![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Voices from the peanut gallery
Jan. 5th, 2010 10:51 amShould I state for the record my thoughts on yesterday's big wrestling night?
Well, I suppose I might as well. Lord knows all the other fanboys are doing it!
In short, here's where my head is on this topic:
I didn't hate TNA, but I don't fully trust that Hogan and Bischoff are going to take things in a new direction. The appearance of Scott Hall and the Nasty Boys raised my hackles (though amusingly enough I marked out at the appearance of Val Venis), and while the ambiguity about where Hogan stands with his old NWO running buddies was kind of interesting, I'm not so sure I'm ready to commit to watching further. I don't think I can handle investing myself, only to find after a few months that what I'm watching is nothing more than WCW 2.0. Something like that might end in me destroying my TV.
It was nice to see Bret Hart, but I wasn't really moved by his confrontation/reconciliation with Shawn because it didn't feel authentic. And don't even get me started on how predictable his bit with Vince was. I think this is my biggest hurdle in being able to enjoy wrestling as I once did....I've seen so much of it that it no longer surprises me, and I hate that I can call exactly how things are gonna go while everyone else reacts as if it's this big shocker. (And this isn't something exclusive to the big companies, the indys are just as guilty of beating old formulas to death.)
I read somewhere online that Hogan criticized WWE for letting "a female writer" control how the workers act and what they say. The fact that he used the adjective female as a qualifier really, really pisses me off, because it's one thing to say that a writer doesn't understand the mechanics or psychology of in-ring work, but to insinuate that a person's gender plays a role in the lack of understanding as well....that, that just makes me wanna punch him in the mouth. Hard. Scratch that, really fucking hard!!! Never mind the fact that TNA has Knockouts who are doing more innovative things in the ring than a lot of the dudes. Never mind the fact that I, a female writer have greater knowledge of wrestling than some of my male friends who are fans. But what do I know, right? I haven't had the privilege of taking a successful wrestling venture and systematically running it out of business because I cared more about putting over my friends and lining my pockets than actually offering something entertaining that would have netted a lot more profit in the long run.
So much more I could say, but I really need to get back to work. Maybe I'll come back and add to this later. We'll see.
Well, I suppose I might as well. Lord knows all the other fanboys are doing it!
In short, here's where my head is on this topic:
I didn't hate TNA, but I don't fully trust that Hogan and Bischoff are going to take things in a new direction. The appearance of Scott Hall and the Nasty Boys raised my hackles (though amusingly enough I marked out at the appearance of Val Venis), and while the ambiguity about where Hogan stands with his old NWO running buddies was kind of interesting, I'm not so sure I'm ready to commit to watching further. I don't think I can handle investing myself, only to find after a few months that what I'm watching is nothing more than WCW 2.0. Something like that might end in me destroying my TV.
It was nice to see Bret Hart, but I wasn't really moved by his confrontation/reconciliation with Shawn because it didn't feel authentic. And don't even get me started on how predictable his bit with Vince was. I think this is my biggest hurdle in being able to enjoy wrestling as I once did....I've seen so much of it that it no longer surprises me, and I hate that I can call exactly how things are gonna go while everyone else reacts as if it's this big shocker. (And this isn't something exclusive to the big companies, the indys are just as guilty of beating old formulas to death.)
I read somewhere online that Hogan criticized WWE for letting "a female writer" control how the workers act and what they say. The fact that he used the adjective female as a qualifier really, really pisses me off, because it's one thing to say that a writer doesn't understand the mechanics or psychology of in-ring work, but to insinuate that a person's gender plays a role in the lack of understanding as well....that, that just makes me wanna punch him in the mouth. Hard. Scratch that, really fucking hard!!! Never mind the fact that TNA has Knockouts who are doing more innovative things in the ring than a lot of the dudes. Never mind the fact that I, a female writer have greater knowledge of wrestling than some of my male friends who are fans. But what do I know, right? I haven't had the privilege of taking a successful wrestling venture and systematically running it out of business because I cared more about putting over my friends and lining my pockets than actually offering something entertaining that would have netted a lot more profit in the long run.
So much more I could say, but I really need to get back to work. Maybe I'll come back and add to this later. We'll see.
