>>9684243>there's little artistic merit between the best and worst wrestler relative to these other mediumsI highly disagree.
The fact that there are regularly many threads on this very board revolving around how certain overzealous indie shitters flub their overproduced spots, every week, is a testament to how important the visual feedback of the product is.
Women's wrestling, another example, is derided for similar reasons. Sure, the edgy wanna-fit-in crowd will say it's just because they're women, but the webms and gifs that get a lot of traction on this board often capture sloppy, trash ass performances. And, while this MAY slightly validate your point because it supports the idea that a bad performance is just as memorable as a good one, it's the very idea that we're able to tell the difference that I think trumps over that slight concession.
People KNOW when someone is working well, not just doing flips or being an impressive athlete, but telling a story, selling their narrative. It makes all the difference to the audience that gives a shit. Just like movies. Any normie will appreciate a high-production movie and they may enjoy high-quality cinema as well, but are they gonna know why or what sets them apart?
tl;dr - Even if it's a "lesser" art form, valuing the success of a form of entertainment based on its lowest thinking audience is a poor way to view things, in my opinion.
Side note, I fucking hate the new Big Show theme. Good on ya, mate.
