In no form of media is a great product or a great performer considered the one the makes the most money, yet in wrestling, the most dimeless form of entertainment, everyone constantly talks about drawing power and making money.
>>19867037Because every wrestler is an egomaniac but they also know all the titles or achievements in kayfabe are simply a work so they're going for the next "real" metric they can use to brag about being better than the others.Which is a huge cope if you've never been a main eventer or a main title holder. And nowadays there are no true draws left in wrestling. The fed name draws, not the wrestler
The problem is everyone is making guaranteed money now so it doesn't work quite the same but if you're Al Snow wrestling in 1998 and Steve Austin is drawing a sold out crowd which means not just him but you are making more money then Steve Austin is the best wrestler on the card.
>>19867037No you have a naive conception of movies and movie industry. They are def. into the money part. Even modern ideological box office slop is paid by someone or something else that was made for making money and has a end goal that is of money and power over the masses.
>>19867037Pic related is considered one of the most iconic and influential figures in English literature and a good deal of his work was just making performances for actors to do to put on shows that drew money. Because of repeated success at drawing money those works became more well known. In modern society a bunch of weird stuck up retards took over art critique and now what should be all time works of fiction where classic themes and tropes are explored after the fact will never be. Wrestling is 100 percent correct and weirdos like Roger Ebert are wrong. At the most basic level a story has to be compelling for you to give a fuck about to spend money on it. From there you can analyze WHY it's so compelling but it's criminal that some things will never be considered classical art because of some kids that didn't get bullied enough in high school.
>>19867037he said it from the perspective of a carny. as a trainer for those types, that's fair advice. for critics and viewers it's not the same.
>>19867174So, Avatar's the best movie of all time?McDonald's makes the best burgers? There's some merit to your argument, but you're overemphasizing one aspect of the broader picture. Yes, profitability is important. But profit and quality are not synonymous. You can make a lot of money selling products of mediocre quality because marketing, market share (including the competition's relative market share), economy of scale, and a host of other factors unrelated to quality play a role in profitability as well.
You ever seen those best guitarist lists?
It makes sense for wrestlers to be interested in what makes the most money, the stupid part is fans who are more concerned with money. If you're a fan you should care about what you find most entertaining, not what makes the most money
>>19867174>some things will never be considered classical art Like what?
>>19867502>best guitarist>moneybrother, these things are not remotely connected
