A query . . .

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Cutting a promo is acting. Terry Bollea could act....but he could only act like Hulk Hogan. it's the only character he could play well.

No, Terry Bollea IS Hulk Hogan. It's just an exagerrated version.

 

Same thing with Austin. Austin was not a great actor during his hot run. He was just good at being himself in front of a crowd. There's a difference.

The best personalities in wrestling are like that. They aren't acting, they're just being themselves, but with more volume. Sadly, it's a point that gets lost on a lot of people.

[Carnival 0]

No, Terry Bollea IS Hulk Hogan. It's just an exagerrated version.

You really think Hogan acts like that in real life?

 

An "exaggerated version" of Terry is still not the real Terry. You think Hogan talks like he's cutting a promo everyday? No, it's part of his character. To play a character, no matter how close it is to the real you, it's still acting.

 

It all just depends on how you define acting.

 

I understand the "volume turned up" thing, thats obvious. I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just saying it's still acting. They still ACT like a heel or face, they still ACT like they hate someone. They still play a character...to play a character you have to ACT like that character no matter how close to your real life persona it is. The ones that come off the best, have to do the least amount of acting.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I understand the "volume turned up" thing, thats obvious. I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just saying it's still acting. They still ACT like a heel or face, they still ACT like they hate someone. They still play a character...to play a character you have to ACT like that character no matter how close to your real life persona it is. The ones that come off the best, have to do the least amount of acting.

If they're being themselves, how can they be acting ?

 

If a person is being themselves, they aren't acting.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But it does not take acting ability to be Hulk Hogan. It does not take acting ability to be Steve Austin. You look at their supposed "characters", and then you look at any character on any WB television show and they are miles apart in terms of depth. Wrestling is very basic storytelling, where the appeal is ultimately seeing 2 guys beat the shit out of each other. Promos are designed to make you want to see which ever 2 guys beat the shit out of each other. What gets over in the ring - facial expressions, grunting, blood, physical selling - wouldn't get over on the screen, or the stage, to regular movie-going or theatre-going audiences. To say you don't buy someones "acting" in wrestling is silly. Wrestling is a different animal. The disconnect comes in the WWE trying to format their shows like a television show, rather than a wrestling show. Benjamin being a bad actor means shit; a wrestler is not an actor.

 

We can use words like "character", "performance", "storylines", "motivation", "dialogue", "acting", "suspension of disbelief" and all these other film terms to describe things in wrestling because they are relatable descriptions, they are approximations, but ultimately that's all they are, because the objective of wrestling is different from the objective of acting. Acting is meant to elicit an emotional response from the audience, Wrestling is meant to get someone to pay money to see two people fight each other. You go back 100 years, and that's what wrestling was, and you look at today and that's what wrestling still is. The WWE, and I'd say Stephanie McMahon and Kevin Dunn in particular, are trying to shift the paradigm and it's a losing battle. Wrestlers are Wrestlers. Wrestlers are not actors. No one gets in to wrestling thinking "this is my big acting break" except women (and they fail worse than the men when on-screen), so the amount of "good actors" in wrestling will be very, very, slim.

[Carnival 0]

I agree Rudo...they are different. but in many ways they are the same aswell. What makes people buy tickets? When they are into the story. Also people buy tickets just to see the wrestling. But telling the story is the most important part of it.

 

To say you don't like a wrestler's acting is not silly. It's saying that they aren't playing that character very well, either the character is too much of a stretch for them, or the character sucks to begin with. Delivering lines in a promo is acting. No it's not the same as acting in a movie, but it's still acting.

 

I think wrestlers should be wrestlers first and actors second. But they are still actors to a certain extent.

 

HTQ - With "volume turned up", they are still acting, just to a lesser extent. Do you not agree that in a fued there is acting involved. Austin and Rock acted like they hated each other to tell the story.

 

Better example - Kane - tell me he's not acting at all. Tell me that he is just like that in real life. He talks the same and has the same feelings as Kane when he's just sitting at home with his family.

 

If you can't see that Glenn Jacobs is playing the character Kane, then God help you.(no pun intended)

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I'll have to get back to you on that last one.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how someone can be themselves, and yet be acting, when them being themselves precludes acting.

[Carnival 0]

I'll have to get back to you on that last one.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how someone can be themselves, and yet be acting, when them being themselves precludes acting.

Well I'm not saying Stone cold for example was all an act.

 

I'm just saying he still has to act somewhat. Act like Vince pissed him off or what have you.

 

An Exaggerated version of someone is not the real version. It's close, but it's over the top right? So it's not the real them. It's like them, it's based off them, but it's isn't the real person. It's still an act.

 

I never once said that someone being themselves is acting. I said someone being themselves with the "volume turned up" is acting.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Saying a Wrestlers acting is bad is like saying a Porn Actresses acting is bad. I don't care if you're right or not in an "acting" sense, it's still silly to say. A porn actress isn't there to act, she's there to fuck. A wrestler isn't there to act, he's there to wrestle. Anything inbetween is meant to lead towards the fucking/wrestling. I don't think you can say a wrestler is a bad actor in a wrestling environment, since there have been tons of "bad actors" in wrestling that still are able to get over. It's not a real relevant point. The bar is so low in wrestling that it's non-existant. It's just a bad perspective to look at wrestling with, and IMO isn't really a valid criticism against a wrestler.

 

I can't imagine people going to WWE shows for the stories or the acting. It's not even community-access level in terms of quality.

[iggymcfly 0]

Whether you can "imagine it" or not, it's still true. People will tune into Raw more when Batista's "acting" well enough to make the storyline with HHH intriguing, and people will tune out from Smackdown when Booker T's acting like he's got a parking cone up his ass to sell the Angle feud.

 

The wrestling makes for a nice format to the show, but hot feuds are what make money, not good wrestlers.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Whether you can "imagine it" or not, it's still true. People will tune into Raw more when Batista's "acting" well enough to make the storyline with HHH intriguing, and people will tune out from Smackdown when Booker T's acting like he's got a parking cone up his ass to sell the Angle feud.

 

The wrestling makes for a nice format to the show, but hot feuds are what make money, not good wrestlers.

I'd say that you need a combo of the two.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

What's the difference between Batistas "acting" and Benjamins "acting" to make one good and the other bad?

[naiwf 0]

What's the difference between Batistas "acting" and Benjamins "acting" to make one good and the other bad?

I'd bet he'd say that more people seem to like Batista's skill at it than Benjamin's, which basically isn't an answer at all. All wrestlers are bad actors. If they were good actors they'd probably find it easier to make a career out of acting. To a man, I'd bet any WWE guy who was offered the chance to swap careers with The Rock, who isn't a great actor by any means, would do so in a heartbeat. Greater pay, better public exposure and less risk of injury sounds like a good deal to me.

 

The same goes to the porn argument made earlier. The world's greatest porn "actress" makes a fraction of the money that an average "legit" actress does. She's in porn because she's not good enough to be an actress almost by definition. Greater pay, better public exposure and less risk of catching a terminal disease sounds like a good deal to me.

 

Batista by all accounts is a laid back guy, so him being laid back in character worked perfectly against HHH's maniacal rants, while someone who appears to be incredibly stiff like Orton, failed miserably. I'd put money on Batista being unable to pull off HHH's character because that's not in his make up, and he's not a good enough "actor" to convince me otherwise.

[Guest wildpegasus]

All wrestlers are bad actors.

I wouldn't go that far. I love Ozaki's acting for instance though technically she is an actress and not an actor.

[Promoter 0]

well, I think everyone has good points here, but imo I don't think people watch wrestling for the acting per se. Seriously, there are horrible actors in wrestling, so it must be something else that really lures people to watch. With that said, there are actors in wrestling. To answer this question, I think we should use this biggest cross-over wrestler/actor in history, The Rock. He said that acting is much harder than wrestling. He has said it is similar, but it's not the same.

 

naiwf made a good point. In the broadest sense they aren't actors when you consider each wrestler. They can't interchange and play different characters like a real actor. When Vince proclaimed it's the wrestler's personality with the volume turned up I think it was a good phrase. It's just embellishing.

 

Take Vince Mcmahon as an example. When he screwed Bret, he used that part of his personality to draw in fans, yet he was also acting. It came off believably because it was really part of Vince Mcmahon. Yet, could Vince play the role Batista is now? I doubt it very much. The same with HHH. He is very hated and some of its acting, but for the most part his real personality is being shown and the fans hate it. Then throw in his politics and his "F-U" promo to fans last week and people just want to viacriously live through someone like Batista kicking his ass.

 

It's somewhat acting, but not real acting in terms of movies/tv shows because I don't think it's their acting ability that get people into watching for the most part. When HHH turned face he completely BOMBED because the fans didn't buy him in that role. No matter how well acted he tried to pull it off the fans don't buy that as being HHH, so they crapped on his face turn. It's more about what fans will buy than anything. Orton could have acted out his babyface run all he wanted, but if fans just aren't buying him as being legit they won't bite. Eugene is another example. Where they have him in the show is tolerable, but I can bet money if they started to push him down people's throat in the role of a #1 contender or world champion the fans will turn on it because they won't buy him in that position regardless how well he acts it out. It's a thin line and they are trying to make them actors, but it really isn't in terms of other forms of entertainment.

 

I would also argue the point that Hulk Hogan IS Terry Bollea. I mean ask Randy Savage who also seems to think he IS Randy Macho Man Savage

[Guest ManKinnd]

I can't imagine people going to WWE shows for the stories or the acting. It's not even community-access level in terms of quality.

Even if the story was McMahon vs. Austin in 98/99?

[Promoter 0]

I can't imagine people going to WWE shows for the stories or the acting.  It's not even community-access level in terms of quality.

Even if the story was McMahon vs. Austin in 98/99?

Mcmahon was easily the top heel. Austin was the top babyface.

 

Bret/Austin feuded about America in 1997. Austin stuns Vince in 1997. Bret gets screwed by Vince Mcmahon becoming the hottest thing in wrestling since the nWo. Austin's rise in popularity grows. Austin gets in the face of MIKE TYSON. Austin becomes champion with help from Mike Tyson. Vince who was against Austin winning the strap becomes Bobby Heenan to Hulk Hogan.

 

Pretty simple stuff entrenched in reality of Austin becoming America's anti-hero against Bret Hart and Vince Mcmahon being the perfect foil of being an asshole corporate suit who legitimately screwed one of his most loyal employees. This was not really the mind of the writers, but going off legit heat created by other scenarios and adding Mike Tyson to the mix.

[Guest ManKinnd]

People came to see that story, not the ***** classics Austin and Vince put on. That was my point.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I can't imagine people going to WWE shows for the stories or the acting.  It's not even community-access level in terms of quality.

Even if the story was McMahon vs. Austin in 98/99?

Notice how I used present-tense? Not that it matters, but trying to throw past exceptions to the present rule is a lil underhanded. Not that I mind I never said wrestling and acting weren't similar, infact I said they are relatable (enough to use the same terms), but wrestling is not acting; therefore to criticize a wrestlers acting ability is silly. What works in a wrestling storyline usually doesn't work in anything else. What works for a wrestler usually doesn't work when that wrestler tries to act (Austin on Nash Bridges). What works in the ring, usually doesn't work in anything else. There are several reasons why Austin/McMahon "worked", and it would not have worked in anything else other than wrestling. It took a real life situation (McMahon screwing Bret, making Vince the bad guy), and a very hot character (Stone Cold Steve Austin), along with great supporting characters (Tyson, Michaels, Foley, Rock), during a hot period of time for the wrestling industry and got a lot of milage and popularity out of it using classic wrestling formulas (also some of the same stuff that worked in Bret/Austin) and creative moments. And to answer your question, people didn't pay to see the story of McMahon vs. Austin, they paid to see Austin kick the shit out of McMahon.

[zyn081 0]

I can't imagine people going to WWE shows for the stories or the acting.  It's not even community-access level in terms of quality.

Even if the story was McMahon vs. Austin in 98/99?

Notice how I used present-tense? Not that it matters, but trying to throw past exceptions to the present rule is a lil underhanded. Not that I mind I never said wrestling and acting weren't similar, infact I said they are relatable (enough to use the same terms), but wrestling is not acting; therefore to criticize a wrestlers acting ability is silly. What works in a wrestling storyline usually doesn't work in anything else. What works for a wrestler usually doesn't work when that wrestler tries to act (Austin on Nash Bridges). What works in the ring, usually doesn't work in anything else. There are several reasons why Austin/McMahon "worked", and it would not have worked in anything else other than wrestling. It took a real life situation (McMahon screwing Bret, making Vince the bad guy), and a very hot character (Stone Cold Steve Austin), along with great supporting characters (Tyson, Michaels, Foley, Rock), during a hot period of time for the wrestling industry and got a lot of milage and popularity out of it using classic wrestling formulas (also some of the same stuff that worked in Bret/Austin) and creative moments. And to answer your question, people didn't pay to see the story of McMahon vs. Austin, they paid to see Austin kick the shit out of McMahon.

One of the best storylines ever, I think it was more accidental the way it turned out than worked. Supports my wrestling by wire philosophy. Wrestling needs unpredictability. Just give a wrestler a mick and tell him to carve a niche for himself.