Matt D
DVDVR 80s Project
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Matt D
-
It's so strange to me, on some level though, to realize that so many wrestlers have to be thinking "This is just what I should be doing right now" or "I have to kill x amount of time" without thinking about the why of what they're doing. Don't you think that would drive you nuts as a wrestler? To be doing something and not knowing why you were doing it? I know it drives me nuts on my job. If I don't know what the point of some bureaucratic task I'm doing and how it fits in to the big picture, I go nuts. But then there are people in the office who just want to come in, do what they're told, get paid and go home, so I don't know. -
This is a tremendous aside in the midst of all of this but...one of my happiest moments as a wrestling fan was watching a Tully/Arn tag match where Tully hit the standing axe-handle off the second rope on a prone opponent. The opponent didn't get a foot up. It wasn't a transition move. It was an effective offensive move. That's the only time I've ever seen it work and it magically validated, to me, every other time I've seen the counter.
-
It's more than just Sturgeon's law though! I think most bad books, bad movies, etc... most of them have basic storytelling logic. They're bad in execution, but most bad novels, for instance, at least tell a story. Most bad movies can be followed. Not all, but most. Basic coherence is "square one" element for most narrative mediums. It's a starting point. You almost can't not have it. It's not like that with wrestling. As wrestling has developed in the US, for one reason or another, it's not "square one." It's just not. If you read 8 random novels from this year, I bet at least 7 would make sense. Some might be good. Most would probably be bad, but a huge majority would have basic coherence. as you said, on a card, you might get one match out of eight like that. THAT is why it stands out so much. In almost every other medium, it's a given. In wrestling, it's anything but.
-
I praise movies for set up. And I get annoyed if something is brought up in the third act when it wasn't in the first. But I kind of get my kicks from script structure (and love todd alcott's website for instance). It's just how I'm wired. That said, it's just part of a whole. If one thing is set up really well and every else is a mess, well.. yeah.
-
Again, I think it's because so much of it doesn't or didn't. And more than that, so much stuff that was, and IS, wildly lauded doesn't or didn't. For decades the argument was about "action" or "workrate" or whatever. The question of narrative and whether or not it made sense is pretty damn new. Meltzer might complain in years past about a wrestler not knowing how to put a match together, but if they worked hard, was athletic, and did a lot of stuff, that'd be far more than forgiven.
-
-
-
-
It's like the bs over people "playing their roles." The issue is that so few people do it well. So few matches actually make sense. If all of them made sense. If everyone played their role well, then it wouldn't stand out, but since so few matches actually qualify that's what makes it all stand out.
-
This was just after the Vader fight. You have to wonder what the heck the plan for Orndorff was long term if he hadn't gotten injured. For a guy at the tail end of his career, he really did quite well for himself between 93 and 95, and then he transferred it into the Power Plant gig that lasted another five years.
-
-
"Doing everything for a conscious, thought out reason." That's the best way I could put it. I think one of the best psychological performances of the last few years is Big Show vs Mayweather. Every tiny movement big show does before, during, and after that match has a purpose. It's frigging amazing.
-
I know a lot of people don't think Levy's ECW stuff has held up, but I love hearing him talk about it. He put so much thought into this crap. In the end, however, I think the Raven character went too far away from his stooging/heeling strength. He actually has talked about the fact he realized that and that's why he used Stevie/Meanie to sort of represent that side of him while he was Raven.
-
they should have turned Razor.
-
Apparently it hurt his long term contract negotiations though as they knew he couldn't jump back to WWF.
-
Barb was a lot of fun. He'd bump bigger than you think too. And there were good Warlord matches. I don't think he was that bad by 91 or so. The year feud with DBS got boring at the time but looking back there are some good matches. He also had a feud with Bret and I know I've seen some other good stuff from that era. OH! and I love the Warlord/Jannetty opening segment from 90 Survivor Series Actually, a good way to compare Contrast Barbarian/Warlord is to look at Barbarian's Battle Royale at the Royal Albert Hall match vs DBS and compare it to the 91 series Warlord had with him. (and then compare them both to the Berzerker/DBS match from Rampage. Nord was the best non-Tenta big man in early 90s WWF).
-
It feels like there's more than a 3-4 year age difference between Bret and Tito.
-
Story goes that one was supposed to feud with Hogan and one with Warrior but it never came to be.
-
-
I know I was supposed to look for the exact quote. Sorry things have been a little crazy in real life. I'm glad people remember it though.
-
It's a better name than the Young Pistils.
-
And surprisingly few suits are cut to fit. That's why it matters when they are. That's why it's worth talking about, because it really is quite rare. It's the "bare minimum" but it's a hell of a lot easier to find excitement level/drama/highspots than it is to find a suit that fits!
-
Half of us are trying to understand Rosebud? The other half doesn't think it exists?
-
I think most of us understand that but still tend to find what Flair said in this one instance believable.
-
I swear I heard him say it on the shoot. I just don't remember where, and it's long. Granted, I've heard so many things over the last year and a half...