There's pretty much no point on comment on the non-bolded part since we'd be talking back and forth on some loop. You like spectacle, I don't really care for it.
It's a quality of the match. I doesn't matter if you care about it or not (well not for my argument's purpose at least). Do you like crowd reaction? Atmosphere? Ring psychology? Storytelling? Selling? MOVEZZ? Spectacle is a part of the match as these other qualities are (I'm in no way insinuating that they are all equally as important b/c they're not).
Also, this is Aristotle. Theater was the wrestling of his era.
But the bolded part I'm going to nudge (even though you said you weren't going to address it
)- a bunch of people can care for a match with good build up, but the match itself doesn't become magically good based on that alone.
Magically? I simply stated that spectacle amplifies the nature of the match. If it's good, spectacle can push it into being very good (Rock/Hogan, Austin/Rock), and vice versa (Hogan/Sting, Orton/Triple H).
So...you're saying that's good or bad? I might be reading this wrong, but it sounds like "Punk v Henry had an easier story to tell so I'll cut the other match some slack because of the multiple layers" or something. I'm probably totally way off and that's not the right way to word it, but that's the impression I'm getting.
First things first. I don't have anything bad to say about Hunter vs. Triple H. I'm not cutting it any slack b/c there's nothing about the match that bothers me. It does have a much more complicated story than Henry vs. Punk (again, assumption) so it does have deeper impact. It affects me more than a match with a pretty linear story would. I know I shouldn't expand on this b/c I haven't seen Punk vs. Henry. I'm just going by your description of the match.
I'd rather something simple be pulled off extremely well than something complicated be pulled off poorly. If I watched both matches again I'd have STACKS more negatives for Mania and there's stuff in that match that I had a hard time wrapping my head around in the first place. I'll cop to not getting it if it's explained in a way I agree with, but something like Michaels wanting to stop the match and then flipping out like a wuss when he counted down Trip after the first Tombstone confused me.
I didn't think the Mania match was pulled off poorly at all. If it was, it'd have fallen into Triple H/Orton territory, where they had the story served on a platter and just ruined it.
I still don't think that means it's better. It *could*, but not purely from that.
Why not? Evoking greater emotion in the viewer = greater success, surely? And I'm obviously not talking about emotion circa Bryan/Sheamus b/c that was just in poor taste. But I don't see why the original point isn't valid.
Purely/mainly because of the lack of (deeper) story?
Yes. I wouldn't have said that if I thought Triple H and Taker did poor work of the story they had, but they didn't imo. I can imagine Henry vs. Punk being good, great even, maybe better than Rock vs. Cena b/c they didn't really do that well with everything they had, but I don't think Triple H vs. Undertaker HIAC could've been much
better (yes, certain things could have but it wouldn't have created a big gap in quality).
It was weird to me for a few reasons. You hadn't seen the match and completely assumed it would be laughable to think it was better than the Cell. I wouldn't have said anything if it was more "I'd be shocked if I thought that was better than Taker/Trip" (Not that I'm trying to "call you out" in the first place or anything), but "bigger story = better match"
Let me say it again just so there's no confusion caused from my part. I think Triple H vs. Undertaker was very well worked.
Also, maybe I should've worked it differently. Lack of tact on my part and I apologize if I sounded like a douche (was certainly not my intention to do so). But I'm just 100% confident that I won't like Punk/Henry more than Trips/Taker.
I'd be surprised if any regular poster in this thread other than Steffan and I thought Punk/Henry was better than the Cell, but I don't think it's laughable to think otherwise. And thinking that Punk/Henry was better the Cell didn't look like something to call "laughable" because it doesn't have a big build or previous ground.
At the end of the day, I sure as hell want story in a match, no matter how tiny or short-lasting it is, but if a match has MORE story and is more significant b/c of "the streak" "end of an era" and eveything in between, I still can't see why it's pretty much instantly better. They have more ground to work with, yeah, but it's sounding like you're saying the worst match with a lot of story is better than the best match with little match, in a way.
No I'm saying that a great match with a great story is better than a great match with a good story.