|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Jul 7, 2008 12:14:45 GMT -5
I don't bitch or moan about everything the WWE does, I don't run to the boards to post my booking ideas or thoughts, I'm not that pathetic. Apparently it's not fine to not like him to some people. You can't say anything even remotely negative about him without somebody jumping in with that, "He's Great For Business!", argument. I said this in the Cena debate thread too. Nobody is saying he isn't. At least I haven't. I don't like his act, he is nothing like Austin or Rock or even Triple H. He's just too corny and suck-uppy (madeup word) to the fans. His whole, "Whether you cheer me or boo me, I love you.", thing is lame. This is my opinion. Somebody can come in here and say, "T.L. Hopper was excellent and my favorite wrestler." I would say that he didn't have the best gimmick and that he wasn't too good in the ring, he still managed to work in the big time, so more props to you for liking him." I'm not arguing/debating over somebody's personal choice. I don't like the Cena character. I don't relate to him as a 25 year-old white male from a middle-class background. I'm not their target, I know this. I can say I don't like him because I can't relate. That's STILL not good enough. "Well, as long as the kiddies like him, it's good for business!" I love rap and hip-hop, Cena sucks at it. I like cool and edgy characters, Cena is neither in my eyes. My opinions. I just really wish some of these Cena lovers would stop the "debates." I also wish the Cena haters would stop with the, "I hope he gets fired, he is the worst ever!", stuff. Nothing is getting done, no minds are changing. I just don't get why I'm labeled as the whiner when I have given my own personal reasons on not liking a character. I just find it funny that someone who claims to just have this opinion and doesn't run here with his booking ideas gives such impassioned responses on this particular subject. For someone who "doesn't really care" you sure have me fooled. I come on here like once every couple of days. I reply in few threads, and I'm out. You say I whine, you call me disturbed, and you have to pick out every post that I make when many others say the same thing. I'm just saying, you sometimes come off as a real asshole. No offense, but honestly...we all here want to like you, but when you feel like you are the moral authority around here and expert on all things Cena and WWE, you just rub people the wrong way and it's not cool. I want to like you, I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree, but this Cena garbage is old and tired. I don't like the guy, I don't give a damn why others do. I could not care less about the ratings and figures. I do not think I could run WWE better than Vince. Am I biased, hell yeah, why shouldn't I be? Why should I have to settle for a salad and water when I want a steak and a rum & coke? I would love things to be more aimed at me, but they're not. I don't complain about it, I just say I think it's not that interesting and I move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Jul 7, 2008 12:24:12 GMT -5
I just find it funny that someone who claims to just have this opinion and doesn't run here with his booking ideas gives such impassioned responses on this particular subject. For someone who "doesn't really care" you sure have me fooled. I come on here like once every couple of days. I reply in few threads, and I'm out. You say I whine, you call me disturbed, and you have to pick out every post that I make when many others say the same thing. I'm just saying, you sometimes come off as a real asshole. No offense, but honestly...we all here want to like you, but when you feel like you are the moral authority around here and expert on all things Cena and WWE, you just rub people the wrong way and it's not cool. I want to like you, I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree, but this Cena garbage is old and tired. I don't like the guy, I don't give a damn why others do. I could not care less about the ratings and figures. I do not think I could run WWE better than Vince. Am I biased, hell yeah, why shouldn't I be? Why should I have to settle for a salad and water when I want a steak and a rum & coke? I would love things to be more aimed at me, but they're not. I don't complain about it, I just say I think it's not that interesting and I move on. You say its not that intresting... In 50,000 words or less.  In all honestly, I'm pretty sarcastic in nature and you admitted yesterday that you have trouble picking up sarcasam in print. I mean no ill will towards anyone its just my sense of humor. Sometimes I worry that everyone takes this wrasslin stuff to serious and I like to point out that in the end we're all watching dudes in their underwear pretend to fight. |
|
Bones58
Don Corleone
Shuup Baby, I know it!
Posts: 1,474
|
Post by Bones58 on Jul 7, 2008 12:31:54 GMT -5
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that Cena’s Reign was a success but only to a certain extent. If they made John Cena more edgy and unpredictable, not even a heel more a face/tweener, I guarantee that a hell a lot of those boos you here in the crowd would subside. Frankly that year long reign was about 6 months too long. The reason why the Crowd back in 2000 didn’t turn on The Rock after a while was because he was constantly trading it with HHH with Rocky more often than not chasing it, making you want The Rock to kick Hunter’s ass even more. But with Cena what was the point? He’s an underdog and battles against the odds and win EVERYTIME so the booking contradicts itself.(it was really lazy booking might I add). I can imagine the WWE lost a large part of their 18-30 demographic because of this, and I don’t believe that the WWE wouldn’t care about them because where the hell would the business sense be in ignoring them? If you want an example of a completely successful title reign, then look no further than Austin’s first reign, the crowd wanted it for ages and when they got it moved massive amounts of merchandise, got the WHOLE crowd behind Austin and proved that even a hint of vulnerability can add to the unpredictable nature that usually thrives in wrestling when booked well. And no he wasn’t booked as a man who overcame the odds, just a guy who kicked the smurf out of people full stop. In his KOTR match with Kane it wasn’t kane dominating the whole match and then Austin suddenly coming out with the stunner, it was an even fight which made it far more interesting spectacle than seeing Cena’s inevitable hulk up in the end. To say that Cena's Reign was a COMPLETE success is stretching plausibility a little. However my main point is that WWE is missing the boat on Cena in a sense, imagine the amount of more merchandise he would sell if he wasn’t some bland wigger/marine type thingy. If people actually tuned in to watch a guy who they couldn’t predict, wouldn’t that make FAR better television?. Your acting like the WWE don't know that they can change something about Cena to make him more edgy, and what the results would be. Of course they know they can change him. They could have done it ages ago. It's not because they are oblivious to what the possibilities could be, it's because they don't want those possibilities because he is already carefully manufactured towards the family audience that they are trying to target. The fact that they are keeping Cena exactly as he is shows that he has been a success - otherwise they would change it. There's no other reason to keep him as he is but for the fact that he is acheiving the targets they need him to acheive. If any company rebrands, they will have to push away a certain demographic in order to please more of the one they want. WWE now, and WWF in 2002 are a lot different, so they are essentially rebranding and offering up a different kind of product. They are deciding to target families now, with stars and storylines that parents will let their kids watch. I imagine they are doing this because it's easier to target the new people that haven't even been exposed to wrestling yet, than it is to target the lost attitude era fans. They are gone and they aren't coming back. The new kids that weren't even around for the attitude era will be where Cena comes in, and the families will let their kids watch someone like Cena and probably sit down to watch it with them themselves on occasion. So that's what's better for the long term strategy of WWE's business. It's like if McDonalds decided to rebrand (hypothetically - say for example it was proven that burgers directly cause cancer) and tried to move away from fast food and started offering salads, healthy baguettes and pastas. They would want to move away from all the people that used to rely on McDonalds and possibly target young urban professionals who maybe use Starbacks right now. Their rebranding may scare off some of the old McDonalds fans that used to use them for children's parties, and bring them for a takeaway every friday night, but if it attracts the yuppies that may possibly go in there at lunch to have a coffee with their laptop, and have a healthy pasta before heading back to work, it will be worth it. Obviously the McDonalds scenario would never happen, but WWE moving to target families is a lot easier to fathom than McDonalds suddenly targetting yuppies is, and that's where Cena comes in. It doesn't matter if entire arenas in Central America, Chicago or the Hammerstein boo Cena, as long as Cena represents to the families and parents of children that the WWE is a product that they can let them watch. If and when Cena turns heel, I have a feeling CM Punk will be put in to the big babyface position, and I have no doubt loads of smarks are going to up their 'Punk has been watered down' quotient by a factor of a 1000, but it doesn't matter, because if he is giving off a Hogan-like message to children and the parents of them, he will be a success no matter what the internet thinks. Stone Cold in his character was what was right for the company at 1998. It suited the direction they were going in, so it fitted. Edgy Cena, Tweener Cena, Heel Cena, Disrespectful-to-the-fans Cena, Rapping Cena etc etc are not what is right for business at this time, otherwise that's what he would be doing. It doesn't matter if it drives away a few jaded smarks, or a few hangers-on from the attitude era, as long as Cena keeps attracting the newer fans that haven't had the mystique of wrestling ruined for them yet. If they were still putting on an attitude era-like product, it may please more of the 18-30 demo that it still here. However, it's likely that it still won't bring back the bandwagon jumpers who came on board between 98 and 2000 and haven't returned, because to them wrestling was just the in-thing at the time. A fad. Not only will it not bring them back, but it's going to alienate a fair few parents that aren't going to let their kids watch either. No new kids + no parents + no lost attitude fans = lower ratings. The only people watching then would be the 18-30s that are still watching now anyway, only that they boo Cena now instead of cheering. If they try and please one demo, it means they won't be able to please another. It makes business sense to appeal to the family and kids demo right now, because you will always be able to attract new kids to the product if you target them because that's what the wrestling concept has always done. It's unlikely that you will consistently attract new adults to the product because to alot of them, it's too silly and fake. WWE is in itself an excersise supreme marketing skill. It's why Vince is hailed as a marketing genius. He knows exactly what he is doing. Everything we see is for a reason that has been carefully calculated. I'm not saying WWE doesn't know what they are doing but they're hardly the business gods you seem to make them out to be. The very fact this website exists proves that. The WWE may just be playing it safe instead of taking a gamble by aiming Cena just for the kiddies. But if you want to talk about what's 'good for business' , then what's the point of shoving a wrestler down one demographic when you can do it with more. Cena + Two Sections of the audience = Moar $$$$ than Cena + one section of the audience Austin may have been a more edgy, unpredictable tweener and the adults loved him, but guess what so did the kids and they bought all the merchandise to! And DX to, they are up there at the top based on the amount of toys and t-shirts they sell and for all intents and purposes were a heel stable apart from their run in ’98 and recent nostalgia runs recently. So instead the WWE is wasting an opportunity to make more profit by not trying to appeal to both these demographics which can easily be done without alienating one another. Instead they’re playing it safe and missing a great opportunity to do ‘what’s good for business’. And remember last time WWE went down the 'Family Show' route back in mid 90's? Obviously it's not on that scale today but it shows that appealing to families isn't really all that sound a notion particularly due the fact that Monday Night Raw starts on a Monday Night at 10 when many kids are in bed for school the next day anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Jul 7, 2008 12:52:03 GMT -5
Your acting like the WWE don't know that they can change something about Cena to make him more edgy, and what the results would be. Of course they know they can change him. They could have done it ages ago. It's not because they are oblivious to what the possibilities could be, it's because they don't want those possibilities because he is already carefully manufactured towards the family audience that they are trying to target. The fact that they are keeping Cena exactly as he is shows that he has been a success - otherwise they would change it. There's no other reason to keep him as he is but for the fact that he is acheiving the targets they need him to acheive. If any company rebrands, they will have to push away a certain demographic in order to please more of the one they want. WWE now, and WWF in 2002 are a lot different, so they are essentially rebranding and offering up a different kind of product. They are deciding to target families now, with stars and storylines that parents will let their kids watch. I imagine they are doing this because it's easier to target the new people that haven't even been exposed to wrestling yet, than it is to target the lost attitude era fans. They are gone and they aren't coming back. The new kids that weren't even around for the attitude era will be where Cena comes in, and the families will let their kids watch someone like Cena and probably sit down to watch it with them themselves on occasion. So that's what's better for the long term strategy of WWE's business. It's like if McDonalds decided to rebrand (hypothetically - say for example it was proven that burgers directly cause cancer) and tried to move away from fast food and started offering salads, healthy baguettes and pastas. They would want to move away from all the people that used to rely on McDonalds and possibly target young urban professionals who maybe use Starbacks right now. Their rebranding may scare off some of the old McDonalds fans that used to use them for children's parties, and bring them for a takeaway every friday night, but if it attracts the yuppies that may possibly go in there at lunch to have a coffee with their laptop, and have a healthy pasta before heading back to work, it will be worth it. Obviously the McDonalds scenario would never happen, but WWE moving to target families is a lot easier to fathom than McDonalds suddenly targetting yuppies is, and that's where Cena comes in. It doesn't matter if entire arenas in Central America, Chicago or the Hammerstein boo Cena, as long as Cena represents to the families and parents of children that the WWE is a product that they can let them watch. If and when Cena turns heel, I have a feeling CM Punk will be put in to the big babyface position, and I have no doubt loads of smarks are going to up their 'Punk has been watered down' quotient by a factor of a 1000, but it doesn't matter, because if he is giving off a Hogan-like message to children and the parents of them, he will be a success no matter what the internet thinks. Stone Cold in his character was what was right for the company at 1998. It suited the direction they were going in, so it fitted. Edgy Cena, Tweener Cena, Heel Cena, Disrespectful-to-the-fans Cena, Rapping Cena etc etc are not what is right for business at this time, otherwise that's what he would be doing. It doesn't matter if it drives away a few jaded smarks, or a few hangers-on from the attitude era, as long as Cena keeps attracting the newer fans that haven't had the mystique of wrestling ruined for them yet. If they were still putting on an attitude era-like product, it may please more of the 18-30 demo that it still here. However, it's likely that it still won't bring back the bandwagon jumpers who came on board between 98 and 2000 and haven't returned, because to them wrestling was just the in-thing at the time. A fad. Not only will it not bring them back, but it's going to alienate a fair few parents that aren't going to let their kids watch either. No new kids + no parents + no lost attitude fans = lower ratings. The only people watching then would be the 18-30s that are still watching now anyway, only that they boo Cena now instead of cheering. If they try and please one demo, it means they won't be able to please another. It makes business sense to appeal to the family and kids demo right now, because you will always be able to attract new kids to the product if you target them because that's what the wrestling concept has always done. It's unlikely that you will consistently attract new adults to the product because to alot of them, it's too silly and fake. WWE is in itself an excersise supreme marketing skill. It's why Vince is hailed as a marketing genius. He knows exactly what he is doing. Everything we see is for a reason that has been carefully calculated. I'm not saying WWE doesn't know what they are doing but they're hardly the business gods you seem to make them out to be. The very fact this website exists proves that. The WWE may just be playing it safe instead of taking a gamble by aiming Cena just for the kiddies. But if you want to talk about what's 'good for business' , then what's the point of shoving a wrestler down one demographic when you can do it with more. Cena + Two Sections of the audience = Moar $$$$ than Cena + one section of the audience Austin may have been a more edgy, unpredictable tweener and the adults loved him, but guess what so did the kids and they bought all the merchandise to! And DX to, they are up there at the top based on the amount of toys and t-shirts they sell and for all intents and purposes were a heel stable apart from their run in ’98 and recent nostalgia runs recently. So instead the WWE is wasting an opportunity to make more profit by not trying to appeal to both these demographics which can easily be done without alienating one another. Instead they’re playing it safe and missing a great opportunity to do ‘what’s good for business’. And remember last time WWE went down the 'Family Show' route back in mid 90's? Obviously it's not on that scale today but it shows that appealing to families isn't really all that sound a notion particularly due the fact that Monday Night Raw starts on a Monday Night at 10 when many kids are in bed for school the next day anyway. To be fair the last time the WWE STARTED the 'family show' route was back in the mid 80's and they had their most wildly successful time period ever. The attitude era was about holding onto/bringing back fans they had created back in the early to mid 80's. Now that the Hogan era kids who were Austin era late teen/early 20's are now late 20's early 30's they've decided to start creating new fans by going back to the family friendly era. |
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Jul 7, 2008 12:52:02 GMT -5
I come on here like once every couple of days. I reply in few threads, and I'm out. You say I whine, you call me disturbed, and you have to pick out every post that I make when many others say the same thing. I'm just saying, you sometimes come off as a real asshole. No offense, but honestly...we all here want to like you, but when you feel like you are the moral authority around here and expert on all things Cena and WWE, you just rub people the wrong way and it's not cool. I want to like you, I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree, but this Cena garbage is old and tired. I don't like the guy, I don't give a damn why others do. I could not care less about the ratings and figures. I do not think I could run WWE better than Vince. Am I biased, hell yeah, why shouldn't I be? Why should I have to settle for a salad and water when I want a steak and a rum & coke? I would love things to be more aimed at me, but they're not. I don't complain about it, I just say I think it's not that interesting and I move on. You say its not that intresting... In 50,000 words or less. In all honestly, I'm pretty sarcastic in nature and you admitted yesterday that you have trouble picking up sarcasam in print. I mean no ill will towards anyone its just my sense of humor. Sometimes I worry that everyone takes this wrasslin stuff to serious and I like to point out that in the end we're all watching dudes in their underwear pretend to fight. I was a communications major in college. I love to write, I like to make articulate and thoughtful points. Ragging on somebody's posts being too long is another reason that some come off as annoying. I don't take this wrestling stuff serious at all. I actually don't watch for 5 star classics in the ring either. I was big into public speaking and presenting things in high school and college, I really love watching these guys work the crowd on the mic more than in a fight. I would kill to have 20,000+ listening to me and trying to get a certain reaction from them. I just don't think Cena tries very hard or he is way to whipped and scripted by creative. So basically, my problem is that he is corny and lame on the mic. His matches are what they are, he punches, hits a lame flashy move, and then an even lamer finisher. So did Rock, so did Austin, although the Stunner is one of the classic moves. I hate that he pimped out a belt because it fit his character and then the WWE decided to have the look stay. I don't care about the merchandise sales, I have been watching for over 15 years. No other superstar besides Austin changed the title when he won it, and even then, they didn't keep it. I just wish they would keep some things as they are. Speaking strictly as a fan, not a jaded fan, not a bitter fan, not a fan who longs for the days of every wrestler having an occupation gimmick, but as a fan of pro wrestling. You grow up and watch guys like Hart, Piper, Michaels, Flair, etc. all chase this big gold belt, with the world on it and the word, "Champion." Now it's a toy with ice and a spinning logo that isn't even the company's name (really, why didn't they just add a line to the F instead of getting rid of it altogether?). So my posts are long. So what, I said before, if somebody doesn't like it, don't read it. Nobody forces them. I've also said that I appreciate those that do read them and reply to them. I try to use logic and reasoning for my likes and dislikes. I hate the CENA RULZ AND CENA SUCKZ people. No, sarcasm is not easily detected on a screen, thus people use the rolling eyes and so on. It is obvious in some cases, but when some idiots say certain things over and over, the line gets blurred. But again, I don't want to fight, argue, or debate anybody on here. If I have a different mindset, I will just say so. I thought the Spirit Squad was stupid. Some people liked them. If somebody says so, I will say, "I didn't like them, they were more annoying than fun." I would not go, "You are wrong, they sucked. Let's debate and see who is right." There are no winners in that type of debate. I can concede that they did their job, the crowd booed them for various reasons, but I thought it was dumb. Some people on here will not budge. But I will end this now, since long posts annoy some people. I don't hate the WWE, I don't really love it now either. I just think it has been very mediocre. However, with Punk as champ and other things going on, it is picking up. Doing different things, trying them out is not bad. Cena and Trips do not need to have a lock on the ME for years and years. But hey, I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jul 7, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -5
You put your peanut butter in my chocolate, you put your chocolate in my peanut butter. Let's all move on and without the flaming the next time this comes up. Thanks.
|
|
