LogFAQs > #926014186

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Just because something used to be great and something you loved, that's no guarantee that it will be worth caring about forever.

Sure, but the only way to know whether it's worth caring about is to actually watch it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I mean, just look at Doctor Who for the last decade.

So Doctor Who going back to 2009? Oh, that's the Matt Smith run onward? Which was also about when Moffat took over as showrunner? idk, season 5/2010 had some great episodes. I enjoyed "The Beast Below" and "Vampires of Venice." Plus "The Eleventh Hour" was neat.

Season 6 was a bit of a mixed bag and the overarching story was lousy (although the Silence kinda had a neat concept), but I enjoyed season 7. Seasons 8, 9, and 10 look interesting. While I dislike the 13th Doctor, I haven't actually seen any of those episodes (other than some clips which reaffirm my dislike) so... idk.

My big problem with Doctor Who is its availability on streaming platforms.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yeah, but that barely counts. Being pre-taped, edited, and dropped directly on the network for a niche audience gives it a radically different feel than the main shows. Doubly so because it's also stocked with a ton of indie darling wrestlers who are allowed to go out and have phenomenal matches (as opposed to the main card, where they're limited to the point of killing their appeal entirely). And triply so (no pun intended) when you realize that the entirety of NXT is basically crafted according to HHH's vision of what wrestling product should be, as opposed to Vince and Kevin Dunn's idea of what wrestling should be.

Barely counts in what way? However it got made, the end product had been enjoyable, which is ultimately what I care about. If last week was an outlier and it's still comparable to what it was, I could reasonably see myself following it again.

The only tough part is becoming invested in a wrestler and then deciding how much of the other shows to follow to keep up. Rather than watch full episodes of Raw or SD, I could just follow the relevant clips/storylines on YT or another service. The idea of listening to wrestling commentators for coverage doesn't massively appeal to me; sure, somebody like Dave Meltzer is still fine, but I don't like a lot of the other names (I actually had tried watching some of Wrestling with Wregret in the past, which I recall disliking more than the actual programming. Meanwhile, WhatCulture has always been too clickbaity for me). However, afaik, there's nobody as entertaining as Jim Cornette doing the coverage.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(see also, how quickly WWE managed to completely kill all interest in Matt Hardy).

Well, when they brought him in, they couldn't use his gimmick. That was strike one. Strike two was what we always knew was going to happen -- Matt wasn't going to get the same level of creative control and we weren't going to see as much pre-taped content (which, to be fair, doesn't have a lot of place in wrestling when you have an attending audience). Strike 3 seems inevitable -- that they weren't going to do much to push him. VKM didn't view him as one of his creations so he was never going to get equal consideration.

And thematically, Broken Matt was a poor fit for the WWE's current overarching vision for its programming. However, we never really got Broken Matt in the first place. We got teases for Broken Matt, but then we wound up with Woken Matt which wasn't the same thing. Honestly, I put more blame on Anthem than WWE because had Broken Matt come into the WWE, it might have been a different story.
---

Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance