-90s was the announce team praising the quality of the camerawork for "bringing you up close to the action" or something like that WWE (and I think AEW might do it too) also shoot in such a way that you can very rarely (if ever) see the other camera men throughout a show which adds to the "invisible camera" element they are going for. I always personally preferred to see the other camera men because it gives it a more legit sports-like feel. Or when you'd have a big brawl outside the ring and the camera men, crew and photographers all surrounded the action just made everything feel more real and chaotic. Edited June 17 by LaGoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, FUM said: You can literally see them watching on the monitor in the background of the shot rather than looking at Punk in the ring so that totally defeats your point there. That literally is my point though. That whole bit, where they react to the reveal of Punk as and when the camera angle changes, it only works because they have to watch it exclusively on the monitor. They’re, “in the TV.” Any normal human being there live, even if they were watching it on a monitor, would look up the moment, “the ref,” stops counting at two, to see what the hell is going on. They wouldn’t continue looking at the tiny screen in front of them, waiting the few seconds it took for the director to switch perspective. I bet all three of the poor bastards had a stiff neck the rest of the night for having to keep still and aim their heads directly towards the monitor the entire time, against all natural instincts, in order to make the spot work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said: I actually don't think this is fair at all, and is clearly something they'd worked around with that video of him backstage looking at the monitor, conflicted, pensive, wondering what to do. If THATS not enough to cover the logic gap, nothing ever will be and unless someone's booked for a match, you could argue that no one ever need to turn up. He asked a REFEREE wearing A REFEREE’S SHIRT, to give him a shirt so he could run out to the ring. Anyone would think that referee would just go out instead like has always happened when there has been a ref bump.  In an ideal world she would have followed him out, Punk would have low blowed Drew, she would have rung the bell, Drew wins by DQ and Priest retains as the rules.* 3 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said: If it appears more 'cinematic' its because that content first approach is the filter through which they make decisions and book the shows. I think you’re being super generous there. Because whilst I actually agree with your point, when twits on Twitter proclaim “tHiS iS cInEmA” it’s not because of the mise en scène or camera angles used, it’s like Bomber mentioned on the whole.  Spoiler Yes, I watched the match on Saturday and the backstage footage on twitter with Punk, I broke my own rule.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Why did you watch it when you don't like it or want to like it or the company? To watch something you're that against is a bit strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick James Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 Fucking hell, discussing wrestling is exhausting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said: Why did you watch it when you don't like it or want to like it or the company? To watch something you're that against is a bit strange. To be fair, if the people who repeatedly say WWE isn't for them, or that they're not watching anymore, stopped commenting in these threads the forum would be at a standstill. It's a cross we have to bear. Whether you're willing to buy the referee stuff seems to me to come down to how much goodwill you have for the company and/or Punk. They've done far dafter stuff, and gone to less effort to cover any holes, and had less of a negative reaction on here which I think says a lot. Why didn't the referee just run down? I've no idea, but maybe she wasn't watching the match. They certainly never showed her watching a TV, and to my knowledge they've never said explicitly that all referee's sit and watch TV screens and then, in the event of a ref bump, unilaterally make the decision to go and save the day, so I don't know why that's a standard we need to hold them to. For all we know, in the land of kayfabe, when a ref is hurt, whoever is in guerrilla position has to respond quickly and call for a referee which could take time, and in that moment of chaos Punk took advantage. That's the generous view, I guess. I suspect how generous you choose to be depends less on the angle itself, and more on how many times you've professed hating WWE. It was an absolutely fine angle, well done. Nowt more, nowt less. And Punk looked spiffing in a Celtic top. Edited June 17 by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Supremo Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 (edited) I’d love to hear from anyone who was in the arena, to see if the Punk think worked at all live. Was anyone swerved? Or did everyone immediately recognise it as CM Punk because it was CM Punk, with CM Punk’s face. It’s similar to how I always regret watching the Billy and Chuck wedding having already read the Smackdown spoilers. I’d love to know if I would have been able to realise it was Bischoff in make up as the vicar. Did anyone watch it un-spoiled and not realise? Bet that would have been a huge rush. But yeah, it’s not a big deal either way, just something interesting to discuss. And yeah, I thought their attempt at explaining it just made it worse though. Why did the ref give him the shirt? Why wasn’t she watching the match, as standby? If they really wanted to be clever they should have shot a skit where Punk goes into Glasgow town center, goes to Footlocker, and steals a uniform from there. And Punk should have ran out wearing one of these bad boys. Edited June 17 by Supremo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Coconut Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 I don't watch anymore but keep reading because shitting can get boring. Fuck me guys, it's wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 10 minutes ago, Supremo said: It’s similar to how I always regret watching the Billy and Chuck wedding having already read the Smackdown spoilers. I’d love to know if I would have been able to realise it was Bischoff in make up as the vicar. Did anyone watch it un-spoiled and not realise? Bet that would have been a huge rush. I genuinely didn't know. It was only at "three minutes" that I realised. But I was an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 28 minutes ago, Supremo said: Why did the ref give him the shirt? Why wasn’t she watching the match, as standby? I think if we start questioning the logic around wrestling refs behaviour it all falls apart within seconds. Kayfabe wise they are the biggest and most gullible idiots of all time who are all absolutely terrible at their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald J Trump Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 16 minutes ago, Supremo said: I’d love to hear from anyone who was in the arena, to see if the Punk think worked at all live. Was anyone swerved? Or did everyone immediately recognise it as CM Punk because it was CM Punk, with CM Punk’s face. Like I mentioned earlier, Punk was strolling around Glasgow taking pictures and almost everyone I spoke to before the show knew he was in town. As soon as the referee took the bump, it's almost like the arena sensed that the next person to appear would be Punk, one way or another. That anticipation perhaps shaped what happened next, but even from the second tier and having only seen the back of his head, it seemed to me like everyone in my vicinity recognised it as Punk. The Jordans didn't help. That being said, they were showing the action on the screens above the ring and when they cut to that shot, there was a noticeable reaction. I think to an extent that was people playing along theatrically, although there may well have been some who didn't see Punk coming from a mile off. There wasn't much element of surprise and for the most part, people knew what was coming. They were pretty generous with regards to getting into the spirit of the moment. I've found at many events I've been to that even when sitting relatively close to the action, a lot of people have one eye on the screen when it comes to the intricate stuff like facial expressions etc. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that people in the arena will respond to at least some of the stuff that happens on screen. That definitely applies to the commentators, they're frequently seen watching the action on their monitors even though it's happening feet away from them. Its a question of trade offs. Theyre going to aim for as few logic gaps as possible, and in serious dramas there shouldn't be any. With something like Wrestling, I don't think they disregard it entirely but at the same time, they're not going to allow themselves to become creatively hamstrung just because it could be picked apart. If I knew Punk was in the building, McIntyre certainly would have, and even if there wasn't anything he could do to mitigate the risk, nothing about him suggested he was aware his mortal enemy was there to ruin to his life. Its a hole with no bottom this, and I think everyone has that point where theyll think "horseshit". Some will get to that point easier than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted June 17 Paid Members Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, DavidB6937 said: Why did you watch it when you don't like it or want to like it or the company? To watch something you're that against is a bit strange. Right. I spent almost 30 years watching, of course I want to like it, in the same way I don't want WWE/TNA/AEW (delete as appropriate) to go out of business. I stopped watching in 96 and started again in 2000, because at that time I wasn't enjoying it. The reason I do tip my toe in, despite going I'm done, is because it was such a constant in my life (and people like me love familiar routine). But it obviously is not what I want in wrestling right now, like how 2016-2019 was a slog at times. I hate the company for the obvious reasons, at the shit stench is still lingering while the decks haven't been completely cleared of Vince cronies, but I don't want to not like it, but it isn't for me currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Supremo said: It’s similar to how I always regret watching the Billy and Chuck wedding having already read the Smackdown spoilers. I’d love to know if I would have been able to realise it was Bischoff in make up as the vicar. Did anyone watch it un-spoiled and not realise? Bet that would have been a huge rush. Yeah an absolute belter. Had no idea Bischoff was in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) I personally didn't mind it (Punk run-in), but then I'm a sucker for a little bit of fun creativity, but then I also don't watch, but THEN I also think the THIS IS CINEMA approach from people (not here tbh) comes from some psychological validation that what they're watching isn't just fake gay wrestling. Which it is and we should all love it for. 'I'm sorry, I love you' is to blame for so much of this poppycock. Edited June 17 by Chili Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 hours ago, Supremo said: That literally is my point though. That whole bit, where they react to the reveal of Punk as and when the camera angle changes, it only works because they have to watch it exclusively on the monitor. They’re, “in the TV.” Any normal human being there live, even if they were watching it on a monitor, would look up the moment, “the ref,” stops counting at two, to see what the hell is going on. They wouldn’t continue looking at the tiny screen in front of them, waiting the few seconds it took for the director to switch perspective. I bet all three of the poor bastards had a stiff neck the rest of the night for having to keep still and aim their heads directly towards the monitor the entire time, against all natural instincts, in order to make the spot work. They’ve always been fairly explicit in that the announcers watch the action on the monitor though. They rarely look up unless the action is outside the ring near their area. I get what you’re saying but it’s as petty as it comes. I mean points like “why did the ref give him the shirt?” Why would a ref say no to a trained wrestler who, in kayfabe terms, can hurt you if you put up a protest? Whoever said it’s wrestling has nailed it. There’s an element of stretching your imagination involved, you can question the smallest plot holes or why would you in every TV show or movie ever if you don’t want to accept it’s fantasy. 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.