Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 481 to 489 of 489

Thread: AEW Dynamite

  1. #481
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,212
    In your case Prime, can you not enjoy the show if the good outweighs the bad stuff? I'm no AEW advocate, so I'm just asking in theory.

    It'll always be tough when the bad is in the main event or prime spot of a show, because it has more focus, and therefore a bigger percentage of what any promotion is trying to offer.

    I feel that Impact has a good balance of this stuff. I don't mind the Broken Universe, or the current Undead Realm used. But it is enjoyable because it's a side piece to the reality based gimmicks on the live show.

    For discussion sake, should we blame Undertaker for this? That seems to be the earliest gimmick of unrealistic super powers I can think of. And with that example, Undertaker wasn't the main event for the longest time. He was an attraction throughout the 90s, while Bret Hart was the WWF Champion.

    I truly don't mind the Broken stuff in theory. Lots of it in Impact and in WWE was entertaining. And I'm sure Jericho is one of the best choices to interact with Hardy, mixing reality and the surreal. But when it's the main attraction of the show, especially one that's been built on 20 minute competitive (often spot based) matches, it's going to stand out. And that can be good or bad. AEW have enough fanboys to praise it simply because it's Elite (but would trash Vince's usage of it), so I doubt it'll hurt them at this time. I think it could hurt their growth long term.

    Funniest example of AEW fanboyism is I've seen some of them defend Hardy as being physically able to keep up with the standard AEW talent in the ring... I might be harder on him than most (other than Kurt Angle, I can't think of someone who has dropped in their abilities as much in as short a time), but they will defend his eventual in ring work like he is a better wrestler than Roman Reigns. And while I understand everyone has an opinion, that is one opinion that just doesn't hold up, in my opinion.

  2. #482
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    5,046
    If it outweighs it, like, 90-10, then yeah, sure. I don't hate Survivor Series 1990 because of the Gobbledy-Gooker, say. Once you start getting to something breaking it for me every 2-3 matches, then no. The whole thing is pretty much ruined then, I'm afraid. I have sometimes wished I could be more like a modern fan and just chop-and-change, but that's not how I watched and I just can't get anything out of it that way.

    Funny thing with The Undertaker, I never really saw it in the same way. It's hard to put into words exactly, but it never occurred to me to treat it as if Undertaker was *actually* supernatural until I got on the internet a generation later. I think the way I kinda processed it was he was some guy with a high pain threshold who was basically playing mind games based off that ability to win matches. By the time you get into the stuff that would be hard to explain using that framework he was already super-over as a babyface, and once that is true people are just inclined to go with shit. Much like how Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin could get away with all sorts of nonsense because they were Hogan and Austin.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  3. #483
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,212
    How old were in when Undertaker was doing his 90s stuff?

    I was 9 when he debuted. And I never really bought into. I'm in the "Undertaker is overrated" category, and I think a big part of it is because my earliest memories of him had no impact on me. I think it felt silly, along with the fact that I was starting to wane away from wrestling at the time. By the time I was back in 100% in 1996, he was still a non-factor. But his antics were being curbed, and he was becoming more "human" or something. He wasn't invincible the same way, and the parlour tricks were minimized. Once the ministry stuff started, I lost interest in whatever he was involved in as well.

    Anyways, we are off track. My point is that when the silliness was part of the main focus of the show, it was too much for me. But I kept watching because there was enough outside of that to make me care. And maybe AEW could be like that for you.

  4. #484
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    5,046
    I was probably about the same age, depending on which part of the 1990s you mean. For me the crucial thing was that initial heel run. It was the other heels who were saying he was dead, inhuman, couldn't be beaten. The babyface commentators were telling me that wasn't true. As far as I was concerned, it was a con trick, and my heroes could beat him. When he turned, it was still a con, except now it was a con in the service of good. If his antics could turn over someone I hated, so much the better. Silly? Perhaps, but not truly otherworldly, to me at least.

    But to go back to the point - I doubt it. As I say, that 'I liked this bit but not that bit' has never really done it for me. When I watched wrestling, I watched the whole show, as a whole show. I've tried with other shows that I would expect to have a higher ratio of stuff I like - NJPW, for instance - and even there, it just didn't stick. I would guess looking at AEW from the outside I would like.... 50% of it at the very best. Then there's the thing about modern wrestling not looking like matches but choreographed dances, so from my perspective there can be no payoff to anything.

    I appreciate the thought but my feelings towards them based on all I've seen are so far removed from wanting to spend two hours watching their show, it feels like a massive long shot.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  5. #485
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,212
    Like I stated early on, I'm no AEW advocate. The storytelling is their best attribute, but the TV wrestling just turns me off. PPVs deliver, but Dynamite is a chore to sit through identical match after identical match, just to get a good promo or story here and there.

    Another side discussion, the comparisons to WWE are inevitable, but while the wrestling is usually average, and the stories mostly the same (though some are subpar, and some are better than expected), the show works overall for me. Again, not selling anyone on anything. More a continuation of the percentage discussion. Rarely does WWE give me something I get completely disinterested in, the way I do for AEW's TV wrestling content. The highs in story for AEW are higher, but the lows in the rest of the show are eye rolling. WWE wrestling content is average at worst for the most part (rarely is something outright bad, and when it's good, it's pretty damn good), but they have the better variety, in my opinion.

    Take WM as an example, and sticking to SD. While Elias vs Corbin is average to me, Bray and Cena is really intriguing. On Raw, Black vs Lashley will be fine, but there's no story. Same for the tag title match. But then you have the Drew vs Brock angle, and Orton vs Edge.

    WWE's tends to be average, with some high points. AEW is a much lower quality overall for the show (story + wrestling), but the highers are exceptional.

    It's a tough balance. It also depends on my mood.

  6. #486
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,042
    In the fall of 1990 I was 15 when the Undertaker debuted, and I remember when he came out, I just said that 'that is Mean Mark Callous'. Low and behold he went on to become wrestling royalty as the Undertaker, but I remember distinctly knowing who he was and that he was 'not all powerful'. Maybe b/c I was 15.

    Also when Sid came into the WWF in 91, I thought for sure they would have teamed up Taker and Sid to bring back some sort of Skyscrapers 2.0 (or would it have been 3.0?).

  7. #487
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15v2 View Post
    Like I stated early on, I'm no AEW advocate. The storytelling is their best attribute, but the TV wrestling just turns me off. PPVs deliver, but Dynamite is a chore to sit through identical match after identical match, just to get a good promo or story here and there.

    Another side discussion, the comparisons to WWE are inevitable, but while the wrestling is usually average, and the stories mostly the same (though some are subpar, and some are better than expected), the show works overall for me. Again, not selling anyone on anything. More a continuation of the percentage discussion. Rarely does WWE give me something I get completely disinterested in, the way I do for AEW's TV wrestling content. The highs in story for AEW are higher, but the lows in the rest of the show are eye rolling. WWE wrestling content is average at worst for the most part (rarely is something outright bad, and when it's good, it's pretty damn good), but they have the better variety, in my opinion.

    Take WM as an example, and sticking to SD. While Elias vs Corbin is average to me, Bray and Cena is really intriguing. On Raw, Black vs Lashley will be fine, but there's no story. Same for the tag title match. But then you have the Drew vs Brock angle, and Orton vs Edge.

    WWE's tends to be average, with some high points. AEW is a much lower quality overall for the show (story + wrestling), but the highers are exceptional.

    It's a tough balance. It also depends on my mood.
    I feel caught between a rock and a hard place. We've reached a point where WWE feels like the best of the major outlets for the in-ring stuff, in so far as they are offenders, but they are more accessories rather than the worst criminals (if I can use that metaphor for this). But in story terms... when was the last time they hooked me? Moved me? For years now, nothing has felt organic, and everything has felt (to me, I should say in advance) like they are doing something because there is TV time to fill. NXT came closer than main roster stuff to getting my attention, but then I hated sitting through the ridiculousness of takeovers.

    As I say. Rock and a hard place.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  8. #488
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,212
    Not really. I think you've let go. And that's the hardest part, and there's nothing wrong with that.

  9. #489
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    5,046
    Yeah. I guess when I say that it's more honest to say, I was caught between a rock and a hard place.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •